by Gordon Kingston, Heritage Action

“Taillte and Nás Laighean of the slopes,
Aileach and Eamhain, red with wine
- no man leaves them sorrowful -
Uisneach and Cruachain and Caiseal.”

Translated from a poem by Giolla Brighde na Con Midhe, 13th Century (Smyth 1988, 163).

I

Just pondering on the Unesco tentative list’s ‘royal sites of Ireland‘, so-called because of their identification as such in early Irish literature; Tara (Temair), Cashel, Knockaulin (Dún Áilinne), Rathcrogan (Cruachain) and the Hill of Uisneach. Steve White, in a comment on an earlier article, and Tarawatch, have suggested properly completing the set, by including Navan Fort (Emain Macha), in Northern Ireland, in a new trans-boundary nomination with the other Irish royal sites.

To quote John Waddell, on their connection (1998, 325); “A number of celebrated ‘royal sites’ figure prominently in early Irish literature and four, Tara, Navan, Rathcrogan and Knockaulin are identified as pre-Christian centres in the calendar of saints known as Félire Óengusso which dates to about 830 AD… In a variety of early Medieval sources these sites are variously remembered as royal settlements or forts, cemeteries and assembly places… Survey and excavation now shows that these sites are related at least in so far as each of them has had a complex history of ceremonial and ritual activity in later prehistoric times.” A later figure, also provided by Waddell (1998, 346), shows a tantalising similarity between Navan Fort, ’capital’ of Ulster (phase 3ii) and Knockaulin, ‘capital’ of Leinster (’Rose’ phase).

The Unesco criteria demand that the site(s) must be of ‘Outstanding Universal Value’, not merely of value in an Irish context, but presumably of relevance in the decisive criteria are:
“1) must bear a unique testimony to a cultural tradition/civilization which is living or has disappeared”
and
“6) be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria)”

 
Of course, any such nomination would also have to deal with Unesco’s stipulation that “it must be demonstrated that a comprehensive Management Plan and legislative protections are in place for the site”, or rather, how Tara, ‘capital’ of Meath, and its recent invasive alterations would be viewed in the light of it. This, depending on how monument boundaries will be defined, or how much destruction can be brushed under the concrete, may finish it even before it begins.

If we do venture to ignore this last issue, however, there would seem to be a strong case for Waddell’s four sites, if considered as a unit and probed with the two criteria; the complex, ‘kingly’ capitals of an ancient Iron Age European warrior tradition, uniquely and specifically documented in a large body of ancient myth, saga and literature.

You may note, however, that Uisneach, although an important ritual site of fires and assemblies, symbolic of the centre of the country, is not often recognised with the other four as ‘royal’. Smyth (1988, 178) quotes the Lebor Gabála as to its function;

 “About the stone in cold Uisneach
In the plains of Mide of the horseman-bands,
On its top – it is a fair co-division -
Is the co-division of every province.”

It does, nonetheless, feature in the same literary sources. Cashel, a later site, presents more of a problem. In the early literature Munster was ruled, not from Tipperary, but from Temair Luachra, in Kerry, the seat, depending on the tale you read, of Eochaid, or the hound-king, Cú Roi. According to ‘The Intoxication of the Ulaid’ (trans. Gantz 1981, 198);

“…Temuir Lúachra lies on the slope of Irlúachair…”,

a mysterious, impregnable place;

“Whatever part of the world Cú Roi might be in, he sang a spell over his stronghold each night; it would then revolve as swiftly as a mill wheel turns, so that its entrance was never found after sunset.”
(‘Bricriu’s Feast’, trans. Gantz 1981, 247)

Cashel‘s sturdy contours would never need such an imagination to fill them in.

