Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Development-led archaeology: Don't igonre before reading!! Or else!!

Options
  • 22-07-2008 6:34pm
    #1
    Nutlog!!!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭


    I know this is something of a tired old theme of discussion among archaeologists these days, and I'm not expecting much of a response, but I also know that a lot of 'Bonekickers' out there, each as professionally committed as the next, have very conflicting ideas. So here it goes: Any thoughts about development-led archaeology? As broad or narrow as ye like.

    To get the ball rolling: Anyone else find it unfair that the M3 has gotten so much debate, while parallel shcemes such as the M7-M8 have started and finished without much of a whisper?

    Obviously the Tara landscape carries much more nationalist weighting than do the rolling hills of Laois and Offaly, but, as a 'professional' (in thinking anyway), I could name a hell of a lot more site types destroyed in the building of the motorways down there off the top of me head than I can fro the M3...and I worked on the M3!


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Doozie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,468 ✭✭✭Doozie


    Well the same old arguement stands, if there wasn't development led archaeology then there would be little archaeology at all the way funding goes. I do agree that it is totally unfair that some sites get reported on more than others but thats because the journalists reporting on them are favouring what is considered a good story, ie. Carrickmines...jeez did I mention the C word, or Tara...jeez did I mention the T word. I'll never forget when Carrickmines was potentially being stopped for the millionth time and some muppet featured reporter from RTE knocked on a member of the public's door and put the question, in a really negitive way, about the lengthy delays the road was going through because of protests, to which they replied, 'it'll cut off 20 mins of my drive to wurk, loike, I'm all four progression but this is ridhiculous you know.'..........
    I cried.


  • Options
    #3
    boneless
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,487 ✭✭✭boneless


    I understand the need for devolopment of the national infrastructure. This does lead to archaeologically important sites being uncovered and excavated and preserved by either record or just being covered over. I share the view that we would never have known of the sites without the development, so we were able to add to our knowledge and understanding of the past.

    However, I have serious reservations about how the planning process is conducted in this State. Carrickmines was mentioned above. What should really have been the issue was why did the motorway/bypass or whatever suddenly have to take that route? As with the Tara/Skreen valley, I asked why the original route to the east of Skreen hill was not adhered to? This was the preferred route to the archaeological community as far as I can ascertain.

    Carrickmines became a subject for examination by one of the modules of the Mahon (I think, open to correction on this) Tribunal of Enquiry. In a number of years time I wonder if the Tara/Skreen route will also be subjected to such a process?

    I worked on urban sites where existing unstable and derelict structures were removed, enabling the archaeologists to uncover earlier lost structures and many fine artefacts. The archaeology was an essential part of the development and funded by the developers. In most cases the developers were supportive and understanding of the problems associated with the excavations. In some cases they were not. That happens. However, in cases where the State or one of its agents were involved, the problems were legion in some respects.

    Again, I say that we need development but I also think that we should study the processes which pertain at present in the planning stages. UCD School of Archaeology recently issued a report which dealt in part with this subject, "2020 Report", and I would urge all here to read and study this publication.


  • Options
    #4
    Nutlog!!!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭Nutlog!!!


    I agree. I think the lack of transparency in the planning process is disturbing, but I'm skeptical about the possibility of the mobilisation of enough people to put pressure on planning bodies to achieve this effect.


  • Options
    #5
    maggiemae
    Registered Users Posts: 33 ✭maggiemae


    Planning permission for major infrastructure projects is subject to EIS which includees an archeological element be it centre line testing to determine the presence of any archeological finds. The government in the form of the NRA are spending large amounts of money conducting these preliminary investigations to identify possible areas of archeological interest and to preserve what ever is found as much as possible while still allowing progress on National Infrastructure.

    All of this is subject to public consultation and the Impact statement is available to the public. I am confused about where the cloak and dagger element is coming into play. Is there a more transparent way that the NRA could be working? Or is there just a lack of public interest in actually digging deeper(pardon the pun) into what they have discovered?

    Personally I feel that the latter is the case unfortunately


  • Options
    #6
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    maggiemae thinks there nothing wrong with irish planning process!!!

    the nra shouldn't be in charge, and not enough options are looked at re EIS, and it seems
    eg "they just tell me where to dig" brian duffy head of archaelogy nra

    the head of national musuem said there were way behind in publishing what they've found over hte last decade so i reckon the public havn't been told what archs know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    maggiemae
    Registered Users Posts: 33 ✭maggiemae


    They tell the NRA archeologist where to dig as it is on the proposed route selection. This makes sense to me atleast why would he dig somewhere that the company is not working??

