Archaeology of Gatherings Conference | Institute of Technology, Sligo, Ireland |

October 2013 | Part II

Originally posted online on 9 July 2014 at rmchapple.blogspot.com
(http://rmchapple.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/archaeology-of-gatherings-conference.html)
The continuing saga of the Archaeology of Gatherings Conference, held in Sligo, in October
2013.



Modern horse fair (Source)
Sometime around 11:30, suitably refreshed, we assembled once again for Session 2, chaired by
Fiona Beglane. First to the podium was Prof Elizabeth FitzPatrick, (NUI Galway) to speak
on Shifting Territorial Boundaries and Medieval Assembly Places. FitzPatrick explained that
she wanted to concentrate on the enach (pronounced: i-nach) of Lough Gill, Co. Sligo and on
how shifts in territorial boundaries could exclude former owners. An enach was the site of
periodic, or seasonal, tribal assemblies held on the quarterly feasts on the old Irish
year: Imbolc, Beltane, Lughnasadh, and Samhain. Other Medieval assemblies included the
Oireachtas, a parliament; and the Gairm Anam, a naming ceremony. The enach had its
origins as a political assembly with ritual associations. There were usually games of various
sorts played at these occasions, generally focusing on horse and chariot races. Where these
traditions have survived in some form, they have frequently developed into a commercial fair
frequently a horse fair. One of the distinguishing features of enach sites are their
association with funerary monuments. Another is their relationship with certain types of
terrain. In particular, they are associated with broken ground, where the geology is close to
the surface and may be the site of quarries and mines. They are likely to be in or near clear-
felled areas of landscape used as hunting grounds, which would have been necessary for the
feeding of large numbers of people. Finally, enach sites are most usually found in boundary
areas between territorial units.

The primary evidence of the enach Loch Gille is the Early Medieval life of St Cealach of
Killalla. It is the reputed burial place of Egan Bl mac Cellaig, an early historic king of
Connacht. In one version of his story, Egan Bls body was disinterred by the U Nill and
reburied mouth downwards. The site of this enach has ben identified as the townlands
of Formoyle and Deerpark on the north shore of Lough Gill. The site is flanked by two further
small lakes: Colghagh Lake and Lough Anelteen (The Lake of the Hinds). In terms of being
part of a funerary landscape, Formoyle contains the largest court tomb in Ireland, along with
one other wedge tomb. Other archaeological sites in the vicinity include a cashel and a
souterrain. The name Formoyle also signifies that these lands were hunting grounds.
This enach was originally in Calraige Tuadh. Before 1173 this belonged to the U Ruairc, as
part of their over-kingdom of U Briuin Brifne. After the arrival of the Anglo-Normans the
political structure collapsed and U Briuin Brifne contracted, leading to Calraige becoming a
contested landscape and a battle ground for the Lordships of Upper Connacht. FitzPatrick
noted a late 16th century Praise Poem that anachronistically describes ORourke as the King
of Calraige, even though he was now just a Lord and Calraige was not part of his lands.
FitzPatrick argued that, although cut off from their ancient enach for over 400 years, the site
retained a deep significance to the U Ruairc and remained contested.

Note: this paper is based on: FitzPatrick, E. 2013 'Formaoil na Fiann: hunting preserves and
assembly places in Gaelic Ireland' Proceedings of Harvard Celtic Colloquium 32, 95-118.


Members of the Orange Order on parade in East Belfast 2012 (Source)
Public Space and Power Ritual and Identity in a Shared Belfast was the topic of the paper
delivered by Dr Dominic Bryan (Institute of Irish Studies, Queens University Belfast). Bryan
began with Durkheims definition of a gathering as an event that generates a kind of electricity
that quickly transports them to an extraordinary degree of exaltation. For the purposes of this
paper, Bryan wanted to examine how identity works in the public space. He argued that
Ireland has a parading tradition and that the messages encoded in these public
demonstrations can be manifold. They may include representations of status; displays of
ideology; along with expressions of power and/or resistance. Bryan was also at pains to point
out that these parades are also fun for the participants and that this plays an enormous role in
their continued popularity. The outcome of these forces is that ritual and the symbolic
landscape is seen as a reflection of power and identity.

