E M A P (EMAP2) ARLY EDIEVAL RCHAEOLOGY ROJECT Reconstructing the Early Medieval Irish Economy EMAP Report 5.1 The Archaeology of Livestock and Cereal Production in Early Medieval Ireland, AD 400-1100 Finbar McCormick, Thom Kerr, Meriel McClatchie and Aidan O'Sullivan December 2011 Grant No. AR02180 UCD School of Archaeology Irish National Strategic Archaeological Research (INSTAR) Programme 2011 The Early Medieval Archaeology Project (EMAP): Project Report 2011 The Archaeology of Livestock and Cereal Production in Early Medieval Ireland, AD 400-1100. By Finbar McCormick, Thom Kerr, Meriel McClatchie and Aidan O'Sullivan Early Medieval Archaeology Project (EMAP 2) Report 5:1 December 2011 Report submitted for Irish National Strategic Archaeological Research (INSTAR) programme 2011 Ref: AR02180 Forward EMAP Report 5.1 deals with the archaeological evidence for agriculture in early medieval Ireland. It is comprised of three sections. The first section provides a general overview of agriculture in early medieval Ireland through an examination of the various strands of evidence for agricultural production. It seeks to define the agricultural landscape of the period thus providing a context for the other parts of the report. The archaeological evidence for plant and animal remains is covered in fuller detail in sections two and three. Part two, prepared by Meriel McClatchie, evaluates the archaeobotanical and plant remains evidence for this period and includes a gazetteer of sites with seed assemblages, most of which is derived from the ‘grey literature’ and unpublished sources. Part three, prepared by Thomas Kerr, applies the same template to the zooarachaological study of the period. As with the plant remains, most of these assemblages have not been previously published and are derived from the large body of ‘grey literature’ that has emerged during the last two decades. Both gazetteers are accompanied by a discussive overview of the material which demonstrates how this contributes to the understanding of the settlement economy of the period. Both the plant remains and animal remains studies show that certain centuries within the early medieval era produce more settlement evidence than others. They also suggest that here are regional patterns of animal husbandry and cereal production present during the early medieval period. These findings indicate that there was a lower degree of uniformity in farming practice across Ireland than previously indicated, and imply that future research on early medieval period may need to acknowledge some degree of regionalism. The authors would like to thank all those excavators and specialists whose reports are referred to prior to their final publication and especially the Heritage Council (INSTAR) which financed the project. 2 Table of Contents Section 1: The Farming Landscape of Early Medieval Ireland 4-44 Section 2: The Plant Remains from Early Medieval Ireland 45-60 Appendix 1: Charred/waterlogged plant remains recorded 61-67 Plant Remains Gazetteer P1-P222 Section 3: The Animal Remains from Early Medieval Ireland 68-109 Animal Remains Gazetteer A1-AV Bibliography 110-144 3 Section 1: The Farming Landscape of Early Medieval Ireland Introduction: Early medieval Ireland was an overwhelmingly rural landscape, with individual farmsteads (raths and crannogs), fields, and route-ways set in a highly managed agricultural landscape. In this rural landscape, farming was the constant in people’s daily lives. The majority of the community, especially the ordinary and un-free members of society, such as the low-status commoners, hereditary serfs and slaves, would have spent most of their lives at work in the fields - herding cattle, sheep and pigs, ploughing, sowing and harvesting crops, or building and repairing field-walls. In the home, the daily lives of men and women would have been dominated by domestic activities relating to agriculture, whether this was in terms of preparing milk and cheeses, grinding grain for flour, salting meats for winter storage, or spinning and weaving wool. Agriculture, however, was not only important in terms of subsistence. It was also the key element in the organisation of early Irish society. Whether they were a lord or a slave, most people would have depended for their social status, subsistence and livelihood on the agricultural produce of the land. Kinship and community, social status and gender roles – these were all organised around the patterns of land-use and agricultural labour. For these reasons, agriculture and economy have to be seen as key aspects in the study of early medieval Irish society. Documentary sources emphasise the role of pastoral farming, particularly cattle farming, during the early medieval period, though the archaeological evidence for this is largely limited to post-consumption skeletal remains. Archaeological features representative of arable farming – fields, mills, kilns, etc. – however, suggest a more mixed pastoral/arable farming economy. Faunal evidence indicates a diversification in livestock-rearing from the ninth century onwards, characterised primarily by a decline in the importance of cattle (McCormick and Murray 2007). Kerr (2007, 114-16; 2009, 72-74) shows a change in the settlement pattern at the same time with a growing preference, at least in