Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T17:16:21.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ronaldsway Pottery of the Isle of Man: a Study of Production, Decoration, and Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Steve Burrow
Steve Burrow
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology & Numismatics, National Museums and Galleries of Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF1 3NP
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Late Neolithic pottery of the Isle of Man falls into two types: Ronaldsway and Grooved Ware. This paper focuses on the former style which is markedly different from other contemporaneous pottery styles in use in Britain and Ireland. The discussion draws upon the biographical history of Ronaldsway vessels from the choice of raw materials to the deposition of the finished pots. At each stage in this biographical history the approach adopted by Manx potters and pottery users is compared with that employed in surrounding parts of the British Isles.

Résumé

La céramique du néolithique tardif sur l'île de Man se divise en deux groupes: Ronaldsway et vases cannelés. Cette étude se concentre sur le premier style qui se distingue nettement des autres styles de poterie contemporains en usage en Grande-Bretagne et en Irlande. L'argumentation se base sur l'histoire biographique des vases Ronaldsway depuis le choix des matières premières jusqu'au dépôt des pièces terminées. A chaque stade de cette histoire biographique, on compare l’approche adoptée par les potiers et les utilisateurs de l'île de Man avec celle utilisée dans les régions environnantes des Iles Britanniques.

Zusammenfassung

Die spätneolithische Keramik der Isle of Man kann in zwei Typen unterteilt werden: die Ronaldsway-Ware und die ‚Furchen‘ Ware (Grooved Ware). Dieser Artikel behandelt den erstgenannten Stil, der sich deutlich von anderen in England und Irland gleichzeitig in Gebrauch stehenden Keramikstilen unterscheidet. Es wird dabei die biographische Geschichte von Ronaldsway-Gefäßen diskutiert, und zwar von der Wahl des Rohmaterials bis zur Niederlegung der fertiggestellten Gefäße. In jedem Abschnitt dieser biographischen Geschichte wird die Methode der Töpfer und Benutzer der Gefäße der Isle of Man mit der in den umliegenden Gebieten der Britischen Inseln angewandten verglichen.

Résumen

La cerámica del Neolítico Tardo de la Isla de Man puede clasificarse dentro de dos tipos: “Ronaldsway” y “Grooved Ware”. El siguiente estudio se centra en el primero de estos dos estilos, que es claramente distinto de otros tipos de cerámica contemporáneos en uso en Gran Bretaña e Irlanda durante este periodo. El debate hace uso de la biografía histórica de los vasos de cerámica Ronaldsway desde el momento de la elección de las materias primas hasta el de la deposición de los vasos acabados. En cada momento de esta historia biográfica se compara las actitudes adoptadas por los alfareros y usuarios de la cerámica en Manx con la adoptada en zonas circundantes de las Islas Británicas.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 65 , 1999 , pp. 125 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1999

