Hubbry Logo
RingfortRingfortMain
Open search
Ringfort
Community hub
Ringfort
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ringfort
Ringfort
Ringfort
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The ringfort at Rathrar in County Roscommon, Ireland
The Grianán Ailigh in County Donegal, Ireland, is one of the more impressive stone-walled ringforts.

Ringforts or ring forts are small circular fortified settlements built during the Bronze Age, Iron Age and early Middle Ages up to about the year 1000 AD. They are found in Northern Europe, especially in Ireland. There are also many in South Wales and in Cornwall, where they are called rounds.[1] Ringforts come in many sizes and may be made of stone or earth. Earthen ringforts would have been marked by a circular rampart (a bank and ditch), often with a stakewall. Both stone and earthen ringforts would generally have had at least one building inside.

Distribution

[edit]

Ireland

[edit]
The distribution of known, surviving ringforts in Ireland

In Irish language sources they are known by a number of names: ráth (anglicised rath, also Welsh rath), lios (anglicised lis; cognate with Cornish lis),[2] caiseal (anglicised cashel), cathair (anglicised caher or cahir; cognate with Welsh caer, Cornish and Breton ker) and dún (anglicised dun or doon; cognate with Welsh and Cornish din).[3] The ráth and lios was an earthen ringfort; the ráth being the enclosing bank and the lios being the open space within.[4] The caiseal and cathair was a stone ringfort.[3] The term dún was usually used for any stronghold of importance, which may or may not be ring-shaped.[3]

In Ireland, over 40,000 sites have been identified as ringforts and it is thought that at least 50,000 ringforts existed on the island.[5] They are common throughout the country, with a mean density of just over one ringfort within any area of 2 km2 (0.8 sq mi). It is likely that many have been destroyed by farming and urbanisation. Mapping in County Cork and Waterford in 1773 showed 73 "earthworks" with only 20 recorded in 1937.[6] However, many hitherto unknown ringforts have been found thanks to early Ordnance Survey maps, aerial photography, and the archaeological work that has accompanied road-building.

England and Wales

[edit]

In Cornwall,[1] parts of Devon, and south Wales, enclosed settlements share many characteristics with the Irish counterparts,[7] including the circular shape and souterrains (fogous), and their continuing occupation from the Iron Age into the early medieval period; the form later influencing the distinctive circular shell-keeps found across the medieval Severnside region.[8] Few Cornish examples have been archaeologically excavated, with the exception of Trethurgy Rounds.

Scandinavia

[edit]

Hillforts are also known from Scandinavia, of which nineteen can be found on the Swedish island of Öland alone.

These hillforts are not to be confused with Viking ring fortresses, of which seven are known from Denmark and southern Sweden, all from around 980 in the Viking Age. The Viking forts all share a strikingly similar design and are collectively referred to as Trelleborgs, after the first excavated fortress of that type in 1936. All the Viking ring fortresses are believed to have been built within a very short timeframe, during the reign of Harald Bluetooth, but for yet unknown military purposes. They might have served as boot camps for Sweyn Forkbeard's men before his invasion of England in 1013.[9]

Chronology

[edit]
See also: History of Ireland

The debate on chronology is primarily a result of the huge number of ringforts and the failure of any other form of settlement site to survive to modern times in any great quantity from the period before the Early Christian period or from Gaelic Ireland after the Anglo-Norman arrival. Three general theories mark the debate on the chronology of Irish ringforts; firstly the theory that wishes to date ringforts back into the Iron Age period; secondly, the theory that seeks to see the continuation of ringfort habitation into the later medieval and even the Modern Period; finally, the more common and generally accepted theory that ringforts were a product of the second half of the first millennium (543-991), a theory which has been given greater definition by Matthew Stout in recent years.[10] According to the authoritative New History of Ireland (2005), "archaeologists are agreed that the vast bulk of them are the farm enclosures of the well-to-do of early medieval Ireland".[5]

Theories

[edit]
Ringfort on the island of Inishmaan, Aran Islands, Ireland

The theories that the ringfort either pre- or post-dates the Early Middle Ages in Ireland, are both based on essentially the same premise, as is highlighted here by Tadhg O'Keefe in relation to the latter argument:

The a priori case for attributing some ringforts to the Later Middle Ages... is based on the absence of any other settlement form of appropriate date in those landscapes. In other words, if the Gaelic-Irish did not live in ringforts, where did they live?

Dating from the Iron Age

[edit]

The conjecture that ringforts can be seen to have evolved from and be part of an Iron Age tradition has been expanded by Darren Limbert. This hypothesis is based on a number of re-interpretations of the available evidence, as well as concern over the available evidence. As only a small portion of ringforts have undergone total excavation, and the fact that these excavations have not taken place on anything like a national level, the evidence is insufficient to place all ringforts and the origins of them within the Early Christian period.

Caher on Black Head, County Clare, with karst terrain in foreground

Limbert argues instead, that the ringfort should be seen in the context of a variety of similar developments in Britain and the European Continent, particularly in Iberia and Gaul. While conceding that most ringforts were built in the Early Christian period, he suggests a link between the arrival of Eóganachta dynasty in Munster c. 400 AD, and the introduction of ringforts. In support of this he notes that: "The other major Eoganachta ringforts [other than Cashel] of Ballycatten, Garranes and possibly Garryduff, despite limited stratigraphic discernment, have produced artefacts of ambiguously early origins. Also, their defensive nature,... supports an intrusion of a Celtic warrior caste..." The similarity with South Welsh 'raths' and Cornish 'rounds' suggests a degree of cultural interaction between Western British and Irish populations, however differences in dates of occupation mean this cannot be confirmed.[1]

On the island of Öland, Sweden, nineteen ringforts have been identified, including Eketorp, a site that has been completely excavated and that one may visit. Currently, excavations are ongoing at Sandby borg, which was the site of a massacre in the 5th century AD.

It is also possible that the Hill of Tara is an early type of ringfort.

Use continuing into the later medieval period

[edit]

At the opposite end of the spectrum to this, the argument has been put forward to suggest that ringforts were in use, if not being built in the later medieval and possibly Early Modern period in Gaelic Ireland. This argument is primarily two-fold, ringforts were gradually converted into what would more generally be considered as mottes today, and there is some slight and contentious archaeological evidence that points to the habitation and construction of obvious ringforts in this later medieval period.

From a morphological viewpoint, and probably also from the view of the contemporary person, there is little to distinguish a ringfort from a small earthwork castle or motte. Indeed, in a number of cases it would appear that either the Normans converted existing ringforts into the basis of the future construction of mottes and earthworks, or that the Gaelic Irish, through the use of raised raths, sought to emulate the Norman example. Some L Plan Castles, such as Balingarry Castle in Ireland originated as ringforts.

This theory is supported by a number of excavations, most notably the results of the Castleskreen II excavation, and the raised raths at Piper's Fort, and Ballyfounder, County Limerick, which seem to have been converted into mottes in the case of Castleskreen II or in the later cases, built in imitation of such constructions. If one were to accept a defensive function for ringforts, it would seem that after the introduction of more complex forms of defensive structures into Ireland this would naturally lead to the use of ringforts and raised raths in a manner analogous to the contemporary Norman buildings.

7th to 10th centuries

[edit]

While it would seem probable that some ringforts may have seen continuation in the later medieval period as adapted or imitation mottes it seems doubtful if the continuation that ringforts were still being built on a more general scale throughout the country, and the evidence put forward for such a theory would appear quite slim. The excavations which support such a theory, most notably Rynne's excavation at Shannon Airport of Garrynamona which is suggestive of a 15th-century ringfort being constructed, have failed to win any form of widespread popular acceptance.

