Ancient Tara monument vandalised

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.