2025:082 - Youngstown Solar Farm, Wexford

Archaeological testing was carried out by Derek Gallagher and Donald Murphy at this site in March 2025. A total of 130 test trenches were excavated across nine fields. These trenches were positioned to investigate the archaeological significance of anomalies identified during the geophysical survey. The topsoil and natural subsoil varied from an orange/brown boulder clay/sandy clay/stony clay/creamy grey marl. Numerous archaeological features were identified throughout the site. This included a large sub-circular enclosure (C6301, C3501, C7401, C2001), which was evident on the geophysical survey and was confirmed as a result of testing. This enclosure ditch was identified in Trench 63, Field 1 (C6301), Trench 35, Field 1 (C3501), Trench 74, Field 3 (C7401), Trench 20, Field 3 (C2001). This enclosure ditch, although visible on the geophysical
survey, was not visible in Trench 34, Field 1, as the area was greatly disturbed, or in Trench 85, Field 4, due to the presence of multiple cultivation furrows within the trench. It is also possible that one of the ditches (C12401, C12403) in Trench 124, Field 7, also represents a portion of this enclosure ditch, as although this portion of the enclosure was not clearly visible on the geophysical survey, it was on the projected alignment of the enclosure. A single pit (C12402) was identified between C12401 and C12403.

A small circular enclosure (C1201, C1202, C1501) was identified at the northern extent of the site, within the area defined by the large sub-circular enclosure mentioned above. It was also identified on the geophysical survey. This was in Trench 12, Field 7 (C1201, C1202) and Trench 15, Field 1 (C1501). C1201 and C1202 represented the western extent of the small enclosure, and C1501 represented the eastern extent. An associated curvilinear ditch (C1203) was located immediately north of C1201/C1202. This ditch (C1203) was in the northern extent of Trench 12, Field 7, and likely represented the southern extent of an additional circular/sub-circular enclosure extending northwards beyond the site limits. C1203 was also within the area defined by the large sub-circular enclosure.
A section of a curvilinear ditch (C6201) visible on the geophysical survey was also confirmed in Trench 62, Field 1. This curvilinear feature was not present in any other excavated trench. The geophysical survey would suggest that this feature extended into the area defined by the large sub-circular enclosure defined by C6301, C3501, C7401 and C2001. It may represent an additional enclosure.
A section of another curvilinear ditch (C101, C12201) was located towards the south-western extent of the site in Trench 10 and Trench 122, Field 6. This feature was an isolated feature, but was also probably archaeological and likely represented an enclosure. It appeared to extend beyond the site limits to the east and west. It was also aligned with a linear anomaly on the geophysical survey.
A ring of post-holes (C8301), defined by a northern and southern arc, was also identified in Trench 83, Field 4. This ring of post-holes formed a structure with an approximate internal diameter of 7.5m. An internal hearth (C8302) was also identified. These features were also aligned with an anomaly on the geophysical survey and were located north of a small circular enclosure (possible ring barrow/ring-ditch), which was also visible on the geophysical survey (not tested). A narrow ditch (C8701) was identified immediately south of this small circular enclosure in Trench 87, Field 4. C8701 likely represented an enclosure around the ring-ditch. All of the these features are likely to be contemporary.
A semi-circular slot trench (C4501), which contained burnt clay and charcoal, was identified in Trench 45, Field 1. This feature may represent the remnants of a kiln feature and was also aligned with an anomaly on the geophysical survey. It was located in close proximity to a circular pit (C4701) and a curvilinear feature (C4702) in Trench 47, Field 1.
A second large kiln (C10801) was also identified in Trench 108, Field 4. It was also aligned with an anomaly on the geophysical survey. This was located southeast of the house structure (C8301/C8302) and ditch C8701, but was more likely a lime kiln and therefore later in date.

A burnt stone spread (C12801) was identified in Trench 128, Field 9. This was an isolated feature and was located in the north-west corner of the field. It was also aligned with a geophysical anomaly.
A single feature (C601), Trench 6, Field 6, was identified as a result of testing and was not evident on the geophysical survey. The function of this feature is unclear, but it was filled with charcoal and is probably archaeological in nature.
It is likely that the linear feature C1901, Trench 19, Field 3, was not archaeological. This feature was located within the area defined by the large sub-circular enclosure, but appeared to cut the enclosure and was likely an old field boundary.
The features identified during the test trenching included several enclosures, burnt stone spreads, probable kilns and ring ditches. The principal feature consisted of a very large enclosure that was cut by the modern road and encloses other smaller enclosures within that could represent a ringfort or large ring ditches. Further ring ditches or barrows are located outside of this monument elsewhere throughout the site. In addition, an arc of post-holes could represent a house, and two kilns were located on the east edge of the site on the slope above the river.
The possible roundhouse and burnt stone spread are likely to represent Bronze Age activity on the site. The ring ditches could represent barrows, which are a form of burial monument, and these are likely to contain cremated remains either in simple pits or in pottery vessels. Ring ditches could date anywhere from the Bronze Age up until the Iron Age or Early Medieval Period (until c. 650 AD). The larger enclosures on the site could represent settlement or ritual enclosures, and again could date anywhere from the Neolithic to the Early Medieval Period. The scale of the larger enclosure and the presence of ring ditches and barrows within suggest a likely prehistoric date and ritual function for the enclosures rather than an Early Medieval date.
The two kilns are quite large and circular, with lots of oxidized clay and ash present, and are likely to represent post-medieval lime kilns rather than earlier cereal-drying kilns.