The Impact of the Proposed M3 Motorway on Tara and Its Cultural Landscape

AIA PUBLICATIONS AND NEW MEDIA

The Impact of the Proposed M3 Motorway on Tara and its Cultural Landscape

EDEL BHREATHNACH, CONOR NEWMAN, AND JOSEPH FENWICK1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Hill of Tara emerges around the beginning of the 7th century AD, depicted in historical sources as the pre-eminent prehistoric sanctuary of kingship in Ireland, its kings claiming national authority. This elevated status was strengthened by four thousand years of continuous use of the hill as a ceremonial complex which consisted of a necropolis, a sanctuary and a temple complex. This manifold use is evident in the archaeological record. Tara is traditionally, central to the story of St. Patrick’s conversion of the Irish to Christianity and is the setting for most of the important early Irish sagas. The hill became the touchstone of the Irish political and cultural nationalist movements of 19th and 20th century, its integrity acclaimed and de- fended by leading figures in the formation of the Irish nation. This position was most vocifer- ously expressed during the campaign waged against the British-Israelites’ explorations for the Ark of the Covenant. Tara’s uniquely important position and its potential to yield information about Irish culture and history, was acknowledged by an Taoiseach Eamon de Valera who turned the first sod of Professor Séan P. Ó Ríordáin’s 1953 excavation campaign. Following Ó Ríordáin’s untimely death, his campaign was brought to a successful conclusion by the Taoiseach’s son, Professor Ruaidhrí de Valera. This historical association was transferred to a third generation of this modern political dynasty when Minister Síle de Valera turned the first sod on the Discovery Programme’s excavations in 1997. The threat posed to Tara by that section of the M3 motorway designed to pass between the Hill of Tara and Skreen raises serious cultural issues. The motorway’s impact on Tara is specifi- cally addressed in this document. As the leading experts on the history and archaeology of Tara, whose research has been funded by the Discovery Programme (a state-funded body) since 1991, we feel that we are singularly well-qualified to comment on how this proposed motorway will effect Tara and its landscape. We can assess, from a position of knowledge, the relevant parts of the published Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and associated docu- mentation produced for the planning process. It is our contention that, as planned, the motorway will generate an unacceptable impact, direct and indirect, on the archaeological complex of Tara. In this document we consider a number of different, though clearly interre- lated, issues, ranging from the proposed motorway’s impact on the archaeological landscape to its detrimental effect on the experience of visiting the hill. We examine how the EIS and sub- sequent interpretations produced by the National Roads Authority have failed to provide a true reckoning of the potential numbers of archaeological sites and monuments directly af- fected by the construction of the road and how, instead, they attempt to down-play the mea- sure of impact. April 2004 and its Tara on Impact M3 Motorway The of the Proposed Cultural Landscape by the Archaeological Institute of America Copyright © 2004 2 The Impact of the Proposed M3 Motorway on Tara and its Cultural Landscape The Tara Landscape through Archaeology through The TaraLandscape taining itseconomicwell-being. quired tomaintainhumansociety, from generating itsculturalandterritorialidentitytosus- which theyfoundthemselves, theirhomelands.Landscapesprovidethemyriadofthings re- Landscapes thusdefinedarenothinglessthantheplacesthat peoplemadeofthespacesin graphic andhistoricaldocuments,topography, geology, soilsanddrainage,placenames. tegrated analysisofdatafromawiderangesources,such