The Use of Social Space in Early Medieval Irish Houses with Particular Reference to Ulster 9781407310022, 9781407322414

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Summary
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction: Approaching the house
Chapter 2. Literature review: Houses in early medieval Ireland
Chapter 3. Setting the scene: foreign feet in alien houses
Chapter 4. The excavated early medieval round-houses of Munster, Leinster and Connacht
Chapter 5. The excavated early medieval rectilinear houses of Munster, Leinster and Connacht
Chapter 6. The excavated early medieval round-houses of Ulster, Part 1: Settlements, settings and status
Chapter 7. The excavated early medieval round-houses of Ulster, Part 2: Interiors and function
Chapter 8. The excavated early medieval rectilinear houses of Ulster
Chapter 9. The literary evidence
Chapter 10. Conclusions: Houses as ways of life
Appendices
Bibliography

Citation preview

The Use of Social Space in Early Medieval Irish Houses with Particular Reference to Ulster Iestyn Jones

BAR British Series 564 2012

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 564 The Use of Social Space in Early Medieval Irish Houses with Particular Reference to Ulster © I Jones and the Publisher 2012 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 9781407310022 paperback ISBN 9781407322414 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407310022 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 2012. 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

Summary This study takes as its subject matter the use of social space in early medieval Irish houses (c. A.D. 600-1200), although the evidence from the province of Ulster is interrogated in more detail. During this period there is a shift from curvilinear to rectilinear house forms. Excavation reports, published and unpublished, have been widely consulted and are the main focus for this research. The Old Irish legal tract Críth Gablach, composed during the earlier part of the early medieval period, is analysed in particular detail with reference to its information about houses and social status. The earlier chapters include a revue of earlier research in Ireland and elsewhere including a range of archaeological and anthropological house-related research. It is argued that a particular analytical approach as described by Amos Rapoport is one useful way of examining these houses. A Rapoportian approach identifies settings or milieux in which a series of features act as mnemonics, cueing appropriate behaviour. This work attempts to identify these features in the archaeological record and proposes that these can be used for describing a particular way of living as reflected in the early literature. It is proposed that Rapoport’s non-fixed features, identified as behaviour and activity, play a major part in structuring the lives of people in the earlier part of the early medieval period in Ireland. It would seem that within this essentially hierarchical society, previously described as comprising ‘cattle lords and clansmen’, people conveyed status with reference to others within the house space. A change, particularly clear in Ulster, can be identified in house and settlement form during the latter part of the period. People, rather than cattle, became the target of raiders and arguably this insecurity can be read in the later architecture.

Acknowledgements This study gratefully acknowledges financial assistance from the James Pantyfedwen Foundation, Aberystwyth. Particular thanks are due to Professor Ray Howell, Dr. Jon Kissock and Dr. Maddy Gray at UWN. A number of scholars have also been generous with their advice and encouragement especially in the early stages of the research process. These include Professors Stephen and Miranda Aldhouse-Green, Dr. Mike Hamilton and Dr. Josh Pollard, Dr. Chris Lynn, Jackie McDowell, Dr. Aidan O’Sullivan, Michael Monk and Dr. Mark Grahame. I am grateful to the archaeologists, academics and fellow research students who have also been generous in providing clarification of certain points or copies of their excavation reports and plans, often ahead of publication. These include Colm Moriarty, Dr.William O’Brien, James McSparron, Michael Gibbons, Erin Gibbons, Linzi Simpson, Sharon Greene, Dr. Michelle Comber, Hilary Murray, Helen Kneale, Professor Peter Woodman, Rob O’Hara, Kirsten Jarrett, Maureen Doyle, Dr.Triona Nicholl, Dr. Rebecca Boyd, Eoin Halpin, Philip MacDonald, John Bradley, Jonathan Kinsella, Con Manning, Edward Bourke, Malachy Conway, Mary Beaudry, Peter Davey, Professor Fergus Kelly, Dr. Judith Jesch, Dr.Thom Kerr, Dr.Emily Murray, Dr. Rachel Pope, Ruth Hegarty, Professor George Eogan, Rose Cleary, Gerry Walsh, Alan Hayden, Jerry O’Sullivan, Fintan Walsh, Martin Halpin, Deidre Murphy, Chris Bowles, Dr. Karen Milek, Claire Walsh, Professor Roberta Gilchrist, Dr. Richard Hingley, Cathy Moore, John O’Neill, Henry Glassie, Alexandra Sanmark, Stephen Gilmore. Many thanks also to Professor Neil McLeod and Dennis King for Old Irish translation queries. I am especially grateful to those archaeologists who allowed copies of their unpublished plans to be included in this book. I am indebted to Robert (Bob) Chapple for his encouragement and advice throughout the research process and for looking after me so well at Steeple Road, and to Dr. Harry Welsh for providing wonderful hospitality in Belfast. This book is dedicated to Eiry, Gruffudd and Branwen Jones. Diolch o galon.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Approaching the house: Introduction

1

Chapter 2

Literature review: Houses in early medieval Ireland

8

Chapter 3

Setting the scene: Foreign feet in alien houses

19

Chapter 4

The excavated early medieval round-houses of Munster, Leinster and

29

Connacht Chapter 5

The excavated early medieval rectilinear houses of Munster, Leinster

56

and Connacht Chapter 6

The excavated early medieval round-houses of Ulster, Part 1:

88

Settlements, settings and status Chapter 7

The excavated early medieval round-houses of Ulster, Part 2: Interiors

113

and function Chapter 8

The excavated early medieval rectilinear houses of Ulster

138

Chapter 9

The literary evidence

163

Chapter 10

Conclusions: Houses as a way of life

175

Appendices

187

Bibliography

208

11

Chapter 1 Introduction: Approaching the house have become quickly associated with the older word privy: toilet (but also) secret or hidden (Austin 1998,183185). Austin (1998, 185) defines the roots of privacy as meaning ‘hidden bodily function’. The notion of ‘hidden’ is one that is still applicable today even though a bodily function may or may not be directly associated. If not hidden then distance is required; to ask for some privacy is to betray the need for increased distance between people. This distance is relative and dependent on that available within the immediate environment. The concept of appropriate distance may also be culturally variable. Hall (1973, 162-185) describes the contrast between American and Latin American senses of spatial awareness in day to day communication. The Latin American approach, for example, demands closer proximity than does the North American one.

Houses can be defined as structures that shelter people from the elements, varying in form from place to place depending on those elements from which shelter is needed. Houses are also more easily constructed from locally available material. Thus house form is most influenced by geographical location and the available technologies and materials. This seemingly logical conclusion, however, is only partially true. Many different forms of housing are found in similar climates and geographical localities. Amos Rapoport (1969), writing forty years ago, came to the conclusion that other determinants such as defence, economics and religion were also important factors. Houses, he states, are complex cultural structures that reflect ‘an environment best suited to the way of life of a people’ (Rapoport 1969, 46). If Rapoport is correct then in order to examine a particular people at a particular time houses are vital subjects for study. This study is an examination of the house in early medieval Ireland and how its archaeological signature in conjunction with early literature may be read to provide a clearer picture of a particular way of life.

To seek privacy in a modern detached European house would be to leave one room and enter another. This is not possible within a single space and would demand a more radical approach such as leaving the house altogether. A single roomed traditional Fijian vale dwelling is conceptually divided into a ‘private’ area and a more ‘public’ area with a change of level and floor surface as opposed to a partition or wall (Oliver 2003, 157). Whilst hanging fabrics may have been used as a dividing element, the main emphasis on privacy seems to be organised along the lines of seniority and gender. Rules seem to dictate who sat where at particular times. The main division apart from this seems to be between inside and outside the house and entry is often by ‘invitation only’ (Oliver 2003, 157). Similarly within the French house, the main division was been between the inside and outside. A later quote from the chapter describing houses in Burgundy noted above confirms this:

1.1. Houses and people: division and focus ‘…all members lived around the same hearth, under the same light. They rubbed shoulders incessantly in the same room. Day and night they were under the scrutiny of the others. This constant proximity was controlled by the imposition of strict discipline between the generations. Each individual obeyed rules and conventions that brought back the distance that was indispensable in this collective existence.’ Description of a house in Minot, Burgundy c. A. D. 1900 (Zonabend 1984, 15). This description of an early twentieth century house in Burgundy, highlights a number of themes that are relevant to studies of most houses. If and how household space is divided is perhaps one of the major influences on how the space is used. Firstly most modern readers would associate different spaces with means of achieving privacy. Twenty-first century Western society is now so accustomed to houses in which people live in more than one separate space that it accepts this convention almost without question. The concept of household members living mainly within one un-partitioned space is, by now, an alien one to most western sensibilities. To answer one question about privacy, however, leads to a number of other questions such as how does one define privacy? Is ‘privacy’ a universal need in people? Is it historically or culturally specific and does it change over time?

‘By excluding the outside world as much as possible and concealing the family group you kept others at a distance’ (Zonabend 1984, 16). Within the Burgundy house ‘rules’ are described as creating the divisions that the absent partitions did not provide. These rules related to behaviour according to gender and age. The space was divided up by a ‘whole series of mechanisms, symbolic or practical’ (Zonabend 1984, 17). Appropriate seating positions were adhered to in particular situations. A chair belonging to the master of the house was in one location, opposite that of the mistress where she worked at the sewing machine and observed the comings and goings through a nearby window (Zonabend 1984, 11). At meal time the master and mistress would sit on one side of the table with the youngest child between them. The rules of behaviour are described as being learnt by watching children and by being taught to grandchildren, in the absence of working

The original use of the English word ‘private’, has roots in late-medieval religion and commerce but seems to

1

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

comparatively cursed in terms of the lack of written evidence to support their research, they are also blessed by the challenge that alternative approaches provide. The lack of written evidence can help account for approaches influenced by sociologists and anthropologists (e.g. Donley-Reid 1990; Bourdieu 1973). It comes as no surprise, therefore, to encounter a variety of methodologies used by house prehistorians (e.g. Parker Pearson and Richards 1994b; Fitzpatrick 1997). Some of these structuralist interpretations have not been without criticism (see Pope 2007 and Chapter 3 of this study), nevertheless the discourse is a valuable one as there is a distinctive effort to interpret in terms of social space. The culmination of such enlightened approaches is perhaps best illustrated in the detailed reinterpretation of a Neolithic settlement in Turkey, Çatalhöyük (Hodder and Cessford 2004; Hodder 2006, 109-140). Here Hodder identifies the house not only as an architectural structure but as a focus for repeated daily activities essential to the ‘socialization’ of all (Hodder 2006, 135-136).

parents, by grandparents (Zonabend 1984, 62-63). This process has been variously described as ‘enculturation’ or acquiring ‘habitus’ (Rapoport 1990a, 65-66; Bourdieu 1977, 89) and will be further examined later in this study (see Chapter 3). An important word that leaps from Zonabend’s passage is ‘hearth’. The definition depends on its context. It is an evocative word that conveys ‘focus’ as much as it does lighting, heating or cooking facility. In his study of a 1970s community in Ballymenone, Co. Fermanagh, Glassie describes the hearth as: ‘…on center’ (sic.). ‘Directions within the home are set by motion around the fire’ (Glassie 1982, 327)’ and also as ‘…the family’s midpoint in space’ (Glassie 1982, 354). Again a key feature within the house is acknowledged as being pivotal in forming young minds:

Whilst houses of the historic past have been discussed in terms of typologies and construction techniques more socially focused approaches to medieval buildings have emerged only relatively recently (Johnson 2002; Gilchrist 1994; Giles 2000). In north-west Scotland a medieval farmstead at Bornais, South Uist, excavated by a multidisciplinary team, led to a particularly interesting interpretation that was more socially focused (Sharples 2005, 183-187). Using a range of archaeological and scientific techniques several floor levels were identified and examined. The organic deposition record around the hearth on a lower floor level was interpreted as indicative of possible precise positions for the head of household and dependants in terms of seniority and gender (Sharples 2005, 187). Sharples interprets a change in deposition focus around the hearth on the succeeding floor as indicating the death of the former (male?) head of household, the growing status of a one of the former dependant females and the absence of a former dependant male (Sharples 2005, 187). Whilst Sharples admits his interpretation may be simplistic and gendered the house is, at least, perceived as a social construct rather than a building type.

‘The community builds itself at the hearth so the rules it devises for its own regulation are ‘fireside law’. When children join adults to grow within the family, they are instructed and entertained through ‘fireside stories’ and ‘fireside songs’’ (Glassie 1982, 360). This model not only acknowledges the importance of learning within a house but pinpoints one particular feature which provides a focus for this activity. It follows from this that the hearth was not any area of burning but a particulary significant one that, at least in twentieth-century Minot and Ballymenone houses, was a prominent focus within daily house life. That the word ‘hearth’ is so evocative and difficult to disassociate from the house is partly because of the role described in the type of literature encountered above but also because even in modern European centrally heated houses there is a need for a focus. Today televisions or personal computers are beginning to rival the hearth as alternative foci and yet many houses still have real or artificial fires. It is no surprise that this important association between buildings and fires influences archaeologists. In Jackie McDowell’s (2005, 27) study of excavated early medieval houses at Deer Park Farms, Co Antrim she clearly states that all excavated buildings were primarily regarded as ‘structures’, but where an associated hearth was clearly identified ‘it was described as a house’. Hearths, therefore, clearly provide the archaeologist with physical evidence of a possible focus within the house. Unfortunately the observations noted above from relatively recent French and Northern Irish houses do not exist for most prehistoric or early historic houses and different approaches are needed for their interpretation.

Socially focused studies of early medieval houses, defined here as between the 6th and 12th century A.D., however, lag behind (e.g. James et al. 1984). In southeastern Britain studies of early medieval houses have tended to focus on the structural details of halls and associated sunken featured buildings (e.g. James et al. 1984; Welch 1992; Hamerow 1993; Tipper 2004). In Wales meanwhile, there are, presently, only a limited number of excavated early medieval structures available for interpretation. In Ireland, a country blessed with a large body of early medieval archaeological sites, more socially focussed works are either very recent or in preparation (Boyd 2012; Nicoll 2011; O' Sullivan 2008; O' Sullivan and Kenny 2008). Chris Lynn’s earlier invaluable studies of early Irish medieval houses (Lynn 1978a; 1986; 1994)

1.2. Studying houses European settlement prehistorians are both cursed and blessed in terms of their subject matter. Whilst 2

APPROACHING THE HOUSE

Rapoport’s theory (outlined more fully in chapter 3) provides a framework by which it may be possible to identify possible cues within Irish early medieval houses. To this end excavation reports describing Irish early medieval houses will be examined with specific reference to and interpretation of features that may have cued specific behaviour in specific settings. Structural elements form an unavoidable part of Rapoport’s cues in terms of the fixed and semi-fixed features and it is necessary, for instance, to identify the location of entrances, hearths, internal roof-supports and any other ground penetrating features. The construction of the walls is less relevant other than in demonstrating the presence or otherwise of features such as roof-supporting posts and possibly the affect of day-light levels within the house (Nicholl 2005a). The non-fixed features alluded to by Rapoport include evidence for activities and behaviour. One of the ways that archaeologists can accurately analyse activities within a house is to examine surviving artefact patterns. Unfortunately due to variable data collection priorities, indicative of the development of archaeology as a discipline, and disturbance of sites, caused by a variety of processes prior to excavation, this may be a variable and consequently challenging aspect of this research.

are more concerned with construction techniques than social issues. Since Lynn’s earlier studies, more is now known about the internal make up of these and more socially focused works are emerging following these discoveries. This is partly the result of excavations at at one particular settlement in Northern Ireland, Deer Park Farms in Co. Antrim, directed by Lynn. More examples of early medieval houses have been unearthed in Ireland in recent years and it is important that an attempt is made to understand their social as well as their structural significance. Ireland is particularly lucky to have not only a large number of identified early medieval settlements but also a surviving body of literature dating from the early medieval period which, cautiously used, can contribute to this study. Whilst a number of field-surveys of Irish counties contain descriptions of settlements and individual structures (e.g. O' Sullivan and Sheehan 1996; Stout 1997) many of these are unexcavated and undated. Monk’s (1998, 35) doubts regarding the static interpretations of monuments are especially pertinent in this respect. Graham’s (1993, 50) assertion that a continued morphological form does not constitute ‘functional or social continuity’ is also relevant. Without excavation ‘form’ is usually the only observable element and the typology of sites and structures based on unexcavated surveys does not take into account the changing nature of these sites and structures (Monk 1998, 35). It is with this in mind that field-based surveys of possible early medieval houses were not targeted as part of this research.

Another of the chief difficulties lies in attempting to overcome the superficiality of examining a number of excavated structures in a relatively large country. To this end only excavation reports from one specific region of Ireland, Ulster, will be examined in more detail whilst the remaining three provinces Connacht, Leinster and Munster, will be examined specifically in terms of key features within structures either of circular or rectilinear form. Ulster as defined within this study includes six counties from Northern Ireland, namely counties Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone. It also includes three counties that are in the Republic of Ireland, counties Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal.

1.3 Aim of research Amos Rapoport (1995, 29), an environment-behaviour researcher, defined a ‘home’ as a ‘house + X.’ X, in this case, could mean a variety of things but it is arguable that the houses and elements within the house both reflected and structured the way that people lived their lives. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu described the house as an arena where daily practice and experiences are encountered by the young, a process he summarised as acquiring habitus (Bourdieu 1977, 90). Amos Rapoport, identified the house as one element of a culturally specific setting where specific cues, described as fixed, semi-fixed and non-fixed, act as mnemonics in defining encultured behaviour (see chapter 3). Both of these theoretical approaches to space involve the young being socialized within the house through either acquiring habitus in Bourdieuan terms or enculturation in Rapoport’s terminology. Whilst Bourdieu envisages people learning to respond by observing and participating in reflexive social practice on a daily basis, Rapoport is more specific in his identification of specific cues as triggering appropriate behaviour. In terms of archaeological reports, if specific cues can be identified, whether fixed, semi-fixed or non-fixed features, it could greatly aid the interpretation of houses as structuring structures.

In terms of labelling and defining the period in question for the purpose of this study a number of issues arise. The spread of Christianity in Ireland seems to have begun in the early fifth century (Hughes 2005, 310) and it is this period (c.AD 400-500) that should probably be termed early Christian. When discussing Ireland of the seventh to eighth century, however, it may be misleading to use this term. With this in mind the term early medieval is preferred in this study to Early Christian, used by many Irish archaeologists. In Britain ‘early medieval’ has come to mean the period of time between the decline of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth-century and the Norman invasion in the eleventh-century. Despite some disputed claims (e.g. Warner 1996) in recent years there appears to be little evidence for direct contact between Ireland and the Roman Empire and the Normans began arriving in the twelfth (1169) rather than the eleventh century. There is also a growing body of evidence to suggest cultural contact between Scotland and Ireland during a period which archaeologists are happy to label early medieval (Armit 2008). Consequently this label is adopted in this study. 3

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

The 1940s to 1960s proved fruitful for Ó Ríordáin’s examination of a number of enclosures and structures in the southern Irish counties. During the earlier part of this period Gerhard Bersu, fresh from his enforced exile and work in the Isle of Man, excavated an enclosure at Lissue, Co Antrim. Still awaiting posthumous full publication, his interim interpretation of a large ‘roofed’ enclosure was not fully accepted at the time and remains controversial to this day.

1.4 Methodology Excavation reports, as previously stated, will be consulted and assessed as a major part of this study. Whilst published reports dating back to the nineteenth century are traceable, the recording methods and interpretive priorities are understandably different from those of the twenty first century. Plans of excavated house sites form an important starting point for this research and identifying, redrawing and labelling features within a number of key structures is essential. To ensure consistency and the usefulness of comparanda, measurements and scales have been converted to metric, in line with modern convention. Fixed- and possibly semi-fixed features will be described in relation to key plans which will be included within the chapters. Many older reports seem to emphasise the importance of artefacts and many of these are described and drawn in detail but only ascribed a vague provenance. This hampers any detailed examination of activity areas within the houses and identification of Rapoport’s non-fixed features. If activity areas are to be identified and interpreted as evidence of use of space, detailed artefact plots are mandatory.

The 1970s and 1980s saw particular excavations in Northern Ireland in which Chris Lynn played a significant part, and his studies (Lynn 1978a; 1986; 1994) were amongst the first to examine, date and classify early medieval Irish houses. Chapter two will include an assessment of Lynn’s significant contribution to this field. Chapter two also examines more recent studies of early medieval Irish houses within more general early medieval Irish studies and traces the beginning of a much more recent trend towards more social interpretations of houses, a trend, this study contends, is still in its infancy. Chapter three will outline the development of the archaeology of houses from a theoretical, sociological and anthropological perspective. It will discuss the development of structuralist approaches in the field of sociology which led to similar approaches by some archaeologists in their interpretations of excavated prehistoric houses. Other approaches include those derived from linguistic analysis and involve ‘reading’ the spatial syntax of houses as revealed by surviving walls and entrances. The usefulness or otherwise of such approaches will be examined in analysing the excavated remains of early medieval Irish houses. Amos Rapoport’s environment-behaviour work will be critically evaluated as a tool for deconstructing Irish early medieval houses as ‘structuring structures’. The chapter will describe the methodology by which Rapoport’s theory of settings and architectural cues may be used to approach these houses and the settlements in which some of these are located. Key to this will be the definition of Rapoport’s fixed, semi- and non-fixed features. The chapter will also compare Bourdieu’s notion of ‘habitus’, whereby the young learn to use space reflexively through daily practice and Rapoport’s ‘enculturation’ involving cued responses to features within the environment.

More recent excavations (1970 onwards) can be traced electronically using the database of Irish excavation reports (excavations.ie). Brief summary accounts for each excavation are usually given and a published hard copy of each year is also available. More detailed excavation reports can usually be traced via this site using the excavation license number as the appropriate reference detail. In the Republic of Ireland reports are usually available via the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, whilst in Northern Ireland non-published details were obtained from the Environment and Heritage Service, Belfast. A number of reports exist as grey literature and will have been be traced, where possible, from individual excavators or archaeological contractors. 1.5 Study structure The study contains ten chapters of which this introduction forms the introductory component. The second chapter comprises a literature review relating to past studies, published and non-published, which have dealt with early medieval Irish houses. It will begin with a brief discussion of early archaeological discoveries in Ireland and the impact of various archaeologists and excavation methods on the interpretation of houses. The earlier excavations involved forays into former lacustrine environments and crucially paved the way for the later significant excavations of the 1930s. The Harvard Expedition in the 1930s involved the investigation of a number of settlements including the crannogs or artifical islands at Lagore, Co. Meath, first investigated in the earlier period, Ballinderry, Co. Westmeath and the cashel or stone enclosure at Cahercommaun, Co. Clare.

Chapter four will examine key non-Ulster Irish roundhouses, the majority of excavated examples for which are in Munster. These structures will firstly be examined in terms of dating and their location within settlement contexts. A study of the location of round-houses within enclosed settlements was first broached by Lynn (1986, 150-151) and interpreted as either to do with morphological compatibility within a curvilinear enclosure or for defensive reasons. Not only will Lynn’s study be updated but his interpretation will be reexamined in terms of the possible socio-symbolic nature of centrality within enclosed settlements.

4

APPROACHING THE HOUSE

with this period have been excavated in Ulster). Features that may have cued appropriate behaviour include rath entrances, pathways and boundaries. This chapter will examine particular features and how they may have acted as cues. An attempt will also be made to correlate excavated Ulster round-house dimensions with those associated with particular grades in the eighth century legal tract Críth Gablach. Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim, not only the best preserved but also one of the most completely excavated examples of an early medieval enclosure, provides an opportunity for investigation of the possible link between the dimensions and the settlement locations of enclosed round-houses. An enigmatic early medieval upland enclosure in Ballytuoag, Co. Antrim, also provides the study with a useful counterpoint that may be indicative of a settlement organised in a very different way.

The database of excavated structures from published and available non-published sources will be examined for key structural elements that may have been involved in structuring social encounters within the houses. This chapter will be the first to identify fixed-, semi- and nonfixed features from the archaeological record within these structures as interpreted in excavation reports. A rare detailed artefact plot for phase Y of the round-house at Moynagh Lough provides an opportunity to identify nonfixed features within the house in terms of detritus resulting from various activities. Some of these houses had internal souterrain access. Souterrains, man-made subterranean passages, may have been built for the purposes of refuge and/or storage (Clinton 2001, 59-64) and it is interesting to note the comparative lack of souterrains within the Ulster examples. Chapter five will examine the excavated rectilinear early medieval houses from Munster, Leinster and Connacht. In common with the round-houses, key features interpreted as fixed-, semi- and non–fixed features will be identified. To date only a few of these structures have any 14C dates directly associated with them and caution must be exercised. Despite being associated with early medieval artefacts, very recent 14C dating work on one of the rectilinear structures at Inishkea North, Co. Mayo, for instance, may indicate a medieval as opposed to an early medieval date (Sharon Greene, pers. comm.).

The interiors of the Ulster round-houses is examined in chapter seven. The core of this chapter will, again, highlight the way that these structures were set out in terms of their cuing features. The vast majority of these excavated houses were discovered within rath enclosures with only two unenclosed examples to date. A notable characteristic of many Irish early medieval round-houses is the lack of internal free-standing roof-supporting posts, with only a sixth of the excavated structures providing possible evidence. This situation is even more pronounced in Ulster, although the sheer amount of similarly constructed houses at Deer Park Farms may bias the conclusion. In contrast with the southern counties, the Ulster round-houses do not seem to be associated with souterrains. This may have implications not only in terms of use of space but also in terms of the dating of round houses and souterrains.

Chris Lynn (1978a) noted some time ago a trend of morphological change from the earlier round to later rectilinear form during the early medieval period. This is a trend particularly clear in the north-east (Ulster) where early medieval structures are either round or rectilinear. There appears to be less of a clear distinction in the southern and western regions. In one particular example at Leacanabuaile, Co. Kerry, for example there appears to be a move from round to rectilinear but in piecemeal fashion; a round back-house conjoined to a rectilinear front house. A feature of this period is the possible house building influences from Scandinavia. Whilst the urban Hiberno-Norse structures in such settlements as Dublin and Waterford are not targeted in this study a number of rural structures may display some of the cultural traits noted in these houses. These structures will be evaluated in terms of the likelihood of such influence or otherwise.

Other features within the Deer Park Farms houses appeared to structure the way that space was used. A number of woven timber features and layers of associated organic material in similar locations within the houses were exceptionally preserved (Lynn 1989). Where these features, identified as bedding areas, were not present because of differential preservation, their presence was occasionally indicated by stake-hole patterns closely mirroring the shape of the preserved examples. These ‘bedding areas’ identified in differing conditions at Deer Park Farms are useful not only for interpreting spatial use at the site itself but also in the identification of similar features in other excavated structures. Intriguingly within one of the central houses a similar feature to the bedding areas survived only as layers of scattered vegetation with no associated stake enclosing element. If this was common within other less well preserved structures at other sites there would be no archaeological signature that would indicate their presence. In this scenario the lack of any features in an appropriate area may be indicative of the former presence of one of these informal bedding/seat areas.

