3 10 57 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/16/563/GGLP-CYDI-Lost-Wells-Guidance-Sheet.pdf bd1f5585aec86b3337a8649a478157b0 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 Lost Wells of Galloway – Guidance Sheet 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 Lost Wells 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 Your ‘How To’ Guide for well researcH 1. Pro TiP Start by having a look at the modern mapping to see if there are any named wells, Keep an image of your map square close springs or pools still shown, or if there are any to hand (print it out, have it on your placenames which could suggest that such a feature phone or open in a window on the was once there. Remember to double check any computer) or write a note of the names that appear in blue lettering, as this will often places in each corner to use as a rough denote a water feature. Also look for alternate guide for the area’s extent when looking spellings, such as ‘wiel’, or even the use of the at the mapping. word ‘hole’. You can use Pastmap, www.pastmap.org.uk, for this – entering one of your corner coordinates into its search bar will take you straight to your location and zooming in will bring up more detailed maps. 2. You can also check in case there is an entry for your well in the available layers on Pastmap – although you’ll likely find that most of them don’t have one. Have a quick look though to see if there are any known sites in the vicinity which could relate to your well, such as a church or a particular farmstead. Pro TiP While viewing the maps on the National Library of Scotland, the grid reference for wherever your cursor is sitting appears in the bottom right corner – you can use this to get a more accurate location for your site if needed. 3. Keep a note of anything you find and their coordinates – click on the map and these will pop up under Easting/Northing on the left-hand side. 4. Now it’s time to search through historical maps using the National Library of Scotland’s digital library catalogue. There are several ways to search their catalogue, but we suggest heading to https://maps.nls.uk/ geo/explore/. Under 1. Select a category – choose ‘Scotland’. You change the transparency of the map overlay and also change the base map to help you orientate but, as with Pastmap, you can also search for specific coordinates via the Search by National Grid Reference option. Then work your way through the mapping – we suggest starting with the more recognisable modern mapping and working backwards through time to help you get your eye in a bit better. 5. Keep a note of which maps your wells appear on, and Pro TiP check for any older wells that might not appear on the modern mapping. It’s good to try and establish the earliest Be sure to include the OS Six and latest dates for when your site appears (if it’s not Inch, 1843-1882 map in your search still being mapped today). Also keep a note of any – it is the earliest mapping to have alternative spellings that you come across – this might a level of detail similar to what we prove helpful in later research. see today and it is often the earliest appearance for many features. The OS By the time you reach as far back as Roy’s Military surveyed different areas at different Survey from the mid-18th century, it’s unlikely that the times – you can find the year of mapping will be detailed enough to show the sites of publication for your area in the wells, but if you’ve been chasing any placenames then it’s bottom right corner as worth a look to see if the name goes back that far. you zoom in. 6. 7. Before you finish with the mapping, check through the other options under 1. Select a category to see what others are available. Specifically, we suggest checking Scotland, Estate Maps as the DAMP project has ensured a great coverage of these in our area. 8. If you’ve managed to add any new wells to your list from the old mapping, then it might be worth checking Pastmap again to see if it has an entry or if there are any known sites in the vicinity that it could relate to. 9. If you find any other good resources while on your hunt, then we’d love to hear about them! We can then share them with your fellow researchers. Armed with your list of names, it’s time to head over to Scotland’s Places – https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk – to check out the Ordnance Survey namebook. This contains a wealth of information on the placenames which appear on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey and can often give background information on their origins. You just need to enter the name of your site into the search bar in the top right. A few records from all over Scotland might appear but your best bet is likely to be the Kirkcudbrightshire OS Name Books. If you don’t get any hits, then this is where you can try out some of the alternate spellings that you noted down or perhaps make your search more general by only trying a part of the name. If you find anything, then write it down and keep a note of the reference number that appears at the far right of the entry’s name on the website e.g. OS1/20/46/21. 10. Next up – the Place-Names of the Galloway Glens Database at https://kcb-placenames. glasgow.ac.uk/place-names/. This database also references the Ordnance Survey Namebook but might contain additional information relating to the name’s meaning. You can either search for your site in the search bar or select Browse place-names. You can then select your Parish and a map will appear showing all of the available entries marked as points. This might be a good option so that you can check your area for any other sites that you might not be aware of. Note that the database doesn’t cover all of the Kirkcudbright area. 11. Lastly, it is always worth doing a general internet search for your sites – there is a wealth of websites and We’ve picked out the resources that we think resources out there created by local people will be most helpful in your search, but there or others who are interested in specific areas are many others out there which you of heritage. If you have identified your well or might find helpful. For a full guide to what’s spring as being of a certain type e.g. holy or available, have a look at healing, then it’s also worth having a search https://gallowayglens.org/wp-content/uploads/ for any information about the background 2020/04/Workshop-Notes-Web-based-Research.pdf to that type of well which add further depth to your research. Pro TiP Remember: Many of these wells are centuries old and the origins of their name may be long lost. For some you might not get more than a name and a point on a map – don’t be disheartened. If your search is coming up empty, then move on to the next well. The name and location is enough to mark it as a site and there are plenty more to look at. Sometimes the information just isn’t there. Remember as well that we’re limited to what’s available online for the time being - there might be more to find elsewhere when archives start opening up again! How To submiT Your findinGs and wHaT To include: Once you’ve completed your research into a well, spring or pool, let us know everything you’ve found out by emailing it to helen.keron@dumgal.gov.uk. Whatever you find will be more than we had, although here’s a wee checklist of information that you might include if you can – although remembering that some wells will have more records than others. The name of your well, spring or pool, and any alternate spellings that you came across. The coordinates that you were able to get from the mapping websites. A list of maps that the site appears on, showing it’s progression over time – see if you can establish the first map that it appears on and the last (or if it’s still present on modern maps) Does it have an entry in the Ordnance Survey Namebook? Take a note of what’s written in its entry and also the reference number from the top of the webpage e.g. OS1/20/46/21 Any other information that you have been able to find about your well or possibly that type of well in general – include the website or book where you found it, and also maybe a link if possible. VisiTinG Your well: This project is aimed at online research with a hope to visiting some of the wells once the restrictions ease. But if one of your wells lives near you and you’d like to see if it’s still there, then feel free - but please keep safe! These are old wells and they are not always well-defined features surrounded by a stone wall. Some are simply small ponds in the ground and many are likely to be so overgrown that you could easily step on them without realising. We can’t guarantee that Lassie will always come to the rescue, so here are some tips to consider: Take your time and watch your step – aim for good weather and clear visibility. Take a walking stick or similar to prod the ground with to check it’s solid before you step on it. If you’re heading somewhere away from public view, then maybe take someone with you or at least let them know where you’re going. Avoid walking into waterlogged areas and watch out for areas of rushes or reeds. Be particularly careful if there has been a lot of rain which will only add to water levels. If you get to the well’s location and the area is overgrown, waterlogged or covered by rushes/ reeds, then don’t wade in. Have a look from a safe distance and take a photo from there – even noting that the location of the well as waterlogged is a good indicator that you’re in the right place. Watch out for animals that might be lurking. Depending on the time of year, avoid bare ankles or legs in long grass – ticks are common, opportunistic & spread Lyme Disease. Tuck your trousers into your shoes! Be wary of entering private land – please ask permission. You might find the owners are receptive to finding out more about what’s on their land. And despite historical accounts that a well has amazing curative powers, they’re not quite up to the health and safety standards of the 21st century – however tempting it might be for that hangover, please don’t try a sip!  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 Lost Wells of Galloway – Guidance Sheet Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_103 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 An online project to help to rediscover our lost wells and bring their stories back to life. GGLP heritage https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/16/562/GGLP-CYDI-Lost-Wells-Intro-Sheet.pdf db41c5f1fd733ed0a5dfcaa3e9ccf615 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 Lost Wells of Galloway – Introduction 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 Lost Wells 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 We’re looking for your help to rediscover our lost wells and bring their stories back to life. All you need is internet access and we’ll introduce you to the many free resources available right at your fingertips. We’ll give you an area to focus your research on – you can then hunt through old maps to identify any named wells that appear in your area and then see what you can find out about their history and the origins of the names. There are over 600 healing wells across Scotland for curing anything from gout and hangovers through to blindness and ‘lunacy’. Separate healing wells can also be found for curing the ailments of animals! Green Well of Scot lan d, Carsphairn Wells come in all shapes and sizes, from simple ponds or springs in the ground through to more substantial stone-lined features. So it’s not just named wells that we’re interested in, but any named water sources including springs, pools and watering holes. Even placenames that hint at the site of a water source which has since been lost are worth including. What’s so special about Wells? In the days before indoor plumbing, wells were obviously essential Visitors to clootie to the everyday needs of the people, but many held importance wells would leave small which surpassed merely keeping hydrated (although that is scraps of cloth - clooties – pretty important). behind and as the cloth degraded, then the sick would Scattered across our landscape from the centre of towns and heal. At many of these sites, cities to, quite literally, the middle of nowhere, wells have cloths still remain, since anyone long been associated with both healing and cursing. Some removing the offering are simply linked with the people who drank from them, while is believed to fall victim to others are named after saints, the devil, fairies, the dead, the same misfortunes hermits – the list goes on! They are shrouded in folklore, myths which befell and legends and play an important role in our cultural heritage. its owner. Despite this importance, many of these wells, springs and pools have long been forgotten and are often overlooked in our records. Why ‘named’ Wells? What’s in a name? Well, where there’s a name there’s a story. The locations of numerous wells can be seen across maps both old and new, but it is the ones that have been given a name that indicate a site which has been important enough to mark in some way. Whether a well became known for its healing properties or was named to commemorate an event or a notable figure – their names can reveal a lot about how people related to these features which were once so renowned. Hartfell Spa St Ninians Well, Upp er Barr For some, we may never know the story and for many, we are likely hearing the result of a tale that has been retold across several generations. It’s possible that there was a practical reason for the stories – to protect vital water sources or to discourage children from venturing too close. Or perhaps they represent the only record of an event or person from local history. Some will reflect the medical reasoning of the time, while others featured prominently in spiritual and religious rites. It is through these names that we can gain insights into the significance they held in both the beliefs and the imaginations of those who visited them – so why not help us see what we can find! Chalybeate waters are mineral spring waters that are rich in iron salts. They have been promoted since the 16th century by doctors for their curative powers, with some even developed as commercial spas in the 18th century. so Where do i start? Holy wells can be associated with the site of a church or can sit along a pilgrimage route. Many saints are remembered at wells and springs, with several said to have supernaturally created the wells which bear their name. Some wells are named after the offerings that people would leave. These include pin wells and even a cheese well at Minch Moor in the Borders, where travellers would make offerings of cheese to allow them to pass unmolested thanks to the protection of the fairies. It’s simple, just email Helen at helen.keron@dumgal.gov.uk and we’ll assign you a ‘map square’ that will be exclusive to you. We will email you an image of the map square, marked with its corner coordinates, and we’ll tell you what parish it’s in. This map square will represent the area for your research to focus on – look through the mapping to see what named wells, springs and pools you can spot within your map square and then go on to see what you can find out about them. We’ve attached a detailed guide to help you get started. Let us know if there is a specific area or even a specific well that you would like to research and we’ll send you the relevant map square. Or if you’re happy to have a random one picked out for you, just say. Once you have finished finding out as much as you can about your area, then you can have another of course! What Will happen With the information? We’ll compile all of the information that you send us to create a database of named wells, springs and pools within the Galloway Glens area, which will then be sent to both the Dumfries and Galloway Museums Service and the Dumfries and Galloway Council Archaeology Service. This will preserve the knowledge and make it publicly available, but it will also highlight the sites as a consideration for any future developments proposed in their area. Moffat Well There’s also a private Facebook group for you to join if you’d like: Search for ‘Lost Wells of the Galloway Glens’ on Facebook and ask to join or email Helen.keron@dumgal.gov.uk for the link. You can ask questions, let others know about any good resources you find and also share any discoveries that you make along the way! You can also feel free to share with us on social media what you’ve managed to find – we’re always interested and love a good photograph! Simply tag us by including @GGLPArchaeology in your post or tweet. lost Wells podcast We’ve commissioned a local Creative Producer, Katch Holmes, to see what inspiration our Lost Wells can provide for a series of podcasts about this topic. She’ll be closely involved with the project, seeing what stories you unearth and how she can present them differently. We’re really excited about this creative response to the Lost Wells – let’s see where it can take us! any more 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). can you dig it supporters Thanks as ever to the funders of CYDI: Historic Environment Scotland and the National Lottery Heritage Fund. It is thanks to them that we can put on all these events and projects for free. Thanks as well to the Can You Dig It steering group, who give up their time to keep us on the straight and narrow, and to Dr Peter Hewitt of the D&G Museums Service for his support for this project. Also to Rathmell Archaeology who are delivering the Can You Dig It project for the Galloway Glens. Thank you all!  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 Lost Wells of Galloway – Introduction Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_102 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 An online project to help to rediscover our lost wells and bring their stories back to life. GGLP heritage https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/15/561/GGLP-CYDI-Grave-Encounters-at-Kells_Results.pdf 77617ee6e6602588a1eb6dcd7849ab6f 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 Grave Encounters at Kells – Results 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 Grave Encounters 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 Grave Encounters: A 2022 volunteer research project into the people memorialised at Kells, New Galloway With contributions from: Laura Anderson, Jackie Carson, Sharon Course, Tamara Fulcher, A. B. Hall, Keith Hamblin, Murray Johnston, Michelle MacIver, Thais Poyo-Gonzalez, Jennifer Roberts, Pat Swiatek, Sue Taylor, Claire Williamson and Sandra Williamson Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 Inscription 12 – Douglas & McMillan ..................................................................................... 5 Inscription 16 – Bateson ........................................................................................................ 6 Inscription 23 – Philip .......................................................................................................... 16 Inscription 43 – Maxwell ...................................................................................................... 21 Inscription 45 – Kennedy, Hope & Hyslop ............................................................................ 24 Inscription 46 – Barbour & Hope.......................................................................................... 26 Inscription 58 – McCubbing, McQueen & McNairn .............................................................. 27 Inscription 95 – Williamson.................................................................................................. 29 Inscription 104 – McCheyne & Mulholland .......................................................................... 30 Inscription 115 – Brown & Murray ....................................................................................... 32 Inscription 136 – Hewitson .................................................................................................. 34 Inscription 144 – Muir.......................................................................................................... 36 Inscription 149 – Lee ............................................................................................................ 37 Inscription 154 – Hobbs & Maitland..................................................................................... 40 Inscription 162 – McLachlan & Greggan............................................................................... 43 Inscription 176 – Murray...................................................................................................... 45 Inscription 184 – Reilly ......................................................................................................... 50 Inscription 201 – Herese & Corson ....................................................................................... 51 Inscriptions 209 & 210 – Kennedy........................................................................................ 52 Inscription 257 – Jardine ...................................................................................................... 54 Inscription 264 – Ewart ........................................................................................................ 55 Inscription 271 – McKay....................................................................................................... 57 Inscription 288 – McCandlish ............................................................................................... 59 Inscription 292 – Kennedy ................................................................................................... 61 Inscription 293 – Gordon ..................................................................................................... 62 Inscription 308 – Millman .................................................................................................... 65 Inscription 308 – The Sinking of the Steamer Victoria .......................................................... 67 Inscription 314 – Murray...................................................................................................... 70 Inscription 354 – Maitland Gordon ...................................................................................... 74 Inscription 355 – Maitland ................................................................................................... 75 1 Inscription 361 – Nodwell .................................................................................................... 76 Inscription 410 – Robertson ................................................................................................. 78 Inscription 436 – Kennedy ................................................................................................... 81 Inscription 437 – Kennedy ................................................................................................... 82 Inscription 438 – St Clair ...................................................................................................... 82 Inscription 464 – Stokes ....................................................................................................... 84 Inscription 482 – McLeod..................................................................................................... 86 Inscription 484 – Maitland ................................................................................................... 89 Inscriptions x 18 – Johnston / Johnstone ............................................................................. 92 Index .................................................................................................................................... 99 2 Introduction “In Scotland there is a little-acknowledged and largely unrecorded historical treasure, accessible to, and belonging to, each Scottish community.” Betty Willsher in Understanding Scottish Graveyards (1985) The Grave Encounters project recruited volunteers to undertake research into the memorial inscriptions at Kells graveyard in New Galloway1. These inscriptions are often all that publicly remains of the individuals named within, but they contain glimpses, not just into their lives, but also into past events, locations and connections which make up an area’s heritage. The decision to focus on Kells stemmed from its carvings. Nic Coombey, from the Solway Firth Partnership, introduced us to the presence of its ‘Adam and Eve’ carvings, but a wander through the stones soon revealed several intricate designs dating back some 300 years. Choosing Kells allowed the project to be combined with creating a record of some of these carvings. But, in truth, every graveyard across Galloway, and indeed Scotland, will contain similar insights into their local area’s collective history. With a total of 485 inscriptions to choose from, each volunteer was given their own specific set of gravestones to research. To achieve this, the project used ‘Kells Memorial Inscriptions’: a complete transcription of the gravestones published by the Dumfries and Galloway Family History Society in 2015. The numbering of the inscriptions within this report matches those given in the 2015 publication, with their locations shown in the figure on page 4. Each volunteer was initially assigned three gravestone inscriptions. There was no pressure to research all three (and equally volunteers could ask for more) but having a choice allowed volunteers to move between options if they started to struggle in their research on any given one. Each group of inscriptions tried to encompass a chronological spread and included one each from the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries where possible. Beyond this, preference was given to inscriptions that contained additional information, such as the person’s trade or reference to a military record, which might help with research. As well as their assigned inscriptions, each researcher was also given a guidance note outlining the main resources available online. People could visit their local library or archive centre but the choice of online resources kept the project open to anyone who might face constraints in attending such places in person. Volunteers were encouraged to email with any questions and a weekly virtual ‘tea break’ was also held using a video conferencing application, optional for anyone who might prefer it as a means of communication. By the end of the project, 14 volunteers submitted their findings as summary reports, which covered 57 of the inscriptions found at Kells. The volunteers included people from Galloway, Ayrshire, Glasgow, Bristol, Canada and New Zealand. Their results revealed stories of local ministers; teachers; religious conflict; war casualties; emigrations to Canada, America and New Zealand; and several local individuals who lived and worked in the surrounding area over the last 300 years to make it what it is today. All this history was found in just a small fraction of the inscriptions at Kells, itself only one of over 100 graveyards within Galloway alone. These inscriptions may exist as a record of death but there is still life to be found in them. Their study helps us to rediscover the people in our history, the individuals and their stories that are so often overlooked but remain integral to our understanding of heritage. Claire Williamson The Grave Encounters project was undertaken in March and April 2022 as part of ‘Can You Dig It’, the community archaeology project of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership. Galloway Glens was a five-year initiative funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, and ‘Can You Dig It’ was match funded by Historic Environment Scotland and delivered by Rathmell Archaeology. 1 3 Plan of memorial locations reproduced from ‘Kells Graveyard Memorial Inscriptions’ published in 2015 by the Dumfries and Galloway Family History Society 4 Inscription 12 – Douglas & McMillan by Pat Swiatek John Douglas was born in Rerrick, Kirkcudbrightshire in 1783 to Andrew Douglas and Sara Thomson. He had brothers James 8.4.1800 and William 11.4.1793, sisters Jane 5.6.1795, Janet 23.11.1797 and Elizabeth 1.5.1781. They are all recorded as births in Rerrick. He married Janet McMillan who was born in Carsphairn 23.6.1773. There is no record of John Douglas’s birth in the OPRs only his siblings. He was recorded in the 1841, 1851 and 1861 census as a joiner employing one apprentice and lived in Kells. Both John Douglas and Janet McMillan are noted as having died in New Galloway. She was 88 years old on 18.3.1861 and he was 87 years old in 8.2.1871. They are both recorded as having died of old age. Janet McMillan’s parents were Andrew McMillan and Jean Hairstones or Hastings and they came from Carsphairn. Andrew McMillan was a shepherd. She had a sister called Barbara 14.7.1771 John and Janet’s children were John 1814-1814, Mary 1812-1888, Andrew 1807-1863 and William 18171885. I also found a record of a Mathew but nothing further than a name and a date of 23.3.1817. His son Andrew emigrated to the USA in 2.7.1836 and moved to Louisiana and was an overseer on a plantation there, married a Bridget Foley (Irish) and had at least three children. His son William emigrated to the USA in 1841 and married Permelia Amelia Strawn in Missouri and then moved to Pike, Illinois and went onto have 11 children! He was a joiner to trade. 5 Inscription 16 – Bateson by Sue Taylor 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Inscription 23 – Philip by Murray Johnston 16 17 18 19 20 Inscription 43 – Maxwell by Sandra Williamson Archibald Basil Henry MAXWELL Only child of Col. Archibald BOYD MAXWELL, late of the Manchester Reg’t and Helen Francis his wife, Born 4th May 1888, died 24th Dec’r 1910. Thy will be done. Taken from the Gloucestershire Echo, 27th December 1910: “Archibald was educated at Rugby and then became a student at the Institute of Civil Engineers London. There he played Rugby Football for the London Irish. Last Easter while spending his holidays in Cheltenham with his grandmother and Aunt he was induced by one of their male servants connected with the Cheltenham Club to help the Cheltonians in their matches against Bristol and Lennox and he was largely instrumental in the town’s victory over the Londoners. He was only 22 years of age when he tragically died.” Hawes Junction, 24th December 1910 - In the early hours of that morning the London to Glasgow sleeping car express ran into the back of two light-engines. The resulting collision was not so severe. However, two of the coaches caught fire due to the escape of compressed oil gas, used for lighting. The death toll was 12. Gravestone of Archibald Basil Henry Maxwell Scotch Express Disaster (The Northern Echo): “He left London on Friday night to spend four days Christmas holiday with his father Col. Archibald Boyd Maxwell of Ken Bridge, New Galloway and whose remains were so charred that identification was impossible save by a trousers button bearing the name of the deceased tailor. He was the only son of Col. Maxwell who led the 2nd Manchester Regiment in the Boer War and was mentioned in despatches for his excellent services.” The Northern Echo on the centenary, 9th December 2010 - The Wrecking Of The Christmas Eve Express: “Twas midnight at St. Pancras As the Scotchman was due away, With a happy load of passengers Bound north for Christmas Day” Shortly before 5am on Christmas Eve, 1910, the London to Glasgow train sped double-headed past Hawes Junction, where the Wensleydale branch of the North Eastern Railway met the Settle and Carlisle line, and the Midland. The Helm wind whipped across the high fell, the rain lashed against the windows of the box where signalman Albert Sutton was nearing the end of a ten-hour night shift made busier yet by the extra trains ferrying folk felicitously towards their families. “Go tell Bunce that I am afraid I have wrecked the Scotch Express.” Simpson, the relief man, was already in the box when Sutton realised that he had made a terrible mistake. Two light engines, coupled together and heading north towards Carlisle, had been allowed onto the main line just ahead of the fast train and on the same section of track. 21 Twelve people, including a little girl died in the collision and inferno that followed. Sutton’s instruction to Simpson is still chillingly recalled: “Go tell Bunce (the station master) that I am afraid I have wrecked the Scotch Express.” Driffield Times Sat. 14th January 1911 “The inquest in the Scotch Express Disaster concluded on Thursday. The jury found a verdict of “accidental death” and called attention to the violation of the rule requiring drivers to inform signalmen when engines are standing on the line,and suggested that the Board of Trade should make strict investigation into the peculiar working at Haws Junction and that light engines should start from the signal box. The evidence on Thursday was thought a fireman had gone to the signal box and an excursion train was mistaken for the Scotch Express but one driver said he did not trouble to look at his book although he was not certain when the Express was due.” The Westmorland Gazette, 4th December 2013: “The legacy of one of the worst train disasters in Britain has been recognised as part of a drive to safeguard the nation’s railway heritage...the government-backed Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) has announced that the station’s signal box, which was renamed Garsdale in 1932, has been awarded Grade II listed status...“Hawes Junction played a major role in one of the biggest railway disasters in the Edwardian period and had major ramifications across the country,” said John Minnis, senior architectural investigator for English Heritage. As a result of the disaster, the rail operator changed signalling practices across its 900 services to prevent similar accidents occurring.” Description of the event can also be found in detail on Wikipedia: Hawes Junction rail crash. Dave Goulder’s song about the famous Christmas Eve train crash can also be found on YouTube: 1910 Christmas Eve at Hawes Junction. Photographs of the Hawes Junction accident (taken from Railways Archive): Image source: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/mastereventimages/event78.jpg 22 Image source: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/mastereventimages/event78_1.jpg 23 Inscription 45 – Kennedy, Hope & Hyslop by Jennifer Roberts Alexander Kennedy, who was born around 1768, was the second son of Robert Kennedy of Knockknalling. His memorial mentions that he was formally of Jamaica. An Alexander Kennedy worked as an overseer at the Golden Valley Plantation in Jamaica in the years around 1799-1807. Sugar cane was grown on the Plantation, some of which was made into rum. Alexander was overseer to many scores of enslaved people working on the Plantation. At some point on returning to Scotland Alexander took out the tenancy of Kenbank at St. John’s Clauchan [sic], Dalry, where he died on the 20th January 1839 at the age of seventy-one. Isabella Hope, his wife, was probably born on the 14th February 1778 at Wamphray, Dumfriesshire. Her parents were James Hope and Jean Proudfoot. By 1841 Isabella, a widow of three years, was still living at Kenbank. In the census she is described as a farmer, and as women at that time are usually described as farmer’s wife or daughter it may mean she was actually involved in running the farm. At the time of the census, her niece Isabella Hyslop and Robert Hyslop, a minister, were staying with her. Jennet Landsburgh Inscription 45 was also living in the house, as were two female servants. Isabella Kennedy died before the next census on the 19th March 1851. She died intestate with a Scottish estate valued at £170.1s.10d. She had stock in the Manchester and Salford Banking Company valued at £405. The Rev. Charles Hope as her nearest relative was her executor. She must have been a generous woman helping out her male relatives with handouts, as at the time of her death the Rev. Robert Hyslop of Kirkholm owed her £18, James Hyslop of Glenlees £27.10s, and James Hyslop Jnr. £16.18s. Isabella Hyslop, her niece, was born on the 9th October 1817 at Leaths, Buittle. Her parents were Margaret Hope and James Hyslop. Isabella was baptised ten days later. As has been seen in the 1841 census, Isabella, aged twenty, was staying with her aunt at Kenbank. At the time of the next census Isabella was at Glenlee Mains with her family. Her father, a widower of seventy-nine was a farmer of 1242 acres, employing five labourers. His son James was employed to run the farm. Living on the farm with James was his son James and his grand-son James, his grand-daughter Margaret, Isabella and her sisters Mary and Clementine, as well as three agricultural labourers, a house servant, nurse and dairymaid. At the time of the 1861 census, Isabella was living in the High Street of New Galloway with her ten-year-old nephew James. She is described as an annuitant. By the time of the next census in 1871 her address is more specific. She is recorded as living at 27 High Street, and now at fifty-three she is described as being a farmer’s daughter. Staying with her were her widowed sister Agnes Sinclair and her two daughters Margaret and Agnes. In 1881, although still living in the High Street of New Galloway, Isabella is recorded as living with her widowed sister Agnes Sinclair. Margaret Sinclair is living at home and working as a private teacher. The women have Christina Barclay a salaried companion, living with them. Although in this census Agnes and Isabella are recorded as annuitants, another unmarried young woman, Grace Brown, living with them, is described as a farmer’s daughter. Isabella Hyslop died at six thirty in the morning of 17th November 1889 of fatty degeneration of her kidney and of dropsy. She had been ill for two months before this. She died at Ashburn Cottage, New Galloway. 24 When Isabella died the value of her estate was £1599.10s.10d. Her money was left to her widowed sisters: Mary McMillan of Gordon Terrace, New Galloway and Agnes Sinclair of Ashburn Cottage, New Galloway. References Census: 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881 Details of Estate | Legacies of British Slavery (ucl.ac.uk) [accessed April 2022] 1889 HYSLOP, ISABELLA (Statutory registers Deaths 868/ 15) 1851 Kennedy, Isabella, Mrs (Wills and testaments Reference SC16/41/18, Kirkcudbright Sheriff Court) Image 237 Last image 239 Scotland National probate Index 1890, p378 Scotland Parish Births and Baptisims 1564-1929 OPR 859/1 Scotland Parish Deaths and Burials, Dalry OPR 865/3 Statutory Register of Deaths OPR 868/15 25 Inscription 46 – Barbour & Hope by Jennifer Roberts James Barbour was born in the Parish of Kells around 1788. His father John was a shoemaker and his mother was Margaret Murray. He married Isabella Hope but was a widower by the time of the 1841 census. In 1841 he is recorded as a fifty-year-old widower farming at Ringour. He had his children living with him: Charles, Susanna, Jane, Margaret, Isabella and James. Charles the eldest was twenty-two, James the youngest was seven. The 1851 census is more detailed in its records. James is now recorded as being sixty-three. Ringour Farm is described as having fifty acres of arable land and one hundred acres of heath. James employed two labourers. Most of James’s children were still living at home: Charles, Susannah, Margaret, Isabella and James Jnr. By the time of the next census, James at seventy-three had retired and moved to the Boat of Rhone. Three of his daughters still lived at home: Susanna, Jane and Margaret. His youngest son James is described as a ploughman. James Barbour died on the 27th April 1861 at one thirty in the afternoon at the age of seventy-three, whilst living at the Boat of Rhone. He died of asthenic pneumonia which he had suffered from for five weeks previously. His death was certified by Dr McKinley Millman. There is a family tradition that her father, possibly called John Hope, had gone to India to seek his fortune and whilst there had married an Indian princess. Isabella Hope was born around 1800. There is a family tradition that her father, possibly called John Hope, had gone to India to seek his fortune and whilst there had married an Indian princess. Isabella’s parents had both been killed around 1800, leaving her as a young baby in charge of a person who brought her back to Scotland to be brought up by the Hopes and then absconded with her fortune. Isabella, whatever her origins, married James Barbour and lived with him at Ringour. During her short life she gave him at least six children. Isabella died on the 4 th of April 1834 at the age of thirty-four, possibly during or soon after the birth of her son James. Margaret Barbour, the third daughter of James and Isabella, was born in the Parish of Kells in 1826. In 1863 at the age of thirty-seven, or thirty-four as mentioned on her marriage certificate, she married Birket Nicholson from Hawkshead at Boat of Rhone on the 1st June. Birket, twenty-four at the time of his marriage, was at least ten years younger than Margaret. Margaret died probably in giving birth to her daughter Isabella less than two years later. She died on the 16th April 1865, according to her memorial at the age of thirty-six. She was buried on the 19th April at Crosthwaite in Cumberland. References Census: 1841, 1851, 1861 England Select Deaths and Burials FHL Film NO. 1472290, item 9 page 123 [accessed May 2022] 1861 BARBOUR, JAMES (Statutory registers Deaths 868/ 7) [accessed May 2022] 1863 BARBOUR, MARGARET (Statutory registers Marriages 868/ 1) [accessed May 2022] Not another Indian Princess by Edgar F Morris 26 Inscription 58 – McCubbing, McQueen & McNairn by Jennifer Roberts Margaret McQueen, Alexander’s first wife was born in 1865 in Balmaclellan, the daughter of Jane Connan and James McQueen, a blacksmith. On the 1871 census Margaret, aged six was going to school with her siblings, John aged eleven and Jess aged nine. On the 1881 census Margaret, now aged fifteen, was working as a general servant for William and Jessie Hunter. They lived at Dundeugh, Carsphairn. William Hunter was a shepherd. By 1891 Margaret was living at home with her widowed father and younger brother Thomas. She was a general (domestic) servant. They lived in the High Street of New Galloway. Alexander McCubbing was born on the 23rd February 1866 in New Galloway. Alexander was illegitimate, his birth is registered under his mother’s name McNairn. His mother Sarah was working as a domestic servant at the time of his birth. Sarah was compeared2 at the Kirk Session for the sin of uncleanness with Alex McCubbin and absolved. On Alexander’s marriage certificate his father is described as a farmer. It may be that Sarah called her son after his father. On Alexander's death certificate his father is mentioned as also being called Alexander McCubbing. Sarah was compeared at the Kirk Session for the sin of uncleanness with Alex McCubbin and absolved. Inscription 58 By the 1871 census Alexander had the surname McCubbin (later changing it to McCubbing). He lived in Durness Close with his with his grandmother Mary McNairn and mother Sarah. His grandmother was described as an annuitant in the 1871 census, but after being left a widow by the death of her much older husband, is described on the 1851 census as a pauper. At the time of the 1871 census, Alexander’s grandmother was seventy and his mother was thirty. By the time of the 1881 census, Alexander was working as a servant for John McTurk at Barsheoch Mains. Ten years later, on the 1891 census, Alexander is described as a mason. He was boarding in the High Street with Marion Kidd, a sick nurse, and Isabella, her unmarried daughter who worked as a letter carrier. When Alexander McCubbing was twenty-seven he married Margaret McQueen, aged twenty-eight, on the 1st December 1893 at the Manse of Kells. Both resided in New Galloway. On his marriage certificate Alexander is described as a journeyman mason. This was Alexander’s first marriage. Alexander and Margaret’s first child Jane, or Jeanie as she was known, was born on the 25 th April 1894 at 11:30 a.m. On the 1901 census Alexander, aged thirty-five, was working as a stone mason. He and Margaret had two children: Jane aged seven attended school, while their son John, aged five, was still too young. They lived in the High Street of New Galloway. Isabella their second daughter was born on 21 st May 1901. Three years later Jeanie, their eldest daughter, died aged ten. Margaret McQueen died on the 26th May 1909 at the age of forty-three of pulmonary tuberculosis. 2 Appear before a congregation, minister or Kirk session, especially for rebuke. 27 By the time of the 1911 census Alexander, now a widower aged forty-five, was described as a mason contractor and an employer. His son John at fourteen was a message boy, Isabella at nine was at school and his son Alexander was four. He employed a housekeeper Jane Laurie to look after them all. In 1925 Alexander, aged fifty-nine, remarried after having been a widower for sixteen years. He married Annie Stewart his housekeeper. Annie was at thirty-one a lot younger than Alexander. They lived at Wylies Brae in New Galloway. Alexander outlived three of his four children, only the youngest, his son Alexander, survived him. Alexander McCubbing died on the 5th November 1928 of pneumonia at Wylies Brae. He was aged sixty-two. On his death certificate he was described as a master builder. Alexander died intestate. On the 22nd May his estate of £548.9s.4d went to his relict Annie McCubbing. John McCubbing was born in 1896. After working first as a messager boy and then as an apprentice in his father’s firm, he joined ‘A’ Company of the 7th Battalion Cameron Highlanders. On Saturday 16th September there was a report concerning John, aged just twenty, in the Dumfries and Galloway Standard: A New Galloway Man Missing Mr M’Cubbing of the firm of Messers Murry and M’Cubbing, builders, New Galloway, has received official information that his son, Lance-Corporal John M’Cubbing, has been missing since the 17th August. Lance-Corporal M’Cubbing, who is 18 [sic] years of age joined the Cameron Highlanders in January, 1915, and has been over a year at the front. Before the war he was engaged as an apprentice with his father’s firm. John was reported missing in action during an attack by the Cameron Highlanders on a Switch Line and the taking of the Elbow during the Battle of the Somme. John has no known grave, but he is commemorated on the Thiepval Memorial in France (Pier and Face 15B). Alexander built the War Memorials, designed by Dodds of Dumfries, for New Galloway and Kells. His own son is commemorated upon the one at Kells. Sarah McNairn was born in 1837 or 1834. Sarah never married but continued living with her widowed mother Mary McNairn until Mary’s death. Sarah continued working as a domestic servant, as reported on each census, or as an agricultural labourer, as reported on her death certificate. During her adult life she lived in the High Street. Sarah died on 16th March 1890 at eleven o’clock in the morning of bronchitis, from which she had suffered for the previous fourteen days. At the time of her death Sarah was described as a pauper. References: Census: 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, 1911. Commonwealth War Graves Lance Corporal John McCubbing | War Casualty Details | CWGC [accessed 17 April 2022] Concise Scots Dictionary, 2nd Edition 2017, E.U.P. DGNHAS, 9/11/2012 A meeting Report on War Memorials in Dumfries and Galloway by Paul Goodwin (online) [accessed 17 April 2022] Dumfries and Galloway Standard, Saturday 16th September Kells Kirk Session, Minutes and accounts 1855-1872, CH2/202/5 image 121 National Probate Index 868/1/5 page 5 of 13 Scotlands Monumental Inscription, Kells Statutory Register of Births 868/6, 868/11 Statutory Register of Marriages 868/7, 821/120 Statutory Register of Deaths 868/8, 868/5, 868/4 28 Inscription 95 – Williamson by Laura Anderson In Memory of Dora Wordsworth Williamson wife of J.C. Maitland Gordon of Kenmure who died at Kenmure Castle 25th February 1903 Dora Wordsworth Williamson was born in 1850 to Dugald T Williamson and Julia Curwen Williamson. Her father was the Minister of the Established Church in the 1851 census and her mother was noted as a ‘Ministers Wife’. Dora had four older siblings: Henry, John, Julia and Isabella. There were four servants present in the household in 1851. In the 1861 census, a different story is told. The family members are noted only by their initials. Dora’s mother is a widow at age 50, she notes that she is an ‘EC minister’s wife’ and that she was born in Wales. Her mother Elizabeth Stanley, also widowed and aged 77, lives with the family and is noted as a ‘Naval Officer’s wife’, she was born in England. Henry is noted as a ‘Scholar of St Mary’s Hall in Oxford’, with his sisters Julia and Dora surviving and Dora noted as completing ‘Home Tuition’. Sometimes on records, Dora’s father is called Dugal Williamson. He was born in 1903 in Twynholm and his father was also a Reverend, John Williamson. Dora’s mother was born in Gwaenysgor in 1810 to Henry and Elizabeth Stanley. Dora Wordsworth Maitland Gordon died on the 25th of February 1903 at 9.50pm. Her father and mother were deceased at the time of her death. Her cause of death was noted as Intestinal Obstruction due to [??] construction in [spleen?] of Colon. Possibly related to an operation colectomy. There was no record of Dora and James having children. Record of Dora's death 29 Inscription 104 – McCheyne & Mulholland By Tamara Fulcher James McClaymont McCHEYNE is recorded living at Back Street, Kells, with his wife Mary, in the 1901 census; the year of birth for both is given as 1855. James’ occupation was given as ‘General Carter’. He was born at Glasserton in the Machars, 38 miles from Kells. Ten years earlier when James he resided at Kilquhanity Cottage, Kirkpatrick Durham, and was working as an agricultural labourer. His and Mary’s years of birth were different – 1854 and 1856 respectively. Mary MULHOLLAND was born on 18th April 1855 to Isabella Campbell and Thomas Mulholland at Crossmichael, and was baptised as a Roman Catholic at Dalbeattie (St Peter’s). In the 1861 census she was 5 yrs old, living in ‘Hotel’ at Crossmichael. Her father is recorded as an Irish quarryman. In the 1901 census Mary was aged 46, with no occupation given. It appears she had eleven children, the first being born when Mary was around 23 years old and the last when she was 44. James and Mary’s first child was a daughter, Isabella McCheyne, born in 1879 at Crossmichael. At the time of the 1881 census she was 2 yrs old, and when the census-taker visited she was staying at grandparents’ house in Crossmichael with her mother Mary, who was 25 y-o and recorded as a ‘farm labourer’s wife’. Also present were Isabella’s younger sister Mary McCheyne (an infant – age 0), and her grandmother Isabella Mulholland (a 67 y-o, widow, occupation given as ‘general labourer’). Isabella is recorded again in the 1891 census at 12 yrs old. Thomas MULHOLLAND McCheyne was born on 17th January 1884 and baptised as a Roman Catholic at the church of St John the Evangelist, Castle Douglas. He was given his mother’s maiden name as his middle name. Thomas died aged 20, died five months after his mother. Private Alex J McCHEYNE was born 10th April 1897 and also baptised at St John’s in Castle Douglas, on 16th April. He was killed at Vermelles on 28th April 1916 aged 19, while serving with the 7th Cameron Highlanders. His full name, Alexander Joseph McCheyne, is recorded on cwgc.org. Alexander is commemorated on the Loos Memorial at Pas de Calais, which names 20,592 casualties. Also noted on CWGC is that Alexander had three brothers also killed in the war. Mary McCHEYNE was born at Crossmichael on 25th April 1880 (the year was given elsewhere as 1881). There is no record of her having married. She died in November 1916 aged 36 at St. Quentin; if this is in France, it could be that she was abroad in association with the war effort, as St Quentin was a key region in fighting from 1914 onwards. However, Mary is not recorded on cwgc.org so if she was there, she did not die on active service or for any associated illness or injury. 30 it could be that [Mary] was abroad in association with the war effort, as St Quentin was a key region in fighting from 1914 onwards Corporal David McCHEYNE, who was born in Kells parish, died of wounds on 13th March 1917 aged 22. Like his brother Alexander, he had enlisted in the 7th Battalion Queen’s Own Cameron Highlanders. David is interred at the Aubigny Communal Cemetery Extension, also at Pas de Calais. Interestingly cwgc.org names David’s three brothers who fell in the war but states that he is the son of “James and Mary McCheyne of Richmond Hill, Miniota, Manitoba, Canada.” There is a McCheyne family recorded in Manitoba at this time but perhaps the records are confused. Quartermaster Sergeant James McCHEYNE was born in 1890 and was a career soldier, having joined up in 1906 aged 16 (at attestation he gave his age as 18 yrs 2 mo, which wasn’t true; the very reliable Roman Catholic baptismal records show James was born on 18 th January 1890 and baptised at Kirkcudbright in February). James was killed in action in Belgium on 3rd October 1917 while serving with the King’s Own Scottish Borderers, and he is interred in Bleuet Farm Cemetery, Belgium. His age at death is given as 26 on cwgc.org (the headstone says he was 27). James was married and is recorded on cwgc.org as the husband of Janet Mc Cheyne, of 24, Rolland St., Maryhill, Glasgow. The personal inscription that Janet chose for James’ headstone in Belgium reads: ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE LOVED AND LOST CAN UNDERSTAND WAR'S BITTER COST. Frances W McCHEYNE died in World War I, on 12/01/1918 when he was aged 19 – lost at sea when serving aboard HMS Narborough. This was an M-Class Destroyer built for the Royal Navy. On 12th January 1918, she and her sister ship, HMS Opal, were wrecked on the cliffs at Hesta Rock, just to the north of Windwick Bay, South Ronaldsay. Only one sailor survived; 188 were killed. Most of the casualties were never found and are commemorated on the Portsmouth Memorial. On cwgc.org the record states that Ordinary Seaman Francis Wallace McCheyne is commemorated on the Plymouth Naval Memorial. James and Mary had other children who are not named on this headstone: Agnes Nan McCheyne, born in 1888 at Tongland was a 13 y-o scholar in the 1901 census. Frederick W McCheyne (also known as William Frederick McCheyne) was born 1892 at Kirkpatrick, and was 9 y-o and also a scholar in 1901. Both died in 1962. John McCheyne was born in 1882 and Margaret McCheyne in 1885. 31 Inscription 115 – Brown & Murray by Laura Anderson In Loving Memory of Alexander BROWN late Serg’t Major, Galloway, R.V., who died at Carlisle 3rd Jan’y 1905 aged 71 years. And Anne MURRAY his wife who died at New Galloway 23rd July 1872 aged 36 years. Also Mary their daughter, born 8th Dec’r 1870, died 22nd April 1871. Also their granddaughter Elizabeth RUSSELL BROWN who died at Knockallan 25th Feb’y 1929 aged 25 years. Within the village of Minnigaff in 1834, Alexander Brown was born to William and Mary Brown. His father is noted to be from Wigtownshire whereas his mother’s birthplace is narrowed down to Kirkcowan in Wigtownshire. Alexander is noted as the only child living with his parents in the 1841, 1851 and 1861 census, however his parents were aged 42 and 38 respectively when he was born, so it is possible that Alexander had siblings that had left the home before the 1841 census. Interestingly, in the 1861 census, 12-year-old Mary McGarvah is noted as a granddaughter within the household. No previous record of a Mary McGarvah is noted within the surrounding area; however this is possibly hindered by the spelling of the surname which may be a mistake by the census taker. Alexander lived with his parents in Dalnotry, Minnigaff in the 1841 census. The family moved to Craigdews when Alexander was 17 and they resided within Graymarestail when Alexander was 27. Alexander’s military record listed him in 1852 as a Driver with the Royal Horse Artillery, his record shows him attesting to 17 years and 4 months of service within the regiment. William Brown is noted as a ‘Labourer road repairer’, a role that his son initially joined him in with the 1851 census noting him as a ‘Road labourer’. However, a change of career occurred during the 10 years between 1851 and 1861 with the 1861 census registering Alexander as a ‘Solider Serijt Instructor of Volunteers’. Alexander’s military record listed him in 1852 as a Driver with the Royal Horse Artillery, his record shows him attesting to 17 years and 4 months of service within the regiment. We know from the credentials listed on his grave that Alexander Brown died as a Sergeant Major within the Galloway Royal Volunteers regiment. In June 1862, Alexander Brown married Anne Murray within the Parish of Kells. Alexanders parents were present with his father named as a ‘Roadman labourer’ as was Anne’s parents, David Murray, a ‘shepherd’ and Agnes Murray (Nee Logie). Alexander was 28 whereas his new bride was 26; the two resided within New Galloway and Alexander had been promoted to Government Drill Sergeant of the Royal Volunteers. Marriage record of Alexander Brown and Anne Murray 32 The following year of 1863, their first-born child William was born in February. William was born in the parish of Kells. William was followed by six siblings, five of which were noted in the 1871 census. William was noted as 8, David Brown was noted as 6, John Brown was noted as 5, Anne Brown was noted as a 4, Alexander Brown was noted as 2 alongside newborn Mary Brown. The older children were noted as ‘Scholars’, presumably attending a nearby school. Their father was 37 and held the role of Sergeant Master Rifle whereas their mother was 34. All children were registered as having been born in New Galloway. Record of William Brown's birth The 1881 census paints a far different picture, one filled with loss and hardship. Anne Brown, nee Murray, passed in 1872, a year after the previous census was noted. Three children were lost: David, John and Mary. Mary Brown was noted on the gravestone alongside her parents as she was lost in infancy. A new child is noted in the 1881 census: Helen Brown aged 8. Alexander is 47 during this census and holds the same role, his eldest son William is 18 and works as a ‘Shoemaker Apprentice’. Alexander Junior is 12 and is still a scholar, his sister Annie is 14 and is a ‘Dressmaker Apprentice’. Sourcing information after the 1881 census was incredibly difficult! I could not source whether any of Alexander’s children survived to adulthood, other than Alexander Junior who was the father of Elizabeth Russel Brown who is also listed on the gravestone. Anne Murray was born in the parish of Kells in 1836, she was baptised on the 13th of November 1836. She died at age 36 after having seven children with her husband Alexander Brown. In the 1861 census, it is revealed that her father David Murray aged 83 was also born in the parish of Kells, whereas her mother Agnes aged 67 was born in Glasgow. Anne is 24 and was noted as a ‘Dress Maker’. She had two older siblings living at home with her, an older brother James and a sister Jane. The family lived in High Street, Kells in Kirkcudbrightshire. Anne’s daughter Helen was born in May of 1862, just two months before she passed away. When Anne passed in July of 1862, both her parents were deceased. Anne passed from Phthtisis Pulmonalis, more commonly known as Tuberculosis. The duration of the disease was acknowledged as 9 months and Anne passed in New Galloway. Mary Brown was born to Alexander and Anne Brown, she was born on 8th December 1870 and died at age 1 on the 22nd of April 1871. Her death record notes that she died from diarrhoea and vomiting that lasted for 12? Hours. Elizabeth Russel Brown was difficult to source. The only piece of information I could find was her death certificate. Elizabeth died in Knockallan on the 24th of February 1929. Her profession was noted as ‘Domestic Servant’ and she was single at the time. Her father was Alexander Brown (Junior) who was a ‘Draper’ and deceased at the time of Elizabeth’s death. Her mother was Ellen Jemina Brown, nee Byers, who was still living. Elizabeth possibly died from a condition called Chronic ‘parenchymatous nephritis’. From what I’ve seen the disease is a type of chronic kidney disease and could have been improved with a better diet. 33 Inscription 136 – Hewitson by Sharon Course In Loving Memory of Samuel HEWITSON who died at Cottage Hospital, Castle Douglas on 25th May 1908 aged 54 years. Also James, his eldest son, M.M., 9th Loyal North Lancs. Regt. Missing Flanders 25th April 1918 aged 30 years. Also Elizabeth THOMPSON, his wife, who died at Carnearie, Parton 9th Dec'r 1943 aged 79 years. Also Thomas, their son, who died in New Zealand 5th Aug 1954 aged 64 years. Also Jessie CAMPBELL HEWITSON, their daughter, who died 14th Nov 1972 aged 80 years. Also Agnes HEWITSON, their daughter, who died 7th May 1976 aged 89 years. Erected by his widow and family. SAMUEL and ELIZABETH HEWITSON This surname is often spelled Hoatson on the census, possibly due to how it was pronounced locally. Samuel was born in 1857 near Dalry, to James (a shepherd) and Agnes nee McMillan. He married Elizabeth Thompson, born 1863, of Carsphairn, in 1885, when he was 28 and she was 22. They lived at Culmark farm, near Dalry. By 1901, the family had moved to Drumbain farm. They had the following children: 1887 Agnes 1888 James 1890 Thomas Hastings 1892 Jessie Campbell 1894 Albert (died in 1980 in Castle Douglas) JAMES (1888 – 1918) James was reported missing, presumed killed, on April 25th at the Battle of the Lys, known as the 4th battle of Ypres. This was part of the German final push to break through to Ypres. The battle advanced the German line 15km but ultimately this couldn’t be sustained and they withdrew. Both sides suffered 120,000 deaths/missing for those 15km. Between April 10th and April 14th, Allied troops were in a precarious position and Field Marshall Douglas Haig issued his famous order, which James would have been told about. “With our backs to the wall, and believing in the justice of our cause, each of us must fight on to the end.” James, who had been in France/Flanders for a year, fought bravely during the battle and was posthumously awarded the Military Medal. His body was never found and he is commemorated on Tynecot Memorial in Flanders, as well as in Kells. “With our backs to the wall, and believing in the justice of our cause, each of us must fight on to the end.” James left a widow, Euphemia Hewitson (nee Middleton), who was born in Kirkcudbright and worked as a domestic servant. Before the war, he worked as a steam train driver. He signed up for service in 1915. His army record reports he was 5ft 6ins, 11 stone, in good health. He and Euphemia married on 21 st April 1917 in Kilmarnock, and four days later he was sent to France. She never saw her husband again. He was 27 and she was 35. They had no children. He left her 256 pounds in effects, which included 30 pounds backpay from the army. Euphemia received his Military Medal in 1922. She never remarried. In 1928, she moved to Barre, Vermont, USA, to live with her sister Janet (two years younger) and her husband Gordon Watson, and their two little girls. 34 She died in 1961 in Barre, Vermont, and is buried there. THOMAS (1890 – 1954) Like his brother James, Thomas served in WW1, as a rifleman in Kings Royal Rifle Corps and tank corp. Before and after the war, he worked as a shepherd, like his father. In 1926, Thomas emigrated to New Zealand and settled in Wellington, where he worked as a storeman and a labourer. Thomas got into trouble in Wellington for ‘obscene language’. He was arrested and fined two pounds. Thomas got into trouble in 1932 in Wellington for ‘obscene language’. He was arrested and fined two pounds. On his arrest record, he is described as 5ft 5 and ¾ inches, fresh face, auburn hair going bald, blue eyes, tattoo of a woman on his right arm and an anchor on his left, plus scars on arms. In 1935, Thomas found love. He married Iva Esther Merson, aged 48, who had been married in 1905 to a Thomas Merson and had three grown-up children with him. Thomas Merson divorced Iva in 1928 on the grounds of adultery and drunkenness. The couple had been separated for some time but Thomas Merson heard that Iva had been seeing a man called Frederick Smith. He went to her house and caught in her bed with Smith, telling the judge at the divorce hearing that she had been drinking. As was usual for those days, the case was fully reported in the newspapers. She did not continue to see Smith. She then met and married Thomas Hewitson. It seems to have been a stable marriage, with the couple living a quiet life in suburban Wellington. On 6th August 1954, the Press newspaper reported that Thomas, then 62, was riding his bicycle home from work and was in collision with a half-ton truck on the corner of Willis and Te Aro Streets at about 6.30pm. It was raining heavily with a strong southerly wind and visibility was poor. He died immediately of his injuries. Iva died in 1960 and is buried in Karori Cemetery, Wellington. No record of Thomas being buried with her. His record simply says Wellington. AGNES (1887 – 1976) and JESSIE CAMPBELL (1892 – 1972) In the 1901 census, at the age of 14, Agnes was working as a servant at Barskeoch Main farm near Dalry. In 1911, Jessie Campbell was also a servant, at Manse of Kells, where she worked for Kells minister Pirie Philip. He had lost his wife Mary two years earlier. Two of his children, Mary (25) and Percy (24) were also living at the manse. Agnes and Jessie seem to have led quiet lives. They never married or had children. ‘Maiden aunts’ were not unusual after WW1 and the loss of so many young men. Agnes appears in the 1939 census at a seafront hotel in Brighton, probably on a holiday. Both sisters lived long lives and are buried with their parents in Kells. 