The most common theory however is that ringforts are the product of the later half of the first millennium, a theory that has generally been supported by the excavated evidence of the period, and one that has seen remarkable if slightly ambitious definition from Matthew Stout. In his work The Irish Ringfort, Stout has sought to use the radiocarbon and dendrochronological dates from 114 ringforts and associated sites to find an overall date pattern for the use of ringforts; and through this has placed over half of all ringforts in the period 540 AD to 884 AD with two-thirds falling within the 600 AD to 900 AD period. While this method has brought the dating of the ringfort phase of Irish history to an ever more accurate level, certain problems do exist with his analysis. Firstly, as he notes himself, the research is overly biased towards Ulster (64% of dated sites were from Ulster), and the dates come from a very small sample of sites relative to the total number of ringforts. Finally, Stout's use of radiocarbon dating is to one standard deviation, which means that there is an approximately one third chance that the data offered is inaccurate by up to 100 years on either side. Yet despite these difficulties, Stout's analysis has to a large extent brought a degree of finality to the debate of the dating and use of ringforts, with it being more or less certain that the vast majority were probably occupied and constructed in the second half of the first millennium. His analysis is further supported by Gerald of Wales who commented that ringforts in Ireland, were known as Daneforts, and that they had been abandoned by the late 12th century when he was in Ireland.

A typical ringfort incorporated into field boundaries in County Tyrone, Northern Ireland

Functions

[edit]

Agriculture

[edit]

It has traditionally been understood that the ringfort was a dispersed farmstead, the home of a free man and his family and the centre of a mixed agricultural economy to a large extent dominated by cattle. A medieval Irish law text describes a prosperous farmer – boaire in Old Irish – as having a dwelling house, a sheep-pen, a calf-pen and a pig-sty – it would seem that these were all within the ring-fort.[11]

Evidence suggests that not all ringforts were farmsteads, but rather that ringforts appeared to have fulfilled a variety of other functions as well. The most celebrated example of this is Garryduff II in County Cork. This ringfort which is overlooked and in close proximity to another larger ringfort, Garryduff I, has provided archaeologists with no evidence of habitation or settlement, and the pre-eminent theory at the moment is that this ringfort was possibly used as an enclosure for livestock.

However, this interpretation is still the most commonly held in academic, archaeological and popular debate, although pollen studies and other evidence have greatly modified the traditional view of the dominance of livestock as opposed to arable farming in early medieval Ireland, making it clear that cereal production was much more important than once thought in the early medieval period.[12]

Industry

[edit]

Other sites have provided evidence that ringforts may not have principally been farmsteads, but rather had a more diverse and significant role in the economy. A good example of this is provided by the large, tri-vallate ringfort in Garannes, County Cork, which offers no evidence for habitation or settlement but provides a great deal of evidence to suggest that the site had an industrial nature. Furthermore, the finds of continental pottery at the site, suggests that the site was trading with the continent and/or may have been acting as a gateway centre for similar high status goods into the local economy. Both Garannes, and especially Garryduff II, highlight the other roles that ringforts may have had in early Christian Ireland. While it would seem that most ringforts fitted the traditional explanation as farmsteads, that should not be used as a blanket explanation. A number of other functions for many of the surviving ringforts, such as those outlined above and possibly other settlement functions, still need to be considered.

The gate of Chûn Castle in Cornwall

Defence

[edit]

A ringfort is a defensive feature that would appear to be obvious both from the name with the defensive implications that fort implies, and also from the generally understood morphological definition of the ringfort, with the banks and fosse been commonly seen as defensive. Indeed, in S. Ó Ríordáin's common morphological definition, he refers to the banks and fosses of the ringfort as defences.

One presumes that the ringfort had a defensive aspect, and in a cattle-dominated society it is generally argued that the purpose of the ringfort was to provide protection to a small community and their livestock during a 'hit and run' raid for cattle, the idea being that the ringfort would provide adequate defence for a short period of time. During the early Christian period in Ireland, cattle raids were a common occurrence and ringforts would provide a level of security.[13] This theory is strengthened by the idea of 'visual territories' which operates from the assumption that all ringfort in a region were probably occupied contemporarily, and that in a particular area one ringfort would be in the sight of at least one other neighbouring ringfort so that if one ringfort were attacked, relief would possibly come from a neighbouring one. Furthermore, a number of aspects of the generally circular nature of the ringfort highlight the defensive advantages, most notably that a circle as a shape "offered broad perspectives of approaching attackers and allowed the maximum area to be enclosed relative to the length of the bank constructed."

Status

[edit]

While defence may be expanded as the modern day explanation for the surrounding banks of a ringfort, this was not the contemporary explanation, rather the explanations forthcoming from the Early Christian texts stress the importance and role of the banks in signifying nobility, kingship and authority. This relationship can be quite clearly seen in the following extract from the Críth Gablach:

What is the due of a king who is always in residence at the head of his tuath? Seven score feet of perfect feet are the measure of his stockade on every side. Seven feet are the thickness of its earthwork, and twelve feet its depth. It is then that he is a king, when ramparts of vassalage surround him. What is the rampart of vassalage? Twelve feet are the breadth of its opening and its depth and its measure towards the stockade. Thirty feet are its measure outwardly.[14]

As can be seen from the above text, the relationship between the banks of a ringfort and vassalage is quite clear. With the argument being that the more elaborate the ringfort, usually in the forms of multiple outlying banks, the higher the status of the occupant. This emphasis on status in the function of the ringfort over that of defence would explain a number of defensive weaknesses of the ringfort. Banks, or multiples of them, would not appear to offer the best return to their builders for their defensive value in comparison to a fence or a hedge. Also, few of the ringforts where buildings have been found inside, would be able to survive a night with a herd of cattle brought inside the ringfort. Furthermore, little effort would appear to have been expended on the upkeep of ditches and fosses to prevent decay and silting. Another key difficulty with viewing the ringfort primarily as a defensive unit is the general lack of ability to fight out from the ringforts, from the top of the banks.

Legends and folklore concerning ringforts and rounds

[edit]

The materials used to construct ringforts frequently disintegrated over time. Tradition associated their circular remains with fairies and leprechauns, and they were called “fairy forts". Castle Pencaire on Tregonning Hill was regarded as the abode of giants.[15] Chun Castle in Morvah is related as the home of the giant Denbras who is buried by the character Tom at Chun Quoit from oral folklore recorded by William Bottrell published 1870.[16] Kelly Rounds (Castle Kilibury) in Triggshire is often proposed as the location of King Arthur's Celliwig, known from the Welsh poem Pa Gwr yw y Porthawr? and described in the 11th century Culhwch and Olwen. Castle Dore is often proposed as the court of King Mark (Mergh Cunomor / Marcus Cunomorus) in the romance Drustan hac Yseult, the doomed hero sailing the seas from Brittany to Ireland to seek his love.

