COALIE - Coastal Archaeological Landscapes: Intertidal & Estuarine

8/10/2019 COALIE - Coastal Archaeological Landscapes: Intertidal & Estuarine

1/98


2/98


3/98

Wessex Archaeology Ltd 2014, all rights reservedWessex Archaeology Ltd is a Registered Charity No. 287786 (England & Wales) and SC042630 (Scotland)


4/98

COALIE

Data Structure Report 2014

AB

AB

AB

AB


5/98

COALIE


102590.04

Marine & Maritime.................................................................................................... 3Marine & Maritime Summary of gaps in our knowledge and future approaches..... 4Palaeolithic & Mesolithic Prospecting For Sites In A Dynamic Landscape............ . 4Roman Changing pattern of imports...................................................................... 5

Project Extent........................................................................................................... 5Geology.................................................................................................................... 6Hydrology................................................................................................................. 7

Artefact ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... . 9Environmental.......................................................................................................... 9Dating ...................................................................................................................... 9Geoarchaeology....................................................................................................... 9Submerged Site Investigation................................................................................... 9


6/98

COALIE


102590.04

Hunterston Sands coastal structures...................................................................... 23

Hunterston Sands coastal structures...................................................................... 25Polteath Burn, relict designed landscape......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... .. 28

Lower Boydston, Loup Cottage obstruction......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ....... 31

Brigurd Point harbour ............................................................................................. 31Vernacular harbours & landings ............................................................................. 34Portencross Old Harbour & New Harbour ........................................................... 34

Navigation perches ................................................................................................ 37Dykes & Intertidal boulder banks ............................................................................ 40


7/98

COALIE


102590.04

sensu


8/98


9/98

COALIE


102590.04


10/98

COALIE


102590.04


11/98

COALIE


102590.04

Teredo navalis


12/98

COALIE


102590.04


13/98

COALIE


102590.04


14/98

COALIE


102590.04

Two 2nd Century AD Roman ring-necked flagons recovered from the nearby coastnear Fairlie, reported by a member of the local community;

Worked, possibly reused timbers, stakes and possible hurdles within the HunterstonSands fish traps;

Elements of the Brigurd Point harbour moles extending underwater observed from AP survey.

Over 30 intertidal structures: unknown intertidal structures from Largs to Hunterstonidentified from AP survey. These include circular features around Fairlie andunsurveyed known coastal structures from Hunterston to Ardrossan (Patterson1989).


15/98

COALIE


102590.04

Marine & Maritime 4

To develop a series of partnership projects to undertake a holistic, multi-disciplinaryapproach to an area such as outlined in the proposed Source to Sea approach;

To assimilate all specialised datasets into a national database, which could beaccessed digitally and would enable marine historic environment data to becharacterised;


16/98

COALIE


102590.04

To develop site-specific approaches to coastal and marine archaeologyExamples include researching fish-traps on a national scale;

To explore the whole spectrum transport infrastructure, including Historic andPrehistoric landing places, ports, harbours, portages, landing places, fords andbridges.

Marine & Maritime Summary of gaps in our knowledge and future approaches 5

To raise the international profile of Scottish Maritime Heritage;

To broaden the basis of data retrieval to include every available and relevantsource, technique and academic discipline;

To explore collaboration beyond archaeology in order to ensure the capacity tomeet research challenges while providing the experience and perspective to ensureresearch of the highest quality;

To create a Research Focus that incorporates the complexity of the record andallow full and rich explorations of the past;

To strengthen and broaden the marine and maritime research knowledge-base,which is created, maintained and promoted by and in partnership with regional andhistoric environment records organisations.

Palaeolithic & Mesolithic Prospecting For Sites In A Dynamic Landscape 6


17/98

COALIE


102590.04

Roman Changing pattern of imports 7

Project Extent


18/98

COALIE


102590.04

Geology


19/98

COALIE


102590.04

Hydrology


20/98


21/98

COALIE


102590.04

Artefact

Environmental

Dating

Geoarchaeology

Submerged Site Investigation


22/98

COALIE


102590.04


23/98

COALIE


102590.04


24/98

COALIE


102590.04


25/98


26/98

COALIE


102590.04

in

situ


27/98

COALIE


102590.04

in situ

north in situ


28/98

COALIE


102590.04


29/98


30/98

COALIE


102590.04


31/98

COALIE


102590.04


32/98


33/98

COALIE


102590.04

in lieu


34/98

COALIE


102590.04

sensu


35/98

COALIE


102590.04

Hunterston Sands coastal structures


36/98

COALIE


102590.04

in situ


37/98

COALIE


102590.04

Hunterston Sands coastal structures


38/98

COALIE


102590.04


39/98


40/98

COALIE


102590.04

Polteath Burn, relict designed landscape


41/98

COALIE


102590.04


42/98


43/98


44/98

COALIE


102590.04


45/98

COALIE


102590.04

The harbour is relatively recent, c. 18 th / 19 th century and only used at low-tides,servicing coastal industries related to the improvement of the Hunterston Estate orother nearby Baronies, perhaps as a quarry site for massive boulders concentratedon Brigurd Point,

The harbour is older, perhaps of 13 th century or later medieval date, facilitatingaccess and transportation of goods across the outer Clyde properties of the Hunterfamily, i.e. between Little Cumbrae, South Kames (Millport, Great Cumbrae),Lamlash and Holy Isle at Arran.

The harbour is old, perhaps of Roman age, facilitating vessels for trans-shipment,

from sea going to estuarine going boats at a natural change from deep to shallowwater in the Firth of Clyde.


46/98

COALIE


102590.04

Vernacular harbours & landings

Portencross Old Harbour & New Harbour


47/98

COALIE


102590.04


48/98

C O A L I E

D a

t a S t r u c

t u r e

R e p o r t

2 0 1 4

1 0 2 5 9 0

. 0 4

1 0 1 4 - Q

U A Y

2 0 0 0 - H

a r b o u r

- m a i n s t r u c t u r e

2 0 0 0 - H

a r b o u r

- w e s t m o l e

2 0 0 0 - L

i m e s t o n e

P o r t e n c r o s s N e w H a r

b o u r

- E a s t Q u a y

P o r t e n c r o s s N e w H a r b o u r

- L o w e r P h a s e ?


b o u r

- U p p e r C o u r s e


b o u r

- W e s t Q u a y

P o r t e n c r o s s O

l d H a r

b o u r

- U p p e r C o u r s e

P o r t e n c r o s s O

l d H a r

b o u r

- 2 . 0

- 1 . 0 0 .

