1992:104 - KILMORE AND BALLYHONEEN, Kerry

This excavation was undertaken as part of an M.A. thesis on the pre-bog field system and associated sites in the Loch a' Dúin Valley, which incorporates the townlands of Kilmore and Ballyhoneen, on the Dingle Peninsula.

The present study has located and identified 86 stone structures in the valley which consists of roughly 1,500 acres.These sites range from a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Wedge Tomb to more recently built transhumance huts. Other sites in the area include 3 standing stones, 8 fulachta fiadh, 11 examples of cup-and-circle rock art, a cist grave, numerous hut sites, enclosures, clocháns, a fortified island and a complex system of pre-bog walls. It is probable that this valley has been occupied over a long period and that many of the sites have been reused and often rebuilt. Among the problems the study hoped to tackle, were why the field walls were built, and to what period or periods they belonged.

The remains of the walls on the original ground surface in cut away areas survive as a band of collapsed stone standing to various heights but rarely exceeding 0.5m. In some areas it appeared as if a post and panelling technique was used in the construction. Briefly, this technique consisted of an upright stone on either side of the wall and the inner area was filled with a rubble core of smaller stones. Some of the stones stand to a height of 0.5m-0.7m. Stones which are taller than they are long are referred to as post stones, and those which are longer than they are high are identified as panel stones. As they survived on the landscape it was difficult to suggest why they had been built. Fowler has argued that there are a limited number of reasons why walls would have been built on the original ground surface of prehistoric landscapes, these are, to keep animals in or out; to protect the crop; to improve the land; to define property [1]. He goes on to note that the one factor common to all of the above reasons is greater efficiency. Groenman-van Waaterringe has shown how field fences could prevent soil erosion by downwash and wind, as well as providing shelter for animals [2].

It was decided to dig one trench in an area of field walls which had been covered by peat. The wall had already been located with the help of an iron probe and bamboos. It was felt that the excavation would serve two purposes, firstly, it would allow us to take a sample of peat from the base of the bog to date the formation of the pear, and secondly it would shed light on the possible construction of the walls in an area that had not been disturbed by local farmers when cutting pear. A trench measuring 5m x 4m was excavated on the ridge defining the western limits of the valley. This is also the area of the main wall system in the valley. A good deal of this wall to the west had already been revealed by turf cutters and a great deal of the stone had been robbed from the old field walls and reused in the construction of modern turf drying walls.

There was a peat depth of 1.1m x 1.3m over the original ground surface in the excavated trench. Throughout the valley the peat depth varies. In locations near the hillslopes on the west side of the valley there is up to 3.5m. The average depth however, is approximately 1m. When excavated the revealed wall survived to a height of between 0.65m-0.95m and would have been up to 0.8m-0.9m in its original width but this was not clear as there had been some collapse from the top, and sides of the wall. The wall was built on the original ground surface, and the stones used in the wall were all of local sandstone, there was one example of a quartz stone in the wall make up. The wall appeared to have been faced on either side but this was partially collapsed. It stood 4-5 courses high and the stones used in its construction did not exceed 0.55m length or width. There was no evidence of a post and panelling technique in the excavated area. If the collapsed stones which were visible on either side of the wall were replaced in position, the original height may have been as great as 1.2m. If one accepts that prehistoric cattle were smaller and stockier than modern day cattle, then it is conceivable that these walls would have fenced in cattle. However to draw too many conclusions from one excavated stretch of wall would be unwise, and a more complete programme of excavation on the walls and some of the other monuments would be necessary.

A total of 4 samples were taken from the trench for radiocarbon dating and Professor Frank Mitchell who helped in the description of the peat section also suggested that a sample be taken from a branch of timber which was located on the original ground surface [3]. Therefore 3 samples of peat and one of timber were taken.

The lowest sample of peat from the layer of mor returned a date of 1675±40 BP. This calibrates to 252-432 AD with a 95.4% degree of accuracy.

The samples of wood which lay close to the original ground surface yielded two dates, one from the core and a second from the bark. The bark of the wood dated to 1715±35 BP which calibrates to 244-400 AD. The core of the wood gave a calibrated date of 138-338 AD. Both these dates had an accuracy of 95.4%.

I had expected the dates to be earlier as Dodson had already shown that peat was forming in other parts of this valley circa 2500 BP but bog formation varies due to several factors even within a short distance range.

As already mentioned it was not possible to date the construction of the walls with a sample of peat from the base of the bog. One may simply infer from the evidence that if the peat started growing in this one particular area around 1700 BP then it is likely that the walls were in use for some time before the ongrowth of peat, this could be dated in decades or centuries, at this stage it is not possible to say. However Dodson has shown that the peat had began to form much earlier in other parts of the valley, and this may suggest that the people who built the walls had to move the focal point of the fields to a different area of the valley as the peat developed. Therefore not all the walls in the valley may be contemporary. Only one certainty remains, and that is the complexity surrounding the occupation and chronology of the valley.

References
1. Fowler, P.J. 1981 'Wildscape to landscape: "Enclosure" in prehistoric Britain' in R. Mercer (ed.) Farming practices in British prehistory (Edinburgh). 9-48.

2. Groenman-van Waatering, W. 1981 'Field boundaries in Ireland' in D.Ó Corrain (ed.). Irish antiquity (Cork). 285-9.

3. Prof. Mitchell suggested that this timber was not a root, and was possibly willow or ash. These are trees that would not have a greater life span than 100 years. A date from the wood would also be safer than a date from the base of the bog. It would have the added benefit of correlating the peat dates.

'Kirrary', Avondale, Dingle, Co. Kerry