List of notable ringforts

[edit]

Ireland

[edit]

The royal sites of Ireland are also sometimes called ringforts, although their role seems to have been mainly ceremonial. They include:

Cornwall (Cornish rounds)

[edit]

Denmark (Viking ring fortresses)

[edit]

Sweden

[edit]

Germany

[edit]

Estonia

[edit]

See also

[edit]
  • Circular rampart – Embankment built in the shape of a circle
  • Hill fort – Fortified refuge or defended settlement on a rise of elevation
  • Ringwork – Type of ancient fortification
  • Shell keep – Style of medieval fortification

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading/sources

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ringfort

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A ringfort is a circular or oval-shaped , typically measuring 20 to 50 meters in diameter, surrounded by one or more earthen banks and external ditches that served as defensive barriers for early medieval farmsteads or settlements, primarily in Ireland. These structures, also known locally as raths (earthen) or cashels (stone-built), were primarily constructed between approximately AD 400 and 1200 during the early medieval period, though some may date to the late or even earlier. They often enclosed central features such as round houses, storage pits, and souterrains—underground passages used for refuge, storage, or livestock during raids. Ringforts varied in complexity, from simple univallate (single bank and ditch) enclosures to more elaborate bivallate or trivallate forms, with the latter indicating higher among their builders, who were likely free farmers or local elites. With an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 examples surviving across , ringforts represent the most numerous class of monument in the country and are densest in the midlands and western regions, such as , where around 4,000 have been recorded. They provide crucial insights into 's early medieval society, including agricultural practices, settlement patterns, and defense strategies amid Viking incursions and inter-clan conflicts. In , ringforts are often called "fairy forts," believed to be dwellings of supernatural beings, which has contributed to their remarkable preservation despite modern development pressures. Many are protected as National Monuments under Irish law, underscoring their enduring cultural and historical value.

Definition and Characteristics

Terminology and Etymology

A ringfort is defined in Irish archaeology as a small, circular enclosure, typically 20 to 60 meters in diameter, featuring an internal bank of earth or stone and an external ditch, constructed primarily during the early medieval period from the 5th to 10th centuries AD. These structures served as enclosed farmsteads or defensive settlements, with the interior often containing timber buildings for habitation and livestock protection. In Irish contexts, they are commonly referred to as ráths (earthen variants), caiseals or cahers (stone-built versions), and lis or lios (enclosures emphasizing the internal space), terms that reflect both material and functional distinctions. The etymology of these native Irish terms traces back to Old Irish linguistic roots. Ráth, denoting an earthen rampart or fort surrounding a chief's residence, originates from Proto-Celtic frāti- (fort or rampart) or rāti- (a dugout or excavation), ultimately linked to Proto-Indo-European prehzt-i- (field or cleared area), evoking the idea of an enclosed, productive space. Cathair (or caher in anglicized form), meaning a stone enclosure or fortress, derives from Proto-Celtic katrixs, katrik-, or kassrik- (fortification), with uncertain further origins but possibly related to concepts of bounded territory in Celtic languages. Lios, referring to the open, green area within an enclosing bank or rampart, stems from Old Irish les (enclosed space around dwellings), cognate with Welsh llys (court or enclosure) and Breton lez (farmyard), highlighting the habitable interior rather than the boundary itself. These terms evolved in early medieval Irish texts to describe local fortified homesteads, with distinctions like ráth for the bank and lios for the interior sometimes blurring over time. The English term "ringfort" emerged in 19th-century archaeological literature as a collective descriptor for these circular enclosures, popularized by scholars like William Gregory Wood-Martin in works surveying Irish antiquities, to unify diverse native under a morphological label emphasizing the ring-like form. In Britain, analogous earthwork enclosures from the medieval period are termed "ringworks," a introduced in early 20th-century studies to denote flat-topped, ditched platforms without mottes, often associated with Norman defenses. Regional variations include "rounds" in for similar to early medieval circular embanked settlements, reflecting local topographic and cultural adaptations. In , late examples (c. 980 AD) are known as "Viking ring fortresses" or "Trelleborgs," a term derived from the site at , highlighting their standardized, planned circular design under King . True ringforts must be distinguished from prehistoric features like s, which are or monuments (c. 3000–2000 BC) characterized by external banks and internal ditches, typically serving ceremonial or astronomical purposes rather than habitation or defense. This structural inversion—external ditch for ringfort drainage and deterrence versus internal ditch for henge ritual containment—along with chronological and functional differences, underscores their separate cultural contexts in archaeological classification.

Physical Structure and Variations

Ringforts are characterized by a circular or near-circular , typically defined by a single concentric and an earthen bank, with internal diameters generally ranging from 20 to 50 meters. The banks, constructed from upcast material from the , stand 1 to 2 meters high and often supported wooden palisades or post fences for added reinforcement. vary in depth and width, commonly 1 to 2 meters deep and up to 3 meters wide, with flat or rounded bottoms to facilitate drainage and demarcation. Variations in construction materials reflect regional geology and availability. Earthen raths, the most prevalent type across , rely on soil and turf for banks and ditches, as seen in sites like Ballymacloon in , where banks reach 2.5 meters in height. In contrast, stone cashels predominate in rocky western regions such as the in , featuring dry-stone walls 2 to 5 meters thick and up to 3 meters high, exemplified by Leacanabuaile cashel with its imposing enclosure. Multivallate ringforts, incorporating two or three concentric banks and ditches, are rarer and typically larger, exceeding 60 meters in diameter, such as the triple-ringed Cahercalla in . Internally, ringforts often contain foundations of dwellings, including circular or rectangular houses built from timber, wattle-and-daub, or , with evidence of central hearths for cooking and heating. Souterrains—narrow underground passages or chambers constructed from stone slabs or corbelled masonry—appear in many examples, serving as storage or refuge spaces, as at Creevagh rath in where a connects to house remains. Additional features include possible pens and outbuildings delineated by postholes or low walls, indicating organized domestic and agricultural spaces within the . Size and layout adaptations highlight environmental integration. Smaller promontory forts, such as Dun Dúchathair on in , utilize natural cliffs for three-sided enclosure, with artificial banks closing the landward side and internal areas of 20 to 30 meters. Larger inland ringforts, like those on hilltops or lowlands, feature broader layouts up to 75 meters across, with flat or slightly raised interiors to suit undulating terrain and facilitate multiple structures. These variations ensure structural stability and efficient across diverse landscapes.

Geographical Distribution

Ireland and Britain

Ringforts are most abundant in , where over 47,000 examples have been recorded as of 2025, yielding an average national of approximately 0.55 sites per square kilometer. This distribution is uneven, with the highest concentrations occurring in the central midlands and parts of the west, particularly in counties such as Roscommon, where can exceed 1 site per square kilometer in fertile, well-drained areas. In Roscommon, for instance, the landscape features a very high of these enclosures, reflecting intensive early medieval settlement patterns. Univallate ringforts predominate nationally, comprising over 80% of recorded sites, while bivallate forms are more common in higher-status or regionally variable contexts, such as clusters in certain midland areas. In Britain, ringfort equivalents known as ringworks are far less numerous, with approximately 200 identified examples, primarily concentrated in and southern and central . These sites often integrate with earlier traditions, adapting enclosed settlement forms to local terrains, as seen in at Din Lligwy on , a polygonal stone-enclosed settlement dating to the . In , ringworks appear in regions like , where they served as defended farmsteads amid agricultural landscapes, sometimes evolving from or alongside enclosures. A distinctive variant occurs in southwest , particularly , where around 200 "Cornish rounds" represent stone-walled ringforts adapted to the region's rocky terrain and coastal settings. These univallate enclosures, often positioned on cliff edges or elevated ground for defensive oversight, feature earthen banks revetted with local stone, differing from Ireland's more earthen-dominant forms but sharing functional similarities as farmstead protections. The overall distribution of ringforts in Ireland and Britain correlates strongly with environmental and economic factors, including soil fertility suitable for agriculture, which favored construction on well-drained or glacial till rather than acidic or waterlogged areas. Sites systematically avoided extensive bogs and peatlands, which limited settlement in much of the Irish west and northwest, while proximity to early medieval centers in fertile lowlands encouraged denser clustering. In Britain, similar patterns emerge, with ringworks and rounds favoring arable coastal and inland zones over marshy or upland extremes.

