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

Chapter 1: Introduction
<strong>of</strong> the Centre for L<strong>and</strong>scape Studies, held at University College Galway in 1990. 1 While the majority
<strong>of</strong> the archaeological contributors presented the results <strong>of</strong> research in their various fields, Keller
delivered what was probably the most important paper <strong>of</strong> the conference. 2 He argues that the
distinction made between nature <strong>and</strong> culture is merely an academic construct <strong>and</strong> thus any
differentiation proposed between the concepts <strong>of</strong> ‘natural l<strong>and</strong>scape’ <strong>and</strong> ‘cultural l<strong>and</strong>scape’ is, by
implication, untenable. He proposes that l<strong>and</strong>scape by its very nature is a diachronic concept, based
on a series <strong>of</strong> vegetational successions, some <strong>of</strong> which were influenced by man, implying a
palimpsest which is created over many millennia. Keller suggests that if we view the l<strong>and</strong>scape as an
organic continuum, as opposed to a series <strong>of</strong> static stages, we may be able to reveal some <strong>of</strong> the
diachronic events within that l<strong>and</strong>scape. One logical consequence <strong>of</strong> this approach is what he defines
as the ‘genetic aspect <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>and</strong>scape’ where any action which takes place within the l<strong>and</strong>scape is
influenced in some measure by those actions which went before. Finally, he proposes that the notions
<strong>of</strong> mythical, ideological or mental l<strong>and</strong>scapes are as real <strong>and</strong> important for an underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> the
subject as the physical environment. Keller goes so far as to suggest that it is the combination <strong>of</strong> the
physical <strong>and</strong> mental l<strong>and</strong>scapes that produces the cultural l<strong>and</strong>scape. A further important aspect <strong>of</strong>
l<strong>and</strong>scape studies, for Keller, is that <strong>of</strong> the perspective from which the physical area is viewed. He
holds that depending on the cultural, ethnic <strong>and</strong> national background <strong>of</strong> the observer will influence
their perception <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>and</strong>scape. In illustration <strong>of</strong> this he cites the Norwegian struggles for
independence <strong>and</strong> the resultant need to forge a national identity as a differentiating element between
the study <strong>of</strong> Norwegian settlement history <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> other Sc<strong>and</strong>inavian countries. He notes that in
certain areas <strong>of</strong> the country three different ethnic traditions exist side by side, namely Saami, Finnish
<strong>and</strong> Norwegian. The descriptions <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>and</strong>scape that each group uses does not necessarily cover
the same locations, owing to the fact that these different groupings have historically exploited
different ecological areas.
Although ringforts are the most common field monument in Irel<strong>and</strong>, relatively few analyses have
been carried out their distribution. Among these is Barrett’s work on the ringforts <strong>of</strong> County Louth. 3
For her ‘One <strong>of</strong> the fundamental issues in ring-fort studies is the problem <strong>of</strong> reconstructing the
original distribution <strong>of</strong> these settlements.’ This problem centres on the rate <strong>of</strong> destruction in some
areas, especially in the east <strong>of</strong> the country, preventing the original distribution pattern from being
analysed, <strong>and</strong> possibly leading to flawed conclusions being drawn from inaccurate information.
In an attempt to reconstruct the most complete ringfort distribution pattern possible, she uses the
Ordnance Survey maps <strong>and</strong> any other available cartographic sources, aerial photographic sources,
published townl<strong>and</strong> surveys <strong>and</strong> the Ordnance Survey Letters. These various sources are assessed
<strong>and</strong> their advantages <strong>and</strong> deficiencies highlighted. While the Ordnance Survey maps (<strong>and</strong> their
various revisions) are <strong>of</strong> the highest value, Barrett sees a distributional analysis based solely on this
evidence may be highly misleading. She suggests that information from other cartographic sources,
including estate maps <strong>and</strong> eighteenth-century county maps, should be included. This is despite the
inaccuracies <strong>of</strong> the latter <strong>and</strong> the lack <strong>of</strong> uniform coverage <strong>of</strong> the former. Similarly, she evaluates the
uses <strong>of</strong> both vertical <strong>and</strong> oblique aerial photography. Although both methods have limitations for the
recognition <strong>and</strong> positive identification <strong>of</strong> crop-mark sites, she acknowledges their contribution in
adding 87 previously unrecorded ringforts to the distribution map for County Louth; an increase <strong>of</strong>
35.5% in those known from the Ordnance Survey maps <strong>of</strong> 1832 <strong>and</strong> 1862 - 8. Finally, the positive
contributions <strong>of</strong> the published surveys <strong>of</strong> 52 townl<strong>and</strong>s in the County Louth Archaeological Journal
from 1924 onwards, <strong>and</strong> those sites noted in the Ordnance Survey Letters are also acknowledged.
Barrett makes the point that while much documentary evidence exists which relates to the economy
<strong>and</strong> social structure <strong>of</strong> Early Christian Irel<strong>and</strong>, this had not yet been exploited to contribute to our
underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> the spatial characteristics <strong>of</strong> settlement <strong>of</strong> this period. Thus the analysis <strong>of</strong> ringfort
distributions has mirrored prehistoric studies in its concentration on site location in relation to
1 Collins (ed.) 1994.
2 Keller 1994.
3 Barrett 1982, 80.
11