1. Introduction

1.1. Document Overview

This Marine Archaeology Technical Report provides the archaeological baseline information and a review of site-specific data for the Ossian Array (hereafter referred to as ‘the Array’).
The objectives of this report are to:

Summarise the potential for submerged prehistoric archaeology to be encountered within the marine archaeology study area ( Figure 2.1 Open ▸ ).
Identify known maritime and aviation sites within the marine archaeology study area from available desktop data sources.
Based on the maritime history of the wider region, assess the potential for the existence of unknown sites and materials within the limits of the marine archaeology study area.
Present site-specific geophysical data from surveys across the site boundary (within which the Array will be located), identify anomalies of archaeological interest and characterise these anomalies integrating the results of the site-specific data, with the findings of the desk-based work described above.
Review available site-specific geophysical data for deposits of archaeological and palaeoenvironmental interest and integrate the results with the findings of the desktop review.

2. Legislation, Policy and Guidance

2.1. Overview

This section sets out the legislation, policy, guidance and any development plans relevant to marine archaeology in the context of offshore renewable energy development to provide an appropriate context for the baseline assessment.
With regard to marine licensing, Scottish territorial waters (STW) are classed as the area of sea within 12 nautical miles (nm) of the territorial coastline. Scottish offshore waters include any area of sea beyond 12 nm, that is within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the United Kingdom (UK) sector of the continental shelf (up to 200 nm).
Beyond the UK’s territorial waters archaeology is generally subject to international legislation and policy, with two exceptions:

the Merchant Shipping Act 1995; and
the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986.

International policy and legislation to which marine archaeology is subject includes the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (United Nations, 1982), the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised) (1992) (the Valletta Convention) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s (UNESCO) Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001 (UNESCO, 2001).

Figure 2.1: Array Location and Marine Archaeology Study Area

2.1.1. Methodology

Protection of Wrecks Act 1973

Section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 provides guidance on the protection for wrecks that are designated as dangerous due to their contents and is administered by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) through the Receiver of Wreck (RoW).

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (as amended)

This primarily land-based Act may also be used to provide protection for underwater sites within the UK’s territorial waters. Scheduled Monuments and Areas of Archaeological Importance (AAIs) or their equivalent are afforded statutory protection by the Secretary of State, and consent is required for any major works. The Act is administered in Scotland by Historic Environment Scotland (HES), on behalf of Scottish Ministers.

Protection of Military Remains Act 1986

The Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 makes it an offence to interfere with the wreckage of any crashed, sunken or stranded military aircraft or designated vessel, without a licence.
All crashed military aircraft receive automatic protection under this Act. Maritime vessels lost during military service are not automatically protected, although the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has powers to protect any vessel that was in military service when lost. There are two levels of protection offered by this Act:

Designation as a Protected Place: Protected Places include the remains of any aircraft which crashed while in military service or any vessel designated (by name, not location) which sank or stranded in military service after 04 August 1914. Although crashed military aircraft receive automatic status as a Protected Place, vessels need to be specifically designated by name. The location of the vessel does not need to be known for it to be designated as a Protected Place.
Designation as a Controlled Site: Controlled Sites are specifically designated areas which encompass the remains of military aircraft, or a vessel sunk or stranded in military service within the last 200 years. Diving operations for excavation or salvage are effectively prohibited on these sites without a specific licence granted by the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Official guidance states that for preliminary explorations “there would be no objection to preliminary explorations around the wreck for identification purposes, providing it was not tampered with or disturbed in any way” (Ministry of Defence, 2018).

Merchant Shipping Act 1995

This Act details the procedures for determining the ownership of maritime finds that turn out to be ‘wreck’ in the offshore, onshore, or the intertidal zone of UK territorial waters. ‘Wreck’ includes all craft, parts of these, their cargo or equipment. Section 236 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 stipulates that all wreck within the UK’s territorial waters (up to 12 nm) and any wreck landed in the UK from outside the UK’s territorial waters must be declared to the RoW who acts on behalf of the MCA in administering this section of the Act. If any maritime finds are brought onshore, the RoW must be notified, and the finds must be kept until the RoW determines ownership or requests that they be given to the RoW. This Act is administered by the MCA.
All items which are raised from the seabed, regardless of age or importance, must be reported to the RoW who will act to settle questions of ownership and salvage.

