2012:548 - 25-26 Gladstone Street, Clonmel, Tipperary

Two test trenches were opened at Nos 25-26 Gladstone Street in advance of the construction of an extension to the rear of a former convent building. The testing was undertaken as part of granted planning permission for the extension and renovation works to the convent.
Two trenches were opened on the site to determine the presence of any archaeological features or deposits surviving; in particular, whether there was any evidence of the medieval town wall, the line of which many consider to project within close proximity to this location, vis a viz close to the southern side of Morton Street.
In the first opening, the main discovery was a wall, which extended across the trench on an east-west alignment. It appeared the upper courses corresponded to an early extension as shown on a drawing compiled in 1932, which suggests the builders used the lower part of the wall as a foundation. Regarding the lower courses, it was evident they pertained to a much earlier, substantial, well-built wall with an extant width of c. 1m. It is on the line portrayed by a 1690 map and very close to the line of the town wall projected by the Archaeological Urban Survey, which suggested the town wall extended east-west, just set back from the south side of Morton Street. Based on the construction methods and materials recorded, there is no doubt the lower courses of this wall pertain to a wall of considerable antiquity; however, it was not conclusive if it was definitely the town wall.
The alignment, location and stonework do point to it being the town wall, but on the other hand, dimensionally, it was slightly too narrow (0.9m) added to which it appeared to be built off at least one, possibly two, earlier surfaces. If this was the case, there was obviously something pre-dating this site prior to the building of the wall, with the wall dissecting an existing plot. Furthermore, these surfaces offered their own enigma: although a concretion is present on top of both, the surface to the south of the wall was in much bettercondition and of far higher quality to the northern surface. In fact, the southern surface had all the appearances of an internal floor. It was therefore possible that the wall was part of a building, and considering the extant width of the wall as well as the quality of the components used in its construction, it must have been a structure of some importance.
Considering its location, in close proximity to the North Gate, is it possible this wall was part of a gate tower protecting the western side of the gate? If the surfaces were medieval and pertained to a defensive structure it would explain why no evidence of a ditch was found on the northern side, as a ditch would have exposed the lower courses and foundations of the wall to under mining.
Regarding the argument that the wall was not of sufficient width, the plundering of the stonework for re-use in later structures could not be overstated. Considering the closeness of the large RC church, convent and a high boundary wall, the presence of high quality and abundant stone would have been very appealing to the builders of those structures.
Even if this wall was not the town wall, there is no doubt it was of archaeological importance and of early post-medieval provenance at its latest. Added to which, if the surfaces were used as a foundation for the wall, they must be of an earlier genesis.

Mary Henry Archaeological Services Ltd, 17 Staunton Row, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary.