EMAP_2012_Report_6_1.pdf (7.3 MB) - The Heritage Council

univallate enclosures at Lisleagh 1 and 2 (1000kg and 800kg, Monk 1995), Lisanisk (827kg,
Coughlan 2010) and the univallate enclosure at Lowpark (1360kg, Wallace and Anguilano
2010c). Clearly sites like Garryduff (O’Kelly 1963), Garranes (Ó Ríordáin 1942) and St
Gobnet’s (O’Kelly 1952) are likely to fit somewhere at the upper end of this scale given the
number of funace bottoms from each of these and the suggested minimum weight for these.
Clearly ecclesiastical sites like Clonfad belong at the top of this range (1500kg) along with
Clonmacnoise (Young 2009a).
There is clearly no simple equation be made between the type or perceived status of a site
and the scale of iron-working carried out within it. It is very difficult to estimate how much
activity archaeometallurgical waste represents. Any assemblage can only indicate the
minimum of activity on that site. Young gives the example of Parknahown, a cemetery and
settlement which operated over approximately six centuries, which produced 100kg of waste
representing a minimum of a single smelting episode and 150 smithing sessions although
activity is likely to be considerably higher (Young 2009c, 3). Likewise at Killickaweeny,
Photos-Jones commented that the 86kg of metallurgical waste generated sometime within a
possible 100 year time span could not have been seen as industry but as part of the annual
calendar of activities for a farming community (Photos-Jones 2008b, 53). Clearly chronology
is an important part of this analysis. While the extensive metalworking at Lisanisk (seventh to
ninth century A.D.) can be dated to periods throughout the sites occupation the bulk of
metalworking at settlements like Kilree 3 and Loughbown 1 took place in the tenth to twelfth
century considerably at a time when the ditches have silted up and the overall level of
settlement is unclear (Coughlan 2010b, 34; Bower 2009b, 17). Therefore to have a properly
nuanced understanding of levels of metalworking over time we need a synthesis of accurately
dated iron-working features.
The results of recent excavations clearly suggest that specialised iron-working was carried out
at a range of levels. While the traditional high status sites such as Lagore, Garranes or
Knowth clearly had high levels of iron-working and therefore possibly smiths under patronage
other such as Moynagh Lough did not focussing on non-ferrous metallurgy. On many highstatus
sites, itinerant craftsmen may have worked for most of the year but perhaps only a
few high-status secular and ecclesiastical settlements had the economic and political capacity
to support permanent workshops of specialised iron and metal-workers. Specialised
workshops like Lisanisk, Lowpark and Lisleagh were clearly related to resident smiths who
lived within enclosures of different sizes and individual histories but clearly not materially
wealthy relative to places like Garranes. They may themselves have been under the
patronage of a secular or ecclesiastical lord. Similarly it might be suggested that places like
Johnstown 1, Carrigatogher Harding may have acted like Clonfad as places where smelting
and bloom smithing was one of range of activities probably under the control of local family
church communities. The presence of master smiths at ecclesiastical sites is noted in the
founding story of the early monastery of Brigown (Carroll 2005). The founding saint of the
monastery, Fanahan, is said to have named the site in honour of the seven master smiths
who worked there and it has also been noted that the name Brigown was written in the Book
of Lismore as ‘Bri-gobh-unn’ which can be translated as ‘bree’ or hill of the smith (‘gobha’)
(ibid). Limited excavation 400m away uncovered several pits and linear features outside the
partial outline of an enclosure ditch which contained large quantities of dumped or waste
charcoal and slag. One small bowl-shaped pit with evidence for in situ burning was found in
the interior of the enclosure and was interpreted as a possible pit-furnace used for iron
smelting. In light of this historical evidence, it is possible that the enclosure was occupied by
a group of smiths who lived independently of, but in close proximity to and under the
supervision of, the nearby monastery.
A significant range of sites had their own smithing capabilities within purpose-built buildings
but iron-working was unlikely to be the mainstay of activity at the site. This could include
places such as Sallymount (Clarke and Long 2009) and Gortnahown 2 (Young 2009b).
Communities from a significant range of sites only occasionally hosted smithing activities on
site. There is clearly a debate as to whether these people engaged in smithing themselves as
40