assitesandmonuments,carto- Archaeological &HistoricalLandscapes whether theproposedroadoccursinsideoroutsidethiszone islargelyirrelevant. not intendedtodefineordescribethelimitsofTara complex.Therefore, thequestionof erally byarchaeologicalandhistoricalanalysis,thezoneisprimarily aplanningguidelineandis affords somelevelofheritagemonitoringinthisimportant landscape.Thoughinformedgen- that theproposedmotorwaytransgressesit. knowledged intheEIS(Vol. 4A,section13,subsection13.1, paragraph5–p.165),asisthefact ditions onallplanningapplicationsfallingwithinthislargerzone.Thisenlargedzoneisac- Dunshaughlin RouteSelection around theHillofTara (Kilfeather, A. ofMargaret Gowen&Co.Ltd2000 around 1997/8Duchasre-definedthisArchaeologicalZoneasanellipsesome6kmindiameter in response totheDiscoveryProgramme’s analysisoftheimmediatehinterlandTara, on theSMRmaps,describedaslightlylarger area thansimplytheState-ownedland.However, the factthatthroughout1980sand1990sZoneofArchaeologicalProtection,asmarked and endwiththemonumentsinStateownershiponhillisrecognisedsomemeasureby in lawandplanninginterventionsinitiatedbytheheritageservices.ThatTara doesnotbegin ends asaculturalandarchaeologicalentity;and,howthesedefinitionshavebeenrecognised on thecrown oftheHillTara andthoseinitsimmediatevicinity;where Tara beginsand The ZoneofArchaeologicalProtection knowledged intheEIS,whereitisconcededthatproposedmotorwaytransgressesit. present), informationaboutthisdefensivecordonisinthepublicdomain.Itsexistenceac- zone. IdentifiedduringtheDiscoveryProgramme’s intensiveanalysisofTara (1992tothe tend somedistancebeyondthem,butattheveryleastthismotorwayshouldavoidcore sitions intheimmediatevicinityofHillTara andthelandsthattheyoncedefendedex- historians butbyourancestors.To besure, thesemonumentsrepresent thebestdefensivepo- these monumentsrepresents thecore oftheTara complexasdefinednotbyarchaeologists or of Tara byadefensiveringoffortificationsandlinearembankments. Thespacedescribedby and earlyhistoricperiods(c.3 chaeological pointofview, thislandscapeachievesitsclearest shapeduringthelaterprehistoric 2. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANDHISTORICAL OF LANDSCAPE TARA amount ofdocumentaryreferences toTara, from asearlythe7 good preservationofkeyarchaeologicalsitesinthisrurallandscapeandtheunprecedented to theextentthatitcanbemappedoutwithsomeconfidence.Thisisduereasonably Archaeologists andhistoriansapproachthetaskofdefining culturallandscapesthroughin- Commonmisconceptionsexistaboutthehistoricalrelationshipbetweenmonuments 7.3) A considerableamountisknownaboutthearchaeological andhistoricallandscapeofTara, ( be seeninthecontextofanintactarchaeologicallandscape.. The monumentsaround Tara cannotbeviewedinisolation,orasindividualsites,butmust N3 NavantoDunshaughlinRouteSelection As presently defined,theZoneof Archaeological Protection around theHillofTara , paragraph3.4)withtheintentionofimposingarchaeologicalcon- rd centuryBC–5 , MargaretGowenLtD.,August2000,paragraph th centuryAD),aperiodthatsawtheencircling th century AD. From anar- N3 Navanto 3 The Impact of the Proposed M3 Motorway on Tara and its Cultural Landscape lection ofRomanobjectsprovidinga2 Lóegaire andmulti-vallateenclosureknownasRáithnaSenadwhichyieldedanimportantcol- a ratherignominiousendforonceproudandimportantmonument. ahead, RathLughwillmerely overlook,from adistanceof100m,motorway, whichwouldbe this istheprincipalentranceintolandscapefromnorth.Ifdevelopmentgoes probably designedtocontrol, ments. Moreover, commandingahighpromontory overlookingLismullin,RathLughwas logical andhistoricallandscapeofTara, aswellremoving fromitkeycomponentmonu- transgresses thislineandwill,therefore,destroythespatialvisualintegrityofarchaeo- and Edoxtown,nearSkryneRathfeighrespectively. Theproposed motorwayignores and the immediateeastofTara thisterritoriallineisdefinedbythepromontory fortsofRathLugh ued importanceofthisarea around