1798 burial

slowburner

Hello all. I am trying to locate the site of a 1798 burial, very close to where I live - purely and simply so that its location can be recorded and preserved. I have no other agenda whatsoever. Local knowledge (from an area with a complex, fractious and taciturn history) has only narrowed the search to an area of about three acres, somewhere along a small stream. That's a pretty big area to search in, particularly when you consider that it's a mixture of briar, gorse and marshy ground. But it's become something of an obsession.
I can imagine that there was probably no standard way of burying casualties from 1798 and that probably each instance was unique and perhaps carried out furtively - I have no idea.
I would be deeply grateful if anyone could offer advice on the sorts of indicatorss I should be on the lookout for, to help narrow the search.
I'm thinking of things such as; would the site be marked with a stone or group of stones? Would the site be a depression or raised? If it was a trench, how would it be aligned?
I have come across two possible "structures" and will post pictures when it dries out a bit and if anyone is interested.
Thanks for your interest.

boneless

PM me with the location OP. I may be able to help you out here. Political landscapes are a subject I have a bit of experience with.

shanew

as far as I understand it the 6" maps are 1st edition OSI, which were surveyed between the late 1820s and the early 1840s. The 25" maps are dated about 1890.


S.

Antigonus

I think the first Edition Os vary in date (according to the County and Sheet) from the early 1830s to the mid 1840s and the 25 inch OS vary over a considerable period as well.

There are not necessarily any standard indicators for a site like this, which may not have been a formal burial, or formally marked. Any indicators may have been removed by subsequent agricultural impacts. It might be worth seeking out more contemporary source material. The National Archives holds a series of rebellions papers but I am unsure whether they would detail something of this nature. An alternative would be the Schools Folklore Collection held in the Folklore department of UCD. This consisted of the reports compiled by children from conversations with relatives about folklore in their area; it was undertaken around 1937-38. It can contain surprisingly useful and very detailed descriptions of possible sites - recorded in oral tradition - that aren't necessarily listed in the Record of Monuments and Places. I have found material within that isn't recorded elsewhere but correlates with other historical sources. Local landowners might remember traditions of particular fields containing burials.

http://www.ucd.ie/irishfolklore/en/schoolsfolklorescheme1937-38/

slowburner

Many thank Antigonus. New avenues to explore!

slowburner

Would anyone know what the D-shaped structure at the centre of the image at this link is? There are three of them in the locality. As mentioned above, all of them have disappeared in the 1890 maps. Could they have been some kind of cattle enclosure?
The enclosure, although absent from the 1890s survey was 'respected' when the area was planted with forestry in 2000. I visited the site recently. There is no access - a hands and knees job through the dense canopy! It was a strange experience to come upon this unexplained, unmarked clearing in the forest. Nobody I spoke to locally knew of its existence.
I would really appreciate your opinions.
[Embedded Image Removed]

Antigonus

It is probably an Early Medieval (c. 400-1200) enclosure. There have been some recent works suggesting 'plectrum' or 'D-shaped' enclosures are a new class of monument distinct from ringforts, but the evidence is a little bit dubious:

http://www.excavations.ie/Pages/Search.php?year=&county=&site_no=&site_name=&site_type=&report_text=plectrum&author=&grid_ref=&smr_no=&excavation_license_no=&Submit=Do+Search

http://www.wordwellbooks.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=1451&category_id=2&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=10


http://ria.metapress.com/content/4204384835pu7634/

The short answer is that these sites are probably similar to ringforts; however without excavation it is impossible to closely date. It seems possible that this site may have been originally circular and a portion might have been straightened by the insertion of the field boundary. It doesn't look remarkably large nor is there evidence of multi-vallation - multiple concentric enclosures, so there is nothing immediately to suggest it is a high-status site, though again excavation could reveal additional features.

slowburner

Many thanks again Antigonus for your reply.
It's quite exciting to think that they might be medieval or possibly late iron age. But I am perplexed for a few reasons.

First, (and this is what started me on this amateur crusade) a local person directed me roughly to the location of 2 burial sites from 1798. Two of the enclosures match the reputed locations very well.

Second, there are 4 of these plectrum shaped enclosures in fairly close proximity and all are one intersected by one wall. There is also a well documented cashel in the vicinity which has not been intersected. Would it not be more likely that they were constructed later and abutted the wall?

Third, why would the site have been respected in contemporary land use if it dated back as far as the medieval period. Would you not think that knowledge of its whereabouts would have vanished into the mists of time?

Antigonus

@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } First, (and this is what started me on this amateur crusade) a local person directed me roughly to the location of 2 burial sites from 1798. Two of the enclosures match the reputed locations very well.

It is quite possible that an earlier enclosure was used for burials in/post 1798. You probably know about Cillins; these are burial grounds for unbaptised infants. These frequently re-used ringfort enclosures or even deserted church sites. Those dealing with 1798 burials were presumably not permitted by the authorities, or lacked the time, to give the bodies formal burial in a graveyard; it would be logical that they would use a clearly-defined enclosure, one that because of its historical associations and its location in an area of marginal land was less likely to be disturbed by farming activities and that also possessed some enduring significance in the existing landscape. In addition landowners might have objected if they were buried in a portion of a field in regular agricultural use; I wouldn't like to be planting my crops or grazing my sheep atop a fresh burial ground. I think this more likely than the idea that those burying them constructed a sub-circular enclosure to define the burial ground.

Second, there are 4 of these plectrum shaped enclosures in fairly close proximity and all are one intersected by one wall. There is also a well-documented cashel in the vicinity which has not been intersected. Would it not be more likely that they were constructed later and abutted the wall?

