Fulachtaí fia and Bronze Age cooking in Ireland: reappraising the evidence

ALAN HAWKES

Department of Archaeology, Connolly Building, Dyke Parade, University College Cork

[Accepted 9 March 2015. Published 13 May 2015.]

Abstract

This paper examines the technical aspects of indirect cooking using pyrolithic technology in Ireland with a particular focus on its application during the Bronze Age. The widespread distribution of burnt mounds (fulachtai fia)is striking, suggesting that Ireland was the most prominent user of this technology in Bronze Age Europe. However, narratives related to these sites have long revolved around function, to the extent that the basic definition of this monument type has been called into question. This paper examines the use of these sites based on evidence from some 1,000 excavated examples in Ireland and provides new insights into the use of pyrolithic technology for cooking. The model proposed here is of open-air feasting/food-sharing hosted by small family groups, in a manner that was central to different types of social bonding.

Introduction

The name folach fiadh is well known to the country people, and they bestow it on a heap of burnt stones, of which, as a rule, they know neither the origin nor the use.¹

The consumption of food is universal and is one of the most fundamental activities in society, helping to establish and sustain social life. The sharing of food is a social act that creates and maintains different bonds and obligations within a group or community. The preparing of food is also a basic element of human life and is an activity indicative of the way in which people use a landscape. The contexts, whereby these cooking-related activities appear in the archaeological record, are widely diverse. In Bronze Age Ireland (c. 2000–600 BC), the cooking and consumption of food was carried out using both direct and indirect methods. Direct cooking methods involved roasting, boiling and baking on open fires—probably using ceramic vessels, spit structures or surface griddles—while indirect methods used a pyrolithic technology. The latter involved a process of heat transfer that centred on the use of hot stones immersed in water. Through thermal conduction, stones capture and hold the heat generated by fast-burning fuel that would otherwise dissipate before many foods could be cooked over open flames.² Hot stones, by their nature and relative non-combustibility, have the potential to capture and retain heat, which facilitates the cooking of a broad range of foods. The use of hot stones enabled prolonged cooking of food by roasting, steaming and boiling in different types of pits. Pit-cooking using hot stones, was also used in some parts of the world to chemically alter the structure of root foods and to increase digestibility.³ Compared to other cooking methods, boiling is most likely to have yielded a greater proportion of potentially available calories/nutrients from a given piece of food.⁴ Another important use of hot stones was to generate steam for sweatbathing, a practice not only widespread in North America and the circumpolar region during prehistory and ethnographic eras but also in parts of medieval Eastern Europe.⁵ Pyrolithic technology seems to have originated in Upper Palaeolithic Europe,⁶ while it has also been recognised in central and western North America from at least 10,500 years ago.⁷ Its use did not, of course, mean the replacement of older methods of ‘direct’ cooking. While more costly techniques, such as pyrolithic water-boiling (in terms of heat expended and labour invested), were occasionally used in certain societies, less costly, open-fire methods continued to be used for easily cooked foods.

Although a non-water-boiling version of the technology may have been employed in Ireland during the fifth millennium BC, it is likely that the use of pyrolithic water-boiling technology did not become popular until the Neolithic. This is based on the identification of trough pits and domesticated faunal remains in excavated burnt mound/spread sites dating from the early fourth millennium BC. The overall chronology of the site type suggests that these new cooking techniques emerged as a consequence of the adoption of animal husbandry in Ireland.⁸

The method involved a process of heat transfer whereby water was boiled through the introduction of stones heated in a nearby fire. The heat transferred directly from the stones, raising the water to a temperature suitable to cook food. After numerous firings these stones were eventually shattered by the sudden cooling process, and gradually accumulated as a result of human action near the trough to form a low mound or spread that contained large amounts of charcoal. These are generally recognised as crescent-shaped mounds of burnt stone, or are exposed in plough soil as levelled spreads of burnt stone mixed with high levels of charcoal-enriched soil (Pl. I).

They can occur individually or in small clusters, and are generally located close to a water source. There is some variability within these sites when excavated, although generally the deposits of burnt stone are accompanied by a range of features that include sunken troughs which are often lined with wood or stone. During the Bronze Age the use of this particular technology became widely adopted in North Atlantic Europe, particularly in Ireland. These sites gradually became mythologised in Irish folklore⁹ and were recognised by antiquarians and archaeologists as a class of monuments known as fulachtaí fia.

The most difficult aspect of interpreting the function of burnt mounds is identifying how the boiled water was utilised. The interpretation that they were cooking sites is perhaps the most widely accepted of the many theories. Here, the primary purpose of the site was to cook food by means of heat transfer from hot stones to water and then eventually to the food. Experimental work, most notably by Michael J. O’Kelly¹⁰ at Ballyvourney, Co. Cork, confirmed that the typical features of an excavated burnt mound, namely a water receptacle, hearth and the burnt stone and charcoal, could indeed relate to the type of cooking processes described in Geoffrey Keating’s Foras Feasa ar Éirinn (Pl. II).¹¹

PL. I—Top: Typical horseshoe-shaped burnt mound at Turnaspidogy, Co. Cork (RMP CO081-044). (© National Monuments Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.) Bottom: Reconstructed boiling trough and burnt stone mound at Rathbarry, Co. Cork. (© Alan Hawkes.)

This seventeenth-century text is the only source that associates the term ‘fulacht’ with heating water by using hot stones:

And it was their custom . . . with whatever they had killed . . . to kindle ranging fires theron, and put into them a large number of emery stone; and to dig two pits in the yellow clay . . . put some of the meat on spits to roast before the fire; and to bind another portion of it with sugáns in dry bundles, and to set it to boil in the larger of two pits, and keep plying them with the stones that were in the fire . . . until they were cooked.¹²

PL. II—The first cooking experiment carried out by M. J. O’Kelly at Ballyvourney, Co. Cork (after O’Kelly, Excavations and experiments in Irish cooking places’, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 84 (1954), 105–56). (A) Meat is wrapped in straw and placed into the trough, taking 35 minutes to bring 454 litres of water to boil. (B) It is allowed to cook for 3.5 hours after which time the meat is removed (C)and prepared for serving (D). (Reproduced by permission of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland.)

Over the years, however, several commentators have questioned the use of fulachtaí fia as cooking places, with the relevance of early literary sources such as the above now in doubt. The terminology used to describe these sites has also come under scrutiny. A connection with pyrolithic technology should no longer be considered appropriate, as medieval manuscripts such as the Yellow book of Lecan and the Book of Leinster refer to the word ‘fulacht’ as cooking on a spit rather than a pit in the ground.¹³ Based on similar sources, part of the cooking site’ theory has been an assumption that burnt mounds represent seasonal hunting camps used over a long period. On this basis, these sites should occur in suitable hunting environments such as uplands and wetlands, and predominantly contain faunal remains from wild animals, neither of which is the case. The majority of sites occur in low-lying agricultural land, while the faunal remains from recent excavations are dominated by domesticated animals.¹⁴ The radiocarbon evidence also questions the relevance of early literary sources as the great majority of these sites are a millennium or more earlier than the relevant texts. An analysis of the radiocarbon dates from Ireland demonstrates the use of pyrolithic water-boiling technology from the Early Neolithic onwards with a clear concentration of use during the Early to Middle Bronze Age.¹⁵ It is likely that the literary sources record a mythologising of these ancient sites in early medieval Ireland. These Irish legends concerning burnt mounds emerged long after open-air water-boiling went out of use, when their actual purpose had been forgotten, but while they were still prominent and common features of the landscape. This may have led to some early exploration of these sites, possibly in the course of farming activity, which invited people to invent imaginative stories in order to explain these enigmatic mounds. Whether related to cooking on a spit or in a boiling trough, the term fulacht’ and its derivatives probably do refer to some type of cooking activity. The term was probably adopted by later writers who recognised an ancient form of cooking from their understanding of the visible remains.¹⁶

These questions concerning function have been clarified in recent years as the number of excavations of this site type has increased due to modern infrastructural developments such as road and pipeline schemes. Many excavators now favour multifunctional interpretations due to the ubiquity of the technology and the different possible applications of hot water. Where deposits of burnt stone are found, arguments have been made for a wide range of activities, including cooking, bathing, brewing, metalworking, tanning, dying, washing and the fulling of textiles.¹⁷ The discovery of hut structures at a number of these sites has been connected to the use of steam lodges or sweat houses.¹⁸

The cooking interpretation has been challenged on several grounds, including:

• Absence of food waste (animal bone and environmental remains) or any artefacts associated with the processing of food;

• The often ambiguous nature of surviving archaeological remains;

• Uncertainties about the relevance of early literary accounts of fulacht fia type sites;

• Alternative uses of hot water;

• The laborious nature of pyrolithic processes for the purpose of cooking;

• The practicality of using certain rock types (limestone) for cooking in water-boiling process.

Those who favour alternative explanations have highlighted the limitations of excavation evidence of the cooking hypothesis. As a technology, however, hot stones may have been first used for cooking (roasting/steaming/ baking) during the Mesolithic period in Ireland.¹⁹ It is, however, during the Early Neolithic that pyrolithic deposits associated with boiling troughs and domestic faunal remains were first used.²⁰ This practice continued into the Bronze Age, when the tradition was at its strongest.