35 Inscription 144 – Muir by Jackie Carson From the grave inscription: Died in New Galloway 15th February 1864 aged 68 (born 1796) Son William (teacher) died 8th November 1852 aged 21 (born 1831?) Daughter Jane died 7th August 1861 aged 25 (born 1836) Son John (accountant) died at Denny 14th September 1864 aged 26 (born 1838) Son Archibald (writer) died in Edinburgh 17th January 1865 aged 30 (born 1835?) Son Peter (M.D.) died Wombwell Yorkshire 22nd October 1870 aged 31 (born 1840) Wife Jessie Douglas died 13th July 1874 aged 68 (born 1805) National Library of Scotland: 1841 Census living in schoolhouse, Kells. Birth year listed as 1801! With: Wife Jessie born 1806 Daughter Elizabeth born 1833 Son Archibald born 1835 Son John born 1838 Daughter Jane born 1837 Son Peter born 1840 Anne Robson 1851 Census living in High Street New Galloway - Bailie parochial schoolmaster and post-master, farming 7 acres with: Wife Jesse born 1805 Daughter Jane born 1836 Son John born 1838 Son Peter born 1840 Daughter Jesse born 1842 Mary Hope - servant In 1851 Archibald aged 16 is a boarder with Margaret Paterson in Twynholm. Trade is apprentice writer. No mention of Elizabeth but she pops up in 1871 and 1881 as Elizabeth Cowan - 7 High St, Kells with her husband and 3 kids. Trade is dressmaker. Dies in 1885 and is buried in Kells churchyard 1861 Census living in the school house in New Galloway - teacher with: Wife Jesse Muir born 1805 Elizabeth Campbell - servant William Craig - boarder Baptism record 24th Feb 1796 Mother - Elizabeth McCulloch Father - William Muir Marriage Record Jessy Douglas 26th April 1830 Jessie Muir turns up in 1871 as a widow (aged 65) at 1 High St Kells living with daughter Jessie Isabella who is a schoolmistress. 36 Inscription 149 – Lee by Sharon Course In memory of Louisa EGREMONT LEE wife of Tottenham LEE died at Overton 19th November 1860 aged 61. Lieut. John Egremont Lee killed at Tirowlee in Oude 22nd March 1858 aged 27. Lister HARTER LEE died at Overton 14th April 1856 aged 20. Also of Tottenham Lee, formerly of St. John's, Wakefield, husband of the above Louisa LEE who died at Cairn Edward in this Parish on the 28th August 1888 in his 95th year. Tottenham Lee was born on 2 February 1794 in Wakefield, Yorkshire. His father John Lee was a wealthy philanthropist, industrialist, lawyer and entrepreneur. John built the prestigious St John’s area of Wakefield, beautiful Georgian redbrick terraces in the centre of the town, which expanded hugely with mills and factories during the Industrial Revolution. Ahead of his time, John built St John’s with fancy, expensive facades but basic open interiors made of cheaper materials. Buyers could add walls and rooms to suit themselves. John Lee also created Britain’s first public railway, the Lake Lock Company, which anyone could pay to use. Until then, railways were created by companies to move their own goods. LLC was 3 miles long, horse drawn, and used by coal companies mainly. John Lee raised the money to build it by selling 126 public shares. The investors included John’s sons, Tottenham and John Junior. It closed in 1836 when bigger public railways were created. John Lee has a blue plaque on his former offices in St Johns. Tottenham’s unusual name does not come from the London borough. It appears to be in honour of an Irish aristocrat and industrialist called John Tottenham, an associate of John Lee in Wakefield. While his father and namesake both had the ‘golden touch’ with investments and ideas, Tottenham did not inherit his business sense unfortunately. Initially, like two of his brothers, he became a lawyer and signed an Article of Clerkship in 1820 to train under his famous father. While his brothers became well-known lawyers (one was the coroner for West Yorkshire), Tottenham invested in a worsted yarn factory and other ventures. On 6th October 1829, Tottenham married Louisa Egremont in York. Louisa (also on Gravestone 149, Kells) was from a wealthy family in Goole, Yorkshire, and was heiress to a considerable fortune. In 1841, the couple lived in a fine town house called Newton Lodge in Wakefield 3 with their six children – Louisa (11), John (9), Tottenham Junior (7), Jane (6), Lister (5) and Edward (3). Also living at the property was their nanny called Sophia Bateman and her niece Sarah (see Inscription 16), who worked as cook, plus three other servants. To fund this lifestyle and his investments in the 1830s, Tottenham borrowed from his father-in-law, John Egremont. When John Egremont died in 1840, Tottenham owed him 4500 pounds – a huge amount. In 1841, without ongoing loans from his father-in-law, Tottenham’s worsted yarn venture failed and he was bankrupted. There was still hope for Tottenham though – Louisa had an annual allowance of 400 pounds, and she and her two brothers were about to inherit her father’s fortune, split three ways. This does not appear to have any direct correlation to the current ‘Newton Lodge’ psychiatric hospital in Wakefield, which sits at some distance from where the town house was located (pers. comm. Sue Taylor, 9 th May 2022). 3 37 John Egremont, Louisa’s father was a wealthy farmer from Goole. He built a stately town house in Wakefield in 1811, Egremont House, which until recently was Wakefield’s registry office. His wife Hannah brought with her a huge fortune. But the money also brought a dark guilt for Hannah Egremont, which would haunt the family for two more generations. Hannah’s father, Thomas Crowther (1730 - 1810), was a wool stapler (buying fleeces, grading them, then selling to manufacturers), and at the time of his death owned a warehouse, the Woolpacks Inn on Wakefield, and other land and tenanted properties. Handsome but not rich, Crowther was described by his wife’s family as ‘not a finished gentleman’. Hannah (Hall) Heatherington, a young widow, brought to the marriage in 1768 a large inheritance from her first husband, plus a young daughter, Mary (b.1765). The couple had only one child together, a daughter Hannah (b.1770). Crowther ignored Mary and openly favoured his own daughter. Mary ended up running away to marry John Barker, also a wool stapler. When Crowther died, he left his whole estate to Hannah, including all the money his wife had inherited from Mary’s father. Hannah felt bad about this injustice but could do nothing as her money belonged to her husband, John Egremont. After Hannah’s death in 1827, her daughter Louisa found a letter, urging her to “do any kindness possible to any of the Barker family” as reparation for the wrong Crowther had done to them. On the night Crowther died in 1810, there was a violent thunderstorm. When his will became known, people said the storm was the devil waiting for Crowther's soul. On the night Crowther died in 1810, there was a violent thunderstorm...people said the storm was the devil waiting for Crowther's soul. Crowther and John Egremont’s fortunes were supposed to be split three ways between Louisa and her two brothers. The brothers contested the will, saying that Tottenham’s huge debt to John Egremont should be taken out of the amount Louisa inherited. The court case went on for six long years, ending up in the Chancery. It was ruled that Tottenham’s bankruptcy a year before his father-in-law’s death meant that it could not be taken out of the inheritance. After the court case, Tottenham and Louisa, plus the children, Sophia the nanny and Sarah the cook, moved to a large country house at Overton, New Galloway4. The reason for the move and choosing New Galloway is not known. Possibly, they wanted a fresh start away from Wakefield. Also, Lister was chronically unwell with chronic abcesses and ulcers, and country air might have been recommended over the industrial smog of Wakefield. With Louisa’s inheritance secured, there was no need to stay in Wakefield for financial reasons. Louisa died at Overton in 1860 from a stroke after losing two of her sons. Lister Harter Lee (also on Gravestone 149, Kells) died at Overton in 1856 aged 20, having suffered from his terrible skin condition for five years. Eldest son John Egremont Lee (also on Gravestone 149 Kells) was killed at Fort Tirowlee in Oudh (spelled Oude on the gravestone), North India, aged 27. 4 It is possible that the family owned multiple properties in New Galloway at one time, which included Glenlee Park and Glenlochar Lodge (pers. comm. Sue Taylor, 9th May 2022). 38 John was a Lieutenant in the 32nd Bengal Native Infantry during the Indian Mutiny (First War of Independence). The gravestone records 22nd March 1858 as his date of death but military dispatches report 21st March. By March 1858, most of the fighting had ceased and there is little information about the attack on this small fort. John was the only officer killed during the attack. His grave in India cannot be traced. Many cemeteries from the time of the mutiny have been demolished due to rapid expansion in the area and records were often destroyed after independence. John’s sister Jane married John Maitland of Kenmure, who was with the 46th Madras Regiment at the same time John served in India. The Madras regiments did not take part in the fighting. John had a distinguished career, notably as Colonel of the Galloway Rifles. Jane erected a memorial plaque to John Lee and John Maitland inside Kells Church with the Maitland arms on it (photo). Three of the Lees’ other children are commemorated on Gravestone 18 in Kells. Youngest son Edward Llewellen Lee (Gravestone 18) died at Havanna Harbour, New Hebrides (now Vanuatu) in 1871. From the 1860s, plantation owners in the Pacific needed labourers and began contracting ship owners in a slave trade called “blackbirding”. At its height, around the time Edward was there, more than half of the adult male population was kidnapped to be sold into work overseas. It is unknown if Edward was there as part of this lucrative trade. Tottenham Lee Junior (Gravestone 18) never married and died of a stroke, aged 50, in 1884 in New Galloway. He is described as ‘an Australian sheep farmer’ on the death record. Eldest daughter Louisa Egremont Lee (Gravetone 18) also did not marry. She died at Cairn Edward, where the family moved to after Overton, in 1887 aged 56. She had a brain haemorrhage and was paralysed for 8 months before her death. Having outlived five of his six children, and his wife, Tottenham Lee died in 1888, aged 95, at Cairn Edward. His cause of death was simply given as ‘old age’. The family’s two servants, Sophia Bateson (d. 1869) and her niece Sarah (d.1895), who moved from Wakefield to New Galloway with the Lees, outlived them too, and have a memorial stone in Kells (see Inscription 16). Second daughter, Jane Maitland, known as ‘Nin’, was the only surviving member of Lee/Egremonts. She and John Maitland (both Gravestone 17) had no children. Exactly 101 years after her grandmother Hannah Crawford’s heartfelt letter was found, pleading for her half-sister’s wronged family be recompensed, Jane did exactly that. When she died in 1928, she bequeathed her estate, worth 15,251 pounds, to Hannah’s eldest surviving great-grandson, Freddie Barker but with one condition that he was happy to accept – that he changed his name to Egremont-Lee and continue Tottenham and Louisa’s legacy. References: Ancestry, Scotlandspeople, British Newspaper Archive, Reports of Cases Decided In The High Courts of Chancery (1853), National Army Museum, Wikitree. 39 Inscription 154 – Hobbs & Maitland by Murray Johnston 40 41 42 Inscription 162 – McLachlan & Greggan by Tamara Fulcher Erected in memory of Michael McLACHLAN who died at Glenlee May 31st 1871 aged 65 years. Also Thomas his son who died in the Crimea June 10th 1855 aged 22 years. Also Samuel his son who died at Glenlee March 15th 1866 aged 24 years. Also Margaret GREGGAN his wife who died at New Galloway 13th Feb'y 1880 aged 84 years. Michael McLACHLAN’s DOB is given variously as 1806 or 1807 in Ireland. He married Margaret GRIGGAN (or Greggan) on 23rd November 1826, i.e. when he was 19 or 20 years old. In the 1851 census Michael is a 44 y-o agricultural labourer living at Old Glenlee. His wife and two sons, David (aged 11) and Samuel (aged 9), both scholars, were present when the census-taker came round. Ten years later Michael and his family have moved to Porters Lodge – still on the Glenlee Estate – and Michael’s occupation is given as ‘wood forester’. By this time Samuel is nineteen and working as an agricultural labourer. The family have taken in boarders, two plasterers from Ireland and Midlothian. By the next census in 1871 Michael is 64 years old and still working as a ‘woodforrester’. Interestingly the only other person at home for this census apart from Michael and Margaret was John McLACHLAN, their 11 y-o grandson, born 1860 in England. Margaret GREGGAN (or GRIGGAN’s) DOB varies across a ten-year span across the records. The headstone inscription indicates she was born before 1800 but the only census that agrees with this was the one taken in 1871, when she is described as 74 y-o, having been born in 1797 in Borgue, Kirkcudbrightshire. This date makes Margaret approximately ten years older than her husband, Michael McLachlan. In previous census records Margaret’s DOB/POB was recorded as 1805 in Dalry. To speculate: either the ten-year age gap had been reduced (for appearances’ sake?) on the first two occasions, or Margaret was affected by confusion in 1871 and gave the wrong date. Michael and Margaret’s son Thomas McLACHLAN was baptised 26 April 1833 at Kells. In the 1851 census he was living at High St, Kells as an apprentice shoemaker in the household of widower John CROSBIE (b.1795), a master shoemaker employing 4 men. John had one son (also a shoemaker) and five daughters – quite a crowded house. Thomas McLachlan is listed as an unmarried male aged 17 (his birth year given as 1834). Thomas signed up for 10 years’ service and in response to the question “For what bounty did you enlist?” he answered “Four pounds.” Thomas’s military service record states that he was born in New Galloway. He joined the Scots Guards, his attestation taking place at Castle Douglas, at 10am on 2 October 1854 when he was aged 21 yrs 6 months. He was unmarried and gave his trade as ‘Shoemaker’. Thomas signed up for 10 years’ service and in response to the question “For what bounty did you enlist?” he answered “Four pounds.” At his attestation Thomas was 5’ 8” and a quarter, and described as having a “fresh complexion”, grey eyes and dark brown hair. The record continues by saying that Thomas was “In the East from 13 April 1855” and “Present at the siege of Sebastopol.” He died in the Crimea of cholera on 10th June 1855, having served 251 days. 43 Thomas’s younger brother Samuel McLACHAN was baptised on 27th December 1841 at Kells. He died at Glenlee on 15th March 1866 aged 24 yrs. He followed Thomas into the army. There is good information on Samuel from his military record which confirms his year of birth as 1841. His attestation date was 28th January 1862, when he was aged 20. Samuel is described on that date as 5’11” (and 5/8”!) with a fresh complexion, blue eyes, and light hair. His trade is given as ‘gamekeeper’. Samuel was discharged as a Corporal in 1st Battalion Scots Fusilier Guards on 22nd December 1865 after 3 yrs, 329 days with no service abroad. This was in consequence of “his being unfit for further service.” His discharge was confirmed 9th January 1866, with the further explanation of “being unfit for further service from consumption, constitutional, excited by the service.” On his discharge forms Samuel is described as a “good and efficient non-commissioned officer zealous in performance of his duties, trustworthy and sober…he is in possession of one good conduct medal since 28th January 1865…has never been tried by court martial.” His military rank was Private from 28 th January 1862, and Corporal from 28th April 1864 The reason for his discharge was further explained as ‘Phthisis Pulmonalis’ aka pulmonary consumption (Phthisis pulmonalis frequently takes place in consequence of neglected pneumonia, influenza, and measles. It was described in 18th and 19th centuries as a wasting disease with destruction of the lungs). The copperplate handwriting in Samuel’s military notes is not easy to read but says approximately: “In April 1865 was attacked with H…. Since which period he has drawn no regular duty. He is now in an advanced stage of the …. (disease?), although there are no active symptoms. He has an excellent character and has a good …. He is quite …. to contribute towards his limitations. The disability is …., excited by the service”. 44 Inscription 176 – Murray by A. B. Hall This imposing family plot consists of four gravestones surrounded by a sandstone kerb once fitted with iron railings. This forms a memorial to 26 members of the Murray family – 17 men and 9 women. Many of these will have been buried elsewhere. They were descended from John Murray and his wife Isabella Aitchison who are commemorated on the stone sadly lying broken in the enclosure. He died 11 August 1812 aged 90 and she died 17 July 1807 aged 74 years. Their eldest son John was Provost of New Galloway and laird of Troquain in Balmaclellan parish. The house is described by John Gifford as “very plain and rather altered house of the earlier C. 19. In the garden, a sundial, its baluster shaft provided in 1855. The head, dated 1616 is cubical but with chamfered corners. Dials on the faces, carved human heads on the corners”. “It is said he was one of the best judges of horses, sheep and cattle in the province, and his decisions on such subjects were rarely appealed against. He was held in such estimation by his fellow-townsmen that when the handsome granite bridge of five arches over the Ken at New Galloway was opened [1822] he was chosen to cross it first of all, followed by Viscount Kenmure in his carriage.” He died 13 March 1830 aged 64. “It is said he was one of the best judges of horses, sheep and cattle in the province…He was held in such estimation by his fellow-townsmen that when the handsome granite bridge of five arches over the Ken at New Galloway was opened [1822] he was chosen to cross it first of all” John Murray’s first wife was Isabella Douglas who died aged 33 on 24 May 1799. Their eldest son Peter inherited Troquain. He died in Armagh 1 December 1849 aged 55. Their second son was John who died in Jamaica in 1817 aged 22. Adam their third son was born in 1799, the year his mother died. He died in October 1838 in the State of New York. John Murray’s second wife was Agnes Manson. She had six children and died 24 December 1821 aged 37. Isabella 1805 – 1892 Anne 1808 – 1893 George 1812 – 1881 Margaret 1815 – 1905 William died in infancy James 1820 – 1850. He died a Captain in the East India Company on the Indus, near Mooltan aged 29. -----------------------------George Murray son of John Murray and his second wife, Agnes Manson, was born in New Galloway on 4 June 1812. “George Murray’s birthplace is not now in existence, having been pulled down several years ago, after serving for a lengthened period as the post-office of the burgh. It stood near the southern termination of the main street of New Galloway, and was a respectable-looking self-contained house, consisting of a storey and a half, with dormer windows inserted in a long sloping roof, and had a garden flower plot and paling between it and the public road. When inhabited by the Murrays, it was the most imposing house in the place . . . when they left it for the large, two-storied residence called Meadowbank which they also owned.” He 45 was educated at Kells School and the University of Edinburgh. He was the Minister of Girthon parish in 1843 and acted clerk to the Presbytery of Kirkcudbright 1843-68. In 1851 he moved to Balmaclellan. Two years earlier he inherited Troquain from Peter Murray, the eldest son of John Murray and his first wife, Isabella Douglas. In 1843 George married Elizabeth Murray Hyslop, daughter of James Hyslop of Glenlee. She died at the Manse of Balmaclellan 25 March 1879 aged 57 years. They have a memorial inside the Church at Balmaclellan. Rev. George Murray Their children were: Margaret Hope born 17 Jan. 1845 married J. R. Hope MD. Dr. John born 12 Sept 1846. A surgeon on the ‘Vicksburg’, a Dominion Line steamer, which foundered on 1st June 1875 after hitting an iceberg while travelling from Quebec to Liverpool. Five men were picked up from a boat on 3rd. Two other boats containing about 40 people were successfully launched but were lost. The captain and between 40 and 50 others went down with the ship, including one man from Annan and another from Dumfries. Agnes Isabella born 25 April 1848. Married James Ewer Gillespie, Minister of Kirkgunzeon, She died at Halkyn, Dumfries on 15 July 1923. James of Troquain born 30 Nov. 1850. He worked for the Manchester and Salford Bank in Manchester and died 26 Dec. 1914 at Meadow Bank, New Galloway. Rev. George 1 Oct 1852. Minister of Balmaclellan 1915-20. Adam born 27 April 1854. A calico printer died at Southfield, Lennoxtown, 26 July 1925 aged 71. His wife was Edith Eleanor who died 28 Oct. 1947 aged 87. Both are commemorated on a Celtic cross in Balmaclellan churchyard. Eliza Jane born 24 June 1856 died 17 Jan 1940. Dr. Robert Alexander born 24 June 1858 died at Apsley, Stockport 4 Oct. 1931 aged 73. William Charles born 2 Dec. 1860 died at Shanghai, China 3 April 1911 aged 50. Ann Clementina born 25 Aug 1862 died 11 June 1932. Thomas Patrick born 1 Sept. 1865 died 22 Nov 1873 at Balmaclellan Manse aged 8 years. George Murray “was the model of a country clergyman; devotedly attached to his flock, and shared in all their joys and sorrows; passionately fond of rural sports . . . he was a zealous antiquary, an accomplished botanist, and an adept in agriculture.” He wrote the Balmaclellan entry for the New Statistical Account, 1845. He was buried in Kells in April 1881. ----------------------------George Murray 1852-1920 was the third son of the Rev. George Murray and Elizabeth Hyslop. He was born on 1 Oct. 1852 and was educated at Balmaclellan, Ewart High School, Newton-Stewart and Edinburgh University M.A. and B.D. He also went to Leipzig. From 1888 – 1915 he was Minister in the parish of Sauchie, near Stirling and “acted as clerk to the Presbytery of Stirling . . . He was also Senior Chaplain to the Argyll and 46 Sutherland Highlanders, and received the Territorial Decoration.” He was Minister for Balmaclellan from 1915 until his death on 20 April 1920. He married Elizabeth daughter of Edward Lumsden, minister of Midmar on 21 August 1895. Their children were: Enid Elizabeth born 18 June 1896 2nd Lieut. John born 16 Nov 1897 killed in action 16 Aug 1917. He was educated at Dollar Academy and Fettes College, where he was in the Cadet Corps. He was commissioned into the King’s Own Scottish Borderers and went to France in December 1916 and joined the 1st Battalion. On the night of 15th/16th August 1917 he was out marking ground prior to an attack when he was killed by a sniper. This was the battle of Langmarck “the most successful we ever had”. “2nd Lieut J. Murray (of the 5th Battalion) was the only officer killed, but 25 O.R. fell”. C.S.M. J. Skinner and C.Q.M.S. W. Grimaldeston were both awarded the V.C. Gravestone of George and Elizabeth Murray and their children in Balmaclellan He is commemorated on the Tyne Cot memorial in Belgium, a stained-glass window in Balmaclellan Church and on a stone cross on the west side of Loch Ken. Evelyn Hope born 18 March 1899. Married 26 Aug. 1924, Thomas Kennedy Johnston, Minister of Balmaclellan. George Murray inherited the Troquain estate from his brother James in 1914. The pall bearers at the funeral of James Murray were: Rev. George Murray (brother) Adam Murray (brother) Dr. Robert Murray (brother) Rev. J. E. Gillespie (brother-in-law) Dr. Hope M. Gillespie (nephew) Mr. Murray (nephew) Mr. G. R. Murray of Parton Hector Stewart (valet) Gravestone of John and Kate Murray at Balmaclellan He was buried in Balmaclellan churchyard alongside his wife Kate Hollins who died 16 March 1913. Both George Murrays would probably liked to have been described as men of letters as they wrote poetry, articles on curling and biblical stories. The verse below is taken from a song that refers to his fishing exploits at Lochinvar: Let Criffel boast of Kindar’s lake Hard by the Solway sea, Lone Lochinvar, ‘mid lofty hills, Is dearer far to me. When purple heath and brackens green Adorn thy mountain side, Then let me drift past Helen’s Isle And rock upon thy tide. 47 In Balmaclellan churchyard there is a gravestone for Rev. George Murray B.D. of Troquain. Born 1 Oct. 1852 Died 20 April 1920. Elizabeth Lumsden died Meadowbank 22 April 1945 aged 76. Their daughters Enid Elizabeth 1896-1995 and Evelyn Hope 1899-1987 and only son John 1897-1917 killed in action. In New Galloway Meadowbank is described “At the s. end of the High Street, the white-harled Meadowbank of c.1800 on the E, its stone portico a Victorian addition. It is set well back, the approach guarded by a pair of early C19 bowended cottages”. ------------------------------Adam Murray 1767-1818 was the second son of Provost John Murray and Isabella Aitchison. He was apprenticed to Cannon and Smith aged 13 at Chowbent, Leigh, Lancashire, making cotton spinning machinery until 1787. After three years as a machinery maker in Chowbent he moved to Manchester where he erected an eight-storey mill. In 1798 he was joined by his brother George 1772-1855 and between 1801 and 1804 the partners built another eight-storey building followed by two four-storey blocks. The machinery was driven by steam. The area at Murray Street was the largest in the world, which in 1815 employed 1,215 hands. Adam never married and lived in Newton Street until he built Rosehill, Manchester. He also owned Clugston in Wigtonshire. He died on 26 June 1818 and was buried in the churchyard of St. Mary’s, Manchester. The sarcophagus gravestone is no more but the recycled inscription survives including a coat of arms. Adam left a legacy but not a dynasty. His name is not on the family memorial in New Galloway churchyard. James Murray was the third son of John and Isabella Murray. He was a cotton spinner and was married to Miss E. Stewart. He operated independently from A. and G. Murray in a mill on their premises. He died on 29 July 1821 aged 51. The area at Murray Street was the largest in the world, which in 1815 employed 1,215 hands. Their only sister Margaret, c.1766-c.1830, married 1796 Archibald Carruthers, 1766-1840, who had a substantial business in Manchester by 1815. They bought Craig estate, Balmaclellan c.1820. -------------------------------------George Murray 1772-1855 was the fourth son of John Murray and Isabella Aitchison. He went south and served an apprenticeship with Messrs Cannan and Smith as a textile machine maker. In 1798 he joined his older brother Adam in the partnership A. and G. Murray. Adam already had three working premises. They now embarked on another eight-storey mill with machinery driven by steam. This was followed by more buildings in a rectangle in the centre of which was a canal basin linked by a tunnel to the Rochdale canal. Ancoats Hall, Image © Manchester Archives Plus 48 George married Jane Cannan of Leigh 11 Sept. 1802 and they were to have 14 children. By 1813 they had bought Ancoats Hall which they demolished and built a new house on the site. As Adam died in 1818 George continued to run a successful enterprise until 1850 when he sought help from Sir W.H.H. Houldsworth. The business prospered again and was taken over by two of George’s sons: James who died in London 1889 and Benjamin Rigby who bought the Parton estate and died in July 1921. Three of their brothers represented the Company abroad. John who died in 1851 in Colombo, Ceylon; William Cannon died in 1856 in Charleston, South Carolina and Adam on returning from India died in London in 1844. George Murray died in 1855 aged 83 and his wife died in 1878. MURRAY Three suggestions about the origin of the Murray family in New Galloway have been published. 1. John Murray the game-keeper who died in 1777 is supposed to have come with his family from the Moffat area because of his Jacobite sympathies and sought shelter with Gordon of Kenmure (W. Kennedy p 95). He was appointed game-keeper and made a name for himself by luring the 72lbs pike to his rod and delivering to the castle. Buried in Kells no. 313. His son John 1725 – 1812 worked on the farm becoming foreman. He then became a shopkeeper in New Galloway and became a Baillie of the Burgh. He married Isobell Aitchison and their son John 1766 – 1830 was also a shopkeeper and became Provost. (Lands and their Owners pp 69-74). He was also able to buy Troquain estate in Balmaclellan parish in 1819 from James McConnel. 2. The Murrays in Annandale were a cadet branch of the Murrays of Philiphaugh near Selkirk. They were a family of well-respected lawyers. When Adam Murray died in 1818 and was buried at St. Mary’s Manchester it was perhaps the Philiphaugh Murray coat of arms which was utilized on his tomb. 3. The Murrays had a farm in Annandale belonging to the Murrays who as earls of Annandale had (East Galloway Sketches pp 327 -332) property in Drifesdale. All these suggestions could be correct. References The Buildings of Scotland Dumfries and Galloway, John Gifford, 1996 William McCandlish, Kells Graveyard p 467 Meadowbank, New Galloway p 469 Balmaclellan, Troquain p 115 ‘To Grasp an Opportunity’ W. Kennedy, 2016 Ancoats Hall Manchester Wikipedia East Galloway Sketches Alexander Trotter M.D., 1901 Rev. George Murray F.S.A. pp 327 – 332 Balmaclellan Parish M.I. D. and G.F.H.S. Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae Synod of Dumfries and Galloway, 1917 Presbytery of Kirkcudbright, 1950 Glenkens Gazette Issue 96 Oct/Nov The Glenkens Cotton Kings by Ted Cowan, 2016 Lands and their Owners P.H. McKerlie, 1877, Vol.3 pp 69-74 The K.O.S.B. in the Great War Captain Stair Gillow, 1930 49 Inscription 184 – Reilly by Michelle MacIver Charles Henry Reilly, Captain Royal Artillery, Eldest son of Colonel…Reilly, Engineers, who Died at New Galloway August 1876 aged 35 years Charles Henry Reilly, possibly born 30th January 1841, Father Lt Colonel B G Reilly. Enlisted in 1855 (14 years old) and commissioned in Bengal. The admissions record contains errors. The discharge date is incorrect, and his father’s initials are different. There is no information about Charles Reilly in the census records and initial searches suggest that he may have been born in Delhi, probably due to his father already serving as an officer. 50 Inscription 201 – Herese & Corson By Tamara Fulcher RC MB 1707 – Here lyes the corps of Agnes HERESE spous to Robert CORSON, also Mary, Agnes & Marion, Margrat, at one birth. Rob’t, Andrew, James, at one birth. John, Allxr CORSONs, children to Rot. CORSON, BBURCES in, New Toun of Galloway & Agnes McBURNY his spous. This is a unique headstone in Kells Churchyard with Adam, Eve and the Tree of Life sculpted in deep relief on the reverse. However because it is such an early date, information about the family buried here is hard to track down. There are no birth, marriage or death records for Agnes HERESE. The spelling of that surname within the inscription may not be correct, although it is known elsewhere in Scotland during the 17 th and 18th centuries: Jonet HERESE married James BAXTER 13 Feb 1631 at Monifieth, Angus; Jannet HERESE married George RUNCIMAN 25 Feb 1709 at Cargil, Perthshire; and Christian HERESE married David THOMSON 14 June 1730 at Dron, Perthshire. This surname is also recorded within the same timeframe in Yorkshire and Middlesex. The phrasing of the inscription implies Agnes Herese had two sets of multiple births with deaths in infancy: four daughters ‘at one birth’ then three sons, also ‘at one birth’. The phrasing of the inscription implies Agnes Herese had two sets of multiple births with deaths in infancy: four daughters ‘at one birth’ then three sons, also ‘at one birth’. Agnes predeceased her husband, Robert CORSON. Robert Corson, Burgess in New (Town of) Galloway, married twice, and his second wife was also called Agnes. Robert and Agnes McBurny lost two sons, John and Alexander. McBURNY is fairly well recorded as a surname in Dumfries & Galloway with several named Agnes, although none of their dates clearly correspond to this headstone. Two Agnes McBurnys were baptised in Girthon, Kirkcudbrightshire in 1706 and 1731; at only 21 miles from New Galloway it is not inconceivable that Agnes McBurny who resided in New Galloway was born into the same family. CORSON is even more well known as a surname in southwest Scotland. There are several branches of the Corson family recorded at Crawford and Leadhills in Lanarkshire through baptisms, marriages and burials. Within D&G Corsons are recorded at Dalry, Balmaghie, Dumfries, Glencairn, Colvend, Caerlaverock, New Abbey and Thornhill during the 17th and 18th centuries. 51 Inscriptions 209 & 210 – Kennedy by Jennifer Roberts John Kennedy was born around 1668, possibly in New Galloway, and died on the 7th December 1732 at the age of sixty-four, possibly in Ayrshire. Very little is known about him. It is possible that his parents were Hugh, and Jean, a daughter of Major Thomas Kennedy of Baltersan, and that he married Marion Campbell a daughter of the Provost of Ayr. The National Archives has a record of a case mounted by Sir John Kennedy of Culzeane against a Hugh Arbuthnot to verify the title of the land of Balterson conveyed by Hugh Kennedy of Ardmillan and Balterson to his son John Kennedy in February 1701. In 1709, a John Kennedy, son of Major Thomas Kennedy of Baltersan, had sasine of the lands of Baltersan (Roberts 2022). As the Ardmillane Arms are on John’s tombstone it is possible that this is the same John Kennedy as David Kennedy’s father. David Kennedy was born around 1695 in Ayrshire. David married Elizabeth Chapman. They had several children Inscription 209 who died at a young age and are mentioned on the tombstone. Marrion died on the 25th of June 1732 aged five, Agnes on the 4th March 1735 aged three and Elisabeth on the 15th September 1735 aged six. David Kennedy bought Knocknaling from his cousin William Kennedy in 1740. He died on the 15th April 1768 at the age of seventy-three. David Kennedy is described as a Merchant in New Galloway. It is probable that David and Elizabeth were the parents of the famous Manchester manufacturer John Kennedy, who according to Pigot’s Directory was going to open a woollen factory in New Galloway. This extract from Samuel Smilies Industrial Biography certainly suggests this, although he downplays their origins: John Kennedy's parents were respectable peasants, possessed of a little bit of ground at Knocknalling (in the parish of Kells), in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, on which they contrived to live, and that was all. John was one of a family of five sons and two daughters, and the father dying early, the responsibility and the toil of bringing up these children devolved upon the mother. She was a strict disciplinarian, and early impressed upon the minds of her boys that they had their own way to make in the world. One of the first things she made them think "if you have gotten mechanical about was, the learning of some useful trade for the skill and intelligence, and are purpose of securing an independent living; "for," said she, "if you have gotten mechanical skill and honest and trustworthy, you will intelligence, and are honest and trustworthy, you will always find employment and be always find employment and be ready to avail ready to avail yourselves of yourselves of opportunities for advancing yourselves in life." opportunities for advancing yourselves in life." Elizabeth Chapman died on the 16th December 1782 at the age of ninety-one. 52 References Livingstone, Alistair, The Glenkens, Cattle, Cotton and Capitalism Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society Vol. 90 pp67-78 Pigot and Co. New Commerical Directory 1825-6, London, 1825, page 485 Roberts, J. 2022 John Kennedy [online] available at John Kennedy (bef.1681-1732) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree Smiles, Samuel Industrial Biography: Iron workers and Tool-makers John Murray 1864 53 Inscription 257 – Jardine by Jackie Carson From the grave inscription: Margaret Jardine spouse to Samuel McChesnie (late bailie of New Galloway) Died July 15 1702 Samuel McChesnie died 1st March 1723 Margaret McChesnie - child William McChesnie - child Mention of 2nd Spouse Susanna Roe National Library of Scotland: Margaret Jardine Only mention is grave inscription as above Two entries with one having date of death as July 15 and the other July 16th Spelling differences Margaret/ Margaret and lies/lys Margaret McChesnie Only mention is grave inscription as above Samuel McChesnie Only mention is grave inscription as above William McChesnie Only mention is grave inscription as above Scotland’s People: Nothing 54 Inscription 264 – Ewart by Murray Johnston 55 56 Inscription 271 – McKay by Jennifer Roberts James McKay was born in either 1774 or 1775 in the Parish of Kells and died on the 2nd October at Naugahway in 1845 at the age of seventy one. He was the school master at Balmaclellan for fifty years. He married Mary Barber of Dumfries on the 28th March 1820 at Kells. They had two boys, William who died aged ten months on 30th October 1821 and Robert who was born in 1823 and died aged seventy seven in 1900. In the First Statistical Account of 1792, the Rev Thompson wrote: ‘In addition to the legal school salary of this parish amounting to about 11l Sterling or thereby, there was a few years ago a donation made of 500l by a native of this place, a Mr Murdoch late merchant of Glasgow. This fund is secured on land, which, at present, is said to yield more than 5 per cent; so that the school salary of this parish now amounts to nearly 36l. This, however, is the whole income of the master, the terms of the donation not permitting him to receive wages.’ In the Second Statistical Account of 1845 the Rev George Murray wrote of the education in Balmaclellan: ‘The parish is remarkably well supplied with schools. Three are Inscription 271 parochial, and a fourth is undertaken at the teacher’s own adventure. In the principal school, no fees are exacted. This arrangement was made in consequence of a bequest to that effect of L.500. This sum was laid out in the purchase of a small landed property, which now yields about L.70 per annum. The teacher has also the yearly allowance of one chalder,5 or L.17, 2s 2d., as well as a house and garden. The whole number of scholars in the parish at the last Presbyterial examination amounted to 218.’ James McKay is the only school master mentioned in Pigot and Co.’s Directory of 1825-6. In the 1841 census the family were recorded at living in the High Street of New Galloway. At the time of the census James at sixty-six and was still working as a school master. His son Robert is not recorded as having an occupation, despite being 18 at the time. James McKay died intestate. The inventory of his Personal Estate records him as being the school master at Balmaclellan and residing in New Galloway. He appears to have been quite a wealthy man. He had several bank accounts, one at the British Linen Company at their Castle Douglas Branch was worth £945; he also had £320 in another account at the bank and his wife Mary had an account with £400 in it. Mary’s money was regarded as part of her husband’s estate. Another account in the new Galloway branch of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Bank had £170 in it. He was owed salary from Whit-Sunday to Martinmass 1845 by the heritors of Balmaclellan Parish, that included the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Kenmure £6.3s.3d, James Murdoch of Drumwhirn 17/6 and James Barbour of Barlae £1.5s.9d. A chalder was: 1) a measure of grain equalling sixteen bolls, frequently as part of a ministers stipend; the stipend itself; 2) a variable quantity of salt, lime or coal. A boll was a dry measure of weight or capacity according to the commodity and locality, but frequently equivalent to six imperial bushels. 5 57 James McKay’s effects were valued at £2188.12s. [equivalent of £283,469.41 in 2022 values] James and Mary were also renting out the school house in Balmaclellan to several men. James Caver who owed 1/-, James [.]ouimer owed 3/-, Robert Fingland 12/- and the Kirk Session of Balmaclellan 1/-. At his death James was also owed six months rent from Kirkstyle Farm in Kirkpatrick Durham amounting to £37. James had stock, crop and implements of husbandry worth £107.13s.8d, whilst his furniture, body clothes and other effects were valued at £64.13s.6d. He also had £40 cash in the house. Several people owed him money, which the Kirkcudbright Sheriff Court thought unlikely to be paid. David McMillan in Viewfield owed £132, George Anderson formally of Little Craig owed £250, rent arrears by James Wilson for Kirkstyle Farm amounted to £386. An unsecured debt for expenditure on the Balmaclellan school house was £50. In all, including interest, James McKay’s effects were valued at £2188.12s. [equivalent of £283,469.41 in 2022 values] (Roberts 2022). His nearest kin, his son Robert (not his wife Mary), signed the document detailing his estate on 12th April 1846. Mary lived another six years, dying on 31st January 1851, at the age of sixty-four according to her memorial or sixty-six in the Parish Records. Robert remained single throughout his life. He continued living in the High Street of New Galloway, sometimes with an assistant to help in the shop. He is recorded in the 1851 Census as being a draper, grocer and distributor of stamps as well as being a farmer of sixty acres. In the 1861 and 1871 Census, he is recorded as being a grocer employing an assistant, and a farmer employing two men. By 1881 he is recorded as a general merchant. For many years he employed Elizabeth McGill as his housekeeper. Robert McKay died of a cerebral haemorrhage on the 4th December 1900 at twenty past two in the afternoon at the age of seventy seven. References: Census: 1841 Census 868/ 7/ 3 Page 3 of 21 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891 (ref not given on Find My Past) Concise Scots Dictionary, 2nd Edition E.U.P 2017 Pigot and Co. New Commercial Directory 1825-6, London, 1825, page 465 Roberts, J. 2022 ‘Value of 1845 British pounds today/UK Inflation Calculator [online] available at https://www.in2013dollars.com/uk/inflation/1845 [accessed 4 April 2022] Scotland’s Parish Marriages and Banns 1561-1893 Statistical Account of Scotland OSA Vol. IV 1792 page 231 NSA Vol. IV 1845 page 107 Statutory Register of Death – 868/20 page 7; 868/2 page 4 Wills and Testaments Record SC16/41/14 Kirkcudbright Sheriff Court, Image 421 page 420 58 Inscription 288 – McCandlish by Thais Poyo-Gonzalez McCANDLISH, WILLIAM, of Dalry, Kirkcudbrightshire, designed GLENCAIRN CHURCH, DUMFRIESSHIRE, 1836, in an elementary Gothic style enlivened by a dramatically arched north transept [S.R.O., HR 116/1]. Basic Biographical Details Name: William McCandlish Designation: Architect Born: 1779 Died: 12 December 1855 Bio Notes: William McCandlish was a native of Kirkcudbrightshire. He had a large business as a builder and joiner in New Galloway, Kells Parish as by 1851 he was employing 28 men. Colvin notes that his rather elementary Gothic church at Dalry and Glencairn is enlivened by a dramatic arch at the end wall of the transept. His wife was Janet Thomson who died in New Galloway in 1846 after a long illness. They had a number of children including James McCandlish who became an architect-builder in Kirkcudbright. His death on 12 December 1855 aged 76 is recorded on a tombstone in Kells Churchyard. Private and Business Addresses The following private or business addresses are associated with this architect: Address Type New Galloway, Kirkcudbrightshire, Scotland Private/business Greenhead, High Street, Kells, Kirkcudbrightshire, Private Scotland Date from Date to Before 1841 Notes After 1851 Buildings and Designs This architect was involved with the following buildings or structures from the date specified (click on an item to view details): Date started Building name Town, district Island City or county or village 1822 Kells Parish Church New Galloway Country Notes Kirkcudbrightshire Scotland Inscription attributes this to McCandlish. 59 1830 Dalry Parish Church St John's Town of Dalry Kirkcudbrightshire Scotland 1833 Balmaclellan Church Balmaclellan Kirkcudbrightshire Scotland Alterations 1836 Glencairn Parish Church Kirkland Dumfriesshire 1841 Kenmure Castle New Galloway Kirkcudbrightshire Scotland Alterations 1846 Ballochmyle Railway Viaduct Mauchline Ayrshire Scotland Scotland References: Bibliographic References The following books contain references to this architect: Author(s) Date Title Part Publisher Colvin, H M 1995 A Biographical Dictionary of British 3rd Architects 1600-1840 edition New Haven and London: Yale University Press Colvin, Howard London: YUP. 4th edition 2008 A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600-1840 Periodical References The following periodicals contain references to this architect: Periodical Name Date Edition Publisher Notes Dumfries and Galloway Standard 18 November 1846 Archive References The following archives hold material relating to this architect: Source Archive Name Source Catalogue No. Notes Census records online Censuses 60 Notes Inscription 292 – Kennedy by Sharon Course In memory of Anna KENNEDY daughter to William KENNEDY late of Knocknalling, 1771. Here youthful bloom fair as the Morning Rose. Sleeps in the silent dust in soft repose. Great was her soul, Integrity of Life. Adorn’d the Maid and Dignified the Wife. ********* And now beyond where Stars and planets shine, She dwells in light and Love and joys divine. Suns may decay stars may lose their Light, ******** And falling Worlds sink in Eternal Night. Whilst thro Eternity She wafts her way, And basks in Beams of Everlasting Day. From the limited records available, Anna appears to be the granddaughter of William Kennedy (Snr) (DOB c1700) and his wife Margaret Blair. William inherited the farm of Knocknalling, which had been in the Kennedy family for many generations. But he also inherited large debts from his late father, which had to be paid, and he had to give his only sister Elizabeth 2000 merks as a dowry. In 1740, he sold Knocknalling to his cousin, David Kennedy, plus another family property, Knockreoch. He retained ownership of a third inherited property, Mardrochwood near Carsphairn, and was living there in 1747. William had two sons also called William. The first was born in 1730 but died in 1731. The second son was born in 1732 and was also called William, to ensure his father’s forename lived on. It is this William who was the father of Anna and had this poetic memorial created. It is difficult to know how old Anna was, as there is no record of her birth, only the date of her death. The poem, in the Romantic style, talks of her youth and how ‘Great was her soul, Integrity of Life. Adorn’d the Maid and Dignified the Wife’. This suggests she was married when she died and may have records under her married name. However, I cannot find any Anna Kennedy/similar within the timeframe. The poem seems to be an original for the headstone as it does not appear on any searches. There is a record that suggests William was also buried in Kells in 1771 but confirmation can’t be found. It is possible that 1771 refers to his death and the stone to Anna was put up later. 61 Inscription 293 – Gordon by Keith Hamblin Inscription 293 * John, along with his brother-in-law, William Gordon of Roberton, were both at Rullion Green, near Pentland, on 28th November 1666. 50 Covenanters were killed by Royalist troops (among them William). 150 Covenanters were taken prisoner. John made his escape, severely wounded. His loss of blood and his lying in the fields for some nights after the battle, so brought him down that after he got home to Largmore, he died soon afterwards, on 6th January 1667. John Gordon of Largmore was apparently buried beside his grandfather who had died 5 years earlier. ** Roger fought at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge on 22nd June 1679 and had many narrow escapes from dragoons subsequently. Roger became Laird of Largmore of the death of John (his father or uncle). *** John Gordon in Nov 1690 had sasine of Largmore. He was succeeded by John Gordon on 16th August 1695. 62 Inscription 293 - The stone shows the Gordon motto "Dread God" along with three boar heads “Pont, on his map, spells the name of thus farm Largmoir, thereby confirming it being from the Gaelic lairic or lairig, a moor, a hill and mor, big or large.” Largmore, in the Garroch Glen - Home of John Gordon (and son Roger Gordon) who only just survived the Pentland Uprising Image - DAC, “Largmore, in the Garroch Glen,” Carsphairn Archive, accessed August 19, 2022, https://www.carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/items/show/3224 63 64 Inscription 308 – Millman by Jennifer Roberts Alfred McKinley Millman, born in 1849 in New Galloway, was the young son of Alfred McKinley Millman MRCSB, M.D. and Provost of New Galloway. Alfred died on the 14 th December 1855 at twelve thirty in the afternoon at Kenview in New Galloway. He had been ill for nine days with acute otitis, an infection of the middle ear which now-a-days can be treated with antibiotics. He was tended by his father, who also signed the death certificate. Mary Anne or Marianne Millman was just seven months old in the 1851 census. She lived at Rose View Cottage in New Galloway with her parents Alfred and Jane Metcalfe, her Grandmother Jane Metcalfe and elder brothers William (see below) and Alfred (see above) and sisters Mary and Emma. Their mother Jane must have been busy with five young children as the eldest Mary was only seven years old. By the time of the next census in 1861 the family had moved to Ken View, in New Galloway High Street. Jane had had another four children by then, Charlotte, Frederic Richard, Sophia and the youngest Georgina who was one. William is not mentioned as living at home. Marianne Kenmure Millman married Robert Seaton Muir a teacher at Ken View on the 27th December 1871. Marianne was twenty-one, Robert ten years her senior. She died less than a year later on the evening of the 15th November 1872 at Sinclair Terrace, Pulteneytown, Wick. Marianne died of peritonitis, a serious infection which can be treated today with antibiotics. It is possible that Marianne had a child before she died, as on the 1881 census a Fanny M. Muir aged eight was staying at Kenview with her grandparents, however the census does record that she was born in 1873. William Hockin McKinley was born on the 25th October 1842 at Arthurstown, Co. Wexford, Ireland. At some stage he emigrated to Canada West landing first at Halifax, Nova Scotia. He married Sarah Elizabeth and they had four sons, Hartley, Turville, Ontario and William. The inscription on William’s memorial at the Woodland Cemetery, London, Middlesex County, Ontario says ‘William was a travelling agent. William's head was struck by falling timbers after he had secured Ontario (8) and Turville (6) in his arms. They were brought ashore still in their father's arms.’ William was thirty-eight years old. For an account of the steamboat incident in which they died see below. Alfred McKinley Millman, the father of Alfred Junior, Mary Anne (or Marianne) and William was born on the 2nd April 1819 at Stone House, Plymouth, Devon, where his father was a clerk in the Royal Naval Hospital. His mother was called Mary. He became a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, England in 1841. He worked in Coombe Hospital in Dublin the same year and later worked at City of Dublin and Mercers Hospitals, where he became a member of the Irish Royal College of Surgeons. Whilst working in Ireland he married Jane Elizabeth Metcalfe in 1842, by marriage licence. he became the Provost of New Galloway, the Parochial Medical Officer of Balmaclellan, Dalry and Kells...worked on public vaccinations, was an Honorary Assistant Surgeon for the 3rd Kirkcudbrightshire Rifle Volunteers, and...worked for the Hope Assurance Society in a medical capacity He became an M.D. in 1860 at Aberdeen University. Later he became the Provost of New Galloway, the Parochial Medical Officer of Balmaclellan, Dalry and Kells. He worked on public vaccinations, was an Honorary Assistant Surgeon for the 3rd Kirkcudbrightshire Rifle Volunteers, and as well as all these duties he worked for the Hope Assurance Society in a medical capacity. Alfred died on the morning of the 19th July 1881 at Kenview of apoplexy and paralysis, the old term for a stroke. He had suffered for some hours before his death. The obituary column in the local paper mentioned 65 his death and the date and time of his funeral at Kells Churchyard. After his death Alfred left his estate to his widow Jane. The value of his estate was £817.8s.9d. After her husband's death, Jane Metcalfe went to live with her widowed daughter Emma Hawthornthwaite and grand-daughter Ada, at Seaforth in Lancashire. Emma let apartments. Jane died in early summer 1905 at the age of eighty-six. References: Census: 1841, 1851,1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901 Ancestry: www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections [accessed April 2022] https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/146912758/william-hockin_mckinley-millman [accessed April 2022] Births, marriages and Deaths, Parish Records, Plymouth and West Devon Record Office 167/8 Civil Registration Death Index 1905, April May and June, West Derby Lancashire. Dublin Ireland Probate Record and Marriage Licence Index pages 367 & 738 Galloway News and Kirkcudbrightshire Advertiser Friday 22nd July 1881 www.medicinenet.com/apoplexy/definition.htm [accessed April 2022] NHS Inform Scotland national Probate Index 1881 page 383 Statutory Registers Births Statutory Registers Marriages 868/6 Statutory Registers Deaths 868/1, 043/222, 868/15, 868/15 The Medical Directory for Scotland 1875 page 683 66 Inscription 308 – The Sinking of the Steamer Victoria on the River Thames, London, Canada West 1881 by Jennifer Roberts This account is taken from reports in the British Press at the time of the incident. On Monday three boats of the River Thames Navigation Company took excursionists down the River Thames to celebrate Queen Victoria’s birthday. The four-mile voyage took the holiday makers from London to the Woodland Cemetery, then to Park Wards Dock and then on to Springbank. The company even lowered their fares to help with the celebrations. On Tuesday the steamer took an even larger number of passengers down to the groves at Springbank. The woods were crowded with people enjoying the holiday. A photograph of an artist’s impression of the steamship Victoria. It is possibly two photos superimposed upon each other. © Ivey Family London Room, London Public Library, London, Ontario, Canada At six o’clock on Tuesday May 24th, the three steamers began to take the excursionists home. The steamer Victoria was the oldest of the three boats, but that spring had undergone a refurbishment and the machinery had been repaired. It had passed its trial trip on the Monday. When the Victoria left Springbank she had around four hundred people on board. At Wards Dock, the next stop, the steamer became overcrowded and according to reports somewhat shaky. On the open deck some of the band of the 7 th Fusiliers were playing music to entertain the passengers, at an attempt to clear a space for dancing the crowd were pushed forward to the bow part of the steamer. At the next stop, at the landing place of the woodland park, another two hundred people pushed on. An eyewitness Mr Duffield said, ‘I saw that the upper deck was too full, but had the idea that the lower was in the same condition. No one could move’ As the Victoria left the landing place she had to swing out to avoid the railway bridge, about one mile from London, she heeled over, and according to Mr Duffield, as the lower deck sunk below water level, people on that side got their feet wet, so there was a rush to the other side of the steamer, Captain Rankin described how there was also a rush to climb onto the upper deck. The steamer lurched and sunk in twelve feet of water. Mr Duffield then went on to describe how the movement of people caused the boiler to shift and go through the side, cutting through the timber supports of the upper deck. This action caused the upper deck to collapse crushing the passengers underneath it wedging them in the water. Mr Duffield said, ‘I heard a great screech, a hissing sound then silence.’ 67 The steamer broke up so quickly that passengers were unable to use the life jackets and life boats. There were several small boats and skiffs in the area and they rushed to the Victoria to help rescue people. The current was swift and many people were swept away before they could be rescued. Many people drowned in family groups. Some lucky passengers were able to grab some of the wreckage. The foggy weather did not help the rescue attempts, which were somewhat chaotic. The city emptied as people rushed to the river banks and bridges in an attempt to help. Fires and petroleum barrels were lit to light the scene as darkness fell. That evening one hundred and seventy people bodies were brought ashore, another hundred were missing presumed drowned. An eye witness described the heart breaking scenes and the wails of anguish as bodies were brought ashore. Over one thousand local families were represented in the casualty list and many ‘prominent citizens’ had perished. Captain Rankin, an old Mississippi River Navigator, blamed the accident onto the behaviour of the passengers. He said at the that the passengers had rushed on, jumping in and climbing over the sides. He ordered them off, but the crowd did not leave. He said that he would not go until the extra passengers left, but still they did not leave. Later on during the trip he said that the passengers were making a lot of noise, singing and moving around, this caused him to notice a different action on the wheel, so he sent a boy to check with the engineer. The engineer said that unless the boat could be straightened she was in danger. Captain Rankin said that a couple of racing row boats came alongside and the crowds rushed to the other side to see them. The engineer sent up a message to the captain to ask the people to move as water was coming in, at that moment the water was half an arms depth. The vessel then lurched and the port bow went down, the boiler shifted and went through the side. The Captain went on to say that there were four hundred and fifty people on board, which rather contradicts his earlier statement. He said all the pumps were working. Mr George Parish the manager of the company said the accident was caused by overcrowding. By Wednesday evening two hundred and thirty eight bodies had been recovered, but it was believed that there were many others beneath the wreck of the Victoria. The Stroud Journal reported that the ‘whole town was in morning’, Image courtesy of Toronto Public Library while the Northampton Chronicle and Echo (NC&E) reported that the steamboat disaster had cast ‘a gloom over all persons in the Dominion resident in England [sic].’ The day after the accident the Common Council for London voted $2000 for a relief fund. The English Lakes Visitor reported that the whole city of London was in mourning, ‘nothing was done except funerals… clergymen and undertakers are worn out…coffins are being imported…some are unburied...burials continued until midnight.’ On the following Saturday the inquest on the bodies of the people who drowned was opened. Mr Bell engineer of the Princess Louise (one of the other company boats) gave evidence that was condemnatory of the Victoria. Samuel Beters an architect had examined the wreck and found the accident was caused by leakage and insufficient stanchions. George Parrish said that he had spent a lot of money fiting the Victoria out and although it emerged she had been sailing without a certificate, he maintained that ‘he could not charge himself with neglect or carelessness in any way.’ The jury found a number of reasons for the cause of the accident: 68 • • • • • • • the capsizing was caused by water in the hold, possibly from a snag in the river the boiler was not securely fastened, the stanchions were too slender and not properly braced the engineer was guilty of negligence in letting the boat sail with water in the hold the captain was guilty in accepting the dual role of position of captain and wheelman, so could not give sufficient attention to the management of the boat there was no proper examination of the boat she did not carry sufficient hands (a captain, engineer, fireman, two deck hands and a purser) she had no certificate At the close of the inquest Rankin and Parrish were arrested in the lobby of City Hall on a charge of manslaughter. They were committed for trial. Rankin and Parish were later released, each paying $3,000 bail. The case came before the Middlesex Grand Jury during the autumn assizes in September 1881. When the grand jury handed down its verdict on the twenty-second of September it had refused to indict either man. Rankin and Parish were freed. Amongst the dead were William Hocken McKinley Millman aged thirty-six and his two eldest sons Ontario and Turville. William was the son of Alfred McKinley MRCSB of New Galloway and his wife Jane Metcalfe. N.B. The name Parrish is spelt variously in the articles. References: National Newspaper Archive [online] [accessed April 2022] Aberdeen Evening express Tuesday 28th June 1881 Diss Express Friday 3rd June 1881 Dundee Courier friday 22nd July 1881 English Lakes Visitor Saturday 4th June 1881 Northampton Chronicle and Echo Monday 30th May 1881 Stroud Journal Saturday 28th May 1881 Victoria (Steamboat), capsized, 24 May 1881: Maritime History of the Great Lakes [accessed 10th August 2022] Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer Saturday 28th May 1881 Images [online] [accessed 16th April 2022]: 1st image An artistic depiction of the "Last Trip of the Victoria", Springbank Park, London, Ontario: Ivey Family London Room Digital Collections (ourontario.ca) 2nd image Wreck of the Steamer ''Victoria'' – All Items – Digital Archive : Toronto Public Library (tpl.ca) 69 Inscription 314 – Murray by Sue Taylor 70 71 72 73 Inscription 354 – Maitland Gordon by Laura Anderson James Charles Maitland Gordon of Kenmure, born Jan 24 1850, died Nov 12 1915 James Charles Maitland Gordon was baptised on the 14th of February in 1850, his mother was noted as Louisa Bellamy and his father as James Maitland. Their residence was noted as Carpshairn. In the 1861 census, James C Maitland was 11 years old and resided away from his parents with a Mary J Compton and Helen L Compton who were teachers residing at Talbot Place in St Cuthberts, Newington. His parents were married on the 7th of September 1837 in the parish of Kells. The 1881 census shows James C Maitland aged 31 living with his grandmother, Louise Gordon Bellamy Munro. His mother is noted as a landed proprietress and as a widow. Also in the house is Harriet F Copland, the daughter of Louisa who was 61, also a widow and who was born at sea. James was joined by two of his siblings: his elder brother John G Maitland who was married, aged 42 and was a Colonel of Volunteers, and his elder sister Louisa Maitland who was 33. Also noted in the household as a visitor was Dora Williamson, James C Maitland’s future wife. James C Maitland and Dora Wordsworth Williamson were married in 1892 within Wandsworth, London. James identified himself as a landed proprietor who was living at Kenmure Castle. After his wife passed in 1903, James may have married again to either a Florence Broomfield or Dorothy Trenna Curwen in Marylebone London in 1905. James identified himself as a landed proprietor who was living at Kenmure Castle. James Charles Maitland Gordon passed aged 65 in Richmond, Surrey. Also at Kells graveyard is the Gravestone of James’s elder brother, erected by his wife Jane G. Maitland. The gravestone notes that John and therefore James was the “son of Louisa Maitland Gordon of Kenmure by her marriage with the Rev. James Maitland. Minister of Kells”. 