gorteendarragh field report

November 2010

Heritage Research grant scheme 2010 GRANT NO: R00881

A field survey of the

archaeological sites at

Gorteendarragh,

County Leitrim Field Survey Report

John James McDermott

Gorteendarragh Field Survey Report JJ McDermott, 2010

1

Contents

________________________________________

Page

List of plates ....................................................................................................................2

List of figures and tables ..................................................................................................2

List of plan drawings.........................................................................................................2

Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................3

1. General information....................................................................................................4

1.1 Summary 4

1.2 Introduction 4

1.3 Site Location 5

2. Survey strategy and method........................................................................................6

2.1 Timeline of Survey 6

2.2 Methodology 6

3. Site morphology..........................................................................................................9

3.1 Previous Research 9

3.2 Landscape Setting 9

3.3 Descriptions of Survey Area 1a and 1b 11

3.4 Descriptions of Survey Area 2 17

4. Discussion and conclusions.........................................................................................19

4.1 Overview 19

4.2 Comparative multi-phase sites 19

4.3 Booleying and cultivation ridges 22

4.4 Associations with the late-medieval period 23

4.5 Conclusion 24

5. Benefit to heritage......................................................................................................26

6. Future research...........................................................................................................27

7. Bibliography................................................................................................................28

Appendix I — Plan Drawings..............................................................................................30


2

List of plates

________________________________________

1—Oblique overview of study areas and wider surrounds

2—Circular Enclosure 2 from south-east

3—Hut-site 1 from south-east

4—Field Enclosure 2 from south

5—Hut-site 2 from north-west

6—Field Wall remains and Circular Enclosure 1 from south-west

7—Hut-sites 5 and 6 with adjoining field wall from south-east

8—Enclosure A and Hut-sites A and B from south-west

9—Field Enclosure 1 adjoined by walls of Field Enclosure 2 from the north-east

List of figures and tables

________________________________________

Fig. 1—Location map of entire study area showing sites and monuments associated with the project

Fig. 2—Sketch map of Survey Area 1 for field-walking survey

Fig. 3—Plan of settlement complex at Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim

Fig. 4—Location of study area on Discovery Series map, sheet 16

Table 1—Sites and Monuments from Survey Area 1


List of plan drawings (included in Appendix I)

________________________________________

1—Overview of entire study area

2—Plan of Survey Area 1a

3—Plan of Survey Area 1b

4—Plan of Survey Area 2


3

Acknowledgements

________________________________________

I would firstly like to thank Colm McKermott for greatly assisting in the survey and research work

throughout this project. Thanks to Dr Kieran O’Conor for his invaluable direction and guidance as

always and also to Joe Fenwick, who granted the hire of technical equipment from the Dept. Of

Archaeology, NUI, Galway and set-up and assisted in the recording and mapping of the sites. Thanks

to Stuart Rathbone for some interesting insight and advice on the morphology of the sites, and to

Jessica Touhy and Karl Brady for their very helpful remarks on the report. Also thanks to Rory

McNeary for contributing some of the location maps. I am also hugely grateful to the Heritage

Council of Ireland for their recognition of the significance of this project through the granting of

generous funding. Finally I would like to offer a massive thanks to the landowner, Justin Warnock,

who not only granted permission to walk through his lands but shared a major interest in the survey

and thus looked after myself and Colm very well throughout our survey work.

Contact details of author

________________________________________

John James McDermott MA, field archaeologist

Sorrelfield House

Lissinagroagh

Manorhamilton

Co.Leitrim

Ph: +353 71 9855453 or +353 86 1973558

[email protected]


4

1. General Information

________________________________________

1.1 Summary

This field survey was conducted between March and November 2010 by two field archaeologists

with professional help from the Department of Archaeology, NUI, Galway. The purpose of the survey

was to further our understandings of the rural landscape inhabited by the people of the

mountainous Dartry region in North Co. Leitrim, during the late medieval and into the post medieval

period (c. AD 1400 – c. AD 1650). The principal aim was to identify an association between the

lordship centre of the MacClancy clan at lake-side Rosclogher and the cluster of archaeological

monuments at upland Gorteendarragh (c. 240m OD). The sites and monuments that were surveyed

consisted of a range of field walls and enclosures, hut-sites and circular stone enclosures as well as a

series of cultivation ridges that correlated with a house-site and several other smaller hut-sites. The

lack of datable evidence at the sites meant that finding a specific chronological link between

Rosclogher and Gorteendarragh was extremely arduous and it is acknowledged that without

excavation work in the future it will remain this way. However, the results of this survey (in the

discussion and plan drawings) does accentuate the complexity that exists within this archaeological

landscape and prompts a great deal of questions to be asked in regard to the use and potential re-

use of field systems in the upland regions of Ireland over vast periods of time. It also provides a

scope for further research and fieldwork to be carried out at these sites in the future.

1.2 Introduction

This field survey was undertaken with the intention of further progressing research into the late

medieval Gaelic lordship known as ‘Dartry MacClancy’ and in turn, providing new insights into the

broader theme of medieval rural settlement in Gaelic Ireland. An MA thesis was initially researched

in 2007 under the title of ‘An archaeological landscape study of late medieval castles in north-west

Breifne’, which in part explored the landscape of ‘Dartry MacClancy’1. Considering its potential as a

stand-alone case-study, the lordship centre of the MacClancys at Rosclogher then became the basis

for an archaeological survey in 2009, partially funded by the Heritage Council of Ireland and aided by

1 This MA thesis is unpublished and was written by this author for the Dept. of Archaeology, National

University of Ireland, Galway


5

the Department of Archaeology, NUI, Galway and the Centre of Maritime Archaeology, University of

Ulster, Coleraine2. The current field survey of the archaeological sites at Gorteendarragh, which

forms part of the ‘Dartry MacClancy’ territory, is a direct follow-on from this research and it is also

partially funded by the Heritage Council.