II

Consider the conflict in the Táin Bó Cualigne, in the context of this ‘warrior tradition‘, “the oldest vernacular epic in Western Literature”, according to the poet Thomas Kinsella (1969, vii), a struggle between two of the ‘royal sites‘; Emain Macha, in Ulster and Cruachain, in Connaught. At the very beginning of the tale, Queen Medb, in Rathcrogan fort, mentions all the kingdoms while reminiscing (Kinsella 1969, 53);

“My father gave me a whole province of Ireland, this province ruled from Cruachan, which is why I am called “Medb of Cruachan.” And they came from Finn the king of Leinster, Ros Ruad’s son to woo me, and from Coirpre Niafer the king of Temair, another of Rus Ruad’s sons. They came from Conchobor, king of Ulster, son of Fachtna, and they came from Eochaid Bec, and I wouldn’t go. For I asked a harder wedding gift than any woman ever asked before from a man in Ireland – the absence of meanness and jealousy and fear.”

O’Kelly (1989, 254), however, urges caution in running too fast with evidence from such epics. Their evocations of a heroic age may have come from universal sources. Although based on ancient oral traditions, they were written down hundreds of years later and inevitably influenced by the writers’ knowledge and surroundings; “Very little material has been found that is consonant with the rich aristocratic warlike peoples portrayed in the heroic literature as occupying these sites,..” Waddell (1998, 304) refers to comparisons between actual Iron Age swords and those described in the Táin, which found the latter to be, in fact, the same as contemporary early Medieval weapons.

Conversely, we could recognise the prominence with which the sites figure in the literature, as mentioned in the initial quotation from Waddell, then turn to Francis Pryor (2003, 377), as he proceeds to join actual features at Emain Macha to those mentioned when Cúchulainn’s father rallies Ulster, in The Táin;

“… a heroic world, peopled by legendary warriors. The Cattle Raid of Cooley (The Táin) gives us a glimpse of this world. They are extraordinary words from a vanished age:
“Sualtaim went to Emain, and cried out to the men of Ulster: ’Men have been murdered, women stolen, cattle plundered!’ He gave his first cry from the slope of the enclosure, his second beside the fort, and the third cry from the Mound of the Hostages inside Emain itself.”
… It must have been an extraordinary, awe-inspiring and mysterious place.”  

To my mind, there are one or two key questions that must therefore be addressed, beyond any issues about the appropriacy of the Hill of Uisneach and Cashel and if the literary route is followed. Firstly, did these sites, multi-period and of fascinating complexity, have the type of Iron Age cultural tradition, or civilisation, laid out in the ancient literature? Secondly and if not, does the fact that they feature prominently and regularly in the events of such an important body of work, allow them to testify for the cultural traditions contained within it?

 
Postscript.

For those who fought to keep Tara intact and grew frustrated at the inaction of an environment minister who had previously been against the motorway, these other words of Pryor’s (2003, 369), describing the danger faced by Emain Macha in the 1980s, may prove depressing in their contrast;

“The operators of the quarry next to the site wanted to expand, and ultimately to engulf it. A planning inquiry was convened in 1986. The Friends of Navan put a strong case, and we supported Barry Cunliffe, whose evidence left the inquiry in no doubt of the site’s international importance. Despite this, the commissioner conducting the inquiry ruled that the quarry could not be halted. Then, the following year, 1987, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland overruled the commissioner at the last minute, and the quarry, which now survives as a pool eighty feet deep, was stopped.”

Gantz, J. (trans.) 1981 Early Irish Myths and Sagas. Penguin ISBN 0-14-044397-5

Kinsella, T. (trans.) 1969 The Táin. Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-280373-5

O’Kelly, M.J. 1989 Early Ireland. Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-33687-2

Pryor, F. 2003 Britain BC. Harper Perennial ISBN 0-00-712693-4

Smyth, D. 1988 A Guide to Irish Mythology. Irish Academic Press ISBN 0-7165-2612-4

Waddell, J. 1998 The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland ISBN 1-869857-39-9

Hot on the heels of the story about the Bronze Age barrow at Stedham, about to be respectfully smashed to pieces at the behest of people that require the unexceptional few  lorry-loads of sand that it sits on….

comes this story of another two Bronze Age barrows at Woking that don’t have sand under them and are therefore being treated quite differently!

How can the first monument be treated with utter contempt and the other, identical ones be cared for so well? Beats us.

