1
10
11
-
https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/556/GGLP-CYDI-DSR_Woodhead.pdf
ce72faf7b416e0c15e876ad08fef3745
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Reports
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project
Data Structure Report
Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
by Claire Williamson
th
issued 25
August 2023
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Quality Assurance
This report covers works which have been undertaken in keeping with the issued brief as
modified by the agreed programme of works. The report has been prepared in keeping
with the guidance of Rathmell Archaeology Limited on the preparation of reports. All works
reported on within this document have been undertaken in keeping with the Chartered
Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of Conduct.
Signed
………………………………..
…..25th August 2023……
Date
In keeping with the procedure of Rathmell Archaeology Limited this document and its
findings have been reviewed and agreed by an appropriate colleague:
Checked
………………………………..
…..25th August 2023……
Date
Copyright Rathmell Archaeology Limited. All rights reserved.
No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written
permission from Rathmell Archaeology Limited. If you have received this report in error,
please destroy all copies in your possession or control.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party unless
otherwise agreed in writing by Rathmell Archaeology Limited. No liability is accepted by
Rathmell Archaeology Limited for any use of this report, other than the purposes for which
it was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Rathmell Archaeology
Limited using due skill, care and diligence and no explicit warranty is provided as to their
accuracy. No independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to
Rathmell Archaeology Limited has been made.
Quality Assurance Data
Author(s)
Claire Williamson
Date of Issue
25th August 2023
Commissioning Body
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme
Event Name
Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Event Type
Historic Building Survey
Event Date(s)
July 2022
Rathmell Archaeology Code
RA18107
Location
United Kingdom : Scotland : Dumfries and Galloway
NGR
NX 52887 93684
Designation(s)
Scheduled Monument (SM5184)
Canmore IDs
63884; 106171; 106179
Version
OASIS Ref
Parish
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 1 of 58
1.0
rathmell1-437549
Carsphairn
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................. 5
Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 5
Project Works ................................................................................ 8
Findings ......................................................................................... 8
Building [001] .................................................................................................... 8
Building [002] .................................................................................................. 16
Building [003] .................................................................................................. 16
Building [004] .................................................................................................. 23
Building [005] .................................................................................................. 23
Building [006] .................................................................................................. 26
Building [007] .................................................................................................. 29
Discussion ................................................................................... 33
Building [001] – Office Row ............................................................................... 33
Building [002] .................................................................................................. 37
Building [003] – The Stables .............................................................................. 37
Building [004] – The Powder Magazine ................................................................ 37
Buildings [005] and [006] – The Miners’ Rows ..................................................... 38
Building [007] – The School and Schoolhouse ...................................................... 41
Conclusion ................................................................................... 41
Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 42
References .................................................................................. 42
Documentary ................................................................................................... 42
Archives .......................................................................................................... 43
Online images .................................................................................................. 43
Cartographic .................................................................................................... 43
Appendix 1: Photographic Register ............................................. 44
Contact Details ............................................................................ 58
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figures
Figure 1a: Extract from the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853 ................................... 6
Figure 1b: Extract from the 25-inch Ordnance Survey map of 1895 ....................................... 6
Figure 2: Plan showing the location of surveyed buildings ..................................................... 7
Figure 3a: General view of Building [001] from the northeast ............................................... 10
Figure 3b: Shot of Room A in Building [001], taken from the south ...................................... 10
Figure 4: Plan of Building [001] ............................................................................................ 11
Figure 5: External SE facing elevation of Building [001] ....................................................... 12
Figure 6: Fireplace in the southwest wall of Room B, Building [001] .................................... 14
Figure 7a: External NW facing elevation of Building [001] showing junction between Rooms
D and E................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 7b: General view of Building [002] from the southwest .............................................. 15
Figure 8: Plan of Building [002] ............................................................................................ 17
Figure 9: Plan of Building [003] ............................................................................................ 18
Figure 10a: Building [003] – south wall of Room A ............................................................... 19
Figure 10b: Building [003] – blocked windows at south end of west wall of Room B ............ 19
Figure 11a: Building [003] - partially blocked window in N wall of Room B ........................... 21
Figure 11b: Building [004] – blocked opening in SE wall ...................................................... 21
Figure 12: Plan of Building [004] .......................................................................................... 22
Figure 13: Plans of Buildings [005] and [006 ........................................................................ 24
Figure 14a: Building [005] – possible jambs of fireplace in NE wall of Room C, taken from the
SW....................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 14b: Building [005] – remains of possible fireplace in SW wall of Room A, taken from
the NE ................................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 15: Building [006] - external SW facing elevation ...................................................... 27
Figure 16: Plan of Building [007] .......................................................................................... 28
Figure 17a: Building [007] - blocked opening within NW wall of Room B, internal view ........ 31
Figure 17b: Building [007] – Internal view of SW wall of Room D showing joist holes and brick
traces around possible first-floor window ............................................................................. 31
Figure 18a: Building [007] – SW end of Room E taken from the SE ..................................... 32
Figure 18b: ‘David McMath at the leadmines September 1926’ showing SW end of Building
[001], image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References)............................................ 32
Figure 19a: View of Building [001] in 1993 taken from the southwest, courtesy of Anna
Campbell ............................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 19b: Building [001] – external view of doorway in NW wall of Room A taken in 1987,
courtesy of Anna Campbell .................................................................................................. 35
Figure 20a: ‘Mine office on Office Row’ showing SW half of Building [001] in 1959, image
courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References) ................................................................ 36
Figure 20b: View of Woodhead from the SE, showing (A) Building [007]; (B) Building [006];
(C) Building [005]; (D) Building [004]; (E) Building [001] and (F) Building [003], image taken
from Hunter (2001, 10)......................................................................................................... 36
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 21a: Extract from ‘Plan of Woodhead with photos (copy), 4 parts’ showing ‘Stables’ to
the left of the Office Row and dated as 1845 by Anna Campbell, image courtesy of
Carsphairn Archive (see References) .................................................................................. 39
Figure 21b: ‘Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn No 10’ taken from the SE, image courtesy of
Carsphairn Archive (see References) .................................................................................. 39
Figure 22a: ‘Schoolhouse at Woodhead Leadmine’ taken in 1886 and showing Building [007]
from the E, image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References) ................................... 40
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Introduction
1.
This Data Structure Report describes works undertaken at Woodhead Lead Mine,
Carsphairn carried out as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership (GGLP)
community archaeology project Can You Dig It. This report presents the results from a
historic building survey undertaken at the site of a 19th-century lead mining village in the
parish of Carsphairn.
2.
Focusing on the buildings at the western end of the mining complex, seven structures were
recorded, which included the manager’s house and office, two rows of miners’ cottages,
stables, a powder magazine and a school. The structures vary in their state of survival;
while none remain roofed, the height of the standing walls range from one or two courses
up to full height. Over 300 photographs were generated from the survey, capturing details
of the walls before they deteriorate any further.
3.
The works were carried out by volunteers supported by Rathmell Archaeology staff. The
structure of the works was drawn from advice and guidance from officers of GGLP, Dumfries
and Galloway Council and members of local heritage societies.
Historical & Archaeological Background
4.
The site of Woodhead Lead Mine survives as a complex of ruinous structures spread out
across a hillside to the northwest of Carsphairn. It represents the remains of an entire
mining village built in the 1830s (Figure 1a) and is designated as a scheduled monument
(SM5184). As well as a school, library and housing, it is still possible to make out the
structures and areas central to the mine’s workings, which went from mining the lead right
through to smelting it in furnaces. Its history has been well researched by Sassoon (1969)
and Campbell (1994).
5.
The Woodhead Lead Mine was operational from 1838 to 1873 under the control of a
reputably philanthropic landowner, Colonel MacAdam Cathcart. It is a rare example of a
‘total production’ unit in Scotland, using the cutting-edge equipment of the time to carry
out all the processes of lead production from mining the ore through to exporting highquality lead pigs and even some silver. The machinery was powered by water, with a
myriad of lades still traceable across the site.
6.
At its peak in the 1840s, Woodhead was producing up to 900 tons of lead a year. And for
every ton of lead, they were also getting around 18 ounces of silver: enough for the
Colonel’s wife to make communion cups from it for donation to the local church. The
smelted lead was carried by horse-drawn carts up for storage in Dalmellington, before
being taken to Ayr for sale and shipment.
7.
Alongside this fully integrated mining complex, Cathcart also constructed a ‘model village’
to house the miners and their families, with a school and library to educate their children.
By 1851 there was a population of 301 staying in the village, pulling in mainly skilled
miners from Wanlockhead and Leadhills. As the mine’s output started to fall dramatically
throughout the 1850s however, the miners started to leave. Some went to Dalmellington,
while others headed further afield to mines in America and Australia. The mine closed in
1873, but some of its buildings were later utilised for other purposes: by 1895, the school
was being used as a Shooting Lodge and the powder magazine as a Kennel (Figure 1b).
Some of the housing remained in use for self-employed forestry workers until as late as
the mid-1950s, and the smelters’ housing block in the southeast continued to be in use for
scouting holidays and agricultural storage for a few decades after that.
8.
In 2002, CFA Archaeology Ltd carried out topographical surveys of three mines in Dumfries
and Galloway which included Woodhead Lead Mine (Cressey, Pickin & Hicks 2004). The
works surveyed the locations of the mine, the dressing and washing floors, the smelt mill
and the housing, successfully managing to create an accurate survey of their locations and
outlines.
9.
A further survey of the site in 2008 by Macrae highlighted the importance of future work
on the site to further understand not just the industrial processes, but the lifestyles of the
mining community that developed there (2009).
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland
Figure 1a: Extract from the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853
Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland
Figure 1b: Extract from the 25-inch Ordnance Survey map of 1895
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 2: Plan showing the location of surveyed buildings
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
10.
One of the aims of the works detailed in this report was to further add to these earlier
surveys by providing a more detailed recording of the upstanding portions of some of the
buildings and allowing an in-depth understanding of their materials and construction.
Project Works
11.
The archaeological works focussed on the site of the miners’ rows, the manager’s house
and the buildings associated with them. These structures are located at the western end
of the Woodhead Lead Mine, accessed by a single-track road coming from the A713. The
entirety of the Lead Mine and its associated structures have been granted Scheduled
Monument status (SM5184).
12.
The on-site works took place over two days on the 13th and 14th of July 2022 and consisted
of a Historic Building Recording of the aforementioned structures. This recording was
subject to aspects of the ALGAO:Scotland Basic Level (2013), to generate a record of the
historic fabric of the structures before they deteriorate any further.
13.
The record encompassed a photographic record, a written record, and sketched plans and
elevations of the existing structures. In greater detail, these comprised:
❖
a written record of the structures, including comments on the condition,
construction techniques, materials, fixtures and fittings and an interpretation of
function;
❖
a photographic record of exterior elevations, details of interior elements and
general views to place the structures in their immediate landscape; and
❖
annotated sketch plans of the existing structures to identify location and character
of fabric.
14.
The product of the building recording is this report containing a summary of the work
undertaken and a baseline of the archaeological resource present.
15.
All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined
in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (McKinstry 2022). The fieldwork was
undertaken in mostly dry weather. In terms of structure, the core field team of Rathmell
Archaeology staff and volunteers were on-site from 9am to 4pm.
Findings
16.
As stated, the on-site works focused on a group of buildings at the western end of the
area. In total, seven structures were recorded numbered Buildings [001] to [007]
accordingly. These included the manager’s house and office, two rows of miners’ cottages,
stables, a powder magazine and a school. The structures vary in their state of survival;
while none remain roofed, the height of the standing walls range from one or two courses
up to full height. The locations of the seven structures are shown in Figure 2.
17.
Written descriptions were obtained for five of the buildings ([001] to [005]) but due to
time constraints, the survey of Buildings [006] and [007] focused on creating a full
photographic record and measured sketch plans.
Building [001]
18.
Building [001] sits on high ground at the northwestern end of the site with clear views
across the miners’ cottages to the south and the mine workings beyond. It has been
identified as the site of the manager’s house, office and shop, otherwise known as ‘Office
Row’. To the north of its northeastern end sits Building [003], while just to the southwest
of it is Building [002]. The ground to the southeast appears to be the site of a former
garden with three trees still upstanding.
19.
The structure of Building [001] survives as a single-storey rectangular building orientated
southwest-northeast, with no surviving roof (Figure 3a). The external dimensions of the
building measure approximately 37.4m southwest-northeast by 6.3m northwestsoutheast, and the walls survive to a maximum height of 3.15m. Its interior is divided into
five compartments, labelled Rooms A to E (Figure 4). No internal floor surfaces are
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
currently visible, with the internal ground level of each compartment built up by varying
levels of tumble and covered by vegetation.
Room A
20.
Room A sits at the very southwest end of the building and is the smallest of the five rooms.
Externally, it measures 2.7m southwest-northeast by 2.4m transversely, with a wall
thickness of approximately 0.3 to 0.4m. It is rectangular in plan with only one external
entrance from the southeast. There is no evidence of internal access to the adjacent Room
B.
21.
The walls of Room A are mostly collapsed, only surviving to approximately 1.5m high
(Figures 3b and 5). They comprise coursed greywacke rubble, bonded with mortar and
have traces of a roughcast render across their external faces. The walls of Room A do not
appear to tie in with the southwest wall of Room B, instead abutting it, and it seems
possible that Room A is a later addition to the structure.
22.
The single external entrance sits at the northeast end of the southeast wall. It does not
survive to its full height but appears to have been a simple rectangular opening measuring
1.08m wide, with no notable finish to the door jambs.
Room B
23.
Room B sits adjacent to the northeast of Room A and is comparatively much bigger in size,
measuring 8.95m (southwest-northeast) by 5m (southeast-northeast) internally with a
wall thickness of 0.6m. There is only one external entrance, which sits central to the
southeast wall, and three windows: one to either side of the external doorway and a smaller
one at the centre of the northwest wall.
24.
The walls of Room B consist of coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar and covered
by a roughcast render across their external faces. Squared ashlar quoins are present at
both of the southwest corners. The southeast, southwest and northwest walls stand
between 2 and 3.15m high, while the internal northeast wall (which separates it from Room
C) is mostly collapsed, standing to approximately 1m across most of its length.
25.
The single external entrance at the centre of the southeast wall measures approximately
1m wide and 2.5m high. It is defined by simple squared jambs and a stone lintel.
26.
To either side of the central doorway sits a window. Both windows sit approximately 0.65m
above the external ground level and measure between 1.15 and 1.35m wide. Neither the
upper portions of the windows nor their sills survive in situ. Only small sections of the
simple squared jambs remain at either window, with ‘L’ shaped iron brackets on their
external faces indicating the locations of hinges.
27.
At the centre of the southwest wall sits a substantial fireplace, which measures 1.25m wide
and 0.55m deep (see Figure 6). Only the upper portion of the fireplace remains visible as
its interior is partially infilled by tumble. It is capped by a large, shaped blonde sandstone
block (its central section now missing) with a further greywacke lintel above. The vertical
jambs are also shaped blonde sandstone, and the top of a cast-iron stove, with possible
oven and hot plate, is visible within the rubble infill of the interior.
28.
Set into the wall just to the right of, and approximately 1m above, the fireplace, is a small
recess measuring approximately 0.25m square. It is defined by a greywacke lintel and
jambs and appears to have been a small storage shelf.
29.
Approximately 0.6m to the left, southeast, of the fireplace at ground level are the remains
of an alcove or cupboard which measures 0.85m wide, 0.3m deep and approximately 1m
high. The stones at the rear of the alcove have been covered by a lime plaster.
30.
The central portion of the northwest wall is slightly recessed, defined by squared greywacke
jambs and measuring 1.7m wide by 0.15m deep. At the centre of this recess sits a small
window with a lintel, sill and jambs of greywacke. The window has a splayed embrasure,
measuring 0.3m wide externally and 0.5m wide internally. It sits approximately 0.6m
above the external ground level and measures approximately 0.5m high.
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 3a: General view of Building [001] from the northeast
Figure 3b: Shot of Room A in Building [001], taken from the south
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 4: Plan of Building [001]
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 5: External SE facing elevation of Building [001]
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
31.
As stated, the northeast wall has mainly collapsed but a possible in situ jamb visible within
the tumble could suggest the presence of an internal doorway at its southeast end leading
to Room C. The presence of ceramic chimney pots within this rubble might also hint at the
presence of another fireplace in this wall but no definite structural evidence for this is
currently visible.
Room C
32.
Directly to the northeast sits Room C, which measures approximately 7.35m (southwestnortheast) by 5m (southeast-northeast) internally with a wall thickness of 0.6m. There is
only one external entrance and one window, both of which sit on the southeast wall.
33.
The walls of Room C consist of coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar and covered
by a roughcast render across their external faces. Traces of lime plaster can also be seen
covering the internal face of the southeast wall. The southeast, northwest and northeast
walls stand between 2 and 2.9m high, while the internal southwest wall (which separates
it from Room B) is mostly collapsed, standing to approximately 1m across most of its
length. The internal face of the northeast wall has partially tumbled, obscuring its lower
half.
34.
The single external entrance sits central to the southeast wall and measures 1.06m wide.
It is defined by squared greywacke jambs, but the lintel is no longer in situ.
35.
To the southwest of the doorway sits the room’s only window, at 0.66m above the external
ground level. It measures 1.22m wide, but its lintel, sill and jambs are no longer present.
36.
The only possible internal doorway is the partially visible door jamb at the southeast end
of Room C’s southwest wall which was noted in the description of Room B. No other internal
features are currently visible.
Room D
37.
Continuing to the northeast is Room D, a nearly square room measuring 4.8m southwest
to northeast by approximately 5m northwest to southeast with a wall thickness of 0.6m.
There is one external doorway in the southeast wall, a single window in the northwest wall
and an internal doorway in the northeast wall leading to Room E.
38.
The walls comprise coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar and covered by a
roughcast render across their external faces. As with Room C, traces of lime plaster can
also be seen covering the internal face of the southeast wall and across the lower half of
the northwest wall. The walls stand between 1.84m (along the northeast half) and 2.9m
(along the southwest half) high.
39.
The external doorway sits roughly central to the southeast wall and measures 1.2m wide.
Its lintel is no longer present, and its jambs are formed of squared greywacke blocks.
40.
The room’s only window sits at the centre of its northwest wall, roughly 0.3m up from the
external ground level. It has a splayed embrasure, measuring 0.8m wide externally and
1.02m wide internally, but its sill and lintel are no longer in situ.
41.
There is no internal access from Room C, but the squared jambs of a potential opening
within the collapsed northeast wall indicate the possible presence of a doorway into Room
E. This opening measures 1m wide.
42.
Viewed externally, the northeast ends of both the northwest and southeast walls abut the
corners of Room E (Figure 7a), which are defined by squared quoins, indicating that Rooms
B, C and D appear to be later than the structure of Room E.
Room E
43.
Building [001] ends with Room E at its northeast end. Room E measures 9.9m southwest
to northeast by approximately 5m transversely, with a wall thickness of 0.6m.
44.
The walls are formed of coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar. Compared with the
rest of the building, Room E’s walls have mostly collapsed and only stand between 0.39
and 1.02m high. While only a few courses survive at the northeast corners, the room’s
southwest corners are defined by squared quoins.
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 6: Fireplace in the southwest wall of Room B, Building [001]
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 7a: External NW facing elevation of Building [001] showing junction between Rooms
D and E
Figure 7b: General view of Building [002] from the southwest
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
45.
One window is present at the southwest end of the northwest wall, its splayed embrasure
measuring 0.87m externally and 1.16m internally.
46.
The ruinous state of Room E’s external walls makes it difficult to be definite about the
locations of doorways. Aside from the possible internal access in the southwest wall leading
from Room D, there are two possible locations for external doorways observed in the
southeast and northeast walls respectively.
47.
The location of a possible external doorway in the southeast wall is suggested by a break
in its length, which measures 1.18m wide and is defined on one side by a squared
greywacke block which could represent a possible door jamb.
48.
Another gap at the centre of the northeast wall, measuring 0.98m wide, suggests the
possible location for another external doorway, which is defined by thin upright slabs still
standing to a height of 0.38m on either side.
Building [002]
49.
A short distance to the southwest of Building [001], and on the same alignment, was
Building [002]: a single-compartment structure measuring approximately 5m square
internally with a wall thickness of 0.7m (Figures 7b and 8). There is no roof remaining, and
the interior is covered by tumble, turf and vegetation obscuring any potential floor
surfaces.
50.
The building is in a much more ruinous state than Building [001] and most of its walls only
survive from approximately 0.3 to 0.5m high. A small section at the northwest end of its
southwest wall is upstanding to 0.8m, however, and its northern corner still stands to
2.05m. These sections indicate that its walls are constructed of coursed greywacke rubble
bonded with mortar, with squared quoins also present in this upstanding corner.
51.
The poor survival of the walls means that window locations cannot be identified, but a gap
at the centre of the southeast wall, measuring approximately 1m wide, might represent
the site of an external doorway.
Building [003]
52.
Slightly upslope from the northeast end of Building [001], Building [003] sits on a northnorthwest to south-southeast alignment. It has been identified as the site of the stables
and consists of a two-storey rectangular building with no surviving roof (Figure 9). As with
Buildings [001] and [002], its interior is covered by tumble and overgrown with turf and
vegetation obscuring any floor surfaces that might survive beneath.
53.
Externally, the building measures approximately 5.8m east-west by 13.5m transversely.
Its walls consist of coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar, although they vary in
survival across their length. Most of the southern gable wall survives to full height at 4.6m,
while the west and north elevations stand between 2.15 and 2.4m high and are missing
their external faces. The east elevation is mostly collapsed only surviving to approximately
0.5m along most of its length. Large, squared quoins can still be seen in the southwest
and northwest corners.
54.
The interior of Building [003] is subdivided into two compartments: Rooms A and B.
Room A
55.
Room A occupies the southern end of the building and is the smaller of the two rooms,
measuring 4.9m east-west by 3.3m north-south internally. Its walls measure from 0.4 to
0.6m thick, and there is one external entrance in its eastern wall and a small opening that
sits high in its south wall.
56.
The south wall is the gable end of the building which still stands to 4.6m (Figure 10a),
while the west wall stands to 2.4m, and both are covered by a possible lime plaster on
their internal faces. The north wall, which would have subdivided it from the adjacent Room
B, has mostly collapsed, surviving to only 0.6m high and very overgrown.
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 8: Plan of Building [002]
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 9: Plan of Building [003]
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 10a: Building [003] – south wall of Room A
Figure 10b: Building [003] – blocked windows at the south end of the west wall of Room B
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
57.
The eastern end of the room appears to have been the site of a large opening which sat at
the south end of the building’s eastern elevation. The opening measures approximately
2.8m wide, although only the small section of walling at its southern edge survives,
standing to approximately 1.2m high, meaning that the full height of the opening is no
longer known. This surviving southern jamb is a simple square form with a lime plaster
covering on its west and north faces.
58.
The only other opening still present in Room A sits at the top of the southern gable wall,
at a height of approximately 4m (Figure 10a). It measures approximately 0.6m square and
is defined by single flat greywacke stones for both its jambs and lintel. There does not
appear to be a discernible sill still in situ.
59.
At around 2.5m high on the south wall, a horizontal break is visible in the plaster indicating
the location of an upper floor, within which the above window sat (Figure 10a). At the same
level in the adjoining west wall are a row of vertical rectangular joist holes, numbering
seven in total, each measuring approximately 0.07m wide by 0.19m tall and spaced
roughly 0.45m apart (partly visible on the right-hand side of Figure 10a).
60.
Possible scrapes of red paint and an iron bolt are also visible on the internal faces of the
south and west walls, and an iron ring also remains set into the middle of the south wall,
approximately 1m above ground level.
Room B
61.
At the northern end, Room B is larger in size, measuring 4.9m east-west by 8.85m northsouth, with a wall thickness of 0.4 to 0.6m. While it could reflect a deeper build-up, the
floor level of Room B appears to sit higher than Room A by approximately 0.6m.
62.
The west and north walls stand between 2.15 and 2.5m high, while the east wall has mostly
collapsed. It measures approximately 0.5m high across most of its length, apart from the
final 3 to 4m of its northern end which measures from 1 to 2.5m high. Traces of lime
plaster can be seen across the internal faces of the west, north and east walls.
63.
There appears to be one external doorway in the east wall, and six windows (five of which
have at least been partially blocked) split across the west, north and east walls.
64.
A large gap within the southern half of the east wall provides a possible location for an
external doorway into Room B. This gap measures 3.25m wide. This might represent
another wide opening similar to the one into Room A, but only the footings survive of the
walls to either side meaning that this might be more a reflection of poor survival.
65.
On the west wall there are four blocked windows, all of similar style and dimensions, which
sit in pairs at either end of the wall. Each of the four windows measures approximately
0.8m wide, and their jambs are formed by large, squared greywacke blocks. They have all
been fully blocked using coursed greywacke rubble covered by lime plaster.
66.
The two windows at the southern end of the west wall are positioned level to each other
approximately 0.35m up from the internal ground surface (Figure 10b). They sit 0.7m
apart and measure 1.75m tall but their lintels are no longer in situ. The two at the north
end also sit level with each other but are set approximately 0.3m higher than the southern
pair. They also sit 0.7m apart and survive to approximately 1m tall although, again, their
lintels are no longer in situ.
67.
A fifth window sits at the eastern end of the north wall (Figure 11a). It measures 0.93m
wide by 1.4m tall and sits 0.15m up from the internal ground level. Its lintel and jambs
are formed by large, squared greywacke blocks but its sill appears to be missing. The lower
0.4m of the opening has been blocked with coursed rubble containing traces of lime plaster.
68.
At the northern end of the east wall, the remains of a possible jamb comprising squared
greywacke blocks suggest the position of a sixth window. Neither the opposite jamb nor
the sill or lintel survive to suggest its character, however.
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 11a: Building [003] - partially blocked window in N wall of Room B
Figure 11b: Building [004] – blocked opening in SE wall
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 12: Plan of Building [004]
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Building [004]
69.
This structure is positioned further to the south, downslope of Buildings [001], [002] and
[003]. It occupies a section of level ground which overlooks the rows of miners’ cottages
(Buildings [005] and [006]) sitting further to the southeast.
70.
Building [004] is a single-compartment structure with walls consisting of coursed
greywacke rubble bonded with mortar, and no surviving roof (Figure 12). The interior is
overgrown with turf and vegetation but a section of concrete floor can be seen in the
northern corner.
71.
Externally, Building [004] measures roughly 4.9m square in plan, with a wall thickness of
0.56m. The walls have mostly collapsed, surviving to a maximum height of 1.32m, with a
large amount of tumble covering the ground both externally and internally. There are
traces of a possible lime plaster on the internal faces of the walls. The building has no
internal subdivisions and only one doorway which sits central to the northeast wall.
72.
This doorway measures 1.05m wide and survives up to a height of approximately 1.2m
although its upper portion is no longer extant. Its jambs are defined by large, squared
greywacke blocks.
73.
The only other features noted in the surviving walls are two narrow, blocked openings that
sit at ground level, one in each of the southwest and southeast walls. Each opening
measures around 0.33m wide and 0.95 high. The southeast example is still capped by a
stone lintel (Figure 11b). Both have been infilled with rubble and mortar. There might also
be a similar opening in the northwest wall, but this wall has mostly collapsed making it
unclear.
Building [005]
74.
Continuing downslope to the southeast, Buildings [005] and [006] represent two rows of
miners’ cottages, named the ‘Higher Row’ and the ‘Lower Row’ respectively. They both sit
on the same alignment running southwest to northeast.
75.
Externally, Building [005] measures approximately 44m southwest to northeast by 6m
southeast to northwest, with a wall thickness of 0.55 to 0.6m. Its walls are constructed of
coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar. The walls have largely collapsed: the
highest section is at the northwest corner of the southwestern end, which stands up to
1.85m high, but the rest of the structure stands between 0.14 and 0.92m high. The interior
is covered by tumble, and overgrown with turf and vegetation, obscuring any floor surfaces
that may survive. Many roofing slates are also present in the tumbled material.
Building [005] has been subdivided into five compartments: Rooms A to E labelled
sequentially from southwest to northeast (Figure 13). Due to the poor survival of the walls
and the similar nature between the rooms, it seems appropriate to describe them as a
group.
Rooms A to E
76.
Each of the compartments measures 4.8m wide (northwest to southeast) and ranges
between 6.72m and 9.1m in length (southwest to northeast).
77.
They each appear to have a single external entrance through their southeast walls, with
no internal access between them. In Rooms B, D and E, the positioning of the doorways is
indicated by gaps in what survives of the walls. The footings of the doorways in Rooms A
and C are still visible, however, measuring approximately 1.2m wide and marked by
squared stone jambs.
78.
Across most of the rooms, the walls do not survive to a height that allows for the
identification of window locations. The only window that can be identified is at the
southwest end of the northwest wall in Room A. This window sits roughly 1.4m up from
the external ground level. It has a splayed embrasure, measuring 0.56m wide externally
and 0.73m wide internally, but its sill and lintel are no longer in situ.
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 13: Plans of Buildings [005] and [006
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 24 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 14a: Building [005] – possible jambs of fireplace in NE wall of Room C, taken from
the SW
Figure 14b: Building [005] – remains of a possible fireplace in the SW wall of Room A,
taken from the NE
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 25 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
79.
Traces indicating the locations of fireplaces can be seen in each of the internal subdividing
walls, as well as in either gable end. Most only survive as one or two vertically placed
stones, visible within the base of the walls, suggesting the site of jambs (see Figure 14a).
In the gable wall, which formed the southwest wall of Room A, the site of a fireplace is
more strongly indicated by the lower remains of a recess measuring 1.05m wide (Figure
14b).
Building [006]
80.
Known as the ‘Lower Row’, Building [006] is similar in character to Building [005] but is
longer and has more internal compartments. Externally, it measures approximately 56m
southwest to northeast by 6m southeast to northwest, with a wall thickness of 0.55 to
0.6m.
81.
The walls of Building [006] are in a more dilapidated state than those of Building [005],
measuring between approximately 0.2 and 0.7m across most of its extent. The clear
exception to this is the southwest gable, which appears to still stand at its full height of
approximately 5m. It is in this gable wall that we can see a construction style of coursed
greywacke rubble bonded with mortar.
82.
As with [005], the interior of Building [006] is covered by tumble and overgrown with turf
and vegetation, obscuring any floor surfaces that may survive.
83.
As stated, Building [006] was only subject to a quick photographic survey and a simple
measured sketch plan, so the description below is taken from these and may be missing
some finer details.
84.
Building [006] has been subdivided into 10 rooms: Rooms A to J labelled sequentially from
southwest to northeast (Figure 13). These 10 rooms appear to form two distinct groups in
terms of their character, with Rooms A to D appearing to represent four individual units,
while Rooms E to J appear to be further subdivisions within three larger units. This will be
discussed in more detail below.
Rooms A to D
85.
The southwestern half of Building [005] contains four rooms, A to D, which each measure
approximately 4.8m northwest-southeast by 5.7m southwest-northeast internally, with a
wall thickness of 0.5 to 0.6m.
86.
Except for the southwest gable, the poor survival of the walls makes it difficult to discern
the locations of windows and fireplaces. As with Building [006], each of the rooms appears
to have an external doorway in their southeast wall, with no internal access between them.
87.
The southwest gable, which sits at the outer end of Room A, contains a fireplace and a
window at height (Figure 15). The fireplace sits central to the wall at ground floor level and
measures approximately 1 to 1.5m wide and 1m high. Its jambs and lintel comprise simple,
roughly shaped greywacke slabs. Directly behind the fireplace, at the centre of the wall’s
external face, a chimney still stands to the full height of the wall. It is constructed from the
same material as the wall itself and measures 1.8m wide at the base narrowing in steps
towards the top. The chimney pot is no longer present.
88.
The window sits at first-floor level directly against the southeast side of the chimney. It
measures, very approximately, 0.5m wide and 0.9m high and sits at a height of roughly
4m. The window’s northwest edge is defined by the chimney itself, while its southeast
jamb, sill and lintel are formed by roughly shaped greywacke blocks.
Rooms E to J
89.
The northwestern half of the building contains six rooms, but as stated these appear to
represent three two-room compartments: E/F, G/H and I/J.
90.
Each two-room compartment or ‘unit’ measures approximately 4.8m northwest-southeast
by 10m southwest-northeast internally, with each room within appearing to be roughly
equal in size. The wall thickness measures 0.5 to 0.6m.
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 26 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 15: Building [006] - external SW facing elevation
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 27 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 16: Plan of Building [007]
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 28 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
91.
The poor survival of the walls at this end of the building makes it difficult to identify the
locations of openings, but it is possible that there was only one external entrance into each
unit via the southeast wall of the southwest room, that is, through Rooms E, G and I.
Internal access points between the rooms are harder to identify, although it is possible that
there were doorways leading between the rooms within a unit (i.e. from Rooms E to F, G
to H and I to J) but no internal access from unit to unit.
Building [007]
92.
The final building to be surveyed sat the lowest on the slope, continuing the line of buildings
that run along the western edge of the site. Building [007] has been identified as the site
of the school and schoolhouse during the site’s use as a lead mine in the 19th century.
93.
It survives as a rectangular building orientated southwest-northeast with no surviving roof.
Externally it measures approximately 26m southwest-northeast by 8m southeastnorthwest, with a small porch adjoined to its southeast face. The walls have mostly
collapsed, surviving up to approximately 1.5m in height. The exception to this is the front
southeast-facing elevation, which stands approximately 4m high across roughly two-thirds
of its length. No internal floor surfaces are currently visible, with the internal ground level
of each compartment built up by varying levels of tumble and covered by vegetation.
94.
The interior of Building [007] comprises five rooms: A to E running southwest to northeast
(Figure 16). As with Building [006], [007] was only subject to a quick photographic survey
and a simple measured sketch plan, so the description below is taken from these and may
be missing some finer details.
Room A
95.
Room A sits at the southwestern end of the building. It has mostly collapsed and is covered
by a large amount of tumble, making its layout difficult to ascertain. Internally, it measures
7m northwest to southeast by approximately 3 to 3.5m southwest to northeast, with a wall
thickness of 0.4 to 0.5m. It appears to have been further subdivided with a small
compartment, measuring 2.9m northwest-southeast by approximately 2m transversely,
set into its northern corner with its walls measuring 0.45m thick.
96.
The walls of Room A are constructed from greywacke rubble bonded with a mortar but not
enough survives to suggest more about their character or the locations of openings. The
northeastern wall, which it shares with Room B, stands taller and has a roughcast render
covering its face on the side of Room A. It is uncertain if there is an opening in this wall to
indicate internal access between the two rooms.
Room B
97.
Sitting adjacent to the northeast is Room B, which internally measures 6.9m northwestsoutheast by approximately 5m northeast-southwest with a wall thickness of 0.4 to 0.6m.
98.
Its walls have mostly collapsed, only standing between 0.4 and 1.5m in height along its
northwest, southwest and southeast sides. They appear to comprise the coursed
greywacke rubble bonded with mortar seen elsewhere.
99.
The internal subdividing wall, which separates Room B from Room C to the northeast, is in
a worse state, surviving as a low overgrown bank of tumble measuring approximately 0.2
to 0.3m high.
100.
The poor survival of the walls makes identifying the sites of openings difficult but there
does appear to be the remains of a blocked opening at the southwest end of the external
northwest wall. Sat approximately 1.2m apart, slightly splayed jambs formed by roughly
squared greywacke blocks can be seen in the internal face, with the intervening gap infilled
by rubble and mortar (Figure 17a). The base of the blocked opening is largely obscured by
overgrown tumble making its exact character unclear. It is also not as easily recognisable
on the external face. It is possible that it could represent an external doorway or potentially
an internal alcove.
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 29 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Room C
101.
As with Room B, Room C also spanned the full width of the building, measuring internally
6.9m northwest-southeast, but it is slightly longer at 6.2m northeast-southwest. Its walls
have a thickness of 0.4 to 0.6m, with the southwest, northwest and northeast walls only
standing between approximately 0.2 and 0.8m high.
102.
In contrast, the northeast half of the southeast wall forms part of the front façade of the
building which still stands to a height of approximately 4m, allowing for the identification
of two possible windows on this side. The wall itself is formed of coursed greywacke rubble
bonded with mortar and has a roughcast render covering on its external face.
103.
The northeast window still has its stone lintel and slightly splayed jambs in situ but its sill
and the wall beneath are missing. The opening as it currently appears measures 1.3m wide
and approximately 1.5m high, with a splayed embrasure on the internal face.
104.
The only surviving element of the southwestern window is the northeastern jamb, also
slightly splayed on the interior. None of the rest of this window remains although two small
iron brackets survive set into the exterior of the stones which form the remaining jamb.
Sections of the wall surviving beneath where the opening would have been indicate that
this represents the site of a window rather than a doorway.
Room D
105.
The largest room, Room D, occupies the northeast end of the building and measures 10.8m
northeast-southwest by 6.9m southwest-northeast internally, with a wall thickness of 0.45
to 0.6m. Most of its walls survive as overgrown banks of tumble measuring between 0.2
and 0.8m in height, but the southeast wall still stands approximately 4m high comprising
coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar and covered by a roughcast render on its
external face. The southeast wall of Room D sits slightly in advance of Room C.
106.
Several features can be seen in this southeast wall, which still contains a central doorway
with a window to either side and traces of a possible third window at first-floor height.
107.
The central doorway measures 1.2m wide and is defined by a roughly shaped greywacke
lintel and jambs. This doorway appears to have been the main external access into Room
D through an external porch: Room E.
108.
The two ground-floor windows, which sit on either side of this doorway, both measure 1.7
to 1.8m wide and approximately 2.3m high. They are defined by a roughly shaped
greywacke lintel and sill, and their jambs are slightly splayed on the interior. The internal
faces of the embrasure are covered by traces of lime plaster, and small iron brackets
remain fitted to the external faces of the jambs.
109.
At first-floor level, directly above the southwest window, the lower courses of a possible
third window are visible (Figure 17b). What may be the sill and lower jambs of this window
are formed by red brick, in contrast to the other openings, which indicates that it is a later
addition or modification/repair of an earlier opening. It could not be reached for
measurement but appears to be similar in width to the ground-floor windows.
110.
As well as this window, the presence of an upper floor above Room D is also indicated by
two rectangular joist holes visible at the very southwest end of the wall (Figure 17b). These
sit just above the height of the ground-floor windows’ lintels. The internal face of the wall
has come away at this height across most of its length, but it seems likely that the joist
holes would have once run the full length of the room.
Room E
111.
Room E comprises the small porch which sits along the external southeast elevation,
roughly 4.6m in from its northeastern end. A small brick-built structure measuring
internally 1.56m southwest-northeast by 1.9m transversely, Room E appears to have been
a later addition to the front of the central external doorway which leads into Room D.
112.
Its red-brick walls measure 0.24m wide and stand up to only four or five courses
(approximately 0.4 to 0.5m) high. They are bonded with mortar and their external faces
have been covered by a roughcast render.
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 30 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 17a: Building [007] - blocked opening within NW wall of Room B, internal view
Figure 17b: Building [007] – Internal view of SW wall of Room D showing joist holes and
brick traces around possible first-floor window
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 31 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 18a: Building [007] – SW end of Room E taken from the SE
Figure 18b: ‘David McMath at the leadmines September 1926’ showing SW end of Building
[001], image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References)
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 32 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
113.
The room appears to have been accessed from the exterior by a doorway in its northeast
wall, although its jambs are no longer clearly defined. There also appears to have been a
further internal brick partition wall running northwest to southeast, set approximately 0.3m
in from its southwest wall (Figure 18a). The function of this partition is unclear, but it also
has a roughcast render across its northeast face matching the external faces of the other
walls.
Discussion
114.
The remains at Woodhead Lead Mine comprise an amazing resource for an important period
of Scotland’s industrial history, but it is a finite one. Its walls continue to collapse a little
more with each passing decade taking with them insights into its form and character, which
makes any recording of their condition all the more important.
115.
This survey focussed on the buildings located along the western edge of the mining
complex, encompassing domestic dwellings, offices and the school. The volunteers’ work
generated over 300 photographs of these structures in their current condition and saw the
team immersed in trying to understand the character and physical changes etched into
their fabric. From these records, it is possible to try and add a little bit more to their story
within this discussion.
116.
Alongside this, in a further nod to the importance of record, it is possible to compare the
buildings today with the available historical photographs taken during their use (and some
more recent photographs showing changes in their ruins). It is important to remember,
however, that these photographs are few in number and represent a snapshot of the
buildings at one point in time: they will not account for the different forms they may have
taken before and since.
Building [001] – Office Row
117.
One of the buildings with the best survival amongst those surveyed was [001]: the fivecompartment Office Row occupying the highest point of the survey area. With its walls still
standing up to 3m in places, several features remain visible that can help us to form some
conclusions about its character.
118.
Within its fabric, it is possible to identify that [001] was a sequential build constructed over
at least three phases:
❖ Its earliest phase appears to be represented by Room E, potentially initially erected as
a stand-alone rectangular structure;
❖ Rooms B, C and D appear to have then been constructed in a single phase directly
abutting the external wall of Room E and substantially extending the building to the
southwest;
❖ Lastly, Room A appears to be a small lean-to added to the external southwest wall of
Room B.
119.
A difference in the state of survival between the three ‘phases’ could further support the
notion that they were constructed at different times using different techniques, but this
should be viewed with caution. It could equally represent phased abandonment in the years
following the mine’s closure, with some sections remaining in use for longer than others.
120.
Nevertheless, the higher survival of the walls within Rooms B, C and D do enable further
suggestions on their function.
121.
Externally, Room B is entered through a central doorway in its southeast wall, which has a
window to either side. The presence of iron hinges indicates that these windows were once
shuttered, while another smaller splayed window sits within a recess at the centre of the
northwest wall. Once inside, the most imposing feature remaining is the fireplace in the
southwest wall, with the remains of a stove still surviving in situ.
122.
These details all suggest that Room B was part of the domestic residence that formed the
manager’s house within the row. Historical photographs also suggest that Room B occupied
the ground floor of a one-and-a-half-storey structure: you can see the location of a first-
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 33 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
floor window within the southwest wall in Figure 18b.
123.
The lean-to, Room A, was constructed against the chimney stack on the exterior of the
southwest wall. Tumble obscuring its interior makes it difficult to be certain of its function,
although its simple form is supported by the photograph in Figure 18b. It may have been
used for storage, or perhaps as an outhouse seeking some semblance of warmth from its
position against the chimney. As well as the entrance in its southwest wall, Room A also
appears to have had an external entrance in its rear northwest wall; while it is obscured
by the tumble today, photographs from Anna Campbell’s private collection show that the
room was once ‘L’ shaped with a narrower section leading to an entrance on this side
(Figures 19a and 19b). Figure 19b might also suggest that there was an internal partition
that further subdivided A into two compartments with no internal access, perhaps giving it
a dual function.
124.
From Figure 18b, it is possible to see that Room B occupies the highest portion of the row,
with the roofline stepped lower over Room C. This lower height appears to remain
consistent across the rest of the row (Rooms D and E). The presence of skylights within
the roof above Room C could suggest that there continues to be an upper storey, although
perhaps a less substantial one, such as an attic or loft space.
125.
The location of a fireplace within the wall dividing Rooms B and C, suggested by the
presence of chimney pot fragments, is confirmed in the historical photographs that show a
chimney in this location (Figure 18b) and more recent photographs that show it still
standing in the mid-20th century (Figure 20a).
126.
Unlike Rooms B, C and D, the poor survival of the walls in Room E makes it difficult to
discern specific features that could help to identify function or if there were internal
partitions. Historical photographs, however, do show a chimney at its northeast end
suggesting the presence of a fireplace in this wall (Figure 20b). It is possible that the
opening identified at the centre of its northeast wall marks the site of this fireplace rather
than a doorway, but this is very uncertain without further evidence.
127.
The possibility of internal access from Room B into Room C might suggest that this also
formed part of the living quarters, with the presence of a chimney (and therefore fireplace)
at either end. Room C does, however, have its own external entrance and appears to be
less ‘well furnished’ than Room B, with its lower roofline and only one window. Perhaps this
was not part of the living quarters but was the site of a private office; if it had internal
access to the house in Room B, then it would seem likely to have been for the sole use of
the manager or whoever dwelled there.
128.
There is no internal access between Rooms C and D, which indicates a definite division
between the southwest half of the building (Rooms B and C) and the northeast half (Rooms
D and E). This could suggest a more significant difference in function, possibly between
the private and/or domestic use of the manager and their family, and a more
public/commercial use of Rooms D and E. Indeed, Room D is the smallest in the main row
(that is Rooms B to E) with only one entrance and potentially only one small window in its
rear wall, making it a less desirable option for domestic use.
129.
The division between private and public is also strengthened by the presence of the formal
gardens and trees which sit in front of the southwest half of the building, obscuring it in
historical photographs, unlike the more open northeast half (as can be seen in Figures 20b
and 21b).
130.
If Room E represents the initial construction of a stand-alone structure (indicated by the
presence of quoins in its southwest corners) then it could potentially represent the site of
an office or store from the earliest phases of the mine workings being established. A diary
entry written by McAdam Cathcart during a visit to the Woodhead Mine on 7th March 1839,
mentions accepting contracts respecting “the intended buildings at the Mine” including
mason and carpenter work on the “Shops & houses” (see Carsphairn Archive section in
References); perhaps Room E was part of the initial establishment phase with Rooms B to
D, which included the manager’s house, added during the more formal building works that
came later.
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 34 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 19a: View of Building [001] in 1993 taken from the southwest, courtesy of Anna
Campbell
Figure 19b: Building [001] – external view of doorway in NW wall of Room A taken in 1987,
courtesy of Anna Campbell
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 35 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 20a: ‘Mine office on Office Row’ showing SW half of Building [001] in 1959, image
courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Figure 20b: View of Woodhead from the SE, showing (A) Building [007]; (B) Building [006];
(C) Building [005]; (D) Building [004]; (E) Building [001] and (F) Building [003], image
taken from Hunter (2001, 10)
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 36 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
131.
The difference in survival across the different rooms in Office Row seems likely to at least
partially be a result of phased abandonment. In Figure 18b, we can see that Rooms A, B
and C were still in use during the 1920s and the more ruinous Room E may have gone out
of use prior to this point; if its sole purpose was as an office or store for the workings of
the mine then it perhaps held little value for people living at the site after. This is very
tentative, however, without further evidence.
Building [002]
132.
There is little that can be discerned about the nature of Building [002], the simple
rectangular structure to the southwest of Building [001]. It does not appear within the
available historical images and the poor survival of the walls makes it difficult to identify
any internal features which might have helped to assign a possible function. Unlike several
of the other buildings, depictions of [002] also appear unnamed on the historic mapping,
potentially suggesting that it had a minor function, such as storage, and may have also
gone out of use at an early stage after the mine’s closure.
Building [003] – The Stables
133.
The building to the northwest of [001] at the very top end of the survey area was Building
[003], identified on at least one phase of mapping as the ‘Stables’ (Figure 21a). As with
[001], Building [003] is also one of the better-surviving buildings included in the survey,
with two of its walls standing over 2m high and a third (the southwest gable) standing near
its original height at 4.6m.
134.
The building sits on a natural slope and this appears to be reflected in its construction.
Namely, the stepping of the larger windows in its western wall, which places the pair at the
northern end higher than those to the south, could relate to the changing external ground
level and a desire to maximise the incoming light. The floor level within the northern Room
B also sits higher than the floor in A and, while it is uncertain how much of this could be
the result of build-up post-abandonment, it might reflect a deliberate design in respect of
the underlying topography.
135.
The presence of the larger external entrance in the east wall of Room A can be seen in the
background of the historical images (Figure 20b). If Building [003] was used as stables,
Room A may have been used as a cart shed which would require a wider doorway than one
designed for horses alone. However, the presence of the iron ring set into the wall – a
possible tethering point – might suggest that it was a multi-purpose space.
136.
Cressey, Pickin and Hicks (2004, 61) identify Building [002] as being the site of the “main
smithy and workshop” suggesting that the building saw a change in function during its
lifetime. It is unclear when this change occurred or which function came first in the
sequence, but this change might account for the modifications visible within the fabric: the
blocking of the larger windows along the west wall and the, at least, partial blocking of the
window in the north wall. The scale of these modifications, which would have affected levels
of light, warmth and access to the building, does appear to be substantial enough to mark
a significant change in use.
137.
The high window and joist holes in Room A indicate the presence of an upper floor in this
half of the building. This could have taken the form of an attic or loft space mimicking the
one-and-a-half-storey form visible elsewhere at Woodhead. This upper floor may have
extended above Room B, but it is possible that it only appeared over Room A, particularly
if the lower floor level in this section is a deliberate feature.
Building [004] – The Powder Magazine
138.
Gunpowder, often called black powder, was used for blasting in British mines from the 17 th
century (Palmer, Nevell & Sissons 2012, 156-157), although became more common during
the 18th century (Raistruck & Jennings 1965, 133-134). A mixture of saltpetre (potassium
nitrate), charcoal and sulphur, the black powder required separate storage to minimise any
risk of explosion. Building [004] has been identified as the powder store, or magazine, at
Woodhead although, in agreement with Cressey, Pickin and Hicks (2004, 61), it sits closer
to the living accommodation than would be expected.
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 37 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
139.
Building [004] stands as a simple square structure with a concrete floor and a single
entrance from the northeast. From the historical photographs, it is possible to see that it
once had a hipped roof and whitewashed external walls (Figure 20b).
140.
This simple square-shaped form of the magazine appears to be a fairly standard style noted
by Cressey, Pickin and Hicks at other Scottish mining sites such as Glencreif, Wanlockhead
and Wood of Cree, Minnigaff (2004, 61).
141.
At the base of at least two of the walls, there is evidence of narrow vertical openings which
were later blocked. It is possible that these were vents relating to the proper storage of
the powder, which needed to be kept dry. Vents positioned near the base of the walls can
be seen in the newer square magazine found at Glencrief (see weblink for Mine Explorer in
References). By the time of the 1895 Ordnance Survey 25-inch map (Figure 1b), however,
Building [004] was in use as a ‘Kennel’ and the low-level openings were likely blocked for
this purpose.
Buildings [005] and [006] – The Miners’ Rows
142.
The remote nature of lead mines often meant that workers needed accommodation. At
some sites, this took the form of barracks in which workers would stay during the week
and then go home to their families at weekends, while others saw workers being put up by
locals with the companies covering the costs of extensions and modifications to make this
possible.
143.
The layout at Woodhead, however, included permanent accommodation for the workers
and their families, which, alongside the provision of a school and library was aimed at
creating a community for the workers, not just a place of work.
144.
Two rows of miners’ cottages were surveyed during this phase: Buildings [005] and [006],
otherwise known as Higher Row and Lower Row respectively. In comparison with Office
Row and the school, a large portion of the walls in these structures do not survive much
beyond their lower courses. A reason for this is given by Sassoon (1969, 175) who explains
that most of the houses were robbed for slates and timber during the first half of the 20 th
century. An article about Amelia Vernon, who lived in the housing at Woodhead during this
period, even recounts her childhood experience of “climbing up onto the crumbling walls
of the rows of cottages at the top of the village by the green to prise wooden lintels out
from above the door frames” so that she could take it home for firewood (see Carsphairn
Archive in References). There are still several slates present within the tumble of row [006],
although perhaps this goes more to demonstrate the number of slates that are missing
from the other structures.
145.
The exception to the poor survival of the miners’ housing is the southwest gable wall of
[006] which still stands at its full height. Within this remaining wall can be seen a fireplace,
a feature that will have been present within each of the internal walls separating the
different compartments or residences.
146.
Although there was not enough time to undertake detailed descriptions of the different
compartments, fireplaces in the dividing walls were recorded in more detail by Macrae who
describes their “back-to-back” brick linings (2009, 199). It is also possible to see in the
available historical photographs a series of chimneys along each row confirming the
frequency of the fireplaces within (such as in Figure 21b).
147.
Another interesting feature of the upstanding gable is the window which sits at height. The
miners’ cottages are described as single-storey in the contemporary Ordnance Survey
Name Book (OS1/20/10/13 in References) but the presence of this higher window suggests
that there might have been an upper floor. The housing was perhaps one-and-a-halfstoreys in height similar to the manager’s house; the lack of notable first-floor windows
would make this less noticeable to an outside observer. A study of the company-sponsored
housing at Wanlockhead describes forty new cottages built in the 1840s and 50s as “simple
dwellings, having two ground floor rooms for living and sleeping accommodation … and,
with higher roofs, space under the thatch provided extra bed space for the large Victorian
families” (Downs-Rose 1979, 175). The miners’ row housing at Woodhead may have also
included additional sleeping space within an upper floor, loft or attic.
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 38 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 21a: Extract from ‘Plan of Woodhead with photos (copy), 4 parts’ showing ‘Stables’
to the left of the Office Row and dated as 1845 by Anna Campbell, image courtesy of
Carsphairn Archive (see References)
Figure 21b: ‘Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn No 10’ taken from the SE, image courtesy
of Carsphairn Archive (see References)
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 39 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Figure 22a: ‘Schoolhouse at Woodhead Leadmine’ taken in 1886 and showing Building
[007] from the E, image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References)
148.
The low survival of the walls in row [006] makes it difficult to discern too much about its
character. Of interest, however, is the number of residences it represents. Historic mapping
since 1895 depicts seven compartments within the Lower Row matching the four smaller
(Rooms A to D) and three larger units (Rooms E/F, G/H and I/J) identified during this
survey. It is also possible to count seven doorways in the historical photograph shown in
Figure 21b, with those at the northeast end sitting at larger intervals. In contrast to this,
however, the 1851 census returns list the addresses of 10 properties within the ‘Low Row’
as opposed to seven. It is possible that instead of being larger properties, the doubleroomed units in the northeast half of [006] were used as dual residences with a shared
entrance. Perhaps they were initially plotted as larger residences but had to be adapted
due to population demand.
149.
The same census returns also list 10 properties within the Higher Row (Building [005]).
Five rooms or compartments (A to E) were recorded in [005] during the survey, although
traces of a possible internal subdividing wall were recorded in Room E within the sketch
plan (Figure 13). With the individual rooms also measuring larger than those within Building
[006], these may have also been further subdivided like the units in the northeast half of
the latter. It is interesting, however, that the depictions of Building [005] in the mid-19th
century mapping, specifically the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853 (Figure 1a) and
the 1845 map shown in Figure 21a, show it to be a longer structure which continued up to
the edge of the roadway to the northeast, similar to Building [006]. This is different from
the shorter length shown in the later mapping (Figure 1b) and seen on the ground today.
Perhaps the Higher Row was shortened at some point in the latter half of the 19 th century;
both rows would benefit from further detailed survey to see if further internal subdivisions
or possible remains to the northeast of Building [005] could be traced.
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 40 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Building [007] – The School and Schoolhouse
150.
At the lower end of the survey area, Building [007] has been identified as the site of the
school and schoolhouse, built in 1843 (Campbell 1994, 31). Most of its walls only survive
up to a few courses high, with the notable exception of the front southeast-facing façade
of Room D which, at 4m, still survives near to its original height.
151.
Despite this varied survival, it is possible to ascertain some aspects of the building’s
character, particularly when comparing the physical remains with the available historic
photographs.
152.
Within Room D, which occupies the northeast of the building, we can see traces indicating
the presence of an upper floor, namely the presence of joist holes in the southeast wall
just above the southwest window. Figure 22a also shows the presence of potential firstfloor windows within the structure’s northeast gable wall.
153.
Another potential first-floor window can be identified by the line of bricks that sits at the
southwest end of Room D. These bricks have likely been inserted during a later modification
or repair, and it is interesting to see there are no first-floor windows in the southwest wall
of the building in Figure 22a. This photograph was taken in 1886 after the schoolhouse had
been converted into a shooting lodge, and the brick might represent a window that had
been blocked before or during its conversion. Further to this, looking at the school in the
background of Figure 20b, there may be two dormer windows present on the school’s front
façade; if this is the case, then perhaps these were removed at some point and replaced
with the skylights seen in the later image (Figure 22a). This is a very tentative suggestion,
however.
154.
The porch, Room E, against the exterior of the same façade is also constructed of brick
and indicates that this is another later addition, potentially dating to the same time as the
bricks appearing in the southeast wall of Room D.
155.
The historic photographs of the structure consistently show the presence of chimneys in
the northeast and southwest walls of Room D, indicating the presence of fireplaces in these
locations, but none in the southwest external wall of the building. This might suggest that
Room D specifically represents the living quarters while the school rooms occupied the
southwest half of the building. A suggestion that is further supported by the presence of
the formal porch entrance, and the heightened roofline above Room D adding to the “ample
and commodious” schoolhouse described by Welsh (1844, 281).
Conclusion
156.
The survey works undertaken at Woodhead Lead Mine have created a detailed record of
some of the remaining buildings as they stand today.
157.
Focusing on the buildings at the western end of the mining complex, seven structures were
recorded, which included the manager’s house and office, two rows of miners’ cottages,
stables, a powder magazine and a school. The structures vary in their state of survival;
while none remain roofed, the height of the standing walls range from one or two courses
up to full height.
158.
Over 300 photographs were generated from the survey, capturing details of the walls
before they deteriorate any further. The mine at Woodhead was a rare example of a total
production unit in Scotland – one which mined, crushed, washed and smelted the lead
before it was exported – but it was also a village: the landowner who established the mine
built housing, a school and even founded a library for the workers so that they could form
their own community in this remote setting.
159.
There is still much to learn about the site at Woodhead, which can give us further insights
into industrial life in 19th-century Scotland. But it is a resource that is continually
deteriorating as time goes on. Spending time at Woodhead allowed the volunteers to
immerse themselves in a different way of life, delving deeper into what the surviving
remains have to tell us, and their work in capturing these elements of Woodhead has added
to the record of this site for future generations.
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 41 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Acknowledgements
160.
This project is part of a wider Community Archaeology project, ‘Can You Dig It’, run by the
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme from February 2019 to September 2023.
See www.gallowayglens.org.uk/Resources for their published outputs. The Community
Archaeology project was offered free to volunteers thanks to funding from the National
Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland. The land at Woodhead is owned
by Kenneth Wallace of Garryhorn who kindly allowed us access and gave his support for
the works. Guidance was also given by Dumfries and Galloway Council Archaeology Service
and members of local heritage societies.
161.
Special thanks go to Anna Campbell and John Pickin whose knowledge and expertise were
so readily given in support of the project. Anna attended the site throughout the survey
and her enthusiasm about the importance of the site and her ability to bring the ruins to
life was very much appreciated by the site team, thank you.
162.
The author would like to thank all the hardworking volunteers who took part in the on-site
works: Kevan Aitken, Kirsten Bax, John Dempsey, Alasdair Philips and Richard Pougher.
163.
The support and guidance provided by Rathmell Archaeology staff members Laura
Anderson and Sophie Cathcart on-site was much appreciated by everyone involved. Further
thanks should go to Thomas Rees for his guidance throughout the initial organisation of
the project and I am also grateful to Liam McKinstry for editing this report.
References
Documentary
ALGAO:Scotland 2013 Historic Building Recording Guidance [online] available at:
https://www.algao.org.uk/sites/algao.org.uk/files/202308/ALGAO%20Buildings%20Guidance.pdf [accessed 16 August 2023]
Campbell, A. 1994 ‘The Woodhead Lead Mines’, Scottish Local History Vol. 31, pp 31-34
Cressey, M., Pickin, J. & Hicks, K. 2004 ‘The Silver Rig, Pibble and Woodhead Metal Mines,
Galloway, Scotland’, Mining History: The Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Historical
Society, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 49-62
Downs-Rose, G. ‘A Note on Housing at Wanlockhead’, Transactions of the Dumfriesshire
and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Series III, Vol. 54, pp 174-176
Hunter, J. 2001 The Upper Glenkens, Catrine: Stenlake Publishing
McKinstry, L. 2022 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community
Archaeology Project (Phase 2), Risk Assessment Method Statement, Woodhead Lead Mine
– Historic Building Survey, unpublished commercial document by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Macrae, K. 2009 ‘A Galloway Ghost Town: the social dimension of a 19 th Century leadmining community in the uplands of south-west Scotland’ in P. Claughton & C. Mills (eds)
Mining Perspectives: Proceedings of the 8th International Mining History Congress, pp 194202
Palmer, M., Nevell, M. & Sissons, M. 2012 Industrial Archaeology: A Handbook, CBA
Practical Handbook No.21, York: Council for British Archaeology
Raistrick, A., & Jennings, B. 1965 A History of Lead Mining in the Pennines, London:
Longmans, Green and Co Ltd
Sassoon, J. 1969 ‘Lead-Mining at Woodhead, Carsphairn’, The Transactions of the
Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Vol. XLVI, pp 170177
Welsh, Rev. D. 1844 ‘Parish of Carsphairn’, The New Statistical Accounts of Scotland, Vol.
IV, pp 273-281
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 42 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Archives
Carsphairn Archive
‘Amelia Vernon: Life at the mines’ [online] available at:
http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/exhibits/show/leadmining-atwoodhead/occupations-at-the-mine/reminiscence [accessed 22 August 2023]
‘David McMath at the leadmines September 1926’ [online] available at:
http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/items/show/1680 [accessed 21 August 2023]
‘Diary of Woodhead Mine: Colonel Frederick McAdam Cathcart’s Diary of Woodhead Mine’
[online] available at: http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/exhibits/show/leadminingat-woodhead/the-owner/diary-of-woodhead-mine [accessed 22 August 2023]
‘Mine office on Office Row’ [online] available at:
http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/exhibits/show/leadmining-atwoodhead/item/773 [accessed 22 August 2023]
‘Plan of Woodhead with photos (copy), 4 parts’ [online] available at:
http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/exhibits/show/leadmining-atwoodhead/item/4004 [accessed 22 August 2023]
‘Schoolhouse at Woodhead Leadmines’ [online] available at:
http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/items/show/2583 [accessed 22 August 2023]
‘Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn No 10 [online] available at:
http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/exhibits/show/leadmining-atwoodhead/item/1578 [accessed 22 August 2023]
Dumfries & Galloway Council Historical Indexes
‘The 1851 Census Returns for Dumfriesshire, Kirkcudbrightshire and Wigtownshire’
[online] available at:
https://info.dumgal.gov.uk/HistoricalIndexes/Home/DisplayQuickSearchResults/1?page=
1 [accessed 22 August 2023]
Ordnance Survey Name Book
OS1/20/10/13 – Kirkcudbrightshire, Volume 10 [online] available at:
https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/ordnance-survey-namebooks/kirkcudbrightshire-os-name-books-1848-1851/kirkcudbrightshire-volume-10/13
[accessed 22 August 2023]
Online images
Mine Explorer ‘New Glencrieff Mine Surface Features’ taken 2011 [online] available at:
http://www.mineexplorer.org.uk/new_glencrieff/new_glencrieff_surface_features/slides/n
gsf_newmagazine2.html [accessed 22 August 2023]
Cartographic
1853
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 1st edition, Kirkcudbrightshire, Sheet 4
1895
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 2nd edition, Kirkcudbrightshire, Sheet VII.SW
1895
Ordnance Survey
25-inch, Kirkcudbrightshire, VII.10
1909
Ordnance Survey
25-inch, Kirkcudbrightshire, VII.10
1910
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 3rd edition, Ayrshire, Sheet LIX.SW
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 43 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Appendix 1: Photographic Register
Within this appendix is the photographic register pertaining to the works on site.
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
1
5041
Building 002 - elevation photo of E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
2
5042
Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
3
5043
Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
4
5044
Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
5
5045
Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
6
5046
Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
7
5047
Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
8
5048
Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
9
5049
Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
10
5050
Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
11
5051
Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
12
5052
Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
13
5053
Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
14
5054
Building 001 - elevation photo of N facing external wall.
N
13/07/22
15
5055
Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
16
5056
Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
17
5057
Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
18
5058
Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
19
5059
Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
20
5060
Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
21
5061
Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
22
5062
Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
23
5063
Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 44 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
24
5064
Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
25
5065
Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
26
5066
Building 002 - elevation photo of S facing external wall.
S
13/07/22
27
5067
Building 001 - detail shot of remaining chimney stones on S facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
28
5068
Building 001 - detail shot of possible chimney on S facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
29
5069
Building 001 - detail shot of butting corner stones under render on S and E facing external walls.
E
13/07/22
30
5070
Building 001 - oblique shot of window on southernmost end of building 001 on external E facing wall.
NE
13/07/22
31
5071
Building 001 - detail shot of bottom edge of window on southernmost end of building 001 on external E facing
wall.
E
Building 001 - oblique shot of right side of window on southernmost end of building 001 on external E facing
wall.
SW
Building 001 - detail shot of metal bracket on left side of window on S end of building on external E facing
wall.
NEE
32
33
5072
5073
13/07/22
13/07/22
13/07/22
34
5074
Building 001 - detail shot of left side of doorway on S end of building 001 on external E facing wall.
SW
13/07/22
35
5075
Building 001 - detail shot of right side of doorway on S end of building 001 on external E facing wall.
NE
13/07/22
36
5076
Building 001 - oblique shot of window in external E facing wall of building 001.
NE
13/07/22
37
5077
Building 001 - oblique shot of right side of window in external E facing wall of building 001.
SW
13/07/22
38
5078
Building 001 - detail shot of window bracket on right side of middle south window.
SE
13/07/22
39
5079
Building 001 - detail shot of change of material from render to stone on E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
40
5080
Building 001 - detail shot of render on facing of left side window.
SE
13/07/22
41
5081
Building 001 - detail shot of bracket hole on left side of window on E facing external wall building.
E
13/07/22
42
5082
Building 001 - detail shot of bracket hole on left side of window on E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
43
5083
Building 001 - detail shot of lower sill of window external E facing wall.
E
13/07/22
44
5084
Building 001 - left side of window on external E facing wall.
NE
13/07/22
45
5085
Building 001 - left side of doorway on E facing external wall.
E
13/07/22
46
5086
Building 001 - right side of doorway on E facing external wall.
NE
13/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 45 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
47
5087
Building 001 - detail shot of stonework on E facing external wall of.
E
13/07/22
48
5088
Building 001 - detail shot of left side of doorway with render remaining on external E facing wall.
NE
13/07/22
49
5089
Building 001 - detail shot of right of doorway Efacing external wall.
SE
13/07/22
50
5090
Building 001 - detail shot of stonework on external E facing wall with possible extension join.
E
13/07/22
51
5091
Building 001 - detail shot of entrance in E facing external wall possible floor surface or tumble.
E
13/07/22
52
5092
Building 001 - detail shot of wall material on external wall.
S
13/07/22
53
5093
Building 001 - detail shot of corner of N and E facing external wall.
W
11/06/22
54
5094
Building 001 - detail shot of window on W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
55
5095
Building 001 - oblique shot of window on W facing external wall.
NW
13/07/22
56
5096
Building 001 - oblique shot of window on W facing external wall.
NE
13/07/22
57
5097
Building 001 - joint on W facing wall.
NE
13/07/22
58
5098
Building 001 - left side of window in W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
59
5099
Building 001 - right side of window in W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
60
5100
Building 001 - hole and exposed rubble core in external W facing wall.
W
13/07/22
61
5101
Building 001 - detail shot of small window in W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
62
5102
Building 001 - detail shot of right side of small window in W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
63
5103
Building 001 - Detail shot of render on left side of small window in W facing external wall.
W
13/07/22
64
5104
Building 001 - SW corner.
SW
13/07/22
65
5105
Building 001 - chimney on S facing external wall.
S
13/07/22
66
5106
Building 002 - detail shot of wall material.
S
13/07/22
67
5107
Building 002 - oblique internal elevation photo N and W facing walls.
NW
13/07/22
68
5108
Building 002 - oblique internal elevation photo of S and E facing walls.
SE
13/07/22
69
5109
Building 002 - elevation photo of S facing internal walls.
S
13/07/22
70
5110
Building 002 - elevation photo of W facing internal wall remnants 002
W
13/07/22
71
5111
Building 001 room A - general shot.
SE
13/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 46 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
72
5112
Building 001 room A - detail shot of chimney in S facing external wall/S facing internal wall.
S
13/07/22
73
5113
Building 001 room A - General shot.
SW
13/07/22
74
5115
Building 001 room A - detail shot of doorway to room A.
E
13/07/22
75
5116
Building 001 Room B – internal elevation of N facing wall.
E
13/07/22
76
5117
Building 001 Room B – internal elevation of N facing wall.
N
13/07/22
77
5118
Building 001 Room B – internal elevation of E facing wall
E
13/07/22
78
5119
Building 001 Room B – internal elevation of E facing wall.
E
13/07/22
79
5120
Building 001 Room B – internal elevation of S facing wall.
S
13/07/22
80
5121
Building 001 Room B – internal elevation of W facing wall.
W
13/07/22
81
5122
Building 001 Room B – Detail shot of possible cupboard on N facing internal wall.
NW
13/07/22
82
5123
Building 001 Room B – detail shot of fireplace in N facing internal wall.
N
13/07/22
83
5124
Building 001 Room B – detail shot of square feature in N facing internal wall.
N
13/07/22
84
5125
Building 001 Room B – detail shot of square feature in N facing internal wall.
N
13/07/22
85
5126
Building 001 Room B – detail shot of left side of small window in E facing internal wall.
NE
13/07/22
86
5127
Building 001 Room B – detail shot of right side of small window in E facing internal wall.
SE
13/07/22
87
5128
Building 001 Room B – detail shot of depression in stone block near window E facing wall.
NE
13/07/22
88
5129
Building 001 Room B – stone lintel/fire surround in tumble.
-
13/07/22
89
5130
Building 001 Room B – detail shot of depression in underside of stone lintel in doorway.
-
13/07/22
90
5131
Building 001 Room C – oblique internal elevation of N and W facing internal walls.
NW
13/07/22
91
5132
Building 001 Room C – oblique internal elevation of N and E facing internal walls.
NE
13/07/22
92
5133
Building 001 Room C – oblique internal elevation of N and E facing internal walls.
NE
13/07/22
93
5134
Building 001 Room C – oblique internal elevation S and E facing walls.
SE
13/07/22
94
5135
Building 001 Room C – oblique internal elevation S and W facing walls.
SW
13/07/22
95
5136
Building 001 Room C – detail shot of external E facing wall of render and possible bracket socket.
E
13/07/22
96
5137
Building 001 Room D – oblique internal elevation of N and W facing walls
NW
13/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 47 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
97
5138
Building 001 Room D – oblique internal elevation of N and E facing walls.
NE
13/07/22
98
5139
Building 001 Room D – oblique internal elevation of S and E facing walls.
SE
13/07/22
99
5140
Building 001 Room D – oblique internal elevation of S and W facing walls.
SW
13/07/22
100
5141
Building 001 Room D – detail shot of render on inside right side of window on E facing internal wall.
NE
13/07/22
101
5142
Building 001 Room D – detail shot of render and wall on inside left side of window on E facing internal wall.
SE
13/07/22
102
5143
Building 001 Room D – detail shot of render and bare stone face on E facing internal wall
E
13/07/22
103
5144
Building 001 Room E – general elevation photo
N
13/07/22
104
5145
Building 001 Room E – internal elevation photo of S facing wall.
S
13/07/22
105
5146
Building 001 Room E – detail shot of vertical stone in S facing internal wall.
SW
13/07/22
106
5147
Building 001 Room E – detail shot of two vertical stones in S facing internal wall.
S
13/07/22
107
5148
Building 001 Room E – detail shot of window in east facing internal wall.
E
13/07/22
108
5149
Building 001 Room D – detail shot of window in east facing internal wall.
E
13/07/22
109
5150
Building 001 Room D – oblique internal elevation of S and W facing walls.
SW
13/07/22
110
5151
Building 001 – general shot
NE
13/07/22
111
5152
Building 001 – general shot
NE
13/07/22
112
5153
Building 001 – general shot
NE
13/07/22
113
5154
Building 001 – general shot
SW
13/07/22
114
5155
Building 001 – general shot.
NNE
13/07/22
115
5156
Building 001 and building 003 – general shot.
E
13/07/22
116
5157
Building 001 and building 003 – general shot.
N
13/07/22
117
5158
Building 003 – external elevation of S facing wall.
S
13/07/22
118
5159
Building 003 – external elevation of E facing wall.
E
13/07/22
119
5160
Building 003 – external elevation of E facing wall.
E
13/07/22
120
5161
Building 003 – external elevation of N facing wall.
N
13/07/22
121
5162
Building 003 – external elevation of N facing wall.
N
13/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 48 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
122
5163
Building 003 – external elevation of N facing wall.
N
13/07/22
123
5164
Building 003 – external elevation of N facing wall.
N
13/07/22
124
5165
Building 003 – detail shot of window in N facing external wall.
N
13/07/22
125
5166
Building 003 – detail shot of NE corner in external wall.
NE
13/07/22
126
5167
Building 003 room A – internal elevation of N facing wall.
N
13/07/22
127
5168
Building 003 room A – internal elevation of E facing wall.
E
13/07/22
128
5169
Building 003 room A – internal elevation of S facing wall.
SE
13/07/22
129
5170
Building 003 room A – internal elevation of W facing wall.
S
13/07/22
130
5171
Building 003 room B – internal elevation of N facing wall.
N
13/07/22
131
5172
Building 003 room B – internal elevation of E facing wall.
E
13/07/22
132
5173
Building 003 room B – internal elevation of E facing wall.
E
13/07/22
133
5174
Building 003 room B – internal elevation of S facing wall.
S
13/07/22
134
5175
Building 003 room B – internal elevation of W facing wall.
W
13/07/22
135
5176
Building 003 room B – internal elevation of W facing wall.
W
13/07/22
136
5177
Building 003 room A – detail shot of vent.
SSW
13/07/22
137
5178
Building 003 room A – detail shot of possible marking of upper level in N facing internal wall.
N
13/07/22
138
5179
Building 003 room A – detail shot of joist holes in E facing internal wall.
E
13/07/22
139
5180
Building 003 room A – detail shot of metal ring in N facing internal wall.
N
13/07/22
140
5181
Building 003 room A – detail shot of metal ring and paint on internal N facing wall.
N
13/07/22
141
5182
Building 003 room A – detail shot of paint on render on internal W facing wall.
S
13/07/22
142
5183
Building 003 room A – detail shot of marks on plaster on internal N facing wall.
NE
13/07/22
143
5184
Building 003 room A – detail shot of marks on plaster on internal N facing wall.
NE
13/07/22
144
5185
Building 003 room A – detail shot of metal spike on E facing internal wall.
NE
13/07/22
145
5186
Building 003 room A – detail shot of mark remaining from dividing wall.
NE
13/07/22
146
5187
Building 003 room B – detail shot of blocked window in internal E facing wall.
E
13/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 49 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
147
5188
Building 003 room B – detail shot of possible fixture fastening render on E facing internal wall.
SE
13/07/22
148
5189
Building 003 room B – detail shot of blocked window in internal E facing.
E
13/07/22
149
5190
Building 003 room B – detail shot of blocked window in internal E facing wall.
E
13/07/22
150
5191
Building 003 room B – detail shot of blocked window in internal E facing wall.
E
13/07/22
151
5192
Building 003 room B – detail shot partially blocked window in internal S facing wall.
S
13/07/22
152
5193
Building 003 room B – detail shot of possible window in W facing internal wall.
W
13/07/22
153
5194
Building 004 – external elevation NE facing wall.
NE
13/07/22
154
5195
Building 004 – external elevation of NW facing wall.
NW
13/07/22
155
5196
Building 004 – external elevation of SW facing wall.
SW
13/07/22
156
5197
Building 004 – external elevation of SE facing wall.
SE
13/07/22
157
5198
Building 004 – oblique internal elevation of NW and NE facing walls.
N
13/07/22
158
5199
Building 004 – oblique internal elevation of NW and NE facing walls.
N
13/07/22
159
5200
Building 004 – oblique internal elevation of SW and SE facing walls.
S
13/07/22
160
5201
Building 004 – detail shot of wall material in SE internal facing wall.
NE
13/07/22
161
5202
Building 004 – detail shot of entrance in NE facing external wall.
N
13/07/22
162
5203
Building 004 – detail shot of entrance with render.
S
13/07/22
163
5204
Building 004 – detail shot of unconnected possible blast control feature in SE facing internal wall.
SE
13/07/22
164
5205
Building 004 – detail shot of unconnected possible blast control feature in NW facing internal wall.
NW
13/07/22
165
5206
Building 004 – general shot.
N
13/07/22
166
5207
Building 004 – general shot.
NE
13/07/22
167
5208
Building 004 – general shot.
SE
13/07/22
168
5209
Building 004 – detail shot on feature on western wall.
W
13/07/22
169
5210
Building 004 – detail shot of internal floor
-
13/07/22
170
5211
Building 001 Room B – Detail of fireplace in S internal wall.
NE
14/07/22
171
5212
Building 001 room B – detail of fireplace in S internal wall.
E
14/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 50 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
172
5213
Building 001 room B – detail of fireplace in S internal wall.
E
14/07/22
173
5214
Building 005 room E – general shot
E
14/07/22
174
5215
Building 005 room E – general shot
S
14/07/22
175
5216
Building 005 room E – elevation shot of S facing external wall.
S
14/07/22
176
5217
Building 005 room D – general shot
S
14/07/22
177
5218
Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
178
5221
General landscape shot.
W
14/07/22
179
5222
Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
180
5223
Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
181
5224
Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
182
5225
Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
183
5226
Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
184
5227
Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
185
5228
Building 005 – external elevation shot of SW facing wall.
S
14/07/22
186
5229
Building 005 – external elevation shot of SW facing wall.
SW
14/07/22
187
5230
Building 005 – external elevation shot of SW facing wall.
W
14/07/22
188
5231
Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
189
5232
Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
190
5233
Building 005 – external elevation of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
191
5234
Building 005 – external elevation of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
192
5235
Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
193
5236
Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
194
5237
Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
195
5238
Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
196
5239
Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 51 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
197
5240
Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW and NE facing walls.
W
14/07/22
198
5241
Building 005 – general shot
E
14/07/22
199
5242
Building 005 room E – general shot.
SE
14/07/22
200
5243
Building 005 room E – general shot.
NE
14/07/22
201
5244
Building 005 room D – internal elevation of NE and NW facing walls.
N
14/07/22
202
5245
Building 005 room D – internal elevation of SE and SW facing walls.
S
14/07/22
203
5246
Building 005 room C – internal elevation of SE and SW facing wall.
SW
14/07/22
204
5247
Building 005 room C – internal elevation of SE facing wall.
S
14/07/22
205
5248
Building 005 room C – internal elevation of SE facing wall.
S
14/07/22
206
5249
Building 005 room C – internal elevation of NE facing wall.
NE
14/07/22
207
5250
Building 005 room C – internal elevation of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
208
5251
Building 005 room B – internal elevation of SW facing wall.
SW
14/07/22
209
5252
Building 005 room B – internal elevation of SE facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
210
5253
Building 005 room B – internal elevation of SE facing wall.
S
14/07/22
211
5254
Building 005 room B – internal elevation of NE facing wall.
NE
14/07/22
212
5255
Building 005 room B – general shot of NW facing internal wall.
E
14/07/22
213
5256
Building 005 room A – internal elevation of NE facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
214
5257
Building 005 room A – internal elevation of SE facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
215
5258
Building 005 room A – internal elevation of SW facing wall.
SW
14/07/22
216
5259
Building 005 room A – detail shot of fireplace in NE facing internal wall.
NW
14/07/22
217
5260
Building 005 room A – detail shot of window in SW facing internal wall.
SW
14/07/22
218
5261
Building 005 room A – detail shot of slates.
-
14/07/22
219
5262
Building 005 room A – detail shot of nails in slate.
-
14/07/22
220
5263
Building 005 room A – detail shot of wall material.
-
14/07/22
221
5264
Building 005 room B – detail shot of brick in wall.
-
14/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 52 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
222
5265
Building 005 room B – detail shot of vertical stones in NE facing internal wall.
NE
14/07/22
223
5266
Building 005 room B – detail shot of vertical stones in NE facing internal wall.
NE
14/07/22
224
5267
Building 005 room B – detail shot bricks in SE facing internal wall.
-
14/07/22
225
5268
Building 005 room C – detail shot of vertical stones and vertical stones in NE facing internal wall.
NE
14/07/22
226
5269
Building 005 room C – detail shot of entrance in NW facing internal wall.
NW
14/07/22
227
5270
Building 005 room C – detail shot of vertical stones in SW facing internal wall.
SW
14/07/22
228
5271
Building 005 room C – detail shot of S facing corner.
S
14/07/22
229
5272
Building 005 room D – detail shot of vertical stones in SW facing internal wall.
SW
14/07/22
230
5273
Building 005 room D – detail shot of large rectangular stone in tumble.
-
14/07/22
231
5274
Building 005 room D – detail shot of bricks in tumble.
-
14/07/22
232
5275
Building 005 room D – detail shot of vertical stones in SW facing internal wall.
SW
14/07/22
233
5276
Building 005 room D – detail shot of wall material.
-
14/07/22
234
5277
Building 005 room E – detail shot of vertical stones in NE facing internal wall.
NE
14/07/22
235
5278
Building 005 room E – detail shot of vertical stones in SW facing internal wall.
SW
14/07/22
236
5279
Building 005 room E – detail shot of vertical stones in SW facing internal wall.
SW
14/07/22
237
5280
Building 006 – general view.
NE
14/07/22
238
5281
Building 006 – general view.
SE
14/07/22
239
5282
Building 006– general view.
SE
14/07/22
240
5283
Building 006 – general view.
SE
14/07/22
241
5284
Building 006 – general view.
SE
14/07/22
242
5285
Building 006 – general view.
SE
14/07/22
243
5286
Building 006 – general view.
SE
14/07/22
244
5287
Building 006 – general view.
SE
14/07/22
245
5288
Building 006 – general view.
SE
14/07/22
246
5289
Building 006 – general view.
SE
14/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 53 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
247
5290
Building 006 – general view.
SE
14/07/22
248
5291
Building 006 – general view.
SE
14/07/22
249
5292
Building 006 – general view.
SE
14/07/22
250
5293
Building 006 – external elevation of S facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
251
5294
Building 006 – general view.
SE
14/07/22
252
5295
Building 006 – external elevation of SW facing wall.
SW
14/07/22
253
5296
Building 006 – external elevation of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
254
5297
Building 006 – general view.
NW
14/07/22
255
5298
Building 006 – general view.
NW
14/07/22
256
5299
Building 006 – general view.
NW
14/07/22
257
5300
Building 006 – general view.
NW
14/07/22
258
5301
Building 006 – general view.
NW
14/07/22
259
5302
Building 006 – general view.
NW
14/07/22
260
5303
Building 006 – general view.
NW
14/07/22
2261
5304
Building 006 – general view.
NW
14/07/22
262
5305
Building 006 – general view.
NW
14/07/22
263
5306
Building 006 – general view.
NW
14/07/22
264
5307
Building 006 room J – detail shot of cement floor surface with depression.
-
14/07/22
265
5308
Building 006 room I – detail shot of metal object found inside structure.
-
14/07/22
266
5309
Building 006 room I – detail shot of metal object found inside structure.
-
14/07/22
267
5310
Building 006 room D – general shot of internal NE facing wall.
-
14/07/22
268
5311
Building 006 room D – general shot of internal NE facing wall.
N
14/07/22
269
5312
Building 006 room D – general shot of internal NE facing wall.
S
14/07/22
270
5313
Building 006 room A – detail shot of fireplace in internal NE facing wall.
N
14/07/22
271
5314
Building 006 room A – detail shot of fireplace in internal NE facing wall.
SW
14/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 54 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
272
5315
Building 006 room A – detail shot of window in internal NE facing wall.
