Stone Rows of Three or More Stones in South-West Ireland

Ruggles C. L. N. , ‘The stone rows of south-west Ireland: A first reconnaissance’, Archaeoastronomy (supplement to Journal for the history of astronomy, no. 19 (1994), S1–20; hereafter: ‘Stone rows’.

Ibid., Section 2.

Nualláin Ó S. , ‘Stone rows in the south of Ireland’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, lxxxviii C (1988), 179–256, pp. 231–40 and 252.

Burl H. A. W. , ‘A county concordance: The stone rows of Britain, Ireland and western Europe’, in Thom A. Thom A. S. Burl H. A. W. , Stone rows and standing stones (B.A.R. International Series 560; Oxford, 1990), 421–540. Note that two entries in Burl's three-stone row list actually refer to longer rows: ‘Cabragh B’ (p. 479), actually the four-stone row at Cabragh A (see Ruggles , ‘Stone rows’, Table 1, note b); and Cloonsharragh (p. 482), actually a five-stone row (ibid., note G). On Doory (p. 482) see ibid., note O. This list has now been updated in Burl H. A. W. , From Carnac to Callanish (New Haven, 1993), 214–69 (for three-stone rows see pp. 250–57), but the updated list was not available at the time of site selection.

A site at Newcastle (W577803), listed by Ó Nualláin (‘Stone rows in the south of Ireland’ (ref. 3), no. 98) as a pair with a third stone 7.5m to the NE, should arguably have been included here as a three-stone row. But various conflicting accounts of the site earlier this century lead to confusion about its status. A plan is given by Somerville B. , ‘Instances of orientation in prehistoric monuments of the British Isles’, Archaeologia, lxxiii (1923), 193–224, p. 220, which shows a solstitial alignment to the NE. To judge from this, the NE-most stone was c. 9 ft (2.7m) high and c. 15 ft (4.6m) to the NE of the pair. Somerville surveyed the site in March 1910, but in 1914 J. P. Conlon (‘Rude stone monuments of the northern portion of Cork County’, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, xlvi [1916], 58–76, p. 70, no. 30) recorded only the pair. In 1933 the Ordnance Survey visited the site and recorded a third stone just 3 ft (0.9m) high and some 7.5m to the NE (Paul Walsh, priv. comm. 1996). This seems to correspond to the stone 1.05m high now present at the site (Ó Nualláin, ibid., Fig. 47). Taken together, these accounts would seem to imply that the tall north-eastern stone was removed between 1910 and 1914 and a shorter one placed in the alignment, further away from the surviving pair, between 1914 and 1933. However, this is far from certain.

Ruggles C. L. N. , ‘Stone rows’, Table 1. In comparing this figure with ibid., Fig. 1, note (i) that the map data have been redrawn for greater accuracy; (ii) that Cashelkeelty (V747575) has been added as a four-stone row (see Table 1, note p) and (iii) that three recently discovered sites, not discussed in the earlier paper but included in ibid., Fig. 1 (see ibid., ref. 34), are not shown here.

Ibid., Section 2.3.

The categories are ‘A’ (up to 1 km), ‘B’ (1–3 km), ‘C’ (3–5 km) and ‘D’ (over 5 km).

Ruggles , ‘Stone rows’, Table 1 and S9.

The horizon distance categories in the direction of and opposite to the preferred direction are: D/A (3 cases), D/B (6 cases), and C/A (2 cases).

D/D (1 case), B/B (1 case), and A/A (2 cases).

C/D (1: Ballygarret), A/B (1: Gneeves), A/D (2: Kippagh, Cullenagh), and B/D (1: Dromteewakeen).

Ruggles , ‘Stone rows’, Section 3.1.

If Ballygarret, Gortnagulla, and Canrooska are omitted this becomes 23 out of 37 and 6 out of 37 respectively.

In addition to the 21 four- to six-stone rows and 27 three-stone rows for which survey data have been listed in these papers, Figure 2(a) includes data from two further sites: Site 41 (Dromdrasdil), where the orientation of the row could not be measured; and site 117 (Behagullane), where although the axis and preferred direction are unknown, the entire horizon is of category A. See Ruggles , ‘Stone rows’, Table 1.

Ibid., Table 2. The equivalent plot for the four- to six-stone row data only is ibid., Fig. 2.

Ibid., Fig. 2(a). The earlier graph also included data from Dromdrasdil and Behagullane (see ref. 15).

Ibid., Section 3.2.

Ibid., Fig. 2(b).

Ibid., Section 3.2.

Lynch A. , ‘Astronomy and stone alignments in S. W. Ireland’, in Heggie D. C. (ed.), Archaeoastronomy in the Old World (Cambridge, 1982), 205–13.

Ruggles , ‘Stone rows’, Table 2.

Ibid., Table 2. The equivalent plot for the four- to six-stone row data only is ibid., Fig. 3.

Ibid., Section 3.3.

In the case of the major standstill the observed declination would be higher than the theoretical limit (approximately −30°) if observations missed the actual time of the standstill in the node cycle or the limit in a given month, or both. In the case of the minor standstill (theoretical limit approximately −19°), missing the appropriate time in the node cycle by two or three years would somewhat decrease the declination, but missing the monthly limit by a few days could increase it by up to several degrees.

For an explanation of the term see Ruggles C. L. N. , ‘A critical examination of the megalithic lunar observatories’, in Ruggles C. L. N. Whittle A. W. R. (eds), Astronomy and society in Britain during the period 4000–1500 bc (B.A.R. British Series 88; Oxford, 1981), 153–209, p. 156.

Ruggles C. L. N. Burl H. A. W. , ‘Astronomical influences on prehistoric ritual architecture in north-western Europe: The case of the stone rows’, Vistas in astronomy, xxxix (1995), 517–28, Fig. 1 (four- to six-stone rows only) and Fig. 2 (all data).

Ruggles , ‘Stone rows’, Section 3.4.

For a presentation of these data in the form of a curvigram see Ruggles Burl , ‘Astronomical influences’ (ref. 27), Fig. 4.

Ruggles , ‘Stone rows’, Table 3. The equivalent plot for the four- to six-stone row data only is ibid., Fig. 4.

Ibid., Fig. 4.

This is for all sites included in the analysis. The figures are 27% and 40% excluding the 12 sites for which a preferred direction could not be identified.

The table includes data from Behagullane but not Dromdrasdil (see ref. 15).

Ruggles , ‘Stone rows’, S15.

Nualláin Ó , ‘Stone rows in the south of Ireland’, Fig. 7.

Burl , ‘A county concordance’ (ref. 4), 482.

Lynch A. , Man and environment in south-west Ireland, 4000 b.c. — A.d. 800 (B.A.R. British Series 85; Oxford, 1981), 66.

Nualláin Ó , ‘Stone rows in the south of Ireland’, no. 69.

Burl , From Carnac to Callanish 247.

Cuppage J. , Archaeological survey of the Dingle peninsula (Ballyferriter, 1986), 38.

Lynch , op. cit. (ref. 40), 64–67.

Burl , ‘A county concordance’ (ref. 4), 481.

Nualláin Ó , ‘Stone rows in the south of Ireland’, 252.

Cuppage , Archaeological survey of the Dingle peninsula (ref. 36), Fig. 23.

Nualláin Ó , ‘Stone rows in the south of Ireland’, no. 50.

Ibid., Fig. 7.