The rapid adoption of pyrolithic technology, however, was not based on a search for more efficient cooking techniques, but rather in the social context of its use. As Katherine Wright observed meals are everyday rituals of profound importance in social life, structuring daily social intercourse and reinforcing cultural values’.²¹ If cooking was indeed the primary function of fulachtaí fia, it should not be viewed as a mundane undertaking, but rather one that actively contributed to the constitution of social relations. It is only through recent road and pipeline schemes, and other commercial archaeology projects that we can begin to identify and systematically address research topics concerning fulachtaí fia. This large body of data has the potential to address many long-standing research questions, particularly relating to site function, an area where there has been much controversy.

Burnt mounds and pyrolithic cooking in Ireland

The acidic nature of Irish soils is often used to explain the scarcity of faunal remains recovered from burnt stone deposits. Others have argued that the absence of animal bone at fulachtaí fia may have been the result of ritual disposal of bones after consumption or scavenging animals, or that this meat may have been butchered and consumed at another location.²² Even where alkaline soils are conducive to the preservation of bone, the stone used for the pyrolithic process is often sandstone, which is acidic and so would affect the preservation of food waste.

An important development in recent years is the growing number of excavations that have produced animal bone, which has placed the focus once again on cooking. The current study has identified 263 sites out of 1,165 excavated examples with evidence of faunal remains. At 67 of these sites, the bone is described as burnt and it is often not clear whether it is animal or human, however the former is likely as human remains have only been recovered from a small number of fulacht fia sites in Ireland. This animal bone has been recovered from troughs (28%), pits (25%), mounds (32%) and other related features such as hearths, stake-/post-holes and deposits (12%). At 66 sites, bone has been obtained from more than two contexts on site, reducing the possibility that the material is intrusive. Therefore, a large proportion of animal bone finds from excavated fulachtai fia/burnt mounds can be regarded as securely associated with the use of these sites.

Out of 14,789 animal bone fragments recovered from fulachtaí fia since 1950, 3,973 can be identified to species with 67% of the remains identified as cattle followed by sheep/goat (11%), pig (8%), deer (6%), dog (5%) and horse (3%). Some 9,546 fragments could not be identified to species due to the high degree of fragmentation caused by taphonomic processes or as a result of burning (Fig. 1). Burnt bone accounts for a proportion of these unidentified remains and was only found by the bulk-sampling of certain features and deposits. This is certainly not carried out at every fulacht fia and even when the number of samples taken is reported, the size of the sample processed is limited. The recovery of burnt bone can vary depending on the way in which the site was excavated and the sampling procedure. In many instances, the mound material might be removed rapidly, whereas features such as the trough were excavated with greater care. The different recovery techniques employed during excavation may also give rise to different interpretations. This is certainly a factor in relation to fulachtaí fia investigated during road developments where, in many cases, only the base of features such as troughs and pits survive. The recovered faunal remains often survive in poor condition and assemblages are usually too small to put forward any reliable statistics on age/sex slaughter patterns. Most assemblages consist of less than ten fragments of bone, with the predominance of teeth reflecting poor preservation in acidic soil conditions (Fig. 2).

FIG. 1—Range of species identified from bone fragments recovered from excavated fulachtaí fia and burnt stone deposits in Ireland.

Not surprisingly, a larger number of bones were recovered from burnt mound deposits in alkaline environments, where limestone was used in the boiling process. This includes animal bone recovered from burnt mounds composed chiefly of limestone, including sites at Fahee South, Co. Clare; Inchagreenoge, Co. Limerick; and five fulachtaí fia excavated along the N18 Oranmore to Gort Road Scheme.²³ This is significant as the caustic nature of limestone, when heated and immersed in water, has been used as an argument against the interpretation of such sites as cooking places.²⁴ It has been observed that the quantities of calcium carbonate produced in the heating of water would not be harmful if the meat was protected and wrapped in vegetation or straw.²⁵ Limestone also has varying chemical and geological components depending on the source, so some limestone would react differently to others. Recent excavation records confirm that limestone was commonly used in fulachtaí fia at sites with animal bone waste and must have been regarded as suitable for cooking purposes.

FIG. 2—Range of fragment assemblages recovered from excavated fulachtaí fia and burnt stone deposits in Ireland.

Larger animal bone assemblages at a number of sites contribute significantly to our understanding of fulachtaí fia as possible cooking places. For example, an estimated 1,000 fragments of bone were recovered from a number of sites, including Inchirourke, Co. Tipperary; Inchaquire, Co. Kildare; and Inchagreenoge.²⁶ The faunal remains from the latter site include cattle, pig, horse and sheep/goat. The range of skeletal parts suggests that the animals were slaughtered, butchered and eaten on the site, and the age ranges are typical of animals raised for both meat and secondary products.²⁷ Evidence of butchery marks has been recorded at some 30 excavated fulachtaí fia but such marks are rarely identified due to the fragmentary nature of the surviving remains. Interestingly, the most common finds recovered from burnt stone sites are flaked and modified stone tools, some of which can be dated to the Bronze Age. The present study indicates that 268 sites contained such material, sometimes in great quantity and, in a number of cases, with numerous waste flakes that indicate flint-knapping.²⁸ Moreover, the presence, in these sites, of numerous flint and chert scrapers, along with blades and their associated resharpening debitage, suggests that processes relating to the butchery of animals and the processing of their meat could have taken place.

For example, a red deer humerus showing marks of butchery at Balgeeth, Co. Meath, clearly represents the remains of a shoulder of venison that was cooked at the site’.²⁹ Red deer was present in eight of the excavated fulachtaí fia along the Dunshaughlin Sewerage Scheme in County Meath and crudely smashed meat-bearing limb bones were present in all samples. The presence of long bones is associated with the exploitation of animals as a meat source, especially species such as cattle and sheep/goat.³⁰ This was the case at a cluster of fulachtaí fia excavated in the townlands of Kilbeg, Co. Westmeath; Caltragh, Co. Sligo; Caheraphuca, Co. Clare; Attireesh, Co. Mayo; Ballinacurra, Co. Limerick; and Athronan, Co. Meath. At Ballinrobe Demesne, Co. Mayo, the concentration of bones derived principally from the butchery of two cattle carcasses under two and a half years of age and the sample consists mostly of meat-producing upper limb bones.³¹ Auli Tourunen observed that the processing of a large carcass can be divided into three different stages: slaughter (including skinning and removal of the horn cores), primary butchery (carcass dismemberment) and secondary butchery (preparation for cooking).³² Furthermore, she states that bones with little meat around them, such as skulls, jaws and lower leg bones are usually abandoned or discarded in the initial place of slaughter. Their presence at some excavated sites, however, indicates that animals may have been slaughtered on site and not introduced as processed carcasses. At Burrow or Glennanummer 2, Co. Offaly, butchered animal bone was recovered from a compacted burnt stone platform revetted by a number of timber planks.³³ This platform was separated from the trough suggesting it may have functioned as an area for the slaughter and butchery of animals. Some stake-hole clusters found at fulachtaí fia sites have also been interpreted as possibly forming tripod arrangements for the raised butchery of animals or for the collection of blood.³⁴

Assuming that the representation of faunal remains reflects the economic and dietary situation, there is a clear indication of the importance of domestic cattle in the local economy during the Bronze Age. However, as was already stated, it is often not the only species present at fulachtaí fia, with other domestic and wild animals also used for food consumption. At sites such as Holdenstown, Co. Kilkenny; Sonnagh, Co. Mayo; and Correagh I, Co. Westmeath; pig dominated the assemblage with the latter site producing evidence of butchery in the form of a cut marks visible on the surface of the bone. Analysis of the faunal remains from Sonnagh showed that the pig jaw fragments could have all come from a single adult male aged between seventeen and nineteen months, suggesting that the animal was slaughtered during the autumn of its second year.³⁵ Similar conclusions were drawn from the pig remains at Ballinrobe Demesne.³⁶ All of the animal bone remains recovered from fulachtaí fia excavated at Killoran, Co. Tipperary, in advance of the Lisheen Mines project were identified as sheep.³⁷ However, as these remains survived in poor condition and were predominately from denser bone such as teeth, this may be a reflection of acidic soil conditions.

The hunting of red deer also seems to have played a significant role and while many of the samples contain antler fragments, the use of locally available wild deer is reflected in the butchered post-cranial bones. At Coolroe, Co. Mayo, red deer form the major part of the assemblage, accounts for 81% of the identifiable bones. The sample consisted mostly of antler fragments from adult male deer. In all, 91 fragments of red deer were identified, including antler, teeth and post-cranial remains. The presence of three unshed burrs, two chopped humeri, a pelvis with clear chop marks and butchered post-cranial bones indicates that the deer were hunted and eaten.³⁸ At Kilmessan, Co. Meath, the base of an antler set was attached to one of the skull fragments indicating that red deer was hunted before the males lost their antler in late spring.³⁹ Red deer remains are generally scarce on Bronze Age sites, but have been recovered from 39 fulachtaí fia and are particularly common in Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age contexts.

