Claire Foley: Fermanagh's rich antiquarian and archaeological Crannóg record | Drumclay Conference 2014 | Review
[If you like what I write, please consider throwing something in the Tip Jar on the right of the page. Alternatively, using The Reading Room portal (top of page) for shopping with Amazon brings in some advertising revenue and costs you nothing]
Following from Jackie
McDowell’s presentation on the Deer Park Farms excavation Session Chair, Dr.
John O’Keeffe, next introduced Claire Foley to the podium. She is the co-author
(with Ronan McHugh) of the Archaeological
Survey of Co. Fermanagh and is Senior Inspector with the NIEA. To
set the scene, Foley noted that there are approximately 2,000 crannogs known
from the island of Ireland. They are mainly to be found in inter-drumlin lakes
and are thus concentrated in a dense band through south Ulster and north
Connaught. They are also well known in Scotland, where there is a similarly
long history of research and investigation. There are also a number in north
Yorkshire, but only one in Wales. While crannogs can be domestic dwellings,
they can also function as Royal Sites. For example, the famous sites of
Lagore, Co. Meath, and Ballinderry, Co. Westmeath, were all possibly Royal
residences or retreats. Within Northern Ireland there are approximately 300
known crannogs, with some 142 of these being in Co. Fermanagh. Owing to the
interest of the antiquarian William Wakeman,
Fermanagh was particularly famous for its crannogs in the 19th century.
Although Wakeman was interested in many aspects of Fermanagh’s history and
archaeology, he is particularly remembered for his publication of the crannogs,
which included field visits, detailed measured plans and artefact
illustrations. He also carried out extensive ‘excavations’ on several sites,
though by today’s standards Foley is correct in describing it as closer to
‘poking around’ than archaeological investigations as the term is understood
today. She is also quick to point out that, while an acceptable weekend
pursuit in the 19th century, it is currently illegal to search for
archaeological objects without an excavation licence issued by the NIEA. As an
example of the quality of Wakeman’s work – quite exemplary for the time – Foley
showed one of his drawings of Ballydoolough crannog with a measured plan of the site and a house foundation at its centre. She also noted his particular
interest in recording the woodworking joints on the timbers he discovered.
Wakeman recovered hundreds of artefacts from his various investigations of
these sites, and illustrated many in his published works. As examples, Foley
showed Wakeman’s illustrations of a decorated piece of Crannog ware pottery
(now referred to as Ulster
coarse ware) and a wooden vessel carved from a single piece timber.
Moving on to the Lough Eyes, near Tempo, Co. Fermanagh Foley notes that there are six crannogs in the lake, though only two are currently visible above the waterline. However, she visited all six in 1977 as part of her crannog survey, and by Wakeman a century earlier. She makes the point that the records made for both forms of survey were predicated on the idea that the amount of the site visible above the waterline was representative of the site as a whole. However, due to the excavations at Drumclay, significant revisions have to be made to that understanding. For example, Wakeman’s drawings imply relatively shallow sites with simple building phases. Instead, Drumclay has shown that such sites are much deeper and significantly more complex than had been previously believed.
Moving on to the Lough Eyes, near Tempo, Co. Fermanagh Foley notes that there are six crannogs in the lake, though only two are currently visible above the waterline. However, she visited all six in 1977 as part of her crannog survey, and by Wakeman a century earlier. She makes the point that the records made for both forms of survey were predicated on the idea that the amount of the site visible above the waterline was representative of the site as a whole. However, due to the excavations at Drumclay, significant revisions have to be made to that understanding. For example, Wakeman’s drawings imply relatively shallow sites with simple building phases. Instead, Drumclay has shown that such sites are much deeper and significantly more complex than had been previously believed.
