Dowling, G. 2014. Landscape and settlement in late Iron Age Ireland: some emerging trends

Though the late Iron Age in Ireland is still under-rep-resented archaeologically when compared with theevidence for other periods, there has nevertheless beena steady increase in the number of sites and artefactsdated to this period over the past two decades in par-ticular. Work on the collation of data during the pilotphase of the LIARI Project has amassed informationon over 1,000 individual monuments, features andfinds from approximately 450 sites for which anabsolute date between c. 400 BC and AD 600 is avail-able. Of these dates, roughly half span the period fromthe fifth century BC to the first century AD; about400 lie securely within the late Iron Age (first–fifthcenturies AD) and just under 200 extend from thefifth to the seventh century AD (Fig. 7.1). The array ofevidence represented is extensive, ranging from enclo-sures and houses to ceremonial structures, funerarymonuments and burials, as well as features associatedwith metalworking, agriculture, food production andother domestic and ritual activities.

The following discussion is designed to provide

an overview of the evidence now available for the lateIron Age and some of the more significant trends thatare beginning to emerge from a preliminary assess-ment of the evidence. As noted in Chapter 1, work onthe collation of information for the period is ongoing,and the interpretations offered here are inevitably pro-visional. Similarly, rather than attempting a compre-hensive review of the late Iron Age, the present surveyfocuses on a select range of sites that illustrate perhapsmost clearly the diversity of the evidence and some ofthe patterns now emerging. In order to manage whatis a very substantial and complex body of information,the discussion has been organised around several broadthemes, such as settlement, ceremonial and funeraryactivity. These categories are not intended to be pre-scriptive; indeed, it is now widely recognised that con-siderable overlap existed between the social, econom-ic, political and ritual/religious spheres,1 and this isborne out once again in the evidence discussed below.

Although sites that have yielded absolute lateIron Age dates (many of them unpublished) are given

151

7. LANDSCAPE AND SETTLEMENT IN LATE IRON AGEIRELAND: SOME EMERGING TRENDS

GER DOWLING

100km

´́

0km100

Fig. 7.1—Distribution of dated Iron Age sites and features: (left) c. 400 BC–AD 100; (middle) c.AD 100–500; (right)c. AD 500–700 (shaded relief model base © ESRI, GTOPO30).

152

Late Iron Age and ‘Roman’ Ireland

EnclosureHouseKiln

Scarbo Hill

Tullylish

Fort Hill

Rosepark

Colp West

Cloongownagh

Lismullin

GarretstownBaronstown

KilloranKillalane

Sallymount

Chancellorsland

Muckridge

Moanduff

Ballydrehid

Baysrath

´

100km

´́

h

t F o

bo H

gooo olCC nawn hggh

WesColp W

epRose

Colp West

Rosepark

S um

n

Sallym

00km10

Muckri

Kiln

Muckridge

HouseEnclosure

Fig. 7.2—Distribution map showing dated late Iron Age enclosures, houses and cereal-drying kilns (shaded relief modelbase © ESRI, GTOPO30).

precedence here, there also exists a wealth of artefac-tual, historical, onomastic and linguistic evidencewhich testifies to the importance of other places andsite types during this period, not least earlychurch/domnach sites and ogham stones. Finds fromsites such as Drumanagh, Freestone Hill andNewgrange, moreover, confirm the presence of signif-icant late Iron Age horizons and provide yet furtherproof of the dynamic nature of contact betweenIreland and the Roman world—as do sites like theRath of the Synods on the Hill of Tara. Indeed, mostof the great royal centres have only seen limited exca-vations, and no doubt future work will serve to eluci-date further their importance during the early cen-turies AD. Many of these sites, which are touched onfurther below, are currently the focus of dedicatedstudy by various scholars whose work continues toinform our understanding of the period.

Late Iron Age settlement

Excavation in recent years has resulted in a significantincrease in evidence for late Iron Age settlement, inthe form of enclosures, houses and buildings and otherrelated features such as pits, post-holes and hearths.Other contemporary features such as cereal-dryingkilns and furnaces, coupled with the evidence provid-ed by artefacts, faunal remains and other ecofacts, illus-trate the range of activities associated with somesettlements, which seemingly included cereal produc-tion on a relatively wide scale, as well as pastoral farm-ing, metalworking (mainly in iron) and other special-ist crafts. Given the ephemeral nature of the settle-ments and occupation sites generally—even those ofostensibly high status—it would appear that thedwellings of the vast majority of the populationremain ‘invisible’ in the archaeological record.2

Although it appears that most settlements of theperiod were unenclosed, one of the most strikingtrends emerging from the excavated evidence is anapparent increase in enclosure from around the thirdcentury AD onwards. Nevertheless, while a residentialor domestic role has been suggested for many of thelate Iron Age enclosures, the precise function (anddating) of these sites is not always clear: most havebeen only partly excavated, relatively few have associ-ated houses, and there are suggestions that many sitesmay have had multiple, or in some cases quite spe-cialised, roles, whether domestic, industrial, agricultur-al or ritual/ceremonial. The greatest number of enclo-sures is located in Leinster and north Munster, es-pecially in the Meath/north Dublin and Kilkenny/

Tipperary regions, with a more dispersed distributionevidenced elsewhere (Fig. 7.2). The distribution ofcereal-drying kilns, which also appear in increasingnumbers at this time, shows a similar concentration inthese regions (see Fig. 7.2) and complements thepalaeoenvironmental evidence to indicate an upsurgein agricultural activity, marking the end of a periodcharacterised more widely by forest regeneration anda contraction in farming (the ‘Late Iron Age Lull’).3Equally important in this context are indicators ofcontinuity in arable and pastoral farming during thelast few centuries BC and the first two centuries ADin some areas, most discernibly within the landscapesof sites of long-established significance such as Tara,Navan Fort and Uisneach, highlighting the need toassess the evidence for continuity and change at amore local level.4 Indeed, while important trends arebeginning to emerge, the greater number of excav-ations in certain parts of the island, in particular theeast, introduces an inherent bias in the record, and fur-ther work is required to determine whether these pat-terns have a more widespread relevance or are specif-ic to certain regions.

A significant aspect of the record as a whole isevidence for long-term continuity in the location ofsettlements and activities like cereal-processing andmetalworking, with many of the recorded late IronAge sites occurring at places that were also foci foractivity in the late first millennium BC (and oftenearlier) and in the early medieval period. The radio-carbon dates from a growing number of sites point toprolonged, and in some cases possibly continuous,activity from the late Iron Age into the latter half ofthe first millennium AD, usually characterised by anearly phase (or phases) of open—or, more rarely,enclosed—settlement or occupation, followed bymore substantial, enclosed, settlement, typified by theringfort. At the same time, shifts in focus from burialto domestic occupation, cereal-processing and/ormetalworking, and vice versa, highlight the fluid wayin which people defined themselves and their re-lationship with place and the past. Alongside seeming-ly ‘permanent’ settlements, a multitude of other sitesand locations within the landscape appear to havebeen used on a more short-term or intermittent basis,often for specialised activities. These include older,conspicuous sites such as hillforts, as well as wetlandsand other resource-rich locales, and attest to a com-plex, multi-layered pattern of settlement and activity,both at a local level and on a wider, regional, scale.

Although the view of a relatively mobile IronAge population may still be relevant,5 particularly forthe earlier part of the period, the evidence for the

153

Landscape and settlement in late Iron Age Ireland: some emerging trends

154


´

100km

´

100km

´

100km

BurialCeremonial

Activity (pits, hearths,post-holes, etc.)

AgriculturalIndustrialSettlement-relatedTrackway

´ ´

remoniCerrialBur

CeremonialackwayTra

edettlement-relatedSedustrialIndgriculturalAg

100km1

´

100km 100km1

100km1

st-holes pos

100km

ivity (p Act post-holes, etc.)

rths, pits, hea

Fig. 7.3—Distribution of features dating from the firstto the mid-fifth century AD by site type (shaded reliefmodel base © ESRI, GTOPO30).

centuries after c. AD 200 seems to be more reflectiveof settled, agriculturally based communities acrossmany parts of the island, most visibly in the east andsouth midlands. Indeed, the expansion in arable farm-ing, enclosed settlements and occupation sites at thistime points to increased claims on land and its agri-cultural potential, which is also manifested, fromaround the fourth century, by ogham stones and thegrowth of ancestral burial places. That said, somegroups in society were no doubt more mobile thanothers. As well as traders, warriors and some craft-workers, for instance, the seasonal movement of cattlefor grazing (pastoralism or transhumance) likewiseimplies a degree of mobility, and the possibility thatsocial and religious élites had a peripatetic lifestyle,similar to that of their early medieval counterparts,6 isalso worth considering. At the same time, socialupheaval, whether stimulated by pressure on land andthe potential for better opportunities elsewhere or byother factors, may have prompted population move-ments on a larger scale. It should be stressed, however,that the routine movement of people within (orbeyond the confines of) a defined territory is in sharpcontrast to the type of nomadic existence that has pre-viously been mooted to explain the scarcity of recog-nisable Iron Age settlements.7

Unenclosed settlement and specialised activitiesThe wide range of late Iron Age features and materialnow recorded attests to the extensive nature ofsettlement and activity across the landscape during thisperiod (Fig. 7.3); isolated features such as pits, post-holes and hearths dominate the record, however, anddefinitive settlement sites—those with recognisablehouses—remain rare.8 Nevertheless, alongside the fewhouses found within or adjacent to contemporary, lateIron Age, enclosures, most notably at Baysrath, Co.Kilkenny, and Rosepark, Co. Dublin (see below), asmall but increasing number of houses associated withopen settlement in the early first millennium AD havecome to light in recent years. These occur both singlyand in groups, sometimes in association with otherfeatures such as kilns, furnaces and pits. It is possible,moreover, that some of the undated enclosuresdiscussed below—at Fort Hill and Millockstown, Co.Louth, for example—are later than the late Iron Agehouses and features recorded in their interiors. If so,these sites can be added to a growing corpus ofevidence for unenclosed settlement during the lateIron Age that also includes occupation debris, hearths,pits and post-holes, etc., which are often foundbeneath or in the immediate vicinity of ringforts.9Although interpretations based on what is still(compared to the evidence for other periods) arelatively small sample may need to be re-evaluated inthe light of future work, current evidence suggests thatmost people during the late Iron Age lived insettlements that were unenclosed. As such, thesesettlements appear to represent a broader spectrum ofthe population than enclosed settlements, which,although seemingly increasing in number from aroundthe third century AD, may be more closely associatedwith individuals or kin-groups of enhanced wealthand status in society.

