This represents another case of a highly dubious round tower claim based on secondhand testimony rather than reliable archaeological evidence. The reference by John O’Donovan around 1837 that “a land surveyor named Connolly had seen the foundations of a round tower at the site of Assylin church” illustrates the challenges inherent in evaluating historical claims about vanished monuments.

O’Donovan’s Methodology and Source Quality

John O’Donovan, working for the Ordnance Survey in the 1830s, was generally meticulous in his documentation methods, but this particular case demonstrates the limitations he faced when relying on secondhand testimony. O’Donovan did not personally observe the supposed foundations but instead recorded information provided by “a land surveyor named Connolly.”

The fact that O’Donovan presented this as reported information rather than direct observation suggests he may have had reservations about its reliability, though he dutifully recorded it as part of his comprehensive survey work. This methodological approach of recording all available information, while valuable, sometimes preserved dubious claims alongside reliable data.

Problems with the Connolly Testimony

Several factors make Connolly’s reported observation highly questionable. First, the identification of archaeological foundations requires considerable expertise in medieval construction techniques and site interpretation—skills that would not necessarily be part of a land surveyor’s professional training in the 1830s.

Second, various types of circular or semi-circular foundations could be misidentified as round tower bases, including mill foundations, well houses, defensive structures, or even natural stone formations. Without detailed architectural analysis, such misidentifications were common in 19th-century antiquarian work.

The Challenge of Foundation Identification

Round tower foundations, when they survive, typically consist of substantial stone footings that extend below ground level to provide stability for these tall structures. However, many other types of medieval and post-medieval buildings used circular foundations that could easily be confused with round tower remains by untrained observers.

The absence of any surviving evidence at Mocmoyne that can be examined by modern archaeological methods makes it impossible to verify or refute Connolly’s claim, leaving it in the realm of unsubstantiated historical testimony.

Assylin Church Context

The supposed round tower was allegedly located at the site of Assylin church, which suggests it would have been part of an ecclesiastical complex. While this context might support the possibility of a round tower—since these structures were typically associated with monastic sites—the ecclesiastical setting alone is insufficient evidence for their existence.

Many Irish church sites never possessed round towers, and the presence of a church does not automatically indicate that a round tower was ever built there.

Pattern of Dubious Claims

The Mocmoyne case fits a broader pattern of questionable round tower claims from the 19th century, when antiquarian interest in these structures sometimes led to wishful thinking or misidentification of archaeological remains. This period saw numerous unsubstantiated claims about round towers that have not stood up to modern archaeological scrutiny.

The assessment that this claim is “regarded as very dubious” reflects the consensus of modern Irish archaeology, which applies more rigorous standards of evidence than were available to 19th-century researchers.

Methodological Lessons

The Mocmoyne case illustrates important principles about evaluating historical claims for archaeological monuments. Secondhand testimony, even when recorded by respected antiquarians like O’Donovan, cannot substitute for direct archaeological evidence. The chain of information—from Connolly to O’Donovan to modern researchers—introduces multiple opportunities for misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

Modern Archaeological Standards

Contemporary archaeological practice requires physical evidence, preferably examined by trained specialists, to confirm the existence of ancient monuments. Claims based solely on historical testimony, particularly secondhand accounts, are treated with appropriate skepticism unless supported by verifiable remains.

The Mocmoyne example demonstrates why modern archaeological inventories explicitly identify dubious claims, helping to distinguish between confirmed monuments and unsubstantiated historical assertions.

Scholarly Responsibility

The inclusion of this dubious claim in archaeological inventories, clearly marked as questionable, represents good scholarly practice. Rather than simply ignoring unreliable information, modern researchers document these claims while clearly indicating their doubtful status, providing a complete record of all assertions about round towers while maintaining critical evaluation.