Bronze Artefact Production in Late Bronze Age Ireland: A survey 9781841716794, 9781407320298

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Buíochas
Table of Contents
List of Figures in Text
List of Plates in Text
List of Tables
List of Figures in the Catalogue (Pages 197-253)
List of Plates in the Catalogue (Pages 254-265)
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: The Chronology and Development of Copper-Bronze Metalworking in the Later Bronze Age Traditions of Ireland
Chapter 3: The Artifactual Evidence for Late Bronze Age Bronze-Fabrication in Ireland
Chapter 4: The Evidence for Late Bronze Age Bronze Fabrication from Archaeological Contexts in Ireland
Chapter 5: The Technology of Late Bronze Age Sword Production in Ireland, with Special Reference to the Experimental Approach
Chapter 6: The Organization of Late Bronze Age Bronze Fabrication in Ireland
Chapter 7: Concluding Remarks
Appendix: Radiocarbon Dates
Bibliography
Catalogue Glossary
Catalogue
Figures
Plates

Citation preview

BAR  382  2004   Ó FAOLÁIN  

Bronze Artefact Production in Late Bronze Age Ireland A survey

BRONZE ARTEFACT PRODUCTION IN LATE BRONZE AGE IRELAND

Simon Ó Faoláin

BAR British Series 382 B A R

2004

Bronze Artefact Production in Late Bronze Age Ireland A survey

Simon Ó Faoláin

BAR British Series 382 2004

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 382 Bronze Artefact Production in Late Bronze Age Ireland © S Ó Faoláin and the Publisher 2004 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841716794 paperback ISBN 9781407320298 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841716794 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2004. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Buíochas Ar dtúis, caithfaidh an buíochas is mó dul go dtí Dr. Billy O’Brien, mo stiúrthóir i rith scríobhnú an tráchtas máistreach ar a bhfuil an leabhar seo bunaithe, a thug cabhair agus comhairle dom ar fud an bpróiséas fada. Ar an gcuma céanna, tá buíochas ar leith tuilte ag Liam agus Audrey Mac Fhiailgigh de Chomhlacht Chlanna Mac Fiailgigh Teoranta, a thug an deis dom a bheith páirteach san obair turgnamhach ar dheantúis claímhte cré-umha. Thíos ar sin, do thugadar go leor moltaí cabhrach, gan trácht ar saoirse an tí, dhom le linn na h-oibre. Is amhlaidh leis, gur thánaig moltaí agus cúnamh tabhachtach ó na nOllaimh Etienne Rynne agus John Waddell i gcúrsaí áirithe ag baint leis an tráchtas. Do thánaig cabhair cuidiúil ó Conor Newman maidir le cailibriú na dátaí raidicharbón. Táim faoi chómaoin ag Angela Gallagher as ucht an chabhair den scoth a thug sí dom le léirscáileanna agus as úsáid a ríomhaire chun ríomh-phoist a sheoladh chun bhealaigh. Sé Dr. Peter Northover a dhein an miotalghrafaíocht ar na claímhte turgnamhach agus ní miste a rá go raibh na torthaí dá anailís suimiúil agus tabhachtach ó thaobh an staidéar seo. Táim buíoch arís don Roinn Seandálaíochta a chur suas na cistí chun díol as an tsaothair san. B’é cineálta an mhaise do Sue Bridgeford eolas maidir lena dtráchtas féin ar airm créumha a sheoladh chugham, agus táim buíoch di leis dos na grianghraif a thug sí ar iasacht dom. Táim ana-bhuíoch do Barry Raftery, Claire Cotter, Martin Fitzpatrick agus Jim Mallory a chur ábhair óna chuid tochailtí i Rathgall, Co. Cill Mhantáin, Dún Aonghusa, Oileán Árann, Johnstown South, Co. Cill Mhantáin agus Carnlough, Co. Aontroma faoi seach ar fáil dom, agus gan iad fiú foilsithe acu ag an am. Gabhaim buíochas leis le na húdair go léir a thug a gcead dhom íomhánna óna gcuid foilsiúcháin a úsáid. Do thug foireann Ard-mhúsaem na h-Éireann i mBaile Atha Cliath gach cabhair dom i rith mo saothar thaighde sa láthair sin, agus do choimeád Dave agus Lucie Hankey agus Domhnaill Ó Bruic díon ós cionn mo cheann ar feadh an tamaill a bhíos ann. Táim faoi chomaoin leis ag Joan McGuire, a chuir a ríomhaire ar fáil dom nuair a bhíos tinn ag baile, agus Dr. John Koch ó Ionad na hÁirdléinn Breatanach agus Ceilteach in Aberystwyth a chabhraigh liom le cuid dos na figiúirí. Tá an focail deireanach coimeádta agam dom chlann agus mo chairde go léir in Iarthair Dhuibhneach agus in áiteanna eile, ach is cinnte nach é an mbuíochas is lú. Is iad san a chur misneach ionam nuair a bhí rudaí sa gharbhlach agus nuair nach rabhas cinnte go gcríochnóinn an tráchtas in aon chor. Go Raibh Míle Maith Agaibh Go Léir.

i

Contents Chapter 1: Introduction. 1. 1. Research Aims................................................................................................................................................. 1 1. 2. Research Design. ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1. 3. Previous Research. .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1. 4. Sources. ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 1. 4. 1. The Artifactual Record. ......................................................................................................................... 3 1. 4. 2. Archaeological Contexts. ....................................................................................................................... 4 1. 4. 3. The Experimental Approach. ................................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 2: The Chronology and Development of CopperBronze Metalworking in the Later Bronze Age Traditions of Ireland. 2.1. The Middle Bronze Age (c. 1500 1200 B.C.). ................................................................................................ 6 2. 2. The Bishopsland Phase (c. 1200 1000 B.C.). ................................................................................................. 7 2. 3. The Roscommon Phase (c. 1000 800 B.C.).................................................................................................... 9 2. 4. The Dowris Phase (c. 800 400 B.C.). ........................................................................................................... 10 2. 5. The End of the Bronze Age. .......................................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 3: The artifactual evidence for Late Bronze Age bronzefabrication in Ireland. 3.1 Scrap Hoards. .................................................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.1. Context. ................................................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.2. Chronology. ........................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1.3. Range. .................................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1.4. Distribution. .......................................................................................................................................... 17 3. 2. Raw Metal / Ingots. ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3. 2. 1. Context. ............................................................................................................................................... 17 3. 2. 2. Range & Chronology. ........................................................................................................................ 17 3. 2. 3. Distribution. ........................................................................................................................................ 19 3. 3. Clay Crucible Remains. ................................................................................................................................. 21 3. 3. 1. Context. ............................................................................................................................................... 22 3. 3. 2. Chronology. ........................................................................................................................................ 22 3. 3. 3. Range and Technology. ...................................................................................................................... 22 3. 3. 4. Distribution. ........................................................................................................................................ 25 3. 4. Stone Moulds................................................................................................................................................. 25 3. 4. 1. Context................................................................................................................................................. 25 3. 4. 2. Chronology. ........................................................................................................................................ 25 3. 4. 3. Range & Technology. ........................................................................................................................ 29 3. 4. 4. Distribution. ........................................................................................................................................ 31 3. 5. Bronze Moulds. ............................................................................................................................................. 31 3. 5. 1. Chronology. ......................................................................................................................................... 31 3. 5. 2. Technology. ......................................................................................................................................... 31 3. 6. Clay Moulds. .............................................................................................................................................. 31 3. 6. 1. Context................................................................................................................................................. 33 3. 6. 2. Chronology. ......................................................................................................................................... 34 3. 6. 3. Range. .................................................................................................................................................. 36 3. 6. 4. Technology. ......................................................................................................................................... 36 3. 6. 5. Distribution. ......................................................................................................................................... 41 3. 7. Casting Jets. .................................................................................................................................................. 41 3. 7. 1. Context................................................................................................................................................. 41 3. 7. 2. Chronology. ......................................................................................................................................... 41 3. 7. 3. Range and Technology. ....................................................................................................................... 43 3. 7. 4. Distribution. ......................................................................................................................................... 43 3. 8. Wooden Templates........................................................................................................................................ 43 3. 8. 1. Context................................................................................................................................................. 45 3. 8. 2. Range & Chronology. .......................................................................................................................... 45 3. 8. 3. Technology. ......................................................................................................................................... 45 3. 9. Metalworking Tools. .................................................................................................................................... 45 ii

3. 9. 1. Context................................................................................................................................................. 45 3. 9. 2. Chronology. ........................................................................................................................................ 45 3. 9. 3. Range & Form. .................................................................................................................................... 47 3. 9. 4. Technology. ....................................................................................................................................... 48 3. 9. 5. Distribution. ......................................................................................................................................... 49 3.10. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 49 Chapter 4: The Evidence for Late Bronze Age Bronze Fabrication from Archaeological Contexts in Ireland. 4. 1. Undefended nucleated settlement. ................................................................................................................. 52 4. 1. 1. Site D, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick......................................................................................................... 55 4. 1. 2. Site F, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. ........................................................................................................ 55 4. 2. Enclosed defended settlement........................................................................................................................ 57 4. 2. 1. Dun Aengus, Co. Galway..................................................................................................................... 57 4. 2. 2. Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. ....................................................................................................................... 59 4. 2. 3. Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin.................................................................................................................... 61 4. 3. Lake-platform settlement. ............................................................................................................................. 64 4. 3. 1. Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone................................................................................................................. 64 4. 3. 2. Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo........................................................................................................................... 66 4. 4. Unassociated Work Sites. ............................................................................................................................. 67 4. 4. 1. Killymoon, Co. Tyrone. ...................................................................................................................... 67 4. 4. 2. Kilsmullan, Co. Fermanagh. ................................................................................................................ 68 4. 5. Ritual structures............................................................................................................................................. 70 4. 5. 1. Lough Gur wedge-tomb, Co. Limerick. ............................................................................................... 70 4. 5. 2. ‘The King’s Stables’, Co. Armagh....................................................................................................... 71 4. 6. Conclusions. .................................................................................................................................................. 73 Chapter 5. The Technology of Late Bronze Age Sword Production in Ireland, with Special Reference to the Experimental Approach 5. 1. Sources of Data. ............................................................................................................................................ 75 5.1.1. Archaeological Research. .................................................................................................................... 75 5.1.2. Experimental Evidence. ......................................................................................................................... 75 5.2. Stone Moulds.................................................................................................................................................. 76 5.3. Clay Moulds. .................................................................................................................................................. 77 5.3.1. Clay Preparation. ................................................................................................................................... 77 5.3.2. Mould Fabrication. ................................................................................................................................ 78 5.3.3. Drying and Firing. .................................................................................................................................. 83 5.4. Casting............................................................................................................................................................ 83 5.4.1. Mould Preheating................................................................................................................................... 83 5.4.2. Pouring Position..................................................................................................................................... 84 5.4.3. Pouring................................................................................................................................................... 84 5.5. Postcast Treatment. ......................................................................................................................................... 85 5.5.1. Primary Treatment. ................................................................................................................................ 86 5.5.2. Hardening Treatment. ............................................................................................................................ 86 5.5.3. Finishing Treatment. .............................................................................................................................. 88 5.5.4. Castingon Repairs. ................................................................................................................................. 90 5. 6. Experiments in ColdWorking Bronze Swords, February 1997...................................................................... 91 5. 7. Report on the Metallography of Two Experimentally Cast Bronze Swords of Ewart Park Type. by Peteter Northover, Department of Materials, University of Oxford.......................................................... 96 5. 8. Comments on Experiment. .......................................................................................................................... 101 5.8.1. Metallography...................................................................................................................................... 101 5.8.2. Tools and Methods. ............................................................................................................................. 101 5. 9. Conclusions. ................................................................................................................................................ 102 Chapter 6: The Organization of Late Bronze Age Bronze Fabrication in Ireland. 6. 1. Raw Materials and the Organization of Late Bronze Age Metalworking. ................................................... 103 6.1.1. Clay...................................................................................................................................................... 103 6. 1. 2. Charcoal............................................................................................................................................. 103 6. 1. 3. Tin. .................................................................................................................................................... 103 6. 1. 4. Copper. ............................................................................................................................................. 104 6. 2. Craft Specialization and the Irish Bronzesmith. .......................................................................................... 107 iii

6. 2. 1. Late Bronze Age Smithing: Sedentary or Mobile? ............................................................................ 107 6. 2. 2. Full time and Parttime Models of Production. .................................................................................. 108 6. 2. 3. A Skillbased Craft Hierarchy? ........................................................................................................... 109 6. 3. Bronzeworking, Trade and Site Status. ..................................................................................................... 110 6. 3. 1. Weapon Production. .......................................................................................................................... 111 6. 3. 2. Settlement Location. .......................................................................................................................... 111 6. 3. 3. Glass and Late Bronze Age Settlement.............................................................................................. 112 6. 3. 4. The Irish Midlands............................................................................................................................. 113 6.4. Metallurgy and Ritual Sites........................................................................................................................ 116 6. 4. 1. Ritual Monuments.............................................................................................................................. 117 6. 4. 2. The Nature of Metallurgical Activity on Ritual Sites......................................................................... 117 6. 5. Conclusions. ................................................................................................................................................ 118 Chapter 7: Concluding Remarks. 7. 1. The Archaeological Record. ........................................................................................................................ 120 7.2. The Experimental Approach........................................................................................................................ 121 7. 3. The Social Context of Late Bronze Age Bronzeworking. ........................................................................... 122 7. 4. Directions for Future Research.................................................................................................................... 123 7. 4. 1. Context Recording. ............................................................................................................................ 123 7. 4. 2. Social Value and Meaning of Artifacts. ............................................................................................. 123 7. 4. 3. Regional Studies. ............................................................................................................................... 123 7. 4. 4. Scientific Metal Analysis. .................................................................................................................. 123 7. 4. 5. Experimentation................................................................................................................................. 124 Appendix: Radiocarbon Dates .................................................................................................................................. 125 Bibliography.............................................................................................................................................................. 126 Catalogue Glossary ................................................................................................................................................... 140 Catalogue .................................................................................................................................................................. 141 Figures....................................................................................................................................................................... 197 Plates......................................................................................................................................................................... 254

List of Figures in Text Fig. 3.1: Comparison of the contexts of Dowris phase hoards defined by the principle artifact types represented (after Cooney & Grogan 1994).................................................................................................. 16 Fig. 3. 2: Distribution of L.B.A. scrap hoards in Ireland. Open symbol indicates hoard provenanced only to county. ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Fig. 3. 3: Distribution of raw materials and waste of L.B.A. date in Ireland.............................................................. 20 Fig. 3. 4: Crucible rim sections. Lough Gur, Site D, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin 1954). Lough Gur wedge tomb, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin & Ó hIceadha 1955). BOTTOMDun Aengus, Co. Galway (after Cotter 1992). Not to scale. ..................................................................................................... 24 Fig. 3. 5: Crucible rim sections. Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone (after Williams 1978), Buderop Down, Wiltshire (after Gingell 1992). .................................................................................................................... 24 Fig. 3. 6: Distribution of L.B.A. clay crucible remains in Ireland............................................................................... 26 Fig. 3.7: Bivalve stone mould for socketed axes from Ballydaw, Co. Kilkenny (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Socketed axe of Sompting Type, Wyburn Estate, Yorkshire (after Burgess & Gerloff 1981). .............................................................................................................................................. 27 Fig. 3. 8: Two bivalve stone moulds for Sompting Type axes, Rosskeen, Ross & Cromarty (after Burgess and Gerloff 1981). ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Fig. 3. 9: Longitudinal sections of moulds. Ballydaw, Co. Kilkenny. & Rosskeen, Ross & Cromarty. ................. 27 Fig. 3. 10: (A) Fragment of bivalve stone mould for casting palstaves, Site D, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. (B) Conjectural reconstruction of method of clay application in preparation for casting. (C) Crosssection of assembled mould with clay applications in position and bronze casting (all after Ó Ríordáin 1954)......................................................................................................................... 30 Fig. 3. 11: Distribution of Stone Moulds of L.B.A. Date in Ireland............................................................................ 32 Fig. 3. 12A: Hut of disputed date, possibly Late Bronze Age, at Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim (after Mallory & McNeill 1991). 12B: Provisional chronology of the sites of the Navan complex. Solid Bars indicate range in which construction took place; broken lines indicate range in which occupation is attested (after Warner 1994). ............................................................................................ 35 iv

Fig. 3. 13: (A) Mould with flat topped core (after Liversage 1968). (B) Mould with ridges core to redirect pressure of molten metal as indicated in both diagrams by the arrows. .................................................... 38 Fig. 3. 14: Biconical casting jets. Tullowbeg, Co. Carlow. Money Lower, Co. Laois. ............................................ 38 Fig. 3. 15: Registration methods for clay mould valves. (1) Lugandsocket. (A) Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin, (B) Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim (after Eogan 1965), (C) Jarlshof, Shetland (after Hamilton 1956).(2) Grooveandridge. (D) Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim (after Eogan 1965). ........... 39 Fig. 3. 16: Clay mould fragments displaying binding marks. From (A) Sword mould, (B) Spearhead mould........... 40 Fig. 3. 17: Fragments of clay mould outer wrap from Grimes Graves, Norfolk displaying binding marks (after Needham et al. 1990). .......................................................................................................... 40 Fig. 3. 18: Distribution of L.B.A. clay mould remains in Ireland............................................................................... 42 Fig. 3. 19: Gating methods for bivalve clay moulds. (A) Gate cut in both valves. (B) Gate cut in one valve only.... 43 Fig. 3. 20: Two small casting jets from Tullowbeg, Co. Carlow. Probably cast in a gate cut in one valve only........ 43 Fig. 3. 21: Distribution of L.B.A. casting jets in Ireland............................................................................................ 44 Fig. 3. 22: Wooden templates, Tobermore, Co. Derry. Spearheads, Socketed hammerhead, Socketed axeheads (after Hodges 1954). ................................................................................................. 46 Fig. 3. 23: Socketed hammerheads from possible bronzesmiths hoards in Ireland. A, B, C: Bishopsland, Co. Kildare. D: Garden Hill, Co. Fermanagh. E: Dowris, Co. Offaly. F, G: Lusmagh, Co. Offaly (all after Eogan 1983). ............................................................................................................................... 47 Fig. 3. 24: Distribution of Metalworking tools from L.B.A. hoards in Ireland. ......................................................... 50 Fig. 4. 1: Irish Late Bronze Age Settlement Sites with evidence of Bronzeworking................................................ 53 Fig. 4. 2: The Knockadoon peninsula and its immediate environs (after Ó Ríordáin 1954). .................................... 54 Fig. 4. 3: Site D, Lough Gur, plan and section (after Ó Ríordáin 1954). .................................................................. 55 Fig. 4. 4: Site F, Lough Gur, general plan (after Ó Ríordáin 1954). ......................................................................... 56 Fig. 4. 5: Plan and section of the rectangular structure at Site F, Lough Gur (after Ó Ríordáin 1954). ................... 56 Fig. 4. 6: Dun Aengus, Co. Galway. Plan showing the main structural elements (after Cotter 1991). ...................... 58 Fig. 4. 7: Dun Aengus, plan of Cutting 1 (after Cotter 1992).................................................................................... 58 Fig. 4. 8: Dun Aengus, Hut 1. Plan and section (after Cotter 1992). ........................................................................ 59 Fig. 4. 9: Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. General site plan (after Raftery 1976). ................................................................ 60 Fig. 4. 10: Rathgall, plan of penannular ditch and posthole complex on southern slope outside the hillfort (Raftery 1976)............................................................................................................................................. 61 Fig. 4. 11: Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin. Plan of promontory fort showing areas excavated (after Liversage 1968). .... 62 Fig. 4. 12: Dalkey Island. General plan of Site V (after Liversage 1968). .................................................................. 63 Fig. 4. 13: Dalkey Island. Distribution of fragments of clay mould, crucibles and Late Bronze Age pottery at Site V (after Liversage 1968)..................................................................................................... 63 Fig. 4. 14: Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone. General plan showing main areas of timber piling (after Williams 1978). .. 64 Fig. 4. 15: Lough Eskragh. Plan of Site B showing layout of excavation trenches (after Williams 1978).................. 65 Fig. 4. 16: Lough Eskragh. Anvil stone from Site B (after Williams 1978)................................................................ 65 Fig. 4. 17: Lough Eskragh. Plan of Site A (after Williams 1978). .............................................................................. 65 Fig. 4. 18: Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo. Plan of phase II transitional settlement. B.W. = brushwood (after Raftery 1994). 67 Fig. 4. 19: Killymoon, Co. Tyrone. General site plan (after Hurl 1995). .................................................................... 68 Fig. 4. 20: Kilsmullan, Co. Fermanagh. General environs (after Williams 1984)....................................................... 69 Fig. 4. 21: Kilsmullan. Plan and section of structural remains (after Williams 1984)................................................. 69 Fig. 4. 22: Lough Gur wedgetomb, Co. Limerick. Plan of excavated area (after Ó Ríordáin & Ó hIceadha 1955).... 71 Fig. 4. 23: ‘The King’s Stables’, Co. Armagh. Location and surrounding environs (after Lynn 1977). ..................... 72 Fig. 4. 24: ‘The King’s Stables’. Diametrical section of Trenches I and II (after Lynn 1977).................................... 72 Fig. 5. 1: Bivalve stone mould for casting rapiers from Ireland (after Burgess & Gerloff 1981)............................... 76 Fig. 5. 2: Hoard of three single valves of bivalve stone moulds for casting Erbenheim type swords from Piverone, northwest Italy (after BiancoPeroni 1970).................................................................................. 77 Fig. 5. 3: Clay sword mould fragments from Irish sites. 1 3 Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone (after Hodges 1954) 4 6 Dun Aengus, Co. Galway (after Cotter 1995)....................................................................................... 79 Fig. 5. 4: Clay sword mould fragments showing evidence of stiffening rods. (A) Bohevny, Co. Fermanagh. (B) Lough Eskragh, Co Tyrone. (C) Oldconnaught, Co. Dublin. (D) Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim. (all after Eogan 1965)................................................................................................................................................. 80 Fig. 5. 5: Method of clay mould construction suggested for the assemblage from Dainton, Devon (after Needham 1980)............................................................................................................................................ 81 Fig. 5. 6: Section of sloped castingpit at Jarlshof, Shetland (after Curle 1932/3). ...................................................... 84 Fig. 5. 7A: Detail of the hilts of three L.B.A. swords from Ballycroghan, Co. Down (after Jope 1953). Fig. 5. 7B: View of the tip of a L.B.A. sword from a hoard deposit at Petter’s Sports Field, Egham, Surrey. Note extensive faceting on surface indicating severe hammering (after O’Connell 1986). .......... 87 Fig. 5. 8: Method of ‘castingon’ a new swordhilt (after Coghlan 1975). .................................................................... 90 Fig. 5. 9: The two experimentally cast swords showing division into different areas, each experiencing a different cycle of postcast hardness treatment. ............................................................................................ 94 Fig. 6. 1: Distribution of Copper Deposits, Prehistoric Mines and Late Bronze Age Sites with Bronzeworking v

Evidence (copper occurrences and mines after Jackson 1979). .................................................................. 105 Fig. 6. 2: South Dublin / Wicklow area, showing metalworking sites. ..................................................................... 106 Fig. 6. 3: Distribution of Late Bronze Age Raw Bronze, Scrap Hoards and Casting Jets......................................... 114 Fig. 6. 4: Distribution of Late Bronze Age Moulding Evidence. .............................................................................. 115

List of Plates in Text Pl. 3. 1: Reconstructed clay crucible from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Planoconvex ingot of bronze from Cooga, Co. Sligo. ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 Pl. 3. 2: Experimental clay mould for casting swords and its product. ...................................................................... 23 Pl. 3. 3: Miscast socketed axe, Glebe, Co. Mayo. In profile. Socket view showing deformation possibly resulting from ‘slipped’ core........................................................................................................... 37 Pl. 5.1: Initial stages in clay sword mould construction. (1) Clay rolled out. (2) Clay flattened. (3)Clay placed in external wooden formers and impressed with wooden template. Fine ash used as nonstick agent. (photos courtesy of the McNally Clan Trust Ltd, 1996). ....................................................... 78 Pl. 5. 2: Experimental sword casting with bivalve clay mould in which it was cast and the wooden template used to invest mould. Note loss of c. 10 % in length between template and sword cast. .............................. 82 (2) Earlier attempt at casting of Ballintober type sword. Incomplete cast. Pl. 5. 3A: Sword from Derryhogan, Co. Tipperary with filled blowhole just visible the nought marking on the scale. The extensive damage to the surface and cutting edge are the result of entanglement in a turfcutting machine at the time of discovery. 3B: Sword from Ardlow, Co. Cavan. Close up of part of the blade showing filled blowhole. ......................................................................................................... 88 Pl. 5. 4A: Small portion of wooden handle surviving on a sword from Kildrinagh Ford, Co. Laois. The hole for the rivet is visible. 4B: Sword from Barrowford, Co. Kildare. Closeup of broken hilt area showing grooves cut to facilitate an attempted ‘castingon’....................................................................................... 89 Pl. 5. 5A: Sword in National Museum (Ireland, W. 5). View of upper area showing caston hilt with with numerous tiny blowholes. 5B: Sword from Canbo, Co. Roscommon. View of upper area showing unsuccessful attempt at castingon. ................................................................................................................................... 91 Pl. 5. 6. Tools used in sword finishing experiment. : Replica socketed bronze hammerhead of L.B.A. type, replica crescenticbladed tanged chisel of L.B.A. type, copper punch and two waterrolled limestone cobbles to be used as hammerstones. : Wooden anvil with bronze fitting. ................................................... 92 Pl. 5. 7A: Experimental swords 1 () and 2 () ascast from the mould before working. The sword at was an earlier casting not dealt with here. 7B: . Hilt area of sword 1 showing removed casting jet and brokenoff terminal. ..................................................................................................................................................... 92 Pl. 5. 8A: Hammering blade of sword 1 using unhafted limestone cobble and wooden anvil. 8B: The two experimental swords after completion of finishing work. Note the poor surface finish. ............................ 93 Pl. 5. 9A: Sample S1/1, showing unaltered cored, dendritic microstructure with small pools of αδ eutectoid (magnification X 125). 5. 9B: Sample S1/2, showing cored dendritic crystals with slip bands from hammer percussion (magnification X 125). ..................................................................... 97 Pl. 5. 10A: Sample S1/3, showing (at ) surface layer of smaller recrystallised grains with annealing twins visible (magnification X 500). 10B: Sample 1/4, showing casting flaw near cutting edge and surface layer of recrystallised grains. Note area to of flaw is recrystallised throughout (magnification X 62. 5)............................................................................................................................. 98 Pl. 5. 11A: Sample S2 / 1, showing (at ) surface layer of small homogenised grains resulting from unintended heating of the area (magnification X 500). 11B: Sample S2/2. Note great differrence in size between recrystallized surface grains at and uneffected subsurface grains at (magnification X 500)..... 99 Pl. 5. 12A: Sample S2/3, showing recrystallization to a greater depth than in any of the previous samples and more considerable surface homogenisation (magnification X 125). ................................................ 100 Pl. 5. 12B: Sample S2 / 4, showing a similarly altered microstructure to sample S2/3, but the results of ‘firecracking’ are visible in several places (magnification X 125).

List of Tables Table 2.1: Later Prehistoric metalworking phases of the traditional later Bronze and Iron Ages (after Waddell 1998)..................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3.1: Possible scrap-hoards of Late Bronze Age date in Ireland (based on information in Eogan 1983). .......... 15 Table 3.2: Possible scrap-hoards of the Dowris Phase: Breakdown of artefact types represented (based on information in Eogan 1983). ...................................................................................................................... 16 Table 3.3: Raw metal / ingots of Late Bronze Age date In Ireland. ............................................................................ 19 vi

Table 3.4: Late Bronze Age crucible remains in Ireland............................................................................................. 21 Table 3.5: Stone moulds of Late Bronze Age date in Ireland. .................................................................................... 29 Table 3.6: Late Bronze Age clay mould fragments recovered in Ireland. ................................................................... 33 Table 3.7: Clay moulds of Late Bronze Age date in Ireland: Breakdown of artefact types represented. .................... 37 Table 3.8: Metalworking tools in Irish hoards of Late Bronze Age date (based on information in Eogan 1983). ...... 46 Table 4.1: Irish Sites of Late Bronze Age date producing evidence of bronze-working............................................. 54 Table 5.1. Irish sites yielding clay sword mould fragments of Late Bronze Age date, showing other artefact types represented in the moulding evidence.................................................................................. 75 Table 5.2: Compositions of Irish swords of Late Bronze Age date (after information in Allen, Britton and Coghlan 1970)..................................................................................................................................... 85 Table 5.3: Comparison of dimensions of Experimental Sword Casting 1 with template from which it was cast........ 92 Table 5.4: Comparison of dimensions of Experimental Sword Casting 2 with template from which it was cast........ 95 Table 6.1: Ritual sites of the Irish Bronze Age yielding Metalworking evidence. .................................................... 116

List of figures in the Catalogue (Pages 197-253) Fig. 1A: Hoard of bronzes from Drumnakelly, Co. Armagh (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 1B: Hoard of bronzes from Youghal Co. Cork (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 2A: Hoard of bronzes from Teernagloghane, Co. Clare (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 2B: Hoard of bronzes from Dreenan, Co. Fermanagh (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 3A: Hoard of bronzes from Ballygowan Reade, Co. Kilkenny (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 3B: Hoard of bronzes from Money Lower, Co. Laois (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 4A: Hoard of bronzes from Park, Co. Meath (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 4B: Possible hoard of bronzes from Charleville Demesne, Co. Offaly (after Prendergast 1961). Fig. 5: Surviving elements of a hoard of bronzes from Co. Roscommon (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 6A: Hoard of bronzes from Cooga, Co. Sligo (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 6B: Hoard of bronzes from Ballyvadden, Co. Wexford (after Eogan 1983). Fig 7: Hoard of bronzes from “near Athlone”, Co. Roscommon or Westmeath (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 8A: Copper wire forming part of a hoard from Derrinboy, Co. Offaly (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 8B: Amorphous bronze casting byproduct forming part of a hoard from Dowris, Co. Offaly (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 9A: Clay crucible fragments from Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin (3 and 4 after Liversage 1968). Fig. 9B: Clay crucible fragments and conjectural reconstruction of crucible from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway. Actual size (after Cotter 1995). Fig. 10A: Rim sherd of clay crucible from Site F, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. Actual size (after Ó Ríordáin 1954). Fig. 10B: Rim sherd of clay crucible from the WedgeTomb at Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. Actual size (after Ó Ríordáin & Ó hIceadha 1955). Fig. 11A: Rim sherd of clay crucible from Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone. Actual size (after Williams 1978). Fig. 11B: Reconstructed clay crucible from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Actual size. Fig. 12: Hoard of stone moulds from Omagh, Co. Tyrone. Moulds 1 2 (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 13: Hoard of stone moulds from Omagh, Co. Tyrone. Moulds 3 5 (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 14A: Bivalve stone mould for casting dirks and other objects from Broughshane, Co. Antrim (after Burgess & Gerloff 1981). Fig. 14B: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socketlooped spearheads and trunnion chisels from Inch Level, Co. Donegal (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 15: Bivalve stone mould for casting four rapiers from Inchnagree, Co. Cork (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 16A: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting four spearheads from Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (after Evans 1881). Fig. 16B: Hoard of stone moulds from Killymaddy, Co. Antrim. Mould 1 (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 17: Hoard of stone moulds from Killymaddy, Co. Antrim. Moulds 2 4 (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 18: Hoard of stone moulds from Killymaddy, Co. Antrim. Moulds 5 7 (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 19: Hoard of stone moulds from Ballyliffin, Co. Donegal. Moulds 1 4 (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 20: Hoard of stone moulds from Ballyliffin, Co. Donegal. Moulds 5 8 (5 7 after Coghlan & Raftery 1961; 8 after Collins 1970). Fig. 21A: Hoard of stone moulds from Ballyliffin, Co. Donegal. Mould 9 (after Collins 1970). Fig. 21B: Hoard of three stone moulds from Culfin, Co. Galway (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 22: Hoard of two stone moulds from Toorglas, Co. Mayo (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 23: Hoard of three stone moulds from Sultan, Co. Tyrone (after Williams 1980). Fig. 24A: Bivalve stone palstave mould from Ballycastle, Co. Antrim (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 24B: One valve of bivalve stone mould for chisels from Mistyburn, Co. Antrim (after Collins 1970). Fig. 24C: One valve of bivalve stone mould for looped and socketed spearheads from Rasharkin, Co. Antrim (after Collins 1970). vii

Fig. 25A: One valve of bivalve stone mould for palstaves from Whitepark, Co. Antrim. Fig. 25B: One valve of bivalve stone mould for razor, spearhead and rings from ‘near Ballymena. Fig. 25C: BOTTOM. One valve of bivalve stone mould for looped and socketed spearheads from ‘near Ballymena, Co. Antrim (all after Collins 1970). Figs. 26A: 26B and 26C: All single valves from bivalve stone moulds for looped and socketed spearheads and all from ‘near Ballymena’, Co. Antrim. (all after Collins 1970). Figs. 27A, 27B and 27C All single valves, or parts thereof, from bivalve stone moulds for casting looped and socketed spearheads and all from ‘near Ballymena’, Co. Antrim (all after Collins 1970). Fig. 28A: One valve of two or four part stone mould from the barony of Castlerahan, Co. Cavan (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 28B: One valve of bivalve mould for socketlooped spearheads from Ballyshannon, Co. Donegal. Fig. 28C: One valve of bivalve stone mould for socketlooped spearheads from Maghera Co. Donegal. (all after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 29A: One valve of bivalve stone mould for socketlooped spearheads from Maghera, Co. Donegal (after Collins 1970). Fig. 29B: One valve of bivalve stone mould for palstaves from Dromore, Co. Down (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig 29C: One valve of bivalve mould for palstaves and other objects from Mountrath, Co. Laois (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 30A: Portion of one valve of bivalve mould for palstaves from Raheen, Co. Limerick (after Gowen 1988). Fig. 30B: One valve of bivalve stone mould for miniature adze from ‘near Dundalk’, Co. Louth (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 31A: Portion of one valve of bivalve palstave mould from Loughash, Co. Tyrone (after Davies 1939). Fig. 31B: Bivalve stone mould for socketlooped spearheads from Moylisha, Co. Wicklow (after Ó hIceadha 1946). Fig. 31C: Bivalve stone mould for palstaves from Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 32A: One valve of bivalve stone mould for palstaves from ? the north of Ireland (after Collins 1970). Fig. 32B: Portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for basallooped spearheads from the north of Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 32C: One valve of bivalve stone mould for socketlooped spearheads and razor from ? the north of Ireland (after Collins 1970). Fig. 33A: One valve of bivalve stone mould for socketlooped spearheads and razors from ? Co.s Antrim or Derry (after Collins 1970). Fig. 33B: Bivalve stone mould for palstaves from Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 33C: Bivalve stone mould for socketlooped spearheads from Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 34A: One valve of bivalve stone mould for socketlooped spearheads from ? the north of Ireland (after Collins 1970). Fig. 34B: Portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for socketlooped spearheads from ? Co.s Antrim or Derry (after Collins 1970). Fig. 34C: Portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for spearheads. Fig. 35A: Bivalve stone mould for ribbed looped and socketed axes from Ballydaw, Co. Kilkenny (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 35B: One valve of bivalve stone mould for ribbed doublelooped and socketed axeheads from Fethard, Co. Wexford (after Wakeman, in Frazer 1889). Fig. 36A: One valve of bivalve stone mould for ribbed socketed axeheads from Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 36B: Portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for palstaves from Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin 1954). Fig. 37A: Portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for spearheads from Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. Fig. 37B: One valve of bivalve stone mould for palstaves from Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 38A: Bivalve stone mould for palstaves and ? knives from Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 38B: Bivalve stone mould for rapiers from Ireland (both after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 39: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for casting swords from Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim (after Eogan 1965). Fig. 40: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for casting swords from ‘The King’s Stables’, Tray, Co. Armagh (after Lynne 1977). Fig. 41: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for casting spearheads (1 4, 11 12), swords (5 7) and socketed objects (8 10) from Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin (5 7 after Eogan 1965) Fig. 42A: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for casting swords (1, 2, ?4), knives (3) and Singlebladed implements (5, 6) from Oldconnaught, Co. Dublin (after Wakeman 1895). Fig. 42B: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for casting swords from Bohevny, Co. Fermanagh (after Eogan 1965). Fig. 43A: Larger portion of one valve from a bivalve clay mould for looped and socketed axeheads from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway. Fig. 43B: Section through blade area of fragment of bivalve clay mould for socketed axes showing different clay layers, from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway. Fig. 43C: Fragment of bivalve clay mould for looped and socketed axes showing loop and part of socketmouth, from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway. viii

Fig. 44: Fragments of bivalve clay mould for pinshank (1),head of sunflower pin (2), spearhead (3) and sword (4), from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway. Fig. 45: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for socketlooped spearheads (1 8), rapiers with notched butts (9 12), a tanged object (17) and several indeterminate fragments (13 16, 18), from Site F, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin 1954). Fig. 46A: Clay mould fragments forming most of one valve of a bivalve mould for socketlooped spearheads from Site D, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin 1954). Fig. 46B: Fragment of bivalve clay mould for ? knife from Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 47A: Clay mould fragments from bivalve moulds for swords (1 3) and ? sickles (4, 5), from Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone (after Collins & Seaby 1960). Fig. 47B: Clay mould fragments from bivalve moulds for swords (B27, 30, 31), socketed axe (B33) and portion of ?pouring gate, from Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone (after Williams 1978). Fig. 48: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for socketed axes (1), swords (2) and socketed objects with decorative socket moulding (3), from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Fig. 49A: Clay mould core fragment from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Fig. 49B: Possible fragment of a composite clay corecumpouring gate from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Fig. 50A: Clay mould gate fragments from Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin. Fig. 50B: Clay mould gate fragment from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway.Fig. 51A: TOP. Hoard of casting jets from Tullowbeg, Co. Carlow. Fig. 51B: Possible casting jet in a hoard from Dreenan, Co. Fermanagh (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 51C: Casting jet in a hoard from Money Lower, Co. Laois (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 51D: Three casting jets in a hoard from Co. Roscommon (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 52: Hoard of wooden casting templates from Tobermore, Co. Derry (after Hodges 1954). Fig. 53: Hoard of bronzes from Bishopsland, Co. Kildare (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 54A: Hoard of bronzes from Garden Hill, Co. Fermanagh (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 54B: Possible metalworking tools in hoard from Dowris, Co. Offaly (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 55: Hoard of bronzes and stone object from Lusmagh, Co. Offaly (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 56.Clay mould fragments from site B, Navan Fort, Co. Armagh. : For casting pins. : For casting bladed objects, probably socketed axeheads. (after Waterman & Lynne 1997). Fig. 57: Clay mould fragments from Circle K, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (after Grogan & Eogan 1987).

List of Plates in the Catalogue (Pages 254-265) Pl.1A: Possible hoard of bronzes from “the North of Ireland”. Pl. 1B: Hoard of bronzes from Teernagloghane, Co. Clare. Pl. 2A: Hoard of bronzes from Cooga, Co. Sligo. Pl. 2B: Bronze planoconvex ingot from Co. Galway. Pl. 3: Partially reconstructed clay crucible from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. View of bowl.. View of base. Pl. 4: One valve of a bivalve stone mould from Inch Level, Co. Donegal.View of spearhead matrix. View of trunnion chisel matrix. Pl. 5: Bivalve stone mould for casting socketlooped spearheads from Moylisha, Co. Wicklow.View of matrix cavities. View of two valves assembled as for casting. Pl. 6A: Greater portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for casting basallooped spearheads. View of matrix. Pl. 6B: Tip portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for casting ribbed spearheads. View of matrix. Pl. 7: Bivalve stone mould for casting ribbed looped and socketed axes from Ballydaw, Co. Kilkenny. : View of matrix cavities. View of cavity opening from with two valves assembled. Pl. 8A: Bivalve stone mould for casting ribbed looped and socketed axes from Ballydaw, Co. Kilkenny. View of pouring gate with grooves, probably for core arrangement. Pl. 8B: Plastercast of bivalve stone mould for casting socketed peghole spearheads with leafshaped blades from the ‘North of Ireland’ Pl. 9A: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting ribbed socketed axes from Ireland. Pl. 9B: Portion of one valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting looped palstaves from Site D, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. Pl. 10: Portion of one valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socketed spearheads with leafshaped blades from Lough Gur wedgetomb, Co. Limerick. : View of broken section. : View of matrix face. Pl. 11: One valve of a bivalve bronze mould for casting unlooped palstaves. : View of matrix cavity. : View of exterior surface. Pl. 12: Bivalve clay mould fragments from Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin. (E46: 1505) For casting small socketed implement. : (E46: 1502) For casting spearheads. (E46: 1503) For casting spearheads.

ix

Pl. 13: Fragment of bivalve clay mould for casting swords from Oldconnaught, Co. Dublin.View of matrix face. The inner and outer layers can be distinguished. View of exterior surface showing cavity for stiffening rod. Pl. 14: Two fragments of bivalve clay mould for casting swords from Bohevny, Co. Fermanagh. View of matrix faces. View of exterior surfaces. Fragment on shows some spalling off of outer layer, that on completely lacks outer layer and displays cavity for stiffening rod. Pl. 15: Bivalve clay mould fragments from Site F, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. For casting Group 4 rapiers with notched butts. The notch is clearly visible on the central fragment. For casting socketlooped spearheads. The loop is clearly visible on the central fragment. Pl. 16: Most of one valve of a bivalve clay mould for casting socketed axes from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. View of matrix face. View of exterior surface. Pl. 17A: Fragment of bivalve clay mould for casting swords from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Matrix face. Pl. 17B: Fragments of clay mould gates from Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin. Pl. 18: Clay mould core fragment from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Section view. Profile view. Pl. 19A: Hoard of bronze casting jets from Tullowbeg, Co. Carlow. Pl. 19B: Extant part of a hoard of bronzes from Garden Hill, Co. Fermanagh. Pl. 20: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds from Johnstown South, Co. Wicklow. From blade area of spearhead mould near tip. From socket area of spearhead mould. From stickpin or pinshank mould. Pl. 21: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds from Johnstown South, Co. Wicklow. From blade area of socketed axe mould. From socketmouth of implement of small diameter such as a gouge, chisel or hammerhead.

x

Chapter 1: Introduction In Chapter 3 the relevant bronze-working artifacts are discussed by category in terms of their context, chronology, range, technology and distribution. Each artifact or group of artifacts is referenced to its listing in the accompanying catalogue, so that further detail is available to the reader if required.

1. 1. Research Aims. The primary aim of this publication is to provide a comprehensive survey of bronze-working practices during the Late Bronze Age in Ireland as known at the time of writing. This research objective can be divided into several more specific aims:

Chapter 4 deals with the evidence from archaeological contexts. Those Irish sites of Late Bronze Age date which have yielded evidence of bronze-working, namely settlements, ‘workshop’ sites and ritual sites, are discussed in detail in terms of the scale and context of the metallurgical activity on-site.

(1) To thoroughly examine all relevant categories of artifactual evidence (with the exception of the finished metalwork itself) and compile a detailed catalogue of this evidence. (2) To identify gaps in the archaeological record in terms of necessary tools and metalworking facilities which are apparently absent.

Chapter 5 is a special study of the technology of sword production in the Irish Late Bronze Age. Several bodies of data are used here. The archaeological record is considered and a number of resulting theories on sword casting and finishing are tested in a programme of experimentation. The scientific basis of these experiments was established by metallographic studies conducted for the author by Dr. Peter Northover of Oxford University (Section 5. 7). This study emphasizes that not only the conspicuous consumption and deposition of fine metalwork, but also the skill, time and material resources involved in production, played an important role in defining the value of swords in Late Bronze Age times.

(3) To evaluate the structural and other site evidence of bronze metallurgy on Irish sites of this period, with particular reference to evidence from excavations. (4) To place bronze-working during this period in a wider context, demonstrating the broad technical similarities in equipment and methods in the insular Late Bronze Age as a whole, while stressing distinctly Irish and regional traits where they occur. (5) To undertake a special in-depth examination of Late Bronze Age sword production in Ireland. Also examined here is the suitability of elements of the Late Bronze Age archaeological assemblage as metalworking tools. The utility of the experimental approach in archaeology will be considered.

Chapter 6 explores some of the broader social and economic factors involved in bronze-working and its position in Late Bronze Age society in Ireland. This includes a consideration of raw material sources, the status and mobility of the smith, the possible connection between bronze production and high-status settlement and the enigmatic presence of metallurgical material on ritual sites.

(6) To consider the position of Late Bronze Age bronzeworking in contemporary society, with reference to the supply of raw materials, trade, smith mobility and status, site status and ritual.

It is hoped that by combining archaeological data sources with experimentation and ethnographic analogy that a comprehensive picture of Late Bronze Age bronzeworking practices in Ireland can be obtained.

1. 2. Research Design. In order to approach these questions in a constructive fashion it is necessary to first set the stage through a consideration of the metalwork itself. A narrative approach is taken in Chapter 2, tracing the chronology and development of bronze artifact production from the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age down to the arrival of Hallstatt C material in the later final millennium B.C. As well as describing the appearance of new types and their possible inspiration, the emergence of new metalworking techniques and changes in the nature and scale of the industry are noted (The term ‘industry’ here and below is used to define an organized productive activity and should not be taken to imply anything as regards the scale of the craft activity in question unless otherwise stated).

1. 3. Previous Research. Although Wilde, in his Catalogue of the Antiquities in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy: Stone, Earthen and Vegetable Materials (1857), briefly described a number of stone moulds of Bronze Age date, Evans, in his Ancient Bronze Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain and Ireland (1881) undertook the first serious consideration of bronze casting practices in prehistory. The technology and manner of use are discussed with reference to a number of stone and bronze moulds, noting the evolution from ‘open’ to bivalve moulds. This work did not consider clay moulding, owing to the fact that clay moulds were virtually unknown in 1

Chapter 1: Introduction less directly to the debate, including examples by Cleary (1993), Coffey (1907), Collins & Seaby (1960), Cotter (1993; 1995), Hurl (1995), Lynn (1977), Ó Ríordáin (1954), Raftery (1976), Rynne (1983) and Williams (1978; 1980; 1984).

Britain and Ireland at that time. Also of interest is Evans consideration of compositional analysis in this work. The study of Late Bronze Age metalworking technology in Ireland began in earnest with Maryon’s paper ‘The Technical Methods of Irish Smiths in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages’ (1937/8). This was a wide ranging and innovative work on the various techniques applied in the fabrication of Bronze and Iron Age non-ferrous metal products. Hodges’ ‘Studies in the Bronze Age in Ireland: 1. Stone and clay moulds and wooden models for bronze implements’ (1954) deals more specifically with the evidence for Bronze Age casting technology, being the first to outline the sequence of mould development in Ireland from stone to clay. This was followed seven years later by Coghlan and Raftery’s ‘Irish Prehistoric Casting Moulds’ (1961). There is some limited discussion of the manner of mould use, but the real value of this publication is in the concise description and illustration of some 46 prehistoric moulds held in the National Museum at that time.

Numerous British publications on the subject of Bronze Age metalworking technology have, naturally, contributed greatly to the understanding of that subject in Ireland. Some of the more important examples warrant a brief mention. Curle’s (1932/3) report on excavations at Jarlshof, Shetland discusses the first major insular find of Bronze Age refractory ceramics. Jarlshof remains one of the few sites in these islands where the metallurgical finds have any apparent industrial relationship with on-site structures. Tylecote’s ‘Metallurgy in Archaeology’ (1962) is an important example of an early combination of scientific metal analysis and archaeology in a readily accessible format. His subsequent books (1986; 1987; 1992) follow a similar but updated vein and are indispensable for any study of ancient metalworking practices. The study of mould and crucible debris from Dainton, Devon by Needham (1980) resulted in a greatly improved understanding of the method of clay mould construction in the insular Late Bronze Age which was helpful to recent experimental work in that area (McNally 1996). Howard’s unpublished thesis ‘The Bronze Casting Industry in Later Prehistoric Southern Britain’ (submitted 1983) is important in that it ventures into the difficult area of attempting to make broad observations on the nature of prehistoric metalworking industries, using both archaeological evidence and ethnographic parallels. How successful this attempt was is arguable, but it nonetheless points the direction in which all prehistoric studies of technology must strive to move.

‘The Later Bronze Age in the Light of Recent Research’ (1964) by Eogan was an important advance in Late Bronze Age studies and is still regarded as substantially correct in its assertions today. Major technical innovations and changes in the nature of metalworking industries are noted and, for the first time, placed in a chronological and cultural framework. Published in 1968, the report on excavations at Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin, included an insightful discussion of technical aspects of the Late Bronze Age clay moulding evidence from the site, as well as the first use of thin-section and spectroscopic analyses on Irish refractory ceramics of Late Bronze Age date (Liversage 1968). ‘Bronze Age Moulds in Ulster’ (1970) by Collins may be regarded as a sister-work to that by Coghlan and Raftery, and while no technical discussion was undertaken, all the relevant material in the Ulster Museum is described and illustrated. Collins also stresses the general lack of discovery information and the questionable nature of the provenances ascribed to most of these moulds, an important point which is sometimes overlooked.

Other British publications of importance are those by Foster (1995), Grieg (1972), Longley (1980), Musson (1991), Needham (1981; 1991; 1992), Needham et al. (1991), O’Connell (1986), Pryor (1980; 1991), Rowlands (1976), Savory (1980) and Wainwright (1979) to name but a few.

Although a number of important excavations were undertaken in the intervening period (Rathgall, Co. Wicklow; Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone; ‘The King’s Stables’, Co. Armagh), it was over two decades before another major paper on Later Bronze Age metalworking technology was published. In 1993, Eogan’s ‘Aspects of Metal Production and Manufacturing Systems during the Irish Bronze Age’ dealt with the hypothetical industries responsible for production of bronze artifacts. These industries are roughly defined and named, and some limited discussion of elements of production organization, such as the question of smith mobility, is undertaken.

1. 4. Sources. In our consideration of Late Bronze Age metalworking in Ireland, the primary source of information remains the metal artifacts themselves and their archaeological context. Obviously there is no historical documentation referring directly to the Late Bronze Age, in terms of metalworking or any other aspect of society. However, it could be argued that references to the activities and status of smiths in the annals and pseudo-histories of the early Medieval period are references to a tradition of metalworking possibly stretching back to the Late Bronze Age. Nonetheless, to take this viewpoint would stretch such material far beyond its useful limits, and so documentary evidence has only a limited role in this thesis.

The above is an outline of the major attempts to deal with the production of Late Bronze Age bronze artifacts in Ireland. There are many articles which have contributed 2

Chapter 1: Introduction These mostly arise from the lack of information regarding provenance or contextual detail. This in turn reflects the original find circumstances of the artifacts and the activities of 19th-century antiquarian collectors and travelling scrap-merchants who supplied them. When acquired by museums or collectors, these objects were often labelled with the area of residence of the antiquarian, this locality frequently thereafter being taken as the provenance of the object. This has resulted in a clustering effect of certain artifact types around areas where there were many such collectors. County Antrim, and Ballymena in particular, is the best example of this (see Hodges 1954, 66; Collins 1970, 23; Woodman 1993, 10-11). While it seems likely that this area was an important metalworking centre in the Later Bronze Age, one might well suspect it was not as important as some distribution maps, especially those for stone moulds, make out.

Ethnographic studies of modern pre-industrial societies have an acknowledged part to play in archaeological synthesis. However, it cannot be assumed that because prehistoric societies were at a similar stage of technological development that they practiced everyday domestic, economic and ritual interactions in the same manner as early modern pre-industrial societies. Any inferences made through ethnographic observation must be backed up by strong evidence from the archaeological record itself. That said, ethnographic parallels have been used to some effect in the study of metalworking practices in later prehistoric England (Howard 1983). The use of ethnographic material in this thesis will be confined to Chapter 6, subsequent to the consideration of the archaeological databases.

1. 4. 1. The Artifactual Record. Another difficulty is in assessing the integrity of the associations in hoards previously owned by antiquarian collectors. Scrap-dealers were aware that a greater price could be asked for several objects found in the one context and one can hardly doubt that shrewd ‘construction’ of hoards from individual unassociated artifacts occasionally took place. The possible scraphoards from Charleville Demesne, Co. Offaly (Catalogue 1. 8), and Youghal, Co. Cork (Catalogue 1. 3), exemplify this problem and the authenticity of hoards of stone moulds, such as that from Killymaddy, Co. Antrim (Catalogue 4. 6), may also be seen as dubious. Because the relative chronology of artifact types – as derived through typology – depends largely on hoard associations for dating, where the latter are insecure weaknesses will also occur in related chronologies.

The single most important source of information on Late Bronze Age metalworking in Ireland is the artifactual record. In this thesis all artifact categories linked directly to metalworking activity will be considered in terms of their context, chronology, form, technology, and distribution in the archaeological record. Reference will be made to fully finished bronze objects where aspects of their design shed light on specific metalworking practices. Clearly it was not possible to carry out an exhaustive survey of the finished metalwork record itself, given the huge corpus of material and the limited state of scientific artifact studies for this period in Ireland. Also, to consider the finished metalwork brings one into the area of typological and chronological problems, as discussed briefly in the second chapter. Finally, as has been frequently pointed out (e.g. Bradley 1984, 96-127; Cooney & Grogan 1994, 158-67) the distribution pattern of Later Bronze Age metalwork, especially that of weaponry, has been heavily influenced by the practice of deposition in wet contexts. Regardless of whether this is due to religious or economic factors, or a mixture of both, the distribution of such metalwork cannot be taken as truly reflecting the area in which it was produced. By considering only the raw materials, by-products and unfinished output of the fabrication process, and not the finished artifacts, we may gain a more reliable insight into the organization of Late Bronze Age metalwork in Ireland. The following artifact categories are considered in the thesis as relevant to this study and are listed in the accompanying catalogue: (1) Scrap hoards. (3) Clay crucible remains. (5) Bronze mould. (7) Casting jets. (9) Metalworking tools.

The Scientific Approach. Another important source of information in the examination of Late Bronze Age metalwork is the application of scientific methods. The scientific approach should not be separated from other aspects of metalwork study, but needs to be more fully integrated. As of yet, this element of artifact studies is quite undeveloped in Ireland, as indeed it is in most countries. Two of the most useful scientific approaches here are: (i) Metallography. The examination of metal microstructure under a microscope to build up a metallurgical history of the artifact, yielding important information regarding the method of production. If widely applied, this contributes to the reconstruction of industrial traditions and habits of metal use.

(2) Raw materials & waste. (4) Stone moulds. (6) Clay moulding remains. (8) Wooden patterns.

(ii) Compositional Analysis. This approach is mostly concerned with the characterization and source provenancing of the metal used in artifacts. It requires knowledge of both ore and metal compositions over a wide area and a large amount of statistical analysis. This method can suffer setbacks due to incorrect assumptions

Recovery Patterns. There are a number of problems connected with the artifactual record of Late Bronze Age metalworking. 3

Chapter 1: Introduction regarding the manner in which metalworking was organized in prehistory, especially with regard to the practice of recycling.

problematic. This is due to taphonomic factors and modern excavation recovery, as well as depositional practices and the history of site occupancy.

Scientific analysis is not confined to the study of finished metalwork, but can also be used in the examination of residues and accretions present in other elements of the metalworking assemblage, especially clay mould and crucible material (e.g. Liversage 1968, 184-6). Some limited use of the metallographic approach is undertaken in this thesis in relation to an experiment in the post-cast treatment of bronze swords included in Chapter 5. This metallographic study was carried out for the author by Dr. Peter Northover, University of Oxford.

Excavation Practice. Excavation of Late Bronze Age settlements in Ireland is clearly biased towards the more archaeologically visible sites. The tendency is towards the excavation of those sites, often previously believed to have an Iron Age background, which feature large, multivallate bank-andditch enclosures. Excavation of settlements such as Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh (Mallory 1991; 1995), Dun Aengus, Co. Galway (Cotter 1993; 1995; 1996) and Mooghaun, Co. Clare (Bennett & Grogan 1993; Grogan & Condit 1994; Grogan 1995) suggest that many of these large sites had a Late Bronze Age origin. That such settlements are high status (in terms of settlement hierarchy) is demonstrated by the amount of effort that went into their construction and also by the practice of lavish consumption on them (Bradley 1984, 25-31). This is archaeologically demonstrated by evidence for feasting and ostentatious self-adornment by the occupants (Cooney and Grogan 1994, 151-3). It should be remembered that these sites are not typical of Late Bronze Age habitation. Less exceptional homesteads of the period are lakeside ‘proto-crannogs’ such as those at Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath (Bradley 1997) and Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo (Raftery 1994, 32-5). However, it seems likely that the majority of the populace lived in small, dryland villages of a type only recognized in recent times. Two of these, at Ballyveelish and Curraghatoor, were uncovered in County Tipperary during the construction of the Cork-Dublin gas pipeline (Doody 1987; 1993). The archaeological invisibility of these sites, which contrasts with the more obvious high-status defended sites, should be noted.

To conclude, the main advantage of the artifactual approach is in examining the manner of fabrication and use of an artifact. Artifact design is often seen purely in stylistic terms, rather than as the result of technological innovation or change in use pattern, either of which can occur in a relatively short period. Because the artifactual evidence for metalworking in the Late Bronze Age is, of necessity, generally considered in isolation from the site record, the resultant chronologies are tied into neither a cultural context nor calendrical time.

1. 4. 2. Archaeological Contexts. The number of Late Bronze Age settlement sites excavated in Ireland, though growing rapidly in the last decade, is still quite small. Of these, only ten have produced evidence of on-site metalworking. Along with these may be placed two ‘workshop’ sites without any obvious connection to settlements, and three ritual sites with evidence of metalworking. Settlement Sites Lough Gur, Site D, Co. Limerick; Lough Gur, Site F, Co. Limerick; Lough Gur, Circle K, Co. Limerick; Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo; Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone; Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin; Rathgall, Co. Wicklow; Dun Aengus, Co. Galway; Navan Fort, Co. Armagh; Bay (Carnlough), Co. Antrim.

Metalworking on Late Bronze Age sites seems to have been commonly set aside from ordinary domestic activities, often practiced in a location peripheral to the main area of settlement, for example at Lough Eskragh (Williams 1978). One factor here is the likely health and safety hazard posed by noxious fumes and intense heat produced during metallurgical processes. Also, we must not underestimate the possible importance of religious taboos and superstitions connected with metalworking in determining the location of metallurgical practices. With limited excavation resources, it is often not possible to investigate the whole of an extensive settlement site. In the past, most emphasis was placed on the habitation core, which might explain why metalworking areas may often have remained undiscovered when their associated settlements were excavated. Geophysics, especially the use of magnetic survey, may help locate such peripheral metalworking areas in the future.

‘Workshop’ Sites Kilsmullan, Co. Fermanagh; Killymoon, Co. Tyrone. Ritual Sites Lough Gur wedge-tomb, Co. Limerick; ‘The King’s Stables’, Co. Armagh; Johnstown South, Co. Wicklow.

Several important Late Bronze Age sites which have yielded metalworking evidence remain unpublished, with the result that important information is unavailable. This detracts from the usefulness of artifacts from these sites

Due to a number of factors, the archaeological record from these sites is not always of a high standard, and the interpretation of metalworking evidence is often 4

Chapter 1: Introduction because they cannot be placed in an exact context. Two of the most important unpublished examples relevant to this study, Rathgall, Co. Wicklow and Rathtinaun Co. Sligo, are currently in preparation for publication.

metallurgical context, in which the metal artifact is associated with the objects used in its fabrication.

Archaeological Context.

1. 4. 3. The Experimental Approach.

Other problems of interpretation are related to the nature of the site itself. Late Bronze Age settlements have frequently been subjected to later periods of domestic activity, both in the case of lakeside pile-constructions (e.g. Ballinderry 2, Co. Offaly) and upland defended sites (e.g. Rathgall, Co. Wicklow). These reoccupations are most often of the Later Iron Age or Early Medieval period. In one sense this is fortunate, as it has resulted in the excavation of Late Bronze Age settlements which would not otherwise have been recognized. On the other hand, this later activity sometimes destroys or obscures the Bronze Age horizons, making efficient excavation and interpretation difficult as, for example, in the case of Site V, Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin (Liversage 1968, 60).

One way we can increase our knowledge of Late Bronze Age metalworking technology in Ireland, while waiting for new excavation evidence, is to conduct experiments into the production of these artifacts. Firstly, clear research aims, in terms of hypotheses to be tested, must be made out and adhered to if the work is to achieve more than novelty value. Fortunately, there are many specific theories relating to the manufacture of bronzes in the Late Bronze Age which have been expressed by various authorities. These give a wide scope for experimentation in tool-use and moulding practices, among other areas. Further prerequisites are the technical facilities necessary for such research (in this case, furnaces, firing kilns, etc.), and the technical knowledge to carry out this experimentation. Regrettably, there are few facilities presently available in Irish universities to conduct scientific experiments in this field, although a number of such facilities exist in Britain. For the present study, the author was able to avail of the assistance of Mr. Liam McNally and his private workshop to carry out the sword fabrication experiments outlined in Chapter 5.

The paucity of bronze objects on Late Bronze Age settlements is notable. For example, the platform settlement at Clonfinlough, Co. Offaly, dated dendrochronologically to the late tenth and early ninth centuries B.C., produced no bronze objects whatsoever (Moloney et al. 1993, 61). Even the high status site of Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh, which yielded evidence of gold-working, produced only five small bronze artifacts (Mallory 1991, 20-1). This can give an incorrect impression of the status of bronze objects on domestic sites. Binford’s concept of the ‘curated assemblage’ should be considered here (1973, 242). This suggests that the representation of objects on an excavated site is in inverse proportion to their significance to the occupants. We may infer from the care taken not to lose or accidentally discard broken bronzes, that these were highly prized. The practice of recycling must have played an important role here also. It is unsafe to assume that bronze-working by-products on a site are definite evidence that fabrication took place there. This problem relates mostly to the ritual sites listed above. At ‘The King’s Stables’, Co. Armagh, the clay mould fragments recovered are unlikely to result from onsite casting and were probably brought to this location for ritual deposition, possibly from the nearby settlements at Haughey’s Fort or Navan Fort. The relationship between casting evidence and several wedge-tombs is less clear. Despite these problems, excavation would seem to be the avenue of investigation most likely to expand our knowledge of Late Bronze Age metalworking in the future. As Northover observes (1985, 57), “Only by the systematic study of all types of material, especially excavated metalwork with a well defined context, can the data-bases be built up that will allow the fullest understanding of future recoveries” (my emphasis). It should be emphasized that context is taken here to mean not only a secure horizon for dating, but also a

5

Chapter 2: The Chronology and Development of Copper-Bronze Metalworking in the Later Bronze Age Traditions of Ireland In the Middle Bronze Age there is a continued emphasis on axes from the preceding period, with Early Bronze Age tanged spearheads diversifying into a wide range of more developed socketed forms also. The increased flange development begun in the Derryniggin type axes followed a logical course, firstly in the form of the haftflanged axe, and subsequently by the wing-flanged axe. Both these axe types are of a form which emphasizes the continuity of native traditions, but the fact that some wing-flanged axes bear loops may be the effect of external influence in the form of looped palstaves. Such palstaves are of ‘West European’ type, with expanded blades and featuring ‘trident’ motifs. This type would seem to have filtered through from Southern Britain, where there is found a regional variation of this type. It is also noted that Butler saw the origins of ‘shield-pattern’ palstaves in certain haft-flanged axes (1960, 120), but this development probably took place in northern Europe, from whence some few imports may have made their way to Ireland.

In terms of technological development, the millennium from about 1500 to 500 B.C. was possibly the most formative period of Irish prehistory. During the Later Bronze Age the inhabitants of this island achieved a mastery of metallurgy which, by the end of that era, had resulted in the development of a diverse range of metal artifact types, which stands in stark contrast with the quite limited repertory of Early Bronze Age metal types. In order to understand how this was achieved it is necessary to trace the development of metalworking from Middle Bronze Age times up to the introduction of iron-working, taking into account the growing product range and outlining the main technological developments. Table 2. 1 shows the chronology of the main metalworking traditions of the insular later Bronze Age.

2.1. The Middle Bronze Age (c. 1500 - 1200 B.C.). Eogan regards this period in Ireland as being little more than an extension of the Early Bronze Age. He states that it is marked by neither notable technological advances nor the introduction of new types of tools, weapons, or ornaments (1964, 268). However, it can equally be argued that the changes which took place during the Middle Bronze Age exerted a strong, continuous influence on metalwork in the ensuing Bishopsland Phase of the Late Bronze Age and possibly into the beginning of the Dowris Phase.

Foremost among the new spearhead types was the kiteshaped, ribbed spearhead with loops on the socket (Ramsey 1995, 51-3). This is believed to have a mainly native ancestry in the kite-shaped, tanged spearheads of the Derryniggin Phase. Matrices for such tanged spearheads can be found in the mould hoard from Omagh, Co. Tyrone (Catalogue 4. 1). Also present here were moulds for looped spearhead sockets without any blades, and the kite-shaped, ribbed spearhead with loops on the

Table 2.1: Later Prehistoric metalworking phases of the traditional later Bronze and Iron Ages (after Waddell 1998).

6

Chapter 2: Development of bronzeworking in Ireland. metalsmith (Thomas 1964). This apparent spread of Irish influence was, as Thomas notes, probably dependent, to a large extent, on the copper and tin trade between the two islands. This trade would also have been the cause of continental types arriving in Ireland via Britain. Burgess agrees with this suggestion, seeing the manufacture of his Group 1 palstave in Ireland as proof that such exchanges were taking place, and going further by suggesting these palstaves were manufactured by immigrant Welsh metallurgists (1974, 313).

socket may be seen as an amalgamation of these two types without any foreign influence necessarily involved. This opinion is strengthened by the fact that the latter type is common in Ireland, where it is found in hoards of the Late Bronze Age, but quite rare in Britain. The leaf-shaped, socket-looped spearhead appears to be the result of continental influence arriving via Southern England where they have their greatest concentration, and where they occur in hoards of Butler’s Taunton phase and the succeeding Deverel-Rimbury Culture (Eogan 1964, 268). The leaf-shaped, socket-looped spearhead is not a common type in Ireland. While basal-looped spearheads mainly have leaf-shaped blades, one valve of a mould from Toorglas, Co. Mayo was from a mould which would have produced basal-looped spearheads with kite-shaped blades and pointed midribs (Catalogue 4. 9). This might suggest that the basal loop was at least partially a native development. The idea of a native development of basallooped spearheads is supported by Ramsey, who goes further, placing developed forms of large basal-looped spearheads with fillets at the base of the blade and protected loop spearheads in the Middle Bronze Age, seeing these also as native developments on the socketlooped type (1995, 53-4).

Although Eogan’s Omagh Phase may run into the start of the Middle Bronze Age, it is in the following Killymaddy Phase that we see the forms representative of this period in the mould evidence (1993, 94-5). Palstave and spearhead moulds predominate, with significant numbers of rapier moulds present, as well as one mould for bifid razors from Ballymena, Co. Antrim. Hoards of moulds appear at this time, examples being the hoard of unfinished blank valves from Ballyliffin, Co. Donegal (Catalogue 4. 7), and about half a dozen finished pairs of valves in the Killymaddy hoard itself (Catalogue 4. 6). These hoards must indicate fairly large-scale production. The favoured material for mould manufacture was now steatite (soapstone) which, as far as we know, was not used in the Early Bronze Age. Examples of steatite moulds include a palstave mould from Dromore, Co. Down (Catalogue 4. 27), the previously mentioned Toorglas spearhead mould and a valve of another mould for basal-looped spearheads, leaf-shaped in this case, from the North of Ireland (Catalogue 4. 37). A final technical innovation of the Middle Bronze Age was that such spearheads were now being cast with the socket extending into the blade.

Other developments of continental types were the trapezebutted rapier (Groups 1 & 2 in Burgess & Gerloff 1981), which is a slightly adapted insular version of the Western European type (ibid. 15-9, 42-6), and Class 1 bifid razors. The Class 1 razors of both subtypes are thought to be ultimately derived from razors of the continental Tumulus Culture (Butler & Smith 1956), both in shape and also in decoration, where the latter occurs, such as on an example from Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim. In considering the above artifact types we see the first influx of continental forms, a trickle which was to become a deluge in the ensuing Later Bronze Age.

2. 2. The Bishopsland Phase (c. 1200 - 1000 B.C.). In terms of technological advances, the use of bivalve stone moulds in the Middle Bronze Age is a huge leap forward from the ‘open’ moulds of the Early Bronze Age. Although some Early Bronze Age artifacts – such as halberds with their thick midribs – may have been cast in bivalve moulds, it is in the Middle Bronze Age that such moulds are first found. It has been suggested by Eogan that techniques of bivalve casting were first developed in an insular context in Ireland before spreading to Britain (1993, 103-5). Numerically, a case can be made for this, in that about sixty such Middle Bronze Age moulds are known from Ireland, with only perhaps a dozen in Britain, where the best example is a mould for kite-shaped spearheads from Bodwrdin, Anglesey (Lynch 1991, fig. 62). One might point out that Anglesey is an important landfall for those travelling by sea from Ireland. Megaw and Simpson et al. note that Irish metalworking seems to have had some influence in a number of areas in England and Wales outside the area of the Wessex Culture, such as the upper Thames Valley and the Cornubrian Peninsula (1979, 255). Confirmation of this may be sought at sites such as Tredarvah, near Penzance, which yielded a small personal hoard and was deemed to be the hut of a

During the twelfth century B.C. in southern England new bronze and gold types were introduced into the Somerset area, both from the West Baltic region and from Western Europe, particularly France. The combination of these new types with native Middle Bronze Age material produced a manufacturing tradition which Smith termed the ‘Ornament Horizon’ (1959). However, the cultural unity of this material is dubious and may come from a wider range of influences than Smith suggests (Rowlands 1976, 148-9). At any rate, the proliferation of this material in England, with close affinities to the Urnfield Culture, had important repercussions for Ireland. Its influence resulted in a dynamic native Irish industry during the Bishopsland phase. Several authors see the Ornament Horizon and its intrusion into Ireland as being ultimately Central European in origin (e.g. Megaw & Simpson et al. 1979, 259). Eogan’s approach to this material, in terms of his strong emphasis on Nordic prototypes and trade links would seem to be rather over-simplistic (1964, 273). Though he usually opts for a German parallel, equally 7

Chapter 2: Development of bronzeworking in Ireland. trade routes of the Middle Bronze Age had not changed greatly.

good comparison may be found in French contexts. Joan Taylor, in discussing Late Bronze Age goldwork, has argued strongly for a Western rather than Northern European origin for much of the material (1980, 56-9).

The majority of the ornaments current in Ireland during this period were of gold, and thus not relevant to this discussion, but there were a few exceptions. The cast bronze torc and the rectangular sectioned bracelets in the Annesborough hoard, Co. Armagh, may be of North European origin. However, the flange-twisting of the former torc is considered to be an insular technique related to the Mediterranean strip-twist method and/or the north European bar-twist (Eogan 1990, 157). Fragments present in the Downpatrick hoard (no. 1 of the two hoards from this location) represent a decorated bronze neck-ring which appears to have originated in France in the late second millennium B.C. Tanged bifid razors of Class 2 have similar Tumulus culture origins to the Class 1 razors and seem to have arrived in Ireland and Britain shortly before 1000 B.C. (Eogan 1964, 283).

Although the Bishopsland phase is most noted for the influx of new gold ornament types, a number of novel bronze tools also arrived at this time. Socketed axeheads make their first appearance, most notably in the Bishopsland hoard itself. The latter example is a narrowbladed, square socketed axe of north German ‘Hademarschen’ type. These axes were also current in British hoards of the Taunton phase, such as that from Taunton Workhouse, Somerset, showing a possible overland route they took in reaching Ireland. Punches current in Ireland during this period can also be paralleled in this hoard. Socketed hammerheads can be found forming part of hoards in both northern Germany and Brittany, as well as England and Scotland. The English hoard in question is of the Ornament Horizon, while the continental hoards are about a century earlier, as might be expected. The anvil in the Bishopsland hoard, a small example probably used for goldworking, can also be compared to those from hoards in France, Germany and Scotland (both the anvil and socketed hammer from Bishopsland are paralleled in the same Scottish hoard from Inshock, Nairn), with the continental anvils again being earlier. Other bronzes in the Bishopsland Hoard displaying German influence are the tweezers and saw, although the latter may, alternatively, have French connections.

The Middle Bronze Age weapons appear to have remained in use, displaying continuity in the native Urn tradition. Wing-flanged axes are still present, as are ‘western European’ type palstaves, such as that in the hoard from Drumnakelly, Co. Armagh (Catalogue 1. 1). Ribbed kite-shaped spearheads with loops on the sockets and basal looped spearheads continue in use also. They have been found in hoards of about the eighth century B.C., at Ballinliss, Co. Armagh (Eogan 1983, no. 43) and Kish, Co. Wicklow (ibid. no. 155) respectively. During the Bishopsland phase the manufacture of rapiers reaches its technical zenith in the Group 3 form (Burgess & Gerloff 1981, 46-7). These were replaced in the latter part of the period by the Group 4 rapiers (ibid. 62-3). The central midrib and flanking ridges on the blade of the Group 3 form changed to a flat lozenge shaped crosssection, and the Group 4 rapier may be regarded as a disimprovement on the preceding type in terms of technical and artistic achievement. This simplification in design may be due to attention being switched to the newly arrived Ballintober sword (Eogan’s Class 1), a superior weapon, if not so fine a work of art as the Group 3 rapier. One might also suppose that the shape of the Group 4 rapier blade, especially its cross-section, may have been influenced by that of the new leaf-shaped swords.

The Bishopsland Phase of the Late Bronze Age also sees the first appearance of the knobbed sickle in Ireland, the origins of which lie firmly in the central European Tumulus cultures. These sickles are found in northern Europe during the Middle Bronze Age and are also typical of the Ornament Horizon in Britain, their distribution being mainly confined to Somerset (Megaw & Simpson et al. 1979, 258). Two fragmentary moulds for sickles of this type were present in the Killymaddy hoard (Catalogue 4. 6). The product of the more complete example would have had a midrib, which suggests one of the lateral-socketed British/Irish Late Bronze Age sickles rather than one of the knobbed variety. The Bishopsland flesh-fork (Eogan 1983, nos. 16, 17) is a simple version of an object which occurs in a more elaborate form during the Dowris phase and later, most notably that from Dunaverney, Co. Antrim (Raftery 1984, fig. 3, 1). They also occur in Britain and have their best continental parallels in France.

The Ballintober sword is seen by Eogan as primarily an Irish development of continental Rixheim type swords (1965, 7). Burgess and Colquhoun emphasize the importance of Rosnoen type swords, which have features of both Rixheim swords and native Group 4 rapiers, in the development of the Ballintober type (1988, 19). In Britain are found the related Lambeth and Chelsea variant subtypes of roughly the same period. The distribution of Ballintober and related sword types suggests possible connections between Ireland and the Thames valley via south Wales during the Bishopsland/Penard period. The arrival of the Ballintober sword in Ireland was probably in the tenth century B.C. (Eogan 1964, 288; 1965, 8).

Many of these new bronze forms are ultimately of Central European origin, and the question is whether they arrived in an insular context by way of northern Europe or a more southerly route, including France. It should be noted that as well as being paralleled in the Ornament Horizon, some of these types are also found in the Welsh Acton Park industry (Burgess 1974). The Hademarschen type socketed axehead is one example, and this may be the route by which they arrived in Ireland, implying that the 8

Chapter 2: Development of bronzeworking in Ireland. Simpson et al. 1979, 310). This argument is strengthened by the fact that the small number of cylindrical spearferrules and long tongue-shaped chapes found in Ireland are the same as those of the south English Wilburton tradition. The earliest flange-hilted swords (Eogan’s Classes 2 & 3 in Ireland) have similar origins, as may spearheads with lunate openings in the blade. Eogan has suggested that the Roscommon and ‘North of Ireland’ hoards may indicate a new industrial stage mirroring that in England (Eogan 1964, 290-2). However, his subsequent re-dating of the latter hoard to the Middle Bronze Age / Bishopsland transitional period weakens this argument (Eogan 1983, appendix A no. 34). Furthermore, the overall level of production suggested by the number of objects from this phase is not indicative of a strong manufacturing tradition in Ireland.

With such a large amount of fresh artifact types arriving in the Bishopsland phase it is not surprising that a number of significant new metalworking techniques were also acquired, probably along with the imported objects. The first evidence for clay mould casting occurs in the form of the axe and hammerhead in the Bishopsland hoard (Eogan 1983, no.16, 2, 3), although these objects were probably themselves imports. These feature rope-moulding on their sockets which could hardly have been cast in a stone mould. Later, towards the end of the period, we find more concrete evidence in the form of clay mould fragments for Group 4 rapiers and socket-looped spearheads from Site F, Lough Gur (Catalogue 6. 8). Both true repoussé ornamentation and the use of solder may have been first applied in this phase, though only, it seems, on gold bar torcs (Eogan 1994, 47, 50). However, the use of solder on these torcs has been questioned recently (Meeks & Varndell 1994). Repousse had been used previously on Early Bronze Age sun-discs and earrings, but only in the very faint manner of ‘false’ repoussé. Solder is said to be visible on some bar torc terminals in Bishopsland phase material (Maryon 1937/8, 208). As previously mentioned, flange-twisting of torcs was now in practise also. The practice of hoarding had been revived after apparently being neglected in the Middle Bronze Age. This revival is mostly in the form of golden ornament hoards. The Bishopsland hoard shows that specialist craftsmen were operating and may have been exporting gold objects to Britain and France.

Burgess disagrees with this emphasis on southern English Wilburton types. He claims the Roscommon hoard is not a typical Wilburton hoard (Catalogue 1. 9), its contents of that type being limited to fragmentary tongue chapes and plate scrap (Burgess 1968, 36). He also points out that these types are countered by a series of baggy, decidedly non-Wilburton socketed axes. Neither are there any definite Wilburton bronzes in the ‘North of Ireland’ hoard (Catalogue 1. 13). Of relevance here is Burgess’ northern English Wallington tradition which seems to have developed out of Middle Bronze Age industries during the Penard phase and ran parallel with the Wilburton tradition before being replaced by Heathery Burn metalworking, using leaded bronze, in the eighth century B.C. As an alternative to south English influence in the Roscommon phase Burgess suggests that the abundance of Wallington type material, including protected loop and straight based basal looped spearheads, Lisburn rapiers, multiple moulding and flat collar socketed axes, and local equivalents of ‘transitional’ palstaves, can fill this gap more than adequately. In return, Irish influence on the Wallington tradition is most clearly seen in the socketed axes of this period in northern England. These display Irish traits such as rope-moulding and, in some instances, a distinctly ‘baggy’ form.

We can see that the Bishopsland Phase was a period of considerable significance in the development of Late Bronze Age metalworking. While the main advances were mostly in the area of gold-working, it also set the stage for Dowris phase bronze-working, when the Irish smiths truly came into their own. The Bishopsland phase received its main stimulus from the Taunton phase material, which was itself largely a mixture of the west Baltic Period 3 tradition and elements of west/central European origin. The evidence from this period in Ireland need not cause one to suggest the presence of intrusive population groups, a well-developed trade mechanism being sufficient explanation.

Other authors prefer to emphasize the continuation of Middle Bronze types in the Roscommon phase as being more important than either Wilburton or Wallington influences (Megaw & Simpson et al. 1979, 310), although the latter tradition seems heavily influenced by Middle Bronze Age material anyway. The Roscommon phase is an ill-defined period which has elicited a number of possible explanations, none of which are, at present, definitive. This period was, judging from the artifactual evidence, one of relative inactivity in metalworking, with no notable technical achievements so far recognized. Indeed, it is becoming common in recent times for authors to disregard the Roscommon phase entirely and simply see the Bishopsland phase running gradually into the Dowris phase.

2. 3. The Roscommon Phase (c. 1000 - 800 B.C.). This is the most enigmatic phase of the Irish Bronze Age if, in fact, it can be properly considered as a true industrial phase at all. The number of bronzes attributable to this period is not large, and they are difficult to place in terms of origins. What is quite certain is that there is little indication of continental influence at this time, native Irish and British industries apparently supplying all the constituent parts (Eogan 1964, 290). Rather than a true native industry, it might be argued that the occurrence of new object types could simply be due to some trading contact with southern Britain (Megaw &

9

Chapter 2: Development of bronzeworking in Ireland. view them as the result of a late Dowris Phase reintroduction of stone moulding from Britain (Hodges 1954, 72), but the basis of this link is tenuous (see Section 3.4.4. below).

2. 4. The Dowris Phase (c. 800 - 400 B.C.). The Dowris phase marks the high point of metalworking during the Irish Bronze Age. The range and technical standard of bronze types in this period are impressive, easily eclipsing the achievements of the Bishopsland and Roscommon Phase. Beginning about the eighth century, in the middle of the last millennium B.C. it seems to have merged with the new Hallstatt material to form a poorly understood era which was neither fully bronze or iron using, but a mixture of both.

Socketed knives are a Dowris Phase arrival in Ireland. The Thorndon type, which is common throughout these islands, arrived here from France, and the socketed knife with curved blade appears to also have a French, or perhaps Swiss origin (MacWhite 1944, 164). The use of sickles became more widespread, with two models occurring. The lateral-socketed version was in use in Britain by the tenth century, while the vertical-socketed sickle may possibly be derived from the Thorndon knives, and if so would be somewhat later. Socketed gouges are divided into two classes on the basis of the presence or absence of moulding around the socket mouth. The Class 2 type, with moulding, was in use in Britain during the Wilburton Phase. Its ultimate origins must be in central or west central Europe, their presence being noted at an early date on the Swiss lake-dwellings.

With the possible exception of looped and socketed axeheads, the majority of tools and weapons contrast with the ornamental objects. While the latter show increased direct influence from the continent, especially north and central Europe, British and western European influences continue to dominate the types of tools and weapons used in Ireland. To turn first to weapons, Class 2 and 3 swords gave way in the Dowris Phase to the Class 4 variety, a native Irish development, similar to the British Ewart Park type, which developed out of the V- butted Wilburton variety, with some influence from U-butted swords (Eogan 1965, 12). In comparison with no more than two dozen of each of Eogan’s types 1, 2 & 3, several hundred Class 4 swords have been recovered in Ireland. Accompanying these swords are the Class 2 chapes, which are basically a shorter version of the previous long-tongued chapes (Class 1). A small number of bag-shaped chapes also seem to belong to this period. Plain, leaf-shaped spearheads with peg-holes were now most common, but looped spearheads did not cease to be produced, having mutated into those where the loops appear as small fillets at the base of the blade. This latter type are often huge (up to c. 40 cm blade length) and are perhaps best regarded as primarily intended for non-combat functions such as display or ritual.

The socketed chisels with long blades of rectangular section are a type known widely throughout western and northern Europe, arriving in Britain at the time of the Carp’s Tongue complex (equivalent to the early Dowris Phase) and from hence making its way to Ireland. Chisels with short square sockets are also found in associations of the aforementioned complex, while those with a short round socket can be found in the Heathery Burn hoard, possibly related to a similar form in Germany (Eogan 1964, 298). Tanged chisels of this period are divided into two classes, the first being distinguished from the second by the fact that its blade is not waisted. Both types feature either an evenly expanded collar or two lateral projections between the tang and blade. The Class 1 type is common in France and is also present in northern Italy (Dechelette 1924, 272). From France it seems to have come to Ireland via Britain, with the Carp’s Tongue Sword area again acting as an agent of secondary diffusion. The Class 2 chisel is probably an insular development of the Class 1 type. Raftery suggests, because of the side projections, that the trunnion chisel, which is itself still current in the Dowris Phase, may have played an important role in the evolution of these types (Raftery 1942, 130). Apart from trunnion chisels and socketed axeheads, other types introduced in the Bishopsland Phase and still in use were tweezers, Class 2 razors, anvils and flesh-hooks.

