Indicated — Carrignavar, Ballyhesty

S of Carrignavar village, c. 20m downriver from c. 1820 bridge in use today. Remains of possible 17th-century bridge, crossing the Cloghnagashee river, which serves as the boundary between Carrignavar and Ballyhesty townlands, so that the N half of the bridge is in Carrignavar, and the S half of the bridge is in Ballyhesty. The bridge was first reported to NMS by Mary Ryan.   The bridge is oriented NNE-SSW. It is in a ruinous state and currently used as a footbridge, but it used to be the main bridge crossing, and is locally known as ‘the old bridge’. The new bridge was built in the 1820s, together with a new road going in a hairpin shape around the hill to the S of the river, known as ‘Chapel Hill’, which is also where the old village was located (Ó Donnchadha 1946). When the new bridge was built in the early 19th century, a new village developed to the N of the river, with a new church, school and constabulary barracks. According to Mary Ryan (pers. comm.) the old bridge was the link with the old castle and mansion house of the McCarthys of Carrignavar, which was part of the vast estates of the McCarthys, Lords of Muskerry and Earls of Clancarty. A ‘Court of Poetry’ flourished in the area during the first half of the 18th century, under the patronage of the Spáinneach McCarthys, and  across the ‘Old Bridge’ was the tavern of Seán Ó Broin, where the Court of Poetry is said to have convened.   The remains of the bridge consist of a triple-arched structure (L 10m; Wth 5.62m). The arches survive almost complete, though sections of the central arch to the E and W have collapsed, and the bridge carriageway from the top of the arches, including the parapets, is all but gone. Only a narrow, relatively overgrown path now allows access across the bridge. In the spring and summer time, the vegetation along the banks of the river make the bridge elevations almost completely invisible, and the bridge isn’t visible at all down from the new bridge, as it is during winter time. This dense vegetation, if it is not brought under control, may cause further collapse of masonry.   The bridge is built of roughly coursed rubble masonry. It has triangular but uncapped cutwaters upriver (Wth 0.76m; H 0.94 to 0.96m), while there is none downriver, though rectangular stone bases visible in the water indicate that they may have existed downriver too. The river level is very low, but it is relatively fast flowing, and the triangular upriver cutwaters, together with the visible quality of the work (despite the use of uncut stones), support the view that this was a bridge intended to last and to support substantial traffic, which would have been the case if it was part of a local route to and from Cork city. The relatively large width of the bridge is another indication of its – at least local – significance: while the carriageway does not survive, the piers are 5.62m wide; allowing for parapets between 0.50 to 1m (though they are unlikely to have been that wide) in width, the road itself would have been between 3.62 and 4.62m wide. The average width of bridges in Ireland in the 17th century was 4m, increasing to 5.5m in the 18th century (O’Keeffe and Simington, revised edition 2016, 98) – Carrignavar could have therefore been on the larger side, and may have allowed for traffic of single-horse drawn carriages coming from both direction to cross at the same time. Another indication of the existence of the bridge at least in the early 18th century and the relative importance of the road and crossing there is its inclusion on the Moll map of 1714, which shows the ‘principal roads’ of Ireland.   The bridge’s three arches are semi-circular; the central arch (H 2.71m; Wth c. 3.84m) is taller and wider than the arches on either side (H c. 2m; Wth 2.33m), indicating that the carriageway was hump-backed. The fact that nothing survive of the parapets and of the road itself, however, make it difficult to judge how pronounced the hump would have been. The arches rest on low piers (H c. 0.95m), the top of which is offset by c. 005 to 0.008m, creating a narrow ledge that continues on all around the central piers and along the side piers. Sections of the central arches have collapsed; to the W, a section of the S half of the arch (c. 1.20m NS by 1.90m EW), and to the E, a larger portion of the N half of the arch (2.5m NS by c. 2m EW) as well as most of the voussoirs (except at the springing points) are gone. The arches voussoirs are thin, uncut and set on edge, and, together with the higher central arch, suggest a 17th-century date for the construction of the bridge. Mary Ryan (pers. comm.) proposes that it is similar in construction to the Cromwell bridges of the late 16th and 17th century, such as Glengariffe bridge, which was originally a five-arched bridge, but of which only a single arch survives. According to local information, Carrignavar bridge is believed to have originally had five arches too. While it was not possible to determine whether further arches did exist due to vegetation and moss, the E face of the bridge at the S end continues on and suggests it is at least possible a further arch existed.   There is no evidence that the structure as it stands was ever widened. However, a wall extending off the bridge at the N end, clearly abutting the structure, and wall footing at S end, both on the downriver side, could have supported an extension, which may have been added at some point before it was finally decided to build a larger new bridge upriver. To the S of the bridge, an overgrown length of wall extends in a SSE direction, which may have been originally supporting the road coming onto the bridge from the Chapell Hill, where the village was located, and continuing S towards Cork city.   Compiled by: Anne-Julie Lafaye