2008:320 - A1 Bypass Scheme 2, junctions at Banbridge and Loughbrickland, Down

DBFO Scheme 2 comprises the construction of four new junctions on the existing A1 between Hillsborough and Newry. These junctions are at Hillsborough (see No. 341 below), Dromore (see No. 336 below), Banbridge and Loughbrickland. The areas were investigated under the one licence, AE/07/191, and allocated letters A-D to facilitate ease of discussion. Each area will be described separately, outlining the archaeology uncovered.
A previous extensive desk-based assessment was prepared by Faber Maunsell for the original environmental impact assessment for the proposed junctions and it showed that no known Monuments and Buildings Record sites will be impacted upon directly by the proposed developments. With sites of archaeological and historical interest in the nearby environs however, it was decided to conduct testing at the proposed junctions for significant previously undiscovered archaeological remains which may delay the construction programme.
Banbridge Junction
The junction is located one mile to the north-east of the town of Banbridge, Co. Down, at the intersection of Dromore Road and the A1 bypass. The development was undertaken on both the western and eastern sides of the Banbridge bypass encompassing an area of 250m north to south by 125m. The junction is situated in an area of low ground surrounded by drumlins within an area of pastoral agricultural activity. The site is bisected east to west by the A1 carriageway and prior to development consisted of fields which had previously been under pasture.
The archaeology of Area 1 consisted of: two large pits or troughs containing a high concentration of fire-cracked stone; nine pits, five of which contained a high concentration of fire-cracked stone; two spreads of fire-residual material mixed with fire-cracked stone; and 16m of a desiccated wooden track way or ‘togher’. A subsurface find of four pottery sherds of probable Bronze Age date was recovered.
The trackway was in a badly degraded condition and, as it survived, measured c. 4.4m wide and appeared to be constructed of brushwood hurdles, i.e. a structure of interwoven brushwood laid horizontally on the ground. There was no evidence of stakes or pegs or any form of either a sub- or superstructure associated with the brushwood exposed, suggesting that what remained was a small hurdle trackway, most probably for local use providing access from higher ground to the west and south-west of the development to the wood-lined trough situated there.
Adjacent to the north-east end of the trackway was one of two large pits/troughs. The south-east edge was enclosed by two wedge-shaped planks laid on edge, one in front of the other. Both planks were in a fragile and degraded condition and had been radially split from a primary timber such as a trunk or large branch. The base of the trough was wood lined with a large single timber. Although the timber was in a degraded state and parts of it were decayed, the bark was retained on its underside. Similarly to the planks, the timber was hewn from a primary timber such as a trunk or large branch, but was instead transversely cut. The south-east edge of the timber had been cut at an angle in order to fit the trough and toolmarks were still evident.
The second area of archaeology was defined by a discreet area of activity situated at the south of the site, adjacent to the north bank of the stream. The archaeology consisted of: the truncated remains of a semicircular structure of combined post, stake and possibly wattle or sod/turf construction; a trough with an associated structural feature defined by a series of post- and stake-holes; and four pits.
The semicircular structure was defined by a curvilinear slot-trench, three external post-holes, an irregular gully and six internal stake-holes one of which was centrally placed. At the south-west terminal of the curvilinear slot a shallow linear gully extended in a south-west direction towards the stream, possibly to allow rainwater to drain away from the structure. The evidence indicates a temporary structure enclosing a working area providing shelter from the north-east winds. A lack of post-holes within the curvilinear slot-trench suggests that it contained a wall either of wattle or sod/turf construction, a theory supported by the organic nature of the fills contained within. While there are no in situ remains of such a wall continuing beyond the slot-trench, it remains a possibility. That the internal supports were stakes rather than posts would indicate the structure to be tent-like and covered with a light material such as animal skin overlying a wicker frame.