Western Stone Forts

Cashels in Kerry 2: Cahergal

Cahergal is undoubtedly one of the finest examples of a stone ringfort or cashel in Ireland. What makes it outstanding is not the overall size of the enclosure or the height of the enclosing wall but the quality of the drystone masonry, the width of the entrance, the thickness of the wall and the well-planned and executed almost symmetrical stairs and terraces on the inner side of the wall.


Excavations at Cahergal, Co. Kerry:
A Venue for Royal Ceremony in Early Medieval Corcu Duibne

All quotes in this post are from the 2016 excavation report by Conleth Manning of National Monuments*. Con’s report deals with the 1986 brief excavation near the entrance, and his own 1990-1991 excavations inside the cashel. The excavations established a date for the fort – it was originally built between the mid 7th and the mid-9th centuries – as well as providing evidence for its status and uses. It also established the basis upon which most of the restoration work was done – although note I say ‘most.’ In the photo above you can clearly see the old and newer stonework.

Like Leacanabuaile, this was a rather tumbledown ruin before excavation and restoration projects. All that incredible masonry work did not save it from the ravages of time, although the exceptionally high standards of building became clear as it was dug out from the jumbles of stone and grass that covered it.

The initial stages of building included the walls, with its staircases, the entry passageway and the fine paving, as well as the round house in the interior.

The stairs and terraces on the inside of the walls are one of the striking features of this fort. There are two levels of terraces along most of its length, but in one area the stairs went up to three flights. The excavation report states, The third set of steps probably led to a wider viewing terrace, which was likely to have been flanked externally by a parapet wall.

After the excavations the OPW continued to work on the restoration of the fort and this finding was interpreted to mean that this section of the walls was much higher than other sections. This led to a decision to raise the top of the wall in this section, leading to the somewhat startling profile we see now. According to Con Manning this is a skewed interpretation by the OPW and it is highly unlikely that it reflects what the wall actually looked like.

The entrance to the fort had completely collapsed but excavation revealed how deep it had been. A pair of upright jamb stones and fallen lintels were found, leading to the reconstruction as we see it today.

The house was circular and the amount of fallen stone inside led to the conclusion that the roof was originally made of stone, probably using a corbeling technique. If this was the case, this house is the largest round building known to support a stone roof, well known from church sites (such as Kilmalkeader) where the stone roofs are rectangular and steeply pitched. 

A very finely laid-down pavement led from the fort entrance to the door of the house. The pavement was delineated at the side by edge-on kerb stones.  The house originally had three doors, with the main one positioned across from the entrance to the fort, and accessed by walking along the pavement.

Internally, there was a central fireplace (Feature F74 in the pan below). Stake holes around this central feature were probably to support a beam or spits for cooking purposes. The fireplace itself showed that numerous fires had been burned in it. Other stake holes supported furniture for sitting or sleeping.

The strange thing about Cahergal is that the excavations yielded very few finds (compared to Leacanabuaile, for example) and what was found mainly dated to later periods of occupation. So – what was going on during the original period of occupation – mid 7th to mid 9th centuries? Manning speculates that this was actually a royal site, built to impress, to inspire awe, and perhaps to entertain. Ritual feasting would take place in the main house, which would be cleaned carefully afterwards and readied for the next great occasion.

The three doors might support its interpretation as a royal site. Manning says:

In each case the side entrance might have been for people of lower status, with the main entrance being reserved for kings, nobles and important guests. On the other hand one could regard the three doorways as symbolic, three being a magical number as in the triads, and in this case could symbolise the three divisions of Corcu Duibne. In the tale of Branwen daughter of Llyr, in the medieval Welsh Mabinogion, a royal hall with three doors is mentioned in the house of Gwales (Grassholm), where one door, facing Cornwall, was kept permanently closed with a taboo on opening it.

This interpretation of the function of the fort and house – designed to impress and to underscore the prestige of the builders – reflects the later castle-building of Irish chieftains. Here in Ivaha, for example, the O’Mahony clan built tall, overpowering castles to cement their control over the land and the sea around them. Cahergal is within sight of two other cashels – the Castles of Ivaha were often within sight of each other too. Annals tells us that the Taoiseach of the O’Mahony clan built a castle for each of his sons, or other members of his ‘derbfine’ – the family group from which the chief was chosen. 

As if to confirm this possibility, Ballycarbery Castle, a 15th century tower house, lies within clear sight towards the coast. Was this a continuation of the same tradition by the same family – the Falveys? Manning concludes his report by stating:

This [high-status] phase ended with a burning of the internal features and subsequent, probably occasional, lower-status use of the house between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries. Iron forging took place here in the fourteenth century. After the eastern half of the stone roof collapsed and the structure was abandoned for some time, it was roughly rebuilt as a D-shaped structure probably in the fifteenth century.

The last period of occupation was the modern period – the small building built against the wall in the photograph below was probably a sheep-pen noted by an antiquarian visitor.

The final fort we will talk about is Staigue – in many ways it’s the most spectacular (despite not being as well built as Cahergal) but it has not been excavated so less is actually known about it. Meanwhile, if you can’t get to Cahergal but want a Cahergal experience, visit the marvellous Voices from the Dawn – Howard works his 3D magic on this page.

