Fulachta Fiadh

Fulachta fiadh (plural) are very common in Ireland. A fulachta fian usually consists of a
rectangular water trough that is lined either with slabs of stone or wood and there are
generally hearths nearby. Near the trough you would commonly find a pile of stones in a
horse-shoe shape that have been burnt and cracked by heat. The sites are usually located
near water and sometimes the remains of a wooden hut are found nearby.
The shape of fulachta fiadh is usually determined by their location and by the amount of
damage or erosion that the monument has suffered. “They vary in size, ranging from a few
shovel fulls of burned material, well trodden into the ground to a large mound up to 2m
high” (Coffey 1984).
Fulachta fiadh have been recorded in every county of Ireland. There is a clear North-South
divide with the concentration being in the South of the country. There are an incredible
2,500 in Co. Cork. The dates of fulachta fiadh have been established from radiocarbon and
thermoluminesciene dates, small finds, pollen studies and references in early Irish
literature. The majority of dates range from a period beginning at c.1,400 BC and range to
the early medieval period in Ireland meaning, that fulachta fiadh are Bronze Age
innovation. A small number of fulachta fiadh in Ireland have been excavated and
published. However, we know very little about fulachta fiadh. We do not know conclusively
what purpose they served or why so many were built. There are three main theories

Cooking
Cooking
“He cuts the deer’s throat and then skinned it. Then he made a large fire of dead
wood from the forest and he gathered a heap of granite stones and put them into the
fire. He made a pit, square all round in the ground, and he filled it with water. He
cut up his meat and he wrapped it in marsh grass and he put it in the hole...he was
supplying and continuously putting the well reddened long heated stones in the
water, and he kept it constantly boiling until his meat was cooked”.

The above excerpt is from the “Romance of Mils and Dubh Ruis” an early Irish text. The
passage is clearly describing a fulachta fiadh. We have already discussed how dubious
descriptions in old Irish texts can be, so how do we know if the routine described above
would actually work? This question was asked more than 50 years ago by Michael O’Kelly
and more recently by Christy Lawless ( Lawless, 1990). They actually performed some
experimental archaeology to see if fulachta fiadh made a good cooking place ( Fig. 3&4). I
feel it is important to discuss the experiments to show how well a fulachta fiadh works as a
cooking place. I will discuss Michael O’Kelly’s experiments as they are more detailed.
He experimented in reconstructing the fulachta fian at Ballyvourney, Co. Cork. During the
excavation he came across such features as a stone lined pit (a suspected oven), stepping
stones, 2 hearths, a wood lined trough filled with water that seeped in from the
surrounding peatty area. He also uncovered four small post holes forming a rectangle, then
concluded that it was probably a butchers rack. He also came across two vertical postholes
that he concluded was a meat rack. The remains of a small circular wooden hut was also
found and he concluded that this was probably a meat store. During reconstruction he
found that a butchers’ block could be made quite easily from new timber by making four
new posts, running timber from head to foot and across the sides, then placing short
timbers across them at right angles. The finished product made for quite a sturdy block.
The meat rack was reconstructed by getting two new pieces of timber, placing them in the
ground and laying a piece of horizontal timber across the top. The wooden hut was also
easily reconstructed.
The most crucial part of the experiment involved the trough. Could water be heated in it by
hot stones? Could a joint of meat be cooked in it? O’Kelly replaced the corner stops and
planks with new wood and filled in any interstices with moss. He then filled it with water
from the nearby stream. He lit a fire in the hearth and placed the stones carefully into it. A
long spade like shovel was used to place the heated stones into the water. With this method
they found that the water in the trough (454 litres) could be brought to the boil in 30-35
minutes. While the water was heating they prepared the meat, firstly wrapping it in a
covering of clean straw and binding it with rope. This process was found to keep the meat
free of grit and chips of stone then, basing himself on the modern recipe ‘20 minutes to the
pound and 20 minutes over’ they boiled the meat for three hours and twenty minutes,
keeping the water simmering by adding a new hot stone every few minutes. When the meat
was taken out it was found thoroughly cooked, free from contamination or any smoky or
ash taste. O’Kelly conducted a lot of other experiments but the main point to note from all
of this is that meat could be butchered, hung out, stored and cooked at a fulachta fian
relatively easily.
