EMAP_2012_Report_6_1.pdf (7.3 MB) - The Heritage Council

manufacturing evidence, this might simply result from the portable nature of these small
items, or might suggest perhaps a circulation or exchange of ornaments between people in
different locations. Indeed, the difficulty in matching ornaments to sites is exacerbated by the
amount of non-excavated ornaments, or stray finds, which lack site-specific contexts. Nonferrous
metal-working involves different processes from iron-working, at least insofar as the
stage of actually fashioning a brooch or pin is concerned, but much of the evidence for
furnaces or hearths would be similar, and residues or slags would be needed to identify the
metal worked there. Other crafts were involved in the production of ornaments: bone/antler
working would have resulted in the bone pins which occur so frequently; lignite (and less
frequently) stone working was involved in making bracelets, pendants and even rings; glassworking
produced colourful beads and bangles. While specific tools may relate to different
materials, in some cases there is potential for overlap - knives used for bone working might
also serve to carve wood; lathes could be used for wood-working or for making lignite
bracelets. Often, it is the evidence of waste material (lignite cores left over from the making
of bracelets, bone and antler waste) or indeed the preparatory material (bone motif or trial
pieces) which may be the most telling evidence for what was made at a particular site.
This variety of materials implies a range of crafts involved; metal pins, being part of the
process of metal smelting/casting or forging, often involving moulds and other specialised
equipment, are more easily seen as the produce of a skilled craftworker rather than a
subsistence-level craft. Bone and wood, however, especially the simpler forms with less
decoration, such as the common pig-fibula pins, might be argued as open to being crafted by
anyone who had access to the raw material and a simple knife or other such tool. On that
basis, the presence of such simple forms in easily-obtainable material might be considered as
evidence of their manufacture and use on a site by its inhabitants, even if no obvious
evidence of working in that material survives.
Iron-working
As noted above, iron is used for a considerable number of ornaments, including brooches,
pins and buckles. Not all sites with iron ornaments have evidence of iron-working; those
which do are set out in Table 8.7. In terms of site types, the breakdown of sites with both
ornaments and iron-working is given in Fig. 8.5. While most of these site types include sites
with ornaments but no evidence for iron-working, it may be significant that all eight cashels,
and all seven non-circular sites, which produced iron ornaments also had evidence of iron
working.
Actual evidence for the manufacture of iron ornaments is limited, with most of the ironworking
evidence relating to earlier stages in the processing of the metal. Most iron items
would be forged rather than made in moulds, which also limits the potential evidence for
specific ornaments. However, it has been suggested that iron ringed pins were being
produced at Deerfin (Bratt 1975), while the considerable amount of iron-working at Dooey
probably included the manufacture of brooches, pins and buckles (Ó Ríordáin & Rynne 1961,
61-2).
Site Site type Ornaments Manufacturing evidence
Aghadegnan Univallate 1 pin slag
Ballinderry I Crannog 2 pins, 1 buckle Iron-working refuse
Ballyarra Souterrain 1 pin slag & furnace bottom
Baronstown Non-circular Pins Slag & possible furnace lining
Cahercommaun Cashel 11 pins, 3 possible buckles Smelting slag
Cahircalla More Univallate bronze pin with iron shank slag, 4 smithing hearths, minianvil
Caraun More Univallate Pin slag & bowl furnaces
Carraig Aille I Cashel 5 pins Slag
Carraig Aille II Cashel 31 pins Slag
Castlefarm
Cemetery/
settlement
15 pins, plus 22 pins
mixing iron & bronze
3 smithing hearths, smelting slag
135