In the area of tools, the numbers of socketed axes produced in this period, and the variety of new shapes they assume is notable. The commonest type are axeheads with an oval or circular socket mouth, a body of oval cross-section and a widely splayed cutting edge (Hodges 1956, fig. 7). These vary from the squat, bag-shaped variety to large specimens, some featuring plain or rope collar moulding around the neck. Also in this period are found the faceted axes with circular mouths and bodies of hexagonal or octagonal cross-section (ibid. 29-31). All the above types would seem to have filtered over from Britain during the late Roscommon Phase, but have been suggested to be ultimately German in origin (Eogan 1964, 293-5). Axeheads with plain bodies of rectangular crosssection, sometimes with vertical ribs on the faces, are occasional finds, and these may have been introduced from the British regional industries which produced such axes, one based in Yorkshire, the other the south Welsh Llantwit-Stogursey industry (Needham 1981). On the basis of a small number of stone moulds for these axes found in the south-east of Ireland, Hodges would tend to

It can be stated generally that, some of the bag-shaped axe forms excepted, the Dowris Phase tool material is mostly the same as that found in contemporary British contexts. There may have been some limited cross-fertilization with the British material, as there is a variety of bag-shaped axe in East Anglia and north Lincolnshire which may be related to the Irish Dowris Phase material, although this influence could otherwise project from Scottish material of Gillespie or Dowris type (Schmidt & Burgess 1981, 191, 197-8, 203). One of the most interesting and technically accomplished 10

Chapter 2: Development of bronzeworking in Ireland. There are a number of types current in the Dowris Phase which may possibly be viewed as horse-trappings, rather than personal ornaments. Some of these can only be clearly traced to Britain, such as the bronze rings with transverse perforations through the body. Plain rings are of such simple form that no specific origins can reasonably be suggested. The rings with lateral, buffershaped perforated terminals are common in Ireland, but practically unknown elsewhere and are therefore probably an insular development although possible, but weak, connections have been sought in the Carp’s Tongue complex. Rattle pendants, perhaps of central European origin (Rynne 1962), and the few disc-shaped ‘phalerae’ could also be equestrian parade trappings, as may the unusual chain from Boolybrien, Co. Clare. A more elaborate chain now in the National Museum was apparently found in the last century near Roscommon town (Wilde 1861, 576-8) for which use as horse decoration or as some type of ceremonial collar has been suggested. The best parallels for such chains is apparently in Alpine France and Switzerland where they date to the eighth century B.C., the end of the Bronze Age in these regions (MacWhite 1945, 97).

new features of the Dowris Phase was the cast bronze horn. Eogan (1964, 317) suggests a possible Nordic connection, but this seems unlikely. The Irish horns and the Nordic Luren are the only groups of bronze wind instruments current in Bronze Age Europe (with the exception of the poorly documented Wismar group) and in both cases ritual use has been suggested. The Irish horns are subdivided into two classes. Class 1 horns feature straight and zig-zag rib decoration and these are concentrated in the north-east of the country. Class 2 horns feature conical spikes as decoration and have a south-westerly distribution. Both types occur in both end and side-blow forms. Although Coles claimed that the zigzag ribs and conical spikes could be due to Nordic influence (1963), and Eogan adds that they could also be derived from the central European Urnfield tradition, neither seem likely candidates. Firstly, there are no bronze horns of the Bronze age in central Europe. Secondly, the twisting nature of Nordic luren, and their decorated rings at the horns mouth cannot be paralleled in Irish horns. The lurer and Irish horn must be considered, on present evidence, as: a north-west European phenomenon of animal-horn wind instruments translated into metal in areas where bronze-casting techniques had already reached a degree of perfection unsurpassed elsewhere (Coles 1963, 349).

Rivalling the horns as the most interesting new types of the Dowris Phase were the large sheet bronze vessels which were imported and then manufactured here. The vessels whose roots are most easily discerned are the ‘Kurd-type’ buckets. A number of these, including the example from the Dowris hoard itself, were imported from the Danubian lands of east-central Europe and their origins are therefore of a late Urnfield nature (Hawkes & Smith 1957, 137-8). A number of copies of these have been found, obviously executed by Irish smiths. The other type of large bronze vessel adopted at this time and copied by native smiths was the cauldron, of which there are two insular or ‘Atlantic’ types (ibid. 160). Class A, the earlier type, has a short, upright neck, while Class B cauldrons have practically no neck and their rim is everted at a slant. These sometimes bear conical studs similar to those on Class 2 horns. and are believed by some authors to be a copy of Greek dinos , which were themselves copies of large Urartian vessels made from a single sheet of bronze (Leeds, 1930; Hawkes & Smith 1957). Others see their origins as north European (Britton 1960; Eogan 1974; O’Connor 1980), while a further authority sees the origins of such cauldrons as central European (Gerloff 1986) and yet another believes them to be copies of leather cauldrons forming a regional grouping within a pan-European tradition (Briggs 1987). As can be seen, consensus is somewhat lacking on the matter.

Associated with these horns in the Dowris hoard are a number of crotals. These oval objects, possibly some form of rattle, have also been assigned a ritual purpose and have, like the horns, no good parallels. As in the Bishopsland Phase, the majority of new ornament types were again made of gold, but some bronze forms are notable. Penannular bracelets of round crosssection, both with and without expanded terminals, were in use from the start of the Late Bronze Age and continued into the Dowris Phase. Their form is too simple to give any specific parallels. In the case of the various pins which arrived at this time north European links seem on this occasion to be beyond doubt (Eogan 1964, 306-7). Pins with upright, decorated, disc-shaped heads and plain stems are derived from similar examples in Danish contexts some century or two earlier. Class 1 Irish sunflower pins are most likely descended from a type found in north Europe around the beginning of the first millennium B.C. These ‘proto-sunflower pins’ display links with central European fibulae through their decoration. Although there are a few examples of the late swans-neck type in Scotland, the type is generally exclusive to Ireland in these islands. The Class 2 sunflower pin must have developed from the Class 1 type after its arrival here. The Dowris cup-headed pins have an ultimately central European Hallstatt origin, but are found closer to Ireland in Denmark and the adjacent part of Germany.

The native smiths, in developing the Atlantic Class A cauldron, borrowed features from the buckets, including the in-turned rim, the practice of rolling that rim around a wire, the neck corrugations and the riveted multi-sheet (rather than single-sheet) construction of the body. In turn, the native bucket derived its cast staples from the cauldrons. It is, then, obvious that both buckets and cauldrons were made by the same insular craftsmen, or at least in the same workshops. Both types are found 11

Chapter 2: Development of bronzeworking in Ireland. Although currently unfashionable, the idea of Mediterranean trade links should not be dismissed (see Burgess 1991). Greek and Phoenician commercial activity in the Western Mediterranean was thriving in the early centuries of the final millennium B.C. The Phoenicians had a settlement at Cadiz on the Atlantic coast of southern Spain (Eogan 1990, 160). From here voyages might have been quite easily undertaken to these islands, where a high price might have been available for exotic Mediterranean metalwork such as cauldrons. Indeed, Class B cauldrons in Ireland may have their best parallels in sheet-bronze cauldrons of Late Bronze Age date in north-west Iberia (Eogan 1990, 160-2). Also, the finding of Irish, or at least insular, types in Iberia, such as the penannular bronze bracelet with evenly expanded hollow terminals from near Porto, the spearhead with lunate openings in the blade from Huelva harbour, or the basal-looped spearhead in a hoard from San Esteban del Rio, further strengthen the possibility of such Atlantic trade-routes, as does the remarkable find of the skull of a Barbary Ape (Macaca sylvanus) at the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age site of Navan Fort (Waterman & Lynn 1997, 120-5).

associated as part of the Dowris hoard, Co. Offaly (Eogan 1983, no. 119). The Irish smiths became adept in a number of new metalworking techniques during the Dowris Phase. Firstly, the Irish smiths became adept in the repair technique of ‘casting-on’, where molten metal was used to fuse a new tang onto broken swords (Tylecote 1986, fig. 66). While widely practised by the smiths of the Wilburton industry, this does not seem to have been adopted in Ireland until an advanced stage of the Late Bronze Age. To emphasize this, only one Class 3 sword features ‘casting-on’, while the technique is known from about seventy Class 4 swords (Eogan 1965, 5). Irish smiths also started to use lead as a very definite component in their bronze during the Dowris phase. This had, again, been widely used in south England in the Wilburton Period. Thus we see that the English smiths were probably responsible for introducing these innovations, and this also emphasizes the importance of Britain as a channel for continental imports and ideas during the Late Bronze Age. In the manufacture and repair of bronze objects solder was now commonly used. The new sheet-bronze vessels, and also the few shields known from Ireland, show the adeptness reached by Irish smiths, some of the sheet used being beaten as thin as half a millimetre or less (Gerloff 1986, 86). The production of the Irish bronze horns shows an incredible level of skill in the area of carrying out cored casting. These, and perhaps other unrecognized technical advances, contributed to the vast increase in output which is evident in the Dowris Phase, especially through the huge amount of hoarding which took place, including the vast deposits from Dowris (Eogan 1983, no. 119) and Mooghaun (ibid. no. 58). Some of the tools used to fabricate the metalwork of this period can be seen in what must be a smiths hoard from Lusmagh, Co. Offaly (Catalogue 9. 4).

2. 5. The End of the Bronze Age. A small but significant influx of Hallstatt C material into Ireland after about 700 B.C. was accompanied by a slow and gradual extinction of the Dowris Phase as the apparently slow transition to iron use was begun.

In this period the pattern of the Bishopsland phase is reproduced, in that the objects that developed out of continental prototypes are, with the exception of swords, largely ornaments and other non-utilitarian types. The main difference is that in the Bishopsland Phase north European influences came by way of southern England, with the Somerset area acting as a centre of secondary diffusion. During the Dowris phase no such centre existed and such connections must have been more direct. As the southern English relationships at this time were predominantly west European, first Wilburton and then Carp’s Tongue complex, the route from the north of Europe most likely bypassed this area in the Dowris phase.

The most important Hallstatt C arrival was the Class 5 sword based on the continental Gündlingen type (Eogan 1965, 13-15). This is distinguished by its long, slender form, as well as the deep V-shaped notch in its terminal. It was accompanied by three varieties of chape, a boatshaped chape and two winged types; one with outstretched wings, the other with drooping wings, all of which are part of Eogan’s Class 4 type (1965 appendix B, 170). These types probably came from the continent via south-east Britain. A number of objects in the Welsh Llyn Fawr hoard can be paralleled at the Hallstatt cemetery of Court-Saint-Etienne in Belgium (Fox and Hyde 1939; Megaw & Simpson et al. 337), while other types in this hoard, such as the iron sickle, may have an Irish origin. Hallstatt C material may have reached Ireland by way of Wales, and the presence of Sompting and Breton type axes may indicate continued contact with southern Britain through this route. The appearance of Hallstatt C material in Britain is conventionally set in the seventh century B.C. (ibid. 331).

The starting point for the west European influences in the Dowris Phase would have been the Carp’s Tongue complex of south-east England and its wider province of north-west France. From Britain the types could have filtered over by various routes. The Llangwyllog and Ty Mawr hoards from Anglesey, with their southern English types, might mean that this was an important area of contact.

Because the Hallstatt swords and chapes have not been found in association with other types, those who utilized them may have been a group set apart from the Dowris society and its way of life. Eogan feels that this hypothesis gains support from the compositional analysis of seven swords of Classes 5 and 6 (ApSimon in Eogan 1965, 1823). The results have demonstrated the reappearance of bronzes with a low lead content, as distinct from the more 12

Chapter 2: Development of bronzeworking in Ireland. might, on the strength of the available evidence, agree that:

heavily leaded Dowris bronzes. Scott (1990) suggests that upheaval in socio-economic and political spheres were instrumental in aborting the first experiments with iron in a truly Later Bronze Age industrial setting. Also, the influence of intrusive Class 5 swords on some subclasses of Class 4 swords, leading to the development of the hybrid Class 6 type, shows the continuation of the bronze industry after the arrival of Hallstatt types. Other examples, such as an iron horse bit associated with a Dowris type bronze chisel and copper alloy knob-headed pin of Hallstatt type found at Aughinish, Co. Limerick further demonstrate this phenomenon of the two traditions running side by side (Kelly 1974, 21, no. 25), as does a similar use of both metals at Rathtinaun crannog, Co. Sligo, (Raftery 1994, 34-5).

The best conclusion which can be drawn in the light of present evidence is that knowledge of iron technology arrived here through foreign visitors and Irish metalworkers returning from southern and western Britain and France (Scott 1990, 59).

Continental Hallstatt C culture, with its well-armed and mounted warrior class, is absent from Britain, as it is in Ireland. Some pieces, such as a bracelet from a hoard at Kilmurry, Co. Kerry (Raftery 1984, fig. 2), may indicate a direct continental link. This penannular bronze bracelet, with bulbous terminals and bands of transverse body decoration, is a type common from Hallstatt contexts in Alsace, France. The Dunaverney flesh-hook has often been considered as a Hallstatt C import on the basis of the water-fowl on its shaft (ibid. 8-9), but the flesh-hook was, as we have seen, present in the native Late Bronze Age (Eogan 1983, 36-8; Hencken 1942, 11-2), albeit in a simpler form, so this is unsure. There are a number of bronzes repaired using iron, as well as skeuomorphisms of bronze types copied in iron which may represent the first attempts of Irish smiths to come to terms with the new metal. A bronze bucket from Derrymacash, Co. Armagh features secondary patches secured with iron rivets, as has a Class B cauldron from Lisdrumturk, Co. Monaghan. The iron axes from Toome Bar, Co. Antrim and Lough Mourne, Co. Down (Raftery 1984, fig. 4; 1 & 2) are forged in the style of Late Bronze Age axes of looped and socketed type. Metallographic examination has shown a certain degree of inexperience in the manner in which these axes were forged, suggesting that the smiths were not yet comfortable working with this new medium. The cauldron from Drumlane, Co. Cavan, is of sheet iron, but fashioned in the multi-tier fashion of bronze ‘Atlantic’ cauldrons (Scott 1990, 58). It has been observed that the timelag in developing irontechnology after its arrival in Ireland is unusual, given the speed with which Irish Late Bronze Age society generally picked up technical advances from Britain and the continent. Hallstatt C type artefacts recovered in Ireland have a distributional tendency to cluster around the rivers Shannon and Bann, both of which give access to large, easily worked iron-ore deposits and as a result of this have been linked on occasion with prospecting activities by invasive groups (e.g. Burgess 1974, 213). However, it seems more likely that this riverine distribution results from the continuation of the Late Bronze Age practice of deliberately depositing weaponry in wet contexts. We

13

Chapter 3: The artifactual evidence for Late Bronze Age bronze-fabrication in Ireland although ritual was most likely involved with scraphoarding to a greater or lesser extent, the economic or industrial considerations are seen here as probably being the primary motivation behind such activity. Nonetheless, this can only be the case where such deposits are rigorously examined before classification as ‘scraphoards’. These hoards are usually identified on the basis of the fragmentary or unfinished nature of their component artifacts. However, the motivation behind their deposition is usually unclear.

The artifacts dealt with in this chapter have been divided and discussed under headings corresponding to those in the accompanying catalogue. These are: (1) Scrap hoards. (3) Clay crucible remains. (5) Bronze mould. (7) Casting jets. (9) Metalworking tools.

(2) Raw metal/ingots. (4) Stone moulds. (6) Clay moulding remains. (8) Wooden patterns.

Each category is discussed under several different subheadings, covering context, chronology, range, technology, form and distribution. Two of these subheadings may be discussed together where the character of the evidence makes this desirable.

3.1.1. Context. If these hoards were intended for recycling then we must assume that they were intended for recovery. If recovery was intended then we might expect the hoards to have been deposited in a location where recovery would have been relatively easy (see Bradley 1990, table 1). We can therefore expect dry-land find contexts to predominate, as opposed to the wet contexts which are the most frequent place of deposition for hoards of votive and/or funerary type. Of the thirteen scrap-hoards considered here, eight are of known provenance and seven of these are from dry-land locations (see Table 3.1). The hoard from Cooga, Co. Sligo, which was recovered from a cutaway bog, is the exception here, but there are other reasons to believe recovery was intended in this case (namely a marker stone). Also, we cannot be sure that this area was under peat in the Later Bronze Age.

3.1 Scrap Hoards. The accompanying catalogue lists thirteen possible scrap or founders hoards of Late Bronze Age date. Because of its very nature, recycling is a process which is predominantly invisible in the archaeological record. Thus, the modest number of scrap hoards should not be taken to be indicative of the scale of metal recycling in Late Bronze Age Ireland, which clearly must have been on a significant scale if one considers the quantities of bronzes artifacts recovered from that period. The small number of scrap hoards which have remained in the ground are those which, for whatever reason, were not retrieved by their owners and the number actually recovered is in turn only a small percentage of the former. Most of the scrap collections considered here are of Dowris Phase date, which is not surprising given that there are over 130 metalwork hoards assigned to this period, in comparison with approximately 25 from the Bishopsland Phase (Eogan 1983; Cooney and Grogan 1994, fig 8:10). There are only two possible scrap hoards from the intermediate Roscommon Phase (as discussed in Chapter 2 above, the status of the latter as a valid metalworking phase is questionable in any case).

Another factor in scrap hoard identification is the frequent occurrence of some type of marker over the findspot. Six of the eight provenanced hoards appear to have been marked in some fashion. Three were located under large boulders or glacial erratics. The Cooga hoard (Cat. 1. 10), despite its wet context, was one of these marked by a rock and was thus probably intended for recovery. The hoard from Ballyvadden, Co. Wexford (Cat. 1.1) lay beneath a large flat slab, but whether the slab itself lay above or below the surface is unclear from the available information. The hoard from Teernagloghane, Co. Clare (Cat. 1. 2) was supposedly found in the bank of a ringfort. Clearly, this positioning is difficult to accept, as it implies the pre-existence of an Early Medieval monument type before the deposition of a Bronze Age hoard. It is possible that a prehistoric enclosure was misidentified here. At any event, this positioning may recall the large scrap hoard from Petters Sports Field, Egham, Surrey which was also buried in an earthwork, albeit a ditch in this case, which would aid identification of the place of deposition (O’Connell 1986, 13-4). The hoard from Money Lower, Co. Laois (Cat. 1. 6) may also have originally been placed in an earthwork. It was found below the surface of a field, but the museum record states it may originally be from an ancient bank which was levelled before the find was made.

That unfinished or damaged artifacts may, at times, constitute a ritual deposit not intended for recovery is accepted. A spearhead recovered at Fengate in the Flag Fen complex, Cambridgeshire is a good example of this (Pryor 1991, 117). One of many ritually deposited bronzes at that site, although partially sharpened the spearhead was nonetheless incomplete, the socket still being blocked with the moulding core of clay. The context of this example also makes it clear that single finds of broken or unfinished bronzes, and not just hoards of such, may be non-utilitarian in intent. The notion of all Bronze Age hoards, including all ‘scrap-hoards’, being primarily ritual in nature, as proposed by some authors (e.g. Randsborg 1995, 109) has been noted. That said, 14

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Table 3. 1: Possible scrap-hoards of Late Bronze Age date in Ireland (based on information in Eogan 1983).

condition, as well as casting by-product (in the form of casting jets). This hoard – though nowhere near as large as the vast examples from Mooghaun, Co. Clare and Dowris, Co. Offaly – stands out in terms of its size. Most Irish hoards, including those listed here, conform to the pattern shared with Scottish hoards in their modest size. This small size also makes the identification of scraphoards difficult, as the statistical chances of all artifacts in a small hoard being damaged during discovery or through corrosive soil action are obviously higher in a small hoard than in a large one.

3.1.2. Chronology. Only one of the thirteen listed hoards is securely dated to the Bishopsland Phase, namely that from Drumnakelly, Co. Armagh (Cat. 1. 1), commonly known as the ‘Annesborough’ hoard. It is unsurprising that this consists mainly of ornaments (bronze bracelets and torcs), as this is the norm for the hoards of this period so far recovered. Indeed, this deposit is one of only three or four hoards of this period which does not contain gold ornaments. The only non-ornamental artifact in the Drumnakelly hoard is a damaged palstave. The ‘North of Ireland’ hoard (Cat. 1. 13) may also be included here. Originally assigned to the Roscommon Phase (Eogan 1964, 289), this date was subsequently revised to the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the early Bishopsland Phase (Eogan 1983, 198-9). The presence in the hoard of a flanged axe with stopridge might be seen to justify this reassessment. Also of note is the socket-looped spearhead with leaf-shaped blade, which is a rare type in Ireland, being more typical of the British series. However, the integrity of the associations in this hoard may be regarded as dubious.

The hoard from Youghal, Co. Cork (Cat. 1. 3) has been dated to the ninth or eighth centuries B.C., a time coinciding with the end of the Roscommon Phase and the beginning of the Dowris Phase. This dating is based on the presence in the hoard of two V-butted Class 3 swords (Eogan 1965, 168). The other nine hoards containing possible scrap material may all be safely assigned to the Dowris Phase proper. The hoard from ‘near Athlone’ (Cat. 1. 12) consists purely of intrusive Class 5 Hallstatt swords, but Eogan sees no reason why these should not have been in use in Ireland by 600 B.C. at the latest (Eogan 1965, 15). Between them these hoards contain most of the main types of tool and weapon in use during the Dowris Phase (see Table 3. 2). Ornaments are notably rare, the only occurrence being a sunflower pin in the hoard from Park, Co. Meath, a fact which fits in well with the postulated non-ceremonial nature of these hoards. Ornaments are identified as a feature associated more often with wet context ceremonial deposition in Europe (Bradley 1990, table 1; Eogan 1982, 10), but are not commonly found in wet locations in the Irish Later Bronze Age. Socketed axes and rings are the most frequently occurring artifacts

During the Roscommon phase, the most important hoard is the eponymous deposit (Cat., 1. 9) which is the only Irish hoard to fit into the series of Wilburton period founders hoards, as exemplified by the Isleham hoard, Cambridgeshire (Britton 1960) which contained over 6500 pieces of bronze. The Roscommon hoard was said to have originally consisted of over 200 pieces and weighed over 16 lb (7.26 kg) (Day 1879-82, 265-6). All the broad categories of bronze artifact are represented (see Table 3. 1), with the exception of rings, which are a Dowris Phase development. The contents of the hoard included socketed axes, swords, spearheads, long tongueshaped chapes and scabbards, all in a fragmentary 15

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Table 3.2: Possible scrap-hoards of the Dowris Phase: Breakdown of artefact types represented (based on information in Eogan 1983).

For instance, 85% of hoards containing bronze horns had no other artifact types in them, and nine of the ten known find locations of these hoards are in bogs (Eogan 1983, 10-1; Cooney & Grogan 1994, 163-5). No other bronze artifact category is nearly so exclusive in its deposition, with ornaments coming a distant second (45% exclusive). From this, we might point to the heterogeneity of hoards as another indicator of a non-ceremonial purpose. Six out of the thirteen hoards listed have three or more of the five identified categories represented within them (see Table 3. 1).

in the Dowris Phase scrap hoards, with swords and spearheads also frequent.

3.1.3. Range. As noted by several authors (Levy 1982; Bradley 1990), tools generally form a large element of non-ritual hoards. In the Irish record this is the only category of bronzes of which a greater proportion occurs in dry-land hoards than those from wet contexts (see Fig. 3. 1). Given this, we might expect scrap hoards, which are also a mainly dryland phenomenon, to contain a relatively large element of tools. From Table 3. 1 it can be seen that tools are present in ten of the thirteen hoards listed and that they predominate in four of these.

Two of the hoards, both unprovenanced examples, have only weapons represented. On this basis we must cast doubt on their authenticity as non-ceremonial scrap hoards. The Youghal, Co. Cork (Cat. 1. 3) hoard consists of two swords and two spearheads, all damaged. The fact that it contains only weapons may suggest that it is the result of riverine deposition (Bradley 1984, 100; 1990, 110) and the position of Youghal at the mouth of the Munster Blackwater River may be significant. The other exclusive weaponry hoard is that from ‘near Athlone’ (Cat. 1. 12), consisting of four Class 4 Hallstatt swords, three of which are fragmentary and the other slightly damaged. These were “said to be found with several other swords, upon an ancient battlefield near Athlone” (Wilde 1861 445-6, 471). On this basis it is difficult to suggest a riverine context for these swords, unless a fording place, perhaps of the Shannon, is in question. Indeed, such crossing places have been seen by some authors as a possible focus for inter-tribal conflicts (e.g. Mallory & McNeill 1991, 139). At any rate, Wilde’s information is clearly second hand and may well be incorrect. On the basis of this evidence these two hoards are more likely to be ritual deposits than scrap-hoards. The only other possible scrap hoard with no tools is that from Money Lower, Co. Laois. However, the presence of a biconical casting jet among the material suggests this hoard was intended for recycling.

Fig. 3.1: Comparison of the contexts of Dowris phase hoards defined by the principle artifact types represented (after Cooney & Grogan 1994).

It has been suggested that there may be a link between ceremonial deposits in wet contexts and the relative exclusivity of the material represented in these hoards.

To conclude as regards artifact range, if we understand scrap hoards to be collections of broken and worn-out 16

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts bronzes due for recycling, then we cannot expect the presence or absence of particular types to result from any deliberate organization of the material for social or ideological reasons, as is the case with some hoard types. Rather, we would expect their content to reflect those artifacts which were most commonly used in the period, particularly those which were subject to severe strain during use. The predominance of axeheads, swords and spearheads in the listed hoards (see Table 3. 2), if not that of the more enigmatic rings, suggests that this is the correct interpretation. Future research, especially in the area of use and wear analysis, may help answer this question. Although swords and spearheads are represented nearly as often as axeheads and rings, the possible ritual nature of the Youghal (Cat. 1. 3) and ‘near Athlone’ (Cat. 1. 12) finds, as indicated by their composition and possible riverine context, may imply that an exaggerated picture of the frequency of weapons in scrap hoards is being presented.

3. 2. 1. Context.

3.1.4. Distribution.

The Bog of Cullen, Co. Tipperary is said to have produced ingots and “unwrought bronze” (Pownall 1775, 355). There is no surviving description of this material, but we may be reasonably sure, from the amounts of gold and bronze artifacts recovered from the bog, that it was the focus of exceptionally intense votive deposition.

Of the nine finds considered in this section, five constitute part of a hoard. Two of these, Cooga, Co. Sligo and the ‘Roscommon’ hoard, have been previously dealt with (see Section 3. 1). Two more may, on the balance of evidence, be considered as votive in nature. The wellknown hoard from Dowris, Co. Offaly contained a number of definite ritual bronze types, such as horns and crotals. Though recovered from a relatively dry context in the last century, the find spot is on low-lying, poorly drained land between two small lakes (Lough Coora and Paddock Lake) and may have been underwater in the Late Bronze Age. The find spot of the Derrinboy, Co. Offaly hoard was some 4 metres deep in a bog. The thick copper wire from the hoard is included here, but all the other objects in this hoard were gold ornaments. The fact that these ornaments were placed within the coil of copper wire at the time of discovery may suggest a formal spatial organization of the material, as recognized in some votive hoards.

Because there are so few definite scrap hoards, it is difficult to derive much information from their distribution (see Fig. 3. 2). There seems to be a vague concentration in the central Midlands area which mirrors that of Dowris Phase hoards in general (Eogan 1983, Fig. 2). Unfortunately, on the basis of current knowledge no connection can be made between these hoards and the Late Bronze Age settlement record.

The small piece of solid bronze rod and forty short pieces of fine bronze wire from Bishopsland, Co. Kildare form part of the well-known craftsman’s hoard. This was found buried 46 cm below the surface on a steep dryland slope and was probably intended for recovery.

A further problem is that the distribution of single scrapped bronzes cannot be plotted. An attempt to isolate a category of unfinished and/or scrapped bronzes was initially attempted by the author, but the identification and definition of such objects proved problematic. In the absence of contextual information it is usually impossible to say whether or not a single broken object was intended to be scrapped subsequently (i.e. melted down and reused). The hoards from Youghal, Co. Cork and ‘near Athlone’ have been included in this map for purposes of discussion, but because they are judged more likely to be votive deposits will not be included in distributional analyses in Chapter 6.

Two of the finds included here are from excavated occupation sites. The ‘waste’ bronze from Site F, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick was found associated with clay mould fragments under an earthen bank. This deposit lay in a hollow, 65 cm in diameter and 12 cm in depth, excavated in the original ground surface and pre-dating the bank (Ó Ríordáin 1954, 420-2). At Rathgall, Co. Wicklow (Raftery 1971, 297) bronze ‘waste’ and two small bars of bronze, possibly ingots, were found in the vicinity of a large rectangular Late Bronze Age house structure, which was also the centre of casting operations on site, as attested by the recovery here of over 2000 clay mould fragments.

3. 2. Raw Metal / Ingots. A final object here, the plano-convex ingot provenanced only to Co. Galway (Cat. 2. 1), has no known find circumstances.

This section deals with finds of non-scrap raw metals intended for use in the fabrication of bronze artifacts. Included below are the amorphous fragments of ‘waste’ bronze, which are a by-product of the casting process. This title is a misnomer, as the inclusion of such fragments in hoards, such as the famous example from Dowris, Co. Offaly (Cat. 2. 3), indicates careful collection and storage of these bronze ‘splashings’ for recycling.

3. 2. 2. Range & Chronology. Although we are dealing here with a limited number of finds, the chronological range is relatively wide, across the entire Late Bronze Age period (see Table 3. 3). From 17

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Fig. 3. 2: Distribution of L.B.A. scrap hoards in Ireland. Open symbol indicates hoard provenanced only to county.

18

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Table 3.3: Raw metal / ingots of Late Bronze Age date in Ireland.

of these bear some similarity of form to the plano-convex ingot from Co. Galway, which is undated but may well be Bronze Age.

the Bishopsland Phase we have portions of rod, ‘waste’ bronze and two grades of wire. The portion of rod from the Bishopsland hoard itself may, admittedly, be part of some implement such as a graver, but could equally be considered as part of a small form of ingot. The forty pieces of wire from this hoard are very fine (averaging 0.5 mm. in diameter) and it is difficult to see how they might have been utilized, no bronze artifact of this period showing the use of such wire. Possibly these wires may have been used as chaplets for maintaining core position while casting socketed implements in stone or clay moulds.

The plano-convex ingot from the Cooga hoard is dated to the Dowris Phase through its association with socketed axes and part of a Class 4 sword. The pointed oval shape of this ingot is unusual and may be bronze allowed to partially or fully solidify in a crucible (see Section 3. 3. 3). The ‘waste’ bronze in the Dowris hoard is obviously dateable to this period through its hoard associations. A Dowris Phase date is suggested for the bars and ‘waste’ from Rathgall by the radiocarbon dates for that site (see Section 4. 2. 2), the presence of a socketed gouge in the same habitation layer as them, and also by the nature of the object types represented in many of the clay mould fragments from this site.

In another Bishopsland Phase hoard, that from Derrinboy, Co. Offaly, copper wire of a very thick diameter (5 mm.) is present. Eogan notes that a seam runs along the whole length of the wire (1983, 42-3), suggesting the possibility that it was made by bending a heated strip over itself and hammering it, rather than by forcing the heated strip through a draw-plate. There are no Late Bronze Age finds of draw-plates from Ireland and the earliest British example would seem to be that from the Isleham hoard (Britton 1960, 281). Eogan also suggests that the Derrinboy wire may be an unfinished ornament, and cites parallels in the hoards from Cappeen, Co. Cork and Towednack, Cornwall (1964, 277). However, the fact that this wire is of pure copper may suggest it was intended to be melted down and alloyed to produce bronze.

The now-lost ingots and “unwrought bronze” from the bog of Cullen are impossible to date definitively, having no known associations. It seems likely from the literary evidence that this bog was utilized as an opferplatz over an extended period of time. However, we may tentatively suggest a Late Bronze Age date, given that a sword recovered from the bog was of probable Class 4 type (Eogan 1965, no. 611). Later activity here may be attested by two Gundlingen swords (Eogan Class 5) supposedly from this location (Eogan 1983, 155).

As regards the ‘waste’ bronze from Site F, Lough Gur, some of the clay mould fragments associated with this were from matrices for casting socket- and possibly basallooped spearheads, as well as Burgess’ Group 4 rapiers with notched butts. This suggests a date between the late Middle Bronze Age and the end of the Bishopsland Phase for this material.

3. 2. 3. Distribution. As with scrap hoards, there is little to be observed from distribution patterns with so few examples known. These are quite evenly distributed between Connaught, Leinster and North Munster, with absences of material in the north and south-west of the country (Fig. 3. 3).

The ‘Roscommon’ hoard itself contained several fragments of bronze rod of D-shaped cross-section. Two 19

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Fig. 3. 3: Distribution of raw materials and waste of L.B.A. date in Ireland.

20

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Table 3.4: Late Bronze Age crucible remains in Ireland.

small crucible fragment of similar cross-section (Ó Ríordáin, 1946, fig 20, 33).

3. 3. Clay Crucible Remains. This section examines evidence for the use of crucibles in which copper and tin were melted, alloyed and possibly smelted for casting of bronze into both stone and clay moulds. These crucibles were manufactured using clays containing a high level of comminuted refractory rock. The purpose of this was to give heat-resistance sufficient to withstand the temperatures of above 1100°C involved in the bronze casting process. There is no evidence that any other material other than fired clay was used to make Late Bronze Age crucibles in Ireland.

At Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone drainage uncovered three areas of timber piling, which were subsequently excavated. A small number of clay crucible fragments were recovered on Site B (Cat. 3. 5), mostly from layer 2, which seems to have been an occupation layer (Williams 1978, fig. 5). During excavations at Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin some 40 fragments of crucible were found and 34 of these are of Late Bronze Age type (Cat. 3. 1). These were from Site 5, which lies within a promontory fort at the north-western end of the island. There is no definite information on the exact position of these fragments, but they came from the ‘black layer’ which at different levels contained both the Late Bronze Age and Early Christian material (Liversage 1968, 59-61). This layer also contained some 140 clay mould fragments.

3. 3. 1. Context. All known Late Bronze Age crucible remains in Ireland have been recovered as the result of archaeological excavation, as appears to be the general case elsewhere. Seven sites of this period have produced crucible remains, with all bar one being settlements (Table 3. 4).

Crucible fragments from Rathgall hillfort, Co. Wicklow came from the Late Bronze Age habitation area just outside the inner ditch, in the eastern cutting (Cat. 3. 6). These were found among over 2000 clay mould fragments from the hearth area at the western end of the rectangular house structure (Raftery 1971, 297).

The only crucible evidence not directly associated with habitation comes from the Lough Gur wedge-tomb (Cat. 3. 4), close to the Late Bronze Age settlement at Knockadoon (Ó Ríordáin 1954). While excavation details are lacking, we do know that the small number (unspecified) of crucible fragments found here were from the western ante-chamber. This had an undisturbed fill of small, closely packed stones, in the upper layer of which lay two stone slabs (Ó Riordáin & Ó h-Iceadha 1955, 35, 44). Site D, Lough Gur, which forms part of the Late Bronze Age settlement complex on Knockadoon peninsula, also produced several small fragments of crucible (Cat. 3. 3). It is not stated exactly where on this site the crucible fragments were found. They are of similar fabric to clay mould fragments also found on this site and may have been found along with or adjacent to the latter at a depth of c.18 cm, just outside and to the north of House 1, which also produced a fragment of stone mould (Cat. 4. 49). Site C at Lough Gur produced a

A quantity of crucible fragments was recovered during the recent excavations at Dun Aengus, Aran, Co. Galway (Cat. 3. 2). On this site Hut 1 abuts the interior of the innermost stone rampart, some 15 m north of the cliff face (Cotter 1995, fig. 2). Two of the crucible fragments came from within this hut, where they were associated with domestic refuse. Several hundred clay mould fragments were also among the finds (see Section 3. 6 below). Clay crucible fragments from a recent excavation at Johnstown South, Co. Wicklow (Cat. 3. 7) were from a roughly circular loose ring of boulders c.35 metres in diameter tentatively identified as a type of ring-ditch.

21

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts The excavations at Johnstown South await final publication, but analysis of the bronze types cast in the moulds here – socketed axeheads, peg-hole spearheads and socketed hammerheads – likewise suggests a date in the Dowris Phase.

3. 3. 2. Chronology. The dating of these crucible finds is mostly dependent on context and artifact association, although three of the above sites have radiocarbon determinations.

The crucible material from Rathgall would also appear to be of Dowris Phase date. The bag-shaped looped and socketed axeheads represented in the moulds from this site are a type which do not appear in the Irish record before the Roscommon Phase. Also, the type of socketed gouge found in the occupation level here does not occur before 900 to 800 B.C. A date later than c.800 B.C. is suggested for Rathgall and this is backed up by the radiocarbon dates from the excavation which give an average date range of c.800 - 400 B.C. for this occupation phase (Raftery 1973a, 29).

The crucible material from Lough Gur wedge-tomb cannot be securely dated. The burial remains from this tomb have yielded a number of radiocarbon dates from the Beaker period up to the Middle Bronze Age (Brindley & Lanting 1991/2, 24). Although a fragment of a stone mould for casting socketed spearheads was found during this excavation, it lay several metres from the tomb itself and cannot be considered as associated with the crucible fragments. The pottery assemblage is no help either, as the excavator does not inform us of the stratigraphic relationship, if any, with the crucible sherds. If the crucible and mould fragment are coeval then a date no later than the Bishopsland Phase might be suggested on the basis of the stone mould (Cat. 4. 50), but such a connection cannot be safely assumed.

Several of the crucible fragments at Dun Aengus were found in Hut 1. A radiocarbon determination for a bone fragment from this structure yielded a dating range of 1208 - 906 B.C., contemporary with the Bishopsland or Roscommon phases. However, clay mould matrices for sunflower pins and bag-shaped socketed axes suggest that the main period of metallurgical activity was of Dowris Phase date. Radiocarbon dates from Hut 2 of between roughly 800 and 400 B.C. tend to confirm this.

At Site D, Lough Gur the crucible fragments were from the same occupation layer as both clay and stone mould remains. The clay mould fragments form part of the matrix for the blade and loop of a socketed spearhead. The blade appears to be leaf-shaped and there is a slight indication that the loop may be on the socket just below the blade. The stone mould is for the production of looped palstaves. This palstave type began use in the Middle Bronze Age and was still being manufactured in the Bishopsland Phase and possibly later. The socketlooped spearhead with leaf-shaped blade is a predominantly Middle Bronze Age type (Ramsey 1995, 53), so we may suggest a date towards the end of the second millennium B.C. for these crucible fragments. The similarity of the fragment from Site C to that at Site D may suggest a similar date for the former. However, the find of a socketed bronze axe with its casting seams partially hammered down at Site C (Ó Ríordáin 1954, fig. 28, 15) might otherwise suggest a later date in the final millennium B.C, as would the glass beads from that site.

On the strength of the evidence from the above sites, it can be clearly seen that the use of clay crucibles spans the entire length of the Irish Late Bronze Age.

3. 3. 3. Range and Technology. The Irish Late Bronze Age crucible material has tended to be seen in terms of two groups: (A) Crucibles of pointed oval form, which Tylecote terms his J1 type (1986, 96-7, fig. 50, nos. 23-4). The material from Dalkey Island, Rathgall and Dun Aengus, as well as the majority of the Johnstown South fragments, fit this category.

A timber from the foundation piling of the lake-side platform, at Lough Eskragh, Site B, where crucible fragments were recovered, gave a radiocarbon date of 1584 - 1113 B.C. (see Appendix on Radiocarbon dates), indicating that the platform may have been constructed during the Middle Bronze Age. The sword mould fragments associated with the crucible sherds are for Class 3 or 4 swords, suggesting a broad dating range of c. 1000 - 600 B.C.

(B) Crucibles represented by a number of small fragments with rounded rim and steeply curving sides which are judged to have been of small capacity (Ó Ríordáin 1954, 401). Their form has been suggested in one case as having been roughly hemispherical (Williams 1978, 45), although, in general, the surviving fragments are too small to give a good idea of this. The material from Lough Eskragh and both the wedge-tomb and Site D, Lough Gur fall into this category, as may several fragments from Johnstown South.

At Dalkey Island clay mould matrices include examples probably for casting the heads of sunflower pins (Liversage, 1968, 90, no. 2029) and the blade tip of socketed knives (ibid. 90, nos. 2537, 2627). Such material is typically Dowris Phase and thus a date between c.800 and 400 B.C. is also likely for the crucible fragments.

The J1 type of crucible is of a shape widely used in both the insular and continental Late Bronze Age. An early example of a similar form recovered at Troy (Hissarlik) IV was dated to c.2000 B.C. (Tylecote 1992, 24, Fig. 13).

22

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts exception of the crucible fragment from Mucking North Ring (Bond 1988, 22, fig. 14). One fragment from Johnstown South is tentatively suggested by this author to show signs of foot attached to its base. Despite its poor condition this fragment compares quite favorably with crucibles featuring legs from Dainton, Devon (see Needham 1980, fig. 4) and may represent the first evidence for the use of polypod crucibles in the Irish Bronze Age. Unlike the Rathgall crucible, those from Dalkey Island and Dun Aengus appear to have had a rounded base, in keeping with the usual J1 form. A feature evident in the fragments from the latter two sites, as well as Johnstown South, is the practice of relining crucibles before re-use, possibly after each melt. This probably served to prevent the contamination of new metal by slag or impurities adhering to the interior of the crucible after previous melting operations. Indeed, the presence of slag between the layers of added slip is notable at Dalkey Island (Liversage 1968, 185) and at Dun Aengus (personal examination). Such relining is also evident at a number of British sites including Runnymede Bridge (Needham 1991, 151), Dainton (Needham 1980, 186) and the Breiddin (Howard in Musson 1991, 223). Liversage suggests one fragment from Dalkey Island as part of a lid (1986, 91, fig. 21, No. 2650). It has been suggested that the heat loss from the J1 crucible type would have been so rapid that a lid would have been required (Tylecote 1962, 131-2). However, the fragment singled out by Liversage might, on appearance, just as easily be interpreted as a body fragment, and there is no archaeological proof for the use of a lid with the J1 type. The clay used in the most complete crucible from Rathgall appears to be of a different type from that used to make the moulds at the same site. This might indicate the preferential selection of clays of an exceptionally refractory nature for crucible production. On the other hand, the differences in fabric may result from different types and/or quantities of refractory materials being added to the crucible and mould clays. In terms of capacity, both the substantially reconstructed crucible from Rathgall and the projected reconstruction of a crucible from Dun Aengus (Cotter 1995, fig. 3) would appear to be of modest bowl size in comparison with some of the British material. For example, the reconstruction of crucible No. 225 from the Breiddin, which is calculated to have had a capacity of up to 1.5 kg of molten bronze (Tylecote & Biek in Musson 1991, 147). The Dainton crucibles would seem to have been of a similarly large capacity. However, this difference probably only reflects the survival of individual reconstructable crucibles rather than a general difference in crucible capacity between the two islands.

Pl. 3. 1: LEFT- Reconstructed clay crucible from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. RIGHT- Plano-convex ingot of bronze from Cooga, Co. Sligo.

Pl. 3. 2: Experimental clay mould for casting swords and its product.

In Britain they have been found at Dainton, Devon (Needham 1980, 184-91) and at the Breiddin hillfort, Powys (Tylecote & Biek in Musson 1991, 147-9). While in Britain this form occurs with both flat and rounded rims (Needham Classes I & II respectively), in Ireland only forms with rounded rims have so far been identified .

Evidence which may constitute other proof for the use of J1 type crucibles in Ireland comes in a more unusual form. The plano-convex ingot in the hoard from Cooga, Co. Sligo bears a very close resemblance in shape to the bowl of a J1 type crucible. Its maximum length and width are very close to those of the bowl of the reconstructed Rathgall crucible (see Pl. 3. 1). The hoard associations of this ingot place it in the Dowris Phase (see Section 3. 1.

The most complete crucible from Rathgall has a flat base, which is not a feature of the British material, with the 23

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts above two Irish examples, has the same relatively thin walls with little increase in thickness as the wall approaches the base (Gingell 1992, fig. 80).

2) contemporary with the known use period of these crucibles. The ingot could be interpreted as metal which was allowed to partially cool before the crucible was upended and the content removed. Although not of comparable size with the Cooga ingot, a lump of bronze was found attached to a large piece of crucible bowl at Runnymede Bridge (Needham 1991, 151, fig. 65, C1), showing that it might have been a common practice to allow such excess metal cool in the crucible. We might also recall a find reported to have been made in the Bog of Cullen in 1753 of “a lump of coarse brass, which weighed above a pound and seemed to have remained in the crucible after casting something” (Wallace 1938, 97). If this hypothesis is correct, we may suggest a more widespread pattern of use for these pointed oval crucibles than that indicated only by the recovered crucibles themselves. Such a suggestion is hardly unwarranted, given that all known Irish finds of J1 material were recovered during excavations. There is little which can be said with confidence about the second crucible group, due to the small quantity of fragments recovered and the relative lack of examination to which they have been subjected. The illustrated fragment from Lough Eskragh (Williams (1978, 44, fig. 8, B26) is noted as being similar to the fragments from Lough Gur (ibid. 47). However in the Lough Eskragh fragment, the crucible wall grows thinner as it approaches the base, while it grows thicker towards the base in both the Site D and wedge-tomb material from Lough Gur, which is a significant difference. To complicate matters further, although most of the material recovered at Johnstown South was of J1 type, several fragments from that site exhibit a broadly similar form to that from Lough Eskragh; thin walls which appear to remain constant in thickness.

Fig. 3. 4:. Crucible rim sections. TOP-Lough Gur, Site D, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin 1954). CENTRE- Lough Gur wedge tomb, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin & Ó h-Iceadha 1955). BOTTOM-Dun Aengus, Co. Galway (after Cotter 1992). Not to scale.

To reconsider the material from all three sites at Lough Gur, their rim sections are distinctly similar to that of the J1 type crucible from Dun Aengus (see Fig. 3. 4). Also, the Lough Gur fragments are too small to allow an accurate assessment of their original diameter, and hence their capacity. As a result of this, the suggestion that they were of exceptionally small capacity is unfounded. In any case, it has been noted above that none of the reconstructed J1 crucibles from Ireland are very large. Any noted difference between these assemblages in terms of fabric coloration and consistency is more likely to reflect local clay composition than different crucible design. To conclude regarding Group (B), the fragments from both Lough Gur sites could quite possibly be of J1 type, although another crucible form is by no means ruled out. The Lough Eskragh and Johnstown South fragments, then, are the only examples which are clearly of different form from the rest of the Irish Late Bronze Age crucible material. The latter has its closest insular parallel in an unstratified crucible fragment found in plough-soil at the Late Bronze Age site of Buderop Down, Wiltshire (Fig. 3. 5). This fragment, although not exactly similar to the

Fig. 3. 5: Crucible rim sections. TOP-Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone (after Williams 1978), BOTTOM-Buderop Down, Wiltshire (after Gingell 1992).

24

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts in a field”, which suggests the find was the result of ploughing or some similar activity.

We cannot be sure in all instances that the metal melted in these crucibles was bronze, although the general size of the J1 type would suggest that gold-working was not their purpose, and the J1 example from Runnymede Bridge mentioned above clearly contained bronze. The only currently available scientific analyses of Irish Late Bronze Age crucibles are from Dalkey Island (Liversage, 1968, appendix 7). A small piece of oxidized substance, probably slag, on a crucible fragment from this site was analyzed and found to contain 5-10 % copper and 3-5 % tin, while another such deposit was found to have a similar copper content. Neither test revealed any trace of precious metals, so we may assume fairly safely that these crucibles were used in copper-alloy metallurgy. Their consistent association with mould fragments for bronze objects tends to support this.

Of the Group B moulds only two bear any related contextual detail and these are both from Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. The larger part of one valve of a palstave mould was found during Ó Ríordáin’s excavations at Knockadoon in the late 1930s (Cat. 4. 49). The two fragments, which fitted together, were recovered at Site D. One came from within a stone hut (House 1), the other lay just outside to the north-east. Both occurred near the top of a stony deposit which lay under the humus. Also found at House 1 were clay moulds and crucible fragments. The portion of one valve of a mould for casting leaf-shaped spearheads came to light during excavations at the Lough Gur wedge-tomb in 1938 (Cat. 4. 50). It was discovered “just under the sod, south of the monument, at a distance of 9 feet (2.6 m.) from the west end of the south wall” (Ó Ríordáin & Ó h-Iceadha 1955, 44). There is no proven stratigraphic relationship between the wedge-tomb itself and this mould fragment, nor indeed with the clay crucible fragments from the site (see Section 4. 5. 1).

3. 3. 4. Distribution. The distribution of Late Bronze Age clay crucibles in Ireland (Fig. 3. 6) in isolation only reflects the excavation of contemporary settlement sites with metalworking evidence.

The other three moulds, for casting a looped palstave and blade (Cat. 4. 52), unlooped palstave (Cat. 4. 51), and rapier (Cat. 4. 53) respectively, are entirely lacking in contextual detail and are provenanced only to Ireland.

3. 4. Stone Moulds. In this section nine stone moulds in all are considered. Four of these, forming Group A are considered to be of definite Late Bronze Age date. A further five, Group B, could fall on either side of the arbitrary division between the Middle Bronze Age and the Bishopsland Phase. The reasons for the selection of the moulds in Group B will be dealt with in Section 3.4.2.

3. 4. 2. Chronology. None of the moulds in either Group A or B have any associated radiocarbon determinations. The Lough Gur palstave mould is the only example directly associated with other archaeological material. However, its recovery was prior to the development of radiocarbon dating. The dating of all this material must therefore depend on relative techniques.

3. 4. 1. Context.

Of the Group A material, three of the four moulds are for casting socketed axeheads with rib decoration. All three feature a thick collar around the socket mouth and feature multiple longitudinal ribs. The mould from Ballydaw, Co. Kilkenny (Cat. 4. 45), and that provenanced only to Ireland (Cat. 4. 48), show strong links with Sompting type axes. This type is defined as massive with narrow mouth, deep collar and trapezoidal blade with broad edge (Burgess 1974, 214). Up to four horizontal ribs may be present below the collar. Complex ornament is common, usually comprising longitudinal ribs with pellets and ring and dot motifs.

The contextual information for Irish Bronze Age stone moulds is, in general, poor and this is exceptionally the case with these Late Bronze Age moulds. Of the four moulds in Group A, two have no information whatsoever regarding discovery circumstances attached to them. These are one valve of a mould for casting ribbed, socketed axes (Cat. 4. 48) and both valves of a mould for casting leaf-shaped peg-hole spearheads (Cat. 4. 47). They are provenanced only to Ireland and the “north of Ireland” respectively. The discovery of both valves of a mould for looped and socketed axes with ribs on the socket from Ballydaw, Co. Kilkenny (Cat. 4. 45) is recorded only as being found in a “bog, about four feet (1.2 m.) below the surface”. One valve of a mould for the casting of an exotic looking double-looped axehead was found at Fethard, Co. Wexford (Cat. 4. 46). This was supposedly discovered “lying upon the surface of some recently broken-up land

Both the Ballydaw and ‘Ireland’ moulds bear the characteristic horizontal ribs below the collar. On the Ballydaw mould the longitudinal ribs, of which there are six, terminate in round pellets. The other mould, which appears to have been subjected to severe erosion, is too worn to distinguish whether pellets were present. The apparent absence of a loop may also be due to erosion, 25

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Fig. 3. 6: Distribution of L.B.A. clay crucible remains in Ireland.

26

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Fig. 3. 7: LEFT- Bivalve stone mould for socketed axes from Ballydaw, Co. Kilkenny (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). RIGHT- Socketed axe of Sompting Type, Wyburn Estate, Yorkshire (after Burgess & Gerloff 1981). Not to scale.

Fig. 3. 8: Two bivalve stone moulds for Sompting Type axes, Rosskeen, Ross & Cromarty (after Burgess and Gerloff 1981).

Fig. 3. 9: Longitudinal sections of moulds. LEFT- Ballydaw, Co. Kilkenny. CENTRE & RIGHT- Rosskeen, Ross & Cromarty.

Sompting type axes are present in Ireland but are not common and have not been found in association with other artifacts (Hodges 1956, 31). Their main area of distribution is East Anglia and its surroundings (O’Connor 1980, 234). Associations in the Cardiff, Llyn Fawr and Sompting hoards suggest a date in the final Late Bronze Age, contemporary with introduced Hallstatt C material. Their relative rarity and lack of association in Ireland makes a more precise date difficult to formulate. A date of c.500 B.C. or shortly thereafter seems reasonable for the two Irish moulds discussed above.

but personal examination suggests this is not the case, and that the axes cast in this mould would genuinely have lacked a loop (an unusual absence). The general body shape of the axes produced in these moulds is also compatible with the Sompting type, the Ballydaw mould being best paralleled by an axe from Wyburn Estate, Yorkshire (see Fig. 3. 7). The general shape and dowel arrangements in these two Irish moulds are also very similar to Sompting axe moulds from Rosskeen, Ross & Cromarty (see Figs. 3. 8 & 3. 9).

27

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts phase peg-hole spearheads from hoards, e.g. Knockdoo, Co. Roscommon (ibid. fig. 814; 4) and the Dowris hoard itself (ibid. fig. 66-7;16, 17, 27, 32). One possibility is that the product of this mould were basal-looped spearheads with loops as a continuation of the blade, although the simple rounded midrib makes this unlikely. Unusually large socket-looped leaf-shaped spearheads cannot be ruled out either. However, it is most likely that this mould produced spearheads of Late Bronze Age peghole type.

The third socketed axe mould, that from Fethard, Co. Wexford (Cat. 4. 46), is unusual, and the exotic looking axe represented in its matrix is a type which has not been found in Ireland or Britain. The matrix features five longitudinal ribs and round pellets linked by chevrons. The absence of horizontal ribs below the collar, the twin opposing loops and its more squat shape distinguish it from the Sompting type axes. The twin dowel arrangement below the cutting edge is also a feature which is unparalleled in the insular mould material. A mould from Bulford Water, Wiltshire also bears a matrix for an axe with two opposing loops, but this was an axe clearly of the Stogursey type, unrelated to the Fethard example (Needham 1981, 12-15). Frazer (1889) states that axes of similar type to that produced in this mould have been found in Iberia, but if such exist they do not appear in a recent corpus of Iberian axes (Monteagudo 1977). Under these circumstances it is hard to credit this mould as a genuine Irish – or even west European – Late Bronze Age find, the third or fourth-hand account of its discovery being in itself dubious (see Section 3. 4. 1). A strong possibility of antiquarian importation exists in connection with this mould and the date of this find therefore remains unclear.

The valve of a palstave mould from Site D, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (Cat. 4. 49) can be assigned to the Middle Bronze Age (Ó Ríordáin 1954, 449). This mould was stratigraphically associated with clay mould fragments for casting spearheads with loops just below the base of the blade. Although such spearheads are considered a Middle Bronze Age type, clay moulding techniques are generally considered to be a Late Bronze Age technique in Ireland. The stone palstave mould also has provision for clay (or possibly sand) additions for technical reasons (see Section 3. 4. 3). It is now clear that clay moulding was being carried out in England during the late Taunton or early Penard phase (c. 1200 -1100 B.C.) at Shaft 10, Grimes Graves, Norfolk (Needham et al. 1991, 154-71) and the evidence from Site F, Lough Gur suggests it was known in Ireland also during the same period. That the technique of moulding in clay had developed by the Middle Bronze Age is therefore highly likely, so use of clay additions is not definite proof of a Late Bronze Age date for the palstave mould. The looped palstave with shoe-stop produced in this mould is a developed type, which makes a date at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age a stronger prospect (see below).

The ‘north of Ireland’ mould, which is now lost but of which there is a plaster cast in the National Museum, was for casting leaf-shaped peg-hole spearheads (Cat. 4. 47). These would have been of the short, broad-bladed type which are well evidenced in hoards of the Dowris phase, e.g. Bootown Co. Antrim and Kinnegoe, Co. Armagh (Eogan 1983, PP. 50-1; 60-1, No.s 35 & 46, fig.s 17 & 21c). Two examples of this type of spearhead were also recovered from the Late Bronze Age settlement horizon at Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath (Bradley 1997, fig. 1). An unusual feature of this matrix is the gradual manner in which the lower end of the blade curves into the socket, a process which is far more abrupt in known Irish examples of this type of spearhead. In view of the unusual blade curvature – which might perhaps indicate an experimental prototype – and the use of stone for this mould, a date early in the Late Bronze Age, most likely the Bishopsland phase, is suggested.

The two palstave moulds provenanced only to Ireland are also of developed form, with a narrow body and slightly expanded blade represented in both matrices. One of these (Cat. 4. 51) has a similar shoe-stop to that on the Lough Gur mould. The chronology and evolution of palstave forms is currently poorly understood in Ireland (Ramsey 1995, 49). In their northern British corpus, Burgess and Schmidt deal with a significant number of imported palstaves of Irish origin (1981, 164-71). The latest group of these, Group D, contains two examples, both from Yorkshire (ibid. 170, nos. 970 & 973, pl. 69), which are comparable to those cast in the ‘Ireland’ mould (Cat. 4. 51). Burgess dates the Group D material from Britain to the Penard and Wilburton/Wallington phases, contemporary with the Bishopsland and Roscommon phases in Ireland. To allow for the time lag in filtering over to Britain, a date at the start of the Bishopsland phase or possibly even earlier is suggested for this mould and the axes cast in it. A palstave of similar form appears in the Bishopsland Hoard itself (Cat. 9. 2), and this seems to be the only associated example of the type in Ireland. The absence of provision for a loop on the mould in question (Cat. 4. 51) may indicate that it is unfinished, a suggestion supported by the lack of heat marking on the matrix. The other palstave mould (Cat. 4. 52) is of similar form except that the shoe-stop is less developed and a

As regards the Group B material, no distinction can be made in its dating between the final part of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Bishopsland phase, stressing again the arbitrary nature of this division. The fragment of a valve from the Lough Gur wedge tomb (Cat. 4. 50) produced leaf-shaped spearheads but is too small a piece to give definite identification of the exact type cast. The absence of ribs on the blade or midrib rules out most Middle Bronze Age forms. The rate of curve on the edge of the blade, which is too gradual for that of a protected loop spearhead, suggests a reasonably large specimen. A conjectural reconstruction drawing (Ó Ríordáin & Ó h-Iceadha 1955, fig. 6c) is similar to a spearhead in a Dowris phase hoard from Tullymore, Co. Donegal (Eogan 1983 fig. 39b). The thickness of the blade and the steep bevel to the blade edges, as seen in cross-section, is similar to that on a number of Dowris 28

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts its similar appearance and saccharoidal (sugary) texture. The mould for ribbed socketed axes provenanced only to Ireland (W. 85), though listed by Coughlan & Raftery as steatite, is clearly not so, nor any closely related stone type, and appears from visual analysis to be granite, therefore not fitting into either of the two previous categories. It is thus in a category of it’s own (Category Z). In any case, this small sample gives no indication of any correlation existing between the stone type chosen and either the chronological position of the moulds, the artifact type cast in them, or their geographical location. However, although not identifiable here, it seems likely that some such correlation did exist.

loop is present. The same parallels and dating may be applied to this example as to the previous mould. The rapiers which would have been cast in the final mould in Group B (Cat. 4. 53) have been tentatively assigned to Burgess’ Group 3 (Burgess & Gerloff 1981, appendix 1, no. 8). Group 3 rapiers began production in the latter part of the Middle Bronze Age and seem to have been a late survivor in Ireland. This is implied by their affinities, in some cases, with early sword types (see also ibid. 55, no. 395, pl. 51). This mould cannot be readily compared with any known rapier and seems heavily influenced in its form by Class 1 Ballintober type swords (it was originally thought to be a sword mould). This would suggest a late date, possibly in the Bishopsland phase, for its production.

In the majority of these moulds accurate registration of the two valves for casting was apparently achieved by visual alignment of their outer surfaces. Only the three moulds for socketed axes bear any internal arrangements to aid registration. These feature multiple circular holes on their parting faces. In the Ballydaw mould, of which both valves survive, these can be seen to match exactly when the valves are assembled. These holes probably held some form of dowel, perhaps of wood. The Fethard mould, as well as a peculiar dowel arrangement which cuts into the blade area of the matrix, also features a groove along one side of the parting faces. There may have been a corresponding ridge on the other valve which would also aid registration. Such ridges appear to be absent from all other insular axehead moulds of Late Bronze Age date and are, in fact, more typical of British bronze moulds, such as the two in a hoard from BroughOn-Humber, Yorkshire (Briggs et al. 1987). To hold the valves together under the pressure of the molten metal during pouring the moulds would have been either tied or wedged. The rounded shape of these moulds suggests they were tied and this curvature would distribute pressure evenly during the casting process. This practice is attested in stone moulds of the Middle Bronze Age

3. 4. 3. Range & Technology. The range of metal artifact types represented in these nine stone moulds is relatively narrow. Generally only one artifact type is represented in each mould and these include palstaves, rapiers, spearheads and socketed axes. Only a single example (Cat. 4. 52) bears matrices for more than one artifact type, having on the opposite faces to those for the palstave, a matrix for a tanged knife or blade which appears to be of unclassified type. The stone used in fabricating these moulds may be broadly divided into two petrological categories. The first (Category X in Table 3. 5) includes those examples carved from steatite or a soapstone of related magnesian schist type. The other (Category Y) consists of those moulds carved from sandstones (including grits) or aplite. Although sandstone is a sedimentary rock, while aplite is igneous, the latter is included in this category because of

Table 3.5. Stone moulds of Late Bronze Age date in Ireland.

29

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts replaceable extension was desirable. That the material used for this must have been clay should not be assumed. It seems likely that clay might crack upon drying, due to the fact that the grooves would prevent it from contracting as it shrank. The bungs may have been dried before application, but this creates the problem of fixing them to the mould once dry. It is conceivable that some other material such as sand, or a clay with very high sand content, was utilized. The rapier mould would have been cast from the tang end and, given the small and narrow aperature, a separate runner cup was probably used.

such as that from Maghera, Co. Donegal illustrated by Evans (1881, 435, fig. 522), which featured transverse grooves across the exterior of the valves which probably aided binding. Tying of moulds is also noted with regard to Late Bronze Age casting in clay (Cat. 6. 6; 794 & 194). The mould from Ballydaw has an external collar near the pouring aperture which may have aided binding at this point, where the mould was most under pressure during casting. The only mould listed which may have required additional security to binding is the rapier mould. Due to its length, the use of a sand-filled casting pit might, in this case, be envisaged.

In the ‘north of Ireland’ spearhead mould there is an opening from the tip end, but this is small and the socket end is slightly flared, suggesting pouring was from this end. There is no indication of how the core was fixed. There are no grooves for chaplet location, although only a cast of this mould was examined and such detail may have been lost in copying. The use of a combined corepouring cup arrangement, probably of clay, is a more likely option. The Lough Gur spearhead mould is too fragmentary to comment on pouring or coring methods.

The three palstave moulds would have been poured from the butt end, yet this is not certain in the case of the Lough Gur example. While some form of separate runner cup may have been used, recent experimental work to examine this has proven that it is not actually necessary (L. McNally, pers. comm.). One mould, Ireland (Cat. 4. 52), features a small vent from the blade edge of the matrix to the bottom of the mould which would permit gases to escape during pouring. The interesting provision of the Lough Gur mould for applying clay bungs has been discussed in depth elsewhere (Ó Ríordáin 1954; Tylecote 1962). This basically consists of a series of grooves which would allow the casting of palstaves with deeply undercut stop-ridges (see Fig. 3. 10). This part of the mould had to be broken to extract the product and thus a

The pouring arrangements for the socketed axe moulds are more complex. All three appear to have used a similar method of core location and gating. In each case there is an aperture of considerable length above the socket mouth, some 60 mm deep in the Ballydaw mould and 30

Fig. 3. 10: (A) Fragment of bivalve stone mould for casting palstaves, Site D, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. (B) Conjectural reconstruction of method of clay application in preparation for casting. (C) Crosssection of assembled mould with clay applications in position and bronze casting (all after Ó Ríordáin 1954).

30

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts 3. 5. 1. Chronology.

mm in the other two. These also all feature longitudinal grooves in the centre of this aperture. In the Fethard mould this is flanked by two smaller parallel channels, while the Ballydaw example has two short grooves branching off at an angle from the central one. Similar arrangements, though not so developed, can be seen on the previously mentioned moulds from Rosskeen, Ross & Cromarty, Scotland. Beyond suggesting that these apertures and channels were designed to secure the core and thus facilitate a smooth flow of metal into the matrix, little else can be said on the basis of the present evidence.

The palstave represented in this mould is of unlooped shield-pattern type, with affinities to trident-pattern palstaves also. It is notable that this type is not represented among the fourteen or so stone palstave moulds from Ireland. It is also a type which is not common on this island and those present may perhaps be best regarded as imports from the Acton Park tradition of North Wales (see Schmidt & Burgess 1981, 122-3; Megaw, Simpson et al. 1979, 247-50). Indeed, if this mould is a genuine Irish find then the knowledge of the bronze moulding technique may be seen as an import from the latter tradition also. Although the Acton Park tradition was Middle Bronze Age in date and died out by about 1300 B.C., the trident-pattern palstaves arrived in Britain as part of the Ornament Horizon material and their influence on the palstaves being cast from this mould may place its use around 1100 - 1000 B.C.

The majority of these moulds would have produced artifacts which were ready for use ‘as-cast’ once the casting jets and excess metal flashes were removed and the cutting edge sharpened. The rapier mould is a possible exception. It is hard to tell whether this rapier was hafted by its tang alone or whether rivets would have been required. The butt is unparalleled among Group 4 material and these almost invariably feature rivet holes or notches. However, the shape of this butt is rather narrow and thick, which suggests provision for rivet holes was not intended in its manufacture. In the case of the ‘North of Ireland’ spearhead mould the rivet hole(s) may have had to be perforated after casting, as no provision for this is visible on the plaster-cast examined, although such may exist on the original.

3. 5. 2. Technology. Pouring into this mould would have been from the butt end of the matrix. The aperture is slightly flared here, but this does not constitute a proper pouring gate as in the bronze palstave mould from Hotham Carr, Yorkshire (Schmidt & Burgess 1981, pl. 69, no. 969). There are two elongated oval hollows on the parting faces, one on either side of the shield/trident motif. Doubtless there were two corresponding protrusions on the other valve which would have fitted into these hollows, giving accurate registration and a degree of defence against slippage during pouring. Binding was probably used and the two raised knobs on the exterior surface near the blade end of the mould may have served to prevent such binding from slipping off.

3. 4. 4. Distribution. The distribution of these moulds (Fig. 3. 11) yields little information as only four of the nine listed have any meaningful provenance. The one notable feature is the proximity of the Fethard, Co. Wexford, and Ballydaw, Co. Kilkenny, mould finds. Eogan labels these as ‘Hallstatt C equivalent’ (1993, fig. 18). This is the case with the Ballydaw mould which, as argued above, has good parallels in Britain. However, the Fethard mould has no such parallels and may be an antiquarian import. Hodges’ suggested that there is an apparent concentration of such socketed axe moulds in the south-east of Ireland (1954, 70). His further suggestion, that the ‘Ireland’ (Cat. 4. 48) mould comes from this area, is based on a weak argument regarding its petrology. There is no archaeological basis for the belief that such a concentration existed.

Although it has been suggested in the past that bronze moulds served to cast wax or lead models for cire perdue casting, several authors have shown that this is highly unlikely to have been the case and that these moulds were used in direct casting of metal (e.g. Drescher 1957; Coghlan 1968).

3. 6. Clay Moulds. All three categories of clay moulding evidence listed in the accompanying catalogue (clay mould fragments, clay mould core fragments and clay mould gate fragments) will be dealt with together under this heading. Clay moulds and mould components of Late Bronze Age date have been recovered from some thirteen locations in Ireland (see Table 3. 6).

3. 5. Bronze Moulds. Only one extant single valve from a bronze mould of later Bronze Age date is provenanced to Ireland. This valve, for casting palstaves, has no recorded provenance or archaeological context and may well be an antiquarian import of Welsh origin (Cat. 5. 1).

31

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Fig. 3. 11: Distribution of Stone Moulds of L.B.A. Date in Ireland.

32

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Table 3.6. Late Bronze Age clay mould fragments recovered in Ireland.

no more precise a location can be given (Waterman & Lynn 1997, 89). Likewise, the non-diagnostic clay mould fragments from Circle K, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (Cat. 6. 16) seem to be of typical Late Bronze Age type but lack a secure context.

3. 6. 1. Context. With two exceptions, these sixteen assemblages are all finds made during archaeological excavation. A brief description of their find circumstances will be given here, to be followed by more detailed context analysis in Chapter 4. The two exceptions are the material from Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim (Cat. 6. 1) and Bohevny, Co. Fermanagh (Cat. 6. 5). The clay mould fragments from Whitepark Bay are unassociated finds found among the sandhills in that area (Fig. 3. 12A). It is notable, however, that this area seems to have been host to settlement in the Late Bronze Age as the remains of huts, possibly coeval with large quantities of Late Bronze Age pottery, have been noted (Mallory & McNeill 1991, 127). The Bohevny mould fragments, found around 1899, were recovered from “the surface of an ancient crannoge associated with rude huts which were found at a depth of 21 feet (6.3 metres) underneath peat” (Plunkett 1899, 89). No other finds were recorded but the moulds are of typical Late Bronze Age type. The above description could relate to a bog or lake-side platform settlement such as those at Clonfinlough, Co. Offaly (Moloney et al. 1993) and Ballinderry II, Co, Westmeath (Hencken 1942), or a true Late Bronze Age crannóg (i.e. artificial or substantially artificial island) such as those at Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone (Cat. 6.10) or Lough Gara, Co. Sligo (Fredengren 2002).

The other eleven finds are from secure Late Bronze Age contexts, although in the case of the other two groups of Lough Gur material a late Middle Bronze Age date can be argued for. Also, although the excavator states the mould fragment from Bay (Carnlough), Co. Antrim to be from a Late Bronze Age occupation area (Woodman 1987/8), no details of this site, or the mould fragment itself, have yet been published. However, the mould fragment from this site was for casting socketed axeheads and was apparently recovered from a structural post-hole (J. Mallory pers. comm.). As no details are available this site will not be mentioned again in this section. Of the rest, eight assemblages are from domestic/industrial areas. At the sites of Rathgall, Co. Wicklow (Cat. 6. 13; 19; 20), Lough Eskragh Co. Tyrone (Cat. 6. 11; 12), Killymoon, Co. Tyrone (Cat. 6. 10), and sites D and F, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (Cat. 6. 7; 8), there seems to have been a degree of separation between metallurgical processes and domestic activity. At Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin (Cat. 6. 3; 21) and Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo (Cat. 6. 9) it is unclear whether this separation existed but, on the balance of evidence from the other sites, it remains likely, though this does not appear to have been the case at Dun Aengus, Co. Galway (Cat. 6. 6; 18; 22; 23).

The three clay mould fragments recovered during excavation at Navan Fort (Cat. 6. 15) are from the late prehistoric layers of phase 3 at site B, but unfortunately

Finally, three assemblages appear to be from ritual/funerary contexts. The mould fragments from ‘The King’s Stables’, Co. Armagh (Cat. 6. 2) were recovered 33

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts fragments from Circle K at Lough Gur may be for casting a developed Late Bronze Age sword type, but this is unsure and no firm date can be given for these fragments beyond their being Later Bronze Age.

from the pond at the centre of this unusual structure. Fragments of human skull from the same strata suggest a religious or funerary cause for their deposition. Several mould fragments were also found in the early 1890s during excavations at Oldconnaught, Co. Dublin (Cat. 6. 4). This monument appears, from the excavator’s description, to have been a type of ring-barrow. Other, supposedly earlier, material including shell-beads, bone pins and stone ‘gaming pieces’ were found. In the report no stratigraphic information was given regarding the relative position of the mould fragments, which are clearly of Late Bronze Age type, to the other finds. The former may represent a secondary phase of activity on the site, ante-dating most of the other material. The matter is further complicated by the fact that a third and later period of activity, of Early Christian date, seems to be represented by the head of a small undecorated penannular brooch and what may be part of a lignite bracelet.

The dating of metalworking evidence from Dun Aengus has also been dealt with above (Section 3. 3. 2). Some of the mould matrices for socketed knives, sunflower pins and bag-shaped axes clearly demonstrate that the majority of this activity was of Dowris Phase date, with radiocarbon dates of between c. 800 and 400 B.C. in broad agreement. In Hut 1, a clay mould fragment for spearheads and several other undetermined fragments were accompanied by two clay crucible fragments (Cotter 1995, 7). The radiocarbon determination from this structure, of between 1208 and 906 B.C., may indicate that on-site casting operations had commenced by the end of the Bishopsland Phase. At Lough Eskragh radiocarbon dates indicate that the timber structure on which metalworking took place was probably built between 1550 and 1150 B.C. Mould fragments for producing swords of Eogan’s Class 3 or Class 4 suggest a date for casting activity between c. 1000 and 600 B.C., thus possibly beginning in the Roscommon Phase and continuing well into the Dowris Phase (Williams 1978, appendix 1).

The site of Johnstown South, Co. Wicklow, the most recently discovered site to produce Late Bronze Age clay mould fragments (Cat. 6. 14), also appears to be of a complex, multi-period nature. The final report for this site has not been completed yet and speculation would prove fruitless. Nonetheless, the monument, tentatively identified as a ring-cairn (F. & M. Fitzpatrick, pers. comm.), seems to be primarily of a ritual nature, as suggested by a number of cremation deposits and the apparent lack of any settlement evidence. The mould fragments were not directly associated with any of the cremations or any other notable structure.

The sword mould fragments recovered at ‘The King’s Stables’, Co. Armagh were associated with twigs and charcoal, the latter giving radiocarbon dates centering on the period 1200 to 1000 B.C., which suggests a Bishopsland or Roscommon Phase date for the use-period of this monument (See Fig. 3. 12B). At the nearby site of Navan Fort the three mould fragments recovered were from the late prehistoric layers of phase 3(ii) and (iii). Lynn sees these phases as predominantly Iron Age (Waterman & Lynn 1997, xv), but both have yielded radiocarbon dates in the Dowris phase (ibid. 193). It is possible their position resulted from disturbance of the underlying Bronze Age horizon 3(i) and the radiocarbon dates may also be from intrusive material from that level (See Fig. 3. 12B).

3. 6. 2. Chronology. There are radiocarbon dates associated with five of the sixteen clay mould assemblages. In some cases there are diagnostic artifact associations, while in others dating is achieved through the identification of the Late Bronze Age artifact types represented in the mould matrices themselves.

The clay mould fragments from Bohevny are not so easy to date. They are clearly for casting swords and were made in the typical Late Bronze Age manner, with distinct inner and outer layers. They also feature a longitudinal cavity for a stiffening rod, which is a feature of many Late Bronze Age sword moulds. They are most likely of the Dowris Phase but could date to any stage during the Late Bronze Age.

The majority of the Irish clay mould material is clearly of Late Bronze Age date, the material from both Lough Gur sites being the exception to this rule. As discussed above (Section 3. 3. 2), the mould fragments from Site D appear to be for casting a leaf-shaped spearhead with loops on the socket just below the blade (Ó Ríordáin 1954, 400). This is predominantly a Middle Bronze Age type, but the other material from this horizon, especially the palstave mould, may suggest a late survival into the Bishopsland Phase. At Site F, Lough Gur the clay mould matrices were for casting socket-looped and perhaps basal-looped spearheads, as well as rapiers of Burgess’ Group 4 with notched butts (ibid. 420-2). These suggest a date between c. 1300 and 1000 B.C. for this casting activity. It has been tentatively suggested that one of the mould

The Whitepark Bay material, although unassociated, features several mould fragments displaying parts of sword butts which are recognisable as being of Class 4 type (Eogan 1965, appendix C). These were primarily utilized in the Dowris Phase, but may have been developed slightly earlier.

34

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Fig. 3. 12A: LEFT. Hut of disputed date, possibly Late Bronze Age, at Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim (after Mallory & McNeill 1991). Fig. 3. 12B: BELOW. Provisional chronology of the sites of the Navan complex. Solid Bars indicate range in which construction took place; broken lines indicate range in which occupation is attested (after Warner 1994).

As noted above, the mould fragments from Oldconnaught come from a poorly recorded site of some complexity and which was utilized in several different periods. It cannot be said what class of sword was cast here, beyond that it was of Late Bronze Age type. However, the tentative identification of a socketed knife and sickle among the mould matrices suggests a Dowris Phase date for at least some of the metalworking activity here (Wakeman 1894; 1895). The latter moulds for knife and sickle could not be

The mould material from Johnstown South was found in association with coarse pottery of Late Bronze Age type. A more precise date is difficult to assign on the basis of the matrix evidence, but the presence of fragments of socketed axe mould indicate a date no earlier than c. 1000 B.C. One or two fragments seem to suggest an axe of bag-shaped form, which would make a date of 900 B.C. or later likely, but they are too small for this to be said with certainty. 35

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts have been noted in the clay mould material. These are plain bracelets with unmodified terminals and pins of both sunflower and stick type. However, the moulds for stick-pins may also be for the production of sunflower pin shanks, which would then be bent at a right angle at the top before fitting the boss, which was clearly cast separately at Dun Aengus and Dalkey Island. The smith need not necessarily have decided what type of pin would be manufactured from the casting, possibly allowing demand to decide.

located by the author and one must accept Wakeman’s assertions on faith. The other four assemblages are all clearly of the Dowris Phase. The Dalkey Island mould material includes matrices for bag-shaped socketed axes, sunflower pins and socketed knives, all of which are Dowris Phase developments. The radiocarbon dates from Rathgall average between about 800 and 400 B.C. and the discovery of coarse ware pottery, a small bronze socketed gouge and clay moulds for bag-shaped socketed axes tend to agree with this dating range (see Section 3. 3. 2). The clay mould fragments from Rathtinaun crannog come from the earliest level of occupation on the site. The other finds from this horizon, namely coarse ware pottery, a disc-headed pin and several rings, of both bronze and gold, are clearly of the Dowris Phase and Barry Raftery suggests a date shortly after 600 B.C. for this period of activity on the site (1994, 35). Finally, the Killymoon mould fragments can also be easily assigned to the Dowris Phase on the basis of the associated finds. The presence of a small bag-shaped socketed axe, as well as the exciting discovery of two gold ornaments – a dressfastener and a sleeve-fastener – clearly indicate a date in the latter period for this complex site.

It should be noted here that the apparent preponderance of weapons in the mould evidence is questionable. The large size and easily distinguishable form of swords and spearheads is also a feature of the moulds in which they were cast. For example, after breaking open to extract the finished casting there will be a far greater number of far larger (and therefore more identifiable) mould fragments resulting from a sword or large spearhead than a gouge or sunflower pin. Also, clay mould fragments for socketed implements too small to be a spear or axehead will most likely be from a gouge, hammerhead or chisel. However, unless the extreme tip portion is intact, a definite identification is not likely to be established. Thus, these three types have only been tentatively identified on Irish sites.

As the above evidence makes clear, the practice of clay moulding can be traced down at least as far as the final part of the Middle Bronze Age in Ireland. That the technique was used through out all phases of the Late Bronze Age is also clear, but it is notable that it seems to assume widespread and, on some sites, more intensive use only during the Dowris Phase.

3. 6. 4. Technology. It is likely that the clay used in fabricating Late Bronze Age moulds in Ireland was generally of local origin, although this is at present unproven in any case. However, there does appear to have been preferential selection of clays containing a high level of refractory material for the formation of metallurgical ceramics, although further addition of refractory material was apparently necessary. For instance, thin section analysis of the Dalkey Island moulds suggests that sand added to the inner valves was of local origin (Hodges in Liversage 1968, appendix 6). The clays used to make the moulds and crucibles at Dun Aengus suggests that they were manufactured from a different clay source than the pottery from that site (Cleary in Cotter 1995, 9). The Dun Aengus moulds also had added quartz temper to increase their heat-resistance, and the presence of quartz or silica is noted in almost all the Late Bronze Age clay mould assemblages discovered.

3. 6. 3. Range. The range of artifact types identifiable from the matrices of clay mould fragments found in Ireland is quite broad (see Table 3. 7). All three major categories of artifact are represented (see Table 3. 6), with weapons being the most commonly occurring, represented in eleven or twelve of the sixteen assemblages. Tools are represented in seven or eight of the sixteen, while ornaments are present in five. The two main weapon types of the Late Bronze Age, sword and spearhead are the artifact types most often represented. However, the spearhead mould from Site D, Lough Gur is possibly of Middle Bronze Age date. Likewise, the only definite clay mould evidence for rapier manufacture, that from Site F, Lough Gur, may also be of Middle Bronze Age date, although a date in the Bishopsland Phase is equally possible.

Judging from the regular curved exterior of excavated examples the two valves of the mould would have been shaped and fashioned in exterior formers, most likely made of wood. These formers have proved necessary in experimental work and also allow the moulds to be moved before firing. The matrix impressions were formed using templates of wood similar to the set found at Tobermore, Co. Derry (see Section 3. 8). After impression the gating arrangements were cut. The gates in clay moulds, unlike those in stone moulds, seem to be always at the other end of the matrix from the cutting edge of the implement to be cast.

The range of tools identified is less clear. Axes and socketed knives are clearly visible in matrices from several sites, and hammerheads are recognizable at Johnstown South, but sickles, gouges and chisels have all been only tentatively identified. Three ornament types 36

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Table 3.7. Clay moulds of Late Bronze Age date in Ireland: Breakdown of artefact types represented.

through this collar to allow access for the metal from the gate to the moulding cavity. The Tobermore templates, all of which are for socketed implements, appear to have provision made for imprinting such collars, in the form of projections above the socket mouth in each one. Coghlan terms these projections ‘core-prints’ (1962, 57-8). Despite these measures to fix the core position, it seems that the cores did occasionally ‘slip’ during pouring and escape, resulting in distorted castings such as the looped and socketed axe from Glebe, Co. Mayo (Pl. 3. 3). This is suggested to occur due to the differing densities of clay and molten bronze, causing the lighter clay to displace or ’float up’ (Briggs et al. 1987, 21). It seems likely that the

For most objects a simple funnel-shaped aperture cut in as far as the top of the matrix suffices. However, the gating of moulds for socketed implements is a more complex area. This is primarily because arrangements must be made to accommodate a core. Clay fragments of the latter have been found at Rathgall, Johnstown South and Dun Aengus, but cores must also have been used at other sites where moulds for socketed implements were found, such as Lough Eskragh and Dalkey Island. The mould fragments from the latter site were especially informative regarding the method of core location. A raised collar around the top of the socket area served to clamp the core in position, while two ducts were cut

Pl. 3. 3: Miscast socketed axe, Glebe, Co. Mayo. LEFT- In profile. RIGHT- Socket view showing deformation possibly resulting from ‘slipped’ core.

37

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Fig. 3. 13: (A) Mould with flat topped core (after Liversage 1968). (B) Mould with ridges core to redirect pressure of molten metal as indicated in both diagrams by the arrows.

Fig. 3. 14: Biconical casting jets. LEFT- Tullowbeg, Co. Carlow. RIGHT- Money Lower, Co. Laois.

relates to the prominent ridges often visible on the inside of socketed axes (Rynne 1983). This proposes that these ridges are the negative image, cast in the metal, of grooves cut into the core to hold wax slivers. These would have acted in a similar manner to chaplets, supporting the core and maintaining the cavity between it and the walls of the mould.

top of the core, if left flat as suggested by Liversage (1968 149-9, fig. 7), would be pushed down into the moulding cavity by the great pressure of the molten metal (Fig. 3. 13 A), resulting in a seriously faulty casting. Therefore, a core with a ridged top would probably have been utilized. This would prevent such a problem from arising and would have the added advantage of redirecting all the pressure of the molten metal into the ducts (Fig. 3. 13 B), giving a better chance of the metal reaching all extremities of the matrix. Furthermore, the idea of a ridged core is in agreement with the shape of biconical casting jets such as those from Tullowbeg, Co. Carlow and Money Lower, Co. Laois (Fig. 3. 14).

