iron 'slave-collars' from lagore crannog, co. meath

Royal Irish Academy is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

Iron 'Slave-Collars' from Lagore Crannog, Co. Meath Author(s): B. G. Scott Source: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History,

Linguistics, Literature, Vol. 78 (1978), pp. 213-230Published by: Royal Irish AcademyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25506356Accessed: 29-06-2015 16:40 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 5.68.165.228 on Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:40:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ria

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25506356

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



[213]

8.

IRON ' SLAVE-COLLARS

' FROM LAGORE CRANNOG, CO. MEATH

By B. G. Scott

Queen's University /Ulster Museum, Joint Conservation Laboratory, Belfast.

(Communicated by J. Raftery, m.r.i.a.)

[Received, 23 June 1977. Read, 9 October 1978. Published, 1 December 1978.J

Abstract

The fine two-piece collar recovered from the lowest occupation at Lagore crannog, Co. Meath, provides much interesting insight into native Irish smith work, and its relationship to that practised in Britain. The long chain attached to the collar is of a style readily recognisable in late Roman Britain, while the inspiration for the collar decoration is suggested as originating in

Anglo-Saxon workmanship. Technical examination suggests that the collar as it now stands consists of two distinct halves made at different times and by different smiths.

The plain one-piece collar, easily paralleled from later pre-Roman Iron Age times through to the late Roman period in Britain, is also discussed and, along

with the two-piece collar, provides evidence for the reconstruction of a third, previously unsuspected collar now represented only by a fragment.

Consideration is given to the question of how the techniques behind the manufacture of these pieces reached Ireland, and of the more general question of the transmission of technical ideas in first millenium A.D. Ireland.

1. Introduction

Among the many fine objects recovered from the royal crannog of Lagore, Co. Meath, and now in the collections of the National Museum of Ireland, are a

superb two-piece decorated iron collar with its attachment-chain still in place, a fragment of a second two-piece collar, a one-piece collar closely parallel to

collars originating in the British pre-Roman Iron Age, and three short lengths of chain. Of these objects only the decorated collar came from the excavation

of the site carried out by H. O'N. Hencken; the rest were recovered by antiquar ians at different times between the date of the discovery of the crannog in the

early nineteenth century and the excavations from 1934 to 1936.

The decorated collar was sealed by the lowest level of occupation. Hencken

suggested a date around the mid seventh century A.D. for the start of building activity at the site, a date based both on his interpretation of archaeological association and on an interpretation by Liam Price of the literary evidence which seems to suggest that the construction of the royal crannog commenced about

651 A.D. Although Hencken's dating has been the subject of discussion and

criticism among Irish archaeologists, no one has, as yet, published alternative

dating based on a detailed reassessment of the site assemblage. There seems

to be no reason to alter significantly the seventh-century date for Period I at

PROC. R.I.A., VOL. 78 SECT. C [H8]



214 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy

Lagore on the basis of any evidence provided by the detailed examination of the

collars and chains described below, since it will be argued that manufacture of

the decorated piece dates to no later than the start of the seventh century A.D.

This paper is a re-evaluation of the significance of the two collars, collar

fragments, and the associated chains, based on a study of the way in which

they were made. From this it can be concluded that the decorated two-piece collar is made up of two unmatched halves representing two different collars of similar form, and that the manner of construction shows a strong foreign influence on its workmanship. It is also suggested that the collar-fragment

represents a new type which is intermediate in conception and construction

between the decorated two-piece collar and the plain one-piece Iron Age type. The origin of the technique of making the chains is discussed, and there is also a

consideration of the mechanism of transmission of technical knowledge and ideas

into and from Ireland.

2. The Decorated Two-piece Collar from the 1934-6 Excavations

(Pis. I and II)

(a) Description

The complete collar as we now have it is made up of two semi-circular halves

secured at the front by an arrangement of large links (PL la) and fastened at

the back by a riveted hinge (PL lb). The outer curved surfaces of the two halves are decorated by the application of strips of twisted square-sectioned bar (PL II) and the chain attachment is incorporated into the decoration of one side. For

the sake of convenience the half of the collar with the chain attachment will be

referred to as side 1, the other as side 2.

On side 1 (PL Ha) the decoration is made up of four twisted square-sectioned bars arranged in two pairs on either side of a plain central strip, also square in

cross-section. The plain strip is raised into a loop in one place to make the

attachment point for the chain. On either side, the pairs of twisted bars are

arranged so that their twists oppose to produce a pleasing herringbone pattern. Side 2 also has two pairs of twisted bars on either side of a plain central strip.

Here, however, the twists all run in the same direction so that no herringbone effect is produced (PL lib).

Side 1 is noticeably larger and heavier than side 2, forming the arc of a circle

whose inner radius is 7-3cm, outer radius 8-9cm. The maximum width of the

inner surface of side 1 is 3*6cm. Side 2 forms the arc of a circle with inner radius

8-2cm, outer radius 8-9cm: the maximum width of the inner surface is 2-8cm.

The chain is of interest both in the way in which its finks are formed and

joined together and also in that they taper in size from the attachment at the

collar to the present end of the chain. The biggest links are found just above

the point of attachment of the chain, where it passes through the arrangement of links forming the front closure mechanism. They have been forged from a

stock whose cross-section dimensions are 0'6 by 045cm. The link size here is

3*8cm in length by 2-3cm maximum width. At the other end of the chain the



Scott?Iron '

slave-collars '

from Lagore Crannog 215

smallest links occur; they measure 3-6cm long by 2*lcm in maximum width.

In contrast to the large links, these have been made from a thin iron wire with a cross-section of 02cm by 0-2cm. Although the complete chain is 3-65m long, the decrease in size of the links suggests that only the first two metres could

really be expected to stand up to the determined efforts of a would-be escapee, with the remaining links seeming unreliable as a means of securing the wearer

be it man or animal.

