AR01049_Christian_Landscapes_Summary_Report_10.pdf - The ...

Making Christian Landscapes 

Settlement, Society and Regionality in 

Early Medieval Ireland 

Report for the Heritage Council, 

December 2010 

Principal Investigators: Tomás Ó Carragáin and John Sheehan, 

Archaeology Department, University College Cork 

Associate Investigators: Sam Turner, Paul MacCotter, Gill Boazman, Bernadette 

McCarthy, Aidan Harte, Nick Hogan, Anne Connon, Tara O’Neill, Frank Coyne, Tony 

Cummins, Vincent Ronan and Hugh Kavanagh 

Funded by the Heritage Council through the Irish National Strategic 

Archaeological Research (INSTAR) Programme, 2008-2010

List of Figures and Tables 

v 

Acknowledgements 

ix 

Executive Summary 

x 

Chapter 1 – Scope of the Project 1 

1.1 Introduction 2 

1.2 Regional Studies 7 

1.2.1 Regional Study I: Selected Areas of Leinster 

1.2.2 Regional Study II: Southwest Munster 

1.2.3 Regional Study III: Selected Areas of Galway 

1.3 International Context and Synthesis 11 

1.4 Relationship to existing research and contribution to knowledge 12 

1.5 Teaching, Training and Dissemination 15 

1.5.1 Impact on teaching programmes and professional practice 

1.5.2 Dissemination of Research Results to Profession and Public 

1.6 Scope of this Report 17 

Chapter 2 – The Making Christian Landscapes Database and GIS 18 

2.1 The MCL Database 20 

2.2 The MCL GIS 27 

Chapter 3 – Historic Landscape Characterisation: Methodology, Limitations and Potential 31 

3.1 Introduction to Historic Landscape Characterisation 32 

3.1.1 HLC Method and Critique 

3.1.2 HLC in Ireland 

3.1.3 HLC and Archaeological Research 

ii

3.2 The Making Christian Landscapes HLC Methodology 44 

3.2.1 Introduction 

3.2.2 Defining Polygons 

3.2.3 Recording Polygon Data 

3.2.4 Interpretations of Landscape Character 

3.3 Historic Landscape Character Types Relating to Agricultural Fields 53 


3.3.2 Prehistoric Fields 

3.3.3 Medieval Fields 

3.3.4 Post Medieval Fields 

3.4 Other Historic Landscape Character Types 

Chapter 4 – Historic Landscape Characterisation: Results and Recommendations 70 

4.1 The Corcu Duibne HLC 71 

4.1.1 Rough Ground 

4.1.2 Medieval/Prehistoric Fields 

4.1.3 Post medieval fields 

4.1.4 Preliminary Assessment 

4.2 The Southern Uí Fáeláin HLC 97 

4.2.1 Rough Ground and woodland 



4.3 The Southwest Laois HLC 105 

4.4 Conclusions and suggestions about the future use of HLC in Ireland 112 

Chapter 5 – Case Studies 115 

5.1 Corcu Duibne, Co. Kerry 116 

5.2 Fir Maige, Co. Cork 127 

iii

5.3 Southern Uí Fáeláin, Co. Kildare 145 

5.4 Mag Réta, Co. Laois and Surrounding Kingdoms 159 

5.5 Rathdown, Co. Dublin 177 

5.6 Faughart, Co. Louth 196 

5.7 The Aran Islands and North Clare/South Galway 213 

Chapter 6 – International Context and Conclusions 227 

6.1 Aspects of the international context for Making Christian Landscapes 228 

6.1.1 Cornwall 

6.1.2 Wessex 

6.1.3 Northumbria 

6.1.4 Focus and Scale 

6.2 Conclusions 242 

6.2.1 The Density of Non-Ecclesiastical Burials and Ecclesiastical Sites 

6.2.2 Ecclesiastical and Secular Estates 

6.2.3 Non-Ecclesiastical Burials 

6.2.4 Final Remarks 

Bibliography 251 

Appendix 1: Description of Database Tables used for the Core Case Study Areas 272 

iv

List of Figures 

Fig. 1.1 Approximate extents of detailed case studies (red) and wider study areas. 

Fig. 2.1: Screen-shot illustrating the Primary Table and its relationship to all other tables. 

Fig. 2.2: Screen-shot illustrating the relationship between the Primary Table and Stone Locational Table. 

Fig. 2.3: Screen-shot illustrating the relationship between the Primary Table, Domestic Buildings Table and 

the three tables representing enclosures. 

Fig. 2.4: Screen-shot illustrating the relationship between the Primary Table and three tables representing 

inner, outer and middle enclosures. 

Fig. 2.5: Screen shot of Corcu Duibne GIS with OS Orthophotography showing Lough Currane. 

Fig. 2.6: Screen shot of Corcu Duibne GIS with OS Orthophotography showing the various early medieval 

features on Inis Úasal island in Lough Currane. 

Fig. 3.1: Sample map from the HLC of Cornwall (Herring 1998). 

Fig. 3.2: Sample map from the HLC of Devon (Turner 2005). 

Fig. 3.3: HLC for Co. Clare (ERM and ERA 2000). 

Fig. 3.4: HLC of the medieval landscape in the parish of St Neot in Cornwall (Turner 2006a). 

Fig. 3.5: HLC database screenshot: the ‗Descrptn‘ form is used for all data entry. 

Fig. 4.1: Corca Duibne HLC. 

Fig. 4.2: Dingle Peninsula HLC. 

Fig. 4.3 Iveragh Peninsula HLC. 

Fig. 4.4: HLC of part of Doory townland in the Inny River valley. 

Fig. 4.5: HLC types in a section of the Milltown River valley, northern Corcu Duibne. 

Fig. 4.6: Field system survey of part of Loher townland, Iveragh. 

Fig. 4.7: Fieldsystems in Kilquane townland, northern Corcu Duibne. 

Fig. 4.8: Fieldsystems on the west-facing lower slopes of Mount Brandon in Ballinknockane. 

Fig. 4.9: Field systems in and around Gallarus townland, northern Corcu Duibne. 

Fig. 4.10: Field systems in and around Reask townland northern Corcu Duibne. 

Fig. 4.11: Field systems in and around Ballywiheen townland. 

Fig. 4.12: Field systems in and around Caherscullibeen, northern Corcu Duibne. 

Fig. 4.13: Possible associations between field systems and early medieval enclosed settlements in Beahigh, 

Dromkeare and Lislonane, Iveragh. 

Fig. 4.14: Field boundaries and early medieval settlements in Termons, Beenbane and Loher, Iveragh. 

v

Fig. 4.15: HLC types in the vicinity of Dingle town, one of the principal centres of Anglo-Norman 

settlement in Corcu Duibne. 

Fig. 4.16: Fields in Spunkane townland. 

Fig. 4.17: Fields in Termons townland. 

Fig. 4.18: Fields at the southwest of Lough Currane. 

Fig. 4.19: Fields in Ballincolla and Ballyaglisha, northern Corcu Duibne. 

Fig. 4.20: Percentage breakdown of Historic Character Types in Corcu Duibne. 

Fig. 4.21: Percentage breakdown of HCTs relating to fields in Corcu Duibne. 

Fig. 4.22 Historic Landscape Characterisation of the Southern Uí Fáeláin detailed case study area. 

Fig. 4.23: Palaeochannel/Rough ground at Hillsborough and Oldtown. 

Fig. 4.24: Woodland at Dunnstown. 

Fig. 4.25: Post medieval fields possibly based on medieval strip fields in ‗Blackrath and Athgarvan‘ and 

Walshestown. 

Fig. 4.26: Fields in the townland of Silliothill. 

Fig. 4.27: Harristown Common commonage and Mullacash Middle demesne land. 

Fig. 4.28: Ornamental landscape at Castlemartin. 

Fig. 4.29: Historic Landscape Characterisation of Aghmacart parish. 

Fig. 4.30: Historic Landscape Characterisation of the southern portion of Clonenagh and Clonagheen 

parish. 

Fig. 4.31: Post-medieval fields in Gorteen townland, Aghmacart parish. 

Fig. 4.32: Probable early medieval settlement enclosure and fields which may preserve pre-modern 

elements in Ballykealy townland in the southern part of Aghmacart. 

Fig. 4.33: Three settlement enclosures of probably early medieval date along with fields which may 

incorporate some medieval elements in Derrykearn townland, Clonenagh and Clonagheen parish. 

Fig. 4.34: Large square fields of post medieval date in Killeany townland, Clonenagh and Clonagheen 

parish. 

Fig. 5.1: The three tríchas or sub-kingdoms of Corcu Duibne: Áes Irruis Tuascirt, Áes Coinchinn, and Áes 

Irruis Deiscirt. 

Fig. 5.2: Early Medieval sites in northwest Iveragh. 

Fig. 5.3: Early medieval sites in southwest Iveragh. 

Fig. 5.4: The suggested extent of the Inis Úasal ecclesiastical estate. 

Fig. 5.5: Cross-slab on the boundary between Termons and Spunkane townlands. 

Fig. 5.6 The Anglo-Norman manors of Fir Maige. 

Fig. 5.7 Ecclesiastical sites (top) and other early medieval settlement archaeology (bottom) in the Fir Maige 

study area. 

vi

Fig. 5.8 Brí Gobann, on the outskirts of the town of Fermoy, was one of the most important churches in Fir 

Maige and controlled a large ecclesiastical estate. 

Fig. 5.9 Two of the local kingdoms of Fir Maige, Co. Cork (Uí Chuscraid and Uí Chuscraid Sléibe). 

Shaded grey are the ecclesiastical lands of the two principal foundations of St Molaga (Tulach Mín Molaga 

and Áth Cros Molaga). 

Fig. 5.10 Labbamolaga (Tulach Mín) from the air showing the early ecclesiastical enclosure surrounding 

the site. 

Fig. 5.11 The pre-Romanesque shrine-chapel at Labbamolaga (Tulach Mín). 

Fig. 5.12: The Kingdom of Uí Fáeláin and its Sub-divisions with the study area at the southern end of the 

kingdom highlighted. 

Fig. 5.13: Churches and non-ecclesiastical burials in the study area. 

Fig. 5.14: Composite plan of Corbally excavations from 2003 to 2007. 

Fig. 5.15: Coghlanstown with its impressive ecclesiastical enclosure as depicted on the 1st Edition OS map. 

Fig. 5.16: Coghlanstown parish church is largely fifteenth-century. 

Fig. 5.17: Aerial view of Killashee ecclesiastical complex. 

Fig. 5.18: Athgarvan Graveyard. 

Fig. 5.19: High cross at Kilcullen. 

Fig. 5.20: 1st Edition OS maps with modern contours added showing the hills Old Kilcullen and Dún 

Áilinne. 

Fig. 5.21: The kingdoms within the ‗Mag Réta‘ study. 

Fig. 5.22: All sites in the southern portion of Clonenagh and Clonagheen with Killeany 1 labelled. 

Fig. 5.23: Killeany 1 from the south-east. 

Fig. 5.24: General plan of Killeany 1. 

Fig. 5.25: Parknahown 5. 

Fig. 5.26: The cemetery at Parknahown 5 showing enclosures, and Level 1 burials. 

Fig. 5.27: Parknahown 5 in its landscape context. 

Fig. 5.28: Bushfield or Maghernaskeagh / Lismore 1. 

Fig. 5.29: Bushfield or Maghernaskeagh / Lismore 1, Co. Laois. 

Fig. 5.30: Bushfield or Maghernaskeagh / Lismore 1 it its landscape context. 

Fig. 5.31: Affiliation of ecclesiastical sites in Rathdown to Glendalough. 

Fig. 5.32: Rathdown slabs at Killegar. 

Fig. 5.33: Twelfth-century cross at Tully. 

Fig. 5.34: Concentration of ringforts and enclosures in the Glencullen, Kiltiernan and Killegar and 

Ballybrew area. 

Fig 5.35: Present day arable farming three kilometres west of Shankill. 

Fig. 5.36: The study area of North Louth. 

Fig. 5.37: The proposed ecclesiastical estate at Faughart, sited between the Flurry and Auduname rivers. 

vii

Fig. 5.38: St Brigid‘s Bed, the horse-shoe shaped shrine at Faughart Upper. 

Fig. 5.39: The cashel at Doolargy. 

Fig. 5.40: Gallery 5 at Tateetra. 

Fig. 5.41: Aran with major sites and townlands named. 

Fig. 5.42: Inishmaan with major sites and townlands named. 

Fig. 5.43: Inisheer with major sites and townlands named. 

Fig. 5.44: Distribution of definite early ecclesiastical sites and ring-forts along the county border of North 

Clare/South Galway study-area. 

Fig. 5.45: Plan of Mainistir Chiaráin, indicating termonn marking pillar stones. 

Fig. 5.46: Hinterland of St Mac Duach‘s Hermitage. 

Fig. 5.47: Gable-shrine at Cill Chomhla with Dún Eoghanachta in background. 

Fig. 6.1: St Neot and neighbouring parishes to the south of Bodmin Moor, Cornwall. 

Fig. 6.2: St Keverne and the Meneage, Cornwall. 

Fig. 6.3: The likely early medieval monastery of Stoke St Nectan and the medieval landscape of Hartland, 

Devon. 

Fig. 6.4. Roundway Down, Wiltshire: 7th-century barrow burials and likely minster churches. 

viii

Acknowledgements 

We would like to thank our colleagues in the Archaeology Department, UCC, for their advice and support. 

In particular we thank Professor William O‘Brien who supported the project by providing work-space and a 

range of other facilities for MCL researchers, and by facilitating the participation of UCC staff in the 

project. Thanks are also due to our other colleagues, especially Mick Monk, Barra Ó Donnabháin and Colin 

Rynne for expert advice. Other scholars at UCC have also given us advice, especially in the use of 

documentary sources, most notably Ken Nicholls and Prof. Emeritus, Donnchadh Ó Corráin, who is senior 

historical advisor to the project. Special thanks are also due to the staff of ACS Ltd and Aegis Ltd for 

collaborating in the project; and to Sam Turner‘s colleagues at the School of Historical Studies, University 

of Newcastle for facilitating his participation. 

The list of colleagues from other institutions and companies that have supported the project through 

correspondence and discussion is too long to include here in full. However we would like to thank the 

following for information about excavated sites within the study areas: the archaeologists employed by the 

National Roads Authority and the following private sector companies: VJK Ltd, Margaret Gowen Ltd, 

Headland Archaeology Ltd, Eachtra Archaeology Ltd, IAC Ltd, and ADS Ltd. In addition thanks are due to 

Paul Walsh of the Archaeological Survey of Ireland for making information from the forthcoming 

inventory of Co. Kerry available to us. 

Finally we are very grateful to the Heritage Council for their generous funding of the project. 

ix

Executive Summary 

 

 

 

The Making Christian Landscapes Project was established in June 2008 and was funded through 

the Heritage Council‘s INSTAR programme from June-November 2008, June-November 2009 

and July-November 2010. Its purpose is to investigate the physical and conceptual transformation 

of the Irish landscape during the early medieval period, a process which was intimately bound up 

with the arrival of and development of a new religion – Christianity – and its attendant power 

structures. 

The project comprises regional studies of Leinster, Southwest Munster and Galway. Within each 

of these regions a number of case studies are studied in detail with a GIS incorporating 

documentary evidence and (in some cases) Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) as well as 

excavation evidence and other archaeological data. A synthesis comparing the Irish case studies to 

other areas of northwest Europe is also being prepared. 

Despite difference in the nature of the evidence, there was quite a consistent density of early 

ecclesiastical settlements across most areas. 

 

 

 

 

In all areas the density is much higher than in pre-Viking England. Probably this was due, in part, 

to a relatively diffuse social structure which meant that a relatively high portion of the population 

was entitled to found churches. 

Where early medieval ecclesiastical and secular estates could be reconstructed, it became clear 

that many churches were founded by minor secular proprietors. On ecclesiastical estates, the 

density of ecclesiastical sites was sometimes particularly high, and in Corcu Duibne sculpture was 

used to denote ecclesiastical land. Also in Corcu Duibne and Mag Réta there is evidence that large 

settlement enclosures are unusually common on ecclesiastical land. Thus, it seems that these 

different kinds of estate leave distinct signatures in the archaeological record. 

Within some estates HLC was used to study medieval land-use patterns. This project shows that 

the technique has the potential to be of considerable use for researching and managing Irish 

landscapes, but only if it is employed rigorously. 

In most areas only a minority of ecclesiastical sites were sited on boundaries, and in those cases 

there it is often possible to identify particular reasons for their liminal locations. In contrast the 

majority of non-ecclesiastical burials including ogham stones and barrows, though notably not 

cemetery settlements, were on boundaries. 

 

This project is making a substantial contribution to our understanding of the process of Making 

Christian Landscapes in Ireland and other parts of Atlantic Europe. 

x

Chapter 1 – Scope of the Project


2010 INSTAR Report 

1.1 Introduction 

Recent pre-development excavations are transforming our understanding of early 

medieval Ireland. This project is bringing together archaeologists working in the 

commercial sector, archaeologists in universities in Ireland and abroad and historians 

with the common aim of realising the added value of some of the most important ones, 

first by placing them in their landscape contexts and secondly by systematically 

comparing these landscapes. 

The affiliations of the research team members and their respective roles in the project can 

be summarised as follows: 

Principal Investigators 

Dr Tomás Ó Carragáin Archaeology Department, University College Cork (Coordination, 

Corcu Duibne regional study, Southern Uí Fáeláin, SW Laois and Fermoy 

case studies and international synthesis) 

John Sheehan, Archaeology Department, University College Cork (Co-ordination and 

Corcu Duibne regional study) 

Associate Investigators 

Dr Sam Turner, University of Newcastle (Historic Landscape Characterisation and 

international context) 

Dr Paul McCotter, INSTAR Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Archaeology Department, 

UCC (historical research) 

Nick Hogan of UCC and Aidan Harte of Munster Archaeology Ltd (GIS, HLC and 

Digital Data management) 

2



Gill Boazman, UCC PhD candidate (Leinster regional study) 

Bernadette McCarthy, UCC PhD candidate (Galway regional studies) 

Tara O‘Neill of Archaeological Consultancy Services and Anne Connon (Mag Réta case 

study, SW Laois) 

Frank Coyne of Aegis Archaeology Ltd (Southern Uí Fáeláin, Co. Kildare case study) 

Breandán Ó Cíobháin (toponymic research) 

Prof. Donnchadh Ó Corráin, Emeritus Professor, History Department, UCC (senior 

historical advisor) 

3



Through multi-layered research the project team is placing excavated early medieval 

cemeteries and ecclesiastical sites in their landscape contexts. Subsequently these 

landscapes are being systematically compared. The outcome will be new, more nuanced 

understandings of early medieval settlement and landscape dynamics. 

While the project is not concerned with ritual and religion per se, its title was chosen to 

reflect the fact that the physical and conceptual transformation of the landscape during 

this period was intimately bound up with the arrival and development of a new religion – 

Christianity – and its attendant power structures. In the pre-Viking period, ecclesiastical 

sites sprang up as new nodal points and the landscape was re-ordered around them. A 

wide range of new secular settlements and non-ecclesiastical cemeteries were established. 

Even groups who did not immediately subscribe to the new ideology had to negotiate a 

relationship with it. By 800 Ireland was characterised by a remarkable density of 

ecclesiastical sites of varying functions, but the process of Making Christian Landscapes 

was by no means complete. During the Viking Age (c.800-1100) there were major 

changes in the form and distribution of secular settlements and many non-ecclesiastical 

cemeteries and minor ecclesiastical sites seem to have been abandoned as a result of a 

shift from kin burial to community burial at relatively important church sites. A similar 

shift is evident on the European mainland where it has been interpreted as marking the 

origins of a parish consciousness (Treffort 1996). 

The foregoing is just an outline sketch of a hugely important but complex process. 

Landscape studies which look in detail at where and how people chose, or were obliged, 

to live, worship and be buried and how this changed over time are the best way to 

develop better understandings of it. It is essential that all relevant strands of evidence – 

including topography, land use (using Historic Landscape Characterisation where 

appropriate), secular settlements, cemeteries, ecclesiastical sites, boundaries, 

landholdings and estates, routeways and pre-Christian monuments – are integrated into a 

coherent whole using GIS. The sheer bulk of the evidence means that this is only feasible 

for small areas comprising a modest number of contiguous parishes (60km² on average) 

most of which incorporate pre-development excavations. Within these areas most sites 

4



are visited to explore inter-visibility, vista and experience the ‗qualities‘ of the specific 

landscape (Tilley 1994). However in order to fully understand the patterns which emerge, 

and to avoid being misled by local peculiarities, the surrounding area, usually comprising 

a barony or half-barony (300km² on average), is subject to less intensive, primarily deskbased 

study. 

The methodology employed in the project is considered further below. Put simply, 

existing digitized data from the OSI (modern mapping in vector format, 6 inch maps in 

raster format, RMP information, Orthophotography etc.) is integrated with new data 

generated during the project including site-specific information and documentary 

evidence. A Geographic Information System (GIS) is developed to enable accurate 

analysis and presentation of this very diverse data. Historic Landscape Characterisation 

(HLC), which involves the categorisation of landscape types, is used to explore medieval 

land-use. Consistent land-use categories as well as standardised ways of dealing with 

documentary and toponymic evidence are adding greatly to the quality of data analysis 

across the project as a whole. 

5



Fig. 1.1 Approximate extents of detailed case studies (red) and wider study areas. 

6



1.2 Regional Studies 

A crucial aim of this project is to explore the extent to which the process of landscape 

change varied from region to region. For example, were there variations in the nature and 

density of settlement and burial sites, and what does this say about local power 

structures? To what extent does the present diversity within and between regions – 

especially between the east and west of the country – reflect early medieval regionality or 

simply differential visibility due to the presence or absence of stone buildings or predevelopment 

archaeology? The three principal study regions have been chosen with these 

issues in mind. These studies are informed by and will inform other current landscape 

studies. However an important innovation of this project is that exactly the same 

methodology and research tools (including software packages etc.) is being used for all 

the case studies. This is making it feasible to compare different regions for the first time. 

The main elements of the project are as follows: 

1.2.1 Regional Study I: Selected Areas of Leinster 

Theme and Variations: Gill Boazman’s PhD 

In the last number of years the majority of important pre-development excavations of 

cemetery settlements and possible ecclesiastical sites have taken place in Leinster. A 

regional study focussed on Leinster is therefore essential if the Making Christian 

Landscapes project is to engage fully with the new patterns and categories of evidence 

emerging from these excavations. Two of the four Leinster case studies – Faughart, Co. 

Louth and Rathdown, Co. Dublin – have been carried out by Gill Boazman. Gill‘s MA 

dissertation research was a comparative study of the impact of Christianity on settlement 

patterns in Cork and Cornwall. It essentially amounted to a pilot study for the Making 

Christian Landscapes project (Boazman 2006; 2008). She is now in the final stages of a 

PhD project focused primarily on carefully selected areas of Leinster along with one Co. 

Cork case study (below). This research is a key component of the MCL project. 

There is now such a wealth of new information relevant to the process of Making 

Christian Landscapes in Leinster that it could never be fully analysed by one researcher. 

7



In 2008 INSTAR funding facilitated another case study within the Leinster regional study 

focussed on Southern Uí Fáeláin, Co. Kildare. This is an important non-ecclesiastical 

cemetery and settlement site excavated between 2003 and 2008 by Aegis Archaeology 

Ltd on behalf of Kilsaran Concrete, which is fully funding the post-excavation analysis. 

The landscape study of Southern Uí Fáeláin was undertaken as a collaboration between 

Aegis Archaeology and UCC. This case study was completed for the 2008 report, though 

it will need to be slightly revised in light of the final programme of post-ex planned for 

this site, a programme which is now underway. Aspects of the INSTAR work carried out 

on this case study area will be published as part of the final publication of the Southern 

Uí Fáeláin excavations, as well as in the synthesis being written by TÓC and ST. In 2009 

one further Leinster case study was carried out in Mag Réta, Co. Laois as a collaborative 

project between UCC and ACS Ltd, an area where several important sites have recently 

been excavated. The Leinster regional study therefore comprises four case studies which 

will allow us to arrive at sound general conclusions about the process of Making 

Christian Landscapes within this province. 

1.2.2 Regional Study II: Southwest Munster 

The second regional study is focused primarily on the early medieval regional kingdom 

of Corcu Duibne, which comprised most of modern-day peninsular Kerry. In this case the 

wider area comprises the whole of the kingdom, while the western ends of the two 

peninsulas have been studied in greater detail. This region is particularly rich in 

settlement archaeology and field systems, and a relatively large number of sites have 

been excavated either as research projects or because of sea erosion. The prevalence of 

dry-stone buildings in this area is unparalleled. It allows even unexcavated sites to be 

analysed in detail in a way that is not possible in most other areas. Contrary to traditional 

views (e.g. Henry 1957), historians have recognised that not all ecclesiastical foundations 

were necessarily monastic in nature (e.g. Etchingham 1999). However, documentary 

sources rarely allow distinctions to be drawn between churches and sites of differing 

character and function at a local level. Archaeologists have eschewed the issue by 

replacing the term ‗monastery‘ with the less-prescriptive ‗ecclesiastical settlement‘ (e.g. 

8



Swan 1985). Though similar in their overall form and layout, these sites varied in 

function and ‗the challenge for archaeologists is to distinguish between sites on the basis 

of nuances‘ (Ó Carragáin 2006, 123). Realistically, this is only feasible in the case of 

excavated sites and in the case of unexcavated sites in a few western areas, including 

pockets of Co. Galway (below) and Corcu Duibne. It is proving particularly interesting to 

compare and contrast these western case studies with those further east. 

Two Co. Cork case studies are also included in the Southwest Munster case study. One is 

focused on Rosscarbery in West Cork and comprises the final case study in Gill 

Boazman‘s PhD project. The second is the Fermoy (Fir Maige) area in north Cork. A 

number of highly significant early medieval sites have recently been excavated there in 

advance of roadway and housing schemes, especially by Eachtra Archaeological Projects 

Ltd.. In addition, the area has by far the richest documentary sources relating to early 

boundaries, topography and ecclesiastical organisation in the whole country (Crichad an 

Chaolli etc.). A detailed study of this evidence was undertaken by Paul MacCotter in 

2010 and this has fed into an interdisciplinary analysis of the area which, because of the 

richness of the documentary sources, is particularly fine-grained and is allowing us to 

refine our conclusions about some of the other case studies. 

1.2.3 Regional Study III: Selected Areas of Galway 

The third regional study, of selected areas of Co. Galway, is the PhD project of 

Bernadette McCarthy. The remarkable diversity of Co. Galway makes it particularly 

suitable for a study of early ecclesiastical settlement. Some offshore island sites are 

characterised by unusually good preservation of early medieval remains, including 

enclosures and their subdivisions, sculpture, domestic buildings and ritual foci. Other 

areas, especially Lough Corrib/Lough Mask and the Aran Islands, have an unparalleled 

density of tenth- and eleventh-century (i.e. Viking Age) mortared stone churches. In the 

east of the region, sites have relatively unremarkable material remains, with early 

ecclesiastical sites usually represented by a late medieval parish church within a modern 

graveyard, but are well served by topographically-rich documentary sources. In addition, 

9



several important sites have been excavated in these areas in advance of road-building. 

Among the recently excavated sites Bernadette is considering are the cemetery settlement 

at Carrowkeel and the possible early ecclesiastical site at Owenbristy. Bernadette is now 

more than half way through her PhD research and has completed a detailed study of the 

Aran Islands as well as extensive fieldwork on the Galway mainland, especially in south 

Galway on the border with Clare, and in the Lough Corrib/Lough Mask area. An 

emerging emphasis in her research is the archaeology of monasticism: can ecclesasitical 

sites that housed monastic communities be distinguished archaeologically from nonmonastic 

church sites and how did such monastic sites interact with other settlement and 

ritual sites in the landscape? 

10



1.3 International Context and Synthesis 

Of course, the transformations which this project would explore were not confined to 

Ireland. Societies across early medieval Europe chose to negotiate a future within 

Christendom and the landscapes which they inhabited were reorganised as a result 

(Carver 2003). In order to bring the Irish patterns into focus it is essential to look at how 

they compare with each other and with patterns from other areas of Europe. Through 

seminars and informal discussion each of the regional studies are being informed by the 

varying perspectives of the others. In order to broaden the debate, we are planning to hold 

an international conference on the subject of Making Christian Landscapes at UCC. 

Archaeologists from various countries and various sectors of the profession will be 

invited to participate and it is hoped that the proceedings of this conference will be 

published. Work on a synthesis of the subject by Tomás Ó Carragáin and Sam Turner 

entitled Making Christian Landscapes in Atlantic Europe is also underway. This draws 

heavily on the Irish studies as well as research being directed by Sam Turner in England. 

He has already applied the methodology used in this project to areas of southwest 

England and, with English Heritage funding, he is currently applying it to areas of 

Northumbria, especially in the vicinity of Bede‘s monastery of 

Monkwearthmouth/Jarrow. The book will also include comparative discussion of Francia 

and Iberia. 

11



1.4 Relationship to existing research and contribution to knowledge 

This project differs fundamentally from previous early medieval settlement studies which 

either concentrated on single site-types (ringforts or churches) in large areas or imposed 

late twentieth century theoretical structures (e.g. feudalism, capitalism, processualism) on 

the evidence. These produce generalised, one-dimensional accounts which do no justice 

to the subtle variations in Irish early medieval landscapes or the past mind-sets that 

created them. In contrast the multi-layered and comparative small area approach of this 

project, derived from the Annales school of Geographical analysis, is resulting in a finergrained 

interpretation of the data and a more balanced dialogue between past and present 

(Boazman 2006; 2008). The potential of an integrated approach has been illustrated by 

some recent Irish small area studies (e.g. Fredengren 2002; Ó Carragáin 2003a), but the 

principal model for this project is a study by Sam Turner (2006a), a member of the 

project team. This combined a desk-based study of relatively large areas with intensive 

case studies of small areas using GIS and HLC. By alternating from the general to the 

particular, Turner was able to develop a sophisticated model for the impact of 

Christianity on the landscapes of southwest England which challenges many long-held 

but dubious assumptions. 

This project will result in an even more fundamental reappraisal of the process of Making 

Christian Landscapes in Ireland because it is able to draw upon the great wealth of new 

evidence from pre-development excavations, along with previously neglected resources 

such as excellent above-ground archaeology in certain western areas and a relatively rich 

documentary record. The importance of illuminating this re-ordering of the landscape 

cannot be overstated: after all the basic pattern of ecclesiastical settlement and landdivisions 

was established by 1100 and persists in modified form to the present day. The 

project is also methodologically ground-breaking. The detailed comparison of different 

regions of Ireland would be a new departure in early medieval settlement studies. While 

HLC has been used by the Heritage Council for landscape management purposes (e.g. 

ERM and ERA 2000) this is the first large scale application of the method for research 

purposes in Ireland. 

12



The Making Christian Landscapes team are using this and other modern research tools to 

illuminate key research issues recently highlighted in the report A Review of Research 

Needs in Irish Archaeology (Heritage Council 2007, 18-19) under the theme of 

‗landscapes and settlement‘ (6). These include: 

 

The complexity and diversity of the settlement record during the historic period. 

 

The extent of woodland and enclosed agricultural land in antiquity, an issue 

illuminated through the use of HLC (below). 

 

The origins of urbanism and the relationship of urban centres to their hinterlands. 

While few early ecclesiastical sites were truly urban they do represent the 

establishment of the idea of urbanism in pre-Viking Ireland for they were 

conceived as civitates, and had many of the secondary functions of towns. 

No contextual study could focus exclusively on one of the Heritage Council themes. This 

project is also particularly relevant to the ‗cultural identity, territories and boundaries‘ 

theme (1) in the Heritage Council‘s report (2007, 15), for an essential aim of the case 

studies is to establish: 

 

The boundaries of the principal estates owned by relatively important 

ecclesiastical sites. 

 

The boundaries of the secular territories in which these estates occur. 

 

The relationship of non-ecclesiastical burials and ecclesiastical sites to these 

boundaries. 

This information is of pivotal importance in establishing the relationships between 

different site-types. For example, are ringforts that are within ecclesiastical estates the 

farmsteads of ecclesiastical tenants (manaig) (Ó Carragáin 2003a)? Do cemetery 

13



settlements tend to occur within or outside ecclesiastical estates? Do secular settlements 

and field systems on ecclesiastical estates differ from those on secular estates? Only 

through interdisciplinary studies of quite small areas can important questions like this be 

addressed. 

14



1.5 Teaching, Training and Dissemination 

1.5.1 Impact on teaching programmes and professional practice 

This project is feeding directly into undergraduate and postgraduate teaching of the early 

medieval period at UCC and is facilitating two PhD projects and feeding into a number of 

others. In addition, the project has enhanced the professional skills of participating 

archaeologists, especially in documentary research, GIS and HLC. To facilitate training 

of, and exchange of ideas between, team members a series of 2-3 hour 

workshops/seminars were held over the course of the project. UCC staff and 

postgraduates not directly involved in the project also benefited from these seminars. In 

addition Paul MacCotter has been meeting individually with the two PhD candidates 

working on the project to discuss documentary sources available in their particular study 

regions. Obviously these students have regular meetings and informal seminars with their 

supervisor Tomás Ó Carragáin. 

1.5.2 Dissemination of Research Results to Profession and Public 

Dissemination to the Profession 

Dissemination to the archaeological, scholarly community will be achieved through the 

planned conference and through a number of peer-reviewed monographs and articles. The 

monographs will include: 

Church and Society in Early Ireland. A Comparative Landscape Study of Corcu Duibne 

and Fir Maige (Tomás Ó Carragáin, Paul MacCotter and John Sheehan). 

Making Christian Landscapes in Atlantic Europe (Tomás Ó Carragáin and Sam Turner). 

In addition, monographs will be published arising from the PhD research of Gill 

Boazman and Bernadette McCarthy, from the Southern Uí Fáeláin case study, and 

perhaps arising from the UCC conference (above). A number of academic articles arising 

from the project will also be published, including one by Anne Connon on Mag Réta 

which was written in 2010 building on work she had carried out in 2009. Academic 

articles arising from the project, which have already been published, include: 

15



Boazman, G. 2009, ‗Cork and Cornwall: settlement patterns and social organisation 

during the establishment of Christianity, AD 450-800‘, Journal of Irish Archaeology 17. 

Ó Carragáin, T. 2009, ‗Cemetery settlements and local churches in pre-Viking Ireland in 

light of comparisons with England and Wales‘ in J. Graham-Campbell and M. Ryan 

(eds.) Irish/Anglo-Saxon Relations before the Vikings. Proceedings of the British 

Academy Vol. 157, 239-61. 

Ó Carragáin, T. 2010, ‗From family cemeteries to community cemeteries in Viking Age 

Ireland?‘ in C. Corlett and M. Potterton (eds.) Death and Burial in Early Medieval 

Ireland in the Light of Recent Excavations (Wordwell, Bray), 217-226. 

Dissemination to the Public 

Beyond this, the project team is making the results of its research as widely available, 

accessible and engaging as possible. There is still considerable interest in Ireland in the 

development of local land divisions, settlement patterns and in early ecclesiastical sites 

and their founding saints. At the same time, peoples‘ relationship with the landscape has 

been transformed in recent decades as a result of the loss of a great deal of folklore, the 

demise of traditional rituals and beliefs, and other social and demographic changes. By 

disseminating the results of our work, we hope that this project would help people to 

connect, or reconnect, with their local landscape by engaging with new ideas about its 

history. There are interesting parallels between contemporary, cosmopolitan Ireland, both 

rural and urban, and the early medieval period, especially the beginning of the period 

which is characterised by rapid social change and a diversity of belief systems and 

identities. By highlighting these resonances we hope to spark debate not only about the 

distant past but also about the present. This dialogue between the research team and the 

wider public is being achieved through: 

 

Public lectures and/or field trips for local communities, archaeological societies 

and schools in each of the three regions being studied. Project members have 

16



delivered several lectures on their MCL research, at academic conferences in 

Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, as well as to local societies and to the 

general public at various venues in Ireland. They have also led public field trips to 

some of the sites under consideration. 

 

Newspaper articles and contributions to television programmes. For example, in 

2008 Tomás Ó Carragáin and John Sheehan participated in Secrets of the Stones, 

the first documentary in digital format commissioned by RTÉ. Their contribution 

was partly based upon Making Christian Landscapes research. 

 

Popular publications in which the integrity of the research is not compromised 

through oversimplification. For example, four members of the project team have 

written sections for The Iveragh Peninsula: A Cultural Atlas of the Ring of Kerry 

(Cork University Press 2009), which was co-edited by John Sheehan. These 

articles draw on research undertaken as part of the Making Christian Landscapes 

project, especially the Southwest Munster regional study, and serve to disseminate 

some of the key ideas of the project to the general public: 

John Sheehan 'Early Medieval Iveragh' 

John Sheehan and Paul MacCotter 'Medieval Iveragh: Kingdoms and Dynasties' 

Tomás Ó Carragáin ‗Mountain Pilgrimages‘ 

Donnchadh Ó Corráin 'The Vikings and Iveragh' 

Breandán Ó Cíobháin 'The Toponymy of the peninsula of Uíbh Ráthach' 

Breandán Ó Cíobháin 'The early ecclesiastical Toponymy of Uíbh Ráthach' 

Webpages detailing the project findings in an engaging manner: 

http://www.ucc.ie/en/DepartmentsCentresandUnits/Archaeology/Research/Resear 

chGroupList/EarlyMedievalandVikingResearchGroup/EarlyMedievalandVikingR 

esearchProjects/MakingChristianLandscapes/ 

17



1.6 Scope of this Report 

The methodology employed in the project is outlined in detail in Chapters 2 and 3. 

Chapter 2 is concerned with the database and GIS methodology, which has been revised 

somewhat since the beginning of the project. In Chapter 3 the HLC methodology devised 

for the project is outlined, while in Chapter 4 we outline some of the results of our HLC 

work in Corcu Duibne, Southern Uí Fáeláin and Mag Réta and make some 

recommendations about how this method might be used in Ireland in future. Chapter 5 

comprises accounts of the various case studies. Each section outlines the reason for 

selecting the area in question, the nature of the evidence and the patterns that have 

emerged from the research. These accounts represent relatively short overviews rather 

than definitive statements, for in most cases research is ongoing and will be published 

before long as outlined above. Finally, Chapter 6 presents the conclusions of the project 

as a whole. Again, these are subject to revision in the final publications arising from the 

project. 

18



Chapter 2 

The Making Christian Landscapes Database and GIS 

19



2.1 The MCL Database (Aidan Harte and Bernadette McCarthy) 

The Access Database which has been used to create the GIS for all the regional studies 

was carefully designed to ensure that all data relevant to the study were recorded to a 

standard and is fully searchable. 

The result is one of the most complex databases designed for archaeological and 

historical analysis in Ireland to date, allowing the management and analysis of large and 

complex volumes of data for diverse types of monument and landscape. A total of 47 

tables allow a large amount of relevant data to be recorded and the relational nature of the 

database allows this data to be analysed effectively. In addition to a basic record of all 

visible prehistoric sites, every significant characteristic – whether it is known from 

documentary or archaeological evidence – of all early medieval sites is systematically 

recorded so that patterns of association between ecclesiastical sites, non-ecclesiastical 

cemeteries and secular settlements can be recognized. 

Each of the regional study areas are composed of core case-study areas and wider areas 

for more general study. It was decided that study of the core-areas necessitates the 

recording of all sites of early medieval date and all earlier sites which would have been 

visible landscape entities during the early medieval period (for example, standing stones). 

In the wider study areas information relating to non-ecclesiastical burial and early 

ecclesiastical sites is recorded in detail, but treated in a relatively cursory manner. The 

descriptive elements associated with the many different site types entailed that the array 

of information involved should not be stored in a single table. Such a ‗flat-file‘ database 

structure would be inflexible and inefficient; it would not be easy to query the data in 

order to control how it is brought into the GIS and the huge size of the final table would 

make analysis cumbersome. A relational database structure offers far more to the 

landscape archaeologist and is central to our design. The data are divided among a range 

of tables that can be related in various ways in order to realise multi-faceted 

representations of the early medieval landscape. Conceived by E.F. Codd (1970) in the 

20



1960s, the basic concept behind the relational database model is that a database consists 

of a series of unordered tables that can be manipulated using operations that return new 

tables. Tables work together in the modelling of relationships between various forms of 

data. 

For the relational database to operate effectively, it was necessary that all archaeological 

sites and features have some common elements within the digital record. This 

fundamental information comprised the name and location type data, and was contained 

within the ‗Primary‘ table. The ‗Primary‘ table functions as the hub of the relational 

structure, as all data exported into the GIS ultimately requires spatial referencing. Rather 

than describing them as elements/features within a site, all monuments – from settlement 

enclosures to cross-slabs, churches, holy wells, burial grounds, domestic buildings etc. – 

are being given separate MCL Identifiers and separate entries in the database. This six 

digit alpha-numeric code (MCL_ID) facilitates linkages within the relational database 

structure and also facilitates the entry of newly discovered archaeological sites which had 

not yet received RMP numbers. The ‗Primary‘ table therefore contained both identity 

references and spatial data, of textual and numerical form, and a classification of site 

type. A field for notes was also provided for recording further details or information 

pertaining to the source of the data. The morphological and historical information about 

each site was then entered into a specific table or group of tables relevant to that site-type 

- all referenced by the same unique identifier. 

21



Fig. 2.1: Screen-shot illustrating the Primary Table and its relationship to all other 

tables. 

Fig. 2.2: Screen-shot illustrating the relationship between the Primary Table and 

Stone Locational Table. Note the tables representing various forms of stone 

monument connecting the Primary Table with the Stone Locational table. 

22



Fig. 2.3: Screen-shot illustrating the relationship between the Primary Table, 

Domestic Buildings Table and the three tables representing enclosures. Note the 

significance of the unique MCL Identifier in relating tables to one another. 

Fig. 2.4: Screen-shot illustrating the relationship between the Primary Table and 

three tables representing inner, outer and middle enclosures. Note that the middle 

enclosure is relatively located at the end in order to allow for effective operation of 

queries regarding sites that have a single or double enclosure but do not possess a 

middle enclosure. Also note the numerous fields (22 in total) available for recording 

complex details of each enclosing element. 

23



Many of the elements entered into the ‗Primary‘ table are obviously components of 

complex sites with numerous other monuments. To reflect these relationships, basic 

information is also recorded about the site at which they occur (MCL Identifier, name and 

site type), allowing them to be analysed as components of sites as well as monuments in 

their own right. In the case of most enclosed settlements, including ringforts, cashels, 

cemetery settlements etc., the MCL identifier for the enclosure is also the identifier for 

the site itself and is used to link the various components of a site (burials, buildings, 

artefacts etc.) to it. However, ecclesiastical sites (be they definite, probable or possible or 

later medieval), get a separate MCL identifier and their details are entered into a separate 

‗Ecclesiastical Sites‘ table. This is because (unlike, for example, ringforts) a few early 

ecclesiastical sites do not seem to have been delimited by an enclosure as such (e.g. 

Skellig Michael and Killabuonia in Corcu Duibne) while in many other cases an 

enclosure does not survive. In fact there is no trace of early medieval archaeology at 

many definite early ecclesiastical sites, but the location and history of these can still be 

recorded under the ‗ecclesiastical site‘ MCL Identifier. 

Wherever possible, 6 digit Irish Grid References were taken from the DEHLG 

archaeology website (www.archaeology.ie) rather than RMP map books or county 

inventories, as this contains the most up-to-date, ‗spatially cleaned‘ location data. Where 

there are no listed IG refs for a site/monument (in the case of new sites, for example), IG 

refs are logged in the field with GPS, or alternatively www.archaeology.ie is used to 

create references by estimating the location of the site/monument using features such as 

field boundaries on vertical photography/six-inch mapping. In the case of ogham stones, 

cross-slabs, pillars, stone crosses, high crosses and bullaun stones, each stone-type 

displays unique characteristics to be recorded. However, in some instances, the relocation 

of these features has occurred since the medieval period so to deal with this issue a ‗Stone 

Locational‘ table was created. This permitted such features to effectively have two sets of 

co-ordinates if necessary: one set for present location and another set for original 

location, but accounting for a single entity. Other information noted in this table included 

the internal position (Int_Pos) of the stone if it was situated within a site, and the transfer 

date if the stone was moved during the modern period. 

24



The MCL database is ideally suited to recording the important characteristics of that 

ubiquitous early medieval feature, the enclosure. Enclosures can be complex in form, 

with up to three enclosing elements at some sites. Similar to the structure of the tables 

recording stone descriptions and locations, the tables used to store details of enclosures, 

and in particular multi-vallate enclosures, are relational. Details were entered for each 

enclosing element including bank width, bank height, ditch width and ditch depth. Had 

this information been recorded in a single table, 69 fields would have been required to 

record multi-vallate enclosures. Instead, three separate but almost identical tables were 

formed. The first of these (Sett_InnerEnc) dealt with the inner enclosing element, which 

is also the outer enclosing element in the case of uni-vallate sites. The next table joined to 

the first and detailed the outer enclosing element (Sett_OuterEnc) for both bivallate and 

trivallate sites. Finally, a third table recorded details of a middle enclosing element 

(Sett_MiddleEnc) which is relevant only for trivallate sites. 

In order for useful datasets to be exported into the GIS, the database needs to be queried. 

Such queries can pose relatively simple questions, performing searches for a given sitetype, 

morphological data of the sites and the location of the sites which returns a table 

with that information. This ‗query table‘ can then be exported into the GIS. However, a 

greater complexity can be achieved even at this stage by further querying a ‗query table‘ 

and thus refining the output. This permits historical and archaeological information to be 

correlated prior to any GIS tasks. Details of the tables that comprise the MCL Access 

database are included in Appendix 1, which also includes a brief discussion of the criteria 

used to assess the likelihood that an ecclesiastical site is of early origin. 

In contrast to the core study areas (for details of which see Appendix 1), less information 

is recorded for the wider areas within which the core areas are situated. As stated in 

Chapter 1, these areas are being considered in order to avoid the possibility of being 

misled by local peculiarities, and so that researchers have a good sense of the broader 

context of their case studies. One of the most important issues explored in the wider areas 

is the density of definite, probable and possible ecclesiastical sites (using criteria 

25



discussed in Appendix 1). This is facilitating relatively objective inter-regional 

comparison of the density of ecclesiastical sites for the first time. Ecclesiastical sites in 

the wider areas do not necessarily need to be recorded in quite the same detail as those 

within the case studies in order to arrive at these estimates. However the detailed table is 

used for them nonetheless, and as much information as possible is recorded. In the wider 

regions non-ecclesiastical burials (including ogham stones) and isolated ecclesiastical 

monuments such as cross-slabs are also recorded in detail (in order, for example, to 

consider their relationships to churches and boundaries). The location of other early 

medieval sites like ringforts can also be recorded, but they are not described in detail and 

their relationships to ecclesiastical sites are not considered in the same detail as within the 

case studies. 

26



2.2 The MCL GIS (Aidan Harte) 

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) are ‗a set of computer tools for collecting, 

storing, retrieving at will, transforming and displaying spatial data from the real world for 

a particular set of purposes‘ (Burrough and McDonnell 1998, 301). Much of the data 

archaeologists deal with is fundamentally spatial in nature, with spatial location of sites, 

structures, components within sites, artefacts, environmental features and cosmological 

phenomena forming a complex relational landscape. GIS can therefore play a major role 

in archaeological interpretation, performing multiple functions in the management of 

dataset from various sources in realising a representative model of an ancient landscape. 

It is especially suitable for an interdisciplinary approach which utilises such information 

as historical, geographical, archaeological and toponymic evidence. An effective GIS is 

therefore central to the Making Christian Landscapes project, and is essential both in 

providing a spatial component to the database as a tool for analysis in its own right. 

The GIS has been constructed from an enormous amount of data, employing as many 

sources as possible, in order to create a multi-faceted model of the study areas as they 

may have appeared in the early medieval period. Through the use of a database to store 

and manage details of archaeological sites and the relevant historical documentary 

evidence, the data was easily exportable into the GIS software. The standardisation 

conducted within the database becomes appreciable at this stage, as various datasets from 

diverse study areas can be compared directly. The GIS software used in this project is 

ESRI ArcGIS 9.2, which is an industry-standard and use-friendly. 

The data imported into the GIS is in the form of a table (.dbf) containing site/feature 

information and Irish National Grid co-ordinates. This file is then converted into a 

‗shapefile‘. This is essentially a spatially referenced database of entities which are 

represented as a graphic on the map (as a point, line or area). The dynamic link between 

the database and the map ‗is the basic principle behind how a desktop GIS works, and the 

source of its power‘ (Breslin et. al. 1996, 2-10). The environmental landscape, largely 

drawn down from modern sources, must be imported to assess the archaeological 

component in a meaningful way. Using INSTAR funding, further datasets were obtained 

27



from Ordnance Survey Ireland and include aerial photography, historic mapping and 

vectorised geographical elements such as rivers and contour lines. These geographical 

themes or layers are vital to the most basic analysis as without representation of the 

physical landscape the relationships between sites are likely to be misinterpreted. 

Hitherto, statistics regarding site densities have involved a simple equation of the number 

of given sites divided by the size of the area studied. In this project the GIS has made it 

possible to calculate the area suitable for year-round occupation by subtracting the area 

values relating to lakes or other unsuitable terrain. Within the GIS, lake polygons 

(shapes) and contour height defined polygons can be removed from the model, thus 

providing land blocks which accurately represent the useable ground surface of the study 

area. This prevents misrepresentation of site densities and allows the results to be directly 

comparable with topographically diverse areas. 

Another form of analysis facilitated by GIS is the creation of ‗buffer‘ models. A ‗buffer‘ 

of defined radius can be employed around all ecclesiastical sites enabling the selection of 

sites which fall within the ‗buffer zone‘. The selected sites can be assessed and compared 

against their counterparts that have not been selected. This type of analysis allows 

identification of the effect of adjacency to ecclesiastical sites, and, alternatively, can be 

used to decipher the rationale behind early ecclesiastical site location. The method can be 

employed for all relevant site-types and then reversed to test any findings. 

Other potential applications of GIS have yet to be explored. For example, the contour 

dataset might be utilised further in ‗viewshed‘ analysis to depict lines of sight from a 

given location, enabling consideration of the visual impact the landscapes and their 

monuments had on early medieval individuals. Such analysis can also test hypotheses 

such as ‗defence-in-depth‘ models of ringfort settlements. GIS will also facilitate 

systematic analysis – statistical as well as visual – of the relationship between various 

monument types and different categories of boundary. 

28



Fig. 2.5: Screen shot of Corcu Duibne GIS with OS Orthophotography showing Inis 

Úasal island in Lough Currane, its early medieval ecclesiastical estate boundary in 

yellow, HLC categorisations in blue and various archaeological monuments 

including minor ecclesiastical sites (orange/red), cashels (blue), ringforts (green), 

drystone buildings (triangles) and souterrains (brown). 

29



Fig. 2.6: Screen shot of Corcu Duibne GIS with OS Orthophotography showing the 

various early medieval features on Inis Úasal island in Lough Currane and table for 

one of the drystone buildings on the island. 

30



Chapter 3 

Historic Landscape Characterisation: 

Methodology, Limitations and Potential 

Tomás Ó Carragáin and Sam Turner 

31



3.1 Introduction to Historic Landscape Characterisation 

Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) is a method for understanding and mapping the 

landscape with reference to its historical development and character (McNab & Lambrick 1999: 

54; Fairclough 2003; Turner and Fairclough 2007). It was developed in England in the 1990s 

as a landscape management technique but its potential as a research tool is becoming 

increasingly widely recognised. 