Ulster contains roughly a third of Ireland’s excavated houses with County Antrim in the north-east having the greatest number of investigated structures. The region is also blessed with one of the best preserved excavated early medieval sites in Europe: Deer Park Farms, Glenarm, Co Antrim. Chapter six, seven and eight are specifically focused on the Ulster houses. Chapter six (settlements, settings and status) comprises the first part of a two-fold examination of the Ulster early medieval round-houses. It will detail the excavated structures and their settlement contexts, the vast majority of which were located within rath enclosures (to date only two examples of unenclosed round-houses associated

The interpretation of these as fixed or semi-fixed will be an important guide in identifying how the settings within the house may have changed and if their location was 5

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

number of difficulties that a researcher will encounter in dealing with archaic texts. The first major obstacle is text comprehension and the availability of accurate and reliable translations (in this case Old and Middle Irish into English). Another is the dating of the text. Irish texts are classed as Early Old Irish from the mid-sixth to late seventh century A.D, ‘Classical’ Old Irish in the eighth and ninth centuries, whilst the language of the tenth to twelfth century is usually described as Middle Irish (Russell 2005, 407). One of the major relevant texts relating the to the eighth century in Ireland is Críth Gablach, a legal text that makes direct reference to a number of grades of noble and non-noble freemen. The text has been translated a number of times with perhaps the most useful and accurate being MacNeill’s (1923). The tract lists a number of factors that are appropriate for each grade including, where relevant, number of cattle and or clients, honour-price, retinue, material possessions and the dimensions of their houses and airchae (possibly back-houses). A particularly important section towards the end describes how a king’s banquet may have been arranged in terms of seating arrangements (MacNeill 1923, 305-306). This is a rare description of a particular setting and can be interpreted in terms of certain fixedand non-fixed features. A later gloss belonging to a collection of legal texts known as the Senchas Már and dated to the mid-eight century also intriguingly describes an appropriate position for a seated prosperous farmer within his house. Another set of legal tracts has been used by Kelly (2000, 448-451) to associate women with particular household tasks; in particular Cáin Lánamna, ‘the law of couples’ (Shipman 2006) or ‘the regulation of a complete pairing’(Charles-Edwards 2005, 338), also from the Senchas Már. This chapter will attempt to assess the information these texts offer in terms of the houses, settings and how status may have been conveyed by their dimensions and contents.

significant in this respect. Another significant but unpublished contribution that Deer Park Farms provides is the detailed artefact plot and interpretation provided by McDowell’s (2005) work. These plots, some of which are redrawn in chapter seven, can aid in the interpretation of activity areas and differentiate how front and back-houses were used in different ways. Along with Bradley’s (1984) similarly unpublished work at Moynagh Lough they provide invaluable insights into the way that space was used. Chapter eight focuses on the excavated rectilinear structures within Ulster. The majority of these structures were also located within enclosures but a significant few were unenclosed. In contrast to the round-houses of this period many are not only associated with souterrains but have direct access from within the house. Clinton (2001, 60) suggests that souterrain entrances indicate their original function. If the entrances were located within the houses, as some in Ulster were, it may be possible to suggest that the areas within the houses where souterrain entrances occur may also be associated with the primary souterrain function, be it storage or refuge. Whilst the majority of the round-houses in Ulster had earth floors, parts of which may have been covered with seasonally available organic material, parts of the rectilinear house floors seem to be stone paved. A purely functional interpretation would be to identify these paved areas as indicative of heavy foot traffic. When other areas within these houses are assessed in terms of function or possible activity, however, the paving may be assessed as indicating more than just floor wear prevention. These paved areas will be examined to see if and how they are considerably more meaningful than a superficial glance would indicate. Only one artefact location plot was available in relation to any of the rectilinear houses and this was associated with a structure in the far north-west of Ulster. The structure at Rinnaraw in Co. Donegal is distinctive in that it has a paved platform at one end, interpreted as a possible ‘room’ (Comber 2006, 82). The artefact plot, however, seems to indicate iron production that may post-date the structure’s use as a house whilst the only indicator of domestic use was quern stone fragments. Whilst no other artefact plots associated with houses have, thus far, been produced, the Ulster excavation reports will be scrutinized for possible informative data.

A number of other references to houses occur in texts such as hagiographies and the voyage and adventure narrative tales. Considerable caution must be exercised as many are found in later manuscripts and may relate to Middle Irish rather than Old Irish originals. These works may also be subject to literary devices such as hyperbole and allegory, many dealing with magical themes. There are exceptional descriptions of royal houses in which wealth and status are conspicuously displayed but bearing little resemblance to excavated buildings. In order to evaluate their usefulness or otherwise for this particular study, notable tales will be scrutinised for references to house morphology, entrances, furnishings and seating arrangements.

The change from curvilinear to rectilinear houses during this period is a theme that is relevant to the whole of Ireland. Can examination of the houses alone provide an answer to the question of why this took place? In Ulster certain trends emerge from the examination of some rectilinear houses that provide evidence of the growing importance of the house as opposed to the enclosure. This evidence may reflect major economic and social changes that were taking place during the latter part of the early medieval period.

Chapter ten concludes the study by examining how a Rapoportian approach to early medieval Irish houses can aid the archaeologist and historian alike in their interpretation of these structures. Is it possible to rely on Rapoport’s descriptions of fixed-, semi-fixed and nonfixed features as vital in cuing appropriate behaviour within these houses? Further interpretation of Rapoport’s definitions is clearly needed if this is to be useful. The Deer Park Farms site in Co. Antrim contained the

Chapter nine examines the written evidence concerning this period that deals specifically with houses. There are a 6

APPROACHING THE HOUSE

remains of many early medieval round-houses ranging from remarkably well-preserved to disturbed and poor. A number of organic features within the house survive in such a way that it is possible to not only interpret their function but also interpret in Rapoportian terms (fixed, semi-fixed or non-fixed features). Rapoport (1990b, 13) concluded that a house space was a series of settings and these changed depending on how the semi-fixed features and non-fixed features were arranged. Being able to interpret features in Rapoportian terms then involves their identification as either fixed-, semi-fixed or non-fixed features. Deer Park Farms offers this study the opportunity to see not only how these features can be identified on other less well-preserved sites but also how, within appropriate settings, they may have cued appropriate behaviour. The excavation of early medieval houses in one particular region, Ulster, provides an opportunity to look for particular patterns that may be contrasted with other parts of Ireland. Morphological change in houses took place in Ireland during the early medieval period and a study of Ulster suggests that it was wholesale rather than piecemeal in north-east Ireland. It is possible to trace other changes within the later Ulster houses that may be linked to changes in settlement form and economy (Kerr 2007). The fact that these changes occured broadly at the same time that house form changed may also be significant. Cultural change has been shown to affect the physical environment including spatial organisation of the house (Hacihasanoglu and Hacihasanoglu 2006). If, as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, houses reflect ‘an environment best suited to the way of life of a people’ (Rapoport 1969, 46), if that way of life changes it may also change the way the houses are arranged and built. If houses are to continue to provide archaeologists and historians with insights into past ways of life they must also be excavated, interpreted and published fully. Whilst realising that the needs of the researcher differ from those of other associated professions a strategy for approaching houses will be offered together with a suggested way forward in terms of possible future research.

7

Chapter 2 Literature review: Houses in early medieval Ireland dry-land early medieval buildings were in Ulster. Lawlor’s work at the rath at Dreen, Co. Antrim targeted the visible remains of ‘two contiguous circular hut sites’, 15 feet (4.5m) in diameter, within the centre of the enclosure together with a souterrain (‘earth house’) near the perimeter (Lawlor 1918-19, 8-9). He discovered a series of hearths and 9th to 11th century Souterrain Ware, commenting that the lack of superimposed hearths, as observed in lake dwellings, together with the shallow ‘refuse’ horizon suggested a short occupation (Lawlor 1918-19, 12). The monastery of Nendrum, Mahee Island, Co. Down destroyed according to documentary sources in A.D. 974 was also investigated by Lawlor and his account describes 4 curvilinear foundations and platforms as ‘early medieval buildings’(Lawlor 1925, 106-107). They are compared to remains at Iona and described as probable wattle and daub or plank built ‘workshop’ huts with conical roofs of thatch located around the inner perimeter of the enclosure (Lawlor 1925, 107).

2:1. Introduction This chapter aims to describe and evaluate the treatment of early medieval houses in Irish archaeological and historical literature. Whereas in the past Old Irish sources were the main body of evidence concerning houses of this period, in recent years the balance has shifted with archaeology acting as a gauge of the relevance and accuracy of the Old Irish documentary sources. This chapter, for reasons of substance and clarity, will not deal with houses and the literary sources such as law texts and narratives, which are treated separately in chapter 9, but with more recent secondary sources that deal specifically with the description and analysis, in some form or other, of Irish early medieval houses. The nature of the literature reflects not only the development of archaeology and historical studies as core disciplines but also the growing body of excavated evidence, with more summary, regional and specialist settlement studies in evidence in recent years.

2.3. Houses and the Harvard Expedition in Ireland (1930s)

2.2 Early discoveries and excavations (19th century 1920s)

Following the peat-cutters revelations at Lagore Crannog over a hundred years earlier, excavations by the Harvard Archaeological Expedition in Ireland between 1934 and1936 seem to have revealed a crannog or artificial island sub-structure with a palisade but little tangible evidence of a house, although the material culture assemblage heavily reinforced by documentary references seemed to identify it as the ‘royal island of Lagore’ occupied between the seventh and tenth centuries A.D. (Hencken 1950, 3-5 & 65-66; Warner 1994).

The discovery of houses by excavation in Ireland can be traced to the search for ‘the shadowy race’ under the peats of the country; the first lake-dwellers in Erin (Wood-Martin 1886, 3; O' Sullivan 1998, 8). Many of the manuscript sources had been interpreted as suggesting that early Irish houses were rectilinear despite knowledge of the existence of circular structures from Roman sculptures (Wood-Martin 1886, 43). The famous discovery of a curious two-floored open-ended ‘loghouse’ with a hearth within a ‘staked enclosure’ by Captain Mudge in 1833 at Inver, Co. Donegal, may have been interpreted as an ‘ordinary crannog hut’ or ‘lairs for sleeping in’ by the 1880s, but lacking any similar domestic parallels in crannog excavations throughout the twentieth century the structure has since been reinterpreted as a possible Neolithic mortuary house akin to the structure at Haddenham (Wood-Martin 1886, 41; Coles and Coles 1989, 17). Similar constructions are described by Wood-Martin at Kilnamaddo, Co. Fermanagh (Wood-Martin 1886, 39). Further evidence of a rectilinear ‘house’ was discovered at the ‘lacustrine retreat’ at Lagore, Co. Meath. Here peat-cutters had discovered nine foot high planks of wood with a narrow entrance but no windows or chimneys and interpreted the discovery as a square or rectangular hut (see Harvard Expedition below) (Wakeman 1879-82, 325-326; WoodMartin 1886, 23).

Further excavations by Hencken and the Harvard Expedition in Ireland on Ballinderry Crannog no. 1, Westmeath, revealed what they interpreted as a large tenth century ‘horse-shoe shaped house’ with a central hearth (Hencken 1936, 107-108). In later years this interpretation has been reviewed and altered by other authors including published reports by Lynn (1985/6) and Johnson (1999b). Lynn re-interprets Hencken’s original horse-shoe shaped ‘house’ as a primary crannog’s perimeter and the ‘hearth area’ as a smaller wicker roundhouse within this crannog (Lynn 1985/6, 73). Nevertheless Hencken’s thought at the time was that the curvilinear large house ‘occupied almost the whole surface of the palisaded island’ and that their standard of living was ‘not a high one’ (Hencken 1936, 225-226). Not all excavation by the Harvard Expedition targeted lake dwellings. Anything that might be used to promote the Celtic, pre-English conquest, origins of the Irish was of interest (O' Sullivan 2003, 22). Cahercommaun in County Clare, described as a ‘purely Irish’ large ninth

It is perhaps rather apposite, given the later focus of this study, that some of the earliest recorded excavations of

8

LITERATURE REVIEW

consisted of a series of curvilinear structures, a shelter and a rectangular structure (Ó Ríordáin 1949a).

century A.D. stone fort was also excavated and produced evidence for several structures and souterrains; many labeled using martial terminology such as ‘guard house’ and ‘sentries post’ (Hencken 1938, 1-2). The structures revealed consisted of incomplete curvilinear and rectilinear ruined masonry with associated hearths within the confines of the stone enclosure and probably represent many phases of occupation. In terms of dating Cahercommaun, the resemblance of artefacts to ones recovered at Lagore crannog placed it in the middle of the same period (ninth century A.D.) (Hencken 1938, 2-3). It must be noted that the fashionable culture-historical interpretation of these sites was influenced to a large extent by Austrian archaeologist Adolph Mahr at the National Museum of Ireland and that Ireland’s cultural floruit was identifiable with the ‘Christian’ period (Trigger 1989, 253).

Some of the southern and western county enclosures with evidence for houses were excavated by O’Kelly in the 1950s and ’60s including the curious site at Carrigillihy where a rectilinear stone built structure, dated to the early medieval period and with opposed doorways, was built on precisely the same location as a Bronze Age oval structure within an enclosure (O' Kelly 1951). O’ Kelly’s scale models of both the prehistoric and early medieval buildings are perhaps the equivalent of the modern isometric drawing and, apart from general morphology, superficially suggest little difference between the two houses despite the apparent chronological gap (O' Kelly 1951, plates 8-10). It is typically this type of site with a mixture of prehistoric and historic features within an enclosure that has confused settlement dating in Ireland and for this reason it would be wise to use Lynn’s label of ‘annular earthwork’ rather than ring-fort to describe the Carrigillihy enclosure (Lynn 1983a, 48).

2.4. The 1940s-1960s An exiled German archaeologist, Gerhard Bersu, brought his considerable experience of Manx sites to Ireland and during 1946 to 1947 excavated the site of Lissue ringfort in Co. Antrim. Although not fully published, interim reports (Bersu 1947; 1948) together with a much later summary by Richard Warner (1987) suggest that a massive 40m diameter round-house covered the interior of the rath. Bersu’s interpretation, was no doubt informed by his interpretation of a 30m diameter round house at Ballakeigan on the Isle of Man (Bersu 1948, 44). Some doubt must be cast on this comparison for a number of reasons. Bersu’s interpretation of Ballakeigan was questioned by many archaeologists at the time of the excavation and some Manx specialists still feel that it is flawed (Peter Davey, pers. comm). The Manx site (c. 300 B.C.) was considerably earlier than Lissue (c. A.D. 9-10th century) and thirdly, with the exception of the nondomestic Iron Age Navan multi-ring-timber structure, no other Irish parallels have since been discovered for this massive house. The more likely structural interpretation for this structure, a small sub-rectangular house, is discussed in chapter 7.

A further ‘reconstruction’ drawing of an excavated square early medieval house (the first Irish house to be dated by 14 C) at White Fort, Drumaroad, Co. Down, was offered by Waterman (1956b, fig. 7; McAulay and Watts 1961, 36). Whilst it is possible that this house may have had a second storey, Waterman’s ‘clearstorey’ with louvre windows is too elaborate by far given the evidence and it is likely that the structure was a much simpler single storey structure. Waterman and O’ Kelly’s reports, however, show that there was a growing awareness of architecture during this period as opposed to the artefact focused reports of the 1930s. Waterman, comparing the morphology and scale of excavated structures such as Lissue and White Fort, reflects on the ‘diversity of layout’ in Ulster’s ‘Dark Age’ sites, although no attempt at this time is devoted to explaining this (Waterman 1956b, 86). 2.5. 1970s – 1980s: collation and analysis A significant body of work, in terms of excavation and analysis, in the field of early medieval Irish houses has been carried out by Dr. Chris Lynn, formerly a senior archaeologist with the Environment and Heritage Service, Northern Ireland. Deer Park Farms, Glenarm, Co. Antrim, which he co-excavated with McDowell in the 1980s, has proved to be a watershed in early medieval Irish settlement studies in terms of the sheer volume of information gleaned from the well preserved raised rath (see below).

A series of excavations by Ó Ríordáin in the 1940s and early ’50s targeted enclosures. The complex of enclosures at Cush, Co. Limerick revealed circular and rectangular post-built structures with souterrains (Ó Ríordáin 1940). Leacanabuaile stone fort, Co. Kerry (see fig. 4.6 – chapter 4), meanwhile, produced evidence for an unusual combination of a conjoined circular clochán with souterrain and rectangular structure, together with other rectilinear structures within the enclosure probably dating to the 9th to 10th century (Ó Ríordáin and Foy 1941). Other notable excavations by Ó Ríordáin included much of the Lough Gur, Co Limerick, landscape with its concentration of prehistoric and historic sites (Ó Ríordáin 1949b; a). In terms of early medieval (8th to 11th century) settlement, structures at Lough Gur, Carraig Aille and Carraig Aille II consisted of enclosures with associated structures, hearths and floors whilst the Spectacles

Site specific reports aside, Lynn’s early paper (1978a) briefly responds to earlier equivocal attempts to date ringfort or rath settlements by arguing convincingly for their attribution to the early medieval period (1978a, 31). Lynn’s main theme, however, is the changing morphology of houses during this period based on relative site stratification. A trend for rectangular to supercede curvilinear houses is convincingly identified 9

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO UILSTER

A total of eleven groups are described (types A – K) with three classifications describing timber structures. Type A, the most common timber classification, has twenty four stake-built structures, type C features eight post-built buildings whilst type G, plank or split timber has only one example. Stone-built round-houses are divided into those with corbelled stone roofs (type I) or those with stone or stone faced walls with more conventional types of roofing (type H). The only other definite wall type described is that of a turf-built circular structure, type F, of which there are three examples. Other classifications are based on archaeological imprints that have equivocal structural implications such as type B describing a slot or foundation trench with no specific indication of the walling material used, type D comprising annular drainage gullies, type E, where the walk line is indicated by a ring of stones and burnt outlines of circular structures, type J. To an extent the success of formulating such classifications outside of the academic confines of a thesis lies in the universality of their application, itself dependent on dissemination through publication Lynn’s later work includes two classifications not noted in his thesis: L and M. Whilst type M is indicated by ash spreads, the presence of an L type structure (possibly a subset of type A?) is indicated by a curvilinear ridge of clay which Lynn discovered during his ongoing excavation at Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim during the 1980s (Lynn 1994, 86). Types A, E and J have increased from the 1986 figure with type A being the most significant increase.

during this period (Lynn 1978a, 31). The impetus for this morphological change is discussed, with ecclesiastical and Anglo-Saxon architectural forms listed as possible influences (Lynn 1978a, 38). It must be stated, however, that the tradition of curvilinear or round structures in Ireland did not die out during this period with examples excavated within medieval ringworks (e.g. Ballysimon) and pictorial evidence of post-medieval ‘creats’ associated with booleying (upland cattle pasturing) activity (Collins and Cummins 2001; O'Conor 1998, 9497). Lynn’s later unpublished thesis (1986) looked at houses and related structures during the ‘Early Christian’ period. This work consists of three volumes devoted to excavated examples of round and rectangular houses and outbuildings. His study, the first to attempt a discussion of all Irish Early Christian houses excavated prior to 1986, has at its heart a database of 240 excavated structures from over 120 excavations and his main aim, perhaps prompted by his background as a fieldarchaeologist, seems to be to date, catalogue, classify and contextualize the structures. The work is thorough and comprehensive and provides a base from which many later studies, including this one, must begin. In terms of classification Lynn organizes his database in terms of structural attributes (e.g. post-built) or archaeological imprint (e.g. structures defined by annular gullies) (Lynn 1986, 76-86). Lynn refined, extended and crucially published this classification in 1994 by which time other structures had been excavated and added to the dataset. Both sets of classification (1986 and 1994) are outlined below (table 2a)

Lynn classifies the rectilinear structures in chapter 8 (1986, 87-102) which are again amended in his later (1994, 87) publication. site only known. Large roundhouses

K Type (1986 ) A B C D E F G H I J

Descriptio n 1986 Stake built Foundation slots Post-holes Drainage gullies Ring of stones

Type (1994 ) A B

Description 1994

198 6

Wicker Same

25+ 8

1990 (1994 ) 40 8

C D

Same Same

8 13

8 13

E

Arc of contiguous boulders Same Same

13+

17

3 1

3 1

Substantial stone walls Same with emphasis on late dating. Site only known, no

14

14

2

2

5

7

details K

L M

Turf walls Wall of planks Stone walls Corbelled stone roof

F G

Burnt outlines –

J

H I

Total

Very large houses (problematic ) Outline indicated by ridge of clay Burnt ashy spreads

2

2

4 3 94+

122

Table 2a. Lynn’s round-house classification (1986 & 1994)

10

LITERATURE REVIEW Type (1986) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O/B

Description (1986) Walls of dry-built stone Row of contiguous stones Walls of mud/turves (no stone edging) Timber or framed on post-supports Stone alignments (wickerwork or timber superstructures?) Linear slots Wickerwork No evidence of walling Irregular plan (misc.) Lack of domestic activity

Type 1994 1 2

Description 1994

1986

Same Same

39* 23

1990 (1994) 39* 23

3

Same

5

5

4

Spaced posts (some doubtful) Wall slots

6

6

2

2

Wickerwork House platforms onlyno walling. Miscellaneous or vague

2 2

2 12

11 18 9

16

118

105

5 6 7 8

Total

Table 2b. Lynn’s rectilinear house classifications (1986 and 1994)

Ring-forts Embanked enclosures Large ring-forts Stone forts External to enclosures Crannogs Mounds, Platforms Ecclesiastical enclosures Unenclosed Uncertain

Circular 41 3

Rectilinear 24 7

Stone 12 8

Wood-derivative 50 2

2 11 1

10 20 19

5 23 13

6 9 4

11 23 23

3 6 4

0 6 15

14 22 13

4 8

2 0

5 2

0 6

Table 2c. Lynn’s settlement contexts (After Lynn 1986, Table 12:1)

however, to have a table key noting the total sample of structures as 203 and 206 variously on succeeding pages when the actual total of structures shown is 222, of which 127 are circular and 95 are rectilinear (Lynn 1986, 145146). Whilst taking the time to treat these enclosures as different Lynn is, however, cautious in accepting that some patterns, such as that the majority of structures external to enclosures or within embanked enclosures are rectangular, are not the result of selective excavation or ‘limited detection’ rather than a later shift away from enclosures as settlement types (Lynn 1986, 146-9). He does, however, note a connection between settlement type, house form and chronology (Lynn 1986, 149). The location of houses within enclosures may have specific significance in terms of defence or functionality. An important question, as far as enclosed structures is concerned, therefore is their location within these enclosures.

Lynn has altered some classifications (types 5, 6 and 7) in the 1994 version and deleted his type 9. Whereas the 1986 thesis defines type 5 as stone alignments, possibly indicative of timber structures, the 1994 paper redefines type 5 as wall slotted structures. Again, the 1986 thesis describes type 6 as linear slots which Lynn later alters to wickerwork structures. The 1986 type 7, meanwhile, which is described as wickerwork has later changed to house platforms with no evidence for wall constructions. The smaller total in the 1994 column, however, may be explained mainly by his omission of ‘a dozen structures….identified tentatively as outbuildings’ (1994, 87) from his summary table in his paper titled ‘Houses in rural Ireland’ as opposed to his earlier (1986) ‘Houses and related outbuildings’ (this author’s italics). Lynn’s chapter 12 examines the houses within their settlement contexts (see table above). It is distracting,

11

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

Round

Rectangular

Fig. 2.1. Houses within Enclosures (Based on Lynn 1986, table 12:2) (Lynn 1994, 93). The terminology of time has for very similar reasons been recently discussed by Kerr (2007, 116) (see below).

Lynn’s diagrams above clearly show that the majority of round structures were located in the central area of the enclosure whilst the majority of rectilinear structures were either located in the centre or to the left of the entrance.

Aside from these published works and thesis Lynn’s contribution to this field also includes a number of site specific reports, the most comprehensive of which include the Raised rath at Rathmullan, Co. Down (Lynn 1981-2). This comprehensive site report includes a useful and highly relevant discussion of early medieval curvilinear wicker house reconstruction in the phase 2 discussion (Lynn 1981-2, 78-85). Lynn, however, has not successfully published all excavated sites to such a degree. His co-authored Pieces of the Past (Hamlin and Lynn 1988) attempts to summarize site excavations at such key northern Irish sites as the embanked enclosure at Ballywee, Co. Antrim (Lynn 1988b) and raised rath at Big Glebe, Co. Derry . These are both significant sites with Ballywee providing an excellent, now preserved example of an upland embanked enclosure settlement that includes nine structures both domestic and non-domestic in appearance together with three associated souterrains (Lynn 1988b, 32). The term embanked enclosure is not used by Lynn is this account although the publication date (1988) post-dates the thesis in which he describes Ballywee as an example of such a settlement (Lynn 1986, 146-147). In form this type of settlement is clearly related to raths. The banks enclosing the settlement, however, are neither continuous nor uniform in nature and Lynn is probably correct in making this distinction.

2.6 1990s – the present Lynn’s later article (1994) summarizes the findings of his PhD thesis (1986) and is understandably far more comprehensive in its outlook than his previously published article in 1978. This paper is also further influenced by his excavations at Deer Park Farms (Lynn 1987; 1989) which he completed in the interim period between the thesis and this publication. Specifically Lynn’s labeled ‘Raised raths’ column (Lynn 1994, 89, Table 4), as opposed to mounds/platforms noted in his thesis table 12:1 (see above) has increased from 23 to 63, as a direct result of his including the excavated Deer Park Farms structures. The origins of the rectangular form is again questioned and, in response to Wallace’s (1992a, 93) post-thesis arguments in favour of an indigenous origin for the Dublin rectangular Viking Age houses, Lynn (1994, 85) argues that the rural rectangular examples seem quite different. The differential spatial division between the Dublin type 1 structures and a majority of the rural examples suggests a separate cultural origin for indigenous rectilinear houses, although a degree of conflation in terms of material use cannot be discounted. This argument, with particular reference to spatial division, is further developed by this author (chapter 5). Lynn, noting the Deer Park Farms structures, develops themes first treated in his thesis regarding the dimensions noted in the Críth Gablach, where there is, he interprets, a ‘degree of correspondence’ between text and excavation (Lynn 1994, 91). Following Lynn’s earlier discussion the transition from round to rectangular houses along with the development of souterrains is labeled by Lynn as the ‘Late Iron Age/Early Medieval’ interface

Lynn’s co-excavator at Deer Park Farms, Jackie McDowell, has also recently contributed a valuable thesis (2005) dealing directly with excavation and spatial studies specifically at Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim. McDowell’s thesis also, prior to full publication of the Deer Park Farms excavations, is the only detailed source available to this author. Drawing on the work of La Motta and Schiffer (1999) a number of structures throughout the phases present the archaeologist,

12

LITERATURE REVIEW

mentioning a number of more recently excavated sites, however, it is similar in content and conclusions to her earlier valuable contribution.

according to McDowell, with ‘end situations’ (e.g. destroyed or buried houses) that may reflect in-situ activity areas (2005, 107 ff.). McDowell’s arguments regarding the end-situations are well-supported and it would seem that areas described by the excavators as ‘bedding areas’, usually present in Deer Park Farm’s single round-houses on the north side and in the fronthouses of the main figure of eight structures, on the north and south, were defined (enclosed or semi-enclosed) slightly raised floor surfaces that acted as multifunctional areas, literally set-aside for activities in a seated position (e.g. craft working and eating) and sleeping. McDowell interprets the artefact distribution within structure X (phase 6a) as suggesting that these side areas displayed no apparent gender specific differentiation in terms of craft activities (McDowell 2005, 196-197). Textile working related artefacts and waste were found in both bedding areas either side of the hearth strongly suggesting that both areas were used by women and it is not unlikely that the leather working products and waste found in the same areas is also evidence of female activity. The apparent emphasis on the northern side of the house at Deer Park Farms does tend to support literary evidence that the use of space was structured (see chapter 8). Her conclusions in terms of World View, however, hint at deeper theoretical interpretations of spatial studies that will be further developed here (chapter 3); that of individual agency within a structured system. Apart from McDowell and Lynn’s theses and publications few works have dealt specifically with houses of this period.

