2012:372 - Scoil Chroist Rí, Presentation Convent, Church Avenue, Portlaoise, Laois

This licence was issued to monitor the demolition of five modern buildings and the excavation of three trenches within the curtilage of the Presentation Convent, on a site adjacent to the post-medieval defences of Fort Protector. This was constructed in 1548 by Lord Deputy Bellingham, following the suppression of the O’Moores of Leix and their allies the O’Connors of Uí Failghe. The monitoring was undertaken in July and early August 2012.

Portlaoise is partly sited on the great esker that lies in a gap between the Slieve Bloom mountains and the Castlecomer plateau. Indeed, the site under discussion is dominated to the east by the Ridge Graveyard, which itself would have formed a useful defensive boundary for the initial urban settlement. A good section of the perimeter walls of the fort are evident along the street just to the north-west of the development site. The physical remains present as a square, stone-walled structure to the north of Main Street, the outline of which encloses approximately 1ha. The perimeter largely survives and includes most of the north, east and south walls and a circular, north-eastern bastion (Thomas 1992).

A map of c. 1560-69 depicts a town wall which encloses an area c. 14–17.5ha (incorporating the fort) and would have had a perimeter length of c. 1375–1625m. It was depicted as basically rectangular in plan with the long axis running north–south. The map would suggest that there were three gates: one on the east, with a possible gatehouse at the bridge on the road from Dublin, where two simple openings are shown on the west, on either side of the fort. No towers or bastions were depicted. The fort appears as an integral part of the circuit, mid-way on the western side. There are possible ramparts, but these are not clearly shown. However, the nature of what was actually constructed is unclear as this map was sent to London for approval by Queen Mary and may have simply indicated an intention to construct a town wall, rather than represent a physical reality.

There is therefore no firm evidence that the walled town of the 1560–9 map was ever completed, although the fort survives sufficiently to attest to the map’s veracity in that respect. The walled town, certainly as depicted here, was extremely regular and simple in plan. No corner or mural towers are indicated for the town wall, and no solid gatehouses are depicted, apart from what appear to be narrow openings. The map appears to show that there was no access from the town directly to the fort, as its only entrance being on the outer western side. The area of the planned walled town would thus seem to have been substantial, comparable for example with medieval Carlow. Its outline appears to be partially traceable in the present town’s streetscape.

Thomas suggests the eastern boundary of the town’s defences was located along present day Ridge Road (east of old Scoil Chriost Rí). Bradley (1985) also puts forward this theory but also alludes to the possibility that the Triogue River, which delineates the eastern site boundary, may have formed the eastern boundary of the town’s defences. A street depicted alongside the western wall of the fort would appear to be present day Railway Street. The town wall may have followed the present townland boundary along its southern extent, however there are no clear lines to the north to indicate where the boundary may have existed.

In 1592 the right to collect murage was granted to the town and the burgomaster was granted permission to ‘erect, build and fortify the borough with ditches and stone walls’ (Thomas 1992). This would possibly cast doubt on the existence of the town walls depicted on the early map. The first edition of the OS shows no indication of the existence of a town wall. Nevertheless, although the documentary evidence for a walled town at Portlaoise is limited, its present layout is highly suggestive, with property boundaries and minor street lines indicating a walled or enclosed area that does not contradict the 1560-69 map.

The Presentation Convent itself is a three storey over basement protected structure (RPS 475). It incorporates elements of an earlier structure and circular tower which perhaps dates to the 16^th century (RPS 476). This earlier structure is depicted on the early map with the circular tower against the south gable. The building was known as ‘The Stone House’ or ‘Anthony Roger’s House’, the latter a constable in the Fort. A tunnel reportedly leads eastwards from the house to the fort and westwards towards the river. Renovation work undertaken at the convent in 1951 uncovered the remains of such a feature, which may correlate with this purported tunnel (Deigan 1999). Test excavation carried out by Neil O’Flanagan to the rear of the convent in 2003 also identified a tunnel/drain which the excavator tenuously linked to the tunnel identified in the 1950s (Excavations 2003, No. 1091, 03E0596).

The ‘Stone House’ was occupied by the Presentation Sisters in 1824, having previously served as a constable’s house, a gaol and in infirmary. An extension in 1872 subsumed the tower into the new structure. The Presentation Sisters left the building in the 1990s and it is currently vacant. It is set behind a high boundary wall fronting onto Church Avenue and there is a formal garden to the rear of the convent which extends to the Triogue.

The results of the monitoring, which included trenching for new boundary walls, clearly indicate the presence of a marshy area comprising presumably deposited organic soils over natural silts, which survive to a depth of approximately 2.4m at their greatest depth over the area investigated. The suitability of such material as a structural foundation is obviously questionable and the evidence suggests that the area was in use as a dumping ground certainly into the late 17^th century.

This obviously raises issues around the veracity of the early map of the settlement, which places the Stone House on the western bank of the Triogue, thus suggesting that the present course of the river is artificial. Although the existing course is depicted on the first edition of the OS, a large millpond against the western wall the Fort had been replaced by Church Avenue by 1912, suggesting that the present course of the river is an overflow from the 18^th-century mills located outside the north-western bastion, where the original course was used as a millrace and tailrace.

The absence of quantities of later dumped ceramics, usual in such contexts, would suggest that dumping activity had ceased by the 18^th century and had certainly ceased by the arrival of the Presentation Sisters in 1824. The organic nature of the material would suggest that it contains human cess, redeposited from the latrine pits which would have served the town’s inhabitants prior to the introduction of a municipal sewage scheme.

It would therefore appear that the area functioned as the town dump, located as it was in a marginal area of the town between the tailrace (the original course of the Triogue) and the esker to the east, which was seemingly used as a burial ground since at least the 17^th century.

As the results of the monitoring demonstrate, the archaeological deposits recorded over the site work are relatively low-grade in terms of the artefacts recovered from the trenches. On another level, the monitoring exercise has recorded a previously unknown aspect of the town’s early modern morphology, suggesting the presence of a marginal area beyond the Triogue used as a dumping ground until perhaps the early 18^th century. It was nonetheless recommended that any development work undertaken east of the Triogue be subject to a similar planning condition to assess the extent and nature of the dumping over this area.

Archaeology and Built Heritage, 79 Queen Street, Smithfield, Dublin 7