Seen & Found

mocmo · 04-11-2018 11:12am

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 · 04-11-2018 11:40am

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 · 04-11-2018 12:49pm

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 · 04-11-2018 1:29pm

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 · 04-11-2018 3:39pm

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 · 05-11-2018 4:17pm

Folks anyone any idea what this could be?

slowburner · 06-11-2018 11:15am

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 · 13-11-2018 10:42am

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 · 13-11-2018 11:10am

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 · 13-11-2018 6:37pm

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 · 13-11-2018 7:43pm

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 · 13-11-2018 8:17pm

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 · 14-11-2018 10:38am

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 · 14-11-2018 1:28pm

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 · 04-12-2018 10:19pm

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 · 07-12-2018 1:18am

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 · 07-12-2018 10:49am

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 · 07-12-2018 11:43am

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 · 07-12-2018 12:09pm

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 · 07-12-2018 1:34pm

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 · 07-12-2018 9:31pm

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 · 08-12-2018 1:31am

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 · 14-12-2018 12:40pm

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

Coles · 18-12-2018 9:58am

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 · 30-12-2018 11:37pm

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 · 31-12-2018 2:14pm

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 · 31-12-2018 2:19pm

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 · 31-12-2018 5:03pm

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 · 31-12-2018 5:05pm

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 · 31-12-2018 6:50pm

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.

Quickpip · 05-01-2019 4:14pm

HoteiMarkii wrote: »

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.

Well mystery solved. The enclosure was actually a small resevoir made in the 1800's. The water was piped of the mountain to supply a sanatorium called the' Rostrevor hills hydro ' which lies at the base of the hill.

Aelfric · 08-01-2019 3:30pm

HoteiMarkii wrote: »

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.

There's a well recorded Rhyolite industry in Co. Waterford, with crude blades and other tools made that stone. Basalt is a volcanic stone, so it has better knapping properties. If it's all that was available, or the most prevalent stone source, it would have been used extensively.

Wibbs · 08-01-2019 6:44pm

Aye, our ancestors had to be pretty inventive and resourceful with stone materials here. The resources are pretty awful. I've often wondered could this be one of the reasons why humans came so late to Ireland? The ice ages and the like were a major problem of course, but lack of decent material for knapping could have been an issue. Years ago now when I got into the oul knapping I found precious little of the local stuff to be any use. There's some chert, near flint nodules to be found on south coastal beaches, but other wise nope. Even that was chock full of internal inclusions and was a whoer to work with. Awful splintery stuff. Some basalts were OK, the quartzite I could find was too large grained. I can see how mesolithic techniques which required smaller bits of knapped stone in complex tools was advantageous here.

pueblo · 18-01-2019 4:28pm

Found this at my usual location on River Nore sitting in about 10" of water.

The edges seem quite serrated, is this intentional? Could it be a saw?

Also seems like possibly a very high quality chert as opposed to flint.

Thanks

https://imgur.com/a/TjZxtKT

slowburner · 18-01-2019 8:09pm

Nice backed blade with a clear platform and scar but the edges are naturally water-rolled.
Probably early. Possibly very early.
Definitely one for the museum.

pueblo · 18-01-2019 9:13pm

slowburner wrote: »

Nice backed blade with a clear platform and scar but the edges are naturally water-rolled.
Probably early. Possibly very early.
Definitely one for the museum.

Thanks SB for that info.

The other blade I found was at put at Late Mesolithic, so would be amazing to have found something predating that.

I have already been in touch with the duty officer at the NMI.

I also have some other bits too including a possible flint scraper and some black chert pieces which appear to possibly have been worked too as well as a lump of metal(?) which could be iron slag, I am hoping this could be Iron Age!

I will try and get some pics up over the w/e.

** Edited to add....Is it definitely flint?

slowburner · 18-01-2019 10:16pm

Hard to say for certain from the photo but it looks like flint.

Wibbs · 18-01-2019 10:21pm

I'm with SB on the river rolling causing the "saw" edges. As a kid on holiday in France I picked up a few Neandertal lithics that were like that*. And others in the same general area that looked like they had been knapped yesterday and were still "crap I cut meself" sharp.

It looks more like flint to me, though any neolithic stuff I found in Ireland was flint and very obviously that, even to my unschooled eye. That was in Sligo, Easky to be precise and I found them by mistake while looking for fossils(I was a weird kid

). The part that would make me lean more towards chert is the percussion scar on the back that looks rougher, porous. Then again that could be down to preservation and where it was laid down over the years. Again I have French and Spanish paleo flint stuff that has gone porous like that over time.