S
14/07/22
273
5316
Building 006 room A – detail shot of window in internal NE facing wall.
N
14/07/22
274
5317
Building 006 room A – detail shot of chimney in internal NE facing wall.
NE
14/07/22
275
5318
Building 006 room A – detail shot of roof internal NE facing wall.
NE
14/07/22
276
5319
Building 006 – detail shot of abutting stones in corner of external SE facing external wall.
S
14/07/22
277
5320
Building 006 – detail shot of chimney in external NW facing external wall.
S
14/07/22
278
5321
Building 006 – detail shot of chimney and window in external NW facing external wall.
S
14/07/22
279
5322
Building 006 – detail shot of hole in chimney of external NW facing external wall.
SW
14/07/22
280
5323
Building 006 – detail shot of hole in chimney of external NW facing external wall.
SW
14/07/22
281
5324
Building 006 – detail shot of hole in chimney of external NW facing external wall.
SW
14/07/22
282
5325
Building 006 – detail shot of chimney of external NW facing external wall.
SW
14/07/22
283
5326
Building 006 – detail shot of inside of chimney of external NW facing external wall.
-
14/07/22
284
5327
Building 006 – detail shot of depressions in corner stones of external NW facing external wall.
SW
14/07/22
285
5328
Building 006 – detail shot of nail in external NW facing external wall.
SW
14/07/22
286
5329
Building 007 – general shot of NE facing external wall.
NE
14/07/22
287
5330
Building 007 – general shot of SE facing external wall
SE
14/07/22
288
5331
Building 007 – external elevation of SE facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
289
5332
Building 007 – external elevation of SE facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
290
5333
Building 007 – external elevation of SE facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
291
5334
Building 007 – external elevation of SE facing wall.
SE
14/07/22
292
5335
Building 007 – external elevation of SW facing wall.
SW
14/07/22
293
5336
Building 007 – external elevation of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
294
5337
Brick lined feature built into hillside NW of building 007
S
14/07/22
295
5338
Building 007 – external elevation of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
296
5339
Building 007 – external elevation of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 55 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
297
5340
Building 007 – external elevation of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
298
5341
Building 007 – external elevation of NW facing wall.
NW
14/07/22
299
5342
Building 007 room D – detail shot of window in NW facing internal wall.
NW
14/07/22
300
5343
Building 007 room D – detail shot of doorway in NW facing internal wall.
NW
14/07/22
301
5344
Building 007 room D – detail shot of upper brick lined window in NW facing internal wall.
NW
14/07/22
302
5345
Building 007 room D – detail shot of window in NW facing internal wall.
NW
14/07/22
303
5346
Building 007 room C – detail shot of window in NW facing internal wall.
NW
14/07/22
304
5347
Building 007 room B – detail shot of possible blocked opening in SE facing internal wall.
S
14/07/22
305
5348
Building 007 room B – detail shot of possible blocked opening in SE facing internal wall.
SW
14/07/22
306
5349
Building 007 – shot of large rectangular stone in tumble.
-
14/07/22
307
5350
Building 007 – detail shot of metal bracket on right side of window in SE facing external wall.
SE
14/07/22
308
5351
Building 007 – detail shot of metal bracket on right side of window in SE facing external wall.
SE
14/07/22
309
5352
Building 007 – detail shot window in SE facing external wall.
S
14/07/22
310
5353
Building 007 – detail shot window with metal brackets in SE facing external wall.
SE
14/07/22
311
5354
Building 007 – detail shot of metal downpipe bracket in SE facing external wall.
SE
14/07/22
312
5355
Building 007 – detail shot metal bracket in stone in tumble.
-
14/07/22
313
5356
Building 007 – detail shot of metal downpipe bracket in SE facing external wall.
-
14/07/22
314
5357
Building 007 – detail shot window with metal brackets in SE facing external wall.
SE
14/07/22
315
5358
Building 007 – detail shot window with hole for metal brackets in SE facing external wall.
-
14/07/22
316
5359
Building 007 – general shot of brick extension on SE facing external wall.
SE
14/07/22
317
5360
Building 007 – general shot of brick extension on SE facing external wall.
W
14/07/22
318
5361
Building 007 – general shot of brick extension on SE facing external wall.
W
14/07/22
319
5362
Building 007 – general shot of brick extension on SE facing external wall.
E
14/07/22
320
5363
Building 007 – general shot of brick extension on SE facing external wall.
E
14/07/22
321
5364
Building 007 – detail shot of stone lintel in SE facing external wall.
E
14/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 56 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
322
5365
Building 007 – detail shot window with metal brackets in SE facing external wall.
E
14/07/22
323
5366
Building 007 – detail shot window in SE facing external wall.
SE
14/07/22
324
5367
Building 007 – detail shot filled hole in SE facing external wall.
SE
14/07/22
325
5368
Building 007 – detail shot of material change SE facing external wall.
SE
14/07/22
326
5369
Building 007 – detail shot of material change and exposed whitewash SE facing external wall.
SE
14/07/22
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 57 of 58
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Contact Details
Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at our Registered Office or through the web:
Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops
Kilwinning
Ayrshire
KA13 6PU
www.rathmell-arch.co.uk
t.:
f.:
e.:
01294 542848
01294 542849
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
End of Document
©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 58 of 58
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
GGLP_96
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2023
Description
An account of the resource
Surveys and test pitting works undertaken as part of the community archaeology project “Can You Dig It?”.
archaeology
GGLP
-
https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/555/GGLP-CYDI-DSR-HighGroundWrecks-Corserine-ROC.pdf
975b6ba0ad3e9d1f6965b215dc48d2a9
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – High Ground Wrecks and the Royal Observer Corps
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Reports
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project
Data Structure Report
1.2.g High Ground Wrecks and the Royal Observer Corps
by Sarah Krischer, Thomas Rees and Claire Williamson
th
issued 10
December 2020
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill
Quality Assurance
This report covers works which have been undertaken in keeping with the issued brief as
modified by the agreed programme of works. The report has been prepared in keeping
with the guidance of Rathmell Archaeology Limited on the preparation of reports. All
works reported on within this document have been undertaken in keeping with the
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of
Conduct.
Signed
………………………………………..
Date
…..10th December 2020……
In keeping with the procedure of Rathmell Archaeology Limited this document and its
findings have been reviewed and agreed by an appropriate colleague:
Checked
………………………………………..
Date
…..10th December 2020……
Copyright Rathmell Archaeology Limited. All rights reserved.
No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written
permission from Rathmell Archaeology Limited. If you have received this report in error,
please destroy all copies in your possession or control.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party unless
otherwise agreed in writing by Rathmell Archaeology Limited. No liability is accepted by
Rathmell Archaeology Limited for any use of this report, other than the purposes for
which it was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Rathmell Archaeology
Limited using due skill, care and diligence and no explicit warranty is provided as to their
accuracy. No independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to
Rathmell Archaeology Limited has been made.
Quality Assurance Data
Author(s)
Sarah Krischer, Thomas Rees and Claire Williamson
Date of Issue
10th December 2020
Commissioning Body
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme
Event Name
High Ground Wrecks and the Royal Observer Corps
Event Type
Field Survey
Event Date(s)
June - October 2019
Rathmell Archaeology Code
RA18107
Location
United Kingdom : Scotland : Dumfries and Galloway
NGR
NX 76804 62300 - NX 56089 93347 - NX 49695 87180
Parish
Carsphairn; Kells; Dalry; Parton; Kelton
Designation(s)
Protection of Military Remains Act 1986
HER IDs
MDG13043; MDG13046; MDG25531
Version
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 1 of 40
1.0
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................. 3
Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 3
High Ground Wrecks ........................................................................................... 3
Royal Observer Corps Posts ................................................................................. 4
Previous Archaeological Works ............................................................................. 6
Project Works ................................................................................ 6
Findings ......................................................................................... 8
High Ground Wrecks ........................................................................................... 8
Royal Observer Corps Posts ................................................................................. 8
Discussion ................................................................................... 18
High Ground Wrecks ......................................................................................... 18
Royal Observer Corps Posts ............................................................................... 19
Conclusion ................................................................................... 22
Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 22
References .................................................................................. 23
Documentary ................................................................................................... 23
Websites ......................................................................................................... 24
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland ......................... 25
Appendix 2: Registers.................................................................. 27
Photographic Register ....................................................................................... 27
Contact Details ............................................................................ 40
Figures
Figure 1: Plan showing locations of the sites recorded during the works ................................ 7
Figure 2a: General shot of S3 from the southwest ................................................................. 9
Figure 2b: Detail of S3 showing battery.................................................................................. 9
Figure 3a: Detail of bedrock scars of S4 from the south ....................................................... 10
Figure 3b: Detail of wreckage of S4 from the southeast ....................................................... 10
Figure 4a: Air vent at S7 showing the circular black cover attached to its side ..................... 12
Figure 4b: Access Hatch at S7............................................................................................. 12
Figure 5a: Interior of roofed chamber in Orlit post at S8 showing bench along rear wall ...... 13
Figure 5b: Pipe (in foreground) possibly for a bomb power indicator baffle plate at S9 ........ 13
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill
Introduction
1.
This Data Structure Report describes works undertaken for the sub-project on the Wrecks
- Corserine Hill, carried out as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership (GGLP)
community archaeology project Can You Dig It? This report presents the results from a
walkover survey carried out on two (S3 and S4) of the five high ground wrecks identified
through the Research Design (Krischer & Rees 2019), and also site visits to the four
Royal Observer Corps (ROC) posts (S6-S9).
2.
The works were carried out by volunteers supported by Rathmell Archaeology staff. The
structure of the works was drawn from advice and guidance from officers of GGLP,
Dumfries and Galloway Council and members of local heritage societies.
Historical & Archaeological Background
3.
The Research Design identified five high ground wrecks and four ROC outposts within the
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership area (Krischer & Rees 2019). While the ROC posts
are not designated, all wrecks are covered by the Protection of Military Remains Act
1986. This act covers the wreckage of all military aircraft (including non-UK aircraft) that
crash in the United Kingdom.
High Ground Wrecks
4.
A brief historical and archaeological baseline for the wrecks on the Corserine has been
lifted from the Research Design for the sub-project (Krischer & Rees 2019, 3-4):
The Corserine is a fairly remote hill near St John’s Town of Dalry, Dumfries and
Galloway, with a height of 814m. It is the highest of the Rhinns of Kell hills. The
main summit is a wide flat plateau, with a broad, gently sloping, ridge on the
northeast side and steep downwards slopes on the other sides. A second,
slightly lower summit known as Carlin’s Cairn (807m) lies to the north of the main
summit, at the end of a wide ridge. There have been five High Altitude Wrecks on
the Corserine between 1939 and 47; all of these took place at night, during the
winter months. The majority of the wrecks were crashes, which took place during
training, a dangerous undertaking with a casualty rate as high as 25% of the
course in some cases (Hastings 1979, 173).
The first wreck was an Anson Mk.I DG787 from the No.12 Elementary and
Reserve Flying Training School, Prestwick S1. The aircraft left Prestwick on a
training run on the 9th of January 1939 and its burnt out remains were found by a
shepherd on the lower slopes of Corserine hill the next day. All four crew
members were killed. Their bodies were retrieved by the RAF shortly after the
crash but the remains of the aircraft were left in place. A burnt out scar from the
crash is visible on the hillside, in addition to large pieces of the wreckage,
including the engines (Clark 2016a).
A Tiger Moth (L6932) crashed nearby on the 10th of January 1939 while
searching for the Anson S2 (Clark 2016a). This, the second high ground wreck,
was a much more minor incident and the remains were salvaged (Smith 1989,
30), making it unlikely that any visible wreckage will be visible at this site.
The third high ground wreck took place on the 23rd of October 1942 when an
Avro Anson Mk.I (serial no. DG787) S3 from the Air Navigation and Bombing
School failed to return from a night navigation exercise over the Isle of Man. Two
days later the Home Guard around the Rhinns of Kells reported the plane had
crashed into one of the nearby hills. On the 26th of October the Wigtown RAF
Mountain Rescue (No.1 AOS) located the site. The bodies of the four members
of the crew were recovered as were all large pieces of wreckage (Clark 2016b).
One of the Navigators, Flight-Lieutenant Vaclav Jelinek, was buried at Kirkinner
Cemetery, Wigtown (Gillon 2011). As with S1 a scar is visible on the hillside at
the point of impact. The site is likely to be 150m north-west of the summit trig-
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill
point. A few small pieces of wreckage remain including a battery.
The fourth high ground wreck is a de Havilland Mosquito N.F. Mk.II (Serial no.
DD795). The two members of the airplane crew were trainees from the No.9
Course at No.60 OTU which was stationed at High Ercall in Shropshire. On the
night of the 20th of January 1944 they left High Ercall for a night cross country
flight and failed to return. The site of the crash S4 on the Corserine was not
discovered until the 11th of February as the wreckage had been covered by snow
shortly after the incident (Clark 2016c). The bodies of the crew members were
retrieved by the 50 airmen from No.1 AOS at Wigtown (RAF Mountain Rescue)
on the 12th of February, however the aircraft wreckage was left in place. The
impact site is visible as a scar 700m east of the summit cairn near the “Scar of
the Folk” with a large amount of associated wreckage.
The fifth High Altitude Crash on occurred near the second summit of Corserine,
Carlin's Cairn. A Douglas Dakota (Serial no. K-14) belonging to the Royal Belgian
Airforce flying from Brussels to Prestwick airport crashed near the summit on the
10th of April 1947. This was the first crash of the newly created Belgian Air Force.
All six men on board perished in the crash and the bodies were retrieved by RAF
the next day and repatriated to Brussels. The site was reported as having a large
number of visible remains in 1989 (Smith 1989, 30).
Royal Observer Corps Posts
5.
The Research Design also gives a brief historical and archaeological baseline for the Royal
Observer Corps posts within the area, copied here (Krischer & Rees 2019, 4-5):
The second subset amongst this resource comprises four Royal Observer Corps
outposts located throughout the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership area.
Established in 1925, the Observers Corps was founded to provide the detection,
identification, tracking, and reporting of aircraft over Great Britain (Air Ministry
Information Bureau 1951). The system expanded to cover the majority of the
country by 1939, with the final post established at Portree in 1941. There were
three main phases of operation during the history of the Observer Corps; the first
was tracking aircraft during the Second World War; the second tracking soviet
jets in the late 1940s and 50s; and the third marked by the transition into nuclear
monitoring posts from the early 1960s (HQ ROC 1970).
The Observers Corps was mobilized on the 24th of August 1939 and remained in
service throughout the war. The corps was granted the tile “Royal Observer
Corps” by King George VI in 1941 in recognition of the group’s service during the
first years of war (Wood 1976, 111).
From 1938 the ROC posts were to be provided with wooden huts containing a
bed, equipment store and stove. However, provision of these huts was slow and
at many posts the observers constructed their own structures (Wood 1976, 54).
There is therefore no uniform design for Second World War era observer posts.
The corps was de-mobilised on the 12th of May 1945, following the end of the war
in Europe.
There are four ROC posts within the study area. These are at Castle Douglas S6,
Carsphairn S7, St John’s Town of Dalry S8 and Parton S9. All of these posts
were established in 1940. In 1943 the Castle Douglas and Parton posts were
equipped with flares to warn aircraft of high ground, code name “granite” (Wood
1976, 329). In addition, the Parton post was equipped with “Augmented Granite”
in 1943. This was a system of High Frequency transmitters producing a high
ground warning signal in an approaching aircraft in combination to the normal
system of flares (Wood 1976, 277). All of these posts were part of the Ayr group
(No. 33). The posts where mainly concerned with planes flying to Prestwick
airport, which was the eastern terminus of the North Atlantic Air-ferry route. Posts
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill
to the south and south-east of the airport tracked aircraft being brought in from
the US and Canada to support combat operations (Winslow 1948, 189).
At the St John’s Town of Dalry S8 post a pile of rocks is visible in the vicinity of
the later posts that represents the remains of the World War 2 post. No visible
remains of World War 2 posts can be seen at the other examples.
During 1947 the ROC was reformed in response to the need to track Soviet jets,
with a particular emphasis placed on expanding the ROC network in Scotland
due to the risk of airspace intrusion from the north (Dalton 2017, 5). This role was
to be short-lived, with improvements in radar and interceptor jets negating the
need for direct, visual observation over land. By 1965 the ROC had abandoned
this role. The corps was reorganized in 1950 and the Ayr section was moved
from the Scotland group to the Western Group. In 1953 the Ayr group was
renumbered No. 25 (Wood 1976, 210).
Across most of Britain during the early 1950s the variety of observation posts
inherited from World War II were replaced by Orlit observation posts. There were
two styles, Orlit A and B. Orlit A was a ground level observation post of pre-cast
concrete panels that formed a rectangular structure measuring 3.05m by 2.03m
in plan, divided into an open observation area and a flat roofed shelter and store
(Brown et al. 1996, 127). Access was by a door into the shelter, from where a
sliding door gave access to the observation area (where the plotting chart stood).
The Orlit B model was the same post erected on concrete legs with an access
ladder. The St John’s Town of Dalry posts S8 were recorded as having an Orlit A
structure. In addition, a concrete slab base is recorded at the Parton post (S9)
which is likely to be the remains of an Orlit A.
In 1955 the establishment of the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring
Organisation (UKWMO) led to a transformation in the role of the ROC from
tracking hostile aircraft to being the field force for monitoring blasts and fallout in
the event of a nuclear war. The above-ground posts were vulnerable to blast and
had little fallout protection; consequently a nationwide programme was
implemented to place the entire ROC network of posts underground in hardened
bunkers (Wood 1976, 15). These new 1960s monitoring posts typically replaced
the contemporary network of ROC observation posts. Underground bunkers were
constructed at all four Posts within the study area in the early 1960s (Wood 1976,
329).
The overall standardised dimensions of the underground reinforced concrete
bunker were 5.80m by 2.44m by 2.13m. The ladder access shaft, with an
adjacent ventilation shaft, was at one end of the post with access from the base
into the main chamber. At the other end of the main chamber was a second
ventilation shaft. Both ventilation shafts were fitted with protective louvres. Two
additional pipes ran to the surface from the centre of the main chamber, a smaller
‘blast pipe’ and a larger ‘probe pipe’. The entire monitoring post was buried
0.91m (3 feet) below ground level (Dalton 2017, 17).
The area for the posts was required to have a minimum of 50 feet of level ground
with no nearby features to obstruct the instruments. The site had to available to
buy or let for at least 21 years and had to have a right of access via a three foot
wide path to a public road. The majority of these posts were situated at the site of
pre-existing aircraft posts. However, at St John’s Town of Dalry S8 the land was
unsuitable and the new post was moved to an area close to the existing Orlit post
(Dalton 2017, 21).
The UK monitoring network progressively contracted over the latter part of the
20th century and the ROC was officially announced as disbanded in 1991. While
there was supposed to be a system for dismantling the posts, many Corps
members were unconvinced and so in many cases Posts were simply left intact
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill
(Dalton 2017, 99). The communication equipment was owned by BT who visited
posts to remove equipment following the disbandment. However, in a number of
cases the equipment was determined to not have any re-use value so was simply
left in place. Additionally, BT maintained phone links to some posts long after
stand-down (ibid.)
Following the closure of the posts many reverted back to their original
landowners, with the Ministry of Defence expected to demolish the post and
return the land to its original condition. However, in many cases the MoD agreed
to pay local farmers to allow the posts to remain intact in order to avoid the
expensive demolition process. Many posts were also sold off at this point, with a
number purchased by telecommunication companies as sites for mobile phone
masts (Dalton 2017, 163). Since 1991 the majority of sites have simply been left
to decay and ownership has become increasingly difficult to determine.
Previous Archaeological Works
6.
Details are given about the earlier archaeological interventions (Krischer & Rees 2019,
11):
Due to the nature and relatively modern date of these resources the scope of the
archaeological interventions has focussed upon survey work. An individual who
has been particularly active in this respect is David J. Smith, who conducted
extensive visits to wreck sites as research for this volume on High Ground
Wrecks published in 1976 (updated in 1989). He visited the sites of all wrecks
included in this study and gives a broad summery of the nature of the remains.
In 2008 the site of the 1947 Dakota crash was explored by the Dumfries &
Galloway Aviation Museum along with members of two Belgian Aviation
societies. This was followed by the unveiling of a memorial plaque for the victims
of the crash at the Aviation Museum in August 2008 (Decock 2009).
Three of the air crash sites were visited by members of the Peak District Air
Accident Research Group who published their research on their website in
August 2016 (see References). They photographed the wreckage and provided
extensive background research into the nature of the accidents and the
responses to them.
The ROC posts have all been recorded by members of the Subterranea Britannia
group as part of their study of ROC and UKWMO posts (see References). The
posts within the study area were visited by the group in 2002. Photographs of the
upstanding remains were taken, as well as notes regarding the condition of the
sites and coordinates for their locations. In addition, the Parton nuclear post was
entered by members of the group in 2015, who documented its condition and the
material culture that remained, including furniture, signage and maps (see
References).
Project Works
7.
The archaeological works comprised a walkover survey of two of the five high ground
wrecks located on the Corserine (S3 and S4 in Krischer & Rees 2019), and site visits to
the four known ROC posts (S6 to S9 in Krischer & Rees 2019) within the Galloway Glens
area (Figure 1; Table 1). For ease of reference and to maintain consistency, the site
numbers assigned to each site in the Research Design (Krischer & Rees 2019) will remain
the same for this report. S1, S2 and S5 were not visited during this phase of works and,
as such, will not feature here.
8.
The walkover survey of the high ground wrecks took place on the 20th of June and 26th of
July 2019. The first day of survey was carried out in cold, wet conditions, while the
second occurred in extremely hot, bright conditions. The assessment area consisted of
open hillside above a large area of forestry plantation. Two crash sites were visited
during the surveys: S3 and S4. The works consisted of a photographic record and a
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill
Figure 1: Plan showing locations of the sites recorded during the works
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
written description of each site, including location, extent and condition.
9.
The site visits to the ROC posts were undertaken on the 10th October 2019. The weather
conditions were overcast with occasional showers. All four of the ROC posts as identified
within the Research Design (Krischer & Rees 2019) were visited, the majority of which
sat within enclosed pastoral fields. A photographic record was taken at each site, as well
as a location and a review of their condition.
10.
All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined
in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (McKinstry 2019). The works complied
with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and
Code of Conduct and Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statements.
Findings
High Ground Wrecks
11.
The sites of two high ground wrecks were visited during the surveys: that of the Avro
Anson Mk.I (S3) and that of the de Havilland Mosquito N.F. Mk.II (S4). Full details of
each site are given in Table 1.
12.
The first, S3, was located to the north of the Corserine’s summit, on the upper section of
the saddle that connects the higher summit of the Corserine to the lower summit known
as ‘Carlin’s Cairn’.
13.
The site of the crash at S3 remained visible as a sub-circular area of exposed bedrock
(Figure 2a) measuring 8.8m east to west by 10.8m transversely. The exposed bedrock
had been broken into small grey angular stones, which had an average size of 0.1m by
0.15m. The area also contained many fragments of charred aluminium, mostly pipes. A
mainly intact battery was located at the northwest corner of the area (Figure 2b).
14.
The second site, S4, was located just below the ridge to the southwest of the Corserine’s
summit, at the top of a bowl known as the ‘Scar of Folk’.
15.
The site at S4 was identified as a wide scatter of open bedrock ‘scars’ across the side of
the hill. Nine scars containing airplane debris were located, in addition to a number of
smaller scars without any remaining material. The largest scar measured 12.9m by 7.6m
in extent, while the average size of the rest was 2-3m by 0.8-1m.
16.
As with S3, the bedrock within each scar had been broken into smaller angular stones
(Figure 3a). Several small metal fragments remained including pipes, screws, a possible
tank, fuselage fragments and some timber fragments (Figure 3b).
Royal Observer Corps Posts
17.
The locations of four known ROC posts were visited during the project: the site of an
underground monitoring post at Castle Douglas (S6), the site of an underground
monitoring post at Carsphairn (S7), the site of both an Orlit Type A post and an
underground monitoring post at St John’s Town of Dalry (S8) and the site of both an Orlit
Type A post and an underground monitoring post at Parton (S9). Full details for each site
are given in Table 1.
18.
The site of the underground post at S6 is located at the eastern side of Castle Douglas,
within an enclosed field at the northern end of Whitepark Hill. The hill sits between Castle
Douglas Primary School to the northeast and Castle Douglas Hospital to the southwest,
with housing to the northwest and fields to the southeast. No remains of the post itself
are present and it appears to have been completely removed. Some faint traces of
disturbance from its removal are, however, still visible as a low earthwork.
19.
The underground post at S7 sits within a small, enclosed field to the rear of housing
along the northern side of Carsphairn’s main street (the A713). Unlike S6, this post
remains, although padlocks on the access hatch prevented inspection of the interior. The
surface features all appear intact however, including an air vent, an access hatch and a
‘fixed survey meter probe’, and they all sit within an enclosing fence line. Each of the
surface features sits on top of its own discrete concrete plinth, and, except for the metal
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Figure 2a: General shot of S3 from the southwest
Figure 2b: Detail of S3 showing battery
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Figure 3a: Detail of bedrock scars of S4 from the south
Figure 3b: Detail of wreckage of S4 from the southeast
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
meter probe, are themselves made of concrete with metal vents/hatches. Traces of green
paint are still visible on all the features.
20.
At S7, a circular black cover has been fitted to the side of the air vent which sits on its
own (Figure 4a). This cover has been left unpainted.
21.
The features are in generally good condition with some vegetation growth present,
although there is some rust on the metal fixtures and parts of the concrete casing on the
access hatch appear to have broken off (Figure 4b).
22.
The remains of both an underground post and an Orlit Type A post are present at S8,
which sit to the east and the northeast of St John’s Town of Dalry, respectively.
23.
The underground post is located just to the west of the access road into Tower Farm near
to its junction with the A702. Padlocks on the access hatch prevented inspection of the
interior, but its surface features are still present and intact comprising an access hatch,
air vent and fixed survey meter probe. They are of the same construction and character
as those identified at S7, although there are some slight differences: the air vents are
missing their louvres and do not feature the black cover fitting seen at S7.
24.
The features at S8 also appear to include a short narrow upright pipe protruding from the
surface near to the meter probe, and it is possible that this may be the remains of a
Bomb Power Indicator baffle plate. This pipe has also been painted green. A further hatch
is also present in close vicinity of the site allowing for ground level access to a phoneline
(labelled ‘BT’).
25.
Apart from the missing louvres, the condition of the features appears to be good,
although the concrete of the air vent adjoined to the access hatch is of a poorer condition
compared with the other features. Moss and lichen are also present.
26.
The Orlit Post at S8 sits in rough grazing land just to the south of the Southern Upland
Way as it continues east from Midtown road. It sits at roughly 700m to the northnorthwest from the underground post.
27.
The post was an Orlit Type A and consists of a small single storey rectangular structure
with walls made of reinforced concrete panels and a concrete floor (unpainted). It is
divided into two chambers: the larger of the two is unroofed with the remains of two
metal struts projecting from the floor, while the smaller is covered by a flat concrete
roof. Within the roofed chamber, only one internal feature remains: a wooden bench
along its rear wall (Figure 5a). There is only one external entrance into the structure
which leads into the roofed chamber, with a single internal access leading between it and
the unroofed section. The structure is mostly intact except for the front wall which has
been separated from the structure but remains propped against its now open side.
28.
It remains in good condition although some cracks are apparent in the concrete, with
vegetation and moss present, and a gap is visible at the base of one of the external
corners of the unroofed chamber.
29.
The site at S9 comprises the remains of both an underground post and an Orlit Type A
post, which both sit in an enclosed rough grazing field to the northwest of Boreland of
Parton farm. The field sits on the northeast side of the A713 opposite the site of the Loch
Ken Holiday Park.
30.
An Orlit post of Type A construction has been recorded at S9 but all that remains of it is
a level rectangular concrete slab. The rest of the structure appears to have been
completely cleared and removed from the site.
31.
Only around 20m to the southeast of the slab’s location, sits the site of the underground
post. As with the underground posts at S7 and S8, padlocks on the access hatch
prevented inspection of the interior but the surface features are still present. This
includes an access hatch, air vent and fixed survey meter probe of the same character
and construction as those seen at the other two examples. The features also included the
possible pipe of a Bomb Power Indicator baffle plate (Figure 5b) and a small concrete
cable route marker which marks the route of an underground phoneline.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Figure 4a: Air vent at S7 showing the circular black cover attached to its side
Figure 4b: Access Hatch at S7
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Figure 5a: Interior of roofed chamber in Orlit post at S8 showing bench along rear wall
Figure 5b: Pipe (in foreground) possibly for a bomb power indicator baffle plate at S9
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Table 1: Details of sites visited during the on-site works
No
S3
Site
Crash Site:
Avro Anson
Mk.I
HER Ref:
Description
MDG13043
Research Design
NGR
NX 49695, 87180
Documentary sources record that the site was cleared of all large wreckage following the
crash. The site was recorded by the Peak District Air Accident Research Group. They reported
that the site was visible as a burnt-out scar with small pieces of wreckage.
Walkover Survey
Wreck 3 was located as a sub-circular area of exposed bedrock measuring 8.8m east-west by
10.8m transversely. The exposed bedrock had an average size of 0.1m by 0.15m was grey in
colour. It was broken into angular pieces. The area also contained many sections of aluminium,
mainly as pipes. A battery was located at the northwest corner.
S4
Crash Site: de
Havilland
Mosquito N.F.
Mk.II
MDG13046
NX 50474, 87032
Research Design
The site was visited by the Peak District Air Accident Research Group. They reported a scar at
crash site with small fragments remains. Some larger remains of undercarriage were visible
slightly downhill. Mosquito planes had a wooden frame, the bulk of the plane would have been
destroyed on impact.
Walkover Survey
The wreck was located as a wide spread of bedrock “scars” over the hillside just under the lip
of the hill at the “scar of folk”. Nine scars containing airplane debris were located, in addition to
a number of small scars without material. The largest scar measured 7.6m by 11.8m and
contained the fuselage and gears as well as metal and timber fragments. The other scars
containing metal and timber fragments had an average size of between 2m x 0.5m and 3m x
1m. The scars were all sub-circular in form.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 40
Image from Site Inspection
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
S6
Castle
Douglas
-
Research Design
-
Opened August 1940. Equipped with flares to warn aircraft of high ground (Granite) in 1943.
Later added an underground nuclear post in December 1961. Post closed in 1991.
Underground post was probably demolished in 1991.
ROC Post
33/C.1;
24/D.2; 22/E.3
Underground post has been completely removed. Some faint traces of the disturbance from its
demolition remain as an earthwork.
Carsphairn
-
Research Design
ROC Post
33/K.2; 25/H.2;
22/A.1
-
Opened in August 1940. Nuclear bunker added in January 1962. Probably disbanded in 1991.
Possible remains of WW2 post visible on low hill. Underground bunker visible within
compound.
WW2 post,
Underground
Post
NX 76804, 62300
Site Visit
WW2 post;
Underground
Post
S7
Underground
post (site of):
Site Visit
Surface remains of underground post still present and intact including ventilation shaft, access
hatch and sampling/fixed survey meter probe – all made from concrete. Enclosing fence line
still present. No access to interior of post as metal access hatch is padlocked. A circular black
cover has been fitted to the side of the air vent which sits on its own.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 40
Underground
Post:
NX 56089, 93347
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
S8
Dalry
-
Research Design
ROC Post
33/B.1; 25/C.2;
22/A.2
-
Opened in September 1940. Underground nuclear post added in January 1964. Probably
disbanded in 1991. Orlit A and underground bunker still visible.
WW2 post,
Orlit A,
Underground
Post
Underground
Post:
Underground Post:
NX 63249, 81400
Site Visit
Surface remains of underground post still present including ventilation shaft, access hatch and
sampling/fixed survey meter probe – all made from concrete. Phoneline running into the post’s
location also still present. Remains are all still intact apart from missing louvres on the air
vents. No access to interior of bunker as metal access hatch is padlocked.
Orlit Type A:
NX 63033, 82001
Remains of Orlit Type A structure still standing. A small rectangular structure only single storey,
it has a concrete floor with all walls made of reinforced concrete. It is divided into two halves –
one side is unroofed with the remains of two concrete struts projecting from the floor. The other
half is roofed with a flat concrete roof. The only internal feature remaining in this half is a
wooden bench along the rear wall. There is only one doorway from the exterior leading into the
roofed section, and a single internal doorway leading into the unroofed section. The structure is
mostly intact apart from the front wall which has been separated from the structure and left
leaning against it.
Orlit Type A:
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
S9
Parton
-
Research Design
ROC Post
33/B.3; 25/C.4;
22/A.3;
MDG25531
Opened October 1940. Equipped with “granite” 1943. Augmented “granite” 1944. Nuclear post
established April 1960. Post probably disbanded in 1991. Concrete base of Orlit A visible on
low hill near bunker.
WW2 post,
Nuclear
Bunker
Underground
Post:
Underground Post:
NX 68854, 70358
Site Visit
Orlit Type A:
Concrete base of Orlit Type A still present but nothing else remains.
NX 68836, 70365
Surface remains of underground post still present and intact including air vent, access hatch
and sampling/fixed survey meter probe – all made from concrete. The louvres on the ventilation
shaft are still intact. No access to interior of post as metal access hatch is padlocked. A short,
narrow upright pipe is visible protruding from the ground near to the meter probe is possibly the
remains of a Bomb Power Indicator baffle plate.
Orlit Type A:
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
62.
The condition of the surface features appears to be particularly good at S9 with the
concrete appearing mostly intact and a large portion of the green paint still visible.
Discussion
63.
The works comprised of two different elements: the survey of two high ground wrecks
(S3 and S4) and site visits to four ROC posts (S6, S7, S8 and S9).
High Ground Wrecks
64.
The sites of two high ground wrecks, S3 and S4, were visited and surveyed by
volunteers across two days. The two crashes had occurred during training exercises
undertaken at night-time when navigational errors could often result in a high number of
casualties.
65.
Smith had visited both locations in the 1970s and provided basic details of the sites as
well as photographs (1989, 28-31). In addition, members of the Peak District Air
Accident Research Group visited them in 2011 (Clark 2016b and 2016c). Combined with
the data from our current survey, these resources allow us to build a picture of the
changing condition of the sites over the years.
66.
S3 was cleared of all large pieces of wreckage immediately following the crash. As a
result, it broadly looked much the same during this survey as it had on the previous
recorded visits. However, the photographs from the 1970s seem to show larger
fragments of wreckage and bedrock compared to what is visible today. The recent survey
of the site, alongside the photographs from the 2011 survey, show that these fragments
have been broken down into significantly smaller pieces. This is likely to have been
caused by the weather on the exposed summit. The difference between the 2011 visit by
the Peak District Air Accident Research Group and the current survey are negligible.
However, the battery appears to have moved position slightly between the two surveys,
which further suggests that there is ongoing disturbance at the site.
67.
S4 had larger sections of wreckage, including some wooden fragments that are even
more susceptible to degradation. Smith has only provided a photograph of one section of
the site: a portion of a tailwheel (Smith 1989, 31). This was not located in later surveys,
indicating that it has either degraded or perhaps been blown further downhill in the
intervening years. Most of the material identified at the site was highly fragmentary in
nature, which may be attributed to later disturbance as well as the initial crash. This
disturbance could be a result of the site’s positioning at the lip of the corrie, which may
have exposed it to higher winds than if it had been further onto the ridge.
68.
There is also the possibility that some of the wreckage material has been removed by
passers-by for souvenirs. The Protection of Military Remains Act was introduced in 1986
and provides protection for the wreckage of all aircraft which have crashed while in
military service, and for designated vessels which have sunk or been stranded, again,
while in military service. Under this act, it is an offence to tamper with, damage, move or
unearth any remains without a licence from the Ministry of Defence. The primary reason
for the act is to protect a ‘war grave’: the last resting place of UK servicemen (or other
nationals), although the loss does not need to have occurred during wartime. The remote
location of the wrecks at the Corserine suggests that this may not have been a common
occurrence and it is unlikely that large fragments would have been carried off the hill.
However, the possibility remains that some of the more portable fragments visible in the
earlier photographs (for example, Smith 1989, 29) may have been removed prior to their
legal protection in 1986.
69.
Both crash sites are still visible as bedrock scars even 80 years after the crash. The
impact and resulting fire destroyed the thin mountain topsoil. While soil recovery in this
environment is slow, it would be expected that under normal circumstances some level of
recovery would be visible after 80 years. As it was stripped down to bedrock, the
revegetation process would include a layer of moss with the grass following afterwards.
This has not occurred, suggesting that the area may have been contaminated with high
octane aviation petrol and other chemicals during the collision. It is, however, not
possible to fully determine this without testing the area.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
70.
All wreck sites are of historical and archaeological interest as they provide information
about the nature of the wreck and the circumstances of their loss. This is particularly true
for those crash sites where loss of life occurred. Regarding the high ground wrecks, such
as the ones included in this study, their isolated location also means that they are less
likely to have been disturbed by later development.
71.
Crash sites are covered in the research framework proposed in Modern military matters,
Studying and managing the twentieth-century defence heritage in Britain (Schofield
2004). The focus is on the recording of sites and the education of aviation archaeology
groups on best practice. This is because most of the work on air crash sites has consisted
of uncontrolled excavation with no publication of records. The works carried out as part
of the Galloway Glens project fulfil these objectives. As the baseline survey was carried
out with assistance from members of the local community, it was able to provide both
detailed information about the current condition of the sites, while at the same time
giving an opportunity to train local volunteers and make them aware of the issues
concerning these fragile remains.
Royal Observer Corps Posts
72.
The Royal Observer Corps was operative throughout most of the 20th century, adapting
its function and objectives to match the changing threats faced by the country during this
time. For around 65 years, the Corps relied on the work of volunteers to front an
organisation that’s sole purpose was to protect the safety of the British people. To
achieve this, a network of posts numbering some 1,500 was established across the
country during its lifetime, and in several places their physical remains still survive to this
day.
73.
Within the Galloway Glens, four such posts have been identified: S6 (Castle Douglas), S7
(Carsphairn), S8 (St John’s Town of Dalry) and S9 (Parton). This project visited each
one, recording both its location and present condition, and aimed to bring their presence
back into the public awareness.
74.
All four posts were originally established in 1940 as part of the ROC’s increasing network
aimed at tracking aircraft during World War II. However, the earliest recognisable
remains to still survive on these sites are actually related to the ROC’s ‘second phase’:
the introduction of Orlit observation posts in the early 1950s for the purpose of tracking
soviet jets. This is not surprising, as the World War II posts are known to have varied
greatly with many being constructed locally. As noted by Brown et al., they ‘were
frequently simply sand-bagged emplacements, and even the most substantial were only
of domestic brick construction’ (1996, 32).
75.
Approximately 400 Orlit observation posts were installed across Britain (Dalton 2017, 5).
The remains of these posts were only present at S8 and S9, with none ever recorded at
the other two sites. The Orlit posts were all built to a set design, and of the two types (A
and B), the two within the Galloway Glens area appear to have been of the Type A
variety. The Type B post would have been raised off the ground on concrete stilts, so the
concrete slab surviving at S8 indicates that this is likely to have been a Type A post.
76.
The remains of the Orlit post at S9 are still upstanding and clearly match the
construction design for the Type A post, with the roofed chamber acting as a shelter and
store, and the unroofed chamber used as an open observation area. The structure is
formed of pre-cast concrete panels, reinforced by metal bars embedded in the concrete
mass, which would have been assembled on site. Adopted in the early 20th century,
reinforced concrete offered greater strength from relatively thin components and gave
the material an enhanced blast resistance (Brown et al. 1996, 19). It also lent itself to
prefabrication which became increasingly popular throughout both World Wars with the
creation of standardised ‘kit’ buildings taking precedence (ibid.).
77.
While the main structure of the Orlit post at S9 remains intact (for the most part), the
structure has been cleared of all equipment. It is likely that the separation of one of its
concrete walls was to allow for the removal of the ‘plotting table’ which would have sat at
the centre of the observation area, presumably fixed in place by the metal struts still
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
visible. Except for these metal struts and a wooden bench, the structure has also been
stripped of any additional fittings. For example, no door remains on the external entrance
and the internal sliding door has also been removed. Presumably, all removable features
which were seen to have reuse value were not to be left behind.
78.
With the shift in the ROC’s focus towards the monitoring of nuclear blasts and fallout
during the 1960s, the structure of the posts changed. Some 1,560 underground
monitoring posts were built, replacing the above-ground Orlit posts: a shift that was
viewed as enhancing the survivability of the post’s crew (Dalton 2017, 15). The majority
of such posts were built between 1958 and 1964, although the construction programme
continued until the early 1970s (Brown et al. 1996, 130).
79.
An underground post was constructed at each of the four ROC sites within the Galloway
Glens area between 1960 and 1964, reflecting the higher number of these structures
installed compared to the Orlit posts. Brown et al. note that the underground posts were
often sited in clusters within a small geographical area which were ‘sufficient to permit
the triangulation of plots’ (1996, 130). This is further explained by Dalton who states that
the clusters comprised between two and five posts sat approximately 8 miles apart, and
he also provides a map showing the sectors, groups and clusters of the posts across
Britain (2017, 14). From this map, it is possible to discern that the four posts would have
been in the ‘Ayr’ group within the ‘Caledonian’ or Scottish sector.
80.
No traces of the underground post which sat at S6 have survived. It appears to have
been completely removed with only slight earthworks remaining from the demolition
process. At the other three sites – S7, S8 and S9 – however, the underground posts
remain intact.
81.
At S9, the location of the underground post sits near to the site of the earlier Orlit post,
while in contrast, the underground post at S8 sits at some distance away. This is likely a
result of the strict requirements needed for the siting of the new underground posts (see
Historical and Archaeological Background section – Royal Observer Corps Posts). While it
was preferable to use existing sites, which had often been chosen for good visibility and
were already owned by the Crown, there were many places where the land was
unsuitable, such as was the case at S8 (Dalton 2017, 21). The siting of the underground
post at S8 closer to the road may also reflect efforts made to reduce the impact of
access issues on the landowner (ibid.).
82.
As mentioned, the underground posts at S7, S8 and S9 survive intact. The design of the
underground posts underwent various modifications since their original construction in
the 1950s. The three posts surveyed however, all appeared to be of a similar design,
likely due to their construction within a few years of each other. For example, all three
featured an access hatch of a one-piece design which was a later change from the
original ‘split-hatch’ design (Dalton 2017, 28-29).
83.
All the surface features appear to have been painted a dark green. This fits with most of
the underground posts which were ‘toned down to colour shade most like drab’, although
Dalton describes some instances were different colour schemes were followed (2017,
23).
84.
The most notable difference between the posts was the presence of the circular black
cover on the air vent at S7. The main means of communication between the posts and
the group headquarters was through the telephone network, with lines usually carried
into the sites on telegraph poles. This was long seen as a weak point within the posts’
setup; if the lines were damaged during a nuclear attack, then the ability of the posts to
relay information to headquarters would be disabled (Dalton 2017, 50). In response to
this, a Very High Frequency (VHF) radio system was installed at one post in each cluster
as a back-up to the telephone line. The radio system was rolled out throughout the
1960s until the mid-1970s, although some posts did not receive it until the 1980s
(Dalton 2017, 51). The plan was to install radios at each of the existing master posts
within the clusters, although this depended on whether they were suitably positioned to
receive radio transmissions. Where this was not the case, a reshuffling of the posts and
cluster groups was required to make sure that each cluster had a master post with radio
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
capacity; this was one of the key reasons why the rollout took so long (ibid.).
85.
Where radio functionality was installed at a post, this also included the use of an external
aerial mast which could be fitted onto the side of the air vent when required. The mast
needed two connections which were taken down into the post via the ventilator shaft
(Paine 1971, 18-19). The sockets for these connections were contained within a case
fitted to the rear side of the air vent: the circular black cover at S7 (Figure 4a and Paine
1971, 20 – images on the right). The presence of the black cover at S7 therefore
highlights that this underground post would have acted as a master post within a cluster.
86.
Due to budget cutbacks in 1968, the ROC had to close over 600 underground posts
(Dalton 2017, 15). This does not seem to have included the four posts that sat within the
Galloway Glens area however, which were all still recorded as being ‘in use’ in 1968
(Wood 1976, 329). Instead, the four posts were likely still operating until the ROC was
officially stood down in 1991.
87.
The nature of the stand-down meant that the abandonment of the underground posts
appears to have been just that: a swift locking up and walking away by the crews that
occupied them. The decision was poorly communicated, and it left many observers
feeling let down by the government of the time, so much so, that when it came to closing
the posts down, they were reluctant to clear them out (Dalton 2017, 97-99). This meant
that everything apart from the key items of equipment were left behind and, in some
cases, not even these were taken (ibid., 99).
88.
The communications equipment was the property of British Telecom (BT) so even when
the posts were cleared out, this equipment remained (Dalton 2017, 99). BT removed
equipment from some of the posts themselves, but it was generally seen as not costeffective as the kit had no reuse value, meaning that some of the lines even remained
‘live’ for many years after (ibid., 99). This is evident at the sites within the Galloway
Glens area, with a telegraph pole still present even at S6 despite the underground post
having long been demolished.
89.
While it was not possible to enter any of the surviving underground posts during these
site visits, an earlier visit to the post at S9 in 2002, recorded on the Subterranea
Britannica website (https://www.subbrit.org.uk/sites/parton-roc-post/ [accessed 3rd
December 2020]), was able to gain access. This record shows that most of the items had
been left behind, including paperwork, maps, mattresses and even down to the teapot.
This corresponds with the swift abandonment of these structures.
90.
After the posts were closed, many reverted to the original landowners, with the Ministry
of Defence (MoD) responsible for demolishing each post and returning the land to its
former condition (Dalton 2017, 163). When the time came however, the MoD instead
paid the local farmers to allow the post to remain on their land: a cheaper option than
the more expensive demolition process (ibid.). This is likely the reason why three out of
the four underground posts have survived and suggests that the removal of the post at
S6 was perhaps not a common occurrence. In this case, its removal appears to have
been the choice of the landowner themselves.
91.
The posts that remain have all been secured with padlocks which has protected them
from vandalism since their closure. The presence of these structures often goes
unnoticed by those around them, particularly the underground posts whose very nature
makes them hard-to-spot. The role of the ROC and the significance of these features
cannot be emphasised enough, however.
92.
In 1976, it was estimated that over 150,000 men and women had served in the Corps
since it began in 1925 (Wood 1976, ix) and this number will have increased over its
continuation until 1991. Only a small number of its members were paid professionals,
with thousands of volunteers taking on the responsibility of what could be a very risky
and dangerous operation. Not to mention the uncomfortable situation of being holed up
in small structures or bunkers for hours or days at a time, in all weather.
93.
The physical remains at these sites survive as memorials of their hard work and attest to
the changing political climate throughout the 20th century. That distinct structures from
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
multiple historical periods survive in the same location further demonstrates their
significance. On top of this, the way in which the underground posts were abandoned
often mean that many of them remain as a sort of ‘time capsule’ containing direct
evidence from their occupation: a rare occurrence within archaeology.
94.
A few of the posts have been restored and there are many who continue to try and
maintain the knowledge of their existence for future generations. But many of these
structures sit forgotten in the fields across Britain and it is hoped that this record can
help towards highlighting their importance once more.
Conclusion
95.
The field survey of the high ground wrecks on the Corserine provided data that
contributed to our understanding of these sites and allowed us to establish their precise
GPS location. It was possible to compile a more complete record for the sites including
the dimensions of the remaining scars and the size and location of wreckage fragments.
This record can act as a baseline which allows the condition of the sites to be monitored
in future.
96.
Comparison with earlier photographs of both sites indicates that there has been a
noticeable amount of disturbance and degradation of the wreckage material in the 80
years since the aircraft crashed. However, in the absence of a previous detailed survey, it
is impossible to say for sure what the scale of the degradation has been.
97.
The visits to the four ROC posts were also able to establish a precise GPS location for the
structures and a thorough photographic record of what remains at each site. While the
Orlit post at S9 has been demolished down to its base slab, the main structure of the
Orlit post at S8 is still extant, although it has been stripped of all features. In contrast,
the underground posts at S7, S8 and S9 all appear to survive intact. With only the
underground post at S6 having been demolished, this appears to reflect the swift
abandonment of these structures at the closure of the ROC; evidence which matches the
description of the closure gleaned from the written resources. While it was not possible to
enter the underground posts during the visits, an earlier record of the post’s interior at
S9 found that many of its items, down to the paperwork, remained inside. There is a
strong possibility that this is also the case in the posts at both S7 and S8.
98.
The significance of both the high ground wreck sites and the ROC posts cannot be
overstated. They are the surviving traces of some of the most important aspects of
recent military history. The wreck sites highlight the loss of life that occurred in WWII.
The ROC posts signify the strength of volunteer work in supporting the British military to
navigate the threats (real or perceived) that the country faced in the 20 th century. Both
survive as a testament to the risks that many were willing to take in defence of their
country.
99.
The involvement of local volunteers in the survey of these sites allowed them to gain
training in archaeological survey and, importantly, managed to bring these sites back
into local awareness and knowledge; a factor which these sites need for their continued
survival.
Acknowledgements
100.
This project is part of a wider Community Archaeology project, ‘Can You Dig It’, run by
the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme from February 2019 to March 2020.
See www.gallowayglens.org.uk/Resources and follow ‘Can You Dig It’ for their published
outputs. The Community Archaeology project was offered free to volunteers thanks to
funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland. The
land is owned by the Forrest Estate who were happy to allow us access and were
incredibly supportive about the project. Guidance was given by Dumfries and Galloway
Council Archaeology Service and members of local heritage societies.
101.
The author would like to thank all the hardworking volunteers who took part in the
survey: Alan Crosbie, Alan Smith, Fiona Smith, John Hosker, Evelyn Hosker, Tom
Marshall, Donald Gibson, Bethan Rees, Paul Goodwin, John Allison, Will Marshall, Richard
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Bellamy, Eva Armstrong-Phillips, Struan Long and Catherine Phillips.
102.
Many thanks also go to Liam McKinstry for his editing of this report.
References
Documentary
Air Ministry Information Bureau 1951 Join your neighbours in an ROC post, No. Inf 119
Brown, I., Burridge, D., Clarke, D., Guy, J., Hellis, J., Lowry, B., Ruckley, N. & Thomas,
R. 1996 20th Century Defences in Britain: An introductory guide, Council for British
Archaeology, Practical Handbooks in Archaeology Volume 12 (Revised edition)
Clark, A. 2016a ‘Avro Anson Mk.I L9153 of No.12 Elementary and Reserve Flying Training
School, Prestwick crashed on Corserine on the 9th January 1939’ [online] available at:
https://www.peakdistrictaircrashes.co.uk/crash_sites/scotland/avro-anson-l9153corserine/ [accessed 7th February 2019]
Clark, A. 2016b ‘Avro Anson Mk.I DG787 of the Air Navigation & Bombing School crashed
on Corserine in the Rhinns of Kells on the 23rd October 1942’ [online] available at:
https://www.peakdistrictaircrashes.co.uk/crash_sites/scotland/avro-anson-dg787corserine/ [accessed 25th March 2020]
Clark, A. 2016c ‘de Havilland Mosquito N.F. Mk.II DD795 of No.60 OTU crashed on
Corserine during the night of the 20th / 21st January 1944’ [online] available at:
https://www.peakdistrictaircrashes.co.uk/crash_sites/scotland/de-havilland-mosquitodd795-corserine/ [accessed 25th March 2020]
Dalton, M. 2017 The Royal Observer Corps Underground Monitoring Posts, Folly Books
Ltd
Decock, J.-P. 2009 A la mémoire de l’équipage du K-14 [online] available at:
https://www.hangarflying.eu/2009/08/a-la-memoire-de-lequipage-du-k-14/ (translated
by Google Translate) [accessed 7th February 2019]
Gillon, G. 2011 Vaclav Jelinek [online] available at:
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/64821094/vaclav-jelinek [accessed 7th February
2019]
Hastings, M. 1979 Bomber Command, Pan Macmillan
HQ ROC 1970 The Origin and History of the Royal Observer Corps [online] available at:
http://www.roc-heritage.co.uk/uploads/7/6/8/9/7689271/roc_history1970.pdf [accessed
2nd November 2020]
Krischer, S. & Rees, T. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project, Research Design, 1.2.g High Ground Wrecks and the
Royal Observer Corps, unpublished grey literature report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
McKinstry, L. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community
Archaeology Project, Risk Assessment Method Statement, 1.2.g Wrecks – Corserine Hill
unpublished grey literature report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Paine, G. H. 1971 ‘Setting up and operating the Post Radio Installation’, The Royal
Observer Corps Journal, Vol.13 No. 2, 18-21 [online] available at: http://www.rocheritage.co.uk/uploads/7/6/8/9/7689271/roc_journal_vol13_no2_feb71_144dpi.pdf
[accessed 10th December 2020]
Smith, D. J. 1989 High Ground Wrecks: A Survey of Aircraft Crash Remains on the Hills
and Mountains of the UK and Ireland, 3rd edition, Midland Counties Publications
Schofield, J. 2004 Modern military matters, Studying and managing the twentiethcentury defence heritage in Britain: a discussion document, Council for British
Archaeology
Winslow, T. E. 1948 Forwarded is Forearmed: The Authorized History of the Royal
Observer Corps, W Hodge and Co
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Wood, D. 1976 Attack Warning Red: The Royal Observer Corps and the Defence of Britain
1925-1975, Macdonald and Janes Ltd
Websites
Peak District Air Crashes Research Group:
https://www.peakdistrictaircrashes.co.uk/category/crash_sites/scotland/
Subterranea Britannica, UKNWMO and ROC posts:
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/category/nuclear-monitoring-posts
Subterranea Britannica, Parton ROC post:
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/roc/db/989427148.html
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 24 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland
LOCAL AUTHORITY:
Dumfries & Galloway
PROJECT TITLE/SITE
NAME:
Galloway Glens – High Ground Wrecks and Royal Observer Corps
Posts
PROJECT CODE:
RA18107
PARISH:
Carsphairn; Kells; Dalry; Parton; Kelton
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR:
Sarah Krischer, Thomas Rees and Claire Williamson
NAME OF ORGANISATION:
Rathmell Archaeology Limited
TYPE(S) OF PROJECT:
Field Survey
NMRS NO(S):
-
SITE/MONUMENT TYPE(S):
-
SIGNIFICANT FINDS:
None
NGR (2 letters, 8 or 10
figures)
NX 76804 62300 - NX 56089 93347 - NX 49695 87180
START DATE (this season)
20th June 2019
END DATE (this season)
10th October 2019
PREVIOUS WORK (incl.
DES ref.)
None
MAIN (NARRATIVE)
DESCRIPTION: (may include
information from other fields)
The field survey of the high ground wrecks on the Corserine provided
data that contributed to our understanding of these sites and allowed
us to establish their precise GPS location. It was possible to compile a
more complete record for the sites including the dimensions of the
remaining scars and the size and location of wreckage fragments.
This record can act as a baseline which allows the condition of the
sites to be monitored in future.
Comparison with earlier photographs of both sites indicates that there
has been a noticeable amount of disturbance and degradation of the
wreckage material in the 80 years since the aircraft crashed.
However, in the absence of a previous detailed survey, it is
impossible to say for sure what the scale of the degradation has been.
The visits to the four ROC posts were also able to establish a precise
GPS location for the structures and a thorough photographic record of
what remains at each site. While the Orlit post at S9 has been
demolished down to its base slab, the main structure of the Orlit post
at S8 is still extant, although it has been stripped of all features. In
contrast, the underground posts at S7, S8 and S9 all appear to
survive intact. With only the underground post at S6 having been
demolished, this appears to reflect the swift abandonment of these
structures at the closure of the ROC; evidence which matches the
description of the closure gleaned from the written resources. While it
was not possible to enter the underground posts during the visits, an
earlier record of the post’s interior at S9 found that many of its items,
down to the paperwork, remained inside. There is a strong possibility
that this is also the case in the posts at both S7 and S8.
The significance of both the high ground wreck sites and the ROC
posts cannot be overstated. They are the surviving traces of some of
the most important aspects of recent military history. The wreck sites
highlight the loss of life that occurred in WWII. The ROC posts signify
the strength of volunteer work in supporting the British military to
navigate the threats (real or perceived) that the country faced in the
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 25 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
20th century. Both survive as a testament to the risks that many were
willing to take in defence of their country.
The involvement of local volunteers in the survey of these sites
allowed them to gain training in archaeological survey and,
importantly, managed to bring these sites back into local awareness
and knowledge; a factor which these sites need for their continued
survival.
PROPOSED FUTURE
WORK:
None
CAPTION(S) FOR
ILLUSTRS:
None
SPONSOR OR FUNDING
BODY:
The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme (part of
Dumfries & Galloway Council), externally funded by Historic
Environment Scotland and the Heritage Fund
ADDRESS OF MAIN
CONTRIBUTOR:
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops, Kilwinning, Ayrshire KA13 6PU
EMAIL:
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
ARCHIVE LOCATION
(intended/deposited)
Report to Dumfries & Galloway Archaeology Service and archive to
National Record of the Historic Environment.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 26 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Appendix 2: Registers
103.
Appendix 1, which contains all registers pertaining to the works on site during the survey
Photographic Register
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
1
8704
General shot – group at summit cairn
-
20/06/19
2
8705
General shot – group at summit cairn
-
20/06/19
3
8706
General shot- group surveying site S3
SE
20/06/19
4
8707
General shot- group surveying site S3
SE
20/06/19
5
8708
General shot- group surveying site S3
SE
20/06/19
6
8709
General shot- group surveying site S3
SE
20/06/19
7
8710
General shot- group surveying site S3
SSE
20/06/19
8
8711
S3 - Detail shot
E
20/06/19
9
8712
S3 - Detail shot
E
20/06/19
10
8713
S3 - Detail shot
N
20/06/19
11
8714
Detail shot of wreckage – S3
-
20/06/19
12
8715
Detail shot of wreckage – S3
-
20/06/19
13
8716
Detail shot of wreckage – S3
-
20/06/19
14
8717
Detail shot of wreckage – S3
-
20/06/19
15
8718
Detail shot of wreckage – S3
-
20/06/19
16
8719
Detail shot of wreckage – S3
-
20/06/19
17
8720
General shot of group at S3
-
20/06/19
18
8721
General shot of S3
ESE
20/06/19
19
8722
General shot of S3
ESE
20/06/19
20
8723
General shot of S3
SSE
20/06/19
21
8724
General shot of S3
SSE
20/06/19
22
8725
General shot of S3
SSE
20/06/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 27 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
23
8726
General shot of S3
S
20/06/19
24
8727
General shot of S3
SW
20/06/19
25
8728
General shot of S3
SW
20/06/19
26
8729
General shot of S3
SE
20/06/19
27
8730
General shot of S3
SSE
20/06/19
28
8731
General shot of S3
SSE
20/06/19
29
8732
General shot of S3
SSE
20/06/19
30
8733
Tom at the top
-
20/06/19
31
8734
Wreckage – S4 detail shot
-
20/06/19
32
8735
Working shot – surveying
-
20/06/19
33
8736
Detail of wreckage S4
-
20/06/19
34
8737
Detail shot of S4
-
20/06/19
35
8738
Detail shot of S4
-
20/06/19
36
8739
Detail shot of S4
-
20/06/19
37
8740
Working shot of S4
-
20/06/19
38
8741
Detail shot of S4
-
20/06/19
39
8742
Detail shot of S4
-
20/06/19
40
8743
Detail shot of S4
-
20/06/19
41
8744
Detail shot of S4
-
20/06/19
42
8745
Detail shot of S4
SW
20/06/19
43
8746
Detail shot of S4
-
20/06/19
44
8747
Detail shot of S4
-
20/06/19
45
8748
Working shot of S4
-
20/06/19
46
8749
Working shot of S4
-
20/06/19
47
8750
Working shot of S4
-
20/06/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 28 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
48
8751
Working shot of S4
SW
20/06/19
49
8752
Group shot at S4
SW
20/06/19
50
8753
Group shot at S4
-
20/06/19
51
8754
Group shot at S4
-
20/06/19
52
8755
General shot of S4
S
20/06/19
53
8756
General shot of S4
S
20/06/19
54
8757
General shot of S4
SW
20/06/19
55
8558
General shot of S4
SW
20/06/19
56
8559
General shot of S4
WSW
20/06/19
57
8560
General shot of S4
WSW
20/06/19
58
8561
General shot of S4
WSW
20/06/19
59
8562
General shot of S4
NW
20/06/19
60
8663
General view from top
W
20/06/19
61
8764
General view from top
W
20/06/19
62
8765
Group shot
-
20/06/19
63
8766
Group shot with view
-
20/06/19
64
8767
Group shot with view
-
20/06/19
65
1144
General shot
-
26/07/19
66
1145
General shot
-
26/07/19
67
1146
General shot
-
26/07/19
68
1147
Detail shot of S3
-
26/07/19
69
1148
Detail shot of S3
-
26/07/19
70
1149
Detail shot of S3
-
26/07/19
71
1150
Detail shot of S3
-
26/07/19
72
1151
Detail shot of S3
-
26/07/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 29 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
73
1152
Detail shot of S3
-
26/07/19
74
1153
General shot of S3
E
26/07/19
75
1154
Detail shot of S3
SE
26/07/19
76
1155
Detail shot of S3
SE
26/07/19
77
1156
Trig point
-
26/07/19
78
1157
General shot
-
26/07/19
79
1158
General shot
-
26/07/19
80
1159
General shot
SW
26/07/19
81
1160
General shot (with dogs)
SW
26/07/19
82
1161
General shot
NE
26/07/19
83
1162
Detail shot of S4
-
26/07/19
84
1163
Detail shot of S4
-
26/07/19
85
1164
Detail shot of S4
-
26/07/19
86
1165
Detail shot of S4
-
26/07/19
87
1166
General shot of S4
SE
26/07/19
88
1167
General shot of S4
SW
26/07/19
89
1168
Detail shot of S4
-
26/07/19
90
1169
Detail shot of S4
NW
26/07/19
91
1170
General shot of S4
SW
26/07/19
92
1171
Detail shot of S4
SW
26/07/19
93
001
S9, Orlit Type A post with underground post in the background
-
10/10/19
94
002
S9, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
95
003
S9, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
96
004
S9, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
97
005
S9, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 30 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
98
006
S9, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
99
007
S9, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
100
008
S9, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
101
009
S9, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
102
010
S9, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
103
011
S9, base slab remaining of Orlit post with underground post in the background
-
10/10/19
104
012
S9, base slab remaining of Orlit post
-
10/10/19
105
013
S6, Site of underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
106
014
S6, Site of underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
107
015
S6, Site of underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
108
016
S6, Site of underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
109
017
S6, Site of underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
110
018
S6, Site of underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
111
019
S6, Site of underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
112
020
S6, Site of underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
113
021
S6, Site of underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
114
022
S6, Site of underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
115
023
S6, Site of underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
116
024
Voided
-
-
117
025
Voided
-
-
118
026
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
119
027
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
120
028
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
121
029
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
122
030
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 31 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
123
031
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch
-
10/10/19
124
032
S8, Underground post – Detail of air vent
-
10/10/19
125
033
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
126
034
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
127
035
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch
-
10/10/19
128
036
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch
-
10/10/19
129
037
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
130
038
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
131
039
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
132
040
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
133
041
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
134
042
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
135
043
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
136
044
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
137
045
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
138
046
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
139
047
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
140
048
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
141
049
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
142
050
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
143
051
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
144
052
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
145
053
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
146
054
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
147
055
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 32 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
148
056
S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
149
057
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
150
058
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
151
059
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
152
060
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
153
061
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
154
062
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
155
063
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
156
064
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
157
065
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
158
066
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
159
067
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
160
068
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
161
069
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
162
070
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
163
071
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
164
072
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
165
073
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
166
074
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
167
075
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
168
076
S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent
-
10/10/19
169
077
S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe and air vent
-
10/10/19
170
078
S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe and air vent
-
10/10/19
171
079
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
172
080
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 33 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
173
081
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
174
082
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
175
083
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
176
084
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
177
085
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
178
086
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
179
087
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
180
088
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
181
089
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
182
090
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
183
091
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
184
092
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
185
093
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
186
094
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
187
095
S8, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
188
096
S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe and possible site of Bomb Power Indicator baffle plate
-
10/10/19
189
097
S8, Underground post – Possible site of Bomb Power Indicator baffle plate
-
10/10/19
190
098
S8, Underground post – Possible site of Bomb Power Indicator baffle plate
-
10/10/19
191
099
S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe
-
10/10/19
192
100
S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe
-
10/10/19
193
101
S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe
-
10/10/19
194
102
S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe
-
10/10/19
195
103
S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe
-
10/10/19
196
104
S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe
-
10/10/19
197
105
S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe
-
10/10/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 34 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
198
106
S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe
-
10/10/19
199
107
S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe
-
10/10/19
200
108
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
201
109
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
202
110
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
203
111
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
204
112
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
205
113
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
206
114
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
207
115
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
208
116
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
209
117
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
210
118
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
211
119
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
212
120
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
213
121
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
214
122
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
215
123
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
216
124
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
217
125
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
218
126
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
219
127
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
220
128
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
221
129
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
222
130
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 35 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
223
131
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
224
132
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
225
133
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
226
134
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
227
135
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
228
136
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
229
137
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
230
138
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
231
139
S8, Underground post – ‘BT’ phoneline access
-
10/10/19
232
140
Voided
-
-
233
141
Voided
-
-
234
142
S8, Underground post – ‘BT’ phoneline access
-
10/10/19
235
143
Voided
-
-
236
144
S8, Underground post – ‘BT’ phoneline access
-
10/10/19
237
145
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
238
146
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
239
147
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
240
148
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
241
149
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
242
150
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
243
151
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
244
152
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
245
153
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
246
154
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
247
155
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 36 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
248
156
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
249
157
S8, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
250
158
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
251
159
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
252
160
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
253
161
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
254
162
S8, Orlit post – Interior
-
10/10/19
255
163
S8, Orlit post – Interior
-
10/10/19
256
164
S8, Orlit post – Interior
-
10/10/19
257
165
S8, Orlit post – Interior
-
10/10/19
258
166
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
259
167
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
260
168
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
261
169
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
262
170
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
263
171
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
264
172
S8, Orlit post – Interior
-
10/10/19
265
173
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
266
174
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
267
175
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
268
176
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
269
177
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
270
178
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
271
179
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
272
180
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 37 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
273
181
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
274
182
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
275
183
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
276
184
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
277
185
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
278
186
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
279
187
S8, Orlit post – Detail shot
-
10/10/19
280
188
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
281
189
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
282
190
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
283
191
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
284
192
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
285
193
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
286
194
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
287
195
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
288
196
S8, Orlit post – General view
-
10/10/19
289
197
S7 – Fallen flag post
-
10/10/19
290
198
S7 – Fallen flag post
-
10/10/19
291
199
S7, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
292
200
S7, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
293
201
S7, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
294
202
S7, Underground post – Access hatch
-
10/10/19
295
203
S7, Underground post – Air vent
-
10/10/19
296
204
S7, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
297
205
S7, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 38 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
298
206
S7, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
299
207
S7, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
300
208
S7, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
301
209
S7, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
302
210
S7, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
303
211
S7, Underground post – General view
-
10/10/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 39 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report
Contact Details
Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at our Registered Office or through the web:
Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops
Kilwinning
Ayrshire
KA13 6PU
www.rathmell-arch.co.uk
t.:
f.:
e.:
01294 542848
01294 542849
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
End of Document
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 40 of 40
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – High Ground Wrecks and the Royal Observer Corps
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
GGLP_95
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2023
Description
An account of the resource
Surveys and test pitting works undertaken as part of the community archaeology project “Can You Dig It?”.
archaeology
GGLP
-
https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/554/GGLP-CYDI-DSR-Upper-Gairloch-2nd-Season.pdf
7914871dbedd2f1c86e981c1cb02ac09
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Medieval or Later Rural Settlement – Upper Gairloch Season 2
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Reports
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project
Data Structure Report
1.2.f Medieval or Later Rural Settlement –
Upper Gairloch, 2nd Season
by Claire Williamson & Liam McKinstry
th
issued 6
February 2020
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Quality Assurance
This report covers works which have been undertaken in keeping with the issued brief as
modified by the agreed programme of works. The report has been prepared in keeping
with the guidance of Rathmell Archaeology Limited on the preparation of reports. All works
reported on within this document have been undertaken in keeping with the Chartered
Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of Conduct.
Signed
………………………………..
Date
…..6th February 2020……
In keeping with the procedure of Rathmell Archaeology Limited this document and its
findings have been reviewed and agreed by an appropriate colleague:
Checked
………………………………..
Date
…..6th February 2020……
Copyright Rathmell Archaeology Limited. All rights reserved.
No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written
permission from Rathmell Archaeology Limited. If you have received this report in error,
please destroy all copies in your possession or control.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by Rathmell Archaeology Limited. No liability is accepted by
Rathmell Archaeology Limited for any use of this report, other than the purposes for which
it was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Rathmell Archaeology
Limited using due skill, care and diligence and no explicit warranty is provided as to their
accuracy. No independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to
Rathmell Archaeology Limited has been made.
Quality Assurance Data
Author(s)
Claire Williamson & Liam McKinstry
Date of Issue
6th February 2020
Commissioning Body
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme
Event Name
Upper Gairloch, Raiders Road - 2nd Season
Event Type
Survey; Test Pitting
Event Date(s)
August 2019
Rathmell Archaeology Code
RA18107
Location
United Kingdom : Scotland : Dumfries & Galloway
NGR
NX 61433 72936
Designation(s)
None
Canmore IDs
177552
Version
Parish
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 1 of 62
1.0
Kells
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................. 4
Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 4
Project Works ................................................................................ 6
Findings ......................................................................................... 6
Summary of Finds ........................................................................ 21
Discussion ................................................................................... 27
First appearance through to the early 19th century ................................................ 27
Mid-19th century – the farm ............................................................................... 28
Mid-19th century – the people ............................................................................ 34
Abandonment .................................................................................................. 35
Conclusion ................................................................................... 37
Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 37
References .................................................................................. 38
Documentary ................................................................................................... 38
Archive ........................................................................................................... 38
Cartographic .................................................................................................... 39
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland ......................... 40
Appendix 2: Registers.................................................................. 42
Context Register............................................................................................... 42
Drawing Register .............................................................................................. 46
Photographic Register ....................................................................................... 46
Figures
Figure 1a: Pre-excavation shot across [008] from the west .................................................... 7
Figure 1b: Shot showing (009) overlying structure in southeast corner, from the north .......... 7
Figure 2: Plan of [008]............................................................................................................ 8
Figure 3a: Shot of makeup of external southern wall of [008] from the west ........................... 9
Figure 3b: External east facing elevation of [008] showing higher surviving section of wall .... 9
Figure 4: Plan of [008a]........................................................................................................ 11
Figure 5a: [008a] from the east ............................................................................................ 12
Figure 5b: Site of possible entrance through west wall of [008a] .......................................... 12
Figure 6: Plan of [008b/c] ..................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7a: [008b/c] from the northeast ................................................................................. 14
Figure 7b: [008d] from the south .......................................................................................... 14
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 8: Plan of [008d]........................................................................................................ 15
Figure 9a: Shot of loose stones (011) in southeastern corner of [008a] from the north......... 17
Figure 9b: Deposit (010) from the south ............................................................................... 17
Figure 10a: Shot of surface [020] in Test Pit A from the north .............................................. 18
Figure 10b: Shot of surface [025] in Test Pit C from the east ............................................... 18
Figure 11a: Shot of surface [026] in Trench 4 from the north ............................................... 19
Figure 11b: Shot showing surface [013] in Trench 2 from the northeast ............................... 19
Figure 12a: Shot of step from surface [013] down onto surface [027] (in foreground) from the
west ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 12b: Shot of surfaces [015] (to rear) and [016] in Trench 3 from the east .................. 20
Figure 13a: Fragmentary slate stylus <88> and incomplete roofing slate <79> .................... 23
Figure 13b: Iron file and hand-held fork (<10>) .................................................................... 23
Figure 14a: Two sherds from a hand-painted ‘Pearlware’ cup (c.1780s-1820s) ................... 24
Figure 14b: Left hand side: portion of neck/body from aerated drinks bottle <31>; right hand
side: fragmentary base from ‘onion’ type wine bottle <11> ................................................... 24
Figure 15a: A selection of sponge-decorated and hand-painted wares (numbered as follows:
top row, from left to right: <9>, <7>, <15>; middle row, left to right: <9>, <25>; bottom row,
from left to right: <17>, <8>, <8>, <7>) ................................................................................ 25
Figure 15b: A selection of transfer-printed sherds in blue, black and purple colourways
(numbered as follows: top row, from left to right: <17>, <92>, <78>; middle row, from left to
right: <17>, <7>; bottom row, from left to right: <7>, <7>, <35>) .......................................... 25
Figure 16a: Sherds from slipware dairy bowls (top left, <20> and bottom right, <28>, wheelthrown crock jar (bottom left, <33>), and miscellaneous slipware vessels (centre, <20> and
top right, <89>) .................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 16b: Stems from clay tobacco pipes (top left <55>; centre left <93>); spherical clay
stopper from aerated drinks bottle, potentially re-used as marble (centre <41>); sherd from
heavy ceramic chimney pot, potentially used as cloche jar <1>) .......................................... 26
Figure 17a: Extract from Blaeu’s Atlas of Scotland, Gallovidia (Galloway), 1654 ................. 30
Figure 17b: Extract from Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland 1752-55 .................................... 30
Figure 18a: Extract from 1st edition Ordnance Survey map published 1852 ......................... 31
Figure 18b: Extract from 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map published 1896 ........................ 31
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Introduction
1.
This Data Structure Report describes works carried out for the sub-project on Medieval or
Later Rural Settlement carried out as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
(GGLP) community archaeology project Can You Dig It? This Report presents the results
from survey and test pitting works undertaken at the site of the former farmstead of Upper
Gairloch situated along Raiders Road.
2.
These works represent a second season at Upper Gairloch; an initial season in March
focussed on the kiln barn (see Williamson 2019), while this season centred on clearing and
surveying the main steading.
3.
The works were carried out by volunteers supported by Rathmell Archaeology staff. The
structure of the works was drawn from advice and guidance from officers of GGLP, Dumfries
and Galloway Council, Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) and members of local heritage
societies.
Historical & Archaeological Background
4.
A brief historical background for Raiders Road and the settlements along it has been lifted
from the Research Design for the sub-project (Turner & Rees 2019, 3-5):
The Raiders Road is the name given to a modern forest drive which links the A712
(known as ‘The Queen’s Way’) in the west, to the A762 in the east, which it joins
on the west bank of Loch Ken, near Bennan Bank. The name ‘Raiders Road’ is
derived from a novel by Samuel Rutherford Crockett: entitled ‘The Raiders,’ it links
the road with historical episodes of reiving and cattle rustling.
The forest drive follows the line of an earlier road which is first shown, in its entirety,
on the 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map of 1894. The northwest portion has earlier
origins: the stretch extending from the ‘Queen’s Way’ to Laggan O’ Dee is shown
as extant on the 1st edition earlier map of c.1840. No formal road as such is shown
on historic mapping of 17th or 18th century date, but an informal track must have
been present by this time, allowing access to the many agricultural settlements
shown on Blaeu’s map of 1654.
The modern route of the Raiders Road lies to the north of the River Dee and follows
its line closely over much of its length, running roughly northwest to southeast
before veering north to the west of Stroan Loch, from where it then follows a
roughly north-south course towards the shores of Loch Ken. Of particular interest
in the context of this project is the stretch extending from Loch Dee to the Stroan
Loch, as this is where the main concentration of rural settlement can be found.
Much of the area is now afforested, forming part of the Galloway Forest Park.
However, to the north of the line followed by the earlier, metalled road, a network
of smaller tracks and woodland rides have also been established, creating a
complex network of routes which cross much of the planted area around
Clatteringshaws Fell, Hope Hill, Craig Gilbert and Close Fill. From the evidence
provided by a recent archaeological survey undertaken on the site of one of the
settlements, Clachrum S7 (Shaw 2010), it appears that in some areas at least, tree
planting was carried out by hand, with no evidence of mounding evident. This will
have helped reduce the levels of any damage incurred to ruined structures and
buried archaeology during the original planting process.
The 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1842 shows that the area once formed
part of a densely populated rural landscape, littered with small communities who
lived in small settlements and larger townships. By the time the map was surveyed,
these settlements had already been largely abandoned, and the area used instead
for the grazing of sheep in extensive sheepwalks.
Reference to even earlier mapping shows that the intensity of land use had
dwindled even more markedly than mid-19th century mapping suggested. The
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
earliest available mapping for the area – Blaeu’s map of 1654, which is based on
an earlier, late 16th century map surveyed by Timothy Pont – shows an even more
densely populated landscape. Most of the deserted settlements shown on the 1st
edition map correspond to named settlement sites shown on Blaeu/Pont, indicating
that their origins may extend back to the post-medieval or even the medieval
period. With reference to Blaeu’s map, we can suggest a potential for ‘lost’
settlements, i.e. settlements shown on 17th century mapping which have no
obvious successors represented in the modern, mid-19th century landscape.
In recent decades, the 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map has been used to create
a basic summary of the resource which can readily be used as a starting point from
which to embark on further, more detailed, research. This data can readily be
accessed via the on-line resource Pastmap (see References for link), which
provides geo-spatial data and accompanying details relating to a number of sites
along the line of the Raiders Road and beyond. More detailed summaries of these
sites are included in Canmore (see References for link), the on-line database of
sites and monuments originally established by what was then known as the Royal
Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS now part of Historic Environment Scotland). These records were compiled under
the auspices of the ‘First Edition Survey Project’ (FESP): this project, jointly funded
by the then-Historic Scotland and RCAHMS, involved the detailed study of early
Ordnance Survey mapping for the area, and the subsequent flagging-up of sites
shown as unroofed or ruinous. The project was undertaken with a view to improving
our understanding of Scotland’s medieval and post-medieval rural settlement sites,
a resource which was neglected within mainstream archaeological study until the
1960s and 70s, by which time it was already found to be under threat from the
rapidly expanding forestry industry (Swanson 1993).
As a result of FESP, a total of 32 sites have been identified and included in
Canmore. These are located along the line of the Raiders Road itself, and in the
wooded area which lies to the north of the River Dee. Many of these sites, if not
lying close to the road itself, are in the vicinity of the many tracks and woodland
rides that traverse the planted areas. A number comprise old field boundaries,
occasionally noted in association with sheepfolds or single isolated structures; in
some cases these may be worthy of additional study if they have the potential to
represent one of the ‘lost’ settlement sites shown on Blaeu/Pont. Of particular
interest in this respect are S1, which comprises a group of structures at
Clatteringshaws Fell, and S4 Tannoch. Both were latterly used as sheepfolds but
they may occupy the sites of earlier settlements and could even potentially re-use
elements of much-earlier structures. A third site – the corn-drying kiln and structure
which forms an element of S3, Craig Gilbert – could represent another of these
‘lost’ sites, where the main focus of occupation shifted at a very early date from its
original location (where the kiln is situated) to the site close to the river shown on
Blaeu’s 1654 map.
In addition to these potentially ‘lost’ early sites, we have four sites which show a
strong continuity of occupation between Blaeu’s 1654 map and the 1842 1st edition
Ordnance Survey map. These comprise S3, the main element of Craig Gilbert, S6
Nether Gairloch, S7 Clachrum, and S8 Aird’s Crag, which is unusually large and
classed as a ‘township’. All appear to have been abandoned and ruinous by the
mid-19th century. A further site, S5 Upper Gairloch, is not included in this sub-group
as it may have been one of the latest settlements to be abandoned, with two
buildings still described as roofed in the 1840s. The final site, S2 Nanny Walker’s
Wa’s is also of interest as it does not appear to have an obvious post-medieval
antecedent shown on Blaeu’s map. Together, these sites represent a varied
resource which has the potential to provide us with a long term narrative of how
settlement patterns changed along the north bank of the upper Dee valley during
the post-medieval and modern – and potentially even the medieval – periods.
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
The current condition of these monuments is uncertain: many are located within
mature coniferous plantations which were planted before Scotland’s medieval and
post-medieval rural settlement was a clear target for either recording or
preservation. Much of the eastern portion of the area of interest – from Nether
Gairloch east to the shores of Loch Ken – had, for example, been afforested prior
to 1955, when the Ordnance Survey One Inch to One Mile 7th series mapping was
surveyed. Recent survey work undertaken on the site of S7 Clachrum suggests,
however, that there is a potential for both upstanding structures and also buried
archaeological deposits to survive: despite being depicted as lying within a densely
afforested area, the remains of Clachrum, for example, largely remain in open
ground, and the nearby plantation appears to have been hand-planted, without the
use of mounding, which offers better potential for the survival of archaeological
deposits.
5.
In March 2019, Can You Dig It carried out an earlier season of work at Upper Gairloch
(Williamson 2019) which focused on clearing the kiln barn that sat approximately 100m to
the northeast of the steading. The walls of the structure survive across its full length,
although the kiln shows the highest survival with its walls still standing up to seven courses
on its western side. The entire structure was formed of drystone construction. The barn
portion consisted of a single rectangular compartment, of which only the basal footings of
the external walls remained, with only one entrance. The kiln occupied the southern end
of the structure with the walls of the interior rounded to form a bowl shape. Test pitting
within the interior of the barn did not identify a floor deposit, although as only a small
portion was sampled this would likely benefit from further investigation. The floor of the
kiln itself could not be characterised at this stage as it was entirely obscured by tumble.
No artefacts were collected during the works.
Project Works
6.
This phase of the archaeological works focussed on the site of the main steading at the
former settlement of Upper Gairloch along Raiders Road (S5 in Turner & Rees 2019). The
steading was located within forestry just to the side of the main forest drive. Prior to the
works the structure was just visible but mostly covered by overgrown vegetation and fallen
branches (Figure 1a).
7.
The on-site works were carried out over eight days between the 14 th and the 24th August
2019. The area was initially cleared of vegetation by hand to expose the structural remains
of the steading. The remains were then photographed, planned and assigned context
numbers. A total of four trenches and three test pits were then hand excavated within the
interior of the steading. The trenches (1-4) ranged in size: Trench 1 measured 2m by 3m,
Trenches 2 and 3 measured 1.5m by 3m and Trench 4 measured 1m square. The three
test pits (A-C) were all of equal size at 1.1m by 0.5m.
8.
All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined
in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (McKinstry & Williamson 2019). The
fieldwork was generally undertaken in good weather although there were odd spells of
heavy rain. In terms of structure, the core field team of Rathmell Archaeology staff and
volunteers were on site from 9am to 4pm.
Findings
9.
As stated, the structural remains on site were mostly covered by overgrown vegetation.
This mostly comprised thin patches of green moss (009) found across the structure’s entire
extent measuring approximately 50mm thick (Figure 1b). Finds recovered while clearing
this included late 18th to 20th century pottery, fragments of chimney pot, fragments of 20 th
century window glass, fragments of bottle glass, including one from a potentially earlier
‘onion type’ (<11>, see Artefacts section below), roofing slates and iron objects. The latter
included a large rasp/file and the head of a socketed fork from the area of [008b/c] (both
<010>).
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 1a: Pre-excavation shot across [008] from the west
Figure 1b: Shot showing (009) overlying structure in southeast corner, from the north
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 2: Plan of [008]
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 3a: Shot of makeup of external southern wall of [008] from the west
Figure 3b: External east facing elevation of [008] showing higher surviving section of wall
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
10.
