Tag Archives: quadcopter

Cromarty Medieval Burgh Excavations 2013-2016: An Overview

by Mary Peteranna and Steve Birch.

DCIM100MEDIADJI_0010.JPG

Aerial view of Reeds Park during excavation 2015, looking towards the modern town and the Cromarty Firth (Garry MacKay).

The Cromarty Medieval Burgh Community Archaeology Project, which has been investigating the lost remnants of Cromarty’s historic medieval centre, has uncovered evidence of a catastrophic burning event along with a wealth of information about the development of a small Scottish burgh. The archaeological site in Reeds Park, Cromarty had been buried below a farmer’s field for over 120 years, before began investigations in 2013 after coastal erosion revealed hints of settlement. The project, which has attracted over 700 volunteers and thousands of visitors, has been dubbed by medieval specialists ‘one of the most important medieval excavations happening in Scotland.’

Although the core of the medieval burgh of Cromarty was thought to have been located at the base of the castle brae, to the southeast of the present town, the presence of any surviving remains of the settlement were completely unknown before digging began. Now, working with a range of specialists, including historians and artefact experts the archaeologists are piecing together the exciting archaeological results spanning periods of settlement between the 13th to 19th centuries. In 2015-2016, after several seasons of digging, the excavation has come down to the earliest layers and provided a detailed look at the layout of the medieval town

cromartylayersl1-16-july-2015-1

Two corrected aerial photographs of the Cromarty excavation site by Alan Thompson. Above is the view towards the end of excavations in 2015.

cromarty2016flight1v1x2-ortho-rev

…and this image shows the substantial progress made by the end of the 2016 season.

The burgh of Cromarty was set in a strategically important location, controlling the entrance to the Cromarty Firth and the ferry crossing on the coastal route north of Inverness via Nigg, the most direct route to the medieval shrine of St Duthac’s in Tain. Cromarty was a natural location for a medieval power centre, with good coastal access and rich agricultural hinterland, strategically located on a key frontier zone in Northern Scotland. Unlike other areas of the north and Highland regions that were under clan control, Cromarty fell under the feudal authority of the Scottish crown. Although there is little documentary evidence for the town’s medieval history, it has been suggested that it was the logical location for a thanage in the 11th/12th centuries. A castle situated at Cromarty would have been a sensible location to establish royal authority on this borderland. While it was documented that the town’s sheriffdom had been established by 1266, little was known about the early history and layout of medieval Cromarty.

The archaeologists’ work from 2013-2016 has provided a detailed picture of the transitioning burgh, showing the buildings, property boundaries and zones of activity within an area focused on a former road alignment, referred to mysteriously as Thief’s Row in the 18th century. The latest buildings recorded on the site, dating to the 19th century  were located on the north side of the road; rectangular stone-built structures running parallel to Thief’s Row and set within plots of land demarcated by single coursed stone boundaries. The foundations of earlier buildings, most likely constructed during the closing stages of the 17th century mirrored the footprints of those latest buildings, displaying multiple phases of restructuring within these centuries. Artefacts associated from this period consist of low status ceramics and glass, and personal objects representing general subsistence living. Continue reading

Focus on Ormond Castle, Avoch, Ross-shire

by Meryl Marshall (NOSAS)

OrmondFlight13D09

3D model of Ormond Castle (Alan Thompson)

The North of Scotland Archaeological Society (NOSAS) and Avoch Community Archaeology (ACA) group joined forces in March 2016 to survey and photograph Ormond Castle, GR NH 6963 5358 (HER ID: MHG8226, Canmore ID: 13572). The castle overlooks the village of Avoch on the Black Isle and commands good views across the Moray Firth to the south and the former ferry crossing between Chanonry and Ardersier in the east.

To date Ormond castle has not received the attention it deserves. It is traditionally associated with William the Lion (1143 – 1214). He built two castles on the Black Isle in 1179, one at Redcastle and a second which is thought to be this one. Andrew de Moray was owner of the castle in the 13th century and principal commander of Scottish forces in the north during the Wars of Independence in the late 13th Century, but was mortally wounded fighting alongside William Wallace at the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297. In 1455, after being in the hands of the de Moray family and the earls of Ross, the castle passed to royal control and in 1481 James III granted it to his son, the Marquis of Ormond, from whom the present name derives. The castle was destroyed by Cromwell’s forces in 1650 and the stones were transported over the firth to build the Citadel in Inverness.