As discussed earlier it is hard to state that fulachta fiadh were used conclusively for
cooking due to the lack of animal remains. In all the excavation reports I have read they all
seem to ‘assume’ that cooking went on e.g. “The assumption that this was a cooking trough
therefore, is mainly based on the steep nature of its sides, especially the west and south
sides (which were) particularly steeply cut” (Doody 1987). There are some sites that
cooking definitely did take place. One such site is Peter Street, Waterford. The site
“appears to have been used for cooking. The presence of at least four mortars in the
background fill suggests that this area was used for the preparation of food” (Walsh 1990).
The finds of animal bones also depends on the quality of the soil from the area the site is
found in. If the soil is in any way acidic no animal bones would remain. A fulachta fiadh
excavated at Fahee South, Co. Clare produced a large number of animal bones from the
trough, pit and surface area of the site. “The preservation of bone at Fahee South, may be
due to a reduced soil acidity caused by the effect of the carboniferous limestone on the soil
and ground water” (O’Drisceoil 1988). This fact must be taken into consideration when
deliberating on the cooking theory.
There is one last point of discussion I would like to develop upon. Just as I compared
fulachta fiadh to other baths/saunas in the world I would like to compare them now to
other cooking sites in the world. If we look to Switzerland there are comparisons to be
made with some bronze and iron age cooking ovens. There are a lot of similarities to be
found between the stone lined pit at Ballyvourney and cooking ovens at La Roche. The pit
at Ballyvourney was 2m in length. It was wedge shaped and six thin flags of shale were lain
down to form a floor. A thick layer of fine charcoal had been brushed out through a small
gap in the north east corner, so obviously a fire had been lit inside, probably to heat the
floor and the walls of the pit. The pit was also built to receive heated stones. At La Roche in
Switzerland a rectangular structure was found measuring 2m in length. Stones measuring
between 10 and 17cm, partly burned, cracked or shattered formed a regular horizontal
layer on the floor. Under the stones a thick deposit of ash and charcoal was found. At a
similar second structure at the same site, stones showing signs of fire were found in small
piles outside the pit, remains of an animal bone at La Roche also go to show that the site
was used for cooking (Ramseyer, 1990). The similarities of both sites are hard to ignore.
I also think it is important to mention that the name fulacht fiadh and fulacht fian have
been in the Irish language for at least a millennium. The word fulacht originally meant a
recess or cavity and through time it came to be known as a pit used for cooking. Fiadh and
fian further emphasise this as they translate as ‘of the deer’ and ‘of the roving band of
hunters’ respectively. This all matches up with the literary references to fulachta fiadh
being cooking places.
 Bathing
Review of the evidence for bathing. Bathing seems to have been an important act in ancient
Ireland. We know this because in old Irish there was a fairly specialised terminology
associated with it. Let me explain:- the word for washing the whole body is fothrucud. The
word folcud refers to washing the head. Indmat or more commonly indlat is the term used
for washing the hands or feet. The first of these three terms still survive in Irish today, but
the term for washing oneself has become rather more generalised and is know as nigh
(Lucas, 1965).
What this all goes to tell us is that bathing was a normal part of the routine of personal
hygiene in ancient Ireland and if this is so then fulachta fiadh with their hot water may also
have been used as centres for ritual or recreational bathing as they were in other countries
from prehistoric times onwards. I found there to be a wide range of ethnographic evidence
of sweat baths and saunas. Evidence from all over Europe points to the fact that communal
bathing was the rule rather than the exception and was quite an important act in some
societies. The Sythians were described by Herodutus 2,500 years ago as having small tents
which served as vapour baths or saunas. Herodutus also describes how as well as water
they also burnt marijuana on the hot stones so they got high along with the steam. The
ancient Romans were very fond of baths, yet they had little to do with personal hygiene.
The ancient Roman baths could best be described as large recreational centres where
hundreds of people could gather to soak, lounge and engage in conversation with friends
relatives and neighbours. "The Roman baths thermae served as vast community recreation
and social centres not only in Rome itself but in every municipality of the empire" (Lewis
& Reinhold 1966, 117). In fact the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Turkish, Japanese and Nordic
cultures have partaken in forms of communal bathing from ancient times.
There is evidence to support the bathing/sauna theory in the form of early Irish literature.
