English abridged version 1 The architecture of the signs Neolithic passage tomb art around the Irish Sea The passage tombs of Britain and Ireland belong to a group of monuments built during the fourth millennium and distributed in the western part of Europe (Briard 1995). These funerary architectures were intended to contain the remains of a restricted number of people, whose dominating role within the social groups seems obvious (Gallay 2006). From Iberia to Scotland, this type of monument consists of a circular tumulus containing a central chamber and an access passage whose walls, built with large stones, are the support of a carved art. Around the Irish Sea, this carved art is composed exclusively of geometrical figures, contrary to the Breton and Iberian repertoires which are mainly composed of figurative representations (objects, human beings, animals). Irish Sea passage tomb art is generally considered as abstract and unstructured, and the previous research on the subject can be classified into three main approaches. The first can be called the descriptive approach: it consists in the archaeological recordings of the monument and of their carvings, published in monographs or catalogues (e.g. Shee Twohig 1981). The second approach, which is analytic in nature, goes beyond the simple description and proposes different considerations: classification of motifs (Mac White 1946; Piggott 1954; Shee 1972a; O Kelly 1973; Shee Twohig 1981), definition of graphic «styles» (Shee 1968; Eogan 1986; O Sullivan 1986), technical (Burkitt 1926; Crawford 1955; Shee 1973a) and chronological analyses (Breuil 1934; O Sullivan 1996). Finally, the third approach is interpretative, looking for an origin or a signification for the art and its context. In view of the geometric nature of the motifs, plausible interpretations have been limited to three main perspective. Some authors have seen anthopomorphs within the carvings (Déchelette 1912, p. 35; Breuil 1934; Herity 1974; O Sullivan 1986, 1996), others regarded them as astronomical representations (Allen 1904, p. 54; Flom 1924; Brennan 1983) while a more recent interpretation proposed to see altered states of consciousness as the origin of the geometric designs (Bradley 1989a; Lewis-Williams, Dowson 1993; Lewis-Williams, Pearce 2005; Dronfield 1995a). This work proposes a new study of passage tomb art and its context through spatial analyses. It addresses a corpus of 634 carved stones from 89 sites distributed in Ireland, Wales, North-western England and the Orkney Islands (fig. 1-15 2 ). This corpus is composed mainly by already published carvings but also by new recordings made in selected Irish sites with an innovative photographic technique (fig. 16-24). Based on a comparative study, the aim of the research was to discover and to analyse the spatial organization of the carved signs on three main scales: it began by a study of the combinations of signs, next the relations between the signs and the stones on which they are found were analysed, and finally the relations between signs and tomb architecture were examined. The outcome of these spatial analyses has been the discovery of a new set of different «grammatical rules» that organises the art into space. From these results, further analyses can be made, first, on the spatial organization of the architectural elements and graves deposits and, secondly, on the «hidden art» and its link to stone reuse. 325
l a r c h i t e c t u r e d e s s i g n e s The iconographic repertoire: signs and combinations Before conducting spatial analyses, a consideration of the elementary and complex forms of passage tomb art is necessary. The carvings made in the Irish Sea monuments can be classified into eleven categories of signs: cupmarks, circles, spirals, arcs, radiate circular signs, radiate semicircular signs, chevrons, triangles, squares, scalariforms (ladder-shaped), and meandering lines. Each one of these categories includes two to twenty variations (fig. 25-48, annexes 2-11). From this «alphabet» of elementary forms, more complex figures are built that are used recurrently in the carved compositions: by comparing the stones bearing the same selections of signs, it is possible to identify 48 significative combinations of signs, classified into two main categories. First are the combinations of identical signs: circular signs (fig. 53-57), arcs (fi g. 58-61), chevrons (fi g. 62-64), triangles (fig. 65-67), squares (fig. 68-72) and meandering signs (fig. 73, 74). Secondly are the combinations of distinct signs: different types of circular signs (fig. 75-77), different types of angular signs (fig. 78, 79) and mixed combinations (fig. 80-94). Elementary signs and combinations of signs form the iconographic repertoire of Irish Sea passage tomb art (fig. 95). The main part of the research focuses on the spatial organization of these simple and complex forms. The relations between signs and stone relief Contrary to Palaeolithic cave art research, very little