the defensibility of irish tower houses - pure - login...county down [see csgj 20, 7-9]. similar...

The defensibility of Irish Tower Houses

Berryman, D. (2011). The defensibility of Irish Tower Houses. The Castle Studies Group Journal, 24, 260-68.

Published in:The Castle Studies Group Journal

Document Version:Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal:Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal

Publisher rights© 2011, Castles Studies Group

General rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or othercopyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associatedwith these rights.

Take down policyThe Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made toensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in theResearch Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected].

Download date:12. Aug. 2021

https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/the-defensibility-of-irish-tower-houses(2e1ac123-5a36-4cce-a3f8-05d960b3db61).html

260 The Castle Studies Group Journal No 24: 2010-11

The defensibility of Irish Tower Houses - A study.

The Castle Studies Group Journal No 24: 2010-11 261

The defensibility of Irish TowerHouses - A study.Duncan BerrymanTower-houses are often considered to besmall castles, with similar defensive fea-tures and functions. They are small, singletowers, often four or five storeys high andhave a simple plan. They were most likelyto have been accommodation for the small-er land-owning lordship, both Gaelic andAnglo-Norman. Tower-houses becamemore numerous from the late-fifteenth andearly-sixteenth century; they mainly fellout of use after a few hundred years, butsome remain occupied today. Tower-hous-es are found across Ireland, with concentra-tions in the southern Counties, the Pale -the area around Dublin - and southernCounty Down [see CSGJ 20, 7-9]. Similarbuildings can be found in Scotland, mainlyaround the Borders, where they are calledPeel Towers. The tower-houses of Scot-land are similar in appearance, but differ indesign.

Many scholars, such as Leask,Sweetman, Thomson and McNeill, haveplaced tower-houses alongside other cas-tles in their respective studies. This exem-plifies the position that tower-houses holdin the field of castle studies, being seen asa relatively minor area of study. It is truethat they share many features with theirlarger counterparts, but they have a verydissimilar position in the social scale andmust serve slightly different functions. Theearliest work on tower-houses was carriedout by Leask [1941, 75-91], this formedtwo chapters in his book of Irish castles.Similar work was carried out by Sweetman[2005, 137-174] in his book on Irish medi-eval castles. However, neither of theseevaluated the effectiveness of the defenceor living facilities. Terry Barry, of TrinityCollege, Dublin, considers tower-houses tobe primarily defensive and has based hisstudies on an attempt to date them and tosearch for their origins [1987, 180-190].

Tom McNeill, of Queen's University Bel-fast, rejects the idea that tower-houses wereprimarily for defence [1997, 217-221], in-stead his studies have stressed the socialfactors and the architectural design of thetowers. Research by Rory Sherlock [2007,59] and Gillian Eadie [forthcoming] hasattempted to investigate how the domesticfunctions of a tower-house would haveoperated. Recent research carried out atQueen's University, Belfast has taken aslightly different approach to the study oftower-houses [Berryman, 2008]. This re-search has taken a sample of tower-housesfrom across three counties of Ireland, Co.Down, Louth and Meath, rather than studyevery tower-house in one County. Insteadof looking at the tower as a whole, thisstudy focused on one important feature ofthe tower-house - the door - crucial to thedefence of the tower. Being the only entry,it was central to the tower's social functionand its every day life.


Fig. 1. Castle Ward - Co Down. Example of battle-ment-level box machicolation over the entrance.


The BawnThe largest defensive feature that the tow-er-house could enjoy was a bawn wall.This was usually a three metre high wallthat surrounded the tower to form an enclo-sure. This feature could have preventedattackers from gaining direct access to thetower-house, they would have to breach thewall first. A bawn wall serves the samepurpose as a perimeter wall of a great cas-tle; protecting the keep from enemy assault.However, extant bawns are quite rare; ap-proximately only twenty-five percent oftower-houses still have evidence of theirbawn’s existence; this is similar to the num-ber of mottes which have baileys attachedto them [Mallory & McNeill, 1991, 262].The lack of baileys in Ireland contrasts withtheir relative abundance in England, whereeighty percent of mottes have a bailey[Mallory & McNeill, 1991, 262]; this mayindicate a trend in Ireland for not creatingan enclosure to protect subsidiary build-ings. It is possible that more towers hadbawns, but they have not been preserved;

either as a result of decay or of removal.Research by Aideen Burke at Derryhiven-ny (Fig. 2) has shown an extensive com-plex that has left no surface remains [seeCSGJ 20, 50, & The Derryhivenny CastleProject]. A bawn wall would have been avery expensive construction project and itis possible that most lords could not affordto construct one to protect their property.Another explanation for the lack of bawnsis that they were not needed; there may nothave been enough violence to justify theexpense of a bawn wall.