There does not seem to be any evidence for the cutting of vents to allow gases to escape during pouring, such as are seen on some stone moulds. The hairline cracks resulting from the heat of the metal and the natural permeability of the clay may have been sufficient. Arrangements for the accurate registration (lining-up) of the two valves would also have been made at this stage of the process. A

A further interesting suggestion regarding core-location 38

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Fig. 3. 15: Registration methods for clay mould valves. (1) Lug-and-socket. (A) Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin, (B) Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim (after Eogan 1965), (C) Jarlshof, Shetland (after Hamilton 1956). (2) Groove-and-ridge. (D) Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim (after Eogan 1965).

discontinuous traces of finer clay adhering. Such a ‘slip’ has been found useful in experimental work (L. McNally, pers. comm.). The inner valves may also have been bound together and several fragments of moulds for casting swords and spearheads from Dun Aengus bear this out (Cat.6. 6; 6 & 7). These display the marks made in the wet clay by narrow bindings, about a millimetre in diameter, running across the length of the valve (Fig. 3. 16). Such binding may have served to hold the inner valves in place while the outer wrap was constructed around them. Similar binding marks can be seen on the inside surface of outer wrap fragments in the assemblage of clay casting debris from Grimes Graves, Norfolk (Fig. 3.17). This outer wrap is a universal feature of Late Bronze Age clay moulds in Ireland and Britain. Unlike the two inner valves, it completely encircles the mould

number of fragments from Dalkey Island and Whitepark Bay bear a ‘lug and socket’ pairing of interlocking elements to give accurate alignment (Fig. 3. 15 A & B). This feature can be more clearly seen on clay moulds from Jarlshof, Shetland (Fig. 3.15 C). An alternative method may be seen on another mould fragment for swords from Whitepark Bay displays two parallel grooves, one on either side of the matrix, which could have fitted onto corresponding ridges in the opposing valve (Fig. 3. 15 D). The two valves were secured together before firing, and this may have involved several methods. The use of a fine liquid ‘slip’ of clay and water may have been used to bind the parting faces together. Lynn (1977, 50) notes that in one fragment from ‘The King’s Stables’ the mould has 39

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Fig. 3. 16: Clay mould fragments displaying binding marks. From (A) Sword mould, (B) Spearhead mould.

FIG. 3. 17: Fragments of clay mould outer wrap from Grimes Graves, Norfolk displaying binding marks (after Needham et al. 1990).

Obviously, the inner valves need to be of high quality in order to accurately reflect the form invested in them. The possible presence of some plant material in the clay of the outer wrap has been noted at Dalkey Island and ‘The King’s Stables’ and this may have served to help in binding the clay of the two layers. Again, a ‘slip’ might also have been used to bond the inner and outer layers,

without parting arrangements. This wrap is generally formed of coarser, less refined clay than the inner valves, although it has been noted that the difference in quality between the two layers is more pronounced in the larger moulds (Liversage 1968, 148).

40

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts of sites for excavation than that of clay moulding techniques in the Late Bronze Age in general (see Section 3. 4.). However, possible concentrations in the Dublin/Wicklow and mid-Ulster areas are notable (Fig. 3. 18).

but in a large proportion of excavated fragments the outer wrap has spalled away from the inner valve. The layers are not always limited to two, with up to four distinct layers noted in some of the fragments from Dun Aengus when cross-sectioned (see Cat. 6. 6; 2), but the reason for the presence of so many layers is unclear. In most cases the outer wrap has been formed into a cup at the matrix opening to give a reservoir into which the molten metal can be poured, thus giving a steady flow into the moulding cavity.

3. 7. Casting Jets. Casting jets are formed when metal cools in the pouring gate of a mould and these are generally removed during finishing work on the cast artifact. They are a feature of Late Bronze Age metallurgy which vary very little in form from one region to another. This is evident when, for instance, those in the ‘Roscommon’ hoard (Cat. 7. 4) are compared with an example in the Guilsfield hoard, Montgomeryshire, Wales (Savory 1980, 118, fig. 38). Despite this, they are not plentiful in the Irish archaeological record, with only four examples known, three of which were part of hoard deposits (see Section 3.1.). Indeed, the simple form of such jets means they are unlikely to be identified or excite the interest of a finder if not found with along other more recognizable material.

In the case of many sword mould fragments, and possibly some for knives and sickles, there is evidence for the presence of a longitudinally inserted stiffening-rod of wood. Their purpose appears to have been to allow the moulds to be moved before firing, and they are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5 below. The coloration of the mould fragments, which is quite similar in most assemblages, indicates the temperatures to which they have been subjected. The buff colour which their exteriors display characterizes the appearance of clay when completely baked, a process which, in experimental mould firing, required sustained temperatures of over c. 650° centigrade for a period of six or seven hours at least (L. NcNally, pers. comm.). Unfortunately, we have yet to find any evidence for kilns of Late Bronze Age date in Ireland. The orange hue present on mould gate fragments and mould fragments from near that area is likely a product of oxidization of the molten metal in contact with the atmosphere during pouring, while the dark grey of the matrix faces is obviously a product of prolonged contact with the superheated metal.

3. 7. 1. Context. The collection of casting jets from Tullowbeg, Co. Carlow (Cat. 7. 1), possibly a hoard but at any rate found in close proximity to each other, were discovered using a metal detector and no information regarding context is available. A possible casting jet from Dreenan, Co. Fermanagh (Cat. 7. 2) formed part of a hoard of nine bronzes (see Section 3.1) found during the removal of a large rock from a field. The casting jet from Money Lower, Co. Laois (Cat. 7. 3) is part of a hoard of five bronzes found under the surface of a field (see Section 3. 1). They may originally have lain in an ancient earthen bank which was bulldozed and levelled prior to the discovery. Three casting jets also formed part of the ‘Roscommon’ hoard (see Section 3.1), where again there is no precise information regarding find circumstances.

A final question of interest is whether Late Bronze Age clay moulds were re-usable or not. Unlike cire perdue moulds, the fact that this type is bivalve makes re-use a theoretical possibility. Experimental work has shown that, in the case of smaller moulds, opening by cracking the outer wrap along the seam of the inner valves is easily executed. Indeed, in experiments the author has seen up to three castings of a tanged chisel produced from the same matrix. Due to wear it is unlikely that clay moulds would have been re-used more than once or twice. With larger moulds such as those for swords it is also possible, though far more difficult, to crack them open along the seams without cracking the inner valves. Pl. 3. 2 shows an experimental sword mould and its product and the two valves can be clearly seen to be whole. A re-cast into such a long mould has not yet been attempted.

3. 7. 2. Chronology. The bronzes associated with the casting jet in the Dreenan hoard, particularly the socketed knife of Thorndon type, indicate a date in the Dowris Phase. Similarly, in the case of the Money Lower casting jet the accompanying material indicate a Late Bronze Age date, and the bronze rings suggest a Dowris Phase date. The casting jet from the ‘Roscommon’ hoard may be dated to that putative phase to which it gives its name, between c. 1000 and 900 B.C.

3. 6. 5. Distribution. Interpretation of the distribution of Late Bronze Age clay mould fragments in Ireland should be treated with caution as, with two exceptions, they are all the product of archaeological excavation. The distribution of such assemblages may, therefore, be related more to the choice

The four Tullowbeg casting jets, because they are unassociated with dateable material, are more difficult to 41

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Fig. 3. 18: Distribution of L.B.A. clay mould remains in Ireland.

42

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts and double (biconical) jets. The biconical jets are from the casting of socketed implements (see Section 3. 6. 4), while the single jet would have sufficed for artifacts where the gate fed into a tang or hilt.

assign to a given period. However, because of their irregular shape and the fact that two of them appear to have been cast in gates cut in only one valve of the bivalve moulds, a characteristic not seen in any stone moulds, it is likely that these jets are the by-product of a casting operation involving the use of clay moulds. Furthermore, the close similarity between the biconical casting jet in this group and that of Dowris Phase date in the Money Lower hoard is striking. On the balance of the above facts the tendency to see the Tullowbeg jets as probably Dowris Phase or at least definitely Late Bronze Age, is reasonable.

The two biconical jets are of similar size, both being slightly under 45 mm, but there is some variation among the single jets. Two small examples from Tullowbeg are c. 17-18 mm in length. Interestingly, two jets from the ‘Roscommon’ hoard, as well as one each from Dreenan and Tullowbeg, were between 50 and 55 mm in length. The final example, from the ‘Roscommon’ hoard, is c. 33 mm in length. As noted above, there is evidence to suggest that some of these jets were produced in clay moulds. This is indicated by irregularity of shape and the fact that some were cast into gates cut in one valve only (Fig. 3. 19). The two small jets from Tullowbeg best illustrate this (Fig. 3. 20). These display a profile which is curved on one side – as would be expected in a mould gate – but is vertical on the other. A similarly shaped jet was included in the scrap hoard from Petter’s Sports Field, Egham in Surrey (Needham in O’Connell 1986, fig. 39, 90). The practice of cutting the gate in one valve only in experimental casting does not appear to effect the quality of the casting. In larger castings, where a larger reservoir for metal during pouring may have been desirable, a gate cut into both valves may be more necessary. This may explain why the only jets which seem to come from single valve gates are these two very small examples.

Fig. 3. 19: Gating methods for bivalve clay moulds. (A) Gate cut in both valves. (B) Gate cut in one valve only.

3. 7. 4. Distribution. With only four examples, the distribution of casting jets is unrevealing (Fig. 3. 21). It is reasonable to suggest such jets would generally have been melted down for recycling, as their presence in several ‘scrap’ hoards suggests, and so their presence in the archaeological record will not reflect their original distribution.

3. 8. Wooden Templates. These are the templates or models utilized to invest a matrix shape in the clay mould valves. A collection of wooden models from Tobermore, Co. Derry (Cat. 8. 1) is the only definite group identified in Ireland or Britain. A wooden sword recovered from a crannog at Inver, Co. Donegal was broken at the time of recovery and only the blade part was retained. Wood-martin states this to be 27.5 inches (750 mm) long (1886, 41). Hodges opines that this is too long for a Late Bronze Age sword model (1954, 64) and I would tend to agree. However, due to shrinkage in both the clay when drying and the bronze when cooling, the actual sword cast would be some 10% shorter than the template from which it was copied – a

Fig. 3. 20: Two small casting jets from Tullowbeg, Co. Carlow. Probably cast in a gate cut in one valve only.

3. 7. 3. Range and Technology. Due to the simplicity of form which these casting jets display and the small number so far recovered, it is difficult to make any meaningful sub-division of the material. The only obvious division is that between single 43

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Fig. 3. 21: Distribution of L.B.A. casting jets in Ireland.

44

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts when attempting to remove the pattern once the matrix had been impressed.

fact discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6 – so the possibility that this is a template cannot be ruled out completely. The butt and part of the blade of a wooden replica of a Hallstatt C sword (Eogan’s Class 5) were recovered from a bog at Cappagh, Co. Kerry. This was not a casting template, however, as it featured a pommel which in the actual bronze swords is an organic fitting and not a cast part.

3. 9. Metalworking Tools. The potential multi-purpose use and frequently enigmatic nature of L.B.A bronze tools make it difficult to define which categories should be included here. While the author has experimented in a limited manner on the metalworking possibilities of socketed hammerheads and tanged chisels, as well as some stone tools, the actual manner of use of many bronze tools remains speculative. Even though certain tools could clearly be used for bronze-working, in many cases they may have played an equally important role in other craft areas, especially carpentry. Therefore, to discover a socketed bronze hammer, for example, is not necessarily to discover a metalworking tool per se, but depends upon its context, which in most cases is uninformative and lacking in context (with context here meaning the context in which a tool was physically used). Because of this, the tools included here are strictly limited to those from assemblages the contents of which reinforce the view that they were intended for use in metalworking. Such associations are rare in the Irish record, only four groupings being considered worthy of inclusion here (Table 3. 8).

3. 8. 1. Context. As demonstrated in the foregoing discussion, the Tobermore patterns are the only definite Late Bronze Age moulding templates known to this study. These five wooden patterns were found together in 1911 near the village of Tobermore, Co. Derry. No other details of their discovery are available, but it is clear that they came from peat, very small quantities of which still adhere to them.

3. 8. 2. Range & Chronology. These patterns are considerably flattened and warped (Fig. 3. 22). There are two patterns for simple, leaf shaped spearheads of Late Bronze Age type and two for socketed axeheads of same period. There is also a pattern for a small socketed hammerhead of Dowris Phase type. Hodges (1954, 64) cites three parallels in three hoards for the Tobermore hammerhead pattern, namely Boa Island, Co. Fermanagh, Dowris, Co. Offaly (Cat. 9. 3) and Lusmagh, Co. Offaly (Cat. 9. 4). The citation of Boa Island must be a mistake, as this hoard does not contain a socketed hammerhead. However, the other two hoard associations place the Tobermore assemblage firmly within the Dowris Phase.

3. 9. 1. Context. The hoard from Garden Hill, Co. Fermanagh was found around the 1930s during turf-cutting at a depth of about seven feet (c. 2 metres). The contents of the hoard were carried away upon its discovery by various individuals. There is some indication from an eye-witness account of the discovery that other metalworking tools, a possible whetstone and, more dubiously, possibly a small bronze anvil accompanied the extant material (Cat. 9. 1). For contextual detail on the Bishopsland, Co. Kildare and Dowris, Co. Offaly hoards see Section 3. 2. 1 above. In the case of the artifacts in the hoard from Lusmagh, Co. Offaly, nothing is known of their discovery circumstances. Indeed, it is not absolutely certain that these objects constitute a hoard as they differ somewhat in external appearance and patina.

3. 8. 3. Technology. It will be noticed that the two models for the socketed axeheads are not provided with loops. Although socketed axeheads without loops are occasionally found in Ireland, they are uncommon, and in all probability loops were provided by cutting grooves in the clay mould after the removal of the wooden patterns and prior to firing. The presence on these models of ‘core-prints’, and the purpose of the latter, have already been discussed above (Section 3. 6. 4).

3. 9. 2. Chronology. Foreign types in the Bishopsland hoard clearly demonstrate it to be of that period to which it gives its name. The ‘Hademarschen’ axehead and knobbed sickle are types transmitted to this island from Germany towards the end of the second millennium B.C., possibly via England, where the main concentration of this axe type is in East Anglia (Rowlands 1976, 148-9).

Interestingly, on one axehead pattern (Fig. 3. 22, 4) there is an unusual knob protruding from the ‘core-print’ which is certainly not meant to form part of the matrix. This protrusion appears to be perforated. Perhaps this perforation is to allow the passing through of a cord of some sort which would give something to grip and pull 45

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Fig. 3. 22: Wooden templates, Tobermore, Co. Derry. CENTRE & BOTTOM LEFT- Spearheads, TOP LEFT- Socketed hammerhead, TOP & BOTTOM RIGHT- Socketed axeheads (after Hodges 1954).

Table 3.8: Metalworking tools in Irish hoards of Late Bronze Age date (based on information in Eogan 1983).

46

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts sub-circular socket mouth (Fig. 3. 23; C). Two bear ‘cord’ ornament on their socket collar (B & C) which, as Eogan pointed out with regard to the ‘Hademarschen’ type axe in the same hoard (1964, 273), is possibly the earliest proof on an Irish bronze that clay mould casting was employed.

In the same manner the Dowris hoard is easily dated to its eponymous phase. Many of the vast array of bronzes in that hoard are distinctly of the Dowris Phase, including the T-shaped socketed hammerhead with expanded head (Cat. 9. 3, 1). A hammerhead of the same type is likewise present in the Lusmagh ‘hoard’, placing that material in the latter period also. Finally, hollow bronze rings are generally accepted as a Dowris Phase development we may assign the Garden Hill hoard to that period.

The Garden Hill hoard currently consists of a socketed bronze hammer and two rings, one of which bears an attachment loop with perforated tang. Hartnett (1956, 102) notes that the wear on this tang is more consistent with having been attached to metal than an organic surface and the similarity of this piece with ring-handle fittings on Late Bronze Age sheet-bronze cauldrons of both Atlantic types is notable. In the light of this, it is of interest that the hammerhead present is of a type suitable for sheet-bronze working (see Section 3. 9. 4 below). The hammerhead in this hoard is the largest of those discussed here, at about 90 mm long (Fig. 3. 23; D). It has a circular socket with plain moulding, below which the body tapers to a narrow rectangular striking face. Those hammerheads of T-shape with expanded head, from the

3. 9. 3. Range & Form. The range of metalworking tools represented is relatively wide considering that only four assemblages are in question. The socketed hammerhead is the only artifact type present in all four, and these occur in a number of different forms. The Bishopsland hoard features three hammerheads, all of which are different. They all possess bodies of square cross-section, which shape is retained in the socket of two (Fig. 3. 23; A & B), while one has a

Fig. 3. 23: Socketed hammerheads from possible bronze-smiths hoards in Ireland. A, B, C: Bishopsland, Co. Kildare. D: Garden Hill, Co. Fermanagh. E: Dowris, Co. Offaly. F, G: Lusmagh, Co. Offaly (All after Eogan 1983).

47

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts 3. 9. 4. Technology.

Dowris and Lusmagh hoards (Fig. 3. 23; E & F), are very similar to each other, both having a plain unmoulded socket which is ovoid in cross-section and elongated rectangular striking faces. The second of the two hammerheads from Lusmagh is an unusual type (Fig. 3. 23; G), similar in shape to a small, elongated socketed axe. The socket is circular and bears three bands of moulding on its exterior. The body becomes oval towards the striking face, which is worn at a slant.

The development of bronze hammers seems to have been a Late Bronze Age development in Ireland. Stone moulds of Middle Bronze Age type have been found on several excavations in association with hammer-stones which do not show any sign of hafting (e.g. Ó h-Iceadha 1946; Gowen 1988). Bronze hammers allow a greater amount of precision and force to be used in post-cast metalworking, as personally experienced through experimental use of both stone and bronze hammers. They also allow diversification of form for specialist applications in metalworking, e.g. sheetwork. This may account for the wide range of forms represented even within the four groups of material considered here.

Bronze anvils are present in the Bishopsland and Lusmagh hoards, while there may have been an example in the Garden Hill hoard also. The Bishopsland anvil is the more sturdy of the two extant examples, and has three working faces, two flat and one curved, as well as a stem for fixing, probably into a wooden block. The Lusmagh anvil has a similar but more pointed stem. It also has three working faces. The central one is in the shape of a pointed ridge, while the other two are flat and rounded respectively. Both anvils are under 100 mm in maximum dimensions. Considering their modest size, both anvils are more likely to have been used in gold rather than bronze-working. These examples are similar to an anvil from a hoard at Fresne La Mere, Calvados in France, which likewise features two pointed stems and a workface with a ridged surface similar to that of the Lusmagh anvil (Manning 1980, 93, fig. 4). Also in the Fresne La Mere hoard was a gold bar torc of the type dated to the Bishopsland phase in Ireland, indicating that this French anvil is roughly contemporary with the Bishopsland example (Eogan 1967).

A broad distinction exists between those hammers with square striking faces and those with elongated rectangular striking faces. The square form, the type used in the experiments reported in this thesis (Chapter 5), is more sturdy by design and serves effectively for heavy forging work on the blades of various weapons and tools. The hammerheads with narrow elongated heads would seem to be more suitable for the working of sheet metal. They would be admirable tools for stretching and thinning sheet metal, especially vessels, by the processes of ‘raising’ and ‘sinking’. This is primarily because of the shape of their striking faces, similar in shape and function to the narrow pein of the modern ‘Warrington’ hammer, which will cause stretching away from the long sides of the rectangle, allowing the smith to control the process. These hammers seem to have been hafted so that the long sides of the striking face would be in the horizontal when the hammer is held for use. The wear on one of the hammerheads from Lusmagh makes this plain (see Fig. 3. 23, G) as, due to their manner of use, hammers will generally wear more rapidly on the part of the striking face nearest the user.

The vice in the Bishopsland hoard is apparently unparalleled in the Irish record, as is the unusual object with splayed head and multiple points, possibly a punch but more likely for some as yet unidentified purpose, from Lusmagh. Tools which may be gravers are also found in these two hoards. That from Bishopsland is more convincing. One end is pointed and it has a round cross-section, the other is of pointed rectangular section. Depending on which end was hafted, this may have been a graver or punch. On the other hand, it may not have been hafted at all and have thus served for both. The possible graver from Lusmagh is now missing its working end. There is a small socket and an unperforated depression which may be an unfinished hole for riveting the handle. The socket crosssection is oval, that of the body D-shaped.

As mentioned above, the two anvils appear very small and delicate for bronze-working and were more likely used for gold fabrication. Wooden or stone anvils may have been preferred for working large bronzes. One reason for this is the prohibitive economic factor of the sheer amount of metal necessary to cast a large anvil. Wooden anvils provide a level of shock absorbence which bronze lacks and which helps to reduce unwanted deformation and breakage of the bronze object under treatment. Wood also lends itself to easy shaping, making the production of a flat work surface easy. That such wooden anvils seem absent from the archaeological record is hardly surprising and adds no strength to any argument that they were not utilized during the Late Bronze Age. Crude stone anvils may also have been used, as suggested by a boulder featuring a concentration of heavy pecking from the bronze-working area of Site B, Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone which was occupied in the Roscommon/Dowris Phases of the Late Bronze Age (Williams 1978, 39, figs. 4 & 9).

The six small sandstone pieces in the Dowris hoard and the similar piece from Lusmagh are all angular, featuring several flat faces and a number of curved edges suggesting an abrasive use in polishing. A further stone object, but of considerable size, found at Garden Hill and now lost, might have been a whetstone. A similar stone was found in association with several socketed axes at Moorside, Yorkshire (Evans 1881, 452).

48

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts experimental evidence (Section 3. 6. 4). The absence of such organic tools from the record is unsurprising, in fact it is remarkable that even the single group of wooden moulding patterns from Tobermore, Co. Derry (Cat. 8. 1) were preserved. Other moulding tools, the need for which was clearly suggested in experimental mould fabrication, are the instruments used in shaping the matrices of the clay moulds and repairing damage while wet. Again, these may have been of organic material such as wood, bone or antler. Alternatively, they may be bronzes lying unrecognized in museum collections, or which have yet to be recovered from the record. Some possible examples, similar to the modern tools used for such purposes, may be the so-called ‘toilet implement’ in the Bishopsland hoard, Co. Kildare (Cat. 9. 2) or the tiny tanged ‘chisel’ in the hoard from Park, Co. Meath (Cat. 1. 7). A small knife, such as that in the hoard from Derryhale, Co. Armagh (Eogan 1983, no. 44, 4) would be ideal for cutting the pouring gates in such moulds. These are valid parallels, but again, the multi-purpose potential of many such Late Bronze Age tools is emphasized.

The vice from the Bishopsland hoard is puzzling. It may have been fixed to something in the manner of an anvil, yet lacks any sharpened stem for this purpose. On the other hand, it may have been hand-held and served as a means of gripping bronzes while they were being heated or hot-forged. Punches such as the possible examples from Lusmagh and Bishopsland were necessary for perforating rivetholes which had not been fully cored-out during casting. Gravers are tools which would have been more often used in gold-working, but would also have been utilized in the engraving of decoration on bronze ornaments, such as that on the sunflower pin from the Park hoard, Co. Meath (Cat. 1. 7, 4). Large whetstones, such as the possible example from Garden Hill some 300 by 150 mm in size, would have been used to sharpen the finished product, but are also very effective for removing the ‘flashing’ and casting seams from bronzes straight out of the mould. Smaller polishing or ‘rubber’ stones were utilized in burnishing the surface of the completed artifacts, giving a good smooth finish. The sharp angles and points on some of these would prove helpful in getting at tight corners and recesses which could not be polished on a larger abrasive stone.

The small amount of metal from this period in the Irish record which can be interpreted as having been intended for melting down and use in casting is small. In relation to the apparent output of the Late Bronze Age metalworking industry in Ireland, the amount of identifiable raw materials and ‘waste’ bronze is negligible (Section 3. 2). A similar shortage exists in the case of scrap-hoards (Section 3. 1). Very few of the latter can be identified, and the myriad of problems surrounding hoarding practices make some of these dubious, particularly as a result of their small size and the absence of casting byproduct such as jets or bronze ‘splashings’ in many of them.

3. 9. 5. Distribution. The distribution of this small group of finds is unrevealing, although the proximity of the Dowris and Lusmagh hoards is interesting (Fig. 3. 24).

The relative amounts of clay, stone and bronze moulding material make it very clear that the former was the material medium in general use during the Irish Late Bronze Age. Quantities of clay mould fragments from Rathgall (Cat. 6. 13), Dun Aengus (Cat. 6. 6) and Dalkey Island (Cat. 6. 3) indicate casting on an impressive scale which may have involved a high degree of specialization. Conversely, only four stone moulds are securely assigned to the Late Bronze Age and at least one of these (Cat. 4. 46) is likely to be of foreign origin. Likewise, the only extant bronze mould is probably an antiquarian import from Wales (Cat. 5. 1).

3.10. Conclusions This chapter clearly illustrates that although there is a wide range of artifact types relating to Late Bronze Age metalworking in the Irish archaeological record, the picture remains very much incomplete. The lack of good contextual information is reiterated as a major factor here. With the exception of refractory ceramics, the clay moulds and crucibles, the discovery of very few of these artifacts has been reliably reported.

The distribution maps, when considered in isolation are, in the main, uninformative. An attempt is made in Chapter 6 to consider them in conjunction with one another in the hope of more useful results.

While the major weaknesses in the metallurgical evidence relate mainly to the lack of structural evidence (furnaces, etc.), there are also gaps in the artifactual record which become obvious under scrutiny. These gaps may be the result of the use of archaeologically invisible materials, particularly timber. As argued above, most anvils for bronze-working may have been of wood, a material which has several attractive characteristics for the metalworker (Section 3. 9. 4). Furthermore, the use of wooden formers to shape the exterior surface of clay moulds is suggested on the basis of both the archaeological and the

In examining the artifactual material from a technological viewpoint, the range of skills, in both metallurgy and related disciplines such as ceramics, possessed by the Late Bronze Age bronze-smiths is impressive. This may perhaps be seen more clearly in Chapter 5, where a more integrated study of the metalworking assemblage, as employed in the production of bronze swords, is 49

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts

Fig. 3. 24: Distribution of Metalworking tools from L.B.A. hoards in Ireland.

50

Chapter 3: Bronzeworking evidence from artifacts undertaken. The latter study gives a clearer picture of how the various artifacts and materials considered separately above would have interacted in their original setting and through their original methods of use. Although most of the artifactual evidence for Late Bronze Age metalworking lacks good contextual detail, the amount of relevant material recovered during archaeological excavations has been growing steadily since the middle of this century. It might be expected where such artifacts are recovered, that related structural evidence for metallurgy, particularly casting hearths and furnaces, would also be forthcoming. However, attempts to identify such structural evidence of Late Bronze Age date, in Britain as well as Ireland, have had relatively little success. The current state of such evidence from excavated archaeological sites in Ireland is dealt with in the next chapter.

51

Chapter 4: The Evidence for Late Bronze Age Bronze Fabrication from Archaeological Contexts in Ireland being absent or indistinguishable during excavation. The sites do, nonetheless, span a broad period of the Late Bronze Age. Sites D and F at Lough Gur, Co. Limerick, which straddle the Middle/Late Bronze Age transition, are outliers from the main body of sites discussed here. While the majority are clearly of the Dowris phase, evidence from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway and Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone suggests metalworking activity on these settlements may have begun in the Bishopsland phase and Roscommon phase respectively. At Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo we see possible evidence of the gradual adoption of iron alongside bronze-working during the Dowris phase, while the puzzling discovery at Kilsmullan, Co. Fermanagh suggests a possible late survival of Dowris-type bronze-working into the final centuries B.C. in that area.

Late Bronze Age settlement in Ireland probably consisted largely of small, scattered, undefended sites inhabited by single extended family groups, such as that excavated at Curraghatoor, Co. Tipperary (Doody 1987). The fact that such sites are generally invisible prior to excavation makes their discovery rare. Probably the most commonly excavated settlement type of this period are the lake or bog platforms, constructed of earth, stones and timber, and often surrounded by a palisade of upright stakes. Examples of such sites include Ballinderry 2, Co. Offaly (Hencken 1942), Clonfinlough, Co. Offaly (Moloney et al. 1993) and Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath (Bradley 1997). Defensive settlement also existed on dry land at this time. Enclosed by palisades, banks and ditches, these settlements vary greatly in the areas they enclosed. The size of settlements at Navan Fort, Co. Armagh (Waterman & Lynn 1997) and Aughinish, Co. Limerick (Kelly 1974) were relatively moderate, whereas Rathgall, Co. Wicklow (Raftery 1976) and Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh (Mallory 1991, 1995; Mallory et al. 1996) were of dimensions and location which give some justification for considering them the earliest Irish hillforts. The inhabitants of other settlements, such as Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin (Liversage 1968) and Lough Gur (Knockadoon), Co. Limerick (Ó Ríordáin, 1946) favoured a promontory location.

There are also instances where Late Bronze Age moulds for casting bronzes have been found in association with ritual structures, for example at the King’s Stables, Co. Armagh and, possibly, at the Lough Gur wedge-tomb. The interpretation of such finds is unclear, though the contexts hint at a possible magico-religious dimension to Bronze Age metalworking which is otherwise absent from the archaeological record. The archaeological contexts for Late Bronze Age metalworking in Ireland will be examined below under five headings: Undefended nucleated settlements, enclosed defended settlements, lake-platform settlements, unassociated ‘workshop’ sites, and ritual structures.

The above overview makes it clear that defence was a major priority in selection and construction of settlement in this period. Taken along with the coeval proliferation of bronze weaponry this suggests a climate of social instability, with open, probably violent confrontation a common occurrence between tribal, and possibly subtribal, groupings. In such a society the role of the bronzesmith is sure to have been of great importance, for as well as supplying domestic and agricultural tools necessary for the daily economic life of society, metal weaponry gave weight to the political claims of overlordship made by the elite stratum. Indeed, it is worth considering the possibility that these weapons may also have served as a social indication of membership of such an elite stratum in a similar manner to how the sword indicating membership of the samurai warrior class in feudal Japan. About fifteen Irish sites show clear evidence for bronzeworking during the Late Bronze Age (Fig. 4. 1; Table 4. 1). The quality of the archaeological information from these sites varies greatly, as does the publication record. The scale of metallurgical activity on such sites also differs, ranging from small once-off casting of one or more artifacts, to operations on a scale which might perhaps be described as industrial. The majority of such metalworking complexes are, as might be expected, either on, or closely connected with, domestic habitation evidence, although there are exceptions.

4. 1. Undefended nucleated settlement. In Ireland undefended settlement of Late Bronze Age date which have produced evidence of bronze-working is limited to a single habitation complex. On the Knockadoon peninsula at Lough Gur, Co. Limerick settlement evidence ranges from the Neolithic up to the Medieval period. Here, Middle and Late Bronze Age domestic evidence was accompanied by two areas of metallurgical activity, Sites D and F (Fig. 4. 2). These sites, excavated in the late 1940s, were the first Irish sites where metalworking could be positively linked with Bronze Age habitation. The Lough Gur sites are the only domestic settlements considered here which lack any clearly defined form of defence, in the form of either surrounding water or of earthworks, although their position on a promontory could in itself be regarded as possibly defensive. Indeed, it is likely, as a result of the higher lake-levels at Lough Gur in prehistory, that the peninsula was virtually an island in the Bronze Age (Grogan & Eogan 1987, 487).

Unfortunately, the evidence from these sites is mainly artifactual, actual metalworking structures commonly

52

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 1: Irish Late Bronze Age Settlement Sites with evidence of Bronzeworking.

53

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Table 4. 1: Irish Sites of Late Bronze Age date producing evidence of bronze-working.

Fig. 4. 2: The Knockadoon peninsula and its immediate environs (after Ó Ríordáin 1954).

54

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 3: Site D, Lough Gur, plan and section (after Ó Ríordáin 1954).

could date to an earlier undated phase of activity on this site, as marked by an extant pit reused as a posthole in the construction of House 1.

4. 1. 1. Site D, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. Site D occupied a small narrow valley in the outcropping limestone to the south-east of the peninsula, with vertical rock-face to the east and a short drop to the west of the site. House 1 was the only feature visible before excavation, consisting of a hut foundation of rough stone blocks (Fig. 4. 3). On excavation, ten clay mould fragments were found at a depth of c. 17 cm just outside and to the north of House 1. Six of these fragments fitted together to form part of a mould for casting socket- or basal-looped spearheads (Cat. 6. 7). Also recovered were two fragments which join together to form the most of one valve of a bivalve sandstone mould for casting looped palstaves (Cat. 4. 49). One of the fragments was found inside the house, the other outside it to the northeast. Both occurred near the top of a stony deposit which overlaid the rough stone cobbling of the hut floor. Crucible fragments (Cat. 3. 3) were also found and, although the excavator does not specify where on Site D these were recovered, we may reasonably suppose that it was near House 1. This is because the material used for moulds and crucibles is similar, both being of a sandy clay burnt grey on the surface with a red core.

The metallurgical debris in and adjacent to House 1 makes clear that casting operations were being carried out in the immediate vicinity, although structural evidence in the form of a hearth, casting pit or furnace is lacking.

4. 1. 2. Site F, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. The other metalworking area at Lough Gur – Site F – lies near the western end of Knockadoon, on sloping ground about 75 metres from the lake-edge. The site backs onto a vertical rock-face c. 2 metres high. Site F consisted of a rectangular house foundation measuring 6.4 by 8.2 metres in maximum internal dimensions. The cliff face formed the eastern side of the rectangle, while the north-facing wall extended on to the west as a field boundary (Fig. 4. 4). The interior of the structure was roughly cobbled in the same manner as House 1, Site D. A large hearth was centrally placed, with another lying slightly to the northwest (Fig. 4. 5). These were associated with spreads of charcoal. The latter hearth lay only 10 cm from a regular trapezoidal pit cut into the rock and measuring about 1.5 by 1 metre in maximum dimensions (depth not given). Ó Ríordáin makes no comment regarding this feature, but its proximity to the hearth and regular geometric form suggest that its function may have been connected with

No hearth was found inside or immediately outside House 1. However, as the excavator points out, it is likely that the loose limestone would have allowed charcoal to be gradually washed down, and traces of burning would not be preserved on this level as they were on the clay level beneath (Ó Ríordáin 1954, 385). The traces of burning 55

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 4: Site F, Lough Gur, general plan (after Ó Ríordáin 1954).

Fig. 4. 5: Plan and section of the rectangular structure at Site F, Lough Gur (after Ó Ríordáin 1954).

56

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking the largest and most westerly of the Aran Islands, which lie in Galway Bay (Fig. 4. 6). Excavations at this site took place from 1992 to 1994 as part of Discovery Programme research into the late prehistoric period in Ireland (Cotter 1993; 1995). These excavations produced clear evidence of Late Bronze Age occupation and other activities, including metalworking. Whether this activity was coeval with any earthen or stone defensive rampart is, as at many Irish and British hillforts, still unclear. However, radiocarbon dates do seem to indicate that one enclosing wall at, least, was in existence by the period 890 - 449 B.C.

metalworking. It might possibly be interpreted as a casting pit to hold moulds upright and secure, particularly long examples such as those for swords or rapiers. A casting pit similar to this type was discovered in the Late Bronze Age levels of the settlement complex at Jarlshof, Shetland (Hamilton 1954, 23; also Fig. 5. 8 this volume). This suggestion is borne out by the artifactual evidence from Site F. A trench dug through the field boundary near its junction with the northern wall of the structure uncovered a hearth set in a depression in the original ground surface about 60 cm in diameter and 12 cm deep. This yielded several fragments of clay moulds for casting spearheads and rapiers (Cat. 6. 8), as well as some ‘waste’ bronze from casting. Ó Ríordáin notes that this hollow had been dug as close to the rectangular structure as the occurrence of the gravel, as opposed to the limestone, surface would allow (1954, 418). This fact makes the possibility of this hearth and the features within the structure being contemporary highly likely. Further trenches through the bank recovered more clay mould fragments. The combination of the structural and artifactual evidence on this site gives a persuasive image of a bronze-working area of the Middle Bronze Age/Bishopsland phase, dated through the artifacts represented in the mould fragments.

In the interior of the site, cutting 1 uncovered structural evidence for huts along the inner edge of the innermost rampart at the west side of the enclosure (Fig. 4. 7). This consisted of several roughly circular hut sites marked by sections of low wall formed of contiguous orthostats and featuring areas of stone paving. Hut 1 was the best preserved and most informative of these (Fig. 4. 8). Excavation revealed three pre-hut settlement horizons below this structure, with no gaps in occupation apparent between them or the construction of the hut. Radiocarbon dates of 1375 - 1056 B.C., 1315 - 1052 B.C. and 1237 928 B.C. respectively for the three pre-hut layers (F221, F217 and F203 in diagram section), and of 1208 - 906 B.C. for the earliest occupation horizon within the hut (F56) tend to agree with this. Clay mould fragments were found in each of these four horizons, accompanied in the case of F56 by two crucible sherds of Tylecote’s J1 Type (Cat. 3. 2), clearly indicating that casting operations were taking place on-site or nearby.

More recent investigations at Lough Gur by Rose Cleary have increased our knowledge of this settlement phase. Within the remains of a rectangular house of Later Bronze Age date (charcoal from a post-hole gave a radiocarbon date of 1212 - 810 B.C.), a small fragment of bronze casting ‘waste’ was recovered when flotation was carried out on the contents of a hearth (Cleary 1995, 50).

Hundreds of clay mould fragments for sword, spearhead, sunflower pin and bracelet were recovered from middentype deposits spread throughout the exposed area of the inner enclosure (Cat. 6. 6). These middens also yielded a further number of crucible fragments of the aforementioned type, pieces of pumice which the excavator feels may have been connected with metalworking (Cotter 1993, 18), coarse pottery sherds, grinding stones and a large collection of mammal and shellfish remains. A few bronzes were likewise recovered, including a bracelet, the head of a small chisel and part of a pin shank. Interestingly, the bracelet seems to have been cast from a clay mould fragment found near a stone-lined trough (Fig. 4. 7).

The Late Bronze Age occupation site at Bay (Carnlough), Co. Antrim, from which at least one clay mould fragment was recovered, may be an unenclosed settlement (Woodman 1987/8). However, until the site is properly published it would be fruitless to speculate.

4. 2. Enclosed defended settlement. Recent decades have seen the excavation of a number of Late Bronze Age settlement sites in Ireland yielding evidence of metalworking within an enclosed and presumably defended habitation environment. The nature and extent of the earthworks on these sites is by no means clear, being obfuscated in each case by later phases of activity, mainly of Early Iron Age and Early Medieval date. All three are, however, situated in positions which afford a good degree of natural defensibility.

As Cotter points out, although no structures associated with metalworking appear to survive, there is a definite concentration of mould fragments in the area south of the trough and east of hut 1 (1995, 9). The fill from the aforementioned stone-lined trough, consisting of mid brown humic clay, small stone rubble and animal bones, does not suggest an obvious connection with metalworking. Alternatively, one of the several hearths on-site may have served as a casting base, but the high level of erosion at this cliff-top location exposed to the Atlantic weather, makes it a strong possibility that such evidence may have been obliterated. As regards the possibility that casting activities were carried out at a

4. 2. 1. Dun Aengus, Co. Galway. The well known multivallate stone fort of Dun Aengus is situated on a cliff-edge on the southern coast of Inis Mór, 57

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 6: Dun Aengus, Co. Galway. Plan showing the main structural elements (after Cotter 1991).

Fig. 4. 7: Dun Aengus, plan of Cutting 1 (after Cotter 1992).

58

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 8: Dun Aengus, Hut 1. Plan and section (after Cotter 1992).

evidence, this would appear to have something to do with the structure, post-operative treatment and archaeological survival of casting furnaces.

location somewhat removed from the domestic area, the quantities of refractory ceramic debris in the excavated area make this seem unlikely. The discovery of a large quantity of casting refuse without accompanying structural evidence of casting is not unparalleled, as the Late Bronze Age assemblage from Dainton Devon shows (Needham 1980, esp. fig. 2). This may suggest that there is some important factor relating to the spatial organization of designated casting areas which we have yet to grasp. On the balance of the

4. 2. 2. Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Finds from the hilltop enclosure at Rathgall represent the largest metalworking operation of Late Bronze Age date yet to come to light in Ireland. Excavated in the early 59

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking were recovered along with many crucible fragments (Cat. 3. 6) during the course of the excavation. The majority of these were found in the western end of this structure, adjacent to the cobbling and hearth, clearly indicating a casting operation of vast proportions. Also from that area came two small bars of bronze, possibly ingots, and some lumps of ‘waste’ bronze. Finished bronzes from the site included a socketed gouge, conical rivet, bar toggle and a small hoard, apparently funerary or votive in nature, consisting of a chisel and parts of a sword and spearhead. The latter small hoard was recovered from a Late Bronze Age burial context (Raftery 1973, 293-5). A secondary focus of bronze-working activity on the hilltop – apparently at some remove from the timber structure – yielded a further 100 or so mould fragments.

1970s, the site presently consists of an imposing multivallate stone fort situated on the shoulder of a ridge. The inner stone rampart appears to be of a date no earlier than the Early Medieval period. Unfortunately, there is currently little detailed information available regarding the excavation, but a full report is currently in preparation (Raftery, pers. comm.). The excavator has expressed the opinion that the Late Bronze Age settlement here “is in all probability contemporary with the massive bank-andditch defences surrounding it” (Raftery 1994, 21), and phases of at least two of the outer lines of defence have been assigned to the Late Bronze Age (Fig. 4. 9). The possible focus of the Late Bronze Age activity may have been a circular house set within a concentric ditch at the centre of the complex. However, the majority of metalworking evidence – in terms of artifacts – came from an occupation horizon immediately outside the Vshaped ditch. A deposit of black humic material, 35 cm deep, was associated with an area of cobbling and a rectangular spread of charcoal interpreted as a hearth. These were accompanied by a large number of post-holes and, although the full extent of this element of the complex was never uncovered, these have been interpreted as a timber-built structure of impressive dimensions (Raftery 1971, 297). Over 2000 clay mould fragments for casting swords, spearheads, socketed axeheads and gouges among others (Cat. 6. 13, 15, 16)

In terms of other structural evidence of metalworking, nine large oval or rectangular hearths were discovered. These were unassociated with any other structure but in at least four cases post-hole patterns suggest that some form of canopy roof was present, probably as a shelter from the elements, a feature which may be paralleled at the site of Tre-Wyn, Anglesey, where what appears to have been a smelting pit of Middle Bronze Age date was accompanied by a number of post and stake holes (Lynch 1991, 363-4). It is possible that the pits at Rathgall were likewise connected with metallurgical activity, and the find of a large mould fragment in one example supports this

Fig. 4. 9: Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. General site plan (after Raftery 1976).

60

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 10: Rathgall, plan of penannular ditch and post-hole complex on southern slope outside the hillfort (Raftery 1976).

beads, lignite, and at least five small gold objects. Radiocarbon dates suggest the main period of Late Bronze Age activity here was between about 800 and 400 B.C. (Raftery 1973a, 29), a date which fits comfortably with the Dowris phase nature of the bronzes and those objects represented in the clay mould matrices.

interpretation, although some of these hearths have been alternatively interpreted as cooking pits (Bradley 1984, 121). Indeed, similar Bronze Age hearths, surrounded by four equidistant postholes, have been identified at Buderop Down, Wiltshire, where the excavator felt they were most likely for cooking purposes (Gingell 1992, 428). On the other hand, the hearths with corner pits at Rathgall were far more substantial in dimensions than those at the latter site. These hearths seem rather large for domestic cooking purposes, unless the practice of ‘feasting’ is suggested which, admittedly, would not be unreasonable at such an obviously high-status site as Rathgall. The best parallels for these features is probably the number of possible furnace pits found at the Breiddin, Powys (Musson 1991, 57-61), the defensive nature of that site also being similar to Rathgall.

The quantity of metalworking evidence at Rathgall is unparalleled on other Irish sites of the period and suggests the existence of centralized bronze fabrication on a large scale at this location. In the words of the excavator; “The impression formed is thus of a large industrial complex spreading over an area of considerable size with the workshop at its centre and the open-air hearths clustered around it” (Raftery 1971, 297).

Metallurgical operations at Rathgall were not confined to the hilltop settlement. Test excavation outside the external defences of the fort, in a field on the southern slope, uncovered contemporary settlement in the form of several post-built structures. These included one example featuring a penannular ditch (Fig. 4. 10), interpreted as a possible shrine (Raftery 1976, 349), and among the finds here were a small number of clay mould fragments. One of the possibly canopied hearths was uncovered nearby. A small piece of ‘waste’ bronze found just outside a small circular ditched enclosure in the same area is also of relevance here.

4. 2. 3. Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin. The remains of Late Bronze Age settlement were discovered during excavations on Dalkey Island from 1956 to 1959 (Liversage 1968). This island lies some 400 metres from the mainland at the south of Dublin Bay. The excavation area lay within a promontory fort at the northwest extremity of the island (Fig. 4. 11). It is unlikely that the ramparts were in existence prior to Early Medieval activity on the site, although Late Bronze Age earthworks on promontories subsequently fortified in the first millennium A.D. are not unknown. A radiocarbon date of 800 - 445 B.C. was given for a shallow ditch or trench underlying the stone ramparts at the Early Medieval promontory fort of Dunbeg, Co. Kerry (Barry 1981).

Other activities at Rathgall were indicated by huge quantities of coarse ware pottery sherds, numerous stone objects including many saddle querns, over thirty glass 61

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 11: Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin. Plan of promontory fort showing areas excavated (after Liversage 1968).

moulding debris and hearth is available, given the excavation circumstances.

Late Bronze Age material at Dalkey Island was confined to Site V. Midden deposits consisted of a palimpsest of occupation debris from the Neolithic up to the Early Christian Period, with Beaker and Late Bronze Age material also present. In a similar manner to Runnymede Bridge, Surrey which was also overlain by extensive domestic waste-dumps, which caused difficulty in the recognition of strata interfaces (Needham & Sorensen 1988, 113-6), the excavator at Dalkey Island was unable to differentiate between the different horizons in the midden. Apart from a single hearth (see below), the only discernible structural remains were several undated pits, apparently scattered at random, and a number of small charcoal spreads (Fig. 4. 12).

The site of Navan fort might also be included under this heading as the precise nature of occupation in the Late Bronze Age is uncertain. However, structural evidence here could otherwise be seen as primarily ritual in nature and b included under that heading below (section 4. 5). It is, at any rate, of little significance here as there was no structural evidence possibly associated with metalworking and the mould fragments from the site (Cat. 6. 15) cannot be precisely assigned to a specific location. Likewise, the site of Circle K, Lough Gur Co. Limerick is relevant, although the nature of Late Bronze Age activity here is unclear. This site consisted of a circular walled enclosure, the construction of which was dated to the Beaker period. Late Bronze Age finds of glass beads related to those from the Dowris phase levels at Rathgall, Co. Wicklow came from the upper levels of the strata here. Among a number of bronzes recovered, mostly small scraps, was a tanged awl of the same type as those found at Sites C & D, Lough Gur, the former of which also had glass beads while the latter produced metalworking evidence (see Section 4. 2. 2 above). From just outside the walls at the north-east of Circle K came six clay mould fragments (Cat. 6. 16). Although it is impossible to tell what was cast from these (possibly swords), the moulds were clearly of later Bronze Age

Some 140 clay mould fragments (Cat. 6. 3) and 40 crucible fragments (Cat. 3. 1) were recovered at Site V (although some of the latter were of Early Medieval date). The few small copper and bronze objects from the site were either amorphous or too simple in form to assign to any particular period of occupation. The plotting of findspots for the moulds, crucibles and Late Bronze Age pottery reveals a clear area of concentration for the refractory ceramics (Fig. 4. 13). The position of this concentration can be seen to correspond with that of a hearth (Fig. 4. 12), both occurring about 3 metres south and 5 metres east of the point of origin of the excavation grid. However, while this relationship is unlikely to be coincidental, no definite stratigraphic link between the 62

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 12: Dalkey Island. General plan of Site V (after Liversage 1968).

Fig. 4. 13: Dalkey Island. Distribution of fragments of clay mould, crucibles and Late Bronze Age pottery at Site V (after Liversage 1968).

63

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking maximum dimensions, was lowered considerably by pumping operations in 1978, revealing four structures composed of timber piling. A rescue excavation was subsequently undertaken on two of these (Williams 1978). Site B lay close to the eastern shore of the lake (Fig. 4. 14) and appeared as a muddy rise on the lake-bed with three areas of stone scatter and a charcoal spread to the south. Horizontal timbers were aligned in the mud and birch piles were disposed mainly around the perimeter at north and east (Fig. 4. 15). An oval sandstone boulder bearing an area of pecking on its flat upper face lay on the surface of the site at north-east (Fig. 4. 16). This was similar to an example from Newgrange, Co. Meath associated with Beaker metalworking (O’Kelly & Shell 1979, pl. 2) and had probably been used as an anvil. The charcoal spread may be interpreted as fuel related to metallurgical activities, although it might alternatively be the remains of burnt fencing posts associated with the scorched daub. No evidence was found for the existence of a furnace, but as the excavator points out, this may merely reflect the limited area excavated (Williams 1978, 47).

type with characteristic fine inner and coarse outer layers. The possibility that much of the coarse, flat-based Class II pottery at Lough Gur may be of later Bronze Age date rather than Neolithic has been suggested (Liversage 1968, 159; Kelly 1978; Cleary 1993; 1995) and may add further weight to the obvious signs of Late Bronze Age activity at Circle K. However, this is not certain, as Grogan and Eogan (1987) note that nearly all the Class II pottery at Circle K came from a relatively low level. No structural evidence for metalworking was recorded at this site.

4. 3. Lake-platform settlement. Only two excavated proto-crannogs of Late Bronze Age date have produced strong evidence of bronze-working, while two other unexcavated sites, apparently of similar type, have also produced some level of artifactual evidence.

4. 3. 1. Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone.

Finds from the site included about a dozen clay mould fragments used in the casting of swords and socketed axeheads (Cat. 6. 12), as well as several small crucible fragments (Cat. 3. 5). Initial examination of the site by Collins and Seaby in 1953 also produced a number of

At Lough Eskragh, shore finds suggest Late Bronze Age settlement and metalworking activity in the area around the lake. The latter, measuring c.600 by 400 metres in

Fig. 4. 14: Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone. General plan showing main areas of timber piling (after Williams 1978).

64

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 15: Lough Eskragh. Plan of Site B showing layout of excavation trenches (after Williams 1978).

Fig. 4. 16: Lough Eskragh. Anvil stone from Site B (after Williams 1978).

Fig. 4. 17: Lough Eskragh. Plan of Site A (after Williams 1978).

65

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking summary; for a critique of Raftery’s interpretation see Fredengren 2002).

clay mould and runner gate fragments (Cat. 6. 11). The fragments of socketed axe mould are of particular interest, as one of the stray finds collected on the shore in 1953 was a bronze looped and socketed axehead which, although showing no signs of being unfinished, may well have been manufactured at Site B.

Underlying the Early Christian levels were two major Late Bronze Age occupation horizons. The earlier of these, dated to the 9th or 8th centuries B.C., was formed of stones topped with a platform of round-wood timbers and brushwood. The possible remains of a timber house were marked by an arc of upright plank-stumps and would have been of c. 9 metres in diameter, with a short pathway leading up to it. Seven hearths were identified outside the possible house structure. These were all basket-lined using hazel wicker and ranged from about 1.5 to 3.5 metres in maximum length. They generally had cobbled or baked clay bases and the wicker sides turned in at the top. The baskets had an internal layer of yellow clay to protect them from heat. Finds from this horizon included tweezers and a disc-headed pin of bronze, a small penannular gold ring and 24 clay mould fragments. The nature of the bronzes cast in most of the moulds are unidentifiable, but one is from a knife matrix (Cat. 6. 9).

Site B and Site A (Fig. 4. 17), which lay about 120 metres to the south of the former, appear to have been occupied contemporaneously. The fact that coarse ‘flat-rimmed’ pottery, including one complete pot, wooden vessels, 17 saddle-querns and two dugout canoes were found at Site A indicate that it may be a habitation connected with the bronze workshop area at Site B, although radiocarbon dates indicate that the construction of Site B (1584 - 1113 B.C.) predates that of Site A by several centuries (790 410 B.C. and 971 - 795 B.C.). The presence of eight saddle-querns on Site B may be considered unusual in the light of the fact that it seems to have been a specialized workshop. However, such querns have been used to grind ore prior to smelting in continental contexts, such as the Late Bronze Age copper mining sites at the Mitterberg, Austria (Pittioni 1951), although the wear patterns at this site differ from the Austrian examples. At Dwelling III, Jarlshof, Shetland, which was utilized as a bronze-working centre, a large trough-quern with rubber-stone in situ was found adjacent to a heap of fine grey clay. In this case the excavator felt that this quern was more likely used for working the clay for mould production than for processing cereal (Hamilton 1954, 22).

The site was abandoned and after a short interval reoccupied. No major upstanding structure was identified from this phase. An area of cobbling was centrally placed on the piling, surmounted by two spreads of clay and ash, with a further such spread to the west of the site (Fig. 4. 18). Three basket-lined hearths, one of which was reused from phase I, were disposed around the central cobbled area. Whether these features were in any case connected with metalworking cannot be said, but it is a strong possibility. A small quantity of clay mould fragments were among the finds from this horizon, but these cannot at present be linked with any particular feature.

If activity at Sites A and B is accepted as coeval, then the construction of a special area set aside for bronzeworking, which must have involved considerable effort, may indicate that this activity was carried out on a regular basis. The relatively small quantity of refractory ceramics recovered from the site may not support this idea, but the limited extent of excavation and the likelihood that waste was deposited into the lake (or elsewhere off-site), must be borne in mind.

The contents of a hoard, deposited just outside the perimeter in an alder-wood box and marked positionally with wooden pegs, included rings of bronze, tin and lead, the latter covered in gold foil, a necklace of amber beads, a tweezers and pin of bronze and six boars tusks. This hoard indicates a good degree of wealth for the inhabitants at this stage. Of great interest are the iron artifacts recovered from phase II, including a trident, swan-necked pin, shaft-hole axehead and part of a socketed object (probably a sickle). These were from the same levels as typical Dowris bronzes such as a tanged chisel and bifid razor. The three most recent radiocarbon determinations for phase II centre on a range of 1000 830 B.C. (see Appendix), with a date in the later part of that range likely for this first significant Irish evidence of bronze and iron use in a composite economy. Similar evidence of the long overlap of the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age transition is also known from Aughinish Island, Co. Limerick in Ireland (Kelly 1974), and from Cullykhan (Greig 1972) and possibly Traprain Law (Jobey 1976) in Scotland. The above dating range also fits in with the apparent brevity of the gap between phases I and II at Rathtinaun, the same types of coarse pot-sherds and wooden vessels, as well as Dowris type bronzes, being in use during both periods. Nonetheless, until a full and considered account of the Rathtinaun excavations

4. 3. 2. Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo. Lough Gara is a small lake in south Sligo near the Roscommon border. Various drainage schemes caused the water-level to drop some 2.5 metres in the early 1950s, revealing up to 400 possible crannog-type structures (for an in-depth consideration of the crannogs in Lough Gara see Fredengren 2002). Rathtinaun (Crannog 61) was situated on the eastern part of the lake where the Boyle river enters. It consisted of a mound of stone and timbers, oval in plan, 36 by 29 metres in maximum dimensions and c. 2.5 metres high. A number of Late Bronze Age objects were found nearby, leading this mound to be selected for excavation between 1952 and 1955. The site remains unpublished in its full form (Raftery 1994, 32-5 is the most concise published 66

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 18: Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo. Plan of phase II transitional settlement. B.W. = brushwood (after Raftery 1994).

investigation of the site in 1992. A radiocarbon sample taken during this initial examination gave a date in the 10th century B.C. and on the strength of this a full-scale excavation was undertaken in 1995 (Hurl 1995). The site consisted of an oval rise on the west side of the bog. Upon excavation, the extent of prehistoric activity was found to be defined by a spread of grey ashy soil, 23 by 12 metres in maximum dimensions and up to 5 cm thick (Fig. 4. 19), the edge of which was partially revetted with stones.

appears, the reliability of the stratigraphic interpretation – and thus also related radiocarbon determinations – cannot be effectively assessed. The clay mould fragments from Bohevny, Co. Fermanagh (Cat. 6. 5) appear to have also been found on some type of platform of timber piling (see Section 3. 6. 1), and three Late Bronze Age swords in various stages of manufacture recovered at Ballycroghan, Co. Down were from near one of a number of structures on a dried out lake bed. These were composed of clay and stones, also including “a great deal of timber, both large and small, much of it bearing marks of apparent dressing with a gouge” (Jope 1953, 37). Unfortunately, no further investigation of either site was undertaken.

The most interesting features of the site were three mounds, the central and largest example of which was 3.5 metres in maximum length, c. 0.5 metres in high and was composed of twelve alternating layers of charcoal and baked clay, while a domed setting of sandstone slabs lay at its centre. There was some structural evidence that this mound was protected by some form of timber windbreak. The other two mounds – to the north and south of the central example – both consisted of four layers of the same materials and, while one had a setting of limestone boulders at its centre, the base of the other was marked by the burnt remains of several wooden planks. Spreads of ash and charcoal dispersed around the site appear to originate from these mounds. The excavator notes that; “The nature of the deposits and the temperatures that would have been required to generate them suggest a repeated industrial process rather than a domestic one” (ibid. 26).

4. 4. Unassociated Work Sites. Listed under this heading are two sites which display evidence for metalworking activity, but no clear association with any habitation evidence.

4. 4. 1. Killymoon, Co. Tyrone. Stray finds from the edge of an inter-drumlin raised bog at Killymoon led to a preliminary archaeological 67

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 19: Killymoon, Co. Tyrone. General site plan (after Hurl 1995).

chimneys or flues apparent during excavation, leading to the belief that whatever their use, the process was taking place atop, rather than within, the mounds. However, the central positioning of stone and wooden structures at the base of the mounds may be seen as conflicting with this interpretation. In any case, if the mounds were used in connection with metallurgy, the absence of an air inflow and the overlying, air-excluding clay layers could suggest the deliberate exclusion of oxygen to produce a reducing environment. The purpose might then have been for smelting ore and the presence of charcoal would be in agreement with this. However, it must be admitted that no ore was recovered here.

Evidence of several possible craft activities is displayed in the artifacts recovered at Killymoon. Bronze-working is represented by two clay mould fragments (Cat. 6. 10), a small looped and socketed axehead (apparently damaged or incomplete) and possibly hammer-stones; while two gold objects – a dress-fastener and a sleeve-fastener – were discovered under a Late Bronze Age spoil-heap related to the activities at the central mound. Coarse pottery sherds were plentiful, while the anaerobic nature of conditions on the site had preserved evidence of textiles in the form of human and animal hair, woollen twine and cloth, as well as a number of stone spindle whorls. Stone-working evidence was present in the form of flint scrapers and polished stone axes, and grain processing was indicated by a number of saddle querns and rubbing stones, not to mention two spreads of charred barley.

Alternatively, the mounds may have been for producing charcoal for use in metallurgical processes, a low-oxygen atmosphere also being required for this process. The only other logical possibility which springs to mind is that the mounds may be connected with the production of ceramics, and the quantities of pottery on-site, not to mention the clay mould fragments, could be said to support this view. Further discussion must await the comprehensive publication of this intriguing site.

Clearly, a wide range of industrial and domestic tasks were undertaken here, but the absence of habitation evidence in the form of food waste such as animal bones, or as structural remains of huts or houses, is notable. One clue to the possible whereabouts of associated settlement are the remains of a pathway, composed of brushwood and anchored with wooden stakes, leading up to a vaguely defined (and currently uninvestigated) enclosure on a drumlin 300 metres to the west.

4. 4. 2. Kilsmullan, Co. Fermanagh. Kilsmullan lies in north-east Fermanagh in an area of drumlins (Fig. 4. 20). The excavation took place in an inter-drumlin hollow on the margins of a small dried-out lake which is now a bog. In 1977 a small bronze looped

The purpose of the clay and charcoal mounds at this site, which do not seem to have any parallels in the insular Bronze Age, and the possibility they are connected with metallurgy, are intriguing questions. There were no 68

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 20: Kilsmullan, Co. Fermanagh. General environs (after Williams 1984).

and socketed axehead of poor quality was found during cultivation and was accompanied by a concentration of stones and charcoal. The site was excavated the same year (Williams 1984). On removal of the potato ridges, a peat surface was uncovered overlying the sandy clay of the ancient lake-bed. A stone structure, Feature 1, was discovered where the axehead had been found (Fig. 4. 21). This structure, built of sandstone slabs, was parallel sided, measuring 2.2 by 0.75 metres in overall dimensions. Several of the slabs exhibited burnt surfaces (marked B in Fig. 4. 21), and the interior was covered with burnt, orange-coloured soil surmounted by a layer of charcoal c.10 cm deep which extended beyond Feature 1 at either end. Two other small structures were identified. Feature 2, some 50 cm to the south of Feature 1, was an irregular area of sandstone paving 1 by 1.5 metres in extent, set into the peat. Feature 3, just north of Feature 1, consisted of a pile of grey pebbles overlying a layer of cream-coloured inorganic material, which in turn lay upon the burnt soil surface. Subsequent to the excavation further horticultural activity uncovered a stone structure several metres south-east of the excavated site, which was described as a rectangular platform, 0.9 by 0.27 metres in size, made of two adjacent stone courses with a gap of 0.15 metres between them. Despite careful excavation the axehead remains the only find from the area of these structures. This artifact is a very poor casting, badly formed and severely pitted with blow-holes. It was most likely considered unsuitable for use and may have been intended for recycling. The upstanding, positive nature of the structural evidence is

Fig. 4. 21: Kilsmullan. Plan and section of structural remains (after Williams 1984).

69

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking 4. 5. 1. Lough Gur wedge-tomb, Co. Limerick.

not paralleled by any other possible metallurgical processing features of the insular Bronze Age, which are generally negative in form, such as those at Rathgall (Section 4. 2. 2.), the Breiddin, Powys (Musson 1991, 60), or the possible smelting hearth at Tre-Wyn, Anglesey (Lynch 1991, 363-4). Nonetheless, the Kilsmullan structure is reminiscent of a casting hearth or furnace and is probably where this reject axehead was cast. The absence of even the slightest trace of artifactual casting residue on the site is therefore puzzling, and creates problems for this interpretation. Nonetheless, when the axehead and evidence of pyrotechnical activity are taken into account, metallurgy would seem to remain the most feasible explanation for the structural remains.

This site lies about 70 metres from the eastern margin of the lake at c.90 metres O.D. on the WNW slope of a hill which rises to a height of c.120 metres. Excavations were undertaken here in 1938 (Ó Ríordáin & Ó h-Iceadha, 1955). The tomb chamber, constructed of limestone slabs, measures 8.7 by 3.5 metres and its long axis is oriented SW-NE (Fig. 4. 22). There are two main internal parts; the main chamber, measuring 6.3 by 1.5 metres, and a small ante-chamber to the west, 0.9 by 1.2 metres in size. The two are separated by a vertical septal slab. Detail of the excavation is poor, but three crucible fragments (Cat. 3. 4), the only metallurgical evidence definitely associated with the structure, came from the antechamber, which had a fill of closely-packed small stones covered by two stone slabs. These crucible fragments were not assigned a stratigraphic context, but we may reasonably assume them to be secondary and not associated with the construction of the megalith. A portion of one valve of a stone mould for casting socketed spearheads (Cat. 4. 50) was found just under the sod layer about 2.5 metres south of the tomb’s west end. Given the presence of crucible fragments in the tomb, it is possible that the mould fragment is coeval with that phase of activity at the tomb which produced the former. Further objects from the site which may be connected with metalworking include a hammerstone and several whetstone fragments. No structural evidence of metallurgy was recorded.

A radio-carbon date of 355 - 3 B.C. received for charcoal from within F1 seems unexpectedly late, given the presence of the looped and socketed axehead of bagshaped form. This may possibly indicate a rather late survival of Dowris-type metalworking in this area. Nonetheless, there is presently no indication of other possible Late Bronze Age activity, domestic or otherwise, in the immediate area, although the proximity of the Bohevny find of clay moulds (Cat. 6. 5) is also of interest (Fig. 4. 20). Caution must be advised in accepting the accuracy of the Kilsmullan radiocarbon determination at face value, as a single unsupported sample such as this is not generally considered reliable by modern archaeological standards.

Artifactual evidence of metallurgy from Irish wedgetombs has been noted on several excavations, ranging from the recovery of a flat axe and two plano-convex ingots of Early Bronze Age date at Toormore, Co. Cork (O’Brien et al. 1989-90) to the above example at Lough Gur, which seems to be the latest Bronze Age example (see Sections 3.3.2. and 3.4.2. for dating). Two other wedge-tombs produced stone mould material of Middle Bronze Age date. That at Loughash, Co. Tyrone (Davies 1939) yielded part of one valve of a bivalve mould for casting flanged axes or palstaves (Cat. 4. 32), while that at Moylisha, Co. Wicklow (Ó h-Iceadha 1946) produced similar material to Lough Gur, including a bivalve mould for casting kite-shaped spearheads (Cat. 4. 33), a whetstone, a hammer-stone and a number of slag fragments. The question of why these associations of metalworking material occur with wedge-tombs is a complex one and cannot be undertaken in this section, except to suggest that this connection is probably of a non-utilitarian nature. A more full discussion of this is undertaken below (see Section 6.4).

4. 5. Ritual structures. There are two ritual structures, of two totally different types, which may be linked artifactually with Late Bronze Age metalworking, though unfortunately neither shows structural evidence for such activity. The relevant activity at Lough Gur wedge-tomb, Co. Limerick can be considered broadly coeval with the structures discussed in Section 4. 1, that is of the Middle Bronze Age/Bishopsland transitional period. Activity at the King’s Stables, Co. Armagh, an artificial pond which seems to have been the focus of ritual deposition, is of a more definite Late Bronze Age date. Both Oldconnaught, Co. Dublin and Johnstown South, Co. Wicklow could be included under this heading. However, the published excavation data from Oldconnaught (Wakeman 1894; 1895) is inadequate for any detailed site interpretation. Possible furnace pits and substantial quantities of metalworking slag were recorded at Johnstown South, but deciding whether any connection exists between these and the Late Bronze Age moulding evidence must await final publication of the results of excavation of this complex multi-period site. The artifactual evidence from both these sites is dealt with in Chapter 3.

70

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 22: Lough Gur wedge-tomb, Co. Limerick. Plan of excavated area (after Ó Ríordáin & Ó h-Iceadha 1955).

The artifactual evidence of metallurgy was limited to eighteen clay mould fragments recovered from the central basin (Cat. 6. 2). These were found almost exclusively in layers 3 and 6 (Fig. 4. 24), which appeared to be deposits dumped into the pool near its edge and consisted of sandy gravel, also containing numerous twigs. The excavator asserts that it is “reasonably certain that the material containing animal bones and clay mould fragments was introduced deliberately not long after the monument was constructed” (ibid. 50). It is clear, then, that this material was not the result of erosion from the poolside scarp, which in any case appears to be a recent result of cattle activity at the site. As the clay mould fragments came from two narrow trenches cut across the pool-edge and constituting only a very small part of the overall circumference, we might reasonably expect similar fragments to be present, possibly in large quantities, at other points around the edge of the pool.

4. 5. 2. ‘The King’s Stables’, Co. Armagh. This site forms part of the Navan complex of monuments just west of Armagh town. The complex lies in a drumlinbelt, with this site situated on a low ridge c.100 metres north of a bog. This ridge is an extension of the drumlin on the west, which is surmounted by the large Late Bronze Age enclosure known as Haughey’s Fort (Fig. 4. 23). ‘The King’s Stables’ consists of a sunken hollow containing a seasonally variable depth of water, surrounded by a penannular bank. The central hollow is 25 metres in diameter and the top of the bank is 3 to 4 metres above the scarp at the pool edge, but only one metre on average above the surrounding land on its exterior. There is a gap, apparently original, in the west side of the bank. A trial excavation in 1975 saw two narrow trenches cut across the bank and most of the central hollow when the water level was low (Lynn 1977). No structural evidence was uncovered, either within or under the bank, nor outside the bank in the extension trench to the north-east.

Other finds from the pool included numerous animal bones, two bone tools, two sherds of coarse pottery and the front part of a human skull. The nature of the bone 71

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking

Fig. 4. 23: ‘The King’s Stables’, Co. Armagh. Location and surrounding environs (after Lynn 1977).

Fig. 4. 24: ‘The King’s Stables’. Diametrical section of Trenches I and II (after Lynn 1977).

72

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking (apparently) domestic hearths have survived at these sites belies this. The possibility of metalwork being located at some remove from the settlement may be invoked to explain the absence of such structural evidence. However, the quantities of clay moulding debris at Rathgall, Dun Aengus and Dalkey Island would imply that casting was carried out either on the site or very close-by.

assemblage, containing large quantities of red deer antler and dog remains which do not suggest a domestic assemblage, can be added to the human skull to suggest a ritual or ceremonial purpose for this unusual site. The presence of mould fragments in the pool may also be of ritual significance, rather than a purely secular act of refuse disposal. As noted above (Section 4. 5. 1), the deposition of metallurgical material at ritual sites in the Bronze Age is a repeated feature of the Irish archaeological record.

Several possible explanations may be advanced. Firstly, the search for a sunken, fire-reddened pit, indicating a bowl-furnace of the type recorded at the Breiddin, Powys (Musson 1991, 60) for example, may be misguided. Bronze-smiths in Late Bronze Age Ireland may have either constructed furnaces which had no sub-surface features, or may have found a carefully tended hearth fire to be sufficiently effective for casting purposes. The apparent association of a hearth with mould and crucible debris at Dalkey Island, although stratigraphically unproven, may be in agreement with this.

It is possible that the residues from casting operations at some sites (e.g. Kilsmullan, Co. Fermanagh, section 4. 4. 2 above) were carefully collected and removed to a location outside the working area for deposition. If this were the case then we must ask the question of where the mould fragments at ‘The King’s Stables’ originated. It might possibly be from some undiscovered site nearby, but it seems more likely that they were used at the Late Bronze Age complex of Haughey’s Fort. Excavation of this large defended site producing material which, along with its scale and ramparts, made its high status clear. Such material included evidence of on-site gold-working and feasting, and although bronzes have been found onsite, finds or structures indicative of bronze fabrication have yet to come to light (Mallory 1991; 1995; Mallory et al. 1996). The presence of the same type of coarse pottery at both Haughey’s Fort and The King’s Stables would support a link, and both also yield radiocarbon dates centred on c. 1100 cal. B.C., indicating contemporaneous use (see Fig. 3. 12B).

Another possibility is that moulds were brought from the metalworking area to the domestic area after casting and before breaking open to remove the product. This would explain why large quantities of moulds can be found without related structural evidence of casting and would also help explain the absence of metallurgical debris at Kilsmullan, for example. Post-cast treatment of bronzes may well have been carried out in the domestic area, as there is no danger of fire through accidents involving molten metal and no noxious fumes are generated, as in the melting or smelting of metal. Of course, other social, economic or religious factors may have been responsible for such a separation of the pyrotechnical aspects of metal artifact fabrication from domestic activity. There are, however, problems with this explanation. The presence of the miscast socketed axehead at Kilsmullan probably suggests it was extracted from the mould here. Also, the crucible fragments at Rathgall and Dun Aengus were found among the mould fragments and, given the above theory, there would be no reason for their presence. Whatever its cause, the apparent absence of structural evidence for furnaces remains the most problematic area of the Irish Late Bronze Age contextual record as it related to metalworking.

4. 6. Conclusions. Although there is clear artifactual evidence of metalworking on most of the above sites, the nature of this activity – in terms of its spatial organization and the structures utilized – is unclear, and in some cases structural evidence is altogether absent. This problem is most clearly illustrated by contrasting the sites of Dun Aengus, Co. Galway and Kilsmullan, Co. Fermanagh. Hundreds of clay mould and crucible fragments were found on the former site, where a bronze bracelet could be linked to this on-site production. Despite this, there is no structural feature which is particularly likely to be metallurgical, as opposed to domestic, in function. This site shows clear signs of domestic habitation. At Kilsmullan we have a stone-built structure associated with a zone of oxidized earth and spreads of charcoal and an unusual inorganic substance. The solitary find is a miscast socketed axehead. All this suggests a casting furnace, yet there is no other scrap of artifactual evidence, metallurgical or otherwise, to back this up. Furthermore, the structure is apparently unassociated with any domestic site.

The general involvement of ritual in many aspects of metalworking (as indeed in other areas of activity) in primitive societies is hinted at for the Irish Later Bronze Age context by the evidence from ‘The King’s Stables’, Lough Gur wedge-tomb and possibly Johnstown South. Ritual may have been intimately involved in the organization of the craft, possibly playing a role in creating many of the interpretative difficulties arising regarding Late Bronze Age metalworking, such as those discussed above. Clear evidence for the separation of metalworking from domestic activities is noted at three of the sites discussed. At Rathgall it is clear that the rectangular structure was the focus of metalworking on the site. Although a separate entity, the proximity of this structure, and the

At some sites, such as Dun Aengus and Lough Gur, environmental factors might be blamed for the absence of metallurgical structures. However, the fact that 73

Chapter 4: Contextual evidence for bronzeworking canopied hearths which may be related to on-site metallurgy, to the central round-house is notable. The discovery of hut-structures, in some cases associated with mould fragments, outside the enclosure defences to the south may indicate the presence of a metalworking site in this peripheral area. Indeed, if the enclosure and its surrounding complex constituted a political unit controlled by a central authority, which seems likely, then such peripheral activity could well account for the mould fragments from the rectangular structure. This may still be the case should the canopied hearths at Rathgall be discounted as unrelated to metalworking. At Lough Eskragh, Site B, we find the clearest division of as identified bronze casting workshop from its corresponding domestic centre, Site A, which is somewhat over 100 metres to the south-west. A similar situation may prove to have existed at Killymoon, where the excavator noted the presence of a brushwood pathway which seems to lead in the direction of an unexcavated enclosure some 300 metres to the west of the industrial site. A final point of interest is the lack of any evidence for indoor metalworking. The most likely exception may be the large hearth in the rectangular structure at Rathgall, though this is not certain. Also, the quantities of moulding debris from Dun Aengus were recovered near and around a number of hut-sites, so indoor casting cannot be ruled out at this site either. The significance of this is that experiments indicate that outdoor casting during the colder months of the year would be a difficult task (see Section 5. 4. 3 below). This may suggest that casting was a seasonal activity confined to the warmer part of the year. Conversely, if indoor casting operations can be identified it might possibly be indicative of all year round production of bronzes. Metalworking on known Irish Late Bronze Age settlements, although of necessity often spatially peripheral to the focus of domestic activity, appears to have been a well-integrated and important aspect of the economy. This is, indeed, what we might expect in a society where metalwork was visibly of great social importance.

74

Chapter 5. The Technology of Late Bronze Age Sword Production in Ireland, with Special Reference to the Experimental Approach

The area of experimental work in mould production and casting has only rarely been brought to publication (Tylecote 1973; Bareham 1994; McNally 1996) and has never dealt more than summarily with post-cast hardening treatment of the product. A number of scientific papers were of use, particularly in the interpretation of the metallographic results received for the experimentally cast swords (see Sections 5. 7 and 5. 8). These include works by Coghlan (1971), Allen, Britton & Coghlan (1970), Hodges (1964), Scott (1990) and Slater (1985). This recent research now permits the earlier studies of Irish sword production to be fleshed-out with greater detail. Finally, the author has also gained personal insight into Late Bronze Age metalworking practice through examination of relevant artifacts housed in Irish Museum collections.

5. 1. Sources of Data. Two main sources of data were utilized in the following study of Late Bronze Age sword production in Ireland. Firstly previous archaeological and scientific research into this area were reviewed and secondly a programme of experimentation focusing on sword casting and finishing was undertaken.

5.1.1. Archaeological Research. The basic techniques used to make swords in the Irish Late Bronze Age have been effectively dealt with by several authors who set out the general order of operations and the methodology involved in this production (Maryon 1937/8; Hodges 1954; Eogan 1965). Further elements of Late Bronze Age sword technology are discussed in a number of shorter articles (e.g. Jope 1953; Coles & Livens 1957/8). In Ireland the decades since these publications have seen archaeological excavation uncover important new evidence of sword production, mostly in the form of large assemblages of clay mould fragments (see Table 5. 1). The advances made in the general area of prehistoric metallurgy in Britain, particularly through the contributions of Tylecote and Northover, have also lent new impetus to swordstudies, as has the completion of a corpus of British swords which includes a consideration of their production technology (Burgess & Colquhoun 1988).

5.1.2. Experimental Evidence. The experimental work referred to above was the result of some 18 months of collaboration between the author and Mr. Liam McNally of the McNally Clan Trust Ltd., a private concern in Dublin. This experimental work is the first body of research to examine all stages of Late Bronze Age sword production conducted in these islands. The author first contacted Mr. McNally in August 1995, while temporarily based in Dublin researching in the National Museum. The latter has had a long interest in prehistoric technology and has previously experimented

Table 5.1. Irish sites yielding clay sword mould fragments of Late Bronze Age date, showing other artefact types represented in the moulding evidence.

75

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . in ancient flint-working, tanning and the production of steel weaponry. At the time the author contacted him he was involved in reproducing bronze artifacts of Bronze Age type from stone moulds. His wide-ranging practical experience was to be a useful complement to the author’s theoretical knowledge of metalworking and familiarity with the archaeological evidence of Bronze Age metalworking in Ireland.

5.2. Stone Moulds. It is clear from the archaeological record that Late Bronze Age swords in Ireland were generally produced in clay moulds. The question of whether stone was ever used on this island as a moulding medium for swords has only been briefly touched upon, with most authors assuming that clay was the only material used (e.g. Eogan 1965, 3). As of yet, no stone moulds used in sword production have been found in Ireland or Britain. The Continental evidence would suggest that stone moulds for swords were a very rare occurrence in general, perhaps the only good example from Western Europe being a hoard of three valves for producing Erbenheim type swords from Piverone, north West Italy (see Fig. 5. 2).

In the experiments which followed, the objective was to examine the production of Late Bronze Age swords in clay moulds and also the technology involved in their finishing. We began various experiments in clay mould fabrication in Mr. McNally’s workshop, which had all the necessary equipment. The initial experiments made it clear that the casting process and in particular the making of clay moulds would require a long period of study and effort. It took approximately 12 months before bronze swords could be consistently cast to a reasonable standard. Over this period experiments were carried out both by Mr. McNally alone and by Mr. McNally and the author when possible. The length of time and the amounts of data involved, as well as the absence of the author from a number of the experiments, made the matter of clay mould construction and casting unsuitable for inclusion here in their full form. Thus, reference to experiments in these areas is integrated with the archaeological evidence (Sections 5. 3 & 5. 4). The latter part of this chapter deals with various experiments in the post-cast hardening and finishing of bronze swords carried out in February, 1997 which were considered more suitable for inclusion in the form of a full report and scientific analysis. Work was undertaken over a period of a week and the experimental sequence was designed, carried out and recorded by the author alone. A detailed description of the techniques employed and the experimental results are included at the end of the chapter (Sections 5. 6 - 8), although reference is also occasionally made to the experiments in the discussion of the archaeological evidence for sword finishing (Section 5. 5). The production evidence will be discussed below in four sections: (1) Stone moulds; (2) Clay moulds; (3) Casting; (4) Post-cast treatment. The first three sections deal with both archaeological and experimental evidence, while the final section deals with the post-cast treatment of bronze swords using the archaeological data sources in combination with experimental studies carried out as part of the author’s thesis research. The results of this experimentation is augmented by preliminary scientific analysis carried out for the author by Dr. Peter Northover, in the department of materials, University of Oxford. Contacts established with Sue Bridgeford, a post-graduate student at the University of Sheffield undertaking research into usewear on Late Bronze Age weaponry was also helpful in the final consideration of these results.

Fig. 5. 1: Bivalve stone mould for casting rapiers from Ireland (after Burgess & Gerloff 1981).

76

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . described it as having a plain tang with central rib. This description suggests a Ballintober type sword (Eogan Class 1), which would have been current in the Bishopsland phase. A stone rapier mould also provenanced only to Ireland (Fig. 5. 1; Cat. 4. 53) is listed by Burgess and Gerloff who mention that the mould was previously mistaken for that of a Ballintober type sword but give no further detail (1981, appendix 2, no. 8). These two moulds may be one and the same, although illustration of the latter shows a blade which features no variation in width before tapering to a point and is thus not leaf-shaped in the accepted sense. Regardless of this, it seems safe to assume that if stone moulds were used for casting swords in Ireland it was probably a short-lived transitional phenomenon.

5.3. Clay Moulds. The general archaeological background of Late Bronze Age clay moulds in Ireland has been dealt with above (Section 3. 6). All extant mould evidence for Late Bronze Age sword production in Ireland is in the medium of clay (Table 5. 1; Cat. 6. 1 - 6, 11 - 13 and possibly 16). The highly fragmentary nature of this evidence makes it difficult to reconstruct these moulds and their manner of use, though a picture is slowly developing. The fabrication of clay moulds for smaller bronze objects is relatively easy, even for those engaging in modern experiments without any previous experience. However, the length of sword moulds and the resulting fragility, makes their construction an art which takes time and experience to develop. The following stages may be identified in the fabrication and use of clay moulds for the purpose of making bronze swords in Late Bronze Age Ireland.

5.3.1. Clay Preparation. As mentioned previously (Section 3.6.4), the clay used for mould fabrication appears to have generally been of local origin, although this can rarely be confirmed. Clay containing a high level of refractory material may have been preferentially selected. In experiments carried out for this thesis, in addition to modern potter’s clay, a riverbed clay from Co. Wicklow was used and proved equally suitable for mould construction. The addition of refractory material to the clay, in the form of sand, is evident in all the Irish Late Bronze Age moulds. This is obviously to prevent the clay from ‘slumping’ at high temperatures, although it has also been suggested that a high proportion of sand in the clay minimizes shrinkage during drying (Tylecote 1986, 89).

Fig. 5. 2: Hoard of three single valves of bivalve stone moulds for casting Erbenheim type swords from Piverone, north-west Italy (after Bianco-Peroni 1970).

It is conceivable that the earliest attempts at casting leafshaped swords in Ireland and Britain might have been in stone, given that such swords seem to have been initially produced here in the Bishopsland phase when the replacement of stone with clay as the chosen moulding medium was incomplete. Hodges mentions that a stone mould for casting leaf-shaped swords, supposedly from Ireland, was published by Worsaae in Memoires des Antiquities du Nord, 1877 (see Hodges 1954, 78), who

The clay/sand mixture is most easily homogenized when the operation is carried out in standing water. In experiments in which the author participated this was 77

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production .

Pl. 5.1: Initial stages in clay sword mould construction. (1) ABOVE. Clay rolled out. (2) MIDDLE. Clay flattened. (3) BELOW. Clay placed in external wooden formers and impressed with wooden template. Fine ash used as non-stick agent. (photos courtesy of the McNally Clan Trust Ltd, 1996).

5.3.2. Mould Fabrication.

carried out in a bucket. However, depending on the amount to be mixed, any reasonably large receptacle would serve, such as, for example, the pottery vessel recovered at Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone (Williams 1978, fig. 7), or on a larger scale the stone trough at Dun Aengus, Co. Galway (Cotter 1995, 13). If the mixing process is carried out in this manner, then provision must be made to dry the clay to a state where it is solid enough for handling. The most efficient method of achieving this is to tie the clay up in a large piece of cloth which will allow the water to gradually drain off. Such fabrics seldom survive on Late Bronze Age sites, although some pieces of cloth were recovered at Killymoon, Co. Tyrone, where bronzes appear to have been cast (Hurl 1995, 26).

During experimentation, once sufficiently dry the clay was first thoroughly kneaded to expel air. It was then rolled out into two long cylinders which were then flattened (Pl. 5. 1, 1 & 2). These two flattened strips of clay were next placed into wooden formers to form the two valves of the mould. The concave shape of such formers would have given the inner valves of the moulds a regular rounded exterior, as seen in some mould fragments recovered (Fig. 5. 3). The formers also prevent the deformation which could otherwise arise during moving the moulds without support before they are dry.

78

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production .

Fig. 5. 3: Clay sword mould fragments from Irish sites. ABOVE. 1 - 3 Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone (after Hodges 1954). BELOW. 4 - 6 Dun Aengus, Co. Galway (after Cotter 1995).

One interesting question is whether these rods were left in place throughout the drying and firing process. Experiment suggests that the rods cannot be left in during drying as the clay shrinking about the inert wood causes severe cracking which renders the moulds useless, even when the rods have been heavily greased to allow movement around them. It seems likely, therefore, that the rods were somehow removed during drying and perhaps reinserted before moving the moulds into the kiln. However, the cavities will have shrunk during drying, so for reinsertion a rod of smaller section would be necessary. One fragment of a mould from Lough Eskragh still contains part of a carbonized stiffening rod (Fig. 5. 4, B), suggesting that it had been left in place

In the case of many sword mould fragments and possibly also some sickle and knife moulds, there is evidence for the presence of a longitudinal stiffening rod which may be an alternative method of support to external formers. These stiffening rods vary in both shape and positioning. On several examples they tend towards a round section, e.g. Bohevny, Co. Fermanagh (Fig. 5. 4, A), while at Lough Eskragh they are semi-circular or rectangular (Fig. 5. 4, B). At Oldconnaught, Co. Dublin (Fig. 5. 4, C) and Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim (Fig. 5. 4, D) the rods were inserted into the outer wrap, while at Bohevny the inner clay layer was favoured. This implies that the rods were included at later stages in the mould fabrication process at the former two sites than at the latter. 79

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production .

