Grampus Heritage and Training Ltd
June 2005
Cashel Archaeological Survey
‘Airigh Sheilich Group’
Commissioned as part of the ‘E-Vache’
Culture 2000 Project for ARCH NETWORK
European vernacular architecture, cultural heritage exchange
Contact:
Grampus Heritage and Training Ltd,
Ashgill,
Threapland,
Wigton,
Cumbria,
CA7 2EL
Tel: 016973 21516
Fax: 016973 23040
e.mail: grampus@clark-mactavish.co.uk
www.grampusheritage.fsnet.co.uk
Background and Brief
As part of the European E-Vache project, part funded by the Culture 2000 programme,
ARCH network commissioned an archaeological survey of a known Sheiling site on the
Cashel Farm estate, overlooking the shores of Loch Lomond. The aim was to increase
understanding of the sheiling structure to aid the archaeological reconstruction of a sheiling in
July 2005, also on the Cashel estate, using authentic materials and techniques.
The survey target was a site marked on the OS map (2)41069 , (6)96111 as ‘Airigh Sheilich’.
A preliminary visit by Grampus and ARCH network in Spring 2005 located the marked
sheiling site and also a second structure further down the same burn. The aim of the survey in
June was therefore to survey these known structures, register the results within OS map data,
and search for the existence of other associated structures.
During the preliminary visit, Grampus and ARCH network staff also visited the National
Trust for Scotland centre at Loch Lomond. We were given access to two archaeological
surveys, conducted as part of the Ben Lomond project in 1995 and 1997. These surveys
provide essential comparative material and background information for the Cashel survey.
The E-Vache project brings together several groups of students, trainees, archaeologists and
craftsmen. An additional aim of the survey was therefore to include interested students and
trainees in the surveying and recording process.
Methodology
The main survey instrument used was the ‘total station’ (Leica TRC 307). The results have
been processed in LisCAD and registered within OS map data using GIS. The plots within
this report have also been produced from the resulting GIS dataset.
The survey plots are representations of what was visible on the ground at the time of the
survey and do not attempt to interpret the original form of structures. Collapsed walls are
therefore recorded as such.
To determine the extent of the sites and features, a degree of clearing of vegetation was
necessary. Great care was taken not to disturb the structures or to interfere with the
archaeology.
The fieldwork was completed over a two day period by a team of 7 archaeologists and
students.
The survey results have been registered into the OS data through the use of GPS and through
correlation between surveyed points and points identified within the OS landline digital
dataset (confluence of streams, contours etc.)
The results of the surveyed sites, and the spatial relationship between the sites, is highly
accurate. The team were able to survey the group of sites from one station point. The ‘true’
burn edge was also included in the survey, to further facilitate spatial analysis of the results.
The dimensions given in this report are taken directly from the survey results using GIS.
Length and width dimensions are taken by defining a central length and width axis of each
site and taking appropriate measurements. Dimensions are given in metres to 1 decimal point.
This is felt to be sufficiently accurate as the majority of the survey consists of the recording of
collapsed walls rather than intact structure. The dimensions of the structures during the period
of use can be inferred from these survey results but the spread of stone and collapse of the
walls should not be forgotten.
The area, given in square metres, defines the total area covered by the site and is intended to
be an additional measure of the size of sites to aid further comparative analysis. The area
covered by the sites includes the thickness of collapsed walls and does not attempt to define
internal living/storage space.
Survey Location
Figure 1 shows the area of the Airigh Sheilich group of sheilings. The site can be reached by
following the forestry track leading up the hill from the rear of Cashel Farm. The site is then
reached by striking North West from the end of the track until the burn is reached. The
uppermost sheiling (site 1) is located just above the confluence of two burns, where the
easternmost tributary runs out of a steep ravine.
Survey results
Site 1 OS (2)41069 , (6)96111
Figure 3 shows a large-scale plot of the survey results for site 1. This was the original target
for the survey and is marked on the ordnance survey map as Airigh Sheilich. The most
striking feature of site 1 is the circular drystone structure, shown in black on figure 3. This is
interpreted as a grouse shooting butt, which utilises the stone from the collapsed walls of the
sheiling.