0 1 . 0

2 . 0

3 . 0

4 . 0

O D


49/98

COALIE


102590.04

Navigation perches


50/98

COALIE


102590.04


51/98


52/98

COALIE


102590.04

Dykes & Intertidal boulder banks

in situ


53/98

COALIE


102590.04

Proc Soc Antiq Scot

Types of Roman Coarse Pottery Vessels in Northern Britain


54/98

COALIE


102590.04

Southwark Excavations 1972-74

Scotland and the Sea

Discovery ExcavSco

Glasgow Archaeological Journal

Discovery Excav Scot

Alexander II: King of Scots, 1214-1249,

Ayrshire Archaeological & Natural History Society, Ayrshire

Monographs

Some family papers of the Hunters of Hunterston,

Proc Soc Antiq Scot


55/98

C O A L I E

D a

t a S t r u c

t u r e

R e p o r t

2 0 1 4

1 0 2 5 9 0

. 0 4


56/98

C O A L I E

D a

t a S t r u c

t u r e

R e p o r t

2 0 1 4

1 0 2 5 9 0

. 0 4


57/98

C O A L I E

D a

t a S t r u c

t u r e

R e p o r t

2 0 1 4

1 0 2 5 9 0

. 0 4


58/98

C O A L I E

D a

t a S t r u c

t u r e

R e p o r t

2 0 1 4

1 0 2 5 9 0

. 0 4


59/98


60/98

C O A L I E

D a

t a S t r u c

t u r e

R e p o r t

2 0 1 4

1 0 2 5 9 0

. 0 4


61/98

COALIE


102590.04


62/98


63/98

COALIE


102590.04


64/98


65/98

Plate 1 HS01 The worked timber from which the assessment

sample was taken, from eroded far end. Scale marked in 10 cm blocks (Photo: WA Coastal & Marine).


66/98

w w w . d e n d r o c h r o n i c l e . c o . u k P a g e | 1

Specialist assessment work has identified five worked oak timbers at Hunterston Sands, associated with the putative fish trap structure. Four are massive structural oak timbers of similar form and dimensions, and at least three of them have evidence of relict joints, most probably simple pegged lap joints, although these could not be fully observed. The sea ward edge of the fish trap is defined by an

arc of boulder mounds, and the large timbers occur singly, each in a different one of these mounds. The fifth timber (HS03) is a smaller split oak post, possibly part of a stake and wattle structure between two of the mounds.

A fragment from one of the large timbers, HS01, was subject to microscopic examination, and proved to be very slow grown mature oak, with an estimated minimum 200 rings and bark edge present. This demonstrates the high dendro dating potential of the large oak timbers. It is likely the other three have similar characteristics, and more may exist under the surface or in the other mounds. It is not clear at this stage whether the large oak timbers were fashioned for the fish trap structure, which has since fallen apart, or whether they are re used from another structure, perhaps to form footings for the fish

trap. Their close similarity suggests a common origin, and the likelihood that, if re cycled, they come from the same local structure. The use of large, long lived slow grown oak is a characteristic noted most commonly in the medieval part of the Scottish dendro record (Mills & Crone 2012), and would be a rare find for the post medieval period. The character of the timber is reminiscent of material seen in medieval wooded deer parks, like Cadzow and Dalkeith, of which there would have been many more in earlier times. Hunterston itself has early origins, and may well have had old parkland trees. The 17 th Century Bleau Atlas omits Hunterston, but indicates one such park at nearby Southannan, the estate to the immediate North of Hunterston, which also had a castle, dismantled in the late 18 th Century (Macgibbon & Ross 1879). This represents just one of many possibilities for the origin of such fine oak. If dendro dating and provenancing were successful, this would narrow down the possibilities.

It is proposed that a cautious step by step approach be taken to recovering samples and investigating the timber elements until more is known about them and the site. While it would be analytically advantageous to have as many samples as possible, this would require significant excavation and invasive sampling in logistically difficult circumstances, and could risk damage or loss of the exposed timbers. It is proposed therefore as a first step to undertake dendro analysis of (a) the end piece already recovered from HS01, which has enough rings in principle to permit dating, though as ever for dendro with no guarantees, and (b) to recover a slice from the top of post HS03 for analysis. The latter is more certain to be originally cut for the fish trap structure, and has less likelihood of being recycled. Establishing whether HS01 and HS03 have the same or different dates would be informative. South West Scotland has the best oak reference chronology coverage of any region, and therefore attempting single entity dendro dating here stands a better chance of success than elsewhere. Sampling HS03 would require a return visit to the site. This could provide an opportunity to recover structural details from the distal ends of one of the large timbers, as so far the only one fully uncovered was eroded at this end (HS01). It would be useful to identify whether both ends of the large timbers were once jointed into other elements. This could help to identify the nature of their parent structure.


67/98


The COALIE project (Coastal Archaeological Landscapes: Intertidal and Estuarine http://blogs.wessexarch.co.uk/coalie/ ) is assessing foreshore archaeology at a number of sites dotted along the North Ayrshire coast near Largs, Hunterston, Portencross and Ardrossan, and has so far mostly returned records of stone built structures. However, the Hunterston Sands site in North Ayrshire is unusual in containing some timber elements within boulder structures.

Hunterston Sands lie in the the intertidal zone adjacent to Hunterston B nuclear power station, but were originally part of the historic Hunterston Estate. There is a complex of foreshore structures here, including boulder built dykes extending down the foreshore towards the sea, a boulder edged deep harbour feature, at Brigurd Point, only revealed at lowest tides, and at a slightly higher elevation near Brigurd Point, a boulder edged inter tidal pond, or complex of ponds, tentatively identified as parts of falling tide fish traps, all currently of unknown date. WA Coastal & Marine are currently assessing and researching the complex of structural remains at this site, and have requested this initial assessment of the timbers associated with the sea ward edge of the putative fish trap complex.

At this stage, the timber assessment involves the detailed species identification and microscopic examination of one sampled timber (HS01, Plate 1), with a view to assessing its dendrochronological dating potential, augmented by a site visit on 26 th Febrary 2014 to examine this and other timbers in situ , resulting in a rapid assessment of a total of five timber features, HS01 HS05. A The location of the sampled timber HS01 was recorded as 217929E 652423N by WA Coastal & Marine using DGPS, and the other four timber features lie in an arc to the North (HS02 and HS03) and South (HS04 and HS05) of HS01, within about 100 m of each other and all apparently part of the same structure. A sixth possible timber was noted by WA as seen in Sept 2013, but not relocated in Jan/Feb 2014 visits, at 217935E 652391N.

There is currently no dating information for these structures at Hunterston Sands, the fish traps do not appear on any historic maps, charts or records so far uncovered. The Hunterston archives are largely untapped but have not so far shed any light on their date. Dendrochronology presents a potential means of dating the timber elements at Hunterston Sands very precisely. The success of such an approach will depend on :

(a) the species and dating quality of the timbers; (b) the number of related timbers available from each phase of construction, a minimum of 8 10 timbers per phase/source being recommended by English Heritage dendrochronology guidelines to

enhance the site signal and the chances of dating; (c) the availability of appropriate reference chronologies; and (d) the degree to which the structures are built with re used timber.

