Aerial Archaeology in Ireland - The Heritage Council

south-west under the Birds Directive and of other blanket bog areas under the Habitats Directive is also likely to reduce the
number of archaeologically sensitive upland areas that might be vulnerable to afforestation.
But as Mr Emmet Byrnes acknowledges, this does not mean that the basic principle of more strategic archaeological assessment
which makes good use of archival aerial photography and new surveys is not still valid. He has commented that such an
approach would be very useful in terms of the future production of Indicative Forest Strategies. He suggests that this should be
seen as the ultimate responsibility of the DoEHLG, conducted ‘primarily by the NMS Archaeological Survey Unit, but obviously
with assistance from and in conjunction with the Forest Service’.
The principle of more strategic assessment is thus clearly acknowledged. Whether the responsibility should lie with the DoEHLG
is more debateable. Given the application of the EIA regulations to quite small forestry proposals, any overall programme of
support for forestry or any strategic targeting of where it should apply will now (since 2004) require a strategic environmental
assessment under the European Commission’s SEA Directive (2001/42/EC).
With the additional requirements for SEAs since Johnson’s (1998) analysis and the Heritage Council’s statement, it is now even
more arguable that the Forest Service itself should — and might actually be obliged to — commission a strategic programme of
aerial reconnaissance. This should be combined with the thorough review of archival air photography as a cost-effective means
of establishing an enhanced baseline of archaeological information to underpin SEAs for any Indicative Forest Strategies.
Agriculture and the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme
Agricultural improvements — specifically the increasing cultivation and reseeding of grassland, reorganisation of field boundaries,
and other aspects of intensification — have led to the loss of upstanding archaeology. This was particularly the case during
the 1970s when land improvements received strong government support (Figures 22, 52). Although there was a system for
consultation about the possible archaeological impact of such work at the time, examination of a selection of site files in
the SMR suggest that, in many cases, the then Office of Public Works did little to stop destructive improvement works on
sites originally identified from air photography. It appears that subsoil sites known only from cropmarks were often assumed
to have been ‘destroyed’ already. In at least one case, remnant earthworks as well as subsoil features survived, but these too
were dismissed as non-archaeological because they were no longer easily recognisable as standard forms of earthwork — yet
were later proven to be archaeological through excavation. Little or no consideration was given to wider issues of the historic
landscape character embedded in field systems and unimproved pastureland.
Following Ireland’s accession to the EU, such grants have ceased, but destructive agricultural improvements continued to occur,
encouraged by CAP production subsidies. However, in the 1990s, prior to the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP, Ireland had
introduced the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS). This is intended to provide incentives to farmers to safeguard
the environment, including as an aim ‘the upkeep of the landscape and historical features on agricultural land’. Under the REPS
scheme, participants must carry out their farming in accordance with a farm-specific agri-environmental plan which must be
drawn up by a planning agency approved by the Department of Agriculture. On the basis of the plan, they must comply with
eleven basic measures, which include objectives to:
•
•
Maintain farm and field boundaries.
Protect features of historical and/or archaeological interest.
The Heritage Council’s (1999b) policy statement on Agriculture and the National Heritage does not deal with the historic
environment, concentrating instead on wildlife and landscape. But the Heritage Council’s Archaeological Features At Risk (AFAR)
survey and subsequent studies of damage to archaeological sites indicated a serious problem in the rate of loss of monuments
in rural areas. The AFAR report (O’Sullivan et al. 2001) concluded that:
• The destruction of known archaeological monuments in the Republic of Ireland has not slowed in
recent years. On the contrary, it has accelerated dramatically.
93