Through Twentieth-Century Irish National Policy ...

Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:122–158 DOI 10.1007/s10761-014-0283-0

Vectors of Improvement: The Material Footprint of Nineteenth- Through Twentieth-Century Irish National Policy, Inishark, County Galway, Ireland Ian Kuijt & Meagan Conway & Katie Shakour & Casey McNeill & Claire Brown

Published online: 1 February 2015 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract The concept of Improvement cross cuts moral, cultural and ideological realms, as well as practical aspects of material life, including housing, education, and agricultural technology. Archaeological and historical research on Inishark, County. Galway, Ireland, provides a unique opportunity to identify and track the linkages between Irish National policy and local community actions that created a material footprint of improvement from the 1880s to the 1920s. Drawing upon vernacular architecture and village phasing, detailed historical maps, ownership records, and detailed computer mapping, this study presents a multi-dimensional portrait of improvement within nineteenth- through twentieth-century Irish communities. Keywords Improvement . Households . Nineteenth-century Ireland . Architecture

I. Kuijt (*) : K. Shakour Department of Anthropology, University of Notre Dame, 611 Flanner Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556-5611, USA e-mail: [email protected] K. Shakour e-mail: [email protected] M. Conway Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, 1512 Pendleton Street, Hamilton College, Room 317, Columbia, SC 29208, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. McNeill Department of Transportation, Planning, Program Development and Grants, City of Detroit, 1301 E. Warren Ave., Detroit, MI 48207, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. Brown Department of Anthropology, Binghamton University, State University of New York, P.O. Box 6000, Binghamton, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:122–158

123

Introduction Enlightenment philosophers of the eighteenth and nineteenth century viewed Improvement as a pervasive ideology that encapsulated moral, social, and cultural development and focused on improving the human condition. As a western philosophical ideology, the concept of Improvement had strong moral and philosophical grounding that valued personal and social development and conceived of capitalism as a form of social engineering that could advance humanity to new levels of civilization (Orser 2005; Tarlow 2007). Shifting from late middle ages discussions of the self and the Divine, eighteenth- and nineteenth-centuries discussions of improvement, reform, and progress were focused on the emergence of a sense of society, community, and a group of people who are framed by biological, social, and economic relationships. As part of this discussion it is important to think further about what is meant by the term “improvement.” Here, we distinguish between Improvement as a philosophy and ideology, in contrast to improvement as action or comparative human condition. The idea of Improvement is, of course, inherently comparative and lineal, for discussion and analysis is ultimately framed around change from one condition to another. On other levels improvement embodies change in action, the human condition, and quality of life at the scale of the individual, family, house, and daily life. In the minds of many people Improvement and Progress are synonymous. Historically, Enlightenment philosophical thought was rooted in the concept of Progress, and the need, if not responsibility, to advance civilization up a progressive ladder of development. While Progress and Improvement are interrelated, they are different, and it is important to briefly unpack this distinction. In contrast to Improvement, Progress can be viewed as a historical current in which individual humans are largely passive players (Tarlow 2007). Progress is an idea and a concept, one that prioritizes a progressive sense of history of cultural and natural advancement that is moral, economic, social, and intellectual. In some interpretations, progress is something that is rooted in the moral context of individuals, but assessed collectively at the scale of civilization and society. Strongly articulating this, Tarlow (2007, p. 11) argues, “Improvement remains an implicit value underpinning contemporary political and social philosophy.” Improvement can be viewed from a range of perspectives and agendas, which include Improvement as an oppressive tool for the rich and powerful, a paternalistic rationale for governmental policy, and something that is, of course, relational, relative, and scalar. Improvement can be explored from shifting scales of continental perceptions of social and moral ideology, the construction of national policy, the regional implementation of policies, and the impact of national policies at the scale of the community and household. Improvement also existed as an analytical framework recognized by those living in the past, and thus, can provide insight into the social and material realm of the past. A number of recent studies in historical archaeology have explored the notion of rural Improvement as part of emerging national and global capitalist systems (see Atkinson 2010; Finch and Giles 2007; Forsythe 2006a, 2006b, 2007; Orser 2005). These studies illustrate that in some areas of Europe, eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury governmental policies of Improvement focused on simultaneously reconfiguring the character of people and society at large, as well as changing the social and physical landscape (see Forsythe 2013; Tarlow 2007; Orser 2005).

124


As outlined elsewhere (Breathnach 2005; Campbell 2008; Proudfoot and Graham 1993; Tarlow 2007), there were many drivers and agents of eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury improvement. This potentially included landowners as well as governmental agencies focused on the strategy and practice of improvement within daily economic and social life. These agents, as well as the ideology of Improvement, often assumed that human intervention has the potential to bring about change in human life in the realms of education, agriculture, transportation, housing, fishing, and medicine. The rationale for Improvement, of course, is centered on the perceived needs of others, the identification of problems that need to be overcome, and the transformation of this into agendas that people and governments actively and strategically define. Highlighting this, Tarlow (2007, p. 191) notes “modern concepts of Improvement are founded on a belief that people are capable of change and that this change can be either internally or externally (environmentally) generated.” In some cases, these changes are significant, lasting, and material. As outlined elsewhere (Forsythe 2013; Symonds 2011; Tarlow 2007), the material signature of improvements provides an opportunity for anthropologists and historians to better understand the past by linking ideas and goals (e.g., better human health) to actions, and action to material remains (e.g., better drainage systems and housing). At its broadest, then, documenting linkages helps us understand improvement at different scales, including the interconnections between national policy and local change. Thus, the concept of Improvement provides a rich avenue of inquiry that helps anthropologists and historians understand the social context of changing worlds through studying the physical structures on the landscape (Orser 2005). The anthropological effort to document and understand local social and economic development in its many forms remains an important research project in historical archaeology. Framing discussions around improvement facilitates an understanding of many aspects of material life, including housing, education, agriculture and landscape change. As outlined elsewhere (Forsythe 2013; Tarlow 2007; Orser 2005), in some ways it is the extent of the idea and value of Improvement, both at the scale of the family and society, which make it all but invisible. This is an important point for it helps us understand, in contrast to the more numerous studies of capitalism and globalism, how archaeologists have only briefly explored the concept of Improvement and its material footprint. Our interest here is not one of reviewing the extensive literature on eighteenth- and nineteenth-century philosophers and historically situating the concept and ethos of Improvement and Progress. Nor are we focused on the interesting and extremely complex role of landlords as instruments, if not drivers, of improvement (see Duffy 1977; Proudfoot and Graham 1993; Orser 2005). Rather, this essay focuses on the intersection of national social policy and local application of programs of improvement, and the ways in which improvement was materialized on the ground. Despite previous research it remains unclear if, or how, nineteenth- through twentieth- century national policies of improvement brought about changes in local island development, reconceptualization of vernacular architecture, alteration of the structure of the village and household, and community change through time. To address this question it is necessary to simultaneously consider two scales: the local footprint of change and how this might be linked to national policies. This is an important analytical frame, for as with national governments or nongovernmental organizations both past and present, it is important to consider the linkages between policy and practice.


125

Improvement, Reform and The Irish Congested Districts Board (1891-1923) Few national reform policies or organizations change nations. Emerging from late nineteenth century Irish national reform movement, the Congested Districts Board (CDB) is one of, if not the, earliest and most powerful global example of how national policy can constructively change people’s lives, improve the quality of rural and island life, create a new economic reality, and in so doing, reshape the cultural and physical landscapes of a country. In short, this organization created changes that were significant, lasting, and measurable. Historians, geographers, and archaeologists (Aalen 1987; Beatie 2011; Crowley et al. 2012; Guinnane and Miller 1997; Huttman 1972; Micks 1925), have traced the legislative pathways by which the CDB brought about construction of roadways, development of local employment, and housing for the poor. Established by Arthur Balfour, the Chief Secretary of Ireland, the creation of the CDB was not focused on immediate relief of subsistence crises so much as general policy to address the economic context of poverty and hardship in western Ireland through gradual but lasting changes (Aalen 1987). This included developing commercial fishing, improving livestock raising and systems of cultivation, and eventually purchasing land from major landowners and selling it off at favorable rates to tenant farmers living on the land. Critical aspects included the enlargement of tenant farmers’ landholdings, the construction of new, or renovation of old, housing to match the standards of the 1883 Act, and establishing higher codes for building materials, windows and ventilation, floors and roofing. Additionally, the CDB encouraged the relocation of stock from farmhouses to outbuildings. To Guinnane and Miller (1997) the reform acts from 1870 to 1909 reflect less of an economic policy and more of an effort to compromise with Irish political demands. Some of these demands were an outgrowth of the earlier humanitarian crises and the failure of the national governments to effectively deal with the famines of 1840s (Crowley et al. 2012). Moreover, while the moral and social position of enlightenment scholars provided the backdrop for reform, the drivers of the pre-1880 reform acts were the famines of the late 1840s as well as the growing awareness of the severity of the poverty and hardship within rural Irish communities in 1879–82. Throughout the nineteenth century, travelers’ accounts and public inquiries into the poor conditions of rural housing stimulated governmental debate and reflection (e.g., Otway 1839). Placed within the context of the famines of the late 1840s and 1879/82, this debate, and more importantly, the awareness of the hardship of Irish laborers, their poverty and poor housing available to them, resulted in new, yet largely ineffective, legislative acts (Aalen 1986). Through a series of more comprehensive acts, including the Land Acts of 1881, 1891, and 1903, and the Labours’ Act of 1883 with later amendments, the plight of Irish labors and tenant farmers was interwoven with the aim of inducing landlords and middle-class farmers to provide some, or better, housing. The famine and economic depression of 1879-82 in western Ireland provided a new and highly visible urgency to reform and relief acts. In many ways this crisis was equivalent to the crisis years of the late 1840s in western Ireland, for it combined agricultural collapse, a fishing failure, and decline in the kelp market (Forsythe 2006b; Moran 1997; Turner 1993). In 1885 and 1886, further amendments were passed, most of these designed to expand the impact of the Labourers’ Acts. The new acts expanded the definition of agricultural laborer to include women, as well as handloom weavers

