2006:680 - Nevitt/Tooman/Jordandstown/ Johnstown/WalshesTown/Knightstown, Dublin

The site lies beside the M1 motorway to the west of Lusk in Fingal. A comprehensive testing strategy was devised in consultation with the National Monuments Section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This testing was undertaken between 12 and 28 September 2005.
In all, 27 trenches were excavated. The area had initially been the subject of a geophysical survey and the anomalies shown by the survey were targeted for testing. Large trenches in areas between the anomalies were also tested to ensure that the testing would be comprehensive. A total area of 1.5ha was investigated. This included sixteen trenches between 40m and 200m in length and eleven large rectangular trenches 40m by 20m and 50m by 20m in size. The majority of the linear trenches were opened over the geophysical anomalies; the larger trenches were used to test the area between them. The site is c. 236ha in size.
The geophysical survey showed eight areas of anomalies with the potential to be archaeological in nature. They ranged from a large complex (A) located in the south-east corner of the area to relatively isolated geophysical responses such as G and H. In addition to the geophysical anomalies, an examination of a number of aerial photographs of the study area showed three circular features directly to the north of the proposed development area. It was decided to test the only circular feature directly impacted on by the proposed road. The results of the testing are discussed below site by site.
Site A
No test-trenches were inserted directly over the geophysical anomalies, as this site is to be preserved in situ. The geophysical survey showed a large complex of probable archaeological features around Site A. The site consists of a central elliptical feature surrounded by what appears to be associated field systems. The morphology of the site suggested that it is probably an early medieval ecclesiastical enclosure such as that found at Oldtown. However, due to the broad range of geophysical responses it is possible that it is a multi-phase site containing the remains of more than one era. The site is situated on what appears to be a natural rise forming the summit of a slight knoll which commands extensive views to the south and east. Long linear trenches were excavated to the west and north-west of the site in order to establish its extent. In these trenches no features which could definitively be linked to Site A were uncovered. Indeed the only archaeological features present were a scatter of small pits and linear features to the north-west of the site, which were filled with sandy clay that contained quantities of charcoal. While these are definitely archaeological in nature, they are not the large-scale structural works which are represented in the geophysical survey. They may very well be associated with Site A but are peripheral in nature.
Site B
The geophysical survey showed a D-shaped enclosure with a single straight ditch and a double curved ditch. The site was situated on a gentle south-facing slope which commanded extensive views of the landscape to the south and east. Two test-trenches were inserted over the anomaly. The testing verified the presence of the D-shaped enclosure. A careful examination of the geophysical survey results, however, shows that the outer, curved ditches are interrupted in several places along their length, possibly by design, possibly due to being truncated by ploughing. This explains why two curved, outer ditches were uncovered in Trench 18B, while in Trench 18A only a single outer ditch was uncovered. The straight portion of the enclosing features was only uncovered in Trench 18B, and the failure to locate this feature in Trench 18A was the reason a second trench was opened over the site. The straight enclosing feature was uncovered in Trench 18B. A number of internal features were also uncovered during the testing. These consisted mainly of linear features as well an irregular pit. The site had an external width of 37m (from Feature 18.8 to 18.9) and a length of 49m. No datable artefactual evidence was recovered from the site, although some clinker and slag were recovered from the straight external ditch. Clinker is a form of slag that adheres to the sides of a kiln and may indicate that a kiln was located not too far away and that the site could have had an industrial function, as well as a date of Iron Age or later.
Site C
Site C is a series of linear and curved features which was discovered during the geophysical survey. It is situated in the western portion of the area under examination, on a west-facing slope in a gently undulating landscape. A single trench was inserted over this anomaly to ascertain the nature and extent of these features. The features were archaeological in nature, but, as no datable artefacts were recovered, it is not possible to date them. The same applies to the morphology of the site. It appears to have been truncated by intensive ploughing over a prolonged period and neither the geophysical survey nor the test excavation could give a clear enough picture of the site to establish a site type. Further excavation will be required for the nature of this site to be determined with any certainty.
