19.7. Baseline Environment

19.7.1. Overview of Baseline Environment

  1. The following sections provide a summary of the marine archaeology baseline environment. Volume 3, appendix 19.1, includes full details of the analysis undertaken to establish the marine archaeology baseline within the marine archaeology study area. For the purposes of the marine archaeology baseline, recorded losses have been alone assessed within a 5 km ‘recorded losses study area’ due to the imprecise spatial information associated with those data.
  2. Marine archaeology as considered in this assessment comprises the following categories:
  • Submerged prehistoric archaeology: this includes palaeochannels and other inundated terrestrial landforms that may preserve sequences of sediment possessing palaeoenvironmental data as well as palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites and artefacts.
  • Maritime archaeology: relates generally to watercraft or vessels, any of their associated structures, and/or cargo.
  • Aviation archaeology: this comprises all military and civilian aircraft crash sites and related wreckage.
  1. Archaeology is considered in terms of periods that represent timeframes which are defined and categorised by the culture of the people of the time. Notable changes in culture and activities are indicated by changes in chronological periods. Conventionally, geologic time is given in terms of years Before Present (BP); archaeological and historic periods are referred to as Before Christ (BC) or Anno Domini (AD2). The chronological periods and their corresponding date ranges that are considered in this report are provided in Table 19.2 (Scottish Archaeological Research Framework (ScARF, 2012a).

19.7.2. Submerged Prehistoric Archaeology Potential

  1. The prehistoric archaeological record of the UK covers the period from the earliest hominin occupation (more than 866,000 years Before Present (BP)) to the Roman invasion of Britain in AD 43. The coastline of the UK underwent dramatic changes during this time, and areas of the seabed that are now fully submerged would have been exposed and allowed the opportunity for hominins to exploit and inhabit the landscape. Glacial events including the Anglian (480,000 to 430,000 BP), the Wolstonian (350,000 to 132,000 BP) and the Devensian (122,000 to 10,000 BP) and intervening periods of marine transgression have affected the coastline of the UK and therefore the archaeological potential of these areas (Historic England, 2023). The stages of the quaternary period, the associated date ranges and correspondence with archaeological periods are presented in detail in the marine archaeology technical report (volume 3, appendix 19.1).
  2. The marine archaeology study area fluctuated between glacial and marine conditions during the Devensian and Holocene periods. While the area may have seen periods of sub-aerial exposure (e.g. during active phases as a glacial outwash plain), such environments are not associated with human activity; conversely, any archaeological material may have been at least reworked, if not obliterated during periods of ice sheet expansion.
  3. Assessment of the site-specific survey data has shown that the marine archaeology study area is characterised by glacial deposits and ice sheet deformation during the Devensian, and therefore was inhospitable for humans, meaning that there is little to no potential for the survival of Palaeolithic material.
  4. Following the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) at around 18,000 BP, the marine archaeology study area may have been quickly submerged. The seabed within the marine archaeology study area, however, is 60 m deeper than the location of the palaeoshoreline from the Lateglacial Interstadial (circa 14,700 to 11,700 BP). The relative positions of the Array and the palaeoshoreline, and the stages of marine transgression, indicates that the marine archaeology study area has remained submerged from shortly after the LGM to the Present Day. Due to the relatively rapid submergence after the LGM, there is very low potential for human occupation or activity.

19.7.3. Maritime and Aviation Archaeology Potential

  1. The maritime archaeological record for the marine archaeology study area has been considered chronologically for the following broad temporal phases as described in Table 19.7   Open ▸ . This archaeological baseline presents a summary of the information presented in full in volume 3, appendix 19.1.

