Recent Revelations from Thirteenth-Century Roscommon

Home , 1250s, 13th century, Roscommon

Recent revelations from thirteenth-century Roscommon

Motte and Bailey of Castle Naughton, Co. Roscommon

Karen Dempsey

November 2014

A Report to Roscommon County Council

Karen Dempsey, Int BA, MA, UCD School of Archaeology

Project funded with support from

Irish Research Council 2010-2014

Roscommon County Council Heritage Research Bursary 2014

November 2014

Contents

Abstract ...... 4

Acknowledgements ...... 5

List of Figures ...... 6

Introduction ...... 7

Medieval halls and rectangular chamber-towers ...... 7

The Roscommon Project ...... 8

Details of Survey Work ...... 10

Archaeological and Architectural Survey ...... 10

Photographic Survey ...... 10

Geophysical Survey ...... 10

GPS Survey...... 14

Brief interpretation of the selected sites ...... 14

Implications for Castle-studies in Ireland ...... 16

Notice Care Enjoy ...... 17

Bibliography ...... 18

Catalogue ...... 20

Figures ...... 30

Appendix 1: Anglo-Norman Settlement in Roscommon ...... 47

Appendix 2: Details of landholding ...... 48

Appendix 3: Geophysical Survey ...... 49

Abstract The Roscommon County Council Heritage Research Bursary 2014 was awarded to aid research conducted in fulfilment of a PhD Thesis entitled ‘Medieval halls and rectangular chamber-towers in thirteenth-century Ireland’. Supervised by Professor Tadhg O’Keeffe of the UCD School of Archaeology (submitted December 2014), this study of medieval castles provides a comprehensive understanding of both the architectural form and function of chamber-towers and their respective medieval halls throughout Ireland during the thirteenth- century. As part of a detailed case-study on Roscommon within this thesis, five castles were selected for further investigation; Castlemore, Castlesampson, Castle Naughton, Kilteasheen and Kilcolman. Geophysical survey was conducted at Castlemore and Castlesamspon to investigate the presence of potential associated buildings such as medieval halls. This survey revealed previously unknown details about these castles which have significant implications for Irish castle-studies. This report outlines the results of this survey.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Roscommon County Council who awarded me the Heritage Research Bursary which enabled this research and the geophysical survey to be carried out. Thank you to Nollaig Feeney and Kirsty Naughton for their help throughout the course of this project.

For both this project and a number in the past I owe Heather Gimson and Dr. James Bonsall of Earthsound Geophysics the greatest of thanks. They have kindly offered assistance and friendship throughout this project and my doctoral research.

I owe thanks to Susan Curran, a fellow doctoral researcher, who provided valued friendship and help with the fieldwork in this project

I am also grateful to the School of Archaeology UCD and in particular to my supervisor Professor Tadhg O’Keeffe who has encouraged me throughout my university career.

Dr. Neil Carlin, UCD School of Archaeology provided invaluable support and guidance throughout this project.

For all the people who have helped me in the course of this study I owe the sincerest of thanks.

List of Figures

Figure 1 Map of Roscommon Figure 2 Castlemore Figure 3 Castlesampson Figure 4 Castle Naughton Figure 5 Kilteasheen Figure 6 Table of survey details Figure 7 Castlemore foreground of survey, facing east Figure 8 Castlemore Resistivity Survey Figure 9 Castlemore (EM) Conductivity Survey Figure 10 Castlemore Gradiometry Survey Figure 11 Castlemore (EM) In-phase Survey Figure 12 Castlemore Site Plan Figure 13 Castlesamspon survey work, facing north Figure 14 Castlesampson (EM) Conductivity Survey Figure 15 Castlesampson Resistivity Survey Figure 16 Castlesampson Gradiometry Survey Figure 17 Castlesampson (EM) In-phase Survey Figure 18 Castle Naughton Site Plan Figure 19 Castlemore Summit, facing east Figure 20 Castlemore Mound facing south-east Figure 21 Castlemore north wall, facing west Figure 22 Castlemore Inner bank and ditch, facing south Figure 23 Castlesampson stone wall of motte; facing north-east Figure 24 Castlesampson masonry remains, facing south Figure 25 Castlesampson fragmentary remains, facing north-west Figure 26 Castlesampson footings and internal divisions, facing north-east Figure 27 Castlesampson south-eastern projection Figure 28 Castlesampson internal features, facing south-east Figure 29 Castle Naughton motte and bailey facing north-west Figure 30 Castle Naughton summit of motte, facing north Figure 31 Castle Naughton, motte summit, facing north Figure 32 Kilteasheen chamber-tower, facing north-west Figure 33 Kilteasheen chamber-tower base-batter, facing south-west

Introduction The Roscommon County Council Heritage Research Bursary 2014 was awarded to aid research conducted in fulfilment of a PhD Thesis entitled ‘Medieval halls and rectangular chamber-towers in thirteenth-century Ireland’. Supervised by Professor Tadhg O’Keeffe of the UCD School of Archaeology (submitted December 2014), this study of medieval castles provides comprehensive understanding of both the architectural form and function of chamber-towers and their respective medieval halls throughout Ireland during the thirteenth- century. As part of a detailed case-study on Roscommon within this thesis, five castles were selected for further investigation; Castlemore, Castlesampson, Castle Naughton, Kilteasheen and Kilcolman. Geophysical survey was conducted at Castlemore and Castlesamspon to investigate the presence of potential associated buildings such as medieval halls. This project contributes to the understanding of castle-studies within Roscommon and provides an alternate view of the castle and their immediate landscape. This survey revealed previously unknown details about these castles which have significant implications for Irish castle-studies.

Medieval halls and rectangular chamber-towers My PhD thesis is an extensive study of the architecture, and socio-political context of fully- detached thirteenth-century halls and chambers in Ireland. Research implied that castles, with an open space at first floor level known as ‘upper halls’ in England and ‘hall-houses’ in Ireland were in fact chamber-towers, the residence of the lord which once had a separate but accompanying ground floor medieval hall, typical of the thirteenth century, which is now lost (Blair 1993; O’Keeffe 2013, 2014). Surviving examples of this are known, such as the complex of buildings at Athenry, Co. Galway and Glanworth, Co. Cork which comprised of a ground floor hall and separate chamber among other buildings.