In the early 1990s English Heritage commissioned a project to evaluate and compare different 

methods for understanding and valuing the historic landscape, including so-called ‗top-down‘ 

techniques, where experts delimited areas of landscape with historical and archaeological 

characteristics they considered of particular significance, and ‗bottom-up‘ methods, which 

included those that sought to present interpretations of the historic character of the whole 

landscape (Fairclough et al. 1999; for a ‗top-down‘ approach see e.g. Darvill et al. 1993; for 

‗bottom-up‘ Herring 1998: 7-8). The Cornwall Archaeological Unit and partners, with 

sponsorship from English Heritage, had undertaken the first detailed HLC work on Bodmin Moor 

in late 1993. This project was extended to cover the whole of the county of Cornwall in 1994. 

English Heritage has since been instrumental in developing and applying the method across much 

of the rest of England (Fairclough et al. 2002; Fairclough 2008), and it aims to complete HLCs 

for the whole country, including rural and urban areas (see http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/professional/research/landscapes-and-areas/characterisation). 

3.1.1 HLC Method and Critique 

The HLC technique draws on methods which have long been in use in other disciplines, 

for example in geology to show soil-type or in ecology to map habitats. HLC is in accord 

with the understanding of landscape promoted by the European Landscape Convention, 

which regards landscape as both ubiquitous and culturally constituted (Council of Europe 

2000). In the same sense that all parts of the landscape are different types of ‗habitat‘, 

Historic Landscape Characterisation recognizes that all parts of the landscape have 

historical significance which is the result of human activity and use over the millennia. 

Herring has explained the basis of the Cornish method as follows: ‗Closer examination 

[of the landscape] reveals that particular groupings and patterns of components which 

recur throughout the county can be seen to have been determined by similar histories. 

32



Cornwall‘s historic landscape can, therefore, be characterised, mapped and described, 

using a finite number of categories or types of historic landscape character‘‘ (Herring 

1998: 11). The basis of the method is usually to examine the present-day landscape using 

modern Ordnance Survey maps and other sources and characterise it according to its 

physical appearance into landscape ‗types‘. These ‗types‘ are classified in advance of the 

characterisation mapping and define the broad characteristics which areas of land with 

similar past uses exhibit. In the Cornwall assessment, seventeen ‗types‘ of historic 

landscape were identified: 

1. Rough ground 10. Industrial (disused) 

2. Prehistoric enclosures 11. Industrial (active) 

3. Medieval enclosures 12. Communications 

4. Post-medieval enclosures 13. Recreation 

5. Modern enclosures 14. Military 

6. Ancient woodland 15. Ornamental 

7. Plantations and scrub woodland 16. Water (reservoirs etc) 

8. Settlement (historic) 17. Water (natural bodies) 

9. Settlement (modern) 

Fig. 3.1 – Sample map from the HLC of Cornwall (Herring 1998). 

33



Fig. 3.2 – Sample map from the HLC of Devon (Turner 2005). 

Historic landscape character ‗types‘ are mapped using GIS. In different regions different 

‗types‘ may be appropriate because of differing landscape histories, or because the 

landscape characterisation has been designed to reflect more or less detailed differences 

at larger or smaller scales. The method can therefore be very flexible, and in Cornwall 

characterisations of localised areas have been undertaken at 1:10,000 and 1:2,500 scale 

using project-specific ‗types‘ (Herring 1998: 20-1; Turner 2006a). In the Cornish HLC, mapping 

was carried out to some extent according to the archaeological principles of stratigraphy. The 

most recent elements in the landscape were mapped first (e.g. reservoirs, golf courses, airfields), 

leaving the more ancient elements (anciently enclosed land, rough pasture) to last. 

As with all methodologies, HLC is associated with certain problems. For example, the 

categorization of landscapes into different ‗types‘ relies on a researcher‘s ability consistently to 

identify areas in the ‗correct‘ categories. Also a single dominant character ‗type‘ needs to be 

34



defined despite an area potentially having features from several periods of land-use types 

contributing to overall character. This consideration also leads to problems associated with ‗timedepth‘; 

a ‗recent‘ landscape (e.g. one created by nineteenth-century enclosure) may conceal 

strong elements of another kind of landscape (e.g. prehistoric enclosures). Various techniques 

have been used to overcome these problems, but GIS in tandem with explanatory text provides 

the best solution. This accompanying text can provide the justification, description and analysis 

of the historic character types that have been selected. This should include discussion of the 

historical, archaeological or geographical studies that have been used to provide analogies 

identify the character types. Using a GIS gives considerable flexibility and allows each of the 

character areas or ‗polygons‘ (i.e. coherent blocks sharing the same historical development) to be 

given more than one descriptive characteristic. In current landscape characterisations the database 

linked to the GIS allows a range of attributes to be linked to individual ‗polygons‘ so that a 

detailed picture can be built up of the historical development of the landscape. 

Where applied carefully with well-defined and clearly-recorded methodologies, Historic 

Landscape Characterisation allows the historic landscape to be given archaeological significance 

on a wide scale. HLC maps can help us to ‗break-out from the site-based myopia‘ of the past 

(Herring & Johnson 1997: 54). HLC also helps us to move beyond a preoccupaiton with defining 

particular landscapes as outstanding by recognising that ‗landscape is ubiquitous and that all 

landscape has some value as perceived by people‘ (Turner and Crowe 2010, 217). Some 

landscape archaeologists have, however, criticised the technique (e.g. Finch 2007). 

Williamson (2007, 64), for example, notes that many HLC exercises have been marred by 

a failure to engage fully with pre-existing landscape research and with wider academic 

discourses relating to landscape. While David Austin (2007, 103-4) acknowledges that 

HLCs are ‗a welcome movement forward in putting the historic landscape firmly and 

centrally into the public domain,‘ he has argued that, if not employed subtly, it can 

simplify and flatten complexity and disconnect fragments of landscape thereby 

decontextualising them. It can also make unjustified assumptions about date and event 

thereby propounding a dominant meta-narrative that potentially glosses over evidence of 

conflict and alternative viewpoints that should be important considerations in landscape 

histories. HLCs can convey an unjustified sense of certainty to most users, beyond the 

small group of trained professionals who can conduct a sceptical critique. HLC, like most 

mapping techniques, could also be characterised as a ‗Cartesian device‘ representing ‗a distanced, 

35



geometrical, ―outsiders‖ approach to space‘ which, in contrast to experiential approaches to 

landscape, seeks ‗to monitor and discipline the past,‘ (Thomas‘ 1993, 21-9; Williamson 2007, 

71). 

While all of these criticisms are useful and potentially valid, a lot depends on the attitudes 

of those producing the HLC and on the ways it is used. Depending on this HLC can, on 

the contrary, be used to map, analyse, compare and contrast the perceptions of a wide 

range of people (Turner and Crowe 2010, 218). It is vital, however, that practitioners are 

conscious that HLC is simply a tool (albeit a sophisticated one) and that it represents their 

particular perceptions of a landscape in the light of a limited range of evidence, and their 

best guesses at other people‘s perceptions, rather than a comprehensive and value-free 

representation of landscape character. As long as this is acknowledged, the technique can 

potentially be of considerable use, opening up a debate between archaeologists and other 

interested parties on the past and future of landscapes. Where possible it should be 

combined with targeted field survey, or should at least draw upon existing field survey in 

the region covered. By engaging with the process of landscape change through HLC, it is 

possible to promote an archaeological understanding of landscape, among professionals 

and general public alike, and positively influence the outcome of future change (Turner 

2007, 42, 46). 

3.1.2 HLC in Ireland 

The Heritage Council has been the leading body when it comes to the development and 

application of HLC in Ireland. The first substantial HLC carried out in Ireland was a pilot HLC 

for Clare commissioned by the Heritage Council in partnership with Clare County Council in 

2000 (ERM and ERA 2000). The methodology was influenced by that of the Cornish 

HLC but the Historic Character Types chosen were less specific. As a result the polygons 

were much larger on average than those in the Cornwall or Devon HLCs. For example 

‗Enclosed Ground 2‘ can include curvilinear, sinuous and straight boundaries and is 

described as ‗the common form of enclosed land and can be seen in the main farming 

belts … Mostly, the fields are post-mediaeval, although they occasionally incorporate 

earlier boundaries.‘ Clearly this definition encompasses land parcels that vary somewhat 

36



in historic character; it is really a HLC Area or Zone rather than a HLC Type. A HLC 

Area comprises a number of HLC types that have been combined to define the unique 

character of an area (e.g. Rippon 2004, 19-20, 54). Since 2000 a handful of HLC projects 

have been initiated in Ireland, including a very good example funded by the Heritage 

Council and Fingal Co. Council and undertaken by Margaret Gowen Ltd for the area of 

Swords in Co. Dublin. 

In April 2010 the Heritage Council published a report on their website entitled Historic 

Landscape Characterisation in Ireland: Policy and Best Practice Guidance (Lambrick 

2010). The Council had commissioned the report from Oxford Archaeology and George 

Lambrick Heritage Consultancy, with the aim of providing guidance to practitioners and 

of minimising unnecessary variations in methodology between HLCs of different areas. It 

should represent an important milestone in the application of HLC in Ireland. We feel, 

however, based on our experience of using HLC as part of the MCL project, that some 

aspects of the document could be improved upon. 

The report is thoughtfully divided into sections on rationale, mapping, analysis, landscape 

management issues and data management issues. As stated clearly (p.1), it is not intended 

as a technical handbook providing details of methodology, and certainly it could not be 

used by someone without previous knowledge of HLC to learn how to produce one. It 

does, however, provide an outline classification of Historic Character Types (HCTs) for 

Ireland in Appendix B. From their names, it seems that the majority of these are sensible 

categories, but it is unfortunate that there is no discussion or explanation of them in the 

main text. It states in the text that they are meant to be illustrative rather than 

comprehensive or prescriptive (Lambrick 2010, 17), but it would nonethess have been 

helpful to include some description of them, or at least to stress the importance of such 

detailed justifications in future HLCs. Understanding the criteria used to define character 

types and what data, analogies, etc they are based upon is a key issue for HLC (see 

discussion below). Without this detailed understanding the characterisation is open to 

serious criticism and is very hard to use. It requires both background research and 

sometimes (especially in areas where little landscape history/archaeology has been 

37



undertaken) primary field and/or archive research to develop a satisfactory understanding 

of the processes that led to the development of historic character. These aspects are 

crucial for understanding past, present and future trajectories in the historic landscape. 

Another limitation of the report is the fact that not enough attention is given to the issue 

of landscape change. Landscape (as defined, for example, by the European Landscape 

Convention) includes issues of perception and change, and this is of course also 

embodied in the word ‗historic.‘ The document does not place sufficient emphasis on the 

use of HLC to map trajectories of change, for example by recording not only present but 

also past landscape character(s) using GIS as outlined below. 

The most significant issue we would raise about the document is that it accepts as valid 

landscapes assessment exercises that are not nearly as the vast majority of HLCs. For an 

HLC to be meaningful a polygon should define an area (of at least 1ha: see below) which, 

as far as can be determined from the principal sources employed, seems to be 

characterised by a fairly uniform landscape history – i.e. it should belong to a single 

current Historic Landscape Type (e.g. post medieval fields). If one or more earlier 

Historic Landscape Types are discernible (e.g. traces of medieval or prehistoric fields) 

they should also be evident throughout the area being defined. For example, it is 

important to distinguish between an area of post medieval fields and an adjacent area of 

post medieval fields with some medieval elements. This is the level of detail required to 

produce what is generally understood by the phrase HLC. It is quite easy to generalise 

from such detailed HLCs to more broad-brush landscape characterisations using GIS if 

necessary for management or research purposes. 

The guidelines, however, envisage HLCs being conducted in varying levels of detail, 

each of which is considered valid (Lambrick 2010, 12-17). In this regard, the document 

seems to endorse the variety of approaches taken in some of the first HLCs carried out in 

Ireland, rather than applying best international practice to the Irish situation. The most 

detailed scale envisaged is that of Historic Landscape Character Units which is defined as 

‗characterisation of groups of land parcels where one or more particular historic 

landscape attributes or ‗types‘ predominate.‘ Even here it is apparently envisaged that a 

38



number of Historic Character Types can be grouped together in a single polygon, a 

practice not generally found in true HLCs. The document concludes that even this modest 

level of detail ‗can be very time consuming‘ while the resulting HLC ‗may not be very 

well focussed on key management issues or user needs‘ (Lambrick 2010, 13). 

An alternative proposed in the guidelines is an approach based on Past Resource 

Management Units, such as townlands, estates, parishes etc. ‗or groups of such units that 

share a common range of historic landscape attributes‘ (ibid. 12-13). Users are cautioned 

against assigning whole townlands to ‗a single predominant landuse type‘; instead the 

approach needs to be based on ‗identifying characteristic mixtures of historic landuse and 

other attributes (e.g. shared settlement pattern, soils or topography).‘ Another approach 

considered valid in the guidelines is one based on Present-day Resource Management 

Units such as those defined in Landscape Character Assessments (LCAs), design 

guidelines etc. Such an approach, it is argued, has the advantage of ‗potentially helping to 

focus attention on key issues that need to be addressed‘, though it is acknowledged that 

this approach is ‗less than ideal in capturing key historical influences.‘ As in the case of 

townlands, the document envisages that ‗mixtures of historic landuse‘ be identified for 

such modern units. 

In our view, all three proposed scales/approaches are problematic, and studies based on 

the latter two should not be described as HLCs. They may be something worthwhile, but 

only if accompanied by detailed written discussions of each unit (townland, parish etc.) 

and its historic landscape. These might perhaps be described as Historic Landscape 

Profiles. It is questionable, however, whether such profiles would usefully present 

information about patterns in the historic landscape. Arguably, one would get more useful 

information by printing off a map of townland boundaries overlaid on Google Earth. To 

carry out such low-budget, broad-brush studies could potentially do more damage than 

good, especially if the impression is given that they represent proper HLCs. This is 

because the phrase HLC is generally understood to involve a detailed assessment of 

historic character, and the identification of areas of particular historic significance and 

sensitivity within units such as townlands. The existence of such especially significant 

39



areas could well be masked by superficial studies like those endorsed in these guidelines. 

These studies could mean that such areas could potentially be more rather than less 

vulnerable to insensitive, unsustainable development if they are lost within very general 

categorisations that are used to inform planning policy. 

It is important to stress that detailed HLC of the sort described above and below should 

represent a minimum rather than a maximum standard of assessment of historic character. 

After all it generally only involves a limited amount of new field work. While detailed 

HLCs are far from exhaustive, they do at least identify sensitive and historically 

important areas of the landscape within townlands, while also delimiting areas that are 

likely to have been extensively altered in the recent past and are therefore often more 

suitable for further change. As it stands the technique is not without its critics (above 

3.1.1), and certainly an HLC should not be considered the last word on the history of a 

particular landscape. The methodology is in danger of becoming seriously devalued if 

used in the abbreviated ways proposed by these guidelines. 

It would seem that these approaches are being proposed primarily because of their 

relatively low cost. In our experience, however, detailed HLCs can be produced with 

modest enough resources. For example, the HLC of two of the sub-kingdoms of Corcu 

Duibne, Co. Kerry discussed below covers most of the landmass of the Iveragh and 

Dingle peninsulas: an area of 150,734 hectares. This was produced by Aidan Harte in 

collaboration with Tomás Ó Carragáin in relatively short periods during the MCL project. 

We estimate that the survey would have taken a single practitioner with previous 

knowledge of GIS but limited previous experience of HLC about 15-20 weeks to produce 

(at 40 hours a week), including a period of design and training at the beginning. As 

outlined below (Section 4.4), this HLC does not record changes between the 1st Edition 6 

inch OS maps and later editions. Also, because the purpose of the exercise was to identify 

possible areas of pre-modern survival, it was decided not to distinguish between 

difference phases and types of modern fields as systematically as should be done in a 

HLC produced for the purposes of analysing landscape change to the present day. At the 

same time, Corcu Duibne is an area with a relatively high survival of pre-modern field 

40



boundaries (some of them surveyed), making their characterisation considerably more 

time-consuming than in most other areas of the country. Thus, it should be possible for 

one person to produce a comprehensive HLC for an area of this size in 4-6 months. In our 

view local authorities and other funding bodies should be willing to invest such modest 

resources if they wish to use HLC to help manage historic landscapes. We believe that 

the guidance document, while useful, needs to be revised if it is to provide adequate and 

appropriate advice to those wishing to commission or conduct HLC in Ireland. The 

results of the Making Christian Landscapes HLC outlined in the next chapter will 

illustrate the potential of the technique for research and, by extension, landscape 

management purposes. 

41



Fig. 3.3: HLC for Co. Clare (ERM and ERA 2000). 

Fig. 3.4: HLC of the medieval landscape in the parish of St Neot in Cornwall 

(Turner 2006a). 

42



3.1.3 HLC and Archaeological Research 

Over the last decade archaeologists have begun to realise the potential of HLC as a 

research tool. Ann Preston-Jones and Andrew Langdon mapped the locations of medieval 

stone sculpture against a basic HLC ‗time-slice‘ depicting the medieval landscape of St 

Buryan in Cornwall. They were able to cast new light on the possible extent of St 

Buryan‘s medieval sanctuary and the role of the sculpture in relation to early medieval 

land use (Preston-Jones and Langdon 2001). One of the first large-scale applications of 

the technique for research purposes was Sam Turner‘s PhD research which was published 

in 2006 as Making a Christian Landscape: The Countryside in Early Medieval Cornwall, 

Devon and Wessex. In this study HLC was used to help analyse different types of data at 

different scales in a GIS to create a more comprehensive picture of the way medieval 

sites fitted into their landscape contexts and of the relationships between them. In the last 

five years, research-oriented HLCs have been undertaken either as stand-alone projects or 

as elements of broader research in both rural and urban settings in several parts of 

Europe. For example, research in the Mediterranean has demonstrated that the method is 

flexible enough to be adapted to landscapes quite different to the ones originally studied 

in north-west Europe and produce good results (e.g. Turner and Crow 2010). Closely 

related techniques to HLC are now being applied on a large scale in some regions, for 

example the University of Lleida/Catalan Landscape Observatory PaHisCat project 

(http://www.paisatgehistoric.udl.cat/). The Making Christian Landscapes INSTAR 

project represents the first substantial use of HLC for archaeological research in Ireland. 

43



3.2 The Making Christian Landscapes HLC Methodology 


The following sections describe the methodology developed for the Making Christian 

Landscapes HLC. They explain the way decisions were taken on what character type any given 

area should be assigned to and what combination of attributes should be recorded for each area or 

‗polygon‘ (‗polygon‘ is the term that is current amongst archaeologists undertaking HLC projects; 

GIS practitioners may prefer ‗geometry‘). 

The methodology is adapted from the Devon HLC (Turner 2005; 2007) to suit the needs of this 

project. In contrast to that study, its purpose is not cultural resource management but rather to 

represent as much of the medieval landscape as possible. To this end, any changes after the first 

complete and accurate set of maps – the 1st edition 6inch OS maps prepared between 1829 and 

1842 – are ignored. To some extent our methodology is similar to that used in Turner 

(2006a). However this study had the benefit of a long tradition of research on landscape 

and especially field system development in SW England which allowed the high 

medieval pattern to be clearly discerned and which further suggested that this pattern 

(including strip fields) had its origins in the early medieval period. Thus in the maps for 

this study Turner was able to make a convincing case that the broad outlines of the early 

medieval landscape could be represented using just three categories: ancient woodland, 

medieval fields and rough ground. In contrast the Making Christian Landscapes HLC 

Maps are somewhat more tentative about the extent of cultivated ground in the medieval 

period: they show a much wider range of historic character types including post-medieval 

fields and settlements, some of which may well have been preceded by medieval fields 

though there is now no evidence for this. 

The digitising for the project was carried out using ArcGIS 9, and the attribute data was initially 

recorded in a purpose-built Microsoft Access 2003 database. 

Data Sources 

The main data sources for the project were purchased using INSTAR funding. Four principal 

sources were used: 

44



 

Ordnance Survey mapping (all areas) 

Geo-referenced Ordnance Survey 1st edition 6 inch mapping (c.1829-42). This was the most 

important source used. Because this particular HLC is focused on reconstructing as much as 

possible of the pre-modern landscape, the 2nd Edition 6 inch maps were not employed. Given the 

aims of the project, it would have been too expensive both in terms of digital and human 

resources to buy the 2nd Edition maps in order to systematically record the changes in Historic 

Character between these two editions. 

Georeferenced Ordnance Survey colour orthophotography (taken 2000). This is expensive to 

purchase in georeferenced form and was acquired only for selected areas. The data is now visible 

on the OS online shop, but it is not georeferenced making it time-consuming and impractical to 

use as part of a HLC. 

Detailed survey of field systems in selected areas of Corcu Duibne (see below). 

Unless otherwise indicated, all interpretations of Historic Landscape Character recorded in the 

project database are based on these sources. Where datasets other than the three noted above have 

been used to provide or clarify the interpretation of a polygon‘s landscape history, this is recorded 

in the project database. Earlier research projects within or near the case studies were used to 

inform the HLC wherever possible (see below). 

3.2.2 Defining Polygons 

Three main characteristics were used to decide what area to include in each polygon. 

a. The whole area must have the same Pattern (see below), i.e. ‗regular‘, ‗irregular‘, or none. (In 

practice, ‗none‘ was not entered as a value in the project database and in these instances the field 

was left blank). 

b. The whole area must have the same Dominant Boundary Morphology (see below), i.e. 

‗sinuous‘, ‗straight‘, ‗erratic‘ or none. 

c. The whole area must have the same historic character type (see below) according to the 1st 

edition OS map and as far as known must have shared the same historic character type(s) 

throughout its history (i.e. the whole polygon will share the same sequence of types). 

45



The only exception to these rules is that polygons do not cross townland boundaries (i.e. modern 

townland boundaries as defined by OS map data). 

Polygon Area 

In theory, only polygons greater than 1ha. in area have been digitised. (In practice many 

polygons slightly smaller than this have been included, since it is not easy to estimate the exact 

area of a potential polygon before it is digitised). Areas of historic character type smaller than 

1ha. area have usually been incorporated in a surrounding/adjacent polygon, on the grounds that 

they are too small to contribute decisively to historic landscape character. 

3.2.3 Recording Polygon Data 

Each polygon has a number of attributes which are recorded in the project database (fields a. – 

k., below. They are here given the names they appear with in the Descrptn form of the project 

database (hlc db.mdb see below for an introduction to its structure)). These include 

information about the polygon‘s location (below), ‗interpreted‘ information about 

present and historical landscape character ( below) and more ‗objective‘ morphological 

observations of polygon features (below). 

Location 

a. Polygon ID No. 

Unique identifier. Provides link between ArcGIS shapefile and attribute data in MS Access 

database. 

b. Townland and Parish 

Modern townland and parish as defined by OS map data. 

Morphological Observations 

c. Pattern 

The organisational pattern within each polygon: 

Regular 

Irregular 

None 

46



Pattern refers to the overall pattern of boundaries and divisions within each polygon. Regular 

usually indicates that a field system has been laid out according to a single plan, though it does 

not necessarily mean that the fields are of equal size or rectilinear in shape (e.g. a polygon can 

have a regular pattern but its dominant boundary morphology – see below – could be curvilinear). 

Pattern is useful for landscape history since organisational pattern can refer to processes of 

change such as planning (or a lack of it). 

(Note that the following historic character types were generally assigned no pattern: 

settlement, industrial complex, military complex, public civil complex, dunes,intertidal mud/sand, 

sand marsh, water, outcrop/scree/cliffs). 

d. Dominant Boundary Morphology 

Describes the morphology of the majority of boundaries within the polygon and refers only to 

internal boundaries. 

Curvilinear: Curvilinear boundaries of the sort found in prehistoric and some medieval fields. 

Erratic: Wildly erratic boundaries, found (rarely) in prehistoric and medieval field systems. 

Sinuous: This describes boundaries with relatively slight curves which indicate that the fields 

were not laid out using post-medieval surveying techniques. Generally the curves are not as 

marked as in curvilinear fields; sinuous is more likely to refer to longer slightly meandering 

boundaries of the sort indicative of strip fields for example. 

Straight: Perfectly straight boundaries, the result of post-medieval surveying 

techniques. 

None: Shows there are no internal boundaries in the polygon. (In practice this value was not 

used and the field in the database has been left blank) 

e. Secondary Boundary Morphology 

Describes the morphology of the minority of boundaries within the polygon as one of: 

Curvilinear 

Erratic 

Sinuous 

Straight 

(none) 

f. Number of Fields in Polygon in c.1829-42 

A count of the number of subdivisions in the polygon shown on the 1st Edition OS map. 

47



g. Boundary Characteristics 

This field refers to significant/diagnostic characteristics of medieval or prehistoric boundaries that 

may be encompassed by a polygon. Note that: (i) more than one characteristic can be recorded for 

each polygon; (ii) not all boundaries must exhibit the characteristic for it to be recorded in the 

database; (iii) no particular boundary characteristics are recorded for post-medieval field 

boundaries (only for medieval and/or prehistoric fields) (iv) there are two classes of information, 

referring to (a) internal and (b) external boundaries. 

Internal Boundary Characteristics 

Dog leg: indicates presence of dog-legs. In practice, this term was not commonly used in the 

project database (the feature is more common in parts of England). 

S curve: indicates presence of boundaries showing ‗reversed s‘/‘reversed j‘ curves. 

Following watercourse: indicates that one or more boundaries follows a watercourse. Useful 

for interpreting e.g. presence of one sinuous boundary within polygon with otherwise 

straight-sided boundaries of post-medieval date. Commonly used. 

Agglomeration: Only used to identify agglomerated prehistoric or medieval field systems – i.e. 

the piecemeal addition of fields, usually around a nucleus and usually in areas that had previously 

been rough ground. 

Coaxiality: Identifies polygons consisting of blocks of coaxial fields of either prehistoric or 

medieval date. 

Radial: This refers to (generally quite straight) field boundaries of medieval or prehistoric date 

radiating from a nucleus (usually a settlement). 

Following contour: In conjunction with others, this characteristic helps to distinguish medieval or 

prehistoric fields from post-medieval ones. 

External Boundary (Boundary of Polygon) Characteristics 

Wavy edge: Indicates an external boundary forming an irregular sinuous line. In practice this 

term was rarely used. 

Settlement edge: Indicates that one or more external boundaries of the polygon is delimited by 

a substantial medieval settlement (town or village). In practice this term was rarely used. 

Roadside: Indicates that an internal or external boundary follows a road that may be of medieval 

origin. 

h. Period 

The ‗periods‘ for this project are defined as indicated below: 

48



Prehistoric: Neolithic – AD c.400 

Medieval: AD c.400 – AD c.1600 

Post-medieval: AD c.1600 – AD c.1829-42 (i.e. the date of the 1st Edition OS Maps) 

The imprecise nature of the data means these periods are to be regarded as a rough guide only. 

i. Confidence 

As noted above, ‗confidence‘ relates directly to ‗period‘. 

Certain 

Probable 

Possible 

Quantifying these terms is very hard. In general ‗certain‘ means there is no doubt that during 

the period indicated, the polygon had the given landscape character. However, ‗certain‘ has 

only rarely been used in the project database. 

‗Probable‘ indicates a strong degree of likelihood – perhaps over 70% chance. 

‗Possible‘ indicates a reasonable degree of likelihood – perhaps over 40% chance. 

Interpretations which are thought less likely than ‗possible‘ have not been made. 

j. Relict? 

Y/N. Previous Historic Character only. Indicates data based on archaeological surveys or 

excavations, high resolution aerial photography or early maps. 

k. Special Source 

Previous historic character only. Records where information is based on sources other than 

1st Edition OS maps, these sources are recorded here: 

Aerial photographs 

Early maps 

Field survey 

RMP 

Survey/excavation 

There is also a notes section to record details of the sources used. 

49



3.2.4 Interpretations of Landscape Character 

Modern (1829-43) and Earlier Historic Characters 

A key function of HLC is to record, where possible, how the character of a particular area has 

changed over time. The categories of ‗historic character‘ are those used in the project‘s database 

(see sections 3.3 and 3.4 below for brief definitions of the principal historic character types). The 

information in the ‗period‘ field shows that the polygon in question was exhibiting the 

characteristics of that ‗historic character‘ type in that period. The ‗period‘ indicated is therefore 

normally the period when the character type indicated originated (although not necessarily, 

particularly in the case of the earliest character type recorded). A different Historic Character (in 

a higher stratigraphic position) is assigned for each major change in the landscape history of the 

polygon (that is, each time the ‗Historic Character‘ (based on the list of historic character types) 

changed in the past). 

Example 1: 

(Historic Character Stratigraphic Position 1) 

Historic Character: Medieval Fields Period: Medieval Confidence: Probable 

In the above example, there is a strong likelihood (‗probable‘) that in the medieval period (i.e. 

AD c.600-1600: ‗medieval‘) the polygon was divided into fields. Since this data appears in 

Stratigraphic Position 1, it can be assumed that these fields existed in c.1829-42, since 

Stratigraphic Position 1 always describes the historic landscape character type when the 1st 

edition OS maps were completed. In reality, few such examples were identified and these were 

focussed on medieval settlements on remote islands or inaccessible mountain valleys. There is 

usually evidence that medieval fields have been modified for use by later communities. 

The Making Christian Landscapes HLC aims to record basic information about the landscape 

history of each polygon where this is possible based on earlier maps and on other special sources. 

This information is recorded in the Previous Historic Character sections of the database. 

Example 2: 

(Current Historic Character Stratigraphic Position 1) 

Historic Character: Post med fields with 1-24% med elements Period: Post medieval 

Confidence: Probable 

(Previous Historic Character Stratigraphic Position 2) 

Historic Character: Medieval strip fields Period: Medieval Confidence: Probable 

50



In this example, it is likely (‗probable‘) that in the post medieval period the polygon contained 

fields based on medieval strip fields (data in Stratigraphic Position 1). 

Any substantial change in landscape character would be indicated by a new entry. For example, if 

there was evidence that the medieval strip fields were subdivided near the end of the medieval 

period, the Period chosen in Stratigraphic Position 1 would have been Medieval rather than Post 

medieval – i.e. there would be two stratigraphic positions within the medieval period. If in this 

case no new ‗Landscape Character/Stratigraphic Position‘ entry was made for the post medieval 

period, then one could assume that the character type of the post medieval period was the same as 

that of the end of the medieval period. (Note that in this example no interpretation has been 

offered about the prehistoric landscape. This is usually the case, and commonly no interpretation 

has been offered for the medieval period either). 

3.2.5 The Project Database 

The project database consists of 7 principal tables. These are: 

(a) Descrptn – fields discussed above under 3.2.3 (except (g.) Boundary 

characteristics). 

(b) Chrctrs – for data discussed above under 3.2.3 except (g.) Boundary characteristics. 

(c) Histcharacter – fields discussed above under 3.2.3; Historic Character c.1829-42 

Stratigraphic Position 1 (see 2.2.3, above). 

(d) History1– fields discussed above under 3.2.3; = Previous Historic Character Stratigraphic 

Position 2. 

(e) History2 – fields discussed above under 3.2.3; = Previous Historic Character Stratigraphic 

Position 3. 

(f) History3 – fields discussed above under 3.2.3; = Previous Historic Character Stratigraphic 

Position 4. 

Data is entered into all these tables through the ‗Descrptn‘ form (see screenshot below, Fig. 1). 

All the other tables in the database have been used to provide drop-down lists of terms (as 

discussed above) to speed up data-entry. 

51



Fig. 3.5: HLC database screenshot: the ‘Descrptn’ form is used for all data entry. 

52



3.3 Historic Landscape Character Types Relating to Agricultural Fields 


Unless otherwise stated all types are mapped and interpreted from 1st Edition 6 inch OS maps 

and, in some areas, modern OS orthophotography (see above). The list of HLC ‗types‘ was 

prepared with reference to recent HLC projects in England e.g. Devon (Turner 2005; 2007). 

However, the MCL HLC differs somewhat from these insofar as its principal aim is to illuminate 

the pre-modern landscape rather than the contemporary landscape. It was therefore essential to 

define Historic Character Types that could easily be used to illustrate the extent of survival of 

pre-modern elements, especially when it came to field systems. For this reason it was decided 

that, once the fields had been described reasonably objectively using the criteria outlined above 

(see Morphological Observations) the researcher should, in assigning it to a particular Historic 

Character Type, make a judgement on the percentage of pre-modern survival if any. 

The majority of Ireland‘s landscape is covered with fields, but categorising them into 

different historical types/periods based on their morphology alone is a task fraught with 

problems. It is essential at least that their morphology is described as objectively as possible 

before they are identified as a particular Historic Character Type. The Making Christian 

Landscapes HLC has been designed to facilitate this; the historic field boundaries are 

described in terms of sinuousness/straightness and blocks of fields are described in terms of 

regularity/irregularity (above under 3.2.3). From such information can be gleaned some 

useful interpretations about landscape character and to some extent about the history of the 

landscape. However, this approach used on its own risks excluding other important elements 

of historic landscape character, such as the more subtle differences between the many 

different types of enclosure that share sinuous field boundaries. These can be very hard to 

distinguish, and it is not clear that developments reflected in field and boundary morphology 

followed uniform paths in different regions of Ireland. Any categorisation based solely on 

morphology will therefore result in identifications that are approximate at best; hence the 

‗Confidence‘ indicator for the Historic Character categorisations for these polygons is usually 

‗possible‘ or less commonly ‗probable‘; ‗certain‘ is rarely used. 

A certain amount of standardisation has proved necessary, at least until enclosure processes 

in different regions are better understood. In order to standardise the attributes attached in the 

53



project database to different blocks or ‗polygons‘ of fields across the country, the following 

guidelines have been prepared. These should help to explain to the user the thinking behind 

the database entries attached to any individual polygon. It is important to bear in mind that 

this data does not represent a final statement on each polygon‘s landscape history: on the 

contrary, the interpretation in the HLC provides only an initial interpretation based on the 

limited sources used, and by analogy with published studies of landscape development. More 

detailed work with more sources will be required in the future in order to provide more 

confident interpretations about each region. Especially in the west of the country in areas like 

Corcu Duibne, there is considerable potential to refine the desk-based HLCs presented below 

through survey of relict field boundaries which do not appear on the 1st Edition OS maps. 

Detailed field systems surveys that have been carried out in parts of Corcu Duibne (especially 

that undertaken around Lough Currane as part of this project and a previous survey of the 

Caherlehillan valley, both undertaken by Aidan Harte) have been incorporated into the HLC and 

have informed the HLC of other areas. In some areas of Corcu Duibne traces of such relict 

fields are visible on the OS Orthophotography and these have been recorded provisionally in 

the HLC where possible. 

The Historic Character types relating to agricultural fields are as follows: 

Prehistoric fields 

Prehist fields with 1-24% later elements 

Prehist fields with 25-49% later elements 

Med/prehist fields 

Med/prehist fields with 1-24% post med elements 

Med/prehist fields with 25-49% post med elements 

Medieval fields 

Medieval fields with 1-24% post med elements 

Medieval fields with 25-49% post med elements 

Medieval strip fields 

Med/post med fields based on strip fields 

54



Watermeadow 

Post med fields 

Post med fields with 1-24% med elements 

Post med fields with 1-24% med/prehist elements 

Post med fields with 25-49% med elements 

Post med fields with 25-49% med/prehist elements 

Orchard 

These categories have been chosen to facilitate the preparation of maps depicting the degree 

to which medieval (or earlier) fields survive in the landscape. Thus, where ‗Medieval fields‘ 

occurs in Stratigraphic Position 1 in the database the entire c.1829-42 pattern of fields is deemed 

to have originated in the medieval period. In practice, this is rarely if ever the case. Up to a 

quarter (‗Medieval fields with 1-24% post med elements‘) or a half (‗Medieval fields with 25- 

49% post med elements‘) of the field boundaries usually appear to have originated in the post 

medieval period. Where more than 50% of the field boundaries are probably post medieval the 

polygon is categorised as comprising post medieval fields with either less that half (‗Post med 

fields with 25-49% med/prehist elements‘), less than a quarter (‗Post med fields with 1-24% 

med/prehist elements‘) or no earlier elements (‗Post med fields‘). As discussed below, it is 

not always possible to distinguish fields that originated in the medieval period from those that 

originated in the prehistoric period – hence the ‗med/prehist‘ option (below under 3.3.2). 

Where possible, medieval strip fields are distinguished from enclosed medieval fields (below 

under 3.3.3). 

3.3.2 Prehistoric Fields 

A number of instances of regular coaxial field systems of prehistoric date have been 

identified in Ireland. The most famous is the Neolithic system at Céide, Co. Mayo (Caulfield 

1983; Waddell 1998, 36-37), but Bronze Age examples are also known, including those 

surveyed by Frank Mitchell on Valentia Island, Co. Kerry (Mitchell 1989). Irregular 

55



aggregated field systems of prehistoric date are also known, such as the examples recently 

surveyed on the Beara Peninsula (O‘Brien 2009). In the vicinity of Tara, at Belpere, Co. 

Meath, cropmarks representing a number of conjoined circular and rectangular enclosures 

may be the remains of a pastoral community (Newman 1997, 206-7). The cropmarks are 

probably due to slot trenches of timber structures and ‗if the size of enclosures is an indicator 

of the size of the herds involved, it is possible that they represent livestock management on a 

large scale‘ (ibid. 207). In some areas prehistoric field systems were often enveloped in 

blanket bog, but in areas where bog development was more limited, elements of prehistoric 

field systems are more likely to be incorporated into later field systems. 

It is rarely possible to distinguish between prehistoric and medieval field systems based on 

map evidence and aerial photography alone, except where a field wall seems to respect a 

monument of known date such as a ringfort. It is possible – indeed likely – that some 

medieval field systems were based on prehistoric ones, as has been shown in several 

instances in Ireland (e.g. the Burren: Jones and Walsh 1996, 104; Comber 2006) as well as in 

England (e.g. Fleming & Ralph 1982). While it would be interesting to identify examples of 

this, the origins of field boundaries is not as important for the purposes of the present project 

as identifying ones that were in use during the medieval period. Where a pre-1600 field wall 

is depicted on the 1st Edition OS we can be confident that, whatever its origin, it was used 

during the medieval period. Thus in many cases we have not tried to distinguish between 

prehistoric fields that were in used during the medieval period and fields that originated in 

the medieval period (see categories above under 3.3.1). 

Example of a typical database entry for a prehistoric field system: 

Historic character: Prehist fields with 1-24% later elements Period: prehistoric 

Confidence: possible 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Pattern: Regular Boundary Characteristic: coaxiality, following contour 

Dominant boundary morphology: Sinuous % dominant: 2. 70-89% 

Secondary boundary morphology: Straight 

______________________________________________________________________ 

56



Previous historic character: Period: Confidence: 

57




a. Enclosed Fields 

A wide range of enclosed early medieval fields have been identified in Ireland since the 

1940s. At Cush, Co. Limerick, quite regular rectilinear fields, not unlike surrounding ones 

that were still in use, were probably contemporary with a cluster of ringforts (Ó Ríordáin 

1940, 83-183). Some evidence for ridge and furrow cultivation was found within this system 

(Fowler 1966-67). At the ‗Spectacles‘ smaller rectilinear fields – probably too small for 

cereal cultivation – were found to be contemporary with early medieval house sites, while 

larger fields, possibly for pasture, were identified upslope (Ó Ríordáin 1949, 59-62). In 

contrast, the fields delimited by earthen banks and closely associated with ringforts and early 

medieval transhumance settlements mapped by Williams (1983) in Co. Antrim are 

predominantly curvilinear. Detailed survey by Aidan Harte showed that the early medieval 

field system of the Caherlehillan Valley, Co. Kerry was made up of fields which varied 

considerably in form from curvilinear to rectilinear to irregular in shape and also vary 

considerably in size depending on whether they are infields or outfields (Harte 2002). He has 

identified similar patterns in the Lough Currane catchment area, Iveragh, as part of this 

project. Similarly Michelle Comber (2006) has mapped a large number of small fields of 

varying morphology in the landscape of the Burren and has made a strong case that many of 

them were built and/or in use during the early medieval period. The early medieval law tracts 

describe a range of different ways of building field boundaries including ditches, stone 

fences, oak fences and post and wattle fences (Ó Corráin 1983, 247; Kelly 1997, 374). 

Inevitably some of these are far more likely to be incorporated into later field systems than 

others. The diversity of early medieval field morphology suggested by these examples seems 

to be confirmed by the early medieval fields occasionally excavated in different parts of the 

country in advance of development in recent years, in lowland and as well upland locations 

(O‘Sullivan and Harney 2008, 180-83). 

As this brief review makes clear, it is not possible to distinguish a medieval field from a 

prehistoric one solely on the basis of its morphology, and as noted above (under 3.3.2) we 

usually do not attempt to do so. Nor is it usually possible to distinguish between early and 

high/late medieval enclosed fields with any certainty. The little work done on late medieval 

58



enclosed fields suggests that they too can vary considerably in character, though it seems 

likely that newly established enclosed fields of high or late medieval date were more likely to 

be regular and rectilinear than their early medieval predecessors. Rectangular fields of 

possibly medieval date can be distinguished from post medieval fields by their sinuous 

boundaries. Those that exhibit no evidence for having been divided into strips (below) are 

categorised simply as ‗medieval fields‘. It should be noted, however, that this does not mean 

they were not divided into strips; certainly in England it is clear that most cultivation took 

place in strips, even in fields where there is now no signs of their existence (Turner 2005, 

41). Variants on the ‗Medieval fields‘ historic character type are also used in cases where one 

or two long sinuous boundaries hint that the medieval fields were strip fields but where 

insufficient evidence survives to make a convincing case that this was the case (below). 

We should be conscious of the likelihood that some of the agricultural land were neither 

enclosed, nor divided into strips. Indeed, Nicholls (2003, 132) has argued that in Gaelic 

areas: ‗in general the land lay open and unenclosed, crops being surrounded for their 

protection, where necessary, with temporary fences of stakes and wattle which had an 

estimated life of only two years, fitting in with the general practice of cultivating land for two 

years in succession‘ except in some coastal areas (including some in the west) where 

fertilisation with seaweed allowed for more sustained yearly cropping. He goes on to state 

that ‗permanent hedges or ditches were, however, usual as boundaries between different 

townland units and there is evidence that it was normal to treat the townland as a unit for 

agricultural production, putting the whole under tillage or grazing in any one year.‘ It seems 

likely that this assessment underestimates to extent to which land was enclosed. For example, 

evidence for high medieval enclosed fields with lynchets and plough furrows superseding 

early medieval settlements has been found at sites such as Bray Head, Valencia, Co. Kerry 

(Alan Hayden 1993, Excavations Bulletin 93E0121, 94E119, 97E278 & 01E0814; Claire 

Walsh 95E166, Excavations Bulletin). Donnchadh Ó Corráin (pers. comm.) believes that 

most of the agricultural land in late medieval Gaelic Ireland was enclosed. 

This seems to be supported by the analysis carried out for this project. In Kerry and to a 

lesser extend Kildare we have observed that there is an abundance of field boundaries that 

clearly pre-date the period when straight, surveyed field boundaries became the norm. Post 

medieval field boundaries of this sort were widespread by the time of the 1st Edition OS 

59



maps; most probably relate to the agricultural improvements of the eighteenth and early 

nineteenth centuries. It has been shown that in England seventeenth-century field boundaries 

were also usually straight/surveyed, but in the current state of knowledge we cannot say for 

certain that this was also usually the case in Ireland, especially in peripheral areas like Co. 

Kerry. For this reason the categorisation of fields with sinuous boundaries as medieval is 

tentative at best; some may well be seventeenth or early eighteenth century. Thus, in the 

majority of cases the appropriate ‗Confidence‘ selection for medieval fields is ‗possible‘ (i.e. 

< 40% chance) or ‗probable‘ (i.e. < 70% chance) rather than ‗certain‘. 

Typical database entry for enclosed medieval fields: 

Historic character: Medieval fields with 1-24% post med elements Period: medieval 

Confidence: probable 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Pattern: Irregular Boundary Characteristic: Agglomeration, following contour 

Dominant boundary morphology: Curvilinear % dominant: 2. (70-89%) 

Secondary boundary morphology: Straight 

______________________________________________________________________ 


b. Strip Fields 

There has been remarkably little research on the extent to which open strip fields were a 

feature of the Irish countryside during the medieval period. 

It is now widely accepted that the greater part of the farmed landscape of England, including 

that of western counties like Devon and Cornwall, was divided into strips (Fowler 2002, 127- 

61; Turner 2007). Strip fields may also have been common in Anglo-Norman areas of 

Ireland. O‘Keeffe (2000, 62) states there is no reason why open field farming could not 

have been practiced in the final centuries of the early medieval period in Ireland or in 

Gaelic areas during the high medieval period, but he concludes that ‗when open-field 

60



farming is attested to historically or archaeologically it is on Anglo-Norman manors, and 

therefore we can only address it as an Anglo-Norman phenomenon.‘ This conclusion is 

borne out by the HLCs produced for this report, for in the Inis Úasal case study there are 

no fields whose morphology suggests they are based on medieval open fields, while in 

contrast possible instances of such fields are quite common in the Southern Uí Fáeláin 

study area. 

Medieval strip field systems were often largely unenclosed (or at least not subdivided by field 

boundaries), particularly when held in common. However, it is not clear that all were, and 

many may have had long outer boundaries from a relatively early date. They were also often 

held in common, with intermixed strips; however, some strip fields seem to have been held in 

large blocks of contiguous strips, particularly some demesne land and land of tenants in 

marginal areas. Neither are strips necessarily diagnostic of intensively cultivated inland. In 

medieval and post medieval Devon, periodically cultivated outfield was also divided into 

strips (Turner 2005, 29). The use of the strip fields historic character type does not therefore 

necessarily imply open strips held in common and forming the inland of a settlement. Nor 

does it imply open fields of the type found in the English midlands, with a two- or threecourse 

rotation (in fact much longer rotations seem certain to have been the norm). Nor can it 

be taken to imply anything about the frequency or type of cultivation, or the type of 

ownership of the land. In south-west England outfields that were only occasionally ploughed 

up for cereal production were still usually divided into strips (Fox 1973). This ‗long-fallow‘ 

system was widely practised in Gaelic areas of Ireland in the high and late medieval 

periods (Nicholls 2003, 132), but to date little or no evidence for strip fields have been 

found in Gaelic areas. In Anglo-Norman areas of Ireland open fields seem to have been 

far smaller than those in the English midlands; this is because the original size of these 

open fields in eastern Ireland was determined by pre-existing townland boundaries 

(Edwards et al. 1983 364; O‘Conor 1998, 69). 

The enclosure of strips can leave distinctive ‗markers‘ behind in field boundaries and field 

patterns, such as bundles of narrow strip-enclosures, so-called ‗reversed-s‘ or ‗reversed-j‘ 

curves, or dog-legs. According to O‘Conor (1998, 69-70), ridge and furrow attributable to the 

medieval period does not seem to occur in Ireland, where flat ploughing was apparently 

61



preferred, and its absence makes it difficult to identify medieval fields on the ground. Flat 

ploughing, however, does leave plough headlands, often along furlong boundaries. Traces of 

a medieval open-field system associated with the manors of Oughterard and Castlewaden 

were identified in County Kildare by plotting the earthworks of these headlands and furlongs 

in the modern landscapes (Hall et al. 1985, 19-20; O‘Keeffe 2000, 62-63). This detailed case 

study of the development of field systems in Kildare, is particularly useful for the Southern 

Uí Fáeláin HLC. One of its authors has argued that ‗our best means of tracing medieval open 

fields in Ireland is by examination of enclosure both on the ground and, more valuably, as 

they were recorded on eighteenth- and nineteenth-century estate maps and on midnineteenth-century 

Ordnance Survey maps‘ (O‘Keeffe 2000, 64). This latter source is the 

principal one utilised here. 

Strips were enclosed individually or in pairs creating long, very narrow fields or, more 

commonly, in groups to form rectilinear fields which are not necessarily longer than they are 

wide. In Devon, strip fields of different sorts underwent enclosure from the thirteenth century 

(and probably earlier) until the nineteenth century. The different boundary morphologies and 

shapes of the resulting fields can throw some light onto the processes and dates of enclosure. 

Irish manorial documents of late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century date suggest that 

free tenants living out in townlands of their own had compact, consolidated, possibly 

enclosed holdings not unlike modern farms. It is not clear whether these compact 

holdings were created in the early days of the colony, existing side by side with large 

open fields, or whether they evolved during the course of the thirteenth century as a result 

of clearance of new land by individuals or, more likely, agreed exchanges of strips among 

free tenants (O‘Conor 1998, 69). Enclosure of Irish strip fields was certainly underway by 

the fourteenth century, but eighteenth-century maps of estates like Gowran, Co. Kilkenny 

show that the process was not yet complete by 1700 (O‘Keeffe 2000, 64-66). O‘Keeffe 

(ibid.) argues that ‗the absenteeism of many manorial lords during the 1300s, combined with 

a penchant among many lords for leasing their demesne lands… may have loosened the 

seigneurial grip necessary to keep the fields open.‘ He suggests that the enclosure of strip 

fields may have gone hand in hand with the construction of tower houses by freeholders 

especially in the fifteenth century. It is not usually possible to distinguish for certain between 

strips that were enclosed in the late medieval period and strips that were enclosed in the post 

62



medieval period. As this chronological distinction is not directly relevant to the Making 

Christian Landscapes project, the question of the date of enclosure is usually left open: the 

Historic Landscape Character type is ‗Med/post medieval fields based on strip fields‘ though 

researchers can suggest a more specific date using the ‗period‘ drop-down menu. 

NB: This historic character type is only used where there is reasonably good evidence, in 

the overall morphology of a polygon, that the medieval fields were strip fields – i.e. long, 

sinuous, parallel field boundaries divided by much straighter post medieval field 

boundaries. In polygons where some field boundaries are suggestive of a medieval origin, 

but where there is insufficient evidence to suggest the former presence of strip fields the 

historic character type ‗Medieval fields with 1-24% (or 25-49%) post med elements‘ is used. 

Thus, this type does not necessarily mean the medieval fields were not strip fields; in Anglo- 

Norman areas like Southern Uí Fáeláin it seems likely that most of them were. 

Typical database entry for ‗Med/post medieval fields based on strip fields‘: 

Historic character: Med/post med fields based on strip fields Period: Post medieval 

Confidence: possible 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Pattern: Regular 

Boundary Characteristic: s curve 

Dominant boundary morphology: Sinuous 

% dominant: 1. >90% 

Secondary boundary morphology: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Previous historic character: Medieval strip fields Period: Medieval Confidence: Possible 

c. Watermeadow 

Polygons of this type generally occur along valley bottoms in flattish ground that would 

have been naturally irrigated by floodwater. Watermeadows are known to have been very 

valuable in the medieval period, so it is likely that most ground with this potential was 

used as meadow; however, it is hard on morphological grounds to demonstrate that a 

63



given patch of land was in use as a watermeadow. Occasional medieval documentary 

references and early post-medieval maps sometimes allow the identification of likely 

early watermeadows (Turner 2006b). Although some may have been exploited in strips, 

with each tenant holding given portions in the meadow to cut at hay-making time, this is 

generally not possible to show from map evidence. The appropriate confidence indicators 

are therefore ‗possible‘ or ‗probable‘. 

Typical database entry for medieval watermeadow: 

Historic character: watermeadow Period: medieval Confidence: possible 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Pattern: Irregular Boundary Characteristic: following watercourse 

Dominant boundary morphology: Sinuous % dominant: 

Secondary boundary morphology: - 

______________________________________________________________________ 


Medieval watermeadow was sometimes divided up into fields during the post medieval 

period, in which case it occurs as a previous historic character type rather than in 

Stratigraphic Position 1. Sometimes there is a clear contrast between post medieval field 

boundaries subdividing the watermeadow near the river bank and more sinuous 

boundaries of earlier origin representing areas that were open strip fields or enclosed 

fields in the medieval period. There are a number of examples of this in the Southern Uí 

Fáeláin case study. 