Bradley’s later paper (2002) provides an overview of housing at this time as part of a collected work dealing with the rural houses of the medieval period. Much of his essay cites Lynn and Edwards (reviewed above). He highlights two unresolved issues as far as the early period is concerned; that of origin of the round form and reason for the change from round to rectangular. In the case of the latter issue Bradley’s paper misleadingly gives the impression that Lynn is an exponent of the Scandinavian origin theory for rectangular forms when, at best, Lynn is dubious of this: ‘These houses’ remains do not appear (to this writer) similar to their nearest and broadly contemporary neighbours in Dublin’ (Lynn 1994, 85). Bradley does, though, attempt an explanation that is multi-factorial; that of house form reflecting not only Scandinavian influence but also social change linked to emerging centralizing quasi-feudal kingdoms, ecclesiastical centres and the resulting demise of the social order associated with raths and their stratified residents (Bradley 2002, 212). Kerr (2007) in his very recent work on Ulster settlements also argues that the ninth and tenth centuries in Ireland marked a ‘watershed in economic, social and political change’, a move away from a cattle based economy to a regional arable system located on platform (raised) raths and unenclosed sites. Both these authors argue convincingly that major political, economic and social changes were afoot at this period but it is not within either’s remit to propose why house form should necessarily change other than for Bradley to describe it briefly as ‘keeping up with fashions’ (2002, 212). If, however, houses are ‘structuring structures’, is this change in morphology allied to a possible move away from raths which may have deeper roots that merely ‘keeping up with fashion’.

2.7 Summary studies Nancy Edwards’s important summary of work on The archaeology of early medieval Ireland deals with aspects of settlement, subsistence, art, industry and church and ends with an overview of Viking impact on settlement in Ireland (1996). Six pages of the chapter focusing on settlement deal specifically with houses although a further four pages discuss souterrains; which can be shown, in many cases, to be associated with houses during this period (1996, 22-32). Edwards’s focus in this brief, although useful, treatment are the structures’ archaeological signature, building techniques and materials, morphology and relative chronology and can, in this sense, be seen to be directly influenced by some of Lynn’s earlier articles (e.g. Lynn 1978a) (discussed below). Although Deer Park Farms in County Antrim is mentioned (Edwards 1996, 23-25 & 27), insufficient data had emerged at this relatively early date to explore internal spatial arrangements within houses or to label accurately the Deer Park Farms settlement phasing (Edwards’s Phase 1 should be labeled 6a). Edwards’s interpretation (1996, 27) of the ‘bedding areas’ within the Deer Park Farms structures as Old Irish imdae is an important one and has been further developed by this author (Jones 2007) (chapter 9). Further to her earlier work Edwards’s recent contribution on the archaeology of the period in a New History of Ireland updates her earlier conclusions (Edwards 2005). Apart from

Other significant works, such as Michell and Ryan’s landscape study (2003, 259-281) make brief reference to houses during this period although mainly relying on interim reports of work at Deer Park Farms. The tendency to present an Ireland-wide unified view of developments, a pitfall highlighted by Monk (1998, 33-52), is apparent at the end of the chapter dealing with souterrains and settlement where it is stated that souterrains are exclusively associated with rectangular houses (Mitchell and Ryan 2003, 281), when there are many examples in the southern counties (such as Bray Head and Ballynavenooragh, Co. Kerry) of circular structures associated with souterrain constructions. Mytum’s work (1992) examining the early Christian period in Ireland by definition of his chronology, up to AD 800, limits his study to mainly circular houses. Interestingly he places discussion of houses within the context of society and family rather than within a study of architectural form (1992, 111-117). Mytum, whilst not limiting himself to excavated structures, considers that the archaeological evidence ‘overwhelmingly’ supports a single (circular) dwelling as the basic unit of settlement 13

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

walling: post and wattle, wattle and daub and stone (Nicholl 2005a, 29). Whilst the post and wattle walls presented the best quality of daylight filtering through the walls and, by contrast, the stone-walls the worst, it is unclear how the Deer Park Farms type of insulated double-wicker walls would have filtered light during daylight hours. Another interesting observation Nicholl makes is the almost negligible effect of fire-light within these structures during daylight hours as opposed to night time when the fire becomes a significant focus. In terms of alternative light sources the excavations at Deer Park Farms have shown that more portable lights were available and some were possibly intriguingly stored near the entrance of back-house R where there would have been a low level of daylight (McDowell 2005, 179 - fig. 11.5)

associated with the nuclear family whilst the settlement also contained ‘at most a few more distant relatives’ (Mytum 1992, 111). His use of unexcavated examples is, however, unfortunate. He considers conjoined structures with communicating doorways as units with differing degrees of privacy depending on the location of external doorways, perhaps drawing on Hillier and Hanson’s model of access analysis. To illustrate his point Mytum compares two unexcavated sites in Co. Kerry with the visible remains of stone round-houses. Ballynavenooragh is described as an example of a conjoined pair of communicating circular structures with only one external entrance and therefore an example of one private and one less private space. This is contrasted with Glanfahan 1283, where two conjoined communicating structures each had an entrance and therefore, claims Mytum, possessed ‘a certain independence’ (Mytum 1992, 114). Excavation has since shown that both the conjoined structures at Ballynavenooragh had external entrances providing access to the enclosed cashel as well as a communicating (inner) entrance (Gibbons 1995, 9-10). Mytum’s observation (1992, 114) that each rath phase usually contained one house is also almost certainly oversimplistic; the most completely excavated site of this period, at Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim, for instance had ‘at least’ two domestic structures with central hearths and ‘imdae’ in each phase (McDowell 2005, 196).

Works that discuss the ‘Early Christian’ period in Ireland from a historical viewpoint also necessarily make use of archaeological as well literary sources. De Paor and De Paor’s early work (1958) examines Irish contacts with early Christian missionaries, the development of monasteries, art and Viking contact throughout the period. In terms of houses and settlement the De Paors work is quick to compare archaeological and literary sources and in the process cast doubt over Bersu’s interpretation of a roofed rath (Lissue) as the usual type settlement (De Paor and De Paor 1958, 80). Due to the early (pre-Lynn 1978a) date of the work, one distinction that the De Paors fail to note is the transition from round to rectangular structures. Another factor which dates the work is the use of phrases and terms such as ‘extreme squalor’ and ‘offensive mess’(1958, 87-88) to describe the interior floor areas of houses reminiscent of and no doubt influenced by earlier works describing AngloSaxon settlement in these terms (e.g. Leeds 1936, 26; Lethbridge and Tebbutt 1933, 149). The interpretation work by McDowell at Deer Park Farms goes some way to explaining the ‘end-situations’ of houses in an Irish early medieval context and the various abandonment and postabandonment formation processes involved (McDowell 2005, 107 ff). Similarly Jess Tipper’s work on AngloSaxon sunken featured structures has explained how many of these were sometimes filled rapidly with domestic refuse at the abandonment and postabandonment stages (Tipper 2004, 102-107).

Another current research project with direct relevance to this subject area is that of Nicholl’s (2005a) work from an experimental perspective. Whilst experimental work on roundhouses in the past has largely been directed towards ‘reconstructing’ prehistoric structures (with a particular focus on the Iron Age), little work has been done on the Irish early historic examples. Nicholl’s work, whilst ‘inprogress’ at this time, begins to pose questions about the use of space within ‘reconstructed’ structures in terms of the effects of fire-light and visibility. In particular the low quality light in the upper, standing or ‘modern’ sitting position within the house which she attributes to the low walling and ‘smoke ceiling’ may be significant (Nicholl 2005a). Consequently, Nicholl advocates that lower levels of the interior (floor or low stools) would have been the locations for optimal visibility. This would necessarily have repercussions for interpretation of fixed and non-fixed features within the house. It is clear from McDowell’s work on artefact distribution at Deer Park Farms, for instance, that the ‘bedding areas’ may have been used for craft working activities such as decorative needlework that would have required good levels of visibility (McDowell 2005, 144). Nicholl’s interpretation of light quality may mean that if craft activities were carried out in these ‘bedding areas’ (imdae), then they may have been low platforms rather than relatively high seats or beds in the modern sense. Whilst the brief published summary of Nicholl’s work, presumably, does not include all relevant detail, one consideration, almost impossible to quantify would be ancient conceptions of optimal visibility as demonstrated by a light-meter. Nicholl’s work, based initially at the Irish National Heritage Park, used round-houses with three types of

Ó Corráin’s (1972) work again pre-dates the Deer Park Farms excavation and therefore much of the detail regarding the interior of houses is derived from literary sources alone and described as ‘uncertain’ (1972, 61-67). Given this uncertainty Ó Corráin bravely outlines a cautious description (based on textual references) including shared beds of rushes, vented walls, central fires and candle light although, again, the phrase ‘extreme squalor’ is used to describe living conditions, regardless of status and as revealed by excavation (Ó Corráin 1972, 65). Charles-Edwards’s (2000) comprehensive volume deals primarily with Ireland in the earlier part of the period (fourth to the ninth centuries A.D.) and mainly from a 14

LITERATURE REVIEW

historical perspective. Whilst focusing on the church and society and the rise of the Uí Néill dynasty in the northern half of Ireland there is a useful chapter on communities and more specifically, in terms of dwellings, on the household (Charles-Edwards 2000, 106-112). The interdependence of husband and wife is emphasized albeit with both playing distinctive roles within the domestic context, although this may have differed within a noble household where slaves probably played more of a role (Charles-Edwards 2000, 110-111). CharlesEdwards is also keen to suggest that a noble household was prone to instability in its drive for political alliances with polygyny and fosterage a possible corollary (2000, 112). Whilst these interpretations have obvious relevance to the interpretation of excavated settlements, CharlesEdwards’s most important contribution in terms of spatial studies is his emphasis on the importance of privacy as indicated by literary and physical evidence (2000, 106107). Whilst the literary evidence is dealt with in more detail in chapter 9, in brief, variable legal compensation for theft does seem to suggest that physical boundaries, relative to settlements and radiating out from the central house, may be interpreted in terms of gradations of privacy; the house being the most private, the outfield, the least (Charles-Edwards 2000, 107-108). This would seem to suggest that the banks and ditches surrounding the les of the rath had meaning that was understood and consequently the entrances associated with them were liminal areas, thresholds that would have been distinctive. The importance of boundaries and thresholds was one that also informed monastic settlement layout in Ireland at this time, although the significance of enclosure, and boundaries is well attested throughout the history of many peoples of the world (Bitel 1990, 58-66). The significance of boundaries in this context is highlighted by the apparent need for lords in the earlier centuries of this period to conspicuously emphasise these boundaries in terms of multivallate raths whilst seemingly dispensing with the need for such markers in favour of later raised settlements. Throughout this period it is also likely that there remained people that did not or could not enclose their homes in this way and it is easy, because of the continuing invisibility of such settlements in the landscape today, to dismiss such settlement as marginal.

less high ranking settlements and enclosed within an impressive bank (1995, 74-75).

Ó Cróinín’s work on early medieval Ireland (1995) covers the period A.D. 400-1200 and continues very much in Mytum’s vein in terms of its contents, similarly exploring settlement, kingship and the church but with its additional extended time scale (A.D. 800 -1200) covers the Viking impact on Ireland. In terms of houses Ó Cróinín examines two forms of structures, the ‘king’s’ and the ‘ordinary’ house, with the latter interpretation heavily influenced by Lynn’s excavations at Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim, whilst the former is described in terms of a tech midchuarta (mead hall) and the royal house at Tara, both in poetic literature (Ó Cróinín 1995, 71-75). Ó Cróinín is also seemingly supportive of Lynn’s observation (based on Críth Gablach) that a king’s house may have been very similar to an ordinary house albeit in association with a larger number of other structures than

A particularly useful contribution regarding settlement, if not specifically houses, has been made by Monk (1998) within his co-edited collection concerning early medieval Munster (Monk and Sheehan 1998). Some of Monk’s criticism of current approaches to early medieval settlement studies can be embraced entirely. His remonstration that a generalized and unified approach to material culture studies –‘ ringforts, round-houses, ringpins and glass beads syndrome’- tends to obfuscate subtle social, chronological and geographical differences (the vernacular) is well-made (Monk 1998, 35). His criticism of an overemphasis on settlement morphology and dating is, however, perhaps overstated, in that it was this field of enquiry that led to Kerr’s (2007) thesis that raised raths gradually replaced the earlier uni-and multivallate enclosures as a reflection of the change in social and economic changes in the latter part of the period, a

Whilst Graham’s (1993) essay especially stresses the significance of settlement changes during the period, including the possible development of monastic and Hiberno-Norse ‘urbanized’ settlements little mention is made of actual houses. The brief mention of house form is slightly misleading in that, with reference to Lynn’s work tracing the change in house form, Graham notes that unenclosed houses with souterrains attached are ‘square’ and late (1993, 50-51). It must be stated that Lynn’s work describes rectangular houses, whether enclosed or otherwise, as late and it is the association of souterrains as a late development in the northern half of the country with rectilinear houses that possibly should be highlighted. O’Sullivan’s paper (2008) is the first to usefully review the use of housing from this period with respect to social space. It briefly reviews the contribution of housing in the literary and legal sources and provides a valuable introduction to the organisation of space from a spatial or anthropological perspective. The study is clearly influenced by the approach to spatial studies in British prehistoric houses. There is an interesting exploration of ‘house biographies’ in which structures rebuilt on the same spot may be evidence of continuity whilst specific artefacts found within houses may be interpreted as expressing the death of a house (O' Sullivan 2008, 235239), a discussion which O’Sullivan and Kenny (2008) develop elsewhere. Another particularly significant part of O’Sullivan’s study focuses on the orientation of noneast facing doorways which may have untypically faced away from the enclosure entrance or south-westwards as they were referencing alternative settlements or landscape features (O' Sullivan 2008, 255-256). O’Sullivan’s approach is further developed in a paper co-written by Nicholl in which social aspects and particularly the role of women are rightly emphasised (O' Sullivan and Nicholl, 2010). 2.8 Regional studies

15

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

link the significance of the increase in slaves with the trade in people for a field work force thus making sense of the souterrain as a refuge. The change in settlement form and economy that Kerr proposes (A.D. 9th to 10th century) is generally contemporary with the change in house morphology from round to rectangular proposed by Lynn (1978a) and it may be that this was part of the reason for change (see chapter 5).

conclusion not too far removed from Monks’s own (Monk 1998, 48). It is worth, however, noting his warning regarding settlement morphology and landscape surveys in that excavation revealed that the Lisleagh enclosure banks were subject to much change during the early medieval period and were not static constructions (1998, 41). In this respect it is perhaps worth stating that enclosures can change as often as houses. Two projects undertaken by University College, Cork and Monk are discussed; that of an early ecclesiastical enclosure at Caherlehillan, Co. Kerry and its upland hinterland with possible booleying ‘huts’(1998, 36-37) and the ringforts at Lisleagh, Co. Cork (1998, 37-42). In terms of housing the Lisleagh interim reports suggest that wicker circular communicating conjoined structures, such as at Deer Park Farms, were also present here (Monk 1988; 1995; 2003).

2.9 Settlements and houses Four works focus on specific settlement types that were prevalent during the early medieval period, the rath or ringfort and the crannog. One of the earliest works to focus on the Irish rath was Proudfoot (1961) who’s study, in contrast to Stout’s (1997), preferred the term rath rather than ringfort (see below). His study notes a settlement form that was fluid, in that form and function could change with different occupation phases, an observation that predates Monk’s regarding Lisleagh by some forty years (see Monk 1998). Whilst his main focus is the ‘economy’ in terms of agricultural and industrial activity, buildings are considered even if the correlation between archaeological and literary evidence was not thought satisfactory at this time (Proudfoot 1961, 101). Consideration was given to the ‘reconstruction’ drawing of the structure excavated at White Fort, Co. Down, excavated and published by Waterman (1956b) a few years prior to Proudfoot’s study, a drawing considered too sophisticated by Lynn (Lynn 1986, 29; Proudfoot 1961, 102). Unlike De Paor and De Paor’s slightly earlier critical work, the enclosure at Lissue, excavated and interpreted by Bersu (1947; 1948) as a ‘roofed’ rath is accounted for sympathetically due to the lack of apparent drainage required for such a site (contra Proudfoot 1961, 103; De Paor and De Paor 1958). This pro-or anti-Bersu interpretation controversy continues today with most archaeologists critical of the roofed rath and some including Warner (1987) in favour. Proudfoot’s assertion that one family dwelling house per rath was the likely pattern has, however, since been proved by excavations at Deer Park Farms, not to be the case within all enclosures, although this view (as seen above) was still in vogue amongst Irish early medievalists as late as 1992 (e.g. see Mytum 1992, 114).

In terms of other regional studies, the chapter concerning the archaeology of early medieval Ulster is the subject of Mallory and McNeill’s (1991, 181-248) work. In terms of settlement, raths, crannogs and promontory forts are briefly discussed with a social rather than purely defensive function explaining the former (Mallory and McNeill 1991, 196-200). It is debatable, however, if all crannogs can be interpreted as ‘upper-class’ without particular site qualification (Boyle 2004, 91-93; O' Sullivan 1998, 104). Whilst the discussion of buildings is limited to but a few pages the general change from round to rectangular is noted, although curiously associated with this section is a plan of Ballymacash, a rare example of an enclosure where a circular structure post-dates a rectilinear construction (Mallory and McNeill 1991, 193). Another apparent hangover of dated house studies is the description of ‘low, dark and dirty, unimpressive structures’ with ‘food bones...on the floors’ (Mallory and McNeill 1991, 193). Whilst judgemental comments such as ‘unimpressive’ are used relative to other contemporary structures built elsewhere in Europe it must be stressed that they are within different social contexts. Also, with reference to Lamotta and Schiffer’s (1999) later work in this field, made relevant to Ulster’s early medieval houses by McDowell’s (2005) study, food-refuse on the floors of houses is more likely to be the result of abandonment or post-abandonment formation processes. What is surprising however in a chapter devoted to Ulster’s early medieval archaeology and given that a number of interim reports were available before 1991, is the brief mention made of Lynn’s work at Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim, when these excavated houses are amongst the best preserved examples in Europe.

Historical geographer Matthew Stout’s (1997) study of the same settlement type, although preferring the label ringfort, considers their morphology, function, dimensions, dating and distribution based on survey and some excavations. Stout’s preference for the term ringfort derives from his belief in the underestimation of their defensive function which he considered a primary consideration (Stout 1997, 19-20; contra Mallory and McNeill 1991, 196-200). The defensive theme permeates much of his spatial discussion with the reason for the centrality of the main dwelling being explained by its need to be defended (Stout 1997, 33). What all arguments, either pro-or anti-defence, fail to emphasize is the fluidity of enclosures; they could have many different functions but also that these may have reflected changes

Kerr’s (2007) study of early ‘Christian’ settlement in north-west Ulster, whilst discussing the various elements comprising a settlement at this time, is more focused on the change in settlement rather than house form during this period. It does, however, raise some very interesting and relevant points. Kerr proposes that platform raths mark the development of a different type of settlement linked to arable rather than a pastoral economy. Following on from Holm’s (1986) seminal study of slaves in Ireland, Kerr is also one of the first to attempt to 16

LITERATURE REVIEW

date, limited to a possible late example at Tivannagh (unenclosed) and Sroove td, Lough Gur, both Co. Sligo (O' Sullivan 1998, 135; Fredengren 2002, 227-230; Raftery 1957, 9-10). Another similarly dated but partitioned rectangular structure discovered in marshland conditions at Derryville (Killoran 66), Co. Tipperary, but not enclosed, bears a similar appearance to the Sroove structure (Cross May et al. 2005, 255-256). This may suggest that the use and lack of an enclosing element in marsh settlements mirrored dry-land sites. A site at Ballykean, Co. Offaly, surveyed initially in 2003, but recently excavated may have revealed evidence for a large (9m diameter) circular structure which may be the larger front-house of a conjoined and communicating pair as discovered at Deer Park Farms (Stanley and Moore 2004; Turrell and Whitaker 2007). With lakeland settlements appearing to mirror dryland sites in some ways O’Sullivan raises a pertinent point in terms of the spatial layout of crannog dwellings; do house entrances also mirror dry-land enclosed sites that generally face east and towards the enclosure entrance or towards other, possibly associated, settlements (O' Sullivan 1998; cf. Warner 1994)? With this in mind it is interesting to note that Fredengren’s study of the relatively small Sroove td, crannog structure, Lough Gara, Co. Sligo, suggests that the rectangular structure, interpreted as a house, and built within an enclosure constructed on an earlier causeway was built with a corner entrance that whilst referencing the shore to the south was not approached directly from the shoreline causeway on the western side (Fredengren 2002, 221-230). Fredengren’s ‘anti-capitalist’ study does take into account spatial considerations inside and outside the houses, listing the lack of distinctive living or sleeping, private and public spatial divisions apparent within the Sroove structure and postulating a crannog entrance feature complete with threshold rituals (Fredengren 2002, 230-231). Her thesis (Fredengren 2002; Fredengren et al. 2004, 174) is highlighted by Boyle (2004, 92-93) who discusses the possibility that such crannogs may not be the abode of royalty but may reflect a more diverse social settlement association. Certainly at Sroove the crannog does not appear to be within a royal complex as there are no raths in the immediate vicinity, although the crannogs maybe contemporary and related. The change from a domestic to iron producing site (phase 4) at Sroove also suggests that crannogs as well as raths, do not remain mono-functional structures but are fluid and part of an ever shifting settlement pattern of which houses remain a distinctive element. The Tivannagh crannog ‘house’ was associated with an oval outbuilding, again mirroring rath type settlements where associated possibly non-domestic structures were part of most settlements (Raftery 1957, 910). One interesting observation made by Fredengren is the interpretation of the stone floor of the phase 3 Sroove crannog as an interior floor of the house (Fredengren 2002, 231-236). This change of inner-flooring material as opposed to the timber external surface may well mirror similar developments amongst other rectangular structures in the latter part of the period elsewhere in Ireland.

to the local political climate and a particular role at a specific time, a view more in concordance with Monk’s anti-generalized stance (see discussion of Monk 1998 above). Stout interprets Lynn’s contribution regarding the change of morphology and the apparent demise of the ringfort as suggesting that whilst houses changed their shape they continued to embody economic and social continuity (Stout 1997, 32). Confusingly Stout cites the demise of the túath as one reason favoured for the move away from ringforts which, if accepted, would be a major social change and Kerr (2007), amongst others, has suggested a major economic change away from the client-based cattle farming structure of the earlier centuries of this period towards a more arable or locally specialised farming. This interpretation seems incomplete as it would suggest that settlement patterns changed as a result of economic and social forces whilst the change in house morphology, concurrent with these other changes somehow neglected to reflect this in favour of ‘continuity’. One particular aspect of the Irish topography is its abundant wetlands and, as outlined above, several works have attempted to outline the history of lakeland settlements ranging from the nineteenth century to the relatively recent (e.g. Wood-Martin 1886; Raftery 1957; Fredengren 2002; Warner 1994). O’Sullivan (1998) and Fredengren’s (2002) studies are both clear that lakeland settlements have been occupied for millennia and are not confined to the early medieval period. The large circular early medieval dwelling in phase Y at Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath, for example, has significant evidence for Mesolithic and Bronze Age occupation predating it (Bradley 1991; 1994-5; 1997; O' Sullivan 1998, 105). It is clear, however, from the dating of many Irish crannogs that they occupied or reoccupied many sites during the early medieval period, closely mirroring the construction of raths (c.A.D. 500 -1000) (Crone 1993, 249). Warner contends that many crannogs were part of a royal settlement complex perhaps functioning as a bolt-hole from a nearby rath (Warner 1994). Relatively recent investigations at Coolure Demense crannog, Co.Westmeath may be evidence of just such a complex of ringfort, crannog and associated platforms (O’ Sullivan et al. 2005, 42-43). The particular difficulty with crannog sites and house studies is the number of excavated sites with relatively poor evidence for actual house sites. O’Sullivan’s study, for example, describes ten specific crannog sites that were occupied during the early medieval period (Moynagh Lough and Lagore, Co. Meath, Craigywarren, Co. Antrim, Ballinderry no. 1 and 2, Cos. Westmeath and Offaly, Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo, Bofeenaun, Co. Mayo, Newtownlow, Co. Westmeath, Lough Faughan and Clea Lakes, Co. Down), although only Moynagh Lough and possibly Ballinderry no. 1 and Lagore produced acceptable evidence for house structures; phase Y at the former site being the clearest (O' Sullivan 1998, 105128). In terms of house morphology whilst single circular structures exist at such sites, as outlined above, the evidence for early medieval rectangular structures is, to 17

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

produced as part of the pioneering Early MedievalArchaeology Project (EMAP) has provided future researchers with a widely accessible database of published and non-published sites with dates included (Kerr et al. 2009).

With the advent of the recent Early Medieval Archaeology Project (EMAP) based at University College Dublin (O'Sullivan and Harney 2008), and specifically the growing and developing gazetteer of settlement sites there is now a much needed central source of available data for future researchers (Kerr et al. 2009) .

2.11 Conclusion Very little work has so far been published on the interior of Irish early medieval houses as social spaces. Lynn’s thesis touched upon the relevance of anthropological analogy and ethnoarchaeological studies by Chang (1958), Whiting and Ayres (1968) and Flannery (1972) in terms of recreating households, social structure and explaining changes in house form, but generally found that they prompted more questions than answers (Lynn 1986, 134-40). Clearly the Old Irish sources cannot be ignored and provide the basis of chapter 9 of this study. The site at Deer Park Farms has provided a great deal of detail regarding life within a particular settlement during the 8th to 9th century A.D. One of the challenges that new studies must undertake is to examine the way that the architecture of houses during this period not only reflected particular ways of living but also were integral in structuring peoples lives. Given that houses also seemed to have changed form during the period, it would be interesting to speculate whether this morphological change reflects a change in the way that people lived their lives.

2.10 Dating As Lynn (1994, 83) has previously indicated the dating of house sites has relied on artefacts discovered within associated contexts, the results of which can be unreliable due to the considerable timescale over which some of these objects were used. Some of these sites are also dated by documentary means which can, of course, prove unverifiable. The first use of 14C to date houses, as opposed to other settlement related features, was in White Fort, Drumaroad, Co. Down (excavated in the1950s but tested in the 1960s) and Antiville (Larne) Co. Antrim (McAulay and Watts 1961, 36). Both houses produced dates with larger errors of margin, however, than would be expected in more recent samples and it was not until the 1980s that relatively more reliable data accompany excavation reports. Since Lynn’s 1986 catalogue of sites a further 20 or so sites have provided dates for further houses, fourteen alone from the Deer Park Farms houses, and these are catalogued in this study. The recent gazetteer of early medieval Irish settlement sites

18

Chapter 3 Setting the scene: foreign feet in alien houses

homes’ interpreted as requiring nothing more than a fire and an optional basic entrance so that orientation may occur in a series of binary oppositions (inside: outside, left: right, up: down) (Hanson 1998, 3-4). The notion of binary opposition as a universal, however, has not gone unchallenged; indeed, some (Pope 2007, 206; e.g. Bloch and Bloch 1980, 39) would say that some of the ethnographic examples used to demonstrate the universal are more accurately described as specific. Bourdieu’s work and the universality of dualism was, nevertheless, instrumental in terms of its influence on approaches to houses by British archaeologists and the literature that emerged in the 1990s.

