LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L  October 2001

CELTIC-L October 2001

Subject:

Housing development in Sligo... and a ringfort

From:

Stiof <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date:

Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:31:30 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (70 lines)

People,

Today on the 'Today with Pat Kenny' radio programme on RTE1 one of the guests, Armin
Somali, highlighted the actions of Sligo County Council in looking to compulsorily
purchase the back gardens of eleven houses in the town of Cliffany for the purposes
of building new housing. Aside from the several objections raised - it will be a
backland development (which is grounds for refusing according to the regulations
anyway), it is objected to by at least eight of the eleven householders, and no
efforts have been made to compulsorily purchase other lands - the area contains a
ringfort.

As Ireland has 40,000 such structures *at least* (if you include possible sites and
already levelled ringforts, the total number of sites can rise to c.60,000 or more),
it can perhaps be said 'hey, we can afford to compromise just one, yes?'. I am
inclined to disagree. There are regulations which require a safe zone around the
structure (20 meters, if I remember right) which in this case will seriously reduce
the amount of land available to development (the total area is c.10 acres I believe).
We also - and I think more importantly - need to begin considering the nature of
structures such as ringforts, and indeed many other types of monument in this
country. As most or all of you no doubt know, ringforts are not isolated objects
which can be fenced off (or incorporated into a nice landscaped leisure area) and
thus remain intact. They are the remains of farmsteads over 1,000 to 1,500 or more
years old, part of the legacy left us by our ancestors. They also, like all farms, do
not terminate at the ditch surrounding the actual dwelling place, but instead lie at
the heart of what was once a working farm with all the fields, abandoned detritus and
more that goes with such sites.

Yes, of course the whole thing in this case needs to go through several stages of
approval and arbitration before being finally signed off, and the actual work will be
preceded by an impact assessment, archaeological survey, monitoring, and rescue
excavation if necessary. This will apply to the whole site, too, and not just the
ringfort itself, which the council have agreed will be respected as required.

Fair enough, but... but, but, but. Is there *no* hope at all that archaeological
sites will ever be considered in terms of their wider context? In the case of a
ringfort or other rural settlement site in particular, it is unarguable that the
identifiable site is only the visible part of a larger area of past human activity.
Rescue excavation is never the best type of excavation as it is constrained by
factors other than just research. There are time constraints, publishing issues and
the sometimes tantalising results where a portion only of the site is unearthed,
damaging the integrity of the site while not providing information about the site as
a whole.

Where a housing development - as in this case - is intended for the immediately
surrounding land, aside from the damage and loss of context for the actual structure,
we have to factor in the effect of concentrated human activity from this point
onwards on the site itself. Nestled within a housing area the site will inevitably be
subject to increased damage from people and animals (even be they pets) using the
space for leisure purposes.

In this specific case, and in many other settings where ringforts are found, the
surrounding area is rural. Is it perhaps time to reconsider the weight afforded to
such sites when assessment is made of where development work can or should be
undertaken? Even disregarding the impact on the existing residents in this case,
there is no doubt that land to either side rather than *around* the ringfort would be
infinitely preferable from an archaeological perspective. Is there space here for new
or improved legisltion providing greater protection to archaeological sites, stating
that where a plot of land free of such a site could be used, the importance of the
site is such that *all* efforts *must* be taken to ensure the site *and its context*
are not only not directly affected, but that developments must be placed as *far*
away from such sites as is possible. Such a regulation, in a rural or semi-rural
setting seems to me to be not unreasonable in most cases.

In this specific example the added objection of the existing residents, and the issue
of contravening backland development regulations must, surely, provide sufficient
weight to the argument against. The wider picture which this one case highlights,
though, also requires thought for the future. Thoughts?

MAQQI

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2019
December 2018
September 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
August 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
February 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager