6 10 130 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 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/546/GGLP-CYDI-DSR_BarhillWood.pdf df4b95187db18b1d421606d2073d59a9 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 – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright 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 Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright by Laura Anderson th issued 28 August 2023 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright 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 …..28th August 2023…… 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 …..28th August 2023…… 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 28th August 2023 Commissioning Body Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme Event Name Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Event Type Trenches Event Date(s) August 2023 Rathmell Archaeology Code RA18107 Location United Kingdom: Scotland: Dumfries and Galloway NGR NX 68840 50552 Designation(s) None Canmore IDs 365662 Version OASIS Ref Parish ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 31 1.0 rathmell1-518646 Kirkcudbright RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Contents Introduction .................................................................................. 5 Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 5 Project Works ................................................................................ 6 Findings – Trenches....................................................................... 6 Trench 1............................................................................................................ 6 Trench 2............................................................................................................ 7 Trench 3.......................................................................................................... 12 Trench 4.......................................................................................................... 13 Trench 5.......................................................................................................... 13 Findings - Artefacts ..................................................................... 17 Discussion ................................................................................... 17 Conclusion ................................................................................... 19 Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 19 References .................................................................................. 19 Documentary ................................................................................................... 19 Cartographic .................................................................................................... 20 Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland ......................... 21 Appendix 2: Trench Details .......................................................... 23 Trench Summary .............................................................................................. 23 Appendix 3: Registers.................................................................. 24 Context Register............................................................................................... 24 Photographic Register ....................................................................................... 27 Finds Register .................................................................................................. 30 Contact Details ............................................................................ 31 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Figures Figure 1: Extract from (1805-1815) map “A Collection of Surveys of Scottish Estates of the Earl of Selkirk…” showing the Barhill Wood Site. ................................................................... 6 Figure 2: LiDAR plan showing boundary ditches/banks identified and trenches excavated. ... 8 Figure 3: Plan showing boundary ditches on modern mapping. ............................................. 9 Figure 4a: E facing section of Trench 1 showing topsoil (101), B Horizons (102) and (103), ditch [105] and its fill (104). .................................................................................................. 10 Figure 4b: SE facing section of Trench 2 showing topsoil (201), ditches [205] and [206] and their fills (204) and (208), bank fills (202) and (203) and natural bedrock (207). ................... 10 Figure 5a: NW facing section of Trench 3 showing topsoil (301), subsoils (302) and (303) and lens (304)............................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 5b: NW facing section of Trench 4 showing topsoil (401), subsoil (402) and bedrock (403) as well as the natural feature of an animal burrow or tree bowl. .................................. 11 Figure 6: NW facing section of Trench 5 showing topsoil (501), subsoil (502) and bedrock (503). ................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 7: Section drawing showing the E facing Section of Trench 1 and the SE Facing Section of Trench 2 as drawn by volunteers. ....................................................................... 14 Figure 8: Section drawing showing the NW facing Section of Trench 3 and the NW Facing Section of Trench 4 as drawn by volunteers. ....................................................................... 15 Figure 9: Section drawing showing the NW facing Section of Trench 5 as drawn by volunteers. ........................................................................................................................... 16 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Introduction 1. This Data Structure Report describes works undertaken for the sub-project in Barhill Wood, 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 trench works undertaken within an area of features identified by David Devereux through LiDAR imagery and topographic survey; the relict boundaries could relate to a potential ovalshaped enclosure marking the highest area of Barhill Wood (Canmore ID: 365662). 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 previous Historic Woodland Assessment was carried out in 2019 as part of Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership’s Can You Dig It Project. This Project Design assumes familiarity with this assessment shown below: Mills, C. M. & Quelch, P. (2019) GGLP: CAN YOU DIG IT. Barhill Woods, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment. Dendrochronicle Unpublished Report. 4. For the purposes of this Project Design, however, a brief background will be given for Barhill Wood with a particular focus on the features investigated by the community archaeology project at Barhill Wood. 5. There is evidence that woodland existed at Barhill Wood since the late medieval period after which there was a period in which there was a noted absence of woodland around the 18th century which was redressed by the replanting of trees as parts of larger plantations created by the Earls of Selkirk (Mills & Quelch 2019). These later plantations retained open areas of better-quality land which were kept for agricultural purposes while more unproductive land, often on higher ground such as Barhill Wood, was planted with trees. The open areas at Barhill Wood were also planted at a later date when the wood was taken over by the Forestry Commission (now Forestry and Land Scotland) in 1953. 6. Several potential cultural heritage sites have been identified within Barhill Wood which include quarries and field boundary walls/banks which are associated with Barhill Wood’s use during the creation of the plantations in the 18 th century. As well as this there is also the presence of possibly earlier sites such as a section of an old road which survived within the wood and may have its origins in the late medieval period. 7. Recently historic map evidence (Figure 1) and LiDAR data have become available (courtesy of David Devereux) which indicates that a stretch of the relict boundary which was initially thought to be part of the 18th century plantation creation may be earlier. The LiDAR data (Figure 2) shows this stretch of the boundary, but also the slight traces of ditches that have been noted to the south of the boundary as well as to the north and south sides of the highest part of Barhill. On-site inspection, David Devereux (Figure 3b) could discern traces of one ditch in the north and two in the south. Further inspection of these ditches using the LiDAR data (Figure 2) suggests that they may be an oval-shaped enclosure surmounting Barhill which measures approximately 82m from northeast to southwest and 54m transversely. 8. Prior to on-site works starting, a Project Design was created (McKinstry 2023) and a field visit was undertaken on the 3rd of August 2023 by Claire Williamson and David Devereux. The area was investigated and potential locations for trenches were identified. The area is currently surrounded by woodland with two paths running from NE to SW. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Figure 1: Extract from (1805-1815) map “A Collection of Surveys of Scottish Estates of the Earl of Selkirk…” showing the Barhill Wood Site. Project Works 9. The archaeological works focused on ground where a number of postulated pre-18th century boundary ditches lay as well as the high ground of Barhill Wood where potential banks and ditches were identified through LiDAR imagery (Figure 3). The works were all located within Barhill Wood (Canmore ID: 365662) straddling the main path that runs through the woodland from NE to SW. Five trenches were excavated and recorded: one to the north of the main path and four straddling a minor path that runs parallel to the main path to the southeast. 