Despite the survival of large complexes such as these, ‘hall-houses’ have traditionally been seen as stand-alone structures which were isolated within their landscapes, rather than forming part of larger castle complexes with other associated structures (McNeill 1995 & Sweetman 1997). To investigate this issue and to test the hypothesis that the apparent isolation of these structures was due to the non-survival of formerly upstanding components, geophysical survey was conducted to determine if any sub-surface evidence for associated buildings or outer enclosures could be revealed. Earth resistance was completed by the author at three chamber-tower sites; Annaghkeen in Co. Galway and Ballisnahyny and Shrule both in Co. Mayo. The results indicated that these three chamber-towers did indeed have other associated structures including a potential fully-detached medieval hall. To further investigate this theory, geophysical survey was conducted by Earthsound

Geophysics, the author and fellow PhD candidate Susan Curran in order to identify any sub- surface, hidden or destroyed structures at suitable sites within County Roscommon. This aimed to reveal the true extent of these castle sites and give a greater insight into how these castles functioned.

The Roscommon Project Roscommon was shired as a royal county and a number of royal castles were commissioned during the thirteenth-century (see Appendix 1 for note on Anglo-Norman settlement in Roscommon). The earliest of these was King John’s castle at Athlone followed somewhat later by Rinndown. Edward I constructed the impressive castle in Roscommon town which is linked with the royal building programme in Wales (O’Keeffe 2008). Though some research has been undertaken at these key sites little is known about the castles that occupied the space beneath the royal sphere in this county. In this project five previously unstudied sites were selected for investigation.

1. Castlemore: RO008-032001- 2. Castle Sampson: RO051-017001- 3. Castle Naughton: RO048-113002- 4. Kilteasheen: RO006-013002- 5. Kilcolman: RO008-020001-

These castles were likely to have been the caputs of manors (or cantreds) within the royal county of Roscommon. The selected sites vary from distinctive earthwork castles to the excavated remains of an ecclesiastical manor. Two of the sites within this study are now situated in present-day Co. Roscommon but were not part of medieval Roscommon.

Castlemore now lies in Co. Roscommon but was not part of the medieval county (Figure 2). It was likely to have been a manor within the Norman cantred of Sleoflow & the two Kerry’s; was and may even have been the caput or chief castle of this cantred which was reputedly associated with Miles de Angulo (MacCotter 2010). The site itself is quite extensive; a small local rise that has been augmented to form an earthwork castle with masonry remains perched on the summit as well as a number of surrounding banks and ditches.

Castlesampson was located in the cantred of Tirmaine which incorporated parts of present- day Co’s Roscommon and Galway. Tirmaine contained both the royal castles of Rinndown and Athlone and was apparently one of the most settled cantreds within Roscommon (CDI i, 81, 92; ii, 132, 143, 323, 489-90, iv, 356-7). It is likely, given this record for settlement that Castlesampson was a manor granted at this time. Castlesampson sits on natural rise of which the summit was substantially augmented. This earthwork is very pronounced and should be considered a motte (Figure 3). This castle also has masonry remains located at

8 the summit and base of the monument. There is a flattened area north of the motte which is likely to have acted as a bailey during the earliest phase of this castle. The site is in a sense quite similar to Castlemore as it is also an augmented earthwork castle

Castle Naughton, located in the same cantred as Castlesampson, is also an earthwork castle. It is sculpted from a gravel ridge and surrounded by an immediate flood plain which is ringed by further gravel ridges. It is a typical motte, flat topped pudding bowl shape with a separate crescent shaped bailey (Higham and Barker 1992). The motte and bailey are separated by a fosse and would have been originally connected via a wooden bridge which is now destroyed (Figure 4). This castle is quite different to Castlesampson and Castlemore as it is quite a typical English motte and bailey, reminiscent of those constructed c. 1066 in England (ibid). Indeed these three earthwork castles are quite untypical in Connaught. It is generally understood that to a large degree earthwork castles especially mottes are largely absent west of the Shannon however these three castles seem to indicate otherwise (Dempsey forthcoming).

Kilteasheen was located in the cantred of Moilurc-Thirele and was situated in the diocese of Elphin in modern north-west Roscommon (MacCotter 2010). It was an ecclesiastical complex, likely to have been a manor of Tomaltach O'Conor, the Bishop of Elphin and Archbishop of Tuam, who was reported to have had a palace or court (cúirt) at ‘Kilteisin’ or Kilteasheen (AFM 3, 349). The site has been partially excavated as part of an ongoing research project by Professor Tom Finan and Chris Read (Finan 2010, 79; Read 2010). The complex is a large multi-period site dating from the Neolithic and Bronze Age through to the eighth-century and beyond into the later medieval period. The thirteenth-century remains of a rectangular structure were uncovered at the site which Finan interpreted as a ‘hall-house’ (Figure 5). However as mentioned previously my doctoral research has established that this is more likely to have been a chamber-tower, the private residence of the lord rather than the public hall. This site may be similar to the chamber-tower at the ecclesiastical complex of Kilmacduagh, Co. Galway. Finan noted this also but referred to both sites as hall-houses (Finan 2010).

Kilcolman is now a green-field site located in the town of Ballaghadreen though it once contained masonry remains. Excavations near the castle revealed a stone bank which likely enclosed the site (see catalogue). This site is mentioned a number of times in historic sources and may have been a manorial castle complex composed of a chamber-tower and medieval hall (see catalogue). The likelihood of Kilcolman having once operated as the chief castle of a Norman manor is verified by the associated parish church to the east of the site as parishes and Norman manors have proven to be coterminous (MacCotter 2010 &

Appendix 2). The church is mentioned as ‘Kellcalman’ in the ecclesiastical taxation of Achrony in 1306 (CDI v, 219).

Details of Survey Work A catalogue comprising of detailed archaeological and architectural descriptions of all five sites and their available histories was collated for the project (see Catalogue). Unfortunately, permission to access the site of Kilcolman was denied. A photographic archive was compiled for Kilteasheen, Castlemore, Castlesampson and Castle Naughton. A GPS survey was conducted at Castlemore and Castle Naughton to provide the very first plan of the full extent of both these site and their archaeological remains. At Castle Naughton, this has resulted in the mapping of the full extent of the motte and bailey, as well as the stone buildings on the summit of the motte. Geophysical survey was conducted at Castlemore and Castle Sampson which included earth resistance, electro-magnetic and gradiometry (Appendix 3). The site of Castle Naughton proved unsuitable for geophysical survey. As well as being quite overgrown by vegetation, the stony composition of the site made resistivity impossible, while electromagnetic and gradiometry survey failed because the magnetic content of the soil in the vicinity had been removed by extensive flooding. The ecclesiastical complex of Kilteasheen is a research project that has been the subject of both excavation and geophysical survey, the results of which are briefly presented elsewhere (Finan 2010; Read 2010). (See Figure 6 for overview table of survey work). Unfortunately, it has not been possible to include the results of these within this study, despite the efforts of the author.