Marine (Scotland) Act 2010

The marine historic assets of national importance within STW are protected primarily by the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. Part 5, Section 73 of this Act states that an area may be designated as an Historic Marine Protected Area (HMPA) if Scottish Ministers consider it desirable to preserve a marine historic asset which is located in the area.
A marine historic asset is defined as:

a vessel, vehicle or aircraft (or part of);
the remains of a vessel, vehicle or aircraft (or part of);
an object contained in or formerly contained in a vessel, vehicle or aircraft, a building or other structure (or part of);
a cave or excavation; and
a deposit or artefact or any other thing which evidences previous human activity.

The purpose of HMPAs is to preserve by law, marine historic assets of national importance. Permission under the Town and Country (Scotland) Planning Act 1997 or a Marine Licence (ML) under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (in waters 12 nm to 200 nm), or under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 (from Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) to 12 nm) may be required to carry out work inside an HMPA.
Clear preservation objectives are provided for each HMPA and their boundaries are identified as an exclusion zone to activities that could lead to disturbance of the marine historic asset.
In Scotland, the Marine Scotland Act 2010 has replaced Section 1 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973.

2.1.2. Policy

Marine Policy Statement 2011

The UK Marine Policy Statement (MPS) sets out high level marine objectives for ensuring that marine resources are used in a sustainable way (UK Government, 2011).
Section 2.6.6 of the MPS relates to the historic environment in marine planning and advises that heritage assets should be conserved through marine planning in a manner appropriate and proportionate to their significance. It advises that when considering the significance of a heritage asset and its setting, the marine plan authority should take into account the particular nature of the interest in the assets and the value they hold for current and future generations.
Designated heritage assets in coastal/intertidal zones and territorial/offshore waters may include Scheduled Monuments, Protected Wreck Sites and sites designated under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. Non-designated heritage assets of equivalent status should be considered under the same policy principles as designated heritage assets.
Where the loss of the whole or material part of a heritage asset’s significance is justified, suitable mitigation measures should be put in place. Mitigation requirements should be based on advice from relevant regulators and advisors.

Scotland’s Marine Plan 2015

The Scottish National Marine Plan (NMP) was published in 2015 and reviewed in 2018 and 2021 and sets out high level objectives for managing offshore development and advice for the preparation of future Regional Marine Plans (RMPs).
General Policy 6 within the Scottish NMP relates to the historic environment and states that “Development and use of the marine environment should protect and, where appropriate, enhance heritage assets in a manner proportionate to their significance” (Scottish Government, 2015a).
It identifies that designated heritage assets should be protected in situ within an appropriate setting, and that substantial loss or harm to designated assets should be exceptional and should only be permitted “if this is necessary to deliver social, economic or environmental benefits that outweigh the harm or loss” (Scottish Government, 2015a).
It further identifies that non-designated heritage assets that meet designation criteria or make a positive contribution should also be protected in situ, wherever possible, and consideration given “to the potential for new discoveries of historic or archaeological interest to arise” (Scottish Government, 2015a).
It outlines that proposals for development that may “affect the historic environment should provide information on the significance of known heritage assets and the potential for new discoveries to arise. They should demonstrate how any adverse impacts will be avoided, or if not possible, minimised and mitigated. Where it is not possible to minimise or mitigate impacts, the benefits of proceeding with the proposal should be clearly set out” (Scottish Government, 2015a).
The Scottish NMP also states that “where the case for substantial change to heritage asset is accepted, marine decision-making authorities should require applicants to undertake suitable mitigating actions to record and advance understanding of the significance of the heritage asset before it is lost, in a manner proportionate to that significance” (Scottish Government, 2015a).

