Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Heritage in Danger
Sunday 8th February 4.00‐5.30
Cardiff University, Julian Hodge Building
Moderator: Brendon Wilkins
Speakers: Prof Gabriel Cooney and Dr John Barrett
Panelists: Gwilym Hughes, Christopher Jones,
Janet Miller, Dr Keith Ray.
Background
The ‘Heritage in Danger’ session will discuss the potential conflict of interests that
can arise when archaeological remains are threatened by new development.
Highlighted by internationally visible cases such as the Tara/M3 issue in Ireland, the
Stonehenge motorway debate in the UK and the Ilisu Dam project in Turkey, this will
be the main debate of the festival and close the first day’s proceedings. This session
will be structured with two 20‐minute presentations followed by 50 minutes of
discussion, with the audience encouraged to participate and actively contribute. The
session will begin with Professor Gabriel Cooney of University College Dublin (Case
study 1 ‐ the proposed new port development at Bremore) and Dr John C. Barrett of
the University of Sheffield (Case study 2 ‐ the approach taken by Framework
archaeology at Heathrow Terminal 5). The two speakers will be supported by a
discussion panel including Janet Miller of Atkins Heritage, Gwilym Hughes of Cadw,
Christopher Jones of the Highways Agency and Dr Keith Ray, County Archaeologist,
Herefordshire. Following an initial focus on the two case studies, the panel will
discuss projects that are currently polarising the heritage community, and seek to
find a middle ground where constructive debate might have a positive impact.
Summary
When large infrastructure projects are proposed, controversy is never far from the
news. Headlines usually depict the impact of development on the historic
environment as a conflict between preservation on the one hand and destruction on
the other. Public opinion is polarised, and commercial archaeologists ‐ engaged by
the developer to service a planning condition ‐ are caught in the crossfire.
Bremore port (Case study 1) offers the opportunity to discuss an infrastructural
development at its genesis. Similar debates have focussed on contentious sites that
have already been subject to a lengthy planning process. Significant discoveries at
excavation‐stage are seized upon by those opposed to development as
‘showstoppers’, but by the time the first excavators begin digging, the planning
process is so advanced that subsequent public debate can make little difference. The
proposed development at Bremore port is a challenge to the archaeological
community to clarify the issues – archaeological, social, political and economic ‐ and
present these to the wider public at the beginning of the decision‐making process.
The innovative approach adopted by Framework Archaeology at Heathrow Terminal
5 (Case study 2) will provide a counterpoint to the Bremore discussion. Framework is
a joint venture agreement between Wessex Archaeology and Oxford Archaeology to
undertake work for BAA, and can be described as research archaeology delivered in
a commercial environment. This project is often cited as a benchmark for what can
be achieved by infrastructural archaeology in balancing the social and economic
benefit of development against the knowledge‐gain and wider dissemination of the
archaeological results. A pioneering digital recoding system was developed
emphasising the interpretative role of the excavator, with the fundamental objective
of the project to construct an on‐site human history of the human inhabitation of the
landscape. The T5 project was highly commended at the 2008 British Archaeological
Awards for ‘the best archaeological innovation award’. Professor David Breeze,
Chairman of the awards panel said “the whole project stands as an exemplary
exercise in execution, interpretation and dissemination with absolute commitment
to the highest professional standards at every point.”
Case study 1:
The Bremore port development
Gabriel Cooney
Drogheda Port Company in partnership with Treasury Holdings proposes to develop a
world‐class deepwater port, logistics centre and business part at Bremore in Fingal,
north of Dublin. The project is proposed in three phases and Drogheda Port
Company/Treasury Holdings state that it is intended that it would be designed and
operated to provide the highest environmental standards and respect for the local
community. The aim is to create a diverse business district around the port.
It is clear that here there is a potential conflict between the recognised value of the
historic landscape and the needs of a major infrastructural project. As proposed the
footprint of the port facilities will directly impact on the promontory at Bremore.
Here there is a range and diversity of archaeological features of varying date,
terrestrial and maritime, including a cemetery of megalithic tombs dating to the
Neolithic. A significant additional factor is the possible relocation of Dublin Port to
Bremore. This is based on the shortage of land for further port facilties in Dublin, the
extension of the Dublin Bay Special Protection Area for wild birds and the enormous
potential of the Dublin Port holdings as an extension of the high‐end Docklands
development.