Arch MachicolationA tower-house was usually designed withmachicolation to protect the doorway.These are much like the machicolationfound in great castles; they have similarfunctions and differ only in design. Thearch machicolation is closest in design tothose of great castles. It is formed from anarch between two projecting turrets on thefront face of the tower. This design is themost effective at defending the doorway,but it leaves the defenders vulnerable to


Fig. 2. Derryhivenny Castle c.1643. Conjectural re-construction, after Leask, showing extent of the bawn.

Fig. 3. Audley’s Castle, early C15. The south-eastfaçade. Arch machicolation above the entrance in thesouth (left) turret, at ground floor level. Parapets lost.


attack [Berryman, 2008, 36]. Arch machi-colation is only found in three tower-housesin south-east County Down; namely Aud-ley’s (Figs. 3, 4), Kilclief (page 242) andJordan’s (Fig. 14) [McNeill, 1997, 213].

Box Machicolation & BartizansThe most common design of machicolationis box machicolation. This is formed byprojecting part of the exterior wall out-wards on corbels [Berryman, 2008, 36].The box machicolation provides a smallopening above the doorway, giving the de-fender a smaller field of vision, but provid-ing them with a good defence againstattackers.

Machicolation is relatively com-mon and is found across Ireland; examplesinclude Castle Ward (County Down) (Fig.1) and Clara (County Kilkenny). Sometower-houses, such as Aughnanure (Fig. 5)(County Galway) and Ballymalis (CountyKerry) feature corner bartizans; these aresimilar in design and function to box mach-icolations, but are found at the corners ofthe tower-house at first or second floorlevel [Sweetman, 2005, 150 & 171]. Mach-icolation appears to be quite an effectiveform of defence, but possibly designedmore for their image than their functional-ity, as they either constrain the defender orleave them open to attack.

The yett or iron grateProbably the most effective defensive fea-ture of a tower-house was a yett; an irongrill or grate that could have been closedacross the main door to protect it fromattack and was secured with a chain[Sweetman, 2005, 140]. A yett performedthe same function for a tower-house as aportcullis did for a great castle. It is veryrare to find a yett still in place, such as atCregg Castle (Fermore, Co. Cork) (Fig. 6);but a number of towers have evidence thatone was once fitted to the main doorway(e.g. Athclare, Fig. 7). This evidence in-cludes holes for the hinges in the dressedstone of the door jambs and a hole thatpasses through the wall for the chain tosecure the yett closed. A yett could haveprotected the door from a battering ramattack by dissipating the force of the attackthrough the walls and preventing the ramfrom hitting the door. If the attackers tried


Fig. 4. Audley’s Castle c. C15. The south-east façade.Arch machicolation at parapet level above the en-trance.

Fig. 5. Aughnanure Castle c. C16. From the east. Therooftop machicolation is reconstructed, but the cornerbartizans are original.


to burn the door down, a yett could haveprevented them from getting into the tower-house. However, research shows that ap-proximately twenty percent of tower-hous-es were fitted with a yett [Berryman, 2008,39]. This may suggest that tower-houseswere not designed to be primarily defen-sive as it contrasts with evidence from greatcastles. Many keeps of the great castles,such as Colchester, Rochester [Toy, 1985,70 & 76], or gatehouses of enclosure cas-tles, such as Bodiam or Caernarfon [Toy,1985, 196 & 216], had portcullises to pre-vent an attacker breaking through the door-way. If so many great castles areconstructed with a portcullis, why are moretower-houses not provided with yetts?Tower-houses were constructed a numberof centuries after the great castles, and onewould assume that they would have copiedthe designs of the great castles. Contrary toprevious research [Barry, 1987, 181], it islikely that this period of history saw chang-

es in social conditions and a reduction inthe need for high security in homes[Simms, 1975]. Thus, a possible explana-tion for the lack of yetts is that not alltower-houses needed to be protected fromserious attack.