To date, no fulachtaí fia in Ireland have produced fish bone, which is surprising given the proximity of many sites to coastal areas, lakes, rivers and other large bodies of water. It has been suggested that pyrolithic technology was used in the cooking of marine molluscs in shallow roasting or steaming pits during the Late Mesolithic in Ireland.⁴⁰ The cooking of fish using a water-boiling technology during the Bronze Age is more difficult to establish. That said, fish bones recovered from a trough at Meur, Sanday, in the Orkney Isles is relevant, as the material within the trough was interpreted as a final deposit from the last boiling episode dated to 790–420 BC.⁴¹ Boiling fish in this manner, however, may not have been practical given the process involved. Interestingly, pottery sherds recovered from Meur, displayed signs of having been immersed in water and are comparable to examples found at Tangwick burnt mound excavated in Shetland.⁴² This raises the possibility that ceramic vessels may have been placed within boiling troughs in order to prepare these resources. While similar practices may have taken place at pyrolithic sites in Ireland, there is currently no supporting archaeological evidence. It is likely that if fish was cooked, it would have been more efficient to do so on hot stones or in some form of earth oven or steaming pit. Ethnographic accounts illustrate how a variety of fish and shellfish could be cooked using hot stones in this manner.⁴³

It might be assumed that the only evidence from excavated fulachtaí fia pertaining to cooking is the recovery of faunal remains. However, ‘cooking’ is a wide-ranging culinary term that incorporates many different foodstuffs and should not be viewed solely in relation to the preparation of meat. As discussed elsewhere, pyrolithic technology has been used in the past to cook a wide range of foodstuffs and given the use of hot stones for processing root foods in other cultures, the possibility exists that foods other than meat could have been processed using these methods in Bronze Age Ireland. Plant remains, however, are rarely recovered from burnt stone deposits and are less durable than bone, tending only to survive in ideal conditions. The discovery of charred and uncharred seeds and nuts at some excavated sites does indicate that plant gathering/processing/consumption may have been carried out at fulachtaí fia. Examples include Coolderry 2, Co. Tipperary, where a circular trough was divided in two by a single plank. A quantity of hazelnut shell was found in the smaller section of the trough.⁴⁴ The high volume of hazelnut shell present may indicate that it was being used at the site, rather than accruing naturally or accidentally occurring if hazel wood was being brought there. The excavator suggests that, as hazelnuts have an outer bitter skin, this could have been easily removed if boiled for a short period and immersed in cold water (blanched). Alternatively, the hazelnuts could have been boiled in order to extract the oil which could have been collected from the surface of the water.

Billy Quinn and Declan Moore have demonstrated through experimentation, that the use of hot stone boiling in a wooden trough is effective in the production of a highly nutritious beverage consisting of malted grain, water, yeast and herbal additives.⁴⁵ The success of the experiment combined with the suggestion that cereal grain may have been processed at fulachtaí fia using saddle querns of a type found in some sites led the authors to conclude that these sites functioned primarily as Bronze Age beer-processing sites. Although not supported by the discovery of processed cereals on these waterlogged sites, this emphasises that discussions relating to cooking and fulachtaí fia should incorporate liquid-based food produce.

Some attempt has been made to provide positive evidence of cooking through residue analysis, a process which has shown some success in relation to Bronze Age ceramics. The technique has been used, for instance, to test for lipids and was carried out on a number of potsherds found in a burnt mound in the Western Isles, in North Uist.⁴⁶ The remains were found to contain residual fat, probably from sheep. No such studies have been undertaken in Ireland, where pottery is only rarely found in fulachtaí fia. Lipid analysis has been carried out on soil samples taken from the fills of a number of burnt mound troughs⁴⁷ but the results of these analyses have been disappointing and further research is required.

Aslton Thoms suggests that two kinds of alterations occur from the heating of stone.⁴⁸ Firstly, the stone undergoes a physical change—cracking and colour change. Secondly, the affected stone absorbs other materials such as food residues, charcoals and ashes which is attested to by the blackening of many stones uncovered during excavation. This creates the possibility that lipids may become trapped within the heated stone itself during the process as they would often be in direct contact with the meat itself or the fats which are being expressed. As a result of this, there is considerable promise in the identification of plant chemical signatures and microfossils lipids on firecracked stone associated with pyrolithic features.

Luann Wandsnider’s study of food composition and heat treatment provides significant information with regard to the application of pyrolithic technology.⁴⁹ She explains that lean meats are boiled to restore moisture, which will assist the action of digestive enzymes. Moreover, fatty meat tissues may be boiled in order to promote lipid hydrolysis and to melt and express tissue lipids, which may then be recovered and used for other purposes. This was recently highlighted in relation to Irish water-boiling sites.⁵⁰ Experimentation has also demonstrated that fats generally rise to the surface of the water during boiling.⁵¹ These may have been collected or skimmed off the surface as a secondary by-product and used for other purposes such as leather-processing, waterproofing of woollen garments, preservation, and possibly for making rushlights.⁵² The collection of these secondary by-products from troughs, however, cannot currently be supported with evidence, but remains a possibility.

Boiling meat is also seen as an efficient cooking method by which to conserve fat in meat and bone, as opposed to roasting it on an open fire, which can be wasteful.⁵³ Extracted fat could also have been used for nutrition when dealing with unpredictable food resources.⁵⁴ Evidence for marrow extraction is also evident from the excavations recorded; however, if bone is subjected to high boiling temperatures, marrow becomes molten and could melt through the foramen.⁵⁵ Boiling was an essential technique used to extract bone grease by Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe. The process involved smashing the bone into small pieces and boiling it resulting in large numbers of small pieces of spongy bone accompanied by larger shaft splinters. The fragmentary nature of much of the bone remains from fulachtaí fia could account for this process taking place; however, this hypothesis remains tentative at best.

The number of animal bones recorded at fulachtaí fia in Ireland need not imply that the cooking of animals was of minor importance at these sites. The evidence from many recent excavations strongly suggests that cooking was the primary function of a large proportion of burnt mounds. The formal organisation of some sites (as evidenced from mound revetments and the deliberate placement of certain features), their often continuous use and separateness within the contemporary settled landscape, suggests that cooking perhaps took place within a cycle of feasting events and not as a daily routine.

Cooking facilities

A number of possible cooking features can be proposed for fulachtaí fia based on the surviving archaeological remains and parallels in the ethnographic and archaeological record elsewhere in mainland and north-western Europe. A. H. Smith described six basic types of cook-stone’ facilities common in North America,⁵⁶ versions of which were used by hunter-gatherers throughout the Northern Rockies and beyond. These include: (1) an earth oven in a shallow pit with rocks heated therein; (2) an earth oven in a shallow pit with rocks heated in a nearby hearth; (3) a surface oven or hearth with rocks heated therein; (4) a steaming pit with rocks heated in a nearby hearth; (5) stone boiling in a pit with rocks heated in a nearby hearth; and (6) stone boiling in above-ground containers with rocks heated in a nearby hearth.

Pit features accompanying burnt stone deposits in Ireland may have functioned in a similar manner. Two types of cooking, differentiated by heat transfer, may be proposed namely moist-heat cooking and dry-heat cooking. Identifying the purpose of different pits is complicated by the considerable variation in size and morphology. This is illustrated by the multitude of diverse pits identified in recent years filled with deposits of burnt and fire-cracked stones. While these hot-rock cooking methods may have varied considerably, they generally involved some version of roasting, steaming or boiling. Repeated use of a given place also resulted in a large mound or mounds of waste-firing material and may sometimes contain multiple types of cooking apparatus. It is not uncommon for unlined pits of varying sizes to accompany timber-lined troughs. In many cases, these features do not display evidence for in situ burning making interpretation difficult. The occurrence of oxidised and burnt sediments, as well as charcoal, may be indicative of earth ovens or steaming pits. In contrast, the absence of evidence for in situ fires may be indicative of charcoal-less earth ovens, steaming pits and stone-boiling pits where hot stones were transported from adjacent hearths.⁵⁷

Water-boiling troughs

Water-boiling troughs are generally sunken pits, usually located adjacent to hearths and often lined with stone or timber (Pl. III). The current study indicates that 1,482 pit features out of a total of 3,271 excavated in Irish fulachtaí fia between 1950 and 2010 can be interpreted as water troughs. Almost half (48%) are rectangular in plan. Seven different lining methods have been observed, including stone, planking, roundwood, wattle, clay, hollowed-out logs or a combination of these materials. A further 298 pits exhibit stake-holes, cutting the base and sides suggesting the presence of a former organic lining that no longer survives. These stake-holes can be interpreted as internal supports for wooden side walling. Eight hundred and fourteen trough pits are unlined although the use of an organic lining may have been more common than the archaeological record would suggest.⁵⁸ Problems of poor preservation make it difficult to quantify the frequency of wooden troughs, although this seems to have been the most common material used.

PL. III—A water-boiling experiment carried out in a reconstructed timber-lined trough. (Courtesy of Irish National Heritage Park, Ferrycarrig, Co. Wexford.)

Twelve examples contain evidence for internal trough divisions or compartments, possibly used to separate materials from the fired stone during the boiling process. This was the case at sites such as Coolderry 2; Ballycroughan, Co. Down; Dromnevane, Co. Kerry; Gortaroe, Co. Mayo; and Currinah, Co. Roscommon.⁵⁹ These divisions have been noted in different trough forms composed of wattle, timber planks or stone slabs. The site evidence suggests that water filled both compartments therefore ruling out a connection with dry heat such as roasting. It is apparent that these trough divisions were an important and integral part of their function. However, as the actual nature of that function is elusive, one possible interpretation is that these divisions were constructed in order to separate hot stones and other debris from the food produce being cooked in the trough. For instance, at Gortaroe, the wattle partition marked a divide between the stone and peaty fills of the trough and between the preserved wood and the half with very little wood.⁶⁰ There was also a noted difference in the two separate fills of a stone-lined partitioned trough at Aughinida, Co. Cork.⁶¹

While water was heated in unlined pits, the addition of a timber or stone lining allowed for a more efficient way of water-boiling in that it maintained the pit structure in wet soil conditions and facilitated regular emptying of heatshattered stone from the trough. The use of moss as bedding layers under plank bases may also have allowed for the filtering of water, which was tainted by surrounding boggy environments. Water channels are also associated with troughs and while some of these functioned as overflow drainage features, a number of troughs have been identified with accompanying pits at lower levels connected by short channels. These may have functioned as emptying receptacles, allowing standing or sullied water to be released from the trough pit and replenished with fresh water.⁶² The placement of some troughs over and adjacent to natural springs would also seem to indicate a preference for fresh, clean water for operations within the trough. This demonstrates that some degree of planning/local knowledge may have been involved in the placement of pits, in terms of the capacity to identify suitable positions for their location.

