court graves and portal graves

Court Graves and Portal GravesAuthor(s): Laurence N. W. FlanaganSource: Irish Archaeological Research Forum, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1977), pp. 23-29Published by: Wordwell Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20495253 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 09:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wordwell Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Irish ArchaeologicalResearch Forum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.184 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:47:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wordwell

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20495253?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


IRISH ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH FORUM IV (1), 1977

COURT GRAVES AND PORTAL GRAVES

Laurence N.W. Flanagan

There exist in the Irish Neolithic two "types" of burial monument outside the other major

tradition represented by the Irish Passage Graves. The two "types", Court Graves and Portal

Graves, are agreed by all current authorities (Evans 1940, xv; de Vale'ra 1960, 64) to be

inter-related and all again agree that by and large the most likely link between the two types is

through the subsidiary chambers of Court Graves. The purpose of the present paper is not to

attempt to refute this universal belief but to stress that the relationship between these two

"types" is even closer and that the typological breakdown; Court Graves, Portal Graves and

Passage Graves does not represent a typological division of the same categorial order. In short it

is the present paper's contention that Court Graves and Portal Graves and Passage Graves does

not represent a typological division of the same categorial order. In short it is the present paper's

contention that Court Graves and Portal Graves are not typologically separable ?

except at the

polarities ? and that we should more properly talk of a Court/Portal Grave continuum.

The current classic definitions of the two "types" are those given in the first volume of the

Megalithic Survey of Ireland (de Valera and O Nullain 1961, xii xiii). The essential features there

given for a Court Grave are: "a long cairn of more or less trapezoidal, or, in certain cases,

approximately rectangular shape, with orthostatically defined court or courts varying from oval

or circular to U-shaped, semi-circular and perhaps less than semi-circular forms, giving access to

a gallery or galleries of two or more chambers segmented by jambs or jambs and sills and placed

longitudinally in respect to the cairn. The method of roofing the galleries is normally by corb

elling, though slabs laid directly on the orthostats also occur.... Sometimes in addition to the

main gallery or galleries subsidiary chambers are found opening on to the cairn-edge or into the

court."

For Portal Graves the stated principal characteristics are: "A single chamber of rectilinear

design, usually narrowing towards the rear, having an entry between two tall portal stones set

inside the line of the side-stones and covered by a capstone often of enormous size, poised high above the entrance and sloping down towards the rear of the chamber. The capstone is frequent

ly raised clear of the sidestones and rests on the portal stones and backstone. Usually each side

and the back are formed of single slabs. Frequently beneath the great capstone is a smaller

cover resting on the sides and backstone and in this case the rear end of the principal cap rests

on the second cover rather than on the backstone. Between the portals a slab closing the

entrance is present in many sites, often reaching full height, but sometimes only three-quarters or half the height of the portal jambs." (my italics).

The main reason for deriving Portal Graves from Court Graves subsidaries is stated (de Valera

1960, 64) to be "the dominance of single-chambered design" in Portal Graves. Ballyrenan, Co.

Tyrone (Davies 1937) is, of course, immediately recognised as a deviant, containing, as it does

"a two-chambered gallery which can only be described as a two-chambered portal dolmen"

(de Valera 1960, 66). A single exception, of course, no way alters "the dominance of

single-chambered design" but it does seem to cause confusion among the typological purists ?

quite needlessly, to my mind ? if only because two-chambered subsidiaries of court graves exist

(e.g. at Tamnyrankin, Co Derry (Herring 1941) and Barnes Lower, Co. Tyrone (Collins 1966).

23



The main arguments in favour of a generalised derivation of Portal Graves from Court Graves

rather than a rigid and exclusive derivation from subsidiaries are threefold: 1) orientation;

2) court-vestiges; 3) portal blocking.

If, as is argued, portal graves are to be exclusively derived from court grave subsidiaries (to

explain mainly the single-chambered design and the lack of court among portal graves) one could

reasonably expect that orientation of portal graves would be as heterogeneous as that inherent

in subsidiary chambers (inherent, that is, because of their location predominantly at approx

imately the perpendicular to the long axis of the cairn, whether inserted in forecourts or in

cairn-edges). This is not so: "A bias towards placing the entrance eastwards, similar to that

found in court cairns, is present also in portal dolmens" (de Valera and O Nuallain 1961, xiii).