Scandinavia and Northern Europe

In , ringforts are exemplified by the Trelleborg-type Viking fortresses, which represent a distinct military adaptation from the more domestic Celtic enclosures found elsewhere in . These circular fortifications, constructed primarily in the late , feature precise geometric designs with ramparts, ditches, and standardized layouts, often positioned at strategic points to control trade routes and defend against invasions. Unlike the thousands of ringforts in Ireland, only a handful—fewer than ten confirmed sites—exist in the region, underscoring their rarity and centralized planning under royal authority. Denmark hosts the majority of these structures, with five well-documented examples built during the reign of King (c. 958–986 CE): Aggersborg, Fyrkat, Nonnebakken, (in ), and Borgring. Aggersborg, the largest, spans an inner diameter of approximately 240 meters and was constructed around 970–980 CE, featuring a circular rampart enclosing up to 48 longhouses arranged in a quartered layout with four gates aligned to the cardinal directions. These fortresses were strategically placed near rivers, , or coastal areas, such as Fyrkat overlooking the Mariager , to facilitate commerce along Baltic and routes while providing defensive strongholds. Archaeological evidence, including timber-laced earthworks and weapon finds, indicates short-lived use, likely abandoned after a or two due to shifting political dynamics. In Sweden, ringforts are even scarcer, with Trelleborgen near the modern town of Trelleborg serving as the primary example. Discovered in 1988, this 9th–10th century site mirrors Danish designs, with a turf and wooden palisade forming a circular enclosure of about 145 meters in diameter, including gates and internal divisions for housing warriors and storage. Located in Scania close to the Øresund strait, it supported trade with Denmark and the continent, reflecting Viking expansion into southern Sweden. Another potential site, Borgeby, shows similar circular features but remains less conclusively identified as a full Trelleborg-type fortress. These Swedish examples highlight coastal emphases for maritime defense and economic control. Further north and east, in regions like and , true ringforts are absent, though early medieval fortified settlements along trade routes—such as villages in or hillforts on —echo some functional parallels in protecting commerce and communities, albeit without the standardized circular geometry. The overall paucity of ringforts in beyond and southern (totaling under 10 sites) contrasts sharply with Celtic distributions, emphasizing their role as elite, state-sponsored projects rather than widespread rural features.

Chronology and Development

Origins and Dating Theories

Early theories on the origins of ringforts, proposed by 19th-century scholars, linked them to the and the (c. 500 BC–100 AD), interpreting these enclosures as fortified settlements associated with incoming Celtic groups. This hypothesis drew parallels between Irish ringforts and continental Celtic defended sites, emphasizing similarities in circular form and defensive features. However, it has been largely discredited due to the scarcity of diagnostic La Tène artifacts, such as decorated metalwork or weaponry, within excavated ringfort contexts, which instead yield early medieval assemblages. A related hypothesis suggested Roman influence on ringfort development, positing continuity from Iron Age oppida—large enclosed settlements—in Britain after the Roman withdrawal around AD 410. This view implied or migration leading to adapted fortified forms in Ireland. has refuted this, with secure dates for ringfort construction consistently falling after the 5th century AD, showing no direct overlap with oppida phases or Roman-era imports in most sites. Contemporary evidence points to a transition from prehistoric enclosures, including ring ditches used for burials and ritual, evolving into more substantial domestic ringforts in the post-Roman era. The first true ringforts, characterized by banks and ditches enclosing habitations, emerged in the 5th–6th centuries AD, as evidenced by radiocarbon assays from sites like Garranes in , where occupation layers date to this period and include early debris. Dating ringforts has faced methodological challenges, with 19th- and early 20th-century approaches relying heavily on and superficial artifact associations, often assuming uniform longevity across sites. Modern radiocarbon (C14) dating, applied to organic remains like and bone from over 100 excavations, reveals significant variability, with some structures predating the while others cluster later, highlighting regional differences and multi-phase use rather than a monolithic . This shift from stratigraphic inference to calibrated C14 results has refined understandings, though issues like the "old wood effect" in samples persist.

Peak Construction Period

The peak construction period for ringforts in Ireland occurred primarily between the 7th and 10th centuries AD, with archaeological consensus identifying intensive activity from approximately AD 650 to 900. This timeframe aligns with the consolidation of Gaelic kingdoms and the establishment of túatha, or tribal units, which emphasized protected farmsteads amid social instability and . from over 1,500 early medieval sites, including more than 240 excavated ringforts between 1930 and 2009, supports this , with the majority of dates clustering in the 600-900 AD range for earthen and stone enclosures. For instance, analyses of univallate and multivallate raths indicate primary occupation from AD 600-850, refined through calibrated dates on , , and seeds from domestic contexts. Dendrochronological evidence from Irish oak timbers, used in palisades and structural elements, further corroborates wooden phases within this period, leveraging the master chronology spanning over 7,000 years. In Britain, analogous enclosed settlements and reoccupations peaked earlier, from the 5th to 7th centuries AD, during the post-Roman transition marked by political fragmentation and defensive needs following the withdrawal of Roman administration around AD 410. Archaeological evidence, including radiocarbon dates from refortified sites like Cadbury Castle and , shows activity concentrated in this era, with earthworks and timber reinforcements dating to AD 450-650. These structures served similar protective roles for local elites amid instability from migrations and conflicts. Scandinavian ringforts, particularly the monumental Viking Age examples in Denmark, represent a later peak from the 9th to 11th centuries AD, with construction focused around AD 970-980 under King . Sites such as , Aggersborg, and Fyrkat feature precisely planned circular geometry and timber-laced ramparts, dated via of oak posts and radiocarbon on organic fills, reflecting centralized royal authority and strategic defense during expansion. This period coincides with intensified raiding and kingdom-building in .

Decline and Reuse

In Ireland, ringfort construction experienced a sharp decline after the , with archaeological evidence indicating a cessation in new builds by the , coinciding with broader socio-economic changes and culminating in widespread abandonment following the Anglo-Norman invasions beginning in 1169. This decline was exacerbated by rural depopulation and the imposition of Anglo-Norman control, which created a spatial where ringforts were actively discouraged in conquered territories. Some sites saw limited into the 13th and 14th centuries, often adapted for defensive or domestic purposes under hybrid Gaelic-Anglo-Norman influences. In , Viking-age ringforts, such as the -type fortresses, were largely abandoned by the early , as centralized kingdoms emerged under rulers like and his successors, rendering these expensive military installations obsolete. The process of , which accelerated from the late and was largely complete by around 1050, further contributed to their disuse, with sites like showing evidence of both pagan and Christian burials before being dismantled shortly after internal power struggles were resolved. These fortifications, built around 970–980 CE, had short lifespans of only a or two, after which they decayed without significant reuse. Reuse patterns varied regionally; in Britain and Anglo-Norman controlled areas of , several ringforts were repurposed as medieval mottes by raising central platforms and adding wooden or stone structures, as evidenced by excavation layers showing sod development between original ringfort phases and later motte constructions at sites like Castleskreen, . In , many abandoned ringforts were incorporated into post-medieval agricultural landscapes, serving as field boundaries or enclosures for livestock, with their earthen banks and ditches integrated into modern farm divisions, particularly in areas like . Key factors driving this decline included the supplanting of ringforts by more advanced castles, which offered superior defense and symbolized feudal authority in conquered regions. Additionally, economic shifts toward open villages and nucleated settlements from the onward reflected changing agricultural practices and , reducing the need for dispersed enclosed homesteads.