10. The on-site works took place over three days from the 7th of August to the 9th of August 2023 and consisted of five hand-excavated trenches. The trenches had varying lengths from 2m to 4m by 0.5m in width (Figure 3). All trenches were hand dug by volunteers and Rathmell Archaeology Staff. 11. All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (Anderson 2023). 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 10am to 4pm. Findings – Trenches 12. Fieldwork conducted over the three days comprised five hand-dug trenches (Figure 3). Each of these trenches was excavated and recorded by both volunteers and Rathmell Archaeology staff and will be discussed separately. Trench 1 13. Trench 1 was located to the north of the main path running through Barhill Wood. The trench measured 0.5m by 4m and was orientated N to S (Figure 4a). The trench was placed ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright to investigate the pre-18th-century boundary identified on the estate map of Barhill Wood from 1808-15 (Figure 7). 14. The topsoil within Trench 1 was identified as (101): a loosely compacted dark brown silty sand which contains decomposing woodland debris. The deposit had a ranged thickness of between 60mm and 90mm. 15. Two different B horizon deposits, (102) and (103), were identified within Trench 1 underlying topsoil (101). (102) comprised loosely compacted dark mid brown silty sand with frequent small stone inclusions. The deposit had been disturbed by roots. The deposit had a ranged thickness of between 50mm and 100mm and was deeper in the centre of the trench. 16. The second B horizon deposit identified, (103) comprised moderately compacted mid brown clayey silt with inclusions of infrequent small to medium angular stones. The deposit was identified at a ranged depth of between 110mm and 380mm and had an excavated thickness of between 50mm and 120mm. Fragments of the natural bedrock were identified throughout the deposit as well as areas where the natural bedrock intruded into the context. 17. A linear feature was identified underlying (102) and cut through (103). The feature [105] was orientated from E to W, with a width of 1.55m and a depth of between 130mm and 190mm. The feature had a gradual break of slope, sloping gradual sides and a steep break of slope at its base. The base was irregular in shape and the feature had a single fill (104). 18. The feature’s fill (104) was identified as a loosely compacted mid brown silty sand with inclusions of frequent large angular stones. The deposit had a thickness of between 130mm and 190mm. The deposit was only identified within the feature [105] 19. No archaeological artefacts were recovered from Trench 1. Trench 2 20. Trench 2 was located to the southeast of the main path running through Barhill Wood. The trench measured 0.5m by 3m and was orientated NE to SW (Figure 4b). The trench was placed to investigate the pre-18th-century boundary identified on the estate map of Barhill Wood from 1808-15 (Figure 7). 21. The topsoil within Trench 2 was identified as (201): a friable mid brown sandy silt with small subangular stones and frequent root inclusions. The deposit had a thickness of between 50mm and 350mm. The deposit was identified across Trench 2, with the densest concentration of roots and mulch at the northeast end of the trench and very frequent small stones to the southwest end of the trench. 22. Underlying (201), a potential bank comprising redeposited fill (202) was identified. (202) consisted of moderately compacted mid brown silty sand with frequent small angular stones and small root inclusions. The deposit had a thickness of between 50mm and 250mm. The deposit was only identified for a width of 1.05m into the southwest end and continues beyond the trench. 23. Also underlying (201), discrete from the bank, two ditches were identified within Trench 2: [205] and [206]. 24. The uppermost of these was smaller ditch [206] identified at the northeast end of the trench. The linear feature was orientated from E to W and had a width of 1.1m and a depth of 460mm. The feature had a gradual break of slope, gradual sloping sides, a gradual break of slope at its base and a V-shaped base. The feature had a single fill of (208) and was cut into (201). 25. The fill of the feature [206] was identified as a friable mid greyish brown sandy silt (208) with frequent small subangular stones and root inclusions. The deposit had a thickness of between 50mm and 200mm and was only identified within feature [206]. 26. Feature [206] cut the end of larger ditch [205] which sat to the southwest. Both features [205] and [206] wereorientated from E to W [205]. The feature had a width of 1.2m and a maximum depth of 600mm. The ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Figure 2: LiDAR plan showing boundary ditches/banks identified and trenches excavated. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Figure 3: Plan showing boundary ditches on modern mapping. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Figure 4a: E facing section of Trench 1 showing topsoil (101), B Horizons (102) and (103), ditch [105] and its fill (104). Figure 4b: SE facing section of Trench 2 showing topsoil (201), ditches [205] and [206] and their fills (204) and (208), bank fills (202) and (203) and natural bedrock (207). ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Figure 5a: NW facing section of Trench 3 showing topsoil (301), subsoils (302) and (303) and lens (304). Figure 5b: NW facing section of Trench 4 showing topsoil (401), subsoil (402) and bedrock (403) as well as the natural feature of an animal burrow or tree bowl. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Figure 6: NW facing section of Trench 5 showing topsoil (501), subsoil (502) and bedrock (503). feature had a gradual break of slope at top, steep sides to the southwest and a gradual side to the northeast. The break of slope at the base was gradual and the base was slightly concave. 27. The fill of the feature [205] was identified as a moderately compacted mid greyish brown silty sand (204) with frequent inclusions of angular medium stones measuring up to 290mm by 140mm by 120mm. The deposit had a thickness of between 30mm and 500mm. The fill had a loose compaction in the base of the cut. 28. Underlying potential bank (202) and truncated at its northeast end by ditch [205], a stonerich layer (203) was identified. The deposit comprised moderately compacted greyishbrown silty sand with very frequent inclusions of angular medium stones measuring a maximum of 290mm by 140mm by 120mm. The deposit had a thickness of between 10mm and 300mm and a width of 650mm. 29. The natural bedrock of the area was identified at Trench 2 as (207). The deposit comprised natural greyish brown sedimentary rock with orange inclusions and was easily fractured under pressure. The bedrock was identified at a depth of between 100mm to 400mm across the entirety of the trench. 30. No archaeological artefacts were recovered from Trench 2. Trench 3 31. Trench 3 was located to the southeast of the main path running through Barhill Wood. The trench measured 0.5m by 2.9m and was orientated NE to SW (Figure 5a). The trench was placed to investigate LiDAR features also identified by David Devereux on an earlier field survey (Figure 8). 32. The topsoil within Trench 3 was identified as (301): a loosely compacted dark brown silty sand with frequent inclusions of decomposing woodland debris and roots. The deposit had a thickness of between 100mm and 150mm. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright 33. Underlying (301), a moderately compacted dark brown sandy clay (302) with occasional inclusions of fragmented bedrock was identified. The deposit had a thickness of between 100mm and 200mm. The remains of a metal shotgun cartridge <1> was identified within the deposit. 34. A firmly compacted white greyish brown clay (304) was identified as a lens within deposit (302). The deposit was identified amongst the larger stones identified within (302) yet the deposit itself had no observable inclusions. The deposit was identified at a depth of between 110mm and 380mm and had an excavated thickness of between 50mm and 120mm. 35. Underlying (302), a firmly compacted orange-brown sandy clay (303) with very frequent inclusions of fragmented bedrock was identified. The deposit was identified at a depth of between 160mm and 280mm and the trench stopped at this point. 36. The only archaeological artefact recovered from Trench 3 was a brass and paper metal shotgun cartridge <1> from context (302). No archaeological features were identified within Trench 3. Trench 4 37. Trench 4 was located to the southeast of the main path running through Barhill Wood. The trench measured 0.5m by 3m and was orientated NE to SW (Figure 5b). The trench was placed to investigate a potential ditch that David Devereux had identified just to the southwest of the small hill’s summit (Figure 8), although still on higher ground at this side of Barhill Wood. 38. The topsoil within Trench 4 was identified as (401): a moderately compacted dark brown silty sand with frequent decomposing woodland debris and small subangular stone inclusions. The deposit had a thickness of between 50mmm and 100mm. 39. Underlying (401), a moderately light to mid orange-brown sandy clay (402) with occasional roots and frequent small stone inclusions was identified. The deposit had a thickness of between 100mm and 300mm. 40. The natural bedrock of the area was identified at the base of Trench 4. The deposit comprised natural greyish brown sedimentary rock (403) with orange inclusions, the bedrock very easily fractured under pressure. The bedrock was identified at a depth of between 150mm and 380mm. The natural bedrock was identified underlying (402) and was identified closer to the surface at the northeast end of the trench. 