However, regarding point (d) it is argued that even dating re used material would form a useful terminus post quem for construction, especially in the absence of any other dating evidence at the site, and could also reveal much about the age, provenance and type of any original structures being abandoned and recycled. This could tie into the Hunterston Estate history more widely, terrestrial or maritime, which may be enhanced by intended research into the Hunterston Estate archive at Hunterston House. Field observations suggest the possibility that the structures could contain a mix of

freshly cut and re used timber.


68/98


A small detached and eroded end fragment of HS01, the timber shown in Plate 1, was recovered by WA Coastal & Marine early in 2014 for wood species identification and dendrochronological assessment. This fragment was examined by CM for surface features, and a very small sub sample cut from one end to confirm species identification under the microscope and to assess whether the full timber would have sufficient rings for dendrochronological analysis. The smallsample was first frozen, and then cleaned with a razor, to obtain a clear cross section view of the annual rings and wood structure. This sample assessment was augmented by a site visit on 26 th February 2014 to undertake a field assessment of other timber elements found in other parts of the same putative fish trap structure as HS01.

Sample characteristics

The small

piece

of

the

HS01

timber

recovered

from

site

was

examined

microscopically

and

proved

it

to

be oak (Quercus sp. L.). Furthermore, the retrieved piece (Plate 2) has intact sapwood with bark adhering. Under the microscope, the small sub sample taken for identification proved to be very slowgrown oak with approximately 18 annual rings per cm. This detached timber fragment has maximum dimensions of 47 cm long by 17 cm wide by 7 cm thick, and has a roughly wedge shape in cross section, widest at the bark edge. However, as an eroded end, the cross section here may not be typical of the timber as a whole (Plate 1). This was borne out in the field, where the other end of the timber has a more intact D shaped cross section, with the D on its back is it were, and the timber appears to be a converted from a halved trunk, with the outer face trimmed flat, and sapwood adhering along at least one long edge, with bark present on this edge on the detached sampled piece.

The microscopically examined sub sample was from near the outer edge of the tree, where growth rates normally slow down, and so the inner rings may be wider. Even so it seems reasonable to assume this timber could have in the region of at 200 rings present. Given the species identification of oak, the high ring count, and the intact bark edge, this sample has high dendro dating potential.


69/98


Plate 2 (above) Retrieved end piece of timber HS01. Note bark at top edge, and paler sapwood below it, somewhat eroded, but intact under the bark.(Below) At the bottom edge there is an alignment of 3 possible peg holes, one intact at LHS and two eroded through to the right of it, all sitting within the sam e narrow depression which appears to be man made rather than natural, and may be the remnants of a pegged joint similar to that

surviving better at the other end of the timber (Plate 4). However, natural origins of these 3 holes have not been entirely ruled out (see text).


70/98


71/98


72/98


These timber elements would have been pegged together, with one peg surviving in situ on HS01. This is a knife cut oak peg, roughly hexagonal in plan (Plate 5). Without seeing the other side of the timber, which could not be lifted, and was mostly submerged in water, it is difficult to say exactly the form of

these redundant joints, which was largely judged by feel, not by vision, but the end feature appears to be shaped as a very large tenon or more probably a recessed lap joint, cut at an angle, and the inner feature is perhaps a pegged lap joint too, cut at a steeper angle, presumably to meet the other now lost element. Erosion of the thinner parts of this inner feature makes the understanding of its original form a little uncertain.

Plate 5 Close up detail of the surviving peg found in HS01. The peg is of oak and appears to be knife cut into a roughly hexagonal shape. Viewed from the opposite side of the timber to Plate 4.

One odd aspect of these worked features is that they indicate attached timbers running out from the convex face of HS01, which has a slight bend in it at about 1.3 1.4m from the well preserved end (Plate 6). However, there is a possibility that the timber was originally straight and has been distorted by the pressure of adjacent massive boulders.


73/98


Plate 6 HS01, viewed from the eroded end, CM examines timber HS01 at the well preserved end with joints facing out to the LHS. Note the change in angle of the long axis of the timber, just below the end of the 1m scale. Hence the redundant joints indicate timbers emerging from the convex face of the timber. However, if is possible that the timber has been distorted by the weight of adjacent massive boulders within the mound structure.

On earlier visits BY AW staff, only a small flat end section of timber HS02 had been visible. Some time was spent revealing more of this timber (Plate 7), and it proved to be very similar, though slightly more massive in size (Table 2) than HS01. The timber is tilting down into the sediments at one end, so only one end could be revealed, but it shows a similar massive angled end tenon or lap joint to that seen in HS01. Unfortunately the water level was too high to see any peg holes or in situ pegs on this end, but based on feel alone none were located.


74/98


Plate 7 HS02 Another massive oak timber, of similar form to HS01, but slightly wider (Table 1). Has an angled joint at the revealed end (LHS) and disappears down into the sediment at the RHS. The submerged recessed LHS of the timber, underwater, is at the same angle as the visible angled cut near the surface. Where the scale ends at the LHS there is a hole which appears deliberately worked at the edge of the timber, and a little large for a normal peg hole. It marks the approximate position of a recess for a lap joint on the underside of the timber, and running at a steeper, convergent, angle than the end joint, in a similar arrangement to the two joints seen at the end of HS01. However, these deductions made by feel, not by sight, as all under water.

Timber HS03 differs from the four massive worked oak timbers recorded (HS01, HS02, HS04, HS05). It is a vertically set stake or post, visible only from the upper end (Plate 8). It is radially split from slow grown oak, and has sapwood attached, probably intact to sub bark surface. With an approximate 10 rings per cm, as estimated from the eroded in situ transverse section, this timber may have 80 100 rings. It therefore has reasonably good dating potential, and could give a felling date to the year if dated.


75/98

w w w . d e n d r o c h r o n i c l e . c o . u k P a g e | 1 0

Plate 8 HS03 A slow grown oak post, with intact paler sapwood (LHS), set vertically in the sediments and viewed from above. The narrow rings (running top to bottom in photo) are less clear than the rays (running side to side in photo), a strong feature in oak. The smaller divisions on the scale are in 1 cm intervals.

Post HS03 is associated with other features, including at least one other oak stake (Plate 9) and some small non oak roundwood which could be fragments of wattle. This post seemed to be set in a roughly circular depression between two of the boulder mounds, the more southerly of which contains timber HS02.


76/98


Plate 9 HS03 (below Left hand end of scale where the 1cm intervals change to 10 cm intervals), and another smaller upright stake to its Right, just beneath the 40 cm point on the scale. Between these two elements, smaller non oak roundwood was falling out of the edge of the roughly circular depression in which they sit. The fill of the depression seems to be free of the boulders which otherwise surround it.