IMG_5183

Continue reading

The Picts at Garbeg and Whitebridge

by James McComas (NOSAS)

The Pictish people of the mid to late first millenium AD once inhabited what is now northern and eastern Scotland. They left very little written record and the evidence of buildings so far identified are sparse. Perhaps their most obvious remains in the landscape are the enigmatic symbol stones and the imprints of their burial sites.

Although modern Angus and Perthshire have traditionally been seen as the Pictish heartland, in recent years new research is reveavaluating the importance of the northern picts, north of the Mounth. Two highland burial sites which feature impressive upstanding remains are to be found on opposite sides of Loch Ness; at Garbeg near Drumnadrochit, and at Whitebridge in Stratherrick. Pictish funerary practices appear to have been diverse (see our earlier blog post), however barrow* cemeteries have been identified as one recognisable form. Round and square type ditched barrows appear alongside each other at both Garbeg and Whitebridge – a feature thought to be unique to the Pictish cemetery.

Side by side comparison of a plan of part of the Garbeg cemetery and a quadcopter aerial photo by Alan Thompson. (The brown patches on the photo are the result of recent gorse clearance, and dark green areas are piles of cut vegetation.) The barrows excavated by Wedderburn and Grime on this plan are nos 1,2,3 and 8.

Side by side comparison of a plan of part of the Garbeg cemetery and a quadcopter aerial photo by Alan Thompson. (The brown patches on the photo are the result of recent gorse clearance, and dark green areas are piles of cut vegetation.) The barrows excavated by Wedderburn and Grime on this plan are nos 1,2,3 and 8.

Garbeg and Whitebridge were visited by NOSAS field trips in 2014/ 2015 and Garbeg has also been the subject of gorse clearance, quadcopter photography (blog post section 4) and QGIS survey by the group. Subsequently in 2015 many NOSAS members were involved with survey and excavation by the University of Aberdeen’s Northern Picts Project on possibly contemporaneous building remains at Garbeg (a NOSAS Blog post on the dig is forthcoming).

The cemetery at Garbeg (Canmore ID 12281, HER MHG3361) consists of 23 square and round barrows with surrounding ditches. The barrows are thought to cover single long cist burials. They are situated on a natural plateau at an altitude of some 300m on open moorland used for rough grazing.  The immediately surrounding landscape is one rich in archaeological remains, including prehistoric field systems, groups of hut circles and a series of burnt mounds which are largely thought to predate the Pictish period.

Members of NOSAS at a field visit to Garbeg, November 2014

Members of NOSAS at a field visit to Garbeg, November 2014

Continue reading

Experiments using a Quadcopter for Archaeological Aerial Photography

by Alan Thompson (NOSAS)

Introduction

I’ve had my Quadcopter for over a year now, had great fun flying it, and have produced many interesting images.  I recently showed a selection of images at a NOSAS evening, and was asked if I would write this blog and share some of the things I’ve learned along the way.

Of course the pictures are what it’s all about and even if you’re not interested in my comments, I hope you enjoy looking at them.

Background

Inspired by some of the wonderful aerial photos (APs) I’ve seen (for example on Canmore) I have long thought how good it would be to be able to take such pictures of our own archaeological sites.

For several years I have been interested in photogrammetry and experimented with that, especially of rock art where the production of a 3D surface and use of computer generated lighting and shadows can give some great effects.

In 2013 I began to investigate kite aerial photography (KAP) but the possibility of using a Quadcopter also emerged and I realised that technology and prices were moving so quickly that it might be a better option.  In early 2014 I decided that the only way to learn was to buy one.

The Quadcopter – getting ready to fly

Most amateur Quadcopters are sold with very wide angle cameras, with the intention of video recording, and also providing a pilot’s view (called first person view or FPV).  This is less than satisfactory for archaeological aerial photography, and so I bought a Quadcopter without a camera, with a view to fitting my own.

