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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L  October 2001

CELTIC-L October 2001

Subject:

Re: Housing development in Sligo... and a ringfort

From:

"Mag.phil. Raimund KARL" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date:

Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:29:16 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (145 lines)

Hi Stiof,

Stiof schrieb:
>
> Before I do, bear in mind that about a year ago I used this mail
> group to argue the case *for* increased excavations in Ireland...
> and you argued against ;-)

True, and if it can be avoided I still am opposing increased excavation
activity - where it is not necessary, there's no need unless all the
old, mostly unpublished materials already excavated over the last
century have been taken care of.

But in fact, modern development activity cannot be avoided, and where
this interferes with archaeological monuments, the best should be made
of it, which, in the specific case, seems to be largescale excavation.
After all, we cannot decide if a development project is carried out or
not on wether or not it will damage an archaeological site, as this
would probably mean almost no new development projects any more.
Archaeology should not prevent such developments from happening, except
in cases where unique monuments would be destroyed, but rather work with
such development companies for the mutual benefit of both.

I don't know if this is possible in the specific case, but in fact, if
it is a large development project, the costs for good survey and the
excavation of the whole area wouldn't increase the overall costs of the
company considerably, at least as far as I can say from my practical
experiences. Thus, if one offers the development company the chance to
build a few more houses (in the place where now the ringfort is), they
most probably would earn more money even if they actually pay the whole
research activity and following publications.

> Of course. Agreed, but we're looking at about 10 acres here, not 1,000s of acres.
> Fair point, though.

But 10 acres is definitly better than what usually is possible (which
usually means: only small parts of the ringfort itself are excavated,
not even the whole ringfort, and even less anything in the surrounding
area).

> > Similar possibilities could arrive from largescale development projects
<snipped>
> > non-rescue-conditions excavation) for the funds and time to excavate the
> > whole 10 acres of developmental area.
>
> An interesting possibility. You can build another three or so houses if we can be
> allowed to delay you another six months to do a proper job... Hmm... I wonder how
> acceptable that might be, though.

Most probably, a delay of several months is, most likely, not even
necessary. If the building activity is organised to go on in "segments"
that allows the archaeologists to excavate what will be done during the
next month, this would probably cause a delay of at worst one or two
months, or even less. That should be acceptable to any development
company, especially given that they would most probably have much
greater financial losses if the project is delayed indeterminably
because of opposition.

> > To the development company, this
<snipped>
> > exist if one comes to terms with the development company.
>
> As you well know I personally would love to see an area of several acres excavated
> around a ringfort. What, ideally, should happen in such cases, though, is that the
> site is carefully chosen after a series of surveys, and only because surface and
> sub-surface scans show good signs of unearthing a lot of stuff.

Of course, in an ideal world, we would have ideal possibilities.
However, this is not the world we live in. As such, one can only make
the best out of the existing possibilities. Which means, better
rescue-excavating such a site with its surroundings, with several
surveys carried out immediatly before the actual excavations, without
being able to choose what site it actually is, than strictly opposing
the project with "archaeological" arguments and in the end having to
work against rather than with the development company.

> All that said, this particular case in question in Sligo *will* see
> a substantial amount of the area surrounding the ringfort excavated
> when the houses are built (assuming the council's plans go ahead).
> The issue, perhaps, is rather one of whether archaeology's hand
> should be forced - whether the choice of site excavated should be
> dictated by modern development plans, or whether it should be
> chosen by trained archaeologists and for a specific set of good
> reasons.

Well, archaeology's hand is forced in most cases anyways, and in the
very rare cases that archaeologists have choices what site to excavate
next is rather based on personal preferrences rather than a specific set
of good reasons, as most often, such "good reasons" would depend on
massive survey work being carried out, survey work one usually can't
finance for even a limited choice of sites. Thus, usually, the site
would be choosen because it is close to the university which is doing
the dig, because it is a "famous" site (why is there a Discovery
programme centered on such sites as Tara and Dun Oengus rather than
nameless sites somewhere in the Irish hinterlands - which most probably
are archaeologically much more interesting than those "prominent"
sites?) or because it is close to the home of the one deciding about the
excavation site, or because he already has dug there in the past for
whatever reasons.

Even more than that, what does it help us to prevent development
projects being carried out and consequently excavation of site XY
because we would rather prefer to excavate site YZ, which we can't
excavate anyways even if we prevent the excavation of XY?

> We might also throw in this thought: where the development
> goes ahead, the County Council will have to pay the bill for any
> archaeological work done, while if the site were excavated through a
> university, for example, the university would presumably have to pay
> up. The council have no choice in paying... the question here would
> be whether a university could afford to dig up ten acres. I suspect
> not.

Well, wether it is the County Council that pays or the actual
development company doesn't matter in that case. No university could pay
for such a largescale excavation, so if someone else can (or even has
to), that's fine, isn't it?

> Random the site choice may be, but I guess its better than nothing.
> This does still leave the option of just leaving the damn site as a
> whole alone and building elsewhere. Both, I think, are valid
> solutions, though the effects will be very different.

Well, the question is: is there any other site which will cause less
problems and arise less opposition? If there is a choice of sites for
the development project, well, than of course it is better to leave the
archaeological site alone. But if there isn't, well, then make the best
out of it.

All the best,

RAY
________________________________________________________________________
Mag.phil. Raimund KARL <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Universität Wien, Institut für Alte Geschichte
A-1010 Wien, Dr. Karl Lueger Ring 1
Privat: A-1120 Wien, Hasenhutgasse 7-11/9/4
Tel/AB/Fax: (+43 1) 8103629 oder mobil: (+43 676) 3048830
________________________________________________________________________

     Besuchen Sie die Homepage der Studienrichtung Keltologie unter
       Visit the Celtic Studies at Vienna University homepage at
            <http://www.univie.ac.at/keltologie/index.html>
________________________________________________________________________

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