Listed site on national monument website surprise !!

Colash

I was looking on the national monument website earlier and came across a red marker on a friends house . Which he or his family never knew about . Here's the description on it .. Can anybody simplify it for me as we are both wondering what it is

Description: Marked only on the 1914 ed. of the OS 6-inch map as a D-shaped feature (dims. c. 20m N-S; c. 10m E-W) truncated by a N-S field bank at E. Situated in a low-lying position between drumlins to the N and S. Described as a semi-circular bank (Gannon 1972), it is no longer visible and the site is now occupied by a house and garden.

Compiled by: Michael Moore

Gee Bag

On the monument file (the pdf doc you are quoting from) the classification of the monumnent i.e the type will be listed.

From the description it sounds like a small ringfort that was chopped in half prior to your friends house being built on top.

slowburner

Gee Bag wrote: »

On the monument file (the pdf doc you are quoting from) the classification of the monumnent i.e the type will be listed.

From the description it sounds like a small ringfort that was chopped in half prior to your friends house being built on top.

These D shaped (plectrum) type enclosures are interesting.
Some are probably ringforts that have been truncated by later field boundaries.
Others seem to have been deliberately constructed to a D plan, possibly using the field boundary as a ready made starting point.
It's a sort of chicken/egg question - which came first, the enclosure or the field boundary.





I found this one a few years back, is thought to have been truncated by the stream - I'm not so sure that it was.

Colash

slowburner wrote: »

These D shaped (plectrum) type enclosures are interesting.
Some are probably ringforts that have been truncated by later field boundaries.
Others seem to have been deliberately constructed to a D plan, possibly using the field boundary as a ready made starting point.
It's a sort of chicken/egg question - which came first, the enclosure or the field boundary.





I found this one a few years back, is thought to have been truncated by the stream - I'm not so sure that it was.

Thanks for that slowburner . To me the position of the enclosure or ringfort seems odd as its down in a natural hollow or valley . I would have thought that ringforts were always positioned high up, to achieve the best views of the surrounding land ?

Colash

Here's a picture from google maps of the site . The structure is no longer visable but it's marked position between two valleys is interesting

cfuserkildare

"I would have thought that ringforts were always positioned high up, to achieve the best views of the surrounding land ?"

Mostly yes,

But an animal enclosure, or the presence of a regular prevailing wind can also control where an Earthwork is built, as evidenced by many early churches or monasteries being built downwind of a hilltop.

Witchburner

Colash wrote: »

I was looking on the national monument website earlier and came across a red marker on a friends house . Which he or his family never knew about . Here's the description on it .. Can anybody simplify it for me as we are both wondering what it is

Description: Marked only on the 1914 ed. of the OS 6-inch map as a D-shaped feature (dims. c. 20m N-S; c. 10m E-W) truncated by a N-S field bank at E. Situated in a low-lying position between drumlins to the N and S. Described as a semi-circular bank (Gannon 1972), it is no longer visible and the site is now occupied by a house and garden.

Compiled by: Michael Moore

Here's a brain burner, under the current laws, if your friend is out digging bulbs and discovers part of a structure or a "flashy object" (sorry Robp - couldn't resist that one ) and he removes it or disturbs it he's breaking the law and can be sent to jail or heavily fined.
In fact - reporting it would be his worst move as it could have a number of negative implications for him - as the current law in this area is you are guilty until proven innocent - and as your friend knows about the structure then he'd be knowingly damaging an archaeological feature.
Actually - technically speaking - the land can be taken off him as far as I understand - this is all despite the fact that he was granted planning in the first place and has more than likely turned over the garden a number of times already.

robp

Witchburner wrote: »

Here's a brain burner, under the current laws, if your friend is out digging bulbs and discovers part of a structure or a "flashy object" (sorry Robp - couldn't resist that one ) and he removes it or disturbs it he's breaking the law and can be sent to jail or heavily fined.

This is true in every single garden in Ireland. If you find an archaeological object your not permitted to disturb it. Its not just true of flashy objects. It also applies for bones, charcoal and slag.

Witchburner wrote: »

In fact - reporting it would be his worst move as it could have a number of negative implications for him - as the current law in this area is you are guilty until proven innocent - and as your friend knows about the structure then he'd be knowingly damaging an archaeological feature.
Actually - technically speaking - the land can be taken off him as far as I understand - this is all despite the fact that he was granted planning in the first place and has more than likely turned over the garden a number of times already.

Its hard to be sure of what happened exactly but it sounds as if what ever local authority granted planning permission wasn't doing their job properly. There are tens of thousands of raths in Ireland there is no need for every one to be in state ownership. I don't think anyone would or could be prosecuted for accidentally making a discovery in good faith as you describe.

Gee Bag

Witchburner wrote: »

Here's a brain burner, under the current laws, if your friend is out digging bulbs and discovers part of a structure or a "flashy object" (sorry Robp - couldn't resist that one ) and he removes it or disturbs it he's breaking the law and can be sent to jail or heavily fined.
In fact - reporting it would be his worst move as it could have a number of negative implications for him - as the current law in this area is you are guilty until proven innocent - and as your friend knows about the structure then he'd be knowingly damaging an archaeological feature.
Actually - technically speaking - the land can be taken off him as far as I understand - this is all despite the fact that he was granted planning in the first place and has more than likely turned over the garden a number of times already.

You really haven't a clue what your talking about.

It's not clear when the house was built, from the description given the monument was last recorded as being visible in 1972. The house may have been built long before either planning or national monuments law required archaeological work to be carried out prior to construction. If no condition relating to archaeology was attached to the grant of planning for the house the home owner has not broken any law.

If he or she was to find an archaeological object in the garden, the National Museum would be happy to receive same once the circumstances surrounding the find were explained.