*Conleth Manning. Excavations at Cahergal, Co. Kerry: A Venue for Royal Ceremony in Early Medieval Corcu Duibne. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: 2016, Vol. 116C

All four posts in this series can be found here.

Cashels in Kerry 1: Leacanabuaile

We have been in Kerry a few times this year and visited three stunning sites – Staigue (above), Leacanabuaille and Cahergal (sometimes written Cahergall) – all of which fit the definition of stone forts, often referred to as Cashels. For non-Irish readers, cashel is pronounced the same way as castle, but with the sh sound in the middle –  don’t say cash-elle. 

Each of these also fit in to a category that has been labelled by archaeologists as the Western Stone Forts, and they were the subject of research by the Discovery Program several years ago. The forts included under this title, about 25 in all, dotted along the western seaboard, were chosen because of their their large size, or prominent location or because they have complex or massive defensive features.

In a fascinating talk available to view online, archaeologist Claire Cotter walks us through several examples of such forts. In relation to size, she points out the huge investment in effort to build those walls, once you go over about 2 metres in height. Of course the walls have to be very thick as well, to carry the weight of all that rock and to ensure they didn’t fall over. Inside, a feature of Staigue and Cahergal are the stone staircases arranged in a X shape – they make for a strong visual statement. Leacanabuaile (below) has stepped levels on the inside of the walls to give access to the parapet. Let’s take a look at each fort in turn to see what’s unique and what’s common among the three of them. 

We’ll start with Leacanabuaile, pronounced Lacka – na – boolya and meaning the flagstones of the enclosure, or possibly the flagstones of the summer pasture. Large flagstones, or leacs, do litter the way up to the fort.

Leacanabuaile was excavated in the summers of 1939 and 1940 by Sean P Ó Ríordáin and J B Foy. Ó Ríordáin was a revered Irish archaeologist and his book, Antiquities of the Irish Countryisde was our text for first year in the Archaeology Department at UCC, where he had been the professor before O Kelly. That’s Ó Ríordáin in the middle, below at the Lough Gur dig in Limerick, with O Kelly furthest to his left. As an aside, he was married to Gabriel Hayes, the sculptor – one of her major works is mentioned in this post. She did the drawings of the finds, which you will see further down.

For most of the following, and all the quotes, I am taking the information from the excavation report, which was published in the Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society for 1941. The marvellous CHAS has made their old journal available online, and this report is here. Leacanabuaile is situated in the middle of a concentration of forts, close to Caherciveen and all within a  mile or two of each other, and in the case of Cahergal, in clear sight, as you can see below.

Before the excavation it was in very poor condition – the walls had collapsed and it looked more like an earthen ringfort, with just traces of the stone wall showing through here and there. It was so unremarkable, in fact, that it was left off the Ordnance Survey maps. 

The excavation uncovered not only the massive nature of the walls, but four houses inside, a souterrain, and mural chambers. This was before the commonplace use of radiocarbon dating in Ireland so the usual way of dating a site like this was through the finds and through comparison with similar sites. Using these methods, Ó Ríordáin says:

 The close dating of the Leacanabuaile site is not possible, but it may be noted that the finds correspond to material from sites dated by more significant objects to the ninth and tenth centuries AD.

The fort is not quite round and this was due to the undulation of the rocky hilltop on which it was built, the builders having to work around the steep slopes. The souterrain and the mural chambers were built at the same time as the walls. 

Of the houses inside the fort, three were built at the same time as the fort – round house A and two others which now lie under house B. Houses D and C were the last to be built.

In regards to the material cultural objects found during the excavations, and what they reveal about the inhabitants, Ó Ríordáin states

Elaborate brooches and glass objects, for instance are notable by their absence. Bronze is rare and there is no evidence of its having been worked on the site – crucibles are not forthcoming: iron working is evidenced by the iron slag found. On the other hand, the inhabitants were probably quite well provided with the more vital necessities of life. They had . . . a dual source of supply – the sea and the land. The plough-sock and the querns show show that grain was cultivated, the bones show that domestic animals were kept and eaten, while the fare was added to by the collection of shellfish from the coast and by the capture of birds, particularly sea-birds.

The sea birds included heron, duck, goose, cormorant, puffin and razorbill, while the domestic animals were ox (most numerous), sheep, and pig. Also found were evidence of horse, dog and red deer.

What we see on the ground today is the result of conservation work undertaken by National Monuments as Leacanabuaile was taken into state care. Ó Ríordáin describes how 

. . .the walls of the fort and the enclosed buildings were restored by building up, to some extent, the destroyed portions, so as to provide a level top surface which should stand the better the ravages of time. The lines of the old work have been carefully followed and the new building has been marked off from the old with a thin line of concrete. . .[stone objects] were set in cement in House B, so that they may be conveniently inspected.

So – what you see now at Leacanabuaile is as a result of the excavation and the subsequent conservation by National Monuments. Ó Ríordáin remarks, the skill with which the workmen used the material to build in the old manner is a good example of the survival of a technique in a given environment. That reminded me of our own experience with Building a Stone Wall. I also regretted that I hadn’t read the report before I visited so that I could find that thin line of concrete and take a photograph of it for this post. 

We’ll take a look at Cahergal next, also excavated, this time by our friend Con Manning in the 1980s and 90s. This is a more complex site and the report is much longer so it will be a challenge to summarise in a blog post, but I’ll do my best. 

All four posts in this series can be found here.