Heritage, says archaeologist John Bradley, is the politics of the future. He is undoubtedly correct. However, on the issue of its destruction and protection, the natural and built heritage has already become politically sensitive. Environmentalists have been dismissed as eccentrics and it is widely felt that the powers of Duchas, the Heritage Service (formerly in the remit of the Office of Public Works) are limited by its closeness to Government.
Exactly how stridently can it be expected to oppose Government planning decisions? One of the many unsavoury realities unearthed by "Tribunal Ireland" is that far more deals were struck with developers than with archaeologists and conservation architects. The current controversy surrounding the leisure and residential development targeted for St Columcille's great monastic site of Durrow Abbey, Co Offaly, (which is under appeal by the Heritage Council and An Taisce) is just one more example suggesting that even now, at a time of heightened official awareness of the immeasurable value of Ireland's archaeological riches, economics is still determining decisions and culture is the loser.
The industrial revolution that changed the shape of 19th-century Europe bypassed Ireland. Despite the despair and poverty, this had a positive aspect - it left this country in possession of a remarkable array of field monuments. But during the past 30 years, our landscape has been radically altered by belated industrialisation and spectacularly insensitive road planning.
The recent new wealth has been more destructive than helpful. Most of us would like to claim an interest in heritage, although elementary Irish archaeology has yet to be taught in Irish schools.
The new desire to protect was first memorably voiced by the Wood Quay campaign in 1979, which attempted to overrule a planning decision poised to obliterate the Viking past. A protest which did much to change public opinion, it pitted the people against officialdom in a practical rather than merely ideological way. Brave gestures and compromise were the order of the day, and the development went on.
We continue to lament the loss of much of Georgian Dublin, yet this has been explained away - if not wholly convincingly - as a form of cultural re-assertion and an expression of independence which was necessary in the brave infancy of 1960s Ireland.
History has proved a painful process for the Irish. For a long time it was easier to ignore than explore. "New" became equated with maturity and survival. But heritage is not a recent innovation of Bord Failte, although that body has acted on the marketability of the past with initiatives such as the Heritage Towns scheme.
Under the Monuments Act of 1881, protection was guaranteed for royal palaces and ancient monuments such as the Rock of Cashel. It seems an enlightened piece of late-Victorian legislation, although it only sought to protect major monuments. A later piece of British legislation, the Dublin Science and Art Museum Act of 1877, established other custodians of Irish culture, the National Museum and the National Library.
Before that, individuals had taken action. Ireland's heritage was once in the hands of remarkable gentlemen-antiquarians such as George Petrie (1790-1866), a pioneering authority on round towers who was determined to preserve Ireland's past, and Sir William Wilde (1815-1876), whose interest culminated in his three-volume Descriptive Catalogue of the Contents of the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy (18571862). William Wakeman's Handbook of Irish Antiquities, dedicated to Petrie, among others, appeared in 1891. The role played by Robert Lloyd Praeger (1865-1953), botanist, chief librarian of the National Library and visionary, remains outstanding. Sean P. O'Riordain (1905-1957) was appointed professor of archaeology at UCC in 1936, and his Antiquities of the Irish Countryside was published in 1942.
The Royal Irish Academy continues to play a vital role in the preservation of heritage and Irish archaeological and historical geographical writing is of a high standard. Among the academy's many projects is the ongoing Irish Historic Towns Atlas series, of which volume 10, Kilkenny, has just been published. Even now, with various agencies and non-governmental bodies working on behalf of heritage, a huge debt continues to be owed to crusading individuals such as William Nolan of UCD, editor of the County Histories series; local historians and amateur archaeologists, such as the late Margaret Phelan of Kilkenny and the late Elizabeth Hickey of Skryne Castle, Co Meath; as well as Ireland's active local archaeological societies.
David Sweetman, chief archaeologist with Duchas and author of The Medieval Castles of Ireland (published this year by The Heritage Council), describes himself as "pleased with the way we are doing our job within limited resources", and points to the existence of some 120,000 monuments around the country which need to be monitored. He admits Duchas "does not have enough people in the field and I'm worried about the policing of sites". He also acknowledges the compromises between restoration and conservation.
A project he feels satisfied with is the presentation of Trim Castle, Co Meath, complete with viewing bridge, which typifies the necessary balance between restoration and conservation. His particular interest is medieval buildings, and since the early 1970s he has been responsible for the Archaeological Survey, which began in the mid-1960s. The first inventory, that of Co Louth, was published in 1986. Since then, 11 other county inventories have been published: Meath, Monaghan, Cavan, Offaly, Laois, Wicklow, Carlow, Wexford, Waterford, two volumes for Galway and the largest to date, the four-volume inventory of Cork. Work such as this could, Sweetman feels, be undermined by low staffing. These books are hugely useful, their tone is realistic. The introduction to the Co Offaly volume, written in 1997, bluntly states: "with the county's monument destruction rate running at 48 per cent, it is to be hoped the inventory will foster a greater awareness and appreciation of the cultural landscape". This is ironic, considering the plight of Durrow. The survey's objective is shared in theory by every heritage body in the country. But how effective are these bodies?
Of the role of Duchas, with its undisclosed budget, Sweetman says: "We advise local authorities on planning applications likely to have an impact on heritage". He also points out that the recent legislation has yet to be "adequately tested". Aware of the criticisms levelled at Duchas, he says: "We now work directly to the Minister. Duchas is more politically sensitive and not as independent as the OPW was". In common with many archaeologists, Sweetman is concerned about the powers given to architects on historical sites. "As archaeologists, we are trained in the field. We know a great deal about the origins of buildings. I'd like to see a better balance of responsibility between the archaeologists and the architects."