(b) Manufacture (Fig. 1)

Fig. 1 shows the various components (not to scale) and stages involved in the

making of the collar.1 Initially the smith gathered together two large billets of

iron2 and ten pieces of thin square-sectioned bar, nine of the same length, the

tenth somewhat longer. Eight bars of the same length were twisted, leaving a

short length at each end in the original condition. The long bar was bent in the middle to produce a loop and also effectively to reduce its length to that of the

others (Fig. la), while the tenth bar was left unaltered. The two large billets were drawn down to flat rectangular plates of flattened trapezoidal section.

Rectangular ' bites

' were taken from the corners of each plate leaving them

with an independent flap of thinned-down metal along each edge (Fig. lb).

The bars were divided into two groups, each consisting of twyo pairs of twisted bars and one plain bar. One group was arranged so that the twist of each bar ran in the opposite direction to that of its neighbours, and the looped strip was

laid between the two pairs. The other group was arranged in two pairs on either

side of a plain strip, but with the twists all running in the same direction. The

ends of the strips in each group were welded together to produce two composite

panels3 (Fig. lc).

Two small rectangular pieces were cut out of each side of one end-flap on

one of the plates, leaving a roughly square ' tail

' connected to the plate by a

thin strip of metal (Fig. Id). A single rectangular hole was cut in one of the

end-flaps of the other plate (Fig. le). Both strips were then bent to the required curvature.

The decorative panel with the loop attachment and herringbone patterning was placed against the plate with the rectangular perforation in the end-flap, and

this flap was bent round a piece of thin bar of circular section and over the welded end of the panel. The end-flap was then welded to the upper face of the end of the panel to cover the plain ends and to hold it in place, and the panel was bent

round to lie flush against the curved surface of the plate(Fig. If).

1 For the sake of simplicity, the manufacture of the complete collar is described as if carried out in one operation and by the one smith, although this was almost certainly not the case.

2 The material used in the manufacture of all the collars is ferrous metal, although without

metallographic examination, it is impossible to specify iron or steel, or a mixture. 3 One of the outside strips of side 1 has its plain end too wide to fit into the otherwise

rectangular outline of the panel. To overcome this, the smith has made it wedge-shaped to make it fit (see PI. lia).



2l6 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy

Fig. 1?Stages in the manufacture of the decorated two-piece collar. (Not to scale)



Scott?Iron '

slave-collars '


The second end-flap was bent round another, thicker, bar of round section

until the end was almost flush with the plain ends of the composite panel. Before it was welded into place, a large link with a slight waist was inserted into the

loop formed and the end-flap was then welded down over the end of the panel. The same procedure was carried out with the other composite panel and plate

(Fig. lg) to give side 1 with two loops projecting laterally at one end, and side 2

with a single, centrally-placed, projecting loop. The single loop of side 2 was

then inserted between the two loops of side 1, and a short rod of circular section

passed through all three. The ends of this bar were hammered into rivet heads, thus forming the permanent hinge (see PL lb). The large finks in the other ends

of the two sides form, with the chain, the front closing mechanism (Fig. lh). The link in side 2 is free to move in three directions and can be manipulated over the fink of side 1. If, in this position, the chain is passed through the end

link of side 1, the collar is effectively secured. The waist in the link of side 1

restricts the movement of the chain and presses the link of side 2 across the gap between the two sides of the collar. This, in turn, prevents the link of side 1 from

being manipulated sufficiently far to allow the chain to be slackened and the two halves of the collar pushed apart. As well as the actual closing mechanism, it is important to note that the chain, which forms an integral part of it, comes

from outside the immediate area of the mechanism (i.e. from the side of the

collar). We shall return to this point later.

At some stage, the projecting end-loop of side 2 was broken off and replaced

by a ' strap-end

' device (similar in shape to that labelled

' 2

' in PL IV) to

remake the hinge-joint. This repair has not been carried out in a particularly satisfactory fashion, as the ends of the outer-most strips of the decorated panel are left exposed (PL I). As pointed out above, the function of this flap, was to

hold the composite panel in place, and in doing so, to hide the plain ends of the

strips, and, in addition, to form the hinge.

3. The Chains and Their Fabrication (PL III and Fig. 2) The chain attached to the decorated collar (PL la) and the three fragments

(PL III) all have a link type extremely rare in Ireland. Instead of the usual

rectangular, oval or figure-of-eight links, the Lagore chains consist of links whose shape is that of a doubled-over figure-of-eight. This form, ultimately Roman in origin, is presumably a development of the figure-of-eight fink, since

this is an intermediate stage in its production. Figure 2 is a diagram (not to

scale) showing how the links were formed and joined together. After the stock had been forged into a roughly rectangular shape and the two ends scarf-welded

(Fig. 2a), a waist was formed by hammering towards each other the two long sides of the rectangle (Fig. 2b). The link was then bent over in the middle until

the two loops at each end touched at their tips (Fig. 2c). Although the hammering of the two loops and the waist together might accomplish a slight increase in

strength, the main function of this was probably to cut down the degree to which

the chain could tangle. It is noticeable that when handling the long chain

attached to the decorated collar where the tips of the loops of each link just touch, there is a strong tendency for the finks to get caught up with each other.



2i8 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy

Fig. 2?Stages in the manufacture of the chain-links. (Not to scale)

One interesting feature of chains made up in this way, which sets them apart from those of Llyn Cerrig Bach and Standfordbury types [infra) is that they can

only easily be lengthened by one link at a time. An unbent fink is passed through the loops of the link before it and bent over into the same shape (Fig. 2d). With

these chains, a new link is added by passing it, unbent, through the end-loops of the previous link, and not the loop formed when the link was bent double.