theBirthofChristandintofirstfewcenturies AD. To an innerzoneofdemarcationanddefence,leavingnodoubtaboutthetraditionalcontin- cally-positioned hillfortsandanenormouslinearearthwork,theconfigurationofwhichcreates the LeinsterkingsofTara. TheHillofTara itselfismore closely encircled byagroup ofstrategi- former locationofthePainestownogamstone,amonumentpossiblycommemoratingone from Knowth,isaroyal settlementofthekingsTara, whiletothesouth-eastofitis tending eastwardstowardsDuleekandnorthwardsasfartheBoyne.Rosnaree,across-river royal demesneofTara. Defensiveearthworkswere builtaround Tara.. Thesecanbetracedex- scape ofTara, aphenomenonthatinmanywaysprefaced thecreation ofthe ally invisiblefromthewest. ments onthesummitthataredeliberatelyplacedtobeobservedfromeasttheyvirtu- ronmental ImpactAssessment(EIA)aswellbythegeneralorientationofearliestmonu- sites. ThisinterpretationisconfirmedbythegeophysicalsurveycarriedoutaspartofEnvi- presence isareliableindicatoroftherathermoreephemeralremainsassociatedsettlement visible componentoftherecordisstronglybiasedinfavourfunerarymonuments,their Archaeological analysiselsewhereinIrelandandBritainhasdemonstratedthatalthoughthe cause there are more siteshere thananywhere elseintheimmediatevicinityofHillTara. Dunshaughlin. Indeed,theextantmonumentsprovideunequivocalproofofthissimplybe- drained valleybetweentheHillofTara andSkreen, extendinginthedirection of the area immediatelytotheeastofTara, withaparticularconcentrationinthefertileandwell- the surroundingcountryside.Inearlyprehistory(c.4000-1500BC),thesetendtoconcentratein political landscape,withassociatedsettlementsites,andmorereligiousextendinginto monuments aroundthesummitconfirmsthathillwasfocalpointofalargerritualand information, historicalsources alsoprovideimportantinsightsintothelandscape ofTara. History through The TaraLandscape Dunshaughlin anditsenvirons are partofthebroader archaeological landscapeofTara. These twoevents,thefounding ofthemonasteryandbuildingcrannóg,confirm that to themonasteryofSt.Sechnall(Secundinus),whichconsequently enjoyedroyalpatronage. Medieval Meath.AroyalcrannógwasbuiltatLagore,onthe eastsideofDunshaughlin,close elite statusofTech Cormaic,andthosewhooccupiedit,inthesettlementhierarchy of Early dence ofabandonmentalittlelaterintheEarlyMedievalPeriod, thereisnoquestioningthe While thisarchaeologicalevidenceprovidesanintriguingcounter-point todocumentaryevi- that theso-calledTech Midchúarta(BanquetHall)mayalsobeanEarlyMedievalconstruction. also belongtothisphaseofactivity. Indeed,there isagrowing bodyofevidencetosuggest other featuresrevealedinrecentgeophysicalsurveyandexcavation onthecrownofhill and inaugurationmoundonTara). There canbenodoubtthatsomeoftheenclosures and summit enclosureofRáithnaRígwhichisattachedtotheeast sideoftheForrad(theassembly Tara isprincipallyaburialground and ments overthepastdecade.ResearchtodatehasdemonstratedthatcrownofHill Monuments ontheHillofTara itselfthatrelate tothisperiodincludethehillfortofRáith Later prehistoryheraldedanextensionandincreasedregulationoftheceremonialland- Whereas theaboveoutlineshowTara landscape mightbedefinedusingarchaeological The EarlyMedievalPeriodsawtheconstructionofringfort, Tech Cormaic,withinthe Analysis oftheTara archaeological landscapeison-goingandhasmadesignificantadvance- inter alia , accessthrough thevalleybetweenTara andSkryne,for nd temenos to5 th centurydateforthismonument. ‘sanctuary’.Theimpressive concentrationof ferann ríg , or 4 The Impact of the Proposed M3 Motorway on Tara and its Cultural Landscape centre ofa Navan, Teltown, Phoenixtown,Oristown,EmlaghandKells. At amore locallevelTara wasthe immediate hinterlandofallitssignificantsites:Dunshaughlin,Lagore, Trevet, Tara, Skreen, to Kellsinmind,thatitsrouteisgoingthroughtheheartlandofBregaandencountering seems imperativetostatewiththeproposedcorridorofM3extensionfromDunshaughlin and eastwardstothecoast.ItwasforemostkingdominmedievalIreland,indeed,it