Archaeological and Architectural Survey Each of the surveyed sites were visited in person to gain a greater understanding of the general layout of the site, its condition and immediate landscape setting. The upstanding architectural remains were studied and detailed descriptions were recorded.

Photographic Survey A photographic archive was compiled. Images were taken of the archaeological remains at each site as well as the surrounding landscape.

Geophysical Survey The geophysical surveys revealed many features of potential and probable archaeological significance at Castlemore and Castlesampson, some of which almost certainly relate directly to the castles at these sites.

Castlemore

The remains of the masonry castle at Castlemore are located to the north-west of the geophysical survey area. The castle is in a very ruinous state and the masonry remains are only partially upstanding though there are indications that this was once a large structure (see Catalogue). The geophysical surveys endeavoured to cover the summit of the augmented hillock where the masonry remains are located, however; due to the nature of the ruins and the dangerous condition of this part of the site, much of the survey was concentrated in the foreground east of the castle (Figure 7). This included possible stone features and banks associated with the castle (see geophysical report compiled by Earthsound Geophysics on Castlemore for full details).

Hidden masonry remains (R1) were revealed at the ‘summit’ of the site. These appeared to determine the end of the masonry remains of the castle (Figure 8). Also of interest were anomalies revealed at the centre of the masonry remains which indicated internal divisions (C1 & 4, G12 & 17, I2 & 3) within the masonry structure as well as areas of possible burning (G15) (Figures 9, 10, 11 respectively). These divisions and the area of possible burning could post-date the use of the castle, though given their location it is highly likely that they are directly related to its inhabitation.

Beyond the structural remains of the castle itself, the contours of a bank and ditch (R2-6) possibly stone-lined, bisect the survey area, arcing from north to south. Between this and the castle to the west, some further stone features were revealed (I4 & 5 Figure 11, C5 & 6 Figure 9). These appear to be interconnected and may represent outbuildings associated with the castle. A large sub-rectangular feature (C7) was revealed that may represent a masonry structure which was also associated with the castle (Figure 9). Close to these are the upstanding remains of a masonry circular feature, which was recorded on the GPS map (Figure 12). This was previously interpreted as a later hut-site (RO008-032003-) by Michael Moore of the National Monuments. However this is more likely to be associated with the castle; a circular masonry feature as part of a castle landscape is more likely to be a former tower or even perhaps a dovecote, the place where the lord kept birds. This was located close to the castle often interpreted as a status symbol.

Beyond this inner bank and ditch, in the eastern survey area, further potential archaeological remains that may be associated with the castle landscape were also revealed. The resistivity survey revealed a large anomaly (R11) that forms a distinctive shape: a rectangular structure with two cells separated by a central division which is truncated where the two cells join. The structure measures 16m in length divided by a 2m wide passage (Figure 8). There is a strong temptation to label this as a gatehouse for the castle, as it has a quite typical

11 rectangular shape. This could potentially reveal the point from which people were directed into the castle complex and through the castle landscape.

There are a number of potential archaeological features that possibly pre-date the castle. A large anomaly (R12) leads into a stone feature open at ground level that may be the end of collapsed souterrain (Figure 8). Part of the gradiometry survey reveals a series of linear earthworks (G1-5) that appear to be related to each other and form a boundary of sorts (Figure 10). Their function is unknown while they may pre-date the castle, it can be argued that they abut the ‘gatehouse’ and form a routeway which leads south away from the ‘gatehouse’ and east towards the associated church (RO008-031001) known from historical documents as Castro Magno (CDI v, 219). Of course without direct investigation this is impossible to determine.

The various geophysical surveys conducted at this site have revealed a large amount of archaeological and possible agricultural remains. These suggest that the masonry castle that crowns the low summit of the earthwork was associated with a number of other structures as well as an extensive array of earthworks such as the successive banks that appear to graduate from the summit (Figure 12). The castle is sited within a cultural landscape which developed through millennia of human activity. This is exemplified by the presence of a mill to the south of the site and a millrace that skirt the rear (west) of the earthwork. Thus, it is likely that some of the features identified within this study pre- and post-date the Norman period. In-depth further study is required to refine the chronological sequence of activity at this complex.

Castle Sampson

This survey at Castlesampson concentrated on the mostly flat areas surrounding the motte and summit of the rise (Figure 13). The masonry castle at the summit of the motte is in a very ruinous state and only partially upstanding (see Catalogue). The geophysical survey revealed an extensive array of probable archaeological remains which appear to use the motte as a focal point. The potential features comprise banks, ditches, structural remains and indications of masonry structures. There are a high number of other features whose relationship to the castle is not obvious and will not be detailed individually in this text, some of which may reflect later agricultural or archaeological activity (see geophysical report on Castlesampson compiled by Earthsound Geophysics for full results).

As part of the electromagnetic survey (EM) a large curvi-linear feature, probably a ditch appears to partially encircle the base of the motte, it appears to continue beyond the limits of the survey area (Figure 14). The summit of this local rise is now bisected by a local roadway

12 but it is possible that this ditch (C2 & 3) once enclosed the summit (Figure 14). This may represent the earliest enclosure of this site which is likely to pre-date the Norman castle. The earth resistance survey indicated that earth and rubble were piled on top of the enclosed hill and a platform (R10, 12 & 13) was constructed which partially obscured the earlier enclosure (Figure 15). This was crowned by a motte which was surrounded by a stone wall (R8 & 11) which is now partially visible at ground level to the north of the motte. The full extent of this feature was revealed by the resistivity survey (Figure 15).

There are a number of other remains that surround the motte, of particular interest is the large rectangular structure (R7) with an internal division located in the north-eastern part of the survey area. This structure (I16 & 17) is also partially revealed in the EM survey (Figure 17). Inside this structure, is a central stone feature which may have been a stone pad or column for structural support or a stone lined hearth of the type that would be expected at the centre of a medieval hall (Figure 15). This central stone feature was not detected as an area of high magnetic activity indicative of burning in the gradiometry survey (Figure 16).

The final anomaly that may be of importance to this project, a possible four cornered stone structure, was revealed from the earth resistance survey. It is largely square with a circular centre that contained external chamfered or buttress like corners (R2) with a curious arm stretching northwards from the feature (Figure 15). It is possible that this could have been the kitchen for the household which is usually a square structure. However the kitchen is usually beside the hall in order to facilitate the provision of food in an easy manner. Therefore its distance and separation from the potential hall makes it unlikely to be the kitchen. It is possible that the anomaly may indicate the location of the castle chapel. If so the location to the east of the site would be quite typical for a church during this time period. In the thirteenth-century in England and Ireland churches contained buttresses similar those found at the southern end of the anomaly (Greenville 1997). However without direct investigation any interpretation of this feature remains subjective.