41. A possible animal burrow or tree bowl was identified in the northwest facing section of the trench. The natural feature was filled with topsoil-like material, with a width of 30mm and a depth of 250mm. The feature cut through (401) and (402). 42. No archaeological artefacts or features were identified within Trench 4. Trench 5 43. Trench 5 was located to the southeast of the main path running through Barhill Wood. The trench measured 0.5m to 1m by 4m and was orientated NE to SW (Figure 6). The trench was placed to investigate features that were identified through LiDAR imagery. An extension of 0.5m by 0.5m to the southeast was conducted to further investigate a dip in the natural bedrock (Figure 9). 44. The topsoil within Trench 5 was identified as (501): a moderately compacted dark brown silty clay with very frequent roots, decomposing woodland debris and small stone inclusions. The deposit had a thickness of between 70mm and 150mm. 45. Underlying (501), sat a moderately compacted mid orange-brown silty clay (502) with frequent fragmented natural bedrock, small stones, and occasional large tree root inclusions. The deposit had a thickness of between 70mm and 170mm. 46. The natural bedrock of the area was identified at the base of Trench 5. The deposit comprised natural greyish brown sedimentary rock with orange inclusions, and the bedrock very easily fractured under pressure. The bedrock was identified at a depth of between ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Figure 7: Section drawing showing the E facing Section of Trench 1 and the SE Facing Section of Trench 2 as drawn by volunteers. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Figure 8: Section drawing showing the NW facing Section of Trench 3 and the NW Facing Section of Trench 4 as drawn by volunteers. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Figure 9: Section drawing showing the NW facing Section of Trench 5 as drawn by volunteers. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright 47. 70mm and 430mm. The natural bedrock was identified underlying (502) and was identified sloping upwards to the northeast from the southwest. 48. No archaeological artefacts or features were identified within Trench 5 Findings - Artefacts 49. A single artefact was recovered from the trench exercises. In Trench 3, the remains of a brass and paper shotgun cartridge <1> was identified within context (302). Shotgun cartridges have been manufactured since 1852 and began with brass cartridges (The Vintage Gun Journal). In the mid-1870s, paper cases became more common and were widely marketed and used alongside brass-case and combination cartridges until the 1930s (The Vintage Gun Journal). 50. There were issues with the earlier paper cases and in 1903, a paper cased ‘Grand Prix’ was launched which became the benchmark for all British shotgun cartridges until the mid1980s (The Vintage Gun Journal). In 1974, a plastic cased shotgun cartridge was offered to the public which quickly dwarfed paper cases in sales (The Vintage Gun Journal). 51. Forestry and Land Scotland (formerly the Forestry Commission) acquired Barhill Wood in 1952 from the Hope Dunbar Family of St Mary’s Isle (Mils & Quelch, 2019, pp.3). The presence of the shotgun cartridge in deposit (302) indicates that the deposit was at one point the previous forest floor with the degradation of vegetation laying atop the cartridge and in essence, burying it. 52. The cartridge can be tentatively dated to between 1870 and 1970 due to the presence of paper and brass on the base. Unfortunately, any information present on the base of the cartridge is not legible and it cannot be further dated. 53. The cartridge can be dated to prior to the change in ownership of Barhill Wood, with the act of hunting likely being limited by Forestry and Land Scotland when they planted the area in the 1950s. However, the act of illegal poaching cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the shotgun cartridge indicates a practice of game hunting pre-1952 or in the mid-20th century within the area. Discussion 54. Over the course of three days, volunteers opened five trenches within Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright. The aim was to investigate the presence of pre-18th century boundaries and LiDAR features identified by David Devereux. 55. The topsoils throughout the assessment area, on either side of the path running through Barhill Wood, were similar in composition. Every deposit appeared predominately covered in decomposing natural vegetation from the trees and bracken covered areas. The deposits (101), (201), (301), (401) and (501) correspond to Barhill Wood’s current use as a woodland area which is naturally filled with trees, bracken and other vegetation. 56. The natural bedrock in the area was identified within Trenches 2, 4 and 5. Greywacke in (207), (403) and (503) was identified at varying depths of between 70mm and 430mm. Trenches 4 and 5 had sloped bedrock, higher in the northeast end before sloping to the southwest. The sloping was first tentatively identified as a possible indication of a gentle ditch; however, this was not distinct and rather corresponds with the natural sloping of the land as the mound on Barhill Wood slopes down towards the southwest. 57. Underlying the topsoil (101) within Trench 1, a natural built-up deposit that comprises decomposing vegetation (102) was identified. This deposit was identified as being once open to the elements that were gradually added to by the surrounding vegetation and trees to create the silty sand deposit that lies under the current topsoil of the area. 58. Within Trench 3, (302) was identified as dark brown sandy clay with occasional inclusions of fragmented bedrock. The presence of a brass and paper shotgun cartridge <1> within the deposit indicates that the subsoil was at one time the previous forest floor. The shotgun cartridge indicates that the area was utilised in game hunting prior to Forestry and Land Scotland taking ownership of the land in 1952. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright 59. Five natural subsoils were identified throughout the assessment area: (103) (303), (304), (402) and (502). The deposits varied in colouration and compaction with the majority being a variation of clay. The variation in the deposits is explained by their placement in the different areas within the wood, with Trench 1 being to the northeast of the main path in Barhill Wood and in an area of a gentle slope, Trench 3 being on a very slightly sloped area to the northwest of the mound, Trench 4 being near to the highest point of the mound and Trench 5 being on a more defined slope to the southeast of the mound. 60. The lens of (304) within Trench 3 was identified within deposit (303). The white greyish brown colouration of the lens in indicative of waterlogged soil in the area which is expected as the area for Trench 3 was relatively flat and heavily covered in low lying vegetation. 61. Multiple linear features were identified during the excavations: three ditches and one bank. A ditch [105] running from E to W was identified in Trench 1 with a width of 1.55m and a depth of between 130mm and 190mm. The ditch had a single fill (104) and was partly cut into natural subsoil (103). The ditch was identified on the northeast side of the main path that runs through Barhill Wood. As this ditch is not marked on any of the available mapping, including the 1808-1815 estate map, it is very possible that it represents an earlier property boundary or ‘march’ prior to the 18 th century and the consolidation of the land under the Earl of Selkirk’s ownership. The weaving nature of the boundary could also suggest a property line that followed a natural feature like a burn or a ridge within the topography. 62. A bank was identified in the southwest end of Trench 2, comprising two deposits (202) and (203). The lowest deposit (203) appears to be a naturally occurring stone rich layer that was utilised as a base for the bank whereas the upper deposit (202) was identified as a redeposited fill taken from the creation of ditch [205] and employed in the creation of the corresponding bank. A band of angular medium stones measuring up to 290mm by 140mm by 120mm was identified within deposit (203), potentially representing a ‘berm’ created for the bank to limit tumble from the bank to the ditch. 63. The bank is partly covered by topsoil (201) and utilises the natural slope of the landscape using a higher ridge to create a bank to the southwest of the two ditches identified within Trench 2. 64. Two ditches were identified within Trench 2: [205] and [206]. Ditch [205] was identified partly truncated by [206] which indicates that [205] was the earlier cut with [206] being a later addition or recut of the ditch. The ditch [205] was identified with a width of 1.2m and a depth of 600mm. The fill of the ditch, (204), had frequent inclusions of angular medium stones of a similar size to the stones identified within deposit (203); this similarity may represent tumble of the potential ‘edge’ of the bank into the ditch. The fill of the cut (204) had a loose compaction at the base of the cut, indicating that the ditch naturally refilled rather than through deliberate backfilling. 65. The recut of the original ditch, [206], had a width of 1.1m and a depth of 460mm. The fill was (208) which contained frequent small subangular stone inclusions and was similar to the topsoil (201) covering the trench. The recut ditch was identified further to the northeast of the bank and its northeast edge was cut into the top of the underlying bedrock layer. 