On Pis. lb and Ha it can be seen that it is these two end-loops which join up with the loop incorporated into the composite panel of side 1. While this

arrangement then points the link in the correct direction for further finks to be

added easily, it must mean that unless the smith involved himself in a much more

difficult and complicated piece of forging than was necessary, the first link must

have been fixed to the attachment point before the strip was incorporated into

the composite panel. One advantage of this technique is that the number of

individual finks required can be forged to the unbent, waisted stage (Fig. 2b) before the chain is actually put together. Assuming that we had two lengths of

chain made up of this type of link, and with the links all pointing in the same

direction, then to join them together would require that the ends of the joining fink be left unwelded until the basic shape had been formed and the link inserted

through the two loops of the link at one end of one of the chains?a complex process. Chains with figure-of-eight links, which are joined together with the

short axis of symmetry at 90? to those of the links on either side (e.g. Fox, 1946,

38, fig. 20) could readily be lengthened at either end or joined together. They are also less liable to tangle.

4. The One-piece Plain Collar (PL IV and Fig. 3) This piece can be paralleled exactly among collars which first appear in the

pre-Roman Iron Age of Britain (e.g. at Llyn Cerrig Bach?Fox 1946), and con

tinue on until at least Late Roman times (e.g. the fourth century A.D. Great

Chesterford find?Neville 1856). It is made from a bar of trapezoidal cross

section. The ends have been wedged out, folded over and welded back on

themselves to give two end-loops of different shapes. The larger of these has two

dissimilar large links through it, while the smaller holds one link only. These

three large links, along with the chain which would originally have been attached

to one of the pair of links in the same loop, form the closing mechanism shown



Scott?Iron * slave-collars

' from Lagore Crannog 219

Fig. 3?Reconstruction of the closure mechanism of the plain one-piece collar. (Not to scale)




in Fig. 3. The main differences between this fastening mechanism and that of

the decorated two-piece collar [supra, section 2b) is that the chain needs to be

passed through both free links and also that it commences in the immediate area of the closing mechanism. If the chain were not passed through both free

links, it would be possible, if only one link were used, to manipulate the chain so that the collar could be opened.

5. A 4 New

* Collar from Lagore (PL V and Fig. 4)

In PL III, one of the lengths of chain described above can be seen to have

a ' strap-end

' device joined to it by a large oval link (the piece is marked

' 2

'

in Pis. Ill and V). Examination of this strap-end shows it to consist of two

folded-over plates connected by a thin strip of metal raised into a loop through which the large oval link is passed. One plate has a ragged end that is the result

of an ancient break, while the other exhibits no such signs of damage. Between

two plates are sandwiched the broken ends of five bars of rectangular section

(PL V). The edges of the two plates have been hammered together tightly and

it is therefore impossible to tell whether the ends of these strips have been

welded together or not, although this is perhaps suggested by the position in

which four of the strips lie. One puzzling feature about the original publication of this piece is that although the fragment of chain with the large oval link was

drawn for a paper by Talbot4 (Talbot 1849, fig. opp. p. 104), the ' strap-end

' is

not shown. This is odd since there is no way in which it could have been added

recently without the joint being detectable. It must, however, be pointed out

4 I am grateful to U. O Meadhra for drawing my attention to this illustration.



Scott?Iron '

slave-collars '


that if the other artifacts shown in the same figure are those redrawn for Hencken's excavation publication, we can assume that Talbot's drawings are not accurate.

The only reasonable explanation of this piece is that it represents one end of a collar basically of similar form to the two-piece decorated example, and totally different from the Iron Age type, but owing something to each for its construction.

Figure 4 is a tentative reconstruction of what this collar might have looked

like, based on observation of the surviving fragment and of the other two collars described above. The illustration shows a collar made up of two halves, each formed from strips of rectangular-sectioned bar welded together. There are ' strap-end

' attachments at each end which help to hold the strips together and

also to form loops for the rivet of the hinge and links of the front closing mechan ism. The hinge is the same as on the two-piece decorated collar, while the closing

mechanism is similar to that of the specimen of Iron Age type.

The arguments for this reconstruction are as follows :

(i) The surviving end of one of the halves of the collar is attached to the chain

by a large link similar to the chain attachment of the Iron Age collar. However, unlike the Iron Age collar, there is room for one link only to pass through the

end-loop and it is not unreasonable to suppose that the end-loop of the other

half of the collar would have been of similar proportions.

(ii) The fact that the break in this piece is clean and not the result of corrosion

during its period of deposition suggests that there was a weakness here. If the

composite panels had been mounted on backing plates (as on the two-piece decorated example) it could be expected that this would reinforce them sufficiently to prevent the fracture occurring where it did.

(iii) The weakness suggested would have been the result of placing the chain

attachment at one end rather than in the middle of the collar with support from a solid backing plate. As only one link could be inserted through the

surviving end-loop the chain could be pulled backwards and forwards by straining

against the point of attachment of the free end. If the collar had been made in

one piece we would expect the back region to take the full fatiguing stress and

fracture to occur here. Unless more has broken off the fragment since it was

discarded (which seems unlikely), it will be obvious that if there had been a back

hinge to allow free movement the stress would have been concentrated at the

point of chain attachment. It is thus interesting to find that the rectangular

strips have sheared off at exactly the point where the reinforcing cover of the tails

of the strap-end stop (PI. V).

6. Discussion

For the sake of simplicity, the manufacture of the decorated collar has been

described [supra section 2b) as if carried out by one smith. Apart from the

noticeable difference in the size of the two sides of this collar, there is also a

marked difference in the quality of workmanship displayed by each. Side 1 is

by far the better made. The herringbone pattern is made up of strips which show

[H8a]




a uniformity of torsion along their length and also when compared to each other.

