Search

Any survey of the evolution of rural settlement in the period covered by this book is restricted by the paucity of datable evidence. Closely dated archaeological excavations from the period are limited, as are extant documentary sources before 1300, particularly for Scotland. As a result, indirect means of research are necessary if any coherent picture of rural settlement is to be built. The aim has to be to deduce patterns from field survey data, marrying these where possible with documentary sources to create a model of changing patterns of settlement. Furthermore, the terminology of settlement differs from one side of the Border to the other, as do standard models of settlement and settlement change, making comparisons difficult. The deserted rural settlement sites which often form the starting-point (and much of the archaeological evidence) for discussions of medieval settlement patterns differ in date and character. In Scotland the nineteenth-century clearance township is the norm, while in England it is the deserted medieval village, even though many villages were not deserted until the post-medieval period, especially in northern England. When settlement patterns have been mapped, deserted medieval villages stop at the Scottish Border, while infield-outfield systems of agriculture are treated as apparently something peculiarly Scottish. The national models tend to be simplistic (not all villages were deserted and not all townships were cleared), and most field survey evidence for northern England and southern Scotland is predominantly post-medieval rather than medieval. Furthermore, settlement patterns have been studied, if at all, from opposite sides of the Border, and the understanding of medieval settlement in Scotland has lagged behind that in England. To complicate matters further, recent rural settlement syntheses in England have posited settlement provinces that divide along the Pennine ridge, raising questions about settlement in Scotland that no one in Scotland is asking. Both northern England, particularly Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland, and the Border zone of Scotland, especially in the south west, were peripheral areas, far distant or at least distant from the heartlands of the two kingdoms. Yet the very Border itself, only finally fixed during the thirteenth century, split ancient political territories, the early medieval kingdoms of Northumbria and Strathclyde/Cumbria, between the kingdoms of Scotland and England, thus dividing the cultural region within which the roots of the medieval settlement pattern had evolved.

Between 2009 and 2011, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) worked on a new study of Lochindorb Castle.1 This work has produced the first in-depth survey and contributed towards a new understanding of the ruinous site, located upon a small island on Lochindorb and previously little studied due to its remote and inaccessible location. At Inverlochy, RCAHMS carried out a detailed drawn survey of the castle in 1982 and this is complemented by a large number of archive items resulting from various studies and excavations at the site.2 In the light of new measured and photographic data being available for comparative work, this study aims to look afresh at the relationship between the two castles, to take a closer look at their form and function, and beyond this, establish how legitimate long-standing comparisons of the two castles remain.3

The Historic Land-use Assessment (HLA) project in Scotland – a partnership between Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission for Ancient and Historic Monuments in Scotland (RCAHMS) – was designed to create a digital map of the origins of the present countryside to enable it to be managed in a comprehensive way for the first time. This was a significant new departure since before the mid-1990s the only historic element in the landscape other than archaeological sites that was considered in the planning process was designed landscapes, whereas the HLA approach has embraced the whole landscape: urban and rural. The genesis of the project was conservation, not reconstruction. In essence the map identifies any land use that has left a mark on the landscape, be it current or relict. The approach is unashamedly archaeological and evidence-based. The features must be evident on present and past maps or air photographs and as far as possible the interpretation is confirmed by fieldwork. There is no attemp...

This is a report on archaeological work in two of Scotland's less well-known medieval burghs of Kelso and Peebles. The excavations at Wester Kelso/Floors Castle established that the original medieval burgh of Kelso or Wester Kelso was much further west than previously believed, being situated well inside the present Castle policies. That early settlement at Wester Kelso appears to have been abandoned in the 14th or 15th centuries, at the same time that the royal burgh of Roxburgh was deserted, probably as a result of the English occupation of Roxburgh Castle. The other settlement of Easter Kelso, near the abbey, survived and expanded northwards from the abbey along Roxburgh Street. The finding of a possible building terrace in Phase 1 at 13-19 Roxburgh Street indicates that settlement along the southern end of that street could date to as early as the 13th or 14th centuries. Combining the archaeological, cartographic and documentary evidence, it seems clear that 'Easter' Kelso, now Kelso, had expanded from the market area around tThis is a report on archaeological work in two of Scotland's less well-known medieval burghs of Kelso and Peebles. The excavations at Wester Kelso/Floors Castle established that the original medieval burgh of Kelso or Wester Kelso was much further west than previously believed, being situated well inside the present Castle policies. That early settlement at Wester Kelso appears to have been abandoned in the 14th or 15th centuries, at the same time that the royal burgh of Roxburgh was deserted, probably as a result of the English occupation of Roxburgh Castle. The other settlement of Easter Kelso, near the abbey, survived and expanded northwards from the abbey along Roxburgh Street. The finding of a possible building terrace in Phase 1 at 13-19 Roxburgh Street indicates that settlement along the southern end of that street could date to as early as the 13th or 14th centuries. Combining the archaeological, cartographic and documentary evidence, it seems clear that 'Easter' Kelso, now Kelso, had expanded from the market area around the abbey northwards towards the Floors estate by the early 18th century.The excavations in Peebles have provided important information on the origins of the settlement of the peninsular ridge between the Tweed and Eddleston Water. The results obtained from the excavations at the two sites in Peebles indicate that settlement of the ridge began in the 12th century, soon after the establishment of the royal castle and burgh by David I (1124-53). At both sites, after initial dumping of rubbish, possibly to raise the ground level to counter flooding, occupation, in the form of stone structures, can be dated to the 14th century at the latest, with probable earlier dumping of domestic refuse in the 12th and 13th centuries. The street of Bridgegate was apparently laid out in the 13th or 14th centuries when the excavated site was divided into three properties aligned on that street, two of which had stone buildings erected on them. Alternatively, Bridgegate may have been the initial focus of settlement on the east side of the Eddleston, providing the access route from the east into Old Town, where a pilgrimage centre had been established at the Cross Kirk in 1261, and the location of the tolbooth (Bridgegate Building 4) in it suggests that this street was originally more important than High Street. It is noteworthy that all eight medieval buildings excavated at the two Peebles sites were of stone construction. Peebles tolbooth, the civic centre of the burgh, is the only medieval tolbooth site in Scotland to have been excavated.

(1999). Unravelling the Landscape: An Inquisitive Approach to Archaeology. Edited by Mark Bowden. Archaeological Journal: Vol. 156, No. 1, pp. 445-446.