Construction Techniques

Materials and Building Methods

Ringforts were primarily constructed using locally available materials and simple earth-moving techniques, with earthen variants being the most common form across . These structures typically involved excavating a circumferential , often 1-3 meters deep, to create the defensive fosse, while the upcast soil from this excavation was piled to form the surrounding bank, resulting in a raised embankment that enhanced the enclosure's boundary. In areas with suitable geology, such as the Loop Head Peninsula in , fosses reached depths of up to 3.66 meters, with banks achieving heights of around 2-4.8 meters, built directly from the displaced subsoil including , , and clay. For added stability, particularly on sloping terrain, banks were sometimes reinforced with timber revetments or lacing along their inner faces, preventing soil slippage and allowing for more durable construction; such features have been documented at sites like Coolowen in . Stone variants, known as cashels or cahers, were prevalent in rocky western regions where earthworks were impractical, employing dry-stone walling techniques without mortar to stack local materials into thick, self-supporting walls. These walls, often 3-4 meters high and up to 3 meters wide at the base, utilized slabs or in rough horizontal courses, with smaller stones filling voids to ensure structural integrity; a notable example is Caherconnell in , where walls were erected directly on leveled using indigenous blocks. In -rich landscapes like , this method capitalized on abundant outcrops, creating enclosures that varied from circular to sub-rectangular forms while integrating seamlessly with the terrain. Construction relied on basic and early medieval tools, including wooden spades, iron-shod digging implements, and baskets for transport, reflecting the period's technological constraints and the absence of advanced machinery. Labor was communal, involving groups or extended kin networks, with estimates for a typical univallate ringfort requiring 100-500 person-days of effort, depending on site size and conditions; comparative studies of similar earthwork enclosures suggest excavation rates of 0.6-2 cubic meters per person-hour in average , enabling completion within weeks to months under organized . Engineering considerations emphasized practical site adaptation, with many ringforts oriented on elevated, well-drained ground to avoid floodplains and waterlogged peats, as seen in preferences for intermediate altitudes (30-60 meters) and gentle slopes in areas like . In wetter locales, ditches occasionally incorporated sluice-like features or simple timber controls to manage seasonal water flow and prevent internal ponding, though such elements were not universal and varied by local .

Archaeological Evidence

Archaeological excavations at ringfort sites across have uncovered diverse artifact assemblages that provide insights into daily life and economic activities during the early medieval period. Common finds include iron tools such as knives, sickles, and nails, which indicate agricultural and domestic use, alongside fragments of coarse handmade known as souterrain ware, characterized by its coil-built construction and simple decoration. Animal bones from species like , sheep, pigs, and horses further reveal a economy, with evidence of both herding and arable cultivation supporting self-sufficient communities. Site-specific investigations highlight variations in ringfort complexity and significance. At Grianán of Aileach, a prominent stone ringfort in , 19th-century excavations revealed artifacts including a large perforated stone, wooden fragments, and animal bones from sheep and other species, suggesting elite or royal associations within the structure. In the complex in , comprising multiple enclosures, geophysical surveys and limited excavations have identified ritual elements such as ceremonial mounds and possible features, integrated within a broader of over 240 archaeological sites. Dating techniques have refined the of ringfort occupation, with radiocarbon of organic materials from excavations playing a central role. of 114 radiocarbon dates from 47 ringfort sites, calibrated and synthesized by archaeologist Matthew Stout, confirms that the majority were constructed and primarily occupied between the 6th and 10th centuries AD, aligning with the early medieval period. Complementary pollen from sediments near ringfort locations indicates intensification of arable farming during this era, marked by increased pollen and reduced indicators, reflecting landscape clearance for . Preservation of ringforts faces significant challenges from natural and anthropogenic factors. , particularly along coastal sites, and modern farming practices such as ploughing and have led to the destruction of many sites since the , with current estimates indicating 45,000 to 60,000 surviving examples across as of 2025. These threats underscore the urgency of ongoing survey and protection efforts to safeguard remaining monuments.

Functions and Interpretations

Defensive Purposes

Ringforts in Ireland were designed as enclosures that may have provided security for small communities and their livestock, featuring banks of earth or stone, sometimes reinforced with wooden palisades, and external ditches that could serve as barriers against intruders. However, scholarly interpretations of their functions vary; while traditionally viewed as defensive, some archaeologists argue they were primarily multifunctional farmsteads rather than military forts, with enclosures emphasizing status and economic roles over defense. These elements created obstacles for would-be raiders, particularly during the early medieval period when cattle raiding was prevalent in inter-tribal conflicts, allowing inhabitants to herd animals inside and defend from elevated positions near entrances or the ramparts. Many Irish ringforts were strategically placed on hilltops or in visual range of neighboring sites, facilitating early warning signals such as smoke or shouts to coordinate defense across a landscape. Historical records from the document frequent raids, including Viking incursions from the late 8th to 9th centuries, which targeted coastal and inland settlements for plunder, underscoring the need for localized protective structures amid a fragmented political landscape prone to violence. Although the do not explicitly describe attacks on ringforts, the of such raids—often involving the seizure of and —implies that these enclosures offered essential refuge for wealthy farmers and their kin, who formed the core inhabitants. Despite their potentially defensive intent, ringforts were not impregnable fortresses; their banks could be scaled with effort, and the ditches, while slowing attackers, lacked the depth or fortification for prolonged sieges, functioning more as deterrents to opportunistic raids than barriers against organized armies. This limitation is evident in their small scale—typically enclosing 0.1 to 0.5 hectares—and reliance on community vigilance rather than professional garrisons, making them vulnerable to surprise assaults or overwhelming numbers. In comparison to contemporaneous structures elsewhere in , Irish ringforts were less militarized, emphasizing homestead protection for agrarian families over strategic control.

Economic and Domestic Roles

Ringforts functioned as multifunctional enclosures that integrated agricultural production and domestic life, serving as self-contained farmsteads for early medieval Irish communities between approximately AD 400 and 1100. These sites typically encompassed areas of 0.1 to 0.5 hectares, housing livestock pens, crop plots, and living structures, which supported a reliant on and arable farming. dominated the livestock component, with enclosures designed to secure herds from raiding, reflecting their role as a primary measure of and sustenance through and meat production. Pollen analyses from sites like Cahercommaun in indicate the presence of nearby arable fields with cereals such as and , alongside pastoral grasslands, underscoring the balanced agrarian system. Domestically, ringforts accommodated extended family groups, often comprising 20 to 30 individuals, in clusters of one to several roundhouses constructed from timber, . Excavations at Lisleagh in revealed evidence of four roundhouses within a single , suggesting communal living arrangements for kin-based households engaged in daily chores and subsistence tasks. Adjacent open spaces facilitated craft activities, including textile production through with spindle whorls and loom weights, as well as small-scale evidenced by iron slag and tools at sites like Garranes in . These domestic zones emphasized practical labor, with hearths and refuse pits yielding bone remains that highlight a diet centered on domesticated animals and cultivated grains. The economic framework of ringforts promoted self-sufficiency, with zooarchaeological data from assemblages showing a reliance on for , hides, and traction, complemented by sheep, pigs, and for diversified protein sources. Cereal cultivation, particularly , was integral, as macro-plant remains and profiles from enclosures demonstrate on-site processing and storage in pits or souterrains to preserve surplus grains against spoilage. Souterrains, underground passages common in up to 20% of ringforts, served as secure storage for valuables and foodstuffs, potentially facilitating limited trade exchanges of dairy products or crafted items under the legal system's emphasis on property protection and cattle-based compensation. This generated modest surpluses, likely allocated to local , as inferred from legal texts prescribing fines in for offenses, thereby reinforcing the enclosures' role in sustaining hierarchical social structures.