Consideration of the development of the port at Bremore and assessment of its
national strategic value should include not only its direct environmental impact but
also the wider landscape impact of creating a new hub within the Dublin‐Belfast
corridor for industrial and quasi‐urban activity in what is now a largely rural
landscape north of the town of Balbriggan.
Case Study 2:
Heritage and Development ‐ Resolving the Conflict? Heathrow
Terminal 5 and beyond.
John Barrett
The conflict between the demands of heritage interests and those of the developer
are normally depicted as a conflict between preservation, and destruction. The
current solution to this conflict in relation to archaeological deposits is that
developers are required to work towards a level of preservation commensurate with
the importance of the archaeology. The key problem here is to determine levels of
importance and to determine them in a way that the developer might recognise. An
alternative is to cast development as building the social, economic and heritage
environment where the latter is defined as an environment of inquiry, exploration
and understanding of the past in terms that are understandable to the widest
possible community, and not as the preservation of material remains whose value is
often obscure.
Links
Bremore Port
http://iai.ie/PressReleases/Statement31‐03‐2008.html
http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/paperstoday/index.php?do=papersto
day&action=view&id=10921
http://www.droghedaport.ie/cms/publish/port_generalinfo.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremore_Port
Framework
http://www.framearch.co.uk/t5/
http://www.framearch.co.uk/award‐2008.html
Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland (IAI) Press Release 31/03/08
The Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland (IAI) recognises the growing expressions of
concern within the profession in relation to the proposed development of a deep‐water
port at Bremore, County Dublin. This is the first large scale maritime infrastructure
project which has been proposed within Ireland in modern times.
IAI first made direct contact with the Drogheda Port Company in 2006 to articulate the
concern of its members regarding this proposed development and the need for a
detailed and comprehensive assessment of the potential impact of such a development,
in advance of detailed design, so that an informed planning decision can be made.
Acknowledged experts in the archaeology of prehistoric Ireland suggest that this
cemetery group is comparable to the complexes at the Boyne Valley and Lough Crew in
County Meath as well as Carrowmore and Carrowkeel in County Sligo.
Archaeological survey in the area has also recorded evidence for settlement and
occupation in the vicinity of the tombs from the Neolithic (4000‐2400BC) and Bronze
Age (2400‐500BC). The site of the post‐medieval port of Newhaven is located
immediately to the south of Bremore Head reflecting the numerous historical
references to the Meath/North Dublin coastline as an important entry point into the
country from the early medieval period (5th‐12th centuries AD) onwards. The coastline
also possesses a significant number of recorded and designated, historic wrecks.
A survey of the passage tombs at Bremore was published by Etienne Rynne (Journal of
the Royal Society of Antiquaries, 1960) and recent publications in Archaeology Ireland
(Cooney, 2008; Condit, Moore and Brady, 2008) have stressed the significant and
integrated nature of the prehistoric and historic archaeological remains in the area. In
addition, recent modern developments in the locality, including the Interconnector Gas
Pipeline and the Gas Pipeline to the West have given rise to the discovery of numerous
prehistoric and early historic sites. These are recorded in the annual Excavations
Bulletin.
IAI expects that a project of this nature will be subject to the highest professional
standard of multidisciplinary, scientific archaeological survey, investigation and
assessment in order to articulate the significance of the Bremore tombs and to ensure
that appropriate and informed planning decisions can be made in relation to the
location and nature of the proposed development. The project, with its maritime
component, poses a unique challenge in an Irish context, though projects of this scale
have been undertaken in a wider European context. International standards of best
practice have been developed and used on projects such as the Storebælt Bridge, in
Denmark. Equivalent standards should be implemented on this project, if not improved
upon.
The protection, designation and management of natural landscapes and cultural
landscapes are important strands in the on‐going Review of Archaeological Policy &
Practice and also the proposed National Landscape Strategy of the Department of the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government. IAI expects that a detailed and
comprehensive assessment of the potential impact of such a development will take
account of this and anticipates that any planning decision taken will have full regard for
the work of the department in this area.
At this juncture, IAI urges all interested parties within the profession to engage in open‐
handed and informative dialogue on the matter .