 

Table 19.7:
Archaeological Periods and Associated Date Ranges (Saville, 2008; ScARF, 2012a)

Table 19.7: Archaeological Periods and Associated Date Ranges (Saville, 2008; ScARF, 2012a)

 

                        Early Prehistoric (Palaeolithic to Mesolithic)

  1. There is no evidence of maritime archaeological remains in the UK that pre-date the start of the Holocene, circa 10,000 BP (ScARF, 2012b). However, global examples suggest that watercraft were in use in early prehistory such as the suggestion that the colonisation of Australia by approximately 40,000 BC involved island hopping (Lourandos, 1997).
  2. Although the Palaeolithic in England can be dated back as far as 866,000 BC (Westaway, 2011), there is no evidence for occupation of Scotland before 12,700 BC (Ballin et al., 2010). During the Palaeolithic, it is possible that simple watercraft such as logboats or rafts were used for coastal journeys and fishing around Britain (Wessex Archaeology, 2007). A Palaeolithic blade (circa 12,000 BC) is known from the floodplain at Ravenscraig, Inverugie (Aberdeenshire) but as an isolated find it is unclear to what extent communities were accessing riverine and marine resources in this part of Scotland at this time. The discovery of a single flint scraper in a borehole core off Viking Bank (150 km north-east of Lerwick, Shetland) is unique not just for its depth, but also for its distance from the shore. The flint could date as far back as 13,000 BC (Long et al., 1986). If not secondarily derived, the find suggests human occupation of the Scottish shelf in pre-Holocene times, or a stone tool lost during a fishing expedition (Finlayson and Edwards, 2003; Flemming, 2003). Towards the end of the Mesolithic, at about 5,000 BC the land bridge between the UK and Europe was severed for the last time (Wessex Archaeology, 2007). Contact across the new seas intensified the need for some form of vessel. The existence of watercraft during the Mesolithic is inferred by the presence of Mesolithic archaeological material on insular land masses such as Ireland, for example.

                        Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age

  1. No evidence of Neolithic (4,100 to 2,500 BC), Chalcolithic or Bronze Age (2,500 to 800 BC) maritime activity has been recorded within the marine archaeology study area.
  2. Direct archaeological evidence for the exploitation of the marine environment and maritime activity in the Neolithic period is rare and limited to logboat finds outside of Scotland (Bradley et al., 1997; Johnstone, 1980; Wilkinson and Murphy, 1995). Logboats dating later than the Neolithic (as early as 1130 BC), to the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, are known from around Scotland, such as at Carpow on the River Tay and maritime equipment associated with crannogs (Strachan, 2010).

                        Iron Age and the Roman Presence

  1. No evidence of Iron Age (800 BC to AD2 400) or Roman (AD2 77 to 211) maritime activity has been recorded in the marine archaeology study area.
  2. Broad geographical and chronological narratives have emphasised the importance of the Atlantic Ocean as a routeway and for communication in the pre-Roman Iron Age (Cunliffe, 2001). No remains of Iron Age vessels are yet known from Scotland; however, interaction with the sea can be inferred from other types of archaeological evidence from the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland.
  3. The Roman period in Scotland is limited in both duration and extent when compared to the rest of the UK. Though Roman remains are known from beyond the Antonine Wall, these are temporary and the level of interaction by sea between the established frontier and the maritime areas of north-eastern Scotland are not well understood.

                        Medieval

  1. No evidence of Medieval (AD2 400 to 1500) maritime activity has been recorded within the marine archaeology study area, but regional evidence suggests a lively period of engagement with the sea.
  2. Maritime activity in the North Sea and in the vicinity increased during the earlier Medieval period. This was due in part, to Viking raiding, the intensification of regional trade and migration, and the growth of several ports on the east coast of the UK (Friel, 2003; Hutchinson, 1997; Kelly, 1992; Middleton, 2005).
  3. Despite an increase in maritime activity during this period, archaeological evidence for vessels from this period is rare. The level of shipping passing through the marine archaeology study area during the earlier Medieval period is high enough to suggest that there is a moderate to good potential for archaeological remains to exist within the marine archaeology study area.

