Unfortunately there is--or has been until quite recently--a strong prejudice in the minds of Irish antiquaries that works of the motte-and-bailey kind belong to the prehistoric age of Ireland. Irish scholars indeed admit that the word _mota_ is not found in any Irish MS. which dates from before the Norman invasion of Ireland.[1043] We must therefore bear in mind that when they tell us that such and such an ancient book mentions the "mote" at Naas or elsewhere, what they mean is that it mentions a _dun_, or _rath_, or _longport_, which they imagine to be the same as a motte. But this is begging the whole question. There is not the slightest proof that any of these words meant a motte. _Dun_ is often taken to mean a hill (perhaps from its resemblance to Anglo-Saxon _dun_), but Keltic scholars are now agreed that it is cognate with the German _zaun_ and Anglo-Saxon _tun_, meaning a fenced enclosure.[1044] It may be applied to a fort on a hill, but it may equally well be applied to a fort on the flat. _Rath_ is translated _fossa_ in the _Book of Armagh_; Jocelin of Furness equates it with _murus_.[1045] The rath of Armagh was evidently a very large enclosure in 1166, containing several streets, houses, and churches, so it was certainly not a motte.[1046] It is of course not impossible that the Normans may sometimes have occupied an ancient fortified site, but we may be sure from the considerations already urged that the fortifications which they erected were of a wholly different character to the previous ones, even if they utilised a portion for their bailey. It is of course difficult to decide in some cases (both in Ireland and elsewhere) whether a mound which stands alone without a bailey is a sepulchral tumulus or a motte. There are some mottes in England and Scotland which have no baileys attached to them, and do not appear ever to have had any. In Ireland, the country of magnificent sepulchral tumuli, it is not wonderful that the barrow and the motte have become confused in popular language. It would appear, too, that there exist in Ireland several instances of artificial tumuli which were used for the inauguration of Irish chieftains, and these have occasionally been mistaken for mottes.[1047] As Mr Orpen has shown, there are generally indications in the unsuitability of the sites, in the absence of real fortification, or in the presence of sepulchral signs, to show that these tumuli did not belong to the motte class. Magh Adair, for example, which has been adduced as a motte outside the Norman boundary, is shown by Mr Orpen to be of quite a different character.