Cork's Earliest Souterrain Discoveries: The Research of Dr. Charles Smith MD. 1750 AD

It is true to say that the research work and scholarship of Dr. Charles Smith, a graduate of Trinity College Dublin, set the foundation for antiquarian research in South Munster. The information collecting process used was not only that of collocating local contributions but also involved his own fieldwork and talking to local informants. Though continuing to collect information for Limerick and Tip-perary Smith’s last published volume for South Munster was that for County Kerry which appeared in 1756 AD. For some reason he left Dungarvan, County Waterford where he was an apothecary and went to Bristol where he died in 1762. He was an active member of the Royal Society of Antiquaries in Britain and there is a study of archival material relating to him there by Fraher (2010). It is evident from the 2nd edition of his Cork volumes that he continued to col-lect and receive updates for a subsequent edition e.g. the letter from Rev. Mar-maduke Cox of Aghabulloge, Cork about a souterrain discovery nearby. This was in 1755. The first edition of his County Cork study appeared in 1750. In 1774 a second edition was published, posthumously, containing the letter from Cox. At the time of publication of the first edition, as best I can judge, Smith was aware of the existence of at least four County Cork souterrains. Two were in the vicinity of Rosscarbery Cathedral, one was at Great Island (Cobh) and one at Dunworly beside Timoleague Bay.

Raths, lioses and Dúns In Chapter X of his County Cork book Smith speaks of ‘Danish Forts, Raths and Tumuli common in this kingdom’ [Ireland?]. He says ‘To particularise all works of this kind, in this extensive county [Cork], would take up a volume; it is scarce necessary to mention, that most of them have vaults or cavities under-neath, the entrance to which lies on the east side’; they generally run spirally for two, three, or four turns, and terminate in a small square room in the cen-tre’ [of the ringfort]. This description of where souterrains can be found within ringforts is accurate; not for every ringfort souterrain but for some. It is also true that some souterrains can run spirally and that there can be several turns either in the passage or in the alignment of chambers, or both. It is true that some souterrain passages can end in a square room. Examples to substantiate

all of these statements can be found within the Cork souterrain record. But it is also notable that 3 of the above sites quoted by Smith i.e. Rosscarbery and Great Island were souterrains which were not found in a ringfort context. Also, in the case of one of the Rosscarbery discoveries the site drawing provided by Smith shows a number of earth-cut/clay-cut chambers joined by creepways/passages. All of this shows therefore that he was aware of the existence of sev-eral of the souterrain class forms now on record for Cork. He was aware of the passage and single chamber form which used a rectangular chamber e.g. as at Roovesmore in Muskerry, which was in a ringfort and contained Ogham stones in its construction.

Ogham stone hunting, resulting in the ‘excavation’ of some ringforts and their souterrains, and leading, at times, to the discovery of such stones, has left a legacy of jumbled stratigraphy at some Cork sites. Such ‘excavation’ work and the decipherment of the inscriptions appears to be a practice which began in the early 19th century spearheaded by Cork antiquarian scholars (the South Munster Antiquarian Club) such as Richard Rolt Brash, Father Matt Horgan and John Windele. Dr. Richard Caulfield and his friend Col. A. Lane Fox (later Pitt-Rivers) also investigated some of the Cork landscape for such purposes. The Royal Cork Institution, a type of fore-runner to University College Cork, had a small collection of such Ogham stones brought in from the field. John Windele is said to have had an ‘Ogham Stone Library’ in his home at Blair’s Castle, Cork City, at one time.

Dunworly Souterrain Continuing with Chapter X Smith writes about Dunworly in the Barony fo Ibawne and Barryroe (beside Kinsale) where ‘on a high cliff, is one of these cav-erns, which the force of the sea has worked about halfway; so that the cavity hangs over the precipice, and is quite exposed’. One wonders precisely where this souterrain was. Was it in a promontory fort there or a ringfort once close to the sea coast before the effects of erosion? How close was it to the precise find spot on this beach of a collection of glass beads made by Rev. Neligan of Shan-don, Cork city, in the 19th century. Rev. Neligan, apart for his work in famine relief, and perhaps auctions, had an interest in antiquities during the period of the Great Irish Famine, wondered if they had come from the wreck of a pirate

ship as it was suggested the beads might have been of African origin. Were they older than this and connected with trade networks in more ancient times, with a trading station at the Old Head and its Dún Cearmna; once believed to have also had a Viking settlement, quite apart from its older promontory fort older perhaps than Roman times, as old perhaps as Iron Age times and subse-quently a Norman fortification.

