22.03.2013 Views

Aerial Archaeology in Ireland - The Heritage Council

Aerial Archaeology in Ireland - The Heritage Council

Aerial Archaeology in Ireland - The Heritage Council

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Enhanc<strong>in</strong>g the Archaeological Record<br />

<strong>The</strong> technical limitations — as well as the merits — of the few collections of aerial photography that are rout<strong>in</strong>ely consulted <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>Ireland</strong> are widely recognised. Although users of air photography are generally well aware that <strong>in</strong>tensive reviews of exist<strong>in</strong>g sources<br />

of aerial photographs and new reconnaissance can lead to new discoveries, there seems to be less awareness of quite how much<br />

difference well-formulated projects of this type can make. This has been demonstrated by several different studies <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ireland</strong>.<br />

• From a review of exist<strong>in</strong>g vertical photography, Hartwell (1987) reported discover<strong>in</strong>g 60 new sites of all types with<strong>in</strong><br />

an area of 40km 2 (500% <strong>in</strong>crease on previously known 15 sites).<br />

• From new oblique reconnaissance, Barrett (1990, 1995b) reported discover<strong>in</strong>g 106 new cropmark sites with<strong>in</strong> an area<br />

of 900km 2 (330% <strong>in</strong>crease on previously known 32 sites).<br />

• From new medium-altitude vertical photography, Doody (2001) reported discover<strong>in</strong>g 1,074 new sites of all types with<strong>in</strong><br />

an area of 533km 2 (69% <strong>in</strong>crease on previously known 1,490 sites).<br />

• From new oblique reconnaissance, Power (1993) reported discover<strong>in</strong>g 200 new cropmark sites with<strong>in</strong> an area of approx.<br />

256km 2 (<strong>in</strong>crease not quantified).<br />

• From his survey of coastal promontory forts, Casey (2001, 2002, 2003) has reported that out of a total of 408 sites<br />

recorded, 199 were known already, while 90 were def<strong>in</strong>ite new ones (an <strong>in</strong>crease of 45%). A further 119 possible<br />

examples were noted that at the time of report<strong>in</strong>g still needed check<strong>in</strong>g on the ground (possible total <strong>in</strong>crease of<br />

105%). This does not <strong>in</strong>clude other types of site.<br />

• Shell and Roughley (2004) have reported that previously recorded sites account for only 10% of the length of features<br />

transcribed from their lidar survey of the already well-surveyed Loughcrew area. Although much of this relates to<br />

ancient field boundaries rather than <strong>in</strong>dividual monuments, the newly identified archaeology <strong>in</strong>cludes 13 small round<br />

mounds, three larger mounds, five circular or sub-circular banks, a moated site, and a tripl<strong>in</strong>g of the number of square<br />

enclosures from two to six.<br />

• At Mullaghfarna, from a start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t of 47 house sites and other features identified <strong>in</strong> 1911, Grogan (1996) brought<br />

the total to 82 identified from air photographs, with 60 recorded on the ground. New detailed photogrammetry and<br />

fieldwork <strong>in</strong> 2004 (Stefan Bergh, conference presentation December 2005) identified a total of 153 sites and features<br />

(an <strong>in</strong>crease of 325% on the orig<strong>in</strong>al survey).<br />

In terms of research, the potential to enhance the archaeological record and pose new questions related to landscape <strong>in</strong>terrelationships<br />

has been rather better understood and embraced <strong>in</strong> a whole range of university-based research programmes and<br />

the Discovery Programme (Section 4.2). <strong>The</strong> <strong>Heritage</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s support for surveys by Markus Casey (2001, 2002, 2003) and Col<strong>in</strong><br />

Shell (Shell and Roughley 2004) also demonstrates their awareness of these issues.<br />

But the overall strategic implications of such significant <strong>in</strong>creases <strong>in</strong> known archaeology have yet to be fully translated <strong>in</strong>to a<br />

clear perception of how the strengths of aerial archaeology should be harnessed for wider understand<strong>in</strong>g, conservation and<br />

management of the archaeological resource.<br />

Where this has been taken on board — as was the case for a number gas pipel<strong>in</strong>e schemes from the 1980s onwards (Cleary et al.<br />

1987; Gowen 1988), and as is now becom<strong>in</strong>g more rout<strong>in</strong>e for <strong>in</strong>frastructure schemes — the value of the technique as a means<br />

of identify<strong>in</strong>g sites (and of reduc<strong>in</strong>g the risk of unexpected discoveries) is clearly recognised (Figure 36). It is also clear that some<br />

of this reconnaissance not only identifies previously unknown sites, but can also reveal much more detail or greater extent of<br />

those that are known. As the use of aerial archaeological surveys has become more rout<strong>in</strong>e for particular types of work, notably<br />

road schemes, there is now great potential for a more detailed analysis of the extent and implications of the range and scale of<br />

new discoveries, look<strong>in</strong>g particularly at different types of archaeological rema<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> relation to terra<strong>in</strong>, soils and reconnaissance<br />

methodologies.<br />

69

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!