Rosclogher Field Report

Field Survey
Rosclogher Field Report 2009

Report
Rosclogher castle:
The late medieval lordship centre of
‘Dartry MacClancy’
Lough Melvin, Co. Leitrim
JJ McDermott
Rory Mceary
Kieran O’Conor
2009
Archaeology Research Grant Scheme
Grant o. 17363
Page | 1
Contents
List of plates 3
List of figures 4
1. Introduction 5
1.1 Summary 5
1.2 Timeline and methods 6
1.3 Location maps and RMP information 7
1.4 Previous research 9
2. Historical background 11
2.1 A history of ‘Dartry MacClancy’ (1241-1603AD) 11
2.2 A brief history of the church at Rosclogher 18
2.3 Captain de Cuellar at Rosclogher Castle in 1588 19
3. Survey of archaeological monuments and surrounds 23

3.1 Physical landscape description 23
3.2 Archaeological and architectural descriptions 24
4. Discussion of results and conclusions 37

4.1 Dating of tower-house 37
4.2 The impact of geographical setting 38
4.3 Functions of tower-house and church 39
4.4 Social and political structure 41
Future recommendations 42
Acknowledgements 43
Bibliography 44
Page | 2
List of Plates
Pl. 1 Rosclogher castle and church (with field walls) taken c.1988
Pl. 2 Rosclogher castle and church (with field walls and other buildings) taken c.1903
Pl. 3 View of tower-house, church and ringfort from Lough Melvin
Pl. 4 View of tower-house, church and lake from within ringfort
Pl. 5 West view of tower-house and crannog
Pl. 6 South wall embrasure (ground floor) of tower-house
Pl. 7 South wall window ope (1st floor) of tower-house
Pl. 8 External view of outer wall of tower-house
Pl. 9 Internal view of outer wall of tower-house
Pl. 10 Chamfered stone found on crannog
Pl. 11 Cut-stone with linear feature found on crannog
Pl. 12 Punch-dressed stone found on crannog
Pl. 13 North view of church ruins
Pl. 14 East wall window ope of church
Pl. 15 South wall embrasure features of church
Pl. 16 South wall doorway of church
Pl. 17 West wall inner batter wall of church
Pl. 18 West wall outer embrasure of church
Pl. 19 West wall full outer view
Pl. 20 Slight bank at east end of church
Pl. 21 Ringfort on hillock overlooking Lough Melvin
Page | 3
List of Figures
Fig. 1 Location map of Rosclogher in north-west Ireland

Fig. 2 Location map of Rosclogher in north County Leitrim
Fig. 3 Discovery series map showing specific site location
Fig. 4 OS 6-inch 1st edition map (LM sheet 2) showing Rosclogher (1837-1842)
Fig. 5 Excerpt from Richard Bingham’s ‘map of hibernia’ 1589
Fig. 6 Excerpt from William Petty’s Down Survey map of Co. Leitrim, 1654/5
Fig. 7 Contour map of Dartry region showing archaeological sites
Page | 4
1. Introduction
1.1 Summary
This survey was carried out throughout 2009 and was funded by the Heritage
Council of Ireland. The aim was to conduct a topographical survey of Rosclogher
Castle and its environs on the south-western shores of Lough Melvin and lead to into
the production of a detailed report highlighting the historical and archaeological
significance of the area. This would also include an underwater assessment of the
lake around the castle and plan drawings of the archaeological sites and features.
The historical records indicate this site to be the lordship centre of the MacClancy
chiefs, who administered political control over the ancient Dartry region throughout
the later medieval period. Although the references are inconclusive, the dating of the
tower-house probably relates to the 15th and 16th centuries, perhaps being built on
an earlier fortified site in the early 15th century and being left to ruin in the early 17th
century. A first-hand account of life at the site in 1588 is recorded by Francisco de
Cuellar, a Spaniard who was sheltered at the ‘castle’ after he had survived the
Armada shipwrecks at Streedagh. His observations would strongly suggest that a
settlement of some sort was centred on the shoreline directly opposite the castle.
The tower-house is perched on a stone-lined crannog c.70 metres out from the
shore-line, provoking some questions on matters of defence and status. The ruins of
a church is also located c.20 metres inland from the shoreline in good view of the
tower-house. The church is surrounded by a wall, an embankment and an
escarpment, and forms part of what appears to be a 19th or early 20th century
farmstead as well. A ringfort overlooks both the church and tower-house, c.150
metres away on the upward slope of the field that adjoins the lake. This same field
has visible evidence of levelled field walls that correspond with markings on the early
19th century OS 1st edition maps. There are other, larger earthworks and enclosures
that can be clarified in part from aerial photographs for the site as well and this would
indicate that there was an intense level of occupation and settlement around the
area well before the 19th century.
Page | 5
1.2 Timeline and methodology
March—April 2009 Desktop survey

May—September 2009 Total station survey
June 2009 Underwater survey
September—November 2009 Data processing and report writing
After the initial desktop survey, which seen the incorporating of all known
documentary and cartographic sources with previous fieldwork data, a topographical
survey was begun at the late medieval lordship site at Rosclogher. First, a
reconnaissance survey was conducted around the site and National Grid co-
ordinates and the north point were acquired through GPS recordings. Then, using a
total-station from a series of control points on the shore, readings of height, width
and length from the crannog, tower-house, ringfort, church, surrounding buildings
and other important features were taken. The physical surveying of these sites and
features was conducted over a period of five weeks. It was set-up with the help of
Joe Fenwick of the Department of Archaeology, NUI, Galway (who also provided the
hire of the technical equipment). The recording was then carried out by JJ
McDermott and Eoghan O’Conor (field archaeologistd) and Dr. Kieran O’Conor
(lecturer at NUIG).
The total-station data was then uploaded into AutoCAD and rendered into an overall
site plan. Individual plans of the tower-house, church and ringfort were cropped from
this drawing and annotated using Adobe Photoshop (see appendix II). Digital aerial
photographs and Ordnance Survey maps were also acquired and used to plot out
any previously unseen earthworks or field walls. They were then rectified in
AutoCAD along with total station data to allow for a clearer illustration of the site. The
underwater survey was managed separately by a dive team from the University of
Ulster, Coleraine led by Rory McNeary (see Appendix I).
Page | 6
1.3 Location maps and RMP information

Rosclogher is a small townland located in the civil parish of Rossinver in the north
part of Co. Leitrim, 2km east of Kinlough village and approx. 4km south-east from the
coastline. The castle can be accessed off the R281 via a private farm-path.
Permission should be sought before entering the field where the castle is located.
There are four protected monuments in the field and each has been allocated a
specific RMP number: tower-house -- LE002-01401, crannog --LE002-01402, church
-- LE002-015, ringfort -- LE002-017. The national grid co-ordinates for the tower-
house are G844 549.
Fig. 1 Location of Rosclogher in north-west Ireland
Fig. 2 Location of Rosclogher in north County Leitrim
Page | 7
Fig. 3 OS Discovery series map (sheet No.16) showing site location (OSI)
st
Fig. 4 OS six-inch 1 edition map (1837-1842) [Leitrim sheet No.2] (OSI)
Page | 8
1.4 Previous Research