‘To enter another culture is to stand nervously in front of an alien house and to step inside a world of unfamiliar objects and strange people, a maze of spatial conventions whose invisible lines get easily scuffed and trampled by ignorant foreign feet’ (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995b, 4) 3.1. Introduction Whilst chapter one examined agendas and discourses associated with excavated early medieval houses, the intention of this chapter is to review recent theoretical approaches to architecture and spatial studies in the light of their usefulness, or otherwise, in approaching early medieval Irish houses. Lynn’s thesis (1986), reviewed in chapter 2, was the first study to consider excavated Irish early medieval houses as a body of evidence and is necessarily dated in two ways. First, since the mid 1980s a number of other sites have been excavated or published that must now be added to the body of evidence to be considered. Secondly, since the 1980s a large body of literature concerning theoretical approaches to houses has emerged and it is with this body of work and its relevance to this study that this chapter is concerned.

One of the first to emerge during this period was Samson’s (1990b) edited volume designed to encourage an anthropological and sociological interpretation of excavated sites (Samson 1990a, 1-2). A wide range of studies include such diverse topics as the organization of space within Orcadian Neolithic houses and the construction of feudal space in Northamptonshire (Richards 1990; Saunders 1990). Bourdieu’s influence can be strongly detected in Hingley’s (1990) structuralist paper, which considers gender roles and social space within later-prehistoric and Romano-British households. Binary oppositions (public- private, open-constrained, central-peripheral, light-dark, cooked-raw, clean-dirty, day-night, summer-winter, culture-nature, fertilityinfertility, life-death and male-female) are very much a central theme of his interpretation of space (Hingley 1990, 133). Within many excavated Iron Age houses hearth related activities occurred in the central area of the house, including cooking, consumption and socialising, whilst the periphery was for sleeping and storage (Hingley 1990, 132). Hingley argues, by contrast, that in the Roman house at North Warnborough the main ‘hearth-less’ hall of the house was essentially a maledominated public space, whilst hearth-focused female activities occured within more peripheral house-spaces (Hingley 1990, 139-40). Hingley’s concluding interpretation is that women played a more public socialising role in Iron Age British houses in contrast to their marginalized social role at Romano-British North Warnborough. His paper was later criticized for being essentialist and derogatory towards women; the correlation of central hearths and static gender roles, possibly lasting millennia, misleading (Gilchrist 1997, 54). To state that gender based divisions are not static regardless of ‘time, space and status’ seems not an unreasonable assertion (Allison 1999, 10), but to dismiss Hingley’s interpretation on the basis of negativity surely invalidates use of similar criteria that result in more positive interpretations of female roles. His argument in relation to the late prehistoric structures also has relevance for the study of Irish early historic domestic

3.2 Houses as structured social spaces The foundations for the emergence of a body of analytical and theoretical literature concerning houses from an archaeologist’s point of view can be traced to the emergence of structuralism and specifically of structural dichotomous thinking, dualism and binary oppositions developed by W.H.R. Rivers in the nineteenth century but taken up by Levi-Strauss in the middle decades of the twentieth (Deliège 2004, 36-37; Lévi-Strauss 1963, 61). Such thinking is based on the notion that, universally, the human mind perceives the world by contrasting a series of opposites (MacCormack 1980, 2). Bourdieu’s study of the Berber house (1973) is perhaps the most widely cited structuralist study of the use of space associated with dwellings. His work suggested that (specifically) Berber house space is one that was expressed in a series of binary oppositions, e.g. man-woman, darkness-light, winter-summer, front-back and wet-dry (Bourdieu 1973, 102). These internal oppositions were also interpreted as reflecting oppositions that existed between the house and the outside world. Particular areas of the house, and the furniture within, also had specific meaning or associations with particular occupants at particular times (e.g. the weaving loom in relation to unmarried women) (Bourdieu 1973, 100). The perceived universality of this structured human condition is not reliant on architecture of any obvious sophistication with !Kung bushmen ‘fire19

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

Berkshire, for instance, heavily influenced interpretations of work on Late Bronze Age houses in the Hebrides which in turn has led some not only to accept the ‘sunwise’ movement as a universal force during these periods in very different areas but also to suggest that it also, as far as the Hebrides were concerned, influenced domestic life there from 1100 BC until the Norse period (Parker Pearson et al. 2004, 198-200). Pope (2007, 223), however, suggests that the number of south-east/east facing prehistoric houses has been exaggerated and there is little evidence to suggest cosmology based on sun movement. This scepticism is also reflected in Armit’s (2006, 249-251) recent publication of the Cnip westfacing semi-subterranean wheelhouse, Lewis. Although he does not altogether dismiss Parker Pearson and Sharples’s comments regarding the possible anticlockwise movement a west-facing house may demand, he considers the evidence equivocal at best (Armit 2006, 250-251). Far from being universal, Pope (2007, 223) argues that left/right distinctions within round-houses may have been a pattern from a particular place (Wessex) at a particular time (Early Iron Age).

structures in that most houses of this period also have central hearths. Whilst cautiously attempting to avoid overly text-influenced interpretations of archaeological sites (see Allison 1999, 3) it is possible to interpret, for instance, that on the basis of a 9th century Irish law tract, Cáin Adomnáin, that associates women with hearths, and the central location of most hearths within excavated early medieval Irish houses, that women may have held considerable sway within these social settings (Meyer 1905). This, however, may be a simplistic interpretation of spatial relationships and if an enlightened and engendered approach is to be applied a study should also try to locate and describe men’s roles within the domestic sphere and women’s roles outside (Lawrence 1999, 122). Certainly women’s roles within early medieval Irish society are only now beginning to be examined from an archaeological standpoint (Kinsella 2008a) and it remains to be seen if women were any more house-bound than men. The artefact patterning evidence from Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim is particularly interesting from this standpoint in that it has been interpreted as suggesting that both sexes were represented within the house interiors with little evidence to suggest spatial divisions based on gender differences (McDowell 2005, 193). There is, however, little evidence to confirm or deny whether craft activities ‘traditionally’ associated with specific sexes were so in Ireland at this particular time (Kelly 2000, 448). It may be possible to interpret certain textile working tools (e.g. weaving tablet) as being associated with women within the household (Kelly 2000, 448). There is little evidence to suggest that leather working, for which there was a good deal of evidence within some of the houses at Deer Park Farms, was a craft associated with women or men or whether there was any such distinction? Also, in terms of these activities it may be that status was associated with certain activities within the house. It may be appropriate to describe some craft activities as being high status e.g. fine needle work for a woman (Kelly 2000, 451). Some non-Irish literary evidence such as Eddic poetry seems to associate the putting on of someone’s shoes as a punishment and could be interpreted as suggesting that shoes were associated with low-status and their manufacture possibly by slaves or servants of either sex (Larrington 1996, 178, st. 9).

The lack of evidence for Iron Age houses in Ireland is probably responsible for the absence of transmission of such cosmological interpretations across the Irish Sea and in this respect it is interesting to see Lynn liken the Irish early medieval period to a continuation of the Late Iron Age and yet offer a functional and a Christian (religious) explanation for the eastern-bias in round-house house orientation (1986, 130 & 142-143). Likewise, recent interpretation of deposition practices at Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim lacks a cosmology based explanation fashionable on British prehistoric sites (McDowell 2005, 189; cf. Parker Pearson and Richards 1994b, 51-52). A series of collected papers written from an anthropological perspective in the 1990s examined inhabited African, Asian and South-American houses (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995a). In the Andes such studies emphasised that spaces outside houses are also meaningful and that rules govern behaviour within them. Implicit rules include an apparent correlation between visitor-occupant social relations and how deep visitors are allowed to enter a dwelling complex (Carsten and HughJones 1995b, 3). The relevance of this particular observation is highlighted when considering that in early medieval Ireland, for example, the boundaries and land surrounding enclosed round-houses was explicitly defined and protected by laws (Kelly 2000, 431). These laws may have served to make explicit otherwise implicit meaning and one of the questions that this study will pose is whether they were designed to prevent social transgression rather than physical attack as the term ‘ringforts’ would suggest (see chapter 8).

Another volume of work concerning social space and archaeology was edited by Parker Pearson and Richards (1994a), with useful (if structuralist) introductory discussions of space, architecture and cosmology (Parker Pearson and Richards 1994c; b). Parker Pearson and Richards’ paper amongst others has recently been the subject of a critique by Pope (2007) who is heavily critical of a continuing use of a structuralist approach that she maintains is more a product of outmoded western male dominated schools of thought than a universal phenomenon. Pope also notes a trend during the 1990s (see Fitzpatrick 1994; Parker Pearson 1996; Giles and Parker Pearson 1999) of adopting a universal Iron Age cosmology, based on ‘sun movement’ and left/right distinctions within the round-house, developed and applied from an uncritical use of analogy (Pope 2007, 210). Fitzpatrick’s work on an early Iron Age house in

3.3 Space syntax and access analysis: reading house plans Space syntax and more specifically access analysis was developed during the mid-1980s as a means of analysing 20

SETTING THE SCENE: FOREIGN FEET IN ALIEN HOUSES

spatial patterning within settlements and houses (Hillier and Hanson 1984). It attempts to outline the ways that houses and settlements are interconnected by presenting an illustrative schematic diagram of the interconnection of spaces. This form of analysis, where complete building plans survive, provides a means of examining pathways through buildings and ‘how accessible buildings are to strangers’ or ‘encounters between visitors and inhabitants’ (Grahame 2000, 36; Fairclough 1992, 350). One of the problems with this system, however, is that in its original form, whilst it may be useful for well-defined settlements and multi-cellular or roomed structures in that it can provide reductionist models of gradations of spatial accessibility, it has little use where settlement and household is unicellular, incomplete or ill-defined. It is also arguable that the manipulation of semi-and non-fixed features (see below) can change the way that space is used or conceived without necessarily impacting on the fixed-features on which access analysis is so reliant (Rapoport 1990b, 13). Even where space is relatively clearly defined, Grahame (2000, 31) suggests that access analysis over generalises. Nevertheless Foster (1989) using this method presents a detailed look at spatial exclusion patterns within Scottish brochs and Grahame (2000), examining the surviving ground plans of Pompeiian houses, postulates that a relatively unstable heterogeneous use of house space is stabilised by the common presence of inner courtyards, with implications in terms of social and cultural identity (see Grahame 2000, 73).

This has particular relevance for this study in that, effectively, figure 3.1 (left) is how an Irish early medieval house would appear in this reductionist model. Whilst all one entrance single-celled structures could therefore be perceived in this fashion, temporary structures such as the Mongolian Yurt, whilst being necessarily basic (circular with one entrance) and not physically subdivided is nevertheless a maize of spatial conventions that are rigidly organised (Hanson 1998, 11). The circular space is interpreted structurally as conceptually divided into front: back, up: down, left: right, centre: periphery and each of these spaces, although not physically bounded, is allocated to specific people according to sex, age, wealth or status (see fig. 3.2 below) (Hanson 1998, 12). Rank is indicated by a position within the space that would be understood by all ‘yurt dwellers’ (Hanson 1998, 15). These observations are ethnographic by definition and not archaeological; indeed it is arguable that unless occupants left behind an archaeological signature that demarcated these locations they would be impossible to identify. Nomadic peoples, such as the yurt dwellers, disassemble their home and move on when the need arrives and floormarkers, such as skins and mats, which demarcate special places within the yurt are packed away (Hanson 1998, 45). It is conceivable that floor areas of non-nomadic peoples would, if undisturbed, leave an archaeological trace and all efforts to identify differentiated floor areas within structures should, as a matter of course, be attempted. In this context it may be significant that areas of paving found within some rectangular early medieval Irish houses may be indicative of pathways and significant spaces (see Chapter 7).

Where complete settlement plans are known it is possible to use access analysis to examine the entire settlement as a spatial pattern. At Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim, where the entire early medieval settlement was excavated, it is possible to ‘access analyse’ several phases in order to see if and how the enclosure and the houses within it changed. Where incomplete plans are considered the analysis is of little use, although it may be better to think of it as a ‘tool to think with’ in terms of highlighting relationships (or lack of) between buildings within a settlement (Cutting 2003, 18).

3.4 Architecture and space as indicator of complexity, power and status Kent’s (1990a) cross-cultural study of space attempted to examine whether segmented or partitioned architecture reflects different levels of socio-political complexity. Table 3a (below) illustrates Kent’s conclusions regarding the association between social complexity and the degree of architectural segmentation. Her method consists of comparing seventy-three societies from five categories (see above) ranging from non-hierarchical nomadic groups (category 1) to sedentary agriculturalists with stratified hierarchical social systems (category 5). Her findings suggest that the level of architectural segmentation reflects socio-political complexity and that archaeologists may ‘infer levels of complexity by defining architectural segmentation and activity areas as functionally restricted or multipurpose’ (Kent 1990a, 150).

Whilst Hillier and Hanson’s (1984) original work dealt with settlement plans it was later refined to examine individual houses (Hanson 1998). Here of particular relevance to this study is the discussion of elementary building forms and nomadic tents (Hanson 1998, 5-13). Hanson’s elementary building form consisting of a cell with one entrance, such as a ‘hermit’s cell’, with the interior or bounded space (empty circle) being accessed from unbounded (circle with cross) space which can be represented in a graph (see below) (Hanson 1998, 7).

21

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

Left

Right

Fig. 3.1. Comparison of how a single house (square or round) with one entrance can be represented with an access graph (left) with Roman villa (right) (after Hanson 1998, 24; Grahame 2000, 123).

Category 1 2 3

4 5

Description Little socio-political stratification. No hierarchies. Often nomadic. Limited socio-political stratification. Some hierarchies (shaman, secular chief etc.). Nomadic or sedentary. Increased socio-political stratification. Hierarchy of chiefs. Stratified by wealth. Ranking agegrades. Semi-or fully sedentary. Hereditary socio-political strata (chiefs). Sedentary. Stratified, hierarchical and specialised. Most are sedentary agriculturists.

Architecture Houses not partitioned Some linguistically recognised and physically partitioned space. Interior partitioning. Restricted activity areas. Further segmentation. Space segmented by individual status. Segmented environment and use of space

Table 3a Based on Kent (1990b). system’ with an emphasis on cattle rearing, towards a new social grouping based on the old client class growing crops and perhaps trading in slaves, this again may blur the picture (Kerr 2007, 116). What is clear from the Old Irish legal sources, such as Críth Gablach, is that the earlier part of the period was highly stratified with appropriate house dimensions for various classes depending on status which in turn depended on wealth (MacNeill 1923). In terms of the archaeological evidence this period is seemingly characterized by segmented spaces in settlement terms and possibly in terms of the round-houses, some of which were certainly conjoined in front-house: back-house combinations.The latter period (c. A.D. 800-1100), by contrast, is characterized by rectilinear rather than circular houses. In terms of determining segmentation, whilst there is evidence for roof supporting posts within rectilinear houses the stone

Kent, to her credit, does not limit her definition to physical partitioning but also includes defined activity areas that are not necessarily physically divided. In the light of activity areas examined at Deer Park Farms, Co Antrim (see 3.7 below) it may be possible to examine the concept of restrictive use of space and how this may reflect complexity. In terms of classifying early medieval Ireland as a society in Kent’s terms, however, the process is complicated in two ways. Firstly the distinctions of Kent’s categorical differences are blurred with distinct similarities between the middling (2-4) categories. Secondly it is debatable if early medieval Ireland can be defined as one distinctive period. Given that the period encompasses a long time (c. 600 years) and that if Kerr (2007) is to believed, a major economic and social change took place during the 9th and 10th century as society moved away from the ‘hierarchical client-bound

22

SETTING THE SCENE: FOREIGN FEET IN ALIEN HOUSES

Fig.3.2. Mongolian yurt – a plan and resultant graph of conceptual divisions (after Hanson 1998, 45). In terms of hierarchical pre-capitalist societies, Grahame (2000, 78-79), citing Bourdieu (1977), suggests that enclosed domestic architecture must be involved in producing the inegalitarian conditions that underlie the hierarchy on a daily basis. He also states that proximity involves negotiation which, although necessary to socialising, may undermine social inequality, so that in order for ‘categorical distinctions’ to emerge ‘noncollective spaces’ must be created within the architecture of the house (Grahame 2000, 79). One way that this can be done is to create social distance by expanding the household to include children, clients and workers or slaves and spatial arrangements that reflect their relative status (Grahame 2000, 79). Two documentary sources (discussed in more detail in chapter eight) can be identified that suggest spatial considerations within houses may have been significant. An eighth century glossing on the Senchas Már translated by O’ Curry (1873b, 29 - Vol. 3) mentions the north side of a cowchief’s house as being where the ‘good man’ of the house always sits, whilst the early eighth century law text, Críth Gablach, describes the relative positions for people to sit within a king’s house (MacNeill 1923, 305). The king’s house in particular can be considered the ultimate expanded household and Críth Gablach is quite detailed in its description of appropriate space according to status and rank (see chapter 8). The house of a Bo-Airé (or Cow-chief), however, could also be considered an expanded household in terms of possible foster-children, as well as the children and work-force associated with the day to day running of the farm (Patterson 1994, 189-191; Charles-Edwards 2000, 108-109). With reference to the Senchas Már glossing it is with particular interest that the features that may have been imdai (bed/benches) were associated with northern areas of some houses and this may be an example of Grahame’s architectural creation of a ‘non-collective space’ within a single round-house.

flooring present in many of these structures obfuscates any earth penetrating evidence for fixed- or semi-fixed features. There is, however, some evidence for the partitioning of space in a small number of structures and it may be significant that souterrains are associated with specific areas of some houses. Souterrains have, to an extent, been examined in terms of separate archaeological phenomena and their associations with houses may have been underplayed. Relatively recent work (e.g. Clinton 2001, 60) has shown that the entrances to souterrains may betray a primary function, such as storage or refuge, and where these are associated with houses this must surely be taken into account. Duncan (1985) has attempted to define two types of societies: collectivist and individualistic, where houses take on quite different roles. Private houses within collectivist societies are functional, whilst communal or group houses may be more elaborate, whereas in individualistic societies private houses are the main means of status display (Duncan 1985, 134-135). The social system in Ireland as described by Críth Gablach, in the early eighth century, is one composed of kings, nobles, free and base-clients, and churchmen. Society was organised on the basis of patrilineal kinship, clientship and membership of a larger túath or petty kingdom (Charles-Edwards 2000, 84-90). Nevertheless, if one accepts Duncan’s (1985) classification of collective versus individualistic societies it may be helpful to view Irish early medieval society during the earlier part of this period as inclined towards the collectivistic end of the spectrum. If Duncan’s observations are to be believed, therefore, one would expect early medieval Irish houses, at least during the earlier part of the period, to be functional structures with little in terms of conspicuous displays of wealth or status.

23

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

33). Taken to its logical conclusion, this analogy would suggest that human action relies on artifice; once the ‘audience’ are out of sight or the setting has been left the action and the setting cease to be meaningful. To use space in a way that is acceptable in a particular context is developed from an early age (see enculturation, below) and to ignore this can trigger feelings of discomfort.

3.5 Early Rapoport Despite Donley-Reid’s (1990) remonstrations that walls alone say nothing and Grahame’s (2000) counterargument that (limitations accepted) walls must be meaningful, one solution surely lies in reflexive approaches that are suited to particular periods and contexts but with an underlying analytical framework that can possibly be applied cross-culturally and chronologically. An interdisciplinary edited volume entitled Domestic architecture and the use of space (Kent 1990b) included a paper by Amos Rapoport (1990b) that may provide one solution for establishing a framework for interpreting early medieval Irish settlement architecture. Some of the early work of environmentbehaviourist Amos Rapoport (1969) relating to house form and culture has been referred to in association with early medieval Irish houses (Lynn 1986, chapter 11). Rapoport’s early hypothesis was that a range of forces and modifying influences including socio-cultural factors should be taken into account when looking at house form (Rapoport 1969, 46). Whilst in 1969, no doubt, this needed to be stated, since the 1970s, however, a number of other important works including Bourdieu’s (and others cited above) have proven this point in more specific rather than in generalized terms. To say that houses are complex structures influenced by ‘cultural milieux’ is, today, generally an accepted precept (Rapoport 1990b, 9). Rapoport’s later works (1990a; 1990b; 2005) suggest that there are key indicators that one must look out for in how architecture works within particular environments. Arguably, it is these that can aid the interpretation of social space.

Clearly there is something more deeply embedded about the way that people use space than doing so solely for the benefit of others. Contextualising settings is as imperative as doing so for activities. Looking at houses alone, for instance, only constitutes one aspect of exploration of social space. One must examine all the settings: houses, settlements and landscapes and their inter-relationship (Rapoport 1990b, 12). Comparing two houses one can see that of the systems of activities carried out in A some or most may not be carried out in B at all but elsewhere within a series of settings. Capitalism has had a major effect on these activities and settings. Whereas in traditional noncapitalist societies houses and attached land provide the locus or system of settings for domestic and production activities, in more developed capitalist societies these systems of settings can be quite dispersed with only perhaps domestic activities occurring around the house; hence the relatively modern westernised distinction between home and workplace (Giddens 1984, 122). Realistically, as far as this study is concerned, one must contextualise houses or see them as one element of a complex and related environment. In order to do this Rapoport (1990b, 12-13) advocates that a setting is defined as a ‘culturally specific milieu’ that defines appropriate behaviour by using sets of cues acting as mnemonics within that setting. In order to understand how house architecture works as a mnemonic within a particular period the particular cues need to be defined more precisely. Rapoport (1990b, 13) suggests that this can be done if the environment is seen as a particular combination of fixed, semi-fixed and non-fixed feature elements.

3.5.1 Social settings Rapoport’s paper outlining ‘systems of settings’ and activities seeks to explain how the environment, of which architecture is a component, can influence behaviour and how this is culturally specific. There are, he argues, only a limited number of activities compared with the great diversity of created environments in which they are set (1990b, 11). The reason for this, Rapoport argues, is that activities are not only carried out in different ways in association with other activities or ‘systems of activities’ but that also there is ‘meaning’ attached to activities (Rapoport 1990b, 11). This definition of activities as being meaningful also suggests that polarised concepts of rationality (function) and ritual (meaning) are also incorrect; an idea developed at a later date by, amongst others, Joanna Brück (1999). It is clear from this that contextualising is the key to understanding activities; they cannot be understood as isolated and functional but as meaningful actions within a combination of related actions. Consequently, Rapoport proposes, activity systems do not take place within one space or setting but in a ‘system of settings’ (1990b, 12). The concept of ‘setting’ is one that is derived and modified from Goffman’s dramaturgical analogy in which it is defined as the ‘furniture, décor, physical layout….which supply the scenery and stage props for the spate of human action played out before, within, or upon it’ (Goffman 1971, 32-

3.6 Fixed features Fixed-feature elements are best described as those that move least, such as walls, floors, buildings, streets (Rapoport 1990a, 88-89; 1990b, 13). Rapoport asserts that although the way that these fixed-features are ordered can be meaningful (1990a, 89-91) the study of these elements alone is limited in its outlook (Rapoport 1990b, 13). Graham’s (2000, 1 and 98) thesis, critical of the dramaturgical analogy (see below), asserts that to dismiss walls is to ‘render built space meaningless’, although he is forced to admit that their study has limitations. These limitations become somewhat clearer when the other elements are outlined. One other aspect of fixed-feature elements that is also of relevance is one of regulatory forces affecting fixed-features (Rapoport 1990a, 89). Modern architectural developments in Britain, for example, are controlled, to a greater or lesser 24

SETTING THE SCENE: FOREIGN FEET IN ALIEN HOUSES

encountering other fixed features including pathways and houses. Once inside the enclosure any pathways present would have indicated accepted ways of approaching any structure. One of the clearest indications of such ways within a rath enclosure was in phase 6a at Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim where stone-edged paths led north and south from the entranceway towards peripheral structures Eta and Epsilon and their importance is highlighted by the fact that they were maintained and remade twice during this phase (McDowell 2005, 39). A path can be interpreted as a means of preventing erosion or wear along common route ways. Whilst serving this end it is also possible that pathways, like cobbled or paved entrances (aidrochat) marked specific journeys for specific people.

degree, by planning regulations. These regulations control where and how these buildings are constructed; the regulations themselves governed by policies dictated by local and centralized government. When considering past societies it should, where appropriate, be considered whether any form of regulatory control, direct or indirect, was exercised over construction. Of particular relevance to this study, the early eighth century Irish law text Críth Gablach will be considered as a possible example of a controlling influence (Murray 1979; Kelly 2000, 360367; Lynn 2005; MacNeill 1923, 281-316). Clearly, whilst not disregarding Monk’s (1998, 35) warning about the non-static nature of settlement structures during this period, the uni-or multi-vallate enclosed settlements, referred to as raths, ringforts or enclosed homesteads, can be interpreted as relatively fixed-features. These enclosures were common throughout the earlier part of the early medieval period and may have been less so towards the end of the period. It has recently been postulated that the raised or platform equivalent were later constructs (Kerr 2007). It is a matter of debate as to whether these earthen banks were constructed primarily for defence or as a social statement with Stout (1997, 19-20) a supporter of the defence theory and Mallory and McNeill (1991) arguing for a social statement whilst others think that both possibilities are not mutually exclusive (Lyttleton and Monk 2007, 10-11). Some banks such as those topped by trench set palisades such as at Duneight, Co. Down, certainly give the impression of defensive feature whilst others, such as that topped with a rail and wattle fence at Killyliss rath, Co. Tyrone, seem to have few defensive qualities (Waterman 1963a, 63; Ivens 1984, 31-32). As argued elsewhere in this study (chapter 2, p.19-20) each fixedfeature may be a localised response within a particular setting and it may be incorrect to think of universal responses. It may well be, as Charles-Edwards (2000, 150) suggests, that base clients were required to build enclosure banks for a noble who, in turn, granted them cattle; the more base clients, the grander the noble and the more elaborate was the enclosure bank system.