66. This re-cutting of an earlier ditch represents the continued use of the land. The original bank and ditch enclosure could represent a continuation of the earlier boundary marked by ditch [105] in Trench 1, created before the 18th-century plantation in the area. The recut ditch could be an 18th-century adaption by the Earls of Selkirk of an earlier feature, although it also does not appear as a boundary on the 1808-1815 estate map. 67. It is also possible that the earlier ditch and associated bank could suggest a possible larger bank and ditch enclosure surrounding the mound in Barhill Wood. This placement surrounding the highest point within Barhill Wood could suggest prehistoric activity, though a lack of archaeological material within the ditches hinders their dating. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Conclusion 68. The trenching exercises undertaken in Barhill Wood investigated a number of archaeological features which could contribute to our understanding of the use of the area. The ditches inform us of pre-18th century boundaries and a potential earlier enclosure atop the highest point within Barhill Wood. The two ditches within Trench 2 show a continued use of the land with the recutting of a ditch, potentially for land demarcation or in the creation of an enclosure. 69. The sole archaeological find identified within the exercise was identified as a modern shotgun cartridge which shows the changing nature of the woodland from an area where hunting was permitted to the present use of the land as a Forestry and Land Scotland property. 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 70. 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 August 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. 71. The land is owned by Forestry and Land Scotland who kindly allowed us access and gave support for the works, with specific thanks going to Lyndy Renwick and Matt Ritchie. Guidance was also given by Dumfries and Galloway Council Archaeology Service and members of local heritage societies. Special thanks goes to David Devereux who suggested the site, shared his time and expertise and worked with Rathmell Archaeology Ltd in plotting the trench locations. 72. The author would like to thank all the hardworking volunteers who took part in the excavation: Jennifer Roberts, John Allison, Pete Machell, Cath Monk, Joan Sutherland, Alasdair Philips, Hayden Lamburn, Geoffrey Monk, Lorraine Clay, Wendy Milliken, Janet Quinn, Abbey Bradbury, Michaela Bradbury, John Brewer, Emma Hair, Nickie Newsum and Alastair and Thomas Ansbro. 73. 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. Final thanks goes to Claire Williamson and Liam McKinstry for editing this report. References Documentary Anderson, L. 2023 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community Archaeology Project (Phase 3), Risk Assessment Method Statement, Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright, unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd McKinstry, L. 2023 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community Archaeology Project, Project Design, 1.2.e. Woods (Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright), unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd Mils, C M & Quelch, P. 2019 Barhill Woods, Kirkcudbright: Historic Woodland Assessment, published pamphlet for ‘Can You Dig It?’ Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership The Vintage Gun Journal 2023 ‘Cartridges then & Now: Development from 1851 to 2019’. In The Vintage Gun Journal Issue 50 [online] available at: https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/cartridges-then-and-now [Accessed 24th August 2023] ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Cartographic 1805-1815 Unknown Artist A Collection of Surveys of Scottish Estates of the Earl of Selkirk: The Farm Consisting of Kirkland Drumcroy, Auchenfloor, Cannee, Barhill and Silvercraigs (formerly Nuntons). ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland LOCAL AUTHORITY: Dumfries & Galloway PROJECT TITLE/SITE NAME: Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright PROJECT CODE: RA18107 PARISH: Kirkcudbright NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR: Laura Anderson NAME OF ORGANISATION: Rathmell Archaeology Limited TYPE(S) OF PROJECT: Trenching NMRS NO(S): SITE/MONUMENT TYPE(S): Woodland (Canmore ID:365662) SIGNIFICANT FINDS: None NGR (2 letters, 8 or 10 figures) NX 68840 50552 START DATE (this season) 7th August 2023 END DATE (this season) 9th August 2023 PREVIOUS WORK (incl. DES ref.) None MAIN (NARRATIVE) DESCRIPTION: (may include information from other fields) The trenching exercises undertaken in Barhill Wood investigated a number of archaeological features which could contribute to our understanding of the use of the area. The ditches inform us of pre-18th century boundaries and a potential earlier enclosure atop the highest point within Barhill Wood. The two ditches within Trench 2 show a continued use of the land with the recutting of a ditch, potentially for land demarcation or in the creation of an enclosure. The sole archaeological find identified within the exercise was identified as a modern shotgun cartridge which shows the changing nature of the woodland from an area where hunting was permitted to the present use of the land as a Forestry and Land Scotland property. 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 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright ARCHIVE LOCATION (intended/deposited) Report to Dumfries & Galloway Archaeology Service and archive to National Record of the Historic Environment. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Appendix 2: Trench Details Within this appendix, a standardised set of data pertaining to the evaluation trenches is presented. All measurement distances quoted along the trench are measured based on the quoted orientation of the trench. Trench Summary Trench Orientation Size Topsoil Depth Subsoil Character Modern/ Agricultural Features Significant Features Artefacts 1 N-S 0.5m by 3m 60 to 90mm Mid brown clayey silt with inclusions of infrequent small to medium angular stones (103) None Ditch [105] None 2 NE-SW 0.5m by 3m 50 to 350mm Mid brown silty sand with frequent small angular stones and small root inclusions (202) None [205] Ditch None [206] Narrow ditch Greyish brown silty sand with very frequent inclusions of angular medium stones measuring under 290mm by 140mm with a thickness of 120mm. (203) 3 NE-SW 0.5m by 2.9m 100 to 150mm Orange-brown sandy clay with very frequent inclusions of fragmented bedrock. (303) None None <1> - Brass and paper shotgun cartridge (302) 4 NE-SW 0.5m by 3m 50 to 100mm Light to mid orange-brown sandy clay with occasional roots and frequent small stone inclusions. (402) None None None 5 NE-SW 0.5m by 4m 70 to 150mm Mid orange-brown silty clay with frequent fragmented natural bedrock, small stones, and occasional large tree root inclusion. (502) None None None ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Appendix 3: Registers Appendix 3, which contains all registers pertaining to the works on site during the excavation. Context Register Context No. Area Trench Type Description Interpretation 101 1 Deposit Loosely compacted dark brown silty sand which contains decomposing woodland debris. The deposit had a ranged thickness of between 60mm to 90mm. The deposit was found across Trench 1 and overlay (102). Topsoil predominately covered in decomposing natural vegetation. 102 1 Deposit Loosely compacted dark mid brown silty sand with frequent small stones (<1cm) inclusions. The deposit had been disturbed by roots. The deposit had a ranged thickness of between 50mm to 100mm and was deeper in the centre of the trench. The deposit was only identified within Trench 1 and was identified underlying (101) and underlying (103). Naturally occurring subsoil, greatly disturbed by natural roots. 103 1 Deposit Moderately compacted mid brown clayey silt with inclusions of infrequent small to medium angular stones. The deposit was identified at a ranged depth of between 110mm and 380mm and had an excavated thickness of between 50mm to 120mm. Fragments of the natural bedrock was identified throughout the deposit as well as areas where the natural bedrock intruded into the context. The deposit underlay (102) and (104) and was not fully excavated. Naturally occurring subsoil. 104 1 Deposit Loosely compacted mid brown silty sand with inclusions of frequent large angular stones. The deposit had a thickness of between 130mm and 190mm.The deposit was identified as the fill of the linear feature [105]. The deposit underlay (102) and overlay (103). Fill of ditch [105] 105 1 Cut Linear feature orientated from E to W identified in section. The feature had a width of 1.55m and a depth between 130mm and 190mm. The feature had a gradual break of slope, sloping gradual sides and a steep break of slope at the base. The base was irregular in shape. The feature had a single fill (104) and was cut into the (103). The feature was identified underlying (102). Cut of Ditch ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 24 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright 201 2 Deposit Friable mid brown sandy silt with small subangular stones and frequent root inclusions. The deposit had a thickness of between 50mm and 350mm.The deposit was identified across trench 2, with the densest concentration of roots and much in the NE end of the trench and very frequent small stones to the SW end of the trench. The deposit overlay (202) to (207). The deposit was identified as the single fill of feature [206]. Topsoil predominately covered in decomposing natural vegetation. 