126


and fishermen. The amendments also empowered local government agencies, termed “board of guardians,” to acquire land for cottages, purchase and improve existing cottages, and restrict the rights of landowners to appeal these decisions. Pushed on by the writing of a few key individuals, most notably James H. Tuke (1889) and his work on assisted emigration, there was a growing acknowledgement that social and economic improvement in rural areas required governmental intervention. From this perspective, policies of improvement were wedded to land reform, development of infrastructure and the autonomy brought on by home and land ownership. While public debate and incremental legislation occurred between the 1880s and the 1920s, many of the physical changes resulting from these acts only occurred after 1905. Ultimately, it was through the Wyndham Land Purchase Act of 1903, in which largescale land purchases could be made from landlords, that large areas of land were made available to people and that former tenants started to purchase land and build houses. With this act funds became available for estate purchase rather than any single holding. Thus, landlords had the opportunity to benefit enormously from the sale of entire estates, which included large tracts of bog and other less desirable land. With the passing of the 1906 Labourers act, landlords sold off large estates, which opened the door for the land and houses to be sold to former tenants. The collective implementation of the Acts brought about significant change in the cultural and physical landscape of western Ireland. This can be seen at various scales. On the scale of the landscape, the construction of roads, ports, and field systems, largely funded by the CDB led to the construction of new field systems. This is most notable with the stripped field systems with privately owned parcels being laid out perpendicular to the shoreline, assuring homeowners access to kelp, driftwood, and the ocean. Duffy (2005, p. 36) argues that the system of landed estates was a fundamental component of the colonial project in nineteenth-century Ireland. Under the umbrella of “Improvement” and “Civilization,” owners and managers practiced top-down control and instilled colonial ideals of order and progress through the powerful landowning elite exercising authority over local impoverished tenants. From this perspective, modernization of nineteenth century Irish agricultural estates involved improvements focused on the elimination of traditional settlement systems, the consolidation of tenant holding, and the recapturing of land through new drainage systems in rural areas. The Congested Districts Board also brought about major changes with small households. Beyond the aim of ensuring access to housing for people within agricultural and fishing communities, local and national government proposed new standards for the health conditions of residences (see Aalen 1986, p. 298). With various amendments, the 1883 Act directives called for newly constructed cottages of stone with slated or thatched roofs with a kitchen and two bedrooms. Rooms were to have a height of no less than 2.44m and each room was required to have at least one window. While the bedroom floors could be made with tiles or boards, the living room floors had to be concrete. Each house had to have a privy. With the passing of the 1906 Labour’s Act, there was a major increase in the number of houses that were constructed to CDB standards. In the case of Connaught (on of the Provinces in western Ireland), only 62 houses had been built by 1892, which increased to 387 houses by 1906 and 2,165 houses by 1914 (Aalen 1986; Table 1).


127

Table 1 Primary impacts of the Congested Districts Board on the material and immaterial landscapes of Inishark, 1880s-1920

Primary impact (byproduct of development funding)

Domain

Material dimension

Impact on island household and community

Terrestrial community infrastructure

• Construction of roads • Construction of field walls • Construction of wells • Construction of drainage systems

• Roads facilitate movement of people and goods within the island • Better walls help protect garden plots from animals and birds, also helps clear stone from fields • Wells provide clean water closer to houses • Improved drainage reduces water around houses

Marine community infrastructure

• Construction of breakwater

• Improved access to and exit from island • Improved access to marine resources (fish, kelp) • Greater safety when getting on and off the island • Increased access to mainland results in increase in dry goods, tobacco, and alcohol over time

Education and religion

• Construction of school • Construction of church

• Increase in the number of school students • Increasing literacy • Church provides location for community meetings and results in greater social cohesion

Framing a Materiality of Improvement Over the last 50 years, researchers have considered the linkages between Irish national policy, community organization, and the material manifestation of post eighteenthcentury rural household improvements (see Atkinson 2010; Brody 1973; Buchanan and Proudfoot 1958; Crowley et al. 2012; Forsythe 2007, 2013; Horning 2007; McDonald 1998; Messenger 1969; Orser 2010; Proudfoot and Graham 1993). In some ways this parallels separate early antiquarian and folklorist interest in rural Irish villages and landscapes, the description of individual residential buildings, and how these changed through time (e.g., Aalen 1966; Campbell 1935; Duffy 1977; Ó Danachair 1964; 1972; Gailey 1959, 1984; Lucas 1970; Matheson 1903; O’Rielly 2011; Robinson 1979). In a series of studies, Aalen (1986, 1987, 1993) outlines national reform policies, and makes a persuasive case for the importance of the Congested Districts Board in initiating changes in western Ireland. While contributing to our understanding of national and regional patterns, however, Aalen provides only limited consideration of improvement at the scale of the village and household. Similarly, Forsythe (2007) argues that the Irish national policy of economic Improvement, exemplified by the CDB had significant implications, if not far-reaching consequences, for the domestic and social spheres within communities and households. Proudfoot and Graham (1993) provide a more detailed approach to the role of landlords in the process of constructing new, or

128


Table 2 Secondary impacts of the Congested Districts Board on the material and immaterial landscape of Inishark, 1880s-1920 Domain

Secondary impact Residential and (byproduct of non-residential islander housing ownership of property)

Material dimension

Impact on island household and community

• Greater living space • More and larger windows • Construction of chimney • Separation of byre from dwelling • Adaptive re-use of older structures • Cleaner, drier living spaces • Utilization of modern construction materials

• Increased floor space/person • More and larger windows allowing for better air quality, and ventilation • More tolerable interior climate with increase in number of fireplaces/hearths per structure/space • Construction of community structures • Use of sheds and outbuildings • Increased storage space • Houses with poured concrete walls and prefabricated ceramic roofing tiles • Less annual maintenance on houses

Reorganization • Construction of striped field • Secured access to kelp and of land holdings systems perpendicular to other shoreline resources shore line • Formalization of property • Construction of local infrastructure including roadways, drainage systems, and wall systems Improved health

• Increased life-span • Better quality of life

• Employment of a local doctor • Delivery of remittance packages from family and friends abroad

modernizing existing, villages in Ireland. Their study sheds new light upon the footprint of urban and village improvement, looking at such things as spatial ordering of parks within communities, the criteria used to identify such improvements, and a typology of settlement improvements (Proudfoot and Graham 1993; Table 2; also see Table 1). In all of these foundation cases, however, there is the underlying need to think further about the trajectory, tempo, and materiality of nineteenth century household improvement, especially in the case of rural western Irish island communities. Only a few studies, be it by archaeologists, geographers, anthropologists or historians, have explored the material linkages between national policy, and nineteenthcentury Irish communities and households (see, however, Atkinson 2010; Orser 2010; Proudfoot and Graham 1993; Royle 2001; Tarlow 2007). Orser ‘s (2010) important study, for example, compares the material world of three rural Irish settlements, and highlights the need to expand our comparative perspective to understand post eighteenth-century rural Irish life. Similarly, Atikinson (2010) provides a valuable perspective on changing eighteenth- and nineteenth-century land tenure on Loch Tay in central Highland Scotland, drawing together data from multiple dispersed settlements within a restricted contiguous region to consider the tempo of regional settlement systems vis-à-vis national policy. Studies by Forsythe (2007, 2013) and Symonds


129

(2011) are among the few that have looked at eighteenth-and nineteenth-century island case studies. For example, Forsythe (2007) provides a detailed mapping of buildings, outbuildings, field systems, and track ways to understand how housing, economics, and daily life were improved on Rathlin Island. Similarly, Symonds (2011) explores the late eighteenth-century policies of improvement, evictions and poverty in the western Isles of Scotland. Collectively, these studies help frame a comparative understanding of the materialization of the eighteenth-century policies of Improvement through the lenses of human health, residential housing, agriculture, fishing, and economics (see Table 1).

Improvement and Vernacular Architecture It is at the level of the house and household that we can observe and quantify some of the most- visible improvements within nineteenth century island life. Changes in room size, the number of windows, the use of chimneys, and the frequency of outbuildings, help us track improvements in average floor space, the amount of light and ventilation within rooms, the use of fireplaces for heating and cooking, and the ability of people to store food and resources over periods of time. Ó Danachair (1972, Fig. 3a, b) identifies the geographical distribution of central hearth systems, byre dwellings, hip versus gable roof systems, attachment points for thatching roofs, and the use of outshoots. While recognizing local variation in the post 1900 period, Ó Danachair’s research focuses on synchronic description, not a modeling of the pathways or drivers of change. Focusing on western Ireland, Aalen (Aalen 1966) provides a detailed classification and understanding of the dynamic changes in Irish vernacular architecture and outlines a progression from single-room rounded wall houses to that of gable-ended houses subdivided with multiple internal divisions. As with Campbell (1935) and Ó Danachair (1972), he illustrates the prevalence of central-hearth houses in Galway in the 1800s and traces architectural changes and improvements through time. There are, however, two major challenges in modeling post nineteenth-century vernacular architecture: understanding the overall trajectory of island and village change through time, and in the case of later periods, understanding how local island patterns diverged from national patterns (see also Aalen 1966:48). Both Aalen (1966) and Campbell (1935) recognize the challenges in tracing the material manifestation of change. Campbell (1935) argues, “There is no gap from the point of view of classification . . . between the prehistoric oval clochán and the primitive central chimney house of later times.” Another aspect to the improvement of rural Irish life centers on vernacular architecture as a location for seasonal protection of stock animals. There are, of course, local and economic reasons why people stopped designing buildings with a central hearth with no chimney, let alone abandoned keeping stock in their houses. There is, of course, significant variation between villages, islands and regions, leaving researchers to document variable local micro-histories was well as regional practices.