It was proposed by O’Conor over 11 years ago that an archaeological survey of a
medieval Gaelic lordship be carried out in order to further understand the economic
and social development of Gaelic Ireland (1998, 139). Since then, there has been a
relative increase in this area of archaeological research, particularly evidenced in the
ongoing Medieval Rural Settlement Project by the Discovery Programme (McNeary
and Shanahan 2005; Corlett and Potterton (forthcoming)) and also in specific Gaelic
lordship case studies such as at O‘Sullivan Beare (Breen 2005). However, a lack of
appropriate fieldwork and research on important Gaelic lordly centres and Gaelic
settlement still remain.
There is also a problem that areas with little or no standing evidence of Gaelic
settlement tend to be overlooked in related publications. This is one of the main
reasons that the area of north County Leitrim has had relatively little fieldwork, and
no publication, carried out on its late medieval monuments. Although the
archaeological remains from the late medieval period are insubstantial in the region,
there is still enough evidence to suggest at least six tower-houses were located there
i.e. in the north-west Breifne area. This was determined during an MA study by the
present author, when minor field surveys were carried out at all recorded castle sites
(McDermott 2007). Indeed the importance of the tower house to late medieval
society throughout Breifne had been stressed in an article some years ago
(McCarthy 1989-90), but while many castles in east Breifne have been the subject of
surveys and excavations (Manning 1989-90; Parker and O’Donovan 2007), there
has been a neglect in analyzing contemporary sites in west Breifne.
Fieldwork has been carried out at Rosclogher in the past to a certain degree. The
SMR files in the National Monument archive contain three separate descriptive and
photographic reports on the tower-house, church and earthworks there. An
OPW/Irish Tourist Authority survey from 1943 indicates the state of the masonry
buildings at the time and also provides helpful sketches of both (Faughnan 1943). An
undated survey, carried out perhaps around the same time provides similar
descriptions and a series of black and white photos with a sketch plan of the tower-
house (Davies c.1944). Surveying carried out between 1988 and 1992 by the
National Monuments Service has resulted in accurate descriptions of the building
Page | 9
and earthwork remains, as well as photographs that show up presently leveled field
walls (see Pl.1). These survey results were summarised and published in an
archaeological inventory for Co. Leitrim (Moore 2003). The site was also visited by
the antiquarian Hubert .T. Knox in the summer of 1903, who fortunately
photographed the ruins of the site (photos are archived by RSAI; see Pl.2). These
photos indicate the less-ruined state of the castle and church and also the presence
of standing field walls, which clearly correspond with the OS markings.
Pl. 1 Rosclogher Castle and church (with field walls) taken c.1988 (NMA)
Pl. 2 Rosclogher Castle and church (with clearer field walls shown) taken 1903 (RSAI)
Page | 10
2. Historical background
2.1 A history of ‘Dartry MacClancy’ 1241 - 1603AD

Dartry is first mentioned in the annals in 959AD when Ualgharg, the king of Dartry is
recorded as being killed (AFM 959.6); an early indication of contestable septs in this
part of Breifne. Whether he was a MacClancy or other is not stated but by 1220, we
find the first record of a nobleman going by that name in this part of the country.
Cairneach Riabhach MacClancy, it is claimed had been granted lands by the king of
Breifne Ualgharg O’Rourke and was later killed in that year for his troubles (AFM
1220.6). He had supposedly fled Tipperary over a dispute regarding the building of
the house of Cashel along with his clan and the clans of the O’Cuirnins and
O’Travers. In other circles it is regarded that the clan originated from Cairbre in North
Sligo, moving eastwards into Leitrim around the 10th century (Connellan 1946, 36).
By 1241 the death of the first recorded ‘chief of Dartry‘, Donnell MacClancy occurs
(ALC 1239.4; AFM 1241.11) and that same year the whole area is plundered by
Tadhg O’Conor, which may have been related to Donnell’s death (AFM 1241.9).
Plundering Dartry became a regular occurrence throughout the 14th and into the 15th
century, mainly because of its situation between the territories of O’Connor Sligeach
and Tir Connell (O’Donnell’s). These clans clearly pursued their ambitions at the
expense of the sub-lords of Breifne, the early 14th century being a bloody period in
Dartry as a result. In 1303, the chief Murtough MacClancy was killed during a feud
with Turlough and Hugh O’Donnell (AFM 1303.2). In 1330 Conor O’Connor is
instanced in the killing of many of Dartry’s men (AFM 1330.8), while three years
later, another kinsman of the MacClancy, Mac an hOidche, was slain by the King of
Connaught, Turlough O’Connor (AFM 1333.7).
Clearly Dartry was seen as a strategic gateway-region in the eyes of the O’Connors
and the O’Donnells who sought to expand their lordships deep into Breifne territory.
In 1420, this theory was exacted with powerful intent by Brian O’Connor, when he
commenced to build Bundrowes castle on the mouth of the river Drowes. He was
backed by two of O’Rourke’s men and during construction they had to resist attack
across the border from the Kinel-Connell, O‘Donnell‘s army. A battle ensued as far
as the bay of Assaroe at Ballyshannon with O’Connor eventually returning victorious
Page | 11
(AFM 1420.3).
Within the confines of Dartry itself, the MacClancys constantly fought among
themselves for lordship and status, regularly involving other clans such as the
O’Rourkes to boost their forces. This was prevalent throughout Gaelic Irish society,
since Brehon Law implicated that a chief could be succeeded by any member of the
extended clan and not just his eldest son (O’Conor, 75). The annals note that of the
MacClancy clan during the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries the following were slain by
their own kinsmen: Donagh was killed by Hugh in 1341 (AFM 1341.4), the chief
Cathal was killed by Teige, Maurice and Henry on St Bridget’s day in 1420 (AFM
1420.6) and Turlough was slain on the doorsteps of his house by his own two
brothers in 1532 (AFM 1532.5). The murdering did not end at this, as there are
further records of battles with other clans resulting in the deaths of many noble chiefs
and kinsmen. e.g. Hugh O’Rourke slaughtered three men including Gilchrist
MacClancy and his chief, Hugh, who had been allied by Flaherty O’Rourke and
Donogh O’Donnell in an incursion on Dartry in 1349 (AFM 1349.1).
In 1421, it would appear that the MacClancys had now established a strong fortress
in their territory at Lough Melvin. An entry in the annals describes a nocturnal attack
on their lands by the lake, undertaken by a party led by Cathal O’Rourke. They had
encroached upon Inis Caoin having been granted boats by the MacGloins, the
‘guardians of the lake’, and killed many of the chief’s sons in the ensuing attack. The
islands of the lake and the “castle” were then taken possession of and another of
MacClancy’s sons was taken prisoner. The chief himself retreated to Cairbre (AFM
1421.7). This is the first reference to a MacClancy fortress and although Inis Caoin
was the target of attack, I believe the tower-house at Rosclogher is the ‘castle’ being
referred to. Translated as ‘beautiful island’, Inis Caoin is located in the north-eastern
corner of Lough Melvin and may have been the site of a monastic settlement at the
time. There is an acre of ground named ’Friars Garden’ to the eastern end of it
(Pinkman 1942, 184). The sons of MacClancy may have been seeking refuge here.
Analysing this event and the events of the late 15th and early 16thcentury, it would
appear that the O’Rourkes had begun to consolidate their reign as kings of West
Breifne and Dartry. This is a direct result of their strong economic position near Sligo
Page | 12
town and evidenced in their substantial castle-building at this time i.e. at Dromahaire,
Newtown, Leitrim and Castlecar (McDermott, 43; Ui Ruairc 1993, 10-12, 16, 22, 31).
Melaghlin, a son of MacClancy was killed in 1488 by Tadhg O’Rourke, which further
illustrates their substantiation of power in Dartry (ALC 1488.30).
In 1536, the chief of Dartry Feradach MacClancy died of small pox and later that
year his territory was exploited as a base-camp by the O’Donnells for an incursion on
O’Conner Sligeach (ALC 1536.20). The camp may have been located close to
Duncarbry castle, itself known as a MacClancy fortress (Moore, 204). It is argued
that this was a tower house built on an older defensive fort (McDermott, 61) and it
was here where Cahir MacClancy, heir to the chieftainship died peacefully in 1538
(AFM 1538.5). This may suggest that Duncarbry was built as a secondary residence
for the clan and a strategic one too as it overlooks the main route from north
Connaught into Ulster and has inter-visibility with O’Connor’s Bundrowes castle to
the north. Both Bundrowes and Duncarbry are therefore understandably illustrated
on Richard Bingham’s military map of the region from 1589 (Swift 1999, 44). An
island-castle further inland is also marked, with the surrounding area labeled as
‘Macglanathe country’. Presumably this is the tower-house at Rosclogher (see fig 5).
Fig. 5 Excerpt from Richard Bingham’s ‘map of hibernia’ in 1589 (Swift 1999)
Page | 13
In 1568, Bundrowes, then occupied by the O’Donnells was granted to Donald

