Old Burying Gd. — Baunfree

Described by Ó Nualláin and Cody (1987, 74-6) as consisting of, 'a ruined megalithic chamber within a circular orthostatic kerb, concentric to and just inside which there are seven stones of what may have been an inner kerb, all on a grass-grown round mound. The northern outline of the mound is obscured by a length of field bank abutting it which was left undisturbed during land clearance. The mound measures 23.5m east-west and was perhaps a little in excess of that in the north-south direction. It is approximately lm high and extends from 3m to 6m beyond the kerb, the greater distance at the west which is slightly downhill from the site. Though grass-grown, it is felt to be stony and somewhat uneven underfoot. A more markedly uneven surface close to where it abuts the west end of the field bank might have been caused by heaping land clearance spoil here, though this is not certain. Thirty stones (hatched on plan) of the encircling kerb survive in situ and define a space 14m to 15m in diameter. Though there are now notable gaps in the kerb at the west, south-west and north, and lesser ones elsewhere, it does seem that the close-spaced stones of the intact run at the south most closely resembles the original state of the monument. There is a doubling of the kerb at the south-west effected by placing a single stone outside and overlapping two others. The original extent of the inner setting is not known. Five of the seven stones are set end-to-end at the south-east, another is 4m to the north and the seventh isolated at the north-west. They are 0.5m to 1.2m inside the encircling kerb and on a circumference which encloses a space approximately 11m in diameter. These outer and inner stones vary in height from as low as 0.2m to a maximum of 1.35m, the height, if it was not leaning somewhat to the south, of the middle of an isolated group of three contiguous set stones at the west. The stones along the approximate eastern half of the kerb are generally lower than those of the remainder. There is a sunken oval ring on the south face of the kerbstone that stands immediately alongside the single representative of the inner setting at the north-west. The ring is ill-defined, measures some 12cms across and is 1cm deep. While it may be artificially derived it is not possible to say if it is an original feature. The megalithic chamber is in the western half of the kerbed circle and some three to four metres from its circumference. Rectangular in plan, it measures approximately 2m north-south and 1-3m east-west. Six stones of the chamber are still in situ. At the east there is a large orthostat 2.lm long. 0.3m thick and 0.45m high. At right angles to its southern end there are two set stones, jamb-like in appearance. 0.25m apart, the more easterly of the two 0.75m by 0.6m and 0.4m high, and the western 0.5m by 0.35m and 0.3m high. Leaning against the southern face of the eastern of the two and touching the east face of the western is a large slab, one end embedded in the ground, measuring 1.5m by 0.7m by 0.23m thick; it would seem that this has been displaced. The ground surface here has been hollowed and the edges of two other displaced stones revealed. At the northern end of the eastern orthostat there are two overlapping slabs more or less at right angles to it. The more easterly of these, a split boulder with its flat face to the south is 0.9m long. 0.4m thick and 0.45m high and the other is 0.6m long, 0.3m thick and 0.3m high. At the north face of this last there is a small stone (not hatched on plan) 0.25m long, 0.12m thick and 0.05m high which though small is very firmly set. Parallel to and opposite the north end of the large eastern orthostat and 1-5m to the west there is a stone 0.45m long, 0.15m thick and 0.2m high. Whether the largely open west side of the chamber is due to the removal of walling or marks an entry to it is not known. There is similar uncertainty about the role of the jamb-like stones at the south which are sufficiently close together to serve as a side to the chamber and sufficiently spaced to have served as entrance features. Carrigan (1905), in the only published reference to this monument, while remarking that the megalithic chamber had all the appearance of a "giant's grave" argued, on the basis of local traditional information, that the whole was a churchyard (Carrigan 1905, vol. 4, 327-8).’ Compiled by: Paul Walsh Date of upload: 27 August 2012