by Conor Newman - The Irish Times, 10 June 2005

Given that it is ultimately his responsibility to protect the historical and cultural landscape of Tara, it is profoundly disturbing that our Minister for Heritage, Dick Roche, dismisses so off-handedly as "misinformation, disinformation and downright distortion" the opinions and testimonies of Irish and international scholars, heritage professionals, learned societies and local groups concerned about the routing of the M3 motorway through the Tara landscape (Irish Times, May 21). His failure to produce any evidence to support this serious allegation has demeaned in one fell swoop all of the expertise available to him, including the concerns raised by, among others, the Heritage Council, the Director of the National Museum of Ireland and the Discovery Programme. Demeaning in this way the office of the Minister for Heritage, we have all been demeaned.

The minister's defence of his decision displays no maturity of understanding of the history of Tara. He ignores the fact that the Hill of Tara is but one component in an integrated complex of monuments and places that are identified archaeologically and historically. He chooses also to ignore the dreadful impact a motorway will have on this landscape as a whole and jibes that his directives concerning the excavations have been largely ignored. In truth, these merit no comment because the issue is not about the excavation of individual sites: it is about this uniquely important archaeological complex and landscape and the fact that, no matter how it is couched, the M3 will plough through the middle of it.

The planning process he describes as having been "extremely open". It was not. The dilution of the advice originally included in the Route Selection Reports 2001, and its subsequent distortion has been well documented in the pages of this newspaper (and twice to the Oireachtas Committee for the Environment) by, among others, Brendan Magee of the Meath Roads Action Group and Julitta Clancy of the Meath Archaeological and Historical Society. The strongly worded cautionary advice of two independent archaeological consultants contained in preliminary route assessment reports to Meath County Council was watered down to mere platitudes in the Environmental Impact Statement (Feb. 2002) and was effectively reversed at the oral hearing. Neither the inspector, nor the two respective ministers (Martin Cullen and Dick Roche in their roles as the people's protectors of heritage), queried this development. At the very least, it compromises the advice of the principal archaeological consultants.

The minister seems perplexed as to why some of the leading academics now railing against his decision did not make submissions to Meath County Council, to An Bord Pleanala or to the Oral Hearing. Having familiarised himself with this brief he knows exactly how many did. I was nominated to speak at the oral hearing on behalf of my research colleagues Dr Edel Bhreathnach and Joe Fenwick, the Department of Archaeology, NUI, Galway, and the Discovery Programme. The Directorate of the Discovery Programme in 2002, under the chairmanship of Prof. Michael Ryan, included representatives from Trinity College Dublin, Exeter University, the National Museum Ireland, University College Dublin, the Heritage Council and NUI, Galway. There was on-going consultation with Professors George Eogan (former chairman of the Discovery Programme), Dáibhí Ó Croinín (NUIG) and Mairín Ní Dhonnchada (NUIG). Meanwhile, prior to the An Bord Pleanala decision, a letter and briefing document from 11 leading British and Irish academics went to the ministers for Heritage (Martin Cullen), Transport (Seamus Brennan) and Tourism (John O'Donoghue).

However, the real input of academics into this debate should be measured by the cumulative research of scholars of Tara stretching back generations. The participation of contemporary academics in this debate acknowledges this great body of scholarship. In the full knowledge that this body of research has been brushed aside to facilitate the M3, the minister persists in arguing that the academics intervened far too late into the process to effect any change. Furthermore, he identifies the lack of legal challenges as a weakness in their case. This implies that either they were not serious about their concerns or that they are in some way to blame for not averting this fiasco. In truth, the failure lies with his department: it is the job of the Minister for Heritage and his officers to protect our heritage, even at the eleventh hour. Placing the onus on private individuals to take to the courts-at their own risk and considerable expense-to force the government to actively protect our heritage is an abdication of responsibility, while hiding behind a very narrow interpretation of the legislation is, as Michael D. Higgins TD (Irish Times, May 25) puts it, "an outrageous distortion" of the powers available to him. Proclaiming that he has imposed strict directions on the excavations is nonsense. Contrary to the impression given by the Minister, all archaeological excavations are, in fact, carried out by professional archaeologists, so this case will be no exception. Likewise, best practice always allows for contingencies such as additional time and resources. And finally, regular inspections of excavations used to be the norm before under-resourcing of the State Heritage Services led to a virtual cessation of this important function.

The National Museum of Ireland's input is another casualty of a restricted interpretation of the legislation (indeed this has been the first real test of the new Monuments Act). The director has been confined to advising on relative incidentals, such as the numbering system for artefacts found during the proposed excavations. Dr Wallace's professional estimation that the M3 will seriously damage the historical landscape of Tara is relegated to the status of mere "personal views". Thus, statutory responsibility for the definition and protection of archaeological landscapes now appears to rest with the DoE,H&LG. Challenging Dr Wallace's 'personal' concerns, their chief archaeologist, Brian Duffy, observed that "simply stating that the Hill of Tara and the complex or association of monuments and sacred spaces in its surroundings constitute an archaeological landscape does not define that landscape or allow for its delimiting on a map" (Irish Times XXX). This is a dreadful admission, not just because it reveals the calibre of advice the ministers have received about Tara, but also because it flies in the face of modern heritage management theory and practice-it is precisely by articulating the relationship between monuments, places and documentary sources that archaeological/historical landscapes are defined and delimited. If the Heritage Service cannot define, delimit and protect an archaeological landscape as manifestly obvious as Tara, what hope is there that a County Council will do any better!