O’Connor of Sligo along with a knighthood in return for his submission of surrender
to Queen Elizabeth I (Cal SP 1568, vol.23, 361). The O’Donnells, having camped
outside it, reprised their intentions to take the castle back in 1577, but O’Connor,
now strengthened by his position with the English and his association with the new
governor of Connaught, Nicholas Malby, expelled the intrusion and plundered most
of the country around there (ALC 1577.7).
With an English re-conquest beginning to take hold on the country in the late 16th
century the MacClancy’s were not to conform to any new terms or proposals binding
their land under the Queen’s ownership. As the old Brehon laws had now been
replaced by a new Tudor-enforced legal system, it meant that there would be no free
holding of land by various members of the kin group anymore and only the chief
would be entitled to ownership. He in turn would have to surrender himself to the
English government and consequently pay tribute to the Crown for rent of that land
(Nicholls 2003, 55-6, 67). Tadhg og, who reigned as chief of Dartry from 1582 to
1590, took heed of his overlord Brian (of the ramparts) O’Rourke, who held a proud
position against the Queen at his castles in Dromahaire and Newtown, and utilised
every available resource (including the mountains and lakes) to hold out against any
forceful attack. Like O’Rourke, MacClancy held an unbinding hatred of the Queen
and refused to pay a single shilling to her or her governors (Mac an Ghalloglaigh
1962, 61). His rebellious behaviour aroused the wrath of Richard Bingham, governor
of Connaught from 1584. He describes ‘that most bad man McGlannahie
(MacClancy)’ to be ‘fortifying and building in most suspicious sort’ his castle at
Rosclogher. He then requests to the Queen that he may suppress him and his lands
there (Cal SP 1586, vol.125, 140).
The arrival of many Scottish mercenaries to Irish shores at this time also contributed
to the Gaelic resistance but as evidenced in 1585, they also engaged with the
internal feuding of rival clans. A battle that positioned MacClancy against Brian
O’Rourke had enveloped at Benbo mountain near Manorhamilton after O’Rourke
had invaded MacClancy territory. A body of Scotsmen fought with the MacClancys
and several men on both sides were killed as a result (AFM 1585.4). The two lords,
Page | 14
however, survived and both found themselves embroiled in international affairs three
years later when they separately aided and gave refuge to survivors of the Spanish
Armada shipwrecks.
The events of 1588 are recounted in a personal diary by Captain Francisco de

Cuellar, who was aboard the Spanish galleon La Lavia, when it foundered on Irish
shores at Streedagh Strand near Grange in Sligo (Allingham and Crawford (ed.),
1897). His account commences with the scene of death, devastation and plundering
on the strand as he tries desperately to escape inland despite a wounded leg
(ibid.17-18). After many unfortunate run-ins with the locals and various foreigners,
and having been turned away at the gates of O’Rourkes Castle at Glencar
(Castlecar), de Cuellar was taken in by a blacksmith and his wife at Largydonnell,
near Glenade. He was effectively imprisoned there for several days and upon
hearing of his ill-treatment by the couple, the chief MacClancy sent riders to bring
him to Rosclogher (ibid. 31). There, he was sheltered and suitably recovered under
the surveillance of the chief and his kinsmen, whom he referred to as ‘savages’.
When it was reported that an army of English soldiers were being assembled by the
Lord Deputy at Dublin to scour the north-west of the country for Spanish survivors,
MacClancy collected his people and cattle and headed for the safety of the
mountains of Dartry, as was his tradition (Cal SP 1588, vol.137, 92; McDermott, 77).
De Cuellar, sensing the impregnability of the castle surrounded as it was by water,
decided to stay and garrison the building with eight other Spanish compatriots, who
had been at Rosclogher when he had arrived (Allingham and Crawford, 34). The
English approached from the north of Lough Melvin at Rosfriar and besieged the
castle for seventeen days, mercilessly taunting the Spaniards by hanging two of their
own on the shore (ibid. 35). It was in vain however, as the defence held out and the
army soon retreated as heavy snow hindered their chances of penetrating the
fortress. Upon hearing of this, MacClancy returned with much delight and offered de
Cuellar to stay and guard the castle, in return for his sister’s hand in marriage (ibid.
35). Sensing an imbalance to the proposal, de Cuellar and four others escaped one
night from Rosclogher and headed north to the Antrim coastline and on to Scotland
by boat, where he would eventually communicate a passage back to mainland
Europe and at last to his homeland in Spain (ibid. 36-39).
Page | 15
After this perilous event MacClancy sensed his days were numbered, and in
desperation he allied himself with his old foe Brian O’Rourke and in 1590, they
attempted to defend Breifne together. The English under Richard and George
Bingham had been destroying town after town in Moylurg and lower Breifne and
assembled c.300 troops to attack Dartry, where O‘Rourke and MacClancy were
camped (ALC 1590.17). The Binghams had two Irish traitors on his side in Tadhg
O’Rourke and Melaghlin MacClancy and it was the former who fatally wounded the
chief MacClancy as he attempted to swim across to his castle during the attack.
Having been brought ashore he was beheaded and this is notable in that George
Bingham had now proudly claimed the life of ‘the most barbarous creature in Ireland’
(Cal SP 1590, vol.151, 333; ALC 1590.20). Melaghlin was then rewarded for his
assistance to Bingham by gaining the chieftainship of Dartry. In 1603 he died and
bequeathed his property to his only son Cahir, who was only three years old at the
time (O‘Flanagan 1929, 250). An Englishman called William Windsor, who was
granted lands in neighbouring Donegal along with his brother, became king-ward to
the young MacClancy and had him educated at Trinity College, Dublin for a yearly
sum of £5 (Mac an Ghalloglaigh 1971, 249). This indeed was the turning point in the
rule of the Gaelic Irish at Dartry and unsurprisingly, it was envisioned by King James
I that these lands should be made into estates with plantations and fortified houses
and be governed by English and Scottish settlers (MacCuarta 1999, 121). Although
they were seen elsewhere in Leitrim, there is no evidence for fortified houses being
constructed anywhere in Dartry after the 16th century.
Page | 16
Fig. 6 Excerpt from William Petty’s Down Survey map of Co. Leitrim, 1654/5
In the rising of 1641, the MacClancys are recorded as being involved in the
resistance fighting at Sligo, William MacClancy being one of the Gaelic Irish leading
an attack on the town but no indication is given of their presence at Rosclogher at
this time. The unpopular Scottish planter Frederick Hamilton, who had established a
fortified house at Clonmullen (now modern-day Manorhamilton) burned down Sligo
and destroyed all of Dartry in reprisal for this and other attacks (Mac an Ghalloglaigh
1966, 71). The same man seems to have claimed the lands around Lough Melvin
after this, as it is evidenced in William Petty’s Down Survey map of County Leitrim
c.1654/5 that these were ‘S Frederick Hambleton’s lands’ (see fig 2). The
corresponding Civil Survey document of that year does not mention MacClancy or
any of their castles (C. Survey, 96) and it would appear that by this stage,
Rosclogher castle had been destroyed and left to ruin, signifying the end of Gaelic
settlement in Dartry. In 1722, Tadhg Roddy describes the northern half of
Rosclogher barony as ‘MaGlanayes Country’, and Rosclogher ‘near the sea, by the
great loge’ is where their ‘castle and chiefe seate stood’ (Logan 1971, 329). It was,
however no longer an occupied fortress by this time.
Page | 17
2.2 A brief history of the church at Rosclogher

Indicated as an ‘abbey’ or ‘abbey (in ruins)’ on the 19th century OS maps (see Fig.4),
the remains of a church in the Rosclogher townland and close to MacClancys tower-
house is understood by many to be the site of Doiremelle Abbey (Moore, 183).
According to old monastic records, Doiremelle was founded by Tigernach, an abbot
of Killeigh c.800AD and was named after his mother, St Mella who died before
787AD (Gwynn and Haddock 1970, 380). St Mella may have had an association with
the naming of Lough Melvin (translated Loch Meilge) although tradition has it that it
was named after Meilge, an ancient king of Ireland (Pinkman, 236). Rosclogher is
not the only church associated with the lake as there are ecclesiastical remains on
Inistemple island (associated with St Sinnell, a bell-founder for St.Patrick) and
another to the eastern end of the lake at Gublaun (associated with St Mogue)
(Moore, 180-1). It would appear that Rosclogher church may have been built at the
site of the earlier abbey in the 13th or 14th century by the MacClancys who had
established their lordship centre there. In 1588, de Cuellar describes the removal of
‘ornaments and requisites for the church service, and some relics’ out of the church
and into the tower house for safe-keeping against the English (Allingham and
Crawford, 34). The church obviously came into disrepair after the MacClancys had
been dethroned as Gaelic princes in the 17th century.
Page | 18
2.3 Captain de Cuellar at Rosclogher Castle in 1588