The site is covered with heather. Although some clearance of vegetation was carried out, it
soon became clear that no walls of the sheiling could be clearly defined. The surveyed green
area in figure 3 shows the extent of the collapsed stone and gives an impression of the size
and shape of the sheiling. Further definition of walls was not possible without disturbance to
the site.
The site is on a slightly raised platform which may, in part, be man made. Such was the
spread of stone and vegetation cover that it was not possible to distinguish any artificial
platform from the collapse of walls. It was also impossible to determine whether the original
structure was of drystone only or a mixture of turf and stone.
The sheiling is roughly rectangular in shape, with a slight taper towards the northern end. The
orientation of the site is from Southeast to Northwest, with the burn edge some 3.2m (closest
point) to the north of the structure.
Site 1 Dimensions: Length 6.5m Width 3.9m Area 23m2
Above left: The grouse shooting butt in site 1.
Above right: Site 1 taken looking East. The shooting butt is visible in the right of the picture and the
burn can be seen running out of the ravine to the left.
Site 2 OS (2)41056 , (6)96110
Figure 3 shows the survey results of site 2. This site was identified because of the change in
vegetation from wetland grass and reed to heather. Upon closer examination the survey team
established the extent of the site and were able to survey the feature.
As with site 1, there was no evidence of intact walls from the original structure and the survey
results show the extent of the collapsed stonework. No entrance to the structure was visible
and could not be established without disturbance to the site.
Site 2 is much squarer than site 1. The spatial relationship between sites 1 and 2 would
suggest that the two are related but perhaps serve different functions (see discussion of
results). The burn edge now lies 4m (closest point) to the north of the site.
Site 2 Dimensions: Length (East/West) 6.5m Width (North/South) 4.9m Area 28m2
Above left: Site 2 was first identified by the clear change in vegetation
Above right: Site 2 in the foreground with site 1 behind. The grouse shooting butt in site 1 is visible to
the right of the picture and the ravine of the burn is clearly visible. The picture is taken looking east.
Site 3 OS (2)40955 , (6)96060
Figure 4 shows the survey results of site 3. The site was identified during the preliminary visit
to the area by Grampus and ARCH Network representatives. The sheiling is distinctive
because it utilises a large boulder to form the eastern wall of the structure.
Figure 4 shows the boulder in grey and the walls of the structure (mostly collapsed) in purple.
The entrance to the sheiling is clearly visible.
The orientation of the sheiling utilises a natural platform, relatively level compared to the
surrounding landscape, alongside the burn. The orientation (southwest to northeast) also
utilises the flat side of the boulder as a gable.
The northern wall of site 3 is built into the hill and appears to only partly collapsed in places.
The nature of the stonework suggests that the walls were built using a combination of stone
and turf, though most of the soil and turf has now disappeared. Much more stone and
evidence of collapse was recorded in the south west corner of the structure, as shown by the
much wider ‘wall’ outline in figure 4. This is because the ground falls away slightly towards
the burn (blue line) and a slight retaining wall would have been necessary to create a level
platform for the sheiling.
The burn edge now lies only 0.5m away from the boulder and 2m away from the entrance to
the sheiling.
Site 3 dimensions (excluding boulder)
Length (SW to NE) 6.3m Width (SE to NW) 4.9m Area 27.5m2
Above Left: View of the site 3 sheiling taken looking southwest from the boulder. A section of
relatively intact wall can be seen built into the bank at the right of the picture.
Above right: The boulder which forms the gable end of the sheiling on site 3 (looking northeast)
Site 4 OS (2)40946 , (6)96049
Figure 4 shows the survey results of site 4 and the special relationship with site 3 and the burn
edge. As with site 2, site 4 was discovered as a result of the change in vegetation. The site is
covered in heather, though the vegetation could be cleared sufficiently to record the extent of
the collapsed walls. It is sure that the walls included stone, though it was not possible to
determine whether they also included turf. No entrance to the structure could be determined.