Since of the total of 34 court graves with subsidiaries 4, at least, have subsidiaries located in

forecourts, (de Val?ra & O" Nuall?in 1972) it might be expected that vestiges of courts, if not

full courts, might be a feature of portal graves, as of course in some instances they are. Not only

does Ticloy, Co. Antrim (Evans and Watson 1942) have a court, but the fine portal grave at

Tirnony, Co. Derry has an extant court-vestige (PI. I a). Furthermore the subsidiary gallery at

Tamnyrankin, Co. Derry has a slight court-like feature (Herring 1941).

Perhaps the most convincing link, however, between main galleries of court graves and portal

graves lies in the blocking of portals. Apart from the sites cited by de Vale'ra, especially Drum

hallagh, Co Donegal, where the "end chamber, in all its features, including the high jamb and

three-quarter sill, is so extraordinarily like a portal dolmen as to suggest a direct influence from

the portal dolmen" (de Valera 1960 67), similar features are to be found at other, excavated,

sites. At Tamnyrankin, Co. Derry, recently re-excavated by the writer, the rear chamber, both in

0 1_^_2

M

Fig. 1 Plan of main gallery of Tamnyrankin Court Grave, Co. Derry (after I.J. Fig. 2 Elevation of slabs almost totally blocking Herring) access to Ch. II at Tamnyrankin, Co. Derry.

plan (Fig. 1 ) and in the elevation of its entrance(Fig. 2) is extraordinarily reminiscent of a portal

grave, so much so, in fact, that one could almost be tempted to view the rear chamber as a portal

grave to which a first chamber and court had been added. Even more dramatic is the massive

slab of carefully shaped quartzite used as a door at Shalwy, Co. Donegal (PI. lb) - a site where

the "monumental front typical of portal dolmens" enhanced by a positively architectural double

lintel, is remarked on by de Vale'ra (de Vale'ra 1960, 65).

24



&*" % !-*<

M?A

?i&aT

?*\, ;iMT;.'i?

?s$*

i&I - " ?- :-1.".. J?-"

Plate 1a Portal Grave at Tirnony, Co. Derry, showing the surviving court stone on the northern side.

Plate 1b Court Grave at Shalwy, Co. Donegal, showing the prostrate closing slab of Ch. I.

25



Additionally it may be remarked that the use of double cap-stones on portal graves is not all

that far divorced from the roofing arrangements in the rear chamber at Shalwy, Co. Donegal,

where a corbel poised rather carelessly on the backstone has been tilted forwards by the weight of the capstone and produced an effect not unlike that on portal graves (Fig. 4). In fact, in terms

of roofing techniques, the most significant obvious difference between court graves, whether

main galleries or subsidiaries, and portal graves, is the use of lintels in court graves and their

apparent (to me, though I am open to correction) absence from portal graves. It is, however,

interesting to note that corbelling was in use for roofing the subsidiary gallery at Tamnyrankin,

Co. Derry (Herring 1941).

A comparison of chamber sizes of court grave main galleries, court grave subsidiaries and

portal graves (fig. 3) is not without interest, in that court grave subsidiaries and portal graves

are closely comparable, and, indeed, more closely comparable to each other than either is to

court grave main galleries. This, however, is more likely to be a function of the preponderance

of single chambered design in the excavated examples on which the histograms are based.

The distribution of court graves throughout the country, with the sprinkle of normally accepted

outliers in the South (de ValeVa and O'Nuall?in 1964, Map 3) begins to look more convincing if

court graves and portal graves are treated as a continuum instead of as two distinct types (Fig. 5).

Finally we must consider the finds from the portal graves in comparison with those from

court graves; there is, of course, no great disparity between finds from court graves main gallery chambers and court grave subsidiary chambers. For this, fortunately, we have a convenient

summary. (Herity 1964). In terms of pottery from portal graves none would occasion great

surprise if found in a court grave context ? not even the highly decorative vessels from Ballykeel,

Co. Armagh (Collins 1965) which despite their undoubted Drimnagh, Co. Dublin, relationships,

are also more closely paralleled in court graves, viz. Annaghmare, Co. Armagh (Waterman 1965),

where, incidentally, the vessel came from Ch. 3 of the main gallery.