Social and Symbolic Meanings

Ringforts in early medieval functioned as prominent status markers within a hierarchical society, where the size, construction, and location of these enclosures reflected the occupant's social rank. Larger multivallate ringforts, often exceeding 100 meters in diameter, and those built with durable stone (cashels) were typically associated with elite classes, including nobles and kings, distinguishing them from smaller univallate earthen raths used by lower-ranking freemen. For instance, the royal complex at Tara, comprising multiple raths such as Rath na Rí (Fort of the Kings), served as a central emblem of and high-status residence, hosting assemblies and rituals that reinforced political authority. texts, such as the eighth-century Críth Gablach, prescribed specific dimensions for enclosures and dwellings based on rank; for example, a high-ranking aire forgill (lord of superior clients) was entitled to a measuring "seven score feet of perfect feet on every side," underscoring how architectural scale symbolized wealth and honor-price in cumals (female slaves as units of value). These sites also organized community life around extended kin groups, known as the fine, which formed the basic social and economic unit in early medieval Ireland, comprising agnatic kindreds responsible for mutual support, property inheritance, and legal obligations. A typical ringfort housed such a kin group, with internal structures like souterrains and outbuildings supporting communal farming and storage, while the enclosure's layout fostered group cohesion and identity. Archaeological evidence from excavated ringforts reveals clusters of dwellings and activity areas suggesting multi-generational occupation by 10–20 individuals from the same fine, with high-status sites like Garranes showing specialized zones for elite oversight of kin labor. Additionally, artifacts such as imported pottery and metalwork indicate occasional ceremonial functions within these spaces, where assemblies (óenach) gathered kin and clients for feasting and dispute resolution, enhancing social bonds and hierarchical order. Symbolically, the circular form of ringforts resonated with broader Celtic cosmological concepts, representing wholeness, the eternal cycle of life, and the enclosed mirroring the or cosmic order in mythological narratives. This geometry echoed solar and circular motifs in and lore, positioning the ringfort as a microcosm of the under the ruler's protection. In myths tied to , such as those in the Dindsenchas tradition, royal ringforts like those at Tara symbolized the king's sacred bond with the land and its fertility, where the enclosure's integrity paralleled the monarch's authority to maintain social harmony and divine favor. Excavations at high-status sites yield symbolic artifacts, including stones and deposits, reinforcing these associations with kingship and cosmic legitimacy. Evidence from ringfort highlights gendered social roles, with women's crafts integral to household economy and identity, while legal codes upheld patriarchal structures. Spindle whorls and loom weights, commonly found in domestic contexts within ringforts, attest to women's primary involvement in textile production, a labor-intensive activity that supported kin-group self-sufficiency and trade. tracts, including Cáin Lánamna, outline a patriarchal framework where men dominated property ownership and legal representation, yet granted women specific rights in and ; for example, in lánamnas comthinchuir (partnership ), wives shared joint dominion over , though contracts required male consent. Heiresses in bantinchur marriages could control estates, influencing settlement dynamics, but overall, women's status was subordinate, tied to male kin, with legal penalties for offenses reflecting honor-prices scaled by gender and rank.

Cultural and Historical Significance

Folklore and Legends

In , ringforts, often termed "fairy forts" or raths, are regarded as the dwellings of the , supernatural beings also known as the "good people" or , who inhabit an otherworldly realm accessible through these ancient earthworks. These sites are believed to serve as portals to the sí, where the reside in a parallel existence, engaging in eternal feasts, dances, and processions that echo into the human world on misty evenings. Traditional tales portray the as capricious yet powerful entities descended from the , the mythical pre-Christian gods of , who retreated underground after their defeat by human invaders. A central element of these legends is the strict against disturbing forts, enforced by fears of retribution including curses, illness, or death. Oral accounts from rural describe dire consequences for those who damage the sites, such as a whose perished and who himself succumbed shortly after ploughing a ringfort, or a man struck by a "fairy blast" leading to after removing stones from a rath. Specific narratives link particular ringforts to divine figures; for instance, the rath at Knockainey in is associated with the goddess Áine, a of , , and the land, whose wrath was invoked in tales of vengeance against desecrators, reinforcing the site's sacred status. In , similar earthworks known as "rounds," such as Kelly Rounds, feature in Arthurian lore as potential sites of King Arthur's court at Celliwig, where legends depict chivalric gatherings haunted by spectral knights and otherworldly guardians. These beliefs persisted into the 19th and 20th centuries through accounts of hauntings and apparitions, with rural communities reporting eerie lights, music, or shadowy processions emanating from the forts at dusk. Irish poet , deeply immersed in such traditions, drew upon them in works like his edited collection Fairy and Folk Tales of the Irish Peasantry (1888), where he documented stories of abductions and enchantments tied to ringforts, portraying them as liminal spaces blending the mortal and immortal realms. Anthropologically, these superstitions served a protective function, deterring agricultural encroachment and preserving thousands of ringforts intact well before modern archaeological recognition, as evidenced by 19th-century collectors like Thomas Croker who noted the peasantry's "gross superstition" as key to their survival.

Preservation and Modern Relevance

Ringforts in Ireland face significant threats from modern agricultural practices and environmental changes. Surveys indicate that approximately half of the original estimated 60,000 ringforts have disappeared, largely due to farming activities including , mechanized plowing, and production, particularly on privately owned farmland where enforcement of protections is challenging. Coastal ringforts, such as forts along the southwest Irish coastline, are increasingly vulnerable to exacerbated by , with rising sea levels, intensified storms, and higher wave energy leading to progressive structural loss at rates of approximately 0.2–0.3 meters per year in exposed coastal areas. Legal frameworks provide essential safeguards for remaining sites. The National Monuments Acts, originally enacted in 1930, designate ringforts as protected national monuments, prohibiting unauthorized works and enabling state intervention for preservation; these were consolidated and updated through amendments, including the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, which strengthens protections for newly discovered sites and enhances enforcement powers. On an international level, complexes incorporating ringfort elements, such as the Hill of Uisneach, have been included on 's UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List since 2015 as part of the Royal Sites of Ireland, highlighting their cultural significance and prompting coordinated conservation efforts across counties. Ringforts contribute to contemporary and education, fostering public engagement with Ireland's past. Popular sites like Staigue Fort in draw substantial visitors as part of the Wild Atlantic Way, supporting local economies through guided tours and experiential visits that emphasize their architectural and historical value. Educational initiatives, including the Office of Public Works' free school visit programs and community schemes like Adopt a , integrate ringfort studies into curricula, teaching students about and conservation through on-site activities and resources. Recent advancements in research underscore ringforts' ongoing relevance amid environmental challenges. Twenty-first-century technologies, such as surveys, have uncovered previously hidden archaeological features, for example in the hillfort complex in , revealing prehistoric settlement patterns and aiding in the mapping of unrecorded enclosures. In 2025, excavations at a ringfort near Galway Bay confirmed its use by early medieval nobles, while the Community Monuments Fund allocated over €400,000 for conservation projects across , including ringforts. Debates on climate adaptation focus on balancing intervention—such as shoreline stabilization—with minimal impact on site integrity, drawing on case studies from coastal Kerry to develop resilient management plans for vulnerable monuments.