References to fulachta fiadh appear in such early texts as Geoffrey Keating's "History of
Ireland" written in the 17th century. He describes how people dug two pits and kindled
raging fires. One of the pits was used for cooking but, at the other pit "the heroes
assembled around the fire. Each of them stripped off and tied his shirt to his waist; and
they ranged themselves round the second pit, bathing their hair and washing their limbs,
and removing their sweat, and then exercising their joints and muscles, thus ridding
themselves of fatigue" (O’Drisceoil 1990).
The theory that fulachta fiadh were in fact baths or saunas is one supported by L.H.
Barfield who believes that there is more evidence to support that they were baths rather
than cooking places. He draws up a hypothesis supported by the following main points of
evidence. (a) The absence of animal bones and settlement debris-suggesting that they were
not used for cooking or any domestic activity. (b) Their close proximity to water. (c) The
ubiquity of ethnographic examples of sweat bathing. (d) Uncertainties about the Irish
literary evidence. (Barfield, 1991). Although this hypothesis was mainly based on Fulachta
Fiadh in Britain and Scotland (called burntmounds there) I decided to apply it to Irish
examples.
Returning to the first point, is there an absence of animal bones and settlement debris at
Irish sites? I examined four sites. At Catstown, Co. Kilkenny no animal or domestic
remains were found (Ryan 1990). None of the fulachta fiadh on Valencia Island produced
any evidence either (Sheehan 1990). Either did the fulachta fiadh at Kilcor (Hurley 1990)
or Castleredmond Co. Cork (Doody 1987). In general this does seem to be the case. When
examining the second point of them being close to water I found this definitely to be the
case. In the central part of the Imlagh basin on Valencia Island a fulachta fian was
discovered in a peat bog. "A short distance across the basin to the east there was in pre-
peat times a low lying area with springs"(Mitchell 1990, 25). The fulachta fian at Catstown
Co. Kilkenny was situated at the east end of a ridge forming a watershed between streams
flowing northwards to the river Nore and southwards to the river Sur (Ryan 1990). The
Fulachta Fiadh at Ballyvourney Co. Cork stood on the dry alluvium of the flood plain of
the river Sullane 46m back from the rivers edge (O’Kelly 1954). The fulachta fian at
Castleredmond was also situated close to a river.
On the surface this theory seems very straightforward but there are some problems. The
validity of early Irish literature must be examined. Uncertainties about Irish literary
evidence have been considered by Diarmuid O’Drisceoil (1990). He points out that
references to fulachta fiadh are very varied and range from dates in the 9th century and
the 18th. He also points out that many of the tales are amalgams of earlier tales and
probably had a very long life of oral transmission before they were written down. A
number of written transmissions would have followed this, add this to the fact that old
Gaelic would have been very hard to translate and you will find that indeed early Irish
literature cannot be described as reliable. One other thing that O’Drisceoil points out is
that the descriptions of any activities that went on in the fulachta fiadh are very fanciful
and may not describe contemporary conditions or activities of the real world, therefore it is
hard to take early Irish literature as a reliable source.
There is another problem with the bathing theory. If fulachta fiadh are to be interpreted as
saunas or sweat houses they all should have coverings over them to keep the stream in and
provide protection against the elements. Only seven fulachta fiadh in Ireland have
associated structures e.g. Ballyvorney 1; so could the wooden hut that was interpreted as a
meat store by M.J. O’Kelly be better interpreted as a sauna covering? The fact that it is
near a stream may be due to the fact that after a spell in the sauna people generally
plunged themselves into cold water, this being a practise undertaken today by sauna users.
The stream would have served for this purpose. The other 6 structures are hard to
interpret as sauna coverings though as they do not enclose a trough or pit. The presence of
burnt stones discarded around the trough in a horse shoe shape also reinforces that Irish
fulachta fiadh did not have structures around them.
There is one last aspect in the bathing debate. The period when fulachta fiadh were most
popular i.e. the Bronze and Iron ages, is a time when we have evidence for a water based
religion in the British Isles and Europe. Take the King’s Stables at Navan for an example.
There is a ritual pool here into which people deposited offerings. ( Mallory & McNeill 1990)
"The ritual function of the sauna for purification might thus have been closely related to
this religious development" (Barfield & Hodder, p378, 1987).

Textile Centres
There are some people who feel that the cooking and bathing theories are not quite
satisfactory and they do not believe that fulachta fiadh were used for these purposes. There
is one last major theory to be discussed. Some people believe fulachta fiadh may have acted
as a place where cloth was prepared fulled, washed and/or dyed.