Bryan presented a rather complicated-looking Venn diagram representing an abstraction of
how he sees Belfast in the 1960s. During this period there was Unionist hegemony, with strong
relations and overlap between Unionism and the Civic sphere, against Nationalism and other
spheres. Even at this point some activities (such as Bonfires on the night of the 11th of July)
were considered problematic for the Civic sphere. Similarly, for Irish Nationalism parades
and the display of the Irish tricolour were held outside the central Civic space and were
allowed. By the 1970 there was a re-emergence of the IRA and UDA terrorist organisations,
both of which used parades as a means of showing strength and political identity. Throughout
this period there was significant use of the politicisation of terrorist funerals by both sides,
though Bryan stressed that this aspect needed much more study. Taken together, he sees the
1970s as a period where there was a significant diminution in the Civic sphere, with
corresponding increases in both the Unionist and Nationalist spheres of influence. Bryan sees
the peace process of 2007 and onwards as a drive to create a viable shared space. Part of this
has been achieved by using the ideas of multiculturalism to build what he terms a fake
consensus. Bryan argues that these rituals are important in Northern Ireland as participation
in them influences Civic identities. As an artefact of this, it is the ability to participate in these
rituals is defined by the control of public space. That power to control has shifted radically
over the last 50 years. There are still problem areas, including the role of 11th night bonfires.
These have been pushed out of the Civic sphere, partly due to the traditional lawlessness of
these working class celebrations. His conclusion is that for peace in Northern Ireland we need
safer and more cosmopolitan spaces. Indeed, for peace to grow anywhere we need managed
civic spaces that can accommodate manifestly different identities. Essentially a shared city
is a peaceful city!


25th Punjabis at the Delhi Durbar, 1911 (Source)
Next up was Prof. Stuart Tyson Smith (University of California, Santa Barbara, US). His
chosen topic was Colonial Gatherings: The Presentation of Inu in New Kingdom Egypt and
the British Imperial Durbar, a Comparison. As part of the 1877 celebrations to
proclaim Queen Victoria as Empress of India, a large assembly was held in Delhi, echoing the
format of a traditional Durbar. In Pharaonic Egypt during the New Kingdom (c. 1550 1060
BC) the act of presenting Inu was a similarly colonial gathering, held annually
at Thebes (modern Luxor). Both used performance and feasting as part of their format. At both
the Durbar and the Presentation of Inu there was a use of native costumes. Tyson Smith asked
the question: how should we see this act? Is the wearing of native costume simply a matter of
pride, or is it more about the reinforcing of colonial views? The Presentation of Inu involved
native Egyptians, along with an assortment of Nubians, Libyans, Asiatics, and representatives
from various vassal states etc. He noted that the word Inu is most often translated as tribute,
but it requires a more nuanced interpretation that combines both the ideas of a tax and a
symbolic gifting. Records indicate that the attendees paid homage to Pharaoh with gifts that
included gold rings and exotic animals. The texts suggest that this was a carefully
choreographed event where the participants were organised to parade by region. This
structure was deliberately chosen to present a juxtaposition between notions of inner order
and outer chaos. Indeed, the similarities to the Durbar have been drawn out in the modern
literature by a number of commentators.

The Durbar was, essentially, an invention of the Delhi Viceroys. These were lavish events that
lasted from two to four weeks, and consisted of military reviews, parades etc. The 1877 Durbar
was the brainchild of Benjamin Disraeli and Viceroy Lytton. However, the monarch was not
present at the event, nor at the 1903 Durbar. It was only at the very last Durbar in 1911, that
the monarch King George V accompanied by Queen Mary was present. The traditional
Durbar was a reciprocal event between the ruler and the ruled, while this colonial incarnation
was very much about the ruler above the ruled. To reinforce the imperial message, Indians
attending the event were required to wear native costume and there was a push towards more
elaborate, colourful costumes, underlining the otherness of the native population. He noted
that in the 1830s the Madras Army essentially mimicked European uniform styles, but as a
result of the influence of the 1877 Durbar, they began to take on more native elements. this
can be easily seen in the images that accompany the Wiki article. Tyson Smith eloquently put
the case that there was a strong ideological message here of unity created out of diversity.
While the populace may have been dazzled by Lyttons bunting, it was very much intended as
an expression of the power and might of the Empire. Where he sees a difference between the
two events it is that the Presentation of Inu was conducted at the seat of colonial power, while
the Durbar was held within the colony. Tyson Smith noted that one long-lasting result of
promotion of elaborate faux-native costumes often made from imported British textiles
was Ghandis association with homespun Khd cloth.