1.3 Site Location

The townland of Gorteendarragh is located in North Co. Leitrim on the northern slopes of Dartry

Mountain and to the south-eastern end of Lough Melvin (see Fig. 1). The lordship centre at

Rosclogher, consisting of a tower-house, crannog, church and ringfort, is located on the lake directly

north of Gorteendarragh and there is good inter-visibility between it and the upper reaches of the

townland (see Ch. 3.2). Two separate survey areas were established during the course of the project,

with the location of Survey Area 1 to the southern centre of the townland and Survey Area 2 located

further north on the downward slope (see Ch. 2).

Fig. 1—Location of study area showing sites associated with the project (courtesy of R. McNeary)

2 Presented in an unpublished report by McDermott, McNeary, and O’Conor 2009 (Grant no: 17363)


6

2. Survey Method and Strategy

________________________________________

2.1 Timeline of Survey

March—April 2010 Background Research and Field-walking survey

July—August 2010 Total-Station Survey Phase 1

September 2010 Total-Station Survey Phase 2

Sept.—November 2010 Data processing and Report writing

2.2 Methodology

Initially, a field-walking survey was carried out in the mountainous area around Gorteendarragh and

its bordering townlands which resulted in a sketch map being created showing all archaeological

sites and features as well as significant natural features in the area (see Fig. 2). Corresponding

research of primary sources was carried out at this stage, with a specific focus on the Records of

Monuments and Places (RMP) for the surveyed archaeological sites and monuments in the area (see

Ch. 3.1 for details). From past personal experience it was acknowledged that any local perspectives

on the study area would be very beneficial. Local historians were consulted with, as well as local

people who have resided in the area for a long period of time. In correspondence with the aims of

the survey, research into secondary material was constant throughout and a particular focus was

centred on the following themes: late medieval settlement and agriculture; booleying and seasonal

transhumance; prehistoric field systems.

The technical survey itself was carried out in two phases: Phase 1 for two weeks in July and Phase 2

for a further two weeks in September. The work was undertaken by two surveyors, Colm McKermott

and this author, and help was also given by the Department of Archaeology at NUI, Galway. All

previously-documented archaeological sites and features as well as some important natural and

modern features were surveyed in the initial phase (categorised in the plan drawings as Survey Area

1a and 1b) while previously undocumented sites and features were recorded in the second phase

(Survey Area 2). The recording was done with a Nikon total station DTM-652 device and a Trimble


7

GeoExplorer handheld GNSS device. A series of station points were first acquired by the GNSS device

locating them accurately on the Irish National Grid (all co-ordinates are included in Table 1 and 2).

Several points on the sites and features were marked by bamboo posts and then recorded, with one

person taking a reading on the instrument while the other held the reflecting-theodolite. In Phase 1

over a thousand points were recorded in ten days with the weather being wet to moderate for most

of the time. The sites and features recorded in Survey Area 1a and 1b included Circular Enclosures 1

and 2, Hut-sites 1, 2, 3 and 4, Field Enclosure 1 and 2, a clay mound and several other fragmentary

ancient field walls. In Phase 2, the previously undocumented sites were recorded in the same way

and approximately three hundred points were taken. This was Survey Area 2 and included the large

rectangular enclosure with bank and ditch (Enclosure A), Hut-sites A, B, C and D and several lazy-bed

cultivation ridges. Line drawings of Enclosure A and all of the hut-sites were recorded in this phase

as well and were applied to the plan drawings at a later stage.

The plan drawings in the appendix of this report were created in ArcMap®, AutoCAD® and Adobe

Photoshop®. Firstly, the TS recordings were clarified in AutoCAD and then imported into ArcMap®,

where various data layers such as OSI (Ordnance Survey of Ireland) historical maps, ortho-

photographs and contour data were added and geo-referenced with the recorded data. The plans

were then rendered and edited in Photoshop®, with the application of more layers such as scanned

line-drawings and ortho-photographs, which showed up previously unseen features on the plans.

They were then illustrated with scale, north-arrow and legend. The result is a series of accurate and

illustrative plans for Survey Area 1a and 1b and Survey Area 2 (see Appendix 1 for plan drawings and

for site details, see Ch. 3.3). Many ground photographs were taken throughout the survey as well

and serve to illustrate the archaeology even more extensively (see List of plates). The advantage of

high ground in the vicinity proved to very complimentary in this regard.


8

Fig. 2—Sketch map for initial field-walking survey (Survey Area 1 circled in red) (courtesy of R. McNeary)


9

3. Site Morphology

________________________________________

3.1 Previous Research

The only previous research to be carried out at Gorteendarragh in the past has been done by the

Archaeological Survey of Ireland, the details of which are kept in the RMP files3 (see Table 1 for RMP

numbers of each site.) Much of these files include Michael Moore’s in-depth and accurate

descriptions from 1994, in which he applies the label ‘archaeological complex’ to the cluster of sites

and monuments this survey is based on. An earlier description with co-ordinates, written by O.

Davies, c. 1940, is included too but is very brief. The details of these files were subsequently

summarised by Moore in his compilation for the Archaeological Inventory of County Leitrim (2003)

and the complex is here described as “an area of c. 4ha containing remnants of a field system...an

enclosure...and five hut sites”4. Elsewhere in the inventory, the enclosure and hut-sites are listed

under the ‘Prehistoric Settlement’ section5.

