nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Seen & Found

slowburner

Here's a place to post and discuss pictures of sites or artifacts of general archaeological interest.
If you are not sure where to post up material you have seen or found, post here.

Please note that all archaeological objects must be reported to the National Museum of Ireland. See the stickies on the landing page.

Find more posts tagged with

heritage

archaeology

artifact

Quick Links

Comments

mocmo

Coles wrote: »

@slowburner. Yes, I suspected you might. My collection is available whenever a study is done of the area.

It is not your collection, it is the property of the state and Boards.ie shouldn't be encouraging individuals to gather and retain archaeological objects, it is against the law.

Section 23 of the National Monuments Act

23.—(1) Every person who finds any archaeological object shall within fourteen days after he has found such object, make a report of such finding to a member of the Gárda Síochána on duty in the district in which such object was so found or the Keeper of Irish Antiquities in the National Museum and shall when making such report state his own name and address, the nature or character of the said object and the time and place at which and the circumstances in which it was found by him, and shall also, and whether he has or has not made such report as aforesaid, and irrespective of the person to whom he has made such report (if any) give to any member of the Gárda Síochána or to the said Keeper on request any information within his knowledge in relation to such object or the finding thereof and shall permit any member of the Gárda Síochána or the said Keeper to inspect, examine or photograph such object.

(2) Every person who finds an archaeological object and—

(a) fails without reasonable excuse to make a report of such finding in accordance with this section, or

(b) makes under this section a report of such finding which is to his knowledge false or misleading in any material respect, or

(c) in contravention of this section fails or refuses to give to a member of the Gárda Síochána or the Keeper of Irish Antiquities in the National Museum information in relation to such archaeological object or the finding thereof, or

(d) gives to a member of the Gárda Síochána or the said Keeper information in relation to such archaeological object or the finding thereof which is to his knowledge false or misleading in a material respect.

shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

Wibbs

mocmo wrote: »

shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

One presumes there's an updated version of that as we haven't used pounds/punts in a while.

slowburner

mocmo wrote: »

It is not your collection, it is the property of the state and Boards.ie shouldn't be encouraging individuals to gather and retain archaeological objects, it is against the law.

This forum most certainly does not 'encourage individuals to gather and retain archaeological objects'.

slowburner

Wibbs wrote: »

One presumes there's an updated version of that as we haven't used pounds/punts in a while.

Yes there are updated amendments; primarily the 2004 amendment.

Mocmo is correct. These finds should be notified to the museum.
I am sure that anyone who posts up here about what they have found is also the kind of person who will uphold the law.

This is a unique site where hundreds, perhaps even thousands of archaeological objects have been brought to the surface by natural forces.
A number of people have made significant discoveries and a number of people have made significant collections.
As far as I know, there has been no deliberate malice or commercial intent in making these collections and I am reasonably sure that there has been no disturbance of stratigraphy (metal is a different story, sadly).

I was involved in a project here some years ago to identify the types of lithics, their period (based on morphology and typology) and their distribution around the site. If people are wandering along picking up significant quantities of objects, then any information that distribution can give is lost. That information could be critical. It could inform us about where people lived, what they were doing, how they did it. Concentrations of finds in a site like this can tell us a great deal and it is a worry that this information is being lost when collectors pick up objects without detailed and accurate recording of the circumstances in which they were found.

Random personal collections are meaningless. They tell us nothing about the people who inhabited these lands if they are held in disparate locations.
They really need to go to one central collection where they can be conserved and made available for study by scholars and students alike. That location is the National Museum and that is the reason for the law.

Coles

In posting these images I was attempting to determine if they are 'archaeological artifacts' and I appreciate the opinion of people in determining if they are, and any further information they might have on them. I am well aware of the law but not every stone found lying on the ground is an 'archaeological artifact' and the first step should be to identify them.

My son has found a number of these stones and I certainly prefer keeping them safe than telling him to throw them away. This collection of stones is available to archaeologists to have whenever the location is studied.

These are surface field finds. The area where these stones were found is suffering from severe erosion that is destroying the stratigraphy over a very significant area and to a great depth. The soil has been completely eroded away and any lithics that it might have contained have been scattered. Archaeologists (and the National Museum) have been aware of it for years and it's not for me to say whether or not it warrants further investigation.

Returning to the stones themselves, I would agree that they probably are silicified limestone. Does anyone have any information on where the sources for that stone was? Or was it mostly from glacial eratics? I had thought one of them might be Derravarragh Chert, but not based on any particular expertise. Lithotheque will be a great resource when it covers more of the country.