These features which have been highlighted above indicate that there were substantial architectural remains at this site which are no longer upstanding and that the masonry remains of the castle on the summit of the motte was part of a larger complex Although further investigations are necessary to confirm these results, these discoveries considerable enhance our knowledge of the castles at these sites and are of relevance to the wider field of castle studies

GPS Survey GPS Survey was conducted at Castle Naughton and Castlemore to record the full extent of these extensive sites (Figure 18 & 12). The plan of Castle Naughton includes the base and summit of the motte and bailey as well as the features such as the platform halfway-down on the east section of the motte marked as ‘Inner Motte Base’ on the plan (Figure 18). The masonry remains located on the motte were also mapped including their internal divisions (Figure 18). The top of the motte appears to be enclosed by an outer masonry wall. Within this there is a further masonry structure, of quite large proportions approximately 18m x 11m though it could be slightly larger. An internal division is recognisable within the stone structure, creating two compartments (chambers?) of unequal size. There are no stone structures visible within the bailey through this part of the site is very overgrown. The plan of Castlemore records the full extent of the mound, the masonry remains on the summit as well as the divisions within these remains. The visible masonry features and surrounding earthworks such as the inner ditch and bank were also mapped (Figure 12). Owing to the nature of the GPS survey which essentially records the path walked by the surveyor the results can appear to be slightly undulating however this is largely due to the collapsed nature of the remains.

Brief interpretation of the selected sites The investigations at these castles sites in Co. Roscommon have revealed a great deal regarding the domestic accommodation of the castle and extent of the castle landscape. A surprising amount of possible archaeology was uncovered from the geophysical surveys at both Castlemore and Castlesampson. It may be that both sites were continuously inhabited from the pre-Norman period. The implication of this is treated in my PhD thesis.

It is likely that Castlemore castle may have been constructed upon or as a later part of a pre- existing monument.as evidenced by geophysical surveys. The summit of the site, though low is elevated above the local landscape and the top, where the masonry remains are situated is quite flat. A number of masonry remains were uncovered between this castle and the inner masonry lined bank and ditch including a possible circular tower. Beyond this area there are a number of low relief banks and also the large masonry feature that was revealed sub surface that may be a gatehouse. As well as this there are a number of sub-surface linear features which could be archaeological or agricultural. Castlemore contains extensive remains the castle landscape is much larger than previously understood. At Castlemore, it is difficult to determine the location of the hall and chamber which was the premise of this study. It may be that the hall and chamber were a single entity that shared the summit of the landscape as seen at Dunamase Castle, Co. Laois or part of a larger complex at Kilfinny,

Co. Limerick. Though this format of hall and attached chamber, labelled by Faulkner as and ‘end hall’ would be unusual for its date if found at Castlemore (1963, 150-183).

Castlesampson was revealed as an extensive site, much larger than previously understood or anticipated. It is likely that this castle contained pre-Norman settlement that was highlighted in the geophysical survey by the double ditch enclosing the summit of the hill. The hill was later augmented to create a motte with a corresponding flat area as a bailey to the north. The motte contained a stone platform to the south as well as a surrounding masonry wall at the base. The bailey area contained structures as did the platform to the south. The western area was also populated by a number of masonry remains, trenches of former buildings and ditches from possible agricultural activity. Apart from the ditches a large outer enclosure was not revealed during the survey. This may be due to the concentration of the survey area within the vicinity of the motte. There are indications of a large outer enclosure west of the survey area that enclosed the extremities of the hill. Equally east of the motte in the adjacent field there are a number of linear earthworks that may also be part of this landscape. Unlike Castlemore the masonry remains at Castlesampson are easier to read. It is very likely that the masonry remains perched upon the summit of the motte can be understood as a chamber-tower, the focal building of this site (see Catalogue). It contains an unequal internal division likely to indicate the separation between a semi-private larger room and the very private solar, the smaller of the two chambers. It is also likely that a corresponding medieval hall was revealed during the survey in the north-eastern corner of the site (Figure 15). The shape and internal divisions of this structure as well as the central stone feature which is likely to be a hearth are all typical features of a medieval hall.

At Castle Naughton the architectural remains are mostly footings however the structure mapped on the summit of the motte revealed some information regarding its format. The possible structure is rectangular and contained a partition similar to Castlemore. However it was not possible to ascertain exactly what this division represented or if it was also evident at first floor level. If so it may have separated the solar, the more private room from the main chamber similar to Castlesampson or other chamber-towers such as Annaghkeen, Co. Galway or Castlemagarret, Co. Mayo. Equally possible is that like at Clough Castle, Co. Down a very similar castle, a separate hall and chamber existed on the summit of the motte. Unlike Clough, it may be that they were contained as part of the same building; a large ground floor hall with an end chamber of two storeys. This would also reveal a similarity with Castlemore. However as we have seen this type of building is rare and its location on the top of the motte would render it even more unusual. Indeed the very presence of masonry remains on the summit of a motte is quite atypical. Roscommon contains only one other motte and bailey castle at Clonburren (RO056-010001-) though it contains neither masonry

15 remains nor the unusual elliptical bailey of Castle Naughton. Overall, this is an unusual site - an English motte and bailey castle found west of the Shannon makes this practically site unique.

The final site of Kilteasheen has been excavated and masonry remains uncovered (see catalogue). The masonry remains that were uncovered have been understood as a ‘hall- house’ (Finan 2010). This castle is likely to have been the residence of a bishop as attested to in the historical record (See Catalogue). The excavation revealed a large rectangular structure with internal measurements of 13.5m x 8m with an attached structure at the west end. However it is unlikely, contra Finan, to have contained a hall at first floor level. It is likely that this chamber-tower was part of a larger complex which contained a ground floor hall now lost. It would be interesting to examine the geophysical survey that was conducted at this site in order to ascertain if any structural remains were revealed that could fit this description.

There is no doubt that these castles, like others of their time period, were part of a larger complex which contained a hall and chamber, the domestic accommodation of the lord. At Castlesampson it was apparent that the hall and chamber were separate as is typical of the thirteenth-century (Blair 1993, O’Keeffe 2013). This may also be the case at Kilteasheen but at present only the chamber-tower has been revealed. However the work completed at Castle Naughton and Castlemore has not revealed conclusively the arrangement of the hall and chamber. It is possible that both sites may have contained an ‘end hall’; a large ground floor hall with an attached but independent chamber (Faulkner 1958 & 1963) Equally possible is that only the remains of the chamber have been revealed at both sites and further investigation may reveal the location of a separate ground floor hall. Overall this project on Roscommon added an interesting variety within the research sample of my PhD thesis. It demonstrated that domestic accommodation may be arranged in more diverse ways than previously accepted in Ireland. As well as this, the castles chosen for this study were largely earthworks with masonry remains which was a castle format that was largely absent in my thesis.