3.2 Landscape Setting

(*Abbreviations will be used in the following sections for the name of sites and for compass points

e.g. N = north.)

The study area is located in Gorteendarragh on the upper northern slopes of Aroo Mountain – a

large cliff-faced peak in the Dartry Mountains (H. 523m). The landscape is very rugged and rocky due

to the impact of glacial retreat during the last Ice Age. The underlying bedrock is made up of visean

limestone and calcerous shale6, while the land here is of generally poor quality as the soils are made

up of shallow-surface gleys7. The general topography of Survey Area 1 is a ridge of rough pasture at

the top of a steep slope (190m—260m OD) which overlooks Lough Melvin and Rosclogher Castle to

the north. On a clear day there are extensive views right across Donegal Bay to the north-west and

the Sperrin Mountains to the distant north-east. It is nestled amongst a series of peculiar glacial

formations, pyramidal in shape, and the immediate topography is made up of tiny grassy hillocks to

3 RMP File no. LE 2:28

4 Moore 2003, 39

5 Ibid. 29

6 Data from the Geological Survey of Ireland datasets public-viewer: www.spatial.dcenr.gov.ie

7 Data from the ENVision maps on the Environmental Protection Association website: www.epa.ie


10

the north-west, a large rising slope further to the south and a boulder-strewn area at the centre and

to the east. The whole area is structured by modern dry-stone walls that run relatively parallel S-W.

These walls are constructed with a mixture of symmetrical and rough-cut limestone blocks and are

reinforced with barb-wire fencing by the current landowners (see Pl. 1 for overview of area).

Pl. 1—Overview of Survey Area 1 with Survey Area 2 circled in blue and Rosclogher Castle circled in red.

Survey Area 1a is structured by a series of four walls, which form three enclosed fields: an easterly

one, a westerly one and a central one. A perpendicular wall running E-W defines the southern

boundaries of these fields. To the west of the survey area and across the most westerly field

boundary a large and mature coniferous plantation is located running the length of the slope for the

most part. In Survey Area 1b the terrain is higher and more inhospitable. There are two walls here

running uphill N-S enclosing a very rugged area and it is defined by a steep hill at its centre. A narrow

stream is located c. 250m to the SE of the area. Survey Area 2 is located further downhill on the next

ridge, c. 300m N of Survey Area 1a. The location is a rush-covered field defined by modern fenced


11

earthen embankments c. 80m apart. These embankments are the continuation of the field walls that

enclose the central field in Survey Area 1a. There are also a number of deciduous trees to the N and

S of the area. Well-cultivated fields, currently grazed on by sheep, cattle and donkeys, flank either

side of the field to the W and E respectively. There is also a trail of what appears to be a dried-up

stream running downhill from S and turning NE at the centre of the area (see Pl. 8). The views from

here towards Lough Melvin and Rosclogher Castle are not as extensive as that from further upland

due to the obstruction by trees.

3.3 Descriptions of Survey Area 1 (a & b)

Circular Enclosure 2 (CE 2) is located in the central field of Survey Area 1a, close to the SW corner of

the modern field walls. It is clearly defined as a circular/ovoid structure amongst the strewn stones

and boulders (see Pl. 2). The fabric of the wall footings are made up of loose limestone boulders as

well as embedded grass-covered stones. The enclosure has no apparent entrance but does have an

accumulation of boulders on its E side. This may be because it is positioned on a slight slope to W

and was built-up more so at this end so as to have a corresponding wall-height around the

enclosure. However, this is unlikely since the ground internally follows the line of the slope. A field

wall running NE-SW comes very near to the W end of it and, considering they have similar wall

structures, they would initially appear to be contemporaneous. This wall forms the E end of Field

Enclosure 2 (FE 2) which itself covers a large sub-triangular area partially in the central modern field

and partially in the western field also. Interestingly, this same wall continues beyond the S corner of

the enclosure but peters out before it reaches the modern field boundary. Ortho-photographs

(courtesy of OSI) would suggest that it continues further S across the wall, possibly joining another

field wall running E-W (see Plan 2 in Appendix I). From this evidence it could actually be deciphered

that another large rectangular enclosure existed to the S of FE 2. The concentration here of strewn

boulders and a slight slope to S makes it impossible to fully decipher it as an enclosure.

FE 2 is much more defined and has a long curvilinear wall to the N where the loose boulders are less

frequent and the embedded stones are more apparent. Hut-site 1 is internally adjoined to the wall

at this end and is defined by intermittent grass-covered stones (see Pl. 3). This small structure

appears to have a direct correlation with the wall it is adjoined to in its position and structure but,

similarly with all of these sites, a lack of dating proves it is impossible to fully interpret their

relationship to each other. Similarly, a correlation clearly exists between Field Enclosure 1 and FE 2.


12

Field Enclosure 1 (FE 1) is a sub-circular structure located in the grassier area of the western modern

field and is adjoined seamlessly to FE 2 by inter-connecting walls to the NE and SE (see Pl. 4). The

enclosure is generally unexposed to its wider surrounds and there is a clear bowl-shaped depression

internally. Two possible hut-sites were also deciphered within the enclosure: a rectangular example

adjoined to the outer wall to the NE and a sub-circular one situated near the centre. These were

both partially defined by intermittently embedded stones. There is also a possible entrance to the

W, meaning it is not facing into FE 2 but into the open field at the other end. To the SW of the

enclosure, there is a hillock overlooking the entire complex. From this prominent point most of the

sites in Survey Area 1a and 1b can be sighted and this is where Hut-site 2 is located. It has a robust

circular bank made up of embedded grass-covered boulders (see Pl. 5). Its position is intriguing since

it is extremely exposed to the prevailing wind at that point and it is therefore possible that the wide

wall-footings form the base of a reinforced hut structure.

