Archaeology

The Deserted Village in Slievemore, currently the subject of research by archaeologists and students at the annual Achill Archaeological Summer Field School, consists of 74 buildings of an original 137. A survey of the architecture of the houses, excavation of a selected house, No. 36, and a field survey of the palimpsest of field systems surrounding the village suggest an origin for the village in the Early Medieval Period (A.D. 500–1200). Successive settlements modified, rebuilt, and destroyed much of the fabric of the original settlement, but sufficient diagnostic elements remain to plot tentatively the evolution of settlement up to and including final abandonment in the Post-Famine Period, ca. 1850–1890.

It has long been claimed that the coaxial stone boundaries of Céide Fields, County Mayo, are a phenomenon of the Irish Early Neolithic—analogous to later prehistoric ‘Celtic’ fields in all but age. This study argues that the age disparity is an artefact of the research methods, and that the age of the main Céide Fields complex has been overestimated by as much as two-and-a-half millennia.

The traditional Irish cottage became a symbol of national identity in period leading-up to independence from Britain in the early twentieth century. Post-colonial Ireland defined itself as a rural nation, with the small-scale farming communities of the Atlantic seaboard its cultural heartland. It was at this time that archaeology was transformed from a niche pastime of the upper classes to a ‘national discipline’, supported by institutions of state. The challenge for newly professionalised discipline was to trace the roots of the national character back into the mists of antiquity. It was anticipated that the vernacular farmscape, with its cottages and field systems, would have its roots in the Neolithic—the time of the arrival of Ireland’s first farmers. And so it proved, with the discovery of sites such as the Lough Gur Neolithic village, the Ballyglass house, and the Céide Fields. These sites form the basis of the ‘Irish model’ of Neolithic settlement. This paper asks whether, stripped of the weight of disciplinary expectations, the interpretation of these and similar sites stands-up to objective scrutiny.

Time is significantly under-theorised in the study of Irish prehistory, and evidence continues to be compartmentalised within the generalising classifications of the Three Age system. The process of Neolithisation is often taken as having been abrupt, characterised by the widespread adoption of settled-mixed-farming: permanent houses and fixed agricultural plots. This interpretation has endured since the establishment of prehistoric archaeology in Ireland, and recent quantitative research has been taken to confirm the traditional view. It is the contention of the present study that new data are often assimilated uncritically into an anachronistic culture-historical framework. The resulting characterisations of Neolithic life rely on misleading conflations of evidence. By suspending the orthodox view of life in Neolithic Ireland, and revisiting the data critically, the present study argues that many widely-held assumptions are importantly wrong. In making this case, the concept of time is first problematised, and the treatment of time in archaeology critiqued. The concept of the Neolithic is similarly deconstructed; its place in the archaeological imagination and significance to Irish national identity examined. The analysis focuses on two 'iconic' classes of material remains: field systems and rectangular timber 'houses'. The dating of both is dependent on palaeoenvironmental evidence, and the refinement of radiocarbon-based chronologies using Bayesian statistics. The application of these techniques is critically reviewed. It is demonstrated that no field system in Ireland is securely dated to the Neolithic, and that the varied function of Neolithic rectangular timber structures has been misleadingly conflated under the typological label 'house'. The study concludes that the development of traditionally-defined Neolithic lifeways in Ireland was an accretive process, varying in tempo according to local conditions. A focus on western Ireland demonstrates the inadequacy of island-wide culture-historical models of change. In order to capture temporality at the scale of the participants, an agent-centred approach is proposed.

The concept of the chaîne opératoire The French term chaîne opératoire is used by archaeologists to refer to the ordered sequence of actions that trace the 'lifecycle' of an artefact from an idea, through the choice and collection of raw materials, all the way to the final deposition or discard of the object. The aim is to move from traditional static descriptions of artefacts as we find them in the present, to dynamic accounts of how artefacts were a part of people's lives in the past. All artefacts are the result of a sequence of events-a 'pathway'-which began with a need or desire. There may have been practical reasons why a particular kind of object was sought, but there will always have been social reasons. In the case of a stone axe, for example, there may have been a need to clear some trees. But the choice of material, the design of the axe, the process of manufacturing it, the decision as to who should make it-all these considerations will depend on social circumstances such as group traditions, power relationships, skills, etc. It is tempting (and easier) to consider artefacts solely as the fulfilment of a practical need. But this ignores the agency of the people of the past, who, like us, will be influenced by considerations such as style, colour, the choices of peers. The procurement of raw materials, for example, may have taken place at a location significant in group tradition-a particular mountain, perhaps. It may be that this location was seen to be auspicious; perhaps it was the only source of rock with a particular or texture or colour. Such considerations may have overridden practical concerns, such as simply acquiring the most durable stone available. People's life experiences will have shaped every stage in the 'lifecycle' of the objects they created. It follows that the lifecycle of the object will itself play a role in shaping future decisions and experiences. For example, a slight change in the shape of an axe type initiated by a particular artisan may lead to a widespread change of design in the future. It is not inevitable that the change will be selected, nor part of a universal law of human behaviour. It is determined by specific social circumstances and past histories of use and manufacture. The chaîne opératoire provides a theoretical framework enabling archaeologists and anthropologists to combine different kinds of research methods and different scales of analysis. These range from the analysis of microscopic abrasions on the edge of a stone tool, observed through an electron microscope in a use-wear study, through to large scale landscape studies which may seek to identify settlement patterns. As well as investigating changes across space, changes through time will be considered. Above all, the chaîne opératoire takes the results of traditional lithic studies (such as analysis of the raw materials, typology of artefacts, use-wear analysis, etc.), and sets these in the context of human relationships and social life.

Dundonnell Castle will be explored through a multi-disciplinary approach. This study aims to provide a greater understanding of a simultaneously neglected but oft mentioned potentially multi-period site that has been given many roles in previous scholarly work. This is without ever having been studied properly and fully in its own right. This thesis combines an archaeological analysis of the earthworks and masonry building at Dundonnell with a large corpus of historical material that pertains to the immediate and surrounding area over an extended period of time. More specifically, the thesis will attempt to recreate the importance of the three possible phases at the site, via the use of historical, cartographical, and archaeological evidence to demonstrate the site’s dates of importance, function and role in the wider areas, and to try and pinpoint the site on the historical plane. The study of the castle type, known as the stronghouse, will also be examined in relation to Dundonnell, in an attempt to further the knowledge of this understudied monument type.

Dundonnell Castle is a collection of monuments located in the south of Roscommon. An MA dissertation in Medieval Studies, completed in 2011, attempted to cast new light on this extensive complex of monuments. It was argued, in keeping with the multidisciplinary approach espoused by the Masters programme, that Dundonnell Castle was the site of at least three phases of interaction, beginning at some point in the early medieval period, and continuing until the late 16th or 17th-century. It also had a central role to play in the turbulent politics of 13th-century Roscommon.
In 2015, a suite of geophysical techniques were applied to Dundonnell Castle in order to achieve the next level of understanding to this historically-attested fortification and possible administrative centre.
This paper will deal with the story of Dundonnell Castle, some observations from the geophysical investigations, and an exploration of the place of Dundonnell Castle in high and late medieval Roscommon.