However watermeadows are also a feature of post medieval landscapes. Post-medieval 

innovations in irrigation which involved complicated networks of channels allowed more 

land in river valleys to be used as watermeadows, giving improved early grazing and yields 

of hay (Turner 2004). These are more common in England, but examples are known in 

Ireland also and it is important where possible to be aware that some watermeadows were 

not fully developed until long after 1600. A second type of post-medieval watermeadow is 

64



known as the field-gutter or catch-meadow system. This allowed sloping fields to be irrigated 

through the provision of leats. These are sometimes recognisable using archaeological 

evidence (either as earthworks or in air photography), and are also sometimes recorded on the 

1st edition OS maps. The main period of development and use of these irrigation systems 

appears to have been the later eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. No examples of such 

systems have been identified in the MCL project. 

65



3.3.4 Post Medieval Fields 

a. Post medieval fields 

This character type covers a fairly wide range of different kinds of fields, united by the 

morphology of their boundaries which tend to be overwhelmingly straight (surveyed) 

(Herring 1998: 29; Turner 2004). However, as discussed above, in Ireland we cannot be 

certain that some fields with sinuous boundaries are not also post medieval. Some significant 

sub-types of post medieval fields can be identified by analysing the size of fields within the 

polygons, e.g. very small plots associated with industrial workers, or their location in relation 

to other historic character ‗types‘ (e.g. extensions of medieval field systems being adjacent to 

medieval fields). 

Post-medieval enclosures are sometimes clearly based on earlier medieval systems or 

prehistoric systems. This will be reflected in the Historic Character category to which they 

are assigned (e.g. Post med fields with 1-24% med elements) and in their previous historic 

character sections. However, such straight-sided post-medieval fields often erase traces of 

earlier arrangements (at least as far as map evidence is concerned), and it has not always been 

possible to offer an interpretation of medieval or earlier field types/‘historic character‘ type. 

In the following sample database entry for post medieval fields prehistoric pre-bog field 

walls have been identified within the polygon through survey, but none of these walls were in 

use in c.1829-42 so they are recorded solely in the previous historic character section rather 

than as an element in the modern system: 

Historic character: Post medieval fields Period: post medieval Confidence: probable 

___________________________________________________________________ 

Pattern: Regular 

Boundary Characteristic: 

Dominant boundary morphology: Straight % dominant: 3. >90% 

Secondary boundary morphology: - 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Previous historic character: Prehistoric fields Period: Prehistoric Confidence: Probable 

66



Relict?: No Special Source: Field survey Notes: Mitchell 1989. 

b. Orchard 

Orchards formed a significant part of the post-medieval agricultural economy in some parts 

of Ireland. They commonly cluster in small enclosures around farmsteads and hamlets. The 

identification of post-medieval orchards is based on the 1st edition OS map, and includes all 

types of fruit trees. 

67



3.4 Other Historic Landscape Character Types 

3.4.1 Rough ground and woodland 

a. Rough ground 

Normally unenclosed and unimproved ground in rural areas (e.g. rough pasture, moorland, 

bog), including that which has been enclosed but then reverted to rough grazing. 

b. Ancient woodland 

Broadleaf woodland only. 

c. Other woodland 

All other woodland including broad-leaved plantations, conifer plantations (though these are 

virtually non-existent before the 1st Edition OS Maps), re-planted ancient woodland or secondary 

woodland that has grown up from scrub and woodland of uncertain origin/date. 

3.4.2 Water 

a. Marsh 

Areas of freshwater marsh and saltmarshes. 

b. Water 

All water bodies (natural and artificial) such as lakes, large ponds and reservoirs. 

3.4.3 Coastal Types 

a. Dunes 

Coastal sand dunes. 

b. Intertidal Mud/Sand 

Mudflats and/or sand in the intertidal zone. 

c. Sand 

Normally beaches. Includes shingle and pebbles. 

68



d. Outcrop, Scree, Cliffs 

Includes cliffs (coastal and inland) and rocks exposed at low water. 

3.4.4 Settlement, Industry, Military Sites, Parks etc. 

a. Settlement 

Areas of dense settlement (villages, towns and cities). 

b. Industrial Complex 

Indicates industrial/commercial complexes including e.g. 

factories, mills, warehouses, retail centres, rail terminals and yards. 

c. Quarry or Mine 

Quarries and associated complexes; includes clay, gravel and sand pits and areas of dense 

mining-related activity. 

d. Military Complex 

Shows all sites with military function including docks, army camps, 

prisoner-of-war camps, etc. 

e. Public civil complex 

Hospitals, government offices, schools, colleges, cemeteries etc. These are only treated separately 

if they do not occur in areas of dense settlement. 

f. Park/garden 

Includes all types of parks and landscape gardens, both those in private ownership and 

public/civic parks and gardens. 

69



Chapter 4 

Historic Landscape Characterisation: 

Results and Recommendations 

Tomás Ó Carragáin 

70



HLC was carried out in three of the MCL case study areas: Corcu Duibne, Southern Uí 

Fáeláin and Mag Réta. By far the greatest area covered was in Corcu Duibne, where the 

technique was found to be particularly useful for our purposes. 

4.1 The Corcu Duibne HLC 

A HLC of part of the catchment area of the Cummeragh River and part of the catchment 

of the Inny River in southern Corcu Duibe was prepared for the 2008 INSTAR report. In 

2009, the Iveragh HLC was extended considerably and one was also prepared for the 

western end of the Dingle peninsula. In 2010 the area was extended further to encompass 

two of the three sub-kingdoms of Corcu Duibe: Áes Irruis (a significant portion of the 

Dingle peninsula) and Áes Irruis Deiscert (most of the Iveragh peninsula). It was not 

possible to cover the third sub-kingdom, Áes Coinchinn (at the junction of the two 

peninsulas) in the time available, but a preliminary assessment suggests that survival of 

pre-modern fields is not as wipespread here as in the other sub-kingdoms. The HLC 

allows us for the first time to assess the areas of western Corcu Duibne where pre-modern 

field boundaries survived at the time of the first edition OS maps. 

71



Fig. 4.1: HLC of Áes Irruis Tuascirt and Áes Irruis Deiscirt, two of the three subkingdoms 

of Corcu Duibne. The third sub-kingdom, Áes Coinchinn, at the junction 

of the two peninsulas is shaded beige (cf. Fig. 5.1). 

72



Fig. 4.1: HLC of Áes Irruis Tuascirt, one of the three sub-kingdoms of Corcu 

Duibne. 

73



Fig. 4.1: HLC of Áes Irruis Deiscirt, one of the three sub-kingdoms of Corcu 

Duibne. The relatively large areas with high visibility of medieval fields around 

Lough Currane and in the Caherlehillan and adjoining valleys are the result of field 

systems survey by Aidan Harte. 

74



4.1.1 Rough Ground 

The topography and natural features of Corcu Duibne are discussed in the 2008 MCL 

report. 

Significant portions of the area encompassed by the HLC were unimproved and largely 

unenclosed in the early nineteenth century, except by townland boundaries and 

occasional additional boundary enclosing an area too large to be considered a field. 

Sometimes there are indications that this land was enclosed in the medieval period: relict 

field systems are sometimes visible in areas of Rough Ground in the orthophotography, 

and some of these (in the Lough Currane catchment area) have now been surveyed by 

Aidan Harte (see 2009 report). Even where field systems are not evident in the 

orthophotography and have not been surveyed, the presence of ringforts in areas of 

Rough Ground strongly suggests that they were at least partially enclosed in the early 

medieval period. Clochauns could represent booleying rather than permanent settlement, 

and this activity does not necessarily require enclosure, but in practice there is often 

evidence for fields associated with booleying in areas that have been surveyed in detail 

(2009 report). 

Areas of unenclosed rough ground are also interspersed between field systems in the 

more fertile, lowland townlands, including for example Termons in Iveragh. This 

townland stretches for 1.5km from the northern shore of Lough Currane to the Coomduff 

ridge. Much of the 200m or so closest to the lake shore was open rough ground or 

meadow. Upslope from this for, a kilometre or so, modest areas of rough ground separate 

field systems of possibly medieval origin. Finally, the northern limit of the townland is 

defined by a c.200m wide band of rough ground, which on current evidence was 

apparently unenclosed in the pre-modern period. The fields here are larger and far more 

regular than those downslope. In the poorer townlands south of the lake an even greater 

portion of the land seems to have been unenclosed. 

The land immediately adjoining the Cummeragh and Inny rivers in Iveragh also seems to 

have been largely unenclosed until the post medieval period. In the case of the 

75



Cummeragh, this is not surprising as the valley bottom is covered in thick blanket peat. 

The only fields of any antiquity along the valley bottom are near where the river exits 

Lough Derrinana and significantly they incorporate one definite and one possible ringfort 

and the early ecclesiastical site of Cappanagroun. The Inny valley bottom is more fertile, 

but was nonetheless largely unenclosed rough ground / meadow until the post medieval 

period. Early medieval settlements are largely absent from the valley bottom. Instead, 

both they and most of the fields of possibly medieval origin are usually 180m or more 

upslope. For example in Doory townland, south of the river, quite an irregular field 

system extends down the valley side as far as the road and incorporates two ringforts. In 

contrast the fields which extend from this field system for the remaining 180m to the 

river bank are much straighter-sided additions. 

Fig. 4.4: This HLC of part of Doory townland in the Inny River valley shows an 

irregular field system incorporating two ringforts on the south valley side with later 

straight-sided additions extending down-slope to the banks of the river. This 

suggests that the valley bottom was largely unenclosed until recent centuries. 

76



Interestingly, within the area covered by the HLC, there is a good correlation between the 

few fields that seem to incorporate medieval elements which extend down to the banks of 

the River Inny, and the few river-side early medieval settlements, especially around the 

early ecclesiastical site of Killeenleagh and around a possible ringfort in Bunadeereen. 

Thus, a significant portion of the landscape seems to have been largely unenclosed. In 

addition some enclosed land comprises largely unimproved rough pasture. 

There was far more rough ground in the boggy valleys of the Cummeragh and Inny rivers 

in Iveragh than in the river valleys in Dingle. For example, in the Milltown river valley 

post medieval fields usually extended down to the valley bottom, though some modest 

areas of rough ground were evident. Early medieval settlements (ringforts, ecclesiastical 

sites etc.) rarely occur in valley bottoms. Instead, both they and most of the fields of 

possibly medieval origin are usually upslope. For example in Doory townland, south of 

the Inny River, Iveragh, quite an irregular field system extends down the valley side as 

far as the road and incorporates two ringforts. In contrast the fields which extend from 

this field system for the remaining 180m to the river bank are much straighter-sided 

additions. 

77



Fig. 4.5: HLC types in a section of the Milltown River valley, northern Corcu 

Duibne. Townland boundaries are red, HLC polygons are blue. Note the areas 

where fields of possibly medieval origin survive: mainly on the east side of the 

valley. Large postmedieval fields extend to the valley bottom in most areas, though 

there are some areas of unenclosed rough ground also. At the bottom left of the 

image is a postmedieval mill. The presence nearby of a rare group of possibly premodern 

fields in the valley bottom raises the possibility that there was a medieval 

mill in this location also. 

4.1.2 Medieval/Prehistoric Fields 

At the time the 1st Edition OS maps were produced (1829-42) a significant proportion of 

the field boundaries in western Corcu Duibne were irregular, curvilinear or sinuous in 

nature. As discussed in the last chapter and in the 2009 MCL report, field systems 

surveys and excavations in Co. Kerry and elsewhere support the idea that many of these 

are medieval in origin. Some may well be prehistoric but it is rarely possible to 

distinguish between prehistoric and medieval fields based on map evidence and aerial 

photography alone; but for the purposes of this project the most important thing is to 

78



identify fields that were in use in the medieval period so in many cases we have 

categorised fields as ‗Med/prehist‘. 

Nonetheless, there is strong evidence to suggest that where there are a significant number 

of such boundaries within a field system, the system is medieval (or earlier) in origin and 

has been adapted in post medieval times. This model is contrary to the idea espoused by 

some writers that most of the small irregular fields in the west of the country are post 

medieval in origin (e.g. O‘Sullivan and Downey 2008). Certainly, we should be 

conscious of the likelihood that many irregular or sinuous field boundaries are post 

medieval in date, perhaps especially some of those on poorer, more marginal land. Thus 

the categorisation of fields with sinuous boundaries as medieval is tentative at best and in 

the majority of cases the appropriate ‗Confidence‘ selection for medieval fields is 

‗possible‘ (i.e. < 40% chance) or ‗probable‘ (i.e. < 70% chance) rather than ‗certain‘. 

However, several factors combine to suggest that many of these boundaries are premodern 

in origin. First, early medieval settlements are often embedded into these field 

systems in a way which suggests they are contemporary. Secondly, field survey in the 

Lough Currane catchment area and in Caherlehillan shows that there are very similar 

fields in upland areas which were clearly not in use in the nineteenth century (and so are 

not depicted on the OS maps). Again, these are usually associated with medieval 

settlements, especially clochauns. Furthermore, field survey in more lowland areas such 

as Loher has demonstrated that there area marked differences in materials and techniques 

of construction (in addition to differences of form in plan) between walls that are clearly 

modern and those that appear to be earlier (see 2009 MCL report; below). These surveys 

have also produced strong evidence to support an association between such walls and 

early medieval enclosed settlements. 

79



Fig. 4.6: This field system survey of part of Loher townland, Iveragh, strongly 

supports the idea that the sinuous and curvilinear field walls depicted on the OS 

maps of Corcu Duibne are often earlier than the straight, surveyed fields, and also 

supports the idea that some of them were in use during the early medieval period. 

The survey was carried out in 2009 after a HLC had been prepared for the area. It 

supports our conclusion, based on cartographic and photographic evidence, that the 

appropriate Historic Character Type for the area is ‘post-medieval fields with 25- 

49% med/prehist elements.’ 

80



Returning to the OS map evidence, a common pattern encounted in Corcu Duibne is that 

the core field system immediately around the main settlements is irregular, but that 

surveyed field systems of postmedieval date have been added to it. The settlements in 

question include early medieval enclosed ones (ringforts, ecclesiastical sites), and modern 

hamlets/clachans, which are often situated in similar positions in the landscape as their 

medieval predecessors. This suggests that those who established these modern 

settlements made use of existing field systems, adapting it to suit the requirements. In 

some cases, the field system was altered almost beyond recognition, except for a few telltale 

sinuous boundaries. In cases like this where very few potentially early field walls 

survive, the field system as usually been classed post medieval, because there is 

insufficient evidence to support the claim for an early origin. In other cases, though, a 

much greater number of early field walls survive. This is probably because these fields, 

though somewhat small, were perfectly adequate and because of the considerable labour 

involved in taking down and rebuilding stone field walls: many communities chose 

instead to extend their field system beyond its original limits. This model presupposes a 

degree of continuity of settlement and farming patterns between the medieval period and 

the modern period. Modern communities are unlikely to make use of field walls that had 

been disused for hundreds of years and had fallen into disrepair. If so, the presense of 

relict medieval field systems in areas of rough ground and in areas of postmedieval fields 

added to medieval field systems, raises the possibility that there was a contraction in the 

extent of enclosed land between the early medieval period and the modern period, during 

which only the cores of the field systems were maintained. This would explain the 

addition of fields to vitually all of these systems in the post-medieval period. 

81



Fig. 4.7: Fieldsystems in Kilquane townland, northern Corcu Duibne. Townland 

boundaries are red, HLC polygons are blue. The early ecclesiastical site of Kilquane 

is siguated quite near the Feohanna River, unusually so for an early medieval 

settlement. It is at the centre of an irregular field system which may well include 

some medieval elements. 

Fig. 4.8: Fieldsystems on the west-facing lower slopes of Mount Brandon in 

Ballinknockane. Townland boundaries are red, HLC polygons are blue. At the 

centre is an area of small irregular fields interspersed with ringforts and clochauns. 

On the western edge of this is a modern clachan and fields of largely if not entirely 

modern date have been appended to the earlier system. 

82



Fig. 4.9: Field systems in and around Gallarus townland, northern Corcu Duibne 

(centre). Townland boundaries are red, HLC polygons are blue. Most of the fields in 

Gallarus townland seem to be post medieval in origin, but there are two area 

characterised by less regular field boundaries that could potentially be earlier. It is 

interesting to note that one of these surrounds the early ecclesiastical site in the 

townland (centre right of townland), while the other incorporates two of the three 

surviving ringforts in the townland. 

83



Fig. 4.10: Field systems in and around Reask townland (centre), northern Corcu 

Duibne. Townland boundaries are red, HLC polygons are blue. At the centre of the 

townland is a curvilinear area characterized by some small fields with sinuous or 

curvilinear boundaries. This may well be early medieval in origin. It incorporates 

the early ecclesiastical site and both ringforts in the townland. Surrounding this is 

an area of mainly modern fields, which may nonetheless incorporate some medieval 

elements (an outer curvilinear boundary) wheresas the rest of the townland 

comprises modern fields and rough ground. 

Fig. 4.11: Field systems in and around Ballywiheen townland (centre). Townland 

boundaries are red, HLC polygons are blue. There are two areas within the 

townland which may incorporate pre-modern field boundaries: one at the left (west) 

around an early ecclesiastical enclosure and another, less certain and smaller area 

at the bottom which surrounds the only ringfort in the townland. 

84



Fig. 4.12: Field systems in and around Caherscullibeen (centre), northern Corcu 

Duibne. Townland boundaries are red, HLC polygons are blue. The Caher for 

which the townland is named is (along with a post medieval clachan) at the centre of 

an irregular field system which may be medieval in origin. Straighter-sided fields 

have been added to this system in the post medieval period. 

Examples of fields associated with early medieval settlements include some of those in 

Breadhig townland, Iveragh, where field banks radiate from a ringfort. At Dromkeare, 

near Lough Currane, an east-west arrangement of rectilinear fields between the 

Cummeragh river and a parallel stream seems to be focussed on Dromkeare early 

medieval ecclesiastical site and mill, rather than on more recent settlements. This field 

system is clearly truncated by a much straighter-sided system associated with Dromkeare 

Lodge. In the adjoining townland of Lislonane an arcing field system runs from the 

principal ringfort which gave its name to the townland, and a subsidiary one downslope. 

Again this field system is truncated by a more regular one associated with the post 

medieval farm to the northeast. Some of the field boundaries extending from the 

85



unusually large ecclesiastical cashel in Termons townland (further 4.5.4) may well be 

medieval in origin also. The field boundaries radiating from a smaller enclosure in 

adjoining Beenbane townland are straighter but all kink in a manner which suggests they 

have been laid out around this monument. It is very rare for sinuous boundaries to be 

demonstrably later than early medieval settlements (see the example in Loher illustrated 

below), but such examples serve as a reminder that some sinuous boundaries are probably 

later or post medieval. 

86



Fig. 4.13: Possible associations between field systems and early medieval enclosed 

settlements in Beahigh (top), Dromkeare (middle) and Lislonane (bottom), Iveragh. 

87



Fig. 4.14: Some of the field boundaries radiating from these early medieval 

settlements in Termons (top) and Beenbane (middle) may be early medieval, but the 

sinuous boundary bisecting this cashel at Loher (bottom; all in the Lough Currane 

area, Iveragh), is probably later or post medieval. 

88



One pattern which those preparing the HLC (mainly TÓC and Aidan Harte) were looking 

out for was a contrast between the northern and southern peninsulas due to the fact that 

the former was intensively colonised by Anglo-Norman settlers while the latter was not. 

In particular, we were on the look out for possible strip fields in the northern peninsula. 

As discussed at length in the last chapter, in Ireland there is no evidence for strip fields 

outside Anglo-Norman areas. Even in Anglo-Norman areas the evidence for them in very 

limited, though they were probably quite common in the high medieval period. Some 

post medieval fields which were probably based on high medieval strip fields were 

identified in the Southern Uí Fáeláin, Co. Kildare HLC (see below). However, as 

discussed below, if as seems likely some of the post medieval fields in the Mag Réta 

study area are based on strip fields there is no evidence for this in their morphology. 

There was no evidence for strip fields in the northern Corcu Duibne peninsula either, and 

in this case it seems quite possible that in many parts of the landscape they were never 

established. 

89



Fig. 4.15: HLC types in the vicinity of Dingle town, one of the principal centres of 

Anglo-Norman settlement in Corcu Duibne. With the possible (though unlikely) 

exception of Knockeen townland (bottom right), there is little evidence that the 

Anglo-Norman colonisers of the area divided up the landscape into strip fields. The 

best evidence for this would be long sinuous, parallel boundaries running 

lengthways across whole townlands, sometimes exhibiting distinctive dog-legs or 

‘reversed s’/’reversed j’ curves. In this absence of such features, we must conclude 

that high medieval strip fields were entirely replaced in the post medieval period or 

that they were never established in the area in any numbers. The latter scenario is 

perhaps more likely, because strip fields can easily be divided up to suit modern 

requirements, so it seems unlikely that they would leave no trace whatsoever. 

90




As discussed above, this character type covers a fairly wide range of different kinds of 

fields, united by the morphology of their boundaries which tend to be overwhelmingly 

straight, indicating that they were surveyed, though some irregular fields are probably 

also post medieval (above). 

By the time of the 1st Edition OS maps (c.1829-42), straight sided fields were a very 

common characteristic of the Corcu Duibne landscape. Take, for example, the area 

around Lough Currane. Post medieval fields are the dominant field type by the coast 

around Waterville, where oftentimes few or no earlier elements are preserved. They vary 

greatly in shape from large square paddocks (e.g. Polygon 74 in Ardkearagh) to long, 

narrow fields of individual smallholders. A good example of this is in Spunkane 

townland where long fields of this sort are each associated with a cottage built at the side 

of the road at the northern approach to Waterville (Polygon 107). This is an area of 

relatively good land and it is likely that there were earlier fields in the area, but virtually 

all trace of them has been removed. Long parallel field-boundaries are also the most 

common type in upland areas like the northernmost 200m of Termons townland between 

field systems of possibly medieval origin and the summit of the Coomduff ridge. Some of 

these straight field boundaries continue downslope especially in areas that had previously 

been largely unenclosed. They also sometimes intrude upon earlier field systems but in 

this area along the north side of Lough Currane these earlier systems usually remain the 

dominant historic character type. Thus the Historic Landscape Character Type chosen is 

often ‗Medieval fields with 1-24% (or 25-49%) post med elements‘. In contrast at the 

southwest side of the lake, in Ballybrack and Eightercua, fields of probable medieval 

origin have been more extensively reorganised so that the Historic Landscape Character 

Type is ‗Post med fields with 1-24% medieval elements‘. In the Inny river valley there is 

a similar mix, with some areas extensively reorganised in the post medieval period (e.g. 

much of Garrannafulla townland) and other areas where they have been added to existing 

field systems as noted above in the case of Doory townland. 

91



Note that in 2009 and 2010, different types and phases of postmedieval fields were not 

distinguished from each other systematically: this was proving too time-consuming and 

was not contributing to the aims of the project (the reconstruction of aspects of the 

medieval landscape). Thus, large and small post-medieval fields are treated as a single 

HLC type, though they served somewhat different purposes. Also, chronological 

relationships between different groups of post-medieval fields (i.e. where one group 

clearly post-dates another group) are not usually represented on those parts of the HLC 

map produced in 2009 and 2010. Only fields that may be partly medieval/prehistoric are 

distinguished. 

92



Fig. 4.16: Fields in Spunkane townland. To the left of the road are long narrow post 

medieval smallholdings while to the right of the road are wider post medieval fields. 

Fig. 4.17: Fields in Termons townland. The northern 200m of the townland, where it 

extends up to the Coomduff ridge (marked in red), is characterised by post medieval 

fields. Further down-slope are more irregular fields, possibly with a significant 

number of medieval elements. 

93



Fig. 4.18: At the southwest of Lough Currane field systems were extensively 

reorganised in the post medieval period, so that only some earlier elements survive. 

Fig. 4.19: Ballincolla and Ballyaglisha, northern Corcu Duibne: two of the many 

townlands in Corcu Duibne whose fields appear to be largely or entirely post 

medieval in origin. 

94



4.1.4 Preliminary Assessment 

The Corcu Duibne HLC covers a total area of 150,734 hectares. At about 65%, by far the 

most common Historic Character Type is Rough Ground. The full percentage breakdown 

of HCTs is as follows: 

Med/post med fields based on strip fields 0.01% 

Medieval fields 0.35% 

Med/prehist fields with 1-24% post med elements 0.37% 

Med/prehist fields with 25-49% post med elements 0.95% 

Post med fields with 25-49% med/prehist elements 4.39% 

Post med fields with 1-24% med/prehist elements 5.58% 

Post med fields 17.17% 

Park/garden 0.52% 

Settlement 0.17% 

Quarry or Mine 0.02% 

Rough Ground 65.44% 

Meadow 0.35% 

Woodland 0.62% 

Marsh 0.24% 

Outcrop/scree/cliffs 1.55% 

Sand 0.13% 

Dunes 0.29% 

Intertidal mud/sand 0.03% 

Water 1.83% 

Fig. 4.20: Percentage breakdown of Historic Character Types in Corcu Duibne. 

95



Looking specifically at fields, the survival of pre-modern elements in the Corcu Duibne 

HLC as a whole can be represented as follows: 

Fig. 4.21: Percentage breakdown of HCTs relating to fields in Corcu Duibne. 

On the basis of this assessment, over half of the enclosed landscape is characterised by 

post medieval field systems with no identifiable earlier elements. Having said that, some 

evidence for pre-modern fields was evident in 39% of the enclosed landscape. Doubtless 

this proportion would increase considerably if further field work was undertaken. 

Of 476 ringforts and cashels which have been recorded in Corcu Duibhne, only 36 (8%) 

are found on rough ground and 75 (16% of ringforts/cashels) are in areas where the 

dominant historic character is pre-modern (50% plus). The latter is quite a high figure 

considering that pre-modern fields are the dominant characteristic of less than 2% of the 

landscape and of about 5% of the enclosed landscape. The remaining ringforts/cashels are 

almost entirely in areas of modern field systems or modern fields incorporating less than 

49% pre-modern elements. Of the 300 souterrains recorded, 33% are in areas 

characterised by modern fields and modern fields incorporating up to 49% pre-modern 

elements, 17% are on fields with more than 50% pre-modern elements and 11% are on 

Rough Ground. The relationship between HLC and archaeology will be considered in 

more detail as the project continues. 

96



4.2 The Southern Uí Fáeláin HLC 

The landscape of Southern Uí Fáeláin has been much more intensively exploited over the 

centuries than that of Corcu Duibne, and medieval or earlier elements do not survive to 

anything like the same extent. Thus, the Historic Character of most of the area covered by 

the HLC is ‗Post medieval fields‘. There are, however, hints of earlier field systems in a 

few townlands. An HLC was prepared for the detailed case study area focused on 

Corbally/Brownstown, a low slightly undulating, intensively farmed landscape bordered 

at the west and south by the river Liffey. 

4.2.1 Rough Ground and woodland 

Relatively little land within the Corbally study area could be characterised as rough 

ground. However there are some localised parcels of wet marginal land, for example in 

Hillsborough and Oldtown which are bisected by a palaeochannel, presumably an earlier 

course of the Liffey. Most of the woodland is ornamental and is concentrated on the 

boundaries of large estates. However, a few areas of woodland, including that in 

Dunnestown, could conceivably be remnant ancient woodland. 

97



Fig. 4.22 Historic Landscape Characterisation of the Southern Uí Fáeláin detailed 

case study area. 

98



Fig. 4.23: Palaeochannel/Rough ground at Hillsborough and Oldtown. 

Fig. 4.24: Woodland at Dunnstown. 

99




Relatively little evidence for medieval fields survives in this area; but there are some 

possible traces of medieval strip fields. As discussed above, a high proportion of the 

landscape of Kildare was probably covered in fields of this sort during the high medieval 

period, as both documentary and archaeological research have shown (Hall et al. 1985, 

19-20; O‘Keeffe 2000, 62-63). 

The most likely instances within the case study area are two townlands at the west end of 

the study area: ‗Blackrath and Athgarvan‘ and, adjoining it at the north, Walshestown. 

Both of them are situated between the River Liffey at the east and the open Curragh of 

Kildare at the west. The western edge of ‗Blackrath and Athgarvan‘ is quite irregular 

(wavy), probably a reflection of the fact that this was land claimed from the Curragh in 

antiquity. This almost certainly took place before the high medieval period, as the 

townland is attested in the early sources and three barrows are sited on its western 

boundary. A roadway runs roughly north-south, parallel to the Liffey, about one quarter 

of the way from the eastern edges of the two townlands. The land between this and the 

river is divided by straight boundaries into regular rectangular and square fields of post 

medieval date. It seems likely that this was open watermeadow in the medieval period. 

Watermeadow, which was periodically irrigated by floodwater, is known to have been 

considered very valuable in the medieval period, but it was often unenclosed. 

100



Fig. 4.25: Post medieval fields possibly based on medieval strip fields in ‘Blackrath 

and Athgarvan’ (centre bottom) and Walshestown (centre top) with possible (now 

enclosed) watermeadow between the north-south road and the River Liffey. Note 

also the Curragh of Kildare at left. 

101



On the other side of the road are boundaries that may be of considerably greater antiquity. 

In both townlands long sinuous boundaries run from the road all the way to their western 

boundaries. Blackrath and Athgarvan is divided by nine of these. They are quite closely 

spaced near the roadway but splay outward to evenly divide the wider western end of the 

townland. Walshestown is divided by six of them, in this case slightly wider at the east to 

conform to the shape of the townland. Some of these are slightly s-shaped, a 

characteristic often indicative of open strip fields that have later been subdivided. 

Perpendicular to these longitudinal divisions which follow the lines of some of the 

putative medieval strips, are shorter straighter divisions, probably of post medieval date. 

Though we cannot be certain we have tentatively categorised these townlands as 

‗Med/post med fields based on strip fields.‘ 

Fig. 4.26: The square townland of Silliothill (centre) is divided by long field 

boundaries which might be based on medieval strips, though this is less certain than 

in the case of ‘Blackrath and Athgarvan’ and Walshestown. 

102



A few other possible remnants of strip fields occur. For example the square townland of 

Silliothill, which like those just discussed is early medieval in origin (Paul MacCotter 

pers comm.), seems to have been traversed by six long field boundaries (some now 

discontinuous). Though these could be post medieval, they are slightly sinuous in places 

hinting that they may be of earlier origin. 

One townland immediately adjoining the area covered by the HLC at the northeast was 

entirely unenclosed at the time of the 1st Edition maps and therefore retained its likely 

medieval Historic Character as indicated by its name, Harristown Common. A short 

distance northeast of this is Mullacash Middle, at the centre of which are the ruins of 

Mullacash Castle. The fields within this townland are unusually large and most represent 

enclosure of demesne land in the post medieval period. 

Fig. 4.27: Harristown Common commonage (bottom left) and Mullacash Middle 

demesne land (centre top). 

103




As discussed above, this character type covers a fairly wide range of different kinds of 

fields, united by the morphology of their boundaries which tend to be overwhelmingly 

straight, indicating that they were surveyed. Most of the case study area is characterised 

by post medieval fields and oftentimes there is little or no evidence which can be used to 

determine the previous historic character of a land parcel. This is not surprising given the 

intensive agriculture practiced in Co. Kildare, as illustrated for example in the detailed 

study by Burke (2006) of landholding on the Drogheda estate, in which estate maps are 

used to show the extent to which fields could be reorganised during the eighteenth and 

early nineteenth centuries. In addition to fields there are a number of ‗big houses‘ in the 

area, most of which are situated within extensive ornamental landscapes characterised by 

orchards, woods and avenues planted with trees. 

Fig. 4.28: Ornamental landscape at Castlemartin. 

104



4.3 The Southwest Laois HLC 

HLC was carried out for two areas within the SW Laois core study area: the parish of 

Aghmacart (in which is Parknahown 5) and the southern third of the huge parish of 

Conenagh and Clonagheen (in which is Killeaney 1). While the level of survival of premodern 

fields was not as great as in Corcu Duibne, a good deal more survived than in the 

Southern Uí Fáeláin, Co. Kildare case study (above). This is perhaps not surprising as 

SW Laois has not been farmed quite as intensively as the Southern Uí Fáeláin case study 

area. It is also interesting that the possible traces of pre-modern fields in SW Laois do not 

include examples of strip fields. Whether this is because such fields were not established 

in this part of the Anglo-Norman colony to the same extent as in Kildare is a matter of 

speculation. They may have been present in areas where pre-modern fields simply do not 

survive. 

Not surprisingly pre-modern fields survived best in relatively marginal land, most notably 

in the hills in the southern part of Aghmacart parish. John Feehan (1999, 14-23) has 

undertaken a case study of early field systems in the Stradbally Hills, in and around the 

townlands of Ballyprior and Ballycoolan, a few miles east of the core study area. The 

topography and land quality here is very similar to that in southern Aghmacart. Feehan 

has mapped relict field systems which seem to relate to ringforts and other early medieval 

settlements in the area. A few of the walls relating to this system were still in use at the 

time of the 1st Edition OS map, but most of them were not: instead they were located in 

areas characterised by very large post medieval fields enclosing what was often 

unimproved land (‗rough ground‘). He notes that the area is rich in waxcap flora: the 

colourful fungi that are indicative of ancient grassland. This example illustrates two 

things. First it shows the potential for the occasional reuse of pre-modern field walls in 

modern field systems. As we will see, there is some evidence for this in both areas 

covered by the 2009 HLC: where pre-modern elements survive they tend to comprise less 

than 25% of the active 1830s field system. Secondly, it shows that (as in Corcu Duibne) 

there is considerable potential to enhance the quality of the HLC through field systems 

survey at a later date, especially in upland areas such as the southern part of Aghmacart 

where relict field systems are more likely. For now, though, the patterns evident in the 1st 

105



Edition OS maps and to a lesser extend modern orthophotography, at least give us some 

indication of the level of survival of pre-modern fields within the early nineteenthcentury 

landscape. We will look at the pattern in Aghmacart first before turning to 

Conenagh and Clonagheen. 

106



Fig. 4.29: Historic Landscape Characterisation of Aghmacart parish. 

107



Fig. 4.30: Historic Landscape Characterisation of the southern portion of 

Clonenagh and Clonagheen parish. 

108



There is a good deal of river meadow in Aghmacart parish along the banks of the Goul 

and Erkina rivers, and also some localised areas of rough ground throughout the parish. 

The northern half of the parish is dominated by post-medieval fields. Oftentimes these 

systems are centred on big houses surrounded by parkland with patches of ornmanental 

woodland. Nowhere in the parish did we consider that more than 25% of a field system 

comprised pre-modern elements: where they survive at all it is as remnants. Possible 

examples are concentrated in the southern half of the parish, where the majority of early 

and later medieval settlements are also. They are also evident in the more marginal 

uplands near the southern boundary of the parish on the slopes of Cullahill Mountain. 

Geophysics east of the excavated area at Parknahown 5 revealed ‗a linear feature running 

from the terminal of [the enclosing ditch] in a southeastern direction‘, which the 

excavator convincingly interpretated as a field boundary (O‘Neill 2009a, 307). 

Unfortunately, by the early nineteenth century few or no pre-modern field boundaries 

survived in the immediate vicinity of the site, and none that might bear a direct 

relationship to this early medieval boundary. 

Fig. 4.31: Post-medieval fields in Gorteen townland, Aghmacart parish. 

109



Fig. 4.32: Probable early medieval settlement enclosure and fields which may 

preserve pre-modern elements in Ballykealy townland in the southern part of 

Aghmacart. 

There are some similarities between Aghmacart and the other area covered: the southern 

portion of the parish of Clonenagh and Clonagheen. In particular, river medow was 

evident along the banks of the Nore, the Gully and the more minor rivers in the area. 

There is somewhat more woodland in the area than in Aghmacart. While this is probably 

not ancient, there is historical and cartographic evidence to suggest that there was quite a 

lot of woodland in the area in the early modern period. In particular, woodland was 

present in Killeany and adjacent townlands (Wiggins 2009a, 3), and the large square 

fields that predominate in Killeany may well represent land claimed back from the forest 

in the post-medieval period. The largest areas of rough ground are in the northern part of 

the study area, and here this category mainly refers to large tracts of worked bog. Some 

field sytems possibly incorporate small percentages (always below 25%) of pre-modern 

elements. For example, in Derrykearn townland, north of the early ecclesiastical site there 

are three settlement enclosures of probable early medieval date, two of which are 

unusually large (95m and 120m in diameter). Many of the fields between them are 

bounded by sinuous and at times curvilinear boundaries that may well be medieval in 

origin. In neither area was there much evidence for pre-modern fields near rivers; such 

areas may have been largely wooded in the early medieval period. Interestingly the one 

110



possible (though by no means definite) exception in the areas covered, surrounds the only 

certain ringfort which occurs near the Nore in Clonenagh and Clonagheen. 

Fig. 4.33: Three settlement enclosures of probably early medieval date along with 

fields which may incorporate some medieval elements in Derrykearn townland, 

Clonenagh and Clonagheen parish. 

Fig. 4.34: Large square fields of post medieval date in Killeany townland, 

Clonenagh and Clonagheen parish. There is documentary and cartographic 

evidence that this area was heavily wooded in the early modern period. 

111



4.4 Conclusions and suggestions about the future use of HLC in Ireland 

HLC has given us a new perspective on the landscapes we are studying, one which is 

enhancing the quality of our analysis considerably. The application of the technique in 

this project illustrates its research potential as well as its limitations. We would suggest 

that its use should at least be considered in future projects about the Irish landscape, 

especially ones focused on the historic period and ones focused on areas with relatively 

good survival of pre-modern field boundaries. The three areas covered in the MCL 

project probably give a fairly good indication of the spectrum of survival of pre-modern 

elements of the landscape in different parts of Ireland: very little in Southern Uí Fáeláin, 

somewhat more in SW Laois and quite a lot in Corcu Duibne. 

Looking at these in turn, intensive farming in the post medieval period has removed most 

of the components of the medieval landscape of the Southern Uí Fáeláin case study area. 

Nonetheless, possible remnants of medieval fields were recognised in some townlands. 

These apparently differed markedly from the small, often irregular, fields of possibly 

medieval date in Corcu Duibne. Most of them seem to have been relatively large open 

strip fields. While there is no reason why open field farming could not have been 

practiced in the final centuries of the early medieval period in Ireland (O‘Keeffe 2000, 

62), it seems far more likely that these are high medieval and Anglo-Norman in origin. 

This is supported by the apparent absence of any strip fields in Corcu Duibne. If strip 

fields were prevalent across Ireland before the Anglo-Norman colonisation one might 

expect to find some evidence for them here; in this regard it should be emphasised that in 

England strip fields are not confined to areas of intensive tillage farming. It is interesting 

that the possible strip fields in the Southern Uí Fáeláin area span the full extents of 

townlands and never extend across a townland boundary. This tallies well with 

documentary evidence indicating that the Anglo-Norman colonists adopted the existing 

pattern of land division and adapted it to suit their own requirements. 

As expected, HLC has turned up a limited amount of evidence for the pre-modern 

landscape in southwest Laois. In no parts of the two areas covered does the survival of 

112



pre-modern features seem to be more than 25%. Even in the case of some of these areas, 

we cannot be certain that the sinuous or (less commonly) curvilinear fields identified are 

not modern. Nonetheless, the technique has allowed us to identify areas of the landscape 

where pre-modern fields are most likely to survive. It is interesting to note that, in 

contrast to the Southern Uí Fáeláin, there was minimal evidence for strip fields in the 

areas covered, suggesting perhaps a contrast in agricultural practices between these two 

areas in the high medieval period. 

HLC is proving to be a very useful tool for analysing the landscape of Corcu Duibne. A 

substantial proportion of the field systems that were extant in c.1829-42 incorporated 

elements that predate the widespread use of modern surveying techniques in the area. 

While we cannot say for certain that these are medieval or earlier, in some cases a close 

association with medieval settlements and (in surveyed areas) the use of markedly 

different construction techniques supports this possibility. The HLC was completed a 

short time before the submission of this report. Its implications will be considered in 

detail in the final publication of the Corcu Duibne study (see Section 4.1.4). 

It is important to stress that HLC is not a definitive statement on landscape history, but a 

relatively cursory assessment that can be useful for mapping broad patterns over relatively large 

areas. Obviously, it should not be seen as a substitute for field systems survey, but can be used to 

help identify areas where such survey may be particularly fruitful. Such field work in turn makes 

it possible to assess the validity of the assumptions underlying the HLC, thereby enhancing it. By 

comparison to some other countries, there is still a lot of uncertainty about the chronology and 

phases of development of field systems in Ireland. HLC will not resolve these issues on its own, 

but it can make a contribution to doing so if used judiciously and in combination with survey and 

excavation. 

HLCs are invariably designed to fulfil particular functions, and must be adapted if they are to be 

used for other purposes later on. In this case the HLC was designed specifically to research the 

medieval landscape. In order to use it for landscape conservation and management purposes, for 

example, some additional work would be necessary. In particular, one would have to overlay later 

editions of the 6‖ OS maps in order to map changes to field systems since the 1830s. Our 

113



orthophotography indicates that in some areas of Corcu Duibne these changes have been radical. 

In a comprehensive HLC designed for landscape management purposes it is essential to 

distinguish between areas characterised largely by modern fields since the inception of detailed 

OS mapping and areas that incorporated some pre-modern fields at the inception of detailed 

mapping even if these fields have since been removed. This is because accounting for landscape 

change is a core concern of HLC. For this reason, the basic HLC unit, the Historic Character 

Type, is an area that seems to be characterised by a uniform landscape history (see above 3.1.2). 

Thus, the polygons we have drawn around areas with some pre-modern field boundaries would 

remain valid if the HLC was to be adapted for landscape management purposes, even though their 

‗current historic character‘ would have to be altered if an assessment of later maps found that 

these fields have since been removed. It would also be necessary, however, to add some polygons 

to our HLC take account of the fact that we did not distinguish systematically between 

difference phases and types of modern fields as should be done in a HLC produced for 

the purposes of analysing landscape change to the present day (above). 

The Historic Character Types devised for this project again reflect our particular research aims in 

that most of them express the percentage of pre-modern survival. These are not necessarily 

categories one would choose for a HLC focused on landscape management, but they can quite 

easily be changed using GIS. Additional categories would have to be devised to distinguish 

between different kinds of modern landuse (ladder farms, rundale enclosures etc.). Some such 

categories are listed in Appendix B of the recently published Irish HLC guidelines (Lambrick 

2010), though as noted above (Section 3.1.2) it would be important to write detailed descriptions 

justifying them, as we have done for our Historic Character Types. At least this substantial list of 

HCTs implies a detailed HLC based on the definition of small areas with distinct landscape 

histories. As discussed above (Section 3.1.2), there is a danger that, in its current form, this 

guidelines document will be taken by some practitioners as an endorsement of much less 

systematic quasi-HLCs based on whole townlands or even larger units such as parishes. Calling 

such assessments HLCs may jeopardise, rather than protect, some of the more vulnerable facets 

of the historic landscape. As this report illustrates, however, more detailed HLCs need not be too 

expensive to produce and are potentially of great benefit to a wide range of constituencies, 

including researchers, planners and local communities with an interest in the history of the 

landscapes they inhabit (see for example Herring 2007, 25). 

114



Chapter 5 

Case Studies 

115



This chapter comprises accounts of the various MCL case studies (except for Rosscarbery, Co. 

Cork and some of the Galway case studies). Each section outlines the reason for selecting the 

area in question, the nature of the evidence and the patterns that have emerged from the 

research. These accounts are relatively short overviews rather than definitive analyses, for in 

most cases research is ongoing and will be published before long in various monographs as 

outlined above (Section 1.5.2). 

5.1 Corcu Duibne, Co. Kerry 

The whole of the regional kingdom of Corcu Duibne, encompassing the Iveragh and much of 

the Corkaguiney peninsulas, was studied by the Making Christian Landscapes team. This 

discussion focuses primarily on Uí Rathach, the western part of the Iveragh peninsula, which 

was the western of two parts of the local kingdom of Áes Irruis Deiscert (‗the people of the 

southern peninsula‘), one of the three principal sub-divisions of Corcu Duibne (MacCotter 

2008, 118; 2009, 51). This is an economically marginal, mountainous landscape with extensive 

bog cover in the lowlands. Viking Age and later documents suggest that the local kings were 

based around Valentia Harbour, and it is possible that the large (and partially excavated) cashel 

of Cahergal was one of their residences. 

In many of Ireland‘s landscapes, the very earliest stratum of Christianity is elusive, but here it 

is represented by ogham stones, as well as by the minor ecclesiastical site of Caherlehillan, 

located in a remote mountain valley in the northeast of Uí Rathach. This site was established on 

virgin ground in the later fifth or early sixth century, making it the earliest church site 

excavated in Ireland to date (Sheehan 2009b). It consisted of a curvilinear enclosure about 30m 

in diameter within which was a domestic zone in the western half (represented by curvilinear 

wattle houses, evidence for craft activity and food storage and several sherds of B-ware from 

the east Mediterranean), and a post-and-wattle church, cemetery, outdoor shrine and cross-slabs 

in the eastern half. This arrangement is typical of the vast majority of early ecclesiastical sites 

in Uí Rathach, and Caherlehillan and shows that the template was already clear in the minds of 

the first or second generation of Christians there. The earliest ogham stones found at some sites 

possibly indicate that they originated as ‗undeveloped‘ burial grounds. We can be confident, 

116



however, that other closely-dateable monuments such as cross-slabs and stone shrines were 

erected in fully-developed ecclesiastical settlements, and can therefore conclude that the vast 

majority of such sites were established between c.500 and 800 (Ó Carragáin 2009, 330-31). 

Especially from the eighth century onwards, their sod or wattle churches and domestic 

buildings were replaced by buildings of drystone construction that often survive. Doubtless 

some sites were short-lived, but all of the examples excavated to date were operating during the 

eighth century, which may represent a high point in the density of churches in the landscape. 

As well as some sites of probably local importance (below), there were two regionally 

important establishments: Inis Úasal and Skellig Michael. Inis Úasal (‗noble island‘) is an 

island on Lough Currane at the south of Uí Rathach. This was the principal foundation of St 

Fíonán Cam, whose floruit was probably in the approximate period 560-640. According to his 

genealogy, he was related to the local Áes Irruis Deiscirt kings, and by c.800 he had been 

recognised as the chief saint of the whole of Corcu Duibne (MacCotter 2009, 75-76). The core 

estate of Inis Úasal, encompassing most of the land around the lake, can be reconstructed, at 

least approximately, through a combination of documentary, toponymic and archaeological 

evidence (Ó Carragáin 2003a, 134-41; now revised in MacCotter 2009, 151-57). In places it is 

delimited by boundary cross-slabs that may well be eighth century. There are hints that it was 

originally a royal estate, the rump of which survived at the southwest of the lake at Ightercua. 

To the northwest, the estate of Glanhurkin also seems to have belonged to Inis Úasal, though it 

may not have been acquired until the Viking Age. Between the two was the estate of Skellig 

Michael, preserved as the parish of the Augustinian house of Ballinskelligs, which was 

probably built on the site of Skellig Michael‘s mainland base (Ó Carragáin 2003a, 141-42; 

MacCotter 2009, 85-89, 157-58). 

117



Fig. 5.1: The three tríchas or sub-kingdoms of Corcu Duibne: Áes Irruis Tuascirt, 

Áes Coinchinn, and Áes Irruis Deiscirt. 

118



Fig. 5.2: Early Medieval sites in northwest Iveragh. 

119



Fig. 5.3: Early medieval sites in southwest Iveragh. 

120



Fig. 5.4: The suggested extent of the Inis Úasal ecclesiastical estate. 

Fig. 5.5: Cross-slab on the boundary between Termons and Spunkane townlands. 

121



Thus, by 800 a significant portion of the land in Uí Ráthach was owned by its mother churches. 

Some of the minor churches on these estates may pre-date their formation, but the majority 

may have been founded as out-farms. There are four or five examples quite evenly distributed 

within the core Inis Úasal estate (Ó Carragáin 2003a, 134-41; Ó Carragáin 2008, 259-264, 272- 

76; 2009, 263-269). Perhaps some were run by ecclesiastical families headed by married priests 

while others were run directly by members of the Inis Úasal monastic community. They all 

seem to incorporate burial grounds, suggesting that, even within ecclesiastical estates, a 

significant proportion of the population was buried away from important churches in the pre- 

Viking period. The even distribution of these sites suggests that the agricultural economy of the 

estate was carefully managed, and the surviving elements of the medieval field system have 

been identified through survey and HLC. There is a particular concentration of possible 

medieval fields around Dromkeare, which may have been the most important of the four outfarms. 

Certainly it seems to have had a special role within the estate. It is located on the banks 

of the Cummeragh, the main river flowing into Lough Currane, and just outside its enclosure 

are the remains of a probable early medieval mill-race and horizontal mill. Probably this was 

where the crops produced on the estate of Inis Úasal were processed. The many ringforts and 

other ‗secular‘ settlements on the estate must represent the dwellings of the more affluent laytenants 

of Inis Úasal, the individuals referred to in the early sources as manaig. The law tracts 

make clear that the status of these individuals could vary considerably (Etchingham 1999, 

Chapter 9), so it is not surprising to find evidence that some of them lived in ringforts. 

The density of minor church sites is almost as great in the non-ecclesiastical estates of Uí 

Ráthach, demonstrating the crucial role of minor secular landowners in the Christianisation of 

the landscape. In a few cases, the name of the family is possibly preserved in the townland 

name (Cill Ó Luaigh, Cill Ó an Chathaigh, Cill Ó gCnáimhín and Cill Ó gCróin) (Ó Cíobháin 

2009, 93); if so, it is telling that these are very obscure kin-groups that seem to have sunk into 

obscurity at an early period. At Caherlehillan the church site is just next to an impressive 

cashel, which may be the residence (or the Viking Age successor of the residence) of the family 

that founded the site. This proximity, coupled with the fact that children were buried at the 

church site (no bones survived), hint that the church may have been run by an ecclesiastical 

branch of this family (Sheehan 2009b). By contrast, only males were buried in the early 

122



medieval cemetery on Illaunloughan, suggesting that this was a minor island monastery (White 

Marshall and Walsh 2005, 84). Another island establishment, Inisdaslevoc (more commonly 

known as Church Island), with its tiny sod-built church and single round house, may also have 

begun as an eremitical establishment. It must have had close links to the local kings from the 

outset, however, since it was at the heart of the Ballycarbery royal estate. In contrast to 

Illaunloughan, women were buried there as well as men. In the eighth and ninth centuries, 

perhaps in part as an expression of their relative independence, several of these minor sites 

outside the Inis Úasal estate invested in stone reliquary shrines for the bones of their founders. 

Tellingly, no such shrines are to be found at minor church sites on ecclesiastical land (Ó 

Carragáin 2003a). 

Non-ecclesiastical burial must also have been common, for most ecclesiastical cemeteries seem 

to have been for a single family or small group of religious. While no cemetery settlements 

have been identified in the area, some of the burial grounds in ringforts may have originated as 

family cemeteries in the early medieval period (though most probably originated later on as 

burial grounds for unbaptised children). There is also a modest number of cairns, mounds and 

barrows, some of which might be early medieval, but none has been excavated. Only a 

minority are on estate or townland boundaries. The best example of this is the large cairn with 

cross-inscribed ogham stone on the summit of Drung Hill, which marks the northeastern border 

of Uí Rathach. This was the óenach or assembly site of the local kingdom, and probably for the 

whole of Corcu Duibne; Drung derives from the same root that gives us ‗throng‘ in English 

(MacCotter 2009, 62). Uí Ráthach is an area rich in ogham stones, but an unusually high 

proportion of them occur at ecclesiastical sites (62% versus 37% of those in Ireland as a 

whole). Those in non-ecclesiastical contexts were probably boundary or burial markers or both. 