View of the Warsaw Ghetto (Source)
Stephen Dixon had the unenviable task of speaking directly before lunch. His topic was even
more formidable: Archaeological and Anthropological aspects of 'forced gathering' from
within the Jewish Holocaust. He began with an acknowledgment that the Holocaust remains
a difficult topic of conversation for many, but that it is no less worthy of study and discussion.
Dixon argued that the process of Holocaust had four phases: Persecution, Ghettoisation,
Deportation, and finally Internment and Extermination. In the first instance, Persecution of
the Jewish populace stemmed from newly enacted legislation, such as the 1935 Nuremberg
Laws. The intent of this legislation was the humiliation and diminution of the rights of the
Jewish people, building on already present levels of anti-Semitism within civil society.
Attendant on this was the gradual erosion of Jewishness by the Nazi regime, leading to racial
isolation. This legislation was just one element of this process, while others included Reinhard
Heydrichs 1942 Wannsee Conference, which set the Final Solution in motion.

Ghettoisation what Dixon refers to as Terror Zone 1 was essentially an exercise in urban
planning and population control. It was also the first step in the forced gathering and in the
mechanics of genocide. The purposely manufactured locations selected for ghettos were
strategically placed close to key rail lines and deliberately made use of sub-standard housing.
These walled-in enclaves were consciously hidden from the cities they were part of. Dixon
notes that these urban slums stand in stark contrast with the grand monumentality favoured
by Hitler, his architect Albert Speer, and the Nazi regime generally. Today the walls
surrounding ghettos, such as Krakw and Warsaw, have been reintegrated into their modern
cities. Dixon noted that many sections of walling are now in playgrounds and parks. While
some have associated memorials, many languish (in Dixons lovely turn of phrase), in quiet
disrepair, tending towards invisibility. As part of the planned deportation (Terror Zone 2)
some three million Jews were transported to death camps. There was an obvious correlation
between the systems of killing and deportation, and the transport infrastructure was a key
component in this. Much of the transport was organised by Deutsche Reichsbahn, the State
railway, and many camps were equipped with their own railway platforms. During this time
there was an enhanced use of propaganda tools on both the Jewish people and the remaining
German populace to spread the view that the transportations were to bring people to safety
and work in the east. Together, these actions and conditions ensured that the deported Jewish
population alongside all the others deemed undesirable were forced into liminality,
marginalised, and dehumanised. Dixon makes the interesting point that even language
changes during the deportation process as euphemism is used to dehumanise and people
become referred to as simply as cargo. Arrival at death camps was the fate of the majority of
the deported. Dixon describes the network of industrialised camps and their associated terrors
as a Landscape of Violence. Successive archaeological, geophysical, anthropological, and
memory-led investigations have illustrated the nature and reality of these camps. Dealing with
the dead and the acute awareness of cultural sensitivities around the lives lost at these camps
has led to a policy of minimal interference. However, large collections of personal items
remain, as do the physical locations of execution and murder, such as the gas chambers, that
allow study and analysis. Other sources of evidence are the recorded memory narratives of
survivors, though living testimonials are becoming rarer with the passing years. Finally, Dixon
briefly examined the legacy of art and memorials many simple, elegant testimonials to those
who perished in a time of violence and barbarity as part of these forced gatherings.

After a light lunch, the conference goers were entertained by Simon ODwyer of Ancient Music
Ireland [Website | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | SoundCloud | YouTube]