Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Archaeological Evaluation
Overview
This Data Structure Report (DSR) presents the findings of an archaeological evaluation
undertake prior to the proposed construction of a number of dwelling houses on an area of
land on George Paul Road, Carnwath, South Lanarkshire (NGR NS 985 462). Rathmell
Archaeology Ltd was appointed by Mr D Stewart Toy to carry out these works on behalf of
Tinto Construction Ltd.
The archaeological works were designed to mitigate the impact of the development on the
archaeology within the area. The development area is currently open ground covering an
area of roughly 1.4 ha. A series of cropmarks (NS94NE13) had previously been identified to
the south-west of the development area. The landscape around Carnwath has yielded a
number of early prehistoric finds (NS94NE2, 3, 15, 16 and 17). Therefore there was the
potential for plough truncated prehistoric archaeological features to be present within the
development area.
The West of Scotland Archaeology Service who advise South Lanarkshire Council on
archaeological matters has provided guidance on the structure of archaeological
investigations required on this site prior to the development works. South Lanarkshire
Council attached a condition to planning consent (CL/03/0226) to ensure that appropriate
archaeological work was undertaken before the development commences. The terms of the
evaluation were agreed in advance with Mr Paul Robins (West of Scotland Archaeology
Service), archaeological advisor to planning authority, South Lanarkshire Council.
The main objective of the evaluation was to determine the location, extent, nature, condition
and significance of any archaeological features that lie within the development area.
Project Works
The programme of works agreed with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service included an
intrusive evaluation of the development area through machine cut trenches. These works
were undertaken in keeping with the submitted Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) with
on site works running from 1st of December 2003 to 4th December 2003.
The exception was that the WSI presented a scheme for 8 evaluation trenches which would
criss-cross the development area and cover the perimeter. Due to the construction and site
preparation work that had already been undertaken within the development area, the
previously agreed trench layout was impractical. There were large spoil bunds; a mains
sewer; the stripped part built spine road; and an area of flooding on the site (Illus 1). These
circumstances meant that this trench layout plan was impractical and an alternative scheme
of 15 trenches was used (Illus 2). It is this alternative plan which will be referred to here.
A representative sample of the exposed features were investigated and evaluated to
determine archaeological significance. All works were conducted in accordance with the
Institute of Field Archaeology’s Standards and Policy Statements and Code of Conduct and
Historic Policy Statements.
include: two polished stone axes (NS94NE2 & 3); a carved stone ball (NS94NE17); a
socketed bronze axe (NS94NE15); and a bronze spearhead (NS94NE16). There is an
obvious concentration of prehistoric archaeology around Carnwath and consequently a
potential for prehistoric features or finds within the development area.
In close proximity to the development area, there are a number of features and buildings that
are recorded as being of archaeological significance. However, the more recent structures,
such as the upstanding buildings within the town itself that are noted to be of historical
significance, have little direct relevance to our site except to show that there was a
settlement in this area.
Although there was no record of archaeology within the development area it was reasonable
to suppose that the commonality of prehistoric finds in the surrounding area was indicative
potential. Only with physical examination of the sediments can we accurately asses the
archaeological potential of the area.
been topsoiled around one of the inspection chambers. The trench for the sewer itself can be
located in the subsoil as a 3m to 4m wide strip of very mixed subsoil running between the
manholes.
A few shallow pits were also investigated across the development area. There was no
consistency to their size, other than their shallow depth, and no pattern to their position.
Again, the fill of these features was indistinguishable from the ploughsoil. Also, the fills
generally contained no anthropic material; however, a pit in Trench 1 [113] did contain
fragments of modern ceramic, plastic and glass. These pits showed no pattern or
consistency, which would suggest a wider significance.
Field drains
The development area was covered by a parallel, evenly spaced set of field drains. These
drains were evident in increasing density in the southern half of the development area, which
seemed to naturally collect water. The drains were clay pipes bedded in narrow, 300mm
broad, slots cut some 400mm into the subsoil. These features were evident on-site as crisp
linear features with a pink clay subsoil mix in their fill. Sections were excavated through a
selection of these features and all of those excavated had a single clay pipe at the base. In
some cases, this pipe was broken. The number of drains exposed in each trench meant that
it was impractical to excavate them all. However, the form and the fill of the drains are easily
recognisable.
Tree throws
Several discolorations in the subsoil were noted and investigated. They appeared as
irregular sub-circular features of some 1m to 2m diameter that appeared to be a bleached
form of the subsoil. An irregular shaped but dark gley-like sediment would be present at the
centre of the upper surface of these features. No cut could be identified for either the bleach
or gleyed material by investigation and the subsoil character of the sediment led to the
interpretation that these features derived from tree boles or tree throws.
