44 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



regularly cross each other, forming a reticulated zigzag."' The chevauz de 

 /rise is of " slabs of jagged limestone," 3 to 6 feet high, and " set so 

 insidiously in the narrow fissures of the rock that it is rather difficult to 

 extricate oneself." From the great skill of its works, he cannot believe that 

 the fort is of the first century, but regards it as monastic- The rest of 

 the paper, where not concerned with slight notes on the other forts, wanders 

 into rehgious controversy and assertion. 



It must be noted that there are no ditchts ; the walls do not die out to the 

 south-east ; the chevavjc de frise is not confined to the north part ; the walls 

 were 18 feet high ; where best preserved, not 20 feet (still less 50 feet) high ; 

 the gate does not face the south-ea&t. The other ope is smaller than the 

 main gateway ; the " sallyport " does not run imdergroimd, or even pass 

 through the wall ; and the steps do not cross each other. Thus there are 

 eight \ital errors in the paper, which nevertheless has been treated as 

 absolutely reliable. 



The other paper, by Charles C. Babbington' (voL iv., third series, 1858, 

 p. 96), depends much on Haverty's Handbook, 1859 ; it makes the suggestions 

 that the middle section of the citadel-wall was the oldest, the outer sections 

 being added on its decay, and that the north-west passage was an older 

 entrance, closed by the outer wall. This last is not improbable, as we have 

 noted e\-ident traces of older rebuilding of the outer section. He suggests 

 that the Firbolgs were the Gwyddel ; that they were driven out of Wales by 

 the Cymry, and conquered in Ireland by the Tuatha De Danann. The 

 description of the fort is good, the best description as yet published outside 

 of Ireland. 



Though not falling strictly within the limit of the papers noted here, 

 being so late as 1894, and not (avowedly at least) from notes taken before 

 1884, we must notice a valuable paper on the date of the fort by Dr. Colley 

 March in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London (voL iv., 

 second series, p. 224). He foimd no marks of any implement on the stones^ 

 The wall has a rubble centre, with compact faces of dry stones, and is 

 penetrated by passages and domed chambers. Along its inner side run lofty 

 platforms ... to which independent flights of steps give access. He accepts 

 the "siege theory" to account for the wall, and (p. 226) suggests that the 

 stones of the chetaiuc de frise were to shelter the cattle driven into the fort 

 from slingers.' Petrie, Miss Stokes, &c., date the fortress before the Christian 



' A eonf lued recollection of Staigue Fort. 



> *■ All these dims, catiudn, and casheU verc erected as defences around the sscred btuldings," 

 p. 303. He did not obserre that all the existing churches in Arran are unfortified. 

 ' •• On the Firbolgic Forts in the South Islea of Aran.'" 

 ' It seems stnnge bow the loir, close-set stones could be suppoaed to be cattle-shelteis. 



