Robert M Chapple, Archaeologist

Review: In the Lowlands of South Galway: archaeological excavations on the N18 Oranmore to Gort National Road Scheme

2012-01-25T08:26:00.000Z

Finn Delaney & John Tierney. The National Roads Authority, Dublin, 2011. x+225pp & CDr. ISBN 978-0-9564180-4-3. £22.26 (via Amazon) or €25 (via Wordwell Books).

In The Lowlands of South Galway is the seventh in the National Roads Authority Scheme Monographs series. In my review of the previous volume (Of Troughs and Tuyères), I stated that since its inception in 2007, the series has established itself as a benchmark in high quality academic publishing. This volume is a fine addition to the series and, if anything, sets the bar higher for future contributions. In the Introduction, Finn Delaney, Jerry O’Sullivan and Maurizio Toscano describe their study area as ‘a self-contained sort of place with a strongly defined character that derives in part from the landscape and in part from its history.’ In preparing a review such as this, I do strive to be as even-handed and professional as possible, but this, the first line of the introduction, was a ‘you had me at hello’ moment. Although I’ve not lived in the area for over twenty years, this is where I grew up, where a large part of my family still live (and are buried), and where I first developed my interest in archaeology. Even simply listing the major families of the area - the Gregorys, Martyns, Persses, Shaw-Taylors, O’Shaughnessys (from whom I am descended), and the O’Heynes - is deeply redolent to me of my background, my family, and my past. To say that I am biased in favour of this book may be an overstatement, but I have been excited about the archaeology of this area since I was a child and I have looked forward to reading this book since I first heard that it was coming to print. Perhaps I am a little biased, but at least I’m honest about it! Back to the introduction: the authors describe the project to construct approximately 28km of dual carriageway from near Oranmore to the outskirts of Gort. They provide succinct introductions to the landscape and settlement history - from the Neolithic to the 19th century. This is followed a very brief synopsis of the 23 archaeological excavations carried out along the route by Eachtra Archaeological Projects. The chapter concludes with a description of the Geographical Information System (GIS) employed on the project, the Eachtra Archaeological Projects Office Database (EAPOD). While this topic may only be fascinating to a relatively small number of professional archaeological practitioners, its direct relevance for readers of this book is that it is the means by which the large number of detailed site plans and wider distribution maps were produced, along with being the repository of the data by which the detailed spatial analyses were undertaken.

In Chapter 2, Burnt Mounds in the Bronze Age Landscape (Finn Delaney and John Tierney with Maurizio Toscano) the results of some 12 excavations are presented. The dating of these sites in keeping with other sites of their type, with radiocarbon determinations stretching across the entire period from Early to Late Bronze Age. As the authors point out, the significance of this group lies in the paucity of excavated examples in county Galway - only 18 had been excavated in the county prior to 2006. While they have become somewhat ubiquitous in other parts of Ireland, the addition of twelve published examples to the known corpus from Galway is definitely welcomed. The chapter continues with a detailed spatial analysis of the sites, examining their distribution in relation to other recorded prehistoric monuments. Interestingly, concentrations of ring barrows centred on Derrydonnell North and the well-known Dunkellin barrow group appear to be adjacent, but not co-terminus with defined groups of burnt mounds. As the authors note the subjective nature of such comparisons of distribution maps, they set out to use more objective (or at least, less humanly-subjective) methods available through various techniques of spatial analysis. Unsurprisingly, there is a confirmation of previously noted trends, such as location of sites near water. Analyses of density and clustering indicate that the burnt mounds should not be seen as isolated sites, but as part of an integrated Bronze Age landscape. Further analyses of the morphology and taphonomy of the excavated sites follow. In all cases, the stone type used on these sites was the locally available limestone. While it has been suggested (Grogan 2007) that the use of limestone would provide calcium hydroxide, it is argued that the amount created would be insufficient to poison the food. One of the excavated troughs, at Ballyglass West, showed evidence for having been provided with a stone lining, though it may have been further augmented with wooden elements and clay daub. Other sites revealed stakeholes in the bases of the troughs, interpreted as evidence for wattle linings. While animal bone is infrequently recovered from burnt mound sites, it is incorrect to imagine that they are wholly devoid of it (Tourunen 2008). Pig teeth were recovered from Ballyglass West; single cattle teeth were recovered from both Caherweelder 2 and 3; while a cow horn and a portion of shed deer antler were recovered at Moyveela 2. The poorly preserved site at Coldwood produced both cattle and sheep bones. Similarly, only a few lithics were recovered, all of which are regarded as chance or residual finds. A possible Early Mesolithic chert blade was recovered at Ballyglass West, while at Caherweelder 6 a Late Mesolithic chert blade was recovered. Neolithic flakes were also recovered from sites at Coldwood, Caherweelder 5, and Ballinillaun 1.

The Archaeology of Early Medieval Uí Fiachrach Aidhne (Finn Delaney with Maurizio Toscano) examines the excavated remains of levelled cashel sites at Derrydonnell More and Drumharsna South, along with a ‘cemetery settlement’ site at Owenbristy. The chapter first sets the scene by examining the physical influences of the local landscape on site choice of site location. This is followed by a thorough review of the ringforts and cashels of the area, firmly placing them within their physical and political landscapes. Further geospatial analyses examine clustering of sites to identify physical concentrations of sites, along with the identification of trends in altitude, aspect etc. One result of particular interest is the observation that there is a clear relationship between the positioning of ringforts and cashels in relationship to early ecclesiastical sites. The church sites were seen to be deliberately positioned at the peripheries of the main enclosure groupings, while actively avoiding both isolation and the centres of enclosure clusters. While the authors stress the tentative nature of these results and the need for further study, I find them fascinating, not least as they appear to be in contrast to results from my own work on the ringforts of the Loop Head Peninsula, Co. Clare. Here I examined similar aspects of location, morphology and relationship to early ecclesiastical church sites to those undertaken for the south Galway area (Chapple 2003, 2011). My conclusions were that the church establishments were initially pioneering foundations in a relatively unpopulous landscape. This allowed them to amass comparatively significant estates prior to the later development of more secular development. However, in the light of recent research carried out by the Early Medieval Archaeology Project, as part of the INSTAR programme, the traditional dichotomy of ‘monks in monasteries and everyone else in raths’ must be reassessed.

Chapter 4, Rural Settlement in the Early Modern Landscape (John Tierney with Maurizio Toscano), deals with the excavation of five early modern sites on the road scheme. At Moyveela 3 a pre-Famine clachan was investigated, while two cottages were identified at Roevehagh 2. At Lavally a tenant farmstead, inhabited until the early 20th century, was excavated, along with two community wells at Ballyglass West and Caherweelder 4. In particular, the reconstruction drawing of the Moyveela 3 clachan truly brings the site to life. To my mind, it demonstrates all that is best about thoughtful artistic interpretations and their ability to capture the informed imagination of the reader.

Chapter 5 represents the ‘main event’ of this volume with its description of the excavation and analysis of the ‘cemetery settlement’ at Owenbristy (Owenbristy - Cashel and Cemetery). While short summaries of the findings at this intriguing site have been available for a time (Delaney et al. 2009; Lehane et al. 2010), this represents the definitive account of the site. The original excavation director, John Lehane, provides a comprehensive summary of the excavation. This includes pre-enclosure activity during the Beaker period, through the main cashel and cemetery phases, and into the later burials of the 13th to 15th centuries. A brief review of the recovered artefacts is also appended and include short entries on lithics, quern stones, blue glass beads, bone pins, metal artefacts, along with modern pottery etc. Of the metal artefacts, the majority were of iron, with small numbers of copper alloy, brass and bronze also being represented. A terminal of a bronze brooch decorated with simple, cast interlace was recovered. Of particular significance was the recovery of a plain iron neck ring from around the neck of one of the burials. The skeleton (Sk70) was later radiocarbon dated to the mid 6th to mid 7th centuries cal AD (1457±36 BP, UB-11248). Margaret McCarthy provides an analysis of the animal bone from the site, demonstrating that the majority of the species represented were of cattle, sheep/goat, and pig, but that horse, dog and deer were also represented. While some discrepancies are noted in comparison to other ‘cemetery settlement’ sites, the dominance of cattle is an emerging constant. This is contrasted to contemporary ringfort assemblages that lack the same high percentages of cattle remains. McCarthy suggests that, in the developing paradigm, where ‘cemetery settlements’ are perceived as foci of local power and wealth, the assemblages represent meat provisioning for the social elite who visited these sites at times of burial. Jonny Geber presents the results of an analysis of the human remains from Owenbristy. Of the 75 burials dated to the Early Christian period, a number of conclusions may be drawn. In common with other sites and assemblages, the highest risk areas for mortality were during youth and young adulthood, and after 40 years of age. The mean stature of the male population was 1.73m (5ft 8in), while the mean female stature was 1.60m (5ft 3in). Various dental and skeletal pathologies were identified. Caries was only present in adults, though young adult and older adult females had the highest occurrences, which may be related to gender differences in diet. Calculus (tartar) was present on the teeth of all adults, and approximately half of the non-adult population. A number of degenerative joint diseases, including vertebral osteophytosis, intervertebral osteochondrosis, and osteoarthritis were also identified. Isotope analysis of five Early Christian skeletons suggested that the population relied on a terrestrial diet. High δ¹⁵N values among infants and young children are taken to indicate the practice of breastfeeding. Comparison of these values across the age groups suggests that children were regularly weaned around their second or between their second and third year. While this is an uncommonly late age in contemporary Western European society, it is still the usual practice in developing countries and is approximately the length promoted by the World Health Organisation. Of the Early Christian population, 22% of the adolescents, 10% of the adult females, and 31% of the adult males suffered violent deaths - all of which are much higher rates than other contemporary assemblages. One of the adolescents (13 to 15 years of age) had been repeatedly stabbed and eventually (after two unsuccessful blows) decapitated. Two of the females had been decapitated, one with at least six further facial stab wounds. In this latter case, the evidence suggests that she attempted to fight off her attacker while she lay on the ground, frantically moving her head from side to side. One of the adult males was decapitated, though this appeared to have taken at least three blows. A number of other adult males displayed evidence of having received wounds from bladed weapons, such as swords. One individual received 127 independent cut wounds as his corpse was decapitated and quartered. Elizabeth O’Brien examines the context and content of the cemetery, drawing on Geber’s work on the Osteology of the population. She concludes that the Owenbristy site gives us an overview into life and death in Early Christian Ireland, especially in the period from the 7th to the 9th centuries. In the final portion of this chapter (Owenbristy: towards an understanding) Finn Delaney with Zachary Silke examine the historical background of the site and ponder the exact form and function of this ‘cemetery settlement’. As an aside, I would draw the reader’s attention to the excellent reconstruction drawing of Owenbristy. Both of these reconstruction drawings are by Dan Tietzsch-Tyler who, incidentally, provided the beautiful reconstruction drawings for Ann Lynch’s monograph Tintern Abbey, Co. Wexford: Cistercians and Colcloughs. Excavations 1982-2007 (see my review: here).

Chapter 6 provides Excavation Summaries of all the sites investigated as part of this project. While the entries are brief, they are comprehensive with clear and concise information given on every feature excavated. The sites are comprehensively illustrated with post-excavation plans, along with on-site and finds photography. Personally, I would have liked to have seen some representative section drawings or profiles through some features - especially the burnt mound troughs - but that’s probably just me!

Chapter 7 details the Artefacts and Plant Remains. Sara Camplese and Finn Delaney provide a catalogue of selected prehistoric and medieval finds, expanding on the brief notices given in the body of the text. Farina Sternke discusses the significance of the lithic artefacts. Among the Mesolithic and Neolithic pieces noted earlier, there are brief comments on lignite bracelet fragments, hones and a spindle whorl from Owenbristy, along with a possible naturally-formed crucible from Drumharsna South. Mary Dillon and John Tierney discuss the charred plant remains. At the burnt mounds, only the site at Ballyglass West produced charred plant remains. Here a single cereal grain and a small number of knotweed seeds were found. Similarly, the three major Early Christian sites at Owenbristy, Derrydonnell More, and Drumharsna South produced relatively few charred plant remains. Small amounts of wheat, barley, and oat grains were recovered, along with a weed seed and a sloe stone. At the burnt mound sites the recovered charcoal was mostly hazel (35%), with Pomoideae type (16%), oak (14%), and ash (13%) also being represented. At the Early Christian sites charcoal was generally sparse. At Derrydonnell More the most abundant charcoal types were pine and ash, while willow was most commonly recovered at Owenbristy.

Appendix 1 lists some 79 radiocarbon determinations commissioned for the project, while Appendix 2 provides a catalogue of the burials from Owenbristy. The volume also comes with a CDr containing all of the original ‘grey literature’ site reports. While I have not taken the opportunity to investigate all of them, a select perusal indicates that they contain the full texts of all the appropriate specialist reports etc. In my review of the Of Troughs and Tuyères volume, I expressed my ambivalence with the CDr format and how it may be more easily superseded by emerging technology than we may care to admit, leaving us with valuable, but unreadable, data. I still see no clear way forward where these large volumes of data may be easily and cost-effectively presented and still remain ‘future proofed’ against the tide of changing technology.

I would also like to give special notice to the quality of the photography in the volume. Every facet of the photography is superb, from the on-site images to the finds photography. However, it is the additional photographs of nearby sites, outside of the road-take, but still of interest and importance, that I found particularly arresting. Their inclusion demonstrates a wider commitment to not just communicating the archaeological discoveries themselves, but to placing them within their wider landscape and cultural contexts.

Obviously, this volume is a must for any student of Early Christian settlement and burial, along with anyone interested in the burnt mound phenomenon, not to mention our early modern past. It is also a must-have volume for anyone with an interest in this ‘self-contained sort of place’. Beyond that it, together with the other volumes in the NRA monograph series, forms one of the jigsaw pieces in a new archaeology of Ireland - perhaps one of the few lasting legacies of the Celtic tiger experience. Perhaps it is too much hyperbole to suggest that when the ghost estates have been demolished and the road network is again considered insufficient for the needs of the population, that the knowledge and scholarship gained from these excavations will continue to inform, educate and inspire. Then again, maybe it’s not!

References:

Chapple, R. M. 2003 ‘Ringfort morphology and distribution on the Loop Head peninsula, Co. Clare’ North Munster Antiquarian Journal 43, 53-74.

Chapple, R. M. 2011 A statistical analysis of ringfort distribution and morphology on the Loop Head Peninsula, Co. Clare. Belfast.

Delaney, F., Lehane, J., Keefe, K. & O'Sullivan, G. 2009 ‘Medieval life and death by the 'broken river'’ Seanda 4, 36-39.

Grogan, E. 2007 ‘General evaluation and assessment of the excavation results 1: fulachta fiadh and related sites’ in Grogan, E., O’Donnell, L. & Johnston, P. The Bronze Age Landscapes of the Pipeline to the West. Dublin.

Lehane, J., Muñiz Perez, M., O'Sullivan, J. & Wilkins, B. 2010 ‘Three cemetery-settlement excavations in county Galway at Carrowkeel, Treanbaun and Owenbristy’ in Corlett, C. & Potterton, M. (eds.) Death and burial in Early Medieval Ireland in the light of recent archaeological excavations. Dublin, 139-156.

Tourunen, A. 2007 ‘No bones about it: burnt mounds along the N9/N10’ Seanda 2, 70-71.

If you’re planning to do any shopping through Amazon.co.uk, please go via the portal below. It costs you nothing, but it does generate a little bit of advertising revenue for this site – please help!

Review: Annus Archaeologiae: Proceedings of the OIA Winter Conference 1993

2012-01-13T09:13:00.000Z

Eoin Grogan & Charles Mount (eds.). The Organiastion of Irish Archaeologists, Dublin, 1995. 72pp. ISBN 0-9524666-0-0. €7.99 + P&P from Dr. Charles Mount (see contact details at the end of this piece).

Since I started this blog in August 2011, and realised that there was some interest in archaeological book reviews, I have pretty much kept to the latest offerings available to the profession. Thus far I have published seven reviews of books, all of which were released either in 2010 or 2011. This review is a little different as the book I have chosen was published some 17 years ago, in 1995, and presents papers from a conference held in UCD two years previously. Even the sponsoring body of the conference, The Organisation of Irish Archaeologists is now long defunct.

To explain my choice, and its significance, I need to go back a few years. Around 2007 I received a specialist report on a collection of flint from a site I had excavated. In the bibliography for the report was a reference to Annus Archaeologiae. As I had never come across this particular volume, and was intrigued by the Latinate name, I contacted the flint expert and asked for a little more information. I don't remember his exact words, but they were along the lines of: 'it's pretty hard to get, but if you can find it do buy it - it is really excellent'. There should be legislation against saying that kind of thing to a borderline-OCD bibliophile! Over the next few years I tried tracking the book down, but to no avail. Eventually I found a copy for sale on AbeBooks for about £30 from a book seller in Sweden. I placed my order, but when the proprietor went looking for the item it was missing - presumed lost or sold. My money was refunded and my hopes of owning a copy appeared to have stalled. Some time later Charles Mount and I got to talking on Facebook. After having chatted back and forth for a while I decided to mention my quest for the ‘lost’ book that he had co-edited. I explained that I presumed that it was long out of print and unavailable, but that I’d gladly pay for a photo-copied reproduction. I can only say that I was gobsmacked when I received an email back informing me that not only did he have a spare copy, and that one was already in the post to me, but that he still had quite a number of the of the books still in his possession.

Having now had the opportunity to read through the six papers presented here, I can only conclude that it is a shame that this book is not better known by the archaeological community. In the first paper the late Elizabeth Anderson and Gina Johnson present ‘Irish Later Mesolithic Flint Technology: Further Developments’. They report on a project of refitting and morphological analysis on lithics from the excavation of a Later Mesolithic industrial site at Bay Farm I, Carnlough, Co. Antrim (Woodman & Johnson 1996). They compare the material to that recovered from Newferry, Co. Antrim (Woodman 1977) and conclude that the method of ‘Larnian’ core reduction, along with its related implements, were only one of a number of strategies and tool types current throughout the period. In particular, they see the ‘Larnian’ core as associated solely with the final stages of the Later Mesolithic. They also argue that the production of these core types, along with broader blades and flakes at the end of the Mesolithic may well be indicative of a changing approach to stone working. They conclude that the Bay Farm site is atypical of the Irish Later Mesolithic and that the core types used in the majority of other sites have yet to be identified.

Gabriel Cooney, Steve Mandal and Finola O’Carroll present ‘Stone Axes as Icons: Approaches to the Study of Stone Axes in Ireland’. When this paper was presented in 1993 the Irish Stone Axe Project was only in existence for three years and had already examined over 16,000 stone axes with Irish provenances. While the contents of this paper have been eclipsed by later publications (chiefly Cooney & Mandal 1998), this is an interesting snapshot of where the project was at this important stage in its development. The paper examines a number of aspects of the research and attempts to address wider issues, including the importance of stone axes in the archaeological record. An examination of the difference in axe lengths suggests that while the majority measured from 8cm to 16cm, a genuine distinction may be made for the largest examples. However, ethnographic parallels from Papua New Guinea are taken to suggest that both work axes and ceremonial axes may well have been of similar sizes, the only clear difference being the higher quality of the finish on the ritual objects. Petrological identifications showed that, by far, the most common stone used was porcellanite (over 4,800 examples), followed by pelite (c. 1800 examples). Of the other stone types identified, only sandstone and gabbro exceeded 200 examples each. At the time of the original presentation the details of over 9,000 axes had been entered on a database. Typically, the paper ends with the line: ‘The work goes on!’

The late Prof. D. A. A. Simpson presents a paper on ‘The Neolithic Settlement Site at Ballygalley, Co. Antrim’. Outside of the brief interim reports in the Excavations Bulletin, there is relatively little published on this important site. To the best of my knowledge, there are only four publications of any substance on the site. In 1990 there was a brief piece in Archaeology Ireland (Simpson 1990) and an interim report in the Ulster Journal of Archaeology (Simpson, Conway & Moore 1990). Simpson (1996) also published a piece on the houses at Ballygally and a few years later a more general piece on the pitchstone from the site (Simpson & Meighan 1999). While the whole field of Neolithic house studies has progressed markedly since this paper was presented, it is still a valuable addition to the available corpus. If a practical example as to how much the field has moved on was wanted, it could hardly be better expressed than in Figure 3.5 in this paper where plans of all known Irish Neolithic houses could be comfortably accommodated on a single page: Ballygalley, Ballyglass, Tankardstown I & II, Ballynagilly, Newtown, and Knowth. Indeed, in the absence of a final publication on the site, such smaller pieces are all the more valuable.

Eoin Halpin presented a paper on ‘Excavations at Newtown, Co. Meath’. The site was a partially-surviving rectangular Neolithic house, ancillary feature/out house, and various cut features containing contemporary artefacts. A Bronze Age pit burial with an associated pottery vessel and several postholes arranged in an arc were also recovered and investigated. Again, I may be wrong, but in so far as I am aware, there is precious little available in the published record about this site. There is a remarkably brief notice of its initial discovery (and that of Ballygalley, too) in Archaeology Ireland (Anon. 1991) along with an entry in the Excavations Bulletin for 1991. The following year Gowen and Halpin (1992) published a brief summary of the site, also in Archaeology Ireland. While the report in Annus Archaeologiae is nowhere near as in-depth as one would like for a final report on this interesting and important site, it is much more detailed than any of the other available materials. For this reason alone, Annus Archaeologiae deserves a place on the bookshelves of any student of Irish archaeology.

Conor Newman presented interim findings from his excavations at ‘Raffin Fort, Co. Meath: Neolithic and Bronze Age Activity'. Similar to the situation of Halpin’s excavation of Newtown, Co. Meath, there is a limited amount of published material available for this important site. To the best of my knowledge, there is only this publication, the interim reports from the Excavations Bulletin, and a published paper from a conference in Italy (Newman, Dillon, Molloy & O’Connell 2008). Until I began work on this review, I was unaware of the latter paper, but the title ‘Environment and ritual in a Late Iron Age context: an example from Raffin, Co. Meath, Ireland’ suggests that it is unlikely to be a large-scale exposition of the site data. This leaves us with eleven pages in Annus Archaeologiae as (currently) the single most detailed discussion of this incredibly important site. I have little doubt that, in the long run, this site will be the focus of a more in-depth and formal publication. Until that time, we have this near-lost gem to help fill in the blanks.

The final paper in the collection is Aonghus Moloney’s presentation of the ‘Irish Archaeological Wetland Unit: 1992 Survey and Excavations’. The paper presents short, but informative, reports on the Blackwater survey, Co. Offally, and a number of excavations. The latter include a togher at Annaghcorrib, Co. Galway; a gravel road at Bloomhill, Cos. Offaly and Westmeath; along with investigations at a crannog and burnt mound at Bofeenaun, Co. Mayo. In contrast to the above, the sites and survey dealt with in this paper have all been fully published (Moloney, Bermingham, Jennings, McDermott & O'Carroll, E.1995).

In some respects, I see Annus Archaeologiae as a failed publication. This is a comment neither on the contributors nor on the editors. Simply put, this volume failed to connect with the wider audiences it was designed to communicate with. Thus, it did not reach as many other researchers and writers as it could have and should have. It did, however, reach some of the right people – Waddell in The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland references Halpin’s site at Newtown, Co. Meath, and Simpson’s excavations at Ballygalley, Co. Antrim (though, interestingly, he omits Newman’s account of Raffin, Co. Meath, preferring the 1993 interim report from the Excavations Bulletin). Obviously, it also reached and influenced the flint specialist that set me on this quest in the first place. Nonetheless, I cannot but believe that Annus Archaeologiae failed to get a ‘fair shake of the stick’. In my review of the 3rd edition of Waddell’s textbook, I remarked how books come and go and how, as time goes by, they retreat from being first-port-of-call research resources as newer research becomes available. While some of the projects discussed here have produced their definitive publications (and they are to be much congratulated for doing so), the lack of final publications on Raffin Fort, Co. Meath, Ballygalley, Co. Antrim, and Newtown, Co. Meath, means that (after almost two decades) there is still much to recommend about this volume. In his Introduction to the volume, Mount describes the six papers as ‘snap shots of developing research at a particular period’. He sees this as one of the strengths of the volume, where interim statements are made quickly available to the profession so that they can begin to inform future debate at the earliest possible time. While not explicitly stated, I feel that there is an underlying assumption that these ‘snapshots’ are inherently disposable, once the major publications appear. The analogy with photography is, perhaps, unexpectedly apt as, with so many ‘snapshots’ they may end up becoming cherished items in their own right. They may a collection of snapshots, but they (or half of them, anyway) have yet to fade. Do yourself a favour – go and buy this rather excellent volume and help rescue a ‘lost’ gem!

References

Anon. 1991 ‘In brief: two 'new' Neolithic houses’ Archaeology Ireland 5.4, 5.

Cooney, G. & Mandal, S. 1998 The Irish Stone Axe Project. Monograph I. Bray.

Gowen, M. & Halpin, E. 1992 ‘A Neolithic house at Newtown’ Archaeology Ireland 6.2, 25-27.

Moloney, A., Bermingham, N., Jennings, D., McDermott, C. & O'Carroll, E.1995 Irish Archaeological Wetland Unit. Transactions: Volume 4. Blackwater survey & excavations. Artefact deterioration in peatlands. Lough More, Co. Mayo. Dublin.

Newman, C., Dillon, M., Molloy, K. & O’Connell, M. 2008 ‘Environment and ritual in a Late Iron Age context: an example from Raffin, Co. Meath, Ireland’ in Fiorentino, G. & Magri, D. (eds.) Charcoals from the Past: Culture and Palaeoenvironmental Implications. Proceedings of the Third International Meeting of Arthracology, Cavallino-Lecce (Italy) June 28th – July 1st 2004. Oxford, 75-92.

Simpson, D. 1990 ‘News: Neolithic settlement site at Ballygalley, Co. Antrim’ Archaeology Ireland 4.2, 43-44.

Simpson, D. 1996 ‘The Ballygalley houses, Co. Antrim, Ireland’ in Darvill, T. & Thomas, J. (eds.) Neolithic houses in Northwest Europe and beyond. Oxford, 123-132.

Simpson, D. D. A., Conway, M. G. & Moore, D. G. 1990 ‘The Neolithic site at Ballygalley, Co. Antrim. Excavations 1989, interim report’ Ulster Journal of Archaeology 53, 3rd Series, 40-49.

Simpson, D. & Meighan, I. 1999 ‘Pitchstone - a new trading material in Neolithic Ireland’ Archaeology Ireland 13.2, 26-30.

Woodman, P. C. 1977 ‘Recent excavations at Newferry, Co. Antrim’ Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 43, 155-199.

Woodman, P. C. & Johnson, G. 1996 ‘Excavations at Bay Farm 1, Carnlough, Co. Antrim, and the Study of the 'Larnian' Technology’ Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 96C, 137-235.

Contact details:

Annus Archaeologiae is available directly from Dr. Charles Mount, 2 Carrig Glen, Calverstown, Kilkullen, Co. Kildare (Cmount@vodafone.ie) for €7.99 + P&P. Rates: €1.90 for Island of Ireland. €4.25 for UK and rest of the world. Payment by cheque, bank draft, or postal order.

If you’re planning to do any shopping through Amazon, please go via the portal below. It costs you nothing, but it does generate a little bit of advertising revenue for this site – please help!

Review: ‘Bandee:’ from Curach Bhán Archaeology Design Collection

2012-01-10T13:49:00.003Z

Review: ‘Bandee:’ from Curach Bhán Archaeology Design Collection (from €39.95 from their website)

Some readers of this blog will be aware that there is an archaeological star rising in the east – in Berlin to be precise. Curach Bhán Publications are rapidly establishing themselves as a publishing house of note in the fields of archaeology, philology, linguistics, anthropology, and Celtic studies. Added to this, the proprietor, Daniel Büchner, also runs a, small but growing, online bookshop and art gallery. If this was not enough, Daniel and his team have now launched their Archaeology Design Collection. The first offering in this range is the ‘Bandee:’. When I first saw it on their website, I presumed that it was some form of long, curving sock for holding your mobile phone in. The website description calls it a “convenient cell phone pocket bandee: the convenient pouch pocket cellphone thing”. To be honest, I was less than enthused when Daniel Büchner contacted me and asked if I’d like to try one out. I will also admit to a significant degree of confusion when it arrived to my house – I appeared to have been sent some form of fabric Möbius strip. After a little bit of experimentation (and laughter from my loved ones), I worked out that it goes over the right shoulder and under the left arm to be worn as a bandolier (hence: Bandee:!).

On the outside you get two pockets as standard. The one at the centre of the chest has a clear plastic face to hold a mobile phone. The second pocket is quite small and has a Velcro closing flap. This flap and the shoulder are both decorated with the Curach Bhán logo (a modified version of the 8th or 9th century Kilnaruane Pillar Stone, from near Bantry, Co. Cork) in reflective ink. Both of these pockets are detachable and are secured by both Velcro strips and rugged plastic clip-locks. The version I was sent had the Bandee: expansion case (€7.95 from the website). This is an excellent addition and I would recommend it to anyone contemplating buying the ‘basic’ Bandee:. It’s a decent size for carrying keys, a wallet, blackberry etc. On the inside face there are three zipped pockets for safe keeping – not quite large enough to hold a passport (despite what the website says), but more than enough space to keep money and small documents safe. Two large Velcro flaps make it adjustable to a variety of sizes, and there is a rubberised-plastic lining at the shoulder to stop it slipping. The stitching is secure and robust and constructed from good quality materials.