De Cuellar’s diary allows us a very rare glimpse of Gaelic Irish society in the 16th
century and in particular the life of the men and women who inhabited the lands
around the hills and lakes of north Leitrim. His illustration of events must be realised
as being an account of a foreigner in strange lands, therefore rendering some of his
depictions a result of misunderstandings. However, certain details of the Gaelic way
of life can be substantiated from his observations. For instance, we know that he
conversed with a clergyman, a blacksmith and the MacClancy chief in Latin tongue.
This was their secondary language (the language of the church) and it was spoken
by both high and low rank in Gaelic society (Allingham and Crawford, 5). His general
observation of the customs practised by the people living at Rosclogher is also
particularly insightful:
‘The custom of these savages is to live as the brute beasts among the
mountains, which are very rugged in that part of IrelandKThey live in
huts made of straw. The men are all large-bodied, and of handsome
features and limbsKThey do not eat oftener than once a dayKand
that which they usually eat is butter with oaten bread. They drink sour
milkKOn feast days they eat some flesh half-cooked, without bread or
saltKThey clothe themselves, according to their habit, with tight
trousers and short loose coats of very coarse goats hair. They cover
themselves with blankets, and wear their hair down to their eyesKthe
most of the women are very beautiful but badly dressed. They do not
wear more than a chemise, and a blanketKand a linen cloth, much
doubled, over the head and tied at the front.’
(ibid. 32)
He goes on to describe their devout Catholicism and their regret over the destruction
of many of their monasteries and churches by the English. The hatred that had sunk
deep within these people over generations is sympathised with by de Cuellar, and
although he stresses ambiguity in regards to Gaelic law and justice, he appears
grateful to the natives for aiding his survival. This, as well as his own country’s
opposition to the English government would appear to be the main catalysts for his
compliance with MacClancy.
Page | 19
The account of the siege between the Spanish contingent and an army of English
soldiers indicate the effectiveness of the tower-house located on the lake. Even
before this, de Cuellar stresses that the castle is very strong and difficult to take: ‘it
could not be taken by water nor by the shore of the land that is nearest it’ (ibid. 31,
34). It is with this confidence that he stays behind to defend the fortress, even as the
natives along with their livestock flee to the mountains. It is implicated that firearms
were possessed by MacClancy at the time as he provides the Spaniards with ‘six
musketsKsix cross-bows and other arms’ before he leaves (ibid. 35). Interestingly
he also places ‘three or four boatloads of stones within’ the castle for some reason.
This has led to one suggestion that the outer wall and gun-loop was constructed
from these very blocks (Moore, 209). Would it have been built so promptly before the
English arrived? This is unlikely and de Cuellar does not mention of any construction
while awaiting the enemy. Of more significance, the wall faces to the S shore of the
lake, and it is supposed that the English came upon the lake at the N end (‘a mile
and a half from it’).
De Cuellar also comments that a ‘town, established on the mainland’ is surrounded

by marshy lands that can only be navigated through by pathways. Remembering that
this is winter-time, we must be aware that a foreigner’s outlook of the land may not
take into account seasonal changes and the fact that people utilised hillside
settlement and mountain pasture for their cattle in the summer-time. It is possible
that the ‘town’ envisioned by de Cuellar in 1588 was nothing more than a small
nucleated settlement, comprised of circular enclosures and various straw huts. At its
centre was a large walled enclosure for their cattle and near the shore was their
private church, perched as it was in full sight of the chief’s own fortress: the tower
house on the lake (see pl.3 & 4 for overview).
Page | 20
Pl. 3 View of Rosclogher Lordship centre from north-west side of Lough Melvin (JMD)
Pl. 4 View of tower-house and church from within ringfort to the south-west (JMD)
Page | 21
Fig. 7 Contour map of Dartry region showing archaeological sites

[Rosclogher is area circled] (JMD)
Page | 22
3. Survey of archaeological monuments and surrounds
3.1 Physical landscape description
The northern half of Co. Leitrim is a rugged mountainous region relieved by a series
of valleys that accommodate the flow of several rivers and the location of many small
lakes. The composition of soils in the region are characterized by an underlie of
renzina and brown podzols, while the geology is made up of upper carboniferious
limestone, overlain in parts by Avonian/Namurian sandstone. The mountains form
the remnant ends of the Slieve Gamph and Ox Mountains that rise in a unified line
through Sligo and North Mayo. Many of these are pronounced and contain steep cliff
faces, such as Boleybrack in the Lackagh Hills (449m), facing out onto Glenfarne
Valley, or Benbo Mountain (415m), which overlooks Manorhamilton town. The
highest peaks however are situated in the Dartry Mountains at Aroo (523m) and
Tierebaun (611m) forming a truly magnificent backdrop to the north where the hills
overlook Donegal Bay. The region in general is very scenic in character and the hills
offer substantial panoramic vistas of the surrounding terrain. At the top of the Dartry
Mountain range for example, one can see as far as the Sperrin Mountains in County
Tyrone to the north and as far as Knocknarea Mountain in Sligo to the south-west.
The study area is located at the foot of Dartry on the south-western shores of Lough
Melvin. The lake orientates SE-NW along its long axis, being widest at the east end.
It separates Leitrim with Fermanagh and has two villages located near its opposite
ends: Kinlough to the west, Garrison to the east. Its waters consist of many large
islands and it has two important tributary rivers flowing from its ends in the Drowes
and the County River. The County River flows out from its south-eastern end, joining
up with another lake, Lough MacNean further east. This river limits the border with
Northern Ireland and Ulster. Melvin is renowned around the area and further afar as
an ideal lake for fishing and angling and has even been alluded to in the 18th century
as being thus too (Logan, 330).
The topography of the land around the lake where the site is located is gently
undulating and slightly sloping southwards towards Dartry. A small hillock overlooks
the tower-house and lake, and is currently used as pasture for sheep and horses.
Page | 23
The hillock offers extensive and unobstructed views across the lake to the east and
north, as well as being in full sight of the overshadowing Dartry Mountains to the
south. The tower-house is generally sheltered from view in its location near the
lakeshore. Travelling up the lake from the east, it does not come into view until
Inishmean Island (located c.1km away) is passed. The area facing the site from the
north is Rosfriar Point, a small peninsula heavily covered by trees. The view across
to the tower-house is obstructed by this plantation.
3.2 Archaeological and architectural descriptions
3.2.1 Tower-house and crannog

The site of the tower-house, taught to be the castle of the MacClancys in the 15th
and 16th centuries is located on a crannog towards the SW end of Lough Melvin and
can be accessed via a private farm-track that connects to the R281 road c.2 km to
the SE of Kinlough village. While it had been signposted less than two years ago,
there is none to be seen at present. After reaching the end of the trackway, the
tower-house and crannog can be sighted just off the shoreline, at the bottom of the
hillock. The crannog is a sub-circular island constructed of earth and stones and
extending to a depth of 2m, located 67m offshore to the S. The site is in a very poor
state of preservation, greatly limiting accurate descriptions of the architectural
features of the tower-house. It measures 21m N-S and 15m E-W. The E and W sides
have enough space to suggest landing stages for boats but are severely spoiled with
rubble from the castle walls and the intrusion of vegetation. Vertical standing stakes
were recorded by departmental archaeologists along the W side about 1m from the
shore over 20 years ago (NMA) but were not found by the divers in this present
survey (see Appendix I). The castle, located c.1.5m above water level, is a
rectangular building of course sandstone masonry bonded by lime and sand mortar.
Its internal dimensions are 7.7m by 6.3m and its long-axis orientates north-south.
The fragmentary S and E walls rise to their original height (c.9m) consisting three
storeys while the N and W walls only rise to roughly first floor level. The N wall is
1.8m thick, 1.5m high and 8.2m in length. Underneath the dense ivy, there is a large
window ope towards its NW corner.
Page | 24
The E gable stands to 9m high and is 1.8m thick and 4m in length. Both the NE and
SE corners are completely missing, suggesting that there may be possible doorways
here. The SE has a large fragment of wall rubble (0.75m high) leaning back towards
the shore but does not block a route into the interior. The NE has a better case for
being the doorway entrance. There is a small squared passage (1.3m in length)
within the E wall at ground level, facing towards N, suggesting that it may once have
held a drawbar for a door. There are the remains of a mural passage in the 2nd floor
and appears to run the length of the wall to the N and is roofed by a succession of
lintels. There is also a window ope at the beginning of the passage. The ivy is
extremely dense so it is impossible to fully record them.
Pl. 5 Western side of tower-house and crannog (JMD)
The S wall stands at 9m tall as well, 1.75m thick and 7.8m in length. At its internal
centre at ground level there is an embrasure, possibly blocked-up by outer walling
and is roofed by lintels, above which is an arch that curves inwards (see Pl.6). The
wall feature has been blackened possibly due to consistent burning at this area.
Whether this was caused by a more recent activity, it cannot be fully explained but it
has led previous researchers to call it a hearth (Davies c.1944). A drawbar is
situated towards the bottom of the wall and east of the embrasure. Although it has
the appearance of a hearth/fireplace, there is no evidence for a chimney. It is
Page | 25
probable that it was used as a cooking area. There is a splayed single light window
(0.8m high) just above it on the next floor (see Pl. 7). It has a large inward splay
allowing extra light to enter the castle at this level.
Pl. 6 South wall embrasure (ground floor) [above]
Pl. 7 South wall window ope (first floor)