The torsion of the strips of side 2 is uneven in comparison with those of side 1.

This seems to suggest that the two halves were not made by the same smith and

also that the smith who made side 1 was a more competent craftsman than the

maker of side 2.

The most likely explanation is that side 1 represents an original collar in

which both sides were matched in pattern, size, and workmanship, and that

side 2 represents an inferior copy of the original half of the collar made by a less

competent smith who did not elect to use (or did not grasp the significance of)

opposed twists for decoration. A good reason for the joining together of sides 1

and 2 would be that side 2 was a substitute for an original too badly damaged for repair. Side 1 represents an extremely fine piece, and there is no difficulty in imagining that the owner would rather have had it repaired than discard it.

Now, either side 2 was specially made to fit side 1, or it was cannibalised from a

complete but inferior copy of the original. In the light of the discovery of the

fragment of a collar of related type, and because it seems unlikely that a smith

deliberately making a replacement side could have got both dimensions and size

wrong, the balance of evidence is for the existence of a ' second-hand

' copy,

represented by side 2, of the original represented by side 1. This also helps to

throw light on the cause of the repaired break on side 2 (supra, section 2b).

We have seen in section 5 that one of the main points of weakness on a collar

of this type would be the point of chain attachment and that the use of a backing

plate would add mechanical strength. Yet on side 2 we see that the whole

end-flap at the hinge has been broken off. It would seem more likely that, if a

fracture were to have occurred naturally here, the ends of the strips of the

composite panel would have sheared also. It is also likely that the amount of

stress needed to accomplish this would have sheared the rivet first, unless

breakage were deliberate. To unhook the two halves of the collar supplying the

replacement, it would have been necessary only to cut the rivet of the hinge. It is probable therefore that the end-flap of side 2 was deliberately removed

because the projecting end-loop was not of the right shape and-or size to fit

between the projecting loops of side 1. It has already been pointed out that the

repair is somewhat of a botched job because it fails to cover properly, and thus

secure, the outermost strips of the composite panel. For a smith to copy the

method of construction of the collar represented by side 1, he must at least have

understood the importance of using the folded-over-end and side-flaps to secure

the composite panel in place. This would suggest that the smith who repaired side 2 was not the smith who made it. A possible candidate is the smith who

made the collar described in section 5, because of the similarity between the

repair of side 2 and the surviving terminal of the new collar. He did not use a

backing plate, but simply secured the strips together by welding them into

a strap-end. To make the end-loop of size 2 fit it would probably have seemed

quickest to employ the device that he had used previously. However, it is still

possible that we are dealing with three collars made by three separate smiths,

working at different times.



Scott?Iron '

slave-collars f


With the exception of a fine gold chain found in 1842 at Newgrange, with

other gold ornaments (the Conyngham find?Carson and O'Kelly 1977, 53-54, and PL III), it is most difficult to find parallels in Ireland for either the collars or chains from Lagore. The chain from among the Conyngham gold ornamhnts consists of fifty links of bent-over figure-of-eight form, and was found with two

rings and two bracelets with strong Romano-British affinities dated to the period second to fifth centuries A.D. The only other Irish examples of the link type known

to the writer come from the three-link chain attached toa mount (described as a ' chariot fitting ') from a find at Navan, Co. Meath (Wood-Martin 1895,248, fig. 50A),

and a three-link chain from Ballinderry crannog no. 1 (Hencken 1936, 146, fig. 5). The Navan piece can probably be ascribed to the ninth or tenth centuries, while

the chain from Ballinderry comes from a level suggested by the excavator to

date to the eleventh century onwards.

In Britain, however, the links of the Lagore chains are identifiable as Piggott's Great Chest erf ord type, being identical, for example, to those seen on the remains

of cauldron suspension rigs from the Great Chest erf ord, Essex (Neville 1856, PL 3 and 4ff.) and Blackburn Mills, Berwickshire (Piggott 1955, 42-44, and

43, fig. 11, B-17: cf. Manning 1972, 233 note 63) hoards of ironwork, and

these may further reinforce the dating of the Newgrange find. We may also note the form in bronze in chain fragments from pit 20 at Richborough, Kent

apparently deposited some time after the late Claudian period (Bushe-Fox 1928, 30, and PL XV, 10). A significant parallel is provided by the links of the Sutton

Hoo cauldron suspension gear (Bruce-Mitford 1973, 38, fig. 16 and PL 23). Later examples include two bronze ch?telaines from Queen Victoria Street, London (Wheeler 1935, 189-190, and Pis. XVIII and XIX) and three unassoci

ated fragments also from London (Guildhall Museum Catalogue, PL XX, nos. 3, 4 and 7, and pp. 58-59). What may be a badly corroded link of this type occurs among the iron finds from Manching, in Bavaria (Jacobi 1974, 226, and Taf. 58, no. 877). An interesting mediaeval foreign parallel is provided by the silver chain links from grave 11 at Wartmannstetten in Austria (Hampl 1961, 26-29, 28, abb. 14). We may disregard Hencken s suggestion (1951,115-117) that the Lagore chains are to be classed with those from Bigbury Camp in Kent

(Boyd-Dawkins 1902, 211 and PL III), since the latter fall into Piggott's Stand

fordbury type (Piggott 1955, 26). We do encounter serious problems when looking for parallels for the original

decorated Lagore collar. One of a group of five one-piece collars joined together

by a padlock in the Great Chesterford hoard is made of a flat strip of iron with a raised cord decoration running down the centre (Neville 1856, 9 and PL 2.24). However, this decoration lies on the inside, and is probably not more than an

interesting example of relief forging rather than a parallel to the welding on of

twisted strips to a backing plate.5 The technique of opposing twists on separate rods to produce a herringbone pattern is fairly well known in later prehistory,

being seen in Ireland, for example, in the gold necklace from Duhallow, Co. Cork

(Windele 1861, 28f.) and the composite Broighter, Co. Deny torque. Individual

5 I am indebted to the referee for drawing this piece to my attention.




twisted rods are quite common as bucket handles and the like both in Ireland

(as at Lagore?Hencken 1951, 114, fig. 47) and Britain (e.g. the Blackburn Mill

hoard?Piggott 1955, 43, fig. 11, B-12), and were also used as suspension rods in

cauldron chain complexes (e.g. the pieces in the Eckford, Roxburghshire hoard?