Notable Ringforts

Irish Examples

Grianán of Aileach, located on Greenan Mountain in , is a prominent early medieval stone cashel, likely dating to before AD 800, that served as a royal seat for the dynasty, offering panoramic views across Inishowen Peninsula and . This well-preserved circular fort, with walls up to 5 meters thick and an internal diameter of about 23 meters, was likely constructed on an earlier earthwork site, underscoring its layered historical significance as a defensive and ceremonial stronghold. Staigue Fort, situated near Castlecove in , exemplifies an Iron Age-style stone ringfort dating to c. 300–400 BCE, renowned for its impressive dry-stone construction and intact state. The fort features walls over 4 meters thick at the base, tapering to 1 meter at the top, enclosing a near-circular interior of approximately 27 meters in diameter, possibly designed to protect livestock and inhabitants in a strategic valley position overlooking . Rathcroghan, or Cruachan, in , represents a vast multi-ring complex spanning several square kilometers and comprising over 240 archaeological sites, functioning as the ancient ceremonial and political capital of from the late prehistoric period onward. Key features include multiple concentric ringforts, such as the central Ráth Cruachan with its double-banked enclosure, alongside ritual mounds like the Oweynagat cave portal and inauguration sites tied to legendary rulers like Queen Medb, highlighting its role in mythology and governance. Dún Aonghasa on in the [Aran Islands](/page/Aran Islands), , stands as one of Ireland's most dramatically sited multivallate stone forts, perched on an 87-meter cliff edge facing the Atlantic Ocean and dating primarily to the late with later modifications. The semi-circular structure incorporates three defensive walls, the outermost reaching 6 meters in height and enclosing an area of about 4 hectares, its chevron-shaped stones and chequered entrance emphasizing both defensive prowess and symbolic prominence in the island's prehistoric landscape.

European Examples

Ringforts, or analogous enclosed settlements, appear across in various forms, reflecting regional adaptations to defensive, economic, and environmental needs during the late through early medieval periods. In and , these structures often served as strategic fortifications linked to and trade networks. One prominent example is in , a 10th-century constructed around 980 CE under the reign of King . This site features a circular layout with massive earthen ramparts up to 4 meters high and a surrounding ditch, enclosing an area of approximately 4 hectares divided into four quadrants with longhouses arranged symmetrically. Artifacts such as weapons, jewelry, and coins recovered during excavations highlight its role as a and administrative center. In 2023, was inscribed as part of the "Viking-Age Ring Fortresses," alongside four other Danish examples, underscoring its architectural sophistication and historical significance. In , Din Lligwy on the island of represents a post-Roman enclosed settlement dating to the 4th-5th centuries CE. The site consists of a stone-walled enclosure, about 50 meters in diameter and 1.5 meters thick, surrounding a cluster of round and rectangular stone buildings, including two prominent circular huts interpreted as domestic structures. Excavations have uncovered Roman pottery, iron tools, and evidence of , suggesting continuity from Romano-British occupation into the early medieval period amid the region's transition after Roman withdrawal. Managed by , the Welsh heritage agency, Din Lligwy illustrates localized adaptations of enclosed village layouts in . Further east, Asva on the Estonian island of exemplifies a fortified village from the late , with occupation layers extending into the Early and Viking period (roughly 7th-10th centuries CE). Enclosed by earthen ramparts and ditches covering about 8 hectares, the settlement includes over 50 house foundations and yielded Baltic trade artifacts such as , tools, and imported from Scandinavian and Finnish routes. Archaeological investigations since the 1930s, including major excavations in the 1960s, reveal Asva as a key hub for bronze casting and regional exchange in the eastern Baltic. In , Feddersen Wierde near demonstrates an early medieval —a raised artificial settlement with ring-like enclosure elements—occupied from the Roman through the (1st-8th centuries CE). This Frisian coastal site, built on a up to 5 meters high to combat flooding, features concentric farmstead layouts with ditched enclosures surrounding longhouses and outbuildings, spanning about 2 hectares in its peak phases. Systematic excavations from 1953 to 1963 uncovered over 100 structures, bone tools, and imported goods, evidencing adaptive settlement strategies in the marshy region. The site's findings, published in detailed reports by the Lower Saxony State Museum, highlight evolving rural economies in early Germanic communities.