That is all well and good, but to get a real idea as to how useful it is there is nothing like an old-fashioned field test. That is why I’ve been taking my Bandee: along on field trips and family outings. At this stage it has suffered quite a bit of abuse, but it’s still working well and looking good. The front pocket is handy for a mobile phone and will just about take one in a heavy protective cover. The large expansion case is great for all those things that clog up my pockets – keys, inhalers, notebook, camera etc (or for cigarettes and matches for those who still need them). I particularly like how the adjustable Velcro patches allow it to be quite snug fitting so that it can be worn under a coat or rain jacket and not keep catching you or getting in the way. While I’ve not worn it on site for an excavation, I could easily see it being extremely handy for all the small drawing equipment, like pencils, string, and line-levels. I could also see myself taking this on holiday – it has all the advantages of the dreaded ‘bum bag’ (or ‘fanny pack’ for our North American friends) and none of the disadvantages - i.e. it is not a ‘bum bag’!

The product is not completely without flaws. I noted above that the inner zipped pockets are not large enough to conceal a passport – a little redesign in this area could add significantly to its potential for the tourist market. My only other quibble was that the zip on the expansion case is quite small and simply does not feel rugged enough for heavy use. As this zip travels around a corner to fully close the case, it is difficult to operate single-handed – though this may be a good security measure for those on holiday!

Not many archaeologists are tempted to enter the world of fashion in any guise – when we do it is generally on the wings of satire (such as the rather excellent Conor McHale blog). Curach Bhán have not just produced something that looks well – yes, I’d even call it stylish, they have also brought us a genuinely useful item. For this they are to be doubly praised! My final advice to anyone reading this: go and buy a Bandee: today – you don’t even know that you need it yet, but you will be glad you did!

Notes: In the interests of openness and fairness, I would point out that Daniel Büchner has been my good friend for over 20 years. When he approached me with the offer of a Bandee: in return for a review here, we agreed that no matter what I thought of the product - good or bad - I would give it a full and fair review.

Daniel has also asked me to point out that while the Curach Bhán Bandee: is exclusively available through his website, Bandee: is an independent company with many different styles and designs offered: here.

Find Currach Bhán on Facebook: here

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

Review: Gathering Time: Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland

2012-01-03T13:20:00.001Z

Alasdair Whittle, Frances Healy, & Alex Bayliss. Oxbow books, Oxford, 2011. 2 Volumes, xxxviii+992pp. ISBN 978-1-84217-425-8. £45 (via Oxbow) or £50.07 (via Amazon).

For anyone with an interest in Irish and British prehistory and, specifically how the chronologies are assembled through radiocarbon dating, the publication of Gathering Time: Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland has been long anticipated and much, much desired. It is hard to overstate the importance of this book and how it has already rewritten our understanding of Neolithic enclosures, but it also stands as a template for other intensive studies to follow and emulate. The central importance of this study is not simply that it uses a lot of new radiocarbon dates for various sites, but it is how this data is treated and processed on such a large scale that is already leading to new and exciting insights into prehistory. As many readers of this blog, both professional archaeologists and enthusiasts, will be aware, the advance of absolute chronologies in archaeology has, in large part, been due to the development of radiocarbon dating. Prior to the seminal work carried out by Willard Libby and his team (James Arnold and Ernie Anderson), archaeological sites and were only datable through relative chronological means, such as seriation etc. In 1960 Libby, Arnold and Anderson won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their work on radiocarbon dating. The basis of the method was that the measurement of the amount of the radioactive isotope carbon 14 (¹⁴C) surviving in a sample could be utilised to determine when, say, a piece of wood had been cut or grain harvested. These early dates relied on the assumption that the amount of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere had remained constant throughout history and, as the discipline was in its infancy, the associated standard deviations were also quite large. Over the years parallel advances in calibration of dates against tree ring curves, more sophisticated methods and machinery, along with increased care and refinement in the selection of materials and samples has led to better results. Today radiocarbon determinations have better accuracy and precision than ever before. Nonetheless, even with careful sample selection and the use of high-quality AMS dating, there is still the possibility that, when calibrated, the date will range over several decades to centuries. Since the 1990s a number of researchers have explored and developed a statistical system known as Bayesian modelling. The approach derives from the ideas of Thomas Bayes, an 18^th century Presbyterian minister and mathematician. Simply put, this method allows the calculation of how the degree of belief in a given proposition changes due to additional evidence. In archaeological terms, the application of Bayesian modelling allows the refinement of radiocarbon dates through the addition of contextual information. Such information may include multiple dates for individual deposits, stratigraphic relationships, or even closely datable artefacts such as coins or pottery. To take an example from my own experience: at Gransha, Co Londonderry, I excavated a small pit group. A radiocarbon date from charcoal recovered from one of the feature the indicated that it had been deposited in the Early Neolithic period (4930±70 BP), but the date range was some 405 calibrated years (3943-3538 cal BC). As part of the INSTAR Cultivating Societies project at QUB additional radiocarbon dates were commissioned and then modelled by Rick Schulting and Paula Reimer (Chapple 2008, Appendix 7). The end result was that the potential lifespan of the site was reduced from 405 years to 0-50 years – a vast improvement on the earlier result from a single radiocarbon date. [Introductions to Bayesian modelling may be found here and here].

What Gathering Time set out to do was exactly like the example above, but on an enormous scale. Not only was the aim to produce robust chronologies for individual sites, but to then place them in wider chronologies and within their geographic and typological settings. The book presents 871 radiocarbon dates from nearly 40 causewayed enclosures. To assess how causewayed enclosures functioned as part of the wider Neolithic landscape and society models were also prepared for a range of monument types, including long cairns and long barrows. This brings the total analysed radiocarbon dates to a startling 2350. As such it is the largest Bayesian modelling project ever undertaken. The central findings of the project are that the main period of causewayed enclosure construction lasted from the late 38^th century cal BC to the mid-to-late 36^th century cal BC. Although a number of sites had an active life of several centuries, many were used for relatively shorter periods – some for only a matter of decades. When this data is incorporated into wider models, encompassing the entirety of the evidence, it is shown that the causewayed enclosures only appeared three centuries after the first Neolithic practices were established in southern Britain. The process of ‘Neolithisation’ is shown to have begun in south-eastern England and spread regionally over two centuries.

Chapter 1, ‘Gathering time: causewayed enclosure and the early Neolithic of southern Britain and of Ireland’ (Whittle, Healy, & Bayliss) addresses questions of time and chronological resolution, along with a presentation of causewayed enclosures and the history of their research. Chapter 2, ‘Towards generational timescales: the quantitative interpretation of archaeological chronologies’ (Bayliss, van der Plicht, Bronk Ramsey, McCormac, Healy, & Whittle) provides an introduction to Bayesian modelling and the project methodology. In particular, it examines the necessary prerequisites for successful implementation of the Bayesian approach – from prior knowledge about sample data (taphonomy, association, stratigraphy etc.) to the tacit statistical assumptions involved in this form of model building.

For the purposes of this project, southern Britain has been divided into what the authors describe as ‘pragmatically defined regions’. Chapters 3-11, each deal with the enclosures of a southern British region and place them in the context of contemporary Neolithic activity. In each of these chapters models are presented, along with a review of the broader implications of the new chronologies. In Chapter 3, ‘The north Wiltshire Downs’ (Whittle, Bayliss, & Healy) Windmill Hill, Knap Hill, and Rybury are examined. Chapter 4, ‘South Wessex’ (Healy, Bayliss, Whittle, Allen, Mercer, Rawlings, Sharples, & Thomas) looks at Hambledon Hill, Whitesheet Hill, Maiden Castle, and Robin Hood’s Ball. Chapter 5, ‘Sussex’ (Healy, Bayliss, & Whittle) presents Whitehawk Camp, Offham Hill, Combe Hill, The Trundle, Bury Hill, Court Hill, Barkhale, and Halnaker Hill. Chapter 6, ‘Eastern England’ (Healy, Bayliss, Whittle, Prior, French, Allen, Evans, Edmonds, Meadows, & Hey) is divided into five sub regions: The Chilterns (Maiden Bower); The Great Ouse catchment (Great Wilbraham, & Haddenham); The Nene Valley (Briar Hill); The Lower Welland Valley (Etton, Etton Woodgate, & Northborough); and East of the Fens. Chapter 7, ‘The Greater Thames estuary’ (Bayliss, Allen, Healy, Whittle, Germany, Griffiths, Hamilton, Higham, Meadows, Shand, Stevens, & Wysocki) presents Lodge Farm, St. Osyth, Orsett, The Essex side of the Thames estuary, Kingsborough 1 and 2, Chalk Hill, The Kent side of the Thames estuary, and The Thames Estuary and Beyond. Chapter 8, ‘The Thames Valley’ (Healy, Whittle, Bayliss, Hey, Robertson-Mackay, Allen, & Ford) presents Yeoveney Lodge Farm, Staines, Eton Wick, Gatehampton Farm, Goring, and Abingdon. Chapter 9, ‘The Cotswolds’ (Dixon, Whittle, Bayliss, Hey, & Darvill) examines Crickley Hill and Peak Camp. Chapter 10, ‘The south-west peninsula’ (Whittle, Bayliss, Healy, Mercer, Jones, & Todd) presents examinations of Membury, Hembury, Raddon Hill, Helman Tor, and Carn Brea. Chapter 11 (in volume 2), ‘The Marches, south Wales and the Isle of Man’ (Bayliss, Whittle, Healy, Ray, Dorling, Lewis, Darvill, Wainwright, & Wysocki) looks at the sites of Hill Croft Field, Beach Court Farm, Ewenny, Banc Du, and Billown. Chapter 12 ‘Ireland’ (Cooney, Bayliss, Healy, Whittle, Danaher, Cagney, Mallory, Smith, Kador, & O’Sullivan) deals in the same way as each of the above regions, but with the island of Ireland as a whole. The examination of dates from the Donegore Hill and Magheraboy causewayed enclosures, along with a host of associated determinations, allows the authors to argue that the Neolithic in Ireland began around 3800 cal BC. The general conclusion of these chapters is that there is no precedent for the majority of the elements that define the Early Neolithic in the preceding Mesolithic. These innovations include the domestication of animals, cereal cultivation, rectangular timber structures, bowl pottery etc. The authors conclude that these elements of Neolithic life first appear in the Greater Thames estuary during the 41^st century cal BC. From there the process of Neolithisation spreads slowly into southern and eastern England, then west into Wales and the Marches by 3700 cal BC. The early dates from domesticated cattle bones at Ferriter’s Cove, Co. Kerry, have been taken to suggest that Neolithic migrants had unsuccessfully attempted to colonise Ireland, ahead of the later Thames estuary venture. The remarkably early dates from the Magheraboy, Co. Sligo, enclosure (40^th to 39^th centuries cal BC) are difficult to accommodate within the available models. Not only are they significantly earlier than the English examples, but they predate the emergence of other Neolithic practices on the island from the late 39^th to early 38^th centuries cal BC. Based on the totality of the evidence, it is argued that the Neolithic way of life was first introduced to Britain and Ireland from the near Continent. Similarities in bone and cereal assemblages suggest a number of possible points of origin, including: Brittany, Normandy, Calais, the Paris Basin, Flanders, and the southern Netherlands. One of the models advanced suggests that numerous small-scale migrations occurred from multiple departure points, over the course of 200-300 years. Another proposes a near-simultaneous, large-scale emigration from the Continent, while a third is a combination of the two with a small number of pioneers, followed by larger numbers over time. While the authors examine all of these scenarios in detail, their preferred explanation is of a relatively small ‘founder pool’ of migrants crossing from the Calais region into the Thames estuary and south-eastern England. Rather than a large-scale influx of people, the authors argue for rapid acculturation of the native population, especially from the 39^th century cal BC; though they do allow for further waves of Continental migrants coming across the English Channel.

Chapter 13, ‘Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope values of animals and humans from causewayed enclosures’ (Hamilton, & Hedges) was, essentially, a sub-project within the greater whole. The aims of this work were to document isotopic variation as thoroughly as possible; to measure the average range of human δ¹⁵N values from causewayed enclosures and compare them to the available data from chambered tombs; and to measure the differences in human and animal δ¹⁵N values. The authors conclude that results from the causewayed enclosures fit the emerging pattern for the whole of the Neolithic in southern Britain. Analysis of the animal remains indicated that the values for cattle, sheep, and pig differ consistently across all sites. In particular, pigs showed elevated δ¹³C values, which is interpreted as evidence for foddering in wildwood resources. Pigs also displayed slightly elevated δ¹⁵N values relative to cattle and sheep, but not of the order present in later assemblages. This is taken to suggest that a different management regime was in place during the Early Neolithic. Analysis of the human-faunal difference is interpreted as evidence for a high proportion of animal protein (either meat or dairy) in the diet. Chapter 14, ‘Neolithic narratives: British and Irish enclosures in their timescapes’ (Bayliss, Healy, Whittle, & Cooney) attempts to ‘weave narratives out of the chronological threads spun from the models constructed in the course of the regional discussions’. This is an extremely complex and involved chapter that, I am sure, will be the basis for discussion and debate for some time to come. The central conclusion of the chapter is that while ‘all models are wrong’ the intensive work on the Bayesian models and various alternative approaches, all showing similar results, may reassure us that the results are not ‘importantly wrong’. Even so, the authors make it explicit that the models presented here are not definitive, but are their preferred interpretations, based on the quality of the data available. Chapter 15, ‘Gathering time: the social dynamics of change’ (Whittle, Bayliss, & Healy) attempts to bring the evidence for the entire range of Early Neolithic life experiences together, moving beyond the enclosures to the transfer of artefacts and the husbandry and slaughter of livestock etc. In particular, the new chronological framework that the project has revealed allows a series of different timescales to be examined. These include the scales of generation, lifetime, active social memory, and longer-term structures like myth and story. Finally, the authors suggest that we are now at a point where the term ‘prehistory’ may be usefully abandoned. While terms such as ‘(pre)history’, and ‘protohistorie’ are rejected, alternative titles are proposed: ‘total history’, ‘absolute history’, and ‘total archaeology’. A final appendix, ‘Some unanswered research questions for southern British enclosures’ (Healy, Whittle, & Bayliss) give a succinct list of questions, the answers to which would greatly add to our understanding of the individual sites mentioned, and aid in further refining the author’s models.

The debate as to the function of causewayed enclosures has been around for some time and the authors examine the possibilities, from places of assembly to defuse tensions between rival groups keen to exploit the same limited resources, to places of political and dynastic ritual where access was granted only to a privileged few. However, no amount of dates and chronological refinements can elucidate the meanings that these sites had to their creators and those who witnessed and partook in the ceremonies carried out there. Nonetheless, analysis of the dates does suggest that they were constructed in three defined phases from an experimental start where a range of shapes and sizes of enclosures were attempted. This was followed by a rapid expansion of the numbers of enclosures being constructed, increasingly to a common template. Finally, small communities built their own enclosures to express their own independent identities. The authors admit that the precision with which we may now examine the commencement of the causewayed enclosure phenomenon is not replicated in how we understand their demise. They appear to have been abandoned, but not wholly forgotten. They frequently survived in the landscape, sometimes reused and with their ditches recut. As I said at the beginning, the importance of this work is not simply that it has forced a large-scale rewriting of the process of Neolithisation and presented us with a fine-grained chronology of the period, but that it now serves as a template for other researchers to follow. Whether they study other geographical areas or different time periods, Gathering Time now shows the way forward to us all.

Notes: 1) Robert M Chapple wishes to acknowledge the financial assistance provided under the Built Heritage element of the Environment Fund by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht towards the Irish Radiocarbon & Dendrochronological Dates project [IR&DD Facebook Page].

2) I am indebted to Christopher Catling’s (2011) review of Gathering Time for helping me make sense of this vast amount of data.

References:

Catling, C. 2011 ‘Gathering Time: The Second Radiocarbon Revolution’ Current Archaeology 259, 12-19.

Chapple, R. M. 2008 ‘The excavation of Early Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites at Oakgrove, Gransha, county Londonderry’ Ulster Journal of Archaeology (3^rd Series) 67, 22-59.

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

Review: The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland. Revised Edition.

2011-12-21T17:01:00.001Z

John Waddell. Wordwell, Dublin, 2010. 435pp. Black & White illustrations and plates throughout. ISBN 978-1-905569-47-5. €40 (via Wordwell) or £40 (via Amazon).

[**If you like this post, please visit one or two of the advertisement links on this page to help generate a little income for the site. If you think the review is useful, please re-share via Facebook, Google+, Twitter etc.**]

This 2010 volume describes itself as the ‘Revised Edition’, building on the 1998 first edition (published by Galway University Press), and the 2000 second edition (published by Wordwell). Inevitably, it is already known within the Irish archaeological world as the third edition. Before I began this review, I went back and re-read Tom Condit’s (1998) assessment of the first edition in Archaeology Ireland. I wanted to get a feeling for how the work was perceived at the time and how this latest edition either continues those initial observations, or deviates from them.

In the first instance, Condit sees the volume as joining an ‘impressive suite of recent textbooks’. These are given as Herity & Eogan’s Ireland in Prehistory (1977); Harbison’s Pre-Christian Ireland (1988); O’Kelly’s Early Ireland (1989); Mallory & McNeill’s The Archaeology of Ulster (1991); Cooney & Grogan’s Irish Prehistory – a social perspective (1994); Pagan Celtic Ireland by Raftery (1994); and Mitchell & Ryan’s Reading the Irish Landscape (1997). As is the way of such things, books pass from being relevant first-port-of-call research resources into relative obscurity as the newer generation of volumes pushes forward. It is merely a personal opinion, but I would suggest that with the possible exception of the last two books (Pagan Celtic Ireland and Reading the Irish Landscape), the time of the volumes on that list has come and gone. As I say, this is neither a slight on the books, nor their authors, but simply the progressive nature of research. While a contemporary of these volumes, The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland has established itself as the textbook of choice for the archaeology undergraduate and the professional classes. Inevitably, in the time since its original publication, other contenders have come forward. Chief among them are Malone’s Neolithic Britain and Ireland (2001) and Bradley’s The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland (2007). While Neolithic Britain and Ireland, at least, has much to recommend it, neither of these works has ever been a serious contender to displace The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland.

In his preface to the work, Waddell explains how, in the 1st edition, he attempted to use the emerging body of radiocarbon dates to dispense with the ‘antiquated’ Three-Age system and such terminology as ‘Mesolithic’, ‘Neolithic’, ‘Bronze Age’, and ‘Iron Age’. He has now come to realise that, despite its inadequacies, it ‘stubbornly refuses to die’. I would argue that the reason for its longevity is precisely because it continues to present a valuable conceptual apparatus for examining and discussing our past – but that is another matter. While he claims to ‘some reluctance’, he includes a broad chronological periodisation, though a similar chronology was included in the introduction of the 2nd edition. After the expected listing of important publications from both the university and commercial sectors that have necessitated a new edition, Waddell launches a number of broadsides against the current state of university education in archaeology, the State licensing and oversight system, and the practices of the commercial excavation sector. While not all readers would agree with all of his points, I feel that they should be recommended reading (and discussion topics) for every archaeologist; student, professional and enthusiast.

Readers will note that the introduction to the earlier editions (A short history of prehistoric archaeology in Ireland) does not appear in the new edition. This is because Waddell developed the chapter into a full book in its own right. Foundation Myths: The beginnings of Irish archaeology (2005) is a superb investigation into the origin and development of archaeology in Ireland from mythological tales and the works of early antiquarians, through to the professional archaeologists of the early and mid-20th century. As an aside, I would also recommend Foundation Myths as an exemplary read.

Chapter 1, ‘Postglacial Ireland: The first colonists' examines the earliest evidence for the first humans to arrive in Ireland. The various Palaeolithic finds from Ireland are assessed and dismissed and a brief sketch of the climate and appearance of the postglacial landscape is presented. As in previous works, there is justifiable dominance given to the Early Mesolithic evidence from Mount Sandel, Co. Londonderry, and Lough Boora, Co. Offaly. The Late Mesolithic evidence also hits all the expected sites, and includes more recent discoveries at Ferriter’s Cove, Co. Kerry, Clownastown, Co. Meath, and Hermitage, Co. Limerick. Chapter 2, ‘Farmers of the Fourth Millennium’ describes Neolithic life in terms of settlements, pottery, lithics and organic materials. As an aside, I would add that Waddell’s referencing, however briefly, the excavation of three Neolithic houses at Ballintaggart fulfils a long-held personal ambition of being included in this volume! (buy BAR 479 here!) Chapter 3, ‘The Cult of the Dead’ examines passage tombs (with particular reference to the Boyne Valley, Loughcrew, Carrowkeel, and Carrowmore cemeteries), burial ritual, grave goods and passage tomb art. This is followed by succinct expositions on court tombs, portal tombs, wedge tombs, Linkardstown graves and other forms of burial. Chapter 4, ‘Sacred Circles and New Technology’ describes the evidence for the transition from the Late Neolithic into the Bronze Age. Subsections within the chapter include Beaker pottery and burials, settlement and economy, new metalworking technologies, and cemeteries. As is to be expected from a specialist in Bronze Age pottery, the sections dealing with bowls, vases, and urns is especially thorough. Chapter 5, ‘Enigmatic monuments’ examines the phenomena of rock art, stone circles, alignments, standing stones, and burnt mounds. Chapter 6, ‘Bronze and gold and Power: 1600-1000 BC’ presents the evidence for the bronze and gold metalwork of the Kilmaddy, Bishopsland, and Roscommon Phases; along with the evidence for ‘settlement, economy and Society 1600-1000 BC’. Chapter 7, ‘The Consolidation of Wealth and Status: 1000-600 BC’ presents the metalwork of the Dowris Phase, through the buckets, cauldrons, horns, and crotals and into the weaponry: swords, chapes, spears, and shields. The goldwork is then presented: dress-fasteners, lock-rings, hair-rings, ring-money, bullae, and bracelets. The evidence for regionality during the Dowris is examined and followed by an examination of the more enigmatic artefact types. The latter include ‘boxes’, ear-spools, hats and pins. Short sections are dedicated to the topics of ‘the Atlantic seaways’ and ‘amber and the Nordic question’. Bronze tools and implements are detailed, with particular emphasis being placed on the socketed axes. The final portion of the chapter examines ‘Settlement and Society 1000-600 BC’ and is chiefly composed of brief synopses of major sites, including Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone, Mooghaun, co. Clare, and Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Chapter 8, ‘From Bronze to Iron’ examines the earliest evidence for iron working and is followed by a section assessing this transitional period in terms of ‘Discontinuity and Change or Continuity an Innovation?’. The author treats briefly of ‘The Problem of the Celts’, and how the archaeological record may be interpreted in terms of linguistic and DNA evidence. The major hoards of the period are examined (Knock, Somerset, and Broighter) and are followed by a significant section on horse harnesses and related artefact types. Further sections examine weaponry, personal ornaments, along with discs, horns and solar symbols. Chapter 9, ‘Elusive Settlements and Ritual Sites’ presents the comparatively meagre, but growing, evidence for Iron Age society and religion. Subsections include detailed presentations on quern stones, wooden and bronze vessels, Royal sites and large enclosure in Later Prehistory (with dedicated sections on Tara, Co. Meath; Navan, Co. Armagh; Knockaulin, Co. Kildare; and Rathcroghan, Co. Roscommon), The Hillfort Problem, linear earthworks, along with ‘cult, sacrifice and burial’. Chapter 10, ‘Protohistory’ briefly assays the impact of the Roman world on this island. He concludes that the traditional claim that Ireland was somehow aloof and insulated from the influences of Rome can no longer be sustained.

Condit took issue with Waddell’s use of chapter endnotes to present the bibliographical information, and suggested that the standard Harvard system was preferable. This has been rectified in the Revised Edition and a conventional Harvard system is applied throughout. Unfortunately, the endnotes have been eliminated in their entirety. While following up on published references is now (arguably) easier than before, the wealth of additional information not suitable for the main text (including detailed references to radiocarbon determinations) has all been swept away. I cannot pretend that I am anything but disappointed by this development.

In a previous blog post I passingly described The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland as ‘magisterial’, and I stand by that assessment. Condit’s review of the first edition described the organisation of the books as ‘old fashioned’ in that the subject matter is organised ‘in a linear style, a straightforward exposition of material which can be grouped to provide an assemblage of comparative information in chronological order’. I, however, see this as one of the strengths and attractions of the work (in all its editions) – the available evidence is clearly and concisely presented without any explicit theoretical framework being applied to it. Obviously, there are those who will see the lack of an unequivocal theoretical bias as a fault in the work – I am not among this number. On a superficial level I would express some concern that a book that has obviously incorporated so much new material has only increased its page count by two (1^st & 2nd edns: 433pp vs. 3rd edn: 435pp). However, even in the preface to the first edition Waddell acknowledged that a trawl of the available published literature, of necessity, required significant skills of selection and editing. Thus, I find little to fear in the inevitable consequence that the some sections have been shortened to accommodate new material. I do have two significant criticisms of the new edition, and neither has anything to do with the contents or their selection. In comparing the 2nd and 3rd editions I immediately noticed that there was a significant difference in the thicknesses of the two. The 2nd edition measures c.30mm, while the new volume measures c.21mm. It was this observation that first led me to examine the page count, presuming that the new edition was much shorter. The solution is quite prosaic: the new edition is printed on thinner, lighter-grade paper. In a photograph I took for the IR&DD Facebook page soon after the book was delivered, the cover may be clearly seen, already starting to curl. This is not a trivial matter for two of the largest user-groups of this volume: archaeology students and professional field archaeologists. In my own case, my copy of the 2nd edition has been on practically every site I’ve worked on since its publication in 2000. For a lot of the remainder of that time it has knocked about in the back of my car or been a constant presence on my desk, being repeatedly thumbed through for both parallels and (occasionally) some recreational reading. It has even accompanied me on family holidays across Europe, Turkey, Crete, and (I think) Egypt. Despite this catalogue of abusive travel and research, my copy is in pretty reasonable condition and I should fully expect that it will last at least another decade. While the average archaeology undergraduate may not quite subject their copies to such extremes, they will still require a physically robust textbook. My fear is that the new edition will simply not stand up to the material demands that may be justifiably made of it. My second major criticism of the new edition is that it is without an index [Note: see author's update in the comments section, below]. In such a work as this, a comprehensive index is an essential component of its utility, and I can only feel that it is diminished by its absence. In all honesty, I feel uncomfortable criticising the publishers of this volume. Over the years Wordwell have emerged as the major publisher of Irish archaeology texts of all kinds, and their name has become synonymous with high-quality products. Unfortunately, I feel that they have, in this instance, failed to live up to their reputation. I hope that Wordwell reconsider these production decisions and for future reprints and editions commission a new index and print on more robust materials.

Even taking account of these criticisms, the current edition of The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland is a masterwork and must be heartily recommended to all students of Irish prehistory – undergraduates and professionals alike. Condit, in his original review, justifiably takes issue with the choice of title for the book. While he recognised that there were only so many possible permutations of the words ‘prehistory’ and ‘archaeology’ to go round, he took the title to imply that it was concerned with archaeology in prehistoric times. I admit that I have never found the title completely satisfying, but I do think it significant that the book has so embedded itself into the collective consciousness of Irish archaeology that no one even raises it as an issue any more. Perhaps even more significantly, for a large part of those involved in archaeology on this island, the original title is not used at all – it is simply referred to as ‘Waddell’. To my mind, this has the unintended consequence of reducing the perceived importance of his significant body of publications. Nonetheless, it is ample testament to the preeminent place that both this book and its author hold in Irish archaeology. No matter how great or small your collection of books on Irish archaeology may be – it is simply incomplete without this volume being a part of it.

Note: Robert M Chapple wishes to acknowledge the financial assistance provided under the Built Heritage element of the Environment Fund by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht towards the Irish Radiocarbon & Dendrochronological Dates project [IR&DD Facebook Page].

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

Reference:

Condit, T. 1998 ‘The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland [Review]’ Archaeology Ireland 12.2, 38.

Review: Past Times, Changing Fortunes: Proceedings of a Public Seminar on Archaeological Discoveries on National Road Schemes, August 2010

2011-11-27T14:07:00.001Z

Sheelagh Conran, Ed Danaher & Michael Stanley (eds.). National Roads Authority, Dublin, 2011. 170pp. Colour illustrations and plates throughout. ISBN 978-0-9564180-5-0. ISSN 1694-3540. €25.

This is the eighth instalment of the ‘Archaeology and the National Roads Authority Monograph Series’ and presents the results of nine papers given at a public seminar held at the Gresham Hotel, Dublin, in 2010. Despite such opulent surroundings, the theme for the seminar was more in keeping with current economic concerns of the vicissitudes of life and wealth – never let it be said that archaeologists are disconnected from the modern world around us! As I noted in my review of the preceding monograph, Creative Minds, the focus is less on individual sites and more towards the creation of syntheses based on a broad range of data from various road schemes.

