By ticking "I agree" below you are agreeing to the use of cookies and to the terms and conditions of use as outlined above. These are also available on the End User Agreement page. For more information see our Privacy Policy.
Downloaded assets must be used in accordance with the DRI End User Terms and Conditions
Total number of assets (1)
This browser does not support viewing this file type. Please download the asset to view.
Irish Archaeological Consultancy Ltd (IAC), funded by the National Roads Authority (NRA) through Kilkenny County Council, undertook an excavation at the site of AR160, Ballynolan 1 along the proposed N9/N10 Kilcullen to Waterford Scheme, Phase 4 – Knocktopher to Powerstown (Figure 1). The following report describes the results of archaeological excavation at that site. The area was fully excavated by Sinéad Phelan under Ministerial Direction A032 and Excavation Registration Number E3755 issued by the DOEHLG in consultation with the National Museum of Ireland for IAC. The fieldwork took place between the 17 and 27 September 2008. An area measuring 400m² was opened and a substantial, east-west ditch measuring 3.5m in width with a depth of 1m traversed the site. A second, smaller ditch was also recorded and at the western side of the site a large area of burning was identified but represented a phase of clearance, probably in the last century. This is likely to have occurred as part of land management. Evidence from the 1st and 2nd edition OS maps shows that there was re-working to field boundaries in the general area of the site, with boundaries being removed and others being inserted, straightened etc. and it is felt that this ditch may represent part of this alteration but given the proximity of the existing boundary ditch to the south, alterations cannot be established with 100% accuracy based on the mapping. While nothing diagnostic was recovered from the ditch fills and the site remains undated there was no evidence to suggest that the features were of archaeological significance and they certainly did not represent part of an enclosure. They are therefore interpreted as being associated with post-medieval land management and as such are not of any archaeological significance.