*looking back, odd I very rarely found later stuff. Maybe I had a blindspot

pueblo · 19-01-2019 1:37am

Here's the "iron slag" (my best uneducated guess)....or maybe it's a meteorite? What does bog iron look like?

https://imgur.com/a/I5wNBKB

It attracts a magnet but only weak to medium strength so might contain some other matter, possibly organic matter? if so it could be carbon dated maybe?

Would carbon dating organic matter present in slag be the only method of dating an out of context piece like this (if that's what it actually is)

pueblo · 19-01-2019 2:13am

..and lastly for the moment, can anyone tell me anything about this pottery sherd. I am getting a Medieval feel, but little do I know.

Thanks

(Front)
https://imgur.com/bnFIy8c

(Back)
https://i.imgur.com/SHZPV8a.jpg

(Front, closer shot)
https://imgur.com/xZv2bln

slowburner · 19-01-2019 11:18am

pueblo wrote: »

Here's the "iron slag" (my best uneducated guess)....or maybe it's a meteorite? What does bog iron look like?

https://imgur.com/a/I5wNBKB

It attracts a magnet but only weak to medium strength so might contain some other matter, possibly organic matter? if so it could be carbon dated maybe?

Would carbon dating organic matter present in slag be the only method of dating an out of context piece like this (if that's what it actually is)

It's not bog iron. It could be slag but I am not seeing the typical oxidisation associated with iron (rust!). Possibly a slag from another metal. Curious that it's magnetic.

pueblo · 19-01-2019 11:34am

slowburner wrote: »

It's not bog iron. It could be slag but I am not seeing the typical oxidisation associated with iron (rust!). Possibly a slag from another metal. Curious that it's magnetic.

What if it had only recently been washed into the river?

Would you still expect oxidisation if it had been buried in soil?

slowburner · 19-01-2019 11:40am

pueblo wrote: »

..and lastly for the moment, can anyone tell me anything about this pottery sherd. I am getting a Medieval feel, but little do I know.

Thanks

(Front)
https://imgur.com/bnFIy8c

(Back)
https://i.imgur.com/SHZPV8a.jpg

(Front, closer shot)
https://imgur.com/xZv2bln

Any chance of a view of the broken edges to show the fabric of the sherd?
And is it flat or curved in section?

slowburner · 19-01-2019 11:41am

pueblo wrote: »

What if it had only recently been washed into the river?

Would you still expect oxidisation if it had been buried in soil?

Yes, iron will oxidise if buried in soil.

pueblo · 19-01-2019 4:37pm

slowburner wrote: »

Any chance of a view of the broken edges to show the fabric of the sherd?
And is it flat or curved in section?

A couple oif shots of the broken edge..

https://imgur.com/a/TFkoRAy

In section it has a slight curve, this would mean it was likely a wide vessel?

pueblo · 07-02-2019 1:08pm

Can anyone advise whether this is a likely small polished stone axe? It seems to have some damage to the 'bit'?

It sort of feels right to me but I have been wrong before and I want to know whether it needs to be reported or not.

Thanks

https://imgur.com/a/U79dihi

slowburner · 07-02-2019 7:26pm

pueblo wrote: »

Can anyone advise whether this is a likely small polished stone axe? It seems to have some damage to the 'bit'?

It sort of feels right to me but I have been wrong before and I want to know whether it needs to be reported or not.

Thanks

https://imgur.com/a/U79dihi

Most likely a natural, water rolled cobble.

However, it could be a rough-out. There are possible knapping scars along one long edge.
Difficult to say from photos alone.
The petrology looks suitable. Possibly Andesite.
It’s worth reporting one way or the other.

pueblo · 07-02-2019 11:24pm

slowburner wrote: »

Most likely a natural, water rolled cobble.

However, it could be a rough-out. There are possible knapping scars along one long edge.
Difficult to say from photos alone.
The petrology looks suitable. Possibly Andesite.
It’s worth reporting one way or the other.

Thank you. I am arranging to bring a number of recent finds up the NMI in the next week or so, it will be interesting to see what they think.

I will post a few more pics here of some other finds before the 'artefacts' leave for their destined drawer or dustbin!

pueblo · 09-02-2019 1:06am

Some pics of a few different pieces.

Thanks

https://imgur.com/a/bjiGQoR

pueblo · 14-02-2019 7:44pm

Found this piece today. My guess is it's either a flint backed knife or a projectile point. Opinions please.

Thanks

https://imgur.com/a/X63sT6n

Seen & Found

Comments