the north of Ireland, for high-status settlement in good arable areas. The ninth century is also marked by a significant expansion in horizontal mill construction (Brady 2006, 39-68). Much of this evidence implies an increase in the importance of arable farming. The documentary evidence, especially the Saint’s lives, suggests a strong association between monasteries and arable farming (Stout 1997, 129-30). Archaeological evidence for this association is provided by the presence of mills at monasteries such as Nendrum, Co. Down (McErlean and Crothers 2007); High Island, Co. Galway (Rynne 2000, 15-17); and Inismurray, Co. Sligo (O’Sullivan and Ó Carragáin 2008, 246-51), although, of these, only Nendrum has been dated. It has been noted that the early laws indicate that a miller is one of the ‘functional grades’ of the church and that mills ‘should be seen as a characteristic component of an early Irish monastery’ (McErlean and Crothers 2007, 433). The archaeological evidence for increased diversification, however, is not supported by the palynological data. Modern studies ‘demonstrate that, when a few metres from the edge of a cereal field, the value of cereal pollen falls sharply from levels as high value of 20% to about 1%, and is still detectible even at many hundred metres distance’ (Hall 2000, 348). Thus pollen evidence from blanket bog cores, which would be expected to be a considerable distance from arable fields, can only record the extremes of cereal production and is incapable of recording more subtle, yet significant, changes and differences in farming economy. As such, Hall (2005) deliberately sampled areas near monastic settlements to see if the foundation of these sites affected farming intensity, especially in crop cultivation. She found no evidence for this – indeed the evidence indicates that monasteries were generally founded in places where arable 4 farming was already established. It was also noted that ‘a comparison of evidence from the monastic and secular sites does not indicate change unique to monastic landscapes’ (ibid. 11). The suggestion that ecclesiastical sites would have had a higher emphasis on arable farming is not presently supported by the pollen evidence. Reviews of the pollen evidence for early medieval Ireland express a general consensus that, after a period of agricultural decline, forest clearance and agricultural expansion can be seen during the third and fourth centuries A.D. (Cole and Mitchell 2003; Hall 2000; Hall 2005; Plunkett 2007). This clearly predates the traditional arrival of Christianity in the fifth century. Occasionally wholesale forest clearance does not occur until much later. There was significant woodland clearance in Co. Antrim in the ninth century (Hall et al. 1993) and Parkes and Mitchell (2000) suggest similar clearance in Co. Offaly c. A.D. 800, however the Offaly profiles were not independently dated. Subsequent work in the same area cast doubts on the interpretation of a ninth century decline, but indicated a decline in tree pollen in the mid- thirteenth century (Hall 2003). Apart from the areas of highlands and extensive bog cover, the pollen evidence for early medieval Ireland indicates a landscape of scrubby woodland and mixed farming, almost invariably dominated by pastureland. Large areas of extensive forest were rare. Ryan (2000, 33) draws attention to a ninth- century text that refers to only three forest wildernesses in Ireland – the woods of Cooley; Deicsiu in Tuirtre; and the Wood of Moithre in Connacht. Arable farming is present to some extent in nearly all areas, and although there is considerable local variation, significant regional or chronological trends in farming are difficult to identify. Fields and the Organisation of the Farming Landscape The term ‘field’ is problematic indicating different things at different times. Fowler (2002, 127) notes that the term is derived from the Old English feld which, prior to the tenth century, meant ‘open country’, to distinguish it from, for instance, woodland. The meaning of feld as cultivable land, however, only emerged at the end of the first millennium A.D. At this time ‘field’ did not imply enclosure but was instead applicable to an area of land. This distinction survives into the present day in certain regions, with a continuing differentiation between ‘infield’, i.e. the land around the farmstead which benefits largely from manuring and ploughing, and ‘outfield’, i.e. the, largely pastoral, remainder. It has been argued that the way in which these ‘fields’ were organised may imply the nature of the farming conducted and the overarching social structure. Meitzen (1895) categorised early field systems into two broad types – ‘Celtic’ and ‘Germanic’. In the ‘Celtic’ system the land was owned by an individual farming homestead and was characterised by small enclosed fields (Patterson 1994, 104); while in the ‘Germanic’ system the land is owned communally by a nucleated village settlement and is characterised by a mixture of private enclosure and land divided broadly in infield and outfield which was farmed communally. Archaeologically it is easier to create typologies of field types than to understand how they were used. Fowler (2002, 133), in the contest of prehistoric and early-historic British fields, concludes that ‘there