[right]
The W wall partly survives and extends from the SW corner, where it has mostly
collapsed onto the crannog, to a point 4.6m short of the NW corner. It is 1.45m thick
and 2m high. A series of large flag stones lie flatly outside the wall to the NW corner
and carry along down to the shoreline, forming a kind of step-way from the lake into
the castle (see Pl.5). This was probably constructed from the wall remains in modern
times to accommodate a passage into the interior ruin. (With remnants of beer
bottles and cans littered inside the castle, there is a feeling that the crannog is a
common landing spot for anglers and fishermen to dock and have picnics).
The interior itself is partitioned by two walls that extend perpendicularly from the E
and W walls respectively. They are not keyed into the outer walls and are not
mortared. The wall abutting the E is 1m thick and 1m high, while the wall abutting the
W is 1.7m thick and 1.5m high. They both correspond by facing one another but
because of varying thickness, they did not bond together. The gap at the centre
Page | 26
between both walls (1.4m) suggests a doorway leading into a medium-sized room in
the S end of the castle at ground floor level. There is also a low wall (1.2m in length)
near the SE corner running perpendicularly from the S wall. Again it doesn’t bond
with the other partition wall nor the S wall and is almost completely leveled.
An outer wall, c.2.5m to the S of the castle, lines the crannog near the shoreline to
this end and faces the mainland (see Pl.8). It is strongly built with sandstone
masonry and is 1.5m thick at foundation level. It extends to 6.5m in length and rises
to 2.7m in height, concealing the view of the base of the castle walls from the
mainland. There is one gun-loop feature at its centre (0.28m x 0.14m) and internally,
there is a platform specifically constructed for access to this feature (see Pl.9). The
platform is marked by two short flanking walls, which would have protected a
crouching gunman and allow him a comfortable position from where to fire from. The
length of the wall as a whole may have been larger since there are no corners
defined at either end. Along the E end of the crannog c.3m away from the castle-
base, a series of large flag-stones are clearly set linearly into the surface. It may
have been that an outer wall defined a narrow bawn around the whole circumference
of the crannog.
Pl. 8 External view of outer wall (JMD)
Page | 27
Some architectural fragments were discovered in the rubble around the surface of the
crannog during the survey work. A punch-dressed rectangular stone (0.43m x 0.19m) with a
semi-circular notch was located to the SW of the outer wall (see Pl.12). It may have been
part of a slop-stone feature on the outer fabric of one of the castle walls. Another large cut-
stone (0.68m x 0.52m) with a linear cut feature on its base was found partially submerged in
the water close-by (see Pl.11). Again, it could have acted as a slop-stone, possibly used as a
drain feature on the side of the castle-wall. A large cut-stone with chamfers on its base was
also found just to the E of the SE corner of the castle (see Pl.10). This may have been
located internally at the corner of a doorway or window recess.
Pl. 9 Internal view of outer wall (JMD)
[from left to right]

Pl. 10 Chamfered stone; Pl. 11 Cut-stone with linear feature; Pl. 12 Punch-dressed stone (all JMD)
Page | 28
3.2.2 Ecclesiastical remains

The ruin of a small church is situated on a gently undulating slope near the shoreline
of the lake and in an unobstructed view of the tower-house and crannog. It is a
rectangular building constructed of semi-ashlar sandstone mortared masonry. Its
external dimensions are 13m E-W and 7.6m N-S. The N wall is almost entirely
reduced to rubble, except for the NE corner and a length extending from its centre to
the NW corner (0.8m thick) (see Pl.13). The NE corner stands to a height of 3.2m but
its quoins have been robbed. There is a leveled space between the corner fragment
and the extensive rubble (0.9m wide), which could have been the position for a
doorway, although it more than likely catered for a window light. I am suggesting this
because there would have been clear views out to the lake and the castle at this
point.
Pl. 13 North side of church ruin (JMD)
The E gable stands to 5m in height and accommodates a large slit-ope, slightly off-
centre (2.38m high, 1.12m wide internally and 0.36m wide externally). It is roofed by
a lintel at its external end and what appears to be a segmental arch internally (see
Page | 29
Pl.14). To the left of this feature internally and near the ground, there is a recess for
a possible cupboard (0.59 x 0.6m). The S wall is 2.9m high and 0.8m thick and leans
inwards at its centre, possibly due to the fact that the earth level is slightly higher on
its external side. A small ope (1.2m wide and 1.04m high) exists near the SE corner
and its sides has fallen through. It may have been the location of an aumbrey in the
wall or perhaps a niche for the location of a piscine. It is supposed that the altar was
orientated to this end of the church. A splayed single light window is located 0.5m to
the right of this feature and measures to a width of 1.18m internally and 1.03m
externally. Its top has collapsed and so extends beyond the wall height (see Pl.15 for
both aumbrey and window). The doorway was located 1.7m away from the SW
corner and is currently 1.6m wide (see Pl.16). A door jamb climbs to 1.9m on its W
side. It would appear to have been blocked up at a later stage, even though it has
partially collapsed recently and its real width is suggested at 1.15m.
Pl.14 E wall window ope (JMD) Pl. 15 Features in SE corner (JMD)
Page | 30
Pl.16 Outer view of possible doorway in S wall (JMD)
The W wall, which stands to 4.5m in height and is 0.82m thick, has two unusual
features. A base batter (also 0.82m thick) marks the wall internally and is not keyed
into it. The batter wall is rectangular and does not follow the arch of the outer wall to
its apex. Instead it stops at the height of the S wall (probably the N wall too) (see
Pl.17). On the external side of the W wall there is a reversed window ope, directing
inwards rather than outwards (see Pl.18). It has the characteristics of a gun-loop;
splaying the thickness of the wall towards a small rectangular recess (0.08m x
0.24m). It is located close to the NW corner at the base of the wall and is 0.86m wide
and 0.81m high. The internal batter blocks its view from the inside, thus rendering its
original function obsolete. Could it have had a defensive function at one time?
There is evidence on the outer face of the W wall for three recesses, c.2.2m above
ground level and spaced 1.5m apart. Resembling joist-holes, these features may
mark a floor level for a building, which incorporated the W wall of the church in its
fabric (see Pl.19). It is not necessary to view the apparently-reversed window ope in
strictly military terms. This is a church after all and it may have had a purpose as a
peer-hole for hermits or sick people who could not enter inside the chapel during
sermons. This would clarify the construction of a small wooden building to this end.
However, it does not explain the existence of the internal wall. One may argue that it
was built at a later date to strengthen the outer wall and to close up the embrasure,
or it may well have been constructed in response to the changing internal structure
Page | 31
of the church either. Further detailed analysis, with perhaps an excavation to this end
of the church would go a long way to clarifying some of the enigmatic functions of
these two features.
Pl. 17 W wall inner batter wall (JMD) Pl.18 W wall outer embrasure (JMD)
Pl.19 Outer view of ivy-covered W wall (JMD)
Page | 32
The interior of the church is strewn with boulders and patches of rubble, particularly
along the N wall and in front of the doorway in the SW corner. There are no
architectural features present although Davies (1946, 78) records the existence of a
window-finial that resembles the head of a bishop with miter. He does not indicate its
exact location but, under present scrutiny, it is suggested to have been situated over
the E wall window ope. Davies accounts that it probably dates to the early Gothic
period (c.14th century) because it is primitive and un-stylised in character. This
therefore means the church may pre-date the building of the tower-house and may
well have been the ‘Doiremelle Abbey’ mentioned in the monastic records (Gwynn
and Haddock, 380).
3.2.3 Church enclosure and adjacent buildings

