2008:033 - Inisloughlin, Antrim

During June 2008, an evaluative excavation was undertaken to establish the location of the Gaelic fort of Inisloughlin. Inisloughlin first comes to prominence during the Nine Years’ War, when it was a site of strategic importance and contained a Gaelic stronghold that was used as a base for campaigning against the Crown’s forces. It was located within the then heavily wooded district of Killutagh, which formed a secure base and refuge for the Gaelic forces. Taking the fort was quickly identified by Arthur Chichester as a priority during Mountjoy’s campaign against Hugh O’Neill, because its occupation by Brian MacAirt O’Neill compromised both Chichester’s line of communication between Massareene (Antrim) and Carrickfergus, and Mountjoy’s route of supply between Newry and the Blackwater valley. The fort’s eventual capture in August 1602 represented a significant step towards weakening O’Neill’s influence in eastern Ulster and bringing the Nine Years’ War to a conclusion.
Fynes Moryson, the author of a contemporary account of the taking of the fort, described it as being ‘seated in the middest of a great Bogge, and no way accessable, but through thicke Woods, very hardly passable. It had about it two deepe Ditches, both compassed with strong Pallisadoes, a verie high and thicke rampeire of earth and timber, and well flanked with Bulworkes. For defence of the place fortie two Musketeres, and some twentie swordmen, were lodged in it’ (Moryson 1908, 200). Moryson’s written description is consistent with a cartographic image that can be confidently attributed to Richard Bartlett, and which is widely considered to depict the capture of the fort (see Hayes-McCoy 1964, xi, 11, pl. VI). Hayes-McCoy undertook a detailed study of the fort represented on the map. The fort is surrounded by two water-filled ditches, both of which are embellished with external wooden palisades. The western half of the outer palisade is built upon an apparently substantial earthen bank. Presumably, the bog depicted to the east of the fort meant that it was not considered necessary to reinforce the outer palisade with an earthwork on this part of its circuit. The fort itself consists of an apparently stone-built, rectangular enclosing wall, or bawn, which is embellished with two circular bastions on its northern and southern angles that provided for flanking fire along the fort’s walls. The southern circular bastion is depicted with a door that apparently provided access to the inner ditch. Internal structures depicted on Bartlett’s map include: an apparently wooden tower with conical roof located in the southern bulwark; a wooden platform or superstructure located in the western angle of the fort; a large, centrally-located, two-storeyed rectangular building with a ridged roof and five single-storey, earthen wall cabins of elliptical plan with thatched roofs. No method of gaining access to the fort’s interior across the ditches and palisades is depicted. Hayes-McCoy believed that the absence of any representation of embrasures on the map indicated that the fort was defended with muskets only, and not artillery (1964, 11).
Today, Inisloughlin and the surrounding area is an open region of mixed agricultural land within, and adjacent to, the Lagan’s flood-plain. The bog, which was once extensive, appears to have been drained and cut away during a phase of agricultural improvement that was undertaken during the 18th and early 19th century. The Ordnance Survey Memoirs record that in 1837 there was formerly over 60 English acres of bog in the townland of Inisloughlin, virtually all of which had been cut out and reclaimed for agricultural purposes (Day and McWilliams 1993, 116). When the ‘thicke woods’ were removed is less apparent, but it is likely to have been some time significantly prior to the 19th century, probably during the early years of the Plantation, when plans to exploit the economic value of the timber were first made (cf. Russell and Prendergast 1874, 89, no. 126).
Although recorded in the Ordnance Survey Memoirs, until the excavations in 2008 the precise location of the fort within the townland of Inisloughlin was no longer known with certainty. The site currently recorded in the SMR as the probable location of the fort (ANT067–029; grid reference J175606), if at all associated with the militarisation of the area during the Nine Years’ War, is most likely to have been either the camps or battery of the English forces depicted on Bartlett’s map. In 2007, an alternative site for the location of Inisloughlin Fort, within a field of grassland used for pasture, was proposed (grid reference J180605). Speculatively recorded in the SMR as being a possible rath (ANT067–014), this site is topographically consistent with the position of the fort on Bartlett’s map, in that it is located close to a bend within the River Lagan and upon an approximately north-west/south-east-aligned ridge overlooking low-lying ground to the north and east which formerly could have been a bog. Additionally, the site was once the property of a Mr McAreavey, the landowner of the site as recorded in the Ordnance Survey Memoirs (Day and McWilliams 1993, 125). Furthermore, the partial remains of a ‘fort’ are recorded in the field in both the 1833 and 1858 6-inch survey undertaken by the OS. In early 2008, a resistivity survey was undertaken in this field (McHugh and Mussen 2008) and a number of anomalies were identified. The principal aim of the 2008 excavations was to assess the character of several of these anomalies through the manual excavation of four trenches.
