Ancient Tara monument vandalised

Mr. Nice

Alma Powerful Musket wrote: »

Right. I'll understand life better when I realise I've missed out on my adolescence because I didn't go around mindlessly vandalizing things :rolleyes:

You've got it all wrong. He was only expressing his youthful feelings.. he wasn't mindlessly destroying other people's property... It just looks that way [/QUOTE]

I wasn't replying to you, so why did you quote me?

Do you feel the need to speak for other posters?

Who is this "he" you are referring to.

I have admitted on an open forum that I have previously committed crimes, some of which I regret. You don't know me, and you have no right to judge me.

Mr. Nice

Metal_Maiden wrote: »

Either you're trolling or you're highly ignorant. In their mythology, it was brought to Ireland by the Tuatha Dé as one of the four treasures of Ireland.

So it was brought to Ireland by a fictional people as a treasure of a land they had never laid eyes on before?

Did you even read that before you copied and pasted?

Frank Lee Midere

Mr. Nice wrote: »

You'll never know until you find out I guess. I never said I was proud of my actions, but vandalism, public order offences and a few other things were part of my growing up and becoming a mature member of society.

And I fail to see the relevance of kicking the kicking mirrors off cars and defacing public monuments reference. Unless you know my complete history, I'd advise that you refrain from conjecture...

You could have skipped the vandalism and grown up anyway. That's the way time works.

Mr. Nice

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

You could have skipped the vandalism and grown up anyway. That's the way time works.

I think you'll find that's how hindsight works your highhorseship

Metal_Maiden

Mr. Nice wrote: »

With all due respect, I could make up a story like that.
In fact, I could make up a better one.
It's a nondescript piece of stone, placed there by 19th century romantics.
IMHO, that stone has no cultural or historical importance which can be proven.

Uhm, what? The text I quoted is from the 11th century. The stone has been an orthostat for 5000 years according to archaeological analysis. It was moved to that particular spot in the 19th century from nearby afaik. I went there on a fieldtrip with my Irish Archaeology class in college and at no point did my professor claim it was some kind of hoax. There is no doubt that an important stone known as the Lia Fail stood in Tara and the stone there currently is very old. I somehow doubt you know more than archaeologists about the issue.

bitemybanger

I only live a couple of miles from Tara and would be up there with the kids quite a bit. It was attacked recently with a hammer or similar object but to think someone carried a hammer and a bucket of paint up there knew exactly what they were doing and had to have thought of it and planned it. sickens me. youth of today have no respect.

Mr. Nice

Metal_Maiden wrote: »

Uhm, what? The text I quoted is from the 11th century. The stone has been an orthostat for 5000 years according to archaeological analysis. It was moved to that particular spot in the 19th century from nearby afaik. I went there on a fieldtrip with my Irish Archaeology class in college and at no point did my professor claim it was some kind of hoax. There is no doubt that an important stone known as the Lia Fail stood in Tara and the stone there currently is very old. I somehow doubt you know more than archaeologists about the issue.

It's granite, of course it's old.

"Afaik", did you use that phrase in your thesis?

"There is no doubt", really? That is the actual stone?

And if your Professor never expressed doubt, then it must be true.

I'm not debating the fact that Tara is an important culturally historical site, but quoting an 11th century document written about pre-christian history casts your argument in a cloud of doubt.

If I weren't 1200kms away I'd be tempted to go over and smash the bloody thing into gravel - it is not a proven historical artefact. It's just a lump of stone put there in the 19th century with a dubious back story.

Mr. Nice

bitemybanger wrote: »

I only live a couple of miles from Tara and would be up there with the kids quite a bit. It was attacked recently with a hammer or similar object but to think someone carried a hammer and a bucket of paint up there knew exactly what they were doing and had to have thought of it and planned it. sickens me. youth of today have no respect.

How do you know that it was a young person who "vandalised" it?

Perhaps they did know what they were doing. Maybe they wanted to highlight that a lot of the history there is a sham perpetuated by the OPW.

For example, the "mound of the hostages" is an absolute fake, complete with chicken wire underneath the soil. I've been inside it.

Metal_Maiden

Mr. Nice wrote: »

How do you know that it was a young person who "vandalised" it?

Perhaps they did know what they were doing. Maybe they wanted to highlight that a lot of the history there is a sham perpetuated by the OPW.

For example, the "mound of the hostages" is an absolute fake, complete with chicken wire underneath the soil. I've been inside it.

