Dermot and Grania's Bed — Doocashel Glebe

This feature was first shown on the 1847-9 edition of the OS 6-inch map. The site, alongside a gravelled roadway in a state forest, when visited in 1985 was overhung by branches and covered by briars and other undergrowth. Two set stones are visible here. These are 0.55m apart, parallel to each other and aligned almost N-S. The western one is 0.7m long, 0.2m thick and 0.8m in exposed height. The eastern one is 0.4m long, 0.2m thick and 0.4m high. At the southern end of this is a low stone with rounded top measuring c. 0.5m in maximum dimension and 0.3m in exposed height. This may also be a deliberate feature. There are a number of prostrate slabs, some quite sizeable, scattered in the surrounding undergrowth. There are two accounts of this site in OS documents. Thomas Fagan (1845-8) wrote a somewhat confused description of it. He saw it in 1845 and claimed that it was a cillín (a children's burial ground) originally enclosed by a thick stone wall within which was a gallery built of 'great slabs of stones' with other 'vaulted graves'. At the time of his visit much of the site had been cleared and the rest of it, including, apparently, the gallery feature, was covered by reclamation debris. According to Fagan, the gallery measured c. 12 feet (c. 3.65m) long and 4 feet (c. 1.2m) wide and at around mid-length there was a single roof stone 5 feet (c. 1.5m) long, 4 feet (c. 1.2m) broad and 1 foot (c. 0.3m) thick. A slightly later description of the site in an OS Revision Name Book (1847-9) reads as follows: 'This druidical monument is about 12 feet [c. 3.65m] long and 5 feet [c. 1.5m] broad. In the north end are two upright stones about 3 feet [c. 0.9m] in height and on the sides smaller stones set edgeways in the ground. The interior has been filled with rubbish gathered off the land by the occupant.' The report concludes with the observation that Fagan was in error in describing it as a cillín. The nature of the site is not apparent from the scant remains now present. The early accounts, quoted above, suggest that it may have been a megalithic tomb. Fagan 1845-8, book 2, 13; OS Revision Name Book, sheet 26 (1847-9), 47; Killanin and Duignan 1962, 181; Killanin and Duignan 1967, 191; Ó Nualláin 1983a, 47-8, no. 159; SMR 1987, 26:12; RMP 1995, 26:12. The above description was published in the 'Survey of the Megalithic Tombs of Ireland. Volume VI, County Donegal.' Compiled by: Eamon Cody (Dublin: Stationery Office, 2002). Date of upload: 22 September 2008