The initial task was to clear this overgrown vegetation and reveal what survived of the
structure beneath. The majority of a rectangular enclosure [008] was uncovered,
comprising two structures – [008b/c] and [008d] – sitting to either side of a central yard
[008a] (Figure 2), all of which appear to have been constructed within a single phase. The
northeast portion of the enclosure was not revealed during the works due to the presence
of upstanding trees and dense overgrowth too difficult to remove by hand.
11.
Across the entirety of the exposed structure, the walls are typically of drystone construction
with both an inner and outer face on either side of a rubble core (Figure 3a). The faces
were constructed using sub-angular stones – mostly pale grey granite – with an average
size of 0.4m by 0.3m by 0.2m. Some of the stones are very large however, measuring up
to 1.3m by 1m by 0.7m. The stones in the rubble core measure 0.2m by 0.15m by 0.1m
on average. The width of the walls measure between 0.8m to 1.1m and they survive to a
height of between 0.2m and 1m (Figure 3b). The full external dimensions of enclosure as
exposed are 17.8m west-east by 15.5m north-south.
12.
The central portion of the enclosure, [008a], is ‘L’ shaped in plan (Figure 4). Its main
section runs west-east with an internal length of 13.5m and a width of 4.8m (Figure 5a),
with a smaller adjoining square section in the southeast measuring 4m by 4.6m internally.
A possible entrance is suggested by a gap in the external wall at the western end (just to
the south of [008d]; Figure 5b) but no other entrances were discernible.
13.
In the southwest corner of the enclosure, rectangular structure [008b/c] sits orientated
west-east (Figure 7a), directly to the south of [008a]. It is divided into two chambers:
[008b] in the western half and [008c] in the east (Figure 6). [008b] has internal dimensions
of approximately 4.9m north-south by 4m west-east, while the interior of [008c] is slightly
bigger at 4.9m north-south by 4.6m west-east. The crosswall which divides the two
chambers has been largely disturbed by the presence of upstanding trees but measures
roughly 0.3m wide and appears to be of the same drystone construction as the external
walls, although is likely only formed of a single face.
14.
[008d] is a rectangular structure located in the northwest corner of the enclosure
orientated west-east and directly to the north of [008a]. Only the western end of this
structure was revealed (Figures 7b and 8); internally it measures 4.9m north-south by at
least 4.4m east-west although it potentially continues further to the east.
15.
Appearing as large spreads across both the interior and exterior of the entire enclosure,
are loose medium to large angular and sub-angular stones (011) (Figures 2 and 9a). These
spreads extend out from the walls on either side for a distance of approximately 0.6 to
1.6m and sit approximately 0.5m high. The stones also overlie the remaining walls of [008]
in areas. They are a light grey granite with no bonding present, and are of the same
dimensions as those which make up the walls of [008].
16.
In the northeastern corner of [008a], against the interior of its eastern wall, deposit (010)
is present covering an area approximately 4m by 2m in extent (Figure 4). This consists of
a mixture of moderately compacted mid-blackish brown clayey silt with small, medium and
large sized granite sub-angular stones (Figure 9b). The stones measure between 0.09m
by 0.05m by 0.07m up to 0.55m by 0.23 by 0.4m in size. The deposit also contained
frequent root inclusions and frequent sherds of late 18th to 20th century pottery, a moderate
amount of glass, three iron objects and two fragments of 19 th to 20th century clay tobacco
pipe. A fragment of slate was also present. Trench 1 was positioned over the area of (010)
and excavated it to a thickness of 330mm but the base was not reached.
17.
The interior of each compartment within [008] is covered by a layer topsoil which underlies
stone spreads (011) (Figures 5a, 7a and 7b). This was numbered separately for each
compartment – (017) in [008a], (012) in [008b/c] and (014) in [008d] – but its character
remains consistent across the full extent. It comprises a loosely compacted mid-blackish
brown sandy silt with very frequent roots, occasional small stones and vegetation
inclusions, and is fairly thin, ranging between 70 to 200mm thick. Finds were recovered
from all three contexts. The finds from (017) included late 18 th to 20th century pottery,
unused chimney pot fragments, bottle glass, roofing slate, brick and an iron nail. From
(012) came 19th to 20th century pottery, iron objects, roofing slate, glass
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 4: Plan of [008a]
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 5a: [008a] from the east
Figure 5b: Site of possible entrance through west wall of [008a]
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 6: Plan of [008b/c]
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 7a: [008b/c] from the northeast
Figure 7b: [008d] from the south
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 8: Plan of [008d]
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
and unused chimney pot, while (014) produced one sherd of 19 th to 20th century pottery
and two fragments of roofing slate.
18.
Three trenches (2-4) and three test pits (A-C) were opened across the interior of [008] to
excavate through the topsoil in each chamber and reveal what lay beneath.
19.
Within [008a] three test pits - A, B and C - and one trench, 4, excavated through the
topsoil (017) in the southeast, west and central portions respectively (see Figure 4). With
the exception of Test Pit B, each location exposed a cobbled layer directly beneath the
topsoil. In the southeastern corner (Test Pit A), this consists of [020] which sits directly
against the southern wall (Figure 10a). Surface [020] comprises sub-rectangular grey
granite cobblestones, each with an average size of 0.3m by 0.14m. The layer was exposed
for a full extent of 1m by 0.5m within the test pit but likely continues beyond its location
to the north, west and east. The surface sits at a depth of 200mm below the overlying
ground surface.
20.
In Test Pit C, located at the potential entrance at the western end of [008a], [025] was
uncovered. It consists of a layer of small sub-rectangular pink granite cobblestones, each
measuring roughly 0.18m by 0.11m in size (Figure 10b). The full extent of the layer as it
was exposed measured 0.44m by 0.7m although it likely continues beyond the location of
the test pit. [025] sits approximately 130mm below the overlying ground level. Test Pit B
was also positioned at the western end, approximately 1.3m to the southeast of Test Pit
C. It was excavated to a depth of approximately 200mm but did not reach the base of the
topsoil nor reveal any surface remains. A number of roots were present within the test pit.
21.
Lastly, in the centre of the area, Trench 4 exposed [026], a layer of irregular-shaped subrounded pink granite cobblestones at a depth of 50mm from the overlying ground level
(Figure 11a). The cobbles each measure up to 0.26m by 0.18m in size. The layer covered
the full extent of Trench 4 (1m by 1m) but continues beyond the location of the trench in
all directions.
22.
The interior of [008b/c] was investigated through Trench 2, which was roughly centred on
the southern half of the central crosswall so that it straddled both chambers (Figure 6). It
revealed two flagstone surfaces: [013] and [027]. Surface [013] appears to sit within
[008c] directly underlying topsoil (012) at a depth of 70mm from ground level. It consists
of a layer of flagstones constructed of pink/grey granite with one block of possible shale
(Figure 11b). The stones are sub-rectangular in shape and measure up to 0.7m by 0.35m,
and 60mm thick, in size. The layer was exposed to an extent of up to 1.5m long by 3m
long, but likely continues beyond to the north and east.
23.
Across the western half of the trench which crossed into [008b], the removal of topsoil
(012) revealed underlying deposit (024). This consisted of loosely compacted mid-black
brown silty sand with frequent small stone inclusions with an average size of 0.13m by
0.15m by 0.17m. There was also occasional small root inclusions. Its full extent measured
0.95m by 0.7m, with a thickness of 100mm. Finds recovered from (024) included a slate
stylus, roofing slate, three iron nails and two fragments of glass.
24.
Deposit (024) was removed to reveal surface [027] (Figure 12a). This abuts surface [013]
along its western edge but sits 200mm lower and appears to lie within [008b]. Surface
[027] consists of a layer of medium-sized sub-angular granite blocks, each measuring up
to 0.25m by 0.5m in size. Its exposed extent measured approximately 1m square but it
likely continues beyond the location of the trench to the west and north.
25.
Trench 3 was opened within [008d] (Figure 8). It removed topsoil (014) to reveal flagstone
surface [015] and cobbled surface [016] lying directly beneath. Surface [015] is formed
by a layer of flagstones, consisting of sub-rectangular grey/pink granite blocks measuring
up to 0.45m by 0.5m and 100mm thick in size (Figure 12b). The layer was revealed within
the western half of the trench at a depth of 100mm and for an extent of 1.3m by 2.2m,
although likely continues beyond to the north and south. While it was partially obscured
by the presence of tumble (011) at the time, it seems likely that [015] continues directly
up to the western wall of [008d].
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 9a: Shot of loose stones (011) in southeastern corner of [008a] from the north
Figure 9b: Deposit (010) from the south
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 10a: Shot of surface [020] in Test Pit A from the north
Figure 10b: Shot of surface [025] in Test Pit C from the east
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 11a: Shot of surface [026] in Trench 4 from the north
Figure 11b: Shot showing surface [013] in Trench 2 from the northeast
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 12a: Shot of step from surface [013] down onto surface [027] (in foreground) from
the west
Figure 12b: Shot of surfaces [015] (to rear) and [016] in Trench 3 from the east
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
26.
Across the eastern half of Trench 3’s location, surface [016] consists of a layer of pink/grey
granite cobblestones which are sub-rectangular/sub-oval in shape with occasional roots
present (Figure 12b). The cobblestones each measure up to 0.2m by 0.07m in size. The
layer was exposed for an area measuring 0.88m by 1.3m, although likely continues beyond
to the north, south and east. Cobbled surface [016] abuts the eastern edge of flagstone
surface [015] with the former sitting roughly 100mm lower than the latter.
27.
As well as the numerous finds recovered from the topsoil and deposits within the structure,
a small number of surface finds were also recovered during the on-site works, which
included 19th to 20th century pottery, roofing slate and bottle glass.
Summary of Finds
By Louise Turner
28.
The assemblage derived from limited number of topsoil and topsoil/tumble layers
distributed across the ruined remains of a depopulated farmsteading, which – on
excavation – revealed intact floor surfaces surviving across the extent of its various
structural elements. These comprised two rectangular structures – [008b/c] and [008d],
located at the northwest and southwest corners of an enclosed yard [008a].
29.
Exploration within these three structures was limited, but a clear pattern was evident
nonetheless with regards to the distribution of the various material types occurring. This
disparity was particular marked amongst the ceramic finds: here, more than 450 sherds
were recovered from within the enclosed yard [008a], from an assemblage which
numbered 502 items in total. This dominance was echoed in the glass, where 42 items
were recovered, i.e. more than half of the total assemblage, and also the coarse stone,
where 53 roofing slates were recovered (Figure 13a). These numbers contrasted with the
quantities recovered from the rectangular structures [008b/c] and [008d], which revealed
21 finds of ceramic, seven of glass, five of coarse stone (roofing slates), and six of ceramic
and one of coarse stone (roofing slate) respectively. In only one category of material was
this bias towards [008a] not supported: this was in the finds of ferrous metalwork, where
the largest quantities were recovered from [008b/c] (16 items in total), substantially
outnumbering the quantities recovered from [008a] and [008d] (with the latter producing
no ferrous metal finds whatsoever).
30.
Some limited conclusions can be drawn from these patterns of distribution. Firstly, it is
apparent that the vast majority of items which derived from domestic occupation –
ceramics and bottle glass – were not recovered from within the structures but were
associated instead with yard/enclosure [008a]. This suggests that the material formed part
of an accumulation of material dumped in the yard, potentially prior to the demolition or
collapse of the rectangular buildings as the concentration is limited to beyond these
buildings’ footprints. It is possible that this portion of the yard was used as a midden during
the period of the farm’s occupation, but the lack of stratigraphic complexity in the deposits
might suggest instead that the area was used as dump after abandonment.
31.
The markedly large quantity of ferrous metalwork occurring in [008b/c] is worthy of note.
Items included structural ironwork, in particular nails, with finds of modern window glass
and also roofing slates also occurring in association. Together, these items can be
interpreted as demolition debris, but the quantities are small, which suggests that the bulk
of the demolition debris has been removed and either recycled or dumped elsewhere.
Fragmentary ferrous metal strips (<49>), the dimensions of which are consistent with the
hoops used in association with stave-built timber containers - such as buckets, barrels, or
even butter-churns – were also recovered here. By far the most interesting ferrous metal
items occurring in this structure were, however, the tanged rasp/file and five-tined
socketed fork (both <010>; Figure 13b), both of which may have derived from a farrier’s
or blacksmith’s workshop. Another unusual small find from this structure was a
fragmentary slate stylus (Figure 13a); while these items tend to be associated with schools
and learning, this item could also potentially have been used by an adult for calculations
or working notes, perhaps in a workshop setting. The items recovered from this structure
could, therefore, have potentially derived from activities originally carried out within it.
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
32.
The ceramic and glass components of the assemblage enabled a broad date range to be
established for the material. The earliest items comprised two sherds derived from a handpainted, tin-glazed ‘pearlware’ teacup <17> (Figure 14a), of probable late 18 th or early
19th century date, and the probable base of an ‘onion’-type wine bottle <11> (Figure 14b),
a form produced from the late 17th century onwards, through to the early decades of the
19th century.
33.
The majority of the ceramic assemblage was typical of material produced in the period
spanning the 1820s to 1860s (Figures 15a and 15b). The emphasis was very much upon
transfer-printed glazed white earthenware in a blue colourway, but brown, green and black
colourways were also represented in small quantities (Figure 15b). A small number of
sherds from brown-glazed red earthenware teapots, slipware dairy bowls (<28>) and
wheel-thrown slipped red earthenware crock jars (<16>) were also recovered, again types
consistent with the period spanning the 1820s to 1860s (Figure 16a). Some later wares,
in particular polychrome transfer-printed wares, were conspicuous by their absence, but
occasional finds of potentially later date were present. These included the spherical stopper
from a ‘Codd’ type bottle (<41>; Figure 16b), small stoneware containers for marmalade
or cream (<26>), and glass condiment jars and wine/spirit bottles. All of these items only
became widely available in the closing decades of the 19 th century, with the ‘Codd’ type
bottle only appearing after c.1875. This date range would suggest, then, that the main
bulk of the ceramic assemblage was accumulated during the period 1820s-60s, perhaps
reflecting the period in which the household was established and all necessary household
items acquired. The markedly early items may represent heirloom pieces curated by the
household, with the later ones (which all appear to derive from food or beverage
containers) representing items consumed prior to the site’s abandonment. The lack of
uniformity amongst the decorative schemes employed on the ceramics suggests that we
are looking at a selection of varied items rather than objects derived from a single dinner
service: while this could reflect a household which acquired its tableware piecemeal fashion
(which would suggest that the acquisition of a formal dinner service was beyond their
financial means), it could, alternatively, indicate that these disparate items were used for
everyday consumption while the dinner service was more carefully curated and potentially
removed from the site on its abandonment.
34.
Nine sherds from a thick-walled coarse ceramic in a buff fabric were also included amongst
this group: these sherds were typical of the kind of fabric used to manufacture chimney
pots (Figure 16b). However, these particular examples (<1>, <63> and <47>) showed
no evidence of sooting on the inside surface. While this may indicate that the chimney pot
in question was never used, the other possibility is that these fragments derived from
either an unused chimney pot used for another purpose (such as a flower pot, or a cloche
for forcing rhubarb) or even from a purpose-built flower pot or cloche.
35.
In addition to the wide range of kitchen, table and commercial wares discussed above, two
stem fragments derived from clay tobacco pipes were recovered (<55> and <93>; Figure
16b). No maker’s stamps were present, but the objects were consistent in character with
the short-stemmed ‘cutty’ type that was popular throughout much of the 19 th and early
20th centuries.
36.
The latest items recovered from the site comprised small fragments of glass which
appeared to derive from windows manufactured from float glass, a process used for the
production of domestic windows from c. 1950 onwards. Some of the metalwork also
appeared to be modern in character, in particular screw-threaded ‘U’ bolt <23>. The
presence of these items might suggest that while the bulk of the material originated from
19th century occupation on the site, later material has been added, with the site perhaps
being used more recently for discarding rubbish which derived from elsewhere.
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 13a: Fragmentary slate stylus <88> and incomplete roofing slate <79>
Figure 13b: Iron file and hand-held fork (<10>)
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 14a: Two sherds from a hand-painted ‘Pearlware’ cup (c.1780s-1820s)
Figure 14b: Left hand side: portion of neck/body from aerated drinks bottle <31>; right
hand side: fragmentary base from ‘onion’ type wine bottle <11>
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 24 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 15a: A selection of sponge-decorated and hand-painted wares (numbered as
follows: top row, from left to right: <9>, <7>, <15>; middle row, left to right: <9>,
<25>; bottom row, from left to right: <17>, <8>, <8>, <7>)
Figure 15b: A selection of transfer-printed sherds in blue, black and purple colourways
(numbered as follows: top row, from left to right: <17>, <92>, <78>; middle row, from
left to right: <17>, <7>; bottom row, from left to right: <7>, <7>, <35>)
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 25 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 16a: Sherds from slipware dairy bowls (top left, <20> and bottom right, <28>,
wheel-thrown crock jar (bottom left, <33>), and miscellaneous slipware vessels (centre,
<20> and top right, <89>)
Figure 16b: Stems from clay tobacco pipes (top left <55>; centre left <93>); spherical
clay stopper from aerated drinks bottle, potentially re-used as marble (centre <41>);
sherd from heavy ceramic chimney pot, potentially used as cloche jar <1>)
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 26 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Discussion
37.
As you drive along Raiders Road on its winding route through the Galloway Forest, catching
the odd glimpse of vast views across the surrounding glens, it is hard to imagine that prior
to the late 19th century, this area was once a rich farming landscape. For centuries,
generations of families occupied a string of neighbouring settlements along the length of
the River Dee as it flows to the south of what is now a popular forest drive. Mapping
evidence indicates that these settlements dated back to at least the post-medieval period,
if not earlier, and it is the mapping which also shows their decline, depicted as ruins by the
late 19th century. Although not always visible on the drive, the ruins of this rural landscape
continue to survive hidden amidst the trees of the forest.
38.
The chance to further explore one of these ruined steadings as part of Can You Dig It
allowed a great opportunity to look in detail at the circumstances of a single farm in order
to further our knowledge of the whole. The initial works at the kiln barn in March
(Williamson 2019) showed us the substantial remains that continued to survive beneath
decades of overgrowth, encouraging us to head back for a second season focussed on the
main steading. As well as the physical remains exposed on site, this report will touch on
the results of an initial browse of the available online archives. In no way aimed at being
a fully comprehensive search, this is aimed at placing our farm in context; an introduction
to the rich resource that later work can add to.
First appearance through to the early 19th century
39.
It was in 1297 that the Gordon family acquired Kenmure Castle, and with it the lands of
the Glenkens, from John Maxwell. The area surrounding Raiders Road will likely have been
a part of these lands, which continued to be held by succeeding generations of Gordons
(Viscounts of Kenmure after 1633) as we will see in the land tax rolls mentioned below.
40.
However, it is not until the first available mapping of the mid-17th century that we are able
to see the individual farms plotted with names that we can still recognise today. It is here
that the earliest evidence for a steading at Upper Gairloch can be found.
41.
Specifically, this takes the form of Blaeu’s Atlas of Scotland published in 1654 (Figure 17a),
although this was itself derived from the work of Timothy Pont who surveyed Scotland in
the 1590s. Blaeu depicts a settlement named ‘O. Gairlarr’ (likely ‘Over’ Gairlarr) which sits
between the settlements of ‘Tanoch’ and ‘N. Garlar’, indicating that this marks the origins
of our steading. It is also possible that the small group of trees depicted that separates O.
Gairlar and N. Garlar (likely an earlier variant of ‘Nether Gairloch’) represents the
beginnings of the ‘Upper Gairloch Wood’ depicted on later mapping.
42.
Until the 17th century, taxation was regarded as an extraordinary source of revenue with
a number of taxes introduced to broaden the tax base. From 1667 onwards, this included
land tax. To enable its collection, land tax or valuation rolls were compiled by the
Commissioners of Supply in each county; these listed the owners of landed estates and
assessed the rental value of their lands. It is important to remember that very few Scots
owned landed property until well into the 20 th century, so those listed only represent a
very small proportion of the population and they rarely list either tenants or occupiers.
Nevertheless, these records can be useful in discovering more about the history of a named
site and it is here that we find the next mention of our steading.
43.
In 1682, the land tax rolls for Kells Parish list ‘the viscount of kenmur hes pertaining to
him the Lands of overgarlary and tanoch & is worth to him yeirlie Twentie eight pund eight
ss’ (E106/20/1/23). A later reiteration of this ‘Antient Valuation’ can be found in Volume 6
of the land tax roll from 1819 (E106/20/6/43), which writes the name as ‘Over Garlarg’;
this, alongside the mention of the adjacent ‘Tanoch’, means that ‘overgarlary’ is likely to
be an earlier variant of the name Over Gairlarr (later to become Upper Gairloch). The
Viscount mentioned in 1682 is also likely to be Alexander Gordon, 5th Viscount of Kenmure
who is listed as the proprietor for a series of properties including others along this route.
‘Nethirgarlary’, an earlier variant of Nether Gairloch, is listed separately as belonging to
Geordi Gordon.
44.
Into the mid-18th century, it is possible to see Upper Gairloch continue to appear both on
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 27 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
the available mapping and in the land tax rolls. In 1747-55, in response to the Jacobite
rebellion of 1745, William Roy undertook his Military Survey of Scotland, surveying the
lowlands between 1752 and 1755. Roy’s survey is a great resource for providing a level of
detail not seen on the previous mapping. Our site appears here as ‘Upper Gareloch’ and is
depicted as three buildings with two adjacent enclosures sitting to the east (Figure 17b).
Unlike the farm of ‘Nether Orchar’ that sits to the west of the river, Upper Gareloch does
not have rig and furrow marked in the surrounding ground; perhaps our farm was
prioritising the use of their land for pasture rather than crops at this time.
45.
In Volume 2 of the land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, compiled 1753 (E106/20/2/15),
‘Upper Garlog’ is listed under Kells parish with a valuation of ‘Twenty Six pound thirteen
Sh: [shillings] 4 pen: [pennies]’, also shown as ‘£26.13.4’. By this time, it is being listed
separately from Tannoch, which is now valued at £13.6.8 and listed with ‘Claughrum’ (later
Clachrum) which sits to the southeast. These figures imply that our farm has now become
larger than both Tannoch and Clachrum (£20.0.0), but not as big as Nether Gairloch
(£66.13.4). These figures remain consistent in the 1799 land tax rolls (E106/20/3/15),
although Claughrum and Tannoch are now listed separately and the name of the proprietor
for the four properties (Claughrum, Upper Garlog, Nether Garlog and Tanogh) is now
identified as ‘John Gordon of Kenmore’ (restored as 10th Viscount).
46.
The land tax rolls of 1803 (E106/20/4/25) and 1819 (E106/20/5/25 and E106/20/6/43)
continue to list Upper Garlog at a valuation of £26.13.4 with John Gordon of Kenmure still
the proprieter. The other properties of Claughrum, Nether Garlog and Tanogh also continue
at the same value and so we can envisage little change occurring in the size of the
landholdings during this time.
47.
It is likely that this period – the late 18th to early 19th century – is when the kiln barn at
Upper Gairloch was in use (Williamson 2019); a structure we know was abandoned at some
point prior to 1852 (see Figure 18a). A common feature on the farms of mainland Scotland
before the 18th and 19th centuries, it is likely that the kiln barn was for drying grain for the
domestic use of the occupants at Upper Gairloch. Their frequent occurrence later changed
as mills started to erect their own common kilns where each farmer took the grain to be
dried at a cost (Gibson 1988, 222). It is likely this shift in practice that caused the kiln at
Upper Gairloch to be abandoned at an earlier stage while the rest of the farmstead
remained in use.
48.
Shifting our attention to the physical remains of the main farmstead of Upper Gairloch, we
can see that our earliest finds recovered during the on-site works appear to date to this
period: the two sherds of ‘pearlware’ teacup <17> (c.1790s to 1820s) and also the ‘onion’
wine bottle <11>. The latter item was produced from the late 17 th century through to the
early 19th century, so it is possible that it was much earlier. We do know, however, that it
will have gone out of production by the end of this period, gradually replaced by the more
recognisable ‘upright’ wine bottle which was easier to stack in greater numbers for
transport and storage. As the only two items to be recovered from this earlier date amongst
a fairly large assemblage, it seems likely that they both represent items which had been
carefully curated by the residents. For example, perhaps the wine bottle had been saved
or brought as a gift, or the teacup may have been part of an heirloom, possibly a dinner
set that had been passed down through the generations and safeguarded (for the most
part anyway) before leaving with the family on their departure.
Mid-19th century – the farm
49.
The arrival of the Ordnance Survey mapping in the mid-19th century brings us our first
accurate and detailed layout for the entirety of the farmstead at Upper Gairloch. In the 1st
edition, published 1852, ‘Upper Gairloch’ is shown as two rectangular roofed structures at
either end of a roughly square enclosure (Figure 18a). Spread out from this steading in all
directions, the map depicts the remains of several ‘Old Fences’, ruined buildings, ‘Old
Sheep Rees’ and, to the northeast, our ‘Old Kiln (in ruins)’. There are also two cairns
identified a bit further to the west as ‘Shepherds’. From this, we can recognise that our
farmstead is still in existence, but that it appears smaller in scale than the surrounding
ruins suggest it once was.
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 28 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
50.
This scene is further attested to by the Ordnance Survey name book: a series of written
records created by the field surveyors, which contain information about the names of every
natural feature and man-made structure that was to appear on the maps. In
Kirkcudbrightshire, Volume 54, compiled 1848-1851 (OS1/20/54/23), the entry for Upper
Gairloch reads: ‘A farm house and out houses in bad repair with a farm of about 1300 acres
of Moorland attached. The property of the heirs of the late Lord Kenmure.’ Interestingly
the entry also includes the statement: ‘This present house is built upon the site of an old
Mansion which formerly stood here.’ The surveyors relied heavily on the knowledge of the
locals as a source of information, so it is likely that this latter statement came from the
word of mouth of these locals. While unfortunately, we do not appear to have discovered
any definitive remains of this ‘mansion’ during the on-site works or the initial trawl of the
archives, it is certainly an intriguing statement which might warrant further research in the
future.
51.
Now we are able to turn to the physical remains uncovered on the site which appear to
correlate nicely with the layout presented on the mapping of 1852. It is likely that our
structures [008d] and [008b/c] are the remains of the two roofed structures shown on the
map (compare Figure 2 against Figure 18a), with the central open courtyard represented
by [008a]. The only place where the physical remains do not quite match with the
cartographic evidence, is the western wall of [008a] which runs north from the western
edge of [008b]. While the plan from these works suggest that this ran as a direct
continuation of [008b]’s western wall, the mapping shows it as projecting out slightly to
the west; a layout which continues through the 2 nd (Figure 18b) and 3rd editions, dating
from 1896 and 1909 respectively. While on-site, this end of the enclosure was heavily
obscured by tumble (011) and, due to time constraints, it was not possible to fully
investigate this western wall in more detail. As such, this wall has been planned as a
projected boundary. With the farmstead out of use by the time of the 2nd edition Ordnance
Survey in 1896 (Figure 18b), it is highly unlikely that anyone would have returned after
this to alter the layout of this wall; this is an area of the plan which would benefit from
future work to try and pinpoint its exact projection.
52.
As described, the entirety of [008] appears to have been constructed in a single phase and
there was no evidence of modification to the structures visible during this phase. The walls
were of drystone construction, similar to the kiln barn and also to the construction style
used at Clachrum, which sits further to the east along Raiders Road. Here, Shaw recorded
that the walls of the buildings had been constructed almost entirely of stone – as opposed
to partly turf walls – attesting to the availability of stone in the surrounding area, and it is
this that has allowed for their greater survival (Shaw 2010, 7). It is very likely that this
form of drystone construction was common to most, if not all, of the farmsteads in this
area. Indeed at Upper Gairloch, the large scale of some of the stones on site may suggest
that they represent material sourced from rock outcrops within close proximity.
53.
As only the basal courses of each building remains, it is not possible to ascertain much
about the style of construction in terms of windows, lintels and door jambs etc. The
presence of a number of fragmentary roofing slates however, does tell us that the
structures had slate roofs; their presence across the whole site suggesting that this was
the case for both [008b/c] and [008d]. It is in the later 18th century that the use of slate
as a roofing material became more common, and as already stated, Upper Gairloch had
both local and Welsh slate present. The use of slate proceeded more quickly in the areas
of Kirkcudbright, Dumfries and Wigtown. This was due to the sea access at Dumfries; 200
tons of slate were taken to Gretna from Lancashire and Wales in 1793 (Fenton & Walker
1981, 69). The mixture of both local and Welsh slates could suggest that there were some
residual slates being reused; taxes on roofing slate borne by water continued to make the
imported slates more expensive (Ibid.). Amongst the finds assemblage on site, fragments
of chimney pots (also known as chimney cans) were recovered which pointed to the use of
plain round ceramic pots which had maintained their golden or buff colouring. What was
unusual however, was that none of the recovered fragments showed signs of sooting. This
implies that these pots were perhaps used for a different purpose, such as flower pots, or
as Turner suggests (see Summary of Finds above), for growing rhubarb.
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 29 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 17a: Extract from Blaeu’s Atlas of Scotland, Gallovidia (Galloway), 1654
Figure 17b: Extract from Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland 1752-55
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 30 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 18a: Extract from 1st edition Ordnance Survey map published 1852
Figure 18b: Extract from 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map published 1896
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 31 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
54.
It would appear however, that the survival of the basal remains of the steading has
included the survival of intact flooring across the interior of both the two structures and
also the original surface of the central courtyard. Trial trenching and test pitting positioned
at various points across the site showed the survival of a cobble surface which appears to
cover the entire of [008a], flagstone surfaces within both [008b] and [008c], and a mixture
of flagstone and cobbled surfaces within [008d].
55.
The survival of flooring may help somewhat towards trying to work out the functions of
each area: the cobbles within [008a] match well with it acting as an external cobbled
courtyard, while the flagstone surfaces point to a more formal construction style within the
interior of the structures. Very tentatively, the presence of cobbles in [008d] could perhaps
suggest that this structure was used for housing animals, while the flagstone floors in
[008b] and [008c] could suggest that it was primarily the house. However, this needs
further investigation as only a very small sample of each surface was revealed during these
works; exposing the entirety of the floors in each structure would likely help to further our
understanding greatly in this regard.
56.
From the small sections that were exposed however, it is possible to see a division of space
occurring within each structure. In [008b/c] this took the form of a simple step in height
between two flagstone surfaces ([013] and [027]) that could potentially mark the division
between two rooms. As stated, the change was more marked in [008d]; the two surfaces
were also stepped but here there was a change in the form of the surface, from flagstone,
[015], to cobbled, [016]. It is possible that this may demarcate separate rooms but the
narrowness of the area of flagstones [015] (a roughly 2m wide strip against the western
wall) and the lack of evidence for any subdivisions, suggests that they perhaps represent
the demarcation of different areas within the same room. It is possible that exposing more
of these surfaces might perhaps inform on their functions; for example, it would be good
to see if they represent some form of animal stalling.
57.
Further investigation of the remaining surfaces may also help to reveal other informative
features such as the location of hearths or entrances. The width of the latter may identify
if they would have been used by animals. Indeed, we were unable to locate any definite
entrances during this stage of works so this would definitely benefit from further work.
Surfaces may also hold evidence for whether there was access to an upper storey or loft
space; it seems likely that these drystone structures were only single storey but further
work may confirm or deny this.
58.
During the on-site works, over 500 sherds of pottery were recovered which mainly
produced a date range of the 1820s-1860s. As mentioned above, the number of finds which
predated this period were notably minimal and appear to be isolated occurrences within
the assemblage. It is perhaps very possible that the steading represented by [008] was
constructed in the early 19th century, or potentially in the late 18th century.
59.
Looking at the available mapping, the only one to provide us with a potentially accurate
layout for Upper Gairloch prior to the 1st edition in 1852, is that of Roy in the mid-18th
century (Figure 17b). Roy depicts three structures with two enclosures to the east. These
do not appear to correlate with the structures which form [008]: they are on a slightly
different alignment, the scale of the structures vary and there is no sign of our roughly
square courtyard at the centre of two buildings. The earlier mapping evidence should
always be viewed with caution however, as the details on Roy’s map are difficult to discern
and there may have been some elements of the farmstead that he chose to omit.
60.
We could perhaps look to the wider changes that were happening throughout Scottish
agriculture during the 18th and 19th centuries. Known as the Improvement era, this period
saw many changes and developments occurring countrywide in the practice of farming and
agriculture, which transformed the landscape and had a profound effect on the lives of the
people working the land. These changes swept across Scotland affecting all farms, both
large and small. These effects were most pronounced in the layout of the farmsteadings
themselves; a growing interest in the use of space and its importance to the practical
aspects of a working farm drove the need to introduce a standardised layout. While this
varied across different regions and had a certain fluidity of design dependent on the
circumstances, and even tastes, of the individual farm, it saw a general movement away
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 32 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
from the disparate array of farm buildings towards a more formalised layout of buildings
facing onto a central courtyard.
61.
It is possible that [008], with its two buildings positioned to either side of a central
courtyard, was an entirely new creation formed as a direct result of the ‘Improvement’
ethos. Quite often just built on the same spot as the earlier steading, it is likely that the
stone from any earlier buildings was reused in the construction of this new layout. It is
even possible that the earlier layout included the ‘old Mansion’ mentioned in the Ordnance
Survey name book (OS1/20/54/23). Although it may be worth further investigation into
the surrounding ‘ruins’ marked on the 1 st edition Ordnance Survey to see if there’s evidence
for a residence elsewhere.
62.
As already mentioned, it is difficult to identify at this stage the exact function of the
buildings on site, which in turn makes it difficult to pinpoint the exact nature of the farm
that stood here. It is easy to identify based on the available evidence, that sheep farming
would have been a predominant part of Upper Gairloch’s history. As well as the remains of
the several ‘old sheep rees’ and shepherds cairns visible on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey
of 1852 (Figure 18a), we also know from the census in 1851 that ‘Shepherd’ was the main
occupation listed for the neighbouring farms (this will be covered in more detail in the next
section).
63.
To add to this, we can also look to the Statistical Accounts of Scotland; aimed at collecting
information about the economic and social activities, and the natural resources of Scotland,
these represent a collection of well-ordered facts based on responses by ministers in each
of the 938 parishes of Scotland. They were compiled on three different occasions, named
the ‘Old’ in the 1790s, the ‘New’ in the 1830s and the ‘Third’ in the latter half of the 20 th
century.
64.
The New Statistical Accounts state: ‘Kells must be regarded, almost exclusively, as a
pastoral parish. The grain produced (chiefly oats) certainly does not exceed the annual
consumpt’ (Maitland 1845, 113).
65.
Both the ‘Old’ (Gillespie 1793, 265) and ‘New’ (Maitland 1845, 114) Statistical Accounts
for the Parish of Kells list the number of sheep in the parish as being just over 17,000,
compared with around 1,500 cattle. The fact that the sheep rees and some of the
surrounding fences have gone out of use by the 1 st edition Ordnance Survey does not
disprove this continuation of the ground for sheep farming, and the Ordnance Survey name
book (OS1/20/54/23) mentions that Upper Gairloch did have 1300 acres of land. Instead,
it is perhaps a result of the large-scale change of the uplands into larger sheep farms
during the early 19th century as part of the improvements (Edlin 1974, 15). The New
Statistical Accounts mention that several farms had been ‘thrown together as sheep walks’
(Maitland 1845, 117). Perhaps in this environment, there was no need to maintain the
earlier boundaries with the sheep naturally tending to keep to their own ground (Edlin
1974, 17). It is this amalgamation of lands that could also perhaps be the cause of some
of the farmsteads in this area having gone into ruin by the time of the 1 st edition while
others survived.
66.
As well as sheep, it is also possible that Upper Gairloch owned other livestock. The mix of
having both sheep and cattle has long been common in Scotland; they form a natural fit
as ‘the different animals affect the grass sward in complementary ways and … they help
support diversification’ (Glendinning & Wade Martins 2008, 166). Indeed, the presence of
sherds of possible dairy bowls amongst our assemblage (<20> and <28>; Figure 16a)
could suggest that some dairy farming was occurring on site, although likely on a smaller
scale, and the possible stalls suggested by the separation of flagstones and cobbles in
[008d] could relate to this. It is also possible that they may have kept pigs, with the New
Statistical Accounts stating that ‘almost every cottager is enabled to fatten one either for
his own use or the market’ (Maitland 1845, 114). Further investigation of the flooring and
structural remains on site would be useful in trying to gain a deeper understanding of this.
67.
As suggested by Turner (see Summary of Finds above), the large rasp/file and small fork
recovered from the site could point to other activities occurring such as blacksmithing or a
farrier, perhaps on a fairly small scale for repairs around the farm. Further clearance may
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 33 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
reveal a possible location for such activity. If there was a farrier on the farm then this
would imply that they kept a horse. While horses and carts were taxed during the 18 th
century, an initial search of these records did not reveal any mention of Upper Gairloch. It
is possible that future work could reveal more.
Mid-19th century – the people
68.
The Old Statistical Accounts describe the people in the Parish of Kells as ‘rather stronger
made, and of a more rosy and better complexion than those in the low country’ (Gillespie
1793, 270).
69.
When we get into the 19th century, the archives provide us with a valuable resource in the
form of the census, which began in 1841 and was repeated every tenth year collecting
information on the characteristics of the people and households across the country. These
records are able to finally give a name to some of the occupants at Upper Gairloch.
70.
This report was limited to only being able to access the 1841 and 1851 census, which are
both available online. It is possible that later census results may be available elsewhere
and could provide an opportunity for future research.
71.
In 1841, we have the Halliday family listed as residing at ‘Upper Garloch’ (accessed through
the FreeCen website, see References for link). The head of the household appears to be
William Halliday, an ‘Agricultural Labourer’ aged 40, and his wife, Jean, aged 25. Together
they appear to have two children: Sarah aged 4 and Jean at 7 months. John Halliday, aged
80, is also listed as living there – perhaps William’s father – as well as a John Munro, aged
40, who is listed as ‘Independent’; it is possible that John was just visiting or was perhaps
a lodger at the time.
72.
By the time of the 1851 census (accessed through the Dumfries and Galloway Council’s
website, see References for link), the Hallidays had moved to ‘Bents’ in Minnigaff. William
and Jean (now listed as Jane) appear to have had three more children: John, William and
Mary. William’s potential father, John, may have died by this point with their first son
named after him. Interestingly they also have two visitors listed – Michael Gallery and John
Parkyn – both identified as Ordnance Surveyors; perhaps they were in the middle of
surveying the 1st edition mapping. At this time, William Halliday is also more specifically
identified as a ‘Shepherd’.
73.
The 1851 census lists both ‘Gairloch’ – occupied by the Johnston family – and ‘High
Gairloch’, occupied by the McQueen family. It is likely that the former represents Nether
Gairloch at this time, while ‘High Gairloch’ is a variant on Upper Gairloch. This is further
supported by the Ordnance Survey name book (OS1/20/54/23). While the field surveyors
were instructed to consult landowners and their agents, in practice (and especially in
remoter areas) they often turned instead to the tenants, shepherds and labourers; indeed
as attested to above, they often stayed with them. We are able to decipher the names of
some of their informants by looking at the column listing the ‘Authorities for spelling’
against each of the listed properties. Looking at the neighbouring properties, the top-listed
name often appears to have been the tenant; for Tannoch this is Robert Kirk (confirmed
as the tenant in the 1851 census), while for Nether Gairloch this is Robert Johnston. For
Upper Gairloch, James McQueen is the top given name. Interestingly they each appear
lower on the lists of the neighbouring properties as alternative authorities for spelling.
74.
As such, we can surmise that it is the McQueens who reside at Upper Gairloch at this time,
although oddly no ‘James McQueen’ is listed on the census. Instead, Elizabeth McQueen,
aged 36, is listed as head of the household with three children: Alexander, aged 7; John,
aged 6 and Margret, aged 4 (all listed as the son/daughter of Elizabeth). It would appear
that at some point between the surveyors visiting (the 1 st edition mapping was surveyed
in 1848-49) and the census in 1851, James McQueen has left the farm and Elizabeth is
now listing herself as head of the household (suggesting that he is not just away visiting
elsewhere). The most likely explanation for this is that he has died, although strangely
Elizabeth has not identified herself as a widow, something entered by others in the parish
within the same census. It is possible that it was a recent event and too soon for Elizabeth
to put it in writing, or perhaps something else had occurred to cause James to leave Upper
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 34 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Gairloch?
75.
It is also in the 1851 census that we are able to identify the occupants at the neighbouring
Tannoch and Gairloch as ‘Shepherds’, which is likely to have been the case at Upper
Gairloch (when James McQueen was still in residence).
76.
In general, there is a lot of movement between the 1841 and 1851 census, although not
always to different parishes. For instance, Robert Johnston is seen to have moved his family
from Tannoch in the 1841 census to Gairloch in the 1851 census; perhaps the latter was
larger at the time. Tannoch is still in use but Robert Kirk and his family have moved in.
These movements suggest that the area remained popular for farming during this time,
mainly sheep farming, able to attract newcomers from elsewhere while continuing to be
an attractive place to stay for some of the more well-established locals.
77.
Having these names from the census identify the people who may have once owned the
artefacts recovered from site; the teapot and cups they put out on the table, the clay pipes
smoked during a break from their work and the wine bottles they drank from over dinner.
The artefacts appear to display a typical mix of domestic items in use by families at this
time. As stated by Turner (see Summary of Finds above), the mismatched nature of the
tableware could point to the family being of low financial means but it could also merely
represent the discarded items left behind while the more expensive items were removed
by the family on their departure.
78.
Amongst the assemblage, a fragment of a slate stylus was recovered (<85>; Figure 13a).
While this could relate to note taking from one of the adults in the house, these are often
associated with children and learning. The Old Statistical Account (Gillespie 1793, 269)
explains that households located too far from the parish school would hire young boys (who
had been taught at the public school) into their families to teach their children at home.
Neighbouring households (in groups of 4 or 5) would often hire a teacher among them.
This practice would appear to still be evident by the time of the 1851 census where the
residents at Tannoch included John Brown, a 14 year old ‘Teacher’, with the children aged
7 and up from both Tannoch and Gairloch listed as scholars ‘at home’. While this has not
been put down for the McQueen children at High Gairloch, this could be because they are
younger in age with the eldest possibly only having just turned 7. It seems likely that when
they were old enough the children here would also have been taught at home.
Abandonment
79.
From the available mapping, we know that Upper Gairloch is ‘in ruins’ by the time of the
2nd edition Ordnance Survey (Figure 18b), published in 1896 although surveyed in 1894.
Unfortunately it is difficult to pinpoint the exact date of abandonment for our farmstead
beyond it occurring at some point between 1851 and 1894.
80.
Research into some of the archives held locally – kindly carried out by one of the volunteers
from the on-site works, Sandy Hall – appears to have narrowed this down more. In the
valuation (land tax) rolls of 1859-60, ‘Upper Garloch’ is listed as the property of the Hon.
Mrs L.G.B. Gordon of Kenmure, with the added detail of James Smith, Farmer, as the
‘Tenant or Occupier’ (Sandy Hall, pers. comm. 16th January 2020). Although interestingly,
the column ‘Inhabitant Occupier’ has been left blank so it is possible that our house was
no longer inhabited. At this time, ‘Nether Garloch and Clauchrum’ are listed jointly under
the tenant/occupier William Gray.
81.
By the time of the 1878-79 rolls, all three properties are now listed together – ‘Upper and
Nether Garloch and Clauchrum’ – with the tenant/occupier as James Gray, Ewanston,
Balmaclellan (potentially a descendant of William) (Sandy Hall, pers. comm. 16 th January
2020). It is possible that the amalgamation of these properties puts the abandonment of
Upper Gairloch as an independent farm occurring between 1859-60 and 1878-79, with its
land then being taken over by a larger farm.
82.
The recovery from site of the ceramic stopper from a ‘Codd’ type bottle, which has to postdate c.1875, could push our steading’s inhabitation into the latter end of this period but
this, however, is very tentative. It is equally possible that this was a stray find deposited
here at a later date, potentially dropped by someone, perhaps a shepherd, visiting the
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 35 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
farmstead after it had already been abandoned.
83.
The only other possible evidence at this stage is the 1st edition 1-inch Ordnance Survey
mapping of 1861 (not shown), which does not name Upper Gairloch (although the buildings
are shown unnamed) while it does name ‘Tannoch’, ‘Upper Gairloch Wood’ and ‘Nether
Gairloch’. This could perhaps suggest that it was no longer inhabited at this time, although
as mentioned, earlier mapping should be viewed with caution.
84.
That most of the roofing slates were recovered from the central courtyard [008a] may
suggest that they had been deposited either by sliding off of the surrounding roofs or were
perhaps deliberately discarded here. The much lower number of slates found within the
structures does suggest that the roofs did not collapse in situ though, but may have been
deliberately dismantled with the roofing materials being taken away to be reused
elsewhere; not surprising if imported slates tended to be more expensive. If the latter was
the case though, then this would appear to have occurred some time after its
abandonment. Though ‘in ruins’, the two structures, representing [008b/c] and [008d],
appear to have still been roofed on the 2nd edition Ordnance Survey (Figure 18b; although
it is not the clearest to make out). They are no longer roofed by the time of the 3 rd edition
in 1909.
85.
In contrast, the majority of the stone used for the construction of the walls appeared to
remain on site as shown by the large amount of tumble (011), the intact stone flooring
and also the remains of the kiln barn. This attests to the abundance of stone available in
the area, something that was previously noted by Shaw during her survey of Clachrum
(Shaw 2010, 7).
86.
It is difficult to know the exact cause of the abandonment of Upper Gairloch, although it
was certainly not alone. By the time of the 2nd edition Ordnance Survey mapping in 1896,
the majority of the farmsteads along this route had been abandoned; this once rich rural
landscape had now become a string of ruinous farm buildings. The reasons for this may
vary dependent on the circumstances of each farm, but it is likely that the improvements
played a large part.
87.
Farms continued to be amalgamated as the land was turned over to sheep grazing. Looking
back at the later valuation rolls, we can see that in 1887-88, some years after Upper
Gairloch, Nether Gairloch and Clachrum became a joint listing, a shepherd named William
Little had moved into the house at Nether Gairloch as the ‘Inhabitant Occupier’ (Sandy
Hall, pers. comm. 16th January 2020). A notice in the 1884 Galloway News and
Kirkcudbrightshire Advertiser (see References for link) from William Little, shepherd at
Gairloch, Kells, looking for two lost ‘blackfaced tups’ shows that he was at least working
on the farm for a few years prior to this. In newspaper advertisements from 1889 (Galloway
News and Kirkcudbrightshire Advertiser, see References for link) and 1892 (North British
Agriculturist, see References for link), we read that Upper and Nether Gairloch are available
for let, containing around 2,255 acres, and, as the former states, ‘capable of carrying a
first-class Black-faced Sheep Stock’. In the 1889 advertisement, William Little is also
mentioned as the ‘Shepherd upon the Farms’.
88.
A significant change in the Improvement Era was a shift from farms being worked by
groups of tenant families towards a single family unit; this, alongside the continuing
amalgamation of farms, caused a number of evictions. The improvements also included
expensive programmes of drainage and enclosure, which would have caused rents to rise
(Yates 1978, 133). As a result, it became a period of upheaval with many forced to leave
their rural homes and look for employment elsewhere.
89.
The final significant change to this landscape occurred in the 1940s, when some 240 square
miles of land in Galloway was designated as a Forest Park. The land of Upper Gairloch and
its neighbouring properties fell under the care of the Forestry Commission (now Forestry
and Land Scotland) which remains the case to this day.
90.
It is from this period that the latest finds recovered from the site appear to date to: metal
objects possible from a 20th century farm vehicle and some fragments of window glass that
appear to post-date the 1950s. These items indicate that our steading has now become a
dumping ground, perhaps prompted by its position directly to the side of the modern forest
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 36 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
drive. The presence of the later window glass is unexpected in such a remote location
though, so there may be other material dumped in this area that we are yet to come
across.
91.
Aside from this, the abandoned farmstead of Upper Gairloch was gradually enveloped by
the surrounding forest, covered by moss and trees and awaiting the arrival of
archaeologists to once again reveal its remains.
Conclusion
92.
After the successful clearing of the kiln barn in March 2019, Can You Dig It went back with
a group of volunteers to target the location of the main steading at Upper Gairloch. Sitting
along the modern forest drive known as Raiders Road, the works took place over eight
days and cleared the remains of two structures which sat on either side of an enclosed
courtyard. An initial search of the available online archives also helped to put the steading
into context.
93.
These remains appeared to correlate well with the layout of the farmstead shown on the
1st edition Ordnance Survey mapping of 1852. Further test pitting within the interior
identified the survival of original surfaces within both the interior of the structures and
within the limits of the central courtyard. While the latter was cobbled, the two structures
contained flagstone surfaces. This differed slightly in the northern structure where there
appeared to be a demarcation shown by a change in floor surface from flagstone to cobbles.
94.
A number of artefacts were recovered during the works including over 500 sherds of
pottery which appeared to mainly date from the 1820s-1860s. Combined with the ordered
layout of the structures around a central courtyard, these suggested that the current ruins
represent an early 19th century rebuild of the steading during the Improvement Era. Other
finds included a large rasp/file and small fork that could imply blacksmithing or farrier
work. The presence of much later 20th century finds appeared to represent dumping at this
time.
95.
The works on both the steading and the kiln barn at Upper Gairloch displayed the high
level of survival of these structures, which also act as an example of what could remain
elsewhere along this route. Combining both the archaeological remains of this site with the
historical archives has also demonstrated the amount of information that can be discovered
about what otherwise appears as a ruined collection of stones in the landscape. Further
work both on site and in the archives would continue to demonstrate this and would greatly
help to answer the questions that still remain for this site.
Acknowledgements
96.
This project is part of a wider Community Archaeology project, ‘Can You Dig It’, run by the
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme from February 2019 to March 2020. See
www.gallowayglens.org.uk/Resources and follow ‘Can You Dig It’ for their published
outputs. The Community Archaeology project was offered free to volunteers thanks to
funding from the Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland. The land is owned by
Forestry and Land Scotland who kindly allowed us access and gave their support and
guidance for the works. Guidance was also given by Dumfries and Galloway Council
Archaeology Service and members of local heritage societies.
97.
The authors would like to thank all of the hardworking volunteers who took part in the
excavation: Sandy Hall, Jennifer Roberts, Erin Pritchard, Claire Starritt, Morag Ritchie, Aelia
Gilby, Steven Steele, Tom Marshall and Claire Martin. Sandy also very kindly passed on
information from his research into archives for the site and also gave further guidance
relating to the layout of farm structures.
98.
The support and guidance provided by Rathmell Archaeology staff members Sarah Krischer
and Laura Anderson on site was much appreciated by ourselves and everyone involved.
Laura also did a great job digitising the site plans for this report. Special thanks also go to
Thomas Rees for his guidance and help both throughout the initial organisation of the
project and while the works were taking place on site, and also to Louise Turner for her
work on the artefacts analysis.
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 37 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
References
Documentary
Canmore [online] available at: https://canmore.org.uk/ [accessed 14 January 2020]
Edlin, H. L. 1974 ‘History and Tradition’, in Edlin, H. L. (ed.) Galloway Forest Park, Forestry
Commission Guide, Edinburgh: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 8-15
Fenton, A. & Walker, B. 1981 The Rural Architecture of Scotland, Edinburgh: John Donald
Publishers Ltd
Gibson, A. 1988 ‘Medieval corn-drying kilns at Capo, Kincardineshire and Abercairny,
Perthshire’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 118 (1988), 219-229
Gillespie, Rev. J. 1792 ‘Parish of Kells (County of Kirkcudbright)’, The Old Statistical
Accounts of Scotland, Vol. IV, 259-273 [online] available at:
https://stataccscot.edina.ac.uk/static/statacc/dist/viewer/osa-vol4Parish_record_for_Kells_in_the_county_of_Kirkcudbright_in_volume_4_of_account_1/
[accessed 28 January 2020]
Glendinning, M. & Wade Martins, S. 2008 Buildings of the Land: Scotland’s Farms 17502000, Edinburgh: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland
McKinstry, L. & Williamson, C. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig
It? Community Archaeology Project, Risk Assessment Method Statement 1.2.f Medieval or
Later Rural Settlement, unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Maitland, Rev. J. 1845 ‘Parish of Kells, Presbytery of Kirkcudbright, Synod of Galloway’,
The New Statistical Accounts of Scotland, Vol. IV, 108-117 [online] available at:
https://stataccscot.edina.ac.uk/static/statacc/dist/viewer/nsa-vol4Parish_record_for_Kells_in_the_county_of_Kirkcudbright_in_volume_4_of_account_2/
[accessed 28 January 2020]
Pastmap [online] available at: https://pastmap.org.uk/ [accessed 14 January 2020]
Shaw, R. 2010 Clachrum, Loch Stroan, Galloway Forest, Archaeological Survey, Data
Structure Report, unpublished commercial report by Rebecca Shaw Archaeological Services
Swanson, C. 1993 ‘The Need for a Management and Preservation Strategy’, in Hingley, R.
(ed.) Medieval or Later Rural Settlement in Scotland: Management and Preservation,
Historic Scotland Ancient Monuments Division Occ. Paper No. 1, 1-3
Turner, L. & Rees, T. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project, Research Design 1.2.f Medieval or Later Rural Settlement,
unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Williamson, C. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community
Archaeology Project, Data Structure Report, 1.2.f Medieval of Later Rural Settlement –
Upper Gairloch, unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Yates, M. J. 1978 ‘The Excavations at Polmaddy, New Galloway’, Transactions of the
Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society, 53 (1977-8), 133146
Archive
Galloway News and Kirkcudbrightshire Advertiser, Friday 18 January 1884, front page
[online] available at:
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002666/18840118/005/0001
[access 6 February 2020]
Galloway News and Kirkcudbrightshire Advertiser, Friday 27 September 1889, p.8
[online] available at:
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002666/18890927/073/0008
[accessed 6 February 2020]
North British Agriculturist, Wednesday 05 October 1892, p.641 [online] available at:
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 38 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002744/18921005/023/0003
[accessed 6 February 2020]
E106/20/1/23 Land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, volume 01 [online] available at:
https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/land-tax-rolls-16451831/land-tax-rolls-kirkcudbrightshire-volume-01/12 [accessed 21 January 2020]
E106/20/2/15 Land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, volume 02 [online] available at:
https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/land-tax-rolls-16451831/land-tax-rolls-kirkcudbrightshire-volume-02/8 [accessed 21 January 2020]
E106/20/3/15 Land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, volume 03 [online] available at:
https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/land-tax-rolls-16451831/land-tax-rolls-kirkcudbrightshire-volume-03/15 [accessed 21 January 2020]
E106/20/4/25 Land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, volume 04 [online] available at:
https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/land-tax-rolls-16451831/land-tax-rolls-kirkcudbrightshire-volume-04/13 [accessed 21 January 2020]
E106/20/5/25 Land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, volume 05 [online] available at:
https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/land-tax-rolls-16451831/land-tax-rolls-kirkcudbrightshire-volume-05/13 [accessed 21 January 2020]
E106/20/6/43 Land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, volume 06 [online] available at:
https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/land-tax-rolls-16451831/land-tax-rolls-kirkcudbrightshire-volume-06/22 [accessed 21 January 2020]
OS1/20/54/23 Kirkcudbrightshire OS Name Books, Volume 54, 1848-1851 [online]
available at: https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/ordnance-survey-namebooks/kirkcudbrightshire-os-name-books-1848-1851/kirkcudbrightshire-volume-54/23
[accessed 24 January 2020]
1841 Scottish Census – Parish of Kells [online] available at:
https://www.freecen.org.uk/search_records/59034cb5e9379091b1478fbe/williamhalliday-1841-kirkcudbrightshire-kells-1801-?locale=en [accessed 28 January 2020]
1851 Scottish Census – Parish of Kells [online] available at:
https://info.dumgal.gov.uk/HistoricalIndexes/Home/DisplayDetailedSearchResults_Censu
s_1851_Ref?houseRef=2%2F10%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&hous
eParish=Kells [accessed 28 January 2020]
Cartographic
1654
Blaeu, J.
Atlas of Scotland, Gallovidia (Galloway)
1752-55
Roy, W.
Military Survey of Scotland (Lowlands)
1852
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 1st edition, Kirkcudbrightshire Sheet 30
1861
Ordnance Survey
One-inch 1st edition, Sheet 9 - Maxwelltown
1896
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 2nd edition, Kirkcudbrightshire, Sheet XXVI.SW
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 39 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland
LOCAL AUTHORITY:
Dumfries & Galloway
PROJECT TITLE/SITE
NAME:
Galloway Glens – Upper Gairloch, Raiders Road
PROJECT CODE:
RA18107
PARISH:
Kells
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR:
Claire Williamson & Liam McKinstry
NAME OF ORGANISATION:
Rathmell Archaeology Limited
TYPE(S) OF PROJECT:
Survey and Test Pitting
NMRS NO(S):
NX67SW 24 (Canmore ID: 177552)
SITE/MONUMENT TYPE(S):
Building, Farmstead, Field System, Kiln (Period Unassigned)
SIGNIFICANT FINDS:
19th century ceramic
NGR (2 letters, 8 or 10
figures)
NX 61433 72936
START DATE (this season)
14th August 2019
END DATE (this season)
24th August 2019
PREVIOUS WORK (incl.
DES ref.)
Clearance of associated kiln barn in March 2019 (Williamson 2019)
MAIN (NARRATIVE)
DESCRIPTION: (may
include information from
other fields)
After the successful clearing of the kiln barn in March 2019, Can You
Dig It went back with a group of volunteers to target the location of
the main steading at Upper Gairloch. Sitting along the modern forest
drive known as Raiders Road, the works took place over eight days
and cleared the remains of two structures which sat on either side of
an enclosed courtyard. An initial search of the available online
archives also helped to put the steading into context.
These remains appeared to correlate well with the layout of the
farmstead shown on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey mapping of
1852. Further test pitting within the interior identified the survival of
original surfaces within both the interior of the structures and within
the limits of the central courtyard. While the latter was cobbled, the
two structures contained flagstone surfaces. This differed slightly in
the northern structure where there appeared to be a demarcation
shown by a change in floor surface from flagstone to cobbles.
A number of artefacts were recovered during the works including over
500 sherds of pottery which appeared to mainly date from the 1820s1860s. Combined with the ordered layout of the structures around a
central courtyard, these suggested that the current ruins represent
an early 19th century rebuild of the steading during the Improvement
Era. Other finds included a large rasp/file and small fork that could
imply blacksmithing or farrier work. The presence of much later 20 th
century finds appeared to represent dumping at this time.
The works on both the steading and the kiln barn at Upper Gairloch
displayed the high level of survival of these structures, which also act
as an example of what could remain elsewhere along this route.
Combining both the archaeological remains of this site with the
historical archives has also demonstrated the amount of information
that can be discovered about what otherwise appears as a ruined
collection of stones in the landscape. Further work both on site and
in the archives would continue to demonstrate this and would greatly
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 40 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
help to answer the questions that still remain for this site.
PROPOSED FUTURE
WORK:
None
CAPTION(S) FOR
ILLUSTRS:
None
SPONSOR OR FUNDING
BODY:
The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme (part of
Dumfries & Galloway Council), externally funded by Historic
Environment Scotland and the Heritage Fund
ADDRESS OF MAIN
CONTRIBUTOR:
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops, Kilwinning, Ayrshire KA13 6PU
E MAIL:
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
ARCHIVE LOCATION
(intended/deposited)
Report to Dumfries & Galloway Archaeology Service and archive to
National Record of the Historic Environment.
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 41 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Appendix 2: Registers
99.
Appendix 2, which contains all registers pertaining to the works on–site during the works.
Context Register
Context
No.
Area/
Trench
Type
Description
Interpretation
001-007
Kiln Barn
-
For Context Nos 001-007 see Williamson 2019
-
008
Steading
Structure
Remains of a rectangular enclosure comprising two structures –
[008b/c] and [008d] – sitting to either side of a central yard [008a], all
of which appear to have been constructed within a single phase. The
northeastern portion of the enclosure was not revealed during the
works due to the presence of upstanding trees and dense
overgrowth. The walls were of drystone construction with both an
inner and outer face on either side of a rubble core. The faces were
constructed using sub-angular stones – mostly pale grey granite –
with an average size of 0.4m by 0.3m by 0.2m. Some of the stones
were very large however, measuring up to 1.3m by 1m by 0.7m. The
stones in the rubble core measured 0.2m by 0.15m by 0.1m on
average. The width of the walls measured between 0.8m to 1.1m,
and they survived to a height of between 0.2m and 1m. Full external
dimensions of enclosure as exposed were 17.8m west-east by 15.5m
north-south. Remaining walls have been covered by moss and
vegetation (009), and tumble (011) sits both within the interior and
around the immediate exterior of the enclosure.
The remains of two structures and an
enclosure which appear to represent the
‘Upper Gairloch’ farmstead depicted on the
1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1852.
The remains comprised the lower courses
of both the external and internal walls of the
structures which are all tied in and appear
to have been constructed in a single phase.
Trenching and test pitting within the interior
have revealed flagstone surfaces within
both structures and cobbled surfaces within
the central area – potentially a cobbled
yard. There is no definitive signs of
modification to the structure but the
drystone construction may make that
difficult to discern.
[008a] – central area of the enclosure which is ‘L’ shaped in plan. The
main section runs west-east with an internal length of 13.5m and
width of 4.8m, with a further square section in the southeast which
measures 4m by 4.6m internally. A possible entrance sits at the
western end but no other entrances were discernible. The entire area
is covered by topsoil (017) underlying tumble (011), with an area if
mixed tumble and topsoil (010) at the eastern end. Cobbled surfaces
[020] (Test Pit A), [025] (Test Pit C) and [026] (Trench 4) were
exposed at the southeastern, western and central portions of the area
respectively.
[008b/c] – rectangular structure located in the southwest corner of the
enclosure orientated west-east and directly to the south of [008a]. It is
divided into two chambers: [008b] in the western half and [008c] in
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 42 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Context
No.
Area/
Trench
Type
Description
Interpretation
the east. [008b] had internal dimensions of approximately 4.9m northsouth by 4m west-east, while the interior of [008c] was slightly bigger
at 4.9m north-south by 4.6m west-east. The crosswall which divided
the two chambers was largely disturbed by the presence of
upstanding trees but measured roughly 0.3m wide and appeared to
be the same construction as the external walls. The whole of [008b/c]
was covered by topsoil (012) underlying tumble (011). Trench 2 was
opened across the southern half of the junction between the two
chambers. It revealed two flagstone surfaces: [013] and [027].
Surface [013] appeared to sit within [008c], which then stepped 0.2m
down to surface [027] in [008b]. It is possible that this marked the
location of an entranceway between the two chambers.
[008d] – rectangular structure located in the northwest corner of the
enclosure orientated west-east and directly to the north of [008a].
Only the western end of this structure was revealed – internally it
measured 4.9m north-south by at least 4.4m east-west although it
potentially continued further to the east. The entirety of [008d] was
covered by topsoil (014) which sat underlying tumble (011). Trench 3
was opened against its western wall. Across its western half,
flagstone surface [015] was revealed which extended to 2.2m out
from the wall, before stepping down 0.1m on to cobbled surface
[016].
009
Steading
[008]
Deposit
Patches of green moss and vegetation overlying the remains of
structure [008] and tumble (011). Present across the full extent of the
structure measuring only up to approximately 50mm thick.
Overgrowth on the stones of [008] and
(011) since the structure’s abandonment in
the 19th century.
010
[008a]
Deposit
Mixture of moderately compacted mid-blackish brown clayey silt with
small, medium and large sized granite sub-angular stones. The
stones measure between 0.09m by 0.05m by 0.07m up to 0.55m by
0.23 by 0.4m in size. The deposit contained frequent root inclusions
and frequent sherds of white earthenware pottery. A fragment of slate
was also present. The deposit sat in the northeast corner of [008a]
against the eastern wall and measured approximately 4m by 2m in
extent. It was excavated to a thickness of 330mm but the base was
not reached.
Mixture of topsoil and stone tumble at
eastern end of [008a]
011
Steading
Deposit
Medium to large angular and sub-angular stones lying against the
internal and external faces of structure [008] for a width of
Stone tumble from collapse (or demolition)
of structure [008] which was abandoned in
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 43 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Context
No.
Area/
Trench
Type
[008]
Description
Interpretation
approximately 0.6 to 1.6m and sits approximately 0.5m high. The
deposit also overlies the walls of [008] in areas. The stones are a
light grey granite with no bonding present, and are the same
dimensions as those which make up the walls of [008].
the first half of the 19th century. Some of the
stones may have been robbed and reused
elsewhere.
012
[008b/c]
Deposit
Loosely compacted mid-blackish brown sandy silt with very frequent
roots and occasional small stones and vegetation inclusions. Present
as the uppermost deposit underlying tumble (011) across the full
extent of [008b] and [008c]. It measures 70mm thick.
Topsoil within [008b] and [008c], which
underlies tumble (011) and overlies surface
[013] and deposit (024).
013
[008c]
Structure
Layer of flagstones consisting of pink/grey granite with one block of
possible shale. The stones were sub-rectangular in shape and
measured up to 0.7m by 0.35m, and 60mm thick, in size. The layer
was exposed within Trench 2 in [008c] to an extent of up to 1.5m long
by 3m long, but likely continues beyond to the north and east.
Flagstone surface revealed underlying
topsoil (012) in Trench 2 within [008c].
Abuts surface [027] to the west, which also
sits approximately 0.2m lower than [013].
014
[008d]
Deposit
Loosely compacted blackish brown sandy silt with very frequent root
and vegetation inclusions. Present across the full extent of [008d],
measuring approximately 4.9m by 4.4m in area and 150mm thick.
Topsoil within [008d] underlying tumble
(011) and overlying surfaces [015] and
[016].
015
[008d],
Trench 3
Structure
Layer of flagstones, consisting of sub-rectangular grey/pink granite
blocks measuring up to 0.45m by 0.5m and 100mm thick in size. The
layer was revealed within Trench 3 in [008d] for an extent of 1.3m by
2.2m, although likely continued beyond to the north and south.
Flagstone surface revealed underlying
topsoil (014) in [008d]. Abuts surface [016]
to the east. The two are stepped in height
with [016] sitting 0.1m lower.
016
[008d],
Trench 3
Structure
Layer of pink/grey granite cobblestones which are sub-rectangular/
sub-oval in shape with occasional roots present. The cobblestones
each measured up to 0.2m by 0.07m in size. The layer was exposed
for an area measuring 0.88m by 1.3m within Trench 3 in [008d],
although likely continued beyond to the north, south and east.
Cobbled surface exposed in western half of
Trench 3 within [008d] underlying topsoil
(014). Abuts surface [015] to the west. The
two are stepped in height with [015] 0.1m
higher.
017
[008a]
Deposit
Loosely compacted dark blackish brown silty sand with frequent
inclusions of roots and small stones. The deposit is present across
the full extent of [008a] and measures 100 to 200mm thick.
Topsoil within [008a] underlying tumble
(011) and overlying possible surfaces [020],
[025] and [026].
018
-
-
Void
-
019
-
-
Void – same as (010)
-
020
[008a]/
Structure
Layer of sub-rectangular grey granite cobblestones. The
Possible granite surface underlying topsoil
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 44 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Context
No.
Area/
Trench
Type
Test Pit A
Description
Interpretation
cobblestones each have an average size of 0.3m by 0.14m. The
layer was exposed for a full extent of 1m by 0.5m, located within Test
Pit A which sat in the southeast corner of [008a]. It sat directly
against the southern wall and likely continued beyond the test pit to
the north, west and east.
(017) in southeast corner of [008a].
021
-
-
Void – part of (024)
-
022
-
-
Void – same as (017)
-
023
-
-
Void – same as (017)
-
024
[008b/c]
Deposit
Loose medium black brown silty sand with frequent small stone
inclusions which measured an average size of 0.13m by 0.15m by
0.17m. There was also occasional small root inclusions. The deposit
was revealed underlying topsoil (012) at the western end of Trench 2
in [008b]. Its full extent measured 0.95m by 0.7m with a thickness of
100mm.
Deposit of mixed topsoil and small stones
overlying surface [027] at the western end
of Trench in [008b]. Overlies surface [027].
025
[008a]/
Test Pit C
Structure
Layer of small sub-rectangular pink granite cobbles. The cobbles
each measured 0.18m by 0.11m in size. The full extent of the layer
as it was exposed within Test Pit C measured 0.44m by 0.7m
although likely continued beyond the limits of the trench. Underlies
topsoil (017).
Possible cobbled surface in the possible
entrance at the western end of [008a].
026
[008a]/
Trench 4
Structure
Layer of irregular shaped sub-rounded pink granite cobbles which
appear polished in places. The cobbles each measure up to 0.26m
by 0.18m in size. The layer covers the full extent of Trench 4 (1m by
1m) but continues beyond the trench in all directions. Underlies
topsoil (017).
Cobbled surface exposed in Trench 4 within
[008a].
027
[008b/c]
Structure
Layer of medium sized sub-angular granite blocks which each
measured up to 0.25m by 0.5m in size. Revealed underlying (024) at
the western end of Trench 2 in [008b]. Exposed extent measured
approximately 1m square but it likely continues beyond the trench to
the west and north.
Flagstone surface revealed underlying
topsoil (024) in Trench 2 within [008b].
Abuts surface [013] to the east, which also
sits approximately 0.2m higher than [027].
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 45 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Drawing Register
Drawing
No.
Sheet
No.
Area/
Trench
Drawing
Type
Scale
Description
Drawer
Date
-
-
-
-
-
For Drawing Nos 1-2 see Williamson 2019
-
-
3
3
Steading
Plan
1:20
Plan of Steading – Centre S/Side
LMcK
22/08/19
4
4
Steading
Plan
1:20
Plan of Steading – Centre W/Side
LMcK
22/08/19
5
5
Steading
Plan
1:20
Plan of Steading – NE Corner
LMcK
22/08/19
6
6
Steading
Plan
1:20
Plan of Steading – N Centre Section
LMcK
24/08/19
7
7
Steading
Plan
1:20
Plan of Steading – Centre Section
EP/LA
24/08/19
8
8
Steading
Plan
1:20
Plan of Steading – NW Section
LMcK
24/08/19
9
9
Steading
Plan
1:20
Plan of Steading – S Section
JR
23/08/19
10
10
Steading
Plan
1:20
Plan of Subfloor (027) in Trench 2
JR
24/08/19
Photographic Register
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
-
-
For Image Nos 1-78 see Williamson 2019
-
-
79
7156
Pre-excavation shot of Structure [008a]
N
14/08/19
80
7157
Pre-excavation shot of Structure [008a]
SE
14/08/19
81
7158
Pre-excavation shot of Structure [008a]
N
14/08/19
82
7159
Pre-excavation shot of Structure [008a]
N
14/08/19
83
7160
Pre-excavation shot of Structure [008a]
N
14/08/19
84
7161
Pre-excavation shot of Structure [008a]
W
14/08/19
85
7162
Working shot – Erin and Claire
W
14/08/19
86
7163
Working shot – Erin and Claire
W
14/08/19
87
7164
Working shot – Jenny, Erin and Claire
W
14/08/19
88
7165
Working shot – Claire
W
14/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 46 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
89
7166
Working shot – Jenny
SW
14/08/19
90
7167
Working shot – Laura
-
14/08/19
91
7168
End of Day 1 – Southwest Corner (Main Area) [008a]
E
14/08/19
92
7169
End of Day 1 – General shot of [008a]
NNE
14/08/19
93
7170
End of Day 1 – External South Facing Elevation [008]
E
14/08/19
94
7171
End of Day 1 – Southeast Corner (External), [008]
E
14/08/19
95
7172
End of Day 1 – Southeast Corner (External), [008]
E
14/08/19
96
7173
End of Day 1 – Southeast Corner (Internal), [008]
E
14/08/19
97
7174
End of Day 1 – External South Wall [008]
E
14/08/19
98
7175
Day 2 – General shot of [008a]
N
15/08/19
99
7176
Day 2 – General shot of [008a]
N
15/08/19
100
7177
Day 2 – Kiln Barn, Working shot with Erin and Claire
-
15/08/19
101
7178
Day 2 – Kiln Barn, Working shot with Erin and Claire
-
15/08/19
102
7179
[008], Room A interior, and Pre-excavation shot of Trench 3
E
17/08/19
103
7180
[008], Room A interior, and Pre-excavation shot of Trench 3
NE
17/08/19
104
7181
[008], Room A interior
W
17/08/19
105
7182
[008], Room A interior
W
17/08/19
106
7183
Pre-excavation shot of Trench 2, Interior of Room C [008]
N
17/08/19
107
7184
Pre-excavation shot of Trench 2, Interior of Room C [008]
N
17/08/19
108
7185
Pre-excavation shot of Trench 1, Room A [008]
S
17/08/19
109
7186
[008], Room A – Eastern wall (Northern End)
W
17/08/19
110
7187
[008], Room A – Eastern wall (Northern End)
W
17/08/19
111
7188
[008], Room A – Eastern wall (Northern End)
W
17/08/19
112
7189
[008] – External East facing elevation (Northern End)
E
17/08/19
113
7190
[008] – External East facing elevation (Northern End)
E
17/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 47 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
114
7191
[008], Room A – East wall (From Above)
S
17/08/19
115
7192
[008], Room A – East wall (From Above)
S
17/08/19
116
7193
[008], Room A – Deposit (010)
W
17/08/19
117
7194
[008], Room A – Interior Southeast corner
N
17/08/19
118
7195
[008], Room A – Interior Southeast corner
N
17/08/19
119
7196
[008], Room A – Interior Southeast corner
S
17/08/19
120
7197
[008], Room A – Interior Southeast corner
S
17/08/19
121
7198
[008], Room A – East wall (Middle section)
W
17/08/19
122
7199
[008], Room A – East wall (Southern end)
W
17/08/19
123
7200
[008], Room A – East wall (Southern end)
S
17/08/19
124
7201
[008], Room A – Southeast corner
N
17/08/19
125
7202
[008], Room A – South wall (Eastern end)
N
17/08/19
126
7203
[008], Room A – South wall (Eastern end)
E
17/08/19
127
7204
[008], Room A – South wall (Eastern end)
E
17/08/19
128
7205
[008], Room A – West wall ( Southern end)
E
17/08/19
129
7206
[008], Room A – West wall (Southern end)
E
17/08/19
130
7207
[008], Room A – West wall (Southern end)
E
17/08/19
131
7208
[008], Room A – West wall (Corner)
E
17/08/19
132
7209
[008], Room A – West wall (Corner)
E
17/08/19
133
7210
[008], Room A – West wall (Southern end)
N
17/08/19
134
7211
[008], Room A – South wall (Middle)
N
17/08/19
135
7212
[008], Room A – South wall (Middle)
W
17/08/19
136
7213
[008], Room A – South wall (Middle)
W
17/08/19
137
7214
[008], Room A – Southwest corner
NE
17/08/19
138
7215
[008], Room A – South wall (Western middle)
N
17/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 48 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
139
7216
[008], Room A – West wall
E
17/08/19
140
7217
[008], Room A – North wall
S
17/08/19
141
7218
[008], Room A – North wall
S
17/08/19
142
7219
[008], External East facing elevation (Middle)
E
17/08/19
143
7220
[008], External East facing elevation (Southern end)
E
17/08/19
144
7221
[008], External East facing elevation (Southern end)
E
17/08/19
145
7222
[008], External East facing elevation (Southern end)
SE
17/08/19
146
7223
[008], External East facing elevation (Southern corner)
E
17/08/19
147
7224
[008], External East facing elevation (Southern corner)
ESE
17/08/19
148
7225
[008] – External South facing elevation (Eastern corner)
S
17/08/19
149
7226
[008] – External South facing elevation (Eastern end)
S
17/08/19
150
7227
[008] – External South facing elevation (Middle)
S
17/08/19
151
7228
[008] – External South facing elevation (Middle)
S
17/08/19
152
7229
[008] – South wall (Room C)
W
17/08/19
153
7230
[008] – South wall (Room C)
W
17/08/19
154
7231
[008] – South wall (Room C)
W
17/08/19
155
7232
[008] – South wall junction with External Wall of Room C
W
17/08/19
156
7233
[008] – South wall, Room B
E
17/08/19
157
7234
[008] – External South facing elevation (Western end)
SW
17/08/19
158
7235
[008] – External South facing elevation (Western end)
S
17/08/19
159
7236
[008] – External South facing elevation (Western end)
SW
17/08/19
160
7237
[008] – External South facing elevation (Western corner)
S
17/08/19
161
7238
[008] – External West facing elevation (Southern end)
W
17/08/19
162
7239
[008] – External West facing elevation (Southern end)
W
17/08/19
163
7240
[008] – External West facing elevation (Middle)
W
17/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 49 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
164
7241
[008] – External West facing elevation (CBM)
W
17/08/19
165
7242
[008] – External West facing elevation (Middle)
W
17/08/19
166
7243
[008] – External West facing elevation (Middle)
NW
17/08/19
167
7244
[008] – External West facing elevation (Middle)
SW
17/08/19
168
7245
Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 [008]
SW
17/08/19
169
7246
Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 [008]
W
17/08/19
170
7247
Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 [008]
W
17/08/19
171
7248
Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 [008]
NW
17/08/19
172
7249
Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 [008]
S
17/08/19
173
7250
Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 [008]
S
17/08/19
174
7251
View from [008]
NE
17/08/19
175
7252
General shot of the Interior of Room B [008]
S
17/08/19
176
7253
[008], Room B – South wall
N
17/08/19
177
7254
[008], Room B – East wall, possible entrance to Room C
W
17/08/19
178
7255
[008], Room B – North wall
S
17/08/19
179
7256
[008], Room B – West wall
E
17/08/19
180
7257
[008], Room B – East wall
SW
17/08/19
181
7258
[008], Room B – South wall
E
17/08/19
182
7259
[008], Room C – Floor [013]
E
17/08/19
183
7260
[008], Room C – Floor [013]
S
17/08/19
184
7261
[008], Room C – South wall
N
17/08/19
185
7262
[008], Room C – North wall
S
17/08/19
186
7263
[008], Room C – West wall
E
17/08/19
187
7264
[008], Room C – East wall
W
17/08/19
188
7265
[008] – External West facing elevation – Possible entrance?
W
17/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 50 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
189
7266
[008] – External West facing elevation – Possible entrance?
SW
17/08/19
190
7267
[008] – External West facing elevation (Northern end)
NW
17/08/19
191
7268
[008] – Room D, West wall
S
17/08/19
192
7269
[008] – Room D, West wall
S
17/08/19
193
7270
[008] – Room D, West wall
E
17/08/19
194
7271
[008] – Room D, Interior
S
17/08/19
195
7272
[008] – Room D, Interior
N
17/08/19
196
7273
[008] – Room A, North wall
S
17/08/19
197
7274
Structure [008] – General shot
E
17/08/19
198
7275
Structure [008] – General shot (Southeast corner)
NE
17/08/19
199
7276
Structure [008] – General shot (Northeast corner)
SSE
17/08/19
200
7277
Structure [008] – General shot (Room A)
E
17/08/19
201
7278
Structure [008] – General shot (Southern half)
ENE
17/08/19
202
7279
Structure [008] – General shot (Room B & Room C)
NE
17/08/19
203
7280
Structure [008] – General shot (Southeast corner)
N
17/08/19
204
7281
Structure [008] – General shot (Southeast corner)
NW
17/08/19
205
7282
Structure [008] – General shot (Northeast corner)
WSW
17/08/19
206
7283
Structure [008] – General shot (Room D)
SE
17/08/19
207
7284
Structure [008] – General shot (Room C)
N
17/08/19
208
7285
Structure [008] – General shot (Room B)
N
17/08/19
209
7286
Structure [008] – General shot (Room D)
S
17/08/19
210
7287
Structure [008] – General shot (Southern half)
WNW
17/08/19
211
7288
Structure [008] – General shot (Room A)
W
17/08/19
212
7289
Structure [008] – General shot (Rooms B & C)
WNW
17/08/19
213
7290
Structure [008] – General shot (Room A)
W
17/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 51 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
214
7291
Structure [008] – General shot (Rooms B & C)
ENE
17/08/19
215
7292
Structure [008] – General shot (Room A)
ESE
17/08/19
216
7293
Structure [008] – General shot – Tumble (011), External Southeast
E
17/08/19
217
7294
Structure [008] – External South wall
W
17/08/19
218
7295
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2
E
21/08/19
219
7296
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2
E
21/08/19
220
7297
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2
E
21/08/19
221
7298
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2
W
21/08/19
222
7299
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2
W
21/08/19
223
7300
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2
W
21/08/19
224
7301
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 - Detail
W
21/08/19
225
7302
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2
W
21/08/19
226
7303
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2
N
21/08/19
227
7304
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2
N
21/08/19
228
7305
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2
E
21/08/19
229
7306
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2
E
21/08/19
230
7307
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 – Detail shot
W
21/08/19
231
7308
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2
W
21/08/19
232
7309
Post-excavation shot of Trench 2
W
21/08/19
233
7310
General post-excavation shot of Trench 2
W
21/08/19
234
7311
General post-excavation shot of Trench 2
W
21/08/19
235
7312
General post-excavation shot of Trench 2
W
21/08/19
236
7313
General post-excavation shot of Trench 2
W
21/08/19
237
7314
General post-excavation shot of Trench 2
E
21/08/19
238
7315
General post-excavation shot of Trench 2
E
21/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 52 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
239
7316
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
E
21/08/19
240
7317
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
E
21/08/19
241
-
Void
-
-
242
-
Void
-
-
243
-
Void
-
-
244
-
Void
-
-
245
-
Void
-
-
246
-
Void
-
-
247
-
Void
-
-
248
-
Void
-
-
249
-
Void
-
-
250
-
Void
-
-
251
7318
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
E
21/08/19
252
7319
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
S
21/08/19
253
7320
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
S
21/08/19
254
7321
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
W
21/08/19
255
7322
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
W
21/08/19
256
7323
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
W
21/08/19
257
7324
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
W
21/08/19
258
7325
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
SE
21/08/19
259
7326
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
E
21/08/19
260
7327
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
E
21/08/19
261
7328
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
S
21/08/19
262
7329
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
S
21/08/19
263
7330
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
SE
21/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 53 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
264
7331
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
SW
21/08/19
265
7332
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
W
21/08/19
266
7333
Mid-excavation of Trench 3
SE
21/08/19
267
7334
Void
-
-
268
7335
[008], Room D – North to South Wall
S
22/08/19
269
7336
[008], Room D
SW
22/08/19
270
7337
[008], Room D – North to South Wall
N
22/08/19
271
7338
[008], Room D – North to South Wall
N
22/08/19
272
7339
[008], Room D – North to South Wall
W
22/08/19
273
7340
[008], Room D – North to South Wall
N
22/08/19
274
7341
[008], Room D – East to West Wall
S
22/08/19
275
7342
[008], Room D – East to West Wall
S
22/08/19
276
7343
[008], Room D – East to West Wall
SW
22/08/19
277
7344
[008], Room D – Tumble
S
22/08/19
278
7345
[008], Room D – Tumble
S
22/08/19
279
7346
[008], Room D – Tumble
SE
22/08/19
280
7347
[008], Room D – Northern area
W
22/08/19
281
7348
[008], Room D – Northern area
E
22/08/19
282
7349
[008], Room D – Northern area
E
22/08/19
283
7350
[008], Room D – Northern area
SE
22/08/19
284
7351
[008], Room D
SE
22/08/19
285
7352
[008], Room D
N
22/08/19
286
7353
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit A
N
22/08/19
287
3754
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit A
N
22/08/19
288
3755
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit A
N
22/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 54 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
289
3756
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit A
W
22/08/19
290
3757
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit A
N
22/08/19
291
3758
Post-excavation shot of Trench 3
E
22/08/19
292
3759
Post-excavation shot of Trench 3
E
22/08/19
293
3760
Post-excavation shot of Trench 3
S
22/08/19
294
3761
Post-excavation shot of Trench 3
S
22/08/19
295
3762
Post-excavation shot of Trench 3
S
22/08/19
296
3763
Post-excavation shot of Trench 3
W
22/08/19
297
3764
Post-excavation shot of Trench 3
W
22/08/19
298
3765
Tumble (011), South of Room D
E
22/08/19
299
3766
Tumble (011), South of Room D
E
22/08/19
300
3767
Tumble (011), South of Room D
E
22/08/19
301
7368
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit B
E
23/08/19
302
7369
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit B
N
23/08/19
303
7370
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit B
N
23/08/19
304
7371
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit B
N
23/08/19
305
7372
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit B
N
23/08/19
306
7373
Detail of rock North of Test Pit B
W
23/08/19
307
7374
Detail of rock North of Test Pit B
N
23/08/19
308
7375
Detail of rock North of Test Pit B
N
23/08/19
309
7376
Detail of rock North of Test Pit B
S
23/08/19
310
7377
Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1
W
23/08/19
311
7378
Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1
W
23/08/19
312
7379
Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1
S
23/08/19
313
7380
Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1
S
23/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 55 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
314
7381
Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1
E
23/08/19
315
7382
Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1
E
23/08/19
316
7383
Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1
E
23/08/19
317
7384
Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1 – Detail
W
23/08/19
318
7385
Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1
W
23/08/19
319
7386
Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1 – With wall [008]
W
23/08/19
320
7387
Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1
W
23/08/19
321
7388
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit C
S
23/08/19
322
7389
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit C
E
23/08/19
323
7390
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit C
E
23/08/19
324
7391
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit C
SE
23/08/19
325
7392
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit C
SE
23/08/19
326
7393
Post-excavation shot of Trench 4
S
24/08/19
327
7394
Post-excavation shot of Trench 4
S
24/08/19
328
7395
Post-excavation shot of Trench 1
W
24/08/19
329
7396
Post-excavation shot of Trench 1
W
24/08/19
Finds Register
Find
No.