All we can do is guess that the first one was just a bit  unlucky.

As the great William Stukeley might have said of it …..

“And this stupendous fabric, which for some thousands of years, had brav’d the continual assaults of weather, and by the nature of it, when left to itself, like the pyramids of Egypt, would have lasted as long as the globe, hath fallen a sacrifice to wretched ignorance and avarice….”

This oh so common story caught our eye today

A sand quarry needs to extend to obtain more sand (sand being such a rare resource!), a Bronze Age barrow is in the way,  so a choice has to be made.

“Councillors heard that, depending on the results of the investigations, it would be decided if the barrow should be left undisturbed or preserved ‘by record’, where the barrow would be extensively photographed and described by archaeology specialists and then allowed to be destroyed.”

Anyone care to guess what the decision will be?

[CLUE: what is almost invariably the decision in such cases? ]

No prizes for guessing. After all, almost weekly comes evidence that quarry companies, local authorities and statutory heritage guardians are in effective cahoots to allow money to prevail over preservation while still mouthing words that suggest there’s no problem. WHAT WORDS ARE USED? Simple. “Preservation by Record”! So long as someone has written down that the barrow used to exist, says the story, then it’s fine to destroy it.

The same goes for St Pauls, Magna Carta and the Mona Lisa after all. No problem smashing them up to sell the debris for money as they’ll still be preserved by record.

Or does shamefully surrendering treasures to those who want to make money only apply to prehistoric monuments?

So it would seem.

Why?

Hundreds of people have staged a protest on land near an Iron Age hill fort in a bid to stop it being sold and keep it in public ownership.

See also this Wikipedia article on Cissbury, which gives a map of the threatened area of the hill fort, two thirds down into the article.

by Gordon Kingston, Heritage Action

The Tarawatch website has reported a recent briefing, from the National Roads Authority to Meath County Council, about another tolled motorway; the Leinster Orbital Route. The proposed road would circle the outer Dublin area for 80km, all the way from County Meath down to County Wicklow and cut, once again, through the area around the Hill of Tara. Furthermore, according to Tarawatch, the feasibility study indicates that the controversial Blundelstown interchange, a vast 50 acre tattoo on one side of the hill, was originally conceived with this route in mind.

Of course, archaeology and the sanctity of Ireland’s ancient heritage were far from the minds of some of the local councillors, when they were presented with news of the proposal. According to the Meath Chronicle; “serious doubts were raised over the need to keep a 2km-wide corridor of land open while consultations take place over the choosing of a final route for the motorway.” Indeed and how can you be expected to get planning permission sorted for houses and development, if you don’t know exactly where the road is going to be?

“Councillor Tommy Reilly said that he had been shouting for 10 years about the need for an outer orbital route. The motorway would “open up the county” and bring development, a regional college, hospitals and industries. He hoped there would be a quick decision on the selection of final route.”

I’m sure that he does.

Still only a ripple on the water, but ripples will turn into waves. In the words of the feasibility report; “ready and available for implementation at any stage in the future, when required.”

According to the International Energy Agency ; “a continuation of current trends in energy use puts the world on track for a rise in temperature of up to 6°C and poses serious threats to global energy security.” In what position does that analysis place our road/development obsession?

It has been reported that illegal camping took place at  Wayland’s Smithy  over the weekend, this site is managed and presumably owned by English Heritage. The problem of course is that it’s off the beaten track, and requires a certain amount of walking from the Liddington Castle car park.

English Heritage have in the past made special arrangements for camping for specific events at Stonehenge and Avebury over the years, and such arrangements are arrived at with the full consensus of all parties. Wild camping at ancient monuments though is illegal, The National Trust who owns much of the wild landscape of England stipulates that they do not condone unless prior permission is given, and says that ‘Where we tolerate ‘wild camping’ it should only involve one night stopovers, a maximum of two campers and leave no trace of its presence’.

Several tents that were in front of Wayland’s Smithy unfortunately seem to belong to a group that may be seen as political extremists. As it is a popular site for visitors over the weekend, they would have been very discouraged by the tents and litter found there, let alone the sanitary arrangements!