References

  1. https://www.academia.edu/20346510/Lisnagun_in_Context_The_Ringforts_of_the_Clonakilty_Area
  2. https://heritageireland.ie/unguided-sites/carron-ringfort/
  3. https://heritageireland.ie/unguided-sites/loher-ringfort/
  4. https://www.archaeology.org/news/2025/07/23/ringfort-belonging-to-powerful-irish-early-medieval-rulers-unearthed-in-galway/
  5. https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/from-ringfort-to-ring-road-the-destruction-of-ireland-s-fairy-forts-1.4496069
  6. https://www.askaboutireland.ie/reading-room/history-heritage/monuments-built-heritage/ancient-monuments-up-to-1/the-earthen-rath-or-lios/
  7. https://www.omniglot.com/celtiadur/2019/04/18/fortress/
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233583866_Native_Enclosed_Settlement_and_the_Problem_of_the_Irish_%27Ring-fort%27
  9. https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1004400
  10. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1660/
  11. https://digventures.com/2017/08/henge-vs-hillfort-a-history-lovers-guide-to-spotting-the-difference/
  12. https://www.fingal.ie/sites/default/files/2019-04/IrishFieldMonuments_0.pdf
  13. https://www.archaeopress.com/Archaeopress/DMS/996DE5C12DD142919D6030844E4738C5/9781789699197-sample.pdf
  14. https://clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/archaeology/ringforts_eastern_clare_tjwestropp.htm
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261975946_Early_medieval_settlement_enclosures_in_Ireland_Dwellings_daily_life_and_social_identity
  16. https://www.thedock.ie/communities/ring-forts
  17. https://www.roscommoncoco.ie/en/services/community/heritage/2012-early-medieval-settlement-in-leitrim-and-roscommon-a-lidar-and-gis-initiative-by-susan-curran.pdf
  18. https://clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/archaeology/images/statistical_analysis_ringfort_loop_head.pdf
  19. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/423/article/941739
  20. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63d24f248fa8f53fdff6a4ad/Ancient_Monument_Schedule_Redacted.pdf
  21. https://www.academia.edu/95715336/N_George_R_Karl_eds_2023_Meillionydd_II_Collected_Papers_on_the_Double_Ringwork_Enclosure_at_Meillionydd_Llyn_North_Wales_Wien_RK
  22. https://www.academia.edu/127498374/Garranes_an_Early_Medieval_Royal_Site_in_South_west_Ireland
  23. http://irishsettlement.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/1970.pdf
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/borgring-the-discovery-of-a-viking-age-ring-fortress/53F7E590702E0511A0B487D6C15E2686
  25. https://whc.unesco.org/document/205714
  26. http://viking.archeurope.com/viking-ring-fortresses/trelleborg-in-trelleborg/
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273163734_Irish_Ringforts_A_Review_of_their_Origins
  28. https://researchrepository.universityofgalway.ie/bitstreams/c40b3c5b-99c1-4cda-897b-4074f72d4574/download
  29. https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/34505553/525449.pdf
  30. https://researchrepository.ucd.ie/bitstreams/b3b9204f-cda6-45ce-a13a-cb83c5d06cc6/download
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228522453_The_Radiocarbon_Calibration_from_An_Irish_Oak_Perspective
  32. https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/148087/1/late%2520antique%2520hillfort.pdf
  33. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-archaeology/article/hillforts-and-power-in-the-british-postroman-west-a-gis-analysis-of-dinas-powys/2DAF3CB4C9932312791B7D595E2DDBC7
  34. https://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/archaeology/images/statistical_analysis_ringfort_loop_head.pdf
  35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27729907
  36. https://en.natmus.dk/museums-and-palaces/trelleborg/trelleborgs-history/
  37. https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-viking-age/religion-magic-death-and-rituals/christianity-comes-to-denmark/
  38. https://publicera.kb.se/csa/article/download/637/604
  39. https://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/d8da400b-99bd-4dcd-9e38-3ec929321fd7/1/Dennis-TooneThesis2019.pdf
  40. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/423/article/913615
  41. https://corkhist.ie/wp-content/uploads/jfiles/1975/b1975-012.pdf
  42. https://caherconnell.com/Caherconnell_Archaeology_Dig_Report_2015.pdf
  43. https://www.academia.edu/39873861/Early_Medieval_Earthwork_Enclosures_in_the_British_Isles_Comparative_labor_costs_in_the_Insular_Scandinavian_context
  44. https://researchrepository.ucd.ie/rest/bitstreams/39415/retrieve
  45. https://www.tii.ie/media/akkjato3/early-medieval-enclosure-a-balrigan.pdf
  46. https://cora.ucc.ie/items/356d0b43-25fa-48f4-b945-2d6915ac4169
  47. https://voicesfromthedawn.com/grianan-of-aileach/
  48. https://eprints.oxfordarchaeology.com/6124/1/RORACPCO.pdf
  49. https://www.academia.edu/87142516/Rathcroghan_Co_Roscommon_Archaeological_and_geophysical_survey_in_a_ritual_landscape
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270119653_A_Catalogue_of_Irish_Pollen_Diagrams
  51. https://www.rte.ie/culture/2025/0716/1521843-fairy-forts-what-are-they-who-built-them-what-were-they-for/
  52. https://monumentalireland.ie/ringforts/
  53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20495215
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233583866_Native_Enclosed_Settlement_and_the_Problem_of_the_Irish_'Ring-fort'
  55. https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az1992n16a3.pdf
  56. https://cora.ucc.ie/server/api/core/bitstreams/ff97e46a-c10c-49fc-b12d-208cd39df62f/content
  57. http://lisburn.com/books/historical_society/volume6/volume6-4.html
  58. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2023/09/20/why-denmarks-viking-ring-fortresses-will-be-europes-next-big-attraction/
  59. https://www.academia.edu/8468376/Early_Medieval_Agriculture_Livestock_and_Cereal_Production_in_Ireland_AD_400_1100
  60. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/changing-humancattle-relationships-in-ireland-a-6000year-isotopic-perspective/09781187E7F0E017D48682A7C59AD02B
  61. https://www.medievalists.net/2012/07/the-decline-of-the-cow-agricultural-and-settlement-change-in-early-medieval-ireland/
  62. https://corkhist.ie/wp-content/uploads/jfiles/1995/b1995-007.pdf
  63. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34661/chapter/295339908
  64. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/medieval-ireland/land-use-and-economy-ad-5001100/B510206DDAE9505357EE9ACA4F7437CB
  65. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26788431
  66. http://ruralia2.ff.cuni.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/211-215.pdf
  67. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/exploring-the-hidden-depths-of-taras-hinterland-geophysical-survey-and-landscape-investigations-in-the-meathnorth-dublin-region-eastern-ireland/4A7000EFA41D074CAF9209BFE828D2E1
  68. https://www.academia.edu/39936177/OSullivan_A_2011_Daily_life_and_practice_in_an_early_medieval_rath_encountering_early_Irish_society_through_archaeology_history_and_palaeoecology_In_C_Corlett_and_M_Potterton_eds_eds_Settlement_in_Early_Medieval_Ireland_in_the_light_of_recent_excavations_Bray_Wordwell_343_353
  69. https://pure.qub.ac.uk/files/222215630/Craft_activity_and_settlement_in_Early_Medieval_Ireland_in_the_fifth_to_twelfth_centuries_AD._Vol._2.pdf
  70. https://www.academia.edu/27840170/Archaeology_and_Celtic_Myth
  71. https://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100005A/index.html
  72. https://www.ucc.ie/celt/women_law.html
  73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343749116_The_Fear_of_Fairy_Forts_Archaeological_Preservation_by_Plague_and_Superstition
  74. https://builder.hufs.ac.kr/user/ibas/No35/03.pdf
  75. https://voicesfromthedawn.com/knock-aine/
  76. https://www.academia.edu/36868365/The_Fear_of_Fairy_Forts_Archaeological_Preservation_by_Plague_and_Superstition
  77. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33887/33887-h/33887-h.htm
  78. https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/homeandgardens/arid-40300247.html
  79. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/17/15/2709
  80. https://www.archaeology.ie/advice-and-support/legislation/
  81. https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-housing-local-government-and-heritage/press-releases/new-powers-to-protect-irelands-valuable-historic-and-archaeological-heritage/
  82. https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1930/act/2/enacted/en/html
  83. https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5528/
  84. https://stevespeninsulatours.com/staigue-fort-ring-of-kerry/
  85. https://heritageireland.ie/assets/uploads/2022/03/Home-School-Resouces.pdf
  86. https://www.clarecoco.ie/your-council/%5Bnews%5D/inch-ringfort-accepted-into-the-adopt-a-monument-scheme.html
  87. https://heritage.wicklowheritage.org/new-contributions/shining-new-light-on-the-baltinglass-hillfort-complex-using-lidar-survey-2022
  88. https://www.universityofgalway.ie/about-us/news-and-events/news-archive/2025/july/archaeologists-reveal-ancient-nobles-ringfort--.html
  89. https://field-monuments.galwaycommunityheritage.org/content/community-monuments-fund-2025/community-monuments-fund-2025
  90. https://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue60/2/full-text.html
  91. https://cherishproject.eu/en/resources/videos/stories-of-loss-the-promontory-fort-climate-change/
  92. https://heritageireland.ie/unguided-sites/grianan-of-aileach/
  93. https://heritageireland.ie/unguided-sites/staigue-stone-fort/
  94. https://heritageireland.ie/places-to-visit/rathcroghan-visitor-centre/
  95. https://heritageireland.ie/places-to-visit/dun-aonghasa/
  96. https://en.natmus.dk/museums-and-palaces/trelleborg/
  97. https://cadw.gov.wales/visit/places-to-visit/din-llugwy-romano-british-village
  98. http://www.eestijuured.ee/en/articles/fortified-settlements
  99. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/b3c968fc-cc91-4a97-8c78-f3db180b2e84/423939.pdf
  100. https://nihk.de/en/research/completed-projects/feddersen-wierde
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.