- TIKNOCK, CO. DUBLIN, Dublin

Introduction
In November 1928 a vase urn containing a cremation was discovered in a quarry at Tiknock, Sandyford, Co. Dublin, at a depth of c. 0.6m below ground level. A few fragments of a second vessel were also recovered. The site was investigated by Liam Gógan (Pl. 27). The human remains were analysed by Laureen Buckley. There is no detailed account on file and there is some ambiguity in the surviving notes regarding the precise nature of the discovery.

Location
The site was in the townland of Tiknock, south Co. Dublin, but the exact location of the burial was not marked.⁹²

[caption id="attachment_45756" align="aligncenter" width="461"]
Fig. 3.65—Ceramicvessel, Tiknock, Co.Dublin.[/caption]

[caption id="attachment_45757" align="aligncenter" width="432"]
Fig. 3.66—Ceramicvessel, Tiknock, Co.Dublin.[/caption]

Description of site
According to Gógan’s account of the site, the grave consisted of an unprotected pit with a flat stone at the base on which two inverted vessels, both vase urns, were placed (Pl. 28). One vessel (SA1928:822⁹³) was in fragmentary condition but it appears to be the one with which the cremated remains of an adult female (SA1928:820) were associated. The second vessel (SA1928:821) is complete. The stone that formed the floor of the pit was also acquired (SA1928:819). It measured 0.53m long by 0.13m wide by 0.2m thick.

Description of vessel (Figs 3.65–66)
Brindley (2007, 342, 356) describes and illustrates the complete vase urn. It is slightly asymmetrical with convex long neck and slight shoulder, with incised, scored and stabbed decoration arranged in horizontal bands over the complete vessel. Dimensions: H 23cm; D base 10.45cm; D rim 21.8cm; T (avg.) 0.5cm.

Comment
A sample of cremated bone from SA1928:820 was dated, resulting in a date of 3560±40 BP, which calibrates to 2024–1772 BC.⁹⁴ Brindley (2007, 278–81) places the vessel in stage 2 of the development of the vase urn tradition, which is dated from c. 1930 BC to 1830 BC. The use of a stone to form the floor of the pit is a slightly unusual feature of this site. The site at Tiknock is one of several early Bronze Age burial sites in the south County Dublin area.

HUMAN REMAINS
LAUREEN BUCKLEY

Introduction
This sample—SA1928:820—consisted of 385 fragments of cremated bone, weighing a total of 524g. This is a moderate amount of bone compared to other Bronze Age cremations but is considerably less than the 1,600–3,600g expected from a full adult cremation (McKinley 1989). The bone fragments were mainly white, although some were a creamy colour. Only one fragment was a grey/blue colour on the internal surface. There was a considerable amount of distortion on almost all the bone, although some fragments of maxilla and mandible and some vertebral bodies were intact with very little distortion. The larger fragments had numerous cracks and horizontal fissures on their surface. The bone was well calcined and the cremation process seems to have been very efficient.

Table 3.29—Fragmentation of bone, SA1928:820.

The fragmentation is presented in Table 3.29, with the largest fragment being 80mm in length. It can be seen that there is a significant proportion of very large fragments, and the larger fragments more than 25mm in length represent over 80% of the cremated remains. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the bone was deliberately crushed after collection from the pyre and fragmentation occurred along fissure lines during collection and deposition of the bone. The lack of smaller fragments is very suspicious, however. It would be expected that some additional fragmentation would occur over time and during excavation and processing of the bone. In 1928, when this bone was collected, the essential information that could be derived from examination of cremations was not realised. It is probable that only the larger fragments were collected and that small fragments were considered of no significance and were ignored.

Identifiable bone
The lack of crushing of the bone is reflected in the amount that could be identified. A total of 420g (80% of the total bone) was identified (Table 3.30).

Table 3.30—Proportion of identified bone, SA1928:820.

It is not expected that equal proportions of skeletal elements would be recovered. In fact, the amount of bone recovered depends on the area of skeleton involved. The normal proportions of the different parts of the skeleton are: skull 18.2%, axial skeleton (ribs,vertebrae, pelvis) 23.1%, upper limb 20.6%, and lower limb 38.1% (McKinley 1989). Theseproportions should be the same regardless of the number of individuals present. Table 3.31 summarises the main parts of the skeleton identified from this sample.

Table 3.31—Summary of identified bone, SA1928:820.

It can be seen that while the proportion of upper and lower limbs is similar to that expected, the skull is overrepresented at the expense of the axial skeleton. It seems that the vertebrae and ribs were not well collected, but the larger, more obvious bones, skull and long bones were. This, however, may represent collection of the bones from the cist rather than collection from the pyre.