Okay, that's crazy. The mound of hostages is a small Neolithic passage tomb. Whatever you saw was presumably part of a conservation effort, that is if you aren't just being a complete lying troll. I hope nobody assumes you know what you're talking about and please stop replying to everyone in this thread with rubbish.

bitemybanger

Mr. Nice wrote: »

How do you know that it was a young person who "vandalised" it?

Perhaps they did know what they were doing. Maybe they wanted to highlight that a lot of the history there is a sham perpetuated by the OPW.

For example, the "mound of the hostages" is an absolute fake, complete with chicken wire underneath the soil. I've been inside it.

Ha, I think your just on here to take the p!ss.

If I weren't 1200kms away I'd be tempted to go over and smash the bloody thing into gravel - it is not a proven historical artefact. It's just a lump of stone put there in the 19th century with a dubious back story.

What an idiotic comment.

RDM_83 again

Mr. Nice wrote: »

For example, the "mound of the hostages" is an absolute fake, complete with chicken wire underneath the soil. I've been inside it.

Could be just from the excavations in the fifties.

Anyway here is what is a paraphrasing of C.Newman says about the Lia Fail

On the northern side of the central mound of the Forrad is a pillar-shaped stone, popularly identified as the Lia Fail, which was moved here from its original position near Duma na nGiall(Mound of the hostages) in 1824 in commemoration of those who fell during the Battle of Tara in 1798.
It is lightly engraved with a cross and the letters R.I.P below which may be the very faint traces of a ringed cross. It is a course white granite comprised of eudedral quartz and euedral feldspar.......Without microscopic and geochemical analysis it is impossible to identify and exact source for this stone. Examination of well-exposed sections of local eskers which are currently used as quarries, however suggests that none of the glacially derived rocks or boulders exceeds about 0.3m in diameter. Thus if the Lia Fail is a glacial erratic it is probably not from this area. The nearest possible bedrock sources are the granitic parts of the major igneous intrusives in the north of Ireland, such as the Newry granodiorite.
The stone is clearly phallus-shaped and features, in this modus, in an account of the inauguration ceremony of the kings of Tara described in the eigth-century text De Shil Chonairi Moir, according to which the prospective king mates, symbolically, with Medh, goddess of Tara, by riding his chariot between the magic stones Blocc and Bluigne, which part only for the rightful king, and over the Lia Fail, which screeches out against his chariot axel.

Even if you don't consider the Lia Fail as having any historic value in relation to Irish Mythology since its movement from the Mound of the Hostages, it is a historic monument to 1798 so deserves protection from vandals for that reason alone.

gozunda

Mr. Nice wrote: »

...

If I weren't 1200kms away I'd be tempted to go over and smash the bloody thing into gravel - it is not a proven historical artefact. It's just a lump of stone put there in the 19th century with a dubious back story.

Well you better bring a very big hammer because you will have a job with all the other unproven historical artefacts (sic) in the country. Many historical sites are based on context, archaeology and later written record. Many historical sites have been altered and changed since they were first built, however that does not negate the value of individual parts or the historical site as a whole

Your call to cultural vandalism is the same level of ignorance as the destruction of Afghanistan's Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001 by the Taliban

I applaud the fact that you are 1200 kms away. Perhaps there is some archaeological sites you perceive as dubious close by you can 'reduce to gravel' for your own satisfaction.

MadMardegan

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/garda-investigation-after-iconic-ancient-stone-at-hill-of-tara-vandalised-with-paint-30314709.html

Gardai are investigating vandalism to the Lia Fail Standing Stone at the top of the Hill of Tara in County Meath.

Members of An Garda Siochana are understood to be carrying out a forensic examination of the site after paint was poured over the stone sometime overnight.

At least half of the five thousand-year-old granite has been covered by the paint.

Tourist guides at the ancient site discovered it had been vandalised when they arrived to work this morning.

It is not the first incident of vandalism at the monument, it had been previously damaged in 2012 when it was believed to have been struck with a hammer or similar instrument.

Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Jimmy Deenihan condemned the incident to the iconic stone.

“This act of mindless vandalism, on one of our premier archaeological sites, is truly shameful,” he said.

“The national monuments at Tara, which include this standing stone, form part of our national heritage and history.

The iconic stone is 5,000 years old

“Not only are they cherished here in Ireland, they are also nationally and internationally renowned.

“I call for anyone with any information about who may have been responsible to inform the Gardai,” he added.

The Lia Fáil Stone features extensively in ancient texts.

The granite stone is associated with the inauguration rites for the Kings of Tara and was moved to its current position in the early nineteenth century.

This kind of mindless vandalism makes absolutely no sense to me!
The 5000 year old stone represents a huge part of our heritage. Why would anyone want to damage it?

In relation to the thread about "Irrational feelings of sadness", I have to say that this does it for me. To think that someone would want to destroy something of such historic importance is sickening. They have no place in a civilised society.

I really hope they catch the people responsible and they're punished accordingly.

COYVB

Whether it was a 5000 year old rock or a reason one in a field, you have to be a special kind of moron to pour a can of paint over it

MadMardegan

COYVB wrote: »

Whether it was a 5000 year old rock or a reason one in a field, you have to be a special kind of moron to pour a can of paint over it

Apparently it'll be tough to repair it properly without causing damamge to the rock face itself... absolute scumbags of the highest order!

Oblong Gator

Is it still a grade 2 relic?

Sir Arthur Daley

Is this not already discussed?

MadMardegan

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

Is this not already discussed?

No idea... didn't see a thread about it and wanted to voice my opinion.

syklops

I read this earlier today.

Am I the only one surprised it wasnt under some kind of security?

Sir Arthur Daley

MadMardegan wrote: »

No idea... didn't see a thread about it and wanted to voice my opinion.

Did you even take the time to look to see that there might be?

Oblong Gator

syklops wrote: »

I read this earlier today.

Am I the only one surprised it wasnt under some kind of security?

It's a stone,


In a field,

MadMardegan

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

Did you even take the time to look to see that there might be?

Nope, but thanks for asking!

Sir Arthur Daley

MadMardegan wrote: »

Nope, but thanks for asking!

No prob, have a nice day.

syklops

Oblong Gator wrote: »

It's a stone,


In a field,

Well either it matters or it doesn'tt. Its older than the Pyramids are. If it matters to the country, secure it. And if it doesn't matter, don't be crying when some gob****e covers it in paint.

Arthur Beesley

This is disappointing.

humanji

Threads merged.

dubhthach

Mr. Nice wrote: »

There is no longer a kingship in Tara...
Hasn't been for many a long year.

And when was there last an Aonach at Tara (eg. Aonach Teamhrach) ? Last I read there hasn't been one since the 12th century around the same time since there was last a King of Tara.

Sounds rather prophetic -- even if of course the dialogue/character is a work of fiction.

dubhthach

Mr. Nice wrote: »

"Day of Judgement"?
Sounds like the Jesus crowd may have been a bit liberal with history to me.
A lot of Irish "history" was written by monks and should be considered in the same way as the bible, a very loose semi-fictional portrayal of real history.

I guess next you'll be trying to tell us that Oisin or the children of Lir gave the whole story to St. Patrick on their death beds :rolleyes:

Given that the text is called "Baile in Scáil" (Buile an Scáil = modern Irish) eg. "The Phantom's Vision/Frenzy" (where "Vision/Frenzy" == Bad acid trip)

I very much doubt that the allerogicial parts of it were meant to be taken as anything more then allergory. I also doubt it was written by a religious, the sole mention of anything to do with christianity is the aforementioned "Day of Judgement". In the rest of the text Conn basically goes on a "acid trip" where he encounters the god Lugh and a soverignity goddess (probably Meadbh Leathdearg). During which time Lugh announces to him the names of the future kings of his line (aka Dál Cuinn) who will reign in the kingship of Ireland.

What "Baile in Scáil" and the earlier "Baile Chuinn Chétchathaig" (The Vision/Frenzy of Conn of the Hundred BattleS) does is present the two earliest examples of "King lists" which also represent some of the earliest examples of political propaganda written on this island. The older text "Baile Chuinn Chétchathaig" is dated to about 700AD, it's thus one of the oldest complete texts in the Irish language.

What both do is wrap a "political statement" up in allergory to justify a relatively new innovation (namely the "High Kingship" of the Uí Néill) in ancient myth/"divine approval".

It's quite probable that Tara (which is situated in Brega -- what we call Meath) and Uisneach (which is situated in Mide -- what we call Westmeath ironically enough) were only conqueored by the "Dál Cuinn" in the 6th century. Specifically by Coirpre mac Néill and Fiachra mac Néill. Both of whom were basically written out of much of history due to downfall of their respective dynasties within the wider Uí Néill.