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, D. E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Barley, N. 1994. Smashing Pots: feats of clay from Africa. London: British Museum PressGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J. 1980. The pottery of the later Bronze Age in lowland England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46, 297–321Google Scholar
Bersu, G. 1947. A cemetery of the Ronaldsway culture at Ballateare, Jurby, Isle of Man. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 13, 161–70Google Scholar
Brindley, J.C. 1997. Petrological examination of Earlier ‘Western’ Neolithic, Decorated pottery complex, and Grooved Ware pottery. In Excavations at Knowth Volume 2. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 271–82Google Scholar
Bruce, J.R., Megaw, E.M. & Megaw, B.R.S. 1947. A Neolithic site at Ronaldsway, Isle of Man. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 13, 139–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrow, S.P. 1996. The Ronaldsway jars. In Darvill, T., 1991, 29–31Google Scholar
Burrow, S.P. 1997. The Neolithic Culture of the Isle of Man: a study of the sites and pottery. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 263Google Scholar
Burrow, S.P. 1999. Neither east nor west: a social history of the Manx Neolithic. In Davey, P.J. (ed.), Recent Archaeological Research on the Isle of Man. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 278, 27–38Google Scholar
Burrow, S.P. & Darvill, T.C. 1997. AMS dating of the Manx Ronaldsway Neolithic. Antiquity 71, 412–9Google Scholar
Burrow, S.P. & Evans, D. 1997. Ronaldsway pottery. In Darvill, T., 1997, 31–4Google Scholar
Case, H.J. 1961. Irish Neolithic pottery: distribution and sequence. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 27, 174–233Google Scholar
Case, H.J. 1973. A ritual site in north-east Ireland. In Daniel, G. & Kjxrum, P. (eds), Megalithic Graves and Ritual. Copenhagen: Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 11, 173–96Google Scholar
Clark, G. 1935. The prehistory of the Isle of Man. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 1, 70–93Google Scholar
Cleary, R. 1983. The ceramic assemblage. In Newgrange, Co Meath, Ireland: the Late Neolithic/Beaker period settlement. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S190, 58–117Google Scholar
Cooney, G. & Grogan, E. 1994. Irish Prehistory: a social perspective. Dublin: WordwellGoogle Scholar
Coope, G.R. & Garrad, L.S. 1988. The petrological identification of stone implements from the Isle of Man. In Clough, T.H. McK & Cummins, W.A. (eds), Stone Axe Studies, volume 2. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 67, 67–70Google Scholar
Cubbon, A.M. 1978. Excavation at Killeaba, Ramsey, Isle of Man. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 44, 69–95Google Scholar
Darvill, T.C. 1996a. Billown Neolithic Landscape Project, Isle of Man, 1995, Bournemouth & Douglas: Bournemouth University Research Report 1Google Scholar
Darvill, T.C. 1996b. Billown, Isle of Man. Current Archaeology 150, 232–7Google Scholar
Darvill, T.C. 1997. Billown Neolithic Landscape Project, Isle of Man, 1996. Bournemouth & Douglas: Bournemouth University Research Report 3Google Scholar
Deetz, J. 1965. The Dynamic of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics. Urbana: University of Illinois Studies in Anthropology 4Google Scholar
Ellen, R.F. & Glover, I.C. 1974. Pottery manufacture in the central Moluccas, Indonesia: the modern situation and the historical implications. Man 9, 353–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eogan, G. & Roche, H. 1994. A Grooved Ware structure at Knowth, Boyne valley, Ireland. Antiquity 68, 322–9Google Scholar
Garrad, L.S. 1984. Ballacottier and Ballavarry, Andreas, Isle of Man: Ronaldsway Neolithic rubbish dumps. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50, 397–8Google Scholar
Garrad, L.S. 1987. A Ronaldsway Neolithic site on West Kimmeragh, Bride, Isle of Man. Proceedings of the Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society 9.3, 421–6Google Scholar
Gibson, A.M. 1981. Experimental firings on Black Law. Northern Archaeology 2.2, 15–32Google Scholar
Gibson, A. & Kinnes, I. 1997. On the urns of a dilemma: radiocarbon and the Peterborough problem. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16.1, 65–72Google Scholar
Harding, A. & Lee, G. 1987. Henge Monuments and Related Sites of Great Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 175Google Scholar
Henshall, A.S. 1972. The Chambered Tombs of Scotland, Volume 2. Edinburgh: University PressGoogle Scholar
Herne, A. 1988. A time and a place for the Grimston bowl. In Barrett, J. & Kinnes, I. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age: recent trends. Sheffield: John Collis, 9–29Google Scholar
Howard, H. 1981. In the wake of distribution: towards an integrated approach to ceramic studies in prehistoric Britain. In Howard, H. & Morris, E. (eds), Production and Distribution: a ceramic viewpoint. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S120, 1–30Google Scholar
Jenkins, D. 1987. Petrographic analysis. In Smith, C.A. & Lynch, F.M., Trefignath and Din Dryfol: the excavation of two megalithic tombs in Anglesey. The Cambrian Archaeological Association Monograph 3, 6–71Google Scholar
