The director of archaeology at Carrickmines Castle, Mr Gary Conboy, has denied claims by a former colleague that there has been a lowering of standards during work at the site.
Mr Conboy, of Valerie J Keeley Ltd, also accused Dr Mark Clinton of making "incorrect and misleading" claims regarding the methods of work ongoing at the site.
He was responding to a series of criticisms of the work, made by Dr Clinton, a former director of archaeology at the site between 2000 and 2002.
Dr Clinton had made his comments in two affidavits, which were read in the High Court on Thursday, on the opening day of a constitutional challenge to new legislation allowing for the partial demolition of the castle remains.
The remains lie in the path of the last section of the M50 motorway, called the South Eastern Motorway, which is currently under construction.
Mr Clinton had made the affidavits on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr Dominic Dunne, who is challenging a section of the 2004 National Monuments Amendment Act, which allows the Minister for the Environment to issue directions relating to the removal or archaeological remains on or near the South Eastern Motorway.
Last Thursday Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council gave an undertaking to the High Court to cease all but essential work on the site for a week, pending a full High Court hearing.
Work, including the removal of the stone fortifications, or revetted fosse, had recommenced at the site on August 16th, on foot of new directions from the Minister for the Environment, Mr Cullen.
No work has taken place on the site since January 2003, with the exception of a few weeks around Christmas last year.
In a new statement, read to Ms Justice Mary Laffoy yesterday, Mr Conboy also claimed that Dr Clinton employed the same methods that he was now criticising when he headed up the dig at the site.
Dr Clinton called for the site to be preserved "in situ" or undisturbed, as opposed to "preservation by record" which is planned for a significant element of the site, and which means the removal of archaeological remains through excavation.
Mr Conboy said that the extent and significance of the site had been established because of the excavation and "preservation by record".
Much of this work had actually been carried out under the direction of Dr Clinton, who during this work never expressed a wish that it be preserved in situ, he said.
"The concept of preserving the site in its entirety cannot therefore be achieved."
He rejected Dr Clinton's view that preservation by record was "grossly inferior" to preservation in situ.
Mr Conboy also rejected claims that the parts of the fosse that had been removed were not properly recorded. He described as "incorrect and misleading" that material from excavated fosses was not being "sieved" for artefacts.
In a further statement to the court yesterday, Dr Clinton claimed that a new environmental impact statement was required for the site because the discoveries since the last statement in 1998 were "a complete transformation in the state of knowledge" regarding the castle.
He claimed that areas not believed to be of archaeological significance in the original statement were where some of the most significant remains of the castle had been found.