Tara.

by Elaine Thu Mar 16, 2006 23:02

Photos were taken (last week) of the Artefacts left lying on the ground but I don't have copies of them. When we visited the site on Wednesday, the Artefacts had been removed and the site secured (?) with a brand new padlock and chain. There was also evidence of a newly dug pit and a tractor had left its mark on the abandoned site. I hope whoever is responsible for removing the Artefacts treated them with respect and didn't just plough them back into the earth.

by c murray - Tarawatch Thu Mar 16, 2006 07:31 dotliath at gmail dot com n/a 0877765289

The affidavits compromise the disallowed evidence of Dr's Edel Breathnach, Joe Fenwick and Conor Newman, who attended the court case every day with the expectation that their oral evidence refuting the evidence of Brian Duffy (gov Archaelogist) would be heard. This was continously blocked on points of law.
This alone is grounds for appeal. The evidence and my referral to it has been ascribed/ attributed to them before.

on 21 december 05, the judge presiding at the for mention hearing allowed for
cross-examination of expert witnesses, but left the decision to the behest of the trial judge, Mr Justice Smyth. One can only assume that the respondents wanted to keep someone from the stand when our turn for cross-examination came.

by Artefact Thu Mar 16, 2006 02:28

It was mentioned on a previous thread that there were artefacts lying around. I had been looking forward to seeing them. Can some photos be posted?

by Laithd Thu Mar 16, 2006 01:19

Perhaps it would be good, polite to credit the affidavit writer if their work is to be broadcast to the world?

by Elaine Wed Mar 15, 2006 23:05

Sites that should be considered to be National Monuments in their own right, irrespective of their being in the Tara landscape.

(1) Baronstown 1

Area 19 (Geophysical report) / Testing Area 6 (Archaeological Assessment Report)

Baronstown 1 is situated in the Gabhra Valley slightly south of mid-way between the hills of Tara and Skryne, beside a tributary of the Gabhra river. This monument comprises of a large circular enclosure, approx. 170m in diameter, the remains of which now function as a townland boundary, though the denuded south-western portion of the enclosing bank/ ditch of the enclosure has been detected in the geophysical survey. Geophysical survey in its south-western quadrant has also revealed the existence of an approx. 48m diameter annular enclosure comprising a ditch and the remains of an external bank (6.5m wide). There is a C-shaped internal sub-division in its northern quadrant. Additionally, there is a series of curvilinear ditches and annexes attached to and surrounding this annular enclosure. A pit containing animal bone and prehistoric pottery (probably Bronze Age) was discovered in the interior and may date the site to that period, particularly in view of the fact a prehistoric (possibly Bronze Age) pot (Collierstown 2) was discovered just over 100m to the south.

In terms of its morphology and probable Bronze Age date, this is a unique monument and one of considerable status. The hengiform morphology of the 48m diameter enclosure in the south-western quadrant is indicative of a ritual function. Located on the floor of the Gabhra Valley, it occupies a key point along the traditional north-south axis of communication through this landscape which is attested to in the linear distribution of earlier prehistoric monuments (see Newman 1997). It is coeval with and related to the Bronze Age activity already attested to on the Hill of Tara itself, where there is a major Barrow cemetery. Moreover, Bronze Age artifacts dominate the stray finds assemblage from the Tara landscape and this monument is, therefore, a significant addition to the corpus of Bronze Age antiquities in this landscape. A phenomenon particular to the major royal centres is the existence of large-scale monuments of unusual morphology, and this site falls into that category.

This account of Baronstown 1 is substantially different from how it is reported in the Archaeological Assessment Report, and indeed how it has been summarised by the Chief Archaeologist, and demonstrates that the interpretation advanced in the Report is both incorrect and incomplete. This site is not a Ringfort as suggested in the Archaeological Assessment Report At Testing Area 6, August 2004 (p.22) and also as suggested in paragraph 33 of Mr Brian Duffy's Affidavit of the 9th of January 2006. There is no substantive evidence of any sort to support this interpretation. Ringforts have causewayed entrances and are, therefore, penannular, not annular. The enclosure comprises a fosse and external bank. Again this is not a feature of Ringforts but rather is a characteristic of prehistoric hengiform enclosures. Moreover, at 20m in diameter and defined by a positive magnetic anomaly 2.5 - 3m wide (but not found during excavation) the internal, C -shaped area cannot be described as a domestic building of Early Medieval date on the basis of being too big. Furthermore, evidence of animal bone, pits and burning is not exclusively indicative of standard settlement activity. Though alluded to in the body of the Report, and in the report compiled by the geophysicists, evidence of the larger, outer enclosure has been omitted entirely from the overall site interpretation, even though it appears in the geophysical data and cannot be reasonably dismissed as a field boundary. Thus a key aspect of this site has been ignored. Moreover, no meaningful attempt has been made to integrate this site into its broader archaeological and cultural context or to assess the potential contribution that it makes to our understanding of the diachronic development and cultural history of this landscape.

Fancy New Security Measure

Abandoned And Waterlogged

One Of A Line Of Old Trees Bordering The Site (Or What's Left Of It)

Someone's Been Joyriding A Tractor Over The Mound

Unfinished Business - Abandoned Pit