Apart from one example each in counties Corkand Roscommon, all of the late Iron Age houses iden-tified to date are located in the south midlands andeast of Ireland. The majority are roundhouses, of post-built construction, and vary little in architectural detailfrom houses of the preceding centuries.10 A number ofrectangular and subrectangular buildings, such as thepost- and plank-built structures excavated atGortlaunaght, Co. Cavan (c. 16m in length; 109BC–AD 129),11 and Ballykeoghan, Co. Kilkenny (AD18–126),12 may also be houses, but their precise func-tion is far from clear. No stone-built houses of theperiod have yet been identified, though this may bedue in part to a paucity of excavation in western partsof Ireland, where a long tradition of building in stoneis evidenced by sites such as Dún Aonghasa (Inis Mór),

Co. Galway, and Mooghaun and Caherconnell, Co.Clare.13 A small, circular enclosure (c. 15m in diam-eter) and adjacent field enclosure some 3ha in extent,both delimited by drystone walls, in the Barrees Valley,Co. Cork,14 do, however, attest to the use of this build-ing method during the late Iron Age.

At just over 5m in diameter, a subcircular struc-ture (dated to 50 BC–AD 210) at Colp West, Co.Meath, is one of the smallest late Iron Age buildingsrecorded. Described as a ‘hut’ by its excavator, thebuilding is broadly contemporary with a number ofcereal-drying kilns and pits at the site, which appearsto have been a focus for settlement at various timesbetween the middle Bronze Age and about the eighthcentury AD.15 One of the kilns (AD 256–492), locat-ed about 25m south of the building, cuts the ditch ofa semicircular enclosure (c. 15m in diameter) that wasinterpreted as a possible animal stockade and may alsodate from the Iron Age.16 Post-built structures of sim-ilar size are known, for example, from Ballydrehid (site185.5), Co. Tipperary,17 and Muckridge 1, Co. Cork,18both of which have diameters of about 6m. The houseat Muckridge (AD 20–350) contained a central hearthand a stone-lined (grain?) storage pit, and was sur-rounded by several pits, one of which contained asmall blue glass bead and fragments of iron slag.

Considerably larger is a post-built roundhouse(180 BC–AD 425), c. 15m in diameter, at Killoran 16,Co. Tipperary, which had a central roof-support andpossible internal subdivisions, as well as an elaborateporch, defined by four post-holes, marking theentrance on the south-east.19 This entrance alignmentis broadly in keeping with other houses whereentrances have been identified, all of which display aneasterly orientation, ranging from north-east to south-east. Practical considerations such as protection fromthe prevailing winds and making optimum use of sun-light were undoubtedly a factor in the positioning ofentrances,20 but the deep-rooted and long-standingadherence to this orientation, regardless of localtopography, suggests that cosmological/religious prin-ciples also played a role.21

Also of interest are settlements distinguished byseveral houses, which might denote multiple house-hold units whose occupants were perhaps tied by kin-ship; this, however, is difficult to substantiate in theabsence of sufficient dating evidence. At Ballydrehid,for example, two identical, and potentially contempo-rary, buildings were located adjacent to the dated, lateIron Age, roundhouse (structure E: AD 240–392)mentioned above, while another roundhouse, of lateBronze Age date, was identified just to its south-west(Fig. 7.4).22 The partial excavation of a ringfort at

155


Cloongownagh, Co. Roscommon, has also revealedevidence of an earlier phase of unenclosed settlementdefined by as many as five roundhouses and two sub-rectangular structures, as well as a large number of pits,hearths, post-holes and metalled surfaces.23 Althoughonly one of the roundhouses was dated (structure 3b:111 BC–AD 132), the dating of two nearby pits (195BC–AD 227 and AD 69–243)—one of which con-tained charred grains of oat and barley—and a fulachtfiadh (AD 134–432), located at the edge of a bog justto the south, raise the possibility that all of the pre-ringfort features belong to one or more phases of IronAge activity.

While houses on the scale seen at Killoran arerare, and likely reflect the high social standing of theiroccupants, the evidence for nearby cereal-processingor ironworking and some of the finds associated with

smaller buildings, such as at Colp West andMuckridge, caution against a reductionist approachthat measures social status on the basis of the sizeand/or relative complexity of structures alone. AsLynn has noted, relatively insubstantial, ‘wicker-bas-ket’-type houses were typical of even high-statussettlements in the early medieval period—as evi-denced at Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim, and MoynaghLough, Co. Meath—and it is possible that structures ofthis type, which ‘rarely leave remains that reach thethreshold of archaeological visibility’, were commonduring the Iron Age as well.24 Likewise, more substan-tial houses built, for example, on stone settings, or ofhorizontal planking placed directly on the ground,would leave little or no trace.25 It is in the context ofthese and other house construction methods26 that wemight consider the multitude of seemingly isolated or

156


Fig. 7.4—Post-excavation plan of house structures identified at Ballydrehid, Co. Tipperary. Excavated in advance of theN8 Cashel to Mitchelstown Road Improvement Scheme by Margaret Gowen and Co. on behalf of the NRA (courtesy ofMelanie McQuade).

7-DPR8_Layout 1 10/09/2014 15:04 Page 156

ephemeral traces of occupation, such as post-holes,stake-holes, pits (for storage, cooking, refuse, etc.),hearths and discrete occupation layers, which havebeen dated to the late Iron Age. Individual kilns andsmelting furnaces revealed by development-led exca-vations may also signify the presence of nearby settle-ments.

The fact that features indicative of settlement oroccupation during the late Iron Age have often beenencountered during the excavation of ringforts, and toa lesser extent crannogs, is noteworthy and attests tothe enduring social (and economic) importance ofsuch locations. Indeed, modern excavations are alsorevealing an increasing number of ringforts that werebuilt on top of, or directly adjacent to, late Iron Ageenclosures (see below), and the identification ofRoman material in the find assemblages from olderringfort and crannog excavations raises the possibilitythat late Iron Age horizons may have been overlookedat other sites.27 Interestingly, new radiocarbon datesfrom Lagore, Co. Meath, point to substantive Iron Age(c. fourth century BC–sixth century AD) activity pre-dating the crannog28—some of which was distinctlyritual in nature29—while dendrochronological datesfrom Coolure Demesne (Lough Derravaragh), Co.Westmeath, indicate a starting date for the construc-tion of the crannog at the beginning of the fifth cen-tury AD.30

Late Iron Age features and material found at anumber of prehistoric hilltop enclosures reflect thewider range of locales between which people movedand testify to the reuse of ancient monuments foractivities that may have been invested with ritual, aswell as social and economic, significance. Activitywithin the late Bronze Age hillfort at Mooghaun, forexample, included ironworking (c. first century AD) aswell as the production of rotary querns,31 while iron-working is likewise attested at Rathgall, Co. Wicklow,a site that has also yielded an openwork strap-endfrom a cingulum belt of provincial Roman militarytype that probably dates from the late third or fourthcentury AD.32 Charcoal from the outer ditch of a lev-elled bivallate hillfort at Knockanacuig/Lohercannan,Co. Kerry, yielded a date of 90 BC–AD 79, while a pitinside the enclosure was dated to AD 398–544.33Similarly, a post-hole was dug into the earthen bank ofthe prehistoric hilltop enclosure at Lyles Hill, Co.Antrim, during the late Iron Age (AD 80–380), a sitewhich has also produced some Roman material.34Upland locations such as these may have been visitedon an intermittent or seasonal basis for specialisedactivities, with some sites, such as Mooghaun, standingout as potentially important centres of production.

The latter could equally be true of a range of othersites in low-lying areas, where cereal-processing (e.g.Waterunder, Co. Louth)35 and ironworking (e.g.Milltown AR03, Co. Kilkenny, and Derrinsallagh 4,Co. Laois)36 were carried out on a seemingly industri-al scale. This specialisation in activity is also a featureof ceremonial enclosures like the Rath of the Synods(see below) and, later, enclosed sites such as Garranes,Co. Cork, which was clearly an important centre formetal- and glass-working and has yielded a significantassemblage of late Roman pottery.37

From open to enclosedOne notable exception to the dearth of enclosuresdated to the first two centuries AD is a site excavatedin 2006–7 at Baysrath, near the River Glory (a tribu-tary of the Kings River) in south County Kilkenny,which provides what is arguably the best evidence ofa late Iron Age enclosed settlement identified to date(Fig. 7.5). Here, a palisaded enclosure (AD 71–215)some 40m in diameter encircled the remains of at leastthree successive post-built roundhouses (8m in aver-age diameter), the latest dated to AD 60–131, with afourth example (AD 25–128) located about 6m to theeast.38 One of the houses contained a central hearth,while another may have had a formal entrance on theeast, defined by a combination of post-holes and slot-trenches. A keyhole-shaped cereal-drying kiln locatedoutside the enclosure was dated to AD 62–214 and—together with evidence from a dozen or so other sitesdating from this period—provides an important indi-cator of arable farming locally at a time when manypollen diagrams suggest a low level of agriculturalactivity. Intriguingly, an undated post-hole containingseveral hundred grains of spelt wheat, comparable insize to the large assemblages of spelt found at Iron Ageand Roman sites in Britain,39 was also identified insidethe enclosure and may be broadly contemporary withit. Evidence of both ferrous and non-ferrous metal-working was also identified in the form of threetuyères, copper fragments, a clay mould and iron slag,all from the fill of the palisade trench, as well as a bowlfurnace (42 BC–AD 62) located just outside theenclosure on the south-east. A leaf-shaped iron spear-head of possible Romano-British origin, dating per-haps from the first or second century AD, is one of thefew diagnostic late Iron Age finds from the site. Thisobject takes on an added interest when consideredalongside the late first-century AD Roman-type bur-ial at Stoneyford, only 5km to the north, which hasbeen suggested to indicate the presence nearby ofsettlers or traders from Roman Britain, possibly in thearea of a fording point on the River Nore.40

157


158


Fig. 7.5—Post-excavation plan of late Iron Age palisaded enclosure and internal features at Baysrath, Co. Kilkenny (site53–54). Excavated in advance of construction of the M9 Waterford to Knocktopher Motorway Scheme (courtesy of theNational Roads Authority; plan by Valerie J. Keely Ltd).

Overall, the evidence from Baysrath indicates thatthe owner-occupants of the site were of considerablestatus, and enjoyed access to, and possibly control over,valuable goods and resources. Moreover, while domes-tic occupation is clearly implied, the discovery of fourfragments of burnt human bone—as well as theremains of animals such as horses—in the palisadetrench also suggests a ritual dimension to activity atthe site. This is perhaps further underscored by thepresence just to the north of the enclosure of earlierfunerary monuments and burials dating from the lateBronze Age and early Iron Age. Interestingly, the fluidrole of the site is also illustrated by later activity, whichsaw a shift in emphasis from cereal production duringthe late Iron Age/early medieval transition period toburial in the fifth to seventh centuries, followed inturn by the construction, in the eighth or ninth cen-tury, of a ringfort that partly overlaps with the palisad-ed enclosure.