In the first paper of the volume, Souterrains, social stress and Viking wars in north county Louth, Niall Roycroft presents a model of ‘crash and crisis’ from the first arrival of the Vikings in 795 AD to end of an initial raiding ‘blitz’ in 833 AD. This was followed by an uneasy peace until c. 921 AD. He argues that the radiocarbon dates from excavated souterrains at Newtownbalregan 6 and Tateetra 1 fall in the period from 800 AD to 1000 AD, when the Viking raiders were at their most ferocious and active. Roycroft argues that the souterrains of north Louth may be divided into two types: ‘double entrance’ and ‘single entrance’ types. Of these, he sees the ‘double entrance’ type as the earlier response to attack, allowing escape from the rath enclosure. The, apparently, later ‘single entrance’ type, Roycroft argues, were intended as refuges for the local community. He goes on to delineate the three zones of these ‘single entrance’/’refuge souterrains’: entrance zone, security zone, and end zone. He also presents brief sets of comments on aspects of souterrain usage such as air supply and drainage, lighting and alcoves. In what I can only believe future generations of archaeologists will regard as ‘Roycroftian Whimsy’, he suggests that the secondary entrance to the Newtownbalregan 6 souterrain is ‘reminiscent of ‘chutes’ used for posting dogs down into animal-baiting pits’. While locking terriers into a souterrain may have provided an additional layer of security, I fail to see how it would necessitate providing them with their own dedicated entrance. Similarly, his suggestion that the large alcove at Newtownbalregan was used to house multiple lamps, intended to light the reused megalithic art half way down the chamber, is (to my mind) stretching the evidence to breaking point and beyond. While souterrains today may be ‘dark and silent’ and provide the exploring archaeologist with a ‘moving and memorable experience’, I doubt that they would have been so when they were at the heart of a bustling farming operation. To push the point further and suggest that they played some role in coming-of-age rituals is, to me, lacking both merit and supporting evidence. Roycroft seems perfectly happy to accept other pieces of reused decorated stone at Tateerra as simply the result of robbing out older monuments, so why not Newtownbalregan 6? Whatever one’s position on many of Roycroft’s spirited suggestions, they are certainly thought provoking and, even in disagreeing with him, force a careful re-evaluation of the evidence – I look forward to disagreeing with him at length in future!

Joanne Hughes & Mícheál Ó Droma present Finding the plot: urban and rural settlement in 13^th-century Cashel, Co. Tipperary. In this paper they chart the development of Cashel town and how ecclesiastical influence changed and moulded this progression. All this is all placed within the context of the rural Medieval settlement discovered at Monadreela during the construction of the Cashel Bypass. While the section on urban Cashel in the 13^th century is necessarily brief, it eloquently states the current state of knowledge on the town. ‘Life in rural cashel in the 13^th century’ presents the Monadreela complex. This rural settlement occupied a portion of the eastern hinterland of Cashel town. The earliest evidence suggests that the site began life with a single long house and grew to include several domestic dwellings, all within their own defined plots. The recovery of charred grain and chaff indicates that cereal processing was carried out on site. Such evidence also complements the findings from within the town of chaff-less cereals, suggesting that winnowing had been undertaken outside the walls. Hughes and Ó Droma see the Monadreela settlement as having developed in the early 13^th century to cater for the development boom ongoing in Cashel town. By the early 14^th century, at the latest, the settlement was defunct and Cashel had gone into a prolonged period of decline and stagnation. The authors identify the causes of this decline as a combination of the impacts of the Bruce Wars, the Black Death, and worsening climatic conditions – factors which all impacted heavily on other urban centres at this time. The illustrations that accompany this paper highlight the potential for the discovery of unexpected archaeological sites on road schemes, but also the frustrations in not being able to extend the excavated area to get a fuller picture of the site. I can only hope that future work, both geophysical prospection and archaeological excavation, can be deployed to explore more of this fascinating site.

In Profiting from the land: mixed fortunes in the historic landscapes of north Cork, Ken Hanley describes “some embryonic attempts” to apply the methods of Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) to road impact assessments. He first presents an intriguing and thought provoking definition of what a landscape actually is, followed by an explanation of the processed of HLC and how it may be applied to road schemes. Hanley’s study area is the M20 section from Buttevant to Mallow in county Cork. While space does not permit a full assessment of the specific results from this project (go buy the book from Wordwell), Hanley provides an evaluation of the HLC method itself. He sees it as a means by which the landscape as it exists today may be meaningfully characterised, but that it is not by any means definitive in describing the full panoply of human interactions with the land from the prehistoric to the modern periods. In particular, the value of HLC is seen in the description of the later historic period, as opposed to earlier periods of human history. The author also comments on methodological issues regarding both the scale of the study areas chosen and the focus of such projects (future-oriented planning vs. purely archaeological/historical applications). While the M20 HLC study is still ongoing, Hanley argues that it allows a ‘much richer and textured understanding of the receiving historical landscape’. In particular, he sees it as a useful tool in exploring issues of land colonisation and field system evolution.

Karen Molloy & Michael O’Connell present Boom and bust or sustained development? Fossil pollen records and new insights into Bronze Age farming in County Clare. They report on investigations into pollen cores from Caheraphuca Bog and Caheraphuca Lough, near Crusheen, county Clare, taken as part of the Gort to Crusheen portion of the M18 project. After a thorough description of the methodology, the results are presented along with a reconstruction of the long-term environmental change in the area. The model presented shows full woodland cover in existence from the earliest portion of the core (c. 6000 BC), with no evidence for the presence of Mesolithic populations. The Elm Decline is noted and dated to 3850-3550 BC. While two chert artefacts of Neolithic date were recovered during the excavation of the Caheraphuca 3 burnt mound, there is no evidence for Landnam woodland clearance, so typical of other regions such as at the Céide Fields complex in north Mayo. The palynological data suggests that during the Early/Middle Bronze Age (2400-1200 BC) the economy centred on pastoral farming, with only a minor arable component. The picture is by no means static, and intensive farming activity is noted in the middle and at the beginning of the period, with corresponding lulls between the two and at the end of the era. Large-scale woodland clearance is indicated during the Middle/Late Bronze Age (1200-950 BC). The recovery of micro-charcoal is taken to indicate the frequent occurrence of fires, but at some distance from the lake. It is suggested that one of the sources for this charcoal was the numerous burnt mounds in the general vicinity. Finally, in the Final Bronze Age to Middle Iron Age (950-130 BC) woodland regeneration begins but is limited by human activity until around 650 BC. The pollen diagram suggests a collapse of the farming economy for two centuries after this point.

Based on the large numbers of cereal-drying kilns discovered on NRA projects, Scott Timpany, Orla Power & Mick Monk examine Agricultural boom and bust in medieval Ireland: plant macrofossil evidence from kiln sites along the N9/N10 in County Kildare. The authors begin with a lesson on the anatomy and function of the kiln form, followed by an assessment of the 25 dated examples from the N9/N10 project. The authors stress the importance of choosing short-lived species to create a robust chronology. Only four were dated from charcoal, three were dated on nut shell fragments, and the remaining 18 were all on charred grain. The results of this dating programme indicate that while individual kilns date from c. 100 AD to c. 1500 AD, the concentration is from c. 300 AD to c. 1000 AD, with a defined peak around 500 AD. When morphological factors are fed back into this model it becomes clear that the earliest form was the oblong kiln. Figure-of-eight kilns begin to be constructed from c. 200 AD to c. 500 AD. After a dip around c. 600 AD, they continue in use until c. 900 AD. The keyhole kiln appears to be used throughout this period, from c. 200 AD to c. 1400 AD. An examination of the recovered grain types, plotted against age, is also of interest. This shows wheat to have been popular from c. 300 AD to c. 800 AD; oats from c. 600 AD to c. 1000 AD; and while it went through several highs and lows in popularity, barley remained a constant feature from c. 200 AD to c. 1400 AD. Looking at the broader picture, the authors see a ‘boom’ in kiln use (especially the figure-of-eight variety) in the Early Christian period and a concentration on the production of barley. They see a corresponding ‘bust’ centred on c. 1000 AD, though the decline would appear to have begun nearly two centuries previously. Compared to a graph of dated cereal-drying kilns from across Ireland the data fits well with a defined trough around 1000 AD, though again the decline may have begun as early as c. 800 AD. This island-wide graph is then compared to climatic data, including dendrochronological, tephrachronological, palaeohydrological, and palynological records, along with evidence from testate amoebae records, but shows little convincing parallels to explain the rising and falling popularity of kilns. The authors next examine the possibility of social change as a factor in kiln-use and evolution. They suggest that the decline in the prevalence of the figure-of-eight kiln in favour of the keyhole kiln may be related to a move towards more centralised, larger-scale farming enterprises. Also, the longer flue of the keyhole kilns meant that they were less susceptible to accidental fire. This is in harmony with a number of points raised by Finbar McCormick at the recent INSTAR conference where centralised mills overtake the use of quern stones in the period after 800 AD, along with a collapse in the numbers of cereal-drying kilns. As I have stated in my review of the INSTAR conference, I think there is a case to be made for the church attempting to centralise the means of production and processing, further cementing their grip on the populace.

In Wax or wane? Insect perspectives on human environmental interactions Eileen Reilly sets out to examine aspects of woodland change, development of human habitation, settlement activity and landscape change, along with trade links and food storage. Her approach is to pick key findings from a number of sites investigated as part of NRA projects, and dating from the Neolithic to the Medieval period. In terms of woodland change, populations of beetles have diminished as woods have been destroyed to make way for open pasture. However, comparison with the British evidence indicates that forest clearance was on a different scale in Ireland and that the forest floors were cleared in such a way as to permanently alter living conditions for several species. At both rural and urban settlement sites ‘signature’ faunas of beetles have been identified, particularly associated with houses and stables. Interestingly, many of the species considered to be ‘house’ fauna are unlikely to have co-existed in nature, and with changes in building techniques and materials, many are now quite rare. Many new species appear to have been accidentally introduced into Ireland by human agency, including Bruchus rufimanus, the ‘broad-bean’ or ‘seed-been’ weevil. It is absent from Irish sites during the Early Christian period and only confined to urban centres during the Medieval period. Similarly, the wheat weevil (Sitophilus granarius) is believed to have appeared in Britain during the Roman period, though is unknown in Ireland before the 12th century.

Brendon Wilkins, in Examining death on the M6: 3500 BC to AD 1500, first poses the question of what may be learned from a study of the dead. He argues that the techniques of osteoarchaeology tell us more about the living person than the dead body: sex, diet, stature etc. An analysis of mortuary behaviour not only examines the behaviour of people towards the dead, but the place of the deceased within society. He highlights the concepts of primary and secondary burial rites and the distinctions between psychical and social death. With these categories in mind he examines the discovery of the Bronze Age pyre at Newford, county Galway. The pyre superstructure had been constructed above a large pit. During the firing process the partially burnt wood had tumbled into the pit. During excavation c. 700g of human bone was recovered from the feature. Wilkins argues that relatively little of the 1kg to 3kg of bone that may be expected from a cremated adult actually turns up in the archaeological record. Such ‘token cremation burials’ are frequently discovered at Middle and Late Bronze Age sites across the island. He suggests that if some of this bone was formally deposited in cremation pits on the site, the remainder may have been intended for non-funerary contexts. He argues that the remaining bone could have been used as a ‘social artefact’ intended for ceremonial exchange between different groups to cement relationships and the bonds of inheritance etc. While there is much to recommend this theory, not least as an explanation of why small amounts of human bone frequently turn up in non-funerary contexts, he does not propose an answer to why a substantial portion of a cremated individual was left in the pyre pit and never recovered. Wilkins’ second case study is the Early Christian cemetery-settlement at Carrowkeel, county Galway. As nearly 90% of the burials were of infants, juveniles and foetuses, it was initially assumed that they represented post-Medieval burial of the unbaptised in an Early Christian enclosure. However an ambitious programme of radiocarbon dating proved that this segregation of children’s burials dated to the period from 700 AD to 1100 AD. The author suggests that this segregation may have been a function of not seeing children as full members of society and that this diminution in status in their lives was paralleled with a similar treatment in death. In this context Wilkins sees the segregation of children in the Early Christian period as a precursor to the use of Cillíní/Children’s Burial Grounds in the post-Medieval period. Personally, I find the Carrowkeel site endlessly fascinating and it is another example where the remainder of the site, outside the boundary of the road take, could be targeted for further research.

Matthew Seaver presents Back to basics: contexts of human burial on Irish early medieval enclosed settlements. In this paper he attempts the gargantuan task of examining the range of practices for dealing with human remains on Early Christian enclosed settlements without clear evidence for churches. He presents what he terms a ‘crude model’ for burial in the Early Christian period where members of hierarchical social groups had a range of options as to how they disposed of their dead: from within their own family group’s enclosure to traditional, pre-Christian, burial places (ferta) to formal ecclesiastical sites, with many varieties in between. Seaver begins to draw out the complexities of choice of burial location and its complex cultural interactions with memory, tradition, power structures etc. To me this simply reinforces how much scholarship has progressed in this field over recent decades, when researchers were arguing over which set of criteria were necessary to identify a site as an ecclesiastical or secular burial ground. Indeed, Seaver’s thoughtful, nuanced and multi-faceted model could not even have been conceived of two decades ago – much less could we have contemplated a situation where it could be described as ‘crude’. He shows how there were myriad ways in which settlement sites could incorporate human bone, from full and formal burials to disarticulated pieces. Seaver argues that the processes governing the treatment of human remains were a complex amalgam of religious belief, local custom and regional tradition. These multifaceted considerations led in turn to an intricate matrix of representations that included: family crisis; boundary demarcation; age, gender or status considerations etc. In so far as I am aware, this is part of Seaver’s ongoing PhD thesis. From the evidence presented here, he has already made a significant contribution to our understanding of these sites and the processes surrounding death and burial. For my part, I look forward with anticipation to his further insights.

The final paper in the collection is by Catriona McKenzie & Eileen Murphy. They present Health in medieval Ireland: the evidence from Ballyhanna, Co. Donegal. The initial excavation of the site produced the remains of 1,301 individuals surrounding the remains of a small stone church. A truly impressive programme of AMS dating carried out by ¹⁴Chrono in Belfast has shown that although burial was initiated here in the 8^th and 9^th centuries AD, the vast majority of individuals were interred from the 13^th to the 16^th centuries. This research is part of the Ballyhanna Research Project, funded by the NRA. The mission of the project is the investigation of the Ballyhanna skeletal population through a variety of scientific techniques. The importance of the project lies in the size of the population – by far the largest Medieval population excavated in Ireland – and its meticulous study by osteoarchaeologists and related scientists. A further point of importance is that while other excavated populations come from areas under Anglo Norman control or influence (and are likely to contain both natives and newcomers), the Ballyhanna material is likely to exclusively contain the remains of the lower class Irish, an under-represented and under-studied portion of the population. The evidence presented indicates that just over half the adult population died before the age of 35 and that they were generally short in stature. The average height for an adult male at Ballyhanna was 167.1cm and 154.8cm for females. This is taken to suggest that, genetics aside; the population was probably poorly nourished during childhood. Examples of physiological stress within the population include cribra orbitalia, suggestive of a number of conditions, including chronic infections and a deficiency in vitamin B₁₂. Porotic hyperostosis is thought to be the result of haemolytic and megaloblastic anaemias resulting from deficiencies in vitamins B₁₂ and B₉. At Ballyhanna over 17% of adults presented with dental enamel hypoplasia, an indicator of non-specific physiological stress. While the evidence suggests that this was a poor and stressed population, this figure is well below the rates reported from other comparable populations; these ranged from c.36% at Ardreigh up to c.60% at St. Elizabeth’s Church. Tibial periosteal new bone formation may result from inflammation in infectious processes, direct trauma, or other physiological stress and occurred on c.11% of the population. This paper is but one of the outcomes of the Ballyhanna Research Project and a major monograph, incorporating all the strands of research, is expected in 2012.

As with the other volumes in this series, there is an appendix detailing the radiocarbon dates from the various sites discussed in the forgoing papers. This appendix lists 129 dates, 113 of which were new to the IR&DD catalogue. I have recently mentioned the recurring problem with the presentation of radiocarbon data from Beta Analytic Inc., and do not propose to bore the reader with it again. In the current volume a date from the souterrain at Tateetra 1, county Louth, (Beta-217960) is given as 1340±40 BP, but as 1350±40 BP in the NRA Database. While it is but a small discrepancy, it is sufficient to undermine confidence in both this individual date and for the dating of the site as a whole. Such a small criticism as this aside, the editors and contributors are to be congratulated for again producing a valuable and useful addition to our knowledge – long may it continue!

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

Billy Dunlop: An archaeological Legacy

2011-11-17T09:53:00.000Z

On the 15^th of September 2011 Billy Dunlop died. With his passing I, and many of the readers of this blog, lost a good friend, mentor, and stalwart of the Northern Irish archaeological scene. I have already recounted some details of his life and my memories of him and do not propose to do the same again. My reason in writing this piece is to place on record some events that have occurred since his death, which I think Billy would have heartily approved of.

Shortly after his passing, I got talking to his daughter, Maggie, who asked if I would be interested in taking some books from her father’s library. As a committed bibliophile, I jumped at the offer, even though Billy had already been incredibly generous in his gifts of books to me. After further discussions with his family, his good friend Ken and I agreed to assist in the dispersal of the remainder of his personal library to various charity shops. Ken took a number of car-loads to the National Trust book shop at Castle Ward. I took another, with the intention of dropping it to a bookshop in Ballyhackamore. As I was in transit an idea struck me. I thought about Billy’s fabulous generosity to me and others and how it may be more appropriate to first offer his books to archaeologists. I felt that by this method Billy’s books could go forward to inspire another generation of archaeologists, in ways similar to how he himself inspired so many.

That is why I didn’t stop at the bookshop, but instead continued home. With the indulgence of my wife, I took over the majority of the floor space of our library and attempted to sort them into rough piles by subject. The piles included British & Irish archaeology, Greek, Roman, Egyptology, but also large collections of poetry, gardening books, philosophy, bird watching, and literature too. I first put out a call to all the archaeologists I knew in the Belfast area, and later brought boxes to work to offer to colleagues there. I placed only two conditions on anyone wishing to take a book or two from the collection, and both were wholly voluntary. Firstly, I asked for a donation to go to The Down's Syndrome Association, NI, the preferred charity of the Dunlop family. Secondly, I asked if I could take a quick snapshot to go on this blog. So far I have collected around £100, the last of which will soon be handed over to the Dunlop family. I wanted the photographs to show the Dunlop family, and the archaeological community at large, that though Billy may be gone, his library will continue to entertain, educate and maybe even inspire.

I think that this was a better way to disperse his library thank simply dropping it off at a charity shop. While it has taken effort on my part (and patience on the part of my wife), I believe that Billy would have approved. I hope you do too. Finally, I would like to pay tribute to all who have taken the time to look through the collection and for their generosity to The Down's Syndrome Association, NI.

At the time of writing, I still have some volumes from Billy's library that are still looking for a good home, so please contact me if you would like to have a small memento of him. The book shop at Castle Ward will, I imagine, still have some of his books for sale - Billy signed practically every volume on the flyleaf, so there's no mistaking any that belonged to him. Alternately, The Down's Syndrome Association, NI is a wonderful charity that always needs help and support - even a small donation directly to them would help make someone's life a better and happier place to be.

Review: Creative Minds: Proceedings of a Public Seminar on Archaeological Discoveries on National Road Schemes, August 2009

2011-11-16T16:49:00.001Z

Michael Stanley, Ed Danaher & James Eogan (eds.). National Roads Authority, Dublin, 2010. 146pp. Colour illustrations and plates throughout. ISBN 978-0-9564180-2-9. ISSN 1694-3540. €25.

[**If you like this post, please visit one or two of the advertisement links on this page to help generate a little income for the site. If you think the review is useful, please re-share via Facebook, Google+, Twitter etc.**]

Creative Minds is the result of a 2009 public seminar on archaeological results from National Road Authority schemes in the Republic of Ireland. The volume is also the seventh in the ‘Archaeology and the National Roads Authority Monograph Series’ publications of conference papers. To anyone involved in Irish archaeology over the last decade, these volumes have become a staple source for the dissemination of the latest results and ideas on some of the major excavations of our times. It is inevitable that, with the completion of many road schemes, coupled with the general downturn in the economy, this volume should present more thematic overviews of entire road schemes, rather than the results of individual excavations. The volume is dedicated to the late Dáire O’Rourke, Head of Archaeology at the NRA from 2001 to 2010

The first paper in the volume is Farina Sternke’s ‘From boy to man: ‘rights’ of passage and the lithic assemblage from a Neolithic mound in Tullahedy, Co. Tipperary’. The author attempts to move beyond what she terms the ‘dry, technical pursuit’ of the analysis of lithic assemblages to gain deeper insights into the lives of our ancestors. The site at Tullahedy was an enclosed Neolithic settlement complex that had suffered from quarrying over the last two centuries. Despite this, five phases of occupation have been identified, beginning in the Middle Neolithic (3600-2900 BC) and running up to the working of the modern quarry. The recovered lithics (1691 items) comprise various cores, blades, flakes etc., along with 137 whole or fragmentary polished stone axe heads. The majority of the assemblage (87%) was chert, and the author makes the point that a corpus of this size is exceedingly rare in the southern portion of the island. The presence of artefacts and production processes at variance from the accepted forms led the author to speculate that they may be the work of apprentices. These include the numerous abandoned arrowhead fragments that appear to have broken during manufacture. Similarly, the recovered axe heads display remarkable defects: use of unsuitable raw materials, poor workmanship, and many would have broken at the first attempt to use them. The author sees the Tullahedy mound as a special place within the landscape, possibly a ritual centre where such ceremonies as rites of passage were conducted. While I remain to be fully convinced by all of the arguments and speculation presented, the assemblage is certainly intriguing and deserves further study. Richard O’Brien presents a general introduction to Spindle-whorls and hand-spinning in Ireland. Based on his MA research, he presents brief overviews on identifying and dating Irish spindle-whorls. This is followed by some observations on experiments with whorls. In his conclusions, O’Brien asks for better reporting of spindle-whorls in future excavation reports, especially the inclusion of weight data. In Clay and fire: the development and distribution of pottery traditions in prehistoric Ireland, Eoin Grogan and Helen Roche attempt to use the combined evidence from recent NRA excavations to reassess the chronology and development sequence for all Irish prehistoric pottery types. They also offer a review of the contexts and distribution of this material. They see pottery production as occurring at the local level of family or community, utilising locally available materials, and carried out by the more adept members of the group. They suggest that during the Early Bronze Age, in particular, there is evidence of specialised potters, producing higher quality funerary vessels. They suggest that the absence of both ‘practice pieces’ and children’s playthings may be explained in terms of a general taboo or long-standing restrictions associated with pottery production. They also raise the question of the almost complete absence of both human and animal representations from prehistoric pottery. They see the new data provided by the ‘Celtic Tiger’ building boom as both confirming known patterns of spatial distribution and human activity, and extending our of knowledge of the range and density of prehistoric settlement. Ellen OCarroll presents Ancient woodland use in the midlands: understanding environmental and landscape change through archaeological and palaeoecological techniques. The linking of archaeologically excavated evidence and palaeoenvironmental is demonstrated in a case study relating to the rath at Barronstown 1, Co. Meath. Excavation produced nearly 500 wood fragments, from artefacts to stakes and chippings. The identified samples included a range of species, but the assemblage was dominated by hazel, ash, oak, and yew. Further analysis, centred on pollen identification from the bases of the ditches provided a different picture. Here there were high levels of herbaceous taxa (including cereals), but low levels of tree pollen. This is in keeping with other research that suggests a major programme of deforestation from the later Iron Age onwards to provide viable farm land. The author then details her PhD project, funded by the NRA, to examine landscape and environmental change in the Irish midlands, through the medium of human interaction with woodlands. Initial findings from one of the pollen cores suggests large-scale clearance of the landscape from the Bronze Age onwards. Charcoal identifications from various sites along the N6 scheme show a domination of oak in the record, but with significant proportions of alder, ash, and hazel. In Reinventing the wheel: new evidence from Edercloon, Co. Longford, Caitríona Moore and Chiara Chiriotti describe the excavation of Ireland’s earliest block wheel. It was recovered from the base of a large trackway. While the wheel itself has not been directly dated, a piece of brushwood that directly overlay it was radiocarbon dated to 2909±39 BP (1206-970 cal BC, Wk-20961). A dendro date of 1120±9 BC was returned from wood from the same layer, but in a different part of the trackway. A further wheel rim was recovered, dating from the 7^th to 3^rd centuries BC. Amazingly, the only known parallel for such a find was also recovered from the Edercloon excavations, though this piece is broadly dated to the 7^th to 9^th centuries AD. A number of hypotheses as to what the wheels may have looked like, supported with excellent computer-generated visualizations, are presented and analysed. The authors also note that despite this profusion of wheels, the Edercloon trackways were never suitable for wheeled transport. The chronological span of the artefacts is not only seen in terms of a long-term tradition of wheel-making, but an enduring custom of deposition within the trackways. Angela Wallace and Lorna Anguilano look at Iron-smelting and smithing: new evidence emerging on Irish road schemes. They examine the methods production, from sourcing, processing, and smelting the ore, followed by an assessment of prehistoric and Early Christian iron working. Detailed case studies are presented for Lowpark 1, Co, Mayo, and Borris, Co. Tipperary. In conclusion, the authors identify the lack of recovery of ore from excavations, along with the absence of large-scale iron-smelting sites. They propose that an examination of 18^th and 19^th century mining records, as part of a broader research framework, may lead to the discovery of Iron Age sites. Further research is urged on the development and adoption of iron-working in Ireland. They argue that while there is much evidence for small-scale iron-production in the Early Christian period, there is also evidence for increased specialisation, with different activities being carried out at different sites. Paul Stevens presents For whom the bell tolls: the monastic site at Clonfad 3, Co. Westmeath. He outlines the phases of occupation at the site from the early monastic occupation in the 5^th to 6^th centuries AD (Phase 1A) to small-scale iron smithing in the 17^th to 19^th centuries (Phase 3). After a short introduction to the recovered metallurgical residues, the evidence for the production of Early Christian hand bells is presented and assessed, along with attempts to reproduce an example of such a bell. In particular, there is evidence that wrought iron hand bells were covered in a thin layer of bronze, applied using the brazing technique. The place of Clonfad 3 is also assessed in terms of its position as a long-term manufacturing centre for these prestigious items. Finally, Niall Kenny presents a valuable contribution on Charcoal production in medieval Ireland. In response to such comments as ‘charcoal production pits are one of the most understudied areas in Irish early medieval archaeology’, the author presents a review of the traditional methods of charcoal production. The main methods include pit kilns and mound kilns, and the comparable archaeological evidence is presented and reviewed.

From the point of view of my own research interests, the appendix presenting the radiocarbon determinations from the sites discussed in the text is of special importance. The appendix lists 99 radiocarbon dates, 61 of which are new to the IR&DD catalogue. However, in adding these dates to the resource a number of inconsistencies in the data were noted. To cite one example: the date Beta-171418 from Curraheen 1, Co. Cork, is here cited as 2210±60 BP, but is given as 2230±60 BP in the NRA Database entry for the site. While this is a small discrepancy, it is sufficient to produce different calibrated dates and, more importantly, lessen confidence in the accuracy of the published data in the site. This appears to be a recurring error in this series. As it appears to be confined to dates produced by Beta Analytic, I would guess (but I may be wrong) that it is due to the incorrect usage of the two types of date provided by the laboratory. I have written about this before (here (or here), and here), but it is useful to recap: Beta Analytic provides both a Measured Radiocarbon Age and a Conventional Radiocarbon Age. The Measured Radiocarbon Age records the amount of ¹⁴C surviving in the sample, while the Conventional Radiocarbon Age contains corrections to allow for isotopic fractionation etc. Of the two, only the Conventional Radiocarbon Age should be quoted in publications. Unfortunately, when both dates are available there is no easy way to distinguish which one is the MRA and which is the CRA, leading to a lack of confidence in both. My one other, albeit minor, criticism is that the one dendrochronological date quoted in the text is not afforded its own appendix, making it easy to accidentally overlook by researchers such as myself.

Despite these minor criticisms, this volume represents a valuable step in the process of synthesising data from numerous excavated sites on publicly funded NRA schemes and presenting it to a wide audience of both professional archaeologists and the interested public. The editors and contributors are to be commended for their dedication in continuing this important series.

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

Review: Tintern Abbey, Co. Wexford: Cistercians and Colcloughs. Excavations 1982-2007.

2011-10-22T22:31:00.002+01:00

Ann Lynch. Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, 2010. xvi + 245pp. Colour and black & white illustrations and plates throughout. ISBN 978-1-4064-2532-1. €30.

[**If you like this post, please visit one or two of the advertisement links on this page to help generate a little income for the site. If you think the review is useful, please re-share via Facebook, Google+, Twitter etc.**]

The publication of Tintern Abbey, Co. Wexford: Cistercians and Colcloughs. Excavations 1982-2007 is the fifth instalment in the Department of Heritage and Local Government’s internationally peer reviewed Archaeological Monograph Series. The abbey was founded in 1200 by William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, and quickly became one of the most important Cistercian foundations on the island. After its dissolution the abbey, and the majority of its lands, passed to Sir Anthony Colclough (pronounced Cokelee). The site remained in the family until 1959, and was vested in the Commissioners of Public Works in 1963.