Area
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
1
[008b]
009
Ceramic
1 x unglazed heavy ceramic from external wall of [008b]
Team
15/08/19
2
[008b]
009
Glass
2 x window glass fragments from external wall of [008b]
Team
15/08/19
3
[008b]
009
Coarse Stone
1 x roofing slate fragment from external wall of [008b]
Team
15/08/19
4
[008a]
009
Ceramic
4 x modern ceramic from external wall of [008a]
Team
15/08/19
5
[008a]
009
Glass
1 x window glass fragment from external wall of [008a]
Team
15/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 56 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Find
No.
Area
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
6
[008a]
009
Ceramic
1 x red earthernware crock jar from external wall of [008a]
Team
15/08/19
7
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
12 x modern ceramic
Team
15/08/19
8
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
5 x modern ceramic, hand-painted, buff fabric
Team
15/08/19
9
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
17 x glazed white earthenware (15 sponge-decorated; 1 plain white glazed,
burnt; 1 transfer-printed)
Team
15/08/19
10
[008c]
009
Metal
2 x Fe objects (1 rasp/file and 1 fork from [008c])
Team
15/08/19
11
[008a]
009
Glass
1 x glass base from dark wine bottle (?onion type), from external wall of
[008a]
Team
15/08/19
12
[008a]
009
Ceramic
2 x modern ceramic from external wall of [008a] (1 glazed white
earthenware; 1 brown and white transfer-printed teacup)
Team
15/08/19
13
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
45 x modern ceramic (34 sherds; 11 fragments, including 3 tin-glazed)
Team
15/08/19
Team
15/08/19
14
[008c]
009
Glass
1 x bottle glass (19th century)
15
[008a]
009
Ceramic
3 x white glazed white earthenware (1 plain; 2 sponge-decorated)
Team
15/08/19
16
[008a]
009
Ceramic
9 x modern ceramic
Team
15/08/19
17
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
53 x white glazed white earthenware sherds and fragments, mostly blue
and white transfer-printed
Team
15/08/19
18
[008a]
009
Glass
2 x glass (1 blue bottle glass; 1 window glass)
Team
15/08/19
19
[008a]
009
Coarse Stone
2 x roofing slate fragments
Team
15/08/19
20
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
12 x glazed red earthenware and slipware
Team
15/08/19
21
Trench 1
010
Glass
19 x glass fragments
Team
15/08/19
22
-
-
-
Void
-
-
23
[008a]
009
Metal
1 x Fe metal pipe
Team
16/08/19
24
Trench 1
010
Glass
9 x glass fragments
Team
16/08/19
25
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
17 x modern ceramic
Team
16/08/19
26
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
31 x modern ceramic (13 sherds; 11 fragments, including 21 blue and
white; 1 hand-painted rim)
Team
16/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 57 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Find
No.
Area
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
27
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
26 x modern ceramic (white glazed white earthenware)
Team
16/08/19
28
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
13 x modern ceramic (9 slipware; 3 brown glazed red earthenware)
Team
16/08/19
29
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
11 x modern ceramic (2 buff glazed; 8 white glazed white earthenware; 1
blue and white transfer-printed)
Team
16/08/19
30
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
2 x brown glazed red earthenware crock jar (?burnt)
Team
16/08/19
31
Trench 1
010
Glass
11 x glass fragments (10 bottle; 1 window)
Team
17/08/19
32
Trench 1
010
Metal
1 x Fe object
Team
17/08/19
33
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
25 x modern ceramic (15 slipware; 9 glazed red earthenware; 1 CBM)
Team
17/08/19
34
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
16 x modern ceramic (15 sponge-decorated blue and white glazed; 1
polychrome sponge-decorated)
Team
17/08/19
35
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
20 x modern ceramic (10 sherds; 10 fragments)
Team
17/08/19
36
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
30 x modern ceramic (white glazed white earthenware)
Team
17/08/19
37
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
3 x hand painted, glazed buff earthenware
Team
17/08/19
38
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
3 x modern ceramic (2 coarseware jar; 1 glazed white earthenware)
Team
17/08/19
39
Trench 2/
[008c]
012
Metal
5 x Fe metal objects, including 2 x metal strip and 1 nail-head
Team
17/08/19
40
Trench 2/
[008c]
012
Coarse Stone
1 x roofing slate fragment
Team
17/08/19
41
Trench 2/
[008c]
012
Ceramic
1 x stoneware stopper/marble
Team
17/08/19
42
Trench 2/
[008c]
012
Ceramic
2 x modern ceramic (slipware)
Team
17/08/19
43
Trench 2/
[008c]
012
CBM
1 x mortar fragment
Team
17/08/19
44
Trench 2/
[008c]
012
Glass
1 x glass fragment
Team
17/08/19
45
Trench 3
014
Coarse Stone
1 x roofing slate (fragmentary)
Team
21/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 58 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Find
No.
Area
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
46
Trench 3
014
Ceramic
2 x modern ceramic (white glazed white earthenware base, adjoining)
Team
21/08/19
47
Trench 2
012
CBM
7 x chimney pot (unused)
Team
21/08/19
48
Trench 2
012
Coarse Stone
3 x roofing slate fragments
Team
21/08/19
49
Trench 2
012
Metal
6 x Fe objects (1 nail; 4 fragments of Fe strip; another fragment)
Team
21/08/19
50
Trench 2
012
Glass
3 x glass fragments (2 window; 1 ?vessel)
Team
21/08/19
51
Trench 2
012
Ceramic
5 x modern ceramic (including 1 slipware; 1 brown glazed red earthenware
Team
21/08/19
52
Trench 2
012
Ceramic
5 x modern ceramic (white glazed white earthenware)
Team
21/08/19
53
Trench 1
010
Glass
6 x glass fragments
Team
22/08/19
54
Trench 1
010
Metal
2 x Fe objects (including 1 bottle)
Team
22/08/19
55
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
1 x clay tobacco pipe fragment
Team
22/08/19
56
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
4 x modern ceramic (sponge-decorated, 2 adjoining)
Team
22/08/19
57
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
3 x modern ceramic (including 2 blue and white transfer printed)
Team
22/08/19
58
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
7 x modern ceramic (white glazed white earthenware)
Team
22/08/19
59
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
9 x modern ceramic (4 slipware bowl; 3 brown glazed red earthenware; 1
tile; 1 indeterminate blue and white glazed)
Team
22/08/19
60
Test Pit A
017
Ceramic
3 x modern ceramic
Team
22/08/19
61
Test Pit A
017
Ceramic
1 x modern ceramic, sponge-decorated
Team
22/08/19
62
Test Pit A
017
Ceramic
1 x modern ceramic, transfer-printed
Team
22/08/19
63
Test Pit A
017
CBM
1 x spalled fragment ?chimney pot
Team
22/08/19
64
Test Pit A
017
Glass
6 x glass fragments
Team
22/08/19
65
Trench 3
015
Ceramic
6 x modern ceramic sherds and fragments of brown and white transferprinted glazed white earthenware (adjoining)
Team
22/08/19
66
Trench 3
015
Coarse Stone
1 x roofing slate fragment
Team
22/08/19
67
[008a]
008 –
surface
find
Glass
2 x bottle glass
Team
22/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 59 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Find
No.
Area
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
68
[008d]
008 –
surface
find
Coarse Stone
4 x ?roofing slate fragments
Team
22/08/19
69
Test Pit B
017
Ceramic
1 x modern ceramic, slipware
Team
22/08/19
70
Test Pit B
017
Coarse Stone
3 x roofing slate fragments
Team
22/08/19
71
Test Pit B
017
Ceramic
6 x modern ceramic (blue and white transfer-printed)
Team
22/08/19
72
Test Pit B
017
Glass
11 x glass fragments
Team
22/08/19
73
Test Pit B
017
Lithic
1 x quartz
Team
22/08/19
74
Test Pit B
017
CBM
1 x brick
Team
22/08/19
75
Test Pit B
017
Ceramic
24 x modern ceramic (7 sherds and 17 fragments of white glazed white
earthenware, including 1 blue and white transfer-printed)
Team
22/08/19
76
Test Pit B
017
Ceramic
28 x modern ceramic (including 17 sherds and 11 fragments of blue and
white glazed transfer-printed)
Team
22/08/19
77
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
4 x modern ceramic
Team
23/08/19
78
Test Pit C
017
Ceramic
12 x modern ceramic (mixed white glazed white earthenware)
Team
23/08/19
79
Test Pit C
017
Coarse Stone
1 x incomplete roofing slate
Team
23/08/19
80
Test Pit C
017
Glass
1 x pale green bottle glass
Team
23/08/19
81
[008a]
011
Glass
1 x base of wine bottle from external wall of [008a] – W end
Team
23/08/19
82
Trench 4
017
Coarse Stone
47 x slate (28 roofing slate fragments; 19 probable roofing slate fragments)
Team
23/08/19
83
Trench 4
017
Ceramic
1 x modern ceramic (white glazed white earthenware)
Team
23/08/19
84
Trench 4
017
Metal
1 x Fe Nail
Team
23/08/19
85
Trench 2
024
Coarse Stone
2 x roofing slate fragments; 3 x miscellaneous slate fragments
Team
23/08/19
86
Trench 2
024
Metal
3 x Fe nails
Team
23/08/19
87
Trench 2
024
Glass
2 x glass fragments
Team
23/08/19
88
Trench 2
024
Coarse Stone
1 x slate stylus
Team
23/08/19
89
[008b/c]
011
Ceramic
1 x modern ceramic (slipware)
Team
24/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 60 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Find
No.
Area
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
90
Spoil
Unstratified
Ceramic
1 x modern ceramic (red earthenware flower pot)
Team
24/08/19
91
[008d]
009
Coarse Stone
1 x roofing slate fragment
Team
17/08/19
92
[008d]
009
Ceramic
4 x modern ceramic (1 stoneware; 2 blue and white transfer-printed; 1
glazed white earthenware)
Team
17/08/19
93
Trench 1
010
Ceramic
1 x clay tobacco pipe fragment (found within <29>)
Team
16/08/19
94
Trench 1
010
Lithic
1 x quartz/feldspar and pynter (found within <36>)
Team
17/08/19
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 61 of 62
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Contact Details
Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at our Registered Office or through the web:
Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops
Kilwinning
Ayrshire
KA13 6PU
www.rathmell-arch.co.uk
t.:
f.:
e.:
01294 542848
01294 542849
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
End of Document
2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 62 of 62
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Medieval or Later Rural Settlement – Upper Gairloch Season 2
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
GGLP_94
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2020
Description
An account of the resource
Surveys and test pitting works undertaken as part of the community archaeology project “Can You Dig It?”.
archaeology
GGLP
-
https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/553/GGLP-CYDI-DSR-Upper-Gairloch-Kiln-Barn-DSR-Report.pdf
9f998152f99b73f35a50839e7114da76
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Medieval or Later Rural Settlement – Upper Gairloch Season 1
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Reports
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project
Data Structure Report
1.2.f Medieval or Later Rural Settlement –
Upper Gairloch
by Claire Williamson
nd
issued 2
May 2019
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Quality Assurance
This report covers works which have been undertaken in keeping with the issued brief as
modified by the agreed programme of works. The report has been prepared in keeping
with the guidance of Rathmell Archaeology Limited on the preparation of reports. All works
reported on within this document have been undertaken in keeping with the Chartered
Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of Conduct.
Signed
………………………………..
Date
…..2nd May 2019……
In keeping with the procedure of Rathmell Archaeology Limited this document and its
findings have been reviewed and agreed by an appropriate colleague:
Checked
………………………………..
Date
…..2nd May 2019……
Copyright Rathmell Archaeology Limited. All rights reserved.
No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written
permission from Rathmell Archaeology Limited. If you have received this report in error,
please destroy all copies in your possession or control.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by Rathmell Archaeology Limited. No liability is accepted by
Rathmell Archaeology Limited for any use of this report, other than the purposes for which
it was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Rathmell Archaeology
Limited using due skill, care and diligence and no explicit warranty is provided as to their
accuracy. No independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to
Rathmell Archaeology Limited has been made.
Quality Assurance Data
Author(s)
Claire Williamson
Date of Issue
2nd May 2019
Commissioning Body
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme
Event Name
Upper Gairloch, Raiders Road
Event Type
Survey; Test Pitting
Event Date(s)
March 2019
Rathmell Archaeology Code
RA18107
Location
United Kingdom : Scotland : Dumfries & Galloway
NGR
NX 61524 72982
Designation(s)
None
Canmore IDs
177552
Version
Parish
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 1 of 26
1.0
Kells
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................. 4
Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 4
Project Works ................................................................................ 4
Findings ......................................................................................... 4
Structure [001] - Kiln Barn .................................................................................. 4
Test Pits ............................................................................................................ 8
Discussion ................................................................................... 13
Conclusion ................................................................................... 16
Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 16
References .................................................................................. 17
Documentary ................................................................................................... 17
Cartographic .................................................................................................... 17
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland ......................... 18
Appendix 2: Registers.................................................................. 20
Context Register............................................................................................... 20
Drawing Register .............................................................................................. 21
Photographic Register ....................................................................................... 22
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figures
Figure 1a: Pre-excavation shot of structure [001] from the northeast ..................................... 5
Figure 1b: 3D model of structure [001] shown from the southeast.......................................... 5
Figure 2: Annotated plan of structure [001] ............................................................................ 6
Figure 3a: General shot of kiln [001a] from the south-southeast ............................................ 7
Figure 3b: General shot of barn [001b] from the west-southwest with entranceway in
foreground ............................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 4a: Detail of cross-section of western wall of kiln [001a] from the south ...................... 9
Figure 4b: Detail of eastern wall of barn [001b] from the west-northwest ............................... 9
Figure 5a: Shot showing difference in height between barn [001b] on the right and kiln [001a]
on the left, set into natural slope .......................................................................................... 10
Figure 5b: Shot of kiln [001a] from the southeast showing possible site of flue .................... 10
Figure 6a: Shot of kiln [001a] from the east-northeast showing higher western wall and
tumble (006) across interior ................................................................................................. 11
Figure 6b: Shot of possible boundary wall [007] from the northwest ..................................... 11
Figure 7a: Shot of sondage in TP 1 from the east showing tumble (004), and possible subsoil
(003) at the base.................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 7b: TP 3 from the east showing tumble (005) ............................................................ 12
Figure 8a: Extract from Blaeu’s Atlas of Scotland, Gallovidia (Galloway), 1654 ................... 15
Figure 8b: Extract from 1st edition Ordnance Survey map published 1852 ........................... 15
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Introduction
1.
This Data Structure Report describes works carried out for the sub-project on Medieval or
Later Rural Settlement carried out as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
(GGLP) community archaeology project Can You Dig It? This Report presents the results
from survey and test pitting works undertaken at the site of the former farmstead of Upper
Gairloch situated along Raiders Road.
2.
The works were carried out by volunteers supported by Rathmell Archaeology staff. The
structure of the works was drawn from advice and guidance from officers of GGLP, Dumfries
and Galloway Council, Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) and members of local heritage
societies.
Historical & Archaeological Background
3.
A full historical and archaeological baseline for the settlements along Raiders Road is
available within the Research Design for the sub-project (Turner & Rees 2019). Cognisance
of this document is assumed within this report.
Project Works
4.
This phase of the archaeological works focussed on the site of a kiln barn at the former
settlement of Upper Gairloch along Raiders Road (S5 in Turner & Rees 2019). The site was
located within a small clearing in forestry on uneven ground. Prior to the works the
structure were just visible but mostly covered by overgrown vegetation and fallen branches
(Figure 1a).
5.
The on-site works were carried out between the 28 th and the 30th March 2019. The area
was initially cleared of vegetation by hand to expose the structural remains of the kiln
barn. The remains were then photographed, planned and assigned context numbers. A
total of three test pits were then hand-excavated in the area of the barn chamber, two
within the interior and one against the exterior.
6.
All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined
in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (McKinstry 2019). The fieldwork was
undertaken in good weather. In terms of structure, the core field team of Rathmell
Archaeology staff and volunteers were on-site from 9am to 4pm.
Findings
Structure [001] - Kiln Barn
7.
The site was cleared of all vegetation to expose the remains of one structure [001] (Figures
1b and 2) which had been subdivided by an internal crosswall to form two compartments:
a kiln [001a] (Figure 3a) and its adjacent barn [001b] (Figure 3b).
8.
The entire structure is rectangular in shape orientated roughly N-S, with rounded external
corners at the southern end (the end occupied by the kiln [001a]). It measures
approximately 10.5m long by 4m wide (inclusive of walls). The walls are of drystone
construction consisting of an inner and outer face of snecked whinstone rubble (unworked)
with a rubble core (Figure 4a). They survive to a height of between one to seven courses
(0.3 to 0.9m) across the kiln [001a], and one to three courses (0.2 to 0.7m) across the
barn [001b] (Figure 4b), and measure between 0.7-0.75m wide. Prior to the works, the
walls were mostly obscured by vegetation including moss, roots and fallen branches, with
bracken also present along the western edge of the barn [001b].
9.
The current internal ground level of the kiln [001a] sits approximately 0.6m lower than
that of the barn [001b], although as the floor of the kiln has not yet been exposed the
difference is likely to be greater. This step in height seems to have made use of a natural
slope already present in the topography (Figure 5a), but it is likely that they have partially
cut into the slope to form a vertical edge for the northern wall of the kiln [001a].
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 1a: Pre-excavation shot of structure [001] from the northeast
Figure 1b: 3D model of structure [001] shown from the southeast
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 2: Annotated plan of structure [001]
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 3a: General shot of kiln [001a] from the south-southeast
Figure 3b: General shot of barn [001b] from the west-southwest with entranceway in
foreground
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
11.
The walls of the kiln [001a] – which occupies the southern end of the structure – are thicker
at the corners so that its interior is circular in shape (to create a bowl-like structure for the
kiln) measuring 2.4-2.6m in diameter. The southern wall only survives to a height of one
course and it is possible that this was the location at which the flue entered the base (Figure
5b). No other obvious openings are visible in the surrounding walls. Traces of a possible
scarcement can be seen roughly two thirds up the highest surviving western wall of the
kiln (Figure 6a) but as only a small section is visible it is difficult to be certain.
12.
At the northern end, the barn [001b] measures approximately 2.5m wide (E-W) by 4.95m
long (N-S) internally. There are no further subdivisions apparent within it, and an opening
at the southern end of its western wall is likely to represent the only entrance (Figure 3b).
This opening measures 1.6m wide.
13.
Possible boundary wall [007] abuts the exterior of structure [001] on its western side
(Figure 6b). It runs perpendicular to the structure on an E-W orientation and is of drystone
construction with a single face of unworked whinstone rubble. It measures approximately
0.5-0.6m wide and survives to a height of two courses (approximately 0.6m). It was
exposed for an approximate length of 2.8m although continues further to the west beyond
the cleared area. It appears to be set into the side of the natural slope and may have also
been intended to act partly as a revetment.
Test Pits
14.
Three test pits (TP 1 – TP 3) were excavated in the area of the barn [001b] (Figure 2).
15.
TP 1 and TP 2 were both located within the interior, positioned against the internal faces
of the western and eastern walls respectively. TP 1 was located at the entrance to the barn
and was L-shaped, running along the northern side of the entrance for 1.5m, before turning
north to run down the interior of the western wall for 1.6m. It measured 0.4m wide. TP 2
measured 0.4m square in plan and was positioned against the internal face of the eastern
wall (towards it southern end). TP 3 was positioned against the external face of the eastern
wall (opposite TP 2) and also measured 0.4m square.
16.
Topsoil (002) forms the uppermost deposit across the whole area (both internally and
externally) and comprises a moderately compacted mid- to dark grey-black peat with
frequent vegetation (root) inclusions and small to medium sized stone inclusions. The
thickness of (002), as exposed within TP 2, measures 0.3m although this likely varies
across the site.
17.
Spreads of unworked whinstone rubble, identified as tumble from the walls, are present
both within the interior of the structure and around its exterior. Within the interior of the
barn [001b], the tumble (004) is built up against the internal faces of the walls on all four
sides extending inwards to a width of between 0.4-1.3m. Prior to the works it was mostly
overgrown. TP 1 revealed (004) to be between 0.25-0.48m thick (Figure 7a). Within the
interior of the kiln [001a], the tumble (006) extends across the entire area (Figure 6a). As
this area was not tested during this phase the thickness of this tumble remains unknown.
18.
Around the exterior of the entire structure, built up against the external wall faces on all
four sides, sits tumble (005). This extends outwards for the walls for a width of between
0.4-0.7m. TP 3 was excavated to a depth of 0.4m (Figure 7b) but did not reach the base
of the tumble in this area so its full depth is uncertain.
19.
At the base of TP 1, possible subsoil (003) was exposed (Figure 7a). This consisted of
moderately compacted mid- orange-brown clayey sand with occasional small stone
inclusions. It sat underlying both the topsoil (002) and the tumble (004), and also looked
to be underlying the walls of the structure [001] itself. As only a small sample of this
deposit was exposed at this stage though, its exact interpretation remains unclear.
20.
No finds were recovered during the works.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 4a: Detail of cross-section of western wall of kiln [001a] from the south
Figure 4b: Detail of eastern wall of barn [001b] from the west-northwest
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 5a: Shot showing difference in height between barn [001b] on the right and kiln
[001a] on the left, set into natural slope
Figure 5b: Shot of kiln [001a] from the southeast showing possible site of flue
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 6a: Shot of kiln [001a] from the east-northeast showing higher western wall and
tumble (006) across interior
Figure 6b: Shot of possible boundary wall [007] from the northwest
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 7a: Shot of sondage in TP 1 from the east showing tumble (004), and possible
subsoil (003) at the base
Figure 7b: TP 3 from the east showing tumble (005)
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Discussion
21.
The works managed to clear the surviving structural remains of a kiln barn found at the
former settlement of Upper Gairloch along Raiders Road. This modern forest drive has
historical origins, taking its name from a novel by Samuel Rutherford Crockett which linked
the road to past days of reiving and cattle rustling.
22.
Much of the area is now afforested, forming part of the Galloway Forest Park, but on the
1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1852 it is depicted as part of a densely populated rural
landscape with a number of small settlements and larger townships located along its
length. Earlier 16th/17th century mapping shows the origins for these settlements (and
many more which have since been lost) reaching back to the post-medieval period and
potentially even earlier.
23.
As already described in the Research Design (Turner & Rees 2019), the first detailed
depiction of the farmsteading at Upper Gairloch can be seen on the 1 st edition Ordnance
Survey map of 1852, although earlier origins are hinted at by the presence of the name
‘O. Gairlarr’ (i.e. Over Gairlarr) visible on Blaeu’s map of 1654 (Figure 8a). In 1852, the
steading is shown as a spread of two roofed and four unroofed buildings with an
accompanying field system (Figure 8b). Structure [001] is visible to the northeast of the
main steading as an unroofed building labelled ‘Old Kiln (in ruins)’, and the depiction of a
boundary line running out of its western side corresponds nicely with possible boundary
wall [007].
24.
With the majority of the settlements present on the 1 st edition having already been
abandoned by that time, Upper Gairloch – with its two roofed buildings – appears to have
been one of the latest settlements to potentially remain occupied. In the 2nd edition
Ordnance Survey map of 1896, the ruined kiln continues to be shown although now the
steading of Upper Gairloch is also labelled as ‘In ruins’, placing its complete abandonment
as having occurred at some point during the latter half of the 19 th century.
25.
As stated, this phase of on-site works focussed on the site of the kiln barn, [001]. The
entire structure was formed of drystone construction using unworked whinstone rubble.
The barn portion consisted of a single rectangular compartment of which the basal footings
of the external walls remained. There appeared to be only one entrance to the barn which
entered from the exterior on the western side. The kiln occupied the southern end of the
structure with the walls of the interior rounded to form a bowl shape. A dip in height along
the southern edge of the kiln could represent varied survival, but is also a good candidate
for the position of the flue.
26.
The floor of the kiln sat lower than that of the barn which may have contributed to a higher
survival of its walls. This step in height appears to have made use of a natural slope in the
topography, although it is likely that the slope was at least partly cut into to form the near
vertical drop seen in the northern wall of the kiln.
27.
From the remains revealed so far, it is not possible to ascertain any phasing or
modifications within the walls of the structure and at this time it is only possible to say that
it appears to have been from a single phase of construction. Rather than re-use of an
earlier structure, it would appear to have been constructed for purpose. Future work may
help to further our knowledge in this area however.
28.
Corn-drying kilns are known to have been in use up until the 19 th century, and were a
necessary step in crop production. Occurring as either wattle- or stone-lined structures,
they were particularly important in cool and moist climates to dry or ripen the crop after
damp harvests or short growing seasons (Monk 1981, 216). The main reasons for drying
grain included hardening the grain to allow effective grinding during milling, reducing the
moisture content of the grain prior to storage and to make malt for brewing. As described
by Gibson (1988, 219), the process would have involved laying out the grain on a raised
floor constructed of wooden or iron struts and a bedding of straw. A fire would be lit at the
mouth of the flue with the heat then drawn along the flue into the main chamber and up
through the grain; any charred remains present along the base of the kiln would represent
grains which have fallen through gaps in the raised floor.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
29.
The kiln at Upper Gairloch appears to be a typical example of a small rural kiln, sharing
common characteristics with those found elsewhere in Scotland. The majority of small kilns
were built away from the houses and were often built into the side of a slope, featuring the
distinguishing feature of a stone-lined bowl, shaped like half an egg (Fenton & Walker
1981, 34). Building the kiln away from the house likely stemmed from a genuine concern
at the risk of fire; indeed, the infrequent survival of farm kilns on mainland Scotland
(though of course partly due to farm modernisation) is likely due in part to the frequency
with which they burned to the ground (Gauldie 1981, 157-8). The trace of a possible
scarcement along the western wall of the kiln may also suggest where the raised floor
could have sat although without more surviving this is tentative.
30.
The adjacent barn would have been used for storing the crops, although it could also be
used for threshing (separating the grain from the stalks, traditionally by hitting them with
a flail) and winnowing (tossing it into the air so that the wind blows away the lighter chaff
leaving the heavier grains to fall back down for recovery). The latter often required a pair
of opposing doors to be fitted in order to allow for a through-draught to aid with the process
(Fenton 1985, 32). Looking at barn [001b], there is only one entrance with no obvious
signs of an opposing door which may have since been blocked. This does not negate the
possibility that there may have been a window which could have been used to create the
same effect, but opposing doors appears to have been the accepted structure; an opposing
window may not have been as practical. As such, it seems unlikely that winnowing had
taken place, although there is still a possibility that threshing may have occurred with the
mixture removed outside for winnowing. Equally however, it may mean that barn [001b]
was merely used for storage and that both the threshing and winnowing were undertaken
elsewhere.
31.
The settlement at Clachrum, which sits further to the east along Raiders Road, was
surveyed by Rebecca Shaw Archaeological Services in 2010 but did not feature any kilns
or identifiable kiln barns amongst its structures. It did however show a similar construction
style in its buildings which were also of drystone construction with a number of the walls
measuring 0.7m wide (Shaw 2010). Shaw mentions that the walls of the buildings had
been constructed almost entirely of stone – as opposed to partly turf walls – attesting to
the availability of stone in the surrounding area, and it is this that has allowed for their
greater survival (ibid., 7). The same could be the case for the structures at Upper Gairloch.
32.
The medieval and post-medieval village of Polmaddy, which sits further to the north along
the A713, provides a good example for comparison as it has numerous buildings surviving
and has been more intensively studied. In 1975, Yates carried out a programme of survey,
desk-based assessment and limited excavation which included the excavation of one of the
village’s five kilns and its adjacent barn (Yates 1978). As with structure [001], the kiln was
located on a steep drop in the slope with the barn attached to the uphill side of the kiln on
relatively level ground (ibid., 134-5). They had both been of drystone construction, and
the flue of the kiln was positioned at the base of its chamber on the downhill side away
from the barn. The base of the barn had been paved with small flat stones although there
was suggestion of a raised wooden floor sitting above ground level (ibid., 144). As there
was no definite trace of a floor within the barn at Upper Gairloch, it is possible that it too
may have had a raised floor, although, as the test pits only sampled very small areas,
future work may help to elucidate this further.
33.
In terms of size, the kiln at Polmaddy was comparable with [001a] with an internal
diameter of 2m, but the internal dimensions of its barn were slightly smaller at roughly
2.5m square. Yates states that the individual dimensions of the different kilns and kiln
barns present at Polmaddy varied considerably however, while the basic design always
remained the same (ibid., 134). This indicates that the layout of these structures was
based on a predetermined plan which was strictly adhered to, while their size was more
likely dependent on other factors such as need, space and availability of materials.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Figure 8a: Extract from Blaeu’s Atlas of Scotland, Gallovidia (Galloway), 1654
Figure 8b: Extract from 1st edition Ordnance Survey map published 1852
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
34.
Almost every farm on mainland Scotland, prior to the improvements of the 18 th and 19th
centuries, had its own kiln (Gibson 1988, 219) and it is likely that structure [001] was for
the domestic use of the occupants at Upper Gairloch. This occurrence later changed as
mills started to erect their own common kilns where each farmer took the grain to be dried
at a cost (ibid., 222). It is likely this shift in practice which caused the kiln at Upper Gairloch
to be abandoned at an earlier stage while the rest of the farmstead remained in use, as
indicated by it being ‘in ruins’ by the time of the 1st edition Ordnance Survey in 1852. The
kiln’s exact date of construction, use and abandonment is unclear. Although it seems likely
that it was abandoned at some point during the early 19 th century, it could have perhaps
began its use in the late 18th century. As the base of the kiln [001a] was entirely obscured
by tumble, it was not possible to record the make-up of its floor or recover any charred
macroplant material that could help to date its use; perhaps this could be a focus for future
work.
Conclusion
35.
The works undertaken at the settlement of Upper Gairloch were able to more fully reveal
the remains of its kiln barn. Clearing the overlying vegetation and fallen branches allowed
us to ascertain the full extent of its survival and characterise its form. The test pitting
around the barn portion allowed us to gain further insights into the depths of the
surrounding tumble and its underlying deposits.
36.
The walls of the structure survive across its full length, although the kiln shows the highest
survival with its walls still standing up to seven courses on its western side. The test pitting
within the interior of the barn did not identify a floor deposit, although as only a small
portion was sampled this would likely benefit from further investigation. The floor of the
kiln itself could not be characterised at this stage as it was entirely obscured by tumble.
No artefacts were collected during the works.
37.
These works allowed us to begin a process of investigation and understanding of an integral
part of this settlement which may date back to the post-medieval period, if not earlier.
They also allowed volunteers the opportunity to gain knowledge and experience in
archaeological excavation and recording techniques, experience which will potentially
continue to aid them in the future investigation of this site and others like it.
Acknowledgements
38.
This project is part of a wider Community Archaeology project, ‘Can You Dig It’, run by the
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme from February 2019 to March 2020. See
www.gallowayglens.org.uk/Resources and follow ‘Can You Dig It’ for their published
outputs. The Community Archaeology project was offered free to volunteers thanks to
funding from the Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland. The land is owned by
Forestry and Land Scotland who kindly allowed us access and gave their support and
guidance for the works. Guidance was also given by Dumfries and Galloway Council
Archaeology Service and members of local heritage societies.
39.
The author would like to thank all of the hardworking volunteers who took part in the
excavation: Quinten Fyfe, Morag Ritchie, Helen Keron, Ros Hill, Susan Williams, Jennifer
Roberts, Evelyn Hosker, Lyn Hampshire, Eileen Johnson, William Monk, Emily Taylor, Tom
Marshall, Callum McQueen and Kyle MacQueen.
40.
The support and guidance provided by Rathmell Archaeology staff members Liam
McKinstry, Jack Portwood and Sarah Krischer on site was much appreciated by myself and
everyone involved. Special thanks also go to Liam McKinstry for creating the 3D model of
the site allowing a wider audience to see and interpret the results. Final thanks should also
go to Thomas Rees for his guidance and help both throughout the initial organisation of
the project and while the works were taking place on site. I am also grateful to him for
editing this report.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
References
Documentary
Fenton, A. 1985 The Shape of the Past 1: Essays in Scottish Ethnology, Edinburgh: John
Donald Publishers Ltd
Fenton, A. & Walker, B. 1981 The Rural Architecture of Scotland, Edinburgh: John Donald
Publishers Ltd
Gauldie, E. 1981 The Scottish Country Miller 1700-1900: A History of Water-powered Meal
Milling in Scotland, Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd
Gibson, A. 1988 ‘Medieval corn-drying kilns at Capo, Kincardineshire and Abercairny,
Perthshire’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 118 (1988), 219-229
McKinstry, L. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community
Archaeology Project, Risk Assessment Method Statement 1.2.f Medieval or Later Rural
Settlement, unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Monk, M. A. 1981 ‘Post-Roman Drying Kilns and the Problem of Function: a preliminary
statement’ in Ó Corráin, D (ed.) Irish Antiquity: Essays and Studies presented to Professor
M. J. O’Kelly, 216-230
Shaw, R. 2010 Clachrum, Loch Stroan, Galloway Forest, Archaeological Survey, Data
Structure Report, unpublished commercial report by Rebecca Shaw Archaeological Services
Turner, L. & Rees, T. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project, Research Design 1.2.f Medieval or Later Rural Settlement,
unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Yates, M. J. 1978 ‘The Excavations at Polmaddy, New Galloway’, Transactions of the
Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society, 53 (1977-8), 133146
Cartographic
1654
Blaeu, J.
Atlas of Scotland, Gallovidia (Galloway)
1852
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 1st edition, Kirkcudbrightshire Sheet 30
1896
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 2nd edition, Kirkcudbrightshire, Sheet XXVI.SW
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland
LOCAL AUTHORITY:
Dumfries & Galloway
PROJECT TITLE/SITE
NAME:
Galloway Glens – Upper Gairloch, Raiders Road
PROJECT CODE:
RA18107
PARISH:
Kells
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR:
Claire Williamson
NAME OF ORGANISATION:
Rathmell Archaeology Limited
TYPE(S) OF PROJECT:
Survey and Test Pitting
NMRS NO(S):
NX67SW 24 (Canmore ID: 177552)
SITE/MONUMENT TYPE(S):
Building, Farmstead, Field System, Kiln (Period Unassigned)
SIGNIFICANT FINDS:
None
NGR (2 letters, 8 or 10
figures)
NX 61524 72982
START DATE (this season)
28th March 2019
END DATE (this season)
30th March 2019
PREVIOUS WORK (incl.
DES ref.)
None
MAIN (NARRATIVE)
DESCRIPTION: (may
include information from
other fields)
The works undertaken at the settlement of Upper Gairloch were able
to more fully reveal the remains of its kiln barn. Clearing the overlying
vegetation and fallen branches allowed us to ascertain the full extent
of its survival and characterise its form. The test pitting around the
barn portion allowed us to gain further insights into the depths of the
surrounding tumble and its underlying deposits.
The walls of the structure survive across its full length, although the
kiln shows the highest survival with its walls still standing up to seven
courses on its western side. The test pitting within the interior of the
barn did not identify a floor deposit, although as only a small portion
was sampled this would likely benefit from further investigation. The
floor of the kiln itself could not be characterised at this stage as it was
entirely obscured by tumble. No artefacts were collected during the
works.
41.
These works allowed us to begin a process of investigation and
understanding of an integral part of this settlement which may date
back to the post-medieval period, if not earlier. They also allowed
volunteers the opportunity to gain knowledge and experience in
archaeological excavation and recording techniques, experience
which will potentially continue to aid them in the future investigation
of this site and others like it.
PROPOSED FUTURE
WORK:
None
CAPTION(S) FOR
ILLUSTRS:
None
SPONSOR OR FUNDING
BODY:
The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme (part of
Dumfries & Galloway Council), externally funded by Historic
Environment Scotland and the Heritage Fund
ADDRESS OF MAIN
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops, Kilwinning, Ayrshire KA13 6PU
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
CONTRIBUTOR:
E MAIL:
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
ARCHIVE LOCATION
(intended/deposited)
Report to Dumfries & Galloway Archaeology Service and archive to
National Record of the Historic Environment.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Appendix 2: Registers
42.
Appendix 2, which contains all registers pertaining to the works on–site during the excavation.
Context Register
Context
No.
001
Area/
Trench
Type
Description
Interpretation
Structure
Remains of a rectangular structure orientated roughly N-S. The
southern end of the structure has rounded corners on the exterior.
The external dimensions of the structure are approximately 4m wide
by 10.5m long. The walls are of drystone construction consisting of
an inner and outer face of snecked whinstone rubble with a rubble
core. They measured 0.7-0.75m wide and were mainly overgrown by
vegetation with bracken also present within the northern half. The
interior was subdivided by an internal crosswall (0.7m wide) into two
compartments: kiln [001a] at the southern end and barn [001b] at the
northern end. The internal surface level of the kiln sits lower than that
of the barn (by a minimum of approximately 0.6m) – likely making use
of a natural slope already present in the topography, although partly
cut into to form the near vertical northern edge of the kiln. There is
tumble (005) present against the external wall faces of the structure
spread to a width of 0.4-0.6m.
Remains of kiln barn comprising two
compartments: kiln [001a] and barn [001b].
Likely used for drying and storing cereal
crops. Known to be at least mid-19th century
in date but could be earlier.
[001a]: The interior is circular in shape measuring approximately 2.42.6m in diameter. The walls survive to a height of between one to
seven courses (0.3 to 0.9m), surviving to their highest along the
western side. The southern side was the lowest surviving section
(only one course) and it is possible that this is where the flue was
located. There is tumble (006) present across the full area of the
interior.
[001b]: The interior is rectangular in shape measuring approximately
2.5m wide (E-W) by 4.95m long (N-S). Walls survive to a height of
between one to three courses (0.2 to 0.7m). The compartment
appears to have only one entrance which is from the exterior
positioned at the southern end of the western wall measuring 1.6m
wide. There is tumble (004) present against the wall faces within the
interior spread to a width of 0.4-1.3m.
002
Deposit
Moderately compacted mid- to dark grey-black peat with frequent
vegetation (roots) and small to medium sized stone inclusions.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 26
Topsoil across full area.
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Context
No.
Area/
Trench
Type
Description
Interpretation
Exposed as 0.3m thick within TP 2.
003
Deposit
Moderately compacted mid- orange-brown clayey sand with
occasional small stone inclusions. Underlies structure [001], topsoil
(002) and tumble (004). Full thickness unknown.
Possible natural subsoil but only a small area
exposed.
004
Deposit
Spread of stones within interior of barn [001b]. Built up against
internal faces of walls spread to between 0.4-1.3m wide in extent.
Consists of unworked whinstone rubble. Measures between 0.250.48m thick.
Tumble deposit sitting within interior of barn
[001b].
005
Deposit
Spread of stones surrounding exterior of structure [001]. Built up
against external faces of walls spread to between 0.4-0.7m wide in
extent. Consists of unworked whinstone rubble. Not fully excavated
so thickness is unknown.
Tumble deposit sitting around exterior of the
whole of structure [001].
006
Deposit
Spread of stones within interior of kiln [001a]. Spread across full
extent of interior. Consists of unworked whinstone rubble. Not
excavated so thickness is unknown.
Tumble deposit sitting within interior of kiln
[001a].
007
Structure
Remains of wall running roughly E-W, abutting western side of
structure [001]. The wall is of drystone construction with a single face
of unworked whinstone rubble. It was exposed for an approximate
length of 2.8m although continued further to the west beyond the
cleared area. It measured approximately 0.5-0.6m wide and survived
to a height of two courses (approximately 0.6m).
Possible boundary wall running out of W side
of structure [001]. Appears to have been set
into the side of the natural slope, possibly
acting as a revetment.
Drawing Register
Drawing
No.
Sheet
No.
1
2
Area/
Trench
Drawing
Type
Scale
Description
Drawer
Date
1
Plan
1:20
Plan of Structure [001] (southern end)
SK, MR,
QF, ET,
TM, EJ
30/03/19
2
Plan
1:20
Plan of Structure [001] (northern end)
SK, MR,
QF, ET,
TM, EJ
30/03/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Photographic Register
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
1
578
Pre-excavation shot of site
NNE
28/03/19
2
579
Pre-excavation shot of site
NE
28/03/19
3
580
Pre-excavation shot of site
NE
28/03/19
4
597
End of first day shot – kiln 001a
SSE
28/03/19
5
598
End of first day shot – kiln 001a
SE
28/03/19
6
599
End of first day shot – kiln 001a
NE
28/03/19
7
600
End of first day shot – whole structure 001
NE
28/03/19
8
601
End of first day shot – barn 001b
SW
28/03/19
9
602
End of first day shot – barn 001b
NNW
28/03/19
10
603
End of first day shot – possible boundary wall
NW
28/03/19
11
604
End of first day shot – possible boundary wall
N
28/03/19
12
605
End of first day shot – barn 001b
S
28/03/19
13
606
End of first day shot – kiln 001a
ENE
28/03/19
14
607
End of first day shot – possible boundary wall
SSE
28/03/19
15
608
Structure 001a – general shot
SE
29/03/19
16
609
Structure 001a – general shot
S
29/03/19
17
610
Structure 001a – general shot
E
29/03/19
18
611
Structure 001a – general shot
NNE
29/03/19
19
612
Structure 001a – general shot
NW
29/03/19
20
613
Structure 001a – general shot
SSW
29/03/19
21
614
Structure 001a – internal wall
ESE
29/03/19
22
615
Structure 001a – internal wall
S
29/03/19
23
616
Structure 001a – internal wall
S
29/03/19
24
617
Structure 001a – internal wall
S
29/03/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
25
618
Structure 001a – internal wall
SSE
29/03/19
26
619
Structure 001a – internal wall
SSE
29/03/19
27
620
Structure 001a – internal wall
NNW
29/03/19
28
621
Structure 001a – internal wall
NNW
29/03/19
29
622
Structure 001a – outer stone detail
SW
29/03/19
30
623
Structure 001a – outer stone detail
SW
29/03/19
31
624
Structure 001a – outer stone detail
SE
29/03/19
32
625
Structure 001a – outer stone detail
SE
29/03/19
33
626
Structure 001a – outer stone detail
SE
29/03/19
34
627
Structure 001a – outer stone detail
E
29/03/19
35
628
Structure 001a – exterior
E
29/03/19
36
629
Structure 001a – exterior
N
29/03/19
37
630
Structure 001a – exterior
N
29/03/19
38
631
Structure 001a – exterior
N
29/03/19
39
632
Structure 001a – exterior
W
29/03/19
40
633
Structure 001a – exterior
W
29/03/19
41
634
Structure 001a – exterior
W
29/03/19
42
635
Structure 001a – exterior
W
29/03/19
43
636
Structure 001a – exterior
S
29/03/19
44
637
Structure 001a – exterior
S
29/03/19
45
638
Structure 001a – exterior
SE
29/03/19
46
639
Barn 001b – NE-SW elevation
NNW
29/03/19
47
640
Barn 001b – NE-SW elevation
NNW
29/03/19
48
641
Barn 001b – WNW-ESE elevation
S
29/03/19
49
642
Barn 001b – SW-NE elevation
E
29/03/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
50
643
Barn 001b – General shot of exterior face
W
29/03/19
51
644
Barn 001b – General shot of exterior face
NNE
29/03/19
52
645
Barn 001b – General shot of exterior face
E
29/03/19
53
646
Barn 001b – General shot of exterior
ENE
29/03/19
54
647
Barn 001b – General shot of exterior
NW
29/03/19
55
648
Barn 001b – General shot
WSW
29/03/19
56
649
Barn 001b – General shot
WSW
29/03/19
57
650
Barn 001b – General shot
S
29/03/19
58
651
Void
-
29/03/19
59
652
Void
-
29/03/19
60
653
Barn 001b – N-S elevation
W
29/03/19
61
654
Barn 001b – N-S elevation
W
29/03/19
62
655
Barn 001b – N-S elevation
W
29/03/19
63
656
Barn 001b – N-S elevation
S
29/03/19
64
657
Barn 001b – general shot
S
29/03/19
65
658
Post-excavation shot of TP 2
W
30/03/19
66
659
Post-excavation shot of TP 2
W
30/03/19
67
660
Post-excavation shot of TP 3
E
30/03/19
68
661
Post-excavation shot of TP 3
E
30/03/19
69
662
TP 1 - sondage
SE
30/03/19
70
663
TP 1 - sondage
SE
30/03/19
71
664
TP 1 - sondage
SE
30/03/19
72
665
TP 1 - sondage
S
30/03/19
73
666
TP 1 - sondage
S
30/03/19
74
667
TP 1 - sondage
S
30/03/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 24 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
75
668
TP 1 - sondage
N
30/03/19
76
669
TP 1 - sondage
N
30/03/19
77
670
TP 1 - sondage
N
30/03/19
78
671
TP 1 - sondage
Vertical
30/03/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 25 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch
Contact Details
Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at our Registered Office or through the web:
Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops
Kilwinning
Ayrshire
KA13 6PU
www.rathmell-arch.co.uk
t.:
f.:
e.:
01294 542848
01294 542849
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
End of Document
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 26 of 26
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Medieval or Later Rural Settlement – Upper Gairloch Season 1
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
GGLP_93
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2020
Description
An account of the resource
Surveys and test pitting works undertaken as part of the community archaeology project “Can You Dig It?”.
archaeology
GGLP
-
https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/552/GGLP-CYDI-DSR-RockArtTestPitting.pdf
c61d8d5697c69057f118294b0d97aca7
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Rock Art Test Pitting
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Reports
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project
Data Structure Report
Rock Art Test Pitting
by Laura Anderson
issued 3
rd
October 2022
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Quality Assurance
This report covers works which have been undertaken in keeping with the issued brief as
modified by the agreed programme of works. The report has been prepared in keeping
with the guidance of Rathmell Archaeology Limited on the preparation of reports. All
works reported on within this document have been undertaken in keeping with the
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of
Conduct.
Signed
………………………………..
Date
…..3rd October 2022……
In keeping with the procedure of Rathmell Archaeology Limited this document and its
findings have been reviewed and agreed by an appropriate colleague:
Checked
………………………………..
Date
…..3rd October 2022……
Copyright Rathmell Archaeology Limited. All rights reserved.
No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written
permission from Rathmell Archaeology Limited. If you have received this report in error,
please destroy all copies in your possession or control.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party unless
otherwise agreed in writing by Rathmell Archaeology Limited. No liability is accepted by
Rathmell Archaeology Limited for any use of this report, other than the purposes for
which it was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Rathmell Archaeology
Limited using due skill, care and diligence and no explicit warranty is provided as to their
accuracy. No independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to
Rathmell Archaeology Limited has been made.
Quality Assurance Data
Author(s)
Laura Anderson
Date of Issue
3rd October 2022
Commissioning Body
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme
Event Name
Rock Art, Torrs Cottage
Event Type
Test Pitting
Event Date(s)
June 2022
Rathmell Archaeology Code
RA18107
Location
United Kingdom: Scotland: Dumfries and Galloway
NGR
NX 67844 45117
Designation(s)
Cup and Ring Marked Rock, Cup Marked Rock
Canmore IDs
63902, 295618
Version
OASIS Ref
Parish
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 23
1.0
rathmell1-518642
Kirkcudbright
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................. 5
Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 5
Project Works ................................................................................ 6
Findings – Test Pits ....................................................................... 6
Area A............................................................................................................... 6
Area B............................................................................................................. 12
Findings - Artefacts ..................................................................... 12
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 12
Discussion ................................................................................... 12
Conclusion ................................................................................... 13
Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 13
References .................................................................................. 14
Documentary ................................................................................................... 14
Cartographic .................................................................................................... 14
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland ......................... 15
Appendix 2: Test Pit Details ......................................................... 16
Appendix 3: Registers.................................................................. 18
Context Register............................................................................................... 18
Photographic Register ....................................................................................... 19
Finds Register .................................................................................................. 22
Contact Details ............................................................................ 23
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Figures
Figure 1: Plan showing the areas of excavation. .................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Plan showing Test Pits within Area A. ..................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Plan showing Test Pits within Area B. ..................................................................... 9
Figure 4a: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 2 showing topsoil (001), B horizon (002) and the
natural bedrock (003) within Area A. .................................................................................... 10
Figure 4b: Section shot of Test Pit 3 showing topsoil (001) and B horizon (004) within Area A.
............................................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 5a: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 11 showing topsoil (005), B horizon (007) and
natural bedrock (006) within Area B. .................................................................................... 11
Figure 5b: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 12 showing stratigraphy of (005), (007), (008) and
(006). ................................................................................................................................... 11
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Introduction
1.
This Data Structure Report describes works undertaken for the sub-project near Torrs
Cottage, Kirkcudbright carried out as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
(GGLP) community archaeology project Can You Dig It. This report presents the results
from test pitting works undertaken surrounding two areas of known prehistoric rock art
(Canmore ID: 63902, 295618; HER: MDG3500, MDG23108) in the area near Torrs
Cottage.
2.
The works were carried out by volunteers supported by Rathmell Archaeology. The
structure of the works was drawn from advice and guidance from officers of GGLP,
Dumfries and Galloway Council, former volunteers of the Scottish Rock Art Project and
members of local heritage societies.
Historical & Archaeological Background
3.
The area surrounding Torrs Cottage is rich in prehistoric rock art. A large number of the
archaeological sites in the area are prehistoric in nature and the rocky terrain is perfect
for rock art. Multiple areas of rock art are noted within the wider landscape, with their
naming corresponding to the closest farms: Torrs, Balmae and Knockshinnie. There has
been no previous archaeological test pit investigation of any of the rock art within the
immediate area, with the test pits conducted by Can You Dig It detailed in this report
being the first.
4.
Within the wider area, the earliest archaeological features are to the north-east:
Drummore Castle Fort at Castle Hill (Canmore ID: 63925, HES ID: SM1069) which
informs us of prehistoric occupation within the area as well as ritual aspects visible in a
Neolithic to Bronze Age stone circle at Drummore Farm (Canmore ID: 63926, HES ID:
SM1020). There has been no formal excavation at either of these structures to confirm
their exact date, however, their presence in the area is indicative of a vast prehistoric
presence in the landscape.
5.
Prehistoric rock art remains an enigma within the archaeological record and the reason
for its creation is still greatly debated. The rock art within the area of Torres Cottage is
predominately cup marks and cup and ring marks; these two types of rock art are
plentiful across Scotland. The rock art was created by repeatedly hitting the rock surface
with a stone tool and could have taken a great deal of time sitting in one location for
large panels. The artwork’s reason for creation has many interpretations, however, their
true function may truly never be known and the artwork “may never have had a single,
fixed meaning” (Scottish Rock Art Project).
6.
While the area of Torrs holds numerous examples of rock art, the two specific examples
selected for test pit investigation were that of Torrs 3 (Canmore ID: 63902) and Torrs 10
(Canmore ID: 295618). The two rock art areas are located within one enclosed field to
the south of Torres Cottage, lying adjacent to a popular path towards Torrs Point. Torrs 3
is a distinctive panel of well-preserved cup marks as well as cup and ring marks (Morris,
1979), whereas Torrs 10 has two single cup marks with a large natural basin that
appears to have been deliberately extended.
7.
The area has been subjected to several archaeological investigations, in particular that of
a volunteer group from the Scottish Rock Art Project (ScRAP) who investigated and
recorded the area throughout 2017-2021. The group recorded Torrs 3 as a panel with
numerous motifs split into three sections by two natural fissures (ScRAP, Torrs 3). Each
of the sections contain tight groups of cup marks and numerous cup and ring motifs. The
group recorded Torrs 10 as two cup marks with a large basin that had a “smooth finish
and looks as if it may have been worked at some time” (Kerr, 2007, 63).
8.
The surrounding area of Torrs 3 and Torrs 10 is pasture for upland grazing with large
areas of rocky outcrops that limit the use of the area for agricultural cultivation. Torrs
Bottom Plantation can be found to the north-west of Torrs 3 and Torrs 10, Lady
Katherine’s Plantation lies in the south-east. The 1st edition Ordnance Survey map (1854)
gives no indication of the landscape being used specifically for agriculture but rather it
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
was used for more industrial purposes such as quarrying, plantations and mills.
9.
The area itself is made up of Ross Formation – Wacke, sedimentary bedrock formed
during the Silurian period. This would explain the intense quarrying in the landscape
perhaps used for the construction of roads, towns, and even the addition of mills in the
area.
10.
Prior to on-site works starting, a field visit was undertaken on the 4th of May 2022 by
Claire Williamson, Thomas Rees and Jennifer Roberts. The two areas of rock art were
identified as well as possible further areas of rock art for investigation during the test
pitting exercises. The rock art is currently surrounded by an infant forestry plantation
with cleared areas for pathways.
Project Works
11.
The archaeological works focused on ground surrounding two areas of known prehistoric
rock art (Figure 1). The works were location within fields to the south of Torres Cottage
and encompassed a cup and ring marked rock (Torrs 3) to the north-northeast (Canmore
ID: 63902; HER: MDG3500) and a cup-marked rock (Torrs 10) at the southern end
(Canmore ID: 295618; HER: MDG23108). These have been named respectively Areas A
and B within this report.
12.
The on-site works took place on the 23rd of June and then again on the 30th of June 2022
and consisted of a series of hand-excavated test pits located within the area. A total of
17 test pits were excavated with all soil sieved for artefacts (Figure 2 and 3).
13.
All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined
in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (Anderson 2022). The fieldwork was
undertaken in dry and sunny weather. In terms of structure, the core field team of
Rathmell Archaeology staff and volunteers were on-site from 9am to 4pm.
Findings – Test Pits
14.
Fieldwork conducted over the two days was split into two areas (Areas A and B) (Figure
1). Test pits were excavated within Areas A and B, with excavation and recording
completed by both volunteers and Rathmell Archaeology staff.
Area A
15.
Within Area A, five test pits (Test Pits 1 – 5) were excavated (Figure 2). The test pits
were plotted around a known piece of rock art (Torrs 3), three to the north, one to the
southeast and one to the southwest. The five test pits measured 0.5m by 0.5m with a
depth range of between 130mm to 310mm.
16.
The topsoil within Area A was identified as (001): a firmly compacted light yellowish
brown sandy silt with frequent small to medium sized angular and sub-angular stones
and frequent rootlet inclusions. The deposit measured a thickness of between 120mm
and 230mm (Figure 4a).
17.
Two different B horizon deposits, (002) and (004), were identified within Area A
underlying topsoil (001). (002) comprised firmly compacted light brown-orange silty sand
with frequent small gravel inclusions. The deposit measured a thickness of between
70mm and 180mm and was identified in Test Pits 1, 2 and 4.
18.
The second B horizon deposit identified, (004), was similar in composition to (002). The
deposit comprised a very firmly compacted light red brown silty sand with frequent
gravel inclusions (Figure 4b). The deposit measured a thickness of 100mm and was only
identified within Test Pit 3.
19.
The natural bedrock within Area A comprised greyish brown sedimentary rock (003) with
orange inclusions. The bedrock very easily fractured under pressure. The bedrock was
identified at a varying depth of between 130mm to 300mm and was identified underlying
(001) in Test Pit 5 and underlying (002) in Test Pits 1, 2 and 5.
20.
A number of artefacts were recovered from Test Pits 2, 3, 4 and 5, which are discussed in
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Figure 1: Plan showing the areas of excavation.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Figure 2: Plan showing Test Pits within Area A.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Figure 3: Plan showing Test Pits within Area B.
.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Figure 4a: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 2 showing topsoil (001), B horizon (002) and
the natural bedrock (003) within Area A.
Figure 4b: Section shot of Test Pit 3 showing topsoil (001) and B horizon (004) within
Area A.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Figure 5a: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 11 showing topsoil (005), B horizon (007) and
natural bedrock (006) within Area B.
Figure 5b: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 12 showing stratigraphy of (005), (007),
(008) and (006).
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
more detail below (<001> to <011>). No significant archaeological features were
identified within the test pits in Area A.
Area B
21.
Within Area B, 12 test pits (Test Pit 6 – 17) were excavated (Figure 3). The test pits were
plotted around a known piece of rock art (Torrs 10), in ground to the west, north and
east of its location. The 12 test pits measured between 0.5m and 0.6m square with a
depth range of between 80mm and 370mm.
22.
The topsoil within Area B comprised firmly compacted mid-brown-grey silty sand (005)
with frequent sub-angular small stones and frequent rootlet inclusions. The deposit
measured a thickness of between 50mm and 250mm (Figure 5a).
23.
Underlying (001), two different B horizon deposits, (007) and (008), were identified. The
first comprised firmly compacted mid-brown-orange silty sand (007) with frequent small
sub-angular stones. The deposit varied in thickness between 60mm and 230mm. It
appeared in the majority of the test pits (10-15 and 17).
24.
The other B horizon deposit, (008), was only identified within Test Pit 12 (Figure 5b). The
deposit consisted of firmly compacted mid-orange-brown silty clay with occasional small
sub-angular stones. The deposit varied in thickness between 100mm and 180mm.
25.
The natural bedrock within the area, greywacke, was identified as natural greyish brown
sedimentary rock (006) with orange-coloured inclusions. The bedrock very easily
fractured under pressure. It was identified at a varying depth of between 100mm and
460mm, variously underlying (005), (007) and (008) within Test Pits 6 to 17.
26.
A number of artefacts were recovered from Test Pits 7, 13, 14 and 15 within Area B,
which are discussed in more detail below (<012> to <017>). No significant
archaeological features were identified within the test pits in Area B.
Findings - Artefacts
By Thomas Rees
Introduction
1.
A total of 15 items were recovered from the test pitting exercises, with the majority
being stone. Quartz was the predominant material recovered (<001>, <004>, <009>,
<011>, <014>, <016> and <017>), which appears naturally forming in the area within
the subsoils identified. The natural bedrock within the area is greywacke which does have
lenses and inclusions of quartz. None of the quartz recovered showed evidence of being
worked.
2.
The two possible flakes of flint (<003>) were investigated and instead revealed to be
small flakes of stone. A possible stone tool (<002>) showed some pecking damage;
however, it was not consistent enough to be classified as a prehistoric stone tool. The
two metal items (<012> and <008>) are indicative of corroded agricultural refuse.
Agricultural refuse is also the explanation for the small fragment of glass (<006>) that
was identified within Test Pit 3. This small fragment potentially comes from agricultural
machinery waste.
3.
The most intriguing find was <015>, which was identified as a stone with two deliberate
scores running along with one of its faces and recovered from Test Pit 13. The stone
appears to have been scored vertically by a blade and could have potentially been used
to sharpen it or fix knicks in its surface. The score seems unlikely to be that of a plough
strike and appears intentional and deliberate. However, due to the lack of other
prehistoric evidence identified with the stone, it cannot be definitively stated as a
prehistoric-altered stone, as it could just as likely have occurred in the modern period.
Discussion
27.
Over the course of two days, volunteers opened 17 test pits within two areas in the fields
to the south of Torrs Cottage, sieving all of the excavated spoil to aid artefact recovery.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
The aim was to investigate the surrounding area for artefactual evidence related to
potential land use surrounding areas of known prehistoric rock art sites.
28.
No archaeological features were exposed within the test pits, which revealed a simple
stratigraphy across the area of topsoil directly overlying natural B horizon deposits and
bedrock.
29.
The current land use in the area includes a public coastal path, as well as areas of
forestry plantation. The presence of glass and corroded iron objects suggests a recent
agricultural use of the area. The planting of crops in the area is dubious due to the
density of rocky outcrops and the limited soil sitting over natural bedrock, so it seems
more likely that it was used as pasture.
30.
On the 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map (1854) the area was sectioned off by boundary
lines, with a cluster of unnamed forestry to the east-northeast and Lady Katherine’s
Plantation to the west-southwest. The monument of King Williams’ Battery is depicted to
the south-west whereas an unnamed body of water is depicted on the southern boundary
line. There are two quarries identified within the area alongside a well that is depicted on
the north-northeastern boundary. The majority of the area is depicted as ‘rough or
heathy pasture’ on the 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map.
31.
The area has not changed within the 2nd Edition Ordnance Survey map (1910). The
plantation to the east-northeast is now named as Torrs Bottom Plantation. The two
quarries in the area are not depicted, which suggests that the quarries have gone out of
use between the 1st and 2nd Editions. The area is depicted as furze, also known as gorse,
which is not dissimilar to the current state of the area.
32.
The rock art is part of a larger collection of similar sites in the area named under Torrs,
Balmae or Knockshinnie. The rock art was surveyed and investigated by the ScRAP
between 2017 and 2021. Both Torrs 3 and 10 were identified and recorded and identified
as being from the Neolithic/Bronze Age period. The rock art was noted as part of an area
of rough grazing near a designated route way that leads to Torrs Point. Cattle were
identified near Torrs 3 whereas sheep were identified near Torrs 10.
33.
Ultimately, while the test pitting was not able to identify any archaeological features or
artefacts relating to further prehistoric activity within the immediate area of these rock
art locations, the presence of such sites continues to be important to our understanding
of prehistoric Galloway. With so much to still understand about these sites and their
positioning within the landscape, there is still a great deal of value and much to be
learned through further investigation.
34.
Today, the area is part of the lands owned by Mr Picken and is used for livestock grazing.
The track that cuts through the area and passes both Torrs 3 and Torrs 10 creates a
pleasant walk. The area is to form part of a new forestry plantation within; however,
much care has been taken to keep the rock art free from tree planting.
Conclusion
35.
The test pitting undertaken in the area surrounding Torrs 3 and 10 revealed a number of
artefacts which contribute to our understanding of the use of the area. The majority of
the finds are modern and are predominately either natural or agricultural in origin. The
stone with two deliberate score marks cannot be definitively identified as a prehistoric
item.
36.
No archaeological features were identified within the test pits, but the extent of the
natural bedrock gives an indication of what the previous surrounding landscape of these
rock art sites would have looked like. The works also allowed volunteers to further their
knowledge of the history of these important sites, and gain experience in the different
techniques involved during an archaeological investigation.
Acknowledgements
37.
This project is part of a wider Community Archaeology project, ‘Can You Dig It’, run by
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme from February 2019 to September
2022. See www.gallowayglens.org.uk/Resources for their published outputs. The
community archaeology project was offered free to volunteers thanks to funding from the
National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland.
38.
The land is owned by Mr James Picken who kindly allowed us access and gave support for
the works. Guidance was also given by Dumfries and Galloway Council Archaeology
Service and members of local heritage societies.
39.
The author would like to thank all the hardworking volunteers who took part in the
excavation: Jerry Slater, Jennifer Roberts, Rodger Smith, John Allison, Helen Bell-Palmer,
Jan Hogarth, Pete Machell, Cath Monk, Joan Sutherland, Lydia Bonaventura, Alasdair
Phillips, Geoffrey Monk and Lorraine Clay.
40.
The support and guidance provided by Rathmell Archaeology staff member Claire
Williamson on site was much appreciated by everyone involved. Further thanks should go
to Thomas Rees for his guidance throughout the initial organisation of the project and I
am also grateful to him for editing this report. Thanks also go to Thomas Rees for their
work on the artefact analysis.
References
Documentary
Anderson, L. 2022 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community
Archaeology Project (Phase 2), Risk Assessment Method Statement, Test Pitting at Rock
Art, unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Kerr, B. 2007, ‘Torrs 10, Dumfries and Galloway (Kirkcudbright parish) survey’, Discovery
Excavation Scotland, Vol 8
Morris, R. W. B. 1979, Prehistoric Rock Art of Galloway & The Isle of Man
Scotland’s Rock Art Project (ScRAP), Rock art and Meaning [online] available at:
https://www.rockart.scot/about-rock-art/rock-art-of-scotland/ [accessed 28th September 2022]
Cartographic
1752-55
Roy, W.
Military Survey of Scotland
1854
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 1st edition, Kirkcudbrightshire Sheet 54
1910
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 2nd and Later Editions, Kirkcudbrighshite Sheet
LVII.NW
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland
LOCAL AUTHORITY:
Dumfries & Galloway
PROJECT TITLE/SITE
NAME:
Rock Art Test Pitting
PROJECT CODE:
RA18107
PARISH:
Kirkcudbright
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR:
Laura Anderson
NAME OF ORGANISATION:
Rathmell Archaeology Limited
TYPE(S) OF PROJECT:
Test Pitting
NMRS NO(S):
NX64NE 114 (Canmore ID: 295618), NX64NE 23 (Canmore ID:
63902)
SITE/MONUMENT TYPE(S):
Cup Marked Rock (Neolithic) – (Bronze Age), Cup and Ring Marked
Rock (Neolithic) – (Bronze Age)
SIGNIFICANT FINDS:
None
NGR (2 letters, 8 or 10
figures)
NX 67844 45117
START DATE (this season)
22nd June 2022
END DATE (this season)
30th June 2022
PREVIOUS WORK (incl.
DES ref.)
None
MAIN (NARRATIVE)
DESCRIPTION: (may include
information from other fields)
The test pitting undertaken in the area surrounding Torrs 3 and 10
revealed a number of artefacts which contribute to our understanding
of the use of the area. The majority of the finds are modern and are
predominately either natural or agricultural in origin. The stone with
two deliberate score marks cannot be definitively identified as a
prehistoric item.
No archaeological features were identified within the test pits, but the
extent of the natural bedrock gives an indication of what the previous
surrounding landscape of these rock art sites would have looked like.
The works also allowed volunteers to further their knowledge of the
history of these important sites, and gain experience in the different
techniques involved during an archaeological investigation.
PROPOSED FUTURE
WORK:
None
CAPTION(S) FOR
ILLUSTRS:
None
SPONSOR OR FUNDING
BODY:
The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme (part of
Dumfries & Galloway Council), externally funded by Historic
Environment Scotland and the National Lottery Heritage Fund
ADDRESS OF MAIN
CONTRIBUTOR:
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops, Kilwinning, Ayrshire KA13 6PU
EMAIL:
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
ARCHIVE LOCATION
(intended/deposited)
Report to Dumfries & Galloway Archaeology Service and archive to
National Record of the Historic Environment.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Appendix 2: Test Pit Details
Within this appendix a standardised set of data pertaining to the test pits is presented.
Test Pit Summary
Test
Pit
NGR
1
NX 67925
45222
Area
Size
Stratigraphic sequence
Features
Artefacts
None
None
None
Quartz, Shaped Stone,
Possible Stone Object
None
Quartz
None
Lithic fragments, glass, stone
objects, Iron stone, quartz,
possible slag?
None
Quartz
None
None
None
Metal
None
None
None
None
(depth of uppermost surface from
ground level)
A
0.5m x
0.5m
(001) – 230mm
(002) – 70mm
(003) Base
2
NX 67929
45229
A
0.5m x
0.5m
(001) – 120mm
(002) – 180mm
(003) Base
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
NX 67932
45231
A
NX 67933
45228
A
NX 67932
45223
A
NX 67733
45049
B
NX 67735
45047
B
NX 67736
45049
B
NX 67734
45051
B
0.5m x
0.5m
0.5m x
0.5m
(001) – 200mm
(004) – 110mm – Base
(001) – 170mm
(002) – 130mm – Base
0.5m x
0.5m
(001) – 130mm to 280mm
1m x 0.53m
(005) – 50mm to 150mm
(003) Base
(006) Base
0.50m x
0.52m
0.50m x
0.55m
0.60m x
0.55m
(005) – 100mm
(006) Base
(005) – 120mm to 250mm
(006) Base
(005) – 50mm to 70mm
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
(006) Base
10
NX 67732
45048
B
0.50m x
0.53m
(005) – 70mm
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Quartz, Stone, Possible
Stone object
None
Quartz
None
Quartz
None
None
None
None
(007) – 140mm
(006) Base
11
NX 67732
45046
B
0.50m x
0.50m
(005) – 60mm to 80mm
(007) – 210mm to 230mm
(006) Base
12
NX 67740
45049
B
0.52m x
0.55m
(005) – 70mm to 80mm
(007) – 140mm to 200mm
(008) – 100mm to 180mm
(006) Base
13
NX 67728
45048
B
0.52m x
0.54m
(005) – 100mm
(007) – 220mm
(006) Base
14
NX 67735
45049
B
0.54m x
0.45m
(005) – 100mm
(007) – 220mm
(006) Base
15
NX 67742
45048
B
0.55m x
0.50m
(005) – 70mm
(007) – 160mm
(006) Base
16
17
NX 67739
45046
B
NX 67727
45046
B
0.52m x
0.54m
(005) – 80mm – 100mm
0.50m x
0.54m
(005) – 50mm
(006) Base
(007) – 60mm
(006) Base
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Appendix 3: Registers
Appendix 3, which contains all registers pertaining to the works on site during the excavation.
Context Register
Context
No.
Area
Test
Pit
Type
Description
Interpretation
001
A
1-5
Deposit
Firmly compacted light yellowish brown sandy silt with frequent
angular and sub-angular stones (small-medium sized) and frequent
rootlet inclusions. The deposit measured a thickness of between
120mm to 280mm and was identified overlying (002), (003) and
(004).
Topsoil
002
A
1,2,4
Deposit
Firmly compacted light brown-orange silty sand with frequent small
gravel inclusions. The deposit measured a thickness of between
70mm and 180mm and was identified underlying (001) and overlying
(003).
B horizon.
003
A
1,2,5
Deposit
Natural greyish brown sedimentary rock with orange inclusions, the
bedrock very easily fractured under pressure. The bedrock was
identified at a varying depth of between 130mm to 300mm and was
identified underlying (001) and (002).
Natural bedrock, greywacke.
004
A
3
Deposit
Very firmly compacted light red-brown silty sand with frequent gravel
inclusions. The deposit was similar to (002). The deposit measured a
thickness of 100mm and was identified underlying (001). The deposit
was only identified within Test Pit 3 and was not fully excavated. .
B horizon.
005
B
6-17
Deposit
Firmly compacted mid-brown-grey silty sand with frequent subangular small stones and frequent rootlet inclusions. The deposit
measured a thickness of between 50mm to 250mm. The deposit
overlay (006) and (007).
Topsoil
006
B
6-17
Deposit
Natural greyish brown sedimentary rock with orange inclusions, the
bedrock very easily fractured under pressure. The bedrock was
identified at a varying depth of between 100mm to 460mm. The
deposit was identified underlying (005), (007) and (008).
Natural bedrock. Greywacke.
007
B
10-15,
17
Deposit
Firmly compacted mid-brown-orange silty sand with frequent small
sub-angular stones. The deposit measured a varying thickness of
between 60mm to 230mm. The deposit was identified underlying
B horizon.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
(005) and overlying (006) and (008).
008
B
12
Deposit
Firmly compacted mid-orange-brown silty clay with occasional small
subangular stones. The deposit measured a varying thickness of
between 100mm to 180mm. The deposit was identified underlying
(006) and (007).
Natural subsoil.
Photographic Register
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
1
4916
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 1.
NW
23/06/2022
2
4917
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 1.
NE
23/06/2022
3
4918
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 1.
N
23/06/2022
4
4919
Working shot.
-
23/06/2022
5
4920
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 2.
NE
23/06/2022
6
4921
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 2.
SE
23/06/2022
7
4922
Section shot of Test Pit 2.
SSW
23/06/2022
8
4923
Section shot of Test Pit 2.
SSW
23/06/2022
9
4924
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 3.
NNW
23/06/2022
10
4925
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 3.
WNW
23/06/2022
11
4926
Section shot of Test Pit 3.
SW
23/06/2022
12
4927
Section shot of Test Pit 3.
SW
23/06/2022
13
4928
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 4.
SE
23/06/2022
14
4929
Section shot of Test Pit 4.
SSE
23/06/2022
15
4930
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 4.
E
23/06/2022
16
4931
Section shot of Test Pit 4.
SSE
23/06/2022
17
4932
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 5.
NNW
23/06/2022
18
4933
Section shot of Test Pit 5.
SSE
23/06/2022
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
19
4934
Section shot of Test Pit 5.
SSE
23/06/2022
20
4935
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 5.
ESE
23/06/2022
21
4936
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 5.
ESE
23/06/2022
22
4937
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 9.
ESE
30/06/2022
23
4938
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 9.
NE
30/06/2022
24
4939
General shot.
NE
30/06/2022
25
4940
General shot.
NE
30/06/2022
26
4941
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 6.
SE
30/06/2022
27
4942
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 6.
SW
30/06/2022
28
4943
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 6.
SE
30/06/2022
29
4944
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 7.
NW
30/06/2022
30
4945
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 7.
NE
30/06/2022
31
4946
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 7.
NE
30/06/2022
32
4947
General shot.
ESE
30/06/2022
33
4948
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 8.
N
30/06/2022
34
4949
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 8.
N
30/06/2022
35
4950
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 8.
NE
30/06/2022
36
4951
General shot.
NE
30/06/2022
37
4952
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 10.
S
30/06/2022
38
4953
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 10.
S
30/06/2022
39
4954
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 10.
SW
30/06/2022
40
4955
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 11.
SE
30/06/2022
41
4956
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 11.
SE
30/06/2022
42
4957
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 11.
SSE
30/06/2022
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
43
4958
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 14.
NE
30/06/2022
44
4959
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 14.
SE
30/06/2022
45
4960
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 14.
NE
30/06/2022
46
4961
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 14.
NE
30/06/2022
47
4962
Shot of Rock Art.
NE
30/06/2022
48
4963
General shot.
NE
30/06/2022
49
4964
General shot.
NE
30/06/2022
50
4965
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 13.
N
30/06/2022
51
4966
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 13.
N
30/06/2022
52
4967
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 13.
N
30/06/2022
53
4968
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 12.
S
30/06/2022
54
4969
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 12.
S
30/06/2022
55
4970
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 12.
SSE
30/06/2022
56
4971
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 15.
S
30/06/2022
57
4972
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 15.
S
30/06/2022
58
4973
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 15.
SW
30/06/2022
59
4974
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 16.
SE
30/06/2022
60
4975
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 16.
SE
30/06/2022
61
4976
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 16.
SE
30/06/2022
62
4977
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 17.
E
30/06/2022
63
4978
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 17.
E
30/06/2022
64
4979
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 17.
SE
30/06/2022
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Finds Register
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
1
TP2
001
Stone
5 x Quartz Fragments
JR
23/06/2022
2
TP2
001
Stone
1 x Possible Stone Tool
JR
23/06/2022
3
TP2
001
Stone
1 x Possible shaped stone
JR
23/06/2022
4
TP3
001
Stone
2 x Quartz Fragments
RS
23/06/2022
5
TP4
001
Stone
2 x Possible Lithic Fragments
HBP & JS
23/06/2022
6
TP4
001
Glass
1 x Glass Fragment
HBP & JS
23/06/2022
7
TP4
001
Stone
4 x Possible Stone Objects
HBP & JS
23/06/2022
8
TP4
001
Stone
1 x Possible Iron Stone
HBP & JS
23/06/2022
9
TP4
001
Stone
3 x Quartz Fragments
HBP & JS
23/06/2022
10
TP4
001
Stone
1 x Possible slag?
HBP & JS
23/06/2022
11
TP5
001
Stone
1 x Quartz Fragment
JA
23/06/2022
12
TP7
005
Metal
1 x Metal Nail
JR
30/06/2022
13
TP13
005
Stone
1 x Stone object
AP & JS
30/06/2022
14
TP13
005
Stone
6 x Quartz Fragments
AP & JS
30/06/2022
15
TP13
005
Stone
1 x Stone Fragment
AP & JS
30/06/2022
16
TP14
005
Stone
2 x Quartz Fragments
CM
30/06/2022
17
TP15
005
Stone
2 x Quartz Fragments
JR
30/06/2022
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 23
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Rock Art Test Pitting
Contact Details
Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at our Registered Office or through the web:
Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops
Kilwinning
Ayrshire
KA13 6PU
www.rathmell-arch.co.uk
t.:
f.:
e.:
01294 542848
01294 542849
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
End of Document
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 23
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Rock Art Test Pitting
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
GGLP_92
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2019
Description
An account of the resource
Surveys and test pitting works undertaken as part of the community archaeology project “Can You Dig It?”.
archaeology
GGLP
-
https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/551/GGLP-CYDI-DSR_ThreaveTestPitting_1.pdf
20f5d81fd6b9f1f7af87115ddff5beee
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Reports
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project
Data Structure Report
Test Pitting on Threave Estate
by Laura Anderson
th
issued 19
September 2022
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Quality Assurance
This report covers works which have been undertaken in keeping with the issued brief as
modified by the agreed programme of works. The report has been prepared in keeping
with the guidance of Rathmell Archaeology Limited on the preparation of reports. All works
reported on within this document have been undertaken in keeping with the Chartered
Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of Conduct.
Signed
………………………………..
…..19th September 2022……
Date
In keeping with the procedure of Rathmell Archaeology Limited this document and its
findings have been reviewed and agreed by an appropriate colleague:
Checked
………………………………..
…..19th September 2022……
Date
Copyright Rathmell Archaeology Limited. All rights reserved.
No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written
permission from Rathmell Archaeology Limited. If you have received this report in error,
please destroy all copies in your possession or control.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party unless
otherwise agreed in writing by Rathmell Archaeology Limited. No liability is accepted by
Rathmell Archaeology Limited for any use of this report, other than the purposes for which
it was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Rathmell Archaeology
Limited using due skill, care and diligence and no explicit warranty is provided as to their
accuracy. No independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to
Rathmell Archaeology Limited has been made.
Quality Assurance Data
Author(s)
Laura Anderson
Date of Issue
19th September 2022
Commissioning Body
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme
Event Name
Kelton Mains, Threave Estate
Event Type
Test Pitting
Event Date(s)
August - September 2021
Rathmell Archaeology Code
RA18107
Location
United Kingdom: Scotland: Dumfries and Galloway
NGR
NX 74529 61635
Designation(s)
Scheduled Monument (SM8367)
Canmore IDs
332692
Version
Parish
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 53
1.0
Kelton
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................. 5
Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 5
Project Works .............................................................................. 10
Findings ....................................................................................... 10
Area A............................................................................................................. 10
Area B............................................................................................................. 10
Area D ............................................................................................................ 11
The Artefacts ............................................................................... 11
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 11
Ferrous Metalwork ............................................................................................ 13
Non-Ferrous Metalwork – Copper Alloy ................................................................ 13
Non-Ferrous Metalwork – Lead ........................................................................... 14
Non-Ferrous Metalwork – Aluminium ................................................................... 15
Other Items ..................................................................................................... 15
Lithics ............................................................................................................. 15
Discussion ....................................................................................................... 16
Ceramics and Glass .......................................................................................... 23
Industrial Residues ........................................................................................... 23
Discussion ................................................................................... 23
Conclusion ................................................................................... 26
Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 27
References .................................................................................. 27
Documentary ................................................................................................... 27
Cartographic .................................................................................................... 28
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland ......................... 29
Appendix 2: Test Pit Details ......................................................... 31
Appendix 3: Registers.................................................................. 33
Context Register............................................................................................... 33
Photographic Register ....................................................................................... 33
Finds Register .................................................................................................. 37
Contact Details ............................................................................ 53
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Figures
Figure 1: Plan showing the areas of investigation. ................................................................. 6
Figure 2a: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 5 showing topsoil (001) and subsoil (002) within
Area A. .................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2b: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 1 with topsoil (002) within Area A........................ 7
Figure 3a: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 7 showing deposits (004) and (005) within Area
B. ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3b: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 10 showing deposit (006) within Area B. ............. 8
Figure 4: Plan showing test pits within Areas A, B and D. ...................................................... 9
Figure 5: Plan showing the locations of metal-detector finds. ............................................... 12
Figure 6a: Horseshoes <3> and <54> from topsoil (001) within Area A. .............................. 17
Figure 6b: Terrets <169> and <198> from topsoils (007) within Area C and (006) within Area
D. ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7a: Fly Terret of Triple Bell Type <314> in (007) within Area C. ................................ 18
Figure 7b: Harness Pendant <164> from topsoil (006) within Area D and Probable Harness
Buckle. ................................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 8a: Examples of Probable Harness Buckles.............................................................. 19
Figure 8b: ‘D’-shaped Harness Buckle <28> from within topsoil (001) in Area A. ................. 19
Figure 9a: Shield-shaped Pin Badge (Probable School Prefect’s Badge) <108> from within
topsoil (001) within Area A. .................................................................................................. 20
Figure 9b: ‘Three-Ringed Bullet <136> from .22 Calibre Pistol identified within topsoil (001) in
Area A. ................................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 10a: Copper Alloy Oval Plaque <27> from within topsoil (001) within Area A. ........... 21
Figure 10b: Two Examples of Lead Shot. ............................................................................ 21
Figure 11a: Lead Perforated Spindle Whorl <127> from within (004) within Area B. ............ 22
Figure 11b: Core Management Lithic flake <221> from within (004) within Area B. .............. 22
Figure 12a: Extract from Roy’s 1752-1755, Military Survey of Scotland (Lowlands). ............ 24
Figure 12b: Extract from 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853. .................................... 24
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Introduction
1.
This Data Structure Report describes works undertaken for the sub-project on the Threave
Estate carried out as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership (GGLP) community
archaeology project Can You Dig It? in partnership with the National Trust for Scotland.
This report presents the results from test pitting works undertaken across the site of the
Threave Estate surrounding Kelton Mains, undertaken as part of series of works prior to
the Threave Landscape Restoration Project.
2.