Scottish Regional Marine Plan

The Scottish Marine Regions Order 2015 (Scottish Government, 2015b) established statutory Scottish Marine Regions (SMRs) up to the 12 nm limit. Assessment areas which consolidate the existing statutory SMRs with non-statutory Offshore Marine Regions (OMRs) which extend seaward from 12 nm to the continental shelf limits adjacent to Scotland. The Array lies within the Long Forties OMR as defined by this framework. In turn, the Long Forties OMR straddles the Forth and Tay and the North East SMRs. While there are no specific constraints within the Long Forties OMR, a subsequent onshore export cable corridor would be subject to specific policies regarding the management of any SMR.

2.1.3. Guidance

There are a number of guidance documents that are relevant to marine archaeology in the context of offshore renewable development which have been considered in the production of this technical report. These include:

International:

– UNESCO World Heritage Convention 1972;

– United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982;

– Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised) 1992 (Valletta Convention);

– International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage 1996 (Sofia Charter);

– Code of Practice for Seabed Development (Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (JNAPC)) 2006; and

– European Directive for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) (2014/52/EU).

UK:

– Historic Environment Guidance for the Offshore Renewable Energy Sector (COWRIE, 2007);

– Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (English Heritage (now Historic England (HE)), 2008)

– Offshore Geotechnical Investigations and Historic Environment Analysis: Guidance for the Renewable Energy Sector (Gribble and Leather, 2011);

– Offshore Renewables Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries (The Crown Estate, 2014);

– Code of Conduct (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA), 2014a);

– Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment (CIfA, 2014b (updated 2020)); and

– Archaeological Written Schemes of Investigation for Offshore Wind Farm Projects (The Crown Estate, 2021).

Scotland:

– Making the Most of Scotland’s Seas (Scottish Government, 2010); and

– Designation Policy and Selection Guidance (HES, 2020).

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Area

The marine archaeology study area is defined as the Array with an additional 2 km buffer. An additional recorded losses study area, defined as the Array with an additional 5 km buffer, was implemented through consultation at the request of HES after the receipt of their Scoping Representation (see volume 2, chapter 19). The recorded losses study area was used for the desktop study of recorded losses in the vicinity of the Array only, which is described in sections 6.1.7 and 6.1.9. These areas are shown in Figure 2.1 Open ▸ . The 5 km buffer for recorded losses is to account for the imprecise and often arbitrary spatial information associated with these records. These study areas were used as the search area for obtaining records from relevant archive databases. The marine archaeology study area allows for a greater understanding of the archaeological baseline environment with the dual purpose of enabling recognition of any archaeological trends in the region and allowing any archaeological sites to be represented in a broader archaeological context.
The site-specific survey data collection area overlaps the Array, and in places exceeds it. The area of seabed geophysical data collection is referred to as the marine archaeology survey area and is shown separately in Figure 3.1 Open ▸ .

3.2. Desktop Study

Marine archaeology is considered within the following categories:

Submerged prehistoric archaeology: this includes palaeochannels and other inundated terrestrial landforms that may preserve sequences of sediment of palaeoenvironmental interest, Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites and artefacts.
Maritime archaeology: relates generally to craft or vessels and any of their associated structures and/or cargo.
Aviation archaeology: this comprises all military and civilian aircraft crash sites and related wreckage.

3.2.1. Data Sources

Several sources were consulted in order to inform the desktop study of the technical report. These are provided in Table 3.1 Open ▸ .
Data of wrecks and obstructions held by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO) was also consulted, but there were no records within the marine archaeology study area.

Table 3.1: Summary of Key Data

Title	Source	Year	Author
National Record of the Historic Environment (NRHE) (Canmore) – including shipping and aviation wrecks and HMPAs	HES	2023	HES
Protected Wrecks Map	Marine Scotland	2024	Marine Scotland
Submerged Landscapes Data	European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODNet) Geology	2023	British Geological Survey (BGS)
Geology viewer	BGS	2023	BGS

A map of a green area

Description automatically generated

Figure 3.1: Marine Archaeological Survey Area

3.2.2. Data Structure

In order to present a baseline for the purposes of this technical report, the sources in section 3.2.1 were compiled into gazetteers (see volume 3, appendix 19.1, annex A, B and C).
The desktop data have been classified between records where material is known to be on the seabed and ‘recorded losses’. Recorded losses are records of vessels that have been lost in the area but have no verifiable positional data. They provide additional information on the historical maritime traffic of the area, but associated material is not known to survive on the seabed. A recorded losses study area was implemented to account for the imprecise locational information associated with these records.

