Hachured, Wall, Horseleap — Ardnurcher

In 1192 the Annals of Loch Cé recorded that the ‘castle of Ath-in-urchair [Ardnurcher], and the castle of Cill-Bixsighe [Kilbixy (WM011-039----)], were erected in this year’ (ALC, 187). This may have replaced an earlier structure put up in the 1170s. It was built by Meiler FitzHenry but it passed into the hands of Walter de Lacy sometime between 1207 and 1211 (Orpen 1911-20, ii, 214; Otway-Ruthven 1968, 80). In 1207 a war broke out in Leinster between Meiler FitzHenry and Geffrey de Marisco and during this war ‘the sons of Hugh Delacie [de Lacy] with the forces of the English of Meath lay siege to the castle of Ardnurcher, and the same continued for the space of five weeks, until they forsed Meyler to abandon and forsake all the cantred of Kinaleagh from Burr [Birr] to Killare’ (Ann. Clon., 221-2). In 1214 the castle was raided by Cormac son of Art Ua MaelSechlainn (Orpen 1911-20, ii, 303). After the death of Walter de Lacy in 1241 Ardnurcher passed to Geoffrey de Geneville (Otway-Ruthven 1968, 410). In 1308 de Geneville surrendered his portion of Meath to his grand-daughter Joan and Roger de Mortimer her husband. Ardnurcher presumably remained nominally in Mortimer hands until 1424 when it would have passed to Richard, Duke of York, before finally reverting to the crown, in the person of Edward IV, in 1461 (Orpen 1911-20, iii, 286-7). By 1422, as mentioned above, the castle was in Irish hands and seems to have been of little military importance in the later Middle Ages. Old accounts suggest that there was a stone castle on the site. A tower house type castle depicted on the 1656 Down Survey map of Ardnurcher parish may have been a depiction of a stone castle standing on the summit of the motte (NLI MS 723-4). Piers (1981, 84) writing in 1682, records that there was still an ‘antient stately structure, as the ruins thereof this day shew’. The site was described by the antiquary John Brownrigg in 1788 and he noted a round keep-like structure on top of the motte and some rectangular buildings in the bailey. He also noted ‘caves’ in the bailey (Brownrigg 1788, 46). These may be the remains of a souterrain (WM031-106----) which would suggest that the motte was constructed on top of an earlier ringfort. Described by the Urban Survey of Westmeath as following ; ‘The motte and bailey is shown on the first edition O.S. map (1836) but it is omitted from subsequent maps. It is situated on a ridge running north-east south-west. The east end of the ridge was separated from the remainder by cutting a deep ditch and the interior was heightened to form the motte. The motte consists of a conical mound with a basal diameter of 51m tapering to a flat sub-rectangular top measuring about 27m east-west by 11.5m North-south. It is 11.7m high. There is a semi-circular shaped hollow at the west end which may be the remains of a building while there are grass covered rectangular foundations on the east side measuring 8.5m by 4.5m. A triangular-shaped bailey with max. dims. of 38m by 25m is located on the south side. The perimeter has wall foundations, some 1.2m wide, on the west, south and east. There is a steep scarp on the east side towards the railway cutting. The site was planned in 1788 by Brownrigg who showed two rectangular structures on the south side of the bailey adjacent to the perimeter wall but no trace of these are visible. The motte and bailey are protected on the south by a deep ditch, 18m wide, with an external bank 1m high. Brownrigg (1788, 48) describes a well at the west end of this ditch. The external bank may have functioned as part of the borough defences. The bank is penetrated by a roadway, 6.4m wide, which leads to the site of a drawbridge in the south-eastern portion of the ditch. The two supporting piers of the drawbridge are present. These are of roughly coursed limestone and stand to a height of roughly 4.5m. The northern pier, adjoining the bailey, is 9.1m by 3.1m while the southern example, which has lost some of its facing stones, is 8.5m by 3.1m. There was a second entrance to the bailey on the south-west side which would appear to have been approached beneath the drawbridge along the bottom of the external ditch. The west side of the motte was further protected by a second bank and ditch cut across the ridge. The bank of crescentic plan, is almost as high as the motte but the ditch is shallower than the external ditch of the bailey. Brownrigg noted two ditches cut across the ridge further to the west but these appear to be field divisions rather than defences. A stone wall runs north-west along the crest of the ridge from the motte to the road. Only its foundation survive and these are about 1.5m wide’ (Bradley et. al. 1985, 14-15). The E side of the motte has been cut into by the construction of a railway line now disused running NNE-SSW. A modern farm access road has been cut through the esker ridge damaging the NW side of the motte. The motte and bailey castle at Ardnurcher was described in 1788 as ‘a high truncated cone, though not quite circular or insulated, as it is part of a long narrow ridge. It is surrounded with a trench and an outer mound of earth, having very rude caves (WM031-106----) down through its centre, which were open lately, and may be examined at any time by the curious, their entrance being known to everyone in the neighbourhood. It is defended on the north by a long morass, through which a rivulet passes to the outer mound of the fort, where another stream falls into it running from the west close by the foot of the ridge, of which Ardnorcher is a part, as above mentioned. On the east, it is strengthened by a deep valley, that separates it from the high grounds. It was weakest on the western side, because the ridge on which it stands continues to rise and run on westward from the fort; but De Lacy’s military knowledge taught him to improve this situation, so as to render it a most formidable and almost impregnable fortress, before the use of firearms. He cut the ridge across with two intrenchments, at a small distance from each other: these are not very large, but he seems to have raised and strengthened the outer mounds of the old fort, and to have made the trench deeper. On the western part of the high mount [motte] are the remains of a small round tower [stone castle], built of lime and stone, which I suppose was high enough to overlook and command the ridge; and a stone wall, whose fragments are still visible, surrounded the remainder of the platform of this high mount, and not only overlooked the lower works of the fort, but commanded the circumjacent country. The next lower area [bailey], on the south-east side, was defended by a sweeping wall, in which was the great gate into the body of the place, accessible only by a draw-bridge, over a very deep valley or fosse, supported by two piers of stone work, one communicating with the gate of the fort, and the other joined to the high land on the south side of the fosse, the wall continuing round the east side of the fort till it closed with the high mount in the north-east point, where, I apprehend, the communication between the higher and lower areas to have been. All the walls, that surrounded these works, are demolished, and tumbled over into the lower area, where they lie scattered in large fragments, but they have left in some spots visible traces of their foundations, and also of the foundations of some partition walls on the upper fort, and of some square buildings on the next lower area near the great gate. The only stone work, that has escaped the ravages of war and time, are the two piers of the draw-bridge and lower gate, now some vulgarly called the Horseleap, these were not only piers of the draw-bridge into the fort, but served also, as sides to a gateway, which shut up the lowest area or deep fosse of the fort, wherein I conceive, that, in time of danger, they kept their cattle and fuel, and