2011:467 - ATHLUMNEY, Meath

A testing assessment was undertaken as part of a pre-planning application for a proposed residential development at Bailis and Alexander Reid, Athlumney, Co. Meath.

Testing followed on from an initial desktop assessment undertaken by CourtneyDeery Archaeological Consultancy. A geophysical survey of the site was also undertaken in June 2011 by J.M. Leigh Surveys (Licence Ref.: 11R049). The geophysical survey identified five areas of archaeological potential (Areas A–E). This survey identified a possible rectangular enclosure (Area D1) and possible archaeological activity in the form of parallel linear ditches and pits in the northern half of the site (Areas A and B). Further potential activity was identified in the south-west corner of the site (Area E), possibly representing field boundaries or ditches.

Test-trenching comprised a total of seventeen trenches excavated at specific locations within the proposed development area to target the anomalies highlighted in the geophysical survey.

Two sites of archaeological significance, Area A (a post-medieval farm plot) and Area D (an enclosure), were recorded during the testing programme. The geophysical anomalies in the remaining areas (Areas B, C and E) were proven to derive from modern features/disturbances (Areas B and C) and a townland boundary ditch (Area E).

Area A

Four test trenches (Trenches 1–4) excavated in Area A identified the remains of a small post-medieval plot, including the remains of at least one building. The remains of a small stone-built structure (Building A) were identified in Trench 3. This was identified by a large stone wall (C6), which was defined by two regular settings of faced stones (size c. 0.3m x 0.2m) with loose stone and soil matrix infill. The width of the wall was 0.8m and it was encountered at 0.4m below present ground level at 50.8m OD. This wall had a slight curve and was traced in an additional trench (Trench 3 ext.) that was excavated at a right angle to the eastern edge of Trench 3. The northern component of the wall (C7) was less well preserved than C6 and survived as a single alignment of large stones. These walls defined a possible structure c. 4m in diameter although it is possible that this only represents a small section of a larger building, the walls of which may have been robbed out. A single sherd of post-medieval brown-glazed pottery was recovered from the soil matrix of wall C7, giving a tentative 18th–19th-century date for this structure. These walls were not positively indicated by the geophysical survey.

Immediately south of Wall C6, a deep deposit (max. depth 0.5m) of soft dark brown/black clays (C8) was interpreted as garden soils associated with Building A. This deposit extended beyond the limits of the trench to the south but was not present in Trench 4, which was positioned 10m to the south. It is likely to be an isolated deposit, as indicated by the geophysical anomaly at the southern end of the trench. A linear ditch (C9) aligned west–east c. 3.5m to the north of Building A is likely to be a related field ditch.

A large deposit of rubble stones (C5, 50.5m OD) encountered in the southern half of Trench 2 (adjacent to Building A) may be the remains of another building (Building B), although this could not be determined by testing. This rubble appeared to overlie the projected line (as indicated by the geophysical survey) of two ditches (C3, 50.13m OD at base, and C4, 50.32m OD at base) identified in Trench 1. Post-medieval pottery, similar to that from Building A, and clay pipe[a (i.e. one) clay pipe? Or clay pipe fragments?] were recovered from Ditch C3, indicating a possible 18th–19th-century date for the ditches and rubble deposit.

Area D

In Area D the geophysical survey identified a series of linear responses of clear archaeological strength indicative of an enclosure. The presence of this enclosure was confirmed by testing. A ditch (C11, 54.2m OD at base) was identified in Trenches 11, 12 and 13, corresponding to a broad geophysical anomaly in the survey. This was hand-excavated in Trench 11 and was found to be 2.5m wide and 0.8m deep, with steep sides and rounded base. The fills were dark sandy clays with animal bone. No finds were recovered. This ditch seemingly widened in Trench 12, as did the geophysical anomaly at this location. The possible outer enclosure ditch (as identified in the geophysical survey) was identified and hand-excavated in Trench 12. This ditch (C12, 54.6m OD at base) was found to be 1.5m wide and 0.5m deep.

The results of the testing in Area D are suggestive of an enclosure c. 35m north–south by at least 60m. The full extent of the enclosure could not be determined by the geophysical survey owing to disturbances of its eastern extent by modern services (confirmed by testing in Trench 14) and owing to magnetic disturbance from an existing farm shed to the west.

The date of this enclosure could not be determined by testing but it is potentially of early medieval or medieval date, although an earlier date cannot be discounted.

Irish Archaeological Consultancy Ltd, 120b Greenpark Road, Bray, Co. Wicklow