202 2 Deposit Moderately compacted mid brown silty sand with frequent small angular stones and small root inclusions. The deposit had a thickness of between 50mm to 250mm. The deposit was only identified the final quarter of the trench to the SW end. The deposited was identified underlying (201) and (203) and was overlying (204). Redeposited fill to create a corresponding bank. 203 2 Deposit Moderately compacted greyish-brown silty sand with very frequent inclusions of angular medium stones measuring under 290mm by 140mm with a thickness of 120mm. The deposit had a thickness of between 10mm and 300mm. The deposit was only identified overlying (202) in the SW end of the trench. Stone rich layer on a bank, potentially used to give structure to the bank. 204 2 Fill Moderately compacted mid greyish brown silty sand with frequent inclusions of angular medium stones measuring under 290mm by 140mm with a thickness of 120mm. The deposit had a thickness of between 30mm to 500mm. The deposit was the fill of ditch [205] and underlay (201) and overlay (207). The fill had a loose compaction in the base of the cut. Fill of ditch [205] 205 2 Cut Linear feature orientated from E to W identified in section. The feature had a width of 1.2m and a depth of 600mm. The feature had a gradual break of slope at top, steep sides to the SW and a gradual side to the NE. The break of slope at the base was gradual and the base was slightly concave. The feature had a single fill (204) and was cut into deposit (201). The feature was identified partly underlying feature [206] at its NE end. Cut of ditch 206 2 Cut Linear feature orientated from E to W identified in section. The feature had a width of 1.1m and a depth of 460mm. The feature had a gradual break of slope, gradual sides, a gradual break of slope at base and a V-shaped base. The feature had a single fill of (208) and was cut into (201). The feature was identified partly overlying feature [205] at its SW end. Cut of smaller ditch 207 2 Deposit Natural greyish brown sedimentary rock with orange inclusions, the Natural bedrock, greywacke ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 25 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright bedrock very easily fractured under pressure. The bedrock was identified at a depth of between 100mm to 260mm and had an excavated thickness of between 380mm to 400mm.The natural bedrock was identified underlying (201), (202), (204) and underlay features [205] and [206]. 208 Deposit Friable mid greyish brown sandy silt with frequent small subangular stones and root inclusions. The deposit had a thickness of between 50mm and 200mm.The deposit was identified within feature [206]. The deposit underlay (201) and overlay (207). Fill of smaller ditch [206] 301 3 Deposit Loosely compacted dark brown silty sand with frequent inclusions of decomposing woodland debris and roots. The deposit had a thickness of between 100mm to 150mm and was identified throughout Trench 3. The deposit overlay (302) and (304). Topsoil predominately covered in decomposing natural vegetation. 302 3 Deposit Moderately compacted dark brown sandy clay with occasional inclusions of fragmented bedrock. The deposit had a thickness of between 100mm to 200mm. The deposit underlay (301) and overlay (303). A metal shotgun cartridge <1> was identified within the deposit. The deposit was only identified within Trench 3. Disturbed subsoil. Potentially the previous forest floor. 303 3 Deposit Firmly compacted orange-brown sandy clay with very frequent inclusions of fragmented bedrock. The deposit was identified at a depth of between 160mm to 280mm and was not fully excavated. The deposit was identified underlying (302) and (304) and was only identified within Trench 3. Naturally occurring subsoil. 304 3 Deposit Firmly compacted white greyish brown clay with no observable inclusions. The deposit was identified at a depth of between 50mm to 80mm and had an excavated thickness of between 30mm to 100mm. The deposit was identified within (302) and overlay (303). The deposit was identified only in Trench 3. Naturally occurring subsoil 401 4 Deposit Moderately compacted dark brown silty sand with frequent decomposing woodland debris and small subangular stone inclusions. The deposit had a thickness of between 50mmm to 100mm. The deposit overlay (402) and was only identified within Trench 4. Topsoil predominately covered in decomposing natural vegetation 402 4 Deposit Moderately light to mid orange-brown sandy clay with occasional roots and frequent small stone inclusions. The deposit had a thickness of between 100mm to 300mm. The deposit was only identified within Trench 4. The deposit underlay (401) and overlay Naturally occurring subsoil ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 26 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright (403). 403 4 Deposit Natural greyish brown sedimentary rock with orange inclusions, the bedrock very easily fractured under pressure. The bedrock was identified at a depth of between 150mm to 380mm.The natural bedrock was identified underlying (402) and was identified at closer to the surface at the NE end of the trench. The bedrock was similar to the natural bedrock identified within Trenches 2 and 5. Natural bedrock, greywacke 501 5 Deposit Moderately compacted dark brown silty clay with very frequent roots, decomposing woodland debris and small stone inclusions. The deposit had a thickness of between 70mm to 150mm. The deposit overlay (502) and was only identified within Trench 5. Topsoil predominately covered in decomposing natural vegetation 502 5 Deposit Moderately compacted mid orange-brown silty clay with frequent fragmented natural bedrock, small stones, and occasional large tree root inclusions. The deposit had a thickness of between 70mm to 170mm. The deposit was identified underlying (501) and overlay (503). The deposit was only identified within Trench 5. Naturally occurring subsoil 503 5 Deposit Natural greyish brown sedimentary rock with orange inclusions, the bedrock very easily fractured under pressure. The bedrock was identified at a depth of between 70mm to 430mm.The natural bedrock was identified underlying (502) and was identified sloping upwards to the NE from the SW. The bedrock was similar to the natural bedrock identified within Trenches 2 and 4. Natural bedrock, greywacke Photographic Register Image Digital Description From Date 1 3295 Working shot of Trench1 W 07/08/2023 2 3296 Working shot of Trench 4 N 07/08/2023 3 3297 Working shot of Trench 4 NNE 07/08/2023 4 3298 Working shot of Trench 3 NW 07/08/2023 5 3299 Working shot of Trench 2 NE 07/08/2023 6 3300 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 NE 08/08/2023 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 27 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Image Digital Description From Date 7 3301 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 NE 08/08/2023 8 3302 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 – Oblique E 08/08/2023 9 3303 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 – Oblique NNE 08/08/2023 10 3304 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 – SE Facing Section SE 08/08/2023 11 3305 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 – Oblique E 08/08/2023 12 3306 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 – Oblique SW 08/08/2023 13 3307 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 – Oblique SW 08/08/2023 14 3308 Post-excavation shot of Trench 1 N 09/08/2023 15 3309 Post-excavation shot of Trench 1 S 09/08/2023 16 3310 Post-excavation shot of Trench 1 – W Facing Section NW 09/08/2023 17 3311 Post-excavation shot of Trench 1 – W Facing Section – N end W 09/08/2023 18 3312 Post-excavation shot of Trench 1 – W Facing Section – Centre W 09/08/2023 19 3313 Post-excavation shot of Trench 1 – W Facing Section – S end W 09/08/2023 20 3314 Post-excavation shot of Trench 1 – E Facing Section E 09/08/2023 21 3315 Post-excavation shot of Trench 1 – E Facing Section – S end E 09/08/2023 22 3316 Post-excavation shot of Trench 1 – E Facing Section – Centre E 09/08/2023 23 3317 Post-excavation shot of Trench 1 – E Facing Section – N end E 09/08/2023 24 3318 Post-excavation shot of Trench 1 NE 09/08/2023 25 3319 Post-excavation shot of Trench 5 S 09/08/2023 26 3320 Post-excavation shot of Trench 5 SW 09/08/2023 27 3321 Post-excavation shot of Trench 5 NE 09/08/2023 28 3322 Post-excavation shot of Trench 5 – SE Facing Section – SW end SE 09/08/2023 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 28 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Image Digital Description From Date 29 3323 Post-excavation shot of Trench 5 – SE Facing Section – Centre SE 09/08/2023 30 3324 Post-excavation shot of Trench 5 – SE Facing Section – NE end SE 09/08/2023 31 3325 Post-excavation shot of Trench 5 – NW Facing Section N 09/08/2023 32 3326 Post-excavation shot of Trench 5 – NW Facing Section – NE end NW 09/08/2023 33 3327 Post-excavation shot of Trench 5 – NW Facing Section – Centre NW 09/08/2023 34 3328 Post-excavation shot of Trench 5 – NW Facing Section – SW end NW 09/08/2023 35 3329 Post-excavation shot of Trench 5 WSW 09/08/2023 36 3330 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 NE 09/08/2023 37 3331 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 SW 09/08/2023 38 3332 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 – NW Facing Section N 09/08/2023 39 3333 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 – NW Facing Section – NE end NW 09/08/2023 40 3334 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 – NW Facing Section – SW end NW 09/08/2023 41 3335 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 – SE Facing Section SSE 09/08/2023 42 3336 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 – SE Facing Section – NE end SE 09/08/2023 43 3337 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 – SE Facing Section – SW end SE 09/08/2023 44 3338 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 NE 09/08/2023 45 3339 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 ENE 09/08/2023 46 3340 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 ENE 09/08/2023 47 3341 Post-excavation shot of Trench 4 NE 09/08/2023 48 3342 Post-excavation shot of Trench 4 SW 09/08/2023 49 3343 Post-excavation shot of Trench 