no 03
back to INDEX of Minutes of Lismullin Advisory Committee Meetings
Draft Minutes
Present: Mr. Finian Matthews, (DEHLG), Chairperson; Mr. Brian Duffy, Chief Archaeologist (DEHLG); Ms. Catriona Ryan, (DEHLG), Secretary; Mr Gerard Smith (DEHLG); Dr. Patrick F. Wallace, Director, NMI; Mr. Conor Newman (NUI Galway); Prof. Gabriel Cooney (UCD); Mr. Ronan Swan, Senior Archaeologist (NRA).
Agenda
1. Minutes of previous meeting:
Mr. Newman suggested an amendment to the technical details regarding the depth and width of the cut required for the road take and the minutes have been amended accordingly.
The minutes of the previous meeting were adopted subject to the above.
Current Situation at Lismullin:
The members of the committee conducted a site inspection. The site has dried out considerably and the sandbag boom proposed at the previous meeting of the committee is in place. Weather permitting it should now be possible to start cleaning down the site in accordance with the method statement.
Earthsound Geophysics has now taken on the task of surveying the site in place of ArchaeoPhysica who were unavailable, at short notice, last week. As it was the first period of good weather and the site was drying out it was considered unwise to wait. Earthsound have now produced preliminary results of their geophysical survey and reported to the meeting on same.
Update on Geophys:
Earthsound attended the meeting and provided the group with a copy of their preliminary report. They have identified a number of potential anomalies including possible pits, ditches, areas of burning and possible post/stake-holes, some of which did not appear in the preliminary pre-excavation plan.
Earthound will continue to carry out a series of experiments to try and detect the stake holes so that they have a good model for further testing. If they cannot find the stake holes then the next option would be to use ground penetrating radar over the site of the national monument if possible. There were some reservations about this as the radar is on small wheels and may disturb the soil.
As geophysical surveying at Rathcroghan is considered to one of the best recent uses of the most up to date techniques in this area it was recommended that the techniques used there might be used as a model for Lismullin.
The availability of Earthsound to complete work at the site needs to be established.
4. Comparison with geophys results prior to topsoil removal:
The committee was provided with an information pack which gave details of the results to date and provided a series of superimposed images allowing the committee to compare the results.
5. Review supplemental method statement:
The NRA have taken the comments made at the previous meeting on board and have amended the illustrations accordingly. Mr. Swan is to re-write the Geophysical Survey paragraph and will add information on the addition of the sand bags and the motivation for using them. Further details will also be added explaining why the three key areas (ie the funnel area, the interior and the bronze age pottery or north eastern area) are likely to be the most important in archaeological terms. It was also suggested that the Method Statement mention parallels with other sites that are similar and that the methodology would be informed by what is known of similar sites.
It was agreed that the method statement would, as is normal, be continually updated as the excavation strategy evolves, and, in that sense, will be considered a working document.
6. Proceeding with excavation – the next steps:
The following strategy was agreed (weather permitting):
In the meantime next quadrant being cleaned down and supplemental pre-excavation plan being prepared
Commence excavation of quadrants once planned
Overall, while further geophysical survey is desirable, it should not delay the actual excavation. The survey could be done in tandem with the excavation.
It was agreed that a Magnetic Susceptibility Survey would be useful, when the site is cleaned down again. It might help in determining whether the nature of activity at the site was unusual. Magnetic Susceptibility Survey over the stake holes might also give more information on whether there are burnt deposits inside and would be expected to provide useful information for dating purposes. While this type of survey has no surface impact, previous activity may have impacted on the archaeology and this would need to be taken into account. Information from this type of survey can be turned around very quickly (within a day).
It was agreed that the Magnetic Susceptibility Survey would continue the approach of investigating the site in quadrants and it was suggested that areas such as anomalies discovered during the geophysical survey should be prioritised.
It was further recommended that the survey use a 2m x 2m grid outside the CPO line to see what could be found. Based on the initial survey it will be decided whether further work is worthwhile.
Dr. Wallace addressed the detailed methodology of the excavation such a trowelling, sampling and the depth of the initial investigation (1cm). It was agreed that samples should taken in accordance with the advice of the appropriate geoarchaeological/geophysical consultant e.g. using nylon or wooden implements and that trowels be used for clean up.