Whether or not the sites were impacted upon by a later boundary could be fairly arbitrary. It depends upon the timing of enclosure and the type of land-use practised in that area. In areas of intensive tillage to the east such as Meath, Dublin etc., there are fewer recorded ringfort enclosures; though they likely exist under the surface but their surface remains have been removed/obscured by earlier and more intensive enclosure and ploughing practises. By contrast in areas of Connacht such as Roscommon etc., which were dominated by pasture in the post-medieval period, entire relict landscapes with ringforts and their adjoining and contemporary enclosures are preserved and incorporated into the later landscape, or at least are far more clearly visible. This can be applied on a micro level to the type of land use in distinct areas of a locality. It may also depends on the underlying geology. If the cashel site you are talking about was in fact a stone ringfort this may explain why it survived intact; it would presumably be more labour intensive to alter a substantial stone enclosure, rather than an earthen ringfort (rath), which could be ploughed out and/or eroded by cattle. If you want an example. an excavation in Newcastle, parish of Aughrim, County Galway exposed a substantial sub-circular enclosure that had been truncated by the insertion of a modern boundary. The original enclosure was circular (under the surface), but the OS depicted it as having a straight line along one side, where the modern field boundary had been inserted in the 17th or 18th century. By contrast, I can’t think of any site where a new sub-circular enclosure was constructed in the 18th century to house burials; I await correction on this.

Third, why would the site have been respected in contemporary land use if it dated back as far as the medieval period. Would you not think that knowledge of its whereabouts would have vanished into the mists of time?

I think I dealt with this above. There are plenty of examples of ringfort enclosures being incorporated into later field systems. It depends upon the nature of later land-use or enclosure. You’re aware of the popular aversion to destroying ‘fairy-forts’. Also the idea that ringforts disappeared as a settlement form in the 12th or 13th century is rapidly losing currency. There is ample evidence that they endured as a settlement form, or at least that the sites continued to be occupied, until the end of the later medieval period in areas of Gaelic settlement. Liz Fitzpatrick, an academic in Galway University - has a recent article in PRIA discussing their continued use. There is also some discussion of this in Kieran O'Connor's Medieval Rural Settlement book. There is cartographic evidence from Bartlett and other early modern cartographers of ringfort use into the early 17th century. I don't know enough about your specific site, but the uplands of Wicklow were still dominated by the Moores and O'Byrnes until the Early Modern period.

Antigonus

It would be interesting to know how far your enclosure was from the reputed site of the battle/massacre

Antigonus

Last post - I imagine it was respected by the forestry plantation because it is listed in the Record of Monuments and Places, the statutory list of recorded monuments (you can check this on the www.archaeology.ie website - which appears to be down at the moment). The Archaeological Inventory of Wicklow (Grogan & Kilfeather 1997, 91; Compiled by the Archaeological Survey of Ireland) describes the site as follows:

601 Knockanode

Enclosure - situated on a gentle SE-facing slope in a wheat-field, just below the crest of a NNE-SSW ridge. Marked on the 1838 OS 6-inch map as a D-shaped enclosure (dims. 50 NE-SW; 35m NW-SE). Not visible at ground level [time of visit 12-9-1990]


The Archaeological Survey examined all the Ordnance Survey maps when compiling the original Sites and Monuments Record they would have included any enclosures depicted. The sites were visited before the inventory was published. The SMR was the basis for the RMP. Coillte has a code of practise on the preservation of recorded archaeological monuments; the general idea is not to plant plantations directly atop them. The fact that it was used for tillage as late as 1990 may explain why the original enclosure was removed, though it looks like fairly marginal land.

slowburner

The site is still down unfortunately.
Not one of the four enclosures in the locality has survived.
There was a most unusual enclosure here which might be of interest to those involved with plectrum shaped enclosures.

slowburner

Antigonus wrote: »

It would be interesting to know how far your enclosure was from the reputed site of the battle/massacre

My apologies for not seeing your two previous posts (they were on the preceding page).
I think your post (no. 14) has answered everything really.

I contacted Ruan O'Donnel at UL who is an authority on the history of the 1798 rebellion in Wicklow. He was unaware of any major battles in the area at that time, but was sure there had been many minor skirmishes. The rebellion persisted here, until 1806 so it is likely that many bodies accumulated over that timespan.
The mountain due west of the hill referred to above, was the repository for the rebels' gunpowder supply. There were some well documented skirmishes there.
I think the location of the hill, which has at least three of these plectrum shaped enclosures, would fit in well as a choice of burial ground in 1798. It would have had views over some of the more significant battle grounds - Augrim, Glenmalure, Ballinaclash and possibly Arklow. The hill would certainly have been traversed many times by both rebels and the yeomanry and would probably have been of strategic importance.
You can have a look at "The Memoirs of General Joseph Holt" on Google books, if interested.

slowburner

Antigonus wrote: »

It is quite possible that an earlier enclosure was used for burials in/post 1798. You probably know about Cillins; these are burial grounds for unbaptised infants. These frequently re-used ringfort enclosures or even deserted church sites. Those dealing with 1798 burials were presumably not permitted by the authorities, or lacked the time, to give the bodies formal burial in a graveyard; it would be logical that they would use a clearly-defined enclosure, one that because of its historical associations and its location in an area of marginal land was less likely to be disturbed by farming activities and that also possessed some enduring significance in the existing landscape. In addition landowners might have objected if they were buried in a portion of a field in regular agricultural use; I wouldn't like to be planting my crops or grazing my sheep atop a fresh burial ground. I think this more likely than the idea that those burying them constructed a sub-circular enclosure to define the burial ground.

If you have a look here I very much doubt that you could see a clearer physical demonstration of your posit above.