Inishark, County Galway, Ireland: Background and Context Islands are unique places with inspiring people. As physical locations, islands exist in spaces that are isolated, influenced by national governmental policies, impacted by global

130


forces, and yet ultimately formed in the cultural consciousness, history and experiences of islanders. Islanders, in the past and the present, have always been connected to economic, cultural and social worlds beyond their immediate shores, for they have historically fished for a living, were connected to foreign markets, and are voracious absorbers of news and analysis of the worlds beyond their shores (Royle 1999, 2001, 2007). Research on the island of Inishark, County Galway, provides insight into the linkages between nineteenth- to twentieth-century Irish National policy and local practice. Similar to the twentieth-century emptying of multiple coastal islands, the last inhabitants of Inishark left in October 1960. Given the absence of post-1960 development, Inishark provides a unique opportunity to understand some of the tempos and dynamics of change from 1880 to the 1920s, the extent to which household change was linked to Irish National policy, and if these were materialized in a way that can be identified and tracked by researchers. Although there has been a limited removal of building materials from the village, most noticeably windows and doors from houses, and the roofs from the Church, National School and a few homes, the overwhelming majority of the houses and village remain unaltered since the islanders left. Located nearly 12.9km (8mi) from the mainland, Inishark is one of a series of coastal islands along the shores of north-western Galway that were extensively occupied from the eighteenth century onward. Varying in size, topography, and soil composition, the islands of north Connemara offered distinct local opportunities for settlement. The extent of past human settlement was linked to the availability of soils for growing crops, access to kelp as a major source of fertilizer, control of water sources and, fishing resources, and of course, access to and from the mainland. As with other islands, seaway navigation around Inishark was, and is, unpredictable and highly weather contingent. Inishark is about 2.5km long east-west and no more than 1.2km wide from north to south (Fig. 1). Rising from the lower, and more protected, southern and eastern sides of the island to cliffs of at least 100-150m in height along the western and northern sides, the entirely treeless island exists as a jagged and exposed location for human occupation. Due to topographical and environmental constraints–wind exposure, uneven ground, and variable soil quality–the majority of human habitation was located on the southeastern end of Inishark (Fig. 2). People have lived on Inishark since at least the Bronze Age, some 3,500 years ago. During the early medieval period Inishark was one of many local islands that were inhabited year round. It remains unclear, however, if people continued to regularly live on Inishark between the twelfth and eighteenth centuries. By around 1800-20, and possibly earlier, a significant number of people were living year-round on Inishark. As in the medieval period, people in the nineteenth through twentieth century constructed houses in the southeastern section of the island. Over time the village became organized around track ways, later formalized as roads extending outward from the port to the north and west toward outlying farmland. Typical of early nineteenth-century clochán village organization, people built stone houses with no mortar surrounded by small field plots of land and maintained more substantial irregular shaped field plots on other areas of the island. As outlined by Proudfoot (1959), the term clochán refers to a cluster of residences, outbuildings, and garden plots that developed without any formal plan. On Inishark, the clochán was surrounded by infields of highly arable land, often improved


131

Fig. 1 2010 LiDAR map of the eastern end of Inishark, Co. Galway, Ireland. The village of Inishark in the south-east corner of the island combines houses build from the 1820s to the 1930s, and field system from the early medieval period through the reorganization of traditional clochán village organization by the Congested Districts Board between 1907 and 1910

Fig. 2 The village of Inishark looking southeast from the hill above the village, illustrating a mix of larger and better preserved 1910 houses and earlier buildings. In the center of the photograph is Leo’s Church, constructed in 1894

132


with kelp, larger outfield used for pasture and periodic cultivation, and common areas for grazing and harvesting turf.

Population, 1880-1920: Inishark and Inishbofin

Visibility

Inishark houses and land owned by H. W. Wilberforce (1854-1873)

1900 “Near Famine” 1889-90

1880 “Near Famine” of 1879-1884

1860 “Near Famine” 1859-64

Famine of 1845-49

1850

Inishark houses and land owned by C. Allies (1873-1910±)

Dry stone building: 1 or 2 rooms, few windows thatch roof, mud/stone floor, single hearth, no chimney

Traditional land systems: informal rundale network First Inishark school (1863-1898)

Moderate to low visibility, limited longevity,

1940

Congested Districts Board (1891-1923)

Sod buildings: 1 or 2 rooms, no windows (?), thatch roof, mud/stone floor, single hearth, no chimney

Informal schooling

Inishark houses and land owned by former tenants (1910±) 1920

Purchasing of land and houses by CDB

School Landscape

Vernacular Architecture

Events

Ownership

Historical records, including the National Census of Ireland in 1901 and 1911 (National Archives of Ireland 1903; 1911), outline how the Inishark population changed from 1800 onward (see Table 2). By 1838, the presence of numerous stone houses, field plots, and track ways indicates the expansion of the potato into new ecological areas of western Ireland. Population levels on Inishark increased rapidly from 1800 to 1841 (and possibly later), growing from only a few families to nearly 200 people living in upwards of 40 houses. As with other areas of western Ireland, the famine led to a significant decline in the number of people living on Inishark from 1845 to 52. Thirty years of repeated potato blights, failure of fishing industry, and collapse of the kelp market followed. This resulted in repeated episodic cycles of hardship, if not starvation, on western islands (Fig. 3). Despite significant emigration to America, by the early 1880s the number of Inishark islanders had again reached 200 people. The failure in fishing and agriculture between 1881 and 1891 (Aalen 1993) caused a sharp decline in the number of people living on the islands. This is reflected in newspaper accounts, such as in 1886 when the Irish Times notes “About twenty families dwell on [Inishark], the population having since 1880 been considerably reduced by emigration. The condition of all these people is one of great poverty, and

Mortar & stone building, 3 rooms, many windows, tiled roof, stone/concrete floor, multiple hearths with chimney Continued use and renovation Rationalized landscape: ladder farm & striping National School (1898-1960)

Highly visibility, high longevity

Fig. 3 Material footprint of Congested Districts Board related improvements on Inishark, Co. Galway, Ireland 1850 to 1940


133

in the case of the vast majority it is one of downright misery.” Census data from 1901 and 1911 highlights the continued population drain on the island, much of it with people migrating to the mainland, Britain, and North America. By 1960, the number of residential Inishark islanders had dropped to 25 people. With increased emigration of younger islanders, limited governmental support, and the lure of medical services on the mainland, on the stunningly calm day of October 20, 1960, the remaining islanders seized the moment and left within a 24-hour period. With the exception of a few young fishermen intermittently staying over the summer in the early 1980s, the use of the island for sheep grazing, and the occasional group of people camping, the island of Inishark remains abandoned.

Housing and Land Ownership, 1880–1920, Inishark Many, if not most, early nineteenth-century accounts of travelers in Ireland paint a homogenous picture of rural housing: people living within small, dank, thatched houses with pervasive poverty and malnourished, poorly clothed children. Nationally, wages increased significantly between the 1840s to the 1880s (O’Rourke 1995). It is not clear, however, to what extent this touched upon the islands. Newspaper stories, governmental reports, and observations by members of relief organizations (e.g., Tuke 1889) highlight episodic hardship for rural people in western Ireland. The poor quality of housing, as well as the repeated need of islanders for relief, illustrates that the period of 1840s to 1910 was characterized by repeated food shortages, the economic crash of the fishing industry, and limited, if any, significant improvement in the quality of life for those renting houses. In the case of Inishark and Inishbofin a series of landlords, often living elsewhere, owned the islands and ran them as business ventures. By 1838 Inishark was home to approximately 250 tenant farmers and fishermen, along with their families and livestock. They lived in at least 35 dry stone structures on the southeastern corner of the island. In 1854, Henry William Wilberforce purchased Inishark and Inishbofin and five mainland townlands for £11,000 from the third Marquess of Sligo, George John Browne (Venn and Venn 1922–58). Wilberforce then owned the islands and their houses up to 1876. From 1876 to 1905, Thomas William Allies owned Inishark and Inishbofin, which were later passed on to his son Cyril Allies. This period was characterized by a decrease in the number of islanders, punctuated by a sharp decrease coinciding with the famines of 1879/80, and an increase in emigration in the subsequent years. By the turn of the century approximately 130 people lived in over 50 dry stone structures on Inishark, paying rent in services or money to Allies. In 1905, the Congested Districts Board purchased Inishark and Inishbofin, eventually selling the houses and land to islanders (Freeman’s Journal 1910). It is interesting to note that after selling Inishark and Inishbofin to the Congested Districts Board, Cyril Allies continued to live on Inishbofin and stayed involved in the local community (Concannon 1993). Either directly or through pressure, the owners of the islands (Browne, Wilberforce, and the Allies) controlled where people lived. Their power, while not total, permeated all aspects of life, nearly without appeal. For example, when visiting Inishbofin and Inishark during the food shortages of 1886, a correspondent of the Irish Times stated “the islanders immediately put out in row boats to the steamer and conveyed the sacks

134


of meal ashore, the welcome supply being stored in a building belonging to the ‘Lord of the Isles’ as Mr. Allies may well be termed.” Islanders paid rent through an agent to the landlord. Characteristic of agent-landlord relationships, Henry Wilberforce’s agent, Henry P. Hildebrand, lived on Inishbofin while Wilberforce lived in Dublin.

