Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T23:22:16.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Prehistory of the Isle of Man

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2014

Grahame Clark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Rising from the middle of the Irish Sea, within sight of each of the three Kingdoms, with a history and associations so distinct, yet so intimately linked with those of the rest of Britain, this interesting Island presents in its geological structure features which connect it alike with England, Scotland, and Ireland, while at the same time it retains a marked individuality in regard to some of the rocks that form its framework.’—Sir Archibald Geikie.

The prehistory no less than the geology of the Isle of Man is of absorbing interest from its geographical position in relation to the larger units of the British Isles. The island is placed (fig. 1) at an equal distance (31 miles) between the coasts of Ireland and of Cumberland; its northern tip, the Point of Ayre, reaches to within 16 miles of Wigtonshire, and Anglesey lies 45 miles to the south of Langness Point. An observer on Snaefell (2034 feet) can view England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales in one sweep. Since the first settlement of the island, cultural and ethnic influences have approached from all directions, but its size (227 sq. miles) and the distance of sea which isolates it from the coasts of the mainlands have been sufficient to ensure vigorous local developments. The interaction of British and Irish influences and the occasional insular developments are the chief features of the prehistory of the island.

Apart from a triangle of flat ground to the north, broken only by the Bride Hills (200–300 feet), and so far as its drift deposits are concerned, relatively recent in origin, the island consists almost entirely of slate diversified by local intrusions of igneous rocks (granite and diabase), by the sandstone of the Peel area, and by the carboniferous limestone of the Castletown district in the south. Most of the area of older rocks lies above the 400 foot contour and quite large areas are more than 1000 feet above sea level. The mountainous mass of the island, divided by the valley between Douglas and Peel, remained almost uninhabited throughout prehistoric and historic times.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 1 , 1935 , pp. 70 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 70 note 1 SirGeikie, A., Ancient Volcanoes of Great Britain, vol. II, p. 22 Google Scholar.

page 70 note 2 The flint implements from this limestone area, including the Port St. Mary material, are generally patinated white; elsewhere in the island they are mainly grey or yellow to reddish-brown.

page 70 note 3 The Rev. J. G. Cumming. See Lamplugh, , The Geology of the Isle of Man, 1903, p. 414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 70 note 4 Lamplugh, op. cit., p. 415.

page 71 note 1 Swinnerton, F., ‘Pre-Aryan Remains at Glen Wyllan,’ I.M. Nat. Hist. & Ant. Soc. Journal, I Google Scholar.

page 74 note 1 Note particularly the minute crescent and triangles, the point with inverse retouch (no. 6), and the points with hollow base (nos. 7–10). Micro-burins (nos. 12, 14) are common. No. 15 marks an intermediate stage in the production of a triangle and a so-called micro-burin.

page 74 note 2 ‘The Early Neolithic Cists and Refuse Heap at Port St. Mary,’ I.M. Nat. Hist. & Ant. Soc. Journal, vol. I, pt. 11, pp. 137–9Google Scholar.

page 74 note 3 Mr A. S. Kennard very kindly washed a sample of the ‘flint earth’ preserved in the Manx Museum; he found nothing of interest in it.

page 74 note 4 Ibid., p. 137.

page 74 note 5 Examples in the Cowley collection in the Manx Museum are indicated in the underline of fig. 5 with their collector's reference numbers.

page 74 note 6 Many examples from Ballahasney are to be found in the Manx Museum. It is evident that the Jurby district in the north of the island was an important centre of the culture. Unfortunately some misguided enthusiast has ‘improved’ many of these, so that the value of the specimens from this site is rather diminished.

page 74 note 7 Other examples occur in the Cowley collection from the west of the island, and a surface find from the Mull Circle shows a thin band of lustre. See B.M. Stone Age Guide, 1926, fig. 14, for type.

page 75 note 1 For a general survey see Kermode, P. M. C.'s presidential address to the Cambrians, Arch. Cambr., LXXXIV, pt. 11, 1929, pp. 167–178 Google Scholar.

page 78 note 1 Ibid., p. 171.

page 78 note 2 Prof. J. H. Fleure and G. H. J. Neely, Cashtal Yn Ard, Maughold, Isle of Man.

page 78 note 3 P. M. C. Kermode, op. cit., p. 171.