Thank for all replies and I can assure you that the National Museum will be made aware of them (as they have been in the past).

Glebee

Folks anyone any idea what this could be?

slowburner

Could be an architectural fragment - part of a decorative doorway, fireplace surround, or a window reveal - something like that. Could be part of a headstone too, I guess.

It looks to my eye as if the basic knot interlace was re-carved over an earlier design. See the remains of arcs or spirals visible to the right.
Curious.

The fragment appears to have been mortared in to the wall quite recently. Could you ask the occupants where it came from?

Coles

6fbe49b1-5ef3-41b6-8c59-725262eda1a2-original.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds

While they still need the confirmation from the experts it's likely that this blade is Derravaragh Chert and dates from 4000-4200 BC. The source of this rock was well over 100km away from where it was found. All these stones are now with the National Museum.

Aelfric

Nice one Coles. Hopefully these artefacts will be studied and can add to the corpus of other late Mesolithic finds from around the country.

Standman

Roadworks on a street in Mullingar uncovered these. Guy who sent me the pic reckons they're old cobblestones. Not sure myself. What do ye think?

Aelfric

Standman wrote: »

Roadworks on a street in Mullingar uncovered these. Guy who sent me the pic reckons they're old cobblestones. Not sure myself. What do ye think?

Yes, old cobblestones. I found some several years ago when I was monitoring drainage there

slowburner

Standman wrote: »

Roadworks on a street in Mullingar uncovered these. Guy who sent me the pic reckons they're old cobblestones. Not sure myself. What do ye think?

You still see similar drains at the side of some rural roads.

Standman

That's interesting.

So it's some kind of drain as opposed to a path, is it?

Any idea how old that would be?

slowburner

Standman wrote: »

That's interesting.

So it's some kind of drain as opposed to a path, is it?

Any idea how old that would be?

Very difficult to say how old it is.
An archaeologist should really be monitoring these works under section 14A of the 2004 National Monuments (Amendments) Act...if there isn't one there already.

HoteiMarkii

Coles wrote: »

While they still need the confirmation from the experts it's likely that this blade is Derravaragh Chert and dates from 4000-4200 BC. The source of this rock was well over 100km away from where it was found. All these stones are now with the National Museum.

Nice finds Coles.
I'm curious how this particular chert blade has been so confidently dated to 4000-4200 BCE, particularly when these were surface finds and not found in stratified layers or with other diagnostic artefacts?

Quickpip

Absolutely no idea what this feature is? Its on quite an elevated site overlooking the village of Rostrevor. Has anyone any ideas?

54.132661,-6.207816

HoteiMarkii

It looks like a Rath.
If you visit the Northern Ireland Environment Map Viewer you should be able to find out what this enclosure is.
I had a quick look myself and it appears to be in the townland of Knockbarragh which is showing two possibilities: SMR DOW051:053 which is a Rath, and SMR DOW051:054 an enclosure. I could be wrong so have a look yourself.

Coles

The lithics still need to be properly examined by the experts but one of them in particular has a lot of similarities to the lithics in the museum's Derravarragh chert collection. Nothing more than that.

HoteiMarkii

Ah no problem, Coles.
I was curious because despite finding similar chert/silicified limestone lithics (all now with the National Museum), those who looked at my finds couldn't narrow down with certainty what prehistoric time period they may first have been struck.
Thanks.

slowburner

It would be highly significant if the material for these lithics did indeed come from the midlands. It would raise eyebrows in many quarters and raise questions about mobility, trade (!), and supply in the late (?) Mesolithic.
To my mind, one of the characteristics of Mesolithic technology is the generally skillful use of local petrology or whatever was freely available. This has been observed in the use of limestone derivatives among the Wicklow examples.

Derrravaragh chert is a distinctive type.

'Festooned or Derravaragh chert sensu stricto is geographically highly restricted in its primary geological contexts, with the unit occuring in the Lough Owel Syncline, running from near Mullingar northeastwards to
Castlepollard (Morris et al. 2003, 64) and forming a distinctive topographical feature including rocky precipiced sharp hills (Neville 1958).'

Warren, G. Little, A. Stanley, M. McDermott, C. O'Keefe, E. (2009) A late Mesolithic lithic scatter from Corralanna, Co. Westmeath, and its place in the Mesolithic landscape of the Irish Midlands. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History, Literature
Vol. 109C, pp. 1-35

PDF available here
(the pdf downloads automatically)

Quickpip

HoteiMarkii wrote: »

It looks like a Rath.
If you visit the Northern Ireland Environment Map Viewer you should be able to find out what this enclosure is.
I had a quick look myself and it appears to be in the townland of Knockbarragh which is showing two possibilities: SMR DOW051:053 which is a Rath, and SMR DOW051:054 an enclosure. I could be wrong so have a look yourself.