                        Modern

  1. Prior to the advent of the Lloyds of London list of shipping casualties in 1751, there was no official record of ship losses (Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), 2022). Therefore, records of known wreck sites and losses in UK waters are biased towards the modern period (AD2 1500 to the Present Day), as a function of increased traffic and increased reporting due to the introduction of marine insurance, as well as a higher proportion of metal components in ships that allow for greater survival and detection (Burton et al., 2007).
  2. The growth of commercial maritime trade that began during the later Medieval period continued and expanded in the Modern period. Alongside overseas ventures which were expanding rapidly, inland and local coasting trade continued to be important in the region. The number of vessels crossing the North Sea increased significantly, particularly during the later Medieval period and the merger of the Royal Scots Navy with the Kingdom of England’s Royal Navy after the Acts of Union in 1707 (Murdoch, 2010). The marine archaeology study area was therefore an area of concentrated commercial and military maritime activity.

                        Modern Military Remains

  1. The maritime archaeological record of the 20th century until the Present Day is dominated by remains associated with the two World Wars. Warships, submarines and U-boats along with cargo vessels, personnel transport vessels and aircraft, comprise the known vessel losses during this period. The majority of known shipwrecks in the North Sea basin within which the marine archaeology study area is located are the results of military activity.

                        Recorded Losses

  1. Data for recorded shipping losses were obtained as appropriate from the NRHE held by HES (2024) (Canmore). The Canmore dataset provides a general picture of maritime casualties in the last 150 to 200 years. However, it is worth noting that there is potential for further shipping losses to have happened within the marine archaeology study area in addition to the ones recorded in this dataset.
  2. Recorded losses are often grouped with reference to a geographic, hydrographic or other point of reference, making the positional data of these records unreliable. However, they do provide information on the historical marine traffic of the general region and therefore the archaeological potential. At the request of HES, a 5 km ‘recorded losses study area’ was implemented for recorded losses alone due to a lack of accurate positional data for recorded losses, and to take account for the fact that a wreck may be located far from its last recorded position (e.g. the location provided within the record itself). There are a total of six recorded losses located within the recorded losses study area. Four of these six are modern records of shipping casualties, and are all located within 2 km of the Array, i.e. within the marine archaeology study area. These are: Svein Jarl (Canmore ID 314131); Titan (Canmore ID 328826); Duva (Canmore ID 313790) and Scottish Queen (Canmore ID 313238). The two remaining records relate to aviation records which are discussed in paragraph 43.

                        Aviation Archaeology Potential

  1. Thousands of military and civilian aircraft casualties have occurred in UK waters since the advent of powered flight in the early 20th century. The bulk of these are casualties of World War II and most are concentrated off the south and south-east coasts of England. However, there is clear potential for aircraft casualties the northern North Sea (Wessex Archaeology, 2008).
  2. While there are no known aviation wreck sites within the marine archaeology study area, there are significant wartime aviation facilities in north-eastern Scotland. For example, aviation training and mission flights were conducted from eastern Scotland such as Royal Air Force (RAF) Dalcross, RAF Kinloss, RAF Lossiemouth, Crimond (HMS Merganser), and RAF Dyce during World War II, all of which may contribute as yet unlocated aviation losses within the marine archaeology study area (Scottish Aviation Trail, 2024).
  3. While the aviation archaeology record is potentially very large, the ephemeral nature of aircraft wrecks ensures that many sites remain unknown and unrecorded. In addition, despite the potential extensive losses at sea, records are seldom tied to an accurate position. These difficulties complicate any assessment of the likely presence of aircraft wreckage on any particular area of seabed.
  4. Since World War II, despite the volume of both military and civilian air traffic, there have been few aviation losses off the east coast of Scotland. Two aviation records are located within the expanded 5 km recorded losses study area. Details of all recorded losses are given in volume 3, appendix 19.1. Of these recorded aircraft losses, one record is of a Sikorsky helicopter which crashed on 14 November 1970 while en route to the oil rig Staflo. The second is of a RAF Phantom which crashed on 4 August 1978. Wreckage was sighted by a helicopter en route to an oil rig but was impossible to relocate due to visibility. Later, in 1983, wreckage identified as being from a RAF Phantom was brought up by a trawler but no further information is available.