The Neolithic long barrow of Wayland’s Smithy is a very beautiful place set amongst the trees and it deserves respect for its ancient stones. Camping can be done in authorised camping sites and does not have to occur on Ancient Monument Sites, it causes too much damage, fires, graffiti, etc.

by Gordon Kingston, Heritage Action

As a continuation from my previous article, I thought that it might be a good idea to briefly examine the planning process around the Bremore development. I should state at the outset that I’m not a legal professional. This is just my own understanding of the Bremore situation, having studied what appear to be the relevant sections of the Strategic Infrastructure Act 2006 and the Harbours (Amendment) Act 2009.

1. Extension of Harbour Limits

In July of this year the Drogheda Port Company applied for an extension of its harbour boundary, to include the Bremore area. Although a necessary preliminary move for development, movement of harbour limits is treated separately for planning purposes and the application can be made directly, without requirement for public consultation, to the Minister for Transport. The relevant legislation is the Harbours (Amendment) Act, specifically Section 3(a), which substitutes for Section 9 in the original 1996 Act and  Section 3(b), which substitutes for the limits of Drogheda and Dublin Port, as defined in the third schedule of that act.

After a process of consultation with the company, the aforementioned Section 3(a) allows the minister to change the harbour limits, defined in Section 3(b), having regard merely to the capacity of the harbour and to navigational safety. Applications for planning permission, permission granted in respect of any development of the land, environmental impact assessments and other listed factors may also be given regard to, but only if relevant to the decision, in the minister’s opinion. The environmental impact statement for the development remains ‘in preparation‘, but this Section suggests that its absence, as raised by an Taisce, is not a stumbling block to the boundary extension and there seems to be little in the way of it proceeding, in Irish Law.

The two ports specified in the amendment to the third schedule of the original Act are also the two with upcoming expansion plans. Of course, it has previously been suggested that the new Act includes “an amendment to allow Drogheda Port Company permission to alter the limits of the Port Company in order to facilitate the proposal to build a new port at Bremore.” In congruent flow, it was signed on the 21st July 2009 and followed by notice of the Bremore application, in the Drogheda Independent, one week later. You may further note the advice of the recent Indecon report; “Nothing should be done at a policy level to block either the proposed expansion of Dublin Port or the proposed development of Bremore at this stage.”

A fait accompli.

2. An Bórd Pleanála and the proposed development.

The development of the deepwater port, excluding, perhaps, any ancillary projects, has been classified as a Strategic Infrastructure Development, that is, a development that fits one of the specifications in the seventh schedule of the 2006 Strategic Infrastructure Act. In this case, presumably, Part 2 of the schedule, which covers transport infrastructure; harbour and port installations. What this means is that the planning process for these specified development types has the potential to be ‘fast-tracked‘, by allowing a direct application for permission to An Bórd Pleanála, rather than to the local planning authority.

Such direct application is allowed if the board is satisfied, after consultations with the prospective applicant, that the ’seventh schedule’ development would be of strategic or social importance to the State or its region; or would contribute substantially to the National Spatial Strategy, or regional planning guidelines; or would have a significant effect on the area of more than one planning authority. (Section 37A.2)

During this period, of consultation, the Board gives advice to the prospective applicant about whether the development would fit within these criteria. Also it may, looking ahead, advise on the planning application and consideration of application, procedures and more specifically, the considerations “related to proper planning and sustainable development or the environment,” that could, in its opinion, have a bearing on an eventual decision in relation to the application. (Section 37B.3)

According to the Bórd Pleanála website , pre-application consultation is still the position, or case type, of the Bremore development. If the Board decides that it would fall outside the criteria, then a written notice of such will be served on Bremore Ireland Port Ltd. and its application would then have to be made to the local planning authority. If it makes the opposite decision it will serve a positive written notice and the company can then, if it wishes, request that the Board give an opinion, also in writing, on what information it will have to include in its environmental impact statement (EIS). (Sections 37B.4, 37D.1) This statement must accompany the subsequent application for planning permission. (Section 37E.1)