The church is enclosed by a low earthen bank (int. H 0.3m) 10m to the E and by a
slight stone and earth bank (int. H 0.2m) with a pronounced internal ditch (0.4m
deep) 15m to the W. A 2m high escarpment edges off 12m to the N of the church but
there is no evidence of an enclosure here. The E bank curves round towards the SE
corner of the church, where it stops short of the fallen walls of a small building (see
Pl.20). The remains of a farmstead are located in the area S of the church and would
appear to incorporate the small building (possibly an out-house), a house building,
masonry walls and even the S wall of the church into an enclosed farmyard. The
area is indicated as being in use in the late 19th and early 20th century by the OS 6”
maps from that time and also by a photograph from July 1903 by Hubert .T. Knox
(RSAI negative 40/31). The maps show an enclosed area extending from the W of
the church along to the SE corner where there are two buildings hachured. This is
illustrated better in the photograph, with neat field walls indicated around the church
and the main farm building having a thatch roof and the out-house being roofless. A
footpath is marked on the map leading into the enclosure from the W and a well is
marked N of the church. The footpath is still evident at present marked by a slightly
raised bank (4.4m wide near church enclosure), while the well (or spring) is still
apparently flowing.
The main building of this later settlement is located 14m to the SE of the church and
is divided into two chambers by a single standing wall (2m high). It has architectural
evidence on either side for fireplaces and an entrance joins each chamber to the N
Page | 33
(0.6m wide). The outer walls have collapsed and are defined by a rectangular
structure (4.5m wide, 9.5m long and 0.8m thick). To the E of the church, there is
partial ground remains for another rectangular building (4.5m x 5m ext) with no
internal division and a possible entrance in its E wall. The SE corner of the church
and the SW corner of this building are joined by a wall (0.7m thick) with an entrance
near the latter corner (0.76m wide). This was once either a small barn or an
outhouse for livestock.
Pl. 20 Slight bank at E end of church (JMD)
3.2.4 Earthworks
Near the top of the hillock overlooking the church, tower house and crannog to the
SW, a grass-covered sub-circular enclosed ringfort is located and defined by an
intermittently visible stone spread and large facing-stones (see Pl.21). The area
measures 19.5m N-S and 21.5m E-W. From SW to E, the wall has collapsed and
survives as a scarp ranging in external height from 0.4m to 1.1m and in thickness
from 1.4m to 2.2m. There are visible remains for the wall foundation to S (running for
Page | 34
6m) and there are large boulders lying freely to the SW, N and NE. These may well
have been carried here for farming purposes in recent times. The largest of these is
located close to a rubble pile to the N and measures 3.2m wide, 0.9m high and
0.56m thick. A rectangular depression occurs in the ground to the boulder’s internal
side (3.5m long and 3m wide), which suggests that this may have been the entrance
area. Externally and to the W of this feature there appears a bank (2.3m wide) that
extends northwards from the enclosure wall on a downward slope. It is probable that
a wall enclosed the whole perimeter of the ringfort at one time, therefore indicating it
as a cashel. This is not implausible since the availability of rock from a nearby quarry
(located to the NW corner of the field) catered for raw materials; a feature that was
no doubt factored into the building of the church and tower-house also.
Pl. 21 Ringfort on hillock overlooking Lough Melvin (JMD)
The field that surrounds the ringfort and the church at the bottom of the slope has
slight visible remains of several field banks and enclosures. Most have been leveled
or else heavily tracked by modern farming activity. The OS 2nd edition maps indicate
the presence of 16 enclosed spaces in this now open-field pasture. A farmstead is
indicated as being in use at the current entrance of the field (to the W of the ringfort),
and the afore-mentioned footpath leads from here to the church and its adjacent
buildings. There is also another well/spring marked along this footpath c.100m short
of the church.
Page | 35
To the E of the church near the shoreline, there is a record of another earthwork
(Moore, 158), rectangular in shape and marked by two parallel banks with rounded
corners on the OS maps. It is almost completely leveled at present with only the faint
remains of an earthen bank (2m long and 4.2m wide) and an external fosse on its W
side, close to a modern field wall. The wall dissects its S bank near to the SW
corner, which appears to be rounded. It is only 17m away from the church at this
point and even closer to the church enclosure. Its E side can be deciphered on aerial
photographs as a similar bank with rounded a SE corner. In previous records, its N
side also apparently had traces of a bank and was defined by a beach along the
lakes edge (Davies c.1944). This was probably eroded away in time by the lake’s
waves.
There are other earthworks too that have been determined from the aerial
photographs (OSI). A large, sub-rectangular enclosure appears to be located
between the church remains and the enclosure to the S of it. This is not indicated on
the OS maps and therefore could be dated to before the 19th century, possibly
contemporary with a late medieval date. The enclosure around the church is also
clearly defined in the photographs, as is another conjoined c-shaped example to the
W of it (see drawing no.5 in appendix II). This would appear to be the boundary
marked by a wall in the SMR photographs mentioned above and would correspond
with the OS maps also.
Page | 36
4. Discussion of results and conclusions
4.1 Dating of tower-house

It is generally accepted that tower-houses first began to be built in Ireland in the late
14th century by men of Anglo-Norman descent (Cairns 1987, 9; O’Conor, 25).
However, the majority of these would seem to date to the 15th and 16th centuries,
when they had become a familiar stronghold of the Gaelic Irish chieftains, having
been adapted from Anglo-Norman milieu. The surviving evidence of fifty-nine
masonry castles in the Breifne area (Cavan and Leitrim), suggests that these
buildings played an important role in the establishment of lordships in the region
(McCarthy, 118). It has been highlighted recently that sufficient evidence exists for at
least six Gaelic tower-houses being built in the 15th and 16th century by the
O’Rourke’s and their sub-lords in the north-west Breifne region (McDermott, 96).
The first historical record for a fortress functioned by the MacClancys in Dartry is
indicated in 1421. The word ‘castle’ is used in the annals to describe the stronghold
and this is believed to be the tower-house at Rosclogher (See Historical
background). However, it may be argued that the crannog, upon which the tower
house was built, is the ‘fortress’ in question and a more primitive garrison was most
likely held here at the time, later being incorporated into a stronger three-storey
building. Post and wattle defenses have been discovered at many crannog sites
dating to the high medieval period (AD1100-1350) (Fredengren 2002, 243-5) and
there is even a record for a defended crannog in the Breifne region at Belhavel
Lough, located c.30km south of Rosclogher dating to 1247 (Ui Ruairc, 26).
The dating of construction at Rosclogher may be understood better in the context of

other castles’ constructions in the area during the late medieval period. Bundrowes,
for example was erected by O’Connor in 1420, while the castle at Ballyshannon was
commenced three years later by the O’Donnells. A trend of castle-building was then
clearly being established in the region and it is therefore probable that it was around
this time that Rosclogher was initially constructed. The scant architectural remains of
the castle do indicate a similar date. Examples of punch-dressed stones found in the
surrounding rubble on the crannog is indicative of tower-houses from the 15th and
16th century (see fig. 9-11). A gun-loop is also evident in the single outer wall of the
Page | 37
castle and these usually indicate a 16th century date (Cairns, 17). This postulates
that the outer wall was definitely a later addition, perhaps built after the events of
1588, as was discussed earlier.
4.2 The impact of geographical setting

The rugged terrain that characterizes the topography of the region has obviously
influenced and shaped the way in which society and economy was functioned in the
past. It would appear that factors relating to the physical location of Rosclogher were
at the forefront of the castle’s siting arrangements. Firstly, it was located on a lake
and was efficiently protected from potential attacks and plunder. From there, it could
access, by boat, other islands on the lake for further protection and refuge. The lake
too provided resource in water and in fishing and could be used as a communication
route to the ocean (via the Drowes) and to other lakes (via the County River). The
waters would have been communicated by log-boat vessels, as indicated by the
annal records (see Historical background) and also, by the recent discovery of a
dug-out canoe in the lake-bed close to the castle (see appendix I).
Secondly, Rosclogher was in proximity to wild mountain country and usually upland
pastures like this was utilised as summer grazing for cattle in Gaelic Ireland
(O’Conor, 95). A field system, enclosure and several hut sites exist in the townland
of Gorteendarragh overlooking Rosclogher further south and although described as
prehistoric (Moore, 39) it is of current opinion that this may actually be the late
medieval ‘booley’ settlement of the MacClancys. Further analysis of this site is
required to justify this (see Future Recommendations). Mountain landscapes were
not only used as a seasonal retreat for livestock but were also strategically used as a
refuge in times of trouble. De Cuellar claims that the natives fled with their cattle to
the ‘mountains and woods’ when word was spread that an army of English soldiers
were on their way to Rosclogher in 1588 (Allingham and Crawford, 34). Swift flight
into the fastnesses of the mountains was desirable in turbulent times and in the
minds of the people, it was these inhospitable places that acted for them as a source
of protection and security rather than the castle. In other words, the rough terrain
was a source of strength for its inhabitants.
Page | 38
4.3 Functions of tower-house and church

