1. Archaeological Excavations at Tullahedy County Tipperary. Neolithic Settlement in
North Munster: Review
Originally posted online on 19 November 2012 at rmchapple.blogspot.com
(http://rmchapple.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/archaeological-excavations-at-tullahedy.html)
Rose M. Cleary & Hilary Kelleher. The Collins Press, Cork, 2011. xxiv+456pp.
ISBN-13: 9781848891333. £34 (via Amazon) or €39.99 (via The Collins Press).
Tullahedy, Co. Tipperary, is a site that (it seems
to me, at least) has been hanging around on the edges of knowledge for some time. The
earliest mention of the excavations that I can find in my own library is a brief note
in Archaeology Ireland from 1998, noting the richness of the recovered finds and the
depth of stratigraphy there (Anon. 1998). This mention, confined to the bottom of a
single page, related to the initial set of excavations carried out as part of the N7 Nenagh
Bypass. At this time the site was partially excavated and the remainder preserved in situ.
When the bypass was upgraded the remainder of the site was opened and investigated.
There was a fleeting mention of the site, as part of the grand range of sites investigated
on the N7, in an early edition of Seanda (O'Keefe 2007). Seanda magazine followed this
up with a longer, more in-depth, article some time later (Kelleher 2010). The most
recent paper on the site, that I have seen, is by Sternke (2010) discussing some aspects
of the lithic assemblage of the site. I reviewed the latter paper as part of the
NRA’s Creative Minds volume. While I found the assemblage itself of great interest and
significance, I was unconvinced by the author’s unorthodox interpretation. My
concluding remark was that the ideas presented are ‘intriguing and deserves further

2. study’. While I did not state it directly, my feeling at the time was that I would really like
to see a final publication on this remarkable site, to help put these ideas into their
correct context. Now my wait is over!
The National Roads Authority have broken with their usual Monograph Series to join
forces with University College Cork and together have produced this magnificent
volume. Hilary Kelleher pens the Introduction, setting the topographical context and
succinctly describes the state of knowledge on the site before investigations began.
In The Excavation Kelleher goes on to describe the appearance of the site before
excavation, lays out the methodology for Cuttings A-H, and provides a summary of the
phasing. This is followed by a masterful presentation of the core excavation data. In
Phase 1 the site was an enclosed Neolithic settlement complex, which had been
constructed on a small hillock. Unfortunately, the hillock had been extensively quarried
in the past, leaving only the lower slopes intact. Although now on dry land, the majority
of the site was originally surrounded by the waters of a lake. The main features of this
phase are two rectangular Neolithic houses (Structures 1 & 2), and their associated
hearths which lay within a slight hollow to the south-east of the mound. A third
Neolithic house (Structure 3) was excavated near the lakeshore. The houses showed
evidence that they may have been burnt down. Along the landward approaches, to the
north-west and west, the site was protected by a palisade fence of oak planking. Also
from this period was a cobbled surface along the edge of the lake, as were some 268 pits
of various shapes and sizes, concentrated along the southern and eastern sides of the
mound. The pits produced a remarkable collection of finds, including various stone
tools, polished axeheads, and pottery. Cereals recovered from these features included
the charred remains of wheat, oats, and barley.
Phase 2 relates to the post-occupation activity at the Neolithic houses. Both the pits and
the houses were later covered with charcoal-rich layers. These layers produced polished
stone axeheads, flint arrowheads and scrapers, along with a considerable corpus of
pottery. Organic remains from these layers included charred hazelnut shells and apple
pips, wheat grains and some barley. During Phase 3 the appearance of the site was
radically altered by the dumping of over 1m of glacial till on the lower slopes of the hill.
Along the north-western side of the mound, the redeposited layers were cut through by a
later scarping/ditch. At approximately the same time, a new and larger palisade fence
was constructed on the landward side of the site. Phase 5 activity dated to the Medieval
period and relates to a number of pits and layers, etc. some of which produced residual
Neolithic material. Finally, Phase 6, details the modern activity on the site, chiefly a
trackway created c. 1905.
Be under no illusion, much of this section is highly technical and makes for difficult
reading, requiring your full attention at all times. At over 100 pages, it is the single
longest chapter in the book and represents the primary data on the site.