Assuming the latter outcome, prior notice of the application to the Board and a prepared EIS, must be published in one, or more, local newspapers, specifying the times, places and period (at least 6 weeks) at and during which copies can be inspected, or purchased. Submissions and observations relating to “the implications of the proposed development for proper planning and sustainable development,” and “the likely effects on the environment of the proposed development, if carried out,“ can be made to the Board during this specified period. (Section 37E.3)

The factors that the Board must consider before making its decision on the application are set out, in full, in Section 37G.2, and include the submitted EIS, any submissions and observations made and any other relevant information on the likely impact on proper planning, sustainable development and the environment.

3. Why do we object?

(a) The area that would be affected is too important to lose under development.

Although it is probable that some, as yet unspecified, accommodation will be made for the national monuments on the ground surface, this is only part of the tale. It is also probable that the tombs were just one feature of an extensive ceremonial landscape, the remains of which are still underground. To quote, once again, Professor George Eogan; “the area on both sides of the Delvin River from Gormanston to Bremore is a large Megalithic cemetery dating from 3,500BC.”

Preservation only by record means the destruction of archaeological sites and evidence, which could be more fully analysed and understood by future generations.

(b) The need for a new deep water port is not there.

The thrust for port expansion is based, firstly, on the recent, rapid growth in the Irish Economy. A sizeable part of the increased pressure on the ports was due to importation of construction materials, but this boom is now gone and the country is significantly over-housed for its population size.

It is based, secondly, on a forecast of and a need for, future economic growth, what George Monbiot recently referred to as “the central immortality project of western society“. This is the way that things have always been, but, unfortunately, it is no longer possible. The world is running out of raw materials and more especially, the driver of production, consumption and port trade; oil. As prices inevitably rise more sources, in Canada and Russia for example, may become viable, but at atrocious cost to the atmosphere and environment. In reference to the Canadian resource, a recent article in the Times stated that; ”extracting each barrel of crude from the sticky mass of sand, clay and bitumen produces two to three times as much CO2 as drilling for a barrel of conventional oil.”

Even if you can accept this scenario as sustainable and allow the conclusions of the aforementioned Indecon report, the need is not immediate; 2020 to 2025 at the earliest. Time enough, surely, to identify and develop several, less harmful, alternative port sites.

“For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world…?”

Well Tara has finally arrived on the Unesco Tentative List site alongside other royal sites  of Ireland; (Cashel, Drin Ailinne, Hill of Uisneach, Rathcroghan Complex and Tara Complex): The Royal Sites represent unique expressions of lrish society as places of royal inauguration, ceremony and assembly, representing each of the five provinces of Ancient Ireland.

It is of course all a bit late in the day, the landscape has been severely damaged by the impact of the motorway that is almost built; the Green Minister Mr. Gormley having inherited the poisoned chalice of ’growth at all costs’ sold his ‘green’ values down the road for political expediency and then, surprise, surprise, the so called ‘celtic tiger’ economy unfortunately lost its roar.
There is a long and well thought out  presentation on Tarawatch in response to this news, a proposal and citing of the archaeological and historical importance of Tara and its surrounding landscape…

A common misunderstanding exists that Tara simply consists of the ridge known as the Hill of Tara. Recent research, following the most modern theories of archaeological landscape and surveying techniques, shows that the central ceremonial complex on the hill was surrounded by settlements, religious monuments, ceremonial entrances and route-ways and strategically-placed fortifications. Extended ritual and settlement complexes, or landscapes, are a recognised archaeological phenomenon known elsewhere in Ireland. Other examples include Navan Fort (Emain Macha), Co. Armagh and Rathcroghan (Ráith Crúachain), Co. Roscommon. In the medieval period (7th to 12th century), the prehistoric landscape of Tara translated into a royal demesne defended by the local kings.

Whether or not the Hill of Tara and its surrounding monuments will make it as a World  Heritage Site remains to be seen but the proposed Tentative List for Ireland – 2009  can be found here.