74 Inscription 355 – Maitland by Sandra Williamson NORVEL FALCONER MAITLAND Born 8th September 1851 Baptised 2nd October 1851 at Kells Died 13th December 1916 aged 65. Norvel’s father was Rev. James Mailtand of Kells Parish Church. His mother was Louisa Bellamy Maitland born in the East Indies (British subject) Norvel was a brother to 7 siblings: John, Louisa, Frances, Eleanor, Jane, James and Louis. Norvel married Manuela Louisa Gadino (daughter of the Captain of the Peruvian Navy) in the town of Iquique in Northern Chile in 1886. Norvel married Manuela Louisa Gadino (daughter of the Captain of the Peruvian Navy) in the town of Iquique in Northern Chile in 1886. Gravestone of Norvel Falconer Maitland Their first child Mary Louise was born in 1892 in Kenmure Castle, Kells. Thereafter the rest of their children were born in Chile. Their son William Kenmure Maitland was born in 1896 was a second Lieutenant 5th Battalion Middlesex Reg attached to the 63rd Trench Mortary Battery at the age of 20. He was commissioned in the 5th Middlesex in February 1915 and went to France in July 1915. 75 Inscription 361 – Nodwell by Jackie Carson From the grave inscription: Died Yorkhill 19th Nov 1918 aged 24 (born 1894?) Father Samuel Nodwell died New Galloway 5th March 1921 aged 57 (born 1864?) Mother Janet Lockerbie died Dalbeattie 21st May 1931 aged 67 (born 1864?) Mary Lockerbie died Hardgate 17th Dec 1955 aged 63 (born 1892?) National Library of Scotland: Jane Lauder – nothing Jane Nodwell – 1901 census record, born in Hawick, listed as scholar living in Black Bull hotel in Moffat with: Father Samuel born 1864 (hotel keeper and post master) Mother Janet born 1864 Mary born 1892 James born 1897 Janet born 1898 3 others Samuel Nodwell – Grave 361 inscription Janet Lockerbie – Mother Mary Lowther and father John Lockerbie. Death record with grave 361 inscription Found a Janet Lockerbie in 1871 census in Southwick Road, Urr, Dalbeattie aged 2 (Mother Margaret). Birth date listed as 1869. Mary Lockerbie Scotland’s People: Jane Lauder Nodwell 1911 census living in Kells – age 17 Birth record Hawick 1894 Samuel Nodwell 1911 census living in Kells – age 47 1901 census in Moffat – age 37 1891 census in Roxburgh – age 27 Valuation rolls: 1905 Black bull hotel Moffat 1895 Washing Houses/ Spirit Shop Hawick Wills and Testaments: Spirit Merchant, Cross Keys Hotel, New Galloway6 Janet Lockerbie (as Nodwell) 1911 census living in Kells - age 47 Other (Google): Jane Lauder Nodwell New Galloway war memorial Dumfries Academy war memorial 6 Dumfries Academy Memorial, Column 1 https://www.warmemorialsonline.org.uk/memorial/273925/ https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/recordresults?search_type=People&surname=Nodwell&forename=Samuel&forename_so=starts&from_year=1864&to_yea r=1922&surname_so=exact&record_type=wills_testaments 76 Find a grave: Died of influenza at Yorkhill war hospital. Father listed as Samuel Nodwell of Cross Keys Hotel, New Galloway. Copy of death notification from Dumfries and Galloway Standard The Scottish Military Research Group: lots of discussion regarding her position as a VAD and commemoration Listed in Lives of the first world war and Memorials to Women in Scotland Voluntary Aid Detachment New Galloway Memorial, Image 4 http://warmemscot.s4.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?t=725 Death Notification in D and G Standard https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/71197610/jane-lauder-nodwell 77 Inscription 410 – Robertson by Claire Williamson In Loving Memory of Jessie Agnes Robertson died 15th Feb 1936. Cecil David Robertson, Sergt. RAF VR missing 5th May 1941. Agnes Robertson died 30th March 1946. Agnes Robertson 1868 – 1946 Jessie Agnes Robertson 1897 – 1936 Cecil David Robertson 1921 – 1941 Agnes Robertson Agnes was born in 1868 in Kelton, Kirkcudbrightshire to her parents, farm-worker William and his wife Agnes. By the time of the 1891 census, our Agnes had moved out and was now living by herself at No. 1 Auchengassel Cots in Twynholm. She was 23, unmarried, and her own boss working as a Dressmaker. In 1897 Agnes gave birth to her daughter, Jessie Agnes Robertson. Jessie’s father was never named and Agnes never married. Agnes was 23, unmarried, and her own boss working as a Dressmaker. By the 1901 census Agnes, now aged 33, and her daughter, now 4, had moved in with her brother James and his family at at Balquhairn, Dalry, Kirkcudbrightshire. Her brother James is a widower and Farm manager, aged 36, living with his four children – James (scholar aged 8), William D. (scholar aged 7), May A. (aged 2) and Maggie J. (aged 1) – and was probably glad of the help. Also in the household was Agnes’s and James’s mother, Mrs William Robertson, by this time a widow aged 72. There were also two servants: Elizabeth and Oswald Ferguson. Elizabeth is 19 and recorded as a ‘General serv (domestic)’ and Oswald is 17 and a ‘Worker’. By 1911, Agnes had moved again. This time living in Clydoch, Balmaclellan: a house with at least four rooms. She is living there with her 14-year-old daughter Jessie and also her niece, Maggie J. Robertson, aged 11, who must have moved out of her father’s house to live with her. Agnes is also back to working for herself as a Dressmaker based in her own home. By 1921, Agnes and her daughter had moved to live on the High Street in New Galloway which is where they chose to live out the rest of their days. Agnes died at home in New Galloway on the 30th March 1946 (the recorded transcription has it as 1948, which appears to be an error). She died of Hemiplegia, which is the paralysis of half of the body often caused by a stroke. She was recorded as being 75 years old on her death certificate, but this does not quite match with her birth year as being 1868 (as it is recorded on the census), which would make her a few years older. Her death was registered by her niece Maggie. Jessie Agnes Robertson Jessie was born in 1897 in Twynholm, Kirkcudbrightshire and lived with her mother Agnes in Dalry and Balmaclellan before they settled in New Galloway. 78 Jessie gave birth to her son Cecil in 1921 at their home on the High Street. She never married and Cecil’s father is not named on the records. Jessie worked as a PostOffice Assistant and raised Cecil alongside her mum (Cecil’s gran) Agnes. Jessie's signature on Cecil's birth certificate Jessie continued to work as a Post-Office Assistant until she died on 15th February 1936, aged 39. She died of pneumonia while at home in New Galloway. Cecil David Robertson Cecil was born on 10th June 1921 at 5:15am to Jessie Agnes Robertson at home on the High Street in New Galloway. His father is not named on his birth certificate. Cecil first attended New Galloway School and then went on to Kirkcudbright Academy. While at Kirkcudbright, Cecil seems to have come 3rd in the William Lidderdale Hornel prize, as reported by the Dumfries and Galloway Standard on Wednesday 5th July 1939. According to The Galloway News on Saturday 1st July 1939, he also won sports’ prizes including the “Trophy Caps for Rugby Football”, the “Inter-house championship” for Stewart House and “The M’Kerrow Cup for All-round Excellence” (scholarship, leadership, athletics). Photograph of Cecil Robertson, bottom row, second from the right – many thanks to Helen of the Kirkcudbright History Society and David and Hazel from Broughton House for finding this image In 1940, Cecil joined the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve where he was noted as “very popular with all the ranks” and quickly earned promotion to the rank of Sergeant Observer (Service Number: 970095). 79 By May 1941, Cecil was in the 235 Squadron, which by that time had been transferred to Coastal Command for fighter-reconnaissance duties. At 8:30am on the 5th of May 1941, Cecil joined two other crew members, Sgt B.L.T. Crawforth (742675) and Sgt W.K. Blackford (944341), as they took off from Bircham Newton for a ‘Danish Sweep’. They were flying a Blenheim IV Z5742 and were one of a section of three aircraft on patrol near the Danish coast. The three aircraft became engaged with enemy fighters off Borkum before the other two aircraft lost sight of Robertson’s plane. Robertson was reported as missing to his grandmother, Agnes, who lived on the High Street in New Galloway at the time. At 8:30am on the 5th of May 1941, Cecil joined two other crew members...as they took off from Bircham Newton for a ‘Danish Sweep’. The aircraft had been shot down by Me 110s and crashed in the sea off the coast of Denmark. In June 1941, Mrs Robertson received a letter from Cecil’s commanding officer that, according to the International Red Cross Society quoting official information from Berlin, Cecil had been picked up seriously wounded in the North Sea. He did not recover from his wounds and died on the 5th of May 1941 at the age of 19. He was buried in the cemetery at Wilhelmshaven, and he was recorded as the son of Jessie Agnes Robertson and the nephew of Maggie Jane Livingston of Barrhead, Renfrewshire: his mother’s cousin who lived with them in 1911 at Balmaclellan and who must have remained close. Today, Cecil rests in the Sage War Cemetery (Location: 8. A. 3) in the north of Germany. The cemetery is cared for by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Sage War Cemetery 80 Inscription 436 – Kennedy by Michelle MacIver In Memory of John Murray Kennedy of Knocknalling born 5th April 1876 fell asleep 24th March 1928. John Murray Kennedy was the grandson of John Kennedy of Knocknalling (1769-1855) (see picture below), who made his fortune in cotton mills in Manchester and introduced steam power into the mills.7 John Kennedy of Knocknalling 7 For further information on John Kennedy of Knocknalling see Inscriptions 209 & 210 and links: https://www.artwarefineart.com/gallery/portrait-john-kennedy-laird-knocknalling-new-galloway-1769-1855-textilemanufacturer and http://www.kirkcudbright.co/historyarticle.asp?ID=154&p=7&g=4 81 Inscription 437 – Kennedy by Michelle MacIver In Memory of Violet Frances, Daughter of John Murray Kennedy of Knocknalling, beloved wife of Archibald James Murray St Clair, 16th Baron Sinclair, born 21st September 1881 died 7th November 1953 Violet Frances Kennedy was born to John Murray Kennedy and Frances Eleanor Catherine Brandling Kennedy on 21st September 1881. Her address was listed as 35 Grosvenor Place in London. She was 24 years old. Violet married Archibald James Murray St Clair at St Peter’s, Pimlico in London on 31st January 1906. Archibald was a baron and Violet became Lady Violet St Clair. She appears in the 1918 Electoral register for Queens Gate, Kensington, London. Her name appears, alongside that of her husband, on the incoming passenger list for the Majestic, a White Star line boat that left New York and arrived in Southampton on 10 th August 1928. Her address is listed as Milton Park, Dalry Kirk. According to the Kirkcudbrightshire OS name book, the Milton Park property belonged to her father. Violet died in 7th November 1953 in Kirkcudbrightshire. Inscription 438 – St Clair by Michelle MacIver In Memory of Archibald James Murray St Clair, 16th Baron Sinclair born 18th February 1875 died 25th November 1957 Archibald James Murray St Clair was born to Lord Charles W St Clair and Lady Margaret J St Clair on the 18th February 1875. Listed on the 1881 census, aged 6, as “The Master of Sinclair”, living in Onslow Square, St Mary Abbots, Chelsea, London. He commissioned in the Royal Scots Greys as a 2nd lieutenant in 1896. He became lieutenant in 1899 and Captain in 1901. He served in both the Boer war and WW1. From 1914 to 1938, he served as Extra Equerry (a position of honour) to Prince Arthur of Connaught, the Colonel in chief of the Scots Greys. From 1923 to 1957 he was a member of the Royal Company of Archers (performing duties at the request of the Monarch and in ceremonial occasions). The photo below shows him in 1898 as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Scots Greys. In 1918 he was accepted as a member of the Royal Victorian Order and around 1919 he was awarded the Japanese Order of the Rising Sun. In the 1911 census, he was recorded as residing with his wife in Yorkshire, East Riding. No children after 5 years of marriage. Archibald James Murray St Clair He became the 16th Baron Lord Sinclair on 22nd April 1922. He was Justice of the Peace in Kirkcudbrightshire. 82 Listed as an outward passenger, (Sinclair) with his wife in 1938 heading for Port Said. Address is listed as 26 Curzon Street. His daughter Patricia Mary St Clair and a servant (who travelled 2nd class) are also listed. In 1918 he was accepted as a member of the Royal Victorian Order and around 1919 he was awarded the Japanese Order of the Rising Sun. He died on 25th November 1957 and was succeeded by his son Charles (born 21st June 1914: died 1st April 2004) and daughter Patricia (Born 17th March 1912: Died 13th December 1996). Medal roll Card for Capt. A J M St Clair Marriage Certificate of A J M St Clair and Violet Frances Kennedy 83 Inscription 464 – Stokes by Thais Poyo-Gonzalez 1860-1931 Alfred Stokes Alfred was born on 14 October 1860, the son of John Stokes and Henrietta de Villiers Maynard, in Galatz, Roumania. He became a British Subject, and was a career Army Officer, rising to the rank of Brigadier General. 1868-1957 Margaret Dunbar Laing Margaret was born on 9 January 1868, the daughter of James Laing and Theresa Talbot Peacock, at Sunderland, County Durham. When Margaret Dunbar Laing was born on 9 January 1868, in Bishopwearmouth, Durham, England, United Kingdom, her father, James Laing, was 45 and her mother, Theresa Talbot Peacock, was 36. She married Alfred Stokes on 11 August 1891, in Ford, Northumberland, England, United Kingdom. Marriage 1891 Alfred Stokes Margaret Dunbar Laing 1901 Census Ford, Northumberland RG13-564 1891 3Q Glendale 10b 619 1 April 1901 Woolwich, London 59 Woolwich Common Alfred Stokes Margaret D. (Wife) Letitia E. Cameron (Visitor) Plus 2 Servants Age 30 Major in Army Age 23 Age 36 Galatz Sunderland Durham Roumania Durham East Indies 14 Oct 1860 9 Jan 1868 abt 1864 She lived in Ford, Northumberland, England, United Kingdom in 1891. She died on 12 September 1957, in Eastbourne, Sussex, England, United Kingdom, at the age of 89. Not identified any children. STOKES, ALFRED, Major, was born 14 October 1860, son of Lieutenant General Sir John Stokes, KCB, of Ewell, Surrey, and Henrietta Georgina de Villiers (who died in 1893), second daughter of Charles Maynard, of Grahamstown, Cape of Good Hope. He was educated at Cheltenham, and joined the Royal Artillery, as a Lieutenant, 18 February 1880, serving in South Africa in 1881; in the Bechuanaland Expedition 23 December 1884 to 12 March 1885, and was honourably mentioned in Despatches. He became Captain 25 April 1888, and Major 25 December 1897. Major Stokes served in the South African War from 1899 to 1900; was present at the Relief of Ladysmith, including the operations of 17 to 24 January 1900, and action of Spion Kop; operations of 5 to 7 February 1900, and action at Vaal Kranz; operations on Tugela Heights 14 to 27 February 1900, and action at Pieter's Hill; operations in the Transvaal, May and June 1900; operations in the Transvaal, west of Pretoria, July to 29 November 1900; operations in Cape Colony, north of Orange River, including action at Ruidam. 84 He was mentioned in Despatches [London Gazette, 8 February 1901]; received the Queen's Medal with five clasps, and was created a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order [London Gazette, 19 April 1901]: "Alfred Stokes, Major, Royal Artillery. In recognition of services during the recent operations in South Africa". The Insignia were presented by the King 3 June 1901. He became Lieutenant Colonel 14 November 1905; was given the Brevet of Colonel 14 November 1908, and was promoted to Colonel 14 November 1910. Colonel Stokes was Temporary Brigadier General, commanding Royal Artillery in India, from 22 December 1911, and served in the European War from 1914; was mentioned in Despatches, and created a CB in 1915, and a CMG in 1916. He retired from the Staff 2 September 1918, with the rank of Brigadier General. Brigadier General Stokes married, in 1891, Margaret Dunbar, daughter of Sir James Laing, of Etal Manor, Northumberland. Source: DSO recipients (VC and DSO Book) 85 Inscription 482 – McLeod by Pat Swiatek 86 Inscription 482 located within Kells Church Examples of Travel Documentation: 87 88 Inscription 484 – Maitland by Keith Hamblin Inscription 484 - erected inside Kells church at first floor height, in perfect condition External memorial (No. 17) to John and Jane Gordon Maitland Showing position of Inscription 484 above first floor pews 89 From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Maitland_(minister): H.M. 38th Foot: It is likely that John Gordon Maitland served with them during the expedition against the Black Mountain tribes in 1868 prior to taking up command of the Galloway Rifles in 1871. 90 Information on the background of the Galloway Rifles including the uniform format at the time of John Gordon Maitland. He was Colonel commanding between 1871 and 1887: 91 Inscriptions x 18 – Johnston / Johnstone by Murray Johnston 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Index Corson, 51 Aitchison, 45, 48, 49 Covenanters, 55, 62-64 Alexander, 96, 97 Battle of Bothwell Bridge, 62-64 Battle of Rullion Green, 62-64 Anderson, 96 Australia, 42 Cowan, 36, 49 Barber, 57 Craig, 36, 48 Barbour, 26 Crawford, 39 Barclay, 24 Crimean War Scots Guards, 43 Sebastopol, 43 Barker, 38, 39 Bateson, 6–15, 39 Crosbie, 43 Best, 8, 12 Crowther, 38 Bengal, 38, 50 Davies, 90 Bellamy, 90 Dickie, 87 Biggar, 93 Douglas, 5, 34, 36, 43, 45, 46 Blair, 61 Duae, 62 Boer War Dunn, 94 Manchester Regiment, 21 Royal Artillery, 85 Royal Scots Greys, 82 Egremont, 6, 37, 38, 39 Ewart, 46, 55-56 Broadfoot, 87 Ferguson, 78 Brown, 24, 32-33, 55, 86, 96 Foley, 5 Byers, 33 France, 17 Campbell, 30, 34, 35, 36, 52 Galloway Rifles, 39, 89, 90, 91 Canada Galloway Royal Volunteers, 32 Manitoba, 31 Nova Scotia, 65 Ontario, 65, 67 Ottawa, 19 Quebec, 19 Gillespie, 46, 47, 70-71, 72 Gordon, 7, 25, 29, 34, 49, 62-64, 70-71, 74, 89, 90, 91 Graveyards (in Dumfries & Galloway) Cannan, 55 Balmaclellan, 46, 47, 48 Carruthers, 48 Greenwell, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 Ceylon (Sri Lanka), 49 Greggan, 43-44 Chapman, 52 Grierson, 55 Chile, 75, 86 Griggan, 43 China, 46 Hairstones, 5 Connan, 27 Hall, 29, 38, 49, 69 Copland, 74 Hamilton, 90 Corps of Royal Engineers, 40 Harding, 8 99 Hastings, 5 Logie, 32 Hawthornthwaite, 66 Lorimer, 87 Heatherington, 38 Lowther, 76 Herese, 51 Lumsden, 47, 48 Hewitson, 34-35 Lyall, 16 th H.M. 30 Foot, 89 MacGowan/McGowan, 70, 72, 73, 87 Hoatson, 34 Madras Native Infantry, 89 Hobbs, 40-42, 45 Maitland, 7, 29, 39, 40-42, 74, 75, 89-91 Hollins, 47 Manson, 45 Hope, 24, 26, 36, 46, 47 Martin, 92, 93, 95 Huckans/Higgins, 8, 9 Maxwell, 21-23 Hunter, 27 Maynard, 84 Hyslop, 24-25, 46 McBurny, 51 India, 26, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45, 49, 85 McCandlish, 49, 59-60 Indian Rebellion of 1857 McChesnie, 54 Bengal Native Infantry, 38 Fort Tirowlee, 38 Madras Regiment, 39 McCheyne, 30-31 McCubbin, 27 Ireland, 65, 66 McCubbing, 27-28 Jamaica, 24, 45, 96 McCulloch, 36 Jardine, 54 McGarvah, 32 Johnston, 16, 40, 47, 92-98 McGill, 58, 94 Johnstone, 92-98 McIver, 86 Keir, 7 McKay, 57-58 Kennedy, 24-25, 47, 49, 52-53, 61, 81, 82 McKinley, 26, 65, 69 Kerr, 86, 87 McLachlan, 43-44 McLeod, 86-88 Kidd, 27 McMillan, 5, 25, 34 Laidler, 8 McMinnies, 94 Laing, 84, 85 McNairn, 27-28 Landsburgh, 24 McNaughton/McNaught, 86, 93 Laws, 9 McTurk, 94 Laurie, 28 McQueen, 27-28 Lee, 6, 7, 14, 37-39 Medals/Honours Livingston, 80 Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, 85 Lockerbie, 76 100 Craigdews, 32 Cross Keys Hotel, 76, 77 Culmark, 34 Dalnotry, 32 Drumbain, 34 Dundeugh, 27 Garverie, 62 Glenlee, 24, 43, 46 Glenlee Park 7, 38 Glenlee Mains, 24 Glenlochar House, 6 Glenlochar Lodge, 7, 38 Graymarestail, 32 Greenhead, 59 Halfmark, 96 Hawkshead, 26 Kells Manse, 16 Kenbank, 24 Kenmure, 7, 29, 39, 49, 60, 70-73, 74, 75, 89, 90 Kenview, 65, 66 Kilquhanity Cottage, 30 Knockknalling, 24 Knocknaling, 52 Knocknalling, 52, 61, 81, 82 Largmore, 62, 63 Little Marwhirn, 94 Manse of Balmaclellan, 46 Manse of Kells, 27, 35 Mardrochwood, 61 Meadowbank, 40, 41, 45, 48, 49 Mill House, New Galloway, 92, 93 Milton Park, 82 Mulloch, 55 Naugahway, 57 Nether Fenton, 95 Old Glenlee, 43 Overton, 7, 37, 38, 39 Porters Lodge, 43 Ringour, 26 Rose View Cottage, 65 Spalding Arms Inn, 41 Stranfasket, 95, 96, 97 Summerhill House, 94 Troquain, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 Wylies Brae, 28 Japanese Order of the Rising Sun, 83 Legion d'Honneur, 19, 87 Military Medal, 34 Order of the British Empire, 19 Queen's Medal, 85 Royal Victorian Order, 83 Territorial Decoration, 47 Metcalfe, 65, 66, 69 Middleton, 34 Milligan, 95, 98 Millman, 26, 65-66, 69 Mitchell, 93 Morocco, 86 Muir, 36, 65 Mulholland, 30 Murdoch, 57 Murray, 16, 26, 32-33, 40, 45-49, 53, 57, 7073 New Zealand Wellington, 35 Nicholson, 26 Nodwell, 76-77 Norval, 90 Palmer, 8 Paterson, 36 Peacock, 84 Philip, 16-20, 35 Place-Names (in Dumfries & Galloway) Ashburn Cottage, 25 Auchengassel, 78 Balmaclellan Manse, 46 Balmclellan school house, 58 Balquhairn, 78 Barsheoch Mains, 27 Barskeoch, 35 Black Bull Hotel, 76 Boat of Rhone, 26 Burnfoot, 7 Bush, 96, 98 Cairn Edward, 6, 7, 37, 39 Proudfoot, 24, 95 Reilly, 50 Republic of Vanuatu Clydoch, 78 Havanna Harbour, 39 101 Rerrick Poltergeist, 55 United States of America Ritchie, 42, 87 Illinois, 5 Louisiana, 5 Missouri, 5 New York, 41, 45 South Carolina, 49 Vermont, 34, 35 Robertson, 78-80 Roe, 54 Royal Artillery, 50, 84 Royal Horse Artillery, 32 Vicksburg (ship), 46 Sayer, 17 Watson, 34 Scotch Express Disaster, 21 Williamson, 21, 29, 74 Scots Fusilier Guards, 44 Willis, 8 Scott, 86, 87 World War I Shenan, 93 Battle of Langmarck, 47 Battle of the Lys, 34 Battle of the Somme, 28 Cameron Highlanders, 28, 30, 31 Flanders, 34 HMS Narborough, 31 Indian Regiments, 16 Kings Royal Rifle Corps, 35 Middlesex Regiment, 75 Royal Artillery, 85 Royal Scots Greys, 82 Scottish Borderers, 31, 47 Vermelles, 30 War Correspondent, 17-18 Yorkhill war hospital, 77 Ypres, 34 Simpson, 95 Sinclair, 24, 25, 65, 82, 83 Steamer Victoria, 67-69 St Clair, 82-83 Stanley, 29 Stewart, 28, 46, 47, 48, 79 Stokes, 84-85 Strawn, 5 Thompson, 34, 57 Thomson, 5, 59 Tunisia, 86 World War II Danish coast, 80 Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, 79 War Correspondent, 18-19 End of document 102  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 Grave Encounters at Kells – Results Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_101 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 The Grave Encounters project recruited volunteers to undertake research into the memorial inscriptions at Kells graveyard in New Galloway. GGLP graveyards https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/15/560/GGLP-CYDI-GraveEncountersAtKells_ActivitySheet.pdf d5eabd4a74029d8d08ddb66ccda64971 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 Grave Encounters at Kells – Activity Sheet 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 Grave Encounters 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 ACTIVITY SHEET Grave Encounters at Kells I NST R UC T IO N S 1 Can you find the carvings on the gravestones (in no particular order), based on the simple illustrations? Please write the person’s name beside it. 2 Kells Kirkyard is classed as a Category B Listed Building - this means that it has been recognised as having ‘special’ architectural or historic interest. These carvings are 3 4 hundreds of years old and many still have the year visible. Can you spot which one is the oldest? Some of the carvings represent what the people did for a living, can you guess what the person at Carving 6 did? Carving 7 is called a ‘winged soul’. These are fairly common, see if you can keep count of how many there are as you go round the gravestones. 5 6 7 8 9 10 B O N U S Q U ES TI O N Next to one of the gravestones sits a rare example of a wooden WWII battlefield cross that’s been brought over from France. Can you find it and write down the name that appears on it?  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 Grave Encounters at Kells – Activity Sheet Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_100 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 The Grave Encounters project recruited volunteers to undertake research into the memorial inscriptions at Kells graveyard in New Galloway. GGLP graveyards https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/15/559/GGLP-CYDI-Grave-Encounters-at-Kells_Open-Day-Fact-Sheets.pdf 7b7c05a47bca6b8ee26a4195fcd9f589 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 Grave Encounters at Kells – Open Day Fact Sheet 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 Grave Encounters 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 “I would rather be at a Scottish funeral than an English wedding” Up to the time of the Disruption in 1843, there were often noisy and unseemly scenes in graveyards. Food and drink were served over several hours before the funeral procession began; in the churchyard whiskey was dispensed, often lavishly. Not only the poor of the parish, but stranger poor and all manner of beggars, gathered at the funeral, as they customarily received dole (gift of coins). The cost of funerals varied tremendously from person to person, from a few pounds paid by the Kirk Sessions in the case of paupers to hundreds of pounds in the case of Dukes and Earls. When Sir Robert Grierson of Lag died in 1733, his funeral costs included £240 Scots for food and drink. Below is a list of some of the items consumed, and their cost: COFFIN ROADS The distance from some parts of a parish to the kirkyard could be many miles for some funeral parties. The old trackways which were used to carry coffins to the kirkyards still exist in some places, and many are still known as ‘coffin’ or ‘kirk’ roads. Kirk Road in Laurieston was once used as the ‘coffin road’ to Balmaghie Church. Alongside some of these ways are cairns every so often, originally marking the places where a rest was taken and the coffin-bearers were changed. There are tales of coffins having to be abandoned along some ways as a result of treacherous weather. One such incident took place in Galloway, when a coffin was being taken out from the shepherd’s cottage of Backhill of Bush, remotely located in the Dungeon of Buchan. The funeral party carried it as far as the hill of Millfire, at over 2,000 feet, where it had to be left until the snows subsided. Several days later the bearers returned to the hilltop and continued to the kirkyard of Kells. Over time, numerous superstitions appeared around the coffin roads: the coffin must not touch the ground or the deceased’s spirit would return to haunt the living; the corpse’s feet must face away from their house or they could return to haunt their former home; the coffin bearers must not step off the path onto neighbouring farmland or the crops would be blighted; spirits liked to travel in straight lines, so the paths often meandered; spirits could not cross running water, so the paths crossed burns; you could lose a following spirit at a crossroad, so the route would have a crossroad! Hearses were at first used only by the upper classes but gradually became more common in lower social circles. There are a few kirkyards in which can be seen hearsehouses, buildings in which the horsedrawn hearse was kept between funerals, as at Crossmichael which is today used to house the Crossmichael Heritage Centre. THE LYKEWAKE Following a death, a series of jobs were undertaken by the immediate family or close friends to prepare the corpse for the grave and arrange the burial ceremony. One of the most important was the ‘lykewake’, the watching of an unburied corpse, lyke being a harder form of lich, corpse. Lykewakes originated in pre-Reformation days, the original purpose being to ward off evil spirits who were thought to try to capture the soul of the corpse for the devil. It also had a more practical purpose in preventing vermin nibbling at the corpse, for in many areas, sanitation was still poor, and rats and mice were rife. The corpse was generally kept in one of the bedrooms of the house, usually the best room, and the family would take turns at sitting with the body. Wakes lasted anything from a couple of days to over a week, depending on the deceased's social standing. When the Laird of the Mackintosh clan died in 1731 at Dalcross Castle in the Highlands, he lay for exactly two months and two days, during which time open house was kept for all comers. The numbers of the mourners were 4,000 and the line extended from Dalcross Castle the four miles to Petty Church. With all these visitors to the house, hospitality had to be shown resulting in a supply of alcohol, tobacco, cheese and bread being brought into the home. The alcohol supplied freely by the relatives of the deceased was often misused, and it was not uncommon for people unconnected in anyway whatsoever to turn up at a lykewake to drink a toast to the deceased. Dogs and cats were kept well away from the corpse, cats being trapped beneath a washtub, for, should they cross over the deceased, the Devil could gain power over the soul. All clocks in the house were stopped at the time of death, and any mirrors were either covered over or turned to the wall. Visitors who came to pay their respects had to touch the face of the dead body; failing to do so would result in the visitors suffering from nightmares for days after. RESURRECTIONISTS One of the stranger occurrences in the history of our graveyards must be the phenomenon of body snatching - the good old resurrectionists of the 18th and 19th centuries. With an increase in medical schools and hospitals during the 18 th century, there came a demand for cadavers for study and dissection. After the Murder Act of 1752, all executed murderers were allowed to be dissected for medical research but need soon outweighed supply and a thriving black market arose where you could make up to £10 per corpse. The idea of dissection was so horrifying (it only became legal in the 16th century) that a fear of resurrectionists soon gripped the nation. Volunteers stepped up to guard the cemeteries through the night, watching over their recently interred relatives and waiting to pounce on anyone who dared to appear. This was an arduous task, and the nights could be very cold, so watch houses were constructed at several cemeteries for volunteers to take shelter in. These would be small structures, and in many instances, they were furnished with fireplaces, as well as windows to look out over the cemetery. An easier way to protect the bodies from resurrectionists was mortsafes. These started off as simply large stones placed over the coffins during burial, too heavy to lift, but they soon developed into iron (resurrectionists had worked out how to get around the stones!). Some were complete covers that would fit over the coffin while others look more like cages. In many instances a town would have a supply of mortsafes that would be left over the coffin until long enough had passed, before lifting it out again to reuse for the next burial. For some though, such was the fear of the resurrectionists, that they would commission the building of their own mortsafe to be left on indefinitely. Resurrectionists were active across Scotland, and newspaper reports from 1824 mention rumours that 16 graves were found empty in Hoddom, with similar occurrences reported at ‘Drysdale, Annan, and Middlebie’ to a lesser extent. As late as 1852, three individuals faced trial in Dumfries for attempting to dig up a grave in Annan. The most famous resurrectionists in Scotland must be Burke and Hare, who dispensed with the heavy labour of grave digging and cut right to the chase, murdering 16 people in one year to sell to the medical profession. But they weren't the only ones who chose to skip a step and there were once rumours that the body of the unfortunate Myles Crow had been taken by resurrectionists from St Cuthbert’s graveyard in Kirkcudbright. These rumours suddenly took on a more sinister tone when John Stewart was hanged in Edinburgh in 1829. Guilty of murdering people to exhume their body for sale to the dissection table, Stewart confessed last minute that one of his victims was an old assistant boatman at Kirkcudbright… In the end, the Anatomy Act of 1832 addressed the need of supplying bodies and the body-snatching trade was no longer profitable. But traces of this strange time when resurrectionists would enter cemeteries at night to steal away the bodies of the recently deceased are still dotted around our cemeteries today. PERCY PHILIP Inscription 23 Percy James Philip was born at the Kells manse in 1886 and went on to become a war correspondent throughout both World Wars, living in Paris before moving to Ottawa in 1940. Percy was later awarded a Legion d’Honneur (the highest French order of merit) and an OBE “for services to the cause of the allies in WW2”. One of Percy’s most memorable experiences occurred when he was still in France in 1940, which he relayed in a letter to his father, the Rev. Pirie Philip. Here is an account from The Scotsman: Mr Philip says that his experience on leaving Cambrai for Paris was that the life of every American and British journalist was in danger, not from the Germans, but from the French crowds. The latter were possessed with the idea that everyone was a spy or parachutist. Mr Philip describes how he eventually boarded a train filled with refugees and soldiers. His uniform excited comment and question, and whenever the train stopped, he, with others, got down to sit on the grass. Two men dressed in the uniform of Customs officers and armed with revolvers asked him who he was and demanded to see his papers. They were very aggressive, and informed Mr Philip that he was under arrest. A crowd soon gathered, and the general opinion was that he should be shot at once as a German parachutist. Twice the Customs officers went through his papers and threatened to shoot him. He was almost completely undressed, even to taking off his boots for examination. When a captain came up he was even more hysterical than the others, and immediately pulled out his revolver. Mr Philip thought that a French soldier had telephoned to the police, and after a Customs officer had thrown his boots on the line and told him to prepare for execution, he addressed the people and told them that everyone had a right to be tried. To gain time he asked to be allowed to put on his boots, saying that a Scot liked to die in his boots. The two minutes he thus gained saved his life, for two policemen arrived, and he was marched off amid the jeers of the crowd. At Liancourt his papers were properly examined, and he was allowed to resume his journey to Paris. ANDREW EWART Inscription 264 Andrew was ordained in 1691 and took up the appointment as Minister of Kells parish in the same year, which he continued for the next 48 years. He was the first minister of Kells after the recognition of the Presbyterian religion in 1690 by William III. One of Andrew’s sons, John, was to become godfather to the future prime minister, William Ewart Gladstone. And one of his great grandsons, William Ewart, introduced a bill which led to the Public Libraries Acts of 1850 and 1853 allowing free libraries to be funded from local taxes. When Andrew Carnegie offered £10,000 for the Dumfries library building in 1898, he suggested that the library be named after this very William Ewart. However, one of the most remarkable events that involved Andrew Ewart occurred in the year 1695, an event which became known as “the most remarkable in the annals of Demonology”. Scan the QR code to listen to the story of the Rerrick poltergeist: ARCHIBALD BASIL HENRY MAXWELL Inscription 43 Archibald was educated at Rugby and then became a student at the Institute of Civil Engineers London. There he played Rugby Football for the London Irish. He was induced to help the Cheltonians in their matches against Bristol and Lennox and he was largely instrumental in the town’s victory over the Londoners. He was only 22 years of age when he tragically died in the Scotch Express Disaster, seen as “one of the biggest railway disasters in the Edwardian period”. The disaster was recounted in The Northern Echo for the centenary, 9th December 2010 – ‘The Wrecking Of The Christmas Eve Express’ Shortly before 5am on Christmas Eve, 1910, the London to Glasgow train sped double-headed past Hawes Junction, where the Wensleydale branch of the North Eastern Railway met the Settle and Carlisle line, and the Midland. The Helm wind whipped across the high fell, the rain lashed against the windows of the box where signalman Albert Sutton was nearing the end of a ten-hour night shift made busier yet by the extra trains ferrying folk felicitously towards their families. Simpson, the relief man, was already in the box when Sutton realised that he had made a terrible mistake. Two light engines, coupled together and heading north towards Carlisle, had been allowed onto the main line just ahead of the fast train and on the same section of track. Twelve people, died in the collision and inferno that followed. Sutton’s instruction to Simpson is still chillingly recalled: “Go tell Bunce (the station master) that I am afraid I have wrecked the Scotch Express.” A song about the event was also written to mark the centenary: JOHN MURRAY Inscription 314 John Murray died on 3 January 1777, aged 61 years. For 46 years he had been employed by Lord Gordon at Kenmure Castle as factor/gamekeeper. There is an affectionate poem on the reverse of the tombstone: Ah John what changes since I saw thee last. Thy fishing and thy shooting days are past. Bagpipes and Hautboys thou canst sound no more. Thy nods, grimaces, winks and pranks are o'er. Thy harmless, queerish, incoherent talk, Thy wild vivacity and trudging walk, Will soon be quite forgot. Thy joys on earth A snuff, a glass, riddles and noise of mirth Are vanished, all. Yet blest I hope thou art For in thy station, weel thou play'dst thy part. A competition was held by the Honourable John Gordon, Murray's employer, to compose this epitaph poem, which was won by the local minister. There is one magnificent story featuring Murray that is mentioned in several places – his capture in 1774 at Loch Ken, after a long and fierce struggle, of a monster pike fish, at 72lbs (again, this varies between accounts) and some 7ft long, the largest pike on record ever captured. According to Monuments and Monumental inscriptions in Scotland, Vol 3, " ...elated by his achievement, John walked into the dining-room holding the pike's head over his shoulder, while the tail dragged on the floor. Stepping up to his master, he threw down the fish before him, saying, 'You may catch the next yoursel', my lord.' No such pike has before or since been caught in any part of Britain."  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 Grave Encounters at Kells – Open Day Fact Sheet Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_99 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 The Grave Encounters project recruited volunteers to undertake research into the memorial inscriptions at Kells graveyard in New Galloway. GGLP graveyards https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/15/558/GGLP-CYDI_GraveEncounters-v3.pdf dfc603f68960b79cb50635e87cf0f414 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 Grave Encounters at Kells 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 Grave Encounters 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 Kells Parish Church dates to 1822, but the gravestones that surround it go back to the early 1700s and feature some of the finest sculptures to be seen in Scottish kirkyards – it’s why they’ve been given Listed Building status. In these stones are carved the lives of people from the last 300 years of Galloway’s history, including merchants, covenanters, artists and soldiers among many others. Several of their stories have long been forgotten and with your help, we’re hoping that we can bring them back into public knowledge and create a record of their lives that will continue to be shared throughout future generations. Who will I be researching? We’ll assign you three gravestones to start off with (some of which might represent a family group), which will be yours exclusively to research. You can then choose between all the individuals named who you’d like to research – you don’t have to research them all! You might find that there is very little information for some gravestones while others turn up a lot more. We can also assign you additional stones if you feel you’ve done all that you can on the ones you have. We have a copy of ‘Kells Graveyard Memorial Inscriptions’ by the Dumfries and Galloway Family History Society, which contains the inscriptions of 485 of the gravestones in the churchyard and we’ll use this to send you the full transcriptions. Each stone is individually numbered and there’s even an accompanying plan showing their location. We’ll try and give you a range from different periods – while the earlier headstones are always interesting, you might find information is more readily available for later individuals, so we’ll give you the option of looking into both and working out which resources work best. What to do with the results? Once you’ve collected all the information that you can on someone, then all you need to do is type up a summary and email it through to contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk with either ‘Grave Encounters’ or ‘Kells’ included in the subject title. You can type your summary directly into the email or attach it as a separate document written in Word, Google Docs, Libre Office or an equivalent. Title your text with the person’s name and the gravestone number from the initial memorial inscription so that we can tie their story to the correct stone. You can make your summary as simple or as detailed as you like. You can write it up as paragraphs or as a list of bullet points, add in images or keep it plain, and, if you want, you can also attach any documents that you find – how you lay it out is up to yourself! Feel free to either wait until the end of April to submit your findings, or to submit your findings for each individual as you go. did you know? Kells contains three or four ‘Adam and Eve’ gravestones, which depict the temptation scene from the Garden of Eden. While depictions of Adam and Eve appear more in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, there are still only around 45 examples in the country and they date back to the early 1700s. What will happen with my findings? We’re very keen to share any knowledge that we gather, so we’ll be sending the results through to local societies for their archives and to remain as a future resource. These groups will include LING (Local Initiatives in New Galloway), who manage many community projects including the New Galloway Town Hall, and the Dumfries and Galloway Family History Society. If there are any other groups that you think would be interested, just let us know – the more the merrier. We’ll also add your findings to Can You Dig It’s online resources and share little snippets from your research on the Can You Dig It social media (@gglparchaeology on both Facebook and Twitter) throughout the year – let us know if you’d rather your name was left off of the final results. Any Questions? If you have any questions at all throughout the project (or even some tips that we could forward on to your fellow researchers) then just send us an email at contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk and pop ‘Kells’ or ‘Grave Encounters’ into the subject title. Top Tip It might be an idea to type up pieces of information as you uncover them - this will hopefully stop you from having a major typing up exercise at the end! Virtual Tea Breaks Throughout March and April we’ll be holding weekly ‘Virtual Tea Breaks’ on Thursdays alternating each week between morning and afternoon. There’s no pressure to attend but it’s a chance for you to drop in at any point to ask questions, share tips and findings, or just have a friendly chat. These will take place over Zoom and we’ll send you out the link and confirm the time by 9am every Thursday morning. The first (and most important) piece of advice given when you start in archaeology is to ‘always ask’ – we’re here to help and if we don’t have the answer right away, then we will endeavour to hunt it out for you! Our first Tea Break will be on Thursday 3rd March 10:00-11:00am BYOB (Bring your own biscuits!) Where do I start? The best way to start is by gleaning as much detail as you can from the initial gravestone inscription. This might not be much – their full name, the date that they died and their age (which will let you calculate the approximate year they were born). It might also have the names of their spouse or relatives, which can help you to be sure that you have the right person when looking at records such as birth registers and census returns. The inscription might also give you a location for where they had been living and some might even mention the person’s occupation. It’s worth keeping a note of everything you find out as you go along to help you narrow down any search results. Below you will find a list of the main resources available to help you get started. There’s no particular order and you’ll find out for yourself which resources you find easier to use, but if you’re unsure then the Findmypast option on the National Library of Scotland might be a good one to start with (see below for more details). did you know? You will find memorials to Covenanters across most of the kirkyards in Galloway, and Kells is no exception. Covenanters were effectively made religious outlaws by Charles II during the 17th century, with government troops stationed throughout the Glenkens for the purpose of their capture and, often, their execution. There is an abundance of information available about Covenanters on the internet and it’s worth doing a general search to see what you can find. Two resources that can be helpful for our area though are the Scottish Covenanter Memorials Association and Jardine’s Book of Martyrs. Top Tip Keep a note of any alternative spellings that you come across – you never know when someone might have accidentally added an error or typo into the record! Take care It’s possible that you might find some of the material you come across upsetting – in the past, they will have perceived events and occurrences differently from how we do today, and certain accounts or the language used might seem offensive or distressing by today’s standards. If you come across anything that you find upsetting or disturbing, then think carefully about whether you want to continue with it – it might be best to stop and move onto the next individual on your list. And if you write up the material in your findings, it’s best to keep as close to the original source as you can and write without bias – the past was a very different place! And enjoy it Undertaking research can be a very rewarding task, but it can also become frustrating if your search is coming up empty. Don’t be disheartened – if you find yourself hitting a wall, then maybe it’s time to have a break or move onto the next individual on your list. And you can always use us as a sounding board if you need to. By recording the person’s history, no matter how scant your findings, you will be ensuring that they remain in local memory for many years to come. August Open Day We’re hoping to have a small ‘open day’ at Kells Churchyard in August where we can share your findings and demonstrate how to create 3D models of some of the ‘Adam and Eve’ stones that are starting to lose their detail. If you’re happy to get involved, we’d love to have you along so that you can stand by the stones that you researched and share their stories to passers-by. We’ll let you know the details but there’s no pressure to attend. We can share your stories for you and keep you updated on how we get on. We’ll also send you links to any of the 3D models that we create. Top Tip If something pops out that you want to look further into, such as a particular conflict someone was involved in, their profession or even their house, feel free to add it into your findings – it all adds to revealing a part of their lived experience. Resources There are many resources available for researching the history of people. Here is a list of the main ones that we’ve come across. Most of them are free but, for the few that are charged, we can help you out so don’t worry. Feel free to share any tips or other resources that you come across and we’ll forward them on to your fellow researchers. National Library of Scotland Top Tip If your main address is in Scotland, you can apply to become a member of the National Library of Scotland (NLS). To get a physical card you’ll need to visit in person, but by just registering online, you will get free access to over 100 online resources. When looking at any results in the Findmypast section of the NLS website, check if there’s an option to ‘View original record’. If there is, then be sure to have a look as you might find that it holds more information beyond what appears in the typed entry. This includes thousands of books, reports, newspapers and journals. But probably most importantly for this project, it includes the Library’s account with ‘Findmypast’. Findmypast is a searchable online archive of over 2 billion records including birth, marriage and death records, parish records, censuses, migration records and military collections – a perfect place to start your research. Newspapers Old newspapers are a great resource, they can transport you back to the past in a way that few other archives can. You can often uncover information just by searching for a person’s name. You might find obituaries, marriage announcements, local events or maybe they’ve appeared in a newsworthy story. There are some newspapers available in the NLS online resources, including the Scotsman, but the best online resource for newspapers is the British Newspaper Archive (BNA). The BNA stems from a partnership between the British Library and Findmypast to digitise the Library’s vast newspaper archive dating back to the 17th century. You can search the BNA website for free and use the filters on the left to narrow your results by date and area. It’s also worth trying out different search terms or adding in extra words, such as a place name, to help. Once you have found a list of articles that might be relevant to your search, you can look to see if any of them are ‘Free to View’ (another filter option), although you will need to register. Many of the results will likely require a paid subscription to view them though, but this is where we can help – once you have narrowed down your search and picked out the articles that you think are relevant, then just email us the weblink from the top bar and we can download and email the articles straight through to you. We can do this for as many as you want so don’t worry – if you’re uncertain how relevant it is, just add it to the list to make sure! Local Libraries This project is primarily an online one but if you do have access to a local library and fancy a visit, then you will find that most have a section dedicated to researching family history. By visiting in person, you will be able to search either Scotlands People, Findmypast or an equivalent, such as Ancestry, for free – just check their website to find out where it’s available. Census Returns The census began in 1801 and was repeated every tenth year (with the exception of 1941) collecting information on households across the country. This can include a person’s age, birthplace, occupation and marital status at the time the census was taken. Very little information about individuals survives for 1801 to 1831, but you will be able to find census information from 1841 to 1911 online – a 100-year secrecy rule is in place, with the 1921 census return due out this year. Thanks to the Friends of the Archives of Dumfries and Galloway and several volunteers, you can access the returns of the 1851 census for Dumfriesshire, Kirkcudbrightshire and Wigtownshire for free on the Dumfries and Galloway Council website. You are also able to access some of the census returns for free through FreeCen and, if your main address is in Scotland, by registering online with the National Library of Scotland. The census records are also available through a subscription to Scotland’s People. Top Tip The 1841 census enumerators were instructed to round down a person’s age to the nearest multiple of five – this is worth remembering when trying to calculate a person’s possible birth date. Scotlands People The official Scottish Government site for searching records and archives, ScotlandsPeople provides access to the statutory registers of births, marriages, deaths etc; census returns; church records; valuation rolls and legal records from Scotland’s law courts. You can search this website and look through the results as much as you like, but you will need credits to be able to click on a document and look at it in detail. It’s worth doing a search on Scotlands People to compare the results with what comes up on Findmypast in the NLS resources. If Scotlands People turns up records that you can’t find elsewhere then we can issue you with a voucher for credits to cover the cost of viewing them. We’ll only be able to issue so many within our budget so it’s best to make as much use of the free resources as you can. Scotlands People also have a range of guides which are freely accessible on their website and can help you to make sense of the different records available and what information they contain. Top Tip Keep a note of any alternative spellings that you come across – you never know when someone might have accidentally added an error or typo into the record! Scotlands Places ScotlandsPlaces is a free resource that lets you explore thousands of records simply by searching for a place name, clicking on a map or typing in your postcode. Search results bring together the national collections of Historic Environment Scotland, the National Records of Scotland and the National Library of Scotland so that you can easily find maps, photographs and written records about your chosen place. The website gives you access to tax rolls and the Ordnance Survey Name Books, as well as photographs, archaeological records, drawings and publications. ScotlandsPlaces is very useful for searching for a specific place name that a person might be associated with, such as a house, estate or farm. You can often connect people to places through tax records and in the Name Books – for the latter, be sure to check who’s listed under ‘Authorities for spelling’ as this will often include the tenant or landowner. And so many more... We’ve picked out the main resources that we think will be most helpful in your search but there are many others out there which may prove useful. For a full guide of what’s available, have a look at our guide for Web-Based Heritage Research. Top Tip It’s always worth doing a general internet search for the people or places you are researching, particularly for the older burials or individuals that might be well-known locally. There is a wealth of local online resources from community websites to personal blogs and you might well turn up some new information.  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 Grave Encounters at Kells Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_98 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 The Grave Encounters project recruited volunteers to undertake research into the memorial inscriptions at Kells graveyard in New Galloway. GGLP graveyards https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/14/557/Glenkens-Pilgrims-Way-phase-1.pdf bb43bb85ef8438078bf36ffab1a65f03 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 Glenkens Pilgrims Way 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 Glenkens Pilgrims Way 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 Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright and database right 2019. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100016994 Galloway Glens LP . Scale 1:25000 Created by Jonathan Barrett on 04 April 2019 Glenkens Pilgrims Way Phase 1 Carsphairn to Polmaddy  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 Glenkens Pilgrims Way Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_97 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 Map showing route of reconstructed Pack Road, part of the Pilgrims Way. access GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/556/GGLP-CYDI-DSR_Woodhead.pdf ce72faf7b416e0c15e876ad08fef3745 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Data Structure Report – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Data Structure Reports Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Can You Dig It? Community Archaeology Project Data Structure Report Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn by Claire Williamson th issued 25 August 2023 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Quality Assurance This report covers works which have been undertaken in keeping with the issued brief as modified by the agreed programme of works. The report has been prepared in keeping with the guidance of Rathmell Archaeology Limited on the preparation of reports. All works reported on within this document have been undertaken in keeping with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of Conduct. Signed ……………………………….. …..25th August 2023…… Date In keeping with the procedure of Rathmell Archaeology Limited this document and its findings have been reviewed and agreed by an appropriate colleague: Checked ……………………………….. …..25th August 2023…… Date Copyright Rathmell Archaeology Limited. All rights reserved. No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Rathmell Archaeology Limited. If you have received this report in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party unless otherwise agreed in writing by Rathmell Archaeology Limited. No liability is accepted by Rathmell Archaeology Limited for any use of this report, other than the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Rathmell Archaeology Limited using due skill, care and diligence and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. No independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Rathmell Archaeology Limited has been made. Quality Assurance Data Author(s) Claire Williamson Date of Issue 25th August 2023 Commissioning Body Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme Event Name Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Event Type Historic Building Survey Event Date(s) July 2022 Rathmell Archaeology Code RA18107 Location United Kingdom : Scotland : Dumfries and Galloway NGR NX 52887 93684 Designation(s) Scheduled Monument (SM5184) Canmore IDs 63884; 106171; 106179 Version OASIS Ref Parish ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 1 of 58 1.0 rathmell1-437549 Carsphairn RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Contents Introduction .................................................................................. 5 Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 5 Project Works ................................................................................ 8 Findings ......................................................................................... 8 Building [001] .................................................................................................... 8 Building [002] .................................................................................................. 16 Building [003] .................................................................................................. 16 Building [004] .................................................................................................. 23 Building [005] .................................................................................................. 23 Building [006] .................................................................................................. 26 Building [007] .................................................................................................. 29 Discussion ................................................................................... 33 Building [001] – Office Row ............................................................................... 33 Building [002] .................................................................................................. 37 Building [003] – The Stables .............................................................................. 37 Building [004] – The Powder Magazine ................................................................ 37 Buildings [005] and [006] – The Miners’ Rows ..................................................... 38 Building [007] – The School and Schoolhouse ...................................................... 41 Conclusion ................................................................................... 41 Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 42 References .................................................................................. 42 Documentary ................................................................................................... 42 Archives .......................................................................................................... 43 Online images .................................................................................................. 43 Cartographic .................................................................................................... 43 Appendix 1: Photographic Register ............................................. 44 Contact Details ............................................................................ 58 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figures Figure 1a: Extract from the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853 ................................... 6 Figure 1b: Extract from the 25-inch Ordnance Survey map of 1895 ....................................... 6 Figure 2: Plan showing the location of surveyed buildings ..................................................... 7 Figure 3a: General view of Building [001] from the northeast ............................................... 10 Figure 3b: Shot of Room A in Building [001], taken from the south ...................................... 10 Figure 4: Plan of Building [001] ............................................................................................ 11 Figure 5: External SE facing elevation of Building [001] ....................................................... 12 Figure 6: Fireplace in the southwest wall of Room B, Building [001] .................................... 14 Figure 7a: External NW facing elevation of Building [001] showing junction between Rooms D and E................................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 7b: General view of Building [002] from the southwest .............................................. 15 Figure 8: Plan of Building [002] ............................................................................................ 17 Figure 9: Plan of Building [003] ............................................................................................ 18 Figure 10a: Building [003] – south wall of Room A ............................................................... 19 Figure 10b: Building [003] – blocked windows at south end of west wall of Room B ............ 19 Figure 11a: Building [003] - partially blocked window in N wall of Room B ........................... 21 Figure 11b: Building [004] – blocked opening in SE wall ...................................................... 21 Figure 12: Plan of Building [004] .......................................................................................... 22 Figure 13: Plans of Buildings [005] and [006 ........................................................................ 24 Figure 14a: Building [005] – possible jambs of fireplace in NE wall of Room C, taken from the SW....................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 14b: Building [005] – remains of possible fireplace in SW wall of Room A, taken from the NE ................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 15: Building [006] - external SW facing elevation ...................................................... 27 Figure 16: Plan of Building [007] .......................................................................................... 