The western boundary of the Ballycarbery royal estate is marked by a number of monuments, 

including prehistoric standing stones, a church site and an isolated ogham stone with an 

incomplete inscription that reads ANM CALUMANN MAQ[…] (The Soul of Columann Son 

of…). The formula used indicates that it is a relatively late example, probably seventh century, 

commemorating a Christian. Calumann is a variant of Colmán, a name which occurs only once 

in the Corcu Duibne genealogies in a late seventh century context. We do not know if he was a 

king of Corcu Duibne, but this is made less likely by the fact that, if he had any descendents, 

123



they are not recorded. Nevertheless, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the 

Canburrin stone was erected to commemorate this figure, on the boundary of the royal estate 

(Ó Carragáin et al. 2009, 256-57). In nearby Cloghanecarhan is an ecclesiastical site with a late 

sixth- / early seventh-century ogham stone commemorating the descendent of Carthan (MAQI 

MAQI CARATTINN). Carthan may have been the founder of the ecclesiastical site, but in the 

absence of a cross on the ogham stone and an ecclesiastical toponym in the townland name we 

cannot rule out the possibility that he was someone commemorated in a non-ecclesiastical 

cemetery which later became an ecclesiastical site. 

The most striking pattern evident in Viking Age Uí Rathach is the abandonment of a significant 

number of minor ecclesiastical sites. Caherlehillan seems to have been abandoned in the eighth 

century while on Illaunloughan permanent occupation ceased in the ninth century (Sheehan 

2009b; White Marshall and Walsh 2005, 37). The absence of Viking Age features – such as 

cross-slabs and rectilinear domestic buildings – at many of the unexcavated minor sites is also 

suggestive, considering the unusually conspicuous archaeology of the area. By analogy with 

other areas, it seems likely that many non-ecclesiastical cemeteries also ceased to function at 

this time. In contrast, the regionally important establishments of Skellig Michael and especially 

Inis Úasal consolidated their positions during this time. Inis Úasal, for example, features a 

number of monumental tenth- to eleventh-century cross-slabs and in the twelfth century it 

acquired one of only two Romanesque churches in the area. Both sites retained a monastic 

component; for example one of the slabs on Inis Úasal commemorates a man who is described 

as an anchorite (AI 1058). We do not know the fate of the minor church sites within its estate at 

this time; perhaps some of them continued as settlements but lost their ecclesiastical/burial 

functions. 

Elsewhere in Uí Rathach a number of locally important church sites continued in use and must 

have benefitted from the additional patronage and burial revenues that accrued as a result of the 

decline of nearby sites. Interestingly, a number of these sites, such as Killinane and Killemlagh, 

are alluded to in the twelfth-century Life of Fionán, even though they are outside the core Inis 

Úasal estate (Mac Cotter 2009, 76). Either their continued success was facilitated by longstanding 

associations with Inis Úasal, or else such associations were fabricated ex post facto. 

124



During the Viking Age, such locally important may have acquired relatively large drystone 

churches or even larger churches of wood, but archaeologically speaking they are victims of 

their own success: they usually went on to become parish centres and their churches were 

replaced in the twelfth century (as at Killemlagh) or more usually later. Even their curvilinear 

enclosures were usually obliterated as their graveyards expanded. There are a few exceptions, 

however. One is Church Island, which in the seventh century had a tiny sod-built church and 

may have been eremitical in character. This was superseded by an unusually large drystone 

church with sculpted finial, as a result of recent re-excavation, we know was built in the tenth 

or eleventh century (Hayden 2008). Despite its island location, it was quite accessible and may 

have had a pastoral role before the formal establishment of parishes. Certainly its church was 

built to accommodate far more than could have lived on the island (thirty or more). Also, while 

a very modest number of burials was associated with the earlier church, the rate of burial seems 

to have risen exponentially thereafter. The prestige of the site in this regard must have been 

bound up with its status as a royal chapel at the heart of the principal estate of the kings of Áes 

Irruis Deiscirt who, especially from the mid-tenth century, emerge as the kings of the whole of 

Corcu Duibne (MacCotter 2008, 135). Doubtless these kings were involved in commissioning 

the fine new drystone church, which among other things may have served as a royal chapel. 

125



5.2 Fir Maige, Co. Cork (Paul Mac Cotter with a contribution by Tomás Ó 

Carragáin) 

This study focusses on a part of Munster for which an unparalleled range of historical source 

material survives which allows us to gain unique insights into the secular and ecclesiastical 

structures and arrangements of an Irish territory over a period of several centuries. The 

immediate diachronic range involved, approximately the period 1000 to 1250, spans arguably 

the greatest fault line of all in Irish history, that of the Anglo-Norman invasion. This study thus 

offers special insights into the functioning of the fundamental secular administrative and 

ecclesiastical pastoral units of a typical Irish territory both before and after the Anglo-Norman 

invasion. It is also possible, however, to attempt a full historical survey of the origins of the 

secular and ecclesiastical estates concerned. The ‗star‘ of this particular show is a 

topographical tract, Críchad an Chaoilli, discussed below. The ‗support cast‘ of materials 

which enable us to elucidate fully the treasures of this document form principle two categories, 

hagiography and genealogy. An additional member of this ‗support cast‘ is the extensive 

material from the early Anglo-Norman period, study of which facilitates a suitable dénouement 

for the work in hand. 

Críchad an Chaoilli is a topographical tract dealing with the kingdom of Caoille or Fir Maige, 

whose extent is now represented by the area of much of the baronies of Fermoy and of 

Condons and Clangibbon, in Co. Cork, as well as by small neighbouring portions of Counties 

Limerick and Waterford (O‘Keeffe 1931). Críchad is based on an original which can be dated 

to the period 1138 × 1151, while containing earlier material (MacCotter 2010, 265). Críchad 

forms part of a small corpus of such material, but differs from its fellows in being significantly 

more detailed and in containing material not found in the others. (These concern lands in west 

Cork, Mayo and Galway). Críchad lists bailte (the original baile was the Gaelic estate), their 

sub-denominations, and their allodial proprietorial families. Bailte are in turn grouped into 

túatha. The ruling families of each túath are also named. Uniquely, however, Críchad also 

names the dedicated church of each túath where its burials must occur, and names the 

hereditary ecclesiastical families of these churches. Furthermore, in the nomenclature of its 

túatha, their families, and the comments of its author Críchad provides material of value in the 

task of reconstructing the earlier history of its túatha. As such this document is unique in that it 

126



gives a high degree of social, communal and ecclesiastical information about an Irish localkingdom 

during the first half of the 12 th century, information which is not available in any 

other source or for any other district. While the few other similar documents concentrate on the 

secular túatha arrangements Críchad adds a unique layer of ecclesiastical information as well 

as secular historical narrative data of a more substantial nature than found in these others. 

Again, the sheer density of its toponymy is remarkable in comparison to its fellows. 

Críchad presents a number of possibilities for the historian and archaeologist. Its density of 

placenames is such as to provide an opportunity to reconstruct approximately accurate maps of 

its túatha. Of the 180 or so place-names recorded in Críchad approximately two-thirds can be 

definitely identified and another dozen and a half tentatively identified. These identifications 

are based on the work of Power (1932), Ó Buachalla (1966) and MacCotter (2008, 266-9), 

where they are summarized. 

This mapping in turn allows the question of the spatial relationship between these túatha and 

the subsequent pattern of Anglo-Norman manors in the cantred of Fermoy to be examined. 

(Fermoy was the direct spatial successor to the Gaelic kingdom of Fir Maige.) It is perhaps 

surprising that no study of this spatial relationship has been attempted so far for Fermoy with 

its uniquely detailed toponomy. Before such a comparison can be made, however, it is 

necessary to first reconstruct the manorial structure of Fermoy. Once again we are extremely 

fortunate in that the eclectic nature of source-material survival has been kind to Fermoy, and an 

untypically substantial body of evidence remains for its manors and fees, dating to the period 

down to c.1370. Once the manors are mapped (using a methodology described below), it is 

then possible to carry out such a comparison. This comparison contributes to the question of 

the principles involved in Anglo-Norman manor creation in Ireland, although a full treatment 

of this subject is for another forum. From our perspective the correlation between Angl- 

Norman manors and the earlier túatha as indicated by placenames in the Críchad is especially 

important. The conclusion to be drawn from this study is that, by and large, in Fermoy Anglo- 

Norman manors appear to have been formed by using the templates of individual bailte or of 

several bailte together. Thus several manors will be found in the area of a single túath. 

127



Something must be said here of the methodology of estate reconstruction. The core dynamic of 

this discipline arises from a simple principle, namely that when the Anglo-Norman colonists 

arrived in Ireland in the late twelfth century they adopted, with little change, a pre-existing 

indigenous administrative system with ancient roots, and duly preserved significant elements 

and spatial or areal outlines of that system for a considerable period afterwards (MacCotter 

2008 passim). Therefore, access to this ‗High-Gaelic‘ spatial system occurs via a 

reconstruction of the system in operation in the ‗High-Norman‘ period. This can be done in 

two stages, directly by access to the surviving records from the Anglo-Norman period, and less 

directly by reference to the greater volume of records from later periods which can be shown to 

preserve faithfully the spatial outlines of divisions whose roots can be traced back to the Anglo- 

Norman period. In the course of this work Paul Mac Cotter has shown how the various 

categories of spatial divisions inter-relate and inform each other. In particular, he has 

discovered principles with a wide and sometimes even general application from the study of 

particular regions where significant quantities of source material remains, for such evidential 

survivals are local and eclectic. In this way a hierarchy of spatial divisions has come to be 

recognized, classified and reconstructed. Units studied include the Gaelic units of trícha cét, 

túath and baile biataig, the colonial units of vills, villates, manors and cantreds, and the 

ecclesiastical units of parish, rural deanery and rural rectory. 

The basic economic and fiscal ‗estate‘ of pre-Invasion Gaelic Ireland was the baile (biataig), 

which has been described as ‗the taxable unit of landholding, the economically independent 

estate of twelfth-century Ireland, the fundamental property unit of the lineage group, the 

mechanism by which property was allocated among the families of the sept‘ (MacCotter 2008, 

23). These estates were then grouped into larger units, which are best called late-túatha (to 

distinguish them from other concepts of the term ‗túath‘). The late-túath was ruled by a taísech 

tuaithe or ‗túath leader‘, often the hereditary leader of an aristocratic cenél, although sometimes 

merely a maer or steward appointed by the local king. This office holder seems to have born 

functions such as tax or tribute collection and leadership of the local military levy. Where such 

units have been reconstructed anterior to the present study we find a size range for bailte in the 

region of 700 to 7,000 acres and for late-túatha between 9,000 to upwards of 90,000 acres. In 

each the average size tends to the lower end of the scale: thus, for bailte an average size of a 

128



little above 2,000 acres can be suggested. Here we can speak of the baile as the estate and the 

late-túath as the district (for want of a better term). Government, in medieval as well as 

modern times, has always discharged its functions by means of a hierarchy of spatial units at 

the bottom of which we find divisions such as the 19 th century district electoral division and 

poor-law union and the earlier (civil) parish which, in both Late Medieval and Early Modern 

times, has possessed civic as well as ecclesiastical functions, usually shared with the manor and 

its court leet. In Ireland such ‗district‘ administrative units were the heirs to the earlier latetúath. 

Baile and late-túath are well-evidenced in records of 11 th and 12 th century Ireland. The 

baile seems to originate during the first years of the 11 th century through some form of reorganization 

of an older estate system while evidence for the late-túath is (as shown in the 

present study), earlier by several centuries. Finally, we should note the existence of a third 

spatial unit of pre-Invasion Ireland in the category of estates and districts: the ecclesiastical 

estate, the landed property of an important church. Such estates seem to be broadly similar in 

size to their neighbouring late-túatha. 

The key to a methodology of reconstruction for such estates and districts lies in understanding 

the relationships between the various spatial units of both pre- and post-Invasion Ireland. We 

know several useful things about these. In the rich agricultural lands of eastern Ireland the 

indigenous baile often becomes the small colonial parish. Larger parishes are often based on 

single late-túatha or on divisions of these, usually halved but sometimes further sub-divided. 

In many cases, of course, the parish is merely the ecclesiastical equivalent of the secular manor, 

and so we should often think in terms of ‗parish/manor‘, although here, as throughout 

consideration of this complex subject, such a concordance is merely one of a number of 

variants one observes. One such variant concerns rectories. Where the boundaries of these 

agree with those of parishes nothing further need be said, but where rectory and vicarage do not 

coincide the bounds of the rectory are a much better guide to otherwise hidden secular 

boundaries than are those of the vicarage. This is because during the first years of the Anglo- 

Norman colony lords actually owned the ecclesiastical benifices (tithes and rights of 

advowson) of their property, and so the rectory will be the spatial equivalent of the actual estate 

or manor. In this way, for example, we sometimes find a single parish composed of two or 

more rectories, and here we must look for several secular estates even though there is only one 

129



parish and vicarage. Sometimes such boundaries will preserve the memory of manors while in 

other cases we find rectories preserving the extent of bailte. Again, this reminds us that where 

such differences exist the parochial (or vicarial) boundaries may have been drawn primarily 

with pastoral concerns in mind and bear little relationship to any secular landholding pattern. 

Yet another useful indicator is that of the early-modern unit of productivity assessment, the 

ubiquitous quarter or ceathramh. These were certainly the descendants of the quarters of the 

13 th and 14 th centuries, in turn actual quarters of the unit known to the colonists as the villate, 

the direct descendant of the baile (biataig). While some corruption and alteration in 

mensuration practices had occurred in the interim there is certainly a direct relationship 

between the quarters of both periods and their original whole, the baile estate. Finally, for 

ecclesiastical estates we have the Late Medieval pattern of prebends and rectories in possession 

of major capitular dignitaries and canons which, in almost all cases, preserve the outline of 

diocesan estates which were, in turn, the descendants of the earlier, pre-diocesan ecclesiastical 

estates spoken of above. 

Another question which Críchad, with its wealth of detail, assists with is that of the origin and 

development of the Gaelic túath (or better, late-túath), a subject hitherto largely unexplored. 

This question is closely related to that of the origin of the ecclesiastical estate in Fir Maige. A 

further value of Críchad lies in its usefulness for throwing light on the question of parish 

formation, given the pre- or better, proto-parochial structure it reveals in Fir Maige, and the 

comparing of this structure with the subsequent parish structure which emerges during the 

Norman settlement. Clearly this aspect of the study has value for the ongoing study of the 

questions of parish formation and pastoral development in Ireland. This examination of 

Críchad has been undertaken as part of the Making Christian Landscapes project. This project 

had already seen detailed work on the early ecclesiastical and secular aspects of several special 

study areas. A guiding principle of this project has been that the ecclesiastical cannot be studied 

in isolation from the secular as both systems were deeply intertwined and interrelated, and 

aspects of each has direct implications for the other. Our research attempts to describe the 

entire structure of the early Irish Church in each study area while at the same time reconstruct 

the surrounding secular society in which this Church is embedded, and observe the many ways 

in which both Church and Society interrelate. 

130



Críchad allows us to examine this process in the kind of detail not possible elsewhere. The 

most striking point which emerges as this work has progressed is the similarities and 

interrelationships between the secular túath estates and the ecclesiastical tearmonn estates in Fir 

Maige. The secular history of both kingship and túath structure in Fir Maige can be 

reconstructed from the annals, Críchad, genealogies and other sources, enabling a diachronic 

account of both kingdom and its sub-divisions to be given over a six-century period. This can 

then be related to a similar descent of the three major ecclesiastical estates within the territory. 

Remarkably and untypically, detailed hagiography exists for each of these, thus allowing a 

similar reconstruction to take place in this sphere. It is therefore possible to reconstruct an 

approximate landholding and estate-development account for both secular and ecclesiastical 

landholdings here down to the 13 th century, with a corresponding insight into how both relate to 

each other, and in turn draw comparisons with the lesser amount known from the other study 

areas. 

Turning exclusively to matters of Church, a number of studies are possible with Críchad, 

noting especially the high density of toponyms, where many ecclesiastical toponyms occur in 

purely secular contexts. When the ecclesiastical detail in Críchad is compared to Paul 

MacCotter‘s detailed reconstruction of the Anglo-Norman ecclesiastical system in Fermoy and 

also to the archaeological record, the following comparisons can be made. 

1. Pre-Invasion origins of Anglo-Norman parish churches, monastic foundations and chapels 

of ease (if any). 

2. Comparison of the proto-parish structure as found in Críchad and the subsequent parish 

structure here. 

3. The relationship of ecclesiastical toponyms with the results of 1 and 2 above. 

131



4. Full classification of all ecclesiastical sites in Fir Maige (status, toponymy, archaeology, 

occurrence in Críchad, churches and church sites, evidence of burial usage only, evidence of 

early origin, evidence of dedications, etc.) 

These comparisons or surveys enable a detailed picture of the Early Church in Fir Maige to 

emerge. We gain some idea of the number of major and minor church establishments in 

existence, as well as something of the nature of pastoral care here. Certain principles emerge 

from this research. For example, of the 14 proto-parish churches indicated in Críchad eleven 

subsequently became colonial parish churches. This suggests that most túath-churches retained 

parochial status under the Anglo-Normans. This principle can tentatively be applied to other 

areas such as Corcu Duibne. Many of the Anglo-Norman parish churches in Corcu Duibne do 

not demonstrate archaeological evidence of pre-Norman age and this is usually attributed to 

removal of any older structure at the time these new and much larger churches were being built. 

Another figure from Fermoy may be considered. In the cantred there were a total of 45 parish, 

rectory and chapel of ease churches datable to the colonial period. Of these at least 23 can be 

shown to have had pre-Invasion origins, while another 16 were located in non-ecclesiastical 

toponyms occurring in Críchad. This suggests that the majority of colonial churches were built 

on sites earlier occupied by pre-Invasion churches. The relevance of the emergence of such 

principles has clear application in other study areas. Therefore a region like Fermoy, from 

where documentary evidence is plentiful just as archaeological evidence is scarce, can be used 

to shed light on a region like west Kerry, where the opposite is the case. The same may be said 

in reverse in the case of archaeological evidence. 

132



Fig. 5.6 The Anglo-Norman manors of Fir Maige. By and large, these appear to have been 

formed by using the templates of individual bailte or of several bailte together. Thus 

several manors will be found in the area of a single túath. 

133



Fig. 5.7 Ecclesiastical sites (top) and other early medieval settlement archaeology (bottom) 

in the Fir Maige study area. 

134



Fig. 5.8 Brí Gobann, on the outskirts of the town of Fermoy, was one of the most 

important churches in Fir Maige and controlled a large ecclesiastical estate. The medieval 

parish church incorporates part of a pre-Romanesque church with antae. 

Fig. 5.9 Two of the local kingdoms of Fir Maige, Co. Cork (Uí Chuscraid and Uí 

Chuscraid Sléibe). Shaded grey are the ecclesiastical lands of the two principal 

foundations of St Molaga (Tulach Mín Molaga and Áth Cros Molaga – represented by 

grey lozenges). Various minor churches and settlements are also visible. 

135



Fig. 5.10 Labbamolaga (Tulach Mín) from the air showing the early ecclesiastical 

enclosure surrounding the site. 

Fig. 5.11 The pre-Romanesque shrine-chapel at Labbamolaga (Tulach Mín). 

136



The rest of this section comprises an example of ecclesiastical estate reconstruction in Fir 

Maige. The ecclesiastical tearmonn of Saint Molaga was the second tearmann in the eastern 

moiety of Fir Maige. It had two major churches: Aghacross and Labbamolaga, the latter the 

church known as Eidhnén Molaga in Críchad. Críchad names the church of Eidhnén ‗with its 

tearmonn‘ as the church of Uí Chuscraid Sléibe, and Áth Cros that of the neighbouring túath of 

Uí Chuscraid. It names the ecclesiastical families of Áth Cros as Uí Chorcráin, Uí Chennsáin, 

Uí Óengusa, Uí Muircheartaig and Uí Duibhedaig, and those of Eidhnén as Mag Fhloinn and 

Ui Chuscráin (O‘Keeffe 1928, 174-5). Uí Óengusa were also associated with the church of 

Kilworth. 

Molaga (Mo Laca) is another saint to be commemorated in a written life (O‘Keeffe 1931). 

Betha Molaga has been dated to the period 1114 × 1119 by Herbert (2004, 136-7) and is clearly 

a work emanating from the church of Tulach Mín, one of two chief churches associated with 

the saint in the life. The location of this church has rather strangely confused previous 

commentators; there can be little doubt but that O‘Hanlon and Ó Riain (1977, 140) are correct 

in identifying Tulach Mín with the church of Templemolaga in Labbamolaga, the traditional 

burial place or ‗bed‘ of the saint. An early 13 th century reference confirms this identification 

(below). The second church associated with the saint in the life is Áth Cros, and both churches 

are also associated with the saint in the 12 th century revision of Cath Almaine (Ó Riain 1978, 

184-6). An annal of 1164 records the slaying of the comarba (‗successor‘: important church 

head) of Molaga, but his church is not mentioned. 

These references suggest a chronology, for the life makes no mention of any division of the 

saint‘s tearmonn, which is treated as a single unit, and there is even a statement of its 

boundaries. Unfortunately most of the places mentioned in this cannot be identified. The 

situation reflected in Críchad, where the estate has apparently been divided into two divisions 

around both churches, each in neighbouring túatha, is also the situation found to prevail in the 

colonial period. Given that the earlier monastic estates seem to have descended intact into the 

cross-lands of the later dioceses, it is interesting to note that the tearmonn-lands of Molaga 

formed two distinct but adjoining episcopal estates, the manor of Aghacross and the knight‘s 

fee of Neynan Molag (from An Eidhnén). The area of these corresponds to the conjoined civil 

137



parishes of Aghacross and Templemolaga. One axis of the estate as given in the life (O‘Keeffe 

1931, 17) shows the tearmonn bounded by Darach Mochua (Darragh, Co. Limerick) and the 

Uinnsinn (the river Funcheon). These are precisely the boundaries of the manor of Aghacross 

on a north to south axis, and show beyond doubt that the tearmonn as illustrated in the life 

comprises the area of both later ecclesiastical fees here, just as the life treats the tearmonn as a 

single unit. It is also remarkable that the toponymy matches these developments. Both the life 

and Cath Almaine speak of the church of Tulach Mín while Críchad and the colonial records 

speak of the same church as Eidhnén Molaga. Elsewhere a date of 1138 × 1151 has been 

suggested for Críchad‘s composition (MacCotter 2008), and, given Herbert‘s dates for Betha 

Molaga, it seems likely that Molaga‘s tearmonn was divided sometime between 1119 and 1151, 

an event which must relate to the contemporary division of the single túath of Uí Chuscraid 

into two new túatha. 

What of the earlier history of these lands? The betha of Molaga is an accomplished literary 

compilation whose concern with matters dating to the time of its composition is transparent. 

However, it also contains material of some antiquity. Its content may be summarised as 

follows. The name Mo Laca is an hypochoristic (a ‗pet‘ or affectionate form) version of the 

saint‘s full name, Láichín. His genealogy derives him from Uí Chuscraid of Fir Maige and his 

place of birth is given as Liathmhuine (in Uí Chuscraid). The narrative then moves on to the 

saint in adult life, showing him in possession of his chief church of Áth Cros and already 

associated with Cathal mac Áedha, the king of Munster (+ 628), where the saint is involved in 

naming the king‘s newborn son (and eventual successor), Cú-cen-Mathair (+ 666). Later, 

Molaga cures Cú-cen- Mathair from what seems to be a depression, and is rewarded by having 

his lands freed from imposition and granted other benefits. A number of witnesses to this act 

are recorded, historical characters whose obituaries occur during the period 641-686, while a 

number of other historical characters are brought into contact with the saint, with an obituary 

range of 628-663. Then Áth Cros is destroyed by druids through the neglect of the local king, 

Cuanu mac Cailchín (+ 646). Molaga departs Fir Maige in high dudgeon and engages in an 

ecclesiastical career which sees him visiting Ulster, Connacht, Scotland and Wales during 

which he performs many miracles, even to raising people from the dead. In Dublin he cures its 

king and is rewarded with a grant of the baile of Lann Bechaire (near Balbriggan) and in Wales 

138



he visits Saint David. Eventually, the people of Fir Maige send delegations to the saint, now 

resident in the monastery of Clonmacnoise, pleading for his return, for the land of Fir Maige 

has been cursed since the saint‘s departure. Various delegations fail until at last the saint 

repents upon a visit by a delegation of women from Fir Maige who bear their breasts in 

supplication to him. Molaga then returns to Fir Maige, and all live happily ever after, as it 

were. 

The betha was, of course, written five hundred years after the saint is said to have lived. Ó 

Riain (1977, passim) dismisses the betha as beyond historical verification and instead points to 

the probable derivation of the saint‘s name, Láichín, from Lug, the chief god of the Celtic 

pantheon. In this context attention is drawn to the prehistoric stone monuments adjacent to the 

church of Templemolaga as an implicit pagan worship site, as well as to the role of Lug as 

ancestor-deity to several adjacent peoples. Additional attention is drawn to the phenomenon of 

cult diffusion, where the memory of an originally singular saint has fractured into that of 

several ostensibly unrelated saints who, upon examination, demonstrate several common 

features. In this instance Molaga is linked with a second Molaga of the Dál Cais whose church 

was at Singland near Limerick. In the present context attention is drawn to various saints 

called Molaga, Lóchéne and Laichtín in Cork, Limerick and Leix, and the association of at 

least one of these with August 1, the feast of the god Lug, Lugnasad. 

What are we to make of all of this? While several of the episodes enumerated in the betha are 

anachronistic and so certainly fictitious, the bulk of them relate to the first half of the seventh 

century, and can be dated by the relevant obituaries to the period 628- 670. The association 

between Molaga and Lann Bechaire in Fingal is found in the early ninth-century martyrologies, 

while dues accrue to Molaga from Ciarraige Cuirche, suggesting some link with the church of 

Lismore, as in the case of Brí Gobann. Clearly, the origins of these linkages lie several 

centuries before the date of the betha‘s composition. The betha makes no mention of the donor 

of the saint‘s tearmonn lands, and shows a marked antipathy to the lineage of the saint, Uí 

Chuscraid, while at the same time heaping praise on that of Eóganacht Glennomnach. On the 

face of it this seems to reflect the political situation at the time of the betha‘s composition, and 

may well reflect the weak situation of Uí Chuscraid at that time. Given that the tearmonn lands 

139



of Molaga appear to lie securely within the earlier territory of Uí Chuscraid, one suspects that 

the original donor was of this lineage. Yet it needs be born in mind that Uí Chuscraid appear to 

have fallen from power in Fir Maige at a period which may perhaps begin as early as the later 

years of the saint‘s floruit as given by the betha‘s chronology. While Ó Riain‘s arguments are 

attractive it is safer, given our present state of knowledge, to accept Molaga as an historical 

figure whose connexion with Lug is merely etymological. 

The history of this tearmonn cannot be viewed in isolation but must relate to its secular context. 

Molaga‘s kin, the Uí Chuscraid lineage of Fir Maige, appear to have replaced an earlier lineage 

here circa 600 only to be themselves replaced by Ui Chongangairm, probably towards the end 

of the seventh century or early in the following. The saga material and annals concerning the 

Uí Chuscraid kings clearly locate their powerbase within the area of the later tuatha of Uí 

Chuscraid as extended in Críchad. Clearly both túatha bearing their name at this time (Uí 

Chuscraid and Uí Chuscraid Sléibe) must represent their original túath: both túatha lie adjacent 

and, significantly, the ecclesiastical estate of the Uí Chuscraid saint, Molaga, was divided 

between both túatha. When this single túath split into two is unclear, but the description of Uí 

Chuscraid Sléibe as fonn timchill offers a clue. All previous commentators have chosen to 

regard this as a technical term giving the meaning of ‗border land‘ but Paul MacCotter has 

shown elsewhere that in fact the reference is to lands in dispute between the tríchas of Fir 

Maige and its northern neighbour, Fonn Timchill, probably as part of a much greater dispute 

between the two kingdoms of Munster, Desmumu and Tuadmumu, nd their Meic Carthaig and 

Uí Briain kings (MacCotter 2008, 269-71; 2004, 50-62). Críchad lists no families in its baile 

list for Uí Chuscraid Sléibe, suggesting that the territory may already have been lost to Fir 

Maige at time of composition of the original. Yet this is far from certain: that the Anglo- 

Norman lords of both Fermoy and Natherlach (in Fontymkyll) divided up the area of this túath 

evenly between them indicates that the Uí Caím lords of Fir Maige must still have exercised 

some overlordship of at least part of this disputed territory down to the Invasion. It may well 

be that the túath was divided between the Uí Chaím kingdom of Fir Maige and the Uí Briainheld 

territory of Aherlow at the time of the invasion, and that the subsequent border between 

both successor colonial lordships reflects this earlier status quo. In all of this it is clear that Uí 

Chuscraid Sléibe must have existed since before any Uí Briain agression began here. The 

140



establishment of a significant Uí Briain presence around Aherlow and Duntryleague is at least 

as old as the 1050s, while the establishment of a significant border here between Desmumu and 

Tuadmumu dates to the years after 1118. The slaying of the Eóganacht Glennamnach king, 

Finguine Ua Finnguine, at the hands of the king of Déisi Muman in 1057 may also offer some 

dating assistance here, for another important polity in An Fonn Timchill were In Déis Becc, 

who, although living in a discrete section from the main Déisi territory, gave several kings to 

the latter. These references suggest that Uí Chuscraid Sléibe may have been created by 

division from Túath Uí Chuscraid as early as the 1050s. As against this the evidence 

concerning the tearmonn lands of Saint Molaga would rather suggest a date during the first half 

of the 12 th century. In summary, we should note the parallels between the secular and 

ecclesiastical sources here, both of which combine to suggest that the secular and ecclesiastical 

estate structure of Fir Maige appears to derive from an earlier situation which can be 

chronologically dated to the first half of the seventh century. 

The importance of Molaga‘s two churches is also indicated by the archaeological record, for 

Labbamolaga is delimited by a large curvilinear enclosure and significant Romanesque and 

pre-Romanesque remains survive there, while the ruined church of Aghacross also incorporates 

Romanesque elements. (Note that these are represented by grey lozenges in Fig. 5.9.) The 

presence at Labbamolaga of a shrine-chapel housing the grave of the saint suggests, perhaps, 

that this was his considered to be his principal establishment, at least at the time this was built. 

The building belongs to a small group of shrine-chapels that seem to be among the earliest 

extant mortared stone buildings in Ireland; it may have been constructed in the ninth century or 

perhaps the tenth (Ó Carragáin 2010, 66-67). The presence of monumental early medieval 

cross-slabs confirms the prestige of Labbamolaga as a place of burial due to the presence there 

of saintly remains. There are no cross-slabs at Aghacross or indeed anywhere else in the Fir 

Maige study area. Perhaps Aghacross grew in importance in the final centuries of the early 

medieval period. This would explain its equal treatment in the early twelfth-century 

hagiography and its fine mid-twelfth-century Romanesque church. It has some advantages over 

Labbamolaga, not least its relatively low-lying and central location on the banks of the 

Funshion, which contrasts with the hilly terrain in which Labbamolaga is situated. The trend 

seems to have continued thereafter, for while the churches at Labbamolaga were left largely as 

141



they were in the twelfth century, the Romanesque church at Aghacross was greatly enlarged in 

the late medieval period. 

As noted above, it appears that there was a single ecclesiastical estate of Aghacross / 

Labbamolaga until around the later eleventh or twelfth century, contained within a single tuath 

of Uí Chuscraid. Apart from Molaga‘s two important establishments, located at opposite ends 

of this long estate, there is no evidence for early church sites within it, though the probable 

minor site of Baunnanooneeny may have been on its eastern boundary. In this regard the estate 

contrasts markedly with that of Inis Úasal in Corcu Duibne with its many minor churches 

(Section 5.1). There are, however, several ‗ecclesiastical‘ ringforts within the estate, most of 

them univallate. There are only two bivallate ringforts in the estate and it may not be 

coincidence that one is the ringfort closest to Labbamolaga, while the other is the one closest to 

Aghacross. These ringforts could represent the principal Uí Chuscraid residences in these 

subdivisions of their kingdom prior to the establishment of the ecclesiastical estate (which 

apparently occurred in the seventh century). They may have remained in use, or otherwise they 

may have been built, when the estate was established, in which case they might express the 

close association between Molaga‘s churches and the local elite within this kingdom. We will 

see further evidence of such ‗twinning‘ of important secular and ecclesiastical sites in the 

Southern Uí Fáeláin case study (Section 5.3). 

The density of church sites outside the ecclesiastical estate is similar to that within it, but the 

sites in question are generally very minor. They are sited in a variety of locations, including 

three – Killaclug (‗the church of the bell‘), Killee and Kilbehenny – on the southern boundary 

of Uí Chuscraid. In most cases there is no early history relating to these sites. One exception is 

Kilmaculla, another boundary church, this time on the western boundary of the kingdom. The 

eponymous saint, Mochuilla, is mentioned in hagiography and genealogy, and his 

establishment must therefore have been of some importance. No church survives, and the site 

did not become a parish centre, but it is surrounded by an oval enclosure 90m x 60m. Unlike 

Molaga‘s establishments, however, Kilmaculla does not appear to have controlled a substantial 

ecclesiastical estate. Bordering Uí Chuscraid to the southwest was the local kingdom of the 

kings of Fir Maige, the Eóganacht Glennomnach, while to the southeast was the estate of the 

142



important church of Brí Gobann, which dwarfed that of Aghacross / Labbamolaga. It will be 

particularly interesting to compare these three territories of varying character, and our analysis 

of the latter two will be enhanced by the fact that a number of early medieval sites within them 

have been excavated. 

143



5.3 Southern Uí Fáeláin, Co. Kildare 

The landscape of the southern portion of the Laigin (Leinster) kingdom of Uí Fáeláin is 

characterised by rich pasture and relatively low rainfall. There are some low hills, especially at 

the south, and it is drained by the River Liffey wending its way west and then northeast 

towards Dublin. During the seventh century the Uí Dúnlainge established themselves as 

overkings of the Laigen, supplanting the Dál Messin Corb. In the eighth century their regional 

kingdom of Mag Liphi (corresponding roughly to modern-day County Kildare) fragmented into 

three, including the kingdom that by the tenth century was named for a segment of the Uí 

Dúnlainge: the Uí Fáeláin. Before the tenth century Uí Fáeláin was itself an over-kingdom 

containing within its bounds several subservient kingdoms which were subsequently demoted 

to the status of districts or were absorbed entirely. Paul MacCotter (2008, 323-360) has 

reconstructed the likely extents of these subdivisions as they were in the twelfth century. Given 

the political transformations of earlier centuries, we must be cautious in our use of this 

territorial framework. Nonetheless, at least some of the borders seem to have their origins in the 

pre-Viking period (if not before), even if ownership of the estates changed over time. Our case 

study incorporates the southernmost three subdivisions of the kingdom of Uí Fáeláin and, at the 

west, the ecclesiastical and royal estate of Kilcullen, which was in the adjoining Laigen over 

kingdom of Uí Muiredaig. The diverse character of these four estates makes this a particularly 

interesting case study. 

Though some, like Kilcullen, are on higher ground, ecclesiastical sites in the area exhibit a 

strong bias in favour of riverside locations, occurring at 1-3km intervals along the banks of the 

river Liffey. No evidence was found to support the theory that ecclesiastical sites tend to be 

located on borders. While Killashee is near the border of its estate, most of the important sites, 

such as Old Connell and Kilcullen, are located at the centre of their respective estates, and 

minor ecclesiastical sites also tend to be away from important boundaries. In this regard, the 

distribution of ecclesiastical sites is complementary to that of non-ecclesiastical burials, which 

in this area are represented primarily by barrows, ring-ditches and mounds of late prehistoric 

and/or early medieval date and are almost all on or near boundaries. There is a considerable 

concentration of important royal sites, assembly sites and burial grounds in the area. 

Immediately to the north of the case study area was the principal centre of Uí Fáeláin power, 

144



the royal estate and (no-longer-extant) fortress of Naas, which they had probably taken from 

their Dál Messin Corb predecessors. Its associated church that was reputedly the burial place of 

nine kings of Leinster (MacCotter 2008, 353). Just to the northeast of the case study area is the 

hill of Allen, another fortress and/or royal assembly site, while within the area was the royal 

burial and assembly site of Carmun Liphi, as well as Dún Ailline, an Iron Age hilltop 

inauguration site identified in early medieval sources as the ancient capital of Leinster (below). 

The first of the four estates to consider is Connul at the northwest. Its earliest associations are 

with a segment of the Dál Messin Corb and with Conláed, the first bishop of Kildare 

(traditionally died c.520), who is given a Dál Messin Corb filiation in the genealogies. The 

hermitage of his mentioned in a seventh-century Life of Brigit is probably Old Connell at the 

centre of Connul, a site also associated with two female followers of Brigit (MacCotter 2008, 

349). There is no archaeological evidence of the site‘s early medieval origins. Kildare, the most 

important church in Leinster, is just six kilometres to the west and it owned a modest portion of 

Connul in the high medieval period and probably long before. Indeed, the Kildare portion may 

145



Fig. 5.12: The Kingdom of Uí Fáeláin and its Sub-divisions with the study area at 

the southern end of the kingdom highlighted. 

146



Fig. 5.13: Churches and non-ecclesiastical burials in the study area. 

147



Fig. 5.14: Composite plan of Corbally excavations from 2003 to 2007 (ring-ditch at 

lower right from pre-2003 excavations) 

148



Fig. 5.15: Coghlanstown with its impressive ecclesiastical enclosure as depicted on 

the 1st Edition OS map. 

Fig. 5.16: Coghlanstown parish church is largely fifteenth-century. 

149



Fig. 5.17: Aerial view of Killashee ecclesiastical complex. 

Fig. 5.18: Athgarvan Graveyard. 

150



Fig. 5.19: High cross at Kilcullen. 

Fig. 5.20: 1st Edition OS maps with modern contours added showing the hills Old 

Kilcullen (red dot) and Dún Áilinne and how the symbiotic relationship between 

ecclesiastical and royal authority within this estate is expressed in the unusual 

shapes of the townlands (red borders) which ensures that the church of Kilcullen 

has a tenurial and symbolic stake in both of these sacred hills. 

151



well have been eroded by the twelfth century, for the Uí Fáeláin kings seem to have developed 

interests in the area. It seems likely that some modus operandi developed to accommodate 

these secular and ecclesiastical interests. One of the great routeways of early Ireland, the Slíge 

Dála, traversed this territory and probably crossed the Liffey at the ford of Athgarvan within 

Connul (Ó Murchada 2002, 67). Though definitive evidence is lacking, it is likely that the 

prependal parish church of Athgarvan, which overlooks the ford at the west, is early in origin. 

It is the only church site now evident within the Kildare portion of Connul (MacCotter 2008, 

390). Directly across the river is Rosetown Rath, the only impressive secular settlement in 

Connul. Now much overgrown, the surviving remains and early records indicate that it was 

bivallate and 110m across. It is possible that there was a similar juxtaposition at Old Connell, 

where the nearby Anglo-Norman motte may supersede the royal residence mentioned in a 

tenth-century saga (ibid. 350). This twinning of sites expresses the symbiotic relationship 

between ecclesiastical and secular powers within Connul. 

Two non-ecclesiastical burial grounds have been excavated in the southwest part of Connul, 

which was owned by Kildare. At Greenhills sixteen inhumations were excavated, two within a 

ring ditch; of the two radiocarbon dated, one was fourth-century (i.e. Late Iron Age) while the 

other was fifth-century (Keeley 1991). Several burials focused on ring ditches have been 

excavated in nearby Corbally by Aegis Archaeology. In one case a ring ditch was later 

enclosed within a larger enclosure which soon after was replaced (probably in the sixth or 

seventh century, by an enclosure 50m across (Coyne 2010, 83). Twenty-two interments were 

excavated inside this enclosure ranging from AD 330-540 to 770-1020 (Coyne 2010). Limited 

occupation evidence (e.g. cereal-drying kilns, a possible house) have also been excavated, but 

given the dispersed nature of the burial and occupation evidence this site does not suggest itself 

as a ‗cemetery settlement‘; rather it seems to form part of a much more extensive complex. Ó 

Murchadha (2002) and MacCotter (2008, 357-60) have made a strong case that these mounds 

represent the royal cemetery of Carmun Liphi / Carn Ailbhe, the burial place of Cathair Már, 

legendary ancestor of the Laigen, which is listed in several texts as one of the great royal 

cemeteries in Ireland ‗before [the time of] belief‘ (ría cretim). Every three years, coinciding 

with the festival of Lughnasa, Óenach Carmain, perhaps the most important assembly in 

152



Leinster during the early medieval period, was held there: the people and their rulers met to 

deal with matters genealogical, legal, commercial and recreational. Assuming this is correct, 

these two townlands at least, indeed possibly the parishes of Carnalway and Coghlanstown, 

may have been royal land. The Corbally burials may represent ‗overspill‘ from this complex 

into ecclesiastical land in the adjoining estate of Connul. This hints that the activities being 

carried out there were sanctioned, or at least accepted, by ecclesiastical authorities. The 

implications of this will be considered below (Chapter 6). The location of Carmun Liphi near – 

and possibly extending over – the boundary between two subdivisions of Uí Fáeláin is typical 

of such sites. It is also near the more important boundary between Uí Fáeláin and Uí 

Muiredaig, reflecting its importance for all the kingdoms of Leinster. Concommitantly, the 

importance of Carmun Liphi may have something to do with the fact that it was as close to Dún 

Áilinne, the symbolic capital of Leinster, as one could be within the kingdom of Uí Fáeláin: 

Dún Áilinne is situated just 3km to the southwest of Greenhills, in the adjoining kingdom of Uí 

Muiredaig (below) and was revered by the Uí Fáeláin as much as by the other royal kin-groups 

of Leinster, the Uí Muiredaig and the Uí Dúnchada. 

To the north of Carmain is Killashee, the church of bishop Auxillius, who may well have been 

a Continental or British disciple of Palladius (mid fifth century), though in seventh-century 

documents he was claimed as a disciple of Patrick (Charles-Edwards 2000, 233-4, 237-9). The 

early medieval origins of the site are indicated by a souterrain 75m from the site of the parish 

church and a holy well; the nearby mill could possibly have replaced an early one. The parish 

probably approximates to an early ecclesiastical estate, which may well have been founded as a 

result of a royal grant given that it is bounded by Carmain Liphi to the south and the capital of 

Naas to the north (MacCotter 2009). Its strategic location suggests that Auxillius managed to 

convince the Dál Messin Corb predecessors of the Uí Fáeláin to make an investment in the new 

religion. Initially the site was associated with allies of the Dál Messin Corb (the Uí Bairrche), 

but by the ninth century, if not before, its coarbs were generally allies of the Uí Fáeláin (most 

notably the Uí Chétig: AU 828, 871). The likely ecclesiastical estate of Killashee seems to have 

been quite different in internal organisation from Inis Úasal or Kilcullen (below), in that there 

are no likely subsidiary churches within it. Up to eight ringforts are, however, recorded within 

the estate on the first edition OS maps: an unusually large number in a region of relatively low 

153



ringfort density (though in part at least this is because of poor survival due to intensive 

agriculture). 

To the south was the secular territory (‗late túath‘) of Uí Athechda. This group may not have 

taken control of the area until the eighth century, but what became their principal church, 

Domnach Mór Ua nAthechda, is probably a fifth or sixth-century foundation, and was also 

known as Domnach Mór Aband Liphi (‗the big church of the River Liffey‘) (Plummer 1925, 

68; Nicholls 1985, 202; MacCotter 2008, 356). Domnach is an early borrowing from the Latin 

dominucum and seems to denote relatively important early (fifth- or sixth-century) pastoral 

churches, often associated with particular secular groups (Flanagan 1984; Charles Edwards 

2000). The presence of such a significant early foundation so close to Killashee is stricking. 

The only archaeological evidence for the early origins of the site are possible traces of a 

curvilinear enclosure averaging 175m in diameter. 

Finally, at the southwest of our study area is the royal/ecclesiastical estate of Kilcullen. By the 

Viking age, if not before, it was outside Uí Fáeláin in the adjoining over-kingdom of Uí 

Muiredaig. The church of Kilcullen was founded in the sixth century by Mac Táil of the Uí 

Bairrche, the Laigen group that were also originally associated with Killashee (MacCotter 

2008, 352). There are relatively few ringforts in the estate, far fewer for example than in 

adjoining Uí Athechda or even in the ecclesiastical estate of Cill Usailli. We must treat the 

numbers now evident in the landscape with great caution, as many ringforts have probably been 

destroyed. Nonetheless, it is interesting that Kilcullen has an unusually high density of minor 

chapels of probably early origin (Kilgowan, Killinane, Bridingchapel, Gormanstown, 

Kinneagh). It is therefore possible that the church of Kilcullen decided that a relatively high 

proportion of settlements on its estate should be ecclesiastical in nature. The exact location of 

Kilgowan is unknown, but it survived as a chapel dedicated to St John the Baptist until 1504 

(McNeill 1950, 257). Non-ecclesiastical burials have been excavated in this townland on the 

lower eastern slope of a gravel hill close to a prehistoric standing stone, the Longstone. There 

were nine inhumations and possibly another sixteen as well as a ditch that may have partially 

enclosed the cemetery (Keeley 1991). They were not radiocarbon date so (unlike the Corbally 

burials) we do not know if they were contemporary with the nearby church. Somewhat like 

154



Connull, the estate of Kilcullen was shared by royal and ecclesiastical powers, in this case 

Kilcullen itself and the Uí Muiredaig kings. The twinning of ecclesiastical and royal sites 

evident in Connul is even clearer in Kilcullen. It is dominated on the one hand by the hill of 

Kilcullen with its round tower and high crosses and on the other by that of Dún Áilinne, the 

ancient capital of Leinster. Though by now apparently abandoned, and only rarely mentioned in 

the annals, it retained some of its symbolic and political importance. As the unusual shapes of 

some of the townlands within the estate make clear, Kilcullen‘s portion of the estate 

encompassed the south part of the royal hill (the portion within Glebe North townland), but the 

summit and the north side (in the townland of Knockaulin), remained in royal hands. 

Interestingly, such twinning is not evident in the unitary secular túath of Uí Athechda or the 

unitary ecclesiastical estate of Killashee. 

While there is strong evidence that our four estates are pre-Viking in origin, if there were 

any changes in their extents during the early medieval period, the sources do not permit 

us to chart them in any detail. We can be confident, however, that their status changed 

during the Viking Age. For example, while in the pre-Viking period Uí Athechda was a 

sub-kingdom, in the tenth and eleventh centuries, like its counterparts throughout the 

country, it would have been demoted to the status of a district within a more unitary Uí 

Fáeláin over-kingdom. In the case of Connul, which seems to have accommodated royal 

and ecclesiastical interests from an early date, it is likely that the Uí Fáeláin kings 

increased their proportion of the estate at the expense of Kildare, though the latter 

retained some land including Corbally. 

As we have seen, the burials in Corbally probably represent overspill from the royal 

burial ground and assembly site of Carmun Liphi. Much remains to be clarified about the 

role played by such sites in the Viking Age. One might assume that in many cases their 

functions – including exchange, burial, settlement of disputes etc. – were by now fulfilled 

by ecclesiastical sites. Certainly it would appear that kings were now usually buried at 

ecclesiastical sites. Assemblies and inaugurations, however, were still commonly held in 

non-ecclesiastical contexts, including Drung Hill in Uí Rathach for example. A poem 

written in the second half of the eleventh century speaks of ‗Carmen, whose roads are 

155



now overgrown with grass‘ (Radner, Fragmentary Annals, 1978, 165). Such poetic 

descriptions of abandonment should, however, be viewed with some scepticism 

(MacCotter 2008, 259-60). We have two annalistic references to the óenach being held 

during the eleventh century, in 1033 and in 1079, and these may well have been recorded 

solely because the kings who summoned the óenach were both interlopers (AU 1033; 

AFM 1079). We now also have archaeological evidence that the complex was still in use: 

one of the Corbally burials has been dated to 770-1020, while a nearby sunken structure 

seems to be ninth or tenth century (Coyne 2010, 82-4). It is highly significant that this 

late ‗non-ecclesiastical‘ interment took place on land owned by Kildare. This is one of 

the clearest indications identified to date that, even in the Viking Age, ecclesiastical 

authorities in Ireland were apparently prepared to accept the legitimacy of a diversity of 

burial practices. 

Our chronology for ecclesiastical sites is quite poor as none have been excavated and 

they lack closely dateable sculpture etc. In most cases we must rely on late medieval 

documentary sources to judge their fate during the Viking Age. In a striking contrast with 

Corcu Duibne, only one early ecclesiastical site seems to have fallen out of use by the 

later medieval period, and this is not a definite example: the townland name, Kilbelin, 

probably preserves that of an early church, but there are no ecclesiastical remains in the 

townland and no documentary evidence, early or late, for a church here. Otherwise all of 

the sixteen probable early church sites remained in use. For example, in the secular estate 

of Uí Athedchda Donaghmore, Coghlanstown and Carnalway became parish churches, 

while Gilltown, which may have started out as a proprietary church of the Ó Breslean‘s 

(Inse Ó Breslean), became the chapel of a monastic grange c.1148 (MacCotter 2008, 384). 

Things were a little different in the Kilcullen estate which, though it had even more 

churches than Uí Athedchda, retained its integrity becoming a single large parish – 

unusually large for such a heavily colonised area. In part this may have been because of 

the importance of Kilcullen itself. Six of the eight ecclesiastical sites in the estate appear 

to be early medieval in origin and all of these were still operating in the later medieval 

period (MacCotter 2008, 393-6). Most of them were chapels serving the portions of the 

156



parish that had been acquired by particular Anglo-Norman families (e.g. Killinane) or 

abbeys (e.g. Kinneagh, Gormanstown). In contrast to the various parish churches of Uí 

Athedchda, these chapels presumably did not have burial rights, and some of them (as 

speculated above in relation to the out-farms of Inis Úasal) may already have lost these 

rights to Kicullen in the Viking Age. The status of Kilcullen as the most important church 

in this case study area is illustrated by the presence there of ninth- or tenth-century 

scriptural crosses (Harbison 1992); the fact that it was raided in 938, 939 and 944 by the 

Vikings of Dublin (AU; AFM); and by the fact that it is the only site for which we know 

acquired a (no-longer-extant) mortared stone church (1037, AFM) and a round tower. 

These structures were probably eleventh century, and may have been built after 1018 

with the involvement of one or more Uí Muiredaig kings: at that date the kingship of 

Leinster shifts for a time from the Uí Fáeláin to the Uí Muiredaig (MacCotter 2008, 344). 

This provides a possible context for the aggrandisement of Kilcullen, sited as it was near 

the symbolic capital of Dún Áilinne, and near the boundary between Uí Muiredaig and Uí 

Fáeláin. The majority of mortared stone churches built around this time seem to have 

been royal commissions, and in this case that possibility is strengthened by the fact that 

they are rare in this part of Ireland (Ó Carragáin 2010, 118-40). Even sites with illustrious 

origins such as Killashee in southern Uí Fáeláin probably still had a wooden church in the 

eleventh century. 

157



5.4 Mag Réta, Co. Laois and Surrounding Kingdoms 

This case study is centred on the kingdom of Mag Réta in present-day Co. Laois. Due to recent 

motorway construction, it has one of the highest concentrations of excavated early medieval 

settlements in Ireland, including a number of ringforts and a number of important cemeteries, 

three of which will be considered here: Killeany, Parknahown, Bushfield-Lismore. These sites 

were excavated for the NRA by ACS Ltd, who have collaborated with us on this case study. 

Here we have a unique opportunity to compare and contrast a wide variety of sites within one 

landscape. They are not, however, in a single polity, for the study area spans the shifting 

boundary between Munster and Leinster and incorporates some or all of four kingdoms. 