attention has been paid in passage tomb art studies to the relations between the motifs and the stones on which they are placed (O Sullivan 1986). Besides many isolated examples, several recurring relations can be observed between the signs and the orientation, general configuration and reliefs of the structural stones (kerbstones, orthostats, corbels, roofstones). Firstly, several «grammatical rules» have a bearing on the location of specific motifs: arcs of type D4 are carved in top position on stones (fig. 96) while arcs of type D10/D11 often appear in basal position (fig. 97); on kerbstones, the scalariforms signs are located close to the arris between the front and top faces (fig. 98); complex combinations of signs are displayed on the stone space according to specific rules (fig. 87, 99, 100). Secondly, different types of natural lines (arises, cracks, stone edges) are integrated as graphic elements into the carved compositions. Many examples of carved arcs open to (or rest on) a natural line (fig. 101, 102). Interestingly, this graphic rule also appears in the decoration of Breton, Irish and British carinated bowls: the incised arcs rest on the carina of the vessels (fig. 103). The location of many meandering signs also seems to be ruled by proximity of a stone edge, arris or crack (fig. 104, 105). Another example of recurrent relation between art and stone relief is given by the ramiform motif, which on many stones stands vertically on (i.e. over) a horizontal natural line (fig. 106). It is then important to consider the structural stone not only as a decorated wall element but also as an individual decorated object, with different faces and relief. This micro-topography plays an important role in the signs positioning and consequently in the symbolical representation itself. The relations between signs and tomb architecture The question of the relations between the signs and passage tomb architecture has been addressed by several archaeologists but mainly through general remarks or isolated examples (Eogan 1986, 1990, 1996; Thomas 1992; Shee Twohig 1996). We propose here a systematic study based on many recurring examples, demonstrating the use of several important principles in the location of the signs and in their relative organization inside monuments distributed in the whole Irish Sea region. From a statistical point of view, several constants can be observed. For example, the density of the carvings increases gradually as one penetrates into the tomb and the general proportion of carved surface is higher in the right part of the monument (fig. 109, 110). In addition, each sign of the repertoire shows a specific distribution within the tomb and some contrasts can be pointed out (fi g. 111): whereas certain signs (meandering lines, spirals, arcs, circles) are carved mostly in the «outer» parts of the tombs (kerb and passage), other motifs (radiate circular signs, scalariform signs) are more typically located in the deeper spaces of the architecture (chamber and recesses). It is also interesting to note the spatial opposition between the two categories of radiate 326
E n g l i s h a b r i d g e d v e r s i o n signs: whereas the radiate circular signs are mainly located in the left half of the tombs, the radiate semicircular signs are proportionally in greater number in the right half. Besides these general considerations, several precise and significant examples of spatial organization were found and classified. Four major architectural elements are distinguished and emphasised by specific signs layouts: the kerb, the tomb axis, the internal limits and the recesses. The kerb In major Irish sites, some regularities occur in the location of certain signs and combinations on the outer enclosing wall of the tumulus. At Knowth, Newgrange and Knockroe, the motif of spiral combined with chevrons is systematically located in the eastern part of the kerb and carved on a side face of the kerbstones (fig. 112). At Knowth, the motif in opposed arcs is carved only on the kerb and its distribution obeys a precise rule: the motifs whose orientation is vertical are located on the western part of the enclosure while the motif set horizontally is on the eastern part (fig. 113). Lastly, the scalariform signs carved on the kerb at Knowth, Dowth, Newgrange, Newgrange L and Loughcrew H show very similar locations (fig. 114, 115). The tomb axis Whatever its plan, the megalithic tomb inside the tumulus is organized according to an invisible axis starting from the centre of the entrance kerbstone, going across the passage and cutting the backstone at the end of the chamber. This virtual axis goes on beyond the tomb, across the tumulus and defines the symmetry of the whole monumental structure. The axis is the spinal column of the monument, its cardo: all the architecture is organized on this central virtual line. The tomb axis also organises a part of the parietal art and is sometimes represented on kerbstones by a crossing vertical line (fig. 116). First, it works as an axis of orientation for certain types of motifs: whatever their location in the tombs of Carnanmore, Knockroe, Loughcrew or Knowth, the motifs in arcs alignment are systematically oriented in the axis direction (fig. 118-121). Some arc motifs are repeated at different points of the axis (fig. 122, 123). Secondly, the virtual central axis of the monument works as an axis of opposition: internal and external carvings are organised in distinct groups from each side of this line (fig. 124-127). Internal limits and structures of passage The internal megalithic structure of the monuments consists of two principal elements: the passage and the chamber, themselves often divided into several distinct parts: outer passage, inner passage (or antechamber), inner compartments, recesses. In plan, these various spaces are delimited mainly by the orthostats that form their walls, but, in certain monuments, additional structures elaborated on the ground (sillstones) or in the roof (lintels) emphasize the partitions of the tomb. Passage tomb art gives particular importance to these internal limits and four graphic forms are exclusively devoted to them: parallel chevrons (fi g. 128-137), scalariform signs (fi g. 138-149), alignments of circular signs (fig. 150) and signs L2 (fig. 151). The recesses These small and distinct spaces have their architectural specifi city but also their own particular iconography. The parietal art from the side and final recesses is distinguished from the rest of the tomb by exclusive motifs: reversed arcs (fi g. 152-154), opposed triangles (fi g. 156) and other complex combinations (fig. 159-161). Moreover, the position and the orientation of «threshold motifs», such as scalariform signs and alignments of circular signs, are particular there: contrary to the same motifs carved in the other part of the tomb, they are systematically set horizontally and located close to the ground level (fig. 157, 158). The symbolism of space in passage tombs The analysis of the organization of the carved signs in Irish Sea passage tombs reveals a close connection between iconography and architecture (fig. 162). In a further investigation these results were put into perspective by analysing the spatial organization of the architectural elements (tumulus and tomb) and funerary deposits (human remains and grave goods) in order to determine if the principles ruling the location of the carved signs are also reflected in the layout of these other essential components of the monuments. Is it possible to identify coherence between the constitution of the tumulus, the 327
l a r c h i t e c t u r e d e s s i g n e s architecture of the tomb, the spatial organization of the parietal art and the funerary practices? If we take a closer look at the composition of the tumulus, we realize that this mass of different materials is not a simple cover made to protect the megalithic tomb. This is a complex, thought-out structure, a symbolic architecture in itself whose function goes beyond monumentality and whose various components form a real system. As G. Eogan (1984b) pointed out, many tumuli are built with several layers of distinctive materials (turfs, stones, sods, sand, earth, etc.), which are delimited by lines of stones and other structures (fig. 165-172). We suggest that these layers should be understood as concentric spaces or spheres symbolically organised around a centre (located behind the megalithic chamber) and symbolically protected by concentric enclosures. Most of these structures are hidden in the tumulary mass and have no technical function in the construction: they are only the elements of a system of representation. In this tumulary system, the megalithic tomb has a particular place and a specific role. Tumulus and tomb should not be regarded as independent structures. Quite the opposite, they are closely linked and interactive. Where the structure of the tumulus and the architecture of the tomb were well preserved and thoroughly excavated, we can clearly see that the different thresholds inside the tomb (sillstones, lintels, passage-chamber junction, etc.) coincide with the location of internal enclosures of the tumulus or with the limits between two layers of materials (fig. 164-167, 169, 170, 173). The tomb architecture reflects and echoes the tumulus structure. More than a simple box for funerary deposit, the former constitutes the access path that connects the outer world to the central space of the latter. While penetrating into the tomb, the visitor walks gradually across the concentric spheres and enclosures of the tumulus and reaches its centre. In this model, the backstone of the chamber (or axial recess) is interpreted as a symbolical doorway between the tomb and the inaccessible centre of the tumulus. Indeed, several backstones are carved with thresholds motifs and certain low examples framed by two jambstones are clearly built like symbolic sillstones. Incidentally, the theme of a false doorway