The works were carried out by volunteers supported by Rathmell Archaeology and the
National Trust for Scotland. The structure of the works was drawn from advice and
guidance from officers of GGLP, Dumfries and Galloway Council, the National Trust for
Scotland (NTS) and members of local heritage societies.
Historical & Archaeological Background
3.
Threave Estate is rich in archaeology dating back to the prehistoric period and has been
subjected to several archaeological interventions while under the care of the NTS. It is
beyond the scope of this report to cover all of these in full, however, but listed below are
some of the key discoveries of the area immediately surrounding and including the test
pitting locations.
4.
Within the immediate area, the earliest archaeological feature is that of Meikle Wood Hill:
a scheduled monument that has been identified as an Iron Age hillfort, normally visible
only on aerial photography. While no discernible prehistoric finds have been identified atop
the scheduled monument, the fort stands as a prominent prehistoric feature in the
landscape and can potentially be linked to prehistoric artefacts identified in the surrounding
fields.
5.
The site of Little Wood Hill sits to the north-northwest of Meikle Wood Hill and was first
identified on aerial photography as a D-shaped enclosure with an entrance in the southeast.
In recent years, it has been the focus of multiple archaeological investigations beginning
with the NTS Thistle Camp in 2014. The trenches excavated by the NTS, and volunteers
revealed the sides and cut of a ditch recorded as being 2.6m wide by 1.2m deep. Three
small flakes of flint and a range of modern material was recovered. A radiocarbon date
ranging from the mid-1st century BC to the early 2nd century AD was also obtained from
charcoal recovered from one of the ditch’s fills.
6.
In September 2019, Can You Dig It ran a project atop Little Wood Hill to open a larger area
across the enclosure. It confirmed the 2014 findings made by the NTS of a roughly Vshaped profile measuring between 2.5 and 3.25m wide and 1.08 to 1.55m deep. The
entrance was simple in form, marked by rounded terminals, and a possible pit, posthole,
and short linear feature were identified within the interior. Artefacts recovered included a
stone tool and debitage flakes dating back to the late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age period,
and a lead shot potentially dating to the 17th or 18th centuries. A radiocarbon date taken
from the ditch produced a 1st century AD to early 3rd century AD date, confirming it as Iron
Age, while a second date from a burnt hazelnut shell fragment recovered from the interior
produced a mid-9th century BC date showing trace evidence of Mesolithic activity.
7.
A fieldwalking exercise was undertaken by the NTS in the fields around Kelton Mains after
agricultural ploughing of the area in March 2009. The study area included the field to the
south of Meikle Wood Hill (Area B in Figure 1) and the field to the east. Within Area B, two
early prehistoric lithics, a flint scraper and flint blade (Alexander 2009, 7), were identified,
as well as a complete mallet-shaped wine bottle dating to the first half of the 18 th century
(Alexander 2009, 5). The finds further illustrate the vast and varied history of the area
surrounding Threave Castle and Kelton Mains.
8.
The farm of Mains of Kelton itself has been traced back to the 18th century and is present
on mapping going back to Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland (1752 - 1755). The farmhouse
has seen many phases of development and modification of the farmhouse, stockyard and
its associated structures. The surrounding landscape during the formation of the farm was
very much characterised by agricultural and livestock use.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Figure 1: Plan showing the areas of investigation.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Figure 2a: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 5 showing topsoil (001) and subsoil (002) within
Area A.
Figure 2b: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 1 with topsoil (002) within Area A.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Figure 3a: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 7 showing deposits (004) and (005) within Area
B.
Figure 3b: Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 10 showing deposit (006) within Area B.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Figure 4: Plan showing test pits within Areas A, B and D.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
9.
In 2021, AOC Archaeology Group excavated trenches within the fields to the south of Meikle
Wood Hill (Areas B and C in Figure 1), also as part of the series of works prior to the
Threave Landscape Restoration Project. The findings from these works will be summarised
in a separate report to be produced by AOC Archaeology.
Project Works
10.
The archaeological works focussed on areas of the Threave Estate potentially associated
with prehistoric activity located adjacent to two Iron Age enclosures (Williamson & Rees
2019). The site is located between the sites of Meikle Wood Hill to the east, Little Wood
Hill to the north and Threave Castle and Port Hill to the west.
11.
The on-site works took place on the 7th of August and then again on the 3rd and 4th of
September 2021 and consisted of a series of hand-excavated test pits within Areas A, B
and D (as marked on Figure 1) and metal detecting survey across all four areas (A – D). A
total of 17 test pits were excavated with all soil sieved for artefacts.
12.
All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined
in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (Williamson 2021). The fieldwork was
undertaken in a mixture of both wet and dry weather. In terms of structure, the core field
team of Rathmell Archaeology staff and volunteers were on-site from 9am to 4pm.
Findings
Fieldwork conducted over the three days were split into four areas (Areas A – D). Test pits
were excavated within Areas A, B and D, with excavation and recording completed by both
volunteers, NTS and Rathmell Archaeology Staff. Within the four areas, metal detecting
was carried out by volunteers under the supervision of Rathmell Archaeology staff.
Test Pits
Area A
13.
Within Area A, six test pits (Test Pits 1 – 6) were excavated (Figure 4). The test pits were
plotted on the WSW slope of Meikle Wood Hill, the pits were spaced at irregular intervals
running from SW-NE. The six test pits measured between 0.5m and 0.6m square with a
depth range of between 80mm to 510mm.
14.
Two topsoils were identified within Area 1: (001) and (003). (001) was identified as a midbrown silty clay with small to medium sized stone inclusions. The deposit had an excavated
thickness of 160mm to 290mm and was only identified within Test Pits 3-6. The deposit
overlay (002) within Test Pit 5.
15.
The second topsoil, (003), was only identified within Test Pits 1 and 2 (Figure 2a). The
deposit comprised a mid-brownish orange silty sand with frequent small to medium
subangular stone inclusions. The deposit had an excavated thickness of between 80mm to
260mm. The bases of Test Pits 1 and 2 stopped within deposit (003).
16.
Underlying (001), a light to medium greyish brown silty clay (002) with occasional
inclusions of charcoal fragments and degraded wood was identified (Figure 2b). The deposit
measured a thickness of between 240mm to 260mm and was only identified within Test
Pit 5. The base of Test Pit 5 stopped within deposit (002); however this was not the full
depth of the context.
17.
A number of artefacts were recovered from Test Pits 4 and 5, which are discussed in more
detail below (<201> to <207>). No significant archaeological features were identified
within Area A.
Area B
18.
Within Area B, five test pits (Test Pits 7 – 11) were excavated (Figure 4). The test pits
were plotted to the S of Meikle Wood Hill on an area of sloping land that was previous
grazing/farmland to the NNE of Mains of Kelton Cottage. The pits were spaced at measured
intervals running from N-S. The five test pits measured 1m square with a depth range of
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
between 150mm to 320mm.
19.
Only one topsoil was identified within Area B, which comprised a firmly compacted midbrown sandy loam: (004). The deposit had a maximum thickness of 320mm and was
identified within every test pit. Underlying (004) within Test Pits 7 and 9 was a firmly
compacted orange-brown sandy silt, (005) (Figure 3a). (005) was identified in the western
half of the test pits only and the deposit had a thickness of between 180mm and 260mm.
20.
The eastern half of Test Pits 7 and 9, as well as the entirety of Test Pits 8, 10 and 11, all
stopped within deposit (004).
21.
A number of artefacts were recovered from all the test pits within Area B, which are
discussed in more detail below (<208> to <228>). No significant archaeological features
were identified within Area B.
Area D
22.
Within Area D, six test pits (Test Pits 12 – 17) were excavated (Figure 4). The test pits
were plotted on the N slope of Meikle Wood Hill. Test Pits 12 – 16 were spaced at irregular
intervals running WNW to ESE, while Test Pit 17 was located at the start of a second line
approximately 13m to the NNW of Test Pit 12. Four of the six test pits measured 0.5m
square (Test Pits 12, 14, 16 and 17) whereas Test Pits 15 and 16 measured 0.5m by 0.6m.
They all had a depth range of between 170mm to 390mm.
23.
Within Area D, the test pits were dug through one topsoil: (006) (Figure 3b). The deposit
consisted of firmly compacted mid-brown silty clay with frequent rootlets and small stone
inclusions. The deposit was identified in all six test pits and measured an excavated
thickness of 170mm to 390mm. All the test pits stopped within deposit (006).
24.
Two artefacts were recovered from Test Pits 13 and 14 within Area D, which are discussed
in more detail below (<229> & <230>). No significant archaeological features were
identified within Area D.
Metal Detecting Survey
25.
A metal detecting survey was conducted by volunteers, NTS and Rathmell Archaeology
Staff throughout all four areas (A – D). The process consisted of volunteers flagging areas
that had produced a positive metal result, which were subsequently excavated, registered
on a GPS and bagged for finds analysis. The locations of the results of the metal detecting
survey can be seen in Figure 5.
26.
Within Area A, the artefacts were recovered from topsoil (001), whereas within Area B,
they were recovered from topsoil (004). Similarly, the artefacts recovered from Area D
were excavated from within topsoil (006).
27.
Area C was located to the SSE of Meikle Wood Hill, to the SE of Mains of Kelton Cottage
and was separated from Area B to the NW by a fence line that traces back to the 1st Edition
OS map (1853). Within Area C, the artefacts recovered sat within a firmly compacted midbrown silty clay, (007), with frequent rootlets and small stone inclusions. This deposit was
only identified within Area C, but it appeared similar in composition to deposit (006)
identified within Area D.
28.
The artefacts recovered are discussed in more detail below. No significant archaeological
features were identified during the metal detecting field survey.
The Artefacts
By Louise Turner
Introduction
29.
Metalwork was the predominant material recovered, reflecting the fact that a metal
detector survey formed an integral part of the archaeological works carried out. A total of
199 pieces were recovered; of these, 123 items represented examples of non-ferrous
metalwork, with a far smaller number (76 items in total) composed of ferrous metal.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Figure 5: Plan showing the locations of metal-detector finds.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
30.
The non-ferrous metal component could be further subdivided according to material type.
Copper alloys such as brass or bronze predominated, with 74 items present. Lead and
aluminium were also represented, but in smaller quantities, with 29 and 27 items recovered
respectively. Each of these materials will be discussed separately.
31.
It has only been possible, within the scope of this analysis, to provide an overview of the
items present. As well as considering the range of items occurring in the various materials
represented, this analysis will place various items into categories, and identify which of
these predominate amongst the assemblage.
32.
In addition to the metalwork, small quantities of modern ceramic and coarse stone/lithics
were recovered.
Ferrous Metalwork
33.
In numerical terms, this group narrowly predominated, numbering 76 items in total. Items
of structural ironwork were most numerous, with 17 objects represented that comprised
either nails, bolts, or staples.
34.
Arguably the most distinctive items were three complete or fragmentary horseshoes (Find
Nos. <3>, <54> and <91>). All were large in size, of dimensions consistent with a draft
horse (Figure 6a). There was, in addition to the horseshoes, another two items which were
potentially connected with livestock or horses. A fragmentary circular-sectioned object
(<4>) was of appropriate dimensions to represent a fragmentary hame, i.e., a metal fitting
attached to the collar of a draft horse, although this was by no means certain. In addition,
a large circular sectioned ferrous metal ring <188> could have been associated with
horses: although too large to have derived from the cheekpiece of a snaffle bit, it could
have functioned as a means of tethering horses either inside a stall or a loose box or
outside a building. The ring did not show any signs of wear. Several tapering fragments
were present that appeared to represent fragmentary tines from larger implements. One
of these was relatively small in size (<49>) and was consistent with a garden fork or similar
implement. Others (<22> and <50>) were more robust, and probably derived from a spike
harrow.
35.
Tools were also represented, in particular a coarse rasp or file <56> and a small penknife
<52>.
36.
In addition, there were a number of fragments of iron bars or strips, and also fragments
of ferrous metal plate, along with some items of indeterminate form, much obscured
through corrosion build-up.
Non-Ferrous Metalwork – Copper Alloy
37.
In most archaeological contexts, ferrous metalwork would be expected to be more widely
represented than non-ferrous metalwork, with the former being used for utilitarian objects,
and the latter more often employed for the manufacture of decorative items. If the relative
weights of the ferrous and non-ferrous metalwork components of the assemblage were
compared, then ferrous metalwork would indeed predominate, but in numerical terms,
non-ferrous alloys were represented in greater numbers. Of these non-ferrous alloys,
copper alloy predominated, with 74 items present. The exact composition of these copper
alloys cannot be determined within the scope of this analysis, but it is likely that most, if
not all, were manufactured of brass (i.e., an alloy of copper and zinc).
38.
Harness fittings were particularly well-represented. Of particular note were three terrets of
varying form. Two of these were plain terrets with screw fittings (Figure 6b), which would
have been used as rein guides placed on the collar or the ‘saddle’ of a draft horse. The
third was a fly terret of ‘triple bell’ form (Figure 7a). This was an ornamental fitting attached
to the saddle or the headpiece of the bridle of a draft horse. Three small bells would have
been suspended from the mounts, and coloured feathers would have been placed in the
central mount to create a striking and colourful display. They appear to have fairly late
origins, first noted in photographs taken after the 1870s. Modern equivalents can still be
purchased for use on modern show harness today.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
39.
While the terrets represented objects which could not have functioned as anything other
than harness fittings, there were other more ambiguous items which nonetheless seemed
likely to derive from horse-harness. One perforated oval plaque (Figure 7b) appears to
comprise a harness pendant <164>, as it is inscribed with the legend ‘……..
SILVER….MILLIC… SADDLERS.’
40.
Other copper alloy items that are likely to fall amongst the harness fittings group are six
large rectangular buckles (including <2>, <68>, <75> and <191>) (Figures 7b and 8a).
Initial examples were provisionally interpreted as shoe buckles, but their robust character
and form (with a straight, as opposed to curved profile) would suggest instead that they
were harness buckles. Similar in their dimensions to the buckles used to fasten modern
stirrup leathers, they are more likely to derive from the harness used with draft horses.
41.
Another, much smaller, ‘D’-shaped buckle frame with pin in situ (<28>) has a form
consistent with medieval dress fastenings, but – given the large number of modern harness
buckles occurring throughout the study area – a role as a harness fitting seems more likely.
This smaller buckle (Figure 8b) is consistent with the ‘D’-shaped buckles used to fasten the
throatlash of a bridle, though its small size would be more consistent with the bridle of a
riding horse rather than a draft horse. A copper alloy ring <81> of large diameter may also
have been associated with horse harness or stable fittings. It is a little on the large side to
have functioned as a bit ring, and its uniform thickness would be unusual in a snaffle type
bit, but there are forms of bit which could incorporate a large ring of this kind, in particular
a loose ring snaffle or a Wilson driving bit. The use of copper alloy would not be unexpected,
with copper alloy preferred over steel or iron by some horsemen on account of its ‘sweet’
taste which encourages the horse to chew its bit and produce more saliva. As per the
ferrous metal ring mentioned earlier, it is however also possible that this ring could have
functioned as a stable fitting.
42.
One final item with a probable association with horse harness was a fragmentary openwork
plaque <153> with slight curved profile. If the original size and dimensions are
extrapolated from the surviving fragment, then the rhomboidal shape and general
dimensions would be consistent with an ornament that could be fitted to the browband or
noseband of a heavy horse bridle.
43.
Arguably, the harness fittings formed the most striking group of objects amongst the
assemblage. Other items were, however, represented. Of particular note were a group of
dress fittings, which included three buttons, a pin badge, and a fragmentary cufflink or
waistcoat button. Two of the buttons – <124> and <129> – were military buttons, both
unfortunately in too poor a condition to decipher the inscription. The pin badge <108> was
shield-shaped, and consistent with the form of badge that might be worn by a high school
prefect (Figure 9a).
44.
Four items represented spent bullets or cartridges. These included two small three-ring
bullets <136> and <172>, both measuring 5mm in diameter, which would have been
consistent with the type of ammunition used in a .22 calibre pistol (Figure 9b). A
fragmentary cartridge case from a shotgun <163> was also recovered.
45.
One final object which merits a mention was a robust oval plaque (Figure 10a) marked
with a stamped or relief-moulded numeral ’22.’ No rivet holes were present, which infers
that the object was placed within a recessed setting, as might be present in a church pew,
for example.
46.
Before leaving this summary of copper alloy objects, mention should be made of the small
group of coins recovered. These numbered 12 in total, all representing 19 th or 20th century
British coin issues, most of which were pre-decimal. The group included an 1861 farthing
<20>, three ha’pennies (<47>, <65> and <184>) and a penny <23>.
Non-Ferrous Metalwork – Lead
47.
Three groups were represented here: lead shot, spindle whorls and waste spill/lead scrap.
48.
Six pieces of lead shot were recovered (Figure 10b): <30>, <105>, <132>, <135>,
<170>and <171>. All were of a size and weight consistent with a small calibre weapon
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
such as a pistol rather than a musket and were likely to be of 18th or early 19th century
date. A concentration of such finds may reflect use of the area for hunting or fowling rather
than evidence of aggressive activities, although the unusually high concentration of these
objects may reflect the possibility that the area was used by a local militia or other amateur
military group for training, which included target practice.
49.
The two lead spindle whorls <127> and <134> were of particular interest as they are likely
to represent the oldest objects amongst the assemblage. Lead was used for the
manufacture of spindle whorls from the Roman and Iron Age periods onwards, but it was
only from the 13th century onwards that its use became more widespread. These examples
are likely to be medieval in date, with a wider central perforation than would be expected
in its Roman or Iron Age counterpart (Figure 11a).
50.
The remaining lead items comprised fragments of waste spill or lead strip (e.g., <53>).
Their presence may reflect the fact that lead scrap was being unused for the production of
lead shot in the vicinity, but no conclusive evidence of any such activity was found.
Non-Ferrous Metalwork – Aluminium
51.
Last amongst the non-ferrous metalwork was a small group of aluminium objects. These
were dominated by small ointment tubes which appeared to be for veterinary use (e.g.,
<33> and <35>). Other items appeared to derive from food and drink, in particular bottle
caps <48> and <100>.
52.
Also present amongst the assemblage was an engine ID plate <97>, potentially derived
from an agricultural vehicle.
Other Items
53.
Two sherds of modern ceramic were also recovered during the test pitting exercise. Both
were small sherds of glazed white earthenware of probable 19th or 20th century date.
Lithics
54.
A small number of possible lithics and coarse stone artefacts were recovered. Through
investigation by Thomas Rees, many of the artefacts were identified as normal field stones.
One find <104> was identified as a very possible “mutilated axe-head”, however the find
could possibly be a “much battered field stone”. Two small fragments of slate were
identified, either naturally found or potentially part of a roofing slate from the nearby
structures at Mains of Kelton.
55.
The final item amongst the lithics <221> was found within Test Pit 7 and identified as “a
regular flake (inner material) of pale honey brown flint with the proximal end snapped off”
of prehistoric origin (pers. comm. Thomas Rees 25th February 2022) (Figure 11b). The
“mid-left dorsal edge has previous removal scars with a platform” which suggests that the
flake is a core management flake to rejuvenate the platform “as the worker was unhappy
with the flakes/blades being removed” (pers. comm. Thomas Rees 25th February 2022).
56.
The presence of a prehistoric lithic flake links with the surrounding prehistoric evidence at
Kelton Mains and Little Wood Hill as well as the prehistoric fort at Meikle Wood Hill. The
lithics identified at Little Wood Hill during their excavations revealed a “coherent reduction
strategy” with only one identified diagnostic finished tool: that of a “thumbnail scraper”
(Williamson 2020). These lithics were dated approximately to the late Neolithic or Early
Bronze Age and due to a lack of rolling damage on the lithics, it was suggested that lithic
working was undertaken in close proximity to their find location atop Little Wood Hill
(Williamson 2020).
57.
Further evidence for prehistoric activity has been found on the Threave Estate, in particular
two pieces of worked flint found during fieldwalking in the fields to the S of Meikle Wood
Hill (Canmore ID: 304979) (Alexander 2009) as well as the presence of cup marks carved
into rocky outcrops approximately 1.2km to the south of Little Wood Hill (Canmore ID:
239597). Additionally, a possible prehistoric pit was identified alongside a collection of
prehistoric flints during a test pitting exercise at Port Hill.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Discussion
58.
The metal detector and test pitting activities produced a sizeable assemblage of metalwork
that was composed of roughly equal numbers of ferrous and copper alloy artefacts,
supplemented by smaller quantities of lead and aluminium.
59.
A single prehistoric lithic flake was identified within Test Pit 7. The flake sits in isolation in
our assemblage with the next datable finds moving to after the 13 th century. The flake
shows evidence of being worked and appears to be a core management flake to allow the
original flint item to be reused again. Similar prehistoric flakes were identified at the nearby
Little Wood Hill, and suggested a possible lithic working area atop the hill. The flake
identified within Test Pit 7 links with the prehistoric artefacts and nature of the surrounding
areas of Meikle Wood Hill and Kelton Mains.
60.
Only two other items were of demonstrably early date. These comprised two circular lead
spindle whorls with central perforations, likely to be of medieval date, and post-dating the
13th century.
61.
The other items which were likely to originate prior to the 19 th century were the six pieces
of lead shot. They are likely to represent pistol shot and could either be the residue from
militia training or from hunting for game. An 18 th century date seems most likely for these
objects.
62.
Of the later finds, with origins in the 19 th or 20th century, arguably the most interesting
group was that represented by the horse-gear and harness fittings, of which a varied range
of objects were present. Horseshoes for use with a heavy horse breed, such as the
Clydesdale, provided an immediate association with draft animals, and this was
strengthened by a selection of harness fittings which included two terrets and a more
unusual form of fly terret: the ‘triple bell’ terret. While the two plain terrets performed a
functional role as rein guides, the fly terret was an ornamental fitting which would have
been more in keeping with a horse wearing a show harness, or perhaps an animal who
used to draw a commercial vehicle where a more ostentatious presentation was desired.
Another item, a fragmentary openwork mount, was consistent with a bridle fitting, again
more likely to be used on show harness rather than on utilitarian harness, although a small
oval plaque marked with the name of the saddler that manufactured it (sadly illegible, but
potentially a saddler named ‘Millican’) seemed more utilitarian in its execution. With such
items unequivocally linked with horses present, it was considered highly likely that the six
large, robust rectangular buckles which occurred amongst the assemblage derived from
harness. All were consistent with the rectangular buckles that are used to fasten modern
stirrup leathers, but an association with the robust straps used for the harnessing of draft
horses seems more likely. Only one much smaller ‘D’-shaped buckle was more likely derive
from the tack of a riding horse, its size and shape consistent with the fastening of a
throatlash. While most of these items are fairly generic in form and could originate over a
long period extending from the mid-19th century to the present, the presence of the fly
terret narrows the date range down considerably to the period post-dating c.1870, when
these particular fittings appear on photographs and within product catalogues.
63.
A less numerous but nonetheless interesting group was composed of bullets and shotgun
cartridge fragments. Shotgun cartridges would be expected in any rural location, but the
bullets, derived from a .22 calibre pistol, were less easy to explain. The recovery of two
military type buttons, of probable early 20 th century date, would however help to explain
the presence of the bullets, with both items potentially being lost during militia or Home
Guard training.
64.
Items which were likely to have their origins in the later part of the 20th century were the
school prefect’s badge and the numerous aluminium tubes of veterinary ointment and
occasional bottle caps.
65.
A total of 12 coins were recovered, all of 19 th or 20th century date, and most representing
pre-decimal issues. Most were poorly preserved and their dates illegible, but one 1861
farthing was recorded. The date range represented by these coins is consistent with the
majority of the other metal objects recovered. It is also interesting to note that the two
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Figure 6a: Horseshoes <3> and <54> from topsoil (001) within Area A.
Figure 6b: Terrets <169> and <198> from topsoils (007) within Area C and (006) within
Area D.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Figure 7a: Fly Terret of Triple Bell Type <314> in (007) within Area C.
Figure 7b: Harness Pendant <164> from topsoil (006) within Area D and Probable Harness
Buckle.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Figure 8a: Examples of Probable Harness Buckles.
Figure 8b: ‘D’-shaped Harness Buckle <28> from within topsoil (001) in Area A.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Figure 9a: Shield-shaped Pin Badge (Probable School Prefect’s Badge) <108> from within
topsoil (001) within Area A.
Figure 9b: ‘Three-Ringed Bullet <136> from .22 Calibre Pistol identified within topsoil
(001) in Area A.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Figure 10a: Copper Alloy Oval Plaque <27> from within topsoil (001) within Area A.
Figure 10b: Two Examples of Lead Shot.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Figure 11a: Lead Perforated Spindle Whorl <127> from within (004) within Area B.
Figure 11b: Core Management Lithic flake <221> from within (004) within Area B.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
sherds of glazed white earthenware ceramic recovered during the excavations are also
consistent with this date range.
66.
The type of artefacts recovered reflects the fact that the predominant land use was
agricultural: the horse harness suggests the use of horses as draft animals in either
ploughing or the processing of hay for winter use by livestock, during the late 19 th and/or
early 20th century, while the presence of fragmentary spike tines is consistent with earthbreaking equipment which could be horse- or tractor-drawn. The large number of
aluminium ointment tubes dating to the later 20 th century would suggest livestock
husbandry, perhaps with a focus on dairy. The recurring presence of lead shot and bullets,
along with two military buttons, might suggest that the area saw secondary use for the
training of part time militia, certainly during the earlier part of the 20th century but also
potentially much earlier during the late 18th or early 19th century when lead shot was still
in regular.
Ceramics and Glass
67.
Ceramics were recovered in small numbers, with a total of 16 sherds and four fragments
recovered, along with a single fragment from a clay tobacco pipe. All were modern, i.e.,
late 19th to early 20th century, in origin.
68.
Nine sherds and four fragments were likely to derive from items of tableware, with six
sherds of blue-and-white transfer printed glazed white earthenware represented (e.g.,
<21>). Two sherds and four fragments of plain glazed white earthenware may once have
had decoration present, but no evidence for this now survives. The final sherd from this
group was derived from a buff-glazed pink earthenware <58>.
69.
Two sherds of brown glazed red earthenware – potentially from a teapot – and a rim sherd
from a glazed red earthenware crock jar <207> were also present.
70.
There were in addition three sherds of red terracotta tile and one buff tile fragment, and a
bowl fragment from a clay tobacco pipe.
71.
Three items of glass were recovered. One (<19>) was derived from a thick-walled bottle,
opaque and greenish black in colour, which is likely to have been an upright bottle (for
wine or similar) of 19 th century date. The second was a small fragment of brown
transparent glass, <17>, probably derived from a modern beer bottle, and the third a tiny
piece of thin-walled clear glass, <204>, which appears to have derived from a glass
drinking vessel, again probably modern.
Industrial Residues
72.
A small quantity of industrial residues were recovered, numbering four in total (<167>).
Their character could not be determined; flat and plate-like in character, they had a glossy
surface which implied a metallurgical origin but their brittle character argued against this.
Two concentrations of coal were also noted in (004).
Discussion
73.
Over the course of three days, volunteers opened 17 test pits within three areas
surrounding Meikle Wood Hill, sieving all the excavated spoil to aid artefact recovery. The
aim was to investigate the surrounding area for artefactual evidence related to potential
land use of the Threave area, from the noted Iron Age evidence on Little Wood Hill to the
post-medieval agricultural evidence associated with Mains of Kelton Cottage. The project
was a precursory investigation to the Threave Landscape Restoration Project that was
conducted in partnership with the National Trust for Scotland.
74.
No archaeological features were exposed within the test pits, which revealed a simple
stratigraphy across the area of topsoil directly overlying possible natural subsoil. With the
test pits measuring between 0.5m square and 1m square, the underlying subsoils of (002)
and (005) cannot be confirmed as the natural subsoil at this stage but it remains likely;
their sandy composition and stone inclusions appear to match the area’s natural geology
of sand, silt and gravel.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Figure 12a: Extract from Roy’s 1752-1755, Military Survey of Scotland (Lowlands).
Figure 12b: Extract from 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 24 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
75.
Despite the small size of the sample area, a number of artefacts were recovered which
spanned in date from the prehistoric period through to the 20 th century. Without the
presence of features, we must instead turn to these to see what evidence we can discern
about the site’s history.
76.
One possible prehistoric flake, <221>, was identified as a core management flake. The
flake links within the prehistoric nature of the surrounding landscape of Meikle Wood Hill.
Two additional lithics were identified during fieldwalking conducted by the National Trust
of Scotland in 2009, as well as the excavation atop Little Wood Hill in 2019, which produced
evidence for a possible area of lithic working. While the flake identified during the test
pitting is in isolation, it is connected to a wider prehistoric story in the landscape.
77.
Two lead spindle whorls were identified as likely medieval in date: <127> and <134>.
Lead was first used in the manufacture of spindle whorls from the Roman and Iron Age
period onwards, however it was only by the 13 th century that it became more widespread.
These particular examples do not appear to be Roman or Iron Age in date due to the central
perforation being smaller than would be expected for an earlier version (see Turner’s
section on The Artefacts above).
78.
These were the only medieval finds in our assemblage, and the inferred timeline of our
recovered artefacts now jumps to the post-medieval/modern period. As stated above by
Turner, predominately modern and 19th-century ceramic and glass fragments and sherds
were identified. The ceramic was primarily reflective of table wear with possible teapot
fragments and part of a clay tobacco pipe also identified. The glass fragments were either
modern drinking vessels (one modern beer bottle and clear drinking glass) or from a 19 thcentury green upright bottle. These items could have possibly entered the topsoil through
nearby refuse areas being turned over through the soil.
79.
Much of the assemblage was metal objects, including lead, copper alloy, aluminium, and
ferrous metalwork, which was modern in character. The majority of the objects were
agricultural in nature, ranging from decorative items for horses to modern veterinary
ointment tubes. The land surrounding Mains of Kelton Cottage and Meikle Wood Hill
appears to have been characterised by agricultural work with Roy’s Military Map of Scotland
(1752 -1755) showing the land cornered off by field boundaries and areas of decorative
forestry (Figure 12a). Roy’s map also indicates that the area directly to the east and west
of three buildings, presumably the yet-to-be-named Mains of Kelton Cottage, has been
utilised by rig and furrow.
80.
The process of rig and furrow before machinery would have required draft horses or oxen
to cut through the field for planting, a process that appears to have continued with the
introduction of heavy farm machinery, as noted within the 1st Edition OS map (1853)
(Figure 12b). The now-named Kelton Mains has visibly increased in size with a distinct
decorative tree line and multiple tracks leading from the farm.
81.
Nearby the Kelton Mains’ buildings, a “Thrashing Machine” is noted. These were common
early farming machines which relied on water, wind, or horsepower. The larger machines
often required draft horses to power them, the exact horses that would have used the
horseshoes, possible fragmentary hame, buckles and possible tethering ring identified by
Turner (see section on The Artefacts above). Similarly close to Kelton Mains, a rectangular
structure is noted with a circular structure jutting to the south. The circular structure could
potentially represent a ‘Horse Gin-House’; these structures used large draft horses to turn
a wheel or ‘gin’, which would be used to power nearby machinery.
82.
Three terrets of varying forms were identified. Two were plain with screw fittings and would
have been used in the collar or saddle of a draft horse. The third was identified by Turner
as a ”fly terret of triple bell form”, an ornamental fitting which would have attached to the
saddle or headpiece of the bridle of a draft horse. Three small bells and coloured feathers
would have been attached, leading to the presumption that the terret was not used for
every day but was instead reserved for a show harness: perhaps for occasions like the
local county fairs within Castle Douglas.
83.
The “Thrashing Machine” and the horse gin-house are not depicted on the 2nd Edition OS
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 25 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
map (1895) with the horse gin-house represented as a thin dotted line to show its removal.
The demolition of the thrashing machine would likely have seen the separation of larger
reusable parts, such as the wheels and gears, from the other smaller items such as nails
and scrap metal. The smaller items may have then entered a rubbish dump which could
have been spread throughout the area when later farm machinery was introduced to Mains
of Kelton.
84.
The 1st Edition OS map shows multiple tracks that leave Mains of Kelton Cottage, including
one that runs NNW towards Meikle Wood Hill cutting through Area B and another that runs
through Area C from WSW to ENE. The track towards Meikle Wood Hill runs directly to a
passageway that is maintained through the forestry surrounding the scheduled monument;
this is suggestive of an access path for potential locals and tourists that may have used
the hilltop as a viewpoint for Threave Castle to the NW. This pathway could result in some
of the metal clothing items, buttons and buckles, and the 19th or 20th century British coins
entering the archaeological record through their previous owners losing them on their
journey to the site. The two paths do not appear on the 2 nd OS map of 1895; however,
they may still be used by the local people without the need for formal tracks.
85.
The presence of lead shot in Areas A, B and D suggests that the area of Meikle Wood Hill
and the surrounding lands of Mains of Kelton Cottage were utilised for hunting or fowling
in the 18th or early 19th century with guns such as pistols. The lead shots could also
correspond to the military buttons identified by Turner (see The Artefacts above) and
suggest a local militia or amateur military group used the area for training, which involved
target practice in the wide fields near Mains of Kelton Cottage. The two small three-ring
bullets, consistent with a .22 calibre pistol, continue with the suggestion of hunting or
fowling or the presence of practice training with firearms within these areas.
86.
One of the more recent objects identified by Turner was a possible schools prefect’s badge.
The item was copper alloy and shield shaped. The badge could represent a lost item from
a school trip to the historic Mains of Kelton Cottage or Threave Castle. The other modern
finds of aluminium ointment tubes, which appeared to be modern veterinary tubes,
highlights that Area B continued to be used for livestock until recently.
87.
All areas appear to be regularly used by locals for recreational activities alongside periods
of agricultural use, which lends to the varied items recovered within them. Areas A, B and
D were particularly used for hunting activities possibly due to the nearby forestry.
88.
In conclusion, while the test pitting was not able to identify any archaeological features
relating to Meikle Wood Hill or Mains of Kelton Cottage, it has shown the value that still
exists in the ground which surrounds these two sites.
89.
Through their work, our volunteers have been able to contribute to the knowledge of the
agricultural use of the landscape and the history of recreational activities in the area. The
finds they have recovered have provided us with a narrative of the area which spans
millennia of use.
90.
Today, the area is part of the Threave Landscape Restoration Project and will be developed
to create “a wetlands habitat of national significance” (Galloway Glens 2020). The
Landscape Restoration Project will develop the nature reserve and wider wetlands at
Threave allowing nature to flourish in the area.
Conclusion
91.
The test pitting undertaken in the area surrounding Meikle Wood Hill recovered a number
of artefacts which contribute to our understanding of the history of the site. The majority
of the finds span from the medieval period through to the 20th century.
92.
The earlier finds are predominately lead spindle whorls which postdate the 13 th century.
Six pieces of lead shot suggest that the area surrounding Kelton Mains and to the south of
Meikle Wood Hill was potentially used for militia training or for the hunting of game. The
continuation of military activity and hunting is confirmed by later bullets and two militarytype buttons, which are dated to the early 20th century.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 26 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
93.
The most interesting of the finds identified were metal finds used for horse gear or harness
fittings. The maps show the surrounding landscape’s continuous use for crops, which would
need large draft horses or oxen for planting. The progression of agriculture within the area
was evident with the presence of ‘modern’ farming machinery, which was often
supplemented by large draft horses. The metal finds identified through metal detecting
appear to relate to this progression of farming within Kelton Mains from traditional rig and
furrow dug by draft horses to the use of thrashing machines.
94.
Outwith these main phases, a single find of a prehistoric flint flake was discovered, further
adding to the growing assemblage of prehistoric finds from the Threave Estate.
95.
The two main uses of the surrounding area of Meikle Wood Hill appear to be agriculture
and potential hunting or small militia exercises.
96.
No archaeological features were identified within the test pits but the array of artefacts
recovered hints at the potential that this area holds for future works. The works also
allowed volunteers to further their knowledge of the history of this important site, and gain
experience in the different techniques involved during an archaeological investigation.
Acknowledgements
97.
This project is part of a wider Community Archaeology project, ‘Can You Dig It’, run by the
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme from April 2020 to September 2022. See
www.gallowayglens.org.uk/Resources and follow ‘Can You Dig It’ for their published
outputs. The Community Archaeology project was offered free to volunteers thanks to
funding from the Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland. The work at the
Threave Estate was undertaken in partnership with the National Trust for Scotland’s
Archaeology Unit. Guidance was also given by the Dumfries and Galloway Council
Archaeology Service and members of local heritage societies.
98.
Our thanks go to our partner in this project, the National Trust for Scotland’s Head
Archaeologist, Derek Alexander, as well as the National Trust of Scotland volunteers: Jim
Shearer, Christine McPherson, Jennifer Roberts, Lizzie Robertson, Edward Stuart, Alister
McIntosh and Andrew Jepson.
99.
The author would like to additionally thank all the metal detecting volunteers who aided in
the detection and excavation of metal finds: Steven Steele, Dale Ashby, Dean Watson, Will
Ramage, David Bartholomew, Andrew Mellor, John Wykes, Thomas Carlyle and Will Adam.
100.
The author would like to thank all the hardworking volunteers who took part in the
excavation: Alison Anderson, Tom Marshall, Helen Bell-Palmer, Lyn Ferguson, James Rhys,
Rowan Garrow, Thomas Byrne, Siobhan Byrne, Stuart Ingram, Alison Templeton, Stuart
Templeton, and Sam Templeton.
101.
The support and guidance provided by Rathmell Archaeology staff members Thomas Rees
and Claire Williamson on site was much appreciated by everyone involved. Further thanks
should go to Thomas Rees and Claire Williamson for their guidance throughout the initial
organisation of the project and I am also grateful to Claire for editing this report. Thanks
also go to Louise Turner and Thomas Rees for their work on the artefact analysis.
References
Documentary
Alexander, D. 2009 Fieldwalking at Kelton Mains, Threave, unpublished report by The
National Trust for Scotland
Galloway Glens 2020 Threave Landscape Restoration Project [online] available at:
https://gallowayglens.org/projects/threave-nature-reserve/ [accessed 16th September
2022]
Williamson, C. 2021 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community
Archaeology Project (Phase 2), Risk Assessment Method Statement, Threave Estate –
Testing Pitting, unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 27 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Williamson, C. 2020 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community
Archaeology Project, Data Structure Report 1.2.b Later Prehistoric Power Centres – Little
Wood Hill, Threave unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Williamson, C.& Rees, T. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project, Research Design 1.2.b Later Prehistoric Power Centres
unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Cartographic
1752-55
Roy, W.
Military Survey of Scotland
1853
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 1st edition, Kirkcudbrightshire Sheet 39
1909
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 2nd edition, Kirkcudbrightshire Sheet XLII.NE
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 28 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland
LOCAL AUTHORITY:
Dumfries & Galloway
PROJECT TITLE/SITE
NAME:
Threave
PROJECT CODE:
RA18107
PARISH:
Kelton
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR:
Laura Anderson
NAME OF ORGANISATION:
Rathmell Archaeology Limited
TYPE(S) OF PROJECT:
Test Pitting
NMRS NO(S):
NX76SW 92 (Canmore ID: 332692)
SITE/MONUMENT TYPE(S):
Farm Building(s) (Period Unassigned)
SIGNIFICANT FINDS:
Flint; Spindle Whorl; Lead Shots; 19th-century Horse Harness
Fittings.
NGR (2 letters, 8 or 10
figures)
NX 74529 61635
START DATE (this season)
7th August 2021
END DATE (this season)
4th September 2021
PREVIOUS WORK (incl.
DES ref.)
Field 1 – Fieldwalking at Kelton Mains, Threave. Completed by The
National Trust for Scotland in March 2009.
MAIN (NARRATIVE)
DESCRIPTION: (may
include information from
other fields)
The test pitting undertaken in the area surrounding Meikle Wood Hill
recovered a number of artefacts which contribute to our
understanding of the history of the site. The majority of the finds span
from the medieval period through to the 20th century.
The earlier finds are predominately lead spindle whorls which
postdate the 13th century. Six pieces of lead shot suggest that the
area surrounding Kelton Mains and to the south of Meikle Wood Hill
was potentially used for militia training or for the hunting of game.
The continuation of military activity and hunting is confirmed by later
bullets and two military-type buttons, which are dated to the early 20th
century.
The most interesting of the finds identified were metal finds used for
horse gear or harness fittings. The maps show the surrounding
landscape’s continuous use for crops, which would need large draft
horses or oxen for planting. The progression of agriculture within the
area was evident with the presence of ‘modern’ farming machinery,
which was often supplemented by large draft horses. The metal finds
identified through metal detecting appear to relate to this progression
of farming within Kelton Mains from traditional rig and furrow dug by
draft horses to the use of “thrashing machines”.
Outwith these main phases, a single find of a prehistoric flint flake
was discovered, further adding to the growing assemblage of
prehistoric finds from the Threave Estate.
The two main uses of the surrounding area of Meikle Wood Hill
appear to be agriculture and potential hunting or small militia
exercises.
No archaeological features were identified within the test pits but the
array of artefacts recovered hints at the potential that this area holds
for future works. The works also allowed volunteers to further their
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 29 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
knowledge of the history of this important site, and gain experience
in the different techniques involved during an archaeological
investigation.
PROPOSED FUTURE
WORK:
None
CAPTION(S) FOR
ILLUSTRS:
None
SPONSOR OR FUNDING
BODY:
The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme (part of
Dumfries & Galloway Council), externally funded by Historic
Environment Scotland and the National Lottery Heritage Fund
ADDRESS OF MAIN
CONTRIBUTOR:
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops, Kilwinning, Ayrshire KA13 6PU
EMAIL:
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
ARCHIVE LOCATION
(intended/deposited)
Report to Dumfries & Galloway Archaeology Service and archive to
National Record of the Historic Environment.
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 30 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Appendix 2: Test Pit Details
Within this appendix a standardised set of data pertaining to the test pits is presented.
Test Pit Summary
Test
Pit
NGR
Area
Size
1
NX 74438
62082
A
0.58m by
0.52m
2
NX 74433
62079
A
3
NX 74424
62074
4
5
Stratigraphic sequence
Features
Artefacts
(003) – 120mm
None
None
0.58m by
0.58m
(003) – 80mm
None
None
A
0.47m by
0.48m
(001) – 90mm
None
None
NX 74420
62072
A
0.50m by
0.52m
(001) – 160mm
None
White glazed ceramic, tile,
slate
NX 74416
62070
A
0.48m by
054m
(001) – 250mm
None
Glass, slate, ceramic, red
earthen ware
6
NX 74410
62069
A
0.52m by
0.45m
(001) – 190mm
None
None
7
NX 74566
61940
B
1m by 1m
Part dug into (005) – 180mm – 260mm
None
Ceramic, Metal, Bone, Lithic
and Coal
8
NX 74566
61935
B
1m by 1m
(004) – 150mm
None
Burnt bone, Ceramic Building
Material
9
NX 74565
61930
B
1m by 1m
Part dug into (004) – 130mm
None
Coal, Ceramic and Glass
fragments
10
NX 74565
61925
B
1m by 1m
(004) – 160mm – 190mm
None
Ceramic, Bone, Coal, Lithic
and Organic fragments
11
NX 74564
61920
B
1m by 1m
(004) - 260mm – 320mm
None
Ceramic, Coal, Metal, Stone,
Glass and Burnt bone
(depth of uppermost surface from
ground level)
(002) – 260mm
Part dug into (004) – 140mm
Part dug into (005) – 180mm – 250mm
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 31 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
fragments.
12
NX 74537
62193
D
0.5m by
0.5m
(006) – 290mm
None
None
13
NX 74548
62192
D
0.5m by
0.6m
(006) – 200mm
None
Horseshoe fragment
14
NX 74559
62191
D
0.5m by
0.5m
(006) – 210mm
None
Clay pipe
15
NX 74569
62190
D
0.5m by
0.6m
(006) – 170mm
None
None
16
NX 74580
62188
D
0.5m by
0.5m
(006) – 390mm
None
None
17
NX 74534
62207
D
0.5m by
0.5m
(006) – 220mm
None
None
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 32 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Appendix 3: Registers
Appendix 3, which contains all registers pertaining to the works on site during the excavation.
Context Register
Context
No.
Area
Test
Pit
Type
Description
Interpretation
001
A
3-6
Deposit
Mid-brown, silty clay with small to medium subangular stones with
frequent inclusions of roots. Excavated depth of 160 to 290mm.
Topsoil
002
A
5
Deposit
Light to medium greyish brown silty clay with occasional inclusions of
charcoal fragments and degraded wood. Excavated depth of 240 to
260mm. Underlying topsoil (001).
Possible natural subsoil with signs of
disturbance
003
A
1, 2
Deposit
Mid-brownish orange silty sand with frequent inclusions small to
medium subangular stones. Excavated depth of 80 to 260mm.
Topsoil
004
B
7 - 11
Deposit
Firmly compacted mid-brown sandy loam. Maximum thickness of
320mm.
Topsoil
005
B
7,9
Deposit
Firmly compacted orange-brown sandy silt. Exposed underlying
topsoil (004) in Test Pit 7 and 9.
Natural subsoil
006
D
12 - 17
Deposit
Firmly compacted mid-brown silty clay with frequent rootlets and
small stone inclusions. Excavated depth of 170 – 390mm.
Topsoil
007
C
Deposit
Same as (006) - firmly compacted mid-brown silty clay with frequent
rootlets and small stone inclusions.
Topsoil
Photographic Register
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
1
4149
Working shot of NTS team
-
07/08/2021
2
4150
Working shot of NTS team
-
07/08/2021
3
4151
Working shot of NTS team
-
07/08/2021
4
4152
Working shot of NTS team
-
07/08/2021
5
4153
General working shot
-
07/08/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 33 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
6
4154
Working shot of Jenny test pitting
-
07/08/2021
7
4155
Working shot of Jenny test pitting
-
07/08/2021
8
4156
Working shot of Laura and Alison
-
07/08/2021
9
4157
Working shot of Laura and Alison
-
07/08/2021
10
4158
Working shot of NTS team and the horseshoe
-
07/08/2021
11
4159
Post excavation shot of test pit 1
SW
07/08/2021
12
4160
Post excavation shot of test pit 1
NW
07/08/2021
13
4161
Post excavation shot of test pit 2
SW
07/08/2021
14
4162
Post excavation shot of test pit 2
NW
07/08/2021
15
4163
General shot of test pits 1 and 2
SW
07/08/2021
16
4164
General shot of test pits 1 and 2
W
07/08/2021
17
4165
Working shot of Laura, Alison, and Jenny
-
07/08/2021
18
4166
Working shot of Laura, Alison, and Jenny
-
07/08/2021
19
4167
Working shot of Laura, Alison, Jenny, and Dale
-
07/08/2021
20
4168
General working shot
-
07/08/2021
21
4169
Working shot of Tom, Will and Steven
-
07/08/2021
22
4170
Working shot of Steven, Puck, and Tom
-
07/08/2021
23
4171
General working shot
-
07/08/2021
24
4172
Working shot of Dean and Helen
-
07/08/2021
25
4173
Working shot of Dean and Helen
-
07/08/2021
26
4174
General working shot
-
07/08/2021
27
4175
General working shot
-
07/08/2021
28
4176
General working shot
-
07/08/2021
29
4177
Working shot of Steven and the Spindle Whorl
-
07/08/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 34 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
30
4178
Working shot of Will and the badge
-
07/08/2021
31
4179
Post excavation shot of test pit 3
SW
07/08/2021
32
4180
Post excavation shot of test pit 3
NW
07/08/2021
33
4181
Post excavation shot of test pit 4
SW
07/08/2021
34
4182
Post excavation shot of test pit 4
NW
07/08/2021
35
4183
General shot of test pit 4
SW
07/08/2021
36
4184
Post excavation shot of test pit 5
SW
07/08/2021
37
4185
Post excavation shot of test pit 5
SE
07/08/2021
38
4186
Post excavation shot of test pit 5
NW
07/08/2021
39
4187
Post excavation shot of test pit 6
SW
07/08/2021
40
4188
Post excavation shot of test pit 6
NW
07/08/2021
41
4189
Working shot and general shot of test pit 5
-
07/08/2021
42
4190
Post excavation shot of test pit 6
ESE
07/08/2021
43
4191
Post excavation shot of test pit 6
NE
07/08/2021
44
4192
Post excavation shot of test pit 6
SE
07/08/2021
45
4193
Working shot
-
07/08/2021
46
4194
Working shot
-
07/08/2021
47
4195
Backfilling of test pits 1 – 3
SW
07/08/2021
48
4196
Backfilling of test pits 4 - 6
NE
07/08/2021
49
4255
Working Shot of Area 2
-
03/09/2021
50
4256
Working shot of Area 2
-
03/09/2021
51
4257
Working shot of Area 2
-
03/09/2021
52
4258
Working shot of Area 2
-
03/09/2021
53
4259
Working shot of Area 2
-
03/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 35 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
54
4260
Working shot of Area 2
-
03/09/2021
55
4261
Working shot of Area 2
-
03/09/2021
56
4262
Working shot of Area 2
-
03/09/2021
57
4263
Working shot of Area 2
-
03/09/2021
58
4264
Working shot of Area 2
-
03/09/2021
59
4265
Working shot of Area 2
-
03/09/2021
60
4266
Working shot of Area 2
-
03/09/2021
61
4267
Working shot
-
03/09/2021
62
4268
Working shot
-
03/09/2021
63
4269
Test pit 2 from Downslope as finished
SW
03/09/2021
64
4270
Working shot
-
03/09/2021
65
4271
Working shot
-
03/09/2021
66
4272
Working shot
-
03/09/2021
67
4273
Working shot
-
03/09/2021
68
4274
Test pit 7 post-excavation shot
W
03/09/2021
69
4275
Test pit 7 post-excavation shot
S
03/09/2021
70
4276
Test pit 9 post-excavation shot
W
03/09/2021
71
4277
Test pit 9 post-excavation shot
S
03/09/2021
72
4278
Test pit 8 post-excavation shot
W
03/09/2021
73
4279
Test pit 8 post-excavation shot
S
03/09/2021
74
4280
Test pit 10 post-excavation shot
W
03/09/2021
75
4281
Test pit 10 post-excavation shot
S
03/09/2021
76
5001
Test pit 12 post-excavation shot
S
04/09/2021
77
5002
Test pit 12 post-excavation shot
S
04/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 36 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
78
5003
Test pit 12 post-excavation shot
E
04/09/2021
79
5004
Test pit 13 post-excavation shot
S
04/09/2021
80
5005
Test pit 13 post-excavation shot
E
04/09/2021
81
5006
Test pit 14 post-excavation shot
N
04/09/2021
82
5007
Test pit 14 post-excavation shot
N
04/09/2021
83
5008
Test pit 15 post-excavation shot
N
04/09/2021
84
5009
Test pit 15 post-excavation shot
N
04/09/2021
85
5010
Test pit 16 post-excavation shot
N
04/09/2021
86
5011
Test pit 16 post-excavation shot
N
04/09/2021
87
5012
Test pit 17 post-excavation shot
S
04/09/2021
88
5013
Test pit 17 post-excavation shot
S
04/09/2021
Finds Register
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
1
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Hinge
All
07/08/2021
2
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy metal buckle (square)
All
07/08/2021
3
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x horseshoe
All
07/08/2021
4
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy sheet fragment
All
07/08/2021
5
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Pb waste lump
All
07/08/2021
6
001
Flint
1 x Possible gun flint
All
07/08/2021
7
001
Stone
1 x stone with a reaction
All
07/08/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 37 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
8
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x Length of chain
All
07/08/2021
9
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x Metal fixture
All
07/08/2021
10
001
Ferrous Metal
2 x Nails
All
07/08/2021
11
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy bullet casing
All
07/08/2021
12
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy hinge
All
07/08/2021
13
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy watch winder
All
07/08/2021
14
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy strip
All
07/08/2021
15
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x Bolt
All
07/08/2021
16
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy ribbed strip
All
07/08/2021
17
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Fragment of shotgun casing
All
07/08/2021
18
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x NF metal stud
All
07/08/2021
19
001
Glass
Green glass fragment
All
07/08/2021
20
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy coin (Farthing, 1861)
All
07/08/2021
21
001
Ceramic
Earthen ware ceramic fragment
All
07/08/2021
22
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x Metal fragment
All
07/08/2021
23
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy coin (Penny)
All
07/08/2021
24
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Oval mount with central perforation
All
07/08/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 38 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
25
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Pb Strip
All
07/08/2021
26
001
Ferrous Metal
2 x Plate fragments
All
07/08/2021
27
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Oval plaque (22)
All
07/08/2021
28
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy buckle (D-Shaped)
All
07/08/2021
29
001
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Sheet fragment
All
07/08/2021
30
004
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x lead shot
All
03/09/2021
31
004
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Al Bottle cap
All
03/09/2021
32
004
Metal
1 x Metal tube
All
03/09/2021
33
004
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Metal Ointment tube
All
03/09/2021
34
004
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Al Bottle top
All
03/09/2021
35
004
Metal
1 x Metal tube
All
03/09/2021
36
004
Non-Ferrous
Metal
3 x Cu Alloy sheet plate fragment
All
03/09/2021
37
004
Metal
1 x Metal object
All
03/09/2021
38
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Bracket
All
03/09/2021
39
004
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Al Ointment tube
All
03/09/2021
40
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fitting or pin
All
03/09/2021
41
004
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy coin
All
03/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 39 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
42
004
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy flanged plate fragment
All
03/09/2021
43
004
Ferrous Metal
2 x Metal fragments
All
03/09/2021
44
004
Ferrous Metal
2 x Metal objects (Inc. 1 x Nail)
All
03/09/2021
45
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Metal nail
All
03/09/2021
46
004
Ferrous Metal
3 x Sheet Iron object (Possible drainpipe)
All
03/09/2021
47
004
Metal
1 x coin
All
03/09/2021
48
004
Metal
1 x Bottle cap
All
03/09/2021
49
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Tine fragment
All
03/09/2021
50
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Blade or Tine fragment
All
03/09/2021
51
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy strip with rivet hole
All
07/08/2021
52
001
Ferrous Metal
and bone
1 x Pen knife
All
07/08/2021
53
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Pb Strip or sheet fragment
All
07/08/2021
54
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x Large horseshoe
All
07/08/2021
55
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x Nail
All
07/08/2021
56
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x Rasp file
All
07/08/2021
57
001
Ferrous Metal
2 x Nail
All
07/08/2021
58
001
Ceramic
Brown and white banded wire
All
07/08/2021
59
001
Iron
Modern nail – Rounded head
All
07/08/2021
60
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x Flanged plate fragment
All
07/08/2021
61
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Fragment of rivetted strip
All
07/08/2021
62
001
Non-ferrous
1 x Fragment of sheet or plate
All
07/08/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 40 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
Metal
63
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x circular object
All
07/08/2021
64
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy spring or plate fragment
All
07/08/2021
65
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Coin (Ha’penny)
All
07/08/2021
66
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy fragment, drain mount
All
07/08/2021
67
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy dome headed stud
All
07/08/2021
68
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy buckle (square)
All
07/08/2021
69
004
Metal
1 x Metal object
All
03/09/2021
70
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x non-ferrous strip with stone adhering
All
03/09/2021
71
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy strip fragment
All
03/09/2021
72
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Al bottle cap
All
03/09/2021
73
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe pipe fragment
All
03/09/2021
74
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Tine fragment
All
03/09/2021
75
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy D-shaped Buckle
All
03/09/2021
76
004
Metal
1 x Metal object (Stone?)
All
03/09/2021
77
004
Metal
1 x Metal object
All
03/09/2021
78
004
Metal
1 x Metal object
All
03/09/2021
79
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe object
All
03/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 41 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
80
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Hinge fragment
All
03/09/2021
81
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Ring (Possible bit ring?)
All
03/09/2021
82
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy fence wire tensioner
All
03/09/2021
83
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Al Sheet fragment
All
03/09/2021
84
004
Metal
1 x Metal object (stone?)
All
03/09/2021
85
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy coin (Ha’penny)
All
03/09/2021
86
004
Metal
1 x Metal object (can)
All
03/09/2021
87
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy plate fragment
All
03/09/2021
88
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Tap or spigot
All
03/09/2021
89
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Lead strip
All
03/09/2021
90
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Metal tube
All
03/09/2021
91
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Horseshoe fragment
All
03/09/2021
92
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Plate strap
All
03/09/2021
93
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Bolt
All
03/09/2021
94
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe Padlock
All
03/09/2021
95
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy machine fitting
All
03/09/2021
96
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Button
All
03/09/2021
97
004
Non-ferrous
1 x Al case for tractor ID plate
All
03/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 42 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
Metal
98
004
Metal
1 x Coin (1863)
All
03/09/2021
99
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Pb sheathed object
All
03/09/2021
100
004
Metal
1 x Bottle cap
All
03/09/2021
101
001
Ceramic
Pottery
All
07/08/2021
102
001
Ceramic
Pottery
All
07/08/2021
103
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy object
All
07/08/2021
104
001
Stone
Stone shaped like an axe head
All
07/08/2021
105
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Pb shot
All
07/08/2021
106
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x Circular object (Washer)
All
07/08/2021
107
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Pb waste lump
All
07/08/2021
108
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy lapel badge (Shield shaped)
All
07/08/2021
109
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x U shaped staple
All
07/08/2021
110
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x Screw
All
07/08/2021
111
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x Bolt
All
07/08/2021
112
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Pb Waste lump
All
07/08/2021
113
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x Bolt and washer
All
07/08/2021
114
001
Ferrous Metal
1 x Indeterminate object
All
07/08/2021
115
004
Metal
1 x Bolt
All
03/09/2021
116
004
Non-ferrous
1 x Perforated Cu Alloy disk
All
03/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 43 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
Metal
117
004
Metal
1 x Metal object
All
03/09/2021
118
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy coin
All
03/09/2021
119
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy coin
All
03/09/2021
120
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy coin
All
03/09/2021
121
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy coin
All
03/09/2021
122
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Fragment of sheet lead
All
03/09/2021
123
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy strip or bracket
All
03/09/2021
124
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Military Button
All
03/09/2021
125
004
Metal
1 x Bolt
All
03/09/2021
126
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy flanged strip
All
03/09/2021
127
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Fragmentary Pb Spindle Whorl
All
03/09/2021
128
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Folded Pb sheet
All
03/09/2021
129
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Military Button
All
03/09/2021
130
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy object (Spindle?)
All
03/09/2021
131
001
Non-ferrous
1 x Pb Waste lump
All
07/08/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 44 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
Metal
132
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Pb shot
All
07/08/2021
133
001
Stone
Stone
All
07/08/2021
134
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Pb Spindle Whorl
All
07/08/2021
135
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Pb shot
All
07/08/2021
136
001
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Bullet (? Pb)
All
07/08/2021
137
004
Metal
1 x Metal spacer
All
03/09/2021
138
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Toothed fitting
All
03/09/2021
139
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Harness Buckle
All
03/09/2021
140
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Al tube
All
03/09/2021
141
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Metal strip within situ clench bolt
All
03/09/2021
142
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
2 x Cu Alloy Trilobate fittings
All
03/09/2021
143
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Hexagonal-sectioned bolt
All
03/09/2021
144
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Al Foil wrapper
All
03/09/2021
145
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Backet
All
03/09/2021
146
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Al Foil tub
All
03/09/2021
147
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x U-shaped staple
All
03/09/2021
148
004
Metal
1 x Metal lid
All
03/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 45 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
149
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe fragment
All
03/09/2021
150
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Metal object and 2 x Ceramic sherds
All
03/09/2021
151
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Ceramic, 1 x Nail and 1 x Metal wire
All
03/09/2021
152
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Oval plate fragment (Perforated)
All
03/09/2021
153
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Harness fitting
All
03/09/2021
154
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Toy vehicle fragment and 1 x decorative fitting
All
03/09/2021
155
004
Metal (Lead)
1 x Lead object
All
03/09/2021
156
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe wedge shaped object
All
03/09/2021
157
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Sheer Fe with curved profile
All
03/09/2021
158
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Iron strip hinge fragment
MDS
04/09/2021
159
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Circular plate
MDS
04/09/2021
160
006
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cufflink
MDS
04/09/2021
161
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe C-shaped Bracket with hooked attachment
MDS
04/09/2021
162
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe Buckle or fitting
MDS
04/09/2021
163
006
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Fragment of Cartridge case
MDS
04/09/2021
164
006
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Harness fitting (Decorative plaque)
MDS
04/09/2021
165
006
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Al double glazing fixture fragment
MDS
04/09/2021
166
006
Ferrous metal
1 x Fe Bar or strip
MDS
04/09/2021
167
006
Non-ferrous
Metal
3 x Industrial residue fragments
MDS
04/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 46 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
168
006
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Crush Al ointment tub
MDS
04/09/2021
169
006
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Terret
MDS
04/09/2021
170
006
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Lead shot
MDS
04/09/2021
171
006
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Lead shot
MDS
04/09/2021
172
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x 3-ringed bullet
MDS
04/09/2021
173
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fragment Tine
MDS
04/09/2021
174
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Al Ointment tube
MDS
04/09/2021
175
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Circular Escutcheon
MDS
04/09/2021
176
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Non-ferrous bracket fragment (Pipe or tube)
MDS
04/09/2021
177
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy strip with rivet hole
MDS
04/09/2021
178
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x non-ferrous blue painted fitting
MDS
04/09/2021
179
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe plate or strap fragment
MDS
04/09/2021
180
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x fragmentary bar or strip; 2 x iron fragments (Hinge)
MDS
04/09/2021
181
004
Ferrous Metal
1 x Iron bar fragment
MDS
04/09/2021
182
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Al tube (crushed)
MDS
04/09/2021
183
004
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Flanged Cu Alloy strip with rib decoration
MDS
04/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 47 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
184
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x coin – George V half penny (1910 – 1936)
MDS
04/09/2021
185
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Rectangular washer
MDS
04/09/2021
186
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Non-ferrous switch or button
MDS
04/09/2021
187
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy strip fitting
MDS
04/09/2021
188
007
Ferrous Metal
1 x Iron ring
MDS
04/09/2021
189
007
Ferrous Metal
1 x Iron object
MDS
04/09/2021
190
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy button
MDS
04/09/2021
191
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Harness buckle
MDS
04/09/2021
192
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy harness fitting
MDS
04/09/2021
193
007
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fitting
MDS
04/09/2021
194
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Waste spill
MDS
04/09/2021
195
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Sheet lead off-cut
MDS
04/09/2021
196
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Fragment of wire with bolt attached
MDS
04/09/2021
197
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy key fragment
MDS
04/09/2021
198
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Terret
MDS
04/09/2021
199
007
Non-ferrous
1 x Non-ferrous ring or washer
MDS
04/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 48 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
Metal
200
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Lead waste
MDS
04/09/2021
201
TP 4
001
Ceramic
1 x White glazed ceramic
Jenny
07/08/2021
202
TP 4
001
Ceramic
1 x Fragment of tile
Jenny
07/08/2021
203
TP 4
001
Slate
1 x Slate fragment
Jenny
07/08/2021
204
TP 5
001
Glass
1 x Glass fragment
Tom
07/08/2021
205
TP 5
001
Slate
1 x Slate fragment
Tom
07/08/2021
206
TP 5
001
Ceramic
1 x White glazed ceramic
Jenny
07/08/2021
207
TP 5
001
Ceramic
1 x Red earthen ware
Jenny
07/08/2021
208
TP 11
004
Fuel
6 x Coal
Tom
03/09/2021
209
TP 11
004
Ceramic
4 x Sherds
Tom
03/09/2021
210
TP 11
004
Metal
1 x FE (possible)
Tom
03/09/2021
211
TP 11
004
Stone
14 x Lithics (possible)
Tom
03/09/2021
212
TP 11
004
Glass
1 x Glass fragment
Tom
03/09/2021
213
TP 11
004
Bone
5 x Burnt bone
Tom
03/09/2021
214
TP 9
004
Ceramic
1 x Ceramic sherd
Eddie
03/09/2021
215
TP 9
004
Glass
1 x Glass fragment
Eddie
03/09/2021
216
TP 8
004
Bone
1 x Burnt bone
Lizzie
03/09/2021
217
TP 7
004
Ceramic
1 x Ceramic sherd
Andy
03/09/2021
218
TP 7
004
Fuel
2 x Coal
Andy
03/09/2021
219
TP 7
004
Metal
1 x Shotgun cartridge
Andy
03/09/2021
220
TP 7
004
Bone
Bone
Andy
03/09/2021
221
TP 7
004
Lithic
1 x Lithic (Disposed, non-anthropic)
Andy
03/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 49 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
222
TP 10
004
Ceramic
4 x Sherds
Alister
03/09/2021
223
TP 10
004
Bone
6 x Bone fragments
Alister
03/09/2021
224
TP 10
004
Coal
5 x Coal fragments
Alister
03/09/2021
225
TP 10
004
Lithic
3 x Lithics
Alister
03/09/2021
226
TP 10
004
Organic
Burnt fragments
Alister
03/09/2021
227
TP 8
004
CBM
1 x Brick fragment
Lizzie
03/09/2021
228
TP 9
004
Coal
1 x Coal fragment
Eddie
03/09/2021
229
TP 13
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Possible Horseshoe fragment; 1 x Metal strip
Alison,
Stuart &
Sam
04/09/2021
230
TP 14
006
Ceramic
1 x Clay pipe
Sioban
04/09/2021
301
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Reinforcing mount or washer
MDS
04/09/2021
302
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
2 x fragments of Cu alloy hinge or metal ring
MDS
04/09/2021
303
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Harness buckle
MDS
04/09/2021
304
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Sheet lead waste
MDS
04/09/2021
305
007
Ferrous Metal
1 x Iron ‘D’ ring
MDS
04/09/2021
306
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Metal object (Crushed can fragment)
MDS
04/09/2021
307
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Coin
MDS
04/09/2021
308
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
3 x Lead waste
MDS
04/09/2021
309
007
Non-ferrous
1 x Metal buckle
MDS
04/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 50 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
Metal
310
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Button (looped)
MDS
04/09/2021
311
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Metal composite padlock fragment (Non-ferrous & Ferrous combined)
MDS
04/09/2021
312
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy nut and stopper
MDS
04/09/2021
313
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Key Escutcheon
314
007
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Triple Bell Terret
315
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe Fragment
MDS
04/09/2021
316
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe object
MDS
04/09/2021
317
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe plate fragment
MDS
04/09/2021
318
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe strip fragment
MDS
04/09/2021
319
006
Non-ferrous
Metal
1 x Metal nut
MDS
04/09/2021
320
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Iron nail or staple
MDS
04/09/2021
321
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Iron nail
MDS
04/09/2021
322
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Iron nail
MDS
04/09/2021
323
006
Ferrous Metal
2 x Cu Alloy watch fragments
MDS
04/09/2021
324
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Metal nail
MDS
04/09/2021
325
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe fragment
MDS
04/09/2021
326
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Nail fragment
MDS
04/092021
327
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Nail fragment
MDS
04/09/2021
328
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe nail and bolt
Rowan
04/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 51 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
329
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Fe bracket or washer
Rowan
04/09/2021
330
006
Ferrous Metal
1 x Metal fragment shank or tong (Marked 3000)
MDS
04/09/2021
331
004
Ceramic
1 x modern ceramic
All
03/09/2021
332
004
Ceramic
2 x modern ceramic
All
03/09/2021
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 52 of 53
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Contact Details
Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at our Registered Office or through the web:
Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops
Kilwinning
Ayrshire
KA13 6PU
www.rathmell-arch.co.uk
t.:
f.:
e.:
01294 542848
01294 542849
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
End of Document
©2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 53 of 53
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Test Pitting on Threave Estate
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
GGLP_91
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2022
Description
An account of the resource
Surveys and test pitting works undertaken as part of the community archaeology project “Can You Dig It?”.
archaeology
GGLP
-
https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/550/GGLP-CYDI-DSR_MoatBrae.pdf
98de3cf3fb9d1698e937a05141473cab
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – The Castles of Kirkcudbright – Moat Brae
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Reports
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project
Data Structure Report
1.2.d The Castles of Kirkcudbright –
Moat Brae
by Liam McKinstry
th
issued 5
December 2019
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Quality Assurance
This report covers works which have been undertaken in keeping with the issued brief as
modified by the agreed programme of works. The report has been prepared in keeping
with the guidance of Rathmell Archaeology Limited on the preparation of reports. All works
reported on within this document have been undertaken in keeping with the Chartered
Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of Conduct.
Signed
………………………………..
…..5th December 2019……
Date
In keeping with the procedure of Rathmell Archaeology Limited this document and its
findings have been reviewed and agreed by an appropriate colleague:
Checked
………………………………..
…..5th December 2019……
Date
Copyright Rathmell Archaeology Limited. All rights reserved.
No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written
permission from Rathmell Archaeology Limited. If you have received this report in error,
please destroy all copies in your possession or control.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by Rathmell Archaeology Limited. No liability is accepted by
Rathmell Archaeology Limited for any use of this report, other than the purposes for which
it was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Rathmell Archaeology
Limited using due skill, care and diligence and no explicit warranty is provided as to their
accuracy. No independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to
Rathmell Archaeology Limited has been made.
Quality Assurance Data
Author(s)
Liam McKinstry
Date of Issue
5th December 2019
Commissioning Body
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme
Event Name
Moat Brae, Kirkcudbright
Event Type
Excavation
Event Date(s)
1st – 3rd August 2019
Rathmell Archaeology Code
RA18107
Location
United Kingdom : Scotland : Dumfries & Galloway
NGR
NX 68302 51096
Designation(s)
None
Canmore IDs
64081 Motte (Medieval)
Version
Parish
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 1 of 26
1.0
Kirkcudbright
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................. 4
Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 4
Project Works ................................................................................ 4
Findings ......................................................................................... 9
Trench 1.......................................................................................................... 13
Trench 2.......................................................................................................... 13
Artefacts...................................................................................... 14
Discussion ................................................................................... 18
Medieval Period ................................................................................................ 18
Later Medieval and Post-Medieval Period ............................................................. 19
18th – 20th Century Period .................................................................................. 21
Conclusion ................................................................................... 24
Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 24
References .................................................................................. 25
Documentary ................................................................................................... 25
Cartographic .................................................................................................... 25
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland ......................... 26
Appendix 2: Registers.................................................................. 28
Context Register............................................................................................... 28
Photographic Register ....................................................................................... 29
Drawing Register .............................................................................................. 32
Finds Register .................................................................................................. 32
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Figures
Figure 1: Trench location plan at Moat Brae. ......................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Plan and Orthographic Capture of 3D model for Trench 1. ...................................... 6
Figure 3: W Facing Section and Orthographic Capture of 3D model for Trench 1. ................. 7
Figure 4a: Post-excavation view of the Trench 1. From the SW. ............................................ 8
Figure 4b: Working shot of volunteers within Trench 1. From the SW. ................................... 8
Figure 5: Plan and Orthographic Capture of 3D model for Trench 2. .................................... 10
Figure 6: E Facing Section and Orthographic Capture of 3D model for Trench 2. ................ 11
Figure 7a: Post-excavation view of Trench 2 from the NE. ................................................... 12
Figure 7b: Working shot of volunteers within Trench 2. From the SE. .................................. 12
Figure 8a: Medieval pottery from Trenches 1 & 2. Find No. 008 (lower right), Find No. 006
(upper left) and Find No. 013 (upper right). .......................................................................... 15
Figure 8b: Post-medieval pottery sherd from Trench 1, Find No. 008. ................................. 15
Figure 9a: Late 19th or early 20th century buttons. Glass ‘flower motif’ button, Find No. 046
and Cu Alloy ‘McConchie’ button, Find No. 003. .................................................................. 16
Figure 9b: Late 19th or early 20th century slate styluses, Find No. 036 (top row) and Find No.
005 (bottom row). ................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 10a: 19th to 20th century clay tobacco Pipe fragments. Find No. 098 ‘Barrel’ (left), Find
No. 063 ‘Burns Cutty’ (top), ‘BEL- CU[TTY]’ (top right) and also (bottom), Find No. 052
‘knobbed spur’ (bottom right). .............................................................................................. 17
Figure 10b: Selection of 19th to 20th century ceramics, Find No. 066. ................................... 17
Figure 11a: Photograph of Pupils & Teachers of the Old Church School (Greyfriars)
sometime between the late 19th or early 20th centuries (Photo courtesy of Helen Bowick,
Kirkcudbright History Society). ............................................................................................. 20
Figure 11b: View of Moat Brae (showing the timber/ship yard) from the N sometime between
the late 19th or early 20th centuries (Photo courtesy of Helen Bowick, Kirkcudbright History
Society)................................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 12a: William Roy’s Map of the Lowlands 1752-55. .................................................... 23
Figure 12b: John Wood’s Plan of the Town of Kirkcudbright 1843. ...................................... 23
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Introduction
1.
This Data Structure Report describes works carried out for the sub-project on the Castles
of Kirkcudbright carried out as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership (GGLP)
community archaeology project Can You Dig It? This Report presents the results from
excavation works undertaken across the possible medieval timber castle site at Moat Brae
located to the immediate N of Greyfriars Church in Kirkcudbright.
2.
The works were carried out by volunteers supported by Rathmell Archaeology staff. The
structure of the works was drawn from advice and guidance from officers of Galloway Glens
Landscape Partnership (GGLP), Dumfries and Galloway Council and members of the Can
You Dig It? Steering Group.
Historical & Archaeological Background
3.
Tradition holds that Fergus, Lord of Galloway, had a timber castle on Moat Brae (S1 in
Williamson & Rees 2019) in the 12th century (Gourlay & Turner 1978) in addition to his
base at Lochfergus to the NE of the town. There are no remaining structural remains for
the castle still extant and the site exists as an elliptical mound. The area has been used as
the site for various structures in the centuries since.
4.
In the 1450s, the Franciscan Order built a friary complex here (Gordon 2008, 86). After
the reformation in the 1560s, part of the complex was retained as the Parish Church with
the rest being demolished. The Maclellan family had begun to dominate the town’s affairs
from the later 15th century, and Thomas Maclellan of Bombie took over the site of the
convent garden to build his fortified townhouse known as ‘Maclellan’s Castle’ in 1582. For
this purpose he had acquired the right to strip most of the abandoned Franciscan Friary.
5.
The parish kirk was rebuilt in the 1730s, but, outgrown by the 1830s, the congregation
moved to new premises at the present parish kirk. The Moat Brae kirk was then converted
into a school before being turned back into a church in the 1920s, when it became the
Episcopal Church still present today. Some of the building’s component parts still survive
from its earlier phases, namely the ‘Maclellan Aisle’. This is the chancel that had been
added by the Maclellan family to the Franciscan church following its conversion in the late
16th century, and which appears to have survived its various transformations in the years
since. Recent archaeological works under the floor of the current church revealed the
presence of earlier foundations and substantial quantities of redeposited human bone, as
well as an articulated burial beneath the chancel (Maclellan Aisle). No evidence relating to
structures pre-dating the Franciscan church were found.
6.
Aside from the church, the area was also developed commercially and the Basil Warehouse,
complete with timber yard, was built here in the 1730s (Gordon 2008, 87). This warehouse,
having become an eyesore, was demolished in 1895.
Project Works
7.
This phase of the archaeological works focussed on the site of the medieval timber castle
of Moat Brae located to the immediate N of Greyfriars Church in Kirkcudbright (S1 in
Williamson & Rees 2019). The site was located in the centre of Kirkcudbright on a raised
oval mound. Greyfriars Church and grounds took up most of the S part of this mound with
a narrow tarmacked path also running in an E-W direction through the centre of the mound.
Two 3m by 1.5m evaluation trenches were excavated to the immediate N of this narrow
path (Figure 1).
8.
The on-site works were carried out between the 1st and the 3rd August 2019. Both of the
evaluation trenches were hand dug. Trench 1 was located to the immediate N of Greyfriars
Church (Figures 1-4a). Trench 2 was located further E and was located over where the 18th
century warehouse had once been sited (Figures 1 and 5-7a). It was hoped that both
trenches would reveal evidence of the medieval timber castle and show the effect of later
structures on that site.
9.
All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined
in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (McKinstry 2019). The fieldwork was
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Figure 1: Trench location plan at Moat Brae.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Figure 2: Plan and Orthographic Capture of 3D model for Trench 1.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Figure 3: W Facing Section and Orthographic Capture of 3D model for Trench 1.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Figure 4a: Post-excavation view of the Trench 1. From the SW.
Figure 4b: Working shot of volunteers within Trench 1. From the SW.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
undertaken in good weather. In terms of structure, the core field team of Rathmell
Archaeology staff and volunteers were on-site from 8am to 4pm.
Findings
10.
The existing ground surface/topsoil through which both of the trenches were excavated
was in use as an open, grass covered public amenity area. This topsoil, (001), consisted
of mid- grey brown silt with occasional small stone and moderate animal bone, glass and
ceramic inclusions (Figures 3, 4a, 6 and 7a). Topsoil deposit (001) was present across both
Trenches 1 and 2 and had a thickness range of between 0.09m to 0.14m.
11.
Underlying the topsoil (001) was a layer of made ground, (002), which consisted of
moderately compacted, light brown silty sand with frequent small angular stone inclusions
and roots (Figures 3, 4a, 6 and 7a). The deposit was present in both Trenches 1 and 2 and
had a thickness range of between 0.04m to 0.22m.
12.
As well as the inclusions mentioned above, a significant number of artefacts were recovered
from both the topsoil (001) and the underlying made ground deposit (002) in both Trenches
1 and 2. This range of artefacts included ceramic fragments from jars, bottles, dining and
kitchenware, as well as bowls (Find Nos 009, 012, 059, 066, 073, 088 and 096) and stems
from clay pipes (Find Nos 001, 077, 084, 093 and 108). The recovered ceramic material
from these upper deposits mainly dated to between the 19 th and 20th centuries. However
some earlier sherds (Find Nos 011, 035, 066, 073 and 088) of medieval pottery, which
included glazed and unglazed local red wares, white gritty and gritty wares, from the late
12th to early 13th centuries, were also recovered (Figure 8a).
13.
A number of metal, glass and lithic artefacts were also identified within the upper two
layers, (001) and (002), within both trenches. Many of the metal artefacts recovered
consisted of corroded iron or iron alloy objects for which the type or function of the artefact
was difficult to determine. Some less corroded artefacts, such as Find Nos 038, 068 and
081, may have been nails possibly from structures that once stood on the site or more
likely derived from activities within the timber/ship yard to the E. Other Iron alloy artefacts
such as a possible chisel (Find No. 010) and a possible broken chain link or piece of padlock
(Find No. 081) may also have been used in the timber/ship yard. A small number of copper
alloy (Cu) artefacts were recovered which consisted of predominantly 20th century coins,
the earliest of which was an Edwardian halfpenny from 1903 (Find No. 015) and a small
brass lock plate marked ‘Handmade Lock’ (Find No. 004). Of particular note was a small
Cu alloy button (Find No. 003) which was coated black and stamped with
‘R.McConchie.Kirkcudbright’ the name of a local Kirkcudbright tailor and photographer in
the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century (Figure 9a).
14.
Much of the glass recovered (Find Nos 037, 057, 069 and 080) was very fragmented
material from bottles or window panes dating to the 19th or 20th century. Of note was a
small spherical glass bead (Find No. 60) of post-medieval or later date which appeared to
have a frosted or white coloured appearance.
15.
A small amount of animal bone, mainly sheep and cattle, (Find Nos 019, 040, 064, 092,
094 and 101) was recovered from the upper deposits. No other organic material was
identified.
16.
Only a small number of lithics were identified which included small chunks of flint and
quartz. Of these, two (Find Nos 071 and 082) showed signs of working, with Find No 071
most likely waste material from flint knapping and Find No. 082 possibly a fragment from
a small flake or tool. Of particular note was a small number of slate styluses (Find Nos 005,
026, 062 and 079) (Figure 9b) which were recovered from both deposits (001) and (002).
17.
Amounts of fragmented building material, such as roofing slate (Find Nos 034, 075 and
087), and industrial waste, such as slag and coal (Find Nos 039, 070, 072, 078, 083, 104
and 109), were recovered from the two upper deposits, (001) and (002). From the mixed
date range of the artefacts and materials recovered from the upper two deposits it is
unclear what date these are but it most probably 19th or 20th century in date and derives
from the timber/ship yard.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Figure 5: Plan and Orthographic Capture of 3D model for Trench 2.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Figure 6: E Facing Section and Orthographic Capture of 3D model for Trench 2.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Figure 7a: Post-excavation view of Trench 2 from the NE.
Figure 7b: Working shot of volunteers within Trench 2. From the SE.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Trench 1
18.
Within Trench 1 (Figures 3 and 4a) four deposits/layers were identified underlying the layer
of made ground (002). The uppermost of these was deposit (003) which consisted of firmly
compacted, yellow mottled yellow grey clayey sand with stone, root and charcoal
inclusions. The deposit had a thickness range of between 0.07m to 0.15m. As with the
existing ground surface, (001), and the made ground, (002), this deposit contained a
number of ceramic artefacts from the 19th to 20th century (Find No. 027). There was also
a medieval sherd and post-medieval sherd (Find No. 008) (Figure 8b) recovered from the
deposit. The medieval sherd was a thick walled gritty ware dating from the late 12 th to
early 13th centuries and the post-medieval sherd was a thick walled grey reduced ware
dating from the 16th to 17th centuries. Other artefacts recovered from the deposit included
glass fragments (Find No. 029), industrial waste such as slag, charcoal and coal (Find Nos
030 and 032), building materials such as slate and mortar (Find Nos 031 and 107) and a
small amount of animal bone (Find No. 033). Underlying deposit, (003), was another
deposit, (004), which consisted of a firmly compacted, mid- yellow grey clay sand with
moderate small stone inclusions. The deposit had a thickness range of between 0.17m to
0.22m. This deposit was found to be devoid of artefacts.
19.
Beneath deposit (004) were two deposits, (007) and (008).The uppermost of these two
deposits, (007), consisted of moderate to firmly compacted, mid- orange brown clayey
sand with frequent charcoal and root inclusions. The deposit had a thickness range of
between 0.12m to 0.18m and was identified at a depth of 0.43m to 0.45m from the existing
ground surface. The lower deposit, (008), consisted of moderate to firmly compacted, midorange brown clayey sand with some angular stone and river cobble inclusions. The deposit
had a thickness range of between 0.04m to 0.08m and was located at a depth of 0.45m to
0.62m from the existing ground surface. Sherds of medieval unglazed gritty and red wares
dating from the late 12th and early 13th centuries, were recovered from within deposit
(007) (Find Nos 007 and 013) and also from within deposit (008) (Find No 006) (Figure
8a).
20.
The naturally occurring subsoil, (009), was identified underlying deposit (008) at a depth
of 0.62m to 0.64m from the existing ground surface. The subsoil consisted of moderately
compacted, light mottled grey yellow sand with no inclusions.
Trench 2
21.
Within Trench 2 (Figures 5, 6 and 7a) one deposit, (005), and a slightly curvilinear feature,
(006), was identified underlying the layer of made ground (002). Deposit (005) consisted
of firmly compacted, mid- yellow grey clay sand with moderate small stone inclusions. The
deposit has an excavated thickness range of between 0.08m to 0.29m. A large number of
artefacts were recovered from the deposit; as with the topsoil, (001), and the made
ground, (002), this deposit contained a number of 19th century pottery sherds (Find No.
020), heavily corroded iron objects (Find Nos 023 and 025), a mix of glass window pane
and bottle fragments (Find No. 021), industrial waste (Find No. 103) and building materials
such as slate (Find No. 022).
22.
Curvilinear feature (006) was orientated in a NE-SW direction cut into the surface of deposit
(005). The feature was identified at a depth of 0.16m below the existing ground surface.