While the kingdom and sub-kingdom boundaries are clear, in most cases it has not proved 

possible to reconstruct the estates within them. The documentary record has, however, thrown 

up very interesting patterns. For example, it has been possible to map several of the churches 

named in the Laígse genealogies as the property of particular family groups, giving us new 

insights into the phenomenon of proprietary churches. It has also been shown that dedications 

to a particular saint tend to be confined to the saint‘s alleged kingdom of origin. Another 

fascinating phenomenon to emerge is the fact that several churches dedicated to St Ciarán of 

Saighir are located on the boundaries of the kingdom of Osraige, implying that the boundaries 

of this kingdom do not just delimit dedications to a saint but appear to actually be delimited by 

them. These patterns and others are explored in a substantial journal article that has been 

prepared by Anne Connon as part of the Making Christian Landscapes project. In this section, 

however, the main focus will be on the excavated sites within the case study. The implications 

of the documentary research for our understanding of these and other sites will be considered in 

more detail in future publications. 

Parknahown was in Áes Cinn Chuille, a sub-kingdom of Osraige, a large buffer kingdom that 

was considered part of Munster until the mid-ninth century but thereafter came under the ambit 

of Leinster (Connon 2009, 311, 316; MacCotter 2008, 182). To the north is Bushfield-Lismore 

in Mag Réta, the home territory of the kings of Laígis and the most important of Laígis‘ seven 

sub-kingdoms. The caput of Mag Réta was the royal fort of Ráith Baccáin, sited a short 

distance south of Bushfield-Lismore in the Rathdowney area (Connon 2009, 316-7; Ó 

158



Murchada 38-42). This was rebuilt in the ninth century by Gáethíne mac Cennéitig, whose son 

revitalised the flagging fortunes of the Laígis and achieved significant victories over the 

Vikings in the area (Kelly and Maas 1999, 123-60). Nonetheless, by the later tenth century the 

Osraige had extended their power northwards, beyond Áes Cinn Chuille, and took control of a 

significant portion of Laígis including Mag Réta. Killeany was at the southwest corner of the 

Laígis sub-kingdom of Cúl Buichle near its boundary with Mag Réta. Initially controlled by the 

Uí Crimthannáin, Cúl Buichle seems to have come under the ambit of the kings of Mag Réta by 

the eighth century. They made it their home territory in the tenth century when Mag Réta was 

taken from them (Connon 2009, 321-22). 

Killeany, which was established in the sixth century, is the only one of the four cemeteries that 

may have been ecclesiastical. There is another possible ecclesiastical site in the townland so its 

‗cill‘ name cannot be taken as conclusive evidence that it was ecclesiastical (Connon 2009, 

354-59), but this possibility is supported by the fact that, at 180m x 150m, its enclosure is 

markedly bigger than those of cemetery-settlements. No church was uncovered, but this may be 

because only one third of the site and about half of the inner cemetery enclosure was excavated. 

Little evidence for structures or hearths survived in the excavated area but there was plentiful 

animal bone, evidence for metalworking and a number of pre-Viking cereal drying kilns 

(Wiggins 2009a, 217-224). There may have been a watermill nearby on the River Gully (ibid.). 

At the centre was a 25m diameter burial enclosure with an entrance at the southeast, mirroring 

that of the main enclosure. Its ditch terminals overlapped to create an unusual ‗spiral shaped‘ 

entrance which ensured that those entering the cemetery had to do so in a deiseal manner (i.e. 

following their right hand); this was considered propitious in early medieval Ireland. An 

unusual seventh-century burial, probably of a woman, was found in the passageway leading to 

the cemetery: 39 cut marks were identified on her bones, and she was the only burial in the 

cemetery to be buried prone (ibid. 210). A burial was also placed at the entrance to the larger 

enclosure. The burial enclosure measured c.25m internally and is slightly southwest of where 

the centre of the site is likely to be, on the highest point on the hill (ibid. 205, 209). There were 

67 burials in the excavated area, suggesting that there may have been about 200 in total. The 

population was mixed and, considering the length of time it was in use, it was probably a 

159



family cemetery. Wiggins points out that the finds were quite modest, suggesting that the 

occupant were relatively poor and/or pious (ibid., 217). 

Assuming Killeany was a minor ecclesiastical site, those who founded it may have been 

seeking a certain degree of separation from secular society in this boundary zone. There are no 

extant secular settlements in its immediate vicinity, and (unlike Camlin and Parknahown), none 

were found near it during the construction of the motorway. The nearest known ringfort is two 

kilometres to the southeast, while the nearest early medieval settlement is the other likely 

ecclesiastical site in Killeany townland which is 1.5km to the northeast. It can be argued that 

this ties in well with the archaeology of the site, in particular the modest number of burials and 

the lack of evidence for a large congregational church: this was clearly not a proto-parish centre 

where significant numbers came to receive pastoral care. It may be that burial was largely 

reserved for those living at the site, and perhaps in a few unenclosed settlements nearby. That is 

not to say the site was entirely cut off from the world: it is not in some remote valley which 

saw little traffic, but near a number of routeways running between polities. The Down Survey 

County Map of Laois shows that it is near the junction of two early modern roads, not to 

mention the bridge across the Gully into Mag Réta at Gortnaclea. Its position in a boundary 

zone may have afforded it a balance between seclusion from secular society and the possibility 

of more long-distance, trans-tuath contacts with ecclesiastical sites, including perhaps 

Aghaboe, the most important foundation of St Cainnech (who also founded Kilkenny), a little 

over three kilometres to the south-south-west across the Gully, and Farraneglish Glebe, a cell 

of Aghaboe with associated nunnery, a little over two kilometres to the south. Its closest links 

were probably within Cul Buichle, however: especially with the other ecclesiastical site in 

Killeany which, given that it continued in use into the later medieval period, is likely to have 

been a more important of the two. 

The other two excavated cemeteries were definitely cemetery-settlements. In contrast to 

Southern Uí Faeláin, few or no early medieval burials unassociated with settlement have been 

excavated in the area. As has already been observed in other areas (Boazman 2008), the three 

cemetery settlements are not positioned close to boundaries and, while they vary somewhat in 

topographical position, they are on lower ground than the majority of ringforts in their 

160



vicinities. Parknahown was the largest and most complex of the three. It comprised a subcircular 

enclosure, 64m in internal diameter with an entrance at the south-east (O‘Neill 2009a). 

A few postholes and pits (2 sigma: AD 250-540) suggest there may have been a settlement at 

the site before the enclosure was dug and burial commenced around 500. The cemetery was 

near the north side of the enclosure. Initially it was not formally seperated from the rest of the 

site, but after a time a boundary with an entrance feature was added at its west side (O‘Neill 

2009a, 170, 285, 315). The site was enlarged slightly to the south in the seventh or eighth 

century. Burial continued until around 1100 or a little later and in its later stages at least it was 

probably used by more than one family. There was limited evidence for structures within the 

enclosure, but the abundant finds and large quantity of animal bones demonstrate that it was a 

place of habitation. There was some evidence for metalworking and cereal processing. It is 

notable that Parknahown 5 does not conform to the view of cemetery-settlements as places of 

‗dirty and dangerous‘ activities put forward by Stout and Stout (2008). The range of finds from 

the site suggests some of those associated with it were of quite high status. Among the finds 

was a cross-decorated mount of eighth to tenth century date (O‘Neill 2008, 311), supporting the 

possibility that at least some of them were Christian. 

In contrast to Killeany, there is a dense concentration of other settlements in the landscape 

around Parknahown. The burial commencement date of c.500 is based on a number of 14C 

ranges of c.420-600. It might, therefore, have been established in the late fifth century or the 

early sixth. This is an important point to consider, because it was probably in the first half of 

the sixth century that Aghmacart, one of the chief churches of Orsaige (AFM 1156), was 

established by St Tigernach of Clones (d. c.549) just a kilometre away across the River Goul 

(Carrigan 1905 II, 237; Connon 2009, 386-8). The proximity of the two sites, temporally as 

well as spatially, raises interesting questions about the relationships between cemetery 

settlements and ecclesiastical sites. If, as on balance seems likely, the cemetery-settlement 

came first, then it was a grand new establishment when Tigernach chose the area to build his 

church, and we must assume that he accepted its presence nearby, perhaps even within the 

lands granted to him, which may roughly correspond to its later medieval parish (Connon 2009, 

388). Another possibility is that Parknahown was established around the same time as 

Aghmacart, possibly with the involvement of ecclesiastics. 

161



The early nunnery at Addergoole, less than a kilometre north of Parknahown, was reputedly 

founded by Croinsech and Créd, two virgins associated with Brigit (Carrigan 1905 II, 234-35; 

Ó Riain 1985, 113; Connon 2009, 388-9). To the south in Oldtown the site marked ‗Abbey‘ on 

the Ordnance Survey maps may be the church in roughly this position on the Down Survey 

map (Connon 2009, 391). An early origin for it is suggested by the fact that it was within a 

ringfort-size (40m diameter) curvilinear enclosure. Closer still, in Parknahown townland, is a 

ringfort with an ecclesiastical placename, Rathkilmurray (the Ringfort of the Church of Mary) 

(Carrigan 1905 II, 237; Connon 2009, 391-2). It may have been an ecclesiastical site, for 

churches in ringforts seems to have been relatively common in this area, but it is more likely to 

have been ecclesiastical property: possibly it was owned by Aghmacart, or an unidentified 

daughter house of Aghmacart, for that site was dedicated to Mary in the high medieval period. 

This supports the possibility that the cemetery-settlement was also on ecclesiastical land. 

It seems clear that the cemetery-settlement was not the only kin-group cemetery in the area; it 

may be that during most of the early medieval centuries only a minority of families were buried 

at the ecclesiastical cemetery of Aghmacart. Some of the many ringforts in the vicinity may 

well have been residences of branches of the kingroup buried at Parknahown. However, we 

should not imagine that all of the possible ringforts in the area conform to the textbook image 

of ringforts as farmsteads for a single family. Neither of the two excavated in the townland fit 

this picture. One (Parknahown 2) adjoins a Late Bronze barrow which was possibly reused at 

this time and was surrounded by a new ditch so that it became an annex of the ringfort (O‘Neill 

2009b, 36). There are no exact parallels for this arrangement but it may not be coincidence that 

the figure-of-eight is a recurring theme in late prehistoric contexts, especially at ceremonial 

royal sites such as Tara and Dún Ailinne. It seems possible that the group that constructed this 

ringfort were conscious of the symbolic language employed at these far more prestigious sites. 

The importance of the barrow for those who lived in the ringfort is underscored by the fact that 

the entrance to the ringfort is at the west, rather than the more usual east, so that those entering 

the site had to pass by the barrow in its annex. The ringfort seems to have been used from the 

fifth/sixth century to the eighth/ninth. At the interior was a semi-circular building, an irregular 

subdivision (possibly a hedge) and, at a break in this subdivision, two burials: one empty, the 

162



other containing the remains of a sixth or seventh-century adult male (ibid. 38). The proximity 

of this unique and, to later medieval eyes, unorthodox arrangement to a number of 

ecclesiastical sites illustrates the extent to which attitudes to burial were to change in 

subsequent centuries. Among the other features uncovered was a corn-drying kiln, but the 

modest amount of animal bone compared to the nearby cemetery settlement suggests that 

occupation was not intensive. While the other excavated ringfort, Parknahown 3, produced 

more animal bone, no other evidence for occupation was found leading the excavator to suggest 

that it was simply an animal enclosure (O‘Neill 2009c, 24). 

The great variety of cemetery-settlements in this area is further illustrated by 

Bushfield/Lismore. It was in relatively low-lying ground, not near a water source but adjacent 

to the stretch of the Slíge Dala between Aghaboe and Roscrea. It was D-shaped in plan, with 

external dimensions of 95m by c.85m and two entrances: one at the north and the other, 

perhaps the principal one, at the southeast (identified only through geophysics). The townland 

name, Lismore, could possibly be a reference to this site, as there are no other large enclosures 

there (Wiggins 2009b, 158). It was a short-lived site probably established around the mid sixth 

century and falling out of used sometime around the middle of the seventh century (ibid. 137). 

Thus, it was quite a late establishment as cemetery-settlements go, and was not as successful in 

the long-run as the slightly earlier example at Parknahown. As the excavator points out, the 

short use-period is not consistent with the scale of the endeavour, suggesting that the site was 

intended to be used for longer but was abandoned prematurely. He further suggests that its 

abandonment ‗may well have been a result of political conflicts in the area particularly given 

location on a routeway‘ (ibid. 8). In the northeast quadrant were 60 inhumations plus 21 

collections of disarticulated remains, giving 81 burials in total (ibid. 160). It seems likely that 

this was a family cemetery (a roughly equal number of men and women were represented) 

(ibid. 160), though 81 burials over a century seems quite a lot for one family. Perhaps the two 

larger groups of burials represent two branches of a single family, one of whom may have lived 

at the site, the other nearby. Iron working was carried out including secondary bloom refining 

and several charcoal pits with burnt bone may relate to this metal-refining work. The excavator 

suggests that ‗the site may have specialised in bloom refining and there may have been no 

―end-user‖ blacksmithing at the site at all‘ (ibid. 165). A ring-gully at the centre could 

163



potentially be a hut-like structure with a diameter of c.4.5m, but the large animal bone 

assemblage (along with some charred grain) is the ‗best evidence that people were actually 

living there‘ (ibid. 162). Wiggins (ibid. 161-62) concludes that the lack of structural evidence 

was probably due to later ploughing and because ‗the inhabitants found the means of 

constructing dwellings in the enclosure with relatively light foundations that consequently have 

left little or no trace in the archaeological record.‘ The most interesting find from the site was a 

lignite stylus: this raises the possibility that some of those associated with it were literate and 

therefore perhaps had links with ecclesiastics (Wiggins 2009b, Fig. 73). 

164



Fig. 5.21: The kingdoms within the ‘Mag Réta’ study. Mag Réta is the shaded area 

at the centre of the map (the southern part of Na Clanna). 

165



Fig. 5.22: All sites in the southern portion of Clonenagh and Clonagheen with 

Killeany 1 labelled. 

Fig. 5.23: Killeany 1 from the south-east. 

166



Fig. 5.24: General plan of Killeany 1. 

167



Fig. 3.112 Parknahown 5 

Fig. 5.25: Parknahown 5. 

168



Fig. 5.26: The cemetery at Parknahown 5 showing enclosures, and Level 1 burials 

(i.e. burials not cut by other burials but of varying dates/phases) differentiated 

according to age. 

169



Fig. 5.27: Parknahown 5 in its landscape context. Brown symbols indicate ringforts. 

Dark bluc symbols indicate probably ringforts. Light blue symbols indicate 

enclosures with some indication that they may be early medieval in date. 

170



Fig. 5.28: Bushfield or Maghernaskeagh / Lismore 1. 

Fig. 5.29: Bushfield or Maghernaskeagh / Lismore 1, Co. Laois - plan of the NE 

quadrant (Zone C) showing burial groups. 

171



Fig. 5.30: Bushfield or Maghernaskeagh / Lismore 1 it its landscape context. Crosses 

indicate ecclesiastical sites. Blue symbols indicate enclosures. Brown and beige 

symbols indicate ringforts. Red triangles are holy wells. 

172



There are no known ringforts in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest early medieval 

settlement is 400m to the northwest. This is the ecclesiastical site and later parish church of 

Lismore alias Kilkennybeg, ‗the little church of Cainnech,‘ probably a daughter house of 

Aghaboe which is 4km to the east (Carrigan 1905 II, 131-2; Connon 2009, 375). Cainneach‘s 

floruit was in the latter half of the sixth century. Assuming he himself founded Kilkennybeg, 

this may have been around the same time that the cemetery settlement was being established. It 

may be just coincidence, but it is worth noting that there quite a close correspondence between 

the establishment of Parknahown 5 (early sixth century) and Bushfield/Lismore 1 (mid sixth 

century) and the floruits of the likely founders of nearby ecclesiastical sites. In both cases the 

cemetery settlements were either established a little before the churches, or else at the same 

time as them. In the latter scenario, one wonders what role the emerging ecclesiastical power 

structures had in their establishment. 

While Lismore-Bushfield was abandoned in the seventh century, the other two cemeteries 

continued in use during the Viking Age. Incidentally, of the three ringforts recently excavated 

in the area, those in Parknahown produced little evidence for continued use after the ninth 

century (O‘Neill 2009b; 2009c), suggesting some significant shifts in settlement patterns at this 

time. At Derrinsallagh, however, which was located between Lismore-Bushfield and Camlin, 

the ringfort ditch was still open in the tenth/eleventh century and there was abundant evidence 

for Viking Age and even later medieval occupation (Lennon 2009). 

At Parknahown the cemetery at the north side of the settlement was more comprehensively 

delimited by a sub-rectangular enclosure, 16m across, probably in the ninth or tenth century, by 

which time the ditch of the outer settlement enclosure was partially filled in. The excavation 

uncovered 425 in situ burials, but taking the unexcavated portion of the cemetery and the large 

number of disturbed burials into account, there may well have been 800 or more interments in 

total. Quartz pebbles were commonly found with the burials. Body position varied somewhat, 

but in many cases the position of the arms close to the body or crosses at the pelvis suggests the 

bodies were wrapped in a shroud (O‘Neill 2009a, 311). About half the burials were infants, and 

these were particularly common in the upper levels. Adult burial continued throughout the 

173



Viking Age, however. One of the later adults (990-1160) was prone and crouched, and may 

have been a suicide or some other socially excluded individual, but there were four other prone 

burials at the site not necessarily dating to its latest phases. Most of the late burials received the 

same level of care as one finds in the earlier burials (including for example the placement of 

quartz with the grave), so there is no compelling case that in its later phases the cemetery was 

reserved exclusively for the socially excluded. While the Church began to encourage 

churchyard burial from eighth century (O‘Brien 1992), there is some evidence to suggest that it 

was only in the twelfth century (as a result of the Gregorian reform) that burial away from 

ecclesiastical cemeteries came to be seen as anathema (Ó Carragáin 2009). This suggestion 

would seem to be supported by the cemetery at Parknahown 5, which falls out of use around 

this time. Assuming a total burial count of 800 over 600 years this would suggest a burial every 

0.75 years if the rate of burial was steady. This is more than one would expect from a single 

family, but might about right for a few branches of an extended kin group. It would have been 

necessary to date more of the burials to determine whether the rate of burial changed over time. 

For example, did the site start off as a family cemetery with a slow but steady rate of burial, but 

evolve into a community cemetery (perhaps used especially for the unbaptised), in which case 

one would perhaps expect a faster rate of burial? Or else was it used by a number of families 

from the beginning, but with a slow decrease in the number of adults buried there in the Viking 

Age, as burial at the nearby ecclesiastical sites became more common? If so, it would be 

interesting to explore the factors that contributed to this trend. Is it possible, for example, that 

some adult women whose ancestors were buried at Parknahown were, by the Viking Age, 

being buried at the nearby nunnery of Adergoole, either because they had become nuns 

themselves or else because they were linked to this community through bonds of friendship and 

patronage? 

It was suggested above that the probable church site of Killeany was located near a boundary 

so that its inhabitants were somewhat removed from the the local population while maintaining 

links with ecclesiastical sites at both sides of the boundary. Such a location, however, also left 

the site exposed in changing political circumstances. In addition to the earlier examples, two 

eleventh- to twelfth-century cereal drying kilns were excavated indicating some continuing 

domestic activity (if not permanent occupation) at the site. Some of the undated burials may 

174



also date to this later period. The bulk of the dates, however, suggest that occupation tailed off 

somewhat in the tenth century. In part this may have been due to the annexation in that century 

of Mag Réta by the Osraige, from which time Killeany was not longer on an internal boundary 

within Laígis, but on the potentially more volatile boundary between Laígis and Osraige 

(above; Wiggins 2009a, 10). 

Is this abandonment, however, also part of a more general trend? Certainly there is more 

evidence for the abandonment of early medieval ecclesiastical sites in this area than in 

Southern Uí Fáeláin, though not as much as in Corcu Duibne. Of the thirty-nine possible early 

sites in the kingdom of Mag Réta there is evidence that twenty-eight became parish churches or 

chapels-of-ease. Even in the absence of documentary evidence it is sometimes possible to 

conclude this on the basis of antiquarian accounts of a church building, for there is no evidence 

for mortared stone construction in this part of Ireland before the twelfth century at the earliest 

(Ó Carragáin 2010, fig. 1). That still leaves eleven (28%) with no evidence for later medieval 

reuse. One example is Kyletilloge (possibly ‗the church of St Sillán‘), which was known as a 

burial ground in the eighteenth century; there are traces of a possible ecclesiastical enclosure in 

the townland (Carrigan 1905 II, 66; Connon 2009). Another is Kilnaseer (‗the church of the 

craftsman‘), the exact location of which is now lost, but was known locally as a burial ground 

in the early twentieth century (Carrigan 1905, ii, 62). Admittedly, this is an argument from 

negative evidence and the actual figure (which could only be ascertained through excavation) 

may well be lower. Having said that, there may well be other abandoned church sites, like 

Killeany, that disappear entirely. 

175



5.5 Rathdown, Co. Dublin (Gill Boazman) 

This section comprises a summary of work on the half-barony of Rathdown which is 

being undertaken as part of an ongoing PhD project. The early medieval settlement 

pattern of the half-barony of Rathdown is distinguished by a high density of ecclesiastical 

sites, most of which have material or documentary evidence of being established in 

antiquity. The attraction of a fertile area adjacent to maritime connections with Wales 

and mainland Europe, is also manifest in the succession of stakeholders in the area, firstly 

Leinster kingroups, Scandinavians and finally the Anglo-Normans. However evidence of 

the ubiquitous monument of early medieval settlement, the ringfort, is scarce, only 

occurring on higher ground. The proximity of the area to the burgeoning town of 

Hiberno-Scandinavian Dublin leads to a consideration of the extent and nature of the 

Scandinavian influence on Rathdown. 

The outer limits of the study area run from Booterstown Strand then follow the Rathdown 

barony boundary to the parish boundary of Tallaght, continue on that boundary to 

Clondalkin, then swing arbitrarily south to one kilometer south of the Sally Gap. The 

extents turn eastwards then to join the sea two kilometers south of Greystones, thus 

including Delgany. This comprises the barony of Rathdown, which is divided by the 

modern county bounds of Dublin and Wicklow, and the parishes of Clondalkin and 

Tallaght in the barony of Upper Cross. 

The highland area of the Dublin and Wicklow mountains is a granite massif where the 

volcanic action of its formation has created many mineral deposits. These lie in the south 

west of the study area. The mountains are cut by deep river valleys. These rivers then 

drain out across the Dublin plain and the lowlands of Bray, to the sea at the east. These 

lower foothills and the plain extending around the edge of the mountainous area are 

limestone but the action of two glaciations has formed a band of tills in the study area 

which are formed of brown-grey podzolic soils suitable for arable production. 

176



The political history of the Rathdown area 

Origin legends of the Laigin suggest provenance from Gaul and Cornwall (Byrne 2001, 

132; Mac Shamhráin 1996, 45) and cult diffusion of saints from outside the study area 

such as Petroc and Mo Chonnoc attribute veracity to this legendary past. In the protohistoric 

period the earliest dynasts of the study area and possible overkings of Leinster, 

the Dál Messin Corb, are implied by only two annalistic references, to Finnchad and his 

son, Fróech, titled rí laigen in 492 (AU). Many early saints of the study area have Dál 

Messin Corb pedigrees. The antiquity of this early kin-group lent an essential element of 

legitimacy to later pedigrees, such as those of Cóemgen of Glendalough and the Uí 

Dúnlainge. 

The Dál Messin Corb were forced southeast into South Wicklow by two sub-divisions of 

the Uí Maíl, the Uí Chellaig Chualann and the Uí Briúin Chualann. Uí Máil dominance 

lasted until the death of Cellaig Chualann, 715, who was the last Uí Máil king of 

Leinster; the next mention of the Uí Máil is that of Toca obit 778 (AU) who has a title of 

reduced status: ‗King of Cualu‘. Although the two branches of the Uí Máil continued to 

inhabit the territory, political power was seized by the Uí Dúnchada, a branch of the Uí 

Dúnlainge. The Uí Dúnchada had their seat at Lyons Hill, southwest of Clondalkin and 

provided abbots of Kildare until the last part of the tenth century. Like the Uí Máil 

before them they gradually moved west and then southwest as far as Delgany. Despite 

the longevity of their presence in the area and their provision of several kings of Leinster, 

their authority was constantly challenged by other more powerful kingroups (Mac 

Shamhráin 1996, 74). In addition the growing urban centre of Hiberno-Scandinavian 

Dublin presented a threat to Uí Dúnchada security from the ninth century onwards. 

Extents of secular territories 

The territory of Cualu: Uí Briúin Chualann 

The Uí Máil king Toca obit 778 (AU) is named King of Cualu. ‗Fir Cualu‘ is mentioned 

as an entity in Lebor na Cert, an account of gifts and stipends between kings and their 

subject kings, which is dated to approximately the late eleventh century (Dillon 1962, 

177



105). A lord of the Gilla Mo-Cholmóc ruling line of the Uí Dúnchada is named as ‗Lord 

of Feara Cualann‘ in 1141 (AFM). Two references to ‗Hui Briúin Chualann‘ in Félire 

Óengusso indicate Killiney and Tully which mark its northern limits (Stokes 1905, 20, 

65). The genealogy of Berchán of Shankill states he is from ‗Huu Briúin hi Cualaind‘ 

(O‘Brien 1976, 41). In 727 (AFM), a miraculous cow appeared at ‗Delginnis Cualann‘. 

Thus Uí Briúin Chualann lay between Tully in the north and Delgany in the south. 

This is corroborated by Anglo-Norman documents which demonstrate that by the twelfth 

century the landholding of Meic Gilla Mo-Cholmóc, was probably coterminous with the 

ancient territory of Uí Briúin Chualann. In 1173 Strongbow granted to Walter de 

Riddlesford five knights‘ fees of territory in ‗the waters of Brien and the land of the sons 

of Turchil‘. Brien in this charter indicates part of the territory of Uí Briúin Chualann 

which was between the Dargle and the Glencullen Rivers (Scott 1913, 93,178; Brooks 

1951, 119; Price 1954, 72). The charter of confirmation by Strongbow to Abbot Thomas 

of Glendalough of the foundation‘s possessions (c.1172-76) further confirms the 

association of the Uí Dúnchada with this designated area (previously Uí Briúin Chualann) 

as the possessions are said to be ‗in the land of Mac Gillamocholmoc‘. The named 

churches cluster around the modern Wicklow/Dublin border (Boazman 2009, 4.4, 510). 

Uí Chellaig Cualann 

This area lies to the west of the Two Rock Mountain ridge. Félire Óengusso refers to 

Kill St Anne‘s in the Glenasmole valley as being in Uí Chellaig Chualann (Stokes 1905, 

123). Killininny and Kilnamanagh are mentioned as being in Uí Dúnchada (previously Uí 

Chellaig Chualann) and probably mark the north of the territory (ibid., 229, 255). One of 

the royal manors of the Anglo-Norman period was known as O Kelly, an anglicisation of 

Uí Chellaig Chualann (Mills 1894, 170). The manor lay south of Tallaght, along the 

northern slopes of the hills, across the opening of Glenasmole, and included Killininny, 

Ballycullen and Kilmacheth (ibid.). Nicholls suggests that Kilmakethe is Kilmashogue 

(1986, 410). This gives an eastern extent to Uí Chellaig Chualann. The north eastern 

178



extent of Uí Chellaig Chualann is deduced by Nicholls to be Balally in Whitechurch 

(ibid., 411). 

As suggested by the above references certainly the north of Uí Chellaig Chualann was 

part of Uí Dúnchada territory from the early eighth century. However theyonly 

maintained a tenuous grasp. The Ua Ronáin, who held the abbacy at Clondalkin from the 

ninth century to the twelfth, were probably Uí Máil. The genealogy of ‗Ronan epscop‘ of 

‗I Raith Ronan I nUib Cellaig Chualann‘, too close to Clondalkin not to be related, is Uí 

Máil (O‘Brien 1985, 42). Indeed the confirmation by Strongbow to Abbot Thomas of 

Glendalough possessions (c.1172-76) mentions only ‗Techdolaga‘ (Templelogue) in Uí 

Chellaig Chualann as part of ‗the land of Mac Gillamochholmog‘. Also the ecclesiastical 

estate of Tallaght probably accounted for a considerable amount of the previous Uí 

Dúnchada land in Uí Chellaig Chualann. 

Evidence of Hiberno-Scandianavian land-owning in the study area 

The first annalistic reference to the Torcaill family appears in 1093 (AI). Turcall mac 

Éola was killed with the king of South Wales by the Normans. The Meic Torcaill family 

were kings of Dublin from c.1126 to 1171. During this period the Meic Torcaill 

controlled a considerable amount of land in South Dublin and North Wicklow. 

The charter of Strongbow to Walter de Riddlesford in 1173, granting him ‗the land of 

Brien and the land of the sons of Torcaill‘, suggests that the Uí Dúnchada did not control 

all the original territory of the Uí Briúin Chualann. A charter of 1202 in Alen‘s Register 

confirms the lands of Holy Trinity, and names the pre-Norman land donors, five of which 

are of the Meic Torcaill family (MacNeill 1950, 28). The extent of this landholding 

approximates to the modern parishes of Tully and Kilgobbin (Boazman 2009, 4.4, 523- 

525). There is also scattered evidence for Scandinavian land holding in the modern 

county of Wicklow, for example Curtlestown, ‗Baile mhic Thorcaill‘ in Glencree (Price 

1954, 74). 

179



The ecclesiastical history of Rathdown 

Early saints 

There are a number of references to early saints of the Rathdown area in the 

Martyrologies of Tallaght and Óengus. These were associated with Tully, Killiney, 

Clonkeen,and Ballyman in the inner study area and Tallaght, Clondalkin, Kilnamanagh, 

Kill St Anne‘s, and Killininny in the outer study area. Many saints, such as Becnat of 

Dalkey and Berchán of Shankill, with foundations in the Rathdown area have genealogies 

which attach them to the Dál Messin Corb lineage (Ó Riain 1985, 30, 42-44). Thus the 

early ecclesiastical history of Rathdown was of many small ecclesiastical sites founded in 

antiquity. 

The major ecclesiastical site of the area was Glendalough, thirty kilometres to the south 

of the inner study area, founded by Cóemgen in the late sixth century. The influence of 

Glendalough on Rathdown can be illustrated by dividing the area into three (Boazman 

2009, 4.4, 530-538). The core area of Glendalough influence was, almost certainly, the 

list of churches in the confirmation by Strongbow to Abbot Thomas in c.1172. These 

churches lie between Shankill and Glendalough in the very south of modern Co. Dublin 

and the north of Co.Wicklow (Boazman 2009, 4.4, 510). 

The second area includes Clondalkin, Kilnamanagh and Tallaght. Mochua of Cluain 

Dolcáin and Lochan and Enna of Kilnamanagh occur in a list of saints with Dál Messin 

Corb genealogies and in a litany of saints (Ó Riain 1985, 30, 42-44; Plummer 1925, 55). 

Cóemgen heads both lists which would insinuate that the listed establishments were 

affiliated to Glendalough (MacShamhráin 1996). There were contacts between 

Glendalough and these establishments in the earlier period, the relics of Cóemgen and 

Mochua were taken on comitatio in 790 (AU) but the Ua Ronáin family of Clondalkin, 

showed a tenacious independence, during the remainder of the millennium (Doherty 

1999, Boazman 2009, 4.4, 536). Tallaght is not mentioned in the lists of saints headed by 

Cóemgen but there was a connection with Glendalough as two of its abbots in the ninth 

and tenth centuries were co-abbatial with Glendalough. However Tallaght was 

established supposedly on land donated by the Uí Dúnchada who would have looked 

180



towards Kildare rather than Glendalough (Gilbert 1854, 404). Its association with the 

céli Dé would have engendered autonomy and the annalistic reference to a steward in 865 

indicates a large ecclesiastical estate. It is thus likely that in this area Glendalough was 

claiming a libri confraternitatus rather than a libri possessionis (Mac Shamhráin1996, 171). 

Fig. 5.31: Affiliation of ecclesiastical sites in Rathdown to Glendalough. 

181



In the third part of the study area, the centre, the affiliations of ecclesiastical sites seem to 

be independent of Glendalough. Tully, Stillorgan and Clonkeen have documentary 

evidence of connections with Kildare, through the aegis of the Uí Dúnchada, although 

Clonkeen also has connections with the Uí Chennselaig and therefore Ferns. Also as will 

be explored below, Tully was almost certainly, a Hiberno-Scandinavian estate, towards 

the end of the millennium. Rathmichael as well, has considerable evidence of Hiberno- 

Scandinavian influence in the late eleventh and early twelfth century. The pedigree of 

the saints of Killiney is Corca Loígde (Co Cork). In the outer study area there are further 

connections with Ferns at Stamoling, Bishop Sancton of Kill St Anne‘s has a British 

pedigree, and Kilcroney in Wicklow is genealogically associated with the Uí Néill 

(Boazman 2009, 4.4, 541-544). 

Hiberno-Scandinavian Dublin and Christianity 

The conversion of the Scandinavians of Dublin was no doubt encouraged by the baptism 

of two of their leaders, Sitric and Amlaib Cuáraín in the tenth century (Abrams 2010, 3). 

After Clontarf, the focus of the Hiberno-Scandinavian kings of Dublin changed to the 

Christianisation of their urban space. A large number of churches, beginning with 

Christchurch in c.1028, were founded between the mid-eleventh and twelfth century. 

These were on virgin ground, with novel architectural features and dedications to 

universal saints (Ó Carragáin 2010, 236). The bishops of Dublin were ordained in 

Canterbury, thus the ecclesiastical establishment in Dublin had close links with the ethos 

of reform. When Muirchertach Ua Briain was made king of Dublin in 1075, he was 

obviously influenced by this atmosphere. However he rejected the machinations of 

Canterbury and promulgated reform on Irish terms, culminating in the Synod of 

Rathbreasil (Holland 2000). In this diocesan organization Dublin was sidelined in favour 

of Glendalough and did not receive diocesan status until 1152. 

Church Organisation 

One of the idiosyncrasies of Rathdown is that, although it has a high density of 

ecclesiastical sites, each of these is situated singly within its small parish. Also as argued 

above it is hard to establish a hierarchy of ecclesiastical sites. This is unlike the pattern in 

182



other parts of the country, where a major church has several satellites in its territory. This 

is illustrated by Ross in Co.Cork and Faughart Upper in Co Louth (Boazman 2008a,119; 

2008b, 6.3). As there is copious documentary evidence from antiquity of the foundation 

of each of the Rathdown ecclesiastical sites, it is unlikely that others have disappeared. 

As indicated above it is unlikely that they were the paruchiae of a major ecclesiastical 

site, although many of them had connections to different major sites such as Kildare, 

Glendalough and Ferns. It is possible that this lack of a dominant contender to take over 

the ecclesiastical sites of Rathdown ensured their independence. 

Rathdown as a Hiberno-Scandinavian hinterland 

The concept of a settlement, such as the Hiberno-Scandinavian town of Dublin, that did 

not support itself by subsistence, was new to early medieval Ireland. It was also unlike 

Scandinavian settlement in other countries. In Scandinavia there was no ethnic divide 

between urban and rural, magnate farms supplied the growing emporiums such as 

Kaupang. In England the Scandinavians founded towns but also signed treaties 

legitimizing their landholding, but in Ireland the robust attitude of the Irish kings meant 

that Scandinavian rural settlement was curtailed (Kershaw 2000; Ó Corráin 1998a, 425). 

Thus to feed and supply their liminal settlements they had to negotiate with their 

immediate hinterland. Initially their demands were non-negotiable, in the form of raids 

but the places at which they made their first settlements were often near ecclesiastical 

sites which were centres of agrarian production. If permanent settlement was intended 

then the disruption of the farming year by raiding was non-productive, thus some form of 

accommodation must have taken place (Downham 2004, 90). The low incidence of 

attacks on the considerable number of ecclesiastical foundations in the Rathdown area 

from the mid-ninth century onwards indicates a profitable arrangement between the two 

stakeholders. In the tenth century coin hoards were found exclusively at ecclesiastical 

sites (Sheehan 2004, 185). In Rathdown, there were no hacksilver hordes, only coins at 

Delgany, Clondalkin, Dalkey, and Kilmainham. This represents a monetarisation of a 

previously subsistence economy (Hedeager 1994, 144). Thus the fertile area of Rathdown 

in the tenth and eleventh century became the producer of goods for the neighbouring 

183



town and was no doubt paid for this production in coin. The situation of ecclesiastical 

sites in the Rathdown area as producers of goods for the growing metropolis may have 

contributed to the continued independence of small units of ecclesiastical organisation 

described above. Documentary evidence and the dearth of archaeological evidence for 

blanket Scandinavian settlement of the hinterland suggest that such settlement was 

interleaved with that of existing landowners and these were not supplanted (Etchingham 

1994). 

Ecclesiastical sites in Rathdown 

For the purpose of project ecclesiastical sites were divided into definite, probable and 

possible (Boazman 2009, 4.6.2, 565-569). If all classifications are taken into account the 

density of ecclesiastical sites in Rathdown is one site in a 3.18 sq km area. This is one of 

the highest densities in Ireland (Boazman 2008a, 120). The two distinctive features of 

the area are a significant number of pre-Romanesque unicameral mortared-stone churches 

and commemorative grave slabs, known as Rathdown slabs. These slabs are found in an 

ecclesiastical context and their provenance is restricted to the study area. There are 31 

slabs or parts of slabs extant. Their decoration features herringbone designs, concentric 

circles and cup marks but these are often combined with Christian symbology (Healy 

2009). 

184



Fig. 5.32: Rathdown slabs at Killegar. 

Non-ecclesiastical burial in Rathdown 

The following summary draws especially on Carroll (1998, 161-170), Conway (1999) 

and O‘Neill (2005, 66-88). There are two significant sites of non-ecclesiastical burial in 

the inner study area, Cabinteely and Cherrywood and one in the outer study area, 

Butterfield. All are enclosed, and Cabinteely and Butterfield show evidence of 

enlargement of the original enclosure. Finds of A and B ware and radiocarbon dates in 

the case of Butterfield indicate early foundation. Numbers and duration of burial varied. 

Cabinteely had 1550 burials in six stages of statigraphy, Cherrywood, one early phase of 

38 burials and Butterfield over 200 burials, one dated to the tenth century. All burials 

were extended east west and earmuffs occurred in many graves in all three cemeteries. 

185



There was evidence of metal working in the later stages of Cabinteely and two possible 

bronze book mounts were among the finds. Animal bone was found in the first enclosure 

at Cabinteely but apart from a millstone in a grave there was no evidence of arable 

production. At Cherrywood burial was limited to the early period and the find of part of 

a whalebone plaque, suggests ninth-century Hiberno-Scandinavian occupation. A corndrying 

kiln indicates arable production in the eleventh and twelfth centuries and three sets 

of postholes, reminiscent of Scandinavian house structures, are also dated to the same 

period (Boazman 2009, 4.6, 628-633). 

Ringforts 

The study area has a low density of ringforts which are all situated to the south of the 

Loughlinstown River, the single exception being Glebe which is just north of the river and 

will be discussed below. The ringforts occur in groups limited to certain townlands on 

the lower slopes of the mountains. The low density of ringforts has been discussed by 

several commentators, with urban development and Anglo-Norman cultivation being 

posited as explanations (Stout & Stout 1992, 19). However the dearth of toponomy (‗lis‘, 

‗dun‘ and ‗rath‘) referring to non-extant structures in the study area and the fact that the 

considerable development-led excavation of the last twenty years has not revealed more 

ringforts seems to suggest their scarcity is an idiosyncrasy of the area (Flanagan 1994, 

112). 

Landscape analysis 

Tully ecclesiastical estate 

The ecclesiastical site at Tully lies on a flat-topped hill of 70m altitude (for a tentative 

delineation of the estate see Boazman 2009, 4.7, 644). It has aerial photographic evidence 

of enclosure (Swan 1998). The non-ecclesiastical burial site of Cabinteely lies at a lower 

elevation 1.1km NNE of Tully. Cabinteely was functioning as a burial site during the 

conversion period of Christianity and continued to function as such throughout the 

millennium. Tully must have tolerated this situation or perhaps profited from it in burial 

186



dues. 

The find of a book mount suggests that the site of Cabinteely may have 

manufactured craft objects for the ecclesiastical site. 

The ringfort at Glebe lies on designated churchland in the Down Survey. There is 

considerable evidence for arable production in the Tully area, four corn-drying kilns 

preceded the ringfort producing dates of 1460 ±32 AD 540-660 two sigma. In the 

confirmation to Holy Trinity of their possessions Tully is described: ‗Tilac Nonescop 

with the mill‘ (MacNeill 1950, 7). The ringfort is dated to 1263 ± 26 AD 670-860 and 

has evidence for both arable and pastoral farming. Finds of bone trial pieces with a Chi- 

Rho and the word ‗Deo‘ inscribed seem to suggest that the ringfort was a ‗home-farm‘ of 

manaig workers for the ecclesiastical site in the seventh to ninth century. The 1202 

document listing the donors of land to Holy Trinity demonstrates that the group of lands 

surrounding Tully came under the control of the Meic Torcaill family in the early twelfth 

century. That the lands were still continuing in arable production is shown by a date 

from a kiln in Site 40 which lay southwest of the earlier kilns close to Glebe: 1050 ± 27 

AD 890-1030 and the corndrying kiln at Cherrywood (see below). 

Cherrywood lies about a kilometre ESE of Tully. In its earliest incarnation it was 

probably a family settlement and burial ground, similar to the initial stage of Cabinteely. 

Possibly the ecclesiastical site at Tully was not prepared to tolerate two non-ecclesiastical 

burial grounds in the vicinity. The whalebone plaque and silver ingot could indicate 

ninth-century Scandinavian rural settlement. The three rectangular sub-divided houses 

are diagnostic of Scandinavian design. These were contemporary with a nearby 

corndrying kiln dated by charred oats to AD 1020-1190. These dates would concur with 

Meic Torcaill kingship in Dublin and therefore the settlement could indeed have been a 

rural estate under their auspices, close to the ecclesiastical site under their patronage. 

187



Fig. 5.33: Twelfth-century cross at Tully. 

A Hiberno-Scandinavian presence is suggested by the presence of three Rathdown slabs 

near the church. The slab with a cross on it is one of the finest in the corpus. Three other 

pieces of material evidence suggest high status patronage. The date of the mortared-stone 

churches, such as Tully, in Rathdown, is argued by Ó Carragáin to be within a period 

between c.1050 and c.1130 (2005a, 137-149). These dates make it possible that the Meic 

Torcaill, patrons of the church, used some of their not inconsiderable means as Dublin 

merchants to build a stone church. Finally the two crosses at Tully both have features 

that are reminiscent of the twelfth-century cross at Dísert Ó Déaghaidh in Co Clare. The 

cross in the lane has a gable-shaped cap and the south cross has a figure with a crozier on 

it. Cronin suggests that these latter crosses were erected by foundations who had not 

achieved diocesan status after Rathbreasil to try to promote themselves for a succeeding 

synod (1998, 148). No doubt the sidelining of Dublin by Rathbreasil would have been 

taken to heart by the Hiberno-Scandinavian town with its reform ethic and newly- 

188



founded churches. 

Scandinavian patrons is thus not surprising. 

The promotion of a rural ecclesiastical estate by its Hiberno- 

Ringfort groups in the Kiltiernan, Glencullen, Ballybrew, Killegar area 

These townlands hold the highest incidence of ringforts and enclosures in Rathdown. 

Unfortunately many of them are non-extant but deduction from cartography and aerial 

photography gives evidence for 43 enclosures and ringforts. The whole study area has 73 

of these sites. This study proposes that the area was divided into three estates, two 

ecclesiastical and one secular. Divisions seem to have been topographical. Killegar is 

divided from Ballybrew by the steep glen of the Cookstown River and from Glencullen 

and Kiltiernan by a large area of marshy land, still visible. Ballybrew and Glencullen are 

divided by a tributary of the Cookstown River, known in Anglo- Norman documents as 

the ‗Glassenbroke‘. This stream, which is easily fordable, was subject to boundary 

incursions, in the post-Norman period between St Thomas, who were granted Ballybrew 

and St Mary‘s, who had Glencullen. This dispute was settled ‗according to the ancient 

boundaries in the time of the Irish‘, thus indicating that the Glassenbroke boundary was 

pre-Norman (Mills 1894, 174; Gilbert 1894, 388). 

In modern parish structure the townland of Ballybrack on the north side of the Glencullen 

River is part of the parish of Kilgobbin but topographical logic suggests that it should be 

part of Kiltiernan, as it is separated from Kilgobbin by Two Rock Mountain. This would 

concur with many Anglo-Norman confirmations of land to St Mary‘s in ‗Tulachstelan 

and Glencullen‘ (Gilbert 1884, 86). Ballybrew and Killegar lie in the modern parish of 

Powerscourt (which borders Kiltiernan). Killegar was, during the Anglo-Norman period 

on episcopal land, and previous to that is mentioned as a possession of Glendalough in 

the confirmation to Abbot Thomas. Ballybrew was part of a secular baile estate granted 

to Walter Riddlesford (MacCotter 2008, 73, note 93). 

Kiltiernan church lies in a fertile valley sheltered from the south-west by Two Rock 

Mountain. Land-use is at present pasture. The church has been rebuilt but has some 

possible pre-Norman features in a western lintelled doorway surrounded by large granite 

189



blocks. About one kilometre south-west of Kiltiernan is the townland of Ballybetagh. 

There are eight enclosures and one ringfort marked on the RMP but only fragments of 

three are extant. However their position running lineally up both sides of a valley and 

each at the same altitude of the valley slope is reminiscent of the pattern of ringfort 

groups in other parts of the country (Boazman 2008a, 118). This topographical position is 

necessitated by the use of the optimum land. In this case they lie on well-drained land 

above a marshy valley bottom. A similar pattern exists in the valley of the Glencullen 

River where again six enclosures and two ringforts extend to the top of the valley. 

The suggestion of this study is that the ringfort groups on the higher land in the 

Glencullen valley represented the dwelling-places of manaig on the ecclesiastical estate 

of Kiltiernan during the early medieval period. Kiltiernan church stands on lower and 

more fertile ground than the ringfort groups; this could be the demesne land of the 

ecclesiastical site. An Anglo-Norman grant c.1176 suggests an existing pre-Norman 

estate at Tylachstelan (Kiltiernan) (Gilbert 1884, 106). 

Ballybrew 

The ringfort group is that identified as part of a late millennium baile estate (see above). 

There are three enclosures identified by aerial photography here and two ringforts, one 

extant, 35m in diameter. This diameter is large for the Rathdown area. The other 

ringfort was known to be bivallate and is called ‗Raheen‘ in local tradition. It is 

interesting that the large ringfort and the bivallate ringfort occur together, as there is only 

evidence of one other bivallate ringfort in the study area. The large ringfort lies just to 

the south-east of the small group of houses known as Ballybrew and has an extensive 

view from north east to southeast towards the sea at Bray. 

190



Fig. 5.34: Concentration of ringforts and enclosures in the Glencullen, Kiltiernan 

and Killegar and Ballybrew area. 

Killegar 

The ecclesiastical site of Killegar has an enclosure of about 100m diameter and forty 

lintel graves were discovered during gravel extraction. Forty lintel graves were 

unearthed during sand extraction at Killeger. Two early medieval iron bells were found 

in a re-furbishment of the site (Healy 2004, 239). The site was founded in antiquity as 

the saint connected with it, Findbarr, shares one name in his genealogy with an Uí Máil 

genealogy of Berchán of Shankill (Ó Riain 1985, 42). Also ‗Cilli Adgair‘ (Killegar) may 

reference an earlier saint with Saxon forebears. West of the ecclesiastical site on the 

sloping land that rises to the head of the valley are recorded fourteen enclosures. The 

average size of these is under 30m. The ecclesiastical site lies at the easternmost point of 

this settlement group and the enclosures, except two, respect it by one kilometre. The 

ecclesiastical estate and the enclosures all lie within the townland of Killegar and there is 

no other church. Thus it could be posited that this was a small ecclesiastical site founded 

in antiquity by a saint of British extraction, was granted land by the Uí Máil relations of 

191



Findbarr in the seventh century, and later became part of the paruchiae of Glendalough. 

Three Rathdown slabs, one well-carved, with a cross, perhaps represent the scattered 

Hiberno-Scandinavian settlement of this part of Rathdown. 

Rathmichael and Shankill 

The ecclesiastical site at Rathmichael is situated at 100m on a hillridge which continues 

west to Carickgollan. It has a commanding vista to the south. Documentary evidence for 

early foundation is scarce. Hagiography is unconvincing and there is no mention of the 

site until the confirmation of the possessions of the Archbishop of Dublin in 1179 (Scott 

1913; MacNeill 1950, 3). Material evidence of early foundation consists of the remains 

of an inner enclosure, about 20m from the possibly pre-Romanesque church, which is 

mostly re-built (Ó Carragáin 2010, 313). There is also a substantial stone-built outer 

enclosure of 136m and the stump of a round tower. 

The ecclesiastical foundation of Shankill, 750m to the SSE of Rathmichael has no 

archaeological remains but has documentary and topographical evidence of being 

founded in antiquity. St Berchán who is associated with Shankill, has a Uí Máil pedigree 

and the site is referred to as ‗Domnach Sinchell‘ (O Riain 1985, 45). This appellation 

may suggest a pre-Uí Máil foundation. Shankill lies on fertile agricultural land whereas 

Rathmichael is on the edge of much poorer land. Shankill became one of the demesne 

manors of the Archbishop of Dublin in the thirteenth century and the Down Survey 

indicates a 78% arable land-use for the parish of Rathmichael. 

192



Fig 5.35: Present day arable farming three kilometres west of Shankill. 

Rathmichael has evidence of thirteen Rathdown slabs, the largest group in the study area. 

The involvement of the Hiberno-Scandinavians in eleventh- and twelfth-century 

ecclesiastical re-furbishment has been noted above at Tully which was associated with 

reform and the by-passing of Dublin at Rathbreasil. Perhaps at Rathmichael there is an 

example of this in the round tower stump and imposing stone enclosure wall which could 

have referenced the eleventh-century stone wall excavated at Dublin (Mitchell 1987,13). 

Also the name Rathmichael refers to a universal saint to whom there is a dedication in 

Dublin, the church of St Michael le Pole, which has an engaged round tower. A saint 

associated with high places and the elevation of Rathmichael would have been ideal for 

demonstrating to the older Domnach church below, with its possible links to 

Glendalough, that reform was in the ascendancy. 

Conclusion 

The political and ecclesiastical history of Rathdown is marked by a succession of 

overlords and a lack of affiliation to a single major ecclesiastical site. This was a fertile 

area with much evidence of arable production and with the economic advantage of access 

to mainland Europe and the Atlantic seaboard of Britain from the earliest period. The 

193



high density of early ecclesiastical foundations is no doubt due to these advantages and 

the organization of these, as single churches in small parishes, is related to the inability of 

secular or ecclesiastical rulers to establish a hierarchy in the area. Confirmation of land 

grants to ecclesiastical land owners at the beginning of the Anglo-Norman period suggest 

a considerable amount of land in Rathdown was in ecclesiastical hands before 1169 

(Otway-Ruthven 1961, 56). The delineation of small ecclesiastical estates at Tully, 

Killegar and Kiltiernan in this study corroborates this. The establishment of Scandinavian 

Dublin and its concern with the ethos of church reform, ensured the continued autonomy 

and prosperity of these ecclesiastical sites in its hinterland. This was illustrated by the 

embellishment of ecclesiastical sites in the area with mortared-stone churches and 

Rathdown slabs. However the lack of architectural innovation combined with 

idiosyncratic sculpture at the ecclesiastical sites in Rathdown also indicated a tension 

within the Hiberno-Scandinavian identity of the rural areas, referencing design motifs of 

the urban centre combined with the traditional format of Irish ecclesiastical architecture. 