The surviving remains of the tower-house at Rosclogher limits the amount one can
assess in terms of its constructional design. Only the east and south walls survive to
their original heights, while the north and west sides climb to just below first floor
level. The structural arrangement of the ground floor can be partially determined by
internal walls that would have partitioned this level into two rooms. The room to the
south may have served as a cooking area, if the embrasure in the south wall is
interpreted as a type of hearth. The adjacent room appears to be more spacious and
most likely served as the main entrance/lobby area since the north-east corner is
interpreted as the doorway. It is lighted by a large window ope in the north wall and
there may well have been access to a staircase somewhere in this area, possibly in
the south-east corner, where a raised area climbing to first floor level exists.
Usually the living quarters were located in the upper floors of the tower and this is
indicated by the presence of an impressive splayed window light in the south wall at
first floor level. This would have granted substantial light to a room at this end, most
likely a dining room for the lord and his vassals, who would have been afforded a
clear view of activities on the mainland directly to the south. The second floor is
represented by a small mural passage and window ope in the east wall and it is a
reasonable assumption to interpret this as the lords private chambers; incorporating
his bedroom quarters with a garderobe.
The general character of the castle can be described as utilitarian and domestically
functional and it is only by the outer wall that we have definite evidence of defensive
features. The internal raised platform and gun loop indicate that it was built to guard
the castle from the nearest shore to the south, possibly at a later phase when more
turbulent times demanded for it. It remains to be seen whether a wall surrounded the
whole tower at one time, but the stone flagging around the crannog does suggest a
leveled area for walking around it. The location of the doorway entrance in the east
wall may have had defensive motivations in that it does not face directly towards the
landward side but instead faces out across the lake to the east, sheltering the lord
from a potential attack from the reachable shore as he left the tower. The concern of
the builders here may also have been to shelter from prevailing winds coming from
the west.
Page | 39
The role of the tower-house can be analysed in two measures. Firstly it acted as a
private and domestic residence for the MacClancy chief and his family and secondly
it served as a symbolic embodiment of the surrounding lordship of Dartry. Privately,
the chief and his family could live in the tower day to day, probably relying on
servants for cooking, cleaning etc. Publicly, the tower would almost certainly be used
by the chief and his kinsmen for administrate purposes and/or feasts, as was the
Gaelic tradition. For the vassals and peasants that populated the settlement on the
shore, the fact that the tower was located in full view meant that it physically and
symbolically represented the power of their lordship. Rosclogher was where the
wider landscape of Dartry was controlled from, politically and economically. In that
knowledge, these people had confidence in their chief, and it is with little doubt that a
relative population formed around these shores of Lough Melvin in the 15th and 16th
centuries.
The church on the shore provided the chief and his people with a sacred space
where they could practice their faith. Its historical and architectural connection to the
castle is prominent. De Cuellar mentions it 1588 and exclaims that many repositories
were housed in it. It is of little surprise that the most valuable ornaments of their
possession would be kept in religious buildings as it was here where they conducted
worship through sermons every day and believed they would be protected. Their
feeling of resentment and anger against the English in the late 16th century was
compounded by the destruction of churches and monasteries across the country by
their armies, and for this reason, the repositories were moved into the tower-house
for safekeeping when trouble threatened and they had abandon the settlement.
In short, the church represented the chief’s wealth as well as the people’s belief.
Although, it was physically more connected to the people who lived on the mainland,
it was in a position that faced out towards the castle and was encountered on the
pathway to the shore, where presumably there was a boat-quay with boats to access
the crannog. Architecturally, the church was fashioned in similar styles to the tower-
house. It did not have extremely intricate details, only containing one possible
decorated finial and a large slit window with basic arching, and it was quite small in
medieval church terms. This is because it was a private church for the MacClancy
Page | 40
clan and their people in Rosclogher (there are several other churches in the region
as mentioned previously) and therefore accommodated for a small population. The
features in the west wall are enigmatic and certainly demand further analysis. They
do however represent the various building phases in the church over the years,
potentially extending from the 9th century AD to the 19th/early 20th century when it
was incorporated into a farmyard enclosure.
4.4 Social and political structure

There are not many facts that can be discussed under this heading since the
evidence is so inconclusive, but it can be stated however that Rosclogher was the
setting for much social and political activity during the late medieval period and
possibly before. It was one of many lordship centres in the West Breifne area that
was subordinate to the O’Rourke dynasty and one of the most remarkable details of
Rosclogher was that it functioned as a Gaelic complex for little under two hundred
years (c.1421-c.1603), possibly extending back further to the 12th and 13th century,
when the crannog had been initially built. This can be directly attributed to their
relationship with, and knowledge of the physical landscape. When large bodies of
soldiers were to attack, the high peaks of Dartry were more accommodating to the
people than the exposed lowlands on the shores of Lough Melvin. The tower-house
was therefore designed only to withstand small-scale attack and protect the chief
from potential assassination attempts by jealous kinsmen or aggravated neighbours.
Hierarchy at Rosclogher was determined through cattle raiding and succession

disputes that involved petty feuding among the MacClancys themselves and their
neighbours in the adjoining lordships. Evidently, the MacClancys were a wealthy
clan, maintaining both a large semi-defended residence at Rosclogher and a
secondary hilltop tower-house at Duncarbry. The islands and crannogs of Lough
Melvin and the area around the Dartry Mountains were most likely under their
lordship too and no doubt generated much wealth in terms of cattle production. The
renowned fishing resources of the lake and adjoining rivers may well have added to
this body of wealth too. Rosclogher castle was an embodiment of their prosperity
and the location of a private church and a small nucleated settlement of straw huts
and farm enclosures in its vicinity were a testimony to the MacClancys substantiation
of power throughout the late medieval period.
Page | 41
Future Recommendations
It is hoped that the significance of Rosclogher has been highlighted by the work of
this survey and field report. It is in many people’s opinion a remarkable
archaeological site, and one that is imbued with all the hallmarks of late medieval
Gaelic life; religion, agriculture, feuding, feasting and transhumance. The tower-
house, church and ringfort are the visible standing remains of the lordship centre, but
as evidenced by the deterioration of their condition and the complete clearing of the
field walls over the last 100 years or so, they may not remain standing for much
longer unless some level of preservation is established. I would recommend that the
tower-house be cleared of the ivy that covers and conceals its upper floor features,
because only until then, will a better appreciation be endowed by people who visit
and photograph the site. The area forms part of the ‘de Cuellar’ heritage trail set up
in 1988 and is located off the beaten-track, away from most main roads. As a
thought, sign-posts could be updated with new information and re-erected at
appropriate points to lead people who are interested to its quaint location by the lake.
In terms of further research, there is much merit in carrying out more survey work at
the site and even further afield. In this regard, excavation and geophysical analysis is
desirable. There is a clear indication of leveled earthworks around the ringfort and
church from the aerial photographs, and the potential of geophysics showing up and
better defining their structure is very high. Excavation along the western side of the
church would be an exceptional help too, as it may well provide the discovery of wall
foundations and other possible links to the construction of the church. The complex
of hut sites at Gorteendarragh, as mentioned already, has a potential link to the
Rosclogher lordship and a topographical/geophysical survey would go a long way to
clarifying this link and indicate whether they are booley huts or not. It is envisioned
that with some further analysis and study of Rosclogher and its associated sites, we
can better understand the socio-economic world that the Gaelic Irish inhabited.
Page | 42
Acknowledgments
This project was first initiated from a MA thesis by JJ McDermott, when it was
envisioned that further survey work be done on the late medieval castle sites in north
Co. Leitrim. The thesis was supervised by Kieran O’Conor at NUI, Galway and it was
agreed that we would both produce an in-depth archaeological survey on the
lordship complex at Rosclogher at some stage in the future. Having been successful
in our application to The Heritage Council for funding, we embarked on the project in
March 2009. I commend The Heritage Council in seeing the potential of this site and
thank them for their generous funding. Thanks to Rory McNeary and his colleagues
from the Centre of Maritime Archaeology, University of Ulster, Coleraine; Colin
Breen, Wes Forsythe and Kieran Westley for conducting an underwater survey of the
lake-bed around the castle and crannog. Thanks also to Joe Fenwick of NUI,
Galway, who helped out with the total station recording and the digitising of site
plans, and to Eoghan O’Conor for helping out throughout the survey as well. Chris
Corlett of the National Monuments Service must also be thanked for bringing
attention to the 1903 photo of the site by H.T. Knox. Finally, thanks to the landowner
of the site, Damian Foley for granting us permission to carry out the survey on his
land.
*Note: An article based on the historical background and the survey of the lordship centre was
submitted to a local annual, The Leitrim Guardian by JJ McDermott for their 2010 publication
in order to highlight the project to the wider public. A talk based on the same subject is also
anticipated to be given by the same at the Glens Centre, Manorhamilton in December 2009 as
part of an acting workshop based on Captain de Cuellar. An application for funding of a related
project in nearby Gorteendarragh has also been submitted to the Heritage Council for 2010.
______________ ______________
KIERAN D. O’CONOR JOHN J. MCDERMOTT
Dept. of Archaeology Sorrelfield House
National University of Ireland, Lissinagroagh
Galway Manorhamilton
Co.Leitrim
Page | 43
Bibliography
Abbreviations
AFM J. O’Donovan (ed.) 1848-51 The Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by