Hi thank you so much for the reply. I had a look at both possibilities but they are of different sites which are actually not that far away.
The site i was looking at grid ref J1719621856 is at a much higher vantage point perched on the side of the hill. Its been a few years since i walked the site as its well off the beaten track. If i could put a few photos up, could that help in trying to identify it?

HoteiMarkii

Quickpip wrote: »

Hi thank you so much for the reply. I had a look at both possibilities but they are of different sites which are actually not that far away.
The site i was looking at grid ref J1719621856 is at a much higher vantage point perched on the side of the hill. Its been a few years since i walked the site as its well off the beaten track. If i could put a few photos up, could that help in trying to identify it?

I now see that this feature is north of the two enclosures I mentioned earlier.
Using the 'Layer List' it doesn't appear to be anything of archaeological significance. It certainly looks man-made and may have been an enclosure for holding livestock (I think I can see sheep close by on the Orthophotograph). It's an interesting looking feature nonetheless.

slowburner

Mod note:
All posts from the 'Satellite Archaeology' thread have been merged into this thread.

Coles

slowburner wrote: »

It would be highly significant if the material for these lithics did indeed come from the midlands.

PDF available here
(the pdf downloads automatically)

That's a great read.

HoteiMarkii

Not sure if it's chert or silicified limestone. It has been broken at the distal end, and measures 30mm. in length and approx. 8mm. wide. I found it on the surface of plough soil just outside the western edge of a recently discovered circular enclosure. I spotted the circular enclosure (approximately 50 metres in diameter) on satellite imagery several months ago, and it's now on the NMS Sites and Monuments Record database. I'm thinking the 'bladelet' could be Mesolithic or Neolithic in date, perhaps??

Circular enclosure

Aelfric

Looks a touch like basalt as well, apart from the pic showing the dorsal ridge.

Could there be another satellite enclosure immediately to the SE?

gozunda

HoteiMarkii wrote: »

Not sure if it's chert or silicified limestone. It has been broken at the distal end, and measures 30mm. in length and approx. 8mm. wide. I found it on the surface of plough soil just outside the western edge of a recently discovered circular enclosure. I spotted the circular enclosure (approximately 50 metres in diameter) on satellite imagery several months ago, and it's now on the NMS Sites and Monuments Record database. I'm thinking the 'bladelet' could be Mesolithic or Neolithic in date, perhaps??

...

Circular enclosure

Is that one of the Tara related sites revealed this summer due to the drought?

slowburner

Aelfric wrote: »

Looks a touch like basalt as well, apart from the pic showing the dorsal ridge.

Could there be another satellite enclosure immediately to the SE?

There is definitely something going on there alright.
I'm seeing an 'S' shaped parch mark bisected by a linear (field boundary?) and the lower curve of the (backward) S forming an arc of a subcircular feature. Is that what you have your eye on?

slowburner

HoteiMarkii wrote: »

I spotted the circular enclosure (approximately 50 metres in diameter) on satellite imagery several months ago, and it's now on the NMS Sites and Monuments Record database.

Circular enclosure

Is the enclosure recorded as bivallate? I'm seeing an inner ditch.

HoteiMarkii

Aelfric wrote: »

Looks a touch like basalt as well, apart from the pic showing the dorsal ridge.

Could there be another satellite enclosure immediately to the SE?

How prevalent was the use of basalt in the Mesolithic/Neolithic? This blade is atypical of the type of material I've been finding at this site for the past decade or so. It's quite dark and shiny compared to some of the other chert-like artefacts found. I think I've uploaded similar images here before, but here's an example of some of the artefacts previously found:

There may very well be other circular parch marks there, but this is the only satellite imagery (Google Earth dated 28/06/2018) that shows the large circular enclosure. Previous OSI orthophotographic images don't even show the large recorded circular enclosure.

gozunda wrote: »

Is that one of the Tara related sites revealed this summer due to the drought?

No, this site is in south Kildare.

slowburner wrote: »

Is the enclosure recorded as bivallate? I'm seeing an inner ditch.

No, the enclosure hasn't been recorded as bivallate, but there's definitely another inner ditch there, which I only later noticed after having already sent in the monument report form to the NMS.