Murder holesInside a tower-house, there were a numberof ‘defensive’ features that could have beenpresent. One feature that was taken directlyfrom the design of great castles was the‘murder hole’. The majority of tower-houses have a 'murder hole' over the lobby,which is the equivalent of siting them overthe entrance passage of the gatehouse. Asin great castles, the 'murder hole' allowedthe defenders to drop rocks or other projec-tiles on to their attackers who had brokenthrough the main door [McNeill, 1992, 98].However, the 'murder hole' is often verysmall compared to the area of the lobby;this means that it would have been difficult

Fig. 6. Cregg Castle (Fermore, Co. Cork). Originalyett. Image © David Newham Johnson.


Fig. 7. Athclare Castle, Co. Louth. Slot for the chainto close the yett.


for the defenders to hit their attackers, un-less they stood directly under the 'murderhole'. One tower-house, Audley's Castle(County Down), may suggest a differentfunction for the 'murder hole' (Figs. 8, 9).The 'murder hole' of Audley's Castle issituated above the door to the ground floorroom, not near the main doorway; it is verysmall with a restricted opening. The im-plausibility of using this 'murder hole' fordefence leads to the consideration of otherfunctions, such as communication betweenthe first floor and the ground floor, possiblybetween the lord and his porter concerningadmittance to the tower-house. All murderholes provide only a restricted view of thelobby and thus other possible uses shouldbe considered for them as well.

The Lobby & Draw-bars. Almost all tower-houses have anumber of doors opening off the lobby;usually these lead to a ground-floor roomand the staircase; in some cases there is athird door leading to a guard room. Oftenthere is evidence that these doors weresecurely closed with a draw bar attached tothe inside of the door. These draw-bar di-mensions are usually very similar to themain doorway. The ability to lock thesedoors indicates that there may have beensomeone inside the ground floor room, pos-sibly a porter. The porter of great castlesserved a number of functions, not exclu-

sively security [Simpson, 1992, 319]. Thecontrol of the doorway and access to thecastle was the main role of the porter, buthe would also have looked after the castlewhen the lord was not present [Simpson,1992, 321]. The porter may not have beenso important in a tower-house, but someoneneeded to open the door and control accessto the lord's accommodation.

The Defensibility Test Very few academics have ques-tioned the physical strength of the tower-house door itself. It is either assumed to betoo weak to withstand assault or strongenough to hold out during a siege. Recent-ly, an experiment was carried out by re-searchers at Queen's University Belfast tofind out whether a tower-house door couldhave survived an attack by battering ram orby fire. It was possible that all the force ofthe battering ram would have been dissipat-ed through the walls of the tower-house andall the heat from the fire would escape up-wards.


Fig. 8. Audley’s Castle, Co. Down. Murder hole exit.

Fig. 9. Audley’s Castle. Murder hole entrance alongthe spiral staircase.


To do this, two doorways werebuilt, one to test the battering ram and theother to test fire . The doors were made of30mm thick oak planks, which were at-tached to bracing planks with bolts. Thedoor was hinged by projecting the ends ofthe first plank into holes in the ground andlintel. The doorways were constructed ofconcrete blocks and mortar and were builtto measurements taken during surveywork. One door was securely closed by adraw bar, this was 80mm square made ofsolid oak and a battering ram was formedfrom an ash tree. Wood was stacked infront of the other door to test the fire.

The wood in front of the door thatwas to test the burning was ignited withnewspaper and matches and more woodwas added as the fire grew. In medievaltimes, the fire was probably lit away fromthe tower and then brought to the door.The door quickly became very blackenedand the lintel reflected the heat back ontothe door. After about twenty minutes, thefire had begun to penetrate through weak-nesses in the door; eventually the door thenbegan to burn on its own. It took forty

minutes for the door toburn down completely.

Despite their lack of ex-perience in using a batter-ing ram, the team quicklylearnt how to use the ram.They succeeded in break-ing the draw bar withinthe first ten hits. Howev-er, the broken draw barprevented the door fromopening, as it was still inposition and it took a totalof fifty-four hits to knockthe door out of the door-way. The whole rammingexercise lasted about fiveminutes, this includedtwo changes of the team;an experienced team

could probably have managed it in approx-imately three minutes.