Implications for Castle-studies in Ireland This project on Roscommon shows that the landscape of many of these castles was quite busy. The visible extant remains are but one part of the castle. An interesting tangent emerged from this project; three out of four sites surveyed were large earthwork castles. Castle Naughton was a classic English motte and bailey, Castlesampson an embellished motte and Castlemore a large mounded earthwork following the tradition of a motte.

Earthwork castles in Roscommon and indeed Connaught are quite rare and need to be explored further (Dempsey forthcoming).

Notice Care Enjoy Implications for the County Roscommon Heritage Plan 2012-2016

This project has attempted to increase awareness of the built heritage of Co. Roscommon by investigating a number of previously unstudied castle sites (Action 1.1). The collection of histories, building descriptions and a large photographic archive for these national monuments has enhanced the knowledge that surrounds the Anglo-Norman heritage of Co. Roscommon (Action 1.11). This leads to a better understanding of medieval Roscommon via this report and the geophysical studies which can be disseminated to a wider audience (Action 1.8).

Though geophysical survey is not a new innovative survey technology, the way in which the data is used to investigate the domestic arrangement of castles will lead to new and exciting studies (Action 1.1). In the future this new research can contribute to the understanding of the relationship between these manorial holdings and the royal castles of Roscommon, Athlone and Rinndown. This will also compliment the on-going project at Rinndown Castle (Action 2.12). The research results can be presented in a tangible form at a public meeting perhaps during Heritage Week 2015 and possibly published to increase awareness of the importance and enjoyment that can be taken from the built heritage of Roscommon (Action 1.8 & Action 3.2). This new understanding will encourage people to "Notice, Care and Enjoy" these castles and to further understand the richness of the built heritage in Co. Roscommon.

Bibliography Annals of Connaught, ed A.M. Freeman, (Dublin 1944).

Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, ed H.S. Sweetman. 5 vols (London, 1867-73).

Blair, J. 1993. ‘Hall and chamber: English domestic planning 1000-1250’, in G. Merrion- Jones and M. Jones (eds) Manorial Domestic Buildings in England and Northern France. London. Society of Antiquaries of London.

Faulkner, P. A. 1958. ‘Domestic planning from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries’, Archaeological Journal 115, 150-183.

Faulkner, P. A. 1963. ‘Castle planning in the fourteenth century’, Archaeological Journal 120, 215-35.

Finan, T. 2010. ‘The Hall House at Kilteasheen, Co. Roscommon, Ireland’. Chateau Gaillard: Etudes de Catellogie Medievale Volume 24. Stirling.

Gardiner, M. 2008. ‘Buttery and pantry and their antecedents: ideas and architecture in the English medieval house’, in Medieval Domesticity (eds M Kowaleski and P J P Goldberg), 37–65, Cambridge University Press

Greenville, J. 1997. Medieval Housing. London: Leicester University Press.

Higham, R & P. Barker. 1992. Timber Castles. University of Exeter Press.

Lynn, C. J., 1986 ‘Some 13th century castle sites in the West of Ireland’, Journal of Galway Archaeological and Historical Society. 40, 90-113.

MacCotter, P. 2008. Medieval Ireland: territorial, political and economic divisions. Dublin: Fourcourts Press.

McNeill, T. 1992a. ‘The origins of tower houses’, Archaeology Ireland 6, 1, 13-14.

McNeill, T. 1997. Castles in Ireland: Feudal Power in a Gaelic World. London: Routledge.

T. O'Keeffe; (2011) 'Landscapes, castles and towns of Edward I in Wales and Ireland: some comparisons and connections'. Landscapes, 11 (2)

O’Keeffe, T. 2013. 'Halls, 'hall-houses' and tower-houses: disentangling the needlessly entangled'. The Castle Studies Group Journal, 27 :298-307.

O’Keeffe, T. 2014. Medieval Irish Buildings. Four Courts Press: Dublin.

O’Keeffe, T. forthcoming. 'The hall-chamber relationship in élite domestic architecture in

Ireland, 1250-1700'. Virtus: Jaarboek Voor Adelsgeschiedenis, 20 .

Orpen, G. H. 1911-20. Ireland under the Normans, 5 vols. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Read, C. 2010. ‘Remembering where the Bishop sat: exploring perceptions of the past at the

Bishop's Seat, Kilteasheen, Co. Roscommon’ in Finan (ed) Medieval Lough Ce: History,

Archaeology, and Landscape. Dublin: Four Courts Press.

Salter, M. 2004. The Castles of Connaught. Folly Publications: Malvern.

Sweetman, D. 1997. Medieval Castles of Ireland. Cork: The Collins Press.

Websites

County Roscommon Heritage Plan 2012-2016 http://www.roscommoncoco.ie/en/Services/Heritage/County_Roscommon_Heritage_Plan_2 012-2016/County_Roscommon_Heritage_Plan_2012-2016.pdf Accessed 28/10/2012 12.25pm

Sites and Monuments Record Database http://webgis.archaeology.ie/NationalMonuments/FlexViewer/ Accessed May-September 2014

Catalogue

Castle More, Co. Roscommon

RO008-032001-

Glebe (Castlemore) Townland

Costello Barony

Castlemore Parish

E 560478 N 794335

Location

Set outside of Ballaghadreen town, the castle is located on a small local rise within a bawn (RO008-032002-) with a church (RO008-033001) c.100m to the east and a former corn mill to the north and millrace to the west.

History

Located in Castlemore Parish, Costello Barony, Co. Mayo which is the descendant of the cantred Sleoflowe and the two Kerry’s (MacCotter 2010, 146). The cantred was granted to Miles de Nangle by Hugh de Lacy on marriage to his daughter. De Nangle was a descendant of the Barons of Navan and his descendants appeared to have held this cantred until the sixteenth century when they had become known as MacCostello (Orpen iii, 2010). It is likely that Castlemore was the caput of this cantred. References to Castlemore as the principal castle of the ‘Costellos’ date from 1336 to 1595, and it may be the castle of Lugha razed by O'Conor in 1270 (Lynne 1985-6, 98-100).The parish church of Castlemore was listed as de Castro Magno in the ecclesiastical taxation of Achrony in 1306 (CDI v, 219). The parish was actually part of Co. Mayo until 1898 when it was transferred to Co. Roscommon.