Circular Enclosure 1 (CE 1) is located to the E end of Survey Area 1b on a slight ridge of very unlevel

and stony terrain. Similar to CE 2, it is well defined and is slightly ovoid in shape but, unlike CE 2, it

does not have has much strewn boulder in its vicinity. Some large boulders do make up its structure

but again, there are clearly some embedded stones around its perimeter too. An isolated field wall

runs NW-SE just 20 m to the north of the enclosure, stopping just short of the eastern modern wall.

It is much more defined with large boulders than the previously-discussed field walls. Across the

modern wall to the W, there are two further field walls located in an area of frequently strewn rocks.

These are clearly defined from a position further up the mountain to the S (see Pl. 6) but are harder

to decipher on the ground. The most westerly one runs N-S and the easterly one runs NE-SW and

they are separated c. 20 – 50m apart. They both peter out and terminate at the base of the steeply

rising slope to S. Further W from these and close to a modern field wall, there is an irregular shaped

mound standing out from the immediate topography (H. 1.4m). It appears to be made of clay and is

more geological in structure than archaeological.

Further upland on a ridge just below the top of a steep slope and directly east of CE 1, there are a

cluster of features that may be related to the other sites in Survey Area 1a and 1b. Hut-site 3 and

Hut-site 4 are almost identical structures located within 2m of each other and adjoined by a

collapsed field wall running E-W (see Pl. 7). They share similar characteristics to Hut-site 1 but are

slightly smaller and have larger boulders that define their perimeters. The field wall runs E-W,

beginning at the base of the steep slope to the W and continuing across the ridge and downhill to

the E before adjoining another field wall, which runs perpendicularly up a slight hillock to NW where

it eventually becomes redundant (see Plan 3 in Appendix I for overview).


13

Site type RMP number(s) Nat. Grid Ref.

(centre-point)

Dimensions/shape Internal Features

FE 1 LE 002-028007 G 8393, 5270 29.5m N-S x 34.3m E-W; Wth:

0.6m /circular

2 possible hut-sites;

possible entrance to

W (Wth: 1.2m)

FE 2 LE 002-028005

LE 002-028006

G 8397, 5269 63m NE-SW x 79m NW-SE;

Wth: 0.6m to 2 m /curvilinear

Adjoined to Hut-site 1

CE 1 LE 002-028001 G 8413, 5254 8.7m NE-SW x 7.25m NW-SE;

Wth: 2m /oval

______

CE 2 LE 002-028003 G 8400, 5266 11m N-S x 8.8m E-W

Wth: 2.5m /oval

______

Hut site 1 LE 002-028004 G 8397, 5272 4.4m N-S x 4.7m E-W;

Wth: 1.3m /circular

______

Hut site 2 LE 002-028009 G 8390, 5266 6.8m N-S x 6.2m E-W;

Wth: 2m /circular

______

Hut site 3 LE 002-028011 G 8393 5257 4m N-S x 3.8m E-W;

Wth: 1.2m /circular

______

Hut site 4 ______ G 8392 5257 3.8m N-S x 3.5m E-W;

Wth: 1.2m /circular

______



14

Pl. 2—Circular Enclosure 2 from south-east

Pl. 3—Hut-site 1 from south-east


15

Pl. 4—Field Enclosure 2 from south

Pl. 5—Hut-site 2 from north-west


16

Pl. 6—Field Wall remains (to left of modern wall) and Circular Enclosure 1 (to right) from south-west

Pl. 7—Hut-sites 5 and 6 with adjoining field wall (at centre) from south-east


17

3.4 Descriptions of Survey Area 2

Enclosure A is located to the E of Survey Area 2 on level and fairly rush-covered terrain. It is clearly

defined by a rectangular earthen bank and a slight outer ditch or fosse. Its long-axis is orientated NE

– SW and the ditch defines its outer perimeter to the NE, NW and SW. It would appear that a larger

ditch that once formed part of a stream running from S and turning NE in the area defines its

perimeter at SE. A rectangular feature at the NW corner of the enclosure suggests some form of

inner partition and a break in the bank at the centre of the NE side indicate an entrance. This,

therefore, suggests that we are dealing with a house-site of some sort, possibly a timber-constructed

long-house (see also Pl. 8).

Directly to the E of this are Hut-site A and Hut-site B, both located to the N and S of each other

respectively and 4m away from the modern field boundary further to the E. These are quite small

and insubstantial features that are defined by low sub-rectangular earthen walls and can barely be

deciphered among the frequent clumps of rushes. Hut-site B would appear to have thicker walls and

is slightly longer than Hut-site A and a gap to its NE corner would suggest an entrance.

Hut-site C is located 7m to the W of Enclosure A and appears to have the very same structure as

Hut-site A. Again, it is defined by a low sub-rectangular earthen wall and is hard to decipher on the

ground because of the presence of rushes. Hut-site D is located 10m to the NW of the enclosure and

is slightly different in structure to the others. It is more rectangular in shape and has thinner earthen

boundaries. As with Hut-site C, it must be stated that the ground evidence of its structure is only

intermittently seen.