Given the enduring significance of Tara in thefirst few centuries AD, and the assumed importance ofthe promontory fort at Drumanagh as a centre oftrade and possibly production,41 it is perhaps surpris-ing that no enclosed settlements from this period,comparable to Baysrath, have been identified in theMeath/north Dublin region. A subrectangular ditchedenclosure of fourth- to first-century BC date atGarretstown 2, near Dunshaughlin, Co. Meath, wasrecut in the first or second century AD (and again inthe third to fourth century); no features or finds asso-ciated with late Iron Age use of the site were identi-fied, however, and its function during this period isuncertain.42 The date of the promontory fort atDrumanagh has also yet to be established.Nonetheless, future investigations in the Tara andDrumanagh landscapes—including the areas aroundLoughshinny and on Lambay where enclosures havebeen identified by geophysical survey (see Chapters 3and 4)—may yet reveal evidence of enclosed high-status settlements of the first two centuries AD.

Although a marked increase in enclosure isapparent from the third century onwards, the excavat-ed evidence presents a complex picture. Almost all ofthe enclosures are located at sites that saw multi-peri-od—and often multifarious—activity, and their inter-pretation as settlements is rarely clear-cut. AtLismullin 1, near Tara, a curvilinear ditch (AD230–390) some 155m in length was suggested by theexcavator to form part of a large residential enclosurethat extended beyond the limit of the excavated areato the north and east.43 The ditch, which was situatedon a low rise overlooking the site of a large, post-builtceremonial enclosure of early Iron Age date,44 had a

2m-wide causeway on the south-west and is broadlycontemporary with a large number of cereal-dryingkilns (second to early fifth centuries AD) at the site.The dating of several other cereal-drying kilns atLismullin to the last few centuries BC points to a longhistory of cereal-processing at this location. A copper-alloy ring-headed pin was found in soil backfilled intoone of the kilns (dated to AD 120–330), while otherlate Iron Age finds from the site included a portion ofa Roman-type melon bead of mid-second-centuryAD date (from topsoil), as well as a burnt flint flakeand chert débitage from a hearth (AD 90–320) insidethe enclosure.

The emphasis on cereal-processing at Lismullin,together with the finds, suggests an important role forthe site within the broader settlement landscape ofTara and provides an interesting counterpoint to con-temporary activity at the Rath of the Synods, less than2km to the west. So, too, do several other nearby sitesassociated with cereal-processing during this period,such as Skreen 3, Ardsallagh 5 and Blundelstown 1,where a fragment of Samian ware was found in thebackfill of a kiln dating from the second or third cen-tury AD.45 While it seems probable that all of thesesites were associated with individuals or groups forwhom Tara was a ritual focus, it may be unwise toassume too clear-cut a distinction between the ‘sacred’and the ‘domestic’, particularly for a site with a strongceremonial pedigree like Lismullin. This is perhapsfurther underscored by the presence just to the northof the enclosure of a disarticulated female burial in apit, as well as a possible penannular ring-ditch—bothdating from the fifth or sixth century AD.

A similarly wide range of structures and activity,in this case extending from the Iron Age to the earlymedieval period, is attested at Rosepark, nearBalrothery, Co. Dublin. Here, a curving ditch of lateIron Age date (AD 255–411) was suggested to formpart of a large, ‘spiral-shaped’ hilltop enclosure visibleon aerial photographs, only a small portion of whichwas excavated.46 Two keyhole-shaped kilns of broadlysimilar date—one of which contained malting barleyfor brewing beer47—and three undated circular struc-tures, possibly houses averaging 10m in diameter, layoutside the enclosure on the east and may be associat-ed with it. Ironworking is indicated by slag from theenclosure ditch, which also contained quantities ofanimal bone (cattle, pig and sheep/goat), as well as thecorroded remains of a possible iron axehead and a bro-ken stone object which may be part of a rotary quern.A yellow annular bead of possible first-century BC tofirst-century AD date from the fill of a linear ditchwithin the enclosure, together with tentative evidence

159


of burials on the hilltop, may point to an earlier IronAge phase of activity at the site, though this is far fromclear.48 In the fifth or sixth century the enclosure wassuperseded by a substantial double-ditched enclosurethat appears to have continued in use into the eighthcentury. Interestingly, a site in the adjoining townlandof Glebe South was a focus for burial at various timesbetween the second century BC and the seventh cen-tury AD, while a kiln dating from the third to sixthcenturies has been recorded just to the south ofRosepark, at Darcystown. Overall, the evidencesuggests that Rosepark was the focus of a long-livedsettlement, based on arable and pastoral farming, withan associated burial ground nearby.49

A small, subcircular ditched enclosure (22m inmaximum diameter) at Sallymount 1, Co. Limerick,also produced evidence of cereal-processing and iron-working, seemingly on a relatively substantial scale.50A square structure, measuring 3.6m by 3.5m, just out-side the enclosure on the south was defined by nineregularly spaced post-holes, arranged in three rows ofthree, some of which contained cereal grain (wheat,barley and oats). A radiocarbon date of AD 261–531from a charred emmer grain found in one of the post-holes indicates that the structure, which was interpret-ed as a grain storage shed, is broadly contemporarywith the enclosure, the lower fill of which was datedto AD 259–419.51 In addition to small quantities ofiron slag in the enclosure ditch, a short linear ditchabout 20m south-west of the enclosure containednine separate dumps of metalworking waste, with thefinal one dating from AD 255–392. Apart from twoBronze Age pits, all of the dated structures and featuresat the site, as well as the finds, suggest continuity inactivity from the late Iron Age to around the sev-enth/eighth century AD.

Although domestic buildings and features havealso been found inside or surrounding enclosures atother multi-period sites where late Iron Age occupa-tion is attested, there is insufficient dating evidence toestablish the relationship between them. AtChancellorsland site C, Co. Tipperary, for example,none of the features revealed by limited excavationscould be definitively linked with a possible ditchedenclosure, c. 35m in diameter, dated to AD 120–540.52Conversely, the outermost of three ditched enclosuresidentified on a low rise at Fort Hill, Co. Louth, has notbeen dated but encircles a late Iron Age roundhouse(AD 260–420) defined by a narrow, arc-shaped trench(length of chord 8.9m) containing three regularlyspaced post-holes.53 Earlier activity is indicated by acereal-drying kiln (AD 60–250) just downslope fromthe site, in the neighbouring townland of Balriggan,

where recent excavation also revealed evidence ofextensive occupation, as well as burial, during theearly medieval period.54 Another undated hilltopenclosure, c. 60m in diameter, at Millockstown, alsoCo. Louth, may be associated with a hearth and three‘occupation layers’ in its interior, one of which wasdated to AD 230–620 and was cut by the ditch of aringfort, while another contained a fragment of abronze zoomorphic penannular brooch.55 A Romantoilet implement of probable fourth-century AD datewas found in a disturbed context just above the northwall of one of two souterrains at the site.56 Similaruncertainty surrounds the dating of a large, subrectan-gular hilltop enclosure at Clogher, Co. Tyrone, a sitewhich has yielded Romano-British material of thelate first and fourth centuries AD.57

A number of palisaded enclosures excavated inrecent years may also be associated with late Iron Agesettlement, though the evidence is ambiguous. Part ofa post-built enclosure, of possible subrectangular form,dating from the third–fourth century AD at the multi-period site of Moanduff 1, Co. Carlow, for example,may have had a residential role,58 but its precise extentand significance remain uncertain. Meanwhile, datesof AD 340–540 and AD 230–430 yielded by oak char-coal from two palisaded enclosures at Lowpark, Co.Mayo, could be the result of old-wood effect, althoughthe possibility that the charcoal derived from a dis-turbed context associated with late Iron Age occupa-tion at the site was also raised by the excavator.59

The fact that many sites that saw settlement-related activity during the late Iron Age were also thefocus of extensive early medieval occupation is clear-ly important from a social and historical perspective,but such longevity poses its own challenges forarchaeologists. As at all multi-period sites, pre-existingfeatures may be truncated or even wholly erased bysubsequent activity, and this presents interpretive diffi-culties that are particularly acute in the case of enclo-sures that have yielded both late Iron Age and earlymedieval dates. A notable example is an annularditched enclosure (c. 40m in diameter) at Baronstown1, Co. Meath, where radiocarbon dates ranging fromAD 540 to 1020 were obtained for all the dated ditchfills apart from the basal fill on the western side of theenclosure, from which a sample of willow charcoalyielded a date of AD 172–433.60 Although the char-coal was regarded as intrusive by the excavator, onemay question whether such an early date is trulyanomalous,61 given that the enclosure ditch was recuton multiple occasions during the early medieval peri-od (potentially removing late Iron Age deposits) and issurrounded by a significant number of late Iron

160


Age/transition period features. As well as two hearthsand a figure-of-eight-shaped kiln, all of third- to mid-sixth-century AD date, these include two small, oval-shaped ditched enclosures (dated to AD 390–550 andAD 436–649), located to the north and south-east ofthe annular enclosure respectively, that were interpret-ed as the remains of possible houses.62 Collectively, theevidence suggests that Baronstown was the location ofa settlement of some importance during the late IronAge, though, as Newman observes, consideration ofthis phase of the site’s history ‘has been somewhateclipsed by the extensive and high-quality evidencefor early medieval activity’.63

Alongside issues of chronology and dating, thereare also pertinent questions surrounding thenomenclature used to describe some enclosures of theperiod. While ‘ditched enclosures’ are, by definition,distinguished by the absence of associated earthworks, itis nevertheless reasonable to assume that the materialexcavated from an enclosure ditch was generally usedto create an accompanying bank, the survival of whichmay have been compromised by erosion, cultivationand/or deliberate levelling. Even if remnant bankmaterial does survive, it can be difficult to recognisearchaeologically, particularly in the case of

development-led excavations, where the practice ofmechanically removing topsoil is weighted heavily infavour of the identification of ‘negative’ features suchas ditches and pits. As a consequence, it is often onlythrough evidence of preferential silting in the ditch thatthe former presence of a bank might be inferred. Thedeposition pattern of some of the ditch fills atSallymount 1 (above), for example, led the excavator tosuggest that the enclosure may have had an innerbank.64 Likewise, at Killalane 2 (area C), Co. Tipperary,two concentric subcircular ditches, set 8m apart, appearto have been accompanied by internal earthen banks(Fig. 7.6).65 Alder and Pomoideae charcoal from thelowermost fills of the inner and outer ditches atKillalane yielded dates of AD 258–502 and AD133–322 respectively—raising the possibility that theditches were dug in succession—while radiocarbondates from the upper fills of the latter ditch, and fromother features inside the enclosure, indicate that the sitecontinued in use into the eighth or ninth century.