Piggott 1955, 25, fig. 5, E6-E9). But the placing of twisted rods together to make

composite herringbone-patterned panels seems to occur first with the six

examples incorporated into the Sutton Hoo cauldron suspension gear. It must

be noted that this complex has its best British parallel in the suspension gear from Great Chesterford, Essex (Neville 1856, PL 3, 4ff.; Piggott 1955, PL I),

where the beautifully wrought centre-piece (as well as the links) incorporating a

perfect reef-knot in iron, is very close indeed to the form of the Sutton Hoo

centre-piece. The Blackburn Mill centre-piece (Piggott 1955, 43, fig. 11, B-17) is similar, but less elaborate, lacking particularly the reef-knot.

The dating of the Sutton Hoo suspension gear is of importance to this study, on account of the herringbone panels. The Blackburn Mills hoard contains

strong Roman elements (some tools and the bronze patera?Piggott 1955, 9f.), and Piggott would see it as dating to some time in the first to second centuries, A.D.

It is accepted that the Great Chesterford hoard dates to the fourth century A.D. (Piggott 1955, 8; Manning 1972, 235-236). Since it is evident from the

repairs to the bronze cauldron from Sutton Hoo that this piece had been in use

for some time, and considering the ' heirloom

' nature of objects like the

Anastasius dish from the same deposit, it is not impossible that the Sutton Hoo

suspension gear could have been made roughly contemporary with the Great

Chesterford example, without complications over the mid seventh-century terminus ante quern now

placed on Sutton Hoo on numismatic grounds.

Examples, in iron, of the use of opposed twists to produce composite artifacts

bearing panels of herringbone decoration (not pattern-welded) are hard to find.

And the best parallel, as we shall see, for the decoration of side 1 of the Lagore collar may well come from the composite panels included in the Sutton Hoo

suspension gear. But the idea has a much wider application as the basis for the

herringbone decoration of a large number of pattern-welded weapons both from

Britain and abroad. And we may note that X-radiography of the sword blade

from the Sutton Hoo deposit revealed that the blade had a herringbone pattern. This is the simplest form of the technique (and the earliest ?) being seen, for

example, on swords from the great Nydam deposit (e.g. Wilson 1970, 38, fig. 17 ; Sch?rmann 1959). The technique was well known among the people who

assembled the Sutton Hoo grave goods (and chain suspension rigs for cauldrons are known from Scandinavia?Bruce-Mitford 1973, 39, and 91, note 31 : cf. Jacobi 1974, 112f? 114, abb. 28 and Taf. 34 no. 592 for other comparanda) and to

the writer at least, the derivation of the idea for the Sutton Hoo herringbone

panels from herringbone pattern-welding seems a likely explanation.

In both Sutton Hoo and Lagore examples, we see the combination of chains

with a highly distinctive link form with the basic element of herringbone pattern

welding. There seems little doubt that the Sutton Hoo chain links follow a

tradition well established in Roman Britain, and that the complex as a whole



Scott?Iron ' slave-collars


draws its decorative inspiration both from Romano-British (i.e. the chains and

centre-piece with reef-knot) and Germanic (the herringbone panels) smithing. There is good archaeological evidence for contacts between Roman Britain and

Ireland during the currency in Britain of the Great Chesterford link type (see most recently Warner 1976), as well shown by the Newgrange find, although these are unlikely to have introduced the idea of pattern-welding. Indeed,

although contacts with the Germanic world which could have introduced

pattern-welded weapons to Ireland are also attested in the archaeological record (e.g. Jope 1955, Scott 1977), the first certain examples of pattern

welded artifacts are firmly of Viking origin. Of these, only three have a

herringbone pattern; one (a sword from a burial at Larne, Co. Antrim?

Fanning 1970) is dated to the tenth century.6 But it is surely too great a

coincidence that these two elements should combine independently in East

Anglia and Co. Westmeath, and then be found on pieces deposited at roughly the same time. Given that the chain is an integral part of side 1, that the

Newgrange chain is of a date towards the mid first millenium A.D. and that

the few other chains of the type are dated much later, also that herringbone

pattern is a later first millenium A.D. intrusive technique, then either side 1

of the Lagore (and its chain) is an import, or was it made by an Irishman

working directly under the influence of foreign smithing traditions, and we must

surely look to Britain, most likely to Anglo-Saxon workmanship of the sixth to

seventh centuries, as the source.

That a copy (represented by side 2) could be made of the original collar

(represented by side 1) in which the essential feature of the original decoration

is lost argues for workmanship, probably of a native smith, uninfluenced by the

smithing traditions of the first. The third collar, represented by the fragment, shows an imperfect understanding of the rationales behind the constructions

either of the imperfect copy or the original, and was probably made by an Irish

smith. The identity of the smith who made the original collar and its chain, and

the way in which it reached Ireland is of great interest since it raises questions about the mechanisms of transmission and reception of technological ideas in

early Ireland.