4 – NW Facing Section NW 09/08/2023 50 3344 Post-excavation shot of Trench 4 – NW Facing Section – SW end NW 09/08/2023 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 29 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Image Digital Description From Date 51 3345 Post-excavation shot of Trench 4 – NW Facing Section – NE end NW 09/08/2023 52 3346 Post-excavation shot of Trench 4 – SE Facing Section SE 09/08/2023 53 3347 Post-excavation shot of Trench 4 – SE Facing Section – SW end SE 09/08/2023 54 3348 Post-excavation shot of Trench 4 – SE Facing Section – NE end SE 09/08/2023 55 3349 Post-excavation shot of Trench 4 NW 09/08/2023 56 3350 Trench 1 after backfilling S 09/08/2023 57 3351 Trench 1 after backfilling E 09/08/2023 58 3352 Trench 5 after backfilling NW 09/08/2023 59 3353 Trench 4 after backfilling SW 09/08/2023 60 3354 Trench 3 after backfilling SSE 09/08/2023 61 3355 Trench 2 after backfilling NE 09/08/2023 62 3356 Trench 2 after backfilling NW 09/08/2023 Finds Register Find No. Test Pit Context Material Type Description Excavator Date 1 Trench 3 (302) Metal 1 x Brass and paper Cartridge Casing AB/MB/LC 08/08/2023 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 30 of 31 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It? – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright 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 31 of 31  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 – Barhill Wood, Kirkcudbright Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_86 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/12/545/GGLP-CYDI-CANMORE-NG.pdf 36ef3a49a8754c2afba8ffe886c59209 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 My Galloway – New Galloway 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 My Galloway 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 Yes we can! There are many lovely heritage sites from New Galloway listed on Canmore, but a few of the entries could do with a helping hand! It’s time to share what you know. Here are some of the ones that stood out for us but feel free to just search for ‘New Galloway’ and have a look at the other entries too. High Street, General Canmore ID: 213844 The high street in any Scottish burgh was the first street to be laid out and it’s often the feature that has survived through the centuries of a town’s life. They are literally the heart of a place and so photographs showing how they’ve evolved over time can be fascinating for anyone to see. New Galloway’s entry has only one image, taken in the 1970s - although a certain ‘HK’ has kicked off this project with a modern photo of the same view! The high street is also central to a town’s social history. We’ve been told that New Galloway’s residents have been decorating their streets throughout the pandemic and we think photographs of this would also be lovely to have on Canmore for future generations to see! War Memorial Canmore ID: 187416 Oh look, a 20th century war memorial located at NX 6356 7775, how lovely. But wait, there’s no description or photos. When was it built? We can’t even see what war it’s commemorating! pro Tip! If you do a Search on ‘New Galloway’ in the Key Word search option, it brings up sites in New Abbey and Newton Stewart. Use the Filter option on the left of the screen to filter the Parish down to ‘Kells’ – that will show you the relevant sites. St Margaret’s Episcopal Church Canmore ID: 213830 A church located at NX 63566 77834, it was built in 1904 by the architect W.H. Harrison. That’s it, that’s all the information to be found on its Canmore entry. There aren’t even any photos. Can you add more about the history (old and recent) of this building? High Street, The Old School Canmore ID: 267502 There’s an old school at NX 63392 77742 – period unassigned. Anyone know the history or how ‘old’ it is? Although it’s also listed as a modern community centre…wait, is this the CatStrand? If it is, then was it not also a knitting factory and a Masonic Hall? No mention of any of it and no photos… Garroch, Garage & Stables Canmore ID: 83525 Town Hall (Tolbooth) Canmore ID: 111835 This one sits a bit out of the main town to the northeast at NX 5971 8124. We can read that Garroch House, Canmore ID: 83524, was destroyed by fire after 1916 (although to be fair not much more than that) but the stables seem to have their own separate entry. Were they not destroyed? Are they still standing? This has a bit more information but only a couple of photos – surely this impressivelooking building has more to show off though! These might now be someone’s private garage so you may need permission to take a new photo (unless you own it!) but you could still add to the text description if you know anything about its history. Any more photos of its exterior? And what about inside? We’ve heard tell of beautiful inscriptions, plaques and a collection of paintings… Let’s get them into our National Historic Record! Rear of High Street, Workshop Canmore ID: 345323 Kells Church and Churchyard Canmore ID: 211168 and 211170 These records show a few of the gorgeous gravestones here, but nothing about the building itself. Some photos of the exterior and interior seem essential! A 19th century workshop at NX 63387 77659. There’s a short description for this one – a single storey rubble structure possibly connected to the former mill. But there’s no photographs. And a century is a long time – has it been used for anything else? Is it still in use? New Sites What you can’t do in MyCanmore is add new sites, but if there are any that you would like documented, you could upload their images to Canmore ID entry: 71254, New Galloway General, and include a description. This way they can still be included in the national record of New Galloway for everyone to see. any Questions If you have any questions about this project, just email helen.keron@dumgal.gov.uk or get in touch with us through the Can You Dig It Facebook or Twitter accounts (@GGLPArchaeology). You can also let us know how you get on – do share with us through email or on social media what you’ve managed to find. We’re always interested and love a good photograph! Email us or tag us with @GGLPArchaeology in your post or tweet. So do take part if you can – it’s a great way to preserve your knowledge and enrich the national record for the area. It’s time to let the world know how great our heritage is! @GGLPArchaeology  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 My Galloway – New Galloway Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_85 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 Adding to the CANMORE record for the Galloway Glens. GGLP heritage https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/12/544/GGLP-CYDI-CANMORE-Tongland.pdf 8cde9dfb456cd93fdb21051de76eb7e6 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 My Galloway – Tongland 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 My Galloway 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 Yes we can! For such a small place, Tongland has a lot going on and as the site of a long-lost medieval abbey, it certainly has its secrets! So it’s not surprising to find that the area has a few hidden treasures when it comes to looking in the Canmore database - many of which are much older than the abbey. As always though, their records could do with your help. Here are a few entries that we’ve spotted - but have a hunt yourself and you’ll find quite a few more! Park of Tongland Standing Stones, Canmore ID: 64017 In one of the fields behind Park of Tongland farm sit the remains of a standing stone circle. This prehistoric feature would be amazing enough in its own right, but it’s made even more special by discoveries during an excavation of the site in 1987. The stones mark the site of a Bronze Age cremation cemetery! Large quantities of charcoal suggested that the cremations had actually taken place in the immediate vicinity, while the incomplete nature of the funerary deposits also suggested that only a token deposit ofbone from the cremated body was used to complete the funerary rite. Check out the Canmore entry to see a photograph of the excavation - but there is only one photograph of the standing stone circle itself. It’s a good one that was kindly contributed through MyCanmore in 2013 but it would be great to have some more to look at. Has anyone got some that they could add? Park of Tongland Rock Art Canmore ID: 64508 In the 1980s, an example of rock art was discovered to the north of Kennan’s Hill near Argrennan Mains Farm. A newly exposed outcrop was recorded as having two sets of marks. One consisted of a cup mark surrounded by two concentric rings, while the other comprised a cup mark with six concentric semi-circles measuring a maximum diameter of 60cm. The rock art was still present in 2001 and located as being at NX 7047 5685. There aren’t any photographs in the entry and no mention in the last 20 years. Has anyone come across it, or you able to wander that way on your daily walks? This type of rock art is old, dating back some 6,000 years, and Dumfries and Galloway is a bit of a hotspot for it. The designs are abstract and their meaning a mystery – nothing triggers the imagination more! Definitely worth a look and while you’re there… take a photo and put it up on MyCanmore, will you? pro Tip! Searching for ‘Tongland’ on Canmore won’t include those sites which sit very near to the village but fall into neighbouring parishes. Instead, we used the interactive map at www.pastmap.org.uk to allow us to search through all the sites which sat nearby. Riverside Mill, Canmore ID: 21505 Culdoach Motte, Canmore ID: 64554 The Canmore entry doesn’t have much information about this mill and there’s only one image included – a close up of a heraldic panel which we assume is set into one of its walls Sitting beside Culdoach farm to the east of Tongland, Culdoach