Other fixed features are the thresholds and doorways in the entrances of houses. Again, the opening of prosperous farmer’s house doors and looking into the house by strangers was illegal and punishable (Kelly 2000, 431). This would suggest that areas of interface between prosperous inhabitant and visitor needed to be made as visible as possible not only to cue appropriate behaviour but also to prevent legal action. The addition of a clause about peering into the house may indicate that doors were, at least in the day, regularly open for the provision of light. Most of these structures had one external entrance only, although there are instances, such as Cahergal, Co. Kerry, where two doors were present (Manning 1991). 3.6.1 Semi-fixed features Semi-fixed features are described by Rapoport as interior and exterior furniture including in more urban contemporary environments, signs, garden features and lights (Rapoport 1990a, 89-96; 1990b, 13). Their importance is emphasised when consideration is given to the fact that settings can change through alteration of these semi-fixed feature elements, even though the fixedfeatures (walls, floors etc.) remain. Village halls and their urban equivalent, for example, can be settings for many differing social activities depending on the presence and arrangement of furniture. One example cited by Rapoport of the changing settings within structures at the Neolithic site at Çatal Höyük, Anatolia, where ‘shrines or ritual rooms’ are converted into ‘ordinary’ rooms by the addition or removal of furnishings alone, however, may be over simplified (1990a, 90). The problem with this example is that Mellart’s (1967) interpretation of shrines at Çatal Höyük, for instance, was based on ‘art work, ritual content and burials’ (Farid and Cessford 1999, 110; Hodder 2006); modern re-excavations of the same areas suggest that these structures may have been ‘focal’ structures for extended families rather than shrines (see 'Discussion' in Farid and Cessford 1999). The problems for archaeologists is that much of the evidence for semifixed features is missing (Rapoport 1990a, 91). This study will, however, argue that although most semi-fixed features are difficult to trace, a combination of textual and archaeological evidence from well preserved sites

The rath-enclosure entrance was also an essentially fixedfeature and was marked by causeway or passage and a gate. Law tracts seem to allow the opening of another’s gateway but not entering the yard without permission (e.g. see MacNeill 1923, 292). To see these features in Rapoportian terms the upstanding banks with their fences or palisades and ditches and causeways, gates would have provided clear fixed-features guiding appropriate behaviour. Other fixed-features include floors and it is of interest that a paved or cobbled floor was located in the rath entrance area in phase 6a at Deer Park Farms, Co Antrim. Interpreted as a possible airdrochat (Kelly 2000, 367), it may well be that the original reason for having a paved or cobbled area in the entrance area was to prevent wear or churning in this busy area. The presence of a different type of flooring in such a significant area, however, may well have acted as another cue. Crossing over and through these fixed-features would have meant

25

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

(Rapoport 1990a, 96; 1990b, 13).Whilst archaeological, as opposed to ethnographic, studies lack people, evidence for activities associated with their behaviour can, if rigorously assessed, be identified. In terms of early medieval Irish houses, due to the changing nature of the archaeological process since the nineteenth century and time and financial constraints placed on modern rescue excavations few studies have seen it necessary to record, with any vigorous accuracy, the exact positions of artefacts located during excavations. It is debatable that even if this had occurred, unless other taphonomic processes were also analysed and recorded in detail, it is likely that their significance may have been misinterpreted. The only two early medieval Irish sites where detailed plots of artefact locations have been recorded in association within structures are at Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim (McDowell 2005) and the Phase Y round-house at Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath (both excavated during the 1980s) (Bradley 1984).

can indicate patterns, particularly with respect to the round houses, generally characteristic of the earlier part of the Irish early medieval period. Once inside the house the hearth, located centrally and very rarely shifting is the main focus and could be described as fixed. Yet at Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim, between two particular phases (5-6a), the hearth within structure Theta 1 was extinguished and removed as it became back-house Theta 2, yet the other fixed features such as walls and doors remained (see McDowell 2005, 41-42, figs. 3.5-3.6). This then could be interpreted as being the removal of a semi-fixed feature that totally removes the focus and changes the setting, whilst the walls and doorway remain. Two out of three of McDowell’s criteria for interpreting a structure as a house is the identification of a hearth and/or a ‘bedding area’ (McDowell 2005, 24). Other features in evidence at Deer Park Farms such as ‘bedding areas’, possibly interpreted as Old Irish imdae, are also bounded or semi-bounded features, occasionally bonded into the house walls (Jones 2007). The bounded or framed examples at Deer Park Farms are mainly found on the right (north) side of the house, whereas in at least one of the main front-houses (e.g. structure X – phase 6b) there is an additional unbounded (unframed) feature of similar description on the southern side (for discussion and interpretation see Chapter 6). These framed features, as with a hearth, can be interpreted also as fixed-features although there is an element of seasonality involved in their make-up. Whilst the walls of a house would be expected to last a number of years the organic filling of the ‘bedding areas’ at Deer Park Farms could have been replaced seasonally as fresh material became available, although the environmental report is equivocal in this regard (see Allison et al. 1999; Kenward et al. 2000). The significance of these features is possibly further emphasised by references in early medieval sources to the right hand side of the house being the domain of the ‘good man of the house’ (O' Curry 1873b, 29; Binchy 1978, 895). If these framed features on the right side of the house at Deer Park Farms were always associated with significant people (master and/or mistress) within the dwelling to the extent that contemporary literature sources described such a pattern it may well be an example of how these fixed-or semifixed features acted as cues. Any visitors entering a structure with many people inside, for instance, would automatically look towards the right hand side for figures of authority within the house. Whilst it is unlikely that the framed imdae or ‘bedding areas’ would have been moved around or rearranged regularly, the functions with which these features were associated would have changed according to the time. It is likely therefore that the ‘setting’ within the space changed according to temporal rather than spatial considerations. In order for this to be confirmed it is necessary to identify the non-fixed feature elements.

McDowell has recently (2005) presented a thesis in which the method of recording at Deer Park Farms is usefully described and a tentative interpretation offered. In this case an attempt was made to record all artefacts three-dimensionally using a distomat and that data was grouped according to function and broad categories and superimposed onto a 2 dimensional site plans of relevant structures (for discussion see relevant sections in chapters 2, 4 and 6: this work). McDowell’s work makes it possible to identify patterns of possible active behaviour within certain areas of some of the houses. Some categories of McDowell’s analysis groupings could well be used to identify everyday activities and behaviour that would constitute non-fixed features associated with dwellings. A number of McDowell’s material classifications in relation to houses are probable evidence of behaviour rather than activity, although both are arguably guided by settings (McDowell 2005, 63-66). An example of this would be agricultural tools, such as plough tips, pruning hooks and bill hooks, where found in association with house interiors, were stored within structures and they relate to (passive) behaviour rather than activity such as on site use of tools (specific examples are given in relation to the Deer Park Farms structures in chapter 6). There are difficulties with McDowell’s ‘components’ category in that this nebulous classification includes parts of an unidentifiable whole, whether structural, craft or culinary associated, and this set of objects yields very little in terms of daily activities. The ‘curios’ category again is one which may relate to behaviour rather than activity, although there is a possibility that polished axes may have been used for textile preparation. The most useful category of objects identified by McDowell were craft and tools on one hand and waste on the other with the latter presumably being the bi-product of the former. The presence of craft related waste within certain areas of houses cannot of course be taken, uncritically, as indicative of craft related activity within the house as other site formation processes may be involved. McDowell evaluates these processes and in some cases it

3.6.2 Non-fixed features Rapoport’s non-fixed features include people and their behaviours and activities that inhabit these settings 26

SETTING THE SCENE: FOREIGN FEET IN ALIEN HOUSES

preserved stake-hole patterns suggesting that the internal floor area was divided into a series of compartments that may be related to the bedding areas, interpreted as possible imdae, at Deer Park Farms (see chapter 7). It would be a useful exercise to compare the artefact distribution from these settlements in terms of the possible house layout as the dimensions of the Deer Park Farms main structures of phase 6, for instance, would suggest that they belong to the class of prosperous commoners or landmen known as a Bóaire or Mruigfer (MacNeill 1923, 290-291; Lynn and McDowell 2011, 604). The Moynagh Lough structure, as discussed above, was somewhat larger and may have been a house belonging to an Aire Coisring (‘noble of a kin’) or similarly distinguished freeman (MacNeill 1923, 294295). There are a number of difficulties involved in comparing these structures and a number of issues would need to be resolved. Firstly McDowell’s method of house abandonment/destruction or ‘end-situation’ identification criteria would need to be applied to Moynagh Lough (McDowell 2005, 110 ff.). Secondly Bradley has classified his artefacts in a different way from McDowell and this would need to be reconciled. Given that these are, to date, the only rigorously recorded artefact-related floor-plans for early medieval Irish round-houses the comparison is a worthwhile endeavour. To this end the McDowell’s study of the Deer Park Farms structures will be evaluated in chapter 7 and the Moynagh Lough distribution in chapter 4.

is likely that some of these activities did take place in situ and are indicative of activity zones. Whilst these interior areas in some circumstances can be critically assessed for in-situ activity areas it is doubtful whether this can provide a complete picture of how the interior house-space was used on a cyclical basis, be this daily or seasonal. Rapoport’s note of how changes of semi-fixed and non-fixed features can change settings is a clear example of this problem (Rapoport 1990b, 13). Detailed craft activities clearly need light (although see Pope’s note about eyes adjusting to low light levels (Pope 2007, 216)) and in-situ craft debris would be expected in lit sections of the house during daylight hours. The Deer Park Farms houses had portable rush lights that surely could be used in any part of the house but would presumably have provided a more concentrated light source than that from the doorway in daylight. The movement of daylight within east facing round-houses is described by Pope (2007, 216) and light and darker areas change on an hourly basis between left and right, front and back with more of an emphasis on the front and back space in the morning; front space only in the afternoon. Gateways, palisades or fences and banks located around any enclosure may well have affected light availability and the choice of house-site may well have been influenced by such considerations. There are many external factors that could also affect light penetration within the structures including topographic or environmental features such as hills and trees and, again, this may have influenced choice of settlement site. House sites generally face towards the down-slope rath entrance (east). Whilst drainage has often been quoted as the reason for this it is also possible that light obstructions would have been down-slope from centrally located houses.

3.7 Decoding, enculturation or habitus? One criticism of Rapoport’s theory is that he is reluctant to demonstrate how the meanings of cues are communicated (Mark Grahame, pers. comm.); in his own words ‘how cues are decoded’ (Rapoport 1990b, 13) so that actors know how to respond appropriately and avoid, as the opening quote of this chapter suggests, the scuffing and trampling of ignorant feet (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995b, 4). Whilst this criticism is fair in relation to Rapoport’s original paper (1990b) his more complete explanation (1990a, 65-70) does go some way towards redressing this shortcoming. Rapoport’s explanation is encapsulated in his use of the term ‘enculturation’ which he employs to mean that, in order to decode, the codes are learnt from childhood and primarily within the dwelling (1990a, 65-66). Rapoport states that as part of enculturation structured spatial layout of the environment (fixed and semi-fixed features) and behaviour within it (non-fixed features) imposes order on the young (Rapoport 1990a, 66-67). The accepted behaviour within the setting is routinized in the early life of the child. To suggest that reactions to spatial cues are Pavlovian in character, however, as Hall (1973, 165) describes, may be overstating the case.

A further source of information regarding the distribution of artefacts within a house structure is provided by John Bradley’s 1989 report about the large phase Y, early medieval round-house from Brittas, Moynagh Lough crannog, Co. Meath (Bradley 1984). One important difference between the house at Moynagh Lough and the Deer Park Farms houses is the difference in scale and the settlement context. The phase Y round-house is the largest surviving known plan dated to this period at 11.20m (external) and 10m diameter (internal) (Bradley 1984, 30). The resultant floor area, at 78.5m², is more than double the size of the average early medieval Irish round-house (see page 206) suggesting that it was a significant structure. The dimensions of a king’s house described by Críth Gablach is 37 feet (11.27m) which would suggest that this structure was certainly high status if not a king’s house (MacNeill 1923, 305). This suggestion is supported by the prestige artefacts recovered from the site such as a drinking horn terminal, imported pottery and gold filigree mount (Bradley 1984, 98). The Moynagh Lough house was located on a crannog site that, although not exclusively associated with royal settlements, have been described as significant places during this period (Warner 1994; O' Sullivan 2007, 164-168). Crucially this house also has a series of well

Rapoport’s enculturation is however different from Bourdieu’s concept of habitus (Bourdieu 1977; 1990, 5355), where past experiences, acquired as ‘schemes of perceptions’, ‘guarantee the correctness of practices’ (Bourdieu 1990, 54). Bourdieu (1990, 54) describes this 27

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

105). It is highly unlikely that this phenomenon would present itself unambiguously in an archaeological context and identifying it as an example of social or political subversion would rely on interpreting clears patterns of daily practice associated with men and women and observing the anomaly.

concept as being one that begins with early experiences, thus, for example, gender divisions of labour, household objects, parental relations, for example, all ‘structure the habitus’ on which all later experiences are based. In nonliterate societies the house is the main locus where cultural and symbolic meaning is ‘objectified’ and encountered on a daily basis (Bourdieu 1977). Thus, through the practice of daily routines which are learnt non-discursively, people learn about acceptable behaviour. An example of this process at work within a dwelling environment would be Bourdieu’s Kabyle or Berber study, referred to above, in which culturally specific symbolic divisions between male and female, merely one of the sets of oppositions that Bourdieu describes, are objectified in spatial terms; thus men occupy markets, fields and an assembly, whilst women are in the house and garden (Bourdieu 1977, 89-90). Rapoport’s description of distinctive spatial male-female domains, roles and settings, as teaching the young specific sets of rules (enculturation) can be conceived of as being mechanical. Rapoport also conceives of an element of variation within an order (1990a, 66; 1990b, 13). Bourdieu’s habitus is not ‘habit’ or mechanical but mediating, a ‘conditioning and conditional freedom’ (Bourdieu 1977, 95). Giddens notion of structure and agency (structuration theory) is one that is highly relevant here, in that whilst people are aware of rules, the relationship is a recursive one; they manipulate and redefine rules constantly. Not only are people ‘unconsciously motivated’ but they are also guided by practical and discursive consciousness (Giddens 1984, 6; 1979, 69-70).

In terms of the Irish Laws (Críth Gablach) it is possible to see how the setting for a feast within a king’s house relied on formal and accepted seating patterns within a standardised structure (MacNeill 1923, 305-306). People were expected to sit according to their rank and occupation within the royal household. This would suggest that space was set out according to status and tradition within a given setting and that a considerable amount of importance was attached to this. Later texts such as the twelfth-century Fled Duin na nGedh describe trouble that could ensue if these ‘traditional’ seating plans were undermined or subverted in some way (O' Sullivan 2004, 93; O’ Donovan 1842, 31). This would suggest that space was set out according to status within a given setting and that a considerable amount of importance was attached to this practice. 3.8 Conclusions: a way forward

Hodder and Cessford have recently demonstrated how the distinctive architecture of the Neolithic houses at Çatalhöyük ‘regulated daily practices’ not only through fixed- and semi-fixed features such as pillars, platforms, basins and platforms but also their materiality or elaboration such as differential floor building materials, cleaning and refuse disposal practices (or lack of), burials, sculptures and painting (Hodder and Cessford 2004). Children would have grown up within these buildings experiencing differential use of space through ‘daily practice’ which ties in with Bourdieu’s description of the house that is deciphered as the body moves through space; an example of habitus at work (Hodder and Cessford 2004, 30-31; Bourdieu 1977, 90; Hodder 1991, 75).

Clearly a number of contrasting approaches have been developed in recent years to analyse houses. None of these approaches can be described as flawless yet aspects of many can contribute to an understanding of the use of social space within Irish early medieval houses. It is clear that distinctive architectural features, both inside and outside houses, can guide daily practices. It may not, however, be useful to think in terms of set polarised theoretical stances in terms of whether the use of space was learned through non-discursive practice, as Bourdieu would suggest or, alternatively, through responses to cues set out in Rapoportian terms as these may be culturally variable. Whilst movement through space may be the way that a ‘habitus’ is acquired, there may well be other processes that need to be taken into consideration. Contemporary Irish literary sources such as Críth Gablach and Senchas Mar suggests an awareness of spatial and architectural matters in that they describe appropriate or idealised houses in terms of dimensions, furnishings and seating arrangements and it may be that these matters were taught or discussed on a daily basis.

Another consideration is the way that cues can be ignored and conventions subverted for various reasons. An unpublished example of ‘creative manipulation’ is quoted by Johnson (1999a, 105) with reference to Hodder’s work associated with the Nuba. In this example a woman, well aware that inside the domestic compound (female domain) is usually the place to dump hearth ash, is observed dumping hearth ash outside the compound (male domain) in full view of the men (Johnson 1999a,

Before any further conclusions can be drawn upon these matters it is imperative, in terms of the Irish early medieval architecture, to examine the excavated plans of house interiors. The evidence can then be compared with the Irish literary sources, a precious resource in this respect. In this way it is hoped to understand if and how architecture regulated social practice. The next chapter will describe excavated early medieval non-Ulster Irish round-houses during the early part of this period.

28

SETTING THE SCENE: FOREIGN FEET IN ALIEN HOUSES

Chapter 4 The excavated early medieval round-houses of Munster, Leinster and Connacht chronology (Mallory and McNeill 1991, 201). The remainder of Ireland remains relatively aceramic after the decline of sixth to seventh century exotic imports (Eware) and before the emergence of imported medieval wares from Normandy and western Britain during the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Gahan et al. 1997, 286; Thomas 1990).

4.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to examine the use of space within Irish round-houses. Chapter six will specifically look at the province of Ulster round-houses and therefore this section, whilst not discounting the northern examples, will focus on the structures excavated to date in the provinces of Munster, Leinster and Connacht. The majority are found in Munster, with Leinster, the next largest regional sample and Connacht, the smallest. Whilst the first sections of this chapter will strive to describe essential features of these houses including dating, settlement contexts and structural details the latter will examine how internal arrangements within these houses can be interpreted.

In terms of scientific dating methods, radiocarbon (14C) has been of significant help in recent years. Although doubts have been expressed in the past about the accuracy of this method (Alcock 2003, 14), the refinement of this dating technology has improved significantly of late. The vast majority of 14C dates directly associated with roundhouses come from the Ulster region and will be discussed in chapter 6. The first published 14C date associated with an early medieval round-house from outside Ulster was for a hearth associated with a round-house at Raheenamadra, Co. Limerick (Olsson and Kilicci 1964, 304). This 14C date, calibrated with 95.4% (2σ) probability to A.D. 535-1011 covers the entire early medieval period, although at 68.2% (1σ) probability it produces a more useful (but less reliable) A.D. 644-875 date range (see table 4a). 14C dating continued apace during the 1970s and an Ulster round-house at Crossnacreevy was dated from a structural post-hole to A.D 636-768 (95.4 % certainty)(Harper 1973-4, 48). During the 1980s 14C dates were collated on a number of early medieval structures interpreted as houses. The vast majority of these came from within excavated Ulster structures. A late 14C date was again provided by a site in Munster. House 2 one of the dated circular structures excavated by Manning at Killederdadrum, Co. Tipperary, yielded a date spanning A.D 1155-1395 and seemingly outside the scope of this study (Manning 1984). Whilst Manning struggled to accommodate this late date within the general body of excavated structures available in 1984 there may now be parallels that suggest that the curvilinear form, particularly without hearths, continued into use well into the medieval period. Two similar overlapping structures excavated within a medieval ringwork at Ballysimon in neighbouring County Limerick also seem to have been of similar dimensions (slightly larger) without any visible traces of hearths and dated to the 13th century (Collins and Cummins 2001). Unfortunately the lack of artefacts associated with these structures and total lack of diagnostic medieval artefacts at Killederdadrum makes further speculation very difficult, although the buildings may be evidence for use of the enclosure between the end of the early medieval period and the post-medieval burial phase (Manning 1984, 262).

4.2 Dating The range of information available for each of these sites varies enormously and is largely dependent on the date that they were excavated and (where relevant) published. In terms of earlier dating methods for the early medieval period, Hencken’s excavations at Lagore in the 1930s proved to be a watershed. References in the Annals to Loch Gabair, the residence of the kings of Brega between A.D 785 and 969, were identified as Lagore Crannog (Hencken 1950, 3). The ‘evolutionary sequence’ of excavated artefacts from Lagore was then used to develop a relative chronology based on others from Cahercommaun, Co. Clare, and Ballinderry No. 2, Co. Offaly. Sites were also excavated by the Harvard Expedition (Hencken 1950, 17-18; 1938, 3; 1942). A house on Inishkea North, Co. Mayo, was also dated to the seventh or eighth century based on the excavator’s interpretation of the pattern of a brooch decoration (Henry 1952), a claim, Raftery (1981, 85-86) later asserts, is flawed by uncertain guess-work. It was not until some time later that these doubts emerged about the dating of sites on historical and art-historical methods with both Ryan (1973, 623) and Raftery questioning the accuracy of such dating methods and describing Irish ‘text-aided archaeology’ as a ‘very dubious commodity’ (Raftery 1981, 89). In eastern Ulster the general dating of sites to the early medieval period has been made somewhat easier since the early twentieth century because of the presence of coarse native pottery known as souterrain ware on many sites (Ryan 1973; Mallory and McNeill 1991, 201). The development of souterrain ware from a typically early plain form to a later more decorated style has also been useful in developing a more defined regional site

29

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

A number of post-1986 14C dates directly associated with early medieval round-houses have since been forthcoming, although some remain unpublished by the excavators. An example of the latter would be the six 14C dates associated with various phases of three conjoined round-houses at Lisleagh 1, Co.Cork (Monk. M, pers.comm.). These suggest a date range between the A.D. 7th and 9th centuries, closely mirroring the Deer Park Farms dated examples in Ulster (see table 4a below). The conjoined structure (house B) at Illaunloughan also produced a 14C date that spanned the 7th and 8th centuries (Marshall and Walsh 2005, 226). The conjoined structures at Newtown A, Co. Limerick, produced a

Site & reference

County

slightly later date range between the 8th and 11th century A.D. (Coyne 2006, 68). An example of relatively early 14 C dated houses associated with enclosures would be ones excavated at Dromthacker, Co. Kerry and Ballynagallagh, Co. Limerick dated between the 5th and early 7th century A.D. (Cleary 2006, 31-32; 2008) (see table 4a). Cleary interprets both these structures as preenclosure and it would be tempting to suggest that there is a distinctive period (6th century onwards) that can be labelled the rath or ringfort phase, possibly representing the earliest part of the early medieval period, where previously settled sites were enclosed.

Region

Type

Sample context

Lab reference

Uncalibrated date

Calibrated date- 2σ (95.4% probability)

Dunbell Ringfort No. 5 Killkenny (Dunbell Big) (Kerr et al. 2009, 336)

Leinster

Round

Charcoal

UB-3392

1314± 28 BP

AD 655-772

Cahircalla More (Structure 120) (Taylor 2006, 34)

Clare

Munster

Round

Charred grain Betafrom 211572 structure’s gully (43)

1430± 40BP

AD 559-663

Barrees (Site E) (O' Brien 2003)

Cork

Munster

Round

Site E GrN-28303 1380± 40 BP -deposit under round-house wall stones

AD 580-765

Lisleagh 1 (M. Monk pers.comm)

Cork

Munster

Round

Structure V destruction debris

UB-2549

1280± 75 BP

AD 622-942

Lisleagh 1 (M. Monk pers.comm)

Cork

Munster

Round

Structure Vlatest hearth

UB-2608

1310± 55 BP

AD 638-869

Lisleagh 1 (M. Monk pers.comm)

Cork

Munster

Round

Structure II C114 (?)

UB-2607

1045± 70 BP

AD 782-1160

Lisleagh 1 (M. Monk pers.comm)

Cork

Munster

Round (C/J)

Structure III post-pipe (phase- 4)

UB-2548

1315± 35 BP

AD 653-773

Lisleagh 1 (M. Monk pers.comm)

Cork

Munster

Round (C/J)

Structure III post-pipe (phase- 4)

UB-2688

1390± 65 BP

AD 540-775

Lisleagh 1 (M. Monk pers.comm)

Cork

Munster

Round (C/J)

Structure III (?phase-4)

GrN12360

1285± 25 BP

AD 669-774

Skahanagh North (C-shaped structure) (Kerr et al. 2009, 162)

Cork

Munster

Round

Hearth inside structure

Beta201063

1290± 60 BP

AD 649-878

Bray Head (Hayden 1997, appendix 1)

Kerry

Munster

Round

Hearth of House iv

GrN-22547 1200± 80 BP

AD 670-983

Dromthacker (preenclosure) (Cleary 2008, 25)

Kerry

Munster

Round (Oval)

Gully fill (342) of oval house

GrN23798

1520± 30 BP

AD 432-610

Illaunloughan (Marshall and Walsh 2005, 226)

Kerry

Munster

Round (C/J)

Hearth of Hut UB-4357 B

1346± 32 BP

AD 637-770

30

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL ROUND-HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT Illaunloughan (Marshall and Walsh 2005, 227)

Kerry

Munster

Round

Under wall of UB-3860 Hut D

Ballynagallagh (Cleary 2006, 23)

Limerick

Munster

Round

Newtown A (Coyne 2006, 132)

Limerick

Munster

Newtown A (Coyne 2006, 132)

Limerick

Killederdadrum (Manning 1984, 268)

1172± 34 BP

AD 772-971

Post-hole of house (F38)

GrN-28572 1405± 40 BP

AD 569-675

Round (C/J)

Slot-Trench of house

Beta182313

1150± 70 BP

AD 694-1018

Munster

Round (C/J)

Central P/H of house

Beta182314

970± 120 BP

AD 782-1273

Tipperary

Munster

Round

Wall trench of house 2

GU-1513

745± 65 BP

AD 11551395

Raheennamadra (Stenberger 1966, 5253; Olsson and Kilicci 1964, 305)

Limerick

Munster

Round

Hearth 1

U-248

1840± 110 BP

92 BC – AD 428

Raheennamadra (Stenberger 1966, 5253; Olsson and Kilicci 1964, 305)

Limerick

Munster

Round

Hearth 2

U-245

1300± 120 BP

AD 535-1011

Table 4a: Published and non-published houses.

14

C dates directly associated with early medieval Irish (non-Ulster) roundThe exceptionally preserved houses at Deer Park Farms, however, yielded two dendro- (felling) dates of A.D. 648 associated with the oak door jambs located between round-structures Eta and Theta (McDowell and McCormac 2005). Given the programme of 14C dating undertaken at the same site it is also possible to compare the accuracy of both dating methods. Both Eta and Theta returned 14C dates, calibrated to 2σ, of A.D. 667-773 and 657-770 respectively which supports the dendro date. Unfortunately the lack of preserved timber associated with house structures excavated from other Irish sites prevents further comparison.

The early medieval farm complex at Bray Head, Co. Kerry, was partly enclosed on its northern side in its first two phases but the enclosing element was interpreted as a means of separating the settlement from fields (Hayden 1999, 6) It must be borne in mind, however, that the complex existed on Valencia Island, with islands at this time possibly considered a ‘place apart’ without the need for complete enclosure (O' Sullivan 2007, 165). Another ‘scientific’ dating process that has been used on early medieval sites is that of dendrochronology. The accuracy of this process depends on the species, condition and proportion of the sample wood but can, at best, not only pinpoint a specific year but also a felling season. Most preserved wood recovered from early medieval sites in Ireland have come from underground or waterlogged contexts and consequently the main features dated by this method are the wooden components of water mills (e.g. Ballygeardra, Co. Kilkenny), souterrains (e.g. Coolcran, Co. Fermanagh and Steeple Rd., Co. Antrim) and crannogs (e.g. Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath, Island MacHugh, Co. Tyrone) (Williams 1985, 75; Bradley 1994-5, 168; Brown 2006; Ivens et al. 1986, 102; Baillie 1979, 82).

Sixty-five percent of the non-Ulster 14C round-house dates have their 1σ calibration (68% probability) between c. A.D. 600 and 1000 with approximately fifty percent being between A.D. 600 and 800. This scientific dating of nineteen samples associated with non-Ulster houses supports Lynn’s (1994, 85) conclusions, based mainly on association with material culture, that at least half of the structures clearly date between A.D. 600 and 800. This is especially valuable as ceramic evidence, such as souterrain ware, used to date sites within eastern Ulster is rare on most non-Ulster sites.