    I was not suggesting that the Irish planning process is working particularly well :DI was just genuinely asking what people would do to create greater transparency.

    You make a fair point that the Museum catching up with the publications would be a major step forward in creating this transparency


  • Options
    #8
    Aelfric
    Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭Aelfric


    Unfortunately there are other considerations as well as archaeology that go into making the decision as to which route to take. As with the M3, the routing decision was the best one, based on engineering concerns, as the other options required a greater number of Boyne crossings. Also, it was felt that too many more bridges over the river would spoil the natural heritage.

    The Far side of Skreen hill would have added several kilometers to the route, potentially thrown up proportionally more archaeological sites, and therefore the cost per kilometer figure would have risen. To have gone the other side of Tara would have created severance for a number of families living in the area, and those families would have to have been bought out of their homes and transplanted elsewhere - more expense. Notwithstanding the fact that the route on this side of the hill would have seriously destroyed the view towards south Meath & Kildare.

    I'm not trying to suggest that the M3 is in an ideal location, because we all know and acknowlegde that it's less than ideal, but it's a more ideal route than the others.


  • Options
    #9
    Aelfric
    Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭Aelfric


    And no, I don't work for the NRA!


  • Options
    #10
    Fletch123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 328 ✭✭Fletch123


    Aelfirc- without getting into a pros and cons of the M3 debate, the route that has gone ahead was not approved by the EIS, the orginal route was and as soon as the EIS was approved the Tara segment was altered. What you're saying may well be true but the EIS was not approved for the particular section.

    I do agree with you though about EIS not being only about archaeology. I believe there is only so much protection you can offer to archaeological sites. Archaeological landscapes should be living landscapes, and archaeology should be incoroporated into these landscapes in a respectful and sensical manner.


  • Options
    #11
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    they only ever extensively test dug one route, implies that they never seriously consider any other when it was their job to advise on many routes, but all the nra archs and the head of national museum said whatever way the m3 goes it shouldn't go through the valley. then margeret gowen said the best route has been chosen on other factors apart from archaeology,well thats not her job to say,its her job to advocate for the sites others are in positions to advocate for people, there are also major questions over the bias towards toll motorway and the blocking of the railwayas discussed on the commuting board, but hey these archs applied the professional asses to it anyway, ie development led archaeologey.

    here's what mahs has to say on the public consultation exercise.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Aelfric
    Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭Aelfric


    Fletch123,

    You'll be pleased to know that Historic/Archaeological Landscapes will be provided for in an anticipated overhaul of the National Monuments legislation. The problem up to now has been in defining an historic landscape - what constitutes one, etc.

    Lostexpecation,

    The reason that only one route is tested on a roads contract, is that that sort of intrusive investigation is only carried out after the initial EIS stage, once the preferred route has been chosen. As archaeologists, we have little say in the initial stages, other than to assess each route based on mapping, documentary evidence, aerial photos, route walkovers, and known archaeological sites/stray finds in the vicinity.

    I hope this makes things a little clearer for all.


  • Options
    #13
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    Aelfric wrote: »
    Fletch123,

    The reason that only one route is tested on a roads contract, is that that sort of intrusive investigation is only carried out after the initial EIS stage, once the preferred route has been chosen. As archaeologists, we have little say in the initial stages, other than to assess each route based on mapping, documentary evidence, aerial photos, route walkovers, and known archaeological sites/stray finds in the vicinity.

    I hope this makes things a little clearer for all.

    ok

    an archaeolgoist used the word intrusive without blushing lol

    little say, the say at that point was,don't it through there. thats what the say was, why would that ever change?

    pretending that you didn't know what was there yous knew there was plenty there.


  • Options
    #14
    micf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭micf


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    ok

    an archaeolgoist used the word intrusive without blushing lol

    little say, the say at that point was,don't it through there. thats what the say was, why would that ever change?

    pretending that you didn't know what was there yous knew there was plenty there.


    Is it just me or does this post make no sense whatsoever??:confused:


  • Options
    #15
    Aelfric
    Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭Aelfric


    Yeah, I didn't respond to it, because I didn't understand it. Intelligent (or at least intelligible) questions will get an intelligent answer


  • Options
    #16
    Fletch123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 328 ✭✭Fletch123


    Retracted! I was commenting on the grammar, not the sentiment, sheesh.


  • Options
    #17
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    wrong fletch retract that


  • Options
    #18
    Riamfada
    Registered Users Posts: 10,246 ✭✭✭✭Riamfada


    Please stay on topic ladies, that is the topic of development led archaeology and not the topic of illegible posts :)


Advertisement