Fig. 5. 4: Clay sword mould fragments showing evidence of stiffening rods. (A) Bohevny, Co. Fermanagh. (B) Lough Eskragh, Co Tyrone. (C) Oldconnaught, Co. Dublin. (D) Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim. (all after Eogan 1965).

80

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production .

Fig. 5. 5: Method of clay mould construction suggested for the assemblage from Dainton, Devon (after Needham 1980).

of a sword is used to imprint the valves by sinking it to half its thickness in one and placing the other on top (Fig. 5. 5, 2-4; Pl. 5. 1, 3). A non-stick agent must be sprinkled on the valve faces and the template before impression. In experiments carried out by the author, both finely ground charcoal and soot were found to be effective in this regard, while fine ash was the best of the substances tested. It is important to note that the wooden model should be somewhat larger than the sword to be cast is intended to be, to allow for shrinkage in the clay during drying and also in the metal when cooling (see Section 5. 3).

during the firing of the mould. The difficulties with stiffening rods and clay shrinkage have meant that no mould has thus far been successfully reconstructed by this method. The absence of such rods from sword mould fragments at Dun Aengus, Co. Galway (Cat. 6. 6) and ‘The King’s Stables’, Co. Armagh (Cat. 6. 2) may suggest that alternative methods of construction were in use during the Late Bronze Age, i.e. that it was possible to cast swords using some external support other than a stiffening rod to strengthen the clay mould. Nonetheless, as sword mould fragments both with and without stiffening rods occurred at Rathgall, Co. Wicklow (Cat. 6. 13; Raftery 1971, 297), these methods do not seem to be mutually exclusive in their distribution. However, one method may be later than the other on this site, possibly representing a technological progression. The use of stiffening rods may be an Irish innovation, such being absent in sword moulds from Dainton, Devon (Needham 1980) and Fimber, Yorkshire (Burgess 1968, appendix 3, no. 1).

As mentioned previously (Section 3. 8) there are no convincing examples of surviving wooden templates for swords in Ireland. Evidence that such models were, in fact, used is provided by the wood-grain pattern reproduced on the surface of some bronze swords (e.g. Maryon 1937/8, 214-5). The British evidence is more helpful. A wooden sword found on Orkney has a blade 711 mm long (Stevenson 1958, 191-2). Because the longest sword in the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland has a blade 685 mm long Stevenson felt this model was too long for a moulding template. However, when the loss of length due to cumulative shrinkage of c. 10 % between the clay and metal is taken into account, the model would produce a sword with a blade of c. 640 mm long (see Pl. 5. 2). This author would therefore

Once the two clay valves are in position in the wooden formers, the rest of the fabrication process is basically the same as that suggested by Needham for the Dainton material (Fig. 5. 5). The outer bevels visible on the parting faces of some Irish sword mould fragments also agree with this model (Fig. 5. 3, 6). A wooden template 81

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production .

Pl. 5. 2: Experimental sword casting with bivalve clay mould in which it was cast and the wooden template used to invest mould. Note loss of c. 10 % in length between template and sword cast. (2) Earlier attempt at casting of Ballintober type sword. Incomplete cast.

Erbenheim sword moulds from Piverone (Fig. 5. 2) both of which feature numerous cut vents, no clay moulds for swords appear to have such vents. However, due to the fragmentary nature of the clay mould evidence we cannot be sure of this. The experiments carried out by the author with Liam McNally suggest the clay would have been sufficiently porous to allow air and gases to escape during casting. However, Lynn (1977) notes that a sword mould fragment from ‘The King’s Stables’ had broken ends showing “numerous fine holes, as though hairs, mostly running longitudinally, had burnt out.” This could possibly be interpreted as a type of gas-dispersal system.

consider it possible that this model is a casting template, as would Tylecote (1986, 91). Further evidence for wooden sword templates is found in the grain impression in a sword mould fragment from Jarlshof (Curle 1932/3, 115). When the template is carefully removed the pouring gate is cut from the terminal at the hilt-end of the matrix out to the edge of the valve to allow access for the molten metal during casting. It is unclear from the present evidence whether this was cut into one or both valves. Unlike some stone moulds for long bladed weapons such as that for rapiers from Knighton, Devon (Burgess & Gerloff 1981, appendix 2, no. 7) and the previously mentioned

Next the two valves must be assembled accurately and the 82

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . above (Section 5.1.2). If air bubbles are present the heat will cause the air to expand, exploding the mould. Rapid water evaporation will give a similar result if the moulds are not dried for long enough before firing. Interestingly, experimental work indicates that such high temperatures are not necessarily needed. Several clay moulds, thoroughly dried (though not baked) at a relatively low temperature for 15 hours, were cast into with some success, although the failure rate was higher than with properly baked moulds (McNally 1996, 16). These moulds were obviously not baked as they were reduced in water to a malleable clay once more (McNally, pers. comm.). It might be tentatively suggested that such a method of producing recyclable moulds might have been employed where access to clay reserves was limited, and such unbaked moulds would be unlikely to survive in the archaeological record.

outer wrap applied. Depending on the state of the clay after impression, the valves may have to be left drying for several days before this is attempted. Nonetheless, once the inner valves are assembled the moulds must be handled carefully at all times as any undue pressure will flatten and/or distort the matrices. As noted by several authors (e.g. Liversage, 1968, 148; Needham 1980, 181) the outer layer generally forms one continuous wrap enclosing the two inner valves and lacking any parting faces. For the outer wrap can be applied, the two inner valves may have to be bonded together to retain accurate registration. Mould fragments from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway display the impressions of cord which might have been used for this reason (Fig. 5. 3, 6). None of the other Irish assemblages indicate the use of cord binding and an alternative bonding agent might have been used. In the sword mould material from ‘The King’s Stables’, Co. Armagh one fragment may indicate the use of a liquid clay/water slip for bonding (see Section 3.6.4). In experiments such a mixture was found suitable both for sticking the inner valves together and for securing the outer wrap.

5.4. Casting. The following operational stages may be identified in the casting of bronze swords into prepared moulds.

5.3.3. Drying and Firing. 5.4.1. Mould Pre-heating.

In experiment, once the outer wrap had been applied the moulds generally needed two to three weeks drying time before they are ready for firing. To avoid cracking this drying had to be a slow process. A warm, dry atmosphere with no direct exposure to heat is required. In the absence of archaeological evidence, it is difficult to know where this process would have taken place on Late Bronze Age sites, except that it was most probably indoors, possibly in domestic dwellings, as these would have been the building with the most constant heat, although the possible existence of specially constructed drying sheds cannot be ruled out.

Before the moulds can be cast into it is necessary that they be pre-heated. Pouring of molten metal into a cold mould will result in extremely rapid solidification which, especially in the case of long objects such as a sword, is likely to lead to an incomplete casting. It has also been noted that failure to pre-heat moulds may give the casting a poor surface finish with severe pitting (P. Northover, pers. comm.). Further, in the case of clay moulds severe cracking would result due to thermal shock. Initial attempts at heating the experimental moulds were undertaken using a domestic oven at the maximum temperature of 450°C, which proved reasonably effective for small moulds such as those for chisels and gouges. However, the single sword mould from this group gave only a partial cast. This may be due to insufficient mould pre-heating, but could also have been caused by a constriction in the matrix resulting from careless handling of the mould while applying the outer wrap prior to firing. Northover suggests that a temperature of c.700°C or above is desirable for sword moulds before pouring (appendix 2 in Burgess & Colquhoun 1988, 131).

As part of this study experimental firing was undertaken using a modern gas-fuelled kiln. Information on prehistoric kiln construction in Ireland is currently very limited, the earliest known pottery kilns being medieval in date (Flanagan 1992, 132). Needham suggests that temperatures of 650°C, sufficient to fire clay, can be achieved in a bonfire, and that no furnace is necessary (1980, 192). This may be the case with small moulds, but the exposure of long moulds, such as those for swords, to direct uneven heat will result in a difference in temperatures between extremities of the mould, possibly leading to severe cracking or explosion.

During later, more successful experiments the sword moulds were removed from the kiln after firing while still at a high temperature (c. 500 - 600°C) and cast into straight away. This generally resulted in a complete casting, although the surface quality varied from near perfect to severely pitted (as in the two swords used for the post-cast experiment in Section 5. 6 below), and, although the reasons for such variation in surface quality are unclear, the mould temperature may be relevant here. This method of pouring into the moulds while still hot

In firing moulds the heat must be built up slowly to c. 650-700°C over several hours. The heat throughout the kiln must be even and there must be no direct exposure of the moulds to the fire producing the heat. After up to six or seven hours the heat is allowed gradually diminish. If the kiln is opened before cooling the moulds may crack and spall due to thermal shock. Other problems may arise if the clay was not thoroughly kneaded as suggested 83

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . bronze swords, including one Irish example (Moss 1953, table 3). This raises the possibility that moulds were not always tilted, or that the inclination was not always sufficient to prevent gravity segregation.

from firing may have been utilized in the Late Bronze Age as it cuts out unnecessary fuel usage in reheating the moulds.

To hold the long moulds at such an angle would be best achieved using a casting pit with sand packed in about the moulds to secure them in place. Possible examples of such structures like the abovementioned example at Jarlshof and, more tentatively, Site F, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick, have already been referred to (see Section 5.1.2). The presence of mould evidence for long implements – in the form of Group 4 rapiers (Cat. 6. 8) – at the latter site is significant in this regard. Another possible advantage of using such casting pits is that the insulation provided by the sand may help to slow the cooling rate of the castings, giving better homogenization of the metal and a stronger crystalline structure. No use of casting pits was attempted in the experiments undertaken in this study and this remains an area for future research.

5.4.2. Pouring Position. The angle at which a sword mould was held during pouring appears to have been important in allowing a smooth inflow of metal and outflow of air and gases. This is the case with long castings in general, such as rapiers (e.g. Tylecote 1986, fig. 44). On the basis of a casting jet in a hoard from La Blanche Pierre, Jersey, Northover suggests the mould used here to have been inclined at an angle of 30-45° from the horizontal (appendix 2 in Burgess & Colquhoun 1988, 131), while another jet from the Isleham hoard also suggested an angle of about 30° (Northover, pers. comm.). Of relevance here is the casting pit at Jarlshof, Shetland which was dug into the soil at an angle of c. 36° (Fig. 5. 6). The angled position of what may be a pouring runner on one of the stone sword moulds from Piverone, north-west Italy agrees with this estimation, suggesting it was held at an angle of c. 33° during casting (Fig. 5. 2). However, there is a strong possibility that this mould was poured from the tip-end, and that the incision at the hilt-end may be a complex gas-vent. A further desirable result of the inclination of long moulds may be that it helps prevent severe gravity segregation of lead to the hilt area of the casting. Indeed, one metallurgical examination of a bronze sword from the Thames at Battersea showed practically no segregation of lead had occurred (Coghlan 1971). In contrast, appreciable lead segregation has been noted in some

5.4.3. Pouring. Among the Irish crucible evidence only Rathgall provides a near complete vessel (Cat. 3. 6) and this is certainly too small in capacity to have been used in sword casting. The crucibles from Dainton, Devon (Needham, 1980, 188) and The Breiddin, Powys (Tylecote & Biek in Musson 1991, fig. 60, 225) would certainly have held sufficient metal for casting a Late Bronze Age insular sword of average size, but surely not more than one. No doubt, fragments of crucibles of a similar volume lie

Fig. 5. 6: Section of sloped casting-pit at Jarlshof, Shetland (after Curle 1932/3).

84

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . The rest of the volume of each sword in Table 5. 2 was taken up predominantly by copper, with trace elements generally constituting less than 1%. It is apparent, even from this small sample, that the percentages of the three constituent elements of leaded bronze in Irish swords vary greatly, with tin ranging between 5.7 and 13 %, while lead ranges from 0.8 to 9.1 %. The averages given for the seven swords are 10 % and 5.5 % for tin and lead respectively. The reasons for adding lead to bronze are twofold. As well as lowering the melting temperature of bronze, lead also tends to increase the fluidity of the alloy, a quality which is especially important when casting long objects such as swords. In the experiments described here the metal composition was usually c.10 12 % tin and 2 - 3 % lead, and the rest scrap copper (including any trace impurities inherent in the scrap).

unrecognized in the assemblages from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow, Dun Aengus, Co. Galway and Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin. Crucible size, and thus capacity, may have been kept quite small in order to reduce the risk of breakage due to accident or overburden during casting, resulting in the loss of molten metal. Of course, if the furnaces in use were large enough to house several crucibles at once then the limited crucible capacity need not have prevented more than one sword being cast at a time. However, as noted in Section 4.6, our knowledge of furnaces in the Irish Late Bronze Age is almost nonexistent. Experiments in clay crucible construction have so far been limited. One example, constructed in the J1 style with pointed oval body, cracked during the melting process, causing the metal to drain into the furnace (McNally, pers. comm.). Casting has thus been so-far limited to the use of a modern graphite crucible.

5.5. Post-cast Treatment. Northover suggests that the optimal temperature for pouring bronze into clay moulds is c.1200°C. The experiments referred to here were generally carried out without the use of a thermal probe, so heat could not be accurately gauged. However, pouring was undertaken almost immediately once all the metal had melted, which would have occurred quickly once 1083°C (the melting temperature of copper, the constituent of bronze with the highest melting point) was exceeded. Therefore the metal was probably between about 1100 and 1200°C at the time of pouring. The air temperature in the immediate environment is also of some consequence, although the level of its effect is hard to gauge. It is nonetheless clear that outdoor casting is generally a far more successful undertaking during warmer months than in the colder part of the winter, a fact which might add support to the view of bronze-casting in the Late Bronze Age as a seasonal activity. Nonetheless, we cannot be certain that casting was always conducted out of doors.

The importance of careful and effective finishing work in sword production has not generally been acknowledged, emphasis usually being accorded to the casting process. This is unsurprising, given that most archaeological evidence of sword manufacture is in the form of clay mould fragments (e.g. Table 5. 1). Evidence possibly pertaining to finishing work on bronze swords is predominantly unspecific, as exemplified by socketed bronze hammers which could have been used for many different purposes apart from those involved in sword finishing (see Section 3.9.4). This situation also applies to structural evidence, as casting furnaces generally require some clay and/or stone superstructure, while hearths used in the annealing of sword blades may not differ in an archaeologically visible manner from normal domestic hearths. Unlike smelting and casting operations, the finishing of bronze swords does not produce noxious gases or involve the danger of molten metal, and thus ordinary hearths may have been used. On the other hand, given the specialist nature of sword production and the likely workshop environment, it is perhaps more plausible that the finishing of swords took place at a location removed from the domestic area. With these problems in mind, experimental studies combined with scientific analyses are one approach to understanding how bronze swords were finished.

As far as the alloy used in the casting process is concerned, very little compositional analysis has been carried out on Irish Late Bronze Age swords. The tin and lead content for seven examples tested by Allen, Britton and Coghlan in 1970 are given below in Table 5. 2. ----------------------------------------------------------------------Sn. Pb. (i) Knocklong, Co. Limerick. 8.0 % 5.1 % (ii) Ireland. 13.1 % 3.8 % (iii) Ireland. 17.9 % 7.7 % (iv) Ireland. 5.7 % 0.8 % (v) Ireland. 7.4 % 9.1 % (vi) Ireland. 7.3 % 4.2 % (vii) R. Shannon, Co. Westmeath. 10.2 % 7.5 % -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the artifactual evidence, informed by experimental experience, some nine post-cast operations may be identified in the production of bronze swords: Primary Treatment. (i) Fettling (i.e. removal of ‘flashing’). (ii) Removal of casting jet. (iii) Rivet-hole perforation. Hardening Treatment. (iv) Annealing (heat treatment). (v) Cold-hammering.

Table 5. 2: Compositions of Irish Swords of Late Bronze Age date (after information in Allen, Britton & Coghlan 1970).

85

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . However, this method is unreliable and some alternative method would generally have been required. There are two other methods by which the perforation of rivet-holes might be achieved, namely drilling and punching. The latter was chosen for use in the experiments described in the next section, and while initial attempts met with failure, rivet-holes were eventually punched successfully. This method also seems to have been used on one of the Ballycroghan swords (ibid. 39), although neither Eogan (1965) or Northover (in Burgess & Colquhoun, 1988) express an opinion on this matter. While drills have not been recognised from the insular Late Bronze Age, they cannot be ruled out as an option. Firstly, items such as drill-bows and strings would have been of organic material and thus unlikely to survive in the typical archaeological context. Furthermore, evidence of drilling has been noted on Irish Early Bronze Age halberds (Penniman & Allen 1960; Parker, 1970), so the technique must have been familiar from the working of stone maceheads and battle-axes in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Whether the immediate area of the rivet-holes would have been heated before punching probably depended on how thick the metal blocking the bottom of the dimples was. In experiment thin metal could be perforated cold, while thicker metal caused considerable difficulty, even when red-hot. The sharpness and hardness of the punch being used was found to be of some importance, while the hammer-blows had to be gentle to avoid breakage.

Finishing Treatment. (vi) Filling of blow-holes (rarely necessary). (vii) Fitting of handle. (viii) Smoothing of surface (grinding, rubbing, polishing). (ix) Sharpening. A repair technique which was sometimes required is: (x) Casting-on.

5.5.1. Primary Treatment. We may reasonably assume that fettling and casting-jet removal were the first operations carried out after removal of the sword from the mould. Which came first may have depended on how extensive the flashing was. One reason why fettling may have been the initial job is that greater ease of handling during subsequent working would have been achieved once the sharp and jagged flashing was removed (small, yet surprisingly painful puncture wounds sustained from experimental swords during initial handling tend to support this view). On the other hand, one of the unfinished swords from Ballycroghan, Co. Down was according to Jope (1953, 38), still in possession of it’s flashing, though not its casting jet. However, an illustration of this sword (Fig. 5. 7A, right) suggests that either the worst of the flashing had already been beaten off, or that this was an unusually clean casting. For removing the worst of the excess metal a hammer (both stone and bronze were found to be satisfactory), used in conjunction with an anvil, are quite effective, but once the worst has been beaten off a large whetstone is more effective in completing the process. In experiment this was found to be most efficient when the stone was fixed (in this case to a large wooden block) and the sword worked off it, rather than vice versa.

5.5.2. Hardening Treatment. The next process is the hardening of the metal through annealing and cold-hammering. Annealing is the term used to refer to the practice of heating a metal object above the temperature at which the grain of the metal recrystallizes. This process begins at about 350°C in tinned-bronze. The result of annealing is that it restores the ductility of the metal lost during cold-working and allows further subsequent cold-work which would otherwise cause extreme brittleness in the metal, often resulting in fractures and breakages. However, annealing at too high a temperature will have the reverse effect, reducing the metals ductility. This can cause problems, as seen in the experimental results below (Sections 5. 7 and 5. 8), and so the annealing temperature must be carefully controlled. It seems unlikely that hot-forging, commonly used in the fabrication of iron swords, was undertaken, as the chances of severe damage and breakage occurring are high. Also, metallographic examinations of Irish and British Late Bronze Age swords show no sign of the use of hot-forging (Allen Britton & Coghlan 1970; Coghlan 1971). The methods of hardening used on Late Bronze Age swords are therefore roughly established, involving alternate annealing and cold-hammering. Nonetheless, discovering the specific order in which they were carried out and the length of that process is far more difficult. No doubt a good deal of variation was practiced among the insular smiths and thus there can be no single answer.

The removal of the casting jet is a task which proved difficult in experiment, the accidental detachment of the sword’s hilt terminal resulting from the initial attempt (see Pl. 5. 7B). This may possibly have been carried out without heating the metal, the junction of the jet and hilt being placed on the edge of the anvil and struck sharply with a hammer, for instance. However, the amount of work which went into casting a sword led us to the conclusion that no unnecessary risks would have been tolerated so close to completion. Thus, the jet/terminal area of the casting was probably heated to red-hot and the partition of the two attempted using a chisel and hammer (for tools see Pl. 5. 6). The accidental breakage may be seen as the result of inexperience, the method being effective on a further attempt. Interestingly, sword no. 2 from Ballycroghan lacks a terminal (Fig. 5. 7A, centre), an absence which Jope puts down to faulty pouring (ibid. 39), yet which could equally have resulted from a careless jet removal similar to the author’s attempt (Pl. 5. 7B). The dimples where rivet-holes were intended to be perforated seem to have been cast-in on most Late Bronze Age swords and occasionally swords may have been cast with a number of their rivet-holes fully perforated. 86

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production .

Fig. 5. 7A: ABOVE. Detail of the hilts of three L.B.A. swords from Ballycroghan, Co. Down (after Jope 1953). Fig. 5. 7B: BELOW. View of the tip of a L.B.A. sword from a hoard deposit at Petter’s Sports Field, Egham, Surrey. Note extensive faceting on surface indicating severe hammering (after O’Connell 1986).

Surrey is of interest (O’Connell 1986, 49, no. 40, pl. 12). This fragment has been subjected to a hammering of unparalleled severity, so much so that it proved impossible to classify the fragment on the basis of its features (Fig. 5. 7B). The facets of the hammering are similar to those attained in experiment using a socketed bronze hammer. The singularity of the Petter’s Sports Field fragment is puzzling. It seems hard to credit that most swords experienced such intense hammering at any time in their manufacture, given their generally smooth and even finish, so perhaps the aforementioned fragment

In the experiments detailed here, several different cycles of annealing and cold-hammering were carried out on different parts of the two swords for comparative purposes (see Fig. 5. 9). The cycles which yielded metallographic results most similar to those recorded from Late Bronze Age swords were the more rigorous examples, namely samples S. 1/4, S. 2/3, and particularly S. 2/4 (see Northover metallographic report below). Few swords from this stage of production have been recovered, although a fragment of sword tip from one of the twin hoard deposits at Petter’s Sports Field, Egham, 87

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . substance present in these cavities is clearly metal and drilling for compositional analysis has not been carried out on either of the two swords in question (both points confirmed by National Museum of Ireland conservation staff). This practice raises many technical questions such as whether the metal composition of the infill is different from the sword. If it has the same impurity pattern this might indicate repair directly after casting by the same smith. It is unlikely (though not impossible) that such small flaws would have had any notable effect on the sword’s performance, and these repairs may emphasize the role of the sword as an object of prestige and display, although without diminishing its functional role in combat. The very smooth, indeed almost imperceptible, join between the sword’s surface and that of the repaired area suggest the latter was in place before final smoothing of the surface was carried out.

may be seen as the result of some ill-fated and overzealous attempt by a smith to push back the boundaries of attainable metal hardness.

5.5.3. Finishing Treatment. A repair practice probably associated with this stage of manufacture is the filling-in with metal of surface blowholes formed during casting. How this practice was achieved is currently unknown, although it probably involved the heating of the sword to a high temperature before the application of the molten metal to facilitate fusion. Two examples of this practice are noted on swords from Ardlow, Co. Cavan (Eogan 1965, no. 98) and Derryhogan, Co. Tipperary (ibid. no. 257) respectively. A close examination of all Irish swords would probably uncover other examples. The repairs are visible as regular outlines, c. 3 - 4 mm in diameter, of circular or oval shape on both surfaces (see Pl. 5. 3 A & B), indicating that the bubble opened on both sides. The

The handle plates would also have been riveted onto the tang-web at this stage. Handles of Irish Late Bronze Age swords were of organic material, the remains of bone (Lisleitrim, Co. Monaghan, Eogan 1965, no. 29;

Pl. 5. 3A: ABOVE. Sword from Derryhogan, Co. Tipperary with filled blow-hole just visible above the nought marking on the scale. The extensive damage to the surface and cutting edge are the result of entanglement in a turf-cutting machine at the time of discovery. Pl. 5. 3B: BELOW. Sword from Ardlow, Co. Cavan. Close up of part of the blade showing filled blow-hole.

88

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production .

Pl. 5. 4A: LEFT. Small portion of wooden handle surviving on a sword from Kildrinagh Ford, Co. Laois. The hole for the rivet is visible. Pl. 5. 4B: BELOW. Sword from Barrowford, Co. Kildare. Close-up of broken hilt area showing grooves cut to facilitate an attempted ‘casting-on’.

The final smoothing of the sword depends, to a large degree, upon the surface quality achieved during casting. The swords cast experimentally in this study were of sound construction but of very poor surface quality, and are thus probably unrepresentative of the majority of Late Bronze Age swords in this regard (Pl. 5. 8B). The coldhammering process discussed above has the secondary (or perhaps equally important) effect of homogenising the surface, levelling out bumps in the metal. The socketed bronze hammer was found to achieve this effect far better than the unhafted stone cobble, mainly because of its almost flat striking surface. For final smoothing of the broader surfaces a large whetstone, such as that used in fettling, is efficient, and whetstones are a frequent find from Irish Late Bronze Age sites (e.g. Rathgall, Co. Wicklow; Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath; Ballinderry 2, Co. Offaly). In experiment, water mixed with ash or soot was a suitable lubricant for this task. The more inaccessible areas of the hilt were smoothed using small

Mullyleggan, Co. Armagh, ibid. no. 91) and wooden hilts (Derryoober, Co. Galway, ibid. no. 175; Ballykilleen, Co. Offaly, ibid. no. 233; Kildrinagh Ford, Co. Laois, ibid. no. 192) surviving in several instances (e.g. Pl. 5. 4A). It seems that these handle plates were attached before the final smoothing of the surface, as the area originally covered by the plates is noted in some specimens as slightly thicker than the adjoining surface of the blade (ibid. 4). There is no evidence for swords with hollow metal hilts of continental type in Ireland, such as the few Antennenschwerter from British contexts (Burgess & Colquhoun 1988, nos. 751-5, pl. 136), nor are there any native variants with solid cast metal hilts, such as the Cherwell Variant of Ewart Park swords in Britain (ibid. nos. 600-7a, pl. 132). This might perhaps be regarded as surprising, given the fact that several Irish daggers and rapiers of Middle Bronze Age date feature metal handles (e.g. Evans 1881, 235).

89

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . Another factor is that the part of the sword held during combat (the hilt) is effectively a fulcrum, and is the part under the most pressure when a blow is struck. The possibility of lead and/or tin segregation to the hilt-end of the sword during casting is noted above (Section 5.4.2.), and where this occurs there would be a corresponding weakness in that area. Furthermore, air and gas bubbles may concentrate in this area, causing serious flaws, as in a sword from Battersea, London examined by Coghlan, in which breakage occurred in antiquity across several bubble-holes near the meeting point of the blade and hilt (1971, 71).

angular stone rubbers, and prolonged friction with the bronze produced a similar smooth surface with rounded edges to that seen on rubber stones in the Dowris, and Lusmagh hoards (Cat. 9. 3 & 9. 4). Sharpening of the blade was then undertaken, again using the whetstone, and it was found that with patience a high degree of sharpness could be attained.

5.5.4. Casting-on Repairs. The casting-on operation is a repair which, unlike the filling in of blow-holes (which rarely seems to have been needed), is not generally considered to be part of the finishing process although, as is argued below, at times it may have been. This practice is discussed by several authors (Evans 1881, 282; Eogan 1965, 5; Coghlan 1971, 64-5, Tylecote 1986, 66) and is used to replace a part of the sword, generally the hilt, which has broken off. It is a common practice among Irish Late Bronze Age swords, with about seventy examples present in Eogan’s catalogue (1965). In some cases more than one casting-on was carried out on the hilt of the same sword, as in an example from Douglas, Lanarkshire in Scotland (Coles & Livens 1957/8, 186). The casting-on process involves construction of a mould for the missing part of the sword, which also houses the broken end of the weapon onto which the new part is to be fused (Fig. 5. 8). To facilitate the grip of the newly cast part grooves were cut into the broken end of the sword, as in an example from Barrowford, Co. Kildare which features three short grooves parallel to the blade and one larger groove perpendicular to these three (Pl. 5. 4B). The operation must have been a difficult one, for in order to fuse the new part the broken end of the sword had to be heated to a high temperature, as did the encasing mould. To further aid this process the molten metal would likely have been super-heated to several hundred degrees above its melting temperature. A further problem would have been preventing oxidization at the interface between the old and the new metal. This oxidization is visible in the colour of the metal at the join of a sword in the National Museum provenanced only to Ireland (N.M.I: W. 5) where its hilt was cast on, albeit successfully in this case (Pl. 5. 5A). These problems are reflected in several unsuccessful attempts at casting-on from the archaeological record. One example, from Canbo, Co. Roscommon had a cast-on hilt. However, it appears that the join did not fuse properly and the two parts were separate at the time of recovery, possibly being held together in antiquity by the handle-plates. The area of the hilt onto which the new metal was cast had been thinned down to facilitate the process (Pl. 5. 5B).

Fig. 5. 8: Method of ‘casting-on’ a new sword-hilt (after Coghlan 1975).

An interesting question regarding casting-on practices is whether faulty swords were always used and subsequently repaired after breakage in combat, or whether the smith noted the weakness and pre-empted usage failure by breaking the defective area and casting-on before the sword initially passed out of his hands. Given the serious and possibly fatal repercussions for the wielder of breakage during combat, those who used these swords may have quickly become good judges of metal quality, which might make the latter option more plausible. What may add strength to this possibility is that a sword with cast-on hilt referred to above (N.M.I: W. 5; Fig. 5. 5A) has a surface of ‘frosted’ appearance with numerous minuscule blow-holes, which suggests that final smoothing was never undertaken and that the casting-on took place on a sword which was never used. The reason that the sword was never completed may be that although the cast-on was successful in fusing to the hilt, the operation was not complete as the terminal is absent. Nonetheless, the possibility that this surface texture may be an unusual patination or the result of an antiquarian attempt at chemical cleaning cannot be ruled out.

The number of breakages which occur at the hilt end of swords is interesting. Northover notes that, unlike the blade, this area of the weapon would have been relatively unworked after casting, making it more likely to break under strain (in Burgess & Colquhoun 1988, 132).

A further interesting possibility is that such flawed swords, even with the damaged area cast back on, may 90

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . Pl. 5. 5A: LEFT. Sword in National Museum (Ireland, W. 5). View of upper area showing cast-on hilt with with numerous tiny blow-holes. Pl. 5. 5B: BELOW. Sword from Canbo, Co. Roscommon. View of upper area showing unsuccessful attempt at casting-on.

completion of each operation serious consideration of the condition of the swords was necessary before moving ahead to the next step.

have been considered unsuitable for combat. These swords may therefore have been preferentially selected for votive deposition, the inherent weakness of the metal being of no importance in this regard. Indeed, many caston swords, including almost all those referred to here, were recovered from rivers and bogs, suggesting a possible votive context. With many problems and possibilities evident, the practice of casting-on is certainly an area which would benefit from experimental research in the future.

Tools used (Pl. 5. 6): (1) Bronze socketed hammer (replica of Late Bronze Age type) with wooden haft. (2) Bronze trunnion chisel (replica of Late Bronze Age type) with crescentic blade and wooden handle. (3) Copper punch consisting of a bar of round crosssection c. 200 mm long. (4) Unhafted hammer-stone (water-rolled limestone cobble). (5) Flat sandstone block set into a large wooden base. (6) Several small angular ‘rubbers’ of sandstone (not illustrated). (7) Large flat-topped hard-wood anvil.

5. 6. Experiments in Cold-Working Bronze Swords, February 1997. In this experiment two swords in their as-cast condition (Pl. 5. 7A) were finished and treated for hardness using methods and tools as close to those of the Late Bronze Age as possible (a gas-hearth was used for annealing purposes as attempting this operation using a charcoal fire was not viable in terms of time or resources). The questions addressed here included the amount of work needed to complete this process, the basic order of operations (particularly as regards hardness treatment), the level of skill required in those operations and the efficiency and suitability of the tools selected for this task. The latter were, as far as possible, based on those recovered from the archaeological record. The work recorded below took place over a period of about a week. This apparent slowness was mainly because upon

A bronze anvil was also cast for this experiment, but after trials with miscast bronzes was considered unsuitable due to its very hard and unyielding nature.

Sword 1. (A) Severe flashing removed using stone hammer and wooden anvil.

91

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . Pl. 5. 6. Tools used in sword finishing experiment. BELOW: Replica socketed bronze hammerhead of L.B.A. type, replica crescentic-bladed tanged chisel of L.B.A. type, copper punch and two water-rolled limestone cobbles to be used as hammerstones. RIGHT: Wooden anvil with bronze fitting.

(C) Dimensions of Sword 1 after fettling (not including casting jet) measured in comparison with the wooden template from which it was cast (see Table 5. 3 below). ----------------------------------------------------------------------Sword 1. Template. Max. Length: 586 mm.------------635 mm. Max. Width of Butt: 58 mm.------------- 63 mm. Max. Width of Blade: 50.5 mm.----------- 55 mm. Max. Thickness of Butt: 8.5 mm.------------- 10 mm. Max. Thickness of Blade: 7 mm.--------------- 9 mm. ----------------------------------------------------------------------Table 5. 3: Comparison of dimensions of Experimental Sword Casting 1 with Template from which it was Cast.

(D) Attempted removal of casting jet. The immediate area was heated in a gas-hearth and when the jet and adjacent area had reached a dull-to-medium red colour the removal was attempted using the trunnion chisel alone. Two such attempts proved unsuccessful. After reheating to bright orange colour a third attempt was made with the chisel, but this time using the socketed bronze hammer for secondary percussion. The result was that the hilt terminal snapped off with the jet still intact, leaving the sword incomplete (Pl. 5. 7B).

Pl. 5. 7A: LEFT. Experimental swords 1 (right) and 2 (centre) as-cast from the mould before working. The sword at left was an earlier casting not dealt with here. Pl. 5. 7B: RIGHT. Hilt area of sword 1 showing removed casting jet and broken-off terminal.

(E) Continued to attempt separation of jet and broken-off terminal. Reheated to bright orange colour. Held in pliers against the wooden anvil by one person while the other wielded the chisel and hammer. This time the jet and terminal separated cleanly at the first blow. A satisfactory result, without the breakage referred to in (D), might have been achieved in the first place if one person had been holding the sword at the correct angle and the other carrying out the operation. Such mistakes are obviously due to a lack of experience.

(B) Rest of flashing removed and edges smoothed using a block of medium grade sandstone fixed in a large section of tree-trunk in such a way that it could be gripped and held stationary between the knees while the sword was held in the hand and worked off the stones flat surface. Water and fine ash mixed were used as a lubricant. To completely remove excess material from all edges of the sword by this process took approximately 60 minutes.

92

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production .

Pl. 5. 8A: ABOVE. Hammering blade of sword 1 using unhafted limestone cobble and wooden anvil. Pl. 5. 8B: BELOW. The two experimental swords after completion of finishing work. Sword 1 is at left and sword 2 at right. Note the poor surface finish.

93

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . (H) Having hammered the blade from the ricasso to the tip, this area was then arbitrarily divided into three areas of roughly equal length (blade from tip to ricasso = c. 540 mm. Each of three areas = c. 180 mm). The upper area near the ricasso was left as hammered. The middle area was to be annealed, and the upper or tip area was to be annealed and then hammered again (see Fig. 5. 9).

(F) Both broad surfaces of the sword were lightly rubbed down on the mounted sandstone block to remove as much of the surface impurities as possible. The surfaces of sword 1 are seriously pitted (see Pl. 5. 8B) and would take a far longer time than the approximately 30 minutes spent rubbing them down at this stage to remove all or most of the surface irregularities. It is the author’s belief that a sword of such surface quality would have been scrapped in the Late Bronze Age.

(I) The central and upper blade sections were annealed in a gas-hearth. This was carried out in such a way that no part of the treated area would have been at dull-red heat for longer than 90 seconds and probably generally no more than 60 seconds. Annealing had no perceptible effect on the surface of the bronze, apart from blackening it.

(G) Blade of sword hammered using limestone cobble and wooden anvil (Pl. 5. 8A). To hammer both edges on both sides took 70 - 80 minutes. The sword blade tended to bend downwards when one side was being hammered but returned to shape when the other side was similarly treated. The hammering did not result in any perceptible lengthening or broadening of the blade. Although a small piece of woven cotton was used as a cushion for the palm, the unhafted hammer-stone still proved very sore on the hand after prolonged use, particularly on the finger joints.

(J) The lower or tip section of the blade was hammered, again using the limestone cobble. This hammering took nearly 50 minutes to complete. The surface texture was slightly improved by this. While this hammering was

Fig. 5. 9: The two experimentally cast swords showing division into different areas, each experiencing a different cycle of post-cast hardness treatment.

94

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . being undertaken, the very tip portion of the sword, c. 10 mm in length, fell off. That area was not actually being hammered when it detached. The surface of the tip area of the blade had in places assumed a pale pink coloration.

(E) Attempted rivet-hole perforation. Hilt area heated to dull red colour. Socketed bronze hammer and copper punch used. Initially hammer blows kept very light but with little effect. Reheated and tried several sharp blows, resulting in the end part of the hilt breaking off across the rivet-hole (see Pl. 5. 8B). It was, however, apparent that the rivet-hole was more or less perforated when this break occurred.

(K) Approximately 60 minutes smoothing-off was carried out on the tip section of the sword using the sandstone block and several small angular sandstone ‘rubbers’ in an attempt to obtain a good surface finish. This process was discontinued as it became apparent that, in this case, it would entail the grinding away of most of the sword before all or even most of the pits were removed (see Pl. 5. 8B and (F) above). Surface finish was not, at any rate, of great importance in this experiment.

(F) Head of copper punch reworked to a finer point and hardened. Using this and the bronze hammer once more, an attempt to knock out the other un-perforated rivet-hole was successful without heating. However, the bronze blocking this rivet-hole seems to have been somewhat thinner than that dealt with in (E) above. (G) The blade of sword 2 was then annealed from ricasso to tip. This was carried out in a gas-hearth in a similar manner to that for sword 1, with heating to a medium red colour for no more than 60 - 90 seconds. Annealing had no perceptible effect on the bronze except to blacken it.

Sword 2. The terminal of this sword did not cast during pouring and no casting jet was present. It had several unperforated dimples where the rivet-holes were to be formed.

(H) The area of the blade from ricasso to tip was then arbitrarily divided into three roughly equal lengths (blade from ricasso to tip = c. 490 mm. Top area = c. 170 mm, central and tip areas = c. 160 mm.). The top area, next to the hilt, was untreated after annealing, the central area was to be hammered, and the lower or tip area was to be annealed, hammered, annealed and then hammered again (see Fig. 5. 9).

(A) The tip end of the sword was heated in the gas-hearth to a dull-red heat and the removal of flashing at this temperature was attempted using the trunnion chisel, with little success. The removal of heavy flashing was also attempted at this temperature, using the socketed bronze hammer. However, this proved to be a slow and unwieldy method involving the risk of irreparable damage to the sword.

(I) The bronze socketed hammer and wooden anvil were used to hammer the central and lower areas. While hammering, the rest of the hilt broke off across the lowermost of the rivet-holes. This occurred whilst the other end of the sword was being hammered. It appears to have been cracked and to have fallen off due to the constant vibrations caused by the hammering. The hafted socketed bronze hammer proved to be far easier and more effective in use, as well as far less painful, than the unhafted hammer-stone. The flat head of the bronze hammer smoothed the surface of the bronze to a far greater degree than the stone hammer with its highly convex head. Also as a result of its shape it is possible to hammer the very edges of the blade, which was not possible to do with the hammer-stone.

(B) After cooling the heavier flashings were beaten off using the bronze hammer and wooden anvil. After this, the mounted sandstone block was employed, using which it took approximately 90 minutes to rub down the flashings on all edges, which were considerably more extensive than on sword 1. (C) Both broad surfaces were then rubbed down for about 30 minutes to remove as much surface impurities as possible. As with sword 1, the surface was extensively pitted and a good surface finish would have been difficult to obtain. (D) After fettling the completed dimensions of sword 2 were measured in comparison with the wooden template from which it was cast (see Table 5. 4 below).

(J) The lower area was annealed again to a dull-tomedium red colour for 60 - 90 seconds.

----------------------------------------------------------------------Sword 2 Template. Max. Length: 549 - 551 mm.*------593 mm. Max. Width of Butt: 56 mm.----------------60 mm. Max. Width of Blade: 46 mm.----------------48 mm. Max. Thickness of Butt 9 mm.------------------11 mm. Max. Thickness of Blade: 7 mm.-------------------9 mm. * Estimated length in the absence of the hilt terminal. -----------------------------------------------------------------------

(K) After cooling, this area was hammered again, during which the very tip part (c. 10 mm) broke away. Again, this occurred whilst another part was being hammered. The area near the tip had, in places, acquired a light pink surface colour and also seems fatigued, with small cracks present. (L) As with sword 1, some final smoothing work, using the mounted sandstone slab and small angular sandstone ‘rubbers’, was carried out on the tip end. A better finish was acquired than on sword 1, due largely, it seems, to

Table 5. 4: Comparison of dimensions of Experimental Sword Casting 2 with Template from which it was cast.

95

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . surfaces. Besides the dendrites both small particles of lead (perhaps up to 2 - 3% by weight) and some άδ eutectoid were observed (Pl. 5. 9A). The eutectoid is not uniformly distributed throughout the sample. This section would be some of the last metal to freeze in the sword and the liquid would contain insoluble non-metallic inclusions (oxides and sulphides) and fragments of dendrites from previously solidified grains all providing nuclei for solidification, hence the small grain size. At the same time the liquid would be quite cold and convection and diffusion sluggish so some segregation can occur.

the effects of the flat-headed bronze hammer. Nonetheless, the amount of time needed to finish the entire sword in this fashion and the relatively small amount of information obtainable from doing so led this process to be left unfinished.

5. 7. Report on the Metallography of Two Experimentally Cast Bronze Swords of Ewart Park Type. By Peter Northover, Department of Materials, University of Oxford.

Sample S1/2 - Upper blade - Cast and hammered.

Two experimentally cast swords of the Late Bronze Age Ewart Park type were submitted for metallographic study. The swords had been cast in a leaded medium tin bronze. Overall the swords had a rather rough surface despite hammering and partial grinding and polishing. The cause of the roughness is almost certainly the results of interaction between the metal and the mould, most probably because of residual moisture out-gassing from the mould. The presence of dissolved gas in the metal must also be considered although there were few signs of gas porosity internally.

The same fine-grained cast structure is seen in this section. Cold-hammering has to be quite severe, possibly with a reduction in thickness of 20 - 30% or more, before any deformation of the dendrites can be observed; this is even more the case with the small grain size here. However, at higher magnification the effects of mechanical work should be visible as slip traces. When a metal is deformed cold linear defects called dislocations are generated and move; a stress is needed to make them move and an increased stress needed to make them move past barriers such as inclusions, or each other. As more dislocations are produced and interact greater stress is needed to continue the deformation, hence the phenomenon of work hardening. Where lines of dislocations on a crystal plane intersect the polished surface of the sample they provide an inhomogeneity which is readily attacked by the etch, the trace appearing as a straight line. The surface hammering of the sword was sufficient to generate slip traces with the slip active on more than one set of crystals in some grains (Pl. 5. 9B). The damage observed implies a compression in the surface plane of about 15 - 20%.

The thermo-mechanical treatments of the sword were not uniform, the blades having been divided into four zones with different treatments in each (see Fig. 5. 9). The metallographic descriptions given below are in order from the hilt to the tip for swords nos. 1 and 2 respectively. A single sample was cut with a small razor saw from each zone; the samples were in the form of a wedge 5 - 8 mm long with a maximum thickness of 3 - 4 mm. The samples were hot-mounted in a carbon-filled thermo-setting resin, ground and polished to a 1µm diamond finish. The appearance of the samples was then checked under the optical microscope and the sections found to be generally sound. They were then etched using an acidified aqueous solution of ferric chloride further diluted with ethanol.

Sample 1/3 - Mid-blade - cast, hammered and annealed. If a cold-worked structure is heated to a sufficient temperature for a sufficient time new, strain-free grains nucleate and grow. These grains are polygonal and equiaxed and are often crossed by parallel sided bands called annealing twins which are growth defects where stacking of planes of atoms in the crystal structure becomes a mirror image of itself (Pl. 5. 10A). For a tin bronze the temperature at which recrystallisation occurs is approaching 500°C; at a still higher temperature, 650 700°C the as-cast microsegregation of the tin is homogenized. In this work the temperature has been sufficient to recrystallize the metal but not to homogenize it. Also for recrystallisation to occur a certain amount of cold work is required. The structure is recrystallised throughout for a short distance, say 2 mm at most, back from the cutting edge and then the recrystallized zone rapidly decreases to a narrow layer at the surface. The recrystallized grain size is of the order of 30mm, which is quite typical for many ancient wrought bronzes.

Sample S1/1 - Hilt section - As cast. The hilt section had been left untreated, although if the heating of the lower part of the blade during annealing had been sufficient some effect might have been felt at the hilt, but this was not the case. All areas of the sample showed an unaltered, as-cast, cored dendritic microstructure (Pl. 5. 9A). The grains were equiaxed and mainly small, although somewhat variable in size. The dendritic arm spacing of 20 - 25 mm is quite small and suggests a rather more rapid cooling rate than would be expected with a ceramic mould, the normal mould in which a sword of this type would have been cast. The implied coolness of the mould is consistent with the effects of an imperfectly dried mould seen in the cast 96

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production .

Pl. 5. 9A: ABOVE. Sample S1 / 1, showing unaltered cored, dendritic microstructure with small pools of αδ eutectoid (magnification X 125). Pl. 5. 9B: BELOW. Sample S1 / 2, showing cored dendritic crystals with slip bands from hammer percussion (magnification X 125).

the part next to the cutting-edge was annealed throughout the cross-section. Slip-traces were observed close to the surface but the recrystallized zone at the edge showed surprisingly few signs of cold work. (It was reported that the heat treatment of the tip area had been of sufficient intensity to cause appreciable oxidization).

S1/4 - Tip section - Cast, hammered, annealed and hammered. The observation of the effects of working in this sample were hampered by a substantial casting defect close to the cutting-edge (Pl. 5. 10B). Again the annealing of this area had been insufficient to homogenize the metal and only

97

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production .

Pl. 5. 10A: ABOVE. Sample S1 / 3, showing (at right) surface layer of smaller recrystallised grains with annealing twins visible (magnification X 500). Pl. 5. 10B: BELOW. Sample 1 / 4, showing casting flaw near cutting edge and surface layer of recrystallised grains. Note area to right of flaw is recrystallised throughout (magnification X 62. 5).

98

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production .

Pl. 5. 11A: ABOVE. Sample S2 / 1, showing (at right) surface layer of small homogenised grains resulting from unintended heating of the area (magnification X 500). Pl. 5. 11B: BELOW. Sample S2 / 2. Note great differrence in size between recrystallized surface grains at right and uneffected sub-surface grains at left (magnification X 500).

Sample S2/1 - Hilt section - As cast.

Sample S2/2 - Upper blade - Cast and annealed.

This sample should have had the same unworked structure as Sample S1/1. This was certainly true of the core of the sample, but the surfaces of the sample showed some modification of the structure by heat in the formation of some small homogenized grains (Pl. 5. 11A).

If simply cast and then heat-treated this section should have had a structure rather like that observed in Sample S2/1. However, this was not the case with the tip and both the cutting edge and the blade surfaces have a recrystallized structure (Pl. 5. 11B). The grain size at the surface is much smaller than in the recrystallized areas of sword S1. Recrystallized grain size increases with increasing time and temperature and decreases as the prior cold work increases. In this sample the cold work 99

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . probably came from removing the flash and was locally rather intense. There appears to be some residual cold work applied after the last anneal, but some of what appears to be cold deformation is in fact grinding damage from the preparation of the sample that was not polished out.

structure and the annealing time and temperature does seem to have been sufficient here for homogenization, at least at the edges and surface (Pl. 5. 12A). The recrystallized grain size is very small, no more than half that achieved in S1 and perhaps rather smaller than is typical. A rather longer annealing time and higher temperature might be desirable.

Sample S2/3 - mid-blade - Cast, annealed and hammered.

Sample S2/4 - Tip section - Cast, annealed, hammered, annealed and hammered.

In this sample a greater depth of metal back from the cutting edge and surfaces had a recrystallized grain

This sample has received two cycles of annealing and cold work. The core of the sample is still effectively as-

Pl. 5. 12A: ABOVE. Sample S2 / 3, showing recrystallization to a greater depth than in any of the previous samples and more considerable surface homogenisation (magnification X 125). Pl. 5. 12B: BELOW. Sample S2 / 4, showing a similarly altered microstructure to sample S2 / 3, but the results of ‘firecracking’ are visible in several places (magnification X 125).

100

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . zone overlying a cored dendritic sub-surface area. Coghlan’s results argue for a good deal of diversity in smithing practice as concerns post-cast working. The experimental results suggest that the level of flashing and other excess metal in need of removal will play a definite role in determining the microstructure of a sword, particularly the grain size (see Sample S2 / 2 above).

cast, but the cutting edge and surface are recrystallized. The grain size is a little larger than in the adjacent section and the grains are deformed by cold work. The maximum deformation is close to the surface and represents a local reduction in thickness of about 25 - 30%. The ease with which the structure will deform appears to increase with each cycle of cold working and annealing. The tip area, though, is the only section which appears to have been subject to fire-cracking, i.e. where the strain of cold work is relieved by cracking rather than recrystallization during annealing (Pl. 5. 12B).

Photomicrographs of samples from British swords, mostly from Scotland and East Anglia, kindly lent to the author by Dr. Sue Bridgeford display a similar overall effect. The grain size on these specimens is generally smaller than that on the experimental samples and she suggests this is because these British swords were both more heavily worked and more lightly (slightly lower temperature) annealed than the experimental swords.

Conclusions. These experiments represent excellent first steps in the production of a realistic replica of a Bronze Age sword. Improved results will result from better mould preparation and pre-heating, possibly a higher pouring temperature, and better control of annealing. The work has clearly been instructive in how to carry out basic processes such as flash removal, and for tool selection.

5.8.2. Tools and Methods. The area which seems to have caused the most difficulty in the experiments is that of heat use and control. As mentioned above, the gas-hearth used in heat treatment was the one non-authentic Late Bronze Age element used in the experiment and it is somewhat ironic that it was this modern technology which created the most problems. Firstly, the unintended recrystallization of the hilt area of sword 2 (sample S2 / 2) noted above must result from the heating of the area during the attempted rivet-hole perforation. More seriously, it was noted in the experiment that on several occasions parts of the swords broke off while another part was being hammered (e.g. 5.6. Sword 2 (I)). At the time there was no obvious connection between heat treatment and this breakage. In making sword sections for use analysis, Dr. Bridgeford noted a similar problem of breakages in other areas than those being hammered. As she was using a thermocouple, she noted that the cracking occurred on a section which had been heated to above 600°C, while no such problems arose with sections annealed to 550°C (pers. comm.). As in this author’s experiments no method of measuring the temperature beyond metal colour was used, it is likely that 600°C was exceeded, causing severe weaknesses in some areas of the metal structure. It would seem that a more severe hammering would have been possible if this excessive annealing had not taken place, and that the more considerable flattening of the grain suggested above by Northover (5. 7. S 1/ 2) could have been achieved. However, he suggests in another section (5.7. S2 / 3) that a longer period of annealing at a higher temperature would probably be desirable, so the situation as regards heat treatment is difficult to assess. Perhaps the heating in a gas-hearth and the subsequent cooling were too swift, although the section heated to over 600°C by Bridgeford and which caused similar cracking problems was heated in a charcoal brazier.

5. 8. Comments on Experiment. 5.8.1. Metallography As can be seen from Dr. Northover’s metallographic report above, the experiments were significantly successful in trying to replicate the microstructure of Late Bronze Age swords through post-cast working. Unfortunately, there are few comparable studies on Irish material. The only available metallographic report on Irish Late Bronze Age swords are those carried out by Coghlan (Allen, Britton & Coghlan 1970, nos. 115 121), but the information here is rather generalized and cannot be used to good comparative effect. An effort to locate the sections from which the reports were made, in Coghlan’s personal collection at the British Museum and at the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford proved unsuccessful (S. Bridgeford, pers. comm.). Of the seven Irish swords examined by Coghlan some general comment can be made. The microstructures generally consist of recrystallized twinned grains at the surface imposed on a cored internal structure with pools of άδ eutectoid and lead particles. Both the size of the grains and their density appear to vary somewhat, even in such a small sample. It therefore seems that there was a wide degree of variation in the intensity of post-cast cold work on Irish swords and possibly also in the nature of the cycles used. Nonetheless, these results compare well with the experimental results obtained in this study. In a similar manner to the swords examined by Coghlan, considerable variation of recrystallization, slip banding, twinning and the size of the grain also occurs in the eight experimental samples discussed by Northover above. The overall picture in both studies is that of a recrystallized

Apart from heat treatment, the other tools used in this experimental finishing all performed satisfactorily. Problems arose in some cases, such as the removal of the casting jet, but these were mainly due to the inexperience 101

Chapter 5: The technology of sword production . work in mould production, is the difficulty in drying such moulds. The clay must initially be of the right consistency and where two layers are used, as is commonly the case, differences in drying rate may arise, causing cracking. Indeed, in the Irish Bronze Age it must have been extremely difficult to find a dry atmosphere without exposure to direct heat, but with a constant warmth. In this light we may wonder just what percentage of moulds ever made it to the firing kiln. I would suggest it was a low percentage. The absence of large amounts of unused clay mould fragments from the archaeological record is not proof to the contrary. It has been found that even the hardest unfired clay can be reconstituted in water and reused, and recycling was a common practice of the period. A further puzzle is the absence of evidence for firing kilns in the archaeological record. Of course, this problem relates to the broader area of prehistoric pottery production in Ireland in general. Some vessels may, it seems, be fired in bonfires and as mentioned above, some smaller clay moulds may have been fired in this way. However, it seems unlikely that a long delicate mould such as that for a sword would survive such an ordeal, the uneven direct heat of a bonfire being sure to result in serious cracking.

of the user rather than the unsuitability of the tool. The different effects of the two hammers – stone and bronze – is of interest. Northover notes that the recrystallized zone at the edge of Sword 1 shows little signs of hammering, despite two cycles (5.7. S1 / 4). This is probably due to the large convex shape of the head of the stone hammer, which makes it difficult to get at the very edge of the sword during hammering. The hammer will almost always strike the thicker mid-section of the sword first, imparting its force in that area. Also, the fact that the hammer-stone was held in the hand, unhafted made it less powerful than the socketed bronze hammer. It cannot be proven that stone hammers of this type had no haft, but the examples personally examined by the author showed no sign of hafting (e.g. from Moylisha, Co. Wicklow and Lough Gur wedge-tomb, Co. Limerick). The bronze hammer was definitely a vast leap forward in bronzeworking technology. It was found to be far more effective, as well as less painful and easier to use. Although the surfaces of the two swords were, as noted previously, of poor quality, the bronze hammer had after two use cycles produced a greatly improved surface finish, a result not achieved with the stone hammer. Dr. Bridgeford had similar results (pers. comm.), with a copper hammer proving better even than those of steel in producing a good finish.

The absence of large crucibles probably implies that only one sword could be poured at a time, unlike smaller tools. This would raise the amount of resources used-up in production, because if pouring each sword required a new melt to be carried out then the consumption of charcoal would be high. This, in turn would add to the value of a sword. If large furnaces were utilized then more than one crucible could have been heated at the one time, but the lack of clear Irish evidence for furnaces, outlined in Chapter 4, makes this uncertain. The Late Bronze Age furnace pit at the Breiddin hillfort, Powys (Musson 1991) seems too small for heating more than one crucible at a time and it is possible that similar structures were used in Ireland.

A final point of interest arising out of the experiment is that the operations of the Late Bronze Age bronze-smith were essentially a job requiring two workers. This has been widely held to be the case, but never previously demonstrated through reconstruction of the bronze-smiths operations. Two people were needed for many of the cold-working jobs and where impatience led to jobs being attempted when no help was available the results were poor. In the casting operation at least three people may be envisaged, as timing and speed are of paramount importance here.

Both the casting and post-cast treatment of the sword greatly influence its microstructure, as clearly seen in the above experiment. The major variables effecting metallic microstructure are:

5. 9. Conclusions. The aim of this chapter has been to outline the main stages of Late Bronze Age sword production and explore in detail the various techniques involved. By looking at these we can also get some idea of the raw materials and facilities needed. The myriad nature of the skills needed in sword production is one of the main points which the above discussion underlines. This in turn must emphasize the great worth attached to such swords. Previously the proof of such worth has been seen mainly in the manner of their consumption, i.e. ritual deposition, but the painstaking production process makes an equally strong case for their high value.

1. Temperature of mould during pouring. 2. Temperature of metal during pouring. 3. Effects of initial flash removal (hammering and possibly heating). 4. The order of hardening treatments (hammering or annealing first?). 5. The intensity of hardening treatments (duration and temperature range of annealing; duration and severity of hammering). 6. Number of hardening treatment cycles. These factors decide the hardness, flexibility and general durability of the sword and thus its performance level and useful lifespan. As such, the finishing process is not simply a quick tidying up exercise, but plays a role of almost equal importance to casting in determining the effectiveness of a sword.

From the sourcing of suitable clays for casting, to the final burnishing of the sword’s surface the production process must have taken at least several weeks, and possibly months. An area not obvious in the archaeological record, but made clear by Liam McNally’s 102

Chapter 6: The Organization of Late Bronze Age Bronze Fabrication in Ireland 6. 1. 2. Charcoal.

In this chapter the archaeological record of Late Bronze Age bronze-working in Ireland will be considered with reference to ethnographic sources, to consider wider social and economic issues.

From historical times oak wood is generally regarded as the most suitable native timber for making charcoal and this was probably also the case during the Late Bronze Age. It is likely that oak, or some similar hard-wood, would have been accessible in the locality of most settlements. It is not possible to say by what means the smith procured this fuel or what techniques were used to produce it. In the ethnographic record there is evidence for individual smiths making their own charcoal (Kigezi, Uganda, Howard 1983, 118), the customer supplying the fuel (Sulawasi, Indonesia, ibid. 119), charcoal being imported from another region (Ashanti, Ghana, ibid. 118) and local non-smiths trading in charcoal (Kano City, Nigeria, ibid. 118).

6. 1. Raw Materials and the Organization of Late Bronze Age Metalworking. The production of metalwork in Late Bronze Age Ireland demanded careful organization of activity and in some cases the articulation of trade supply networks. The main raw materials required in bronze fabrication were clay, charcoal, tin and copper. The two non-metallic materials would generally have been available locally throughout Ireland in the Late Bronze Age, while the acquisition of copper and tin would have been more difficult, involving regional and perhaps long-distance inter-regional trade networks.

At present, the manner by which charcoal was supplied to metalworkers in Late Bronze Age Ireland is unknown. At larger metalworking centres this supply was unlikely to have been the responsibility of the smith, as charcoal making is a time consuming task. Thus, the fuel was probably either imported from an adjacent settlement or even a different region, possibly in exchange for bronze metalwork. Alternatively, charcoal making may have been the designated task of some individual or group in the settlement, though probably not a full time occupation. In smaller metalworking centres where casting activity may have been a seasonal pursuit (see Section 6. 2. 2 below), each smith was probably responsible for producing their own fuel.

6.1.1. Clay. It seems likely that individual smiths would have selected and dug their own clay, as judgement of whether clays were of suitable composition would be a matter of experience. Furthermore, Howard (1983, 513) asserts that the knowledge to select appropriate material from within the range of local resources of the settlement area in order to produce each different category of refractory artifact would only be available to a resident smith. Nonetheless, where clay with a suitable refractory content was not available locally, refractory material such as quartzite sand could be added artificially.

6. 1. 3. Tin. The tin deposits of Ireland are not large, but may nonetheless have been utilized to some extent during the Early Bronze Age (Jackson 1979). In the Late Bronze Age the use of large amounts of native gold for making ornaments may have also been accompanied by increased use of native tin deposits. The reason why this is possible is that alluvial gold deposits in Ireland, particularly in the Wicklow Mountains, are believed to contain stream tin (ibid.). However, there is no known archaeological evidence for prehistoric tin-panning in Ireland and, in any case, it remains unlikely that metalworkers on this island were able to supply more than a relatively small amount of their own tin needs. Thus overseas trading for tin may be envisaged, with Cornwall generally suggested as a significant source of Irish tin in the Late Bronze Age (e.g. Jackson 1991), due mainly to its proximity. While no radiocarbon determinations are available, a number of associations of Middle Bronze Age bronze tools with evidence of tin extraction are noted from Cornish tin placer deposits, e.g. several palstaves recovered with a

Clay not required for immediate use or use in the near future could be stored under water in a textile sack. The sack would prevent contamination of the clay and allow it to drain and dry for several days when removed from the water until it was of suitable consistency for use. Such an arrangement would suit where a good clay source lay at some distance from the settlement and frequent visits to the source were not convenient. In general, information on clay sources used in Late Bronze Age metalworking in Ireland is sadly lacking due to limited petrographic studies of both the clay crucible and mould material and possible clay sources. Archaeological evidence of clay extraction sites is similarly lacking for all periods of Irish prehistory.

103

Organization of bronze fabrication copper ores in the Late Bronze Age. A further difficulty is the absence of any bronze tools in the archaeological record which could be interpreted as mining picks or hammers. It is, nonetheless, interesting to note the recovery of several bronze rock wedges, found in 1831 at the Great Orme, Wales (Lewis 1990, 7). These were found in an ancient working accompanied by Bronze Age stone and antler mining tools and have no parallels elsewhere in the British archaeological record. A small number of similar bronze objects have been recovered during recent archaeological excavations at this mining complex (Dutton & Fasham 1994, 279). Such specialist tools may not have been in wide circulation, which might help explain the absence of mining tools in contemporary hoards and settlement assemblages. In Ireland a number of primitive copper mine sites have yet to be scientifically excavated, such as those at Bunmahon, Co. Waterford, at Avoca, Co. Wicklow and at Silvermines, Co. Tipperary. Some of these may prove to be Late Bronze Age in date.

quantity of smelted tin at Kenidjack, Land’s End (see Penhallurick 1986, 219-21 for a complete list of associations). The tin deposits of Brittany are another possibility. None of the ancient workings here have yet been dated earlier than the Roman Iron Age, although open cast workings at La Villeder produced an Early Bronze Age axe (ibid. 93). That tin was mined in the north-western part of Spain in the Bronze Age is a distinct possibility. Evidence for copper mining in this period is known in the area. Penhallurick points out that the fact that Bronze Age mining evidence from tin workings in Spain did not survive may be due to that fact that the deposits were extremely close to the surface and that as a result no large dumps of overburden would result (1986, 97). Such overburden has proved important in Cornwall in sealing Bronze Age finds until the present. Posidonius, writing in the first half of the last century B.C., is quoted by Strabo as saying that tin was obtained in barbarian countries beyond Lusitania, especially by the Artabri of the Cap Finisterre region of Galicia. In the light of possible trade links between western Iberia and Ireland and Britain (see Chapter 2), we might suppose that if such quantities of tin were being mined they might have formed part of the maritime trade. All three of the above areas lie along the West Atlantic trade routes, stretching from Shetland to southern Spain, which are such a notable feature of the European Bronze Age (e.g. Waddell 1991/2; Eogan 1993a; Cunliffe 2001).

It is interesting to compare the distribution of copper ore deposits in Ireland with that of Late Bronze Age sites producing metalworking evidence (Fig. 6. 1). None of these sites lie more than 25 km from the nearest recognized copper deposit, with the exception of Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo which is about 40 km from the nearest such deposit. It must, of course, be pointed out that the distribution of copper deposits in Ireland is widespread and proximity to such sources alone does not constitute evidence of utilization. More convincingly, a number of concentrations can be identified. In the area around the extensive copper deposits of the Wicklow Mountains there is a cluster of four metalworking sites, including the large Rathgall complex (Fig. 6. 2). The site of Johnstown South lies near the mouth of the Avoca River, which might be seen as a major point of access to the copper-rich interior. Also, the undated but almost certainly prehistoric Avoca copper mine, most of its ancient workings destroyed by recent mining activity, is less than 10 km inland from the former site. Several sites, including those of the Navan complex, appear to cluster around a copper-rich zone in east Tyrone, while the Lough Gur complex is close to the Silvermines copper deposits and prehistoric mine. While not proof of Late Bronze Age copper mining in Ireland, such concentrations certainly invite speculation.

Some few Irish Late Bronze Age objects of apparently pure tin, such as three large rings in the hoard from Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo (Eogan 1983, no. 132) are known. These rings, and one fragment from a hoard of broken tin torcs found at Killsallagh, Co. Longford, have been analyzed (Penhallurick 1983, 113). The results were similar for the rings and torc fragment and, while not proving the origin of the tin, none of the constituent trace elements are inconsistent with Cornish deposits. While this issue is not resolved, Cornwall remains the most likely source for tin used in Ireland in the Late Bronze Age. The possibility of trade between the settlement at Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin and the Lizard peninsula may reinforce this (see Section 6. 4 below).

The evidence from compositional analyses of ores is not clear on this matter either. The results of a paper by Coghlan, Butler and Parker (1963) include the results of analyses of over 100 specimens of copper ores of Irish origin, based mainly on museum specimens. Commenting on their results Tylecote draws attention to the very wide variation in minor element patterns and notes that it is possible to find an ore that will match any sufficiently well-analyzed artifact found, not only in Ireland, but also in Britain (1970, 20). Thus, while metal analysis does not prove a connection between insular copper deposits and the metal in Irish Late Bronze Age artifacts, it clearly indicates that such a link may exist. A particular difficulty

6. 1. 4. Copper. The source of copper used in the Late Bronze Age in Ireland is a puzzling question and one which requires serious examination in the future. None of the mines investigated in Ireland so far have yielded dates later than the start of the Middle Bronze Age (O’Brien 1994; 1995). Neither is there any archaeological evidence of copper mining in Britain for the Late Bronze Age period. There is, therefore, no hard evidence of the extraction of insular

104

Organization of bronze fabrication

Fig. 6. 1: Distribution of Copper Deposits, Prehistoric Mines and Late Bronze Age Sites with Bronze-working Evidence (copper occurrences and mines after Jackson 1979).

105

Organization of bronze fabrication

Fig. 6. 2: South Dublin / Wicklow area, showing metalworking sites. 1. Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin; 2. Oldconnaught, Co. Dublin; 3. Johnstown South, Co. Wicklow; 4. Rathgall, Co. Wicklow; 5. Avoca mines, Co. Wicklow. 1 to 4 are Late Bronze Age, 5 is undated. Dashed line indicates approximate edge of Wicklow Mountains.

106

Organization of bronze fabrication manufacturing process, as well as the skills required to use them (1983, 12 - 6). Again, this is apparently a sound theory, but its testability against the archaeological record is difficult. How can one judge whether a scrap-hoard (if a hoard can first be securely identified as belonging to this category) was the property of a specialist smith or just some enterprising member of the general community? To conclude then, it seems to most archaeologists that have dealt with Late Bronze Age smithing, including this author, that purely from a skills perspective most smiths were specialized craftsmen, but the point is unproven thus far. Nonetheless, bearing the above guidelines in mind, some attempt can be made to consider different aspects of their organization and position within Late Bronze Age society.

with regard to source provenancing of Late Bronze Age metal using scientific methods is the fact that recycling was widespread at this time. A final point of interest is that Late Bronze Age bronzes from Welsh contexts, such as the hoard from Llangwyllog, Anglesey and material from settlement at the Breiddin hillfort, Powys, have compositions which probably suggest an Irish origin for the metal (Northover in Musson 1991, microfiche 211). If this is the case, it seems unlikely that Irish metal, even in the form of scrap, would have been exported if the metal used in Ireland was imported. This fact may also support belief that native Irish copper ores were exploited in the Late Bronze Age. In conclusion, it is clear that the production of metal artifacts in Late Bronze Age Ireland demanded a careful organization of various activities, from the initial mining and smelting of raw copper to the procurement of tin, in addition to a range of other materials including clay and charcoal.

6. 2. 1. Late Bronze Age Smithing: Sedentary or Mobile? The question of whether smiths were tied down to specific social groupings or were free of social bonds to travel where demand led them, is one which has long been contentious. Both Childe (1930) and Clarke (1968) were in favour of the notion of the ‘itinerant smith’. However, this concept has been the subject of increasing critical analysis, and Rowlands (1971) finds little ethnographic evidence to support such a belief. More significantly, there are many elements of the archaeological record which would seem to deny the existence of itinerant bronze-workers. For instance, “the concept [of the itinerant smith] does not . . . correspond with evidence for distinctions in metalwork correlating to distinctions in other aspects of material culture, unless Childe’s assertion that such smiths were able to adapt to different local needs and taste is believed” (ibid. 215).

6. 2. Craft Specialization and the Irish Bronze-smith. A brief discussion of the definition of craft specialization is necessary before the evidence is considered. The criteria suggested by Rice as relevant to the identification of specialist potters (1981) are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The relationship between time spent in craftwork and time spent in subsistence activities. The proportion of income derived from craftwork relative to that obtained from subsistence activities. The explicit recognition of the craft by the society in which it operates. The existence of a reward system for work performed.

One interesting theory is that suggested by Howard (1983, 511-2), which correlates differences in moulding technology, more specifically the moulding material used, with differing degrees of smith mobility. She divides Late Bronze Age smiths in southern Britain into three groups. Class 1 smiths are defined as those producing weapons and ornaments who were resident with a fixed workshop, were patronized and used exclusively non-portable, nonreusable clay moulds. Class 2 smiths produced tools, principally axes, in bronze moulds and were locally itinerant, while Class 3 smiths produced axes from moulds of specially selected stone and were long-distance itinerants.

These criteria, if testable, would be helpful in deciding where specialization existed. However, it should be acknowledged that it is generally difficult to prove craft specialization in prehistoric bronze-working by examining the archaeological record in the light of the above scheme, or any similar scheme. Certainly, if Rowlands (1976, 116) criterion that the development of sophisticated skills be taken as a sign of specialization is accepted, then the smiths of the Irish Late Bronze Age fulfill this particular requirement. However, a similar problem arises here, as in the absence of agreed upon criteria the decision of what constitutes ‘sophistication’ is highly subjective. Also, it must be noted that ‘specialization’ does not necessarily imply full-time occupation in metalworking or any other craft.

Although the latter model is unproven, it has interesting implications when applied to the Irish evidence of Late Bronze Age smithing activity. Firstly, the small number of stone socketed axe moulds of this period found in Ireland, three at most (Cat. 4.45, 4.46, 4.48), should be noted, as should the fact that only a single bronze mould is provenanced to Ireland, and this appears to be a modern import (Cat. 5.1). In terms of Howard’s scheme, this would imply that Class 3 smiths were very few in number in Ireland, while Class 2 would appear to have

The criteria for specialization suggested by Howard emphasize differential access to raw materials, both for the products themselves and for equipment required in the 107

Organization of bronze fabrication 6. 2. 2. Full- time and Part-time Models of Production.

been altogether absent. That the vast majority of moulding evidence of the Late Bronze Age in Ireland is in the form of clay moulding debris may suggest that the emphasis was on sedentary bronze production.

A further question bearing on specialization, often discussed in conjunction with that of mobility, is that of whether production was a full- or part-time pursuit. It seems likely that this generally depended to a large degree on demand, which in turn may have been linked to settlement status and the size of the surrounding territory which the latter controlled politically and/or economically. In those areas where demand was insufficient to support full-time production, smithing activity may have been confined to a certain time of the year. Of course, full-time production may have been supported by external trade, which would have taken up the production surplus not used internally. Thus the absence of an adequate local market does not necessarily deny the practice of full-time production. In modern preindustrial societies where seasonal part-time production is the case such production activity is often confined to the dry season or, less specifically, “after the rains”. Generally the time when least agricultural activity is necessary is chosen, for instance there are ritual taboos against smiths working during the harvesting season in some African societies (Rowlands 1971, 212-3). Smiths under such circumstances are often engaged in subsistence farming.

There is other evidence to support such a scenario. Here, again, the evidence is related to differences in the organization of metalworking practice between lowland Britain and the ‘Highland Zone’, including Ireland. The comparatively small nature of hoards in the latter in comparison to those in the former during the Late Bronze Age is well known. More significant is the fact that with a very small number of exceptions, such as the Roscommon hoard in Ireland (Day 1879-82) and the St. Andrews hoard in Scotland (Cowie et al. 1991), founder’s and/or scrap hoards of considerable dimensions are absent from the ‘Highland Zone’. This may be significant when we note that: “one given reason for temporary deposition has revolved around the mobility of the smith and his possible need to deposit stockpiles at intervals around his itinerant circuit” (Needham 1990, 134). Taken together, the apparently limited use of stone moulds during the Late Bronze Age and the practical absence of evidence for bronze moulding, as well as the general absence of substantial founder’s hoards in Ireland, suggests that bronze production here was almost exclusively sedentary during the Late Bronze Age. There are also more obvious reasons for proposing widespread sedentism among smiths at this time. For instance: “the technical skills involved would certainly favour the existence of fixed workshops rather than smiths travelling round a local area and producing metalwork on demand” (Rowlands 1976, 164). This statement was made in reference to Middle Bronze Age production in southern Britain, but is equally applicable to Late Bronze Age production in Ireland. The authors’ experience in sword production experiments would also support this assertion, while the ethnographic evidence also points to the likelihood of fixed workshops.

In Late Bronze Age Ireland there may have been other factors to take into account as well as agricultural requirements. The problem of casting in low air temperature conditions has been noted above in connection with experimental sword production (Section 5. 4. 3). The number of successful castings from experiments is clearly higher where a warmer air temperature exists, aiding the successful drying of moulds and making outdoor casting operations easier. Thus, although involvement in agriculture would make the winter a good time for casting, the environmental factors may have led to a warmer time of the year being selected. However, this cannot be taken as a certainty unless it is presumed that small, part-time smithing operations are unlikely to have had an indoor heated workshop.

As suggested by Budd and Taylor (1995, 137-8), in the absence of strong indicative evidence from the archaeological record it should not be assumed, and is not so assumed here, that bronze-working was the preserve of one gender to the exclusion of the other. The ethnographic record, from Africa in particular, does indicate that while in modern pre-industrial societies the fabrication of metal objects was generally monopolized by men (and often involved strong gender-specific and sexual taboos), women did engage in other tasks related to metal production such as ore-gathering (Ondulu, Angola; Howard 1983, 96), working the bellows (Zala, Ethiopia; ibid. 90) and even in some cases helping at the anvil itself (Ewe, Ghana; ibid. 91). Thus, in the absence of strong evidence indicating either sex, no assumptions should be made regarding the gender of the smith in the Late Bronze Age.

It should also be remembered that in predominantly pastoral – as opposed to horticultural – economies smiths would have much less agricultural duties to limit their options as regards what periods they chose in which to carry out metalwork production. On the other hand if, as is discussed below, the patronage of a social elite was a governing factor in the activity of bronze-smiths, they may not have always had a choice as to when they fabricated particular objects. This is because they may have been duty bound to fulfill the demands of their patrons or masters as they arose, regardless of seasonal factors. Finally there is the possibility that certain activities in the metalworking process were gender or age determined, involving individuals or groups not normally involved in intensive farming practices. There is some ethnographic evidence for such situations (see Section 6. 2.1 above), but the archaeological record is mute regarding this possibility. 108

Organization of bronze fabrication than the production of most tools, a point supported by the experimental work undertaken by the author and by further experiment into tool production (L. McNally pers. comm.). A further distinction can be drawn between the latter two groups of material and the fine ‘ritual’ bronzes, constituted by bronze horns of Classes 1 and 2 and crotals. The degree of ability manifest in these castings is of a higher degree again (see Holmes 1979). A final group included here, that of the large sheet-bronze vessels (Atlantic cauldrons and Kurd-type buckets), also represent a high level of fabrication expertise.

At larger population centres, which were probably also generally the residences of the political elites, the smith’s occupation may have been full-time. Increased demand, resulting from the larger population, in conjunction with patronage from the political elite may have been sufficient to keep smiths at work throughout the year. Full-time production may have allowed the more skilled smiths to develop at such centres, because full-time concentration on a difficult craft, uninterrupted by long periods working at other activities such as farming, allows a high level of skill to be reached more quickly. The matter of differing levels of skill will be discussed in more detail below.

In terms of the ethnographic record, there were a number of African tribes in early modern times who displayed a similar type of specialization to that suggested here. One good example are the Basakata of the Congo region (Howard 1983, 108) whose smiths form a hierarchy and are ranked according to the objects they are allowed to produce. All smiths produced tools, while weapons were only made by fully trained smiths. Ceremonial ornaments were only to be made by fully trained master-smiths who had the necessary technical skill and magic.

Obviously, the best example of a large metalworking center of this period in Ireland is at Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Excavated evidence for an indoor workshop here, which so far exists at no other Irish Late Bronze Age site, is important. In the light of the possible impact of air temperature on casting, these structural remains at Rathgall may be connected with all year round metalwork production. Nonetheless, the evidence for distinguishing full-time bronze-working centres from those practicing seasonal production remains tenuous.

This ethnographic parallel may be relevant to our understanding of Late Bronze Age bronze fabrication in Ireland. Artifacts such as simple tools and personal ornaments require relatively little skill compared with weapons, while the casting of bronze horns and crotals must represent the pinnacle of bronze-working in Irish prehistory. This is not to imply that elite smiths did not produce tools and weapons also. It is possible that the artisans responsible for the aforementioned ritual bronzes did not concern themselves with the more mundane requirements of farmers and craftsmen. However, it seems unlikely that the demand for such prestige items was large enough to supply a smith with work all year round. The amounts of both tools and weapons of the Late Bronze Age recovered in Ireland are large by any standards, but the quantity of ‘ritual’ bronzes is relatively small. Thus we may envisage a small high-status specialist group separated by social and economic sanction from other smiths and probably under the patronage of the political and/or religious elite. However, it is likely that these smiths worked alongside other smiths of more typical skill and rank making weapons at least if not tools, and only applying their abilities to special prestige objects intermittently.

6. 2. 3. A Skill-based Craft Hierarchy? As noted by Rowlands (1971, 210-1), the circumstances of the highly skilled smith employed by a high status group will be different to those producing metalwork for the general population. Two questions arise here; firstly, were such inequalities among smiths unstructured or the result of a rigid hierarchy system? Secondly, if the latter option was the case, what was the basis upon which this hierarchy functioned? It is acknowledged, as stated above, that the ultimate origin of such a system of ranking would be the relative skill of different smiths, thus implying that demand was the initial force which arranged smiths into a hierarchy. However, socially determined factors, such as the existence of familial smithing lineages and the obligation of smiths to specific tribal groupings, would have had a powerful modifying influence on the purely economic effects of demand. Although the two latter factors would also play an important role in formulating a widely recognized and socially accepted method of smith ranking, one must emphasize the likelihood that political elites were primarily responsible for the imposition and enforcement of such a system.

The cauldrons and buckets, with their emphasis on sheetbronze working may represent a further specialist group. These craftsmen may also have been of relatively high status, working under the patronage of the social elite and catering for the European fashion in elaborate drinking and feasting equipment current in later prehistory (e.g. Gomez de Soto 1993). That the sheet-bronze workers constituted a specialist group is in agreement with the ethnographic evidence. Logically, differences in technique appear to be the most common cause for the development of different specialist groups. This is especially the case where, as in Irish Late Bronze Age bronze-working, only variation of one alloy type is in

The basic implications of a ranking system would most likely be that only certain ranks of smith could, or were allowed to, produce certain categories of bronze artifact. The most obvious indication of this in the Irish Late Bronze Age is the distinction made between tools and simple ornaments on the one hand and weapons on the other. This distinction is not arbitrary in terms of skill. The production of weaponry, particularly swords and long spearheads, is a considerably more difficult matter 109

Organization of bronze fabrication produce of such artisans to other elites as part of an economic exchange or as a diplomatic gift sealing a political agreement is an obvious example which is attested in the ethnographic record (Howard, 1983, 57). Furthermore, control of such smiths would have given improved opportunities for the deposition of fine metalwork in wet contexts, thus increasing prestige and/or satisfying the ritual demands of the social grouping.

question (the production of gold is regarded here as a separate craft because of the quite different techniques involved and the absence of composite bronze/gold objects suggesting any overlap between the two craft areas). However, the cast ring-handle fittings on Irish sheet-bronze vessels indicate that either these specialists had mastered the art of casting, or that they worked in conjunction with the casting smiths. Alternatively, the two may have been one and the same craftsman. However, in view of the level of expertise needed in both sheet and cast bronze-working, the former option seems more likely.

Although it is possible that smiths may have been capable of enforcing such a system, arguments in favour of the existence of a smithing hierarchy are, to a large extent dependent upon the existence of a powerful social elite. The existence of such groups in the Late Bronze Age in Ireland is difficult to deny in relation to the archaeological record. The proliferation of defended settlements and weaponry definitely suggest a bellicose society of the type characterized by social organization of a hierarchical nature. Likewise, as well as the bronze ‘prestige’ objects we have the impressive collection of ostentatious gold ornaments which are the equal of any in Europe for this period. Any attempt to suggest a society without large social differences for the Irish Late Bronze Age must find the existence of such obvious ‘symbols of power’ extremely difficult to explain.

The scenario suggested here is of four specialist or partially specialist levels of expertise, more probably the latter. The sheet-bronze workers may be seen as truly specialist, while the difference between the three levels of bronze-casters is based more on the objects which they were able to or were allowed to produce. The level of upward mobility possible in such a scheme is difficult to judge. Certainly, it seems likely that the differences in skill between the producers of tools and simple ornaments on one hand and those producing weaponry on the other are not so great that this boundary can be seen as impassable. Indeed, it may be that the tool-producing smiths were, in fact, an apprentice group from which graduation to production of both tools and weaponry was a matter of course. On the other hand, as suggested above, those producing the finest ‘ritual’ castings appear to have been a small group and the proficiency necessary to qualify for membership of this hypothetical group would be something not many smiths would be likely to achieve. Also, with such prestige objects of a possibly religious nature it is likely that, as well as skill, social taboos served to keep demand high, limiting production to a small sanctioned number. Although the sheet-bronze workers probably worked in conjunction with the casting smiths, it is unlikely that either group carried out the tasks of the other, due to considerable differences in technique. The difficulty in reaching firm conclusions here on the question of smith status is largely due to the poor settlement record of Late Bronze Age metalworking in Ireland. No metalworking evidence of either sheet-bronze working or the production of horns has yet come to light other than the artifacts themselves. The fact that mould fragments for tools, ornaments and weapons occur together on a number of Irish sites (see Table 3. 6) may seem not to support any suggestion of specialization between tools and weaponry. However, the fact that a weapon-smith would probably also produce the other two artifact types should be remembered. Also, settlements are likely to have had designated casting and refuse areas which could be used by different categories of smith, thus causing the moulding debris from different casting operations by different specialists to appear in the archaeological record as a unitary assemblage.

Finally, the unpopularity of the idea of smithing ‘guilds’ in some quarters is noted (e.g. Budd & Taylor 1995, 138). Yet, given the technical diversity and range of metalwork produced in the Late Bronze Age and the existence of social elites, this author feels that some form of organization among smiths was likely. Also, the term ‘guild’, as used by Budd and Taylor, though originally coined in this context by Childe (1936), evokes an image of the strictly controlled Medieval guilds, a situation more formal than is intended here. In reality the degree of control and organization may have varied greatly, even between neighbouring regions. To conclude on the subject of craft specialization, the question of whether smiths in Ireland were locally itinerant, itinerant over a wide area or sedentary, produced full-time or seasonally, and were effectively ‘freelance’ or strictly ranked, is difficult to address given the obvious limitations of the archaeological evidence, and oversimplification should be avoided. Many or all of these variations on smith organization may have existed in different areas in response to different social, economic and political circumstances during the insular Late Bronze Age. The suggestions made above are chosen over others because they appear to fit the available archaeological and ethnographic evidence best.

6. 3. Bronze-working, Trade and Site Status. On the question of whether metalworking in the Late Bronze Age was primarily concentrated on large centres of production or was a widely dispersed phenomenon in some localities, the Irish settlement evidence, dealt with

As regards control by political/social elites of those smiths at the top of the postulated hierarchy producing fine metalwork, such a rigid ranking system would have had definite benefits. The ability to offer the services or 110

Organization of bronze fabrication 6. 3. 2. Settlement Location.

in Chapter 4, is ambiguous. Although the sites of Rathgall and Dun Aengus may suggest the former, the identification of regional metalworking centres of this period is problematic in the absence of good information on the domestic habitations of the ordinary population and the assessment of bronze artifact use on them. Rowlands sets out a list of criteria which he suggests may be utilized in identifying and defining such centres (1976, 116-7). However, these cannot be used here for two reasons. Firstly, his study focused largely on finished bronze metalwork, which is not the subject of this thesis. Secondly, the use of these criteria requires the existence of large bodies of scientific data to define regional groups in terms of trends in metal composition and the use of distinctive metalworking techniques. Unfortunately, such studies do not at present exist with regard to the Irish Late Bronze Age material.