Inishark Village Life, 1880s to 1920s As tenant farmers the quality of life of islanders on Inishark and Inishbofin was linked to fishing, the kelp industry, and agricultural cycles. These conditions resulted in significant periods of hardship, many of which remain largely invisible to researchers given the absence of detailed local historical records. Accounts from travelers and representatives of the government and church do, however, provide brief glimpses of harsh living conditions. On March 3, 1873, A. E. Horne wrote from Clifden: “I visited a great many houses in Boffin and Shark, and I certainly found great distress and dire poverty. In one house I found them eating their dinner, which consisted of boiled seaweed with ‘limpets’ in it. Limpets are shellfish which stick to rocks.” These observations of the lack of food, the poverty, and the poor condition of housing are echoed in later journals and newspapers. Traveling in 1886 to Inishark and Inishbofin, a correspondent for the Irish Times noted: “The condition of these people is one of great poverty, and in the case of the vast majority it is one of downright misery. In nearly every instance all the potatoes which they had grown last year were eaten before January, save occasionally a modest store reserved for sowing. . . . In another house an old woman was lying on some boards-her only bed-and all the food she had was a few diminutive potatoes scarcely fit for food” (Irish Times 1886). As seen in other contemporary island contexts (e.g., Forsythe 2013), early nineteenth- century residential architecture was simple with buildings often being used for several decades. These buildings were characterized by mud/stone floors, thatched roofs, no chimneys, and limited number of windows. This resulted in high humidity, poor air quality, and depending on family size, overcrowding and poor living conditions. Data from the 1901 and 1911 National Census of Ireland (National Archives of Ireland 1903; 1911) illustrates significant variation in the number of people living in these stone houses. This was rarely less than 2-3 people, more commonly 5-6 people, and sometimes with as many as 9 or 10 people living in two rooms. For example, when visiting Inishark in 1910 a reporter for the Freeman’s Journal remarked: “A house of similar kind, though somewhat better is that occupied by Thomas Cloonan, his wife and eight children. There were nine children living in the house with their parents until May last, when the eldest—a girl of eighteen— went to America” (Freeman’s Journal 1910). Even as late as 1910, after the Congested Districts Board had constructed thousands of houses in western Ireland, there was the clear recognition that housing was very poor in remote coastal areas and that poor housing was detrimental to islanders’ health. Illustrating this the same Freeman’s Journal (1910) reporter noted: In a conversation on the subject with the Archbishop of Tuam, his Grace bore testimony to the work done by the Board for the Islands; but added that a good


135

deal was yet to be done, and that some of the houses of the islanders both in Inishbofin and Inishark, were still lamentably insanitary and unfitted for human habitation. The Board built a number of new houses on the two Islands, but, in the vast majority of cases, they left the people to continue to reside in the wretched hovels which they found there on taking possession, and which as the Archbishop says, are unfitted for human habitation. Thus, despite identifying the poor quality of housing, and the need to transition to improved housing, with more rooms, solid floors, and tile roofs, by 1910 this had occurred in only select households and was by no means universal.

The Footprint of Improvement, 1880–1923, Inishark, County Galway, Ireland While Improvement is often conceptualized as a progressive, and in some ways evolutionary view of the human condition, it is also important to note that national policy can bring about local and household material change in living conditions. The material footprint of improvement on eighteenth- through twenty-first century Inishark can be seen in residential housing, community scale services such as education and religion, and the changes in fishing and agriculture industries. To better understand these developments the long-term Cultural Landscapes of the Irish Coast project has undertaken an interdisciplinary and multi-institution project, drawing upon islanders, faculty, graduate students and undergraduate students from Ireland and America. From 2008 to 2012, we have employed archival research, the recording of oral history with former residents of Inishark, and archaeological fieldwork to understand the linkages between national policy and local practice (Kuijt et al. 2008). Archival research includes the use of landownership records, school attendance records, and emigration records for islanders traveling to America and Canada. One research focus has been to understand shifting residential and non-residential use of buildings, changing household and village organization, and changing land use. Employing Geographical Positioning System to map the location of standing and destroyed buildings, we have developed an individual inventory of over 100 buildings, and recorded all building features, such as interior and exterior doors, windows, and chimneys. These data have been plotted on a high-resolution LiDAR map of the entire village. To understand when individual buildings were built, used, and abandoned, we have linked the Inishark village data base to maps produced in 1816, 1838, 1849 and 1898, and employed landownership records to identify buildings constructed between the years of 1907 and 1910. By integrating these multi-period maps with our LiDAR data we have been able to develop a relatively detailed understanding of changes in architecture, field systems, and community facilities such as schools, church, and roadways (Fig. 4; Table 3). Before discussing the archaeology of Improvement on Inishark we need to make several points. First, based on a few recovered ceramic shards from test excavations it appears that Inishark was occupied from the 1760s onwards, but this may not represent the earliest evidence. Second, while this essay is largely focused on the period of the 1880s to the 1920s, it is important to note that there are extensive remains on Inishark of walls, buildings, and field systems that date between the1810s and the 1880s, and

136


CDB

CDB

N. S.

C

CDB

CDB CDB

CDB CDB CDB CDB

CDB

CDB

0

Scale

CDB

100 m

N

Fig. 4 Buildings constructed after 1910 located on the 2010 LiDAR. With the exception of the National School (NS) and church (C) all of other buildings are residence along the design of the Congested Districts Board (CDB), or as dry stone, thatched out buildings

potentially earlier. Third, these material remains demonstrate a remarkable continuity in building practices, including the use of dry stone construction, thatched roofs, mud and stone floors, similar internal organization, lack of a chimney, and the same building orientation. Fourth, in outlining the overall trajectory of change for the period of 1880s to 1923 we focus on characteristic buildings and features dating between 1880s and 1910s with the aim of understanding the impact of individual land ownership and the national policies of the Congested District Board. In some cases, such as with the 1898 map, this requires us to consider buildings that were constructed as early as 1838. Given the evidence for architectural continuity before 1898, however, we do not believe this detracts from the overall narrative (Fig. 5). Similarly, it is not always possible to identify the specific year when individual Congested District Board homes were constructed, but in most cases it appears to be after 1907 and before 1920.


137

Table 3 Inishark population through time and estimated number of buildings Date

Population

Males

Females

Number of buildings

1820

100 *

-

-

-

1841

208

-

-

40

1851

138

-

-

30

1861

181

94

87

38

1871

208

102

106

45

1881

207

103

104

44

1891

123

61

62

28

1901

129

57

72

28

1911

110

54

56

20

1951

50 *

-

-

-

1960

25

-

-

-

*=Estimate -=No data

Fig. 5 Ordnance Survey of Ireland 1898 map of Inishark village, Co. Galway, Ireland, illustrating the post 1838 development of extensive roads and pathways, and enclosed garden plots around the houses

138


Pre-Congested Districts Board Early and Mid-Nineteenth-Century Residential Stone Housing The standard residential architecture in all western Irish islands before 1900 was simple single or double room dry stone gable-end or hipped thatched roof houses (Aalen 1966, 1986; Ó Danachair 1964, 1972; Forsythe 2013; Lucas 1970). These normally had a single fireplace, perhaps a few windows, and a packed mud or stone floor. The roof was supported by a single beam extending the length of the room and with other support beams filling spaces between the building walls and the ridgeline, and was covered by thatch. Frequently mesh, rope lines, or fishing nets were draped over the entire thatched roof, and then held down by weights or tied down to protruding stones. Many, but not all, of these buildings were single room structures that would have a fire hearth in the center of the room, most likely along one of the interior or gable walls. None of the pre1907 buildings on Inishark had a stone chimney, but it is possible that some of them had a wooden chimney box for removing smoke or an open hole in the roof (Aalen 1966). This frequently resulted in smoke filled rooms. A reporter visiting Inishark in the fall of 1910 made the following observation: The first of these hovels that I visited was that occupied by the Widow Lacey, near the landing-place on Inishark. The walls are built of stones loosely put together, without any mortar on the outside. There are two apartments—the kitchen and a sleeping room opening off of it. There is no window in the kitchen. On the occasion that I entered the house the kitchen was filled with smoke, which rendered a stay in the apartment almost unbearable to one unaccustomed to such a condition (Freeman’s Journal 1910). Building 22 characterizes many of the design elements common to houses constructed before 1907 (Fig. 6). This structure is a one-room building constructed before 1838 and used as a residence into the 1950s. The thatched building had a small fire hearth with a large hearth stone along the southern wall but no chimney. It had two entrances, one to the east and one to the west, and a single window. There are no other wall features, niches, or other elaboration. Field survey and examination of the 1838 Ordinance Survey map demonstrate that there were several adjacent buildings around this building, now destroyed but with lower foundation stones still visible today. Building 6 provides a second example. This building was built before 1838 and was used and modified several times through the 1950s (Figs.7 and 8). This long house has three rooms, two of which are interconnected by an interior doorway. The main room has two entranceways, one on the western and one on the eastern side, and with three windows on the eastern side of the house. It is roughly oriented north-south and tucked in close to the hill for protection from the wind. The bedroom has a small fireplace with a chimney built into the wall system. This was a later addition, probably added after 1910. The bedroom was designed with a loft about 5 feet above the ground. The southern room, which is only accessible from the outside, also had a loft illuminated by a small, south-facing window. There is no evidence of a fire hearth in this room. This room was likely used as a byre for stock, a place for storing farming and fishing gear, and storing produce such as potatoes, grains, and carrots. As with other early buildings


139

Fig. 6 The eastern side of Building 22, Inishark. Visible is the single window, eastern door, high gables, and the absence of a chimney

oriented north-south, this building was occupied by families of a significant times upwards of 7-10 people. As with all rental properties, past or present, there was limited, incentive for Inishark renters to improve the houses they lived in. desirable, house improvements such as constructing a flagstone floor,

size, at if any While adding

Fig. 7 The east, wind protected, side of Building 6, Inishark, illustrating well-preserved high gables, doorways into the southern and central room, three windows on the eastern side, and a small fireplace and chimney built into the central divider wall

140


Loft above bedroom 1 Bedroom 1 Access point to loft unclear Buried 1838 houses 0m

1m

2m

3m

Garden aroud H.6 Wind side rear entrence

Main roadway

Blocked / modified fire place?

Main room

Lee side front entrence

Loft above room Access point to loft unclear

Byre for stock

Partially destroyed door and rebuilt wall

Loft window

Fig. 8 Setting and floor plan of House 6, Inishark, illustrating a typical pre-1838 multi-room house, with an attached byre, opposing entrances for ventilation, and multiple windows on the lee side of the building

a chimney, or building a barn for keeping stock out of the house, would have increased the value of the landlord’s property, and potentially provided a new incentive for the landlord to increase the rent. On paper, several legislative acts before 1900 afforded islanders limited security in the rents they paid and from eviction from the landlord who owned the houses and rented the tenants their fields. But even in cases where there was a fair landlord, as is often remarked about the Allies family (Concannon 1993), the legal and reward structure of property rental was such that, at best, renters only marginally benefitted from significantly improving the houses they lived in. Thus, renting created the expectations for maintaining a house, but not significantly improving it.