From a navigational and maritime trade perspective how interesting to con-sider this promontory - one known abroad from the time of Ptolemy’s geogra-phy written in Roman Alexandria - as a place of continuity of contact with over-seas implying the European Atlantic coast and the Mediterranean, from the Late Bronze Age to the period of Anglo-Norman Ireland and the days of the knight deCoursey? When a 19th century Bandon historian wrote of memories of Spanish traders trading with Gaelic lords at a trading jetty settlement beside the old monastery of Timoleague - founded on a more ancient cell of St. Mo-lagga, a trading jetty which may have come to be abandoned as a conse-quence of a large mud deposition by a tsunami wave in 1755 hitting the South West coastline? How many other such ancient jetties along that coastline fell victim to that event and to similar events in earlier times? How much archaeol-ogy, history, and the vestiges of the orientation of settlement geography in earlier times, was lost? How was Ardmore affected? How was the Womanagh estuary at Pilmore Harbour (Puill Mór) by Youghal affected? How was Cork Har-bour affected as 1,000 of the Corcú Bascind drowned on a fateful stormy night c. 820 AD? How was Roscarbery affected? How was Sherkin Island affected? How was Bantry Bay affected? How was the Kenmare Estuary affected? How were the peninsulas of the South West affected? How much of the large tracts of slob lands of some of these places is the result of sea action rather than the action of river deposition?

Knockdrum and Ballyvourney Smith’s following sentence after Dunworly says that ‘In rocky soils, they built most of these works of stone, which the Irish name Caheras [Cahirs]’. His writ-ing is confusing here insofar as ‘these works’, as explained in the sentence be-fore it, refers to the ‘caverns’ whereas in this sentence he is referring to cahirs. Does he imply that the caverns are in the cahirs? This makes sense in that the

next part of the sentence states that ‘ a large one of this kind may be seen on a hill called Knockdrummon, above Castletown’ which is a reference to the early monastic enclosure, dry-stone built - and with a souterrain, situated at Knockdrum (Farrandau townland) beside Castletownsend along the west Cork coastline. Smith finishes his sentence by saying ‘and several [meaning cahirs with souterrains?] in the rocky parish of Ballyvourney’. So, should one take from this that he was aware, or informed, of both the Knockdrum cahir and its souterrain, as well as several other examples of cahirs and/or souterrains, at Ballyvourney?

But Smith then goes on to say ‘They were composed of a circular enclosure of huge rocks, and being erected in stony ground, seldom had cavities under-neath’. It is notable that he uses the word ‘seldom’. There are examples of cahirs where no souterrains have been discovered; though one might add ‘as yet’! His statement about ‘huge rocks’ used in construction is questionable. In the above has he been simply summarising field reports from others or did he himself visit these areas?

In a footnote Smith speculates on the origin of ringforts and thinks it highly probable that many owe their origin to the ‘ancient Irish’, because, he says, ‘ it is scarce credible that the Danes could have been so numerous in Ireland as to have garrisoned one half of them, many hundreds, of them remaining within call of each other to this day’. Garrisoned but not built, is an interesting turn of phrase? What do we know today (2019) about Danish settlement in farms across the Irish landscape? Was there an Otar who farmed at Ballymacotter be-side Cork Harbour? What was the density of ringforts in the Irish landscape be-fore the Ordnance Survey mapping of the early 19th century?

How dense was ringfort distribution in South Munster in Smith’s time? How dense were they when the Desmond Wars took place in the late 16th century? How dense were they when the Dissolution of the Monasteries took place ear-lier in the 16th century? Did custom and practice in Gaelic settlement forms end at this time, the ringfort and souterrain once a commonplace norm becom-ing forgotten within a generation of two, a scant reference to a small few still being occupied in the 17th century through happenstance? Had some becom-

ing the sites of later tower houses, some farm houses and haggards, some still used as redoubts in moments of outrage beside villages and hamlets? Quickly forgotten, seems a strange thing to say about the tenacious tendency of rural memory to survive in local environments. Why in Connacht did the Gaelic anti-quarian Duald MacFirbis not automatically know what they were; with a sense of familiarity and of being informed by long-tailed tradition? How many ring-forts were there when the Synod of Whitby took place in the 7th century AD? How many, and where across Ireland, were they when Christianity first arrived? Were they mostly along the south coast?

