Aerial Archaeology in Ireland - The Heritage Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 ROLES IN RESEARCH, CONSERVATION AND EDUCATIONAL ACCESS 4.1 Understanding the Archaeological Resource Reconnaissance, identification and making a record Air photography has formed an important part of the compilation of the SMR and County Inventories over the last 25 years, including both systematic assessment of existing air photographic collections (e.g. Kirwan 1993), and some new photography. New discoveries and interpretations have been reported in articles about individual areas or features of interest, approaches and methods, and in the published Inventories (e.g. Condit 1992, 1993, 1995; Condit and Gibbons 1991; Condit et al. 1991; Power 1988; Power et al. 2000; Gosling, 1993; Alcock et al. 1999). Some reconnaissance remains a standard part of the compilation and updating of the SMR, the publication of the Record of Monuments and Places, and the County Inventories. Since primary sources of information are not a searchable field within the SMR database, the overall contribution that aerial archaeology has made to this process cannot be quantified easily. In any case, this varies from one county to another. This is due not only to the basic geographical considerations, but also because the organic, incremental way in which the SMR was developed means that there was some variation in approach from one county to another as the compilation of the original record proceeded. For example: • 32% of the 783 sites identified in the SMR for Co. Limerick were identified from aerial photographs, compared with 20% represented on Ordnance Survey six-inch maps, 35% identified through fieldwork, 8% from excavations and 5% from chance discoveries (Kirwan 1993). • 8.5% of entries in the Inventory for Co. Wicklow cite air photographic sources (Grogan and Kilfeather 1997). • 7% of entries in the Inventory for Co. Carlow cite CUCAP air photographic sources (Brindley and Kilfeather 1993; Barrett 2000, 3). • 8% of entries in the Inventory for Co. Louth cite CUCAP air photographic sources (Buckley 1986; Buckley and Sweetman 1991; Barrett 2000, 3). But within such generalised figures, there is considerable variation in relation to types of site and location which may be exacerbated by issues of classification: • In the Wicklow Inventory, air photographic sources are cited for a much higher proportion of enclosures (27%) and settlements (18%) than other types of site. • 65% of ring-barrows included in the SMR for Co. Limerick were identified from aerial photographs, compared with 4% represented on Ordnance Survey six-inch maps, and 31% identified through fieldwork (Kirwan 1993, 142). • Stout (2001) gives the following figures for the sources of identification cited for ‘ringforts’ on the County Inventories. Presumably, this does not include cropmark and other sites classified as ‘enclosures’ which may be levelled or plougheddown ringforts (the c. 4% difference between the first six counties in Leinster and the remaining two elsewhere was not considered significant). 67
68 County No. Ringforts No. identified from APs % identified from APs Carlow 767 73 9.5 Dublin 1129 113 10.0 Kilkenny 2234 216 9.7 Offaly 1753 211 12.0 Wexford 2209 261 11.8 Wicklow 1321 145 11.0 Leitrim 1620 130 8.0 Waterford 1925 100 5.2 • By contrast, Barrett suggests that 35.5% of ringforts in Co. Louth have been identified from air photography, though this varies from 3% to 39% with topographical altitude and from 0% to 51% with soil type (Barrett 1980, 1982a, 1982b). These figures largely reflect the results of desk studies without much new aerial reconnaissance having contributed to the process. As Power (1993) observed: ‘…work on aerial photographic material has increased greatly in recent years and has been an integral part of the “paper survey” SMRs, in many cases producing interesting results. However actual aerial reconnaissance is still rarely used in Ireland…’ The compilers of the SMR, which forms the basis of the published Record of Monuments and Places and County Inventories, do not claim (and could not reasonably be expected) to have provided definitive coverage of all possible sources of air photography. Although some of the available medium and low-altitude vertical photography was consulted in the compilation of the SMR and Inventories, this does not appear to have been consistent for all areas. In general, it appears that the GSI and CUCAP sources were routinely covered, and use was often (but not always) made of the coverage of the OSi and Air Corps material. Where these sources were used, it is not clear whether all sets of available material were accessed — though Kirwan (1993) does refer to the use of low-level OSi 1:5,000 photography. It was not within the capacity of the survey teams to cover all private and commercial sources, though in the case of Cork, the collection of Dr Daphne Pochin Mould was accessed. In other areas, it is perhaps unfortunate — but given resources and time constraints, not very surprising — that some potentially important nonpublic sources were not systematically covered, even though access was offered (G. Barrett pers. comm.). It is clear from respondents that there is wide recognition that the SMR and Inventories are not necessarily definitive and that for any given locality under investigation, recourse should be made to examining original aerial photographic material. It may also be noted that a number of practitioners also recognise that the re-interpretation of identifications is possible; this may either enhance or diminish the archaeological significance of known or suspected sites. For these purposes, the SMR and Inventories provide helpful direct referencing to individual photographs that were used in their compilation. It remains a problem, however, that there is usually little or nothing else to indicate which sources or sets of photography were — and more particularly were not — consulted, and hence which might have most potential for identification of additional material. This issue is also relevant to how the data compiled for the SMR is used to interpret distributions and types of different monument classes, but it is an unknown variable that cannot readily be assessed. As indicated below, the number, character and density of known sites can depend heavily on the quality and intensity of aerial coverage.