Pre-Congested Districts Board Early and Mid-Nineteenth-Century Residential Sod Housing In addition to stone-walled buildings, Inishark people constructed and used sod buildings as residences and outbuildings. Research illustrates the geographically widespread use of sod buildings in the historical period (Caspers 1980; van Hoof and van Dijken 2008; Linebaugh 2005; Loring and Arendt 2009; Milek 2012). Sod buildings were used in a range of settlement and economic systems. With regular maintenance these buildings can last for a significant period of time. Milek (2012) notes that sod buildings in Iceland can be used for 100 or more years. Maintenance entailed replacing turf on the


141

walls and at times the timbers. Once abandoned, these mid and lower sections of sod walls can stay intact for 150 years. Irish historical, photographic, and archaeological research demonstrates that sod buildings were used in rural and coastal areas over the last 400 years if not earlier. As outlined by Horning (2007), sod buildings were used as seasonal housing in upland areas of Achill Island, County Mayo. In other cases, such as with Horning and Brannon’s research on Goodland (Horning 2004), sod buildings served not just as huts for isolated seasonal use, but were the main form of architecture for entire communities. In some cases these had multiple rooms, were quite substantial, and had the same internal organization as stone buildings. Today on Inishbofin the remains of two sod buildings are partially standing. With an interior area of approximately 10x 12ft (3.0x3.6m), both of these were used as small barns in field areas and were only recently abandoned (Tommy Burke, pers. comm.). Based on field walking, test excavations and LiDAR images we have identified five probable sod buildings on Inishark. These are different from the island’s standing drystone buildings. The sod buildings were built with sod walls and upright posts in room corners to support the roof. Sod was then piled up to the desired height with spaces left open for doorways, and perhaps windows. Supported by the upright posts, a ridgeline was established by timber beams. As with most thatched roofs, people then used additional wood salvaged from the beach to create a roof area that could be covered with thatch. Building 8, one of the buildings partially excavated in 2012, provides insight into the use of multi-room sod buildings on Inishark. Test excavation of a 15x1m area across this building revealed that sod walls were constructed upon a foundation of medium size stones with the lower stones being placed in an upright position. In the center of the central room was a hearth, defined by upright beach stones and protruding walls defining along its outer edges. The floor consisted of hard-packed earth, with the central area around the hearth being formed by a carefully packed surface. Several postholes were identified and were probably used as roof supports. Recovered on the floor was a wellpreserved collection of ceramics, metal objects, glass bottles, pipes, and one coin. Almost all of the ceramics were painted spongeware produced in Great Britain, likely between 1870 and 1900. A single English penny, with a date of 1862 was found on the floor, as well as an extensive collection of complete glass bottles that appear to date to the turn of the twentieth century. When complete Building 8 probably had a relatively low ceiling and open doors, similar in appearance to a sod house photographed in County Mayo in 1905 (Fig. 9). Collectively, the excavated remains suggest that the building served as a substantial sod house prior to its abandonment around 1900. Field walking and LiDAR imagery has led to the identification of four additional sod buildings. These all have commonalities with Inishark Building 8, including no visible stone architecture on the ground surface, slightly elevated exterior walls with an internal depression inside the exterior walls, 1–2 rooms, and a north-south orientation. Several of these substantial structures also appear on the 1898 or earlier maps. Today, however, they leave almost no visible footprint. Assuming these predate 1900, this illustrates the co-existence of drystone and sod buildings up to 1900.

142


Fig. 9 Photograph of sod house, Co. Mayo, 1905. National Museums Northern Ireland

Post-Congested Districts Board Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Stone and Concrete Housing Starting around 1907 the Congested Districts Board purchased numerous large estates from powerful island landowners and then provided loans for tenants to purchase the land and house they lived in (Aalen 1986, 1987). In the long-term, this brought about a significant increase in the standard of living for islanders, while reshaping the foundation of island landownership. Between 1907 and 1910 many islanders purchased the houses they rented and the land they farmed from the Congested Districts Board. This brought about the potential for improvement in the size, organization, and construction techniques of home construction. This also required significant financial investment. Given that islanders existed in a subsistence economy, where hard currency was a rare commodity, purchasing must have been a complicated and difficult process. In some cases when families were able to purchase their homes they continued to live in the same unmodified house. The poor quality of Inishark housing, even into the 1930s, did not escape the notice of governmental officials. For example, in a meeting of the Country Galway Board of Health in 1931, a local newspaper noted: “Dr. O’Gaehain, medical officer of health, Inishbofin, has reported that the housing conditions on Inishark Island are very bad. With the exception of two newly slated houses, the remainder are old and in many cases beyond repair” (Connacht Tribune 1931). Thus, even after the construction of some new buildings, local economics forced some people to continue to reside in older, simple buildings with mud or stone floors, thatched roofs, and no chimney. In other cases new ownership brought about significant improvement in residential housing (Table 4). Continuing with stone based construction, after 1910 people increasingly used mortar and concrete when building houses. This allowed for the construction of higher and smoother walls, chimneys with multiple mantels, and the construction of multiple internal fireplaces within the buildings. All of this facilitated


143

Table 4 Changing architectural attributes and change in residential buildings, 1830 to post 1910, Inishark, Co. Galway, Ireland c. 1830-1907-10 (Rented from landlord)

Post-1907-10 (Owned by resident)

Organization and design

North-south oriented buildings with a central room and one or two bedrooms. Some bedrooms had lofts for storage or sleeping. Opposing entrances normally opening into the central room.

East-west oriented buildings with a central room and two or more bedrooms. Opposing entrances normally opening into the central room. Some bedrooms had lofts for storage or sleeping. Outshots and covered entrances ways were common

Roofing

Hand-cut wood from salvaged beach or bog timber. Thatch roofing lashed down with old nets and rope.

Commercial grade milled wood from off island. Asbestos tile roof with gable ends covered with a concrete capping to seal off the gable.

Hearths, chimneys, and windows

Hearth in the center of main room, or against Large hearth with built in chimney of a gable wall. No chimney, but possible smoke gable wall in the central room, with hole. Some, but not all, houses had small smaller hearths often in bedrooms windows. Normally the faced the eastern, within the same chimney. Mantels lee side of the building. above fire heaths. Building had multiple windows facing the seashore to the south. The windows were double the size of pre-1910. Occasionally buildings had one or more north facing windows.

Materials and construction

Drystone construction with external and internal Stone construction with extensive use of plaster coating. All walls were bonded. Some mortar and concrete. Walls are often floors are mortar, others are with designed abutting and not tied into other walls. pebble surface. All of the floors are concrete.

Other

Residence and byre combined.

Separation of residence and outbuildings

Material visibility

Low: dry-stone construction results in fragile and movable buildings

High: construction materials and methods result in a more substantial and permanent building

better heating, improved air ventilation, the drying of clothing, and new possibilities for cooking. The combination of concrete with locally quarried stone produced greater structural strength of the walls that allowed for asbestos or slate roofing tiles. No longer being restricted to salvaged lumber, after 1910 people constructed the roof cribbing, beams, doorways, and other wooden features with milled lumber from the mainland, and used machine manufactured hardware and nails. Ceiling and some wall areas were covered with wood paneling. Each main room was organized around a large fireplace with a mantel, and the fireplace often had a metal swing arm for cooking and a large hearthstone at the back. Eighty percent of the post 1910 buildings also have small outshots (extensions) in the upslope side of the main room, or in some cases, in the main bedroom. At least one other room in the house had a fireplace, most often designed so that two fireplaces were back to back on a shared wall. In many cases, the houses had small, enclosed front entrances, often added as a wind break after the original building was constructed. After 1907, building roofs were increasingly gable-ended, covered with tile and with the gable walls capped with concrete. Windows were relatively large and both windows and doors were framed with wood. Keeping with earlier building traditions, people

144


often built a loft above one of the rooms. All except one of the post 1907 buildings are oriented roughly east-west, with one side of the house being parallel to the beach front. Each of the houses has entrances on two sides, one the main hill to the north and the other facing the water to the south. Thus, people still built houses with multiple rooms, opposing entrances, and windows on one side. Building 4, originally constructed around 1910, illustrates the characteristics of post1907 Inishark house construction (Figs. 10 and 11). The building is next to the hill on the western end of the village with its long axis parallel to the seashore. The house has two entrances, three windows, all of these facing towards the south and the seashore, a small outshot on the upslope side, and two fireplaces back to back on the wall separating the central room from the main bedroom (Fig. 12). Both the inside and outside of the house was regularly plastered. Presently exposed interior plaster sections are upwards of 1cm thick and illustrate 30 or more plastering events. The floor plan of Building 4 is representative of rural houses found along Irelands northwest coast (see Ó Danachair 1972, Fig. 5).

Improvement and the Investment in Community Facilities Another important dimension of nineteenth-century Irish island improvement is seen in the funding and construction of community facilities on Inishark. This included the reconstruction of a church between 1881 and 1884, the construction of a larger and

Fig. 10 Southern, shore, side of Building 4, Inishark, Built around 1910, this building is characteristic of Congested Districts Board construction on Inishark, with opposing doorways, one window in each room facing the seashore, and oriented along a west-east axis


145

Fig. 11 The main room and large fireplace of Building 4, Inishark. The doorway on the left connects the western bedroom with the main room, and the outshoot is just to the right

much more modern National School in 1898, the continued construction of a pier at the harbor over many years, and the construction of roadways and irrigation ditches for draining water away from houses. Some of the new construction around the turn of the century was the result of local paid employment by the Congested Districts Board, especially the stripped fields, roads, and walls for enclosing the commonage. The construction of the Inishark church, as well construction of the National school, illustrates how island life was improved and enriched through time. Education is, of course, widely identified as an important axis of change and a means by which civilization is advanced and improved. While it is difficult to track the quality and nature of education in the past, improvement in the delivery and location of education is often materialized and can be tracked. For example, the footprint of nineteenth-century Irish education can be identified and measured through school floor space, the construction materials used to build schools, the size and number of windows, and the use of outhouses or bathrooms. These attributes provide a means of understanding the importance of primary education within communities, changes that occurred over time, as well as the extent to which external agencies, such as the Congested Districts Board, invested money in education on the islands. The establishment of the Irish National School system in 1831 (Coleman 1998; Hyland and Milne 1987), as well as regional population increases, brought about a

146


Hill side (rear) entrence

Bedroom 1

Main room

Bedroom 2

Sea side (front) entreance

Loft above bedroom

Outbuildings

N 0m

3m

Road

Fig. 12 Setting and floor plan of Building 4, Inishark. Built around 1910, this house was surrounded by a garden plot and designed with a main room, opposing entrances, two bedrooms with a loft, and an outshot on the back of the building

growing urgency in the early eighteen century to extend education into rural areas, including remote islands with growing and significant populations. Initially schools were constructed in larger mainland towns, such as in Clifden, where the first school was built in 1824 (Gibbons 2004). After the construction of schools in Clifden and other major towns, mission and National Schools were built on islands and more remote areas between 1840-60, often in the competitive environment of evangelicalism (Moffitt 2008). Given the remoteness of the islands of northern Connemara, the construction, maintenance and staffing of schools presented a significant challenge. The growth of island population from the1800s to the 1860s coupled with an increased sense among governmental agencies of the importance of education and reform amplified pressure to provide adequate education (Moffit 2008). This is illustrated by Mr. Macaulay’s address to the House of Common in 1859 as part of the Districts Inspectors’ Annual Reports in the House of Commons (Commissioners of National Education in Ireland 1860; 165.) when he stated: “Clare Island and the Island of Inishark, as well as the thickly inhabited Islands of Clew Bay, have no schools; yet they are much required, and would be well supported if once opened.”

