Aerial Archaeology in Ireland - The Heritage Council

The Heritage Council has grant-aided Markus Casey to carry out specific aerial reconnaissance of coastal promontory forts as
one of the types of major archaeological site most at threat from coastal erosion (Figures 2, 37, 54). Between 2001 and 2003,
this survey covered the coast in the following areas: Donegal, Antrim, Wicklow, Wexford, Waterford; East Cork (in Casey 2001);
West Cork and Kerry (Casey 2002); Dublin, Iveragh. and Cork (Casey 2003).
Figures 54 a-b: Detailed aerial photography of costal promontory forts has recorded their surviving condition in relation to natural erosion (Markus Casey)
a: A promontory fort at Lisheencankeragh in Meenogahane, Co. Kerry,
has suffered from severe coastal erosion, with only a small part of the
interior remaining
b: An eroding ringfort at Doon West, Co. Kerry, backs on to steep cliffs to
the north of Ballybunion
Together with other initiatives such as the Discovery Programme’s work (O’Sullivan 2002) and the inshore lidar survey being
commissioned by the GSI and the Marine Institute (Sections 2.2 and 3.4), along with the increasing coverage of relatively high
resolution satellite imagery provided by Google Earth, these resources and projects offer a significant body of material from
which to develop the beginnings of a coastal archaeological strategy.
4.5 Potential for Inter-disciplinary Integration
In Irish archaeology as in Britain, there is a long tradition of close collaboration between archaeologists and aerial photography
carried out by other specialists — first the military, then OSi, and then State heritage services. Recently, the potential of making
better use of more specialist forms of remote sensing has begun to be recognised. Archaeologists have become more aware of
the potential application of techniques such as lidar, and of the resources already being developed for other purposes by bodies
such as the OSi, GSI and the Marine Institute.
There is a long tradition of archaeologists using vertical photography which was taken for other purposes. This continues to be
a valuable way of checking current land use (and hence the potential condition) of known sites and of identifying previously
unknown ones. However, it tends to be somewhat hit-and-miss whether vertical photography is taken in ideal conditions for
archaeological purposes, except where specially commissioned by archaeologists (e.g. Gowen 1988 1:5,000 cover; Doody 1993c).
There is not always much scope for integrating all archaeological requirements with other needs. Because archaeology tends to
require high quality in resolution of detail, especially in respect of low-to-medium-level vertical stereoscopic coverage, a strong
argument suggests that timing of surveys to achieve high-quality imagery for archaeology will also maximise utility for other
purposes. In purely practical terms, this is often hard to achieve as these considerations are seldom critical to the paying client.
Where vertical photography is commissioned, there is an increasing case for archaeology to be considered which serves a number
of purposes, including environmental protection, as with road schemes, strategic development planning and agri-environment
planning and monitoring. Most respondents recognised the value of this and considered that more integration should be
developed. Several, however, pointed to a number of practical and institutional hurdles that would need to be overcome by
97