28 Figure 17a: Building [007] - blocked opening within NW wall of Room B, internal view ........ 31 Figure 17b: Building [007] – Internal view of SW wall of Room D showing joist holes and brick traces around possible first-floor window ............................................................................. 31 Figure 18a: Building [007] – SW end of Room E taken from the SE ..................................... 32 Figure 18b: ‘David McMath at the leadmines September 1926’ showing SW end of Building [001], image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References)............................................ 32 Figure 19a: View of Building [001] in 1993 taken from the southwest, courtesy of Anna Campbell ............................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 19b: Building [001] – external view of doorway in NW wall of Room A taken in 1987, courtesy of Anna Campbell .................................................................................................. 35 Figure 20a: ‘Mine office on Office Row’ showing SW half of Building [001] in 1959, image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References) ................................................................ 36 Figure 20b: View of Woodhead from the SE, showing (A) Building [007]; (B) Building [006]; (C) Building [005]; (D) Building [004]; (E) Building [001] and (F) Building [003], image taken from Hunter (2001, 10)......................................................................................................... 36 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 21a: Extract from ‘Plan of Woodhead with photos (copy), 4 parts’ showing ‘Stables’ to the left of the Office Row and dated as 1845 by Anna Campbell, image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References) .................................................................................. 39 Figure 21b: ‘Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn No 10’ taken from the SE, image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References) .................................................................................. 39 Figure 22a: ‘Schoolhouse at Woodhead Leadmine’ taken in 1886 and showing Building [007] from the E, image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References) ................................... 40 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Introduction 1. This Data Structure Report describes works undertaken at Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn carried out as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership (GGLP) community archaeology project Can You Dig It. This report presents the results from a historic building survey undertaken at the site of a 19th-century lead mining village in the parish of Carsphairn. 2. Focusing on the buildings at the western end of the mining complex, seven structures were recorded, which included the manager’s house and office, two rows of miners’ cottages, stables, a powder magazine and a school. The structures vary in their state of survival; while none remain roofed, the height of the standing walls range from one or two courses up to full height. Over 300 photographs were generated from the survey, capturing details of the walls before they deteriorate any further. 3. The works were carried out by volunteers supported by Rathmell Archaeology staff. The structure of the works was drawn from advice and guidance from officers of GGLP, Dumfries and Galloway Council and members of local heritage societies. Historical & Archaeological Background 4. The site of Woodhead Lead Mine survives as a complex of ruinous structures spread out across a hillside to the northwest of Carsphairn. It represents the remains of an entire mining village built in the 1830s (Figure 1a) and is designated as a scheduled monument (SM5184). As well as a school, library and housing, it is still possible to make out the structures and areas central to the mine’s workings, which went from mining the lead right through to smelting it in furnaces. Its history has been well researched by Sassoon (1969) and Campbell (1994). 5. The Woodhead Lead Mine was operational from 1838 to 1873 under the control of a reputably philanthropic landowner, Colonel MacAdam Cathcart. It is a rare example of a ‘total production’ unit in Scotland, using the cutting-edge equipment of the time to carry out all the processes of lead production from mining the ore through to exporting highquality lead pigs and even some silver. The machinery was powered by water, with a myriad of lades still traceable across the site. 6. At its peak in the 1840s, Woodhead was producing up to 900 tons of lead a year. And for every ton of lead, they were also getting around 18 ounces of silver: enough for the Colonel’s wife to make communion cups from it for donation to the local church. The smelted lead was carried by horse-drawn carts up for storage in Dalmellington, before being taken to Ayr for sale and shipment. 7. Alongside this fully integrated mining complex, Cathcart also constructed a ‘model village’ to house the miners and their families, with a school and library to educate their children. By 1851 there was a population of 301 staying in the village, pulling in mainly skilled miners from Wanlockhead and Leadhills. As the mine’s output started to fall dramatically throughout the 1850s however, the miners started to leave. Some went to Dalmellington, while others headed further afield to mines in America and Australia. The mine closed in 1873, but some of its buildings were later utilised for other purposes: by 1895, the school was being used as a Shooting Lodge and the powder magazine as a Kennel (Figure 1b). Some of the housing remained in use for self-employed forestry workers until as late as the mid-1950s, and the smelters’ housing block in the southeast continued to be in use for scouting holidays and agricultural storage for a few decades after that. 8. In 2002, CFA Archaeology Ltd carried out topographical surveys of three mines in Dumfries and Galloway which included Woodhead Lead Mine (Cressey, Pickin & Hicks 2004). The works surveyed the locations of the mine, the dressing and washing floors, the smelt mill and the housing, successfully managing to create an accurate survey of their locations and outlines. 9. A further survey of the site in 2008 by Macrae highlighted the importance of future work on the site to further understand not just the industrial processes, but the lifestyles of the mining community that developed there (2009). ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland Figure 1a: Extract from the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853 Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland Figure 1b: Extract from the 25-inch Ordnance Survey map of 1895 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 2: Plan showing the location of surveyed buildings ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn 10. One of the aims of the works detailed in this report was to further add to these earlier surveys by providing a more detailed recording of the upstanding portions of some of the buildings and allowing an in-depth understanding of their materials and construction. Project Works 11. The archaeological works focussed on the site of the miners’ rows, the manager’s house and the buildings associated with them. These structures are located at the western end of the Woodhead Lead Mine, accessed by a single-track road coming from the A713. The entirety of the Lead Mine and its associated structures have been granted Scheduled Monument status (SM5184). 12. The on-site works took place over two days on the 13th and 14th of July 2022 and consisted of a Historic Building Recording of the aforementioned structures. This recording was subject to aspects of the ALGAO:Scotland Basic Level (2013), to generate a record of the historic fabric of the structures before they deteriorate any further. 13. The record encompassed a photographic record, a written record, and sketched plans and elevations of the existing structures. In greater detail, these comprised: ❖ a written record of the structures, including comments on the condition, construction techniques, materials, fixtures and fittings and an interpretation of function; ❖ a photographic record of exterior elevations, details of interior elements and general views to place the structures in their immediate landscape; and ❖ annotated sketch plans of the existing structures to identify location and character of fabric. 14. The product of the building recording is this report containing a summary of the work undertaken and a baseline of the archaeological resource present. 15. All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (McKinstry 2022). The fieldwork was undertaken in mostly dry weather. In terms of structure, the core field team of Rathmell Archaeology staff and volunteers were on-site from 9am to 4pm. Findings 16. As stated, the on-site works focused on a group of buildings at the western end of the area. In total, seven structures were recorded numbered Buildings [001] to [007] accordingly. These included the manager’s house and office, two rows of miners’ cottages, stables, a powder magazine and a school. The structures vary in their state of survival; while none remain roofed, the height of the standing walls range from one or two courses up to full height. The locations of the seven structures are shown in Figure 2. 17. Written descriptions were obtained for five of the buildings ([001] to [005]) but due to time constraints, the survey of Buildings [006] and [007] focused on creating a full photographic record and measured sketch plans. Building [001] 18. Building [001] sits on high ground at the northwestern end of the site with clear views across the miners’ cottages to the south and the mine workings beyond. It has been identified as the site of the manager’s house, office and shop, otherwise known as ‘Office Row’. To the north of its northeastern end sits Building [003], while just to the southwest of it is Building [002]. The ground to the southeast appears to be the site of a former garden with three trees still upstanding. 19. The structure of Building [001] survives as a single-storey rectangular building orientated southwest-northeast, with no surviving roof (Figure 3a). The external dimensions of the building measure approximately 37.4m southwest-northeast by 6.3m northwestsoutheast, and the walls survive to a maximum height of 3.15m. Its interior is divided into five compartments, labelled Rooms A to E (Figure 4). No internal floor surfaces are ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn currently visible, with the internal ground level of each compartment built up by varying levels of tumble and covered by vegetation. Room A 20. Room A sits at the very southwest end of the building and is the smallest of the five rooms. Externally, it measures 2.7m southwest-northeast by 2.4m transversely, with a wall thickness of approximately 0.3 to 0.4m. It is rectangular in plan with only one external entrance from the southeast. There is no evidence of internal access to the adjacent Room B. 21. The walls of Room A are mostly collapsed, only surviving to approximately 1.5m high (Figures 3b and 5). They comprise coursed greywacke rubble, bonded with mortar and have traces of a roughcast render across their external faces. The walls of Room A do not appear to tie in with the southwest wall of Room B, instead abutting it, and it seems possible that Room A is a later addition to the structure. 22. The single external entrance sits at the northeast end of the southeast wall. It does not survive to its full height but appears to have been a simple rectangular opening measuring 1.08m wide, with no notable finish to the door jambs. Room B 23. Room B sits adjacent to the northeast of Room A and is comparatively much bigger in size, measuring 8.95m (southwest-northeast) by 5m (southeast-northeast) internally with a wall thickness of 0.6m. There is only one external entrance, which sits central to the southeast wall, and three windows: one to either side of the external doorway and a smaller one at the centre of the northwest wall. 24. The walls of Room B consist of coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar and covered by a roughcast render across their external faces. Squared ashlar quoins are present at both of the southwest corners. The southeast, southwest and northwest walls stand between 2 and 3.15m high, while the internal northeast wall (which separates it from Room C) is mostly collapsed, standing to approximately 1m across most of its length. 25. The single external entrance at the centre of the southeast wall measures approximately 1m wide and 2.5m high. It is defined by simple squared jambs and a stone lintel. 26. To either side of the central doorway sits a window. Both windows sit approximately 0.65m above the external ground level and measure between 1.15 and 1.35m wide. Neither the upper portions of the windows nor their sills survive in situ. Only small sections of the simple squared jambs remain at either window, with ‘L’ shaped iron brackets on their external faces indicating the locations of hinges. 27. At the centre of the southwest wall sits a substantial fireplace, which measures 1.25m wide and 0.55m deep (see Figure 6). Only the upper portion of the fireplace remains visible as its interior is partially infilled by tumble. It is capped by a large, shaped blonde sandstone block (its central section now missing) with a further greywacke lintel above. The vertical jambs are also shaped blonde sandstone, and the top of a cast-iron stove, with possible oven and hot plate, is visible within the rubble infill of the interior. 28. Set into the wall just to the right of, and approximately 1m above, the fireplace, is a small recess measuring approximately 0.25m square. It is defined by a greywacke lintel and jambs and appears to have been a small storage shelf. 29. Approximately 0.6m to the left, southeast, of the fireplace at ground level are the remains of an alcove or cupboard which measures 0.85m wide, 0.3m deep and approximately 1m high. The stones at the rear of the alcove have been covered by a lime plaster. 30. The central portion of the northwest wall is slightly recessed, defined by squared greywacke jambs and measuring 1.7m wide by 0.15m deep. At the centre of this recess sits a small window with a lintel, sill and jambs of greywacke. The window has a splayed embrasure, measuring 0.3m wide externally and 0.5m wide internally. It sits approximately 0.6m above the external ground level and measures approximately 0.5m high. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 3a: General view of Building [001] from the northeast Figure 3b: Shot of Room A in Building [001], taken from the south ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 4: Plan of Building [001] ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 5: External SE facing elevation of Building [001] ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn 31. As stated, the northeast wall has mainly collapsed but a possible in situ jamb visible within the tumble could suggest the presence of an internal doorway at its southeast end leading to Room C. The presence of ceramic chimney pots within this rubble might also hint at the presence of another fireplace in this wall but no definite structural evidence for this is currently visible. Room C 32. Directly to the northeast sits Room C, which measures approximately 7.35m (southwestnortheast) by 5m (southeast-northeast) internally with a wall thickness of 0.6m. There is only one external entrance and one window, both of which sit on the southeast wall. 33. The walls of Room C consist of coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar and covered by a roughcast render across their external faces. Traces of lime plaster can also be seen covering the internal face of the southeast wall. The southeast, northwest and northeast walls stand between 2 and 2.9m high, while the internal southwest wall (which separates it from Room B) is mostly collapsed, standing to approximately 1m across most of its length. The internal face of the northeast wall has partially tumbled, obscuring its lower half. 34. The single external entrance sits central to the southeast wall and measures 1.06m wide. It is defined by squared greywacke jambs, but the lintel is no longer in situ. 35. To the southwest of the doorway sits the room’s only window, at 0.66m above the external ground level. It measures 1.22m wide, but its lintel, sill and jambs are no longer present. 36. The only possible internal doorway is the partially visible door jamb at the southeast end of Room C’s southwest wall which was noted in the description of Room B. No other internal features are currently visible. Room D 37. Continuing to the northeast is Room D, a nearly square room measuring 4.8m southwest to northeast by approximately 5m northwest to southeast with a wall thickness of 0.6m. There is one external doorway in the southeast wall, a single window in the northwest wall and an internal doorway in the northeast wall leading to Room E. 38. The walls comprise coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar and covered by a roughcast render across their external faces. As with Room C, traces of lime plaster can also be seen covering the internal face of the southeast wall and across the lower half of the northwest wall. The walls stand between 1.84m (along the northeast half) and 2.9m (along the southwest half) high. 39. The external doorway sits roughly central to the southeast wall and measures 1.2m wide. Its lintel is no longer present, and its jambs are formed of squared greywacke blocks. 40. The room’s only window sits at the centre of its northwest wall, roughly 0.3m up from the external ground level. It has a splayed embrasure, measuring 0.8m wide externally and 1.02m wide internally, but its sill and lintel are no longer in situ. 41. There is no internal access from Room C, but the squared jambs of a potential opening within the collapsed northeast wall indicate the possible presence of a doorway into Room E. This opening measures 1m wide. 42. Viewed externally, the northeast ends of both the northwest and southeast walls abut the corners of Room E (Figure 7a), which are defined by squared quoins, indicating that Rooms B, C and D appear to be later than the structure of Room E. Room E 43. Building [001] ends with Room E at its northeast end. Room E measures 9.9m southwest to northeast by approximately 5m transversely, with a wall thickness of 0.6m. 44. The walls are formed of coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar. Compared with the rest of the building, Room E’s walls have mostly collapsed and only stand between 0.39 and 1.02m high. While only a few courses survive at the northeast corners, the room’s southwest corners are defined by squared quoins. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 6: Fireplace in the southwest wall of Room B, Building [001] ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 7a: External NW facing elevation of Building [001] showing junction between Rooms D and E Figure 7b: General view of Building [002] from the southwest ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn 45. One window is present at the southwest end of the northwest wall, its splayed embrasure measuring 0.87m externally and 1.16m internally. 46. The ruinous state of Room E’s external walls makes it difficult to be definite about the locations of doorways. Aside from the possible internal access in the southwest wall leading from Room D, there are two possible locations for external doorways observed in the southeast and northeast walls respectively. 47. The location of a possible external doorway in the southeast wall is suggested by a break in its length, which measures 1.18m wide and is defined on one side by a squared greywacke block which could represent a possible door jamb. 48. Another gap at the centre of the northeast wall, measuring 0.98m wide, suggests the possible location for another external doorway, which is defined by thin upright slabs still standing to a height of 0.38m on either side. Building [002] 49. A short distance to the southwest of Building [001], and on the same alignment, was Building [002]: a single-compartment structure measuring approximately 5m square internally with a wall thickness of 0.7m (Figures 7b and 8). There is no roof remaining, and the interior is covered by tumble, turf and vegetation obscuring any potential floor surfaces. 50. The building is in a much more ruinous state than Building [001] and most of its walls only survive from approximately 0.3 to 0.5m high. A small section at the northwest end of its southwest wall is upstanding to 0.8m, however, and its northern corner still stands to 2.05m. These sections indicate that its walls are constructed of coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar, with squared quoins also present in this upstanding corner. 51. The poor survival of the walls means that window locations cannot be identified, but a gap at the centre of the southeast wall, measuring approximately 1m wide, might represent the site of an external doorway. Building [003] 52. Slightly upslope from the northeast end of Building [001], Building [003] sits on a northnorthwest to south-southeast alignment. It has been identified as the site of the stables and consists of a two-storey rectangular building with no surviving roof (Figure 9). As with Buildings [001] and [002], its interior is covered by tumble and overgrown with turf and vegetation obscuring any floor surfaces that might survive beneath. 53. Externally, the building measures approximately 5.8m east-west by 13.5m transversely. Its walls consist of coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar, although they vary in survival across their length. Most of the southern gable wall survives to full height at 4.6m, while the west and north elevations stand between 2.15 and 2.4m high and are missing their external faces. The east elevation is mostly collapsed only surviving to approximately 0.5m along most of its length. Large, squared quoins can still be seen in the southwest and northwest corners. 54. The interior of Building [003] is subdivided into two compartments: Rooms A and B. Room A 55. Room A occupies the southern end of the building and is the smaller of the two rooms, measuring 4.9m east-west by 3.3m north-south internally. Its walls measure from 0.4 to 0.6m thick, and there is one external entrance in its eastern wall and a small opening that sits high in its south wall. 56. The south wall is the gable end of the building which still stands to 4.6m (Figure 10a), while the west wall stands to 2.4m, and both are covered by a possible lime plaster on their internal faces. The north wall, which would have subdivided it from the adjacent Room B, has mostly collapsed, surviving to only 0.6m high and very overgrown. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 8: Plan of Building [002] ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 9: Plan of Building [003] ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 10a: Building [003] – south wall of Room A Figure 10b: Building [003] – blocked windows at the south end of the west wall of Room B ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn 57. The eastern end of the room appears to have been the site of a large opening which sat at the south end of the building’s eastern elevation. The opening measures approximately 2.8m wide, although only the small section of walling at its southern edge survives, standing to approximately 1.2m high, meaning that the full height of the opening is no longer known. This surviving southern jamb is a simple square form with a lime plaster covering on its west and north faces. 58. The only other opening still present in Room A sits at the top of the southern gable wall, at a height of approximately 4m (Figure 10a). It measures approximately 0.6m square and is defined by single flat greywacke stones for both its jambs and lintel. There does not appear to be a discernible sill still in situ. 59. At around 2.5m high on the south wall, a horizontal break is visible in the plaster indicating the location of an upper floor, within which the above window sat (Figure 10a). At the same level in the adjoining west wall are a row of vertical rectangular joist holes, numbering seven in total, each measuring approximately 0.07m wide by 0.19m tall and spaced roughly 0.45m apart (partly visible on the right-hand side of Figure 10a). 60. Possible scrapes of red paint and an iron bolt are also visible on the internal faces of the south and west walls, and an iron ring also remains set into the middle of the south wall, approximately 1m above ground level. Room B 61. At the northern end, Room B is larger in size, measuring 4.9m east-west by 8.85m northsouth, with a wall thickness of 0.4 to 0.6m. While it could reflect a deeper build-up, the floor level of Room B appears to sit higher than Room A by approximately 0.6m. 62. The west and north walls stand between 2.15 and 2.5m high, while the east wall has mostly collapsed. It measures approximately 0.5m high across most of its length, apart from the final 3 to 4m of its northern end which measures from 1 to 2.5m high. Traces of lime plaster can be seen across the internal faces of the west, north and east walls. 63. There appears to be one external doorway in the east wall, and six windows (five of which have at least been partially blocked) split across the west, north and east walls. 64. A large gap within the southern half of the east wall provides a possible location for an external doorway into Room B. This gap measures 3.25m wide. This might represent another wide opening similar to the one into Room A, but only the footings survive of the walls to either side meaning that this might be more a reflection of poor survival. 65. On the west wall there are four blocked windows, all of similar style and dimensions, which sit in pairs at either end of the wall. Each of the four windows measures approximately 0.8m wide, and their jambs are formed by large, squared greywacke blocks. They have all been fully blocked using coursed greywacke rubble covered by lime plaster. 66. The two windows at the southern end of the west wall are positioned level to each other approximately 0.35m up from the internal ground surface (Figure 10b). They sit 0.7m apart and measure 1.75m tall but their lintels are no longer in situ. The two at the north end also sit level with each other but are set approximately 0.3m higher than the southern pair. They also sit 0.7m apart and survive to approximately 1m tall although, again, their lintels are no longer in situ. 67. A fifth window sits at the eastern end of the north wall (Figure 11a). It measures 0.93m wide by 1.4m tall and sits 0.15m up from the internal ground level. Its lintel and jambs are formed by large, squared greywacke blocks but its sill appears to be missing. The lower 0.4m of the opening has been blocked with coursed rubble containing traces of lime plaster. 68. At the northern end of the east wall, the remains of a possible jamb comprising squared greywacke blocks suggest the position of a sixth window. Neither the opposite jamb nor the sill or lintel survive to suggest its character, however. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 11a: Building [003] - partially blocked window in N wall of Room B Figure 11b: Building [004] – blocked opening in SE wall ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 12: Plan of Building [004] ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Building [004] 69. This structure is positioned further to the south, downslope of Buildings [001], [002] and [003]. It occupies a section of level ground which overlooks the rows of miners’ cottages (Buildings [005] and [006]) sitting further to the southeast. 70. Building [004] is a single-compartment structure with walls consisting of coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar, and no surviving roof (Figure 12). The interior is overgrown with turf and vegetation but a section of concrete floor can be seen in the northern corner. 71. Externally, Building [004] measures roughly 4.9m square in plan, with a wall thickness of 0.56m. The walls have mostly collapsed, surviving to a maximum height of 1.32m, with a large amount of tumble covering the ground both externally and internally. There are traces of a possible lime plaster on the internal faces of the walls. The building has no internal subdivisions and only one doorway which sits central to the northeast wall. 72. This doorway measures 1.05m wide and survives up to a height of approximately 1.2m although its upper portion is no longer extant. Its jambs are defined by large, squared greywacke blocks. 73. The only other features noted in the surviving walls are two narrow, blocked openings that sit at ground level, one in each of the southwest and southeast walls. Each opening measures around 0.33m wide and 0.95 high. The southeast example is still capped by a stone lintel (Figure 11b). Both have been infilled with rubble and mortar. There might also be a similar opening in the northwest wall, but this wall has mostly collapsed making it unclear. Building [005] 74. Continuing downslope to the southeast, Buildings [005] and [006] represent two rows of miners’ cottages, named the ‘Higher Row’ and the ‘Lower Row’ respectively. They both sit on the same alignment running southwest to northeast. 75. Externally, Building [005] measures approximately 44m southwest to northeast by 6m southeast to northwest, with a wall thickness of 0.55 to 0.6m. Its walls are constructed of coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar. The walls have largely collapsed: the highest section is at the northwest corner of the southwestern end, which stands up to 1.85m high, but the rest of the structure stands between 0.14 and 0.92m high. The interior is covered by tumble, and overgrown with turf and vegetation, obscuring any floor surfaces that may survive. Many roofing slates are also present in the tumbled material. Building [005] has been subdivided into five compartments: Rooms A to E labelled sequentially from southwest to northeast (Figure 13). Due to the poor survival of the walls and the similar nature between the rooms, it seems appropriate to describe them as a group. Rooms A to E 76. Each of the compartments measures 4.8m wide (northwest to southeast) and ranges between 6.72m and 9.1m in length (southwest to northeast). 77. They each appear to have a single external entrance through their southeast walls, with no internal access between them. In Rooms B, D and E, the positioning of the doorways is indicated by gaps in what survives of the walls. The footings of the doorways in Rooms A and C are still visible, however, measuring approximately 1.2m wide and marked by squared stone jambs. 78. Across most of the rooms, the walls do not survive to a height that allows for the identification of window locations. The only window that can be identified is at the southwest end of the northwest wall in Room A. This window sits roughly 1.4m up from the external ground level. It has a splayed embrasure, measuring 0.56m wide externally and 0.73m wide internally, but its sill and lintel are no longer in situ. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 13: Plans of Buildings [005] and [006 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 24 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 14a: Building [005] – possible jambs of fireplace in NE wall of Room C, taken from the SW Figure 14b: Building [005] – remains of a possible fireplace in the SW wall of Room A, taken from the NE ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 25 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn 79. Traces indicating the locations of fireplaces can be seen in each of the internal subdividing walls, as well as in either gable end. Most only survive as one or two vertically placed stones, visible within the base of the walls, suggesting the site of jambs (see Figure 14a). In the gable wall, which formed the southwest wall of Room A, the site of a fireplace is more strongly indicated by the lower remains of a recess measuring 1.05m wide (Figure 14b). Building [006] 80. Known as the ‘Lower Row’, Building [006] is similar in character to Building [005] but is longer and has more internal compartments. Externally, it measures approximately 56m southwest to northeast by 6m southeast to northwest, with a wall thickness of 0.55 to 0.6m. 81. The walls of Building [006] are in a more dilapidated state than those of Building [005], measuring between approximately 0.2 and 0.7m across most of its extent. The clear exception to this is the southwest gable, which appears to still stand at its full height of approximately 5m. It is in this gable wall that we can see a construction style of coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar. 82. As with [005], the interior of Building [006] is covered by tumble and overgrown with turf and vegetation, obscuring any floor surfaces that may survive. 83. As stated, Building [006] was only subject to a quick photographic survey and a simple measured sketch plan, so the description below is taken from these and may be missing some finer details. 84. Building [006] has been subdivided into 10 rooms: Rooms A to J labelled sequentially from southwest to northeast (Figure 13). These 10 rooms appear to form two distinct groups in terms of their character, with Rooms A to D appearing to represent four individual units, while Rooms E to J appear to be further subdivisions within three larger units. This will be discussed in more detail below. Rooms A to D 85. The southwestern half of Building [005] contains four rooms, A to D, which each measure approximately 4.8m northwest-southeast by 5.7m southwest-northeast internally, with a wall thickness of 0.5 to 0.6m. 86. Except for the southwest gable, the poor survival of the walls makes it difficult to discern the locations of windows and fireplaces. As with Building [006], each of the rooms appears to have an external doorway in their southeast wall, with no internal access between them. 87. The southwest gable, which sits at the outer end of Room A, contains a fireplace and a window at height (Figure 15). The fireplace sits central to the wall at ground floor level and measures approximately 1 to 1.5m wide and 1m high. Its jambs and lintel comprise simple, roughly shaped greywacke slabs. Directly behind the fireplace, at the centre of the wall’s external face, a chimney still stands to the full height of the wall. It is constructed from the same material as the wall itself and measures 1.8m wide at the base narrowing in steps towards the top. The chimney pot is no longer present. 88. The window sits at first-floor level directly against the southeast side of the chimney. It measures, very approximately, 0.5m wide and 0.9m high and sits at a height of roughly 4m. The window’s northwest edge is defined by the chimney itself, while its southeast jamb, sill and lintel are formed by roughly shaped greywacke blocks. Rooms E to J 89. The northwestern half of the building contains six rooms, but as stated these appear to represent three two-room compartments: E/F, G/H and I/J. 90. Each two-room compartment or ‘unit’ measures approximately 4.8m northwest-southeast by 10m southwest-northeast internally, with each room within appearing to be roughly equal in size. The wall thickness measures 0.5 to 0.6m. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 26 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 15: Building [006] - external SW facing elevation ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 27 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 16: Plan of Building [007] ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 28 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn 91. The poor survival of the walls at this end of the building makes it difficult to identify the locations of openings, but it is possible that there was only one external entrance into each unit via the southeast wall of the southwest room, that is, through Rooms E, G and I. Internal access points between the rooms are harder to identify, although it is possible that there were doorways leading between the rooms within a unit (i.e. from Rooms E to F, G to H and I to J) but no internal access from unit to unit. Building [007] 92. The final building to be surveyed sat the lowest on the slope, continuing the line of buildings that run along the western edge of the site. Building [007] has been identified as the site of the school and schoolhouse during the site’s use as a lead mine in the 19th century. 93. It survives as a rectangular building orientated southwest-northeast with no surviving roof. Externally it measures approximately 26m southwest-northeast by 8m southeastnorthwest, with a small porch adjoined to its southeast face. The walls have mostly collapsed, surviving up to approximately 1.5m in height. The exception to this is the front southeast-facing elevation, which stands approximately 4m high across roughly two-thirds of its length. No internal floor surfaces are currently visible, with the internal ground level of each compartment built up by varying levels of tumble and covered by vegetation. 94. The interior of Building [007] comprises five rooms: A to E running southwest to northeast (Figure 16). As with Building [006], [007] was only subject to a quick photographic survey and a simple measured sketch plan, so the description below is taken from these and may be missing some finer details. Room A 95. Room A sits at the southwestern end of the building. It has mostly collapsed and is covered by a large amount of tumble, making its layout difficult to ascertain. Internally, it measures 7m northwest to southeast by approximately 3 to 3.5m southwest to northeast, with a wall thickness of 0.4 to 0.5m. It appears to have been further subdivided with a small compartment, measuring 2.9m northwest-southeast by approximately 2m transversely, set into its northern corner with its walls measuring 0.45m thick. 96. The walls of Room A are constructed from greywacke rubble bonded with a mortar but not enough survives to suggest more about their character or the locations of openings. The northeastern wall, which it shares with Room B, stands taller and has a roughcast render covering its face on the side of Room A. It is uncertain if there is an opening in this wall to indicate internal access between the two rooms. Room B 97. Sitting adjacent to the northeast is Room B, which internally measures 6.9m northwestsoutheast by approximately 5m northeast-southwest with a wall thickness of 0.4 to 0.6m. 98. Its walls have mostly collapsed, only standing between 0.4 and 1.5m in height along its northwest, southwest and southeast sides. They appear to comprise the coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar seen elsewhere. 99. The internal subdividing wall, which separates Room B from Room C to the northeast, is in a worse state, surviving as a low overgrown bank of tumble measuring approximately 0.2 to 0.3m high. 100. The poor survival of the walls makes identifying the sites of openings difficult but there does appear to be the remains of a blocked opening at the southwest end of the external northwest wall. Sat approximately 1.2m apart, slightly splayed jambs formed by roughly squared greywacke blocks can be seen in the internal face, with the intervening gap infilled by rubble and mortar (Figure 17a). The base of the blocked opening is largely obscured by overgrown tumble making its exact character unclear. It is also not as easily recognisable on the external face. It is possible that it could represent an external doorway or potentially an internal alcove. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 29 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Room C 101. As with Room B, Room C also spanned the full width of the building, measuring internally 6.9m northwest-southeast, but it is slightly longer at 6.2m northeast-southwest. Its walls have a thickness of 0.4 to 0.6m, with the southwest, northwest and northeast walls only standing between approximately 0.2 and 0.8m high. 102. In contrast, the northeast half of the southeast wall forms part of the front façade of the building which still stands to a height of approximately 4m, allowing for the identification of two possible windows on this side. The wall itself is formed of coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar and has a roughcast render covering on its external face. 103. The northeast window still has its stone lintel and slightly splayed jambs in situ but its sill and the wall beneath are missing. The opening as it currently appears measures 1.3m wide and approximately 1.5m high, with a splayed embrasure on the internal face. 104. The only surviving element of the southwestern window is the northeastern jamb, also slightly splayed on the interior. None of the rest of this window remains although two small iron brackets survive set into the exterior of the stones which form the remaining jamb. Sections of the wall surviving beneath where the opening would have been indicate that this represents the site of a window rather than a doorway. Room D 105. The largest room, Room D, occupies the northeast end of the building and measures 10.8m northeast-southwest by 6.9m southwest-northeast internally, with a wall thickness of 0.45 to 0.6m. Most of its walls survive as overgrown banks of tumble measuring between 0.2 and 0.8m in height, but the southeast wall still stands approximately 4m high comprising coursed greywacke rubble bonded with mortar and covered by a roughcast render on its external face. The southeast wall of Room D sits slightly in advance of Room C. 106. Several features can be seen in this southeast wall, which still contains a central doorway with a window to either side and traces of a possible third window at first-floor height. 107. The central doorway measures 1.2m wide and is defined by a roughly shaped greywacke lintel and jambs. This doorway appears to have been the main external access into Room D through an external porch: Room E. 108. The two ground-floor windows, which sit on either side of this doorway, both measure 1.7 to 1.8m wide and approximately 2.3m high. They are defined by a roughly shaped greywacke lintel and sill, and their jambs are slightly splayed on the interior. The internal faces of the embrasure are covered by traces of lime plaster, and small iron brackets remain fitted to the external faces of the jambs. 109. At first-floor level, directly above the southwest window, the lower courses of a possible third window are visible (Figure 17b). What may be the sill and lower jambs of this window are formed by red brick, in contrast to the other openings, which indicates that it is a later addition or modification/repair of an earlier opening. It could not be reached for measurement but appears to be similar in width to the ground-floor windows. 110. As well as this window, the presence of an upper floor above Room D is also indicated by two rectangular joist holes visible at the very southwest end of the wall (Figure 17b). These sit just above the height of the ground-floor windows’ lintels. The internal face of the wall has come away at this height across most of its length, but it seems likely that the joist holes would have once run the full length of the room. Room E 111. Room E comprises the small porch which sits along the external southeast elevation, roughly 4.6m in from its northeastern end. A small brick-built structure measuring internally 1.56m southwest-northeast by 1.9m transversely, Room E appears to have been a later addition to the front of the central external doorway which leads into Room D. 112. Its red-brick walls measure 0.24m wide and stand up to only four or five courses (approximately 0.4 to 0.5m) high. They are bonded with mortar and their external faces have been covered by a roughcast render. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 30 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 17a: Building [007] - blocked opening within NW wall of Room B, internal view Figure 17b: Building [007] – Internal view of SW wall of Room D showing joist holes and brick traces around possible first-floor window ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 31 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 18a: Building [007] – SW end of Room E taken from the SE Figure 18b: ‘David McMath at the leadmines September 1926’ showing SW end of Building [001], image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References) ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 32 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn 113. The room appears to have been accessed from the exterior by a doorway in its northeast wall, although its jambs are no longer clearly defined. There also appears to have been a further internal brick partition wall running northwest to southeast, set approximately 0.3m in from its southwest wall (Figure 18a). The function of this partition is unclear, but it also has a roughcast render across its northeast face matching the external faces of the other walls. Discussion 114. The remains at Woodhead Lead Mine comprise an amazing resource for an important period of Scotland’s industrial history, but it is a finite one. Its walls continue to collapse a little more with each passing decade taking with them insights into its form and character, which makes any recording of their condition all the more important. 115. This survey focussed on the buildings located along the western edge of the mining complex, encompassing domestic dwellings, offices and the school. The volunteers’ work generated over 300 photographs of these structures in their current condition and saw the team immersed in trying to understand the character and physical changes etched into their fabric. From these records, it is possible to try and add a little bit more to their story within this discussion. 116. Alongside this, in a further nod to the importance of record, it is possible to compare the buildings today with the available historical photographs taken during their use (and some more recent photographs showing changes in their ruins). It is important to remember, however, that these photographs are few in number and represent a snapshot of the buildings at one point in time: they will not account for the different forms they may have taken before and since. Building [001] – Office Row 117. One of the buildings with the best survival amongst those surveyed was [001]: the fivecompartment Office Row occupying the highest point of the survey area. With its walls still standing up to 3m in places, several features remain visible that can help us to form some conclusions about its character. 118. Within its fabric, it is possible to identify that [001] was a sequential build constructed over at least three phases: ❖ Its earliest phase appears to be represented by Room E, potentially initially erected as a stand-alone rectangular structure; ❖ Rooms B, C and D appear to have then been constructed in a single phase directly abutting the external wall of Room E and substantially extending the building to the southwest; ❖ Lastly, Room A appears to be a small lean-to added to the external southwest wall of Room B. 119. A difference in the state of survival between the three ‘phases’ could further support the notion that they were constructed at different times using different techniques, but this should be viewed with caution. It could equally represent phased abandonment in the years following the mine’s closure, with some sections remaining in use for longer than others. 120. Nevertheless, the higher survival of the walls within Rooms B, C and D do enable further suggestions on their function. 121. Externally, Room B is entered through a central doorway in its southeast wall, which has a window to either side. The presence of iron hinges indicates that these windows were once shuttered, while another smaller splayed window sits within a recess at the centre of the northwest wall. Once inside, the most imposing feature remaining is the fireplace in the southwest wall, with the remains of a stove still surviving in situ. 122. These details all suggest that Room B was part of the domestic residence that formed the manager’s house within the row. Historical photographs also suggest that Room B occupied the ground floor of a one-and-a-half-storey structure: you can see the location of a first- ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 33 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn floor window within the southwest wall in Figure 18b. 123. The lean-to, Room A, was constructed against the chimney stack on the exterior of the southwest wall. Tumble obscuring its interior makes it difficult to be certain of its function, although its simple form is supported by the photograph in Figure 18b. It may have been used for storage, or perhaps as an outhouse seeking some semblance of warmth from its position against the chimney. As well as the entrance in its southwest wall, Room A also appears to have had an external entrance in its rear northwest wall; while it is obscured by the tumble today, photographs from Anna Campbell’s private collection show that the room was once ‘L’ shaped with a narrower section leading to an entrance on this side (Figures 19a and 19b). Figure 19b might also suggest that there was an internal partition that further subdivided A into two compartments with no internal access, perhaps giving it a dual function. 124. From Figure 18b, it is possible to see that Room B occupies the highest portion of the row, with the roofline stepped lower over Room C. This lower height appears to remain consistent across the rest of the row (Rooms D and E). The presence of skylights within the roof above Room C could suggest that there continues to be an upper storey, although perhaps a less substantial one, such as an attic or loft space. 125. The location of a fireplace within the wall dividing Rooms B and C, suggested by the presence of chimney pot fragments, is confirmed in the historical photographs that show a chimney in this location (Figure 18b) and more recent photographs that show it still standing in the mid-20th century (Figure 20a). 126. Unlike Rooms B, C and D, the poor survival of the walls in Room E makes it difficult to discern specific features that could help to identify function or if there were internal partitions. Historical photographs, however, do show a chimney at its northeast end suggesting the presence of a fireplace in this wall (Figure 20b). It is possible that the opening identified at the centre of its northeast wall marks the site of this fireplace rather than a doorway, but this is very uncertain without further evidence. 127. The possibility of internal access from Room B into Room C might suggest that this also formed part of the living quarters, with the presence of a chimney (and therefore fireplace) at either end. Room C does, however, have its own external entrance and appears to be less ‘well furnished’ than Room B, with its lower roofline and only one window. Perhaps this was not part of the living quarters but was the site of a private office; if it had internal access to the house in Room B, then it would seem likely to have been for the sole use of the manager or whoever dwelled there. 128. There is no internal access between Rooms C and D, which indicates a definite division between the southwest half of the building (Rooms B and C) and the northeast half (Rooms D and E). This could suggest a more significant difference in function, possibly between the private and/or domestic use of the manager and their family, and a more public/commercial use of Rooms D and E. Indeed, Room D is the smallest in the main row (that is Rooms B to E) with only one entrance and potentially only one small window in its rear wall, making it a less desirable option for domestic use. 129. The division between private and public is also strengthened by the presence of the formal gardens and trees which sit in front of the southwest half of the building, obscuring it in historical photographs, unlike the more open northeast half (as can be seen in Figures 20b and 21b). 130. If Room E represents the initial construction of a stand-alone structure (indicated by the presence of quoins in its southwest corners) then it could potentially represent the site of an office or store from the earliest phases of the mine workings being established. A diary entry written by McAdam Cathcart during a visit to the Woodhead Mine on 7th March 1839, mentions accepting contracts respecting “the intended buildings at the Mine” including mason and carpenter work on the “Shops & houses” (see Carsphairn Archive section in References); perhaps Room E was part of the initial establishment phase with Rooms B to D, which included the manager’s house, added during the more formal building works that came later. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 34 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 19a: View of Building [001] in 1993 taken from the southwest, courtesy of Anna Campbell Figure 19b: Building [001] – external view of doorway in NW wall of Room A taken in 1987, courtesy of Anna Campbell ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 35 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 20a: ‘Mine office on Office Row’ showing SW half of Building [001] in 1959, image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References) A B C D E F Figure 20b: View of Woodhead from the SE, showing (A) Building [007]; (B) Building [006]; (C) Building [005]; (D) Building [004]; (E) Building [001] and (F) Building [003], image taken from Hunter (2001, 10) ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 36 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn 131. The difference in survival across the different rooms in Office Row seems likely to at least partially be a result of phased abandonment. In Figure 18b, we can see that Rooms A, B and C were still in use during the 1920s and the more ruinous Room E may have gone out of use prior to this point; if its sole purpose was as an office or store for the workings of the mine then it perhaps held little value for people living at the site after. This is very tentative, however, without further evidence. Building [002] 132. There is little that can be discerned about the nature of Building [002], the simple rectangular structure to the southwest of Building [001]. It does not appear within the available historical images and the poor survival of the walls makes it difficult to identify any internal features which might have helped to assign a possible function. Unlike several of the other buildings, depictions of [002] also appear unnamed on the historic mapping, potentially suggesting that it had a minor function, such as storage, and may have also gone out of use at an early stage after the mine’s closure. Building [003] – The Stables 133. The building to the northwest of [001] at the very top end of the survey area was Building [003], identified on at least one phase of mapping as the ‘Stables’ (Figure 21a). As with [001], Building [003] is also one of the better-surviving buildings included in the survey, with two of its walls standing over 2m high and a third (the southwest gable) standing near its original height at 4.6m. 134. The building sits on a natural slope and this appears to be reflected in its construction. Namely, the stepping of the larger windows in its western wall, which places the pair at the northern end higher than those to the south, could relate to the changing external ground level and a desire to maximise the incoming light. The floor level within the northern Room B also sits higher than the floor in A and, while it is uncertain how much of this could be the result of build-up post-abandonment, it might reflect a deliberate design in respect of the underlying topography. 135. The presence of the larger external entrance in the east wall of Room A can be seen in the background of the historical images (Figure 20b). If Building [003] was used as stables, Room A may have been used as a cart shed which would require a wider doorway than one designed for horses alone. However, the presence of the iron ring set into the wall – a possible tethering point – might suggest that it was a multi-purpose space. 136. Cressey, Pickin and Hicks (2004, 61) identify Building [002] as being the site of the “main smithy and workshop” suggesting that the building saw a change in function during its lifetime. It is unclear when this change occurred or which function came first in the sequence, but this change might account for the modifications visible within the fabric: the blocking of the larger windows along the west wall and the, at least, partial blocking of the window in the north wall. The scale of these modifications, which would have affected levels of light, warmth and access to the building, does appear to be substantial enough to mark a significant change in use. 137. The high window and joist holes in Room A indicate the presence of an upper floor in this half of the building. This could have taken the form of an attic or loft space mimicking the one-and-a-half-storey form visible elsewhere at Woodhead. This upper floor may have extended above Room B, but it is possible that it only appeared over Room A, particularly if the lower floor level in this section is a deliberate feature. Building [004] – The Powder Magazine 138. Gunpowder, often called black powder, was used for blasting in British mines from the 17 th century (Palmer, Nevell & Sissons 2012, 156-157), although became more common during the 18th century (Raistruck & Jennings 1965, 133-134). A mixture of saltpetre (potassium nitrate), charcoal and sulphur, the black powder required separate storage to minimise any risk of explosion. Building [004] has been identified as the powder store, or magazine, at Woodhead although, in agreement with Cressey, Pickin and Hicks (2004, 61), it sits closer to the living accommodation than would be expected. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 37 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn 139. Building [004] stands as a simple square structure with a concrete floor and a single entrance from the northeast. From the historical photographs, it is possible to see that it once had a hipped roof and whitewashed external walls (Figure 20b). 140. This simple square-shaped form of the magazine appears to be a fairly standard style noted by Cressey, Pickin and Hicks at other Scottish mining sites such as Glencreif, Wanlockhead and Wood of Cree, Minnigaff (2004, 61). 141. At the base of at least two of the walls, there is evidence of narrow vertical openings which were later blocked. It is possible that these were vents relating to the proper storage of the powder, which needed to be kept dry. Vents positioned near the base of the walls can be seen in the newer square magazine found at Glencrief (see weblink for Mine Explorer in References). By the time of the 1895 Ordnance Survey 25-inch map (Figure 1b), however, Building [004] was in use as a ‘Kennel’ and the low-level openings were likely blocked for this purpose. Buildings [005] and [006] – The Miners’ Rows 142. The remote nature of lead mines often meant that workers needed accommodation. At some sites, this took the form of barracks in which workers would stay during the week and then go home to their families at weekends, while others saw workers being put up by locals with the companies covering the costs of extensions and modifications to make this possible. 143. The layout at Woodhead, however, included permanent accommodation for the workers and their families, which, alongside the provision of a school and library was aimed at creating a community for the workers, not just a place of work. 144. Two rows of miners’ cottages were surveyed during this phase: Buildings [005] and [006], otherwise known as Higher Row and Lower Row respectively. In comparison with Office Row and the school, a large portion of the walls in these structures do not survive much beyond their lower courses. A reason for this is given by Sassoon (1969, 175) who explains that most of the houses were robbed for slates and timber during the first half of the 20 th century. An article about Amelia Vernon, who lived in the housing at Woodhead during this period, even recounts her childhood experience of “climbing up onto the crumbling walls of the rows of cottages at the top of the village by the green to prise wooden lintels out from above the door frames” so that she could take it home for firewood (see Carsphairn Archive in References). There are still several slates present within the tumble of row [006], although perhaps this goes more to demonstrate the number of slates that are missing from the other structures. 145. The exception to the poor survival of the miners’ housing is the southwest gable wall of [006] which still stands at its full height. Within this remaining wall can be seen a fireplace, a feature that will have been present within each of the internal walls separating the different compartments or residences. 146. Although there was not enough time to undertake detailed descriptions of the different compartments, fireplaces in the dividing walls were recorded in more detail by Macrae who describes their “back-to-back” brick linings (2009, 199). It is also possible to see in the available historical photographs a series of chimneys along each row confirming the frequency of the fireplaces within (such as in Figure 21b). 147. Another interesting feature of the upstanding gable is the window which sits at height. The miners’ cottages are described as single-storey in the contemporary Ordnance Survey Name Book (OS1/20/10/13 in References) but the presence of this higher window suggests that there might have been an upper floor. The housing was perhaps one-and-a-halfstoreys in height similar to the manager’s house; the lack of notable first-floor windows would make this less noticeable to an outside observer. A study of the company-sponsored housing at Wanlockhead describes forty new cottages built in the 1840s and 50s as “simple dwellings, having two ground floor rooms for living and sleeping accommodation … and, with higher roofs, space under the thatch provided extra bed space for the large Victorian families” (Downs-Rose 1979, 175). The miners’ row housing at Woodhead may have also included additional sleeping space within an upper floor, loft or attic. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 38 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 21a: Extract from ‘Plan of Woodhead with photos (copy), 4 parts’ showing ‘Stables’ to the left of the Office Row and dated as 1845 by Anna Campbell, image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References) Figure 21b: ‘Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn No 10’ taken from the SE, image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References) ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 39 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Figure 22a: ‘Schoolhouse at Woodhead Leadmine’ taken in 1886 and showing Building [007] from the E, image courtesy of Carsphairn Archive (see References) 148. The low survival of the walls in row [006] makes it difficult to discern too much about its character. Of interest, however, is the number of residences it represents. Historic mapping since 1895 depicts seven compartments within the Lower Row matching the four smaller (Rooms A to D) and three larger units (Rooms E/F, G/H and I/J) identified during this survey. It is also possible to count seven doorways in the historical photograph shown in Figure 21b, with those at the northeast end sitting at larger intervals. In contrast to this, however, the 1851 census returns list the addresses of 10 properties within the ‘Low Row’ as opposed to seven. It is possible that instead of being larger properties, the doubleroomed units in the northeast half of [006] were used as dual residences with a shared entrance. Perhaps they were initially plotted as larger residences but had to be adapted due to population demand. 149. The same census returns also list 10 properties within the Higher Row (Building [005]). Five rooms or compartments (A to E) were recorded in [005] during the survey, although traces of a possible internal subdividing wall were recorded in Room E within the sketch plan (Figure 13). With the individual rooms also measuring larger than those within Building [006], these may have also been further subdivided like the units in the northeast half of the latter. It is interesting, however, that the depictions of Building [005] in the mid-19th century mapping, specifically the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1853 (Figure 1a) and the 1845 map shown in Figure 21a, show it to be a longer structure which continued up to the edge of the roadway to the northeast, similar to Building [006]. This is different from the shorter length shown in the later mapping (Figure 1b) and seen on the ground today. Perhaps the Higher Row was shortened at some point in the latter half of the 19 th century; both rows would benefit from further detailed survey to see if further internal subdivisions or possible remains to the northeast of Building [005] could be traced. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 40 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Building [007] – The School and Schoolhouse 150. At the lower end of the survey area, Building [007] has been identified as the site of the school and schoolhouse, built in 1843 (Campbell 1994, 31). Most of its walls only survive up to a few courses high, with the notable exception of the front southeast-facing façade of Room D which, at 4m, still survives near to its original height. 151. Despite this varied survival, it is possible to ascertain some aspects of the building’s character, particularly when comparing the physical remains with the available historic photographs. 152. Within Room D, which occupies the northeast of the building, we can see traces indicating the presence of an upper floor, namely the presence of joist holes in the southeast wall just above the southwest window. Figure 22a also shows the presence of potential firstfloor windows within the structure’s northeast gable wall. 153. Another potential first-floor window can be identified by the line of bricks that sits at the southwest end of Room D. These bricks have likely been inserted during a later modification or repair, and it is interesting to see there are no first-floor windows in the southwest wall of the building in Figure 22a. This photograph was taken in 1886 after the schoolhouse had been converted into a shooting lodge, and the brick might represent a window that had been blocked before or during its conversion. Further to this, looking at the school in the background of Figure 20b, there may be two dormer windows present on the school’s front façade; if this is the case, then perhaps these were removed at some point and replaced with the skylights seen in the later image (Figure 22a). This is a very tentative suggestion, however. 154. The porch, Room E, against the exterior of the same façade is also constructed of brick and indicates that this is another later addition, potentially dating to the same time as the bricks appearing in the southeast wall of Room D. 155. The historic photographs of the structure consistently show the presence of chimneys in the northeast and southwest walls of Room D, indicating the presence of fireplaces in these locations, but none in the southwest external wall of the building. This might suggest that Room D specifically represents the living quarters while the school rooms occupied the southwest half of the building. A suggestion that is further supported by the presence of the formal porch entrance, and the heightened roofline above Room D adding to the “ample and commodious” schoolhouse described by Welsh (1844, 281). Conclusion 156. The survey works undertaken at Woodhead Lead Mine have created a detailed record of some of the remaining buildings as they stand today. 157. Focusing on the buildings at the western end of the mining complex, seven structures were recorded, which included the manager’s house and office, two rows of miners’ cottages, stables, a powder magazine and a school. The structures vary in their state of survival; while none remain roofed, the height of the standing walls range from one or two courses up to full height. 158. Over 300 photographs were generated from the survey, capturing details of the walls before they deteriorate any further. The mine at Woodhead was a rare example of a total production unit in Scotland – one which mined, crushed, washed and smelted the lead before it was exported – but it was also a village: the landowner who established the mine built housing, a school and even founded a library for the workers so that they could form their own community in this remote setting. 159. There is still much to learn about the site at Woodhead, which can give us further insights into industrial life in 19th-century Scotland. But it is a resource that is continually deteriorating as time goes on. Spending time at Woodhead allowed the volunteers to immerse themselves in a different way of life, delving deeper into what the surviving remains have to tell us, and their work in capturing these elements of Woodhead has added to the record of this site for future generations. ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 41 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Acknowledgements 160. This project is part of a wider Community Archaeology project, ‘Can You Dig It’, run by the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme from February 2019 to September 2023. See www.gallowayglens.org.uk/Resources for their published outputs. The Community Archaeology project was offered free to volunteers thanks to funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland. The land at Woodhead is owned by Kenneth Wallace of Garryhorn who kindly allowed us access and gave his support for the works. Guidance was also given by Dumfries and Galloway Council Archaeology Service and members of local heritage societies. 161. Special thanks go to Anna Campbell and John Pickin whose knowledge and expertise were so readily given in support of the project. Anna attended the site throughout the survey and her enthusiasm about the importance of the site and her ability to bring the ruins to life was very much appreciated by the site team, thank you. 162. The author would like to thank all the hardworking volunteers who took part in the on-site works: Kevan Aitken, Kirsten Bax, John Dempsey, Alasdair Philips and Richard Pougher. 163. The support and guidance provided by Rathmell Archaeology staff members Laura Anderson and Sophie Cathcart on-site was much appreciated by everyone involved. Further thanks should go to Thomas Rees for his guidance throughout the initial organisation of the project and I am also grateful to Liam McKinstry for editing this report. References Documentary ALGAO:Scotland 2013 Historic Building Recording Guidance [online] available at: https://www.algao.org.uk/sites/algao.org.uk/files/202308/ALGAO%20Buildings%20Guidance.pdf [accessed 16 August 2023] Campbell, A. 1994 ‘The Woodhead Lead Mines’, Scottish Local History Vol. 31, pp 31-34 Cressey, M., Pickin, J. & Hicks, K. 2004 ‘The Silver Rig, Pibble and Woodhead Metal Mines, Galloway, Scotland’, Mining History: The Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Historical Society, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 49-62 Downs-Rose, G. ‘A Note on Housing at Wanlockhead’, Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Series III, Vol. 54, pp 174-176 Hunter, J. 2001 The Upper Glenkens, Catrine: Stenlake Publishing McKinstry, L. 2022 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community Archaeology Project (Phase 2), Risk Assessment Method Statement, Woodhead Lead Mine – Historic Building Survey, unpublished commercial document by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd Macrae, K. 2009 ‘A Galloway Ghost Town: the social dimension of a 19 th Century leadmining community in the uplands of south-west Scotland’ in P. Claughton & C. Mills (eds) Mining Perspectives: Proceedings of the 8th International Mining History Congress, pp 194202 Palmer, M., Nevell, M. & Sissons, M. 2012 Industrial Archaeology: A Handbook, CBA Practical Handbook No.21, York: Council for British Archaeology Raistrick, A., & Jennings, B. 1965 A History of Lead Mining in the Pennines, London: Longmans, Green and Co Ltd Sassoon, J. 1969 ‘Lead-Mining at Woodhead, Carsphairn’, The Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society, Vol. XLVI, pp 170177 Welsh, Rev. D. 1844 ‘Parish of Carsphairn’, The New Statistical Accounts of Scotland, Vol. IV, pp 273-281 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 42 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Archives Carsphairn Archive ‘Amelia Vernon: Life at the mines’ [online] available at: http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/exhibits/show/leadmining-atwoodhead/occupations-at-the-mine/reminiscence [accessed 22 August 2023] ‘David McMath at the leadmines September 1926’ [online] available at: http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/items/show/1680 [accessed 21 August 2023] ‘Diary of Woodhead Mine: Colonel Frederick McAdam Cathcart’s Diary of Woodhead Mine’ [online] available at: http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/exhibits/show/leadminingat-woodhead/the-owner/diary-of-woodhead-mine [accessed 22 August 2023] ‘Mine office on Office Row’ [online] available at: http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/exhibits/show/leadmining-atwoodhead/item/773 [accessed 22 August 2023] ‘Plan of Woodhead with photos (copy), 4 parts’ [online] available at: http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/exhibits/show/leadmining-atwoodhead/item/4004 [accessed 22 August 2023] ‘Schoolhouse at Woodhead Leadmines’ [online] available at: http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/items/show/2583 [accessed 22 August 2023] ‘Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn No 10 [online] available at: http://carsphairn.org/CarsphairnArchive/exhibits/show/leadmining-atwoodhead/item/1578 [accessed 22 August 2023] Dumfries & Galloway Council Historical Indexes ‘The 1851 Census Returns for Dumfriesshire, Kirkcudbrightshire and Wigtownshire’ [online] available at: https://info.dumgal.gov.uk/HistoricalIndexes/Home/DisplayQuickSearchResults/1?page= 1 [accessed 22 August 2023] Ordnance Survey Name Book OS1/20/10/13 – Kirkcudbrightshire, Volume 10 [online] available at: https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/ordnance-survey-namebooks/kirkcudbrightshire-os-name-books-1848-1851/kirkcudbrightshire-volume-10/13 [accessed 22 August 2023] Online images Mine Explorer ‘New Glencrieff Mine Surface Features’ taken 2011 [online] available at: http://www.mineexplorer.org.uk/new_glencrieff/new_glencrieff_surface_features/slides/n gsf_newmagazine2.html [accessed 22 August 2023] Cartographic 1853 Ordnance Survey Six-inch 1st edition, Kirkcudbrightshire, Sheet 4 1895 Ordnance Survey Six-inch 2nd edition, Kirkcudbrightshire, Sheet VII.SW 1895 Ordnance Survey 25-inch, Kirkcudbrightshire, VII.10 1909 Ordnance Survey 25-inch, Kirkcudbrightshire, VII.10 1910 Ordnance Survey Six-inch 3rd edition, Ayrshire, Sheet LIX.SW ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 43 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Appendix 1: Photographic Register Within this appendix is the photographic register pertaining to the works on site. Image Digital Description From Date 1 5041 Building 002 - elevation photo of E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 2 5042 Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 3 5043 Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 4 5044 Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 5 5045 Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 6 5046 Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 7 5047 Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 8 5048 Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 9 5049 Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 10 5050 Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 11 5051 Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 12 5052 Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 13 5053 Building 001 - elevation photo of E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 14 5054 Building 001 - elevation photo of N facing external wall. N 13/07/22 15 5055 Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 16 5056 Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 17 5057 Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 18 5058 Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 19 5059 Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 20 5060 Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 21 5061 Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 22 5062 Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 23 5063 Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 44 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Image Digital Description From Date 24 5064 Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 25 5065 Building 001 - elevation photo of W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 26 5066 Building 002 - elevation photo of S facing external wall. S 13/07/22 27 5067 Building 001 - detail shot of remaining chimney stones on S facing external wall. E 13/07/22 28 5068 Building 001 - detail shot of possible chimney on S facing external wall. E 13/07/22 29 5069 Building 001 - detail shot of butting corner stones under render on S and E facing external walls. E 13/07/22 30 5070 Building 001 - oblique shot of window on southernmost end of building 001 on external E facing wall. NE 13/07/22 31 5071 Building 001 - detail shot of bottom edge of window on southernmost end of building 001 on external E facing wall. E Building 001 - oblique shot of right side of window on southernmost end of building 001 on external E facing wall. SW Building 001 - detail shot of metal bracket on left side of window on S end of building on external E facing wall. NEE 32 33 5072 5073 13/07/22 13/07/22 13/07/22 34 5074 Building 001 - detail shot of left side of doorway on S end of building 001 on external E facing wall. SW 13/07/22 35 5075 Building 001 - detail shot of right side of doorway on S end of building 001 on external E facing wall. NE 13/07/22 36 5076 Building 001 - oblique shot of window in external E facing wall of building 001. NE 13/07/22 37 5077 Building 001 - oblique shot of right side of window in external E facing wall of building 001. SW 13/07/22 38 5078 Building 001 - detail shot of window bracket on right side of middle south window. SE 13/07/22 39 5079 Building 001 - detail shot of change of material from render to stone on E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 40 5080 Building 001 - detail shot of render on facing of left side window. SE 13/07/22 41 5081 Building 001 - detail shot of bracket hole on left side of window on E facing external wall building. E 13/07/22 42 5082 Building 001 - detail shot of bracket hole on left side of window on E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 43 5083 Building 001 - detail shot of lower sill of window external E facing wall. E 13/07/22 44 5084 Building 001 - left side of window on external E facing wall. NE 13/07/22 45 5085 Building 001 - left side of doorway on E facing external wall. E 13/07/22 46 5086 Building 001 - right side of doorway on E facing external wall. NE 13/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 45 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Image Digital Description From Date 47 5087 Building 001 - detail shot of stonework on E facing external wall of. E 13/07/22 48 5088 Building 001 - detail shot of left side of doorway with render remaining on external E facing wall. NE 13/07/22 49 5089 Building 001 - detail shot of right of doorway Efacing external wall. SE 13/07/22 50 5090 Building 001 - detail shot of stonework on external E facing wall with possible extension join. E 13/07/22 51 5091 Building 001 - detail shot of entrance in E facing external wall possible floor surface or tumble. E 13/07/22 52 5092 Building 001 - detail shot of wall material on external wall. S 13/07/22 53 5093 Building 001 - detail shot of corner of N and E facing external wall. W 11/06/22 54 5094 Building 001 - detail shot of window on W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 55 5095 Building 001 - oblique shot of window on W facing external wall. NW 13/07/22 56 5096 Building 001 - oblique shot of window on W facing external wall. NE 13/07/22 57 5097 Building 001 - joint on W facing wall. NE 13/07/22 58 5098 Building 001 - left side of window in W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 59 5099 Building 001 - right side of window in W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 60 5100 Building 001 - hole and exposed rubble core in external W facing wall. W 13/07/22 61 5101 Building 001 - detail shot of small window in W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 62 5102 Building 001 - detail shot of right side of small window in W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 63 5103 Building 001 - Detail shot of render on left side of small window in W facing external wall. W 13/07/22 64 5104 Building 001 - SW corner. SW 13/07/22 65 5105 Building 001 - chimney on S facing external wall. S 13/07/22 66 5106 Building 002 - detail shot of wall material. S 13/07/22 67 5107 Building 002 - oblique internal elevation photo N and W facing walls. NW 13/07/22 68 5108 Building 002 - oblique internal elevation photo of S and E facing walls. SE 13/07/22 69 5109 Building 002 - elevation photo of S facing internal walls. S 13/07/22 70 5110 Building 002 - elevation photo of W facing internal wall remnants 002 W 13/07/22 71 5111 Building 001 room A - general shot. SE 13/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 46 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Image Digital Description From Date 72 5112 Building 001 room A - detail shot of chimney in S facing external wall/S facing internal wall. S 13/07/22 73 5113 Building 001 room A - General shot. SW 13/07/22 74 5115 Building 001 room A - detail shot of doorway to room A. E 13/07/22 75 5116 Building 001 Room B – internal elevation of N facing wall. E 13/07/22 76 5117 Building 001 Room B – internal elevation of N facing wall. N 13/07/22 77 5118 Building 001 Room B – internal elevation of E facing wall E 13/07/22 78 5119 Building 001 Room B – internal elevation of E facing wall. E 13/07/22 79 5120 Building 001 Room B – internal elevation of S facing wall. S 13/07/22 80 5121 Building 001 Room B – internal elevation of W facing wall. W 13/07/22 81 5122 Building 001 Room B – Detail shot of possible cupboard on N facing internal wall. NW 13/07/22 82 5123 Building 001 Room B – detail shot of fireplace in N facing internal wall. N 13/07/22 83 5124 Building 001 Room B – detail shot of square feature in N facing internal wall. N 13/07/22 84 5125 Building 001 Room B – detail shot of square feature in N facing internal wall. N 13/07/22 85 5126 Building 001 Room B – detail shot of left side of small window in E facing internal wall. NE 13/07/22 86 5127 Building 001 Room B – detail shot of right side of small window in E facing internal wall. SE 13/07/22 87 5128 Building 001 Room B – detail shot of depression in stone block near window E facing wall. NE 13/07/22 88 5129 Building 001 Room B – stone lintel/fire surround in tumble. - 13/07/22 89 5130 Building 001 Room B – detail shot of depression in underside of stone lintel in doorway. - 13/07/22 90 5131 Building 001 Room C – oblique internal elevation of N and W facing internal walls. NW 13/07/22 91 5132 Building 001 Room C – oblique internal elevation of N and E facing internal walls. NE 13/07/22 92 5133 Building 001 Room C – oblique internal elevation of N and E facing internal walls. NE 13/07/22 93 5134 Building 001 Room C – oblique internal elevation S and E facing walls. SE 13/07/22 94 5135 Building 001 Room C – oblique internal elevation S and W facing walls. SW 13/07/22 95 5136 Building 001 Room C – detail shot of external E facing wall of render and possible bracket socket. E 13/07/22 96 5137 Building 001 Room D – oblique internal elevation of N and W facing walls NW 13/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 47 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Image Digital Description From Date 97 5138 Building 001 Room D – oblique internal elevation of N and E facing walls. NE 13/07/22 98 5139 Building 001 Room D – oblique internal elevation of S and E facing walls. SE 13/07/22 99 5140 Building 001 Room D – oblique internal elevation of S and W facing walls. SW 13/07/22 100 5141 Building 001 Room D – detail shot of render on inside right side of window on E facing internal wall. NE 13/07/22 101 5142 Building 001 Room D – detail shot of render and wall on inside left side of window on E facing internal wall. SE 13/07/22 102 5143 Building 001 Room D – detail shot of render and bare stone face on E facing internal wall E 13/07/22 103 5144 Building 001 Room E – general elevation photo N 13/07/22 104 5145 Building 001 Room E – internal elevation photo of S facing wall. S 13/07/22 105 5146 Building 001 Room E – detail shot of vertical stone in S facing internal wall. SW 13/07/22 106 5147 Building 001 Room E – detail shot of two vertical stones in S facing internal wall. S 13/07/22 107 5148 Building 001 Room E – detail shot of window in east facing internal wall. E 13/07/22 108 5149 Building 001 Room D – detail shot of window in east facing internal wall. E 13/07/22 109 5150 Building 001 Room D – oblique internal elevation of S and W facing walls. SW 13/07/22 110 5151 Building 001 – general shot NE 13/07/22 111 5152 Building 001 – general shot NE 13/07/22 112 5153 Building 001 – general shot NE 13/07/22 113 5154 Building 001 – general shot SW 13/07/22 114 5155 Building 001 – general shot. NNE 13/07/22 115 5156 Building 001 and building 003 – general shot. E 13/07/22 116 5157 Building 001 and building 003 – general shot. N 13/07/22 117 5158 Building 003 – external elevation of S facing wall. S 13/07/22 118 5159 Building 003 – external elevation of E facing wall. E 13/07/22 119 5160 Building 003 – external elevation of E facing wall. E 13/07/22 120 5161 Building 003 – external elevation of N facing wall. N 13/07/22 121 5162 Building 003 – external elevation of N facing wall. N 13/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 48 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Image Digital Description From Date 122 5163 Building 003 – external elevation of N facing wall. N 13/07/22 123 5164 Building 003 – external elevation of N facing wall. N 13/07/22 124 5165 Building 003 – detail shot of window in N facing external wall. N 13/07/22 125 5166 Building 003 – detail shot of NE corner in external wall. NE 13/07/22 126 5167 Building 003 room A – internal elevation of N facing wall. N 13/07/22 127 5168 Building 003 room A – internal elevation of E facing wall. E 13/07/22 128 5169 Building 003 room A – internal elevation of S facing wall. SE 13/07/22 129 5170 Building 003 room A – internal elevation of W facing wall. S 13/07/22 130 5171 Building 003 room B – internal elevation of N facing wall. N 13/07/22 131 5172 Building 003 room B – internal elevation of E facing wall. E 13/07/22 132 5173 Building 003 room B – internal elevation of E facing wall. E 13/07/22 133 5174 Building 003 room B – internal elevation of S facing wall. S 13/07/22 134 5175 Building 003 room B – internal elevation of W facing wall. W 13/07/22 135 5176 Building 003 room B – internal elevation of W facing wall. W 13/07/22 136 5177 Building 003 room A – detail shot of vent. SSW 13/07/22 137 5178 Building 003 room A – detail shot of possible marking of upper level in N facing internal wall. N 13/07/22 138 5179 Building 003 room A – detail shot of joist holes in E facing internal wall. E 13/07/22 139 5180 Building 003 room A – detail shot of metal ring in N facing internal wall. N 13/07/22 140 5181 Building 003 room A – detail shot of metal ring and paint on internal N facing wall. N 13/07/22 141 5182 Building 003 room A – detail shot of paint on render on internal W facing wall. S 13/07/22 142 5183 Building 003 room A – detail shot of marks on plaster on internal N facing wall. NE 13/07/22 143 5184 Building 003 room A – detail shot of marks on plaster on internal N facing wall. NE 13/07/22 144 5185 Building 003 room A – detail shot of metal spike on E facing internal wall. NE 13/07/22 145 5186 Building 003 room A – detail shot of mark remaining from dividing wall. NE 13/07/22 146 5187 Building 003 room B – detail shot of blocked window in internal E facing wall. E 13/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 49 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Image Digital Description From Date 147 5188 Building 003 room B – detail shot of possible fixture fastening render on E facing internal wall. SE 13/07/22 148 5189 Building 003 room B – detail shot of blocked window in internal E facing. E 13/07/22 149 5190 Building 003 room B – detail shot of blocked window in internal E facing wall. E 13/07/22 150 5191 Building 003 room B – detail shot of blocked window in internal E facing wall. E 13/07/22 151 5192 Building 003 room B – detail shot partially blocked window in internal S facing wall. S 13/07/22 152 5193 Building 003 room B – detail shot of possible window in W facing internal wall. W 13/07/22 153 5194 Building 004 – external elevation NE facing wall. NE 13/07/22 154 5195 Building 004 – external elevation of NW facing wall. NW 13/07/22 155 5196 Building 004 – external elevation of SW facing wall. SW 13/07/22 156 5197 Building 004 – external elevation of SE facing wall. SE 13/07/22 157 5198 Building 004 – oblique internal elevation of NW and NE facing walls. N 13/07/22 158 5199 Building 004 – oblique internal elevation of NW and NE facing walls. N 13/07/22 159 5200 Building 004 – oblique internal elevation of SW and SE facing walls. S 13/07/22 160 5201 Building 004 – detail shot of wall material in SE internal facing wall. NE 13/07/22 161 5202 Building 004 – detail shot of entrance in NE facing external wall. N 13/07/22 162 5203 Building 004 – detail shot of entrance with render. S 13/07/22 163 5204 Building 004 – detail shot of unconnected possible blast control feature in SE facing internal wall. SE 13/07/22 164 5205 Building 004 – detail shot of unconnected possible blast control feature in NW facing internal wall. NW 13/07/22 165 5206 Building 004 – general shot. N 13/07/22 166 5207 Building 004 – general shot. NE 13/07/22 167 5208 Building 004 – general shot. SE 13/07/22 168 5209 Building 004 – detail shot on feature on western wall. W 13/07/22 169 5210 Building 004 – detail shot of internal floor - 13/07/22 170 5211 Building 001 Room B – Detail of fireplace in S internal wall. NE 14/07/22 171 5212 Building 001 room B – detail of fireplace in S internal wall. E 14/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 50 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Image Digital Description From Date 172 5213 Building 001 room B – detail of fireplace in S internal wall. E 14/07/22 173 5214 Building 005 room E – general shot E 14/07/22 174 5215 Building 005 room E – general shot S 14/07/22 175 5216 Building 005 room E – elevation shot of S facing external wall. S 14/07/22 176 5217 Building 005 room D – general shot S 14/07/22 177 5218 Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall. SE 14/07/22 178 5221 General landscape shot. W 14/07/22 179 5222 Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall. SE 14/07/22 180 5223 Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall. SE 14/07/22 181 5224 Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall. SE 14/07/22 182 5225 Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall. SE 14/07/22 183 5226 Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall. SE 14/07/22 184 5227 Building 005 – external elevation shot of SE facing wall. SE 14/07/22 185 5228 Building 005 – external elevation shot of SW facing wall. S 14/07/22 186 5229 Building 005 – external elevation shot of SW facing wall. SW 14/07/22 187 5230 Building 005 – external elevation shot of SW facing wall. W 14/07/22 188 5231 Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 189 5232 Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 190 5233 Building 005 – external elevation of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 191 5234 Building 005 – external elevation of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 192 5235 Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 193 5236 Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 194 5237 Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 195 5238 Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 196 5239 Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 51 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Image Digital Description From Date 197 5240 Building 005 – external elevation shot of NW and NE facing walls. W 14/07/22 198 5241 Building 005 – general shot E 14/07/22 199 5242 Building 005 room E – general shot. SE 14/07/22 200 5243 Building 005 room E – general shot. NE 14/07/22 201 5244 Building 005 room D – internal elevation of NE and NW facing walls. N 14/07/22 202 5245 Building 005 room D – internal elevation of SE and SW facing walls. S 14/07/22 203 5246 Building 005 room C – internal elevation of SE and SW facing wall. SW 14/07/22 204 5247 Building 005 room C – internal elevation of SE facing wall. S 14/07/22 205 5248 Building 005 room C – internal elevation of SE facing wall. S 14/07/22 206 5249 Building 005 room C – internal elevation of NE facing wall. NE 14/07/22 207 5250 Building 005 room C – internal elevation of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 208 5251 Building 005 room B – internal elevation of SW facing wall. SW 14/07/22 209 5252 Building 005 room B – internal elevation of SE facing wall. SE 14/07/22 210 5253 Building 005 room B – internal elevation of SE facing wall. S 14/07/22 211 5254 Building 005 room B – internal elevation of NE facing wall. NE 14/07/22 212 5255 Building 005 room B – general shot of NW facing internal wall. E 14/07/22 213 5256 Building 005 room A – internal elevation of NE facing wall. NW 14/07/22 214 5257 Building 005 room A – internal elevation of SE facing wall. SE 14/07/22 215 5258 Building 005 room A – internal elevation of SW facing wall. SW 14/07/22 216 5259 Building 005 room A – detail shot of fireplace in NE facing internal wall. NW 14/07/22 217 5260 Building 005 room A – detail shot of window in SW facing internal wall. SW 14/07/22 218 5261 Building 005 room A – detail shot of slates. - 14/07/22 219 5262 Building 005 room A – detail shot of nails in slate. - 14/07/22 220 5263 Building 005 room A – detail shot of wall material. - 14/07/22 221 5264 Building 005 room B – detail shot of brick in wall. - 14/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 52 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Image Digital Description From Date 222 5265 Building 005 room B – detail shot of vertical stones in NE facing internal wall. NE 14/07/22 223 5266 Building 005 room B – detail shot of vertical stones in NE facing internal wall. NE 14/07/22 224 5267 Building 005 room B – detail shot bricks in SE facing internal wall. - 14/07/22 225 5268 Building 005 room C – detail shot of vertical stones and vertical stones in NE facing internal wall. NE 14/07/22 226 5269 Building 005 room C – detail shot of entrance in NW facing internal wall. NW 14/07/22 227 5270 Building 005 room C – detail shot of vertical stones in SW facing internal wall. SW 14/07/22 228 5271 Building 005 room C – detail shot of S facing corner. S 14/07/22 229 5272 Building 005 room D – detail shot of vertical stones in SW facing internal wall. SW 14/07/22 230 5273 Building 005 room D – detail shot of large rectangular stone in tumble. - 14/07/22 231 5274 Building 005 room D – detail shot of bricks in tumble. - 14/07/22 232 5275 Building 005 room D – detail shot of vertical stones in SW facing internal wall. SW 14/07/22 233 5276 Building 005 room D – detail shot of wall material. - 14/07/22 234 5277 Building 005 room E – detail shot of vertical stones in NE facing internal wall. NE 14/07/22 235 5278 Building 005 room E – detail shot of vertical stones in SW facing internal wall. SW 14/07/22 236 5279 Building 005 room E – detail shot of vertical stones in SW facing internal wall. SW 14/07/22 237 5280 Building 006 – general view. NE 14/07/22 238 5281 Building 006 – general view. SE 14/07/22 239 5282 Building 006– general view. SE 14/07/22 240 5283 Building 006 – general view. SE 14/07/22 241 5284 Building 006 – general view. SE 14/07/22 242 5285 Building 006 – general view. SE 14/07/22 243 5286 Building 006 – general view. SE 14/07/22 244 5287 Building 006 – general view. SE 14/07/22 245 5288 Building 006 – general view. SE 14/07/22 246 5289 Building 006 – general view. SE 14/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 53 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Image Digital Description From Date 247 5290 Building 006 – general view. SE 14/07/22 248 5291 Building 006 – general view. SE 14/07/22 249 5292 Building 006 – general view. SE 14/07/22 250 5293 Building 006 – external elevation of S facing wall. SE 14/07/22 251 5294 Building 006 – general view. SE 14/07/22 252 5295 Building 006 – external elevation of SW facing wall. SW 14/07/22 253 5296 Building 006 – external elevation of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 254 5297 Building 006 – general view. NW 14/07/22 255 5298 Building 006 – general view. NW 14/07/22 256 5299 Building 006 – general view. NW 14/07/22 257 5300 Building 006 – general view. NW 14/07/22 258 5301 Building 006 – general view. NW 14/07/22 259 5302 Building 006 – general view. NW 14/07/22 260 5303 Building 006 – general view. NW 14/07/22 2261 5304 Building 006 – general view. NW 14/07/22 262 5305 Building 006 – general view. NW 14/07/22 263 5306 Building 006 – general view. NW 14/07/22 264 5307 Building 006 room J – detail shot of cement floor surface with depression. - 14/07/22 265 5308 Building 006 room I – detail shot of metal object found inside structure. - 14/07/22 266 5309 Building 006 room I – detail shot of metal object found inside structure. - 14/07/22 267 5310 Building 006 room D – general shot of internal NE facing wall. - 14/07/22 268 5311 Building 006 room D – general shot of internal NE facing wall. N 14/07/22 269 5312 Building 006 room D – general shot of internal NE facing wall. S 14/07/22 270 5313 Building 006 room A – detail shot of fireplace in internal NE facing wall. N 14/07/22 271 5314 Building 006 room A – detail shot of fireplace in internal NE facing wall. SW 14/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 54 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Image Digital Description From Date 272 5315 Building 006 room A – detail shot of window in internal NE facing wall. S 14/07/22 273 5316 Building 006 room A – detail shot of window in internal NE facing wall. N 14/07/22 274 5317 Building 006 room A – detail shot of chimney in internal NE facing wall. NE 14/07/22 275 5318 Building 006 room A – detail shot of roof internal NE facing wall. NE 14/07/22 276 5319 Building 006 – detail shot of abutting stones in corner of external SE facing external wall. S 14/07/22 277 5320 Building 006 – detail shot of chimney in external NW facing external wall. S 14/07/22 278 5321 Building 006 – detail shot of chimney and window in external NW facing external wall. S 14/07/22 279 5322 Building 006 – detail shot of hole in chimney of external NW facing external wall. SW 14/07/22 280 5323 Building 006 – detail shot of hole in chimney of external NW facing external wall. SW 14/07/22 281 5324 Building 006 – detail shot of hole in chimney of external NW facing external wall. SW 14/07/22 282 5325 Building 006 – detail shot of chimney of external NW facing external wall. SW 14/07/22 283 5326 Building 006 – detail shot of inside of chimney of external NW facing external wall. - 14/07/22 284 5327 Building 006 – detail shot of depressions in corner stones of external NW facing external wall. SW 14/07/22 285 5328 Building 006 – detail shot of nail in external NW facing external wall. SW 14/07/22 286 5329 Building 007 – general shot of NE facing external wall. NE 14/07/22 287 5330 Building 007 – general shot of SE facing external wall SE 14/07/22 288 5331 Building 007 – external elevation of SE facing wall. SE 14/07/22 289 5332 Building 007 – external elevation of SE facing wall. SE 14/07/22 290 5333 Building 007 – external elevation of SE facing wall. SE 14/07/22 291 5334 Building 007 – external elevation of SE facing wall. SE 14/07/22 292 5335 Building 007 – external elevation of SW facing wall. SW 14/07/22 293 5336 Building 007 – external elevation of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 294 5337 Brick lined feature built into hillside NW of building 007 S 14/07/22 295 5338 Building 007 – external elevation of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 296 5339 Building 007 – external elevation of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 55 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Image Digital Description From Date 297 5340 Building 007 – external elevation of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 298 5341 Building 007 – external elevation of NW facing wall. NW 14/07/22 299 5342 Building 007 room D – detail shot of window in NW facing internal wall. NW 14/07/22 300 5343 Building 007 room D – detail shot of doorway in NW facing internal wall. NW 14/07/22 301 5344 Building 007 room D – detail shot of upper brick lined window in NW facing internal wall. NW 14/07/22 302 5345 Building 007 room D – detail shot of window in NW facing internal wall. NW 14/07/22 303 5346 Building 007 room C – detail shot of window in NW facing internal wall. NW 14/07/22 304 5347 Building 007 room B – detail shot of possible blocked opening in SE facing internal wall. S 14/07/22 305 5348 Building 007 room B – detail shot of possible blocked opening in SE facing internal wall. SW 14/07/22 306 5349 Building 007 – shot of large rectangular stone in tumble. - 14/07/22 307 5350 Building 007 – detail shot of metal bracket on right side of window in SE facing external wall. SE 14/07/22 308 5351 Building 007 – detail shot of metal bracket on right side of window in SE facing external wall. SE 14/07/22 309 5352 Building 007 – detail shot window in SE facing external wall. S 14/07/22 310 5353 Building 007 – detail shot window with metal brackets in SE facing external wall. SE 14/07/22 311 5354 Building 007 – detail shot of metal downpipe bracket in SE facing external wall. SE 14/07/22 312 5355 Building 007 – detail shot metal bracket in stone in tumble. - 14/07/22 313 5356 Building 007 – detail shot of metal downpipe bracket in SE facing external wall. - 14/07/22 314 5357 Building 007 – detail shot window with metal brackets in SE facing external wall. SE 14/07/22 315 5358 Building 007 – detail shot window with hole for metal brackets in SE facing external wall. - 14/07/22 316 5359 Building 007 – general shot of brick extension on SE facing external wall. SE 14/07/22 317 5360 Building 007 – general shot of brick extension on SE facing external wall. W 14/07/22 318 5361 Building 007 – general shot of brick extension on SE facing external wall. W 14/07/22 319 5362 Building 007 – general shot of brick extension on SE facing external wall. E 14/07/22 320 5363 Building 007 – general shot of brick extension on SE facing external wall. E 14/07/22 321 5364 Building 007 – detail shot of stone lintel in SE facing external wall. E 14/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 56 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Image Digital Description From Date 322 5365 Building 007 – detail shot window with metal brackets in SE facing external wall. E 14/07/22 323 5366 Building 007 – detail shot window in SE facing external wall. SE 14/07/22 324 5367 Building 007 – detail shot filled hole in SE facing external wall. SE 14/07/22 325 5368 Building 007 – detail shot of material change SE facing external wall. SE 14/07/22 326 5369 Building 007 – detail shot of material change and exposed whitewash SE facing external wall. SE 14/07/22 ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 57 of 58 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can You Dig It – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Contact Details Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at our Registered Office or through the web: Rathmell Archaeology Ltd Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops Kilwinning Ayrshire KA13 6PU www.rathmell-arch.co.uk t.: f.: e.: 01294 542848 01294 542849 contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk End of Document ©2023 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 58 of 58  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Data Structure Report – Woodhead Lead Mine, Carsphairn Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_96 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 Description An account of the resource Surveys and test pitting works undertaken as part of the community archaeology project “Can You Dig It?”. archaeology GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/555/GGLP-CYDI-DSR-HighGroundWrecks-Corserine-ROC.pdf 975b6ba0ad3e9d1f6965b215dc48d2a9 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Data Structure Report – High Ground Wrecks and the Royal Observer Corps Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Data Structure Reports Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Can You Dig It? Community Archaeology Project Data Structure Report 1.2.g High Ground Wrecks and the Royal Observer Corps by Sarah Krischer, Thomas Rees and Claire Williamson th issued 10 December 2020 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill Quality Assurance This report covers works which have been undertaken in keeping with the issued brief as modified by the agreed programme of works. The report has been prepared in keeping with the guidance of Rathmell Archaeology Limited on the preparation of reports. All works reported on within this document have been undertaken in keeping with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of Conduct. Signed ……………………………………….. Date …..10th December 2020…… In keeping with the procedure of Rathmell Archaeology Limited this document and its findings have been reviewed and agreed by an appropriate colleague: Checked ……………………………………….. Date …..10th December 2020…… Copyright Rathmell Archaeology Limited. All rights reserved. No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Rathmell Archaeology Limited. If you have received this report in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party unless otherwise agreed in writing by Rathmell Archaeology Limited. No liability is accepted by Rathmell Archaeology Limited for any use of this report, other than the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Rathmell Archaeology Limited using due skill, care and diligence and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. No independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Rathmell Archaeology Limited has been made. Quality Assurance Data Author(s) Sarah Krischer, Thomas Rees and Claire Williamson Date of Issue 10th December 2020 Commissioning Body Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme Event Name High Ground Wrecks and the Royal Observer Corps Event Type Field Survey Event Date(s) June - October 2019 Rathmell Archaeology Code RA18107 Location United Kingdom : Scotland : Dumfries and Galloway NGR NX 76804 62300 - NX 56089 93347 - NX 49695 87180 Parish Carsphairn; Kells; Dalry; Parton; Kelton Designation(s) Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 HER IDs MDG13043; MDG13046; MDG25531 Version ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 1 of 40 1.0 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill Contents Introduction .................................................................................. 3 Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 3 High Ground Wrecks ........................................................................................... 3 Royal Observer Corps Posts ................................................................................. 4 Previous Archaeological Works ............................................................................. 6 Project Works ................................................................................ 6 Findings ......................................................................................... 8 High Ground Wrecks ........................................................................................... 8 Royal Observer Corps Posts ................................................................................. 8 Discussion ................................................................................... 18 High Ground Wrecks ......................................................................................... 18 Royal Observer Corps Posts ............................................................................... 19 Conclusion ................................................................................... 22 Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 22 References .................................................................................. 23 Documentary ................................................................................................... 23 Websites ......................................................................................................... 24 Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland ......................... 25 Appendix 2: Registers.................................................................. 27 Photographic Register ....................................................................................... 27 Contact Details ............................................................................ 40 Figures Figure 1: Plan showing locations of the sites recorded during the works ................................ 7 Figure 2a: General shot of S3 from the southwest ................................................................. 9 Figure 2b: Detail of S3 showing battery.................................................................................. 9 Figure 3a: Detail of bedrock scars of S4 from the south ....................................................... 10 Figure 3b: Detail of wreckage of S4 from the southeast ....................................................... 10 Figure 4a: Air vent at S7 showing the circular black cover attached to its side ..................... 12 Figure 4b: Access Hatch at S7............................................................................................. 12 Figure 5a: Interior of roofed chamber in Orlit post at S8 showing bench along rear wall ...... 13 Figure 5b: Pipe (in foreground) possibly for a bomb power indicator baffle plate at S9 ........ 13 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill Introduction 1. This Data Structure Report describes works undertaken for the sub-project on the Wrecks - Corserine Hill, carried out as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership (GGLP) community archaeology project Can You Dig It? This report presents the results from a walkover survey carried out on two (S3 and S4) of the five high ground wrecks identified through the Research Design (Krischer & Rees 2019), and also site visits to the four Royal Observer Corps (ROC) posts (S6-S9). 2. The works were carried out by volunteers supported by Rathmell Archaeology staff. The structure of the works was drawn from advice and guidance from officers of GGLP, Dumfries and Galloway Council and members of local heritage societies. Historical & Archaeological Background 3. The Research Design identified five high ground wrecks and four ROC outposts within the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership area (Krischer & Rees 2019). While the ROC posts are not designated, all wrecks are covered by the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. This act covers the wreckage of all military aircraft (including non-UK aircraft) that crash in the United Kingdom. High Ground Wrecks 4. A brief historical and archaeological baseline for the wrecks on the Corserine has been lifted from the Research Design for the sub-project (Krischer & Rees 2019, 3-4): The Corserine is a fairly remote hill near St John’s Town of Dalry, Dumfries and Galloway, with a height of 814m. It is the highest of the Rhinns of Kell hills. The main summit is a wide flat plateau, with a broad, gently sloping, ridge on the northeast side and steep downwards slopes on the other sides. A second, slightly lower summit known as Carlin’s Cairn (807m) lies to the north of the main summit, at the end of a wide ridge. There have been five High Altitude Wrecks on the Corserine between 1939 and 47; all of these took place at night, during the winter months. The majority of the wrecks were crashes, which took place during training, a dangerous undertaking with a casualty rate as high as 25% of the course in some cases (Hastings 1979, 173). The first wreck was an Anson Mk.I DG787 from the No.12 Elementary and Reserve Flying Training School, Prestwick S1. The aircraft left Prestwick on a training run on the 9th of January 1939 and its burnt out remains were found by a shepherd on the lower slopes of Corserine hill the next day. All four crew members were killed. Their bodies were retrieved by the RAF shortly after the crash but the remains of the aircraft were left in place. A burnt out scar from the crash is visible on the hillside, in addition to large pieces of the wreckage, including the engines (Clark 2016a). A Tiger Moth (L6932) crashed nearby on the 10th of January 1939 while searching for the Anson S2 (Clark 2016a). This, the second high ground wreck, was a much more minor incident and the remains were salvaged (Smith 1989, 30), making it unlikely that any visible wreckage will be visible at this site. The third high ground wreck took place on the 23rd of October 1942 when an Avro Anson Mk.I (serial no. DG787) S3 from the Air Navigation and Bombing School failed to return from a night navigation exercise over the Isle of Man. Two days later the Home Guard around the Rhinns of Kells reported the plane had crashed into one of the nearby hills. On the 26th of October the Wigtown RAF Mountain Rescue (No.1 AOS) located the site. The bodies of the four members of the crew were recovered as were all large pieces of wreckage (Clark 2016b). One of the Navigators, Flight-Lieutenant Vaclav Jelinek, was buried at Kirkinner Cemetery, Wigtown (Gillon 2011). As with S1 a scar is visible on the hillside at the point of impact. The site is likely to be 150m north-west of the summit trig- ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill point. A few small pieces of wreckage remain including a battery. The fourth high ground wreck is a de Havilland Mosquito N.F. Mk.II (Serial no. DD795). The two members of the airplane crew were trainees from the No.9 Course at No.60 OTU which was stationed at High Ercall in Shropshire. On the night of the 20th of January 1944 they left High Ercall for a night cross country flight and failed to return. The site of the crash S4 on the Corserine was not discovered until the 11th of February as the wreckage had been covered by snow shortly after the incident (Clark 2016c). The bodies of the crew members were retrieved by the 50 airmen from No.1 AOS at Wigtown (RAF Mountain Rescue) on the 12th of February, however the aircraft wreckage was left in place. The impact site is visible as a scar 700m east of the summit cairn near the “Scar of the Folk” with a large amount of associated wreckage. The fifth High Altitude Crash on occurred near the second summit of Corserine, Carlin's Cairn. A Douglas Dakota (Serial no. K-14) belonging to the Royal Belgian Airforce flying from Brussels to Prestwick airport crashed near the summit on the 10th of April 1947. This was the first crash of the newly created Belgian Air Force. All six men on board perished in the crash and the bodies were retrieved by RAF the next day and repatriated to Brussels. The site was reported as having a large number of visible remains in 1989 (Smith 1989, 30). Royal Observer Corps Posts 5. The Research Design also gives a brief historical and archaeological baseline for the Royal Observer Corps posts within the area, copied here (Krischer & Rees 2019, 4-5): The second subset amongst this resource comprises four Royal Observer Corps outposts located throughout the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership area. Established in 1925, the Observers Corps was founded to provide the detection, identification, tracking, and reporting of aircraft over Great Britain (Air Ministry Information Bureau 1951). The system expanded to cover the majority of the country by 1939, with the final post established at Portree in 1941. There were three main phases of operation during the history of the Observer Corps; the first was tracking aircraft during the Second World War; the second tracking soviet jets in the late 1940s and 50s; and the third marked by the transition into nuclear monitoring posts from the early 1960s (HQ ROC 1970). The Observers Corps was mobilized on the 24th of August 1939 and remained in service throughout the war. The corps was granted the tile “Royal Observer Corps” by King George VI in 1941 in recognition of the group’s service during the first years of war (Wood 1976, 111). From 1938 the ROC posts were to be provided with wooden huts containing a bed, equipment store and stove. However, provision of these huts was slow and at many posts the observers constructed their own structures (Wood 1976, 54). There is therefore no uniform design for Second World War era observer posts. The corps was de-mobilised on the 12th of May 1945, following the end of the war in Europe. There are four ROC posts within the study area. These are at Castle Douglas S6, Carsphairn S7, St John’s Town of Dalry S8 and Parton S9. All of these posts were established in 1940. In 1943 the Castle Douglas and Parton posts were equipped with flares to warn aircraft of high ground, code name “granite” (Wood 1976, 329). In addition, the Parton post was equipped with “Augmented Granite” in 1943. This was a system of High Frequency transmitters producing a high ground warning signal in an approaching aircraft in combination to the normal system of flares (Wood 1976, 277). All of these posts were part of the Ayr group (No. 33). The posts where mainly concerned with planes flying to Prestwick airport, which was the eastern terminus of the North Atlantic Air-ferry route. Posts ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill to the south and south-east of the airport tracked aircraft being brought in from the US and Canada to support combat operations (Winslow 1948, 189). At the St John’s Town of Dalry S8 post a pile of rocks is visible in the vicinity of the later posts that represents the remains of the World War 2 post. No visible remains of World War 2 posts can be seen at the other examples. During 1947 the ROC was reformed in response to the need to track Soviet jets, with a particular emphasis placed on expanding the ROC network in Scotland due to the risk of airspace intrusion from the north (Dalton 2017, 5). This role was to be short-lived, with improvements in radar and interceptor jets negating the need for direct, visual observation over land. By 1965 the ROC had abandoned this role. The corps was reorganized in 1950 and the Ayr section was moved from the Scotland group to the Western Group. In 1953 the Ayr group was renumbered No. 25 (Wood 1976, 210). Across most of Britain during the early 1950s the variety of observation posts inherited from World War II were replaced by Orlit observation posts. There were two styles, Orlit A and B. Orlit A was a ground level observation post of pre-cast concrete panels that formed a rectangular structure measuring 3.05m by 2.03m in plan, divided into an open observation area and a flat roofed shelter and store (Brown et al. 1996, 127). Access was by a door into the shelter, from where a sliding door gave access to the observation area (where the plotting chart stood). The Orlit B model was the same post erected on concrete legs with an access ladder. The St John’s Town of Dalry posts S8 were recorded as having an Orlit A structure. In addition, a concrete slab base is recorded at the Parton post (S9) which is likely to be the remains of an Orlit A. In 1955 the establishment of the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation (UKWMO) led to a transformation in the role of the ROC from tracking hostile aircraft to being the field force for monitoring blasts and fallout in the event of a nuclear war. The above-ground posts were vulnerable to blast and had little fallout protection; consequently a nationwide programme was implemented to place the entire ROC network of posts underground in hardened bunkers (Wood 1976, 15). These new 1960s monitoring posts typically replaced the contemporary network of ROC observation posts. Underground bunkers were constructed at all four Posts within the study area in the early 1960s (Wood 1976, 329). The overall standardised dimensions of the underground reinforced concrete bunker were 5.80m by 2.44m by 2.13m. The ladder access shaft, with an adjacent ventilation shaft, was at one end of the post with access from the base into the main chamber. At the other end of the main chamber was a second ventilation shaft. Both ventilation shafts were fitted with protective louvres. Two additional pipes ran to the surface from the centre of the main chamber, a smaller ‘blast pipe’ and a larger ‘probe pipe’. The entire monitoring post was buried 0.91m (3 feet) below ground level (Dalton 2017, 17). The area for the posts was required to have a minimum of 50 feet of level ground with no nearby features to obstruct the instruments. The site had to available to buy or let for at least 21 years and had to have a right of access via a three foot wide path to a public road. The majority of these posts were situated at the site of pre-existing aircraft posts. However, at St John’s Town of Dalry S8 the land was unsuitable and the new post was moved to an area close to the existing Orlit post (Dalton 2017, 21). The UK monitoring network progressively contracted over the latter part of the 20th century and the ROC was officially announced as disbanded in 1991. While there was supposed to be a system for dismantling the posts, many Corps members were unconvinced and so in many cases Posts were simply left intact ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill (Dalton 2017, 99). The communication equipment was owned by BT who visited posts to remove equipment following the disbandment. However, in a number of cases the equipment was determined to not have any re-use value so was simply left in place. Additionally, BT maintained phone links to some posts long after stand-down (ibid.) Following the closure of the posts many reverted back to their original landowners, with the Ministry of Defence expected to demolish the post and return the land to its original condition. However, in many cases the MoD agreed to pay local farmers to allow the posts to remain intact in order to avoid the expensive demolition process. Many posts were also sold off at this point, with a number purchased by telecommunication companies as sites for mobile phone masts (Dalton 2017, 163). Since 1991 the majority of sites have simply been left to decay and ownership has become increasingly difficult to determine. Previous Archaeological Works 6. Details are given about the earlier archaeological interventions (Krischer & Rees 2019, 11): Due to the nature and relatively modern date of these resources the scope of the archaeological interventions has focussed upon survey work. An individual who has been particularly active in this respect is David J. Smith, who conducted extensive visits to wreck sites as research for this volume on High Ground Wrecks published in 1976 (updated in 1989). He visited the sites of all wrecks included in this study and gives a broad summery of the nature of the remains. In 2008 the site of the 1947 Dakota crash was explored by the Dumfries & Galloway Aviation Museum along with members of two Belgian Aviation societies. This was followed by the unveiling of a memorial plaque for the victims of the crash at the Aviation Museum in August 2008 (Decock 2009). Three of the air crash sites were visited by members of the Peak District Air Accident Research Group who published their research on their website in August 2016 (see References). They photographed the wreckage and provided extensive background research into the nature of the accidents and the responses to them. The ROC posts have all been recorded by members of the Subterranea Britannia group as part of their study of ROC and UKWMO posts (see References). The posts within the study area were visited by the group in 2002. Photographs of the upstanding remains were taken, as well as notes regarding the condition of the sites and coordinates for their locations. In addition, the Parton nuclear post was entered by members of the group in 2015, who documented its condition and the material culture that remained, including furniture, signage and maps (see References). Project Works 7. The archaeological works comprised a walkover survey of two of the five high ground wrecks located on the Corserine (S3 and S4 in Krischer & Rees 2019), and site visits to the four known ROC posts (S6 to S9 in Krischer & Rees 2019) within the Galloway Glens area (Figure 1; Table 1). For ease of reference and to maintain consistency, the site numbers assigned to each site in the Research Design (Krischer & Rees 2019) will remain the same for this report. S1, S2 and S5 were not visited during this phase of works and, as such, will not feature here. 8. The walkover survey of the high ground wrecks took place on the 20th of June and 26th of July 2019. The first day of survey was carried out in cold, wet conditions, while the second occurred in extremely hot, bright conditions. The assessment area consisted of open hillside above a large area of forestry plantation. Two crash sites were visited during the surveys: S3 and S4. The works consisted of a photographic record and a ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report: Corserine Hill Figure 1: Plan showing locations of the sites recorded during the works ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report written description of each site, including location, extent and condition. 9. The site visits to the ROC posts were undertaken on the 10th October 2019. The weather conditions were overcast with occasional showers. All four of the ROC posts as identified within the Research Design (Krischer & Rees 2019) were visited, the majority of which sat within enclosed pastoral fields. A photographic record was taken at each site, as well as a location and a review of their condition. 10. All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (McKinstry 2019). The works complied with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of Conduct and Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statements. Findings High Ground Wrecks 11. The sites of two high ground wrecks were visited during the surveys: that of the Avro Anson Mk.I (S3) and that of the de Havilland Mosquito N.F. Mk.II (S4). Full details of each site are given in Table 1. 12. The first, S3, was located to the north of the Corserine’s summit, on the upper section of the saddle that connects the higher summit of the Corserine to the lower summit known as ‘Carlin’s Cairn’. 13. The site of the crash at S3 remained visible as a sub-circular area of exposed bedrock (Figure 2a) measuring 8.8m east to west by 10.8m transversely. The exposed bedrock had been broken into small grey angular stones, which had an average size of 0.1m by 0.15m. The area also contained many fragments of charred aluminium, mostly pipes. A mainly intact battery was located at the northwest corner of the area (Figure 2b). 14. The second site, S4, was located just below the ridge to the southwest of the Corserine’s summit, at the top of a bowl known as the ‘Scar of Folk’. 15. The site at S4 was identified as a wide scatter of open bedrock ‘scars’ across the side of the hill. Nine scars containing airplane debris were located, in addition to a number of smaller scars without any remaining material. The largest scar measured 12.9m by 7.6m in extent, while the average size of the rest was 2-3m by 0.8-1m. 16. As with S3, the bedrock within each scar had been broken into smaller angular stones (Figure 3a). Several small metal fragments remained including pipes, screws, a possible tank, fuselage fragments and some timber fragments (Figure 3b). Royal Observer Corps Posts 17. The locations of four known ROC posts were visited during the project: the site of an underground monitoring post at Castle Douglas (S6), the site of an underground monitoring post at Carsphairn (S7), the site of both an Orlit Type A post and an underground monitoring post at St John’s Town of Dalry (S8) and the site of both an Orlit Type A post and an underground monitoring post at Parton (S9). Full details for each site are given in Table 1. 