4. Site-Specific Surveys

A site-specific geophysical survey was carried out between 15 April 2022 and 20 July 2022. The survey resulted in the mobilisation of a Multibeam Echo Sounder (MBES), a Sidescan Sonar (SSS), a magnetometer, a parametric Sub-bottom Profiler (SBP), and a Two Dimensional (2D) Ultra High-Resolution Seismic (UHRS) ‘Sparker’ and hydrophone array.
Survey operations were undertaken within a pre-defined boundary of approximately 859 km², which overlaps and, in places, exceeds the Array ( Figure 2.1 Open ▸ ).

4.1. Technical Specifications

All geophysical data was collected to a specification that fulfils the requirements of Section 3 of Archaeological WSI for Offshore Wind Farm Projects (The Crown Estate, 2021).
The data were collected to a specification appropriate to achieve the following interpretation requirements:

Sidescan Sonar: ensonification of anomalies > 0.5 m.
Multibeam Echosounder: ensonification of anomalies > 1.0 m.
Magnetometer (Transverse Gradiometer (TVG)): 5 nT threshold for anomaly picking.
Sub-Bottom Profiler: Penetration of 3 m was achieved.
Sparker 2D UHRS: Penetration of over 200 m was achieved.

4.2. Data Quality and Limitations

The data collected across the extents of the marine archaeology survey area are of good quality overall. The survey line spacing was sufficient to achieve 100% coverage for the bathymetry data. SSS data achieved 80% seabed coverage. SBP data were collected to a pre-determined line plan, largely providing suitable coverage and penetration for the interpretation of the palaeoenvironment. The magnetometer data were collected to a pre-determined line plan suitable for the identification of ferrous material with a peak-to-peak amplitude of 5 nT, with the minimum detection size increasing with distance from the tracklines. The data are considered of an appropriate specification, coverage and quality to undertake a robust archaeological assessment to inform the EIA process, noting that additional data collection and interpretation will be required prior to construction.

4.3. Processing

The archaeological assessment of data was undertaken by a qualified and experienced maritime archaeologist at MSDS Marine with a background in geophysical and hydrographic data acquisition, processing, and interpretation.
MSDS Marine were provided with the survey deliverables by RPS, including both raw and processed data, alongside interpretations and operations reports. The primary deliverables are shown in Table 4.1 Open ▸ . The assessment considers the full extents of the survey data, which was collected within an area that covers and overlaps the Array.

Table 4.1: Data Deliverables to MSDS Marine

Sensor	Data Type	Format
SSS	Raw lines (Low Frequency (LF) and High Frequency (HF))	.xtf
	Processed lines (HF)	.xtf
	Mosaic (HF) 0.5 Pixels per metre (ppm)	.tif
	Contact list	.shp and .csv
SBP (both)	Raw lines	Society of Exploration Geophysicists Y (data format) (SEG-Y) (.sgy)
	Processed lines	.sgy
	Isopach	.shp
	Horizons	.tif
TVG	Raw lines	.csv
TVG	Contacts	.csv
Multibeam Echosounder	Raw lines	.xyz
	Grids (at 0.2 m and 1.0 m)	.xyz
	Mosaic (at 1.0 m)	.tif
Geographic Information System (GIS)	Geodatabase	.gdb
Reports	Interpretation report	.pdf
Reports	Operations report	.pdf

The data were analysed in conjunction with the desktop datasets listed in Table 3.1 Open ▸ to determine any potentially significant archaeological material that may be present within the marine archaeology study area. The criteria for the assessment of archaeological material is presented in Table 4.2 Open ▸ .