Although the nature of late Iron Age activity atKillalane is unclear, the excavator’s observation thatthe enclosure displayed ‘markedly similar characteris-tics to that of a bivallate ringfort’ and was of a type thatmay represent ‘antecedents of the ringfort’66 is worthy

161


Fig. 7.6—Composite image showing excavated ditches and plot of magnetometer survey of unexcavated portion ofenclosure at Killalane, Co. Tipperary. Excavated in advance of construction of the M7 Nenagh to Limerick MotorwayScheme (courtesy of the National Roads Authority; photography by Rubicon Heritage Services Ltd).

of note. Indeed, what some of the sites discussed abovehighlight very clearly is a widening gap between cur-rent orthodoxy on the development of ringforts—which has become sceptical, if not wholly dismissive,of the idea that such enclosures were built in prehis-tory67—and the evidence provided by excavation,which is revealing an increasing variety of late IronAge enclosures that share morphological characteris-tics with enclosed settlements of the early medievalperiod. Up until recently, the only definitively datedenclosure to fall within this group was the multivallateRath of the Synods, built at Tara in the second centu-ry AD,68 a site of obvious ceremonial significance irre-spective of whether or not it had a residential aspect(see below).69 Alongside the Rath of the Synods,which challenges the restricted chronology and roleordinarily ascribed to ‘ringfort-type’ earthworks, theevidence emerging from some of the sites describedabove suggests that, from around the third century AD,an increasing number of enclosures in Ireland weredefined by ditches with internal banks, at least some ofwhich were settlements. While a larger sample and amore refined chronology are required, it is clear thatthe role and meanings ascribed to enclosures definedby this type of boundary architecture were not static,and that in order to understand developments over thelonger term, and the social mechanisms underpinningthem, we need to move beyond traditional period-based classifications.70 As FitzPatrick has also argued,in a very cogent and wide-ranging critique of theclassification ‘ringfort’, rigid adherence to a restrictedchronology, morphology and function for this monu-ment ‘type’ masks considerable diversity and is one ofthe greatest barriers to exploring innovation in enclo-sure as an indicator of social change.71

Ceremony, ritual and burial

As with the evidence for settlement, the changes thatare apparent in ceremonial, ritual and funeraryspheres—culminating with the introduction ofChristianity and the widespread adoption of new bur-ial customs during the period—are set against abroader pattern of general continuity in many aspectsof the record. While the great ‘royal’ centres are par-ticularly relevant to this discussion, relatively littleattention has been focused on examining the natureand significance of developments in the centuries fol-lowing the early Iron Age surge in monument con-struction exemplified by the large-scale ceremonialenclosures, temples and other structures at Tara, NavanFort, Dún Ailinne and possibly also Rathcroghan. The

organisation and massive communal effort required tobuild enclosures and structures on the scale seen at theroyal centres, together with their long-term impor-tance as foci for ceremony and ritual and associatedhigh-status assemblages, are widely seen to reflect theirelevated status as regional or ‘provincial’ centres in thelast few centuries BC. Though closely associated withan élite, they are perhaps best understood as monu-mental expressions of group identity and social co-hesion, underpinned by the institution of sacral king-ship.72 A similarly high level of social organisation isattested by other large-scale building projects duringthe last few centuries BC, including the constructionof long-running linear earthworks such as the BlackPig’s Dyke and the Dorsey, in the north,73 and exten-sive trackways like the Corlea Road, Co. Longford,and those identified at Edercloon.74 The geographicaloverlap between the above-mentioned sites and thedistribution of La Tène material, which is mainly con-centrated in the northern and eastern parts of theisland,75 is significant; Barry Raftery argued that it wasthe growth in power of an élite stratum reflected bysuch sites that ‘provided the catalyst for the introduc-tion and development of native La Tène fine metal-working industries’.76 The idea that the royal centreswere key foci for such innovations finds particularlystrong support in the Navan landscape, which hasyielded an intriguing juxtaposition of evidence forlong-distance contacts (illustrated, for example, by theNorth African Barbary ape at Site B), bronze-workingand some of the most exquisite pieces of La Tène met-alwork from Ireland, the Loughnashade horns.77 Thesituation in Munster, although seemingly more frag-mented, may not have been as different as has some-times been suggested: La Tène material does occur(albeit in significantly lesser quantities and with thenotable exception of beehive querns), and currentresearch is revealing an increasing number of smallerregional centres of potential Iron Age date.78

While many of the key trends seen in the last fewcenturies BC are also applicable to the later Iron Age,the evidence for continuity in ceremonial and ritualspheres is to some extent overshadowed by new devel-opments. Alongside new material and ideas emanatingfrom the provincial Roman world, one of the moststriking aspects of the record for this period is anapparent shift away from the construction of large-scale communal monuments and earthworks inregions where such monuments had previously beendominant. Apart from a linear earthwork atMagheracar, Co. Donegal,79 for example, where a sec-tion of the ditch yielded a first- to fourth-century ADdate, no large-scale land divisions of this type have

162


been dated to the later Iron Age.80 Likewise, currentevidence from Dún Ailinne, Navan and Tara points tocontinuity in the use of the early Iron Age hengiformenclosures rather than the construction of new enclo-sures or earthworks on the same scale. At DúnAilinne, for instance, all of the major structuresrevealed by geophysical survey within the internallyditched hilltop enclosure—which encompasses some13ha—can be associated with the early Iron Agesequence of enclosures and buildings identified byexcavation on the summit,81 with evidence for peri-odic feasting (the so-called ‘Flame’ phase) and objectssuch as a Continental-type fibula providing the onlyclear indicators of activity at the site during the earlycenturies AD.82 Late Iron Age activity inside the first-century BC enclosure at Navan is represented by alarge ‘ring-barrow’ (Site A), c. 50m in diameter, con-structed sometime between the first century BC andthe fifth century AD.83 The chronological relationshipbetween it and a circular timber structure of post-first-century BC date at its centre is unclear, though twoextended inhumation burials (both female, one appar-ently buried in a coffin) flanking the entrance to the

structure suggest a broadly similar, late Iron Age ortransition period, date.

The enduring significance of older monuments isalso illustrated at Tara, in this case by ritual deposition,and the burial of an infant accompanied by a dog, inthe ditch of Ráith na Ríg84 and by the construction inthe second century AD—again on top of a complexsuite of earlier features85—of the Rath of the Synods,whose ramparts incorporate an older burial mound.86At approximately 90m in overall diameter, the Rath ofthe Synods is considerably smaller than Ráith na Ríg,but its elaborate multivallate boundary and rich, albeitselect, assemblage of both native and imported mater-ial from Britain and Gaul argue strongly against link-ing the ‘modest’ size of this new monument with anydemotion in the importance of Tara. One interestingaspect of this monument is that it was built outsideRáith na Ríg (Fig. 7.7), which may well haveremained a focus for large-scale public gatherings andceremonies at the same time as the Rath of theSynods was in use87—although a lack of excavationinside Ráith na Ríg, combined with the fact that suchevents may leave little trace in the archaeological

163


50m

´ Fig. 7.7—Lidar map ofthe Hill ofTara,showing theRath of theSynods andthe northernportion ofRáith naRíg.

record, makes it difficult to say anything categorical inthis regard. Nevertheless, the construction of the Rathof the Synods does mark a significant shift towards theuse of a smaller, more restricted space for ceremonialactivity, participation in which must have been limit-ed to a select group. As well as the small internal areaof the enclosure (about 26m in diameter), access to,and visibility of, activities conducted therein wouldhave been further restricted by its multivallate bound-ary, which greatly accentuates the distance betweenthe enclosed space and the world outside and so actsas a highly effective device for communicating power,status and exclusivity.88 In the light of potentially con-temporary activity inside Ráith na Ríg (and elsewhereon the hill), we may be looking at gatherings andactivities on very different scales at Tara during theearly centuries AD.

The few other ceremonial enclosures dated to thelate Iron Age are also on a comparatively modest scale,but nonetheless reflect continuity in—or possibly, insome cases, a revival of—regional architecturaltraditions. Evidence for the episodic lighting of fireswas revealed during the excavation of a small, stone-built enclosure (site A) in the Barrees Valley, on theBeara peninsula, Co. Cork, which was probably builtduring the first or second century AD and may havebeen a focus for communal gatherings.89 At the multi-period site of Raffin, Co. Meath, a 65m-diameterinternally ditched enclosure, identical in all but scale toRáith na Ríg and other early Iron Age hengiformenclosures, has been dated to AD 380–570.90 A smallogham stone was found in the ditch of the enclosure,which encircled a 9m-diameter ring-ditch surroundedby a circle of free-standing posts, while a small standingstone in the north-west quadrant of the enclosuresealed a ritual pit containing charcoal and a humanskull fragment (110 BC–AD 140) that seems to havebeen curated as a relic prior to its deposition.91Interestingly, Newman has suggested that the enclosureat Raffin may be associated with a new élite whose riseto power was facilitated by links with, or raiding on,late or sub-Roman Britain and who sought tolegitimise their authority ‘by mimicking architecturalforms that had previously symbolized old, establishedpower’.92 The ogham stone, which may hint at literacyamong those who controlled Raffin, is particularlyintriguing in this regard, though the lack of Romanmaterial from the site and the architecture of theenclosure could be seen to convey a deep-rooted senseof local identity. It is notable, moreover, that Raffin isnot the only site of this period where such architecturewas employed: a circular, internally ditched enclosureof third- to sixth-century AD date was also identified

during excavations on the summit of Cathedral Hill inArmagh town, less than 3km from Navan Fort.93Although only partially excavated, the enclosure issuggested to have had a diameter of about 50m andmay have directly preceded the establishment of theearliest church at Armagh. As such, the site forms partof a wider pattern whereby early Christian churches,and to a lesser extent monasteries, were founded onthe site of, or adjacent to, pre-Christian ceremonialcentres.94 The modest size of the enclosures built atTara, Raffin and Cathedral Hill, relative to their earlyIron Age predecessors, seems to be replicated at othersites, such as Uisneach, Co. Westmeath, where aceremonial enclosure (c. 50m in diameter) of possiblethird- to fifth-century AD date is located a shortdistance to the south of a much larger and potentiallyearlier hilltop enclosure some 200m in diameter.95

While the Barrees Valley enclosure (site A), men-tioned above, has been shown by O’Brien to reflectcontinuity in local architectural and ritual traditions insouth-west Ireland,96 the question arises as to the sig-nificance of the growing visibility of smaller ceremo-nial foci in other regions during the late Iron Age.Whether these signify a breakdown in ‘tribal’ cohesionand centralised authority exemplified by large-scalecommunal monuments at sites like Tara, Navan andDún Ailinne, leading in time to the emergence of theestimated 150–200 túatha (petty kingdoms) of earlymedieval Ireland,97 is difficult to gauge on the basis ofcurrent evidence; nevertheless, there can be littledoubt that the nature of social organisation during theIron Age was more complex and multi-layered thansuch a view might suggest. Indeed, it seems very like-ly that, in addition to centres of regional or supra-regional significance in some parts of Ireland, smallerterritories headed by local socio-political and religiousélites existed across the island throughout the IronAge. This is suggested, for example, by the myriadsmaller ceremonial sites that occur within the assumed‘catchment’ zones of the ‘provincial’ centres—e.g. atTeltown and Tlachtga, Co. Meath, Knockbrack, Co.Dublin, Rathra and Carnfree, Co. Roscommon, andCornashee (Sgiath Gabhra), Co. Fermanagh, amongothers—that are suspected to have been importantfoci in the Iron Age. Further work is required, how-ever, to assess how each of these might ‘fit’ within thebroader pattern of social organisation in any givenregion, and in particular whether, as seems likely,smaller and larger focal centres—expressing differingscales of social identity and affiliation (local, regionaland supra-regional)—co-existed. To this end, theLIARI Project has initiated a new campaign ofresearch in the Meath/north Dublin region aimed at

164


investigating, and exploring the relationships between,prominent hilltop sites such as the Hill of Lloyd,Faughan Hill and Knockbrack. These sites are not onlyworthy of study in their own right but also, whenconsidered from a landscape perspective, have thepotential to enhance our understanding of socialorganisation and identity in the wider Tara region.