This experiment shows that tower-houses could not have withstood an or-ganised attack from a team of experiencedraiders and a tower-house's defensibilitywas not as effective as its apparent defen-sive features might suggest. The best de-fensive features that a tower could have


Fig. 10. Queen’s University battering ram team starting work. Below: Fig. 11.Fire just lit.


been built with were a yett or a first floorentrance, both are found in Irish tower-houses. Yetts were rare, but are found inapproximately one quarter of all tower-houses [Berryman, 2008, 39]. First floorentry is mainly restricted to tower-housesin the south-west corner of Ireland [Samu-el, 1998, 111-7]. Examples include Leam-con and Kilcoe castles built between 1427and 1470 and Dunalong, built between1460 and 1500; Bunratty is also an exampleof a very large tower-house with a first-floor entrance built after 1450 [see CSGJ23, 89-98]. A first floor entry would havemade it impossible for attackers to use abattering-ram against the door; it could alsohave made lighting a fire very difficult. Ifthe stairs were made of wood, they couldhave been destroyed if the tower was goingto be attacked, thus preventing the attackersreaching the doorway. If the attackers couldbreak the door down in such a short time,then these are the most important defences,all the others are of little use and only fordecoration and display.

ConclusionsThese results have implications for castlestudies in general. The draw-bar can only

be viewed as essentially adevice for closing the doorto keep the elements out; itwas not a significant defen-sive feature. An ‘evolu-tion’ of defensive featurescan be seen in tower-hous-es. The most basic designis a door and a draw bar;this combination wouldhave been ineffectiveagainst an attack. The nextstep would be to defend thedoor with a yett or portcul-lis. This option would havereduced the effect of a bat-tering ram and allowed adoor to hold out for muchlonger. The most effectivemeans of inhibiting an at-

tacker from gaining access was to place thedoorway on the first floor. A flight of stairswould have prevented the use of a batteringram against the door and thus stopped anattack.

Tower-houses have many featuresthat appear defensive in nature, but they

Fig. 12. Above: The battering ram team breaking through after 5 minutes.Fig. 13. Below: The oak door burnt down completely after about 45 minutes.



could only have been used to defend thetower as a last resort. This experiment hasshown that a simple, and typical, tower-house was not designed to be exclusively orprimarily defensive; this is supported bythe lack of effective defensive features,such as a yett. Therefore, although tower-houses appear similar to great castles, theyare not the same and should be studied inisolation, with different research objectivesand methods of study.

[email protected] would like to thank Patton Constructionfor supplying the materials and ArdnavallyScout Centre for hosting the experiment. Iwould also like to thank Dr Tom McNeilland Dr Gillian Eadie for their guidance andassistance throughout this experiment.

Video footage of this experiment can be viewed at:www.qub.ac.uk/schools/gap/Education/ArchaeologyandPalaeoecology/StudentAchievements

Bibliography

Barry, T., 1987, The Archaeology of MedievalIreland, London: Methuen & Co.

Berryman, D., 2008, Doorways to Irish TowerHouses: a study, BA Dissertation, Queen's Uni-versity Belfast.

Berryman, D., 2009, ‘Home security: howstrong was a Tower House door’, ArchaeologyIreland 23 [Summer 2009], 8-10

Eadie, G., forthcoming, The functions and clas-sification of tower houses, PhD thesis, Queen'sUniversity Belfast.

Leask, H.G., 1941, Irish Castles and Castellatedhouses, Dundalk: Dundalgan Press.

Mallory, J.P. & McNeill, T.E., 1991, The Ar-chaeology of Ulster, Belfast: Institute of IrishStudies, QUB.

McNeill, T. E., 1992, Castles, London: EnglishHeritage

McNeill, T. E., 1997, Castles in Ireland, Lon-don: Routledge

Thompson, M.W., 1987, The Decline of theCastle, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Samuel, M., 1998, 'A Tentative Chronology forTower Houses in West Cork', Journal of theCork Historical and Archaeological Society103, 105-24

Sherlock, R., 2007, 'The Social Environment ofthe Irish Tower House', in The Castle StudiesGroup Journal 20, 59

Somerset Fry, P., 1996, Castles of Britain andIreland, Newton Abbot: David & Charles.

Simms, K., 1975, 'Warfare in the MedievalGaelic Lordships', in The Irish Sword 12, 98-108.

Simpson, G.G., 1992, 'Claves Castri: the role ofthe gatekeeper in Scottish Medieval Castles',Château Gaillard 15, 319-324

Sweetman, P.D., 2005, Medieval Castles of Ire-land, Cork: The Collins Press.

Toy, S., 1985, Castles, New York: Dover.


Fig 14. Jordan’s Castle, near Ardglass, Co. Down.Third example of the ‘arch machicolation’.

the defensibility of irish tower houses - pure - login...county down [see csgj 20, 7-9]. similar...

Documents