Dry-roasting and steaming pits

Pits are the most common feature revealed at excavated fulachtaí fia and are often found in great numbers. They are also connected with a different class of site where dry heat was employed exclusively, with one or more pits and a small spread of waste-firing material the only archaeological features present. While lined pits functioned as water-heating receptacles, the insubstantial nature of other pit features on these sites makes it unlikely they were used for the purpose of boiling water. Pits cut into sandy soil at other sites would also have made water-boiling impossible without the use of a lining.

The interpretation of such pits is complicated by the fact that many of those identified were not in use at the same time and may have developed sporadically over the life of a site. The majority (70%) are circular or oval in plan. A total of 73 (4%) pits display evidence of burning/oxidisation at the base or are lined with stone suggesting they may have functioned as primitive ovens or roasting pits with an in situ fire, while other pits may have used an external fire to heat the stones (Pl. IV). This type of cooking generally involved an unlined pit in which hot stones were evenly distributed and covered by a layer of plant material that served as a base for the food produce. Additional layers of hot stones and plant material were then added, depending on the amount of food being cooked, before being covered by earth. A fire may also have been lit on the surface of the covered pit, depending again on the food type.

Steaming pits would have functioned in a similar manner to earth ovens, the only difference being a small hole in the earthen lid made by a small stick inserted into the pit prior to its filling. As the pit was covered over, the stick was removed. Water was then poured through the small aperture, which was sealed promptly to insure that steam and vapour did not escape. Thoms has written extensively on the use of hot rocks in western North America, whereby prolonged cooking is required to hydrolyse inulin-rich roots adequately, as well as to detoxify plant foods in order to render them more readily digestible and nutritious.⁶³

PL. IV—Left: Possible roasting pit filled with burnt stone at Kilbeg 4, Co. Westmeath. Right: Another possible roasting pit at Tinnock Lower, Co. Wexford. (Courtesy of Fintan Walsh, IAC Ltd and Kevin Martin, VJK Ltd.)

Experimentation

The use of pyrolithic technology needs further explanation to help to put into context the application of cooking at these sites. This may provide a basis for the interpretation of archaeological remains representative of different cooking facilities. For example, useful data pertaining to how pits functioned at fulachtaí fia can be extracted from individual pieces of burnt stone.⁶⁴ Thermal-weathering studies have revealed information on how certain heat-affected stones may have been used. It is suggested that rapid cooling (associated with stone-boiling) causes more damage to a stone than prolonged exposure to heat (associated with a roasting oven). The latter was thought to cause less damage because it slowly returned a hot, expanded rock to its original form. It was, therefore, concluded that large rocks (larger than 10cm in diameter) were preferred in earth ovens and rock griddles because they stored heat for longer periods of time.⁶⁵ Small rocks (less than 10cm in diameter) were avoided in this cooking method because they had a higher ratio of surface area to mass, which caused them to lose heat more rapidly than larger stones.⁶⁶ Therefore, it was argued that small rocks were preferred for stone-boiling because of their better resistance to thermal shock and because they were easier to handle. Based on his own experiments, Michael M. Jackson argues that the length of time of exposure to high temperatures is more important to thermal weathering than is shock cooling’.⁶⁷ For him, the length of heat exposure rather than the rate of cooling causes the highest magnitude of thermal stress to a stone.

The dominance of sandstone in many burnt mounds is significant in this regard. Stephen Mandel observed that coarse-grained rock types are better in terms of the absorption and discharge of heat, whereas fine-grained rock types do not absorb heat in the same manner.⁶⁸ The temperature of the fire would also fluctuate depending on the fuel used, therefore, the reaction of some rocks to the heat and water could vary depending on external factors. The selection of sandstone highlights the attention given to different petrologies in terms of their thermal properties for the purpose of water-boiling. As observed by Jackson, the type of stone used is important because its strength will determine the response of a rock to the various types of cooking and heating facilities.⁶⁹ It is likely, therefore, that rocks were selected for durability and for their response to specific requirements.

John Ó Néill suggested that it may be possible to establish a direct relationship between the temperature of the fire in which the stones are heated and the volume of the stone required to heat water to cook the meat.⁷⁰ O’Kelly demonstrated that it took 35 minutes to bring 454l of water to the boil, and 3 hours and 40 minutes to cook a 4.5kg leg of lamb wrapped in straw. After this experiment, the amount of broken stone that had resulted from it was measured and found to be 0.5m³.⁷¹ Ó Néill demonstrated that at Ballyvourney, the total heat transfer required to cook meat was probably around 280°C, assuming that the hearth reached temperatures of around 600°C. He also acknowledged that this is not particularly helpful for discriminating between particular thermal regimes. While there is a known rate of increase of rock temperatures and water/stone ratio and the discolouration provided by fires in which the stones would be heated, the apparent ubiquity of hearths placed on humic soils makes a direct correlation between the volume of stone used and pit capacities quite complex.⁷² An unknown factor in this analysis is the degree to which the stone deposit in the trough is representative of the final use of the pit. Once immersed in water, the stones required between five and ten minutes to transfer all their heat to the water. O’Kelly for instance had noted that once these stones had lost their heat, they could easily be extracted, reheated and reused. It is also difficult to establish how much of the trough was emptied after its final use.

Burnt stone equals fulacht fia?

The variations in size and layout of burnt mound sites excavated on infrastructural projects may partly be explained by post-depositional disturbance in more recent times. At the same time, one should acknowledge that the variations may be a manifestation of an adaptation of pyrolithic processes to changes in use for whatever reason (see below).⁷³ We can no longer view these sites as simply representing water-boiling activities associated with a single trough and a mound of burnt stone. Understanding the type of cooking depends on an ability to differentiate between different types of heating process, such as heat transfer by moisture where the heat is transferred through water, and dry heat where the heat is transferred through the air, as in an earth oven or roasting pit.

The most identifiable materials associated with pyrolithic technology are deposits of thermally altered stone and one or more pits associated with dry heat or water-boiling. In light of recent excavations, two main variants can be identified; burnt spreads/mounds that have troughs and those that do not. The former can be subdivided into sites with single troughs, multiple troughs, connected troughs, troughs with structures or sites with single pits, no pits or multiple pits. This allows distinctions to be drawn between the different types of site employing pyrolithic technology. It may be that the innate complexity of fulachtaí fia cannot be adequately reflected or accommodated within basic site classifications. The available evidence also makes classification difficult due to the disturbed nature of the archaeological record and limitations with respect to excavation extent. Notwithstanding this, there would appear to be a reasonably strong case to argue that some fulachtaí fia had different uses to others, and that this is not a clearly defined monument type but one with considerable variability in terms of practices and features.

Taking into account site disturbance and partial excavation, it is apparent from sites excavated as a result of infrastructural development that a high percentage of burnt stone deposits did not accumulate to such a height that they could be referred to as mounds’. As outlined by Susan Ripper and Mathew Beamish, there is a clear distinction between the heating of water and dry-roasting as one-off episodes leaving perhaps solitary pits with no related spread of burnt stone, and the formalisation of such a sites as mounds or monuments’ that is intentionally defined, used, revisited and sometimes redefined over a period of time.⁷⁴ As troughs are marked by an accumulation of burnt stone, these mounds would have been visible in certain locations where they influenced the understanding of settlement space. The revisiting of fulachtaí fia, and specifically the reuse and relining of individual troughs, shows that the locations of these sites were an enduring element in the landscape, even if the activity at each site was episodic. Similarly, the construction of what might have been multiple numbers of cooking pits and/ or hearths at any given time could have invoked a sense of community around a persistent place in the landscape. The act of deposition itself may also have been significant as fired debris could have been mounded to deliberately mark a particular location. Equally, it may have been about connections to specific parts of the landscape and particular ways of doing things in those places. As Vicki Cummings observes in relation to shell midden deposits, it may have been about a connection to a place, a connection that may well have existed in relation to other sites but that was expressed in a different way.⁷⁵ This is not the case at other sites employing a similar technology for brief boiling or roasting episodes on a small scale. As a result, a case can be made for the use of sites over longer periods forming mounds as well as smaller sites leaving less significant deposits. This indicates that a number of distinctions can be made in relation to the site type as a whole.

