7th July 2008, 02:08 AM
Yes it is libellous, and if I were involved with any of the companies who excavated the scheme, Id be suing the arse of the Public Archaeology journal and NUI Galway, who should have cleared this nonsense pre-publication. The timing is all about publicity, coinciding with the World Archaeological Congress visit to Dublin. Crafty news management.
I was at WAC06 and sat in for the Tara debate in which we heard from all sides: contractor; commissioning consultant for the developer; neo pagan mythologist; local resident; academic critic (Maggie Ronayee, and self-appointed whistle blower); pressure group co-ordinator; chief state archaeologist; and local archaeological society member.
Unfortunately there was no time for questions or discussion, a shame, because we didn?t get to hear how the rest of the world felt about this all consuming issue. Chatting to a few delegates from over seas at the bar afterwards, it seems that most were a bit bored by it. I did get into a very heated argument with a PhD student whose research is in archaeological ethics, basically because he agreed with everything Maggie Ronayee had said and written? whilst I take issue with nearly every single point.
I wasnt involved in the M3 scheme, but would have heard if my fellow professionals had been compromised. You can dismiss out of hand the allegations of malpractice. 30 million euros has been spent on that scheme to date, the kind of blank cheque approach wet dreams are made of. The on-the-record criticism comes from a director employed during testing and evaluation of the scheme, called Jo Ronayee (Maggies sister). Never met her, but get the impression from reading her comments that she didnt really understand the terms of her employment. Perhaps hoping to delay indefinitely the road development, she seems to be quite surprised that she was asked to evaluate and then mitigate construction impact on buried archaeological remains. Errrrrrr, yep. Reports should always be edited. Just as plans and context sheets should always be checked. It?s a necessary part of quality control, but licensed directors always have final say. One of the many privileges of working within a legal framework.
Maggie Ronayees criticism isnt focussed on the quality of the work undertaken on the M3. That ones a non-starter, but thrown in for good measure (everyone loves a plucky whistle blower).
If you read her article from Public Archaeology, her real criticism is aimed at the privatisation of the archaeology profession. Irish archaeology, and the M3 road scheme are used as a case study symptomatic of a wider malaise. Shes actually making a broader point about whether we as archaeologists can remain embedded within the construction industry, servicing the needs of development, and still produce valid results for the benefit of society as a whole. She sees this as particularly troublesome in the case of large-scale infrastructure because of the global scale of the companies bank-rolling such projects, and their probable involvement in the arms trade and war zone reconstruction.
As an archaeologist she wants to identify with the displaced communities that make way for these developments world-wide, and wants archaeologists employed globally in the commercial sector to realise that clearing a development of archaeological deposit is not preservation by record but an Orwellian sleight of hand on behalf of? not quite sure but they seem like a very shady bunch of people indeed. Her challenge to congress was that if we, as commercial sector archaeologists (or as academic archaeologists mutually funded by the commercial sector) dont take a direct stand on these issues whilst still taking this tainted money, then we are taking a position by default.
Ooh. Controversial.
If we are to have a thread on this topic, perhaps we can keep to the article that generated it ? Maggie Ronayees principled criticism of commercial sector archaeology. Are we or are we not on the side of the angles?
I was at WAC06 and sat in for the Tara debate in which we heard from all sides: contractor; commissioning consultant for the developer; neo pagan mythologist; local resident; academic critic (Maggie Ronayee, and self-appointed whistle blower); pressure group co-ordinator; chief state archaeologist; and local archaeological society member.
Unfortunately there was no time for questions or discussion, a shame, because we didn?t get to hear how the rest of the world felt about this all consuming issue. Chatting to a few delegates from over seas at the bar afterwards, it seems that most were a bit bored by it. I did get into a very heated argument with a PhD student whose research is in archaeological ethics, basically because he agreed with everything Maggie Ronayee had said and written? whilst I take issue with nearly every single point.
I wasnt involved in the M3 scheme, but would have heard if my fellow professionals had been compromised. You can dismiss out of hand the allegations of malpractice. 30 million euros has been spent on that scheme to date, the kind of blank cheque approach wet dreams are made of. The on-the-record criticism comes from a director employed during testing and evaluation of the scheme, called Jo Ronayee (Maggies sister). Never met her, but get the impression from reading her comments that she didnt really understand the terms of her employment. Perhaps hoping to delay indefinitely the road development, she seems to be quite surprised that she was asked to evaluate and then mitigate construction impact on buried archaeological remains. Errrrrrr, yep. Reports should always be edited. Just as plans and context sheets should always be checked. It?s a necessary part of quality control, but licensed directors always have final say. One of the many privileges of working within a legal framework.
Maggie Ronayees criticism isnt focussed on the quality of the work undertaken on the M3. That ones a non-starter, but thrown in for good measure (everyone loves a plucky whistle blower).
If you read her article from Public Archaeology, her real criticism is aimed at the privatisation of the archaeology profession. Irish archaeology, and the M3 road scheme are used as a case study symptomatic of a wider malaise. Shes actually making a broader point about whether we as archaeologists can remain embedded within the construction industry, servicing the needs of development, and still produce valid results for the benefit of society as a whole. She sees this as particularly troublesome in the case of large-scale infrastructure because of the global scale of the companies bank-rolling such projects, and their probable involvement in the arms trade and war zone reconstruction.
As an archaeologist she wants to identify with the displaced communities that make way for these developments world-wide, and wants archaeologists employed globally in the commercial sector to realise that clearing a development of archaeological deposit is not preservation by record but an Orwellian sleight of hand on behalf of? not quite sure but they seem like a very shady bunch of people indeed. Her challenge to congress was that if we, as commercial sector archaeologists (or as academic archaeologists mutually funded by the commercial sector) dont take a direct stand on these issues whilst still taking this tainted money, then we are taking a position by default.
Ooh. Controversial.
If we are to have a thread on this topic, perhaps we can keep to the article that generated it ? Maggie Ronayees principled criticism of commercial sector archaeology. Are we or are we not on the side of the angles?