Kermode, P.M.C. 1902. Report of the archaeological section. Yn Liaor Manninagh 4, 30–3Google Scholar
Kewley, J. 1915. On a cinerary urn from Ballahot. Proceedings of the Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society 1, 33–4Google Scholar
Kinnes, I., Gibson, A., Ambers, J., Bowman, S. & Boast, R. 1991. Radiocarbon dating and British Beakers: the British Museum programme. Scottish Archaeological Review 8, 35–68Google Scholar
Lamplugh, G.W. 1903. The Geology of the Isle of Man. London: Geological Survey of Great BritainGoogle Scholar
MacSween, A. 1995. Grooved Ware from Scotland: aspects of decoration. In Kinnes, I. & Varndell, G. (eds), ‘Unbaked urns of rudely shape’: essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 55, 41–8Google Scholar
McCarthy, M.R. & Brooks, C.M. 1988. Medieval Pottery in Britain AD 900–1600. Leicester: University PressGoogle Scholar
Megaw, J.V.S. & Simpson, D.D.A. 1984. Introduction to British Prehistory. Leicester: University PressGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. 1985. Artefacts as Categories: a study of ceramic variability in central India. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Moffatt, P. 1978. The Ronaldsway culture: a review. In Davey, P.J. (ed.), Man and Environment in the Isle of Man. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 54, 177–217Google Scholar
Moffatt, B. 1993. An assessment of the residues on the Grooved Ware, in Excavations in the ceremonial complex of the fourth to second millennium BC at Balfarg/Balbirnie, Glenrothes, Fife. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 123, 108–10Google Scholar
Mount, C. 1994. Aspects of ritual deposition in the Late Neolithic and Beaker periods at Newgrange, Co Meath. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60, 433–43Google Scholar
Needham, S. & Evans, J. 1987. Honey and dripping: Neolithic food residues from Runnymede Bridge. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 6.1, 21–8Google Scholar
O'Brien, C. 1980. An experiment in pot firing. Antiquity 54, 57–9Google Scholar
Peacock, D.P.S. 1969. Neolithic pottery production in Cornwall. Antiquity 43, 145–9Google Scholar
Phemister, J. 1941. Report by Dr J Phemister on samples of Neolithic pottery from Scottish sites. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 76, 131–2Google Scholar
Piggott, S. 1954. The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. 1995. Structured deposition at Woodhenge. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 137–56Google Scholar
Reina, R. & Hill, R.M. 1978. The Traditional Pottery of Guatemala. Austin, University of Texas PressGoogle Scholar
Rice, P.M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago: University PressGoogle Scholar
Richards, C. 1993. Contextual analysis of the Grooved Ware at Balfarg. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 123, 185–92Google Scholar
Richards, C. & Thomas, J. 1984. Ritual and structured deposition in later Neolithic Wessex. In Bradley, R. & Gardiner, J. (eds), Neolithic Studies: a review of some current research. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 133, 189–218Google Scholar
Rye, O.S. 1976. Keeping your temper under control. Archaeological and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11.2, 106–37Google Scholar
Sheridan, A. 1985. The Role of Exchange Studies in ‘Social Archaeology’, with Special Reference to the Prehistory of Ireland from the Fourth to the Early Second Millennium bc. unpublished PhD thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A. 1989. Pottery production in Neolithic Ireland: a petrological and chemical study. In Henderson, J. (ed.), Scientific Analysis in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 19, 112–20Google Scholar
Sheridan, A. 1995. Irish Neolithic pottery: the story in 1995. In Kinnes, I. & Varndell, G. (eds), ‘Unbaked urns of rudely shape’: essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth. Oxford: Oxbow monograph 55, 3–22Google Scholar
Smith, I.F. 1965. Windmill Hill and Avebury: excavations by Alexander Keiller, 1925–1939. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Tilley, C. 1990. Material Culture and Text: the art of ambiguity. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Wainwright, G.J. & Longworth, I.H. 1971. Durrington Walls: excavations 1966–1968. London: Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 29Google Scholar
Wardle, P. 1992. Earlier Prehistoric Pottery Production and Ceramic Petrology in Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 225Google Scholar
Weissner, P. 1985. Style or isochrestic variation: a reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 50.1, 160–6Google Scholar
Williams, D.F. 1982. Aspects of prehistoric pottery making in Orkney. In Freestone, I.C., Johns, C. & Potter, T. (eds), Current Research in Ceramics: thin section studies. London: British Museum Occasional Paper 51, 9–13Google Scholar
Woods, A. 1989. Fired with enthusiasm: experimental open firings at Leicester University. In Gibson, A. (ed.), Midlands Prehistory. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 204, 196–226Google Scholar
Woodward, A. 1996. Overview of ‘Old pots, new perspectives: new approaches in the study of prehistoric ceramics’ (session at the Theoretical Archaeology Conference 1995). The Old Potter's Almanac 4.1, 9Google Scholar