EMAP_Progress_Reports_2009_2.pdf - The Heritage Council

Dublin
Fig. 116. Reconstruction of houses and property boundaries at Fishamble Street, Dublin (after
Simpson 1999, 24).
A number of mid ninth-century sunken structures were excavated at Temple Bar West but were not
associated with property boundaries. However, shortly after and during the middle and latter decades
of the century, a series of houses, structures and associated plots were constructed over the sunken
structures (Simpson 1999, 20). A post and wattle fence separated structures R and P at Essex Street
West, for example, while a house at Exchange Street Upper was confined by property boundaries and
had a trapezoidal yard at its western end. Property boundaries were also evident at Fishamble Street
to the west of the site and these boundaries, similarly to most plots at Temple Bar West, remained
the same from the late ninth until the eleventh centuries and, in one case (Property 2), the early
twelfth century (Simpson 1999, 25, 30).
Plots were present on Fishamble Street in the tenth century and they largely remained unchanged for
over 200 years. Contrary to this, the position of houses, outbuildings and pathways regularly changed
as successive building phases utilised different areas within the static plot boundaries (Wallace 1992b,
40). Plots varied in shape from rectangular to trapezoidal and from skinny to wide. In Fishamble
Street, the most northerly plots had their widest end at the street side and their narrowest end at the
waterfront but it was vice-versa at the southern end. The plots were divided by post-and-wattle
fences which were regularly replaced.
Structures within plots were excavated at Werburgh Street to the south of the town (Hayden 2002).
The plots were small and were filled mainly by houses. In some cases, for example level 3 which has
been dated to the mid tenth century, the plot boundaries remained the same as structures were built
and replaced. However, by the end of the century, the level 6 plots were laid out in different lines and
the layout of the area had changed (Hayden 2002, 56). This is unusual when compared to many
other examples where plot boundaries remained static. Both plots and pathways were defined by post
and wattle fences.
218