The evidence of lazy-bed cultivation ridges is much more obvious and, in total, there were 16

examples recorded, spread across the entire field, some much larger than others. They vary in length

from 3m to 12m and are defined by low, narrow linear banks, c. 1m in width. The alignment of all

ridges is NW-SE, which interestingly corresponds with the small-axis of Enclosure A. There is a

concentration of seven ridges to the W and NW of the enclosure while five are located immediately

to the N and the remaining four are located further N of the enclosure, to the E of Hut-site D. These

are very uniform in shape and structure and would clearly indicate a close association with both the

enclosure and the hut-sites (See Plan 4 in Appendix I for overview).


18

Site type Nat. Grid Ref.

(centre point)

Dimensions/shape Internal Features

Enclosure A G 8406, 5296 18.4m NE-SW x 13.3m NW-SE

Wth: 2.2m /rectangular

Rectangular partition in NW corner 5.2m x 2.6m; possible entrance in NE wall (Wth: 0.7m)

Hut site A G 8407, 5296 7.1m N-S x 6.7m E-W Wth: 1.2m /rectangular

______

Hut site B G 8407, 5297 9.1m N-S x 6.8m E-W; Wth: 1.5m /rectangular

Possible entrance at N corner (Wth: 0.5m)

Hut site C G 8494, 5297 5.2m N-S x 5m E-W; Wth: 1.2m /oval

______

Hut site D G 8405, 5298 8.8m NE-SW x 5m NW-SE; Wth: 1.6m /rectangular

Possible entrance in SE wall (Wth: 0.6m)


Pl. 8—Enclosure A from south-west (Hut-site A and B are located to the right centre)


19

4. Discussion and Conclusions

________________________________________

4.1 Overview

The aim of this survey was to establish a chronological link between the late medieval lordship at

Rosclogher and the archaeological sites and monuments of Gorteendarragh but, without any

scientific dating available, finding specific chronological evidence proved impossible. However, the

significance of the archaeology surveyed here will be discussed and some hypotheses will be offered

in regard to their origin and function nonetheless. Some comparative examples and historical

sources will aid in this discussion.

The field systems, enclosures and hut-sites in Survey Area 1 have an enigmatic character and it

would be negligent to simply suggest a predominantly agricultural function for the site. One just

needs to glance at the rugged and inhospitable landscape here to see its unsuitability as a base for

farming, but such is the complexity of these upland sites that it is difficult to classify its exact

function from the available evidence. The size of Field Enclosure 1 and its clear structure association

with Field Enclosure 2 certainly point to it being a fold for keeping livestock (see Pl. 11) but the

scattering of boulders within its perimeter (particularly to the east) provide a stumbling block to any

agricultural-based interpretation. We may also look to the problematic location and structure of

Circular Enclosure 2 in relation to the two field enclosures. Is it contemporaneous with them or is it a

precursor to a later field system? Is it a simple hut-site like the others or is it more complicated,

possibly related to ritual activities rather than domestic or farming functions? It is best to reserve

these questions for when there is more evidence available but assessing some comparative

examples may provide some enlightened thought for the time being.

4.2 Comparative multi-phase sites

Survey Area 1 has many parallels with the settlement complex at Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim. This is an

area of good mountain-land pasture located NW of Belfast (between 167m and 243m OD). In 1980 a

series of field systems, two conjoined curvilinear enclosures and a group of circular hut platforms

were discovered there by a team of archaeologists from the Department of the Environment,


20

Northern Ireland8. Excavations on a house-site within one of the enclosures followed and radio-

carbon dates as well as artefactual evidence pointed to four structural phases in the early medieval

period9. This and evidence for ‘squatter’s hearths’ led to the suggestion that the site may have acted

as a transhumant village10. The layout of monuments at Gorteendarragh is not nearly as intricate nor

is it on the same scale as Ballyutoag (see Fig. 3) but its distribution of field systems and enclosures

and its mountainous location are quite similar. It may well be the case that Survey Area 1 at

Gorteendarragh was more intricate at one time, with the possibility that the remnant field walls

such as those in the vicinity of Circular Enclosure 1 (Survey Area 1b) once formed a series of other

field enclosures that were attached to Field Enclosure 1 (Survey 1a). The accumulations of strewn

boulders in this area and the probability that the modern field walls were re-built with the material

from older field walls would be indicative of this.

The evidence for another transhumant village at Goodland, Co. Antrim provides more interesting

parallels. This is an enigmatic upland complex consisting of several hut sites and field systems that,

when excavated, showed up a series of occupational phases ranging from the Neolithic, the early

medieval and into the late medieval period11. However, a recent re-evaluation of this evidence in

conjunction with a digital survey of the area postulates that the sites were also re-used as a

settlement by Highland Scottish planters in the early 17th century12. It may be noted that the hut-

sites with late medieval dates at Goodland have dimensions that range from the smallest at 4.2m by

3.1m (Goodland C) to the largest at 10.6m by 6.4m (Goodland I)13. In contrast the 4 hut-sites at

Survey Area 1 in Gorteendarragh are more circular and range from 3.7m by 3.4m (hut-site 4) to 6.8m

by 6.2m (hut-site 2), but it can be argued that when sites like these are excavated, their shapes turn

out to be more rectangular than circular or ovoid14.