18. The site of the underground post at S6 is located at the eastern side of Castle Douglas, within an enclosed field at the northern end of Whitepark Hill. The hill sits between Castle Douglas Primary School to the northeast and Castle Douglas Hospital to the southwest, with housing to the northwest and fields to the southeast. No remains of the post itself are present and it appears to have been completely removed. Some faint traces of disturbance from its removal are, however, still visible as a low earthwork. 19. The underground post at S7 sits within a small, enclosed field to the rear of housing along the northern side of Carsphairn’s main street (the A713). Unlike S6, this post remains, although padlocks on the access hatch prevented inspection of the interior. The surface features all appear intact however, including an air vent, an access hatch and a ‘fixed survey meter probe’, and they all sit within an enclosing fence line. Each of the surface features sits on top of its own discrete concrete plinth, and, except for the metal ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Figure 2a: General shot of S3 from the southwest Figure 2b: Detail of S3 showing battery ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Figure 3a: Detail of bedrock scars of S4 from the south Figure 3b: Detail of wreckage of S4 from the southeast ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report meter probe, are themselves made of concrete with metal vents/hatches. Traces of green paint are still visible on all the features. 20. At S7, a circular black cover has been fitted to the side of the air vent which sits on its own (Figure 4a). This cover has been left unpainted. 21. The features are in generally good condition with some vegetation growth present, although there is some rust on the metal fixtures and parts of the concrete casing on the access hatch appear to have broken off (Figure 4b). 22. The remains of both an underground post and an Orlit Type A post are present at S8, which sit to the east and the northeast of St John’s Town of Dalry, respectively. 23. The underground post is located just to the west of the access road into Tower Farm near to its junction with the A702. Padlocks on the access hatch prevented inspection of the interior, but its surface features are still present and intact comprising an access hatch, air vent and fixed survey meter probe. They are of the same construction and character as those identified at S7, although there are some slight differences: the air vents are missing their louvres and do not feature the black cover fitting seen at S7. 24. The features at S8 also appear to include a short narrow upright pipe protruding from the surface near to the meter probe, and it is possible that this may be the remains of a Bomb Power Indicator baffle plate. This pipe has also been painted green. A further hatch is also present in close vicinity of the site allowing for ground level access to a phoneline (labelled ‘BT’). 25. Apart from the missing louvres, the condition of the features appears to be good, although the concrete of the air vent adjoined to the access hatch is of a poorer condition compared with the other features. Moss and lichen are also present. 26. The Orlit Post at S8 sits in rough grazing land just to the south of the Southern Upland Way as it continues east from Midtown road. It sits at roughly 700m to the northnorthwest from the underground post. 27. The post was an Orlit Type A and consists of a small single storey rectangular structure with walls made of reinforced concrete panels and a concrete floor (unpainted). It is divided into two chambers: the larger of the two is unroofed with the remains of two metal struts projecting from the floor, while the smaller is covered by a flat concrete roof. Within the roofed chamber, only one internal feature remains: a wooden bench along its rear wall (Figure 5a). There is only one external entrance into the structure which leads into the roofed chamber, with a single internal access leading between it and the unroofed section. The structure is mostly intact except for the front wall which has been separated from the structure but remains propped against its now open side. 28. It remains in good condition although some cracks are apparent in the concrete, with vegetation and moss present, and a gap is visible at the base of one of the external corners of the unroofed chamber. 29. The site at S9 comprises the remains of both an underground post and an Orlit Type A post, which both sit in an enclosed rough grazing field to the northwest of Boreland of Parton farm. The field sits on the northeast side of the A713 opposite the site of the Loch Ken Holiday Park. 30. An Orlit post of Type A construction has been recorded at S9 but all that remains of it is a level rectangular concrete slab. The rest of the structure appears to have been completely cleared and removed from the site. 31. Only around 20m to the southeast of the slab’s location, sits the site of the underground post. As with the underground posts at S7 and S8, padlocks on the access hatch prevented inspection of the interior but the surface features are still present. This includes an access hatch, air vent and fixed survey meter probe of the same character and construction as those seen at the other two examples. The features also included the possible pipe of a Bomb Power Indicator baffle plate (Figure 5b) and a small concrete cable route marker which marks the route of an underground phoneline. ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Figure 4a: Air vent at S7 showing the circular black cover attached to its side Figure 4b: Access Hatch at S7 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Figure 5a: Interior of roofed chamber in Orlit post at S8 showing bench along rear wall Figure 5b: Pipe (in foreground) possibly for a bomb power indicator baffle plate at S9 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Table 1: Details of sites visited during the on-site works No S3 Site Crash Site: Avro Anson Mk.I HER Ref: Description MDG13043 Research Design NGR NX 49695, 87180 Documentary sources record that the site was cleared of all large wreckage following the crash. The site was recorded by the Peak District Air Accident Research Group. They reported that the site was visible as a burnt-out scar with small pieces of wreckage. Walkover Survey Wreck 3 was located as a sub-circular area of exposed bedrock measuring 8.8m east-west by 10.8m transversely. The exposed bedrock had an average size of 0.1m by 0.15m was grey in colour. It was broken into angular pieces. The area also contained many sections of aluminium, mainly as pipes. A battery was located at the northwest corner. S4 Crash Site: de Havilland Mosquito N.F. Mk.II MDG13046 NX 50474, 87032 Research Design The site was visited by the Peak District Air Accident Research Group. They reported a scar at crash site with small fragments remains. Some larger remains of undercarriage were visible slightly downhill. Mosquito planes had a wooden frame, the bulk of the plane would have been destroyed on impact. Walkover Survey The wreck was located as a wide spread of bedrock “scars” over the hillside just under the lip of the hill at the “scar of folk”. Nine scars containing airplane debris were located, in addition to a number of small scars without material. The largest scar measured 7.6m by 11.8m and contained the fuselage and gears as well as metal and timber fragments. The other scars containing metal and timber fragments had an average size of between 2m x 0.5m and 3m x 1m. The scars were all sub-circular in form. ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 40 Image from Site Inspection RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report S6 Castle Douglas - Research Design - Opened August 1940. Equipped with flares to warn aircraft of high ground (Granite) in 1943. Later added an underground nuclear post in December 1961. Post closed in 1991. Underground post was probably demolished in 1991. ROC Post 33/C.1; 24/D.2; 22/E.3 Underground post has been completely removed. Some faint traces of the disturbance from its demolition remain as an earthwork. Carsphairn - Research Design ROC Post 33/K.2; 25/H.2; 22/A.1 - Opened in August 1940. Nuclear bunker added in January 1962. Probably disbanded in 1991. Possible remains of WW2 post visible on low hill. Underground bunker visible within compound. WW2 post, Underground Post NX 76804, 62300 Site Visit WW2 post; Underground Post S7 Underground post (site of): Site Visit Surface remains of underground post still present and intact including ventilation shaft, access hatch and sampling/fixed survey meter probe – all made from concrete. Enclosing fence line still present. No access to interior of post as metal access hatch is padlocked. A circular black cover has been fitted to the side of the air vent which sits on its own. ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 40 Underground Post: NX 56089, 93347 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report S8 Dalry - Research Design ROC Post 33/B.1; 25/C.2; 22/A.2 - Opened in September 1940. Underground nuclear post added in January 1964. Probably disbanded in 1991. Orlit A and underground bunker still visible. WW2 post, Orlit A, Underground Post Underground Post: Underground Post: NX 63249, 81400 Site Visit Surface remains of underground post still present including ventilation shaft, access hatch and sampling/fixed survey meter probe – all made from concrete. Phoneline running into the post’s location also still present. Remains are all still intact apart from missing louvres on the air vents. No access to interior of bunker as metal access hatch is padlocked. Orlit Type A: NX 63033, 82001 Remains of Orlit Type A structure still standing. A small rectangular structure only single storey, it has a concrete floor with all walls made of reinforced concrete. It is divided into two halves – one side is unroofed with the remains of two concrete struts projecting from the floor. The other half is roofed with a flat concrete roof. The only internal feature remaining in this half is a wooden bench along the rear wall. There is only one doorway from the exterior leading into the roofed section, and a single internal doorway leading into the unroofed section. The structure is mostly intact apart from the front wall which has been separated from the structure and left leaning against it. Orlit Type A: ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report S9 Parton - Research Design ROC Post 33/B.3; 25/C.4; 22/A.3; MDG25531 Opened October 1940. Equipped with “granite” 1943. Augmented “granite” 1944. Nuclear post established April 1960. Post probably disbanded in 1991. Concrete base of Orlit A visible on low hill near bunker. WW2 post, Nuclear Bunker Underground Post: Underground Post: NX 68854, 70358 Site Visit Orlit Type A: Concrete base of Orlit Type A still present but nothing else remains. NX 68836, 70365 Surface remains of underground post still present and intact including air vent, access hatch and sampling/fixed survey meter probe – all made from concrete. The louvres on the ventilation shaft are still intact. No access to interior of post as metal access hatch is padlocked. A short, narrow upright pipe is visible protruding from the ground near to the meter probe is possibly the remains of a Bomb Power Indicator baffle plate. Orlit Type A: ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report 62. The condition of the surface features appears to be particularly good at S9 with the concrete appearing mostly intact and a large portion of the green paint still visible. Discussion 63. The works comprised of two different elements: the survey of two high ground wrecks (S3 and S4) and site visits to four ROC posts (S6, S7, S8 and S9). High Ground Wrecks 64. The sites of two high ground wrecks, S3 and S4, were visited and surveyed by volunteers across two days. The two crashes had occurred during training exercises undertaken at night-time when navigational errors could often result in a high number of casualties. 65. Smith had visited both locations in the 1970s and provided basic details of the sites as well as photographs (1989, 28-31). In addition, members of the Peak District Air Accident Research Group visited them in 2011 (Clark 2016b and 2016c). Combined with the data from our current survey, these resources allow us to build a picture of the changing condition of the sites over the years. 66. S3 was cleared of all large pieces of wreckage immediately following the crash. As a result, it broadly looked much the same during this survey as it had on the previous recorded visits. However, the photographs from the 1970s seem to show larger fragments of wreckage and bedrock compared to what is visible today. The recent survey of the site, alongside the photographs from the 2011 survey, show that these fragments have been broken down into significantly smaller pieces. This is likely to have been caused by the weather on the exposed summit. The difference between the 2011 visit by the Peak District Air Accident Research Group and the current survey are negligible. However, the battery appears to have moved position slightly between the two surveys, which further suggests that there is ongoing disturbance at the site. 67. S4 had larger sections of wreckage, including some wooden fragments that are even more susceptible to degradation. Smith has only provided a photograph of one section of the site: a portion of a tailwheel (Smith 1989, 31). This was not located in later surveys, indicating that it has either degraded or perhaps been blown further downhill in the intervening years. Most of the material identified at the site was highly fragmentary in nature, which may be attributed to later disturbance as well as the initial crash. This disturbance could be a result of the site’s positioning at the lip of the corrie, which may have exposed it to higher winds than if it had been further onto the ridge. 68. There is also the possibility that some of the wreckage material has been removed by passers-by for souvenirs. The Protection of Military Remains Act was introduced in 1986 and provides protection for the wreckage of all aircraft which have crashed while in military service, and for designated vessels which have sunk or been stranded, again, while in military service. Under this act, it is an offence to tamper with, damage, move or unearth any remains without a licence from the Ministry of Defence. The primary reason for the act is to protect a ‘war grave’: the last resting place of UK servicemen (or other nationals), although the loss does not need to have occurred during wartime. The remote location of the wrecks at the Corserine suggests that this may not have been a common occurrence and it is unlikely that large fragments would have been carried off the hill. However, the possibility remains that some of the more portable fragments visible in the earlier photographs (for example, Smith 1989, 29) may have been removed prior to their legal protection in 1986. 69. Both crash sites are still visible as bedrock scars even 80 years after the crash. The impact and resulting fire destroyed the thin mountain topsoil. While soil recovery in this environment is slow, it would be expected that under normal circumstances some level of recovery would be visible after 80 years. As it was stripped down to bedrock, the revegetation process would include a layer of moss with the grass following afterwards. This has not occurred, suggesting that the area may have been contaminated with high octane aviation petrol and other chemicals during the collision. It is, however, not possible to fully determine this without testing the area. ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report 70. All wreck sites are of historical and archaeological interest as they provide information about the nature of the wreck and the circumstances of their loss. This is particularly true for those crash sites where loss of life occurred. Regarding the high ground wrecks, such as the ones included in this study, their isolated location also means that they are less likely to have been disturbed by later development. 71. Crash sites are covered in the research framework proposed in Modern military matters, Studying and managing the twentieth-century defence heritage in Britain (Schofield 2004). The focus is on the recording of sites and the education of aviation archaeology groups on best practice. This is because most of the work on air crash sites has consisted of uncontrolled excavation with no publication of records. The works carried out as part of the Galloway Glens project fulfil these objectives. As the baseline survey was carried out with assistance from members of the local community, it was able to provide both detailed information about the current condition of the sites, while at the same time giving an opportunity to train local volunteers and make them aware of the issues concerning these fragile remains. Royal Observer Corps Posts 72. The Royal Observer Corps was operative throughout most of the 20th century, adapting its function and objectives to match the changing threats faced by the country during this time. For around 65 years, the Corps relied on the work of volunteers to front an organisation that’s sole purpose was to protect the safety of the British people. To achieve this, a network of posts numbering some 1,500 was established across the country during its lifetime, and in several places their physical remains still survive to this day. 73. Within the Galloway Glens, four such posts have been identified: S6 (Castle Douglas), S7 (Carsphairn), S8 (St John’s Town of Dalry) and S9 (Parton). This project visited each one, recording both its location and present condition, and aimed to bring their presence back into the public awareness. 74. All four posts were originally established in 1940 as part of the ROC’s increasing network aimed at tracking aircraft during World War II. However, the earliest recognisable remains to still survive on these sites are actually related to the ROC’s ‘second phase’: the introduction of Orlit observation posts in the early 1950s for the purpose of tracking soviet jets. This is not surprising, as the World War II posts are known to have varied greatly with many being constructed locally. As noted by Brown et al., they ‘were frequently simply sand-bagged emplacements, and even the most substantial were only of domestic brick construction’ (1996, 32). 75. Approximately 400 Orlit observation posts were installed across Britain (Dalton 2017, 5). The remains of these posts were only present at S8 and S9, with none ever recorded at the other two sites. The Orlit posts were all built to a set design, and of the two types (A and B), the two within the Galloway Glens area appear to have been of the Type A variety. The Type B post would have been raised off the ground on concrete stilts, so the concrete slab surviving at S8 indicates that this is likely to have been a Type A post. 76. The remains of the Orlit post at S9 are still upstanding and clearly match the construction design for the Type A post, with the roofed chamber acting as a shelter and store, and the unroofed chamber used as an open observation area. The structure is formed of pre-cast concrete panels, reinforced by metal bars embedded in the concrete mass, which would have been assembled on site. Adopted in the early 20th century, reinforced concrete offered greater strength from relatively thin components and gave the material an enhanced blast resistance (Brown et al. 1996, 19). It also lent itself to prefabrication which became increasingly popular throughout both World Wars with the creation of standardised ‘kit’ buildings taking precedence (ibid.). 77. While the main structure of the Orlit post at S9 remains intact (for the most part), the structure has been cleared of all equipment. It is likely that the separation of one of its concrete walls was to allow for the removal of the ‘plotting table’ which would have sat at the centre of the observation area, presumably fixed in place by the metal struts still ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report visible. Except for these metal struts and a wooden bench, the structure has also been stripped of any additional fittings. For example, no door remains on the external entrance and the internal sliding door has also been removed. Presumably, all removable features which were seen to have reuse value were not to be left behind. 78. With the shift in the ROC’s focus towards the monitoring of nuclear blasts and fallout during the 1960s, the structure of the posts changed. Some 1,560 underground monitoring posts were built, replacing the above-ground Orlit posts: a shift that was viewed as enhancing the survivability of the post’s crew (Dalton 2017, 15). The majority of such posts were built between 1958 and 1964, although the construction programme continued until the early 1970s (Brown et al. 1996, 130). 79. An underground post was constructed at each of the four ROC sites within the Galloway Glens area between 1960 and 1964, reflecting the higher number of these structures installed compared to the Orlit posts. Brown et al. note that the underground posts were often sited in clusters within a small geographical area which were ‘sufficient to permit the triangulation of plots’ (1996, 130). This is further explained by Dalton who states that the clusters comprised between two and five posts sat approximately 8 miles apart, and he also provides a map showing the sectors, groups and clusters of the posts across Britain (2017, 14). From this map, it is possible to discern that the four posts would have been in the ‘Ayr’ group within the ‘Caledonian’ or Scottish sector. 80. No traces of the underground post which sat at S6 have survived. It appears to have been completely removed with only slight earthworks remaining from the demolition process. At the other three sites – S7, S8 and S9 – however, the underground posts remain intact. 81. At S9, the location of the underground post sits near to the site of the earlier Orlit post, while in contrast, the underground post at S8 sits at some distance away. This is likely a result of the strict requirements needed for the siting of the new underground posts (see Historical and Archaeological Background section – Royal Observer Corps Posts). While it was preferable to use existing sites, which had often been chosen for good visibility and were already owned by the Crown, there were many places where the land was unsuitable, such as was the case at S8 (Dalton 2017, 21). The siting of the underground post at S8 closer to the road may also reflect efforts made to reduce the impact of access issues on the landowner (ibid.). 82. As mentioned, the underground posts at S7, S8 and S9 survive intact. The design of the underground posts underwent various modifications since their original construction in the 1950s. The three posts surveyed however, all appeared to be of a similar design, likely due to their construction within a few years of each other. For example, all three featured an access hatch of a one-piece design which was a later change from the original ‘split-hatch’ design (Dalton 2017, 28-29). 83. All the surface features appear to have been painted a dark green. This fits with most of the underground posts which were ‘toned down to colour shade most like drab’, although Dalton describes some instances were different colour schemes were followed (2017, 23). 84. The most notable difference between the posts was the presence of the circular black cover on the air vent at S7. The main means of communication between the posts and the group headquarters was through the telephone network, with lines usually carried into the sites on telegraph poles. This was long seen as a weak point within the posts’ setup; if the lines were damaged during a nuclear attack, then the ability of the posts to relay information to headquarters would be disabled (Dalton 2017, 50). In response to this, a Very High Frequency (VHF) radio system was installed at one post in each cluster as a back-up to the telephone line. The radio system was rolled out throughout the 1960s until the mid-1970s, although some posts did not receive it until the 1980s (Dalton 2017, 51). The plan was to install radios at each of the existing master posts within the clusters, although this depended on whether they were suitably positioned to receive radio transmissions. Where this was not the case, a reshuffling of the posts and cluster groups was required to make sure that each cluster had a master post with radio ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report capacity; this was one of the key reasons why the rollout took so long (ibid.). 85. Where radio functionality was installed at a post, this also included the use of an external aerial mast which could be fitted onto the side of the air vent when required. The mast needed two connections which were taken down into the post via the ventilator shaft (Paine 1971, 18-19). The sockets for these connections were contained within a case fitted to the rear side of the air vent: the circular black cover at S7 (Figure 4a and Paine 1971, 20 – images on the right). The presence of the black cover at S7 therefore highlights that this underground post would have acted as a master post within a cluster. 86. Due to budget cutbacks in 1968, the ROC had to close over 600 underground posts (Dalton 2017, 15). This does not seem to have included the four posts that sat within the Galloway Glens area however, which were all still recorded as being ‘in use’ in 1968 (Wood 1976, 329). Instead, the four posts were likely still operating until the ROC was officially stood down in 1991. 87. The nature of the stand-down meant that the abandonment of the underground posts appears to have been just that: a swift locking up and walking away by the crews that occupied them. The decision was poorly communicated, and it left many observers feeling let down by the government of the time, so much so, that when it came to closing the posts down, they were reluctant to clear them out (Dalton 2017, 97-99). This meant that everything apart from the key items of equipment were left behind and, in some cases, not even these were taken (ibid., 99). 88. The communications equipment was the property of British Telecom (BT) so even when the posts were cleared out, this equipment remained (Dalton 2017, 99). BT removed equipment from some of the posts themselves, but it was generally seen as not costeffective as the kit had no reuse value, meaning that some of the lines even remained ‘live’ for many years after (ibid., 99). This is evident at the sites within the Galloway Glens area, with a telegraph pole still present even at S6 despite the underground post having long been demolished. 89. While it was not possible to enter any of the surviving underground posts during these site visits, an earlier visit to the post at S9 in 2002, recorded on the Subterranea Britannica website (https://www.subbrit.org.uk/sites/parton-roc-post/ [accessed 3rd December 2020]), was able to gain access. This record shows that most of the items had been left behind, including paperwork, maps, mattresses and even down to the teapot. This corresponds with the swift abandonment of these structures. 90. After the posts were closed, many reverted to the original landowners, with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) responsible for demolishing each post and returning the land to its former condition (Dalton 2017, 163). When the time came however, the MoD instead paid the local farmers to allow the post to remain on their land: a cheaper option than the more expensive demolition process (ibid.). This is likely the reason why three out of the four underground posts have survived and suggests that the removal of the post at S6 was perhaps not a common occurrence. In this case, its removal appears to have been the choice of the landowner themselves. 91. The posts that remain have all been secured with padlocks which has protected them from vandalism since their closure. The presence of these structures often goes unnoticed by those around them, particularly the underground posts whose very nature makes them hard-to-spot. The role of the ROC and the significance of these features cannot be emphasised enough, however. 92. In 1976, it was estimated that over 150,000 men and women had served in the Corps since it began in 1925 (Wood 1976, ix) and this number will have increased over its continuation until 1991. Only a small number of its members were paid professionals, with thousands of volunteers taking on the responsibility of what could be a very risky and dangerous operation. Not to mention the uncomfortable situation of being holed up in small structures or bunkers for hours or days at a time, in all weather. 93. The physical remains at these sites survive as memorials of their hard work and attest to the changing political climate throughout the 20th century. That distinct structures from ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report multiple historical periods survive in the same location further demonstrates their significance. On top of this, the way in which the underground posts were abandoned often mean that many of them remain as a sort of ‘time capsule’ containing direct evidence from their occupation: a rare occurrence within archaeology. 94. A few of the posts have been restored and there are many who continue to try and maintain the knowledge of their existence for future generations. But many of these structures sit forgotten in the fields across Britain and it is hoped that this record can help towards highlighting their importance once more. Conclusion 95. The field survey of the high ground wrecks on the Corserine provided data that contributed to our understanding of these sites and allowed us to establish their precise GPS location. It was possible to compile a more complete record for the sites including the dimensions of the remaining scars and the size and location of wreckage fragments. This record can act as a baseline which allows the condition of the sites to be monitored in future. 96. Comparison with earlier photographs of both sites indicates that there has been a noticeable amount of disturbance and degradation of the wreckage material in the 80 years since the aircraft crashed. However, in the absence of a previous detailed survey, it is impossible to say for sure what the scale of the degradation has been. 97. The visits to the four ROC posts were also able to establish a precise GPS location for the structures and a thorough photographic record of what remains at each site. While the Orlit post at S9 has been demolished down to its base slab, the main structure of the Orlit post at S8 is still extant, although it has been stripped of all features. In contrast, the underground posts at S7, S8 and S9 all appear to survive intact. With only the underground post at S6 having been demolished, this appears to reflect the swift abandonment of these structures at the closure of the ROC; evidence which matches the description of the closure gleaned from the written resources. While it was not possible to enter the underground posts during the visits, an earlier record of the post’s interior at S9 found that many of its items, down to the paperwork, remained inside. There is a strong possibility that this is also the case in the posts at both S7 and S8. 98. The significance of both the high ground wreck sites and the ROC posts cannot be overstated. They are the surviving traces of some of the most important aspects of recent military history. The wreck sites highlight the loss of life that occurred in WWII. The ROC posts signify the strength of volunteer work in supporting the British military to navigate the threats (real or perceived) that the country faced in the 20 th century. Both survive as a testament to the risks that many were willing to take in defence of their country. 99. The involvement of local volunteers in the survey of these sites allowed them to gain training in archaeological survey and, importantly, managed to bring these sites back into local awareness and knowledge; a factor which these sites need for their continued survival. Acknowledgements 100. This project is part of a wider Community Archaeology project, ‘Can You Dig It’, run by the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme from February 2019 to March 2020. See www.gallowayglens.org.uk/Resources and follow ‘Can You Dig It’ for their published outputs. The Community Archaeology project was offered free to volunteers thanks to funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland. The land is owned by the Forrest Estate who were happy to allow us access and were incredibly supportive about the project. Guidance was given by Dumfries and Galloway Council Archaeology Service and members of local heritage societies. 101. The author would like to thank all the hardworking volunteers who took part in the survey: Alan Crosbie, Alan Smith, Fiona Smith, John Hosker, Evelyn Hosker, Tom Marshall, Donald Gibson, Bethan Rees, Paul Goodwin, John Allison, Will Marshall, Richard ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Bellamy, Eva Armstrong-Phillips, Struan Long and Catherine Phillips. 102. Many thanks also go to Liam McKinstry for his editing of this report. References Documentary Air Ministry Information Bureau 1951 Join your neighbours in an ROC post, No. Inf 119 Brown, I., Burridge, D., Clarke, D., Guy, J., Hellis, J., Lowry, B., Ruckley, N. & Thomas, R. 1996 20th Century Defences in Britain: An introductory guide, Council for British Archaeology, Practical Handbooks in Archaeology Volume 12 (Revised edition) Clark, A. 2016a ‘Avro Anson Mk.I L9153 of No.12 Elementary and Reserve Flying Training School, Prestwick crashed on Corserine on the 9th January 1939’ [online] available at: https://www.peakdistrictaircrashes.co.uk/crash_sites/scotland/avro-anson-l9153corserine/ [accessed 7th February 2019] Clark, A. 2016b ‘Avro Anson Mk.I DG787 of the Air Navigation & Bombing School crashed on Corserine in the Rhinns of Kells on the 23rd October 1942’ [online] available at: https://www.peakdistrictaircrashes.co.uk/crash_sites/scotland/avro-anson-dg787corserine/ [accessed 25th March 2020] Clark, A. 2016c ‘de Havilland Mosquito N.F. Mk.II DD795 of No.60 OTU crashed on Corserine during the night of the 20th / 21st January 1944’ [online] available at: https://www.peakdistrictaircrashes.co.uk/crash_sites/scotland/de-havilland-mosquitodd795-corserine/ [accessed 25th March 2020] Dalton, M. 2017 The Royal Observer Corps Underground Monitoring Posts, Folly Books Ltd Decock, J.-P. 2009 A la mémoire de l’équipage du K-14 [online] available at: https://www.hangarflying.eu/2009/08/a-la-memoire-de-lequipage-du-k-14/ (translated by Google Translate) [accessed 7th February 2019] Gillon, G. 2011 Vaclav Jelinek [online] available at: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/64821094/vaclav-jelinek [accessed 7th February 2019] Hastings, M. 1979 Bomber Command, Pan Macmillan HQ ROC 1970 The Origin and History of the Royal Observer Corps [online] available at: http://www.roc-heritage.co.uk/uploads/7/6/8/9/7689271/roc_history1970.pdf [accessed 2nd November 2020] Krischer, S. & Rees, T. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community Archaeology Project, Research Design, 1.2.g High Ground Wrecks and the Royal Observer Corps, unpublished grey literature report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd McKinstry, L. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community Archaeology Project, Risk Assessment Method Statement, 1.2.g Wrecks – Corserine Hill unpublished grey literature report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd Paine, G. H. 1971 ‘Setting up and operating the Post Radio Installation’, The Royal Observer Corps Journal, Vol.13 No. 2, 18-21 [online] available at: http://www.rocheritage.co.uk/uploads/7/6/8/9/7689271/roc_journal_vol13_no2_feb71_144dpi.pdf [accessed 10th December 2020] Smith, D. J. 1989 High Ground Wrecks: A Survey of Aircraft Crash Remains on the Hills and Mountains of the UK and Ireland, 3rd edition, Midland Counties Publications Schofield, J. 2004 Modern military matters, Studying and managing the twentiethcentury defence heritage in Britain: a discussion document, Council for British Archaeology Winslow, T. E. 1948 Forwarded is Forearmed: The Authorized History of the Royal Observer Corps, W Hodge and Co ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Wood, D. 1976 Attack Warning Red: The Royal Observer Corps and the Defence of Britain 1925-1975, Macdonald and Janes Ltd Websites Peak District Air Crashes Research Group: https://www.peakdistrictaircrashes.co.uk/category/crash_sites/scotland/ Subterranea Britannica, UKNWMO and ROC posts: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/category/nuclear-monitoring-posts Subterranea Britannica, Parton ROC post: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/roc/db/989427148.html ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 24 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland LOCAL AUTHORITY: Dumfries & Galloway PROJECT TITLE/SITE NAME: Galloway Glens – High Ground Wrecks and Royal Observer Corps Posts PROJECT CODE: RA18107 PARISH: Carsphairn; Kells; Dalry; Parton; Kelton NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR: Sarah Krischer, Thomas Rees and Claire Williamson NAME OF ORGANISATION: Rathmell Archaeology Limited TYPE(S) OF PROJECT: Field Survey NMRS NO(S): - SITE/MONUMENT TYPE(S): - SIGNIFICANT FINDS: None NGR (2 letters, 8 or 10 figures) NX 76804 62300 - NX 56089 93347 - NX 49695 87180 START DATE (this season) 20th June 2019 END DATE (this season) 10th October 2019 PREVIOUS WORK (incl. DES ref.) None MAIN (NARRATIVE) DESCRIPTION: (may include information from other fields) The field survey of the high ground wrecks on the Corserine provided data that contributed to our understanding of these sites and allowed us to establish their precise GPS location. It was possible to compile a more complete record for the sites including the dimensions of the remaining scars and the size and location of wreckage fragments. This record can act as a baseline which allows the condition of the sites to be monitored in future. Comparison with earlier photographs of both sites indicates that there has been a noticeable amount of disturbance and degradation of the wreckage material in the 80 years since the aircraft crashed. However, in the absence of a previous detailed survey, it is impossible to say for sure what the scale of the degradation has been. The visits to the four ROC posts were also able to establish a precise GPS location for the structures and a thorough photographic record of what remains at each site. While the Orlit post at S9 has been demolished down to its base slab, the main structure of the Orlit post at S8 is still extant, although it has been stripped of all features. In contrast, the underground posts at S7, S8 and S9 all appear to survive intact. With only the underground post at S6 having been demolished, this appears to reflect the swift abandonment of these structures at the closure of the ROC; evidence which matches the description of the closure gleaned from the written resources. While it was not possible to enter the underground posts during the visits, an earlier record of the post’s interior at S9 found that many of its items, down to the paperwork, remained inside. There is a strong possibility that this is also the case in the posts at both S7 and S8. The significance of both the high ground wreck sites and the ROC posts cannot be overstated. They are the surviving traces of some of the most important aspects of recent military history. The wreck sites highlight the loss of life that occurred in WWII. The ROC posts signify the strength of volunteer work in supporting the British military to navigate the threats (real or perceived) that the country faced in the ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 25 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report 20th century. Both survive as a testament to the risks that many were willing to take in defence of their country. The involvement of local volunteers in the survey of these sites allowed them to gain training in archaeological survey and, importantly, managed to bring these sites back into local awareness and knowledge; a factor which these sites need for their continued survival. PROPOSED FUTURE WORK: None CAPTION(S) FOR ILLUSTRS: None SPONSOR OR FUNDING BODY: The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme (part of Dumfries & Galloway Council), externally funded by Historic Environment Scotland and the Heritage Fund ADDRESS OF MAIN CONTRIBUTOR: Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops, Kilwinning, Ayrshire KA13 6PU EMAIL: contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk ARCHIVE LOCATION (intended/deposited) Report to Dumfries & Galloway Archaeology Service and archive to National Record of the Historic Environment. ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 26 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Appendix 2: Registers 103. Appendix 1, which contains all registers pertaining to the works on site during the survey Photographic Register Image Digital Description From Date 1 8704 General shot – group at summit cairn - 20/06/19 2 8705 General shot – group at summit cairn - 20/06/19 3 8706 General shot- group surveying site S3 SE 20/06/19 4 8707 General shot- group surveying site S3 SE 20/06/19 5 8708 General shot- group surveying site S3 SE 20/06/19 6 8709 General shot- group surveying site S3 SE 20/06/19 7 8710 General shot- group surveying site S3 SSE 20/06/19 8 8711 S3 - Detail shot E 20/06/19 9 8712 S3 - Detail shot E 20/06/19 10 8713 S3 - Detail shot N 20/06/19 11 8714 Detail shot of wreckage – S3 - 20/06/19 12 8715 Detail shot of wreckage – S3 - 20/06/19 13 8716 Detail shot of wreckage – S3 - 20/06/19 14 8717 Detail shot of wreckage – S3 - 20/06/19 15 8718 Detail shot of wreckage – S3 - 20/06/19 16 8719 Detail shot of wreckage – S3 - 20/06/19 17 8720 General shot of group at S3 - 20/06/19 18 8721 General shot of S3 ESE 20/06/19 19 8722 General shot of S3 ESE 20/06/19 20 8723 General shot of S3 SSE 20/06/19 21 8724 General shot of S3 SSE 20/06/19 22 8725 General shot of S3 SSE 20/06/19 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 27 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Image Digital Description From Date 23 8726 General shot of S3 S 20/06/19 24 8727 General shot of S3 SW 20/06/19 25 8728 General shot of S3 SW 20/06/19 26 8729 General shot of S3 SE 20/06/19 27 8730 General shot of S3 SSE 20/06/19 28 8731 General shot of S3 SSE 20/06/19 29 8732 General shot of S3 SSE 20/06/19 30 8733 Tom at the top - 20/06/19 31 8734 Wreckage – S4 detail shot - 20/06/19 32 8735 Working shot – surveying - 20/06/19 33 8736 Detail of wreckage S4 - 20/06/19 34 8737 Detail shot of S4 - 20/06/19 35 8738 Detail shot of S4 - 20/06/19 36 8739 Detail shot of S4 - 20/06/19 37 8740 Working shot of S4 - 20/06/19 38 8741 Detail shot of S4 - 20/06/19 39 8742 Detail shot of S4 - 20/06/19 40 8743 Detail shot of S4 - 20/06/19 41 8744 Detail shot of S4 - 20/06/19 42 8745 Detail shot of S4 SW 20/06/19 43 8746 Detail shot of S4 - 20/06/19 44 8747 Detail shot of S4 - 20/06/19 45 8748 Working shot of S4 - 20/06/19 46 8749 Working shot of S4 - 20/06/19 47 8750 Working shot of S4 - 20/06/19 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 28 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Image Digital Description From Date 48 8751 Working shot of S4 SW 20/06/19 49 8752 Group shot at S4 SW 20/06/19 50 8753 Group shot at S4 - 20/06/19 51 8754 Group shot at S4 - 20/06/19 52 8755 General shot of S4 S 20/06/19 53 8756 General shot of S4 S 20/06/19 54 8757 General shot of S4 SW 20/06/19 55 8558 General shot of S4 SW 20/06/19 56 8559 General shot of S4 WSW 20/06/19 57 8560 General shot of S4 WSW 20/06/19 58 8561 General shot of S4 WSW 20/06/19 59 8562 General shot of S4 NW 20/06/19 60 8663 General view from top W 20/06/19 61 8764 General view from top W 20/06/19 62 8765 Group shot - 20/06/19 63 8766 Group shot with view - 20/06/19 64 8767 Group shot with view - 20/06/19 65 1144 General shot - 26/07/19 66 1145 General shot - 26/07/19 67 1146 General shot - 26/07/19 68 1147 Detail shot of S3 - 26/07/19 69 1148 Detail shot of S3 - 26/07/19 70 1149 Detail shot of S3 - 26/07/19 71 1150 Detail shot of S3 - 26/07/19 72 1151 Detail shot of S3 - 26/07/19 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 29 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Image Digital Description From Date 73 1152 Detail shot of S3 - 26/07/19 74 1153 General shot of S3 E 26/07/19 75 1154 Detail shot of S3 SE 26/07/19 76 1155 Detail shot of S3 SE 26/07/19 77 1156 Trig point - 26/07/19 78 1157 General shot - 26/07/19 79 1158 General shot - 26/07/19 80 1159 General shot SW 26/07/19 81 1160 General shot (with dogs) SW 26/07/19 82 1161 General shot NE 26/07/19 83 1162 Detail shot of S4 - 26/07/19 84 1163 Detail shot of S4 - 26/07/19 85 1164 Detail shot of S4 - 26/07/19 86 1165 Detail shot of S4 - 26/07/19 87 1166 General shot of S4 SE 26/07/19 88 1167 General shot of S4 SW 26/07/19 89 1168 Detail shot of S4 - 26/07/19 90 1169 Detail shot of S4 NW 26/07/19 91 1170 General shot of S4 SW 26/07/19 92 1171 Detail shot of S4 SW 26/07/19 93 001 S9, Orlit Type A post with underground post in the background - 10/10/19 94 002 S9, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 95 003 S9, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 96 004 S9, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 97 005 S9, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 30 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Image Digital Description From Date 98 006 S9, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 99 007 S9, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 100 008 S9, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 101 009 S9, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 102 010 S9, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 103 011 S9, base slab remaining of Orlit post with underground post in the background - 10/10/19 104 012 S9, base slab remaining of Orlit post - 10/10/19 105 013 S6, Site of underground post – General view - 10/10/19 106 014 S6, Site of underground post – General view - 10/10/19 107 015 S6, Site of underground post – General view - 10/10/19 108 016 S6, Site of underground post – General view - 10/10/19 109 017 S6, Site of underground post – General view - 10/10/19 110 018 S6, Site of underground post – General view - 10/10/19 111 019 S6, Site of underground post – General view - 10/10/19 112 020 S6, Site of underground post – General view - 10/10/19 113 021 S6, Site of underground post – General view - 10/10/19 114 022 S6, Site of underground post – General view - 10/10/19 115 023 S6, Site of underground post – General view - 10/10/19 116 024 Voided - - 117 025 Voided - - 118 026 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 119 027 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 120 028 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 121 029 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 122 030 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 31 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Image Digital Description From Date 123 031 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch - 10/10/19 124 032 S8, Underground post – Detail of air vent - 10/10/19 125 033 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 126 034 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 127 035 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch - 10/10/19 128 036 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch - 10/10/19 129 037 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 130 038 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 131 039 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 132 040 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 133 041 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 134 042 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 135 043 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 136 044 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 137 045 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 138 046 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 139 047 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 140 048 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 141 049 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 142 050 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 143 051 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 144 052 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 145 053 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 146 054 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 147 055 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 32 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Image Digital Description From Date 148 056 S8, Underground post – General view of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 149 057 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 150 058 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 151 059 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 152 060 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 153 061 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 154 062 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 155 063 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 156 064 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 157 065 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 158 066 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 159 067 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 160 068 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 161 069 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 162 070 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 163 071 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 164 072 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 165 073 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 166 074 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 167 075 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 168 076 S8, Underground post – Detail of access hatch and air vent - 10/10/19 169 077 S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe and air vent - 10/10/19 170 078 S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe and air vent - 10/10/19 171 079 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 172 080 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 33 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Image Digital Description From Date 173 081 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 174 082 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 175 083 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 176 084 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 177 085 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 178 086 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 179 087 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 180 088 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 181 089 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 182 090 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 183 091 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 184 092 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 185 093 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 186 094 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 187 095 S8, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 188 096 S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe and possible site of Bomb Power Indicator baffle plate - 10/10/19 189 097 S8, Underground post – Possible site of Bomb Power Indicator baffle plate - 10/10/19 190 098 S8, Underground post – Possible site of Bomb Power Indicator baffle plate - 10/10/19 191 099 S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe - 10/10/19 192 100 S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe - 10/10/19 193 101 S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe - 10/10/19 194 102 S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe - 10/10/19 195 103 S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe - 10/10/19 196 104 S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe - 10/10/19 197 105 S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe - 10/10/19 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 34 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Image Digital Description From Date 198 106 S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe - 10/10/19 199 107 S8, Underground post – Fixed survey meter probe - 10/10/19 200 108 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 201 109 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 202 110 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 203 111 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 204 112 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 205 113 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 206 114 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 207 115 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 208 116 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 209 117 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 210 118 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 211 119 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 212 120 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 213 121 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 214 122 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 215 123 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 216 124 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 217 125 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 218 126 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 219 127 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 220 128 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 221 129 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 222 130 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 35 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Image Digital Description From Date 223 131 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 224 132 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 225 133 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 226 134 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 227 135 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 228 136 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 229 137 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 230 138 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 231 139 S8, Underground post – ‘BT’ phoneline access - 10/10/19 232 140 Voided - - 233 141 Voided - - 234 142 S8, Underground post – ‘BT’ phoneline access - 10/10/19 235 143 Voided - - 236 144 S8, Underground post – ‘BT’ phoneline access - 10/10/19 237 145 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 238 146 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 239 147 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 240 148 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 241 149 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 242 150 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 243 151 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 244 152 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 245 153 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 246 154 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 247 155 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 36 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Image Digital Description From Date 248 156 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 249 157 S8, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 250 158 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 251 159 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 252 160 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 253 161 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 254 162 S8, Orlit post – Interior - 10/10/19 255 163 S8, Orlit post – Interior - 10/10/19 256 164 S8, Orlit post – Interior - 10/10/19 257 165 S8, Orlit post – Interior - 10/10/19 258 166 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 259 167 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 260 168 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 261 169 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 262 170 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 263 171 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 264 172 S8, Orlit post – Interior - 10/10/19 265 173 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 266 174 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 267 175 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 268 176 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 269 177 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 270 178 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 271 179 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 272 180 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 37 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Image Digital Description From Date 273 181 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 274 182 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 275 183 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 276 184 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 277 185 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 278 186 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 279 187 S8, Orlit post – Detail shot - 10/10/19 280 188 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 281 189 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 282 190 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 283 191 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 284 192 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 285 193 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 286 194 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 287 195 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 288 196 S8, Orlit post – General view - 10/10/19 289 197 S7 – Fallen flag post - 10/10/19 290 198 S7 – Fallen flag post - 10/10/19 291 199 S7, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 292 200 S7, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 293 201 S7, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 294 202 S7, Underground post – Access hatch - 10/10/19 295 203 S7, Underground post – Air vent - 10/10/19 296 204 S7, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 297 205 S7, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 38 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Image Digital Description From Date 298 206 S7, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 299 207 S7, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 300 208 S7, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 301 209 S7, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 302 210 S7, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 303 211 S7, Underground post – General view - 10/10/19 ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 39 of 40 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.g Data Structure Report Contact Details Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at our Registered Office or through the web: Rathmell Archaeology Ltd Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops Kilwinning Ayrshire KA13 6PU www.rathmell-arch.co.uk t.: f.: e.: 01294 542848 01294 542849 contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk End of Document ©2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 40 of 40  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Data Structure Report – High Ground Wrecks and the Royal Observer Corps Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_95 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 Description An account of the resource Surveys and test pitting works undertaken as part of the community archaeology project “Can You Dig It?”. archaeology GGLP https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/13/554/GGLP-CYDI-DSR-Upper-Gairloch-2nd-Season.pdf 7914871dbedd2f1c86e981c1cb02ac09 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Data Structure Report – Medieval or Later Rural Settlement – Upper Gairloch Season 2 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Data Structure Reports Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Can You Dig It? Community Archaeology Project Data Structure Report 1.2.f Medieval or Later Rural Settlement – Upper Gairloch, 2nd Season by Claire Williamson & Liam McKinstry th issued 6 February 2020 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Quality Assurance This report covers works which have been undertaken in keeping with the issued brief as modified by the agreed programme of works. The report has been prepared in keeping with the guidance of Rathmell Archaeology Limited on the preparation of reports. All works reported on within this document have been undertaken in keeping with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Policy Statements and Code of Conduct. Signed ……………………………….. Date …..6th February 2020…… In keeping with the procedure of Rathmell Archaeology Limited this document and its findings have been reviewed and agreed by an appropriate colleague: Checked ……………………………….. Date …..6th February 2020…… Copyright Rathmell Archaeology Limited. All rights reserved. No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Rathmell Archaeology Limited. If you have received this report in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party, unless otherwise agreed in writing by Rathmell Archaeology Limited. No liability is accepted by Rathmell Archaeology Limited for any use of this report, other than the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Rathmell Archaeology Limited using due skill, care and diligence and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. No independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Rathmell Archaeology Limited has been made. Quality Assurance Data Author(s) Claire Williamson & Liam McKinstry Date of Issue 6th February 2020 Commissioning Body Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme Event Name Upper Gairloch, Raiders Road - 2nd Season Event Type Survey; Test Pitting Event Date(s) August 2019 Rathmell Archaeology Code RA18107 Location United Kingdom : Scotland : Dumfries & Galloway NGR NX 61433 72936 Designation(s) None Canmore IDs 177552 Version Parish 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 1 of 62 1.0 Kells RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Contents Introduction .................................................................................. 4 Historical & Archaeological Background ........................................ 4 Project Works ................................................................................ 6 Findings ......................................................................................... 6 Summary of Finds ........................................................................ 21 Discussion ................................................................................... 27 First appearance through to the early 19th century ................................................ 27 Mid-19th century – the farm ............................................................................... 28 Mid-19th century – the people ............................................................................ 34 Abandonment .................................................................................................. 35 Conclusion ................................................................................... 37 Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 37 References .................................................................................. 38 Documentary ................................................................................................... 38 Archive ........................................................................................................... 38 Cartographic .................................................................................................... 39 Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland ......................... 40 Appendix 2: Registers.................................................................. 42 Context Register............................................................................................... 42 Drawing Register .............................................................................................. 46 Photographic Register ....................................................................................... 46 Figures Figure 1a: Pre-excavation shot across [008] from the west .................................................... 7 Figure 1b: Shot showing (009) overlying structure in southeast corner, from the north .......... 7 Figure 2: Plan of [008]............................