Description

The castle can be described as an earthwork that is situated on a local rise. The summit of the site, though low is elevated above the local landscape and the summit where the masonry remains are situated is quite flat (Figure 19). The castle itself appears to be raised on a platform which may be more correctly viewed a mound (Figure 20). The masonry remains of a large rectangular structure (19m x 11m) are likely to contain the domestic buildings of the lord. The north and west sections are most prominent; the base-batter at the north end is still visible (Figure 21). There is also some indication of an opening towards the northern end of the west wall. Internally there are a number of visible divisions. However

20 grass-covered footings are all that remain of this building. The masonry remains of the castle stand in the north-west corner of the site with a possible inner bank and ditch which may be stone lined (Figure 22 & Figure 12). Beyond this area there are a number of low relief banks which may have also played a role in the castle landscape.

Castlesampson, Co. Roscommon

RO051-017001-

Castlesampson Townland

Taghmaconnell Parish

Athlone Barony

E 593295 N 741662

Location

Set in a rural location on a low but steep rise in active pastureland, the castle is next to the rising of a river and quite close to the edge of the boglands. The castle has an associated bawn (RO051-017001) and appears to have a wider enclosure encircling the local hill. The Ordnance Survey maps through the numerous editions demonstrate how the landscape and field systems around the castle changed especially with the construction of a new local road to the north of the castle site. The castle was once situated quite close (c. 100m) to the shores of Lough Corktip which is now significantly reduced.

History

This castle lies in the cantred of Tirmaine which was the most settled of the King’s cantreds and contained both the royal castles of Athlone and Rinndown. There are no references directly to the castle until c. 1500 however it is likely that that the castle was in existence prior to this as there are a number of references to settlement in this cantred (see historical section in Castle Naughton).

Description

The castle sits atop the augmented summit of a gravel hill with a flat area to the north. The western area slopes gently away. The southern side is quite like the north, a manufactured flat platform. The motte is bounded at the base by a masonry wall which is most visible towards the north side (Figure 23). To access the masonry remains of the castle motte must be scaled which is very steep (Figure 3). The former two-storey structure was built on an E- W axis. The remains of the castle are fragmentary and only a small portion (17m x 5m) survives (Figure 24). The south wall remains up to 5m high in places with a base batter over walls 1.8m thick (Figure 25). There is a breach in the south wall which curiously contains a small slot; both of which are likely to be later inserts. A small finger at the eastern end of this wall projects upwards into the sky and has been subject to modern burning (Figure 24 & 28). The north wall is reduced to footings (Figure 26).The south-east wall retains a projection

(3.5m) which is believed to have been a latrine but no evidence survives to support this (Figure 27). There may be evidence for the springing of a vault as well as internal divisions (Figure 28). Though it may be that the castle was not vault but built on a partial undercroft now collapsed which was built into the motte this may explain the reason first floor level, appears to be ground level on the summit of the motte. The base of a large embrasure survives midway along the south wall (Figure 28). This contains an interesting feature which may be the surround of a cut stone window feature or a window seat (Figure 28).

Castle Naughton, Co. Roscommon

RO048-113002-

Ballycreggan Townland

Kiltoom Parish

Athlone Barony

E 596368 N 744627

Location

The castle is located north-west of Athlone. Now set in pastureland, the castle appears to be have been once surrounded by a floodplain that was fed from the River Cross which runs along the west of the site. The castle is set on an esker or gravel ridge area and it is possible that the motte made use of this. There are a number of local rises that surround this landscape; it appear to be a central rise surrounded by a depression and ringed by a number of further rises.

History

Athlone barony is part of the cantred of Tirmaine which was reserved for the King in the shire of Roscommon. Settlement was reputed to be highest in this cantred above others in Roscommon. Though no direct mentioned is made of the castle there are a number of references to the cantred. The most significant piece of historical information is that in 1214 the cantred was in the possession of Geoffrey de Constentin. It may be possible, given the size and scale of the motte and bailey at Ballycreggan that he constructed it. In 1214 mottes and bailey construction was not that common but as de Constentin was progressing into previously However, Geoffrey de Constentin pleads to the Archbishop Henry of Dublin to take up another cantred in the ‘marshes’ instead of Tirmaine (CDI i, 81). It may be that he constructed the motte, disliked the location or found it wanting and requested different land.

Geoffrey de Constentin is later awarded the cantred of Trithweth also in Roscommon (CDI i, 92). Richard de la Rochelle received of the cantred of Omany, and to Richard de Thoythe was granted ‘Tyrmany, called Clonnodath’ also in medieval Roscommon (CDI ii, 132). Richard de la Rochelle is later granted land in Tyrmaine also (CDI ii, 143). Later, John de Wallup was awarded a fee in the ‘waste lands’ of Tirmain (CDI ii, 323-4). Subsequently an extent of lands in Tirmaine is recorded so we must assume that this is the waste land refereed to; 9 vills of land held by Sir Richard Fitz John and a number of other vills (ibid). Further grants are made though it is not certain if they were acted upon (CDI ii, 489-90). It

24 appears Richard fitz John still held this land throughout the thirteenth-century as his will is later contested c. 1300 (CDI iv, 356-7). There is no doubt that this was a well settled cantred.

Description

The earthwork castle is a manufactured from a gravel ridge which was altered substantially to create a motte and crescent shaped bailey (Figure 29). The bailey was separated from the mound by large fosse (Figure 29). The motte was adapted into a flat-toped oval mound with heavily scarped edges. The castle is set on a NE-SW axis and is quite large. The mound c. 80m on its longest axis (NE-SW) and just over 65m at its widest (SE-NW). Including the bailey, the castle measures over 120m NE-SW. It is likely that the motte was set in a flooded landscape. The motte itself contains two small platforms to the south-east; one about halfway down the motte and the other at the base of the motte. These may be later alteration but impossible to tell. The motte has the remains of a large fosse which is only visible at this south-eastern corner of the motte. The bailey is roughly crescent shaped and like the motte is quite steep in some places.

The motte appears to have some sort of outer wall that is only visible in a few sections. The middle section of the motte is sunken. This may be due to interference with the monument or subsidence due to the weight of the masonry remains. The large rectangular structure (18m x 11m) dominates the top of a motte (Figure 30). It is likely that this structure is somewhat larger than visible at ground level (Figure 31). The masonry building is defined only by its foundation; it appears to have two internal divisions (Figure 30 & 31). There is no visible separation between the foundations and no other buildings are apparent. There are no visible remains on the summit of the bailey.

