Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Mar 2001

Vol. 531 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - National Monuments.

Mr. Perry

I wish the Minister well in her new ministry. The proper application of the National Monuments Acts, 1930-1994, where works proposed are at or near monuments protected under these Acts, is welcome. Why do they not apply to Dúchas and its agents at the site of the Carrowmore megalithic tombs? Why does Dúchas not have an archaeologist present under licence during the works? Who authorised this programme and from what funds are the works, which cost £50,000, being paid? When were Dúchas archaeologists made aware of these works and were they, or other archaeologists, asked for input? Will an archaeologist with knowledge of the Carrowmore passage tombs be involved in the proper assessment of the necessary restoration works? Why did the works continue when the ground was being churned up? Has it been considered that the ground outside the tombs might contain archaeologically complex and multi-period deposits, as at Newgrange and Knowth in the Boyne valley?

How does Dúchas propose to undo the unsightly and dangerous arrangement of gabions around the chamber of tomb No. 51? Why has the archaeologically excavated cutting that revealed the mid-winter rising sun alignment been backfilled? What will Dúchas do for the safety of the monument and the people visiting the megalithic earthwork on the chamber? What is meant by standard practice regarding the unsightly stone gabions, as reported in The Irish Times, and what other sites and monuments have suffered the same standard practice? Are these works necessarily conducted in this manner? The people of Sligo want to know if the work is for archaeological and heritage reasons, or is it tourism driven? In The Sligo Champion the field club expressed horror at and condemnation of these works.

The tombs at Carrowmore are part of the largest and most controversial megalithic cemetery in western Europe. Does Dúchas realise the embarrassment caused to our archaeologists and people, particularly those of Sligo and the north west? In the words of Neill McCarthy, the Supreme Court judge in the 1989 ruling on the controversial Carrowmore dump, the question is being asked, "Have the Irish no pride?" Given the concept of a fallow area enshrined in the Supreme Court decision, are these works legal?

The megalithic cemetery at Carrowmore is one of the largest in western Europe. Burnholt, of Sweden, recently excavated four tombs. He claims that one of them is among the earliest in the area. The cemetery covers an area one mile by a half. Today 45 tombs can be seen in the townland of Carrowmore. There may originally have been 150.

Archaeologists and the people of Sligo are very concerned about the work done, particularly as regards who authorised it and why they did so. Was it done for tourism reasons? The biggest concern is that the midwinter rising sun alignment has been backfilled. What instruction will be given by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands as regards future work? Why did Dúchas not have an archaeologist operating under licence, present during the entire works?

Ms Coughlan

I am delighted with the opportunity presented by Deputy Perry's motion to outline the position in relation to the work which has been undertaken at Carrowmore megalithic cemetery. As Deputy Perry rightly pointed out in his motion, Carrowmore is one of the largest and most important of the megalithic cemeteries of western Europe and as such it is also one of the most important of the heritage sites managed by my Department.

The cemetery at Carrowmore is an internationally renowned complex consisting of three main types of monuments, dolmens with surrounding stone-circles, stone circles without any visible monuments inside, and stone circles with central chambers or cysts, dating from the Stone Age – c5000 years old. It is one of Ireland's most important ancient sites ranking alongside Newgrange and Knowth. A number of monuments at Carrowmore pre-date Newgrange by several hundreds of years. It is believed that at one point there were more than 84 monuments in the area but due to extensive quarrying and land clearance in past centuries a large number of these monuments were destroyed.

In 1989-90 the State purchased approximately 25 acres, on which stood a number of monuments and a small cottage. The cottage was developed for use as a basic visitor interpretative facility and this development marked the first stage in developing the Carrowmore archaeological complex. To fully understand the reinstatement works at Listoghil that are the cause of so much concern, both to me and to the public at large, a brief background to this very important monument is required.

The Listoghil monument differs considerably from other tombs in the cemetery, both in terms of size and construction. Its central location in the middle of an oval-shaped cluster of other tombs makes it crucial to our understanding of the ritual function and symbolism of the whole cemetery. My Department facilitated a research excavation in 1996 by Professor Goran Burrenholt, associate professor at the department of archaeology in the university of Stockholm. The results of the excavation show that this was a complex multi-period monument, and with all such monuments the question arises as to how the monument should now be presented to the public.

A works programme was drawn up which took archaeological considerations into account and work commenced in October 2000. There are in excess of 30,000 visitors to the archaeological complex each year and therefore for safety reasons it was decided to schedule the works for the off season. While the work to repair the cairn material was finished in early January 2001, further works are still required to complete the mounding of the tomb. Part of the work to repair the cairn material involved the transportation of stone gabions to the site. While this work was carried out in accordance with standard practice in relation to such work, because of the unprecedented heavy rainfall, the highest level in over 100 years, regrettably the machinery used formed ruts on the route to the tomb.

Following a complete review of work carried out at Carrowmore in connection with the re-establishment of tomb 51 my Department has decided to engage the services of a consultant archaeologist to investigate and record any archaeology that may have been disturbed by the use of machinery on site. It is normal practice to engage such services for archaeological work at State sites. Resulting from this investigation, my Department in consultation with the consultant archaeologist will access what further remedial action is required. In addition, I intend to establish an internal working group, including my Department's senior architect and archaeologist for the Sligo area, to reconsider the question of the final presentation of the tomb and the time frame for carrying out the necessary work.

In the light of the current position regarding foot and mouth disease I cannot give a commitment as to when the work I have just outlined can take place, particularly the assessment of the site. However, I am satisfied completion of the work will ensure that there will not be a long-term adverse impact to this important site from the recent works.