“Fulling is essentially the art of cleansing, shrinking and thickening cloth.” (Jeffery 1991,
97). The end result is not only clean cloth but thicker, semi-waterproof cloth. The process
dates back as far as 5000 BC and was practised all over Europe. It is quite a simple process
requiring warm and cold water and a detergent of some kind. Pot ash or stale urine was
some times used. Unfortunately our knowledge of the existence of any detergents in ancient
Ireland is poor. One of the earliest references to them come from the landlord of
Gibbstown estate near Navan, Co. Meath. He allowed his labourers to mow the thistles and
ragwort that covered the 1400 acres of arable farming land in his estate. In return he let
them keep what they mowed, so they could burn it and sell it as potash. If the exploitation
of plants for use of detergents was going on in the 17th century, then the realisation of its
worth may have become know a long time beforehand. I think there is no doubt in any
mind that stale urine was available in ancient Ireland. From the earliest times mothers
must have noticed that the soiled areas of their babies nappy’s washed slightly cleaner than
the rest. With this realisation must have came the fact that stale urine makes an excellent
detergent. When fulling cloth several things must be present, firstly a good supply of water
e.g. a stream or river. The cloth is then soaked in water, it is ‘waulked’ i.e. force is applied
to clean the cloth, and a detergent is then added to take the natural grease out of the
material. To do all this a large tub is needed, the trough from a fulachta fian being ideal. A
place to heat up stones for the water is also needed. The hearths from a fulachta fiadh site
would do. Finally a small stream or band of water in which the material can be further
waulked is needed. Most fulachta fiadh are positioned near a stream so water would have
been in plentiful supply. Fulachta fiadh would have been ideal for this purpose. If we
return to the Ballyvourney site, the ‘butchers’ block’ could have been used for preparing
or cutting cloth, the hut for storing cloth or detergent, the ‘meat rack’ for hanging the cloth
out to dry and the trough for fulling. The find of a spindle whorl at a fulachta fiadh at
Coarhamore, Valencia Island, Co. Kerry places the site well into the context discussed
above.
Fulachta fiadh may also have been used for dyeing material. You do not need much to be
successful at dyeing. “Basic necessities are a water source, a container, a heat source and
dye materials” (Cannon, 1994, 11). We know that dyeing was practised in Britain and
Northern Europe at a very early date and there is no evidence that the techniques were not
known in Ireland. Dyestuffs are easy to attain. Basically anything that releases colour when
boiled can be used as a dye. Most leaves from plants, barks from trees, berries from bushes
and even some soils produce a dye when boiled. So if the bark from a tree or the leaves of a
bush fell into a pot of boiling water and coloured it, the realisation that they could be used
for dyeing could have came about. Preparation of dyestuff involves crushing, kneading and
finally fermentation in cold water. The chosen dyestuff is then added to a large container of
hot water along with an alkali (optional) and fibre. When the dye process was finished the
material was hung out to dry. Again a fulachta fian would have been perfect for this
fermentation process.
There is some evidence of cloth production in bronze age Ireland. In Armoy, Co. Antrim a
woven woollen bag was found dating from the bronze age (Henshall 1950). As we move
onto the iron age and Early Christian Period more evidence begins to turn up. This
includes evidence for dyeing. Logically cloth had to be made. Our prehistoric ancestors had
to produce their clothes somewhere.
One last point to discuss is the fact the fulachta fiadh could easily have been ritual dyeing
places rather than ritual bathing places. Some of our first mentions of dyeing in Ireland
show that it was far from a mere domestic act. Dyeing was considered to be a somewhat
magical process, and was strictly a women's craft, there being a taboo on dyeing fabric in
the presence of men. The book of Lismore contains a passage in which St. Ciaran's mother
tells him to go out of the house, since it is unlucky to have men in the house while dyeing
cloth. He curses the cloth so that it dyes unevenly, then later recants. There were also rules
about which days of the month or week were proper for dyeing (Mahon 1982). In ancient
Ireland dyers had a reputation for being herbal healers, since many dyestuffs were also
used in folk medicine (Mahon 1982). It may be that fulachta fiadh were ritual dyeing sites
were cloth was prepared and dyed for special occasions. At the moment fulachta fiadh
seem a most likely candidate for centres of the production of clothes. They may have also
had a ritual context.