Two further massive oak timbers (HS04 and HS05, Table 1) were found in boulder mounds to the south side of the mound containing HS01. They were only partly exposed, and time did not permit any detailed investigation, but they are massive oak timbers of similar form and dimensions to HS01 and HS02. HS04 clearly has a worked angled end (Plate 10), similar to HS01 and HS02. HS05 was less exposed, and we could not see end details, but appears to be a fourth massive oak timber, again set in one of the boulder mounds. The exposed massive oak timbers were not seen to be connected to any

other timbers, occurring singly in individual separate boulder mounds. The possibility remains that all of the boulder mounds contain timber, and also that further timbers lie below the exposed surface, with the accident of erosion having exposed just a few examples. Their function in the mounds is not yet understood, and would probably require excavation and detailed 3D recording to deduce further.


77/98


78/98


perhaps worth trying as a first step, because this smaller element is very probably integral to this foreshore structure, felled for this purpose, and not re used. A date for this post would be a very helpful comparison with a date for one of the large timbers (HS01). The larger oak elements have more rings, and are more likely to give a result, but also the possibility exists that they are re used from another structure. That said, the similarity between the four larger timbers either argues for them all

being obtained from the same nearby dismantled structure, or even fashioned for a jointed timber framework in the foreshore structure, which has since fallen apart.

Usually multiple samples per phase and source in a structure provide the best chance of obtaining a dendro date, as outlined in the English Heritage dendrochronology guidelines. However, longer lived samples, especially with 100 rings or more, will sometimes date as individuals. It could be worth trying this as a first step at Hunterston Sands, before determining an onward strategy for the rest of the material. The chances are improved in SW Scotland because it has the best native oak tree ring coverage of any part of Scotland. Of course, we do not know at this stage whether this oak is local, native or imported, but dendrochronological analysis could tell us, using the technique of dendro

provenancing (Bonde et al 1997; Daly 2007). Information on the provenance of timber at Hunterston Sands may reveal aspects of the estates wider economic activities and connections.

In much of Scotland, imported timber becomes common from the late medieval period, and Scandinavia and the Baltic region supply most of that demand, in oak and then conifers, until the late 18 th Century (Mills & Crone 2012; Crone & Mills 2013). However, as the British Empire expanded, colonial sources such as North America become more important and the timber supply to Britain becomes ever more complex into the early modern period. All this said, the known picture of import history in Scotland is very skewed to the east coast and central belt (Mills & Crone 2012). South west Scotland is thought to be an area which maintained a native oak supply much longer than the east

coast and

central

belt

settlements.

Ayrshires historic building history is largely unexplored from a dendrochronological point of view, but South West Scotland presents the best region of any for the chances of dating native oak, at least in the historic period. No part of Scotland has a continuous multi millennial tree ring record, but the record is most extensive for oak in South West Scotland. A few isolated prehistoric sites have been dated here, by comparison with the long Irish record (Cavers et al 2011): Buiston crannog, Ayrshire and Whithorn, Galloway provide several centuries of oak coverage for the Early Historic period (Crone 1998), and Professor Baillies original South Central Scotland oak chronology, is still a mainstay of oak dating in Scotland (Baillie 1977), covering the period AD 946 to 1975, and based on timbers from mostly south western Scottish sites like Glasgow Cathedral, Caerlaverock Castle and Cadzow old living oaks near Hamilton. Thus the potential for dating any oak from this region used at Hunterston Sands is very good in the historic period. In the prehistoric period there is a chance of dating over longer distances to the continuous long chronologies in Ireland and N England which is how a few other South West Scottish prehistoric samples have been dated.

Wood working evidence The retrieved sample HS01 is clearly from a worked timber, as described above, a halved trunk subsequently trimmed, with evidence of two pegged joints at one end, at convergent angles, and possible evidence of a pegged joint at the eroded other end. Further investigation and recording is desirable to recover the structural details from the distal end of one of the other large oaks, where there is better preservation; this would help to understand the parent structure more fully. Timber HS02, only exposed at one end, similarly has two relict joints at convergent angles, and is of very


79/98


similar dimensions. It must have come from the same structure, or same type of structure, as HS01. HS04 also bears so much similarity as to be an identical element from the same type of structure, and the size of HS05 suggests it also has the same origin. While caution must be exercised as to the form of the relict joints, given they were part buried or submerged in water, they appear to be simple pegged lap joints, and there was no evidence of more complex dovetail or scarfed jointing. Harris (1978),

talking about timber framed buildings in Britain more generally (which of course are more common in England), says that lap joints were used in few positions in timber framed buildings, and that they were a significant element in early medieval forms of construction, but in later buildings they were generally only found between rafters and collars and in cruck construction. In other words, they are a simpler form of construction, and not especially indicative of a particular period, and while more common in earlier times they might also be expected in later more workaday structures.

The exposed faces of the observed timbers are too eroded to be sure of how they were worked, but they were probably sawn or split into half trunks, and then trimmed and shaped with hand tools such as axe and adze. They seem too irregular and organic in form to have been through a sawmill, and no

evidence of sawing was seen on any exposed faces, although these are admittedly sea worn. The handmade knife cut oak peg surviving in one joint on HS01 further adds to the impression of hand hewn, traditional woodworking, of a sort which is not easy to pin down to any specific age.

The curving long axis of HS01 is reminiscent of a cruck frame, but the direction of the redundant recesses (Plate 1 foreground; Plate 3) seems wrong for the expected attachments of collar or brace, which might otherwise explain two adjacent remnant lap joints at different angles. Instead it seems those lost other timbers extended out from the convex edge of the timber, not the concave side as would be the case in a cruck frame. However, there is a possibility that this timber has become bent and distorted by the weight of boulders pressing against it. It was not possible to see the full length of

the other

large

oak

elements

to

discern

whether

they

were

curved

or

not.

Four of the five oak timbers are quite massive, and this over engineering in terms of scantling is suggestive of the possibility of them being re used ships timbers (Prescott & Atkinson 2012). However the survival of sapwood on several and bark as well on HS01 seems to throw such an origin into doubt.

Further recording and research is required to work out what structure or element these timbers are most likely to represent. While this is not yet determined, the close similarity between the form of the four large oaks, and their common placement each within a mound of boulders at the edge of the putative fish trap, suggests they share a common origin, either deliberately selected from one nearby dismantled structure or fashioned in this form as part of the structure of the fish trap itself.

