2007:1852 - New Street, Waterford, Waterford

Waterford City Council attached a submission from the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government requiring further archaeological assessment in relation to specified areas of a site at New Street, bounded by Stephen Street, Alexander Street, Michael Street, New Street, John’s Lane, Brown’s Lane and Castle Street (see Excavations 2006, No. 2003, for report on earlier work). An extension to an existing licence to undertake further archaeological testing was granted. Seven additional trenches were proposed. In the course of discussions the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government advised that four additional trenches be added; i.e. two more adjacent to Michael Street, one other to examine the context of the 17th-century house and another on or close to New Street. Accordingly eleven trenches were excavated in April.
Trench 1 was excavated on the southern end of Stephen Street to provide information on the possible northward extent of St Stephen’s graveyard. The testing revealed the fill of two basements of the large 18th-century houses that once fronted Stephen’s Street. There is no indication that St Stephen’s graveyard extends to the north of its present boundary.
Trench 2 was excavated to examine the potential survival of the remains of defensive structures in New Street; however, no evidence for defensive ramparts was apparent in the trench.
Trench 3 was excavated in the back garden of No. 6 New Street to provide further information on the area. All the finds and features were of modern date (i.e. contemporary with or post-dating the 18th-century houses on New Street).
Trenches 4 and 5 were also to provide additional information on the New Street area, but there were no finds or features of archaeological significance in these trenches.
Trench 7 was excavated within the backyard of No. 38 Castle Street, close to the terrace walls ( i.e. the adjoining property to the west is c. 3m higher). No finds or features of archaeological significance were found and all of the finds were of 19th-century to modern date.
Trench 8 was located in the backyard of No. 18 Michael Street. The trench was only c. 1m2. The premises trades as a bakery, therefore the trench was excavated by hand in order to limit impact on the occupants. No strata of archaeological potential were present and the modern material clearly overlay natural boulder clay.
Trench 9 was excavated to provide information on the north part of the site, as close as possible to Michael Street. As Nos 12 and 13 Michael Street are trading as shops, the trench was excavated in a former laneway between the rear of No. 12 Michael Street and No. 1 Alexander Street. This site had been developed as a dwelling house within the past twenty years. There was no material of archaeological significance.
Trench 10 was excavated at the base of the 17th-century house, which is a recorded monument and a protected structure. The trench was excavated to provide further information on the context of the building. Features of post-medieval date lay c. 0.33m below the modern surface. All the features are of late 17th- to mid-19th-century date. The material adjoining the east gable of the 17th-century house consists of a single east–west wall surviving at foundation level with an associated layer of cobblestones. The only datable artefact associated with the wall and cobbles was a pantile. Pantiles have a broad date range, from the latter 17th to late 18th century. It is possible that the wall and cobbles may be contemporary with the building of 1673 or may belong to an associated structure of later date. There was no material of earlier date present within the trench.
Trench 11 was excavated to expand the evidence on New Street. It was located in the front garden of No. 5 New Street. The trench was 1m2 and excavated to a maximum depth of 1.3m. Evidence for a cellar, probably backfilled in the early 20th century, was uncovered. The cellar stood on or was cut into natural boulder clay. No evidence for possible defensive ramparts was present.
The site under review is comparatively sterile and devoid of any extensive area of archaeological deposits. With each successive testing the picture becomes clearer: area after area where, for one reason or another, archaeological strata are not present beneath the contemporary fabric. Within the site of the proposed development a total of 41 test-pits have now been excavated by three different archaeologists – Joanna Wren (Excavations 2000, No. 1004, 00E0119), Mary O’Donnell (Excavations 2003, No. 1933, 03E0125), and the writer – in addition to the monitoring of the proposed development of a large area underneath the 1990s carpark by Audrey Gahan (Excavations 1999, No. 854, 99E009), and have all provided the same results: i.e. little or no material of archaeological significance is present in the ground. It is indeed salutary to reflect that 10% by area of the medieval city does not necessarily equate to 10% of a city’s archaeological resource – some areas appear to have little or no surviving archaeological material and what little may be there is fragmentary and scrappy, while other areas have deep, rich, well-preserved strata. The testing is significant in that it brings into focus the random nature of archaeological survival within towns and cities, naïvely assumed by many to be uniformly rich in surviving archaeological remains. Urban archaeological remains are indeed a very limited and finite resource.