Description of identifiable features of the bones
Skull
The left orbit from a frontal bone was present, and the lack of brow ridges suggests that this was from a female individual. Other large fragments of the squamous portion of the frontalbone with the coronal suture visible were also present. There also appeared to be a metopic
suture present. There were several large fragments of parietal bone. Some of these had a blue/green tinge on the internal surface. This may have been caused by contact with metal. A large fragment of occipital bone with the lambdoid suture visible was also present.
The temporal bones were represented by the left and the right temporal fossa and the petrous portion of one temporal bone, as well as some of the squamous part. The left and right zygomatic bones were present and complete and the right greater wing of the sphenoid bone was also present. It seems that virtually all the skull was collected and the fragments represent only one individual.

Mandible and maxilla
The left ramus of the mandible was present and split longitudinally into two fragments. The right side of the body was also in two fragments but was virtually complete, and most of the left side of the body was also present. The following tooth sockets were present:

Another part of a molar socket was visible at the base of the ramus but it was not known whether this was 37 or 38. There were no tooth fragments present. This is a consequence of not collecting the smaller fragments from the cist. Most of the tooth enamel shatters during cremation and the roots stay relatively intact. It is very common to find several tooth roots and enamel fragments in Bronze Age cremations and they are usually among the smaller fragments, less than 10mm in length. It is important to collect all the smaller fragments from a cremation deposit to prevent the loss of important information.

Femur
The fragments labelled as femur also contained one fragment of patella. There was a large fragment of the left femur near the proximal end of the shaft, with part of the lesser trochanter present. A fragment of the right femur from around the neck area was also present. There was a large fragment of the left distal joint end, as well as other fragments from the proximal and distal joint ends. In addition, there were several shaft fragments.

Tibia
Several fragments of shaft were present, as well as three fragments from a left and a right proximal joint surface.

Fibula
This consisted of fragments of shaft.

Humerus
One large fragment, the largest fragment in the cremation sample, consisted of the distal third of the left humerus shaft. A distal joint surface was also present. Part of the proximal joint surface was present, as well as several other fragments of shaft, including fragments near the proximal end.

Radius
A fragment of the distal end of a right radius was present, with part of the articular surface visible. There were several other fragments of shaft.

Ulna
There were several fragments of shaft, including one fragment from a left ulna near the proximal end just below the proximal joint surface. A large fragment from the distal third of the shaft was present, with a small part of the distal joint surface. There were also several other shaft fragments.

Pelvis
Most of the fragments were from the iliac fossa, but there were also some fragments from the acetabular area.

Vertebrae
There was a large fragment of the second cervical vertebra with the dens and the superior articular surfaces present. There were three other fragments of neural arches with articular surfaces from lower cervical vertebrae. There were centra from at least three thoracic vertebrae, and at least five fragments with posterior articular surfaces present. One sacral vertebra was also present.

Ribs
There were at least one left and three right ribs. These were fragments with the transverse articular surfaces present. Several other shaft fragments were present.

Scapulae
Parts of the acromial spine from two scapulae were present.

Tarsals/metatarsals
There were some small fragments of what appeared to be a talus and a cuboid bone. There was also most of a first metatarsal and a first proximal phalanx.

Metacarpals and phalanges
A first and a second metacarpal were present, as well as two other unidentified metacarpal shafts. There were also two proximal and two middle hand phalanges.

Minimum number of individuals
Since there was no repetition of skeletal elements, the number of individuals present is one. From the size of the bone and the fact that most of the joint ends present appeared to be fused it seems to be an adult individual. The only feature present that would enable sex to be estimated was the left supraorbital ridge, which was of the female type.

Summary and conclusions
This represents the cremation of one, probably female, adult individual. The remains were carefully collected from the funeral pyre and were not deliberately crushed. It is highly likely, given the nature of the sample examined, that most skeletal elements were recovered and placed in the cist. The value of cremated remains was not fully appreciated in 1928, however,and it seems likely that small fragments were not retained when the cremation was processed. This has resulted in information being lost; for example, no remains of teeth were recovered even though the mandible and maxilla were virtually complete.

92. Parish of Taney, barony of Rathdown. OS 6in. sheets 22 and 25, exact location not marked.
93. The sherds of this vessel, SA1928:822, appear to have been mislaid, but a note on file (by John Waddell) suggests that a vessel now numbered X193 may be the missing sherds from Tiknock. We have not been able to find any additional evidence to confirm this, however, and consequently have not included a description here. Brindley (2007, 351) includes a description but without an illustration of this vessel.
94. GrA-14808.