Motte was first recorded by Frederick Coles in 1891 as a small suboval mound sitting 2.4m high, with a summit measuring 26.5m by 14.6m. At its base, he was able to spot the remains of a ditch that measured roughly 5m wide. Does anyone know anything of its history? How old is it and what type of mill? And do you have any photographs of it – perhaps some historical ones or how it looks now? What’s become of this structure? We want to know everything!. These mottes represent what’s left of the earliest of our castles. Dating back to the 12th century, these sites were at the heart of their communities and played an important role in our history. The fact that there isn’t a pretty ruin to see does not diminish their stories, but it can mean that they’re often neglected! Unfortunately, there aren’t any photographs of the motte in the entry, so if anyone has any or could go for a wee visit to take one, that would be lovely! Forts at Netherthird, March Cleugh and Carse, Canmore ID: 64514, 64490 and 64047 In 1891, Frederick Coles also recorded the remains of fortified sites at Netherthird, March Cleugh and Carse. He identified two of them – Netherthird and Carse – as medieval mottes (a third motte he described to the SW of March Cleugh has since been deemed natural) but all three have been included within the 2016 Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland. With no evidence of their date, it is possible that all three could represent the remains of much older fortifications, dating back to the Iron Age. While their Canmore entries contain descriptions from these surveys, neither Netherthird nor March Cleugh has a single photo included, and Carse only has aerial views. If anyone has ever been, or is up for a visit, to any of these sites, then please share your photographs through MyCanmore and show these intriguing sites off to the world! Cumstoun Castle, Canmore ID: 64129 If you would like a ruinous castle to visit though, then head for Cumstoun Castle.Sitting just over the river to the west of Tongland, it still stands to a height of 7.6m, with walls measuring over 1.5m thick! Believed to have been built for Sir John Kennedy of Blairquhain in the early 16th century, Canmore has many lovely aerial views of the site but the only ones taken close-up date back to the 1970s. Has anyone taken a photo of it more recently or fancy a visit? We’re sure that there’s will be some stories about its history or even childhood memories of it as a ruin – feel free to share them too! New Sites What you can’t do in MyCanmore is add new sites, but if there are any that you would like documented, you could upload their images to Canmore entry ID: 214995, Tongland General, and include a description. This way they can still be included in the national record for everyone to see. @GGLPArchaeology  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 My Galloway – Tongland Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_84 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 Adding to the CANMORE record for the Galloway Glens. GGLP heritage https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/12/543/GGLP-CYDI-CANMORE-Kirkcudbright.pdf 23c99875b9c0b32571cc4ac0817ad128 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 My Galloway – Kirkcudbright 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 My Galloway 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 Yes we can! Kirkcudbright has a whopping 496 entries on Canmore, so if you’ve ever taken a photograph of the town then it’s likely that you captured one of the sites listed! Many of the entries could do with more information or images so it’s a great time to have a look and see if you can fill in some of the gaps. Here’s a wee selection to give you a taste of what sites have been included, but feel free to just search for ‘Kirkcudbright’ – there’s a lot more to look at! High Street, Castle Street, Union Street, St Cuthbert Street and so on… Canmore ID: We don’t have that kind of space! St Mary Street, Town Hall Canmore ID: 174763 If you are currently in any of the buildings on these or nearby streets, head to Canmore and you’ll probably find it listed. Ah, some lovely 19th century architectural drawings that show a grand-looking structure, which was presumably never built as there isn’t a single photograph or any information… If you do, pop outside and take a photo – upload this through MyCanmore and you’ve just significantly improved this entry. If you know when it was built, get that recorded too! Or could this be where the new Galleries is located? Nah… there would be some mention of it in the national records if it was – wouldn’t there?! If you’re walking down any of these streets, then why not take a quick pic of the whole street, as they have their own entries – the streets here have medieval origins. pro Tip! Have you got any old photos? These would be great too! We also know that Kirkcudbright is a busy place, so if you have any snaps showing any events, old and new, then pop them up – it’s all part of the town’s story. If you do a Search on ‘Kirkcudbright’ in the Key Word search option, it brings up sites all over Scotland, including Perth and Aberdeenshire! Use the Filter options on the left of the screen to filter the Parish down to ‘Kirkcudbright’ – that will show you the relevant sites. And yes, there’s still 496. St Mary Street, Selkirk Memorial Canmore ID: 212858 Ah, a commemorative monument of unknown date. Must not be much to look at as no one’s put up any photographs and there’s nothing written about it. But that can’t be right for our National Record, surely?! Kirkcudbright Gasworks Canmore ID: 64123 Kirkcudbright Bay Lifeboat House & Slipway Canmore ID: 205484 A lifeboat station is recorded down towards Torrs at NX 6749 4636. Other than being told that there’s a 19th-20th century lifeboat station and a slipway of unknown date here, there’s nothing else recorded! Is it still in use? When was it built, and was the slipway built at the same time? Does anyone have any photographs of how it looks today or in the past? Now there are some great photos here of the gasworks along Old Gas Lane. They look like they were taken in the 1960s – worth a look if you haven’t seen them – but nothing else. What’s the history here? When were they built and operating? Is anything still standing? Have the structures been used for anything else? And while you’re there, take a quick photo down Old Gas Lane itself – it has its own entry, Canmore ID: 212442. Drummore, Stone Circle Canmore ID: 63926 To the south of Kirkcudbright, the remains of a stone circle are recorded at NX 6884 4597 and they’re even marked on the map. Four of the stones are still standing but there isn’t a single photo. These stones are legally protected as they were likely placed here at least 3,000 years ago if not earlier. A photo would be nice though… surely they’re worth one or two? St Mary’s Park, St Cuthbert Wanderers Football Club Canmore ID: 239114 So there’s more than just art going on in Kirkcudbright – it has its own football club, of course. There are a couple of aerial views but nothing else. Is the club fairly new or does it have a bit of a history? Are there any photographs that haven’t been taken from mid-air?! New Sites: What you can’t do in MyCanmore is add new sites, but if there are any that you would like documented, you could upload their images to Canmore entry ID: 64110, Kirkcudbright General, and include a description. This way they can still be included in the national record of Kirkcudbright for everyone to see. any Questions If you have any questions about this project, just email helen.keron@dumgal.gov.uk or get in touch with us through the Can You Dig It Facebook or Twitter accounts (@GGLPArchaeology). You can also let us know how you get on – do share with us through email or on social media what you’ve managed to find. We’re always interested and love a good photograph! Email us or tag us with @GGLPArchaeology in your post or tweet. So do take part if you can – it’s a great way to preserve your knowledge and enrich the national record for the area. It’s time to let the world know how great our heritage is! @GGLPArchaeology  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 My Galloway – Kirkcudbright Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_83 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 Adding to the CANMORE record for the Galloway Glens. GGLP heritage https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/12/542/GGLP-CYDI-CANMORE-CastleDouglas.pdf 9a37e69eeda28eb638b5e5c2f107f1ae 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 My Galloway – Castle Douglas 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 My Galloway 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 Yes we can! Castle Douglas is a bustling town that dates back to 1792 and amongst its streets sit a number of hidden gems waiting to be discovered. Wander out into the surrounding area and you will also discover that this old town has ancient roots. A number of heritage sites are listed across the area of Castle Douglas on Canmore, so why not check it out and see if you can contribute to any of them, either by uploading any photos you’ve taken or perhaps adding any knowledge you might have of the site. Here’s a list of some entries that could do with your help! Clock Tower Canmore ID: 352779 Lodge of Kelton Farm Rock Art Canmore ID: 239597 You might have spotted this one on your wanderings through Castle Douglas – it’s hard to miss and even harder to imagine that it hasn’t been at the centre of a few snapshots! This one’s a shout out to those of you a bit partial to the lovely walks around the Threave Estate… But there’s no images of this tower on Canmore and no information beyond where it is. Was is it really funded by someone living in America? Surely they’re at least entitled to