the medievalkingdomofBrega,aregionthatextendedfromRiverDeetoLiffey Tara wasthefocalpointofanextended ceremonial landscape.Onaregional level,Tara wasin complex, Rathcroghan,Co.RoscommonandNavanFort,Armagh,inarchaeologicalterms the townlandsofCastleboyandCastletownTara. Inamannersimilartothe BoyneValley and popularliterature istoregard Tara asconsistingsimplyofthe monumentsontheridgein tion toitshinterland. A commonanduniversalmistakeinthepresentation ofTara inofficial Early sources confirmthatTara isnotahillthatstandsaloneinCountyMeathwithoutconnec- 3. MINIMALISING THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED MOTORWAYPROPOSED IMPACTOF THE 3.MINIMALISING THE Skreen. Ifoneexaminestheconceptof Gowen andCo.Ltd.: According tothefirstarchaeological reportsubmittedtoHalcrowBarryfromMargaret arrived atthisconclusionbytracing thepapertrailandsamecanbedoneinthisinstance. the EISwaspublishedthatthey wereeffectivelyignoredbyallparties.TheKampsaxReport tions totheNRAandDunLaoghaire RathdownCountyCouncilweresodilutedbythe time Commission, findsthatlegitimate concernsraisedinpreliminaryarchaeologicalcommunica- the EISpreparedforCarrickminesCastle.Thisreport,which wascommissionedbytheEU The samedilutionofexpertadviceandforewarningishighlighted intheKampsaxReportinto istence oftheculturallandscapeitself,havebeensystematically talked-downanddissipated. about thenumbersofarchaeologicalsitesthreatenedbythis development,andindeedtheex- tion oftheEIStherehasbeenaprogressivedilutionthese archaeologicalconcerns.Concerns posed road onthislandscapeare tobefoundinthesedocuments.However, sincethepublica- the EIS.Infact,someofstrongeststatementsabout truemeasureofimpactthepro- Tara isacknowledgedinallofthearchaeological assessmentspreparatory to,andincluding, The poemopenswiththeline on SkreencomposedforAmlaíbbyCináedúahArtacáin,apoetfromamonghislocalallies. church toStPatrickatTara. Thisperceived conflictbetweenthetwohillsisexpressed inapoem of Tara, itwasindirect opposition–metaphoricallyandphysicallytothededicationofa Cholmáin werelinkedtothatsaint’smonasteryatKellsandmoresignificantlyinthecontext heart ofroyallands.ThededicationtoColumbawasalsoprovocativefortworeasons:Clann have deliberatelyendowedachurchdedicatedtoStColumbaatSkreenasdefiantactinthe his in 980againstAmlaíbCúarán,NorsekingofDublin,fordominanceBregaandespecially death likensTara toawidowkeeningherlosthusband.MáelSechnaillfoughtthebattleofTara caused hiscourtpoettouseitconsistentlyasathemeispoetry. A lamentwrittenonhis Malachy II,BrianBorú’srival,asheispopularlyidentified)wassoattachedtoTara thathe sion byNorsekingsofDublinandtheirlocalallies.MáelSechnaillmacDomnaill(died1022)(or (‘the descendantsofColmán)oralternativelytheUíMáelSechnaill(O’Melaghlins)fromincur- fiercely defendedinthetenthandeleventhcenturiesbyadynastyknownasClannCholmáin sources, itisclearthatthehillsofTara andSkreen are partofonelandscape.Thedemesnewas (published in1994). carefully documentedbythelateElizabethHickeyinherbook, century onwards,theevidenceforwhichliesinandaroundSkryneCastlewasso came thecaputofmanorandtownAnglo-NormandeFeipofamilyfromtwelfth dieval poemlistsprehistoricburials(likelytobeBronzeAgebarrows)dottedonthehill.Itbe- nationally asTara, nonethelessSkreen wasanimportantprehistoric and medievalsite.Theme- between thetwohills:theywerepartofsameroyallandscape.Althoughnotasprominent over oppositeTemair’. Thisisthebestexpression, through medievaleyes,oftherelationship The existenceofanintegratedculturallandscapeextending beyondthecrownofHill ferann ríg ferann ríg around Tara. Amlaíb hadencroached onMáelSechnaill’sterritoryandseemsto ‘royaldemesne’,approximatinginmoderntermstotheBaronyof Achall araicceTemair ferann ríg ‘Achall(analternativenameforSkreen) ofthekingsTara inthemedieval Skryne andtheearlyNormans 5 The Impact of the Proposed M3 Motorway on Tara and its Cultural Landscape tain geophysicalanomaliesdescribed