All four trenches contained similar sequences relating to 19th- and 20th-century agriculture. Underlying the sod was a sandy clay cultivation soil (depth 0.2–0.3m), which included fragments of boulder clay derived from a relatively recent episode of deep ploughing that had truncated the surface of the boulder clay subsoil. Also truncated by the modern ploughing were a series of spade cultivation furrows (maximum depth 0.1m), all with a common alignment that extended downslope to the north-east and all filled with a relict clay loam cultivation soil. In Trench 4 the spade cultivation furrows cut an earlier ditch associated with a late 18th- or early 19th-century field boundary, indicating that the spade cultivation dated to the 19th or early 20th century.
No features or deposits of archaeological significance were recovered from either Trenches 1 or 4. Trench 1 (19m by 2m) was located on the north-eastern slope of the ridge and was positioned to investigate a wide, curvilinear, low-resistance anomaly that was thought to potentially represent the remains of a ditch. In the event, excavation demonstrated that the anomaly was an expression of variations in ground-water and saturation that respected the natural topography of the slope. Trench 4 (8m by 4m) was located close to the crest of the ridge in a position to investigate part of a cross-shaped arrangement of relatively high-resistance linear anomalies within an area of uniform low resistance. As noted above, the only feature of note was a relict field boundary that had been silted up prior to the episode of spade cultivation. Late 18th- or 19th-century transfer-printed pot sherds were recovered from the ditch’s deliberately dumped primary fill. The fact that the feature was not represented on either of the 19th-century editions of the 6-inch OS maps (1833 and 1858) suggests that the ditch was part of an earlier boundary that was backfilled in the early 19th century.
Trench 2 (8m by 7.5m) was positioned upon the crest of the ridge and was intended to investigate part of a rectangular complex of high- and low-resistance anomalies. In Trench 2 the spade cultivation furrows cut through the upper fill of a substantial ditch (minimum width 5.6m) that extended on a north-west/south-east alignment across the north-eastern side of the trench before turning through a right angle to extend south-westwards in the western part of the trench. The outer (i.e. north-eastern and north-western) edge of the ditch extended beyond the edges of excavation; however, the overall width of the ditch is estimated to have been around 6m. The ditch was investigated in two cuttings: the first, a stepped sondage set adjacent to the south-eastern edge of excavation, recovered a near complete profile of the ditch’s north-west/south-east-running element; the second was a partial excavation of the inner edge of the ditch’s northern corner.
As excavated, the main cutting of the ditch had moderately angled sides and a flat base (depth 1.45m, width of base 1.4m). Excavation revealed a complex set of fills which formed five main phases of silting. The latest phase was represented by the ditch’s upper fill, a relatively thick deposit of dark-greyish-brown loam that extended right across the ditch, getting thicker towards its outer (north-eastern) edge. This appeared to be a levelling deposit of redeposited cultivation soil (maximum depth 0.3m). It overlay a series of orange sandy deposits that were restricted to the ditch’s inner (south-western) edge. The interpretation of these deposits is difficult, although they could have been formed during the slighting of an earthwork located adjacent to the inner edge of the ditch. Underlying these deposits was a sequence of dark-brown silty loams that represented a gradual accumulation of silts within the ditch. Interspersed between these deposits of silt were two separate washes of orange sandy loam that probably represent material eroded from the outer (north-eastern) side of the ditch, and an apparently deliberate dump of stone and orangey-pink clay located in the centre of the ditch. Underlying the lowest of the gradual silts were two thin washes of sandy material located against the outer (north-eastern) edge of the ditch. These, in turn, overlay a thin basal fill of dark-greyish-brown silty loam. Excavation of the lowest of the dark-brown silty loam deposits revealed six vertical post-holes cut into the inner (south-western) edge of the ditch about 0.2m above its base. These posts-holes were aligned along the north-west/south-east axis of this section of the ditch and appeared to have formed part of a palisade or some other form of structure. Post-pipe voids above the features were exposed within the lowest of the gradual silts, suggesting that the structure the features represented was not deliberately dismantled but rotted in situ after the ditch ceased to be maintained. Of the six post-holes, one was significantly larger (diameter 0.28m, depth 0.7m) than the others (average diameter 0.1m, average depth 0.25m) and from its waterlogged base part of the preserved oak post was retrieved. Dendrochrono-logical analysis of the timber provided an estimated felling date, using the English-based sapwood estimate, of ad 1594–1629.