8 Williams 1984, 37-49

9 Ibid. 40

10 Ibid. 48

11 Case, Dimbley, Mitchell, Morrison and Proudfoot 1969, 43-44

12 Horning and Brannon 2004, 28-31

13 Categorised in a table detailing booley-huts from five sites across the British Isles in Rathbone 2010, 117-118

14 Ibid. 112


21

Fig. 3—Plan of settlement complex at Ballyutoag (after Williams 1984)

Pl. 9—Field Enclosure 1 adjoined by walls of Field Enclosure 2 from the north-east


22

4.3 Booleying and Cultivation Ridges

It has been postulated in the SMR (Sites and Monuments Record) for Northern Ireland that

Goodland is an example of a “classic booley settlement”15 and although there may be a difficulty in

this exact classification it may be worthwhile to probe into the principal elements of booleying as a

practise. The idea was centred on the economical significance of livestock and land to a rural

community. It was a seasonal process, whereby cattle were herded to upper lands at the end of

spring and kept to graze upon the plentiful grass throughout the summer. The people themselves

stayed with their cattle, pastorally tending to their herd by feeding and milking them16. Usually the

cattle would be kept in enclosures (the Irish ‘buaile’ translates as ‘enclosure on summer pasture’ 17),

while the people themselves lived in temporary hut-sites close by or adjacent to the enclosures18.

These upland locations were not suitable for permanent occupation due to their inhospitable nature

during the winter and so the community would return to the lowlands by the end of September19.

The origins of transhumance is continuously debated due to the elusive and inconsistent nature of

their form, structure and date and may well have had a basis in prehistory20. However, from

historical sources, it can be ventured that booleying played an important role in the agricultural

economy of the Gaelic Irish throughout the late medieval period21.

Detailed studies of these types of settlements have been carried out across Achill Island22 and a

variety of structures of probable multi-period date (not unlike Goodland) have been excavated in the

uplands of Slievemore to the north-west of the island over the last twenty years by the Achill

Archaeological Field-school23. According to local tradition, the area was utilised as a transhumant

village (called Dooagh) right up until the 19th and early 20th century24 but stratigraphical and

artefactual evidence suggest activity dating back to the 7th century AD and right through into the

later medieval period25. The evidence for associated lazy-bed cultivation ridges was noted and they

15

Horning and Brannon, 28 16

O’Sullivan and Downey 2003, 34 17

McDonald 2010, 209 18

Ibid. 209 19

Rathbone, 111 20

Booleying discussed as a prehistoric phenomenon by Lucas 1989, while transhumance in the Iron Age discussed by McKillop 2005, 101-3 21

O’Conor 1998, 74 22

Theresa McDonald’s current PhD study for NUI, Galway is based on transhumance on Achill Island 23

Summarised information of excavations at the deserted village of Slievemore for each consecutive year since 1991 up until 2007 can be retrieved at www.excavations.ie. 24

O Moghrain 1943, 170-171 25

Bennett (ed.) 2006


23

were interpreted to have been used as oats and rye crops rather than potato26. This then brings us

to the discussion of cultivation in the context of booley sites.

Small scale cultivation ridges are one of the common traits found in booley settlements right across

the British Isles and Ireland27 and they were most likely introduced to Ireland by English settlers from

the 12th century onwards28. It is suggested that curvilinear-shaped ridges were more common than

straight-line ones until the eighteenth century when the latter became more widespread29. This may

put the date of the lazy beds at Survey Area 2 at Gorteendarragh to the post-medieval period but

there is no illustration of the settlement as a whole on the OS 1st edition maps of the 1830s and

locals do not seem to know of its origin. Therefore it seems to have been abandoned before the

early 19th century. Of considerable interest, Gorteendarragh translates as ‘little tilled field of the

oaks’ 30 which means that the tradition of cultivated fields existed in the townland for some time

prior to the 19th century. It is generally the case nevertheless that the techniques of cultivation

varied in response to the soil conditions and here at Gorteendarrgh the soils are very thin and

applicable land for crop rotation is elusive.

The presence of small out-buildings, field systems and their location near small streams are also

commonly associated with booley settlements31 and we can see most of these at Survey Area 2,

which would appear to be a fairly desirable location in the context of its immediate hilly and

inhospitable surrounds. A series of lazy-beds in conjunction with a small settlement consisting of a

house-site (Enclosure A), associated out-buildings (Hut-sites A-D) would lead one to believe that this

site once had an imbued status above any other in the locality. The absence of field systems proves

to be problematic but there is a probability that the open fields to the east and west of the

settlement were levelled in more modern times and therefore hide potential field-wall structures

beneath the soil. A geo-physical survey around these areas would clarify the outcome of this

hypothesis.

26

Bennett (ed.) 2006 27

Rathbone, 112 28

O’Conor, 34 29

Bell 1984, 81 30

Parts of the place-name were dissected and translated from evidence in Flanagan & Flanagan 2002 31

Rathbone, 112


24

4.4 Associations with the Late Medieval Period

The potential link to the late medieval period is very much evident when we consider the survey of a

late medieval Gaelic lordship site at Carns, Co. Roscommon32. Here the remains of house-sites and

adjacent cultivation ridges were digitally surveyed by the Discovery Programme as part of their

Medieval Rural Settlement Project. It was postulated from the available evidence that a community

of farmers resided here and relied on small-scale cultivation and stock management throughout the

later medieval period and outside of English settlers’ influence33. Considering the lack of English

influence at ‘Dartry MacClancy’ up until the end of the 16th century34, this could well be

hypothesised for the sites and features at Survey Area 2 also.