In reviewing Corrstown: A Coastal Community. Excavations of a Bronze Age village in
Northern Ireland, I argued that such a commitment to making this baseline level of
detail available is crucial to the value of the work for future researchers. While the
interpretations and analysis of the book are of the highest level, scholarship inevitably
moves on. Presenting this relatively ‘raw’ data will allow future students to re-

3. interrogate and re-evaluate the site, largely unencumbered by layers of interpretation. I
complimented and congratulated the Corrstown authors (Victoria Ginn & Stuart
Rathbone) on having the courage to take this approach in favour of simply presenting an
edited synthesis of the site which omitted this data. Similarly, I congratulate Cleary and
Kelleher for ensuring that this book will have value and this site will have relevance far
into the future.
In The Physical Landscape Anthony Beese places the site in its broader geological
setting. He describes the Late-Glacial to Early Holocene and Neolithic landscape, and
provides a useful discussion of the composition of the Phase 3 infill layers. This is
followed by Kerri Cleary’s description of the Neolithic Landscape of Tullahedy.
Cleary skilfully weaves together the disparate threads of evidence for the Neolithic in the
Tipperary area with broader concepts of the place of such a monument within the
landscape. She draws out the idea that the Tullahedy mound, projecting from the mire,
may not have been easily accessible. While it would not have been seen as a ‘central
place’ in the traditional sense, its very isolation could have been a determining factor in
its selection as a meeting place for diverse social groups. She deftly combines the
excavated evidence for deposition of pottery and stone in pits from the N7 road scheme
as a whole, with the most recent research on the significance of deliberately returning
artefacts to the earth. I was particularly interested in her treatment of ‘mundane stone’
in pit fills – it reminded me of some of the, largely inexplicable, features at Ballyloran,
near Larne, Co. Antrim (Chapple 2009). A number of the features uncovered there, also
of Neolithic date, appeared to have been constructed for the express purpose of burying
‘ordinary’ stone. I speculated that it may have had important associations to those who
created the sites and undertook the burials, but that such levels of significance now
elude us. It is heartening, indeed, to see similar excavated remains being seriously
considered in similar ways. Cleary also puts the Neolithic houses within their wider
context. The houses are ‘less regular in plan’ and date to the end of the Early Neolithic.
In particular, she parallels both the houses and their settings with the excavated
remains at Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. Other parallels to Lough Gur include the pottery,
axe-head assemblages, and (to some extent) the lithics. In this way, she argues the both
Lough Gur and Tullahedy functioned as regional centres at the end of the Early
Neolithic.
Rick Schulting presents The Radiocarbon Dates. Eighty-two samples were AMS
radiocarbon dated, using only short-lived materials. The returned determinations
consisted of 69 dates from the Neolithic (Phases 1-3), with the reminder divided
between the Early Christian (Phase 4) and Medieval periods (Phase 5). Of these, 71 are
new to the Irish Radiocarbon & Dendrochronological Dates Catalogue [Facebook site],
and the remainder provided additional information and the opportunity for data
checking against those already publically available. Despite the quality of the dates,
Schulting observes that on their own they ‘provide little sense of finer-grained sequences
of activity at Tullahedy’. To this end, he uses Bayesian statistics to create models of
activity sequences on the site. His analysis indicates that life of Structure 1 began around
3680-3540 cal BC and ended in the period 3640-3480 cal BC. Structure 2 began slightly
earlier, in the period 3795-3385 cal BC, and ended around 3630-3250 cal BC. The dates
for the palisade trench indicate that it was, unsurprisingly, broadly contemporary with

4. the houses, if not slightly later than their construction. The combination of the Early
Christian dates indicates activity there in the period from the 8th to 10th centuries AD,
and during the Medieval period from the 13th to the 15th centuries. Within these broad
periods, the Bayesian models indicate that activity at either period may have been
relatively short lived, possibly encompassing only a few years. Schulting’s analysis
indicates that, overall, the Neolithic activity at Tullahedy probably began around 3670-
3645 cal BC and continued until 3510-3460 cal BC, lasting between 145 and 205 years.