Although the partial excavation of the inner edge of the ditch’s northern corner in Trench 2 was not deep enough to reach the ditch’s base, the excavation of the cutting did confirm that the ditch turned through a right angle and ran south-westwards. Underlying the upper fill of dark-greyish-brown loam were two fills of dark-brown sandy loam and a loose wash of orange sandy loam.
Trench 3 (15m by 6m) was located upon the crest of the ridge in a position which coincided with the feature marked as a ‘fort’ on the 1833 6-inch OS map and a circular high-resistance anomaly (diameter 23m) in the resistivity survey. In Trench 3 the spade cultivation furrows cut through the truncated base of a ditch which apparently terminated within the footprint of Trench 3. This ditch extended in a south-westerly direction from the north-eastern edge of Trench 3 for a distance of 5.6m. A single cutting was made across the feature (width 3.6m; maximum depth 0.99m), which had moderately sloping sides and a rounded base. The ditch’s upper fill was a relatively thin layer of dark-brown loam, which may represent redeposited topsoil that was laid down in order to fill the ditch prior to the commencement of spade cultivation. The upper fills of the ditch consisted of a series of sandy loams and sandy clays, which overlay a sequence of slowly accumulated mid-brown silty clay deposits. The ditch’s basal fill was a greyish-brown silty clay with orange mottles. Its excavation revealed a series of eight post-holes cut into the north-western edge of the ditch about 0.2m above its base. These features were comparable with the alignment of post-holes uncovered in the ditch excavated in Trench 2. They shared a common alignment, this time along the north-east/south-west axis of the ditch, and also appeared to have formed part of a palisade or similar structure. Again, post-pipe voids above the features were exposed within the ditch’s basal fill, indicating that the structure represented by the features had rotted in situ after the ditch was no longer being maintained. Of the six post-holes, one was significantly larger (diameter 0.15m, depth 0.7m) than the others (average diameter 0.09m, average depth 0.1m) and from its base part of a charred wooden post was retrieved. The base of this post appeared to have been charred in order to preserve it from rotting, rather than as a result of being burnt in situ. Although not suitable for dendrochronological analysis, charred fragments of this oak post produced an AMS radiocarbon date, when calibrated to two sigma, of ad 1482–1644 (Lab No. UBA 9881).
The site of the Gaelic fort of Inisloughlin can now be identified with some confidence as that of the 2008 excavations. The ditches uncovered in Trenches 2 and 3 are too large to be simply relict field boundaries, whilst the right-angled turn of the ditch exposed in Trench 2 suggests it was part of a rectilinear enclosure located upon the crest of the ridge running through the field. Given the evidence for the embellishment of both ditches with palisades, an interpretation that they represent part of an enclosed defensive site seems reasonable. Furthermore, the dating evidence recovered from the apparent palisades associated with both ditches is consistent with the period of the Nine Years’ War. In particular, the late 16th- to early 17th-century date range provided by dendrochronological analysis of the preserved timber recovered from the large post-hole in Trench 2 provides a narrow date range in which the Nine Years’ War was the only historical conflict with which the ditch’s construction can plausibly be associated.
A number of issues relating to the interpretation of the site remain unresolved despite the success of the 2008 excavations. Firstly, the dimensions and circuit of the fort’s defences have not been established. Although a northern corner of a ditch was uncovered in Trench 2, it is uncertain whether this represents the inner or outer ditch as described and depicted by Moryson and Bartlett respectively. Furthermore, it is not clear how the ditch uncovered in Trench 2 is related to the ditch uncovered in Trench 3. If correctly identified as elements of the fort’s defences, their relative positions indicate that the fort extended for a distance of at least 55m along its north-west/south-east axis.
