How many of these newly discovered archaeological sites have been deemed worthy of the status of a National Monument? Ten? one? Can it be that 99.9% of all the newly discovered sites were only of minor significance and not worthy of preservation? A better question, how many motorways, gas pipelines, sewerage schemes and other major developments have been redesigned to facilitate the designation and thus the preservation of a new National Monument? One?  None?

Our finite heritage is continually flaunted as a major tourist attraction. Yet the mantra of ‘preserving sites by record’ (i.e. get it out of the way and produce a token report) is now gone beyond a joke. Tourists will not come to Ireland to visit a dusty archive.

Topsoil stripping and the digging of ‘trial trenches’ by mechanical diggers is now endemic on archaeological sites. Topsoil stripping will inevitably lead to the removal of artefacts from the environs of their original association-related contexts. What must be appreciated is that the dumping elsewhere of this artefact laden topsoil will contaminate and thus distort the archaeological record of the receiving area.

The excavations conducted at Aughinish Island in Co. Limerick, Ballyavenooragh in Co. Kerry and Simonstown in Co. Meath are representative of the majority of excavations conducted to research standards to date. Up to 80% of all surviving artefacts were recovered from the topsoil. (Pers. comm. E.P. Kelly and Erin Gibbons, Site Directors). Topsoil stripping is thus counter-productive in the preparation of an accurate and comprehensive analysis and subsequent interpretation of the archaeology of a recognised site.

There is also a legal obligation in relation to those artefacts present in the topsoil. The National Monuments Acts 1930-2004 make specific provision for “the preservation of archaeological objects". Section 25(1) of said Act states:” It shall not be lawful for any person to injure, deface or destroy, clean, restore or sample by cutting, drilling or other process any archaeological object, nor shall it be lawful for any person to alter any archaeological object…..”.

It is therefore obvious, reasonably and logically, that the use of a mechanical digger either to remove the topsoil or to dig trenches in an area identified as being of archaeological interest (where the likelihood of “archaeological objects” being present is practically certain) will almost inevitably lead to a direct contravention of Section 25(1) of the National Monuments Act, precisely because the likelihood of interfering in any of the prohibited ways with an “archaeological object” is almost certain, due to the nature of the mechanical process itself. Obtaining ad hoc permission from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to employ a mechanical digger (with toothless bucket!) on a recognised archaeological site does not necessarily equate with a full compliance with the explicit restrictions set out clearly (see above) in the National Monuments Acts 1930-2004.

A final thought. If an archaeological object, hitherto deposited in the topsoil, has in effect been dumped/thrown away with the mechanically removed topsoil (under licence from the DoEHLG) can the State still legally claim ownership? Thankfully, the Ardagh Chalice was found by a person digging potatoes with a spade and not a mechanical digger! Yes, it was recovered from the topsoil. Progress indeed.

Dr Mark Clinton

Chair: Monuments and Antiquities Sub-Committee, An Taisce