a mention in the national database? St Andrew’s Parish Church (now The Fullarton Theatre) Canmore ID: 195134 Now here we have a 19th century church that’s been converted into a 20th century theatre. Brilliant, a building with a bit of history and an interesting conversion story – none of which appears on Canmore! Anybody know anything or have any photographs? Or does no one ever go here?! According to Canmore, there’s an outcrop of greywacke that has 11 ‘cup marks’ on it, which sits in the field to the right hand side as you drive into Lodge of Kelton Farm (just to the north of the A75). There’s a more detailed description of its location on Canmore. These carvings are likely an example of prehistoric rock art – so say, around 5,000 years old… Are you up for seeing if you can find it and uploading a photograph? At the moment, Canmore doesn’t have a single shot! pro Tip! If you do a Search on ‘Castle Douglas’ in the Key Word search option, it brings up sites from all across Scotland! Use the Filter option on the left of the screen to filter the Parish down to ‘Kelton’ – that will show you the relevant sites. Castle Douglas Station, Canmore ID: 64650 If you’re not aware that there was once a train station in Castle Douglas, then you should really be making more use of Canmore! Opened in 1859, the station continued in use until the closure of the line in 1965. Canmore has one lovely black and white image of the station but nothing more. Does anyone have some old photographs that they could upload, or are you able to get a photograph of how the site looks now? Have any of the original buildings or structures survived? And while you’re on Canmore it’s also worth looking at the entries for all of the stations along this route – many of them could do with some photographs added. Carlingwark Lane Canal Canmore ID: 217628 Built in 1765, this short canal runs from Carlingwark Loch through to the River Dee. It served to transport shell-marl to the farms along its route, although was abandoned commercially around 1840. We found this out from Canmore but there aren’t any images. Have you ever photographed the canal? Or do you fancy going for walk in the area to see if you can manage a couple of shots? There’s also two bridges along its route, which each have their own entries – ID: 217629 and 217630 – could be worth a look? The Hotels – The Imperial and The Douglas Arms Canmore ID: 64666 and 64668 So you get a fair number of visitors to old Castle Douglas then? Nice – must be because of all the lovely heritage there is to see. Even the hotels are landmarks – these two are both Listed buildings and on Canmore. With all of these visitors, someone must take a pic of where they’re staying… Canmore doesn’t have any and there’s no information either. How old are these hotels? Are they both still open? Palace Cinema, Canmore ID: 316552 Castle Douglas had its own cinema?! Unfortunately this one’s long gone – demolished in the 1990s apparently and replaced with flats. But that’s not so long ago that it’s completely lost to history – someone must remember this cinema and could give a description or perhaps an old photo? Ah - the constant battle over whether you’ll make it in time to catch the trailers; the decision over sweet or salty popcorn; and the slight concern that your pick & mix is going to be twice the weight of everyone else’s when you get to the till – sparking any memories for anyone? New Sites What you can’t do in MyCanmore is add new sites, but if there are any that you would like documented, you could upload their images to Canmore entry ID: 64645, Castle Douglas General, and include a description. Cotton Street also has its own entry, ID: 209237, but there currently aren’t any images attached – as it’s named after one of the industries created by the town’s founder, it might be worth adding a few! @GGLPArchaeology  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 My Galloway – Castle Douglas Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_82 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 Adding to the CANMORE record for the Galloway Glens. GGLP heritage https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/12/541/GGLP-CYDI-CANMORE-Dalry.pdf 26febdf4bb8483857d38338edd4001ce 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 My Galloway 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. 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 My Galloway – Dalry Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_81 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 Adding to the CANMORE record for the Galloway Glens. GGLP heritage https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/12/540/GGLP-CYDI-CANMORE-Balmaclellan.pdf 388ac6539cae7ce9ccaa412d6bcdbc23 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 My Galloway – Balmaclellan 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 My Galloway 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 Yes we can! The village of Balmaclellan has a little bit of everything in its past. A few ancient offerings, a medieval castle, a little bit of witch folklore and even a touch of the Crimean War, you would never guess how much history has left its mark in this area. A quick search of the National Record of the Historic Environment on Canmore is enough to show this, but many of the records are missing images or further information and this is where you can help. Here are some entries we’ve spotted but have a look for yourself, and use our MyGalloway guidance notes to get you started. Balmacellan Mote Canmore ID: 64193 Balmaclellan School Canmore ID: 208442 Visit Balmaclellan and it’d be hard to miss the large mound that sits like a proud ‘Christmas-pudding’ on the top of Mote Hill to the north. One single black & white photograph and a location is all the information to be gleaned about Balmaclellan school from its Canmore entry. So, we’ll be able to find it (as long as it hasn’t changed too much since then) but we won’t know anything about what we’re looking at when we get there. This mound is actually the surviving motte of what was once the site of a ‘motte-andbailey’ castle, one of the earliest types of castle to appear in Scotland during the 12th century. Building the mound would have been a relatively quick and simple way to create a defensive stronghold, and it’s on top of this that the keep of the castle stood. Canmore gives the dimensions of the motte – 5m high and 27m in diameter at the base narrowing to 11m at the top – but there is only one photograph, an aerial image taken from some distance away. It would be lovely to see some photographs of the motte taken from anywhere other than a plane thousands of feet in the sky. Apparently it’s been around since 1781 and was known to be a free school. Anyone know if this is true, or have more information that they can add? Or maybe even a photograph of how it looks now? pro Tip! Searching for ‘Balmaclellan’ on Canmore won’t include sites that sit very near to the village but fall into neighbouring parishes. Instead, we used the interactive map at www.pastmap.org.uk to allow us to search through all the sites which sit nearby. Balmaclellan Churchyard Canmore ID: 64195 Surrounding the church, is a churchyard full of 17th, 18th and 19th century gravestones which include a memorial to Covenanter, Robert Grierson. There’s even a sculpture at the front of the churchyard of ‘Old Mortality’ – Robert Paterson – and his pony. The Canmore entry contains these basic facts but no description of who Old Mortality was or a photograph to show what the sculpture looks like. A separate entry, Canmore ID: 64198, exists for an unmarked stone sat near to the edge of the churchyard. This stone appears to be a bit of a puzzle and interpretations range from an ancient standing stone to the grave-marker of a witch’s burial. It would be lovely to have a photograph of the stone to go along with the entry so that people worldwide can continue to be baffled by this feature. Crimean War Memorial Canmore ID: 299037 Balmaclellan Parish Church Canmore ID: 208394 In the churchyard of Balmaclellan, stands the only civic Crimean War Memorial in Scotland, in memory of five soldiers from the parish who died during the war. At the heart of the village, the church is protected as a Listed Building with records stating that its main body dates back to 1753! The Crimean War took place from 1853 to 1856 between Russia on one side and an alliance of British, French, Ottoman and Sardinian troops on the other. The Victoria Cross, one of the highest decorations for bravery, was introduced in recognition of the human cost that the war entailed. Aside from three black & white photographs taken of the church in the 1970s, however, there is nothing else to be found in its Canmore entry. Beyond a simple statement about what the memorial is, the Canmore entry has no further information regarding the people named on it or an image of the memorial itself. Any images or information that you can add would be a great addition in making the importance of this feature more widely recognised. Surely there must be more to know and many features that could be photographed? We hear tell of a remarkable timber ceiling and a stained-glass window that’s nearly a century old… has anyone got anything to help show it off? New Sites What you can’t do in MyCanmore is add new sites, but if there are any that you would like documented, you could upload their images to Canmore entry ID: 113892, Balmaclellan General, and include a description. This way they can still be included in the national record for everyone to see. @GGLPArchaeology  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 My Galloway – Balmaclellan Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_80 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 Adding to the CANMORE record for the Galloway Glens. GGLP heritage