A leading archaeologist has said Tara could only be understood within its landscape and socio-historical context, the High Court heard yesterday.
But lawyers for Meath County Council argued that this theory of an "archaeological landscape" did not fall within the legal meaning of a "national monument".
In the hearing of a challenge by environmentalist Vincent Salafia to the proposed routing of the M3 motorway near the Hill of Tara, Dr Conor Newman, an archaeologist and expert on Tara, agreed with US archaeologist Prof Martin Caver, that historic landscapes had as much value as historic sites, that the Tara landscape "carried a message from the past" and that few such landscapes remained in Europe.
In an affidavit, Dr Newman said analysis of the archaeological sites and monuments at Tara continued to be conducted within the intellectual canon of landscape theory "which represents one of the most significant theoretical advancements in the social sciences in the last 25 years".
Analysis of Tara as a cultural landscape involved identification and examination of the nexus of places, sites, monuments, historical testimonies and literary traditions which constitute Tara, Dr Newman said.
It was this appreciation of the archaeological landscape of Tara which informed the advice given by Dr Patrick Wallace, director of the National Museum, to Minister for the Environment Dick Roche, in a letter of March 16th, 2005, Dr Newman said.
Dr Wallace had told the Minister he believed Tara "and the complex or association of monuments and sacred spaces in its surroundings to be the most important of their type in Ireland, if not in Europe".
Sections of Dr Newman's affidavit were read to the court yesterday, the fourth day of Mr Salafia's challenge to ministerial directions on the treatment of 38 archaeological sites found during "test trenching" along the selected route of the M3.
In submissions yesterday, Paul Gallagher SC, for Meath County Council, argued that the "mistake" made by "landscape theorists" of national monuments was that they began with a landscape and then referred back to the monument itself. It was wrong, in assessing the existence of a national monument, to begin with archaeological and historical considerations.
A national monument meant a monument - or its remains - and the concept of a national monument posited by Dr Newman and other experts for Mr Salafia was not borne out by the national monuments legislation, he said.
Counsel also argued that Mr Roche had taken into account the views expressed by Dr Wallace.
The case continues today.
