Aerial Archaeology in Ireland - The Heritage Council

102
5 QUALITY, RESOURCES AND ORGANISATION OF AERIAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
5.1 Quality of Outcomes
This study has not sought to be a systematic review of the standards adopted in undertaking, reporting or archiving aerial
photography in Ireland. Nevertheless, a number of observations may be made from views expressed by respondents and from
the literature reviewed. In general, respondents point to the widely admired high standards adopted in some work, such as that
of the Discovery Programme. They also voiced their concerns that, in other instances, work is very variable and not always to the
standard that might be expected. Various respondents and organisations consulted felt that there was a need for a good practice
handbook for the conduct of aerial archaeology.
Reconnaissance
A number of respondents stated that the growing use of aerial archaeology for a wide range of projects (especially road schemes,
for example) has led to more work being undertaken by relatively inexperienced practitioners. Some concern was voiced that
this may, in a few cases, be compromising legal and safety standards. This view was not supported by actual evidence of specific
instances of poor practice, but seemed to be based on observation. Equally, it was noted by some of the contracting companies
that they take their legal and safety responsibilities extremely seriously.
Reporting
The practice of undertaking and reporting the results of aerial survey as part of Environmental Impact Assessments has only
recently become significant in terms of the number of reports produced and outcomes monitored. A review such as that carried
out for testing and monitoring (Lambrick and Doyle 2000) may now be appropriate. From comments by a number of respondents,
it is clear that reporting standards may not be very consistent, and in some cases, not entirely fit for purpose in terms of guiding
further investigations. Now that the new arrangements for dealing with roads schemes in particular have been in place for some
time, it would be appropriate to review both the quality and stages of reconnaissance, along with the reporting of results.
Some of the issues which need be examined here arise from points that can be noted from some of the reports and papers using
aerial archaeology referred to in this study. Authors differ quite considerably in how thoroughly they report their methods.
For example, the sources used and, in the case of the Record of Monuments and Places and County Inventories, the direct
references to particular photographs used tend to be backed up by only the vaguest statement of what searches were carried
out to find them. Thus the Wicklow Inventory (Grogan and Kilfeather 1997) simply states that ‘An examination of available aerial
photography was also conducted.’
Barrett (e.g. 1995b) is unusual in how far she describes not only flight paths, lighting and weather conditions, but also in
quoting soil moisture deficits derived from the local meteorological monitoring service used by farmers and others. She is also
exceptional in mapping cropmark locations in relation to soil types.
Presentation
Numerous useful formats have been used in publications of projects involving aerial photography (e.g. Walsh 1983; Herity
1983; Swan 1985; Hartwell 1991a; Doody 1993c; Barrett 1995b; Newman 1997; Redfern 2002; Shell and Roughley 2004). These
include a variety of means of plotting the distributions of sites, rectified plotting, comparisons of aerial and geophysical surveys,
and incorporation of topographical surveys etc. None of these necessarily provides an ideal or best model, since all are adapted