Education and Improvement: Construction of the First Inishark School With nearly 200 people living on Inishark in 1859 there was a clear and practical need for a school on the island. Perhaps surprisingly, there was also the political will within


147

the government for the construction of a school. The first National School on Inishark was quickly built in 1862 and opened in December 1862. When completed, the school was quite distinctive from residential buildings in several ways. First, the school provided a relatively large, open room for teaching with two east-facing windows for light. Moreover, it was organized around a centrally located fireplace situated within the interior wall, and had an attached smaller room to the north with a single window. This probably served as the teacher’s residence. This is also the only building that has any of its windows facing west and the only building with a slate roof. It continues to be the only building formally set along a lane, surrounded by raised field systems, and with laneways on both sides of the building. Additionally, it is the only early (pre-1910) building with a chimney, let alone a large formal fireplace (Table 5). Thus, when it was constructed, the school was both visually and functionally distinct from village thatch cottages. For the next forty years after construction this was the only Inishark building that had a slate roof and fireplace with a mantle. Second, the building was constructed with imported materials. With the exception of the later National School, no other pre1907 Inishark building was constructed with imported materials. The school is a moderate size building, roofed with large slate tiles, and capped with fired ceramic ridge tiles. Archaeological survey has recovered several broken roof ridge tiles labeled with the words “Buckley Flintshire,” which identify the manufacture of the tiles to northeastern Wales. Although it is difficult to determine the specific origin of the slate tiles, given their extremely large size, thinness and color, it is possible they are from northwestern Wales. It is possible that the roof tiles, milled lumber for the roof, and the slate were imported in one shipment. We suspect that the construction of this building, with an expansive and heavy slate roof, would have required considerable skill and expertise to construct. In this regard it is reasonable to assume that the government hired specialized workmen to construct the school on Inishark. The architectural and material distinctiveness of mid-late nineteenth century schools is also reflected in other rural areas of Ireland. Hardy (2007), for example, has identified similar material patterning in the construction of a late nineteenth- century school along the N7 Castletown to Nenagh road, Tipperary. This school also had roof tiles imported from Buckley, Flintshire, Chester. (See Table 6.)

Construction of the New National School of Ireland and Reuse of the Old School In 1898, a new National School of Ireland was constructed on Inishark (Fig. 13), and the old school was converted into a residence (see Table 5). The new school, which was much larger, was located in the area of the village now known as “New Town” by islanders (T. Lacey, pers. comm.). The school was built outside of the village on the northeastern side of the hill. The school had a large central room with a large fireplace flanked by a small passageway for storage and hanging up coats. The main room had four large windows. Interestingly, the windows were placed at such a height that seated students could not look outside. The room had a wooden floor, plaster walls, and imported tiles for the roof. The school was surrounded by low stone wall, divided in two for a boys and girls outside area, and with boys and girls having separate outdoor outhouses (see Fig. 13). The building was based on a common building plan used throughout Irish National Schools, and other contemporary examples are still seen on

27 (129)

19 (110)

1901

1911

11

28

Dry stone /mud floor / thatched roof houses

3

15

1

8

10

2

Num. of windows

-

2

3

18 / 1.64

41 / 1.46

Num. of front windows / Ave

8

0

Wet stone/ concrete floor tile roof/ chimney houses

-

-

1

-

-

2

24

3

Num. of windows

24 / 3

-

Num. of front windows / Ave

This table illustrates the significant, but by no means total, improvement in residential housing that occurred between 1901 and 1911 with the shift to private ownership initiated by the Congested Districts Board

Num. of households (total people)

Census year

Table 5 The frequency of Inishark household living in dry stone/mud floor/thatched residence and wet stone / concrete floor/tile roof residences with chimney, and the number and average of front windows for 1901 and 1911 (Source: 1901 and 1911 National Census of Ireland)

148 Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:122–158

Residential space

Bathrooms

Other building life history information

School closed October 20, 1960

This table highlights how the construction of the second National School by the Congested Districts Board brought about an improved setting for teaching, as seen through greater floor space, space for storage and hanging coats, better lighting, and the construction of bathrooms

Two outdoor privies, one for boys and one for girls

Two medium windows on No bathrooms. Fields School closed 1898. Converted eastern side of building and beaches used to a residence and lived in as bathrooms off and one from 1894 to 1960. Abandoned 1960.

Windows

Four large windows, two Separation of teaching and on the north and two educational space with teaching on the south side living in different building. Land east of school purchased for school teacher residence, but only foundation constructed

4.5 by 6 meters 3.2 by 2.2 meter room on north (27m2) end of building with separate entrance and a single window

Floor space

Second National School Single large size room, with wooden 8 by 6 meters (Constructed in 1898) floor and high ceiling, and large (48 m2) fireplace. Hallway with coat racks and storage space

First National School Central medium size room, with (Constructed in 1862) stone clay floor and a low ceiling and small medium size fireplace. No storage space

Floor plan

Table 6 Improvement in National Schools, 1862-1898, Inishark, Co. Galway, Ireland

Int J Histor Archaeol (2015) 19:122–158 149

150


Fig. 13 Inishark National School, viewed from the south side. Built in 1898, the school was roofed with slate tile, now removed, has a single front entrance, a small coatroom in front of the main door, and a single large room to the right of the entrance

the neighboring islands of Inishbofin, Inishturk and Clare Island. With outdoor outhouses, a coatroom, and a classroom that was at least two times the size of the old school, the new National School was a tangible, as well as symbolic, example of the Congested Districts Board investment in the islands. The new school was used right up to when the island was evacuated in 1960. (See Fig. 14.) With the construction of the new school in 1898, the old school was converted into a residence and used for many purposes, including boat building in the 1950s (T. Lacey, pers. comm.). While we do not know exactly when the old school was first used as a residence we do know that the occupants modified the building in several significant ways. The renovations included the construction of a sheltered alcove on the western side of the building to serve as a windbreak. This is an architectural feature typical of post 1910 buildings on Inishark. A small shed was constructed on the northern end of the building and was used for storage. This was likely thatched, as no evidence of tile was found in the ruins. The construction of the abutting shed also required sealing up the northern doorway into the small room. Finally, as a unique architectural event on Inishark, people used stone and mortar to fill in almost 50% of the window openings. Given that these renovations required significant labor investment, it is likely that the construction of smaller windows was either linked to tax rates, which were based on total window area, or just the practical need for smaller windows. Thus, the use of the old school went through several periods of renovation and modification. It is not possible to identify if these renovations were done at the same time, or over a period


151

Fig. 14 Map of Inishark, drafted just after 1910, showing houses, field boundaries and plot numbers. The footprint of the traditional clochán, with commonage and informal rundale network, are seen in the southwest corner of the illustration

of several years. From a longer-term perspective, the 1860 through 1960 trajectory reflects significant improvement that left observable, if subtle, material footprints.

Formalizing Space: Improvement in Roadways, Field Walls and the Port The construction and improvement of community facilities, including the track ways, the field walls, and the port, provide further examples of how nineteenth-century national policy left a highly visible footprint on the Irish landscape. As pointed out by several researchers (Aalen 1986; Huttman 1972; Orser 2005, p. 396; Turner 1993), between 1891 and 1923 the Congested Districts Board initiated rural relief projects aimed at improving agricultural practices, drainage systems, road and track ways, and ports to facilitate more economical fishing. In all of these cases, it was assumed that modernization would lead to improved economic and social infrastructure, and higher quality of life within communities. The construction of drainage systems illustrates the need to move water away from houses and to drain fields. This had, of course, the added benefit of providing short-term employment and economic relief in times of need. While the actions of the CDB are observable in most areas of western Ireland, it can be argued that in some ways the impact of the Congested Districts Board is more

152


visible on the landscape of northern Galway and western Mayo. The purchasing of the western islands from individual landowners and selling the property off to individual tenant farmers resulted in a massive reorganizing of the physical landscape with strips of land oriented perpendicular to the beach frontage. It was assumed that with ownership of beach frontage, farmers secured access to the salvage rights to seaweed for fertilizer. As is often the case, it is hard to visually identify the magnitude of this landscape change when on the ground. Rather, the way to visually comprehend the CDB landholding system is to view them from above, be it from a hill or from an aerial photograph. At times the actions of the Congested Districts Board resulted in smaller and irregular shaped field plots, at times discontinuous, being consolidated and then reallocated to people. These changes, combined with the construction of new housing between 1907 and 1910, illustrate the Congested Districts Board’s highly visible, pervasive, and long-lasting reframing of the rural Irish landscape.