In relation to reporting to the committee it was agreed that:
The committee will be informed regularly of the nature of any finds or deposits, with emails being sent to the Mr. Duffy.
The Site Director will prepare a weekly report which will be circulated to the committee and which will be posted on the web.
Mr. Newman expressed a desire to be kept informed of progress regularly and to visit the site during the course of these works, outside of the regular meetings of the committee, and this was agreed.
It was agreed that clear lines of communication are required in relation to the excavations at Lismullin. It was also agreed that the excavation should be accompanied by a strong communications strategy – the objective of which would be to communicate information on the excavation of the site to the widest possible audience in a timely manner.
7. Souterrain at Lismullin:
During the meeting on 2nd August the Chairperson indicated that the Minister had requested the Committee to consider the issue of the newly discovered souterrain at Lismullin and in particular whether there was any possibility of preserving the feature in-situ.
BD explained that, for the present, the strategy for the souterrain was preservation by record. The excavation of the feature to the fullest extent possible was in hand; however, what remained of the structure will not be removed for the present. As the souterrain was originally dug into a ridge on the line of the road-take the consequence of preserving it in-situ, while maintaining the current line of the road, would mean that the road would have to be raised over the monument. This would have serious and unacceptable implications in relation to giving the motorway literally a higher profile in the Tara/Skryne valley and would also make it more visible from the Hill of Tara.
GC stated that the amelioration of the visual impact of the motorway should be considered as a key issue. Hence, while it would appear to be technically possible to do so, the preservation of the souterrain in-situ must be weighed up against the significant increased visual impact of the motorway that this would lead to.
In this context, the committee agreed that the souterrain could not be preserved-in-situ under the constraints of the current route of the M3 motorway.
The question of preserving the souterrain in situ led to discussion of whether this souterrain constituted a national monument. BD advised that this particular souterrain would not constitute a national monument in its own right and was not of the same scale or importance as the enclosure which has been recognised as a national monument. The point was made that there are many other souterrains, in Ireland and in the Louth/Meath area in particular which are more complex, more intact and in a better state of preservation. Most souterrains in Ireland are not recognised as national monuments within the meaning of the National Monuments Acts. As far as the particular example found at Lismullin is concerned there are no particular characteristics in relation to the monument itself which would warrant drawing a distinction between it and many other monuments of this nature, which are not deemed to be national monuments.
Against this view, PW and CN posited that the souterrain should be considered a National Monument on the basis of its association with Tara which conferred on it elevated cultural importance. They observed that the probability that it dates from the 8th to 10th centuries AD would place it locationally and chronologically within the Ferenn Ríg (royal estate) of Tara. This and contemporary early Irish law tracts pertaining to tribal land ownership (fintiu) make it certain that permission for the construction of this souterrain was granted by a king of Tara, who was, in all likelihood, related by blood to those who built it and used it. CN, PW and GC also argued that in principle assessment of National Monument status should always include full cultural profiling of the remains in question and should not rely exclusively on state of preservation, rarity or amenity value.
GC stated that the question of whether the souterrain should be seen as a national monument through its associative value with Tara is a complex and problematic one which has to be seen in the light of the very relevant judgement of Mr Justice Smyth in the High Court on 1st March 2006. This raises the need to legally define what is the Tara landscape, which has not been done to date and is an issue that will arise in the formulation of the proposed Landscape Conservation Area. What this particular issue also points to is the current weakness of the National Monuments legislation in relation to the protection of archaeological/historic landscapes and the related issue of the definition of a national monument, both of which need to be addressed in the proposed consolidated National Monuments Act.
8. AOB:
Engineering advice
Mr. Swan indicated that, subject to engineering advice, some minor adjustments could possibly be made in the area of the current boundary hedge, the maintenance strip or the access road in order to reduce the impact on the area of the national monument.
The engineers will meet the Committee again when they have further considered these issues, including the issue of the impact of tree roots when landscaping is being carried out. In this regard, the possibility of inviting an ecologist along to meet the committee was also raised.
Mr Cooney expressed the view that this discussion with the Engineers would also be important from the point of view of ensuring as far as possible that any mitigation measures don’t end up damaging archaeology.
Dr. Wallace enquired as to whether the farm access road would have to be constructed at the national monument side of the road – it was agreed that at the moment this was the case.
9. Date of next meeting:
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 5 September at 11.00am in Lismullin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source - http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Heritage/NationalMonuments/