Although the structures here fall within McSparron’s ‘House Horizon’, they appear to be
slightly later, continuing on into the 35th century BC. As we were already aware,
Tullahedy is an important site and an important addition to our knowledge of Neolithic
Ireland. Beyond that, Schulting’s analysis is a significant use of Bayesian modelling for
this period, and joins such major studies as Corrstown, Gathering Time, and
McSparron’s original work on the ‘House Horizon’. The analysis presented here is
excellent not only in itself, but as an example of how even the best quality dates can be
made to become more than the sum of their parts. I would, reluctantly, point out a small
number of typographic errors and inconsistencies in the data presented here. Three
dates, in three different places (pp. 147-8), are all given with the laboratory identifier of
UBA-15292 and the returned determination of 4763±31BP. All are from Phase 1 and are
described as being derived from two pieces of charred hazelnut. One is given as from
Cutting G, while the other two are from Cutting D. The originating context numbers are,
respectively, given as C923, C1017, and C124. I suspect that one of these was intended to
be UBA-15249, which is listed on p. 150 in the context of the palisade fence, but not in
the main body of the returned dates. Two different dates are given as UBA-15260 (pp.
147-8). One is given as 4802±33BP and described as being from Phase 1, Cutting B,
Context C341, and to have dated two pieces of charred hazelnut, while the other is given
as 4733±34BP is reported to have come from Phase 2, Cutting B, Context C426, and
have been returned from two pieces of charred hazelnut. A number of other dates have
apparent discrepancies between the detail published in the appendix to the Creative
Minds volume (Stanley, Danaher & Eogan 2010) and the data given by Schulting in this
monograph. In the case of UBA-11179, Stanley et al. (p. 118) describe the sample as
"Charred seed or hazelnut shell from the cut of a posthole in structure 3", while
Schulting (p. 149) gives the source as wheat/barley from the West foundation trench of
Structure 1. Schulting (p. 149) gives the raw determination of UBA-11182 as 4735±33BP,
while it is given in Stanley et al. as 4718±33BP. A final example is UBA-15311, which was
given as 4750±33BP in one place (p. 149), but as 475±33BP in another (p. 147). As the
date is described as coming from Phase 1, it is clear that the four-digit version is correct.
I fully realise that these are, ostensibly, trivial and nit-picking points that only refer to
the presentation of the data. They do not in any way diminish Schulting’s scholarship,
nor the vital importance of the Tullahedy monograph. However, as I’ve argued
before (and here) the greatest value in radiocarbon dates lies not just in what they can
tell us about the individual site that they were commissioned for, but for their reuse in
future research. For this reason, we must be incredibly careful that the dates, and their
associated meta data, are clearly, consistently and correctly reported at all times. Every
time a date is incorrectly reported, it opens up the possibility that a degree of error is
passed to the next level of analysis, along with a corresponding diminution in the
confidence in which it may be held.

5. In an effort to resolve this issue and help increase the confidence in the dating, I took
the relatively unusual step in a book review, of contacting Rick Schulting and asking for
his comments and assistance. Rick has been able to confirm that in his original draft of
the piece, there is only one reference to UBA-15292, from C923. Similarly, he only has
one reference to UBA-15260, from C341. With regard to the discrepancies in the detail
associated with UBA-11179, Rick checked with Dr Meriel McClatchie, who carried out
the original identifications, and has confirmed that the data given in this volume is
correct. Schulting is also able to confirm that UBA-15311 is, as I surmised, meant to be
4750±33BP, not 475±33BP. In his correspondence with me, Schulting points out (and I
am quick to agree) that these errors, while unfortunate, are errors only in the
presentation and layout of the information in the tables and in no way compromises the
integrity or validity of the Bayesian models.
Meriel McClatchie presents her Analysis of Non-Wood Plant Macro-Remains.
Some 169 samples were found to contain non-wood plant macro-remains, making it one
of the largest and most important assemblages of its kind from Neolithic Ireland. During
the Neolithic at Tullahedy emmer wheat was the dominant cereal crop, though
occasional instances of naked barley and flax were also recorded. Large quantities of
charred hazelnut shells were also recovered, along with crab apple and bramble. Oats
and hulled barley were the dominant cereals in the later Phases, though occasional
instances of rye and naked wheat were also present. The importance of gathered
foodstuffs, in particular hazelnuts, appear to have greatly dwindled, thought a larger
corpus of arable weeds were present during Phases 4 and 5. For the expert reader,
McClatchie provides all of her baseline data in Appendix 6.1: Plant macro-remains
recorded in all examined deposits. The Wood Remains are introduced and
discussed by Ellen OCarroll. Some 3,251 charcoal fragments were recovered from 76
samples and identified to species. While the Neolithic samples contained a number of
wood types, including elm, pine, ash, etc., the assemblage was overwhelmingly
dominated by oak (c. 79%). OCarroll argues that the volume of oak was such that it was
readily available in the surrounding landscape, and in sufficient quantities to be the
major wood type utilised throughout the Neolithic phases of the site’s life. This is in
contrast to the charcoal recovered from the later periods, which contained a broader
range of wood types, suggesting that a more varied landscape existed by this time.
Another interesting point noted by OCarroll is large difference between the volumes of
recovered hazelnut shells and the low incidence of hazel charcoal, indicating that while
the nuts were sought out as a food resource, the tree does not appear to have been
deliberately selected for firewood. Also, the single pit dominated by pine charcoal is
interpreted in a ceremonial/ritual context, possibly as a totem pole. Again, this chapter
is followed by an appendix (Ecological information relating to each wood taxon
identified) aimed at the more specialist reader. The final portion of Chapter 6 is a
discussion of the small quantity of Animal Bones examined by Margaret McCarthy.
While the physical condition of the bone was quite poor (c. 96% could not be identified),
cattle were clearly the dominant species, indicating the importance of beef in the
activities carried out at Tullahedy. Adult specimens of ovicaprids and pig were also
identified. The site is typical of Neolithic assemblages in terms of the proportions of

6. domesticates. Again, an appendix containing the detail of the Faunal Remains
Assemblage is included for specialist study.
Farina Sternke (with contributions by Anthony Beese, Helena Knuttson, and Richard
Unit) examines The Stone Tools. Some 105 polished stone axes were recovered from
the site, across all major features and phases. The majority of examples were
constructed on sandstone, chert, and siltstone/mudstone. Many were fragmented and in
a poor condition, owing to burning, weathering, reworking etc. Despite these apparent
drawbacks, the assemblage is of great regional significance, being one of the largest ever
recorded from Munster. The remainder of the stone tool assemblage is equally
impressive, including 1290 chert flakes, 71 flint flakes, and 10 worked pieces of quartz
crystal etc. As well as the significant Early to Middle Neolithic lithic assemblage, there
are a small number of pieces of Late Mesolithic and Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age
date, which attest to the longevity of the site as significant place in the landscape.
Sternke argues that the majority of chert blanks for the formal tools were created
elsewhere – close to the local outcrops – and only transported to the site for final
modification. Use-wear analysis indicates that a number of the flakes and blades were
employed in a number of ways, including plant processing and woodworking. However,
the main focus of the stone tool manufacture at Tullahedy was clearly on the
manufacture and reworking of leaf/lozenge-shaped arrowheads. This is one of a number
of avenues for further research identified by the author – who was creating and
maintaining these items and why? Who were their enemies and how did they perceive
their place in the landscape. It is this realisation that while this may represent the
published version of the ‘Final Report’, it is not the last word on the site. This is why the
inclusion of the appendices of raw data is so important for both future interrogation of
that data and re-evaluation of the site as a whole. The Stone tools chapter contains
appendices on the polished stone axe-head assemblage, lithologies of stone
axe-heads, axe flakes and other stone tools, and the stone tool assemblage –
more than enough to keep professional lithics specialist and the dedicated student
enthralled.
As a minor, and wholly personal, aside, I would note that the use of the term ‘hone
stone’ (there were 14 in the assemblage) is anathema to me. This is not, in so far as I am
aware, for any inexactitude in the term, but more the influence of my late teacher and
friend, Professor Etienne Rynne. Any mention of a ‘hone stone’ in conversation with him
brought the instant and stinging rebuke that ‘hone implies stone … all you are saying is:
I found a stone stone.’ After a certain amount of time the Pavlovian reaction set in and,
to this day, I am unable to hear or read ‘hone stone’ without inwardly wincing.
Rose M Cleary presents The Pottery from the site. Pottery was recovered from all
phases of the excavation, but in particular from Phases 1-3. The Medieval activity at
Tullahedy was responsible for a large amount of redistribution of material into later
features. Portions of vessels recovered from the fill of the house foundations and from
the palisade trench were quite weather worn and may have been redeposited as packing
material from a domestic midden. While this is, ostensibly, a case of recycling refuse
Cleary notes the possibility that there was a deliberate ritual involved in the process.
Nonetheless, there is no clear evidence for the dispersal of individual vessels across

7. features or indications that pottery was only deposited in specific loci. Overall, the
pottery was well made and shows extensive use as cooking vessels. Analysis of the
residue on some of the pieces suggests that they contained animal fats and dairy
products, presumably milk (see also: here). Interestingly, Cleary argues that although
granite cobbles are occasionally found within the esker, they are pretty rare and suggest
that they were sourced to be used as temper for the pottery at some distance from the
site. Similarly, the clay for the pots could not have come from within the surrounding
valley, where the bedrock is of limestone and shale. The chapter also includes a
comprehensive catalogue of vessels by feature. Other short pieces include
a Petrological Description of Pottery by Richard Unitt and the results of
the Absorbed Residue Analysis by Lucy J. Cramp and Richard P. Evershed.
Additional appendices include Radiocarbon dates associated with
pottery, Pottery illustration and context concordance, and Pottery context,
Phase, % of assemblage.
Kerri Cleary, with petrographic assistance for Richard Unitt, provides an assessment of
the Stone bead and pendant from the site. The pendant is of steatite and the bead is
of siltstone, and it is argued that both are of Neolithic type, despite the bead being
recovered from the basal fill of the Early Christian ditch. Both are of rare type and are
important additions to our knowledge of personal ornament in the Irish Neolithic.
The final chapter, Discussion, by Rose M Cleary attempts the near-Herculean task or
putting the entirety of this important excavation into context, not just of the Irish
Neolithic, but beyond drawing parallels with British and European evidence. First and
foremost the Tullahedy mound would have been a dramatic, and easily recognisable,
topographic feature in a relatively low-lying landscape. While the evidence is clear that
the site was used for domestic habitation, Cleary points to significant gaps in our
knowledge, including the nature of that settlement: was it a seasonal retreat, or a
permanent base. Nonetheless, there is evidence of some degree of mobility in that both
the animal and cereal remains all suggest that the occupants of the site would have had
to draw these resources from beyond the near confines of the site. For example, cereal
cultivation implies the presence of enclosed fields, while cattle and sheep would have
required extensive pasture resources. The presence of exotic materials also implies that
Tullahedy acted as a focus for trade and social interaction. All these features: the late
date of the houses, the exotic materials, the enclosure and apparent defence of the site
all indicate that it was an unusual and special place in the landscape. All I can add to
this is that the Tullahedy monograph is an excellent example of high quality academic
publication that still manages to be accessible to the more general reader. If you are not
a specialist in any of the archaeological sub-disciplines contained here, there is still
much to interest you. Indeed, many of the most technically involved pieces present
excellent introductions to the speciality as well as the material under review. To any
professional archaeologists reading this – in particular those who do specialist analysis
and research - I would simply say this: any future work you do related to this portion of
Neolithic Ireland that does not reference and integrate the material from Tullahedy will
be judged to be incomplete and sub-standard. Need I say more?: Go order a copy today!
References:

8. Anon. 1998 ‘News: Neolithic Nenagh’ Archaeology Ireland 12.3, 6.
Chapple, R. M. 2009 'Excavations at Ballyloran, Larne, county Antrim' Ulster Journal of
Archaeology 68, 1-26.
Kelleher, H. 2010 ‘An unparalleled Neolithic enclosure and settlement at
Tullahedy’ Seanda 5, 52-55.
O'Keefe, P. 2007 ‘Through the valleys and hills: travels on the N7’ Seanda 2, 44-46.
Sternke, F. 2010 ‘From boy to man: ‘rights’ of passage and the lithic assemblage from a
Neolithic mound in Tullahedy, Co. Tipperary’ in Stanley, M., Danaher, E. & Eogan, J.
(eds.) Creative Minds: Proceedings of a public Seminar on Archaeological Discoveries
on National Road Schemes, August 2009. Archaeology and The National Roads
Authority Monograph Series No. 7. Dublin, 1-14.