Barrow in Killagh

No surface remains visible of levelled site. Monument described in 1977 as following; 'Not marked on current 6 inch [OS] map. A circular round topped mound of earth and stone. It is grass covered but where it is slightly defaced in places many stones are visible. These are about 20cms in diameter. There is no visible trace of a fosse. There is no visible trace of a kerb. Sited on the top of a prominent natural rise of gently undulating land of good pasture. Good views of surrounding countryside. The X marked by me on the current 6 inch [OS] map is the accurate site of the mound. Diameter from lower edge 9m. Height of mound 1.40m. Profile to be measured E-W’ (ASI Field Report 16/05/1977). A second report in 1981 described the monument as following; 'Situated on a prominent rise in gently undulating good pasture. Not marked on 6” sheet [OS map]. The site is a barrow of earth and stones partially denuded to reveal some of the stone particularly at the base perhaps where they may have formed a slight kerb. These stones measure 20-25cm in diameter and appear to be of local shale. The mound is round topped and grass covered, measuring 9m in diameter and rising to a height of 1.5m from the lower edge. Due to the undulating nature of the pasture and the erosion of the lower limits of the mound, it is difficult to say exactly where the edge of the barrow is especially on the North and East. There is no trace of an external fosse or bank [recorded as profiled but no measured profile in file]’ (ASI Field Report 21/08/1981). Monument surveyed in 2015 and described by McGuinness (2015, 53-4) as following: ‘Monument appears to have been destroyed: nothing was visible to the present survey-team where it was clearly located by the ASI, and the land has been recently ploughed. Fortunately there are two descriptions of the site by different ASI fieldworkers. The ‘slight kerb’ of the second account must be treated with suspicion in view of the definitive statement to the contrary in the first account. Given the absence of a ditch, the suggested classification of this monument as a bowl-barrow cannot be accepted; rather, it would appear to be a mound-barrow’.