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3a: Shot of makeup of external southern wall of [008] from the west ........................... 9 Figure 3b: External east facing elevation of [008] showing higher surviving section of wall .... 9 Figure 4: Plan of [008a]........................................................................................................ 11 Figure 5a: [008a] from the east ............................................................................................ 12 Figure 5b: Site of possible entrance through west wall of [008a] .......................................... 12 Figure 6: Plan of [008b/c] ..................................................................................................... 13 Figure 7a: [008b/c] from the northeast ................................................................................. 14 Figure 7b: [008d] from the south .......................................................................................... 14 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 2 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 8: Plan of [008d]........................................................................................................ 15 Figure 9a: Shot of loose stones (011) in southeastern corner of [008a] from the north......... 17 Figure 9b: Deposit (010) from the south ............................................................................... 17 Figure 10a: Shot of surface [020] in Test Pit A from the north .............................................. 18 Figure 10b: Shot of surface [025] in Test Pit C from the east ............................................... 18 Figure 11a: Shot of surface [026] in Trench 4 from the north ............................................... 19 Figure 11b: Shot showing surface [013] in Trench 2 from the northeast ............................... 19 Figure 12a: Shot of step from surface [013] down onto surface [027] (in foreground) from the west ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 12b: Shot of surfaces [015] (to rear) and [016] in Trench 3 from the east .................. 20 Figure 13a: Fragmentary slate stylus <88> and incomplete roofing slate <79> .................... 23 Figure 13b: Iron file and hand-held fork (<10>) .................................................................... 23 Figure 14a: Two sherds from a hand-painted ‘Pearlware’ cup (c.1780s-1820s) ................... 24 Figure 14b: Left hand side: portion of neck/body from aerated drinks bottle <31>; right hand side: fragmentary base from ‘onion’ type wine bottle <11> ................................................... 24 Figure 15a: A selection of sponge-decorated and hand-painted wares (numbered as follows: top row, from left to right: <9>, <7>, <15>; middle row, left to right: <9>, <25>; bottom row, from left to right: <17>, <8>, <8>, <7>) ................................................................................ 25 Figure 15b: A selection of transfer-printed sherds in blue, black and purple colourways (numbered as follows: top row, from left to right: <17>, <92>, <78>; middle row, from left to right: <17>, <7>; bottom row, from left to right: <7>, <7>, <35>) .......................................... 25 Figure 16a: Sherds from slipware dairy bowls (top left, <20> and bottom right, <28>, wheelthrown crock jar (bottom left, <33>), and miscellaneous slipware vessels (centre, <20> and top right, <89>) .................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 16b: Stems from clay tobacco pipes (top left <55>; centre left <93>); spherical clay stopper from aerated drinks bottle, potentially re-used as marble (centre <41>); sherd from heavy ceramic chimney pot, potentially used as cloche jar <1>) .......................................... 26 Figure 17a: Extract from Blaeu’s Atlas of Scotland, Gallovidia (Galloway), 1654 ................. 30 Figure 17b: Extract from Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland 1752-55 .................................... 30 Figure 18a: Extract from 1st edition Ordnance Survey map published 1852 ......................... 31 Figure 18b: Extract from 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map published 1896 ........................ 31 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 3 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Introduction 1. This Data Structure Report describes works carried out for the sub-project on Medieval or Later Rural Settlement carried out as part of the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership (GGLP) community archaeology project Can You Dig It? This Report presents the results from survey and test pitting works undertaken at the site of the former farmstead of Upper Gairloch situated along Raiders Road. 2. These works represent a second season at Upper Gairloch; an initial season in March focussed on the kiln barn (see Williamson 2019), while this season centred on clearing and surveying the main steading. 3. The works were carried out by volunteers supported by Rathmell Archaeology staff. The structure of the works was drawn from advice and guidance from officers of GGLP, Dumfries and Galloway Council, Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) and members of local heritage societies. Historical & Archaeological Background 4. A brief historical background for Raiders Road and the settlements along it has been lifted from the Research Design for the sub-project (Turner & Rees 2019, 3-5): The Raiders Road is the name given to a modern forest drive which links the A712 (known as ‘The Queen’s Way’) in the west, to the A762 in the east, which it joins on the west bank of Loch Ken, near Bennan Bank. The name ‘Raiders Road’ is derived from a novel by Samuel Rutherford Crockett: entitled ‘The Raiders,’ it links the road with historical episodes of reiving and cattle rustling. The forest drive follows the line of an earlier road which is first shown, in its entirety, on the 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map of 1894. The northwest portion has earlier origins: the stretch extending from the ‘Queen’s Way’ to Laggan O’ Dee is shown as extant on the 1st edition earlier map of c.1840. No formal road as such is shown on historic mapping of 17th or 18th century date, but an informal track must have been present by this time, allowing access to the many agricultural settlements shown on Blaeu’s map of 1654. The modern route of the Raiders Road lies to the north of the River Dee and follows its line closely over much of its length, running roughly northwest to southeast before veering north to the west of Stroan Loch, from where it then follows a roughly north-south course towards the shores of Loch Ken. Of particular interest in the context of this project is the stretch extending from Loch Dee to the Stroan Loch, as this is where the main concentration of rural settlement can be found. Much of the area is now afforested, forming part of the Galloway Forest Park. However, to the north of the line followed by the earlier, metalled road, a network of smaller tracks and woodland rides have also been established, creating a complex network of routes which cross much of the planted area around Clatteringshaws Fell, Hope Hill, Craig Gilbert and Close Fill. From the evidence provided by a recent archaeological survey undertaken on the site of one of the settlements, Clachrum S7 (Shaw 2010), it appears that in some areas at least, tree planting was carried out by hand, with no evidence of mounding evident. This will have helped reduce the levels of any damage incurred to ruined structures and buried archaeology during the original planting process. The 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1842 shows that the area once formed part of a densely populated rural landscape, littered with small communities who lived in small settlements and larger townships. By the time the map was surveyed, these settlements had already been largely abandoned, and the area used instead for the grazing of sheep in extensive sheepwalks. Reference to even earlier mapping shows that the intensity of land use had dwindled even more markedly than mid-19th century mapping suggested. The 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 4 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch earliest available mapping for the area – Blaeu’s map of 1654, which is based on an earlier, late 16th century map surveyed by Timothy Pont – shows an even more densely populated landscape. Most of the deserted settlements shown on the 1st edition map correspond to named settlement sites shown on Blaeu/Pont, indicating that their origins may extend back to the post-medieval or even the medieval period. With reference to Blaeu’s map, we can suggest a potential for ‘lost’ settlements, i.e. settlements shown on 17th century mapping which have no obvious successors represented in the modern, mid-19th century landscape. In recent decades, the 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map has been used to create a basic summary of the resource which can readily be used as a starting point from which to embark on further, more detailed, research. This data can readily be accessed via the on-line resource Pastmap (see References for link), which provides geo-spatial data and accompanying details relating to a number of sites along the line of the Raiders Road and beyond. More detailed summaries of these sites are included in Canmore (see References for link), the on-line database of sites and monuments originally established by what was then known as the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS now part of Historic Environment Scotland). These records were compiled under the auspices of the ‘First Edition Survey Project’ (FESP): this project, jointly funded by the then-Historic Scotland and RCAHMS, involved the detailed study of early Ordnance Survey mapping for the area, and the subsequent flagging-up of sites shown as unroofed or ruinous. The project was undertaken with a view to improving our understanding of Scotland’s medieval and post-medieval rural settlement sites, a resource which was neglected within mainstream archaeological study until the 1960s and 70s, by which time it was already found to be under threat from the rapidly expanding forestry industry (Swanson 1993). As a result of FESP, a total of 32 sites have been identified and included in Canmore. These are located along the line of the Raiders Road itself, and in the wooded area which lies to the north of the River Dee. Many of these sites, if not lying close to the road itself, are in the vicinity of the many tracks and woodland rides that traverse the planted areas. A number comprise old field boundaries, occasionally noted in association with sheepfolds or single isolated structures; in some cases these may be worthy of additional study if they have the potential to represent one of the ‘lost’ settlement sites shown on Blaeu/Pont. Of particular interest in this respect are S1, which comprises a group of structures at Clatteringshaws Fell, and S4 Tannoch. Both were latterly used as sheepfolds but they may occupy the sites of earlier settlements and could even potentially re-use elements of much-earlier structures. A third site – the corn-drying kiln and structure which forms an element of S3, Craig Gilbert – could represent another of these ‘lost’ sites, where the main focus of occupation shifted at a very early date from its original location (where the kiln is situated) to the site close to the river shown on Blaeu’s 1654 map. In addition to these potentially ‘lost’ early sites, we have four sites which show a strong continuity of occupation between Blaeu’s 1654 map and the 1842 1st edition Ordnance Survey map. These comprise S3, the main element of Craig Gilbert, S6 Nether Gairloch, S7 Clachrum, and S8 Aird’s Crag, which is unusually large and classed as a ‘township’. All appear to have been abandoned and ruinous by the mid-19th century. A further site, S5 Upper Gairloch, is not included in this sub-group as it may have been one of the latest settlements to be abandoned, with two buildings still described as roofed in the 1840s. The final site, S2 Nanny Walker’s Wa’s is also of interest as it does not appear to have an obvious post-medieval antecedent shown on Blaeu’s map. Together, these sites represent a varied resource which has the potential to provide us with a long term narrative of how settlement patterns changed along the north bank of the upper Dee valley during the post-medieval and modern – and potentially even the medieval – periods. 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 5 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch The current condition of these monuments is uncertain: many are located within mature coniferous plantations which were planted before Scotland’s medieval and post-medieval rural settlement was a clear target for either recording or preservation. Much of the eastern portion of the area of interest – from Nether Gairloch east to the shores of Loch Ken – had, for example, been afforested prior to 1955, when the Ordnance Survey One Inch to One Mile 7th series mapping was surveyed. Recent survey work undertaken on the site of S7 Clachrum suggests, however, that there is a potential for both upstanding structures and also buried archaeological deposits to survive: despite being depicted as lying within a densely afforested area, the remains of Clachrum, for example, largely remain in open ground, and the nearby plantation appears to have been hand-planted, without the use of mounding, which offers better potential for the survival of archaeological deposits. 5. In March 2019, Can You Dig It carried out an earlier season of work at Upper Gairloch (Williamson 2019) which focused on clearing the kiln barn that sat approximately 100m to the northeast of the steading. The walls of the structure survive across its full length, although the kiln shows the highest survival with its walls still standing up to seven courses on its western side. The entire structure was formed of drystone construction. The barn portion consisted of a single rectangular compartment, of which only the basal footings of the external walls remained, with only one entrance. The kiln occupied the southern end of the structure with the walls of the interior rounded to form a bowl shape. Test pitting within the interior of the barn did not identify a floor deposit, although as only a small portion was sampled this would likely benefit from further investigation. The floor of the kiln itself could not be characterised at this stage as it was entirely obscured by tumble. No artefacts were collected during the works. Project Works 6. This phase of the archaeological works focussed on the site of the main steading at the former settlement of Upper Gairloch along Raiders Road (S5 in Turner & Rees 2019). The steading was located within forestry just to the side of the main forest drive. Prior to the works the structure was just visible but mostly covered by overgrown vegetation and fallen branches (Figure 1a). 7. The on-site works were carried out over eight days between the 14 th and the 24th August 2019. The area was initially cleared of vegetation by hand to expose the structural remains of the steading. The remains were then photographed, planned and assigned context numbers. A total of four trenches and three test pits were then hand excavated within the interior of the steading. The trenches (1-4) ranged in size: Trench 1 measured 2m by 3m, Trenches 2 and 3 measured 1.5m by 3m and Trench 4 measured 1m square. The three test pits (A-C) were all of equal size at 1.1m by 0.5m. 8. All works were carried out using Rathmell Archaeology Ltd standard methods as outlined in the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) (McKinstry & Williamson 2019). The fieldwork was generally undertaken in good weather although there were odd spells of heavy rain. In terms of structure, the core field team of Rathmell Archaeology staff and volunteers were on site from 9am to 4pm. Findings 9. As stated, the structural remains on site were mostly covered by overgrown vegetation. This mostly comprised thin patches of green moss (009) found across the structure’s entire extent measuring approximately 50mm thick (Figure 1b). Finds recovered while clearing this included late 18th to 20th century pottery, fragments of chimney pot, fragments of 20 th century window glass, fragments of bottle glass, including one from a potentially earlier ‘onion type’ (<11>, see Artefacts section below), roofing slates and iron objects. The latter included a large rasp/file and the head of a socketed fork from the area of [008b/c] (both <010>). 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 6 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 1a: Pre-excavation shot across [008] from the west Figure 1b: Shot showing (009) overlying structure in southeast corner, from the north 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 7 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 2: Plan of [008] 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 8 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 3a: Shot of makeup of external southern wall of [008] from the west Figure 3b: External east facing elevation of [008] showing higher surviving section of wall 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 9 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch 10. The initial task was to clear this overgrown vegetation and reveal what survived of the structure beneath. The majority of a rectangular enclosure [008] was uncovered, comprising two structures – [008b/c] and [008d] – sitting to either side of a central yard [008a] (Figure 2), all of which appear to have been constructed within a single phase. The northeast portion of the enclosure was not revealed during the works due to the presence of upstanding trees and dense overgrowth too difficult to remove by hand. 11. Across the entirety of the exposed structure, the walls are typically of drystone construction with both an inner and outer face on either side of a rubble core (Figure 3a). The faces were constructed using sub-angular stones – mostly pale grey granite – with an average size of 0.4m by 0.3m by 0.2m. Some of the stones are very large however, measuring up to 1.3m by 1m by 0.7m. The stones in the rubble core measure 0.2m by 0.15m by 0.1m on average. The width of the walls measure between 0.8m to 1.1m and they survive to a height of between 0.2m and 1m (Figure 3b). The full external dimensions of enclosure as exposed are 17.8m west-east by 15.5m north-south. 12. The central portion of the enclosure, [008a], is ‘L’ shaped in plan (Figure 4). Its main section runs west-east with an internal length of 13.5m and a width of 4.8m (Figure 5a), with a smaller adjoining square section in the southeast measuring 4m by 4.6m internally. A possible entrance is suggested by a gap in the external wall at the western end (just to the south of [008d]; Figure 5b) but no other entrances were discernible. 13. In the southwest corner of the enclosure, rectangular structure [008b/c] sits orientated west-east (Figure 7a), directly to the south of [008a]. It is divided into two chambers: [008b] in the western half and [008c] in the east (Figure 6). [008b] has internal dimensions of approximately 4.9m north-south by 4m west-east, while the interior of [008c] is slightly bigger at 4.9m north-south by 4.6m west-east. The crosswall which divides the two chambers has been largely disturbed by the presence of upstanding trees but measures roughly 0.3m wide and appears to be of the same drystone construction as the external walls, although is likely only formed of a single face. 14. [008d] is a rectangular structure located in the northwest corner of the enclosure orientated west-east and directly to the north of [008a]. Only the western end of this structure was revealed (Figures 7b and 8); internally it measures 4.9m north-south by at least 4.4m east-west although it potentially continues further to the east. 15. Appearing as large spreads across both the interior and exterior of the entire enclosure, are loose medium to large angular and sub-angular stones (011) (Figures 2 and 9a). These spreads extend out from the walls on either side for a distance of approximately 0.6 to 1.6m and sit approximately 0.5m high. The stones also overlie the remaining walls of [008] in areas. They are a light grey granite with no bonding present, and are of the same dimensions as those which make up the walls of [008]. 16. In the northeastern corner of [008a], against the interior of its eastern wall, deposit (010) is present covering an area approximately 4m by 2m in extent (Figure 4). This consists of a mixture of moderately compacted mid-blackish brown clayey silt with small, medium and large sized granite sub-angular stones (Figure 9b). The stones measure between 0.09m by 0.05m by 0.07m up to 0.55m by 0.23 by 0.4m in size. The deposit also contained frequent root inclusions and frequent sherds of late 18th to 20th century pottery, a moderate amount of glass, three iron objects and two fragments of 19 th to 20th century clay tobacco pipe. A fragment of slate was also present. Trench 1 was positioned over the area of (010) and excavated it to a thickness of 330mm but the base was not reached. 17. The interior of each compartment within [008] is covered by a layer topsoil which underlies stone spreads (011) (Figures 5a, 7a and 7b). This was numbered separately for each compartment – (017) in [008a], (012) in [008b/c] and (014) in [008d] – but its character remains consistent across the full extent. It comprises a loosely compacted mid-blackish brown sandy silt with very frequent roots, occasional small stones and vegetation inclusions, and is fairly thin, ranging between 70 to 200mm thick. Finds were recovered from all three contexts. The finds from (017) included late 18 th to 20th century pottery, unused chimney pot fragments, bottle glass, roofing slate, brick and an iron nail. From (012) came 19th to 20th century pottery, iron objects, roofing slate, glass 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 10 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 4: Plan of [008a] 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 11 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 5a: [008a] from the east Figure 5b: Site of possible entrance through west wall of [008a] 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 12 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 6: Plan of [008b/c] 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 13 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 7a: [008b/c] from the northeast Figure 7b: [008d] from the south 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 14 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 8: Plan of [008d] 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 15 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch and unused chimney pot, while (014) produced one sherd of 19 th to 20th century pottery and two fragments of roofing slate. 18. Three trenches (2-4) and three test pits (A-C) were opened across the interior of [008] to excavate through the topsoil in each chamber and reveal what lay beneath. 19. Within [008a] three test pits - A, B and C - and one trench, 4, excavated through the topsoil (017) in the southeast, west and central portions respectively (see Figure 4). With the exception of Test Pit B, each location exposed a cobbled layer directly beneath the topsoil. In the southeastern corner (Test Pit A), this consists of [020] which sits directly against the southern wall (Figure 10a). Surface [020] comprises sub-rectangular grey granite cobblestones, each with an average size of 0.3m by 0.14m. The layer was exposed for a full extent of 1m by 0.5m within the test pit but likely continues beyond its location to the north, west and east. The surface sits at a depth of 200mm below the overlying ground surface. 20. In Test Pit C, located at the potential entrance at the western end of [008a], [025] was uncovered. It consists of a layer of small sub-rectangular pink granite cobblestones, each measuring roughly 0.18m by 0.11m in size (Figure 10b). The full extent of the layer as it was exposed measured 0.44m by 0.7m although it likely continues beyond the location of the test pit. [025] sits approximately 130mm below the overlying ground level. Test Pit B was also positioned at the western end, approximately 1.3m to the southeast of Test Pit C. It was excavated to a depth of approximately 200mm but did not reach the base of the topsoil nor reveal any surface remains. A number of roots were present within the test pit. 21. Lastly, in the centre of the area, Trench 4 exposed [026], a layer of irregular-shaped subrounded pink granite cobblestones at a depth of 50mm from the overlying ground level (Figure 11a). The cobbles each measure up to 0.26m by 0.18m in size. The layer covered the full extent of Trench 4 (1m by 1m) but continues beyond the location of the trench in all directions. 22. The interior of [008b/c] was investigated through Trench 2, which was roughly centred on the southern half of the central crosswall so that it straddled both chambers (Figure 6). It revealed two flagstone surfaces: [013] and [027]. Surface [013] appears to sit within [008c] directly underlying topsoil (012) at a depth of 70mm from ground level. It consists of a layer of flagstones constructed of pink/grey granite with one block of possible shale (Figure 11b). The stones are sub-rectangular in shape and measure up to 0.7m by 0.35m, and 60mm thick, in size. The layer was exposed to an extent of up to 1.5m long by 3m long, but likely continues beyond to the north and east. 23. Across the western half of the trench which crossed into [008b], the removal of topsoil (012) revealed underlying deposit (024). This consisted of loosely compacted mid-black brown silty sand with frequent small stone inclusions with an average size of 0.13m by 0.15m by 0.17m. There was also occasional small root inclusions. Its full extent measured 0.95m by 0.7m, with a thickness of 100mm. Finds recovered from (024) included a slate stylus, roofing slate, three iron nails and two fragments of glass. 24. Deposit (024) was removed to reveal surface [027] (Figure 12a). This abuts surface [013] along its western edge but sits 200mm lower and appears to lie within [008b]. Surface [027] consists of a layer of medium-sized sub-angular granite blocks, each measuring up to 0.25m by 0.5m in size. Its exposed extent measured approximately 1m square but it likely continues beyond the location of the trench to the west and north. 25. Trench 3 was opened within [008d] (Figure 8). It removed topsoil (014) to reveal flagstone surface [015] and cobbled surface [016] lying directly beneath. Surface [015] is formed by a layer of flagstones, consisting of sub-rectangular grey/pink granite blocks measuring up to 0.45m by 0.5m and 100mm thick in size (Figure 12b). The layer was revealed within the western half of the trench at a depth of 100mm and for an extent of 1.3m by 2.2m, although likely continues beyond to the north and south. While it was partially obscured by the presence of tumble (011) at the time, it seems likely that [015] continues directly up to the western wall of [008d]. 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 16 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 9a: Shot of loose stones (011) in southeastern corner of [008a] from the north Figure 9b: Deposit (010) from the south 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 17 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 10a: Shot of surface [020] in Test Pit A from the north Figure 10b: Shot of surface [025] in Test Pit C from the east 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 18 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 11a: Shot of surface [026] in Trench 4 from the north Figure 11b: Shot showing surface [013] in Trench 2 from the northeast 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 19 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 12a: Shot of step from surface [013] down onto surface [027] (in foreground) from the west Figure 12b: Shot of surfaces [015] (to rear) and [016] in Trench 3 from the east 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 20 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch 26. Across the eastern half of Trench 3’s location, surface [016] consists of a layer of pink/grey granite cobblestones which are sub-rectangular/sub-oval in shape with occasional roots present (Figure 12b). The cobblestones each measure up to 0.2m by 0.07m in size. The layer was exposed for an area measuring 0.88m by 1.3m, although likely continues beyond to the north, south and east. Cobbled surface [016] abuts the eastern edge of flagstone surface [015] with the former sitting roughly 100mm lower than the latter. 27. As well as the numerous finds recovered from the topsoil and deposits within the structure, a small number of surface finds were also recovered during the on-site works, which included 19th to 20th century pottery, roofing slate and bottle glass. Summary of Finds By Louise Turner 28. The assemblage derived from limited number of topsoil and topsoil/tumble layers distributed across the ruined remains of a depopulated farmsteading, which – on excavation – revealed intact floor surfaces surviving across the extent of its various structural elements. These comprised two rectangular structures – [008b/c] and [008d], located at the northwest and southwest corners of an enclosed yard [008a]. 29. Exploration within these three structures was limited, but a clear pattern was evident nonetheless with regards to the distribution of the various material types occurring. This disparity was particular marked amongst the ceramic finds: here, more than 450 sherds were recovered from within the enclosed yard [008a], from an assemblage which numbered 502 items in total. This dominance was echoed in the glass, where 42 items were recovered, i.e. more than half of the total assemblage, and also the coarse stone, where 53 roofing slates were recovered (Figure 13a). These numbers contrasted with the quantities recovered from the rectangular structures [008b/c] and [008d], which revealed 21 finds of ceramic, seven of glass, five of coarse stone (roofing slates), and six of ceramic and one of coarse stone (roofing slate) respectively. In only one category of material was this bias towards [008a] not supported: this was in the finds of ferrous metalwork, where the largest quantities were recovered from [008b/c] (16 items in total), substantially outnumbering the quantities recovered from [008a] and [008d] (with the latter producing no ferrous metal finds whatsoever). 30. Some limited conclusions can be drawn from these patterns of distribution. Firstly, it is apparent that the vast majority of items which derived from domestic occupation – ceramics and bottle glass – were not recovered from within the structures but were associated instead with yard/enclosure [008a]. This suggests that the material formed part of an accumulation of material dumped in the yard, potentially prior to the demolition or collapse of the rectangular buildings as the concentration is limited to beyond these buildings’ footprints. It is possible that this portion of the yard was used as a midden during the period of the farm’s occupation, but the lack of stratigraphic complexity in the deposits might suggest instead that the area was used as dump after abandonment. 31. The markedly large quantity of ferrous metalwork occurring in [008b/c] is worthy of note. Items included structural ironwork, in particular nails, with finds of modern window glass and also roofing slates also occurring in association. Together, these items can be interpreted as demolition debris, but the quantities are small, which suggests that the bulk of the demolition debris has been removed and either recycled or dumped elsewhere. Fragmentary ferrous metal strips (<49>), the dimensions of which are consistent with the hoops used in association with stave-built timber containers - such as buckets, barrels, or even butter-churns – were also recovered here. By far the most interesting ferrous metal items occurring in this structure were, however, the tanged rasp/file and five-tined socketed fork (both <010>; Figure 13b), both of which may have derived from a farrier’s or blacksmith’s workshop. Another unusual small find from this structure was a fragmentary slate stylus (Figure 13a); while these items tend to be associated with schools and learning, this item could also potentially have been used by an adult for calculations or working notes, perhaps in a workshop setting. The items recovered from this structure could, therefore, have potentially derived from activities originally carried out within it. 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 21 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch 32. The ceramic and glass components of the assemblage enabled a broad date range to be established for the material. The earliest items comprised two sherds derived from a handpainted, tin-glazed ‘pearlware’ teacup <17> (Figure 14a), of probable late 18 th or early 19th century date, and the probable base of an ‘onion’-type wine bottle <11> (Figure 14b), a form produced from the late 17th century onwards, through to the early decades of the 19th century. 33. The majority of the ceramic assemblage was typical of material produced in the period spanning the 1820s to 1860s (Figures 15a and 15b). The emphasis was very much upon transfer-printed glazed white earthenware in a blue colourway, but brown, green and black colourways were also represented in small quantities (Figure 15b). A small number of sherds from brown-glazed red earthenware teapots, slipware dairy bowls (<28>) and wheel-thrown slipped red earthenware crock jars (<16>) were also recovered, again types consistent with the period spanning the 1820s to 1860s (Figure 16a). Some later wares, in particular polychrome transfer-printed wares, were conspicuous by their absence, but occasional finds of potentially later date were present. These included the spherical stopper from a ‘Codd’ type bottle (<41>; Figure 16b), small stoneware containers for marmalade or cream (<26>), and glass condiment jars and wine/spirit bottles. All of these items only became widely available in the closing decades of the 19 th century, with the ‘Codd’ type bottle only appearing after c.1875. This date range would suggest, then, that the main bulk of the ceramic assemblage was accumulated during the period 1820s-60s, perhaps reflecting the period in which the household was established and all necessary household items acquired. The markedly early items may represent heirloom pieces curated by the household, with the later ones (which all appear to derive from food or beverage containers) representing items consumed prior to the site’s abandonment. The lack of uniformity amongst the decorative schemes employed on the ceramics suggests that we are looking at a selection of varied items rather than objects derived from a single dinner service: while this could reflect a household which acquired its tableware piecemeal fashion (which would suggest that the acquisition of a formal dinner service was beyond their financial means), it could, alternatively, indicate that these disparate items were used for everyday consumption while the dinner service was more carefully curated and potentially removed from the site on its abandonment. 34. Nine sherds from a thick-walled coarse ceramic in a buff fabric were also included amongst this group: these sherds were typical of the kind of fabric used to manufacture chimney pots (Figure 16b). However, these particular examples (<1>, <63> and <47>) showed no evidence of sooting on the inside surface. While this may indicate that the chimney pot in question was never used, the other possibility is that these fragments derived from either an unused chimney pot used for another purpose (such as a flower pot, or a cloche for forcing rhubarb) or even from a purpose-built flower pot or cloche. 35. In addition to the wide range of kitchen, table and commercial wares discussed above, two stem fragments derived from clay tobacco pipes were recovered (<55> and <93>; Figure 16b). No maker’s stamps were present, but the objects were consistent in character with the short-stemmed ‘cutty’ type that was popular throughout much of the 19 th and early 20th centuries. 36. The latest items recovered from the site comprised small fragments of glass which appeared to derive from windows manufactured from float glass, a process used for the production of domestic windows from c. 1950 onwards. Some of the metalwork also appeared to be modern in character, in particular screw-threaded ‘U’ bolt <23>. The presence of these items might suggest that while the bulk of the material originated from 19th century occupation on the site, later material has been added, with the site perhaps being used more recently for discarding rubbish which derived from elsewhere. 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 22 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 13a: Fragmentary slate stylus <88> and incomplete roofing slate <79> Figure 13b: Iron file and hand-held fork (<10>) 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 23 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 14a: Two sherds from a hand-painted ‘Pearlware’ cup (c.1780s-1820s) Figure 14b: Left hand side: portion of neck/body from aerated drinks bottle <31>; right hand side: fragmentary base from ‘onion’ type wine bottle <11> 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 24 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 15a: A selection of sponge-decorated and hand-painted wares (numbered as follows: top row, from left to right: <9>, <7>, <15>; middle row, left to right: <9>, <25>; bottom row, from left to right: <17>, <8>, <8>, <7>) Figure 15b: A selection of transfer-printed sherds in blue, black and purple colourways (numbered as follows: top row, from left to right: <17>, <92>, <78>; middle row, from left to right: <17>, <7>; bottom row, from left to right: <7>, <7>, <35>) 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 25 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 16a: Sherds from slipware dairy bowls (top left, <20> and bottom right, <28>, wheel-thrown crock jar (bottom left, <33>), and miscellaneous slipware vessels (centre, <20> and top right, <89>) Figure 16b: Stems from clay tobacco pipes (top left <55>; centre left <93>); spherical clay stopper from aerated drinks bottle, potentially re-used as marble (centre <41>); sherd from heavy ceramic chimney pot, potentially used as cloche jar <1>) 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 26 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Discussion 37. As you drive along Raiders Road on its winding route through the Galloway Forest, catching the odd glimpse of vast views across the surrounding glens, it is hard to imagine that prior to the late 19th century, this area was once a rich farming landscape. For centuries, generations of families occupied a string of neighbouring settlements along the length of the River Dee as it flows to the south of what is now a popular forest drive. Mapping evidence indicates that these settlements dated back to at least the post-medieval period, if not earlier, and it is the mapping which also shows their decline, depicted as ruins by the late 19th century. Although not always visible on the drive, the ruins of this rural landscape continue to survive hidden amidst the trees of the forest. 38. The chance to further explore one of these ruined steadings as part of Can You Dig It allowed a great opportunity to look in detail at the circumstances of a single farm in order to further our knowledge of the whole. The initial works at the kiln barn in March (Williamson 2019) showed us the substantial remains that continued to survive beneath decades of overgrowth, encouraging us to head back for a second season focussed on the main steading. As well as the physical remains exposed on site, this report will touch on the results of an initial browse of the available online archives. In no way aimed at being a fully comprehensive search, this is aimed at placing our farm in context; an introduction to the rich resource that later work can add to. First appearance through to the early 19th century 39. It was in 1297 that the Gordon family acquired Kenmure Castle, and with it the lands of the Glenkens, from John Maxwell. The area surrounding Raiders Road will likely have been a part of these lands, which continued to be held by succeeding generations of Gordons (Viscounts of Kenmure after 1633) as we will see in the land tax rolls mentioned below. 40. However, it is not until the first available mapping of the mid-17th century that we are able to see the individual farms plotted with names that we can still recognise today. It is here that the earliest evidence for a steading at Upper Gairloch can be found. 41. Specifically, this takes the form of Blaeu’s Atlas of Scotland published in 1654 (Figure 17a), although this was itself derived from the work of Timothy Pont who surveyed Scotland in the 1590s. Blaeu depicts a settlement named ‘O. Gairlarr’ (likely ‘Over’ Gairlarr) which sits between the settlements of ‘Tanoch’ and ‘N. Garlar’, indicating that this marks the origins of our steading. It is also possible that the small group of trees depicted that separates O. Gairlar and N. Garlar (likely an earlier variant of ‘Nether Gairloch’) represents the beginnings of the ‘Upper Gairloch Wood’ depicted on later mapping. 42. Until the 17th century, taxation was regarded as an extraordinary source of revenue with a number of taxes introduced to broaden the tax base. From 1667 onwards, this included land tax. To enable its collection, land tax or valuation rolls were compiled by the Commissioners of Supply in each county; these listed the owners of landed estates and assessed the rental value of their lands. It is important to remember that very few Scots owned landed property until well into the 20 th century, so those listed only represent a very small proportion of the population and they rarely list either tenants or occupiers. Nevertheless, these records can be useful in discovering more about the history of a named site and it is here that we find the next mention of our steading. 43. In 1682, the land tax rolls for Kells Parish list ‘the viscount of kenmur hes pertaining to him the Lands of overgarlary and tanoch & is worth to him yeirlie Twentie eight pund eight ss’ (E106/20/1/23). A later reiteration of this ‘Antient Valuation’ can be found in Volume 6 of the land tax roll from 1819 (E106/20/6/43), which writes the name as ‘Over Garlarg’; this, alongside the mention of the adjacent ‘Tanoch’, means that ‘overgarlary’ is likely to be an earlier variant of the name Over Gairlarr (later to become Upper Gairloch). The Viscount mentioned in 1682 is also likely to be Alexander Gordon, 5th Viscount of Kenmure who is listed as the proprietor for a series of properties including others along this route. ‘Nethirgarlary’, an earlier variant of Nether Gairloch, is listed separately as belonging to Geordi Gordon. 44. Into the mid-18th century, it is possible to see Upper Gairloch continue to appear both on 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 27 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch the available mapping and in the land tax rolls. In 1747-55, in response to the Jacobite rebellion of 1745, William Roy undertook his Military Survey of Scotland, surveying the lowlands between 1752 and 1755. Roy’s survey is a great resource for providing a level of detail not seen on the previous mapping. Our site appears here as ‘Upper Gareloch’ and is depicted as three buildings with two adjacent enclosures sitting to the east (Figure 17b). Unlike the farm of ‘Nether Orchar’ that sits to the west of the river, Upper Gareloch does not have rig and furrow marked in the surrounding ground; perhaps our farm was prioritising the use of their land for pasture rather than crops at this time. 45. In Volume 2 of the land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, compiled 1753 (E106/20/2/15), ‘Upper Garlog’ is listed under Kells parish with a valuation of ‘Twenty Six pound thirteen Sh: [shillings] 4 pen: [pennies]’, also shown as ‘£26.13.4’. By this time, it is being listed separately from Tannoch, which is now valued at £13.6.8 and listed with ‘Claughrum’ (later Clachrum) which sits to the southeast. These figures imply that our farm has now become larger than both Tannoch and Clachrum (£20.0.0), but not as big as Nether Gairloch (£66.13.4). These figures remain consistent in the 1799 land tax rolls (E106/20/3/15), although Claughrum and Tannoch are now listed separately and the name of the proprietor for the four properties (Claughrum, Upper Garlog, Nether Garlog and Tanogh) is now identified as ‘John Gordon of Kenmore’ (restored as 10th Viscount). 46. The land tax rolls of 1803 (E106/20/4/25) and 1819 (E106/20/5/25 and E106/20/6/43) continue to list Upper Garlog at a valuation of £26.13.4 with John Gordon of Kenmure still the proprieter. The other properties of Claughrum, Nether Garlog and Tanogh also continue at the same value and so we can envisage little change occurring in the size of the landholdings during this time. 47. It is likely that this period – the late 18th to early 19th century – is when the kiln barn at Upper Gairloch was in use (Williamson 2019); a structure we know was abandoned at some point prior to 1852 (see Figure 18a). A common feature on the farms of mainland Scotland before the 18th and 19th centuries, it is likely that the kiln barn was for drying grain for the domestic use of the occupants at Upper Gairloch. Their frequent occurrence later changed as mills started to erect their own common kilns where each farmer took the grain to be dried at a cost (Gibson 1988, 222). It is likely this shift in practice that caused the kiln at Upper Gairloch to be abandoned at an earlier stage while the rest of the farmstead remained in use. 48. Shifting our attention to the physical remains of the main farmstead of Upper Gairloch, we can see that our earliest finds recovered during the on-site works appear to date to this period: the two sherds of ‘pearlware’ teacup <17> (c.1790s to 1820s) and also the ‘onion’ wine bottle <11>. The latter item was produced from the late 17 th century through to the early 19th century, so it is possible that it was much earlier. We do know, however, that it will have gone out of production by the end of this period, gradually replaced by the more recognisable ‘upright’ wine bottle which was easier to stack in greater numbers for transport and storage. As the only two items to be recovered from this earlier date amongst a fairly large assemblage, it seems likely that they both represent items which had been carefully curated by the residents. For example, perhaps the wine bottle had been saved or brought as a gift, or the teacup may have been part of an heirloom, possibly a dinner set that had been passed down through the generations and safeguarded (for the most part anyway) before leaving with the family on their departure. Mid-19th century – the farm 49. The arrival of the Ordnance Survey mapping in the mid-19th century brings us our first accurate and detailed layout for the entirety of the farmstead at Upper Gairloch. In the 1st edition, published 1852, ‘Upper Gairloch’ is shown as two rectangular roofed structures at either end of a roughly square enclosure (Figure 18a). Spread out from this steading in all directions, the map depicts the remains of several ‘Old Fences’, ruined buildings, ‘Old Sheep Rees’ and, to the northeast, our ‘Old Kiln (in ruins)’. There are also two cairns identified a bit further to the west as ‘Shepherds’. From this, we can recognise that our farmstead is still in existence, but that it appears smaller in scale than the surrounding ruins suggest it once was. 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 28 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch 50. This scene is further attested to by the Ordnance Survey name book: a series of written records created by the field surveyors, which contain information about the names of every natural feature and man-made structure that was to appear on the maps. In Kirkcudbrightshire, Volume 54, compiled 1848-1851 (OS1/20/54/23), the entry for Upper Gairloch reads: ‘A farm house and out houses in bad repair with a farm of about 1300 acres of Moorland attached. The property of the heirs of the late Lord Kenmure.’ Interestingly the entry also includes the statement: ‘This present house is built upon the site of an old Mansion which formerly stood here.’ The surveyors relied heavily on the knowledge of the locals as a source of information, so it is likely that this latter statement came from the word of mouth of these locals. While unfortunately, we do not appear to have discovered any definitive remains of this ‘mansion’ during the on-site works or the initial trawl of the archives, it is certainly an intriguing statement which might warrant further research in the future. 51. Now we are able to turn to the physical remains uncovered on the site which appear to correlate nicely with the layout presented on the mapping of 1852. It is likely that our structures [008d] and [008b/c] are the remains of the two roofed structures shown on the map (compare Figure 2 against Figure 18a), with the central open courtyard represented by [008a]. The only place where the physical remains do not quite match with the cartographic evidence, is the western wall of [008a] which runs north from the western edge of [008b]. While the plan from these works suggest that this ran as a direct continuation of [008b]’s western wall, the mapping shows it as projecting out slightly to the west; a layout which continues through the 2 nd (Figure 18b) and 3rd editions, dating from 1896 and 1909 respectively. While on-site, this end of the enclosure was heavily obscured by tumble (011) and, due to time constraints, it was not possible to fully investigate this western wall in more detail. As such, this wall has been planned as a projected boundary. With the farmstead out of use by the time of the 2nd edition Ordnance Survey in 1896 (Figure 18b), it is highly unlikely that anyone would have returned after this to alter the layout of this wall; this is an area of the plan which would benefit from future work to try and pinpoint its exact projection. 52. As described, the entirety of [008] appears to have been constructed in a single phase and there was no evidence of modification to the structures visible during this phase. The walls were of drystone construction, similar to the kiln barn and also to the construction style used at Clachrum, which sits further to the east along Raiders Road. Here, Shaw recorded that the walls of the buildings had been constructed almost entirely of stone – as opposed to partly turf walls – attesting to the availability of stone in the surrounding area, and it is this that has allowed for their greater survival (Shaw 2010, 7). It is very likely that this form of drystone construction was common to most, if not all, of the farmsteads in this area. Indeed at Upper Gairloch, the large scale of some of the stones on site may suggest that they represent material sourced from rock outcrops within close proximity. 53. As only the basal courses of each building remains, it is not possible to ascertain much about the style of construction in terms of windows, lintels and door jambs etc. The presence of a number of fragmentary roofing slates however, does tell us that the structures had slate roofs; their presence across the whole site suggesting that this was the case for both [008b/c] and [008d]. It is in the later 18th century that the use of slate as a roofing material became more common, and as already stated, Upper Gairloch had both local and Welsh slate present. The use of slate proceeded more quickly in the areas of Kirkcudbright, Dumfries and Wigtown. This was due to the sea access at Dumfries; 200 tons of slate were taken to Gretna from Lancashire and Wales in 1793 (Fenton & Walker 1981, 69). The mixture of both local and Welsh slates could suggest that there were some residual slates being reused; taxes on roofing slate borne by water continued to make the imported slates more expensive (Ibid.). Amongst the finds assemblage on site, fragments of chimney pots (also known as chimney cans) were recovered which pointed to the use of plain round ceramic pots which had maintained their golden or buff colouring. What was unusual however, was that none of the recovered fragments showed signs of sooting. This implies that these pots were perhaps used for a different purpose, such as flower pots, or as Turner suggests (see Summary of Finds above), for growing rhubarb. 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 29 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 17a: Extract from Blaeu’s Atlas of Scotland, Gallovidia (Galloway), 1654 Figure 17b: Extract from Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland 1752-55 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 30 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Figure 18a: Extract from 1st edition Ordnance Survey map published 1852 Figure 18b: Extract from 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map published 1896 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 31 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch 54. It would appear however, that the survival of the basal remains of the steading has included the survival of intact flooring across the interior of both the two structures and also the original surface of the central courtyard. Trial trenching and test pitting positioned at various points across the site showed the survival of a cobble surface which appears to cover the entire of [008a], flagstone surfaces within both [008b] and [008c], and a mixture of flagstone and cobbled surfaces within [008d]. 55. The survival of flooring may help somewhat towards trying to work out the functions of each area: the cobbles within [008a] match well with it acting as an external cobbled courtyard, while the flagstone surfaces point to a more formal construction style within the interior of the structures. Very tentatively, the presence of cobbles in [008d] could perhaps suggest that this structure was used for housing animals, while the flagstone floors in [008b] and [008c] could suggest that it was primarily the house. However, this needs further investigation as only a very small sample of each surface was revealed during these works; exposing the entirety of the floors in each structure would likely help to further our understanding greatly in this regard. 56. From the small sections that were exposed however, it is possible to see a division of space occurring within each structure. In [008b/c] this took the form of a simple step in height between two flagstone surfaces ([013] and [027]) that could potentially mark the division between two rooms. As stated, the change was more marked in [008d]; the two surfaces were also stepped but here there was a change in the form of the surface, from flagstone, [015], to cobbled, [016]. It is possible that this may demarcate separate rooms but the narrowness of the area of flagstones [015] (a roughly 2m wide strip against the western wall) and the lack of evidence for any subdivisions, suggests that they perhaps represent the demarcation of different areas within the same room. It is possible that exposing more of these surfaces might perhaps inform on their functions; for example, it would be good to see if they represent some form of animal stalling. 57. Further investigation of the remaining surfaces may also help to reveal other informative features such as the location of hearths or entrances. The width of the latter may identify if they would have been used by animals. Indeed, we were unable to locate any definite entrances during this stage of works so this would definitely benefit from further work. Surfaces may also hold evidence for whether there was access to an upper storey or loft space; it seems likely that these drystone structures were only single storey but further work may confirm or deny this. 58. During the on-site works, over 500 sherds of pottery were recovered which mainly produced a date range of the 1820s-1860s. As mentioned above, the number of finds which predated this period were notably minimal and appear to be isolated occurrences within the assemblage. It is perhaps very possible that the steading represented by [008] was constructed in the early 19th century, or potentially in the late 18th century. 59. Looking at the available mapping, the only one to provide us with a potentially accurate layout for Upper Gairloch prior to the 1st edition in 1852, is that of Roy in the mid-18th century (Figure 17b). Roy depicts three structures with two enclosures to the east. These do not appear to correlate with the structures which form [008]: they are on a slightly different alignment, the scale of the structures vary and there is no sign of our roughly square courtyard at the centre of two buildings. The earlier mapping evidence should always be viewed with caution however, as the details on Roy’s map are difficult to discern and there may have been some elements of the farmstead that he chose to omit. 60. We could perhaps look to the wider changes that were happening throughout Scottish agriculture during the 18th and 19th centuries. Known as the Improvement era, this period saw many changes and developments occurring countrywide in the practice of farming and agriculture, which transformed the landscape and had a profound effect on the lives of the people working the land. These changes swept across Scotland affecting all farms, both large and small. These effects were most pronounced in the layout of the farmsteadings themselves; a growing interest in the use of space and its importance to the practical aspects of a working farm drove the need to introduce a standardised layout. While this varied across different regions and had a certain fluidity of design dependent on the circumstances, and even tastes, of the individual farm, it saw a general movement away 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 32 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch from the disparate array of farm buildings towards a more formalised layout of buildings facing onto a central courtyard. 61. It is possible that [008], with its two buildings positioned to either side of a central courtyard, was an entirely new creation formed as a direct result of the ‘Improvement’ ethos. Quite often just built on the same spot as the earlier steading, it is likely that the stone from any earlier buildings was reused in the construction of this new layout. It is even possible that the earlier layout included the ‘old Mansion’ mentioned in the Ordnance Survey name book (OS1/20/54/23). Although it may be worth further investigation into the surrounding ‘ruins’ marked on the 1 st edition Ordnance Survey to see if there’s evidence for a residence elsewhere. 62. As already mentioned, it is difficult to identify at this stage the exact function of the buildings on site, which in turn makes it difficult to pinpoint the exact nature of the farm that stood here. It is easy to identify based on the available evidence, that sheep farming would have been a predominant part of Upper Gairloch’s history. As well as the remains of the several ‘old sheep rees’ and shepherds cairns visible on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey of 1852 (Figure 18a), we also know from the census in 1851 that ‘Shepherd’ was the main occupation listed for the neighbouring farms (this will be covered in more detail in the next section). 63. To add to this, we can also look to the Statistical Accounts of Scotland; aimed at collecting information about the economic and social activities, and the natural resources of Scotland, these represent a collection of well-ordered facts based on responses by ministers in each of the 938 parishes of Scotland. They were compiled on three different occasions, named the ‘Old’ in the 1790s, the ‘New’ in the 1830s and the ‘Third’ in the latter half of the 20 th century. 64. The New Statistical Accounts state: ‘Kells must be regarded, almost exclusively, as a pastoral parish. The grain produced (chiefly oats) certainly does not exceed the annual consumpt’ (Maitland 1845, 113). 65. Both the ‘Old’ (Gillespie 1793, 265) and ‘New’ (Maitland 1845, 114) Statistical Accounts for the Parish of Kells list the number of sheep in the parish as being just over 17,000, compared with around 1,500 cattle. The fact that the sheep rees and some of the surrounding fences have gone out of use by the 1 st edition Ordnance Survey does not disprove this continuation of the ground for sheep farming, and the Ordnance Survey name book (OS1/20/54/23) mentions that Upper Gairloch did have 1300 acres of land. Instead, it is perhaps a result of the large-scale change of the uplands into larger sheep farms during the early 19th century as part of the improvements (Edlin 1974, 15). The New Statistical Accounts mention that several farms had been ‘thrown together as sheep walks’ (Maitland 1845, 117). Perhaps in this environment, there was no need to maintain the earlier boundaries with the sheep naturally tending to keep to their own ground (Edlin 1974, 17). It is this amalgamation of lands that could also perhaps be the cause of some of the farmsteads in this area having gone into ruin by the time of the 1 st edition while others survived. 66. As well as sheep, it is also possible that Upper Gairloch owned other livestock. The mix of having both sheep and cattle has long been common in Scotland; they form a natural fit as ‘the different animals affect the grass sward in complementary ways and … they help support diversification’ (Glendinning & Wade Martins 2008, 166). Indeed, the presence of sherds of possible dairy bowls amongst our assemblage (<20> and <28>; Figure 16a) could suggest that some dairy farming was occurring on site, although likely on a smaller scale, and the possible stalls suggested by the separation of flagstones and cobbles in [008d] could relate to this. It is also possible that they may have kept pigs, with the New Statistical Accounts stating that ‘almost every cottager is enabled to fatten one either for his own use or the market’ (Maitland 1845, 114). Further investigation of the flooring and structural remains on site would be useful in trying to gain a deeper understanding of this. 67. As suggested by Turner (see Summary of Finds above), the large rasp/file and small fork recovered from the site could point to other activities occurring such as blacksmithing or a farrier, perhaps on a fairly small scale for repairs around the farm. Further clearance may 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 33 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch reveal a possible location for such activity. If there was a farrier on the farm then this would imply that they kept a horse. While horses and carts were taxed during the 18 th century, an initial search of these records did not reveal any mention of Upper Gairloch. It is possible that future work could reveal more. Mid-19th century – the people 68. The Old Statistical Accounts describe the people in the Parish of Kells as ‘rather stronger made, and of a more rosy and better complexion than those in the low country’ (Gillespie 1793, 270). 69. When we get into the 19th century, the archives provide us with a valuable resource in the form of the census, which began in 1841 and was repeated every tenth year collecting information on the characteristics of the people and households across the country. These records are able to finally give a name to some of the occupants at Upper Gairloch. 70. This report was limited to only being able to access the 1841 and 1851 census, which are both available online. It is possible that later census results may be available elsewhere and could provide an opportunity for future research. 71. In 1841, we have the Halliday family listed as residing at ‘Upper Garloch’ (accessed through the FreeCen website, see References for link). The head of the household appears to be William Halliday, an ‘Agricultural Labourer’ aged 40, and his wife, Jean, aged 25. Together they appear to have two children: Sarah aged 4 and Jean at 7 months. John Halliday, aged 80, is also listed as living there – perhaps William’s father – as well as a John Munro, aged 40, who is listed as ‘Independent’; it is possible that John was just visiting or was perhaps a lodger at the time. 72. By the time of the 1851 census (accessed through the Dumfries and Galloway Council’s website, see References for link), the Hallidays had moved to ‘Bents’ in Minnigaff. William and Jean (now listed as Jane) appear to have had three more children: John, William and Mary. William’s potential father, John, may have died by this point with their first son named after him. Interestingly they also have two visitors listed – Michael Gallery and John Parkyn – both identified as Ordnance Surveyors; perhaps they were in the middle of surveying the 1st edition mapping. At this time, William Halliday is also more specifically identified as a ‘Shepherd’. 