as“circularfeatures”,“linearpatterns”,“pits”,“possible geophysical surveyoftheroad take.The19areasofarchaeologicalinterestarethat con- the EIS,afurther7monuments and19areasofarchaeologicalinterestwereidentifiedduring section oftheroad corridor, andafurther 18thatoccurwithin500metersofit. According to ments andPlaces ments employedintheEISandtoproblemsgermanegeophysical prospection. of thislatterandisinpartduetothepeculiardefinition ofarchaeologicalsitesandmonu- tential numberofendangeredsitesandmonumentsTheEIS isparticularlydeficientinrespect and monumentsdirectlythreatenedbytheproposedmotorway and(2)estimationsofthepo- prevents independentassessmentofthisaspectthereport. EIS andinsteadonlya“synopsisoftheirreport”isprovided (EISvol.4A,167). DUNSHAUGHLINBETWEEN ANDCANNISTOWN 4. CALCULATING THE NUMBERSOF THREATENED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES The samedocumenthasthistosayoftheproposedroute: this company’soriginalassessment.Itisalsoquiteuntrue. limit oftheprotectedzonearoundTara will sufferanyphysicalimpactandtherouteliesapproximately1.5kmfromeastern later indatethanthegreatprehistoriccomplexonTara. NositesrelatedtotheTara complex pared byMGLtd.,itisstatedthat: physical report,whichwascarriedoutbyGSBProspection, Bradford,are on howtheresults shouldbeinterpreted, are outlinedbelow. Imagesfrom theoriginalgeo- fluxgate gradiometeremployedinscanmode.Theshortcomings ofthistechnique,whichbear pendently reckoningthearchaeologicalpotentialofproposedroute.Thesurveyuseda take’. Thisgeophysicalsurveyisofparticularimportancebecauseitprovidesameansinde- search, field-walkingandgeophysicalsurvey, whichwasappliedalongtheproposed ‘road- motorway corridorbetweenDunshaughlinandKilcarn(EIS,volume4A).involvedapaper- 2.2.1). However, inthe the highest,ifnotconcentrationsofsitespersquareareaincountry. Tara] thereareinexcessofseventy-fiveknownarchaeologicalsites.Thisrepresentsone of Meath Assessment PaperSurvey,PreliminaryAreaofInterestN3DunshaughlinNorthtoNavanWest,Co. chaeological concernswere beingraisedfromasearly1999inV.J. KeeleyLtd.’s Navan toDunshaughlinRouteSelection:Archaeology the archaeologicalandhistoricallandscapeinthisarea’ reads: chaeology oftheproposedroutesubmittedtoHalcrowBarrywhererestparagraph turn quoteddirectlyfromMargaretGowenandCo.’s(hereafterMGLtd.)reportonthear- known archaeologicallandscapesinEurope The EISlists2recordedarchaeologicalmonuments( Despite allofthisanalysis,thereisparticularconfusionabout (1)theactualnumberofsites ments themselves’ under anycircumstancesbedisturbed,intermsofvisualordirectimpactonthemonu- must beseeninthecontextofanintactarchaeologicallandscape,whichshouldnot The monumentsaroundTara cannotbeviewedinisolation,orasindividualsites,but The identificationandrecordingofarchaeologicalsitesalongthec.14.5kmproposed In theEISwereadthat“ tremely severeimplicationsfromanarchaeologicalperspective effects ofthisrouteontheHillTara oronitsoutlyingmonuments.Itwouldhaveex- sensitive landscapeofthestreamvalley ing highlyvisiblefromtheHillofTara, theroutepassesthrougharchaeologically [the route] whereitisreportedthat: ‘It wouldbevirtuallyimpossibletounderestimatetheimportanceorsensitivityof continues upthestreamvalleybetweenTara andSkreen.Inadditiontobe- forCo.Meath,visanenclosure ME038:001andfieldsystemME038:002)onthis ( N3 NavantoDunshaughlinRouteSelection Brief ofEvidenceArchaeology Report this sectionoftheN3runsthroughonerichestandbest Within thecoreareaoflessthan2.8x1.2km,[ofHill Most ofthesitesapproachedbyrouteappeartobe (para. 4.1).Thislatterisasignificantdeparture from (ibid.,6.5.1.). ” (EIS–Vol.4A p.165).However, thissentenceisin , August 2000,3.1).Indeed,substantivear- i.e. No mitigationwouldremovethe (MargaretGowenandCo.Ltd., publishedin August 2002,alsopre- siteslistedinthe , August2000,paragraph7.3) (ibid.,6.5.3.). not includedinthe Record ofMonu- 1 Thisomission Archaeological (para. N3 6 The Impact of the Proposed M3 Motorway on Tara and