at the back wall of the tomb is explicit in many prehistoric and protohistoric cultures in Western Europe (compare fig. 123 and 175). Finally, the spatial analysis of the carvings showed a system of opposition organized around the virtual axis of the monument. Interestingly, this principle is also reflected in the structural elements in the tomb (emphasis on the right side: fig. 177, 178), in foundation rituals under some tumulus (fig. 179) and in the distribution of grave furniture and human remains (fig. 180-183). There is then a strong connection between the architectural structures, the spatial organization of the signs and the funerary practices. All these elements are arranged and superimposed according to a same model: a same system of representation (fig. 184). This model has four main structures: (1) a set of concentric spaces (tumulary layers, internal enclosures, specific kerb motifs); (2) a central axis as a line of penetration (orientation of the tomb and of specific motifs, succession of physical and graphical thresholds) and (3) as a line of opposition (symmetry of the whole monument, architectural and iconographic emphasis on the right side of the megalithic tomb, opposition of deposits under the tumulus, opposition of recesses, opposition of grave furniture and funerary remains); (4) one or several cells understood as intermediary spaces (built outside the circulation area, favoured location for funerary deposits, exclusive iconography). Hidden art and reused carved stones Hidden art refers to the carvings located on surfaces that are completely or partially obscured in the architecture of the tombs. The phenomenon is not marginal in Irish Sea passage tomb art since at least 112 stones distributed in 23 monuments are concerned, i.e. 18% of the whole corpus (fig. 191). There are several types of hidden carvings: some are obscured by adjacent stones (fig. 185); others are located on the buried base of standing stones (fig. 186), on the back face of kerbstones and orthostats (fig. 187, 188) or on the top face of roofstones (fig. 189); lastly, some carved stones are completely buried in tumulus (fig. 190). What is the origin of hidden art? While for some archaeologists it results from technical errors (Ferguson 1872, p. 205; Coffey 1892, p. 47-48, 1912, p.39-41; Powell, Daniel 1956, p. 47), others explain it as a premeditated symbolic process (O Kelly 1973, p. 263; O Sullivan 1986, p. 72). According to another theory, the carved stones were taken from destroyed monuments and reused in new constructions (Wilde 1847, p. 178; Breuil 1934, p. 292, 293, 300; O Sullivan 1988, p. 34, 41; Thomas 1990, p. 174-175; Lynch 1992, p. 166; 328
E n g l i s h a b r i d g e d v e r s i o n McMann 1994, p. 538-540; Powell 1994, p. 94; Eogan 1998). All hidden carvings do not result from reuse (see fig. 202) but a great number of carved stones (especially at Knowth and Newgrange ) are a result of this phenomenon. On the basis of the «grammatical rules» identified above, an analysis of the reuse process is proposed. The first stage of our methodological model is the identification of reused carved stones on the basis of different tangible criteria (hidden carvings, fractures, inversion of grammatical rules). The second stage is the reconstruction of their original position: according to different criteria (shape of the stone, location and layout of the carvings) and by comparison with stones in primary position (on which the grammatical rules are preserved), it is possible to reconstruct the initial orientation of reused stones (fig. 194-199) and, in a few cases, their architectural position in the destroyed monuments (fig. 200, 201). Conclusion Behind the apparent chaos of the carved signs, several recurring structures are identified in this work. Irish Sea passage tomb art can therefore be regarded as an architecture of signs, built on three scales: its elementary and complex forms are organised between them, in relation with the stones configuration and, above all, with the architectural space. The art is, at least in part, executed according to a predetermined plan and not in a random way: consequently, its function is principally symbolic and not decorative. The different syntax rules identified reveal a model of spatial representation that determines not only the location of the signs but also the location of monument structures and funerary deposits. Moreover, those rules make it possible to reconstruct the initial position of reused stones whose carvings, set in a secondary position, are disorganised. Even if the precise signification of the signs remain unknown, their organization and their spatial function in the tombs give important clues to help us understand the deep symbolism involved in the construction, decoration and use of passage tombs. NOTES 1. We are grateful to Robert Hensey for his corrections of this text and his suggestions. 2. An English translation of the figures legend will be found in the tables p. 331. 329