The geographic positioning of these settlements may give a clue as to the reason for their apparent high-status. Figure 6. 1. shows that five of the Irish sites producing bronze-working evidence are situated in a coastal position, including the major centres at Dalkey Island and Dun Aengus. The positioning of most of these sites along the eastern seaboard, particularly in the Dublin/Wicklow area may be indicative of maritime trading networks between Ireland and Britain. Most direct trade was probably with Wales, with Irish material following several diffuse routes from there to southern England. However, trade with Cornwall, in return for tin may also have been an important element of contact with Britain in this period. It has been argued that Dalkey Island may have constituted a type of ‘neutral’ trading port at this time, along the same lines as have been suggested for Runnymede Bridge, Surrey (Bradley 1984, 124), with the Liffey providing a convenient route inland. Indeed, the same author notes that Dalkey Island seems to have served a similar purpose in the post-Roman period. The promontory fort at Loughshinny, only a few miles north of Dalkey and apparently dating to the Iron Age, appears to have also been a focal point in trade with Roman Britain (Raftery 1994, 207-8). This must suggest the Dublin coast as an important zone of contact with the neighbouring island from at least as early as the Late Bronze Age, and stretching into the Medieval period.

Although we cannot yet identify regional metalworking centres on the basis of patterns of metal composition and distribution, by examining elements of some of the more obviously wealthy settlement sites with evidence of bronze-working we may glimpse the nature of their wider connections.

6. 3. 1. Weapon Production. One area of industrial activity sometimes regarded as an indicator of high-status settlement is the production of weaponry. As noted above (Section 6. 2. 3), the experimental evidence is in agreement with a difference in technical achievement between the production of simple tools and ornaments on the one hand and fine weaponry on the other. Excavated Irish settlements producing evidence of weapon casting include Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin; Rathgall, Co. Wicklow; Dun Aengus, Co. Galway; Lough Gur, Co. Limerick and Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone. It may be noted that this list includes almost all the settlement sites included in Table 4. 1. This reflects the existing excavation bias in favour of high-status sites and/or suggests that bronze production is an important attribute of high-status settlement sites in the Irish Late Bronze Age.

Perhaps the most interesting find from the Bronze Age levels at Site 5, Dalkey Island are a number of pottery sherds identified by ApSimon as Trevisker ware (Liversage 1968, 158, 164, fig. 4). Though widely distributed, this pottery type was predominantly produced on the Lizard itself and traded as far as Wessex and France (ApSimon & Greenfield 1972, 371-5; Pearson 1993, 112). Although this pottery is possibly as early as the Bishopsland phase at Dalkey Island, it may constitute some small evidence of tin trade with Cornwall at this time, which possibly continued into the Dowris phase, contemporary with the metalworking evidence from the site. Perhaps some of the bronzes produced here may have been used in part payment for this important raw material. The influence of Irish metalworking techniques upon those of the Cornubrian peninsula during the Middle Bronze Age has been noted (Thomas 1964) and there is no reason why contact should not have continued into the Late Bronze Age. A certain amount of Irish metalwork of Late Bronze Age date is known from the Cornubrian peninsula. Pearse suggests particularly the gold arm-rings with expanded hollowed terminals as Irish in origin (1983, 50). Although other Irish metal types, such as bagshaped socketed axes are not unusually common in Cornwall and Devon (ibid. 64), she asserts that links with Ireland were maintained for the duration of the Late Bronze Age (ibid. 87).

With regard to the latter possibility, it should be remembered that the apparent absence of such moulding evidence from some obviously high-status sites such as Mooghaun, Co. Clare and Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh, does not mean that bronzeworking was not practiced in or near these locations. The discovery of possible evidence for metalworking activity on the slope outside Rathgall should be remembered in this regard. Also, a possible connection between the sword mould fragments from ‘The King’s Stables’ and Haughey’s Fort has been postulated above (Section 4.5.2.).

The position of Dun Aengus, the only relevant site on the western seaboard, also suggests that coastal dominance was important in siting. Its situation on Inis Mór controls 111

Organization of bronze fabrication itself may have been made here also. As Henderson points out, this “may provide evidence for contacts between Ireland and the Swiss/northern Italian area during the 11th-9th centuries B.C.” (ibid. 449).

the entry to Galway Bay and hence also that of the Corrib/Mask waterway. The copper deposits in this area may or may not be a relevant factor. The importance of the site could possibly result at least partially from a local monopoly on bronze production, but the material recovered during excavation gives little indication of foreign trade. Although this may be due to poor site preservation, the peripheral nature of the west coast may be more of a factor here. For the much-discussed Atlantic coastal trade route it would have been more prudent to proceed along the south coast and up the Irish Sea than brave the dangerous western route.

The similarities in technology between glass production and bronze-working are also pointed out by Henderson, and the Irish evidence is interesting in this light. A relatively massive assemblage of eighty-eight complete or fragmentary glass beads was recovered at Rathgall. Henderson opines that one example in particular, a broken bead composed of a poorly fired clay core covered with a layer of highly cracked transparent glass, may indicate that glass-working (as distinct from glassmaking) took place at this site. The cracking is judged more likely to result from differential cooling of the two substances and thermal shock than from any accidental damage (ibid. 442). The majority of the glass beads came from the ‘workshop’ structure, which also yielded objects of gold and amber (Raftery 1976, 346). Thus we may envisage a thriving craft-production centre perhaps concentrating on bronzes, but also turning out ornamental objects in precious materials. The relationship and level of interaction between the different crafts is a fascinating area, but one for which there is no grounds for discussion, bar the fine composite ornament consisting of a greenglass bead mounted in gold from the ‘workshop’ area at Rathgall (ibid. pl. II).

The concentration of sites featuring bronze-working evidence in the mid-Ulster area is of interest. Again, the relevance of the copper deposits in the area is difficult to assess. Trade in this area may have been aided by the ease of transport provided by the extensive waterways of the Bann/Lough Neagh and Erne drainage systems, allowing a wide and relatively rapid distribution of artifacts and materials in the region. The bronze-working evidence from the coastal sites at Ballycroghan, Co. Down, and Bay (Carnlough) and Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim is less well investigated. However, there seems to have been extensive settlement of the north-eastern coast in this period (Mallory & McNeill 1991, 127). Contact with south-western Scotland and possibly some trade in bronzes and other materials seems likely.

In the case of the Lough Gur complex, the contextual evidence is poor, with thirty-four glass beads recovered from unstratified contexts at Sites C and D and Circle K (Ó Ríordáin 1954, 354-8, 410; Grogan & Eogan 1987, 385). It is worth noting that all three of these sites produced evidence of bronze-working, with a clay crucible fragment at Site C, clay mould fragments at Circle K and both, as well as a piece of bivalve stone mould, recovered at Site D. There is no hard evidence for the practice of glass-working at Lough Gur, but it remains a possibility.

6. 3. 3. Glass and Late Bronze Age Settlement. Evidence for trade on a number of Irish sites is present in the form of glass beads. Lough Gur and Rathgall are the only Late Bronze Age sites which feature both bronzeworking evidence and glass. The other two sites producing glass in this period are Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh and Freestone Hill, Co. Kilkenny (Raftery 1969). Both of these sites would appear to be of high-status type, being large hilltop settlements with earthwork defences. With the exception of the Haughey’s Fort material, these glass beads have been dealt with by Henderson in his study of Bronze Age beads in Europe (1988). The glass beads from Navan Fort have yet to be analyzed and could be of either Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age date (Waterman & Lynn 1997, 87).

Other precious materials, such as gold and amber, may be seen as indicators of site status. However, the source provenancing of those materials is not so developed as that of glass at present and thus do little to enhance our understanding of trade links. The presence of goldworking evidence at Haughey’s Fort, in the form of a number of fragments of wire, leaf and beads, as well as one small complete stud is interesting (Mallory 1991, 20 & table 2), while that from Rathgall has already been mentioned. The only fragment of gold recovered thus far at Lough Gur, from Site D, is possibly of Early Bronze Age date and is not of relevance here (Ó Ríordáin 1954, 410-1). As far as those sites with bronze-working evidence are concerned, amber is confined thus far to the ‘workshop’ area at Rathgall. Both gold and amber occur in the impressive ornament hoard found at the Rathtinaun lake-edge settlement, Co. Sligo (Eogan 1983, no. 132). While this hoard probably reflects the considerable status on the occupants of this settlement, there is no reason to suppose the contents were crafted at the site. Nonetheless,

Compositional analyses of the Irish beads has revealed that almost all the Rathgall and Lough Gur material, and some of that from Freestone Hill, belong to a distinct group featuring characteristic low magnesia and high potassium levels (LMHK). While other glass types of this period appear to have originated in the east Mediterranean area, the LMHK group seem to be distinctly European. LMHK glass has also been found at All Canning’s Cross, Wiltshire in England and HauteriveChampréveyres in Switzerland (Henderson 1988, 440-2). The presence of amounts of glass-working material onsite indicates that such beads were fashioned at the protoVillanovan site of Frattesina in north Italy and the glass 112

Organization of bronze fabrication in need of explanation are is thus threefold. Firstly the rarity of settlement, secondly the absence of metalworking evidence and thirdly the large body of finished bronze metalwork from the area.

some of the bronze rings and the pin and tweezers in the hoard may have been manufactured here, although all but one of the mould fragments recovered here, that for a knife or sickle, are too fragmentary for recognition (Coghlan & Raftery 1961, 244). A solitary bead of amber was recovered from the humic soil at Navan Fort (Waterman & Lynn 1997, 87), but no obvious link with on-site craft activities can be deduced.

The existence of extensive human settlement in the Irish midlands in later Bronze Age times is indicated by the growing body of bog track-way evidence datable to this period, including sites such as Derryoghil South and North, Co. Longford (Raftery 1996). Where settlements of this period have been identified in this area they appear to be of wooden platform type, such as that at Clonfinlough, Co. Offaly (Moloney et al. 1993). Many such sites may have been unwittingly destroyed during unsupervised mechanized peat-harvesting in recent times. Furthermore, many settlements may never have survived in the first place. Peat inundation will not always result in good preservation, particularly where it does not occur rapidly. Indeed, where such rapid peat growth does not take place the wet conditions are ideal for speedy decomposition and disintegration of all organic matter. The likely result would be a scatter of flint and pottery sherds which are almost guaranteed to be overlooked during mechanized peat-cutting. Thus, in this author’s opinion, the paucity of settlement in the region may be more apparent than real.

From the above evidence it is clear that high-status sites in Ireland were well linked into a western European system of exchange, involving precious and exotic materials such glass, gold and amber, and probably also finished bronze objects and raw tin. There are undoubtedly many elements of this trade, probably based on gift exchange, which are archaeologically invisible, such as slaves, but it should be remembered that most of the bronze objects and raw metals involved will also be invisible due to the practice of recycling. While it seem obvious that amber, raw glass and tin constituted a major part of the goods coming into the country, what Ireland exported in return can only be speculated. On the two sites which are most obviously major trading centres, Rathgall and Dalkey Island, the importance of the bronze casting industry is notable, suggesting that tools, weapons and ornaments of bronze may have been one major export. The presence of both these sites close to the Wicklow Mountains may suggest that raw copper and gold were also exported.

The absence of metalworking evidence may also relate to this problem of settlement visibility, however there is an alternative explanation. Figure 6. 1. shows that few or no copper deposits exist in the midlands, whereas the known distribution of copper deposits corresponds broadly with that of metalworking sites. The absence of metalworking evidence from the midlands may therefore possibly be related to the absence of workable copper occurrences. This assertion must be treated with caution, as a glance at the same chart shows that Cork and Kerry, areas which have extensive copper deposits and a history of Bronze Age mining, have yet to yield Late Bronze Age casting evidence. The little metal from the Irish Midlands capable of use in casting occurs in the form of scrap hoards (see Fig. 6. 3), the amounts of uncast copper and bronze in the Dowris (Cat. 2. 3) and Derrinboy (Cat. 2. 2) hoards, Co. Offaly being insignificant.

To speculate further is difficult. The routes which this long-distance trade may have followed are discussed in Chapter 2 on the basis of finished metalwork distributions. It has been suggested that the role of Britain as a source of goods from other European areas during the Dowris phase was less important than in preceding phases, with trade routes becoming more direct (Eogan 1964). The glass bead evidence backs this suggestion up, with about ninety LMHK beads of west-central European origin found in Ireland and only a single example found in Britain (Henderson 1988, 449). It is interesting to note that, as regards glass beads, this direct trade seems to continue into the Early Iron Age (Henderson 1987, 38-9). Nonetheless, the position of sites like Dalkey Island suggest that trade with Britain during the Dowris phase was still significant.

However, the quantity of metalwork from the Central Plain still requires explanation. It might be envisaged that the eastern coastal and mid-Ulster areas, with their apparently developed casting industry, may have played a role in catering for the demand for bronzework in the midlands. Thus, a percentage of the bronzes cast at Rathgall, Dalkey Island and perhaps even Dun Aengus may not have been intended for trading outwards overseas, but inwards to the central basin. Trade with the midlands may therefore have aided in the growth of highstatus sites in the surrounding regions.

6. 3. 4. The Irish Midlands. One of the major questions regarding Late Bronze Age settlement in Ireland must be the apparent absence of habitation from the Central Plain where a large number of bronze objects have been found. Figure 6. 1. shows that there are no settlements with bronze-working evidence from the Central Plain, while Figure 6. 4. indicates that casting evidence in general avoids this area also. The only metalworking evidence from the midlands are the few tools from Dowris (Cat. 9. 3) and Lusmagh (Cat. 9. 4), both Co. Offaly. The unusual characteristics of this area

Noting the importance of waterways as prehistoric routes of trade, we may see the Shannon as the main point of entry into the midlands. The fact that gold ornament distributions suggests the existence of a rich aristocracy 113

Organization of bronze fabrication

Fig. 6. 3: Distribution of Late Bronze Age Raw Bronze, Scrap Hoards and Casting Jets.

114

Organization of bronze fabrication

Fig. 6. 4: Distribution of Late Bronze Age Moulding Evidence.

115

Organization of bronze fabrication

Table 6. 1: Ritual sites of the Irish Bronze Age yielding Metalworking evidence.

evidence was forthcoming, in the form of a Beaker period metalworking area (O’Kelly & Shell 1979). Where smithing operations were in existence close to ritual structures in Prehistory, it is probably not the case that metallurgical material deposited on or in these structures is the result of a coincidental proximity of the two activities – metallurgical and ritual. Rather, it is likely that there is a religious or supernatural reason for practicing metalworking near to such monuments. It thus remains likely that the deposition of metallurgical material on ritual sites was deliberate. Also, where such depositions are recorded, it might reasonably be regarded as an indication that metalworking was being practiced, if not in the immediate environs of the monument then at least in the general locality.

in the area of the Shannon estuary may be no coincidence, in the light of the trade opportunities created by this route into the interior (see Eogan 1993a). This explanation is admittedly hypothetical and has a number of obvious weaknesses, such as the major question of what the inhabitants of the interior would exchange for bronzes. Undoubtedly, the situation which existed was more complex and such trade with the interior region, if it indeed existed, may not have been so straightforward, but carried out through more diffuse exchange networks based on numerous relatively short-range personal exchanges involving a diverse range of commodities.

6. 4. Metallurgy and Ritual Sites. As can be seen from Table 6. 1., the majority of such known associations apparently come from wedge-tombs and, like deposition in wet contexts, this practice spans the entire duration of the Bronze Age. With a sample of only five sites where such activity can be identified, it is difficult to isolate any pattern in this activity. With the exception of the Early Bronze Age deposit at Toormore, Co. Cork (O’Brien et al. 1989/90) where metalworking evidence took the form of pieces of raw copper pieces accompanied by a finished flat axe-head, the metalworking evidence on the other five sites has no intrinsic economic value. Therefore, if we rule out the unlikely possibility that the metallurgical material on these sites represent simple waste disposal, it can be concluded that these mould and crucible fragments have a symbolic value, probably of a ritual nature. This particular practice of deposition was not confined to Ireland. A Late Bronze Age cultic building with rock carvings at Sandagergård, Zealand in Denmark produced clay mould and crucible debris, with no evidence of domestic activity present (Kaul 1985). It is interesting in this light that Howard notes several examples in the ethnographic record, in Nigeria and Kenya particularly, where clay furnace tuyéres are accorded supernatural

The deposition of raw materials and fabrication residues on Irish ritual sites of later Bronze Age date has been noted in Chapters 3 and 4. This practice was apparently in existence from the Early Bronze Age (see Table 6. 1). The presence of metalworking artifacts and residues on a ritual site may be explained in two ways: (1) That smithing activity was taking place in the immediate environs of the ritual structure for reasons connected either with religious belief and social convention, or purely for reasons of convenience. (2) That the metalworking material was deliberately brought to the site and placed there, either as refuse or as a ritual deposit. Both of the above interpretations may be relevant, as the circumstances of individual metalworking deposits on these ritual sites are poorly understood. The scale of excavation of the wider surroundings of ritual monuments is rarely so large as to allow the possibility of metalworking activity nearby to be determined. The excavations at Newgrange were one instance where such 116

Organization of bronze fabrication feature to a similar structure of Iron Age date at Frilford, Berkshire in England, which was overlain by a RomanoBritish rotunda, and suggests it may be a shrine (1976, 349). It should be noted that a number of clay mould fragments were recovered from this area. Another small enclosure, this time with a complete circular ditch, was uncovered some 30 metres to the north-east (ibid. pl. 6). A number of pits and post-holes occur in the interior and there was apparently a wooden causeway over the ditch. A small amount of burnt human bone was found in the fill of the central post-hole and scattered in its vicinity. Immediately outside the ditch a single lump of ‘waste’ bronze from casting came to light. This structure may be a burial site, like that within the fort, or possibly a shrine incorporating burial deposits. It is interesting to consider the presence of metallurgical material at both of the penannular-ditched enclosures, and one must wonder whether these associations are fortuitous.

powers of a protective nature (1983, 83, 86). In Table 6. 1. one can tentatively identify a movement from emphasis on axes at Toormore and Loughash, to spearheads at Moylisha and Lough Gur and swords at ‘The King’s Stables’. This may be seen as mirroring the change in wet context deposition from axes to weaponry as the insular Bronze Age progresses. Indeed, at ‘The King’s Stables’ the two practices have been brought together, with metallurgical material in the form of clay moulds deposited in an artificially created wet environment. This suggests the possibility that refractory ceramics used in metalworking might also have been deposited in rivers and bogs. Of course, such a practice would be extremely difficult to identify in the archaeological record and indicators of metalworking activity are, unsurprisingly, absent from the riverine record in Ireland. It may be of relevance here that the clay mould fragments for casting swords recovered at Bohevny, Co. Fermanagh were reported as being recovered from under a depth of peat (Cat. 6.5).

6. 4. 2. The Nature of Metallurgical Activity on Ritual Sites. 6. 4. 1. Ritual Monuments. Reviewing the above evidence, and having excluded the unlikely explanation that such associations are fortuitous, two possible interpretations may be made of these metallurgical finds on Later Bronze Age ritual sites:

The small number of sites included in Table 6. 1. emphasize the Middle Bronze Age as the period in which deposition of metallurgical material on ritual sites was most commonly practiced. However, a major imbalance may exist here as a result of the difficulties involved in identifying Late Bronze Age ritual and funerary evidence in Ireland, and particularly the fact that such clearly defined monument types as wedge-tombs or cist graves were apparently not utilized. Apart from the evidence at ‘The King’s Stables’, Co. Armagh, none of the other finds on Table 6. 1 are definitely of developed Late Bronze Age date. A consideration of the ritual evidence from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow and how it relates to some of the metalworking evidence illustrates this problem. The burial complex within the defensive earthworks at this site, apparently constructed within a dense thicket of vertical wooden stakes surrounded by a shallow V-shaped ditch, is currently unparalleled in Ireland (Raftery 1973, pl. 38). The small hoard found nearby is interesting in this context, consisting of a small chisel, part of a socketed spearhead and a blade portion from a sword. In another context this hoard might have been seen as a scrap hoard of the meagre proportions typical of the Irish series. On the other hand, its proximity to a cremation burial might suggest it is a votive deposit. Clearly, the two concepts of scrap hoard (of the small ‘Highland Zone’ type at least) and votive deposit are not mutually exclusive. Possibly the best way to view this example is as a small scrap hoard utilized as a votive deposit in a funerary context.

(1) That such deposits are funerary in nature. (2) That such deposits are related to magico-religious beliefs connected with metallurgy and its practice. As regards the first interpretation, at ‘The King’s Stables’ and at two of the three ritual areas at Rathgall the metalworking material was associated, to varying degrees, with burials. The evidence from the wedgetombs is not so clear and with the possible exception of Lough Gur (see Brindley & Lanting 1991/2, 24), the metallurgical material on these sites cannot be shown to be even broadly contemporary with any of the interments. In the case of the second interpretation above we must turn to the ethnographic record for support. Howard (1983) lists about 60 examples of modern primitive societies, mostly in Africa, where metalworking activities are strongly linked with religion, including a number where metalworkers are seen as priests with strong specific supernatural powers. Among the Gola of Liberia smiths perform ceremonies accompanying initiation into the Poro - the tribal secret society. Smiths of the Gurage tribe in Ethiopia act as ritual specialists at circumcision and other ceremonies, while among the Kikuyu in Kenya the smith acts as arbiter in disputes. Fear of his magical powers ensures compliance with his decisions (ibid. 28). Attitudes to metalworkers in the ethnographic record can be summed up in three assertions:

There is also intriguing evidence from outside the hilltop defences on the southern slope at this site. Two penannular-ditched enclosures were uncovered here. One of these was the focus of numerous pits and post-holes, including one of the canopied pits possibly related to metalworking (see Fig. 4. 10). Raftery compares this

(1)

117

There is an association of smiths, their tools, their product and in some cases the by-products of their operations with magic, ritual and religion.

Organization of bronze fabrication (2)

(3)

Considerable respect and sometimes fear are held by the general community for metalworkers, although in a number of communities this respect is displaced by contempt. Widespread secrecy and taboo surround the practice of metallurgy, often resulting in separation of metalworking communities or individual workshops from tribal centres of habitation.

6. 5. Conclusions. In this survey we have seen how the acquisition of raw materials for bronze-casting involved a number of supply networks over varying distances. Charcoal and clay were most likely obtained in the immediate locality where casting was undertaken and may not always have involved individuals other than those directly involved in the metalworking operations. On the other hand, the tin used came from overseas and this trade would necessarily have involved a number of exchanges between different parties, including miners, smelters and intermediaries, the latter possibly including specialist traders. We may thus expect the value of tin in Late Bronze Age Ireland to have been accordingly high, although the quantities available, which are archaeologically inestimable, would also have had some bearing here.

It is certainly possible, on the basis of the admittedly slim archaeological evidence, to suggest that similarly complex attitudes were prevalent in the Irish Later Bronze Age. It may be interesting in the future to examine such attitudes in the light of the various theoretical frameworks suggested for the organization of Late Bronze Age metalworking. For instance, if we accept any of the viewpoints which stress the political importance of control of the supply of fine metalwork (e.g. Meillassoux 1968; O’Shea 1981) then we may accord a greater importance to sites with evidence for the manufacture of same, especially swords and large spearheads. The same reasoning might suggest that the art of smithing was a closely guarded and controlled secret, in order to prevent supply being increased by unsanctioned individuals outside the control of the political elite. In such situations the existence of a guild is a virtual prerequisite to political control, and this might help to explain the finds of metalworking debris from ritual sites. As Kaul notes “there is no reason why bronze casting might not in certain circumstances have involved particular rituals” (1985, 43), and the ethnographic evidence suggests such rituals may have been more the rule than the exception. One such ritual might be the initiation of new members into the metalworking craft. Among the Akwa Igbo of Nigeria the apprentice becomes a fully-fledged smith in his late teens, receiving his tools from his master in a ceremony at a tribal outstation (Howard 1983, 101). These outstations were generally used by tribes for all ritual purposes involving a degree of secrecy and were, as their name suggests, located at some remove from the domestic area.

The question of Irish copper reserves in this period is clearly unresolved. If native deposits were worked in the Late Bronze Age then it seems likely that the trade routes were relatively short, although this clearly depends on the number of mines in operation in any given period. The process of copper mining and smelting in this period would have required a specialist work-force whose relationship to those groups involved in the final fabrication of bronzes is not understood. Thus the proximity of copper mines does not mean that their product was cheap as a result. If, on the other hand, copper was mainly imported during the Late Bronze Age it is even more problematic to guess the nature of the trade involved. The widespread use of scrap-bronze in Europe at this time has thus far prevented compositional analyses from clarifying the sources of the metal used in most regions. Although Britain is always a likely candidate for immediate contact, its role as a channel for continental material makes it possible that metal arriving in Ireland from Britain was ultimately of continental origin. As regards craft specialization among bronze-smiths, there is clearly a difficulty in defining the term. This arises not from the criteria used to define specialization but, as is commonly the case with theoretical constructs in archaeology, their testability against the archaeological record. Nonetheless, an examination of the evidence in this regard proved worthwhile through the consideration of a number of factors including the degree of smith mobility and the annual duration of metalworking activities, as well as the existence of differential levels of skill and the likely control exerted by existing political and social elites. It must again be emphasized that the effects of demand pervade all the above factors. It is in this area that the ethnographic record is essential to help make sense of the archaeological record. While the probability that much smithing activity was seasonal in nature is suggested, no firm conclusion is reached. As regards smith mobility the evidence supports the opinion that sedentism was the general rule in the Irish Late Bronze Age, although this assertion can only be provisional due to the meagre nature of this evidence.

It is possible then, that many different ceremonies and rituals were conducted at ritual monuments in the Bronze Age, but those involving metalworking were among the few to leave an archaeologically visible record, meagre as it is. The association of metallurgical material with ritual sites in the Irish Later Bronze Age is clearly the result of a deliberate practice of deposition. However, the exact nature of this practice and the motivation behind it will only become visible in tandem with improvements in our knowledge of ritual and religious belief in that period, currently poorly understood in its insular context.

118

Organization of bronze fabrication Finally, a close connection between bronze-working and activity at later Bronze Age ritual sites is suggested, with the help of ethnographic analogy. This apparent emphasis on metalworking may, of course, be due to preferential survival of the casting debris over more perishable materials connected with other activities. Nonetheless, these ritual deposits serve to emphasize the important role of metalworking in this period, a conclusion reinforced by the quantity and quality of the finished metal products and their significance in Late Bronze Age society.

The existence of a smithing hierarchy is deemed likely, although the structure of this division and the extent to which it was formalized is difficult to assess. The power and interests of the social elite are likely to have played a dominant part in enforcing any such hierarchy. It is important to note that if such hierarchical systems existed it may have only been in certain territories and not necessarily throughout the island as a whole. Such ranking systems are more likely to have existed in those territories equipped with better trade links, as well as more natural resources and hence surplus wealth at their disposal. The identification of regional metalworking centres is problematic and must await further work on the Late Bronze Age settlement record, in terms of both excavation and intensive regional studies of the type currently being undertaken by the Discovery Programme in north Munster (Grogan 1993; 1995; 1996). Further analysis of the metalwork itself is also required, particularly as regards distribution of types featuring distinct technical traits which may be area specific. The nature of material found on Irish high-status sites, particularly those with metalworking evidence, is indicative of trade with similar social centres over much of west and west-central Europe. This is currently most clearly suggested by the glass bead assemblage. On the other hand, it is obvious that only a small part of this trade system is visible at present and much of the goods exchanges must have been of an archaeologically invisible nature. As the scientific ability to isolate discrete groupings in bronze, gold and amber objects through compositional analyses becomes more refined, we will hopefully gain greater insight into the nature of longdistance trade in the Late Bronze Age and the position of bronze metalwork in those exchanges. The positioning of metalworking centres on the seaboard and at the mouths of major rivers and bays emphasizes the importance of water transport, not only on the wider scale between Ireland, Britain and the Continent, but possibly also as a mechanism to allow the more well-connected social groups of the coastal areas trade with those in the interior of the island. The role of ritual in Irish metalworking practices during the Later Bronze Age is most clearly visible in connection with funerary monuments. The deposition of casting debris at these sites may be confidently taken as deliberate and the result of religious or superstitious motivation. Although this practice is clearly seen at a number of wedge-tombs and at ‘The King’s Stables’, Co. Armagh, it is suggested that a similar, if less obvious, practice was taking place at the penannular and annular ditched enclosures at Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. The relative archaeological invisibility of the latter prior to excavation, in comparison with the highly visible wedgetombs should be noted, as should the variety of forms apparent even within the single complex of Rathgall.

119

Chapter 7: Concluding Remarks

discard or loss which leads to archaeological residues. For many aspects of behaviour this distance may be relatively limited. This is particularly true, for example, in the spheres of production and construction, where the resultant residues may enter the archaeological record almost instantaneously (1993, 161).

Before bringing this study to a close it is necessary to recap on its main aims, as described in Chapter 1. The overall intention has been to carry out a comprehensive survey of bronze-working practices during the Irish Late Bronze Age. This major aim was divided into several specific objectives. The first of these was a thorough examination and cataloguing of the relevant artifactual material, discussing their chronology, context, range and distribution, as well as the manner of their utilization in the bronze-working process. Secondly was an evaluation of structural and other site evidence of bronze fabrication on Irish sites, predominantly those examples excavated. Thirdly, it was intended to perform an in-depth examination of the production process involved in the manufacture of Late Bronze Age swords.

Although this assertion is substantially correct, it is not always true to assume that deposition of production residues is almost instantaneous. Such an assertion can only be made if it is known that the residues never moved outside the sphere of production. It can be argued that this was not the case for the moulding remains recovered from ritual sites in Ireland (see Sections 4. 5 and 6. 4), which moved into a wider social context before deposition. Thus, an improved understanding of context in the future will be a prerequisite for a greater insight into the bronze production process.

All three of the above objectives contribute to a fourth, that of identifying gaps in the archaeological record in terms of recognizing necessary tools and facilities which are apparently absent. Finally, it was intended to consider the broader context of bronze-working activity in Irish society during the Late Bronze Age, as manifest in the supply of raw materials, the organization of trade, the role and position of the smith and the practice of ritual and religion.

The most obvious gaps in the archaeological record are firstly those artifacts which were most likely of a perishable material such as bone or antler, but especially wood, as well as metal occurring in its raw uncast form. The survival of the group of wooden moulding templates from Tobermore, Co. Derry is a fortuitous exception. The absence of similar casting models on excavated Late Bronze Age sites with metalworking evidence in Ireland and Britain reminds us that preferential survival has left us with a record of this activity totally biased towards artifacts and residues made of stone and other durable materials. Anvils and formers are among the tools used by the Late Bronze Age metalworkers whose presence can only be inferred from the techniques evident in the finished metalwork and clay moulding debris respectively. These anvils and formers may have been made of wood and other perishable materials. Also included here are the necessarily porous containers of cloth or vegetable matter which would have held the wet clay (see Sections 5. 3. 1 and 6. 1. 1). Undoubtedly, other objects fashioned from organic materials and needed in the production process remain undiscovered at present. Modern experimentation clearly has a role in indicating what may be missing from the artifactual record.

The insights resulting from the pursuit of these five objectives are discussed below.

7. 1. The Archaeological Record. Consideration of the artifactual record of Late Bronze Age metalworking (Chapter 3) has proven useful in establishing the chronology of this activity in Ireland, as well as the manner in which various elements of that record were utilized in the bronze production process. The manner in which these objects were combined to fabricate bronzes is clearly set out. The contextual record from excavated settlements and other sites (Chapter 4) indicates that metalworking was an integral part of the Late Bronze Age economy which also had notable ties with some aspects of ritual belief, as seen in the evidence on some ritual monuments (expanded on in Section 6. 4).

While the absence of organic materials may be attributed to biological factors, this is not the case with raw copper and bronze. The amount of raw metal of identifiably Late Bronze Age date recovered in Ireland is insignificant (see Section 3. 2) and especially so when contrasted with the great quantity of finished bronzes from this island. When ‘scrap-hoards’ are considered this problem is amplified. As noted above (Section 3. 1), there are only eleven probable scrap deposits from this period in Ireland and these are for the most part small in size. While the

The primary problem with the artifactual evidence is the poor standard of contextual detail pertaining to it in the Irish archaeological record. As a result we often have little or no understanding of the manner in which these artifacts entered the record. As Needham points out: There is . . . a variable distance, seen both spatially and temporally, between any activity which might be of interest to us and the

120

Chapter 7: Conclusion . shortage of ‘scrap-hoards’ may be linked with smith sedentism (see Section 6. 2. 1), it is difficult to test this hypothesis against the archaeological record and this is clearly an area in need of future attention.

(2) It is clear that both casting and post-cast treatment were instrumental in defining the metallic microstructure of the swords and hence their finished quality.

In considering the evidence from archaeological contexts we are heavily reliant on excavated settlement sites. At a number of these there is abundant proof that bronze fabrication was taking place within or close to the habitation area. What is lacking is any indication of how this activity was organized within the settlement and, more specifically, of a definite focal area for bronze casting activity on-site. The most obvious feature which could be held to constitute such a focal point would be the structural remains of a furnace. However, as discussed in Chapter 4, we cannot yet confidently identify such a structure, although several possibilities exist (see Section 4. 6).

The first point is important from an economic perspective, stressing the high value attached to swords, previously indicated by the record of consumption and deposition. Experiments like these reveal that studies in technology are not limited to the investigation of production processes. Indeed, it is as a result of such painstaking analysis that they can contribute directly to wider discussion on the social significance of metalwork in prehistory. The results of the experiments in post-cast treatment of bronze swords (Section 5. 6) require a closer examination. Unfortunately, the full value of these experiments is currently limited due to the dearth of published metallographic studies of Late Bronze Age swords, particularly Irish examples. The main conclusions were as follows:

The absence of casting by-products such as slag is also noted, although not so surprising, as smelting of raw metal was probably spatially removed from casting and fabrication of bronzes for several reasons. The amounts of slag generated during the melting of a reasonably pure copper for casting is unlikely to have been very considerable. Concentrations of clay moulding debris are the primary indicator of bronze-working on Irish Late Bronze Age sites. At Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin such a concentration may have been associated with a hearth, although this is stratigraphically unproven (see Section 4. 2. 3, esp. Figs. 13 & 14). Only at Rathgall, Co. Wicklow was such a concentration definitely associated with a specific relevant feature, in this case a probable workshop area. However, this structure was not fully excavated and remains unpublished in its entirety. The discovery of clay mould concentrations may often reflect waste disposal within a settlement and hence should not be regarded as proof of bronze casting at a specific location unless associated with structural evidence of metallurgy. It is therefore obvious that the identification of such structural elements, an area currently fraught with difficulty, must become a major objective of excavation research in the future.

(1) It was revealed through metallographic examination that these attempts at the reconstruction of Late Bronze Age swords had achieved a high degree of authenticity at the microstructural level, as well as on the level of general appearance. (2) The results of this study, as well as those carried out by Coghlan (Allen, Britton and Coghlan 1970), suggest a good deal of diversity in the methods of post-cast working utilized by Late Bronze Age smiths. (3) It was noted that unwanted breakages during hammering were likely to result from the use of excessive heat during previous annealing operations. (4) The use of the replica tools selected for these experiments was also informative. These were generally effective, most mishaps resulting from the author’s inexperience in their handling.

7. 2. The Experimental Approach.

(5) It was discovered that wood was a far more suitable material for bronzeworking anvils, due to a number of qualities, in particular its shock absorbency.

The experimental work undertaken in this thesis gave an important insight into the production of Late Bronze Age swords in Ireland. For the author, the opportunity to take a practical ‘hands on’ approach was certainly instructive, giving a new perspective on the study of these weapons. The two most important insights were:

(6) The superior nature of the socketed bronze hammer over that of the stone example for metal finishing was clear, and reflects the practical advantages which accrued as a result of improved casting techniques in the Late Bronze Age.

(1) The wide range of skills and processes involved in the production of swords, as well as the length of time involved. In particular, the difficulties relating to drying and firing sword moulds were emphasized.

There are several problems with the experimental method of research. Firstly, the equipment and operational 121

Chapter 7: Conclusion . knowledge necessary for such work is not widely available in Ireland. Secondly, experimental studies must take into consideration the difference in skill between the Bronze Age artisan and modern archaeologist. The former may have spent a long apprenticeship mastering the craft in question, whereas the average archaeologist has little or no practical experience. Therefore, initial failure in an experiment should not be (though unfortunately sometimes has been) regarded as evidence that a particular tool, technique or process was not used in prehistory. Ultimately what is required is collaboration between archaeologists and able craftsmen working in the relevant field today. The author’s collaboration with Liam McNally in the present study is a good example of the progress which can result.

possible that some limited use was made of native alluvial tin in the Late Bronze Age, but it seems most probable that the majority of Ireland’s tin consumption was acquired through overseas trade, most likely with Cornwall. In the same manner, no firm conclusion can currently be reached as regards copper supply during this period. The author feels that continued exploitation of Irish ore sources, worked through out the Earlier Bronze Age, is likely. As O’Brien points out: “With almost a millennium of mining and prospecting experience behind them, there is no reason to expect that Late Bronze Age metallurgists did not continue to exploit insular ore sources” (1997). The problem may therefore be predominantly one of archaeological visibility, perhaps linked to changes in mining technology.

It is easy to become sidetracked down various tangential lines of inquiry in the course of experimental programmes, as the author can testify. It is therefore important to have clearly defined objectives and methodology for such research before starting. Nonetheless, a good degree of flexibility may be needed, as experimental work, by its nature, will produce unexpected circumstances and results.

In addressing the social context of Late Bronze Age metalworking, the question of craft specialization is particularly difficult to address (see Section 6. 2). Here the testability of various suggested criteria of specialization against the record is problematic in the extreme. In this thesis the author suggests Irish smiths of the Late Bronze Age were predominantly sedentary in terms of their operations, while also suggesting that any tendency towards either full-time or seasonal production would have been primarily related to demand. Both domestic demand, within the smith’s own social grouping, and the demands of external trade are relevant here. The existence of a smithing hierarchy, postulated by this author, would also originate in demand, although its enforcement would have been in the interests of, and thus also imposed by, the political and social elites.

There are, however, two major advantages pertaining to the experimental approach. Firstly, it allows us to advance our understanding of the production process in the absence of new discoveries in the archaeological record. Secondly, it allows us to approach questions which are difficult to address through excavation and artifactual examination alone, such as the area of tool-use and the identification of archaeologically invisible aspects of the record. The experimental method has the potential to become an increasingly important element of archaeological methodology in the future, if properly developed. This requires focused experimental design and constant self-criticism on the part of the archaeologist involved if worthwhile findings are to result.

Our ability to examine the trade links of high-status sites of Late Bronze Age date in Ireland with other settlement areas in Ireland, Britain and the Continent is currently limited. Henderson’s important work on glass beads (1988) envisages a scenario involving long distance trade networks stretching from the area of the Shannon Estuary through western Europe and over the Alps into northern Italy. With the Mediterranean only a relatively short step further south, perhaps this overland route may have been of equal importance with the much discussed maritime route up the Atlantic seaboard via Gibraltar in carrying eastern Mediterranean material and ideas westwards. It is hoped that further scientific work in source provenancing Late Bronze Age bronze, gold and amber will expand our knowledge of this intriguing exchange system in the future, and clarify the role of fine bronze-work within it.

7. 3. The Social Context of Late Bronze Age Bronzeworking. Examining the broader social context of Late Bronze Age metallurgy is a more difficult area in which to progress. The absence of a suitable body of ‘middle-range theory’ to bridge the gap between the material evidence, as discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, and wider aspects of life in this period remains a major barrier to the social interpretation of Late Bronze Age metalworking activity. In the absence of such theory ethnographic analogy is one relevant ancillary source.

Neither should we overlook the potential importance of internal trade within the island of Ireland at this time. The positioning of bronze-working sites on or near rivers and bays may in part reflect the important role of both maritime and riverine waterways in Late Bronze Age trading systems. The flow of metal between fabrication centres, such as the eastern seaboard and areas with metalwork but no fabrication evidence, such as the Central Plain may have been an important feature of the Late Bronze Age economy in Ireland.

As far as the procurement of raw materials is concerned, there is an obvious need for focused research in the future. While the supply of the smith’s non-metallic requirements was likely to have been ultimately local, no clear connection has been established between refractory ceramics and specific clay sources in Ireland. It is 122

Chapter 7: Conclusion . the discovery of metalworking areas peripheral to the focus of settlement activity, areas which would be likely to remain undiscovered in the absence of such nonintrusive surveying techniques.

The connection between metalworking and ritual activity has obvious origins in the Middle Bronze Age in Ireland. Examination of the excavated evidence reveals several notable incidences of metallurgical debris associated with structures of an apparently ritual nature of Late Bronze Age date. It is suggested here that these deposits are funerary in nature and/or connected with magico-religious beliefs regarding the practice of bronze fabrication. These two possibilities are clearly not mutually exclusive. Evidence from the ethnographic record indicates that in a number of modern pre-industrial societies the smith plays the role of a ritual specialist, presiding over various ceremonial aspects of tribal life. The possibility that a similar situation may have existed in the Irish Bronze Age is tentatively inferred. It might also be suggested that metalworking was a craft shrouded in a considerable degree of secrecy enforced through social and religious taboo, the ultimate aim of which may possibly have been to control the level of metalwork production by restricting access to the relevant skills and raw materials.

7. 4. 2. Social Value and Meaning of Artifacts. Another area in need of improvement is our understanding of an artifact’s value and meaning in Late Bronze Age society, and how these relate to the social and spiritual beliefs of the community. Fortunately, this is a matter which has received an increasing amount of attention in the last decade or so, resulting in a number of important works (e.g. Bradley 1984, 1990: Cooney & Grogan 1994; Budd & Taylor 1995). Also important is a more critical examination of how the metalworking record is formed, and an understanding of various taphonomic factors (e.g. Barrett & Needham 1988; Needham 1993). Of course, a larger theoretical framework into which the evidence can be integrated is still lacking. It is hoped that a more practical and flexible body of theory, relevant to the requirements of archaeologists working on the ground, will eventually be devised.

7. 4. Directions for Future Research. The following are some important areas of research relevant to our future understanding of Late Bronze Age bronze-working practices in Ireland.

7. 4. 3. Regional Studies. 7. 4. 1. Context Recording.

A more widespread application of integrated regional studies, involving large-scale monument survey along with more limited excavation and a consideration of all known finds from the area in question, would be a large step in the right direction. Such an approach to landscape archaeology has proved fruitful in Britain in areas such as Dartmoor (Fleming 1988) and the Marlborough Downs (Gingell 1992), and is currently enjoying its first major Irish application in the north Munster area (Grogan 1993, 1995, 1996). In the latter, the integration of scientific techniques such as the use of G.I.S. software, geophysical survey and pollen analysis with conventional archaeological survey and excavation is of huge importance. This Discovery Programme project is already showing how such regional approaches can give a better understanding of the role and importance of metalworking in its social landscape. Although it must be admitted that considerable resources are needed to maintain such large-scale investigations, it is to be hoped this will not impede future use of landscape studies in Ireland.

Perhaps the most problematic area in examining Late Bronze Age metalworking is the lack of good contextual information. This is particularly true, as would be expected, in the case of stray finds. In the future it will be desirable that the find-spot of every artifact discovery be identified as closely as possible. A full archaeological examination of such find-spots, including limited excavation, should be carried out. Also, the use of scientific techniques such as geophysical examination of the immediate area and the analysis of pollen and other paleobotanical indicators from deposits at or near the find-spot may add considerably to our understanding of depositional circumstances. Although the lack of contextual information is most pronounced with regard to stray finds, the standard of evidence from excavation, particularly in relation to metalworking practices, can be improved. In general, we need “more sensitive excavation of locations where metal and metal artifacts were made and used” (Budd & Taylor 1995, 141). The benefits which can accrue from such careful excavation are becoming more widely recognized and result in a more complete interpretation of the relevant metallurgical material than has previously been the norm (e.g. Needham 1996). Again, as with stray finds, the use of geophysical surveying techniques may be of aid here. Magnetic susceptibility, in particular, can result in

7. 4. 4. Scientific Metal Analysis. The increased use of metal analysis in artifact studies can lend a new dimension to the typo-chronological approach, the utility of which is now seen by many archaeologists as 123

Chapter 7: Conclusion . dubious, or at least overemphasized. Within metal analysis there has been an excessive concentration on attempts to source metal types to specific ore bodies (Pittioni 1957; Junghans et al. 1960, 1968, 1974; Hartmann 1970, 1982; Coghlan & Case 1957). It has become increasingly apparent that these attempts are illconceived and the extent and variability of the problems involved greatly underestimated. Nonetheless, some identification of specific metal groups, as well as some limited improvement in our understanding of metal circulation, have resulted (e.g. Northover 1980). It seems likely that metallography, previously relatively under-utilized in favour of compositional analyses, would be a more useful tool in understanding methods of fabrication and the technology involved. As previously noted (Section 6. 3), programmes of metallographic analysis have the potential to identify technical traits and habits of metal use, which may be of equal if not greater value in identifying regional metalworking centres as compositional analyses. Metallography can obviously greatly benefit the type of broad regional studies praised in the section immediately above, but may also play an important role in quantifying the results of experimental studies, as demonstrated by the work of Dr. Northover in this volume.

7. 4. 5. Experimentation. Finally, the pursuit of further experimental work is desirable. Thus far, individual experimental studies into various elements of Bronze Age metallurgy have yielded results which are interesting and constructive in a limited fashion. However, these have tended to be brief forays into widely different areas of metallurgy (e.g. Pollard et al. 1990; Timberlake 1994; Bareham 1994; McNally 1996). What is truly required is focused research in the form of a programme with specific aims, concentrating on a particular chronological period with defined research problems. Such a programme should ultimately employ both archaeologists and specialist metalworking craftsmen, as well as scientific archaeo-metallurgists, if the potential of this approach is to be achieved. The main pitfalls and advantages of the experimental method are dealt with above (Section 7. 2). None of the inherent problems are insurmountable, while the possible returns in terms of improvements in our knowledge of prehistoric technology and the society in which it was utilized, are considerable. As the constraints upon the more traditional archaeological databases – which are ultimately finite in nature – continue to grow, it is certain that our interest in and commitment to the experimental approach must flourish. Ultimately, it is the successful integration of these archaeological, scientific and experimental approaches that offers the best hope of furthering our knowledge of Late Bronze Age bronze-working in Ireland and Britain.

124

Appendix: Radiocarbon Dates All radiocarbon dates quoted individually in the text have been calibrated to a 2 sigma range. The calibration software used was the University of Washington Quaternary Isotope Laboratory Radiocarbon Programme, 1987, after Stuiver, M. & Becker, B. 1986 ”High precision decadal calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, A.D. 1950 - 2500 B.C.” Radiocarbon, 28, 863 - 910. Dunbeg, Co. Kerry. UB-2216

2530 ± 35 B.P.

800 - 445 B.C.

Dun Aengus, Co. Galway. AA-10270 GrN-20226 GrN-20227 GrN-20228 GrN-20229

2585 ± 2840 ± 2870 ± 2990 ± 2955 ±

60 B.P. 25 B.P. 35 B.P. 30 B.P. 25 B.P.

890 - 449 B.C. 1208 - 906 B.C. 1237 - 928 B.C. 1375 - 1056 B.C. 1315 - 1052 B.C.

Kilsmullan, Co. Fermanagh. UB-2173

2120 ± 45 B.P.

355 - 3 B.C.

‘The King’s Stables, Co. Armagh. UB-2123 UB-2157

2765 ± 75 B.P. 2955 ± 45 B.P.

1209 - 800 B.C. 1373 - 1014 B.C.

Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone. UB-948 UB-965 UB-2047

3105 ± 80 B.P. 2475 ± 45 B.P. 2690 ± 45 B.P.

1584 - 1113 B.C. 790 - 410 B.C. 971 - 795 B.C.

Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. GrN-16827

2800 ± 70 B.P.

1212 - 810 B.C.

Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. SI-1476 SI-1477 SI-1478 SI-1483 SI-1484 SI-1485

2470 ± 2475 ± 2560 ± 2215 ± 2450 ± 2930 ±

80 B.P. 80 B.P. 105 B.P. 80 B.P. 75 B.P. 75 B.P.

800 - 390 B.C. 810 - 390 B.C. 969 - 400 B.C. 410 - 72 B.C. 800 - 390 B.C. 1393 - 922 B.C.

The uncalibrated radiocarbon estimations for Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo were unavailable, and it should be noted that the average dating range given in Section 4. 3. 2 may be the results of another calibration method.

125

Bibliography BARNES, J. 1979. “The First Metalworkings and their Geological Setting”, in Crawford, H. (ed., Subterranean Britain, London.

AGRICOLA, G. 1950. De Re Metallica, (Trans. Hoover, H.) London. ALDHOUSE-GREEN, S. & Northover, P. 1996 ‘Recent Finds of Late Bronze Age Gold from South Wales’, Antiquaries Journal 76, 223-28.

BARRETT, J. & BRADLEY, R. (eds.). 1980. Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, British Archaeological Reports (British Series) 83, Oxford.

ALLEN, I., BRITTON, D. & COGHLAN, H. 1970. Metallurgical Reports on British and Irish Bronze Age Implements and Weapons in the Pitt Rivers Museum, Pitt Rivers Occasional Papers on Technology 10, Oxford.

BARRETT, J. & NEEDHAM, S. 1988. “Production, Circulation and Exchange: problems in the interpretation of Bronze Age bronzework”, in BARRETT, J. & KINNES, I. (eds.), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends, Sheffield.

ALMAGRO-GORBEA, M. 1995. “Ireland and Spain in the Bronze Age.” in WADDELL, J. & SHEE-TWOHIG, E. (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age, 136-48, Dublin.

BARRETT, J. & KINNES, I. (eds.). 1988. The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends, Sheffield.

APSIMON, A. & GREENFIELD, E. 1972. “The Excavation of Bronze Age and Iron Age Settlements at Trevisker, St. Eval, Cornwall”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38, 302-81.

BARRY, T. 1981. “Archaeological Excavation at Dunbeg Promontory Fort, Co. Kerry, 1977”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 81C, 295-329.

ARMSTRONG, E. 1917. “The Great Clare Gold Find of 1854”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 47, 21-36.

BECKER, B. & STUIVER, M. 1986. “High Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Timescale, A.D. 1950 - 2500 B.C.”, Radiocarbon 28, 863 - 910.

ARMSTRONG, E. 1921-4. “Some Irish Bronze Age Finds”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 36C, 142-3.

BENNETT, I. & GROGAN, E. 1993. “Excavations at Mooghaun South, County Clare: A Preliminary Report on the 1992 Season”, in Discovery Programme Reports: Project Results 1993, 39-43, Dublin.

ARMSTRONG, E. 1933. Catalogue of Irish Gold Ornaments in the Collection of the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.

BEWLEY, R. 1994. Prehistoric Settlements, English Heritage, London.

ARMSTRONG, E. & COFFEY, G. 1912. “Recent Prehistoric Finds acquired by the Academy”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 30C

BIANCO-PERONI, V. 1970. Die Schwerter in Italien Le Spade nell’Itallia Continentale, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 1, Munich.

ARMSTRONG, E. & COFFEY, G. 1914. “Find of Bronze objects at Annesborough, Co. Armagh”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 32C, 171-5.

BINFORD, L. 1973. “Inter-assemblage Variability - the Mousterian and the ‘functional’ argument” in RENFREW, C. (ed.), The Explanation of Cultural Change, 227-54, London.

ARMSTRONG, W. 1850. “On an Ancient Earthenware Vessel and Certain Bronze Antiquities found in it, at Kilmuckridge, Co. Wexford”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 4, 369-70.

BLANCO-FREIJEIRO, A. & ROTHENBERG, B. 1981. Studies in Ancient Mining and Metallurgy in south-west Spain, Institute of Archeo-Metallurgy Studies, London.

ATZENI, C., MASSIDDA, L., SANNA, U. & VIRDIS, P. 1992. “Bronze Metalworking at the Nuragic site of Santa Barbara, Sardinia, Italy”, Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society 26.

BLIN-STOYLE, A. & BROWN, M. 1959. “A Sample Analysis of British Middle and Late Bronze Age Material using Optical Spectrometry”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 25, 188-208.

BAILEY, G. & SHERIDAN, A. (eds.). 1981. Economic Archaeology, British Archaeological Reports (Supplementary Series), 96, Oxford.

BOND, D. 1988. Excavations at the North Ring, Mucking, Essex, East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 43, Chelmsford.

BAREHAM, T. 1994. “Bronze Casting Experiments”, Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society 28, 112-6.

126

Bibliography Congrès Prehistorique de France, Septembre, 1884, 16188, Amiens.

BOURKE, L. 2001 Crossing the Rubicon: Bronze Age metalwork from Irish rivers, Bronze Age Studies 5, Galway.

BRIGGS, C., LEAHY, K. & NEEDHAM, S. 1987. “The Late Bronze Age Hoard from Brough-On-Humber: a reassessment”, Antiquaries Journal 67, 11-28.

BRADLEY, J. 1996. “Living at the Water’s Edge: excavations at Moynagh Lough”, Archaeology Ireland X, 1, 24-6.

BRINDLEY, A. & LANTING, J. 1991/2. “Radiocarbon Dates from Wedge-Tombs”, Journal of Irish Archaeology 4, 19-26.

BRADLEY, J. 1997. “Archaeological Excavations at Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath, 1995-6”, Riocht na Midhe 9 (Pt. 3), 50-61.

BRITISH MUSEUM. 1920. A Guide to the Antiquities of the Bronze Age, (2nd ed.), London.

BRADLEY, R. 1979. “The Interpretation of Later Bronze Age Metalwork from British Rivers”, International Journal of Underwater Exploration 8 (Pt. 1), 3-6.

BRITISH MUSEUM. 1953. Later Prehistoric Antiquities of the British Isles, London.

BRADLEY, R. 1984. The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain: themes and variations on the archaeology of power, London.

BRITTON, D. 1960. “The Isleham Hoard, Cambridge”, Antiquity 34, 279-82. BRITTON, D. 1963. “Traditions of Metalworking in the later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Britain: Part 1”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 29, 258-325.

BRADLEY, R. 1990. The Passage of Arms, Cambridge. BRADLEY, R. 1993. “For I Would Ask a Question of Them All: reflections on the prehistory of south-west Ireland”, in Ronayne, M. & Shee-Twohig, E. (eds.), Past Perceptions: The Prehistoric Archaeology of south-west Ireland, 151-4, Cork.

BROWN, M. & BLIN-STOYLE, A. 1959. “A Sample Analysis of British Middle and Late Bronze Age Material using Optical Spectrometry”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 25 188-208.

BRADLEY, R. 1993a. “Archaeology: The loss of nerve” in YOFFEE, N. & SHERRATT, A. (eds.), Archaeological Theory: Who sets the agenda?, 131-3, Cambridge.

BUDD, P. & TAYLOR, T. 1995. “The Faerie Smith meets the Bronze Industry: Magic versus Science in the interpretation of prehistoric metal-making”, World Archaeology 27(1), 133-43.

BRADLEY, R. & BARRETT, J.(eds.). 1980. Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, British Archaeological Reports, 83, Oxford.

BURGESS, C. 1968. Bronze Age Metalwork in Northern England, c.1000 - 700 B.C., Newcastle. BURGESS, C. 1968a. ‘Bronze Age Dirks and Rapiers as Illustrated by Examples from Durham and Northumberland’, Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, N.S., 1.

BRADLEY, R. & GORDON, K. 1988. “Human Skulls from the River Thames, their dating and significance”, Antiquity 236, 503-9. BREMER, W. 1929. “A Founder’s Hoard of the Copper Age at Carrickshedoge, Nash, Co. Wexford”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 56, 88-91.

BURGESS, C. 1974. “The Bronze Age”, in RENFREW, C. (ed.) British Prehistory: a new outline, 165-232, London.

BRIARD, J. 1979. The Bronze Age in Barbarian Europe: From the Megaliths to the Celts, London.

BURGESS, C. 1979. “The Background of Early Metalworking in Ireland and Britain”, in RYAN, M. (ed.) The Origins of Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe, 207-14, Dublin.

BRIDGEFORD, S. 1997. “The First Weapons Devised only for War”, British Archaeology 22, 7. BRIGGS, C. 1991. “Some Processes and Problems in Later Prehistoric Wales and Beyond” in CHEVILLIOT, C. & COFFYN, A. (eds.), L’Age du Bronze Atlantique, 59-76, Dordogne.

BURGESS, C. 1980. The Age of Stonehenge, London. BURGESS, C. 1991. “The East and the West: Meditteranean influences in the Atlantic World in the Later Bronze Age, c.1500 - 700 B.C.”, in CHEVILLIOT, C. & COFFYN, A. (eds.), L’Age du Bronze Atlantique, 25-45, Dordogne.

BRIGGS, C. 1987. “Buckets and Cauldrons in the Late Bronze Age of North-West Europe: A Review”, in BLANCHET, J. et al. (eds.), Les Relations entre le Continent et les Iles Britanniques a l’Age du Bronze, Actes du Colloque de Lille dans le cadre du 22ème 127

Bibliography BURGESS, C. & SCHMIDT, P. 1981. The Axes of Scotland and Northern England, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX, 7, Munich.

CLEARY, R. 1995. “Later Bronze Age Settlement and Prehistoric Burials, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 95C, 1-92.

BURGESS, C. & GERLOFF, S. 1981. The Dirks and Rapiers of Britain and Ireland, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 7, Munich.

CLEARY, R., HURLEY, M. & TWOHIG, E. (eds.). 1987. Archaeological Excavations on the Cork-Dublin Gas Pipeline, 1981-2, Cork.

BURGESS, C. & COLQUHOUN, I. 1988. The Swords of Britain, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 5, Munich.

COFFEY, G. 1907. “Moulds for Primitive Spear-heads found in the County Tyrone”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 37, 181-6.

BURKE, B. 1857. Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire, London.

COFFEY, G. & ARMSTRONG, E. 1912. “Recent Prehistoric Finds acquired by the Academy”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 30C

BUTLER, J. 1960. “A Bronze Age Concentration at Bargeroosterveld. With some notes on the Axe Trade across Europe”, Paleohistoria 8, 101-26.

COFFEY, G. & ARMSTRONG, E. 1914. “Find of Bronze objects at Annesborough, Co. Armagh”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 32C, 171-5.

BUTLER, J & SMITH, I. 1956. “Razors, Urns and the British Middle Bronze Age”, 12th Annual Report of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London, London.

COFFYN, A. & CHEVILLIOT, C. (eds). 1991. L’Age du Bronze Atlantique: Actes du premier colloque du parc archaeologique de Beynac, Dordogne.

CERNYCH, E. 1978. “Aibunar - A Balkan Copper Mine of the Fourth Mellenium B.C.”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 44, 203-17.

COGHLAN, H. 1962. Notes on the Prehistoric Metallurgy of Copper and Bronze in the Old World, Pitt Rivers Occasional Papers on Technology 4. Oxford.

CHARDENOUX, M. & COURTOIS, J. 1979. Les Haches dans la France Meridionale, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX, 11, Munich.

COGHLAN, H. 1968. “A Note on Prehistoric Casting Moulds”, Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society II, 2, 73.

CHARLES, J. 1975. “Where is the Tin?”, Antiquity 49, 19-24. CHARLES, J. 1979. “From Copper to Iron: The Origin of Metallic Material”, Journal of Metals 30 (Pt. 7), 8-13.

COGHLAN, H. 1971. “A Metallurgical Examination of a Bronze Sword found in the Thames at Battersea”, Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society V, 5, 71-3.

CHARLES, J. & SLATER, E. 1970. “Archaeological Classification by Metal Analysis”, Antiquity 44, 207-13.

COGHLAN, H. & RAFTERY, J. 1961. “Irish Prehistoric Casting Moulds”, Sibrium 6, 223-44.

CHEVILLIOT, C. & COFFYN, A. (eds.). 1991. L’Age du Bronze Atlantique: Actes du premier colloque du parc archaeologique de Beynac, Dordogne.

COGHLAN, H., BUTLER, J. & PARKER, G. 1963. Ores and Metals, Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper No. 17, London.

CHILDE, V. 1930. The Bronze Age, Cambridge.

COGHLAN, H. & CASE, H. 1957. “Early Metallurgy of Copper in Britain and Ireland”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 23, 91-123.

CHILDE, V. 1936. Man Makes Himself, London.

COLES, B. & COLES, J. 1996. Enlarging the Past: the contribution of wetland archaeology, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph no. 11, Edinburgh.

CITY OF NORWICH MUSEUMS. 1966. Bronze Age Metalwork in Norwich Castle Museum, Norwich. CLARE, D. & O’CONNOR, A. (eds.), From the Stone Age to the Fourty-Five: Studies Presented to R.B.K. Stevenson, Edinburgh.

COLES, J. 1963. “Irish Bronze Age Horns and their relations with Northern Europe”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 29, 326-56.

CLARKE, D. 1968. Analytical Archaeology, London. COLES, J. & COLES, B. 1996. Enlarging the Past: the contribution of wetland archaeology, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph No. 11, Edinburgh.

CLEARY, R. 1993. “The Later Bronze Age at Lough Gur: filling in the blanks” in SHEE-TWOHIG, E. & RONAYNE, M. (eds.), Past Perceptions: The Prehistoric Archaeology of south-west Ireland, 114-20, Cork.

128

Bibliography COWIE, T., O’CONNOR, B. & PROUDFOOT, E. 1991. “A Late Bronze Age Hoard from St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland: a preliminary report”, in CHEVILLIOT, C. & COFFYN, A. (eds.), 1991. L’Age du Bronze Atlantique, 49-58, Dordogne.

COLES, J. & LIVENS, R. 1957/8. “A Bronze Sword from Douglas, Lanarkshire”, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 91, 182-6. COLES, J. & TAYLOR, J. 1971. “The Wessex Culture: A Minimal View”, Antiquity 45, 6-14.

CRADDOCK, P. 1979. “Deliberate Alloying in the Atlantic Bronze Age” in RYAN, M. (ed.), The Origins of Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe, 369-85, Dublin.

COLLINS, A. 1960. “More Recent Finds of Bronze Implements”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 23, 22-4. COLLINS, A. 1970. “Bronze Age Moulds in Ulster”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 33, 23-36.

CRADDOCK, P. (ed.) 1980. Scientific Studies in Early Mining and Metallurgy, British Museum Occasional Paper No. 20, London.

COLLINS, A. & SEABY, W. 1960. “Structures and Small Finds Discovered at Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 23, 25-37.

CRADDOCK, P. 1992. “Copper Production in the Bronze Age of the British Isles”, Bulletin of the Metals Museum 18, 3-28.

COLQUHOUN, I. & BURGESS, C. 1988. The Swords of Britain, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 5, Munich.

CREW P. & CREW S. (eds.). 1990. Early Mining in the British Isles: Proceedings of the Early Mining Workshop, Snowdonia National Park Study Centre.

COMBER, M. 1996. Native Evidence of Non-Ferrous Metalworking in Early Historic Ireland, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University College Galway.

CUNLIFFE, B. 2001 Facing the Ocean, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

CONDIT, T. & GROGAN, E. 1994. “New Hillfort date gives clue to Late Bronze Age”, Archaeology Ireland VIII, 2, 7.

CURLE, A. 1932/3. “Account of Further Excavations in 1932 of the Prehistoric Township at Jarlshof, Shetland”, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 67, 82-136.

COOKE, T. 1848-50. “On Bronze Antiquities found at Dowris, in the King’s County”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 4, 423-40.

DAVIES, O. 1939. “Excavations at the Giant’s Ring, Loughash, Co. Tyrone”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 2, 254-68.

COOMBS, D. 1975. “Bronze Age Weapon Hoards in Britain”, Archaeologica Atlantica 1 (Pt. 1), 49-80.

DAY, R. 1879-82. “Find of Broken Bronze things including Fragments of Scabbard”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 15, 265-6.

COOMBS, D. 1976. “Excavations at Mam Tor, Derbyshire, 1965-9” in HARDING, D. (ed.), Hillforts: Later Prehistoric Earthworks in Britain and Ireland, 147-52, London.

DECHELETTE, J. 1924. Manuel d’Archaeoloie Prehistorique Celtique et Gallo-Romaine, (2nd ed), Paris.

COONEY, G. & GROGAN, E. 1994. Irish Prehistory: A Social Perspective, Dublin.

DIAZ, A., SOLDEVILA, I., MEREDITH, C. & TRESSERRAS, J. 2001 El Cerro de San Cristobal, Logrosan, Extremedura, Spain: the archaeometallurgical excavation of a Late Bronze Age tin-mining and metalworking site, British Archaeological Reports (International Series) 922, Oxford.

COTTER, C. 1993. “Western Stone Fort Project: Interim Report” in Discovery Programme Reports: Project Results 1992, 1-19, Dublin. COTTER, C. 1995. “Western Stone Fort Project: Interim Report” in Discovery Programme Reports: Project Results 1993, 1-11, Dublin.

DOODY, M. 1987. “Late Bronze Age Huts at Curraghatoor, Co. Tipperary” in CLEARY, R.M. et al., Archaeological Excavations on the Cork-Dublin Gas Pipeline, 1981-2, Cork.

COTTER, C. 1996. “Western Stone Fort Project: Interim Report” in Discovery Programme Reports: Project Results 1994, 1-14, Dublin.

DOODY, M. 1993. “Bronze Age Settlement”, in SHEETWOHIG, E. & RONAYNE, M. (eds.), Past Perceptions: The Prehistoric Archaeology of south-west Ireland, 93-100, Cork.

COURTOIS, J. & CHARDENOUX, M. 1979. Les Haches dans la France Meridionale, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX, 11, Munich.

DRESCHER, H. 1957. Die Kunde VIII, 1-2. COWIE, T. 1988. Magic Metal: Early Metalworkers in the North-East, Aberdeen. 129

Bibliography EOGAN, G. & HERITY, M. 1977. Ireland in Prehistory, London.

DUTTON, A. & FASHAM, P. 1994. “Prehistoric Copper Mining on the Great Orme, Llandudno, Gwynedd”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60, 245-86.

EOGAN, G. & GROGAN, E. 1987. “Lough Gur excavations by Seán P. Ó Ríordáin: Further Neolithic and Beaker habitations on Knockadoon”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 87C, 299-506.

EHRENBERG, M. 1989. “The Interpretation of Regional Variation in British and Irish Bronze Age Metalwork” in NORDSTRÖM, H. & KNAPE, A. (eds.), Bronze Age Studies, Stockholm.

EVANS, E. 1933. “The Bronze Spearhead in Great Britain and Ireland”, Archaeologia 83, 187-202.

EOGAN, G. 1962. “Some Observations on the Middle Bronze Age in Ireland”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 92, 45-60.

EVANS, J. 1881. Ancient Bronze Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain and Ireland, London.

EOGAN, G. 1964. “The Later Bronze Age in Ireland in the Light of Recent Research”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30, 268-331.

FAGAN, B. 1991. Archaeology: A brief introduction, (4th ed.), New York.

EOGAN, G. 1965. Catalogue of Irish Bronze Swords, Dublin.

FASHAM, P. & DUTTON, A. 1994. “Prehistoric Copper Mining on the Great Orme, Llandudno, Gwynedd”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60, 245-86.

EOGAN, G. 1966. “Some notes on the Origin and Diffusion of the Bronze Socketed Gouge”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 29, 97-102.

FLANAGAN, L. 1958. “Department of Antiquities, Belfast Museum and Art Gallery: Archaeological acquisitions of Irish origin for the year 1958”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 22, 43-52.

EOGAN, G. 1967. “The Associated Finds of Gold Bar Torcs”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 97, 129-75.

FLANAGAN, L. 1979. “Industrial Resources, Production and Distribution in Earlier Bronze Age Ireland” in RYAN, M. (ed.), The Origins of Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe, 145-63, Dublin.

EOGAN, G. 1969. “Lock-rings of the Late Bronze Age”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 67C, 93-148. EOGAN, G. 1974. “Pins of the Irish Late Bronze Age”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 104, 74-119.

FLANAGAN, L. 1992. Archaeology, Dublin.

A

Dictionary

of

Irish

FLEMING, A. 988. The Dartmoor Reaves: Investigating Prehistoric Land Divisions, London.

EOGAN, G. 1981. “The Gold Vessels of the Bronze Age in Ireland and beyond”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 81C, 345-82.

FOSTER, J. 1995. “Metalworking in the British Iron Age: The evidence from Wheelsby Avenue, Grimsby”, in RAFTERY, B., MEGAW, J., & RIGBY, V. (eds.), Sites and Sights of the Iron Age: Essays on Fieldwork and Museum Research presented to Ian Mathiesan Stead, Oxford.

EOGAN, G. 1983. The Hoards of the Irish Later Bronze Age, Dublin. EOGAN, G. 1990. “Possible Connections between Britain and Ireland and the east Meditteranean region”, in Orientalische-Agaische Einfluss in der Europaischen Bronzeit, Romisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, 15564, Mainz.

FOX, C. & HYDE, H. 1939. “A second Cauldron and an Iron Sword from the Llyn Fawr hoard”, Antiquaries Journal 19, 369-404.

EOGAN, G. 1993. “Aspects of Metal Production and Manufacturing Systems during the Irish Bronze Age”, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 25, 87-110.

FRAZER, W. 1889. “On a Mould of micaceous sandstone for casting a Celt with double loop, lately found in the south of Ireland, with observations”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 9, 289-91.

EOGAN, G. 1993a. “The Late Bronze Age: Customs, Crafts and Cults”, in SHEE-TWOHIG, E. & RONAYNE, M. (eds.), Past Perceptions: The Prehistoric Archaeology of south-west Ireland, 121-33, Cork.

FREDENGREN, C. 2002 Crannogs: a study of people’s interaction with lakes with particular reference to Lough Gara in the north-west of Ireland, Wordwell, Bray.

EOGAN, G. 1995. “Ideas, People and Things: Ireland and the external world during the Later Bronze Age”, in WADDELL, J. & SHEE-TWOHIG, E. (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age, 128-35, Dublin.

GERLOFF, S. 1986. “Bronze Age Class A Cauldrons: typology, origins and chronology”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 116, 84-115.

130

Bibliography GERLOFF, S. & BURGESS, C. 1981. The Dirks and Rapiers of Britain and Ireland, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 7, Munich.

HAMILTON, J. 1956. Excavations at Jarlshof, Shetland, Ministry of Works Archaeological Reports no. 1, Edinburgh.

GINGELL, C. 1992. The Marlborough Downs: A Later Bronze Age landscape and its origins, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Monograph No. 1.

HARBISON, P. 1966. “Mining and Metallurgy in Early Bronze Age Ireland”, North Munster Archaeological Journal 10, 3-11. HARBISON, P. 1969. The Axes of the Early Bronze Age in Ireland, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX, 1, Munich.

GOMEZ DE SOTO, J. 1993. “Cooking for the Elite: Feasting Equipment in the Late Bronze Age”, in SCARRE, C. & HEALY, F. (eds.), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe, Oxbow Monograph No. 33, 191-8, Oxford.

HARBISON, P. 1970. “Irish Early Bronze Age exports found on the Continent and their derivatives”, Paleohistoria 14, 175-86. HARDING, A. 1993. “Europe and the Meditteranean in the Bronze Age: Cores and Peripheries”, in SCARRE, C. & HEALY, F. (eds.), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe, Oxbow Monograph No. 33, 153-160, Oxford.

GOWEN, M. 1988. Three Irish gas pipelines: New archaeological evidence in Munster, Dublin. GREENFIELD, E. & APSIMON, A. 1972. “The Excavation of Bronze Age and Iron Age Settlements at Trevisker, St. Eval, Cornwall”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38, 302-81.

HARDING, D. (ed), 1976. Hillforts: Later Prehistoric earthworks in Britain and Ireland, London.

GREENWELL, W. 1894. “Antiquities of the Bronze Age found in the Heathery Burn cave, County Durham”, Archaeologia 53, 87-114.

HARTMANN, A. 1970. Prahistorische Goldefunde aus Europa: Spectraanalytische Untersuchungen und dere Auswertung, Berlin.

GREIG, C. 1972. “Cullykhan”, Current Archaeology 3, 227-31.

HARTMANN, A. 1982. Prahistorische Goldefunde aus Europa II: Spectraanalytische Untersuchungen und dere Auswertung, Berlin.

GROGAN, E. 1999 Mooghaun, Discovery Programme, Dublin.

HARTNETT, P. 1953. “Late Bronze Age hoard from Garden Hill, Co. Fermanagh”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 83, 101-3.

GROGAN, E. 1993. “North Munster Project”, in Discovery Programme Reports 1: Project Results 1992, 31-68.

HARVEY, A. & KEMPE, D. 1983. The Petrology of Archaeological Artefacts, Oxford.

GROGAN, E. 1995. “North Munster Project”, in Discovery Programme Reports 2: Project Results 1993, 45-61.

HAWKES, C. & SMITH, M. 1957. “On some Buckets and Cauldrons of the Bronze and Iron Ages”, Antiquaries Journal, 37, 131-98.

GROGAN, E. 1996. “North Munster Project”, in Discovery Programme Reports 4: Project Results 1994, 26-72.

HEALY, F. & SCARRE, C. (eds), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe:Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Bristol, 1992, Oxbow Monograph No. 33, Oxford.

GROGAN, E. & EOGAN, G. 1987. “Lough Gur excavations by Seán P. Ó Ríordáin: Further Neolithic and Beaker habitations on Knockadoon”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 87C, 299-506.

HENCKEN, H. 1942. “Ballinderry Crannog No. 2”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 47C, 1-76. HENDERSON, J. 1987. “The Iron Age of ‘Loughey’ and Meare: Some Inferences from Glass Analysis”, Antiquaries Journal 67, 29-42.

GROGAN, E. & BENNETT, I. 1993. “Excavations at Mooghaun South, County Clare: A Preliminary Report on the 1992 Season”, in Discovery Programme Reports: Project Results 1993, 39-43, Dublin.

HENDERSON, J. 1988. “Glass Production and Bronze Age Europe”, Antiquity 62, 435-51.

GROGAN, E. & CONDIT, T. 1994. “New Hillfort date gives clue to Late Bronze Age”, Archaeology Ireland VIII, 2, 7.

HERITY, M. & EOGAN, G. 1977. Ireland in Prehistory, London.

GROGAN, E. & COONEY, G. 1994. Irish Prehistory: A social perspective, Dublin. 131

Bibliography JUNGHANS, S., SANGMEISTER, E. & SCHRODER, M. 1960. Metallanalysen kupferzeitlicher und frübronzezeitlicher Bodenfude aus Europa, Berlin.

HIGGINS, R. 1987. Materials for the Engineering Technician, (2nd ed.), London. HINGLEY, R. 1997 ‘Iron, ironworking and regeneration: a study of the symbolic meaning of metalworking in Iron Age Britain’, in Gwilt, A. & Haselgrove, C. (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, 9-18, Oxford.

JUNGHANS, S., SANGMEISTER, E. & SCHRODER, M. 1968. Kupfer und Bronze in der fruhen Metallzeit Europas. Katalog der analysen nr. 985 - 10040, Berlin.

HODGES, H. 1954. “Studies in the Late Bronze Age in Ireland 1: Stone and clay moulds and wooden models for bronze implements”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 17, 62-80.

JUNGHANS, S., SANGMEISTER, E. & SCHRODER, M. 1974. Kupfer und Bronze in der fruhen Metallzeit Europas, Berlin.

HODGES, H. 1956. “Studies in the Late Bronze Age in Ireland 2: The typology and distribution of bronze implements”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 19, 29-56.

KAUL, F. 1985. “Sandagergard:A Late Bronze Age Cultic Building with Rock Engravings and Menhirs from Northern Zealand, Denmark”, Acta Archaeologica 56, 31-54.

HODGES, H. 1964. Artifacts: An introduction to early materials and technology, Aberdeen.

KELLY, E. 1974. “Aughinish Island: Interim Report”, in DELANEY, T. (ed.) Excavations 1974, 20-1, Belfast.

HOGG, H. 1975. Hillforts in Britain, London.

KELLY, E. 1978. “A Reassesment of the Dating Evidence for Knockadoon class II pottery”, Irish Archaeological Research Forum 5, 23-7.

HOLMES, P. 1979. “The Manufacturing Technology of Irish Bronze Age Horns”, in RYAN, M. (ed.) The Origins of Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe, 165-88, Dublin.

KEMPE, D. & HARVEY, A. 1983. The Petrology of Archaeological Artefacts, Oxford.

HOWARD, H. 1983. The Bronze Casting Industry in Later Prehistoric Southern Britain, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton.

KINNES, I. 1979. “Tin-plating in the Early Bronze Age: the Barton Stacey axe”, Antiquity 53, 141-3.

HOWARD, H. 1991. “Refractory ceramic fabrics from the Breiddin Hillfort”, (microfiche) in MUSSON, C., The Breiddin Hillfort, 222-9, London.

KINNES, I. & BARRETT, J. (eds.). 1988. The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent trends, Sheffield.

HURL, D. 1995. “Killymoon: New light on the Bronze Age”, Archaeology Ireland 34, 24-7.

KNAPE, A. & NORDSTRÖM, H. 1989. Bronze Age Studies: Transactions of the British-Scandinavian colloquium in Stockholm, 1985, Stockholm.

HYDE, H. & FOX, C. 1939. “A second Cauldron and an Iron Sword from the Llyn Fawr hoard”, Antiquaries Journal 19, 369-404.

KOHL, P.1993. “Limits to a Post-Processual Archaeology” in YOFFEE, N. & SHERRATT, A. (eds.), Archaeological Theory: Who sets the agenda?, 13-9, Cambridge.

JACKSON, J. 1979. “Metallic ores in Irish Prehistory: Copper and tin”, in RYAN, M. (ed.) The Origins of Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe, 107-25, Dublin.

LANTING, J. & BRINDLEY, A. 1991/2. “Radiocarbon Dates from Wedge-Tombs”, Journal of Irish Archaeology 4, 19-26.

JACKSON, J. 1991. “The Geology and Raw Materials of the Bronze Age”, in RYAN, M. (ed.), The Illustrated Archaeology of Ireland, 73-5, Dublin.

LEEDS, E. 1930. “A Bronze Cauldron from the River Cherwell, Oxfordshire, with notes on Cauldrons and other Bronze Vessels of allied types”, Archaeologia 80, 1-36.

JOBEY, G. 1976. “Traprain Law: A summary”, in HARDING, D. (ed.), Hillforts: Later Prehistoric earthworks in Britain and Ireland, 192-203, London.

LEVY, J. 1982. Social and Religious Organisation in Bronze Age Denmark: An Analysis of Ritual Hoard Finds, British Archaeological Reports (International Series) No. 124.

JOPE, E. 1953. “Three Late Bronze Age Swords from Ballycroghan, near Bangor, Co. Down”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 16, 37-40.

LEWIS, A. 1990. “Underground Exploration of the Great Orme Copper Mines”, in CREW P. & CREW S. (eds.). 1990. Early Mining in the British Isles: Proceedings of the Early Mining Workshop,5-10, Snowdonia National Park Study Centre.

JOVANOVIC, B. 1979. “The Technology of Primary Copper Mining in south-east Europe”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 103-10.

132

Bibliography early Metallurgy, British Museum Occasional Paper no. 17, 87-96, London.

LIVERSAGE, D. 1968. “Excavations at Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin, 1956-9”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 66C, 53-233.

MARYON, H. 1937/8. “The Technical Methods of Irish smiths in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 44C, 181-221.

LONGLEY, D. 1980. Runnymede Bridge 1976:Excavations on the Site of a Late Bronze Age Settlement, Research volume of the Surrey Archaeological Society no. 6, Guilford.

MCNALLY, L. 1996. An Introduction to Experimentation related to Ireland’s Prehistoric Bronze Casting Industry, Dublin.

LYNCH, F. 1991. Prehistoric Anglesey: The Archaeology of the Island to the Roman conquest (revised ed.), Llangefni.

MEEKS, N. & VARNDELL, G. 1994. “Three Bronze Age Torc Fragments from Woodham Walter, Essex”, Essex Archaeology and History 25, 1-2.

LYNN, C. 1973/4. “A Bronze Axe from Magheracoltan Townland, Co. Tyrone”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 36/7, 98.

MEGAW, J. & SIMPSON, D. (eds.), 1992. Introduction to British Prehistory, (5th ed), Leicester.

LYNN, C. 1977. “Trial Excavations at The King’s Stables, Tray Townland, Co. Armagh”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 40, 42-57.

MEILLASSOUX, C. 1968. “Ostentation, Destruction, Reproduction”, Economie et Societé 2, 760-72.

LYNN, C. & WATERMAN, D. 1997. Excavations at Navan Fort, 1961-71, Northern Ireland Archaeological Monographs no. 1, Belfast.

MILLIGAN, S. 1886. “Bronze Anvil and Perforated Hammer”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 7, 538.

MACALISTER, R. 1928. The Archaeology of Ireland, London.

MILLIGAN, S. 1911. “Some Recent Archaeological Finds in Ulster”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 41, 380-4.

MACNEILL, T. & MALLORY, Archaeology of Ulster, Belfast.

J.

1991.

The MOLONEY, A., JENNINGS, D., KEANE, M. & MCDERMOTT, C. 1993. Excavations at Clonfinlough, Co. Offaly, Irish Archaeological Wetlands Unit Transactions vol. 2, Dublin.

MACWHITE, E. 1944. “The Bronze Socketed Gouge in Ireland”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 74, 160-5.

MONTEAGUDO, L. 1977. Die Biele auf der Iberischen Halbinsel, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX, 6, Munich.

MACWHITE, E. 1945. “Irish Bronze Age Trumpets”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 75, 85-106.

MORDANT, C. & RICHARDS, A. (eds.). 1992. Habitat et l’Occupation du Sol a l’Age du Bronze en Europe: Actes du colloque internationale de Lons-Saunier, Mai, 1990, Paris.

MAHR, A. 1937. “New Aspects and Problems in Irish Prehistory”, Presidential Address, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 3, 262-436.

MOSS, A. 1953. “Note”, Man 53, 4. MALLORY, J. 1991. “Excavations at Haughey’s Fort: 1989/90”, Emania 8, 10-26.

MUHLY, J. 1973. Copper and tin:The Distribution of Mineral Resources and the Nature of the Metals Trade in the Bronze Age, Connecticut.

MALLORY, J. 1995. “Haughey’s Fort and the Navan Complex in the Late Bronze Age”, in WADDELL, J. & SHEE-TWOHIG, E. (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age, 73-86, Dublin. MALLORY, J. & MACNEILL, Archaeology of Ulster, Belfast.

T.

1991.

MUSSON, C., BRITNELL, J., NORTHOVER, P. & SALTER, C. 1992 ‘Excavations and Metal-working at Llwyn Bryn-dinas Hillfort, Llangedwyn, Clwyd’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 265-83.

The

MUSSON, C. 1991. The Breiddin Hillfort - A later Prehistoric Settlement in the Welsh Marches, Council for British Archaeology Report no. 76, London.

MALLORY, J., MOORE, D. & CANNING, L. 1996. “Excavations at Haughey’s Fort 1991 and 1995”, Emania 14, 5-20.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF IRELAND. 1958. “Archaeological acquisitions in the year 1957”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 88, 115-52.

MANNING, W. 1980. “Blacksmith’s Tools from Waltham Abbey, Essex”, in ODDY, W. (ed.), Aspects of

133

Bibliography NATIONAL MUSEUM OF IRELAND. 1960. “Archaeological acquisitions in the year 1958”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 90, 1-40.

their Formation”, in BARRETT, J. & KINNES, I. (eds.) The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent trends, Sheffield.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF IRELAND. 1963. “Archaeological acquisitions in the year 1961”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 93, 115-34.

NEEDHAM, S. & BARRETT, J. 1988. “Production, Circulation and Exchange: Problems in the interpretation of Bronze Age bronzework”, in BARRETT, J. & KINNES, I. (eds.) The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent trends, Sheffield.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF IRELAND. 1964. “Archaeological acquisitions in the year 1962”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 94, 85-104.

NEEDHAM, S., LONGWORTH, I., HERNE, A. & VARNDELL, G. 1991. Excavations at Grimes Graves, Norfolk, 1972-6, Fascicule 3, Shaft X: Bronze Age flint, chalk and metalworking, London.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF IRELAND. 1968. “Archaeological acquisitions in the year 1965”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 98, 93-160.

