92 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
It is what is called a “recessed” doorway of three orders or grada- 
tions of members, of which the two internal orders are perfect, and 
exhibit the ornamental work in question. The first or external order 
has disappeared, its place having been supplied by the same rough 
rubble masonry which shows over the rest of the newer surface. As 
far as concerns the doorway, it is obvious that this new masonry goes 
no deeper than the thickness of the first order ; for it abuts against the 
dressed red sandstone jambs and arch of the second order which pro- 
ject behind it. Plainly enough there has, to that extent, been a repair- 
ing of dilapidation both of the surface of the tower and of the outer 
order of the doorway. But this new work exhibits no appearance 
of having been executed at different times, and the internal orders 
exhibit no appearance of ever having undergone the least disturbance, 
though, of course, it might be said that, consistently with present ap- 
pearances, there may have been an original insertion, the external 
members of which may have subsequently mouldered away, and that 
the primary new work due to the insertion may have been overlayed 
and hidden from observation by the secondary work due to the repair- 
ing of that dilapidation; and, but for the further fact about to be 
adduced, it might be difficult to give these hypotheses, gratuitous and 
fanciful as they are, any other answer than that, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that things remain in 
statu quo ante. 
The theory of an insertion of one opening in lieu of another 
implies, however, a process of underpinning to sustain the weight of 
the wall after the withdrawal of the support given by the first doorway, 
and a further process of removal of the incumbent masonry to a suf- 
ficient height to give head-room to the workmen employed in putting 
in the new arch. It has been mentioned that the new work sur- 
rounds the doorway and spreads thence downward to near the ground. 
But above, where the new work ought to appear, if any such opera- 
tion as is suggested had ever taken place, not only is there no trace of 
new work beyond the few inches necessary for making up the outer 
rim of the first recess, but this part of the surface of the tower still 
carries on its face, altogether undisturbed and obviously in its original 
state, the old drip-stone or hood moulding for preserving the work 
below from the weather. It is of the gabled form, such as is used for 
the protection of other doorway-opes in other Ivish ecclesiastical 
remains—Killeshin, Freshford, Clonfert, Roscrea—and is nowhere, 
so far as | know, employed save in connexion with arched and deco- 
rated work in the same style with the ornamentation here. Nothing 
can be more distinct than the evidence afforded by this member and 
by the surface it projects from, that the original masonry of the tower 
has never been disturbed over the crown of the present doorway arch 
beyond the shallow rim of external rubble-work above described. 
Dr. Petrie has not gone into this question of ‘‘insertion”’ farther 
than by noticing the suggestion as gratuitous, and appealing to the 
evidence of the monument itself. He has, however, carefully shown 
