Building, Garristown, Co. Dublin
Co. Dublin |
Utility Structures
A building recorded, valued, and then effectively lost.
Somewhere in the townland of Garristown in north County Dublin, a chaff house once stood alongside a barn and a kill house, the three structures together appraised at ten pounds in the mid-seventeenth century. No one has since been able to pin down exactly where it was. The chaff house, for those unfamiliar with the term, was a fairly workaday piece of farm infrastructure, a store for the husks left over after grain had been threshed and winnowed. Chaff had real value as animal fodder, so keeping it dry and separate made practical sense. What makes this particular example worth noting is not any architectural distinction, but the documentary accident that preserved its name while its location slipped away entirely.
The record comes from the Civil Survey of 1654 to 1656, a remarkable administrative undertaking carried out under Cromwellian authority to catalogue landholding across Ireland in the aftermath of the wars of the 1640s. The survey entry for Garristown notes that the lands in question belonged to Mr Laurence Bealing of Bealingstowne, described as an Irish Papist, a designation with serious legal consequences at the time, marking him as subject to dispossession under the transplantation policies then being enacted. The chaff house, barn, and kill house on his land were assessed by a jury and given that combined valuation of ten pounds. The source for this entry is Robert Simington's 1945 published edition of the Civil Survey, which drew the record into modern scholarship. Beyond that single sentence, nothing further is known about the building or its fate.
Because the precise location has not been identified, there is no specific point on the ground to seek out. Garristown itself is a small village in the Fingal area of north Dublin, and the broader townland retains traces of its agricultural past, but nothing has been connected with certainty to Bealing's farm complex. For anyone interested in this kind of vanished rural archaeology, the Civil Survey entry held in Simington's published volume is the closest thing to a primary encounter available. The interest here lies less in a physical visit and more in what the record represents, a moment when a modest working building was counted, measured in pounds, and then allowed to disappear without further comment.