These smaller deposits of fired stone and charcoal with an accompanying pit or pits were probably used for water-boiling, steaming or dry-roasting. Some sites are simply composed of isolated pits filled with deposits of burnt stone and charcoal, also indicative of pyrolithic processes, but are without substantial deposits of waste material. It has been demonstrated elsewhere that pits of this nature were used as ovens or roasting pits related to dry heat without the substantial use of water (see below). Similar sites have been found in Britain along comparable road, pipeline and other development schemes.⁷⁶ As such, these features have not been widely discussed as separate distinct entities in Britain and Ireland, with many simply being classified as burnt mound’ or ‘pot-boiler’. These site types do not represent the same level of communal social investment as other fulachtaí fia, but are still located in areas of persistent burnt-mound activity where larger, more sustained pyrolithic water-boiling and related processes took place. These lesser sites, employing the same technology must relate to less intensive use compared to the larger burnt mounds. This was the case at sites such as Coolfin 4, Co. Laois,⁷⁷ and Ardbraccan 3, Co. Meath,⁷⁸ where we see the remains of well-defined troughs with evidence of timber linings and no related mounds. At other sites where this social investment was not undertaken, small unlined pits were used for short-term boiling/roasting/ steaming. This may imply that the size and lining of a trough pit partly depended on whether a particular location was deemed important enough for prolonged pyrolithic activity where sufficient resources were locally available. It is reasonable to suggest that these smaller pyrolithic sites were not used for larger communal-based gatherings, but may instead relate to smaller familial or even hunting-party meals organised on an ad hoc basis.⁷⁹ The latter may be supported by the recovery of wild animal remains such as those uncovered at sites such as Balgeeth (see above).

This suggests that some tasks, including the preparation and consumption of food, were not confined to any one category of burnt mound site, but took place at many different locations in combination with more specialised activities. At some of the larger burnt mounds, it is conceivable that the archaeological remains represent places that people returned to regularly over a long period. Although difficult to establish, they could represent the remains of a single family usage at a given time or a larger community.

Social context of pyrolithic cooking in Bronze Age Ireland

As Iona Anthony suggests, the function of burnt mounds need not necessarily be seen solely in terms of the practical use of these sites.⁸⁰ It is important to acknowledge the importance of these sites socially. For example, two sites might have the same primary use (cooking) but might have served different purposes (communal feasting or family feasting) within the community. These social contexts, along with the socialising component of these gatherings, should not be overlooked in relation to discussions on site function. Food played an essential role in assemblies, as it does in social circumstances today, and would not have been eaten simply for sustenance. Social groups select foodstuffs and organise meals in accordance with cultural norms, and the process may involve historically determined social patterns, such as how the food is prepared.

In this respect, the laborious nature of the process (to the modern observer) suggests that cooking food in this manner may have been largely social, connected to special events and feasting. A review of various experimental work and the historical and ethnographic evidence for similar practices provides an insight into the real time requirements for undertaking pyrolithic processes. This amounts to:

• Preparing a boiling apparatus (including lining if required);

• Collecting firewood and suitable stones;

• Preparation of raw food;

• Lighting of fires and heating of stones;

• Heat transfer process and maintenance of fire and water temperatures.

Ó Néill observed that, in total, this can represent anything from three to four hours to as many as seven or eight hours or more in duration, depending on the anticipated result.⁸¹ This is a substantial amount of time (compared to everyday residential food production) for an activity that seems to have been undertaken on a sporadic basis. In that sense, burnt mounds may have represented significant places in which people engaged in different forms of social reproduction and the transfer of knowledge.⁸²

Pyrolithic activity areas were open-air sites and almost exclusively unenclosed leaving the boundaries between where people lived and communal space (where burnt mounds typically occur) unstructured and highly visible. As Kerri Cleary has outlined in relation to external activity areas within Bronze Age settlements:

there are less obvious ways in which settlements can be spatially organised, e.g. through the location of external hearths and pits . . . which may have been equally important in creating social spaces where people came together to meet, undertake specific tasks and deposit particular artefacts.⁸³

The use of these external activity areas as the foci for social activities could also be expanded to include pyrolithic sites, which are frequently found in the environs of settlements. Their exclusive occurrence in specifically designated areas within the settled landscape suggests a clear separation where particular places were selected for the application of pyrolithic technology, thereby creating socially distinctive spaces within the environs of settlement locations. As mentioned previously, the reuse and relining of individual troughs shows that the locations of these sites were a fixed and permanent element of the landscape, even if the activity at each site was episodic. In a few cases, it may be that localised fluctuations in water-table levels dictated the use pattern but these sites mostly functioned as a collective facility to be used as required in different social contexts.

Eoin Grogan in his work on the North Munster Project, and later in collaboration with Lorna O’Donnell and Penney Johnston, suggests that the sheer numbers of fulachtaí fia across Ireland indicate that they operated at a communal and possibly even a familial social scale, while their size suggests that they were the focus of relatively small groups.⁸⁴ In relation to cooking, they may have provided the context for gatherings of kin and neighbours in order to prepare and share food as part of a regular social round, probably on special days and occasions that engendered bonding within local communities, outside the formality of other ceremonies and rituals that may have also taken place at these sites (see below). Wright suggests that storage and food preparation were highly visible activities and would have presented opportunities for social contact between different settlement areas, with the possibility that some facilities may have been shared by several groups.⁸⁵ While this should only remain speculative based on current evidence, it remains a possibility nonetheless.

By the Middle Bronze Age functionally and spatially distinct domestic sites were a common feature of the settled landscape. The widespread use of pyrolithic technology would imply that fulachtaí fia were an integral part of this settlement pattern. The location of many burnt mounds within these settlement locales, some immediately adjacent to habitations, might question their significance as communal feasting places.⁸⁶ Some may have operated on a small scale, where family groups prepared and shared food as part of a regular social round. However, as outlined by Ronan Toolis in relation to a burnt mound on Sanday, small landholding groups may not have had sufficient resources to produce meat for consumption on a regular basis.⁸⁷ The provision of communal feasts by different landholding units at different times, may have offered members of the wider community the opportunity to consume meat on a more frequent basis than that of which each individual landholding unit was capable. This would have maintained social cohesion through reciprocal relationships between individual groups within the wider community and may explain the deliberate planning and careful construction of some sites with stone-built hearths and large, lined troughs with substantial structural coverings (Pl. V). Examples such as Scartbarry and Carrignafoy, both in Co. Cork, Cloughjordan, Co. Tipperary, and Coolmoohan, Co. Cork, might have provided appropriate settings for communal feasts given the size of the water-boiling troughs capable of cooking large amounts of food during a single event.⁸⁸ The communal aspect of feasting is further supported by the spatial association of many fulachtaí fia with stone circles and other ritual monuments from later periods of the Bronze Age.⁸⁹ This suggests that the familial, domestic’, communal’ and ceremonial’ use of the technology were not mutually exclusive and all operated concurrently. These specialised structures should also, at least in part, be attributed to the cost of hosting competitive display feasts. Consumption of high-cost animals, lavish displays or deliberate deposition of particular objects are the hallmarks of competitive displays.⁹⁰ In addition to these structures with internal trough, there is also the possibility that a number of dry-walled structures of the Middle to Late Bronze Age in some upland areas of the country were constructed for similar cooking activities.⁹¹ A site at Garranes, in the Beara Peninsula, Co. Cork, provided evidence for two separate phases of activity that began with a typical fulacht fia using the hot-stone/water-boiling technique. This was replaced when a possible roofed structure was constructed over the site for use as a possible cooking house for dry-roasting.⁹² The site provided clear evidence for a change in cooking methods, from open-air water-boiling during the Middle Bronze Age, to more specialised activity in a roofed structure during the Late Bronze Age, possibly involving dry-roasting.

PL. V—Left: Large trough, hearth and structure at Scartbarry, Co. Cork. (Courtesy of Ken Hanley, National Roads Authority.) Right: Possible ‘sweat lodge’ at Rathpatrick, Co. Kilkenny. (Courtesy of Trish Long, Rubicon Heritage Services Ltd.)

The production of steam may have led to new applications of pyrolithic technology during the latter part of the Middle Bronze Age. While water-boiling, and to a lesser extent dry-roasting, remained important throughout the second millennium BC, the use of the technology for the creation of steam may have been limited to certain elements of society.⁹³ This evidence is very limited but a range of distinguishing characteristics may be tentatively identified. These include the presence of a large circular pit, c. 5m in diameter and internally cut by stake-holes indicating the presence of a tented structure. Examples include Rathpatrick and Ballykeoghan, Co. Kilkenny, and Burrow or Glennanummer,⁹⁴ sites that have been interpreted as the remains of sweat lodges where water was poured onto hot stones in order to create steam inside small tented structures. Given the rarity of such sites in the archaeological record, these facilities may have been used intermittently for special purposes throughout the year, possibly for ritual cleansing that had a seasonal aspect. The social aspect of the steam lodge is also important and may have been a focus for the gathering of specific groups at periods during the year. This is significant in terms of our wider understanding of the use of pyrolithic technology in prehistoric Ireland.

Fulachtaí fia as feasting locations?

The significance of fulachtaí fia in terms of social gatherings may have been connected with feasting events linked to special occasions such as births, weddings, deaths and rites of passage, as well as religious festivities and significant events in the agricultural calendar. While the ethnographic and archaeological literature contains numerous accounts of feasting in other parts of the world, there have been few attempts to examine evidence of feasting in an Irish prehistoric context due to the limited excavation record and poor preservation of animal bone remains. As a social phenomenon feasting is complex and often difficult to define.⁹⁵ In most cases, prehistoric faunal assemblages in Ireland do not provide clear indications of ceremonial feasting.⁹⁶ Mount has argued that the animal bone assemblage discovered in front of the passage tomb at Newgrange, Co. Meath, is indicative of feasting practices,⁹⁷ while similar practices connected to burial ceremony have been identified at a number of excavated megalithic tombs in Ireland.⁹⁸

The feast is seen as being less frequent, undertaken outside the residential areas at some significant location and as following its own distinctive rules in relation to such matters as food choice.⁹⁹ Brian Hayden observed that feasting can be broadly defined as the sharing of special food on special occasions’, while Katheryn Twiss defines feasts as occasions consciously distinguished from everyday meals, often by a greater number of participants and a larger supply of food’.¹⁰⁰ Furthermore, she suggests that the modes of preparation, the discarding of food waste and the locational framing of the event may also mark certain feasting occasions.¹⁰¹ Certainly, fulachtaí fia would have been prime locations for such activities, as they were often separated from the home base (but within the environs of contemporary settlements), while the method of cooking is differently applied, notably the use of a pyrolithic technology using an indirect heat rather than a direct one.