Page 1 and 2:
A I R A N D E A R T H A E R I A L A
Page 3 and 4:
© An Chomhairle Oidhreachta / The
Page 5 and 6:
3.9 Integration with other Types of
Page 7 and 8:
Figure 14: The Discovery Programme
Page 9 and 10:
Figure 39: This vertical photograph
Page 11 and 12:
10 Foreword One of the initiatives
Page 13 and 14:
12 Acknowledgements It would not ha
Page 15 and 16:
14 Key Priorities for Aerial Archae
Page 17 and 18: 16 • A practical handbook in arch
Page 19 and 20: 18 • A series of pilot studies co
Page 21 and 22: 20 5. Any new strategy for reconnai
Page 23 and 24: 22 As a means of discovering archae
Page 25 and 26: 24 Drawing on the work of O.G.S. Cr
Page 27 and 28: 26 2 PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF AIR PHOTO
Page 29 and 30: 28 National Museum of Ireland While
Page 31 and 32: 30 Other material held by the GSI i
Page 33 and 34: 32 Figure 9: An infrared vertical i
Page 35 and 36: 34 The aims and objectives of these
Page 37 and 38: 36 2.5 Private Collections Dr Daphn
Page 39 and 40: 38 2.6 Commercial Collections Two w
Page 41 and 42: 40 Figure 18: Google Earth satellit
Page 43 and 44: 42 3.2 Aerial Platforms The equipme
Page 45 and 46: 44 Figures 20 a-b: The use of ballo
Page 47 and 48: 46 Figure 23: The true form of the
Page 49 and 50: 48 Figure 25: The cumulative impact
Page 51 and 52: 50 3.4 Conventional Photography: Di
Page 53 and 54: 52 Vertical versus Oblique Photogra
Page 55 and 56: 54 Metrical Survey As Doody observe
Page 57 and 58: 56 shoreline and topography (ground
Page 59 and 60: 58 The fieldwork showed that the ge
Page 61 and 62: 60 Sonar Bathymetry Although there
Page 63 and 64: 62 Both Kelleher (1995) and Redfern
Page 65 and 66: 64 Interpreting Chronology and Sequ
Page 67: 66 While the Archaeological Survey
Page 71 and 72: 70 Figure 36: Newly identified crop
Page 73 and 74: 72 Figures 38 a-b: Contrasts in urb
Page 75 and 76: 74 Roles and potential for historic
Page 77 and 78: 76 4.2 Roles in Supporting Archaeol
Page 79 and 80: 78 Figures 41 a-b: Gillian Barrett
Page 81 and 82: 80 The Archaeology of Lakes, Coast
Page 83 and 84: 82 Whole Landscape Approaches Perha
Page 85 and 86: 84 Figure 45: Drumlin landscape nea
Page 87 and 88: 86 Roads The National Roads Authori
Page 89 and 90: 88 Pipelines The general principles
Page 91 and 92: 90 General Development Where there
Page 93 and 94: 92 ‘…numerous sites in pasture
Page 95 and 96: 94 • • Earthen monuments are co
Page 97 and 98: 96 Designed Landscapes and Conserva
Page 99 and 100: 98 showing the clear benefits of in
Page 101 and 102: 100 Figure 55: Aerial photograph of
Page 103 and 104: 102 5 QUALITY, RESOURCES AND ORGANI
Page 105 and 106: 104 Estimates of costs per site or
Page 107 and 108: 106 ago in England, may have meant
Page 109 and 110: 108 6 TEACHING AND TRAINING 6.1 Cov
Page 111 and 112: 110 6.2 Other Provisions for Traini
Page 113 and 114: 112 Benson, D and Miles, D 1974. Th
Page 115 and 116: 114 Doody, M G, 1995. ‘Ballyhoura
Page 117 and 118: 116 Twohig and M. Ronayne (eds) Pas
Page 119 and 120:
118 Raftery, J, 1951. Prehistoric I
Page 121 and 122:
120 Colin Shell Cambridge Universit
show all

Aerial Archaeology in Ireland - The Heritage Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?