The high quality, slow grown, long lived oak present here is a type of timber rarely seen in postmedieval Scottish structures, yet rather more commonly found in medieval structures, including a number in South West Scotland (Mills & Crone 2012). When combined with the apparently simple lap joint technology and the hand hewn nature of the timbers, it is tempting to consider a medieval origin rather than a later one, albeit that earlier timbers could have been re used in a later more workaday structure. One might therefore look for nearby medieval structures which could have carried massive timbers available for later re use; of course there are many candidates of ruined medieval keeps, castles and chapels in this area, but one such tempting example is the medieval castle at South Annan, on the adjacent estate to the immediate North of Hunterston. One has to consider where such longlived and massive oak might have been grown, and it strikes me as most similar in character to oak from the slow grown, wide squat trunks of oaks seen in ancient deer park oaks, like those at Cadzow,


80/98


where some trees of 15 th Century planted origin survive, and Dalkeith Park (probably also medieval). Such wooded parks were once far more common around castles and high status houses across Scotland. Bleaus Atlas, published in the mid 17 th Century, but based on Pont and other earlier sources, often gives a good clue as to where parks once existed, and in this particular area, the most extensive enclosed wooded park is shown as South Iennan (Southannan) just North of Hunterston (which is not

shown, probably a cartographic error). Thus Southannan presents one local possibility as a source of this type of large slow grown old oak timber, either directly from the park or recycled from the roof structures of its old buildings. Many other possibilities exist of course.

According to Canmore, quoting MacGibbon & Ross (1897) writing in the late 19 th Century, Nothing now remains of Southannan Chapel. The castle has been extensive, with a high enclosing courtyard wall, with an arched entrance porch to the W, defended by shot holes. Along the N side of the courtyard has been a range of dwellings, two storeys in height; there were smaller buildings on the E side. The castle was much enlarged about 1596 by Robert, 4th Lord Sempill; it was dismantled towards the end of the 18th century. This presents just one possibility of the type of sources to be considered

for massive oak timber of such high quality. Further research into potential timber sources for the oaks at Hunterston Sands is best undertaken after dendrochronological analysis hones down the possibilities, hopefully providing specific dates and indications of provenance.

A strategy for the site A cautious step wise approach to investigating the timber elements of this site seems wise. While it would be ideal to have as many samples as possible, before attempting dendro dating, this would entail cutting through the large timbers, requiring significant excavation, recording, and reinstatement work, to gain the necessary access to be able to saw slices through these massive timbers. Not to mention the damage it would do to them, before we know how old or how significant they are. It

would seem

more

sensible

to

attempt

to

refine

an

understanding

of

the

date

and

nature

of

the

site

and

the cultural significance of the timber elements before any more invasive work is considered.

Therefore, I suggest the wisest next step would be to undertake dendrochronological analysis of two timbers, those where samples can be recovered with minimal disruption or damage to the site. These two samples would be (a) the previously recovered end piece of HS01 and (b) a slice from the top of small oak post HS03. HS01 has the most rings and thus the highest dating potential, but HS03 may well have sufficient rings to work, especially if local native oak. The value of doing both is that they are different types of structural element. Post HS03 is far less likely to be recycled. If it proved possible to date both HS01 and HS03, then we could be confident the date for HS03 is a date for a part of the fish trap structure, and we could see if they have the same or different dates. If HS01 proved much earlier, then the case for recycling, and a source in a significant early structure, could be pursued further on the basis of the date and form of the large timbers. Thereafter, we should be better informed to decide on whether a larger scale investigation of the site would be appropriate.

Sampling HS03 would require a return visit to the site. It would be useful during that visit also to attempt to uncover and record the distal end of one of the large oaks, other than HS01, which was too eroded to be sure whether both ends carried pegged joints. A possible alignment of three peg holes was seen at the eroded end, similar to those observed on the lap joint at the other end. Gaining a complete view in plan of one of the timbers would aid identification of the form of the parent structure.


81/98


82/98


83/98

Plate 1 Examining HS01, the worked timber from which the dendrosample was taken (from a detached fragment at the near end, outof shot). Scale marked in 10 cm blocks(Photo: WA Coastal & Marine).


84/98


The COALIE project (Coastal Archaeological Landscapes: Intertidal and Estuarinehttp://blogs.wessexarch.co.uk/coalie/ ) has assessed foreshore archaeology along the NorthAyrshire coast near Largs, Hunterston, Portencross and Ardrossan, and has mostly returned recordsof stone built structures (Bicket 2014). However, the Hunterston Sands site is unusual in containingsome timber elements within boulder structures (Bicket 2014). Hunterston Sands lie in the intertidalzone adjacent to Hunterston B nuclear power station, and were originally part of the historicHunterston Estate. There is a complex of foreshore structures here, including a boulder-edged inter-tidal pond, or series of ponds, originally tentatively identified as falling-tide fish traps, with timbersembedded within the mounds of boulders which define the sea-ward edge of this feature. Furtherto an assessment of five exposed oak timber elements embedded within this feature, in February(Mills 2014), WA Coastal & Marine have commissioned this initial dendrochronological analysis of adetached fragment from one the massive timbers (HS01).

The location of the sampled timber HS01 was recorded as 217929E 652423N by RCAHMS usingDGPS, and the other four assessed timber features lie in an arc to the North and South of HS01,within about 100 m of each other and all apparently part of the same structure. A sixth possibletimber was noted by WA in September 2013, but not relocated in our February 2014 visit. Ofcourse, further timber elements may be present in the sub-structure but not visible at the surface.As described in the timber assessment, the massive oak timbers (HS01, HS02, HS04, HS05) areprobably re-used from another structure, given the redundant joints observed at the exposed endsof three of them. The oak post HS03 (Plate 5) is more likely to be fresh timber cut for constructionof the inter-tidal structure, and could date its construction, but it has not yet been sampled. Thecharacter of the large oak timbers, hand hewn from long-lived slow grown oaks, with apparentlysimple lap joints, was seen as more likely of medieval than later origin (Mills 2014).

There was no specific dating information for these structures at Hunterston Sands; the putative fishtraps do not appear on any historic maps, charts or records so far uncovered, although it is knownthat the estate engaged in improvements including land reclamation in the late 18 th century (Bicketpers comm), from first forays into the largely untapped Hunterston family archives. It was arguedthat, as a first step, attempting dendro-dating of the only available sample, from timber HS01, couldgive a useful terminus post quem for construction even if re-used, especially in the absence of anyother dating evidence at the site. It could provide information on the age and character of theoriginal structure from which the recycled timber came and indicate which periods of theHunterston Estate and wider histories would be most relevant for targeted documentary research.

Even though dating of a single timber is less likely to be possible than dating a group of samples(English Heritage 1999), the dating potential of HS01 was assessed as high, given it was made ofslow grown oak, with an estimated 200 rings and preserved bark edge (Mills 2014). Ayrshireshistoric building history is largely unexplored from a dendrochronological point of view, but SouthWest Scotland presents the best region of any for the chances of dating native oak, at least in thehistoric period , being well represented in Baillies SCOTLAND south western regional referencechronology, augmented by other later medieval sites analysed more recently (Ballie 1977a; Crone &Mills 2013) and with some early historic coverage too (Crone 1998). No part of Scotland has acontinuous multi-millennial tree-ring record, but the record is most extensive for oak in South WestScotland.


85/98


86/98


The prepared sub-sample has very narrow annual growth rings, with close-set rays at right angles tothem (Plate 3). Three holes revealed in cross-section look more like marine worm holes than pegholes, and may call into question the interpretation of other holes on the recovered fragment beingpeg holes (Plate 2 and Mills 2014).