31

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

Fig. 4.1 (above) Graph of calibrated dates (listed above) generated by OxCal 4.1.5 (Bronk Ramsey 2009)

32

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL ROUND-HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

Figure 4.2: Updated non-Ulster table (adapted after Lynn 1986, table 12:2) The circle representing a schematic enclosure is based on Lynn’s example and divided into five areas (A-E). The circled numbers represent the number of structures excavated in these areas. The gap represents the enclosure entrance.

house as one that is either a front house of a conjoined pair, has a hearth or a ‘bedding area’. Noonan et al (2004, 45), in the study of the settlement at Ballynacarriga, used the central location of (hearth-less) structure 1 within the enclosure, along with its large size, as ‘probably’ suggesting a domestic function. The significance of this may, as Lynn notes, be related to the fact that circular structures are likely to be ‘free-standing’ in open spaces because, against the bank, they create ‘two pointed deadends’ (1986, 150). Lynn (2005), also being an advocate of the predominantly defensive role of enclosures suggests there is also the possibility that, located near the enclosure periphery, houses are likely to be in a less defensible position (Lynn 1986, 151). One aspect which is not explored, however, is the socio-symbolic aspect of centrality. It is possible, for instance that the location of houses was dictated by the dweller’s status within the settlement unit. The eighth century legal text, Críth Gablach, describes Irish dwelling spaces with building dimensions appropriate for particular grades (see Chapter 9). Although not mentioning appropriate locations within enclosures there is the possibility, therefore, that members of a particular household which may have included extended family members, foster children, unmarried older sons and servants or slaves, may have occupied appropriate spaces within the dwelling space or enclosure (Charles-Edwards 2000, 108). Given the high proportion of sites where only partial areas of the inner enclosure survive, or are targeted for excavation, it is difficult to observe a definite pattern, but using Deer Park Farms as a particular example it is possible to suggest an alternative explanation not involving defence or geometric practicality.

4.3 Settlement contexts Ninety percent of all excavated early medieval Irish round-houses described by Lynn, prior to 1986, are from enclosed or raised settlements of various descriptions. The fact that they are enclosed has led to recent descriptions of ‘raths’ or ‘ringforts’ as ‘dwellings’, within which various structures such as houses and outbuildings are located (O' Sullivan and Harney 2008, 66). If one accepts this description it becomes vital to locate houses within the context of the enclosed dwelling spaces in order to examine the possibility that the location of houses within these spaces may have been meaningful. Despite Stout’s (1997, 14-15) use of the term ‘ringfort’ suggesting that the enclosure is ring-shaped and for defensive purposes, the morphology of all early medieval Irish enclosures cannot today be described as circular (Kinsella 2008b). Comparatively recent excavations such as Newtown, Co. Limerick, and Steeple Rd, Co. Antrim (Chapple, R. pers. comm.) revealed ‘plectrum’ or subtriangular shaped enclosures, whilst the lower main enclosure at Ballynacarriga, Co. Cork, was square shaped (Coyne and Collins 2003; Coyne 2006; Noonan et al. 2004). There is also considerable debate as to whether all these enclosures were ‘forts’ in the wholly defensive sense or were localised complex and fluid responses to ever changing factors involving both status and protection (Monk 1998, 41). Given these caveats if the enclosure is shown as a circle and divided as Lynn (1986, fig. 92) has suggested, 45% of excavated Irish (but non –Ulster) early medieval circular structures are located within the central (E) area of the enclosure (Lynn 1986, Table 12.2). There are, by contrast, no such concentrations of structures within more peripheral areas of the enclosure with right of centre perhaps being slightly more favoured than left with a minority located towards the rear.

Deer Park Farms, although in Ulster (and discussed in further detail in chapter 6), is the only rath where some complete plans of phases of settlement can be observed. It is evident here that the larger structures within each phase were, at least in 5 defined phases, consistently centrally located. The clearest examples are of structures Iota (phase 3), Lambda/Kappa (phase 4), X/Zeta (phase

The relevance of this for settlement studies has far reaching interpretational implications especially where structures have been damaged. Jackie McDowell (2005, 24), looking at the Deer Park Farms houses, defined a

33

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

on its south-eastern side (Fanning 1981, 92-94). The location of the entrance posts within D and C suggest that it may have been possible to close the door into C from within D. The construction sequence was interpreted as suggesting that D may have been constructed after C. It would seem that the structures served different purposes with later industrial activity carried out near the entrance to D and more domestic activity in C (fig. 4.8). The conjoined structures at Cathair Fionnúrach, Ballynaveenoragh, Co. Kerry had two external entrances with the less formal one serving the enclosure space and the main entrance to the larger structure being approached on a paved path from the enclosure entrance (Gibbons 1999). A souterrain was accessed from within the smaller annexe furthest from the enclosure entrance. House B, the rectilinear structure at Leacanbuaile fort, Co. Kerry (fig. 4.6) had a round-house (A) conjoined to its western end with a linking entrance. The fact that it was not bonded into the wall of A and its shape suggest that it was a later addition (Ó Ríordáin and Foy 1941, 9092). It is possible, although not proven, that the section of a curvilinear structure underneath B’s northern wall represents the remains of a former conjoined round-house later replaced by B.

6a), X (phase 6b), G/W2 (phase 8) (McDowell 2005, Figs. 3.2-3.15). They are surrounded in most phases by other smaller structures located in more peripheral (north and south) locations within the dwelling space or enclosure. Not only are the larger structures more central but, where the evidence survives, their internal layout differs in a way that may suggest that they were built as ‘dominant’ houses with additional social functions from the smaller ‘subsidiary’ houses (see below). The central location of dominant houses is further enhanced by pathways leading directly to them, presenting visitors with unambiguous route-ways through the dwelling space. Again, the complete excavation at Deer Park Farms presents the clearest example of distinctive pathways firstly leading past the main entrance to the dominant house before providing access to the peripheral structures behind. The cashels (stone fort) at Cahergal and Ballynavenooragh, Co. Kerry also possessed flagged pathways leading from the enclosure entrance directly to the central stone round-houses entrances (Manning 1991; Gibbons 1995, 10). In concordance with Lynn’s findings the number of fully excavated unenclosed early medieval round-houses remains very low whether Ulster or the remainder of Ireland is considered. To these must be added a number of examples excavated by Alan Hayden at Bray Head and Illaunloughlan, both sites in Co. Kerry and perhaps more significantly located on islands which were naturally enclosed (Hayden 1997; 1999; Marshall and Walsh 2005; Hayden 2000b).

4.5 Souterrains structures.

accessed

from

inside

circular

In contrast to the Ulster round-houses, a number of the excavated Irish round-houses possess confirmed internal access to souterrains. Where these underground structures were accessed from conjoined round-houses the access was generally from the rear structure, furthest away from the enclosure entrance. Examples of these would be the souterrains accessed from the rear annexes of the conjoined structures at Cathair Fionnúrach, Ballynaveenoragh and Leacanbuaile fort, both in Co. Kerry (fig. 4.6). Clinton (2001, 60) postulates that gradations of ease of access to the souterrain coupled with impedimental devices within the passages may betray their original functions, as storage or refuge areas. It is therefore interesting to note that the Ballynaveenoragh souterrain was accessed from an alcove in the rear annexe and possessed steps, a ramp and an armrest, all designed for ease of access. Together with this evidence a storage indicator such as a cupboard leads Clinton (2001, 61) to interpret the primary function of this souterrain as a cold storage area. The storage area was located away from the busy main house and could be accessed from the rear door giving access to the enclosure area without going through the larger house (see fig. 4.3). This interpretation correlates well with the relative lack of stake-hole features in the rear annexe as opposed to the main living area in the larger structure. At Leancanbuaile the souterrain is an original feature and entered from near the front of a round-structure that may have been either a conjoined rear annexe or a single round-house. No steps or ramps are described in the report and the fact that a narrow cupboard-less passage leads to a chamber in the cashel wall would seem to indicate that the primary function was for refuge (Ó Ríordáin and Foy 1941, 90).

4.4 Structural fixed features: Conjoined structures A number of non-Ulster excavated structures are conjoined to form a figure-of-eight. These pairedstructures more commonly have one external entrance and one internal entrance although there is one exception with two external entrances at Ballynavenooragh, Co. Kerry (Gibbons 1995). At Lisleagh 1, Co. Cork, a c. 8m diameter round-house with a central hearth (Structure III), and interpreted as single unit of space in phase 3 was later adapted in phase 4 so that it opened into a conjoined smaller structure without a hearth (Structure IV) (Monk 1988, 59 & pers. comm). The larger structure III faced towards the enclosure entrance whilst Structure IV was behind it in terms of the (south facing) enclosure entrance (fig. 4.12). At Reask, Co. Kerry two pairs of stone-built conjoined structures were excavated in the northern and southern periphery of an enclosure associated with a cemetery. Structures A/B (fig. 4.5 below) and C/D (fig. 4.6 below) were located around the periphery of an enclosure (Fanning 1981). Structure B was larger (at 6.10m diameter) than A and had a central hearth and an external south-east facing paved entrance. Structure A was smaller (5.50m diameter) had no hearth remains and probably had an internal entrance (into B) obfuscated by later building (Fanning 1981, 89). The lack of hearth in A suggests a different function to B. Structure C, contained a large fire pit (hearth?), was oval and measured 3.6 x 4.0m. It had an internal entrance that linked it with structure D, located 34

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL ROUND-HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

(O'Flaherty 1985; O' Sullivan and Sheehan 1996, 191). It would appear that the souterrain, a later addition to the house construction, was accessed from the western end of the house. Full publication of this excavation would enable interpretation of the souterrain’s primary function. Clinton (2001, 58) lists two unexcavated circular structures in Co. Sligo as having possible internal souterrain access. At Killoran South an unexcavated unenclosed circular structure (SMR: SL032-019002-) had an entrance to a souterrain (SMR: SL032-019001-) within its south-eastern internal floor, whilst an enclosed circular house may also have had internal access to a souterrain (SMR: SL040-158002) at Cuilsheegary More, Co. Sligo.

That internal access was needed inside a cashel may be indicative of the defensive nature of this particular location at the time of its original construction. Two round-houses (House 4 and Structure xvii) at Bray Head, Valencia Island, Co. Kerry, had internal souterrain access interpreted as refuges (Hayden 1999, 17). Hayden also notes the possible association of threat succeeded by a later phase containing a bow-walled ‘Norse’ type house (Hayden 2000b, 10). Amongst the many structures within Cahercommaun fort, Co. Clare, circular structure 6, described as the ‘dwelling of the residents of the fort’ had stepped access in to Souterrain A, suggesting that ease of access was a consideration. It may also have acted as a possible means of escape from the interior of the stone enclosure as the souterrain led into a natural crevice in the side of a cliff, from which, the excavator noted, it was possible to climb out (Hencken 1938, 20-22).

It would seem that a number of excavated houses had internal souterrain access. Two of the excavated cashel souterrains (Ballynaveenoragh and Cahercommaun) had stepped or ramped access suggesting that ease of access and possible storage was a consideration whilst at Lisnagun the levelling of floors suggested frequent use, again suggestive of storage. At Bray Head, however, both round-houses lacking major enclosing elements such as a cashel wall had souterrains designed for refuge and easily accessed from within the northern end of their houses very near to their hearths. The fact that no other houses predating these structures had souterrains is suggestive of refuge being the primary function during a particularly insecure phase of the island’s occupation. .

At least two souterrains (1 and 3) appeared to be associated with a central circular structure at Lisnagun rath, Co. Cork (see fig. 4.24). Both these souterrains were accessed via pits probably within the house floor area with narrow creep-ways suggesting that refuge was a primary function, although frequent use, possibly indicative of storage, is also suggested by the careful levelling of both souterrain floors (O' Sullivan et al. 1998, 41-44). Burnt debris, interpreted as from a possible hearth within the central round-house and discovered in the back-fill of souterrain 1’s entrance, provided an A.D. 9th to 10th century terminus ante quem for the souterrain’s construction (O' Sullivan et al. 1998, 49).

4.6 Roof-supports Lynn’s (1986, 76-86) classification of the early medieval round-houses dealt with external structural details, such as materials used to construct the walls. Little is done to examine the interior of these houses. This section will deal with interpretations of observed internal house details recovered during excavation.

A number of other excavated round structures may have had internal souterrain access but the exact structural relationships are difficult to confirm. At Raheenamadra, Knocklong, Co. Limerick, a round-house appeared to be closely associated with a souterrain located on the structure’s southern side (see fig. 4.20). It may have been accessed from inside the structure but the exact relationship is unclear. The souterrain that intersected the north eastern edge of a circular structure at Lisleagh II, Co. Cork, (Monk 1995, 108 - fig. 2) appears to belong to a later phase of the rath’s occupation (Monk, M. pers. comm.).

In terms of internal structural fixed-features, apart from the inner walls and entrances, roof-supporting posts, where present, would present necessary obstacles that may have marked space. Of the 133 excavated early medieval circular structures where the excavators noted such features only 22 structures or 15% were described as possessing ‘possible or probable’ evidence for internal roof-supporting post-holes.

The complexity of the rath site at Raheens No. 2, Co. Cork, makes it difficult to know with which (if any) of the excavated structures souterrains 1 and 3 were associated. Souterrain 3 appears to have intersected the wall lines of structure 1, a sub-rectangular structure, and also structure 2, a possible round-house. The excavator, however, noted that souterrain 3 was not completed and post-dated the most complete examples of subrectangular structure 1 and circular structure 2 (Lennon 1994, 59). Souterrain 1, meanwhile, was located on the southern extremity of the excavated area and could not be positively associated with any of the excavated structures.

These are: Structure A and possibly C from Mackney, Co. Galway (Delaney 2009, 19-20), three circular structures from Ballynacarriga, Co. Cork (structures 1, S5 and 8)(Noonan et al. 2004), two from Bray Head, Co. Kerry (house 4 and structure xvii)(Hayden 1997; 1999), one structure from Church Island, Co Kerry (stone round house)(O' Kelly 1958), two round-houses from Dromthacker, Co. Kerry (structures 1 and 2)(Cleary 2008), one round-house at Ballyvourney, Co. Cork (O' Kelly 1952), Lackenavorna, Co. Tipperary (house 1) (Manning 1984), the round-house at Leacanabuaile, Co Kerry (House A)(Ó Ríordáin and Foy 1941), at least one round-house at Lisleagh 1 (structure iii) (Monk 1995),

The excavator of Loher cashel, Co. Kerry, notes that a circular house (House 1) was associated with a souterrain 35

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

House B (C/J). Reask: The dimensions (36cm deep and 20cm in diameter) and position of two post-holes on the northern and southern extremities of a hearth ‘suggest a roof… supported on poles’ (Fanning 1981, 89-90). Walls composed of stone with earth fill.

Co. Cork, two round structures at Maynooth Castle, Co Kildare (1b and 1c) (Hayden 2000a), one round structure at Platin, Co. Meath (structure A) (Lynch 2002); conjoined round-houses at Reask, Co. Kerry (A and B) (Fanning 1981), House A from ‘Spectacles’, Co. Limerick (Ó Ríordáin 1949a) and House A, Site 3, Inishkea North, Co. Mayo (Henry 1952). In terms of geographical bias the majority of the excavated roundhouses with possible roof-supporting posts are from the south and south-west of Ireland: County Kerry having eight, Cork, five; Kildare and Galway, two, and counties Meath and Tipperary having one each. These examples are described in more detail below with the level of doubt or caution regarding the interpretation of roof-supports highlighted in italics. Co. Kerry

Co. Cork None of the Ballynacarriga structures contained evidence for a hearth although structure one’s size at 8.7m diameter and the central location within the enclosure persuaded the excavator to suggest a domestic function. Certainly the central location within the enclosure would normally be occupied by a significant domestic structure. Structure. 1. Ballynacarriga (fig. 4.16): Round-house with stake built walls. Three post-holes in the west side of the house interior and 1.1-1.38m from the wall (dimensions varied between 25 -50 cm deep and 29-48 cm diameter) and two sets of double post-holes (oval dimensions were max. 38 x 74cm and max. depth 2852cm) in the east side may have acted as roof supports (Noonan et al. 2004, 15 and 104-109).

Bray Head Str 4 and XVII. The excavators identified a combination of a ring and centrally placed roof-supports in these structures (Hayden et al. 1998, 13; Hayden 200b, 2-3). Str 1. Dromthacker (see fig. 4.3): The three largest post/stakeholes located towards the centre may have functioned as internal roof supports (stake-hole dimensions described as 8-30 cm deep and 8-50cm diameter, although the three largest would have presumably been towards the upper end of these brackets). The structure appeared to have had post-built walls (Cleary 2008, 31) .

Structure. S5. Ballynacarriga: Circular post-built structure. Two large possible internal roof supports 2m apart (oval dimensions were 40 x 50-57cm and 34-38cm deep) (Noonan et al. 2004, 30). Structure. 8. Ballynacarriga: Slot trench wall. Two postholes (max. diameter 28cm and 25cm deep) located towards the front of the structure were 1m apart and may have been used as roof-supports (Noonan et al. 2004, 36)

Str 2. Dromthacker (see fig. 4.3): Two postholes (one off-centre, the other near the north-east wall) may have been the remains of internal roof supports (maximum depth of 22 and 26cm; diameters of 40 and 70 cm). The structure appeared to have had post-built walls (Cleary 2008, 31) . Round stone-house. Church Island (see fig. 4.13 below): Twelve large and deep post-holes (20-33cm deep and 20-30cm diameter) located around edge of floor area near the wall (O' Kelly 1958, 68).

Round-house at Ballyvourney (fig. 4.7): Stone built wall with earth core. A central post-hole (20cm diameter) is interpreted as reasonable evidence of a central roof support (O' Kelly 1952, 20). Two others, near the southern and northern walls, also bear resemblance to the central example on the plan. Structure III. Lisleagh 1 (fig. 4.12): Four ‘massive’ postholes in a rectangular pattern encompassing the centre of this round house interpreted as evidence for roof or loft supporting posts. This may be the result of the eastern side of the structure being built over unstable compacted fill of the inner enclosure ditch (Monk 1988, 59)

House A. Leacanabuaile (fig. 4.4): Seven post-holes mainly around the perimeter (of a 1.5m wide stone wall) interpreted (‘inclined to think of them’) as being evidence of roof-supports. Dimensions of the smaller post-holes vary from depths of 20-30cm and diameters of 18-22cm and the larger oval examples 33-45cm long and 13-25cm deep (Ó Ríordáin and Foy 1941, 87). House A (C/J). Reask (fig. 4.5): Three post-holes (one central and two near northern perimeter) varied between 18-26cm deep and 15-20cm diameter. The post-holes were interpreted as probable roof supports, despite the inward batter of corbelling. The wall was built of dry stone with earth filling (Fanning 1981, 89-90).

36

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL ROUND-HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

Fig. 4.3 Structures 1 and 2 at Dromthacker, Co. Kerry (after Cleary 2008, 33)

37

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

Fig. 4.4. Leacanabuaile Fort, Co. Kerry (after Ó Ríordáin and Foy 1941, plate VIII)

Co. Limerick House A. Spectacles (fig. 4.8): An approximately circular structure (internal diameter 4.5m) with a rare south-west facing 1.2m wide entrance (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 58). Two external 22cm diameter post-holes flanking the approach near the entrance, together with the external post-holes support O Ríordáin’s interpretation of a wide eave and porch (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 58). Twelve internal post-holes, approximately 18cm diameter, were discovered (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 58). Of these twelve, 8 or possibly 9 were located around the perimeter of the internal wall, 2 were centrally located, whilst a single post-hole was near a rock outcrop SE of centre (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, plate XIII).

Co. Kildare Structure 1b. Maynooth Castle. Stake and post-built walls. Two large post-holes could be part of an internal ring of roof supports (Hayden 2000a, 12) Structure 1c. Maynooth Castle: Post and wattle or stake walls. One central post-hole (20cm deep and 10-15cm diameter) may be a roof supporting post. Four other postholes 0.7-1.0m inside the wall line could have been part of an internal ring of roof supporting posts (varying dimensions up to 33cm deep and 30cm in diameter) (Hayden 2000a, 13).

38

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL ROUND-HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

Fig. 4.5. Structures A and B at Reask, Co. Kerry (after Fanning 1981, 87)

Fig. 4.6. Structures C and D at Reask, Co. Kerry (after Fanning 1981, 91)

39

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

Fig. 4.7 Round-house at Ballyvourney, Co. Cork (after O' Kelly 1952, fig. 6)

Fig. 4.8 House A, Spectacles, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (detail after Ó Ríordáin 1949a, Plate XIII)

40

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL ROUND-HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

Fig. 4.9. Plan of house 1 at Killederdadrum, Co. Tipperary (after Manning 1984, 246)

Co. Galway Structure A. Mackney (fig. 4.11): Although tightly spaced opposed roof supporting posts were suggested by post-holes in the northern and southern sections, other internal post-holes, without definitive shape or pattern, may have supported the structure’s roof (Delaney 2009, 19). Alternatively, the internal posts may relate to a bedding/seat area or imdae.

Co. Mayo House A, Site 3. Inishkea North: An oval structure with four structural posts forming an entrance porch and three central post-holes around the hearth that possibly supported the roof. Post-hole depth varied between 20 and 38cm and most were over 30cm in diameter (Henry 1952) . Co. Meath Structure A. Platin (fig. 4.10): Post and wattle wall (stake). A number of features interpreted as probably representing the foundations for internal roof supports. A central sub-rectangular double post-hole (76 x 40cm and 52cm deep) interpreted as central roof support. Four other post-holes were also possible roof-supports (23cm deep and 50cm diameter; 21 cm deep and 36 x 23 cm ;16 cm deep and 30 x 21cm ; 13 cm deep and 32 x 26cm) (Lynch 2002, 3.4.1.2).

Structure C. Mackney: Although this structure only partially survives, a similar arrangement is envisaged to structure A (Delaney 2009, 20). 4.6.1 Post-rings Half of the Co. Kerry structures (Bray Head 4 and xvii; Church Island round-house; Leacanabuaile A) with evidence of possible roof supports are ones with a posthole ring pattern parallel with the outer wall of the structure and varyingly located 1-1.5m inside the wall, although at Church Island the gap was considerably smaller.

Co. Tipperary House 1. Killederdadrum (Lackenavorna) (fig. 4.9): Probable stake-built house. Four post-holes in a similar (rectilinear) arrangement to the Lisleagh example may have held structural posts to support the roof (depth varied between 20 and 42cm) (Manning 1984, 246).

The structures at Church Island (fig. 4.13) and Leacanabuaile (fig. 4.5) had rings of posts that were very near walls which were corbelled presumably to provide a thatched roof that covered the top of the curving wall. For

41

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

Fig. 4.10. Structure A at Duleek Rd., Platin, Co. Meath (after Lynch 2002, fig. 4)

Fig. 4.11. Structure A, Mackney, Co. Galway (after Delaney 2009, 60 - figure 8 )

42

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL ROUND-HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

this reason the only possible location that these posts could occupy was where the inward batter of the wall met the posts at the appropriate height. It is proposed that these posts did not meaningfully divide the floor area of the structure and consequently any identifiable internal features are located on the inside of the posts (see Church Island internal features below). This situation may also be possible at Reask but the later disturbance within A and B makes it difficult to be certain.

of the floor area of the house is located behind the posts and this area must certainly have been utilised in some form. In order to examine how this (peripheral) area could have been used it is intended to examine further non-structural features as suggested by excavation.

In terms of the Co. Cork structures, although no hearth was present, the possible ring of posts within the 8.6m diameter structure 1 at Ballynacarriga (fig. 4.16) would suggest that 50 % of the floor area of 58m² was located between the stake built walls and the posts. This is again similar to the figure. If one considers optimal structural considerations as being partly responsible for the arrangement of space as Hill (1984) tested then it would be expected that approximately 62% of the floor area (of a 10m diameter structure) to be between the posts and the outer wall (Pope 2007, 217). Pope has argued that peripheral space as defined by the location of roofsupports, increased and decreased within prehistoric round-houses in Britain and can be linked with shifting subsistence strategies (2007, 217). It may well be, as Pope and Reid (1989, 5) suggest, that roof ‘engineering’ factors are not only responsible for ensuring the location of these posts.

Of the sites listed above that contained possible evidence for ring-posts Bray Head 4 and xvii, Ballynacarriga 1, and Maynooth Castle 1c possessed evidence for other possible features unrelated to roof support and located within the peripheral area (see table 4b below).

4.7 Fixed/semi-fixed features: partitions/benches; nonstructural features

Bray Head house 4 had a possible bed or seating area similar to an example excavated at Church Island. A number of similarities exist between Cahergal and the conjoined stone-houses at Ballynaveenoragh, Co. Kerry. The central stone built structure, although conjoined to another smaller structure, also had two entrances and an internal gully around the inner wall. The stake-hole patterns here are also suggestive of peripheral areas set aside as possible enclosed areas, especially on the northern side although none are as clearly set out as at Cahergal (Gibbons 1999, 7). A line of four radial stakeholes running east-west, and some 3m from the southern entrance, being the only convincing evidence for a possible radial division. If these east and western areas of the house can be interpreted as divided in some way that would involve up to 40% of the floor area being set aside either side of a centrally located hearth.

Of the two circular structures excavated at Maynooth Castle, Co. Kildare, the later round house (1c) (fig. 4.19) has the most convincing, if incomplete, evidence for a post-ring within the structure. If the total floor area of this 5m diameter structure was 19.6m² then between 48% and 64% or at least half of that floor area would have been between the posts and the house wall.

A number of similarities exist between Cahergal and the conjoined stone-houses at Ballynaveenoragh, Co. Kerry. The central stone built structure, although conjoined to another smaller structure, also had two entrances and an internal gully around the inner wall. The stake-hole patterns here are also suggestive of peripheral areas set aside as possible enclosed areas, especially on the northern side although none are as clearly set out as at Cahergal (Gibbons 1999, 7).

4.6.2 Rectilinear post arrangements The Lisleagh 1 structure (III) (fig. 4.12) was described as having four massive post-holes defining an area of approximately 4 x 3m in a rectangular pattern within the central area of the house. The hearth was north of centre within this defined area. The scale of the post-holes may have been in response to the eastern wall of the structure having been built over the unstable fill of the inner rath ditch rather than to support a loft (Monk 1988, 59). Two other structures have a similar arrangement. House 1 at Killederdadrum, Co. Tipperary (fig. 4.9) had a larger (17.5-19m²) area defined by a rectilinear arrangement of posts within the centre (Manning 1984, 246). The Bray Head structure (xvii) was also interpreted as having a similar but considerably smaller (3m ²) arrangement of posts, although in conjunction with a post-ring. No loft interpretations were offered by Haden or Manning with respect to these structures.

The phase 1c round-house at Maynooth Castle, Co. Kildare was found to contain one ‘L’ shaped pattern of stake-holes in the north-eastern side of the house that may have defined the linear northern end to a 1m wide feature on the eastern side of the house. This feature seemed to be aligned with a possible internal roof supporting post and was interpreted by the excavator as a possible ‘raised bed of organic material delimited by a low post and wattle wall’ (Hayden 2000a, 13). A series of three further radial stake-holes in the southern side and aligned towards the centre from a possible roof supporting post may also relate to a similar feature. It is not possible to locate the probable entrance for the structure and therefore impossible to further interpret these feature’s relationship to the spatial arrangement.