page 78 note 4 28th Annual Report of the Manx Museum and Ancient Monuments Trustees, 1933, p. 8 Google Scholar.

page 78 note 5 ‘The Kew Giant's Grave,’ I.M. Nat. Hist. & Ant. Soc. Proc., III, 1925–1932, pp. 239–41Google Scholar.

page 78 note 6 P. M. C. Kermode, op. cit., p. 173.

page 78 note 7 Swinnerton, F., ‘The Early Neolithic Cists and Refuse Heap at Port St. Mary,’ I.M. Nat. Hist. & Ant. Soc. Journal, vol. I, pt. 11, pp. 137–9Google Scholar.

page 80 note 1 Kermode, P. M. C. and Herdman, W. A., Manks Antiquities, 2nd edn., 1914, pp. 40–49 Google Scholar.

page 80 note 2 Piggott, Stuart, ‘The Mull Hill Circle, Isle of Man, and its Pottery,’ Ant. J., XII, 1932, pp. 146–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 80 note 3 Childe, V. G., The Prehistory of Scotland, p. 29 Google Scholar. Davies, Oliver and Evans, Estyn, Excavations at Goward, near Hilltowm, Co. Down, 1934 Google Scholar.

page 80 note 4 Map of the Trent Basin, Ordnance Survey, 1933, p. 12 Google Scholar.

page 80 note 5 Kermode & Herdman, op. cit., p. 49. But medieval pottery has been recovered from some of the huts.

page 83 note 1 Cowley collection, no. 1139, in the Manx Museum.

page 83 note 2 ‘The false-relief technique was produced by pressing with a triangular-headed slip of wood or bone in such a way as to produce a bar-chevron in false-relief, as the clay surrounding the motive had been pressed down. The deepest part of the impression was always at the point … the principle is always the same— the motive had to stand out in apparent, though not real, relief.’ Abercromby, , Bronze Age Pottery, vol. I, p. 135 Google Scholar.

page 83 note 3 e.g., O'Riordain, S. P., ‘Recent Acquisitions from county Donegal in the National Museum,’ P.R.I.A., XLII Google Scholar, Sect. C, pl. XX, XXI. Also Mahr, Dr A. and Price, L., ‘Excavation of Urn Burials at Clonshannon, Imaal, co. Wicklow,’ J.R.S.A.I., 1932 Google Scholar, pl. XIX, B, C.

page 83 note 4 Childe, V. G., The Prehistory of Scotland, p. 93 Google Scholar.

page 83 note 5 The pot stood with its mouth upwards near the centre of the old ground surface under a round barrow, which also produced a collared urn at a slightly higher level. The food-vessel itself contained cremated bones and appears to have served strictly as a cinerary urn. Kermode, P. M. C., ‘The Burial Mound known as Cronk Aust, in the parish of Lezayre,’ I.M. Nat. Hist. & Ant. Soc. Proc., I, pp. 88–96 Google Scholar.

page 83 note 6 Abercromby, no. 242, from Letterbrick, Donegal; no. 298 from an unknown Irish provenance.

page 83 note 7 Abercromby, nos. 302, 285, and 310.

page 83 note 8 Abercromby, no. 332.

page 83 note 9 From Pooilvaish, Cronk Coar, Ballaugh; from the Peel district.

page 85 note 1 e.g., Templepatrick, Antrim. Fox, , Ant. J., VII (1927), pp. 115–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. XX, 4.

page 85 note 2 e.g., Aglionby, Carlisle. Ibid., pl. xxrv, 4; Cadno Mt., Pendine, Carmarthen. Wheeler, op. cit., fig. 76a.

page 85 note 3 Manx Mus. no. 3065.

page 85 note 4 Barrow 35, Riggs Group, E.R. Abercromby, II, no. 490.

page 85 note 5 Abercromby, II, no. 535 f.

page 85 note 6 Abercromby, II, nos. 559 and 570, from cos. Kilkenny and Fermanagh.

page 91 note 1 Dr Mahr very kindly examined a photograph of the Ballaquayle round-based urn. He was unable to produce any close parallel from Ireland. Dr Graham Callander finds it equally distinct from anything known to him from Scotland. Professor Childe was unable to parallel the pottery after examining some sherds.