is not much correlation between field-shape in time, process and product’. There is, however, still a tendency to divide fields into arable or livestock, which ignores the fact that use may have changed over ensuring years. While all arable land can make perfectly good grazing the reverse is not necessarily true, for example cultivated land was periodically left fallow and used as pasture, and the stubble-field produced after a crop is harvested makes good autumn grazing. Individual ‘fields’ are recognised in the legal tracts of early medieval Ireland. The Críth Gablach (Law of Status) mentions the airlise, a rather restricted area of land that extended ‘the length of a spear cast on every side’ from the rath/farmstead (Kelly 1997, 368). Kelly (ibid. 369) speculates that ‘the airlise of a typical farm contained various enclosures for grazing and cultivation including a garden’. Whereas the Críth Gablach is concerned with the trappings of status, the Bretha Comaithchesa (Law of Co-Tenancy) is more concerned with identifying individual property and resolving damages for trespass caused by a 5 neighbour or his/her livestock. This law tract therefore clearly defines what constitutes a legal boundary (discussed below), and also distinguishes between various grades of farmland. The Bretha Comaithchesa mentions farmlands called the ‘faithche’ and the ‘gort faithche’. Faithche is generally translated as ‘green’ or ‘infield’ and seems to refer to an area in the vicinity of the rath, whereas ‘gort faithche’ suggests a tilled field, perhaps a subdivision of the more general infield (Kelly 1997, 370). These fields are rather vaguely stated to have extended ‘as far as the sound of a bell or the crowing of a cock reaches’ (ibid.), presumably larger than the spear-cast that marked the airlise. Beyond this were lands described as ‘sechtar faitchi” (‘beyond the faitche’) which Kelly concludes is the outfield. The texts, however, do not specify whether or not these various areas were enclosed. Fowler (2002, 131) concludes that the concept of a field essentially means, rather vaguely, ‘an area of land to create a terrestrial space where agrarian functions can be pursued in reasonably controlled environmental circumstances’, a definition that does not utilise the word ‘enclosure’. Enclosure can be desirable for two reasons. Firstly, where land was owned privately as was the case in early medieval Ireland, enclosure was necessary to demarcate ownership. Otherwise there will be chaos both in current management and the legal obligations of passing ownership from one generation to another. Secondly, while enclosure is not necessary for cultivation, it is necessary when livestock rearing and cultivation occur in tin close proximity. Livestock must be separated from cultivated lands and lands set aside for growing animal fodder. This could imply the use of formal grazing and cultivation enclosed fields. Alternatively, herds of domesticates could be supervised by shepherds during the day and kept in paddocks/corrals/animal enclosures or houses at night. Private Landholding As noted above the early texts provide detailed descriptions of various types of field boundaries of the period (O’Corrain 1986, 247-51; Kelly 1997, 372-78). There are four types; a ditch and bank (clas), a stone fence (cora), an oak fence (dairimbe), a ‘bare fence’, a post and wattle fence (nochtaile or felmad). The cora was to be three feet wide and four feet high. It was stated to be a ‘wall of three stones’ which Kelly (1997, 373-74) interprets as being of three coursed high. The tool used for its construction was a soc which Kelly (1997, 374) interprets this as a stone lever. O’Corrain (1986, 247) interprets this as being a plough share. He explains this interpretation by stating that a plough would have been used to create the line of the fence and by removing the sod providing a firmer foundation for the wall. McAfee (1997, 105) states that the topsoil should be removed in order to set the foundation course of a drystone wall but it is a likely that the use of a share refers to unearthing of the stones used in the wall construction during ploughing. The trench and bank boundary (clas) was to be made with a spade, the bank to be three feet high and the ditch three feet deep. It is almost impossible to identify these field monuments on a purely typological basis, since stone walls and earthen banks have been used throughout the history of farming in Ireland. The early medieval boundaries also share similar dimensions to post-medieval ones, for example the fences in Co. Leitrim at the turn of the nineteenth century were composed mainly of ‘a drain from 4-6 feet wide and [a bank] of 3 or 4 feet’ (McParlan 1802, 48). The ‘bare fence’ was stated to be primarily for managing livestock a law tract stating that ‘a small pig should not be able to penetrate because of it closeness, and an ox should not be able to penetrate because of its firmness and height’ (Kelly 1997, 374-5). There is much detail of its construction. The vertical posts set eight inches apart, and the horizontal wattles arranged in three bands. The posts should be four feet high and project one foot above the upper band of wattle. This, in turn, was to be crowned with a crest of blackthorn (cír draigin). Three strikes of a mallet were to