Westropp — The Ancient Forts of Ireland. 273 



Ireland. I do not deny that some of these motes may have been 

 made by the Normans ;' but the evidence is (so far as I have found in 

 the records or on the field) non-existent in any save three cases, and 

 tliese have left no trace. I merely show that the attempt to include 

 Ireland in any theory requires local study and local kno-wlcdge, 

 and that the "rule" laid down for Irish motes by some Englisli 

 antiquaries ought not to be held " proved by its exceptions," though 

 the exceptions are endless. 



The facts certainly show the necessity of great caution before 

 theories founded on facts lying outside this island can be sweepingly 

 applied to monuments within its shores, and accepted without further 

 examination. 



The "confusion" between sepulchral tumuli and motes also calls 

 for further notice. In my paper (section 128) I wrote of simple 

 motes, "It is very easy to confuse this form with tumuli; but the 

 mistake is of less moment that certain defensive motes contain burials, 

 and certain sepulchral motes have been adapted for fortification." 

 This has naturally called forth criticism, which leads me to add a 

 little to what appears above on p. 271. The "confusion" exists in 

 the monuments themselves. We have some reputed sepulchral mounds 

 girt with fosses and rings evidently for residence. The "mound" of 

 Donaghpatrick, and that of Morristown Biller (so familiar to travellers 

 from Dublin to Kildare), are round-topped- ; but in each case we find a 

 large, and evidently residential, entrenched annexe or "bailey." This, 

 and the allusion in our history to the capture of Donaghpatrick, show 

 that, even where the mote is not flat-topped, we cannot lightly declare 

 it to be sepulchral. The mote of Magh Adhair is the traditional grave 

 of a mythical Firbolg prince, the "rath," and eventually the mound 

 of inauguration, of more historic chiefs. Here we have a complete 

 confusion of tomb, residence, and thingmote in one earthwork. So 

 far as I can find, there is no evidence for the existence of thingmotes 

 at any Norse colony, except at Dublin. This being so, may not this 

 latter mound have been an earlier fort used by the "Danes," or even 

 a sepulchral tumulus, like those at Clontarf and other places round 

 the city ? In view of all this, I should have " darkened knowledge," 



1 The only cases I have collected where a recorded Norman castle stands near 

 or at a mote, and at which no pre-Norman mention of a fortress is discoverable, 

 amount to eight. I have twenty-seven early castle- sites from Giraldus, the 

 Annals, and State Papers, where no record or traces of motes remain. 



- So, however, are the defensive motes shown on the Bayeux Tapestry. 