In Section 1, Lynch places the abbey within its physical and historical setting. While the introduction to the Cistercians is excellent, the portion dealing with the tenure of the Colclough family superb and is very much brought to life with reproductions of paintings and photographs from the early 17^th century to the beginning of the 20^th century. Section 2 begins with a description of the state of the medieval buildings at the time of its transfer to the Commissioners of Public Works. Further subsections examine the building history of the abbey church and the cloister gateway, including various additions and modifications carried out by the Colclough family. Of particular interest are detailed examinations of sections of surviving Elizabethan panelling in the crossing tower. The portion dealing with the history of the conservation works on the site is particularly fascinating. The works here were carried out in three major phases over approximately 40 years. Each phase of conservation represents different approaches to the problems at hand and illustrates the changing nature of ‘best practice’ over several decades. The archaeological excavations (Section 3) were primarily intended to facilitate the conservation of the site. These were carried out in various phases from the early 1980s, the early to mid 1990s and in 2006-7. This section is profusely illustrated with colour and monochrome photographs and detailed site excavation plans and section drawings. In particular, the use of shading to differentiate between Cistercian and Colclough phases of construction is very useful and adds to the general clarity of the information being presented. While I have a personal penchant for archaeological illustration, I would single out examples of the two-light lancet window in the chancel (Fig. 9) and the reconstructed elevation of the cloister arcade (Fig. 33) (both by R. Stapleton) as items of art in their own right. The excavations revealed numerous details of the structural development and alterations to the structures, during the tenures of both the Cistercians and the Colcloughs. This significant body of data is placed within the twin contexts of other excavated Cistercian monasteries and the post-dissolution history of the site.

The excavated burials are examined in Section 4. While there appears to have been no burials to the north of the church, human remains appear to have been interred almost everywhere else. In the absence of grave goods or reliable stratigraphy, six skeletons were radiocarbon dated. One burial, an adolescent from the Lady Chapel, dated to the late 13^th to 14^th centuries. The dated burials from the west ambulatory occurred during the 14^th and 15^th centuries, while those from the nave, chancel, and south transept dated to the late 15^th to early 16^th centuries. While four of these determinations are investigated further by Gault in Appendix III, the raw dates are not provided for the remaining two. In all, the associated meta data for this body of dates is, to my mind, incomplete and prevents its incorporation into future research projects. I realise that I am quite pedantic on this point [see also here], but I firmly believe that archaeological dates have a viability outside the particular research project that they were created for, but only if the fullest amount of information possible is provided with them in print. Between all phases of excavation, some 106 whole or partial skeletons were recovered. Burials in the nave and chancel were dominated by adult males, though adult females were more frequent in the transept and ambulatory. However, in the chapel, only non-adults were recovered. Examination of the non-adults (below 18 years) indicated that 48.5% did not survive beyond their 5^th year. Of the adults, 52 of the 65 sexed skeletons could be given a determination of age. It appears that, for both sexes, the majority of deaths were in the ‘younger adults’ category, with relatively few individuals surviving into advanced old age. Interrogation of the data by age and burial location suggests deliberate segregation. While males were buried in practically every part of the church, the chancel was the preferred location for younger males. Similarly, adult females were buried in most parts of the church, but a distinct preference is shown for younger females to be buried in the nave. An examination of the surviving teeth indicates that ante-mortem tooth loss accounted for nearly 17% of all recovered teeth. Dental caries were observed in 69% of the population, a particularly high figure for any society living before the introduction of refined sugars. There is also evidence for the presence of calculus, abscesses, periodontal disease, and enamel hypoplasia. Degenerative joint disease was also common among the recovered skeletal remains, but with females slightly less affected than males. While these are indicators that the individuals led quite harsh lives, full of physical activity, analysis of the women suggested that they frequently carried loads on their heads. A number of skeletons exhibited evidence for healed fractures, and three males carried evidence of sharp-force trauma, suggesting that at least two of them came to violent ends. Overall, the general health of this population was poor and the people buried here may have suffered periodic episodes of biological stress, especially the females. The higher prevalence of enamel hypoplasia among females is taken to suggest that, from an early age, females were less well fed than males. This situation may also have persisted throughout their adult lives. Excluding fragments of architectural stone, some 1900 artefacts were recovered during the excavations (Section 5). While I do not intend to list even all the categories of finds, a number do stand out. While various Cistercian rules forbade the use of wall paintings, quite a substantial corpus of painted plaster fragments were recovered, though it is difficult to visualise the original design. A number of fragments of medieval stained glass were recovered, all the more beautiful for their rarity. As one would imagine with a site of this type, the pottery remains take up a sizeable portion of the text. The types recovered include Leinster Cooking Ware, various Wexford-type wares, along with Saintonge and transitional types. The entire corpus spans the period from the late 12^th to the 16^th centuries. Among the recovered metalwork, the stand-out piece is a silver ring brooch of 13^th to 14^th century date. This entire section dealing with the finds is well presented, logically laid out and well illustrated. Not only does it present the recovered artefacts in a well-researched and attractive format, but it will easily become a ready reference for future excavations and for excavators seeking comparanda. Many of the illustrations in this section were prepared by Patricia Johnson and are among the finest examples of archaeological illustration in print. Section 6 presents the final discussions and conclusions, and attempts to draw together all the strands of the previous sections. The text is embellished with a number of reconstructions of what the abbey must have looked like in its heyday. Various discussions of the surrounding farmland of the abbey, and the lifestyle and economy of the people are also presented. The evolution of the abbey is charted through the centuries until its dissolution and granting to the Colcloughs and eventually into state care. In the final portion of this section Lynch assesses the unresolved questions raised by the excavations, and lists further profitable avenues of exploration and research.

In Section 7 Tietzsch-Tyler, the artist responsible for the wonderful reconstruction drawings, details the research that went into creating these fantastic images. While this is an important aspect of all reconstructions, it is rarely explicitly stated and dissected in this way. My only quibble would be that this deserved to be treated as an appendix, rather than a fully-fledged section, as it (to my mind, at least) breaks up the flow of the narrative. Nonetheless, this form of examination of the evidence and sources that make up the reconstruction drawings is important, and I would encourage its use in future projects. The volume also presents a number of appendices. Gault’s interrogation of some of the radiocarbon dates in a Bayesian framework, utilising the OxCal program, has been mentioned above. McCormick analysis of the small corpus of faunal remains identified sheep/goats, pigs, cow, horse, cat, dog, ox and a number of wild animal types. The assemblage is dominated by sheep/goats, and is taken to indicate evidence for the traditional Cistercian practice of sheep rearing. Although not ruling out the possibility that the representatives of cat, dog, otter, and fox were food items (especially in times of scarcity), it seems more likely that they were exploited for their pelts. Brown and Baillie report on the dendrochronological dating of a number of the recovered timbers. Samples from a number of large beams from the tower last grew in 1569, being felled either in the winter of that year, or the following spring. Portions of the panels were more difficult to date, but are estimated to have been felled around 1610.

Despite my objections to the presentation of the radiocarbon data and the placement of Section 7, I find little else to criticise. The text and illustrations combine to present a logical and well-balanced report on the excavations, firmly placed in the changing contexts of the Cistercians and the Colcloughs. It is a beautifully produced book that deserves its place in the distinguished Archaeological Monograph Series. I can only look forward to further high quality publications in the series.

Note: Robert M Chapple wishes to acknowledge the financial assistance provided under the Built Heritage element of the Environment fund by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht towards the Irish Radiocarbon & Dendrochronological Dates project [IR&DD Facebook Page].

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

Review: The Dublin Region in the Middle Ages: Settlement, Land-use and Economy

2011-10-17T12:34:00.002+01:00

Margaret Murphy & Michael Potterton. Four Courts Press & The Discovery Programme, Dublin, 2010. 598pp. Colour and black & white illustrations and plates throughout. ISBN 978-1-84682-266-7. €50 or €45 from FCP website.

The publicity literature surrounding The Dublin Region in the Middle Ages: Settlement, Land-use and Economy describes it as ‘the first major publication of the Discovery Programme’s Medieval Rural settlement Project’ … and major it is in every sense. The first thing that struck myself and others when we saw it at the Discovery Programme book stall at the recent INSTAR conference was its sheer physical presence. There were several jokes about not putting your back out trying to lift it and not letting it fall on you etc. While such comments are to be expected, its physical mass and volume are the smallest things about it. In the Preface, MRSP Project Director, Niall Brady, sets out the research framework for the current volume. The landscape encompassed is impressive: the entirety of Dublin city and its hinterland, up to 30km. The model used was based on the ‘Feeding the City’ project, developed by the Centre for Metropolitan History at the Institute for Historical Research, University of London. Where the MRSP approach exceeds the ‘Feeding the City’ project is not just in its commitment to including archaeological data into the synthesis, but describing it as ‘the essential driving force of the present study’. Brady argues that the ‘objective and factual insights’ of the archaeological data inform aspects of the discussion unavailable to the written sources alone. These include questions of diet, trade and exchange, as well as industrial processes.

In Part I, Chapter 1 introduces the project and defines its overriding aim as ‘to construct a picture of the medieval landscape and settlement features of the area using a wide range of archaeological and documentary sources’. The chapter also describes the spatial limits of the study zone and introduces the background geological and soil systems of the area. It is only with Chapter 2 that one begins to appreciate the scale of the undertaking when the archaeological and historical sources consulted are laid out. I find it quite charming that the first sentences of the chapter are so understated as to be almost apologetic. They simply state that the present volume ‘did not involve any new excavations or large-scale fieldwork’. There is a beautiful simplicity, close to a tacit apology, in the description of the work as ‘essentially a desktop study’. It is only when one is presented with the breadth, depth and sheer variety of sources that the authors had to work with and that an appreciation can be gained of the scale of the data mountain the project had to climb. The available records are presented and briefly assessed, highlighting both its strengths and weaknesses.

Part II, dealing with the topic of Settlement and Society, begins with Chapter 3, an examination of the Dublin region before the Anglo Norman incursion in 1170. The chapter sets out the argument that, prior to 1170, the Norsemen were in control of a substantial Kingdom that encompassed all of modern County Dublin and parts of Counties Kildare and Wicklow. The authors chart the progress from the construction of the original longphort in 814, and assorted military forts, through the foundation of Dublin in 917 and its swift development into a vibrant trading and manufacturing centre. By this time the agricultural hinterland supporting the city was essentially coextensive with modern County Dublin. The development of Dublin town was effectively paralleled in the rise of ecclesiastical power from a dependency of Glendalough diocese in 1111 to full status as an independent archdiocese in 1152. By the arrival of the Anglo Normans the Cistercians and Augustinians had a sizable presence in the town and, along with the Archbishop, held extensive properties in the hinterland. The chapter raises, but is unable to answer, the question of the numbers of Scandinavians living in rural Dublin. While there is ample evidence that the Kings of Dublin effectively controlled large portions of the surrounding countryside, there is little documentary support to define whether the residents were native Irish or planted Norse. Finally, the chapter sets the political scene and how the various machinations and changes of allegiance led to the banishment of Diarmait Mac Murchada to Bristol. Once Mac Murchada returned to Dublin with the support of his Anglo Norman allies, the Scandinavian influence on the region was brought to a swift and merciless conclusion. Chapter 4 examines patterns of land ownership after 1170 and up to the beginning of the 17^th century. Interestingly, there is much continuity in land holding patterns, especially in terms of ecclesiastical and monastic power. While virtually all the existing orders maintained or increased their holdings, new continental orders were also heavily endowed with grants of land. Throughout this period, the single largest landowner was the Archbishop of Dublin, who by the early 13^th century had acquired the land of bishopric and abbey of Glendalough. Similarly, Baronial families established Strongbow and de Lacy were long-lived and retained large tracts of land over many generations. In Chapter 5, Defence and Fortification, the authors demonstrate that the region was among the most heavily defended in medieval Ireland. The chronological span of castle building is investigated, running form the late 12^th to the 17^th centuries, as are the fluctuating motivations (defence, aesthetics, ostentation etc.) behind the need and desire to build. In a comprehensive survey of the earthwork castles, it emerges that the earliest mottes were frequently sited at existing nodal points, such as settlements and ecclesiastical centres, many of which went on to develop as significant regional centres. While many mottes were built by individual lords, an analysis of their regional distribution shows that together they formed a protective cordon around the city. This suggests to the authors that, in the early portion of the Anglo Norman tenure at least, there was a centralised defence policy in operation. Finally the authors examine the number and variety of castles built in the region as a function of the multiplicity power forms, including the Crown, the archbishop and various lordly families. The multi-faceted functionality of these establishments (from rural fortifications to administrative centres and storehouses) and their evolution over time is also examined. Manor centres, tenants and rural settlement is the subject of Chapter 6. Here the authors rely mostly on good documentary sources for manorial centres, as the archaeological evidence is relatively scarce. Again, manors varied widely in terms of their size and the numbers, type and construction of their buildings, along with being populated by a wide assortment of tenants. Many tenants were imported from England and Wales, but there is evidence for the continued presence of both native Irish and Scandinavian smallholders. The authors conclude that while there is evidence that rural Dublin was relatively densely populated (especially in the 13^th century), the location and nature of their residences remains elusive. Chapter 7, examining the Church, identified over 300 medieval churches and chapels within the study area. They see the evolution of the parish church as a centre for tithe-rendering being closely linked to the development of Anglo Norman manorial estates. While there was a profusion of parish churches, religious houses and hospitals appear to have been less well represented in the rural landscape and show a decrease over time. The economic might of the Dublin religious houses is well assessed and their links to the countryside are clearly delineated, showing the pathways for tithed produce from the fields to the tables and storehouses of the Abbots. To put this in context, during this period the Dublin diocese was the richest on the island and the majority of that wealth was derived from farming and the exploitation of the natural resources of the region. The English Pale is comprehensively examined in Chapter 8 and effectively combines both historical sources and the little available archaeological research. They place its construction within the broader canvas of other defensive boundaries, including Offa’s Dyke, Hadrian’s Wall and the Black Pig’s Dyke. They stress the over-abundance of studies of the Pale boundary in terms of ‘a concept and a state of mind, rather than as a physical entity’. While recognising that the project was never completed, they argue that perhaps more had been constructed than previously realised, though much may have been lost through intensive agricultural exploitation of the area. The authors also stress the fact that the Pale earthwork was only one portion of the defensive mechanism, and cannot be considered in isolation from the numerous towerhouses and church towers along its length. Other points of note are the reuse of existing portions of double ditches and defensible natural features. The Pale earthwork, as a defensive bulwark against the Irish, was eventually a failure, though it does appear to have functioned successfully for some time. The authors argue that there are still many questions to be answered in terms of the mental and political origins of the Pale defenses – confident assertion of ‘Englishness’ or resignation at the contraction of a colony?

Part III deals with the Exploitation of Resources, and Chapter 9 provides a detailed examination of agriculture. During the period under investigation, the majority of land outside the city was in under some form of agricultural exploitation, be it arable, pasture or meadow. While arable farming was, generally, the most important form, there were large regional variations. Analysis of the surviving textual evidence indicates that arable was of most importance in the north of the study area, while pasture was the dominant form in the south and south-west. While some of this patterning was a direct consequence of environmental factors, it also appears to have been moulded by the requirements of the city. Arable land was generally sown with grain, predominantly wheat, oats, barley, and rye, along with various legumes. Of these, wheat and oats dominated on the manorial demesnes, frequently to the exclusion of all other crops. Alternately, the smaller farmers are shown to have grown a wider mix of crops. Both archaeobotanical and historical evidence indicate that growing rye was a minority interest in the region. The available evidence (both archaeological and historical) also indicates that weeding and manuring were frequently used to increase yields. Oxen are shown to have been the chief draught animal used for ploughing in the early 13^th century, though mixed teams of oxen and horses were also used. By the late 15^th century this situation had evolved to the point where horses were the dominant ploughing beasts. In terms of meat sources, cattle predominated, though both sheep and pigs were important commodities on farms of all sizes. Goats appear to have been raised only by the lower members of society and were particularly popular in the highlands of south Dublin. Rabbit warrens were introduced in the late 13^th century, both to provide meat for an individual lordly family and as commercial enterprises in their own right. Around the same time dovecots were introduced on the larger manorial farms and, by the 15^th century, had spread to smaller farming enterprises. The authors identify one of the problems with the surviving sources is the fact that it mostly relates to the large-scale ecclesiastical and secular holdings, while information on the lives of peasants and the lower end of society is sparse. The sources are also mostly concentrated in the period around the 13^th and early 14^th centuries, making it difficult to provide indications as to how the situation changed over time. In examining Horticulture (Chapter 10) the evidence suggests that many gardens existed, but it appears to have been on a small-scale footing, as opposed to any large commercial venture. One of the contributing factors to this lack of success may have been that all but exotic, imported fruit was not particularly highly valued, making it difficult to eke out a profit. The majority of gardens, both rural and urban, were intended to supply the individual family or religious institution. To both rich and poor, these horticultural resources provided valuable additional nutrients and variety in their diets. In Woods and Woodlands (Chapter 11) the authors identify timber as among the most important resources for Dublin, requiring a constant supply sourced from the immediate hinterland. Timber was required for everything from the construction of houses and boats to waterfront revetments and the most commonly used fuel source. Even though construction techniques moved from post-and-wattle in the Viking city to, generally, stone built by the 13^th century, vast quantities of wood were still required for roofs, floors and scaffolding. This evolution in building methods also brought a change in the types of wood used; moving from ash in the earlier period to a greater reliance on oak. Interestingly, research indicates that local supplies of timber remained viable until the 13^th century, but by the following century more distant forests were being exploited. By this later date it appears that supplies were, at least occasionally, being imported from County Antrim. This wholesale deforestation means that most of the Dublin hinterland would have largely been open countryside during the medieval period. Most of the surviving forest land was vested in the Crown and was preserved for hunting. Other Natural Resources are the concern of Chapter 12. Peat bogs are (along with gorse) assessed as an important, if minor, source of fuel. However, this level of peat exploitation led to the exhaustion of some reserves by the 14^th century, though some of this does appear to have been as a direct result of the pressure to free up more land for agricultural purposes. Building stone and roofing slate were usually quarried locally, though if sourced from greater distances it is likely to have been transported by river or along the coast. An examination of the available Water Resources (Chapter 13) indicates the both historical and archaeological sources agree on the importance of fish in the diets of the city dwellers, though its availability in the countryside is not fully understood. The sourcing, marketing and retail of both marine fish and shellfish are revealed as an efficient, sophisticated system. Fewer types of freshwater fish were available, with salmon and eel predominating in the records. While the evidence supports extensive foreshore exploitation, actual examples of the methods, structures and equipment is exceedingly rare. It is also posited that a preoccupation with safety sprung up during the 16^th and 17^th centuries in response to the privations caused by increased costal piracy by the native Irish. Responses to these new threats included the construction of a fortified harbour at Skerries and a wave of new castles.

Many of these natural resources had to be processed and marketed before they were ready for sale in the city. It is these means of Processing and Distribution that are the subject of Part IV. Chapter 14 examines the Processing of Cereal Products and reports that the majority of the grain produced in the region was dried in keyhole-shaped kilns and, usually, ground with water-powered mills. Milling in the region peaked in the period c.1285-1315, and while it remained an expensive venture to initialise and maintain, it was always a profitable occupation. During this brief high-point, the Dublin region was so noted for the quality of its milling that grain was exported from Scotland to be processed in the region. However, both the archaeological and documentary evidence suggests that milling entered a serious decline from the middle of the 14^th century, from which it does not appear to have recovered. While grain was primarily used for baking bread, it was used extensively for brewing. The authors note that the scale of brewing declined through the 14^th and 15^th centuries. This is seen, partially, as a response to falling production, but also as a response to the increase in available clean drinking water. The Processing of Animal Products (Chapter 15) indicates that while dairy products must have been of significance in the lives of Dublin city folk, there is little evidence of their preparation and sale. Although Irish butter appears to have been highly regarded, the same cannot be said for locally produced wool, which was deemed to be of low quality. Nonetheless, it was in high demand among the cloth-manufacturers of Flanders. Similarly, Irish hides were exported to the continent. The authors draw a distinction between cereal processing, which was generally carried out at manorial centres, and the processing of animal products. The latter was generally on a smaller scale and combined with other occupations, carried out by small holding farmers. Chapter 16 examines The Importation and Processing of Natural Resources. The authors demonstrate that while some iron was mined locally, the majority was imported from England, Brittany and Spain. Analysis of slag recovered from excavations indicates that smelting technology improved over the centuries. Other metals, such as lead, silver, copper, and tin were worked within the city, but the raw materials all appear to have been imported. At the time of the Anglo-Norman arrival, the majority of pottery appears to have been imported, though local production centres soon emerged. The most common type found on excavations outside the city is Leinster Cooking Ware, and although recovered from more than 75 sites in the region, a definitive kiln site has yet to be identified. Within the city the ‘Dublin-type wares’ predominated during the late 12^th to 14^th centuries. Imported pottery from England, France, and The Low Countries is etc. are frequent finds on excavations in the city. The majority of the English pottery from the 12^th and 13^th centuries originated from Bristol, paralleling the documentary evidence for strong links between the two cities at this time. Small quantities of Leinster Cooking Ware have been found in the city, while similarly small amounts of ‘Dublin-type wares’ and imported pottery are found on rural sites. There appears to be no well-defined relationship between the wealth of a rural site and the presence of imported pottery. The authors state that, while wealth is a factor, proximity to a seaport was at least as important in acquiring exotic pottery types. Like the pottery, earthenware floor tiles were initially imported, but soon produced locally. Distribution and Provisioning (Chapter 17) explores the movement of these commodities around the region. The authors demonstrate that the provisioning relationship between countryside and city was a multi-faceted one. For example, the ecclesiastical estates appear to have been largely immune from market forces, and concentrated on their city-based houses. For the rest of the city dwellers, acquiring affordable and reliable sources of provisioning was of the utmost importance, though occasionally precarious. While the status of the city as a military mustering point ensured the development of efficient transport and marketing organisations, the populace frequently resented any actions by the governors that might disrupt their supplies. In general terms, Dublin city appears to have been well provisioned from its hinterland. Interestingly, the physical limits of this hinterland are explored in terms of the practical limits of how far produce could be transported in a single day, allowing the farmer to return home at night, or with a single overnight stay in the city. An effective limit of 30km is proposed and appears reasonable. The structure of the hinterland is also revealed in terms of the northern portion being chiefly involved in grain production, while meat, dairy produce and wood was sourced to the south of the city. While this may have been partially the result of determined spatial organisation, environmental factors were of equal, if not greater, importance. Part V is contains only a brief (considering the depth of what has gone before) Conclusions (Chapter 18), eloquently drawing together the main findings and themes of the volume. The unique position of the region, as the only significant urban area on the island, is highlighted. The authors look forward to comparing this area with other parts of the island, once sufficient regional studies have been completed. As a template for further research, it is comprehensive and has much to recommend it as a research model for other areas. Finally, the authors state that the available data from both the archaeological and documentary evidence is far from exhausted, and that much research may yet be profitably carried out on this region.

I am loathe to describe the work as ‘perfect’ as I am sure that some deficiencies must exist within the text, but I have yet to find them. I would particularly like to praise the clarity and simplicity of the writing style, as the authors have been able to convey difficult concepts succinctly and eloquently for both an academic and general audience. The illustrations are well chosen and the combination of excellent photography, historic imagery and archaeological field drawings add much to the impressive text. The single most ubiquitous image is (understandably) that of the regional distribution map. It is a minor point, but one worth expressing, that the use of a single style of map style repeatedly overlaid with different information is a great aid to the overall clarity. My only criticism would be that the inclusion of the major watercourses would have been an additional aid to that clarity. Many reviews of this type conclude with the assertion that the volume under discussion will be the standard for a generation, and unlikely to be superseded anytime soon. While I wish I could avoid using such epithets, tarnished from overuse, I simply cannot believe that this work on the Dublin region will be surpassed in the next number of decades. However, I do hope that it serves as an inspiration for other researchers (and, perhaps, The Discovery Programme) to apply these techniques to other cities and their hinterlands. Murphy and Potterton have, with the support of The Discovery Programme, produced a volume that is both beautiful and informative. The breadth and depth of their research is astonishing and while it represents ‘only’ a desktop survey, it adds materially to our knowledge. I would commend it, wholeheartedly, to both the academic communities and the interested reader alike.

Note: Robert M Chapple wishes to acknowledge the financial assistance provided under the Built Heritage element of the Environment fund by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, towards the Irish Radiocarbon & Dendrochronological Dates project [IR&DD Facebook Page].

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

Review: Of Troughs and Tuyères: The archaeology of the N5 Charlestown Bypass

2011-10-12T13:39:00.000+01:00

Richard F. Gillespie & Agnes Kerrigan. National Roads Authority, Dublin, 2010. NRA Scheme Monographs 6. xii + 412pp. Colour and black & white illustrations and plates throughout. ISBN 978-0-9564180-1-2. ISSN 2009-0471. €25.

Since the arrival of the NRA Scheme Monographs in 2007 with Monumental Beginnings: the archaeology of the N4 Sligo Inner Relief Road the series has established itself as a benchmark in high quality academic publishing. Of Troughs and Tuyères: The archaeology of the N5 Charlestown Bypass is the sixth instalment in the series and continues this high standard of excavation reporting and dissemination. In the preface, R. M. Cleary contrasts the traditional focus of archaeological excavation on monuments with the opportunity to examine the, apparently, mundane landscapes revealed through large-scale, linear road projects. Indeed, the route was specifically selected to avoid all known archaeological sites. She argues that such schemes have forced us to revise much or our understanding of ‘past societies in a local and regional setting’. I would disagree only in that I see the significance of these projects (and their resulting publications) as having an island-wide significance, with the potential to revolutionise every aspect and period of Irish archaeology.

The volume presents a synthesis of the results of over forty excavations in eastern Mayo and a small portion of western Roscommon, covering approximately six millennia of human activity across the landscape. Chapter 1 (Kerrigan & Gillespie with MacDonagh) presents an introduction to the scheme, placing it in both planning and archaeological contexts. Brief, but informative, sections deal with the geography, geology, soils, and drainage of the area. This is followed by a wide ranging review of the general landscape character from the Mesolithic to 19^th century Charlestown. Coinciding with my personal research interests, I am gratified to see a section explaining (mostly) the problems inherent in the use of radiocarbon data and the difficulties in selecting suitable samples for investigation. In what I see as a particularly brave stance, the authors highlight one spurious date from a cremation burial at Lowpark that produced Bronze Age pottery, but dated to the Neolithic (4840±50BP, Beta-23161). In such instances it would be all too easy to hide this anomalous date deep within the text and conveniently dismiss it. Placing it here within the introduction to the project speaks, to me at least, of a commitment to address all aspects of the results, not just the ones that neatly fit the other evidence. I have previously argued for the improved reporting of both radiocarbon dates and their associated meta data, and I applaud the note that the Beta Analytic dates were calibrated using the IntCal04 curve, albeit with the simplified Talma & Vogel (1993) system – the latest versions of Calib or OxCal are definitely to be preferred. Similarly, the dates from Groningen are noted as having been calibrated using IntCal04, but there is no indication of which computer program was employed. It is a minor point, but it should be remembered that different computer programs, even using the same version of the calibration curve, may give different results. Thus, for complete inter-date comparability it is strongly advised that the same curve and programme be used across the range of returned dates and that these choices be made explicit within the text.

Chapter 2 (Gillespie) reports on the Neolithic excavations at Sonnagh II, Ballyglass West I, and Cashelduff I. Of these, the most interesting (and contentious) is undoubtedly the Early Neolithic sub-circular structures at Sonnagh II. We are long-used to rectangular houses of the Early Neolithic period and such an early sub-circular feature is clearly anomalous (5275±35BP, GrA-35591). Indeed, the author struggles to find appropriate parallels and falls back on structural similarities with the Curraghatoor 3 structure in Co. Tipperary. Though that particular structure it is not directly dated, he notes that the Curraghatoor complex is significantly later than the Sonnagh evidence, dating to the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Considering the implications for our understanding of the Early Neolithic, one can only regret that further samples were not directly dated. It may well be that the gravelly fills did not provided sufficient charcoal for further dates, but we can only hope that, now the potential importance of this site has been recognised, efforts will be made to reinvestigate and re-date any surviving samples. Chapter 3 (Kerrigan & Gillespie) tackles the large volume of Bronze Age burnt mounds and burnt spreads discovered in the course of the project. It is impossible to pick out as many interesting features of the excavated examples as I would like, but the recovery of a tin bead from Sonnagh V (perhaps imported from Switzerland) is a major addition to our understanding of these, generally artefact-free, sites. As the author points out, it speaks of long-distance trade and contacts, placing the Irish evidence within a truly international context. While the illustration throughout the volume is superb, I would like to particularly note it here as the judicious use of colour and shading to define the surviving wooden elements within troughs is excellent and strongly contributes to the quality of the work as a whole.

Chapter 4 (Gillespie) is, by a considerable margin, the longest in the book, weighing in at 163 pages. It deals with the reporting of the previously unknown archaeological complex at Lowpark. The earliest evidence from the complex dates to the Early Neolithic, with additional activity in the Bronze Age. However, the major phases of activity centred on the Iron Age and Early Christian periods, when the site was used as an iron working area, complete with semi-sunken workshops, anvils and a large volume (c.1.5 tonnes) of iron slag. The Neolithic activity included a number of pits and a particularly rare Grooved Ware timber circle. During the Early Christian period the site was enclosed, not by the usual rath ditches, but by timber palisades made from split planks. Settlement here appears to have been of a considerable duration as there was evidence of repair to the defenses. Amongst all the spectacular finds of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ years, now finding their way into print, it is easy to lose sight of the importance and rarity of individual sites. Lowpark is certainly unique within the Irish archaeological record and is the chief basis for my contention of island-wide significance for this volume. The domestic finds from the site, including rotary querns, lignite bracelet fragments, a bone pin, and beads are all well attested on other sites across the island. However, the recovery of the gold filigree panel, with its close parallels to Lagore, Co. Meath suggests high-status associations. Another important result of the Lowpark excavation has been the recovery of high-quality samples for dating from the souterrains. As Clinton (2001) has shown, souterrains are notoriously difficult to date. Thus, firm evidence of construction in the 6^th and 7^th centuries is much welcomed.