It would seem that very few (15%) of the total number of structures have evidence for possible roof supporting posts. Of those with possible rings of posts, at least half

43

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

Lisleagh 1 phases: Phase 1: SII Phase 2: SI, SVI Phase3: SV, SIII, SVI Phase 4:SV, SVI, SIII & SIV Phase 5: SV,SVI Phase 6: SV

Fig. 4.12. Lisleagh 1 plan (all phases) (after Monk 1988, 58)

44

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL ROUND-HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

Fig. 4.13. Church Island, Co. Kerry, stone round-house (after O' Kelly 1958)

Fig. 4.14. Plan of stone round-house at Cahergal, Co. Kerry (shaded area indicative of possible extent of bedding areas: with thanks to Con Manning for permission to include a redrawn simplified plan of an unpublished drawing). One of the clearest examples of radial divisions within non-Ulster round-houses is provided by the large roundhouse excavated at Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath (Bradley 1997). Two hundred and forty-seven post-holes were

discovered within the structure and two particular features bear a resemblance to the patterns from the above structures. Two lines of radial and parallel stakeholes possibly define an area 2 x 1.75m in the southern

45

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

end of the house. Two conjoined sets of radial and concentric stake-hole patterns (approximately 1.4m x 1.4m) with distinctive ‘L’ shaped end and possible evidence of replacement, define a unit on the western end, opposite the putative eastern entrance. There is a further 1.5m long concentric band of stake-holes further along to the north of the western alignment that suggests another unit or a continuation of the western example. Where stake-hole patterns are observed within these structures many form radial and concentric patterns that occasionally combine in L-shaped features. The majority of these occur on one or both sides of the structure and may have formed distinctive partitions interpreted as bed/seat areas. Where a structure has one entrance, such as Bray Head, the probability is that one of these features was located directly opposite the entrance. Where two opposed entrances are located within the same structure these features seem to move right and left of the central area, as at Cahergal. It remains to be seen whether the main ranking seat was located opposite the entrance but a reinterpretation of the literary legal evidence regarding a royal house at this time suggests that it may have been (see chapter 8). Moynagh Lough seems to have been a large structure with a number of these features locatedaround the periphery and surrounding the central hearth. The larger structure would certainly suggest a high status structure and a partitioned feature is located opposite the entrance.Further examples exist of features within these structures that do not conform to the concentric and radial pattern along the periphery of structures but can nevertheless aid in the interpretation of spatial arrangements.

Concentric and radial patterns along the north wall suggest further radial units in this area although not as clearly as the western example. The western example was interpreted as a possible example of a ‘raised bed/seats which one finds in Viking houses’ (Bradley 1984, 35). 4.8.Summary Structure 1 at Ballynacarriga had a linear slot with postholes that ran south-east to north west for a distance of approximately 2.75m south of the possible entrance (Noonan et al. 2004, fig. 7). It appears to be chordal rather than radial or concentric and the probable interpretation is a screen, although its location is similar to the peripheral screened off areas interpreted as beds or seats. The lack of associated hearth within the structure is problematic in terms of a domestic interpretation. A shallow east-west linear trench within the southern possibly conjoined structure at Newtown, Co. Limerick (fig. 4.17) seemed to delineate a semi-circular area, south of which, pits and post-holes were located (Coyne 2006, 65-66). This area may have been partitioned in some way but given the amount of activity located behind the partition it is difficult to be certain if it was a bench or bedding area that was located here. No hearth was located within the structure. House 1 at Ringfort 1, Lisduggan, Co. Cork (fig. 4.18) was a circular structure with a south eastern entrance that was seemingly divided in half by a linear gully running approximately east-west (Twohig 1990, 10-12). It is possible that the northern half of this structure had its own entrance, as the north-east quadrant was not excavated but if not the linear gully must have supported a partition with an opening along its length that cannot be detected from a ground plan. There was no evidence for an internal hearth within this structure. The smaller house (B) of the conjoined stonebuilt round-houses at Cathair Fionnúrach, Co. Kerry had a souterrain with a ‘double line of post-holes set around the souterrain entrance’ interpreted as a possible wicker framed safety feature (Gibbons 1997).

Structure 7 at Ballyncarriga 1, Co. Cork does not conform to the pattern of known houses of this period in that it lacks a hearth, was not associated with any domestic artefacts, has a splayed wide entrance and a series of different sized post-holes interpreted as dividing the space in half (Noonan et al. 2004, 35). Although cautiously interpreted as a ‘hut’ it is unlikely that it functioned as a permanent house.

Table 4b (below). Features within structures and possible interpretations. Site

House type

Description

Interpretation

Ballynacarriga 1

Round

Slot feature with post-holes to southwest of possible entrance

A form of partition inside the door

Ballinacarriga 7

Round

Line of stake-holes almost dividing structure in half.

Internal division similar to Lisduggan House 1? (no hearth in either)

Bray Head 4

Round

Radial slots and stake-holes .

Bedding/seating area.

Bray Head xvii

Round

Radial divisions – gullies .

Bedding/seat area.

Cahergal

Round

Radial and concentric bands of many post/stakeholes.

Possibly defining seating/bed areas on the east and west of the two entrances.

46

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL ROUND-HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT Cathair Fionnúrach B

Round (CCS)

Double line of post- Safety holes either side of fence/partition? souterrain entrance Compare with similar in Bray Head 4.

Church Island

Round

9 post-holes delineated a rectangular area 2m x 1m in the S of the house.

Lisduggan Ring fort 1House 1

Round

Divided in half by a Two semi-circular linear gulley rooms but no evidence of adjoining doorway.

Mackney Structure A

Round

Some internal postholes opposie the entrance.

Maynooth Castle

Round

A radial and End of a concentric pattern of bedding/seating area? stake holes.

Moynagh Lough

Round

Stake-holes patterns Bed/benches around radiating from sides periphery of walls of structure.

Newtown

Round (C/J)

Post-holes in Southern (b/h) structure. Separated by linear trench

Fig. 4.15. Moynagh Lough crannog round-house (after Bradley 1984, fig. 19)

47

A bed/seat area next to hearth & opposite the door.

Maybe associated with bedding/seat area in western end?

A linear partition?

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

Fig. 4.16. Structure 1, Ballynacarriga, Co. Cork (after Noonan et al. 2004, fig. 7.) (With thanks to Dan Noonan for permission to include this redrawn plan).

Fig. 4.17. Newtown A ‘figure-of-eight’ structure, Co Limerick (after Coyne 2006, 65)

48

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL ROUND-HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

Fig. 4.18. Structures at Lisduggan, Co. Cork (after Twohig 1990, 10)

4.9 Hearths

Fig. 4.19 Location of hearths within Irish (non-Ulster) roundhouses in relation to an entrance marked by the arrow. Circled black numbers indicate number of excavated hearths. Gray numbers relate to grid areas within houses

‘The hearth is on center (sic.). Directions within the home are set by motion around the fire. You’re going ‘down’ when the hearth’s open mouth is behind you, and ‘up’ when it is toward you, and you go up toward the back wall, down toward the door through the front wall. Beyond the home you go ‘down’ to the north and east and ‘up’ to the south and west. Like a swirling swastika, space spins, its four directions extend, then curve, spiraling (sic.) down or up, merging to embrace half the world, returning, turning through the house to center (sic.) precisely on the hearth’ (Glassie 1982, 327).

49

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

Fig. 4.20. Round-house and souterrain at Raheenamadra (Knocklong), Co. Limerick (after Stenberger 1966, plate II)

hearth within the disturbed central area (Hayden et al. 1998, 26). Similarly although two hearths are recorded within structure 1 at Killederdadrum, Co. Tipperary, (fig. 4.9) they appear not to be contemporary hearths as the example to the east of the interior of the entrance is too close to a structural post-hole and appears to have been cut by this post-hole (F101) (Manning 1984, 246). A probable circular house within a ringfort at Raheenamadra, Knocklong, Co. Limerick (fig. 4.20) also had two hearth areas, although the 14C dates associated with both, together with their relative locations suggest different phases, with Hearth 2, located immediately in front of the souterrain entrance, the more likely to be associated with the souterrain phase (Stenberger 1966, 52-53 & plate II). In the early medieval House A at the ‘Spectacles’ settlement, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick, two ‘well-defined hearths’ were discovered (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 58) . Both were located adjacent to the stone wall of the house, opposite the entrance and on the left of the entrance (northern wall) respectively. Ó Ríordáin suggests that the use of either hearth may have been dictated by the wind direction. The wind direction interpretation, however, is problematic for two reasons. Firstly bearing in mind that the prevailing winds in this area are south-westerly it is unlikely that a second hearth was fixed for the rare occasions that the wind direction was different. Secondly whilst wind direction may affect open air combustion zones ethnographic examples suggest that interior hearths are not as greatly affected by wind direction (Binford 1983, 159). It may be, as O’ Sullivan suggests (2008, 254), two phases of occupation resulted in two hearths.

Jackie McDowell (2005) took the presence of a hearth, open or enclosed, within a structure as a defining feature of a ‘house’ in her study of the Deer Park Farms structures. Where damage or disturbance obfuscated the centre of a structure it was only labelled a house if it possessed a ‘bedding area’(McDowell 2005, 25). In terms of the total excavated early medieval Irish examples, however, only 40% of round structures have definite evidence for a hearth area. In the other 60 % it is difficult to ascertain if structures lack hearths due to disturbance or if they are genuinely absent. At sites such as Raheens 1, Co Cork, ploughing disturbance had obliterated evidence for hearths within two possible dwellings, whilst at nearby Raheens 2, it is clear that despite at least six of the structures being large enough to have been dwellings none had any evidence for a hearth (Lennon 1993, 85; 1994, 59). The above description of much more recent interpretations regarding hearths in the Irish domestic psyche suggests that wherever the physical location of the hearth it remained a constant and significant focus. During the early medieval period the structures excavated show a predominant bias towards the physical centre of the structure with over 70% of the known non-Ulster hearths being located within this area (see fig. 4.19 above). Of the total number of hearths excavated within structures where details are recorded or available in Ulster, 52 % were open arrangements (pits or spreads) whilst 39% were either fully or partly kerbed. Only a few structures had evidence for more than one hearth. The hearth towards the north of the structure 4 at Bray Head, Valencia Island, Co. Kerry, is described a secondary feature and there may have been a primary

The large phase Y round-house at Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath (see fig. 4.15), appeared to have three distinctive hearth areas but it is not clear whether these were in use

50

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL ROUND-HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

Fig. 4.21. Overlapping house structures at Old Court, Co. Cork (after Ó Cuilenáin and Murphy 1961, fig. 2) The evidence seems to suggest that where hearths are present within circular structures they usually contain one centre or occasionally off-centre hearth which provided a single unambiguous domestic focus for the residents. In larger structures (10m diameter +) such as Old Court and Moynagh Lough, however, there may have been two hearths. In Rapoportian terms the hearth is a fixed-or semi-fixed feature element which rarely moves and whilst the settings (see chapter 3) within the house space change as the day progresses, the hearth remains a focus for a number of reasons, namely as a provider of light and heat for cooking. It is also probable that the provision of an internal heat source would also have lengthened the life of an organic structure in terms of keeping the wall and roofing material dry and inhibiting the natural decay processes.

during the same period. Bradley’s (1984, 33) unpublished account suggests that at least hearth 1 and 2 were and that any stratigraphic differences are due to crannog consolidation rather than chronology. The later published report (Bradley 1991, 16) seems to suggest, however, that hearth 2 replaced hearth 1. The unpublished report, meanwhile, records a ‘thin skin’ of occupation material covering hearth 3 but not hearths 1 and 2 (Bradley 1984, 33). It is interesting to note that none of the hearths are located in exactly the same location which may support the theory that they were in contemporary use. There was also slag discovered in one of the hearths (hearth 2) although it was interpreted as possible use of hot-fuel rather than in-situ industrial activity (Bradley 1984, 34). The confusing stratigraphy of many phases and periods seems to be equivocal and it may equally, therefore, be interpreted as one hearth replacing another rather than contemporaneous use of three hearths.

A number of the excavated hearths have evidence of associated post or stake-holes. At Bray Head, Co. Kerry house 3, 4 and xvii had a number of stake-holes interpreted as spit or crane supports for suspending cooking pots (Hayden et al. 1998, 26; Hayden 2000b, 3). Several stake and post-holes were also associated with the central hearth within structure A at Killickaweeny and were interpreted as possible evidence for a series of spits over the fire (Walsh 2005, 36). The interim report plans of the structures at Lisleagh 1, Co. Cork (fig. 4.12) show a series of stake-holes around the central hearths associated with round structures III, V and VI which may be evidence for hearth spits (Monk 1988, 58). The ring of stake-holes around the central hearths of the earlier and

Although there is considerable overlap with houses A and B, House B at Old Court, Co. Cork (fig. 4.21) is interpreted as having had two hearths located towards the centre and rear of the structure (Ó Cuilenáin and Murphy 1961, 83). The lack of any further detail prevents any comment and the confusing intra-site stratigraphy may have confused phases of hearths from both houses. It is notable, however, that both structures at Old Court, Co. Cork, had possible diameters in excess of 10m which is similar to the dimensions of the Moynagh Lough example. This may suggest that the number of hearths is linked to scale.

51

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

later round-houses (1b & c) at Maynooth Castle (fig. 4.19) was probably to contain the ash rather than as supports for spits, although this cannot be discounted (Hayden 2000a, 12-13). The three hearths within the large phase Y round-house at Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath had numerous stake-holes concentrated in and around them (Bradley 1984, fig. 19). Hearth 1 is described as being a series of alternating bands of ash and charcoal that suggests use of small areas within the kerbed hearth and it is quite possible that the stake-holes within the kerbing are associated with these areas (Bradley 1984, 33) Various hearth associated posts on several different levels were interpreted by Bradley as evidence for the resetting of ‘hearth furniture’ (Bradley 1984, 34). The plan of houses A and B at Old Court, Co. Cork (fig. 4.21) seem to show some post-holes unattributed definitively to either structure that seem to be associated with the hearths, although this is not noted in the text (Ó Cuilenáin and Murphy 1961, fig. 2). A number of stake holes are reported to have been associated with the central hearth within the round-house at Curraheen, Co. Cork (Danaher and Cagney 2004, 22) Of all the non-Ulster internal hearths noted in excavation reports a selection are described as being associated with food-material. The hearth area within Beginish ‘Room’ 1, Co. Kerry, was associated with shells and fish bones, whilst the hearth within the stone round-house at Church Island, contained calcined shells, animal and fish bones (O' Kelly 1958, 68; 1956, 162). The deposits associated with the central hearth within the round-house at Curraheen contained charred oat, barley and wheat (Danaher and Cagney 2004, 22). It would appear that despite unfavourable preservation conditions, evidence for cattle, sheep and pig bones were associated with an unspecified hearth at Lisleagh 1 (Monk 1988, 60). In addition charred (barley and rye) grain was discovered close to the structure I/V hearth (Monk et al. 1998, 72). Within the large phase Y round-house at Moynagh Lough there was a noticeable concentration of small, burnt animal bones near the hearth areas (Bradley 1984, 37). The proximity of Lissachiggel to the north-eastern counties where souterrain pottery was produced and used makes this the only non-Ulster site where cooking ware pottery was found in conjunction with a round-house hearth (Davies 1939, 221).

22-26) and is the only second such house distribution plot available to researchers of this period in Ireland, the other being Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim (part of which is reproduced in chapter 6). Neither plot has, to date, been published. McDowell (2005, chapter 7) has discussed the ‘end-situations’ of the Deer Park Farms houses and how the artefact distribution may not necessarily represent everyday activity areas as other abandonment processes may be represented. Household assemblages are subject to a variety of accretion and depletion processes during habitation, abandonment and post-abandonment stages (Lamotta and Schiffer 1999, 20-25). McDowell’s conclusions suggest that the ‘accidentally’ burnt houses excavated at Deer Park Farms are more likely to reflect everyday activities (2005, 115). Burnt houses, however, may well be the result of deliberate destruction by the occupants as part of an abandonment procedure or ritual. Household assemblages, as a result, may be deliberately depleted or enriched prior to burning (Lamotta and Schiffer 1999, 23). Although aware of this factor, McDowell’s ‘accidental’ interpretation for the burnt houses at Deer Park Farms is based on the fact that there was not a consistent depositional practice that could be described throughout the various phases of the settlement, either in terms of the placement, quality or quantity of the various assemblages within these burnt structures (McDowell 2005, 115). The Moynagh Lough early medieval round-house is described by Bradley as possessing a deposit of ‘charcoal flecked earth’ that was up to 40cm thick, outside the structure and interpreted as evidence that the house was destroyed by fire (Bradley 1984, 30). Whether this fire was accidental or was part of an abandonment procedure is difficult to assess. Although evidence for a circular structure (round-house 2) was recovered to the north-east of the large round-house, comparisons are not possible because this was considerably smaller (5.2m diameter), incomplete and lacked a habitation deposit (Bradley 1991, 16). Examination of the distribution plots does not appear to show any particular concentration of artefacts within any particular context that would constitute ‘enrichment’. Personal items are discovered within bedding areas as well as the central floor area and industrial products and waste material seem to be concentrated in the northern half and around hearths two and three which may have been industrial as opposed to domestic hearths (see fig. 4.16). Examination of the ‘personal items’ distribution plot suggests that, although not so numerous most were present in areas immediately north of the hearth and near the peripheral southern area. Beads, pins and bracelet fragments that may be more commonly associated with females formed the majority of this assemblage. Although a single find, the presence of a copper alloy drinking horn terminal near the external southern wall area of the house may be the result of storage on or near the wall and its consequent destruction by fire. It may be significant that iron knives, presumably tools used daily for a variety of purposes were present in deposits in the central floor (nonperipheral) area but not in the possible peripheral imdae.

In terms of food preparation three bone-points found near the hearth within Room1 Beginish, Co. Kerry and in association with periwinkle shells were interpreted as tools for opening these (O' Kelly 1956, 177-178). The parallel drawn with these two ‘bone’ tools and a similar shellfish deposit at nearby Leacanabuaile is, however, open to question as one of these was an iron nail (cf. O' Kelly 1956, 194 note 29; Ó Ríordáin and Foy 1941, 9192). 4.10 Non-fixed features: Moynagh Lough round-house artefact distribution. The artefact distribution from phase Y at Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath, was plotted by Bradley (1984, figs.

52

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL ROUND-HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

Fig. 4.22. Structures at Beginish, Co. Kerry (after O' Kelly 1956, 164). habitation deposits on the southern side are deepest and contain the majority (albeit of a small collection) of personal finds. In common with British Iron Age cosmological studies O’Sullivan (2008, 247) has suggested that this may mark out the (dark) northern side of the house as associated with the dark arts of the smiths. Bradley notes a general lack of finds in the vicinity of the western ‘D-shaped area’ area and suggests that it may have been covered in some way (1984, 35). This study (see above) supports the interpretation that these features within distinctive stake-hole enclosed areas may well have been imdae (bedding/seat) areas. The distinctive feature at the western end of the Moynagh Lough structure is located opposite the entrance. As noted above similar examples are located at Church Island and Bray Head (house 4 and structure xvii). A particular comparison with surviving areas of the Deer Park Farms examples would suggest that these contained organic material. If the house was burnt, however, not only the bedding material would perish but so would much of the organic evidence for activities which survived in the buried houses at Deer Park Farms. Comparisons with the Deer Park Farms structures also needs to take into account not only the ‘end situations’ but also house dimensions and related structures (e.g. back-houses) which would certainly have influenced the use of space within each house.

In terms of waste, modified or worked flint, the main concentration lies immediately north and south of hearth one. Fourteen percent of the flint assemblage has been interpreted as possible strike-a-lights (Bradley 1984, 50) and their presence near the hearth is self explanatory. The rest is composed of flakes, blades and associated waste suggesting that pebbles were brought here in core or modified form and were used and retouched for various activities either side of the hearth where there was heat and light. Certainly the majority of animal bones were concentrated near the hearths (Bradley 1991, 16). Hearth 1, too, proved to be the focus for a ‘cache’ of ten small round quartzite pebbles interpreted as possible gaming pieces (Bradley 1984, 48). The main hearth (1) seems to have been the focus in terms of food preparation, work and socialising or recreational activity. It is worth noting, though, that flint too was found in the western and southern imdae areas suggesting that people may have sat here and worked as well as slept. Focusing on industrial activity, whilst bronze-working finds are distributed throughout the structure, the iron working material is concentrated on the northern side. This would suggest that iron produced in the furnace outside the western area of the house and possibly within hearth two was worked inside the area to the north of hearth one. Certainly the floor deposits on the northern side of the house are described as trampled whilst the

53

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ULSTER

to structures excavated by McSparron (2002) at Sheepheads, Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim, which he interpreted as ‘booley houses’. Unfortunately these were not dated and could be associated with much later (medieval or post-medieval) occupation.

4.11 Excavated temporary structures A circular structure described by the excavators as being 1.5m x 1.7m with a possible north facing entrance was excavated in the centre of a ‘field wall enclosure’ in the upper Barrees valley, Co. Cork (O'Brien 2009, 257-266). Although no features were discovered, occupation is suggested by artefacts such as blue glass and segmented glass beads and worked flint representing debitage or strike-a-lights. Four charcoal spreads were identified, one of which was located within the southern floor area and one under a western wall stone (fig. 4.23). The western example spread was interpreted as possibly relating to occupation associated with the structure and was 14C dated to late sixth to eighth century AD (see Table 4a). The dimensions and lack of features would support the excavator’s interpretation of the structure occupation as probably temporary but not necessarily evidence of occupation associated with transhumance (O'Brien 2009, 266). The structure, in terms of dimensions, external combustion zones and paucity of finds, bear resemblance

4.12 Conclusions In terms of dating the 14C evidence would suggest that the majority of the round-house structures within the early medieval period were built between the seventh and ninth centuries A.D. The structure at Killededadrum, Co. Tipperary, however, provided a medieval date. An examination of excavated database counties comprising number of features form.

the published and non-published of circular structures within the the non-Ulster sites suggests that a can be identified as indicators of

Fig. 4.23. Circular structure at Site E, Barrees valley, Co. Cork (after O'Brien 2009, 258 - fig. 7.48)

54

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL ROUND-HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

although only one (Moynagh Lough) structure has been examined in this way. It may be significant that one particular possible ‘bedding area’ in the eastern end of the Moynagh Lough crannog house was cleaner than any other. This area, opposite the house entrance, also appeared to be defined by slotted features within the Bray Head houses. At Moynagh Lough this may suggest that this location and associated feature was associated with high-status individuals and was either avoided, cleaned or covered in contrast to other areas of the house.

Apart from structures in the south-west, the general lack of roof supports is noted as well as some radial and concentric stake-hole or slotted features, occasionally occurring as ‘L ’shaped combinations along the peripheral areas of the structures. Where these survive it is possible to suggest that some may have been located opposite the entrance or, in the rare examples of structures with opposed entrances, along both nonobstructive sides. The fact that these were fixed or semifixed features would imply that they were items of important furniture such as bedding areas or seats. Particularly clear examples were in evidence within the larger house at Moynagh Lough crannog.

A number of round-houses had internal souterrain access associated with either storage or refuge, neither being mutually exclusive. The number of impedimental devices and narrows creep-ways would suggest that refuge was a primary consideration with the unenclosed house souterrains whilst storage may have been a primary consideration within the easily accessed cashel house souterrains. The oversimplification of such binary distinctions may, however, be counterproductive to understanding how such additional space may have been used pragmatically, regardless of primary construction motives.

The majority of structures with hearths have one central example which would have provided the occupants with a central heat and light source which may have also acted as a reference point for movement around the house. Within the house the hearth seems to have been the focus for food-preparation and cooking as the evidence for spit supports and animal bones and sea shells suggests. The central area around the hearth and the peripheral seating areas may also have been used for craft activities

Fig. 4.24. Lisnagun enclosure structures, Darrara, Co. Cork (after O' Sullivan et al. 1998, 38)

55

Chapter 5 The excavated early medieval rectilinear houses of Munster, Leinster and Connacht

interpreted as displaying notable features will be illustrated.

5.1 Introduction Table 5a (Appendix 2) contains a tabulated summary of the known 93 excavated rectilinear structures from nonUlster Irish contexts. A number of sites from various regions have many structures associated with them and, due to the sheer number of structures, it is intended to examine the multiple structure sites collectively in terms of shared fixed- and semi-fixed-features. Other structures with notable fixed or semi-fixed features will be examined individually as has been the case with the Irish round-houses (see chapter 4). In common with the analysis of the round-house sites, the settlement contexts and dating will also be examined. Only the structures

In Munster significant sites include the five rectilinear structures excavated at Bray Head, Co. Kerry, whilst more complex arrangements of enclosed and unenclosed structures were excavated at Cush and Carraig Aille (including the Spectacles), Co. Limerick and Cahercommaun (Tullycommon), Co Clare. One of the largest Leinster settlements of this period includes the 15 structures associated with the burial mound at Knowth (due for complete publication in 2010). A number of well preserved structures were also excavated at the Connacht site of Inishkea, Co. Mayo.

5.2. 14C Dating Barrees Site F (O'Brien 2009, 270)

Cork

Munster

Sub-rect.

Charcoal from primary occupation surface House 8

GrN28304

895± 20 BP

AD 1045- 1212

Bray Head (Hayden 1997, appendix 1) Derryville (Stanley and Moore 2004, 12) Cherrywood Structure 2 (Ó Néill 2006, 81)

Kerry

Munster

Rect.

GrN22548

Forthcoming

AD 9th-11th C

Tipperary

Munster

Rect.

Wooden Post

GrN21946

1200± 20 BP

AD 774-888

Dublin

Leinster

Rect.

Bone fragment overlying cobbled entrance Structural Post-pipe (PH456)Structure B Period 1 hearth

? (Listed below as Cherry) Beta185553

910 ± 50 BP

AD 1025-1217

Killickaweeny (Walsh 2005, 72)

Kildare

Leinster

Rect.

1220± 50 BP

AD 674-940

Dunbeg (Barry 1981) (Jim Macdonald Pers.com) Dunbeg (Barry 1981) (Jim Macdonald Pers.Com) Dunbell Ringfort No. 5 (Dunbell Big) (Kerr et al. 2009, 336) Giltspur - Structure F100 (Cryerhall and Moriarty 2006, 17)

Kerry

Munster

Clochan: rectangular internal area

UB2217

960± 100 BP

AD 888-1265

Kerry

Munster

Clochan: rectangular internal area

Period 2 hearth

UB2218

960± 65 BP

AD 906-1219

Killkenny

Leinster

Square

Post-hole of house

UB3390

1233± 39 BP

AD 684-885

Wicklow

Leinster

Subrectangular

Post-hole (F47)

?

?

AD 860-1000*

Table 5b. Correlated 14C dates from nine rectangular excavated structures. * (94.3% probability) Giltspur, Co Wicklow, not included in graph (fig. 5.1 below) as uncalibrated lab results could not be obtained. Bray Head date to be published by Hayden et al.

56

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL RECTILINEAR HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

Fig. 5.1 Graph of Table 5b 14C dates generated by OxCal v.4.1.5 (Bronk Ramsey 2009). Although the structure adjacent to Ring-fort 2’s entrance was described as a ‘small house’ the lack of a hearth or occupation deposit does not fully support this interpretation. It comprised a sub-rectangular pebble floor and a clay and stone wall with an associated post-hole on its southern end. A single post-hole may mark its eastern extent (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 94-95). A souterrain located south east of the central post-holes and hearth may have been accessed internally from a central house structure, although the post-hole pattern is suggestive of a multiphased building that may have been curvilinear or rectilinear (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 96). Two rectilinear structures, as suggested by a series of post-holes, were discovered within Ring-fort 3 (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 100). The southern most of these structures measured 4.9m x 3.6m (17.6 m²) and consisted of seven post-holes and a wall slot on its north-western end (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 100). The floor appears to have been paved but only a small portion of this paving remains scattered throughout the structure (Ó Ríordáin 1940, plate XX).