its Cultural Landscape sites jects ofindeterminatedateandcontext). ous dipolaranomalieswererecordedandtheseareinterpretedasferrousmaterial(i.e.ironob- survey butwere deemedtobeofnoarchaeological interest. However, inallofthemnumer- sites ormonuments.Inadditiontothese,4otherareasweresubjecteddetailedgeophysical sites, features orartefacts).We willargue belowthatall19areas shouldbeclassifiedaseither pits”, “ferrous[objects]”etc.,consistentwithsub-surfacearchaeologicalremains(monuments, of potentialarchaeologicalwere missed,includingsiteslessthan10minmaximumdimension. ber. However, duetotheproblems attendantonscanningitisinevitable thatsignificantareas sites alongtherouteofproposed road’ netic responsethat ology, thisisaremarkably highnumberofsites.Itis statedintheEISthat quality controlorindependentassessment.Despitetheshortcomings ofthescanningmethod- ence andon-the-spotjudgementofthefieldoperator. Itistherefore notsubjecttoindependent No dataiscollectedforlateranalysisanditssuccessdependant onthecompetence,experi- instruments’ displaypanel’ the proposedroadcorridorwhilstobserving‘ The scanninginvolvedwalkinginparallellines(8totalper field),spaced10mapart,along a fluxgategradiometerinanattempttoidentifiedareasofpotential archaeologicalsignificance. Shortcomings ofthegeophysicalsurvey this routeandpersistindefendingit. avoid allofthesesites.Itisbizarre,tosaytheleast,thatknowingthisauthoritiesselected pendix E,8-12)(i.e.1siteevery300m).Itisnotpossibleforthemotorwaytobere-routed chaeological siteswithin500moftheroad corridoralongthis14.5km stretch (EISVol. 4C, Ap- passes. Includingsitesdirectly inthepathofmotorway, there are nofewerthan48ar- and particularlysensitivenatureofthearchaeologicallandscapethroughwhichroad not provetobebigandcomplex. covered duringthestrippingoftopsoiland,likewise,thereisnoguaranteethatsomethesewill along thisstretch ofthemotorway. There isabsolutelynodoubtthatfurthersites willbedis- in oneplace,butitisalsotheminimumnumberofpotentialsitesthatwillbeencountered road design)mayappeartobearemarkablyhighconcentrationofarchaeologicalmonuments prove easierto‘resolve’. any lessbigorcomplicatedthantheremaining 21sites.Onthecontrary, theymayeven complex andwillbeveryexpensiveto‘resolve’. Moreover, there isnoguaranteethattheyare tion 13.2.3.,p.167)isoflittlepracticalvalue:thefacttheyareverybigandprobably vey) reporting thattheyare remains unknownasmanyfeaturescontinuebeyondthelimitsofdetailedgeophysicalsur- and twohectares(thoughinmanyinstancesthetrueextentofthesearchaeologicalcomplexes Vol. 4A,SectionE,subsection13.3.3.3,p.175). And sinceeachcoversanarea ofbetweenone accurately bedescribedasarchaeologicalcomplexes(theyarereferredtosuchintheEIS, monuments inassociationwithotherfeaturesofarchaeologicalsignificance,theymightmore quality ofarchaeologicalsitesatrisk. bly unenclosedsitesisunscientificandcontributestotheunderestimationofnumbers of culturalsignificanceorstratigraphicalcomplexity. Thiscomplacentdisregard forostensi- sites arealsoenclosed,thepresenceorabsenceofenclosingfeaturesisnot,itself,ameasure appear tobespatially-defined.Notwithstandingtheprobabilitythatsomeofremaining21 tion ‘monument’intheEISisbecausetheyhaveenclosingelements,e.g.wallsorditchesand on thelineofthis14.5kmsectionmotorwayis26. On accountofthegeophysics,measuresweresubsequentlytakentoavoid3new The geophysicalsurveyinthiscaseinvolvedaninitial‘scanning’ oftheproposedroutewith The concentrationofarchaeologicalsitesinthisareaisentirelypredictablegiventhestatus Twenty-eight newsites(includingthethree geophysicalsitessubsequentlyavoidedinthe Furthermore, insofaraseachofthese7sitescomprisesanumberarchaeological The probablereasonwhyonly7ofthesitesrevealedthroughgeophysicsmeritdescrip- 2 andtherefore, were thought tobeof archaeological potentialwereidentifiedat the totalnumberofknownarchaeologicalmonumentsandsitesthatoccur ‘of majorarchaeologicalinterest’ (EIS