NEEDHAM, S. & MEEKS, N. 1993 ‘A Bronze Age Goldworking Anvil from Lichfield, Staffordshire’, Antiquaries Journal 73, 125-32.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF IRELAND. 1971. “Archaeological acquisitions in the year 1968”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 101, 184244.

NORDSTRÖM, & H. KNAPE, A. 1989. Bronze Age Studies: Transactions of the British-Scandinavian colloquium in Stockholm, 1985, Stockholm.

NEEDHAM, S. 1980. “An Assemblage of Late Bronze Age Metalworking Debris from Dainton, Devon”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46, 177-216.

NORTHOVER, P. 1980. “Bronze in the British Bronze Age”, in ODDY, W. (ed.), Aspects of early Metallurgy, British Museum Occasional Paper no. 17, 63-70, London.

NEEDHAM, S. 1981. The Bulsford-Helbury Manufacturing Tradition: The production of Stogursey socketed axes during the Later Bronze Age in southern Britain, British Museum Occasional Paper no. 13, London.

NORTHOVER, P. 1985. “The Complete Examination of Archaeological Metalwork”, in PHILLIPS, P. (ed.), The Archaeologist and the Laboratory, 56-9, London. NORTHOVER, P. 1988. “The Analysis and Metallurgy of British Bronze Swords”, in BURGESS, C. & COLQUHOUN, I. 1988. The Swords of Britain, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 5, 130-46, Munich.

NEEDHAM, S. 1990. “Middle Bronze Age Ceremonial Weapons: New Finds from Oxborough, Norfolk and Essex/Kent”, Antiquaries Journal 70, 239-52. NEEDHAM, S. 1991. Excavations and Salvage at Runnymede Bridge, 1978: The Late Bronze Age waterfront site, London.

O’BRIEN, W. 1993. “Aspects of Wedge-Tomb Chronology”, in SHEE-TWOHIG, E. & RONAYNE, M. (eds.), Past Perceptions: The Prehistoric Archaeology of south-west Ireland, 63-74, Cork.

NEEDHAM, S. 1992. “The Structure of Settlement and Ritual in the Late Bronze Age of south-east Britain”, in MORDANT, C. & RICHARDS, A. (eds.) Habitat et l’occupation du sol a l’Age du Bronze en Europe, 49-69, Paris.

O’BRIEN, W. 1993. “Early Metallurgy in Cork and Kerry”, in SHEE-TWOHIG, E. & RONAYNE, M. (eds.), Past Perceptions: The Prehistoric Archaeology of southwest Ireland, 85-92, Cork.

NEEDHAM, S. 1993. “Displacement and Exchange in Archaeological Methodology”, in SCARRE, C. & HEALY, F. (eds., Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe, Oxbow Monograph No. 33, 161-9, Oxford.

O’BRIEN, W. 1994. Mount Gabriel: Bronze Age Mining in Ireland, Galway. O’BRIEN, W. 1995. “Ross Island and the Origins of Irish-British Metallurgy”, in WADDELL, J. & SHEETWOHIG, E. (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age, 38-48, Dublin.

NEEDHAM, S. 1996. The Petters Late Bronze Age Metalwork: An Analytical Study of Thames Valley Metalworking in its Settlement Context, British Museum Occasional Paper no. 70, London.

O’BRIEN, W. 1996. Bronze Age Copper Mining in Britain and Ireland, Princes Risborough.

NEEDHAM, S., LAWSON, A. & GREEN, H. 1985. British Bronze Age Metalwork. A1 - 6, Early Bronze Age Hoards, London.

O’BRIEN, W. 1997 “Approaches to Production and Exchange in the Insular Bronze Age”, in BAYLEY, J. (ed.), Science in Archaeology: Proceedings of the English Heritage Conference, February, 1997, London.

NEEDHAM, S. & SØRENSEN, M. 1988. “Runnymede Refuse Tip: A consideration of Midden Deposits and 134

Bibliography (eds.), Economic Archaeology, British Archaeological Reports (Supplementary Series), 96, 167-83, Oxford.

O’BRIEN, W., NORTHOVER, P. & CAMERON, E. 1989/90. “An Early Bronze Age Metal Hoard from a Wedge-Tomb at Toormore, Co. Cork”, Journal of Irish Archaeology 5, 9-17.

O’SULLIVAN, A. 1998 The Archaeology of Lake Settlement in Ireland, Discovery Programme Monographs 4, Dublin.

O’CONNELL, M. 1986. Petters Sports Field, Egham: Excavations of a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Site, Guilford.

PARKER, G. 1970. “A Metallurgist looks at the Bronze Age”, Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society 4 (Pt. 2), 74-5.

O’CONNOR, A. & CLARE, D. (eds.), From the Stone Age to the Fourty-Five: Studies Presented to R.B.K. Stevenson, Edinburgh.

PEARCE, S. 1983. The Bronze Age Metalwork of southwestern Britain, British Archaeological Reports, 120, Oxford.

O’CONNOR 1980. Cross-channel Relations in the Later Bronze Age, British Archaeological Reports (International Series), 91, Oxford.

PEARSON, M. 1993. Bronze Age Britain, English Heritage, London.

ODDY, W. (ed) 1980. Aspects of Early Metallurgy, British Museum Occasional Paper no. 17, London.

PENHALLURICK, R. 1986. Tin in Antiquity: Its mining and Trade throughout the Ancient World with particular Reference to Cornwall, The Institute of Metals, London.

OSGOOD, R. 1998 Warfare in the Late Bronze Age of North Europe, British Archaeological Reports (International Series) 694, Oxford.

PENNIMAN, T. & ALLEN, I. 1960. “A Metallurgical Study of four Irish Early Bronze Age Ribbed Halberds in the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford”, Man 60, 85-9.

Ó H-ICEADHA, G. 1946. “The Moylisha Megalith, Co. Wicklow”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 76, 119-29.

PHILLIPS, P. (ed). 1985. The Archaeologist and the Laboratory, Council for British Archaeology Report no. 58, London.

Ó H-ICEADHA, G. & Ó RIORDÁIN, S. 1955. “Lough Gur Excavations: The Megalithic Tomb”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 85, 34-50.

PIGGOTT, C. 1946. “The Late Bronze Age Razors of the British Isles”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 12, 121-41.

O’KELLY, M. 1969. “A Stone Mould for Axeheads from Doonour, Bantry, Co. Cork”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 99, 117-24.

PIGGOTT, S. 1938. “The Early Bronze Age in Wessex”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 52-106.

O’KELLY, M. 1970. “An Axe Mould from Lyre, Co. Cork”, Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 75, 25-8.

PITTIONI, R. 1951. “Prehistoric Copper Mining in Austria: Problems and Facts”, 7th Annual Report of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London, London.

O’KELLY, M. 1989. Early Ireland: An Introduction to Irish Prehistory, Cambridge.

PITTIONI, R. 1957. “Urzeitlicher Bergbau auf Kupferz und Spureanalyse”, Archaeologia Austriaca, Beiheft 1.

O’KELLY, M. & SHELL, C. 1979. “Stone Objects and a Bronze Axe from Newgrange, Co. Meath”, in RYAN, M. (ed.) The Origins of Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe, 12744, Dublin.

PLUNKETT, T. 1899 “Note”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 29, 89. POLLARD, A., THOMAS, R. & WILLIAMS, P. 1990. “Experimental Smelting of Arsenical Copper Ores: Implications for Early Bronze Age Copper Production”, in CREW P. & CREW S. (eds.). 1990. Early Mining in the British Isles: Proceedings of the Early Mining Workshop, 72-4, Snowdonia National Park Study Centre.

Ó RIORDÁIN, S. 1946. “Prehistory in Ireland, 1937-46”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 12, 142-71. Ó RIORDÁIN, S. 1954. “Lough Gur Excavations: Neolithic and Bronze Age Houses on Knockadoon”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 56, 297-459.

POWELL, T. 1953. “The Gold Ornament from Mold, Flintshire, North Wales”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 19, 161-79.

Ó RIORDÁIN, S. & Ó H-ICEADHA, G. 1955. “Lough Gur Excavations: The Megalithic Tomb”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 85, 34-50.

POWELL, T. 1976. “The Inception of the Iron Age in Temperate Europe”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42, 1-14.

O’SHEA, J. 1981. “Coping with Scarcity: Exchange and Social Storage”, in SHERIDAN, A. & BAILEY, G. 135

Bibliography POWNALL, T. 1775. “An Account of some Irish Antiquities”, Archaeologia 3, 355-70.

RAFTERY, B. 1983. A Catalogue of Irish Iron Age Antiquities, Marburg.

PRENDERGAST, E. 1961. “Group of Bronzes from Charleville Forest, Co. Offaly”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 91, 51-5.

RAFTERY, B. 1984. La Tène in Ireland: Problems of Origin and Chronology, Marburg. RAFTERY, B. 1994. Pagan Celtic Ireland, London.

PRICE, L. 1938. “Find of Flat Copper Axes at Monastery, Co. Wicklow”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 68, 305-6.

RAFTERY, B. 1996. Trackway Excavations in the Mountdillon Bogs, Co. Longford 1985-91, Irish Archaeological Wetlands Unit Transactions Volume 3, Dublin.

PROUDFOOT, V. 1955. The Downpatrick Gold Find: a Hoard of Gold Objects from Cathedral Hill, Downpatrick, Archaeological Research Publications, no. 3, Belfast.

RAFTERY, B., MEGAW, J. & RIGBY, V. (eds.). 1995. Sites and Sights of the Iron Age: Essays on Fieldwork and Museum Research presented to Ian Mathiesan Stead, Oxford.

PRYOR, F. 1980. A Catalogue of British and Irish Prehistoric Bronzes in the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.

RAFTERY, J. 1942. “Finds from Three Ulster Counties”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 5, 120-31.

PRYOR, F. 1991. Flag Fen: Prehistoric Fenland Centre, English Heritage, London.

RAFTERY, J. 1961. “The Derrinboy Hoard, Co. Offaly”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 91, 55-8.

RAFTERY, B. 1969. “Freestone Hill, Co. Kilkenny: An Iron Age Hillfort and Bronze Age Cairn. Excavation: Gerhardt Bersu, 1848-9”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 68C, 1-109.

RAFTERY, J. 1972. “Iron Age and Irish Sea:Problems for Research”, in THOMAS, C. (ed.), The Iron Age in the Irish Sea Province, Council for British Archaeology Report no. 9, 1-10, London.

RAFTERY, B. 1970. “The Rathgall Hillfort, County Wicklow”, Antiquity 44, 51-4.

RAFTERY, J. & COGHLAN, H. 1961. “Irish Prehistoric Casting Moulds”, Sibrium 6, 223-44.

RAFTERY, B. 1970a. “Rathgall”, in DELANEY, T. (ed.), Excavations, 1970, 21-3, Belfast.

RAMSEY, G. 1995. “Middle Bronze Age Metalwork: Are Artefact Studies Dead and Buried?”, in WADDELL, J. & SHEE-TWOHIG, E. (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age, 49-62, Dublin.

RAFTERY, B. 1971. “Rathgall, Co. Wicklow, 1970 Excavations”, Antiquity 45, 296-8. RAFTERY, B. 1971a. “Rathgall”, in DELANEY, T. (ed.), Excavations, 1971, 26-8 , Belfast.

RAMSEY, G., BOURKE, C. & CRONE, D. 1991/2. “Antiquities from the River Blackwater I: Bronze Age Metalwork”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 54/5, 13849.

RAFTERY, B. 1972. “Irish Hillforts”, in THOMAS, C. (ed.), The Iron Age in the Irish Sea Province, Council for British Archaeology Report no. 9, 37-58, London.

RANDSBORG, K. 1995. Hjortspring: Warfare and Sacrifice in Early Europe, Aarhus.

RAFTERY, B. 1972a. “Rathgall”, in DELANEY, T. (ed.), Excavations, 1972, 30, Belfast.

RENFREW, C. (ed.). 1974. British Prehistory: a new outline, London.

RAFTERY, B. 1973. “Rathgall: A Late Bronze Age Burial in Ireland”, Antiquity 47, 293-5.

RICE, P. 1981. “Evolution of Specialised Pottery Production: A Trial Model”, Current Anthropology 22, 219-40.

RAFTERY, B. 1973a. “Rathgall”, in DELANEY, T. (ed.), Excavations, 1973, 28-9, Belfast.

RICHARDS, A. & MORDANT, C. (eds.). 1992. Habitat et l’Occupation du Sol a l’Age du Bronze en Europe: Actes du colloque internationale de Lons-Saunier, Mai, 1990, Paris.

RAFTERY, B. 1974. “Rathgall”, in DELANEY, T. (ed.), Excavations, 1974, 28-9, Belfast. RAFTERY, B. 1976. “Rathgall and Irish Hillfort Problems”, in HARDING, D. (ed.), Hillforts: Later Prehistoric earthworks in Britain and Ireland, 339-57, London.

ROBINSON, T. 1948-50. “The Contents of an Ancient Bronze Vessel found in the King’s County”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 4C, 237-46. 136

Bibliography SHEE-TWOHIG, E. & WADDELL, J. (eds.). 1995. Ireland in the Bronze Age: Proceedings of the Dublin Conference, April, 1995, Dublin.

ROHL, B. & NEEDHAM, S. 1998 The Circulation of Metal in the British Bronze Age: the application of lead isotope analysis, British Museum Occasional Paper 102, London.

SHELL, C. & O’KELLY, M. 1979. “Stone Objects and a Bronze Axe from Newgrange, Co. Meath”, in RYAN, M. (ed.) The Origins of Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe, 12744, Dublin.

ROTHENBERG, B. 1972. Timna: Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines, London. ROTHENBERG, B. & BLANCO-FREIJEIRO, A. 1981. Studies in Ancient Mining and Metallurgy in South-West Spain, Institute of Archeo-Metallurgy Studies, London.

SHERIDAN, A. & BAILEY, G. (eds.). 1981. Economic Archaeology, British Archaeological Reports (Supplementary Series), 96, Oxford.

ROTHENBERG, B., TYLECOTE, R. & BOYDELL, P. 1978. Chalcolithic Copper Smelting: Excavation and Experiment, London.

SHERRATT, A. & YOFFEE, N. (eds.). 1993. Archaeological Theory: Who sets the agenda?, Cambridge.

ROWLANDS, M. 1971. “The Archaeological Interpretation of Prehistoric Metalworking”, World Archaeology 3, 210-24.

SLATER, E. 1985. “Sources and Resources for NonFerrous Metallurgy”, in PHILLIPS, P. (ed.). 1985. The Archaeologist and the Laboratory, 45-9, London.

ROWLANDS, M. 1976. The Production and Distribution of Metalwork in the Middle Bronze Age in Southern Britain, British Archaeological Reports, 31, Oxford.

SLATER, E. & CHARLES, J. 1970. “Archaeological Classification by Metal Analysis”, Antiquity 44, 207-13. SIMPSON, D. 1986. “A Late Bronze Age SWord from Island McHugh, Co. Tyrone”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 49, 103-4.

RYAN, M. (ed.). 1979. The Origins of Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe: Proceedings of the Fifth Atlantic Colloquium, Dublin. RYAN, M. (ed.). 1991. The Illustrated Archaeology of Ireland, Dublin.

SMITH, M. 1959. “Some Somerset Hoards and their place in the Late Bronze Age of Southern Britain”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 25, 144-87.

RYNNE, E. 1962. “Late Bronze Age Rattle-Pendants from Ireland”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28, 383-5.

SMITH, I. & BUTLER, J. 1956. “Razors, Urns and the British Middle Bronze Age”, 12th Annual Report of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London, London.

RYNNE, E. 1983. “Why the ribs inside Socketed Axeheads?”, Antiquity 57, 48-9.

SMITH, M. & HAWKES, C. 1957. “On some Buckets and Cauldrons of the Bronze and Iron Ages”, Antiquaries Journal 37, 131-98.

SAVORY, H. 1975. “Some Welsh Late Bronze Age Hoards: Old and New”, Archaeologica Atlantica 1 (Pt. 2), 111-25.

STEVENSON, R. 1957/8. “A Wooden Sword of the Late Bronze Age”, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 91, 191-2.

SAVORY, H. 1980. A Guide Catalogue to the Bronze Age Collections in the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff.

STUIVER, M. & BECKER, B. 1986. “High Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Timescale, A.D. 1950 - 2500 B.C.”, Radiocarbon 28, 863 - 910.

SCARRE, C. & HEALY, F. (eds.), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe:Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Bristol, 1992, Oxbow Monograph No. 33, Oxford.

TAYLOR, J. 1970. “Lunulae Reconsidered”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, 38-81. TAYLOR, J. 1970a. “The Recent Discovery of Gold Pins in the Ridgeway Golg Pommel”, Antiquaries Journal 50, 216-21.

SCHMIDT, P. & BURGESS, C. 1981. The Axes of Scotland and Northern England, Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX, 7, Munich.

TAYLOR, J. 1979. “The Relationship of British Early Bronze Age Goldwork to Atlantic Europe”, in RYAN, M. (ed.) The Origins of Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe, 22950, Dublin.

SCOTT, B. 1990. Early Irish Ironworking, Belfast. SEABY, W. & COLLINS, A. 1960. “Structures and small finds discovered at Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 23, 25-37. 137

Bibliography TAYLOR, J. 1980. Bronze Age Goldwork of the British Isles, Cambridge.

Matar, Israel”, Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society 8, 32-4.

TAYLOR, J. 1983. “An Unlocated Gold Source or an Experiment in Alloying?” in O’CONNOR, A. & CLARE, D. (eds.), From the Stone Age to the Fourty-Five, 57-64, Edinburgh.

VARNDELL, G. & MEEKS, N. 1994. “Three Bronze Age Torc Fragments from Woodham Walter, Essex”, Essex Archaeology and History, 25, 1-2. WADDELL, J. 1991/2. “The Irish Sea in Prehistory”, Journal of Irish Archaeology 6, 29-40.

TAYLOR, J. & COLES, J. 1971. “The Wessex Culture: A Minimal View”, Antiquity 45, 6-14.

WADDELL, J. 1995. “Celts, Celticisation and the Irish Bronze Age”, in WADDELL, J. & SHEE-TWOHIG, E. (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age, 158-69, Dublin.

TAYLOR, R. 1993. Hoards of the Bronze Age in Southern Britain: Analysis and Interpretation, British Archaeological Reports, 228, Oxford. TAYLOR, T. & BUDD, P. 1995. “The Faerie Smith meets the Bronze Industry: Magic versus Science in the interpretation of prehistoric metal-making”, World Archaeology 27(1), 133-43. THEOPHILUS. 1963. On Divers Arts, Hawthorne, J. & Stanley Smith, C.), Toronto.

WADDELL, J. 1998. The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland, Galway. WADDELL, J. & SHEE-TWOHIG, E. (eds.). 1995. Ireland in the Bronze Age: Proceedings of the Dublin Conference, April, 1995, Dublin.

(Trans. WAINWRIGHT, J. 1979. Gussage All Saints: An Iron Age Settlement in Dorset, London.

THOMAS, C. 1964. “Note on the Tredarvah Hoard”, Cornish Archaeology 3, 85. THOMAS, C. (ed.). 1972. The Iron Age in the Irish Sea Province, Council for British Archaeology Report no. 9, London. THRANE, H. 1995. “Penultima Thule: The Bronze Age in the Western Baltic Region as an Analogy to the Irish Bronze Age”, in WADDELL, J. & SHEE-TWOHIG, E. (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age, 149-57, Dublin.

WAKEMAN, W. 1879-82. “Notice on a Flint Knife and Ornamented Bronze Knife found in the County Tyrone”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 15, 259-60. WAKEMAN, W. 1894. “A Recently Discovered Pagan Sepulchral Mound in the grounds of Old Connaught, Co. Dublin”, Part 1, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 24, 54-64.

TIMBERLAKE, S. 1994. “An Experimental Tin Smelt at Flag Fen”, Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society 28, 121-8.

WAKEMAN, W. 1895. “A Recently Discovered Pagan Sepulchral Mound in the grounds of Old Connaught, Co. Dublin”, Part 2, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 25, 106-14

TYLECOTE, R. 1962. Metallurgy in Archaeology, London.

WALLACE, J. 1938. “The Golden Bog of Cullen”, North Munster Antiquarian Journal 1, 89-101.

TYLECOTE, R. 1970. “The Composition of Metal Artefacts: A Guide to Provenance?”, Antiquity 44, 19-25.

WALSH, P. 1995. “Structure and Deposition in Irish Wedge-Tombs: An Open and Shut Case?”, in WADDELL, J. & SHEE-TWOHIG, E. (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age, 113-27, Dublin.

TYLECOTE, R. 1973. “Casting Copper and Bronze into Stone Moulds”, Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society 7, 1-5. TYLECOTE, R. 1986. The Prehistory of Metallurgy in the British Isles, London. TYLECOTE, R. 1987. The Early History of Metallurgy in Europe, London. TYLECOTE, R. 1992. A History of Metallurgy, (2nd ed), London. TYLECOTE, R., ROTHENBERG, B. & LUPU, A. 1974. “The Examination of Metallurgical Material from Abu

138

WARNER, R. 1994. “Emania Varia: A Summary of the Chronology of Navan”, Emania 12, 66-72. WATERMAN, D. & LYNN, C. 1997. Excavations at Navan Fort, 1961-71, Northern Ireland Archaeological Monographs No. 1, Belfast. WERTIME, A. 1973. “The Beginnings of Metallurgy: A New Beginning”, Science 182, 875-87. WESTROPP, T. 1918. “The Clare Gold Find, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 48, 185-6.

Bibliography WILDE, W. 1857. Catalogue of the Antiquities in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy: Stone, Earthen and Vegetable Materials, Dublin. WILDE, W. 1861. Catalogue of the Antiquities in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy: Animal and Metallic Materials, Dublin. WILDE, W. 1862. Catalogue of the Antiquities of Gold in the Collection of the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin. WILLIAMS, B. 1978. “Excavations at Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 41, 37-48. WILLIAMS, B. 1980. “Bronze Age Stone Moulds from Sultan, Co. Tyrone”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 43, 102-3. WILLIAMS, B. 1984. “Excavations at Kilsmullan, Co. Fermanagh”, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 47, 5-8.

139

WOODMAN, P. 1987/8. “Bay (Carnlough)”, Journal of Irish Archaeology 4, 66. WOODMAN, P. 1993. “The Prehistory of South-West Ireland - An Archaeological Region or a State of Mind?” in SHEE-TWOHIG, E. & RONAYNE, M. (eds.), Past Perceptions: The Prehistoric Archaeology of south-west Ireland, 6-15, Cork. WOOD-MARTIN, W. 1886. The Lake-Dwellings of Ireland, Dublin. WRIGHT, E. 1900. “Address Delivered to the Annual General Meeting of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 30th January, 1900”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 30, 1-21. YOFFEE, N. & SHERRATT, A. Archaeological Theory: Who sets Cambridge.

(eds.). 1993. the agenda?

Catalogue Glossary BIVALVE - Mould formed in two parts, theoretically allowing removal of cast artefact without destruction of the mould. Utilized in Ireland by the end of the Early Bronze Age. CASTING CAVITY - The hollow space present in the interior of a mould when all its constituent parts are assembled, and thus the area filled by the molten metal forming the cast artefact. CHAPLETS - Small metal pins used in the construction of moulds for casting hollow or socketed artefacts. The chaplets are inserted between the core (q.v.) and the mould proper in order to keep the two separate. CORE - Solid piece used in the casting of hollow or socketed objects. Inserted between the valves where a void is required in the artefact being cast. Recovered Bronze Age core fragments are of clay but other materials, such as sand and vegetable matter may have been employed. DIRECT CASTING - Indicates that a mould into which metal was poured directly to form the artefact required, as opposed to indirect casting which is used in cire perdue mould production. The latter involves the pouring of wax or lead into the mould to form templates (q.v.) which are then used to form moulds for direct casting from which the templates would then be melted out before use. DROSS - See SLAG (q.v.). GATE - The opening cut from the outside of the mould surface to the edge of the matrix (q.v.) in order to allow access for pouring the molten metal. LOCATION - The alignment of the parts of a bivalve mould in order that the two halves of the matrix (q.v.) fit together exactly to form the required casting cavity (q.v.). This can be achieved either visually or by mechanical means. MATRIX - The hollow area of a valve’s interior which, in bivalve moulds, fits together with the other valve (and a core if necessary) to form the casting cavity (q.v.). MODEL - See TEMPLATE (q.v.). PATTERN - SeeTEMPLATE (q.v.). REGISTRATION - See LOCATION (q.v.). RUNNER-GATE - See GATE (q.v.). SLAG - More correctly termed Vitrified Fuel Ash (V.F.A.). A waste byproduct of impurities, composed mainly of oxides and sulphides, produced during smelting and remelting of metal. Usually visible as a floating layer overlying the pure metal in the crucible. Encrustations of slag sometimes occur on Late Bronze Age Irish crucible fragments. STEATITE - A type of stone of the magnesian schist group of which soapstone and talc are also members. Selected frequently in Ireland, especially in the Middle Bronze Age, as a medium for producing stone moulds because of its softness and ease of carving. TEMPLATE - Used in the construction of clay moulds. An object shaped in the form of the metal artefact to be cast used to imprint the matrix (q.v.) in the wet clay before drying and firing. Wooden templates were utilized in the Later Bronze Age, but pre-existing examples of the type of metal artefact to be cast might also have been employed. VENT - Narrow aperature cut in mould from matrix (q.v.) to exterior allowing air and the gases generated during casting to escape from the casting cavity (q.v.).

140

Catalogue where relevant, and finally by references to previous publication.

Sources of Data. The compilation of this catalogue of Late Bronze Age metalworking evidence began with a search of published information in Irish archaeological journals. This survey was expanded to include the archives of the National Museum of Ireland where a number of unpublished artifacts were recorded. Additional unpublished information, particularly from excavations at Rathgall, Dun Aengus and Johnstown South, was generously made available by the respective excavators. Those artifacts which I have had the opportunity to examine personally are marked with an asterisk * beside their entry number. This came to 49 out of a total of 110, although the majority of the unexamined material consists of Middle Bronze Age stone moulds not relevant to the main focus of this study. The primary emphasis in this study was placed on the examination of the refractory clay assemblages and those stone moulds of definite or possible Late Bronze Age date. Less emphasis was given to the stone moulds of Middle Bronze Age date, as these are included mainly in order to present as complete a catalogue of later Bronze Age moulds as possible. This was achieved by including all those listed in the inventories published by Coghlan & Raftery (1961) and Collins (1970), as well as several examples which escaped the notice of those authors (e.g. Entries No. 4. 32 & 4. 46). Several stone moulds have also come to light since these publications (e.g. Entries No. 4. 10 & 4. 29), however a number of examples previously recorded by Coghlan and Raftery (1961) could not be located in the National Museum at the time of writing.

Abbreviations. The following abbreviations are used in this Catalogue: L. length; W. width; T. thickness; H.: height; Diam. diameter; Ext. external; Int. internal.

SECTION 1: SCRAP HOARDS. Entry No. 1. 1 Object Classification: Scrap Hoard. Townland: Drumnakelly. Parish: Drumcree. Barony: Oneilland. County: Armagh. 6” O.S. map sheet: 9, 13. Habitat: N.M.I. (1914: 13-6). Illustration: Fig. 1A. Discovery Circumstances: Found on April 14th, 1913 on a farm at Annesborough in Drumnakelly townland. The discovery took place during the excavation of a hole to house a gate-post. Discovered c. 23cm below the surface. The hoard consists of a looped palstave, a fibula, three bracelets, a torc, and a fragment of another. The torc and fibula were first discovered, followed by the bracelets and palstave which turned up on the removal of a tree root some 0.75m away.

Catalogue Entries. Listing of entries within each section (and where applicable, sub-section) is alphabetical by county and, within each county where more than one find of that type has been recovered, by townland. A small number of late entries are included at the end of the relevant section. Section (1): Scrap HoardsSection (2): Raw MaterialsSection (3): Clay Crucible RemainsSection (4): Stone MouldsSection (5): Bronze MouldSection (6): Clay Moulding RemainsSection (7): Casting JetsSection (8): Wooden PatternsSection (9): Metalworking Tools-

Description (after Eogan 1983): (1) Palstave. Broad blade. Single loop and one edge of the cutting edge have been broken off. This damage may have taken place during use in antiquity, or else at the time of discovery. In addition, corrosion has damaged parts of the surface. Remains of casting seams on both sides. The flanges start a short distance down from the top and they reach their maximum height at the stopridge. When viewed from the side the hafted portion is triangular in shape. Its sides are vertical. The body has three facets, and each of its broad faces are decorated. This consists of a y-shaped motif with a central ridge. Max. L. 156mm. W. of Blade: 65mm. (2) Torc. Of bronze. Possibly cast. May have been complete upon discovery, but one terminal is now missing and it is broken at a point near the centre. The body has been bar-twisted. The surviving terminal is plain and tapered and of circular cross-section. Ext. Diam. 166mm. Max. T. 7mm.

13 Entries . 4 Entries. 7 Entries. 53 Entries. 1 Entry. 23 Entries. 4 Entries. 1 Entry. 4 Entries.

At the start of each individual entry locational information is given, followed by cross references to corresponding illustrations in the rear of this volume. After this there is a short consideration of the circumstances of discovery, and then the physical description of the artefact(s). This is followed by remarks, 141

Catalogue (3) Body portion of a cast torc. Also bar-twisted. It is more slender than (2) and more loosely twisted. Due to the small length surviving, 52 mm, it is impossible to estimate size, but it would appear to have been smaller than (2). Max. T. 5mm. Surviving L. 52mm. (4) Penannular bracelet of bronze. Solid body of Dshaped cross-section, and with unexpanded terminals. The body has been broken near the middle. Tapers at one end to 3.4mm, but is uniform throughout rest of circumference. Max. T. 55mm. Diam. 73mm. (5) Penannular bracelet of bronze. Body of lozenge shaped cross-section. Terminals unexpanded. There are patches of corrosion on the surface of the body and on the face of one of the terminals. It is almost uniform in thickness throughout its length. Max. T. 55mm. Diam. 67mm. (6) Bracelet. This object disappeared immediately after discovery, but it is stated to have been similar to (4) and (5). (7) Fibula. The pin is hinged and its point rests on a slight flange that is formed on the catch-plate. This has one perforation. The bow is arched and at the broad end it is decorated with a central ridge and a flange on each side with a "punch" ornament. At the end it expands into a bar which forms a cross-piece.

question was locally known as 'Colters Fort'.

Remarks: The damaged nature of the articles bar one penannular bracelet and the fibula suggests that this may have been a founders hoard. The Bronze Age articles are dated by Eogan to the Bishopsland Phase, but the fibula,(7), is of Roman provincial type. It dates to about the1st Century A.D. and this causes problems. It is possible that the fibula is a fortuitous inclusion due to soil disturbance. All articles in the hoard are considered to be of southern British type (Ornament Horizon), and therefore imported.

Remarks: None.

Description (after Eogan 1983 with modifications): This hoard consists of three artifacts. (1) Looped and socketed axehead. Bag-shaped. This object has not been trimmed after casting and retains extensive flashing. The mouth is almost oval in shape. A collar, in the form of an indentation, surrounds the upper portion of the axe. The rim retains portions of metal from the pouring gate in three places. Max. L. 99mm, W. of Cutting Edge: 69mm, Diam. of Mouth: 48 by 44mm. (2) Looped, socketed axehead. This may also have belonged to the bag-shaped variety, but only part of the upper portion survives. This has suffered extensive damage (apparently in antiquity) as a result of which it has been burst open and cracked. The loop is also missing. The mouth appears to have been oval in shape and a collar in the form of a ridge occurs. Internally there are two casting ridges. Max. L. 44mm. (3) Fragment of large tubular ring. This is of D-shaped cross-section and seemingly it was formed by folding over a sheet, the edges of which are now on the flat inner surface. The breaks appear to be ancient but when complete the ring would measure around 120mm in external diameter and 100mm in internal diameter.

Publication: National Museum of Ireland, 1963, 121. Eogan, G., 1983, 73.

Entry No. 1. 3 Object Classification: Scrap Hoard.

Publication: Coffey, G. & Armstrong, E., 1914, 171-75. Eogan, G., 1983, 27.

Entry No. 1. 2*

Townland: Youghal. Parish: Youghal. Barony: Imokelly. County: Cork 6” O.S. map sheet: 67. Habitat: N.M.I.(R. 2266-9).

Object Classification: Scrap Hoard.

Illustration: Fig. 1B.

Townland: Teernagloghane. Parish: Kilmacduane. Barony: Moyarta. County: Clare. 6” O.S. map sheet: 57, 58. Habitat: N.M.I. (1961: 181-3)

Discovery Circumstances: Not known. The museum register does not specifically state that the objects were found in association. Armstrong, nevertheless, considered them as an associated find, for all the objects were acquired at the same time and all bear a similar greenish patination.

Illustration: Fig. 2A, Pl. 1A.

Description (after Eogan 1983): (1) Sword. Eogan's Class 3. Badly damaged. Apart from a very small stump, the tang is missing and the tip of the butt on one side has been broken off. Apparently the tang was flanged, and these flanges continue down the wings of the butt for a

Discovery Circumstances: Found in 1948 in the bank of a ringfort while it was being demolished. The hoard was about 1.75 m from the top of the bank. The ringfort in 142

Catalogue secured the whole of the find.

short distance. The butt has six perforations. The blade is a flat, pointed oval in cross-section. Its edges have been damaged considerably and they are now blunt and gapped. The surface may have been smoothed down but at present, especially on one side, it bears an accretion of iron oxide and is rough in appearance. L. 525mm. W. of Blade: 43mm. T. of Blade: 7mm. (2) Sword. Also Eogan's Class 3. Damaged. Only the stump of the tang survives. This appears to have been flanged. The butt has two rivet-holes. Underneath it narrows rapidly to form a slight ricasso. The surface of the blade is reasonably smooth, though there are some tiny blow-holes present. It appears that the edges were bevelled, but these have been damaged and are now blunt. Max. L. 515mm. W. of Blade: 47mm. W. of Butt: 55mm. T. of Blade: 6mm. (3) Plain leaf-shaped spearhead (probably peg-hole). Badly damaged. The socket and parts of the wings of the blades are missing. There is a hollowed, rounded midrib and the adjoining portion of the blade along the midrib is also hollowed. The edges are bevelled. Surviving L. 330mm. Approx. Max. W. of Blade: 67mm. (4) Plain leaf-shaped spearhead (peg-hole). Damaged. Part of the socket is missing and portion of the edge of the blade has been broken away. Surviving L. 400mm. Max. W. of Blade: 61mm.

Description (after Eogan 1983): The hoard consists of nine bronze objects. (1) Sword. Class 4. In poor state of preservation, most of the blade being missing. The tang has a straight ended terminal and slight flanges. It has been broken at the upper end of the two rivet holes. On both faces of the tang there are four low ridges, two on each side of the perforations. The tang has been cast on at the butt junction. The latter has two rivet holes. L. 200mm, L. of Hilt: 102mm. (2) Plain leaf-shaped spearhead. Small size. The socketmouth and the wings of the blade have been damaged. The tip is missing. Max. L. 78mm. (3) Plain leaf-shaped spearhead. The mouth of the socket and the tip of the blade are missing. The edges of the blade have been damaged. A low ridge runs parallel to these L. 127mm, Max. W. of Blade: 32mm. (4) Plain leaf-shaped spearhead. Most of socket missing. The blade has been broken near the point. A ridge runs parallel to the edges. These are bevelled and have suffered some damage. L. 254mm, Max. W. of Blade: 38mm. (5) Spearhead. Only the tip of the blade survives. The centre is occupied by a hollowed swelling and a very slight ridge runs parallel to the edges. This is probably part of a plain leaf-shaped spearhead. L. 102mm. (6) Looped, socketed axehead. Bag-shaped with oval mouth, 45mm in greatest diameter. A short distance below the mouth the body is encircled by a moulding. The cutting edge is wide and curved. Max. L. 100mm, Max. W. of Cutting Edge: 73mm. (7) Socketed hammer. Only the head and adjoining portion of the body survives. The body is more or less rectangular in cross-section, and the head takes the form of a slight widening of the sides. The work face is domed or rounded. Max. L. 60mm. (8) Socketed knife. Thorndon type. The socket is oval in section and at the mouth was approximately 27mm in external diameter. Part of the socket near the mouth has been broken off and there are the remains of a rivet-hole in the fractured side. From mouth to blade the socket narrows a little and then expands into a slight butt. A low ridge runs across this. The blade is almost parallel sided. It has a central rib and is broken near the tip. Max. L. 250mm. (9) Lump of bronze. One of the sides is smooth which suggests that it may have been worked over in some way or perhaps served the purpose of a makeshift anvil.

Remarks: The broken nature of these objects would suggest that they may form a founder's hoard if the association is genuine. Publication: Armstrong, E.,1921-24, 142-3. Eogan, G., 1965, 33. Eogan, G., 1983, 47.

Entry No. 1. 4 Object Classification: Scrap Hoard. Townland: Dreenan. Parish: Templecarn: Barony: Lurg. County: Fermanagh. 6” O.S. map sheet: 4. Habitat: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Illustration: Fig. 2B. Discovery Circumstances: Discovered in 1875 during the removal of a large rock impeding farming operations. The objects were bought by Wakeman from John Irvine, a journeyman and watchmaker. It was on his mothers land the objects were found. Originally the hoard may have consisted of additional pieces. Wakeman refers, for instance, to "a number of socketed celts." However, correspondence from Wakeman preserved in the Ashmolean museum quotes Irvine as stating that he

Remarks: Eogan suggests (9) may be from casting. From the diagram I feel it may be the casting jet from a sword mould. The presence of a possible casting jet increases the possibility that this group of damaged objects may be the property of a bronze-smith and intended for recycling. The objects present indicate that this assemblage was 143

Catalogue deposited in the Dowris Phase.

Entry No. 1. 6

Publication: Wakeman, W., 1879-82, 259-60. Eogan, G., 1965, 165. Eogan, G., 1983, 83-84.

Object Classification: Scrap Hoard.

Entry No. 1. 5

Townland: Money Lower. Parish: Fossy or Timahoe. Barony: Stradbally. County: Laois. Habitat: N.M.I. (1965: 32-36). 6” O.S. map sheet: 18.

Object Classification: Scrap Hoard.

Illustration: Fig. 3B.

Townland: Ballygowan Reade. Parish: Kilmaganny: Barony: Kells. County: Kilkenny. 6” O.S. map sheet: 30, 31. Habitat: N.M.I. (1938: 3579-3586).

Discovery Circumstances: Found "just below the surface of a peaty field" in late April 1965. The find may have come from a bank which was bulldozed and discharrowed into the field before the find was made. This bank is recorded as having been up to a metre high, three metres across and between 100 and 200 metres long.

Illustration: Fig. 3A.

Description (after Eogan 1983 with modifications): The hoard consisted of five bronze objects. (1) Plain leaf-shaped spearhead. One peghole in the socket. The socket and the tip of the blade have been damaged. The edges of the blade are bevelled. Surviving L. 154mm, External Diam. of Socket: 25mm, W. of Blade: 35mm. (2) Spearhead. Seemingly similar to (1). This has suffered considerable damage and is now in three parts. Most of the socket is missing and on each side of the midrib, around the centre, parts of the blade are also missing. The surface is corroded. (3) Large plain ring with body of rounded cross-section. In places the surface is corroded. Ext. Diam. 90mm, T. 8mm. (4) Small plain ring with body of somewhat oval crosssection. Body corroded in places. External Diam. 40mm, T. 5mm. (5) Casting jet from mould gate with twin runners. Its shape is approximate to two conjoined, roughly conical pieces of oval cross-section. Max. H: 30mm, Max. L. 43mm, Max. W. 35mm.

Discovery Circumstances: The objects were discovered on 20th of January 1938 during the quarrying or removal of stones for clearance purposes. The hoard is supposed to have been found mixed with stones and earth at a depth of around 120 cm below the surface. Description (after Eogan 1983): The hoard consists of eight bronzes. (1) - (4) Four plain leaf-shaped spearheads with pegholes in the sockets. With each example large portions of the blade and socket are missing and the surfaces are pitted. Two are in two parts, and in one of these a hole in the socket was repaired in antiquity by running in metal. (5) Tanged sickle. There is a hole in the tang, the edge of the blade is blunt, the tip is missing and on one side in particular the surface has a number of deep pits. (6) Large plain solid ring. Portions of the body have been corroded away. This tends to be oval in cross-section. T. 7 by 5mm, Ext. Diam. 83mm. (7) Large plain hollowed ring. Portions are missing. On the inside there is a slight slit Ext. Diam. 108mm, T. 18 by 15mm. (8) Plain hollowed ring. Very poorly preserved and large pieces are missing. There is a slit along the inside. Ext. Diam. c. 92mm, T. 12 by 10mm.

Remarks: The object to which the casting jet was originally connected was probably of a socketed type, such as an axe or spearhead. This is suggested because of the fact that it came from a mould gate with twin runners. The assemblage is probably of the Dowris Phase, as suggested by the presence of peg-hole spearheads.

Remarks: All the objects are incomplete, and are pockmarked and corroded. Deposition in acidic soil may have contributed to this, but the damage could well be the result of faulty casting and this hoard may therefore have been intended for recasting. Dated to the Dowris Phase.

Publication: 'National Museum of Ireland, 1968, 107-9. Eogan, G., 1983, 99-100.

Publication: Eogan, G., 1983, 95-96.

144

Catalogue Remarks: The presence of the sunflower pin suggests a date in the Dowris Phase for the assemblage.

Entry No. 1. 7* Object Classification: Scrap Hoard.

Publication: Eogan, G., 1983, 113-4.

Townland: Park. Parish: Clonard. Barony: Moyfenrath Upper. County: Meath. 6” O.S. map sheet: 27. Habitat: N.M.I. (1974: 38-41b).

Entry No. 1. 8 Object Classification: Possible Scrap Hoard.

Illustration: Fig. 4A. Townland: Charleville Demesne. Parish: Lynally. Barony: Bally cowan. County: Offaly. 6” O.S. map sheet: 16, 17. Habitat: N.M.I. (1944: 266-9).

Discovery Circumstances: Found during bulldozing, in surface soil. A large glacial erratic covered the find spot of the hoard. Description (after Eogan 1983 with modifications): The hoard consists of five objects. (1) Fragment of bronze sword (Class 4). Pommel approximately T-shaped, flanged hilt, narrow wings and a tapered blade with a heavy, round midrib. The web is pierced by one rivet-hole placed approximately centrally and there is a single rivet-hole in each wing. The edges of the blade are bevelled. This object is badly bent and in two places cracked. It is heavily patinated all over and in places seriously corroded. Surviving L. 192mm, Max. W. 43mm, Max. T. 10mm. (2) Bronze chisel (?). Portion of bronze wire, square in cross-section. Roughly pointed at one end, splayed at the other to form a small chisel-like head. Max. L. 53mm, Max. T. 3mm, W. of Splayed Edge: 5mm. (3) Bronze ring. Tubular. Defective. Seriously torn and corroded in two places. Originally heavily and evenly patinated, this is now worn off in several places. This artifact seems to have been formed from a single narrow, but thick sheet of bronze, the inner face of which is now seriously corroded. Diam. of ring: 115mm, Diam. of tube: 22mm, T. of metal: 3mm. (4) Head of sunflower pin. Disc from the ornamented face of which springs a solid cone, centrally placed. On the plain face is a low rounded boss from which projects the stump of the shank which is, perhaps, cast on. The decoration consists of a pair of grooves defining the edge of the disc and concentric with it, and six similar grooves outlining the base of the cone. Between these is a broad band filled with incised triangles, every alternate one of which is hatched. Radial scratches occur on the cone. These seem to be modern and penetrate the patina. This artifact is heavily patinated all over and in places there is severe corrosion. There are three cracks in the flat part of the disc, and Eogan deems these to be ancient. Diam. of disc: 65mm, Av. T. of disc at edge: 2mm, H. of cone: 18mm, T. of shank: 4mm. (5) Probable shank of sunflower pin. Portion of bronze wire, roughly round in cross-section, although in places irregularly faceted. Max. L. 49mm, T. 5mm.

Illustration: Fig. 4B. Discovery Circumstances: Acquired by the N.M.I. in 1944 from an antique dealer in Dublin. The group consists of a palstave, a socketed axehead, a socketed sickle and a socketed gouge. They were said to be from "Charleville Forest Estate" near Tullamore, and to have been found around 1860. It was assumed they were found together but the history of the find is not known. The dealer, at any rate, alleged that they had been found together. Description (after Prendergast 1961): This group consists of five objects. (1) Palstave (no. 7 in Fig.). The flanges and stop-ridge, which are wide, forma single unit. The latter has the shape of a small pocket. The butt is somewhat damaged. The cutting edge is convex but not widely splayed. There is no loop. The casting seams have not been rubbed down completely. The only ornament consists of a U-shaped ridge, pendent from the stop-ridge on each broad face. Faulty casting is indicated by the presence on one of the narrow edges of comparatively large flaws. L. 170mm, Max W. 68mm, Max. T. 26mm. (2) Socketed axehead (no. 5 in Fig.). Slender specimen with thin walls. Longitudinal facets produce an octagonal cross-section. The socket mouth is slightly splayed. Below the rim there is a slightly raised broad band immediately below which the loop is placed. The cutting edge is splayed and slightly convex. It appears to have been sharpened. A jagged hole on one side of the socket, coupled with an irregularity of profile at the same place, indicates imperfect casting. Casting seams rubbed down. Max. L. 90mm, Max. W. 52mm. (3) Socketed sickle (no. 4 in Fig.). Mouth of socket ovoid, the two narrow ends being flattened. Internally the socket closes to a point. There are two circular rivet-holes near the rim, the line between them being at right angles to the plane of the implement. From one of the rivet-holes towards the blade the socket is split, due, it seems, to faulty casting. A casting seam is faintly visible on the blade side of the socket. The blade is curved and its 145

Catalogue composition, to his Class 2 by Eogan. Surviving L. 29mm, Max. W. 36mm, Max. T. 9mm. (2) to (4) Long tongue-shaped chapes. Fragmentary but all would appear to have been similar, averaging 380mm in maximum length by about 60mm in greatest width across the mouth. All have slightly sunken mouths. They had originally a lozenge shaped cross-section and each bears a midrib. In addition to these three chapes, which have been partially reconstructed, there are 14 chape fragments. (5) The mouth portion of a socketed axehead. This is circular with an expanding lip and a distinct moulding underneath. Max. ext. diam. of socket: 42mm. (6) Lower portion of socketed axehead. Eogan cites this as a faulty casting which was probably never used. (7) Lower half of a small socketed axehead. (8) Socketed axehead. The mouth is missing and the loop has been broken off. The base of the loop extends around the body for a short distance on both sides. Surviving L. 60mm. (9) Small socketed axehead of very thin metal. The mouth is missing and a plug of wood in the interior may be the remains of the original handle. Surviving H: 42mm. Axes (5) to (9) are of bag-shaped type. (10) to (12) are casting jets. (13) Flat piece of bronze of roughly lozenge shape. The surface appears to have been smoothed down somewhat. (15) and (16) Two pieces of a D-shaped solid rod of bronze. (15) is 49mm long and (16) is 36mm long. (17) This fragment has a hollow bulbous head. Some form of extension at the top has been broken off. Underneath there are two low ridges and the shank tends to be sub-rectangular in cross-section. Eogan cites parallels for this piece in the massive hoard from Isleham, Cambridgeshire. Length: 25mm. (18) Part of a round sectioned bronze rod. Length: 36mm. (19) Piece of bronze, flat at base and with raised ridge in centre of inside rising to a point. Length: 67mm. (20) Bronze fragment with edge too heavy to be part of a chape. (21) Fourteen waste pieces of bronze, including three casting jets. All the above are numbered as listed by Eogan(1983). Day's illustration (1879) shows three undescribed looped and socketed axeheads, all of which are unfinished or defective. One of these, No. 2 in his illustration, is clearly the product of a faulty casting as the loop is blocked with metal and there is much untrimmed flashing.

cross-section is pointed oval. Though now blunted, both edges appear to have originally been sharp. L. of Blade: 83mm, W. of Blade: 23mm, Max. T. of Blade: 6mm, L. of Socket: 63mm. (4) Socketed Gouge (no. 6 in Fig.). Socket round at the mouth, flattening towards the bottom. No rivet holes. There are two short narrow ribs on the inside of the socket and these coalesce at the bottom. The cutting edge is slightly convex. L. 73mm, Diam. of Socket: 18mm. Remarks: As these objects are all unfinished or damaged this may be a founders’ hoard (if it is in fact a hoard). When the residue of the dealers collection was being dispersed after his death in 1959 three socketed spearheads (no.s 1 - 3 in Fig.), labelled "Charleville Forest, Tullamore", were acquired. These may, perhaps constitute part of the same hoard as the former objects. At any rate, one of these spearheads, of peg-hole type (the other two are looped) appears somewhat defective and unfinished. The wide chronological range suggested by this assemblage is unusual but not unparalleled (e.g. Eogan, 1983, no.s 43, 155 & appendix A, no. 17). Publication: Prendergast, E., 1961, 51-5.

Entry No. 1. 9 Object Classification: Scrap Hoard. Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Roscommon. Habitat: Hunt Museum, Limerick. Illustration: Fig. 5. Discovery Circumstances: Day states that this hoard was discovered in the 19th century in county Roscommon, but the exact place of finding is unknown. A considerable number of pieces were originally present, about 200 it is said, weighing in at over 16 lb, according to the same source. What survives was purchased by Day in Mullingar, but as the dealer put what Day considered to be a prohibitive price on the whole hoard he only purchased a number of representative pieces which are largely in fragmentary condition. Day listed 3 imperfect looped and socketed axeheads, "so broken that they were only fit for the melting pot", numerous portions of spearheads, swords and bronze vessels, 5 "massive" pieces of bronze which may have been casting jets or waste pieces, and several portions of bronze scabbards.

Remarks: This hoard, the only indubitable founders hoard in this country, is unique here but can be well paralleled with hoards of the Wilburton / St-Breuc-des Iffes Complex in southern England and north-western France. However, it should be noted that some of the material in the Roscommon hoard is better paralleled in the Wallington tradition of north England of the same period.

Description (after Eogan 1983): (1) Fragment of a sword blade. Cross-section lozenge shaped. Assigned on this basis, as well as general hoard 146

Catalogue At any rate, this hoard is likely to date from the early First Millennium B.C., this period of the Irish Later Bronze Age, the Roscommon Phase, being named after it.

Eogan, G., 1983, 147-8.

Publication: Day, R., 1879-82, 265-6. Eogan, G., 1965, 167-8. Eogan, G., 1983, 47-9.

Entry No. 1. 11* Object Classification: Scrap Hoard. Townland: Ballyvadden. Parish: Kilmuckridge. Barony: Ballaghkeen. County:Wexford. 6” O.S. map sheet: 21. Habitat: N.M.I. (W.9, W.687).

Entry No. 1. 10* Object Classification: Scrap Hoard. Townland: Cooga. Parish: Easky. Barony: Tireragh. County: Sligo. 6” O.S. map sheet: 11, 17. Habitat:N.M.I. (1942: 1873, a-d).

Illustration: Fig. 6B.

Illustration: Fig. 6A, Pl. 1B.

Description (after Eogan 1983 with modifications): The hoard consists of nine bronze objects and the pottery vessel. (1) Looped socketed axehead. Bag shaped. It is very poorly preserved. Nearly all the upper part, the loop and the cutting edge is missing and most of the surface of what survives is corroded. There are two internal casting ridges that seemingly extend almost to the top. (2) Looped socketed axehead. Bag-shaped. Damaged. The lower portion and part of the mouth is missing. and there are some pits in the surface of the surviving parts. A low collar surrounds the neck. The remains of casting seams occur on each side of the body. There are two internal casting seams that extend to about two-thirds of the way up. Max. W. of Socket: 46mm. (3) Socketed gouge. Incomplete. The upper part is missing and the edge has been broken off. Surviving L. 41mm. (4) Socketed knife. Thorndon type. Incomplete. The fragment consists of a small portion of the socket and the adjoining part of the blade. The lower portion of the blade-stump is detached. Surviving L. 35mm. (5) Part of a small plain ring with solid body of rounded cross-section. Max. T. 5mm. (6) Part of a small plain ring with solid body of rounded cross-section. This is badly corroded on one side. It may be part of (5). Max. T. 5mm. (7) Slightly over half a ring with lateral buffer-shaped perforated projection. This is made from bronze cast on a clay core. It is now in two parts. The surviving portion is poorly preserved. Ext. Diam. 32mm. (8) and (9) Two unrecognisable fragments of metal. (10) Pottery vessel. Lower portion only survives. This has a flat base and it is tub-shaped in form. The ware is

Discovery Circumstances: Found about 1849. A pottery vessel acted as a container for the poorly preserved bronze objects. This was discovered about 100 cm below the surface and there was a "flat flag placed over it."

Discovery Circumstances: Found in 1941 under a rock on the site of a cutaway bog during drain-making. Description (after Eogan 1983 with modifications): This hoard consists of four objects. (1) Part of a sword, Probably Class 4, according to Eogan. The surviving portion consists of a much damaged butt and a short length of the adjoining blade. The blade is pointed oval in cross-section and there is a ridge parallel to the damaged edges. L. 109mm. (2) Looped socketed axehead. Bag-shaped. Poorly preserved with loop and cutting edge missing. The lip is bevelled and projects outwards slightly. Immediately underneath a narrow groove occurs and there are two ridges at the bottom of the neck. There is one internal casting ridge. Ext. Diam. of Mouth: 35 by 31mm. (3) Looped socketed axehead. Bag-shaped. In a bad state of preservation and much damaged. The loop, the neck and the adjoining part of the body are missing. The edge is blunt. Over those parts where the thick coat of patination has flaked off a rough surface has been reveald. (4) Bronze plano-convex ingot. Roughly heart-shaped. Bottom surface flat, upper surface convex. Max. L. c. 70mm, Max. W. c. 60mm. Remarks: It might be noted that the shape of the ingot is similar to what we might expect of bronze left to partially cool in Late Bronze Age crucibles such as those from Rathgall, Co.Wicklow, or Dainton, Devon, in England. The damaged nature of the objects, and especially the presence of the ingot suggest that this is a founders hoard. Publication: Eogan, G., 1965, 158. 147

Catalogue serrated and have a single ridge parallel to them. Surviving L. 575mm, Max. W. of Butt: 55mm, Max. W. of Blade: 34mm, T. at that Point: 6mm. (3) Sword, Class 5. The tips of the 'ears' of the terminals are now broken off, but there was originally a rivet hole in each 'ear'. There are two rivet holes in the tang. the lower one of which retains a rivet 17mm long with sunken heads that have a tiny projection in the centre. There are four rivet holes in the butt, each retaining a similar rivet. The central thickening of the butt continues up the tang as far as the lower rivet in the form of a narrow ridge. There is a deep ricasso and a prominent ridge parallel to the edges. Max. Length: 355mm, L. of Hilt: 111mm, W. of Butt: 59mm, W. of Blade: 35mm. (4) Sword, Class 5. The pointed end of a blade which has a pronounced groove parallel to the edges. The edges are well drawn out but have suffered considerable subsequent damage. Surviving L. 255mm, Max. W. 34mm, Max. T. 7mm.

coarse and it has a number of small grits. It is buffcoloured on the outside and dark on the inside. On the base a channel runs for most of its circumference concentrically with the outer edge and a short distance from it. Surviving Height: 107mm, T. of Walls at Fracture: 14mm, Diam. of Base: 135mm. Remarks: The broken nature of the objects and the presence of two small unidentifiable metal fragments leads to the conclusion that this is most likely a scrap hoard. Publication: Armstrong, W., 1850, 369-70. Wilde, W., 1857, 158. Eogan, G., 1983, 170-1.

Entry No. 1. 12 Remarks: Eogan assigns these to the latter half of the 7th Century B.C. or slightly later. Possibly intended for recycling.

Object Classification: Scrap Hoard. Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Roscommon / Westmeath. Habitat: N.M.I. (W.40, 77, 80, 84).

Publication: Wilde, W., 1861, Nos. 445, 446, 471, 475, 476. Eogan, G., 1965, 40-3. Eogan, G. 1983, 144-5.

Illustration: Fig. 7. Discovery Circumstances: Wilde (1861: 446) states that his No. 77 in the R.I.A. catalogue was "said to have been found with No.s 40, 80 and 84, and several other swords, upon an ancient battlefield near Athlone."

Entry No. 1. 13* Object Classification: Scrap Hoard. Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: N.M.I. (1939: 76-80)

Description (after Eogan 1983): This hoard consists of four artifacts. (1) Sword, Class 5. Both the 'ears' of the terminal are perforated. The tang has three rivet holes, the lower of which retains a rivet, round in cross-section and with sunken heads, which is 16mm long. There are six rivet holes in the butt, five of which retain rivets similar to that in the tang, but decreasing progressively in length from the upper ones which are 12mm long, through the middle pair, which are 10mm long, to the nearest to the tip, which is 7mm long. There is a ricasso. The pointed end of the blade is missing. The surviving portion is now curled back on itself, apparently from the action of intense heat. It averages 6mm in thickness and has a thin distinct ridge parallel to the edges. Surviving L. 111mm, W. of Butt: 59mm. (2) Sword, Class 5. Most of the tang is missing. The butt has six rivet holes, four of which retain rivets with sunken heads. The upper pair of rivets are each approximately 12mm in length, that in the middle is 10mm in length and the lowest is 7mm in length. A ricasso is present. The blade is oval in cross-section and it is bent and curved. The lower portion has been broken off and repaired at a point 70mm from the tip. In places the edges are deeply

Illustration: Pl. 2. Discovery Circumstances: Nothing known. This group of objects were acquired by the National Museum in 1939 as part of the T.A. Glenn collection. The label attached to numbers 1 to 3 has "Founders Hoard, N. Ireland, Featherstown Hall" written on it. The other two objects were without a label, but form, with 1 to 3, part of a group. It is suggested in the acquisition record that they are probably from County Antrim. Description (after Eogan 1983 with modifications): The group consists of five artifacts. (1) Leaf-shaped spearhead with loops on the socket. Poorly preserved. The edges of the blade have been damaged and the tip is missing. A small part of the socket, which continues into the blade to about midpoint, has been broken away at the mouth. The midrib of the blade is angular and it is very prominent. This object has 148

Catalogue Discovery Circumstances: Not known. Came to National Museum as part of the Swan Collection.

a dark patination. Max. L. 180mm, Max. W. of Blade: 29mm. (2) Portion of socket of spearhead. This is circular and tapers from the base to the broken end. The edge of the mouth is bent inwards slightly but this was probably done after the spearhead was discarded. There are two large rivet or peg-holes, one on either side of the socket, the centres of which are about 36mm from the base. These holes average 7mm in diameter and their outer edges project very slightly above the edges of the socket. A short distance up from the broken end and in line with the perforations there are the remains of a mould join. Surviving L. 82mm, Diam. at Break: 22mm, Diam. at Mouth: 27mm, Av. T. of Metal: 2mm. (3) Unlooped palstave. Its butt and most of its septum are broken and missing. The stop-ridge is slightly undercut. The blade has a medium splay and the cutting edge is bevelled. Down the middle of the blade, on both main faces, is a low flat ridge running from the stop-ridge halfway to the bevel. The casting seams are very evident on both sides. Surviving L. 79mm, W. of Cutting Edge: 49mm. (4) Wing-flanged axe. The butt is missing and the cutting edge is blunt. There is a distinctive stop-ridge and at the bottom of each wing the sides curve inwards. Surviving L. 111mm, W. of Cutting Edge: 56mm. (5) Lower part of looped, socketed, bag-shaped axehead. This fragment is in a bad state of preservation. The surface is rough, the cutting edge has been damaged, and most of the loop has been broken off. Internally there is a vertical ridge on each base of the centre. This is flanked on either side by a tiny ridge. L. 49mm, W. of Cutting Edge: 53mm.

Description: Bronze ingot, now broken into two pieces. Oblong with rounded ends. Cross-section plano-convex. Heavily patinated on all surfaces, including the broken surfaces. Max. L. 118mm, Max. W. 30mm, Max. T. 13mm. Remarks: Now on wooden mount. Labelled; "R. Lane Joynt M.D., 84 Harcourt Street, Dublin. Ingot of gold bronze found in Co. Galway. From collection of Canon Ffrench Carlow." Information on Bronze Age ingots in Ireland is poor, where it exists, and especially so for ingots of bronze, as opposed to gold. At any rate, although one obviously cannot be sure, I believe this object to be of Late Bronze Age date, being comparable to other Bronze Age ingots of that period. Publication: None.

Entry No. 2. 2* Object Classification: Copper Wire. Townland: Derrinboy. Parish: Ballyboy. Barony: Ballyboy. County: Offaly. 6” O.S. map sheet: 31. Habitat: N.M.I. (1959: 698).

Remarks: This hoard, if it is indeed so, probably dates to the end of the Middle Bronze Age or the Bishopsland Phase; In general terms, the latter part of the Second Millennium B.C.

Illustration: Fig. 8A. Discovery Circumstances: Found during turf cutting in June 1959. The hoard in which the wire was included was found at a depth of 4 m. below the bog surface. The objects lay closely together and were, apparently, surrounded by the copper wire.

Publication: Eogan, G., 1983, 198-9. Eogan, G., 1964, 289.

Description (after Eogan 1983): Copper wire. Folded into a rough circle and the ends are well overlapped. Of circular cross-section. In places the surface is pitted and uneven. A seam runs along the whole length of the wire, suggesting the possibility of the wire having been made by bending a heated strip over itself and hammering it. There was an ancient crack on this folding seam and this broke through on discovery so that the wire, folded into an open spiral, is now in two pieces. Max. T. 5mm, Diam. of coil: 130 by 120mm.

SECTION 2: RAW METAL & INGOTS. Entry No. 2. 1 Object Classification: Bronze Ingot. Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Galway. Habitat: N.M.I. (E92: 423).

Remarks: Accompanying the wire were two gold ribbed bracelets, two gold tress-rings, and a composite neck-ring of gold wire wrapped around a leather core. The fact that the copper wire was found wrapped about the ornaments suggests some type of ritual use, possibly of a protective nature.

Illustration: Pl. 2B.

149

Catalogue The hoard, and thus the wire, is dated to the Bishopsland Phase.

Entry No. 2. 4 Object Classification: Ingots and Unwrought Bronze.

Publication: Raftery, J., 1961, 55-8. Eogan, G., 1983, 42-3.

Townland: Cullen. Parish: Cullen. Barony: Clanwilliam. County: Tipperary. 6” O.S. map sheet: 58. Habitat: Unknown.

Entry No. 2. 3

Not Illustrated.

Object Classification: Bronze Waste. Discovery Circumstances: During the 18th and 19th Centuries, during the course of turf-cutting and by chance, a large number of gold and bronze antiquities were discovered. While it seems that objects were found throughout the extent of the bog, most appear to have turned up around the centre.

Townland: Doorosheath (Dowris). Parish: Eglish. Barony: Eglish. County: Offaly. 6” O.S. map sheet: 30. Habitat: British Museum.

Description: None. It is unspecified of what metal the ingot(s) consisted, nor how many they were. Wallace records that on July 21, 1753 a man found “a lump of coarse brass, which weighed above a pound, and seemed to have remained in the ladle after casting something.” This sounds as though it may be a plano-convex ingot of the type foung in the Cooga hoard (Entry No. 1. 10). Exactly what type of raw material is implied by “unwrought bronze” is impossible to say. Neither are we told how many pieces of “unwrought bronze” were found.

Illustration: Fig. 8B. Discovery Circumstances: These objects were part of the Dowris hoard, found during the 1820s. This consisted of at least 218 objects including swords, spearheads, socketed axeheads, crotals, and a huge cauldron in which the hoard was supposedly contained. Cooke says the hoard was dug up accidentally by two men trenching potatoes at a place called Dereens, between Whigsborough paddock and Lough Coura. One of the two waste pieces was previously in the possession of the Earl of Mulgrave, and probably the other also was similarly owned.

Remarks: We are not told if the ingot(s) were found in association with the unwrought bronze, or whether either was associated with any of the other numerous Late Bronze Age finds from the bog.

Description (after Eogan 1983): (1) Lump of waste bronze. Features a semi-circular indentation on one side. (2) Lump of waste bronze. There is a smooth depression on one side, but the remainder is extremely uneven.

Publication: Pownall, T., 1775, 355. Wallace, J., 1938, 89-101. Eogan, G., 1983, 154-6.

Remarks: The waste bronze obviously indicates casting activity, and this ties in well with the nature of the Dowris hoard in general, the multiplicities of one type of object giving grounds to regard it as a possible bronze-smith's hoard. On the other hand, this hoard has also been seen as an accumulation of votive deposits in a wet context over time.

SEE ALSO: (a) Roscommon Hoard - Entry No. 1. 9 (Nos. 15, 16, 18,). (b) Cooga, Co. Sligo Hoard - Entry No. 1. 10 (No. 4). (c) Scrap from Site F, Lough Gur - Entry No. 6. 8 (d) Possible ingots from Rathgall, Rath East, Co. Wicklow - Entry No. 6. 13 (e) Bishopsland Hoard - Entry No. 9. 2 (Nos. 19 & 21).

Publication: British Museum, 1920, 106-7. British Museum, 1953, 32. Cooke, T., 1848-50, 423-40. Robinson, T., 1848-50, 237-46. Eogan, G., 1983, 142.

150

Catalogue guess that the other two above fragments are also from such a crucible, though this is not certain. In Appendix 8, Liversage lists results of spectroscopic analysis carried out on a green deposit from crucible fragment 2707 (not described here, but part of the same assemblage). Compositional analysis was as follows:

SECTION 3: CLAY CRUCUBLE REMAINS. Entry No. 3. 1* Object Classification: Clay Crucible Fragments. Townland: Dalkey Island. Parish: Dalkey. Barony: Rathdown. County: Dublin. 6” O.S. map sheet: 23. Habitat: N.M.I. (E46: 1497).

Cu 5-10% P 2-3% Na 1% Fe .5%

Si 10-15% Ca 2-3% Mg 1%

Sn 3-5% Al 1-2% Pb .5%

X-ray analysis of this sample showed the presence of both copper and tin oxides. A slag sample from another crucible fragment, 2102, was magnetic and spectrographic analysis showed the main non-ferrous constituents to be:

Illustration: Fig. 9A. Discovery Circumstances: During the excavation in 1959, by Dr. David Liversage, of a habitation site (Site V) situated within a promontory fort, on the north-western end of Dalkey Island.

Cu 5-10% Ca .5%

Description: (1) (E46:1497b) This fragment is probably from a crucible, but the absence of a lip makes it difficult to be certain and it could concievably be a mould fragment. The colour is bright orange on the convex exterior, and brown to grey on the sides and concave interior. Many gritty refractory particles are present on both faces. There appears to be two separate layers of clay, though this is not certain. It seems that some vegetable matter may have been added and is visible in the cracks on the inner face. There are no accretions of metal or slag visible. Max. L. 29mm, Max. W. 39mm, Max. T. 19.5mm. (2) (E46:1497c) This fragment has a similar profile to the above fragment, with a notable thickening of the wall as it becomes the crucible base. It seems more eroded than the former, and what appears to be a rounded lip may, on the other hand, be due to this. The exterior is again bright orange, with slight greying along the edges and an orange/brown interior. It appears to be single layered. There is a possible tiny accretion of metal or slag on the interior, about 10mm down from the lip. It is too small for any positive identification. Max. L. 25mm, Max. W. 23mm, Max. T. 12mm. (3) This fragment (No. 2081 in diagram 2), and (4), appear to be different to the above two examples, which seem to be of a smaller and thinner type of crucible than this example. This fragment would seem to be from a crucible of pointed oval shape (Tylecote’s type J1), such as those found at Rathgall and Dun Aengus. It appears to be from near the pointed end of the crucible and part of the rim is present. I have not seen this fragment myself, but from Liversage’s diagram it would appear to be about 60mm in length. (4) This fragment (No. 2078 in diagram 2) appears to be from the pouring lip of a crucible of pointed oval shape. From Liversage’s drawing it appears to be about 45mm long.

Si 2-4% Pb .04%

P 1% Sn .01%

X-ray analysis of this slag showed it to consist mainly of the iron oxide maghemite. The strange rim section of the crucible fragments in the case of 1 and 2 appears to be the result of erosion and not original. Publication: Liversage, D., 1968, 89-91, 185-6.

Entry No. 3. 2* Object Classification: Crucible fragments. Townland: Kilmurvy. Parish: Inishmore. Barony: Aran. County: Galway. 6” O.S. map sheet: 110. Habitat: Discovery Programme Buildings. Illustration: Fig. 9B. Discovery Circumstances: Found during the 1993 season of excavation by C. Cotter at Dun Aengus stone fort. Cutting 1 ran almost the full length along the inside of the western part of the innermost enclosing wall. In the southern end of this cutting, up against the wall was Hut 1. Two crucible fragments were recovered from the interior of this structure. A hearth was present in the hut and other finds from it included some clay mould fragments, animal bones and coarse pottery. Description: These crucible fragments have a similar shape to the example from Rathgall (Entry No. 21). As far as can be told from the two fragments, this crucible would have been sub-oval in shape with a pointed spout. Also, the similarity occurs in the colour, the Dun Aengus fragments being grey like the above example. From the

Remarks: As fragments 3 and 4 above are from the pointed oval type crucible (Tylecote’s type J1) we might 151

Catalogue Barony: Smallcounty. County; Limerick. 6” O.S. map sheet: 32. Habitat: N.M.I. (E73: 775-7).

diagram the fragments would appear to be about 30mm and 35mm long respectively. Remarks: A subsequent season of excavation at Dun Aengus have recovered a number of other crucible fragments, and some of these bear on their interiors accretions of a red substance similar to that seen on the Rathgall crucible.

Illustration: Fig. 10B. Discovery Circumstances: Found by Ó h-Iceadha during excavation of the wedge-tomb at Lough Gur in 1938. These fragments were from the western portal chamber (see plan). This chamber measured approximately 1.20 m. from north to south. The excavator states that the chamber had an undisturbed fill of small closely packed stones, in the upper layer of which lay two stone slabs.

Publication: Cotter, C., 1995, 1-11.

Entry No. 3. 3 Description: (from acquisition file) Three sherds of pottery vessel, probably crucible. Rather coarse, friable ware. Appears to be poorly fired, greyish brown on the inside, becoming reddish towards the outer surface, which is smooth but cracked. (1) Rim fragment. Of simple moulded shape, increasing in thickness very rapidly. Shape suggests small shallow dish or crucible. Max. L. 30mm, Max. W. 25mm, Max. T. 20mm. (2) & (3) Two small sherds of same ware, as (1), found with it.

Object Classification: Clay Crucible Fragments. Townland: Lough Gur. Parish: Knockainy. Barony: Smallcounty. County: Limerick. 6” O.S. map sheet: 32. Habitat: N.M.I.? Illustration: Fig. 10A. Discovery Circumstances (after Ó Ríordáin 1954): Found during Ó Riordan's excavations at Knockadoon, at Site D, House I, in association with clay and stone mould fragments of Late Bronze Age type.

Remarks: These fragments could not be located for drawing or further examination. Publication: Ó Ríordáin, S. & Ó h-Iceadha, G., 1955, 44.

Description: A large piece (illustrated) and some small fragments of clay crucible were found. All were constituted of the same sandy clay, burnt grey on the surface with a red core, as with the mould fragments from the site. The large piece was evidently derived from a crucible of small capacity which thickened considerably towards the base. The base was much thicker in relation to capacity than is usual with crucibles of the Early Christian Period. A crucible fragment found at Site C at Lough Gur (whereabouts now unknown) was associated with food vessel and Class 2 pottery sherds.

Entry No. 3. 5 Object Classification: Clay crucible fragments. Townland: Eskragh. Parish: Killeeshil. Barony: Dungannon Lower. County: Tyrone. 6” O.S. map sheet: 53. Habitat: Ulster Museum.

Remarks: These fragments could not be located for further examination. The rim section of the illustrated fragment is similar to that of the illustrated fragment from the Lough Gur wedge tomb (Ó Riordan & Ó h-Iceadha, 1955).

Illustration: Fig. 11A.

Object Classification: Clay Crucible Fragments.

Discovery Circumstances: Found during B.B. Williams’ excavations of Crannog structures in Lough Eskragh during November and December, 1973. This site had been known previously and had turned up evidence of bronze casting activity (see Entry No. 6. 11). The crucible and mould fragments found during Williams’ 1973 excavations were from Site B, layers 2 & 3 (see section drawing), mostly from layer 2, which was apparently an occupation surface also containing saddle querns and a bronze ring.

Townland: Lough Gur. Parish: Knockainy.

Description (after Williams 1978): B24 - Possible small fragment of crucible with simple rounded rim and curving

Publication: Ó Ríordáin, S., 1954, 400-1.

Entry No. 3. 4

152

Catalogue Description: Six large sherds fit together to form the major part of a clay crucible. It is essentially of round or oval form, but seems to have formed a pointed spout at one end, although this piece is now missing. The colour of the fabric is mainly light grey, with beige on the external base. Some of the surface, mainly on the exterior, has a shiny, almost glazed appearance. The fabric contains many tiny refractory particles throughout. The rim is of rounded form. As the rim drops into the base it thickens greatly. An unusual feature of this crucible is that it has a base which is almost flat and the rims do not turn inwards or approach each other. The clay appears to be single layered. In one area just inside the rim there is a reddish coloration, possibly vitrified slag. Projected L. c. 109mm, Max. H.: 36mm, Max. W. 82mm, Av. T. of rim: c. 10mm, Av. Base T. c. 15mm.

side. Could possibly otherwise be a fragment of a pouring cup. Fabric contains large grits, max. diameter c. 2mm. The surface is reddish brown in colour, except for that on the inner surface which is burnt dark brown and which also contains dross adhesions. Not illustrated. B25 - Small fragment of crucible with simple rounded rim and steeply curving side. As with the previous fragment, because of its small size an alternative diagnosis as a pouring cup cannot not be totally ruled out. The fabric again contains large grits and has a reddish brown exterior and a dark brown interior. Not illustrated. B26 - Fragment of small hemispherical crucible with simple rounded rim and steeply curving sides. Fabric with grits has reddish brown exterior and dark brown interior with slight dross adhesions. Remarks: Radiocarbon and dendrochronological dating techniques have given a date of about the 13th or12th Century cal. B.C. for Site B where these objects were uncovered. The mould fragments recovered at Lough Eskragh by Collins and Seaby in 1953 were also from the vicinity of Site B. This, along with the presence of two charcoal mounds and a large sandstone boulder which was most likely an anvil stone, strongly suggest that this was primarily an area designated for bronze-smithing.

Remarks: The fabric of this crucible is notably different from the clay mould material from the same site. The shape of the crucible is quite similar to Late Bronze Age examples from Dun Aengus, Aran; Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin; Dainton, Devon, England and possibly the Breiddin, Powys, Wales, all apparently being of Tylecote’s Type J1. Publication: Tylecote, R., 1986, fig. 50, No. 23.

Publication: Williams, B., 1978, 37-48.

Entry No. 3. 7 Entry No. 3. 6*

Object Classification: Clay crucible fragments.

Object Classification: Clay Crucible.

Townland: Johnstown South. Parish: Kilbride. Barony: Arklow. County: Wicklow. 6” O.S. map sheet: 40, 41. Habitat: On-site storage.

Townland: Rath East. Parish: Liscolman. Barony: Shillelagh. County: Wicklow. 6” O.S. map sheet: 37, 42. Habitat: N.M.I. (E84: 5937-9).

Not illustrated. Discovery Circumstances: The construction of the Arklow bypass road led to the discovery of a site at Johnstown South, about 3 km. outside Arklow town on the main Dublin road. Rescue excavation took place here in 1997. The site consisted of a roughly circular loose ring of boulders c.35 metres in diameter. Concentric with this and several metres outside of it were two shallow, closely set ditches with a bank in between them. The interior of the site yielded material from several periods; Neolithic, Early - Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Early Christian and possibly Iron Age. Funerary activity was indicated by several cremation burials (apparently Early to Middle Bronze Age), Large quantities of coarse Late Bronze Age pottery sherds and mould fragments, spreads of metal working slag and a possible furnace hearth. There were also several possible stone hut foundations. The site was tentatively identified by the excavators as a ring cairn (F. & M. Fitzpatrick, pers. comm.).

Illustration: Fig. 11B, Pl. 3. Discovery Circumstances: Found during B. Raftery's excavations at Rathgall hillfort in the 1970s. Immediately outside the inner ditch in the eastern cutting evidence of intensive occupation was found. This consisted of an extensive deposit of dense organic material, black in colour and up to 35 cm deep. Associated with this material were an area of cobbling, a rectangular spread of charcoal hearth, and a considerable number of postholes. These remains represent a timber-built structure of impressive dimensions. More than 2000 fragments of clay moulds were found on the site, and almost without exception they were found in the western part of the house in the immediate vicinity of the cobbling and the hearth. It is reasonable to presume that this crucible was found in this area also. Several bronze objects were found on the site, including a socketed gouge and two possible ingots. 153

Catalogue give a good indication of the different fabrics and the number of vessels present. As no substantial reconstruction of an individual vessel could be achieved in the Johnstown South crucible material, it is not viable to attempt an estimate of bowl capacity. Likewise, it is not possible to be sure of the exact shape of the vessels used. As discussed in this volume (Section 3.3.3), the majority of Irish crucible material can fit comfortably into Tylecote’s J1 classification (Tylecote 1962;1986). This is also the case with most of the contemporary British material. The rim sections of several of the Johnstown South fragments (e.g. F8 and F67) are compatible with a J1 classification, as is the rapid thickening of the wall as it descends from the rim towards the base. Apart from one fragment (F8) featuring a narrow facet which may be due to erosion, the rim sections of the Johnstown South material are all rounded, placing them in class 2 of Needham’s subclassification of the J1 type (1980, 188). No examples of the class1 type, with wide flat rims, have yet been recovered in Ireland. The possible lip fragments and that featuring a foot are also in agreement with placing the Johnstown South crucibles in the J1 group with their pointed-oval body plan. However, several fragments have a section in which the wall thickness appears more or less constant (e.g. F57 and F65), rather than thickening rapidly. This characteristic is shared by single small crucible fragments from Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone (Williams 1978, fig. 8) and Buderop Down, Wiltshire (Gingell 1992, fig. 80). Such small fragments do not present enough evidence for the form of these crucibles to be guessed at. We may nonetheless infer the possibility that more than one form of crucible was utilized at Johnstown South.

Description (after author’s unpublished report on metalworking ceramics from site): Some 25 definite and probable crucible sherds were recovered at Johnstown South. A small number of fragments have part of the rim intact. F8 appears to have a The construction of the Arklow bypass road led to the discovery of a site at Johnstown South, about 3 km. outside Arklow town on the main Dublin road. Rescue excavation took place here in 1997. The site consisted of a roughly circular loose ring of boulders c.35 metres in diameter. Concentric with this and several metres outside of it were two shallow, closely set ditches with a bank in between them. The interior of the site yielded material from several periods; Neolithic, Early - Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Early Christian and possibly Iron Age. Funerary activity was indicated by several cremation burials (apparently Early to Middle Bronze Age), Large quantities of coarse Late Bronze Age pottery sherds and mould fragments, spreads of metal working slag and a possible furnace hearth. There were also several possible stone hut foundations. The site was tentatively identified by the excavators as a ring cairn (F. & M. Fitzpatrick, pers. comm.). rather pointed rim with a narrow, flattish facet sloping slightly downwards to the exterior surface. F67 and F69 bear the well-rounded rim most typical of the other Irish Bronze Age crucible material. The curvature of the inner surfaces of F4, F6 and possibly F 74 suggests they may be from, or adjacent to, a pointed pouring lip of the type seen on other Late Bronze Age crucibles in Ireland and Britain. A number of very thick base sherds are present, most notably F1 and F72, both of which possess smooth, well-preserved convex exteriors while lacking any interior surface. F74, which is heavily eroded, may represent part of a crucible with legs. This fragment appears to feature part of the inner surface of the crucible bowl and part of the side-wall. However, the outer surface does not follow the curve of the interior but continues downwards to form a simple foot, presumably one of several. Despite its poor condition this fragment compares quite favorably with crucibles featuring legs from Dainton, Devon (see Needham 1980, fig. 4) and may represent the first evidence for the use of polypod crucibles in the Irish Bronze Age. Many of the fragments exhibit accretions of a red and/or black substance on their surfaces. There is evidence that relining and hence reuse of crucibles was practiced. Fabric throughout the crucible material is a very fine, dense clay of pink and/or buff colour and containing little visible refractory sand. The exception to this is F60 in which the fabric is notably coarser and less dense, with much refractory sand visible. Several fragments, e.g. F6 and F51, have large inclusions, apparently of burnt stone, present in their fabric. Only two fragments can be shown to join, but on the basis of similarities in fabric and colour several other relationships can be suggested. F4 and F5 are probably from the same vessel as F6 and F7. F1, F72 and possibly F2, F9, F15 and F73 may be from a single vessel also. A third vessel may be represented by F8, F10 and F65.These suggestions are made on the basis of visual examination and only thin-section analysis will

SECTION 4: STONE MOULDS. The moulds listed in this section are divided into four sub-sections on the basis of date. The first sub-section lists five entries- one hoard and four individual finds, dateable to a period between c. 1500 and 1400 B.C., spanning the end of the Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. This period, roughly contemporary with the Arreton Down Tradition in England, has been termed the Derryniggin Phase by Harbison (1969, 82-3), the Inch Island Tradition by Burgess (1980, 122), and the Omagh Phase by Eogan (1993, 94). The latter title is preferred here in the light of the important mould hoard from Omagh. This sub-group of moulds, and the second sub-section (Killymaddy Phase), are not discussed in any detail in the thesis, not being within its chosen dating range, but are included in the catalogue to give a better overview of the evolution of bivalve stone moulding in Ireland. The second sub-section, which contains the vast majority of the Irish stone mould material, deals with the period of the later Middle Bronze Age , c. 1400 to 1200 B.C., 154

Catalogue condition. It has been used for direct casting, as all four matrices are blackened. Two of the mould faces are for casting a thin midrib dagger blade. Location must have been from the sides of the valves which are carefully ground. Pouring for the dagger was from the butt end and no separate cup was used. The other two faces are arranged for casting a bar of circular section, possibly a punch, a flat strip, and an anvil with securing spike. It is difficult to account for the small holes in the matrix for the flat object. These holes do not form a correct register for the strip itself, but it is possible that the holes may have served to take a dowel which could give a register for the two valves of the moulds in a longitudinal direction. Max. L. 158mm, Max. W. 64mm, Max. T (both valves together): 65mm. 3. (1956: 420-1). This stone mould is complete, one side being used for casting a complete socketed spearhead, while the other is for casting a midrib spear blade without socket or other form of attachment. Rectangular in crosssection. The parting faces are truly ground to a good fit, though the stone is now somewhat rough. Used for direct casting, as the matrices are darkened by contact with molten metal. For the midrib spear blade casting took place from the butt-end, for the socketed spearhead from the socket. There is one small cylindrical hole in each socketed spearhead matrix, in the socket area, probably to receive chaplets. Max. L. 280mm, Max. W. 92mm, Max. T (both valves together): 75mm. 4. (1956: 422-3). The matrices for either object, a tanged spearhead and a tanged spearhead or possibly dagger, are on opposing sides of each valve. All parts of both valves have been ground to a fine finish. Blackening indicates direct casting took place. At the pointed ends of the valves small register lines have been scribed into the stone. The tanged spear was poured from the tang end, as indicated by a flared opening at this point. Heat markings indicate that no clay pouring cup was used. Both the previous points are true also for the tanged dagger matrix. Max. L. 245mm, Max. W. 74mm, Max. T.(both valves together): 81mm. 5. (1956: 424). Single valve from either a two or four part mould for casting a socketed, looped spearhead and a pin. In the flat face a normal matrix for casting a pin has been cut out. In the side of the D-section is a matrix for casting the matrix of a looped spearhead. Heat-marking demonstrates use for direct casting. Owing to the peculiar round section it is not possible to tell whether the mould was two or four part, nor how casting was carried out. Max. L. 106mm, Max. W. 34mm, Max. T. 30mm.

termed the Killymaddy Phase (Burgess & Cowen, 1972, 179). There are five hoards attributed to this period along with thirty-three individual finds. The third sub-section, dealing with the moulds of definite Late Bronze Age date (c. 1200 - 600 B.C. ), contains only four moulds. The gradual nature of the change to Late Bronze Age types in the Bishopsland Phase gives rise to problems of assignation with some of the moulds. Because of this, a fourth sub-section has been created to deal with the moulds which could fall on either side of the artificial division between the Middle Bronze Age and the Bishopsland Phase of the Late Bronze Age (in the period c. 1300 - 1100 B.C.). This sub-section contains five moulds. A note should be made here that, as bivalve moulds are being dealt with, where two valves occur matching pair, i.e. where more than one mould is represented. Sub-section 4 (i): Moulds of the Omagh Phase (c.1500 1400 B.C.).