As well as strong evidence for close contact with Scandinavia in general, and

Sweden (where pattern-welding was well known?Th?lin 1967), there is also

evidence of an Irish connection in the Sutton Hoo assemblage. Henry (1965,

74-75) describes hanging-bowl escutcheons from the assemblage as *. . . obviously of Irish workmanship (my italics) ', and also sees a link between them and the

establishment of a monastic settlement by the Irish missionary, St. Fursa, at

nearby Cnobheresburgh around 630 A.D. on land granted by the Christian king

Sigeberht, a member of the ruling house of East Anglia, and presumably therefore

a relative of the person for whom the Sutton Hoo tumulus was erected. It is

historically attested that many Irish monastic communities, at least in their

6 The two other examples of herringbone patterning known to me from Ireland are a

' dagger

' from a burial at Eyrephort, Co. Galway (Raftery 1960) and a winged spearhead

simply localised to '

Ireland '

{in J. B0e Viking Antiquities in Ireland) both in the collections of the National Museum of Ireland.



226 Proceedings of the Royal Irish A cademy

earlier periods, numbered skilled metalworkers among their inmates, and that

metalworking in general was an integral part of their internal economic organisa tion ; indeed, remains of ironworking have been uncovered at Fursa's monastery

(Cramp 1976, 214).7 The magnificent garnet jewellery included in the Sutton

Hoo deposit strongly suggests that the Wuffingas had at their disposal the

services of a workshop under the direction of at least one master-craftsman.

And such a workshop need not have confined its activities to jewellery work, but could also have embraced fine smithing. A passage from the Laws of Ine of

Wessex composed c. 690 A.D. states that a smith was an essential part of a

nobleman's household (Schubert 1957, 62). We have similar evidence for master

craftsmen working for the Norwegian nobility from the Frostingslag (Capelle 1968, 93f.). Given the obviously good relations that existed between Fursa's

foundation and the East Anglian royal household, and the probable existence of

metal workshops in both, we have a potentially strong point of contact between

two schools of workmanship. Even if the chain complex from Sutton Hoo was

an heirloom, it seems quite possible that the ideas which it incorporates would

have been open to learning by Irish monastic smiths. And the links that were

maintained between the homeland and missionaries abroad provide one mechan

ism whereby the same combination of ideas could possibly have been transmitted

back to Ireland. The fact that Fursa could have made for this region to be welcomed

with such obvious warmth argues for pre-existing contacts that might have acted as transmitters of ideas before the formal establishment of the monastery.8

The copy of the original collar was made by a smith unfamiliar with the idea

of herringbone patterning, less skilful than the maker of the original and certainly unaware of the technique of producing herringbone pattern-welding. The reason

for making the copy is immaterial; what is of importance is that here we see one

example of foreign influence on native workmanship?the influence of form

unrelated to the underlying technical concept. The hybrid collar shows the way in which another smith borrowed ideas from two sources (the tradition of making

one-piece collars which stretches back to Iron Age times, and the two-piece type),

again on the basis of form unrelated to technology. The contrast between the purely mechanical copying of shape or the imitation

of a style whose underlying technology is imperfectly understood, and the

assimilation and adoption of new technical ideas presented by this interpretation is of importance since it is something encountered frequently in the archaeology of the first millennium A.D. in Ireland. A worker skilled in the reproduction of

shapes needs no more than a model from which to work. But if he is unacquainted

7 As well as the excavated evidence from Nendrum, Co. Down (Lawlor 1928), there are numerous references in the literature to ecclesiastical smiths. Of particular interest is a

story in Adomnan's Life of Columba (ed. and trans. Anderson and Anderson 1961, 392, 76b) which shows the presence of smiths in the lona community in the saint's lifetime. See also O'Neill's study (1967) of mining and metallurgy by monastic communities of the British Isles.

8 Were it to be demonstrated, for example from reassessment of imported pottery and other artifacts, that the building of the crannog commenced at a date significantly earlier than c. the mid 7th century A.D., this should not decrease the significance of the connections between the two pieces to any great degree. It would obviously lessen or remove the possibil ity that monastic contacts were responsible for the arrival of the original Lagore collar in

Ireland, thus necessitating a fresh interpretation of the transmission mechanisms.



Scott?Iron ' slave-collars


with the raw material, or with a new technique for working a familiar material, he needs first-hand instruction to be able to exploit the innovation properly or at all.9

Two negative examples illustrating this are the apparent absence of either native Irish-made wheel-thrown pottery10 or the induced-draught iron smelting furnace (the shaft-furnace) in the first millennium A.D. For each, we have good evidence that the Irish were in contact with people to whom these techniques

were known and were, in the case of wheel-thrown pottery, actually importing the products (probably as the containers for perishables). If a new material, or

an old material used in a new way, is encountered to-day, a range of sophisticated laboratory study techniques can be brought to bear in establishing its identity.

On the other hand, unless the early worker could find out at first-hand how an

object was made in terms of manipulating the raw materials, he would have been faced with the most severe difficulties imposed by an essentially empiric tech

nology. Thus, while Irish potters might have tried to copy the shapes of imported wheel-thrown pottery, they would have been unable to reproduce the technique

by merely looking at the vessels. However, even if a small group of wheel-using

potters, or of iron smelters who used the shaft-furnace, had established workshops in Ireland where the natives of the region could come to observe and learn, there are factors in the organisation of production in early Ireland preventing these

techniques from spreading and being adopted and exploited.