While current evidence does not support awholesale disappearance of regional identities in theearly centuries AD (the broad correlation betweenregional territories in late prehistory and earlymedieval provinces is noteworthy in this regard), itdoes nevertheless hint at a smaller group focus for cer-emonial activity. This is seen both at centres of long-standing importance like Tara and at strategic hilltopsites that do not appear to have been significant fociduring the earlier part of the Iron Age, such as RaffinFort, and also Freestone Hill, Co. Kilkenny, where asmall stone-built enclosure inside a late Bronze Agehillfort was remodelled in the late fourth/early fifthcentury AD to form a sanctuary enclosure (temenos),possibly associated with a healing cult focused on anearly prehistoric cairn at its centre.98 Further work,and a larger sample of sites, is needed to assess whetherthe growing visibility of smaller cult centres in thearchaeological record of eastern Ireland reflects a gen-uine trend and might therefore be regarded as a man-

ifestation of broader social changes stimulated eitherdirectly or indirectly by contact with Roman Britain.Romano-British influence is clearly evident in someaspects of the ritual sphere; the overall picture isvaried and complex, however, and any interpretationmust take into account both the presence in Ireland ofpeople (traders, contractors, immigrants etc.) from theprovincial Roman world and variations in access andlocal responses to Roman material culture and ideasamong different groups and strata in society. Theabsence of Roman material at Raffin, for example,presents an interesting contrast with the evidencefrom the Rath of the Synods and Freestone Hill,which attests not only to links with south-west Britainbut also to the use of Roman/Romano-British mat-erial in ritual contexts that find direct parallels at ruralcult sites in that region.99 The possibility that Romaninfluence extended beyond ritual practice to affectreligious architecture is also raised by two small, post-built rectangular structures, potentially shrines, insidethe Rath of the Synods,100 as well as a rectangularstructure, measuring c. 16m by 14m and open to thewest, constructed during the second or third centuryAD at Kilmainham (site 1C), near Kells (Fig. 7.8).101 Ithas been described as a ‘sanctuary enclosure’ in the tra-dition of the square ritual enclosures of IronAge/Roman Britain and Gaul, and two individuals

165


Fig. 7.8—Rectangular enclosure (‘structure 8’) at Kilmainham, near Kells, Co. Meath. Excavated in advance of the M3Clonee–North of Kells Motorway Scheme (courtesy of Fintan Walsh, Irish Archaeological Consultancy Ltd; photographyby Hawkeye).

buried near its north-western terminus in the fifth orsixth century102 are in some ways reminiscent of theburials flanking the entrance to the circular building(Site A) at Navan Fort, a structure that may likewisehave had a ceremonial function.

The passage tomb at Newgrange also emerges asan important cult focus or shrine during this period,as illustrated by the deposition over several centuriesof high-quality Roman material, including gold orna-ments, around the entrance to the mound, which islikely to have been imbued with otherworldly signifi-cance.103 Votive deposition at springs, such as atGolden, Co. Tipperary,104 and Randalstown, Co.Meath,105 may also have been influenced by Romano-British practice,106 augmenting a long tradition of rit-ual deposition focused on bogs, rivers and lakes inIreland. That this practice continued throughout theIron Age is attested by the find contexts of much ofthe La Tène metalwork as well as a range of otheritems, including a wide distribution of Roman andother imported material, which was deposited bothsingly (for example at Bohermeen, Co. Meath,107Drumcliff, Co. Sligo,108 Saintfield, Co. Down,109 andthe River Nore, Co. Kilkenny110) and in hoards (as atBalline, Co. Limerick, and Ballinrees, Co. Derry111).

Burial and the treatment of the deadOur understanding of the funerary record of the IronAge and transition period has been transformed inrecent years as the result of dedicated studies by theMapping Death Project112 and scholars such asElizabeth O’Brien,113 Tiernan McGarry114 and TomásÓ Carragáin,115 among others116 (see also Chapter 6).This work, alongside the analysis of early documen-tary sources117 and the application of strontium andoxygen isotope analyses and other scientific methodsin the study of human remains,118 is painting anincreasingly complex picture of life and death in thefirst millennium AD, facilitating new insights into thenature and evolution of burial customs, as well asquestions surrounding religious affiliation, social iden-tity, population mobility and external influences.

The burial record of the early centuries ADshows significant continuity from the preceding peri-od, with cremation—often of a token nature—form-ing the dominant burial rite across the island duringthe late Iron Age. Ring-ditches and ring-barrows,together with simple pits, are the most commonfeatures associated with such burials, with both thecentral area and the enclosing ditch of funerary enclo-sures serving as foci for burial deposits. Traces of pos-sible funerary pyres have been found in associationwith a small number of ring-ditches, such as at

Donaghmore, Co. Louth,119 while the faunal remainsfrom several other sites suggest that feasting may havetaken place as part of the funerary ritual.120 Grave-goods are rare, but where they do occur they consistmainly of glass beads and, less frequently, other smallobjects such as dress-fasteners121 or gaming pieces.122

While the burials from sites such as Ask, Co.Wicklow,123 indicate that cremation continued to bepractised until at least the seventh/eighth century AD,other burial modes centred on the articulated unburntbody also emerge as a notable element of the funeraryrecord for the first time since the early–mid-secondmillennium BC. Crouched (and flexed) inhumation(re)appears in the second or first century BC, thoughthe evidence is largely confined to the Meath–Dublinregion and includes the two well-documented burialsfrom Lambay (see Chapter 4) and one burial eachfrom Rath, Bettystown and Platin, Co. Meath (Fig.7.9).124 By far the greatest number, however, arerecorded at Knowth, where at least six individuals(four crouched, one flexed and one incomplete) wereburied around the great mound at various timesbetween the second century BC and the early thirdcentury AD, with a further eight inhumation burialsalso suggested to date from the Iron Age on the basisof associated artefacts such as beads and copper-alloyrings.125 The rite of crouched inhumation—whichseems to diminish after the third century AD but re-emerges as a minority burial practice during the earlymedieval period126—is seen to reflect influence, if notthe presence of individuals, from Iron Age Britain.127This hypothesis may be supported, among other evi-dence, by the results of isotope analysis indicating thatseveral of the individuals buried at Knowth during thelate Iron Age are of non-local, possibly British, ori-gin.128 A British origin, moreover, has long been pos-tulated for the richly furnished burials at Lambay (seeChapter 4 for a recent reassessment),129 while theinfluence of people and ideas from outside Ireland isalso readily apparent in other aspects of the funeraryrecord, such as the ‘Roman-style’ burials fromStoneyford, Co. Kilkenny, and Bray Head, Co.Wicklow,130 and, more widely, in the gradual emer-gence of extended inhumation as the dominant burialrite across much of the island following its introduc-tion from Britain in the fourth century AD.131

As with other aspects of the record, the landscapesetting and context of late Iron Age and transitionperiod burials highlight the enduring significance ofplaces of pre-existing importance, with many ex-amples in elevated or riverine locations—some ofwhich are known to have served as socio-politicalboundaries—in close proximity to ancient funerary

166


167


Fig. 7.9—Image and plans of crouched inhumation burial and ring-ditch at Rath, Co. Meath (site 27). Excavated inadvance of the M2 Finglas–Ashbourne Motorway Scheme (courtesy of the National Roads Authority; photography andplans by Cultural Resource Development Services Ltd).

and other monuments.132 Indeed, although the major-ity of recorded late Iron Age burials are associatedwith contemporary, purpose-built funerary monu-ments,133 older monuments were also reused for bur-ial during this period, or provided a focus aroundwhich new burials were placed, continuing a practiceevidenced in the earlier Iron Age at sites such asKiltierney, Co. Fermanagh,134 and Kilmahuddrick, Co.Dublin.135 At Cappydonnell Big, Co. Offaly, for ex-ample, a single cremation burial was placed—togetherwith small quantities of dog bone and nineteen glassbeads—in the outer fosse of a late Bronze Age doublering-ditch during the late first century BC or firstcentury AD,136 while a cremation burial of third- toearly fifth-century AD date was found within one oftwo early Iron Age ring-ditches excavated at GlebeSouth, Co. Dublin.137

While there can be little doubt that the con-tinued or renewed focus on older monuments wasdriven by specific ideological concerns, it is difficult todistinguish between the ancestral, mythological, super-natural, socio-political and/or other significances withwhich such monuments may have been invested. Thisis made even more challenging by the considerableperiod of time that often separates the original use ofthe monument and the subsequent burials, as atKnowth—a site where the possibility of a non-localorigin for some of the individuals buried in the IronAge must also be considered. One might assume, forexample, that the significances attributed to theancient mounds at Knowth, and indeed Newgrange,were primarily supernatural/mythological/cosmo-logical, rather than ancestral, in nature, particularlyamong those who originated outside Ireland andburied their dead or left votive offerings at these sites.There is, however, strong evidence to indicate that adesire to identify with ancestors, whether genuine orotherwise, and the genealogical/territorial claims thatsuch associations served to legitimise, may have under-pinned the reuse of ancient monuments for burial,even among groups not local to the area.138 Thesemounds or ancestral burial places (fertae) could alsotake the form of new burial sites, usually defined by anenclosure and/or mound containing a ‘founder burial’(often female), such as at Collierstown, Co. Meath,which appear in increasing numbers from about thefifth century.139 Overall, the evidence suggests that thereasons for the continued importance of older burialsites were as multifarious as the types of activities asso-ciated with their (re)use,140 which, in addition to for-mal burial (of humans and, in some cases, animals), alsoincluded the deposition of a range of objects and foodremains/offerings, as well as metalworking and the

lighting of fires.141The organisation and development of extended

inhumation cemeteries have also been the focus ofconsiderable attention in recent years, most notablyso-called ‘cemetery settlements’ or ‘settlement cem-eteries’, which are often found in association with evi-dence for contemporary activities such as cereal-pro-cessing, metalworking and other craftworking.142 Aswe have seen, this juxtaposition of funerary and agri-cultural/industrial spheres is also attested prior to thefifth century, as illustrated at some of the sites discussedabove, such as Baysrath, Colp West, Kilmainham andpossibly Rosepark. Other examples include Danesfort12, Co. Kilkenny,143 where cereal-processing (and pos-sibly metalworking) was largely coeval with a first-century BC/first-century AD ring-ditch, andRatoath, Co. Meath,144 where a ring-ditch dated toAD 120–350 lay adjacent to two broadly contempo-rary cereal-drying kilns; two quern-stones lay at thebase of one of the kilns, the upper fill of which alsocontained fragments of a cow’s skull (Fig. 7.10).145Cereal grain and animal bone, both burnt andunburnt, are also frequently identified in the ditchesof Iron Age funerary monuments (e.g. at Cookstownand the Commons of Lloyd, Co. Meath, andDanesfort 1, Co. Kilkenny)146 and, occasionally, inassociation with cremated and extended inhumationburials.147 The presence of iron slag and other by-products of metalworking in the ditches of burialmonuments and, more rarely, cremation pits148 is alsonoteworthy, as is the discovery of seven (undated) fur-naces in the vicinity of an Iron Age ring-ditch cem-etery at Ballydavis, Co. Offaly,149 and a smithing hearth(dated to 200 BC–AD 16) beneath the bank of Ráithna Ríg,150 within the ceremonial/funerary complex atTara. Indeed, the evidence for metal- and glass-work-ing, as well as other manufacturing activities, at theRath of the Synods is also of interest in this context.151

