Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Rathgall Hillfort

  • 04-11-2019 1:51pm
    #1
    cfuserkildare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭


    Hey folks,


    I have a question for the more knowledgable out there.


    We were down at the Rathgall Hillfort on Monday and I noticed a set of parallel upright mounted slabs in the field just to the east of the fort.
    These slabs seem to be part of a collection that surrounds a natural hollow in the field surface, and was full of water at the time.


    My question really is this,


    Is it a natural formation?, or a ritualistic feature? or something placed there by the farmer who ownes the field?


Comments

  • #2
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    cfuserkildare wrote: »
    Hey folks,


    I have a question for the more knowledgable out there.


    We were down at the Rathgall Hillfort on Monday and I noticed a set of parallel upright mounted slabs in the field just to the east of the fort.
    These slabs seem to be part of a collection that surrounds a natural hollow in the field surface, and was full of water at the time.


    My question really is this,


    Is it a natural formation?, or a ritualistic feature? or something placed there by the farmer who ownes the field?

    There is nothing of an archaeological nature recorded for that location. It’s highly unlikely that this is an oversight.
    As far as I recall, that depression always holds water.


  • #3
    cfuserkildare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭cfuserkildare


    slowburner wrote: »
    There is nothing of an archaeological nature recorded for that location. It’s highly unlikely that this is an oversight.
    As far as I recall, that depression always holds water.

    Hi Slowburner.
    After comparing older maps to current pictures it would appear that the pond feature is actually the original outer boundary remains.


Advertisement