Plate 3 (L) Frozen surface of sub-sample HS01 reveals the compressed growth and close set rays of this oak.The chequered scale is in 1 cm sections. In the LH image, the inner rings are at the RHS of the sample and theintact sapwood is at the LHS, lower corner. Three large holes revealed in cross-section, with mineral materialwithin, and about 1 cm diameter, are probably naval ship worm (Teredo navalis L.) holes, not peg holes, andmay call into question the man-made origin of other possible peg holes seen on this sample (Plate 2).(R) The prepared surface of HS01, slightly defrosted, with the sapwood to the RHS where pins mark thedecades. Radius HS01a started at the very LHS of the sample as shown here, which is estimated to be about15 rings away from the centre of the stem, and followed the top edge, but stopped short of the sapwoodwhich was too deteriorated to measure at that edge. Radius HS01b started a little way in at the bottom edge,stepping over rays initially, and then followed a ray out, just below the last worm hole, to where the pins are

placed, capturing the outermost surviving rings, very probably to the sub-bark surface.

The assessment report estimate of about 200 rings being present (Mills 2014) was borne out inanalysis, with 198 rings measured: the dendrochronological characteristics of the measured radiiHS01a and HS01b, and the resulting combined sequence HS01, are given in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of tree-ring sample HS01, and its two component radii

Dendro

code

Total

ringsMeasured

Centre

(PO=pithoffsetestimate)

Sapwood

rings

Outer Edge B = sub-

bark surface, H/S=heart/sap boundary

Average ring

width (mm)

Comment

HS01a 151 PO -15 0 Nothing 0.76 Radius a (spans RelativeYears 1 to 151)

HS01b 164 PO -50 30 Probable B 0.62 Radius b (spans RelativeYears 35 to 198)

HS01 198 PO -15 30 Probable B 0.72 Radii a & b combined(spans Relative Years 1-198)

Radius 1a started at the first ring preserved on the sample, closest to the centre (or pith) of thetree, but stopped short of the sapwood which was less well preserved on this side of the sub-sample. Radius 1b, near the other edge of the sample, started further from centre but traversed a


87/98


better preserved area of sapwood and captured the outer edge (Plate 3) . Under the microscope, thesapwood appeared a little deteriorated, and it was difficult to get an entirely clear razor surface atthe very outer edge, which was very soft and spongy, and tended to tear rather than cut cleanlywhen razored. Therefore I am being cautious and recording that outermost measured ring as beingat Probable Bark Edge (Table 1) as I cannot be absolutely certain that the sub -bark-surface waspresent on the outermost ring measured. At most there would be a couple of further rings missed.

However, very probably the last ring measured is at the sub-bark surface, given that a small patch ofbark was attached here originally and no further rings could be observed at this edge.

The two measured radii matched each other very well, with a t value of 12.89 (r=0.77) at therelative positions Years 1-151 (HS01a) and Years 35-198 (HS01b). The two radii were subsequentlycombined as a new raw sequence HS01, so that the resultant 198 year averaged sequence is stillseen as a single- tree sequence by the Dendro software, and not weighted as a two-timber mean inrunning further comparisons. The original tree from which the timber was hewn would have beenover an estimated 213 years of age, when the rings missing from the centre of the measuredfragment (the pith offset data) are allowed for (Table 1). That is likely to be an underestimate of

tree-age, given the measured fragment must be from part-way up the stem.

Dating of Sample HS01An important caveat needs to be stated first, that is that the dendrochronological date produced isbased on a single sample. While the dendrochronological results are convincing and only presentedbecause they are thought to be reliable, like any dendro date they are ultimately a statement ofprobability, and the analyst recommends taking further samples from other timbers at this site toconfirm the date of the massive oak timbers (see recommendations section) as well as to provide animportant new dendrochronological resource for Scotland.

To enhance the security of the date, comparisons with reference chronologies were made for thecombined sequence HS01 (a mean of the two measured radii), and also separately for the twoindividual radii HS01a and HS01b. Comparisons with oak ring width reference chronologies (Table2) indicate that the date span of Sample HS01 is AD 1020 AD 1217, and this is supported byindependent dating of the component radii at the expected positions of AD 1020 AD 1170 forRadius HS01a and AD 1054 AD 1217 for Radius HS01b.

The last ring present on the measured sequence (HS01b) is very probably at the sub-bark surfaceand appeared to have complete latewood present which indicates the timber was felled in thewinter of AD1217 to 1218, and before the growing season of AD1218. However, as explainedabove, the bark fragment had become detached before analysis, and the sapwood was a littledeteriorated and so it was not possible to be absolutely certain that the outer ring captured was atthe very edge, and there is a small chance the felling date is within a few years just afterAD1217/18. Analysis of further samples would elucidate this.


88/98


89/98


Date of timber HS01Comparisons with oak ring width reference chronologies (Table 2) indicate that the date span ofSample HS01 is AD 1020 AD 1217, albeit with the caveat that this is based on dating of a singletimber and it would be advisable to confirm the date with better replicated data. However, this date

is further supported by separate dating of the component radii at the expected positions of AD1020 1170 for Radius HS01a and AD 1054 1217 for Radius HS01b.

The last measured ring of sample HS01 dated to AD1217 is very probably at the sub-bark surface,although difficulties with the slightly deteriorated condition of the sapwood mean that there is aslim possibility that this is not quite at bark edge. Assuming the last measured ring is at bark edge,then the timber was felled in the winter of AD1217/1218, and before the growing season of AD1218started; if not quite at bark edge then it was felled within a very few years thereafter.

Given that an estimated 15 rings are missing from the inner end of the measured sample, which

may have been located some height up the stem, then the stem from which timber HS01 was cutoriginated approximately around the year AD 1000, was about 220 years old when felled. This fitsinto a wider pattern of long-lived native medieval oak timber originating about this time (Mills &Crone 2012). After the last known Early Historic dendro-dated construction phase, at mid-8thcentury Whithorn (Crone 1998), there is a gap in Scottish oak chronology coverage from the mid 8 th to the mid 9 th centuries, with a number of medieval sites built from the later 12 th century onwardscontaining native oak much of which started life in the 10 th century (Mills & Crone 2012).

