EMAP_2012_Report_6_1.pdf (7.3 MB) - The Heritage Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
A column is also included for dating evidence. The radiocarbon-dated evidence largely comes from charcoal residue within furnaces, but there are also certain objects which have been dated based on their typology. Radiocarbon dates have been calibrated to 2σ under IntCal09 using Calib611, and results of above 85% probability have been highlighted in bold. It was possible to compare the prevalence of industrial activity on various site types. While it is generally quite obvious what constitutes a ‘crannog’, ‘rath’ or a ‘cashel’, there are a large number of less clearly defined site types, specifically the ‘settlement-cemetery’ or ‘noncircular enclosure’ (sensu Kinsella 2010). ‘Settlement-cemeteries’ and ‘non-circular enclosures’ share similar characteristics and have been clustered together when producing the statistics. It is also clear that some sites are rather mutable and may actually be described as different site types throughout their occupation history, for example the change of a ‘rath’ to a ‘raised rath’. There also exist a large number of sites which have been clustered as ‘other’, including cave sites, isolated house sites, and sand-dune sites. The statistics based on the various site types should thus be seen more as a general trend rather than a definitive statement. Examining the prevalence of activity simply by listing the numbers of various site types may lead to rather skewed results. Fig. 1.1, for example, shows the percentages of site types on which iron working was found against the total numbers of sites included in the gazetteer. While one third of all iron-working sites are univallate raths, this partially reflects the fact that univallate raths are by far the most numerous early medieval site type excavated. A more useful way of examining the prevalence of a particular industrial activity is to look at what percentage of the various site types had evidence for it. Thus Fig. 1.2 includes the same data as Fig. 1.1, but represented as a percentage of the individual site type. While over 50% of univallate raths show evidence for iron-working, this is no longer the dominant iron-working site type, but rather is part of a general trend that indicates that over 50% of most early medieval site types were involved in iron-working. By applying this method, it is clear that some forms of industrial activity were conducted regularly on all types of sites, regardless of social standing or geographical location (Figs. 1.2-1.4; Maps 1.1-1.3). Fig. 1.1: Percentages of sites in gazetteer with evidence for iron-working. 3
Page 2 and 3: The Early Medieval Archaeology Proj
Page 4 and 5: Table of Contents Section 1: An Ove
Page 8 and 9: Fig. 1.2: Percentages of site types
Page 10 and 11: Map 1.1: Map of site that produced
Page 12 and 13: Map 1.3a: Map of site that produced
Page 24 and 25: Map 1.11: Geological evidence for s
Page 26 and 27: data from over 300 sites, and has p
Page 28 and 29: 2.2: Iron artefacts on Irish early
Page 30 and 31: 2012 gazetteer as well as at Randal
Page 32 and 33: also been found within or close to
Page 34 and 35: superstructure (ibid. 117). A few a
Page 36 and 37: 2.4.1: Smithing Secondary smithing
Page 38 and 39: working furnace at Rathgurreen and
Page 40 and 41: smithing and bloom smithing (827 kg
Page 42 and 43: number of hearths as indicative of
Page 44 and 45: univallate enclosures at Lisleagh 1
Page 46 and 47: Chapter 3: Early Medieval Non-Ferro
Page 48 and 49: Map 3.1: Map showing distribution o
Page 50 and 51: little Irish work has been undertak
Page 52 and 53: 3.2.4: Motif-pieces Stone, antler,
Page 54 and 55: supported by the evidence on most l
Page 56 and 57:
needle (ibid. 144-49). However, McE
Page 58 and 59:
ferrous metal-working relative to s