Chapter 5 (Gillespie) describes the excavation of a bivallate rath and souterrain at Cloonaghboy. Here too dating evidence was recovered from postholes associated with the souterrain, placing construction in the period from the early 7^th to the mid 9^th centuries. Unfortunately, severe truncation of the interior had erased any trace of the structures that once stood here. Chapter 6 (Kerrigan & Gillespie) begins with an examination of the charcoal production pits, the majority of which dated to the 11^th to 17^th centuries. The chapter continues with descriptions of a small number of vernacular houses, along with some miscellaneous sites encountered on the project: a set of three stepping stones across a stream (Ballyglass West) and a wood-lined drain (Cloonaghboy). Appendix A lists the 81 radiocarbon dates commissioned by the project and is a significant addition to the Irish corpus. An accompanying CD also lists the radiocarbon dates, along with pottery reports from Lowpark (Appendix 2), the lithics (Appendix 3), the gold filigree panel (Appendix 4 - an edited version also appears as ‘side bar’ within the main text), Lignite artefacts from Lowpark (Appendix 5), ferrous and non-ferrous artefacts and stone artefacts from (Appendices 6a-c), the Sonnagh V tin bead (Appendix 7), metallurgical residue (Appendix 8), faunal remains (Appendix 9), burnt remains (Appendix 10), wood and charcoal (Appendix 11), macrofossil plant and insect remains (Appendices 12 & 13), along with geography and geology (Appendix 14). A separate folder also provides the original final excavation reports from the sites as PDFs. If I am to be honest, I am rather ambivalent about the relegation of specialist reports to CDs or similar media. It is all well and good now while the technology is still current, but inevitably that technology will move on and these valuable appendices will be lost to all researchers without access to ‘legacy systems’. Even within recent memory we have seen the fashion for microfiche sheets come and go, leaving us with volumes of data so close, but just beyond reach. On the other hand, it is not as though these appendices could easily have been incorporated into the volume for a relatively minor outlay in costs – they represent, by my count, an additional 482 pages. Even leaving aside the additional 2130 pages of PDFs of the original excavation reports, that is a vast amount of data. I do not raise this as an issue solely with this volume, but as a long term archival issue that must yet be addressed.

If I had to identify any faults in the publication, it is the continued use of ‘fulacht fiadh’ over the preferable terms ‘burnt mounds’ and ‘burnt spreads’. It feels churlish to speak about this again, but I do believe that we must move away from this inaccurate and out-dated term. On the other hand, my personal preference is for the out-dated term ‘Early Christian’ over the more commonly used ‘Early Medieval’. In this context, my complaints may be viewed as personal preferences that in no way impinge on the quality of scholarship or value of the data presented here. Like the other titles in the NRA Scheme Monograph series, this is an impressive volume that materially adds to the collective knowledge of our past: both for the Charlestown area and the island as a whole.

References:

Clinton, M. 2001 The Souterrains of Ireland, Bray.

Talma, A. S. & Vogel, J. C. 1993 ‘A simplified approach to calibrating 14Cdates’ Radiocarbon 35.2, 317-322.

Note: Robert M Chapple wishes to acknowledge the financial assistance provided under the Built Heritage element of the Environment fund by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, towards the Irish Radiocarbon & Dendrochronological Dates project [IR&DD FacebookPage].

Irish National Strategic Research (INSTAR) Programme: Findings From the First Phase 2008-2011: Review

2011-10-04T16:28:00.000+01:00

[**If you like this post, please visit one or two of the advertisement links on this page to help generate a little income for the site. If you think the review is useful, please re-share via Facebook, Google+, Twitter etc.**]

The Helen Roe Lecture Theatre at the Dublin headquarters of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland was the setting for the presentation of nine papers detailing the advances in our knowledge brought about by the INSTAR project. The one-day conference was jointly hosted by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and The Heritage Council. Ian Doyle, Head of Conservation at The Heritage Council, chaired the first session and gave the delegates a warm welcome and provided some remarks concerning the means by which the INSTAR Programme was founded. The first lecture of the morning was Making Christian Landscapes presented by Dr. Tomás Ó Carragáin (UCC). In a theme that would emerge as recurrent motif of the conference, he emphasised the collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of the INSTAR programme, bringing together academia and commercial consultancies; archaeologists and historians and the interaction between Irish researchers and their internationally-based colleagues. As a core illustration of this point, the ‘Making Christian Landscapes’ project was defined in terms of not just a comparison of the Irish evidence against the contemporary situation in England, but as part of the broader canvas of Atlantic Europe. The primary tools developed for the project were a database and a GIS application. The main thrust of the project was the use of Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) to attempt to define the extents of monastic estates. He made the point that this approach of combining landscape analysis with an assessment of the available historical and archaeological data was fraught with difficulties, but had made some notable successes. In describing the choice of case studies for the project, Ó Carragáin explained that some areas were deliberately chosen as they were known to contain excavated examples of the relatively newly identified ‘Cemetery Settlement’ (or ‘Settlement Cemeteries’, if you prefer) site type. These, he reminded the audience, were unknown to Irish archaeology only 10 to 15 years ago, yet as a direct consequence of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ boom in construction are now well recognised as an integral part of the Early Christian landscape. Such sites were roughly 50m in diameter and contained less than 200-300 burials. The relatively low number of graves is taken to suggest that they represent the burial grounds of single kin groups. On the other hand, some sites like Parknahown 5, Co. Laois, contained up to 600 burials. He explained that this association of the living with the dead may be interpreted as a breakdown of Classical taboos that required separation between the two spheres. Excavation has shown that some of these sites are relatively short-lived, but that some survived in use until the 12th century. This directly opposes the long-held view that non-ecclesiastical burial had declined by the 7th century, at the latest. Ó Carragáin explained that these data raise fundamental questions about our understanding of the Early Christian period: does this represent a resistance to Church authority? Is it evidence for the survival of paganism? His answer was an emphatic: No. Some of these sites, such as Faughart, Co. Louth or Camlin, Co. Tipperary, are known to have been situated on ecclesiastical estates and are unlikely to have been anti-clerical in outlook. Instead he proposes a slightly altered version of the traditional model, where by 800 AD the majority of burials were on church land, but that there was no defined church aversion to non-ecclesiastical burials either.

Ian Doyle (centre) chairs discussion at the end of Session I

He continued with a detailed examination of the Corca Duibne case study, though this did not actually have any known Cemetery Settlements. Here the ecclesiastical focus was the monastic foundation at Inis Úasal in Lough Currane, Co. Kerry. Traditionally, the foundation of the monastery is ascribed to St Finan/Fíonán. The island is known to have been the central node of a large ecclesiastical estate. The application of the HLC process, combining historical and placename evidence (e.g. the prevalence of the ‘Termon’ element in Townland names), along with archaeological survey data (such as the presence of a barrow and various cross-slabs along boundary lines) allowed a relatively secure delineation of the extents of the monastic lands. He notes that this estate would have included a number of ‘secular’ raths and cashels. These lay tenants would have lived somewhat more ecclesiastical or quasi-ecclesiastical lives than the rest of the population, with days set aside for fasting and sexual abstinence. Looking at the broader landscape picture, Ó Carragáin and his colleagues have found evidence for the establishment of family or kin group churches. Comparison of this data with the contemporary situation in Anglo-Saxon England suggests that Ireland had a much heavier density of churches (and possibly more than anywhere else in Western Europe). The implication is that, in Ireland, there was a greater range of both nobles and non-nobles who felt entitled to found churches.

In conclusion, he argued that the progress made by the project only underscored the importance of ‘interdisciplinarity’ where historians can learn to ask archaeological questions and vice-versa. He also argued that the HLC approach was not simply a powerful research tool, but had a wider impact in landscape management. In particular he praised the format of the INSTAR funding in the way that it facilitated research and simultaneously broadened the scope of that research.

Dr. Graeme Warren’s (UCD) presentation on the Neolithic and Bronze Age Landscapes of North Mayo was introduced by Prof. Seamus Caulfield who wished to provide what he termed ‘the prehistory of the project’. Caulfield described how the early work on the Céide field systems during the 70s and 80s was all unfunded, and depended on voluntary contributions by his students. He described the situation of that time where fieldwork of the kind he was undertaking could not find funding, though actual excavations could. He praised INSTAR for taking a broader view and funding both. He also commented on the past difficulties in communicating his results to other academics, and praised the current emphasis on a broad engagement with both academic and non-specialist audiences. Caulfield’s general theme was that the Céide Fields project prefigured many of the positive developments now championed by INSTAR. He also presented cogent arguments to the effect that Céide was the source and partial inspiration for both the ‘Riverdance’ phenomenon and The Discovery Programme.

When Warren was allowed to take to the lectern, he introduced the Neolithic and Bronze Age Landscapes of North Mayo project and the place of the Céide system within the broader landscape setting. One of the main objects of the current research was to produce both academic and popular syntheses of the large series of excavations undertake in the area over the years, the majority of which have not been published in detail. A large portion of the project has been concerned with integrating all the information from the excavations, including specialist reports, stratigraphic data, radiocarbon dates etc. into both publishable report form and a dedicated GIS system. The GIS system has incorporated both old and new data, including a new and more accurate survey of the locations of field walls. The new system boasts a minimum level of accuracy of ±15m for any individual wall, with many having been much more accurately surveyed. As both a visualization and quantification resource, the GIS model is capable of giving a broad landscape context to the fact that 84.5km of theses walls survive across almost 40km of North Mayo. Some 116 excavation cuttings (representing c. 4,000 m²) have been undertaken across this landscape, including excavations by Ó Nualláin & de Valera, Caulfield and more recent investigations. This combination of so much information from so many sources into a single GIS model is also capable of utilisation as a landscape management tool. One example given was of being able to chart the destruction of some areas of Neolithic walling under forestry over the last 20 years.

Warren made the point that the coaxial field system plan of the Céide is deeply embedded within archaeological discourse and that the GIS system allowed us to challenge these familiar ways of looking at this landscape. To this end he demonstrated a number of computer generated visualisations of the landscape rotating in three dimensions. These allowed him to show how the ‘classic’ Céide system is but a part of a much larger landscape and part of a range of field wall patterns. An interrogation of the data shows that the walls now survive only in areas of peatland, while the megalithic tombs survive in both peat and dryland locations. The implication being that the walls, too, once covered the majority of the landscape, but have been destroyed. Another aspect of the project had been to reassess the radiocarbon determinations already available for the various excavated sites. One aspect of this is the agreement with other research that dates provided by the Smithsonian radiocarbon laboratory, undertaken in the 1970s, are too young. Similarly, dates on charcoal from the UCD laboratory may be too early, though dates done directly on tree samples are considered to be accurate [edit: I got this slightly wrong - see response from Dr. Graeme Warren in the comments for corrections]. One interesting anomaly has been the realisation that a large number of radiocarbon dates on birch are dated to the exact point in time that the available pollen diagrams suggest there was a massive decrease in birch growth. Overall, Warren argued that this approach shows the value of the GIS model in assessing different levels of sale and integrating different strands of research.

Dr. Stephen Davis (UCD) spoke on the topic of An Integrated, Comprehensive GIS Model of Landscape Evolution & Landuse History in the River Boyne Valley. In introducing the project, he first noted that the somewhat unwieldy title had since been shortened to the much more manageable The Boyne Valley Landscape Project. He described that Phase I of the project had concentrated on building the GIS model and integrating the available data sources, including OSI mapping, SMR, excavations, known lithic scatters and LiDAR data. Phase II included adding palaeoenvironmental data and commissioning new coring sites for pollen analysis. He noted that although one particular core did not produce any archaeologically-relevant data, it did produce good data on the Late Glacial period and is currently being prepared for publication. Other applications utilised during this phase included Terrestrial LiDAR and geophysical survey. In Phase III, due to budget considerations, the focus was chiefly archaeological. Research concentrated on overlying GIS and LiDAR data, targeted geophysical survey and viewshed analysis. The analysis of the LiDAR data has added 130 new discoveries, and the identification of new sites is still continuing! For example, near Site A, at Brú na Bóinne an enclosure (designated LP1) has been discovered, measuring c. 120m in diameter. Targeted geophysics added further detail to the picture, by revealing a second site inside the first. This second site appears to be a circular arrangement of pits or postholes – perhaps a timber circle? At Site B an enclosure (Site B1) has been identified, surrounding the site. Near Site P a further low-profile site (LP2) has been recognised. Here too, targeted geophysics has revealed incredible detail of a further enclosure. At both Dowth and Ballyboy, evaluation of the LiDAR data has revealed what are best described as ‘hollow ways’. Without excavation there is no direct proof of date or function, but Davis stuck his neck out and suggested a prehistoric date and a ritual use.

With regard to the visualisations afforded by the GIS models, Davis spoke about the use of Local Relief Models and their part in the discovery of a large rectangular enclosure near Site P and a second enclosure at Site A. The application of Cumulative Viewshed Analysis of tomb visibility produced a number of interesting results, including the ‘hidden’ nature of Dowth henge. Essentially, the method has shown that the henge is largely invisible on the landscape – the other tombs cannot be seen from it, nor can the henge be seen from the tombs. Site P was also identified as the only site in the Boyne Valley where all three of the major tombs (Newgrange, Knowth, and Dowth) are simultaneously visible. Such snippets alone should provide sufficient fodder for discussion, debate and assorted theorising for some time to come.

Davis was keen to promoted the ‘spin-offs’ from this project, all of which would have been impossible without the initial impetus from INSTAR. These include the Meath Embanked Enclosures Project and the Hill of Ward Archaeological Project. In the latter case LEADER funding has been applied for to help sustain a local archaeological initiate to produce a brochure/guide to the area. The project has also made application to WorldView-2 for access to their 8 band satellite imagery. This resource provides satellite imagery in various light waves. When combined with LiDAR, the approach is already producing what Davis hopefully terms ‘subtle anomalies’.

Coffee break in the convivial surroundings of the RSAI garden

After a coffee break, Session II resumed, under the chairmanship of Mr. Brian Duffy, Chief Archaeologist, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The first topic was Early Medieval Archaeology Project I&II. Part I was delivered by Dr. Aidan O’Sullivan (UCD) who, like many other speakers, emphasised the role of the project as a partnership between the commercial archaeological sector and the academic world - with tangible benefits for both. In his introduction to the project, he described the Early Christian period as a source of imagery for Cultural Nationalists of the 19th and 20th centuries and, as such it maintained a significant grip on the national psyche. He also saw the ‘Celtic Tiger’ years, and the vast quantities of raw data they produced, as a boon to the study of the period. Alternately, he conceded that these vast amounts of data, and the attendant publication crisis, were also deeply problematic. It was within this framework that the objectives of EMAP were set out: collation, synthesis and publication. There was also a strong desire to create useful resources. To this end data, in the form of PDF reports, was made available via the internet, with the intention of feeding back into both academic scholarship and the commercial world. One interesting aspect of the research was their ability to demonstrate that that the volume of data was not insurmountable and, with judicious selection, could be tackled and synthesised. O’Sullivan’s final point was the heavy domination of settlement evidence in the numbers of sites excavated.

This theme was taken up by Finbar McCormick (QUB) in the second part of the presentation. He spoke on the organisation of Early Christian settlement in terms of social, ideological, and economic factors. In the first instance, he was keen to point out that the old model of ‘monks in monasteries and everyone else in raths’ is over. Interrogation of radiocarbon determinations has shown that by the mid-600s rath construction had peaked (with the exception of the Ulster raised raths). He described an apparent secondary peak during the period 700-800 AD as illusionary and a product of the shape of the calibration curve. It also appears as though bi-vallate and multi-vallate raths were the earliest in the sequence, predating ‘common’ univallate enclosures. However, the picture appears clouded by what he describes as ‘the Clogher factor’ where the early hillfort at Clogher, Co. Tyrone, was replaced by a high status rath. Cashels are also revealed as a ‘post rath phenomenon’. The relatively newly recognised ‘Settlement Cemeteries’ are also revealed as contemporary with rath construction. For McCormick this raises the question of, if they are contemporary, was there some differentiation in status or function? However, an analysis of the recovered finds suggests great similarities between raths and the Cemetery Settlements, suggesting a similar social standing between the two types. On the other hand, McCormick and his colleagues have made a clear differentiation between two types of Early Christian site uncovered in excavation: ones with associated field systems and those without. He sees that raths without attached fields may be associated with stock-raising. Based on the surviving corpus of Early Irish texts, this may be taken as an indicator of higher status dwellings, as opposed to the lower position of those engaged in arable farming. It is these ‘complicated’ raths with multiple ditches and field boundaries that are seen as the centres of working estates, where the chief economic activities were centred on arable farming. McCormick raised the intriguing, but long-dismissed, idea that some of these large complexes could represent ‘proto villages’. At Ratoath, Co. Meath, an analysis of the distribution of discarded animal bone has led to the reinterpretation of ‘paddocks’ as potential house enclosures. He reiterated the need to remember that substantial Early Christian houses, like those found at Deer Park Farms, only survived because of the waterlogged conditions and in regular dryland sites would only have survived as a collection of stakeholes, the postholes of the door jambs and, perhaps, the drip-trench to convey water away from the thatched roof. A recent illustration of this is the Early Christian rath and house the author excavated at Carryduff, Co. Down, where the central house was defined by the slightest of evidence [video]. He also argued that sites such as Knowth, Co. Meath, and Ballywee, Co. Antrim, can be considered as genuine examples of Early Christian nucleated settlement, with 10 and eight houses respectively. This brough McCormick back to the often-contested assertion by Harold Mytum (1991) that raths were the preserve of the nobility and that there may well be some merit in it.

Examining the dates for mills, McCormick notes that very few predate c. 800 AD. He sees this as evidence that major changes in the economy were taking place around this time. Specifically, he sees a move from a subsistence economy to one much more commercial in scale. In this way, small quern stones, used by individual families, were replaced with larger, industrial-scale mills. This time frame appears to correlate with a concurrent decrease in the evidence for cereal drying kilns. Again, this is seen in terms of moving away from individual families, each drying their own small volume of grain, to bringing it to larger-scale commercial centres for drying and processing. The later kilns would have been large, above-ground structures, more susceptible to erasure from the archaeological record. However, he did suggest a possible candidate surviving at Nendrum, Co. Down, though this has yet to be investigated. To my mind this raises the intriguing possibility that we are seeing evidence of the Church, having cemented its grip on the conscience of the people, consolidating its position by seizing the means of production and processing. In any event, all the available dates cease around 1000 AD and we are currently left only with questions. If they did abandon the raths where did the people go? Did they move to dispersed settlements? Did they move to towns? There is certainly huge scope for future research in this field.

The first portion of the paper: Mapping Death: People, Boundaries & Territories in Ireland 1st to 8th Centuries AD was presented by Dr. Edel Bhreathnach (UCD). Like any of the speakers before her, she underlined the interdisciplinary nature of the project, bringing archaeologists (both commercial and academic) together with historians, linguists, and a whole host of scientific applications; including DNA and isotopic analyses, along with radiocarbon dating and osteoarchaeology. Bhreathnach was keen to place the Irish evidence, not solely in a local, Early Christian frame, but in the wider context of Ireland as a frontier zone of the Roman Empire in the Late Antique Period. She spoke of how the Mapping Death project concentrated on building a complete cultural and archaeological history of each site. While their online, searchable database contains ‘only’ 160 sites, she was quick to point out that these are sites researched in depth, providing a true multi-disciplinary analysis of Irish society in the period from 300 – 700 AD. Analysis of this body of data represents a huge advance in our understanding of Early Christian death and burial. Some of the questions this data has been applied to include how burial rites and cemeteries reflect practiced religion, ritual acts and belief systems. Another avenue of the dead has been the exploration of the ‘Landscape of the Dead’, looking at the relationships that existed between contemporary society and the ancestors, and how the living negotiated the complexities of existence with and among the dead. The data also throws light on the conversion process in Ireland, showing evidence of a lengthy endeavour stretching from 400-700 AD. Bhreathnach was also keen to stress the external influences on Ireland, especially in the sense that Christianity came not on its own, but as part of a package to this frontier zone of the Roman Empire. The additional items in that package took the form of a new language (Latin), texts and thoughts. In the latter instance, these new thoughts become manifest in terms of how the associations between the living and the dead changed over time. In this way the evolution of burial rites and cemetery structuring reflected the structures within contemporary society.

While the terms ‘Settlement Cemeteries’ or ‘Cemetery Settlements’ appear to be gaining popularity, Bhreathnach would argue for either the term ‘Familial Cemeteries’ or ‘Familial Settlements’, stressing the primacy of the kin groups to whom they belonged. The information gained from this project is providing detailed pictures of the health and genetics of the population. However, it is isotopic analysis that is providing some extraordinary insights. In particular, there is evidence for population movements, especially of women, from the west of Ireland to the east, and from the north-east (and possibly Britain) to the south. This ties in well with early accounts of the mobility of women as they moved for the purposes of marriage. In the question and answer session afterwards, Dr. O’Brien spoke about recent isotopic work on E. P. Kelly’s excavation of a number of skeletons at Bettystown, Co. Meath, discovered in the 1970s [Dr. O'Brien has asked me to note that most of the isotopic/oxygen analysis was undertaken by Dr. Jacqueline Cahill Wilson]. She revealed that one of the burials, deposited in an unusually tight (for Ireland) crouched position, actually originated either in North Africa, or the most extreme southerly tip of Spain. Not only did this person get as far as Meath and die there, the implication must be that he was not alone – at least one person had accompanied him and was able to ensure that his compatriot was buried in a manner appropriate to his culture. Addressing future recommendations she called for Heritage Council backing to secure EU funding to assist in the integration of the various databases, to move away from the current ‘patchwork’ of resources. Dr. Elizabeth O’Brien then demonstrated the ‘Mapping Death’ database, explaining that it was intended as a starting point for future research, not an end in itself. Her primary example was the entry for Ardnagross, Co. Westmeath, showing the detailed records the resource contains and how the data may be effectively mined to extract relevant research data.

The final session of the day, chaired by Prof. Gabriel Cooney (UCD) was begun by Dr. Barra Ó Donnabháin (UCC), speaking on The People of Prehistoric Ireland: Healthand Demography. He began by defining the human experience as a synergy between biological and cultural systems, that we as archaeologists may access it through the medium of human skeletal remains. Within such a paradigm he argued that the act of burial was a tangible link between these biological and cultural experiences. One point that I found particularly incisive was his contention that actual skeletons had made little impact on Irish prehistory, as discussion is generally limited to mortuary practices. He continued, saying that where skeletal material is assessed in excavation reports, it is frequently relegated to an appendix, making little, if any, impact on the body of the text. Giving the development of the project, he described Phase I, beginning in 2009, with the process of data collection. This process led to the collation of information on 1100 sites and the commissioning of new radiocarbon dates to assist in the resolution of chronological issues. Phase II, in 2010, was concerned with updating the database of sites and establishing two hard copy libraries of all available osteological reports etc., at QUB and UCC. Since that time the emphasis has been on providing a synthesis of the osteological data, with publication being the next anticipated step. At the present time the database holds records on 1651 sites where human skeletal material was recovered. This ranges from single-line references in antiquarian reports to modern osteological examinations from the latest excavations. In all the database lists c. 3000 burials, the majority of which are Bronze Age in date, and the most usual method of disposal was by cremation. Ó Donnabháin and his colleagues are currently in the process of mining this data mountain and attempting to correlate biological data (age, sex etc.), with evidence for mortuary practices and wider issues of health and demography. A number of new radiocarbon determinations have also been commissioned to help resolve problematic dates from other excavations. The example he chose was the different ages from the two cremations in the segmented cist at Newtonstewart Castle. One cist returned a determination of 3897±39 BP (UB-6783, 2475-2212 cal BC), while the other dated to 3680±38 (UB-6784, 2195-1915 cal BC). Such discrepancies in dating raise questions about the curation and pre-depositional history of human skeletal material, or perhaps the longer term access to the cist grave. As an aside, I would mention that although I was not on site the day the Newtonstewart cist was opened, I was the digger that found it, hidden in the foundations of a 1960s shop ... while using a jackhammer! It remains one of my best finds, and while I was glad to see it published (UJA 64), I’m delighted that it remains the subject of debate and investigation.

The author (with jackhammer) at Newtonstewart Castle,

shortly before the discovery of the segmented cist

Ó Donnabháin also explained that the format of the database used by the project allow spatial analysis of the data to examine regional differences in mortuary practises and population health. He allowed that although there are some issues of archaeological visibility and recording bias, the approach does appear to be revealing genuine cultural behaviours in the past. What he termed the ‘nuanced interrogation of these data’ is already producing results. For example, of the 1726 known individuals, children (or ‘non adults’) are distinctly under represented (c. 25%). Among the adults, there is a similar under representation of women. Across the Neolithic and Bronze Age it appears that age and sex demographics are broadly similar. During the Neolithic there are relatively low markers for physiological stress, but there indications of long-term damage to shoulders and backs. This work-related trauma is taken to suggest that there was a large amount of heavy lifting and portage in these people’s lives. By the Bronze Age there appears to have been a diminution in general health, with increased markers for physical stress. There is also evidence for increases in blunt-force trauma and an upsurge in tooth decay. Outlining plans for the future, he argued that an effort should be made to locate the current whereabouts (and curation details) of the skeletal material. At this time, the location and condition of 80% of the material in their database is unknown. Though, to put this in context, this figure does include antiquarian investigations and modern excavations are much better represented. In his final comments, Ó Donnabháin called for the standardising of ostearchaeological methodology, recording analysis and reporting. He also argued that it should be standard practice to publish, not just the summary results, but the raw data set accumulated during the analysis. Such a move would allow other researchers to examine and reassess the work in the future and would be a considerable resource for researchers.

Dr. Ingelise Stuijts (The Discovery Programme) spoke about WODAN: Developing a wood and charcoal database for Ireland. She began by giving a brief history of the project and explaining that Phase I began with gauging the desirability of such a resource within the wood identification community and also assessing how information was currently stored. The first realisation was that there was no standardisation across the profession. In terms of storing data, many individuals and institutions used their own in-house database systems, which were largely incompatible with each other. She also pointed out that many researchers stored their data in MS Excel spreadsheets and, while useful, are not actually databases. Having decided to create a new database the question arose as to how the data would be shared. The idea that it could be disseminated on disc to interested parties was considered, but ultimately rejected; owing to issues of distribution and the difficulty in knowing of the data you are working with is the latest version. From these bases, the aims of the project were to create a new database that pursued high standards (recognised both in Ireland and internationally); accessibility of the data; and built on a secure, robust technology. The project took the decision to embrace open source ‘cloudcomputing’ to provide a web enabled and web hosted resource. Although not yet ready for public release, Stuijts described some of the features of the resource, including ‘MyWODAN’ where personal projects (either research or commercial) may be hosted, though not ready for full dissemination. There are also flexible query functionality and the ability to produce auto saturation curves. This latter function allows the researcher to gauge the number of individual samples necessary to provide a comprehensive assessment of an individual site. In its current form the database contains detailed information on over 500 sites.

Looking to the future, she argues for agreed standards in wood and charcoal identification, along with standardised outputs. The project is also working to provide suitable pro-forma sheets to be used by field archaeologists to assist in the collection of suitable meta-data on the samples excavated. She would also like to see stronger links with field archaeologists to allow information to be referred back to the database from final reports and publications. Finally, she argued for the use of the database to be linked to the licenses to export and alter archaeological materials, to ensure the best level of reporting.

Dr. Nicki Whitehouse (QUB) presented the results of Cultivating Societies: Accessing the Evidence for Agriculture in Neolithic Ireland. She explained that it was a topic close to her personal research interests in the beginnings of the Neolithic across the whole of northwestern Europe. However, she felt that there had been little previous work in linking individual sites to the environmental data and to the economy – a situation rectified by the INSTAR funding for this project. As others had previously described, this project wished to create new paradigms through the maximisation of the data mountain produced through commercial excavation during the ‘Celtic Tiger’ economy. In particular, the project sought to bring a Bayesian approach to questions of chronology, while bringing both archaeological and palaeoenvironmental data together. The project commissioned 189 new radiocarbon determinations and collated a further 1433 previously available dates. The project used paired dates in a Bayesian framework to significantly refine the available chronology. She identified a problem in the accessing of much of the ‘grey literature’ resource as there is no central repository for archaeological reports. Nonetheless, she did praise the ‘huge goodwill’ the project generally received from the archaeological community. Once the basic data had been collected, the state of the resource was examined. One result of this process was the identification that half of the relevant sites are securely dated, while the other half is not. Of the dated material, Neolithic houses are particularly well represented, while pit complexes are neither as well dated, nor as regularly selected for radiocarbon dating. In essence, there has been a concentration on dating the very obvious features. Not coming as a huge surprise, the project indentified that charcoal dates tend to be older and that there should be a concerted effort to utilise short-lived samples. While I agree wholeheartedly, I have argued elsewhere (Chapple 2008a, 156; see also Ashmore 1999) that while such concerns are well recognised within field archaeology, finding a suitable single entity sample is often difficult to achieve.