Timber HS01, re-used in the foreshore feature at Hunterston Sands, originally comes from a massiveoak lap-jointed structure built early on in the reign of King Alexander II (AD 1214-1249), a period for

which there is little other dendrochronological evidence for construction in Scotland. After 8thcentury Whithorn, the next dated building episodes in the Scottish tree-ring record are 12thcentury, in the early stages of burgh development. Excavated timbers from Aberdeen, Inverness,Glasgow and Perth identified a phase of building activity in the late 12th century, which used localoak from mature trees originating in the 10 th century or later (Crone 2000). Only at Perth HighStreet were any early 13 th century timbers identified, some of which might have been felled in thereign of Alexander II, but the last ring present on any Perth sample is AD1204 and their felling datesare not very specific (Crone & Baillie 2010). Other than Perth High Street, the only other dated 13 th century structural timbers in Scotland probably post- date Alexander IIs reign and are fromJedburgh Abbey (a single timber in a foundation raft dated by Baillie to AD1258 9; Lewis & Ewart1995, 40), Spynie Palace in Moray (fragments of three re-used timbers felled after AD 1246; Mills2002) and an assemblage of small re- used oak joists from St Johns House in St Andrews, with afelling date estimated between AD 1249 and 1289 (Mills 2000). The earliest construction phaseidentified at Caerlaverock Castle, the only other 13 th century dendro-dated material known inScotland, was around AD 1277 (Baillie 1982, 162-3).

Therefore the massive oak timbers recycled at Hunterston Sands, felled in AD 1217/18 or shortlythereafter, represent something rare and important; the remnants of a large structure built early inthe reign of Alexander II at a period where documentary evidence is thin but when various threatsat home and abroad (Duncan 1989; Oram 2012) would make securing the western seaboard andthe mouth of the Clyde strategically important. The structure dates from fairly early on in the longhistory of the Hunter family, one of the first Norman families established in England and Scotland,probably moving north to Scotland under David I, but perhaps as early as 1080 when a Norman


90/98


Hunter is referred to at Hunterston (Hunter 1865; Millar 1885). The Hunters were later confirmed intheir position and their lands by a charter of Robert II in 1374 (Hunter 1865; Shaw 1925). In themedieval period they held extensive lands in Scotland including Hunterston itself, Ardneil, LittleCumbrae, Millport (South Kames) and Holy Isle and Almolash (Lamlash) on Arran (Hunter 1865; Lyon1925). From their Normandy origins, the Hunter (or Venator ) family were also hereditary keepers ofthe royal hunting forests and some of their own lands, including Little Cumbrae and on Arran (Lyon

1925; Millar 1885), were held in Forest (Hunter 1865).

Hunterston Castle has an early tower house at its core and may have 13 th century elements, andLittle Cumbrae, on the opposite shore from Hunterston, also had an early castle; just two of themany possible sources of large 13 th century oak timbers within Hunter lands. Further investigationis required to work out what that original early 13 th century structure might be; given the survival ofa suite of similar timbers with preserved carpentry details, and the dendro-dating information, thepotential for closer identification of that original structure is good.

Provenance and character of timber HS01

Dendrochronological analysis is capable of providing information on the provenance as well as thedate of timber, using the technique of dendro-provenancing, although this works best with well-replicated data (Bonde et al 1997; Daly 2007). The closest matches for HS01 were found withScottish native oak reference data (Table 2), particularly with SCOTLAND, Professor Baillies SouthWestern/West Central Scotland oak chronology and its component sites (Baillie 1977; Baillie 1982).

At the relevant earlier end of the SCOTLAND reference chronology, the component material is fromthree sites; Glasgow Cathedral, Caerlaverock Castle and Lincluden Collegiate Church near Dumfries(Baillie 1977a). The Glasgow Cathedral oak samples came from timbers in storage, originally from itsmedieval roofs (from mid 13th century and late 14th C felling phases; Baillie 1982, 159 & Figure

8.2), from Caerlaverock Castle bridge timbers (from a succession of bridge structures across themoat, with felling dates of c. 1277, 1333 and 1371, Baillie 1982, 162-3) and from long lived oaksused in the Lincluden College choir stall timbers, felled in the 15th century (Baillie 1982, 149). Inparticular there were some close matches between Hunterston HS01 and some individualsequences from Glasgow Cathedral (Table 2), including Q2648 (AD 946-1137), which had a muchearlier start date than any other of the cathedral timbers, and so is not necessarily of the samesource as the others. There was also a good match with a bridge timber from the River Kelvin (Table2), a sample taken at a location near Balmuidy Roman Fort in the original expectation that it wouldbe Roman but dated by Baillie to AD 1056-1331 (Crone 2000).

Baillie does not comment on the sources of the medieval components of SCOTLAND , except toimply by their inclusion in that this is native Scottish oak. Possibly some Glasgow Cathedral timbercame from Loch Lomondside, based on documentary evidence. In AD 1277 Bishop Wishartpurchased from the Lord of Luss the right to fell timber to build a campanile and a treasury, housedin two western towers demolished in the mid 19th century (Primrose 1918). The roof timbersanalysed by Baillie probably come from the mid-13th century choir and 14th century nave (Baillie1982; Oldrieve, 1916), but possibly the same source of timber was used more than once at thecathedral.

The HS01 sequence also matched well with some Northern Irish and Northern English referencematerial including the long Belfast chronology and medieval material from Carlisle (Table 2). It didnot produce any high t values or consistent dates with a suite of other North European continental,Scandinavian or Scottish import oak chronologies, confirming the more local origin of the oak.


91/98


Essentially, HS01 matches with a range of medieval oak chronologies around the northern half ofthe Irish Sea basin, and given the closest matches are with Glasgow Cathedral and the River Kelvinmaterial, a reasonably local origin is indicated. However, the network of individual native oakmedieval sites at this period is too sparse to pin provenance down any more closely than WesternCentral Scotland to South West Scotland, especially for a single timber. Again, analysis of furthersamples from Hunterston Sands would help to refine the provenance. Furthermore, additional

samples would provide a key dating resource in the Scottish tree-ring record for this particularregion and, if any longer lived oaks are present amongst these timbers, they could help to bridgethe 8 th /9 th century gap.

As noted in the assessment report (Mills 2014), the use of long-lived slow grown oak is acharacteristic noted most commonly in the medieval part of the Scottish dendro record, forstructures built from the late 12 th to the early 15 th centuries (Mills & Crone 2012). Such sites oftenappear to have used whatever timber could be obtained, sometimes known to be granted fromforests, rather than using timber from woods being managed for timber production (Mills & Crone2012). Similarly, the slow grown, contorted nature of the oak used in HS01 (Plate 3, Table 1) is not

indicative a carefully managed timber resource, which would be expected to be faster grown andstraighter grained. The character of the timber is more reminiscent of material seen in medievalwooded parks, like Cadzow and Dalkeith, of which there would have been many more in earliertimes. The Hunters were hereditary keepers of the Norman royal hunting forests, and in their landsin Scotland they held forest on Little Cumbrae and elsewhere (Hunter 1865). Early maps can be agood guide to where ancient wooded forests and parks survived. The mid 17 th century Bleau Atlas(based largely on Ponts late 16 th century manuscript maps) unfortunately omits Hunterston and asection of the coast there, but indicates one such wooded park at nearby Southannan, the estate tothe immediate north of Hunterston. This also had a chapel and a medieval castle, the latterdismantled in the late 18 th century (Macgibbon & Ross 1896-7, 607), another possible source of

recycled timber. Bleau does not show forest on Little Cumbrae, or any other detail, but doesinclude a castle there, probably the same castle as survives now as the fairly intact ruins of LittleCumbrae tower house, of reputed early 16 th century date. MacGibbon and Ross assume it to havebeen built when the longstanding guardianship of Little Cumbrae was passed from the Hunters toHew, Earl of Eglington (MacGibbon & Ross 1889, 182). However, an earlier precursor to the castleseems likely at this strategic point on the mouth of the Clyde, opposite Hunterston, and it would beworth investigating the fabric of both Hunterston and Little Cumbrae castles to see whether anyearly elements survive. There appear to be original timbers in the roof spaces of Hunterston castletower house (from a photograph of the attic on the Virtual Hunterston website:http://virtual.hunterston.eu/attic.htm) which be worth examining as there is a possibility of a 13 th century origin to this castle.