Entry No. 4. 1 Object Classification: Hoard of Stone Moulds. Townland: Omagh. Parish: Drumragh. Barony: Omagh East. County: Tyrone. 6” O.S. map sheet: 35. Habitat: N.M.I. (1956: 416, 417). Illustration: Figs. 12 & 13. Discovery Circumstances: Found near Omagh circa 1882. They were obtained from the finder by one M.J. O’Sullivan, an Inspector of National Schools, in whose care they rested for a prolonged period before acquisition by the National Museum. Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961): This hoard consists of four complete bivalve moulds and one single valve of a bivalve mould (9 valves in all). 1. (1956: 416-7). Complete bivalve mould for casting the socket of a looped spearhead. Originally it was probably well finished, but the surfaces are now rather rough. One half has been damaged by fracture. The cross-section of the moulds is roughly rectangular, except for one edge which is at an angle due to the shape of the stone used. The blackened surfaces of the matrix show that this mould was used. The use of a separate core would have been necessary to achieve a hollow socket. In the socket cavity of each valve there are two cylindrical holes. Max. L. 106mm, Max. W. 78mm, Max. T. (both valves together): 67mm. 2. (1956: 418-9). The mould is complete and in good

Remarks: (1956: 416-7). Coghlan and Raftery suggest the possibility that the objects inserted into the small holes in the valves may have been to create rivet-holes. However, as this is an early type of looped spearhead mould, possibly as early as the start of the Middle Bronze Age, producing a an artifact type not found with rivet-holes in the archaeological record, this is unlikely. Their other suggestion, which is shared by Coffey, that the holes bore chaplets to stabilise the core during casting, is far more convincing. 155

Catalogue Discovery Circumstances: Not Known.

(1956: 418-9). As Coghlan and Raftery note, it is interesting that here is evidence for bivalve mould casting of objects which are often considered to be products of open mould casting.

Description (after Coghlan & Raftery with modifications): Two valves of a stone mould, square in section, with a matrix carved on each of the four faces on both. All are for casting ogival daggers with rounded midrib and grooves parallel to the cutting edges. Three are approximately 390mm in length, while a fourth is about 260mm. On the latter face are also matrices for a short, leaf-shaped tanged blade, possibly a razor, and for a short pin with a flat ornamental head. The ends of the valves are at right angles to their long axes. The matrices are blackened by heat. All the faces were broken to a degree in antiquity, But this, judging by their heat marks at the pouring ends, did not interfere with their continued use for direct casting. All four daggers appear to have been poured from the hilt end, although the three larger examples appear to have carried through to atmosphere at the tip end. The pin and small blade were flat castings, appearing only on one face, with the matching face acting as a capstone. L. 390mm, Max. W. 70mm, Max. T. (both valves together): 60mm.

Publication: Coffey, G., 1907, 181-6. Coghlan, H., & Raftery, J., 1961, 236-8, 241-2. Eogan, G., 1993, 94.

Entry No. 4. 2 Object Classification: Stone Mould for Casting Dirk and other objects. Townland: Broughshane. Parish: Racavan. Barony: Antrim Lower. County: Antrim. 6” O.S. map sheet: 33. Habitat: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (1927: 2828). Illustration: Fig. 14A.

Remarks: The multiple grooves present in the dirk matrices on this mould, as well as the general form and length of the matrices, suggests that the weapons produced in this mould would have been of Burgess’ Group 1, and a date in Harbison’s Derryniggin Phase (Eogan’s Omagh Phase) is therefore likely for this mould.

Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Description (after Burgess & Gerloff 1981): One valve of a bivalve mould for casting, on one side a dirk of Burgess’ Group 1 with trapeze butt, rounded midrib and one lateral groove (matrix length c. 165mm). On the other, a trunnion chisel (matrix length c. 69mm), a small flat axe (matrix length c. 38mm) and two segments (or one unfinished segment) of a wide curved band of some sort. The material used was mica slate. Max. L. c. 175mm, Max. W. c. 65mm, Max. T. c. 25mm.

Publication: Coghlan, H & Raftery, J., 1961, 239-40. Burgess, C. & Gerloff, S., 1981, 116.

Entry No. 4. 4* Remarks: None. Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting a spearhead and chisel.

Publication: Evans, J., 1881, 433. Burgess, C., 1968a, 26. Burgess, C., & Gerloff, S., 1981, 116. Eogan, G., 1993, 94.

Townland: Inch Level. Parish: Inch. Barony: Inishowen West. County: Donegal. 6” O.S. map sheet: 38, 47. Habitat: N.M.I. (1926: 4).

Entry No. 4. 3* Illustration: Fig. 14B, Pl. 4. Object Classification: Both valves of bivalve stone mould for casting four dirks.

Discovery Circumstances: Not Known.

Townland: Inchnagree. Parish: Doneraile. Barony: Fermoy. County: Cork. 6” O.S. map sheet: 17. Habitat: N.M.I. (1903: 1,2).

Description (after Coghlan & Raftery with modifications): One valve of bivalve stone mould for casting a looped socketed spearhead and a trunnion chisel. Of rectangular cross-section, but with slightly rounded sides. The matrix for the looped spearhead was well made with the surfaces originally ground smooth. Heat-marking remains on the midrib and edges of the spearhead matrix. At the point of the spearhead matrix a

Illustration: Fig. 15. 156

Catalogue small vent is open to atmosphere. Pouring was from the socket end. The wide and somewhat flared socket cavity is well-suited for location of a combined socket core and runner. In the reverse face of the valve is cut a simple matrix for a trunnion chisel. This presents no special features and erosion has removed any indication of use. There is no venting to this matrix and the metal was poured directly into the mould from the butt-end. The material appears to be a fine-grained sandstone. Max. L. 147mm, Max. W. 66mm, Max. T. 43mm.

Sub-section 4 (ii): Moulds of the Killymaddy Phase (c. 1400 - 1200 B.C.). Entry No. 4. 6 Object Classification: Hoard of Stone Moulds. Townland: Killymaddy. Parish: Finvoy. Barony: Kilconway. County: Antrim. 6” O.S. map sheet: 21, 22. Habitat: N.M.I.(1911: 73-85).

Remarks: None. Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery J., 1961, 234. Eogan, G., 1993, 94.

Illustration: Figs. 16B, 17 & 18. Discovery Circumstances: Found during December 1910 by a farmer while ploughing. The find spot lay on a ridge overlooking the valley of the Bann river and only a few metres from a stream tributary of that river. Acquired by the National Museum of Ireland in 1911 through Seaton F. Milligan.

Entry No. 4. 5 Object Classification: One valve of a multivalve stone mould for casting socket-looped spearheads and pointed objects.

Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961 with modifications): This hoard consists of three bivalve moulds with both valves represented, three single valves from bivalve moulds and four mould fragments which represent at least two more bivalve moulds (9 valves and 4 fragments altogether). 1. (1911: 73-4) Two valves of a stone mould for casting a socketed spearhead, dirk and pointed object. Complete except for a small section missing from one valve. The parting faces have been accurately ground together, the external surfaces are of good smooth finish and were presumably used for location purposes. The spearhead was of socket looped, ribbed, kite-shaped variety. Casting appears to have been from the socket end. There is a small vent at the tip of the spearhead matrix. The method of core location used is not clear. Unless chaplets were used it is difficult to see how such a long core was centred accurately. The radial grooves, one below and four above the loop, which appear on face 1a only (see diagram) are difficult to account for (see 1911: 75-6). Use for direct casting is suggested by darkening of the matrix. Faces 1c and 2c are for casting a dirk and a small tanged knife. Here the method used for casting both implements is quite clear. The dirk was cast from the point , the knife from the tang end. The tip of the dagger is flared out to provide an ample runner, and the short tang of the knife is of ample section for pouring. The matrix for the tang was cut in the second valve only. In the edge faces 1b and 2b are cut deep, tapering grooves, open, as if for casting purposes, at one end. These grooved edges, if placed edge to edge, have reverse curvature. Hence metal could not be cast in them. This feature is difficult to account for unless these grooves were used as formers for making the clay cores in the socketed spearhead. The material is steatic schist. Max. L. 235mm. 2. (1911: 75-6) Two valves of a stone mould for casting a

Townland: Lough Gur. Parish: Knockainy. Barony: Smallcounty. County: Limerick. 6” O.S. map sheet: 32. Habitat: British Museum(?). Not illustrated. Discovery Circumstances: Not Known. Description: No information is available bar the accompanying illustration in Evans 1881. The mould appears to be part of a two, or less likely four, piece mould for casting spearheads of looped and socketed type and pointed objects. Only two faces are visible in the illustration. Small grooves, probably to hold chaplets, are featured on the two visible matrices for spearheads. These appear to have been cast from the socket end. On one face two pointed blade or knife matrices are present. One of these features grooves for chaplets, suggesting that this probably was a socketed implement. Both these knives or points were cast from the tang end. The following measurements are all approximate. Max. L. c. 160mm, W. c. 50mm, T. c. 50mm. Remarks: None. Publication: Evans, J., 1881, 436. British Museum, 1920, 113.

157

Catalogue probably a pouring runner was cut in the stone. The material used was a fine-grained sandstone. Max. T. c. 40mm. 7. (1911: 82-5) Of these four pieces Coghlan and Raftery only say that they appear to be sections broken off the pointed ends of sickle moulds. The sickles were not of midrib type, such as that cast in Entry No.28, but had flat blades. The sections suggest the fragments were part of bivalve moulds.

looped spearhead and tanged knife. This mould is in good condition and is of high quality. The parting faces have been ground together. The carving of the matrix for the spear(socket-looped with ribbed, kite-shaped blade) is good, but that of the tanged knife is very rough. Two double radial notches are cut in each parting face above the loops. For the tanged knife there is no doubt that the casting was poured through the tang. The irregular shape of the stone would make location for the tanged knife somewhat difficult, although at the tip end guide lines have been scribed in the two valves. In general, blackening of the matrix indicates that the socketed spearhead matrix had been cast into, and the same probably applies for the tanged knife. One valve of the tanged knife mould was blackened, the other bears an incised irregular central groove. The implement cast in this mould would be flat on one side and bear a midrib on the other. The material used was steatic schist. Max. L. 132mm, Max. W. 50mm, Max. T (both valves together): 43mm. 3. (1911: 77) One valve of a bivalve mould for casting a large dagger. Rectangular in cross-section. Much blackened by direct casting. Midrib cavity carried through to atmosphere at the tip, but only as a small vent. Pouring carried out from butt. Heat marking suggests a pouring cup was not used. The material used was a siliceous grit of coarse grain. Max. L. 387mm, Max. W. 68mm, Max. T. 35mm. 4. (1911: 78) Half of bivalve stone mould for casting a socket-looped, ribbed, kite-shaped spearhead, and a small knife. While now in a rough condition, this half mould was originally well-finished. The valve has been much used, as indicated by heavy blackening. The method of core-location is not clear. The heat marking runs the length of the socket and spreads out over the end of the mould, indicating direct pouring around a core located by chaplets, rather than a combined clay core and pouring cup. The absence of a pouring runnel on the face with the matrix for a knife, coupled with the irregular and wide extent of the heat-marking on both sides of the matrix suggest that this stone was used as an open mould. The material used was sandstone. Max. L. 143mm, Max. W. 54mm, Max. T. 41mm. 5. (1911: 79) A heavy, somewhat wedge-shaped block of stone. One broad face is flat and smooth, as if intended to receive a matrix. In the other face a matrix has been cut for a leaf-shaped tanged knife. Blackening of the matrix shows direct casting took place. Pouring was from the tang end. It appears from burning here that no pouring cup was used. The presence of provision for a midrib on the knife suggests that the mould was bivalve. The material used was a fine-grained sandstone. Max. L. 188mm, Max. W. 83mm, Max. T. 50mm. 6. (1911: 80-1) Valves broken and incomplete, but carefully made and finished. The stone has been externally cut and shaped to follow the contours of the sickle so that the mould is as shapely as possible. Heavy burning indicates direct casting. There are no dowel-holes or vents in the parting faces. Pouring was from the haft end of the sickle. Part of the stone here is missing, but

Remarks: In the case of the spearhead moulds (1911: 734 & 75-6) the cavity for the midrib of the socketed spearhead is carried through the end of the valves and it would have been possible to pour the spear from the tip. The function of the radial notches in these moulds is not clear, as they seem rather shallow to serve as prints for core-location. Had bronze wires projecting from the core been used in these grooves, measurement has shown that the wire could not have been of heavier section than .75 to 1mm in diameter. Mechanically speaking, Coghlan and Raftery maintain that such wire would be too thin to give steady core location on pouring, but I would tend to disagree. The absence of heat marking at the mouth of the socket in mould (1911: 75-6), and its presence in the rest of the matrix. could suggest that the mouth of the socket was used for core-location. An objection to this theory is that, cast in this manner, the spearhead would be without a socket projecting below the loops. It is stated that stone tools were recovered along with the moulds, including two sharpening stones roughly 216mm and 87mm in length respectively. Also found was a “stone for hammering or smoothing objects” about 62mm long. Publication: Milligan, S., 1911, 380-4. Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 232-3, 239-41.

Entry No. 4. 7* Object Classification: Hoard of Stone Moulds. Townland: Ballyliffin. Parish: Clonmany. Barony: Inishowen East County: Donegal. 6” O.S. map sheet: 3, 10. Habitat: N.M.I. (S.A.1925: 27-32;1941: 474) & U.M.(Swan Collection). Illustration: Figs. 19, 20 & 21A. Discovery Circumstances: Unearthed by quarrymen while digging the foundations of a house. The hoard seems to have been dispersed at or soon after the time of discovery, as seen from the museum acquisition numbers. Thus, we cannot be sure that the hoard did not contain 158

Catalogue chlorite schist. Valve 1- Max. L. 95mm, Max. W. 57mm, Max. T. 32mm. Valve 2- Max. L. 95mm, Max. W. 55mm, Max. T. 32mm.

other moulds currently of unknown whereabouts. Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961 with modifications): This hoard consists of one bivalve palstave mould, five bivalve moulds without matrices and three single valves from bivalve moulds, also without matrices (15 valves in all). 1. (N.M.I. 1925: 27). Both valves of a mould for casting unlooped palstaves. A well made steatite mould, complete and undamaged. The finish of the mould is good, the parting faces and matrices and matrices being ground smooth. An interesting feature of this mould is that the matrix for the axe blade carried to the edge of the stone so that a slot no less than 4mm in width is left open to atmosphere. Max. L. 102mm, Max. W. 59mm, Max. T(both valves together): 53mm. 2. (N.M.I. 1925: 32). A rough stone of approximately rectangular cross-section, in a rough and uneven condition. Clearly unfinished. A deep but irregular groove has been cut in one face and this groove is carried round the end of the stone. Probably eventually intended to be a mould of some sort. 3. (N.M.I. 1925: 30). Both unfinished valves of a bivalve stone mould, probably for a spearhead. The parting faces have been roughly prepared for grinding, but the faces have not been ground together. Max. L. 126mm and 121mm, Max. W. 35mm, Max. T(both valves together): 57mm. 4. (N.M.I. 1925: 31). Both valves of an unfinished bivalve stone mould. Same as 1925: 30 except that grinding together of the parting faces has commenced, but not been completed. Tip of one valve broken off. 5. (N.M.I. 1925:28). The two valves of a bivalve stone mould. Unfinished. D-shaped in cross-section. The outer surface has been shaped and the parting faces ground together, but no matrix cut. Max. L. 131mm, Max. W. 66mm, Max. T(both valves together): 69mm. 6. (N.M.I. 1925:29). Both valves of a smaller mould. Unfinished. The same remarks as 1925:28 apply. Max. L. 94mm, Max. W. 58mm, Max. T(both valves together): 58mm. Max. L. 142mm, Max. W. 38mm, Max. T. (two valves separately): 22mm and 33mm. 7. (N.M.I. 1941: 474). Incomplete valve of a bivalve mould. One surface is flat and smooth, without matrix. The cross-section is D-shaped. The outer surface has been formed by longitudinal slicing to give irregular facets and, along the centre by transverse cutting. The material used was steatite. Max. L. 153mm, Max. W. 34mm, Max. T. 21mm. 8. (U.M. Swan Collection). One valve from an unfinished bivalve mould. Cross-section D-shaped. The parting face is fairly accurately flattened. The rest of the exterior shows a boat-shape with faceted finish. The material used was greenish-grey chlorite schist. Max. L. 140mm, Max. W. 37mm, Max. T. 28mm. 9. (U.M. Swan Collection). The dimensions of these two valves are so similar that it is almost certain that they were meant as a pair. The parting faces are fairly accurately flattened, though slightly concave on the longer axis. The material used was a pale greenish-grey

Remarks: The unfinished nature of these moulds suggests that they may be the work of a craftsman who specialized in mould manufacture, although it is possible that the bronze-smith also excelled in this craft and carried it out himself. Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 228, 242-3. Collins, A., 1970, 25. Eogan, G., 1993, 95.

Entry No. 4. 8 Object Classification: Hoard of Stone Moulds. Townland: Culfin. Parish: Ballynakill. Barony: Ballynahinch. County: Galway. 6” O.S. map sheet: 10. Habitat: N.M.I. (1942: 1841-3). Illustration: Fig. 21B. Discovery Circumstances: Found together in a quarry. No further information available Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961): This hoard consists of two single valves from bivalve stone spearhead moulds and one single valve from a bivalve flanged and stopridged axe mould. (1942: 1841). The spearhead produced in this mould would have been of kite-shaped, ribbed type with loops on the socket. The loops are semi-circular, with one slightly lower than the other. The mould was broken across at one point and repaired in the museum. The narrow sides are flat, the back convex. The material used was steatite. There was a vent at the point end, but pouring most likely took place from the other end. Max. L. 132mm, Max. W. 43mm, Max. T. 22mm. (1942: 1842). Single valve of mould for casting socketlooped spearhead with ribbed, kite-shaped blade. Loops semi-circular. Two shallow grooves, ending in a point, project at right-angles to the socket. The point end of the mould is missing. Its section is flattened D-shape. Max. L. 120mm, Max. W. 43mm, Max. T. 21mm. (1942: 1843). Single valve with an impression on each side for a flanged, stop-ridged bronze axehead. These two impressions are inverted in relation to one another. In each case there is a triangular ornament pendent from the stop-ridge. On one side this is indicated by incised lines, on the other by a deep triangle. The mould is flat on both broad faces, top and bottom are convex. The narrow sides 159

Catalogue loops at the base of the blade is an uncommon type.

are slightly rounded towards the smaller of the two impressions. Max. L.137mm, Max. W. 63mm, Max. T. 31mm.

Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 235-6. Hodges, H., 1954, 68.

Remarks: None. Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 229, 235.

Entry No. 4. 10 Entry No. 4. 9

Object Classification: Hoard of Stone Moulds.

Object Classification: Hoard of Stone Moulds.

Townland: Sultan. Parish: Termonmaguirk. Barony: Omagh East. County: Tyrone. 6” O.S. map sheet: 27, 28, 36, 37. Habitat: Private Ownership (Mr. Peter Fox, Sultan).

Townland: Toorglas. Parish: Kilcommon. Barony: Erris. County: Mayo. 6” O.S. map sheet: 17. Habitat: N.M.I. (1931: 338-9).

Illustration: Fig. 23. Discovery Circumstances (after Williams 1980): Found as part of a larger hoard of “several dozen moulds” around 1930 by John and Patrick Conway while preparing potato ridges in previously uncultivated ground in Sultan townland. The exact find-spot is no longer known. The whereabouts of the other moulds from this hoard are also unknown. Possibly some of the Middle Bronze Age stone moulds in the Irish collections which are unprovenanced (or provenanced only to Ireland or the North of Ireland) originally constituted part of this hoard.

Illustration: Fig. 22. Discovery Circumstances: Recovered by one Anthony Conmy in clay land while digging for tillage some 30-45 cm under the surface. Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961): This hoard consists of two single valves from bivalve moulds. (1931: 338) Single valve for a spearhead mould of bivalve type. The spearhead is of kite-shaped, basallooped type. The loops have been cut as half-circles across the base of the blade. There is a central midrib on the socket. To each side of the socket and parallel to its long axis there are two short, shallow runnels which are pointed. These project inwards from the base of the valve. The section is D-shaped. The material used was steatite. There is a relatively large opening to atmosphere at the tip of the blade, which could possibly have been used for pouring. The mould does not exhibit evidence of use. Max. L. 178mm, Max. W. 46mm, Max. T. 23mm. (1931: 339). One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting a ribbed, kite-shaped spearhead with loops on the socket and a tanged blade. The spearhead produced in this mould would have a rib along the centre of the socket. As in the case of the accompanying mould valve there are two runnels projecting, not deeply, from the end with the mouth of the socket and parallel to the longer axis. These may possibly have been for keying the two sides of the mould together, but could also have been part of a mechanism for affixing a separate pouring cup. The matrix for tanged blades is 109mm long. The section of the blade was double convex. In this case the raised outline of the implement to be cast is complete all-round, whereas the spearhead matrix is open at both ends and may have been poured through either. There is no evidence of use. The material used was steatite. Max. L. c. 135mm, Max. W. c. 40mm, Max. T. c. 20mm.

Description: Three valves, all of chlorite schist. (1) One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting flanged and stop-ridged axes. The mould has been cut to a boat shape and regular longitudinal facets are visible on the exterior. Cross-section semi-circular. The interior is polished but is marred by striations on the blade face and two minor chips on the registration surface. Max. L. 121mm, Max. T. 28mm. (2) One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting flanged and stop-ridged axes. The polished mould is in poor condition, being broken in two pieces across the casting surface and with two large fragments missing from the registration surface. It has been cut to a boat shape and regular longitudinal facets are visible on the exterior. Cross-section semi-circular. Max. L. 123mm, Max. W. 60mm, Max. T. 31mm. (3) Fragment of one valve of a bivalve mould for casting flanged and stop-ridged axes. The fragment is broken across its casting face and the flanges and stop-ridge are missing. The coarse-grained rock is not highly polished but is accurately shaped. A fragment is broken off the registration surface. The cross-section is semi-circular. Max. L. 77mm, Max. W. 63mm, Max. T. 23mm. Remarks: The chlorite schist of which these moulds are made occurs locally. Publication:

Remarks: The spearhead with kite-shaped blade and 160

Catalogue Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Part of the Knowles Collection.

Williams, B., 1980, 102-3. Eogan, G., 1993, 95.

Description (after Collins 1970): Condition very good. The surfaces are very accurately finished. The exterior shows signs of coarse grinding, with some faceting near the side edges. A small rebate is worked at each side of the matrix at the socket end of the mould. The narrow end of the mould is trimmed to a slightly domed outline. The larger (socket) end is squared off flat. The parting faces are very smooth and accurate. There are no obvious signs of use. The material used was chlorite schist. Max. L. 99mm, Max. W. 50mm, Max. T. 18mm.

Entry No. 4. 11* Object Classification: Both Valves of Bivalve Stone Palstave Mould. Townland: Ballycastle Parish: Ramoan. Barony: Cary. County: Antrim. 6” O.S. map sheet: 8. Habitat: N.M.I. (1859: 140).

Remarks: Pouring was presumably from the socket end.

Illustration: Fig. 24A.

Publication: Hodges, H., 1954, 78. Collins, A., 1970, 34.

Discovery Circumstances: Purchased from one James O'Donnell in 1859, who said it had been "dug up in an old rabbit warren at Ballycastle".

Entry No. 4. 13 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socket-looped spearheads with ribbed, kiteshaped blades.

Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961 with modifications): Sandstone mould for casting a shieldpattern palstave. Well-made, each half being of flattened D-shape in cross-section. The parting faces have been ground together. Some evidence for direct casting of metal remains in the darkening of the stone in the flangecavities. Pouring was from the butt-end of the palstave matrix. There is sufficient space to form the casting without the use of a separate clay pouring cup. Indeed, the curvature and general appearance of the end of the mould rather suggests that a separate pouring cup was not used. The inside face of one valve is slightly fractured. Max. L. 140mm, Max. W. 81mm, Max. T (both valves together): 66mm.

Townland: Rasharkin. Parish: Rasharkin. Barony: Kilconway. County: Antrim. 6” O.S. map sheet: 26. Habitat: U.M. (Knowles Coll. 542. 1924). Illustration: Fig. 24C. Discovery Circumstances (after Collins 1970): Unknown. Part of the Knowles Collection.

Remarks: None. Description: Condition very good, except for slight chip on parting face towards the tip of the spearhead matrix. Cross-section D-shaped. Possibly unfinished, since the parting face is not truly flat. The socket area of the matrix is well finished, but the wings of the blade are rough with striation marks. The outer surface and the ends of the valve show a rough, faceted finish. The method of location of the two valves was presumably by visual registration of the external surfaces. Shallow runnels are cut in the sides of the matrix, perpendicular to the length of the blade. Max. L. 108mm, Max. W. 48mm, Max. T. 34mm.

Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 227.

Entry No. 4. 12 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting (?) socketed chisels. Townland: Mistyburn. Parish: Glenwhirry. Barony: Antrim Lower. County: Antrim. 6” O.S. map sheet: 39. Habitat: U.M. (Knowles Coll. 538, 1924).

Remarks: Pouring may have been intended from the tip of the blade, since it is open at the end of the mould, but the small size of the aperture here makes this seem unlikely. The socket end being a more likely candidate for pouring. Collins suggests the shallow runnels cut in the side of the matrix may be gas vents, but it seems as likely that they served to hold chaplets for keeping the core in place

Illustration: Fig. 24B.

161

Catalogue mould for casting socketed blade, razor and rings.

during pouring.

Townland: (near) Ballymena. Parish: Skerry. Barony: Lower Antrim. County: Antrim. Habitat: U.M. (540-1929).

Publication: Collins, A., 1970, 30.

Illustration: 25 B. Entry No. 4. 14 Discovery Circumstances: Not Known. The provenance of this mould, and that of the following seven with like provenance, should not be taken for granted, as there is a good chance that they were acquired through a dealer in Ballymena and it could well be from anywhere in Ulster.

Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting a palstave and unidentified implement. Townland: Whitepark. Parish: Ballintoy. . Barony: Cary. County: Antrim. 6” O.S. map sheet: 3, 4. Habitat: U.M. (W. Adams Collection) 644. 30

Description (after Collins 1970): A small four-sided mould. This must have been complementary to a similar cut so as to complete the casting space by providing the second valve of a bivalve mould for each object to be cast. Side 1- Razor of Class 1, oval with tang and slight medial thickening. Side 2- Razor of Class 2, very narrow tang, ribbed blade, notched but not pierced. Side 3- Pointed blade, presumably intended to have a hollow socket, as the mould shows lateral grooves for the insertion of chaplets to secure a central core for a hollow casting. Side 4- Four rings, one of which is damaged, and a small oval link. Max. L. c. 70mm, Max. W. c. 35mm, Max. T. c. 25mm.

Illustration: Fig. 25A. Discovery Circumstances: Found "lying on surface on the summit of ridge between stone circle and the causeway end. August 1898. Description (after Collins 1970): One valve of a two part mould for casting, on opposite sides, palstave and unidentified, thin, flat, tapering implement. Condition poor. The end of the mould which included the butt end of the palstave matrix has completely broken off. All the surface of the blade area of the palstave matrix has flaked away. At the lower end a large part of the surface of the mould has split off, following the lamination of the stone. The parting face for the palstave is smooth and true. The hollowed out surfaces of the palstave matrix are not so accurate and show tooling facets and other irregularities due to local hard veins in the rock. On the other side the parting face is much rougher. This, combined with the very shallow matrix in the same face suggests that this face is unfinished. The sides of the block are roughly tooled transversely, to produce a corrugated surface. A slightly greenish discolouration of the palstave matrix seems to indicate that it was used, and the scaling, at least of the blade area, suggests heat damage due to contact with molten metal. The material used was a fine-grained pinkish sandstone containing thin, very hard veins which cut across the bedding plane. Max. L. 140mm, Max. W. 84mm, Max. T. 38mm.

Remarks: None. Publication: Piggott, C., 1946, 141. Hodges, H., 1954, 76. Collins, A., 1970, 32.

Entry No. 4. 16 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socket-looped spearheads with ribbed kiteshaped blades. Townland: (near) Ballymena. Parish: Skerry. Barony: Lower Antrim. County: Antrim. Habitat: U.M. (Knowles Coll. 533. 1924).

Remarks: None.

Illustration: Fig. 25C.

Publication: Collins, A., 1970, 27.

Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. From the Knowles Collection. Description (after Collins 1970): Of D-shaped crosssection. Condition good except for slight damage on parting face near socket mouth. Surfaces are very well

Entry No. 4. 15 Object Classification: One valve of a multi-valve stone 162

Catalogue Barony: Lower Antrim. County: Antrim. Habitat: U.M. (Knowles Collection) 536. 1924.

smoothed and accurately finished. Outer surface slightly faceted. The point of the spearhead matrix stops short of the end of the mould, so pouring must have been from the socket end. Small hollows run perpendicular to the spearhead matrix from between the loops and the blade. There are two notches, one on either side of the socketopening. Casting was from the socket-end. The material used was chlorite schist. Max. L. 129mm, Max. W. 52mm, Max. T. 23mm.

Illustration: Fig. 26B. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Description (after Collins 1970): Condition good except that both ends are missing and the broken socket end has been smoothed by grinding. The outer surface of the valve has been shaped to a rectangular cross-section, tapering boat fashion towards the point. Method of location presumably by visual registration of the outer surfaces. The groove for the fillet on the socket of the spearhead only just reaches the end of the mould at the spear tip. Pouring probably therefore from the socket end. The material used was chlorite schist. Max. L. 175mm, Max. W. 40mm, Max. T. 24mm.

Remarks: Collins claims the small perpendicular hollows referred to above as probable gas-vents, but they could well have been for holding chaplets to secure the core. Alternatively, the two notches on either side of the socket opening could have been to secure a pouring cup or composite pouring cup and core. Publication: Collins, A., 1970, 30.

Remarks: None. Publication: Collins, A., 1970, 27.

Entry No. 4. 17 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socket-looped spearheads. Townland: (near) Ballymena. Parish: Skerry. Barony: Lower Antrim. County: Antrim. Habitat: U.M. (Knowles Coll. 534, 1924).

Entry No. 4. 19 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting a socket looped spearhead and a small wedgeshaped object.

Illustration: Fig. 26A.

Townland: (near) Ballymena. Parish: Skerry. Barony: Lower Antrim. County: Antrim. Habitat: U.M. (Knowles Coll. 535. 1924).

Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Part of the Knowles Collection. Description (after Collins 1970): Cross-section roughly D-shaped. Condition poor. Much abraded along both edges of the parting face and both ends of the mould are worn down. It is impossible to be sure whether pouring was from the point or socket end, as the fillet on the socket continues deeply cut as far as the tip is preserved. The material used was chlorite schist. Max. L. 119mm, Max. W. 44mm, Max. T. 23mm.

Illustration: Fig. 26C. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Description (after Collins 1970): The section varies from D-shaped at the tip end of the spearhead matrix to almost rectangular at the other end. The matrices are on opposing sides of the valve. Condition poor. The tip end has one corner broken off and two mortices have been cut at oblique angles through the loops on the socket, perhaps in recent times. Certainly, this latter feature is one unparalleled in any other Irish mould. Pouring was probably from the socket end of the spearhead matrix, as the fillet on the point of the blade only just reaches the end of the mould. Presumably the other wedge-shaped object (Collins suggests it may have been an ingot) was an 'open' casting, as there is no apparent channel running to it from either end of the mould.

Remarks: None. Publication: Collins, A., 1970, 30.

Entry No. 4. 18 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting looped and socketed spearheads.

Remarks: None. Townland: (near) Ballymena. Parish: Skerry.

Publication: 163

Catalogue blade, the outer being roughly parallel with the blade edge, and the inner converging with the midrib. The material used was a finely grained biotite granite with soft, altered feldspar. Max. L. 68mm, Max. W. 54mm, Max. T. 34mm.

Collins, A., 1970, 30.

Entry No. 4. 20 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socket-looped spearheads.

Remarks: None. Publication: Collins, A., 1970, 27.

Townland: (near) Ballymena. Parish: Skerry. Barony: Lower Antrim. County: Antrim. Habitat: U.M. (Knowles Coll. 537. 1924).

Entry No. 4. 22 Object Classification: Part of one valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socket-looped spearheads.

Illustration: Fig. 27A. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. From Knowles Collection.

Townland: (near) Ballymena. Parish: Skerry. Barony: Lower Antrim. County: Antrim. Habitat: U.M. (Knowles Coll. 539. 1924).

Description (after Collins 1970): Roughly rectangular in cross-section. Condition poor. The mould is rather abraded and there is a chip out of the parting face near the tip. A hole has been drilled at the centre of one of the attachment loops. The outer surface is well smoothed. The tip of the spearhead reaches the end of the mould so either end might have been used for pouring. The material used was chlorite schist. Max. L. 62mm, Max. W. 39mm, Max. T. 14mm.

Illustration: Fig. 27C. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Part of the Knowles Collection. Description (after Collins 1970): This is only a fragment from the socket end of the original valve. The mould would have been a very large example when whole, probably over 200mm long, although this was not necessarily so. What remains of the matrix shows one loop, about half of the socket below the blade, and the lowest extremity of the blade which reaches its angle quickly. The exterior of the mould has been shaped by coarse abrasion. A cross-cut has been carried out through the blade. The material used was chlorite schist. Surviving L. 88mm, Surviving W. 36mm, Max. T. 40mm.

Remarks: The hole drilled in the centre of one of the loops may be in order to allow the insertion of a stone peg or a clay bung to replace the accidentally broken boss at the centre of the loop. Publication: Collins, A., 1970, 30, 32.

Entry No. 4. 21 Remarks: The cross-cut through the blade was apparently carried out using a saw. This is probably attributable to the inquisitive nature of some antiquarian collector.

Object Classification: Portion of one valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting spearheads. Townland: (near) Ballymena. Parish: Skerry. Barony: Lower Antrim. County: Antrim. Habitat: U.M. (Knowles Collection) 543. 1924.

Publication: Collins, A., 1970, 34.

Entry No. 4. 23* Illustration: Fig. 27B. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown.

Object Classification: One valve of a four-valve stone mould for casting spearheads and ? blades.

Description (after Collins 1970): Middle of blade portion only of one valve of a bivalve mould for casting spearheads. Condition of surviving fragment good. Surfaces very smoothly and accurately finished. Outer surfaces of the valve are slightly faceted and striated. The mould shows provision for two ribs on each wing of the

Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Castlerahan. County: Cavan. Habitat: N.M.I. (W.90).

164

Catalogue looped spearhead, a type far less common in Ireland than the kite-shaped type. Greer Ramsey (1995, 53) suggests this spearhead type is a predominantly Middle Bronze Age type.

Illustration: Fig. 28A. Discovery Circumstances: Found in, or at, Lough Ramor. Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961 with modifications): Part of a stone mould for casting two socketed spearheads (ribbed, kite-shaped, socket-looped), a tanged spearhead, and a (?) knife blade. This is a small mould, not of first class workmanship. The matrix for socketed spear (1) shows evidence of heat action. It was cast from the socket end and the tanged spearhead from the tang. The socketed spear has an air vent to atmosphere at its tip. The tanged spear matrix has no vent. The impression at the edge of the valve for a looped socketed spearhead (2) shows that this valve belonged to a four piece mould. The material used was sandstone. Max. L. 81mm, Max. W. 35mm, Max. T. 22mm.

Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 234.

Entry No. 4. 25 Object Description: One valve of bivalve stone spearhead mould. Townland: Maghera. Parish: Inishkeel. Barony: Banagh. County: Donegal. 6” O.S. map sheet: 72, 72, 81, 82. Habitat: N.M.I. (1916: 25).

Remarks: None. Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 233-4.

Illustration: Fig. 28C. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Entry No. 4. 24

Illustration: Fig. 28B.

Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961): One valve of a stone mould for casting a kite-shaped, socket-looped spearhead. This mould is D-shaped in cross-section. There are no special features and the mould conforms to what is normal for this type of implement. The parting faces are ground. There is no visible evidence for direct casting. Pouring was probably from the socket end. At the point of the spear the midrib cavity is carried through to atmosphere. However, the hole so formed is very small, serving only as a vent for air and gases to escape during casting. Max. L. 107mm, Max. W. 33mm, Max. T. 20mm.

Discovery Circumstances: Unknown.

Remarks: None.

Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961): This mould is well made, with all surfaces ground and in excellent condition. It is of rather flattened, D-shaped crosssection. In plan view the stone has been curved neatly to enclose the matrix without waste of material. There is no visible evidence of direct casting. A feature of this mould is that the spear could have been cast from the point, for at the tip of the blade there is a relatively large passage open to atmosphere and this passage has been flared out to a diameter of 6mm to 7mm as if to facilitate pouring. While such a hole is admittedly small to use as a runner it is not impossibly so, in view of the small quantity of material required by the implement. Had pouring from the point end been adopted, registration and fixing of the socket end of the core would be simple to attain. It should also be pointed out, however, that the socket end is well-flared. Max. L. 140mm, Max. Width: 63mm, Max. T. 31mm.

Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 234 - 5.

Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting looped socketed spearheads. Townland: Ballyshannon. Parish: Inishmacsaint. Barony: Tirhugh. County: Donegal. 6” O.S. map sheet: 107. Habitat: N.M.I.(1959: 405).

Entry No. 4. 26 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socket-looped spearheads with kite-shaped blades. Townland: Maghera. Parish: Inishkeel. Barony: Banagh. County: Donegal. 6” O.S. map sheet: 72, 73, 81. Habitat: U.M. (George Raphael Loan Collection). Illustration: Fig. 29A.

Remarks: This is for casting the leaf-shaped socket 165

Catalogue Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Part of the George Raphael Loan Collection. See also Entry No. 36.

Entry No. 4. 28 Object Classification: Both valves of a bivalve stone mould for casting three object types.

Description (after Collins 1970): This valve is of elongated form with a D-shaped cross-section. Condition good apart from alight damage to the socket end. The surfaces are well smoothed and accurate. The outer surface shows faceting. Pouring could have been from either end of the mould, as the tip of the matrix carries through to atmosphere at the point end. A groove in the socket end may have been to help in locating the core during casting. There is no clear evidence that this mould has been used. The material used was chlorite schist. Max. L. 203mm, Max. W. 43mm, Max. T. 29mm.

Townland: Mountrath. Parish: Clonenagh & Clonagheen. Barony: Maryborough West. County: Laois. 6” O.S. map sheet: 17. Habitat: N.M.I. (?). Illustration: Fig. 29C. Discovery Circumstances: Found at Moonbaun Bog. Acquired by the National Museum in 1900.

Remarks: None.

Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961): Both valves of a mould for casting three objects; a looped bronze palstave with side-flanges, stop-ridge and triangular pendent ornament, a long blade of pointed oval crosssection, and a punch-like bar of round section. The material used was of micaceous grit. The section of each valve is D-shaped. The central tongue between the flangedepressions in one valve is partially defective. The matrices are coloured a dark grey through heat. Original finish was probably good, but the stone is now rather rough and pitted. Pouring of the metal was carried out from the butt-end of the mould. It cannot be stated whether any form of clay cup was used to assist pouring, but heat marking of the butt-end of the mould would suggest that none was employed. The stone is worked to form a lead-in for the pouring. Max. L. 146mm, Max. W. 87mm, Max. T. (of each valve separately): 61mm.

Publication: Collins, A. 1970, 32.

Entry No. 4. 27* Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting palstaves. Townland: Dromore. Parish: Warrenpoint. Barony: Upper Iveagh. County: Down. 6” O.S. map sheet: 51, 54. Habitat: N.M.I. (1876:1257). Illustration: Fig. 29B.

Remarks: The fracture of the tongue referred to was due to the fact that the inner end face of the tongue was undercut. Hence, an axe cast in this mould could not have been removed after solidification without partial removal of the confining pieces of the tongue, hence the fracture.

Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961 with modifications): Below the stop-ridge there is evidence for a raised pendent, triangular ornament. On the lower end of the mould there is an incised circle with well-defined centre point. Whether this is contemporary with the manufacture of the mould and, if so, whether its function was entirely ornamental, cannot be stated. The matrix is unusual. The surfaces have been ground but the work is not of the first quality. Along one flange provision has been made for two loops, one above the other. On the opposite flange a third loop has been cut, but here the stone was broken in antiquity, thereby spoiling the matrix. Below the broken loop there is a deep notch through the parting face. This may be a modern fracture. There is no evidence of use and the material used was steatite. Max. L. 120mm, Max. W. 76mm, Max. T. 40mm.

Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 227.

Entry No 4. 29 Object Classification: Part of one valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting palstaves. Townland: Raheen. Parish: Ballyscaddan. Barony: Coshlea. County: Limerick. 6” O.S. map sheet: 41, 49. Habitat: Hunt Museum, Limerick (E385: 11).

Remarks: None. Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 228.

Illustration: Fig. 30A.

166

Catalogue for casting a miniature adze.

Discovery Circumstances: Found in the Summer of 1986 during rescue excavations of a group of negative stratigraphic features in the path of the Cork-Dublin Gas pipeline. These features, which had all been somewhat truncated during topsoil clearance, consisted of a several roughly linear ditches, a small ring-ditch and a number of pits and hearths (see plan). Two conjoined ditches, F1 and F19, lay at the south-west of the group. Of these F1 was the longer and lay along the northern edge of F19. The fragment of palstave mould was found in the grey/brown silty clay loam which filled F1. Other finds from this ditch were sherds from the rims, sides and bases of four coarse pottery vessels and several decayed fragments of animal bone.

Townland: (near) Dundalk. Parish: Dundalk. Barony: Upper Dundalk. County: Louth. Habitat: N.M.I. (W. 96). Illustration: Fig. 30B. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961): This is one half of a mould for a small adze. It is D-shaped in crosssection. The parting faces are ground to a good finish. The adze must have been cast from the butt-end. From the cutting edge the blade a small vent passage has been provided to atmosphere. The material used was steatite. Max. L. 64mm, Max. W. 16mm, Max. T. 14mm.

Description (after Gowen 1988): Fragment of one valve of a stone mould for producing palstaves. The butt and stopridge part of the matrix are represented. The material used was a fine-grained granite/rhyolite. The crosssection is D-shaped. The exterior surface has been longitudinally faceted and has a smooth polished surface. The break occurs across the deep recess for the stopridge. The mould has apparently been used, as there is a thin deposit on some of the interior surfaces. A groove (5mm wide, 3mm deep) is cut into the exterior surface c. 15mm from the parting faces on both sides. There are also two small indentations on the broken surface(see diagram). Max. L. c. 60mm, Max. W. 51mm, Max. T. 25mm.

Remarks: None. Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 241. Hodges, H., 1954, 66. Entry No. 4. 31 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting looped and socketed spearheads.

Remarks: The longitudinal grooves on this specimen are an unusual feature. The excavator suggests they are decorative, but I feel they are more likely to have served some function, possibly in relation to securing the two valves together for pouring. Also unusual are the two small indentations in the broken end, and I would agree that these may have served to hold some mechanism for sticking the two parts of the valve back together for reuse. Both these features are, to the best of my knowledge, unparallelled on other Irish stone moulds. It is interesting to note that a possible hammerstone was found in the fill of the conjoining ditch, F19, and this recalls the finding of a stone mould, hammerstone and whetstone during excavations at Moylisha wedge-tomb, Co. Wicklow. The hammerstone may have served to cold-work the blades of newly cast palstaves. The excavator at Raheen tentatively dates the mould fragment to the later Early Bronze Age. This seems too early and it seems unlikely that this mould dates to before the developed Middle Bronze Age at the earliest. The coarse pottery from the ditches F1 and F19 seems to be of Late Bronze Age type. The results of radiocarbon samples taken from F19 are presently unavailable.

Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: (probably) Farney. County: Monaghan. Habitat: N.M.I. (1965: 177). Not illustrated. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Bought by the National Museum as part of a lot of 298 objects from the Shirley Collection. Description: There is a flaw in the spearhead matrix where one of the two loops occurs. The valve is semicircular in cross-section, the only flat surface being that in which the matrix occurs. The material used was a chlorite schist and would not have been from the Farney area. Max. L. 150mm, Max. W. 51mm, Max. T. 30mm. Remarks: This valve could not be located in the National Museum for further examination or illustration.

Publication: Gowen, M., 1988, 92-3.

Publication: None.

Entry No. 4. 30

Entry No. 4. 32

Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould

Object Classification: Part of one valve of a bivalve stone 167

Catalogue (Leaba na Sídh). The valves were found close together at the base of the cairn, just outside the east end of the wedge tomb itself (see plan). Dimensions of the mound were roughly 12 m X 10.5 m X 1.35 m high. Riley stresses that he considers the position of the moulds to be stratigraphically established and that they could not have attained this position through disturbance.

mould for casting palstaves. Townland: Loughash. Parish: Donaghedy. Barony: Strabane Lower. County: Tyrone. 6” O.S. map sheet: 3, 6. Habitat: Ulster Museum (?).

Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961 with modifications): The spearhead produced in this mould would have been of socket-looped type with kite-shaped blade. A midrib runs along the socket from the tip. The tip and socket are open at their respective ends. The section is roughly rectangular. The valves were found broken but were reassembled in the museum. One is defective towards the tip. There is no clear evidence of use for direct casting. The exit hole of the midrib at the spear point is relatively large. Hence, the casting could have been poured from either the socket end or the point. The material used was aplite. Max. L. 152mm, Max. W. 50mm, Max. T. (both valves together): 67mm.

Illustration: Fig. 31A. Discovery Circumstances: Found in a wedge-tomb in a cairn excavated by O. Davies in July 1938. It was found in Chamber I (see plan). The mould fragment was found wedged among stones sealing off the chamber. It was found at some depth and its arrival in that position was clearly contemporary with the sealing of the cairn. Also wedged among the stones here were three flint flakes, but their relation to the mould, if any, is unspecified. Description (after Davies 1939): This is less than half of one valve of a two-part mould broken crossways. The lower surface and sides have been roughly shaped and smoothed by polishing or cutting. The upper surface is smooth, especially the rims where the mould fitted to its fellow. These are rather higher than the centre, showing that the tool was cast with a thick blade and hammered out, which also caused the splay. The centre is fairly level, so the tool did not thicken towards the middle. The depth of the wings is 12mm, the width of the casting at the blade 24mm, at the break 26mm. The mould does not look burnt, and probably has not been in contact with molten metal. The stone is a hydrolized dolerite. It is rotten and could have been broken during manufacture.

Remarks: Other finds from this cairn include stones with adhering slag, a whetstone, and a hammerstone. When the presence of this material and the moulds is taken into account it may be considered as indicating metalworking activity in this area. Two other excavated wedge tombs, Loughash (Entry No. 4. 32) and Lough Gur (Entry No. 4. 50), have also produced stone mould material, most likely of Middle Bronze Age date. The hammer and whetstone at Moylisha came from within the surrounding cairn, while the slag was found both within the cairn (where it was accompanied by a 'white substance') and also elsewhere- on the road leading to the site and in a field wall adjacent to the monument.

Remarks: One of a small number of moulds found in association with a wedge tomb. The others are from Lough Gur, Co. Limerick and Moylisha, Co. Wicklow.

Publication: Ó h-Iceadha, G., 1946, 119-29. Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 238.

Publication: Davies, O., 1939, 254-68.

Entry No. 4. 34* Entry No. 4. 33* Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting looped palstaves and small, wedge-shaped objects.

Object Classification: Both Valves of a bivalve stone mould for casting spearheads.

Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: N.M.I. (P. 438).

Townland: Moylisha. Parish: Moyacomb. Barony: Shillelagh. County: Wicklow. 6” O.S. map sheet: 42, 46. Habitat: N.M.I. (1938: 8572, 8573).

Illustration: Fig. 31C.

Illustration: Fig. 31B, Pl. 5.

Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Provenanced only to Ireland.

Discovery Circumstances: Found during the excavation of a wedge-tomb and its enclosing mound by F.T. Riley in August, 1937. This site is known locally as Labbanasighe

Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961 with 168

Catalogue modifications): While not of first quality, this valve is well made, with ground surfaces. D-shaped in crosssection. The matrix for the palstave is conventional. Casting was most likely from the butt-end of the matrix. A long thin slot, left open to atmosphere, is a notable feature. This slot runs for the complete width of the blade, approximately 55mm and, if the other valve were similar, would be 2mm across. The function of this slot is not clear and it is unlikely that it was for pouring. On the opposite, rounded side of this mould is cut a matrix for a small object, wedge-shaped in plan view, and 45mm in length, with an open end. This matrix is hard to account for, since it is cut in a strongly curved surface which would render closed moulding nigh on impossible, and open mould casting difficult. Max. L. c. 90mm, Max. W. c. 60mm, Max. T. c. 35mm.

Entry No. 4. 37*

Remarks: None.

Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961 with modifications): This valve is well-made and in good condition, except that part of the point end has been broken off. D-shaped in cross-section. No visual evidence of use remains. The mould is curved to a thin section at the socket-end and here there is no obvious provision made for core location or a pouring cup. On the other hand, the midrib passage is deep. Hence, it is quite possible that the method of pouring was from the tip of the spear. The material used was steatite. Surviving L. 129mm, Max. W. 39mm, Max. T. 24mm.

Object Classification: Most of one valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting basal-looped spearheads. Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: N.M.I. (1903: 236). Illustration: Fig. 32B, Pl. 6A. Discovery Circumstances: The only information available regarding this mould is that it came from the 'North of Ireland'.

Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery J., 1961, 230.

Entry No. 4. 35 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone palstave mould.

Remarks: This is the only known Irish mould for casting a leaf-shaped, basal-looped spearhead.

Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: U.M. (Grainger Collection) 3788/11.55.

Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 238. Hodges, H., 1954, 68.

Illustration: Fig. 32A. Discovery Circumstances: Not known. Presumably from the north of Ireland.

Entry No. 4. 38 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socket-looped spearheads and oval razors.

Description (after Collins 1970): Cross-section semicircular. Condition very good apart from break on angle between one wing and the septum. The surfaces show much striation from grinding but have been very accurately finished. The exterior has been regularly faceted to a boat form. Location of the valves was presumably by visual registration of the outer surfaces. There are possible traces of oxidised bronze in the recesses of the wings. Pouring was apparently from the butt end. The material used was chlorite schist. Max. L. 82mm, Max. W. 47mm, Max. T. 23mm.

Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: U.M. (Grainger Coll. 3785 / 654). Illustration: Fig. 32C. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Collins suggests this mould is presumably from the north of Ireland, but this is only on the basis that it now resides in the north of Ireland. Part of the Grainger Collection.

Remarks: None. Publication: Collins, A., 1970, 25, 27.

Description (after Collins 1970): Condition fair. Some minor damage to parting faces near the tip of the spearhead matrix. The surfaces have not been very well smoothed. There are tool facets in the mould matrices and striation produced by grinding on the parting faces. The 169

Catalogue Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Provenanced only to Ireland.

sides have been roughly shaped to a convex outline. There are no obvious traces of use. The spearhead matrix could have been poured from either end. It appears that the razor would have been cast from the tang end. The razor cast in this mould would have been of elongated oval shape with a central midrib. The two matrices are on the opposing broad faces. Max. L. 100mm, Max. W. 35mm, Max. T. 18mm.

Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961): Both valves of a stone mould for casting palstaves. In cross-section the valves are flattened D-shape. The mould is in good condition. The parting faces are accurately ground together. The matrices have not been carefully cut, except for the blade portions. There are many defects and irregularities in these surfaces. Pouring was from the buttend of the palstave. For this ample space is provided by the large rectangular cavity which forms the tongue between the side-flanges. Max. L. 165mm, Max. W. 93mm, Max. T (both valves assembled): 83mm.

Remarks: None. Publication: Collins, A., 1970, 27.

Remarks: According to Coghlan & Raftery, the Leinster granite from which the mould is made occupies part of the eastern marches of Carlow.

Entry No. 4. 39 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting a socket-looped spearhead and an oval razor.

Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 227.

Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: U.M.(George Raphael Loan Collection).

Entry No. 4. 41 Object Classification: Both valves of a bivalve stone mould for casting socket-looped kite-shaped spearheads.

Illustration: Fig. 33A. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Collins suggests Counties Antrim or Derry but gives no reason for this.

Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: N.M.I. (P. 1173, 1174).

Description (after Collins 1970): The two matrices are on opposing broad faces of the valve. Condition of mould poor. Appears to have been water-rolled and then to have suffered further striation. There is no evidence for use of this mould. Location of the valves presumably by visual registration of the outer surfaces. The material used was chlorite schist. Max. L. 87mm, Max. W. 35mm, Max. T. 18mm.

Illustration: Fig. 33C. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Provenanced only to Ireland. Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961): One valve is slightly damaged at the tip of the blade and also at the base of the socket. On the same valve one of the loops is slightly lower than the other. On one valve two short shallow radial grooves project at right-angles to the edge of the socket. The cross-section is D-shaped. The outer surface of the two valves is somewhat irregular and faceted, as if long slivers had been shaved from it. The finish and work are of high quality. The parting faces are ground smooth together. Strong blackening of the matrix indicates use for direct casting. It is to be noted that the midrib channel runs right through at the spear point, leaving a small hole to atmosphere. Max. L. 217mm, Max. W. 60mm, Max. T (both valves together): 89mm.

Remarks: None. Publication: Collins, A., 1970, 27, 30.

Entry No. 4. 40 Object Classification: Both valves of a bivalve stone mould for casting palstaves. Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: N.M.I.?

Remarks: Pouring would appear to have been from the socket end and, unless chaplets were used, it is difficult to see how the core was located. A short bronze wire resting in the radial grooves could have supported the wide end

Illustration: Fig. 33B.

170

Catalogue of the core.

Illustration: Fig. 34B.

Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 238-9.

Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Part of the George Raphael Loan Collection. Collins suggests this mould is most likely from counties Antrim or Derry. Description (after Collins 1970): Condition good, except that the tip of the blade end of the mould is broken off and missing. The surface is fairly well smoothed though traces of grinding striation remain, especially on the parting face and on the socket area. The outer surface is faceted. The cross-section is roughly D-shaped. There are no obvious signs of use of this mould. Registration was presumably by visual registration of the outer surfaces. The material used was chlorite schist. Max. L. 140mm, Max. W. 40mm, Max. T. 23mm.

Entry No. 4. 42 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socket-looped spearheads with ribbed, kiteshaped blades. Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: U.M. (Grainger Coll. 3787 / 6.53).

Remarks: In the absence of the tip area of the matrix it is impossible to tell whether casting would have been possible from that end, but the slight splay on the socket end suggests that end would have been used for pouring.

Illustration: Fig. 34A. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Collins presumes it to be from the north of Ireland.

Publication: Collins, A., 1970, 32, 34.

Description (after Collins 1970): Condition good. The surfaces have been fairly well smoothed, although toolfacets show on both socket and blade portions of the matrix, as well as in the attachment loops. Grinding striations appear on the flat parting face. It is possible, and even likely that pouring was carried out from the tip end, as not only does the point of the matrix carry through to atmosphere, but there is also the half of a cup-shaped depression worked in the end of the mould and centred on the point, which would facilitate the pouring. There are possible traces of oxidised bronze towards the tip of the spearhead matrix, suggesting that the mould has been used. Shallow runnels, to either hold chaplets or to act as gas vents, are present running from between the loops and the blade at a right angle to the length of the blade. The material used was chlorite schist. Max. L. 109mm, Max. W. 43mm, Max. T. 20mm.

Entry No. 4. 44 Object Classification: Tip portion of one valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting spearheads. Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: N.M.I. (1968: 379). Illustration: Fig. 34C, Pl. 6B. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Provenanced only to Ireland. Part of the Salisbury Collection.

Remarks: None.

Description: All valve missing except for small portion from the tip area. As a result of this it is not possible to say what type of spearhead would have been produced in this mould. Portion smooth and well-finished. Crosssection D-shaped. There is a pointed midrib as a continuation of the socket. Two grooves converge on the central one, and would have produced the ribs so common on earlier socket looped spearheads. It is not possible to tell whether the blade was leaf or kite-shaped. Surviving L. 64mm, Max. W. 37mm, Max. T. 15mm.

Publication: Collins, A., 1970, 32.

Entry No. 4. 43 Object Classification: Most of one valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socket-looped spearheads with kite-shaped blades.

Remarks: None.

Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: U.M. (George Raphael Loan Collection).

Publication: 'National Museum of Ireland, 1971, 215.

171

Catalogue Publication: Anonymous, J.R.S.A.I., 7, 1862/3, 307-8. Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 231. Hodges, H., 1954, 70.

Sub-section 4 (iii): Moulds of the Late Bronze Age, (c. 1200 - 600 B.C.).

Entry No. 4. 45* Object Classification: Both valves of a bivalve stone mould for casting looped and socketed axeheads.

Entry No. 4. 46

Townland: (probably) Ballydaw. Parish: Kilmacow. Barony: Iverk. County: Kilkenny. 6” O.S. map sheet: 40, 43.

Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting looped and socketed axeheads. Townland: Fethard. Parish: Fethard. Barony: Shelburne. County: Wexford. 6” O.S. map sheet: 50. Habitat: B.M. 1900. 6-19.1.

Habitat: N.M.I. (1901: 56). Illustration: Fig. 35A, Pls. 7, 8A. Discovery Circumstances: According to the acquisition sheet, in a "bog, about four feet below the surface."

Illustration: Fig. 35B. Discovery Circumstances: Found 'lying upon the surface of some recently broken-up land in a field at Innyard Hill, Fethard, situated between the village and the quay, on property belonging to the Marquis of Ely.' Hodges allocates this mould to Fethard, Co. Tipperary, but in view of the above reference to a quay, Eogan’s preference for Fethard, Co. Wexford, which is a coastal town, seems justified. Also, the Ely family of peers are closely connected with Fethard, Co. Wexford (Burke, 1857, 3701).

Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961 with modifications): The two parts of a heavy stone mould. Each valve is roughly semi-circular in cross-section. In plan the mould is slightly tapered. The stone is now somewhat eroded but the finish was originally good, the matrix and parting faces being accurately ground and the decoration for the axe is cut into the matrix. The decoration consists of six longitudinal ribs terminating in circular pellets. At the socket end of the mould a carefully shaped collar has been worked round the outside of the stone. The purpose of this collar is not obvious, since location dowel-holes are provided. In addition, a circle has been cut on the face of each valve just below and near one corner of the axes cutting edge. The circles fit exactly when the two valves are placed together. Their function is unknown, but they may represent the beginnings of mistakenly placed dowel-holes. Heat marking of the matrices show that the mould has been used for direct casting. The material used was steatite with some quartz inclusions. Max. L. 203mm, Max. W. 105mm, Max. T. (both valves together): 145mm.

Description (after Frazer 1889): Material used was a micaceous sandstone. There would be five longitudinal ribs on the body below the thick collar of the socket on the axehead cast in this mould. About two thirds of the way to the cutting edge each rib is joined to its fellow by a chevron, with pellets at top and bottom of each chevron. There are two loops just below the collar. Above the socket collar there is a V-shaped depression which is probably some part of an arrangement to secure the core in position during casting. No section is provided. Dimensions are reckoned from the drawing. Max. L. c. 100mm, Max. W. c. 60mm.

Remarks: Above the socket flange of the axe a distance of 52mm has been left to serve for core location. This is an unusual feature in Irish stone moulds, as are the location dowels. Because of these abnormalities we might consider that this mould may be an import. Eogan feels that such axeheads, featuring decoration in the form of ribs which terminate in pellets, are of Late Dowris or Halstatt C date. It has been suggested that this may be one of a number of such moulds reintroduced into the eastern part of the country when stone moulding had died out elsewhere (see also Entry No. 62). A similar type of axe to that which would have been produced in this mould was found in the Llyn Fawr hoard in association with Halstatt C type material.

Remarks: This type of double-looped, socketed axehead is very unusual in an insular context. Such axeheads have, however, been found in France and Spain. This mould is, therefore, probably an import, either ancient or as the result of antiquarian collecting activity. Publication: Frazer, W., 1889, 289-91. Hodges, H., 1954, 70.

172

Catalogue surfaces of the matrix and parting faces are much eroded and rounded. In cross-section the mould is D-shaped. The matrix is grooved transversely to give a ridge below the socket collar and a series of seven parallel, longitudinal grooves reproduce the ornament of narrow ridges. In the parting face there is a single hole on one side of the matrix and three smaller ones irregularly disposed on the other side. All the holes are of circular cross-section and tapered longitudinally. Above the socket collar of the axehead there is ample depth to provide for the location of a core. A runner passage feeds into the collar flange of the axe socket. There is no loop apparent. Coghlan & Raftery state that the material used was steatite, but personal examination suggests that the stone type is granite and, at any rate, clearly not steatite. Max. L. 174mm, Max. W. 107mm, Max. T. 56mm.

Entry No. 4. 47* Object Classification: (Plaster-cast of) both valves of a bivalve stone mould for casting leaf-shaped peg-hole spearheads. Find Location: Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh. Illustration: Pl. 8B. Discovery Circumstances: Provenanced to the 'north of Ireland', nothing else is known.

Remarks: The type of axe cast in this mould is hard to identify due to the apparent absence of a loop, although this may be due to erosion. Its longitudinal grooves are more typical of southern British or northern European axeheads of the Late Bronze Age.

Description: A plaster-cast of this mould in the National Museum of Ireland [N.M.I. (1905: 46)] is used for descriptive purposes. There is a small aperture, c.5mm in diameter, at the tip end, and this could possibly have been used for pouring. However, there is a slight slope to the socket end aperture, which suggests this end was probably used for pouring. The matrices have been carefully executed and the external surfaces have been faceted to give a D-shaped cross-section. Hodges states that this mould is of steatite, while Eogan states it to be of chlorite-amphibole- schist. Max. L. 121mm, Max. W. 61mm, Max. T. (both valves together): 42mm.

Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 231.

Sub-section 4 (iv): Moulds of Possible Late Bronze Age Date (c. 1300 - 1100 B.C.).

Remarks: This mould is the only known instance of a stone mould for producing leaf-shaped peg-hole spearheads from Ireland. One might, however, doubt its provenance, given its present habitat and the lack of information pertaining to it.

Entry No. 4. 49* Object Classification: Part of one valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting looped palstaves. Townland: Lough Gur. Parish: Knockainy. Barony: Smallcounty. County: Limerick. 6” O.S. map sheet: 32. Habitat: N.M.I.

Publication: Evans, J., 1881, 435. Hodges, H., 1954, 78.

Entry No.4. 48*

Illustration: Fig. 36B, Pl. 9B.

Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socketed axeheads.

Discovery Circumstances (after Ó Ríordáin 1954 with modifications): Found during Ó Ríordáin's excavations at Knockadoon. From Site D, House I. One fragment was found inside the house, the other outside it to the northeast. Both occurred near the top of the stony deposit under the humus. Also found at House I were clay mould fragments and possible fragments of clay crucible.

Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: N.M.I. (W. 85).

Description: The two fragments join together and form the major portion of one valve of one valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting a looped palstave. It is of fine sandstone. The outer curved surface is polished. The space inside the groove for the loop is broken, and a channel which would have produced a tapering ridge on

Illustration: Fig. 36A, Pl. 9A. Discovery Circumstances: Provenanced only to Ireland. Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961 with modifications): This valve is badly worn by erosion. All 173

Catalogue Remarks: The green adhesions on this mould are unusual, most likely they are cuprous oxide and are related to the use of this mould for casting during antiquity. Radiocarbon dates of 3830 + or - 70 uncal. B.P and 3530 + or - 70 uncal. B.P. were obtained for bone samples from this site, but it should be remembered that no actual stratigraphic association exists between the mould fragment and the wedge-tomb. A hammerstone and whetstones were also recovered from this site and this gives an interesting parallel with the material from Moylisha, Co. Wicklow. Crucible fragments (Cat. 3. 4) found during excavation were, like the whetstones and hammerstone, of unknown whereabouts in the museum. From the diagram by Ó h-Iceadha the crucibles would seem to be of the same type as those from Knockadoon itself (Site D).

the face of the palstave is also damaged on one side. The portion between the channels in which the flanges of the palstave were formed has a series of irregularly parallel grooves scored on the surface. Surviving L. 120mm, Max. W. 78mm, Max. T. 30mm. Remarks: The purpose of the grooves referrred to above was not obvious at first, but subsequent experimentation by O Ríordán revealed it to be in order to hold clay, which the grooves prevented from slipping. An identical piece of clay would have been placed in the other valve. If these pieces had been carved into the stone instead of moulded in clay the tongue area would have had to have been smashed to extract the object cast (see Entry No. 53), due to where the ends of the side recesses of the palstave terminate in pockets which take the ends of the haft. This necessarily causes undercutting, so this expendable part of the mould was made of clay.

Publication: Ó Ríordán, S. & Ó h-Iceadha, G., 1955, 44 - 5.

Publication: Ó Ríordáin, 1954, 401, 403. Hodges, H., 1954, 70. Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 229.

Entry No. 4. 51 Object Classification: One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting unlooped palstaves.

Entry No. 4. 50*

Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: N.M.I. (P. 2).

Object Classification: Portion of one valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting spearheads. Townland: Lough Gur. Parish: Knockainy. Barony: Smallcounty. County: Limerick. 6” O.S. map sheet: 32.

Illustration: Fig. 37B. Discovery Circumstances: Provenanced only to Ireland. Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961): A heavy stone mould of D-shaped cross-section. The side-flanges and stop-ridge form a continuous unit. Below the socket thus formed there is provision for casting a raised, pendent triangular ornament. An unusual feature is the rounded cross-section of the tongue between the flanges. The stone is now somewhat rough, but the parting face and longitudinal sides have been ground. No visible evidence for use, but erosive action upon the stone may well account for this. Pouring of the cast was from the butt-end of the matrix, at which there is ample space. The material used was siliceous grit. Max. L. 143mm, Max. W. 90mm, Max. T. 66mm.

Habitat: N.M.I. (E73: 102). Illustration: Fig. 37A, Pl. 10. Discovery Circumstances: Found by Ó h-Iceadha during his excavations of the wedge tomb at Lough Gur in 1938. This object was found “just under the sod, south of the monument, at a distance of 9 feet (c. 2.6 m.) from the west end of the south wall.” Description (after Ó Ríordáin & Ó h-Iceadha 1955 with modifications): Large fragment of one valve of a stone mould for casting socketed spearheads, apparently with a leaf-shaped blade. Even though the excavators suggest the product of this mould would have been of leaf-shaped peg-hole type it cannot be said whether the spearheads produced in this mould would have been of basal- looped or peghole type, as none of the socket area of the mould is now extant. This mould is rounded and smoothed on the outer surfaces. The original surfaces of the matrix have adhesions of a greenish substance. The stone used is schistose in character. Surviving L. 100mm, Max. W. 65mm, Max. T. 45mm.

Remarks: None. Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 229-30.

Entry No. 4. 52 Object Classification: Both valves of a bivalve stone 174

Catalogue Ireland. This mould and the previous entry have subsequent acquisition numbers and may have been acquired at the same time. They are also both for casting types of object which were current in the transition period between the Middle and Late Bronze Age. Bearing these facts in mind, that these moulds may have been found together and constitute a hoard is a possibility. On the other hand, they may have been part of an antiquarian collection acquired by the museum.

mould for casting a looped palstave and (?) blade. Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: N.M.I. (1882: 89). Illustration: Fig. 38A.

Description: Each valve has two flat sides, into one of which the rapier or dirk matrix was cut, and two sides with convex curves. The blade cast in this mould would have been quite flat, with a central midrib. This is a large and heavy mould. This may well be an unfinished mould, as while the matrix for a rapier has been formed in two faces, the other two faces have been ground together but no matrix cut into them. Also, the mould is far longer than is needed for the rapier matrix. Casting would have been from the tang end of the rapier matrix. The material used is tentatively identified as aplite. Max. L. 513mm, Max. W. 65mm, Max. T (both valves together): 130mm.

Discovery Circumstances: Provenanced only to Ireland. See next entry for comment. Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961): This mould is now in a rough and damaged condition. This damage and erosion make it difficult to judge the original finish, but its appearance and outline suggest a mould of poor quality. In cross-section the valves are roughly rectangular with rounded sides. Below the stop-ridge there is a provision for casting a raised, triangular ornament. There is clear evidence that the palstave was directly cast in the mould since one matrix is much discoloured by the action of heat. Heat marking suggests that pouring was done directly into the butt-end of the matrix. A vent passage appears to have been provided at the centre of the cutting edge of the blade, but this small passage would not have been large enough to serve as a runner. On the other faces matrices have been cut for casting a blade or knife. The matrices become shallower towards the point. Heat-marking clearly shows that direct casting was employed. At the thin end the moulds are not a close fit so that there would have been a considerable vent to atmosphere. The material used was a metamorphic rock rich in chlorite. No further diagnosis could be made without sectioning. Max. L. 170mm, Max. W. 85mm, Max. T (both valves together): 98mm.

Remarks: The rapiers cast in this mould would have been of Burgess’ Group 3. He states that this mould was previously mistaken for a Ballintober type sword. Perhaps, then, this is the mould which Worsaae published in 1877 listed as “ an unusual specimen in that it is for the manufacture of leaf-shaped sword having a plain tang with a central rib” (Hodges, 1954, 70). On the other hand, this mould matrix could hardly be considered to be leafshaped in the understood sense (see diagram). Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 240. Burgess, C. & Gerloff, S., 1981, 116.

Remarks: None. Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 230-1.

Section Five: Bronze Mould. Entry No. 5. 1* Object Classification: One valve of a bronze mould for casting unlooped palstaves.

Entry No. 4. 53* Object Classification: Both valves of a bivalve stone mould for casting rapiers.

Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: N.M.I. (P. 745).

Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. County: Unknown. Habitat: N.M.I. (1882: 88).

Illustration: Pl. 11. Discovery Circumstances: Unknown. Provenanced, somewhat questionably, to Ireland. The N.M.I. register books record that in the year 1800 two bronze moulds for palstaves, both bivalve, were recovered at Deansfield,

Illustration: Fig. 38B. Discovery Circumstances (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961 with modifications): Unknown. Provenanced only to 175

Catalogue from each site have been described, with three exceptions - Dun Aengus, Co. Galway, Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin and Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. On these sites the quantities of clay moulding remains ran into hundreds and, in the case of Rathgall, even thousands. Thus, to describe them all in a work of this limited size is not viable. Therefore a few select representative fragments and those of special technical interest have been chosen from each of these three sites. This section is sub-divided into three parts: 1. Fragments from the moulds themselves, 2. Fragments of clay cores used in casting socketed objects. 3. Fragments from the pouring gates through which the metal was poured into the mould.

near Bangor in north Wales. They eventually found their way onto the market and one valve of each ended up in the N.M.I. and were catalogued in 1905. It is impossible to tell if one of these was the valve discussed here. Another bronze palstave mould, again only a single valve, was also acquired later in the same year and was recorded as “probably from the North of Ireland”, although no reason for this assumption is given. This might also be the mould in question here. Description: This object has a very dark Patination. It has been broken across near the stop-ridge area and glued back together. It is not known whether this break took place in antiquity or during or after its discovery. There are two depressions opposite each other on either side of the matrix parting faces about halfway down the length of the mould. There were probably corresponding protrusions on the other valve which fitted into the depressions to give accurate registration of the two valves. The palstave cast from this mould would have been of the 'Shield-Pattern' type, getting its name from the shield-like decoration between the stop-ridge and the blade area. The exterior surface of the mould is highly pock-marked and there are two notable evenly spaced lumps near the blade end. Max. L. 190mm, Max. W. 88mm, Max. T. 20mm.

Sub-section 6 (i): Clay Mould Fragments. Entry No. 6. 1 Object Classification: Clay mould fragments for casting swords. Townland: Whitepark. Parish: Ballintoy. Barony: Cary. County: Antrim. 6” O.S. map sheet: 3, 4. Habitat: U.M. (643: 1930).

Remarks: It seems highly unlikely that this mould is of Irish origin, as there are no other surviving instances of bronze moulds from this country, and the unprovenanced nature of this find is suspicious. On the other hand, the type of palstave which would have been produced from this mould is well-known from Ireland. Vallancy illustrates a bronze mould for a palstave in his 'Collectanae de Rebus Hibernicis' of 1857 (vol. 4, pl. 10). Of it he says: ".....the moulds are found in our bogs: they are of (sic) brass also, mixed with a greater quantity of iron, or in some manner, tempered much harder than the instruments; half of a mould is represented......it is much burnt by the constant casting of the hot metal." As Hodges points out, although we may safely dismiss the admixture of iron, clearly Vallancy had more than one such bronze mould in mind. So, although on the balance of evidence the manufacture and use of such bronze moulds in Ireland seems unlikely, it cannot be completely ruled out.

Illustration: Fig. 39. Discovery Circumstances: Unassociated finds from among the sandhills at Whitepark Bay. Description (after Eogan 1965): (1) Fragment of mould for casting the terminal end of the tang of a sword. This fragment is well-baked. It is brownish on the outside with a core of greyish material. On the inside a groove runs parallel to the edges. (2) This fragment appears to be in two layers. The outer layer is 15mm in maximum thickness and is yellowish in colour. The inner layer is pinkish in colour and about the same maximum thickness as the outer layer. This fragment is from the tang area of a mould and the surface that came into contact with the metal is dark in colour and may have patches of copper oxide adhering to it. Two locking knobs occur on the surface and a strengthening rod was incorporated in the outer layer. The hole for this is 10mm in diameter. (3) Fragment of mould for casting the butt of a sword. The outer later is brown, the inner grey. (4) Fragment of mould for casting the blade of a sword. The outer layer is red, the inner grey with a smooth dark surface along the area which would have been in contact with the molten metal. There is a D-shaped cavity in the centre of the outer layer. (5) Fragment from the tip end of a sword mould.

Publication: None.

SECTION 6: CLAY MOULDING REMAINS. Material from all Irish assemblages of Late Bronze Age clay mould remains have been included in this section. All fragments in which the matrices were identifiable 176

Catalogue (3) Full width of implement cast 30mm. No measurable flaring of outline. Built up of several layers. Buff outer surface has some grass-like organic impressions. Trench 1, base of layer 6. (3a) Not illustrated. Small fragment 25mm long. Part of raised edge remaining. Trench 1, layer 3. (4) Buff/red mould fragment. Very black inner surface does not penetrate any depth; may be deliberate coating. Line marking edge of blade very little raised. Trench 1, base of layer 6. (5) Very thick fragment. Trench 1, base of layer 6. (6) Small fragment; raised edge of mould missing, inner surface deeply blackened. Trench 1, layer 3. (7) Brick red. Inner surface a thin grey layer; zones of blackening and reddening. Found in resifting excavated material. Trench 1, layers 3 or 6. (7a) Not illustrated. Small featureless fragment. Trench 2, base of layer 6. (8) Fragment from near tip of implement. Zone of blackening penetrates 5mm from inner surface. Fracture has very fine honeycomb, possibly burnt out material. Trench 2, base of layer 6. (8a) Not illustrated. Small scrap. Trench 2, layer 6. (8b) Not illustrated. Small scrap. Trench 2, layer 6. (9) Hard, relatively fine red-brown clay throughout this fragment. Mould edge very low, thin grey inner surface. Surface scored, probably during excavation. Transverse bevel may be original, but grey deposit does not extend across it. Trench 2, layer 2 (near plank in section). (10) Tip of mould. Apparently formed in three stages. Much blackened (see plate 4). Trench 2, base of layer 6. (11) Portion of edge. Outer surface pinkish-buff, remaining 15mm black. Trench 2, layer 3. (12) Very uniform textured sandy mould. Dull red-brown outer surface, dark-grey inner. Somewhat abraded. Trench 2, base of layer 6 (above plank in section). (13) Large portion of mould; width of implement cast 32.5mm. Creamy coloured buff throughout; does not appear to have been used for casting. Possibly a reject. Outer surface has a smooth muddy texture, but irregularities protrude. The broken ends display numerous fine holes as though hairs, mostly running longitudinally, had burnt out. The inner edges have discontinuous traces of finer clay adhering; these are unlikely to be the remains of the inner fine clay mould surface and are better explained by contact between the concave side of the mould and a flat surface of wet clay. The mould surface, which is slightly uneven, is covered by numerous fine grooves. These do not appear to be scratches, and may mark the position of burnt out organic fibres whose existence has been suggested to explain the vesicular appearance of the fractures. These hairs may have helped bind the clay during manufacture and certainly gave the mould a gaseous porosity, useful in casting. It is unlikely that a fine clay inner layer, which bore the pattern, has become detached (Plate 4). Trench 2, layer 3. (14) Very thick fragment, blackened almost throughout. Trench 2, layer 3. (15) Pinkish-buff fragment. Grey smear on inner surface, similar to (9). Extremely vesicular in section. Trench 2, layer 3.

Brownish in colour throughout. (6) Fragment from the butt end of a sword mould. Texture 'corky'. Greyish in colour with a brownish outer layer. (7) May be a fragment of the blade area of a sword mould. It averages 6mm in thickness and is grey in colour. (8) This piece is in such a fragmentary state that it is impossible to know its nature, but it may be part of the butt portion of a sword mould. The inner layer is grey in colour and the surface is smooth. The outer layer is brown in colour. Remarks: In addition to the above sword mould fragments a number of other pieces of clay moulds were discovered at Whitepark Bay. All were found in the sandhills, but no details of associated structures, if any, are recorded. Publication: Eogan, G., 1965, 176-7.

Entry No. 6. 2 Object Classification: Clay mould fragments for sword production. Townland: Tray. Parish: Eglish. Barony: Armagh. County: Armagh. 6” O.S. map sheet: 12. Habitat: Ulster Museum. Illustration: Fig. 40. Discovery Circumstances: Found at the 'King's Stables' (Nat. Grid Ref. J838455), part of the royal complex of Emhain Macha, when this artificial lake was excavated in the Summer of 1975 by C.J. Lynne. Two trenches were dug (see diametrical section), seven fragments coming from layers 3 & 6 in trench 1, the others being from the same layers in trench 2, with an exception from layer 2. Layer 3 was almost pure sandy gravel and layer 6 a clean laminated gravel deposit. Lynne points out that more fragments may have been in the upper mud layers, but would have been missed due to the difficulty of identifying them under the circumstances. Description (after Lynn 1977): (1) Pink and red sandy clay, mould surface blackened, outside surface flakey. Appears to have been formed in at least two stages; outer layers have impressions of burned out grass or hair. Trench 1, base of layer 6. (2) Very smooth mould surface; blackening caused by casting, penetrates body of mould by 3mm. Cleanly made in two phases. Outer surface comparatively coarse. Trench 1, layer 6. 177

Catalogue of two layers of clay, with the outer layer only partially present. The inner layer is finer and less porous than the outer. Both layers contain many fragments of refractory material, probably quartz. This fragment bears the impression for casting the spear's midrib roughly along its centre. Max. L. 29mm, Max. W. 27mm, Max. T. 11mm. 4. (1503: 2). Also from the tip of a spearhead mould. Details as with fragment 1, except that the outer layer is all present. Max. L. 21mm, Max. W. 24mm, Max. T. 12mm. 5. (1504: 1). Fragment of sword mould made from sandy clay and pinkish in colour except for the face of the inner layer which is buff. On the inner surface, just outside the edge of the casting portion, there is a small depression. 6. (1504: 2). Appears to have come from the blade part of a sword mould. 7. (1504: 3). This fragment may have come from just below the butt portion of a sword mould where the central thickening of the sword is usually more pronounced. The fabric originally had bits of plant material which are now carbonised. 8. (1505). Two layered clay mould fragment. Colour brown on outside, beige/orange on edges and grey on matrix surface. Both outer coarse layer and finer inner layer contain minute refractory particles, probably quartz. The matrix is rectangular in plan and almost semi-circular in section. Max. L. 44mm, Max. W. 37mm, Max. T. 17mm. 9. (1507: 1) This mould fragment, for casting a socketed object, consists of two layers. The outer layer is dun in colour, burnt orange at one end, while the inner layer is brown around the edges and burnt grey in the matrix area. Both layers of clay contain numerous highly reflective refractory particles, probably quartz. The inner layer is finer than the outer, though the difference is not so great as in most clay mould fragments seen. The mould may have incorporated a pouring cup, as the burnt orange area appears to have a marked inward slope. Below this the matrix has a rounded curve, suggesting a mould product of cylindrical or sub-cylindrical shape. There is a raised ridge c.14mm wide which drops abruptly by c.2mm at the top of the matrix. This ridge was most likely part of a ‘core-clamp’, suggesting that a socketed object was cast in this mould. Max. L. 55mm, Max. W. 38mm, Max. T. 15mm. 10. (1507: 2) This may belong to the same mould as fragment (1), as it also appears to be from a mould for casting a socketed implement and features the same raised ridge, although it is wider at c.20mm in this fragment. At any rate, they would seem to be both of moulds for casting the same type of object. This fragment is brown externally, fading to beige on the edges and light grey on the matrix surface. It also consists of two layers. Max. L. 32mm, Max. W. 35mm, Max. T. 12mm. All the mould fragments contain grains of quartz, mica, white mica and feldspar in their fabric. 11. (1508: 1). Find No. 2006. Portion of a spearhead mould. It is difficult to tell whether this is one or two layered. The coloration goes from beige on the exterior to orange on the edges, to grey on the matrix surface. There are many refractory particles, probably quartz, present on

Remarks: It is not possible to say how many weapons are represented by the moulds recovered. Certainly none joins, but from the extent of blackening and similarities of texture Lynne suggests that fragments 8, 10, 11 & 14 could belong to the same mould. Possibly also fragments 9 & 15 belong together. Unfortunately, none shows any traces of hilt arrangement or ricasso, so that the type of sword being cast cannot be defined. Publication: Lynn, C., 1977, 42-57.

Entry No. 6. 3* Object Classification: Fragments of clay mould for casting swords. Townland: Dalkey Island. Parish: Dalkey. Barony: Rathdown. County: Dublin. 6” O.S. map sheet: 23 Habitat: N.M.I. (E46: 1502, 1504, 1505, 1507, 1508). Illustration: Fig. 41, Pl. 12. Discovery Circumstances: Found during the excavations, between 1956 and 1959 by Dr. David Liversage, of a habitation site situated within a promontory fort on the north-western end of Dalkey Island(Site V). Description (after Eogan 1965 and Liversage 1968 with modification): 1. (1502: 1). This fragment is from the tip of a spearhead mould, with only about 10mm at the very point absent. It consists of two layers, the outer of which has mostly flaked off. It is brown on the exterior and burnt pale grey on the interior. It bears numerous refractory particles, probably quartz. These moulds were made of locally acquired material. A channel for casting the spear's midrib runs through the centre of the fragment on the matrix side. Max. L. 29mm, Max. W. 28mm, Max. T. 12mm. 2. (1502: 2 & 3). These two fragments fit together and have been glued. Together they form part of a spearhead mould and are from the upper area of the blade, not more than 40 or 50mm from the tip, although it seems unlikely they are from the same mould as fragment 1 due to coloration differences. Again, these pieces consist of two layers of clay, with the inner layer being finer, and both contain numerous refractory particles. The colour changes from dun/brown externally to a dark grey internally. The depression for the spear midrib is present on one edge. Max. L. 51mm, Max. W. 32mm, Max. T. 13mm. 3. (1503: 1). Fragment from the tip of a spearhead mould. Colour changes from brown on the exterior to beige on the edges and grey on the matrix. The fragment consists 178

Catalogue Illustration: Fig. 42A, Pl. 13.

both the exterior and the interior. There is a remnant of the depression for part of the blade and midrib. This piece appears to have been from near the tip of the blade. Max. L. 28mm, Max. W. 25mm, Max. T. 14mm. 12. (1508: 2) This spearhead mould fragment is labelled B 126 (?). It consists of two layers. It has colouration very similar to fragment 1 and has a similar distribution of refractory particles. Part of the blade matrix is represented and the depression for the midrib is quite prominent, coming from closer to the socket than fragment 1 but still quite close to the tip. Max. L. 29mm, Max. W. 23mm, Max. T. 9mm.