Early Irish industry takes its ' organisation

' as a direct result of the ordering

of early Irish society and settlement (Scott 1973, 1978). In precisely the same

way that settlement is scattered and small-scale, so is early production. Here and

there, sites like Garannes, Ballycatteen, Clogher and Lagore produce industrial

debris that suggest a greater level of production than normal, but these are

exceptional. The concept of the ' town

' as a political, social, economic, and

industrial unit is totally foreign to Ireland before the establishment of permanent

Viking settlements. Even after this the concept was not adopted. Excavations

carried out in Viking Dublin (? R?ord?in 1971) reveal intensity and diversity of

industrial activity simply not encountered on native sites. Groups of professional artisans were operating workshops in the mainstream of European production

technologies, and making goods for trade as well as local consumption. With

native production on a level comparable with a nineteenth-century cottage

industry, opportunities for observation, assimilation, and dispersal of knowledge would have been infrequent. Furthermore, since the bulk of production seems to

have been directed towards immediate local consumption, the incentive for

8 An example of imperfect understanding of raw materials come from the forging of the iron Llyn Fawr Sickle, and the iron looped and socketed axes from Britain and Ireland

(Scott 1974b, 1 If.). Here, copies are made of existing bronze types in a new material whose

physical properties are less suitable to the cast shapes of the originals. 10 See Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus Vol. I, Milan Glosses on the Psalms, fol. 18b, gloss 4,

p. 23. A. roth cruind forsandenat nacer da innalestrai . . . nid crann f cr?ind immuambiat ocuan denum: i.e. a round wheel on which the potters make the vessels, or a round piece of wood about which they are while being made. This shows Irish monks acquainted

with the potters' wheel and, given familiarity with imported wheel-made wares in Ireland and contacts with expatriates, it should have been possible for people in Ireland to get an

idea of the technology, but not practical experience of it.




experimentation and assimilation would be much less than in the context of an

urban industrial economy geared to trade. Travelling craftsmen might have

been vehicles for the spread of new technical ideas were it not for the absence of

evidence, literary or archaeological, for their existence. And our immigrant group of wheel-using potters and shaft-furnace smelters would thus only be able to

impart information which could not survive their passing.

Poor communications and the lack of opportunity or incentive to learn new

techniques may thus be cited as reasons for the very slow development of certain

production industries in first millennium A.D. Ireland. Although the rise of

monastic communities containing skilled artisans could have acted as industrial

foci, their influence would have been limited to that knowledge which could be

transmitted visually or orally?art-styles, religion, and literature. Otherwise, the factors outlined above would have restricted their role as disseminators of

practical, technical information. Yet another factor is the exceedingly small

number of genuine innovators, as compared to the very large number of workers,

in any industry.11 Where communications are good this should not prevent the

spread of new ideas,12 but where they are bad, new ideas may have* a very limited

range of travel. It is not surprising, therefore, that if we consider the arrival in

Ireland of the original decorated collar and its attached chain (and even the

nearby Newgrange chain) as an innovating influence, its effects are extremely limited. Even had the smith who made the original collar and chain come to

Ireland with his handiwork, we might not expect to see his influence have any

greater spread.

Conclusions

The dating of the deposition of the complete collar as it now stands must at

present be established by Hencken's interpretation of the evidence for the

period la of the site. Thus the original collar represented by side 1 can be no

later than the earlier seventh century. From the sequence of construction of the

collar, it should be assumed that the original arrived in Ireland some time before

this, to allow time for the copy to be made and for the two unmatched halves to

come together. It is unlikely that this would have occurred too close in time to

the arrival of the original, and manufacture of the copy.

A final point may be made about the function of the two-piece collars.

Although commonly referred to as ' slave collars ', it would seem odd that such

fine pieces would have been put to such lowly use. Byrne (1973, fig. 13, opp. p. 88) more reasonably suggests that the complete Lagore collar could have been used

to secure hostages. Another explanation is that they were not intended for men, but animals. A passage in the T?in B? C?ailgne which relates how the infant

11 In talking of innovators, we are referring to individuals or small groups who make

discoveries, as opposed to the people who possess a particular piece of information and transmit it to the unenlightened.

12 A good example of the spread of a new idea can be seen in the rise of beaten bronzework in barbarian Europe and the British Isles. It stems ultimately from the recognition of the

technique of annealing which allows bronze to be beaten out into very thin sheets which can then be used in the construction of various artifacts such as buckets, cauldrons and

body armour.



Scott?Iron '

slave-collars ' from Lagore Crannog 2,2,$

Setanta came to be called Cu Chullainn, tells how a fierce dog belonging to

Culann Cerd, and of which he was inordinately proud, came to be killed. In this

passage, the dog is described as being chained up because of its temperament

(O'Rahilly 1970, 24, 856-871). It is also interesting to note the occurrence at

Lydney Park, Gloucs.13, of a small bronze figurine of a dog (Wheeler 1932, 40,

88-9, and PL XXV), identified as an Irish wolfhound whelp, and which is depicted as wearing a large collar. Is it not possible that instead of being used to secure

slaves or hostages, the decorated Lagore collars might have been used for

favourite animals as a way of showing the esteem of the master for his pet (while at the same time keeping the

' pet

' safely restrained) ?

Acknowledgements

I should like to express my gratitude to the Director of the National Museum of Ireland, Dr. J. Raftery, for permission to study this group of objects, and for

his many helpful comments during the writing of this paper. Also to the National

Museum for providing the plates, to the Assistant Keeper of Irish Antiquities, Mr. M. FitzG. Ryan for much assistance, and to Mrs. D. Crone of the Department of Antiquities, Ulster Museum, who composed the illustrations. I am grateful, also, to the referee for his comments.

REFERENCES

Abbreviations

Arch. J. Archaeological Journal. J.G.A.H.S. Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society. J.R.S.A.I. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland.

Med. Arch. Mediaeval Archaeology. P.R.I.A. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. P.S.A.S'. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

U.J.A. Ulster Journal of Archaeology.

Anderson, A. O. and M. O., ed. and trans. 1961 Adomnan: Life of Columba. Oxford.

Boe, J. 1940 Viking Antiquities in Great Britain and Ireland, 3. Oslo.

Boyd-Dawkins, W. 1902 On Bigbury Camp. Arch. J. 59, 1902, 21 If.

