114 Annual Meeting. 



17th century; it may have been temporarily used during the 

 rebellion of 1641 ; who can say? But why did we find absolutely 

 nothing to show ancient occupation, early mediaeval, Celtic oi- 

 prehistoric*? Not a trace of a hearth, not a fragment of burned 

 wood, soot, or ash, not a flint-flake or stone weapon *? 



Eathkeltchar, or as it was better known, Dundalethghlas, has 

 been a populous centre for probably 3,000 years. Our excavations 

 in the Mound prove that it at least is not the site of an ancient 

 settlement, and therefore cannot be Rathkeltchar, if other proof 

 were needed. However, those who have read Mr. Goddard H. 

 Orpen's article above referred to, and Mrs. Armitages' " Early 

 Norman Castles in the British Isles," will have already been 

 convinced, without our investigations, that the Mound of 

 Downpatrick is not Rathkeltchar. It may be asked, if this is de 

 Courcy's castle, why did our investigations discover no relics 

 contemporary with his time? I think a remarkable feature in 

 the motte helps to answer this : it was never even completed. 

 The completed Norman motte was always a platform capable of 

 holding a bretasch or wooden tower. In the Mound of Down- 

 patrick the motte was only half made when work was suspended, 

 leaving no place on which the bretasch could have stood. 



Extracts from the several annals throw some hint as to the 

 probably very short occupation of the mound by de Courcy. On 

 his sudden arrival at Down, McDunlevy fled, leaving the town to 

 be plundered by the invaders ; the Irish chief hastened towards 

 Armagh to seek for aid, and shortly returned with an army, 

 estimated by some at as high as 10,000 men, including many 

 clergy with sacred relics ; that a battle was fought in the marshes 

 near the town, and the Irish army disastrously defeated and 

 dispersed, the sacred relics captured, and the clergy and many 

 others taken prisoners, seems to be well founded. This story has 

 been discredited and attributed to an exaggeration of Giraldus 

 Cambrensis. I can see no reason to doubt its accuracy : the fact 

 that the battle was fought in the marshes clearly indicates that 

 the Irish army attacked de Courcy in his fortress, where, armed 



I 



