ARCHAEOLOGYearthwork castles and not prehistoric sites. In the new
Republic, archaeology was strongly supported but the
nationalistic climate encouraged archaeologists to con-
centrate on the early-medieval (or “Early Christian”
period; the name is in itself significant) sites but
neglect the later part. The emphasis was on art histor-
ical analysis of artifacts rather than on excavation or
sites in general; excavation techniques of the period
were unable to examine timber structures, and the
resources to undertake or analyze widespread field
survey were lacking. In Northern Ireland, real achieve-
ments in research, excavation, and control came after
1950, with the establishment of the Archaeological
Survey and the intensive study of County Down. Since
the 1960s, there have been advances in the study on a
number of fronts. Laboratory techniques have been
systematically deployed, relating to chronology (radio-
carbon or, most dramatically, tree-ring dating); the
environment (pollen or animal and human bone stud-
ies); statistical tests for the analysis of site distribu-
tions; and analytic techniques of materials used in
artifacts. Research now combines evidence from sites
and artifacts, or field survey and excavation, while the
involvement of the state in the salvaging of sites threat-
ened by destruction through development has had a
major impact on the volume of evidence recovered and
potentially available for study.
The contribution, actual and potential, of archae-
ology to the study of medieval Ireland shows suc-
cesses and weaknesses. The earliest medieval period,
between the fifth and eighth centuries, is marked by
an explosion in the volume of evidence, compared
with the time before or, indeed, elsewhere in western
Europe. Sites of the period survive in the thousands:
secular ringforts and crannogs; Christian monaster-
ies and lesser churches. The artifacts from the time
include some of the most famous craft objects from
Ireland: the Tara brooch, the Book of Kells, High
Crosses, and the Ardagh chalice. They are clearly
the product of wealth (a manuscript will need many
calves to die for its parchment) and indicate that
Ireland, especially through the Church, was closely
in touch with Britain and Europe. The wealth aligns
with the evidence of a rural environment with few
trees and heavily managed by man for a farming
economy based on agriculture and dairying. The
archaeology focuses attention on the revolution
which occurred to start the period’s expansion and
also the detailed management of land. All the sites
relate to a hierarchy, such as is described in the
documentary sources, but we do not know their exact
relationship, nor do we understand the reasons
behind the variations in the geographical distribu-
tions: why Leinster has few sites of any sort, why
crannogs should be found mainly in the Midlands,
or why ringfort densities can very widely across
small distances.
Tothe political historian, the Vikings were military
attackers in Ireland of the ninth and tenth centuries. In
archaeology, however, they are much more associated
with the foundation of major market towns, notably
Dublin. Here was an organized urban site from the tenth
century, very similar to York in its streets and economy
based on crafts and trade; the major difference lies only
in the material for the houses. The archaeologist can
point to the survival of church sites near areas of Viking
dominance to stress the possibility of coexistence
between Scandinavians and Irish; no ringforts or cran-
nogs show convincing signs of destruction. This peaceful
emphasis may be as illusory as the picture of continual
violence. The influx of silver from England and Europe
through the towns in Ireland had to be paid for, probably
by the export of slaves; it may be no coincidence that
the tenth century appears to have seen an increase in the
building of underground structures, souterrains, proba-
bly as refuges against raiders. At the same time, there
also appears to have been a hiatus in church crafts, such
as stone carving and the production of manuscripts,
while metal artifacts reflected new styles brought in with
the Vikings. Aggression and trade may not have been
mutually exclusive.
After 1167, the seizure of large areas of land in
Ireland by English lords was followed an explosion in
the volume of archaeological evidence similar to that
of the sixth through eighth centuries, with many new
sites and artifacts, against a documentary background
stressing political or military events. Archaeology
stresses the English lords’ agenda of spreading a mar-
ket economy, with agriculture providing produce
(especially grain) through centralized estates, to be
sold through lesser towns and the great ports for lords’
profit, to build new castles and church buildings. The
new buildings reveal much of the lords’ motivation: their
commitment to stay in Ireland, their desire to reflect
European contemporaries, and their stress on display
rather than military conquest. The profits also involved
merchants and farmers, stimulating the rise and impor-
tation of new crafts, such as pottery, often located in the
towns founded as the engine of the economy. In the
countryside, the lack of many truly nucleated settle-
ments, unlike the villages found in many parts of
England, question the assumption that the English lord-
ships were based on wholesale immigration of peasant
communities: Rather, it was through the organization of
estates and the piecemeal arrival of individuals that the
changes were effected. Modern archaeology has con-
centrated on those areas of high visibility, principally
through excavation in advance of major development
schemes in the large towns (Dublin, Waterford, Cork).
These are well-studied sites; deploying resources on