The camera is obviously critical, and it needed to be light (ideally <300g including battery), robust, of good enough quality, and with an interval timer.  Unfortunately I could find no such camera.  All those with interval timers are heavier, for example those used for kite aerial photography.  A solution can however be found in that a group of people spend their time hacking the software of Canon cameras (google CHDK) and provide a hacked version for some models which enables an interval timer to be run.

Having bought and hacked my camera and got the interval timer working I had to fit it to the Quadcopter.  The main problem is the high frequency vibration from the rotors which renders the pictures useless.  A suitable anti-vibration mounting was needed, all within the weight limit.

Next, to prepare for the first test flight.  The web (YouTube) is full of videos of alarming crashes and fly-aways.  The Quadcopter instructions are daunting saying that a first flight should be from the middle of a large field, with no wind and no people about.  There is also the matter of insurance (it could certainly hurt someone badly), and the possible need for a CAA licence.  The regulations here are changing quickly but at present as a hobby flier I can insure through the British Model Flying Association (BMFA), and (unlike a professional archaeologist) have no need of a CAA licence provided I fly within line of sight, avoid certain areas (eg near airports) and limit the height.  I would again emphasise that this is all very much in the news and changing and my observations here will quickly be out of date.

Quadcopter flying

The first flight is bit nerve-racking, but set to auto mode the Quadcopter uses its own GPS and compass and is set so that (more or less) if you let go of the controls it just hovers where it is.  Flying in this mode is reasonably straightforward.  I have not dared try any of the advanced modes as yet.

Continue reading

Pictish Burial Practices and Remains

by Roland Spencer-Jones (NOSAS)

These notes are in preparation for NOSAS field trips to two recognised Pictish cemeteries in the Highland region –

  • Garbeg near Drumnadrochit on Saturday 1st November 2014. See Highland Council HER, RCAHMS Canmore
  • Whitebridge near Foyers on Sunday March 8th 2015. See HER, RCAHMS Canmore

(See also separate post about Garbeg and Whitebridge cemeteries).

The Picts, those most elusive of early medieval Scottish peoples, seem to have disposed of their dead in a variety of ways. Remains that can still be found in the landscape include cremations, simple burials in the ground, long cist burials, burials under cairns, and burials under round and square barrows. It is also probably true that disposal was achieved by exposure and excarnation – practices continuing from pre-history. What remains unclear is how any of these contemporaneous burial practices were chosen for a specific individual or group.

An Artist's Impression of Pictish Barrows

An Artist’s Impression of Pictish Barrows by Alan Braby

Continue reading

Cnoc Tigh and Tarlogie Dun Excavations (Iron Age Round Houses)

by David Findlay (NOSAS)

These excavations, in April and July 2014, were led by Candy Hatherley and form part of the University of Aberdeen Northern Picts Project. Cnoc Tigh (see also our earlier blog entry) and Tarlogie Dun are Iron Age round houses situated on the north coast of the Tarbat Peninsula in Easter Ross. They are both on the high ground about 200m back from the coast giving them spectacular views across the Dornoch Firth to Sutherland and up the Sutherland coast. Neither site is naturally defensive and, though both have watercourses to one side creating a gorge and a steep bank to the sea on another side, that still leaves two sides open to the surrounding countryside.

The NOSAS Team Tarlogie Looking N April 2014 P1030613

The NOSAS team at Tarlogie, looking N (David Findlay)

They differ from the three duns excavated by the Aberdeen University Team in 2013 in that these were all on the south side of the Tarbat Peninsular and were relatively defensible due to the natural features, although Tarrel is overlooked by the cliff on the landward side.

Both Cnoc Tigh and Tarlogie appear to date from about 400 BC with occupation at Tarlogie lasting for 800 years to about 400AD. I do not know of any dates yet for the latest occupancy at Cnoc Tigh although I understand that suitable charcoal samples have been taken for dating.

The 2014 excavations at both sites reveal severely robbed and damaged stone walls; there are discernible facing walls in a few locations but largely only the fill remains. Both sites show a lot of evidence of the structures changing with time.

Continue reading