The Department of the Environment's chief archaeologist backed plans to roll over the Woodstown Viking site in Waterford for the city's N25 bypass on the basis that it would be the "most cost-effective" option, The Irish Times has learned.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that Brian Duffy continued to advocate this "preservation in situ" approach, rather than a full-scale excavation, even after the site was recognised as being of international importance.
Earlier, in September 2003, Mr Duffy dismissed the idea that Woodstown was a Viking longphort (ship fortress) - which is what it turned out to be - as a "speculative notion of the site's nature, with absolutely no archaeological evidence to support it".
The discovery of the site in March 2003 was kept under wraps for 13 months, with Mr Duffy defending this on the basis that its status was "not clear" and any publicity "would expose the site to the danger of illegal interference and damage from treasure hunters".
After it was revealed by media reports in late April 2004, Woodstown was hailed by Donnchadh Ó Corráin, professor of medieval studies at UCC, as "the most significant new find in Viking studies in perhaps a century" anywhere in western Europe.
Two weeks earlier, director of the National Museum Dr Pat Wallace warned that if the 9th century site was to be "preserved" under a road, "at worst it will deteriorate and compact and at best be out of bounds for investigation for several centuries to come".
Woodstown was so important that he was "prepared to argue the case for the total and rapid excavation of this site in public or in private with the other State archaeologists who for some inexplicable reason seem to think it would be better covered over".
Dr Wallace, who also clashed with Mr Duffy over the M3 motorway and Tara, asked "what can their case be? It certainly can't be in the best interest of the relevant minister or the Government on the eve of local elections" (then imminent in June 2004).
"Nobody can afford another Carrickmines situation and, in international terms, this is a far more important site", the museum director wrote in his seven-page assessment. "The so-called 'preservation' route is entirely wrong in this instance.
"I have anyway a sincere doubt about the policy of 'preserving' the site under the weight of thousands of tons of hardcore, gravel and other treatments" which even the consultant engineers had conceded would reduce its "culture layer" by 35cm.
"It should be pointed out that this untested, unproven and unpublished hunch is not based on any scientific analysis of the reactions of the different soils or layers with archaeological features or artefacts to weights over prolonged periods."
To "preserve" it in this "potentially damaging way", Dr Wallace wrote, "seems to fly in the face of science, archaeology and knowledge, not to mention being negative publicity for the Minister for the Environment [ then Waterford-based Martin Cullen] in his own front yard".
The previously unknown site beside the River Suir had first been discovered in March 2003 by consultant archaeologists appointed by the National Roads Authority (NRA) and Waterford City Council to carry out archaeological investigations along the bypass route.
A geophysical survey, test-trenching and "finds" such as ship-nails suggested it "appears to represent a defended riverside settlement, with associated industrial-type activity [ and] most likely dates within the Hiberno-Norse/Early Medieval period".
In September 2003, NRA project archaeologist James Eogan said he could not consent to the excavation continuing - primarily because there was pressure at the time from the NRA itself to conclude a contract with a preferred bidder to build the bypass.
Later that month, Dave Pollock, senior archaeologist in the Department of the Environment, complained that "the imposition of an imminent deadline" to backfill the excavated areas was an "unnecessary obstacle . . . to properly completing the investigation".
In May 2004, after the initial media reports, the NRA's head of corporate affairs warned that "any departure from the approved strategy to preserve the Woodstown site in situ [ would have] implications for the delivery of the Waterford city bypass".
In his letter to the national monuments section of the Department of the Environment, Michael Egan said the "apparent absence of consensus" on how to deal with it raised "significant risks", especially as the bypass was a public-private partnership (PPP) project.
The statutory Heritage Council, in its submission to the department, said the implications of sealing archaeological layers under major roads were "poorly understood" and carried an "inherent risk" of damaging artefacts and distorting archaeological layers over time.
Saying there were "compelling reasons" for a full archaeological excavation to examine the role of the Vikings in urbanising Ireland, the council said sealing the site under the bypass "places a distinct moratorium" on the knowledge to be gained from it.
But the department was still committed to "preservation in situ". Officials were told by Dave Fadden, then principal officer in the national monuments section, to "trawl through the library to see if [ they] can find anything" from abroad to support this approach.
Prior to a meeting on May 6th, 2004 with the National Museum and the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, Mr Fadden wanted them to "deal with . . . misconceptions . . . such as NRA acted in the wrong way [ and the] site will disappear under tons of hardcore, etc".
If there was to be an excavation, the department's representatives at the meeting - assistant secretary Mary Moylan, Brian Duffy and Dave Fadden - said there would have to be "strict co-operation" from the museum, something it hadn't shown on Carrickmines.
"A communications strategy would have to be agreed which would seek to minimise opposition to excavation (in this respect the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism emphasised that the museum are to make no further public statements in the matter . . .)", according to the agreed minutes.
The discovery of a Viking warrior grave with a battleaxe, sword and shield boss, prompted Mr Duffy to suggest that "we will have to reassess the proposal for preservation in situ at least in this part of the site" because burials were more likely to be compressed.
But he cited engineering advice from consultants Mott McDonald indicating that "a design solution can be developed with archaeologists which can disperse loads so that the impact on the site [ of building the road over it] is less than an individual standing in a field".
Mr Duffy's recommendation in favour of "preservation in situ" for Woodstown was discussed by the Heritage Council in early June 2004, and officials were "taken by surprise by the ferocity of the reaction" - led by one of Martin Cullen's more recent appointees.
"In the event it was a good thing," the department's observer Liam O'Connell told Mr Fadden in an e-mail, which was copied to Mr Duffy and Ms Moylan, who is a member of the council. "It accelerated openness on a simmering major controversy whose time to be outed had well and truly arrived."
In October 2004, Ms Moylan was informed by Michael Egan that the NRA was considering an alternative alignment for the Waterford bypass to avoid the Woodstown site; one of the main factors was that the cost of an archaeological excavation was put at €10 million.
In January 2005, the NRA decided to re-route the road, clearing the way for Minister for the Environment Dick Roche to exercise his discretion under the 2004 National Monuments (Amendment) Act to make a preservation order, which he did on May 11th last.
This followed a revised recommendation by Mr Duffy that the Minister should issue "directions" under the Act to "secure the site and ensureits preservation pending the formulation of a long-term strategy for the National Monument" at Woodstown by an expert group.
Apart from the overwhelming evidence of its importance, the only factor cited by the chief archaeologist for his change of tune was that the NRA had found an alternative route and indicated that this was now the authority's "preferred option".