the Four Masters, from the earliest period to the year 1616. (7 vols.)
Dublin.
ALC W.M. Hennessy (ed.) 1871 The Annals of Loch Ce: A chronicle of Irish
affairs 1014-1690. (2 vols.) London.
Breifne Journal of Cumann Seanchas Breifne.
Cal. SP Calendar of State Papers relating to Ireland. (24 vols.) London
(1860-1911).
C. Survey R.C. Simington (ed.) 1931-61 The Civil Survey, AD 1654-6. (10 vols.)
Dublin.
JACAS Journal of the Ardagh and Clonmacnoise Archaeological Society.
JRSAI Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland.
RSAI Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland
NMA National Monument Archive: Files LE002-014/015/016/017.
OPW Office of Public Works
OS Ordnance Survey
UJA Ulster Journal of Archaeology
Books, files and articles
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.
Andrews, J.H. (ed.) 1969 Maps of the roads of Ireland. Shannon: Irish University
Press.
Breen, C. 2005 The Gaelic Lordship of the O’Sullivan Beare: a landscape
cultural history. Dublin: Four Courts Press.
Cairns, C.T. 1987 Irish Tower Houses. A Co. Tipperary Case Study. Athlone.
Connellan, Rev. M.J. 1946 ‘The Tuatha of Brefny O Roirk elucidated’
In JACAS 2, no. 11, 26-36.
Page | 44
Corlett, C. and Potterton, M. (eds.) (forthcoming) Rural settlement in medieval

Ireland in the light of recent archaeological excavations. Dublin
Davies, O. c.1944 Ordnance Survey fieldwork files. Unpublished.
(Details in NMA files).
Davies, O. 1946 ‘Old Churches in the parish of Rossinver, Co. Leitrim’
In UJA 9, 76-9.
Faughnan, D. 1943 Irish Tourist Authority Survey. Unpublished.
(Details in NMA files).
Fredengren, C. 2002 Crannogs: a study of peoples interaction with lakes, with
particular reference to Lough Gara in the north-west of Ireland.
Bray: Wordwell.
Gwynn, A. and Haddock, R.N. 1970 Medieval Religious houses of Ireland.
Blackrock: Irish Academic Press.
Loeber, R. 2001 ‘An architectural history of Gaelic castles and settlements,
1370-1600’ In P.J. Duffy, D. Edwards and E. Fitzpatrick (eds) Gaelic
Ireland c.1250 - c.1650: land, lordship and settlement, 271-315. Dublin: Four
Courts Press.
Logan, J. 1971 ‘Tadg Roddy and two surveys of Co. Leitrim’.
In Breifne 4, no. 14, 318-34.
McCarthy, J. 1989-90 ‘The importance of the tower-house in the late medieval
society of Breifne’ In Breifne 8, no. 1, 118-35.
MacCuarta, B. (ed.) 1999 ‘Leitrim Plantation Papers. 1620-1622’
In Breifne 9, No.35, 114-39
McDermott, J. 2007 An archaeological landscape study of late medieval castles
in north-west Breifne. Unpublished MA thesis, NUI, Galway.
Mac an Ghalloglaigh, an t-athair D. 1962 ‘Brian O’Rourke in the late sixteenth
century’ In Breifne 3, no. 9, 55-99.
Mac an Ghalloglaigh, an t-athair D. 1966 ‘Sir Frederick Hamilton’
In Breifne 3, no. 9, 55-99.
Mac an Ghalloglaigh, an t-athair D. 1971 ‘Leitrim 1600-1641’.
In Breifne 4, no. 14, 225-54.
McNeary, R. and Shanahan, B. 2005 Medieval settlement, society and land-use
in the Roscommon area, an introduction. Discovery Programme Reports 7.
Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.
Page | 45
M’Parlan, M.D. 1802 Statistical Survey of the County Leitrim. Dublin.

McNeill, T.E. 1997 Castles in Ireland: feudal power in a Gaelic world. London:
Routledge.
Manning, C. 1989-90 Clough Oughter Castle. In Breifne 8, no. 1, 20-61.
Moore, M.J. (compiler) 2003 Archaeological Inventory of County Leitrim. Dublin:
Stationary Office.
Nicholls, K.W. 2003 Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland in the Middle Ages. Dublin:
Lilliput Press.
O’Conor, K.D. 1998 The archaeology of medieval rural settlement in Ireland.
Discovery Programme Monographs 3. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.
O’Flanagan, Rev. M. (compiler) 1929 Letters containing information relative to
the antiquities of the counties of Cavan and Leitrim collected during the
progress of the Ordnance Survey in 1836. Bray: Typescript.
O’Keeffe, T. 2000 Medieval Ireland: an archaeology. Gloucestershire: Tempus.
Parker, C. and O’Donovan, P. 2007 ‘The castle at Castlerahan, County Cavan’
In C. Manning (ed.) From ringforts to fortified houses: studies on castles and
other monuments in honour of David Sweetman. Dublin: Wordwell.
Pinkman, Rev. J. 1942 Some Place Names in Co. Leitrim.
In JACAS 11, no. 8, 34-46.
Sweetman, P.D. 1995 Irish Castles and Fortified Houses. Dublin: Country
House.
Sweetman, P.D. 1999 Medieval Irish Castles. Cork: Collins Press.
Swift, M. 1999 Historical Maps of Ireland. London: Parkgate Books.
Ui Ruairc, D. 1993 O’Rourke Strongholds of Breifne. Sligo: Sligo Champion.
Page | 46

Rosclogher Field Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rosclogher Field Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Field Survey

Rosclogher Field Report 2009

3. Survey of archaeological monuments and surrounds 23

4. Discussion of results and conclusions 37

Fig. 1 Location map of Rosclogher in north-west Ireland

1.2 Timeline and methodology

March—April 2009 Desktop survey

1.3 Location maps and RMP information

Fig. 1 Location of Rosclogher in north-west Ireland

Fig. 2 Location of Rosclogher in north County Leitrim

1.4 Previous Research

2.1 A history of ‘Dartry MacClancy’ 1241 - 1603AD

In 1568, Bundrowes, then occupied by the O’Donnells was granted to Donald

The events of 1588 are recounted in a personal diary by Captain Francisco de

2.2 A brief history of the church at Rosclogher

2.3 Captain de Cuellar at Rosclogher Castle in 1588

De Cuellar also comments that a ‘town, established on the mainland’ is surrounded

Fig. 7 Contour map of Dartry region showing archaeological sites

3. Survey of archaeological monuments and surrounds

3.1 Physical landscape description

3.2 Archaeological and architectural descriptions

3.2.1 Tower-house and crannog

Pl. 5 Western side of tower-house and crannog (JMD)

Pl. 6 South wall embrasure (ground floor) [above]

Pl. 7 South wall window ope (first floor)

Pl. 8 External view of outer wall (JMD)

Pl. 9 Internal view of outer wall (JMD)

[from left to right]

3.2.2 Ecclesiastical remains

Pl. 13 North side of church ruin (JMD)

Pl.14 E wall window ope (JMD) Pl. 15 Features in SE corner (JMD)

Pl.16 Outer view of possible doorway in S wall (JMD)

Pl.19 Outer view of ivy-covered W wall (JMD)

3.2.3 Church enclosure and adjacent buildings

Pl. 20 Slight bank at E end of church (JMD)

Pl. 21 Ringfort on hillock overlooking Lough Melvin (JMD)

4. Discussion of results and conclusions

4.1 Dating of tower-house

The dating of construction at Rosclogher may be understood better in the context of

4.2 The impact of geographical setting

4.3 Functions of tower-house and church

4.4 Social and political structure

Hierarchy at Rosclogher was determined through cattle raiding and succession

AFM J. O’Donovan (ed.) 1848-51 The Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by

Books, files and articles

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

Corlett, C. and Potterton, M. (eds.) (forthcoming) Rural settlement in medieval

M’Parlan, M.D. 1802 Statistical Survey of the County Leitrim. Dublin.

You might also like