The project also sought to interrogate the robustness of McSparron’s ‘Neolithic House Horizon’ where the vast majority of well-dated houses cluster at the beginning of the Neolithic (McSparron 2008). McSparron (using 18 radiocarbon determinations) sees the dates for these structures as confined to a 100 year (or less) window at the very beginning of the Neolithic. The project commissioned a further 126 dates on single entity, short-lived materials. The results demonstrate the robustness of the McSparron model, though the use of Bayesian analysis could reduce the time span further, to a 40-100 year period. Similar new dates and Bayesian analysis at Corbally, Co. Kildare, have demonstrated that settlement here may be broken down into four distinct phases, as opposed to the previous understanding that all the activity was contemporary. A particular emphasis was placed by the project on dating the previously under-represented pit complexes. In all, 37 new dates were commissioned for 10 sites. The results of this show a general picture of the rectangular house phenomenon being replaced by pit complexes. While there is a slight degree of overlap between the two forms of occupation, it appears to be based on the data from a single site. If I understood her correctly, the site in question is one excavated under my direction: Site 12 at Oakgrove, Gransha, Co. Londonderry (Chapple 2008b). Here a date on charcoal came back at 4930±70 (Beta-227762, 3943-3583 cal BC). Further dates in short-lived, single entity materials were undertaken by the ‘Cultivating Societies’ project (Schulting & Reimer in Chapple 2008b, Appendix 7), refining the chronology considerably. At the time I wrote it up for publication I was unsure as to whether it could realistically be described as a ‘house’ in the way that that term is usually used. My feeling was that, when the recovered evidence was taken together, it must represent some form of ‘settlement’, if not an actual ‘house’. I largely stand by this assertion, but feel that if there had to be a defined affinity between one group or another, Site 12 should be categorised among the houses.

Site 12, Oakgrove, Gransha, Co. Londonderry, during excavation

An examination of recovered weed seeds has also been taken to suggest that during the Neolithic permanent, manured plots were used. While it seems like a simple observation, this has radical implications for how we interpret questions of sedentarism and mobility during this period. Whitehouse was also quick to point out that charred plant macrofossils are only part of the picture and involve questions of survival and discovery. To demonstrate this point, she pointed to the evidence recovered from Clowanstown 1, Co. Meath, where analysis of waterlogged material demonstrated the continued importance of wild varieties in the Early Neolithic diet.

In assessing the available pollen records the project found that although some 400 pollen cores have been taken over the last 80 to 100 years, only 70 were considered sufficiently well dated and of use to the needs of the project. One of the questions being investigated is the evidence or spatial variability in events such as the Elm Decline and how it is actually associated with the beginnings of the Irish Neolithic. Another aspect of working with the pollen diagrams is that not all have sufficient radiocarbon dates (and in the right places). To circumvent this difficulty, the project made use of ‘Age Depth Modelling’, where a mathematical model is employed to create ‘virtual’ radiocarbon dates for any given place on the core. To date over 700 age models have been created and the elm decline may now be confidently dated to the period 4327-3881 cal BC – a period of 946 cal years. Within this data there also appears to b evidence of a geographical lag between the north and the west of the island. However, Whitehouse admits that more work is needed. There also appears to a correlation between reforestation in the period 3400-3300 cal BC and the end of the rectangular house ‘building boom’. She suggests that this may coincide with the dates for Whittle’s arguments for a rise in the construction of enclosures and cursus monuments.

The final speaker of the day was Prof. Przemysław Urbańczyk (Polish Academy of Sciences) who talked about INSTAR and Archaeological Research Funding Initiatives. For those of us not familiar with him and his work, he described his background in Irish Archaeology and his association with INSTAR in particular. In particular he charted the vicissitudes of funding for the programme and, despite the reduced investment in the later phases, saw much to recommend. In particular he wished to stress the achievements of the programme and the results achieved. He argued for the value of such a programme and compared its existence and success to the situations in both Norway and his native Poland. He described how in Poland the National Heritage Institute allocates money to a much larger number of small projects, versus the small number of INSTAR projects. While he sees that the Polish system makes ‘more people happy’, the Irish system has returned projects that have had much more major impacts on our understanding of the subject as a whole. He also saw that in both Norway and Poland most of the money spent by the state was spent on the management of the existing resource (curation, cataloguing etc.) as opposed to INSTAR, which has made meaningful new leaps forward in our knowledge. There are no large-scale projects funded through central government in either of these countries, and he felt that the Irish situation may well be unique. This uniqueness was expressed not just in terms of the national scale of INSTAR, but in the bringing together of both academic and private stakeholders. For achieving these goals, it should be the envy of Europe. While he admitted that the INSTAR programme has not been prefect, it was his contention that it remained as an exemplar for others to follow. He also spoke on the importance of not just seeing Ireland in terms of it relationships with Britain, but as part of a Europe-wide canvas. This is not simply a plea to ‘big picture’ archaeology, but a response to the reality that the majority of the funding coming from European central funds is keen on examining this theme and that projects (however worthy) that fail to look at the widest picture will not succeed. Practically his final words to the assembled delegates spoke of the achievements of the INSTAR programme: “What you have done: this is really great”

As one might imagine, all the speakers were concerned to demonstrate that the funds entrusted to them had paid dividends – not ‘merely’ in terms of the exciting and extraordinary results that had been achieved. In his presentation, Ó Carragáin explained that the ‘Making Christian Landscapes’ project had employed two core researchers, supported two PhD students and also resulted in various publications and conference papers, including the organisation of a dedicated conference in UCC to be held in 2012. Dr. Graeme Warren’s discussion of the effects of the ‘Neolithic and Bronze Age Landscapes of North Mayo’ project also promoted the importance of the employment opportunities created and their commitment to dissemination of their results. Stephen Davis spoke of the truly impressive list of collaborators that ‘The Boyne Valley Landscape Project’ had accrued, underlining the importance of the interdisciplinary nature of INSTAR. He also discussed the job creation aspect of the project, and while there were no long term jobs created, a number of short contracts were awarded. On top of this, the project facilitated two PhD and two MA students. Davis also wished to emphasise the more intangible, but no less important, benefits of capacity building. The interdisciplinary scope of the project has changed how many of those who participated in it now work and see the contributions that can be brought by their colleagues. Dr. Aidan O’Sullivan told how EMAP had already resulted in 32 public presentations, 20 publications, and one conference, along with having funded, supported and facilitated various MA and PhD scholars. EMAP has also made their reports directly available from their website. In Bhreathnach’s summation of the ‘Mapping Death’ project she noted that it had employed five part-time researchers, along with producing various published papers and conference presentations. The ‘People of Prehistoric Ireland’ had similar outputs, including the hard-copy libraries at QUB and UCC, along with a list of both academic and popular publications and public presentations. Similarly, Stuijts, in her summation of the achievements of the WODAN project, mentioned various conference presentations (including one in Japan), four organised workshops, one PhD thesis facilitated, along with the creation of one full-time and three part-time research positions. The ‘Cultivating Societies’ project was similarly prodigious, with various seminars organised and the employment of three researchers. In particular, the ‘Cultivating Societies’ project will soon have an issue of the prestigious Journal of Archaeological Science dedicated to its work.

There is only one thing that the various INSTAR projects have not done yet and that is to deliver the major syntheses that have been promised. All of the speakers emphasised their commitment to producing these volumes and, from what I can gather, the texts are well advanced. If I was to isolate one theme that came from this conference it would be that Irish archaeology as we knew it is over. While these publications are pending, the ground is still reverberating and in shock. But when they arrive and are digested, we will awake with new eyes and look upon an unfamiliar landscape for the first time. I, for one, can’t wait.

References:

Ashmore, P. J. 1999 ‘Radiocarbon dating: avoiding errors by avoiding mixed samples’ Antiquity 73, 124-130.

Chapple, R. M. 2008a ‘The absolute dating ofarchaeological excavations in Ulster carried out by Northern Archaeological Consultancy Ltd., 1998-2007’ Ulster Journal of Archaeology 67, 153-181.

Chapple, R. M. 2008b ‘The excavation of Early Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites at Oakgrove, Gransha,county Londonderry’ Ulster Journal of Archaeology 67, 153-181.

McSparron, C. 2008 ‘Have you no homes to go to?’ Archaeology Ireland 22.3, 18-21.

Mytum, H. 1991 The Origins ofEarly Chritian Ireland, London.

Notes:

As the major theme of the conference was the relaying of the results from so many imaginative projects, the data was, at times, flying thick and fast. I hope that I have done justice to all of the speakers at the event and their projects. Nonetheless, I do sincerely apologise if, in the rush to write notes and keep up with the pace of delivery, I have misrepresented or misquoted anyone. If so, please contact me and I will endeavour to set the record straight.

I realise that ‘Early Medieval’ is the generally accepted term these days. However, as I have already stated, I dislike and distrust this neologism and refuse to use it. Throughout this paper, I have used my preferred term: Early Christian.

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

William McCartney ‘Cocky’ Dunlop, BEM, MBE, 1920-2011: An appreciation

2011-10-03T11:53:00.000+01:00

With the passing of Billy Dunlop, on the 15th of September 2011, Irish archaeology lost one of it great promoters and enthusiasts. I cannot claim to have known Billy longest or best, but, like many field archaeologists working in Northern Ireland, I owe him a vast debt of gratitude for his kindness and generosity. For those stories shared over cups of tea on site or for the books lent to me from his personal collection I was, and remain, grateful. In time, I trust, appropriate obituaries and appreciations will appear from the pens of others better acquainted with more aspects of his life. My intention here is to set down a general outline of his life along with some of my memories of this energetic and charismatic man, who I am privileged to have known and been able to call both a mentor and a friend.

Billy was born in 1920 in Court Street, Newtownards, and grew up on Deleware St, off the Ravenhill Road, Belfast. At the age of 14 he joined The Post Office as a telegraph messenger, delivering telegrams across Belfast, and by 1939 had graduated to the position of postman. In 1941 he signed up as a wireless telegraphist or radio operator. He was part of the group sent to San Francisco to commission the escort carrier, HMS Attacker. In December 1942 he was transferred to Landing Ship Tank (LST) 362, berthed in New York. He personally took part in the landings in Sicily, at both Salerno and Anzio. Coming back from North Africa in March 1944, to take part in the D-day landings, his ship was torpedoed and sunk around 400 miles west of Brest. Of the 115 soldiers on board, 88 were killed, along with 15 of the crew. After several hours in the water, and close to death, he was picked up by an LST, though not before twice falling back into the water, coming perilously close to being lost for good. Billy often attributed this and similar close brushes with death as changing his outlook on life, making him open to new ideas and adventures. After the war he returned to The Post Office, and joined the trade union movement in 1947. After holding a number of local and regional offices within the movement, he was elected to membership of the national executive in 1969. He was one of the chief organisers of the famous postal strike of 1971, and was personally responsible for the Northern Ireland branch at that time. Through his work with The Post Office Youth Club, he introduced the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award to Northern Ireland. Even after his retirement at 65, he remained as leader of The Post Office Youth Club and remained active up until he was almost 70. During this period his activities expanded into contacts with other youth groups, in particular broadening the role and appeal of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award to all sections of Northern Ireland society. After retirement from The Post Office, he enrolled in two classes close to his heart: archaeology and bird watching. The archaeology course led to him joining the Ulster Archaeological Society in 1971, eventually becoming a committee member in 1987 and editor of the UAS Newsletter in the same year. Although he spent three years as Vice President of the Society and was President in 2000, he maintained that his greatest contribution was as editor of the Newsletter. In 1979 he took part in his first excavation, for Prof. P. C. Woodman at the Mesolithic site at Bay Farm, Carnlough, Co. Antrim. After that he was deeply bitten by the excavation bug and participated in nearly all of the ‘Classic’ excavations of the period: Navan Fort, Donegore Hill, Haughey’s Fort, Ballynahatty, and Ballygalley. It is a testament not just to his importance in Irish archaeology, but the degree in which he was both loved and respected, that he was the guest of honour at the UAS’s annual dinner in 2010. The current volume of the Ulster Journal of Archaeology (Vol. 68, 2009) is also dedicated to him. I am also glad to report that, though in hospital, he was presented with an advance copy of the journal and got to see physical evidence of the regard in which he was held.

Obviously, I didn't know Billy throughout the majority of his long and eventful life. He and I only became acquainted in June 1999 when we worked together on the excavation at Navan Fort, Site C, Co. Armagh. My first impressions were of an exceedingly energetic pensioner who, with both his ability to shovel earth and general enthusiasm, put many of us - less than a third of his age - to shame. Some of us (me included) wondered at his capacity for endless work. As we sweated and swore about aching shoulders and sore arms, Billy gauged that the time was right for an introduction to his mini lecture series on the right and wrong ways of using what is termed in Northern Ireland, the 'long tail shovel'. Although difficult to put into words, the 'Dunlop Method' centred on using the long handle as a fulcrum, thus letting nature (and physics) do most of the hard work. Billy claimed that by using this method, one could easily shovel spoil all day without tiring. As is the way of such good advice, so generously given, some of us listened and adopted this new method pretty much immediately and some of us didn't. In retrospect, I would like to say that I was instantly convinced of the merit in Billy's suggestion and benefited immediately from this good advice. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that I didn't, and expended much time and energy needlessly hefting soil. Eventually, with a little further tuition from Billy, I came around to his way of thinking - and have benefited from it ever since.

When it comes to interpreting Navan Fort, the professional archaeological classes immediately go to the 'ritual' default setting. In fairness, it is difficult to envision describing such a site as this without invoking 'The R Word' - so much of the evidence appears to depend on a 'non-domestic' interpretation. Could anyone reading this explain the preparation of the '40 metre structure' - literally packed to the rafters with stone and then set on fire - without invoking a ritualised aspect to the procedure? It was for this reason that I was particularly taken with Billy's approach to the site. Instead of talking about the individual features, Billy was more interested in how the site was used by ordinary people - not the aristocratic warrior or elite priestly classes - and how they would have interacted with and responded to the space. As he explained it to us excavators (under the watchful, if slightly bemused, eye of the site director, Dr. Chris Lynn) the majority of Iron Age society would have been isolated from the reasoning and decision-making processes behind the ritual activities on the site. The way Billy saw it, most people came to Navan Fort, not out of any high-minded desire to be involved in any of the 'elite activities', but because it would be a large gathering of people. Sitting on the side of the Site B mound, Billy painted a picture of friendships made and renewed; marriage matches agreed; true loves found and lost; along with quite a bit of cattle-trading; story-telling; drinking and general fun and rowdiness. Over time, this line of thinking has become particularly influential on my own approach to archaeology. Admittedly, these activities are all but irrecoverable by traditional archaeological means. Nonetheless, we risk radically misinterpreting any site we excavate if we fail to contemplate the range of uses to which it was put and how its meaning would have differed to different sections of society, even at the time it was constructed and used. While it does not always filter throughout to the final excavation reports I submit, or the papers I publish, it is integral to how I understand and interact with the site as we excavate it.

In August and September of that year (1999) we worked together again - this time at the Late Neolithic timber enclosure at Ballynahatty (BNH5), beside The Giant's Ring, Co. Down. Like Navan Fort, Ballynahatty is best described in terms of ritual activities carried out there. I admit that I was particularly shocked when I heard Billy trotting out the same story of how this site worked - the animal markets, the feasting, the friendships, the true loves found and misplaced, the story-telling, and (of course) the drinking. The only real difference this time was that the watchful eyes and slightly bemused look belonged to a different site director - the indefatigable, Barry Hartwell. It took me a little time to realise a couple of things. First, this approach is equally valid for both Navan Fort and Ballynahatty. Secondly, and more importantly, Billy was telling those of us willing to listen how he saw the world and what was truly important in it. Not the creation of great buildings, nor the dedicated following of religious observances; but the personal moments of loves found, and friendships made, jokes and stories told, food and drink shared.

I worked side by side with Billy only once more - at Navan Fort in 2000. By that time I considered him a mentor. I also smiled quite a bit as both excavators and visitors to the site were treated to his special view of how a large part of the Iron Age population of Co. Armagh felt about the site. After that I moved south to work on various excavations, and didn't see Billy all that frequently. However, once I returned to Belfast in 2002 to direct sites for NAC, Billy was regularly on the phone looking to elicit any details I could give him about our excavations for the UAS Newsletter. As I noted above, Billy took on the job of Editor of the UAS Newsletter in 1987, and quickly made it his own. For nearly 23 years he kept the members informed on all aspects of the society, from descriptions of outings, lectures and AGMs to lists of recently published books. As an aside, in conversation after his funeral service I learned that although he accepted the support of an Assistant Editor for the last number of issues of the Newsletter, his last editorial was dictated over the phone from his hospital bed. For myself one of the most important feats Billy performed with the Newsletter was his collection and dissemination of information on the excavations ongoing across Ulster - it was apparent that I was not alone in being regularly contacted to provide information. The fantastic thing about Billy’s reports was that the information was frequently gleaned while the site was still ongoing. In this way he managed to capture some of the excitement and spontaneity of field excavation, where all the evidence had yet to be excavated and theories fully explored. In my case Billy produced the first published account of my excavations at Oakgrove, Co. Londonderry. Unfortunately, he chose to quote me verbatim when I said that I was confronted by an extremely difficult site and that I wasn’t exactly sure what was going on with it.

I remember other times too, such as when we sat in the ditch of the Bronze Age site at Loughry, Co. Tyrone. He and a number of boon companions from the UAS had made the trip out to see the site and the amazing collection of pottery vessels we were in the process of recovering. As we sat on the hard-baked earth in the slowly dimming light of a summers evening, in between stories of his time in the Navy and in ‘The Union Game’, he still argued that I should be looking beyond the artefacts we were recovering and instead think about the meanings that the place held for the ‘ordinary people.’

As the years have gone by our friendship developed. Even in this economic downturn he would frequently call me to ask if I had details of any new excavations or other items for the Newsletter. When I read his plea for a computer on which he could write the Newsletter, I donated one of my machines. Having heard Barrie Hartwell’s eloquent and moving eulogy, I now realise that Billy was a frequent accidental killer of computers … through misplaced cups of coffee, to (apparently) spontaneous combustion. I now realise what he meant when, as I apologised for it being a rather elderly machine, he said ‘if it does me for one or two issues of the Newsletter, it’ll be fine’. The last time we met was when he invited me around to his house – I had been after an early volume of the Ulster Journal of Archaeology for one of my research projects. While he seemed slightly frail, none of his energy or enthusiasm was in any way diminished. He was full of delight in what I was working on and, next thing I knew, books and journal volumes were being thrust into my hands with instructions to read. When I told him that, with all my other commitments, it would be some time before I could return them, he simply replied: ‘keep them – I think that all of my major research projects are over now and I doubt that I will be embarking on any more’. I think it is a testament to the man that even at the age of 90, and looking slightly frail, I was disinclined to believe him – it seemed impossible that Billy could ever be finished researching and writing. Even when I heard that he had been taken to hospital, I presumed that it was something routine and he would be back at the heart of the UAS in no time. Unfortunately, I was wrong. At his funeral service I was moved and impressed by all the facets of his life, some of which I knew about: postman, sailor, Union organiser, youth worker, bird watcher, Duke of Edinburgh’s Award organiser, archaeologist, and aficionado of the Ulster Fry. Others I was not particularly aware of, if I even knew at all: candidate for election, Oxford scholar, and a tone-deaf lover of both opera and jazz. While there was so much life crammed into one man - or one man who crammed so much into his life – this is not how I will remember him. When I think of Billy, my mind will first go to the grassy slopes of the Navan Fort mound on a long-ago lunch break, listening to him talk about the importance of personal relationships in both the past and the present. As the breeze ruffled the leaves on the trees, and the percolating sunshine dappled the faces of the excavation crew, I remember a man, telling his stories, content in himself, and happy to pass on his wisdom to those willing to listen.

Note: you can hear Billy talk about his life in his own words here.

The photograph used at the beginning of this post is a shot from the top of Navan Fort mound (site B) in 1999. Billy is the standing figure on the left, in all probability holding forth on his theories on the site.

Was the Building Boom so Bad for Irish Archaeology? A reply to Fin Dwyer

2011-10-01T13:14:00.000+01:00

[**If you like this post, please visit one or two of the advertisement links on this page to help generate a little income for the site. If you think the review is useful, please re-share via Facebook, Google+, Twitter etc.**]

On the 17th of August 2011 Fin Dwyer published a blog post on his Irish History Podcast site detailing “8 Reasons why the Building Boom was Bad for Irish Archaeology”. I only saw it a little while later, when a link was posted on the Irish Diggers Forum Facebook page. The original post is, obviously, a heartfelt and deeply personal assessment of the Irish archaeological profession’s recent past.

This is my response.

In the spirit of engaging in debate on the topic, I wanted to make a more formal and considered reply, that exceeded pressing the ‘like’ button on a Facebook page, or writing a brief comment on the blog page. Indeed, the comments on the original piece quickly became fractious and one response from the blogger to a critic was failure to engage with the original points raised. I feel that full ‘engagement’ is impossible in a ‘comment box’ format, so I have chosen to write a point-by-point rebuttal. But first, I’ve got to put some cards on the table – I don’t know Fin Dwyer or the individual(s) behind the Irish DiggersForum page – I do not even know if they are run by the same people or not. Thus, I have neither personal animosity nor considerations of friendship in any of my statements, either agreeing or disagreeing with the points raised. I do not claim to have done any intensive background research, nor am I presenting this as anything other than my personal views on the original post. Like the original post, this too is a highly personal piece and comes from the heart as much as from the head. Inevitably, readers may feel that it does not cover all the issues in the ways they would like to see. It’s not meant to … If you disagree, post something in the comments or write your own piece!

More cards on the table – I’m not hiding my identity behind a single name – I’m sorry, Fin, it took me half an hour to find your surname and, I still have no real idea who you are. I’m Robert M Chapple … Google my name and you’ll find out all you could ever want to know about me … and plenty you’d probably be happy living without! I’ve got a personal website that lists my entire CV and a whole host of publications. I’ve been involved in various aspects of archaeology since 1989. In that time I’ve seen it go from something akin to a Feudal system of strategic friendships and alliances to secure one of the few jobs going, through the ‘Celtic Tiger’ years and out the far side into the current recession. I’ve worked at nearly every level in field archaeology from entry level digger, through site supervisor onto site director and in senior archaeologist/project manager roles too. Along the way I’ve worked for some of the biggest consultancies and for some ‘one man and his dog’ operations as well. I think that the only position I’ve not held is actually running my own archaeological company. While my career has been split between the jurisdictions of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, my comments here are confined to my experiences in the latter, though some of the examples I draw on are from Ulster.

The Irish History Podcast lists eight points, so I’ll examine each in turn.

1) Unenforced and unenforceable legislation
I partially agree with this point … the legislation was designed for another age … one which never foresaw the huge expansion in excavation that happened during the first decade of this century. I’m no student of legal history, but I’ve long imagined that the original legislation (section 26 of the 1930 act) was intended to provide oversight to a number of relatively small-scale excavations carried out as research endeavours by university professors and their students, or by the National Museum, in response to reports of materials found during farming work etc. Even when the legislation was updated in the 1990s (section 21 of the 1994 act) it did not envision (nor could it ever have) the development boom and the strains that it placed on the legal framework.

One aspect of the legislation I strongly disagree with is that of the licence being a contract between the ‘Licensed Archaeologist’ and the state. In my experience, this has led to a number of serious issues where the state can threaten to end an archaeologist’s career by refusing to issue any further excavation licenses, regardless of the circumstances. By this I mean, whether or not the original archaeological company and/or developer has refused to/cannot pay for post-ex or even if the archaeologist still works for the company. Under the current legislation sole responsibility lies with the Licensee. Mandal & O’Carroll (2008, 38) noted that one of the conditions of the License Application is that the archaeologist can confirm that adequate funds are in place to ensure the works can be completed to the level of publication. They note that the financial arrangements are between the company and the developer … the licensed archaeologist generally has no knowledge of the arrangements, much less a say in the matter. Mandal & O’Carroll suggest that the license method statement should state the type of contract (i.e. fixed price etc.) with a ‘bill of quantities’ detaining the financial resources agreed. Such changes in the licensing structure alone would add greatly to the legislation’s value and workability.

While Dwyer sees the legislation as unenforced, I would argue that it was being applied on the ground in the best way it could have been – with the emphasis being on the spirit of the law, rather than its’ letter. By this I mean that great effort was made by Dúchas (later DoEHLG) to ensure that the legislation was used effectively and sensibly by an over worked and under resourced department to ensure that the system kept functioning. Yes, there were (and, I believe, remain) flaws in the system, but my experience of working with the licensing bodies has always been largely positive.

The point of lack of independence of the site director is raised here. The argument – and I’ve heard it on sites across the island – is that when ultimate financial control lies with the employers and the developers, pressure will be exerted on the ‘good’ director to rush the job. The problem I have with this is that so many archaeologists, from diggers to directors, have an often vastly inflated view of the position of the site director. I’m sorry to break it to you folks, but site directors are just another level of management. The job is to get the archaeology dug, recorded well, and get the project wrapped up on time and on budget. Of course there is pressure – that’s the nature of the position. I realise that many people (myself included) entered the profession with pure and unsullied thoughts of the importance of archaeology. But here’s the thing – no matter how lofty your aims are, you still have to operate in a business setting … I’ve had to learn some harsh lessons along the way about how business operates. I would dearly love if all developers would stop all they’re doing and give me all the time I’d like to excavate everything to its’ fullest extent … I’d also like it if they didn’t question my obvious need for all those radiocarbon dates (what do you mean, I can’t have two per feature?) and that lipid analysis of the interesting looking Beaker Vessel. Unfortunately, life and business is just not like that. And that’s the point here – archaeology (no matter how important and lovely and precious WE think it is) is a business, and exists in a business world. I know that I can become badly stressed on site, trying to juggle the various responsibilities of keeping to the agreed timescales when the archaeology appears to be going on forever and you said you’d be out of there in a week! But let me say it again – I’d like it to be different, but that’s how it is – that is the job I signed up for – and I’m not looking for anyone’s praise or sympathy for it.

Other than the illogic in the way excavation licenses are framed (as discussed above), I would have one gripe with the position of site director. It’s simply how you get there … in a perfect world you start off digging and, once you’ve put in your time and shown some aptitude, you graduate to site supervisor. Again you put in your time, show that you’re good at archaeology and next thing you know you’re thinking about going forward for the Licence Interview. I don’t know if it has changed much from when I sat for it, but back then I was asked about my knowledge of the heritage legislation and the remainder of the time was spent identifying and discussing artefacts. I remember some discussion of excavation methodologies and the offer of a pint afterwards by one of the interview panel (the late, and much lamented, Prof. Simpson). What there was no question about … nor was there ever any appropriate training along the way… was in the part of the job that mattered most on a day to day basis – people management. I have since received some training in this field, but not as much as I would like – or probably need.

I hate to seem as though I’m being deliberately incredulous for dramatic purposes, but I truly am taken aback by the phrase: “The archaeology companies primary function was to make money”. If you for one moment remove the word ‘archaeology’ and replace it with, say, ‘oil drilling’ or ‘haberdashery’ the true ridiculousness of the line becomes even more apparent. I do not want to sound pedantic about it, but the archaeology companies may indeed have been set up by archaeologists who wanted to do beautiful and wonderful archaeology … but they are still companies and they are designed to (hopefully) make profits. Again we come back to the idea of there being a dichotomy between profits and best practice … yes the life of a site director is not always a happy one, yes there are huge pressures involved … and yes, it’s up to you to make sure the site is excavated to the best standards you can attain. As site director it’s also up to you to make the hard choices when money, timescales and archaeology meet … they’re not always easy choices and they’re not often pleasant … but they have to be made: how you examine the site; what do you sample; what do you sacrifice? These are all legitimate questions that the site director has to face – often alone. Just because they are difficult does not lessen their importance. Just because you cannot run a commercial excavation like you would run a ‘wish-list’ research dig doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing and compromises the spirit of ‘best practice’.

2) Construction companies and developers held all the cards
Again, I partially agree with this point. The way the legislation is framed, the burden is on the developer to pay for the excavation of the archaeology that they destroy to undertake their development. It is my opinion that this is as it should be. Yes, they frequently use their financial leverage or sheer bloody-mindedness to attempt not to pay for reports once the physical excavation was complete. I agree that changes are needed in the speed and severity of enforcement for those companies who refuse to honour their obligations. I think that the statutory powers available are neither being as swiftly, nor as harshly threatened or applied to those companies as is appropriate or necessary. I also believe that the legislation should be reviewed to consider ways in which these sanctions can be intensified and strengthened. While I would love to advocate a system where the developer could not sell the houses he builds until the final excavation was complete – it’s simply not practical and you don’t need me to spell out the difficulties. An alternative approach – used by Roads Service NI, but I’m not sure if it’s in operation in the Republic – is to require a substantial amount of bond money lodged with the department. Once the final excavation report has been submitted and approved, the bond money can be released back to the developer. Obviously there would be resistance to such an idea from the developers (more costs) and from the government (requires more resources in already lean times). On the positive side – it at least is a proven method, already used by other branches of government. A different approach may be to examine a more carrot-based method of enforcement. Could we foresee a time when developers are given tax incentives to ensure the completion of excavation reports? Before anyone reminds me that it is already their obligation and that they should do it, let me remind you: the system is patently not working and needs to be re-examined with the greatest urgency.

Dwyer at least realises that construction companies are not interested in archaeology for the sake of archaeology, but are interested in the projects that make them money. He says: “They were only interested in financing excavations in order to destroy the archaeological sites as quickly as possible”. But before we accept this at face value, let us put it into a little bit of context. Most developers had nothing personal against archaeology – merely that they were being forced to pay for it. The fact that many individual archaeologists experienced personal abuse from developers and construction workers, while not excusable, was – in part – an expression of their financial frustration. To add further context to this, let me be clear that developers do not like paying for anything. I have a sneaking suspicion that if developers could sell you a house and then tell you that the doors, windows, roof, plumbing, and wiring were all extras that you had to pay for on top of the purchase price, they would. This is not a particular criticism of developers, merely an articulation of the fact that they are in business to make money for themselves – the largest amount of money for the least outlay. If, as archaeologists, we fail to understand this, then we have no place in a business environment.