Distribution of crannogs (Source) |
Returning to the
distribution of the Fermanagh crannogs, Foley notes that the principal
concentration in the county is around the Enniskillen area, in upper and lower
Lough Erne. The location of Drumclay is at the heart of this dense distribution
pattern. There are also scatters to the west, in the direction of Belcoo, and a
significant distribution exists in the smaller lakes of the south of the
county. The preference is for small, isolated lakes that are regularly
difficult to access and provide excellent defensive retreats. At the present
time, no crannogs have been identified in the open waters of the major lakes of
Lough Erne. By 1977 the fieldwork of the Archaeological Survey (started in
1972) was drawing to a close, but the crannogs still remained to be visited. By
chance, this coincided with a spectacular drought and the chance was taken to
initiate the crannog survey. Assisted by a strong rower, Foley acquired a
rubber dingy, flares, and lifejackets and set off onto the lakes. Pre-fieldwork
research, using six-inch maps and other sources, had increased the number of
possible crannogs from around 39 to 120, and the plan was to visit every island
of any size, whether it was thought to be a crannog or not. The aims of the
1977 survey included the following:
Confirm
the presence of crannogs by direct observation of archaeological features: including
timbers, artefacts (including crannog ware etc.),
butchered animal bone etc.
Measure
the diameter of the site
Sample
timbers
Establish
presence of causeways
Dating
– dendrochronological and radiocarbon
Plan and details of material from Ballydoolough, Co. Fermanagh by William Wakeman. (Source) |
With regard to the
presence of causeways, Foley notes that there exist significant bodies of
modern folk stories where people claim to have visited sites using causeways
submerged just below the water surface. However, her research failed to locate
a single positive example. Again, Foley notes that there are 142 crannogs
currently known from Fermanagh (one even identified in the period since the excavation of
Drumclay). Of these, some 65 show no surface indication, but are otherwise
convincing; only two were marked by the Ordnance Survey; 21 from documentary
sources; and 3-4 were mentioned in the Irish Annals. Foley describes some of these
aims, most especially the attempt to measure surface diameters and timber
sampling as, in retrospect, quite ‘innocent’. Considering the volume of
crannogs that may be below the surface, Foley suggests that any data regarding
site diameter should be disregarded as she was (to use her own phrase) ‘barking
up the wrong tree’.
Looking at the date ranges from the sampled timbers, Foley notes that the vast majority of the dates are in the period from the 15th to the 17th centuries. Thus, in the light of Drumclay, she was keen to say that this bias towards medieval dates only represents the accessibility of these later layers to the researcher arriving in the summer of 1977 and not anything resembling the true age of the site. Foley notes that the significant separation of the dates recovered from the crannog at Lough Barry may hint at the true story of long occupation of these sites and their reoccupation during the disturbed times of the late medieval period. In my recent combined interview with Rodney Moffett of Amey and rebuttal to Declan Hurl’s deeply flawed and deliberately misleading Apologia, I expressed the view that the dating results of this 1977 survey could have led Hurl to the unwarranted belief that Drumclay was – as he claimed – a shallow, late medieval site with no earlier features. While he strongly argues against this assumption, at least Foley has the ability to emend her views in the light of additional data and new information. Turning to the earliest dating evidence, Foley notes that the single Late Bronze Age date from Lough MacNean indicates that there was prehistoric activity at these sites, and it’s not all confined to a single period. Taken together, she is now of the opinion that attempting to date any such crannog site on a single sample is insufficient and ‘out the window’. Nonetheless, there remains the question for researchers of whether or not crannogs were still being constructed in the later medieval period, or are we looking at the reoccupation of much older sites?