As with sites 1 and 2, it would appear that sites 3 and 4 are connected and are likely to serve
different purposes. There are striking similarities between sites 1 & 2 (figure 3) and sites 3 &
4 (figure 4). See Discussion of Results
Site 4 now lies just 4m away from the western edge of the burn.
Site 4 dimensions
Length (SW to NE) 5.6m
Width (NW to SE) 3.9m
Area 19.6 m2
Above left: Site 4 lies in the centre of the picture, distinguished by changes in vegetation.
Above right: The boulder in the centre left marks the location of site 3 and site 4 is just visible as a
patch of heather in the centre right of the picture.
Site 5 OS (2) 40948 , (6) 96018
Figure 5 shows the survey results from site 5. This structure was discovered on the second
day of fieldwork. Figure 2 shows the location of site 5 in relation to the rest of the Airigh
Sheilich group. Site 5 is distinct from the rest of the group due to its shape and distance from
the burn. The structure takes advantage of a natural rocky outcrop however and is in a well
sheltered position.
Left: Looking southeast through the
entrance into site 5. The site consists of two
manmade ‘arms’ of drystone work
protruding from a natural rocky outcrop,
which forms the southeast wall.
The entrance to site 5 faces northwest and lies some 15 metres away from the edge of the
burn.
Site 5 dimensions
Length (SW to NE) 6m
Width (SE to NW) 4.8m
Area 20.5m2
Site 6 OS (2)40913 , (6)96024
Figure 6 shows the survey results from site 6, the westernmost structure identified in the
survey of the Airigh Sheilich group. The most striking feature of the site 6 survey is that the
structure is clearly sub-divided into two rooms. Some vegetation was cleared to enable the
extent of the feature to be surveyed and it was clear that a large amount of stone had been
used in the building.
As with site 3, the southerly wall of the structure showed much more evidence of stonework
than the northerly. This is again because of the natural fall of the land towards the burn,
making it necessary for a retaining wall to create a level platform. The walls to the south
(downslope) therefore had to provide a substantial and secure footing for the structure. It was
not possible to define the entrance to the structure, though the survey team hypothesised that
the thin section of collapse in the northern wall of the eastern room was covering the entrance.
Again, it was not possible to confirm this without disturbance to the site.
Site 6 now lies some 8 metres away from the edge of the burn.
Site 6 dimensions
Length (E to W) 8.3m Width (N to S) 4.7m Area 30.5m2
Above: Two views of the southwest corner of site 6, showing the substantial amount of stone used in
the structure. It appears that the footing of the site was constructed using a mixture of turf and stone.
Discussion of results
It must be acknowledged that the Airigh Sheilich survey was in no way a landscape
level assessment but was a carefully targeted archaeological survey to record a
relatively small area of high archaeological potential. It is hoped and intended that this
dataset can be incorporated into existing survey data and added to in order to create a
comprehensive dataset of archaeological remains on the Cashel estate. It is certainly
the case that more detailed analysis can be carried out as more sites are surveyed and
entered into the GIS dataset.
The 2005 survey identified and recorded a group of six structures, and identified a
possible seventh (figure 10), along a 250m stretch of burn. Once again, it is hoped that
further research in future seasons can add to the dataset by extending the area of
survey and revisiting the Airigh Sheilich group to further explore the possible seventh
structure. We would also hope to extend the period of fieldwork to allow for a greater
area to be covered and to enable more vegetation clearance on survey sites. The
cutting back of heather and surface vegetation was very time consuming, though also
very rewarding for the 2005 survey team.
To analyse the results of the 2005 survey we must acknowledge and refer to the work
of Bil (1990) and to the work of the Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit
(BUFAU) in 1997 in the Ben Lomond Archaeology Survey.