194



5.6 Faughart, Co. Louth (Gill Boazman) 

This section comprises a summary of work on the area centred on Faughart, Co. Louth 

which is being undertaken as part of an ongoing PhD project. The small kingdom of 

Conaille Muirthemne, which extends from north Louth into South Armagh, features in 

early medieval mythology and history to an extent quite disproportionate to its size. 

Recent excavations at Faughart Lower and Balriggan have enabled the re-interpretation 

of the relationship of early medieval sites in the area. 

Topography, geology and land-use 

The study area surrounds Dundalk Bay and roughly comprises the baronies of Upper and 

Lower Dundalk. There is a considerable contrast between the two half-baronies. Lower 

Dundalk to the north of Dundalk Bay is underlain with the granite of the Sliabh Fuait and 

Cooley mountains and is pastureland. The geology of the coastal area is composed of 

Ordovician and Silurian slates and shales but can be sub-divided into two distinct areas. 

The first of these is that close to the town of Dundalk, where extensive reclaimed salt 

marshes extend from Rampark in the east of the study area to the Marshes townlands to 

the south east of the town. Thus early medieval and previous sites are located above this 

previous shore-line, but of course, had easier access to the sea than at the present. The 

second area of Upper Dundalk, which lies concentrically to the marshland, is formed by 

the effects of glaciation consisting of low drumlin hills rising to 60-70m in height. The 

geology of these low-lying areas results in soils which are ‗fine, mellow and easily 

cultivated‘ thus supporting arable farming (Kilroe 1907, 66). Pollen analysis undertaken 

by Weir at two locations close to the edge of the outer study area, indicate a strong 

element of tillage in the farming economy of North Louth in the first millennium (1995). 

Historical background 

The study area in the first half of the millennium was almost certainly part of the territory 

of the Ulaid, prior to their dislodgement from Émain Macha and re-settlement in the east 

of Ulster (Byrne 2001, 118). It is quite possible that the Ulaid established Conaille 

195



Muirthemne as a buffer between themselves and the Uí Néill, whose dependent allies, the 

Airgialla, were established to the northwest and west. In mythology and proto-history the 

hill of Faughart is named as a battle ground of Ulaid and Connachta. Conaille 

Muirthemne was the patrimony of Cuchulain and Cormac mac Airt, grandson of the 

legendary Conn Cétchathach, reputedly defeated the Ulaid at Faughart in 248 (AFM). 

This position of Faughart as a flashpoint of conflict continued throughout the first 

millennium (Boazman 2008b, 6.2, 434). 

The first annalistically recorded leader of Conaille Muirthemne died in AD 688 at the 

battle of Imlech Pich just south of the Boyne. The rulers of the Conaille Muirthemne are 

always referred to as taiosech or tigherna. This underpins the supposition that they were 

a semi-independent lordship of the Ulaid and the Book of Rights indicates that they did 

not pay tribute but received stipends for military service (Dillon 1962, 91). The last lord 

of the Conaille Muirthemne is recorded in 1107 (AFM) around which time the area came 

to be dominated by the Uí Cerbhaill branch of the Uí Chremthain (part of the Airgialla) 

led by Donnchad Ua Cerbaill. 

Extents of the territory of the Conaille Muirthemne 

The southern boundary of Conaille Muirthemne is the ecclesiastical site of Dromiskin. 

The father of St Ronan, Berach was de Chonilibus (of the Conaille) (Thornton 1997, 

150). Atha na Fert (Knockbridge) is mentioned in the annals (819 AFM) as being in 

Magh Conaille. McFirbisigh places Haggardstown, the birthplace of St Fursey in 

Conaille Muirthemne and Haynestown known as ‗Felda‘ is identified as being in ‗Crich 

Conaill‘ in the Tripartite Life of St Patrick (Mac Íomhair 1962, 158; Mulchrone 1939). 

Pre-ninth century Louth and its surrounding area were part of Conaille Muirthemne until 

the twelfth century (Mac Íomhair 1962, 178). The Lagan River (previously known as the 

Conchubar) is mentioned in the legend of Conchubar Mac Nessa as being part of Conaille 

Muirthemne and St Daig, of Iniskeen, is stated in Félire Óengusso to be ‗Daig son of 

Cairell of Inís Cáin Dega in Canaille Muirthemne (Stokes 1905, 177). North of Iniskeen 

is the small parish of Kane. Felire húi Gormáin refers to ‗Sodelb, a virgin. Cen is the 

name of her stead on Mag Conaille‘(Stokes 1895, 215). The northern boundary of the 

196



territory is formed by the foothills of the Slieve Gullion range, known as the Fews 

Mountains (Sliabh Fuaid). The geneaology of St Moneena identifying her as Conaille, 

would suggest that her ecclesiastical establishment at Killeavy in South Armagh fell 

within Conaille Muirthemne. 

Finally there is a question as to whether Cuailgne was part of Conaille Muirthemne. 

There is mention of a king of Cuailgne in Chronicum Scotorum and it is mentioned as a 

trícha cét in the Táin and the Lebor Gabala (MacCotter 2008, 238). The ridge of the 

Cooley Mountains forms a clear topographical boundary so certainly for parts of the first 

millennium it was a separate political entity to Conaille Muirthemne. 

Fig. 5.36: The study area of North Louth. 

197



Ecclesiastical history 

The primary association of Faughart Upper, the major ecclesiastical site of the inner 

study area, is with St Brigit. Although there is no direct reference to her birthplace in the 

Lives of Brigit, Colgan notes in an Appendix: 

Villa in qua nata est, Fochart Muirthemne vocatur, qua est in provincial Ultorum, scilicet 

in regione, qui dicitur Conalle Murthemne. 

(the place in which she was born, is called Faughart Muirthemne, which is in Ulster, lying in the 

region known as Conaille Muirthemne) (1647, 617). 

St Moneena is also associated with Faughart. The life of St Moneena by Conchubranus 

records that Moneena had 150 virgins living with her on the hill at Faughart. However the 

carnal songs of a wedding party reaching the holy place were deemed inappropriate for 

those who were the brides of Christ and she retreated with the group to Killeavy below 

Slieve Gullion leaving one virgin at Faughart (Ulster Society for Medieval Latin Studies, 

1980). 

There is little annalistic record of the ecclesiastical site at Faughart but a list of abbesses 

of Killeavy occurs in the text and twelfth-century notes of the life of Concubranus, and 

this tallies with an annalistic reference, 654.4 (AFM) ‗Coincenn of Cill-Sleibhe, died‘. 

The connection of the foundation with the Conaille Muirthemne continues in that the 13 th 

abbess, Allabuir was the daughter of the king of Conaille Muirthemne, Foidmenn mac 

Fallaig whose obit is listed AU 752 (Esposito 1920, 76; Thornton 1997, 140). 

Louth 

Louth, founded by St Mochta is a major ecclesiastical site is in the outer study area. 

Unlike Faughart, Louth is mentioned in 30 annalistic obits of abbots and airennach from 

662 to 1147. Louth must have had a scriptorium as the Book of Cuana was produced 

there and there are four mentions of ‗scribe‘, ‗lector‘ or ‗tutor‘, between 742 and 1047 

198



(AFM). Thus Louth could have had control over dissemination of information and was 

not likely to promote a neighbouring ecclesiastical site, Faughart, with its Brigidine 

associations. It is quite possible that Louth and Faughart had equal status under Armagh 

during the period of Conaille Muirthemne ascendancy in the area. One of the abbots of 

Louth was the steward of ‗Patrick‘s people‘ beyond the Fews Mountains in 935 (AFM). 

However political developments in the third decade of the twelfth century put Louth in a 

dominant position. Donnchad mac Cerbaill of the Uí Chremtháin rose to prominence in 

the 1130s. He saw an advantage in linking himself with church reform and was friendly 

with St Malachy who chose Áed Ua Cáellaide as bishop of Airgialla (Clogher) in 1138 

and moved the episcopal seat to Donnchad mac Cerbaill‘s new power centre at Louth 

(Lawlor 1917, 138). Louth had been previously within the diocese of Armagh. Louth‘s 

eminence was emphasized by the foundation of a chapter of the Arrouaisian canons of St 

Augustine at Louth in a ceremony attended by St Malachy, Áed Ua Cáellaide and 

Donnchad Ua Cerbhaill in 1148 (AFM). Thus certainly by the middle of the twelfth 

century Faughart was probably under the episcopal rule of Louth and the dearth of 

records of the Conaille Muirthemne in the twelfth century, suggest under the temporal 

rule of Donnchad Ua Cerbhaill and the Airgialla. 

The Lands of Faughart 

A grant of part of a marriage settlement by Hugh de Lacy to the Cistercians in 1199, a 

1606 Inquisition and the Down Survey, all describe the same parcel of land between the 

River Flurry and a stream to the west known as the Aduname. This contains the 

ecclesiastical site of Faughart Upper. Although there is no early medieval record of the 

estate, the very longevity of the documented extents, from the twelfth century to the 

seventeenth would suggest a pre-existing land unit (Boazman 2008b, 6.2, 437-440). 

Aerial photography shows a large double-ditched enclosure surrounding the site (Buckley 

& Sweetnam1991, 230). In 1966 a limited excavation was undertaken (O‘Connor). The 

east-west trench in the nave indicated a ditch dug to 1.75m running north to south 

199



through the present church nave just west of the mid wall. The feet of several stone-lined 

burials were found at the base of the east chancel wall. Another cist burial was found 

below the north of the north wall. This stone-lined grave was tapering with a single 

shaped cover stone. This is similar to O‘Brien‘s seventh-century stone-lined cists which 

were tapering rather than with parallel sides (O‘Brien 2003, 70). Souterrain ware, animal 

bone and iron slag were among the finds. 

Fig. 5.37: The proposed ecclesiastical estate at Faughart, sited between the Flurry 

and Auduname rivers. 

Faughart is on the summit of one of the foothills of the Fews Mountains with a 

commanding vista south over Dundalk Bay. It is likely that Faughart was positioned on 

the Slíghe Miodhluachrac, leading from Tara to Émain Macha through the Moyry Pass 

1.5kms to the north of Faughart. There are three ecclesiastical sites south of Faughart 

200



within the proposed ecclesiastical estate, all at lower elevations. The topographical 

position of Ballymascanlon, on an isthmus in Dundalk Bay, rather than its material 

remains, a seventeenth-century church and a souterrain, suggests it derives from 

antiquity. Excavation at Faughart Upper and Lower, have yielded considerable amounts 

of edible shellfish remains, possibly Ballymascanlon could have acted as a maritime 

connection for the ecclesiastical estate at Faughart. Proleek, is a large ecclesiastical 

enclosure, 120m in diameter, to the southeast of Faughart. It is positioned just above the 

Flurry River, on the border of the ecclesiastical estate. It is not unusual for a major site 

such as Faughart to have a prominent secondary site within its estate. Both Donaghmore 

and Rosscarbery in Co Cork have secondary sites with evidence of ritual foci at Kilcullen 

South and Knocknageehy respectively (Boazman 2008a, 126). The second ecclesiastical 

site in the townland of Proleek lies 1.5km west of Cill Mór and 2kms southeast of 

Faughart. 

The two ecclesiastical sites on the plain north of the Sliabh Fuait which terminates at 

Slieve Gullion, now in modern South Armagh, although within the parcel of land 

ostensibly forming the estate of Faughart, appear to privilege other allegiances. The 

pillar stone at Kilnasaggart with its inscription ‗Ternoc‘, annalistically dated to an obit of 

715, has a very definite reference to Armagh. This would not be extraordinary as 

Faughart was within the tithe collection area of Armagh (see reference to steward above). 

Kilnasaggart, also on the Slíghe Miodhluachrac was probably a waypoint for travellers 

between Armagh and the south, and as such was acknowledging an important affiliation 

to the north. 

As noted above, according to Conchubranus, St Moneena founded Faughart in honour of 

Brigit but then retreated to Killeavy to pursue an ascetic lifestyle. St Sarbile was left by 

Moneena to continue the ecclesiastical establishment in Faughart. What was the 

explanation for this move from the original foundation with its Brigidine association? It 

seems that Faughart Upper, although an ecclesiastical site, had strong secular affiliations. 

Faughart was an iconic battleground for over a millennium, as an annalistic reference at 

732 (AFM) to the conflict between the Uí Néill and the Ulaid illustrates. Maybe the story 

of St Moneena‘s move to Killeavy was a parable for changes in influence at Faughart 

201



which came to fulfill a more public role with its important connection to St Brigit, while 

Killeavy assumed the ascetic role. 

It was probably in the interest of the rulers of Conaille Muirthemne to promote the cult of 

St Brigit at Faughart and thus maintain a flow of income from pilgrimage. One of the 

noticeable aspects of the ecclesiastical site to this day is the proliferation of ritual foci 

relating to Brigit. These are both within the graveyard of Faughart Upper and in the ritual 

area beside St Brigit‘s Stream 500m to the northwest. 

Fig. 5.38: St Brigid’s Bed, the horse-shoe shaped shrine at Faughart Upper. 

In the graveyard are the mound, the horseshoe-shaped monument and St Brigit‘s Well. 

The horseshoe-shaped monument contains a rough stone of which there is antiquarian 

evidence of penitents kneeling on the pumice stone until their knees bled (Wright 1748, I, 

19). Of course there is considerable evidence for these practices having an early modern 

provenance but the evidence of the cemetery settlement at Faughart Lower indicates a 

202



strong possibility of Faughart being maintained as a focus of popular and profitable 

pilgrimage, throughout the first millennium as well as the second (Carroll 1999, 86). 

Faughart Upper and the cemetery settlement at Faughart Lower 

About 1.5kms south of the ecclesiastical site lies the recently excavated cemetery 

settlement site of Faughart Lower. I am grateful to Niall Roycroft of the NRA for 

providing information about this site. Both this site and the other cemetery settlements in 

the study area, Balriggan and Rampark, are situated at below 50m of altitude. As such 

they do not have commanding vistas which suggests that they did not want to indicate 

power by use of topography. The three sites are each separated by three kilometres 

unlike the grouping of ringforts in the proposed Faughart estate, which are sometimes 

only a hundred metres apart. Maybe this, combined with the earliest dates in the 

Faughart burial sequence, indicates that these settlements were founded in the fifth 

century when there was considerable movement between Ireland and the disintegrating 

Roman Empire. Perhaps they were initially, small family settlements with quasi- 

Christian burial practices and as such, were established before the floruit of ringforts 

whose tight kin-group structure was manifest in their physical proximity. The dates from 

the earliest cemetery settlement burials at Faughart Lower, RC calibrated 2 sigma AD 

390-550, would suggest a foundation of the settlement in the primary period of 

Christianity in Ireland; the obit of Brigit is 425 and that of Moneena 517. 

There were approximately 750 burials at Faughart Lower, the last c.1000. The fact that 

burial continued in a family plot in unconsecrated ground with the presence of a major 

ecclesiastical site just 1.7 km to the north is unusual. The move from ancestral burial 

places to burial within the precincts of an ecclesiastical site was considered by the ninthcentury 

church to be the norm (O‘Brien 1992, 136). Annalistic references to the lords of 

Conaille Muirthemne are recorded from 688 to 1107. The early burials at Faughart were 

in stone-lined graves, but later phases were less ordered, intercut and in some places 

twelve deep, as if this was no longer the burial place of one family. Two features of the 

203



later development of the site, suggest enhancement rather than practical purpose. The 

first was a carefully built cashel wall most prominent on the western side of the site and a 

well, whose proximity to burial would have rendered it non-potable. Perhaps the wall was 

to impress pilgrims approaching on the Slighe Miodluachra from the west and the well an 

echo of St Brigit‘s well at the ecclesiastical site above and both were products of a 

promotion of pilgrimage by the rulers of Conaille Muirthemne in this period. 

Ringforts on the proposed ecclesiastical estate of Faughart 

There are thirteen ringforts west of Faughart Upper. As there are 73 ringforts (extant and 

non-extant) in the inner study area, one fifth of them are on this apron of land. Only eight 

of the ringforts in the study area are bivallate. Three of these are in the group beside 

Faughart Upper. Thirteen ringforts in the study area have a diameter over 35m. Three 

are in the group beside Faughart Upper. This tendency for an ecclesiastical estate to 

contain a high density of ringforts and also a high proportion of high status ringforts is 

replicated at Ross in Co. Cork, where the majority of bivallate ring forts in the parish of 

Ross occur in the ecclesiastical estate (Boazman 2008a,119). It is possible that the 

smaller ringforts represent the domicile of manaig on the estate and the larger bivallate 

examples are those of wealthy patrons of the estate. 

Other settlement groups in the north of the study area 

Doolargy and Ballymakellett 

Fifteen ringforts, mostly extant, lie on the lower slopes of the Cooley Mountains. There 

are three groups. The western group is situated on the shoulder of steeply rising land in 

the townland of Ballymakellett. This group has evidence of iron-working. The central 

group lies below and on the way to the cashel at Doolargy, separated from the first group 

by a fast-flowing mountain river. This river can be easily forded at one point thus there 

could have been communication between these two groups. The cashel is a spectacular 

site at an altitude of 250m looking down a long valley which has many relict field 

systems and stone huts. To the west of the cashel is a track which leads over the col to a 

group of smaller ringforts. These interconnections suggest a kingroup whose leader lived 

in the central cashel, which was much larger, 58m x 47m in diameter, compared to the 

204



other Doolargy ringfort average diameter of 26m. The linear arrangement of ringforts in 

separate river valleys probably signifies different families within the kingroup. This 

physical manifestation of agnatic inheritance is described in the Tripartite Life of St 

Patrick: ‗Fiacc, one of five sons, received his father‘s fifth ridge‘ (Mulchrone 1939, 166). 

A river valley or a low ridge obviously formed a clear topographical boundary for a kingroup 

area. This linear pattern of ringforts can be found in the parishes of Donoughmore 

and Aghabullogue in mid Cork and Ross in West Cork (Boazman 2008a, 118). 

The size of the ringforts correlates with the infertility of this upland area. Davies‘s 

excavation in 1940 revealed evidence of cattle-rearing. The name of the cashel 

‗Lissachiggel‘ the fort of the rye, suggesting that only this less prestigious grain would 

grow in the vicinity (1940). 

Fig. 5.39: The cashel at Doolargy. . 

205



Although this was probably part of the Conaille Muirthemne polity, towards the end of 

the millennium the pressure of the eastern Ind Airthir (part of the Airgialla federation) 

eroded the borders and probably dominated this area in the twelfth century. The Airthir 

were split into segments of inter-related dynasties of which the Uí Annluainn 

(O‘Hanlons) and the Ó Ruadacáin (Rodericks or O‘Roddys) were the most powerful and 

they tenaciously clung to this remote area until c.1590 when a Dowdall document shows 

‗Doulargy, Co Armagh held of O Hanlon by socage, being 60 acres‘ (Mac Íomhair 1970, 

81). 

Dungooly is in the catalogue of churches founded by St Patrick in Colgan‘s Trias 

Thaumaturgae (1647, 272). It was known as Ernatiensis or Cluain Braoin, hence its 

anglicisation as Urney. One of its abbots was St Dichull who became abbot of Louth in 

700. There is also a reference to a relic, St Patrick‘s Bell, which is now lost (ibid.,166). 

There is a considerable number of ringforts in the vicinity of Dungooly and it seems 

likely that it was a proprietary church of the local túath. This was more than likely a 

túath connected to the Conaille Muirthemne but it would have been on the borders of the 

polity and may have made alliances with its Airgialla neighbours (the Louth connection 

mentioned in the history section suggests this). There is a bivallate ringfort 200m to the 

west of the ecclesiastical site, the interior diameter is 37.7m. A line of nine ringforts 

stretches under the shoulder of a ridge of higher ground c600m to the southwest 

beginning in Lurgankeel townland and stretching into Dungooly and over the south 

Armagh border into Carrivegrove. The average size of these is 39m in diameter with two 

bivallate and two cliffedge forts. The large ringfort average size suggests a prestigious 

community, supporting a proprietary church but also, as evidenced by the cliff-edge forts, 

security conscious in their border position between the Conaille Muirthemne and the 

Airgialla. 

206



Settlement groups in the southern part of the study area 

Balriggan cemetery settlement and surrounding settlement 

The following information has been supplied by Shane Delaney of IACS. Balriggan lies 

on a low knoll of gravel of 13m to 15m within a shallow bowl, immediately surrounded 

on the northwest and southeast by wetland and bog. Thus vista was not a pre-eminent 

element in choice of site. The soils are well-drained glacially mixed gravels and today the 

land-use is mainly pasture although the designation of an area to the south of the site as 

‗Barleyfield‘ and four nineteenth century mills in the area would indicate a past emphasis 

on arable farming. The corn-drying kiln at Balriggan has returned early dates, RCD Cal.2 

sigma AD 80-250 but this date is from ash (fraxinus) charcoal at the base of the kiln. 

Dating of charred grain will form part of the final report and this may return a fifthcentury 

date which would correlate with the earliest burials at Faughart Lower. 

The relationship of Balriggan with other forms of early medieval settlement is dependent 

on the dating of the cemetery settlement. The second date from Balriggan is more likely 

to be from the use-time of the site than the ash date from the corn-drying kiln, as it is 

from charcoal in a trough-like pit in the north eastern area of the site. It is RCD Cal.2 

sigma AD 530-650. However this would be at the beginning of the period of 

construction of ringforts, which is c. 600-900 (Stout 1997, 29). The number of burials at 

Balriggan, just 25, would suggest a very short usage period for the site or on the other 

hand, a short period in which the site was used for burial. 

Finds on the site included 800 sherds of souterrain ware and 150kg of iron slag as well as 

six large pits for an undisclosed process and an ore roasting furnace. This seems to be 

evidence of more than domestic making and mending that would be in keeping with the 

modest number of burials and it is possible that the site evolved into a production centre 

for surrounding ringforts. There are three ringforts, about 700-800m from Balriggan, one 

Carn More, has been excavated, finds included 200 sherds of souterrain ware, thus it 

could be contemporary with Balriggan. However an excavated ringfort at 

Newtownbalregan 1.4km southwest of Balriggan returned dates of AD 770-970, which 

would be almost 200 years after the latest date at Balriggan so until further dates are 

207



published for Balriggan, it is difficult to say whether the cemetery settlement functioned 

as an industrial site for other early medieval settlement. 

Souterrains in the south of the Upper Dundalk barony 

Apart from one early date of AD 405-650 at Marshes Upper the dates from excavated 

souterrains in the North Louth area fall between AD 688 and 1190. Thus from around 

the end of the seventh century there was a considerable increase in ostensibly unenclosed 

settlement on dry areas of the flat marshy land to the south of Dundalk . Some of these 

souterrains were enclosed by a ditch, Donaghmore (Rynne 1959), Marshes Upper 3 and 4 

(Gowen 1992), Killally (Clinton and Stout 1997), Marshes Upper 5 (McCormick and 

Crone 2000), but none of the enclosing banks survived. Modern excavation methods 

mean that the environs of souterrains are explored thus the lack of evidence for an 

enclosure can be demonstrated. Tateetra would be an example of this (Hayes 2007). 

Many souterrains constructed in the Upper Dundalk area are apparently without 

enclosure, a total of 33 out of 54, and obviously there must have been unenclosed 

settlement above them. 

Fig. 5.40: Gallery 5 at Tateetra. 

208



The souterrains of Upper Dundalk were carefully crafted often using cut stone, with 

corbelled roof construction and elaborate door fittings. At Tateetra, granite, provenanced 

from 20 km away, was used for the jamb stones of the end chamber and the decorated 

Bronze Age stones and cross slabs were also used to roof this presumably high status 

monument (ibid.). 

Marshes Upper 

This is a group of eleven souterrains, five of which occur in one complex, Marshes Upper 

3 and 4, excavated by Gowen in 1992. Their economy was similar to other early 

medieval site-types. They kept cattle, sheep and pigs and grew oats and barley. They 

made use of the sea as a resource as net weights, fishbones and cetacean bones were 

found. The lack of settlement surrounding the group suggests that they had at least one 

square kilometre of land around them. This would be 240 acres, a good-sized farm. 

Cortial 

Eight souterrains lie on a ridge which is surrounded by marshy land. To the south-west is 

Killycroney and to the south-east Kilcurly. Bertram de Verdon‘s grant to the Hospital of 

St John in 1189 makes an exception of ‗five other carucates which pertain to Kilkerly‘ 

(Mac Íomhair 1962, 171). This probably means that Kilcurly was ecclesiastical land but 

whether as such it was subject to the same reparations as the possible baile at Cortial is 

unknown. 

Ballybarrack 

The area comprising the townlands Rath, Ballybarrack, Littlemill, Newtownbabe, 

Killally, Carnaneregagh forms the present parish of Ballybarrack. The benefices of the 

area were granted to various religious foundations by the de Verdons at the beginning of 

the twelfth century (White 1943, 45; Otway-Ruthven 1968, 404). These benefices 

approximate to the modern parish of Ballybarrack. MacCotter considers that the late 

millennium land unit, the baile biataig was sub-divided to became the ‗vill‘ of Anglo- 

Norman administration (2008, 79). He lists Ballybarrack as an example of this, the 

assumption being that Ballybarrack and surrounding land formed a baile biataig or 

209



secular estate. This was obviously fertile land as ‗Miltoune de Ballybalricke‘ is referred 

to in the 1332 partition of the de Verdon lands (Otway Ruthven 1968, 427). 

There is no toponymic evidence for an early ecclesiastical estate here. The archaeology 

suggests some form of early medieval settlement as there was an enclosure excavated 

here by Kelly in 1977 with three extensive souterrains, one of which incorporated an 

ogham stone. There was no burial evidence, but a late medieval church lies very close to 

the enclosure. St Thomas‘ Abbey was granted a ‗church‘ at Ballybarrack by Nicholas de 

Verdon in 1232, thus there is ecclesiastical evidence at Ballybarrack, at the beginning of 

the Anglo-Norman period (Gilbert 1889, 9; Otway-Ruthven 1968, 404). One 

interpretation could be that this was first a settlement enclosure with a kin-group church, 

and the souterrains were a later feature, contemporaneous with other souterrains in the 

area in the second part of the millennium. There are several eight other souterrains in the 

parish of Ballybarrack and these may well have represented late millennium settlement in 

the baile. 

Conclusion 

To choose to build unenclosed settlement after a period of enclosed settlement such as 

ringforts, is a choice which must indicate some change in the structure of the society. As 

indicated in the historical section the Conaille Muirthemne kings were at their most 

powerful between AD 688 and 1096. This is manifest in the ringfort groups surrounding 

Faughart and also the probable promotion of the pilgrimage site of Brigid. However, 

towards the end of the millennium there was a distillation of power and smaller political 

units were subsumed. Thus the lords of Conaille Muirthemne were under attack from 

their neighbours, segments of the Aigialla from Ulaid and subsequently from Louth. The 

entries in AFM record two battles involving Conaille Muirthemne in the ninth century, 

six in the tenth century and fifteen in the eleventh century and the first seven years of the 

twelfth century. To be able to draw on a combat force that would fight these battles they 

would need to have access to manpower. The diffused power indicated by the many 

petty lords of a ringfort society would not be cohesive enough. It is probable that 

towards the end of the millennium, the kings of Conaille Muirthemne offered protection 

210



to the inhabitants of the area in exchange for manpower and food, an arrangement 

between clientship and feudalism. This was represented by the baile system. The baile 

biataig had to pay render in goods and cattle to the ruler of the trícha cét. The trícha cét 

had the power to raise a military levy and this was no doubt administered at baile level 

(Mac Cotter 2008a, 52). Maybe this explains the change to unenclosed settlement 

which insinuates a surrender of protection. Thus those who were in the lower ranks of 

society no longer had the cachet of enclosed settlement but still expressed their free status 

by constructing souterrains that were well-crafted and a status symbol in themselves. . 

211



5.7 The Aran Islands and North Clare/South Galway (Bernadette 

McCarthy) 

This section describes ongoing work on two case studies within the Co. Galway regional 

study. The Aran Islands are situated in Galway Bay, and are a geological extension of the 

Burren in Co. Clare, characterised by carboniferous limestone karstic terrain. The North 

Clare/South Galway study-area is situated in the Burren and spans two separate early 

medieval kingdoms, that of Corcomroe, which corresponds to the 12 th Century diocese of 

Kilfenora, and that of the Uí Fhiachrach Aidne, which corresponds to the 12 th C diocese 

of Kilmacduagh. On the Aran Islands, many ecclesiastical sites tend to be situated at the 

foot of terraces where fresh water is available and the soil is more fertile such as Cill 

Ghobnait on Inisheer. Some sites including Cill Cheannannach on Inishmaan, Killeaney 

on Aran and Teampall Chaomháin on Inisheer are located near the shore where there 

were access points from the mainland. Most of the ecclesiastical sites of the North 

Clare/South Galway region are located in an upland area of the Burren which forms the 

boundary between the Uí Fhiachrach Aidne and Corco Modruad territories. Nonetheless, 

though they are in this border location which is largely characterised by limestone karst 

the sites tend to exploit areas of fertile soil. Oughtmama is located on a geological divide: 

the northern half of the site consists of rocky, barren limestone pavement while the 

southern side comprises deep, fertile soil left by glacial drift. Keelhilla is located in 

upland karstic terrain yet it is on a small pocket of rich soil by a spring in what is 

otherwise an agricultural wasteland (Fig. 5.46). Similarly, while Cill Cheannannach on 

Inishmaan is built directly on karstic terrain, a pocket of rich soil is located nearby. When 

considering the full spectrum of ecclesiastical sites and forts on the Aran Islands, a salient 

pattern is that ecclesiastical sites tend to be located in the shelter of terraces or slopes near 

sources of fresh water while forts tend to be located at high points such as the top of 

terraces, hills or sea-cilffs, with expansive views of Galway Bay. For example, Cill 

Chomhla in Onaght is located at the foot of the limestone bluff on which Dún Eóganachta 

stands (Fig. 5.47). This sharp distinction between ecclesiastical site and stone fort in the 

landscape may reflect very different concerns and ways of life. Those living in the 

212



ecclesiastical sites benefited from shelter, fresh water and good land for agriculture in the 

location of their sites. Those who built the cashels, on the other hand, evidently desired 

an expansive view of Galway Bay for strategic reasons. 

The contrast between the distribution of ecclesiastical sites and ringforts in the North 

Clare/South Galway study-area is striking (Fig. 5.43). As noted, ecclesiastical sites tend 

to be located in the vicinity of the county border in occasional green pockets. While 

clusters of ringforts are plentiful elsewhere in the Burren, few ringforts occur in this 

border area. The cashels which are located on the western side of the boundary zone, like 

those of the Aran Islands, enjoy a high location with an expansive view. They include 

Caherconnell, positioned at one end of a major north-south pass through the Burren 

mountains. The fort probably served to defend the political boundary of Corcomroe as 

well as being in a position to profit from those using the routeway. Another cliff-edge fort 

is located by the same routeway is Oughtmama while there is another cliff-edge fort on 

the modern county boundary in Leagh South. Cahercommaun is another major cashel in 

an elevated position located on the western edge of this boundary zone. A trivallate 

cashel, with evidence for fine metal-working, it was again an elite site. An analysis of 

radiocarbon and dendrochronological remains from Caherconnell showed that the fort 

was constructed between the tenth and twelfth centuries AD, though most excavated Irish 

ringforts have been found to date between the seventh and tenth centuries AD (Hull and 

Comber 2008, 31). From the tenth century on the Corcu Modruad were put under 

increasing pressure from the Dál Cais expansion. The need to defend the political 

boundaries of Corcomroe may thus have resulted in the construction of cashels on major 

routeways and boundaries in this area which is otherwise lacking in non-ecclesiastical 

settlement. 

Another striking pattern that emerges from analysis of the North Clare/South Galway 

study area is that churches situated in this boundary areas of two large territorial units 

may have received termonn lands on both sides of the boundary, a phenomenon which 

has been noted by Ó Riain in relation to early medieval boundaries in general (1972, 28). 

Such churches may have had representatives from both territories, as at St Mac Duach‘s 

213



hermitage in Keelhilla. An early vernacular text described above shows that the 

dedication to St Mac Duach existed in the medieval period (O‘Keeffe 1904, 43-8). The 

principal foundation of Mac Duach, who was an Uí Fiachrach saint, is Kilmacduagh in 

Co. Galway. This site, however, is located across the border in Clare and may therefore 

indicate that Kilmacduagh had termonn lands on the other side of the Uí Fiachrach 

kingdom‘s boundary. Similarly, Killinny parish adjoining Kilmacduagh Parish in 

Galway, dedicated to Enda as was Cill Éinne on Aran, may actually have been a termonland 

of the diocese of Kilfenora. Ó Carragáin notes that the church at Templemore, Co. 

Clare bears a remarkable resemblance to the one at Kiltiernan across the border in Co. 

Galway (2002, 26). Location on the boundaries of kingdoms enabled ecclesiastical 

estates to maintain some independence from secular power structures, yet also served as 

points of contact between kingdoms. Ó Riain notes how boundary churches played a role 

in the payment and collection of tribute (1972, 26-27), while Ní Ghabhláin notes how 

boundary ecclesiastical sites served as areas of sanctuary which provided entryways to 

kingdoms for travellers. As well as receiving hospitality on the ecclesiastical site they 

could meet parties from other kingdoms on neutral ground (1996, 332). It was therefore 

to the advantage of secular kingships to donate land for ecclesiastical foundation in 

boundary territories. 

The four townlands of Aran, the two townlands of Inishmaan and the single townland of 

Inisheer each contain a major ecclesiastical site and stone fort. This is an unusual 

settlement pattern which would not generally be found on the mainland, where ringforts 

tend to occur in clusters, as in parts of the North Clare/South Galway study-area, and 

ecclesiastical sites are fewer and more widely dispersed. As in the North Clare/South 

Galway study-area, its nature as a boundary zone surrounded by large territories is 

responsible for this unusual layout. Galway Bay was a peripheral area yet nonetheless a 

marine crossroads of major strategic importance. Historical analysis of their borders and 

ecclesiastical land ownership merged with the GIS indicates more than one early 

medieval kingdom from the surrounding mainland may have had a presence at once on 

the islands, leading to the four-fold division of the island and its complex pattern of 

ecclesiastical land ownership. A combination of early medieval hagiography with study 

214



of church dedications and later medieval sources such as papal taxations, papal letters, 

Elizabethan fiants and the 1584 Inquisitions suggest ecclesiastical sites from various 

Fig. 5.41: Aran with major sites and townlands named. 

Fig. 5.42: Inishmaan with major sites and townlands named. 

Fig. 5.43: Inisheer with major sites and townlands named. 

215



Fig. 5.44: Distribution of definite early ecclesiastical sites and ring-forts along the 

county border of North Clare/South Galway study-area. 

216



Fig. 5.45: Plan of Mainistir Chiaráin, indicating termonn marking pillar stones. 

Fig. 5.46: Hinterland of St Mac Duach’s Hermitage. The site is located in the trees at 

the base of the ridge. 

217



Fig. 5.47: Gable-shrine at Cill Chomhla with Dún Eoghanachta in background. 

218



surrounding secular polities claimed a right to lands on Aran (for full outline and 

discussion, see McCarthy 2009, 691-3; 746-7). Killeaney, containing St Enda‘s 

foundation of the same name, was associated with both the Corcu Modruad and the 

Eoghanacht, and was a prebend of the diocese of Kilfenora in the later medieval period. 

In Oghill, Mainistir Chiaráin, also known as Mainistir Connachtach, was held by the 

diocese of Tuam in the later medieval period and the site can be associated with both 

Kilkieran across Galway Bay in Connemara and the Conmaicne Mara who fought a battle 

against the Corcu Modruad at the monastery in 1016, while the nearby Teampall Asurnaí 

is dedicated to a saint of Uí Fhiachrach genealogy. Teampall Mac Duach in the townland 

of Kilmurvy is dedicated to St Mac Duach, cousin of Guaire of Aidhne, and it is likely 

that a member of the ruling line of the Uí Fhiachrach was installed in the site. The most 

westerly townland of Onaght was associated with the Eoghanacht and, later on, the Dál 

Cais, whose patron saint was Brecan, dedicatee of the main church of Na Seacht 

dTeampaill and close relation of St Flannan of Killaloe in the genealogies. In the later 

medieval period the site was a prebend of the diocese of Killaloe, the spiritual centre of 

Dál Cais power. Both Na Seacht dTeampaill and Killeaney, each associated with the 

Eoghanacht/Dál Cais, contain high crosses similar to those found on Dál Cais associated 

site of the Clare mainland such as Kilfenora (de Paor 1979). High crosses of this style are 

absent, however, from the Uí Fhiachrach Aidne territory of the North Clare/South 

Galway study-area as well as the Uí Fhiachrach Aidne associated central townlands of 

Oghill and Onaght on Aran. Enda, founder of Killeaney at the island‘s eastern end, and 

Brecan, founder of Na Seacht dTeampaill at the island‘s western end, share many 

similarities in their hagiographical representations and Brecan appears to have been 

developed by the Dál Cais as a replacement for the Corco Modruad and Eoganacht 

associated Enda, perhaps reflecting their usurpation of their territories from the Corco 

Modruad and their overlords the Eoganacht from the tenth century on (McCarthy 2009, 

685). Na Seacht dTeampaill and Killeaney both appear to have undergone a major period 

of rebuilding between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries, a period which coincides 

with the height of Dál Cais power in the territory (McCarthy 2009, 684). The presence of 

a major cashel and major ecclesiastical site in each townland of all three islands might 

219



therefore be seen as a reflection of how the islands‘ landscape, which formed a boundary 

zone between numerous secular polities, may have been divided into various termonn 

lands of different ecclesiastical centres on the mainland. The major stone forts in each 

townland were elite settlements for the differing polities who laid claim to this boundary 

area. 

Teaghlach Éinne, on the eastern peripheries of the ecclesiastical complex of Killeaney, 

may have served as a focus for elite lay burial. Manning has remarked on the similarity 

between graves excavated at the site and those excavated at Reefert (1985, 111), a royal 

cemetery at the edge of Glendalough. An early medieval cist excavated c.130m northwest 

of the site (Gosling 1993, 144) may represent burial of less important lay individuals as 

close to the site as possible. A differing burial tradition is evident in the location of the 

non-ecclesiastical burial grounds of Buaile Glas on Inisheer and Buaile na Naomh on 

Inishmaan. Each site is located close to an early medieval cashel in a southern part of 

each island distanced from the primary areas of early ecclesiastical settlement which in 

each case is on the northern side of the island. Those living in the southern areas of 

Inisheer and Inishmaan may have been inhabited distinct territory from the ecclesiastical 

lands further north, confirming their territorial identity through their use of ancestral 

burial-grounds in the early medieval period. The burial-ground of Owenbristy, in the 

North Clare/South Galway study-area, is not only located on a townland boundary, like 

Buaile na Naomh, but also on the edge of a turlough. The site was inhabited seasonally, 

being flooded annually by the turlough, and burials included flexed inhumations, 

showing the transition to Christian burial was not yet complete in this liminal burialground. 

Evidence of continuity of a pre-Christian past is also apparent when considering 

the early medieval resuse of Dún Aonghasa (McCarthy 2009, 694, 758). Rynne (1991, 

261) has suggested that the stone forts of Aran may have been ceremonial centres, whose 

function in the landscape was superseded by the development of early ecclesiastical sites. 

His theory is plausible in the case of Dún Aonghasa: with its cliff-top location and central 

‗stage‘ of natural rock the multi-period site has all the appearance of a ritual space. 

Excavation indicates most of the stone forts were early medieval in origin (McCarthy 

2009, 758), but the towering monumentality and elevated position of Dún Aonghasa is 

220



replicated in their form and location. Cnoc Raithni, a probable early medieval nonecclesiastical 

burial ground, also shows a concern with maintaining links with a 

perceived ancestral heritage. Though producing Late Bronze Age evidence for burial 

(McCarthy 2009, 758), the mound was reused in the early medieval period when slablined 

graves were inserted. A non-ecclesiastical burial ground at Cross, Co. Galway was 

in use sporadically from the Late Neolithic to the early medieval period as excavation 

indicates (Mullins 2007, 109). 

The early Irish monastic familia included a wide range of individuals who were not 

monks in the strict sense. Cill Éinne covered a broad landscape ranging from Teampall 

Bheanáin in upland karstic terrain on its western periphery to Teaghlach Éinne on the 

shoreline to the east. Hagiographical evidence suggests the community were diverse 

(McCarthy 2009, 682). This diverse community needed to be controlled and directed so 

as to maintain order and differentiate between sacred and profane space. This hierarchical 

ordering is evident in the way space was defined in the ecclesiastical site of Aran and the 

placement of certain monuments. The termonn or extents of the ecclesiastical site (see 

McCarthy 2009, 736 for discussion of this term) were defined through the use of pillarstones 

as well as enclosures and high crosses on parts of the Aran landscape. Mainistir 

Chiaráin, Eochaill, is the most striking example of a site with evidence for a termonn in 

its hinterland. Two of the standing pillar-stones which are in situ appear to mark a 

curvilinear boundary to east and northeast and are inscribed with crosses which face 

eastwards and outwards. The base of another cross-inscribed pillar which may not be in 

situ is located in the graveyard 40m N of the church where there are fragments of at least 

one other cross-inscribed pillar. Another cross-inscribed pillar stands immediately west 

of the church (Fig. 5.45). In the same townland, there are two pillar-stones west of the 

later medieval church of Teampall an Ceathrair Álainn (McCarthy 2009, Fig. 5.28). The 

most westerly, 420m from the church, is just across the townland boundary in Cill 

Mhuirbhigh. A raised path leads from the church to each of the two stones. The two 

stones are aligned with each other on an east/west axis and appear to mark the western 

extents of ecclesiastical lands: a GIS representation shows that the land between the 

church and the most westerly stone is more fertile and lush than the rockier land in the 

221



site‘s hinterland. A curvilinear boundary is also asserted at Na Seacht dTeampaill, where 

three surviving high crosses surrounding the ecclesiastical complex are aligned on 

cardinal points: west, south and north/northeast (see McCarthy 2009, Fig. 5.30). An 

enclosure surrounds the complex settlement of Teampall mac Duach and Templenaneeve. 

A low, uninscribed pillar-stone is located 20m north-east of the pre-Romanesque church 

of Teampall Mac Duach in the adjoining townland of Cill Mhuirbhigh while there is a 

cross-inscribed pillar immediately west of the church as at Mainistir Chiaráin. These 

may have marked the ‗sanctissimus‘ or most sacred core of the site around the principal 

church (See McCarthy 2009, Fig. 5.31). A fox figure inscribed on a north-west quoin of 

Teampall MacDuach and a cross inscribed on a south-east quoin of Templenaneeve may 

also have served to delineate and protect the boundaries of the site (See McCarthy 2009, 

739-40 for identification of ‗fox‘ figure and discussion of its apotropaic qualities). 

The diverse population of the early ecclesiastical complex included hermits who 

practiced a strict ascetic lifestyle. Keelhilla is traditionally considered to be the site of St 

Mac Duach‘s hermitage. The site is located in a rugged upland area of the Burren in 

karstic terrain. Teampall Bheanáin is located on an exposed hilltop location in 

inhospitable karstic terrain that is untypical of other ecclesiastical settlement in the study 

areas. Its exceptionally small pre-Romanesque church is unusually aligned on a 

north/south axis. On the western periphery of the ecclesiastical complex of Killeaney, the 

site is likely to be a satellite hermitage. A semi-subterranean drystone hut located just 

north of the church could have been home to one or two individuals. The north/south 

alignment of the church as well as the northern location of the drystone hut on the site 

may also have been thought more suited to the eremitical life. Gilchrist notes that in 

medieval Britain the ‘northern situation was more fitting for the penitential vocation of 

the recluse‗ (1995, 190)‗ and I have noted elsewhere how anchoritical off-shoots tend to 

be north of early ecclesiastical sites in an Irish context (McCarthy 2007, 55, 60, 72). The 

tiny church may have been a reliquary chapel housing the remains of St Benignus, 

Patrick‘s successor. Ó Carragáin (2010) and McCarthy (2007, 101) have highlighted the 

association of relics with hermits. Hermits, as figures on the edge of society, were 

considered appropriate guardians for sacred relics. Knocknaman, a small ecclesiastical 

222



enclosure that is an offshoot of the enclosure containing Teampall MacDuach and 

Templenaneeve, and Atharla, another small ecclesiastical enclosure that is an offshoot of 

Teampall Chiaráin, are each located to the northeast of the larger ecclesiastical sites on a 

rock-knoll and contain cross sculpture. These sites may also have been the focus of 

stricter ascetic settlement, as well as housing reliquary foci which were cared for by 

hermits and visited by pilgrims. Each of the sites was visible from and in view of the 

main ecclesiastical settlement, like Teampall Bheanáin. Temple Cronan in North Clare is 

located in a townland called Termon, suggesting the site was located at the edge of an 

ecclesiastical estate. It is likely the site, which was an important pilgrimage destination, 

was an offshoot of a larger site such as Oughtmama to the north. The northerly location 

of Knocknaman, Atharla and Teampall Bheanáin relative to large ecclesiastical 

settlement may be reflective of a tradition of shrine location. St Caomhán bed, a highly 

decorated recumbent slab said to mark the location of the founder‘s grave is located a few 

metres north-east of Teampall Chaomháin on Inisheer while excavation indicates St 

Enda‘s Bed at Killeaney was also located north-east of the church of Teaghlach Éinne 

(Manning 1985, 111), the church itself at the north-east corner of what was once an 

extensive settlement. The remains of the gable-shrine at Cill Cheannannach are located 

north of the church. A stone bearing the inscription CARI (‗of the dear one‘) at the northeast 

corner of Teampall Bheanáin may also be a manifestation of this pattern. 

From the ninth century pilgrimage on the Continent became more difficult due to 

Carolingian restrictions on movement within the Empire (Jones 2004, 189), and the 

monumentalisation of the landscape of the Aran Islands from the tenth to twelfth 

centuries can be linked to its increasingly important role as a pilgrimage destination 

(McCarthy 2009, 687). Cill Éinne on Aran, and Cill Cheannannach on Inishmaan are 

both located next to a principal landing-point where pilgrims would have arrived by sea. 

Teampall Bheanáin is highly conspicuous and when approaching Aran by boat its profile 

on top of the hill is one of the first things that draws the eye. In the North Clare/South 

Galway study-area, vestiges of pilgrimage can also be traced on the landscape. The 

routeway running from north to south through the hills of the Burren along the border 

between the kingdoms was a likely pilgrimage route, and a tau-cross on the brow of 

223



Roughan Hill may have marked a resting-place for pilgrims (Jones 2004, 141). Large 

ecclesiastical sites such as Oughtmama en route may have provided hospitality for 

pilgrims. Two gable-shrines containing translated relics at Temple Cronan in Termon 

would have been a highly significant point in the pilgrim‘s journey, and, like Teampall 

Bheanáin, it is likely this small site at the edge of an ecclesiastical estate would have been 

home to a community of ascetics who cared for the relics as one of their main duties. 

Gable-shrines at Cill Cheannannach on Inishmaan and Cill Chomhla on Aran would also 

have been major pilgrimage attractions. The early ecclesiastical sites of the islands 

formed a network of sacred places for the pilgrim, like the pilgrimage landscape of 

Rome, and some of their sites had numerous features which the pilgrim could make a 

‗round‘ of while visiting the site. The numerous leapacha or saints‘ beds of Na Seacht 

dTeampaill would also have been important focal points during a pilgrim‘s circuit of the 

site, as would have been the high crosses on its boundary. Carefully reused dedicatory 

inscriptions appear in the early medieval fabric of pre-Romanesque churches built 

between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries at Teampall Bhreacáin, Teampall Bheanáin 

and Teaghlach Éinne, a phenomenon which is unique to Aran in an Irish context (Ó 

Carragáin 2010, 106). The individuals commemorated became part of the monumental 

Christian landscape which was developing with the construction of stone churches and 

the erection of high crosses. Cill Éinne had multiple churches dedicated to different 

saints, as did Oughtmama in Co. Clare, as well as features such as high crosses within the 

termonn. A great many saints are venerated in total throughout the islands through church 

dedications and the landscape encapsulated the concept of the ‗Communion of Saints‘ 

vital to early Christian doctrine: the binding together of the saints in Heaven with those 

living on Earth in spiritual solidarity under Christ‘s power. Invoking the many different 

saints venerated at different points of the insular landscape, the pilgrim engaged in a 

multi-faceted sacred experience which bridged both the earthly and celestial domains. 

Overall, the Aran Islands and North Clare/South Galway study-areas provide an insight 

into how ecclesiastical settlement and cashels functioned in boundary zones of early 

medieval Irish society. While ecclesiastical sites tended to be in liminal locations, they 

exploited fertile pockets of land and attracted pilgrims. Cashels in this boundary location 

were elite settlements concerned more with guarding routeways than agricultural 

224



production. Non-ecclesiastical burial-grounds also tend to be located in liminal locations 

yet served to affirm kin-group identities, while eremitic satellite sites can be identified on 

the peripheries of ecclesiastical complexes which were important pilgrimage destinations. 

Boundaries played a huge role in the early medieval Irish landscape, topographically 

peripheral yet central to the organisation of power. 

225



Chapter 6 

International Context and Conclusions 

226



6.1 Aspects of the international context for Making Christian Landscapes 

Sam Turner 

This contribution presents a brief initial analysis of the pattern and scale of early 

medieval landscapes in two parts of Britain in order to provide some comparisons for the 

patterns analysed in the Making Christian Landscapes project. The chronological focus is 

the period AD c. 450-800, i.e. the time between the effective end of the Roman Empire 

and the beginning of the Viking Age in Britain. 

It will focus on two themes. First, it will present case studies of landscapes to analyse 

patterns of settlement, the context of early churches and other types of religious or ritual 

sites. Then it will attempt to consider the scale of these patterns in terms of their 

relationships to both broader patterns of physical geography and density of settlement or 

demography. The case-studies are drawn from the early medieval kingdoms of Cornwall, 

Wessex and Northumbria. 

6.1.1 Cornwall 

Cornwall was an independent kingdom in south-west Britain until at least the ninth 

century. It developed out of the post-Roman kingdom of Dumnonia and the Roman 

province of the Dumnonii, which ultimately had their origins in the Iron Age polities of 

the later prehistoric period. Unlike the neighbouring county of Devon to the east, 

Cornwall maintained various aspects of its British cultural identity – principally its own 

language – into the early modern period. The contrast is particularly visible to modern 

visitors in the place-names of the two counties: in Cornwall the vast majority are Cornish, 

but in Devon almost all are English. 

There is some evidence that Cornwall was a Christian land by the end of the sixth 

century. Inscribed stones with text in Latin and ogham testify to Cornwall‘s international 

227



connections in this period across the western seaways to Wales, Ireland and beyond. 

Where imported Mediterranean ceramics or inscribed stones occur at church sites, as at 

Phillack, St Kew and Tintagel, there are hints of early Christian centres founded in late 

Antiquity. Nevertheless, it is only in the seventh century and after that there is fairly 

convincing archaeological or historical evidence for the origins of monastic sites and 

other churches that have survived into later medieval or modern times. 

Fig. 6.1: St Neot and neighbouring parishes to the south of Bodmin Moor, Cornwall. 

The area around St Neot to the south of Bodmin Moor provides an interesting example of 

a developing Christian landscape in the early Middle Ages. The church of St Neot nestles 

in the valley of the small St Neot River, which flows south from the moors into the larger 

River Fowey, itself providing the southern and eastern boundary of the medieval and 

modern parish. 

228



St Neot has existed since at least the ninth century: it is probably mentioned in Asser‘s 

Life of King Alfred and there are fragments of a fine ninth-century carved stone cross in 

the churchyard. Hints that a monastic estate once existed here survive in documents 

including Domesday Book and in later medieval administrative patterns (Turner 2006a, 

127-9). 