Smith continues his remarks about ringforts in a vein of thought, which would not be out of place today, by saying ‘Possibly, the Irish had these entrench-ments [ringforts] long before the Danish invasions, or if they had not these sub-terraneous habitations before that time, they might probably in imitation of those foreigners, for their mutual safety and defence, form works of this kind, which they saw so useful to their enemies’.

It is interesting to note that Smith seems to conflate the idea of a circular en-trenchment with the idea of subterranean ‘habitation’. though many scholars subsequent to Smith became fixated with the idea of souterrains as places of refuge or storage, Smith writing circa 1749 AD sees them as habitations. In the case of certain souterrain architectural forms in south Munster I agree with him. Smith ends this part of his Chapter by stating that Raths, Lioses and Dúns had given their names to local places in Cork and gives examples saying that all of such places have or had works of this kind adjacent to them. So, how cen-tral to the infra-structure of Gaelic Ireland were they, in a hierarchy of density ratios uni-vallate to tri-vallate sites, over how long a period? Where did they first appear on the Irish landscape, who put them there and why, and why so frequently as the centuries progressed? In some instances did ringforts come to enclose some pre-existing souterrains and in other cases were other souter-rains added to the ringforts in later times? Might both structures have come into existence as one construction project? Did early monasticism create them or did it absorb what was already long established common practice among tribal people who became Christianised? Were ringfort souterrains which re-

flected monastic practices different in form from those which had pre-existing secu- lar architec-

tural forms?

The Ross-carbery souter-rrains

Caption: Souterrain sites known, and/or recorded, in the Rosscarbery area. Sketch map by J.P. McCarthy.

Smith states that some time close to the time of writing some people were dig-ging for clay near the cathedral church when a ‘deep subterraneous cavity ap-peared which seemed to lead to some caverns that were discovered about thirty years before at the west end of the town, which were about 200 yards from the hole now opened’. The newly discovered souterrain had several oval chambers about 12 ft long and 6 ft wide connected by long narrow passages which were about 3 ft high and 18 inches wide. At one end of each chamber a broad flagstone was situated. I consider these to have been masonry work or a slab used to seal off the construction shaft/s. the slabs resembled the ‘back-stone of a fire-place’. The roof of each cell consisted of a ‘gothic arch’ formed

of a stiff clay ‘from the centre of which to the ground it was no more than 5ft 2 inches high. Apart from the ‘gothic arch’ this description so far seems quite normal. However, the ‘Gothic arch’ is unusual; though Chamber 5 in the rock-cut souterrain at Dunisky does have this feature. Smith says of the walls that they were ‘made of stone, smoothly plastered and the whole lined with soot so that fires had been made in them’. Evidence for soot and fires is noted for ex-ample at the Curraghcrowley souterrain and a reference to ‘masonry’ walls is not unusual. But, a reference to walls being plastered is. I suggest that Smith did not see the site and that his description is based on a report sent to him by someone local. What is meant? Were the walls of clay with boulders in it and being wet from percolating surface water the clay appeared to cover masonry acting like a plaster coating heavily stained by soot? Alternatively, because the souterrain was in close proximity to a once great monastic church were its walls plastered for some reason? If so might they have been decorated and if so why?

Smith goes on to provide a plan and section drawing of the site, the first and earliest illustration of a Cork souterrain that I a aware of. It was common in the 19th century and presumably earlier for antiquarians to employ a graphic artist to create illustrations of antiquities by they monuments or artefacts. Smith’s souterrain drawing appears to be an example of this and therefore it is not the result of a field survey. Rather, it is a hypothetical sketch derived from a verbal description or at best a loose drawing. The site is shown as a linear alignment of chambers three in number but, others suggested as following on from these. If the three ‘broad slabs’ in the chambers opened to a single construction pit I suggest that their actual alignment might have been circular.