So for poetic/allergoical reasons we see the titular Conn (who the "Dál Cuinn" are named for) who is the supposed ancestor of the Connachta (three dynasties of Uí Bhriúin, Uí Fhiacrae and Uí nAillelo) and the Uí Néill, receive "divine sanction" from the god Lugh. It also puts forth the claim that the "Dál Cuinn" were already in Tara in the time of Conn (the 2nd century AD in the fictious timeline).

Both theses texts contain a list of Kings of the Dál Cuinn that hasn't undergone "redaction". For example Coirpre mac Néill was written out of later texts but he is listed as a King in them. This downfall is linked to the rise of "Clann Cholmáin" -- both the "Cinéal Coirpre" and "Cineal Fiachrae" were sidelined.

The "coup de grace" was applied by Tireachan in his 8th century work on St. Patrick when he claimed that Patrick had cursed both Fiachre and Coirpre. In reality this is piece of political propaganda to explain the downfall of both men's perspective kindres/dynasties within context of the wider "Southern Uí Néill"

But hey you obviously wallow in ignorance.

dubhthach

Mr. Nice wrote: »

How do you know that it was a young person who "vandalised" it?

Perhaps they did know what they were doing. Maybe they wanted to highlight that a lot of the history there is a sham perpetuated by the OPW.

For example, the "mound of the hostages" is an absolute fake, complete with chicken wire underneath the soil. I've been inside it.

Archaelogy is destruction. The mound underwent a fairly full scale archaelogical dig during the 1950's. They basically destroyed it to understand it just the same way they "destroyed" Newgrange. What you see today is a reconstruction when they put the spoil back in and recereated the shape that it was in before digging commenced. If there is "chicken wire" visible perhaps you should make a complaint to OPW about their bog-standard attempts at conservation.

TheGlass

Mr. Nice wrote: »

I have admitted on an open forum that I have previously committed crimes, some of which I regret. You don't know me, and you have no right to judge me.

Why has he no right to judge you? Get over yourself

Mr. Nice wrote: »

If I weren't 1200kms away I'd be tempted to go over and smash the bloody thing into gravel - it is not a proven historical artefact. It's just a lump of stone put there in the 19th century with a dubious back story.

Yep, you've grown up alright, all that vandalism did you the power of good.

dubhthach

The Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, Volume 18 (published 1839) specifically mentions that the stone was removed from beside the "Mound of the Hostages" to commerate the men of 1798 buried in a mass grave on the Forrad. Thence it's current location. Geogre Petrie in the piece specifically quotes 10/11th century placename poetry that identified this stone (beside the Mound of the Hostages) as the Lia Fáil.

I think I'll trust a source such as the Royal Irish Acamdey publishing within 40 years of 1798 that the stone was actually moved. Of course it's probably a neolithic stone that was put in place at the same time that the "Mound of Hostages" was built akin to the standing stone found at Knowth.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3112/2914958316_bc297f2876_o.jpg

This hardly negates the importance of it as an artificat, what next someone is gonna pure paint over Muiredach's High Cross in Monsterboice?

RDM_83 again

syklops wrote: »

I read this earlier today.

Am I the only one surprised it wasnt under some kind of security?

Oblong Gator wrote: »

It's a stone,


In a field,

AFAIK there is CCTV on the Church Tower that overlooks the site so maybe the perpetrator(s) will be identified (I could be wrong about this though).
Security is an awkward question though, its unlikely that the OPW will employ a lad to guard it 24/7 365 days a year.
You can't really put up a fence without ruining the aesthetics of the site either.
What since this is the 2nd serious attack in the last few years I could see happening is them removing the Lia Fail to the national museum and putting in a poor reconstruction which would be a shame.

dubhthach

You could do like what the scots did with the "Sueno's Stone", though their aim was to prevent weathering as oppose to vandals. You could obvioulsy have a tamper sensor on the glass casing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Forres_sueno.jpg

bitemybanger

RDM_83 again wrote: »

What since this is the 2nd serious attack in the last few years I could see happening is them removing the Lia Fail to the national museum and putting in a poor reconstruction which would be a shame.

Or construct some big ugly cage around it which would be just as bad.
Either would be a shame.

daireaire28

You may have heard about the incident involving 'Lia Fáil' in Meath.

Why would you even consider doing this? I'm not a big history guy but it's annoying to hear that [at least 50% of the 5,000-year-old granite has been covered by the paint.] - Quote, RTE.ie

Shameful...

bumper234

daireaire28 wrote: »

You may have heard about the incident involving 'Lia Fáil' in Meath.

Why would you even consider doing this? I'm not a big history guy but it's annoying to hear that [at least 50% of the 5,000-year-old granite has been covered by the paint.] - Quote, RTE.ie

Shameful...

A garda spokesman confirmed that green and red paint was poured over the stone overnight.

Mayo people huh?

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTBWqq6XVZv6vr2r8h3WaCdEgQR4XsO-_a-fv4wqv-EV7vr8vel2Wk5Z8I

Reedsie

What on earth is going on in someone's mind when they decide that this is a good idea?

On the plus side I presume it won't be overly difficult to remove.

dubhthach wrote: »

You could do like what the scots did with the "Sueno's Stone", though their aim was to prevent weathering as oppose to vandals. You could obvioulsy have a tamper sensor on the glass casing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Forres_sueno.jpg

That's such an ugly construction. A shame if it comes to that.

bitemybanger

Paddy_R wrote: »

On the plus side I presume it won't be overly difficult to remove.

Might not be so simple, Limestone absorbs moisture and most paint removing chemicals could be corrosive to the rock. I'm no science buff but this is probably what the OPW will consider especially with something like this.

MY CUP OF TEA

ah seriously...would ya have nothing better to be doin!?

I actually hope this turns out to be some kindof misguided protest instead of just some gobsh1te actin the maggot!

Maximus Alexander

One a tangentially related note, I visited the megalithic temple at Ġgantija about a fortnight ago and was disgusted to see that two of the large flat stones a few feet beyond the entrance were caked in graffiti. Not just a bit of paint or marker, people had actually chiseled and scratched crap like names and initials into the stones.

It wasn't until I took a closer look that I realised it was all dated in the 19th century (things like "1840 L+P") and some of it even appeared to be in Latin. Then I thought it was kinda cool instead - historical graffiti.

Still though, this paint fiend needs swift and repeated kicks in the genitals.

Zed Bank

And this children, is why we can't have nice things.

wp_rathead

Mr. Nice wrote: »

You'll never know until you find out I guess. I never said I was proud of my actions, but vandalism, public order offences and a few other things were part of my growing up and becoming a mature member of society.

And I fail to see the relevance of kicking the kicking mirrors off cars and defacing public monuments reference. Unless you know my complete history, I'd advise that you refrain from conjecture...

Mr. Nice wrote: »

It's granite, of course it's old.

"Afaik", did you use that phrase in your thesis?

"There is no doubt", really? That is the actual stone?

And if your Professor never expressed doubt, then it must be true.

I'm not debating the fact that Tara is an important culturally historical site, but quoting an 11th century document written about pre-christian history casts your argument in a cloud of doubt.

If I weren't 1200kms away I'd be tempted to go over and smash the bloody thing into gravel - it is not a proven historical artefact. It's just a lump of stone put there in the 19th century with a dubious back story.

hmmm :rolleyes:

Meathlass

Mr. Nice wrote: »

With regard to the granite being 5000 years old, pretty much all granite is around that old and that stone was only put in place in the 1800's.

Stone originally stood near the Mound of the Hostages it is believed and was moved to its present position in 1824. Moving it doesn't impact on its heritage.

And it won't be easy to get paint off it without damaging the monument.

Zed Bank

I thought the stone was 5000 year's old?
What's this about it being placed there in the 19th century?

Either way its a shame, im imagining that this will be VERY hard to repair and the stone will probably never be restored to it's prior condition.

This is totally mindless, looks like the gob****e just poured the paint over it.

dubhthach

Zed Bank wrote: »

I thought the stone was 5000 year's old?
What's this about it being placed there in the 19th century?

Either way its a shame, im imagining that this will be VERY hard to repair and the stone will probably never be restored to it's prior condition.

This is totally mindless, looks like the gob****e just poured the paint over it.

There's a mass grave on the Forrad from 1798 due to the "Battle of Tara" where 400 rebels were killed. The stone was moved in 1824 ontop of the Forradh to act as a commemoration stone. It was situated couple hundred meters away beside Dumha na nGiall (Mound of the Hostages).

Within wider Tara complex both the Forradh and Dumha na nGiall are within Ráith na Ríogh.

daveohdave

While I agree that the toerags that did this deserve a good puck in the earhole, the language used in relation to it is equally retarded. Desecration? Attacked? It's a rock ffs. Pour some fupping white spirit over it.

bazarakus

Yup. The ting about mindless vandalism is it's MINDLESS. Can everybody stop projecting their opinions on to the story please? Perspective people. It's not like they built a motor way thru it.