In fact, this region to the south of the moor is relatively rich in pre-Conquest sculpture: 

two further ninth-century monuments stand on the border of the parish due east of the 

church at King Doniert‘s Stone (whose inscription probably mentions one of the last 

recorded Cornish kings), and tenth- or eleventh-century crosses survive at Cardinham and 

Four Hole Cross on the northern boundary of the parish, with fragments found at St Cleer 

church and at Bofindle. Whilst these later monuments probably relate to a new phase of 

church foundation in the tenth and eleventh centuries, it is possible that they might have 

been founded on the sites of existing cemeteries. Examples elsewhere in Cornwall show 

that cemeteries sometimes stood in the territories of monasteries but did not necessarily 

have churches. Burial grounds with cist graves have been found at Treharrock and St 

Endellion in the parish of St Kew, the earliest documented Cornish monastery (Olson 

1989). The use of some such sites extended from the later Iron Age to the later medieval 

period, as at Trevone and Trethillick near the early medieval monastery of Padstow, both 

of which were also associated with later medieval chapels (Preston-Jones 1984). 

The settlement patterns around St Neot also help show how the likely monastery helped 

to shape the emerging medieval landscape. Archaeological and historical evidence shows 

that apart from the post-medieval village centres around St Neot and St Cleer, settlement 

here has always been scattered across the landscape in individual farms and hamlets. The 

pattern of early medieval settlements can be inferred to a great extent from the 

distribution of tre place-names, probably coined between the fifth and tenth centuries. 

These settlements concentrate in the lower-lying lands to the south of the moor. They are 

largely absent from the higher ground and the medieval parish of Cardinham to the west, 

which remains heavily wooded with extensive tracts of grazing to this day. In these 

respects they are different to both earlier and later settlements in the area. Later 

229



prehistoric, Romano-British and medieval farms with English place-names are much 

more widely distributed; by contrast, the early medieval settlements cluster in the better 

farmland, away from the hilltops and relatively close to the monastery. 

Fig. 6.2: St Keverne and the Meneage, Cornwall. 

In the west of Cornwall, the church of St Keverne provides another example. A Cornish 

ecclesiastical community is first mentioned here in Domesday Book, and although there 

is little earlier evidence for the monastery itself both patterns of settlement and estates 

recorded in later sources suggest an establishment with long chronological roots. The 

church itself lies in the village of St Keverne, but this is a post-medieval settlement. The 

earlier medieval pattern is again made up of farms with tre place-names, here the densest 

concentration of them anywhere in Cornwall. In fact, several places with Cornish names 

in the vicinity are mentioned in early medieval charters, including tenth-century 

references to Traboe and Lesneage (Hooke 1994). The tenth-century name of the latter 

230



was Lesmanaoc, meaning ‗the monks‘ court‘ or ‗the court of the Meneage‘. Just after the 

Norman Conquest, Robert of Mortain gave three estates in Amaneth or Manaek to Mont 

St Michel, including this one (Olson 1989; Turner 2006a, 126). The area retains the name 

‗Meneage‘ to this day, and in origing it probably means something like ‗monks‘ land‘. 

Whilst we should not necessarily imagine a monastic community that directly farmed 

such a large area, it is quite possible both that the community‘s tenants on outlying farms 

might have been part of a territory known as Manaek. 

A similar arrangement can be detected in the neighbouring region of Penwith. Here on 

Cornwall‘s westernmost peninsula a church has existed at St Buryan since at least the 

tenth century, and very likely earlier too. The ecclesiastical community at St Buryan was 

granted land by the victorious English king Athelstan in a charter that almost certainly 

marks its refoundation rather than first establishment (Hooke 1994, 22-7; Preston-Jones 

and Langdon 1997). At least five of the places mentioned in the charter had habitative 

place-name elements, which suggests they were the sites of farms linked to the 

community. In the later Middle Ages St Buryan was the mother church of outlying 

chapels at Sennen and St Levan, where Charles Thomas has tentatively identified a 

ruined building on the rugged cliff above the cove at Porth Chapel as the remains of an 

early medieval hermitage (Cornwall HER). Other chapels existed within the medieval 

parish of St Buryan, some of which may have perpetuated the sites of earlier burial 

grounds. At Vellansager, for example, a stone cross stood near the traditional site of a 

medieval chapel and close to the find-spot of an early medieval inscribed stone (Preston- 

Jones and Langdon 1997; Okasha 1993, 68-9). 

In summary, there is relatively little firm archaeological or historical evidence for 

Cornish churches before the ninth or tenth century. What evidence survives suggests that 

the most important churches were probably held by religious communities who also 

owned land in the surrounding territories. The churches acted as a focus for settlement in 

their regions, and many are surrounded by clusters of settlements whose names are 

thought to signify that they had been established in the early Middle Ages. Within such 

territories, other important sites for religious and/or ritual practice existed, even if there is 

231



presently little evidence for churches. From at least the ninth century, crosses marked 

significant points along paths and on boundaries, and even before this inscribed memorial 

stones had been set up in similar locations. Such memorials may also have marked 

burials, and there is increasing evidence that unenclosed communal burial grounds 

existed away from churches during the early Middle Ages: burial was probably not 

controlled directly by the church until at least the tenth century. 

6.1.2 Wessex 

The western counties of Wessex did not come under English political control at the same 

time. Hampshire and Wiltshire were already dominated by the Anglo-Saxons before their 

kingdom‘s conversion from paganism to Christianity in the middle of the seventh 

century. By contrast, Devon, Somerset and Dorset probably had already largely Christian 

populations when they became Wessex counties. Despite these differences, most major 

churches in western Wessex tend to occupy similar locations. They are generally sited in 

low-lying positions fairly close to rivers, but just above their floodplains. As such, they 

were surrounded by rich farmland and stood at the heart of local landscapes of agriculture 

and communications (Turner 2006a). 

Most of the county of Devon had once formed part of the post-Roman kingdom of 

Dumnonia, but it came under Anglo-Saxon control during the course of the seventh and 

eighth centuries. As in Cornwall, the archaeology of early medieval Christianity in Devon 

remains relatively poorly understood. In the south and west, a scatter of inscribed stones 

demonstrate that during late Antiquity the two areas shared a similar Christian 

monumental culture. Aspects of both the physical and cultural geography also have more 

in common with Cornwall than most parts of England to the east. West of the Exe the 

landscape is dominated by rolling hills with steep valleys, and everywhere settlement 

dispersed in individual farmsteads and hamlets is more common than nucleated villages. 

Nevertheless, the English settlement radically altered the region‘s place-names, so that 

surviving British toponyms were very rare in the Middle Ages and later. Few church sites 

have been explored archaeologically and no standing fabric dating to before the tenth 

232



century has been confidently recorded, but scholars have identified the sites of probable 

minster churches from a combination of sources including documentary evidence. 

Although we lack place-names in Devon that can be dated securely to the seventh-ninth 

centuries, it is clear that important Devon churches tend to occupy similar locations to 

their equivalents in Cornwall, surrounded as they are by the richest agricultural land 

(Turner 2006a). They are not, as is sometimes claimed, usually located in the isolated 

positions supposedly favoured by British monks (cf. Hall 2009). 

Fig. 6.3: The likely early medieval monastery of Stoke St Nectan and the medieval 

landscape of Hartland, Devon. 

233



Further east in Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire and Hampshire important churches were also 

usually located in the kind of low-lying positions amidst good farmland that are believed 

to have been the focus for settlement during the early Middle Ages. There are many 

examples with good archaeological or historical evidence from the ninth century or 

earlier, including Axminster, Crediton, Cranborne, Sherborne, Wareham, Wimbourne, 

Bath, Britford Tisbury, Ramsbury and Winchester. As in Cornwall, sites for other types 

of ritual practice like burial continued in Wessex through the conversion period, and there 

is little evidence in the burial record to suggest a sharp disruption in the seventh century. 

Even some elite burials continued to take place in the wider landscape throughout the 

seventh century, like the famous primary and secondary barrow burials on Swallowcliffe 

Down and Roundway Down in Wiltshire. 

Fig. 6.4. Roundway Down, Wiltshire: 7th-century barrow burials and likely minster 

churches. 

234



More typical burial-places also continued to function during the conversion period. The 

large cemeteries at Cannington in Somerset and Poundbury in Dorset are perhaps the 

best-know examples showing continuity of use from the late Roman period into the early 

Middle Ages, but there are other, smaller burial grounds with simpe dug or stone-lined 

graves dating to the seventh century and later dispersed across the landscape. Examples 

include the cemeteries at Wembdon Hill, at Shepton Mallet and below Brean Down in 

Somerset, at Ulwell and Tolpuddle in Dorset, and at Monkton Deverill in Wiltshire 

(Webster et al. 2008, 183-4). 

6.1.3 Northumbria 

It is useful to compare the early medieval kingdom of Northumbria with the South West 

not least because the surviving information is so different. In Wessex and Cornwall there 

is relatively little evidence for early churches but plentiful written material for the later 

Saxon period. In Northumbria, documentary sources for the ninth-eleventh centuries are 

largely lacking, but there is much written and archaeological evidence from the so-called 

‗Golden Age‘ of the seventh and eighth centuries. 

The early churches in the valley of the River Tyne provide good examples. Owing to its 

association with Bede, Jarrow is perhaps the most well-known of these sites. Like its twin 

house Wearmouth a few miles to the south, it was subject to extensive campaigns of 

excavation by Rosemary Cramp from the 1950s onwards and recently published (Cramp 

2005). Achaeological and historical sources that include standing buildings, surviving 

sculpture, and the works of Bede provide us with further evidence for a string of sites 

along the Tyne valley that were established from the mid-seventh century onwards. 

Important pre-Conquest institutions probably existed at Tynemouth, Gateshead, Bywell, 

Ovingham, Corbridge and Hexham, and there may have been other monasteries, for 

example at Donamutha on the east side of Jarrow Slake (Wood 2008a) and at Newcastle. 

Many of these monasteries probably had extensive endowments of land. The lands of 

Wearmouth and Jarrow have recently been studied by Brian Roberts (2008) and Ian 

235



Wood (Wood 2008a; 2008b). Their interpretations of the significance of the monastic 

lands vary, not least because Wood suggests the two houses should be regarded as 

separate foundations from the outset rather than the ‗one monastery in two places‘ 

described in Bede‘s Lives of the Abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow. Nevertheless, it is 

clear that the estates granted to the houses were both extensive and long-lived. Very 

much like the monasteries of Wessex, the lands of these two great Northumbrian houses 

were initially focussed on the sides of their respective river valleys, even though they 

came to be mixed up to some extent in later medieval times. 

Because the later Saxon documentary records are much poorer for Northumbria than for 

Wessex, we have few records of grants like the charters available in the south of Anglo- 

Saxon England, which makes work like Roberts‘ all the more valuable. Despite this, it 

seems highly likely that many of the other major monasteries in the valley of the Tyne 

would have possessed similar estates, with good agricultural land in the valleys directly 

controlled by the communities. 

Topographically, the location of the monasteries is also similar in both Wessex and 

Northumbria. They tend to lie on the lower valley slopes, sometimes even immediately 

adjacent to the river. At Jarrow, for example, recent geophysical survey and retrogressive 

analysis has been undertaken as part of a new research project by archaeologists at 

Newcastle and Durham universities (www.omtp.org.uk). Preliminary results suggest that 

the monastic centre may have stood on a low promontory with the southern and eastern 

edge defined by the small River Don (a tributary of the Tyne, whose confluence used to 

lie on the opposite side of Jarrow Slake), and that the northern edge defined by a 

substantial ditch or inlet, now buried below the park to the north of St Paul‘s church. If 

so, Jarrow‘s location has much in common with some of the Thames minsters discussed 

by John Blair (2006). Beyond Anglo-Saxon England, sites like Portmahomack in northeast 

Scotland share very similar topographical positions (Carver 2008). 

It was noted above that the place-name evidence for Anglo-Saxon England is harder to 

map than in early medieval Cornwall. Nevertheless, in a recent study Mark Wood (2007) 

236



has attempted to analyse early settlement patterns from place-name and other evidence in 

Bernicia (one of the antecedent kingdoms to Northumbria). Wood has shown 

convincingly that the place-names believed to be early – probably dating to the seventh 

and eighth centuries – tend to cluster along the major river valleys like the Tyne, Wear 

and Tees, the same locations as the important early churches. 

In the wider ritual landscape, the conversion to Christianity in Northumbria (as in 

Cornwall and Wessex) does not seem to have meant an immediate end to burial sites 

away from churches. Several excavated examples in northern Northumbria show that 

existing burial grounds continued to be used, as at Millfield South and Hepple (Scull and 

Harding 1990; Miket 1974). Also comparable to Wessex are the secondary barrow 

burials of the seventh and early eighth century like Capheaton (Petts 2006, 66). 

The evidence from different parts of Britain in the conversion period allows the 

development of a general model to explain how major churches were located and the 

impact they had on surrounding territories. Firstly, such churches were not in general 

isolated; instead, they were usually sited amidst good agricultural land and often on 

important routes of communication like major rivers. Although early medieval settlement 

patterns are not easy to reconstruct in any part of Britain, it seems that churches acted as 

foci for settlements which often tended to be clustered close to them. Other ritual sites 

such as burial grounds continued to exist within the territories of newly established 

ecclesiastical communities; even if churches exercised some degree of control over some 

of the communal burial grounds, they did not necessarily interfere with existing practices. 

6.1.4 Focus and Scale 

As this discussion has shown, important churches in different parts of Britain tend to 

occupy central locations, both in terms of physical topography and settlement geography. 

The churches did indeed function as central places in landscapes, and played other central 

roles that can be detected in the archaeological and historical record. They became 

increasingly important as places for burial, and many minster churches developed large 

237



burial grounds. They also became important points for exchange not only of cultural and 

religious ideas but also of products and imports, roles typified by the archaeology of a 

place like Jarrow (Cramp 2005; 2006). 

This centrality can also be revealed in other ways. In both Cornwall and Northumbria 

some churches are known from medieval and early modern records to have had special 

zones of extended sanctuary around them in the Middle Ages. Examples include 

Beverley and Ripon in Yorkshire, Durham, Hexham in Northumberland, and Padstow, St 

Buryan and St Keverne in Cornwall (Davies 1996, 5). At St Keverne, John Leland wrote 

in the sixteenth century that ‗within the land of Meneke or Menegeland‘ the parish church 

of St Keverne was set within a sanctuary, and it is possible that a lost Anglo-Saxon cross 

mentioned in an early medieval charter might have marked the boundary of this sanctuary 

(Turner 2006a, 165-7). At St Buryan, Preston-Jones and Langdon (1997) have discussed 

the medieval crosses that stand in the landscape around the church and highlighted the 

possibility that they could have been used to mark the zone of sanctuary. The zone itself 

is depicted on a sixteenth-century map, and Preston-Jones and Langdon suggest its 

boundaries followed the line of a ridge of rough grazing ground which surrounded the 

church and its immediate farmland. These churches and others like them provided 

important central places and foci for the social lives of people living in early medieval 

landscapes. 

Nevertheless, important questions remain about the scale of church foundation, and the 

ways ordinary people in Britain experienced the Christian religion. Work for the Making 

Christian Landscapes project has highlighted differences between Ireland and Britain in 

the early Christian period that relate less to the nature of churches, the fundamental 

ideology behind them and the ways they shaped the landscape around them, but more to 

their frequency and the differing political and social contexts which allowed more 

churches to be founded in Ireland (Boazman 2008; Ó Carragáin 2009). 

Bede famously wrote to Ecgberht, Archbishop of York, that ‗every‘ chief nobleman of 

Anglo-Saxon Northumbria had established a minster, complaining about their laxity and 

238



the ability of nobles to effectively use churches to appropriate church land for their 

families. In an area like the Tyne valley, as noted above, important early churches are 

both well-documented and survive well archaeologically. Famous establishments like 

Jarrow, Wearmouth and Tynemouth are only about 10km apart; and Bywell, Corbridge 

and Hexham less than 6km from one another. Nevertheless, as in parts of Wessex like the 

valley of the Wiltshire Avon, these churches served very large areas that extended out 

from the river into the rural hinterland. Compared to Ireland, early churches here were 

still relatively thin on the ground 

It seems likely, as John Blair has suggested (2005, 75), that these differences owe much 

to the scale at which church founders were able to exercise political and social power. In 

Wessex and Northumbria powerful kings probably oversaw the foundation of fairly 

regular networks of monasteries / minsters, even where they did not create institutions 

themselves. It is interesting that in Cornwall the evidence seems to suggest the situation 

was similar to England, at least in the seventh-ninth centuries and probably also in its 

earliest phases (Turner 2006a). Whilst burial probably continued on traditional sites, it 

seems likely that important ecclesiastical communities were established at relatively few 

sites. 

In Ireland, the degree of political fragmentation meant many people could act as church 

founders; in Britain, only a relatively small number did so. Further research will enable 

us to investigate these patterns more, but also to consider what the practical effects were. 

Fewer churches presumably meant that fewer people in England had an intimate 

engagement with them, and that they visited them less often. They and their families 

might have felt less closely bonded to these Anglo-Saxon churches, especially in a 

country where political power was increasingly defined in relation to land, rather than to 

kin groups who derived their wealth from moveable assets like cattle. If churches were 

exclusively in the hands of the social elite, this might also have enabled them to control 

the mass of people‘s ability to use and visit churches. In turn, there could be implications 

for the continuity of other kinds of ritual sites and ritual practice in the broader landscape. 

It might also have affected the growth of local cults. It is now important to broaden our 

239



enquiry to consider the experience of churches by different types of people, and to 

compare how differences in political organisation might have affected the everyday 

experience of religion. 

240



6.2 Conclusions 

Here we will briefly outline some of the most significant patterns that are emerging from 

our research. 

6.2.1 The Density of Non-Ecclesiastical Burials and Ecclesiastical Sites 

A crucial aim of the project is to explore the extent to which the process of landscape 

change varied from region to region. For example, we wish to determine the extent to 

which the present diversity within and between regions – especially between the east and 

west of the country – reflects early medieval regionality or simply differential visibility 

due to the presence or absence of stone buildings and/or pre-development archaeology. 

The uniform methodology employed is allowing us to compare regions systematically for 

the first time. Regional differences in the nature of the evidence have been confirmed. 

For example, non-ecclesiastical burial in the various regions are also represented by quite 

different archaeology: ogham stones in Corcu Duibne, barrows, mounds and cemetery 

settlements in Leinster. Similarly minor ecclesiastical sites in Corcu Duibne leave clear 

archaeological traces, while those in areas such as Corbally and Faughart rarely do. Here 

instead they are more likely to remain in use and are therefore often attested in late 

documentary sources, which often allow an early origin to be postulated. 

Despite these differences, this study suggests that the underlying patterns of burial and 

settlement density and distribution are quite similar in areas which one might assume 

would be very different. When land unsuitable for permanent settlement is excluded, 

there is quite consistent density of early ecclesiastical across most areas, though the 

evidence used to deduce their early origin varies greatly from region to region. The area 

per definite/probable churches is usually 9-14km², while the area per church when 

possible examples are also included is between 7-9km². One exception is the Rathdown, 

Co. Dublin case study where Gill Boazman has shown that there was a church for every 

3km² in the core area. She has already begun to tease out the implications of this 

unusually high density. In a few other areas, such as Connemara and to a lesser extent 

Rosscarbery, Co. Cork, the density is a good deal lower than usual. We have enough case 

studies, however, to suggest that in most areas the density of churches is very high and 

241



quite consistently so. This suggests that the foundation of minor ecclesiastical sites was 

based on land-holding patterns that were fairly consistent across the country. 

Because Sam Turner is applying the same methodology to areas of England (the 

Southwest and Northumbria), comparisons between England and Ireland are also now 

possible. Preliminary investigation suggests that in pre-Viking England, including 

Cornwall in the period before Anglo-Saxon colonisation, churches were far thinner on the 

ground. In many cases there seems to be 100km² or more for every church. One factor 

which seems to contribute to this contrast is that in England the foundation of churches 

(minsters) was carefully controlled by kings, whereas in Ireland a relatively diffuse social 

structure meant that more of the population were considered to be of noble stock and had 

the right to found their own ecclesiastical sites (Ó Carragáin 2009). 

6.2.2 Ecclesiastical and Secular Estates 

This is all very well in theory, but in order to determine exactly what sections of society 

were founding churches, or indeed who was living at cemetery settlements or burying 

their dead at other types of non-ecclesiastical cemeteries, it is essential insofar as 

possible, to determine who owned the land on which these sites occur. This can only be 

done through documentary research of the sort undertaken by Paul MacCotter, Anne 

Connon and others as part of this project. Reconstructing millennium-old estates is not an 

easy undertaking. While the boundaries of modern civil parishes and baronies are often of 

early medieval origin, it is not possible to reconstruct estates on the basis of a cursory 

analysis of them. This requires meticulous research of a wide range of documentary 

sources. This sort of detailed reconstruction of the subdivisions of small areas has rarely 

been attempted by historians. Very interesting patterns are beginning to emerge as the 

archaeological evidence is placed within this territorial framework. 

As the districts and estates are reconstructed, the land-use patterns within them are being 

analysed using Historic Landscape Characterisation. In the Corbally study area traces of 

high medieval open strip fields were identified in places, but while some of the townland 

boundaries may be early medieval in origin, no early medieval subdivisions of these 

242



townlands could be identified in the sources used for the Making Christian Landscapes 

HLC. Somewhat more potentially early fields were identified in Mag Réta, while in 

Corcu Duibne a substantial proportion of the field systems that were extant in c.1829-42 

apparently incorporated pre-modern elements including many which are probably early 

medieval. Already this HLC has begun to inform our interpretation of early medieval 

settlement patterns in the area. 

A number of ecclesiastical estates have now been delimited and their early medieval 

monuments analysed. As one might expect, some of them have a higher than average 

density of minor churches. This is true, for example, of Inis Úasal, Co. Kerry, Kilcullen, 

Co. Kildare and Faughart, Co. Louth. In the case of Inis Úasal these sites are quite evenly 

distributed across the estate and, along with the other early medieval settlements within it 

(below), they presumably served as out-farms. One is associated with a field system of 

possibly early date and also features an early medieval mill, which was probably used to 

process cereals produced on the whole estate. A possible mill-site has also been identified 

near the principal church on the ecclesiastical estate of Killashee. The minor 

ecclesiastical sites may have been run by ecclesiastical families, headed perhaps by 

married priests, or alternatively they may have been run directly by religious from the 

principal church. Killashee, Co. Kildare and Tulach Mín / Áth Cros Molaga, Co. Cork are 

examples of ecclesiastical estates that do not conform to this pattern insofar as the 

number of minor ecclesiastical sites on them is low. Instead, in the case of Killashee, 

there are a number of impressive ‗ecclesiastical‘ ringforts on its borders, some of them 

multi-vallate. This should alert us to the likelihood that there was some diversity in the 

pattern of settlement on ecclesiastical estates. Presumably these large ringforts represent 

the dwellings of the more affluent lay-tenants of the estate, the individuals referred to in 

the early sources as manaig. In the estate of Inis Úasal, Co. Kerry, there was a high 

density of both ringforts/cashels as well as minor churches, and, as in Killashee, some of 

these were unusually large in internal diameter, hinting that they may be the remains of 

relatively large-scale ecclesiastical farms. Thus, it appears that the different types of 

estates we are delimiting leave distinct signatures in the archaeological record. 

243



On secular and royal estates minor ecclesiastical sites are generally not quite as common, 

but they are densely distributed nonetheless. Many of these are probably proprietary 

churches – possessions of individual secular families – of the sort frequently mentioned 

in the genealogies but which are rarely identifiable in the documentary sources. We have 

found that, in the absence of documentary evidence, place-names sometimes strongly 

suggest that a church was owned by a particular family. In any case, as long as land can 

be identified as secular property, it is probably safe to assume that many of the churches 

on it were proprietary in nature. The many examples of this identified in our case studies 

illustrate the important role that minor proprietors played in the development of the early 

medieval Church at a local level. 

Turning to the landscape context of settlements, we have found that compared to ringforts 

and cashels ecclesiastical sites are found in a wide range of locations – lowland as well as 

upland – reflecting their more diverse functions. One popular theory about the location of 

Irish ecclesiastical sites is that they tend to be sited on boundaries. We have found several 

instances of this, for example in the Fig Maige and Galway case studies discussed above. 

Nevertheless, it does not seem to have been as common as is often assumed. In most 

areas including Corcu Duibne and Southern Uí Fáeláin churches are more likely to be 

sited near the centre of their estates. There are no major territorial divisions within the 

Corcu Duibne case studies, but the Southern Uí Fáeláin case study area is defined on 

most sides by the boundary of the kingdom of Uí Fáeláin and it is notable that virtually 

no ecclesiastical sites occur on this boundary. In the Corcu Duibne core case studies (as 

distinct from the kingdom as a whole), it is also notable that the ogham stones that are not 

sited on boundaries tend to be those at ecclesiastical sites. 

6.2.3 Non-Ecclesiastical Burials 

This brings us to the landscape context of non-ecclesiastical burials. The Making 

Christian Landscapes project has found strong evidence to support the theory that nonecclesiastical 

burials tend to be sited on boundaries. One class of non-ecclesiastical burial 

does not conform to this pattern: in our case studies cemetery settlements do not occur on 

or near boundaries. Preliminary analysis of Iveragh ogham stones shows that a high 

244



proportion of non-ecclesiastical examples are on significant early medieval boundaries. 

In the Southern Uí Fáeláin area possible non-ecclesiastical burials are represented 

primarily by barrows, ring-ditches and mounds, many of which are late prehistoric in date 

but some of which were made or reused during the early medieval period. In stark 

contrast to ecclesiastical sites in the area, virtually all possible examples are on the 

boundaries of the kingdom of Uí Fáeláin. Most of them occur in ones or twos, but there is 

a great concentration in the townlands of Greenhills, Brownstown, Corbally and Silliot 

Hill. The excavations carried out by Aegis Archaeology in Corbally have augmented the 

number of these burials considerably and have confirmed that some of them are early 

medieval in date; some were apparently in use as late as the ninth or tenth century. 

Documentary research strongly suggests that Silliot Hill and Brownstown are the site of 

the important Uí Fáeláin oenach/assembly site of Carmun Liphi, which was known in the 

early sources as one of the seven great burial grounds of Ireland ‗before the period of 

belief.‘ Unexpectedly, there is even clearer documentary evidence that the burials in the 

adjoining townlands of Corbally and Greenhills, which probably represent an ‗over-spill‘ 

of the Carmun Liphi complex into the adjoining district, were on an episcopal estate of 

Kildare, probably by the seventh century. Some cemetery settlements in the Faughart, 

Rathdown and Mag Réta case studies also appear to be on ecclesiastical land. This 

implies that, even during the Viking Age, some ecclesiastics did not strongly object to 

‗non-ecclesiastical‘ cemeteries and had no particular fears for the souls of those buried in 

them. It undermines the common assumption (e.g. Etchingham 2006, 88) that such 

cemeteries were outside the bounds of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 

When considering such sites, we should be careful not to project high medieval notions 

of ‗correct‘ Christian burial into the early medieval period when the relationship between 

burial and belief was much more fluid. The concept of the Christian cemetery in which 

the whole community was buried within a formally consecrated area around a church 

developed slowly across Europe and the process was not complete until at least the tenth 

century (Ó Carragáin 2003b, 146-47). For most of the pre-Viking period ecclesiastical 

authorities were not too concerned about where the bulk of the Christian population was 

245



buried. Even when, in the eighth century, reservations begin to be expressed about burial 

at non-ecclesiastical cemeteries, it cannot be assumed that these were shared by all 

clerics. In these pre-Gregorian reform times there was no overarching ecclesiastical 

hierarchy to ensure uniformity of practice when it came to such matters. While significant 

familiae of churches existed, many of these have left us with little in the way of relevant 

documents, and in any case many minor churches were not properly integrated into any 

such network (below). The surviving late seventh- and eighth-century documents indicate 

that even major sites like Iona and Armagh still considered burial in non-ecclesiastical 

cemeteries acceptable. The most telling hagiographical episode is in Adomnán‘s Life of 

Columba in which the saint baptises an old man and is present when his companions bury 

him under a cairn of stones far from a church site (Sharpe 1995, 1.27; O‘Brien 1992, 134- 

35). If this paragon of Christian orthodoxy could sanction such a burial, then it is not 

difficult for us to imagine rustic priests from minor churches performing burial liturgies 

at various kinds of non-ecclesiastical cemetery. According to the Collectio Canonum 

Hibernensis (c.716-725: Charles-Edwards 2000, 265, 421) those who are not buried with 

their ancestors are accursed. Monks and clerics are of course an exception to this rule, but 

even they are reminded of their duty to look after the graves of their ancestors in other 

(presumably non-ecclesiastical) cemeteries. Another canon in the same collection 

discourages burial among pagans (‗evil persons‘) and encourages instead burial at church 

sites (‗desert places‘) (O‘Brien 1992; 2008; Wasserschleben 1885 § 1.3, 8.2, 51.2). But 

even this canon stops short of damning those buried with pagans. Thus, as Etchingham 

(2006, 87) recognised, even in the eighth century ecclesiastics do not seem to have been 

quite as adamant about the importance of churchyard burial as some authors have implied 

in the past. A similar picture is evident in France where large numbers of nonecclesiastical 

cemeteries have been excavated in recent years. When Jonas of Orléans 

mentions such cemeteries in the ninth century it is not to condemn their existence but 

rather to complain that some of the people buried in them did not pay their dues to the 

local church; we can take it from this that many of the others had (Treffort 1996, 168-70). 

Another clear indication that unenclosed cemeteries without church buildings were not 

considered to be intrinsically pagan is the fact that a number of examples occur very near 

246



major ecclesiastical sites. On Inishmurray the satellite cemetery of Relickoran was 

established on the periphery of the island, away from the monastic cemetery, probably 

soon after the foundation of the monastery. It was apparently unenclosed until the tenth 

or eleventh century, when it was monumentalised by the addition of a drystone enclosure, 

paving, cross-inscribed pillar and two outdoor altars. It remained in use until the 

seventeenth century (O‘Sullivan and Ó Carragáin 2008, 293-97). Probably it was for 

individuals from one or more families closely associated with the monastery but who 

were not members of the community. Interestingly the cemetery was dedicated to a 

disciple of Columba called Odrán. According to hagiography, on Iona his role was to 

petition Columba for the salvation of secular individuals buried in a satellite cemetery 

similar to that on Inishmurray. The sixth- to twelfth-century unenclosed cemetery at 

Mount Gamble near the monastery of Swords, Co. Dublin, may have had a similar 

function (O‘Donovan 2006). Now the estate reconstruction carried out as part of the 

Making Christian Landscapes project has shown that even non-ecclesiastical burials sited 

some distance from church sites were not necessarily outside the realms of ecclesiastical 

jurisdiction. Thus, non-ecclesiastical burial was not primarily an expression of a drawn 

out process of conversion, but rather an expression of the fact that people‘s ideas about 

what it meant to be Christian changed considerably over time. 

6.2.4 Final Remarks 

This project is identifying significant new patterns in the archaeological and documentary 

records that are illuminating various aspects of the process of Making Christian 

Landscapes in Ireland and elsewhere. This is a vindication of our decision to focus on 

making comparisons between small areas as none of these patterns would have become 

apparent if we had chosen to look at larger areas is less detail. For example it would not 

be possible to properly assess the density of ecclesiastical sites in a large area, because of 

the amount of research involved, both archaeological and historical. Nor would it be 

possible to reconstruct the early medieval territories to which these churches, and other 

early medieval sites belonged, or to assess the land-use patterns within those territories 

using HLC. The GIS is allowing us to make further, fine-grained comparisons between 

ecclesiastical estates and secular estates within and between regions. 

247



We are also investigating Viking Age and high medieval changes to the ecclesiastical 

network, to determine to what extent they are responsible for the marked variation in 

church density in different regions, for our research suggests that ecclesiastical sites were 

more evenly spread at an earlier date. It was suggested above that the high density of 

ecclesiastical sites in pre-Viking Ireland primarily reflects diffuse power structures. One 

possibility that we are considering is that, in the Viking Age, as the roles of churches 

evolved, there was an increasingly close correlation between church density and 

population density. In this regard it is interesting that the greatest density of community 

churches in Viking Age England is in the highly populated south and east (Blair 2005, 

418-19). If case studies such as Corcu Duibne, Mag Réta and Southern Uí Fáeláin are any 

indication, there is a negative correlation between the number of ecclesiastical sites that 

were largely abandoned during the early or high medieval periods and the degree to 

which an area was colonised by the Anglo-Normans. This may be partly because 

colonisation meant townland names (e.g. cill names) were more likely to be changed and 

memories of abandoned sites forgotten; but it is also possible that in heavily colonised 

areas minor sites were more likely to remain in use due to the rise in population. 

So far this discussion has focused upon general patterns in the density and location of 

sites and possible correlations between these patterns and the evolving structures of early 

medieval society. In this regard, the emphasis has been ‗top down‘ rather than ‗bottom 

up.‘ As our research continues, we hope to refine the model that is emerging from this 

approach. We are also, however, approaching the process of Making Christian 

Landscapes from a different perspective: that of the people whose lives it effected so 

profoundly. The many excavations and rich field archaeology in our chosen case studies 

give us a firm platform upon which to write person-centred discussions of particular sites 

and landscapes. Such discussions will form an important component of future 

publications arising from the Making Christian Landscapes project. In particular, we are 

attempting to distinguish the varying experiences of people of different social status 

ranging from royal aristocracies, to local elites to ordinary people. We are particularly 

excited to have gathered a wealth of information to illuminate the experiences of this last, 

248



relatively neglected group. We are addressing issues such as the proximity of ordinary 

people to ecclesiastical sites, cemetery settlements and other burial grounds; their 

evolving attitudes to burial and their ancestors; the role of magic and superstition in 

shaping their world view and its fluid relationship with more ‗orthodox‘ religious beliefs 

and practices; the experience of ordinary people who lived on ecclesiastical estates with 

clerical landlords versus those on secular estates; and the effects of the process of Making 

Christian Landscapes on constructions of gender over the course of the early medieval 

period. In considering the local elite, it will be particularly interesting to explore the 

implications of the fact that in Ireland such individuals, and even individuals of lesser 

status, were in a position to found their own churches, though this does not appear to 

have been so in many parts of Britain. An important issue is the extent to which this 

limited the power of royal aristocracies to control the process of Making Christian 

Landscapes within their kingdoms, and their strategies for augmenting that control, 

especially as expressed in the patronage of important sites in the form of high crosses 

and, later, stone churches and round towers (e.g. Ó Carragáin 2010, Chapter 4). 

Let us conclude by thanking Heritage Council for its generous funding of the Making 

Christian Landscapes project. The INSTAR programme has enabled us to establish 

collaborations and undertake research which would otherwise have been very difficult to 

realise. While the INSTAR-funded phase of the project is now finished, the work will 

continue over the next two years, some of it supported by scholarships from the IRCHSS. 

We hope that the various publications arising from the project will make a substantial 

contribution to the subject. 

249



Bibliography 

Unpublished Manuscript Sources 

NAI Record Commissioners Calendar of Plea Rolls, volumes 1–13. 

NAI Record Commissioners Calendar of Memoranda Rolls, volumes 1, 6, 11. 

Genealogical Office MSS 190-2. 

Primary Sources 

Abrams, L. 2010. Conversion and the church in Viking Age Ireland. In J. Sheehan and 

D. Ó Corráin (eds) The Viking Age. Ireland and the West. Dublin. 

Austin, D. 2007. Characterisation or caricature? Concluding discussion. Landscapes 8.2, 

92-105. 

Begley, J. 1906. The Diocese of Limerick Ancient and Medieval. Dublin. 

Blair, J. 2005. The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society. Oxford. 

Blair, J. 2006. The minsters of the Thames. In J. Blair and B. Golding (eds) The Cloister 

and the World: Essays in Medieval History in Honour of Barbara Harvey, 5-28. 

Oxford. 

Boazman, G. 2006. Cork and Cornwall: A comparative study of the impact of 

Christianity on settlement patterns, 450-800 AD. Unpublished MA thesis, 

University College Cork. 

250



Boazman, G. 2008a. Cork and Cornwall: Settlement patterns and social organization 

during the establishment of Christianity. AD 450-800. Journal of Irish 

Archaeology 17, 113-137. 

Boazman, G. 2008b. The study area of North Louth. In T. Ó Carragáin et al. Making 

Christian Landscapes: Settlement, Society and Regionality in Early Medieval 

Ireland. Report for the Heritage Council on Phase 1: 01 June – 05 December 

2008. 

Boazman, G. 2009. The study area of the half-barony of Rathdown. In T. Ó Carragáin et 

al. Making Christian Landscapes: Settlement, Society and Regionality in Early 

Medieval Ireland. Report for the Heritage Council on Phase 2: 01 June – 04 

December 2009. 

Breslin P. 1996. Getting to Know ArcView GIS. California. 

Brooks, E. St. J. 1951. The de Ridelesfords. Journal of the Royal Society of Irish 

Antiquaries 81, 115-138. 

Buckley, V. and Sweetnam, P.D. 1991. Archaeological Inventory of County Louth. 

Dublin. 

Burke, M. 2006. Society and settlement on the Drogheda estate in County Kildare, 1750- 

1840. In W. Nolan and T. McGrath (eds) Kildare History and Society, 349-386. 

Dublin. 

Burrough, P.A. and McDonnell, R.A. 1998. Principles of Geographical Information 

Systems. New York. 

Byrne, F.J. 2001. Irish kings and high kings. Dublin. 

251



Carrigan, W. 1905. History and Antiquities of the Diocese of Ossory. Dublin. 

Carroll, J. 1998. The Old Orchard Inn Rathfarnham. Medieval Archaeology 48, 161. 

Carroll, M.P. 1999. Holy wells and popular Catholic devotion. Baltimore. 

Carver, M., 2008. Portmohomack: Monastery of the Picts. Edinburgh. 

Caulfield, S. 1983. The Neolithic settlement of North Connaught. In T. Reeves-Smith and 

F. Hammond (eds) Landscape Archaeology in Ireland, 195-216. Oxford. 

Charles-Edwards, T.M. 2000. Early Christian Ireland. Cambridge. 

Clinton, M. and Stout, F. Two souterrains and an enclosure at Killally, Co Louth. 

Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society 24.1, 129- 

134. 

Codd, E.F. 1970. A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Communications 

of the ACM 13.6, 377-387. 

Colgan, J. (1592-1698) and Ó Riain, P. (ed.) 1997. Trias Thaumaturga. Dublin. 

Comber, M. 2006. Ringforts and the settlement landscape of the Burren in the first 

millennium AD: Year 2 - A focused landscape survey. Unpublished report for the 

Heritage Council. 

Connon, A. 2009. An Historical Overview of the Four Kingdoms Involved in the Na 

Clanna Study Area. In T. Ó Carragáin et al. Making Christian Landscapes: 

Settlement, Society and Regionality in Early Medieval Ireland, 311-330. Report 

for the Heritage Council on Phase 2: 01 June – 04 December 2009. 

252



Coyne, F. 2010. Corbally, Co. Kildare: an early medieval cemetery and settlement in 

context. In C. Corlett and M. Potterton (eds) Death and burial in early medieval 

Ireland in light of recent excavation. Bray. 

Conway, M. 1999. First findings at Cabinteely. Dublin. 

Council of Europe 2000. The European Landscape Convention. Florence, 20.X.2000. 

Published online at : 

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Landscape/default_en.asp. 

Crawford, B. (ed.) 1996. Scotland in Dark Age Britain. St Andrews. 

Cramp, R., 2005. Wearmouth and Jarrow Monastic Sites, Vol. 1. London. 

Cramp, R., 2006. Wearmouth and Jarrow Monastic Sites, Vol. 2. London. 

Cronin, R. 1998. Late high crosses in Munster: tradition and novelty in twelfth century 

Irish art. In J. Sheehan and M. Monk (eds) Early Medieval Munster, 125-137. 

Cork. 

Darvill, T., Gerrard, C. and Startin, B. 1993. Identifying and protecting historic 

landscapes. Antiquity 67, 563-574. 

Davies, O. 1939. Excavations at Lissachiggel. Journal of the County Louth 

Archaeological and Historical Society 9, 209-243. 

Davies, W. 1996. Protected space in Britain and Ireland in the Middle Ages. In B.E 

Crawford (ed.) Scotland in Dark Age Britain, 1-19. Aberdeen. 

Dillon, M. 1962. Lebor na Cert. London. 

253



Doherty, C. 2000. Cluáin Dolcain: a brief note. In A. Smyth (ed.) Seanchas: essays in 

honour of Francis J Byrne, 182-88. Dublin. 

Downham, C. 1994. The historical importance of Viking-Age Waterford. Journal of 

Celtic Studies 4, 71-96. 

Edwards, K.J., Hamond, F.W. and Simm, A. 1983. The medieval settlement of Newcastle 

Lyons, Co. Dublin: an interdisciplinary approach. Proceedings of the Royal Irish 

Academy 83C, 351-76. 

Environmental Resource Management and ERA-Maptec Ltd 2000. Pilot Study on 

Landscape Characterisation in County Clare. Kilkenny. 

Esposito, M. 1920. The Sources of Conchubranus‘ Life of Saint Moneena. English 

Historical Review 35, 71-8. 

Etchingham, C. 1994. Evidence of Scandinavian settlement in Wicklow. In K. Hannigan 

and W. Nolan (eds) Wicklow: History and Society, 113-138. Dublin. 

Etchingham, C. 1999. Church Organisation in Ireland A.D. 650 – 1000. Maynooth 

Etchingham, C. 2006. Pastoral provision in the first millennium: a two-tier service? In E. 

Fitzpatrick and R. Gillespie (eds) The Parish in medieval and early modern 

Ireland, 79-90. Dublin. 

Fairclough, G.J., Lambrick, G. and McNab, A. (eds) 1999. Yesterday’s World, 

Tomorrow’s Landscape: the English Heritage Landscape Project 1992-94. 

London. 

Fairclough, G., Rippon, S. and Bull, D. (eds) 

archaeologists and the management of change. Brussels. 

2002. Europe's cultural landscape: 

254



Fairclough, G. 2003. The long chain: archaeology, historical landscape characterization 

and time depth in the landscape. In H. Palang and G. Fry (eds) Landscape 

Interfaces. Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes, 295-318. Dordrecht. 

Fairclough, G. 2008. A New Landscape for Cultural Heritage Management: 

Characterisation as a Management Tool. In L. Lozny (ed.) Landscapes Under 

Pressure, 55-74. New York. 

Feehan, J. 1999. Laois: an overview of the county as a place where history happened. In 

P. Lane and W Nolan (eds.) Laois: History and Society, 1-25. Dublin. 

Finch, J. 2007. ‗Wider famed countries‘: Historic Landscape Characterisation in the 

Midland Shires. Landscapes 8.2, 50-63. 

Flanagan, D. 1994. The Christian impact on early Ireland: placenames evidence. In P. 

Ní Chatháin and M Richter (eds), Ireland and Europe: the early church, 25-51. 

Stuttgart. 

Fleming, A. and Ralph, N. 1982. Medieval settlement and land use on Holne Moor, 

Dartmoor: the landscape evidence. Medieval Archaeology 26, 101-137. 

Fowler, P.J. 1966-67. Ridge and Furrow cultivation at Cush, Co. Limerick. North 

Munster Antiquarian Journal 10, 69-71. 

Fowler, P. 2002. Farming in the First Millennium AD: British Agriculture between Julius 

Caesar and William the Conqueror. Cambridge. 

Fox, H. 1973. Outfield cultivation in Devon and Cornwall: a reinterpretation. In M. 

Havinden (ed.) Husbandry and Marketing in the South West, 1500-1800, 19-38. 

Exeter. 

255



Fredengren, C. 2002. Crannogs. Bray. 

Gilbert, J. T. (ed.) 1854. History of the City of Dublin. Dublin. 

Gilbert, J.T. (ed.) 1884. Chartularies of St Mary’s Abbey. London. 

Gilbert, J. T. (ed.) 1886. Crede Mihi. Dublin. 

Gilbert, J.T. (ed.) 1889. Register of the Abbey of St Thomas, Dublin. London. 

Gilchrist, R. 1995. Contemplation and Action: The Other Monasticism. London. 

Gosling, P. 1993. Archaeological Inventory of County Galway: Volume 1. Dublin. 

Gowen, M. 1992. Excavation of two souterrain complexes at Marshes Upper, Dundalk, 

Co.Louth. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 92C, 55-121. 

Hall, D., Hennessy, M. and O‗Keeffe, T. 1985. Medieval agriculture and settlement in 

Oughterward and Castlewarden, Co. Kildare. Irish Geography 18, 16-25. 

Hall, T. 2009. Identifying British Christian sites in western Wessex. In N. Edwards (ed.) 

The Archaeology of the Early Medieval Celtic Churches, 154-171. Leeds. 

Harte, A. 2002. The field systems and archaeological landscape at Caherlehillan, Co. 

Kerry: a GIS approach. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University College Cork. 

Hayden, A. 1994. Coarha More, Valentia Island: Bronze Age settlement. In I. Bennett 

(ed.) Excavations 1993, 42–3. Bray. 

256



Hayden, A. 2008. A Terraced Shrine and Other Structures on Church Island, Valentia, 

Co. Kerry, Licence No. 03e1518‘, unpublished report for the Department of the 

Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, 2008. 

Hayes, A. 2004. An archaeological investigation of a souterrain at Tateetra, Dundalk, 

Co.Louth. In J. O‘ Sullivan and M. Stanley (eds) Recent discoveries on National 

Road Schemes : NRA Monograph Series. Bray. 

Healy, P. 2004. 

Healy’s Dublin. Dublin. 

Archaeology, Early Christian remains and local histories: Paddy 

Healy, P. 2009. Pre-Norman Grave-slabs and Cross-inscribed stones in the Dublin 

Region. Dublin. 

Hedeager, L. 1994. Warrior economy and trading economy in Viking Age Scandinavia. 

Journal of European Archaeology 2.1, 130-148. 

Hennessy, W. (ed.) 1866. Chronicum Scotorum. London. 

Hennessy, W. and McCarthy, B. (eds) 1887-1901. Annala Uladh: Annals of Ulster in 

Irish and English. Dublin. 

Henry, F. 1957. Early monasteries, beehive huts, and drystone houses in the 

neighbourhood of Caherciveen and Waterville, Co. Kerry. Proceedings of the 

Royal Irish Academy 58, 45-166. 

Herbert, M. 2004. Observations on the Life of Molaga. In J. Carey, M.Herbert and K. 

Murray (eds) Cín Chille Cúile, 127-40. Aberystwyth. 

Heritage Council 2007. A Review of Research Needs in Irish Archaeology. Report 

prepared by The Heritage Council for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage 

257



and Local Government. Kilkenny. 

Herring, P. and Johnson, N. 1997. Historic landscape character mapping in Cornwall. In 

K. Barker and T. Darvill (eds) Making English Landscapes, 70-91. Oxford. 

Herring, P. 1998. Cornwall’s Historic Landscape: Presenting a Method of Historic 

Landscape Character Assessment. Truro. 

Herring, P. 2007. Historic Landscape Characterisation in an ever-changing Cornwall. 

Landscapes 8.2, 15-27. 

Holland, M. 2000. Dublin and the reform of the Irish church in the eleventh and twelfth 

centuries. Peritia 14, 111-160. 

Hooke, D. 1994. Pre-Conquest Charter-Bounds of Devon and Cornwall. Woodbridge. 

Hull, G and Comber, M. 2008. Caherconnell, Co. Clare, and cashel chronology. 

Archaeology Ireland 22.4, 30-34. 

Keeley, V.J. 1991. Archaeological Excavation of a burial ground, Greenhills, townland. 

Journal of the Kildare Archaeological Society 17, 180-201. 

Kelly, E.P. and Mass, J. 1999. The Vikings and the kingdom of Laois. In P.G. Lane and 

W. Nolan (eds.) Laois History and Society: interdisciplinary essays on the history 

of an Irish county, 123-60. Dublin. 

. 

Kelly, F. 1997. Early Irish Farming. Dublin. 

Kershaw, P. 2000. The Alfred-Guthrum Treaty: scripting accommodation and interaction 

in Viking-Age England. In D. Hadley and J. Richards (eds) Cultures in Contact. 

Scandinavian settlement in England, 44-64. Turnhout. 

258



Kilroe, J.R. 1907. A description of the soil geology of Ireland. Based on geological maps 

and records, with notes on climate. Dublin. 

Jones, C. and Walsh, P. 1996. Recent discoveries on Roughan Hill, County Clare. 

Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries 126, 86-107. 

Jones, C. 2004. The Burren and the Aran Islands - Exploring the Archaeology. Cork. 

Lambrick, G. 2010. Historic Landscape Characterisation in Ireland: Policy and Best 

Practice Guidance. Published online by the Heritage Council at: 

http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Archaeology/Ir 

ish_HLC_Guidelines.pdf. 

Lawlor, H.J. 1917. The genesis of the Diocese of Clogher. Journal of the County Louth 

Archaeological and Historical Society 4.2, 129-153. 

Lennon, A.M. 2009. Derrinsallagh 3, Co. Laois. Unpublished report prepared by ACS 

Ltd. 

Mac Airt, S. (ed.) 1951. The Annals of Inisfallen. Dublin. 

MacCormick, F. and Crone, F. 2000. A destroyed enclosure at Site 5, Marshes Upper, 

Co Louth. Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society 

24.4, 553-562. 

MacCotter, P. 2004. Colmán of Cloyne: A Study. Dublin. 

MacCotter, P. 2006. The Rise of Meic Carthaig and the Political Geography of 

Desmuma. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 111, 59– 

76. 

259



MacCotter, P. 2008a. Medieval Ireland: territorial, political and economic divisions. 

Dublin. 

MacCotter, P. 2008b. The History of Corcu Duibne. In T. Ó Carragáin et al. Making 

Christian Landscapes: Settlement, Society and Regionality in Early Medieval 

Ireland. Report for the Heritage Council on Phase 1: 01 June – 05 December 

2008, 116-53. 

MacCotter, P. 2009. The kingdom of Corcu Duibne and its Church. In T. Ó Carragáin et 


Medieval Ireland, Report for the Heritage Council on Phase 2: 01 June – 04 

December 2009, 36-91. 

MacCotter, P. Forthcoming. The lands of the medieval Irish Church. 

MacCotter, P. and Nicholls, K.W. (eds) 1996. The Pipe Roll of Cloyne: Rotulus Pipae 

Clonensis. Cloyne. 

Mac Íomhair, D. 1962. The Boundaries of Fir Rois. Journal of the County Louth 


Mac Íomhair, D. 1970. The Lordship of Ballymascanlan. Journal of the County Louth 


Mac Neill, C. 1950. Calendar of Archbishop Alen’s Register 1172-1534. Dublin. 

Mac Shamhráin, A. 1996. Church and Polity in Pre-Norman Ireland: the case of 

Glendalough. Maynooth. 

260



Manning, C. 1985. Archaeological Excavations at two church sites on Inishmore, Aran 

Islands. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries 115, 96-120. 

McCarthy, B. 2007. Asceticism in Early Medieval Ireland: an archaeological perspective. 

Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University College Cork. 

McCarthy, B. 2009. The Aran Islands. In T. Ó Carragáin et al. Making Christian 

Landscapes: Settlement, Society and Regionality in Early Medieval Ireland. 

Report for the Heritage Council on Phase 1: 01 June – 05 December 2008. 

Miket, R. 1974. ‗Undoubted Anglian burials‘ from Hepple, Northumberland. 

Archaeologia Aeliana 2, 275-280. 

Mills, J. 1894. The Norman Settlement in Leinster. The cantreds near Dublin. Journal 

of the Royal Society of Irish Antiquaries 24, 161-75. 

