The defensibility of Irish Tower Houses - A study. 60 The Castle Studies Group Journal No 4: 010-11 The defensibility of Irish Tower Houses - A study. The defensibility of Irish Tower Houses - A study. uncan Berryman ower-houses are often considered to be small castles, with similar defensive fea- tures and functions. hey are small, single towers, often four or five storeys high and have a simple plan. hey were most likely to have been accommodation for the small- er land-owning lordship, both Gaelic and Anglo-Norman. !ower-houses became more numerous from the late-fifteenth and early-sixteenth century; they mainly fell out of use after a few hundred years, but some remain occupied today. !ower-hous- es are found across Ireland, with concentra- tions in the southern Counties, the Pale - the area around Dublin - and southern County Down [see CSGJ 20, 7-9]. Similar buildings can be found in Scotland, mainly around the Borders, where they are called Peel !owers. !he tower-houses of Scot- Fig. 1. Castle Ward - Co !own. Example of battle- land are similar in appearance, but differ in ment-level box machicolation over the entrance. design. Many scholars, such as Leask,om McNeill, of Queen's University Bel- Sweetman, !homson and McNeill, have fast, rejects the idea that tower-houses were placed tower-houses alongside other cas- primarily for defence [1997, 217-221], in- tles in their respective studies. his exem- stead his studies have stressed the social plifies the position that tower-houses hold factors and the architectural design of the in the field of castle studies, being seen as towers. Research by Rory Sherlock [2007, a relatively minor area of study. It is true 59] and Gillian Eadie [forthcoming] has that they share many features with their attempted to investigate how the domestic larger counterparts, but they have a very functions of a tower-house would have dissimilar position in the social scale and operated. Recent research carried out at must serve slightly different functions. !he Queen's University, Belfast has taken a earliest work on tower-houses was carried slightly different approach to the study of out by Leask [1941, 75-91], this formed tower-houses [Berryman, 2008]. his re- two chapters in his book of Irish castles. search has taken a sample of tower-houses Similar work was carried out by Sweetman from across three counties of Ireland, Co. [2005, 137-174] in his book on Irish medi- Down, Louth and Meath, rather than study eval castles. However, neither of these every tower-house in one County. Instead evaluated the effectiveness of the defence of looking at the tower as a whole, this or living facilities. !erry Barry, of !rinity study focused on one important feature of College, Dublin, considers tower-houses to the tower-house - the door - crucial to the be primarily defensive and has based his defence of the tower. Being the only entry, studies on an attempt to date them and to it was central to the tower's social function search for their origins [1987, 180-190]. and its every day life. The Castle Studies Group Journal No !4: !010-11 61 The defensibility of Irish Tower Houses - A study. Fig. 2. !erryhivenny Castle c.1643. Conjectural re- Fig. 3. Audley’s Castle, early C15. The south-east construction, after Leask, showing extent of the bawn. façade. Arch machicolation above the entrance in the south (left) turret, at ground floor level. Parapets lost. The Bawn either as a result of decay or of removal. Research by Aideen Burke at Derryhiven- he largest defensive feature that the tow- ny (Fig. 2) has shown an extensive com- er-house could enjoy was a bawn wall. plex that has left no surface remains [see his was usually a three metre high wall CSGJ 20, 50, & The !erryhivenny Castle that surrounded the tower to form an enclo- Project]. A bawn wall would have been a sure. !his feature could have prevented very expensive construction project and it attackers from gaining direct access to the is possible that most lords could not afford tower-house, they would have to breach the to construct one to protect their property. wall first. A bawn wall serves the same Another explanation for the lack of bawns purpose as a perimeter wall of a great cas- is that they were not needed; there may not tle; protecting the keep from enemy assault. have been enough violence to justify the However, extant bawns are quite rare; ap- expense of a bawn wall. proximately only twenty-five percent of tower-houses still have evidence of their Arch Machicolation bawn’s existence; this is similar to the num- A tower-house was usually designed with ber of mottes which have baileys attached machicolation to protect the doorway. to them [Mallory & McNeill, 1991, 262]. hese are much like the machicolation he lack of baileys in Ireland contrasts with found in great castles; they have similar their relative abundance in England, where functions and differ only in design. !he eighty percent of mottes have a bailey arch machicolation is closest in design to [Mallory & McNeill, 1991, 262]; this may those of great castles. It is formed from an indicate a trend in Ireland for not creating arch between two projecting turrets on the an enclosure to protect subsidiary build- front face of the tower. !his design is the ings. It is possible that more towers had most effective at defending the doorway, bawns, but they have not been preserved; but it leaves the defenders vulnerable to 6 The Castle Studies Group Journal No 4: 010-11 The defensibility of Irish Tower Houses - A study. Fig. 4. Audley’s Castle c. C15. The south-east façade. Arch machicolation at parapet level above the en- trance. attack [Berryman, 2008, 36]. Arch machi- colation is only found in three tower-houses in south-east County Down; namely Aud- ley’s (Figs. 3, 4), Kilclief (page 242) and Jordan’s (Fig. 14) [McNeill, 1997, 213]. Box Machicolation & Bartizans he most common design of machicolation Fig. 5. Aughnanure Castle c. C16. From the east. The rooftop machicolation is reconstructed, but the corner is box machicolation. his is formed by bartizans are original. projecting part of the exterior wall out- wards on corbels [Berryman, 2008, 36]. The yett or iron grate he box machicolation provides a small Probably the most effective defensive fea- opening above the doorway, giving the de- ture of a tower-house was a yett; an iron fender a smaller field of vision, but provid- grill or grate that could have been closed ing them with a good defence against across the main door to protect it from attackers. attack and was secured with a chain Machicolation is relatively com-[Sweetman, 2005, 140]. A yett performed mon and is found across Ireland; examples the same function for a tower-house as a include Castle Ward (County Down) (Fig. portcullis did for a great castle. It is very 1) and Clara (County Kilkenny). Some rare to find a yett still in place, such as at tower-houses, such as Aughnanure (Fig. 5) Cregg Castle (Fermore, Co. Cork) (Fig. 6); (County Galway) and Ballymalis (County but a number of towers have evidence that Kerry) feature corner bartizans; these are one was once fitted to the main doorway similar in design and function to box mach- (e.g. Athclare, Fig. 7). !his evidence in- icolations, but are found at the corners of cludes holes for the hinges in the dressed the tower-house at first or second floor stone of the door jambs and a hole that level [Sweetman, 2005, 150 & 171]. Mach- passes through the wall for the chain to icolation appears to be quite an effective secure the yett closed. A yett could have form of defence, but possibly designed protected the door from a battering ram more for their image than their functional- attack by dissipating the force of the attack ity, as they either constrain the defender or through the walls and preventing the ram leave them open to attack. from hitting the door. If the attackers tried The Castle Studies Group Journal No !4: !010-11 63 The defensibility of Irish Tower Houses - A study. Fig. 6. Cregg Castle (Fermore, Co. Cork). Original Fig. 7. Athclare Castle, Co. Louth. Slot for the chain yett. Image © !avid Newham Johnson. to close the yett. to burn the door down, a yett could have es in social conditions and a reduction in prevented them from getting into the tower- the need for high security in homes house. However, research shows that ap- [Simms, 1975]. !hus, a possible explana- proximately twenty percent of tower-hous- tion for the lack of yetts is that not all es were fitted with a yett [Berryman, 2008, tower-houses needed to be protected from 39]. !his may suggest that tower-houses serious attack. were not designed to be primarily defen- Murder holes sive as it contrasts with evidence from great castles. Many keeps of the great castles, Inside a tower-house, there were a number such as Colchester, Rochester [oy, 1985, of ‘defensive’ features that could have been 70 & 76], or gatehouses of enclosure cas- present. One feature that was taken directly tles, such as Bodiam or Caernarfon [oy, from the design of great castles was the 1985, 196 & 216], had portcullises to pre- ‘murder hole’. !he majority of tower- vent an attacker breaking through the door- houses have a 'murder hole' over the lobby, way. If so many great castles are which is the equivalent of siting them over constructed with a portcullis, why are more the entrance passage of the gatehouse.