The size of certain excavated troughs also (up to 5m in length) indicates large-scale boiling episodes for the cooking of large amounts of meat. Niall Roycroft observed that during the Bronze Age, small farming communities/ families with several small herds may have had a surplus of 10–20 beasts that were not worth feeding, or that could not be fed through the winter.¹⁰² He proposed that fulachtaí fia may have been used for large-scale processing of butchered carcases. While evidence pertaining to the preservation of meat during this period is limited, the consumption of large amounts during a single event is nevertheless possible. It is more difficult to establish, however, whether this meat was consumed on site or taken elsewhere. The division of a carcass within a group could also have been used as a means of reinforcing social order at mealtimes, with higher-quality cuts restricted to those of higher social standing.¹⁰³ Anthony J. Pollard observes that ‘animals are woven into the fabric of social life through their ubiquitous presence and involvement in the creation and maintenance of social relations as a medium of exchange, feasting and offering’.¹⁰⁴ Ethnographic accounts confirm that in many indigenous societies cattle symbolise wealth, power and prestige, and their meat was only consumed during feasting rituals.¹⁰⁵ It is noteworthy in this regard that cattle dominate the animal bone assemblages from burnt stone deposits of Bronze Age date in Ireland.

It has also been noted that there is a strong association between feasting and ritual activity. As Andrew Fleming observed, a ritual area should provide a focal point for the activities of the principals, and should ideally be large enough to hold the participants and preferably designed to circumscribe them in some way.¹⁰⁶ Owing to waterlogging at many burnt mound sites, the available working space may have been limited to a small number of people. Nevertheless, these spaces could still have been important to the performance of feasting ceremonies; indeed, the entire area around some troughs may have been symbolically charged. The identification of trackways and stone surfaces implies the movement of people around the central working space of a site, and the exclusive placement of the hearth and mound material on the shorter ends of the trough imposes limits on the movement of people in certain areas.¹⁰⁷ This may imply that these considerations had important bearings on the use of the surrounding space, particularly where large-scale feasting involved a large audience looking into the central working space. Such concerns regarding site organisation could go some way to explaining the reason for some burnt mounds being open at one end in a horseshoe formation.

Feasts are often marked by the production and display of commemorative items, which not only commemorate the feast but retain some of its ritual power.¹⁰⁸ The careful deposition of objects, as part of non-funerary rituals at the site may bear witness to such episodes taking place. The occurrence of votive offerings, such as hoards, foundation or closing deposits is a feature of the broader contemporary landscape in the Bronze Age.¹⁰⁹ While the types of objects found in hoards and votive deposits are rarely encountered at burnt mounds, evidence of special deposits at these sites is now evident in the archaeological record. These include items of stone, metal, animal and human bone and wood, some of which are comparable to structured deposition at Bronze Age settlements.¹¹⁰

The considerable effort required to carry out pyrolithic water-boiling implies high cost and hence importance of these possible feasting events for communities. It must be admitted, however, that the association of feasting and fulachtaí fia should be viewed with caution until confirmed by future excavations and scientific studies of faunal remains. No single data set is likely to be diagnostic of feasting, especially since many sites lack several of the material correlates described above. However, special occasions may have warranted gatherings for feasting and the importance of such events is supported by specialised structures, large troughs, animal bone assemblages and deliberate deposits from a number of sites.

Conclusion

While this paper considered cooking as the primary purpose of burnt mounds and pyrolithic processes in Bronze Age Ireland, other interpretations have emerged in recent years. The difficulty is that few can be supported by any firm empirical evidence, and through reiteration in the literature, many archaeologists have come to accept these ideas as established fact.

This paper has raised several points with regard to the use of pyrolithic technology in different social settings in Bronze Age Ireland. In the past, function was often conceived in terms of the evidence provided from the early literary sources, however there is now considerable archaeological evidence to support early suggestions that fulachtaí fia were used as cooking areas. A review of ethnographic studies of hot-stone cooking features provides possible points of comparison, especially with regard to how various unlined pits may have served as cooking facilities. However, this should not exclude a small number of secondary uses, as the technology was also possibly connected with steam-bathing at different times during the Bronze Age. Our understanding of fulachtaí fia, and how they operated in the daily life and work routines of Bronze Age society, must also be placed against the nature of the excavated evidence of recent years. The archaeological excavation of burnt stone sites in Ireland has largely focused on the results from road and pipeline developments where sites have been severely damaged.

The rapid adoption of pyrolithic technology in Bronze Age Ireland was not based on a search for more efficient cooking techniques, but rather on the social contexts of its use. It has been argued elsewhere that pyrolithic water-boiling technology of the Early Neolithic may have operated on a communal level associated with specialised feasting activities.¹¹¹ It could equally be argued that some burnt mounds of the Bronze Age became a symbolic focus of group unity from the later third millennium BC. While small deposits of burnt stone with associated pits may be typical of ad hoc cooking episodes representing a different scale of pyrolithic activity, the larger mounds are marked by a higher level of labour mobilisation and possibly, some degree of inter-group cooperation. Instead of isolated hunting camps, we should expect these sites to be located within the environs of a contemporary settlement, with the occupants returning regularly. As a result it is possible to see the importance of the community in Bronze Age Ireland in the social dynamics of fulachtaí fia use and their presence in the landscape.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor William O’Brien for reading earlier versions of this paper, and for his encouragement throughout my doctoral research. My thanks also to the National Roads Authority (NRA), the relevant archaeological companies and excavation directors who supplied information for this study and the National Monuments Service, Ferrycarrig National Heritage Park, Ken Hanley (NRA), Trish Long (Rubicon Heritage Services), Fintan Walsh (Irish Archaeological Consultancy Ltd) and Kevin Martin for permission to reproduce their photographs. Finally, I would like to thank the editors of this volume, the anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and Lucy Hogan for her patience and support.

* Author’s e-mail: alanhawkes@gmail.com
doi: 10.3318/PRIAC.2015.115.13

¹ Richard Smiddy, The druids, ancient churches, and round towers of Ireland (Dublin, 1873), 52.

² Aslton V. Thoms, ‘Rocks of ages: propagation of hot-rock cookery in western North America’, Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009), 573–91.

³ Sandra L. Peacock, ‘From complex to simple: balsam root, inulin, and the chemistry of traditional interior Salish pit-cooking technology’, Botany 86 (1998), 116–28.

⁴ Luann Wandsnider, ‘The roasted and the boiled: food composition and heat treatment with special emphasis on pit-hearth cooking’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16 (1997), 1–48.

⁵ Lawrence Barfield and Michael A. Hodder, ‘Burnt mounds as saunas and the prehistory of bathing’, Antiquity 61 (1987), 370–9.

⁶ Hallam L. Movius, ‘The hearths of the upper Perigordian and Aurignacian horizons at the Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies (Dordogne), and their possible significance’, American Anthropology 68 (1966), 296–325; Yuichi Nakazawa, Lawrence G. Straus, Mauel R. Gonzales-Morales, David C. Solana and Jorge C. Saiz, ‘On stone-boiling technology in the Upper Paleolithic: behavioural implications from an Early Magdalenian hearth in El Mirón Cave, Cantabria, Spain’, Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009), 684–93.

⁷ Alston V. Thoms, ‘The fire stones carry: ethnographic records and archaeological expectations for hot-rock cookery in western North America’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008), 443–60; J. Johnson, ‘Fire in the hole: archaeological analysis and interpretation of the Barnett Site (41 MI 77), a burned rock midden on Pecan Bayou in Mills County, Texas’, unpublished MA thesis, Texas Tech University, 2009.

⁸ Alan Hawkes, ‘The beginnings and evolution of the fulacht fia tradition in early prehistoric Ireland’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 114 C (2014), 89–139.

⁹ Alan Hawkes, ‘Medieval fulachtaifia in Ireland? An archaeological assessment’, The Journal of Irish Archaeology 20 (2012), 77–100.

¹⁰ Michael J. O’Kelly, ‘Excavations and experiments in Irish cooking places’, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 84 (1954), 105–56.

¹¹ D. Ó Drisceoil, ‘Fulachta fiadh: a study’, unpublished MA thesis, University College Cork, 1980.

¹² Patrick S. Dineen, The history of Ireland: Foras Feasa ar Éirinn by G. Keating (London, 1908).

¹³ Fergus Kelly, Early Irish farming (Dublin, 2000); John Ó Néill, ‘Lapidibus in igne calefactis coquebatur: the historical burnt mound tradition’, The Journal of Irish Archaeology 12/13 (2005), 79–85.

¹⁴ A. Tourunen, Fauna and fulachta fiadh: animal bones from burnt mounds on the N9/N10 Carlow Bypass, National Roads Authority Monograph Series No. 5 (Dublin, 2008).