19.7.4. Results of the Desktop Study

  1. No designated sites have been identified within the datasets for the marine archaeology study area.
  2. The desktop study has identified two entries within the datasets that may indicate the presence of anthropogenic material within the marine archaeology study area. Two wrecks are present on the Canmore database. Their distribution is shown in Figure 19.2   Open ▸ .
  3. One previously unrecorded wreck (Canmore ID: 372595) is located within the Array. The wreck was originally identified during the site-specific survey operations for the Array and subsequently included in the Canmore database. Canmore ID 372595 is therefore confirmed to exist within the Array and is discussed further in section 19.7.5.
  4. One wreck (Canmore ID: 372955) is located within the marine archaeology study area. The wreck was observed during previous geophysical survey operations but is out with the limits of the site-specific geophysical survey data, approximately 380 m from the northern boundary of the Array. As no geophysical data for this position exists, it is not corroborated by geophysical seabed features assessment detailed in section 19.7.5. It is considered that this wreck may exist at the location shown, but is located more than 100 m from the site boundary and as such there is no impact receptor pathway for direct impacts and does not require an AEZ.

Figure 19.2:
Marine Archaeology Identified Within the Marine Archaeology Study Area

Figure 19.2: Marine Archaeology Identified Within the Marine Archaeology Study Area


19.7.5. Results of the Geophysical Seabed Features Assessment

  1. Geophysical data collected for the Array recorded 324 anomalies of archaeological interest. Of these, 295 are within the area of the Array and the remaining 29 anomalies lie outside of the area of Array but within the extents of the geophysical survey data. Of the 324 anomalies, three have been classified as high potential, 14 as medium potential, and the remaining 307 as low potential. The criteria for the assessment of archaeological potential are outlined in volume 3, appendix 19.1.
  2. The distribution of anomalies with medium and high potential is shown in Figure 19.3   Open ▸ . The locations of the low potential anomalies are presented in volume 3, appendix 19.1, annex C and are considered in the outline WSI and PAD (volume 3, appendix 19.2). The Applicant will share positional data of these anomalies with their contractors via the outline WSI and PAD (volume 3, appendix 19.2) for awareness during any works within the Array, and these anomalies will be avoided where practicable. Should avoidance be impractical, site investigation will be carried out prior to direct impacts. The details of measures adopted as part of the Array are given in section 19.10.

                        Low potential anomalies

  1. The 307 low potential anomalies have been assessed against available evidence and consequently are considered unlikely to have any archaeological significance. Low potential anomalies are considered within the outline WSI and PAD (volume 3, appendix 19.2).

                        Medium potential anomalies

  1. The 14 medium potential anomalies are presented in Table 19.8   Open ▸ and the distribution of these is shown in Figure 19.3   Open ▸ . These medium potential anomalies could represent archaeological material such as debris. Full details of the medium potential anomalies can be found in volume 3, appendix 19.1. While none of these medium potential anomalies correspond with results from the desktop study, it is likely representative of material from maritime (and possibly aviation) traffic in the Modern period.

 

Table 19.8:
Medium Potential Anomalies

Table 19.8: Medium Potential Anomalies

                        High potential anomalies

  1. Three high potential anomalies were identified within the marine archaeology survey area; two of these were located within the area of the Array and one was located within the marine archaeology survey area (e.g. extents of the geophysical data) but outside the Array. These anomalies of high potential are likely to represent archaeological material: two are classified as wrecks and one is classified as a potential wreck. These are shown in Figure 19.3   Open ▸ and presented in Table 19.9   Open ▸ below.
  2. While positive correlation cannot be made between the known wrecks identified in the geophysical assessment and the recorded losses which occurred in the area, the possibility remains that the visible wreck material may relate to either Scottish Queen (Canmore 313238), Duva (Canmore 313790), Titan (Canmore 328826), or Svein Jarl (Canmore 314131).

