Barrow — unclassified in Togherstown

Surveyed in 2013 and described by McGuinness (2014, 62-3) as following: 'Enormous subcircular mound (35m N-S x 30m E-W) reaching up to 4.4m in height on NE side, with sharply defined edge marked by a clear step or scarp. Traces of a shallow ditch are visible immediately beyond the step, running clockwise from S to N or NE; where clearest at NW, this is up to 1.5m in width, which would give an overall diameter for of 38m N-S. In SE quadrant, domed summit slopes down fairly uniformly to edge of mound, but elsewhere, the slope lessens from highest part towards edge of mound, giving the impression of a kind of berm. Numerous limestone boulders and outcrops of rock are visible over surface of mound, especially in NE quadrant and along part of perimeter. Old deciduous trees, located just inside the perimeter of the mound, were clearly planted, probably as shelter for cattle; a few others farther in towards the centre appear younger in date and presumably result from natural seed-dispersal. Clear traces of a dry-walled revetment to the stepped edge of the mound on SW, S and E sides may relate to the same episode of landscaping that involved the planting of trees; the step is best preserved where the walling has survived, reaching up to 0.84m in height. Macalister and Praeger ‘examined’ the mound ‘with no satisfactory results’. They had taken it ‘for a mound of stones, possibly a large artificial carn’, but it ‘proved to be a mere outcrop of much decomposed rock’. Their ‘examination’ presumably involved some kind of excavation but no record of this has been left. Their dismissal of the site as ‘a mere outcrop’ is completely inconsistent with its current appearance, that of an artificially shaped mound, although substantial areas of outcrop were clearly incorporated into it by its builders; its location in immediate proximity to a large ringfort-like structure (WM024-027----) is also consistent with an artificial origin. Presumably with similar reservations about Macalister and Praeger’s conclusions, Schot (2006) marks it as a ‘Barrow/mound’ on her map of the Uisneach complex. Monument lies on a low eminence just 8m to NNW of the large and complex bivallate ringfort excavated by Macalister and Praeger (1929-31); prehistoric rock art reused in this fort (O’Reilly 2010) was conceivably taken from the barrow. At least one other ringfort (WM024-027----) lies close by to W'. Compiled by: Caimin O'Brien based on details provided by David McGuinness. Date of upload: 23 February 2015