All of these associations raise intriguing questionsconcerning the potential symbolic/ritual significancesinvested in cereal-processing, metalworking and other‘everyday’ activities in Iron Age Ireland. Indeed, whileanalogies between the agricultural and human lifecycles, in particular the related themes of death,rebirth and fertility, are often invoked to explain thefrequent link between death and agricultural pro-duce/production in the archaeological record,152 thata similar connection may have existed between mor-tuary practice and metalworking is perhaps moreambiguous. Although a comprehensive analysis of theevidence is still required, a link between metalworkingand the supernatural is, nonetheless, clearly indicatedin early Irish documentary sources,153 and recent

168


research has posited an important role for the smith inearly medieval funerary ritual.154 The special statusaccorded to both the person and the craft of the smithin prehistory has received greater attention in Britain,where archaeologists have drawn on ethnographicevidence to suggest that the productive and transfor-mative properties of metalworking—which can beviewed as metaphors for both ‘creativity or fertility,and destruction or death’—accorded it magico-reli-gious significance.155 Indeed, in considering the re-lationship between technology and cosmology inBronze Age and Iron Age Scandinavia, Goldhahn andOestigaard argue that the presence of crematedhuman remains in metalworking furnaces indicatesthat the smith, as master of fire and mediator betweenthe human and the divine, had a far greater role infunerary ritual than has previously been acknowl-edged.156The link between the smith and death in lateprehistoric Scandinavia is also explored by Gansum,who, in describing the use of ‘bone-coal’ (burnthuman and animal remains) in the manufacture ofsteel (carbonised iron) weaponry, outlines a highlysymbolic technological process in which the smith

may have sought to incorporate the power and iden-tity of ancestors and animals into swords and otherobjects.157 This concept of the smith as ritualist, andperhaps even cremator, is clearly of great interest inlight of the Irish evidence, which attests not only tometalworking and the deposition of its by-products ata significant number of Iron Age funerary sites but alsoto a more direct link between metalworking and cre-mation, as suggested by the cremated human remainsfound in a pit furnace at Moyle Big, Co. Carlow,158and the burnt fragments of unidentified bone discov-ered in the smithing hearth beneath the bank of Ráithna Ríg at Tara.159

Conclusion

The archaeological record of the late Iron Age formspart of a complex palimpsest—‘a document’, in thewords of landscape archaeologist O.G.S. Crawford,‘that has been written on and erased over and overagain’.160 Though existing monuments and featuresmay be modified, obscured or even destroyed by later

169


Fig. 7.10—Late Iron Age cereal-drying kiln containing two quern-stones, Ratoath, Co. Meath (courtesy of AngelaWallace).

activity, the importance of place and of the past—building on what went before, rather than ‘erasing’it—has been a defining facet of human behaviourthroughout history. This continuum between past andpresent is evidenced during the Iron Age in the placesused for ceremony/ritual, burial and other specialisedactivities, and in the location of settlements, many ofwhich were foci for activity, either episodically or ona more permanent basis, from at least the last few cen-turies BC until the early medieval period. It is alsoattested by a certain conservatism in architecture, bur-ial custom and ritual practice more widely: traditionalbuilding forms, including an emphasis on circularity,are maintained; the placement of cremated humanremains (often of a token nature) in simple pits, ring-ditches or more conspicuous monuments remains thedominant formal burial rite throughout the period;and prestige objects—including material from theprovincial Roman world—continue to find their wayinto the record mainly through the ‘ritual’ sphere.Such adherence to tradition in many aspects of behav-iour provides the backdrop against which develop-ments during the late Iron Age, and in particular thesocial conditions and agencies (internal and external)that acted as catalysts for change, must be assessed.

While our understanding of this period as awhole continues to be hindered by a relative paucityof securely dated sites and artefacts, it is difficult tooverestimate the significance of the broad suite ofsettlement-related evidence that has come to light forthe period spanning the last few centuries BC to thefifth century AD. In providing the first tangibleglimpses into the settlement patterns and everydaylives of Iron Age communities, this new corpus of evi-dence not only augments but also serves to counter-balance a record traditionally dominated by theexceptional monuments, La Tène fine metalwork andexotic material that Barry Raftery long predicted tobe representative of ‘a numerically small but sociallydominant’ stratum of society.161 In this respect, thealmost complete absence of La Tène and Romanmaterial from domestic/settlement contexts is note-worthy, particularly as these sites appear to be associ-ated with a broader, though not wholly representative,cross-section of the population. Indeed, the selectivecharacter of Roman material in Ireland generally andthe restricted contexts in which it is found (i.e. pre-dominantly ceremonial sites, rivers and bogs) clearlyraise important questions relating to social organisa-tion and identity, political and religious authority, re-lations within and between different groups in societyand how such relations were negotiated, sustained ortransformed. Further in-depth analysis of these and

other trends emerging from recent excavations, andhow the collective evidence fits within a widerEuropean context, is clearly essential if we are to beginto appreciate more fully the complex character anddistinct trajectories of late Iron Age societies and land-scapes in Ireland.

Notes

1. For a wide-ranging discussion on this point see, forexample, Cooney and Grogan 1994; Brück 1999; Bradley2005.

2. Raftery 1994, 112; see also Becker 2012; Cooney andGrogan 1994, 185; Waddell 1998, 319.

3. The chronology, extent and duration of the so-called ‘LateIron Age Lull’ are not so synchronous as once believed; seeCoyle McClung 2013.

4. See, for example, Lynn et al. 1977; Little et al. 2001;Newman et al. 2007. See also Chapter 5, this volume.

5. Lynn 2003a; Armit 2007, 135; Becker 2012, 11.6. F. Kelly 1988, 4–5; Charles-Edwards 2000. 7. Lynn 2003a.8. See also Becker 2012, 5.9. See, for example, Brannon 1981–2; McNeill 1991–2; Reilly

et al. 2008.10. About twenty houses of early Iron Age date have been

recorded to date, many of which are unpublished. For arecent discussion see Ó Drisceoil and Devine 2012; Becker2012, 5.

11. Chapple 2010. The radiocarbon date of 109 BC–AD 129(1980±50 BP, Beta-262106) was returned for charcoal(unidentified) from the fill of a post-hole in the wall-slot ofthe Gortlaunaght structure. A Bronze Age date of1889–1684 BC (3460±40 BP, Beta-262105), provided bycharcoal (unidentified) from another fill of the same wall-slot, is thought to relate to older material incorporated intothe structure during its construction: see Chapple 2011,182.

12. Wren 2010a. The date of AD 18–126 (1937±23 BP, UBA-13975) was obtained from cereal grain (barley) from the fillof a post-hole that formed part of the rectangular buildingat Ballykeoghan. Charred barley from a nearby pit—interpreted by its excavator as a cooking/cereal-dryingpit—also yielded a late Iron Age date of 20 BC–AD 122(1953±23 BP, UBA-13973).

13. Grogan 2005, vol. 1; Comber and Hull 2010; C. Cotter2013.

14. W. O’Brien 2012. 15. Murphy 2011. Charcoal (unidentified) from the fill of a

slot-trench defining the ‘hut’ at Colp West yielded a date of50 BC–AD 210 (1927±53 BP, UB-4669). Other, largelycontemporary, features at the site included two cereal-drying kilns dated to 108 BC–AD 220 (1960±66 BP,UCD-140, unidentified charcoal) and AD 132–339(1781±35 BP, UB-4664, unidentified charcoal) respectively.

16. Ibid., 254. Colp West: figure-of-eight-shaped kiln, AD256–492 (1654±43 BP, UB-4671, barley grain).

17. McQuade et al. 2009, 156–7. Oak charcoal from the fill ofone of the post-holes of the Ballydrehid roundhouses(structure D) was dated to AD 240–392 (1730±31 BP, UB-

170


7221).18. Noonan 2003. The radiocarbon date of AD 20–350

(1860±70 BP, Beta-165312) was derived from charcoal(unidentified) from the fill of a post-hole of the Muckridgeroundhouse.

19. Gowen et al. 2005, 368. Roundhouse: 180 BC–AD 425(1890±130 BP, Beta-117551, unidentified charcoal, fill ofpost-hole).

20. Stout 1997, 19.21. The orientation of entrances to Iron Age houses has been

the subject of much discussion: see, among others, Oswald1997; Fitzpatrick 1997.

22. McQuade et al. 2009, 156–7.23. Lennon 2002; NRA database (http://archaeology.nra.ie/

Home/ViewResult/707e1cb2-43ab-4718-ae4e-02f415b184fd), accessed December 2010. Cloongownagh:roundhouse (structure 3b), 111 BC–AD 132 (BP date notgiven, UCD-9966, fill of slot-trench); pits, 195 BC–AD 227(BP date not given, UCD-0143) and AD 69–243 (BP datenot given, UCD-0110); fulacht fiadh (1720±60 BP, UCD-0144, unidentified charcoal from fulacht material).

24. Lynn and McDowell 2011, 598. See also Lynn 2003a.25. Becker 2012, 5.26. The possibility that some Iron Age ring-ditches represent

the remains of houses, comparable to the ‘ring-ditch’ or‘ring-groove’ buildings of northern Britain, has also beensuggested: see Ó Drisceoil and Devine 2012, 263.

27. See Chapter 2, this volume.28. We are very grateful to Christina Fredengren for providing

LIARI with this information prior to publication.29. Newman 2011, 28–9; Gleeson 2012; see also Carty and

Gleeson 2013.30. O’Sullivan et al. 2007. Dendrochronological dates of ‘after

AD 373’ (Q-10672) and AD 402±9 (Q-10673) wereobtained from oak posts from the crannog palisade.