Bushe-Fox, J. 1928 Second Report of the Excavation of the Roman Fort at Richbor

ough, Kent. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, no. VII, London.

Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S. 1973 Sutton Hoo. London.

Byrne, F. 1973 Irish Kings and High Kings. London.

Capelle, T. 1968 Das Metallschmuck von Haithabu. Neumunster.

Carson, R. A. G. and O'Kelly, C 1977 A catalogue of the Roman coins from New

grange Co. Meath and notes on the coins and related finds P.R.I.A. 77 C (2), 35-53,

Catalogue of the Collection of Antiquities in the Guildhall Museum (2nd edn.), London 1908.

Cramp, R. J. 1976 Monastic Sites. In ed. D. M. Wilson, The Archeology of Anglo-Saxon England. London, 201-252.

Fanning, T. 1970 Viking grave-goods from Larne. f.R.S.A.I. 100 (i), 71-78.

Fox, Sir C. 1946 A find of the Early Iron Age from Llyn Cerrig Bach, Anglesey. Nat. Mus. of Wales, Cardiff.

Hampl, F. 1961 Ein fr?hgeschichtliches Gr?berfeld in Wartmannstetten, pol. Bez.

Neunkirchen, N.?. Arch ologia Austr?aca, 29, 18-37,

Hencken, H. O'N. 1936 Ballinderry Crannog no. 1. P.R.I.A. 43 C (5), 103-239.

Hencken, H. O'N. 1951 Lagore crannog, Co. Westmeath: an Irish royal residence of the 7th-10th centuries. P.R.I.A. 53 C (1), 1-247.

13 I am grateful to R. B. Warner for drawing my attention to this piece.




Henry, F. 1965 Irish Art in the Early Christian Period to A.D. 800. London.

Jacobi, G. 1974 Werkzeug und Ger?t aus dem oppidum von Manching, Wiesbaden.

Jope, E. M. 1955 A spearhead of Germanic type from Co. Fermanagh. U.J.A. 18, 16-17.

Lawlor, H. 1928 The monastery of St. Mochoi at Nendrum. Belfast.

Manning, W. H. 1972 Ironwork hoards in Iron Age and Roman Britain. Britannia 3, 224-250.

Neville, R. C. 1856 Description of a remarkable deposit of Roman antiquities of iron, discovered at Great Chesterford, Essex, in 1854. Arch. J. 13, 1-13.

O'Neill, H. 1967 Monastic mining and metallurgy. Metals and Materials 1 (6), 182-190.

O'Rahilly, C. ed. and trans. 1970 T?in B? C?alnge from the Book of Leinster. Dublin. ? Ri ordain, A. B. 1971 Excavations at High Street and Winetavern Street, Dublin,

Med. Arch. 15, 73-85.

Piggott, S. 1955 Three metalwork hoards of the Roman Period from Southern Scotland. P.S.A.S. 87, 1-50.

Raftery, J. 1960 A Viking Burial in County Galway. J.G.A.H.S. 29 (i, ii), 3-6.

Schubert, H. 1957 History of the British Iron and Steel Industry. London.

Sch?rmann, E. 1959 Untersuchungen an Nydam-Schwerten. Archiv f. Eisenh?ttenwesen 30 (3), 121-130.

Scott, B. G. 1973 Early Irish ' tribes

' and

' tribalism '. Ogam, XXII-XXV, 1970-1973,

in press. Scott, B. G. 1974a The application of techniques of physical examination to archaeolo

gical research. In Perspectives in Irish Archaeology, ed. B. G. Scott. Belfast, 107-120.

Scott, B. G. 1974b Notes on the transition from bronze to iron in Ireland. Irish Archceol. Res. Forum 1 (1), 9-21.

Scott, B. G. 1977 Metallographic examination of some early Irish iron tools and weapons. P.R.I.A. 77 C (12), 301-317.

Scott, B. G. 1978 The introductions of non-ferrous and ferrous technologies to Ireland: motives and mechanisms. In Fifth A tlantic Colloquium Proceedings, Dublin. Forthcoming.

Talbot, J. 1849 Memoir on some ancient arms and implements found at Lagore near

Dunshaughlin, County of Meath; .... Arch. J. 6, 101-109.

ThAlin, L. 1967 Metallografisk unders?kning av ett vendeltidska praktsv?rd. Fornv?nnen 62, 305-324.

Warner, R. B. 1976 Some observations on the context and importance of exotic material in Ireland, from the first century B.C. to the second century, A.D., P.R.I.A. 76 C (12), 267-292.

Wheeler, R. E. M. 1932 Excavation of the Prehistoric, Roman and Post-Roman site in

Lydney Park, Gloucs. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London no. IX. London.

Wheeler, R. E. M. 1935 London and the Saxons. London.

Wilson, D. 1970 The Vikings and their Origins. London.

Windele, J. 1861 Ancient Irish Gold, U.J.A. 33, 28-50.

Wood-Martin, W. G. 1895 Pagan Ireland: An Archaeological Sketch. London,



a

Lagore crannog. Decorated two-piece collar, a: Front view showing closure mechanism, b: Back view showing hinged joint and repair to side 2.

Courtesy National Museum of Ireland.

Lagore crannog. Decorated two-piece collar, a: Side 1 showing herringbone pattern and chain attachment, b: Side 2.

Courtesy National Museum of Ireland. . .



PROC R.I.A., VOL. 78, SECT. C Plate III Plate IV

Lagore crannog. Chain fragments among odd finds. The modern join between a and b is marked with an arrow.


Lagore crannog. One-piece plain ' Iron Age

' collar from

among the old finds.


Plate V

Lagore crannog. Close-up of broken ends of the decoration of a

second composite collar. (See also Plate III, chain a.)




iron 'slave-collars' from lagore crannog, co. meath

Documents