Kilteasheen, Co. Roscommon

RO006-013002-

Kilteasheen

Kilbryan Parish

Boyle Barony

E 586830 N 805829

Location

Above the gorge of the river Boyle where it leaves Lough Key on low rise situated within the farmland of a large demesne house. Excavations revealed part of the site is a burial ground (RO006-012003-) an enclosure (RO006-012001-) c. 30m to the SW also served as a burial ground. The field system (RO006-012002-) surrounding it may be coeval. The chamber- tower is located at the edge of the ecclesiastical enclosure.

History

Kilteasheen is located in Boyle barony the descendant of the half-cantred of Moylurc which was paired with Tirlele to form the full cantred of Moylurc-Tirlele (MacCotter 2008, 210). Kilteasheen lies in the Moylurc territory which forms part of the diocese of Ardagh which was subject to Armagh. There are references to ‘Cill tSesin’ from 1243 and the Bishop of Elphin and Archbishop of Tuam, Tomaltach O'Conor is reported to have had a palace or court at ‘Kilteisin’ which meant that the diocese of Tuam rather than Armagh held Kilteasheen (AFM 3, 349). The castle or palace is later destroyed in 1258 by Hugh O’Conor as well as the palace north of the cathedral at Elphin (RO016-126----) (ibid, 365). Later in 1306 a church is still listed at ‘Kilseisyn’ in the ecclesiastical taxation of Elphin (CDI vol. 5, 224).

Description

The foundations of a rectangular building (15m x 7m) were revealed during excavation with wall up to 2m thick (Figure 32). A substantial base-batter was also revealed (Figure 33). The walls were of limestone rubble with clay bonding material. The castle is arranged on a NE- SW alignment with a structure attached to the west end of the north wall which is likely to be later owing to a thinner wall structure (Figure 32). The castle is likely to have a first floor entrance as no opening was revealed at ground level during excavation. A number of post- pits were also revealed in the north-west section which might be a suggestion for the location of an external timber stairs similar to Castle Carra, Co. Antrim. However, entrances are usually located towards the southern end of the castles and therefore these might be

26 construction pits as suggested by Finan (2010, 80).The interior produced evidence of a floor lined with flagstone, evidence of later industrial work and also a number of burials. A punch dressed stone was also found as part of this site which is unusual for both its location and date. Though aside from this, the chamber-tower is likely thirteenth-century owing to its large walls and base-batter.

Kilcolman, Co. Roscommon

RO008-020001-

Kilcolman Townland

Kilcolman Parish

Costello Barony

E 562960 N 795331

Location

The castle is no longer visible but was once set just outside the town of Ballaghadreen with a modern housing estate to the west and a small steam to the east than runs north-south. Kilcolman church (RO008-021001) is east c. 130m of the site. Part of the site has its topsoil stripped and appear to be used as a construction yard for the housing estate.

History

The castle is located in diocese of Achrony which forms part of the modern Costello barony. This was known in 1240 as the cantred of Sleflowe and the two Kerry’s (MacCotter 2008, 146). The cantred was granted to Miles de Nangle (later MacCostello) by Hugh de Lacy on marriage to his daughter. De Nangle was a descendant of the Barons of Navan and his descendants appeared to have held this cantred until the 16th century (Orpen iii, 201). There are references to the destruction of the castle of Kilcolman in 1270 and 1284 (Lynn 1985- 6,103). Its destruction is again recorded in 1315 (AC 233). The church at Kilcolman ‘Keilcalman’ is recorded in the ecclesiastical taxation of Achrony in 1306 (CDI vol. 5, 219). The castle, like many of civil parishes is likely to have been a manor in this cantred, conveniently located close to the caput at Castlemore.

Description

The castle was situated on a low-lying landscape with a stream that once ran to the south of the site. The castle is detailed as having a rectangular platform (30m x 30m) which contained a perimeter wall with a base-batter and an external ditch. A causeway at the west end gave access to the castle. It is no longer visible at ground level. The site was excavated in 1950 which disclosed a perimeter wall (Wth 2m) with an outer base-batter and an outer fosse (Wth 6m). There was a destroyed entrance and causeway at the western end. It is likely if access has been granted to the site that the architectural outline of the castle and any other structures would have been revealed.

Three separate incidents of archaeological testing were carried out in 2003, 2004 and 2006 roughly about 60-90m away from the sites; none of which produced related material. However it seems that all of these were on the periphery and used mechanical excavation. Excavation Reports: Dominic Delaney 2006 – (2003:1580), Frank Ryan 2004 (2004:1464), Fitzpatrick 2009 (2006:1735).

Figures

Figure 1 Map of Sites in Roscommon

Figure 2 Castlemore, facing west

Figure 3 Castlesampson, facing south

Figure 4 Castle Naughton, facing north-west

Figure 5 Kilteasheen, facing south-west

Site Name History & Site Photographic Geophysical Site Plan Description Survey Survey Castlemore √ √ √ √

Castlesampson √ √ √ x

Castle Naughton √ √ x √

Kilteashean √ √ x x

Kilcolman √ x x x

Figure 6 Table of Survey Work Completed

Figure 7 Castlemore foreground of survey, facing east

Figure 8 Castlemore Resistivity Survey

Figure 9 Castlemore EM (conductivity) survey

Figure 10 Castlemore Gradiometry Survey

Figure 11 Castlemore EM (In-phase) survey

Figure 12 Castlemore Site Plan

Figure 13 Castlesamspon survey work, facing north

Figure 14 Castlesampson (EM) Conductivity Survey

Figure 15 Castlesampson Resistivity Survey

Figure 16 Castlesampson Gradiometry Survey

Figure 17 Castlesampson (EM) In-phase survey

Figure 18 Castle Naughton Site Plan

Figure 19 Castlemore Summit, facing east

Figure 20 Castlemore Mound, facing south-east

Figure 21 Castlemore north wall, facing west

Figure 22 Castlemore Inner bank and ditch, facing south

Figure 23 Castlesampson stone wall of motte; facing north-east

Figure 24 Castlesampson masonry remains, facing south

Figure 25 Castlesampson fragmentary remains, facing north-west

Figure 26 Castlesampson footings and internal divisions, facing north-east

Figure 27 Castlesampson south-eastern projection

Figure 28 Castlesampson internal features including possible window seat, facing south-east

Figure 29 Castle Naughton motte and bailey facing north-west

Figure 30 Castle Naughton grass-covered masonry remains on summit of motte, facing north

Figure 31 Castle Naughton, motte summit showing large rectangular structure, facing north

Figure 32 Kilteasheen chamber-tower, facing north-west

Figure 33 Kilteasheen chamber-tower base-batter, facing south-west

Appendix 1: Anglo-Norman Settlement in Roscommon It is generally accepted that Norman settlement did not occur in great number west of the Shannon, in Connaught, until after 1235. There had been a number of speculative grants made by both King John and Henry III to a number of Norman barons but these were not acted upon. However when Henry III re-granted 20 cantreds within Connaught to Richard de Burgh very quickly established a central lordship there.