Secondly, the evidence for a neat, right-angled northern corner in the ditch’s circuit casts doubt on the accuracy of Bartlett’s representation of the fort, which shows that the northern corner of the fort’s ditches took the form of wide, projecting semicircles that accommodated a projecting circular bastion (cf. Hayes-McCoy 1964, pl. VI). The uncertainty the excavation results raise about the accuracy of Bartlett’s map is ironic, as the map was the key piece of evidence used to identify the site’s location for the purposes of excavation in the first place. It is possible that Bartlett mistakenly orientated his depiction of the fort when he produced his final image. This explanation seems unlikely, however, given that his map shows that only the western half of the outer palisade was embellished with a substantial earthen bank – the west being the only approach to the fort which would not have involved crossing an area of bog and therefore the natural direction for any attack to be staged from, necessitating the construction of the additional element of the fort’s defences on this side. This raises the possibility that either Bartlett’s image of the fort’s character is wholly inaccurate, or that the ditches uncovered in 2008 are not elements of the fort’s defences.
It should be noted that the two ditches might not necessarily represent elements of the fort’s defences. An illustration of an early 17th-century siege taken from Les Travaux de Mars, ou L’Art de la Guerre (1684) shows attackers using a deep, ditch-like cutting with an associated earthen bank that zigzags at right angles to approach a besieged artillery fort (Saunders 1989, 70). It is possible that the ditches uncovered at Inisloughlin might represent siege works of this type. Moryson’s account of the taking of the fort records that ‘after that our forces, with very good industry had made their approaches to the first ditch, the besieged did yield the place to the Queene and themselves absolutely to her mercy’ (Moryson 1908, 200). Although not particularly detailed, Moryson’s account of the besiegers making their way to the first ditch ‘with very good industry’ could refer to the cutting of a siege work comparable to that illustrated in the Les Travaux de Mars, although it is not obvious that such efforts would have been necessary to capture a fort defended by muskets rather than artillery. Perhaps tellingly, Bartlett’s image of the besieged fort shows no such features (cf. Hayes McCoy 1964, pl. VI).
Given the failure of the resistivity survey to produce a clear image of the fort (cf. McHugh and Mussen 2008), only a further season of excavation will resolve these questions concerning the fort’s identification and orientation and the character of its defensive circuit. Unfortunately, the 2008 excavation suggested that, apart from the ditches, the state of preservation at the site is likely to be poor. The episodes of modern ploughing and spade cultivation have truncated the surface of the natural boulder clay subsoil. Consequently, it is doubtful whether archaeological features associated with many of the internal features of the fort depicted by Bartlett, such as the wooden platform and earthen wall cabins, will survive. Although the 2008 resistivity survey identified a number of anomalies upon the crest of the ridge, it is possible that future excavation of the fort’s interior may only provide limited returns.
References
Day, A. and McWilliams, P. (eds) 1993 Ordnance Survey Memoirs of Ireland. Volume Twenty-One. Parishes of County Antrim VII. 1832–8. South Antrim, The Institute of Irish Studies (in association with The Royal Irish Academy). Belfast.
Hayes-McCoy, G.A. (ed.) 1964 Ulster and other Irish maps, c.1600, Stationery Office (for the Irish Manuscripts Commission). Dublin.
McHugh, R. and Mussen, S. 2008 Inisloughlin Fort, Co. Antrim, March 2008 (Geophysical Survey Rep. No.16), Centre for Archaeological Fieldwork, Queen’s University, Belfast. Belfast.
Moryson, F. 1908 An itinerary containing his ten yeeres travel through the twelve dominions of Germany, Bohmerland, Sweitzerland, Netherland, Denmarke, Poland, Italy, Turky, France, England, Scotland & Ireland. Volume III, James MacLehose & Sons. Glasgow.
Russell, C.W. and Prendergast, J.P. (eds) 1874 Calendar of the State Papers, relating to Ireland, of the reign of James I. 1608–1610. Preserved in Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, and elsewhere, Longman & Co. London.
Saunders, A. 1989. Fortress Britain: artillery fortification in the British Isles and Ireland. Oxbow, Oxford.