A Statistical Analysis of Ringfort Distribution and Morphology on the ...

Chapter 7: Early Christian settlement <strong>and</strong> society
The ecclesiastical centres
An important element in this model is that <strong>of</strong> the monastic establishment. These sites are located on
generally flat ground <strong>and</strong> at lower altitudes, <strong>and</strong> always in close proximity to route-ways. 1 From the
foregoing analysis it has been suggested that these sites are largely <strong>of</strong> 6th century origin <strong>and</strong>
represent ‘frontier settlements’ or ‘pioneer foundations’ in unpopulous <strong>and</strong> possibly heavily wooded
territory (p 305). In this way they would have easily <strong>and</strong> quickly accrued large l<strong>and</strong> holdings <strong>and</strong>
subsequently acted as ‘central places’ in terms <strong>of</strong> their spiritual <strong>and</strong> economic roles along with the
formation <strong>of</strong> a secular focus for settlement. Contemporary sources indicate that from the 8th century
onwards many <strong>of</strong> these sites took on the character <strong>of</strong> proto-urban centres, including the function <strong>of</strong>
trading centres. 2
The l<strong>and</strong>-less grades
The final consideration that must be taken account <strong>of</strong> within this hypothetical model is the place <strong>of</strong>
the l<strong>and</strong>-less individual in Early Christian Irel<strong>and</strong>. While the laws indicate that all individuals, from
king to slave, had a place <strong>and</strong> a role to play within society, there is some difficulty in determining
their spatial position on the l<strong>and</strong>scape. Such individuals as poets, lawyers <strong>and</strong> clerics appear to have
been afforded legal protection outside <strong>of</strong> their own túath <strong>and</strong> thus were probably highly mobile. 3
Skilled classes also appear to have been largely itinerant, moving from area to area as their work
dictated. Other individuals, including slaves <strong>and</strong> buffoons, would have been housed close to their
lord, both for their protection <strong>and</strong> to prevent their escape. Slaves were <strong>of</strong> special importance within
early Irish society as they partly determined the wealth <strong>and</strong> status <strong>of</strong> the nobility. 4
The location <strong>of</strong> the lower classes within this society has been explained in terms <strong>of</strong> unenclosed,
nucleated settlements located in areas which do not contain ringforts. 5 However, this interpretation
may be largely discredited when it is considered that the various grades considered (the hereditary
serf, senchléite; tenant at will, fuidir; <strong>and</strong> cotter, bothach) were legally bound to their lord <strong>and</strong> are
likely to have been housed in close proximity to him. 6 Indeed, the density <strong>of</strong> ringforts throughout the
Loop Head peninsula is such that there appears to have been little room for such nucleated
settlements.
Discussion <strong>of</strong> the model
It may be noted that this model is markedly more conservative than that suggested by Stout. 7 The
reasons for this are manifold <strong>and</strong> include the problems mentioned above <strong>of</strong> ‘cross-over’ between
cluster groupings. Among the main difficulties in attempting to produce such a model are the very
corpus <strong>of</strong> laws themselves. As has been continuously stated, while these sources provide valuable
insights into the social makeup <strong>of</strong> Early Christian Irel<strong>and</strong>, they are idealised forms that should,
perhaps, not be taken literally. Further, they do not provide the morphological <strong>and</strong> locational
information necessary to produce a workable model <strong>of</strong> Early Christian settlement geography which
<strong>of</strong>fers an explanation <strong>of</strong> ringfort distribution. As has been demonstrated above, the evidence provided
by the legal tracts for site positioning <strong>and</strong> makeup is so slight that the relict distribution <strong>of</strong> ringforts
may be interpreted in a number <strong>of</strong> equally archaeologically valid ways to conform to these sources.
However, the abiding problem remains <strong>of</strong> the adequate identification <strong>of</strong> individual ringforts on the
l<strong>and</strong>scape. In this respect the multivariate analyses have proved themselves to be <strong>of</strong> great, but not
definitive use. The rather simplistic dichotomy between bivallate <strong>and</strong> univallate ringforts as a measure
1 See Stout 1997, 128 for discussion <strong>of</strong> hagiographic material relating to the siting <strong>of</strong> ecclesiastical centres.
2 Doherty 1982, 302-3.
3 Kelly op. cit., 5.
4 Binchy op. cit., 81.
5 Aalen 1978, 96; Mitchell 1986, 157-8.
6 Binchy op. cit., 78, 93, 105.
7 Stout 1991, 239.
162