It had an excavated length of 1.8m, a width of 0.44m to 0.48m and an excavated depth
of 0.24m to 0.38m. The feature could not be fully excavated due to the presence of tree
roots which ran through the fill of the cut but from what was excavated it could be seen
that the feature had steeply sloping sides. The fill consisted of a firmly compacted, midgrey sandy clay with frequent irregular shaped stone and root inclusions. A number of
artefacts were recovered from the fill including 19th century pottery sherds (Find Nos 050
to 052), a mixture of 19th or 20th century glass window and bottle fragments (Find No.
041), industrial waste (Find Nos 043 and 053), building materials such as slate (Find Nos
042) and a small quantity of animal bone (Find No. 045). Of note was a 19th or 20th century
hexagonal shaped black glass button with a flower motif on it (Find No. 046) and slate
styluses (Find No. 047).
23.
Due to the firm compaction of the deposits and presence of tree roots it was not possible
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
to excavate deeper than 0.44m so the level of the naturally occurring subsoil was not
reached.
Artefacts
By Louise Turner
24.
A broad range of objects were recovered during the excavations, with ceramics, glass,
metal and coarse stone (including slate) all well-represented.
25.
Arguably the most informative group of this material was the ceramics. It was dominated
by modern pottery wares (Figure 10b), with glazed white earthenwares particularly wellrepresented. Of these, a number showed evidence of transfer-printing in a variety of
colourways, including blue-and-white, red-and-white, green-and-white and black-andwhite. Sherds derived from brown-glazed red and white earthenware teapots also occurred
amongst the assemblage. These wares and colourways are typical of the period spanning
c.1820 to 1860, and while this does not necessarily imply that they were deposited or even
manufactured during this narrow time frame, it is interesting to note that pottery types
typical of the first few decades and the last few decades of the 19 th century were much
more poorly represented. Examples of earlier wares could potentially have included a group
of tin-glazed white earthenware sherds (six of which derived from the same vessel (Find
No. 088, Trench 1, (002)), a sponge-decorated sherd (Find No. 066, Trench 2, (002)) and
sherds from a coarse, hand-thrown red earthenware jar with brown slip (Find No. 020,
Trench 2, (005)). The latter is a particular long-lived form of vessel which has its origins
in the late 18th century and continues well into the 19th century. Later wares were
represented by stoneware, which occurred in very small quantities (e.g. two sherds
included amongst Find No. 066, Trench 2, (002)). An exception to this general rule was
provided by five stoneware stoppers derived from ‘Codd’ type aerated drinks bottles (Find
No. 011, Trench 1, (002); Find No. 051, Trench 2, (006) and Find No. 059, Trench 2,
(002)). These had been removed from their parent bottles, probably by children who reused them as marbles, and they appear to represent a separate phase of use from that
characterised by the deposition of much-fragmented and occasionally heavily burnt vessels
derived from a domestic setting.
26.
The modern ceramic sherds were distributed throughout contexts (001), (002), (003),
(005) and (006). A similar date range was also evidenced by the glass component of the
assemblage, which was dominated by modern bottle glass, with a small number of 19th
century upright wine bottles also present (e.g. Find No. 041, Trench 2, (006)). Occasional
fragments of modern window glass – comprising float glass, which must post-date the
1950s – pushed the date range of these deposits even further forward with fragments
occurring in Trench 1 (002) (Find No. 057 and Find No. 080), Trench 2 (005) (Find No.
021) and Trench 2 (006) (Find No. 041). In addition to the window glass, further evidence
of demolition debris was found in the form of fragmentary roofing slates (e.g. Find No.
055, from Trench 2 (002)) and structural ironwork, with the latter dominated by nails (e.g.
Find No. 068, from Trench 1 (001)), although occasional fragments of cast iron drainpipe
were also present (e.g. Find No. 097, Trench 2 (002)). The character of this material was
consistent with a building constructed from the early 1800s onwards.
27.
Occurring in association with the modern finds detailed above was a small group of sherds
derived from medieval and post-medieval wares. Numbering 12 in total, they were
dominated by medieval wares, with only one sherd of post-medieval reduced ware (Find
No. 008) (Figure 8b) present (originating in the period spanning the 15 th to early 17th
centuries). Six of the sherds were representative of gritty wares, similar either to red gritty
fabrics recovered from the excavations at Whithorn and dated by Clarke to a period
spanning the mid- to late 12th to early 14th centuries (e.g. Find No. 006), or white gritty
fabrics (e.g. Find No. 020), which Clarke suggests have a roughly similar date range,
although extend slightly further into the mid-14th century. The balance of the medieval
ceramics comprised sherds comparable with Clarke’s ‘Local Green-Glazed Wares’, which in
this case span a date range extending from the mid-13th century to the late 14th century.
The preponderance of unglazed sherds, probably derived from cooking pots, might suggest
an origin earlier in the sequence, as cooking pots tend to fall out of use during the 14 th
century when metal vessels become more widely available.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Figure 8a: Medieval pottery from Trenches 1 & 2. Find No. 008 (lower right), Find No. 006
(upper left) and Find No. 013 (upper right).
Figure 8b: Post-medieval pottery sherd from Trench 1, Find No. 008.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Figure 9a: Late 19th or early 20th century buttons. Glass ‘flower motif’ button, Find No. 046
and Cu Alloy ‘McConchie’ button, Find No. 003.
Figure 9b: Late 19th or early 20th century slate styluses, Find No. 036 (top row) and Find
No. 005 (bottom row).
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Figure 10a: 19th to 20th century clay tobacco Pipe fragments. Find No. 098 ‘Barrel’ (left),
Find No. 063 ‘Burns Cutty’ (top), ‘BEL- CU[TTY]’ (top right) and also (bottom), Find No.
052 ‘knobbed spur’ (bottom right).
Figure 10b: Selection of 19th to 20th century ceramics, Find No. 066.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
28.
While the majority of the medieval sherds (Figure 8a) occurred alongside objects of modern
origin within disturbed upper deposits, three sherds (Find Nos 006, 007 and 013), were
recovered from in situ medieval deposits, (007) and (008), within Trench 1. From the range
of wares occurring, we could infer a date range for this material which spanned the second
half of the 13th century, i.e. c. 1250-1300 (see discussion of pottery types above). This
date range overlaps to some extent with the proposed date range for the medieval ceramic
assemblage from recent excavations at Castledykes; these could be dated, through
comparison with observations made by various ceramic specialists during a succession of
excavations on castle and ecclesiastical sites throughout Dumfries and Galloway and
further afield, to a period spanning c. 1220-1270. Earlier activity, predating even the
medieval period, was demonstrated by the presence of a worked piece of flint (Find No.
082, Trench 1 (002)). This was classed as an irregular flake, possibly snapped off from the
distal end of a larger flake or blade.
29.
Amongst the modern finds, a number were of interest for their contribution to social
history. In particular, there were items associated with the site’s long history of use as a
school in the period c. 1843 to 1920. In particular, the nine slate styluses (e.g. Find No.
062, from Trench 2 (002) and Find No. 036 (Figure 9b), from Trench 1 (002)) will have
derived from this phase of use, and it is likely, too, that the stoneware stoppers from ‘Codd’
type bottles used as marbles (Find Nos 011, 051 and 059) were also associated with the
school. A number of fragments derived from clay tobacco pipes (Figure 10a) were also
present, including one fragment from a bowl shaped in the form of a barrel (Find No. 098),
while another bore the maker’s stamp of well-known Glasgow pipemaker William White,
who operated over an extended period between 1805 and 1901. A more local connection
was provided by a Cu Alloy button stamped with the legend ‘R McConchie Kirkcudbright’
around its circumference (Find No. 003, Trench 1, (001); Figure 9a). This potentially links
the object with ‘R. McConchie,’ who is cited in 1878 as a tailor amongst the gathered
Incorporated Trades at the firing of the ‘Siller Gun.’ It is possible that the button formed
part of a garment manufactured by McConchie at around this time. A number of Cu Alloy
coins were also recovered; most post-dated decimalisation in 1971, but one earlier penny
dated to 1903 and the reign of Edward VII was recovered (Find No. 015, Trench 1, (001)).
30.
Small quantities of metallurgical slag were recovered in association with small fragments
of burnt and unburnt coal and coal-based fuel ash slag. None were associated with in situ
deposit (007) and they are likely to represent intrusive material of modern origin,
potentially generated during small-scale smithing activities. Small quantities of animal
bone were recovered; where identifiable, they could be classed as derived from domestic
sheep or cattle, with some butchery marks noted.
Discussion
31.
Though only one feature was identified within the excavated trenches at Moat Brae –
curvilinear feature (006) – the deposits identified, artefacts recovered and archival
evidence allow for a great deal of interpretation of the site. From this data it is possible to
show that there were at least three phases of activity.
Medieval Period
32.
The earliest phases were identified within Trench 1 and consisted of two medieval deposits,
(007) and (008), which overlay the naturally occurring subsoil (009) (Figures 3 and 4a).
The lowest and earliest of these layers was deposit (008). This contained small angular
stones and river cobbles within its makeup which may be naturally occurring, though there
is the possibility that the stones represented the remains of a deliberately constructed
surface. The uppermost and later deposit, (007), contained frequent amounts of charcoal
flecking in its makeup suggesting that it may possibly have been an occupation layer built
up over deposit (008).
33.
The earliest deposit, (008), contained one sherd of medieval pottery (Find No. 006; Figure
8a) from an unglazed pink-orange gritty fabric vessel, while the uppermost deposit, (007),
contained two sherds of medieval pottery. The first of these sherds (Find No. 007), was a
base sherd from an unglazed gritty variant base. The second, Find No. 013, was from an
unglazed local red ware vessel. All of the pottery sherds recovered from deposits (007)
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
and (008) were dated to between the late 12th and early 13th centuries.
34.
Other sherds of medieval pottery from the late 12 th to early 13th century were recovered
from the upper fills – (001), (002) and (003) – within both Trenches 1 and 2 (Figures 1-3
and 5-6). These artefacts were most likely disturbed from lower layers during building and
demolition activities carried out at the site from the early 18 th century onwards. Though
not in situ, these sherds are consistent with the dates of the artefacts found in the more
secure contexts and hint at a greater level of medieval activity across the Moat Brae site.
35.
There is no definite evidence for the presence of the 12th century timber castle at Moat
Brae, the creation of which is locally attributed to Fergus Lord of Galloway. Historically
Fergus first appears in AD 1136 as a witness to a charter from David I, King of Scotland
and dies, after being removed from power, in AD 1161 after Galloway becomes forcefully
assimilated into the Kingdom of Scotland by Malcolm IV, King of Scotland. He was said to
be of Norse-Gaelic descent and this seems to be corroborated by his warlike activities in
Ireland and the Western Isles of Scotland during the early part of the 12th century.
36.
Fergus’s main seat of power was at Lochfergus Castle (Canmore ID 64070) located 1.5km
to the E of the site at Moat Brae. The Moat Brae site may have been constructed by Fergus
to protect the access to the River Dee and also as a naval base for his ships which allowed
him to carry out naval expeditions to Ireland and the Western Isles. As there is no definite
archaeological evidence for a timber castle at Moat Brae it may be that the site was more
of a defended enclosure positioned on a prominent rise close to the river, possibly along
the lines of the Viking period longphort site type constructed in Ireland during the 9th and
10th century.
37.
Moat Brae’s proximity to the Kirk or Church of St Cuthbert’s, which was located 0.8km to
the E and may have been founded sometime between AD 750 to 850, might have been
deliberate as there may already have been some form of settlement and port already here,
in what would later become the town and burgh of Kirkcudbright (which took its name from
the church). The timber castle, enclosure or whatever defensive works were constructed
by Fergus Lord of Galloway at Moat Brae may have been a formalising and defence of a
settlement and port which already existed in the early 12 th century. The two medieval
deposits, (007) and (008), identified within Trench 1 may represent activity within the
latter stages of such a site as it transitioned from being a defensive castle or enclosure to
the burgeoning medieval town and burgh of Kirkcudbright. It may also correspond with
Galloway’s full incorporation into the Kingdom of Scotland where the need for a fortified
site for naval activity at Moat Brae would no longer be needed. By the end of the 12th
century, possibly due to the growth of Kirkcudbright and political and social changes, a
new castle was constructed at Castledykes located 0.6km to the W of the town which would
have finally made any remnants of a fortified castle or enclosure at Moat Brae superfluous.
Later Medieval and Post-Medieval Period
38.
The late 12th to 13th century deposits, (007) and (008), within Trench 1 were sealed by
deposit, (004), which was devoid of artefacts and organic material, such as charcoal
(Figures 3 and 4a). This suggests that the deposit may have built up naturally over a
number of years after the abandonment of the castle or enclosure at Moat Brae. It is known
from historical sources that the later 15th century Franciscan friary, with the exception of
the church, did not expand much onto the Moat Brae site but did utilise it as a burial ground
(which it would continue as up until the early 18th century). It is possible that later burials
may have been cut into this deposit but no traces were identified in either of the two
trenches and no human remains were identified during the excavation. The possibility that
Moat Brae may have been in use as a graveyard during this period might also explain why
no artefacts dating to the 14th and 15th centuries were recovered from the two trenches.
39.
After the reformation of 1560, the friaries of Scotland were abandoned with the land being
sold off and buildings being reused or demolished. This was the case at Moat Brae where
the monastery was obtained by charter in 1569 by Sir Thomas Maclellan of Bombie
(Williamson and Rees 2019). He then went on to demolish it, with the exception of the
frairy’s church at Moat Brae, and build the nearby ‘Maclellan’s Castle’ from the
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Figure 11a: Photograph of Pupils & Teachers of the Old Church School (Greyfriars)
sometime between the late 19th or early 20th centuries (Photo courtesy of Helen Bowick,
Kirkcudbright History Society).
Figure 11b: View of Moat Brae (showing the timber/ship yard) from the N sometime
between the late 19th or early 20th centuries (Photo courtesy of Helen Bowick, Kirkcudbright
History Society).
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
demolished material from the friary. No definitive trace of this demolition was noted within
either of the trenches which would make sense as they would have been to the immediate
N of the medieval church and outwith what we know of the friary’s boundaries.
40.
Only one post-medieval artefact was recovered, a sherd of reduced ware (Find No. 008)
with a date range of between the 16 th and 17th centuries; unfortunately it came from a
mixed deposit (003) within Trench 1 (Figures 3 and 4a). This artefact’s date range could
correspond to the demolition of the friary in the 16 th century but the fact that the deposit
in which it was recovered also contained a large amount of 19th and 20th century artefacts,
may suggest that it had come from either a nearby disturbed post-medieval deposit or had
been brought in from outwith the site.
18th – 20th Century Period
41.
A very mixed sandy clay deposit, (003), overlay later medieval and/or post-medieval
deposit (004) within Trench 1 and a similar deposit, (005), was identified within Trench 2.
The artefactual evidence recovered from both deposits was predominantly 19 th or 20th
century in date. This included sherds from pottery vessels, glass fragments, building
materials (slate and brick), miscellaneous metal artefacts (predominantly heavily corroded
iron objects) and industrial waste such as coal and slag. The deposit within Trench 1, (003),
was much thinner with a maximum thickness of 0.15m, compared to the similar deposit,
(005), within Trench 2 which had an excavated minimum thickness of 0.29m. Deposit
(005) was not fully excavated down to the next stratigraphic layer/deposit due to the
presence of tree roots within Trench 2 but it seems probable that the deposit would have
gone much deeper.
42.
The reason for this difference may be due to the construction of the ‘Basil’ Warehouse and
its associated timber/ship building yard and wharf in 1734 (Robison 1915-16) which was
first depicted on Roy’s Map of the Lowlands from 1752-55 (Figure 12a). One of the first
detailed maps of Kirkcudbright, surveyed by John Wood in 1843 (Figure 12b), shows the
yard with a straight boundary dividing it from the mound of Moat Brae to the W. Straight
boundaries shown to the N and S might also suggest that this part of the mound had been
at least partially levelled as part of the construction. A photograph of Moat Brae taken in
either late 19th or early 20th century (Figure 11b) seems to confirm the levelling of the E
part of the mound for the warehouse. The ‘Basil’ Warehouse and its associated structures
were eventually demolished in 1895 (Robison 1915-16) with the area being repurposed as
a public space. The mixed nature of the material within deposits (003) and (005), which
contained material predominantly from the 19th and 20th centuries, was most likely because
they were made ground or demolition deposits used in 1895 to reconstitute the E half of
Moat Brae. There is also the possibility that these deposits may have been imported from
outwith Moat Brae to replace the material likely taken off site when it was levelled in the
18th century.
43.
The construction of the timber/ship yard and wharf was preceded by the partial demolition
and rebuilding of the church or kirk at Moat Brae in 1730, which seems to have been rebuilt
directly over the original church foundations incorporating some of its earlier structure. By
the early 19th century the church was judged as being too small and a new church was
built elsewhere in Kirkcudbright in 1836. In 1839 the church at Moat Brae was partially
demolished with the stone being used to create the boundary/retaining wall that surrounds
the mound. The remnants of the church, which still retained some of the earliest medieval
and post-medieval elements of the building such as the ‘Maclellan Aisle’, was to be rebuilt
as a smaller building that would become the Old Church School (Robison 1915-16). This
possibly occurred sometime after 1843, as Wood’s map from that year (Figure 12b) still
depicts the structure as ‘remains of old church’ with no mention of its use as a school.
44.
The two uppermost deposits identified within Trenches 1 and 2, the topsoil (001) and made
ground (002), seem to represent 20th century or later deposition most likely as a result of
the maintenance of the open amenity area at Moat Brae. The finds recovered from these
deposits were similar to the deposits below, (003) and (005), with large amounts of 19th
and 20th century ceramics, glass, heavily corroded metal etc. mixed with occasional earlier
medieval pottery sherds. The reason for this mix in the date range of the artefacts may be
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
due to 20th century landscaping at the site and as with the lower deposits, (003) and (005),
the upper most deposits may have originated from outwith Moat Brae. Curvilinear feature
(006), which was cut into deposit (005), may have been a rubble drain created in the latter
part of the 19th century as part of the reconstitution of the mound at Moat Brae after the
demolition of the timber/ship yard. All of the finds recovered from its fill were similar to
those recovered from deposit (005). The exception to this was a 19th or 20th century
hexagonal-shaped black glass button with a flower motif on it (Find No. 046) (Figure 9a).
45.
Though the artefacts recovered from the upper deposits within Trenches 1 and 2 – (001),
(002), (003) and (005) – were fairly mixed with regards to their date range, and hence
most likely ex situ, it may be that they originally derived from nearby in situ medieval
deposits such as (007) and (008) or, for the later 19th and 20th century artefacts, been
imported or deposited from the nearby timber/ship building yard or Old Church School
(‘Greyfriars’). A number of artefacts recovered from the upper layers, such as the slate
styluses (Figure 9b), may have been directly deposited in the late 19 th or early 20th
centuries by children from the Old Church School (Figure 11a). Other artefacts recovered,
such as roofing slate potentially reused by the children to write on with their styluses,
ceramic marbles from glass bottles perhaps used by the children for games and a small
brass lock plate (Find No. 004) possibly from a desk drawer, may also have originated from
the school with the children using Moat Brae as their playground.
46.
Much of the industrial waste recovered from the upper deposits – (001), (002), (003) and
(005) – such as slag and coal most likely derived from the timber/ship building yard and
wharf which occupied much of the E part of Moat Brae from the early 18 th century onwards.
Many of the metal artefacts recovered from the upper deposits, such as iron nails, a
possible chisel (Find No. 010), part of a chain or padlock (Find No. 081) and clay pipe
fragments (Find Nos 001, 052, 063, 077, 084, 093, 098, 108 and 110) may also have
derived from the day to day activities of the timber/ship yard workers during the years it
was active.
47.
The finds recovered from the two trenches at Moat Brae give us a physical timeline for the
site. The medieval pottery found within the lower deposits in Trench 1 hint at late 12th to
early 13th century occupation either within Fergus Lord of Galloway’s timber
castle/enclosure or during the growth of the town and burgh of Kirkcudbright itself. No
artefacts were recovered that were associated with the 14 th to 15th century Franciscan
friary but the sterile deposit (004) within Trench 1 that sealed the earlier 12 th and 13th
century deposits may have been associated with the friary’s (and the later town’s)
graveyard. Though recovered from one of the upper mixed deposits, a single sherd of 16 th
to 17th century reduced ware, shows that there was post-medieval activity close to the
site.
48.
The 19th and 20th century artefacts demonstrate the later day-to-day activities being
carried out by the people of Kirkcudbright at or close to the site, such as making and using
nails at the timber/ship yard evidenced by the bits of slag and corroded nails recovered,
or children learning their ‘ABCs’ or arithmetic at the Old Church School, writing their
workings with slate styluses possibly on old roof tiles. We can even put a local name to the
maker of one artefact with the copper alloy button bearing the name
‘R.McConchie.Kirkcudbright’. Robert McConchie (as discussed in the Findings and Artefacts
sections) was a local Kirkcudbright tailor and photographer in the latter half of the 19th
century and early 20th century who used his photography skills for his friend, the local
artist Edward Atkinson Hornel. Hornel was associated with the ‘Glasgow Boys’ art
movement and often used younger chaperoned models who were first photographed by
McConchie with the photograph then painted at a later date by Hornel in his studio.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Figure 12a: William Roy’s Map of the Lowlands 1752-55.
Figure 12b: John Wood’s Plan of the Town of Kirkcudbright 1843.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Conclusion
49.
The Can You Dig It? archaeological excavation at Moat Brae in Kirkcudbright was carried
out as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership project and involved input from
archaeologists, volunteers and the local community (Figures 4b and 7b). Though only two
small trenches were excavated, the team of volunteers managed to identify at least three
phases of activity at the site. The first trench, which was located to the immediate N of
Greyfriars Episcopal Church, contained two deposits from which came sherds of late 12th
to early 13th century medieval pottery. These layers were interpreted as either a possible
surface/occupation layer from within the 12th century timber castle/enclosure said to have
been constructed by Fergus Lord of Galloway at Moat Brae, or as evidence for the start of
the medieval town and burgh of Kirkcudbright.
50.
A thick deposit which was devoid of artefactual evidence and directly overlay the medieval
deposits was interpreted as either late medieval or post-medieval in date. The deposit
seemed to represent the period after the timber castle/enclosure had been abandoned and
possibly related to its reuse as a burial site for the 15th century Franciscan friary, the church
of which (‘Greyfriars’), was located over the SW portion of Moat Brae.
51.
Over the post-medieval deposit lay made ground or demolition deposits which contained a
number of artefacts that dated predominantly to the 19th and 20th centuries, though
occasional sherds of medieval pottery and one sherd of post-medieval pottery were also
recovered. Of note were a number of artefacts, such as slate styluses and ceramic marbles,
which came from the nearby Greyfriars church when it was in use as a school during the
late 19th and early 20th centuries. Other artefacts, such as iron nails and industrial waste
seem to relate to the early 18th century ‘Basil’ Warehouse and its associated timber/ship
yard which were located on the E half of Moat Brae. The deposits were most likely the
result of the warehouse’s demolition and the subsequent reconstitution of the E part of the
mound at Moat Brae at the end of the 19th century.
52.
The final period of the site seemed to involve limited landscaping carried out during the
20th century as the uppermost deposits contained a mixture of artefacts with a varied date
range, though they were predominantly of 19th or 20th century date.
Acknowledgements
53.
This project is part of a wider Community Archaeology project, ‘Can You Dig It’, run by the
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme from February 2019 to March 2020. See
www.gallowayglens.org.uk/Resources and follow ‘Can You Dig It’ for their published
outputs. The Community Archaeology project was offered free to volunteers thanks to
funding from the Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland. The land is owned by
Dumfries and Galloway Council who kindly allowed us access and gave their support and
guidance for the works. Guidance was also given by Dumfries and Galloway Council
Archaeology Service and members of the local Kirkcudbright History Society (particular
thanks to Helen Bowick for the old photographs of Moat Brae).
54.
The author would like to thank all of the hardworking volunteers who took part in the
excavation: Jenny Roberts, Tom Marshall, Morag Ritchie, Aaron Johnston, Laura BergsvikJohnston, William Bergsvik-Johnston, Helen Phillips, Eva Armstrong-Phillips, Emma Gibson,
Daisy Gibson, Maddy Gibson, Tracy Lamont, Molly Newman, Billy Newman, Helen Keron,
Noah Keron, Sanna Keron, Kate Webster, Ava Webster, Aelia Gilby, Graeme Kyle and his
two children. Thanks should also go to the Kirkcudbright Arts and Craft Trail, who invited
‘Can You Dig It’ and this dig to be a venue at their 2019 open weekend, and to all of the
Kirkcudbright locals (and those from further afield) who dropped by the site while we were
carrying out the excavation to learn about Kirkcudbright’s history and have a chat.
55.
The support and guidance provided by Andrew Nicholson, David Devereux and Rathmell
Archaeology staff member Jack Portwood on site was much appreciated by everyone
involved. Further thanks should go to Thomas Rees and Claire Williamson for their guidance
throughout the project. Final thanks to Dr Louise Turner for her work on the artefact
analysis and Laura Anderson for her analysis of the animal bone recovered from the site.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 24 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
References
Documentary
Gordon, H. 2008 The Kirkcudbrightshire Companion, Galloway Publishing (Kirkcudbright)
Gourlay, R. & Turner, A. 1978 Historic Kirkcudbright: the archaeological implications of
development, Scottish Burgh Survey, University of Glasgow (Glasgow)
McKinstry, L. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community
Archaeology Project, Risk Assessment Method Statement 1.2.d The Castles of
Kirkcudbright (Moat Brae), unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Robison, J. 1915-16 ‘The Greyfriars and the Moat Brae, Kirkcudbright’ in the Transactions
& Proceedings of the Dumfriesshire & Galloway Natural History & Antiquaries Society.
Williamson, C. & Rees, T. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project, Research Design 1.2.d The Castles of Kirkcudbright
unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Cartographic
1752-55
Roy, W.
Map of the Lowlands
1843
Wood, J.
Plan of the Town of Kirkcudbright
1854
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 1st edition, Kirkcudbrightshire, Sheet 50
1896
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 2nd edition, Kirkcudbrightshire, Sheet LV.NW
1909
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 3rd edition, Kirkcudbrightshire, Sheet LV.NW
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 25 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland
LOCAL AUTHORITY:
Dumfries & Galloway
PROJECT TITLE/SITE
NAME:
Galloway Glens – Moat Brae, Kirkcudbright
PROJECT CODE:
RA18107
PARISH:
Kirkcudbright
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR:
Liam McKinstry
NAME OF ORGANISATION:
Rathmell Archaeology Limited
TYPE(S) OF PROJECT:
Excavation
NMRS NO(S):
NX65SE 40 (Canmore ID 64081)
SITE/MONUMENT TYPE(S):
Motte (Medieval)
SIGNIFICANT FINDS:
None
NGR (2 letters, 8 or 10
figures)
NX 68302 51096
START DATE (this season)
1st August 2019
END DATE (this season)
3rd August 2019
PREVIOUS WORK (incl.
DES ref.)
None
MAIN (NARRATIVE) 56.
DESCRIPTION: (may
include information from
other fields)
The Can You Dig It? archaeological excavation at Moat Brae in
Kirkcudbright was carried out as part of the Galloway Glens
Landscape Partnership project and involved input from
archaeologists, volunteers and the local community. Though only two
small trenches were excavated, the team of volunteers managed to
identify at least three phases of activity at the site. The first trench,
which was located to the immediate N of Greyfriars Episcopal
Church, contained two deposits from which came sherds of late 12 th
to early 13th century medieval pottery. These layers were interpreted
as either a possible surface/occupation layer from within the 12 th
century timber castle/enclosure said to have been constructed by
Fergus Lord of Galloway at Moat Brae, or as evidence for the start of
the medieval town and burgh of Kirkcudbright.
57.
A thick deposit which was devoid of artefactual evidence and directly
overlay the medieval deposits was interpreted as either late medieval
or post-medieval in date. The deposit seemed to represent the period
after the timber castle/enclosure had been abandoned and possibly
related to its reuse as a burial site for the 15th century Franciscan
friary, the church of which (‘Greyfriars’), was located over the SW
portion of Moat Brae.
58.
Over the post-medieval deposit lay made ground or demolition
deposits which contained a number of artefacts that dated
predominantly to the 19th and 20th centuries, though occasional
sherds of medieval pottery and one sherd of post-medieval pottery
were also recovered. Of note were a number of artefacts, such as
slate styluses and ceramic marbles, which came from the nearby
Greyfriars church when it was in use as a school during the late 19 th
and early 20th centuries. Other artefacts, such as iron nails and
industrial waste seem to relate to the early 18th century ‘Basil’
Warehouse and its associated timber/ship yard which were located
on the E half of Moat Brae. The deposits were most likely the result
of the warehouse’s demolition and the subsequent reconstitution of
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 26 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
the E part of the mound at Moat Brae at the end of the 19th century.
The final period of the site seemed to involve limited landscaping
carried out during the 20th century as the uppermost deposits
contained a mixture of artefacts with a varied date range, though they
were predominantly of 19th or 20th century date.
PROPOSED FUTURE
WORK:
None
CAPTION(S) FOR
ILLUSTRS:
None
SPONSOR OR FUNDING
BODY:
The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme (part of
Dumfries & Galloway Council), externally funded by Historic
Environment Scotland and the Heritage Lottery Fund
ADDRESS OF MAIN
CONTRIBUTOR:
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops, Kilwinning, Ayrshire KA13 6PU
E MAIL:
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
ARCHIVE LOCATION
(intended/deposited)
Report to Dumfries & Galloway Archaeology Service and archive to
National Record of the Historic Environment.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 27 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Appendix 2: Registers
59.
Appendix 3, which contains all registers pertaining to the works on–site during the excavation.
Context Register
Context
No.
Trench
Type
Description
Interpretation
001
1,2
Deposit
Moderately compacted, mid- grey brown silt with occasional small
stone and moderate animal bone, glass and ceramic inclusions.
Overlies deposit (002). The deposit was present in both Trenches 1
and 2 and had a thickness range of between 0.09m to 0.14m.
Topsoil which constituted the existing ground
surface of an open amenity area to the
immediate N of Greyfriars Church.
002
1,2
Deposit
Moderately compacted, light brown silt sand with frequent small
angular stone inclusions and roots. Underlies deposit (001). The
deposit was present in both Trenches 1 and 2 and had a thickness
range of between 0.04m to 0.22m.
Made ground deposit which was caused by
either disturbance or deposition. Possibly the
result of the levelling of the area to the
immediate N of Greyfriars Church to create
an open amenity area there.
003
1
Deposit
Firmly compacted, yellow mottled yellow grey clay sand with stone,
root and charcoal inclusions. Underlies (002) and overlies (004). The
deposit had a thickness range of between 0.07m to 0.15m.
An interface deposit between made ground
(002) and older ground surface (004). Similar
to deposit (005) in Trench 2.
004
1
Deposit
Firmly compacted, mid- yellow grey clay sand with moderate small
stone inclusions. Underlies (003) and overlies (007). The deposit had
a thickness range of between 0.17m to 0.22m.
Older ground surface underlying interface
deposit (003). Possibly represents the ground
surface after the abandonment of the castle.
005
2
Deposit
Firmly compacted, mid- yellow grey clay sand with moderate small
stone inclusions. Underlies (002) and cut by (006). The deposit has a
thickness range of between 0.08m to 0.29m.
A slightly disturbed deposit which was similar
to deposit (003) in Trench 1.
006
2
Cut/fill
Slightly curvilinear feature which was orientated in a NE-SW
direction. The curvilinear was identified at a depth of 0.16m below the
existing ground surface. It had an excavated length of 1.8m, width of
0.44m-0.48m and an excavated depth of 0.24m-0.38m.
Slightly curvilinear feature with frequent
stones and roots within its fill. The feature is
cut into what appeared to be an interface
deposit between later made ground and an
older ground surface. It may be the remains
of a drain or rough foundation associated
with an 18th to 19th century warehouse which
once occupied the open amenity area to the
immediate N of Greyfriars Church.
The fill of the cut consisted of a firmly compacted, mid-grey sandy
clay with frequent irregular shaped stone and root inclusions.
007
1
Deposit
Moderate to firmly compacted, mid- orange brown clay sand with
frequent charcoal and root inclusions. Underlies (004) and overlies
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 28 of 40
Medieval ground surface possibly associated
with the timber castle.
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Context
No.
Trench
Type
Description
Interpretation
(008). The deposit has a thickness range of between 0.12m to 0.18m
and was identified at a depth of 0.43m to 0.45m from the existing
ground surface.
008
1
Deposit
Moderate to firmly compacted, mid- orange brown clay sand with
some angular stone and river cobble inclusions. Underlies (007) and
overlies (009). The deposit has a thickness range of between 0.04m
to 0.08m and was located at a depth of 0.48m to 0.5m from the
existing ground surface.
Medieval ground surface possibly associated
with the timber castle.
009
1
Deposit
Moderately compacted, light mottled grey yellow sand with no
inclusions. Identified at a depth of 0.62m to 0.64m from the existing
ground surface.
Naturally occurring subsoil.
Photographic Register
Camera 1
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
1
7093
Mid Excavation shot of Trench 1 (001)
S
01/08/19
2
7094
Mid Excavation shot of Trench 1 (001)
N
01/08/19
3
7095
Mid Excavation shot of Trench 2 (002)
S
01/08/19
4
7096
Mid Excavation shot of Sondage Through (002)
E
01/08/19
5
7097
Trench 2 Volunteers
SE
01/08/19
6
7098
Mid Excavation shot of Sondage Through (002)
SE
01/08/19
7
7099
Mid Excavation shot of Sondage Through (002)
E
01/08/19
8
7100
Mid Excavation shot of Sondage Through (002)
E
01/08/19
9
7101
Mid Excavation shot of Sondage Through (002)
E
01/08/19
10
7102
Mid Excavation shot of Sondage Through (002)
SE
01/08/19
11
7103
Mid Excavation shot of Sondage Through (002)
SE
01/08/19
12
7104
Mid Excavation shot of Sondage Through (002)
SW
01/08/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 29 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
13
7105
Finds Sorting with Volunteers Trench 2
SE
01/08/19
14
7106
Finds Sorting with Volunteers Trench 2
SW
01/08/19
15
7107
Finds Sorting with Volunteers Trench 2
S
01/08/19
16
7108
Finds Sorting with Volunteers Trench 2
S
01/08/19
17
7109
Finds Sorting with Volunteers Trench 2
S
01/08/19
18
7110
Mid Excavation of Trench 2 (002)
S
01/08/19
19
7111
Mid Excavation of Trench 2 (002)
N
01/08/19
20
7112
Mid Excavation of Trench 2 (003)
S
02/08/19
21
7113
Mid Excavation of Trench 2 (003)
N
02/08/19
22
7114
Mid Excavation Shot of Concentration of Stone
S
02/08/19
23
7115
Mid Excavation Shot of Concentration of Stone
N
02/08/19
24
7116
Mid Excavation Shot of Concentration of Stone
N
02/08/19
25
7117
Mid Excavation Shot of Concentration of Stone
NE
02/08/19
26
7118
Mid Excavation Shot of Concentration of Stone
NE
02/08/19
27
7119
Mid Excavation Shot of Concentration of Stone
E
02/08/19
28
7120
Mid Excavation Shot of Concentration of Stone
E
02/08/19
29
7121
Post Excavation Shot of Trench 1
E
02/08/19
30
7122
Post Excavation Shot of Trench 1
S
02/08/19
31
7123
Post Excavation Shot of Trench 1
W
03/08/19
32
7124
Post Excavation Shot of Trench 1
NW
03/08/19
33
7125
Post Excavation Shot of Trench 1
SW
03/08/19
34
7126
Post Excavation Shot of Trench 1
S
03/08/19
35
7127
Post Excavation Shot of Trench 1
N
03/08/19
36
7128
Post Excavation Shot of Trench 1
NW
03/08/19
37
7129
Post Excavation Shot of Trench 1
SW
03/08/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 30 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
38
7130
Post Excavation Shot of Trench 2
S
03/08/19
39
7131
Post Excavation Shot of Trench 2
N
03/08/19
40
7132
Post Excavation Shot of Trench 2
NE
03/08/19
41
7133
Post Excavation Shot of Trench 2
NE
03/08/19
Camera 2
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
1
94457
Pre Excavation Shot
SW
01/08/19
2
94523
Working Shot Setting Up
SW
01/08/19
3
101509
Working shot Removal of Turf
E
01/08/19
4
110355
Working Shot Trench 1
SW
01/08/19
5
111121
Liam and Aaron
-
01/08/19
6
141207
Finds from Trench 2
-
01/08/19
7
154252
End of Day Trench 2
S
01/08/19
8
154706
End of Day Trench 2
S
02/08/19
9
070806
Sketch Plan of Site
-
02/08/19
10
094120
Working Shot of JP Sieving
SE
02/08/19
11
094129
Working Shot of Volunteers Trench 2
N
02/08/19
12
110053
LMcK and JP with Can You Dig It? Sign
-
02/08/19
13
110101
LMcK and JP with Can You Dig It? Sign
-
02/08/19
14
110109
LMcK and JP with Can You Dig It? Sign
-
02/08/19
15
110112
LMcK and JP with Can You Dig It? Sign
-
02/08/19
16
153317
Working shot of LMcK Trench 1
S
02/08/19
17
153319
Working shot of LMcK Trench 1
S
02/08/19
18
153412
Mid Excavation Shot of Trench 2
N
02/08/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 31 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
19
153431
Ceramic from Trench 2
-
02/08/19
20
153444
Finds Tray Trench 2
-
02/08/19
21
142727
Working Shot of Trench 1 JP
SW
03/08/19
22
142743
Working Shot of Trench 1 JP
SW
03/08/19
23
142746
Working Shot of Trench 1 JP
SW
03/08/19
24
152445
Location of Back Sight for Levels Taken
-
03/08/19
25
162704
Trench 1 Backfill and Turf Reinstated
S
03/08/19
26
162734
Trench 2 Backfill and Turf Reinstated
S
03/08/19
Drawing Register
Drawing Sheet
No.
No.
Area/
Trench
Drawing
Type
Scale
Description
Drawn
By
Date
1
1
2
Section
1:20
E Facing Section of Trench 2
JMR
3/08/19
2
1
2
Plan
1:20
Plan of Trench 2
JMR
3/08/19
3
2
1
Section
1:20
Plan of Trench 1
TM
3/08/19
4
2
1
Plan
1:10
W Facing Section of Trench 1
TM
3/08/19
Finds Register
Find
No.
Trench
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
1
T1
(001)
Ceramic
2 x Clay tobacco pipe (adjoining)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
2
T1
(001)
Ceramic
3 x Ceramic
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
3
T1
(001)
Metal (Cu)
1 x Cu alloy button
Volunteers
01/08/19-
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 32 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
03/08/19
4
T1
(001)
Metal (Cu)
1 x Cu alloy lock plate
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
5
T1
(001)
Coarse Stone
1 x Slate stylus
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
6
T1
(008)
Ceramic
1x Medieval ceramic
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
7
T1
(007)
Ceramic
1 x Medieval ceramic (base, gritty)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
8
T1
(003)
Ceramic
1 x Medieval ceramic; 1 x post-medieval ware
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
9
T2
(002)
Ceramic
1 x Modern ceramic
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
10
T1
(002)
Metal (Fe)
1 x Fe object
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
11
T1
(002)
Ceramic
1 x Medieval ceramic
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
12
T1
(001)
Ceramic
6 x Ceramic (modern)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
13
T1
(007)
Ceramic
1 x Medieval ceramic
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
14
T1
(001)
Plastic
1 x Plastic hair slide
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
15
T1
(001)
Metal (Cu)
1 x Cu alloy coin (Edward VII)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
16
T1
(001)
Metal (Cu)
1 x Cu alloy coin (post-decimal penny)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
17
T1
(001)
Metal (Cu)
1 x Cu alloy coin (post-decimal Ha’penny)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
18
-
-
-
VOID
-
-
19
T1
(001)
Bone
1 x Bone
Volunteers
01/08/19-
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 33 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
03/08/19
20
T2
(005)
Ceramic
21 x Modern ceramic
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
21
T2
(005)
Glass
43 x Modern glass
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
22
T2
(005)
Coarse Stone
1 x Slate (fragmentary)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
23
T2
(005)
Metal (Fe)
4 x Fe objects
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
24
T2
(005)
Industrial
Residue
3 x Coal
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
25
T2
(005)
Metal (Fe)
1 x Fe object
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
26
T2
(005)
Non-Ferrous
Metal
2 x Al ring pulls
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
27
T1
(003)
Ceramic
2 x Modern ceramic
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
28
T1
(003)
Metal (Fe)
1 x Fe object
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
29
T1
(003)
Glass
1 x Glass
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
30
T1
(003)
Dry Organic
1 x Charcoal
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
31
T1
(0030
Coarse Stone
8 x Slate/Schist (Roofing)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
32
T1
(003)
Industrial
Residue
23 x Burnt coal fragments
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
33
T2
(003)
Bone
5 x burnt bone
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
34
T1
(002)
Coarse Stone
20 x Slate & Schist
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 34 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
35
T1
(002)
Ceramic
19 x Ceramic (1 x Medieval ceramic; 18 x modern ceramic)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
26
T1
(002)
Coarse Stone
2 x Slate stylus
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
37
T1
(002)
Glass
3 x Glass
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
38
T1
(002)
Metal (Fe)
2 x Fe Nail
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
39
T1
(002)
Industrial
Residue
9 x Industrial Residues ( 8 x Coal; 1 x fuel ash slag)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
40
T1
(002)
Bone
1 x Animal bone
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
41
T2
(006)
Glass
26 x Glass
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
42
T2
(006)
Coarse Stone
4 x Slate
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
43
T2
(006)
Industrial
Residue
28 x Industrial residues (27 x Coal; 1 x fuel ash slag)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
44
T2
(006)
Industrial
Residue
7 x Industrial residues ( 3 x metallurgical slag; 4 x fuel ash slag)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
45
T2
(006)
Bone
13 x Animal bone
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
46
T2
(006)
Glass
1 x Hexagonal glass button
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
47
T2
(006)
Coarse Stone
2 x Slate stylus
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
48
T2
(006)
Coarse Stone
1 x Chalk
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
49
T2
(006)
Lithic
1 x Flint
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
50
T2
(006)
Ceramic
32 x Modern ceramic
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 35 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
51
T2
(006)
Ceramic
1 x stoneware bottle stop/marble
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
52
T2
(006)
Ceramic
1 x Ceramic knob or finial
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
53
T2
(006)
Industrial
Residue
1 x Burnt shale
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
54
T2
(002)
Metal (Fe)
4 x Fe object
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
55
T2
(002)
Coarse Stone
9 x Slate (roofing) & schist
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
56
T2
(002)
CBM
11 x Red brick
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
57
T2
(002)
Glass
22 x Glass
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
58
-
-
-
VOID
-
-
59
T2
(002)
Ceramic
2 x Ceramic stoppers/marbles
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
60
T2
(002)
Glass
1 x Glass bead
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
61
T2
(002)
Industrial
Residue
1 x Industrial Residues
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
62
T2
(002)
Coarse Stone
3 x Slate stylus
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
63
T2
(002)
Ceramic
6 x Clay tobacco pipes
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
64
T2
(002)
Bone
4 x Bone
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
65
T2
(002)
Non-Ferrous
Metals
1 x Lead (Pb)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
66
T2
(002)
Ceramic
62 x Ceramic
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 36 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
67
T2
(002)
Industrial
Residue
1 x fuel ash slag
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
68
T1
(001)
Metal (Fe)
13 x Fe objects
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
69
T1
(001)
Glass
22 x Glass
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
70
T1
(001)
Industrial
Residue
4 x Slag
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
71
T1
(001)
Lithic
1 x Flint
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
72
T1
(001)
Industrial
Residue
4 x Burnt stones
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
73
T1
(001)
Ceramic
84 x Ceramic ( 1 x Medieval white gritty; 83 x Modern)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
74
T1
(001)
Metal (Cu)
1 x Cu alloy coin ( 2p piece, post-decimal)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
75
T1
(001)
Coarse Stone
2 x Slate
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
76
T1
(001)
Non-Ferrous
Metal
5 x Al objects
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
77
T1
(001)
Ceramic
1 x Clay tobacco pipe stem
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
78
T1
(001)
Industrial
Residue
4 x Industrial residues ( 3 x coals; 1 x fuel ash slag)
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
79
T1
(001)
Coarse Stone
1 x Slate stylus
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
80
T1
(002)
Glass
4 x Glass
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
81
T1
(002)
Metal (Fe)
7 x Fe objects
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
82
T1
(002)
Lithic
1 x Flint
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 37 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
83
T1
(002)
Industrial
Residue
7 x Unburnt coal
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
84
T1
(002)
Ceramic
3 x Clay tobacco pipe
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
85
T1
(002)
Ceramic
3 x Brick
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
86
T1
(002)
Bone
6 x Bone
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
87
T1
(002)
Coarse Stone
9 x Slate/Schist
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
88
T1
(002)
Ceramic
127 x Ceramic
Volunteers
01/08/1903/08/19
89
T2
(006)
Glass
2 x Glass (derived from <50>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
90
T2
(006)
Bone
1 x Burnt bone (derived from <50>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
91
T2
(006)
Industrial
Residue
1 x Coal (derived from <50>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
92
T1
(001)
Bone
1 x Burnt bone (derived from <12>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
93
T2
(002)
Ceramic
1 x Clay tobacco pipe (derived from <12>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
94
T2
(002)
Bone
1 x Burnt bone (derived from <12>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
95
T1
(001)
Plastic
1 x Plastic (derived from <69>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
96
T1
(002)
Ceramic
1x Modern ceramic (derived from <87>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
97
T2
(002)
Metal (Fe)
2 x Fe objects (Derived from <9>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
98
T1
(002)
Ceramic
1 x Fragment of bowl from clay tobacco pipe (derived from <11>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 38 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
99
T1
(002)
Ceramic
1 x Stoneware stopper/Marble (derived from <11>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
100
T1
(002)
Glass?
1 x Glass bead? (derived from <11>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
101
T1
(002)
Bone
1 x Burnt bone (derived from <88>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
102
T1
(002)
Non-Ferrous
Metal
1 x Lead (derived from <81>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
103
T2
(005)
Industrial
Residue
1 x fuel ash slag (derived from <25>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
104
T1
(002)
Industrial
Residue
1 x Slag (derived from <81>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
105
T2
(002)
Industrial
Residue
1 x Stone with slag adhering (derived from <9>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
106
T2
(006)
Metal (Fe)
1 x Fe object (derived from <44>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
107
T1
(003)
CBM
1 x Mortar ( derived from <28>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
108
T2
(002)
Ceramic
5 x Pipe clay (including 1 x Clay tobacco pipe) (derived from <64>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
109
T2
(002)
Industrial
Residue
2 x Slag ( derived from <64>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
110
T2
(002)
Ceramic
1 x Clay tobacco pipe (derived from <40>)
CLT
01/08/1903/08/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 39 of 40
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Moat Brae
Contact Details
Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at our Registered Office or through the web:
Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops
Kilwinning
Ayrshire
KA13 6PU
www.rathmell-arch.co.uk
t.:
f.:
e.:
01294 542848
01294 542849
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
End of Document
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 40 of 40
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – The Castles of Kirkcudbright – Moat Brae
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
GGLP_90
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2022
Description
An account of the resource
Surveys and test pitting works undertaken as part of the community archaeology project “Can You Dig It?”.
archaeology
GGLP
-
https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/549/GGLP-CYDI-DSR_LittleWoodHill.pdf
27700f8529a1b6c46cb0b86484260396
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Later Prehistoric Power Centre – Little Wood Hill, Threave
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Reports
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project
Data Structure Report
1.2.b Later Prehistoric Power Centres –
Little Wood Hill, Threave
by Claire Williamson
th
issued 7
April 2020
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Quality Assurance
This report covers works which have been undertaken in keeping with the issued brief as
modified by the agreed programme of works. The report has been prepared in keeping
with the guidance of Rathmell Archaeology Limited on the preparation of reports. All works
reported on within this document have been undertaken in keeping with the Chartered
Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of Conduct.
Signed
………………………………..
…..7th April 2020…….
Date
In keeping with the procedure of Rathmell Archaeology Limited this document and its
findings have been reviewed and agreed by an appropriate colleague:
Checked
………………………………..
…..7th April 2020…….
Date
Copyright Rathmell Archaeology Limited. All rights reserved.
No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written
permission from Rathmell Archaeology Limited. If you have received this report in error,
please destroy all copies in your possession or control.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by Rathmell Archaeology Limited. No liability is accepted by
Rathmell Archaeology Limited for any use of this report, other than the purposes for which
it was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Rathmell Archaeology
Limited using due skill, care and diligence and no explicit warranty is provided as to their
accuracy. No independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to
Rathmell Archaeology Limited has been made.
Quality Assurance Data
Author(s)
Claire Williamson
Date of Issue
7th April 2020
Commissioning Body
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme
Event Name
Little Wood Hill, Threave
Event Type
Excavation
Event Date(s)
September 2019
Rathmell Archaeology Code
RA18107
Location
United Kingdom : Scotland : Dumfries & Galloway
NGR
NX 74342 62310
Designation(s)
None
Canmore IDs
64677
Version
Parish
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 1 of 26
1.0
Kelton
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................. 4
Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 4
Project Works ................................................................................ 4
Findings ......................................................................................... 8
Ditch [004] ........................................................................................................ 8
Possible internal features ..................................................................................... 9
The Finds ..................................................................................... 14
Ceramics ......................................................................................................... 14
Metalwork........................................................................................................ 14
Flaked Stone .................................................................................................... 14
Coarse Stone ................................................................................................... 16
Carbonised Plant Macrofossils and Charcoal ......................................................... 19
Discussion ................................................................................... 20
The Lithics ....................................................................................................... 20
The Enclosure .................................................................................................. 20
The Musket Ball ................................................................................................ 25
Modern Disturbance .......................................................................................... 25
Conclusion ................................................................................... 26
Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 26
References .................................................................................. 27
Documentary ................................................................................................... 27
Websites ......................................................................................................... 27
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland ......................... 28
Appendix 2: Registers.................................................................. 30
Context Register............................................................................................... 30
Photographic Register ....................................................................................... 33
Drawing Register .............................................................................................. 37
Sample Register ............................................................................................... 38
Contact Details ............................................................................ 41
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Figures
Figure 1a: View of Little Wood Hill from the south, the start of Meikle Wood Hill on the right . 5
Figure 1b: General shot of site showing views to the north including the River Dee ............... 5
Figure 2: Plan of the excavated area ..................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Birdseye view of excavated area, southwest to the top of the page (photograph
courtesy of Alan Cameron) .................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Sections from Slots 1 and 4 through ditch [004] .................................................... 10
Figure 5: Sections from Slots 2 and 3 through west and east terminals of ditch [004]
respectively.......................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 6a: Post-excavation shot of possible posthole [012] from the northwest.................... 12
Figure 6b: Southeast facing section of possible pit [014] ...................................................... 12
Figure 7a: Northeast facing section of possible linear [016] ................................................. 13
Figure 7b: Musket ball <9> .................................................................................................. 13
Figure 8a: Single platform core <1> and flint bladelet <2> ................................................... 17
Figure 8b: Secondary regular flake <15> ............................................................................. 17
Figure 9a: Regular flake <16> and thumbnail scraper <20> ................................................. 18
Figure 9b: Whetstone <6> ................................................................................................... 18
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Introduction
1.
This Data Structure Report describes works carried out for the sub-project on Later
Prehistoric Power Centres carried out as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
(GGLP) community archaeology project Can You Dig It? This Report presents the results
from excavation works undertaken at the site of Little Wood Hill situated within Threave
Estate.
2.
The works were carried out by volunteers supported by Rathmell Archaeology staff. The
structure of the works was drawn from advice and guidance from officers of GGLP, Dumfries
and Galloway Council, the National Trust for Scotland (NTS) and members of local heritage
societies.
Historical & Archaeological Background
3.
A brief historical and archaeological baseline for the site at Little Wood Hill has been lifted
from the Research Design for the sub-project (Williamson & Rees 2019, 4):
Little Wood Hill sits within the grounds of the Threave Estate to the west of Castle
Douglas, with the River Dee winding past to the north and west. On the flattish
summit of this conspicuous knoll, the enclosure was initially only recognised
through its identification on aerial photographs in the mid-20th century. It was visible
as a roughly D-shaped enclosure formed by a single ditch with an entrance on the
southeastern side. Overall the enclosure is 35m northeast-southwest by 32m
transversely, with the entrance piercing the flat side (in plan). The enclosure only
occupies the northwest half of the summit of Little Wood Hill. Aside from the clear
outline visible on aerial photographs, no upstanding earthworks were present. The
site sits roughly 300m to the northwest of Meikle Wood Hill, a Scheduled
Monument which has been identified as an Iron Age hillfort.
The Threave Estate was left to the care of the National Trust for Scotland in the
late 1950s, and our knowledge of the site at Little Wood Hill was significantly
advanced when a National Trust for Scotland Thistle Camp excavated trenches
there in 2014 (Alexander, McPherson & Shearer 2014). They successfully located
the sides and cut of the ditch which in general appeared to be V-shaped in profile.
One trench, the only one to reach the ditch’s base, recorded it as being 2.6m wide
by 1.2m deep. Three small flakes of flint and a range of more modern material were
recovered. A radiocarbon date ranging from the 1st century BC to the 1st century
AD was also obtained from charcoal recovered from one of the ditch’s fills.
Project Works
4.
The archaeological works focussed on the site of the enclosure ditch that sits atop Little
Wood Hill on the Threave Estate (Figure 1a; S1 in Williamson & Rees 2019). The site is
located on level ground on the summit of the hill with clear views across the River Dee to
the north (Figure 1b) and to the west, the latter of which includes views towards Threave
Castle. To the southeast sits the scheduled monument at Meikle Wood Hill (Figure 1a),
while the area to the south comprises mainly pastoral fields.
5.
The on-site works were carried out between the 10th and 21st September 2019. Initially, a
rectangular area measuring approximately 24m southwest to northeast by 18m northwest
to southeast was marked out directly over the location of the ditch’s southeast entranceway
(Figures 2 and 3). It was also positioned to catch a section of the ditch’s northeastern side
as well as a portion of its interior. The area was topsoil stripped under archaeological
supervision using a 360° tracked excavator with a smooth ditching bucket. With the surface
of the natural subsoil exposed, the area was then hand-cleaned and four slots (numbered
1-4) hand-excavated into the enclosing ditch. Possible internal features were investigated
through part excavation by hand. A second rectangular area was also stripped just to the
southeast to look for external features, but time constraints prevented further investigation
within this area.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Figure 1a: View of Little Wood Hill from the south, the start of Meikle Wood Hill on the right
Figure 1b: General shot of site showing views to the north including the River Dee
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Figure 2: Plan of the excavated area
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Figure 3: Birdseye view of excavated area, southwest to the top of the page (photograph courtesy of Alan Cameron)
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 26
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
6.
All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined
in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (Rees 2019). The fieldwork was
undertaken in generally good weather, although there were some days of heavy rain and
the hill was fairly exposed to the wind. In terms of structure, the core field team of Rathmell
Archaeology staff and volunteers were on-site from 9am to 4pm.
Findings
7.
Prior to excavation, the entire area was covered by turf and topsoil (001), which comprised
a friable mid-orange brown sandy clay with frequently occurring sub-rounded and angular
stone inclusions. (001) measured 100 to 200mm thick and produced one find of an iron
pin or clench-bolt (<11>).
8.
The topsoil was removed to reveal the surface of the underlying natural subsoil,
represented by (002) and (003). Subsoil (002) covered most of the excavated area, mainly
present within the area to the interior of ditch [004]. It consisted of a firmly compacted
dark brown sandy clay with frequently occurring small to medium-sized stone inclusions
(both sub-rounded and sub-angular). In the southeast corner of the excavated area, (003)
represented an area of natural variation in the subsoil (Figure 3). Sitting to the exterior of
ditch [004], it comprised a firmly compacted mid-orange brown sandy clay with frequently
occurring small to medium-sized stone inclusions (both sub-rounded and sub-angular).
9.
Cut into the surface of the natural subsoil, enclosure ditch [004] was exposed as well as a
small number of possible features within its interior (Figures 2 and 3). The nature of the
subsoil was such that the features became very difficult to see once the ground had dried
out, making it often difficult to be certain on the character of each of the features exposed.
This potentially means that other features could still be present that were not identified
during this season of work.
10.
Several surface finds were recovered from the stripped area. These included flints <1>
and <20>, possible chert <21>, quartz <7> and fragments of coarse mortar or plaster
<19>. Two iron pin or nail shanks <8> and <10> and a tanged tine or blade <22> were
also recovered.
Ditch [004]
11.
The excavation area was largely dominated by the presence of enclosure ditch [004].
Visible on aerial photographs as enclosing a D-shaped area on the summit of Little Wood
Hill, the area captured the majority of its ‘straight’ southeastern side and a portion of its
curved northeastern side.
12.
Ditch [004] entered the southwestern corner of the area running in a straight line
southwest to northeast for a length of 4.5m before ending in a rounded terminus. There
was then a gap of 4.1m before the line of the ditch began again on the same alignment
(again with a rounded terminus) for a further approximately 11m. The ditch then curved
to the northwest for an approximate length of 14m before continuing out of the
northwestern edge of the area.
13.
The width of the ditch ranged from 2.5 to 3.25m. It was mainly V-shaped in section with
gradually sloping sides (becoming steeper at depth) and a flattish base (see Figure 4). Its
depth ranged from 1.08 to 1.55m from the upper surface of the subsoil. The upper fill
across the full length of the exposed ditch was (005): a firmly compacted mid-brown
orange sandy clay with frequent sub-rounded and sub-angular stone inclusions. In Slot 4,
at the northern end of [004], it also contained frequent charcoal fleck inclusions. The layer
measured 180 to 900mm thick and produced a range of finds, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>,
<9>, <12> and <13>, which included flint, quartz, an incomplete whetstone or rubber
and a musket ball. The musket ball was found at a depth of only approximately 50mm
from the surface of the stripped area.
14.
Four slots were excavated along the length of ditch [004] (Figure 2). Three were excavated
along its southeastern side: one at the southwestern end where it entered the area (Slot
1; Figure 4), a second in west terminus (Slot 2; Figure 5) and a third in the east terminus
(Slot 3; Figure 5). Slot 4 (Figure 4) was positioned along its northeastern side at the point
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
where it ran out of the northwestern edge of the area. The slots revealed that the fills
underlying (005) varied slightly across the ditch’s extent.
15.
Underlying (005) in Slots 1, 2 and 4 was (006). This consisted of a firmly compacted midbrown orange sandy clay with occasional stone inclusions. The layer measured 210 to
300mm thick.
16.
At a depth of 1m, Slot 4 became heavily waterlogged, so excavation stopped within deposit
(006) and no underlying fills were exposed.
17.
Underlying (006) in Slot 1 was (010), a firmly compacted pink-brown clay with frequent
stone and moderate charcoal inclusions. It measured 330mm thick and formed the basal
fill of the ditch in this section. In Slot 1, the ditch measured 1.14m deep.
18.
Slot 2 within the western terminus appeared to show a bit more complexity in its fills.
Underlying (006) was deposit (007). This consisted of a firmly compacted pink-brown clay
with frequent stone and charcoal inclusions which measured 530mm thick. This, in turn,
was underlain by a thin layer of deposit (018), a firmly compacted green grey clay with
occasional charcoal and small stone inclusions which measured 30mm thick. Underlying
(018) was (009) which formed the basal fill of the western terminus. This comprised a
firmly compacted pink-brown clay with frequent small stones and charcoal inclusions, with
a thickness of 80mm. The west terminus measured 1.08m deep with the gradually sloping
sides having a slightly staggered profile.
19.
Fill (006) was not present within Slot 3 which marked the eastern terminus. Instead, (005)
was underlain by deposit (008), a firmly compacted brown-grey clay with frequent stone
and charcoal inclusions measuring 390mm thick. Underlying (008) and forming the basal
fill within the eastern terminus was deposit (011). This consisted of a firmly compacted
mottled pink-brown clay with frequent stone and charcoal inclusions. The layer measured
400mm thick and appeared similar in character to (009), the basal fill within the western
terminus. The eastern terminus measured 1.55m deep, again with a gradually sloping,
slightly staggered, profile. Find <15>, a flint, was recovered from (011).
Possible internal features
20.
A small number of possible features were identified within the internal area enclosed by
ditch [004]: possible posthole [012], pit [014] and linear feature [016]. All three features
sat at the southeastern end of the area, near to the eastern terminus.
21.
Possible posthole [012] sat 1.2m in from [004]’s southeastern side. It was circular shaped
in plan, measuring 0.34m in diameter and 200mm deep (Figure 6a). The cut had gradually
sloping sides and a rounded base and contained a single fill, (013). This consisted of a
friable mid- orange-brown sandy silt with small stone inclusions. Traces visible on the
ground suggested the potential for a further two intercutting postholes to the south, but
ground conditions remained problematic and time constraints prevented further
investigation.
22.
Approximately 1.4m to the west of [012], sat possible pit [014]. Circular shaped in plan,
[014] measured 2.6m in diameter and 350 to 390mm deep. It had steep sloping sides and
an uneven base (Figure 6b). The pit was filled by (015), a friable mid-brownish-orange
sandy clay with very frequent small stone inclusions, which produced find <17>, a
fragment of coarse mortar or plaster.
23.
The final potential feature to be identified was a linear cut, [016], which sat 0.75m to the
southwest of [014] and approximately 3.2m to the northwest of ditch [004]. Feature [016]
was aligned southwest to northeast with gradually sloping sides and an uneven base
(Figure 7a). It measured 3.6m long, 0.9m wide and 250 to 270mm deep and contained a
single fill, (017). This consisted of a friable mid- to dark brown sandy clay with frequent
stone inclusions and produced a single flint, <16>.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Figure 4: Sections from Slots 1 and 4 through ditch [004]
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Figure 5: Sections from Slots 2 and 3 through west and east terminals of ditch [004] respectively
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Figure 6a: Post-excavation shot of possible posthole [012] from the northwest
Figure 6b: Southeast facing section of possible pit [014]
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Figure 7a: Northeast facing section of possible linear [016]
Figure 7b: Musket ball <9>
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
The Finds
24.
A small assemblage was recovered, of which the largest component was the lithics. A small
number of other items were also present, however, including objects composed of ceramic,
metal, and coarse stone.
Ceramics
By Louise Turner
25.
Only three items were identified as ceramic. These comprised two fragments and one
crumb (<017> and <019>) composed of a similar fabric: this was thick-walled, coarse and
well-fired, with poorly-sorted gravel inclusions. <17> had one possible external surface
surviving, with what appeared to be a rounded edge or corner present. Another fragment
from <019> had one flat surface surviving, with what appeared to be a concave surface
adjacent. All appeared to represent fragments of wall plaster or mortar, although the
smooth outer surface indicates that the former might be more likely.
Metalwork
By Louise Turner
26.
A total of five metal artefacts were recovered, comprising one of non-ferrous metal (lead)
and four of ferrous metal (i.e. iron).
27.
The non-ferrous item was a lead bullet <9>, composed of a single solid sphere (Figure
7b). Surface detail was obscured by corrosion, with pitting in places: no manufacturing
marks were visible, and although the object did not appear perfectly spherical form, the
amount of deformation evident seemed insufficient to argue for its having been fired.
28.
Of the iron objects, two comprised short lengths from slender, solid circular-sectioned
objects of similar character. These appear to have derived from the shanks of items such
as metal pins or nails. The regularity of their section suggested a relatively modern origin,
from the 20th century or perhaps the last quarter of the 19th century, with the items
appearing to been drawn as opposed to hammered into shape.
29.
Another iron object <11> could be more securely identified as a piece of structural
ironwork: it comprised a stout, circular-sectioned shank, broken off at one end, with a
circular domed head, and seems likely to have represented an incomplete clench nail or
clench bolt. The age of the object was ambiguous: the regularity of its circular section
suggested that the object was made of cast iron or steel rather than wrought iron, but the
circular domed head seemed irregular in shape and was more consistent with having been
worked into shape. Alternatively, the head could have been distorted during construction
or demolition work. A modern origin could have been inferred from the presence of a screwthread on the tip of the object, but with this part of the object now lost, any trace of such
a feature – had it existed - was now lost.
30.
The final iron object was a tanged, heavy-bladed object <22>. This was an unusual item,
which comprised a ‘blade’ with projecting tang: the ‘blade’ displayed a straight edge
running along the upper edge, lying flush with the upper edge of the tang, and a curving
lower edge, with the object bent into an ‘L’-shaped profile at a point just below the junction
between the tang and the ‘blade.’ The blade was too thick to have been used as a cutting
implement, but its asymmetrical form means it cannot be readily compared with standard
forms of agricultural tools such as hoes or onion hoes. It could nonetheless have been
intended for such a use and may even have been custom-built or modified for this purpose.
While the object could conceivably have been fitted to a larger implement such as a
cultivator or harrow, its shape does not closely match any of the standard forms and hence
a modern, late 20th century origin seems unlikely.
Flaked Stone
By Thomas Rees
1.
All potential struck lithics recovered as small finds on-site, or extracted from processed soil
sample retents, were cleaned, inspected and catalogued. Terminology broadly follows the
conventions of Wickham-Jones (1990) and Inizan, Roche & Tixier (1992), as adapted to
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
working practice through consideration of Ballin (2000).
Results
2.
The assemblage amounted to 23 lithics that were recovered either by hand during
excavation (16 lithics, 64%) or extracted from the processed soil samples (7 lithics, 36%).
Two main raw material types were present: flint (11 lithics, 48% - grey or honey-brown in
colour) and quartz (11 lithics, 48%). One solitary item was identified as quartzite, or –
possibly – chert (1 lithic – 4%).
3.
Of the hand-recovered pieces, eight were unworked quartz nodules (<3>, <5a>, <5b>,
<12> and <18a> to <18d>) and one was an unworked quartzite or chert pebble <21>.
On this basis, the only hand-recovered quartz chip, <7>, may not have been deliberately
struck; it could, for example, have derived from a plough strike. Two quartz chips were
also recovered from the processed soil samples: <23a> and <23b>. These twelve pieces
cannot be attributed to either human collection or working and as such are discounted.
4.
The remaining six hand-recovered lithics were all struck flint:
<1> Honey brown flint, single platform core, secondary material, removals are
predominantly blades, some patination (Figure 8a). Dimensions: L 26mm W 23mm Th
13mm.
<2> Flint bladelet, inner material, burnt, distal end snapped (Figure 8a). Dimensions:
L 17mm W 8mm Th 3mm.
<4> Light grey flint, irregular flake, secondary material, patination. Dimensions: L
10mm W 9mm Th 1mm.
<15> Greyish flint, regular flake, secondary material, slight patination, thin striking
platform (Figure 8b). Dimensions: L 47mm W 25mm Th 9mm.
<16> Light grey flint, regular flake, primary material (Figure 9a). Dimensions: L 26mm
W 20mm Th 2mm.
<20> Flint, regular flake, inner material, burnt, semi-abrupt retouch on distal and distal
left forming convex arc – thumbnail scraper (Figure 9a). Dimensions: L 13mm W 13mm
Th 4mm.
5.
The mixture of characteristics in the small assemblage is notable: two pieces were burnt;
three showed evidence of patination; primary, secondary and inner material was present.
However, none showed evidence of rolling damage. Four of the flint lithics derived from
various stages of the reduction process. These included three flakes of varying size and
one bladelet. The single platform core <1> was a reworked core rejuvenation flake. The
later removals, when this piece was a core in its own right, had been predominately blades.
6.
Only one of the lithics <20> was a finished item, a thumbnail scraper with evidence for
semi-abrupt retouch could be seen on the distal and distal left edges.
7.
Five flint lithics were recovered from soil processing <24a> to <24e> comprising four chips
of light grey to translucent flint, inner material, and:
<24e> Light grey flint, irregular flake, inner material. Dimensions: L 11mm W 10mm
Th 1n 7 mm.
Discussion
8.
This was a small assemblage where the quartz component was discounted as natural in
origin and presence on-site. The remaining 11 flint lithics appeared to be the products of
a coherent reduction strategy, although with only one diagnostic finished tool - the
thumbnail scraper <20>. The flint provided a full spread of debitage, with flakes of varying
size and character (<4>, <15>, <16> and <24e>), a single bladelet <2> and a series of
chips (<24a> to <24d>). The presence of a reworked core rejuvenation flake <1>
evidenced the working of small pebbles. Two of the flakes (<4> and <16>) were composed
almost entirely of cortex and must have been removed at an earlier stage in opening up
such a small flint pebble. The size of the flint pieces was not incompatible with items
derived from foreshore-recovered flint nodules.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
9.
The only core which was present in the assemblage was <1>. It represented the final stage
in a reduction process which had originally involved a larger core that had already been
subject to enough blade removal to render it difficult to work. The rejuvenation flake from
this larger core was then used as a source for more blades: evidence for this two-stage
process was provided by the truncated basal facets which ran perpendicular to the later
blade removal.
10.
The small size of the assemblage means that it is difficult to assign a date to the group if it is a coherent, contemporary assemblage. The thumbnail scraper is more probably from
the late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age. Ascribing the whole assemblage to this date range
is credible given that the lack of hard hammer percussion in the flake and bladelet removals
makes them unlikely to have an origin in either the Late Bronze Age or Iron Age. This date
range suggests a phase of site activity predating the enclosure feature.
11.
The generally good condition of the flint pieces was notable, with none exhibiting rolling
damage. This suggests that while those pieces that were unstratified (<1>, <7> and
<20>), from the upper ditch fill (005) (<2> and <5>) or the basal fill of the eastern ditch
terminal (011) (<15>) have been mobile since original deposition, they are unlikely to
have migrated a great distance. This position is reinforced by the excavation area being
part of the summit area of a discrete, small hill.
12.
The presence of flint in the fill (017) of the linear feature [016] is intriguing, while one was
hand recovered (<16>) the remaining five were small debitage recovered from soil
processing (<24a> to <24e>). It is not credible that the small debitage was brought to
Little Wood Hill after being produced by a reduction process – which suggests that lithic
working was undertaken on the summit area in prehistory. Further, this density of material
was recovered from a single soil sample which suggests that at least one focus of the lithic
working was in proximity to this feature.
Coarse Stone
By Thomas Rees
13.
All potential coarse stone pieces recovered as small finds on-site were cleaned, inspected
and catalogued.
Results
14.
Three pieces were recovered from the site, two of which <13> were unaltered and are not
discussed further. The third <6> was a rounded longitudinal pebble of a rough-textured,
indeterminate rock, with a flat surface, concave at one end and bevelled at the other
(Figure 9b). It appears to have been used as a whetstone. The flat surface appeared to
have polish, with scars running perpendicular to the long axis perhaps resulting from
damage caused by a knife or blade. The bevelled edge had the appearance of having been
created through use or wear, but there was no evidence of grinding or polishing which
might support this.
Discussion
15.
Only one piece was present that could be confidently ascribed as a coarse stone tool,
whetstone <6>. Whetstones are used to maintain a sharp edge on a metal object, and this
association means that they first appear in the Early Bronze Age, where they are
sometimes incorporated into burials as grave goods. The quality of these items varies
markedly, from carefully-manufactured objects equipped with a perforation for hanging
from a belt or similar, to rough pieces which were acquired on an opportunistic basis. These
see little if any modification: they may be acquired for short-term and potentially informal
use, with initial selection based on the dimensions, character and texture of a particular
stone. This particular item is representative of the latter, comprising a rectangularsectioned longitudinal pebble, of suitable dimensions for holding in the hand, rough in
texture, with no evidence of working or careful finishing. A potential date for such an object
is almost impossible to define closely, other than the fact that the whetstone would have
been used for sharpening a metal object: on this basis, its origins could lie anywhere within
an extended period from the Bronze Age to the modern period.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Figure 8a: Single platform core <1> and flint bladelet <2>
Figure 8b: Secondary regular flake <15>
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Figure 9a: Regular flake <16> and thumbnail scraper <20>
Figure 9b: Whetstone <6>
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Carbonised Plant Macrofossils and Charcoal
By Diane Alldritt
Introduction
16.
Six environmental sample flots taken during archaeological excavation work at Little Wood
Hill, Threave Estate, Castle Douglas, were examined for carbonised plant macrofossils and
charcoal. Material sorted from five of the sample retents was also analysed for identifiable
remains.
17.
Archaeological investigations focused upon a D-shaped enclosure located at the summit of
Little Wood Hill of potential prehistoric date. Samples were examined from a number of
slots placed through the enclosure ditch [004], as well as from interior features including
a possible pit [014] and a linear feature [016]. These produced small concentrations of
charcoal and other carbonised remains, the majority of which came from ditch [004].
Methodology
18.
The bulk environmental samples were processed by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd using a Siraf
style water flotation system (French 1971). The flots were dried before examination under
a low power binocular microscope typically at x10 magnification. All identified plant remains
including charcoal were removed and bagged separately by type.
19.
Wood charcoal was examined using a high-powered Vickers M10 metallurgical microscope
at magnifications up to x200. The reference photographs of Schweingruber (1990) were
consulted for charcoal identification. Plant nomenclature utilised in the text follows Stace
(1997) for all vascular plants apart from cereals, which follow Zohary and Hopf (2000).
Results
20.
The environmental samples produced small concentrations of carbonised material <2.5ml
up to 45ml in volume mainly charcoal fragments 0.5cm to 2.0cm in size with occasional
finds of hazel nutshell in amongst crushed charred detritus. Modern remains were present
in amounts <2.5ml up to 10ml consisting primarily of root detritus with scarce finds of
earthworm egg capsules suggesting a fairly low degree of bioturbation or other disturbance
was taking place through the deposits.
Discussion
Ditch [004]
21.
Four samples were examined from slots through ditch [004] with concentrated deposits of
charcoal recovered from three of these.
22.
The basal fill (011) in Slot 3 at the east terminus produced mostly Quercus (oak) charcoal
fragments 1.0cm in size together with a small amount of slightly crushed Corylus (hazel)
charcoal. Basal fill (009) in Slot 2 from the western terminus was sterile. Basal fill (010) in
Slot 1 contained all oak charcoal quite twisted and distorted, perhaps bog oak collected for
fuel or possibly root material. Upper fill (005) in Slot 4 also produced oak charcoal but in
better condition with 1.0cm to 2.0cm fragments of well-preserved material recovered.
These were probably the remains of fuel waste from activities taking place within the
enclosure or could have originated from burning undertaken for woodland clearance.
23.
Two small <0.5cm slivers of Corylus avellana (hazel) nutshell in reasonably good condition
were found in (011) providing a tentative indication for processing of hazelnuts for food.
Pit [014]
24.
Possible pit [014] (015) contained trace crushed charred detritus with nothing identifiable.
This feature may be intrusive from post-medieval/modern activity or could be a stone hole.
Linear [016]
25.
Possible linear feature [016] (017) produced two <0.5cm slivers of hazelnut shell, very
degraded, in amongst trace crushed charred detritus. The remains were possibly trampled
or wind-blown into the deposit from nearby burning activity.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Conclusion
26.
The environmental samples produced concentrated deposits of oak charcoal remains
recorded from basal fills in Slot 1 (010) and Slot 3 (011), and the upper fill (005) of ditch
[004], with a small amount of hazel charcoal also present in (011). The charcoal is probably
fuel waste from burning activity taking place within the enclosure, perhaps from domestic
heating or cooking activity. Alternatively, some of the basal material may be from woodland
clearance work carried out to open up an area for construction of the enclosure, in
particular the charcoal in (010).
27.
Two fragments of hazel nutshell were recovered from ditch [004] (011) with a further two
from linear [016] although the latter were in much poorer condition. These provided trace
evidence for possible harvesting and processing of hazelnuts as a food resource in this
location.
Discussion
28.
Little Wood Hill sits in a landscape that has seen continuous activity from early prehistory
through to modern times. This activity has taken many forms including settlement,
agriculture and even medieval warfare.
29.
Keeping this in mind, it is possible to assign some of the findings from the excavation to
certain periods of activity within the history of Little Wood Hill. While this report will
summarise these into four main identifiable phases of activity, this does not negate the
continuity of use which is likely to have occurred in the intervening periods nor does it
intend to suggest that these phases do not each represent a substantial period of time.
30.
Based on the archaeological evidence, it is possible to identify activity relating to the early
prehistoric period, the Iron Age, the post-medieval period and modern disturbance.
The Lithics
31.
Most of the finds recovered from the site consisted of lithics, including flints potentially
dating to the late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age. These added to the small number of lithics
recovered from the topsoil during the 2014 excavations (Alexander, McPherson & Shearer
2014, 11).
32.
Evidence for early prehistoric activity has been found elsewhere on the Threave Estate.
Fieldwalking in the fields to the south of Meikle Wood Hill recovered two pieces of worked
flint (Canmore ID: 304979) and in situ evidence can be found roughly 1.2km to the south
of Little Wood Hill in the form of cup marks carved into rock outcrops (Canmore ID:
239597).
33.
The date of the flints places them potentially several millennia before the date of our
enclosure. As described (see section on Flaked Stone), none show signs of rolling damage.
This, combined with the topographic location of the site, suggest that they have not
migrated a great distance from where they were originally deposited. Significantly adding
to this is the debitage found within the fill of feature [016] (<24a> to <24e>) which
suggests that lithic working was undertaken in proximity to its location.
34.
The reuse of early prehistoric monuments in the Iron Age has been recorded elsewhere
(ScARF mentions that Hingley 1996 gives examples from the Atlantic zone) and the
positioning of sites in relation to features of the earlier landscape was potentially quite
influential. While there were no definite features indicating an early prehistoric settlement
at Little Wood Hill, the recovered flints indicate that some level of activity was occurring in
the landscape during this period.
The Enclosure
35.
It is all too easy to look at the Iron Age in Scotland and see the remains of hillforts,
ramparts and large enclosed sites hinting at a strife-ridden society filled with warring clans
and rival chiefs, but is it really this simple?
36.
It is certainly true that there is a monumental element to some of the archaeological
remains surviving from this era and you only need to look at hillforts such as that at
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Burnswark to recognise this. Alongside this though, there appears to be a huge array of
diversification across sites associated with the Iron Age, which does not appear to conform
to easily identifiable patterns or definitive reasoning when looked at in detail.
37.
A good overview of the Iron Age sites found in Scotland is given by the Scottish
Archaeological Research Framework (ScARF 2012).
38.
The most striking feature at Little Wood Hill, indeed the very reason that it has come to
our attention, is the presence of enclosing ditch [004]. Visible on aerial photography since
the mid-20th century, it occupies the northern half of the hill’s summit, not far from the
River Dee, with clear views stretching to the north, west and south.
39.
These works were able to open four slots through the ditch which confirmed the findings
of the earlier 2014 excavation: a roughly V-shaped ditch measuring 2.5 to 3.25m wide and
1.08 to 1.55m deep, filled by a series of sandy clays which get more clayey towards the
base. Two of the slots targeted the terminals at either side of the gap in the straightened
southeastern side. The gap was confirmed as being deliberate, defined by simple rounded
terminals containing a similar fill profile as the main body of the ditch.
40.
It was a sample taken from the base of this ditch during the 2014 excavation that gave us
a radiocarbon date of the 1st century BC to 1st century AD. This date gives us the terminus
post quem for the backfilling of the ditch. Terminus post quem is a Latin phrase which can
be translated as the ‘limit after which’. This means that as the fill of the ditch contains
charcoal dating from the 1st century BC to the 1st century AD, then the ditch must have
been backfilled either at this point or after for the charcoal to be present.
41.
This date should always be viewed with caution however, as this material can often be
intrusive as a result of biological processes or contamination, or it can be seen as residual,
entering the feature by way of redeposited backfill material that has been sourced
elsewhere.
42.
It is hoped that a radiocarbon date from a sample taken from basal fill (011) in the east
terminal (Slot 3) might help to either confirm or deny this date, but for now, we will take
this as our main evidence for the dating of the feature and see how it compares to other
sites from that period.
43.
Enclosed sites are a common feature in the Iron Age, not least because they have become
some of the most easily recognisable since the introduction of aerial photography. The
enclosing features themselves can take many forms including palisades, walls, single or
multiple ramparts (some timber-laced and some with stone revetments) and ditches. Very
rarely even features such as chevaux-de-frise can be found in association; these are areas
of stones set on edge with a view to impeding direct attacks from cavalry (Harding 2004,
59).
44.
The type of construction used does not appear to have any chronological, regional,
typological or functional significance and all approaches have been used variously on sites
from the Late Bronze Age through to the Early Medieval period. Neither are they mutually
exclusive, with more than one often being used in conjunction.
45.
It is likely that the univallate enclosure at Little Wood Hill was formed of ‘dump ramparts’,
with the excavated material from the ditch used to form a simple earthen bank that would
have ran along its internal edge. This does not mean that the bank was insubstantial
however, and it is possible that it may have also been heightened by a palisade placed on
top.
46.
The fills of the ditch showed no signs of it having been recut or modified during its use,
suggesting that the ditch represents a single phase of activity within the site’s history.
47.
There was also no evidence by way of postholes or slots at the location of the entrance to
indicate the nature of any possible gateway, although as always is the case in archaeology,
it is possible that the physical disturbance from any features may have been too shallow
to leave a trace.
48.
As well as the enclosing structure itself, the form of its entrance can also help to inform on
the intentions of those who created it. And again, this is also a feature which varies
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
considerably between sites throughout the Iron Age. It is common for enclosed sites to
have one or two entrances, although multiple entrances have been recorded at some of
the larger forts. While some sites show signs of aggrandisement of the enclosing features
around their entrances, this does not appear to be the case at Little Wood Hill. Instead,
the entrance appears to fit with the more typical occurrence of relatively simple gate
arrangements. The possibility that there was no gate also remains, although this would
have consequences for our views on the enclosure’s function.
49.
The typical form for these enclosed sites is circular, although rectilinear forms have also
been recorded across the east and south of Scotland, as well as the north of England. The
D-shape seen at Little Wood Hill is a bit more unusual, although it does exist elsewhere in
the southwest of Scotland and throughout Britain. The exact reason for this shape is
unknown. One suggestion is that the straight edge may be have been aligned along
informal trackways that have left no archaeological trace (Chadwick 2009, 40). It is difficult
to imagine a trackway running along the alignment of the straighter edge at Little Wood
Hill however, due to its proximity to the edge of the hill, particularly at the northeastern
end. However, the possibility that there was some activity occurring to the southeast of
the enclosure would help explain why its position is not central to the summit. It may also
explain the positioning of the entrance which faces away from the location of the river: an
important aspect for any prehistoric site. There are possible hints of features in the
southern half of the summit on aerial photography but so far, nothing definitive has been
identified.
50.
The enclosing of a site does not follow a set chronological pattern and it can occur early in
its evolution, with many enclosed sites being later reused as open settlements. It is equally
possible that the enclosing of a site occurred at a later stage in its sequence meaning that
any possible external features which may have sat to the south of the enclosure could have
been extant prior to its construction, potentially resulting in the off-centre positioning of
the site and its unusual shape.
51.
As many of the cropmark sites identified as Iron Age are as yet unexcavated, then one of
the main gaps in our knowledge relates to the presence of internal features, the majority
of which are potentially not substantial enough to be recognised in aerial photography. It
is the possibility of these internal features that could go a long way to helping us further
our understanding of these monuments and their functions.
52.
As such, one of the main aims of the works at Little Wood Hill was to open a large area
which encompassed a substantial portion of the space within the enclosing ditch. A trench
opened during the 2014 excavation within the interior did not reveal any features.
