2008:597 - Carherweesheen, Kerry

It was proposed to develop a 25.8ha greenfield site on the southern side of Tralee. The proposal involved the construction of an estate of new houses. The draft layout of the development and testing strategy was designed to take account of a monument located within the site (KE038–100, an embanked enclosure) and a monument (KE038–105) located in an adjoining field.
Three surface anomalies interpreted as potential archaeological sites were subject to verification by test-trenches. The layout of the proposed trenches was designed to give comprehensive ground cover of the entire site, but test-trenches were not excavated within 30m of KE038–100 as this was to be excluded from the proposed development.
The site falls into two distinct areas based on the topography: an area where limestone rock underlies a brown friable topsoil and a poorly drained low-lying area where boulder clay underlies a peaty soil. The area overlying the limestone rock is generally at c. 1–3m higher altitude than the low-lying land. The higher area is characterised by relatively well-drained pastureland with surface undulations reflecting the underlying rock contour; in effect the surface is characterised by humps and hollows. Here and there depressions and deep channels and ridges in the limestone are reflected in the hollows and channels visible on the surface.
The townland boundary between Caherweesheen and Skahanagh corresponds to the old line of the river. The first edition of the OS map shows the river following this curving line and the new straight course of the river did not exist. Later editions of the OS map show a field fence on the line of the old river channel and the new straight channel to the east. The old river was enclosed by levees. The high clay banks still stand in places on the irregular boundary line. Elsewhere the banks were removed in the late 20th century. The old riverbed was identified in one trench where several dumps of late 19th-century chinaware and glass were found.
The low-lying land is characterised by an underlying boulder clay and rock was not reached in any of the test-trenches. The boulder clay varies in consistency, sometimes sticky, sometimes gritty and sometimes sandy clay. No consistent pattern was observed and over the length of any given trench the clay types varied. The clays were also undulating, consequently the topography and drainage of the upper levels varied. Deep layers (greater than 1m) of peat/peaty soil occurred in places; elsewhere the peaty soil was shallow (less than c. 0.2m).
Thirty trenches were excavated at 10–20m intervals depending on the consistency of the topography. Most of the trenches were continuous, some more than 200m in length. No features or finds of archaeological significance were uncovered in the course of the testing.
The ‘embanked enclosure’ (KE038–100) was identified in the course of fieldwork but is not shown on any edition of the OS maps. The monument is described as follows in the SMR files: ‘This large bowl-shaped enclosure . . . [with] total dimensions of the site are 38m N–S by 38m E–W, the dished interior being 2.00m below the level of the top of the enclosure. No trace of a bank could be discerned . . . It seems unlikely that this is a natural hollow, as it is perfectly circular’. As part of the preparation of a planning application, a contour survey of the whole site was undertaken and from this it became apparent that site of the ‘embanked enclosure’ was a large depression which seemed to be part of the wider landscape. The depression is clearly not ‘perfectly circular’. Furthermore, dimensions of 38m by 38m, while obtainable at a certain point, do not equate to the wider contour topography. Other factors also created uncertainty regarding the identification of the hollow as a monument. These include the suggestion of a ‘probable enclosing element’, said by a former landowner to have been ploughed away in the past; this was not independently verifiable. Furthermore, a trench excavated to the south of the monument through a similar, although shallower, hollow revealed this feature to be of geological origin; i.e. a swallow-hole or collapsed cavern in the limestone bedrock. For the above reasons there appeared to be a strong possibility that identification of the site as an archaeological monument was questionable and it may have originated as a depression in the limestone landscape, consequently, an extension on the existing licence was sought to verify the identity of the monument.
Four trenches were excavated in a staggered cruciform layout. The hollow, visible on the surface as an oval depression c. 38m east–west by c. 35m, was recorded in the excavation as a hollow roughly 24.5m east–west by 20m. No evidence for an enclosing embankment was apparent in the topsoil or subsoil and there was no evidence that a clay bank had been backfilled into the hollow. In places c. 2m of gradual slope in the subsoil gave way to a steep drop. Within the hollow c. 1m of disturbed ground, consisting of a loose fill of topsoil, stone and modern debris consistently overlay a layer of blue/grey sandy silt. The disturbed ground was clearly an introduced backfill and the high proportion of man-made materials suggest a fill introduced from a farmyard or urban clearance/demolition. The layer of silt is consistent with a waterborne deposit which probably accumulated within a pond of water that may have fluctuated in depth.
There was no diagnostic evidence that the hollow was cut by man, no underlying limestone bedrock was apparent within the clay subsoil strata excavated. There was no material post-dating c. 1970 and predating the early 20th century. The absence of any diagnostic features for deliberate excavation of the hollow points to a feature of natural origin, resulting from geological factors associated with limestone solution in the underlying rock. There was no evidence to support the suggestion that the site was an embanked enclosure or man-made hollow. It was recommended that the status of the site as an archaeological monument be reviewed by the Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government. The department subsequently delisted the site from the schedule of recorded monuments.