Field Visit
NM 68852 70132 A desk-based assessment and walkover survey was carried out, in September 2020, in advance of a woodland creation and management scheme at High Mingarry, near Acharacle, Moidart, in Lochaber. The desk-based assessment included a review of a detailed landscape survey and recording project undertaken by the Moidart History Group (Comann Eachdraidh Mùideart), carried out during the spring and summer of 2008, which recorded 84 archaeological sites. These included post-medieval farmsteads and their associated infrastructure, field boundaries and some areas of relict rig and furrow cultivation. Their report also included a detailed appraisal of documentary and map-based sources covering the High Mingarry and surrounding townships.
The archaeological fieldwork related to this project included a walkover survey of the area covered by the Moidart History Group to evaluate their level of recording and to check on the accuracy of the grid references for individual structures. This proved to be a challenging exercise due to a number of factors including areas of dense and high bracken stands to the W of the Mingarry Burn; the sites to the E of the Mingarry Burn are now located under a well-established conifer tree plantation; and a number of sites in the SW sector of the settlement that are now located in an area where conifer trees have been felled. At the time of the Moidart History Group Survey, the latter area comprised standing conifer trees, but also a large area where the trees had been affected by storm damage resulting in tree-throw. In addition, a walkover survey was carried out on a new area of ground to the NE of the High Mingarry Township, which comprised open moorland with some rock outcrops. No new archaeological sites were recorded in this area.
The walkover survey conducted over the High Mingarry Township recorded the full extent of boundary dykes and field boundaries and areas of relict rig and furrow cultivation. Unfortunately, the extensive bracken stands to the W of the Mingarry Burn created difficulties in accessing and recording the known archaeological sites, while the recorded archaeology within the previously felled area (within the SW sector of the township) had been severely disturbed due to tree-throw and felling activity. In particular, tree brash and other felling debris partially obscured some of the sites. The archaeological sites located under the standing conifer plantation to the E of the Mingarry Burn had also been impacted by the preparation of ground for tree planting and tree-throw activity, especially within the eastern sector of the survey area. One particular group of sites was partially obscured by fallen trees due to storm damage in this area. The archaeological sites under the standing trees were flagged-up using marker tape in advance of felling operations, to mitigate against further damage to the built heritage.
The archaeological sites recorded for this survey most likely relate to settlement at High Mingarry during the post-medieval period. It is possible that some of the sites and archaeological features may relate to earlier settlement, especially the field boundaries, during the later stages of the 17th century and early 18th century.
The settlement remains include houses and farmstead complexes, byres and outbuildings, smaller ancillary structures, kale yards and small enclosures, possible stack stands, larger field enclosures and areas of relict rig and furrow cultivation. Additional features include tracks, bridges, and bridge abutments, which would have provided access to, and between, different sectors of the settlement which were divided by stream courses feeding into the Mingarry Burn.
The various buildings and their associated infrastructure display varied levels of preservation, some of which almost certainly relates to different phases of occupation – which would have included the dismantling, modification, and construction of new structures. This would have involved the robbing of stone from older buildings to provide the materials for modifications to the settlement, leaving behind the chaotic and sometimes difficult to interpret palimpsest of remains.
A review of the settlement remains recorded for this survey shows distinct groups of buildings and smaller enclosures distributed throughout the settlement, interspersed by more isolated structural elements, surrounded by a head-dyke. Each of these groups consists of at least one substantial building together with a collection of smaller structures built to a similar design. Interspersed amongst these are much smaller, roughly built structures. It is possible that each group of buildings represents a farmstead including a house, byres, shelters, and small enclosures.
Within the settlement there are at least 17 well-constructed rectangular buildings with external dimensions of between 9–10m long and between 3–4m wide (at least 6 buildings) and between 5–7m long and 2–3m wide (c12 buildings). The buildings have a similar style of construction, with rounded outer corners and square internal corners. All have lower dry stone walls between 0.70–0.90m wide comprising inner and outer facing stones with a rubble core, while the entrances to the buildings are usually located in the centre of one of the long sides. Few of the building stones have been dressed, but comprise material gathered and quarried from the surrounding landscape. The remains of at least 5 smaller, irregularly-built shelters were also recorded. The remains of at least 10 additional buildings were found to be too damaged to discern their original dimensions. Finally, the outlines of three circular to oval-shaped turf shelters were noted.
Five enclosures were recorded in close proximity to, or adjoining substantial buildings in the settlement, while other small enclosures were distributed between buildings. The most unusual type of small stone-built enclosure includes 5 recorded encircling or running around the top of bedrock outcrops. Otherwise, a number of structures proved more difficult to interpret with regards to a function without further investigation.
The head-dyke and field boundaries recorded during the walkover survey at High Mingarry display a wide range of construction techniques and materials, much of which would have been dependant on the availability of raw materials in close proximity to the structure. For example, where the head-dyke passes close to rock outcrops, stone was quarried and a substantial wall built – sometimes measuring in excess of 1m wide at the base and comprising a double skin orthostat construction with a rubble core. However, where the dyke crossed lower-lying wet ground, where little natural stone was available, the builders resorted to the use of turves and peat for construction. The various forms of field and enclosure dyke within the settlement most likely relate to different periods of settlement at the site. Indeed, phasing within the various walls is obvious where one wall crosses above an earlier construction. Different periods of wall construction are also shown in their layout; the earlier dykes snaking around between natural features and utilising natural rock outcrops, while the later dykes comprise almost straight features, dividing the land into neat parcels resembling crofts. The phasing evident within historic period settlements, such as High Mingarry, would be worthy of further study.
Archive: Highland Council HER and NRHE (intended)
Funder: Lochshiel Estate and Miller Harris (Kirn Ltd)
Steven Birch – West Coast Archaeological Services
(Source: DES Vol 21)