53.
As has been described, the nature of the subsoil made visibility of features difficult although
a possible posthole, pit and short linear feature were identified at the southeastern end of
the enclosure: [012], [014] and [016] respectively. Due to their diffuse nature, it is difficult
to ascertain their exact nature and possible function.
54.
These features sat quite tight to the internal side of the enclosing ditch (all within or around
1m of it) which at first could potentially negate them being contemporary with the ditch
itself; remember that the ditch would have been accompanied by a bank running along its
interior directly over the site of these features. Unexpectedly though, at the site of an Iron
Age enclosure excavated at Enderby in Leicestershire (Meek, Shore & Clay 2004), the siting
of two roundhouses close to the internal side of the enclosing ditch were revealed to be
contemporary with the ditch itself.
55.
One option that the authors suggest, is that the structures were partially built into the
bank possibly as a result of their purpose as either kitchens or workshops (Meek, Shore &
Clay 2004, 12). Another option at Little Wood Hill is the possibility that the opening through
the bank was wider than the corresponding opening through the ditch, and that the
features sat within this opening.
56.
It is also possible that perhaps a palisade may have taken the place of an internal bank,
but the outstanding question remains: what would they have done with the large quantity
of excavated material from the ditch? This is further compounded by the fact that the ditch
has at some point been backfilled; it makes sense to assume this would have been done
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
by backfilling the material from the adjacent bank, otherwise a lot of material would need
to be sourced from elsewhere. Another possibility is that the bank was placed around the
exterior of the ditch, but as the majority of the ditch sat close to the break of slope for the
summit this would appear unlikely.
57.
The positioning of the features does not necessarily negate their contemporaneity, so it is
difficult to identify their exact relation to the phasing of the enclosure. The inclusion of a
fragment of modern wall plaster or mortar in the fill of pit [014] could potentially bring into
question whether some of these features might not represent later disturbance from
modern activity. It is possible that one fragment may have made its way into an earlier
feature from later disturbance though, and the presence of the flint debitage in feature
[016], means that the nature of these features remains uncertain.
58.
The possibility remains that there may evidence for internal features which may not have
been visible due to the ground conditions. It is also possible that any features were not
substantial enough to leave a trace in the archaeological record, or that they have been
removed due to plough truncation. As Toolis (2015, 25) states, the effects of agriculture
on the survival of internal features, even cattle-raising and sheep farming, should not be
underestimated.
59.
The lack of dateable features makes it difficult to phase the site at Little Wood Hill, and
there is no way to be sure that even when found, internal features are contemporary with
the enclosure. As stated above, the act of enclosing a site can occur either early or late in
a site’s sequence.
60.
Interestingly, turning to the finds recovered from Little Wood Hill, most of them either
predate or postdate the potential date of the enclosure by millennia. The only artefact
recovered that could potentially date to the Iron Age is the possible whetstone <6>
recovered from the upper fill (005) of the ditch. This ‘material poverty’ is well known on
Iron Age sites across Galloway (Cavers 2008; Toolis 2015) to the point where it does
appear to be genuine (Cavers 2008, 22) rather than a result of lack of excavation. It would
appear, that in this regard, Little Wood Hill is in good company.
61.
Toolis makes a valid point that the lack of finds contrasts squarely with metalwork finds
from the period, such as the Carlingwark cauldron hoard and the Torrs pony cap (2015,
25), both of which have been found not far from the site of Little Wood Hill. These items,
which appear to have originated in the native communities, demonstrate the artistic
influences and complex technologies that were present (Cavers 2008, 22).
62.
Once it is accepted that the material poverty of Iron Age sites is not necessarily a reflection
of an impoverished society, then the reason for this lack of material culture is up for debate.
Cavers mentions that an obvious reason may be the increased availability of wood as a
resource which would potentially have supplanted the importance of ceramics, alongside
the introduction of lathe technology in the mid-1st millennium BC (2008, 22). Toolis (2015,
26) presents the idea that there was a general preference towards more perishable organic
materials, and also suggests a trend towards recycling or disposing of their belongings to
a greater degree than visible elsewhere.
63.
At some point our enclosure was abandoned, the potential bank levelled, and the ditch
infilled, although not necessarily as a single event, with many Iron Age enclosures being
left as upstanding earthworks. It is likely that the basal fills of ditch [004] represents silting
up while the ditch sat open, although it’s difficult to know how long this was. The main fills
of the ditch appear to be fairly similar across its length and it seems likely that the majority
of the ditch was infilled in one go; the likely material for this being the redeposited material
that formed the internal bank (if this was present).
64.
At what point this would have occurred is unclear; we know from the terminus post quem
given by the 2014 radiocarbon date that it must have happened during or after the 1 st
century BC to 1st century AD, but it is difficult to pinpoint this further. It is possible that
the ditch may have been infilled upon abandonment, although equally it may have been
done centuries later by a potential farmer wishing to clear the ground.
65.
Now we come to one of the more pertinent questions: function. The list of possible
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
functions assigned to Iron Age enclosures is endless: single homesteads, small villages,
places of assembly, defensive features, livestock enclosures, elite residences, tribal
centres, seasonal markets and even the all-encompassing ritual. Proposing a single
function for an enclosed site is not always easily demonstrated through excavation; there
is no identifiable correlation between a site’s setting or morphology with the nature of its
use and even where internal features are identified, there are difficulties in proving whether
they were contemporary with their enclosing structures.
66.
Most enclosures do appear to have been occupied on some basis but whether this was
year-round, seasonal, intermittent or celebratory is debatable and often hard to
differentiate in the archaeological remains. With an internal area of roughly 0.06ha, the
size of the enclosure at Little Wood Hill is not of a scale that would compete with the more
impressive hillforts of the era, such as Burnswark over towards Lockerbie which sits at 6ha.
If it represents a settlement it would likely be small scale, possibly a homestead for a single
family, such as at Enderby (Meek, Shore & Clay 2004, 5). While we cannot rule out the
possibility of it as a settlement, there is also no definitive evidence to say that it was,
however.
67.
Other factors to consider are its setting, its relationship to the nearby Meikle Wood Hill and
the nature of the enclosing structure itself.
68.
A prominent subject for discussion in relation to Iron Age sites is their position within the
landscape. Access to watercourses has always been an important factor in site placements
throughout history as a means of economic and political interactions. The siting of Little
Wood Hill near to the River Dee fits in well with this, but may also relate to a more general
significance that appears to have been assigned to watercourses during the Iron Age; one
which is attested to by the occurrence of hoards and votive offerings being deposited in
lochs and rivers.
69.
Another interesting factor in its location, is the proximity of Little Wood Hill to Meikle Wood
Hill only 300m to the southeast. The summit of Meikle Wood Hill is occupied by the site of
a double ditched enclosure, measuring roughly 85m by 120m, which has been scheduled
as an Iron Age hillfort (SM 8367). The site has not been excavated but the ring-ditch of a
possible roundhouse at its centre has been identified on aerial photographs. Geophysical
surveys of the site carried out in 2012 (Carey 2013) noted several internal features, some
of which appeared to correlate with the site of the ring-ditch.
70.
The enclosure on Meikle Wood Hill is larger in size (with an interior that is three times
bigger) and occupies a higher position, overlooking the enclosure on Little Wood Hill.
Without dateable material from the former however, it is difficult to know if the two sites
were contemporary, sequential or chronologically distant from each other. The occurrence
of enclosed sites in close proximity is seen elsewhere in southern Scotland (Harding 2004,
63), and as Harding states, it may imply ‘some distinction in function or in the identity of
the communities that built and occupied them’ (ibid.). Certainly it would seem strange
that, if the sites at Little Wood Hill and Meikle Wood Hill were not contemporary, why they
would not just continue to reuse the location of whichever was earliest, particularly when
considering the effort involved in constructing the enclosures.
71.
The proximity of the sites questions the validity of any potential defensive intentions in
Little Wood Hill’s enclosure. Even if both sites were related to the same community, surely
it would be safer to keep within the larger and higher enclosure on Meikle Wood Hill (if
defence was their primary concern). To what extent the enclosures surrounding Iron Age
sites in general were for the purpose of defence is an ongoing discussion. At first glance,
defence would appear to be the obvious reason, but when looked at in more detail, the
positioning of some sites, the presence of multiple entrances in others and at times the
overprovision of defensive earthworks in relation to the area they enclose, all bring into
question whether we are imposing our own notions of conflict on to this prehistoric
landscape. While it would appear likely that the nature of some of the enclosed sites will
have had a defensive function, other factors such as visual symbols of status could also
have played a part. Indeed, the amount of effort that would have been involved in the
construction of these enclosures would have reflected the resources of those who
constructed them.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 24 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
72.
It is possible that the positioning of Little Wood Hill within an area that may have been
good agricultural land (as has been its use in recent periods) could suggest a practical
purpose for our enclosure such as for the keeping of livestock. This has been suggested as
a possibility at other D-shaped enclosure sites such as near Coltishall in Norfolk (Norfolk
Historic Environment Record No. 50776) and at Haddon Hill in Shropshire (Shropshire
Historic Environment Record No. 04046). Identifying prehistoric agricultural practices can
be problematic as many will have been obscured or completely removed by later
agricultural activity, but it is known that Iron Age communities were capable of efficient
agricultural practices, both arable and pastoral (Harding 2004, 74).
73.
Whether the enclosure on Little Wood Hill represents a small steading, an agricultural
feature or something else entirely remains uncertain, and hopefully further excavation and
dating of similar sites in the future might help to bring some clarity to this. While there is
still much to learn about the enclosed sites of the Iron Age, it is worth noting that they do
imply a definite effort to mark out positions in the landscape that were designed to last.
These were people making their mark on the landscape for the sake of generations, a mark
that would last for millennia.
The Musket Ball
74.
The discovery of the unfired musket ball on site, likely from accidental loss, hints at activity
occurring several centuries after the enclosure was likely abandoned. The use of lead
bullets appeared in Britain around the late 15 th century, but it was in the 16 th century that
it started to become more dominant before reaching its peak as the dominant projectile
during the 17th and 18th centuries (Foard & Partida 2005, 19).
75.
Its continuous use for such a long period makes dating the musket ball found on site
difficult, and there is more than one purpose that could account for its appearance. The
possibility does remain however, that it could date to the time of the 1640 siege on Threave
Castle, when the castle’s stationed garrison, under the instruction of Lord Maxwell, held
out for 13 weeks against the Army of the Covenant. Indeed, prior to the Iron Age date
obtained in the 2014 excavation, it was initially believed that the enclosure on Little Wood
Hill related to one of the sieges on the castle (Derek Alexander, pers. comm. 10th
September 2019).
76.
It is possible that if the enclosure’s ramparts were still extant at this period that the site
would have been a tempting location for troops to hole up during any siege of the castle.
The recovery of the musket ball near to the surface of the ditch’s upper fill (005) might put
this into question, however. If we can envisage that the ditch was filled with the material
from the adjacent bank, then it follows that the upper fill of the ditch comes from the lower
material in the bank. The recovery location of the musket ball could perhaps instead
suggest that its deposition post-dated the infilling of the ditch.
Modern Disturbance
77.
It is clear that Little Wood Hill has been part of an agricultural landscape that dates back
at least the last few centuries, although potentially longer. This appears to have been both
as pastoral and arable, both of which are likely to have created a deal of disturbance to
any potential archaeological remains.
78.
A few potential modern artefacts were recovered from the site although the most
unexpected was the fragment of modern 19 th to early 20th century wall plaster recovered
from the fill of pit [014] and a second that was unstratified. As stated, its inclusion within
the fill of [014] puts into question whether this feature is of any antiquity or is in fact a
modern feature, although it is also possible that this could have been intrusive.
79.
Either way, it is still strange that wall plaster would appear on the top of a hill surrounded
by fields. Its most likely origins would appear to be modern dumping within the fields,
which could then have been spread further afield through ploughing.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 25 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Conclusion
80.
The D-shaped enclosure on Little Wood Hill was initially identified as a cropmark on aerial
photography in the mid-20th century. Trenching carried out at the site by the National Trust
of Scotland in 2014 produced a radiocarbon date of the 1st century BC to 1st century AD
from the ditch, placing it within the Iron Age.
81.
This phase of excavation was aimed at opening a larger area across the southeastern half
of the enclosure, encompassing portions of the ditch, the site of the entrance and a large
portion of the enclosure’s interior.
82.
Four slots excavated into the ditch confirmed the 2014 findings of a roughly V-shaped
profile measuring between 2.5 and 3.25m wide and 1.08 to 1.55m deep. The entrance
appeared to be simple in form, marked by rounded terminals with no obvious signs for an
elaborate gateway. A small number of possible internal features – a possible pit, posthole
and short linear feature – were identified, although their exact character was unclear.
83.
A small number of artefacts were recovered during the works. The most numerous
appeared to be lithics which hinted at earlier activity within the landscape. The only artefact
recovered that could potentially be Iron Age in origin was a possible whetstone. A later
post-medieval musket ball was recovered from the upper fills of the ditch and few modern
artefacts were also found.
Acknowledgements
84.
This project is part of a wider Community Archaeology project, ‘Can You Dig It’, run by the
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme from February 2019 to March 2020. See
www.gallowayglens.org.uk/Resources and follow ‘Can You Dig It’ for their published
outputs. The Community Archaeology project was offered free to volunteers thanks to
funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland. The
land is owned by the National Trust for Scotland who kindly allowed us access and gave
their support and guidance for the works; particular thanks go to Derek Alexander, David
Thompson, Sam Gallacher and James Hutchinson who were very supportive throughout.
Guidance was also given by Andrew Nicholson (Dumfries and Galloway Council Archaeology
Service) and members of local heritage societies.
85.
The author would like to thank all of the hardworking volunteers who took part in the
excavation: Hilary Fawcett, Nickie Newsum, John Allison, Jennifer Roberts, Tom Marshall,
Alexa Smith, Peter Smith, Anna Russell, Jack Boyce, Katrina Boyce, Alister McIntosh,
Andrew MacFarlane, Alex Scott, Jo Scott, Rodger Smith, Kevin Armstrong, Eva ArmstrongPhillips, Caroline Watson, Mike Viola, Dan McDermott, Judith McConnachie, Callum
McQueen, Kyle McQueen, William Monk, Steven Steele, Angela Murray, Charlotte Murray,
Cath Monk, Derek Kernahan, Jackie Kernahan, Jessie Kernahan, Eva Kernahan, Claire
Martin, David Orr and Julia Dunbar.
86.
Thank you also to I.B. Aitchison & Son Ltd who kindly provided the plant for the initial
stripping of the excavation area and returned for its final backfill.
87.
The support and guidance provided by Rathmell Archaeology staff members Liam
McKinstry, Jack Portwood, Sarah Krischer, Laura Anderson and Thomas Rees on site was
much appreciated by me and everyone involved. Special thanks also go to Liam McKinstry
for creating the 3D model of the site allowing a wider audience to see and interpret the
results. Final thanks should also go to Thomas Rees for his guidance and help both
throughout the initial organisation of the project and while the works were taking place on
site. I am also grateful to Laura for creating the report’s illustrations and typing up the
appendices, Louise Turner for her comments on the artefacts and the finds photography,
and to Thomas for editing this report.
88.
A final thanks go to the Historic Environment team – Malcolm, Sam, Lewis, Cat and Peter
– who helped to direct stray visitors our way and gave us and our volunteers a great tour
of the castle. The staff from both the National Trust for Scotland and Historic Environment
Scotland based at Threave Estate always treated us with kindness and created a welcoming
environment for us each day we were on site, thank you.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 26 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
References
Documentary
Alexander, D., McPherson, C. & Shearer, J. 2014 Little Wood Hill Thistle Camp, Threave
Estate, Data Structure Report, unpublished report by the National Trust for Scotland
Ballin, T. B. 2000 ‘Classification and description of lithic artefacts: a discussion of the basic
lithic terminology’, Lithics 21 (2000), 9-15
Cary, G. 2013 Discovering Dumfries and Galloway’s Past, Geophysical Survey at Kelton
Mains, Threave Estate, Castle Douglas: Interim Report, unpublished report by the
University of Glasgow, College of Social Sciences Solway Centre
Chadwick, A. M. 2009 West Yorkshire Archaeology Service Research Agenda: The Iron Age
and
Romano-British
Periods
in
West
Yorkshire
[online]
available
at:
https://www.wyjs.org.uk/media/1271/iron-age-and-roman.pdf [accessed 18 March 2020]
Cavers, G. 2008 ‘The later prehistory of ‘black-holes’: regionality and the south-west
Scottish Iron Age’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 138 (2008), 1326
Foard, G. & Partida, T. 2005 Scotland’s Historic Fields of Conflict: An Assessment for
Historic Scotland, unpublished report by The Battlefields Trust [online] available at:
http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/media/660.pdf [accessed 25 March 2020]
Hingley, R. 1996 ‘Ancestors and identity in the later prehistory of Atlantic Scotland: the
reuse and reinvention of Neolithic monuments and material culture’, World Archaeology
28(2), 231-243
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H. & Tixier, J. 1992 Technology of Knapped Stone, Préhistoire de la
Pierre Taillée Tome 3 (Meudon)
Meek, J., Shore, M. & Clay, P. 2004 ‘Iron Age Enclosures at Enderby and Huncote,
Leicestershire’, Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society, 78
(2004), 1-34
Rees, T. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community
Archaeology Project, Risk Assessment Method Statement 1.2.b Later Prehistoric Power
Centres, unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
ScARF 2012 Iron Age Scotland: ScARF Panel Report [online] available at:
https://www.scottishheritagehub.com/sites/default/files/u12/ScARF%20Iron%20Age%20
Sept%202012.pdf [accessed 25 March 2020]
Toolis, R. 2015 ‘Iron Age Settlement Patterns in Galloway’, Transactions of the
Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society, 89 (2015), 17-34
Wickham-Jones, C. R. 1990 Rhum, Mesolithic and Later Sites at Kinloch, Excavations 198486, Soc Antiq Scot Mono 7 (Edinburgh)
Williamson, C. & Rees, T. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project, Research Design 1.2.b Later Prehistoric Power Centres,
unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Websites
Norfolk Historic Environment Record - http://www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/
Shropshire Historic Environment Record - http://www.shropshirehistory.org.uk/
Canmore - https://canmore.org.uk/
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 27 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland
LOCAL AUTHORITY:
Dumfries & Galloway
PROJECT TITLE/SITE
NAME:
Galloway Glens – Little Wood Hill, Threave
PROJECT CODE:
RA18107
PARISH:
Kelton
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR:
Claire Williamson
NAME OF ORGANISATION:
Rathmell Archaeology Limited
TYPE(S) OF PROJECT:
Excavation
NMRS NO(S):
NX76SW 10 (Canmore ID: 64677)
SITE/MONUMENT TYPE(S):
Enclosure (Period Unassigned)
SIGNIFICANT FINDS:
Flints, Musket Ball
NGR (2 letters, 8 or 10
figures)
NX 74342 62310
START DATE (this season)
10th September 2020
END DATE (this season)
21st September 2020
PREVIOUS WORK (incl.
DES ref.)
Excavation in 2014 - Alexander, D., McPherson, C. & Shearer, J.
2014 Little Wood Hill Thistle Camp, Data Structure Report,
Glasgow: The National Trust for Scotland
MAIN (NARRATIVE)
DESCRIPTION: (may
include information from
other fields)
The D-shaped enclosure on Little Wood Hill was initially identified as
a cropmark on aerial photography in the mid-20th century. Trenching
carried out at the site by the National Trust of Scotland in 2014
produced a radiocarbon date of the 1st century BC to 1st century AD
from the ditch, placing it within the Iron Age.
This phase of excavation was aimed at opening a larger area across
the southeastern half of the enclosure, encompassing portions of the
ditch, the site of the entrance and a large portion of the enclosure’s
interior.
Four slots excavated into the ditch confirmed the 2014 findings of a
roughly V-shaped profile measuring between 2.5 and 3.25m wide
and 1.08 to 1.55m deep. The entrance appeared to be simple in form,
marked by rounded terminals with no obvious signs for an elaborate
gateway. A small number of possible internal features – a possible
pit, posthole and short linear feature – were identified, although their
exact character was unclear.
A small number of artefacts were recovered during the works. The
most numerous appeared to be lithics which hinted at earlier activity
within the landscape. The only artefact recovered that could
potentially be Iron Age in origin was a possible whetstone. A later
post-medieval musket ball was recovered from the upper fills of the
ditch and few modern artefacts were also found.
PROPOSED FUTURE
WORK:
None
CAPTION(S) FOR
ILLUSTRS:
None
SPONSOR OR FUNDING
BODY:
The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme (part of
Dumfries & Galloway Council), externally funded by Historic
Environment Scotland and the Heritage Fund
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 28 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
ADDRESS OF MAIN
CONTRIBUTOR:
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops, Kilwinning, Ayrshire KA13 6PU
E MAIL:
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
ARCHIVE LOCATION
(intended/deposited)
Report to Dumfries & Galloway Archaeology Service and archive to
National Record of the Historic Environment.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 29 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Appendix 2: Registers
89.
Appendix 2, which contains all registers pertaining to the works on–site during the excavation.
Context Register
Context
No.
Area/
Trench
Type
Description
Interpretation
001
Deposit
Friable mid-orange brown sandy clay with frequently occurring sub-rounded and angular
stone inclusions. Present across the whole site with a thickness of 100-200mm. Find <11>,
an iron pin or clench-bolt, was recovered from this layer.
Topsoil.
002
Deposit
Firmly compacted dark brown sandy clay with frequently occurring small to medium sized
stone inclusions (both sub-rounded and sub-angular). Present across the majority of the
excavated area, mainly within the area to the inside of ditch [004].
Natural subsoil.
003
Deposit
Firmly compacted mid-orange brown sandy clay with frequently occurring small to medium
sized stone inclusions (both sub-rounded and sub-angular). Present in the southeast corner
of the excavated area to the exterior of ditch [004].
Natural subsoil.
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 30 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Context
No.
004
Area/
Trench
Type
Description
Interpretation
Cut
Large curvilinear-shaped ditch enclosing a D-shaped area on the summit of Little Wood Hill.
The excavated area exposed the southeastern and northeastern sides of the feature. The
southeastern side represented the ‘straight’ portion of the enclosure, with a gap of 4.1m
located along its length and rounded terminals on either side. To the west of the gap, the
ditch was orientated southwest-northeast and was revealed for a length of 4.5m with a width
of 2.6m to 3m. To the east of the gap, the ditch continued on a southwest-northeast
orientation for a length of approximately 11m before curving to the northwest for a length of
approximately 14m. This portion of the ditch measured 2.5m to 3.25m wide. The feature
was mainly V-shaped in section with gradually sloping sides and a flattish base. Filled
variously by (005), (006), (007), (008), (009), (010), (011) and (018).
Curvilinear enclosing
ditch marking out a Dshaped area on the
summit of Little Wood
Hill. Only one gap
located in the ‘straight’
southeastern side is
the only visible
entrance.
Four slots (1-4) were opened along its length.
Slot 1 – measured 1.6m wide, excavated within the southeastern side of [004] at the
southwestern most limit of excavation. The slot revealed the ditch to be 2.62m wide at this
point and 1.14m deep. The break of slope at the top was gentle, with gradually sloping
sides although these became steeper for the bottom 450mm of the cut. The base break of
slope was sharp with an uneven base. Filled by (005), (006) and (010). Finds were
recovered from (005): two flints, <2> and <4>; three quartz, <5> and <12>; two coarse
stones, <13> and one incomplete whetstone or rubber, <6>.
Slot 2 – measured 1.3m wide, excavated within the western terminus of [004]. Cut was
revealed to be 2.68m wide and up to 1.08m deep. Break of slope at top was gentle with
gradually sloping sides although they became steeper for the bottom 200mm of the cut. The
break of slope at the base was sharp with a narrow fairly flat base. Filled by (005), (006),
(007), (018), and (009). One fragment of quartz was recovered from (005), <3>.
Slot 3 – quarter slot measuring 2.75m southwest-northeast by 2m southeast-northwest,
excavated within the eastern terminus of [004] (southern half). Cut was revealed to be up to
3.2m wide and 1.55m deep. Break of slope at top was gentle and the sides were gradually
sloping. The break of slope at base was gentle and the base itself was fairly flat. Filled by
(005), (008), and (011). One flint <15> was recovered from (011).
Slot 4 – measured 1.8m wide, excavated in the northeastern side of [004] at the northern
most limit of excavation. Cut was revealed to be 3m wide and 1m deep, although its base
was not met as it became heavily waterlogged at this depth hindering further excavation.
Break of slope at the top was gradual and the sides were gradual sloping. Filled by (005)
and (006). No finds were recovered.
Outwith the slots, a musket ball <9> was recovered from (005).
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 31 of 41
Initially identified on
aerial photographs,
radiocarbon dating
from previous
excavation work
indicates a later
prehistoric date.
Exact function of the
enclosure remains
uncertain.
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Context
No.
Area/
Trench
005
Type
Description
Interpretation
Fill
Firmly compacted mid-brown orange sandy clay with frequent sub-rounded and sub-angular
stone inclusions. In Slot 4 at northeastern end of [004], it also contained frequent charcoal
fleck inclusions. The layer had a thickness range within the excavation area of 180mm to
900mm. Finds <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <9>, <12> and <13> were recovered from (005),
which included flint, quartz, coarse stone and a musket ball. This layer was present
throughout [004], overlying (006) (Slots 1, 2 and 4) and (008) (Slot 3).
Upper fill of ditch [004]
along its full length.
006
Slots 1, 2
and 4
Fill
Firmly compacted mid-brown orange sandy clay with occasional stone inclusions. This layer
had a thickness range within the excavation area of 210mm to 300mm. Found underlying
(005) in Slots 1, 2 and 4; not present within Slot 3. Overlying (010) in Slot 1 and (007) in
Slot 2.
Fill of [004], underlying
(005).
007
Slot 2
Fill
Firmly compacted pink brown clay with frequent stone and charcoal inclusions. The layer
had a thickness of 530mm and was revealed only in the western terminus of ditch [004], as
revealed in Slot 2. Underlying (006) and overlying (018).
Fill of [004], underlying
(006) in west terminus.
008
Slot 3
Fill
Firmly compacted brown grey clay with frequent stone and charcoal inclusions. The layer
had a thickness of 390mm and was revealed only in eastern terminus of the ditch [004], as
revealed in Slot 3. This layer sat beneath (005) and directly above (011).
Fill of [004], underlying
(005) in east terminus.
009
Slot 2
Fill
Firmly compacted pink brown clay with frequent small stones and charcoal inclusions. The
layer was similar to (007) and lay directly beneath (018) in the western terminus of ditch
[004], revealed as the basal fill within Slot 2. The layer had thickness of 80mm.
Basal fill of [004] in
west terminus,
underlying (018).
010
Slot 1
Fill
Firmly compacted pink brown clay with frequent stone and moderate charcoal inclusions.
The layer had a thickness of 330mm and was revealed only in Slot 1 at the western end of
ditch [004]. Basal fill underlying (006).
Basal fill of [004] in
Slot 1, underlying
(006).
011
Slot 3
Fill
Firmly compacted mottled pink brown clay with frequent stone and charcoal inclusions. The
layer had a thickness of 400mm and was revealed only in the eastern terminus of ditch
[004], as revealed in Slot 3. This layer formed the basal fill in this section and lay beneath
(008). It appears similar to (009). Find <15>, a flint, was recovered from this layer.
Basal fill of [004] in
east terminus,
underlying (008).
012
Cut
Circular shaped cut in plan, half sectioned during the works. The cut measured 0.34m in
diameter and 200mm deep. Break of slope at the top was sharp with gradually sloping
sides. Break of slope at the base was gradual with a rounded base. Filled by (013). It is
possible that there were two adjacent postholes but ground conditions made them unclear
and time constraints prevented further investigation.
Cut of possible
posthole.
013
Fill
Friable mid- orange brown sandy silt with small stone inclusions. The deposit had a
thickness of 200mm.
Fill of possible
posthole [012].
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 32 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Context
No.
Type
Description
Interpretation
014
Cut
Circular shaped cut in plan. Measured 2.6m in diameter and 350 to 390mm deep. Break of
slope at top was gentle with steep sloping sides. Break of slope at base was very gradual
with an uneven base. The pit was filled by (015) and quarter sectioned during the works.
Cut of possible pit.
015
Fill
Friable mid- brownish orange sandy clay with very frequent small stone inclusions. It had
thickness range of 350 to 390mm. Find <17>, coarse mortar or plaster, was recovered from
this deposit.
Fill of possible pit
[014].
016
Cut
Linear shaped cut in plan. Measured 3.6m long by 0.9m wide and 250 to 270mm deep.
Orientated in a southwest to northeast direction. Break of slope top is gradual with gradually
sloping sides. Break of slope at the base is sharp and the base itself was uneven. Filled by
(017).
Cut of possible linear
feature.
017
Fill
Friable mid- to dark brown sandy clay with frequent stone inclusions. Measured 250 to
270mm thick. Find <16>, a flint, was recovered from this deposit.
Fill of possible linear
feature [016].
Fill
Firmly compacted green grey clay with occasional charcoal and small stone inclusions. This
layer had a thickness of 30mm and was located only in the western terminus within ditch
[004], as revealed in Slot 2. Underlies (007) and overlies (009).
Fill of [004], underlying
(007) in western
terminus.
018
Area/
Trench
Slot 2
Photographic Register
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
1
7480
Pre-excavation shot of site
S
10/09/19
2
7481
Pre-excavation shot of site
SW
10/09/19
3
7482
Pre-excavation shot of site
W
10/09/19
4
7483
Pre-excavation shot of site
NW
10/09/19
5
7484
Pre-excavation shot of site
N
10/09/19
6
7485
Pre-excavation shot of site
NE
10/09/19
7
7486
Pre-excavation shot of site
E
10/09/19
8
7487
Pre-excavation shot of site
SE
10/09/19
9
7488
Pre-excavation shot of western terminal, [004]
WSW
10/09/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 33 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
10
7489
Pre-excavation shot of western terminal, [004]
WSW
10/09/19
11
7490
Pre-excavation shot of western terminal, [004]
WSW
10/09/19
12
7491
Pre-excavation shot of western terminal, [004]
W
10/09/19
13
7492
Pre-excavation shot of western terminal, [004]
W
10/09/19
14
7493
Voided
-
-
15
7494
Pre-excavation shot of western terminal, [004]
SSW
10/09/19
16
7495
Pre-excavation shot of western terminal, [004]
E
10/09/19
17
7496
Pre-excavation shot of western terminal, [004]
E
10/09/19
18
7497
Pre-excavation shot of western terminal, [004]
E
10/09/19
19
7498
Pre-excavation shot of western terminal, [004]
E
10/09/19
20
7499
Mid-excavation of flat stone in Slot 2, [004]
E
10/09/19
21
7500
Voided
-
-
22
7501
Mid-excavation shot of flat stone within Slot 2, [004]
W
13/09/19
23
7502
Mid-excavation shot of flat stone within Slot 2, [004]
E
13/09/19
24
7503
Pre-excavation of NE half of site – ditch [004]
S
13/09/19
25
7504
Pre-excavation of NE half of site – ditch [004]
E
13/09/19
26
7505
Pre-excavation of NE half of site – ditch [004]
E
13/09/19
27
7506
Pre-excavation of NE half of site – ditch [004]
SE
13/09/19
28
7507
Pre-excavation of NE half of site – ditch [004]
NW
13/09/19
29
7508
Pre-excavation of NE half of site – ditch [004]
SW
13/09/19
30
7509
Pre-excavation of NE half of site – ditch [004]
SW
13/09/19
31
7510
Pre-excavation of NE half of site – ditch [004]
SE
13/09/19
32
7511
Pre-excavation of NE half of site – ditch [004]
SE
13/09/19
33
7512
Pre-excavation of NE half of site – ditch [004]
S
13/09/19
34
7513
Shot of SW half of site
SE
13/09/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 34 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
35
7514
Working shot
-
13/09/19
36
7515
NE half of site – ditch [004]
NW
13/09/19
37
7516
Shot across site
N
13/09/19
38
7517
Shot across site
NNW
13/09/19
39
7518
Shot across site
NW
13/09/19
40
7519
NE half of site – ditch [004]
W
13/09/19
41
7520
NE half of site
W
13/09/19
42
7521
View to the NE of the site
SW
13/09/19
43
7522
Mid-excavation of Slot 1, [004]
NW
14/09/19
44
7523
Mid-excavation of Slot 1, [004]
NW
14/09/19
45
7524
Mid-excavation of Slot 1, [004]
SE
14/09/19
46
7525
Oblique shot of Slot 1, [004]
S
14/09/19
47
7526
SW facing section of Slot 1, [004] – mid-excavation
SE
14/09/19
48
7527
NE facing section of Slot 1, [004] – mid-excavation
NE
14/09/19
49
7528
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004]
SE
14/09/19
50
7529
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004]
SE
14/09/19
51
7530
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004]
NE
14/09/19
52
7531
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004]
NE
14/09/19
53
7532
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
NW
14/09/19
54
7533
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
NW
14/09/19
55
7534
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
NW
14/09/19
56
7535
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
NE
14/09/19
57
7536
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
SW
14/09/19
58
7537
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
S
14/09/19
59
7538
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 3, [004]
NE
14/09/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 35 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
60
7539
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 3, [004]
SE
14/09/19
61
7540
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 3, [004]
SW
14/09/19
62
7541
Mid-excavation shot of Slot 3, [004]
SE
14/09/19
63
7542
Post-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004] (S half)
SSE
18/09/19
64
7543
Post-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004] (S half)
SE
18/09/19
65
7544
Post-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004] (S half)
SSE
18/09/19
66
7545
Post-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004] (S half)
SE
18/09/19
67
7546
Post-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004] (S half)
SSE
18/09/19
68
7547
Post-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004] (S half) – ENE facing section
ENE
18/09/19
69
7548
Post-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004] (S half) – SSE facing section
SSE
18/09/19
70
7549
Post-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004] (S half) – ENE facing section
ENE
18/09/19
71
7550
Post-excavation shot of Slot 3, [004] – SE facing section
SE
20/09/19
72
7551
Post-excavation shot of Slot 3, [004] – SW facing section
SW
20/09/19
73
7552
Post-excavation shot of Slot 3, [004]
SW
20/09/19
74
7553
Post-excavation shot of Slot 3, [004]
SW
20/09/19
75
7554
Post-excavation shot of Slot 3, [004]
SW
20/09/19
76
7555
Post-excavation shot of Slot 3, [004]
S
20/09/19
77
7556
View from site
SW
21/09/19
78
7557
Post-excavation of section of possible posthole [012]
NNW
21/09/19
79
7558
Post-excavation of section of possible posthole [012]
WSW
21/09/19
80
7559
Post-excavation shot of Slot 1, [004]
WSW
21/09/19
81
7560
Post-excavation shot of Slot 1, [004]
S
21/09/19
82
7561
Post-excavation shot of Slot 1, [004]
S
21/09/19
83
7562
Post-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004]
NE
21/09/19
84
7563
Post-excavation shot of Slot 2, [004]
S
21/09/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 36 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
85
7564
General shot Slots 1 and 2 in [004]
WSW
21/09/19
86
7565
General shot Slots 1 and 2 in [004]
S
21/09/19
87
7566
Post-excavation shot of pit [014] – S facing section
S
21/09/19
88
7567
Post-excavation shot of pit [014]
SW
21/09/19
89
7568
Post-excavation shot of linear feature [016] – N facing section
N
21/09/19
90
7569
Post-excavation shot of linear feature [016]
NE
21/09/19
91
7570
Post-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004] – WNW facing section
WNW
21/09/19
92
7571
Post-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004] – WNW facing section
WNW
21/09/19
93
7572
Post-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
W
21/09/19
94
7573
Post-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
N
21/09/19
95
7574
Post-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
NW
21/09/19
96
7575
Post-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
W
21/09/19
97
7576
Post-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
N
21/09/19
98
7577
Post-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
N
21/09/19
99
7578
Post-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
NW
21/09/19
100
7579
Post-excavation shot of Slot 4, [004]
W
25/09/19
101
7580
Shot of second stripped area – not excavated
NE
25/09/19
102
7581
Shot of second stripped area – not excavated
SW
25/09/19
Drawing Register
Drawing
No.
Sheet
No.
1
Area/
Trench
Drawing Type
Scale
Description
Drawer
Date
1
Section
1:10
E facing section of Slot 2 in [004]
HF & LA
18/09/19
2
1
Section
1:10
S facing section of Slot 2 in [004]
HF & LA
19/09/19
3
1
Section
1:10
W facing section of Slot 1 in [004]
RS & LA
20/09/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 37 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Drawing
No.
Sheet
No.
4
Area/
Trench
Drawing Type
Scale
Description
Drawer
Date
1
Section
1:10
SE facing section of Slot 3 in [004]
LMcK & JP
21/09/19
5
2
Section
1:10
SE facing section of possible pit [014]
CW & JP
25/09/19
6
2
Section
1:10
N facing section of Slot 4 in [004]
LMcK
27/09/19
7
3, 4
Plan
1:50
Post-excavation plan of site
LMcK
27/09/19
Sample Register
Sample Area/
No.
Trench
Context
Sample Type
Description / Quantity
Excavator
Date
1
(008)
Bulk x 3
Sample of charcoal rich layer in Slot 3 in [004]
JP
21/09/19
2
(011)
Bulk x 2
Sample of charcoal rich layer in Slot 3 in [004]
JP
21/09/19
3
(010)
Bulk x 1
Sample of charcoal rich clay layer in Slot 1 in [004]
LA
21/09/19
4
(007)
Bulk x 1
Sample of charcoal rich clay layer in Slot 2 in [004]
LA
18/09/19
5
(007)
Bulk x 1 small bag
Sample of possible burnt bone and charcoal layer in Slot 2 in [004]
LA
18/09/19
6
(009)
Bulk x 1 small bag
Sample of greyish green clay layer in Slot 2 in [004]
LA
18/09/19
7
(006)
Bulk x 1 small bag
Sample of possible burnt bone and charcoal layer in Slot 2 in [004]
LA
20/09/19
8
(007)
Bulk x 1 small bag
Sample of possible burnt bone and charcoal layer in Slot 2 in [004]
LA
21/09/19
9
(006)
Bulk x 1
Sample from Slot 2 in [004]
LA
21/09/19
10
(005)
Bulk x 1
Sample of top layer in Slot 2 in [004]
LA
21/09/19
11
(007)
Bulk x 1
Sample of charcoal layer in Slot 2 in [004]
LA
21//09/19
12
(005)
Bulk x 1
Sample from (005) with charcoal inclusions in Slot 4 in [004]
JP & CW
25/09/19
13
(006)
Bulk x 1
Sample from Slot 4 in [004]
JP & CW
25/09/19
14
(017)
Bulk x 1
Fill of linear feature [016]
JP & CW
25/09/19
15
(015)
Bulk x 1
Fill of pit [014]
JP & CW
25/09/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 38 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Finds Register
Find
No.
Area/
Trench
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
1
Surface find
Unstratified
Lithic
1 x flint
NN
11/09/19
2
Slot 1 [004]
(005)
Lithic
1 x flint
HF
15/08/19
3
Slot 2 [004]
(005)
Lithic
1 x quartz
NN
13/09/19
4
Slot 1 [004]
(005)
Lithic
1 x flint flake
HR & JR
13/09/19
5
Slot 1 [004]
(005)
Lithic
2 x quartz
HF & JR
13/09/19
6
Slot 1 [004]
(005)
Coarse Stone
1 x incomplete whetstone or rubber
HF & JR
13/09/19
7
Surface find
Unstratified
Lithic
1 x quartz
MV
14/09/19
8
Surface find
Unstratified
Metal
1 x iron circular-sectioned object (shank of pin or nail)
SS
18/09/19
9
[004]
(005)
Metal
1 x lead musket ball (Metal detector; found 2.1m to the east of Slot 3;
2 inches down)
SS
18/09/19
10
Unstratified
Metal
1 x iron circular-sectioned object (?shank of pin or nail; Metal
detector)
SS
18/09/19
11
(001)
Metal
1 x iron pin or ?clench-bolt (Metal detector)
SS
18/09/19
12
Slot 1 [004]
(005)
Lithic
1 x quartz
HF
18/09/19
13
Slot 1 [004]
(005)
Coarse stone
2 x stone
HF
18/09/19
14
-
-
-
Voided
-
-
15
Slot 3 [004]
(011)
Lithic
1 x flint
AR
20/09/19
16
Linear
feature
[016]
(017)
Lithic
1 x flint
AM
20/09/19
17
Pit [014]
(015)
CBM
1 x coarse mortar or plaster
DT
21/09/19
18
NW corner
surface find
Unstratified
Lithic
4 x quartz - unworked
Team
21/09/19
19
NW corner
Unstratified
CBM
2 x coarse mortar or plaster
JK
21/09/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 39 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
surface find
20
NW corner
surface find
Unstratified
Lithic
1 x flint (possibly reworked)
CM
21/09/19
21
NW corner
surface find
Unstratified
Lithic
1 x possible ?chert
EK
21/09/19
22
NW corner
surface find
Unstratified
Metal
1 x tanged tine or blade
TR
09/09/19
23
Recovered
during
flotation
(010)
Lithic
2 x quartz chips (from Sample No. 3)
SK
01/10/19
24
Recovered
during
flotation
(017)
Lithic
5 x flint chips/flakes (from Sample No. 14)
SK
01/10/19
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 40 of 41
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.b Data Structure Report: Little Wood Hill
Contact Details
Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at our Registered Office or through the web:
Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops
Kilwinning
Ayrshire
KA13 6PU
www.rathmell-arch.co.uk
t.:
f.:
e.:
01294 542848
01294 542849
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
End of Document
©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 41 of 41
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Later Prehistoric Power Centre – Little Wood Hill, Threave
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
GGLP_89
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2019
Description
An account of the resource
Surveys and test pitting works undertaken as part of the community archaeology project “Can You Dig It?”.
archaeology
GGLP
-
https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/548/GGLP-CYDI-DSR-Chapelyard.pdf
5416847a95e4a7351fe4014b5231525e
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Chapelyard, Dalry
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Reports
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project
Data Structure Report
Chapelyard, Dalry
by Claire Williamson
nd
issued 2
November 2022
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Quality Assurance
This report covers works which have been undertaken in keeping with the issued brief as
modified by the agreed programme of works. The report has been prepared in keeping
with the guidance of Rathmell Archaeology Limited on the preparation of reports. All works
reported on within this document have been undertaken in keeping with the Chartered
Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of Conduct.
Signed
………………………………..
Date
…..2nd November 2022……
In keeping with the procedure of Rathmell Archaeology Limited this document and its
findings have been reviewed and agreed by an appropriate colleague:
Checked
………………………………..
Date
…..2nd November 2022……
Copyright Rathmell Archaeology Limited. All rights reserved.
No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written
permission from Rathmell Archaeology Limited. If you have received this report in error,
please destroy all copies in your possession or control.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party unless
otherwise agreed in writing by Rathmell Archaeology Limited. No liability is accepted by
Rathmell Archaeology Limited for any use of this report, other than the purposes for which
it was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Rathmell Archaeology
Limited using due skill, care and diligence and no explicit warranty is provided as to their
accuracy. No independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to
Rathmell Archaeology Limited has been made.
Quality Assurance Data
Author(s)
Claire Williamson
Date of Issue
2nd November 2022
Commissioning Body
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme
Event Name
Chapelyard, Dalry
Event Type
Test Pitting and Survey
Event Date(s)
June 2022
Rathmell Archaeology Code
RA18107
Location
United Kingdom : Scotland : Dumfries and Galloway
NGR
NX 62111 86556
Designation(s)
None
Canmore IDs
64271; 77906
Version
OASIS Ref
Parish
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 1 of 45
1.0
rathmell1-437514
Dalry
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................. 4
Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 4
Project Works .............................................................................. 10
Findings ....................................................................................... 10
Site [1001] and Test Pits 1, 2 and 7 ................................................................... 10
Test Pits 3, 4 and 5 ........................................................................................... 13
Site [1002] and Test Pit 6 .................................................................................. 13
Site [1003] and Test Pit 11 ................................................................................ 14
Site [1004] ...................................................................................................... 14
Site [1005] and Test Pits 12 and 14 .................................................................... 14
Site [1006] and Test Pits 8 and 9 ....................................................................... 18
Site [1007] and Test Pit 10 ................................................................................ 18
Site [1008] and Test Pit 13 ................................................................................ 18
Artefacts...................................................................................... 19
Discussion ................................................................................... 24
Conclusion ................................................................................... 26
Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 26
References .................................................................................. 26
Documentary ................................................................................................... 26
Archives .......................................................................................................... 27
Cartographic .................................................................................................... 27
Appendix 1: Details of surveyed sites within the study area ........ 28
Appendix 2: Test Pit Details ......................................................... 32
Appendix 3: Registers.................................................................. 34
Context Register............................................................................................... 34
Photographic Register ....................................................................................... 36
Finds Register .................................................................................................. 40
Appendix 4: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland ......................... 43
Contact Details ............................................................................ 45
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Figures
Figure 1a: Extract from William Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland 1752-55............................ 5
Figure 1b: Extract from the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853 ................................... 5
Figure 2a: Edward I coin found to the east of Site [1001] (images courtesy of David
Bartholomew) ........................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 2b: Fragment of Arabic dirham found to the north of Site [1001] (images courtesy of
David Bartholomew)............................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Plan showing the location of Sites [1001] to [1008] ................................................. 8
Figure 4: Plan showing the locations of Test Pits 1 to 14 ....................................................... 9
Figure 5a: Enclosure [1001] from the southeast ................................................................... 11
Figure 5b: Test Pit 1 showing bedrock (002) taken from the southwest ............................... 11
Figure 6a: Test Pit 2 from the west showing exposed stones within bank (006) and stones
(007) visible at the left hand side, taken from the southwest ................................................ 12
Figure 6b: Test Pit 6 with possible wall [005] taken from the southeast ................................ 12
Figure 7a: Building [1004] from the northeast ...................................................................... 15
Figure 7b: Letters carved into a quoin in the external southwest facing elevation of building
[1004], taken from the southwest ......................................................................................... 15
Figure 8a: Site [1005] from the southeast ............................................................................ 16
Figure 8b: Test Pit 12 showing possible wall [016], taken from the northeast ....................... 16
Figure 9a: Structure [1007] from the southwest.................................................................... 17
Figure 9b: Test Pit 10 showing wall [014] from the northeast ............................................... 17
Figure 10a: Sherd of tin-glazed pottery <34> from Test Pit 14 ............................................. 20
Figure 10b: Sherds of red earthenware pottery <28> and <31> from Test Pits 8 and 13
respectively .......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 11a: Fragment of clay tobacco pipe stem <25> from Test Pit 8 ................................. 21
Figure 11b: Buckles <5> and <12> ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 12a: Perforated plaque or mount <1> ....................................................................... 22
Figure 12b: Buttons <11> and <17>..................................................................................... 22
Figure 13a: Candleholder <18> ........................................................................................... 23
Figure 13b: Possible fragments of a cast iron cooking vessel <7> ....................................... 23
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Introduction
1.
This Data Structure Report describes works undertaken at Chapelyard, Dalry, carried out
as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership (GGLP) community archaeology
project Can You Dig It. This report presents the results from test pitting and survey works
undertaken at the possible site of a medieval chapel and the adjacent sites of potentially
post-medieval and modern farmstead remains.
2.
The works were carried out by volunteers supported by Rathmell Archaeology staff. The
structure of the works was drawn from advice and guidance from officers of GGLP, Dumfries
and Galloway Council and members of local heritage societies.
Historical & Archaeological Background
3.
The on-site works focused on an area of rough grazing to the west of Mackilston farm,
straddling either side of the Cleugh Burn which ran southwest-northeast through its centre.
4.
Historical mapping identifies two place names directly associated with the area:
Cleughhead and Chapelyard, both of which represent the sites of former farms located to
the north and south of Cleugh Burn respectively. Cleughhead sat directly within the
northern half of the study area while the farmstead of Chapelyard sat just outwith the area
to the southeast.
5.
The earliest appearance in relation to either name is the marking of a settlement named
‘Kleugh’ on Blaeu’s Atlas of Scotland in 1654, itself a reproduction of Pont’s survey of
Scotland undertaken in the 1590s. Kleugh is shown as neighbouring the settlement of
‘Makilst.’ (likely today’s Mackilston) and it is possible that it could represent a predecessor
of Cleughhead. This is difficult to determine, however, as two other settlements with similar
names can be seen to the west of the area on later mapping: Upper Cleugh and Nether
Cleugh. Cleugh appears to have been a name attributed to the area as a whole, deriving
from the nature of its topography; it means ‘Ravine, gorge, cliff’ and probably refers to the
steeply banked ground beside the Cleugh Burn (Place-Names of Kirkcudbrightshire 2022a).
The name appears to have then been subsequently adopted by several sites in the vicinity.
6.
It is not until Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland (Lowlands 1752-55; Figure 1a), that ‘Cleugh’
and ‘Chappleyard’ are shown in locations comparable to their appearance on later mapping.
‘Cleugh’ sits to the north of the burn and is shown as three buildings and two enclosures,
with areas of rig and furrow to the west. A second settlement named ‘Cleugh’ is also
depicted further to the west, also to the north of the burn; from its position, it is likely that
this was the site which later became ‘Upper Cleugh’, as ‘Nether Cleugh’ sits to the south
of the burn.
7.
‘Chappleyard’, likely an earlier variation in the spelling of Chapelyard, is shown to the
southeast of the eastern ‘Cleugh’ on the opposite side of the burn. Its depiction is difficult
to distinguish but it appears to represent three to four buildings and two adjacent
enclosures.
8.
The first appearance of the name ‘Cleugh-head’ appears on Ainslie’s The Stewartry of
Kirkcudbright map of 1797, and the name continues to appear as either ‘Cleughead’ or
‘Cleughhead’ on mapping through the early 1800s. ‘Chappleyard’ or ‘Chapelyard’ is no
longer shown.
9.
Both ‘Cleughhead’ and ‘Chapelyard’ are depicted on the 1 st edition Ordnance Survey map
of 1853 (Figure 1b), however. Cleughhead is shown as one unroofed building surrounded
by a cluster of five enclosures, with a sixth enclosure sitting discretely to the southwest
and a well further to the west. Chapelyard is marked as ‘in ruins’ with two unroofed
structures depicted.
10.
The contemporary Ordnance Survey Name Book (OS1/20/19/46) describes Cleughead as
“a farm house in indifferent repair with a small farm of land attached which is presently
annexed with the farm of Mackilston”. While Chapelyard is described as “the ruins of some
cottages on the farm of Mackilston” (OS1/20/19/47).
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland
Figure 1a: Extract from William Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland 1752-55
Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland
Figure 1b: Extract from the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Figure 2a: Edward I coin found to the east of Site [1001] (images courtesy of David
Bartholomew)
Figure 2b: Fragment of Arabic dirham found to the north of Site [1001] (images courtesy
of David Bartholomew)
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
11.
By the 25-inch Ordnance Survey map of 1895, Cleughhead’s depiction is reduced to only
showing the single unroofed building, although the enclosure to the southwest is now
labelled a ‘Sheep Ree’ and has an abutting rectangular enclosure or unroofed structure
against its northeast side. The name of Chapelyard is still marked within ‘rough grazing’ to
the south of the burn but no buildings or enclosures are depicted in relation to it.
12.
Neither of the names are shown on the 3 rd edition Ordnance Survey map of 1910, although
the layout depicted at Cleughhead continues to be shown; the enclosure to its southwest
is no longer labelled as a sheep ree.
13.
This continues to be the same through to modern mapping although some of the
surrounding enclosures to the northeast and northwest of the single building at Cleughhead
are now shown.
14.
Documentary evidence for either farmstead is scarce, and neither appears to be listed
within the 1841 or later census records. They are also not separately listed within the Land
Tax Rolls, and it is likely that they were encompassed within the lands of the neighbouring
Mackilston from an early date.
15.
The name ‘Chapelyard’ itself might hint at a past significance however, further alluded to
in its entry in the Ordnance Survey Name book which continues: “the authorities here
quoted say that it is handed down by tradition that these ruins are upon the site or near
to where a chapel had once stood, but no information respecting the chapel can be obtained
in the locality” (OS1/20/19/47).
16.
An earlier reference to the parish of Dalry from 1824 also mentions that on “the lands of
Cleugh, another chapel, the ruins whereof are called chapel walls; and were demolished a
few years ago” (Chalmers 1824, 320; pers. comm. David Bartholomew). The name of
‘Chapel Walls’ does not appear on the historical mapping but it is mentioned in the Old
Statistical Account (McGowan 1794, 58): “in the farm of Cleugh, there was some years
ago, a dwelling-house called the Chapel walls”.
17.
The corresponding site record for the area on Canmore (ID: 64271; MDG3861) includes a
quote from the later 19th century that describes that “The ruined settlement of Chapel
Yards occupies the probable site of the chapel noted by McKerlie as the chapel on Cleugh
which was razed to the ground at the beginning of the 18th century”.
18.
The name ‘Chapelyard’ is further discussed in the Place-Names of Kirkcudbrightshire
(2022b):
It may be that this was a piece of ecclesiastical property whose rents were used
for church purposes – something perhaps also suggested by the name of the bog
immediately to the south, Minister’s Moss. The name Chapelyard suggests a
pre-Reformation origin, as it was unusual for the word ‘chapel’ to be used after
1560; the name Minister’s Moss might suggest a continued connection of this
land to the church during the post-Reformation period, as minister was not a term
in common use in pre-Reformation times.
19.
No previous archaeological work has been undertaken within the study area, and no
physical remains of a chapel site have ever been identified. The general area has been
subject to metal detecting, however, which has recovered objects from the medieval period
onwards. Amongst these are two Edward I coins which were found in the area just to the
east of the sub-rectangular enclosure [1001] (pers. comm. David Bartholomew 2nd June
2022; Figure 2a; see Figure 3 for location of [1001]) and an Arabic dirham found on sloping
ground to the north of the same enclosure (ibid., Figure 2b). The Arabic dirham was
identified as “an Abbasid issue dating from the late 8th to the early 9th centuries”, which
often “only appear to be found mainly in areas of Scandinavian activity/settlement” (pers.
comm. Carl Savage, 23rd September 2022).
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Figure 3: Plan showing the location of Sites [1001] to [1008]
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Figure 4: Plan showing the locations of Test Pits 1 to 14
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Project Works
20.
The archaeological works focussed on the possible site of a chapel and surrounding remains
of post-medieval to modern farmsteads. The site was located across fields to either side of
the Cleugh Burn, which are currently used as rough grazing for the nearby Mackilston farm.
21.
The on-site works took place over three days from the 9 th to the 11th June 2022, and
consisted of a series of hand-excavated test pits and a survey of the upstanding features
immediately impacted by the works. A total of eight sites were surveyed (numbered [1001]
to [1008]; locations shown in Figure 3) and 14 test pits were excavated (locations shown
on Figure 4), with all soil sieved for artefacts.
22.
There were additional sites within the immediate area but due to time constraints, these
could not be surveyed in detail during the on-site works and so have not been given a
number. Their locations were recorded, however, and are shown on Figures 3 and 4. They
include a sheepfold, four banks, a modern drain and 16 cairns.
23.
The site team also included a small group of metal detectorists who uncovered some metal
artefacts outwith the test pitting locations. These finds are included within the site’s artefact
assemblage.
24.
All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined
in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (McKinstry 2022). The fieldwork was
undertaken in a mixture of both wet and dry weather. In terms of structure, the core field
team of Rathmell Archaeology staff and volunteers were on-site from 9am to 4pm.
Findings
25.
The on-site works focused on a cluster of enclosures and structures located in fields to the
southwest of Mackilston farm, sitting to either side of the Cleugh Burn. Some of the
structures are upstanding with 19th century fabric, but the majority survive as low, turf and
stone banks. The locations of the surveyed sites and the test pits are shown in Figures 3
and 4 respectively.
26.
For summaries on the sites and test pits, see Appendices 1 and 2 respectively. Their
locations are shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectively. Details of the registers pertaining to
the on-site works can be found in Appendix 3.
Site [1001] and Test Pits 1, 2 and 7
27.
The largest feature in the area is sub-rectangular enclosure [1001] (Figure 5a). Overall,
the enclosure measures approximately 36m NW-SE by 31m SW-NE and is defined by a
stone-and-earth bank which measures up to 2.7m broad and 1.1m in height. The interior
of the enclosure sits higher than the surrounding ground so that the bank is only up to
0.4m high along this side. Along the external northwest edge, the bank sits on top of
steeply sloping ground which falls away to the northwest. There is a gap in the back along
its northeast side, which measures 2.4m wide and may mark the site of a possible entrance.
28.
The nature of the enclosure was further investigated by Test Pits 1, 2 and 7. Respectively,
these measured 1m by 1.5m, 1m by 2m and 0.5m square in size.
29.
Test Pit 1 was positioned over a slightly raised area near the centre of the enclosure’s
interior. The interior was covered by topsoil (001): a firmly compacted dark grey, brown
clayey slit with frequent inclusions of rootlets and small sub-angular and angular stones,
which measured 80-330mm thick. Underlying this was bedrock consisting of greywacke
(002) (Figure 5b), which was identified as forming the raised section of ground.
30.
Test Pit 2 was positioned across the possible entrance on the northeast side, encompassing
a section of the bank itself. Here the ground was covered by a thin layer of topsoil (018):
a firmly compacted blackish-brown silty clay with frequent rootlets, which measured 1025mm thick.
31.
Topsoil (018) was removed to reveal deposits (006) and (007) (Figure 6a). (006) formed
the bank which extended into the test pit from the southeast for a length of 1.7m. It
consisted of medium to large sized angular and sub-angular stones sitting in a matrix of
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Figure 5a: Enclosure [1001] from the southeast
Figure 5b: Test Pit 1 showing bedrock (002) taken from the southwest
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Figure 6a: Test Pit 2 from the west showing exposed stones within bank (006) and stones
(007) visible at the left hand side, taken from the southwest
Figure 6b: Test Pit 6 with possible wall [005] taken from the southeast
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
firmly compacted dark brownish-black silty clay with frequent root inclusions. It was
excavated to a thickness of 620mm but its base was not reached.
32.
Abutting (006) to the northwest and present for the last 0.3m at this end of the test pit,
was deposit (007). It comprised a firmly compacted light grey-brown clayey silt with very
frequent inclusions of medium sized angular and sub-angular stones. The stones were
similar to those seen within bank material (006), but they were less densely packed and
sat within a different soil matrix. Deposit (007) appeared to extend across the gap which
sat in the bank along this side and was excavated to a thickness of 400mm, but the base
was not reached.
33.
Test Pit 7 was placed to investigate the steeply sloping ground which sat just outwith the
enclosure to the northeast to determine whether it was natural or anthropic in nature. In
this area, the ground was covered by a layer of topsoil (009): a firmly compacted dark
grey-brown clayey silt with very frequent angular and sub-angular gravel inclusions and
frequent rootlets, which measured 120mm thick. Topsoil (009) was excavated to reveal
natural bedrock (002) directly beneath, which appeared to form the make-up of the slope
along this side.
34.
No artefacts were recovered from within Test Pits 1, 2 and 7.
Test Pits 3, 4 and 5
35.
Three test pits (3, 4 and 5) were positioned within a strip of open ground just to the east
of Site [1001], which was bounded along its eastern side by a modern drainage ditch
running southeast to northwest (see Figure 4).
36.
Test Pit 3 measured 0.5m by 1m in plan orientated northwest-southeast, while Test Pit 4
measured 0.5m square and Test Pit 5 measured 0.6m by 0.65m.
37.
All three test pits were excavated through topsoil (001) which measured 290 to 350mm
thick in this area. Directly underlying (001) in Test Pit 4 was bedrock (002). Within Test
Pits 4 and 5, however, topsoil (001) was directly overlying natural subsoil (003): a loosely
compacted orange-brown silty sand with frequent inclusions of gravel and small subangular to angular stones, and occasional inclusions of rounded and sub-rounded pebbles.
38.
The only variation to this was within Test Pit 3, where deposit (004) was present underlying
(001) and overlying (003). Deposit (004) consisted of a loose to moderately compacted
dark brownish-black clayey sand with frequent inclusions of angular and sub-angular
stones, and occasional inclusions of burnt stones and small charcoal fragments. It sat
roughly central to the test pit and covered an area approximately 0.06m in diameter and
between 10-30mm in thickness.
39.
No artefacts were recovered from Test Pits 3, 4 and 5.
Site [1002] and Test Pit 6
40.
Approximately 8m to the northeast of enclosure [1001], was possible structure [1002]. It
sat within the same strip of ground as Test Pits 3, 4 and 5 but sat further to the northwest,
and was directly adjacent to the modern drainage ditch which ran along the eastern side.
Structure [1002] is rectangular in plan, measuring approximately 5.6m SE-NW by 7m SWNE, and is formed by a bank up to 0.7m broad and 0.3m in height.
41.
Test Pit 6 was positioned over its southern corner and measured 1m SW-NE by 2m NESW. It revealed topsoil (001) as being 200mm thick in this location, although its full depth
was not reached.
42.
Underlying (001), at approximately 100mm down from the ground surface, the remains of
possible wall [005] were discovered (Figure 6b). Running NW-SE, [005] consisted of
medium-sized angular and sub-angular grey stones (possible greywacke), and measured
0.3m wide and 0.7m long, although appeared to continue beyond the trench in both
directions. Only one course was visible measuring approximately 80mm deep and there
was no visible bonding material present amongst the stones.
43.
Seven fragments of slate <21> were recovered from topsoil (001) within Test Pit 6.
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Site [1003] and Test Pit 11
44.
Site [1003] represented a small circular enclosure which sat in isolation within rough
pasture to the north of Cleugh Burn. The enclosure measured 2.9m in diameter and is
formed by a bank up to 0.4m broad and 0.2m in height.
45.
Test Pit 11 was located within its interior towards the northern side. It measured 0.5m
square in extent and revealed topsoil (015): a firmly compacted dark grey-brown silty clay
with frequent rootlets and small to medium sized angular and sub-angular stone inclusions.
Topsoil (015) was excavated to a depth of 170mm but its base was not reached. This was
due to the stone inclusions, which became very dense towards the base of the test pit and
may have actually represented an easily fragmented natural bedrock. However, the size of
the sample visible within the test pit was too small to be certain and there was not sufficient
time to investigate further.
46.
No artefacts were recovered from Test Pit 11.
Site [1004]
47.
The remains of a rectangular unroofed building, [1004], sit at the centre of a cluster of
structures and enclosures to the north of Cleugh Burn (which includes Sites [1005], [1006]
and [1008]). Overall, building [1004] measures approximately 7.4m NW-SE by 11.5m SWNE. Its remains consist of drystone walls formed of broken coursed rubble standing 0.7m
wide and up to 1.5m in height (Figure 7a). The surviving portions of the southwest,
northwest and northeast walls survive intact along their full length and show no signs of
an opening, but a large portion of the southeast wall has collapsed. The first 0.5m of a
possible internal cross-wall is present projecting roughly centre from the northwest wall.
48.
The letters ‘W M’ and an adjacent scrolled symbol have been carved into one of the quoins
at the southeast end of the external southwest facing elevation (Figure 7b).
49.
No test pits were excavated within Site [1004] due to the presence of a large amount of
tumble covering the interior, which made access difficult.
Site [1005] and Test Pits 12 and 14
50.
Approximately 4.5m to the northeast of Site [1004], within the same cluster of structures
and enclosures, sits possible structure [1005]. It is rectangular in plan, measuring
approximately 5.8m SW-NE by 10.4m SE-NW, and is formed by a bank up to 1.1m broad
and 0.5m in height (Figure 8a). There are exposed sections of stonework visible within
portions of the enclosing bank.
51.
Two test pits were excavated to further investigate Site [1005]: Test Pits 12 and 14.
52.
Test Pit 12 was positioned near the northwest end of the southwest side of the structure,
to investigate the site of a possible entrance point. It measured 0.5m SW-NE by 0.8m NWSE and was excavated through topsoil (010): a firm to moderately compacted brown-red
silty sand with frequent root and occasional small stone inclusions, which measured up to
150mm thick in this location.
53.
Topsoil (010) was removed to reveal the top of a possible wall [016] which sat at a depth
of 20mm below the ground surface. The possible wall was orientated NW-SE. It was formed
by medium to large angular stones, which had an average size of 0.2m by 0.1m by 0.02m
(Figure 8b). The wall was exposed for a length of 0.76m although ran beyond the limits of
the test pit in either direction, and it measured approximately 0.5m wide and 130mm deep
although its base was not reached. There were no obvious signs of a break in its length to
mark a possible entrance, but the small sample size and drystone nature of the stonework
made it difficult to be certain without further investigation.
54.
Test Pit 14 sat within the interior of the structure towards its southeast corner and
measured 0.5m square in plan. It excavated topsoil (010) to a depth of 170mm but its
base was not reached.
55.
No artefacts were recovered from Test Pit 12, but six sherds of pottery <34> and one
fragment of glass <35> were recovered from topsoil (010) in Test Pit 14.
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Figure 7a: Building [1004] from the northeast
Figure 7b: Letters carved into a quoin in the external southwest facing elevation of building
[1004], taken from the southwest
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Figure 8a: Site [1005] from the southeast
Figure 8b: Test Pit 12 showing possible wall [016], taken from the northeast
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Figure 9a: Structure [1007] from the southwest
Figure 9b: Test Pit 10 showing wall [014] from the northeast
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Site [1006] and Test Pits 8 and 9
56.
Enclosure [1006] sits just to the south of Sites [1004] and [1005]. It is sub-rectangular in
plan with a narrower section at its southeast end and overall, it measures 13.2m SW-NE
by 21.5m SE-NW. It is formed by a bank up to 0.7m broad and 0.2m in height.
57.
Test Pits 8 and 9 were excavated within the northern half of its interior. They each
measured 0.5m square in plan.
58.
Both test pits revealed topsoil (010) as the uppermost deposit across the enclosure,
measuring 200 to 300mm thick in this area. Fragments of pottery, clay tobacco pipe, glass
and charcoal (<19>, <20>, <22> to <24>) were recovered from topsoil (010) across both
test pits.
59.
Within Test Pit 8, (010) was removed to reveal deposit (011): a firm to moderately
compacted dark brown/black silty sand with frequent small to medium sub-angular stone
inclusions, which measured 310mm thick. Deposit (011) produced fragments of clay
tobacco pipe, glass, pottery, coke, a coin and an iron object (<25> to <30>).
60.
Directly underlying topsoil (010) in Test Pit 9, was natural bedrock (002) revealed at a
depth of 300mm. Underlying deposit (011) in Test Pit 8 was a very firmly compacted stone
layer which is likely to be a continuation of the natural bedrock (002), here at a depth of
510mm.
Site [1007] and Test Pit 10
61.
To the south of the cluster of structures and enclosures [1004] to [1006], and closer to
the north side of the Cleugh Burn, sits structure [1007]. It is rectangular in plan, measuring
approximately 4.5m SW-NE by 4.8m SE-NW, and is formed by a bank up to 0.8m broad
and 0.4m in height (Figure 9a). Exposed sections of stonework are visible within portions
of the bank, and a narrow break in its western corner might represent an entrance point.
62.
Test Pit 10 was excavated within the interior of the structure tight to its southern corner.
It measured 0.5m NW-SE and 0.7m SW-NE in extent.
63.
The uppermost deposit was topsoil (012): a loosely compacted dark brown black silty sand
with occasional large stone inclusions (the largest measuring 0.4m by 0.1m by 0.3m),
which measured 100mm thick.
64.
Underlying (012) was deposit (013). This appeared to be a natural accumulation which
consisted of a loosely compacted orange-brown clayey sand with frequent small angular
and sub-angular stone and gravel inclusions. It measured 400mm thick. 14 sherds of
pottery <36> and 13 fragments of glass <37> were recovered from deposit (013).
65.
Deposit (013) was removed to reveal the internal face of wall [014] along the southeast
and northwest edges of the test pit (Figure 9b). This L-shaped section of drystone walling
was exposed for a length of 0.7m NE-SW before turning to run 0.5m to the northwest but
continued beyond the limits of the test pit to both the northeast and northwest. It consisted
of broken coursed rubble made up of medium to large angular and sub-angular stones,
which each measured up to 0.3m by 0.5m in size. Wall [014] measured 600mm high, with
two to three courses visible, although its width is uncertain as the upper surface of the wall
was obscured by vegetation. The foundation course stepped out slightly by approximately
0.2m at the base.
66.
Exposed at the very base of the test pit, underlying wall [014], was natural subsoil (017).
This comprised a firmly compacted yellowish-brown clayey silt.
Site [1008] and Test Pit 13
67.
Site [1008] represents a sub-rectangular enclosure which sits directly to the northwest of
building [1004]. It measures 10.5m NW-SE by 17.8m SW-NE and is formed by a bank up
to 1m broad and 0.5m in height.
68.
One test pit was excavated in the interior of the enclosure towards its northeast end: Test
Pit 13. This measured 0.5m square in plan. It revealed topsoil (010), which had a thickness
of 300mm in this area, directly overlying natural bedrock (002).
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
69.
Four sherds of pottery <31>, three glass fragments <32> and some small fragments of
coke/coal <33> were recovered from topsoil (010) within Test Pit 13.
Artefacts
By Louise Turner
70.
The assemblage generated during the 2022 investigations at Chapelyard comprised
artefacts composed of ceramic, glass, non-ferrous and ferrous metalwork. Occasional finds
of roofing slates and metalworking slags were also recovered.
71.
A total of 43 sherds and fragments of modern ceramic were recovered. The majority were
glazed white earthenwares derived from dinner services or tea sets. Occasional sherds of
blue-and-white transfer-printed glazed white earthenware were recovered, including one
sizeable sherd from a dinner plate with relief-moulded decoration and a scalloped rim
<28>.
72.
Five sherds were derived from tin-glazed wares. Some were thin-walled with hand-painted
decoration (e.g. <36> and 28>), but the only surviving tin-glazed sherd which occurred in
association with a footring (<34>) was part of a robust vessel likely to be of early 19 th as
opposed to late 18th century date (Figure 10a). It is possible, however, that the finer tinglazed sherds (particularly <34>) originated in the late 18 th century. A sherd of glazed
polychrome creamware, decorated with hand-painted horizontal lines, lacked the tin glaze
and was therefore likely to derive from the period 1820-1840. The remaining sherds of
glazed earthenware were less easy to date and could have originated within a very broad
period spanning the mid-19th century to early 20th century.
73.
In addition to the glazed white earthenwares, there were a few sherds of glazed red
earthenwares (Figure 10b) which included the fragmentary spout of teapot <31>and two
sherds from crock jars or similar coarse ware vessels (<28>). There was also a stem
fragment from a clay tobacco pipe <25> (Figure 11a). The clay pipe and some of the glazed
white earthenware sherds had been burnt.
74.
16 shards of glass were recovered. 13 fragments <37> were derived from a similar source,
comprising a clear glass with a greenish tint with a flat profile. The consistently flat section
to these pieces suggested they consisted of window glass. Some very small pieces were
derived from modern glass bottles, and there was one large base fragment from an upright
wine bottle manufactured from dark green glass of probable 19th century date.
75.
14 items of non-ferrous metal were recovered. Three of these were lead. Two were waste
items, with <16> comprising a lump of a solidified lead waste spill, and <18> a folded
piece of lead sheet, perhaps an offcut from roofing lead.
76.
The third lead object <43> was of rectilinear section, swelling slightly over the central
portion of the piece, with one end tapering to a point. Close inspection of the pointed end,
undertaken using an x8 hand lens, revealed knife facets, indicating that the object has
been sharpened. The profile of the object is slightly curved along its length.
77.
This object is likely to represent a lead pencil (Portable Antiquities Scheme 2019). Its
dimensions are consistent with the wider corpus of these objects, which typically measure
up to 65mm in length, as is its overall character, which combines a rectilinear section at
one end with a pointed end at the other. The point now appears rather blunt, but evidence
for knife sharpening further supports its use as a pencil.
78.
The Portable Antiquities Scheme website places lead pencils at the later end of a range of
style, parchment prickers and pencils which span the Roman, medieval, post-medieval and
modern periods. These plain lead pencils date to the post-medieval period with initial
documentary references to ‘pencils’ occurring from the 16 th century onwards (ibid.).
79.
Alternative explanations for these finds have been proposed. It has been suggested, for
example, that they may have been used as a source for solder or they may have been
rough-outs for lean window cames. It is widely accepted, however, that the large numbers
occurring, combined with the consistency of their size and character (finds invariably
measure less than 65mm in length and between 5-8mm in diameter, with one end tapered
and the other rectilinear in section) that use as a pencil is more likely.
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Figure 10a: Sherd of tin-glazed pottery <34> from Test Pit 14
Figure 10b: Sherds of red earthenware pottery <28> and <31> from Test Pits 8 and 13
respectively
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Figure 11a: Fragment of clay tobacco pipe stem <25> from Test Pit 8
Figure 11b: Buckles <5> and <12>
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Figure 12a: Perforated plaque or mount <1>
Figure 12b: Buttons <11> and <17>
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Figure 13a: Candleholder <18>
Figure 13b: Possible fragments of a cast iron cooking vessel <7>
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
80.
One copper alloy coin was recovered, a ha’penny which was much-obscured on both faces
through corrosion build-up. One complete large rectangular buckle frame <5> and the
fragmentary remains of another <12> appeared too gracile to derive from horse harness,
so a dress function should be envisaged (Figure 11b). The fragmentary remains of what
had originally been a ‘D’-shaped buckle were, however much more robust in character and
an association with horse harness is likely. A perforated Cu alloy plague or mount <1> was
also recovered: in addition to the large sub-rectangular perforation, the surface was
covered with small circular or oval perforations (Figure 12a). These appeared to be entirely
random in their arrangement, and probably derive from post-depositional degradation of
the object. A fragmentary Cu alloy escutcheon <40> from a keyhole was also found.
81.
The most numerous group of non-ferrous objects comprised looped buttons (Figure 12b).
They varied in size from the larger examples <11> and <17> to the smaller <17>, and
their surfaces varied from flat, to concave to domed. All were attached by a single
perforated shank or loop to the rear. One example <17> appeared to have fabric remaining
in situ around the loop.
82.
There were also 20 items of ferrous metal. Two objects were of particular interest. The first
was a wrought iron cupped candleholder with a single straight stem <18> (Figure 13a).
This very simple form of candleholder was used in the medieval period, with examples
known from the 11th to 15th centuries, but the type was still in use as late as the 18 th
century date (Egan 1998, 143). The second item was the rim and upper body of a small
globular cast iron cooking vessel with everted rim and an angled suspension loop <7>.
83.
A further 9 pieces of iron plate scrap <7> may have derived from a larger cooking vessel
(Figure 13b), as traces of an everted rim were evident on one fragment and of a sagging
base on another, with a gentle curvature evident on the larger pieces which once again
was suggestive of a domestic function. A complete iron sickle <41> and a large portion of
a strap hinge <8> were also found.
84.
Eight fragments of roofing slate <21> manufactured from poor quality and probably local
schist and six lumps of metallurgical slag, potentially generated by smithing, were also
found.
85.
The ceramics and metalwork detailed above have likely origins in the nineteenth century,
although it is possible that some items such as the candleholder and some of the finer
hand-painted tin-glazed ceramics originate earlier, in the late 18 th century. Although the
candleholder has medieval parallels, an 18th century date seems more likely given the
range of objects with which it was associated.
Discussion
86.
Four of the sites surveyed – [1004], [1005], [1006] and [1008] – tie in nicely as elements
of Cleughhead farmstead shown on the historical mapping. From the mapping, we know
that Cleughhead was in existence from at least the mid-18th century, although not
necessarily in its current arrangement, and that one building was still roofed in the mid19th century. By the end of the 19th century, that building was no longer roofed and it would
appear that Cleughhead was no longer inhabited.
87.
The layout of the sites [1004], [1005], [1006] and [1008] correspond to the layout of the
farm shown on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853. And the above dating range
matches with the artefacts recovered from the test pits excavated within them. These
included sherds of pottery, glass and clay tobacco pipe dating from the 19 th century
onwards, with a small number of potentially earlier tin-glazed sherds (<34>) dating to the
late 18th century also recovered from Test Pit 14 in [1005]. No earlier artefacts were
recovered from the test pits.
88.
While the buildings at Cleughhead appear to have been uninhabited by the end of the 19th
century, this does not negate the possibility that the structures remained in use for another
purpose. The site continued to be incorporated within the lands of Mackilston, and the
structures may have seen some form of reuse, possibly for the storage of agricultural
materials. Some of the artefacts recovered from this area had the potential to range into
the 20th century and, while it was not possible to open a test pit within the remains of
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 24 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
building [1004], a section of corrugated metal roofing was visible amongst the tumbled
stones in its interior.
89.
Sites [1003] and [1007] were in the vicinity of this cluster of sites to the north of Cleugh
Burn, but do not appear on any of the historic mapping.
90.
In the case of [1003], test pitting of its interior suggested that this might in fact just be a
natural feature, formed by the presence of raised bedrock in this area. Test Pit 10 in Site
[1007], however, exposed the presence of deliberately constructed walls appearing to form
a single-celled rectangular structure.
91.
Its absence from the mapping makes dating this structure difficult, and it may be that it is
an earlier feature which was out of use by the time of the more detailed mapping in the
1850s. It could potentially relate to an earlier configuration of Cleughhead farmstead or
even predate this, but the finds recovered from Test Pit 10 could not confirm this either
way. They included pottery sherds <36> and window glass <37>.
92.
It seems curious that structure [1007] does not appear on maps even as a ruin, although
it is possible that it was only in use for a very short period between surveys. It is also likely
that the finds derive from modern reuse and dumping rather than from the structure itself,
further making its original date difficult to ascertain. The small sample excavated was also
unable to assign a possible function and there were no surviving traces of possible floor or
roofing materials.
93.
To the north of the burn, in the vicinity of the sheepfold to the west, two potentially earlier
artefacts were recovered by metal detector: an iron candleholder <18> and a lead ‘pencil’
<43>. While they are likely to relate to 18th-century activity, it is worth noting that they
both have the potential to date back to the 16th century.
94.
To the south of the burn, the sites of a larger sub-rectangular enclosure [1001] and a
nearby possible rectangular structure [1002] were investigated. As with [1003] and
[1007], these structures are also not depicted on historical mapping.
95.
Site [1002] had the remains of stone walls but they do not appear to be as substantial as
the other structures in the area. It is, however, the only location investigated that produced
fragments of roofing slate: seven in total from Test Pit 6. Its absence from mapping might
point to it being another earlier structure but the presence of local roofing slate puts it as
being later than the 17th century. It may be that it is a later structure which was only in
use for a short period; it is also possible that the slate was simply dumped here, although
it would appear to have only occurred in this one isolated spot.
96.
No artefacts were recovered from across the site of the enclosure [1001], and the test pits
investigating raised areas in the interior (Test Pit 1) and at the northwest edge (Test Pit 7)
proved them to be sections of natural bedrock. Test Pit 2, which focused on the possible
entrance along the northeast side was able to confirm the nature of the bank but, again,
did not recover any material to suggest a date for the feature.
97.
It can be seen on LiDAR imaging that the interior of the enclosure has been ploughed at
some point, but this does not mean that this was its original purpose. Even without further
artefactual evidence or the presence of internal features identified during the test pitting,
it is still possible to recognise that the size and shape of the enclosure is unique when
compared to the other enclosures comprising Cleughhead and the surrounding farmsteads.
98.
Alongside this, the potential significance of the name ‘Chapelyard’ and the discovery of
earlier finds in the immediate area continue to suggest traces of land use going back to the
medieval period.
99.
The dirham found just to the north of the enclosure is an incredibly rare find in Scotland;
they were the standard silver coinage used in the Islamic world and are found in hoards of
the 9th and 10th centuries across northern Europe (National Museums Scotland 2022). Due
to their rarity in Scotland, it is thought that Viking merchants used dirhams as bullion, soon
to be melted down into ingots and brooches (ibid.). The only other fragments of dirham to
be discovered in Dumfries and Galloway come from the 9 th century Talnotrie Hoard found
in Minnigaff.
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 25 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
100.
This mixture of place-name evidence, rare medieval artefacts and the exposure of
structural and artefactual material continuing into the modern period, highlights the site at
Chapelyard as one which encompasses multiple periods of use across several centuries.
And while it might not always give easy answers, it would appear that there is still much
to be learned at Chapelyard.
Conclusion
101.
The test pitting and survey works undertaken at Chapelyard went to great lengths to
establish the nature of the features on-site and recovered several artefacts spanning the
history of its use from the last few centuries.
102.
Four of the structures surveyed represented elements of the Cleughhead farmstead
depicted on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey of 1853, while the remaining four were absent
from the historical mapping. While one appeared likely to be natural, three were identified
as deliberately constructed features of uncertain date and purpose, including a large subrectangular enclosure which has never been mapped.
103.
The discovery of medieval artefacts across the area indicates a likelihood of medieval
activity, and while no definite evidence for it was identified during the works, it remains
possible that some of these unmapped features could date back to this period.
104.
The on-site works have furthered our understanding of Chapelyard as a multi-period site
and added greatly to the creation of a timeline for its use. They also allowed volunteers to
further their knowledge of the history of this area, and gain experience in the different
techniques involved during an archaeological investigation.
Acknowledgements
105.
This project is part of a wider Community Archaeology project, ‘Can You Dig It’, run by the
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme from February 2019 to September 2022.
See www.gallowayglens.org.uk/Resources and follow ‘Can You Dig It’ for their published
outputs. The Community Archaeology project was offered free to volunteers thanks to
funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland. The
land is owned by James and Sarah McTurk of Mackilston who kindly allowed us access and
gave their support for the works. Guidance was also given by Dumfries and Galloway
Council Archaeology Service and members of local heritage societies.
106.
Special thanks go to David Bartholomew for introducing us to the site and also to Tom
Carlyle, Andrew Mellor and John Wykes: all four happily shared information with us
throughout the project and gave up their time to share their knowledge with the volunteers
on-site.
107.
The author would like to thank all of the hardworking volunteers who took part in the onsite works: John Allison, Helen Bell-Palmer, Moira Charters, Stephanie Furnell, Pete
Machell, Sheila MacKay, Tom Marshall, Geoffrey Monk, Jennifer Roberts, Joan Sutherland
and Sheila Williams.
108.
The support and guidance provided by Rathmell Archaeology staff members Michelle
MacIver and Sophie Cathcart on-site were much appreciated by everyone involved. Further
thanks should go to Thomas Rees for his guidance throughout the initial organisation of
the project and I am also grateful to Liam McKinstry for editing this report. Thanks also go
to Louise Turner for her work on the artefact analysis, and to Alexandria Parker-Banks for
the finds photography.