vol.4A,167).Scanningofthissortisasubjectiveprocedure. (EIS vol.4A,167) fluctuations inthemagneticsignal[…] . This isanotinconsiderablenum- (EIS, Vol. 4A,SectionE,sub-sec- ‘Variations inmag- thirty 7 The Impact of the Proposed M3 Motorway on Tara and its Cultural Landscape the test-trencheshitsmajorarchaeology? route, eventhoughassociatedfeaturesclearlyextendintothe re-alignedroadtake. ments. However, noadditionalgeophysical surveyhasbeendonetoexaminetherevised euro) andcanbeconsultedattheirofficesinNavan. sue, becauseitwillonlytarget along theroute,butthiswasnotdone.Neitherwillproposedtest-trenchingaddressis- stripping. Knowingthis,controlsurveysshouldhavebeenestablishedatregularintervals along thisportionoftheroad corridor, substantiallymore siteswillbeuncovered duringsoil- along thisroad corridor. Itispatentlyobviousthatgiventhepresent densityofrecorded sites the EISfailstoprovideanystatisticalreckoningoflikelydensityarchaeologicalsites moreover, sincethedataisnotthenemployedtodevelopapredictive modelofpotential sites, to thefactthatwhilenumberofnewsitesisaminimum,italso fectively ignored. ogy likelytobeencounteredandofthecostits‘resolution’.Thisexpertadvicewasef- Pleanála oralhearingConorNewmanwarnedofthegrossunderestimationarchaeol- Navan toDunshaughlinRouteSelection chaeology, NationalUniversity ofIreland, Galway. logical SurveyofTara 1992-95. Heiscurrently Archaeological FieldOfficer attheDept.of Ar- land, Galway. Tara from 1992-96.Heiscurrently alecturer in Archaeology attheNationalUniversityofIre- the MicheálÓCléirighInstitute,UniversityCollegeDublin. ary andHistoricalProjectfrom1992-2001.Sheispresently a post-doctoralresearchfellowat this route route optionsforHalcrowBarry, Dr Annaba KilfeatherofMargaret GowenLtd.declared that surprising, orindeednovel,aboutthisobservation.Inreportingheranalysisofthevarious area boastsaparticularlydenseconcentrationofarchaeologicalsites.Again,thereisnothing in identifyingareasofarchaeologicalinterest.Thisitsownrighttestifiestothefactthatthis may bedetectedusingothertechniques,suchaselectricalresistance. Furthermore, manyarchaeologicalfeaturesareinvisible,ortransparent,togradiometrybut 5. IMPACT OF THE MOTORWAY ON THIS LANDSCAPE direct attackontheintegrityofthislandscapeanditsconstituentparts. cultural landscapeofTara anddestroying theminorder toreplace themwithamotorwayis of attritionisunacceptablyhigh.Allthesitesandmonumentsinthisareaareintegralto be scientificallyexcavated,ultimatelytheywilldestroyedandwemaintainthatthisdegree the roadcorridor(andanunspecifiednumberofyetundiscoveredsitesandmonuments)will land oftheHillTara. Notwithstandingthefactthat26knownsitesandmonumentsin will beimpactingontheareaofhighestsiteandmonumentdensityinimmediatehinter- sected byafour-lanemotorwayanditsassociatedinterchangesdevelopments. a majorimpact,theresultofwhichwillbethatreasonablyintactculturallandscapebi- the restofarchaeologicalandhistoricallandscape.Thelandscapeitself,therefore,willsuffer of Tara, severing,visuallyandphysically, thekeyeasterncomponentofSkreen ridgefrom By notdescribingtheshortcomingsofgeophysicalscanningEISfailstoalertreader Mr JosephFenwickwaschief fieldarchaeologistoftheDiscoveryProgramme’sArchaeo- Mr ConorNewmanwasdirector oftheDiscoveryProgramme’sArchaeologicalSurvey of Despite itsobviouslimitations,thisgeophysicalsurveyprovedtobeparticularlysuccessful * 2 1 Moreover, inpassingthrough thevalleybetweenTara andSkreen, theproposed motorway It isclearfromtheforegoingthatproposedmotorwaytransgressescorelandscape DrEdelBreathnach wasTara Research FellowoftheDiscoveryProgramme’s Tara Liter- Theroadhasnotbeensufficientlydivertedtocompletely avoidoneofthese3monu- ThefullgeophysicalreportisavailableforpurchasefromMeath CountyCouncil(79.80 ‘..does passthroughanareaofenormouslyhigharchaeologicalpotential..’ known sites.Thequestionneedstobeaskedwhathappensif , August 2000,paragraph6.1.1).Testifying atthe An Bord anomalously high. And, anomalously high. ( N3