¹⁵ A. Hawkes, Prehistoric burnt mound archaeology in Ireland’, unpublished PhD thesis, University College Cork, 2014.

¹⁶ Hawkes, ‘Medieval fulachtaí fia in Ireland? An archaeological review’, 87.

¹⁷ Stephen Jeffery, Burnt mounds, fulling and early textiles’, in Michael A. Hodder and Lewis H. Barfield (eds), Burnt mounds and hot stone technology. Papers from the Second International Burnt Mound Conference (Sandwell, West Mids, 1991), 97–108; B. Quinn and D. Moore, Fulachta fiadh and the beer experiment, National Roads Authority, Monograph Series No. 6 (Dublin, 2009), 43–53.

¹⁸ Barfield and Hodder, Burnt mounds as saunas and the prehistory of bathing’, 370–9; James Eogan, Cleansing body and soul’, Seanda 2 (2007), 38–9.

¹⁹ A. Little, ‘Tasks, temporalities and textures: reconstructing the social topography of an Irish Mesolithic lakescape’, unpublished PhD thesis, University College Dublin, 2010; Peter C. Woodman, Elizabeth Anderson and Nicky Finlay (eds), Excavations at Ferriter’s Cove 1983–95: last foragers, first farmers in the Dingle Peninsula (Wicklow, 1999), 125. Aimeé Little, ‘Clonava Island revisited: a story of cooking, plants and reoccupation during the Irish Late Mesolithic’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 114C (2014), 35–55.

²⁰ Hawkes, The beginnings and evolution of the fulacht fia tradition in early prehistoric Ireland’, 96.

²¹ Katherine I. Wright, The social origins of cooking and dining in early villages of western Asia’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 2 (2000), 89–122.

²² E. Grogan, The North Munster Project. Volume 1: the later prehistoric landscapes of south-east Clare (Bray, 2005), 41; John Waddell, The prehistoric archaeology of Ireland (Galway, 1998), 177.

²³ Finn Delaney and John Tierney, In the lowlands of south Galway: archaeological excavations on the N18 Oranmore to Gort National Road Scheme, NRA Scheme Monograph 7 (Dublin, 2011), 44.

²⁴ Emer Dennehy, Hot property: the morphology and archaeology of Irish fulachta fiadh’, The Journal of the Kerry Archaeological and Historical Society 8 (2008), 5–27.

²⁵ Eoin Grogan, Lorna O’Donnell and Penney Johnston, The Bronze Age landscapes of the pipeline to the west: an integrated archaeological and environmental assessment (Bray 2007), 98.

²⁶ Gary Conboy, A report on the archaeological excavations at Inchirourke, Co. Tipperary’, unpublished report, Valerie J. Keeley on behalf of Tipperary County Council, 2009; Robert Hanbidge, A report on the archaeological excavations at Inchaquire, Co. Kildare’, unpublished report prepared for Headland Archaeology on behalf of Kildare County Council, 2009.

²⁷ Grogan, O’Donnell and Johnston, Pipeline to the west, 282.

²⁸ Hawkes, Prehistoric burnt mound archaeology in Ireland’, 344–8.

²⁹ Margaret McCarthy, Animal bone report from excavations at Balgeeth, Co. Meath’, unpublished report, CRDS Ltd on behalf of Meath County Council, 2010, 38.

³⁰ Finbar McCormick and Emily V. Murray, Knowth and the zooarchaeology of early Christian Ireland (Dublin, 2007), 21–3.

³¹ Margaret McCarthy, Animal bone report’, in Gerry Walsh (ed.), Archaeological excavations on the Ballinrobe Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Scheme 1994 (Ballinrobe, 1995), 37–40.

³² Tourunen, Fauna and fulachta fiadh’, 38.

³³ Tim Coughlan, A report on the archaeological excavations at Burrow or Glennanummer 2, Co. Offaly’, unpublished report, Irish Archaeological Consultancy Ltd on behalf of Offaly County Council, 2009.

³⁴ Delaney and Tierney, In the lowlands of south Galway, 43.

³⁵ Richard Gillespie and Agnes Kerrigan, Of troughs and tuyères: the archaeology of the N25 Charlestown Bypass, NRA Scheme Monograph 6 (Dublin, 2010).

³⁶ McCarthy, Animal bone report’, 38.

³⁷ Sara Cross May, Ciara Murray, John Ó Néill and Paul Stevens, The Lisheen Mine Archaeological Project (Dublin, 2005).

³⁸ Margaret McCarthy, Animal bone report from excavations at Coolroe, Co. Mayo’, unpublished report, Richard Gillespie on behalf of Mayo County Council, 2012, 53.

³⁹ McCarthy, Animal bone report from excavations at Balgeeth, Co. Meath’, 38.

⁴⁰ Hawkes, The beginnings and evolution of the fulacht fia tradition in early prehistoric Ireland’, 96–7.

⁴¹ Ronan Toolis, The excavation of a burnt mound at Meur, Sanday, Orkney’, Scottish Archaeological Journal 29 (2005), 31–49.

⁴² H. Moore and G. Wilson, Food for thought: a survey of burnt mounds of Shetland and excavations at Tangwick’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 129 (1999), 234.

⁴³ Thoms, The fire stones carry’, 443–60; Wandsnider, The roasted and the boiled’, 13–14.

⁴⁴ Patricia Long, A report on the archaeological excavations at Coolderry 2, Co. Tipperary’, unpublished report, Headland Archaeology Ltd on behalf of Tipperary County Council, 2009.

⁴⁵ Quinn and Moore, ‘Fulachta fiadh and the beer experiment’, 43–53.

⁴⁶ Ian Armit and A. Braby, Excavation of a burnt mound and associated structures at Ceann nan Clachan, North Uist’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 132 (2002), 229–58.

⁴⁷ P. Finch, Analysis of organic extractives from Demesne or Mearsparkfarm, N6 Kilbeggan to Kinnegad, Co. Westmeath’, unpublished report, Valerie J. Keeley Ltd, 2007.

⁴⁸ Thoms, The fire stones carry’, 452.

⁴⁹ Wandsnider, The roasted and the boiled’, 15.

⁵⁰ Michael Monk, A greasy subject’, Archaeology Ireland 21:1 (2007), 22–4.

⁵¹ O’Kelly, Excavations and experiments in Irish cooking places’, 122; Christy Lawless, A fulacht fiadh Bronze Age cooking experiment at Turlough, Castlebar’, Cathair na Mart, Journal of the Westport Historical Society 10 (1990), 8.

⁵² Monk, A greasy subject’, 23.

⁵³ Nakazawa, Straus, Gonzales-Morales, Solana and Saiz, On stone-boiling technology in the Upper Paleolithic’, 684–93.

⁵⁴ Nakazawa, Straus, Gonzales-Morales, Solana and Saiz, On stone-boiling technology in the Upper Paleolithic’, 684.

⁵⁵ A. K Outram, Bone fracture and within-bone nutrients: an experimentally based method for investigating levels of marrow extraction’, in P. Miracle and N. Milner (eds), Consuming passions and patterns of consumption (Cambridge, 2002), 51–63.

⁵⁶ A. H. Smith, Kalispel ethnography and ethnohistory’, in W. Andrefsky, Jr, G. C. Burtchard, K. M. Presler, S. R. Samuels, P. H. Sanders and A. V. Thoms (eds), The Calispell Valley Archaeological Project final report (Washington State University, 2000) vol. 1, 410–46.

⁵⁷ Thoms, The fire stones carry’, 456.

⁵⁸ Hawkes, Prehistoric burnt mound archaeology in Ireland’, 124–6.

⁵⁹ Patricia Long, A report on the archaeological excavations at Coolderry 2, Co. Tipperary’, unpublished report, Headland Archaeology on behalf of Tipperary County Council, 2009; H. W. M. Hodges, The excavation of a group of cooking-places at Ballycroghan, Co. Down’, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 18 (1955), 17–28. Linda Lynch, A report on the archaeological excavations at Dromnevane, Co. Kerry’, unpublished report, Aegis Archaeology Ltd on behalf of Kerry County Council, 2007; Richard Gillespie, Archaeological excavations on the Westport Main Drainage and Waste Water Disposal Scheme’, unpublished report, Mayo County Council, 2001; Gillespie and Kerrigan, Of troughs and tuyères 133–7.

⁶⁰ Gillespie, Archaeological excavations on the Westport Main Drainage’, 66.

⁶¹ Ellinor Larsson, A report on the archaeological excavations at Aughinida, Co. Cork’, unpublished report, Arch-Tech Ltd on behalf of Cork County Council, 2003.

⁶²Rose M. Cleary and Alan Hawkes, ‘Excavation of a fulacht fia, ring-ditch and medieval ditch at Carrigtohill, townland, Co. Cork’, The Journal of Irish Archaeology 23 (forthcoming).

⁶³ Wandsnider, The roasted and the boiled’, 28

⁶⁴ Michael M. Jackson, The nature of fire-cracked rock: new insights from ethnoarchaeological and laboratory experiments’, unpublished MA thesis, Texas A & M University, 1998; G. Dumarcay, A. Lucquin and R. J. March, Cooking and fire on heated sandstone: an experimental approach by SEM’, in L. Longo and N. Skakun (eds), Prehistoric technology 40 years later: functional studies and the Russian legacy, British Archaeological Report (International Series) 1783 (Oxford, 2008), 345–54.