Concluding thoughts:
From the very outset of this dissertation I have always believed that fulachta fiadh would
make excellent centres for textile production. Although Michael O’Kelly provided
significant evidence that a fulachta fian could be used for cooking, I still did not believe
that this was the sole purpose of a fulachta fian. Neither did I believe that their sole
purpose was as baths. Hopping into a bath full of red hot stones is hardly practical. I also
did not believe that fulachta fiadh were used as saunas. To have a sauna- a room or
covering must be present in which the steam is contained. Only seven out of the c.20 000
fulachta fiadh in Ireland had associated structures, so it is unlikely that this is what they
were used for. That leaves us with one last theory. Could fulachta fiadh be laundries/textile
centres?
This was a question I hoped to answer and I believe in the course of this dissertation I have.
I started by seeing if this idea was viable. Fulachta fiadh are a bronze age innovation, if
they were used to produce textiles then the knowledge of washing, dyeing, spinning,
weaving and fulling would be needed. Was this knowledge available to bronze age Ireland?
I examined the history of all of these practises. I found washing garments probably went
back as far as their invention. The discovery of detergents probably coming from the soiled
nappies of children. The invention of dyeing probably came from accidental staining of
fruit or mud and it seems it was also a bronze age innovation. The knowledge of spinning
and weaving would have been around from the Neolithic as would the knowledge of fulling.
We have evidence that all these processes were practised in Europe. In Ireland we have the
Armoy bag and belt which date from the bronze age. Therefore it seems as thought the
knowledge of spinning and weaving were in Ireland from the bronze age-around the same
time that fulachta fiadh start appearing on the landscape.
It is all very well to theorise about the ‘when and wheres’ of textile production. The biggest
question still has to be answered. Can fulachta fiadh be used for centres of textile
production? To answer this question I built my own fulachta fian and conducted a number
of experiments in it. Firstly I washed a raw woolly sheep’s fleece using stale human urine as
a detergent. This experiment proved to be very successful. All the natural grease and other
pieces of dirt were successfully removed. The fleece even turned more uniform in colour. I
then experimented to see if wool could be dyed in a fulachta fian. Using ivy berries
collected from the surrounding area as a dyestuff and the fulachta fian as my container I
found that a large fleece could easily be dyed with little effort. The dyeing process involved
simply heating up the water, adding the dyestuff and material and keeping the water at a
constant temperature. By adding hot stones every 10 minutes, this was easily done. The end
result was a beautiful green wool. Spinning and weaving the prepared wool was also
possible. I succeeded in producing some spun and woven wool to aid in the next part of the
experiment. From the photos they do not look that impressive but the results may be
attributed more to my lack of experience and skill in these matters, than the inadequacy of
the fulachta fian. The last experiment I conducted was to see if wool could be fulled in the
fulachta fian. Fulling is a process in which cloth, once woven, is cleaned, shrunk and
thickened. It involved agitating the cloth in hot water with a detergent until it started to
thicken. This was done and once again the experiment proved successful. Although my test
piece of cloth was small to begin with it ended up even smaller and thicker, thus proving
the theory correct. So it seems that fulachta fiadh are exceedingly suitable for washing,
dyeing and fulling cloth and I feel that some of them were used for this purpose. In
undertaking this study I have had a long time to consider what fulachta fiadh were used for
and I believe that it is wrong to assign one particular use to them. I do not feel they were
exclusively ‘cooking places’ or ‘dyeing places’ I feel they may have had one or more
purposes. Think of our present day kitchen sink. The purpose of a kitchen sink is to wash
dishes but that is not all it is used for. In my home we have used our kitchen sink to wash
clothing, steep the Christmas ham in, soak dirty rags and wash muddy old boots in. It is
never solely used for washing dishes. I believe this to be the same for fulachta fiadh. They
may have begun having one sole purpose but a container full of hot water can be very
useful for a variety of things. I feel I have proved that fulachta fiadh can be used as centres
for textile production. The finds of spindle whorls at some sites backs this theory up.
Michael O’Kelly has proved that they can be used for cooking meat and Barfield and
Hodder have argued convincingly that they could be used for hot baths. I believe all of
these theories are correct and fulachta fiadh were nothing more than a bronze age kitchen
sink.
