archaeological & built heritage assessment - The Heritage Council

Identify indirect negative impacts of tourism and
recreation on culturally significant sites/structures
such as graffiti, use of area for overnight
camping/picnicking, litter and physical human/animal
interference
Review/adjust policies contained within this report
in order to met unforeseen circumstances and in
response to development needs
condition/preservation issues over time
Apply this methodology to a representative
percentage of sites/structures listed in this report
(20%) over a 5-10 year timeframe thus providing
the basis for a rigorous care and maintenance
programme
Policies should be reviewed as the need arises but
not later than 5 years after their initial adoption.
Procedures for review mechanisms should be
established by the bodies responsible for
implementation of the policies
In a recent Heritage Council report (O’Sullivan et. al. 2000) recommendations were put forward on the
protection of archaeological features at risk. The following conclusions were arrived at:
• The destruction of known archaeological monuments in the Republic of Ireland has not slowed down
in recent years. On the contrary it has accelerated dramatically.
• Earthen monuments are coming under increasing pressure.
• Archaeological monuments set in pasture are most vulnerable.
• In general, the destruction of archaeological monuments can be linked directly to land improvements
which are associated with more intensive farming.
• In some respects, and especially for the purpose of monitoring the destruction of archaeological
monuments, the information contained in the County Archaeological Inventories and Surveys is
considerably out of date.
In light of the above conclusions the following recommendations were arrived at and should also be
applied to all aspects of cultural heritage within the waterway corridor:
• A system for monitoring monuments/structures should be established.
• Provisions should be made for the protection of monuments on farmland.
• Publicity and education, especially on issues of preservation, should become integral parts of any
monument protection programme.
In addition, it is proposed that a similar study should be commissioned for both industrial and built
heritage features at risk. It is obvious from the list of archaeological sites and monuments noted in
Appendix 1 that there is a vast range of types which may be scaled in respect of those with a lesser
degree of significance to those that are of high significance by virtue that they form part of a diagnostic
complex that has been intensively utilised over time. Lesser known sites/monuments have remained
largely anonymous in the consciousness of local communities and as such, steps should be taken to
undertake detailed field surveys thus providing a public record and also assess whether the site is
favourable to future development in terms of recreation and tourism. It is beyond the scope of this study
to identify particular lesser known sites/monuments due to the limited and often outdated research
material available in order to provide future policies and recommendations.
60