As an aside, I would point out that that some of the friction on the ground between developers and construction workers on one side, and archaeologists on the other is caused by mutually exclusive stereotypes. We are often viewed as representatives of either a middle-class, university-educated, liberal elite or as a bunch of filthy tree-hugging hippies and (in either case) opposed to development of any kind. There is much to reject in this simple stereotype, but we would do well to realise that it exists. For our part, we often characterise ‘the other side’ as unwashed, ill-educated, rural, anti-intellectual savages who want nothing more than to destroy all that is beautiful and truly important in the world for a quick profit. There may be some truth in this description, as unflattering as it is, but it is not the whole story. My purpose in identifying these stereotypes is to allow us to move beyond them. We archaeologists need to become more business-like in our approach – not just those who run the companies, but the excavators on the site. Too often excavators treat their jobs as some form if extension to university life, where it’s ok not to turn up because you’ve got a hangover, or because it’s Thursday. The company management may try as hard as they like to have a decent business profile and foster mature relationships with the wider business community – but it is all for nothing if the site foreman repeatedly sees us arriving on to site like a rag-tag bunch of war refugees, with some missing and some late. Even our behaviour on site is not always beyond reproach – too often we are found taking little smoke breaks, ‘stretching our legs’, ‘just having a chat about this … erm … tricky natural’. As field workers we must be aware that we are under constant (and justifiable) observation by the development companies who ultimately pay our wages. I realise that I’m probably going to take some criticism for these remarks, but – answer honestly – am I actually wrong?

Anyway, back to Fin … He raises the complaint that the archaeology industry was profit driven (I’m not going to argue this one again) and that report writing was seen as a drain on resources and relegated to a secondary position. I agree, Fin, I really do. We should have been coming off site on a Friday evening and expecting to start post-ex on Monday morning. In 20 years, I think it’s happened like that for me once. As I’ve said above, there does need to be stricter controls over developers and how the completion of archaeological reports is enforced. However, the argument presented here appears to paint the archaeological companies as the ones mostly at fault. This is simply contradictory – on one side we have the developers holding all the financial cards and now we have the archaeologist not insisting we write up sites. I may not have run an archaeological company, but I have been around enough of them to know that no one ever deliberately refuses to pursue a developer for funding for post-ex. Yes, we have jumped from one excavation to the next – to the detriment of reporting on our discoveries – but for sound economic reasons. Simply put, during the boom times, if company X could not put archaeologists on the ground on the day the developer wanted, then company Y certainly would. In the current climate, those of us left in the profession need to be as flexible and business-friendly as possible. Just so we are clear, I mean ‘business-friendly’ in the sense of accommodating the needs of developers, while maintaining a high standard of archaeological professionalism. This is not a ‘zero-sum game’ where the advancement of one inextricably leads to the diminution of the other.

3) A cut-throat free market operated between the archaeological companies
My problem with the argument presented here is that it appears to, once again, differentiate archaeology (and how much we all love and adore it, and how valuable it is) from the rest of the economy. I really cannot say this enough: we may love and cherish what we do, but we cannot believe that everyone else does too. In the final analysis, not one of us (excavator, site director, company owner, or university Prof.) would keep doing archaeology if it did not pay us to do so. We must learn that ‘business’ is not a dirty word (or two four-letter words jammed together, as I once had it described to me). The rest of the western world operates on a system of competitive tendering, and whether we like it or not we must too. Realistically, what are our alternatives? Bringing our entire society back to some Soviet-era communist utopia? Or would China be a better role model? Seriously though, what is this point proposing? The way I interpret the rationale behind it, it appears to be yet another form of ‘special pleading’ for archaeology. Archaeology is such a ‘non-renewable resource’ that its investigation should not be left to forces as tawdry and base as Capitalism. You have to ask yourself if the way ahead is for all archaeological excavations to be conducted by the state sector? While there’s much wrong with the Capitalist/free market economy system, destroying commercial archaeology to create an NHS for excavations is not the answer. Personally, I’d love to live in that world – where all archaeologists are well-paid civil servants with the power and the status we simply know we deserve: after all, we are archaeologists! I am aware that, having never worked as a civil servant, I may have an unrealistic view of what this utopia might be like. That aside, such a scheme would neither be practical, nor popular – even in times of strong economic health, much less now with all European governments attempting to divest themselves of employees. If I have misrepresented the original point, I do apologise, but there is only one other option I can think of that the original article could be proposing – the archaeological companies agreeing the going rate for labour between themselves, and sticking to it. I am sure that all readers will be well aware that this arrangement is termed a ‘cartel’ and is universally considered to be an illegal business practice.

The one area of this argument where I feel that I am unable to answer adequately is the question of ‘functioning oversight’. While I realise that it has not been a fixture of commercial archaeology, I am unaware as to whether it is a commonly used procedure in other aspects of the building industry, etc. If it is, then by all means, I agree it should be introduced into our working practices. If it is not, then this is simply another case of special pleading for archaeology to be put into a protective bubble, external to the concerns and actualities of the ever so mundane, but real, world.

4) Contracts and timetables were drawn up and agreed before excavations began
The original post appears to argue that as developers controlled the finances of excavations, they also imposed their timescales in advance of the excavations. Dwyer goes on to state that despite the best levels of testing and research; archaeology is not so simply quantified. He cites the hoary old chestnuts of the impossibility of knowing how long any individual feature will take to resolve, and the frequency of archaeological remains ‘unexpectedly’ turning up. On one side the argument is that no extra time or resources could be given when projects are costed in advance, then it changes to decry the extensions granted as ‘tokenistic’.

I own colanders with fewer holes than this argument! I disagree with every sentence and syllable of this argument. In the first instance, in all my years in archaeology, I’ve yet to go onto a site having been told how long I’ve got to excavate it. Admittedly, there is frequent ‘horse-trading’ in terms of line managers attempting to ‘bargain’ me down to something that will freak-out the developers slightly less (please let us not be so naïve as to pretend that this doesn’t happen). But these are minor adjustments to timescales – in the region of 10% of total time on site – and certainly not anything like having an imposed deadline without consultation. It may be that I have led a charmed life and am unbelievably lucky in this regard – it’s a possibility – but I would contend that any company or fieldwork manager that agrees a timescale for an excavation without having any knowledge of the archaeology uncovered is an idiot and has no place either in archaeology or in any form of business.

The point about not being able to fully quantify the archaeology prior to excavation beginning is frequently trotted out, and while there is some truth in it, it is frequently much less that some of us would like to believe. A dark spread on the surface might be a 2m deep pit, but if it is only 0.5m in diameter, that’s pretty unlikely. It is very difficult to know how deep that curvilinear ditch is going to be, but experience should be your guide – if it’s 1m across, it’s not likely to be more than 1m deep … but if it’s 5m across, that’s a different story. A good site director has got to rely on experience and a bit of advance testing (the 5m wide ditch may actually only be 0.5m deep, but it could be packed with artefacts). Similarly, the ‘unexpected’ archaeology does happen, but not as frequently as we would like to think. Relatively small increases in the number of visible features (such as after rain) is relatively common and should be allowed for as a contingency in the timescale. On the other hand, not all of the features identified during topsoil stripping will turn out to be of archaeological interest. Overall, it has been my experience that these things tend to balance themselves out. Lest I be accused of painting too rosy a picture of this process, I admit that things can go spectacularly wrong. In my own experience I had just informed a site foreman that the hill we had just topsoil stripped was free of archaeology and that he could go ahead and remove it. It was at that point a colleague informed me that he’d found quite a lot of charcoal in a little pit, under a stone the mechanical digger had just moved. I was confident that there could not be any more archaeology about as the subsoil in the area was so clean and any archaeology would be immediately obvious. As he started to excavate that small pit, he found that it was actually a much larger pit … as more and more of the crew were deployed to excavate it, we eventually discovered that it was part of a large ditch encircling the entire hilltop. It had been totally obscured by a thick layer of the cleanest redeposited subsoil that I have ever seen. Yes, it was a horrible situation that caused tension between the archaeologists and the developers – after all, they had been told that they could remove the hill and were then forced to redesign their development. Not only is this my worst personal experience in this regard, it’s the worst that I’ve even heard of in my time in archaeology. So, while I am not ruling out the possibility that this does occur, I want to recalibrate the argument to accept that it a vast rarity and not the rule.

The other portion of the argument, implied, but not stated, is that fixed-price contracts are a detriment to archaeology. I’ll be honest and say that they’re not my favourite way to approach the excavation of a site. I believe that I have made it perfectly clear that my preferred type of archaeology is one where there is unlimited time and ample funds for all the dates and specialist analyses I’d like. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. Fixed price contracts are, however, a necessary evil and appear set to be the most common form of contract in the future. This is why fieldwork managers and site directors must work closely together, using a combination of experience, on-site testing and business acumen, to produce realistic timescales that are achievable. The time of bloated estimates and open-ended timescales is past and, whether we like it or not, we have to come to terms with it. The simple fact is that all the other sub-contractors on a development (and yes, we are just another bunch of subbies!) tender with fixed-price bids and while we may like to see ourselves differently from roofers and electricians, we still have to engage in this world if we wish to survive. Can you honestly see a firm of, say, plumbers telling a developer to let them at the job and see how they get on? I’m not a plumber, but I’m sure that there are imponderables to be taken account of in that profession too – to think that archaeology is alone in this is simply arrogance and foolishness.

5) Heavy machinery was used all too frequently
My initial feeling about this criticism is that the author would have preferred to title it ‘Heavy machinery was used’. Indeed, this is a legitimate position to take – some people would prefer to dig a site entirely by hand, eschewing any benefit offered by heavy machinery. However, if there is a misconception that we work with ‘a toothbrush and fine comb’ (or ‘digging with a spoon’ as it is characterised by some people I know), it is also a misrepresentation to claim that ‘mechanical excavators were often the tool of choice’. The line of text linking the needlessness of digging everything by hand to the alleged over use of machinery (‘there is not an archaeologist who has worked in Ireland who has not seen archaeological material needlessly and in some cases intentionally destroyed by mechanical excavators’) is a pure fallacy. It is also a serious allegation. If there is strong evidence of this, it should have been reported to the licensing authorities for formal investigation, and not vague allusions made in a blog post. I realise that the original post was a personal piece, but as such is not immune from the requirements of evidence. This post is also a personal piece, and as such I would like to give two cases where mechanical excavators were used to good effect. In the first case, on a recent excavation in Northern Ireland, we placed a number of hand-dug trenches across a rath ditch. Only once I was satisfied that the stratigraphic sequence was uniform across the feature was a mechanical digger called in. At all times the machine was under the supervision of an experienced archaeologist, with instructions to stop if something of potential importance was discovered. We even made a video of it. True, we were under pressure to conclude the excavation on time and on budget, but it did not prevent us from doing a professional job. On another site, on one of the motorway schemes in the Republic, we dug the majority of an Early Christian ditch by hand, but the large baulks were removed by machine. As the machine progressed through the ditch the supervising archaeologist noticed something important. She stopped the machine and investigated the feature. She had discovered a perfectly-preserved, stone-lined Early Christian hearth. The feature was hand excavated and fully recorded before the mechanical process resumed. In short, I have never seen a mechanical excavator used to ‘needlessly [or] intentionally destroy’ archaeology. In my opinion, the original post attempts to create a false dichotomy between the use of machinery and a shorter excavation schedule on one side and the carrying out of good quality excavation on the other. Lest we forget, every tool in the archaeologist’s repertoire, from spades and shovels to trowels and toothpicks was invented by someone else for some other purpose – it behoves us to examine all the tools available to us and use the most appropriate ones with due care and diligence.

On a related point, I think it is important to remember that the complete excavation of large features such as ditches is a relatively new phenomenon. If we examine some of the older excavations of ditched sites, such as raths, we will not (to my memory) find a single example of 100% excavation. Admittedly, the majority of these were research excavations, where the site was not due to be destroyed at the completion of the excavation. Nonetheless, I have yet to hear anyone contesting the interpretations and wishing for enough grant money to go back and resolve these questions by full excavation.

As a coda to this point, I would like to directly address an allegation raised by someone signing themselves ‘Anon’. The comment on the original post states: “I saw the skeletons of babies excavated by shovels and graves trowelled for by digger bucket … using this rather curious technique you find the grave by the crushed cranium’. I cannot pretend to be anything other than shocked by this. If it happened as it is described, I can only ask why this was not raised with the licensing authorities – even anonymously? Let me be clear – a situation that bad, or a site director that incompetent, is in clear breach of the legislation and should have been removed. Such an allegation of destruction, if proved to be correct, is utterly reprehensible and the person/people responsible have no place in our profession.

6) Straight up corruption
For me, this is the single most invidious piece of the whole post. If the author has no proof of corruption, then why mention it? There is a huge difference between anecdotal stories passed around in a tea-hut and repeating them in the much more formal (and permanent) arena of a blog post. Simply stating that is ‘naïve to think this was not happening’ constitutes neither evidence nor a coherent argument. In the words of Christopher Hitchens: ‘What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence’, or ‘Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur’ if you’re feeling more Latinate. For the record, only twice have I been in situations that would fall into this broad category. In both instances I was solemnly and sincerely told by construction workers than since I had found archaeology on the site, it was only a matter of time before the developer approached me with a bribe to help ‘forget the whole thing’. I was also told that this type of thing ‘happened all the time’. Needless to say, I met with the developers in question on many occasions and was never once offered cash to help ease my memory or speed the dig up. This is why I hold such anecdotal stories of bribes and corruption in such low regard. Again, if you have evidence of corruption – bring it to the relevant authorities or make it public, but please do not make unsubstantiated allegations – it devalues the entirety of your other arguments.

7) No one spoke up
I completely agree with the sentiment that the vast majority of field archaeologists were in a very precarious position throughout the ‘Celtic Tiger’ years. But this can hardly be placed solely at the door of the archaeological companies. My experience is that of ‘Mark’ who posted a comment saying that diggers couldn’t get themselves organised to join a union and that most meetings about unionisation descended into drinking sessions. It is sad, but true, and there is no one to blame but the archaeologists themselves (and I include myself in that category, too). Commentator ‘Mark’ raises an important point that many of the archaeologists were ‘only ever passing through’ and saw no value in it. I also believe that as a group, we were less than knowledgeable about employment legislation and failed to avail of the legal protections available to us. With a transient and uncommitted base it is impossible to mobilise a workforce into an effective social organisation – again this is our failure as employees, not the companies for which we toiled. Ask yourself: would you join a union that was run by your employers? … No, me neither! So, I fail to see how this is their problem.

The ‘troublemaker’ question is also raised in the original post … the problem that anyone who raised questions over the quality of the work would not be rehired for the next job. All I can offer here is my own experience, and I do not pretend that it is any more than anecdotal. In general, my experience has been that many, but not all, of those most vocal about issues of ‘quality’ or methodology were those least equipped to make a balanced statement on such issues – individuals with inflated visions of self worth and archaeological knowledge, un-sustained by actual field experience. There is a great freedom to perch your tent on the moral high ground and question the intentions and abilities of those above you, without ever having taken on those roles and responsibilities yourself. I am fortunate in that I have managed to remain in friendly contact with many archaeologists who worked under my direction over the years. Many of these have gone on to excavate sites of their own and show themselves to be skilled and resourceful site directors. Some have even felt able to come back to me years later and admit that directing an excavation is not as easy as you might think from the position of a digger. It is certainly true for me – as an excavator I have worked for a wide variety of site directors – some good, some bad, some brilliant – but it was not until I started directing my own sites did I have any inkling as to how damn difficult it is to do it at all, don’t mind do it well. While I would not seek to defend every action of every site director, I do suggest that anyone wishing to castigate us (either singly or as a group) look at the broader picture of how a site director must operate and the stresses and obligations of the position. Without wishing to engage in the argument ad hominem, a brief check of the excavations.ie site does not produce any excavation directed by Dwyer. I must thus conclude that Fin has not worked in this capacity. I do not suggest that Dwyer does not have the right to offer an opinion – whatever his level of experience. I am merely pointing out the fact that there is a limit to his experience in these matters. Obviously, there is a limit to my experience too, but I believe that I have clearly stated my background, position and experience at the beginning of this piece.

Getting back to the topic of ‘troublemakers’ it has been my experience that a small number of these, failing some gross dereliction of duty, were the hardest to remove. Bizarrely, the prime reason for this fear was that their dismissal would be interpreted as the removal of a troublemaker, rather than an incompetent, unable to carry out their job. I realise that many reading this will object to such sentiments – and I support your right to do so – but this is an account of my personal experience and I offer it as just that, not an incontrovertible and everlasting truth. Instead, I ask that you cast your mind back to those ‘troublemakers’ … were they really as knowledgeable and able as they proclaimed? Or, even in just a few instances, were they using their indignation as a means of self promotion or as a shield to their own incompetence? To be fair, this is not intended to characterise all who rose up their voices as villains. I merely wish to recalibrate the tacit assumption made by Dwyer that all these people were the unblemished heroes of archaeology, standing up like White Knights against the polycephalic Dragons of profit-oriented consultancies and developers. This characterisation is not the full picture and neither is the other extreme I have presented here as a foil.

In my own experience, I have worked on a number of excavations (both as excavator and director) where such ‘troublemakers’ were invaluable in helping me change my thinking or in suggesting an alternative methodology. To those in this category, I remain grateful for their input and I am glad they spoke up and offered alternate views and advice. However, there is another reason that the idea that those who spoke up got a raw deal is wrong to me. In my time working in the Republic during the ‘boom years’, we simply couldn’t get enough archaeologists. As I discuss below, I saw a situation arise where anyone willing to work was instantly given a job, whether or not they had any experience or training. In this situation it didn’t matter how much trouble anyone caused so long as you had your numbers on site and were resolving the archaeology.

I find the assertion that university lecturers were in a position to speak out, but did not to be, at the very least, disingenuous. Why should anyone expect the majority of this group to have any knowledge of current field practices; good, bad, or indifferent? To say that they had very little knowledge of the alleged facts and then blame them for not speaking out about it is utterly contradictory. Again there is an unsubstantiated allegation that some did know, but chose not to ‘rock the boat’. This is utterly in conflict with my knowledge of the Irish academic community. If we take, for example, the public protests regarding sites like Lismullin and the M3/Tara controversy there is ample evidence of academics making their views known through television and radio interviews and letters to the editors of varying outlets, from The Irish Times to Archaeology Ireland. There is no way that one can correlate these clear and uncontested means of making their objections known with this alleged culture of ‘not rocking the boat’.

8) If you pay peanuts you get monkeys
This is one area where I speak with very little knowledge or authority, as I have never run an archaeological company. Thus, I have no actual knowledge of these ‘massive amounts of money’ being made by the consultancies. I might point out that what appear as vast quantities of money to people like me, are rather trifling to businesses. I am not saying that they were making so much money that it no longer had the same meaning. Not at all. I remember speaking to a company owner during the height of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and being shocked to learn that they needed to be taking in almost a quarter of a million Euros each month (€250,000) … just to break even. No profit there – just paying the bills: heat, light, power, cabin rental, staff wages … but no profit … each and every month! True, put that kind of money beside an individual excavator’s wages and it looks like something from an Asian sweatshop, but it’s far from an accurate and fair assessment of the situation.

Would I like to be paid a vast amount of money to do archaeology? Yes, of course I would. Do I think I deserve it? Damn right I do! And while that fantasy is cute and lovely, it’s time to enter the real world, folks. Again and again we come back to the point that while an awful lot of us do archaeology because we love the subject and think it’s the most important thing in the world, that is not how we are perceived by society in general and the workplace in particular. Yes, it does (usually) take a university degree to be an archaeologist, but it (unfortunately) does not mean that we are automatically entitled to the same pay as others with comparable levels of qualifications, such as engineers etc. Yes, the consultancies undercut each other to get the jobs, but don’t you think that the engineering firms were doing the same? What makes us so special that we should be treated in a way at variance with market forces? Are we back to special pleading again?

I have had the pleasure of working with some of the best and most skilful archaeologists of the current generation, and not one of us was ever paid what we would like or what we deserved. I am not arguing for low pay in archaeology – far from it – but I am attempting to articulate the unpleasant truths that the value of our labour is set not by us and not by the consultancies, but by external market forces, largely beyond our control. It’s sad and it is pretty damn depressing, but it is not the sole fault of those who employed us! As I have said above, there are ways we can attempt to change the perception and the worth of archaeology – but these involve changing ourselves and our attitudes. We have to look like professionals and we have to act like professionals – unless more of us start treating field archaeology as a real job and not the ‘snooze’ button between university and post-grad life, we will never make any progress in being taken seriously – and consequently being better paid. If we don’t stop treating field excavation as that thing you do when you’re not too hung-over, or can be bothered to struggle out of bed, we have no chance for any improvement. Obviously, the vast majority of field archaeologists are hard-working and largely professional in their outlook, but we have a long way to go to counteract the poor impressions created by the few that damage us all. The consultancies themselves are not beyond reproach – it is my opinion that much of the damage to the current standing and perception of field archaeologists was done by the indiscriminate hiring of people with no training or background in the subject. At the height of the boom years it seemed like anyone who could hold a trowel and not poke their own eye out could get a job as an archaeologist. In defence of the companies, what else could they have done? There was so much work, but not nearly enough archaeologists to undertake it all. The only option was to find some kind of warm bodies to fill the roles. The end result was the driving down of wages for the majority and a drastic re-evaluation as to what was considered an acceptable level of archaeological training to do the job. I don’t like it any more than anyone else, but these are the facts as I see them.

I object to the argument that ‘the real money was made by company owners and managers who never worked on sites’. I doubt that anyone who ever worked in field archaeology has ever thought differently – as a group, we’re pretty much convinced that labouring in the field is infinitely nobler than sitting behind a desk. Guess what, sweeties? Nowhere in the world does a manual labourer make more than the folks behind the desk – it just doesn’t happen! We’re also back to the ideal that companies should not make any profits – without banging on about it too much; it’s not going to happen!

I’m sure that some companies had their own helicopters … it’s just that I never worked for them or heard of them. I did hear various stories about ‘another lot’ having outrageous perks for the management … but when I worked for them the stories were the same … just with a different company name inserted! Sure, the offices of some companies appeared to be staffed with cretins who couldn’t organise scratching their own behinds, much less organising ‘portaloos’ to be transported to the site and cleaned on a regular basis. Some of this was incompetence and some of it was pure and simple parsimoniousness. I remember all too well working on one site where the company owner not only refused to provide toilets, but when the supply of nails ran out I was forced (as the only one on site with a Swiss Army knife) to go along the adjacent hedge and collect suitably long thorns. No matter how you look at it, this was an unacceptable and shameful way to run a company. Why did we put up with it? Mostly because we felt that we had no choice and that we’d made a commitment to archaeology, rather than seeking material wealth. We didn’t stand up for ourselves. Until such time as we decide to do archaeology as a real profession and see its actual place in the economic and social structure, we will make no progress in getting better pay, conditions or even that most elusive of goals: ‘respect’. While I have an extreme dislike to the term ‘monkeys’ in this context, I would still rephrase the original point: act like monkeys and be prepared to be offered only peanuts.

Final thoughts
Overall, I stand firmly with the position put forward by John Tierney (one of only two commentators to use their own full names), that the Irish History Podcast blog post is derogatory and insulting to the whole of Irish archaeology – whether it is a personal opinion piece or not. As Tierney says, we’ve seen both publications and quality increase markedly. We have also seen the entire understanding of archaeology on this island change in under 15 years – wholly and solely due to this massive influx of information (if you don’t believe me, compare and contrast O’Kelly’s fine publication ‘Early Ireland: an introduction to Irish Prehistory’ (1989), with Waddell’s magisterial ‘The prehistoric archaeology of Ireland’ (1998, 2000)(especially the 3rd edition of 2010) or even Bradley’s ‘The prehistory of Britain and Ireland’ (2007)). Where I would disagree with Tierney is in the, perhaps, overly positive complexion he puts on the situation. True, the numbers of publications have soared (look at my wish list for confirmation), but it is my firmly held belief that as a percentage of actual excavations carried out, there is likely a decrease in real terms. While some of the formal publications to have emerged are of high quality (see, for example, Delaney & Tierney’s ‘In the Lowlands of South Galway’ for one of the most recent), in my own research for the Irish Radiocarbon Determinations and Dendrochronological Dates catalogue I have encountered some terrible pieces of writing masquerading as final excavation reports. While I would partially blame the individual consultancies for allowing archaeologists with no apparent writing skills to put pen to paper, a good portion of that blame must rest solely with the site directors. If it is part of your job to write clearly and coherently, be prepared to do just that or take some form of training. Otherwise you should find yourself another job. Even with this criticism, I have yet to find any site report without some merit – I definitely believe that we need to improve our reporting at all levels, but the situation is not so bad as is implied by phrases such as ‘destroyed without adequate recording’ or ‘poorly excavated, poorly recorded’.

Do I have any regrets about my time in archaeology? Yes, a few … but I’ve more to be proud of than to regret. It is for this reason, I cannot allow the Fin Dwyer’s post to stand unchallenged – I believe that it does not represent my experience in the profession. Yes there have been negatives in the impact of the building boom on Irish archaeology, but they are more than outweighed by the positive impacts for us all.

Fin Dwyer expressed his desire that we should have a public debate on the issues. As I said at the beginning, this is my reply. I do not claim universality and I do not claim to represent anyone’s experience other than my own. I invite anyone who wishes to comment on this post to add their thoughts in the box below or pen their own rebuttal post – if you don’t wish to start your own blog to do so, I offer anyone willing a ‘guest blog’ spot right here. However, please be prepared to be ignored or deleted if you feel unable to put your full name to any comments you wish to make!

Reference:
Mandal, S. & O’Carroll, F. 2008 ‘Time for a rethink?’ Archaeology Ireland 22.2, 38-39.

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

Irish Copper Age houses in a radiocarbon landscape: a reply to Dr Charles Mount

2011-09-14T17:05:00.000+01:00

[**If you like this post, please visit one or two of the advertisement links on this page to help generate a little income for the site. If you think it is useful, please re-share via Facebook, Google+, Twitter etc.**]

Last week archaeologist Dr Charles Mount published a blog post about the relatively rare phenomenon of houses in the Irish Copper Age. As is the way of such things, it was rapidly seized upon by a number of archaeologists and related groups on Facebook and quickly ‘shared’ and ‘re-shared’. On my own Facebook page I shared it with the comment that it was a ‘brief, but elegant, summary of Copper Age houses’. While I don’t know Dr Mount personally we are ‘Facebook Friends’ and he added a comment asking that if I knew of any more sites he had missed, to let him know. The simple answer was: No, I haven’t a notion about any other houses dating form that period. Rather than leave it there, I started thinking and doing a little research … and I still have no extra houses to add to the list. But that’s not quite the end of the story.

But first some background (it would be best to go back and read the original blog post now) … Mount dates the Irish Copper Age (or Chalcolithic) to the period 2600-2400 cal BC to 2200/2100 cal BC. This is a period bounded by the end of the Late Neolithic and it’s Grooved Ware pottery on one side and the earliest portion of the Early Bronze Age on the other, and sees the introduction of the Beaker Pottery form. In terms that I am more comfortable with, it dates roughly from 4100 radiocarbon years BP to 3750 radiocarbon years BP.

Mount notes that only about a dozen houses can be properly said to date to the Copper Age, and that these are confined to a mere four sites. These are: Lough Gur, Co. Limerick; Monknewton, Co. Meath; Graigueshoneen, Co. Waterford; and Ross Island, Co. Kerry. Obviously, the Lough Gur sites were investigated in the years before the development of radiometric dating, but the others are all supported by good dates and finds of beaker pottery. Mount concludes that the light construction of many of the known examples may explain why so few houses have been identified. He also comments that a series of stake-built oval structures ‘would leave a meaningless jumble of stake and post-holes associated with spreads of settlement material.’ In a comment on the original blog post, John Tierney of Eachtra Archaeological Projects, noted that ‘hard-to-spot clay walls’ may have been more common in the past than we had previously believed. Such a situation would leave us inferring the former presence of structures by identifying spaces ‘devoid of features in a ground plan.’

With these problems in mind, I approached my Catalogue of Radiocarbon Determinations and Dendrochronological Dates with the intention to seeing if this highly-specialised way of apprehending the archaeological world could bear fruit. With some simple data filtering, my current catalogue of 5351 radiocarbon determination was quickly whittled down to 294 from the island of Ireland. For this process, my frame of reference was an examination of the ‘raw’ radiocarbon dates in the range from 4100 to 3750 radiocarbon years BP.

Some of the evidence we can dismiss immediately as not pertinent to the question of housing in the Copper Age. Into this category can go 80 dates from various burnt mounds and burnt spreads and 12 trackways of different forms. Sixty-four dates can be excluded as they are directly or indirectly associated with burials such as wedge tombs and cists – a number of these are now, thanks to the work of Anna Brindley in refining the chronology for Bronze Age pottery styles, considered to be anomalous. A further nine dates are associated with Late Neolithic Grooved Ware pottery. Fourteen relate to environmental samples, largely associated with dates on pine stumps from the Céide Fields complex. Two dates relate to log boats (Carrowneden, Co. Mayo & Lurgan, Co. Galway); one is associated with a wooden polypod bowl (Tirkernaghan, Co. Tyrone); one is from peat associated with a necklace (Milmorane, Co. Cork). One date is from the henge at Tonafortes, Co. Sligo, and eight are from the Newgrange pit circle/henge. One relates to an unpublished Late Neolithic timber circle at Liscolman, Co. Antrim. Twenty four dates are broadly associated with megalithic tombs, especially passage tombs, though a number do relate to court tombs. Some of the older dates relate to pre-tomb habitation (e.g. at The Mound of the Hostages, Tara and Ballyglass, Co. Mayo) and may be treated with some degree of caution.