Recommendations:
In the archaeological community today it is widely accepted that fulachta fiadh were used
exclusively for cooking. Michael O’Kelly’s experiment at Ballyvourney proved a
convincing purpose to an otherwise puzzling monument. After Ballyvourney any other
experiments involving fulachta fiadh were merely a recreation of an already tried and
tested idea - such a Christy Lawless’ cooking experiment. It is clear that more work is
needed to clarify the purposes of fulachta fiadh. More theories need to be considered and
tested, just as I have done in this dissertation. When this is done I believe we will find that
fulachta fiadh had many uses and were not merely a large cooking pot.

Excavated Sites
It stands to reason that if I am going to reconstruct ancient technology I should try to know
as much about it as possible, that is why I have gone through the excavation reports of
known excavated fulachta fiadh in Ireland. What follows is summary of each report. I have
placed particular emphasis on the trough area of the fulachta fiadh as that will be the part
that I am reconstructing.
(1) Coarhamore - Valencia Island, Co. Kerry.
The trough was situated in a pit which was quite irregular in plan, measuring 2.74 x 2.32m
and was of uneven depth, shallowing out towards the NE. The trough was constructed
towards the S end of the pit and was formed of regular sandstone slabs. Its internal
dimension was 1.40m x 0.95m. Single slabs laid on edge formed its ends. A large
rectangular slab (1.30m x 0.85m) formed a floor to the trough. Above the level of the slab
floor the trough averaged 0.6m in height. (Sheehan 1990)
(2) Catstown - Hugginstown, Co. Kilkenny.
The trough was situated in the area between the arms of the mound. A scatter of twigs and
portions of charred oak bough and a few fragments of what may have been oak planking
(?) were found in this depression and these presumably represent the remains of the lining
of the trough. (Ryan 1990)
(3) Peter Street - Waterford, Co. Waterford.
A Wooden trough was uncovered during the excavation of the medieval properties at Peter
Street in Waterford. The trough was located 0.20m to the rear of a stone-footed house of
early 13th century date. The trough was placed in a pit which was dug through earlier pits
to a depth of 1.1m to the natural boulder clay forming the floor of the trough. The trough
measured 1.3 m x 1.7m and was constructed of horizontally laid planks, retained at the
corners and in the centre of the long side by upright posts. These had pointed bases driven
into the boulder clay. The uprights and planks were of oak and were trimmed with an axe.
The planks measured an average of 0.24m in breadth and 0.04m in width. The sides of the
trough stood to a maximum height of 0.62m. (Walsh 1990)
(4) Ballyvourney 1 - Co. Cork.
The trough was somewhat wedge-shaped on plan. Measurements taken along the central
axis gave its dimensions as 1.8 x 1m. The maximum depth measured from the water line
was 40cm. At a few points a small quantity of moss had been used to pack open spaces
between the timbers. The 2 long sides of the trough were made entirely of wood. The
timbers used were straight branches of birch (Betula) and Oak (Quercus). These branches
varied in diameter from 4 to 9cm. The short ends of the trough were constructed partly of
the same material and partly out of stone. At the corner of the trough there were vertical
stakes of oak which had come from a well grown tree and were carefully shaped with an
axe. The plank at the bottom of the trough was oak and measured 1.24 x 2.17m. (O’Kelly
1954)
(5) Killeens - site 1, Co. Cork
The internal dimensions of this trough were taken along the central axis and were found to
be 1.76m x 1.13m. The maximum height of its sides taken at the N end was 52cm. Bundles
of moss were found at corners of the trough to aid in water retention. The floor was made
of 4 planks laid side by side but not touching. The north ends were cut square, but at the
south ends three of them had broad asymmetrical v-shaped ends. Grooves had been cut
across the planks to make them compatible. When the sides and ends had been fitted
together over the floor boards, stakes were driven outside the long sides thus locking the
whole structure together over the floor boards. All timber work was of oak apart from one
stake which was Alder (Alnus). (O’Kelly 1954)
(6) Killeens - Site 2, Co. Cork
The deepening of the nearby stream at which it was constructed had so reduced the natural
level of the water in the ground around the trough that its ends and sides had decayed
away leaving only a bottom portion. Thus there are no conclusive measurements. (O’Kelly
1954)
(7) Killeens - Site 2 - trough 2, Co. Cork
The new trough was now constructed of planks as in the case of Killeens 1, these planks
were held in place by means of corner stakes of oak. The four corner stakes only remained
in position and there was no trace of the planks which had formed the sides of the trough.