Looking at the date ranges from the sampled timbers, Foley notes that the vast majority of the dates are in the period from the 15th to the 17th centuries. Thus, in the light of Drumclay, she was keen to say that this bias towards medieval dates only represents the accessibility of these later layers to the researcher arriving in the summer of 1977 and not anything resembling the true age of the site. Foley notes that the significant separation of the dates recovered from the crannog at Lough Barry may hint at the true story of long occupation of these sites and their reoccupation during the disturbed times of the late medieval period. In my recent combined interview with Rodney Moffett of Amey and rebuttal to Declan Hurl’s deeply flawed and deliberately misleading Apologia, I expressed the view that the dating results of this 1977 survey could have led Hurl to the unwarranted belief that Drumclay was – as he claimed – a shallow, late medieval site with no earlier features. While he strongly argues against this assumption, at least Foley has the ability to emend her views in the light of additional data and new information. Turning to the earliest dating evidence, Foley notes that the single Late Bronze Age date from Lough MacNean indicates that there was prehistoric activity at these sites, and it’s not all confined to a single period. Taken together, she is now of the opinion that attempting to date any such crannog site on a single sample is insufficient and ‘out the window’. Nonetheless, there remains the question for researchers of whether or not crannogs were still being constructed in the later medieval period, or are we looking at the reoccupation of much older sites?
Example of Ulster coarse ware from Ballydooloug by Wakeman (Source) |
No.
|
Period
|
Example
|
1
|
LBA
|
Lough MacNean
|
1
|
6th C (570 AD)
|
Ross Lough
|
1
|
7th-8th C
|
Derryhowlaght
|
1
|
8th-9th C & 1367 AD
|
Lough Barry
|
1
|
9th C
|
|
1
|
13th-14th C
|
Derrycanon
|
4
|
11th-15th C
|
Ballydoolough
|
10
|
15th-17th C
|
|
3
|
17th C
|
In looking at the value
of crannogs, Foley wished to emphasise (as did McDowell before her) the
importance of wetland environments for archaeological preservation of the full
spectrum of organic material that simply does not survive elsewhere. Together
with the ‘hard’ materials that survive on dry land sites, we can achieve a much
fuller picture of site activities and development. The 1977 survey also
facilitated the discovery of several quern (grinding) stones (now all housed in
the Fermanagh County Museum).
It has been suggested by Prof. Seamus Caulfield that their presence on the
surfaces of these crannogs may be related to the Corn Laws (1815-1846) where
people turned to secluded islands to grind cereals, away from the prying eyes
of the establishment. While the 1977 survey was of the utmost importance in
finding and identifying sites, the research has not ended. Foley reports that
earlier in 2014 the Centre
for Maritime Archaeology, Ulster University carried out some research on a
number of Fermanagh crannogs. Working on the theory that crannogs may have been
deliberately sited in lakes on the boundaries of townlands, six south Fermanagh
lakes were selected for investigation with a shallow-water sonar system,
mounted on a small boat. The work was carried out by Dr Wes Forsythe, Kieran
Westley, & Sandra Henry. The lakes included Moorlough, Kilturk Lough, Derrymacrow,
and Friars Lough. The detailed, systematic survey unfortunately found no new
crannogs, suggesting that the long-held theory has failed. However, the project
allowed the opportunity to explore the environs of two known crannogs and
enabled the production of a finely detailed image of the true extent of the
Moorlough site. Foley explained that the small, circular area to the south-east
of the scanned area is the only portion of the site currently above the water,
and that this would have been the only portion of the site that she could have
measured back in 1977. However, the new scan indicates that the site is
significantly larger and more complex. The scan is of sufficient detail that
two vertical posts may be identified at a significant remove from the core site
and indicating that the outworks may originally have been much more extensive.
The key takeaway from this latest research is that underwater, non-invasive
survey techniques can add significantly to our knowledge of these sites,
particularly in terms of the understanding of their extent.
Sidescan from Moorlough Lake showing the submerged part of a crannog (FER246:062) superimposed on an aerial photo. Shows nicely the full size of the crannog. (© Centre for Maritime Archaeology. Reproduced by kind permission) |
From her brief
overview, Foley notes that there are many well-preserved crannogs in Fermanagh,
and that the reason they have been preserved is that they’ve not been subject
to large-scale incursion and development. So long as the water-levels remain
stable, there is every reason to expect that they will endure and maintain the
excellent preservation of organic materials. She hopes that, by the end of the
day conference, the audience will have a full appreciation of their
archaeological value and why they should only be excavated as a last resort.
Comments
Post a Comment