Medieval Roscommon was composed of five cantreds which were shired as a county. The King reserved these lands in Roscommon for himself which are collectively known as the ‘Kings Cantreds’. The medieval county stretched further north and south than it does today, taking in parts of Sligo, Mayo and Galway. Though technically part of Connaught, Roscommon had experienced Norman settlement earlier that 1235 such as the construction of the motte and bailey castle by Geoffrey de Constentin at Athlone. Later a circular donjon was erected by the Justiciar, the King’s representative in Ireland John de Gray c. 1210. The castle was reconstructed after a collapse in 1215 and throughout the rest of the thirteenth- century further repairs and works were completed in the upkeep of the castle. Later a third royal castle was planned in Roscommon town; construction began in the late 1250s but most of the building work is from the 1270s when the castle was actually finished by Robert de Ufford. These castles were constructed on behalf of the King however Felim O’Conor, a former king within the Gaelic territory of Connaught held these five cantreds of the King for a rent of £300 a year until his death c. 1265. After his death, Aedh his son, succeeded him but became increasingly hostile towards the Anglo-Normans.

The historical narrative of the O’Conors is documented extensively elsewhere and there is no need to go into any great detail here. The history of the medieval lands in Roscommon is complicated and it is not the focus of this study. It must be equally noted that there is a lot of confusion within the historical records regarding these five cantreds. The King made a number of grants to other barons within the cantreds that were held by the O’Conors which would have affected their lands in Roscommon. However though the King granted land in some of the cantreds it never seems to have been taken up.

They most important or key piece of information is that for the most of the thirteenth-century though technically a royal county, Roscommon largely remained the hands of the O’Conors. Much work and research has been completed on ‘royal’ medieval Roscommon both from a Norman and Gaelic perspective (O’Conor 2008. 2010, 2013, 2014; O’Keeffe, 2008, 2011, 2014). However little work has been completed on the castles below this level in Co. Roscommon which is what this study targeted.

Appendix 2: Details of landholding Baronies or cantreds were smaller land divisions that formed part of the larger lordships such as Connaught, Desmond or Leinster which were held by the tenant-in-chiefs (MacCotter 2010, 40). The term cantred is derived from the Welsh term cantref as many of the Normans were of Welsh origin (ibid, 18). This was made up of a number of smaller land units known as théoda or manors; many of these are still traceable today as parishes. Recent research conducted has concluded that manors of Anglo-Norman Ireland were coterminous with the many civil parishes today (MacCotter 2010). Often these manors had a parish church which was mentioned in the Ecclesiastical Taxation in the early fourteenth- century which is still visible in the landscape today. Within these manors or parishes are smaller vills and villates which can be loosely identified with our modern townlands. In fact it has been shown that baronies and their manors were a continuum of the land divisions that existed in Ireland prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Normans (MacCotter 2010). In medieval Ireland these land divisions were known as trícha céts. Tricha céts and cantreds are somewhat identifiable in many cases with modern baronies today. Though during the late medieval period and into the 19th century new divisions were created from these baronies and in some cases the new units agreed with older territorial boundaries but in some cases the old baronies were subsumed within new areas (MacCotter 2010, 26).

Appendix 3: Geophysical Survey Geophysical survey can be conducted in a variety of ways but overall it involves the process of revealing sub-soil features i.e. features that are no longer standing or visible above ground. This is a non-invasive method of archaeological investigation as it does not disturb the soil and therefore the integrity of the site. One of the downsides of this method is that the there are no definite dating results from the survey – only excavation can reveal such information.

There were three methods of geophysical survey carried during this project: Earth resistance

1. Resistivity 2. Gradiometry 3. Electromagnetics

Earth resistance is a method of geophysical survey that pushes a very low level electrical current through the ground between two probes thus creating a circuit. The ‘resistance’ to the current is measured. Based on the level of resistance encountered an image of the sub surface remains is made which can then be interpreted to reveal archaeological features. The survey equipment used in this survey was a Geoscan resistivity kit RM15 which consists of a metal frame with twin probes (extra arms can be added) that are inserted into the ground which is connected to a remote probe, located up to 50m away that also has two probes or metal rods inserted into the ground. An extension lead connects the twin probe frame and the remote probe creating an electrical circuit. An electrical current travels through the ground between these two probes and completes the circuit. This is the best recognized method for revealing buried stone features and is therefore highly suitable for use as castle- sites.

Gradiometry works on the presence of magnetic anomalies from magnetic iron oxides naturally present within the soil Human activity alters these through disturbance, removal or re-distribution of soil also by burning which alters the soil to contain high magnetic anomalies. All of these interferences created patterns that are different to the soil’s natural background which are then recorded through the magnetometer – the device used to read the magnetic field. The magnetometer is composed of two twin devices on a frame that are located about 20-30 cm above the ground. They have two sensors each located at the bottom and top of the device. They measure the magnetic difference between the earth’s natural magnetic and gravitational field read by the top sensor as well as the magnetic readings that are beneath the surface which are read by the bottom sensor. The difference between top and bottom sensor readings creates a pattern which can then be interpreted to

49 reveal archaeological remains or features. The best results are for features that have been cut into the soil or burnt i.e. ditches, pits, post-holes or areas of burning such as hearths or kilns. In this survey a Dual Fluxgate Gradiometer System FM256 .

Electromagnetic (EM) survey is based on the principle of induction to measure the electrical conductivity of the subsurface. This is a little more complicated and is one of the less widely used survey methods. In short an electromagnetic field is generated by passing a current through a wire coil (transmitter) which propagates the EM field above and below ground. If there is conductive material i.e. one through which a current will pass, in the ground, the magnetic part of the EM wave will react to produces a current eddy or the current will produce a secondary EM field which will also be detected by the receiver (the instrument). The instrument will also detect the first or initial field and after makes adjustments based on the two fields and positions of the conductor and transmitters. The difference in two fields gives the size, shape and possible geology of the sub surface remains. It is then relayed as a pattern which can be interpreted archaeologically. The device used in this survey was The instrument was a GF Instruments CMD Mini-Explore located on a CARTEASYN SparrowHawk-1000 cart system.

For further details on survey methods and methodology please see geophysical reports conducted by Earthsound Geophysics.