Discussion
Despite the poor selection of archaeological features within the development area, we are
able to make some inferences as to chronology of the features on site and hence the
changing use of the land.
It is difficult to place the ditches found in Trenches 7 and 9 in a chronology, although field
drains cut the ditches in Trench 9 so we know they precede these attempts to improve
drainage. The fill of these features was broadly similar to the composition of the topsoil. Also,
they are such shallow features, only a few centimetres deep; that very little can be gained
from examination of their fills. The chert recovered from the ditch in Trench 7 does appears
to have bee struck but as an isolated find from an uncertain context it adds very little to the
archaeological value of the feature.
All of the shallow isolated pits, which were investigated throughout the development area,
had no means of identification or dating, even relative to other features on site. We are,
therefore, unable to fit them into a chronology of the site. However, we may assign them very
little significance due to the fact that they appear isolated, the fact that the fill is
indistinguishable from the topsoil and the further fact that they are devoid of anything but
modern artefacts. These pits are of little value as archaeological features and reveal little
about previous use of the field. During out stripping of the topsoil the digger removed a large
stone from the subsoil creating an empty hole not dissimilar to the form of these pits. It may
be, therefore, that these features represent previous attempts to clear the area of stones.
Leaving the pits aside, the oldest features on the site are the scars and furrows subsoil in the
left by ploughs. This is obviously evidence for some previous agricultural use of the
development area or perhaps some attempt to better the quality of the land. We can take
little more in the way of information from these features. The fill was indistinguishable from
the topsoil and contained no artefacts of any kind. The value of these features is extremely
limited beyond their ability to inform us about previous agricultural use of the field.
Some of the plough marks were cut by the field drains, which are all over the entire
development area. This demonstrates that the attempt to improve the land by drainage was
subsequent to attempts at cultivation. The majority of the drains were in the southern end of
the field a part of the landscape that formed a natural sump. It may be that attempts to drain
the field had only been partially successful due to its position in the landscape.
The final effect on the topography of the site was the construction of the sewer. This cuts
across the entire site from north to south. A large area has been stripped and levelled around
the northern most manhole. No evidence of archaeology was observed within this area and
given the absence of archaeology on the rest of the site it is very unlikely that any survives
here.
Very little of archaeological significance was observed within the development area.
However, it was possible to generate a broad chronology of the past use. There was nothing
within the development area of particular archaeological significance and nothing that would
relate the site to the numerous prehistoric finds from the area around Carnwath.
Conclusion
An archaeological evaluation was carried out between 1st December 2003 and 4th December
2003 on 1.4ha of former agricultural land on George Paul Road, Carnwath, South
Lanarkshire. The evaluation comprised 15 trenches covering approximately 10% of the total
development area, opened down to the natural subsoil. A representative sample, as agreed
with WoSAS, of all of the uncovered features with archaeological potential was investigated.
A broad chronology of use of the site is readable from the record taken. We are able to
observe that the site had been under ploughed cultivation for some time in recent history and
more recently, attempts had been made to improve the drainage of the area. Little survives
of any features, which are all severely plough truncated, and none appear to pre-date the
eighteenth century. On balance we would propose that there is nothing within the
development area of archaeological significance and consequently we recommend that no
further archaeological works are appropriate.
breadth of this Trench. All had very similar fills of topsoil mixed
with subsoil. One was excavated as a representative sample and
was found to be a steep sided cut with a ceramic pipe at the base.
Significant features: None
Artefacts: None
Trench 9
rounded stones.
Modern features: Four lines of field drain were recorded crossing the Trench. The fill
and orientation of these features was almost identical to the field
drains in other trenches.
Significant features: None
Artefacts: None
Trench 12
Photographic Record
Film No. Description From Date
1 18 Pre-excavation panorama SE 1/12/03
1 19 Pre-excavation panorama SE 1/12/03
1 20 Pre-excavation panorama SE 1/12/03
1 21 Pre-excavation panorama SE 1/12/03
1 22 Pre-excavation panorama NE 1/12/03
1 23 Pre-excavation panorama NE 1/12/03
1 24 Pre-excavation panorama NE 1/12/03
1 25 Pre-excavation panorama NE 1/12/03
1 26 Pre-excavation panorama NE 1/12/03
1 27 Trench 1 E 2/12/03
1 28 Post-excavation (104) N 2/12/03
1 29 Post-excavation (105) N 2/12/03
Artefacts List
No. Description Context
1 Fragment of Chert 704
2 Fragment of Ash 704
Contact Details
Rathmell Archaeology can be contacted at its Registered Office or through the web:
Rathmell Archaeology Ltd
8, Underwood
Kilwinning
Ayrshire
KA13 7HR
www.rathmell-arch.co.uk