31. Grogan 2005, vol. 1, 133–4, 244, table 7.2. The date of 47BC–AD 113 (1963±35 BP, UB-4314) was obtained fromanimal bone found alongside metalworking debris androtary quern fragments.

32. Raftery 1994, 213, 230. Charcoal (unidentified) from thefill of the Rathgall smelting pit yielded a late Iron Age dateof AD 180–540 (1685±70 BP, SI-1480).

33. Dunne and Bartlett 2009. 34. Warner et al. 1990, 47. On Roman material from Lyles Hill

see Warner 1995, 28. Lyles Hill: post-hole, AD 80–380(1800±55 BP, UB-3059, unidentified charcoal).

35. McQuade 2005. Located just to the north of the RiverBoyne, near the town of Drogheda, the hilltop site ofWaterunder appears to have been the focus of intensive andprolonged prehistoric activity, extending from the earlyNeolithic until the end of the Iron Age. Activity at the siteduring the mid-first millennium BC saw the constructionof a small penannular enclosure containing a post-builtstructure, while later activity involved metalworking andcereal-processing, represented by the remains of seven bowlfurnaces (six arranged in pairs) and sixteen cereal-dryingkilns. Charcoal (unidentified) from the fill of one of thefurnaces (F12) yielded a date of 170 BC–AD 60 (2034±38BP, Wk-17456), while oats from the fill of a subrectangular-shaped kiln (kiln 15) and cereal grain (barley, wheat andoats) from the basal fill of a figure-of-eight-shaped kiln(kiln 5) produced dates of AD 340–540 (1629±37 BP, Wk-

17462) and AD 380–550 (1600±34 BP, Wk-17461)respectively.

36. On Milltown see Wren 2010b. Among the many featuresidentified at Milltown were five ironworking furnaces and30 pits, some of which contained metalworking debris. Twoof the furnaces were dated: 110 BC–AD 70 (2015±35 BP,Poz-26973, plum family charcoal) and 100 BC–AD 80(2005±35 BP, Poz-26970, barley grain). Hazelnut shell fromthe fill of a pit also returned a late Iron Age date of AD20–220 (1900±35 BP, Poz-26972). On Derrinsallagh seeLennon 2009; NRA database (http://archaeology.nra.ie/Home/ViewResult/1ce57c85-8302-4b79-bd92-2b7c54154167), accessed February 2013; see alsoPhotos-Jones and Hall 2011. Over 40 bowl furnaces,alongside a host of other features, including three charcoal-production pits, were identified during excavations atDerrinsallagh 4. Two of the furnaces were dated to the lateIron Age: 10 BC–AD 250 (1890±60 BP, Beta-218649, ashcharcoal) and 50 BC–AD 240 (1920±70 BP, Beta-218645,alder and Pomoideae charcoal).

37. Ó Ríordáin 1942.38. Channing 2012. Baysrath: palisade enclosure, AD 71–215

(1880±25 BP, UB-10703, pig bone, fill of post-hole);roundhouse (structure 21), AD 60–131 (1903±18 BP, UB-10684, barley, fill of post-hole); roundhouse (structure 24),AD 25–128 (1925±23 BP, UBA-10685, hazelnut shell, fillof post-hole); keyhole-shaped kiln, AD 62–214 (1888±25BP, UB-10690, barley, secondary fill); and bowl furnace, 42BC–AD 62 (1989±23 BP, UB-10693, willow charcoal).

39. McClatchie 2011, 10.40. Warner 1976; Raftery 1994, 207.41. Raftery 1994, 207–8; Mitchell and Ryan 2003, 246–7; see

also Chapters 2 and 3, this volume.42. Rathbone 2009. Charcoal (Maloideae) from the basal fill of

the northern ditch of the subrectangular enclosure atGarretstown yielded a date of 357–57 BC (2140±40 BP,Beta-246979). Recuts to the enclosure ditch along itsnorthern and southern sides were dated using opticallystimulated luminescence (OSL) methods to AD 2–213(OSL 7) and AD 202–421 (OSL 8) respectively.

43. O’Connell 2009a. Lismullin: ‘residential’ enclosure, AD230–390 (1735±30 BP, SUERC-23463, hazel charcoal,middle ditch fill); figure-of-eight-shaped kilns, 390–200 BC(2240±30 BP, SUERC-23559, hazel charcoal, middle fill),200–10 BC (2080±30 BP, SUERC-23483, charred barleygrain, upper fill of kiln flue), AD 250–410 (1710±30 BP,SUERC-23474, charred barley grain, basal fill), AD230–390 (1735±30 BP, SUERC-23473, charred barleygrain, middle fill) and AD 420–590 (1545±30 BP, SUERC-23458, charred barley grain, basal fill); oval-shaped kilns, AD120–330 (1810±30 BP, SUERC-23479, alder charcoal,middle fill), AD 130–340 (1780±30 BP, SUERC-23472,charred barley grain, backfill) and AD 130–340 (1790±30BP, SUERC-23471, charred barley grain, backfill); hearth,AD 90–320 (1820±30 BP, SUERC-23464, hazel charcoal,basal fill); and disturbed burial, AD 380–540 (1610±30 BP,SUERC-23560, human bone).

44. Ibid.; O’Connell 2013. 45. On Skreen 3 see O’Neill 2009a. Skreen 3: subrectangular

kiln, AD 28–230 (1890±40 BP, Beta-247035, hazelcharcoal); a piece of struck flint was found in the backfill ofthis kiln. On Ardsallagh 5 see Clarke 2009a. Ardsallagh 5:

171


keyhole-shaped kiln, AD 240–420 (BP date not given,Beta-227863, hazel charcoal, primary fill). OnBlundelstown 1 see Danaher 2009. Blundelstown 1: figure-of-eight-shaped kiln, AD 86–334 (1820±40 BP,Beta-247037, charred barley grain, basal fill); and keyhole-shaped kilns, AD 415–585 (1560±40 BP, Beta-247042,alder charcoal, primary fill) and AD 434–644 (1500±40 BP,Beta-247043, hazel charcoal, primary fill).

46. Carroll 2008, 25. Rosepark: double-ditched enclosure, AD255–411 (1693±22 BP, UBA-4808, unidentified charcoal);and figure-of-eight-shaped kilns, AD 262–405 (1653±15BP, UBA-4807, sloe charcoal) and AD 348–425 (1639±21BP, UBA-4809, hazel charcoal).

47. Johnston 2008.48. Carroll 2008, 53–4.49. Ibid., 102. Glebe South: penannular ring-ditch (ring-ditch

1), 200 BC–AD 10 (2060±40 BP, Beta-229060,unidentified charcoal, ditch fill); ring-ditch (ring-ditch 2),360–90 BC (2160±40 BP, Beta-239118, unidentifiedcharcoal, ditch fill); cremation burial (possible), AD240–430 (1690±50 BP, Beta-229059, unidentifiedcharcoal); extended inhumation, AD 551–659 (1440±40BP, Beta-243093, human tooth). Darcystown 2: keyhole-shaped kiln, AD 230–430 (1680±50 BP, Beta-229062,charcoal).

50. Clark and Long 2009a.51. Ibid., 43. Sallymount 1: grain storage shed, AD 261–531

(1653±29 BP, UBA-12282); enclosure ditch, AD 259–419(1684±24 BP, UBA-12270, Pomoideae charcoal); linearditch, AD 255–392 (1716±23 BP, UBA-12283, hazelcharcoal).

52. Doody 2008. Chancellorsland: ditched enclosure, AD120–540 (1730±80 BP, GrA-4230, animal bone, basal fill).

53. Two of the ditched enclosures on Fort Hill were dated tothe medieval period: see Bayley 2004. See also Delaney2010, 98. Fort Hill: roundhouse, AD 260–420 (BP date notgiven, Wk-18560, fill of foundation trench).

54. Delaney 2010. Balriggan: figure-of-eight-shaped kiln, AD60–250 (BP date not given, Wk-18562, ash charcoal, basalfill).

55. Manning 1986. It has recently been proposed that thisenclosure, which is ascribed by Manning to phase 1, may beassociated with a small cemetery of probable early medievaldate (phase 3) in its interior: see O’Sullivan andMcCormick 2010, 173. The date of AD 230–620 (1595±70BP, GU-1781) was obtained for charcoal (unidentified)from the matrix of one of the occupation layers atMillockstown.

56. Manning 1986, 155.57. Warner 2000, 40; 2009, 510–12.58. Coughlan 2012, 64. Hazel charcoal from the fill of a stake-

hole that formed part of the Moanduff enclosure produceda date of AD 215–376 (1762±22 BP, UBA-13124).

59. Gillespie [n.d.], 158–9. Lowpark: palisaded enclosure, AD230–410 (1720±40 BP, Beta-231652) and AD 340–540(1630±40 BP, Beta-231658).

60. Linnane and Kinsella 2009.61. See also Newman 2011, 32.62. Linnane and Kinsella 2009, 32, 52. Baronstown: ditched

enclosure, AD 172–433 (1710±50 BP, Beta-241287);hearths, AD 240–420 (1710±40 BP, Beta-247025,Maloideae charcoal) and AD 260–520 (1660±40 BP, Beta-

247027, charred barley grain); figure-of-eight-shaped kiln,AD 263–537 (1640±40 BP, Beta-247028, charred barleygrain); oval ditched enclosures, AD 390–550 (1600±40 BP,Beta-252088, barley grain, ditch fill) and AD 436–649(1490±40 BP, Beta-253083, cattle bone, ditch fill).

63. Newman 2011, 32.64. Clark and Long 2009a, 12, 43.65. Clark and Long 2009b. Killalane: outer enclosure ditch, AD

133–322 (1796±23 BP, UBA-12035), and inner enclosureditch, AD 258–502 (1666±30 BP, UBA-15472).

66. Ibid., 32.67. See, for instance, Lynn 1983; McCormick 1995; Stout

1997, 22–31; O’Sullivan and McCormick 2010, 91–2.68. Grogan 2008.69. Pace Grogan (2008, 89–91, 96–7), who describes the site as

‘a high-status homestead of a native Irish group’ with‘familial ties’ to Roman Britain.

70. Dowling 2011. 71. FitzPatrick 2009.72. See, for example, Schot et al. 2011. 73. Walsh 1987; Baillie 1988; Lynn 1991–2.74. Raftery 1996b. On Edercloon see Moore 2008;

McDermott et al. 2009, 54–8. 75. Raftery 1994; Warner 2002; Becker 2012, 1–3.76. Raftery 1995, 8.77. Waterman 1997; Lynn 2003b. 78. See Gleeson (forthcoming).79. NRA database (http://archaeology.nra.ie/Home/View

Result/925dba76-fbbb-4ac8-ae66-041b2ea71678), accessedDecember 2012. Ash and willow charcoal from the fill ofthe linear earthwork ditch at Magheracar returned a date ofAD 60–420 (1790±80 BP, Beta-206066).