Mitchell, F. 1987. Archaeology and environment in early Dublin. Medieval Dublin 

Excavations 1962-81. Dublin. 

Mitchell, F. 1989. Man and Environment in Valentia Island. Dublin. 

Mulchrone, K. (ed.) 1937. Facsimiles in collotype of Irish manuscripts ii, The Book of 

Lecan. Dublin. 

Mulchrone, K. 1939. Bethu Phátraic: the Tripartite Life of Patrick. Dublin. 

Mullins, G. 2007. Pagan or Christian? Excavation of a hilltop cemetery at Cross, Co. 

Galway. In J. O‘Sullivan and M. Stanley (eds) New Routes to the Past - 

Archaeology and the National Roads Authority Monograph Series No. 4. Dublin. 

Newman, C. 1997. Tara: An Archaeological Survey. Dublin. 

261



Nicholls, K.W. 1985. The charter of John, lord of Ireland, in favour of the Cistercian 

abbey of Baltinglas. Peritia 4, 187-206. 

Nicholls, K. W. 1986. Three Topopgraphical Notes. Peritia 5, 411-2. 

Nicholls, K.W. 2003. Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages. Dublin. 

Ní Ghabhláin, S. 1995. Church, Parish and Polity: The Medieval Diocese of Kilfenora, 

Ireland. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California. 

O‘Brien, E.1992. Pagan and Christian burial during the first millenium AD. In N. 

Edwards and A. Lane (eds) The Early Church in Wales and the West, 130-137. 

Oxford. 

O‘Brien, E. 2003. Burial practices in Ireland, first-seventh centuries AD. In J. Downes 

and A. Ritchie (eds) Sea Change: Orkney and northern Europe in the Later Iron 

Age AD 300-800, 62-72. Angus. 

O‘Brien, M. 1976. Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae. Dublin. 

O‘Brien, W. 2009. Local Worlds: Early Settlement Landscapes and Upland Farming In 

South-West Ireland. Cork. 

Ó Buachalla, L. 1949-1950. The Placenames of North East Cork. Journal of the Cork 

Historical and Archaeological Society 54, 31–4, 88–91; 55, 46–9, 91–95. 

Ó Buachalla, L. 1966-7. An Early Fourteenth-Century Placename List for Anglo-Norman 

Cork. Dinnseanchas 2, 1–12, 39–50, 61–7. 

262



Ó Carragáin, T. 2002. Pre-Romanesque Churches in Ireland: interpreting archaeological 

regionalisms. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College Cork. 

Ó Carragáin, T. 2003a. A Landscape Converted: Archaeology and early Church 

organization on Iveragh and Dingle, Ireland. In M. Carver (ed.) The Cross Goes 

North: Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe AD 300-1300, 127-52. 

Suffolk. 

Ó Carragáin, T. 2003b. The architectural setting of the cult of relics in early medieval 

Ireland. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 133, 130-76. 

Ó Carragáin, T. 2005. Habitual masonry styles and the local organization of church 

building in early medieval Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 

105C, 99-149. 

Ó Carragáin, T. 2006. Church buildings and pastoral care in early medieval Ireland. In E. 

FitzPatrick and R. Gillespie (eds) The Parish in Medieval and Post-Medieval 

Ireland, 91-123. Dublin. 

Ó Carragáin, T. 2008. Preliminary landscape analysis of Corcu Duibne. In Ó Carragáin et 


Medieval Ireland. Report for the Heritage Council on Phase 1: 01 June – 05 

December 2008, 215-276. 

Ó Carragáin 2009. Cemetery settlements and local churches in pre-Viking Ireland in light 

of comparisons with England and Wales. In J. Graham-Campbell and M. Ryan 

(eds) Irish/Anglo-Saxon Relations before the Vikings, 239-61. Oxford. 

Ó Carragáin, T. 2010. Churches in early medieval Ireland. Newhaven. 

Ó Carragáin, T. et al. 2008. Making Christian Landscapes: Settlement, Society and 

Regionality in Early Medieval Ireland. Report for the Heritage Council on Phase 

263



1: 01 June – 05 December 2008. 

Ó Carragáin, T. et al.2009. Making Christian Landscapes: Settlement, Society and 

Regionality in Early Medieval Ireland. Report for the Heritage Council on Phase 

2: 01 June – 04 December 2009. 

Ó Cíobháin, B. 2009. The early ecclesiastical toponymy of Uíbh Ráthach. In J. Sheehan 

and J. Crowley (eds) The Iveragh Peninsula: a cultural atlas of the Ring of Kerry, 

93-95. Cork. 

O‘ Connor, L. 1966. Excavations at Faughart Upper. Journal of the County Louth 


O‘ Conor, K. 1998. The Archaeology of Medieval Rural Settlement in Ireland. Dublin. 

Ó Corráin, D. 1983. Some legal references to fences and fencing in early historic Ireland. 

In T. Reeves-Smyth and F. Hammond (eds) Landscape Archaeology in Ireland, 

247-252. Oxford. 

Ó Corráin, D. 1998a. Viking Ireland: Afterthoughts. In H. Clarke, M. Ní Mhaonaigh and 

R. Ó Floinn (eds) Ireland and Scandinavia in the early Viking Age, 422-429. 

Dublin. 

O‘ Donovan E. 2006. Mount Gamble, Co. Dublin. In I. Bennett (ed.) Excavations 2003: 

summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland, 181-82. Dublin. 

O‘ Donovan, J. (ed.) 1856. The Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters 

from the earliest period to the year 1616. Dublin. 

Ó hInnse, S. (ed.) 1947. Miscellaneous Irish Annals. Dublin. 

264



Okasha, E. 1993. Corpus of early Christian inscribed stones of south-west Britain. 

Leicester. 

O‘Keeffe, J.G. 1904. Colman mac Duach and Guaire. Ériu 1, 43-48. 

O‘Keeffe, J.G. 1926-8. The ancient territory of Fermoy. Ériu 10, 170–89. 

O‘Keeffe, J.G. 1931. Betha Molaga. In J. Fraser, P. Grosjean and J. G. O'Keeffe (eds) 

Irish texts 3, 1-8, 11-22. London. 

O‘Keeffe, T. 2000. Medieval Ireland: an archaeology. Stroud. 

Olson, L. 1989. Early Monasteries in Cornwall. Woodbridge. 

Ó Murchadha, D. 2002. Carman, site of Óenach Carmain: a proposed location. Éigse 33, 

57–70. 

O‘Neill, J. 2005. Excavation of pre-Norman structures on the site of an enclosed early 

Christian cemetery at Cherrywood, County Dublin. Medieval Dublin 8, 66-88. 

O‗Neill, T. 2009a. Parknahown 5, Co. Laois. Unpublished report prepared by ACS Ltd. 

O‗Neill, T. 2009b. Parknahown 2, Co. Laois. Unpublished report prepared by ACS Ltd. 

O‗Neill, T. 2009c. Parknahown 3, Co. Laois. Unpublished report prepared by ACS Ltd. 

Ó Riain, P. 1972. Boundary association in early Irish society. Studia Celtica 7, 12–29. 

Ó Riain, P. (ed.) 1977. Traces of Lug in early Irish hagiographical tradition. Zeitschrift 

für Celtische Philologie 36, 138-56. 

Ó Riain, P. 1978. Cath Almaine. Dublin. 

265



Ó Riain, P. 1985. Corpus Genealogiarum Sanctorum Hiberniae. Dublin. 

Ó Ríordáin, S.P. 1940. Excavations at Cush, Co. Limerick (1934 and 1935). Proceedings 

of the Royal Irish Academy 45C, 83-182. 

Ó Ríordáin, S.P. 1949. Lough Gur Excavations: Carrig Aille and the ‗Spectacles‘. 

Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 52C, 39-112. 

O‗Sullivan, A. and Harney, L. 2008. Early Medieval Archaeology Project, investigating 

the character of early medieval archaeological excavations 1970-2002. 

Unpublished Report for the Heritage Council, University College Dublin. 

O‗Sullivan, J. and Ó Carragáin, T. 2008. Inishmurray. Monks and Pilgrims in an Atlantic 

Landscape. Cork. 

O'Sullivan, M. and Downey, L. 2008. Post-Medieval Fieldscapes—Part 3: Field 

Enclosure. Archaeology Ireland 22.4, 34-37. 

Otway-Ruthven, J. 1961. The medieval churchlands of Co. Dublin. In J.A. Watt, J.B. 

Morrall and F.X. Martin (eds) Medieval Studies presented to Aubrey Gwynn S.J., 

54-73. Dublin. 

Petts, D., 2006. Shared Visions. The North East Regional Research Framework for the 

Historic Environment. Durham. 

Plummer, C. (ed. and trans.) 1925. Irish Litanies: text and translation. London. 

Power, P. (ed.) 1932. Crichad an Chaoilli being the Topography of Ancient Fermoy. 

Dublin. 

266



Preston-Jones, A. 1984.The excavation of a long-cist cemetery at. Carnanton, St 

Mawgan, 1943. Cornish Archaeology 23, 157–178. 

Preston-Jones, A. and Langdon, A. 1997. St Buryan crosses. Cornish Archaeology 36, 

107-128. 

Price. L. 1954. The Grant to Walter de Ridelsford of Brien and the land of the sons of 

Torquil. Journal of the Royal Society of Irish Antiquaries 84, 72-7. 

Radner, J. (ed.) 1978. Fragmentary Annals of Ireland. Dublin. 

Rippon, S. 2004. Historic Landscape Analysis: Deciphering the Countryside. York. 

Roberts, B. 2008. The land of Werhale – landscapes of Bede. Archaeologia Aeliana 37, 

127-159. 

Rynne, E. 1959. Souterrain at Donaghmore, Co. Louth. Journal of the County Louth 


Rynne, E. 1991. Dún Aonghasa: Fort or Temple? In B. Ó hEithir and R. Ó hEithir (eds) 

An Aran Reader. Dublin. 

Scott, G.D. 1913. The Stones of Bray. Dublin. 

Scull, C. and Harding, A. 1990. Two early medieval cemeteries at Milfield, 

Northumberland. Durham Archaeoogical Journal 6, 1-29. 

Sharpe, R. 1995. Adomnán’s Life of Columba. London. 

Sheehan, J. 2004. Social and economic integration in Viking-Age Ireland: the evidence 

of the hoards. In J. Hines, A. Lane and M. Redknapp (eds) Land, Sea and Home: 

267



Proceedings of a conference eon Viking period settlement, at Cardiff, July 2001, 

177-188. Leeds. 

Sheehan, J. 2009a. Early Medieval Iveragh, AD 400-1200. In J. Sheehan and J. Crowley 

(eds) The Iveragh Peninsula: A Cultural Atlas of the Ring of Kerry. Cork. 

Sheehan, J. 2009b. A peacock‘s tale: excavations at Caherlehillan, Iveragh, Ireland, in N. 

Edwards (ed.) The Archaeology of the Celtic Churches, Society for Medieval 

Archaeology Monograph 21, 191–206. Leeds. 

Sheehan, J. and Crowley, J. 2009. The Iveragh Peninsula: A Cultural Atlas of the Ring of 

Kerry. Cork. 

Stokes, W. 1895. Félire Húi Gormáin. London. 

Stokes, W. 1905. Félire Óengusso Céli Dé. London. 

Stout, M. and Stout, G. 1995. Patterns in the past: county Dublin 5000 BC-1000 AD. In 

F.H.A. Aalen, K. Whelan and M. Stout (eds) Dublin City and County: from 

Prehistory to Past. Studies in honour of J.H. Andrews, 5-41. Dublin. 

Stout, G. and Stout, M. 2008. Excavation of an Early Medieval Secular Cemetery at 

Knowth Site M, County Meath. Dublin. 

Swan, L. 1985. Monastic Proto-towns in early medieval Ireland: the evidence of aerial 

photography, plan analysis and survey. In H. Clarke and A. Simms (eds) The 

comparative history of urban origins in non-Roman Europe, 373-8. Oxford. 

Swan, L. 1998. A forgotten tower house at Laughanstown (Tully). In C. Manning (ed.) 

Dublin and beyond the Pale, 163-168. Bray. 

268



Thomas, J . 1993. The politics of vision and the archaeologies of landscape. In B. Bender 

(ed.) Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, 19-48. Providence. 

Thornton, D. 1997. Early Medieval Louth: the Kingdom of Conaille Muirthemne. 

Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society, 24. 1, 139- 

150. 

Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford. 

Treffort, C. 1996. L’Église carolingienne et la mort. Lyons 

Turner, S., 2004. The changing ancient landscape: south-west England AD c.1700-1900. 

Landscapes 5.1, 18-34. 

Turner, S. 2005. Devon Historic Landscape Characterisation. Unpublished report, Devon 

County Council Historic Environment Service and English Heritage. 

Turner, S. 2006a. Making a Christian Landscape: The Countryside in Early Medieval 

Cornwall, Devon and Wessex. Exeter. 

Turner, S. 2006b. Fields, property, and agricultural innovation in late medieval and early 

modern south-west England. In K. Giles and J. Finch (eds) Post-Medieval Estate 

Landscapes. Leeds. 

Turner, S. 2007. Landscape archaeology for the past and future: the place of Historic 

Landscape Characterisation. Landscapes 8.2, 40-49. 

Turner, S. and Fairclough, G. 2007. Common culture: the archaeology of landscape 

character in Europe. In D. Hicks, G. Fairclough and L. McAtackney (eds) 

Envisioning Landscapes: Situations and Standpoints in Archaeology and 

Heritage, 120-145. California. 

269



Turner, S. and Crowe, J. 2010. Unlocking historic landscapes in the Eastern 

Mediterranean: two pilot studies using Historic Landscape Characterisation. 

Antiquity 84, 216–229. 

Ulster society for Medieval Latin Studies (eds) 1980. The Life of Saint Monenna by 

Conchubranus. Seanchas Ard Macha 10.1, 250-273. 

Waddell, J. 1998. The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland. Galway. 

Walsh, C. Bray, Valentia Island. In I. Bennett (ed.) Excavations 1995, 81. Bray. 

Wasserschleben, H. (ed.) 1885. Die Irische Kanonensammlung. Liepzig. 

Webster, C.J. (ed.) 2008. The Archaeology of South West England: South West 

Archaeological Research Framework. Taunton. 

Weir, D.A. 1995. A palynological study of landscape and agricultural development in Co 

Louth from the second millennium BC to the first millennium AD. In C. Cotter et 

al. Discovery Programme Reports: 2: Project results 1993, 77-126. Dublin. 

White Marshall, J. and Walsh, C. 2005. Illaunloughan Island: an early medieval 

monastery in County Kerry. Dublin. 

Wiggins, K. 2009a. Report on the Archaeological Excavation of Killeany 1, Co. Laois. 

Unpublished report prepared by ACS Ltd. 

Wiggins, K. 2009b. Bushfield or Maghernaskeagh / Lismore 1, Co. Laois. Unpublished 

report prepared by ACS Ltd. 

Williams B.B. 1983. Early Christian Landscapes in County Antrim. In Reeves-Smyth T. 

270



and Hammond F. (eds) Landscape Archaeology in Ireland, 233-246. Oxford. 

Williamson, T. 2007. Historic Landscape Characterisation: Some queries. Landscapes 

8.2, 64-71. 

Wood, I. 

2008a. The Origins of Jarrow. The Monastery, the Slake and Ecgfrith’s 

Minster. Jarrow. 

Wood, I. 2008b. Monasteries and the geography of power in the age of Bede. Northern 

History 45.1, 11-25. 

Wood, M. 2007. Bernician narratives: place-names, archaeology and history. 

Unpublished PhD thesis, Newcastle University. 

Wright, J. 1748. Loutheriana. London. 

271



Appendix 1: Description of Database Tables used for the Core 

Case Study Areas 

Ecclesiastical Sites 

Field 1: MCL (Making Christian Landscapes) Identifier. 

Field 2: Likelihood of Early Medieval Origin (Definite, Probable, Possible or Not early) 

This field is filled in based on evidence in other fields below. It is obviously important for 

estimating the densities of (1) definite, (2) definite and probable (3) and all possible early 

ecclesiastical sites in an area. The database also includes some ecclesiastical sites (usually 

parish and chapels-of-ease rather than abbeys and priories) that, as a result of an assessment of 

the various sources, we have decided are probably of later medieval origin. It is sometimes 

useful to be able to represent such sites in the GIS. 

Probable early ecclesiastical settlements: 

Place-name, pre-Anglo-Norman dedication and/or limited archaeological evidence (partial 

enclosure which may be ecclesiastical etc. but not a holy well) suggesting presence of 

ecclesiastical settlement of early medieval origin. Identifying all ‗probable‘ sites is timeconsuming, 

as all possible ecclesiastical place-names must be scrutinised and all ecclesiastical 

sites must be studied using OS maps, aerial photography and preferably fieldwork in order to 

identify possible remnant ecclesiastical enclosures. In addition, townlands with ecclesiastical 

place-name elements but without an extant ecclesiastical site are studied for remnant enclosures 

or other clues about its former location. 

Possible early ecclesiastical settlements: 

Even where conclusive documentary, place-name and archaeological evidence is lacking, some 

high medieval parish churches, chapels-of-ease and Augustinian (though not Cistercian) abbeys 

have been categorised as possibly of early medieval origin. 

272



A large majority of parish churches and abbeys are clearly of early origin, and it is considered 

possible that many others are also early even though the evidence does not survive. The lack of 

an early ecclesiastical place-name does not greatly diminish the possibility that a church is 

early in origin; note, for example, that only about one third of definite early ecclesiastical sites 

on the Iveragh peninsula (Corcu Duibne) are in townlands with early ecclesiastical placenames. 

In many cases, however, we have erred on the side of caution and categorised such sites 

as later medieval in origin especially where documentary and placename evidence supports this 

possibility. Children‘s burial grounds with some evidence for an enclosure and with an ogham 

stone, cross-slab, remnants/tradition of a church or some other possible early medieval feature 

are also considered to be possible early ecclesiastical sites. 

Field 3 Classification of Early Medieval Ecclesiastical Sites 

In this field early ecclesiastical sites are assigned to one of the following categories. To date 

this has been attempted only for Corcu Duibne and Fir Maige. It should be stressed that this is 

not possible in the case of many early sites. The classifications that we have made are usually 

tentative and we must always bear in mind that the character of a site may well have changed 

over time. Also, while we are finding this scheme useful in exploring the relationships between 

ecclesiastical and other sites, we are conscious that it could become constraining if followed 

too rigidly. Some ecclesiastical sites probably did not conform to any of these categories, and a 

case could reasonably be made for additional individual categories, or even entirely alternative 

schemes. The scheme is useful, however, as long as it is treated as an interpretative tool which 

will be subject to revision and modification as the research continues. Our categories are: 

Mother church 

Subordinate but still significant church 

Community Church/Chief church of late tuath 

Probable Community Church/Chief church of late tuath 

Possible Community Church/Chief church of late tuath 

Family church 

Minor eremitic church 

Minor church of unknown character 

273



Unclassified early church – possible/probable/definite 

Important pilgrimage church 

Later medieval church (probable/definite) 

These categories are discussed in more detail in the 2009 MCL report. 

Field 4 Principal Reasons for Deciding on Early Origin 

This field allows for the principal reason, archaeological, historical or toponomic, for the 

category selected in Field 2. 

Field 5 

Likely Terminus Ante Quem for foundation based on Archaeology: pre-400 (obviously this 

would represent pre-ecclesiastical burial or settlement, and is only to be included if continuity 

is clearly evident) / 400-550 / 550-850 / 850-1100 / 1200+ / unknown 

Field 6 

Likely Terminus Ante Quem for foundation based on Documentary evidence (i.e. not including 

toponymy): 400-550 / 550-850 / 850-1100 / 1200+ / unknown 

Field 7 

Dedication: standardised spelling of saint‘s name / uncertain / none 

Early Medieval Documentary Sources 

Documentary indicators of date: 

Field 1: Mentioned in pre-850 Source Y/N 

Field 2: Mentioned in pre-1200 Source Y/N 

Documentary indicators of EM character/function: 

Field 3: Evidence for asceticism / monasticism in the primary sense of the term: Y/N 

Field 4: Evidence for priests: Y/N 

Field 5: Evidence for bishops: Y/N 

274



Field 6: Evidence for nuns: Y/N 

Field 7: Evidence for close association with particular secular group: Y/N 

Documentary indicators of EM status: 

Field 8: Subsidiary Churches: Y/N 

Field 9: Name and/or MCL Signifier (if within study areas) of Subsidiary Churches (add fields 

as appropriate) 

Field 10: Superior Churches: Y/N 

Field 11: Name and/or MCL Signifier (if within study areas) of Superior Churches (add fields 


Later and Post Medieval Documentary Sources 

Later documentary indicators of EM character/function: 

Field 1: Evidence for asceticism / monasticism in the primary sense of the term: Y/N 

Field 2: Evidence for priests: Y/N 

Field 3: Evidence for bishops: Y/N 

Field 4: Evidence for nuns: Y/N 

Field 5: Evidence for close association with particular secular group: Y/N 

Documentary indicators of EM status: 

Field 6: Subsidiary Churches: Y/N 

Field 7: Name and/or MCL Signifier (if within study areas) of Subsidiary Churches (add fields 


Field 8: Superior Churches: Y/N 

Field 9: Name and/or MCL Signifier (if within study areas) of Superior Churches (add fields as 

appropriate) 

Notes on documentary sources: details of the documentary sources are included as text but this 

is not searchable. 

Status in the High Medieval Period Based on History and Archaeology 

275



Field 1: arch-episcopal centre 

Field 2: episcopal centre 

Field 3: abbey 

Field 4: priory 

Field 5: friary 

Field 6: preceptory 

Field 7: prebend 

Field 8: archdeaconry 

Field 9: rural deanery 

Field 10: ‗colonial rectory‘ 

Field 11: parish 

Field 12: chapel-of-ease based on documentary evidence 

Field 13: chapel-of-ease based on archaeological evidence (i.e. no post-1200 documentary 

reference but archaeological evidence for continued use/rebuilding of church) 

Field 14: cemetery and settlement (i.e. no post-1200 documentary reference or church but 

archaeological evidence for settlement and formal adult burial) 

Field 15: cemetery (i.e. no post-1200 documentary reference or church but archaeological 

evidence for formal adult burial as distinct from cillín burial) 

Field 16: settlement (i.e. no post-1200 documentary reference or church but archaeological 

evidence for settlement) 

Field 17: probably abandoned by 1200 (i.e. no documentary or archaeological evidence except 

for cillín burial or informal pilgrimage activity) 

Field 18: uncertain 

NB: If a site changed status within the high/late medieval period its first known status is 

recorded and the change in status is mentioned in the note. If it doubled as more than one of the 

above the most important is recorded (e.g. if a friary was founded at an episcopal centre, the 

site is still recorded as an episcopal centre in the first instance). 

Toponymy 

Townland or Parish Name 

276



Field 1: Ecclesiastical Placename Elements: domnach / cill / dísert / other early ecclesiastical 

element (temple etc.) / none 

Field 2: Other Placename Elements: family name / saint‘s name / other (i.e. topographical etc.) 

Local Name 

Field 3: Ecclesiastical Placename Elements: domnach / cill / dísert / other early ecclesiastical 

element (temple etc.) / none 

Field 4: Other Placename Elements: family name / saint‘s name / other (i.e. topographical etc.) 

Notes on toponymy are included as text but this will not be searchable. 

277



Early Medieval Settlement Enclosures 

This table is used for all settlement enclosures, including ecclesiastical settlements, cemetery 

settlements, ringforts etc. 

MCL Identifier: 

Documentary/Toponymic Evidence for Non-Ecclesiastical Settlements 

These fields are left blank in the case of ecclesiastical enclosures as the documentary evidence 

for these sites is dealt with in more detail elsewhere (above). 

Field 1: Placename elements that refer to enclosure: dun/lis/rath/caiseal/cathair/phoirt/dun 

Field 2: Other placename elements: kinship or dynastic name / topographical 

Field 3: Mentioned in Documentary Sources by: 800 / 1000 / 1100 / 1200 / 1600 

Field 4: Associations in Documentary Sources: royal site / taísech (i.e. noble) site / site closely 

associated with ecclesiastical establishment 

Field 5: MCL Identifier for the site where it is located. This is only relevant for ecclesiastical 

enclosures. In the case of all other settlements the MCL Identifier for the enclosure is also the 

one for the site as a whole. 

Field 6: Site Type: ecclesiastical / cemetery settlement / univallate ringort / bivallate ringfort / 

trivallate ringfort / ringfort with counterscarp bank / platform ringfort / cashel / longphort / 

possible longphort / promontory fort / unclassified settlement enclosure / other / uncertain 

Inner Enclosure 

Field 1: Preservation: fully extant / more than half extant / fragment extant / crop-mark / 

shadow-site / cartographic evidence / excavation / not extant 

Field 2: Circular / sub-circular / curvilinear / d-shaped / rectilinear / irregular / uncertain 

Field 3: Maximum internal dimension 

Field 4: Minimum internal dimension 

Field 5: Interior area in msq 

Field 6: Index of circularity (calculated automatically; curvilinear enclosures only) 

Field 7: Construction: earth bank and ditch / earth and stone bank and ditch / stone cashel 

Field 8: Bank exterior height where relevant 

Field 9: Bank interior height where relevant 

Field 10: Bank width where relevant 

278



Field 11: Ditch width where relevant 

Field 12: Ditch depth where relevant 

Field 13: Entrance location: E-NE / NE-N / N-NW / NW-W / W-SW / SW-S / S-SE / unknown 

Field 14: Entrance form: stone-faced / lintelled / unknown 

Field 15: Causeway: Y/N 

Field 16: Evidence of enlargement: Y/N 

Notes 

Middle Enclosure (if present) 



Field 2: Curvilinear / rectilinear / d-shaped / irregular / uncertain 













Field 15: Causeway; Y/N 


Notes 

Outer Enclosure (if present) 



279



Field 2: Curvilinear / rectilinear / d-shaped / irregular / uncertain 











Field 13: Platform height (in the case of platform ringforts) 

Field 14: Platform circumference base (in the case of platform ringforts) 

Field 15: Platform circumference top (in the case of platform ringforts) 

Field 16: Terrace and steps in inner wall: Y/N 

Field 17: Mural chambers: 1/2/3/4/5 



Field 20: Causeway: Y/N 


Notes 

Subdivision(s) 



Field 2: Between inner and outer enclosure / subdivision of inner enclosure (e.g. Reask) 

280







Notes: Note details of association between ringfort and royal family etc. 

281



Features and Artefacts only Associated with Ecclesiastical and Other Ritual Sites 

Early Medieval Church (including Romanesque churches but excluding shrine chapels 

which are recorded under ‘Fixed Reliquary Focus’) 


Field 1: MCL Identifier for the site where it is located or was found (where relevant): 

Field 2: Name of site where it is located or was found (where relevant): 

Field 3: Type of Site where it is Located or Other Location – drop-down menu of all site types: 

e.g. ecclesiastical site / cemetery settlement / non-ecclesiastical burial ground / ringfort / cashel 

/ longphort / promontory fort / unclassified settlement type / not associated with settlement or 

other monument / other / uncertain 

Field 4: Type: organic / dry-stone / mortared pre-Romanesque / mortared Romanesque 

Field 5: Function: Principal church / subsidiary church dedicated to an Irish saint other than the 

founder / subsidiary church dedicated to a universal saint / nunnery church / baptistery / 

subsidiary church for ascetics / royal or mortuary chapel associated with particular family (e.g. 

Temple Connor / Temple Melaghlin) / subsidiary ‗parish‘ church (at episcopal sites – e.g. 

Temple na Togha, Armagh) / subsidiary church of uncertain function / other (NB: definite 

shrine chapels are recorded under Fixed Reliquary Focus). 

Field 6: Likely Date: 400-650 / 650-900 / 900-1050 / 1050-1130 / 1130-1200 

Field 7: Internal Area (in metres squared): ??msq / unknown 

Field 8: Dedication: standardise spelling of saint‘s name / none 

Dedications of minor monuments are recorded only if they are closely associated with a saint in 

folklore or hagiography – e.g. not every bullaun at Glendalough is dedicated to Kevin and 

‗none‘ is chosen if there is no strong association with saint. In a few rare cases a monument is 

dedicated to two saints: e.g. Cross of Patrick and Columba at Kells, Church of Peter and Paul at 

Armagh. 

High or Late Medieval Church (including Transitional churches) 



282








Field 4: Date of earliest phase whose area can be determined: 1180-1400 / 1400-1600 / 

unknown 

Field 5: Total internal area of earliest phase whose area can be determined: ??msq / unknown 

Field 6: Function: Principal church / subsidiary church dedicated to an Irish saint other than the 

founder / subsidiary church dedicated to a universal saint / nunnery church / baptistery / 

subsidiary church for ascetics / royal or mortuary chapel associated with particular family (e.g. 

Temple Connor / Temple Melaghlin) / subsidiary ‗parish‘ church (at episcopal sites – e.g. 

Temple na Togha, Armagh) / subsidiary church of uncertain function / abbey / friary / priory / 

other. 






Armagh. 

Notes 

Round Tower 








283



Field 4: Diameter at base: 

Field 5: Original Height (if know): 

Field 6: Present Height: 

Field 7: Likely Date: 900-1130 / 1130-1200 

Notes 

Fixed Reliquary Focus (including some ‘leachta’) 








Field 4: Type: early shrine chapel / later shrine chapel / corner-post shrine / gable shrine / 

miscellaneous shrine / possible stone shrine / special grave / possible special grave (including 

some ‗leachta’) 

Field 5: Likely Date: pre-700 / 700-950 / 950-1100 / 1100-1200 






Armagh. 

Ogham Stone 




284







Field 4: Specific First Known Location: isolated (i.e. no other evidence for burial or settlement) 

/ non-ecclesiastical burial ground / upright within ecclesiastical site / upright at periphery of 

ecclesiastical site / built into souterrain at ecclesiastical site / built into early church / built into 

later church / found during grave-digging at ecclesiastical site / built into non-ecclesiastical 

souterrain / at non-ecclesiastical settlement (ringfort etc.) / over water / not associated with 

settlement or other monument / other / location in antiquity unknown 

Field 5: Specific Present Location (if different from above): isolated (i.e. no other evidence for 

burial or settlement) / at non-ecclesiastical burial ground / upright within ecclesiastical site / 

upright on or in close proximity to another feature (leacht, special grave, holy well etc.) / 

upright at periphery of ecclesiastical site / built into souterrain at ecclesiastical site / built into 

early church / built into later church / found during grave-digging at ecclesiastical site / built 

into non-ecclesiastical souterrain / at non-ecclesiastical settlement (ringfort etc) / over water / 

other / location in antiquity unknown 

Field 6: Height (approx – add one third for standing examples): 

Field 7: Width: 

Field 8: Area: (height x width) 

Field 9: Longer axis NE-SW: Y/N (this could indicate prehistoric origin) 

Field 10: Text of inscription (original and translation) 

Field 11: Date of inscription: 5th-cent / 6th-cent / 7th-cent / unknown 

Field 12: Formulae: name only / maci / mucoi / other / unknown 

Field 13: Tribal/family name: Standardise spelling. 

Field 14: Possible indicators of Christianity: Latin name / >







Armagh. 

Notes: 

Cross-Carved Stone, Stone with Inscriptions in Latin Script, Stone Cross (outside the high 

cross tradition) 








Field 4: Specific First Known Location: isolated (i.e. no other evidence for burial or settlement) 

/ non-ecclesiastical burial ground / upright within ecclesiastical site / upright at periphery of 

ecclesiastical site / built into souterrain at ecclesiastical site / built into early church / built into 

later church / found during grave-digging at ecclesiastical site / built into non-ecclesiastical 

souterrain / at non-ecclesiastical settlement (ringfort etc.) / over water / not associated with 

settlement or other monument / other / location in antiquity unknown 

Field 5: Specific Present Location (if different from above): isolated (i.e. no other evidence for 

burial or settlement) / at non-ecclesiastical burial ground / upright within ecclesiastical site / 

upright on or in close proximity to another feature (leacht, special grave, holy well etc.) / 

upright at periphery of ecclesiastical site / built into souterrain at ecclesiastical site / built into 

early church / built into later church / found during grave-digging at ecclesiastical site / built 

into non-ecclesiastical souterrain / at non-ecclesiastical settlement (ringfort etc) / over water / 

other / location in antiquity unknown 

Field 6: Height (approx – add one third for standing examples): 

286



Field 7: Width: 

Field 8: Area: 

Field 9: Type: very large upright cross, cross-slab or pillar (>1.5m) / large upright cross, crossslab 

or pillar (>1m high) / small upright cross, cross-slab or pillar (



Field 5: Principal Iconographic Theme: royal authority (e.g. Tall Cross, Monasterboice; North 

Cross Ahenny) / episcopal authority (12th-cent crosses) / monastic themes (e.g. Paul and 

Anthony) / scriptural ruminatio / combination (e.g. Cross of the Scriptures) / other / 

predominantly decorative art 

Field 6: Secondary Iconographic Theme: royal authority (e.g. Tall Cross, Monasterboice; North 

Cross Ahenny) / episcopal authority (12th-cent crosses) / monastic themes (e.g. Paul and 

Anthony) / scriptural ruminatio / other / predominantly decorative art 






Armagh. 

Notes 

Bullaun 








Field 4: single hollow / two hollows / three hollows / more than three hollows 





288




Armagh. 

Notes: record any evidence for function – e.g. any of the hollows perforated suggesting use for 

grinding? 

Outdoor Altar (including some leachta) 








Field 4: Form: drystone / boulder 

Field 5: Evidence suggesting early origin: Y/N (e.g. surmounted by cross-slab etc.) 

Field 6: Evidence suggesting recent origin: Y/N 






Armagh. 

Notes (including evidence for date) 

Pilgrimage Station (including some leachta) 




289








Field 5: Evidence suggesting recent origin: Y/N (e.g. rerouting of pilgrimage in 19thcent or 

somesuch) 






Armagh. 

Notes (including evidence for date; overall form – curvilinear, rectilinear or amorphous? – give 

measurements / drystone construction? / built over earlier monument – prehistoric cairn?) 

Holy Well 








Field 4: Superstructure: mortared stone well house (i.e. fully covered) / drystone well house 

(i.e. fully covered) / partially covered with stone / not covered 


Field 6: Evidence suggesting recent origin: Y/N (e.g. transfer of well in 19thcent) 


290







Armagh. 

Notes (evidence for date etc.) 

Miscellaneous Ritual Focus 








Field 4: Type: holy tree or bush / holy stone / stone with saint‘s foot or knee print etc. Too 

many and too varied for a drop-down menu 

Field 5: Evidence suggesting early origin: Y/N 

Field 6: Evidence suggesting recent origin: Y/N 






Armagh. 

Notes (including evidence for date – e.g. mentioned in hagiography?) 

291



Grave Plot of possibly early date (including some leachta but not including saints‘ graves) 








Field 4: E-W Dimension 

Field 5: N-S Dimension 

Notes: including evidence for early date. 

Metal Shrine or other Ecclesiastical Metalwork 








Field 4: Type: Corporeal reliquary / bell / crosier / house-shaped shrine / associative reliquary / 

chalice / paten / wine strainer / processional cross / crucifixion plaque / altar furnishings / other 

church fittings and furnishings (Donore handle etc.) / other 






Armagh. 

Field 6: Date of Manufacture: 550-650 / 650-850 / 850-1050 / 1050-1200 / 1200+ 

292



Field 7: Date of First Refurbishment: 550-650 / 650-850 / 850-1050 / 1050-1200 / 1200+ 

Field 8: Date of Second Refurbishment: 550-650 / 650-850 / 850-1050 / 1050-1200 / 1200+ 

Field 9: Find Context: stray find / hereditary keeper / other 

Notes: 

Pilgrimage Site Focussed on Natural Features (Mountains, Lakes etc.) 


Field 1: Nature of pilgrimage focus: mountain, lake, cave etc. 


Field 3: Day of Pilgrimage: 

Notes: Note associations with other sites – pilgrimage stations, altars, prehistoric cairns etc. 

Assembly/Inauguration Site 


These occur/took place at a wide range of sites – non-ecclesiastical burial grounds, 

ecclesiastical sites, ringforts etc. Best to give them their own MCL Identifier and link them to 

the relevant site. 

Field 1: MCL Identifier for the site where it is located (where relevant): 

Field 2: Name of site where it is located (where relevant): 





Field 4: Form: mound / cairn / stone / tree etc. 

Field 5: Earliest Known Use as Assembly Site based on documentary and/or archaeological 

evidence: 

Field 6: Latest Known Use based on documentary and/or archaeological evidence: 

Notes: 

293



Excavated Cemetery 








Field 4: Prehistoric Funerary Evidence: Late Iron Age / Early Iron Age / Bronze Age / 

Neolithic / Date Unknown / multi-period including Late Iron Age / multi-period not including 

Late Iron Age / none 

Field 5: Character of Earlier Funerary Monuments (where relevant): Drop down menu listing 

various barrows, ring-ditched enclosures, mounds, stone cairn, flat cemetery / variation / 

unknown etc. 

Field 6: Location within Settlement Enclosure (where relevant): centre / E of centre / NE of 

centre / SE of centre / S of centre / SW of centre / W of centre / NW of centre / N of centre / E / 

NE / SE / S / SW / W / NW / N 

This assumes that the cemetery is within the inner enclosure of a site with concentric 

enclosures. 

Field 7: Cemetery Enclosure: enclosure designed to fully delimit whole cemetery / enclosure 

designed to partially delimit whole cemetery / enclosure designed to enclose a minority of 

graves within unenclosed cemetery (ring-ditch etc) / enclosure with no burials around which 

burials cluster (e.g. Augheraskea) / cemetery unenclosed / unknown 

Field 8: Construction of enclosing element: earth bank / stone bank 

Field 9: Evidence for expansion of cemetery beyond enclosure: Y/N 

Field 10: Evidence for new enclosure around expanded cemetery: Y/N 

Cemetery enclosure here means a dedicated, contemporary burial enclosure which, in the case 

of settlement sites, sets cemetery apart from at least some domestic/industrial activities. It is 

294



clearly to be distinguished from settlement enclosures around sites as a whole and even the 

majority of inner enclosures of ecclesiastical and cemetery settlements. 

Field 11: Number of graves excavated: less than 20/ 20-50/ 50-100/ 100-300/ 300-500 / 500- 

1000 / 1000-2000 / over 2000 

Field 12: Estimated total number (where possible): less than 20/ 20-50/ 50-100/ 100-300/ 300- 

500 / 500-1000 / 1000-2000 / over 2000 

Field 13: Adult Males (as a % of those excavated): 

Field 14: Adult Females (as a % of those excavated): 

Field 15: Adolescent Males 13-17yrs (as a % of those excavated): 

Field 16: Adolescent Females 13-17yrs (as a % of those excavated): 

Field 17: Adults or Adolescents of Indeterminate Sex (as a % of those excavated): 

Field 18: Infants and Children (as a % of those excavated): 

Field 19: Grave orientation: approx E/W (as a % of those excavated) 

Field 20: Grave orientation: approx N/S (as a % of those excavated) 

Field 21: Dug graves (as a % of those excavated) 

Field 22: Lintel graves (as a % of those excavated) 

Field 23: Graves with pillow stones (as a % of those excavated) 

Field 24: Unclassified burials (as a % of those excavated) 

Field 25: Shroud pins: Number recovered 

Field 26: Knives: 1/2/3/4/5 

Field 27: Brooches or other jewellery: 1/2/3/4/5 

Field 28: Other Objects 

Radiocarbon Dates 

All radiocarbon dates are listed, earliest to latest. Both 1 sigma and 2 sigma determinations are 

recorded where available. 

Radiocarbon Date 1 

Field 29: Bottom of 2 sigma range (i.e. 1 figure) 

Field 30: Top of 2 sigma range (i.e. 1 figure) 

295



Field 31: Bottom of 1 sigma range (i.e. 1 figure) 

Field 32: Top of 1 sigma range (i.e. 1 figure) 

Field 33: Source: shell / bone / textile / young wood / old wood / other / unknown 

Field 34: Danger of inaccuracy due to context or character of sample: low / medium / high / 

unknown 

Notes: Any potential problems with radiocarbon dates are recorded here. 

Field 35: Likely Terminus Ante Quem for Establishment of Cemetery: e.g. 500 – give number 

Field 36: Likely Terminus Ante Quem for Abandonment of Cemetery: e.g. 800 – give number 

Stone Secondary Location Table 


Field 1: Easting of Secondary Location 

Field 2: Northing of Secondary Location 

Field 3: Date of Transfer to Secondary Location: 

Secondary location is relevant for some inscribed/sculpted stones moved in antiquity. Recent 

changes in location (e.g. to a museum) are not recorded. Usually the first known location will 

be the most important. In very rare cases Easting and Northing of Tertiary Location may be 

necessary. 

Field 4: MCL Identifier of site on which object is located 

Field 5: Name of site, if applicable 

Field 6: Types of site where it is located – drop-down menu of all site types: e.g. ecclesiastical 

site / cemetery settlement / non-ecclesiastical burial ground / ringfort / cashel / longphort / 

promontory fort / unclassified settlement type / not associated with settlement or other 

monument / other / uncertain 

Field 7: First Location – drop-down menu listing the following locations: upright within 

ecclesiastical site / upright close proximity to other feature / upright at periphery of 

ecclesiastical site / built into souterrain at ecclesiastical site / built into non-ecclesiastical 

souterrain / built into early church / built into later church / found during grave-digging at 

296



ecclesiastical site / at non-ecclesiastical settlement / over water / other / location in antiquity 

unknown 

Field 8: Second Location – drop-down menu listing the following locations: 

Isolated / non-ecclesiastical burial ground / upright within ecclesiastical site / upright close 

proximity to other feature / upright at periphery of ecclesiastical site / built into souterrain at 

ecclesiastical site / built into non-ecclesiastical souterrain / built into early church / built into 

later church / found during grave-digging at ecclesiastical site / at non-ecclesiastical settlement 

/ over water / other / location in antiquity unknown / none 

297



Other Early Medieval Features and Artefacts 

Excavated Settlement Evidence (excluding buildings which are treated individually) 

Where relevant, the following fields are added to entries on any excavated site and/or 

monument. In the case of, for example, a ringfort where a circular house and souterrain has 

been excavated, the fields are added to the database entries for all three. In this way, 

associations of particular activities with particular monuments/structures within a site can be 

recognised. 

Excavated Evidence for Cereal Processing (excluding mills – see below): 

Field 1: Definite Cereal Drying Kilns: 1/2/3 

Field 2: Grain Stores: 1/2/3 (e.g. Caherlehillan) 

Field 3: Quern stones of likely EM date: 1/2/3 

Field 4: Plough shares 1/2/3 

Notes: 

Plant Remains: 

Field 1: Wheat: Y/N 

Field 2: Oats: Y/N 

Field 3: Barley: Y/N 

Field 4: Rye: Y/N 

Field 5: Flax: Y/N 

Field 6: Dyeing plants: Y/N 

Field 7: Other/Unclassified Y/N 

Notes: 

Animal Bone: 

Field 1: Cattle (as a % of the total): 

Field 2: Sheep/goats (as a % of the total): 

Field 3: Pig (as a % of the total): 

Field 4: Wild animals and birds (as a % of the total): 

298



Field 5: Sea Birds (as a % of the total): 

Field 6: Fish (as a % of the total): [A potentially important indicator of monastic diet.] 

Field 7: Other not including Sea Birds and Fish (as a % of the total): 

Field 8: Other including Wild Animals, Sea Birds and Fish (as a % of the total): [as sometimes 

often won‘t have figures for these] 

Field 9: Indeterminate (as a % of the total): 

Notes: 

Craft and other activities 

Field 1: Iron Smelting: Y/N/uncertain 

Field 2: Iron Working: Y/N/uncertain 

Field 3: Copper Alloy Working: Y/N/uncertain 

Field 4: Silver/Gold Working: Y/N/uncertain 

Field 5: Glass-working: Y/N/uncertain 

Field 6: Leather-working: Y/N/uncertain 

Field 7: Textile production: Y/N/uncertain 

Field 8: Manuscript production: Y/N/uncertain 

Field 9: Bone-working: Y/N/uncertain 

Field 10: Stone-working (spindle whorl blanks etc.): Y/N/uncertain 

Field 11: Flint-knapping: Y/N/uncertain 

Field 12: Woodworking: Y/N/uncertain 

Field 13: Equestrian evidence: Y/N 

Notes: 

Pottery 

Field 1: Type: A Ware / B Ware / E Ware / Souterrain Ware / Imported Viking Age Pottery / 

unclassified pottery probably locally produced / uncertain 

Field 2: Date Range 

Notes: 

299



Radiocarbon Dates 

All radiocarbon dates are listed, earliest to latest. Both 1 sigma and 2 sigma determinations are 

recorded where available. 

Radiocarbon Date 1: 

Field 1: Bottom of 2 sigma range (i.e. 1 figure): 

Field 2: Top of 2 sigma range (i.e. 1 figure): 

Field 3: Bottom of 1 sigma range (i.e. 1 figure): 

Field 4: Top of 1 sigma range (i.e. 1 figure): 

Field 5: Source: shell / bone / textile / young wood / old wood / other / unknown 

Field 6: Danger of inaccuracy due to context or character of sample: low / medium / high / 

unknown 

Notes: Any potential problems with radiocarbon dates are recorded here. For example if 

species of tree is not mention, or if it‘s oak charcoal, or if the charcoal does not necessarily 

relate to a burning episode contemporary with the site. 

Field 1: Likely Terminus Ante Quem for Establishment of Settlement: e.g. 500 – give number 

Field 2: Likely Terminus Ante Quem for Abandonment of Settlement: e.g. 800 – give number 

Souterrain 








Field 4: Construction: wood / drystone / earth cut / rock cut 

Field 5: Overall known length: 

Field 6: Chambers: single/ multiple 

Field 7: Creep: Y/N 

300



Field 8: Door jambs: Y/N 

Field 9: Porthole Slab: Y/N 

Field 10: Re-use of decorated stones: ogham/prehistoric/ogam and prehistoric/cross-inscribed 

and prehistoric 

Field 11: Association with house site: circular / rectangular / none / uncertain 

Field 12: MCL Identifier for house (where relevant) 

Notes 

Domestic Building 

MCL Identifier 

Field 1: MCL Identifier for the site where it is located or was found (where relevant) 

Field 2: Name of site where it is located or was found (where relevant) 





Field 4: Form: circular / sub-circular / conjoined / rectilinear / other / uncertain 

Field 5: Construction: entirely organic (excavation evidence) / primarily organic with stone 

foundations and/or paving (excavation evidence) / drystone walls with organic roof / drystone 

walls and roof 

Field 6: Wall thickness (in the case of stone buildings) 

Field 7: Internal Area 

Field 8: Estimated Date 

Notes: If date is suggested above it is justified here. Other features are also mentioned (annulus, 

masonry quality etc.). 

Early Water Mill 



301








Field 4: Type: horizontal / vertical 

Field 5: Date: 500-650 / 650-850 / 850-1100 / exact date unknown 

Notes: 

Boundaries 

Parish and barony boundaries are recorded where (like for example Corbally) they are closely 

associated with excavated and/or surveyed sites. If they are recorded at more than one point the 

fields below are copied but the same MCL Identifier is used. 


Field 1: MCL Identifier for the site associated with it at this point (where relevant) 

Field 2: Name of site associated with it at this point (where relevant) 





Field 4: Name of First Principal Secular Land-division delimited at point surveyed 

Field 5: Name of Second Principal Secular Land-division delimited at point surveyed 

Field 6: Name of First Principal Ecclesiastical Land-division delimited at point surveyed 

Field 7: Name of Second Principal Ecclesiastical Land-division delimited at point surveyed 

Field 8: Nature of Secular Land-divisions Delimited: townland / Baile Biatach / villate / cantred 

/ administrative barony (rather than feudal barony) / county / barony and county / other / none 

Field 9: Nature of Ecclesiastical Land-divisions Delimited: early ecclesiastical estate / parish / 

early ecclesiastical estate and parish / rectory / deanery / diocese / episcopal manor / 

archdiocese / other / none 


302








Notes: Here the reason the boundary was surveyed at this point is recorded. Also any evidence 

of whether it is possible to distinguish modern rebuilding from earlier phases is recorded. 

Viking Silver Hoard 








Field 4: Hoard Type: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / coin hoard (according to Sheehan‘s classification) 

Field 5: Hoard Type 2: coins only / non-numismatic only / mixed 

Field 6: Date: 850-940 / 940-1000 / specific deposition date (coin hoards) 

Field 7: Weight or estimated weight in kg if known 

Early Medieval Artefact (other than shrine, Viking silver hoard etc.) 

This table is used somewhat selectively for significant artefacts (e.g. brooches, manuscripts, 

tools diagnostic of a particular activities like shears/spindle whorls, loom weights bucket or 

barrel staves etc.) whether they were found at particular sites or were isolated, stray finds. 




303







Field 4: Artefact Type: e.g. pennanular brooch / shears / decorated hone-stone etc. (too many 

possibilities for drop-down menu). 

Field 5: Estimated Date: give range / uncertain but EM / uncertain 

Notes: circumstances of find must be described and date justified. 

Crannogs 


In 2008 no table was prepared for crannogs and there are no examples in any of the case study 

areas researched to date. Should a crannog need to be recorded into the database the facility 

remains so that the table could be developed with ease. 

304



Prehistoric Monuments Currently Lacking Evidence for Early Medieval Reuse 

Any monument that was probably visible in the EM period is recorded, but ones including 

excavated prehistoric house sites with no surface trace are not. Monuments known to have been 

reused as places of burial, inauguration, assembly etc are dealt with in more detail in tables 

described above. For sites with no evidence for early medieval reuse details are not recorded 

but the following fields are used: 


Field 1: Monument Type 

Field 2: Prehistoric date: definite / probable / possible 


The above and below fields are used in cases where the monument is in or very near (



Barrow – unclassified 

Booley hut 

Boundary cairn 

Boundary ditch 

Boundary mound 

Boundary stone 

Burial 

Burial ground 

Burial mound 

Burnt mound 

Cairn 

Cairn circle 

Causeway 

Causewayed enclosure 

Cave 

Cemetery cairn 

Cemetery mound 

Ceremonial enclosure 

Cist 

Cliff-edge fort 

Cup-marked stone 

Cursus 

Embanked enclosure 

Enclosure 

Excavation – miscellaneous 

Field system 

Flat cemetery 

Four poster 

Fulachta fia 

Henge 

Hillfort 

306



Hilltop enclosure 

Holed stone 

House (not all) 

Hut-site 

Kerb circle 

Linear earthwork 

Linkardstown burial 

Megalithic structure 

Megalithic tomb – court 

Megalithic tomb – passage 

Megalithic tomb – portal 

Megalithic tomb – unclassified 

Megalithic tomb – wedge 

Midden 

Mine 

Mound 

Pit circle 

Promontory fort – coastal 

Promontory fort – inland 

Quarry – prehistoric 

Radial stone cairn 

Radial stone enclosure 

Ring cairn 

Ring ditch 

Road 

Rockart 

Rock scribing 

Settlement cluster (not all) 

Standing stone 

Standing stone – pair 

Stone circle 

307



Stone circle – embanked 

Stone circle – five stone 

Stone circle – multiple stones 

Stone row 

Urn Burial 

The following additional classifications are not in www.archaeology.ie: 

Late Iron Age Roman-Style Votive Deposition or Romano-British Burials (Newgrange, St 

Ann‘s Well, Co. Meath, Freestone Hill, Lambay etc). 

Late Prehistoric ‗Royal‘ Site 

Miscellaneous Prehistoric Ritual Monument 

Miscellaneous Settlement Site probably of Prehistoric Date 

Ritual Deposition Site (not every find of prehistoric metalwork is recorded but we do record the 

location of ritual deposition sites that have produced large number of artefacts) 

308

AR01049_Christian_Landscapes_Summary_Report_10.pdf - The ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?