Fairy fort / earthen ringfort in Cush

In rough pasture, in S quadrant of an archaeological complex (LI048-034006/042-) located on the 'Supposed Site of Temaír Erann', which was the ancient cemetery of the Ernai tribe on Slievereagh (Sliabh Riabhach) (Westropp 1919, 9; Westropp 1917-19, 179; Westropp 1918, 111). Listed by Ó Ríordáin as 'Ringfort 1, Southern Group' with souterrain (LI048-034029-) in SW quadrant of interiors which stands inside a large field system (LI048-034001-), conjoined ringforts (LI048-034027/028/016/041) and ringfort (LI048-034026-) lie to the immediate E. Ringfort 1 excavated by Ó Ríordáin (1940, 88-94) between 1934-5, the results of which were described as follows; ‘It conjoins No. 3 [LI048-034027-] while No. 2 [LI048-034026-] is to the north-east of it but is not conjoined to it, there being an interval of about 14 feet [4.26m] between the fosses at their nearest point. The average internal diameter of the fort is about 58 feet [17.67m] and it’s over-all external diameter is about 30 feet [39.62m]. The defences of the fort consisted in general of a bank and fosse, the latter on the outside, with in places the remains of a much slighter outer bank. Even the inner bank was nowhere very high before excavation, having been denuded so that it showed as only a slight rise from the central area of the fort, though the existence of the fosse on the outside caused the slope to be more distinct on that side of the bank. Excavation at all points where the sections were cut across the defences showed that the fosse of the fort had been excavated to such a depth as to make it necessary for the fort-builders to cut away the under-lying red sandstone. The inner bank of the fort was of clay, there being no stone-work in its construction. The material had obviously been obtained from the fosse as was shown by the fact that we found red sandstone from the cut-away rock, in small fragments and much disintegrated, incorporated in the bank. The slight outer bank already referred to was best preserved on the south side of the fort and this proved to have a stone facing on its outer side. There were on the eastern side of the fort (which was also the higher side) traces of a slight trench inside the bank, this being evidently intended to serve the purpose of preventing the wash from the bank running on to the interior of the fort. The relation between the defences of Ring-Fort 1 and those of the enclosure at their point of contact on the north-west of the fort is interesting. Under the main (inner) bank of the Enclosure we found a trench, about 2 feet [0.6m] in depth, completely silted up, which joined the fosse of the ring-fort and had obviously acted at one time as a drainage trench to drain off the water of the fosse of the fort. Subsequent to the building of the bank of the enclosure its fosse, though it had not been cut directly into the fosse of the fort, would serve to drain the latter, and so made the drainage trench, then covered by the bank, redundant. The existence of the drainage trench is of interest, therefore, as showing definitely that the Enclosure is of later construction than Ring-Fort 1. The entrance to the ring-fort showed several interesting features. It and the entrance of No. 4 [LI048-034028-] were different from those of the other forts by reason of the surrounding fosse being continuous, a fact which indicates that the approach to the fort across the fosse must have been by means of some such structure as a wooden gangway. Inside the fosse were found two pairs of post-holes flanking the gateway, the distance between the posts in each pair being about 5½ feet [1.67m]. Leading from the inner pair of posts towards the centre of the fort for a distance of about 18 feet [5.4m] was a causeway formed by a hard bank of clay, upon which rested a series of large (average size about 2 feet [0.6m] by 1½ feet [0.45m]) stepping stones, that nearest to the centre being a rock of conglomerate about 4 feet [1.2m] by 2½ feet [0.76m] and 14 inches [0.35m] in height. The upper surface of this was considerably above that of the other stones forming the approach and if the position in which it was found was its original one, as seems likely, it cannot at any time have served as a part of the approach but may well have served the purpose of an obstruction for an unwelcome visitor. On the right-hand side (as we enter the fort) of this causeway was a dry-stone wall which extended along a distance of 15 feet [4.57m] and served as a revetment for a bank of earth on the other side of which was a souterrain [LI048-034029-]. On the left-hand side of the causeway were the remains of what had been a stone-wall revetment for the end of the bank of the ring-fort. Numerous post-holes were found within the ring-fort, these divided themselves mainly into two groups, one towards the south-east corner of the excavated area, the other in the north-west corner. The post-holes were most numerous in the former group but it was evident throughout the work on this as on the other ring-forts that we had to do with areas where habitations had been super-imposed one upon the other so as to make it extremely difficult to determine the plan of the houses which had existed there. This was particularly noticeable for instance in the case of a post-hole (L) which was found directly within a hearth. A further difficulty was that stratification was of very little help since the deposit of refuse caused by habitation was nowhere more than some inches in depth and succeeding strata could not be distinguished. Remains of three stone-built hearths were found in the fort, two of these being to the north-west. Near these were found five post-holes which may well have represented some of the walls of a house around one of the hearths, but no post-holes were found around the other. We must therefore conclude, wither (1) that fires were lighted within the shelter of the bank of the fort in some cases without a protecting house, or (2) that the houses in many instance were of a flimsy nature such as required very light post-holes which could not be recognised or of such construction that no post-holes were used. Near these two hearths in the north-west corner of the ring-fort was the greatest accumulation of charcoal and dark humified soil. The group of post-holes in the south-east portion of the ring-fort cannot with certainty be made to fit in with any regular plan. This, as already suggested, may be due to several houses having existed successively on the same site. As an attempt at the reconstruction of the house, we give on the plan a semi-circular outline which fairly well agrees with the position of most of the post-holes. A stone which was originally a quern, but with the central hole so large as to have served as a pivot stone (e.g. for a door) is shown in the position where found. This was not bedded in the firm soil and may have been out of its original position. It does not therefore affect the validity of our suggested reconstruction of the house. Should the house have been circular or semi-circular, one would expect, though this is not essential, a central pot-hole; this however does not exist because, although a post-hole does occur towards the centre of the area, it is not sufficiently nearer the true centre. This post-hole (O) was found covered by a hard clay floor. No indications were found that our suggested house completed a circle in outline, since postholes were not discovered on the western side of the souterrain but the existence of a post-hole (N) approximately on the line between (F) and (M) would suggest a straight wall forming the chord of a circle and completing the house on that side. Our suggested reconstruction however must allow for the fact that after this house had gone out of use the same area of the ring-fort continued in occupation, since hearth No. 3 was built directly over post-hole (L). The relative chronology of Ring-Forts 1 and 3 (LI048-034027-) is illustrated by the s