From medieval literature, we find that the upland areas of north-west Breifne were densely covered

by woodland and were frequently utilised as a defensive refuge by the Gaelic princes of that

region35. For example, in 1589 Brian ‘na murtha’ O Rourke escaped from an English raid on his

tower-house at Newtown (now Parkes Castle) by launching a boat onto Lough Gill and taking flight

across land and into the “woods and fastnesses” of the surrounding hills36. What is most significant

for this discussion is that a year earlier in the winter of 1588 the chief of Dartry, Téige Óg MacClancy,

fled to the mountains when an English army, led by Lord Deputy Fitzwilliam to seek out any Spanish

soldiers being sheltered by the Gaelic Irish, encroached upon his lands37. It must be understood from

these actions that MacClancy was not merely escaping to the hills in desperation to save his throne.

This was obviously a proven tactical plan that was guided by the strength of local knowledge and

tradition and was arguably utilised on more than one occasion if we are to read into the frustrating

remarks of the various English governors from the time38. In De Cuellar’s narrative he observes that

the chief took his people, his cattle and the church repositories from his base at Rosclogher to the

adjacent mountains while the Spaniard himself, and his compatriots, safeguarded the tower-house

for 17 days39. This has prompted me to assume that MacClancy acknowledged the existence of a

built settlement in the Dartry mountains which was good enough to enclose his cattle and shelter

and sustain the needs and requirements of his people for a long period of time.

32

Shanahan and McNeary 2008 33

Ibid, 192 34

Evidence for predominant Gaelic settlement in later medieval NW Breifne discussed by McDermott in MA thesis 2007, 55-68 35

Ibid. 97 36

McDermot 1991, 62 37

Allingham and Crawford 1897, 34-35; for more detailed information on the ‘siege’ at Rosclogher see McDermott, McNeary and O’Conor, 14-16, 19-20 38

Calendar of State Papers 1595, 195; McDermot, 57 39

Allingham and Crawford, 35


25

4.5 Conclusion

There is little doubt that the late medieval landscape of ‘Dartry MacClancy’ (part of the wider Breifne

landscape) was influenced in no small measure by the landscapes that were managed and imbued

by the earlier inhabitants before them. It is effectively the same geographical landscape ever since

the first settlers arrived here, with the exception of dried-up streams, de-forestated areas and re-

structured field boundaries. However, the mental landscape constantly changes over time as it is

impacted by the onset of new agricultural methods, political rule, warfare, changing belief systems

etc.40

To gain a better understanding and to find more solid links to the various occupational phases at the

sites and monuments of Gorteendarragh, some further work in the form of geo-physical survey and

test-excavations are hugely desirable (See Ch. 6). For now, it may be concluded that the archaeology

presented in the plan drawings and discussed above is extremely intricate and deserving of wider

recognition. Their significance to the debate on re-use of settlement and agricultural land-use and

management over various phases must be acknowledged, as should their potential to the study of

rural Gaelic settlement in late medieval Ireland, of which, I believe, there is much potential evidence

examine here.

40

Keller 1997, 87


26

5. Benefit to Local Heritage

________________________________________

The results of this survey and the previous survey at Rosclogher Castle has garnered much interest

from locals and the general population in Co. Leitrim thusfar. This is mainly due to the exposure of

the 2009 survey at Rosclogher in local media circles which was received warmly by local historians

and other genuinely interested people from the area. The survey was communicated through an

informative article on the history of the castle in an annual county journal, The Leitrim Guardian

201041, and a talk was given at the North Leitrim Glens centre, Manorhamilton at the end of 2009 on

the theme of ‘Captain de Cuellar and Rosclogher castle’. The talk coincided with the opening of an

historical-arts workshop directed by Donal O’Kelly centring on the narrative of De Cuellar. The

workshop has since developed into a stage production currently touring around the country and is

entitled ‘The Adventures of the Wet Señor’. As a result, De Cuellar’s narrative has achieved

recognition in the media nationwide and was featured on Pat Kenny’s RTE Radio 1 show.

It may be of considerable interest to some people that this survey has uncovered the location of an

important past settlement site (discussed as Survey Area 2 in this report), which forms part of a

wider and hugely significant archaeological landscape. According to Policy 8.5a of Section 2 in the

Leitrim County Development Plan 2009—201542, it is stated that public awareness of the rich

archaeological heritage within the county be promoted. It is the belief of this author that the

archaeological sites and monuments at Gorteendarragh, and their association to the historically-

significant MacClancy lordship centre at Rosclogher, form part of this rich archaeological heritage

and they have a huge potential in being promoted to the wider population, to locals and visitors

alike. There is no doubt that this is a magnificent and unique landscape here in north Co. Leitrim and,

just as it has shaped the minds of its past inhabitants, it continues to be a source of pride for its

present occupants. To maintain its place as such, it is imperative that archaeological sites like these

continue to be preserved and constantly promoted within the wider cultural spectrum.

41

McDermott 2009, 11-13 42

Leitrim County Development Plan 2009—2015, 126-127 (available at www.leitrimcoco.ie)


27

6. Future Research

_________________________________________

As was discussed above, it is envisioned that in the near the future some test-excavations will be

carried out on the archaeological sites at Gorteendarragh. Some trenches within and along the

boundaries of Field Enclosures 1 and 2, and Circular Enclosure 2 of Survey Area 1, for example,

would be hugely beneficial to our overall understanding of the site. It would clarify the complexity of

the site and would also establish more clearly the structure of these enclosures and their association

to each other. The possibility of finds would also shed more light on the date-ranges for the site. In

Survey Area 2 a trench across the base of Enclosure A and through some of the adjacent cultivation

ridges would be desirable also. An initial geo-physical survey (preferably ground-penetrating radar)

of both areas would also highlight any before-unseen features, which would aid in locating the test-

trenches at the most advantageous position.