Alternatively, there may have been other chambers and the site may not have been very different from that surveyed by Dr E. Fahy at Little Island (Rosscar-bery) which is a very short distance south of the Cathedral locality and beside the Castlefreke coastline. Was there a landing place, a jetty settlement, by Rathbarry / Kilkeran, a southern extension of the Bohonagh / Burgatia settle-ment area? Was this beside the Long Strand, by Little island, when a tsunami

hit circa 1743 AD? Does it explain a bag of Anglo-Saxon coins in a souterrain found during 18th century landscaping at Castlefreke? Did Viking longboats once moor there by a jetty, a small trading settlement trading with the monastery? Was another at the ‘schep stronde’ by Trá Luinge (Tralong Bay)? Were the coins Danegeld offered by Anglo-Saxon monks to them at the monastery, or did Viking traders give them to the monks and or tradesmen/townsmen of Burgatia / Bohonagh as payment for goods and services; coinage acquired by them in Ethelred’s kingdom? Given that St. Fachtna’s well and as-sociated structural ruins are situated in this locality and also the ringfort where tradition says he preached somewhere closeby, was Burgatia / Bohonagh (town and bothies/bohonagh) where the earliest monastic and village settlement was located, later to be subsumed into the ex-panding large demesne of a great monastery as its Schola achieved fame and attracted students from at

home and abroad?

Caption: Left hand side is Smith’s drawing of site near Cathedral circa 1750 showing a linear arrangement of chambers. This would require more than one construction pit. I’m assuming that the arch cross section is an exaggeration

not seen in the field by the draftsman, he instead relying on a second-hand, vague, verbal account - or very crude sketch - which he attempted to tidy up. Right hand side sketch is my alternative suggestion which shows the chambers and creepways encircling a single construction shaft, with ceilings cut in clay but with cross sections showing as slightly arched.

FIRBOLGS and Tunnellers As to local folklore Smith says it was believed they [ringforts] were made by the Danes, though ‘the more intelligent Irish antiquarians say’ the Fir Bolgs lived in them as that name signified a creeping man who lived in a cave. This is interesting insofar as some have interpreted the name Fir Bolg to mean ‘bag men’ while other scholars say it refers to a Belgic people or a mythical people. Was an association, in the long term folk memory, of underground spaces with the Fir Bolgs the outcome of a fusion of ancient memories with much more an-cient ones, a fusion over a large time period of separate memories i.e. miners and souterrain builders, in to one memory in the transmission of local folk his-tory? If it meant ‘bag men’ does this refer to persons who made their habita-tions by tunnelling in clay or rock a sack being the means of extraction of the excavated material as in 16th century illustrations of mine tunnellers by Georgius Agricola in his De Re Metallica? How old were the German mining practices he recorded? He then states that in ancient times such people were called Terrigenae and Antricolae, and that Scythians ‘from whom our Irish had their origin’ were by the Greeks named Getae and Geatae.

Cobh Souterrain Another ‘souterrain’ discovery made in Cork about the time Smith was writing was that at Great Island and situated between Cove (Cobh town) and Cuskinny Bay. It was ‘walled round’, and ‘vaulted over’. No further details are given by Smith. It would be of great interest to know what type of activity between Cobh town and Cuskinny at that time gave rise to the discovery? How close to Cuskinny marsh was it?

Aghabulloge Souterrain

The Cobh site, is followed by the 1755 description from Marmaduke Cox con-cerning the discovery of a souterrain with several skeletons when some labour-ers were making a ditch to enclose a potato - garden, some claiming that the site had up to 17 chambers and that the ‘rooms’ were very large. Some skele-tons were pale red as if burnt. There was a ringfort about 150 yards away from the discovery site. A ‘beautiful carved wood comb and comb box’ were found in one of the ‘rooms’ but crumbled to dust when touched. Smith also speaks of traditions of ‘smoking out’ cave inhabitants.

It is of interest that Aghabulloge townland beside Donoughmore townland in Muskerry and the place of St. Olan, was raided by Brian Ború in the 10th cen-tury as a consequence of the death of his brother King Mahon who died by the hands of the O Mahony clan of that locality, who had Viking settlers/mercenar-ies among them; possibly as a result of the growth of trading relations with the monastery and its community. When he rose to power Brian banned trade and other interactions between monasteries and Vikings.

References:Smith, Charles (1750). The Ancient and Present State of the County and City of Cork. Dublin.

Subsequent editions appeared in 1774, 1815 and in 1893-4 (with annotations by Dr. Richard Caulfield and notes from other notable local antiquarians, as part of the first series of the Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society).

Fraher, William (2010). Charles Smith 1715-62: Pioneer of Irish topography. IN Journal of the Waterford Archaeological and Historical Society, 53, 33-44.