Discussion: The Footprint and Visibility of Improvement Between 1880 and 1920 there were a number of significant improvements in island village life. Initially, tenant farmers lived in byre-dwellings within the village, where people built stone houses with no mortar, had small field plots of land around their houses, and practiced rundale farming. As with Rathlin Island (Forsythe 2007), improvement in residential housing included practical changes to the interior of buildings, including the transition from beaten mud to wood and concrete floors, the movement of stock to outbuildings, the formalization of fireplaces, often quite large, the construction of multiple bedrooms, and after 1898, the use of concrete for construction of buildings and manufactured tile for roofs. All of these, however, required money and materials, both of which were restricted. Thus, policy brought about the potential for improvement, such as greater residential floor space for families, greater warmth with thicker and well-sealed walls, improved air quality with the fumes from turf fires exhausted via chimneys, better exterior drainage systems to reduce moisture levels, and in some later period houses, lofts for additional sleeping space and storage. With the steady emigration off Inishark to America and Irish and British cities, fewer residential buildings were needed. Coupled with new home construction, older houses, previously used as residences, were converted into barns and outbuildings. If nothing else, this had the byproduct of removing stock out of residential buildings. By 1900. the Irish government initiated significant change with the construction of major public facilities, exemplified by the National School, St. Leo’s Catholic Church, and the construction of a breakwater and ship wench at the port. By 1910, the Congested Districts Board redistributed outfields and allowed people to purchases homes. Between 1905 and 1930, the construction of roadways, with drains and curbstones to channel water away from houses and fields, were developed and/or improved. These public works served as a means of relief, for it generated local employment. Clearly there was a repeated need for this. In 1927, the Connacht Tribune’s (1927) acting medical and home assistance officer wrote to the country Home Committee regarding “the destitution in the Islands of Inishbofin and Inishark” and requested government intervention in the form of local employment and development. Twenty years after the height of the CDB, this illustrates that


153

improvement on Inishark and Inishbofin was often slow, selective, and even with frequent petitions by health and Island government officials, was hard to secure. While drawn out over many years, the construction of the small breakwater, pier, and the landing on Inishark was completed in 1932 and provided some protection for boats as they were off-loading or launching to go fishing. The construction of the National school and the modern church must have also had an impact on the local community. While not resulting in a direct improvement of residential life, the construction of the church and school would have generated a greater sense of community, local pride, and social involvement in the island. Additionally, it would have fostered the sense of island improvement, with the securing of infrastructure normally only found on bigger islands and the mainland.

Tempo of Improvement: Private Property and the Disincentives for Improvement Over the period of 1880 to 1920 Inishark living conditions improved significantly, but these changes were not at the same pace or scale compared to the mainland. The period from 1880s-1907, and arguably going back to the late 1700s, was characterized by stability and continuity in the design, internal organization, and construction materials of residential buildings. There were few reasons for tenant farmers to build newer houses. Instead there were significant economic reasons for tenants not to improve the quality and construction of the buildings they rented. As tenants, there were no, or limited, returns to improvement of the landlord’s housing. Even simple construction that would have reduced the smoke in rooms and increased ventilation would have increased the value of the landlord’s building. Given that tenants did not own the houses they lived in, and that improvement in the quality of the house would have given the landlord the grounds to increase their rent, tenants would have seen improvements as both a waste of their time and money as well as establishing the conditions for paying greater rent in the years ahead. The economics of residential housing on the island, and the rationale for stability vs. improvement, totally changed when islanders were able to purchase the houses they lived in. During the period of 1907-10 there were major and direct improvements in living conditions for islanders. The transition from tenant farming to direct ownership was linked to the sale of land and houses by the Congested Districts Board, and quickly resulted in significant improvement in measurable aspects of residential housing. As seen in Table 4, this included an increase in the mean number of rooms within buildings, an increase in the number and size of windows, and perhaps most significantly, a general shift from buildings recorded in 1901 with beaten mud or wood floors, thatch roof, with no chimney, to buildings in 1911 with concrete floors, manufactured roofing tile roofs, and the use of large fireplaces with large chimneys. Recognizing that overall the quality of residential housing improved significantly between 1907 and 1910, it is important to note that the transition in residential housing was not total, for in some cases individuals and families continued living in dated, substandard housing. The National Census of Ireland illustrates that by 1911 about half of the families on the islands were living in improved housing. The other 50% of islanders, however, were still living in thatched roof houses with limited number of windows, and at times pebble-beaten mud floors. In 1911 on Inishark, at least six

154


families with more than eight residents still lived in two or three roomed houses with thatched roof and pebble-beaten mud floors. The 10 members of the William Cloonan family exemplify this, living in three rooms, one of which was the kitchen (Census of Ireland, Inishark, Form B, 1911). It should also be noted that other than the outdoor privies at the National School, in 1911 none of the houses on Inishark had bathrooms or running water. Thus, while there are clear examples of improvement in residential architecture and living conditions for some families, the changes from 1907 to 1910 were by no means island-wide, and even when implemented, these changes did not match the pace of change occurring in mainland areas of Ireland. While significant, improvement in residential contexts was restricted, moderate, and disproportionate compared to island areas of Ireland. While there are material remains to identify and track residential housing changes between 1907 and 1910, researchers face the challenge of correctly interpreting why this transition happened in some cases but not others. In some cases new houses were built because select families had the means to secure a loan and purchase the house and fields they already occupied. It is more complicated, however, to sort out why a family did not build a new house when they could have. Examination of shipping manifests for the islanders leaving Inishark highlights that people commonly traveled to America with less than $5, but in rare cases they traveled with $60 or more. While hardly rich, some islanders were able to bank hard currency to travel to America. This suggests that rather than investing in spending money on a new house, in some cases families made the decision to save currency with the goal of one or more family members emigrating. The overall village pattern suggests that when people constructed new residential buildings they did this near the old houses, and in some cases, on top of older buildings. With emigration to America and people leaving for the mainland, islanders transformed older, and perhaps abandoned, houses from residential buildings to barns and outbuildings. The archaeological interpretation of the observed patterning and transition, therefore, is not straightforward and requires researchers to consider the mechanisms of change, and to think further in terms of longer-term household goals.

Considering the Agents of Change and Improvement As with the patterns seen elsewhere (e.g., Forsythe 2013), Irish national policy on Inishark was implemented by multiple agents, some from the island and others from the mainland. Mainland government officials and religious institutions brought about the construction of the pier and breakwater, the school, and the church. Some of this was due to the energy of the Inishbofin clergy who pushed and intervened to get a new church constructed on Inishark (Concannon 1993). The voices and writings of local Connemara officials, be it from the Catholic Church or connected to County Galway health office, were also critical in drawing attention to the poor housing on Inishark. This includes formal letters to governmental officials, questions posed to governmental ministers, and op-ed articles in newspapers that highlighted the poor quality of housing, the lack of a real port, and the absence of medical and religious services on this remote island. While limited in scale, the improvements in public facilities, such as the breakwater and school, required significant personal and public pressure. Even at their best, however, these resulted in only limited changes to island life. The changes that did


155

occur, albeit important, never addressed or overcame the geographic constraints that restricted islanders’ access to medical and religious services, electricity and phone service, or plumbing. The extent to which the absence of these facilities resulted in abandonment of the island in 1960 is debatable, especially given the slow and steady trickle of young people from Inishark to the mainland, Great Britain, America, and Canada for employment.

Conclusion Historically, the concept of Improvement cross cuts moral ideology and more practical considerations. The notion of Improvement is, of course, relative, complex, and comparative. Historians have devoted significant time and energy to understand the moral, ethical, and progressive debates of the middle and upper class, through all kinds of media, to focus greater attention upon the social context of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century policy development. Complementing this, other researchers have explored the social, moral and cultural context of the development of poor houses, workhouses, orphanages, and immigration policies. The manifestations of these social structures are either highly visible, such as the construction of monumental multi-story workhouses, or all but invisible, such as the unmarked graves of people who lived and died in these facilities. The major driver of village-scale changes on Inishark was that of land reform. Under the broad umbrella of the Congested Districts Board and the perceived need for landscape reform to increase productivity and economic sustainability in western Ireland, the Congested Districts Board reorganized administrative boundaries, established permanent field systems, and facilitated the sale of residences and land to tenant farmers. Between 1907 and 1910, life on the island changed significantly through the actions of the Congested Districts Board. This governmental body was empowered with a broad mandate to introduce changes in economic and social realms with the intent of improving the conditions for people living in western Ireland. On Inishark this created the footprint of a more extensive and regular strip field system that was developed for farming to the east and west of the village. Other island areas were fenced and used as sheep commonage. While privileged with significant material data sets, archaeologists and historians have only the most preliminary understanding of the links between national policy and local improvement, and are only recently developing the methodological and conceptual tools to identify the material footprints of changes. As seen with development projects today, researchers search for the means to identify the local impact of national policy, and in many cases exactly how national policy is, or is not, manifested on the ground. In light of the clear linkages between national policy and local development on Inishark, there is an obvious need for archaeologists to proactively think further about the materialization of improvement, measured in very basic terms, at the local level. Adopting this perspective, drawing upon housing data, field systems, and community projects, archaeologists have the potential to shift broader discussion in the social sciences to how we can use the concept and materiality of Improvement to model and track social, economic, and political change within communities.

156


Acknowledgments The Cultural Landscapes of the Irish Coast project is an interdisciplinary and multiinstitution project, including faculty, graduate students and undergraduate students from Ireland and America and representatives from eleven different universities, and most importantly, local Irish community partners. This research program has been generously funded by the John Tynan family. Over the years additional funding has been provided by the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts, University of Notre Dame, the Office of Sponsored Research, University of Notre Dame, and Hamilton College. Funding for LiDAR research was provided by the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts, University of Notre Dame, and was carried out by Fugro-BKS. Ltd., Coleraine, Northern Ireland, and with data processing by A. Corns, The Discovery Program, Dublin, Ireland. Documenting island life has been made possible by a long list of friends from Inishark, Inishbofin, Letterfrack and Clifden. This includes Simon Murray, Aileen Murray, Marie Coyne, Kieran Concannon, Tommy Burke, Pat Concannon, Stephen Gannon, Tim Warbourt, and Stephanie Brooks. Special thanks are given to Stephen Gannon and Pat Concannon for transporting us on and off Inishark over the years. Our warm thanks also to Chris McClaren and Linda Martellaro who over the years have provided us with outstanding dining, in rain, wind, and shine, that kept the entire project going while we were camping on Inishark. This project would not be possible without the drive and energy of a great field crews in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 that constantly demonstrate a remarkable professionalism and ability to have fun. This paper has developed through the constructive comments and discussions with Patrick Griffin, Audrey Horning, Franc Myles, Charlie Cobb, Sarah Tarlow, Charles Orser, and several anonymous reviewers. The research was conducted under National Monuments of Ireland license 10E0399. Finally, to all the islanders, including Teresa Lacey, Noel Gavin, Leo Murray, Martin Murray, and Peter Corrigan, and all your families, we are deeply thankful for letting us learn about, and sharing in, your history and heritage.