The flint and stone from portal graves, even with the additions of polished stone axes from

Bundrossan, Co. Donegal and Crevolea, Co. Derry (Flanagan 1978), would occasion no surprise whatsoever in a court grave with the possible exception of the apparent triangular arrowheads

from Kiltiernan, Co. Dublin. There is, of course, the possibility that these are, in fact, broken

leaf/lozenge arrowheads, comparable to examples from Bavan (Flanagan 1966). The

compatability is particularly true since the beads from Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone, (Davies 1937)

have been paralleled not only in form but also in material with particular closeness at Bavan, Co.

Donegal (Flanagan 1966) and also at Shalwy, Co. Donegal (Flanagan 1969).

I would suggest in conclusion, therefore, that in view of the combination of features from

both main gallery and subsidiary chambers of Court Graves, the possible re-action in court

graves of portal grave features and the continuing community of grave goods and small finds

that we cease to regard these two "types" as discrete classes and, consequently, to worry whether

a given site is one or the other, and instead simply refer to the Court/Portal grave type.

Note:

1. I have deliberately excluded from the above discussion any reference to external (e.g. Scottish)

evidence which might be considered relevant but which would be likely to obscure the main

issue.

26



2 en (M

i i

OU

O) ?n

c (D

81

ris CD Q.

<0 Q. ? **

. O -C <o

O to

"O c c o

? t? ^? ? 0>

c c o o s s 5 a

J S LU CD

C

O? O ?7 -c

to

[

d

o

O u>

??

o o O

S d 3 aiAJVHO

"S to CD

?- >

? ? CU ?>

O -H X T

? o O ?

S2 "g <D -m

E S . <D O co

U <D >

>^ 2 fe ? ?>

? ?? -= TO O) y-?

?-g O c E a ? ? -o

So ?

? ^2 H- ? O OJJ X co co (D

03 W <o ?. -?. fc

o?^ O) en C c a> ce

a: 2 o

U. O ?J

27



_*,*

'* ?7 \ *,

**>* ?>: ?*.**

^

SV *

PORTAL GRAVE COURT GRAVE

it "

with subsidiaries

Fig. 5 Combined distribution of Court and Portal Graves (after de Valera and O Nuallain).

28



REFERENCES

Collins, A.E.P. (1965)

Collins, A.E.P. (1966)

Davies, O. (1937)

de Valera, R. (1960)

de Valera, R. & O'Nullain, S. (1961)



Evans, E.E. (1940)

Evans, E.E. and Watson, E. (1942)

Flanagan, L.N..W- (1969)

(1978)

Flanagan, L.N.W. & D.E. (1966)

Herity, M.J. (1964)

Herring, I.J. (1941)

Waterman, D.M. (1965)

"Ballykeel Dolmen and Cairn, Co. Armagh," Ulster

J. Archaeol., 28, 1965, 47-70.

"Barnes Lower Court Cairn, Co. Tyrone", Ulster

S. Archaeol., 29, 1966, 43-75.

"Excavations at Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone," J. Roy.

Soc. Antiq. Ireland, 67, 1937, 89-100.

"The Court Cairns of Ireland," Proc. Roy. Irish

Acad.f 60, 1960,9-140.

Survey of the Megalithic Tombs of Ireland, II,

Dublin, 1961.

Survey of the Megalithic Tombs of Ireland, II,

Dublin 1964.

Survey of the Megalithic Tombs of Ireland, III,

Dublin, 1972.

Preliminary Survey of the Ancient Monuments of

N. Ireland (Ed. Chart), Belfast, 1940, xii - xvii.

"The Stone Houses," Ticloy, Co. Antrim, Ulster J.

Archaeol., 5, 1942,62-65.

"Shalwy" in Excavations, J969.

"Finds from 2 Portal Graves in West Ulster",

Ulster J. Archaeol., 41, 1978, in press.

"The Excavation of a Court Cairn at Bavan, Co.

Donegal", Ulster J. Archaeol., 29, 1966, 16-38.

"The Finds from the Irish Portal Dolmens", J.

Roy. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, 94, 1964, 123-144.

"The Tamnyrankin Cairn: West Structure",*/.

Roy. Soc. Antiq. Ireland, 71, 1941.

"The Court Cairn at Annaghmare, Co. Armagh", Ulster J. Archaeol., 28, 1965, 3-46.

29



court graves and portal graves

Documents