An article focusing on the current results of this survey and on the previous survey at Rosclogher

Castle is currently being prepared in collaboration with Dr. Kieran O’Conor and will hopefully be

published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2011. This will highlight the archaeology of ‘Dartry

MacClancy’ to a wider audience and stimulate debate on the associations between the lordship

centre at Rosclogher and the settlement sites at Gorteendarragh. It will also form a scope for further

research and field-work to be undertaken on aspects of booley hut-site classification and dating and

the structure of medieval agricultural landscapes for example.

Due to the funding from the Heritage Council, the interest of the local public has become a main

concern throughout these surveys (see Ch. 5) and it will be a primary objective in any future work

that the local media and groups of interest be constantly communicated with. The establishment of

archaeological walks in the Dartry Mountains and the erection of information sign-posts for the

Gorteendarragh sites and Rosclogher Castle would be a substantial benefit to the heritage tourism in

the area and would aid in the future preservation of these sites as well. And in achieving this, I

believe it would be the most lasting and positive outcome of the current survey work.


28

Bibliography

_________________________________________

Allingham, H. and Crawford, R. (eds.) 1897 Captain Cuellar's narrative of the Spanish Armada and of

his wanderings and adventures in Ireland (1st edn). London: Elliott Stock.

Bennett, I. (ed.) 2006 Excavations 2002: Summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland.

Dublin: Wordwell Books.

Bennett, I. (ed.) 2007 Excavations 2003: Summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland.

Dublin: Wordwell Books.

Bell, J. 1984 ‘A Contribution to the Study of Cultivation Ridges in Ireland’ In The Journal of the Royal

Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, vol. 114, 80—97.

Case, H.J., Dimbley, G.W., Mitchell G.F., Morrison, M.E.S. and Proudfoot, V.B. 1969 ‘Land Use in

Goodland Townland, Co. Antrim, from Neolithic times until today.’ In The Journal of the Royal Society

of Antiquaries of Ireland, vol.99, no.1, 39—53.

Calendar of State Papers relating to Ireland. (24 vols.) London (1860—1911).

Flanagan, D. and Flanagan, L. 2002 Irish Placenames. 2nd revised edition. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.

Horning, A. and Brannon, N. 2004 ‘Rediscovering Goodland—Neolithic ritual site, seasonal

booleying settlement site or lost Scottish village?’ in Archaeology Ireland, vol. 18, no. 3. 28-31.

Keller, C. 1997 ‘The theoretical aspects of landscape study.’ In Collins. T. (ed.) Decoding the

landscape. Galway: Centre of landscape studies.

Lucas, A.T. 1989 Cattle in ancient Ireland. Killkenny: Boethius Press.

McDermot, B. 1991 O Ruairc of Breifne. Manorhamilton: Drumlin Publications.

McDermott, J.J. 2007 An archaeological landscape study of late medieval castles in north-west

Breifne. Unpublished MA thesis: National University of Ireland, Galway.

McDermott, J.J. 2009 ‘Rosclogher Castle: A late medieval tower-house on the shores of Lough

Melvin.’ In Reynolds, M. (ed.) The Leitrim Guardian 2010. Longford: Turners.

McDermott, J.J., McNeary, R.W.A. and O Conor, K. 2009 Rosclogher Castle: The late medieval

lordship centre of Dartry MacClancy on Lough Melvin, Co. Leitrim; An archaeological survey report.

Unpublished.


29

McDonald, T. 2010 ‘The Back of Beyond: booleying at Annagh on Achill Island,’ in M. Davies, U.

MacConville & G. Cooney (eds.), A Grand Gallimaufry: collected in honour of Nick Maxwell. Dublin:

Wordwell books.

Mackillop, J. 2005. Myths and Legends of the Celts. London: Penguin Books.

McNeary, R.W.A. and Shanahan, B. 2008 ‘Settlement and Enclosure in a Medieval Gaelic Lordship: a

case study from the territory of the O’Conors of North Roscommon’. In Landmarks and socio-

economic Systems: constructing of pre-industrial Landscapes and their Perception by contemporary

Societies. 187—197. Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

Moore, M.J. (compiler) 2003 Archaeological Inventory of County Leitrim. Dublin: Stationary Office.

O’Conor, K.D. 1998 The archaeology of medieval rural settlement in Ireland. Discovery Programme

Monographs 3. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.

Ó Moghráin P. and Ó Duilearga S. 1943 ‘Some Mayo Traditions of the Búaile,’ in Béaloideas 13,

161—172.

O’Sullivan, M. and Downey, L. 2003 ‘Booley huts,’ in Archaeology Ireland, vol. 17, no.4. 34—35.

Rathbone, S. 2010 ‘Booley houses, hafods and sheilings: a comparative study of transhumant

settlements from around the Northern Basin of the Irish Sea,’ in A. Horning and N. Brannon (eds)

Ireland and Britain in the Atlantic World. Dublin: Wordwell books.

Williams, B.B. 1984 ‘Excavations at Ballyutoag, County Antrim.’ In Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 3rd

series, vol. 47, 37—49.


30

Appendix I — Plan Drawings

________________________________________

Fig. 4—Location of study area on Discovery series map (sheet 16: courtesy of OSI)


31

Plan 1—Overview of the entire study area


32

Plan 2—Survey Area 1a


33

Plan 3—Survey Area 1b


34

Plan 4—Survey Area 2

gorteendarragh field report

Documents

plan of survey area

fieldwalking survey

survey work

descriptions of survey

survey strategy

timeline of survey

sketch map of survey

field archaeologists