Whilst the Ulster sites and some outlying sites may be generally dated by the presence of Souterrain Ware, the remainder of Ireland remained generally aceramic during this period. A number of the rectilinear structures, however, are associated with artefacts that may be dated. An example would be Beal Boru, Co. Clare, where a post-constructed rectangular structure may be associated with an 11th century coin (O'Kelly 1962, appendix IV). Not including Ulster, only six rectangular structures have been dated by 14C techniques. In terms of providing an overview the only satisfactory insight this provides is that the earliest dated structures are 8th – 9th century whilst the earliest round-house dates from non-Ulster sites are 7th – 8th century (see chapter 4). 5.3. Munster multiple structure sites 5.3.1. Bray Head, Valencia Island, Co Kerry A number of rectilinear structures which were excavated between 1993 and 1998 overlie each other at Bray Head. A sequence of structures belonging to site phases 3 to 5 are associated with houses 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the eastern settlement (Hayden et al. 1998, 14-18), whilst structure xvi is a bow-walled structure with possible Norse cultural affiliations in the Crompeol settlement (Hayden 2000b, 67).

To the north of this putative structure another possible building, outlined by a series of 10 post-holes, may be indicative of a 6.5m x 3.5m (22.7m²) rectangular structure, although this is conjectural (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 98). Ó Ríordáin also suggests that another area of paving associated with the souterrain in ring fort 3 may have been a house floor (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 100). The northern sector of sub-rectangular enclosure labelled ‘Fort 6’ (see fig. 5.2) was excavated to reveal charcoal staining suggesting the presence of a rectangular structure measuring 5.1m x 3m internally (15.3m²) (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 114). Evidence of burnt clay found in association with this structure would seem to suggest that it was of wattle and daub construction (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 114). A

5.3.2. Cush, Co. Limerick A number of structures were excavated in the 1930s in association with a series of conjoined raths and enclosures (Ó Ríordáin 1940). At least nine of these structures were possibly rectilinear and are described here in relation to their settlement context.

57

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO UILSTER

fragments of quern stones were discovered in association with this structure (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 162). The lack of a hearth, the side paving or bench type feature and sunken nature of this building is perhaps better suited to storage or workshop rather than habitation. House C was interpreted as a rectangular structure 5.5m x 4.2m (23m²) and oriented north-south that partly overlay House B (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 120). The structure was incomplete on its northern side. It seems likely that House C was more likely a structure located to the south of B rather than overlying it. Staining on the clay seemed to indicate the presence of other structures which were not easy to distinguish and are not described by the excavator (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 120). The plan (Ó Ríordáin 1940, plate xxvi), however, shows that one of them, located to the south of C may have been sub-rectangular with an entrance on its southern side measuring approximately 6m x 4.9m, although this remains highly conjectural. Some 10m north of House B, House D was described as a rectangular structure although this is not clear (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 120). The excavator noted that the structure was partitioned in the middle and the plan seems to show an arc of shallow post-holes in the centre of the structure (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 120 & plate xxiv).The structure was approached by a funnel shaped ‘hollow way’ from the west. The actual shape and function of this structure is far from clear and little else can be stated with any certainty.

centrally placed charcoal stained area was, presumably, the location of a hearth (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 114). Two post-holes were located in the north-east and the southeast corners of the structure. A further example was located 0.9m in north of the hearth whilst the fourth and final post-hole was located in the western wall, some 1.8m from the NW corner (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 114). The enclosure to the south of the aforementioned enclosures contained three structures that may have been rectilinear houses. House B (see fig. 5.6 below) according to the excavator, was constructed in a manner atypical for this site. The structure consisted of a sunken rectangular area measuring 7m x 3m (21m²), oriented approximately east-west and located near the north-east corner of the southern enclosure. The southern half of the structure seems to have been paved whilst the northern sector remained unpaved. Three ridge-pole supporting post-holes were centrally located along the axis of the structure in the unpaved area whilst a fourth was located near the southern wall. The structure’s lower walls were stone built and were placed against the external clay matrix (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 119). At the south eastern corner of the house a 1.5m long passage seems to head in a south easterly direction whilst the west-end of the structure was seemingly incomplete or open. A ditch that led to a hollow was discovered immediately outside the west-end of the structure (Ó Ríordáin 1940, 119-120). Six

Fig. 5.2. Structure within ‘Fort 6’ at Cush, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin 1940, fig. 19, 114)

58

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL RECTILINEAR HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

Fig. 5.3. Structures B, C and D in southern enclosure - Cush, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin 1940, plate XXVI) Although the post-hole alignment along the centre of Enclosure I was interpreted as a possible house site (1) it may well have functioned over a number of years as an enclosed yard and was located furthest away from the main fort. It had two possible hearths located near its western and northern walls. Structure II (see fig. 5.4), located next to and utilising the southern wall of Enclosure 1, was described as the most ‘satisfactory house of this group’ (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 50). It was a narrow rectangular partly paved building aligned eastwest and measured 9.3m x 2.9m (27m²), although the post-holes and different eastern floor may indicate that it was only roofed along its western end: 4.5m x 2.9m (13m²) (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 50). The structure’s western end was paved whilst the remainder at the eastern end was bedrock and packed clay (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 50). Eight post-holes were discovered along the inside of the walls, although a line of three along the centre of the structure effectively divided the east from the west end (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 50). It is possible that a stepped entrance was located in the north-eastern corner although a paved passageway in the north-western corner may have served this function (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 50). There was no indication of a hearth.

5.3.3 . Carraig Aille II & Spectacles, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick Some rectilinear structures were excavated within and outside this roughly circular walled enclosure with eastern entrance that was some 47.5m in diameter (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 41). The interior also contained evidence of incomplete earlier structures, described as roundhouses in the lower levels (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 44). A subrectangular clay and gravel floor (S1) measuring approximately 5m x 8m and aligned E-W with one posthole and a small circular feature (possibly a hearth?) is located within the enclosure, near the western wall (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, Plan 2, A16-17). There is no evidence for any walling and it may have served as a simple roofed workshop of some description. Overlying this structure and built some 2m into the western rampart was a later stone built sub-rectangular (S2) building (6m x 4m) with a possible rounded eastern end (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, Plan 1, A17-18). Although the surface of this structure was paved it is possible that the paving, which extends beyond the structure’s limits, belongs to an earlier, larger structure. A quernstone was discovered in the northeastern sector of this building and may have been associated with either of these possible structures. A few metres SW of the eastern entrance was the eastern wall of a rectangular structure (S3) possibly aligned N-S with shorter northern and southern walls (8m long N-S and two N & S returns: 3 & 4m long) with internal paving and a single post-hole (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, Plan 1, C1114). Although the western walls were missing the extent of the internal paving suggests a structure that had internal dimensions of approximately 8m x 4.5m. Many of the clearest structures were discovered in a level area immediately to the north and east of the main enclosure. These consisted of rectangular structures with possible associated yards (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 47-48).

Structure IV (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, Plan 1, D22-23) was a near-square building, measuring 4.7m x 4.1m (19.27m²) internally and contained a smaller rectangular area (2.5m x 3.5m) of paving within its walls (8.75m²) (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 51). This area of paving was built over 2.5cm of ‘habitation deposits’ and O Ríordáin (1949a, 52) describes the possibility that this may be a small house within an enclosure. No further features were discovered in association with this structure and no entrance was indicated. Structure VI (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, Plan 1, C2425) was a rectangular paved structure of at least two structural phases. The earliest phase being one that was aligned E-W and measuring 5m x 5m (25m²), underlying 59

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO UILSTER

1949a, 60-61). A line of three post-holes with a circular hearth area in between seems to divide the internal space into a northern and southern half whilst the SE corner was paved (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 61). A bone scoop, pin and 3 bone points were discovered within this structure (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 103). A fragment of jet bracelet was also found in the hearth (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 106).

a somewhat smaller paved rectangular structure measuring 3m x 4m (12m²) aligned SW-NE (see fig. 5.8 below). The lack of definite structural details associated with the buildings at Carraig Aille II, such as internal hearths and clear entrances together with several building phases make these structures difficult to interpret in terms of function. One of the major differences between both phases of main development, however, is the change from mainly clay floors to paved floors. In this way they share a common feature with many rectilinear buildings in the later part of the early medieval period. Site interpretation is possibly further complicated by the fact that many of the earlier external buildings, possibly animal pens and workshops, may have been adapted for domestic use as habitations when the stone enclosure became less meaningful in terms of social status.

5.3.4. Cahercommaun (Tullycommon), Co. Clare The structures associated with this stone built enclosure in County Clare are numerous and fragmentary. The cashel consists of three concentric stone walls, the two outer ones being semi-circular and the inner one, enclosing the ‘living area’, roughly circular (Hencken 1938, 5). The enclosure, described as a fort, is interpreted throughout the excavation report using military terms. The main entrance from the south-east entered the 8m deep enclosure wall through a paved passageway (Hencken 1938, 13). On the south side of the entrance passage (left as one entered) Structure 1, interpreted as a ‘guard house’, was encountered with Structure 2 – a ‘sentries’ post’ entered from the passageway, connected to the rear (Hencken 1938, 17). Structure 1 contained a hearth with two possible phases suggested (Hencken 1938, 25 fig.10). Structure 2 contained no hearth but whetstones were discovered within its fill (Hencken 1938, 17 & 70).

The Spectacles House D (fig. 5.6) was a rectangular structure aligned NE-SW with stone faced walls with clay in-fill and excavated in a field south of circular structures A and B (Ó Ríordáin 1949a, 61). Its internal dimensions were 4.2m x 3.6m (15.2m²) and whilst the south-western end of the structure remained stone-free, a line of 5 post-holes presumably represents a post built west wall (Ó Ríordáin

Fig. 5.4 Structures II and IV ‘house sites’ outside Carraig Aille II, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin 1949a, Plan 1)

60

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL RECTILINEAR HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

Fig. 5.5 Structure VI (2/3 phases) at Carraig Aille, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin 1949a, fig. 3, 51)

Fig. 5.6. House D at the Spectacles, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (after Ó Ríordáin 1949a, fig. 6, 60)

61

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO UILSTER

Structure 3, to the south of and adjoining to structure 2, was 4m long and 2m wide (8m²) and contained two hearths (9cm thick) resting on a layer of gravel.

5.3.5. Beal Boru. Co. Clare Within an enclosure at Beal Boru, Co. Clare a rectangular 4m x 2.5m (10m²) post-built structure was located in the west of the enclosure (O'Kelly 1962, 6). It was oriented east-west and its 1.3m wide entrance, which may have been porched, faced south-west (fig. 5.7). Paving slabs were placed along the porch leading into the house and the wear on the stones indicated that they had been in use for a considerable period (O'Kelly 1962, 7).

Structure 4 was different in that it was located in the central area of the inner enclosure (unattached to the perimeter wall) (Hencken 1938,17-18). It was approximately rectangular and seemed to be open towards the west but with a possible entrance in its northern corner (Hencken 1938, plan of fort). The gravel flooring of Structure 4 was covered in white ash seemingly scattered from Hearth i, located near the southern terminus of its southern wall (Hencken 1938, 18). Several hearths were discovered in possible association (but outside) this central structure (Hearths jl), another (m) was stratigraphically later (Hencken 1938, 19). Structures 5- 9 were either curvilinear or dubious structures described as ‘alcoves’. Structure 5a, between Structure 5 and the enclosure wall, contained a large hearth although other details regarding this structure are sketchy (Hencken 1938, 19-20). Structure 10, to the east of doubtful Structure 8, is described as a 2m x 4m (8m²) rectangular building with traces of occupation (Hencken 1938, 25). Finally Structure 11, to the south east of Structure 10 and to the north of the main entrance, is described as a 3m x 4m (12m²) rectangular structure with 1.1m high walls and probably hearth-less (Hencken 1938, 26).

The central hearth had a back-stone at its eastern end and associated stake-holes on the western end. A context described as ‘deep habitation refuse’ stretched from the hearth, along the porch and connected with a midden outside and opposite the entrance (O'Kelly 1962, 7). This late structure is a rare example that may be dated by two coins. The first, an eleventh century Hiberno-Norse coin, was discovered in a pit to the east of the house whilst a second, also dated to the later eleventh century, was located near the hearth within the house (O'Kelly 1962, 19-24). A slate trial piece with early medieval type interlaced motifs was discovered overlying the entrance slabs. The structure may have been small enough to not require free standing internal roof supporting posts.

Fig. 5.7.Rectangular post-built structure at Beal Boru, Co. Clare (detail after O'Kelly 1962, fig. 4)

62

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL RECTILINEAR HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

below). The probable 5.18m x 5.18m (26.8m ²) house structure in the centre of the cashel, although unconventionally excavated in 1877, was found to contain a souterrain entrance accessed from within the structure’s south-western entrance (Somerville 1931). The house floor was described as roughly paved although this was later destroyed by looters before any recording (Somerville 1931, 4). The souterrain entrance was a narrow passage that provided restricted access and was probably built primarily as a refuge. A ‘fireplace’ was discovered within the corner of chamber 3. Clinton (2001, 57) compared the dimensions of the structure to the Ulster example at Drumaroad, Co. Down (see fig. 8.10, chapter 8). In many ways the comparison is a valid one. Both structures were constructed within cashels, were of similar dimensions and had entrances facing towards the cashel entrances. The Knockdrum house, however, had internal access into its souterrain whilst the Drumaroad structure’s souterrain was located behind the house. This study would suggest that locating a souterrain entrance within a cashel house betrays a greater emphasis on security perhaps caused by local issues (see chapters 7 and 8).

5.3.6 Site F, Barrees Valley, Co. Cork A sub-rectangular stone built structure (4-4.8m x 2.22.7m) excavated by Comber in the Upper Barrees valley was constructed against the inner side of a possible prehistoric field wall (O'Brien 2009, 266-271). The charcoal flecked surface was interpreted as a trampled floor surface and a charcoal spread was discovered in the north-eastern corner (fig. 5.8). Despite this there was no evidence of in situ burning. Ex situ prehistoric flint debitage and a perforated stone were the only artefacts recovered from within the structure. No evidence for any post or stake-built features was discovered. The lack of artefacts and features together with the small dimensions of this structure may be suggestive of temporary or seasonal occupation similar to the round structure discovered at nearby Site E (see fig. 4.27 – chapter 4). 5.3.7 Knock Drum, Co. Cork This cashel near Castledownshend in Co. Cork is included because of the associated souterrain (see fig. 5.9

Fig. 5.8. Sub-rectangular structure at Site F, Barrees valley, Co. Cork (after O'Brien 2009, 268).

63

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO UILSTER

Fig. 5.9. Knock Drum structure, Co. Cork (after Somerville 1931, fig. 1)

Fig. 5.10. Secondary house at Carrigillihy, Co. Cork (after O' Kelly 1951, fig. 1)

64

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL RECTILINEAR HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

evidence of a turf or mud built wall. It appeared to be a 6.4m x3m (19.2m²) structure supported by four corner posts and a series of three close-set central posts (O' Kelly 1963, 26). This offers the interesting possibility of the central structural supports effectively dividing the house into two with the hearth and paved floor being in the southern area and alternative use of space further north.

5.3.8 Carrigillihy, Co. Cork A structure with a 5.2m x 6.0m (31.7m²) rectangular interior space was constructed on the site of a primary oval dwelling dated to the Bronze Age (O' Kelly 1951, 222; 1989). An interesting feature was the location of the early medieval structure’s entrance, identical with the earlier structure (fig. 5.13). Three definite roof-supporting post-holes were located along with a smaller post-hole along the eastern wall. Two stone filled central pits were also interpreted as possible examples of roof-supporting posts (O' Kelly 1951, 71), although it is possible that one of these marks the location of a hearth which was not identified in the excavation.

5.3.10 Dunbeg, Co. Kerry A 6m x 5m (30m ²) clochán (with a circular exterior and rectangular interior) built within a promontory fort in Kerry was excavated and evidence of two possible phases of occupation was suggested by Barry (Barry 1981, 311317). During a short-lived phase 1, a seemingly unenclosed hearth may have been located opposite the entrance near to the middle of the southern (back) wall. A series of stake-holes near this feature was presumably associated with a series of wooden tripods used as cooking aids. A short trench located near the western end of the interior contained charcoal and was interpreted as the remains of a possible wattle partition or divide (Barry 1981, 312). This may well be evidence for an imdae type structure located in a similar location to those within round-houses. There was no evidence, however, for roof supports and the structure seems too large to have

5.3.9 Garryduff, Co. Cork Two structures (Houses I and II) were excavated within a rath at Garryduff, Co. Cork. The complexity of the stratigraphy made the recovery of the House I plan very difficult and the rough D-shaped looking structure on the plan looks like the combination of several phases (O' Kelly 1963, 25 & Plate III). House II, however, built to the east of House I, was a more coherent if enigmatic pattern of paving, hearth and post-holes that may represent a house (see fig. 5.11 below). An L-shaped area of gravely soil along the structure’s supposed north-western corner was interpreted as

Fig. 5.11. House II, Garryduff, Co. Cork (detail after O' Kelly 1963, plate III)

65

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO UILSTER

Fig. 5.12. Dunbeg clocháns, Co. Kerry. Left: phase 1, right: phase 2 (after Barry 1981, fig. 9 - 313).

overlaying primary deposits interspersed with layers of blown sand and wall tumble (O' Kelly 1956, 166). Three post-holes, presumably for timber roof-supports, were discovered in the western and eastern corners of Room 2’s primary floor (O' Kelly 1956, 162). This lies in contrast to Room 1 where the roof appears to have been supported by posts radiating from 2m high wall sockets (O' Kelly 1956, 162). A hearth was located near the entrance. Unlike the adjacent round-house ‘Room 1’ this structure did not posses a sunken floor. Room 1’s sunken floor and entrance was one of the elements (together with a rune inscribed lintel and an opening interpreted as a window above its door) that was more recently used to reinterpret the structure’s cultural provenance (Sheehan et al. 2001). It was reinterpreted as a Hiberno-Norse ‘way station’ containing a fusion of Irish and HibernoScandinavian traditions. This reinterpretation has itself recently been the subject of a critique by Gibbons and Gibbons (2008) who would prefer to interpret Beginish as a native settlement possibly associated with the churches of Beginish and Church Island (Gibbons and Gibbons 2008, 47-48). Due to the lack of bonding Room 2 must be interpreted as a secondary development. O’Kelly (1956, 164-165) maintains, however, that Room 2 was built soon after Room 1 was built as its walls lay on clean turf with no sign of refuse from Room 1. A storehouse is an unlikely interpretation of Room 2 as it possessed occupation deposits and a hearth. Its internal area being only a third of Room1 would suggest that its occupiers were perhaps close kin of those residing within Room 1 (see fig. 5.13 below).

supported a corbelled stone roof. Indeed, the internal area is nearly double that of the largest corbelled cell at Sceilg Mhichíl, Co. Kerry (Henry 1957, 123-126). This primary occupation phase may have been associated with initial construction activity. The second phase is altogether more substantial and consists of a stone-flagged entrance, post-and stake-holes, two hearths and occupation debris. Six post-holes were identified in this phase: two either side of the door and two some 2-2.75m in from the southern corners of the structure. A further two were located 2m in from the north-west corner that may have been burnt in situ. Although Barry (1981, 316) prefers to interpret the postholes as evidence of wooden ‘lean-to’ structures built within a clochán with no complete roof, the more likely scenario is that the roof had two rows running either side of the central space (see below). A line of stake-holes running east-west in a very similar location to the phase 1 trench seems to respect a post-hole whilst at the other stake-holes are generally concentrated around the hearth areas. 5.3.11 Beginish ‘Room 2’, Co. Kerry (compare with Room 1 – chapter 4) A sub-rectangular 4.5 m x 3m (13.5m ²) stone built structure labelled Room 2 seems to have been a slightly later non-bonded addition to the northern end of roundhouse ‘Room 1’ at Beginish. Co. Kerry (O' Kelly 1956, 165). It had a 25cm reoccupation habitation deposit

66

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL RECTILINEAR HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

Fig. 5.13. Beginish ‘Room 2’, Co. Kerry (detail after O' Kelly 1956, 164).

House 1 was poorly preserved and located next to the entrance to the western tomb. It consisted of an area of partly surviving paved flooring defining a structure that was 5.25m x 3.50m (18.4m²). A hearth with deposits suggesting long-lasting occupation was located slightly east of centre (Eogan, 2012).

5.3.12 Church Island, Co. Kerry: House 2 A rectangular structure with opposed entrances was located outside a later cashel wall at Church Island, Valencia, Co. Kerry (see fig. 5.14 below). Post-holes were arranged along the inner space adjacent to the stone walls and two ridge-posts were located along the central axis. A hearth was situated west of centre. A unique feature was the water trough located in the centre of the southern wall which drained out through the eastern entrance. The house appeared to be located on top of an earlier burial ground presumably associated with an early ecclesiastic settlement related to the nearby oratory (O' Kelly 1958, 62).

Sub-rectangular House 2 was slightly larger than House 1, measuring 5.4m x 4m (21.6m²). It consisted of a cobbled floor area and a hearth located on the northern floor limit. This structure was built in association with souterrain 1 and the souterrain was accessed from its north-east corner. The souterrain probably provided access to the western Neolithic passage tomb. The souterrain’s entrance appears to have been through a straight passage suggesting that ease of access was the primary consideration. The access to the main western tomb however, would have provided ample opportunity for refuge. It is suggested that souterrain 1 continued in use when House 2 was no longer occupied (Eogan, 2012). Located to the north of House 1 and 2 and possibly slightly later because it was higher in terms of the stratified deposits House 3 was characterised by a large sub-rectangular paved floor that was 15.2m x c.5m (c.76m²). A large paving stone located west of centre provides the base for a hearth. Approximately fifty artefacts recovered from this structure, with an emphasis on personal items, craft tools and quern stones suggest a busy dwelling that was also possibly used for grain processing.

5.4 Leinster multiple structure sites 5.4.1. Knowth, Co. Meath Early interim reports stated that nine possible rectangular structures (Houses A-I), were excavated at Knowth in the 1960s and 70s (Eogan 1977, 70). The forthcoming report, however, indicates that up to fifteen rectangular structures were excavated on and around the Neolithic burial mound at Knowth during occupation stage 9 (10th to 11th century) (Eogan, forthcoming). Houses 1 to 14 were located on the passage tomb mound 1 whilst house 15 was located between passage tomb mound 1 and tomb 15 to the north.

67

THE USE OF SOCIAL SPACE IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH HOUSES WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO UILSTER

Fig. 5.14. House 2 at Church Island, Valencia, Co. Kerry (after O' Kelly 1958, 72, fig. 4)

wall also survived. A feature described as a 30cm high and 1.45m wide stone bench was located along the northern edge of the paved floor. Two floor deposits suggest a period of occupation followed by an abandonment phase. A hearth, near the eastern wall, together with a pit, accessing souterrain (2), was a late, post-abandonment feature.

House 4 was located near the entrance to the eastern side of the main tomb mound. It consisted of a sub-rectangular 6.5m x 3m (19.5m²) structure characterised by sections of walling with rounded corners, some paving, a central partly kerbed hearth and an off-centre drain. A post-hole on the western side of the structure may indicate the location of the entrance. The hearth deposits, as in House 1, suggest long-lived occupation. This occupation appeared to come to an end with the burning of the roof as suggested by an extensive charcoal spread containing carbonised grass and straw. Wheat was recovered from the northern part of this spread along with animal bones from the southern area. The 16 artefacts recovered from House 4 included a number of personal items. The house was attached to the eastern passage tomb entrance which was interpreted as functioning as a souterrain and habitation area (Eogan, 2012).

House 6 was located south of the east tomb entrance and consisted of little more than a charcoal rich occupation level and three off-centre temporary hearths (Eogan, 2012). House 7, located immediately to the north of House 6, was 7m x 5.80m externally (c.40m²) and defined by a cobbled floor containing a single-post-hole. A portion of L-shaped wall and some paving were identified in the south-east corner and a hearth was located in the southern floor area. The discovery of a section of burnt oak beam on the western side of the floor suggests that the structure was destroyed by fire (Eogan, 2012).

House 5 was located to the north of the eastern tomb entrance and comprised an area of paving measuring 5.7m x 5.6m (32m²). Sections of the northern and western

68

THE EXCAVATED EARLY MEDIEVAL RECTILINEAR HOUSES OF MUNSTER, LEINSTER AND CONNACHT

A row of paving stones extended parallel to the southern wall. A narrow channel ran between these slabs and the wall. It is interesting to speculate that this may indicate a slot type back to a wooden bench located along this southern wall. A hearth was located near the eastern wall and some 3.4 m to the west a large upright stone and row of others may have formed an internal partition. Souterrain 7 was located to the west of House 15 and was attached to its southern wall (Eogan, 2012).

House 8 consisted of a wall and a hearth but was in a poor state of preservation whilst House 9, located immediately to the west of house 7 and 8 was possibly trapezoidal with a central hearth. The remaining six houses were located on the mound summit and included the largest possible house. House 10 was a 30m x 7m with excavated floor deposits covering some170m² but was disturbed on its northern end. It was a curved rectangular dry-stone building constructed over the filled curving ditch and may have had an end entrance. Ten hearths were located along the central axis of the floor but only one was stone-kerbed. A number of possible post-holes forming an arc were located towards the centre of the structure. No other roofsupporting post-holes were located probably due to the nature of the loose ditch fill (Eogan, 2012).

A number of features of the Knowth structures are shared with the Ulster rectangular houses of this period. For example, most of the structures at Knowth have stone paving and a single central hearth. House 2 at Knowth, in common with some of the Ulster rectangular houses of this period, allows direct access into a souterrain whilst six houses are associated with souterrains, albeit not from directly inside the structures.

House 11 was an L-shaped floor covering approximately 9m x 4m with evidence for a northern wall and a paved floor. No hearth was located. Although no entrance was identified it is interesting to note that the paved porch entrance into the post-built structure at Beal Boru, Co. Clare, also changed a rectangular plan into an L shape (see 5.2.5 above).

Four structures have possible floor areas in excess of 40m² (Houses 3, 7, 10 and 14). Houses 3 (76m²), 14 (63m²) and 10 (170²) are larger than any of the rectangular structures excavated to date within Ulster. House 3 had a single off-centre hearth and an artefact assemblage that consisted of personal items as well as craft tools and food-processing equipment. This is seemingly a typical domestic assemblage within a large structure suggesting that it was a large house. House 14 was not fully excavated but seems to have possessed a single off-centre hearth with two phases of use. The artefact assemblage is not noted and therefore its interpretation as a large domestic house is provisional. By far the most unusual structure is House 10 which was built over the curving ditch fill and possessed 10 combustion areas or hearths along the long axis, of which one was kerbed. The 89 artefacts and occupation deposits listed suggest this was an occupied structure but the dimensions and number of hearths is exceptional and thus far unparalleled at this time in Ireland. The scale and number of hearths along a single axis would suggest that it was either built to allow a large number of people to be seated along its axis for some form of industrial use or possibly for entertainment purposes.

House 12 was located within area described as complex and comprising a house, a souterrain, external hearths and a nearby metal working area. The house comprised a 10.7m x 6.25m (