References
Documentary
Chalmers, G. 1824 Caledonia or, An Account, Historical and Topographic, of North Britain,
from the Most Ancient to the Present Time, Volume III, London: T. Cadell [online] available
at: https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.35314/page/n3/mode/2up [accessed 27th
October 2022]
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 26 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Egan, G. 1998 The Medieval Household: Daily Living c.1150 – c.1450, London
McGowan, A. 1794 ‘Parish of Dalry (County of Kirkcudbright, Synod of Galloway,
Presbytery of Kirkcudbright)’, The Old Statistical Account of Scotland, Vol. XIII [online]
available at:https://stataccscot.edina.ac.uk/static/statacc/dist/viewer/osa-vol13Parish_record_for_Dalry_in_the_county_of_Kirkcudbright_in_volume_13_of_account_1/
[accessed 27th October 2022]
McKinstry, L. 2022 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community
Archaeology Project (Phase 2), Risk Assessment Method Statement, Chapelyard – Test
Pitting & Survey, unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
National Museums Scotland 2022 ‘Silver dirhams from the Storr Rock Viking Hoard’ [online]
available at: https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/scottish-history-andarchaeology/storr-rock-viking-hoard/ [accessed 31st October 2022]
Place-Names of Kirkcudbrightshire 2022a ‘Cleugh’ [online] available at: https://kcbplacenames.glasgow.ac.uk/place-names/?p=record&id=1420#16/55.1545/4.1681/resultsTabs-0 [accessed 26th October 2022]
Place-Names of Kirkcudbrightshire 2022b ‘Chapelyard’ [online] available at: https://kcbplacenames.glasgow.ac.uk/place-names/?p=record&id=1412#15/55.1501/-4.1600
[accessed 25th October 2022]
Portable Antiquities Scheme 2019 ‘Styli, pencils and parchment-prickers’ [online] available
https://finds.org.uk/counties/findsrecordingguides/styli-pencils-and-parchmentat:
prickers/ [accessed 22nd September 2022]
Archives
OS1/20/19/46 Ordnance Survey Name Book – Kirkcudbrightshire, Volume 19 [online]
available
at:
https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/ordnance-survey-namebooks/kirkcudbrightshire-os-name-books-1848-1851/kirkcudbrightshire-volume-19/46
[accessed 28th October 2022]
OS1/20/19/47 Ordnance Survey Name Book – Kirkcudbrightshire, Volume 19 [online]
https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/ordnance-survey-nameavailable
at:
books/kirkcudbrightshire-os-name-books-1848-1851/kirkcudbrightshire-volume-19/47
[accessed 28th October 2022]
Cartographic
1654
Blaeu, J.
Atlas of Scotland
1752-55
Roy, W.
Military Survey of Scotland (Lowlands)
1797
Ainslie, J.
The Stewarty of Kirkcudbright
1820
Ainslie, J.
Map of the environs of Glasgow, Paisley, Ayr, Lanark,
Sanquhar, Wigton, Kirkcudbright &c
1821
Thomson, J.
Kirkcudbright-Shire
1853
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 1st edition, Kirkcudbrightshire, Sheet 9
1895
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 2nd edition, Kirkcudbrightshire, Sheet XIII.SW
1895
Ordnance Survey
25-inch, Kirkcudbrightshire, XIII.10
1910
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 3rd edition, Kirkcudbrightshire, Sheet XIII.SW
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 27 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Appendix 1: Details of surveyed sites within the study area
No
Site
HER Ref:
Description
NGR
1001
Chapelyard
Enclosure
MDG3861
Desk-Based Assessment
NX 62121 86512
Canmore: 64271
The enclosure is visible on LiDAR imaging but not depicted on modern or historical mapping. On
LiDAR it is also possible to make out evidence of ploughing across its interior with slight traces
of rig orientated northwest to southeast.
Walkover Survey
The enclosure is located at the southern end of a field used for rough pasture. It is subrectangular in plan, measuring approximately 36m NW-SE by 31m SW-NE, and is formed by a
bank up to 2.7m broad and 1.1m in height. The interior is raised relative to the exterior, so the
bank is only up to 0.4m in height along this side. Along the exterior northwest edge, the bank sits
on top of steep sloping ground which falls away to the northwest. There is a gap in the bank
along its northeast side which measures 2.4m wide and may mark the site of a possible entrance.
Test Pitting
Test Pits 1, 2 and 7 were positioned to investigate the nature of the enclosure. Test Pit 1 was
positioned over a raised portion at the centre of its interior and revealed topsoil (001) overlying
natural bedrock (002). Test Pit 2 was positioned across the possible entrance in the northeast
and removed a thin layer of topsoil (018) overlying the earth-and-stone bank (006) and a layer
of possible tumble (007) which sat in the gap. Test Pit 7 was positioned on sloping ground falling
away from the bank to the northwest and revealed topsoil (009) overlying natural bedrock (002),
which appeared to form the slope on this side. No artefacts were recovered.
1002
Chapelyard
Structure
Desk-Based Assessment
NX 62142 86532
A possible rectangular structure is visible on LiDAR imaging but not depicted on modern or
historical mapping.
Walkover Survey
The structure is located within a field used for rough pasture. It sits approximately 8m to the
northeast of [1001] and is directly adjacent to a modern drainage ditch which runs SE-NW along
it northeast side. The structure is rectangular in plan, measuring approximately 5.6m SE-NW by
7m SW-NE, and is formed by a bank up to 0.7m broad and 0.3m in height.
Test Pitting
Test Pit 6 was positioned over the southern corner of the structure and identified topsoil (001)
overlying the remains of possible wall [005] at a depth of approximately 100mm. Possible wall
[005] ran NW-SE and measured approximately 0.3m wide. Seven slate fragments <21> were
recovered from topsoil (001) within the test pit.
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 28 of 45
Image from Site Inspection
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
No
Site
1003
Cleughhead
Enclosure
HER Ref:
Description
NGR
Desk-Based Assessment
NX 62034 86577
The enclosure was not initially identified but can be discerned on LiDAR imaging as a slight
circular depression.
Walkover Survey
The enclosure was identified during the walkover survey sitting within a field used for rough
pasture. It is circular in plan, measuring 2.9m in diameter, and is formed by a small bank up to
0.4m broad and 0.2m in height.
Test Pitting
Test Pit 11 was located within its interior to discover more about its character. It revealed topsoil
(015) to a depth of 170mm but its base was not reached. The density of stone inclusions at its
base suggested that it might have been coming down on to an easily fragmented natural bedrock,
but the sample size was too small to be certain. No artefacts were recovered from Test Pit 11.
1004
Cleughhead
Building
MDG4646
Desk-Based Assessment
Canmore: 77906
The structure is depicted as a roofed building on the 1 st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853,
and then as unroofed on the 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map of 1895. It continues to be
depicted as an unroofed structure on subsequent maps and is still shown on modern mapping.
The structure is visible on LiDAR imaging.
NX 62058 86606
Walkover Survey
The remains of a rectangular building sit at the centre of a cluster of structures and enclosures
to the north of Cleugh Burn, which includes Sites [1005], [1006] and [1008]. Overall, the building
measures approximately 7.4m NW-SE by 11.5m SW-NE. Its remains consist of drystone walls
formed of broken coursed rubble standing 0.7m wide and up to 1.5m in height. The surviving
portions of the southwest, northwest and northeast walls survive intact along their full length and
show no signs of an opening, but a large portion of the southeast wall has collapsed. The first
0.5m of a possible internal cross-wall is present projecting roughly centre from the northwest
wall. The structure is unroofed, and a spread of tumbled stones covers the interior.
Test Pitting
No test pits were excavated within [1004].
1005
Cleughhead
Structure
MDG4646
Desk-Based Assessment
Canmore: 77906
The northwestern end of the structure is depicted as the northern end of an enclosure on the 1st
edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853, although its southern end is not marked with it shown as
being open to the rest of the enclosure to the southeast. The structure is not depicted on
subsequent historic mapping, but its full outline appears on modern mapping. The structure is
visible on LiDAR imaging.
NX 62073 86612
Walkover Survey
The remains of a structure sits within a cluster of structures and enclosures to the north of Cleugh
Burn, which includes Sites [1004], [1006] and [1008]. The structure is rectangular in plan,
measuring approximately 5.8m SW-NE by 10.4m SE-NW, and is formed by a bank up to 1.1m
broad and 0.5m in height. Exposed sections of stonework are visible within portions of the bank,
and a slight break near to the northwest end of the southwest edge could potentially represent
an entrance point.
Test Pitting
Two test pits were excavated within Site [1005]: 12 and 14. Test Pit 12 was positioned near to
the northwestern end of the southwest side of the structure, to investigate the site of a possible
entrance point. It revealed topsoil (010) overlying the remains of possible wall [016]. Possible
wall [016] ran NW-SE and measured approximately 0.5m wide. There were no obvious signs of
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 29 of 45
Image from Site Inspection
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
No
Site
HER Ref:
Description
NGR
a break in its length to mark a definite entrance, but the small sample size and drystone nature
of the stonework made it difficult to be certain without further investigation. Test Pit 14 sat within
the interior of the structure towards its southeastern corner and revealed topsoil (010) to a depth
of 100mm but its base was not reached. Six sherds of pottery <34> and one fragment of glass
<35> were recovered from topsoil (010) in Test Pit 14.
1006
Cleughhead
Enclosure
MDG4646
Desk-Based Assessment
Canmore: 77906
The enclosure is depicted on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853 with an internal
NX 62069 86595
subdivision separating the larger northwest portion from a narrower portion at its southeast end.
The enclosure is not depicted on subsequent historical or modern mapping. The enclosure is
visible on LiDAR imaging although there is no trace of an internal subdivision.
Walkover Survey
The enclosure sits within a cluster of structures and enclosures to the north of Cleugh Burn,
which includes Sites [1004], [1005] and [1008]. It is sub-rectangular in plan with a narrower
section at its southeastern end, and overall measures 13.2m SW-NE by 21.5m SE-NW. It is
formed by a bank up to 0.7m broad and 0.2m in height.
Test Pitting
Test Pits 8 and 9 were excavated within its interior. Test Pit 8 revealed topsoil (010) overlying
deposit (011) and possible bedrock (002) at its base. Test Pit 9 revealed topsoil (010) directly
overlying bedrock (002). Pottery, clay tobacco pipe, glass and charcoal (<19>, <20>, <22> to
<24>) were recovered from topsoil (010) across both test pits. While, fragments of clay tobacco
pipe, glass, pottery, coke, a coin and an iron object (<25> to <30>) were recovered from deposit
(011) in Test Pit 8.
1007
Cleughhead
Structure
MDG4646
Desk-Based Assessment
Canmore: 77906
The possible structure is visible on LiDAR imaging but not depicted on modern or historical
mapping.
NX 62078 86573
Walkover Survey
The remains of a structure close to the north side of the Cleugh Burn. It is rectangular in plan,
measuring approximately 4.5m SW-NE by 4.8m SE-NW, and is formed by a bank up to 0.8m
broad and 0.4m in height. Exposed sections of stonework are visible within portions of the bank,
and a narrow break in its western corner might represent an entrance point.
Test Pitting
Test Pit 10 was excavated within the interior of the structure tight to is southern corner. It removed
topsoil (012) and underlying deposit (013) to reveal the internal face of wall [014] along its
southeast and northwest edges. At the base of the test pit underlying wall [014], natural subsoil
(017) was exposed. 14 sherds of pottery <36> and 13 glass fragments <37> were recovered
from deposit (013).
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 30 of 45
Image from Site Inspection
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
No
Site
HER Ref:
Description
NGR
1008
Cleughhead
Enclosure
MDG4646
Desk-Based Assessment
NX 62053 86614
Canmore: 77906
The enclosure is depicted on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853 but is not shown on
subsequent historical mapping. It is marked on modern mapping. The enclosure is visible on
LiDAR imaging.
Walkover Survey
The enclosure sits directly to the north of building [1004]. It is sub-rectangular in plan, measuring
approximately 10.5m NW-SE by 17.8m SW-NE, and is formed by a bank up to 1m broad and
0.5m in height.
Test Pitting
Test Pit 13 was excavated in the interior of the enclosure towards its northeast end. It revealed
topsoil (010) directly overlying deposit (018). Four sherds of pottery <31>, three glass fragments
<32> and small fragments of coke/coal <33> were recovered from topsoil (010) within Test Pit
13.
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 31 of 45
Image from Site Inspection
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Appendix 2: Test Pit Details
Within this appendix a standardised set of data pertaining to the test pits is presented.
Test Pit Summary
Test
Pit
NGR
1
NX 62117
86515
1m by 1.5m
NX 62135
86518
1m by 2m
2
Size
Stratigraphic sequence
Features
Artefacts
None
None
Enclosure bank (006) and
possible tumble deposit
(007).
None
Small patch of burning (004)
None
None
None
None
None
Possible wall [005] at depth
of 100mm running NW-SE
Slate fragments <21>
None
None
None
Pottery sherds and clay pipe
fragments <19>, <25>, <28>;
charcoal/coke fragments <20>,
<30>; glass fragment <26>;
(with thickness of deposit)
(001): 80 - 330mm
(002) at base
(018): 10 - 25mm
(006) / (007): 620mm and 400mm respectively
(006) / (007) still present at base
3
4
5
6
7
8
NX 62147
86512
0.5m by 1m
(001): 350mm
NX 62147
86520
0.5m by
0.5m
(001): 310mm
NX 62141
86518
0.6m by
0.65m
(001): 290mm
NX 62141
86529
1m by 2m
(001): 200mm
NX 62118
86536
0.5m by
0.5m
(009): 120mm
NX 62069
86595
0.5m by
0.5m
(010): 200mm
(003) at base
(002) at base
(003) at base
(001) / [005] at base
(002) at base
(011): 310mm
Possible (002) at base
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 32 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Test
Pit
NGR
Size
Stratigraphic sequence
Features
Artefacts
(with thickness of deposit)
coin <27>; iron object <29>
9
10
NX 62065
86597
0.5m by
0.5m
(010): 300mm
NX 62079
86574
0.5m by
0.7m
(012): 100mm
None
Clay pipe fragment <22>;
pottery sherds <23>; glass
fragment <24>
L-shaped section of wall
[014] at a depth of 100mm
Pottery sherds <36>; glass
fragments <37>
None
None
Wall [016] at depth of 130mm
running NW-SE
None
None
Pottery sherds <31>; glass
fragments <32>; coke/coal
fragments <33>
None
Pottery sherds <34>; glass
fragment <35>
(002) at base
(013): 400mm
(017) at base
11
12
13
14
NX 62033
86578
0.5m by
0.5m
(015): 170mm
NX 62071
86613
0.5m by
0.8m
(010): 150mm
NX 62055
86620
0.5m by
0.5m
(010): 300mm
NX 62077
86612
0.5m by
0.5m
(010): 100mm
(015) at base
(010) / [016] at base
(002) at base
(010) at base
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 33 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Appendix 3: Registers
Within this appendix are all registers pertaining to the works on site.
Context Register
Context
No.
Test
Pit
Type
Description
Interpretation
001
1, 3, 4,
5, 6
Deposit
Firmly compacted dark grey brown clayey slit with frequent inclusions
of rootlets and small sub-angular and angular stones. Measures 80350mm thick.
Topsoil present across interior of Sites [1001]
and [1002], and in the area to the south of
[1002]
002
1, 4, 7,
8, 9, 13
Bedrock
Bedrock comprising greywacke with striations running E-W.
Natural bedrock
003
3, 5
Deposit
Loosely compacted orange brown silty sand with frequent inclusions
of gravel and small sub-angular to angular stones. Occasional
inclusions of rounded and sub-rounded pebbles. Underlies topsoil
(001).
Natural subsoil
004
3
Deposit
Loose to moderately compacted dark brownish black clayey sand
with frequent inclusions of angular and sub-angular stones, and
occasional inclusions of burnt stones and small charcoal fragments. It
covers an area approximately 0.06m in diameter and between 1030mm thick, underlying topsoil (001) and overlying subsoil (003).
Small patch of burning
005
6
Structure
Loose remains of a possible stone wall orientated NW-SE. It was
formed by medium-sized angular and sub-angular grey stones
(possible greywacke) and measured 0.3m wide and 0.7m long,
although appeared to continue beyond the trench in both directions.
The top of the wall sat approximately 100mm below the ground
surface, underlying topsoil (001), and only one course was visible
measuring approximately 80mm deep. There was no visible bonding
material present amongst the stones.
Possible exterior wall of structure [1002]
006
2
Deposit
Bank material consisting of medium to large sized angular and subangular stones sitting in a matrix of firmly compacted dark brownish
black silty clay with frequent root inclusions. The bank measures up
to 2.7m wide and 1.1m in height, although the interior is raised
relative to the exterior so that it only measures up to 0.4m high along
this side. The bank encloses an area which measures 36m NW-SE
by 31m SW-NE. There is a gap along its northeast side which
measures 2.4m wide and might mark the site of a possible entrance.
Enclosing bank which forms sub-rectangular
enclosure [1001]
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 34 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Context
No.
Test
Pit
Type
Description
Interpretation
The deposit was excavated to a thickness of 620mm but its base was
not reached. Underlies topsoil (018) and abuts deposit (007).
007
2
Deposit
Firmly compacted light grey brown clayey silt with very frequent
inclusions of medium sized angular and sub-angular stones. Similar
to (006) but a less dense arrangement of stones and a different soil
matrix. Exposed within Test Pit 2 for a length of 0.3m NW-SE by 1m
SW-NE, but likely continues outwith to the SW, NW and NE. It was
excavated to a thickness of 400mm but the base was not reached. It
sat within the gap along the northeast side of enclosure [1001],
underlying topsoil (018) and abutting bank material (006).
Appears to be a deposit of tumbled stones
from bank (006) which covers the possible
entrance on the northeast side of enclosure
[1001]
008
-
-
Void
-
009
7
Deposit
Firmly compacted dark grey brown clayey silt with very frequent
angular and sub-angular gravel inclusions and frequent rootlets.
Measures 120mm thick. Overlies bedrock (002).
Topsoil across sloping ground to the exterior
of the northwest edge of enclosure [1001]
010
8, 9, 12,
13, 14
Deposit
Firm to moderately compacted brown-red silty sand with frequent root
and occasional small stone inclusions. Measures 100 to 300mm in
thickness.
Topsoil across Sites [1005], [1006] and
[1008]
011
8
Deposit
Firm to moderately compacted dark brown/black silty sand with
frequent small to medium sub-angular stone inclusions. Measures
310mm thick. Underlies topsoil (010) and overlies possible bedrock
(002).
Deposit underlying topsoil within enclosure
[1006] – might represent build-up of garden
soil
012
10
Deposit
Loosely compacted dark brown black silty sand with occasional large
stone inclusions (largest measuring 0.4m by 0.1m by 0.3m).
Measures 100mm thick and overlies (013).
Topsoil within structure [1007], appears to
contain tumbled stones from external walls of
structure
013
10
Deposit
Loosely compacted orange brown clayey sand with frequent small
angular and sub-angular stone and gravel inclusions. Measures
400mm thick. Underlies topsoil (012) and overlies wall [014].
Deposit underlying topsoil (012) within
structure [1007] – appears to be a natural
accumulation with frequent inclusions of
tumble material from adjacent wall [014]
014
10
Structure
L-shaped remains of a drystone wall which continues beyond the test
pit to both the northwest and northeast. It was formed by medium to
large angular and sub-angular stones, which measured up 0.3m by
0.5m in size. The wall was exposed for a length of 0.7m NE-SW
before turning to run 0.5m to the northwest. It measured 600mm
deep, with two to three courses visible, although width is uncertain as
External wall of structure [1007]
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 35 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Context
No.
Test
Pit
Type
Description
Interpretation
the upper surface of the wall was obscured by vegetation. The
foundation course stepped out slightly by approximately 0.2m at the
base. It was underlying deposit (013) and overlying natural subsoil
(017).
015
11
Deposit
Firmly compacted dark grey-brown silty clay with frequent rootlets
and small to medium sized angular and sub-angular stone inclusions.
Excavated to a thickness of 170mm but its base was not reached. At
the base of the test pit the stone inclusions became very dense and it
is possible that it represented an easily fragmented natural bedrock,
but the size of the sample was too small to be certain.
Topsoil revealed across Site [1003]
016
12
Structure
Remains of a possible drystone wall orientated NW-SE. It was
formed by medium to large angular stones, which had an average
size of 0.2m by 0.1m by 0.02m. The wall was exposed for a length of
0.76m although ran beyond the limits of the test pit in either direction.
It measured approximately 0.5m wide and 130mm deep although its
base was not reached. It was underlying topsoil (010). There were no
obvious signs of a break in its length to mark a possible entrance, but
the small sample size and drystone nature of the stonework made it
difficult to be certain without further investigation.
Remains of possible exterior wall of structure
[1005]
017
10
Deposit
Firmly compacted yellowish brown clayey silt. Underlies wall [014].
Natural subsoil revealed within interior of
structure [1007]
018
2
Deposit
Firmly compacted blackish brown silty clay with frequent rootlets.
Measured 10-25mm thick, overlying (006) and (007).
Thin layer of turf and topsoil overlying bank
material (006) and tumble deposit (007) at
possible entrance to enclosure [1001]
Photographic Register
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
1
0296
Test Pit 1
SW
09/06/22
2
0297
Test Pit 1
NW
09/06/22
3
0298
Test Pit 5
NW
09/06/22
4
0299
Test Pit 5
SW
09/06/22
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 36 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
5
0300
Test Pit 5
SW
09/06/22
6
0301
Test Pit 5
N
09/06/22
7
0302
Test Pit 4
NW
09/06/22
8
0303
Test Pit 4
NE
09/06/22
9
0304
Test Pit 4
NW
09/06/22
10
0305
Test Pit 4
NW
09/06/22
11
0306
Mid-excavation shot of Test Pit 2
NW
10/06/22
12
0307
Mid-excavation shot of Test Pit 2
SW
10/06/22
13
0308
Mid-excavation shot of Test Pit 2
SW
10/06/22
14
0309
Mid-excavation shot of Test Pit 2
NW
10/06/22
15
0310
Mid-excavation shot of Test Pit 3
SW
10/06/22
16
0311
Mid-excavation shot of Test Pit 3
NNW
10/06/22
17
0312
Mid-excavation shot of Test Pit 3
ENE
10/06/22
18
0313
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 3
SW
10/06/22
19
0314
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 3
NW
10/06/22
20
0315
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 3
NE
10/06/22
21
0316
Northwest facing Section of Test Pit 3
NW
10/06/22
22
0317
Mid-excavation shot of Test Pit 6
SW
10/06/22
23
0318
Mid-excavation shot of Test Pit 6
SE
10/06/22
24
0319
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 6
S
11/06/22
25
0320
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 6
SSE
11/06/22
26
0321
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 6
SSW
11/06/22
27
0322
Northwest facing Section of Sondage B in Test Pit 2
NW
11/06/22
28
0323
Northwest facing Section of Sondage B in Test Pit 2
NW
11/06/22
29
0324
Southeast facing Section of Sondage B in Test Pit 2
SE
11/06/22
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 37 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
30
0325
Northwest facing Section of Sondage A in Test Pit 2
NW
11/06/22
31
0326
Post-excavation shot of Sondage A and B in Test Pit 2
W
11/06/22
32
0327
Plan shot of Test Pit 2 with Sondage A and B
W
11/06/22
33
0328
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 7
NW
11/06/22
34
0329
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 7
NW
11/06/22
35
0330
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 7
N
11/06/22
36
0331
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 11
SW
11/06/22
37
0332
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 11
SW
11/06/22
38
0333
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 11
SE
11/06/22
39
0334
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 8
SW
11/06/22
40
0335
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 8
WNW
11/06/22
41
0336
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 8
SW
11/06/22
42
0337
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 9
SW
11/06/22
43
0338
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 9
NW
11/06/22
44
0339
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 9
SW
11/06/22
45
0340
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 12
NE
11/06/22
46
0341
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 12
SW
11/06/22
47
0342
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 12
NE
11/06/22
48
0343
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 13
SE
11/06/22
49
0344
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 13
SSW
11/06/22
50
0345
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 13
NNW
11/06/22
51
0346
Post- excavation shot of Test Pit 10
NW
11/06/22
52
0347
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 10
NE
11/06/22
53
0348
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 10
NE
11/06/22
54
0349
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 10
NW
11/06/22
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 38 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
55
0350
Shot of [1003]
SE
11/06/22
56
0351
Shot of [1003]
SE
11/06/22
57
0352
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 14
NE
11/06/22
58
0353
Post-excavation shot of Test Pit 14
ESE
11/06/22
59
0354
Shot of [1004]
S
11/06/22
60
0355
Shot of [1004]
SE
11/06/22
61
0356
Shot of [1004] – Initials on Southwest corner
SW
11/06/22
62
0357
General Shot of [1004]
S
11/06/22
63
0358
General Shot of [1004]
NE
11/06/22
64
0359
General Shot of [1005]
SE
11/06/22
65
0360
General Shot of [1005]
NW
11/06/22
66
0361
General Shot of [1006]
NW
11/06/22
67
0362
General Shot of [1006]
SE
11/06/22
68
0363
General Shot of [1006]
NW
11/06/22
69
0364
General Shot of [1006]
E
11/06/22
70
0365
General Shot of [1006]
SE
11/06/22
71
0366
General Shot of [1007]
SW
11/06/22
72
0367
General Shot of [1007]
SW
11/06/22
73
0368
General Shot of [1007]
NW
11/06/22
74
0369
General Shot of [1007]
NW
11/06/22
75
0370
General Shot of [1007]
NW
11/06/22
76
0371
General Shot of [1007]
SE
11/06/22
77
0372
General Shot of [1001]
NW
11/06/22
78
0373
VOID
79
0374
General Shot of [1002]
W
11/06/22
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 39 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
80
0375
General Shot of [1002]
W
11/06/22
81
0376
General Shot of [1001]
SE
11/06/22
82
0377
General Shot of [1001]
SE
11/06/22
83
0378
General Shot of [1001]
SE
11/06/22
84
0379
General Shot of [1002]
S
11/06/22
Finds Register
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
1
MD
TS
Metal
1 x (Copper Alloy) Decorative Plaque
JW
09/06/22
2
3
001
Charcoal
Charcoal
JR
10/06/22
3
3
001
Stone
Burnt Stone
JR
10/06/22
4
3
001
Stone
6 x Stone Abutting Charcoal
JR
10/06/22
5
MD
TS
Metal
1 x Shoe Buckle
TC
09/06/22
6
MD
TS
Stone
5 x Igneous Stone
AM
09/06/22
7
MD
TS
Metal
Cast Iron
AM
09/06/22
8
MD
TS
Metal
1 x Fe Strap Hinge
AM
09/06/22
9
MD
TS
Metal
Iron Object (Bell Clapper?)
AM
09/06/22
10
MD
TS
Metal
Copper Button
AM
09/06/22
11
MD
TS
Metal
Cu Alloy Button
DB
09/06/22
12
MD
TS
Metal
Button (Copper)
AM
09/06/22
13
MD
TS
Metal
Metal Object
MC
10/06/22
14
MD
TS
Metal
Buckle
MC
10/06/22
15
MD
TS
Metal
6 x Slag
DB
10/06/22
16
MD
TS
Metal
1 x Lead Spill
TC
10/06/22
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 40 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
17
MD
TS
Metal
2 x Button (1 x Metal and Fabric)
TC
10/06/22
18
MD
TS
Metal
Metal (Iron And Lead) including 1 x Iron Cupped Candleholder
AM
11/06/22
19
8
010
Ceramic
5 x Modern Ceramic; 4 x Glazed White Earthenware; 1 x Clay Pipe
Fragment
SW, PM
11/06/22
20
8
010
Charcoal
Charcoal Fragments
SW, PM
11/06/22
21
6
001
Stone
7 x Roofing Slate Fragments
JA, JS, GM,
SM
11/06/22
22
9
010
Ceramic
Fragment Of Clay Tobacco Pipe
JR
11/06/22
23
9
010
Ceramic
2 x Hand-Painted Tin-Glazed White Earthenware; 1 x Sponge-Decorated
White Earthenware; 8 x Modern Ceramic
JR
11/06/22
24
9
010
Glass
Fragment Of Glass
JR
11/06/22
25
8
011
Ceramic
Fragment Of Clay Tobacco Pipe
GM, DB
11/06/22
26
8
011
Glass
Fragment Of Green Glass
GM, DB
11/06/22
27
8
011
Metal
Cu Alloy Halfpenny Coin [George III Irish]
GM, DB
11/06/22
28
8
011
Ceramic
7 x Modern Ceramic
GM, DB
11/06/22
29
8
011
Metal
Iron Object
GM, DB
11/06/22
30
8
011
Coal
Coke/Coal
GM, DB
11/06/22
31
13
010
Ceramic
2 x Modern Ceramic; 1 x Red Earthernware, 1 x Tin-Glazed White
Earthenware
GM, DB
11/06/22
32
13
010
Glass
3 x Glass Fragments (1 x Green; 2 x Colourless)
GM, DB
11/06/22
33
13
010
Coal
Coke/Coal
GM, DB
11/06/22
34
14
010
Ceramic
6 x Modern Ceramic
TM, SM
11/06/22
35
14
010
Glass
Fragment of Glass
TM, SM
11/06/22
36
10
013
Ceramic
14 x Modern Ceramic
JA, JS
11/06/22
37
10
013
Glass
13 x Fragments of Clear Glass with Greenish Tint
JA, JS
11/06/22
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 41 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
38
MD
TS
Metal
1 x Fragment Ferrous Cooking Pot
11/06/22
39
MD
TS
Metal
Metal Object
11/06/22
40
MD
TS
Metal
Metal Object
11/06/22
41
MD
TS
Metal
Iron Sickle
AM
11/06/22
42
MD
TS
Metal
1 x Cu Alloy Key Hole
AM
11/06/22
43
MD
TS
Metal
1 x Lead Metal Object
AM
11/06/22
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 42 of 45
Excavator
Date
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Appendix 4: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland
LOCAL AUTHORITY:
Dumfries & Galloway
PROJECT TITLE/SITE
NAME:
Galloway Glens – Chapelyard, Dalry
PROJECT CODE:
RA18107
PARISH:
Dalry
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR:
Claire Williamson
NAME OF ORGANISATION:
Rathmell Archaeology Limited
TYPE(S) OF PROJECT:
Test Pitting and Survey
NMRS NO(S):
NX68NW 4 (MDG3861; Canmore ID 64271); NX68NW 46
(MDG4646; Canmore ID 77906)
SITE/MONUMENT TYPE(S):
Chapel (Period Unassigned) (Possible); Enclosure(s) (Period
Unassigned), Farmstead (Period Unassigned), Field System
(Period Unassigned)
SIGNIFICANT FINDS:
Pottery, metal objects
NGR (2 letters, 8 or 10
figures)
NX 62111 86556
START DATE (this season)
9th June 2022
END DATE (this season)
11th June 2022
PREVIOUS WORK (incl.
DES ref.)
None
MAIN (NARRATIVE)
DESCRIPTION: (may
include information from
other fields)
The test pitting and survey works undertaken at Chapelyard went
great lengths to establishing the nature of the features on site and
recovering several artefacts spanning the history of its use from the
last few centuries.
Four of the structures surveyed represented elements of the
Cleughhead farmstead depicted on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey
of 1853, while the remaining four were absent from the historical
mapping. While one appeared likely to be a natural, three were
identified as deliberately constructed features of uncertain date and
purpose, including a large sub-rectangular enclosure which has
never been mapped.
The discovery of medieval artefacts across the area indicates a
likelihood of medieval activity, and while no definite evidence for it
was identified during the works, it remains possible that some of
these unmapped features could date back to this period.
The on-site works have furthered our understanding of Chapelyard
as a multi-period site and added greatly to the creation of a timeline
for its use. They also allowed volunteers to further their knowledge of
the history of this area, and gain experience in the different
techniques involved during an archaeological investigation.
PROPOSED FUTURE
WORK:
None
CAPTION(S) FOR
ILLUSTRS:
None
SPONSOR OR FUNDING
BODY:
The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme (part of
Dumfries & Galloway Council), externally funded by Historic
Environment Scotland and the National Lottery Heritage Fund
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 43 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
ADDRESS OF MAIN
CONTRIBUTOR:
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops, Kilwinning, Ayrshire KA13 6PU
EMAIL:
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
ARCHIVE LOCATION
(intended/deposited)
Report to Dumfries & Galloway Archaeology Service and archive to
National Record of the Historic Environment.
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 44 of 45
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It – Chapelyard, Dalry
Contact Details
Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at our Registered Office or through the web:
Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops
Kilwinning
Ayrshire
KA13 6PU
www.rathmell-arch.co.uk
t.:
f.:
e.:
01294 542848
01294 542849
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
End of Document
2022 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 45 of 45
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – Chapelyard, Dalry
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
GGLP_88
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2020
Description
An account of the resource
Surveys and test pitting works undertaken as part of the community archaeology project “Can You Dig It?”.
archaeology
GGLP
-
https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/547/GGLP-CYDI-DSR_Castledykes.pdf
840e26db0befdb56bfcaf087aa86156b
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – The Castles of Kirkcudbright – Castledykes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Reports
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Text
Any textual data included in the document
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership
Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project
Data Structure Report
1.2.d The Castles of Kirkcudbright –
Castledykes
by Claire Williamson
th
issued 5
November 2019
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Quality Assurance
This report covers works which have been undertaken in keeping with the issued brief as
modified by the agreed programme of works. The report has been prepared in keeping
with the guidance of Rathmell Archaeology Limited on the preparation of reports. All works
reported on within this document have been undertaken in keeping with the Chartered
Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of Conduct.
Signed
………………………………..
…..5th November 2019……
Date
In keeping with the procedure of Rathmell Archaeology Limited this document and its
findings have been reviewed and agreed by an appropriate colleague:
Checked
………………………………..
…..5th November 2019……
Date
Copyright Rathmell Archaeology Limited. All rights reserved.
No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written
permission from Rathmell Archaeology Limited. If you have received this report in error,
please destroy all copies in your possession or control.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party unless
otherwise agreed in writing by Rathmell Archaeology Limited. No liability is accepted by
Rathmell Archaeology Limited for any use of this report, other than the purposes for which
it was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Rathmell Archaeology
Limited using due skill, care and diligence and no explicit warranty is provided as to their
accuracy. No independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to
Rathmell Archaeology Limited has been made.
Quality Assurance Data
Author(s)
Claire Williamson
Date of Issue
5th November 2019
Commissioning Body
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme
Event Name
Castledykes, Kirkcudbright
Event Type
Test Pitting
Event Date(s)
July 2019
Rathmell Archaeology Code
RA18107
Location
United Kingdom : Scotland : Dumfries and Galloway
NGR
NX 67763 50938
Designation(s)
Scheduled Monument SM2459
Canmore IDs
64063
Version
Parish
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 1 of 33
1.0
Kirkcudbright
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................. 4
Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 4
Project Works ................................................................................ 5
Findings – Test Pits ..................................................................... 10
Findings - Artefacts ..................................................................... 10
Discussion ................................................................................... 15
Conclusion ................................................................................... 18
Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 19
References .................................................................................. 19
Documentary ................................................................................................... 19
Cartographic .................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland ......................... 21
Appendix 2: Test Pit Details ......................................................... 23
Appendix 3: Registers.................................................................. 25
Context Register............................................................................................... 25
Photographic Register ....................................................................................... 25
Finds Register .................................................................................................. 28
Contact Details ............................................................................ 33
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Figures
Figure 1a: General shot of the area from the southeast ......................................................... 6
Figure 1b: Working shot of test pitting .................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Plan showing the location of the test pits ................................................................ 7
Figure 3a: TP 3 from the south .............................................................................................. 8
Figure 3b: TP 10 from the east-southeast .............................................................................. 8
Figure 4a: TP 8 from the northeast ........................................................................................ 9
Figure 4b: Flint core <67> from topsoil (001) in TP 9 ............................................................. 9
Figure 5a: Sherds of medieval pottery <3>, <48> and <70> from topsoil (001) in TPs 3, 10
and 9 respectively ................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 5b: Sherd of late medieval pottery <48> from topsoil (001) in TP 10 ......................... 12
Figure 6a: Fragment of late 17th century clay tobacco pipe <52> from topsoil (001) in TP 10
............................................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 6b: Late 17th or 18th century thimble <19> from topsoil (001) in TP 7 ........................ 13
Figure 7a: Sherds of 18th to early 20th century pottery <9> and <17> from topsoil (001) in TPs
1 and 7 respectively ............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 7b: Fragments of 19th and 20th century clay tobacco pipes <4>, <32>, <41> and <62>
from topsoil (001) in TPs 3, 6, 4 and 7 respectively .............................................................. 14
Figure 8a: Extract from William Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland 1752-55.......................... 17
Figure 8b: Extract from 1st edition Ordnance Survey map published 1854 ........................... 17
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Introduction
1.
This Data Structure Report describes works undertaken for the sub-project on the Castles
of Kirkcudbright, carried out as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership (GGLP)
community archaeology project Can You Dig It? This report presents the results from test
pitting works undertaken across the possible site of the bailey to the north of Castledykes
in Kirkcudbright.
2.
The works were carried out by volunteers supported by Rathmell Archaeology staff. The
structure of the works was drawn from advice and guidance from officers of GGLP, Dumfries
and Galloway Council and members of local heritage societies.
Historical & Archaeological Background
3.
A brief historical and archaeological baseline for the site at Castledykes has been lifted
from the Research Design for the sub-project (Williamson & Rees 2019, 4-7):
Robison writes that the first mention of the castle at Kirkcudbright was in 1288,
when John Comyn, sheriff of Wigtown, was noted as being the guardian of ‘the
castle and lands which belonged to the King in Kirkcudbright’ (Robison 1914). This
castle was probably the structure erected at Castledykes. The office of guardian
was combined with that of Dumfries and Wigtown in the 1291-2 records, and was
held successively by William de Boyville, Walter de Curry, Henry de Boyville and
Richard Suard with the castles named as the ‘three castles of Galloway and
Nithsdale’ (Dunning et al. 1957-58). No accounts for expenditure on building or
repair work, or incidental references to work there, have yet been traced for
Kirkcudbright Castle however (Dunning et al. 1957-58).
During the first phase of the Wars of Independence, Edward I evidently intended
Kirkcudbright as a supply port when his fleet lay off the Dee estuary in 1300
(Dunning et al. 1957-58). The castle was held by the English throughout this period
with Edward I camping at Kirkcudbright for ten days in the summer of that year
(Gourlay & Turner 1978, 2). Thereafter the king turned his attention to the east of
Scotland leaving the west to his son Edward who may have come to Kirkcudbright
in July 1301 on his journey to Cree, Loch Ryan and Ayr in the west (Ibid.).
Kirkcudbright appears to have been used as potential supply base again in 1306
(Ibid.).
After Edward I’s death in 1307, and Edward II’s withdrawal from Scotland in the
following year, the castle is unlikely to have been significantly used by the English,
and the town was reported as waste in 1335-6 (Gourlay & Turner 1978, 2). The
castle of Kirkcudbright was included in a grant of the lordship of Galloway to
Edward Bruce, brother of the king, in the early 14th century, but virtually nothing
was heard of the castle after that date (Ibid., 6). There is no record that the castle
was used at all by the Douglas family up until their forfeiture in 1455 and the castle
probably lay in ruin (Ibid., 2). Sir Thomas Maclellan acquired the site in 1577 and
he probably used much of the material from the castle to build his house
(Maclellan’s Castle) which still stands within the town (Ibid.).
No upstanding structures remain of the castle and the site survives as a massive
earthwork comprising a roughly oblong mound surrounded by a ditch. Excavations
undertaken in the 1910s revealed the layout of the castle as a rectangular
enclosure with a round tower at each corner and a substantial gatehouse to the
northeast. Pottery recovered from the excavations were dated to the late 13th to
early 14th century which matches with the short-lived period of use suggested by
the historic references.
4.
Further details are given about the earlier archaeological interventions (Williamson & Rees
2019, 7-8):
The motte at Castledykes was investigated through substantial excavation works
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
by J Robison in 1911, 1912 and 1913 (Robison 1914). These works were
successful in recording the foundation courses for the curtain wall and corner
towers of what appeared to be the late 13th to early 14th century castle. The layout
was revealed to be a rubble-built rectangular enclosure with a round tower at each
corner. The eastern tower formed one side of two externally buttressed gatehouse
towers with the other sitting along the northeastern wall placing the entrance for
the castle as coming from the northeast. The buttresses on the gatehouse towers
and the adjacent curtain wall are unusual for this period but it is possible that they
were designed to carry machicolations near the wall-top, perhaps even arched, as
seen at Haughton Castle, Northumberland (Dunning et al. 1957-58). The footings
at the western corner revealed this tower to be larger in size and it probably
represented the keep. The plan reproduced by the excavators represents this
tower as a later addition buttressing that corner of the enclosure inside and out,
but this may perhaps represent the sequence of construction. The latter tower and
the one to the north both contained the remains of a spiral staircase, which
presumably gave access to the upper floors. Robison wrote that the defences of
the outer bailey had disappeared but that he presumed they would have been on
a stockade principle and, if so, that no trace of them would remain (Robison 1914).
Artefacts recovered from the excavations included pottery sherds, fragments of
ironwork and a small-toothed comb made from bone. The finds were discussed in
more detail by Dunning, Hodges and Jope in 1957-58 (Dunning et al. 1957-58).
The pottery represented at least 50 jugs and four cooking pots. There were no
dishes, bowls or more specialised shapes. At least six (and probably eight) of the
jugs were imports from southwest France. Of the remaining a variety of styles and
fabrics suggested several different sources, some probably being brought from
England. A number showed an underlying uniformity of fabric which could have
been made at or near Kirkcudbright. The French pottery was identified as being
late 13th to early 14th century in date, with one fragment coming from a medieval
polychrome pitcher, the only example of this type from Scotland at the time of the
article. The transport of this pottery has been associated with the extensive Gascon
wine trade to Britain.
Since then there have only been two further instances of archaeological
interventions at Castledykes, both of which were small-scale and related to the
presence of the Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) which sits to the
northwest. In 2002, Brann monitored a series of civil engineering test pits and
boreholes in advance of a proposed expansion of the works (Brann 2002). No
archaeological features were exposed during the works. Another watching brief
was undertaken by Rathmell Archaeology in 2005 in support of the construction of
a pipeline running to the works which involved a small section of pipe trench, a tiein trench and two small test pits (Shaw 2006). These were positioned close to the
road which surrounds the area to the southeast, northeast and northwest. No
significant archaeological features or deposits were recorded. The pits to the
southeast and northeast revealed both red tile and rubble field drains, while those
to the northwest which sat directly on the grass verge of the road revealed modern
disturbance from BT, sewer and water services.
Project Works
5.
The archaeological works focussed on the possible site of the bailey associated with the
former castle at Castledykes in Kirkcudbright (S2 in Williamson & Rees 2019). The site was
located within fairly level amenity ground which sits to the north of the earthwork that
forms the main visible component of Castledykes. Prior to the works, the area was
overgrown with waist-high vegetation (Figures 1a and 1b).
6.
The on-site works took place on the 19th and 20th July 2019 and consisted of a series of
hand-excavated test pits located within the area. A total of 10 test pits were excavated
with all soil sieved for artefacts.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Figure 1a: General shot of the area from the southeast
Figure 1b: Working shot of test pitting
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Figure 2: Plan showing the location of the test pits
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Figure 3a: TP 3 from the south
Figure 3b: TP 10 from the east-southeast
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Figure 4a: TP 8 from the northeast
Figure 4b: Flint core <67> from topsoil (001) in TP 9
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
7.
All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined
in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (McKinstry 2019). The fieldwork was
undertaken in a mixture of both wet and dry weather. In terms of structure, the core field
team of Rathmell Archaeology staff and volunteers were on-site from 9am to 4pm.
Findings – Test Pits
8.
10 test pits (TP 1 – TP 10) were excavated across the area (Figure 2). The test pits were
spaced at irregular intervals along roughly three lines running east-west covering a total
area measuring roughly 15m north-south by 40m east-west. They each measured 0.5m
square in plan and ranged in depth from 230 to 700mm.
9.
Topsoil (001) formed the uppermost deposit across the area and comprises a moderately
compacted mid-brown sandy clay with small- to medium-sized stone inclusions. It
measured 400 to 500mm thick across TPs 1-8 (Figure 3a), and 580 to 700mm thick in TPs
9 and 10 (Figure 3b). The stone inclusions became a lot more frequent towards the base
of the deposit within TPs 1-6 and were more frequent throughout the entire depth of the
topsoil in TPs 7 and 8 (Figure 4a).
10.
The topsoil was removed in TPs 1-5 and 7-8 to reveal possible natural subsoil (002). This
consisted of a firmly compacted mid-orange yellow sandy clay with occasional stone
inclusions. In TPs 9 and 10, possible natural subsoil (003) was revealed: a firmly
compacted mottled mid-grey/orange/brown sandy clay with occasional rounded stones.
The test pits stopped at the surface of these deposits.
11.
The only test pit where natural subsoil was not revealed was TP 6 which was stopped while
still within the topsoil (001) as the increased frequency of stone inclusions made it difficult
to continue.
12.
A number of artefacts were recovered from each test pit which are discussed in more detail
below. Also included are a number of unstratified finds which were recovered from the area
by a local resident and handed into us during the works (<1001> to <1007>).
Findings - Artefacts
By Louise Turner
13.
The assemblage recovered from the test pits at Castledykes included ceramics, glass,
metal, industrial residues, animal bone and coarse stone/lithics. The ceramics from
Castledykes formed the dominant element of the assemblage, and were in turn dominated
by modern material (Figure 7a). This represented a range of wares, including brown-glazed
red earthenwares, glazed white earthenwares (mostly plain, but with some blue-and-white
transfer-printed sherds present), stonewares and slipwares. These were likely to occupy a
date range spanning the later 19th and early 20th centuries.
14.
Some of these modern fabrics derived from wheel-thrown brown-glazed coarseware jars.
These may have predated the mass-produced items detailed above, but with the
production of these items continuing fairly late it is possible that they may have been
coeval with the later wares, their manufacture spanning much of the 18th and early to mid19th centuries. A tin-glazed porcelain or semi-porcelain figurine (from the unstratified
collection of finds) and some glazed white earthenware with a dark creamy-yellow fabric
and blue-tinged glaze may similarly have represented items manufactured earlier on in the
modern period.
15.
Arguably the most important component of this assemblage comprised a group of 20
sherds of medieval ceramic (Figure 5a). All of the sherds were of small size and often
heavily abraded, which meant that form and decoration were absent, thus making a
comparison with other assemblages difficult. However, on the basis of fabric alone, it was
clear that the range of fabrics represented was entirely consistent with those recovered
during the earlier excavations of 1911-14, and that they were comparable with medieval
assemblages recovered from further afield, across Dumfries and Galloway.
16.
Around a quarter of the medieval sherds recovered during these works comprised sherds
of Scottish white gritty ware (e.g <49>), with one sherd of red gritty ware (a fabric
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
commonly encountered at Whithorn – see Clarke 1997) also present.
17.
Roughly half of the medieval assemblage comprised a soft, pinkish-red fabric, sandy in
texture with quartz and mica inclusions (e.g. <48> and <70>). This appears to have been
of similar character to pottery recorded during the 1911-14 excavations at Castledykes
(Dunning et al. 1957-58) and comparable material that frequently occurs at medieval sites
throughout Dumfries and Galloway, from Caerlaverock Old Castle in the east (Hall 2004)
to Whithorn in the west (Clarke 1997). This pottery has been interpreted as a local ware;
common decorative styles suggest that it was made in imitation of English wares sourced
from as far afield as Somerset, with a French influence also noted at Kirkcudbright in the
use of bridge spouts. Examples of this ‘local’ ware have, however, been found as far afield
as Castle Street, Carlisle (Jope & Hodges 1955).
18.
The local ware from Caerlaverock Old Castle was given a date range between the 1220s
and the 1270s, which predates the known occupation of Castledykes (1288-1308). This
may explain Haggerty's observation that while the late 13 th century Saintonge found during
the 1911-13 excavations matched the known occupation, the local wares do not quite
correspond (Haggerty 1988, 167). There is the capacity with the assemblage of local ware
pottery for material to date from the early to mid-13th century, potentially stretching the
initial occupation of Castledykes back towards the 1220s.
19.
Late medieval and post-medieval ceramics were almost entirely absent from the site. One
sherd of late medieval greyware was recovered from TP 10 (<48>; Figure 5b), and a
possible fragment of clay pipe bowl of late 17 th century date recovered (Figure 6a), also
from TP 10 (<52>), but other than these two items, the period spanning the 14 th to 17th
centuries is unrepresented.
20.
Glass recovered from the site was almost entirely modern in character, with bottle glass
and window glass present. The presence of thick-walled upright wine bottles and
handblown rims from TPs 1 and 7 suggested a 19th century origin for these items, with
clear window glass (post-dating the 1950s) recovered from TP 3 and TP 4. One fragment
of window glass from TP 9 with a marked yellow-green tint (<72>) appeared to be of
earlier origin, probably originating in the early modern or post-medieval period.
21.
A small number of metal objects were recovered, including a Cu alloy cast thimble of late
17th or 18th century ‘Lofting’ type from TP 7 (<19>; Figure 6b), two waste fragments of
lead, and two heavily corroded iron objects, probably nails. Roofing slates were also wellrepresented: though most of the fragments were undiagnostic, they probably post-date
the late 17th century and most appeared to be local Scottish slate. Two fragments of Welsh
slate must, however, post-date the mid-19th century (TP 9, <65>; TP 10, <50>). One
lithic of interest was noted: a platform core of Neolithic or Bronze Age date (<67>) which
had been used for the production of blades or flakes (Figure 4b). Some burnt animal bone
was also recovered – this could be identified as mammalian, but the fragments were too
small to be identified more definitively.
22.
The last group, which was well represented throughout all of the test pits, comprised a
variety of industrial residues. It was dominated by small fragments of unburnt or lightly
burnt cannel coal and a roughly equal amount of heavily burnt fuel ash slag. A small
number of metallurgical slags were also present, probably derived from iron smithing. It is
unlikely that this material derived from domestic use alone, and it is entirely possible that
this material derives from small-scale smithing activities. It should be noted, however, that
the highest concentration of fuel ash slags (in TPs 9 and 10) do not necessarily coincide
with metallurgical slags, which are concentrated in TP 2. While it is possible that the waste
was generated outside the castle and dumped on the site, there remains the possibility
that the slags and burnt material derive from activities carried out closer to hand in a
period contemporary with the castle’s occupation and use. Because this material is no
longer in situ, a closer association cannot, however, be demonstrated.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Figure 5a: Sherds of medieval pottery <3>, <48> and <70> from topsoil (001) in TPs 3,
10 and 9 respectively
Figure 5b: Sherd of late medieval pottery <48> from topsoil (001) in TP 10
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Figure 6a: Fragment of late 17th century clay tobacco pipe <52> from topsoil (001) in TP
10
Figure 6b: Late 17th or 18th century thimble <19> from topsoil (001) in TP 7
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Figure 7a: Sherds of 18th to early 20th century pottery <9> and <17> from topsoil (001)
in TPs 1 and 7 respectively
Figure 7b: Fragments of 19th and 20th century clay tobacco pipes <4>, <32>, <41> and
<62> from topsoil (001) in TPs 3, 6, 4 and 7 respectively
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Discussion
23.
Over the course of two days, volunteers opened 10 test pits within the grassed area to the
northeast of Castledykes motte, sieving all of the excavated spoil to aid artefact recovery.
Their aim was to look for evidence of the bailey – the adjacent enclosure which acted as
the centre of domestic life – and to add to the knowledge gained during the excavations of
the motte in the 1910s (see Robison 1914).
24.
No archaeological features were exposed within the test pits, which revealed a simple
stratigraphy across the area of topsoil directly overlying possible natural subsoil. With the
test pits only measuring 0.5m square in plan, the identification of the underlying subsoil
as natural cannot be confirmed at this stage but remains likely; their sandy composition
and stone inclusions appear to match the area’s natural geology of sand, silt and gravel.
25.
The presence of a large number of stones within the topsoil, particularly in TPs 7 and 8,
was notable, although it is difficult to know exactly what it represents. Not particularly
large in size, the majority of the stones were rounded in shape and it is possible that they
could be natural: a result of the site being so close to the river. Perhaps they could
represent dumped material from modern times, an activity which is indicated by some of
the artefactual evidence (see below). It is also possible, however, that they could represent
ex situ material relating to the existence of metalled surfaces or earlier structures in the
area, although there is nothing which correlates to the presence of such a feature on the
available mapping. Shaw recorded an abundant amount of stones in the topsoil in the area
to the east during her watching brief (2006, 12). From this, we can ascertain that the stone
inclusions are not a localised occurrence, which could perhaps hint at a natural origin.
26.
Despite the small size of the sample area, a number of artefacts were recovered which
spanned in date from the prehistoric period through to the 20th century. Without the
presence of features, we must instead turn to these to see what evidence we can discern
about the site’s history.
27.
One artefact was recovered which dated much earlier than the majority of the assemblage:
a single platform core of Neolithic or Bronze Age date from TP 9 (<67>). It showed
evidence of being worked on both sides although, as it was significantly heat-affected, it
was unclear whether this was for the production of flakes or blades. Evidence for prehistoric
activity has been recovered elsewhere in the area of Kirkcudbright, including findspots of
stone axeheads (Canmore IDs: 64090, 64089, 64095 and 64083) and a Bronze Age
socketed axehead (Canmore ID: 348655), found both to the west and east of the River
Dee. A large number of examples of prehistoric rock art have also been found in the
surrounding area (see ‘Scotland’s Rock Art Project’ in References).
28.
Without the presence of any features, the flint core, along with the other findspots, appears
to represent ex situ material which has migrated from its original location as a result of a
number of possible disturbances in the intervening millennia. Despite this though, the
continuing recovery of these finds does indicate the likelihood of prehistoric occupation in
the area; a likelihood that is further confirmed by the ever-increasing discoveries of in situ
rock art.
29.
This prehistoric find sits in isolation in our assemblage, with the inferred timeline of our
recovered artefacts then jumping to the medieval period. This is represented by 20 sherds
of pottery with a date range of between the 12th and 15th centuries. As stated above, Turner
identifies our medieval pottery as being consistent with those recovered during the earlier
excavations by Robison (as described in Dunning et al. 1957-58) and is comparable with
medieval assemblages found elsewhere such as at Caerlaverock Castle, Whithorn and
Carlisle.
30.
Our pottery assemblage appears to be of mainly local manufacture. This compares with
the assemblage found during the earlier excavations, as well as those from Carlisle and
Whithorn, where a number of sherds were identified as having been produced locally. This
is of interest as, despite the proliferation of local wares found on many Scottish medieval
sites, the locations of only a few pottery manufacturing sites have been identified. Each
fragment of local ware collected is then important in furthering our understanding of the
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
nature and distribution of pottery production. Such pieces also allow for the identification
of local or regional trends, as well as the potential to establish the sharing of ideas and
styles between groups.
31.
As discussed by Turner (see The Finds above), the sherds of ‘local’ ware identified here
matched well with those from the earlier excavations and also with the sherds found at
Caerlaverock Castle and Whithorn. While our sherds are too abraded to exhibit decoration,
the decoration found on similar wares from Caerlaverock Castle was identified by Hall as
having parallels with pottery in the English Midlands; this led him to suggest that local
potters had been influenced by this material (2004, 47). While the decoration does not
survive on our sherds, it is possible that they also originally demonstrated the same
influence.
32.
Perhaps more importantly, is the contribution that these local wares can make to the dating
of our site. Sherds of Saintonge pottery found during the earlier excavations by Robison
(1914) gave a date range of the late 13 th to early 14th century; this matched well with the
documentary sources which recorded the castle as being occupied from 1288 to 1308 AD.
However, the parallels with our sherds of local ware and those found at Caerlaverock Castle
may hint that the castle began life before this time. Hall (2004, 49) is able to date these
local wares to between the 1220s and 1270s so there is a potential that some of our local
wares also date from this earlier period. The first mention of Castledykes in 1288 identifies
who it is under the guardianship of, but this does not negate a much earlier construction
date. Perhaps our pottery suggests that it had already been upstanding for some time prior
to 1288. It is also worthy of note that, if this local ware does date from this earlier period,
then the potential English influences mentioned above predate the English occupation of
the site at Castledykes in 1300.
33.
The presence of smithing slag and fuel ash slag amongst our assemblage is difficult to
date. As Turner states (see The Finds above), the large amount of fuel ash slag collected
suggests that it derives from small-scale smithing activities, although when these took
place is debatable. Smithing debris was recovered during the excavations of the 13 th
century castle at Caerlaverock (Chadburn & Photos-Jones 2004). While unfortunately little
is known about the smiths associated with medieval castles in Scotland, it is likely that a
permanent castle smithy would have been located at the centre of the bailey (Ibid., 87).
Definitive evidence for this, however, would have to include the remains of a robust
building, alongside storerooms and a stable (Ibid.), something that was also missing from
Caerlaverock. Without any associated structural evidence or a dateable context, our ex situ
metalworking debris could date from any point throughout the history of the site and may
have also originated elsewhere. Its frequent occurrence in such a small area, however, is
of interest and may warrant further investigation.
34.
One sherd of late medieval pottery dating from the 14th to 15th century was recovered from
TP 10. This is interesting as it potentially post-dates the occupation of our castle, although
not altogether surprising. There is no mention of the castle being occupied at all after the
early 14th century and it likely lay in ruin, but the fortunes of Kirkcudbright fluctuated
throughout this time with the river still playing the biggest role in its economic and political
interactions. As such, while the castle may have been left to ruin, the surrounding area
was still active and it is likely that this was well-trodden ground immediately adjacent to
the river, with the remaining structure itself likely to draw many a visitor. Unfortunately,
one sherd is not enough to indicate whether any part of the bailey remained in use at this
time.
35.
The next identifiable phase in our assemblage dates to the late 17th century, with a lack of
any material dating to the post-medieval period of the 16th and early 17th centuries. We
know that the castle was essentially demolished after its acquisition by Sir Thomas
Maclellan in 1577 so, while the area was no longer occupied, it would still have seen a lot
of movement back and forth as building material was carted to his new house in the
northeast. The lack of finds from this time is surprising, but is perhaps merely due to the
small sample size; post-medieval material may still survive elsewhere. Although it is
notable that there is no mention of post-medieval pottery amongst the earlier 1910s
assemblage either (Robison 1914; Dunning et al. 1957-58).
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland
Figure 8a: Extract from William Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland 1752-55
Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland
Figure 8b: Extract from 1st edition Ordnance Survey map published 1854
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
36.
Dating from the late 17th century, the volunteers recovered a small fragment from the bowl
of a clay tobacco pipe and a thimble. It was during the 17 th century that pipe-smoking
grew in popularity across the British Isles, and so this is an early example of clay pipe;
unfortunately, there was no visible decoration or stamping to indicate where it had been
manufactured. The thimble was of a ‘lofting’ type which was in widespread use throughout
the late 17th and 18th century. It takes its name from John Lofting, a Dutch thimble
manufacturer who moved to England in 1693 and started to produce thimbles on a larger
scale than had been achieved previously; after changing to water power, his later factory
had the capacity to produce around two million thimbles per year. A few ceramic artefacts
had the potential to date to the 18th century, including some jar sherds and a tin-glazed
porcelain figure of a child, which could potentially have been a doll’s house figure.
37.
So throughout the late 17th and 18th centuries, we can see a scattering of what appear to
be lost personal possessions within our assemblage. While they do not indicate the
occupation of the site, these lost items have their own story and give us personal touches
and small insights into the lives and identities of those who may have visited the site during
this time.
38.
A large number of ‘domestic’ items were recovered which date to the mid-19th century
through to the 20th century. These included sherds of teapots, jars and crockery, as well
as fragments of wine bottles and stems from clay tobacco pipes (Figure 7b). The latter
have been identified as being the ‘cutty’ type: a more practical and cheaply produced style
for use by working people during their daily routines.
39.
Looking at Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland surveyed in 1752-55 (Figure 8a), it is possible
to make out the site of the earthwork at Castledykes near to the river with the surrounding
area depicted as open parkland. This remains unchanged in the 1 st edition Ordnance Survey
map of 1854 (Figure 8b), where a footpath is now shown running into the western side of
the earthwork. We can then envisage the area as being in use as recreational ground,
perhaps a popular picnic spot, which could explain the array of discarded ‘domestic’ items
during this period.
40.
What is harder to pinpoint, however, is the presence of both window glass and roofing
slates dating to the 19th and 20th centuries in our assemblage. We know from the accurate
Ordnance Survey maps during this period that no structures stood on the area at this time.
Instead, these finds hint that as well as recreational parkland, our area was also being
used as a dumping area right up until the latter half of the 20 th century.
41.
In conclusion, while the test pitting was not able to identify any structural features or
definitively prove this as the location for the bailey, it has shown the value that still exists
in the ground which surrounds the earthwork and the potential it has to produce further
results.
42.
Through their work, our volunteers have been able to contribute to the prehistoric find
assemblage of the area, find material which potentially predates the earliest known date
for the castle and have also shown surviving evidence for some of the activities which could
have taken place here, such as small-scale smithing and its use as recreational ground.
The finds that they have recovered have provided us with a narrative of the area which
spans centuries of use.
43.
Today, the area is partly scheduled and is surrounded by footpaths on all sides with an
information panel about the castle installed in the north. It is designed to encourage
visitors, advertising the site of Castledykes as a tourist destination, but it is also marked
as an important asset to the town. Its survival as an area of open ground suggests that it
has long been recognised as such and that it continues to be protected as part of
Kirkcudbright’s long heritage.
Conclusion
44.
The test pitting undertaken at the site of Castledykes recovered a number of artefacts
which contribute to our understanding of the history of the site. The majority of the finds
span from the medieval period through to the 20th century.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
45.
The medieval finds comprise pottery sherds which appear to be of local manufacture and
draw parallels with pottery found in the earlier excavations as well as at Whithorn and
Caerlaverock. From the work at Caerlaverock, this pottery form was identified as dating
from the 1220s to the 1270s, suggesting that the origins of the castle at Castledykes could
have potentially earlier origins than the initial date of 1288 given by the documentary
sources. The presence of smithing slag and large amounts of fuel ash slag also suggests
that small-scale smithing may have taken place, although whether this was contemporary
with the castle remains uncertain.
46.
The next period that is well-represented is the late 17th-20th century where a number of
pottery sherds, glass vessels and small objects appear to represent domestic items
discarded during the area’s use as recreational ground in this period. The presence of
window glass and roofing slate, however, points to the area being used for dumping until
the 20th century.
47.
Outwith these main phases, a single find of a flint core platform was discovered which
dates from the Neolithic or Bronze Age, further adding to the growing assemblage of
prehistoric finds from the Kirkcudbright area.
48.
No archaeological features were identified within the test pits but the array of artefacts
recovered hints at the potential that this area holds for future works. The works also
allowed volunteers to further their knowledge of the history of this important site, and gain
experience in the different techniques involved during an archaeological investigation.
Acknowledgements
49.
This project is part of a wider Community Archaeology project, ‘Can You Dig It’, run by the
Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme from February 2019 to March 2020. See
www.gallowayglens.org.uk/Resources and follow ‘Can You Dig It’ for their published
outputs. The Community Archaeology project was offered free to volunteers thanks to
funding from the Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland. The land is owned by
Dumfries and Galloway Council who kindly allowed us access and gave their support for
the works. Guidance was also given by Dumfries and Galloway Council Archaeology Service
and members of local heritage societies.
50.
The author would like to thank all of the hardworking volunteers who took part in the
excavation: Jenny Roberts, Helen Bell-Palmer, Tammy Grounsell, Rachel Nicholson, Megan
Nicholson, Nathan Harnett, Emma Harnett, Sam Harnett, Ellie Harnett, Evelyn Hosker, Tom
Marshall, Claire Martin, Morag Ritchie and David Devereux.
51.
The support and guidance provided by Rathmell Archaeology staff members Thomas Rees
and Sarah Krischer on site was much appreciated by everyone involved. Further thanks
should go to Thomas Rees for his guidance throughout the initial organisation of the project
and I am also grateful to him for editing this report. Thanks also go to Louise Turner, Laura
Anderson and Thomas Rees for their work on the artefact analysis.
52.
A final thank you to Anne Ramsbottom and the staff at the Stewartry Museum who put on
a display of finds from the earlier excavations especially for us; I know that the volunteers
really enjoyed getting the chance to see the earlier material and it was much appreciated.
References
Documentary
Brann, M. L. 2002 ‘Castledykes, Kirkcudbright, Watching Brief’, Discovery and Excavation
in Scotland Vol. 3, p 30
Chadburn, R. & Photos-Jones, E. 2004 ‘Metalworking debris’ in Brann, M. Excavations at
Caerlaverock Old Castle 1998-98, Dumfries & Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian
Society Monograph, pp. 79-88
Clarke, J. 1997 ‘The Later Medieval Pottery’, in Hill, P. Whithorn and St Ninian: The
Excavation of a Monastic Town 1984-91, pp. 510-518
Dunning, G. C., Hodges, H. W. M. & Jones, E. M. 1957-58 ‘Kirkcudbright Castle, its Pottery
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
and Ironwork’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Vol. 91, pp 117-138
Gourlay, R. & Turner, A. 1978 Historic Kirkcudbright: the archaeological implications of
development, Scottish Burgh Survey, University of Glasgow
Haggerty, G. 1988 A Summary and Gazetteer of French Pottery in Scotland c. 1150- c.
1650, National Museums of Scotland Ceramic Resource Disk 3 [online] available at:
http://repository.nms.ac.uk/303/1/303_-_Ceramic_resource_disc_3__French_pottery_in_Scotland.pdf [accessed 25 July 2019]
Hall, D. 2004 ‘The Pottery’, in Brann, M. Excavations at Caerlaverock Old Castle 1998-98,
Dumfries & Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society Monograph, pp.47-56
Jope, E. M. & Hodges, H. W. M. 1955 ‘The Medieval Pottery from Castle Street’, in Hogg,
R. ‘Excavations in Carlisle, 1953’, Trans. Cumb. West. Ant. Arch Soc., pp. 79 -107
McKinstry, L. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community
Archaeology Project, Risk Assessment Method Statement 1.2.d The Castles of
Kirkcudbright (Castledykes), unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Robison, J. 1914 ‘Account of the excavation of the Edwardian Castle at Castledykes,
Kirkcudbright’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Vol. 48, pp 381-394
Scotland’s Rock Art Project [online] available at: https://www.rockart.scot/ [accessed 24
October 2019]
Shaw, R. 2006 Kirkcudbright WWTW, Dumfries & Galloway: Watching Brief, Data Structure
Report, unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Williamson, C. & Rees, T. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It?
Community Archaeology Project, Research Design 1.2.d The Castles of Kirkcudbright,
unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Cartographic
1752-55
Roy, W.
Military Survey of Scotland
1854
Ordnance Survey
Six-inch 1st edition, Kirkcudbrightshire Sheet 50
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland
LOCAL AUTHORITY:
Dumfries & Galloway
PROJECT TITLE/SITE
NAME:
Galloway Glens – Castledykes, Kirkcudbright
PROJECT CODE:
RA18107
PARISH:
Kirkcudbright
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR:
Claire Williamson
NAME OF ORGANISATION:
Rathmell Archaeology Limited
TYPE(S) OF PROJECT:
Test Pitting
NMRS NO(S):
NX65SE 26 (Canmore ID: 64063)
SITE/MONUMENT TYPE(S):
Castle (Medieval), Earthwork(s) (Period Unassigned)
SIGNIFICANT FINDS:
Flint; Medieval pottery
NGR (2 letters, 8 or 10
figures)
NX 67763 50938
START DATE (this season)
19th July 2019
END DATE (this season)
20th July 2019
PREVIOUS WORK (incl.
DES ref.)
None
MAIN (NARRATIVE)
DESCRIPTION: (may
include information from
other fields)
The test pitting undertaken at the site of Castledykes recovered a
number of artefacts which contribute to our understanding of the
history of the site. The majority of the finds span from the medieval
period through to the 20th century.
The medieval finds comprise pottery sherds which appear to be of
local manufacture and draw parallels with pottery found in the earlier
excavations as well as at Whithorn and Caerlaverock. From the work
at Caerlaverock, this pottery form was identified as dating from the
1220s to the 1270s, suggesting that the origins of the castle at
Castledykes could have potentially earlier origins than the initial date
of 1288 given by the documentary sources. The presence of smithing
slag and large amounts of fuel ash slag also suggests that smallscale smithing may have taken place, although whether this was
contemporary with the castle remains uncertain.
The next period that is well-represented is the late 17th-20th century
where a number of pottery sherds, glass vessels and small objects
appear to represent domestic items discarded during the area’s use
as recreational ground in this period. The presence of window glass
and roofing slate, however, points to the area being used for dumping
until the 20th century.
Outwith these main phases, a single find of a flint core platform was
discovered which dates from the Neolithic or Bronze Age, further
adding to the growing assemblage of prehistoric finds from the
Kirkcudbright area.
No archaeological features were identified within the test pits but the
array of artefacts recovered hints at the potential that this area holds
for future works. The works also allowed volunteers to further their
knowledge of the history of this important site, and gain experience
in the different techniques involved during an archaeological
investigation.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
PROPOSED FUTURE
WORK:
None
CAPTION(S) FOR
ILLUSTRS:
None
SPONSOR OR FUNDING
BODY:
The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme (part of
Dumfries & Galloway Council), externally funded by Historic
Environment Scotland and the Heritage Fund
ADDRESS OF MAIN
CONTRIBUTOR:
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops, Kilwinning, Ayrshire KA13 6PU
EMAIL:
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
ARCHIVE LOCATION
(intended/deposited)
Report to Dumfries & Galloway Archaeology Service and archive to
National Record of the Historic Environment.
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Appendix 2: Test Pit Details
Within this appendix a standardised set of data pertaining to the test pits is presented.
Test Pit Summary
Test
Pit
NGR
1
NX 67797
50938
0.5m by
0.5m
(001): 400mm
NX 67792
50934
0.5m by
0.5m
(001): 450mm
NX 67789
50942
0.5m by
0.6m
(001): 480mm
NX 67784
50936
0.5m by
0.5m
(001): 440mm
NX 67775
50939
0.5m by
0.5m
(001): 400mm
NX 67768
50935
0.5m by
0.5m
(001): 230mm
NX 67763
50941
0.5m by
0.5m
(001): 460mm
NX 67755
50939
0.5m by
0.5m
(001): 500mm
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Size
Stratigraphic sequence
Features
Artefacts
None
Glass, clay tobacco pipe,
pottery, burnt bone
None
Glass, slate, pottery, slag,
lead, burnt bone, cinder, clay
tobacco pipe
None
Glass, coal, pottery, clay
tobacco pipe, burnt bone
None
Clay tobacco pipe, pottery,
slag, glass, coal
None
Burnt bone, slate, coal,
pottery, slag, iron, clay
tobacco pipe, flint, cinder
None
Clay tobacco pipe, pottery,
glass, quartz
None
Pottery, glass, slate, thimble,
burnt bone
None
Pottery, slate, glass, slag,
charcoal
(depth of uppermost surface from
pavement level)
(002) at base
(002) at base
(002) at base
(002) at base
(002) at base
Stopped in (001)
(002) at base
(002) at base
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Test
Pit
NGR
9
NX 67778
50928
0.5m by
0.5m
(001): 580mm
NX 67771
50927
0.5m by
0.5m
(001): 700mm
10
Size
Stratigraphic sequence
Features
Artefacts
None
Slate, flint, slag, burnt bone,
pottery, quartz, coal
None
Charcoal, slag, pottery, slate,
burnt bone, clay tobacco
pipe, quartz, glass
(depth of uppermost surface from
pavement level)
(003) at base
(003) at base
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 24 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Appendix 3: Registers
53.
Appendix 3, which contains all registers pertaining to the works on site during the excavation.
Context Register
Context
No.
Test
Pit
Type
Description
Interpretation
001
All
Deposit
Moderately compacted mid-brown sandy clay with small- to mediumsized stone inclusions. Became stonier towards the base of the
deposit within Test Pits 1-8. Extended across the whole area,
measuring 400-500mm thick in Test Pits 1-8, and 580-700mm thick in
Test Pits 9-10.
Topsoil
002
1-5,7,8
Deposit
Firmly compacted mid-orange yellow sandy clay with occasional
stone inclusions.
Possible natural subsoil
003
9,10
Deposit
Firmly compacted mottled mid-grey/orange/brown sandy clay with
occasional rounded stones.
Possible natural subsoil
Photographic Register
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
1
1080
Test Pit 3
S
19/07/19
2
1081
Working shot
-
19/07/19
3
1082
Working shot
-
19/07/19
4
1083
Working shot
-
19/07/19
5
1084
Working shot
-
19/07/19
6
1085
Working shot
-
19/07/19
7
1086
Working shot
-
19/07/19
8
1087
Test Pit 2
S
19/07/19
9
1088
Test Pit 2
SW
19/07/19
10
1089
Test Pit 1
S
19/07/19
11
1090
Test Pit 1
S
19/07/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 25 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
12
1091
Test Pit 1
S
19/07/19
13
1092
Test Pit 4
N
19/07/19
14
1093
Working shot
-
19/07/19
15
1094
Working shot
-
19/07/19
16
1095
Working shot
-
19/07/19
17
1096
Working shot
-
19/07/19
18
1097
Working shot
-
19/07/19
19
1098
Working shot
-
19/07/19
20
1099
Working shot
-
19/07/19
21
1100
Working shot
-
19/07/19
22
1101
Working shot
-
19/07/19
23
1102
Working shot
-
19/07/19
24
1103
Working shot
-
19/07/19
25
1104
Working shot
-
19/07/19
26
1105
Test Pit 5
S
19/07/19
27
1106
Test Pit 6
NW
19/07/19
28
1107
Test Pit 6
NW
19/07/19
29
1108
Test Pit 6
NW
19/07/19
30
1109
Working shot
-
20/07/19
31
1110
Working shot
-
20/07/19
32
1111
Working shot
-
20/07/19
33
1112
Working shot
-
20/07/19
34
1113
Working shot
-
20/07/19
35
1114
Working shot
-
20/07/19
36
1115
Working shot
-
20/07/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 26 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
37
1116
Working shot
-
20/07/19
38
1117
Working shot
-
20/07/19
39
1118
Working shot
-
20/07/19
40
1119
Working shot
-
20/07/19
41
1120
Working shot
-
20/07/19
42
1121
Working shot
-
20/07/19
43
1122
Working shot
-
20/07/19
44
1123
Working shot
-
20/07/19
45
1124
Working shot
-
20/07/19
46
1125
Test Pit 7 – mid-excavation
E
20/07/19
47
1126
Test Pit 7 – mid-excavation
E
20/07/19
48
1127
Test Pit 7 – mid-excavation
N
20/07/19
49
1128
Test Pit 8
E
20/07/19
50
1129
Test Pit 8
E
20/07/19
51
1130
Test Pit 8
NE
20/07/19
52
1131
Test Pit 7
S
20/07/19
53
1132
Test Pit 7 – N facing section
N
20/07/19
54
1133
Working shot
-
20/07/19
55
1134
Working shot
-
20/07/19
56
1135
Working shot
-
20/07/19
57
1136
Working shot
-
20/07/19
58
1137
Working shot
-
20/07/19
59
1138
Working shot
-
20/07/19
60
1139
Working shot
-
20/07/19
61
1140
Test Pit 10
ESE
20/07/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 27 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Image
Digital Description
From
Date
62
1141
Test Pit 10 – ESE facing section
ESE
20/07/19
63
1142
Test Pit 9
N
20/07/19
64
1143
Test Pit 9 – N facing section
N
20/07/19
Finds Register
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
1
3
001
Glass
10 x glass fragments
The Harnetts
19/07/19
2
3
001
Industrial
Residue
17 x cannel coal and fuel ash slag
The Harnetts
19/07/19
3
3
001
Ceramic
7 x ceramic sherds including 2 medieval, 2 white glazed earthenware and 1
slipware.
The Harnetts
19/07/19
4
3
001
Ceramic
1 x clay tobacco pipe stem fragment
The Harnetts
19/07/19
5
3
001
Bone
1 x burnt bone
The Harnetts
19/07/19
6
1
001
Glass
6 x glass fragments
HBP, RN,
MN
19/07/19
7
1
001
Ceramic
2 x ceramic ( 1 x clay tobacco pipe fragment; 1 x slipware or brown glazed
red earthenware)
HBP, RN,
MN
19/07/19
8
1
001
Glass
1 x glass fragment
HBP, RN,
MN
19/07/19
9
1
001
Ceramic
9 x modern ceramic including 1 clay tobacco pipe stem fragment
HBP, RN,
MN
19/07/19
10
1
001
Bone
1 x burnt bone
HBP, RN,
MN
19/07/19
11
5
001
Bone
2 x burnt bone from the base of (001)
The Harnetts
19/07/19
12
5
001
Coarse Stone
2 x slate
The Harnetts
19/07/19
13
5
001
Industrial
Residue
25 x industrial residue (cannel coal and fuel ash slag)
The Harnetts
19/07/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 28 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
14
5
001
Ceramic
2 x modern ceramic (burnt)
EH, The
Harnetts
19/07/19
15
5
001
Industrial
Residue
1 x metallurgical slag
EH, The
Harnetts
19/07/19
16
7
001
Glass
5 x glass fragments
HBP, CM,
JR
20/07/19
17
7
001
Ceramic
10 x modern ceramic
HBP, CM,
JR
20/07/19
18
7
001
Stone
1 x slate
HBP, CM,
JR
20/07/19
19
7
001
Cu alloy
1 x thimble
HBP, CM,
JR
20/07/19
20
7
001
Bone
2 x burnt bone
HBP, CM,
JR
20/07/19
21
2
001
Glass
3 x glass fragments
TG, JR, EH
19/07/19
22
2
001
Coarse Stone
3 x slate
TG, JR, EH
19/07/19
23
2
001
Ceramic
2 x modern ceramic
TG, JR, EH
19/07/19
24
2
001
Industrial
Residue
1 x metallurgical slag
TG, JR, EH
19/07/19
25
2
001
Pb
1 x Pb fragment
TG, JR, EH
19/07/19
26
2
001
Bone
1 x burnt bone
TG, JR, EH
19/07/19
27
2
001
Industrial
Residue
9 x industrial residue (cannel coal and fuel ash slag)
TG, JR, EH
19/07/19
28
2
002
Ceramic
1 x fragment of clay tobacco pipe
TG, JR, EH
19/07/19
29
2
002
Ceramic
1 x modern ceramic
TG, JR, EH
19/07/19
30
2
002
Fe
1 x Fe nail
TG, JR, EH
19/07/19
31
-
-
-
Voided – duplicate of <24>
-
-
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 29 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
32
6
001
Ceramic
1 x fragment of clay tobacco pipe stem
RN, MN,
HBP
19/07/19
33
6
001
Ceramic
7 x modern ceramic
RN, MN,
HBP
19/07/19
34
6
001
Glass
2 x glass fragments
RN, MN,
HBP
19/07/19
35
6
001
Lithic
1 x quartz
RN, MN,
HBP
19/07/19
36
8
001
Ceramic
7 x ceramic (6 x modern; 1 x medieval)
MR, TM, TG
20/07/19
37
8
001
Coarse Stone
1 x slate
MR, TM, TG
20/07/19
38
8
001
Glass
3 x glass fragments
MR, TM, TG
20/07/19
39
8
001
Industrial
Residue
3 x metallurgical slag
MR, TM, TG
20/07/19
40
8
001
Industrial
Residue
4 x fuel ash slag
MR, TM, TG
20/07/19
41
4
001
Ceramic
3 x fragments of clay tobacco pipe stem
The Harnetts
19/07/19
42
4
001
Ceramic
5 x modern ceramic
The Harnetts
19/07/19
43
4
001
Industrial
Residue
2 x metallurgical slag
The Harnetts
19/07/19
44
4
001
Glass
4 x glass fragments
The Harnetts
19/07/19
45
4
001
Industrial
Residue
18 x industrial residue (17 x cannel coal; 1 x fuel ash slag)
The Harnetts
19/07/19
46
10
001
Industrial
Residue
68 x industrial residue (35 x cannel coal/burnt shale; 33 x fuel ash slag)
TM,TG,MR
20/07/19
47
10
001
Industrial
Residue
4 x metallurgical slag
TM,TG,MR
20/07/19
48
10
001
Ceramic
9 x ceramic (3 x modern; 6 x medieval)
TM,TG,MR
20/07/19
49
10
001
Ceramic
4 x medieval ceramic
TM,TG,MR
20/07/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 30 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
50
10
001
Coarse Stone
3 x slate
TM,TG,MR
20/07/19
51
10
001
Bone
3 x burnt bone
TM,TG,MR
20/07/19
52
10
001
Ceramic
3 x clay tobacco pipe (2 x stem; 1 x bowl)
TM,TG,MR
20/07/19
53
10
001
Lithic
2 x quartz
TM,TG,MR
20/07/19
54
10
001
Glass
7 x glass fragments
TM,TG,MR
20/07/19
55
2
012
Industrial
Residue
11 x industrial residue (5 x cannel coal; 6 x fuel ash slag)
TG, JR, EH
19/07/19
56
-
-
-
Voided
-
-
57
-
-
-
Voided
-
-
58
-
-
-
Voided
-
-
59
-
-
-
Voided
-
-
60
-
-
-
Voided
-
-
61
7
001
Fe
1 x Fe object (?nail)
JR, CM,
HBP
20/07/19
62
7
001
Ceramic
1 x fragment of clay tobacco pipe stem
JR, CM,
HBP
20/07/19
63
7
001
Lithic
1 x flint
JR, CM,
HBP
20/07/19
64
7
001
Industrial
Residue
38 x industrial residue (14 x fuel ash slag; 24 x cannel coal and vitrified
material)
JR, CM,
HBP
20/07/19
65
9
001
Coarse Stone
14 x slate
JR, HBP, DD
20/07/19
66
9
001
Pb
1 x Pb object (casting jet or sprue?)
JR, HBP, DD
20/07/19
67
9
001
Lithic
1 x flint core (Neolithic or Bronze Age)
JR, HBP, DD
20/07/19
68
9
001
Bone
1 x burnt bone
JR, HBP, DD
20/07/19
69
9
001
Lithic
2 x quartz
JR, HBP, DD
20/07/19
70
9
001
Ceramic
8 x medieval ceramic
JR, HBP, DD
20/07/19
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 31 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Find
No.
Test Pit
Context
Material
Type
Description
Excavator
Date
71
9
001
Industrial
Residue
112 x industrial residue (61 x fuel ash slag; 47 x cannel coal? burnt?; 4 x
miscellaneous vitrified material)
JR, HBP, DD
20/07/19
72
1
001
Industrial
Residue
2 x coal (rebagged from <6>)
The Harnetts
19/07/19
73
9
001
Industrial
Residue
1 x metallurgical slag (rebagged from <71>)
JR, HBP, DD
20/07/19
74
9
001
Glass
1 x window glass fragment (rebagged from <71>)
JR, HBP, DD
20/07/19
1001
-
U/S
Pb
3 x lead
WM
-
1002
-
U/S
Ceramic
37 x modern ceramic
WM
-
1003
-
U/S
Glass
3 x glass
WM
-
1004
Riverbank
U/S
Ceramic
6 x modern ceramic
WM
-
1005
Riverbank
U/S
Glass
3 x glass
WM
-
1006
Riverbank
U/S
Industrial
Residue
1 x smithing or hearth slag
WM
-
1007
Riverbank
U/S
Coarse Stone
1 x perforated stone (?whetstone)
WM
-
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 32 of 33
RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.d Data Structure Report: Castledykes
Contact Details
Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at our Registered Office or through the web:
Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops
Kilwinning
Ayrshire
KA13 6PU
www.rathmell-arch.co.uk
t.:
f.:
e.:
01294 542848
01294 542849
contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk
End of Document
2019 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 33 of 33
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Data Structure Report – The Castles of Kirkcudbright – Castledykes
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
GGLP_87
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
GGLP
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
GCAT
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2022
Description
An account of the resource
Surveys and test pitting works undertaken as part of the community archaeology project “Can You Dig It?”.
archaeology
GGLP