73. The 1851 census lists both ‘Gairloch’ – occupied by the Johnston family – and ‘High Gairloch’, occupied by the McQueen family. It is likely that the former represents Nether Gairloch at this time, while ‘High Gairloch’ is a variant on Upper Gairloch. This is further supported by the Ordnance Survey name book (OS1/20/54/23). While the field surveyors were instructed to consult landowners and their agents, in practice (and especially in remoter areas) they often turned instead to the tenants, shepherds and labourers; indeed as attested to above, they often stayed with them. We are able to decipher the names of some of their informants by looking at the column listing the ‘Authorities for spelling’ against each of the listed properties. Looking at the neighbouring properties, the top-listed name often appears to have been the tenant; for Tannoch this is Robert Kirk (confirmed as the tenant in the 1851 census), while for Nether Gairloch this is Robert Johnston. For Upper Gairloch, James McQueen is the top given name. Interestingly they each appear lower on the lists of the neighbouring properties as alternative authorities for spelling. 74. As such, we can surmise that it is the McQueens who reside at Upper Gairloch at this time, although oddly no ‘James McQueen’ is listed on the census. Instead, Elizabeth McQueen, aged 36, is listed as head of the household with three children: Alexander, aged 7; John, aged 6 and Margret, aged 4 (all listed as the son/daughter of Elizabeth). It would appear that at some point between the surveyors visiting (the 1 st edition mapping was surveyed in 1848-49) and the census in 1851, James McQueen has left the farm and Elizabeth is now listing herself as head of the household (suggesting that he is not just away visiting elsewhere). The most likely explanation for this is that he has died, although strangely Elizabeth has not identified herself as a widow, something entered by others in the parish within the same census. It is possible that it was a recent event and too soon for Elizabeth to put it in writing, or perhaps something else had occurred to cause James to leave Upper 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 34 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Gairloch? 75. It is also in the 1851 census that we are able to identify the occupants at the neighbouring Tannoch and Gairloch as ‘Shepherds’, which is likely to have been the case at Upper Gairloch (when James McQueen was still in residence). 76. In general, there is a lot of movement between the 1841 and 1851 census, although not always to different parishes. For instance, Robert Johnston is seen to have moved his family from Tannoch in the 1841 census to Gairloch in the 1851 census; perhaps the latter was larger at the time. Tannoch is still in use but Robert Kirk and his family have moved in. These movements suggest that the area remained popular for farming during this time, mainly sheep farming, able to attract newcomers from elsewhere while continuing to be an attractive place to stay for some of the more well-established locals. 77. Having these names from the census identify the people who may have once owned the artefacts recovered from site; the teapot and cups they put out on the table, the clay pipes smoked during a break from their work and the wine bottles they drank from over dinner. The artefacts appear to display a typical mix of domestic items in use by families at this time. As stated by Turner (see Summary of Finds above), the mismatched nature of the tableware could point to the family being of low financial means but it could also merely represent the discarded items left behind while the more expensive items were removed by the family on their departure. 78. Amongst the assemblage, a fragment of a slate stylus was recovered (<85>; Figure 13a). While this could relate to note taking from one of the adults in the house, these are often associated with children and learning. The Old Statistical Account (Gillespie 1793, 269) explains that households located too far from the parish school would hire young boys (who had been taught at the public school) into their families to teach their children at home. Neighbouring households (in groups of 4 or 5) would often hire a teacher among them. This practice would appear to still be evident by the time of the 1851 census where the residents at Tannoch included John Brown, a 14 year old ‘Teacher’, with the children aged 7 and up from both Tannoch and Gairloch listed as scholars ‘at home’. While this has not been put down for the McQueen children at High Gairloch, this could be because they are younger in age with the eldest possibly only having just turned 7. It seems likely that when they were old enough the children here would also have been taught at home. Abandonment 79. From the available mapping, we know that Upper Gairloch is ‘in ruins’ by the time of the 2nd edition Ordnance Survey (Figure 18b), published in 1896 although surveyed in 1894. Unfortunately it is difficult to pinpoint the exact date of abandonment for our farmstead beyond it occurring at some point between 1851 and 1894. 80. Research into some of the archives held locally – kindly carried out by one of the volunteers from the on-site works, Sandy Hall – appears to have narrowed this down more. In the valuation (land tax) rolls of 1859-60, ‘Upper Garloch’ is listed as the property of the Hon. Mrs L.G.B. Gordon of Kenmure, with the added detail of James Smith, Farmer, as the ‘Tenant or Occupier’ (Sandy Hall, pers. comm. 16th January 2020). Although interestingly, the column ‘Inhabitant Occupier’ has been left blank so it is possible that our house was no longer inhabited. At this time, ‘Nether Garloch and Clauchrum’ are listed jointly under the tenant/occupier William Gray. 81. By the time of the 1878-79 rolls, all three properties are now listed together – ‘Upper and Nether Garloch and Clauchrum’ – with the tenant/occupier as James Gray, Ewanston, Balmaclellan (potentially a descendant of William) (Sandy Hall, pers. comm. 16 th January 2020). It is possible that the amalgamation of these properties puts the abandonment of Upper Gairloch as an independent farm occurring between 1859-60 and 1878-79, with its land then being taken over by a larger farm. 82. The recovery from site of the ceramic stopper from a ‘Codd’ type bottle, which has to postdate c.1875, could push our steading’s inhabitation into the latter end of this period but this, however, is very tentative. It is equally possible that this was a stray find deposited here at a later date, potentially dropped by someone, perhaps a shepherd, visiting the 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 35 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch farmstead after it had already been abandoned. 83. The only other possible evidence at this stage is the 1st edition 1-inch Ordnance Survey mapping of 1861 (not shown), which does not name Upper Gairloch (although the buildings are shown unnamed) while it does name ‘Tannoch’, ‘Upper Gairloch Wood’ and ‘Nether Gairloch’. This could perhaps suggest that it was no longer inhabited at this time, although as mentioned, earlier mapping should be viewed with caution. 84. That most of the roofing slates were recovered from the central courtyard [008a] may suggest that they had been deposited either by sliding off of the surrounding roofs or were perhaps deliberately discarded here. The much lower number of slates found within the structures does suggest that the roofs did not collapse in situ though, but may have been deliberately dismantled with the roofing materials being taken away to be reused elsewhere; not surprising if imported slates tended to be more expensive. If the latter was the case though, then this would appear to have occurred some time after its abandonment. Though ‘in ruins’, the two structures, representing [008b/c] and [008d], appear to have still been roofed on the 2nd edition Ordnance Survey (Figure 18b; although it is not the clearest to make out). They are no longer roofed by the time of the 3 rd edition in 1909. 85. In contrast, the majority of the stone used for the construction of the walls appeared to remain on site as shown by the large amount of tumble (011), the intact stone flooring and also the remains of the kiln barn. This attests to the abundance of stone available in the area, something that was previously noted by Shaw during her survey of Clachrum (Shaw 2010, 7). 86. It is difficult to know the exact cause of the abandonment of Upper Gairloch, although it was certainly not alone. By the time of the 2nd edition Ordnance Survey mapping in 1896, the majority of the farmsteads along this route had been abandoned; this once rich rural landscape had now become a string of ruinous farm buildings. The reasons for this may vary dependent on the circumstances of each farm, but it is likely that the improvements played a large part. 87. Farms continued to be amalgamated as the land was turned over to sheep grazing. Looking back at the later valuation rolls, we can see that in 1887-88, some years after Upper Gairloch, Nether Gairloch and Clachrum became a joint listing, a shepherd named William Little had moved into the house at Nether Gairloch as the ‘Inhabitant Occupier’ (Sandy Hall, pers. comm. 16th January 2020). A notice in the 1884 Galloway News and Kirkcudbrightshire Advertiser (see References for link) from William Little, shepherd at Gairloch, Kells, looking for two lost ‘blackfaced tups’ shows that he was at least working on the farm for a few years prior to this. In newspaper advertisements from 1889 (Galloway News and Kirkcudbrightshire Advertiser, see References for link) and 1892 (North British Agriculturist, see References for link), we read that Upper and Nether Gairloch are available for let, containing around 2,255 acres, and, as the former states, ‘capable of carrying a first-class Black-faced Sheep Stock’. In the 1889 advertisement, William Little is also mentioned as the ‘Shepherd upon the Farms’. 88. A significant change in the Improvement Era was a shift from farms being worked by groups of tenant families towards a single family unit; this, alongside the continuing amalgamation of farms, caused a number of evictions. The improvements also included expensive programmes of drainage and enclosure, which would have caused rents to rise (Yates 1978, 133). As a result, it became a period of upheaval with many forced to leave their rural homes and look for employment elsewhere. 89. The final significant change to this landscape occurred in the 1940s, when some 240 square miles of land in Galloway was designated as a Forest Park. The land of Upper Gairloch and its neighbouring properties fell under the care of the Forestry Commission (now Forestry and Land Scotland) which remains the case to this day. 90. It is from this period that the latest finds recovered from the site appear to date to: metal objects possible from a 20th century farm vehicle and some fragments of window glass that appear to post-date the 1950s. These items indicate that our steading has now become a dumping ground, perhaps prompted by its position directly to the side of the modern forest 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 36 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch drive. The presence of the later window glass is unexpected in such a remote location though, so there may be other material dumped in this area that we are yet to come across. 91. Aside from this, the abandoned farmstead of Upper Gairloch was gradually enveloped by the surrounding forest, covered by moss and trees and awaiting the arrival of archaeologists to once again reveal its remains. Conclusion 92. After the successful clearing of the kiln barn in March 2019, Can You Dig It went back with a group of volunteers to target the location of the main steading at Upper Gairloch. Sitting along the modern forest drive known as Raiders Road, the works took place over eight days and cleared the remains of two structures which sat on either side of an enclosed courtyard. An initial search of the available online archives also helped to put the steading into context. 93. These remains appeared to correlate well with the layout of the farmstead shown on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey mapping of 1852. Further test pitting within the interior identified the survival of original surfaces within both the interior of the structures and within the limits of the central courtyard. While the latter was cobbled, the two structures contained flagstone surfaces. This differed slightly in the northern structure where there appeared to be a demarcation shown by a change in floor surface from flagstone to cobbles. 94. A number of artefacts were recovered during the works including over 500 sherds of pottery which appeared to mainly date from the 1820s-1860s. Combined with the ordered layout of the structures around a central courtyard, these suggested that the current ruins represent an early 19th century rebuild of the steading during the Improvement Era. Other finds included a large rasp/file and small fork that could imply blacksmithing or farrier work. The presence of much later 20th century finds appeared to represent dumping at this time. 95. The works on both the steading and the kiln barn at Upper Gairloch displayed the high level of survival of these structures, which also act as an example of what could remain elsewhere along this route. Combining both the archaeological remains of this site with the historical archives has also demonstrated the amount of information that can be discovered about what otherwise appears as a ruined collection of stones in the landscape. Further work both on site and in the archives would continue to demonstrate this and would greatly help to answer the questions that still remain for this site. Acknowledgements 96. This project is part of a wider Community Archaeology project, ‘Can You Dig It’, run by the Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme from February 2019 to March 2020. See www.gallowayglens.org.uk/Resources and follow ‘Can You Dig It’ for their published outputs. The Community Archaeology project was offered free to volunteers thanks to funding from the Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland. The land is owned by Forestry and Land Scotland who kindly allowed us access and gave their support and guidance for the works. Guidance was also given by Dumfries and Galloway Council Archaeology Service and members of local heritage societies. 97. The authors would like to thank all of the hardworking volunteers who took part in the excavation: Sandy Hall, Jennifer Roberts, Erin Pritchard, Claire Starritt, Morag Ritchie, Aelia Gilby, Steven Steele, Tom Marshall and Claire Martin. Sandy also very kindly passed on information from his research into archives for the site and also gave further guidance relating to the layout of farm structures. 98. The support and guidance provided by Rathmell Archaeology staff members Sarah Krischer and Laura Anderson on site was much appreciated by ourselves and everyone involved. Laura also did a great job digitising the site plans for this report. Special thanks also go to Thomas Rees for his guidance and help both throughout the initial organisation of the project and while the works were taking place on site, and also to Louise Turner for her work on the artefacts analysis. 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 37 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch References Documentary Canmore [online] available at: https://canmore.org.uk/ [accessed 14 January 2020] Edlin, H. L. 1974 ‘History and Tradition’, in Edlin, H. L. (ed.) Galloway Forest Park, Forestry Commission Guide, Edinburgh: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 8-15 Fenton, A. & Walker, B. 1981 The Rural Architecture of Scotland, Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd Gibson, A. 1988 ‘Medieval corn-drying kilns at Capo, Kincardineshire and Abercairny, Perthshire’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 118 (1988), 219-229 Gillespie, Rev. J. 1792 ‘Parish of Kells (County of Kirkcudbright)’, The Old Statistical Accounts of Scotland, Vol. IV, 259-273 [online] available at: https://stataccscot.edina.ac.uk/static/statacc/dist/viewer/osa-vol4Parish_record_for_Kells_in_the_county_of_Kirkcudbright_in_volume_4_of_account_1/ [accessed 28 January 2020] Glendinning, M. & Wade Martins, S. 2008 Buildings of the Land: Scotland’s Farms 17502000, Edinburgh: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland McKinstry, L. & Williamson, C. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community Archaeology Project, Risk Assessment Method Statement 1.2.f Medieval or Later Rural Settlement, unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd Maitland, Rev. J. 1845 ‘Parish of Kells, Presbytery of Kirkcudbright, Synod of Galloway’, The New Statistical Accounts of Scotland, Vol. IV, 108-117 [online] available at: https://stataccscot.edina.ac.uk/static/statacc/dist/viewer/nsa-vol4Parish_record_for_Kells_in_the_county_of_Kirkcudbright_in_volume_4_of_account_2/ [accessed 28 January 2020] Pastmap [online] available at: https://pastmap.org.uk/ [accessed 14 January 2020] Shaw, R. 2010 Clachrum, Loch Stroan, Galloway Forest, Archaeological Survey, Data Structure Report, unpublished commercial report by Rebecca Shaw Archaeological Services Swanson, C. 1993 ‘The Need for a Management and Preservation Strategy’, in Hingley, R. (ed.) Medieval or Later Rural Settlement in Scotland: Management and Preservation, Historic Scotland Ancient Monuments Division Occ. Paper No. 1, 1-3 Turner, L. & Rees, T. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community Archaeology Project, Research Design 1.2.f Medieval or Later Rural Settlement, unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd Williamson, C. 2019 Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership, Can You Dig It? Community Archaeology Project, Data Structure Report, 1.2.f Medieval of Later Rural Settlement – Upper Gairloch, unpublished commercial report by Rathmell Archaeology Ltd Yates, M. J. 1978 ‘The Excavations at Polmaddy, New Galloway’, Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society, 53 (1977-8), 133146 Archive Galloway News and Kirkcudbrightshire Advertiser, Friday 18 January 1884, front page [online] available at: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002666/18840118/005/0001 [access 6 February 2020] Galloway News and Kirkcudbrightshire Advertiser, Friday 27 September 1889, p.8 [online] available at: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002666/18890927/073/0008 [accessed 6 February 2020] North British Agriculturist, Wednesday 05 October 1892, p.641 [online] available at: 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 38 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002744/18921005/023/0003 [accessed 6 February 2020] E106/20/1/23 Land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, volume 01 [online] available at: https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/land-tax-rolls-16451831/land-tax-rolls-kirkcudbrightshire-volume-01/12 [accessed 21 January 2020] E106/20/2/15 Land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, volume 02 [online] available at: https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/land-tax-rolls-16451831/land-tax-rolls-kirkcudbrightshire-volume-02/8 [accessed 21 January 2020] E106/20/3/15 Land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, volume 03 [online] available at: https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/land-tax-rolls-16451831/land-tax-rolls-kirkcudbrightshire-volume-03/15 [accessed 21 January 2020] E106/20/4/25 Land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, volume 04 [online] available at: https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/land-tax-rolls-16451831/land-tax-rolls-kirkcudbrightshire-volume-04/13 [accessed 21 January 2020] E106/20/5/25 Land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, volume 05 [online] available at: https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/land-tax-rolls-16451831/land-tax-rolls-kirkcudbrightshire-volume-05/13 [accessed 21 January 2020] E106/20/6/43 Land tax rolls for Kirkcudbrightshire, volume 06 [online] available at: https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/land-tax-rolls-16451831/land-tax-rolls-kirkcudbrightshire-volume-06/22 [accessed 21 January 2020] OS1/20/54/23 Kirkcudbrightshire OS Name Books, Volume 54, 1848-1851 [online] available at: https://scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/ordnance-survey-namebooks/kirkcudbrightshire-os-name-books-1848-1851/kirkcudbrightshire-volume-54/23 [accessed 24 January 2020] 1841 Scottish Census – Parish of Kells [online] available at: https://www.freecen.org.uk/search_records/59034cb5e9379091b1478fbe/williamhalliday-1841-kirkcudbrightshire-kells-1801-?locale=en [accessed 28 January 2020] 1851 Scottish Census – Parish of Kells [online] available at: https://info.dumgal.gov.uk/HistoricalIndexes/Home/DisplayDetailedSearchResults_Censu s_1851_Ref?houseRef=2%2F10%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&hous eParish=Kells [accessed 28 January 2020] Cartographic 1654 Blaeu, J. Atlas of Scotland, Gallovidia (Galloway) 1752-55 Roy, W. Military Survey of Scotland (Lowlands) 1852 Ordnance Survey Six-inch 1st edition, Kirkcudbrightshire Sheet 30 1861 Ordnance Survey One-inch 1st edition, Sheet 9 - Maxwelltown 1896 Ordnance Survey Six-inch 2nd edition, Kirkcudbrightshire, Sheet XXVI.SW 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 39 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Appendix 1: Discovery & Excavation in Scotland LOCAL AUTHORITY: Dumfries & Galloway PROJECT TITLE/SITE NAME: Galloway Glens – Upper Gairloch, Raiders Road PROJECT CODE: RA18107 PARISH: Kells NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR: Claire Williamson & Liam McKinstry NAME OF ORGANISATION: Rathmell Archaeology Limited TYPE(S) OF PROJECT: Survey and Test Pitting NMRS NO(S): NX67SW 24 (Canmore ID: 177552) SITE/MONUMENT TYPE(S): Building, Farmstead, Field System, Kiln (Period Unassigned) SIGNIFICANT FINDS: 19th century ceramic NGR (2 letters, 8 or 10 figures) NX 61433 72936 START DATE (this season) 14th August 2019 END DATE (this season) 24th August 2019 PREVIOUS WORK (incl. DES ref.) Clearance of associated kiln barn in March 2019 (Williamson 2019) MAIN (NARRATIVE) DESCRIPTION: (may include information from other fields) After the successful clearing of the kiln barn in March 2019, Can You Dig It went back with a group of volunteers to target the location of the main steading at Upper Gairloch. Sitting along the modern forest drive known as Raiders Road, the works took place over eight days and cleared the remains of two structures which sat on either side of an enclosed courtyard. An initial search of the available online archives also helped to put the steading into context. These remains appeared to correlate well with the layout of the farmstead shown on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey mapping of 1852. Further test pitting within the interior identified the survival of original surfaces within both the interior of the structures and within the limits of the central courtyard. While the latter was cobbled, the two structures contained flagstone surfaces. This differed slightly in the northern structure where there appeared to be a demarcation shown by a change in floor surface from flagstone to cobbles. A number of artefacts were recovered during the works including over 500 sherds of pottery which appeared to mainly date from the 1820s1860s. Combined with the ordered layout of the structures around a central courtyard, these suggested that the current ruins represent an early 19th century rebuild of the steading during the Improvement Era. Other finds included a large rasp/file and small fork that could imply blacksmithing or farrier work. The presence of much later 20 th century finds appeared to represent dumping at this time. The works on both the steading and the kiln barn at Upper Gairloch displayed the high level of survival of these structures, which also act as an example of what could remain elsewhere along this route. Combining both the archaeological remains of this site with the historical archives has also demonstrated the amount of information that can be discovered about what otherwise appears as a ruined collection of stones in the landscape. Further work both on site and in the archives would continue to demonstrate this and would greatly 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 40 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch help to answer the questions that still remain for this site. PROPOSED FUTURE WORK: None CAPTION(S) FOR ILLUSTRS: None SPONSOR OR FUNDING BODY: The Galloway Glens Landscape Partnership Scheme (part of Dumfries & Galloway Council), externally funded by Historic Environment Scotland and the Heritage Fund ADDRESS OF MAIN CONTRIBUTOR: Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops, Kilwinning, Ayrshire KA13 6PU E MAIL: contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk ARCHIVE LOCATION (intended/deposited) Report to Dumfries & Galloway Archaeology Service and archive to National Record of the Historic Environment. 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 41 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Appendix 2: Registers 99. Appendix 2, which contains all registers pertaining to the works on–site during the works. Context Register Context No. Area/ Trench Type Description Interpretation 001-007 Kiln Barn - For Context Nos 001-007 see Williamson 2019 - 008 Steading Structure Remains of a rectangular enclosure comprising two structures – [008b/c] and [008d] – sitting to either side of a central yard [008a], all of which appear to have been constructed within a single phase. The northeastern portion of the enclosure was not revealed during the works due to the presence of upstanding trees and dense overgrowth. The walls were of drystone construction with both an inner and outer face on either side of a rubble core. The faces were constructed using sub-angular stones – mostly pale grey granite – with an average size of 0.4m by 0.3m by 0.2m. Some of the stones were very large however, measuring up to 1.3m by 1m by 0.7m. The stones in the rubble core measured 0.2m by 0.15m by 0.1m on average. The width of the walls measured between 0.8m to 1.1m, and they survived to a height of between 0.2m and 1m. Full external dimensions of enclosure as exposed were 17.8m west-east by 15.5m north-south. Remaining walls have been covered by moss and vegetation (009), and tumble (011) sits both within the interior and around the immediate exterior of the enclosure. The remains of two structures and an enclosure which appear to represent the ‘Upper Gairloch’ farmstead depicted on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1852. The remains comprised the lower courses of both the external and internal walls of the structures which are all tied in and appear to have been constructed in a single phase. Trenching and test pitting within the interior have revealed flagstone surfaces within both structures and cobbled surfaces within the central area – potentially a cobbled yard. There is no definitive signs of modification to the structure but the drystone construction may make that difficult to discern. [008a] – central area of the enclosure which is ‘L’ shaped in plan. The main section runs west-east with an internal length of 13.5m and width of 4.8m, with a further square section in the southeast which measures 4m by 4.6m internally. A possible entrance sits at the western end but no other entrances were discernible. The entire area is covered by topsoil (017) underlying tumble (011), with an area if mixed tumble and topsoil (010) at the eastern end. Cobbled surfaces [020] (Test Pit A), [025] (Test Pit C) and [026] (Trench 4) were exposed at the southeastern, western and central portions of the area respectively. [008b/c] – rectangular structure located in the southwest corner of the enclosure orientated west-east and directly to the south of [008a]. It is divided into two chambers: [008b] in the western half and [008c] in 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 42 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Context No. Area/ Trench Type Description Interpretation the east. [008b] had internal dimensions of approximately 4.9m northsouth by 4m west-east, while the interior of [008c] was slightly bigger at 4.9m north-south by 4.6m west-east. The crosswall which divided the two chambers was largely disturbed by the presence of upstanding trees but measured roughly 0.3m wide and appeared to be the same construction as the external walls. The whole of [008b/c] was covered by topsoil (012) underlying tumble (011). Trench 2 was opened across the southern half of the junction between the two chambers. It revealed two flagstone surfaces: [013] and [027]. Surface [013] appeared to sit within [008c], which then stepped 0.2m down to surface [027] in [008b]. It is possible that this marked the location of an entranceway between the two chambers. [008d] – rectangular structure located in the northwest corner of the enclosure orientated west-east and directly to the north of [008a]. Only the western end of this structure was revealed – internally it measured 4.9m north-south by at least 4.4m east-west although it potentially continued further to the east. The entirety of [008d] was covered by topsoil (014) which sat underlying tumble (011). Trench 3 was opened against its western wall. Across its western half, flagstone surface [015] was revealed which extended to 2.2m out from the wall, before stepping down 0.1m on to cobbled surface [016]. 009 Steading [008] Deposit Patches of green moss and vegetation overlying the remains of structure [008] and tumble (011). Present across the full extent of the structure measuring only up to approximately 50mm thick. Overgrowth on the stones of [008] and (011) since the structure’s abandonment in the 19th century. 010 [008a] Deposit Mixture of moderately compacted mid-blackish brown clayey silt with small, medium and large sized granite sub-angular stones. The stones measure between 0.09m by 0.05m by 0.07m up to 0.55m by 0.23 by 0.4m in size. The deposit contained frequent root inclusions and frequent sherds of white earthenware pottery. A fragment of slate was also present. The deposit sat in the northeast corner of [008a] against the eastern wall and measured approximately 4m by 2m in extent. It was excavated to a thickness of 330mm but the base was not reached. Mixture of topsoil and stone tumble at eastern end of [008a] 011 Steading Deposit Medium to large angular and sub-angular stones lying against the internal and external faces of structure [008] for a width of Stone tumble from collapse (or demolition) of structure [008] which was abandoned in 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 43 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Context No. Area/ Trench Type [008] Description Interpretation approximately 0.6 to 1.6m and sits approximately 0.5m high. The deposit also overlies the walls of [008] in areas. The stones are a light grey granite with no bonding present, and are the same dimensions as those which make up the walls of [008]. the first half of the 19th century. Some of the stones may have been robbed and reused elsewhere. 012 [008b/c] Deposit Loosely compacted mid-blackish brown sandy silt with very frequent roots and occasional small stones and vegetation inclusions. Present as the uppermost deposit underlying tumble (011) across the full extent of [008b] and [008c]. It measures 70mm thick. Topsoil within [008b] and [008c], which underlies tumble (011) and overlies surface [013] and deposit (024). 013 [008c] Structure Layer of flagstones consisting of pink/grey granite with one block of possible shale. The stones were sub-rectangular in shape and measured up to 0.7m by 0.35m, and 60mm thick, in size. The layer was exposed within Trench 2 in [008c] to an extent of up to 1.5m long by 3m long, but likely continues beyond to the north and east. Flagstone surface revealed underlying topsoil (012) in Trench 2 within [008c]. Abuts surface [027] to the west, which also sits approximately 0.2m lower than [013]. 014 [008d] Deposit Loosely compacted blackish brown sandy silt with very frequent root and vegetation inclusions. Present across the full extent of [008d], measuring approximately 4.9m by 4.4m in area and 150mm thick. Topsoil within [008d] underlying tumble (011) and overlying surfaces [015] and [016]. 015 [008d], Trench 3 Structure Layer of flagstones, consisting of sub-rectangular grey/pink granite blocks measuring up to 0.45m by 0.5m and 100mm thick in size. The layer was revealed within Trench 3 in [008d] for an extent of 1.3m by 2.2m, although likely continued beyond to the north and south. Flagstone surface revealed underlying topsoil (014) in [008d]. Abuts surface [016] to the east. The two are stepped in height with [016] sitting 0.1m lower. 016 [008d], Trench 3 Structure Layer of pink/grey granite cobblestones which are sub-rectangular/ sub-oval in shape with occasional roots present. The cobblestones each measured up to 0.2m by 0.07m in size. The layer was exposed for an area measuring 0.88m by 1.3m within Trench 3 in [008d], although likely continued beyond to the north, south and east. Cobbled surface exposed in western half of Trench 3 within [008d] underlying topsoil (014). Abuts surface [015] to the west. The two are stepped in height with [015] 0.1m higher. 017 [008a] Deposit Loosely compacted dark blackish brown silty sand with frequent inclusions of roots and small stones. The deposit is present across the full extent of [008a] and measures 100 to 200mm thick. Topsoil within [008a] underlying tumble (011) and overlying possible surfaces [020], [025] and [026]. 018 - - Void - 019 - - Void – same as (010) - 020 [008a]/ Structure Layer of sub-rectangular grey granite cobblestones. The Possible granite surface underlying topsoil 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 44 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Context No. Area/ Trench Type Test Pit A Description Interpretation cobblestones each have an average size of 0.3m by 0.14m. The layer was exposed for a full extent of 1m by 0.5m, located within Test Pit A which sat in the southeast corner of [008a]. It sat directly against the southern wall and likely continued beyond the test pit to the north, west and east. (017) in southeast corner of [008a]. 021 - - Void – part of (024) - 022 - - Void – same as (017) - 023 - - Void – same as (017) - 024 [008b/c] Deposit Loose medium black brown silty sand with frequent small stone inclusions which measured an average size of 0.13m by 0.15m by 0.17m. There was also occasional small root inclusions. The deposit was revealed underlying topsoil (012) at the western end of Trench 2 in [008b]. Its full extent measured 0.95m by 0.7m with a thickness of 100mm. Deposit of mixed topsoil and small stones overlying surface [027] at the western end of Trench in [008b]. Overlies surface [027]. 025 [008a]/ Test Pit C Structure Layer of small sub-rectangular pink granite cobbles. The cobbles each measured 0.18m by 0.11m in size. The full extent of the layer as it was exposed within Test Pit C measured 0.44m by 0.7m although likely continued beyond the limits of the trench. Underlies topsoil (017). Possible cobbled surface in the possible entrance at the western end of [008a]. 026 [008a]/ Trench 4 Structure Layer of irregular shaped sub-rounded pink granite cobbles which appear polished in places. The cobbles each measure up to 0.26m by 0.18m in size. The layer covers the full extent of Trench 4 (1m by 1m) but continues beyond the trench in all directions. Underlies topsoil (017). Cobbled surface exposed in Trench 4 within [008a]. 027 [008b/c] Structure Layer of medium sized sub-angular granite blocks which each measured up to 0.25m by 0.5m in size. Revealed underlying (024) at the western end of Trench 2 in [008b]. Exposed extent measured approximately 1m square but it likely continues beyond the trench to the west and north. Flagstone surface revealed underlying topsoil (024) in Trench 2 within [008b]. Abuts surface [013] to the east, which also sits approximately 0.2m higher than [027]. 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 45 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Drawing Register Drawing No. Sheet No. Area/ Trench Drawing Type Scale Description Drawer Date - - - - - For Drawing Nos 1-2 see Williamson 2019 - - 3 3 Steading Plan 1:20 Plan of Steading – Centre S/Side LMcK 22/08/19 4 4 Steading Plan 1:20 Plan of Steading – Centre W/Side LMcK 22/08/19 5 5 Steading Plan 1:20 Plan of Steading – NE Corner LMcK 22/08/19 6 6 Steading Plan 1:20 Plan of Steading – N Centre Section LMcK 24/08/19 7 7 Steading Plan 1:20 Plan of Steading – Centre Section EP/LA 24/08/19 8 8 Steading Plan 1:20 Plan of Steading – NW Section LMcK 24/08/19 9 9 Steading Plan 1:20 Plan of Steading – S Section JR 23/08/19 10 10 Steading Plan 1:20 Plan of Subfloor (027) in Trench 2 JR 24/08/19 Photographic Register Image Digital Description From Date - - For Image Nos 1-78 see Williamson 2019 - - 79 7156 Pre-excavation shot of Structure [008a] N 14/08/19 80 7157 Pre-excavation shot of Structure [008a] SE 14/08/19 81 7158 Pre-excavation shot of Structure [008a] N 14/08/19 82 7159 Pre-excavation shot of Structure [008a] N 14/08/19 83 7160 Pre-excavation shot of Structure [008a] N 14/08/19 84 7161 Pre-excavation shot of Structure [008a] W 14/08/19 85 7162 Working shot – Erin and Claire W 14/08/19 86 7163 Working shot – Erin and Claire W 14/08/19 87 7164 Working shot – Jenny, Erin and Claire W 14/08/19 88 7165 Working shot – Claire W 14/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 46 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Image Digital Description From Date 89 7166 Working shot – Jenny SW 14/08/19 90 7167 Working shot – Laura - 14/08/19 91 7168 End of Day 1 – Southwest Corner (Main Area) [008a] E 14/08/19 92 7169 End of Day 1 – General shot of [008a] NNE 14/08/19 93 7170 End of Day 1 – External South Facing Elevation [008] E 14/08/19 94 7171 End of Day 1 – Southeast Corner (External), [008] E 14/08/19 95 7172 End of Day 1 – Southeast Corner (External), [008] E 14/08/19 96 7173 End of Day 1 – Southeast Corner (Internal), [008] E 14/08/19 97 7174 End of Day 1 – External South Wall [008] E 14/08/19 98 7175 Day 2 – General shot of [008a] N 15/08/19 99 7176 Day 2 – General shot of [008a] N 15/08/19 100 7177 Day 2 – Kiln Barn, Working shot with Erin and Claire - 15/08/19 101 7178 Day 2 – Kiln Barn, Working shot with Erin and Claire - 15/08/19 102 7179 [008], Room A interior, and Pre-excavation shot of Trench 3 E 17/08/19 103 7180 [008], Room A interior, and Pre-excavation shot of Trench 3 NE 17/08/19 104 7181 [008], Room A interior W 17/08/19 105 7182 [008], Room A interior W 17/08/19 106 7183 Pre-excavation shot of Trench 2, Interior of Room C [008] N 17/08/19 107 7184 Pre-excavation shot of Trench 2, Interior of Room C [008] N 17/08/19 108 7185 Pre-excavation shot of Trench 1, Room A [008] S 17/08/19 109 7186 [008], Room A – Eastern wall (Northern End) W 17/08/19 110 7187 [008], Room A – Eastern wall (Northern End) W 17/08/19 111 7188 [008], Room A – Eastern wall (Northern End) W 17/08/19 112 7189 [008] – External East facing elevation (Northern End) E 17/08/19 113 7190 [008] – External East facing elevation (Northern End) E 17/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 47 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Image Digital Description From Date 114 7191 [008], Room A – East wall (From Above) S 17/08/19 115 7192 [008], Room A – East wall (From Above) S 17/08/19 116 7193 [008], Room A – Deposit (010) W 17/08/19 117 7194 [008], Room A – Interior Southeast corner N 17/08/19 118 7195 [008], Room A – Interior Southeast corner N 17/08/19 119 7196 [008], Room A – Interior Southeast corner S 17/08/19 120 7197 [008], Room A – Interior Southeast corner S 17/08/19 121 7198 [008], Room A – East wall (Middle section) W 17/08/19 122 7199 [008], Room A – East wall (Southern end) W 17/08/19 123 7200 [008], Room A – East wall (Southern end) S 17/08/19 124 7201 [008], Room A – Southeast corner N 17/08/19 125 7202 [008], Room A – South wall (Eastern end) N 17/08/19 126 7203 [008], Room A – South wall (Eastern end) E 17/08/19 127 7204 [008], Room A – South wall (Eastern end) E 17/08/19 128 7205 [008], Room A – West wall ( Southern end) E 17/08/19 129 7206 [008], Room A – West wall (Southern end) E 17/08/19 130 7207 [008], Room A – West wall (Southern end) E 17/08/19 131 7208 [008], Room A – West wall (Corner) E 17/08/19 132 7209 [008], Room A – West wall (Corner) E 17/08/19 133 7210 [008], Room A – West wall (Southern end) N 17/08/19 134 7211 [008], Room A – South wall (Middle) N 17/08/19 135 7212 [008], Room A – South wall (Middle) W 17/08/19 136 7213 [008], Room A – South wall (Middle) W 17/08/19 137 7214 [008], Room A – Southwest corner NE 17/08/19 138 7215 [008], Room A – South wall (Western middle) N 17/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 48 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Image Digital Description From Date 139 7216 [008], Room A – West wall E 17/08/19 140 7217 [008], Room A – North wall S 17/08/19 141 7218 [008], Room A – North wall S 17/08/19 142 7219 [008], External East facing elevation (Middle) E 17/08/19 143 7220 [008], External East facing elevation (Southern end) E 17/08/19 144 7221 [008], External East facing elevation (Southern end) E 17/08/19 145 7222 [008], External East facing elevation (Southern end) SE 17/08/19 146 7223 [008], External East facing elevation (Southern corner) E 17/08/19 147 7224 [008], External East facing elevation (Southern corner) ESE 17/08/19 148 7225 [008] – External South facing elevation (Eastern corner) S 17/08/19 149 7226 [008] – External South facing elevation (Eastern end) S 17/08/19 150 7227 [008] – External South facing elevation (Middle) S 17/08/19 151 7228 [008] – External South facing elevation (Middle) S 17/08/19 152 7229 [008] – South wall (Room C) W 17/08/19 153 7230 [008] – South wall (Room C) W 17/08/19 154 7231 [008] – South wall (Room C) W 17/08/19 155 7232 [008] – South wall junction with External Wall of Room C W 17/08/19 156 7233 [008] – South wall, Room B E 17/08/19 157 7234 [008] – External South facing elevation (Western end) SW 17/08/19 158 7235 [008] – External South facing elevation (Western end) S 17/08/19 159 7236 [008] – External South facing elevation (Western end) SW 17/08/19 160 7237 [008] – External South facing elevation (Western corner) S 17/08/19 161 7238 [008] – External West facing elevation (Southern end) W 17/08/19 162 7239 [008] – External West facing elevation (Southern end) W 17/08/19 163 7240 [008] – External West facing elevation (Middle) W 17/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 49 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Image Digital Description From Date 164 7241 [008] – External West facing elevation (CBM) W 17/08/19 165 7242 [008] – External West facing elevation (Middle) W 17/08/19 166 7243 [008] – External West facing elevation (Middle) NW 17/08/19 167 7244 [008] – External West facing elevation (Middle) SW 17/08/19 168 7245 Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 [008] SW 17/08/19 169 7246 Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 [008] W 17/08/19 170 7247 Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 [008] W 17/08/19 171 7248 Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 [008] NW 17/08/19 172 7249 Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 [008] S 17/08/19 173 7250 Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 [008] S 17/08/19 174 7251 View from [008] NE 17/08/19 175 7252 General shot of the Interior of Room B [008] S 17/08/19 176 7253 [008], Room B – South wall N 17/08/19 177 7254 [008], Room B – East wall, possible entrance to Room C W 17/08/19 178 7255 [008], Room B – North wall S 17/08/19 179 7256 [008], Room B – West wall E 17/08/19 180 7257 [008], Room B – East wall SW 17/08/19 181 7258 [008], Room B – South wall E 17/08/19 182 7259 [008], Room C – Floor [013] E 17/08/19 183 7260 [008], Room C – Floor [013] S 17/08/19 184 7261 [008], Room C – South wall N 17/08/19 185 7262 [008], Room C – North wall S 17/08/19 186 7263 [008], Room C – West wall E 17/08/19 187 7264 [008], Room C – East wall W 17/08/19 188 7265 [008] – External West facing elevation – Possible entrance? W 17/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 50 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Image Digital Description From Date 189 7266 [008] – External West facing elevation – Possible entrance? SW 17/08/19 190 7267 [008] – External West facing elevation (Northern end) NW 17/08/19 191 7268 [008] – Room D, West wall S 17/08/19 192 7269 [008] – Room D, West wall S 17/08/19 193 7270 [008] – Room D, West wall E 17/08/19 194 7271 [008] – Room D, Interior S 17/08/19 195 7272 [008] – Room D, Interior N 17/08/19 196 7273 [008] – Room A, North wall S 17/08/19 197 7274 Structure [008] – General shot E 17/08/19 198 7275 Structure [008] – General shot (Southeast corner) NE 17/08/19 199 7276 Structure [008] – General shot (Northeast corner) SSE 17/08/19 200 7277 Structure [008] – General shot (Room A) E 17/08/19 201 7278 Structure [008] – General shot (Southern half) ENE 17/08/19 202 7279 Structure [008] – General shot (Room B & Room C) NE 17/08/19 203 7280 Structure [008] – General shot (Southeast corner) N 17/08/19 204 7281 Structure [008] – General shot (Southeast corner) NW 17/08/19 205 7282 Structure [008] – General shot (Northeast corner) WSW 17/08/19 206 7283 Structure [008] – General shot (Room D) SE 17/08/19 207 7284 Structure [008] – General shot (Room C) N 17/08/19 208 7285 Structure [008] – General shot (Room B) N 17/08/19 209 7286 Structure [008] – General shot (Room D) S 17/08/19 210 7287 Structure [008] – General shot (Southern half) WNW 17/08/19 211 7288 Structure [008] – General shot (Room A) W 17/08/19 212 7289 Structure [008] – General shot (Rooms B & C) WNW 17/08/19 213 7290 Structure [008] – General shot (Room A) W 17/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 51 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Image Digital Description From Date 214 7291 Structure [008] – General shot (Rooms B & C) ENE 17/08/19 215 7292 Structure [008] – General shot (Room A) ESE 17/08/19 216 7293 Structure [008] – General shot – Tumble (011), External Southeast E 17/08/19 217 7294 Structure [008] – External South wall W 17/08/19 218 7295 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 E 21/08/19 219 7296 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 E 21/08/19 220 7297 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 E 21/08/19 221 7298 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 W 21/08/19 222 7299 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 W 21/08/19 223 7300 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 W 21/08/19 224 7301 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 - Detail W 21/08/19 225 7302 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 W 21/08/19 226 7303 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 N 21/08/19 227 7304 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 N 21/08/19 228 7305 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 E 21/08/19 229 7306 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 E 21/08/19 230 7307 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 – Detail shot W 21/08/19 231 7308 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 W 21/08/19 232 7309 Post-excavation shot of Trench 2 W 21/08/19 233 7310 General post-excavation shot of Trench 2 W 21/08/19 234 7311 General post-excavation shot of Trench 2 W 21/08/19 235 7312 General post-excavation shot of Trench 2 W 21/08/19 236 7313 General post-excavation shot of Trench 2 W 21/08/19 237 7314 General post-excavation shot of Trench 2 E 21/08/19 238 7315 General post-excavation shot of Trench 2 E 21/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 52 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Image Digital Description From Date 239 7316 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 E 21/08/19 240 7317 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 E 21/08/19 241 - Void - - 242 - Void - - 243 - Void - - 244 - Void - - 245 - Void - - 246 - Void - - 247 - Void - - 248 - Void - - 249 - Void - - 250 - Void - - 251 7318 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 E 21/08/19 252 7319 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 S 21/08/19 253 7320 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 S 21/08/19 254 7321 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 W 21/08/19 255 7322 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 W 21/08/19 256 7323 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 W 21/08/19 257 7324 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 W 21/08/19 258 7325 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 SE 21/08/19 259 7326 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 E 21/08/19 260 7327 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 E 21/08/19 261 7328 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 S 21/08/19 262 7329 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 S 21/08/19 263 7330 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 SE 21/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 53 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Image Digital Description From Date 264 7331 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 SW 21/08/19 265 7332 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 W 21/08/19 266 7333 Mid-excavation of Trench 3 SE 21/08/19 267 7334 Void - - 268 7335 [008], Room D – North to South Wall S 22/08/19 269 7336 [008], Room D SW 22/08/19 270 7337 [008], Room D – North to South Wall N 22/08/19 271 7338 [008], Room D – North to South Wall N 22/08/19 272 7339 [008], Room D – North to South Wall W 22/08/19 273 7340 [008], Room D – North to South Wall N 22/08/19 274 7341 [008], Room D – East to West Wall S 22/08/19 275 7342 [008], Room D – East to West Wall S 22/08/19 276 7343 [008], Room D – East to West Wall SW 22/08/19 277 7344 [008], Room D – Tumble S 22/08/19 278 7345 [008], Room D – Tumble S 22/08/19 279 7346 [008], Room D – Tumble SE 22/08/19 280 7347 [008], Room D – Northern area W 22/08/19 281 7348 [008], Room D – Northern area E 22/08/19 282 7349 [008], Room D – Northern area E 22/08/19 283 7350 [008], Room D – Northern area SE 22/08/19 284 7351 [008], Room D SE 22/08/19 285 7352 [008], Room D N 22/08/19 286 7353 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit A N 22/08/19 287 3754 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit A N 22/08/19 288 3755 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit A N 22/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 54 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Image Digital Description From Date 289 3756 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit A W 22/08/19 290 3757 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit A N 22/08/19 291 3758 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 E 22/08/19 292 3759 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 E 22/08/19 293 3760 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 S 22/08/19 294 3761 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 S 22/08/19 295 3762 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 S 22/08/19 296 3763 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 W 22/08/19 297 3764 Post-excavation shot of Trench 3 W 22/08/19 298 3765 Tumble (011), South of Room D E 22/08/19 299 3766 Tumble (011), South of Room D E 22/08/19 300 3767 Tumble (011), South of Room D E 22/08/19 301 7368 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit B E 23/08/19 302 7369 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit B N 23/08/19 303 7370 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit B N 23/08/19 304 7371 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit B N 23/08/19 305 7372 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit B N 23/08/19 306 7373 Detail of rock North of Test Pit B W 23/08/19 307 7374 Detail of rock North of Test Pit B N 23/08/19 308 7375 Detail of rock North of Test Pit B N 23/08/19 309 7376 Detail of rock North of Test Pit B S 23/08/19 310 7377 Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1 W 23/08/19 311 7378 Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1 W 23/08/19 312 7379 Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1 S 23/08/19 313 7380 Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1 S 23/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 55 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Image Digital Description From Date 314 7381 Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1 E 23/08/19 315 7382 Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1 E 23/08/19 316 7383 Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1 E 23/08/19 317 7384 Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1 – Detail W 23/08/19 318 7385 Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1 W 23/08/19 319 7386 Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1 – With wall [008] W 23/08/19 320 7387 Post-excavation shot of slot in Test Pit 1 W 23/08/19 321 7388 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit C S 23/08/19 322 7389 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit C E 23/08/19 323 7390 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit C E 23/08/19 324 7391 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit C SE 23/08/19 325 7392 Post-excavation shot of Test Pit C SE 23/08/19 326 7393 Post-excavation shot of Trench 4 S 24/08/19 327 7394 Post-excavation shot of Trench 4 S 24/08/19 328 7395 Post-excavation shot of Trench 1 W 24/08/19 329 7396 Post-excavation shot of Trench 1 W 24/08/19 Finds Register Find No. Area Context Material Type Description Excavator Date 1 [008b] 009 Ceramic 1 x unglazed heavy ceramic from external wall of [008b] Team 15/08/19 2 [008b] 009 Glass 2 x window glass fragments from external wall of [008b] Team 15/08/19 3 [008b] 009 Coarse Stone 1 x roofing slate fragment from external wall of [008b] Team 15/08/19 4 [008a] 009 Ceramic 4 x modern ceramic from external wall of [008a] Team 15/08/19 5 [008a] 009 Glass 1 x window glass fragment from external wall of [008a] Team 15/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 56 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Find No. Area Context Material Type Description Excavator Date 6 [008a] 009 Ceramic 1 x red earthernware crock jar from external wall of [008a] Team 15/08/19 7 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 12 x modern ceramic Team 15/08/19 8 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 5 x modern ceramic, hand-painted, buff fabric Team 15/08/19 9 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 17 x glazed white earthenware (15 sponge-decorated; 1 plain white glazed, burnt; 1 transfer-printed) Team 15/08/19 10 [008c] 009 Metal 2 x Fe objects (1 rasp/file and 1 fork from [008c]) Team 15/08/19 11 [008a] 009 Glass 1 x glass base from dark wine bottle (?onion type), from external wall of [008a] Team 15/08/19 12 [008a] 009 Ceramic 2 x modern ceramic from external wall of [008a] (1 glazed white earthenware; 1 brown and white transfer-printed teacup) Team 15/08/19 13 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 45 x modern ceramic (34 sherds; 11 fragments, including 3 tin-glazed) Team 15/08/19 Team 15/08/19 14 [008c] 009 Glass 1 x bottle glass (19th century) 15 [008a] 009 Ceramic 3 x white glazed white earthenware (1 plain; 2 sponge-decorated) Team 15/08/19 16 [008a] 009 Ceramic 9 x modern ceramic Team 15/08/19 17 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 53 x white glazed white earthenware sherds and fragments, mostly blue and white transfer-printed Team 15/08/19 18 [008a] 009 Glass 2 x glass (1 blue bottle glass; 1 window glass) Team 15/08/19 19 [008a] 009 Coarse Stone 2 x roofing slate fragments Team 15/08/19 20 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 12 x glazed red earthenware and slipware Team 15/08/19 21 Trench 1 010 Glass 19 x glass fragments Team 15/08/19 22 - - - Void - - 23 [008a] 009 Metal 1 x Fe metal pipe Team 16/08/19 24 Trench 1 010 Glass 9 x glass fragments Team 16/08/19 25 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 17 x modern ceramic Team 16/08/19 26 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 31 x modern ceramic (13 sherds; 11 fragments, including 21 blue and white; 1 hand-painted rim) Team 16/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 57 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Find No. Area Context Material Type Description Excavator Date 27 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 26 x modern ceramic (white glazed white earthenware) Team 16/08/19 28 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 13 x modern ceramic (9 slipware; 3 brown glazed red earthenware) Team 16/08/19 29 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 11 x modern ceramic (2 buff glazed; 8 white glazed white earthenware; 1 blue and white transfer-printed) Team 16/08/19 30 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 2 x brown glazed red earthenware crock jar (?burnt) Team 16/08/19 31 Trench 1 010 Glass 11 x glass fragments (10 bottle; 1 window) Team 17/08/19 32 Trench 1 010 Metal 1 x Fe object Team 17/08/19 33 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 25 x modern ceramic (15 slipware; 9 glazed red earthenware; 1 CBM) Team 17/08/19 34 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 16 x modern ceramic (15 sponge-decorated blue and white glazed; 1 polychrome sponge-decorated) Team 17/08/19 35 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 20 x modern ceramic (10 sherds; 10 fragments) Team 17/08/19 36 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 30 x modern ceramic (white glazed white earthenware) Team 17/08/19 37 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 3 x hand painted, glazed buff earthenware Team 17/08/19 38 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 3 x modern ceramic (2 coarseware jar; 1 glazed white earthenware) Team 17/08/19 39 Trench 2/ [008c] 012 Metal 5 x Fe metal objects, including 2 x metal strip and 1 nail-head Team 17/08/19 40 Trench 2/ [008c] 012 Coarse Stone 1 x roofing slate fragment Team 17/08/19 41 Trench 2/ [008c] 012 Ceramic 1 x stoneware stopper/marble Team 17/08/19 42 Trench 2/ [008c] 012 Ceramic 2 x modern ceramic (slipware) Team 17/08/19 43 Trench 2/ [008c] 012 CBM 1 x mortar fragment Team 17/08/19 44 Trench 2/ [008c] 012 Glass 1 x glass fragment Team 17/08/19 45 Trench 3 014 Coarse Stone 1 x roofing slate (fragmentary) Team 21/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 58 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Find No. Area Context Material Type Description Excavator Date 46 Trench 3 014 Ceramic 2 x modern ceramic (white glazed white earthenware base, adjoining) Team 21/08/19 47 Trench 2 012 CBM 7 x chimney pot (unused) Team 21/08/19 48 Trench 2 012 Coarse Stone 3 x roofing slate fragments Team 21/08/19 49 Trench 2 012 Metal 6 x Fe objects (1 nail; 4 fragments of Fe strip; another fragment) Team 21/08/19 50 Trench 2 012 Glass 3 x glass fragments (2 window; 1 ?vessel) Team 21/08/19 51 Trench 2 012 Ceramic 5 x modern ceramic (including 1 slipware; 1 brown glazed red earthenware Team 21/08/19 52 Trench 2 012 Ceramic 5 x modern ceramic (white glazed white earthenware) Team 21/08/19 53 Trench 1 010 Glass 6 x glass fragments Team 22/08/19 54 Trench 1 010 Metal 2 x Fe objects (including 1 bottle) Team 22/08/19 55 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 1 x clay tobacco pipe fragment Team 22/08/19 56 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 4 x modern ceramic (sponge-decorated, 2 adjoining) Team 22/08/19 57 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 3 x modern ceramic (including 2 blue and white transfer printed) Team 22/08/19 58 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 7 x modern ceramic (white glazed white earthenware) Team 22/08/19 59 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 9 x modern ceramic (4 slipware bowl; 3 brown glazed red earthenware; 1 tile; 1 indeterminate blue and white glazed) Team 22/08/19 60 Test Pit A 017 Ceramic 3 x modern ceramic Team 22/08/19 61 Test Pit A 017 Ceramic 1 x modern ceramic, sponge-decorated Team 22/08/19 62 Test Pit A 017 Ceramic 1 x modern ceramic, transfer-printed Team 22/08/19 63 Test Pit A 017 CBM 1 x spalled fragment ?chimney pot Team 22/08/19 64 Test Pit A 017 Glass 6 x glass fragments Team 22/08/19 65 Trench 3 015 Ceramic 6 x modern ceramic sherds and fragments of brown and white transferprinted glazed white earthenware (adjoining) Team 22/08/19 66 Trench 3 015 Coarse Stone 1 x roofing slate fragment Team 22/08/19 67 [008a] 008 – surface find Glass 2 x bottle glass Team 22/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 59 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Find No. Area Context Material Type Description Excavator Date 68 [008d] 008 – surface find Coarse Stone 4 x ?roofing slate fragments Team 22/08/19 69 Test Pit B 017 Ceramic 1 x modern ceramic, slipware Team 22/08/19 70 Test Pit B 017 Coarse Stone 3 x roofing slate fragments Team 22/08/19 71 Test Pit B 017 Ceramic 6 x modern ceramic (blue and white transfer-printed) Team 22/08/19 72 Test Pit B 017 Glass 11 x glass fragments Team 22/08/19 73 Test Pit B 017 Lithic 1 x quartz Team 22/08/19 74 Test Pit B 017 CBM 1 x brick Team 22/08/19 75 Test Pit B 017 Ceramic 24 x modern ceramic (7 sherds and 17 fragments of white glazed white earthenware, including 1 blue and white transfer-printed) Team 22/08/19 76 Test Pit B 017 Ceramic 28 x modern ceramic (including 17 sherds and 11 fragments of blue and white glazed transfer-printed) Team 22/08/19 77 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 4 x modern ceramic Team 23/08/19 78 Test Pit C 017 Ceramic 12 x modern ceramic (mixed white glazed white earthenware) Team 23/08/19 79 Test Pit C 017 Coarse Stone 1 x incomplete roofing slate Team 23/08/19 80 Test Pit C 017 Glass 1 x pale green bottle glass Team 23/08/19 81 [008a] 011 Glass 1 x base of wine bottle from external wall of [008a] – W end Team 23/08/19 82 Trench 4 017 Coarse Stone 47 x slate (28 roofing slate fragments; 19 probable roofing slate fragments) Team 23/08/19 83 Trench 4 017 Ceramic 1 x modern ceramic (white glazed white earthenware) Team 23/08/19 84 Trench 4 017 Metal 1 x Fe Nail Team 23/08/19 85 Trench 2 024 Coarse Stone 2 x roofing slate fragments; 3 x miscellaneous slate fragments Team 23/08/19 86 Trench 2 024 Metal 3 x Fe nails Team 23/08/19 87 Trench 2 024 Glass 2 x glass fragments Team 23/08/19 88 Trench 2 024 Coarse Stone 1 x slate stylus Team 23/08/19 89 [008b/c] 011 Ceramic 1 x modern ceramic (slipware) Team 24/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 60 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Find No. Area Context Material Type Description Excavator Date 90 Spoil Unstratified Ceramic 1 x modern ceramic (red earthenware flower pot) Team 24/08/19 91 [008d] 009 Coarse Stone 1 x roofing slate fragment Team 17/08/19 92 [008d] 009 Ceramic 4 x modern ceramic (1 stoneware; 2 blue and white transfer-printed; 1 glazed white earthenware) Team 17/08/19 93 Trench 1 010 Ceramic 1 x clay tobacco pipe fragment (found within <29>) Team 16/08/19 94 Trench 1 010 Lithic 1 x quartz/feldspar and pynter (found within <36>) Team 17/08/19 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 61 of 62 RA18107 Galloway Glens LP, Can you Dig It? – 1.2.f Data Structure Report: Upper Gairloch Contact Details Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at our Registered Office or through the web: Rathmell Archaeology Ltd Unit 8 Ashgrove Workshops Kilwinning Ayrshire KA13 6PU www.rathmell-arch.co.uk t.: f.: e.: 01294 542848 01294 542849 contact@rathmell-arch.co.uk End of Document 2020 Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, Page 62 of 62  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Data Structure Report – Medieval or Later Rural Settlement – Upper Gairloch Season 2 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GGLP_94 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource GGLP Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 Description An account of the resource Surveys and test pitting works undertaken as part of the community archaeology project “Can You Dig It?”. archaeology GGLP