Some comparisons can be made between the Airigh Sheilich sheiling group and the
Gashlet Burn Group (NN 3834 0056) surveyed by BUFAU in 1997. The Gashlet
Burn group consists of six structures interpreted as house structures, and three
structures interpreted as storage structures. Of the six ‘house structures’ surveyed at
Gashlet Burn (GB), 5 were rectangular and one circular. The 3 ‘storage structures’
surveyed at Gashlet Burn (sites143, 144 and 149 in 1997 BUFAU survey) are
described as follows “…all marked by a small levelled stone-walled area forming a
rough semicircle facing a natural boulder or outcrop…” (BUFAU 1997). This
description fits perfectly with site 5 at Airigh Sheilich (AS), where back of the
structure (South Eastern wall) is formed by a natural rock outcrop. The orientation of
site 5 (AS) is different to those identified at Gashlet burn, where it is noted that the
outcrops all face south or south-east, but this orientation is likely to be a simple use of
the local topography rather than a key function of the structure.
The BUFAU (1997) report quotes from the RCAHMS 1990 report that in 1799
Robertson described that sheilings had a ‘proper place for milk’. The BUFAU report
(1997) also refers to Bil’s observations (1990) that sheiling huts erected at the base of
natural outcrops were unlikely to be occupied.
Based on morphological analysis of the Airigh Sheilich group, and comparison of the
results with the Ben Lomond survey, we can interpret sites 1, 3 and 6 as ‘house
structures’ and sites 2, 4 and 5 as storage structures. The use of the term ‘storage
structure’ must be qualified here by a note of caution as these structures may also
represent pens related to livestock husbandry. Three members of the 2005 survey
team were Icelandic and had recently been involved in recording sheilings in Iceland.
The initial interpretation of sites 2 and 4 was given by the Icelandic team that these
could have been pens and this is an equally valid interpretation, given the function of
sheilings. Indeed, it would be likely that sheilings needed both livestock pens and cool
storage areas for dairy products, though by morphological analysis alone we are not
able to identify the function exact function of these structures.
The storage / pen structures at sites 2 and 4 appear to be directly related to the house
structures at sites 1 and 3 respectively. This would suggest that each sub-rectangular
house structure would have an associated sub-circular / square storage structure or
pen. The closest distance from site 1 to site 2 is 7.4m and the closest distance from
site 3 to site 4 is 6.1m. Having realised this relationship during the fieldwork, the
survey team examined a site to the northeast of site 6, marked in figure 10 as ‘possible
site 7’. It was clear that stone was present under the heather though there was no time
to further clear and explore the feature during the 2005 fieldwork. We would hope to
revisit the area in future seasons to clarify the nature of possible site 7. Should it
prove to be another pen / storage structure (as suspected) then we could assume that it
is related to the house structure at site 6 and would mean that all three ‘house
structures’ had an associated pen / storage structure. This could mean that site 5,
already distinctive in nature due to its use of the outcrop and circular structure, could
have served a different purpose in the sheiling group or could be from an earlier
period.
Future Work
It is clear from the 2005 fieldwork that a great deal of valuable data can be gathered in
a relatively short period of time, given the right tools, conditions and enthusiastic
team. The GIS dataset created from the 2005 survey work is an ideal starting point for
the creation of a much larger dataset of the upland archaeology and sheiling patterns
on the Cashel estate. More data gathered in future seasons would facilitate far more
detailed anaylsis of sheiling use and construction in the area and it is hoped that
backing will be available for more fieldwork in coming years.
Acknowledgements
The survey was completed by a team of international participants under the EuroVACHE culture 2000 project. In particular, the work carried out by Libby Urquhart of
ARCH Network, the assistance and cooperation of the National Trust for Scotland
(Loch Lomond), the support of the Royal Forestry Society and the backing of the
culture 2000 programme were all vital in enabling the survey to be completed.
References
Bil, A, 1990 ‘The Sheiling, 166-1840 : the case of the central Scottish highlands’,
Edinburgh
BUFAU 1997 ‘Ben Lomond Archaeological Survey’, The University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston
RCAHMS 1990 ‘N E Perthshire – an archaeological landscape, Edinburgh