Site D
Site D is subcircular enclosure situated in the central portion of the area under examination. It is 33m in diameter. The site is situated on the northern slope of a ridge running east–west. The site has been truncated to a certain degree by ploughing and none of the features associated with the site are more than 1.1m in depth. As well as the surrounding ditch there were a number of internal features, some of which were suggestive of dwellings. As well as this, domestic waste such as animal bone and burnt material was recovered from the fill of the ditch. This is highly suggestive of an enclosed settlement site. No datable artefacts were recovered from the site, leaving the date of it in doubt. The morphology of the site is also difficult to date, as the circular enclosure had a very long lifespan as a settlement type. The majority of these sites seem to date from the early medieval period, especially the second half of the first millennium ad.
Site E
Site E is a rectilinear enclosure situated in the northern portion of the potential development area. The site lies on a gently sloping piece of land overlooking a shallow valley through which a small stream flows. The site was bisected by a large drainage ditch. The northern portion of the site has been heavily truncated and presented no substantial archaeological evidence. Three trenches were inserted over the anomaly in order to establish the nature and extent of the features present. The morphology of the site as revealed by the geophysical survey suggested a number of possibilities. One was a moated site, a 13th/14th-century habitation site built by the Anglo-Norman colonists in hostile frontier territory. They were usually square, with a raised platform, an internal bank, a substantial moat and sometimes an external ditch. Other possibilities for this site included a mill, an unknown medieval stone castle, an early medieval habitation site, a burial site, an early medieval field or cultivation system or a modern farmstead. The test excavation ruled out a number of these possibilities; this was not a modern farmstead, stone castle or burial site.
As discussed above, the nature of the archaeological features to the north and south of the drainage ditch which bisects the site varies quite considerably. To the south of the ditch a number of deep, substantial features are present and were clearly visible on the geophysical survey. To the north of the ditch the features, while present, were ephemeral, with the ditch which supposedly marked the edge of the rectilinear enclosure being only 0.3m in depth. This difference is to some degree represented in the geophysical survey, with the responses being stronger to the south of the bisecting ditch. All the features represented on the southern portion of the geophysical survey were uncovered during the test excavation and found to be substantial. Only one of the features, 8.1, the northern enclosing ditch, shown to the north of the ditch, was uncovered and found to be ephemeral in nature.
The archaeological evidence recorded at Site E does not clearly fall into an easily recognisable site type. It may well be a severely truncated moated site, although the lack of datable finds puts this interpretation in serious doubt, as does the size and depth of the trenches. The domestic waste, such as the disarticulated animal bone, may suggest a settlement site of some description.
Site F
Site F is a natural watercourse. It is not archaeological in nature.
Site G
Site G is a small scatter of archaeological features lying on gently sloping tillage land. The ground slopes from west to east. It has no structured morphology and no datable finds were recovered from the features. It is not possible to suggest a site type or date without further investigation.
Site H
Site H is geological in nature, a raised seam of thicker clay and broken rock. It is of no archaeological significance.
Sites other than those identified through geophysical survey
Two other areas produced archaeological results. The first of these were the crop circle investigated to the north of the development footprint. In the two trenches inserted, the circular features which were identified from the aerial photography were picked up. These features were situated on a south-facing slope overlooking the river valley. The site has views across to Sites D and E. However, no internal features were recorded. This leaves the nature of these archaeological features in doubt, other than that it is a circular enclosure, 34m in diameter. No datable artefacts were recovered from the circular feature, again leaving the date of the site unknown. Further investigation is required to ascertain with any certainty the nature of this site.
The final area in which archaeological features were discovered was in Trench 3. Here two small pits were uncovered after an area 50m by 20m was stripped. There appear to be no other features associated with any structure or other archaeological deposits. No site type or date can be assigned to them.

Editor’s note: Although this licence was issued during 2005, the report on the work was not received in time for inclusion in the bulletin of that year.