Page 60 and 61:
glass-working which might suggest t
Page 62 and 63:
93). One decorated millefiori rod a
Page 64 and 65:
Map 5.1: Map of Ireland showing evi
Page 66 and 67:
handles, some smoothed and undecora
Page 68 and 69:
comb of Scottish origin at Castlefa
Page 70 and 71:
Chapter 6: Early medieval stone-wor
Page 72 and 73:
Grindstones are circular stones wit
Page 74 and 75:
North and appear to have been disca
Page 76 and 77:
APPENDIX 1 Site Site type Metalwork
Page 78 and 79:
Site Site type Metalworking Residue
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Site Site type Metal-working Artefa
Page 86 and 87:
Site Site type Metal-working featur
Page 88 and 89:
Site Site type Evidence Reference A
Page 90 and 91:
Site name Evidence Reference Athlum
Page 92 and 93:
Armagh: Cathedral Hill, Co. Armagh
Page 94 and 95:
Site name Evidence Reference Ballin
Page 96 and 97:
Site name Evidence Reference Aghade
Page 98 and 99:
Site name Evidence Reference Legget
Page 100 and 101:
Co. Antrim Ballyhenry II, Co. Antri
Page 102 and 103:
Co. Louth Donegore, Co. Antrim Doon
Page 104 and 105:
Co. Monaghan Lisleitrim, Co. Armagh
Page 106 and 107:
Townland/Site Name Site Type Commen
Page 108 and 109:
young lords of territories; six in
Page 110 and 111:
The only ornaments which appear in
Page 112 and 113:
perhaps adopted only by a minority
Page 114 and 115:
Clogher, Co. Tyrone Multivallate pl
Page 116 and 117:
Fig 3.2: brooches by site types (40
Page 118 and 119:
Cloghermore, Dalkey Island, Dooey,
Page 120 and 121:
Of the 216 sites with personal orna
Page 122 and 123:
Glass is the most common material f
Page 124 and 125:
Chapter 8: Manufacturing on Rural S
Page 126 and 127:
weft-beaters or other weaving-relat
Page 128 and 129:
the preparatory stage occurred in t
Page 130 and 131:
Carraig Aille II 33 18 stone, 15 bo
Page 132 and 133:
possible Roestown, Co Meath Non-cir
Page 134 and 135:
Fig. 8.3: Location of sites with ev
Page 136 and 137:
matting. Rush seeds were found in t
Page 138 and 139:
(Lennon 1994, 59), Rathgurreen (Com
Page 140 and 141:
Cherrywood Other Pin slag Collierst
Page 142 and 143:
Significant evidence for metal-work
Page 144 and 145:
Kilkenny 1 1 Longford 1 1 Ulster 13
Page 146 and 147:
Dooey Other Pins bone working evide
Page 148 and 149:
APPENDIX 2 Site Site type Preparati
Page 150 and 151:
Marshes Upper Non-circular Y Y Y Mi
Page 152 and 153:
Bayley, D. 2003:1286. Newtownbalreg
Page 154 and 155:
Brady, N. & Gibson, P. 2005. The Ea
Page 156 and 157:
Chart, D.A. 1940. A Preliminary Sur
Page 158 and 159:
- 1994. Atlantic fortifications: Th
Page 160 and 161:
Delaney, S. 2003:1272. Carn More, F
Page 162 and 163:
Doyle, T. 2008. Hair of the dog. Se
Page 164 and 165:
- 2006b. Archaeological discoveries
Page 166 and 167:
social transformation c. A.D. 500-1
Page 168 and 169:
Papers from the Proceedings of the
Page 170 and 171:
- 2010. Viking elements in Irish to
Page 172 and 173:
- 1999. The Vikings in the Kingdom
Page 174 and 175:
Lennon, A. M. & Henry, M. 2000. Pre
Page 176 and 177:
McCarthy, A. 1986:29. Ballybunion,
Page 178 and 179:
Since the Roman Period. London & Sy
Page 180 and 181:
- 1988. Excavations at Lisleagh Rin
Page 182 and 183:
NAC leaflet. 2011. Steeple Road, An
Page 184 and 185:
Meath. Unpublished report prepared
Page 186 and 187:
- 1951-2a. St. Gobnet’s House, Ba
Page 188 and 189:
- 2005b. Medieval fish traps on the
Page 190 and 191:
- 1953. Preliminary report on Excav
Page 192 and 193:
- 1958. Two souterrains at Bawntaaf
Page 194 and 195:
- 2007. Clonfad 3: A unique glimpse
Page 196 and 197:
Historical Journal, 3, 165-86. Wadd
Page 198 and 199:
- 1971. A Marshland Habitation Site
Page 200 and 201:
Zajac, S. 2002:1382. Carrowkeel, Co
show all

EMAP_2012_Report_6_1.pdf (7.3 MB) - The Heritage Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?