Discovery Circumstances: Excavated from what appeared to be a type of ring-barrow by Wakeman. He gives no information about the position of this, or other objects found, including shells, bones and stone gaming pieces, but seems to imply that they accompanied an inhumation of two individuals. Description (after Wakeman 1895 and Eogan 1965 with modification): Wakeman's description lists and illustrates six mould fragments. We are not given any information on consistency or colour. 1 & 2. Would appear to be about 115mm and 100mm long respectively, and are the fragments referred to by Hodges as being for the manufacture of Late Bronze Age leaf-shaped swords . 3. About 85mm long judging by Wakemans drawing, may be a portion of a mould for casting socketed knives. 4. From the tip area of a pointed implement such as a sword, is about 108mm long and is scored with incised lines. 5 & 6. About 100 and 70mm long respectively. These fragments are grooved on one side and may be from a mould for a single bladed implement such as a sickle. Only one of these fragments (1) is now of known whereabouts, in the National Museum. This mould fragment has a strange glassy burnish. The colour varies from reddish-orange externally to a greyish brown internally. Two grades of clay were used; the inner layer being very fine, about one third of which has flaked off this fragment. The outer layer is of far coarser material, appearing to contain many gritty inclusions. This fragment may have held the tip of the sword, although this cannot be said for sure as part of the internal layer is missing from that area. There is a cavity to hold a stiffening rod and this runs very close to the external surface in the outer layer. It does not run to the tip and extends only about half the length of this fragment. The diameter of the stiffening rod is between 9mm and 10mm. Surviving L. 108mm, Max. W. 65mm, Max. T. 28mm.

Remarks: (1504). Apart from the three illustrated examples, which were on display and thus unavailable for measurement, there were a number of pieces which could have come from sword moulds, but due to their small size this cannot be definitely established. The previously noted presence of quartz, mica, white mica and feldspar suggests the moulds were made of locally attained material. (1505). Possibly for producing a socketed hammerhead or gouge. Could also, perhaps, be for casting the tanged part of some type of blade or implement, although the section seems too rounded for this. (1507). The note accompanying these fragments suggests they may have been from a mould for casting socketed hammerheads, though socketed gouges, spearheads, or axeheads seem an equally likely candidate. Liversage suggests the raised ridge around the top area of these fragments may have been to clamp the core of the socketed object in place during pouring, and this seems like a good explanation. He also suggests that the areas where this raised ridge was absent were left as runnels to give access to the molten metal. As with Entry No. 95 these moulds would have been made of locally attained material. Apart from the fragments described here, other valve fragments for socketed axe, socketed knife and sunflower pin were also found on this site (see Liversage, 1968, 89 91), but were on display and not available for examination

Remarks: The strange glassy burnish which covers the exterior of this surviving fragment suggests it experienced far greater temperatures than the 650 degrees Centigrade suggested by some as the temperature to which these moulds were preheated before casting into them. More unusual still, the burnish is most widespread and notable on the outside surface of the fragment, which would not have experienced the intense heat of the molten metal during pouring. It has been suggested to me that a temperature of near 1200 degrees Centigrade would have been required to attain such a burnished finish. Although some objects in the grave assemblage may seem of an earlier period than the mould fragments, such as the shell-beads, and there is a paucity of bronze, only four minute bronze objects being included in the assemblage, nonetheless the mould fragments are of definite Late Bronze Age type. Given the exclusion of excavation data, we should not rule out the possibility

Publication: Liversage, D., 1968, 89-90. Eogan, G.,1965, 177-8.

Entry No. 6. 4* Object Classification: Fragments of clay mould for casting swords and ? knives. Townland: Oldconnaught. Parish: Oldconnaught. Barony: Rathdown. County: Dublin. 6” O.S. map sheet: 26, 28. Habitat:N.M.I.(1902: 23).

179

Catalogue Max. L. 80mm, Max. W. 53mm, Max. T. 24mm. (2) This fragment, from the blade area of a sword mould, consists of the inner layer which is similar to that occuring in the previous example. It also carries a perforation for holding a strengthening rod. The colour of the fabric is beige. Max. L. 62mm, Max. W. 45mm, Max. T. 27mm.

that the mould fragments represent a secondary phase of activity at the site, ante-dating the other, simpler material. A number of hammer-stones were included in the finds and might have been utilized for post-cast work on the swords. Publication: Wakeman, W., 1895, 106-114. Hodges, H., 1954, 62-81. Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 243. Eogan, G., 1965, 178.

Remarks: Because of their similarity these may be part of the same mould. Publication: Plunkett, T., 1899, 89. Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 243. Eogan, G., 1965, 178.

NOTE: The sword mould fragment incorrectly illustrated and listed in Coghlan & Raftery 1961 as the Oldconnaught fragment is, in fact, one of the two clay sword mould fragments from Bohevny, Co.Fermanagh.

Entry No. 6. 6* Entry No. 6. 5*

Object Classification: Clay mould fragments.

Object Classification: Two clay mould fragments for casting swords.

Townland: Kilmurvy. Parish: Inishmore. Barony: Aran. County: Galway. 6” O.S. map sheet: 110. Habitat: Discovery Programme Buildings.

Townland: Bohevny. Parish: Cleenish. Barony: Clanawley. County: Fermanagh. 6” O.S. map sheet: 9 or 26. Habitat: N.M.I. (1902: 24, 25).

Illustration: Figs. 43A, B, C, 44. Discovery Circumstances: Found during the recent excavations at Dun Aengus.

Illustration: Fig. 42B, Pl. 14. Discovery Circumstances: At a meeting of the Royal Society ofAntiquaries of Ireland in 1899 Thomas Plunkett, local secretary of the Society for Co. Fermanagh, exhibited portion of a sword mould which is stated to have been recovered from; “the surface of an ancient crannoge associated with rude huts which were found at depth of 21 feet underneath peat." As Plunkett was exhibiting material from Co. Fermanagh it may be assumed that the mould came from this county too. The place name he gives, Bohovny, does not feature in the townlands register. There are two instances of the townland name Bohevny in Co. Fermanagh; one in the parish of Cleenish in the barony of Clanawly, one in the parish of Inishmacsaint in the barony of Magheraboy. Eogan indicates that in the parish of Cleenish is the one in question (1965, fig. 97).

Description: 1. (2147, 1955 & 1813). Three conjoining fragments. Together they comprise the better part of one valve of a bivalve mould for casting looped and socketed axeheads. Consists of two or possibly three layers of clay. The inner layer is a light grey colour, exceedingly fine in texture with some few very tiny quartzite inclusions. Much of the matrix surface is stained a medium brown, probably from the surrounding earth. The outer layer is of a coarser, buff material which also contains relatively little quartzite. The external surface bears the impressions of what would appear to have been narrow grass blades and also, possibly, of some small stones. The matrix for the axe was approximately 70 - 75mm in length, 45 - 50mm in width at the cutting edge and about 38mm at the socket mouth. The socket had a collar just below the plain socket mouth moulding consisting of a broad band flanked on either side by a narrow band. The loop springs from just below the collar. The axehead produced would have been of 'bag-shaped' type. Max. L. 77mm, Max. W. 63mm, Max. T. 14mm. 2. (663). This fragment, comes from near the blade end of an axe mould and has been sectioned for analysis, the cut being roughly parallel to the socket mouth. The section seems to reveal four distinct layers of clay (see diagram). The innermost and thickest layer is of a deep grey, contrasting greatly with the other layers. It contains in its

Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961 and Eogan 1965 with modifications): (1) Fragment of mould for casting a sword blade near its point. The matrix area of the portion, which would have been in contact with the molten metal, is black and in places possible traces of copper oxide are visible. This fragment consisted of two layers of beige clay. The inner layer is V-shaped in cross-section and a strengthening rod was built into the base of this. The inner layer has a finer consistency than the outer one. Thickness of strengthening rod c. 6-7mm. 180

Catalogue bear the impressions of grass and/or hair. Max. L. 82mm, Max. W. 32mm, Max. T. 17mm. 5. (637). This fragment is probably for producing the head of a sunflower pin, although it could also have produced some type of boss or mount. There are two layers of clay present. The inner layer, which is far thicker than the outer one, is of a fine clay containing very few quartz grits. It is a dull grey colour. The outer layer is coarser, containing more quartz and coarse sand. It is a light beige colour. Both the matrix and the external surface are almost entirely covered in a dark brown coating. The matrix shows part of a circular, slightly conical object with a rib around the edge and a depression for a central boss. Max. L. 22mm, Max. W. 20mm, Max. T. 9mm. 6. (794). This fragment is for part of the blade and midrib portion of a spearhead. It appears to consist of two distinct layers of clay. The inner layer contains some minuscule quartz particles and is a fine clay. Its colour is grey on the matrix fading gradually to a dull beige towards the exterior. The outer layer is a similar colour, but it is of a coarser material and contains larger quartz grits. About half of this layer has spalled off this fragment. Most interestingly, the outer wrap and, in a fainter manner, the inner layer, bear distinct marks of some type of binding material, most likely used to hold the moulds firmly together during casting. There are four distinct marks- two close together, parallel to one another and at right angles to the length of the mould. These are about 3mm apart. Another line runs parallel to these, some 11mm below them. A fourth runs diagonally between the bottom line and the other two. The diameter of the binding would appear to have been between .5mm and 1mm. Max. L. 34mm, Max. W. 26mm, Max. T. 17mm. 7. (194). This fragment is from a sword mould, apparently from a point between the widest part of the blade and the tip. The clay used is fine and sandy with numerous quartz grits. The colour is a dull beige throughout, with a grey patch on the exterior. The matrix shows no visible provision for a midrib and therefore the sword cast in this mould was probably flattened oval in cross-section. The exterior bears a deep imprint of a binding thong, running roughly at a right-angle to the length of the mould. The diameter of the thong would appear to have been about 1mm or slightly over. The binding strip disappears inside the mould, possibly due to further layering, and it is on the basis of this rather than any discernible difference in the clay that a second layer is postulated in the cross-section (see diagram). The exit point of this binding strip is visible on the broken edge of the fragment. The possible mark of another binding runs for a little way along the lower edge of the fragment. Max. L. 26mm, Max. W. 43mm, Max. T. 12mm. (352). Not illustrated. This fragment is from the socket part of a spearhead mould, close to the mouth of the socket. There appears to be two distinct layers of clay. The inner layer is of a fine clay, appearing to contain no significant quartz particles. It is grey on the matrix, fading to a light pink externally. The outer layer is coarser, containing a notable quantity of quartz grit. It is a light

fibre a large amount of quite coarse grit and, in general, the inner layer seems far less fine than in axe mould . The inner layer also contains much coarse sand as well as quartz grains. It is approximately 9mm in thickness. The second layer is very thin, approximately 1 - 2mm at its thickest. It is a very light colour and stands out from the dark grey outer layer and more yellowish third layer. It is hard to tell if this layer contains any substantial inclusions. The one or two that are visible may have been pushed down from the inner layer. The third layer is a dark brown colour which appears to contain much sand. At the contact face this layer seems to turn back and overlap the inner layer(see left hand side of diagram). The fourth, or external, layer seems less dense than the others and is of a beige colour. Its external surface is similar to that on axe mould (2147, 1955 & 1813) and bears one or two impressions of fine grass or coarse hair. It also contains many quartz inclusions. The external surface is stained brown in places. Max. L. 28mm, Max. W. 54mm, Max. T. 17mm. 3. (1926). This fragment is from the socket-mouth area of an axe mould. It appears to consist of two distinct layers. The inner finer layer is grey on the matrix face, fading to a light beige where it joins the outer layer. This outer layer is coarser than the inner one and is a light orange colour. Both layers contain quite few small quartz grits. The portion represented is part of the socket-mouth, collar moulding and side-loop matrix. Part of one of the parting faces is also represented. The area around the mouth of the socket is a more orange colour than the lower section, possibly as a result of contact with the molten metal during pouring. The top of the mould, where the pouring gate would have been cut, appears to have been flattened into what would have been a more-orless horizontal platform which might have served as a steady base for placing of a clay runner cup, if one was used, which is likely but uncertain. Max. L. 34mm, Max. W. 37mm, Max. T. 17mm. 4. (2651 & 2626). These two fragments fit together to form a large part of one valve of a bivalve mould for casting pin shanks. The two fragments appear to have been discovered in different places, or at least not directly adjacent to one another, because they have obviously experienced very different levels of weathering. The fragments are totally different in external colour, although they clearly fit together. The lower fragment bears the unstained colour of the clay, a bright orange tinged pink, due to heavy weathering. The upper fragment bears a green/brown colouration on its matrix surface. The mould was two-layered, but it is now difficult to distinguish the two layers from one another due to weathering. Both layers contain a relatively few minute quartz particles. The composition of the two layers appears to be very similar, although again this appearance may be due to weathering. The parting faces both feature a slight dip between the mould edges and the matrix itself, on either side of which there is a ridge. The edges of the parting faces are not straight and are more in keeping with cutting using a coarse hair, such as a horse hair, than with the use of a blade of some sort. Both the inner and outer surfaces 181

Catalogue face; to the west rock outcrops to a lower level and drops down almost vertically to the level of Site C. Ten clay mould fragments were found at a depth of just outside and to the north of house I.

beige with small orange areas. The socket was probably about 20mm in diameter at this point and must have been close to the mouth. Like two of the above entries this fragment bears marks of external binding. These are on the outer layer only. There are two impressions, not quite parallel to each other (diverging at an angle of about 25 degrees) but both roughly at right angles to the body of the mould. The diameter of the binding in use was between .5 and 1mm. Max. L. 47mm, Max. W. 31mm, Max. T. 13mm.

Description (after Ó Ríordáin 1954): Six of the ten fragments found here fitted together and are illustrated by Ó Ríordáin. They clearly form part of a spearhead mould but, because of their fragmentary condition, it is not possible to say much with certainty of the type of spearhead cast from this mould. Portion of a groove at the lower end suggests that it was a looped variety, and that the loop was placed immediately below the base of the blade or was possibly incorporated in it. The mould consists of two distinct clay layers. The inner layer is a sandy clay baked to a grey colour on the inside where there would have been contact with the metal but the outer layer of the clay, which forms an enclosing envelope, is red and less hard and has broken away from the inner layer in places. The other fragments are of a similar material, one being more rough and gritty; two are evidently portions of spearhead moulds, the curvature of the inner surfaces being such as would agree with that of a spear socket. The others are more doubtful of ascription, but may also have been derived from spearhead moulds. Ó Ríordáin says that as well as this group a few other very small pieces were found, but they are too fragmentary to allow one to decide the type of mould from which they were derived.

Remarks: (2147, 1955 & 1813). Near where the metal was probably poured in, at the socket-mouth, the clay(only the internal layer is extant in this area) is burnt a bright orange/beige. This may well be due to contact with the molten metal during pouring. The colour is comparable to that seen on the possible mould gate fragments from Dalkey Island. The contact faces of the mould appear to be horizontal, although a very slight outward bevel cannot be ruled out. This mould does not, therefore, seem to have been formed in the method described by Stuart Needham for the moulds from Dainton, Devon in England. (1926). Judging by the matrix portion visible in this fragment it seems likely that the parting faces had an outward bevel, as seen on fragments from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow and Dainton, Co. Devon, England. However, as only one of these faces is partially represented in this fragment it is impossible to be certain. (194). What was used to make the binding can only be speculated. The marks left would appear too thin to have been made by rawhide or leather. Perhaps some form of plaited hair, grass or sinew was utilised. It is notable that neither this, nor any other sword mould fragment from Dun Aengus, is there any indication of the use of a strengthening rod of any sort.

Remarks: From looking at the illustration of the six conjoined fragments I would hazard the opinion that the spearhead cast in this mould was of the leaf-shaped socketed type with loops on the socket. An example of a spearhead similar to the type which I believe would have been cast in this mould came from Larkfield, Co. Leitrim (see Ramsey, 1995, 54).

Publication: Cotter, C., 1993, 17, (fragment 194 only).

Publication: Ó Ríordáin, S., 1954, 400-1. Hodges, H., 1954, 79 Eogan, G., 1993, 95. Entry No. 6. 7 Object Classification: Clay fragments of a mould for casting spearheads.

Entry No. 6. 8* Object Classification: Clay mould fragments.

Townland: Lough Gur. Parish: Knockainy. Barony: Smallcounty. County: Limerick. 6” O.S. map sheet: 32. Habitat: N.M.I. (?)

Townland: Lough Gur. Parish: Knockainy. Barony: Smallcounty. County: Limerick. 6” O.S. map sheet: 32. Habitat: N.M.I.

Illustration: Fig. 46A.

Illustration: Fig. 45, Pl. 15.

Discovery Circumstances: Found during Ó Ríordán's excavations at Knockadoon, Site D, which lies in a small and narrow valley east of Site C. The valley is bounded along most of its length on the east by a vertical rock

Discovery Circumstances: (after Ó Ríordáin 1954 with modifications): Found at Site F during Ó Ríordáin's 182

Catalogue T. 20mm. Fragment No. 9- Max. L. 39mm, Max. W. 31mm, Max. T. 17mm. Fragment No. 10- Max. L. 50mm, Max. W. 30mm, Max. T. 15mm. Fragment No. 12- Max. L. 39mm , Max. W. 43mm, Max. T. 16mm. Fragment No. 13- Max. L. 46mm, Max. W. 32mm, Max. T. 14mm. Fragment No. 14- Max. L. 22mm, Max. W. 24mm, Max. T. 12mm. Fragment No. 15- Max. L. 19mm, Max. W. 34mm, Max. T. 14mm. Fragment No. 16- Max. L. 27mm, Max. W. 31mm, Max. T. 12mm. Fragment No. 18- Max. L. 44mm, Max. W. 23mm, Max. T. 13mm. Fragments No. s 11 and 17 are now missing and therefore could not be measured.

excavations at Knockadoon. Under the bank which ran west from the enclosure at Site F, near the eastern end of the bank was a hearth set in a hollow in the earth about 65 cm in diameter and 12 cm deep, in which a number of fragments of clay moulds were found, along with some bronze casting waste. Further cuttings were made in the field bank, and in each of these fragments of clay moulds were found. These fragments were found at all stratigraphic levels in relation to the bank feature, but it was clear that the moulds predated the bank, which was built over some of them. Description: The total number of clay mould fragments found here was about 100, but of these many are small pieces, and often it is impossible to identify the objects cast. The material used is a sandy clay, and the baking has turned this, in the matrix are. , a dark grey, but the outer surface is buff in colour There are generally two layers of clay present, with the outer layer being usually about 3 to 4mm in thickness. This has broken away unevenly in places and reveals the surface of the inner layer beneath it. In the case of the small mould fragments no useful conjecture can be made as to the type of object cast in them. In the larger pieces two types of weaponspearheads and rapiers- can be recognized with a good degree of certainty. That looped spearheads were being cast is shown clearly by No.1, and probably No.s 2 & 3 also (see diagram). Fragment No.s 4, 5 & 6 are pieces from the part of the mould which would have cast the socket. No. 7 comes from the point area of a spear mould, while No. 8 is from the area for casting the blade of a spear of the type in which the portion of the socket which enters the blade has a square cross-section. Provision for casting a narrow flat midrib, such as occurs on many rapiers, is found on three mould fragments- No.s 9, 10 & 11. The latter piece is from the curved portion of a rapier blade near the hilt. No. 12 would have cast the hilt of a rapier with open notches to receive the rivets for holding the grip handle in place. The rapier type cast here was most likely of Burgess & Gerloff’s Group 3. A few examples figured (No.s 13, 14, 15, 16 & 18) are doubtful of purpose, but would agree with spear or rapier moulds. No. 17 would have cast the square end of a flat object, possibly the end of a knife tang. Measurements: Fragment No. 1- Max. L. 34mm, Max. W. 27mm, Max. T. 12mm. Fragment No. 2- Max. L. 30mm, Max. W. 26mm, Max. T. 15mm. Fragment No. 3- Max. L. 23mm, Max. W. 29mm, Max. T. 16mm. Fragment No. 4- Max. L. 28mm, Max. W. 27mm, Max. T. 8mm. Fragment No. 5- Max. L. 27mm, Max. W. 30mm, Max. T. 14mm. Fragment No. 6- Max. L. 43mm, Max. W. 40mm, Max. T. 18mm. Fragment No. 7- Max. L. 45mm, Max. W. 24mm, Max. T. 12mm. Fragment No. 8- Max. L. 92mm, Max. W. 23mm, Max.

Remarks: The bronze casting waste could not be located for examination. Publication: Ó Ríordáin, S., 1954, 418, 420-2. Eogan, G., 1993, 95.

Entry No. 6. 9 Object Classification: Clay mould fragment. Townland: Rathtinaun. Parish: Killaraght. Barony: Coolavin. County: Sligo. 6” O.S. map sheet: 47. Habitat: N.M.I. (E21: 1748). Illustration: Fig. 46B. Discovery Circumstances: Found during Joseph Raftery’s excavations at Crannog 61, Lough Gara. This mould fragment was found at the lowermost Late Bronze Age level, along with a number of other clay mould fragments which were too small for the objects cast in them to be guessed at. Description (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961): Fragment of a clay mould, probably for casting a dagger blade. The mould is of a sandy texture without bonding grits and did not bear an outer clay envelope, at the time of recovery at any rate. The matrix surface is heavily burnt and is black in colour. The external surface is a greyish yellow, while through the section this fragment is red in colour. There is a pronounced groove for the midrib of the dagger. Max. L. 27mm, Max. W. 38mm, Max. T. 10mm. Remarks: This, and other clay mould material from the Lough Gara excavations, is unavailable for study at 183

Catalogue Discovery Circumstances: Found during an inspection of the site by Collins and Seaby in 1953. The level of Lough Eskragh had been considerably lowered by the drawing of water by a textile mill nearby. The fragments were found at what was to be termed Site B by B.B.Williams during excavations at a later date. The finds were adjacent to two heaps of charcoal and a large stone which seemed to have been subjected to hammering. The whole area was supported on timber piling, which consisted mainly of birch timbers topped by brushwood.

present. Publication: Coghlan, H. & Raftery, J., 1961, 244.

Entry No. 6. 10 Object Classification: Two clay mould fragments.

Description (after Collins & Seaby 1960): Several fragments of baked clay moulds. Five of the largest are illustrated. Fragments No.s 1, 2 & 3 are clearly from valves for the production of leaf-shaped swords. Fragment No. 5, by its asymmetrical cross-section, would appear to have been part of a mould for casting a singleedged tool such as a knife or sickle, and the curved groove in fragment No. 4 might lead one to suggest a sickle blade, though this is uncertain. All the fragments illustrated are clearly made of two layers- an inner fine layer bearing the matrix, and a coarser enclosing element. The cavity for a longitudinally inserted wooden stiffening rod of wood can be seen in the sections drawn. In fragment No. 2 a portion of the carbonised rod itself is still in position.

Townland: Killymoon Demesne. Parish: Derryloran. Barony: Dungannon Upper. County: Tyrone. 6” O.S. map sheet: 29, 30, 38, 39. Habitat: Ulster Museum. Not Illustrated. Discovery Circumstances: Found during the 1995 excavations of an enigmatic site consisting of a large spread of ash some 23 by 12 m. and up to 5 cm thick. Its edges were in places lined with stones. Lying on top of the ash were spreads of charcoal and burnt barley. Also present were three mounds consisting of alternate layers of baked clay and charcoal. The clay mould fragments came from the gray ashy soil, which also contained other demonstrably Late Bronze Age material a looped and socketed axe, saddle querns and hammer-stones, as well as a considerable quantity of coarse pottery. More unusual were the gold dress and sleeve fastners recovered from a spoil-heap, which allow a secure Dowris Phase date to be assigned.

Remarks: See next entry (No. 114). Publication: Collins, A. & Seaby, W., 1960, 25-37. Hodges, H., 1954, 62-80.

Entry No. 6. 12 Description: No detailed description or drawings of the two mould fragments are yet available. One is for the casting of stick-pins and seems to consist of most of one valve for such. The other is described as a possible fragment from a spearhead mould and appears to be from the socket part of the mould.

Object Classification: Clay mould fragments. Townland: Eskragh. Parish: Killeeshil. Barony: Dungannon Lower. County: Tyrone. 6” O.S. map sheet: 51. Habitat: Ulster Museum.

Publication: Hurl, D., 1995, 24-7.

Illustration: Fig. 47B. Discovery Circumstances: Found during B.B. Williams’ excavations of Crannog structures in Lough Eskragh during November and December 1973. This site had been known previously and had turned up evidence of bronze casting activity (see previous Entry No. 6. 11). The mould and crucible fragments found during Williams’ 1973 excavations were from Site B, layers 2 & 3 (see section drawing), mostly from layer 2, which was apparently an occupation surface also containing saddle querns and a bronze ring.

Entry No. 6. 11 Object Classification: Clay mould fragments. Townland: Eskragh. Parish: Killeeshil. Barony: Dungannon Lower. County: Tyrone. 6” O.S. map sheet: 53. Habitat: Armagh County Museum. Illustration: Fig. 47A.

Description (after Williams 1978): 12 pieces of baked clay. 184

Catalogue 1. B27 - Fragment of sword mould broken along line of stiffening rod. Consists of a grey coloured, fine-grained micaceous clay forming an inner layer enclosed within a coarse-grained red clay casing. 2. B28 -(not illustrated). Fragment of mould broken along line of stiffening rod. Possibly from sword mould. Consists of grey coloured, fine-grained micaceous clay, 3mm thick, forming a flat inner skin with a bevelled edge, enclosed within a coarse-grained clay casing. Not illustrated. 3. B29 - (not illustrated). Possible sword mould fragment, again broken along line of stiffening rod. Consists of a fine-grained micaceous clay varying in colour from grey to reddish brown, forming a flat inner skin, enclosed within a coarse-grained clay casing. Not illustrated. 4. B30 - Fragment of sword mould broken transversely. Consists of inner skin, 3mm thick, of fine-grained micaceous reddish brown clay which tapers towards the point area of the matrix. The strengthening rod lies directly below the inner skin, set into an outer casing which was applied in two layers at the tapering end, providing reinforcement in this more fragile area. 5. B31 - Fragment of sword mould broken transversely some 100mm above the tip. Consists of inner skin, 3mm thick, of fine-grained reddish brown micaceous clay. A flat topped, raised surface on either side would have been used in registration of the mould valves. A fragment of carbonised stiffening rod is present, set in the outer casing of coarse-grained clay, and the species has been identified as ash. 6. B32 -(not illustrated). Fragment of socketed axe mould, to judge by the curve of the cross-section. Finegrained, reddish brown micaceous clay used throughout, stained grey on the casting surface and raised flat registration ridge due to the heat of the molten metal. Not illustrated. 7. B33 - Fragment of socketed axe mould. Of finegrained reddish brown micaceous clay throughout, stained grey on the casting surface. 8-11. B20 to 23 -(only B22 illustrated). Four tiny fragments of reddish brown fine-grained micaceous clay, of which one, B22, has a simple rounded rim, splayed sides and a flat base. Probably broken pouring gate. 12. B34 -(not illustrated). Fragment of fired, reddish brown clay containing large angular grits. Base oval in plan. On upper surface the stumps of two vertical extensions, now missing, flank a slight depression.

Entry No. 6. 13* Object Classification: Clay mould fragments. Townland: Rath East. Parish: Liscolman. Barony: Shillelagh. County: Wicklow. 6” O.S. map sheet: 37, 42. Habitat: N.M.I. (E84: 1866, 8622). Illustration: Fig. 48, Pls. 16, 17A. Discovery Circumstances: Found during excavations by Barry Raftery at Rathgall hillfort during the 1970s. Immediately inside the inner ditch in the eastern cutting evidence of intensive occupation was discovered. This consisted of an extensive deposit of organic material, black in colour and up to 35 cm deep. Associated with this material was an area of cobbling, a rectangular spread of charcoal which could be best interpreted as a hearth, and a considerable number of postholes. These remains must represent a timber-built structure of impressive dimensions. More than 2000 fragments of clay moulds were recovered and, almost without exception, these were found in the western end of the house structure in the immediate vicinity of the cobbling and hearth. It is reasonable to presume that these mould fragments are from this area of the site. Associated finds included a socketed bronze gouge and several small barsof same which may be ingots. Description: 1. (8622). One practically complete valve of a bivalve clay mould for casting socketed axeheads. There appears to be two distinct clay layers- an inner, thicker layer of fine light grey clay and an outer layer of coarser orangetinged clay which is much thinner. Both layers contain many tiny particles of refractory material. although they appear to be more plentiful on the matrix face. Both the internal and external mould surfaces are slightly firedarkened, probably as a result of casting. The area around the cutting edge and the sides of the axe matrix have a distinct outward bevel. At the butt end of this matrix the walls slope outward slightly and this area, which bears an orange burnt tinge, must have been the end into which the molten metal was poured. Max. L. 72mm, Max. W. 59mm, Max. T. 11mm, W. of matrix at cutting edge: 45mm, W. of matrix at butt: 29mm, Max. L. of matrix: 60mm. 2. (1866). Part of a clay bivalve mould for casting a sword with leaf-shaped blade and a pronounced midrib. This fragment appears to be from just on the point side of the widest part of the blade. The clay is in two distinct layers. The inner layer is of much finer fabric but the two layers are of roughly equal thickness. The colour is beige externally, black/dark grey on the broken edges and a heat produced light orange on the matrix face. There are refractory particles throughout. Both the midrib and the ridges marking the outward bevel of the blade edge are visible. There are many fine, long scores on the fragment,

Remarks: Radiocarbon and dendrochronological dating techniques have given a date of about the 13th or 12th Century B.C. for Site B where these objects were uncovered. The mould fragments recovered by Collins and Seaby in 1953 at Lough Eskragh were also from the vicinity of Site B. This, along with the presence of two charcoal mounds and a large sandstone boulder which was most likely an anvil stone, strongly suggest that this was primarily an area designated for bronze-smithing. Publication: Williams, B., 1978, 37-48.

185

Catalogue Neolithic, Early - Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Early Christian and possibly Iron Age. Funerary activity was indicated by several cremation burials (apparently Early to Middle Bronze Age), large quantities of coarse Late Bronze Age pottery sherds and mould fragments, spreads of metal working slag and a possible furnace hearth. There were also several possible stone hut foundations. The site was tentatively identified by the excavators as a ring cairn (F. & M. Fitzpatrick, pers. comm.). Most of the mould fragments were recovered from a layer of occupation refuse.

both internally and externally, which would appear to be the imprints of hair or perhaps very fine grass. Max. L. 44mm, Max. W. 46mm, Max. T. 14mm. 3. (E 84: ?). Small mould fragment. Appears to be of two layers, though it is difficult to be sure as the surface is somewhat weathered. Clay contains numerous small refractory particles. The colour is pinkish buff on the inside and beige on the outside. This fragment appears to have come from the socket area of an implement, possibly a socketed axehead, as it features decorative mouth moulding. Uppermost in the diagram is a plain, rounded indentation for casting a raised rib, while below and parallel to this is a portion of rope-moulding. This type of rope-moulding around the socket is well paralleled on many Irish looped and socketed axeheads. The example found at Site C, Lough Gur is a good instance (O’Riordan, 1954, 363, fig. 28, No. 15). Max. L. 24mm, Max. W. 21mm, Max. T. 13mm, W. of Plain Moulding: 2mm, W. of rope moulding: 5mm.

Description: 52 definite or probable mould fragments were recovered on this site, including examples for casting socketed axes, peg-hole spearheads and socketed hammerheads. The contact faces, those flat areas at the edge of the inner surface which meet when the two mould valves are assembled, are not horizontal in the Johnstown South material, but on some valves slope outwards with those on the corresponding valves sloping inwards so that the two meet correctly. This is “an incidental by-product of the means of valve manufacture” (Needham et al. 1991, 154), the reason for which is explained elsewhere by the same author (Needham 1980, 182-3). This method of valve assembly has been shown to be effective through experimental work (L. McNally, pers. Comm.). The clay used for inner valves is very fine throughout the assemblage, with much refractory material visible. Where the outer wrap survives it is markedly less dense and coarser in texture than the inner valve fabric. Very little of the outer wrap material survives at Johnstown South (F25, F40 and F56) and where it adheres to inner valve fragments it is generally only as a trace, excepting some of the better preserved fragments (e.g. F16, F31). Thus, the inner valve fragments appear to have been preferentially preserved due to the denser nature of their fabric. Colour varies considerably. The outer wrap tends to be buff or a dull pink, with some brown soil staining. The inner valves are generally pink or orange, while the matrices are, in many cases, scorched a deep grey from contact with molten metal.

Remarks: (8622). This may have been produced by the method of manufacturing clay moulds suggested for Late Bronze Age material from Dainton, Devon (Needham,1980). In this method a bronze axe or pattern of one would have been impressed into the clay while still wet. A knife would then have been used, held resting along the edge of the pattern at a downward angle, to remove the excess clay, thus giving the outward bevel observed. (1866). The possible presence of hair in the moulding material is paralleled by sword mould fragments from the King’s Stables in the Navan complex (Cat. 6. 2). Publication: Raftery, B., 1971, 296-8 (fragment 1866 only). Raftery, B., 1976, 339-357.

Entry No. 6. 14* Object Classification: Clay mould fragments.

Remarks: The pieces of slag and furnace lining recovered at Johnstown South is of a type very similar to bronzeworking slag and furnace lining fragments recovered at Ross Island, Co. Kerry which are dated to the Early Christian Period. It therefore seems likely that these materials at the former site are of like date, and that they are thus unconnected with the Late Bronze Age mould fragments. Of interest, however, is the recovery of a bronze pinshank at Johnstown South, in the light of the identification of a fragment of a mould possibly for casting pin-shanks (Pl. 20, bottom), suggesting that the pin-shank may have been cast on-site.

Townland: Johnstown South. Parish: Kilbride. Barony: Arklow. County: Wicklow. 6” O.S. map sheet: 40, 41. Habitat: On-site storage. Illustration: Pls. 20, 21. Discovery Circumstances: The construction of the Arklow bypass road led to the discovery of a site at Johnstown South, about 3 km. outside Arklow town on the main Dublin road. Rescue excavation took place here in 1997. The site consisted of a roughly circular loose ring of boulders c.35 metres in diameter. Concentric with this and several metres outside of it were two shallow, closely set ditches with a bank in between them. The interior of the site yielded material from several periods;

Publication: None.

186

Catalogue Publication: Waterman, D. & Lynn, C., 1997, 89.

Entry No. 6. 15 Object Classification: Clay mould fragments. Townland: Navan. Parish: Eglish. Barony: Armagh. County: Armagh. 6” O.S. map sheet: 12. Habitat: Ulster Museum.

Entry No. 6. 16 Object Classification: Clay mould fragments. Townland: Lough Gur. Parish: Knockainy. Barony: Smallcounty. County: Limerick. 6” O.S. map sheet: 32. Habitat: N.M.I. (?).

Illustration: Fig. 56. Discovery Circumstances: Three clay mould fragments have been recognized among the stored material from the 1961-71 excavations at Navan fort by D.M. Waterman. Two of these had a note attached which suggest they were from site B, phase 3. One is from phase 3(ii), the other from “late in phase 3” (Waterman & Lynne, 1997, 89). The later sub-phases 3(ii) and (iii) are generally considered to be of Early Iron Age date. However, there appears to have been a good deal of continuity between the Late Bronze Age layer of 3(i) and 3(ii), aspossibly indicated by the presence of a fragment of scabbard chape of Hallstatt C type (Eogan, 1965, appendix B, Class 4) among the bronze assemblage which also includes typically native (if slightly unusual) Dowris material. Alternatively, the presence of the mould fragments may be the result of Iron Age churning of the surface resulting in mixing with the earlier horizon.

Illustration: Fig. 57. Discovery Circumstances: Found during excavations at Circle K by Ó Ríordáin in the late 1940s. Circle K lies on the Knockadoon peninsula in a central position to the north and/or east of most of the sites excavated on the peninsula. The stratigraphy was only c.10 cm thick in general and it is thus difficult to differentiate stratigraphic layers. The six mould fragments came from a high level and were found on the exterior of the enclosure at northeast. Description (after Grogan & Eogan 1987): Four of the six pieces retain part of their inner fine layer. This has a sandy texture and is baked to a grey colour. Outside this is a second envelope of light-red sandier clay. Two pieces retain part of the matrix, which has a slightly concave cross-section and a more marked curve on one edge. The overall width of the object was about 34mm at this point. It is impossible to tell what type of object was cast in this mould, but to judge from the cross-section a sword is a good possibility and, as Grogan and Eogan point out, this cross-section suggests a developed form, probably no earlier than the Dowris phase. However, this is a very tentative identification.

Description (after Waterman & Lynn 1997): Three fragments of clay mould. 1. Fragment of narrow mould, probably for casting a bronze pin. Fine texture, greyish-red fabric. Rough Dshaped cross-section. The mould face rises and widens towards the intact end where the groove for the pinshank, normally 2mm wide, expands to 4mm in diameter. There are slight hollows in the face of the mould on either side of the expanded head. Max. Length: 50mm, Max. Width: 15mm. 2. Appears to be part of a mould for casting a bladed object. Part of matrix, possibly for casting a socketed axe (see Remarks), with part of one parting face present also. Max. Length: 30mm, Max. Width: 30mm, Av. Thickness: 8mm. 3. Possible mould fragment (not illustrated). Could also be a daub fragment, as it is similar to other fragments of that substance recovered at this site. However, it carries a regular groove of assymetrical round profile c. 5mm in diameter and 30mm long. Max. Diameter: 35mm, Max. Thickness: 12mm.

Remarks: Other finds from the upper levels of the stratigraphy at Circle K were glass beads and a number of copper/bronze objects. One of these was a tanged awl of similar form to examples from the Later Bronze Age activities at Sites C and D. Some of the other bronze fragments have been interpreted as casting ’waste’ by Grogan and Eogan (1987) but this is uncertain, as is a Late Bronze Age date for these bronze pieces. The glass beads have their best parallels, both in terms of decoration and material composition, at Rathgall, where such beads were recovered from levels radiocarbon dated to the 9th to 7th centuries B.C. (Henderson in Grogan and Eogan, 1987). This makes a similar date likely for the Lough Gur beads from both Site C and Circle K.

Remarks: Of fragment 2 above Lynne notes that it fits the blade part of the looped and socketed bronze axe found on-site exactly (Waterman & Lynne, 1997, 89). This, with the presence of Dowris type bronzes and coarseware pottery, suggests a Late Bronze Age date for the moulds, which is supported by a series of radiocarbon dates from phase 3 (ibid. 193), but without personal examination it is impossible to be sure.

Publication: Grogan, E. & Eogan, G., 1987, 299-506.

187

Catalogue strongly suggest that this piece was originally circular in cross-section. The rate of curve of the fragment also suggests that it would have been too small to be a core for socketed axeheads, and is more likely to have been used in the manufacture of socketed spearheads. Remarks: The appearance of this piece, when compared to a definite core fragment from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow (see next entry, No. 119), would seem to confirm its identification.

Entry No. 6. 17 Object Classification: Clay mould fragment. Townland: Bay (Carnlough). Parish: Tickmacrevan. Barony: Glenarm Lower. County: Antrim. 6” O.S. map sheet: 25. Habitat: Ulster Museum?

Publication: None. Not illustrated. Discovery Circumstances: Found during excavations on Mesolithic sites on a gravel ridge in fields adjacent to the present shoreline. At the site of Bay Farm I an area of Late Bronze Age occupation was recognized. Two four metre square trenches uncovered a clay mould fragment, pottery, pits and post-holes. Some collapsed walls were also found in this area but the excavator states that they were possibly of a more recent date. The mould fragment was recovered from the fill of a post-hole (J. Mallory, Pers comm.).

Entry No. 6. 19* Object Classification: Clay core fragment. Townland: Rath East. Parish: Liscolman. Barony: Shillelagh. County: Wicklow. 6” O.S. map sheet: 37, 42. Habitat: N.M.I. (E84: 1483).

Description: No description of this mould fragment is currently available, although it is known that it was part of a mould for casting axeheads (J. Mallory, Pers comm.). The only publication of the Late Broze Age occupation at Bay is a brief mention in the reference quoted below.

Illustration: Fig. 49A, Pl. 18. Discovery Circumstances: See Entry No. 115. Description: A sub-cylindrical piece of clay, apparently part of a core for casting socketed implements such as axeheads or spearheads. On one side of the fragment there is a short groove, which looks as though it may have been deliberately formed. The fabric is more or less identical to that used to make the moulds at this site. The colour is a pinkish orange with patches of dark grey, obviously the result of exposure to molten metal during casting. This dark grey probably originally covered the entire surface of the artifact, but has mostly been removed as the result of weathering in situ, exposing the unburnt clay beneath. The clay contains many small refractory particles and seems to have more in common with the smooth, fine inner layers of the moulds than the coarser outer layers. Max. H: 21mm, Max. Diam. 28mm, Min. Diam. 24mm.

Remarks: None. Publication: Woodman, P., 1987/8, 66.

Sub-section 6 (ii): Clay Mould Core Fragments. Entry No. 6. 18* Object Classification: Possible clay core fragment. Townland: Kilmurvy. Parish: Inishmore. Barony: Aran. County: Galway. 6” O.S. map sheet: 110. Habitat: Discovery Programme Buildings.

Remarks: The short groove on one side of the fragment mentioned above might perhaps be a runnel cut to ease access for the flow molten metal, though this does not necessarily imply that the core was part of a composite core-cum-pouring gate as suggested for the next fragment (see Entry No. 120). The size of this piece suggests it was for casting a large spearhead socket or a small axehead socket. It seems to have been too great of diameter to have been for the casting of socketed gouges or hammerheads at any rate. A good parallel for this fragment can be found in the material from Fimber, in Yorkshire (Burgess, 1968, 63-4, fig. 21, No. 1a).

Not illustrated. Discovery Circumstances: During the recent excavations 1992-5 at Dun Aengus by C. Cotter. Description: This fragment, No. 1494, is made of a fine, quite crumbly clay with very few quartz grits. It is a buff colour with dark brown staining over much of its surface. The curve of that part of the fragment not broken would

Publication: None.

188

Catalogue The convex outer surface is beige with patches of grey. The edges are light orange, while the concave inner surface is burnt a dark grey. It is difficult to say whether this fragment consists of one or two layers. The clay contains many small refractory particles. Walls are thinnest at the lip. Judging from this surviving portion, the whole object would have been funnel or cup shaped. Max. L. 29mm, Max. W. 36mm, Max. T. 12mm, T. at lip: 4mm. 2. (1509e) Convex outer side beige, orange and dark grey in patches, orange on edges and on interior, where original surface exists it is grey. Refractory particles present. Consists of a single layer of clay. As with the above fragment, the walls are thinnest at the lip, getting gradually thicker as they slope downwards. This fragment does not appear to be from the same gate as the previous example, being smaller and thinner overall. Max. L. 23mm, Max. W. 26mm, Max. T. 9mm, T. at lip: 4mm. 3. (1509a) This fragment is more eroded and not so well defined as the previous two. In its colouration it seems very close to 1509e, and its thickness pattern would suggest that it may be from the same pouring gate as that piece. It may consist of two layers of clay but any contrast in appearance is more likely to result from differential exposure to heat, in my opinion, as the difference is more a matter of colour than consistency. Again, there appears to be a lip below which the walls gradually thicken. Max. L. 19mm, Max. W. 20mm, Max. T. 9mm, T. at lip: 3mm.

Entry No. 6. 20* Object Classification: Possible fragment of a composite clay core-cum-pouring gate. Townland: Rath East. Parish: Liscolman. Barony: Shillelagh. County: Wicklow. 6” O.S. map sheet: 37, 42. Habitat: N.M.I. Illustration: Fig. 49B. Discovery Circumstances: See Entry No. 115. Description: This fragment does not appear to consist of two layers. The clay contains numerous tiny refractory particles. The colour is beige with brown staining in places. The shape is suggestive of the top of a core connected with a mould gate, although the fragmentary nature of the piece makes this uncertain. A similar suggestion was made for a piece from Dun Aengus. Max. L. 29mm, Max. W. 32mm, Max. T. 24mm. Remarks: Alternatively this could a composite core and pouring cup which would have fitted into the enlarged gate of the mould. If this were the case the shape of this fragment suggests that the core portion could have projected down into the matrix while the upper part, which is of greater diameter, would have rested on the horizontal top surface of the mould.

Remarks: None.

Publication: None.

Publication: None.

Sub-section 6 (iii): Clay Mould Gate Fragments.

Entry No. 6. 22* Object Classification: Mould gate fragment.

Entry No. 6. 21*

Townland: Kilmurvy. Parish: Inishmore. Barony: Aran. County: Galway. 6” O.S. map sheet: 110. Habitat: Discovery Programme Buildings.

Object Classification: 3 clay mould gate fragments. Townland: Dalkey Island. Parish: Dalkey. Barony: Rathdown. County: Dublin. 6” O.S. map sheet: 23. Habitat: N.M.I. (E46: 1509).

Illustration: Fig. 50B. Discovery Circumstances: Found during the recent excavations 1992-5 at Dun Aengus by C. Cotter.

Illustration: Fig. 50A, Pl. 17B. Discovery Circumstances: Found during the 1959 excavations, by Dr. David Liversage, of Site V, a multiperiod habitation site situated within a promontory fort on the north-western end of Dalkey Island.

Description: This fragment, No. 874, seems likely to be a piece of a mould gate Its outer surface comprises an arc of about 90 degrees of a circle. Internally the piece is also rounded, though here it slopes to form part of a funnel. There appears to be two layers of clay in this fragment. The inner piece is sub-oval, resembling a core fragment. The funnel does not descend into the centre of this piece,

Description: 1. (1509c) This is the largest of these three fragments. 189

Catalogue but slopes off to one side of the central piece. This inner piece is a yellowish beige in colour and seems to contain few or no refractory particles. The enclosing layer is far coarser, being a duller beige colour and containing a lot of coarse sand and refractory particles. Max. L. 40mm, Max. W. 40mm, Max. T. 22mm.

SECTION 7: CASTING JETS.

Remarks: This piece is possibly from a mould in which the pouring gate and internal core were connected and if this was the case then it must have been a mould for casting a socketed implement of some type.

Townland: Tullowbeg. Parish: Fennagh. Barony: Rathvilly. County: Carlow. 6” O.S. map sheet: 8, 13. Habitat: N.M.I. (1991: 46-49).

Entry No. 7. 1* Object Classification: Hoard of bronze casting jets.

Publication: None.

Illustration: Fig. 51A, Pl. 19A. Discovery Circumstances: Found due to metal detection activity. Little else is known. The site has not been archaeologically investigated. However, there appear to have been other bronze age finds from this townland, but their proximity to the find site of these casting jets is unclear, especially as the exact find spot of the jets is not known .

Entry No. 6. 23* Object Classification: Possible mould gate fragment. Townland: Kilmurvy. Parish: Inishmore. Barony: Aran. County: Galway. 6” O.S. map sheet: 110. Habitat: DiscoveryProgramme Buildings.

Description: The hoard consists of four casting jets. 1. (1991: 46) This jet is of bifurcate form, being very similar to that in the hoard from Money Lower, Co. Laois (Entry No. 126). The surface is covered with a mottled green patination. The material on the more-or-less flat top of the jet is obviously a slag-like waste product, or dross which would have floated on the molten metal. The bifurcate nature of this jet suggests it was poured into either a separate pouring cup affixed to the top of the mould, or a wide basin-shaped gate with two adjacent funnel-shaped runners. Such an arrangement was probably for casting a socketed object such as a spearhead or axehead. The two runners would have allowed access to the matrix on opposing sides of the core, thus giving a better and quicker distribution of the molten metal to the extremities of the mould and so diminishing the chances of a miscast implement resulting. The two runners would most likely in the case of a bladed implement, have been aligned on the same plane as the blade part of the matrix, in order to aid the entry of metal into the narrow cavities which form the blade. Max. L. 43mm, Max. W. 29mm, Max. T. 22mm, T. between two jets: 9mm. 2. (1991: 47) A large single jet. Has the same green patination and dross formation on the top as 46. There is an area of bronze overflow at one point, seen to the left side in the diagram, the edge being otherwise roughly oval in elevation. Two noticeable parallel lines run along the underside of where the overflow meets the main body of the gate. This may be the mark left by the lip of a pouring cup. Max. L. 51mm, Max. W. 34mm, Max. T. 21mm. 3. (1991: 48) A small single runner jet. While the side is curved in a convex fashion on one of the two main facets, it is slightly concave, almost straight on the other. This suggests that the runner for casting was cut into only one valve of the bivalve mould being used. A similarly shaped

Not illustrated. Discovery Circumstances: Found during C. Cotter’s recent Excavations 1992-5 at Dun Aengus. Description: This fragment, No. 2643, may be a mould gate fragment, but it is also possible that it could be a piece of a clay pouring cup separate from the mould. This is because the piece seems to have both a distinct rounded lip and also what appears to be a well-finished, unbroken concave base. The material is a fine clay with many refractory particles. The colour is buff externally, bright orange internally (probably due to exposure to molten metal), and pink at the base. There are fine impressions on both the outer and inner surfaces and also on the base, such as might have been formed by hairs. There is only one layer of clay used in this fragment. Max. L. 22mm, Max. W. 24mm, Max. T. 10mm. Remarks: None. Publication: None.

SEE ALSO: Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone (Entry No. 6. 12. B20-23).

190

Catalogue description and diagram he gives. I believe this to be the product of a clay, as opposed to stone mould due to the shape of the jet, and this is strengthened by the fact that the material in the hoard is of Dowris Phase type, during which clay mould casting seems, for the most part, to have been the favoured method of casting. Judging from the diagram, the maximum dimensions of this object are about 55mm X 40mm X 37mm.

mould gate, though much bigger, can be seen in a jet from the Dreenan hoard, Co. Fermanagh (see Entry No. 125), where again the runner seems to have been cut in one valve of the mould only. The patination and dross formation are the same as the two previous examples. Max. L. 17mm, Max. W. 16mm, Max. T. 20mm. 4. (1991: 49) Almost identical to 48 in size and shape. The patination and dross are again present. The same comments as 48 apply regarding the cause of the shape of this jet. Max. L. 18mm, Max. W. 16mm, Max. T. 18mm.

Remarks: For hoard associations see Cat. 1. 4. Publication: Wakeman, W., 1879-82, 259-60. Eogan, G., 1983, 83-4.

Remarks: Because of the somewhat irregular shape of these jets and because some of them seem to have been from gates cut in only one valve of the bivalve moulds used, a characteristic not seen on any stone moulds, it can be proposed with a reasonable degree of certainty that these jets are the waste product of a casting operation involving the use of clay moulds.

Entry No. 7. 3* Object Classification: Bronze casting jet.

Publication: None. Townland: Money Lower. Parish: Fossy or Timahoe. Barony: Stradbally. County: Laois. 6” O.S. map sheet: 18. Habitat: N.M.I. (1965: 32-36).

Entry No. 7. 2. Object Classification: Casting jet.

Illustration: Fig. 51C. Townland: Dreenan. Parish: Templecarn. Barony: Lurg. County: Fermanagh. 6” O.S. map sheet: 4. Habitat: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

Discovery Circumstances: Part of a hoard of five bronze objects found “just below the surface of a peaty field” in late April, 1965. The hoard may come from a bank which was bulldozed and harrowed into the field before the find was made. This bank is recorded as having been up to a metre high, three metres across and between 100 and 200 metres long.

Illustration: Fig. 51B. Discovery Circumstances: Part of a hoard of nine objects found in 1875 during the removal of a large rock that impeded farming operations. The objects were bought by W.F. Wakeman from one John Irvine, a journeyman and watchman. It was on his mother’s land that the hoard was found. Originally the hoard may have consisted of additional pieces. Wakeman refers, for instance, to “a number of socketed celts”. On the other hand, correspondence from Wakeman preserved in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford quotes Irvine as stating that he secured the whole of the hoard.

Description: Bronze casting jet. A rough casting consisting of a solid lump of bronze, its shape approximate to two conjoined, roughly conical pieces of oval cross-section. This jet is probably from the mould for casting a socketed object such as a spearhead or axehead. Max. L. 43mm, Max. W. 35mm, Max. T. 30mm, Remarks: For hoard associations see Entry No. 5. Publication: National Museum of Ireland, 1968, 107-9. Eogan, G., 1983, 99-100.

Description: Bronze casting jet. Has what appear to be ‘flashings’ resulting from the seepage of the molten metal during casting through the narrow space between the two valves of the mould. The fact that one side of the piece is virtually vertical, while the opposing one is curved at an angle of about 50 degrees suggests that the gate was cut in only one of the valves of the bivalve mould, as in the case of two of the jets from Tullowbeg, Co. Carlow (Entry No. 124). Eogan suggests that this piece served as some sort of an anvil, but I am inclined to see it as a casting jet, though this is judging only from the very brief

Entry No. 7. 4 Object Classification: Three casting jets. Townland: Unknown. Parish: Unknown. Barony: Unknown. 191

Catalogue near the village of Tobermore. No other details of their finding are available, but it is clear that they came from peat, very small quantities of which still adhere to the patterns.

County: Roscommon. Habitat: Hunt Museum, Limerick. Illustration: Fig. 51D.

Description (after Hodges 1954 with modification): These patterns are considerably flattened and warped. There are two patterns for simple, leaf shaped spearheads of Late Bronze Age type and two for socketed axeheads of same period. There is also a pattern for a small socketed hammerhead of Dowris type. It will be noticed that the models for the axeheads are not provided with loops. Although socketed axeheads without loops are occasionally found in Ireland, they are uncommon, and in all probability loops were provided by cutting grooves in the clay mould after the removal of the wooden patterns and prior to firing. Interestingly, on the axehead pattern, no. 4 in the diagram, there is a strange knob protruding from the ‘core-print’, and which is certainly not meant to form part of the matrix. This protrusion appears to be perforated. Perhaps this perforation is to allow the passing through of a cord of some sort which would give something to grip and pull when attempting to remove the pattern once the matrix had been impressed. The measurements given are all approximate, as they are calculated from the drawing by Hodges. Numbered as in diagram. (1) Hammerhead pattern- Max. L. 83mm, Max. W. 22mm, Max. T. 22mm. (2) Smaller spearhead pattern- Max. Surviving L. 231mm, Max. W. 42mm, W at socket: 24mm, T of socket: 8mm. (3) Larger spearhead pattern- Max. Surviving L. 282mm, Max. Surviving W. 52mm, W. at socket: 32mm, T. of socket: 10mm. (4) Axehead pattern- Max. L (including protrusion): 152mm, Max. W. 48mm, Max. T. 26mm. (5) Axehead pattern- Max. L. 140mm, Max. Surviving W. 59mm, Max. T. 20mm.

Discovery Circumstances: These three pieces constitute part of a large hoard. Robert Day states that this hoard was discovered in the 19th century in Co. Roscommon, but the exact place of finding in unknown. A considerable number of pieces were present, about 200, weighing over 16 lb according to Day. What survives was purchased by him in Mullingar, but as the dealer put what Day considered to be a prohibitive price upon the whole hoard, he only purchased a selection of representative pieces, largely in fragmentary condition. Day listed three imperfect looped socketed axeheads “so broken that they were only fit for the melting pot”, numerous portions of spearheads, swords and bronze vessels, 5 ”massive” pieces of bronze which may have been jets or just scrap, and several portions of bronze scabbard. Description: Eogan gives rough outline drawings of these three jets but does not go into description of them. All three are single piece jets, of roughly oval section. The measurements given are all approximate as they have been calculated from the drawing. No. 1: Max. L. 28mm, Max. W. 35mm, Max. Thickness: 17mm. No. 2: Max. L. 45mm, Max. W. 30mm, Max. T. 29mm. No. 3: Max. L. 53mm, Max. W. 24mm, Max. T. 36mm. Remarks: As the objects purchased from the original hoard by Day were supposedly representative of the whole, we might reasonably suppose that there were a number of other casting jets in the hoard. For the other surviving material from this hoard see Entry No. 11. Publication: Day, R., 1879-82, 265-6. Eogan, G., 1983, 47-9.

Remarks: These wooden models are, at present, unique in these islands. A wooden sword was recovered from a crannog at Inver, Co. Donegal. This was deliberately broken and only the blade retained, but since this fragment alone was 670mm long it seems unlikely that it was the model for a bronze sword. One or two other such wooden swords have been recovered, such as that from Cappagh, Co. Kerry, but these generally seem to be of Halstatt or later date and do not seem to be of sufficiently fine workmanship to constitute mould patterns at any rate.

SECTION 8: WOODEN PATTERNS. Entry No. 8. 1 Object Classification: Five wooden mould patterns. Townland: Tobermore. Parish: Kilcronaghan. Barony: Loughinsholin. County: Derry. 6” O.S. map sheet: 36. Habitat: Ulster Museum.

Publication: Hodges, H., 1954, 64. Coghlan, H., 1962, 57-8.

Illustration: Fig. 52. Discovery Circumstances: Discovered together in 1911 192

Catalogue Hartnett points out, be out of place in a hoard which dates from the Late Bronze Age / Early iron Age transition period, I believe it may be that the object described as a ‘duck’ was, in fact, an anvil, some of the tanged forms of which could be interpreted as a simplified or schematic rendering of a bird’s head or even, in the case of that from Lusmagh (see Entry No. 130) as a waterfowl in flight.

SECTION 9: METALWORKING TOOLS. Entry No. 9. 1* Object Classification: Hoard of Bronzes. Townland: Garden Hill. Parish: Cleenish. Barony: Clanawley. County: Fermanagh. 6” O.S. map sheet: 20, 25. Habitat: (P. 1952: 9-11).

Publication: Hartnett, P., 1953, 101-3. Eogan, G., 1983, 84-5.

Illustration: Fig. 54A, Pl. 19B.

Entry No. 9. 2*

Discovery Circumstances: Found about the early 1930s while turf cutting at a depth of about seven feet (slightly over 2 metres).

Object Classification: Hoard of bronze tools. Townland: Bishopsland. Parish: Ballymore Eustace. Barony: Naas South County: Kildare. 6” O.S. map sheet: 25, 29. Habitat: N.M.I. (1942: 1750-71, 1944: 148-9).

Description (after Eogan 1983 with modification): Hoard now consists of three objects. Numbered as in diagram. (1) Bronze socketed hammer. A good quality casting but the finish is crude and no attempt has been made to smoothen down the casting seams. Around the circular socket there is a heavy collared lip with, immediately below it, a pronounced groove. The socket tapers from 20mm mouth diameter and is effective for a depth of 60mm. From here the head is solid metal, oblong in cross-section. The working end (25 X 10mm) shows definite signs of wear. Max. L. 90mm. (2) Bronze ring. Solid cast with broad oval section. Int. Diam. 20mm, Ext. Diam. 32mm. (3) Bronze ring. Hollow cast around a clay core, traces of which can be seen where the metal has been damaged. There is a loop attachment with perforated tang, all cast in one piece. There are three ridges on the eye, probably to strengthen it. From the wear on the tang it appears more likely to have been attached to a metal rather than a wooden or leather object. Ext. Diam. of ring: 60mm, Int. Diam of ring: 40mm, W. of tubular eye: 16mm, L. of tang: 15mm.

Illustration: Fig. 53. Discovery Circumstances: Found in 1942 about 46 cm below the surface on the side of a steep slope and around 1.5 m from its top. As the hoard was dispersed at the time of discovery it may originally have contained more objects than we now know of. Description (after Eogan 1983 with modification): Only those objects deemed to have been of possible use in metalworking will be given a full description here. (1) Socketed hammerhead (No. 3 in fig.). Mouth of socket is rounded and it has an outward bevel. Immediately underneath on the outside there is a band of ‘cord’ moulding. The body narrows downwards from the socket. It has a square cross-section and at about midpoint there is a raised transverse band. The striking face is convex and marks indicate that it was used. Max. Length: 88mm, External diameter of socket: 25mm. (2) Socketed hammerhead (No. 4 in fig.). Similar to the previous example. The mouth is square and on the outside there is a band of ‘cord’ moulding. From the mouth the body narrows to the striking face which is slightly convex. Max. L. 68mm, Ext. W. of socket: 20 X 18mm. (3) Socketed hammerhead (No. 5 in fig.). Similar to previous two examples, except that the socket area is undecorated and is of more-or-less uniform width with the rest of the body. Both socket and body are of square cross-section. Near the bottom there is a transverse band of about four irregular and incomplete lines. The striking face is convex. Max. L. 60mm, Ext. W. of socket: 19mm. (4) ‘Graver’? (No. 8 in fig.). One end is pointed and it has a rounded cross-section. The other end is in the shape of a

Remarks: There are more reasons than the extant content of the hoard for believing it may have been part of a metalworking assemblage. The full constituents of the hoard had been carried away upon discovery by various individuals. The informant recounts how the objects were found near (perhaps associated with) a “stone about 12 inches long, 6 inches wide and 3 inches high, curved on top, obviously (sic) artificial . . . found on the ‘sill’ near the articles”. This might possibly have been a whetstone. The report quoted also mentions a ‘duck’, now missing. While Hartnett claims the material from which it was made is not specified, the informant was quoted as saying; “about 7 feet down they found some bronze articles, including what he called a ‘duck’ ”. This would seem to indicate that the ‘duck’ was of bronze. While the occurrence of bird-like figures is common in Early Iron Age contexts, and while such objects would not, as 193

Catalogue cauldron in which the hoard was supposedly found. Cooke says the hoard was dug up accidentally by two men trenching potatoes at a place called Dereens, between Whigsborough paddock and Lough Coura.

chisel and it has a rectangular cross-section. Max. L. 107mm. (5) Anvil (No. 11 in fig.). This object has three work faces. Two are flat and one is more rounded and narrow. The stem tends to be rectangular in cross-section. (6) Vice (No. 12 in fig.). The body is oval in shape, the members are rectangular in cross-section. The gripping ends are closely set and they are flat on the top. The stout stem tends to be rectangular in cross-section.

Description (after Eogan 1983): (1) Socketed hammer with flat square head, the edges of which are sloped off. Around the sides the mould join is visible and two low vertical projections emerge at the top of the socket opposite each other. May never have been used. The mouth is 14mm in external diameter and 10mm internally. Socket section tends to be octagonal. Max. L. 48mm, T. of Head: 12mm, W. of Head: 25mm. (2) Elongated piece of sandstone. The two broad faces are quite smooth. (3) Small flat piece of sandstone which appears to be in its natural rough state. (4) Irregularly shaped piece of sandstone. Triangular in section. The ends are remarkably smooth. (5) Somewhat pyramidical piece of sandstone. The upper faces are smooth. (6) Triangular piece of sandstone with smooth surface all round. (7) Triangular piece of sandstone with rounded smooth edges. All fragments are between 40 and 70mm long.

Remarks: Possible raw materials were present in the form of : Piece of tube of square section (No. 18 in fig.). This has been damaged at both ends. Max. L. 69mm. Piece of solid bronze (No. 19 in fig.). Of rectangular cross-section. Max. L. 19mm, Max. W. 8mm. Rod portion (not illustrated). This has a square crosssection and there are hammer marks along the edge. Max. L. 35mm, Max. T. 6mm. Wires (not illustrated). Forty short pieces of bronze wire that average 30mm in length and .5 of amm in diameter. Also included in the hoard were a number of broken or fragmentary artifacts: a tweezers, a sickle, a saw and a ribbed bracelet. These might be viewed as scrap intended to be melted down and reused. Whole undamaged objects not obviously involved in metal production were a palstave, a looped and socketed axe, a fleshook, two finger-rings, a flat chisel, a trunnion chisel and what appears to be some sort of toilet article (which might also be seen as a tool for touching up the matrices of clay moulds during shaping).

Remarks: Some of these stone pieces are well paralleled by the example in the Lusmagh hoard (Cat. No. 9. 4). Due to the prohibitively large size of this hoard, only the possible metalworking tools described above are illustrated. Publication: British Museum, 1920, 106-7. British Museum, 1953, 32. Cooke, T., 1848-50, 423-40. Robinson, T., 1848-50, 237-46. Eogan, G., 1983, 127, 142.

Publication: Ó Ríordáin, S., 1946, 161. Eogan, G., 1964, 340. Eogan, G., 1983, 36-38.

Entry No. 9. 3 Entry No. 9. 4 Object Classification: Socketed Hammer & Six polishing stones.

Object Classification: Possible hoard of bronze tools. Townland: Unknown. Parish: Lusmagh. Barony: Garrycastle. County: Offaly. 6” O.S. map sheet: 21, 29, 30, 35. Habitat: B.M. (83, 2-18, 19-27).

Townland: Doorosheath (Dowris). Parish: Eglish. Barony: Eglish. County: Offaly. 6” O.S. map sheet: 30. Habitat: B.M. (1853. 11-21. 1, 22; 1854. 7-14. 17, 1720).

Illustration: Fig. 55. Illustration: Fig. 53B. Discovery Circumstances: Nothing recorded. The townland name is not known. The objects differ in external appearance.

Discovery Circumstances: These objects were part of the Dowris hoard, found during the 1820s. This consisted of at least 218 artifacts including swords, spearheads, socketed axeheads, bronze horns, crotals and a huge

Description (after Eogan 1983): This possible hoard 194

Catalogue SEE ALSO: Oldconnaught, Co. Dublin (Cat. No. 6. 4).

consists of eight bronzes and one stone object. (1) Socketed hammerhead. The socket narrows from the mouth to the head. It tends to be rectangular in crosssection and there is a casting seam along the sides. The head tends to be squarish in shape and almost rectangular in cross-section. The upper part of the head is hollowed. Max. Length: 51mm. (2) Socketed hammerhead. There are three well-defined ridges around the neck. The object is circular at the mouth but it tends to become more oval towards the hammering edge. The edge is worn at a slant. L. 39mm. (3) Trunnion chisel. One face is flat and smooth. On the other face there are a number of pits. On the whole the object does not seem to have received much post-casting treatment. Max. L. 118mm, W. of edge: 22mm. (4) Tanged chisel. Tends to belong to Class 1. It is in a reasonably good state of preservation. Max. L. 121mm, W. of edge: 23mm, L. of tang: 64mm. (5) Socketed gouge: Class 1. Well preserved. Max. L. 59mm, W. of edge: 12mm. (6) Bronze anvil. Roof-shaped at the top. There are two holes underneath and two in the broader projection. (7) Socketed object. The socket is D-shaped in crosssection. At a point a short distance from the hole there is an unperforated depression for a further hole. The solid shank is also D-shaped in cross-section. Its lower portion has been broken off. Max. L. 102mm, L. of socket: 35mm, W. at mouth: 11mm. (8) Unidentified object- possible punch? Consists of a round-sectioned hollowed shank 11mm in diameter. At one end there is an evenly expanded and slightly hollowed ‘foot’ 23mm in diameter. At the top there were five prongs, two of which have been broken off and one of these is now missing. As Eogan points out, this was hardly a ferrule, or if so it was never used, as the ‘foot’ is unworn. It looks as though it might have been some sort of punch, but this is purely conjectural as I have not seen the artifact first hand . Surviving L. 87mm. (9) Stone object. Triangular in shape. The surface is smooth and the sides have been rounded slightly. Most likely a polisher. There are similar triangular stone objects in the Dowris hoard (Entry No. 9. 3). Max. T. 18mm. Remarks: The patination varies, as does the surface’s condition. Accordingly doubt must be thrown on the authenticity of the group as a hoard. However, the industrial nature of all the objects points to the possibility that this may be a craftsman’s hoard, and the hammerheads, anvil and stone polisher could certainly have been part of a metalworker’s tool-kit. Publication: British Museum, 1953, 34. Eogan, G., 1983, 192-3.

195

Figures

Fig. 1A: ABOVE. Hoard of bronzes from Drumnakelly, Co. Armagh (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 1B: BELOW. Hoard of bronzes from Youghal Co. Cork (after Eogan 1983).

197

Figures

Fig. 2A: ABOVE. Hoard of bronzes from Teernagloghane, Co. Clare (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 2B: BELOW. Hoard of bronzes from Dreenan, Co. Fermanagh (after Eogan 1983).

198

Figures

Fig. 3A: ABOVE. Hoard of bronzes from Ballygowan Reade, Co. Kilkenny (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 3B: BELOW. Hoard of bronzes from Money Lower, Co. Laois (after Eogan 1983).

199

Figures

Fig. 4A: ABOVE. Hoard of bronzes from Park, Co. Meath (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 4B: BELOW. Possible hoard of bronzes from Charleville Demesne, Co. Offaly (after Prendergast 1961).

200

Figures

Fig. 5: Surviving elements of a hoard of bronzes from Co. Roscommon (after Eogan 1983).

201

Figures

Fig. 6A: ABOVE. Hoard of bronzes from Cooga, Co. Sligo (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 6B: BELOW. Hoard of bronzes from Ballyvadden, Co. Wexford (after Eogan 1983).

202

Figures

Fig 7: Hoard of bronzes from “near Athlone”, Co. Roscommon or Westmeath (after Eogan 1983).

203

Figures

Fig. 8A: ABOVE. Copper wire forming part of a hoard from Derrinboy, Co. Offaly (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 8B: BELOW. Amorphous bronze casting byproduct forming part of a hoard from Dowris, Co. Offaly (after Eogan 1983).

204

Figures

Fig. 9A: ABOVE. Clay crucible fragments from Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin (3 and 4 after Liversage 1968). Fig. 9B: BELOW. Clay crucible fragments and conjectural reconstruction of crucible from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway. Actual size (after Cotter 1995).

205

Figures

Fig. 10A: ABOVE. Rim sherd of clay crucible from Site F, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. Actual size (after Ó Ríordáin 1954). Fig. 10B: BELOW. Rim sherd of clay crucible from the Wedge-Tomb at Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. Actual size (after Ó Ríordáin & Ó h-Iceadha 1955).

206

Figures

Fig. 11A: ABOVE. Rim sherd of clay crucible from Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone. Actual size (after Williams 1978). Fig. 11B: BELOW. Reconstructed clay crucible from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Actual size.

207

Figures

Fig. 12: Hoard of stone moulds from Omagh, Co. Tyrone. Moulds 1 - 2 (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

208

Figures

Fig. 13: Hoard of stone moulds from Omagh, Co. Tyrone. Moulds 3 - 5 (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

209

Figures

Fig. 14A: ABOVE. Bivalve stone mould for casting dirks and other objects from Broughshane, Co. Antrim (after Burgess & Gerloff 1981). Fig. 14B: BELOW. One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socket-looped spearheads and trunnion chisels from Inch Level, Co. Donegal (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

210

Figures

Fig. 15: Bivalve stone mould for casting four rapiers from Inchnagree, Co. Cork (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

211

Figures

Fig. 16A: ABOVE. One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting four spearheads from Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (after Evans 1881). Fig. 16B: BELOW. Hoard of stone moulds from Killymaddy, Co. Antrim. Mould 1 (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

212

Figures

Fig. 17: Hoard of stone moulds from Killymaddy, Co. Antrim. Moulds 2 - 4 (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

213

Figures

Fig. 18: Hoard of stone moulds from Killymaddy, Co. Antrim. Moulds 5 - 7 (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

214

Figures

Fig. 19: Hoard of stone moulds from Ballyliffin, Co. Donegal. Moulds 1 - 4 (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

215

Figures

Fig. 20: Hoard of stone moulds from Ballyliffin, Co. Donegal. Moulds 5 – 8 (5 - 7 after Coghlan & Raftery 1961; 8 after Collins 1970).

216

Figures

Fig. 21A: ABOVE. Hoard of stone moulds from Ballyliffin, Co. Donegal. Mould 9 (after Collins 1970). Fig. 21B: BELOW. Hoard of three stone moulds from Culfin, Co. Galway (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

217

Figures

Fig. 22: Hoard of two stone moulds from Toorglas, Co. Mayo (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

218

Figures

Fig. 23: Hoard of three stone moulds from Sultan, Co. Tyrone (after Williams 1980).

219

Figures

Fig. 24A: TOP. Bivalve stone palstave mould from Ballycastle, Co. Antrim (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig 24B: CENTRE. One valve of bivalve stone mould for chisels from Mistyburn, Co. Antrim (after Collins 1970). Fig. 24C: BOTTOM. One valve of bivalve stone mould for looped and socketed spearheads from Rasharkin, Co. Antrim (after Collins 1970).

220

Figures

Fig. 25A: TOP. One valve of bivalve stone mould for palstaves from Whitepark, Co. Antrim. Fig. 25B: CENTRE. One valve of bivalve stone mould for razor, spearhead and rings from ‘near Ballymena. Fig. 25C: BOTTOM. One valve of bivalve stone mould for looped and socketed spearheads from ‘near Ballymena, Co. Antrim (all after Collins 1970).

221

Figures

Figs. 26A: TOP LEFT, 26B: TOP RIGHT and 26C: BOTTOM. All single valves from bivalve stone moulds for looped and socketed spearheads and all from ‘near Ballymena’, Co. Antrim. (all after Collins 1970).

222

Figures

Figs. 27A: TOP, 27B: CENTRE and 27C: BOTTOM. All single valves, or parts thereof, from bivalve stone moulds for casting looped and socketed spearheads and all from ‘near Ballymena’, Co. Antrim (all after Collins 1970).

223

Figures

Fig. 28A: ABOVE. One valve of two or four part stone mould from the barony of Castlerahan, Co. Cavan (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 28B: BELOW LEFT. One valve of bivalve mould for socket-looped spearheads from Ballyshannon, Co. Donegal. Fig. 28C: BELOW RIGHT. One valve of bivalve stone mould for socket-looped spearheads from Maghera Co. Donegal. (all after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

224

Figures

Fig. 29A: ABOVE LEFT. One valve of bivalve stone mould for socket-looped spearheads from Maghera, Co. Donegal (after Collins 1970). Fig. 29B: ABOVE RIGHT. One valve of bivalve stone mould for palstaves from Dromore, Co. Down (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig 29C: BELOW. One valve of bivalve mould for palstaves and other objects from Mountrath, Co. Laois (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

225

Figures

Fig. 30A: ABOVE. Portion of one valve of bivalve mould for palstaves from Raheen, Co. Limerick (after Gowen 1988). Fig. 30B: BELOW. One valve of bivalve stone mould for miniature adze from ‘near Dundalk’, Co. Louth (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

226

Figures

Fig. 31A: ABOVE LEFT. Portion of one valve of bivalve palstave mould from Loughash, Co. Tyrone (after Davies 1939). Fig. 31B: ABOVE RIGHT. Bivalve stone mould for socket-looped spearheads from Moylisha, Co. Wicklow (after Ó h-Iceadha 1946). Fig. 31C: BELOW. Bivalve stone mould for palstaves from Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

227

Figures

Fig. 32A: TOP. One valve of bivalve stone mould for palstaves from ? the north of Ireland (after Collins 1970). Fig. 32B: CENTRE. Portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for basal-looped spearheads from the north of Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 32C: BOTTOM. One valve of bivalve stone mould for socket-looped spearheads and razor from ? the north of Ireland (after Collins 1970).

228

Figures

Fig. 33A: ABOVE LEFT. One valve of bivalve stone mould for socket-looped spearheads and razors from ? Co.s Antrim or Derry (after Collins 1970). Fig. 33B: ABOVE RIGHT. Bivalve stone mould for palstaves from Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 33C: BELOW. Bivalve stone mould for socket-looped spearheads from Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

229

Figures

Fig. 34A: ABOVE. One valve of bivalve stone mould for socket-looped spearheads from ? the north of Ireland (after Collins 1970). Fig. 34B: BELOW LEFT. Portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for socket-looped spearheads from ? Co.s Antrim or Derry (after Collins 1970). Fig. 34C: BELOW RIGHT. Portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for spearheads.

230

Figures

Fig. 35A: ABOVE. Bivalve stone mould for ribbed looped and socketed axes from Ballydaw, Co. Kilkenny (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 35B: BELOW. One valve of bivalve stone mould for ribbed double-looped and socketed axeheads from Fethard, Co. Wexford (after Wakeman, in Frazer 1889).

231

Figures

Fig. 36A: ABOVE. One valve of bivalve stone mould for ribbed socketed axeheads from Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 36B: BELOW. Portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for palstaves from Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin 1954).

232

Figures

Fig. 37A: ABOVE. Portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for spearheads from Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. Fig. 37B: BELOW. One valve of bivalve stone mould for palstaves from Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

233

Figures

Fig. 38A: ABOVE. Bivalve stone mould for palstaves and ? knives from Ireland (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961). Fig. 38B: LEFT. Bivalve stone mould for rapiers from Ireland (both after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

234

Figures

Fig. 39: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for casting swords from Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim (after Eogan 1965).

235

Figures

Fig. 40: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for casting swords from ‘The King’s Stables’, Tray, Co. Armagh (after Lynne 1977).

236

Figures

Fig. 41: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for casting spearheads (1 - 4, 11 - 12), swords (5 - 7) and socketed objects (8 - 10) from Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin (5 - 7 after Eogan 1965).

237

Figures

Fig. 42A: ABOVE. Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for casting swords (1, 2, ?4), knives (3) and Single-bladed implements (5, 6) from Oldconnaught, Co. Dublin (after Wakeman 1895). Fig. 42B: BELOW. Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for casting swords from Bohevny, Co. Fermanagh (after Eogan 1965).

238

Figures

Fig. 43A: TOP. Larger portion of one valve from a bivalve clay mould for looped and socketed axeheads from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway. Fig. 43B: ABOVE LEFT. Section through blade area of fragment of bivalve clay mould for socketed axes showing different clay layers, from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway. Fig. 43C: ABOVE RIGHT. Fragment of bivalve clay mould for looped and socketed axes showing loop and part of socket-mouth, from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway.

239

Figures

Fig. 44: Fragments of bivalve clay mould for pin-shank (1),head of sunflower pin (2), spearhead (3) and sword (4), from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway.

240

Figures

Fig. 45: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for socket-looped spearheads (1 - 8), rapiers with notched butts (9 - 12), a tanged object (17) and several indeterminate fragments (13 - 16, 18), from Site F, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin 1954).

241

Figures

Fig. 46A: ABOVE. Clay mould fragments forming most of one valve of a bivalve mould for socket-looped spearheads from Site D, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin 1954). Fig. 46B: BELOW. Fragment of bivalve clay mould for ? knife from Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo (after Coghlan & Raftery 1961).

242

Figures

Fig. 47A: ABOVE. Clay mould fragments from bivalve moulds for swords (1 - 3) and ? sickles (4, 5), from Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone (after Collins & Seaby 1960). Fig. 47B: BELOW. Clay mould fragments from bivalve moulds for swords (B27, 30, 31), socketed axe (B33) and portion of ?pouring gate, from Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone (after Williams 1978).

243

Figures

Fig. 48: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds for socketed axes (1), swords (2) and socketed objects with decorative socket-moulding (3), from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow.

244

Figures

Fig. 49A: ABOVE. Clay mould core fragment from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Fig. 49B: BELOW. Possible fragment of a composite clay core-cum-pouring gate from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow.

245

Figures

Fig. 50A: ABOVE. Clay mould gate fragments from Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin. Fig. 50B: BELOW. Clay mould gate fragment from Dun Aengus, Co. Galway.

246

Figures

Fig. 51A: TOP. Hoard of casting jets from Tullowbeg, Co. Carlow. Fig. 51B: CENTRE LEFT. Possible casting jet in a hoard from Dreenan, Co. Fermanagh (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 51C: CENTRE RIGHT. Casting jet in a hoard from Money Lower, Co. Laois (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 51D: BOTTOM. Three casting jets in a hoard from Co. Roscommon (after Eogan 1983).

247

Figures

Fig. 52: Hoard of wooden casting templates from Tobermore, Co. Derry (after Hodges 1954).

248

Figures

Fig. 53: Hoard of bronzes from Bishopsland, Co. Kildare (after Eogan 1983).

249

Figures

Fig. 54A: ABOVE. Hoard of bronzes from Garden Hill, Co. Fermanagh (after Eogan 1983). Fig. 54B: BELOW. Possible metalworking tools in hoard from Dowris, Co. Offaly (after Eogan 1983).

250

Figures

Fig. 55: Hoard of bronzes and stone object from Lusmagh, Co. Offaly (after Eogan 1983).

251

Figures

Fig. 56. Clay mould fragments from site B, Navan Fort, Co. Armagh. ABOVE: For casting pins. BELOW: For casting bladed objects, probably socketed axeheads. (after Waterman & Lynne 1997).

252

Figures

Fig. 57: Clay mould fragments from Circle K, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (after Grogan & Eogan 1987).

253

Plates

Pl.1A: ABOVE. Possible hoard of bronzes from “the North of Ireland”. Pl. 1B: BELOW. Hoard of bronzes from Teernagloghane, Co. Clare.

254

Plates

Pl. 2A: ABOVE. Hoard of bronzes from Cooga, Co. Sligo. Pl. 2B: Below. Bronze plano-convex ingot from Co. Galway.

255

Plates

Pl. 3: Partially reconstructed clay crucible from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. LEFT. View of bowl. RIGHT. View of base.

Pl. 4: One valve of a bivalve stone mould from Inch Level, Co. Donegal. LEFT. View of spearhead matrix. RIGHT. View of trunnion chisel matrix.

256

Plates

Pl. 5: Bivalve stone mould for casting socket-looped spearheads from Moylisha, Co. Wicklow. LEFT: View of matrix cavities. RIGHT: View of two valves assembled as for casting.

Pl. 6A: LEFT. Greater portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for casting basal-looped spearheads. View of matrix. Pl. 6B: RIGHT. Tip portion of one valve of bivalve stone mould for casting ribbed spearheads. View of matrix.

257

Plates

Pl. 7: Bivalve stone mould for casting ribbed looped and socketed axes from Ballydaw, Co. Kilkenny. ABOVE: View of matrix cavities. BELOW: View of cavity opening from above with two valves assembled.

258

Plates

Pl. 8A: LEFT. Bivalve stone mould for casting ribbed looped and socketed axes from Ballydaw, Co. Kilkenny. View of pouring gate with grooves, probably for core arrangement. Pl. 8B: RIGHT. Plaster-cast of bivalve stone mould for casting socketed peg-hole spearheads with leaf-shaped blades from the ‘North of Ireland’.

Pl. 9A: LEFT. One valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting ribbed socketed axes from Ireland. Pl. 9B: RIGHT. Portion of one valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting looped palstaves from Site D, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick.

259

Plates

Pl. 10: Portion of one valve of a bivalve stone mould for casting socketed spearheads with leaf-shaped blades from Lough Gur wedge-tomb, Co. Limerick. LEFT: View of broken section. RIGHT: View of matrix face.

Pl. 11: One valve of a bivalve bronze mould for casting unlooped palstaves. LEFT: View of matrix cavity. RIGHT: View of exterior surface.

260

Plates

Pl. 12: Bivalve clay mould fragments from Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin. LEFT: (E46: 1505) For casting small socketed implement. CENTRE: (E46: 1502) For casting spearheads. RIGHT: (E46: 1503) For casting spearheads.

Pl. 13: Fragment of bivalve clay mould for casting swords from Oldconnaught, Co. Dublin. LEFT: View of matrix face. The inner and outer layers can be distinguished. RIGHT: View of exterior surface showing cavity for stiffening rod.

Pl. 14: Two fragments of bivalve clay mould for casting swords from Bohevny, Co. Fermanagh. LEFT: View of matrix faces. RIGHT: View of exterior surfaces. Fragment on left shows some spalling off of outer layer, that on right completely lacks outer layer and displays cavity for stiffening rod.

261

Plates

Pl. 15: Bivalve clay mould fragments from Site F, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. LEFT: For casting Group 4 rapiers with notched butts. The notch is clearly visible on the central fragment. RIGHT: For casting socket-looped spearheads. The loop is clearly visible on the central fragment.

Pl. 16: Most of one valve of a bivalve clay mould for casting socketed axes from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. LEFT: View of matrix face. RIGHT: View of exterior surface.

Pl. 17A: LEFT. Fragment of bivalve clay mould for casting swords from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Matrix face. Pl. 17B: RIGHT. Fragments of clay mould gates from Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin.

262

Plates

Pl. 18: Clay mould core fragment from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. LEFT: Section view. RIGHT: Profile view.

Pl. 19A: ABOVE. Hoard of bronze casting jets from Tullowbeg, Co. Carlow. Pl. 19B: BELOW. Extant part of a hoard of bronzes from Garden Hill, Co. Fermanagh.

263

Plates

Pl. 20: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds from Johnstown South, Co. Wicklow. TOP: From blade area of spearhead mould near tip. CENTRE: From socket area of spearhead mould. BOTTOM: From stick-pin or pin-shank mould.

264

Plates

Pl. 21: Fragments of bivalve clay moulds from Johnstown South, Co. Wicklow. ABOVE: From blade area of socketed axe mould. BELOW: From socket-mouth of implement of small diameter such as a gouge, chisel or hammerhead.

265