When all of the above are removed, along with a few anomalous dates, a few duplications in the catalogue, and the data relating to sites already identified by Mount, we are left with 61 radiocarbon dates. Let me be clear – I’m not arguing that every one of these dates represents a Copper Age settlement … I just think that it may make a good preliminary list from which future research and debate may just blossom. The nature of such a blog post as this means that I have not had the opportunity to go and revisit every publication cited here to check if there could be a Copper Age house there – I think I will leave that to others!

The first cluster of dates 13 dates relate to sites that have already produced beaker pottery and should, perhaps, be looked at again to gauge whether or not there is sufficient evidence to suggest the presence of a house or similar structure. At Waterunder, Mell, Co. Louth, an occupation layer that contained beaker pottery and end-scrapers returned a date of 3960±33BP, (2572-2346 cal BC, Wk-17457) (McQuade 2005, 35). At Milltown North, Co. Limerick, a ‘scoop’ that contained beaker pottery returned a date of 3895±34BP (2473-2236 cal BC, UB-6065) (Grogan 2007, 302). Oak charcoal from a pit associated with beaker pottery at Broomfield, Co. Dublin, dated to 3880±30BP (2467-2235 cal BC, GrN-13879) (O'Brien 1988, 120). Charcoal from a pit that contained beaker pottery, flint débitage and charred seeds at an Early Christian enclosure at Curaheen, Co. Cork, produced a date of 3920±70BP (2579-2155 cal BC, Beta-171422) (Kerr et al. 2010, 153). However, the biggest single concentration of dates comes from Ballynagilly, Co. Tyrone. The site is better known for producing a Neolithic house – one of the earliest excavated – but there was also substantial evidence for beaker-related activity there too. The nine dates ranged from 4055±50BP (2859-2471 cal BC, UB-553) – from charcoal from dark layer – to 3780±70 BP (2459-2030 cal BC, UB-557) – again from charcoal associated with Beaker pottery (Smith et al. 1973, 219; 1971, 106-7).

At Eglinton (Gortenny Td.), Co. Londonderry, there are three dates that are of interest in the current context. Charcoal from the basal fill of a possible hearth dated to 3830±50BP (2463-2142 cal BC, Beta-230118); a large pit returned a date of 3770±50BP (2398-2031 cal BC, Beta-230119); and the fill of a stakehole came back at 3950±40BP (2571-2307 cal BC, Beta-230120) (Chapple 2008, 172).

Seven dates are related to known Bronze Age settlements. At Ballybrowney 1, Co. Cork, charcoal from the fill of a slot trench associated with Structure C dated to 3910±70BP (2575-2154 cal BC, Beta-201046) (O'Sullivan & Stanley 2005, 149). Charcoal from a posthole associated with the enclosure at Site 35D, Laughanstown, Co. Dublin, returned a date of 3847±35BP (2459-2205 cal BC, OxA-12811) (O'Sullivan & Stanley 2005, 149). Charcoal from occupation soil overlying pit at Meadowlands, Downpatrick, Co. Down, dated to 3795±75BP (2463-2034 cal BC, UB-472) (Smith et al. 1973, 213). Fruitwood and ash charcoal from the lower fill of a pit associated with the roundhouse at Cloghnabreedy, site 125.3, Co. Tipperary, dated to 3762±35BP (2289-2041 cal BC, UB-7377) (Stanley et al. 2009, 170; McQuade et al. 2009, 368). At the enclosed settlement at Chancellorsland, Site A, Co. Tipperary, a date of 4085±60BP (2872-2486 cal BC, AA-10297) was achieved on charcoal from the basal layer a recut of the outer ditch (Warner 2008a, 665). Charcoal from a grey layer under the ramparts at Rathgall, Co. Wicklow, provided a date of 3780±140BP (2580-1776 cal BC, UB-2344) (Anon. 1987-1988, 79). A date of 4021±48BP (2851-2458 cal BC, UB-3969) came from charcoal (Area A) at the hilltop enclosure of Knockacarrigeen Hill, Tuam, Co. Galway (Carey 2002, 61-62). Charcoal from a midden at Illauntannig, Co. Kerry, dated to 4030±60BP (2863-2350 cal BC, UCLA-2773AA) (Berger 1992, 884, 885). Although, not strictly evidence of habitation, this date may be taken to suggest that a contemporary house (or houses) lay somewhere in the vicinity.

There is a group of 11 dates that are only associated with single pits. At Robswalls (Paddy's Hill), Co. Dublin, sea shells from a pit produced a date of 4040±70BP (2872-2351 cal BC, GrN-12337) (Manning & Hurl 1989-1990, 74). The pit was associated with a flint scatter and also contained animal bones, hammerstones, a polished porcellanite axe head, and several hundred lithics. At Granny Site 27, Co. Kilkenny, charcoal from isolated pit dated to 3982±36BP (2580-2350 cal BC, UB-6314) (O'Sullivan & Stanley 2005, 148). Two dates came from the NAC excavations on the A1 (Loughbrickland) Dualing Scheme, Co. Down [there’s also a coffee table book, free to download from Roads Service, and a colour poster by NAC]. The first of these was from a pit in Area 8 (Aughintober td) and the second came from the fill of a pit associated with what is interpreted as Phase 2 of a short-term camp site (Area 2). The former date was 3890±60BP (2564-2154 cal BC, Beta-217343), while the date from the camp site returned as 4030±80BP (2872-2345 cal BC, Beta-217346) (Chapple et al. 2009, 7, 136; Chapple 2008, 164, 165). At the predominantly Late Mesolithic site at Toome (Brecart Td.), Co. Antrim, a pit (Area N) dated to 3880±40BP (2470-2209 cal BC, Beta-219472) (Chapple 2008, 160). At Ballycorick, Co. Clare, a pit returned a date of 3870±40BP (2467-2208 cal BC, Beta-179172) (Grogan 2007, 99, 170). Charcoal from a pit with slag at the industrial site at Kinnegad 2, Co. Westmeath, produced a date of 3910±40BP (2549-2216 cal BC, Beta-177425) (Carlin et al. 2008, 136). Charcoal from a pit fill in Area I at Gortore 1, Co. Cork, dated to 3832±36BP (2458-2151 cal BC, UB-6768) (O'Donoghue 2010, 10). Charcoal from three separate pits at Faughart Lower 6, Co. Louth, produced dates of 4030±50BP (2855-2463 cal BC, Beta-217946), 4070±50BP (2863-2474 cal BC, Beta-217947), and 4010±40BP (2832-2461 cal BC, Beta-217948) (Hayes 2007, 68, 72).

The final group, and unfortunately the largest, is a set of 25 dates where I have only tantalizingly brief details of the site. For example, at Demesne, Co. Westmeath, a date of 3914±55BP (2567-2208 cal BC, no laboratory code cited) was returned from a ‘settlement cluster’ (source: INSTAR People of Prehistoric Ireland Database). The catalogue contains a substantial list of dates provided by CRDS in MSExcel form. Overall, they list good, clear context information (and I remain indebted to the company for providing the information), but the original final reports would be necessary to fully evaluate the significance of the information they provide. It is wholly possible that these dates are the keys to identifying further Copper Age houses and settlements, but further research is required to track down and analyse this body of information. At Kilshane Site 5, Co. Dublin, charcoal from an artefact-rich deposit in the enclosure ditch (possibly of a causewayed enclosure) returned a date of 3784±69BP (2459-2033 cal BC, Wk-18167). Killescragh (E2070), Co. Galway, is described as having contained ‘wooden structures and a burnt mound’. Charcoal from a hearth there produced a date of 3855±107BP (2618-1979 cal BC, Wk-21246). Treanbaun (E2123), Co. Galway, is listed as an ‘Early Medieval burial site and Bronze Age remains’. Here, a date of 3883±75BP (2568-2141 cal BC, Wk-22715) was returned from charcoal in the fill of a possible mine. Charcoal from in situ burnt timbers at the site of ‘industrial early historic activity’ at Gortnahoon, Co. Galway, produced a date of 3953±63BP (2826-2210 cal BC, Wk-21333).

The final 20 dates in this group are drawn from the NRA Database. Again, they are severely lacking in all the contextual information I would like, but they still interesting pointers for future research. At Grace Dieu West, Co. Waterford, charcoal from pit at a ‘Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement’ dated to 3860±40BP (2464-2206 cal BC, Beta-170160). A date of 3850±70BP (2546-2057 cal BC, Beta-171410) was returned from charcoal from a pit at Barnagore 2, Co. Cork, at a site described as ‘pit, Stakeholes.’ Charcoal from pits at Adamstown 1 and 2 Co. Waterford, provided dates of 4090±90BP (2896-2460 cal BC, Beta-2097590) and 3840±40BP (2462-2154 cal BC, Beta-209755), respectively. Adamstown 1 is described in the database as ‘Kiln, Pits, Metalworking site, Kiln - corn-drying , Stakeholes’, while Adamstown 2 is simply given as ‘Settlement, Industrial - Multi-period’. Charcoal from another pit, this time at a site of ‘Pits, Stakeholes, Postholes’ at Curraheen 1, Co. Cork, provided a date of 3940±70BP (2620-2205 cal BC, Beta-171422). At Curraheen 5, Co. Cork, alder charcoal from a pit dated to 3850±40BP (2461-2205 cal BC, Beta-181754). The site is described as a ‘Burnt mound, Pit, Burial mound.’ Other sites in Co. Cork include an apparently isolated pit at Carrigrohane 4 that dated to 3990±60BP (2836-2297 cal BC, Beta-178202); A ‘Bronze Age burnt mound, Hoard, Cremation pit, Flint scatter’ at Fermoy 2 dated to 3810±40BP (2457-2137 cal BC, Beta-201032); One of a number of ‘Bronze Age pits’ at Lisnasallagh 2 returned a date of 3890±60BP (2564-2154 cal BC, Beta-201097); while at Barnagore 4, a ‘Bronze Age pit, spread’ dated to 3760±40BP (2292-2036 cal BC, Beta-171415). In all of these cases, except Barnagore 4, the date was on charcoal from a pit; in this case, the date was returned from a charred seed.

There are three dates from Co. Meath that fall into our time frame – two from pits and one from a posthole. At Dunboyne 4, a site described as ‘Bronze Age Kiln, Pits, Postholes,’ a date was returned of 3860±40BP (2464-2206 cal BC, Beta-231934 from one of the postholes. A site of ‘Bronze Age Cremation pits, Hearth’ at Knockmark 1 dated to 3780±40BP (2342-2041 cal BC, Beta-231945), while one of the ‘Bronze Age pits & postholes’ at Raynestown 2 produced a date of 3780±40BP (2342-2041 cal BC, Beta-241285). At Tullahedy Site TUVW, Co. Tipperary, charcoal from a pit under a burnt mound spread produced a date of 3940±66BP (2618-2206 cal BC, UCD-116). While this particular date could have been removed from the data-set at an earlier point, the fact that the site is listed in the NRA Database as ‘Bronze Age enclosure & burnt mound’ intrigues me to the point that (without seeing a final publication on the excavation) I suggest it may warrant further and closer study.

Two dates come from excavations in Co. Kilkenny. At a collection of ‘Bronze Age pits’ at Garrincreen, ‘charred remains from pit with pottery’ returned a date of 3780±40BP (2342-2041 cal BC, Beta-205170), while charcoal from a stakehole at Granny 28 dated to 3913BP (UB-6637). Unfortunately the NRA database lists the standard deviation for this date as ±0, limiting its full potential for contributing to our knowledge. Charcoal from two pits, both in Co. Kildare, one at Loughlion Site 8 and the other at The Curragh Site 10 produced dates of interest in the current context. The first site is described as ‘Bronze Age Pits, Postholes, burnt mound’ and dated to 3838±74BP (2480-2041 cal BC, Wk-12814), while the second produced a date of 3780±30BP (2295-2059 cal BC, GrN-30089) and is listed as ‘Bronze Age pits & postholes.’ The final date in this preliminary collection is from Newtownbalregan 2, Co. Louth, which is described as ‘Hut site, House – Neolithic.’ Although the site produced a date of 3990±46BP (2829-2346 cal BC, Wk-19929), neither the material it was derived from, nor any contextual information is listed.

Where does all this data leave us and what conclusions can we draw? Firstly, I think we now have a decent preliminary list of places we should start looking for Copper Age houses. It is my contention that the explosion of archaeological excavations – and the resulting tsunami of radiocarbon dates – means that few, if any, archaeologists will ever gain mastery of all that data and knowledge. In such a situation no one person will be able to read and investigate all the available literature to sift out the sites relevant to their personal research. Obviously I’m biased, but I believe that starting with a catalogue of known radiocarbon dates is one strand in mining this mountain of data. I would argue that no amount of other forms of research could have independently produced this list. That is not to say that there are sites I have missed out that other researchers, using other means, could have found – that is why this must be but one strand among many.

Have I given Dr. Mount even one more positive identification of a Copper Age house? – No, definitely not. In my defence, I believe that we now have a list of about 60 excavations where we can start looking for these sites. If even one or two could be shown to be houses of the right period, then, I think, we will have achieved a great deal. However, there is a broader question that this list may help to draw us towards – the wider nature of activity during this period. As I’ve said above – I’ve not had the leisure to read all the pertinent details of even the excavations reports immediately available to me. It is for this reason I’m pretty sure that many of the sites I’ve listed will, ultimately, not produce any new evidence for houses that we have missed. However, I could not help noticing a trend as I wrote up this data – there do seem to be an awful lot of (apparently) isolated pits that have produced Copper Age dates. Another trend - and one noticed by Mount in his blog – is the lack of actual copper. Not one of the features that I have listed here has produced a single scrap of copper. In the context of the known houses, Mount suggests (in the comments to one of the Facebook ‘shares’) that copper may have been regarded as somehow ‘taboo’ and banned from domestic spaces. That argument has a definite appeal, but taken in the broader context of all of these other excavations, radiocarbon dates and features, it hints at some different mechanism at work. Maybe copper was so highly regarded and valued that it was not deliberately placed in the ground. Maybe there are issues regarding its final disposal that elude archaeological recovery. I have no answer to any of these questions – only more questions. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, ‘something is happening here, but we don’t know what it is.’ Maybe I should re-examine the previous question: Have I given Dr. Mount even one more positive identification of a Copper Age house? No, not YET, but we’re getting there.

Finally: If you are buying anything from Amazon, please use the link below – Amazon pay me a small amount of money from each transaction through this portal (up to 10% of your order’s value) that goes to keeping this site running! This comes directly from Amazon and costs you nothing!

Notes:

All calibrated dates cited are quoted at the 2σ level of confidence

If anyone reading this recognises a site that they directed, I would be very glad for two things. First, go back to the archive and take another look – could there be any evidence for an elusive Copper Age house? Am I close or way off the mark? Secondly, please consider sending me a copy of the final report, so that the dates and the contextual information can be added to the catalogue.

I should just state, for the record, that I’m not having a bleat about the lack of information provided by the NRA Database (or any of the other sources, either) – I am immensely grateful that such information is available at all in advance of (hopefully) full publication. It is merely my aim to draw attention to the fact that this material is there and may provide some starting points, but that further search and research is required.

References:

Anon. 1987-1988 'Excavations bulletin 1977-79: summary account of archaeological excavations in Ireland' The Journal of Irish Archaeology 4, 65-79.

Berger, R. 1992 '14C dating mortar in Ireland' Radiocarbon 34.3, 880-889.

Carey, A. 2002 'Excavations at Knockcarrigeen Hill, Tuam, Co. Galway' Journal of the Galway Archaeological & Historical Society 54, 55-71.

Carlin, N., Clarke, L. & Walsh, F. 2008 'Appendix 1: radiocarbon dates' in Carlin, N., Clarke, L. & Walsh, F. The archaeology of life and death in the Boyne floodplain: the linear landscape of the M4. Dublin, 135-137.

Chapple, R. M. 2008 'The absolute dating of archaeological excavations in Ulster carried out by Northern Archaeological Consultancy Ltd, 1998-2007' Ulster Journal of Archaeology 67, 153-181.

Chapple, R. M., Dunlop, C., Gilmore, S. & Heaney, L. 2009 Archaeological investigations along the A1 dualling scheme, Loughbrickland to Beech Hill, Co. Down, N. Ireland (2005). BAR British Series 479. Oxford.

Grogan, E. 2007 The Bronze Age landscapes of the pipeline to the west: an integrated archaeological and environmental assessment. Dublin.

Hayes, A. 2007 Archaeological excavation pit features at Site 134, Faughart Lower 6, Dundalk, Co. Louth. M1 - Dundalk Western Bypass. Unpublished Stratigraphic Report, Aegis Ltd.

Kerr, T., Harney, L., Kinsella, J., O'Sullivan, A. & McCormick, F. 2010 Early Medieval dwellings and settlements in Ireland. AD400-1100. Vol. 2- Gazetteer of site descriptions. Dublin.

Manning, C. & Hurl, D. 1989-1990 'Excavations Bulletin 1980-1984: summary account of archaeological excavations in Ireland' The Journal of Irish Archaeology 5, 65-80.

McQuade, M. 2005 'Archaeological excavation of a multi-period prehistoric settlement at Waterunder, Mell, County Louth' County Louth Archaeological and Historical Journal 26.1, 31-66.

McQuade, M., Molloy, B. & Moriarty, C. 2009 In the shadow of the Galtees: archaeological excavations along the N8 Cashel to Mitchelstown road scheme. Dublin.

O'Brien, E. 1988 'A Find of Beaker Pottery from Broomfield, Ballyboghil, County Dublin' Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 118, 118-123.

O'Donoghue, J. 2010 'Archaeological Excavation Report A014-003 - Gortore, Co. Cork. Neolithic house' Eachtra Journal 6, 1-63.

O'Sullivan, J. & Stanley, M. 2005 'Appendix 1 - radiocarbon dates from excavated archaeological sites described in these proceedings' in O'Sullivan, J. & Stanley, M. (eds.) Recent archaeological discoveries on national road schemes 2004. Proceedings of a seminar for the public, Dublin, September 2004. Dublin. 147-154.

Smith, A. G., Pearson, G. W. & Pilcher, J. R. 1971 'Belfast radiocarbon dates III' Radiocarbon 13.1, 103-125.

Smith, A. G., Pearson, G. W. & Pilcher, J. R. 1973 'Belfast radiocarbon dates V' Radiocarbon 15.1, 212-228.

Stanley, M., Danaher, E. & Eogan, J. 2009 'Appendix 1 - radiocarbon dates from excavated archaeological sites described in these proceedings' in Stanley, M., Danaher, E. & Eogan, J. (Eds.) Dining and dwelling: proceedings of a public seminar on archaeological discoveries on national road schemes, August 2008. Dublin, 165-171.

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

The Jumping Church of Kildemock. Speculations on Catholics & Freemasons in 18th century Co. Louth

2011-09-04T21:45:00.000+01:00

The other day I was reading a blog post on the Historic Graves site by Shane Lehane about the mysterious and miraculous movement of the graveyard at Loughane, Co. Cork. The local legend holds that the resident corpses so objected to the body of a murderous priest-hunter being laid to rest among them that they uprooted themselves (and took their gravestones with them) to an adjacent location at Matehy (pronounced maw-te-ha, but that’s another story). While it is an interesting story, I remain to be convinced about all the facts of the case.

Top: Interior of the west wall of Kildemock Church. Bottom: Exterior of the west wall of Kildemock Church.

Around the same time I restarted a personal project, in hibernation over the summer, to share selections of my slide collection on Facebook. For anyone not familiar with the project, the short story is that I’ve been taking archaeological photographs since my first excavation (1989) and had amassed a collection of over 3,000 transparencies when I gave up on the format about 10 years ago. Most of them have never been seen by anyone but me. While I’ve been given dire warnings that anything posted on Facebook becomes the instant property of Mr. Zuckerberg (not true), my feeling was that it’s better that SOMEONE sees them, rather than letting the moulder on my shelf. Right now there are four albums available for public view, containing just under 800 photos.

General view of Kildemock church and graveyard.

As I was uploading the latest tranche, I was struck by a number of shots taken in Kildemock, Co. Louth, and the parallel they provided to the Loughane/Matehy story. The images were taken one evening in 2001 when I was working on one of the Northern Motorway excavations. The site is like many in rural Ireland in that it contains a (well tended) collection of gravestones old and new surrounding a ruinous church. The site is dedicated to St. Diomoc/Modiomoc, who is alleged to have been an early follower of St. Patrick and have hailed from the Dál gCais. Built into the walls of the church are a bullaun stone and a piscina. The bullaun could be of any date, but the piscina is broadly medieval – I’d say 15^th to 16^th century at a guess.

Top: Bullaun stone built into the wall of the church. Bottom: Piscina built into the wall of the church.

What sets this little church apart from the ordinary is the legend associated with the site. The story goes that someone buried an apostate of the Catholic Church just inside the wall of the building (some of the stories claim that the man had been excommunicated) … and the church didn’t like it. The building so rejected the presence of this individual that it shore off its own west wall and ‘jumped’ it back three feet so that the 'sinner' lay outside the building. The other story is that there was a terrible storm in 1715 and the wall fell over. Although the latter seems to me to be the more likely story, there appears to be great local adherence to the mythology. I am sure that there is a fertile field of research in the exploration of the psychology that drives an individual to embrace a supernatural over the more rational, if mundane, explanation – though it is not my objective to delve into that here. Indeed, the author of the piece used in the Irish Identity web page goes to some length to elevate the supernatural explanation over the prosaic explanation that the wall just fell over, albeit in an (apparently) unlikely and unusual position.

While I may take issue with the means by which the church ‘jumped’, the Irish Identity page does include a detail that I was previously unaware of – the man had been a mason and had converted from Catholicism to Protestantism and had fallen to his death from the scaffolding at Stabannon church, then under construction. While the context given here is of the stone mason kind (or ‘operative mason’), I cannot help thinking that this is a muddled reference to the burial of a Freemason (or ‘speculative mason’) in the graveyard. My reasoning is simple – there is the grave of a freemason just outside the west wall of the church!

The photograph below shows an 18^th century gravestone with the quite typical arrangement of an IHS monogram with a cross over the ‘H’. Below this are a pair of winged cherub heads, and while they look slightly surly, they are still typical of the period and Catholic gravestones in particular. What is less typical in this context is the clearly identifiable square-and-compass to the left of the IHS and what is probably a plumb, to the right. Both are Masonic symbols indicating that the individual buried here was a Freemason and had attained the rank of, at least, Junior Warden (indicated by the plumb), if not Worshipful Master of the lodge (indicated by the square-and-compass).

Gravestone for Morgan, died 1791 with Catholic and Masonic symbolism.

While my research is hardly exhaustive, I am aware of no other gravestone where the emblems of Catholicism and Freemasonry are so clearly joined in harmony. The stone is dedicated to a Mr. Morgan who died in 1791. This may be 76 years after the fateful storm of 1715, but I wonder if there is not a kernel of truth wrapped up in all this mythology. I do not claim to be definitive, but I think I may have spotted something that others have missed.

The first ban by the Papacy on Catholic membership of the Masonic Order was promulgated in 1737. This ban was reiterated in later years in 1884 and 1917 and contained provision of the automatic excommunication of any Catholic who became a Freemason (it should be pointed out that there has never been a ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons enacted by the Order itself). My suggestion is that when Mr. Morgan died in 1791 he may have been sufficiently proud of his Masonic and Catholic heritage to have the symbols of both carved on his gravestone … but perhaps other people in the locality were less enthusiastic about his affiliations. To them, he would have been automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church when he joined the Masonic fraternity, and would have had no place within the consecrated ground of the graveyard. Perhaps, just perhaps, this story of someone allegedly undeserving of the burial rites of his church got intertwined with a story of the church wall being blown down in a storm. The result could just be the tale we have today of the ‘Jumping Church of Kildemock’. As I say, I make no claims to veracity; I am just proposing an alternate theory. It may have some merit, but then again, it may not.

As an aside, I might add that the Catholic Church no longer automatically excommunicates their followers who elect to join a Masonic lodge. Since 1985 such people are considered to be in a position of Grave Sin, and may not partake of communion. However, the open welcome of the Masonic Order to all monotheists, regardless of creed or confession, remains in place to this day.

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

Radicarbon, the Recession and me

2011-08-25T15:02:00.000+01:00

For those of you who don’t already know, I run the Irish Radiocarbon & Dendrochronological Dates facebook page. The point of the page is the promotion of archaeological dates in general and the grandiosely titled ‘Catalogue of Radiocarbon Determinations and Dendrochronology Dates’ in particular. The Catalogue is a free-to-all, downloadable resource for Irish archaeology.

I started keeping this list in 2007, purely as a personal reaction to an immediate research need. I had just received the radiocarbon dates from one of my excavations – a Bronze Age burnt mound – when a colleague said to me something along the lines of: ‘wouldn’t it be interesting to compare the dates of this one and others … you’d never know what you might find … pity there’s no easy way to do it’.

For him it was a passing remark, but for me it has resulted in (so far) four years of research, cataloguing, checking, and general pleading with people to let me use their dates. The Catalogue currently stands at 5346 radiocarbon and 232 dendro dates and this is likely to grow further, once I find the time to sort through the figurative mound of PDFs I’ve accumulated since the most recent update in March of this year.

In an effort to promote the resource among the Irish archaeological profession, I have changed from an old-style Facebook ‘group’ to a ‘page’ format for (among other things) ease of communication with the members. So, if you’ve not already done so, please visit the site and ‘like’ it. In the coming weeks I will also be launching a personal website with a significant portion given over to the IR&DD, including revamped notes and download facilities. With a bit of luck, there will even be an updated version of the Catalogue available by late this year or early 2012.

Right now the biggest problem that I face in keeping this resource alive is purely financial. The current recession and the horrendous impact it has had on field archaeology means that I do not have the ability to purchase all the books I need to keep the Catalogue up to date – it is as simple as that. There is no need to go into details about the pay-cuts and short working weeks that all of us in the profession have had to accept, just to keep our jobs. I had seriously considered abandoning this project, or seeing if it could be undertaken by someone else. Instead, I have decided to attempt a different approach – I’m not sure if it will work, but I’m willing to give it a go! This is why the new website will also have a page dedicated to ways you can help the project. Apart from sending me your dates and joining the Facebook page, there will be a ‘wish list’ of books that any interested publisher/commercial company/organisation can feel free to donate to the project in return for advertising – In the long run it may actually turn out to be a remarkably cheap form of promotion for your business, so please do think about it!

On the other hand, if you want a way to financially help the project that will cost you nothing, please click on the Amazon button at the bottom of this post – there will be several similar ones displayed prominently across the new site. If you use this as your means of accessing Amazon a small percentage of your transaction (up to a maximum of 10%) gets donated to the upkeep of this resource and the purchase of new books. I would thank you very much for the support.

Please suggest the IR&DD site to any friends or colleagues who may find it useful!

Robert M Chapple

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

Killora & Killogilleen graveyards in Craughwell, Co. Galway

2011-08-23T17:05:00.000+01:00

[**If you like this post, please visit one or two of the advertisement links on this page to help generate a little income for the site. If you think it is useful, please re-share via Facebook, Google+, Twitter etc.**]

The weekend before last I travelled to Craughwell, Co. Galway, to see the newest additions to our family - my lovely new nephews Ben & Bobby.

While I was there I had planned to take an hour or so and go visit the historic graveyards of Killora and Killogilleen. I was employed by the Parish Council in the mid-90s to produce detailed books of gravestones for both sites, and I maintain an interest in the sites. My intention was to take some photographs for use in a lecture I have been (provisionally) asked to prepare on the sites. Once I got there I realised that the light wasn't great for photography and that, in all probability, I had more than enough decent photos, taken on sunnier days.

I've also been looking at the work done by Historic Graves, especially the simple, but effective, videos they've been posting on their YouTube Channel and decided to ~~rip off their ideas~~ engage in the sincerest form of flattery! With this in mind, I shot a few minutes of video at each of the graveyards ... nothing special, just a couple of panning shots and a few detailed shots. I'm hardly Scorsese!

The one thing that kept coming to mind for me was how much the sites had changed - I worked in Killora in 1995 and in Killogilleen in 1996 - they are the inevitable changes of the grass growing, the ivy making a surging comeback, attempting to swallow the building whole ... even the dappled lichens colonising the eyes of stone angels. Some new gravestones have been added, and some of the old ones have disappeared. At Killora one of these stones has been broken up and stacked on the east window of the church. To me this illustrates the fault line between the historical value that we as archaeologists, historians, and genealogists place on these sites and the ownership of individual stones within a living burial site.

I have tried to illustrate the changes in the graveyards by incorporating my old photos of the sites into the videos. In some places I think it works rather well ... and slightly less so in others ... take a look and tell me what you think! Yoy can find Killora here and Killogilleen there!

The dreaded first test post!

2011-08-22T22:41:00.000+01:00

An irregularly updated bolg about archaeology and related madness! ... might just be good!

If you’re planning to do any shopping through Amazon, please go via the portal below. It costs you nothing, but it does generate a little bit of advertising revenue for this site – please help!