EMAP_2012_Report_6_1.pdf (7.3 MB) - The Heritage Council

value to excavation reports far beyond that available from the description of yet another
blue-glass bead or corroded knife blade. As a result of this change in focus, artefact studies
(and the concomitant study of craft and industry) became increasingly marginalised in report
publications. Where once papers have consisted largely of descriptions of finds (for example
over 60% of Ó Ríordáin’s paper on the Lough Gur excavations dealt with the finds (1948-
50)), the appendices now were filled with animal bone reports, human bone reports and
radiocarbon dates.
The sheer volume of material produced from the National Roads Authority excavations,
however, meant that artefact studies became both increasingly viable and necessary. Many of
these specialists were employees of the excavating company, and thus their reports were
limited in scale and scope to those sites excavated by that specific company. Others were
external experts recruited for a specific contract, who may have had no previous experience
of Irish archaeological material. These factors mean that there is a danger that certain
regional patterns may be the product of the preferences, experiences or expectations of the
post-excavation process, rather than reflecting any ‘actual’ pattern. One of the clearest
examples of this possible bias is the identification of isolated early medieval charcoal
production pits in Co. Meath along the route of the M3 (e.g. Kenny 2010). This cluster should
not be taken to imply that this area held a virtual monopoly over charcoal production, but
rather that the post-excavation team interpreted the data in such a manner.
Another clear example of the issues met when dealing with specialist reports produced over a
long period of time is the problem with the identification of perforated stone discs as loomweights
or spindle-whorls. Although both objects are associated with the working of cloth,
they come from different ends of the process, with spindle-whorls associated with yarn
production, and loom-weights associated with turning the yarn into cloth. While small discs
are generally interpreted as spindle-whorls and large ones as loom-weights, it is clearly
possible that large spindle-whorls and small loom-weights may have existed.
Report Overview
This report consists of two major sections:-
(1) A discussion of craft-working and insights into the production of personal, domestic
and industrial artefacts; and
(2) A gazetteer of over 300 sites outlining the evidence for industrial activity on these
sites.
The discussion chapters deal with the prevalence of industry and craft-working across the
island in a synthetic manner. These examine both broad themes and general trends in
industrial activity. While it was possible to look at the geographic spread of sites (distribution
maps were produced for the various examined industrial types, such as iron-working or
pottery-making), it was not deemed possible to cross-examine this data on a chronological
basis. Although large numbers of radiocarbon dates have been produced from the charcoal
associated with iron-working, these tend to produce a rather broad, and thus undiagnostic,
dating spread. Very few dates or dateable material have been produced for the other craftmaking
industries.
The gazetteer incorporates two major tables – one looking at the evidence for industrial
activity, and the other listing the small finds recovered from the site. While certain aspects of
industrial activity, such as metal smelting or ore processing, leave obvious physical remains
which may be identified archaeologically, other processes are far more impermanent in their
nature. These may, however, be identified by the presence of certain craft-specific tools or
other objects within the small finds. The most obvious of these is cloth-working which may be
identified by iron shears (for clipping sheep or goats to produce the woollen fibre), spindlewhorls
(for turning the wool into yarn) and loom-weights (for turning the yarn into cloth). As
such the table on industrial activity is sub-divided into columns for ‘Direct’ evidence (such as
iron slag) and ‘Indirect’ evidence (such as spindle-whorls).
2