80. A date of AD 139–240 (1801±39 BP, UB-3721) obtainedfrom peat overlying a gravel trackway flanking a section ofthe Claidh Dubh—a linear earthwork in County Cork—shows that the trackway, and perhaps the earthwork itself,may have been built a century or two earlier: Doody 1995.

81. Schot and Dowling 2008; Johnston et al. 2009.82. Crabtree 2002; Johnston and Wailes 2007. The dating of the

excavated structures and features at Dún Ailinne is notstraightforward: see Bayliss and Grogan 2013, 129–34.

83. Waterman 1997, 12–15.84. Roche 2002; see also Dowling 2006, 26–32.85. See Bayliss and Grogan 2013, 110–17, for a recent

reassessment of the radiocarbon evidence from the Rath ofthe Synods, which suggests that the pre-earthworksequence of ditched and palisaded enclosures dates from thefirst two centuries AD.

86. Grogan 2008.87. See also Warner 2013, 238. 88. Dowling 2011.89. W. O’Brien 2012.90. Newman et al. 2007, 351. See also Newman 1998, 133–4.

Charcoal (indeterminable) from the fill of the enclosureditch at Raffin yielded a date of AD 380–570 (1595±45BP, OxA-6711).

91. Newman et al. 2007. Raffin: skull fragment, 110 BC–AD140 (1753±32 BP, UB-404).

92. Newman 1998, 134.93. Gaskell Brown and Harper 1984. See also Bradley 1998.

Twigs (unidentified species) from the basal fill of theenclosure ditch at Cathedral Hill yielded a date of AD

172


212–577 (1660±80 BP, UB-283). A second late Iron Agedate of 1 BC–AD 388 (1845±85 BP, UB-284) was alsoobtained from charcoal (unidentified) from the middle fillof the enclosure ditch. This latter date, however, is likely torelate to intrusive material, as the dated sample came fromsoil overlying outer bank material that appears to have beenlevelled into the ditch at the start of the early medievalperiod.

94. For a general discussion see, for example, Doherty 1985,especially 52–3; Schot et al. 2011. See also Ivens (1987),who raises the possibility that an early monastic site atTullylish, Co. Down, was built on top of an older enclosure,which, on the basis of a radiocarbon determination of AD322–619 (1590±75 BP, UB-2673, unidentified charcoal,lower ditch fill), may have been constructed towards theend of the Iron Age.

95. Schot 2011. See also Chapter 5, this volume.96. W. O’Brien 2012, 210–12.97. See, for example, de Paor 1993, 29–31; Newman 1998,

132–4; Armit 2007, 137.98. Ó Floinn 2000.99. Grogan 2008; Cahill Wilson 2012a, 24–7. See also Dowling

2011, 229; Bhreathnach 2011, 127–8.100. Dowling 2011, 229.101. Walsh 2012. Animal bone (unidentifiable) from the basal fill

of the foundation trench defining the Kilmainhamenclosure (structure 8) yielded a date of AD 143–343(1769±23 BP, UBA-15488). The possibility that theenclosure was a focus for prolonged (or perhaps episodic)activity is indicated by a date of AD 433–606 (1523±30 BP,UB-12908) obtained from birch charcoal from a secondaryfill within its western terminal.

102. Ibid., 308–9. Kilmainham inhumation burial (skeleton 1),AD 434–598 (1529±22 BP, UB-12933, human bone).

103. Swift 1996, 1–3; Kelly 2002, 28; Janiszewski 2011.104. Daffy 2002.105. Kelly 2002, 28.106. Ibid.107. Ó Ríordáin 1947, 61, 62; Bateson 1973, 66.108. Bateson 1973, 76.109. Anderson et al. 2013.110. Thanks are due to Cóilín Ó Drisceoil for providing the

project with information on the discovery of two Romancoins from the River Nore, Co. Kilkenny.

111. Raftery 1994, 215–16.112. Bhreathnach and O’Brien 2010. See also the Mapping

Death Project’s on-line database: www.mappingdeathdb.ie.113. E. O’Brien 1990; 1999b; 2003; 2009a. 114. McGarry 2009; 2010.115. Ó Carragáin 2009; 2010a.116. See, for example, O’Sullivan, McCormick et al. 2008,

157–89; Stout and Stout 2008; Cooney 2009b.117. Bhreathnach 2012.118. Cahill Wilson 2012a; Cahill-Wilson et al. 2012;

Montgomery and Grimes 2012; see also Chapter 6, thisvolume.

119. O’Donnchadha and Delaney 2012. A burnt oak plankoverlying the upper fill of the ring-ditch at Donaghmorereturned a radiocarbon date of 120 BC–AD 60 (2030±36BP, Wk-18564).

120. Whitty 2012a; O’Hara 2010, 27–31. See also Bhreathnach2012, 28–9, for a discussion of burial customs in early

Ireland.121. Raftery 1981; Carroll 2008. 122. Delaney et al. 2012; Eogan 2012, 13–44.123. Stevens 2012. Ask cremation burials: AD 640–770

(1330±30 BP, SUERC-32851, cremated human bone) andAD 660–780 (1290±30 BP, SUERC-31627, crematedhuman bone).

124. Schweitzer 2005; J. Eogan 2010; Conway 2003. 125. Eogan 2012, 13–44. Knowth burials: burial 10, 175–50 BC

(2095±20 BP, GrN-15372); burial 20, 38 BC–AD 219(1920±50 BP, GrN-15395); burial 7, 43 BC–AD 232(1920±60 BP, GrN-15370); burial 4, AD 86–253 (1830±30BP, GrN-15369); burial 8, 40 BC–AD 121(1960±30 BP,GrN-15371).

126. Crouched inhumation burials at Tara and Bettystown, Co.Meath, have produced early medieval dates: see J. Eogan2010; Cahill Wilson 2012a, 21–4.

127. E. O’Brien 1990, 37–8; 1999b, 1; 2009a, 136–8; E.O’Brienand Bhreathnach 2011.

128. Cahill Wilson et al. 2012.129. Rynne 1976; cf. Chapter 4, this volume, in which an origin

in the Severn Valley region of south-west Britain has beenproposed on the basis of a re-analysis of the grave-goods.

130. On Stoneyford see Bateson 1973, 72–3; Bourke 1989; onBray see Drummond 1840. See also Chapter 6, this volume.

131. E. O’Brien 2003; 2009a, 138; McGarry 2010, 179–80.132. See, for example, E. O’Brien 2003; 2009a, 142–3;

Bhreathnach and O’Brien 2010.133. McGarry 2009.134. Foley 1988. 135. Doyle 2005.136. Coughlan 2011, 77–8. Dates of 90 BC–AD 60 (2011±27

BP, QUB-10174) and 45 BC–AD 55 (2005±22 BP, QUB-11064) were returned for the cremation burial atCappydonnell Big.

137. Carroll 2008.138. E. O’Brien 2009a, 142–3.139. Ibid., 143; Bhreathnach and O’Brien 2010, 23–6;

Bhreathnach 2012. On Collierstown see O’Hara 2009b.140. For detailed discussion of this phenomenon see Cooney

and Grogan 1994; E. O’Brien 2009a, 142–3; Cooney2009b; Waddell 2010; Schot et al. 2011; FitzPatrick 2004.

141. See, among others, Coffey 1904; Waterman 1965; Burenhult1984, 37; Scott 1990, 149; W. O’Brien 1993; 2000; Waddell2010, 97–8, 369; Bendrey et al. 2013.

142. See many of the papers in Corlett and Potterton 2010. 143. Coughlan 2012, 65. Danesfort 12: ring-ditch, 88 BC–AD

54 (2015±24 BP, UBA-15550, indeterminate seed); oval-shaped kiln, 162 BC–AD 2 (2052±22 BP, UBA-15546,barley grain).

144. Wallace 2010. Ratoath: ring-ditch, AD 120–350 (1790±40BP, Beta-196364, animal bone); ‘teardrop-shaped’ kiln, AD60–240 (1867±36 BP, UB-6539, charcoal), and figure-of-eight-shaped kiln, AD 120–270 (1812±35 BP, UB-6538,charcoal).

145. Ibid., 300–1. A complete cow skull was found in the upperfill of a cereal-drying kiln of fifth- to early sixth-centurydate at Ballybar Lower 3, Co. Carlow; see Hackett andHanbidge 2009.

146. Clutterbuck 2012. Dates of 390–160 BC (2192±40 BP,Wk-16314, blackthorn charcoal) and 360–50 BC(2148±47 BP, Wk-16313, oak and blackthorn charcoal)

173


were obtained for tertiary fills of the inner ditch of thedouble ring-ditch at Cookstown; Whitty 2012b. Burntbone (unidentifiable) from the primary fill of the ring-ditchat Commons of Lloyd yielded a radiocarbon date of384–207 BC (2233±22 BP, UBA-12938); Coughlan 2012,65. Danesfort 1 ring-ditch, AD 28–214 (1900±31 BP, UB-15556, hazelnut shell).

147. Seven fragments of unburnt cattle bone, as well as ahammer stone and three flint flakes, sealed a cremationburial (dated to AD 340–540) at Carrickmines Great, whileburnt pig bone covered the pelvic area of a woman (burial48, dated to AD 422–596) buried at Collierstown, Co.Meath, and fragments of deer antler and burnt grainaccompanied an isolated inhumation (dated to AD432–661) at Ballygarraun West, Co. Galway: see Ó Drisceoiland Devine 2012; O’Hara 2009b; Bhreathnach andO’Brien 2010, 21.

148. Keeley 1999, 27; Hull 2006; Clarke and Carlin 2008;Channing 2012, 160; McCarthy 2012, 158.

149. Keeley 1999.150. Roche 2002, 29–43: Tara smithing hearth, 200 BC–AD 16

(2090±60 BP, UCD-9822, burnt oak wood, upper fill).

151. Grogan 2008, 88–9.152. See, for example, Cunliffe 1992; Brück 1995; Hill 1995;

Williams 2003; Bradley 2005; Cleary 2005.153. Scott 1990, 184–8. See also F. Kelly 1988, 62–3.154. Williams 2012.155. See, for example, Hingley 1997a; Hingley 2006; Giles 2007;

quote from Giles 2007, 405.156. Goldhahn and Oestigaard 2008. In relating how the

addition of human and animal flesh to furnaces leads to asharp rise in temperatures to levels at which it is possible tosmelt bronze and iron, the authors suggest that the furnaceis one place where people may have been cremated.

157. Gansum 2004. During the Iron Age cremated human bonewas occasionally reused as temper in some ceramic vessels;see Danielsson 2008, 318–19.

158. The cremated remains at Moyle Big were associated withhazel charcoal that yielded a date of AD 252–397 (1715±27BP, UBA-8433): Doyle 2009, 9–10.

159. Roche 2002, 34.160. Crawford 1953, 51.161. Raftery 1995, 8.

174


Dowling, G. 2014. Landscape and settlement in late Iron Age Ireland: some emerging trends

Documents

Transcript of Dowling, G. 2014. Landscape and settlement in late Iron Age Ireland: some emerging trends