 

Table 19.9:
High Potential Anomalies Identified Through the Archaeological Assessment of Geophysical Data

Table 19.9: High Potential Anomalies Identified Through the Archaeological Assessment of Geophysical Data

 

  1. Anomaly OS23_314 was subject to additional specialist shipwreck analysis which identifies the wreck as a MV coaster or submarine (McCartney, 2023). From the additional assessment, the most likely scenario is that the seabed anomaly represents a ‘coaster’ vessel that has inverted while sinking, and subsequently collapsed. Although an alternative scenario is also presented in which the anomaly represents a previously unknown wreck of a submarine (McCartney, 2023). Correspondence between desktop and site-specific data, together with any future data can refine the baseline and provide further information with which to establish significance. Based on the criteria for sensitivity set out in section 19.9.2, further analysis can provide more information about a wreck which can aid assessments of its sensitivity. Anomaly OS23_314, if a submarine and not the remains of Svein Jarl or Duva, would then potentially be designated as an archaeologically significant asset.


Figure 19.3:
Medium and High Potential Geophysical Anomalies Within the Marine Archaeology Survey Area

Figure 19.3: Medium and High Potential Geophysical Anomalies Within the Marine Archaeology Survey Area

19.7.6. Future Baseline Scenario

  1. The EIA Regulations require that “a description of the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment (baseline scenario) and an outline of the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the project as far as natural changes from the baseline scenario can be assessed with reasonable effort, on the basis of the availability of environmental information and scientific knowledge” is included within the Array EIA Report.
  2. If the Array does not come forward, an assessment of the ‘without development’ future baseline conditions has also been carried out and is described within this section.
  3. The current baseline as described in section 19.7.3 is assumed to change very slowly. The effects of climate change on the marine environment may cause impacts on marine archaeology receptors in the mid to long term (Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), 2016). It has been predicted that UK seas will be between 1.5° and 4°C warmer by the end of the twenty first century (Lowe et al., 2009, Cornes et al., 2023). One effect of warmer seas is the northward migration of invasive and potentially damaging species, such as the blacktip shipworm Lyrodus pedicellatus. The blacktip shipworm is a species of shipworm that has begun to invade UK seas from more southerly latitudes as a result of sea temperature increase, recorded off Cornwall, Langstone Harbour (Hampshire) and Sandwich (Kent), and is considered to be a major threat to wooden wrecks and other wooden structures (Dunkley, 2013). The process, pattern, and speed of the blacktip shipworm introduction to Scottish waters is, however, uncertain (Historic Environment Scotland, 2019).
  4. The baseline environment of the marine archaeology study area as described in section 19.7 above should be considered as a snapshot of the present marine archaeology environment within a gradually changing environment. It is unlikely that significant change will occur to marine archaeology within the marine archaeology study area over the next few decades (over the lifespan of the Array), including the decline of the archaeological resource should the shipworm inhabit Scottish waters. Firstly, sediment mobility will likely continue and this natural process will potentially expose marine archaeology over time, leading to its deterioration. Secondly, it is possible that sediment mobility will rebury the archaeology, resulting in its possible protection but increase its concealment. Finally, through these processes, currently unknown marine archaeology sites and wrecks will be exposed.

19.7.7. Data Limitations and Assumptions

  1. The records held by HES and other sources used in this assessment are not a record of all surviving archaeological assets, but a record of discovery of a diverse range of archaeological and historical components of the marine environment. The datasets used are incomplete records of the totality of potential marine archaeology present on the seabed and does not preclude the subsequent discovery of further elements of the historic environment that are, at present, unknown. This relates particularly to those archaeological features that are buried. Best practice and industry guidance were followed to ensure a robust and holistic understanding of the marine archaeology baseline.
  2. The interpretation of geophysical and hydrographic data is, by its very nature, subjective. However, with experience and by analysing the form, size, and characteristics of an anomaly, a reasonable degree of certainty as to the origin of an anomaly can be achieved. Measurements can be taken in most data processing software; while this is reasonably accurate, some discrepancies may occur. Where there is uncertainty of an anomaly’s potential or origin, a precautionary approach is taken to ensure the most appropriate mitigation for the historic environment is recommended. There may be instances where a contact may exist on the seabed but is not visible in the geophysical data. This may be due to the anomaly being buried or out of the sonar’s line-of-sight. The desktop sources and the site-specific data examined represent a comprehensive and robust sequence of datasets and observations that allow for a detailed assessment of archaeological constraints associated with the Array.