10.01.2014 Views

AR01055_EMAP_Gazetteer_of_Sites_4-2_10.pdf - The Heritage ...

AR01055_EMAP_Gazetteer_of_Sites_4-2_10.pdf - The Heritage ...

AR01055_EMAP_Gazetteer_of_Sites_4-2_10.pdf - The Heritage ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Kerry<br />

nineteenth century and it is possible that this part <strong>of</strong> the rampart had been removed in the<br />

late-nineteenth century.<br />

<strong>The</strong> rampart itself was constructed in two phases. Phase 1 involved the construction <strong>of</strong> the<br />

inner half <strong>of</strong> the wall which averaged 4.8m wide and 2.76m maximum height. Two corbelled<br />

chambers were incorporated into the walls on either side <strong>of</strong> the stone-lintelled entrance which<br />

measured 2m wide and 2.3m high. Phase 2 involved the addition <strong>of</strong> further supports to the<br />

entrance, the deepening <strong>of</strong> Ditch 1, and the construction <strong>of</strong> a dry-stone wall (up to 2.25m<br />

wide and 1.9m high) against the outer face <strong>of</strong> the Phase 1 rampart. <strong>The</strong> additional pressure<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Phase 2 exterior wall required the construction <strong>of</strong> a retaining wall along the internal<br />

(southern) side <strong>of</strong> the Phase 1 rampart, which was partially excavated and measured 2.3m<br />

deep and 2m wide.<br />

<strong>The</strong> remains <strong>of</strong> a central causeway partially survived between the defensive banks and<br />

ditches and were defined by upright orthostats at the edges <strong>of</strong> the banks and possible<br />

cobbled areas. Similar sized stones were recovered in the fill <strong>of</strong> the Ditch 1 terminus and it<br />

was suggested that these orthostats formed part <strong>of</strong> a complete series <strong>of</strong> pillars flanking the<br />

edges <strong>of</strong> the causeway.<br />

<strong>The</strong> dry-stone-built souterrain extends for some 16.5m in a south-west to north-east direction<br />

from within the stone rampart entrance out under the line <strong>of</strong> the entrance causeway and<br />

terminating 2m south <strong>of</strong> the outer face <strong>of</strong> Bank 2. Several section <strong>of</strong> the souterrain was<br />

excavated though no original earthen floor level or artefacts were recovered.<br />

A large dry-stone building (internal diameter <strong>of</strong> 7.5m) was excavated in the interior <strong>of</strong> the<br />

fort. Its walls were circular shaped externally and rectangular internally and are unlikely to<br />

have supported a corbelled ro<strong>of</strong>. Its northwest lintelled doorway was linked with the rampart<br />

entrance by a flagged pathway, and the floor <strong>of</strong> the entrance was lined with several<br />

flagstones which extended for 1.40m into the interior <strong>of</strong> the building.<br />

Two phases <strong>of</strong> activity were identified within the stone building (Fig. 178). <strong>The</strong> Phase 1<br />

features consisted <strong>of</strong> a hearth, scatters <strong>of</strong> stakeholes, areas <strong>of</strong> burning, a shallow trench and<br />

a possible foundation trench for the southern wall. <strong>The</strong> hearth contained charcoal, animal<br />

bone and ash and was associated with a series <strong>of</strong> stakeholes, indicative <strong>of</strong> structural<br />

supports. <strong>The</strong> shallow trench (1m long and 0.2m wide) was located beside one <strong>of</strong> the areas<br />

<strong>of</strong> burning in the north-west quadrant and was full <strong>of</strong> charcoal. It was interpreted as the<br />

remains <strong>of</strong> an internal wattle-and-fence. Charcoal from the first period <strong>of</strong> activity produced a<br />

radiocarbon date range in the tenth/eleventh centuries (see below). It is possible that the<br />

first phase coincided with the construction <strong>of</strong> the building as there was no evidence for<br />

internal structural supports and it is unlikely that such a structure <strong>of</strong> such size supported a<br />

corbelled ro<strong>of</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Phase 2 activity was more extensive and prolonged than Phase 1 and consisted <strong>of</strong> a<br />

habitation layer (indicated by charcoal, animal bone, and flints) concentrated around two<br />

central hearths as well as a pit along the southern wall, an area <strong>of</strong> flagstones inside the<br />

northern door and scatters <strong>of</strong> stakeholes and six-postholes across the interior, except for the<br />

north-eastern quadrant. <strong>The</strong> radiocarbon date from the charcoal from the habitation deposit<br />

suggests that both Phase 1 and 2 occupation layers were <strong>of</strong> short duration and occurred<br />

around the tenth century (see below). Finds from the second occupation comprised a<br />

possible quern stone and rough pestle and an undecorated stone spindle-whorl. A possible<br />

cleat nail was also located in the topsoil <strong>of</strong> a cutting inside the building.<br />

It was suggested that the building in Phase 2 was never completely ro<strong>of</strong>ed and that wooden<br />

lean-to structures were erected in the northwest, southeast and southwest corners <strong>of</strong> the<br />

building with two sides being supported by the top <strong>of</strong> the stone walls while the other sides<br />

were supported by wooden posts. Some <strong>of</strong> the stakeholes appear to have lined up with each<br />

other and could indicate the presence <strong>of</strong> wattle walls in the interior <strong>of</strong> these structures.<br />

362

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!