Restoration versus conservation (Part 2)

From the outset, Smith supported the restoration project

From the outset, Smith supported the restoration project. Serious concerns, however, were voiced within the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. Both the National Museum of Ireland and the Heritage Council, which have a statutory function in protecting archaeological objects, were consulted by de Valera. Any alteration work on such objects may only be carried out on the securing of a "Licence to Alter". Such a licence was required for Asgard as she had been declared "an archaeological object" by the Attorney General within the meaning of the National Monuments Act 1930-1994.

Smith had publicly announced his support for the restoration project without consulting de Valera and had possibly been unaware of the need to secure a licence.

The advice of the Heritage Council was sought by the Department of Arts in 1998. Having consulted with a representative group, Michael Starrett, the Council's chief executive, outlined its recommendations: "The ideal solution for the boat is its full conservation, display and interpretation as a land-based exhibit in a suitable location. This would allow the preservation of a maximum amount of original material while also providing the opportunity for an exciting exploration of the multi-layered heritage of the vessel".

According to a report published in the Sunday Times in October 1998, de Valera had, in the previous July, made clear her views to Smith, describing Asgard as "a vessel of considerable national historical significance". She argued for the retention and display of as much as possible of the original material. "This will not be the case if the vessel is to be restored/rebuilt for sailing," she said, stressing "the inherent risk of total loss of the vessel should it be sailed."

READ MORE

The National Museum of Ireland was also consulted, and the correspondence released through the Freedom of Information Act relating to Asgard is revealing. In August 1999, Eamonn P. Kelly, Keeper of Irish Antiquities, advised the Department: "Having considered all aspects of this matter and in view of the compelling evidence of the need to sacrifice perhaps as much as 80 per cent or more of the original structure of Asgard in the process of restoration we are unable to recommend the issue of this licence to the Minister."

The statement, reiterating the museum's stance from the outset, concluded: "We are aware that the refusal of a `licence to alter' is likely to present a further challenge to the Minister and to our Department in providing for the future of Asgard in a conservation and exhibition context. However we are confident that this is both a necessary and a worthwhile undertaking."

MOVING beyond the specifics of the licence then under consideration, Assistant Keeper Nessa O'Connor pointed out in her legal report to the Department what she described as "obvious and indefensible anomalies in the position adopted by the State in regard to the privately owned Lusitania and the action which may be taken in relation to the State-owned Asgard".

"How will we explain," her report continues, "why the full rigours of the National Monuments Acts are being brought to bear on one historic vessel privately owned and lying at 80 metres in extremely difficult conditions, while the State is prepared to authorise the destruction of the great majority of an equally important historic vessel which is owned by the State itself? There is a clear contradiction if we impose conditions on others which we are not prepared to fulfil ourselves in similar circumstances."

With estimated restoration costs in excess of £800,000, Smith agreed to match any funding once secured. Despite her earlier concerns, de Valera issued the "licence to alter" on December 23rd, 1999. Asgard remained at Kilmainham Gaol until March 4th, 2001. Having been kept for some weeks in a vulnerable and exposed position at the Point Depot, Asgard was then moved to a nearby yard owned by ARP Ltd fundraiser Harry Crosbie.

The opposition spokesman for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Dinny McGinely TD, is opposed to the Asgard restoration. "The Minister has a statutory responsibility for the protection and conservation of our national heritage. If she allows the ARP to continue, she is clearly abdicating that responsibility. The Minister should immediately revoke the licence she issued in December 1999. In issuing it, she inexplicably ignored all the professional advice tendered by the statutory bodies, the National Museum, the Heritage Council, An Taisce and the international consultants. The project is clearly in breach and contrary to the Minister's own published policy guidelines, Framework and Principles for the Protection of the Ar- chaeological Heritage." In a letter dated December 23rd 1999, the day the licence was granted, Eamonn P. Kelly, Keeper of Irish antiquities at the National Museum, informs the Department of his disapproval. "I'm therefore obliged to put on record my view that the decision to restore Asgard along the lines proposed is an act of cultural vandalism that will have far reaching and detrimental consequences. I consider it shameful that the State should fail in its responsibility to protect the heritage in its care and that for reasons of expediency it should fail to impose upon itself standards that it routinely demands of private citizens."

Archaeologist Erin Gibbons and heritage officer Ian Lumley have instructed their solicitors to initiate proceedings to revoke the licence.

ARP Ltd maintains that the Asgard must be on water to survive. But does she need to be back at sea? "It is wonderful putting old boats back in the ocean," says Kearon, "but not vessels as historically significant as Asgard. Restoration becomes replication by stealth."