Since the stakes were perfectly preserved the disappearance of the planks cannot be due to
decay. Using the corner stakes as a guide its dimensions must have approximated 2.1m x
1.4m and the existing height of the stakes over the floor of the pit establish a minimum
height for the side of the trough of 28cm. On the other hand it can be calculated from the
stratification that the sides of the trough must have been approx. 50cm high in order to
bring them level with the existing ground level. (O’Kelly 1954)
(8) Ballycrogher - site 1, Co. Down (Fig. 5)
This trough resembled a rectangular pit cut into the clay and lined with logs. The trough
measuring 6ft 6in x 3ft 3in was built of whole logs of oak which had been previously
barked. The seams had been caulked with moss, and the corners made secure by vertical
pegs. The floor of this trough sloped downwards slightly to the northern end, and this
lower end contained a small quantity of peat. For 2/3rds of its length, the logs flooring this
trough were laid longitudinally and the upper end was divided from the rest by a
transverse log which formed a septum. The floor at this upper end was lined with logs laid
transversely (Fig. 6), nearby being the remains of a small group of upright posts - standing
between the trough and the river. These may have formed a rack. (Hodges 1955).
(9) Ballycrogher - site 2b, Co. Down
The trough measuring in plan 4ft x 6ft lay between the two horns of the crescent. Only
flooring logs survived. These had been trimmed and barked, but were exceptionally soft
when found. The eastern end of the trough had been filled with large unburnt stones and
provided these originally lay flush with the top of the trough, its original depth may be
estimated at 18 inches. Lying partly beneath this floor was found a second pit filled with
burnt stones and ash. This was oval in plan with fairly steep sides, sinking to a depth of
18in below the floor of the trough. No traces of wood were found in this pit. (Hodges 1955).
(10) Ballycrogher 3, Co. Down.
In the middle of an area of heavy charring was found the remains of a cooking trough
which had been roughly square in plan with sides 4ft 2in x 4ft. The wood had completely
decomposed but the structure had clearly been made of wood, for the sides of the trough
were represented only by a band of dark-brown filling barley an inch wide. The floor also
must have been planked for on the removal of the overlying stone and ash, an even thinner
layer of decomposed wood was found. (Hodges 1955).
(11) Drombeg, Co. Cork
The trough was almost rectangular in plan. Measurements taken along its central axes gave
its dimensions as 1.5 x 1m. The maximum depth of water the trough would hold was 56cm.
The long sides of the trough were composed of slate slabs. The northern slab fell short of
the required length by 10cm and a vertical sndstone slab trimmed to the required width
had been skilfully inserted into the gap. The short sides of the trough were each made up of
a single slabstone slab while the floor area was largely taken up by a single finely quarried
slab of slate 1.40m long by 82cm, wide. The area of the trough floor not covered by the slate
slab was carefully paved with suitable pieces of slate. (Fahy 1960)
(12) Dromnea, Co.Cork
This trough was stone-lined with slabs of green sandstone set into a large pit dug to receive
the slabs. The trough was roughly trapezoidal in shape measuring 2.15m x 1.25m. The sides
consisted of four large slabs set end to end with no overlap roughly 8cm thick and 60cm
deep. The floor was natural sub-soil. The south-east slab did not fully cover that side and a
large quartz stone was inserted on the south end to fill a gap in the side of the trough.
(13) Castleredmond, Co. Cork
Several fulachta fiadh were found in this area. When excavated there was no evidence for
troughs - only pits. There was nothing remaining within these pits to suggest that there had
ever been a wooden or stone lining. However, in one of the pits there was no remaining
timber but there were the remains of 4 substantial postholes at each of the four corners,
suggesting timber was used. (Doody 1987)
(14) Kilcor South IV
The trough measured 1.40 x 1.45 m. It was made from a combination of horizontally laid
planks and brushwood supported with stakes. The base of the trough was lined with oak
(quersus). The east and north sides of the trough were faced with oak planks. Only a few
twigs remained on the west side. (Hurley 1987b)
(15) Clohoge, Co. Kilkenny
The fulachta fiadh was destroyed at an earlier date leaving only a spread of burnt stone
and charcoal. (O’Flaherty 1987)
Of course it has been several years since I did my research and I know that many more
fulacht fian have been excavated and published. It is worth contacting local archaeological
firms to see how many they have excavated and hold records on.