⁶⁵ R. Shalk and D. Meatte, The archaeological features’, in R. F. Shalk and R. L. Taylor (eds), The archaeology of Chester Morse Lake: the 1986–87 investigations for the Cedar Falls improvement project (Washington, D.C., 1988), 8. 1–8.58.

⁶⁶ Jackson, The nature of fire-cracked rock’. 94.

⁶⁷ Jackson, The nature of fire-cracked rock’, 95.

⁶⁸ Stephen Mandel, Petrographical report on stone samples from Caltragh, Co. Sligo’, unpublished report, Archaeological Consultancy Services Ltd on behalf of Sligo County Council, 2007.

⁶⁹ Jackson, The nature of fire-cracked rock’, 95.

⁷⁰ John Ó Néill, Burnt mounds in Northern and Western Europe: a study of prehistoric technology and society (Saarbrücken, 2009), 67.

⁷¹ O’Kelly, ‘Excavations and experiments in Irish cooking places’, 122.

⁷² Ó Néill, Burnt mounds in Northern and Western Europe, 67.

⁷³ Hawkes, ‘Prehistoric burnt mound archaeology in Ireland’, 195–200.

⁷⁴ Susan Ripper and Mathew Beamish, Bogs, bodies and burnt mounds: visits to the Soar Wetlands in the Neolithic and Bronze Age’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 78 (2011), 173–206.

⁷⁵ Vicki Cummings, A view from the west: the Neolithic of the Irish sea zone (Oxford, 2009), 17.

⁷⁶ David Maynard, The burnt mounds’, in Richard Cutler, A. Davidson and G. Hughes (eds), A corridor through time: the archaeology of the A55 Anglesey road scheme (Oxford, 2012), 122–9; Jane Kenney, Recent excavations at Parc Bryn Cegin, Llandygai’, Archaeological Cambrenensis 157 (2008), 55–70.

⁷⁷ Ed Danaher, A report on the archaeological excavation of Coolfin 4, Co. Laois’, unpublished report, Archaeological Consultancy Services Limited on behalf of Laois County Council, 2008.

⁷⁸ Matt Mossop, A report on the archaeological excavation of Ardbraccan 3, Co. Meath’, unpublished report, Archaeological Consultancy Services Limited on behalf of Meath County Council, 2008.

⁷⁹ Mathew Murray, Viereckschanzen and feasting: socio-political ritual in Iron Age central Europe’, The Journal of European Archaeology 3:2 (1995), 125–51; Michael Dietler, Driven by drink: the role of drinking in the political economy and the case of early Iron Age France’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9 (1990), 352–406.

⁸⁰ Iona M. C. Anthony, Luminescence dating of Scottish burnt mounds: new investigations in Orkney and Shetland’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Glasgow, 2003, 67.

⁸¹ Ó Néill, Burnt mounds in Northern and Western Europe, 197.

⁸² Ó Néill, Burnt mounds in Northern and Western Europe, 197.

⁸³ K. Cleary, Irish Bronze Age settlements: spatial organisation and deposition of material culture’, unpublished PhD thesis, University College Cork, 2007, 288.

⁸⁴ Grogan, The North Munster Project, vol. 2, 138; Grogan, O’Donnell and Johnston, Pipeline to the west, 100–01.

⁸⁵ Wright, The social origins of cooking and dining in early villages of western Asia’, 111.

⁸⁶ Moore and Wilson, Food for thought’, 234; Mike Parker Pearson, Bronze Age Britain (London, 2005), 98; Grogan, O’Donnell and Johnston, Pipeline to the west, 100.

⁸⁷ Toolis, The excavation of a burnt mound at Meur, Sanday, Orkney’, 45.

⁸⁸ William O’Brien, Aspects of fulacht fiadh function and chronology in Cork’, Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 118 (2012), 107–33; while this site is often referred to as a possible sweat lodge or sauna, it is more likely, based on other more convincing sweat lodges in the archaeological record, that this site was more akin to the production of greater quantities of food. Equally, these sites may have been associated with group bathing.

⁸⁹ Ed M. Fahy, A hut and cooking places at Drombeg Co. Cork’, Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 65 (1960), 1–17; Connie Murphy, The prehistoric archaeology of Beara’, in William O’Brien (ed.), Local worlds; early settlement landscapes and upland farming in south-west Ireland (Cork, 2009), 13–20; Nick Hogan, The Ardgroom landscape’, in O’Brien, Local worlds,69–86; Grogan, The North Munster Project, 136–8; Rose M. Cleary and Alan Hawkes, ‘Excavation of a fulacht fia, ring-ditch and medieval ditch at Carrigtohill, townland, Co. Cork’, Journal of Irish Archaeology 23 (forthcoming).

⁹⁰ Brian Hayden, Feasting and social dynamics in the Epipaleolithic of the Fertile Crescent’, in Gonzalo Aranda Jiménez, Sandra Montón-Subías and Margarita Sánchez Romero (eds), Guess who’s coming to dinner; feasting rituals in the prehistoric societies of Europe and the Near East (Oxford, 2011), 46.

⁹¹ William O’Brien, Local worlds: early settlement landscapes and upland farming in south-west Ireland (Cork, 2009).

⁹² O’Brien, Aspects of fulacht fiadh function and chronology in Cork’, 107–33.

⁹³ Catriona Gleeson and Gerry Breen, A report on the archaeological excavations at Rathpatrick, Co. Kilkenny’, unpublished report, Headland Archaeology Ltd on behalf of Kilkenny County Council, 2006; James Eogan, Cleansing body and soul’, 39.

⁹⁴ Gleeson and Breen, A report on the archaeological excavations at Rathpatrick, Co. Kilkenny’; Graham Laidlaw, Cleansing body and soul’, Seanda 3 (2008), 26; Tim Coughlan, A report on the archaeological excavations at Burrow or Glennanummer 3, Co. Offaly’, unpublished report, Irish Archaeological Consultancy Ltd on behalf of Offaly County Council, 2009.

⁹⁵ Katheryn C. Twiss, Transformations in an early agricultural society: feasting in the southern Levantine pre-pottery Neolithic’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 418–42; Michael Dietler, Theorizing the feast: rituals of consumption, commensal politics, and power in African contexts’, in Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden (eds), Feasts: archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power (Washington, D.C., 2001), 65–114.

⁹⁶ Finbar McCormick, Ritual feasting in Iron Age Ireland,’ in Gabriel Cooney, Katharina Becker, John Coles, Michael Ryan and Susanne Sievers (eds), Relics of old decency: archaeological studies in later prehistory (Bray, 2009), 406.

⁹⁷ Charles Mount, Aspects of ritual deposition in the Late Neolithic and Beaker periods at Newgrange, Co. Meath’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60 (1994), 433–43.

⁹⁸ Conleth Manning, A Neolithic burial mound at Ashleypark, Co. Tipperary’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 85 (1985), 61–100; Carleton Jones, Temples of the stones: exploring the megalithic tombs of Ireland (Cork, 2007).

⁹⁹ Martin Jones, Eating for calories or for company? Concluding remarks on consuming passions’, in Miracle and Milner, Consuming passions and patterns of consumption, 131–6.

¹⁰⁰ Brian Hayden, Fabulous feasts: a prolegomenon to the importance of feasting’, in Dietler and Hayden, Feasts: archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power, 28; Twiss, Transformations in an early agricultural society’, 419.

¹⁰¹ Twiss, Transformations in an early agricultural society’, 419.

¹⁰² Niall Roycroft, ‘A theory on boiled bull and burnt mounds’, Seanda 1 (2006) 38–9.

¹⁰³ Finbar McCormick, The distribution of meat in a hierarchical society: the Irish evidence’, in Miracle and Milner, Consuming passions and patterns of consumption, 25–31.

¹⁰⁴ Anthony J. Pollard, A community of beings: animals and people in the Neolithic of southern Britain’, in D. Serjeantson and D. Field (eds), Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe, Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 7 (Oxford, 2006), 135–48.

¹⁰⁵ Gonzalo Aranda Jiménez and Sandra Montón-Subías, ‘Feasting death: funerary rituals in the Bronze Age societies of south-eastern Iberia’, in Aranda Jiménez, Montón-Subías and Sánchez Romero, Guess who’s coming to dinner, 143

¹⁰⁶ Andrew Fleming, ‘Vision and design: approaches to ceremonial monument typology’, Man 7:1 (1972), 57–73.

¹⁰⁷ Hawkes, Prehistoric burnt mound archaeology in Ireland’, 309–12.

¹⁰⁸ Twiss, Transformations in an early agricultural society’, 424; Hayden, Feasting and social dynamics’, 48.

¹⁰⁹ Joanna Brück, ‘Houses, lifecycles and deposition on Middle Bronze Age settlements in southern England’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65 (1999), 145–66; Kerri Cleary, ‘Skeletons in the closet: the deposition of human remains on Irish Bronze Age settlements’, Journal of Irish Archaeology 14 (2006), 23–42.

¹¹⁰ Eoin Grogan, High and low: identity and status in Late Bronze Age Ireland’, in V. Ginn, R. Enlander and R. Crozier (eds), Exploring prehistoric identity in Europe: our construct or theirs? (Oxford, 2014), 61–3; Alan Hawkes, ‘The re-use of prehistoric burnt mounds in Ireland; the importance of social memory, identity and place’, in D. Brandherm and G. Plunkett (eds), Proceedings of the Bronze Age Forum 2013 (forthcoming).

¹¹¹ Hawkes, The beginnings and evolution of the fulacht fia tradition in early prehistoric Ireland’, 26.