Any private property in Ireland can be acquired by the state by means of a compulsory purchase order. The owner is always paid, usually very well. The notion that the property in question could be siezed by the state becuase of its archaeological value is ridiculous beyond belief, it has a house built on it!

This should be glaringly obvious but I'm going to point it out any way. The National Monuments Service are aware of the issue. How do I know this? Because the site has been inspected and is included on their frickin' website!!

Witchburner

Gee Bag wrote: »

You really haven't a clue what your talking about.

It's not clear when the house was built, from the description given the monument was last recorded as being visible in 1972. The house may have been built long before either planning or national monuments law required archaeological work to be carried out prior to construction. If no condition relating to archaeology was attached to the grant of planning for the house the home owner has not broken any law.

Thanks 'Gee Bag' (How do expect people to take you seriously?)
I'll address your reply in parts if that's ok, Geebag?

Where did I mention or refer to the construction of the house?
Anyway would it not be reasonable to assume that the house was built after 1972 - the wording appears unambiguous - ? Regardless - why are you arguing with me about something I didn't refer to?

If he or she was to find an archaeological object in the garden, the National Museum would be happy to receive same once the circumstances surrounding the find were explained.

So my statement holds true then - he'd be guilty until proven innocent ? Cmon, give me a break here you are basically re-emphasising my point - and I agree with you!

Any private property in Ireland can be acquired by the state by means of a compulsory purchase order. The owner is always paid, usually very well. The notion that the property in question could be siezed by the state becuase of its archaeological value is ridiculous beyond belief, it has a house built on it!

There are a number of issues pertaining to this particular paragraph - firstly - value is relative - CPO's very rarely consider personal value and rely purely on CMV - or current market value - CPO's are, by their very nature, a cruel way for anyone to lose their home and in the current environment it is unquestionable that a CPO would undervalue a property and most certainly a personal value. - But you are right about the fact that any property can be taken by CPO - I don't think I said differently - did I?

It wasn't so long ago that archaeologists stood shoulder to shoulder with farmers and landowners on the entire CPO issue.

Your statement relating to this particular property is naïve - again - what if the structure turned out to be one of significance? what if the owner stumbled upon a hoard? what if said hoard revealed a burial ground of importance? and lets be straight here - under the current set-up those in authority would more than likely expect the owner to pay for the dig.
There is nothing incorrect in my comment.

This should be glaringly obvious but I'm going to point it out any way. The National Monuments Service are aware of the issue. How do I know this? Because the site has been inspected and is included on their frickin' website!!

Wow, calm down a little, seriously. Do you always get so animated when someone has an opinion or view different to yours?
Can you go through my points again and show me where I said anything wrong? By your own admission above it is an 'issue'.

NMI are far from pure.

Under the current laws people who discover anything archaeological are encouraged to keep it on the QT - THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE.

Rob - I find the fact that you felt it necessary to have your 'thanks' a little bitter of you - you agreed with me in the post above ! Whilst I know we disagree - I do view you as a little more considered than that.

I know my views might differ Geebag (!!!! in all fairness) but in the very least read what I type and then jump down my throat as opposed to reading what you think I typed and then spewing your self righteous indignation.

yellowlabrador

There is such a d structure on a farm of a friend. In his case it's like a platform, with the edges defined with large stones. He was told it was a graveyard.

Gee Bag

Witchburner wrote: »

Where did I mention or refer to the construction of the house?
Anyway would it not be reasonable to assume that the house was built after 1972 - the wording appears unambiguous - ? Regardless - why are you arguing with me about something I didn't refer to?

You implied that the house could be taken from the owner because of its potential archaeological value. This is utterly false. I thought it worth pointing out to other readers of this forum that the home owner has done nothing wrong.

So my statement holds true then - he'd be guilty until proven innocent ? Cmon, give me a break here you are basically re-emphasising my point - and I agree with you!

No I don't agree with you. Everyone standing before a court on a criminal charge is innocent until proven guilty. The idea that the homeowner could be sent to prison for digging in their back garden is complete nonsense.

There are a number of issues pertaining to this particular paragraph - firstly - value is relative - CPO's very rarely consider personal value and rely purely on CMV - or current market value - CPO's are, by their very nature, a cruel way for anyone to lose their home and in the current environment it is unquestionable that a CPO would undervalue a property and most certainly a personal value. - But you are right about the fact that any property can be taken by CPO - I don't think I said differently - did I?

You framed a ridiculous scenario where the house could be taken from the owner, this is never, ever going to happen. By the by, CPO's don't just pay current market value, there is an allowance built into the payment for inconvenience/nuisance to the property owner.

It wasn't so long ago that archaeologists stood shoulder to shoulder with farmers and landowners on the entire CPO issue.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Your statement relating to this particular property is naïve - again - what if the structure turned out to be one of significance? what if the owner stumbled upon a hoard? what if said hoard revealed a burial ground of importance? and lets be straight here - under the current set-up those in authority would more than likely expect the owner to pay for the dig.
There is nothing incorrect in my comment.

This site is would not be considered of great significance due to the fact that it is the most common type of monument in Ireland and has been disturbed/detroyed by having a house built on top of it.

Can you go through my points again and show me where I said anything wrong? By your own admission above it is an 'issue'.

Your initial post in this thread is riddled with factual errors. If you had any real experience working in the archaeological sector you wouldn't make these very, very basic errors.

NMI are far from pure.

Could you please elaborate?

Under the current laws people who discover anything archaeological are encouraged to keep it on the QT - THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE.

The Republic of Ireland, like most countries in Europe holds that newly discovered archaeological objects are the property of the state ie. the Irish people. The only people ever I've heard call for a change are metal detectorists, are you by any chance a metal detectorist?