secure the vertical posts into the ground. The tool specified for its construction was the bill-hook. It may well be that this was a temporary, and perhaps movable, type of fence used primarily for controlling grazing by livestock. O’Corrain (1986, 250) supports such an interpretation. His reading of the text leads him to conclude that the stone and ditch and bank fences are regards as permanent but that the post and wattle fence was temporary, possible seasonal. The texts make a distinction between the types of land on which the fences are built although heir meaning is unclear. The stone and bank and ditch fences are built in the nochtmachaire 6 which literally means ‘bare plane’ while the post and wattle fence was to be built on the lethmachaire which means ‘half plain’. O’Corrain (1986, 248-9) interprets the former as arable land and the latter as ‘pastureland occasionally tilled’. The final fence was that of oak which was to be used in woodland. Its method of construction is unclear as descriptions are confusing. Kelly (1997, 376) notes that it seemed to be of similar dimensions as the ‘bare fence’ but with oak posts. The fact that the axe was the specified tool of construction may imply the use of split oak planks. O’Corrain (1986, 250) suggest that the fence was made by felling a line of trees in woodland and using the surviving trunks as vertical posts for the fence. Again it had to be livestock proof as ‘it had to be made so the oxen may not go through it because of its height nor the little animals [piglets?] because of its density’ (ibid.). The purpose of this type of fence is unclear. The fact that it was meant to exclude grazing livestock might suggest that it was meant to protect the young shoots in areas of coppicing. The fences of the Bretha Comaithchesa are mentioned in association with various ‘fields’ – nethemain (‘cornland’); díguin (‘enclosed meadow’); athlumpaire (‘pasture field’); and ethamain (‘grass field’) – and differences are noted between winter (geimreta) and summer (samrata) grazing. There is also a distinction between díguin and ethamain, since they are both referred to separately in a section on trespass on winter grass, suggesting that the grass fields may not necessarily be enclosed (Richey 1879, 80-81). Most informative, however, are the sections on the fines for different forms of trespass onto another’s property. Thus trespass on a field of winter grass draws the fine of two cows, if the field has a ‘full fence’ (lán íme); a cow and a heifer if the field has a ‘half-fence’ (leth íme); and a cow if there is no fence. The trespass on summer grazing has the same qualifications, but lower penalties – a cow; ¾ of a cow; and a heifer respectively (ibid. 82-83). The fact that fines may still be awarded for trespass onto ‘fields’ which were not fenced in quite clearly indicates that enclosure was not necessary in the enforcing of private property rights during the early medieval period. Enclosure as an Indicator of Arable Land The early texts make it clear that ploughing was the normal way in which fields were prepared for the sowing of cereals (Kelly 1997, 468). The law tracts also imply that the regular plough team comprised four oxen. The Críth Gablach states that the ócaire owned one ox, i.e. quarter of a plough team (Macneill 1923, 287), thus four farmers would each contribute four oxen to the ploughing. Kelly (1997, 371) suggests that this implies co-ownership of a large open-field cultivation area with each farmer having separate strips, but also stresses (1988, 102) that this is indicative of co-operate farming and not collective farming, i.e. the produce was not pooled among the farmers involved. The crops were grown on large raised beds or ridges (immaire) separated by a drainage trench. One source describes these ridges as being eight feet in width although this is in an untypical context where the crops are being actually grown within a rath. Another text, however, suggests that the immaire width was equal to seven sods of the plough (Kelly 1997, 72). This would roughly equate with seven feet. Ploughing can be undertaken most efficiently in an open landscape that avoids the creation of un- cultivatable headlands necessary for turning an ox team. The meagre documentary sources refer to cultivated fields having two (ardchinne) headlands and two sides, the former being short and the latter being long although the exact dimensions are not stated (Kelly 1997, 372). The fact that there were only two headlands implies that cross-ploughing was not practiced. As there is little evidence for the use of a mould board at this time (see below) it is likely, as Kelly (1997, 469) suggests, that ‘much supplementary work had to be done with spades or mattocks before the seedbed was ready for sowing’. The optimal shape for a field where cross-ploughing was employed is square, whereas without cross-ploughing a long rectangular field is more desirable. In both instances the field should have parallel sides, otherwise uncultivated side areas, along with the headlands will occur. The presence of headlands for turning the plough team would imply an enclosed field, and these lynchets may survive as archaeological features. One needs to avoid the conclusion that cultivation necessitated field enclosures. An early seventeenth- 7