House — prehistoric in Loughgur

National monument in state ownership No. 247. Situated on Knockadoon overlooking Lough Gur from S through W to N in an area with a rich concentration of prehistoric monuments. Square-shaped prehistoric house site adjacent to NNE side of later kerbed enclosure (LI032-022028-) with rectangular house (LI032-022011-) in centre of enclosure. Five prehistoric burials (LI032-022037-) were excavated adjacent to the square-shaped house site. Prehistoric enclosure listed in 1912 by Windle as Circle K. Recorded as House No. 1 by Ó Ríordáin who excavated the monument in 1940 (No. E000252). Square-shaped prehistoric house site which predated the kerbed enclosure (LI032-022028-) with the remains of a contemporaneous rectangular-shaped house (LI032-022011-). Prehistoric enclosure described by O'Kelly (1944, 25-6) as following; 'This is the largest circle (LI032-022028-) on Knockadoon its diameter being 102' [31m]. It is composed of two concentric rings of stones placed close together leaving an annular space between, which is filled with rubble. The entrance is on the E side. Excavation by Ó Ríordáin showed that there had been four wooden posts terminating the ends of the circle at the entrance passage'. House No. 1 was described as following; 'On north-eastern side of site, in natural, saucer-well defined but structural details were not forthcoming. The house is almost square (7.25m east/west and 6.65m north/south). On northern side plan is provided by bank of gravel, 10cm high, with irregular row of stones set on top of it. The gravel bank also occurs on eastern side but here there are no stones in situ, except at southern end where there, is a line of stones but no bank. There are also a few post-holes on northern and eastern sides. On the other two sides the walls are defined by post-holes only; they are particularly numerous on southern side. Professor Ó Ríordáin suggested in his typescript report that part of the southern wall underlay the gravel bank supporting the enclosure wall (see below), but this would mean incorporating post-holes 9-11 and 22, making the overall plan implausible, as it would have been extremely irregular on this side. Similarly Nos 3, 6 and 23 are not easily accommodated as containing major structural components, but may, like the previous three, have been auxiliary props. There are two obvious gaps in the walls, on the northern and eastern sides (1m and 1.5m wide respectively). Either may have been the original entrance. Internally a large post-pit (No. 1) and a smaller post-hole (No. 17) provided support for the roof. The discrepancy in the relative sizes of these two features is not readily explained unless the roof was higher on the northern side, in which case the entrance would have been here also. A hearth, 90cm by 60cm, in the south-western corner consisted of a 15cm deep accumulation of charcoal and burnt earth lying on a flat, much blackened projection of rock. In this area also there was an irregular floor of cobbles; throughout the rest of the house rough gravel provided the floor, apart from one limited area of paving near the southern wall. Associated with the house and extending beyond it on the northern side and beneath the gravel bank supporting the enclosure wall to the south was a layer of habitation debris up to 30cm deep. It was thicker and more homogeneous inside the house and is clearly occupation material associated with activity in the structure. The upper portion had been disturbed, perhaps when the enclosure wall was constructed or more probably at a later stage after the introduction of Beaker. At this time some Beaker pottery became incorporated in the disturbed material and sherds from other vessels were redeposited at a higher level'(341-2). The results of the 1940 excavation were summarised by Grogan as following, 'There were two main phases at Circle K, the first consisting of an unprotected house and the second of an enclosed habitation site. There was no evidence for any discontinuity or a time-lapse between the two phases. The earlier house, No. 1, and the area immediately around it were associated with western neolithic (35 per cent) and coarse flat-bottomed pottery (55 per cent). (All percentages are based on sherd counts.) While some Beaker came from this area, it was all at a high level and was almost certainly intrusive. After the house had gone out of use the enclosure wall was constructed. This necessitated the erection of a gravel bank over the hollow in which House 1 had stood to provide a level foundation for the wall of the circle. The bulk of the pottery from the wall fill, which was derived from the pre-enclosure occupation, was coarse flat-bottomed ware (93 per cent) but there pottery (6 per cent) and three sherds of Beaker, which rebuilding of the wall is evident on the northern side took place during its period of use' (Grogan et. al. 1987, 383-4). Compiled by: Caimin O'Brien Date of upload: 3 July 2018