References Aalen, F. H. A. (1966). The evolution of the traditional house in western Ireland. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 96(1): 47–58. Aalen, F. H. A. (1986). The rehousing of rural labourers in Ireland under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883– 1919. Journal of Historical Geography 12: 287–306. Aalen, F. H. A. (1987). Public housing in Ireland, 1880–1921. Planning Perspectives 2: 175–193. Aalen, F. H. A. (1993). Constructive unionism and the shaping of rural Ireland, c.1880–1921. Rural History 4: 137–164. Atkinson, J. A. (2010). Settlement form and evolution in the central Highlands of Scotland, ca. 1100–1900. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 14: 316–334. Beatie, S. (2011). The impact of the congested Districts Board on the County Donegal, 1891-1923. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ulster, Coleraine. Breathnach, C. (2005). The Congested Districts Board, 1891–1923, Four Courts Press, Dublin. Brody, H. (1973). Inishkillane: Change and decline in the West of Ireland, Allen Lane, London. Buchanan, R. H., and Proudfoot, B. (1958). Excavations at Murphystown, Co. Down: preliminary report on excavations in 1956. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 21: 115–126. Campbell, A. (1935). Irish fields and houses. Journal of the Folklore of Ireland Society 5: 57–74. Campbell, J. M. (2008). Land and revolution: National politics in the West of Ireland 1891–1921, Oxford Press, Oxford. Caspers, J. (1980). Compendium history of the Dugout and Sod house in Minnesota, Fort Ridgely State Park and Historic Association, Minnesota. Coleman, M. C. (1998). Eyes big as bowls with fear and wonder: children’s responses to the Irish National Schools, 1850–1922. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 98(5): 177–202. Commissioners of National Education in Ireland (1860). Twenty-Sixth Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland. Parliamentary papers, Great Britain, house of commons and command. vol. 1, Alexander Thom, Dublin. Concannon, K. (ed.) (1993). Inisbofin through time and tide, Inishbofin Development Association, Inishbofin. Connacht Tribune. (1927). Position in Boffin and Inishark, Minister’s Letter, January 15 Connacht Tribune. (1931). Housing on Inishark, January 31. Crowley, J., Smith, W. J., and Murphy, M. (2012). Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, Cork University Press, Cork. Duffy, P. (1977). Irish landholding structure and population in the mid-nineteenth century. Maynooth Review 3(2): 3–27.


157

Duffy, P. (2005). Colonial spaces and sites of resistance: landed estates in 19th-century Ireland, in Proudfoot, L. J. and Roche, M. M. (eds.) (Dis)Placing Empire: Renegotiating British Colonial Geographies, Ashgate, Aldershop, pp. 15-40. Finch, J., and Giles, K. (eds.) (2007). Estate landscapes: Design, improvement and power in the post-medieval landscape, Boydell and Brewe, Suffolk. Forsythe, W. (2006a). Improving Insularity: An Archaeology of the Islands off the North Coast of Ireland in the Later Historical Periods, 1700-1847. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ulster, Coleraine. Forsythe, W. (2006b). The archaeology of the kelp industry in northern Irish islands. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 35: 218–229. Forsythe, W. (2007). On the edge of improvement: Rathlin Island and the modern world. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 11: 221–240. Forsythe, W. (2013). The measure and materiality of improvement in Ireland. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 17: 72–93. Freeman’s Journal. (1910). An Island Parish, Western Isles’ Notable History, November 12. Gailey, R. A. (1959). Settlement and population in the Aran Islands. Irish Geography 4: 65–78. Gailey, A. (1984). Rural houses of the North of Ireland, John Donald, Edinburgh. Gibbons, M. (2004). Connemara: Visions of La Chonnacht, Cottage, Donaghadee. Guinnane, T. W., and Miller, R. I. (1997). The limits to land reform: the Land Acts in Ireland, 1870-1909. Economic Development and Culture Change 45: 591–612. Hardy, C. (2007). Rockforest, Tipperary. Excavations.ie, Database of Irish Excavation Reports. http://www. excavations.ie/report/2007/Tipperary/0018708/. Horning, A. (2004). Archaeological explorations of cultural identity and rural economy in the north of Ireland: Goodland, County Antrim. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 8: 199–215. Horning, A. (2007). Materiality and mutable landscapes: rethinking seasonality and marginality in rural Ireland. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 11: 358–378. Huttman, J. P. (1972). The impact of land reform on agricultural production in Ireland. Agricultural History 46: 353–368. Hyland, A., and Milne, K. (1987). Irish education documents, vol. 1, Church of Ireland College of Education, Dublin. Irish Times (1886). Relief for Innishboffin, March 27. Kuijt, I., Nauman, A., Goodale, N., Moore-Shay, L., and Elliott, E. (2008). Vernacular Architecture and LandUse on Inis Airc, Co. Galway, Ireland: Cultural Landscapes of the Irish Coast 2008 Report. Department of Anthropology, University of Notre Dame, IN. Linebaugh, D. W. (2005). Excavating the dugout house of Norwegian immigrant Anna Byberg Christopherson Goulson, Swift County, Minnesota. Historical Archaeology 39(2): 63–88. Loring, S., and Arendt, B. (2009). “They gave Hebron, the city of refuge” (Joshua 21:13): an archaeological reconnaissance at Hebron, Labrador. Journal of the North Atlantic 1: 33–56. Lucas, A. T. (1970). Contributions to the history of the Irish house: a possible ancestry of the bed-outshot (Cúilteach). Folk Life 8: 81–98. Matheson, R. E. (1903). Housing of the people of Ireland during 1841-1901. Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland 11: 196–212. McDonald, T. (1998). The Deserted Village, Slievemore, Achill Island, County Mayo, Ireland. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 2: 73–112. Messenger, J. C. (1969). Inis Beag: Isle of Ireland, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York. Micks, W. L. (1925). An account of the constitution, administration and dissolution of the congested Districts Board for Ireland from 1891 to 1923, Eason and Son, Dublin. Milek, K. B. (2012). Floor formation processes and the interpretation of site activity areas: an ethnoarchaeological study of turf buildings at Thverá, northeastern Iceland. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31: 119–137. Moffitt, M. (2008). Soupers and jumpers: The Protestant Missions in Connemara, 1848–1937, Nonsuch, Dublin. Moran, G. (1997). Near famine: the crisis in the west of Ireland, 1879–82. Irish Studies Review 18: 14–21. National Archives of Ireland (1903). Census of Ireland (1901). Galway County District Electoral Division (DED), Innishbofin, Brown and Noland, Dublin. National Archives of Ireland (1911). Census of Ireland, 1911. Galway County, District Electoral Division (DED), Innishbofin, Alexander Thom & Co., Ltd, Dublin. Ó Danachair, C. (1964). The combined byre and dwelling in Ireland. Folklife 2: 57–75. Ó Danachair, C. (1972). Traditional forms of the dwelling house in Ireland. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 102: 77–96.

158


O’Rielly, B. (2011). Hearth and home: the vernacular house in Ireland from c. 1800. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 111: 193–215. O’Rourke, K. (1995). Emigration and living standards in Ireland since the Famine. Journal of Population Economics 8: 407–421. Orser Jr., C. E. (2005). Symbolic violence, resistance and the vectors of improvement in early nineteenthcentury Ireland. World Archaeology 37: 392–407. Orser, C. E. (2010). Three 19th-century house sites in rural Ireland. Post-Medieval Archaeology 44: 81–104. Otway, C. (1839). A tour in Connaught: Comprising sketches of Clonmacnoise, Joyce Country, and Achill, William Curry, Dublin. Proudfoot, V. B. (1959). Clochans in Ireland. Gwerin 2(3): 110–122. Proudfoot, L. J., and Graham, B. J. (1993). The nature and extent of urban and village foundation and improvement in eighteenth and early nineteenth century Ireland. Planning Perspectives 8: 259–281. Robinson, P. (1979). Vernacular housing in Ulster. Ulster Folklife 25: 1–28. Royle, S. A. (1999). Leaving the “dreadful rocks”: Irish island emigration and its legacy. History Ireland 7(2): 34–37. Royle, S. A. (2001). A geography of Islands: Small island insularity, Routledge, London. Royle, S. A. (2007). Islands off the Irish coast and the “bridging effect,”. In Baldacchino, G. (ed.), Bridging Islands: The impact of ‘Fixed Links’, Acorn, Charlottetown, pp. 203–218. Symonds, J. (2011). Poverty and progress in the Age of Improvement: evidence from the Isle of South Uist in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. Historical Archaeology 45(3): 106–120. Tarlow, S. (2007). The archaeology of improvement: Britain 1750–1850, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tuke, J. H. (1889). The condition of donegal: Letters, with further suggestions for the improvement and development of the Congested Districts of Ireland and promotion of light railways, fisheries, etc, W. Ridgway, London. Turner, M. (1993). Rural economies in post–famine Ireland, c. 1850–1914. In Graham, B. J., and Proudfoot, L. J. (eds.), An historical geography of Ireland, Academic, Dublin, pp. 293–337. Van Hoof, J., and van Dijken, F. (2008). The historical turf farms of Iceland: architecture, building technology and the indoor environment. Building and Environment 46: 1023–1030. Venn, J., and Venn, J. A., (eds.) (1922-58). Browne, George. Alumni Cantabrigienses Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search.pl?sur=&suro=c&fir=&firo=c&cit=&cito= c&c=all&tex=%22BRWN838GJ%22&sye=&eye=&col=all&maxcount=5.