Wood working evidenceThe retrieved sample HS01 is from a large worked timber, as described more fully in the timberassessment report (Mills 2014); it is a halved trunk subsequently shaped with hand tools, withevidence of two pegged joints at one end (Plate 4), at convergent angles, and possible evidence of apegged joint at the eroded other (sampled) end (Plate 2).

HS01 is similar in size and form to the other large timbers seen in February; HS02, HS04 and HS05.Unfortunately it was not possible to observe two well-preserved ends on any of the timbers; onlyHS01 allowed sight of both ends, but one end was exposed and decaying, with much shipsworm inevidence (Plate 3) at the end from which the detached sample of HS01 came. The others were onlypartially exposed at the surface, and at best one end could be examined. Further investigation and


92/98


recording is desirable to recover the structural details from both ends of at least one of these largetimbers, and ideally more; this would help to understand the parent structure more fully.

Plate 4 HS01 Worked features as seen at far end of timber in Plate 1, cleaned up during visit of 26-02-14.Detail is seen of the joint to the LHS with two eroded peg holes at the (watery) edge of the surviving thinnerarea of wood within, partly eroded. In the feature to the RHS one peg survives in situ, adjacent to two further

possible peg holes, in a recess aligned along the long axis of the timber, reminiscent of the possible 3 peg-holearrangement seen on the sample of HS01, a detached fragment from the other end of the timber (Plate 2).

While caution must be exercised as to the form of the relict joints, given they were part buried orsubmerged in water, they appear to be simple pegged lap joints, and there was no evidence ofmore complex notched, dovetail or scarfed jointing. Harris (1978), talking about timber framedbuildings in Britain more generally (which of course are more common in England), says that lap

joints were a significant element in early medieval forms of construction. Hewe tts work on Englishhistoric carpentry (Hewett 1980; 1985) indicates that lap joints are an early type, and that notchedlap joints had been developed and widely used by the 12 th century in England, to strengthen the

joints and make the elements un-withdrawable. There is no obvious evidence of notches in theobserved joints at Hunterston Sands (eg Plate 4), and it may be they represent a simpler or differentform of lap joint, but fuller exposure and recording is desirable.

Four of the five oak timbers observed at Hunterston Sands are quite massive, and this over -engineering in terms of sca ntling initially suggested a possibility of re- used ships timbers (Mills2014; Prescott & Atkinson 2012). However, the survival of sapwood on several and bark on HS01seems to throw such an origin into doubt. One might therefore look for nearby medieval structureswhich could have carried massive early 13 th century timbers available for later re-use; of coursethere are many candidates of ruined medieval keeps, castles and ecclesiastical sites in this area, andnow with a date available, it should be possible to define the candidates more closely.

RecommendationsAs a relatively low-cost next step, it would be worth considering sampling and dendro-analysing oakpost HS03 and any others like it. Timber HS03 differs from the four massive worked oak timbersrecorded (HS01, HS02, HS04, HS05). It is a vertically set stake or post, visible only from the upper


93/98


94/98


structure is degrading, at least where exposed, and there is an argument for rescuing informationfrom this important site before it is lost.

The author is most grateful to WA Coastal & Marine, especially Dr Andrew Bicket, for arranging thiswork; the assessment stage was funded by Historic Scotland through the COALIE project, and the

dendro-dating of HS01 was funded by Wessex Archaeology themselves. I am also grateful to theHunterston Estate and Hunterston B power station authorities for information and access.

Baillie, M G L 1977a An oak chrono logy for South Central Scotland, Tree-Ring Bulletin Vol 37, 33-44.

Baillie, M G L 1977b The Belfast oak chronology to AD 1001, Tree-Ring Bulletin Vol 37, 1-12

Baillie, M G L 1982 Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology. London & Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bicket, A 2014 Coastal Archaeological Landscapes: Intertidal & Estuarine (COALIE). Survey Project

Data Structure Report . WA Coastal & Marine, Edinburgh.

Bonde, N, Tyers, I & Wazny, T 1997 Where does the timber come from? Dendrochronologicalevidence of timber trade in Northern Europe , in Sinclair, A, Slater, E & Gowlett, J (eds)

Archaeological Sciences 1995 , 201-4. Oxford.

Crone, A 1998 The development of an Early Historic tree -ring chro nology for Scotland, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 128, 485-93.

Crone, A 2000 Native tree-ring chronologies from some Scottish medieval burghs , Medieval Archaeology 44, 201-16

Crone, A & Baillie, M 2010 Appendix 5; Perth High Street dendrochronological studies . In Perry,D, Murray, H, Beaumont James, T & the late Nicholas Q Bogdan , Perth High Street ArchaeologicalExcavation 1975-1977. Fascicule 1, The excavations at 75-95 High Street and 5-10 Mill Street, Perth, pp221-5. Perth (Tayside and Fife Archaeological Committee).

Crone, A & Mills C M 2013 Timber in Scottish buildings, 1450 -1800: a dendrochronologicalperspective, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 142 (2012), 329-369.

Daly, A 2007 Timber, trade and tree-rings. A dendrochronological analysis of structural oak timber inNorthern Europe, c. AD 1000 to c. AD 1650 . Univ Aarhus; PhD Thesis.

Duncan, AAM 1989 Scotland: the making of the kingdom. The Edinburgh History of ScotlandVolume 1. Edinburgh: Mercat Press.

English Heritage 1999 Dendrochronology guidelines.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/dendrochronology-guidelines/


95/98


96/98


Primrose, J 1918 Glasgow Cathedral in the thirteenth century, from an ancient seal, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 52, 151-8.

Shaw, M S 1925 Some family papers of the Hunters of Hunterston. Presented to the AdvocatesLibrary by Lt-Gen. Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston . Edinburgh: Skinner & Co.

Tyers, I 1999 Dendro for Windows Program Guide 2nd edition . ARCUS Report 50.


97/98


98/98

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wessex-archaeology
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

COALIE - Coastal Archaeological Landscapes: Intertidal & Estuarine

Documents