Table 4.2: Criteria for the Assessment of Archaeological Potential

Potential	Criteria
Low	An anomaly potentially of anthropogenic origin but that is unlikely to be of archaeological significance – examples may include discarded modern debris such as rope, cable, chain, or fishing gear; small, isolated anomalies with no wider context; or small boulder-like features with associated magnetometer readings.
Medium	An anomaly believed to be of anthropogenic origin but that would require further investigation to establish its archaeological significance – examples may include larger unidentifiable debris or clusters of debris, unidentifiable structures, or significant magnetic anomalies.
High	An anomaly almost certainly of anthropogenic origin and with a high potential of being of archaeological significance – high potential anomalies tend to be the remains of wrecks, the suspected remains of wrecks, or known structures of archaeological significance.

4.4. Combined Assessment

Following the assessment of all datasets the results were imported into Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS Pro 3.1.1, a GIS software package, and reviewed alongside each other, along with GeoTIFF files of the SSS, MBES, and magnetometer data. The concurrent review allows the amalgamation of duplicate anomalies, the assessment of the wider context, and an understanding of the extents of a feature that may be partially buried or span across two or more lines of data.
Data from the UKHO, including the positions of wrecks and obstructions, and the relevant Canmore records, as well as all other relevant data such as third-party assets were assessed to ensure that any additional information is drawn upon, but also that anomalies are not unnecessarily identified as having archaeological potential. The resultant remaining anomalies assessed as having archaeological potential were compiled into a gazetteer (volume 3, appendix 19,1, annex C) and a GIS shapefile.
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, and whilst largely accurate, discrepancies can be noted due to a number of factors. Where there is uncertainty as to the potential of an anomaly, or its origin, a precautionary approach is always taken to ensure the most appropriate mitigation for the historic environment.
It should be noted that there may be instances where an anomaly may exist on the seabed but not be visible in the geophysical data. This may be due to being covered by sediment or being obscured from the line of sight of the SSS. The use of both SSS and MBES data mitigates this by visualising anomalies from multiple angles, including from above. Anomalies were named following the standard MSDS Marine convention, [PROJECTYEAR_ID], e.g. OS23_XXX.

5. Marine Archaeology: Submerged Prehistory

5.1. Overview

The data available for the submerged prehistoric assessment includes:

Innomar parametric SBP and Sparker 2D UHRS (Ocean Infinity, 2022).
Interpretation reports, including:

– interpretive Report: SSE Scotwind: Geophysical and Environmental Survey E1E. Produced for SSE Renewables (SSER) (Ocean Infinity, 2022);

– geotechnical investigations, including boreholes and vibrocores, and seismic surveys undertaken by the BGS (Gatliff et al., 1994); and

– a review of prehistoric archaeological remains within Strategic Environmental Assessment Area 1 (SEA1) (Flemming, 2003).

Research papers and publications including:

– United Kingdom offshore regional report: the geology of the central North Sea (Gatliff et al., 1994);

– Marr Bank Sheet 56° N - 02° W Quaternary Geology (BGS, 1985); and

– Offshore Geoindex (BGS, 2014).

5.2. Geology

The geological processes which form a sequence of seabed deposits provide baseline information to provide an understanding of the potential for submerged prehistoric archaeology to be found within the marine archaeology study area. This section therefore describes the seabed geological sequence and seabed topography within the marine archaeology study area, as a foundation for the sections which follow. It has been informed by a characterisation of the results from the site-specific geophysical survey, as described in section 4, and by relevant data and documentary sources.
The marine archaeology study area lies within the north-western North Sea. Bedrock within the marine archaeology study area is varied. In the central part of the marine archaeology study area Palaeocene mudstones, sandstones, and lignite are noted, while to the west and in two central pockets lie Cretaceous chalks. The eastern part of the marine archaeology study area is characterised by siliciclastic, argillaceous and undifferentiated sandstones of the Eocene to Pliocene eras.

5.3. Quaternary Sequence

Seismic data from the marine archaeology study area demonstrates that Quaternary units overlay the bedrock, including both Pleistocene and Holocene deposits (MSDS, 2023). Together these units average 50 m in thickness across the marine archaeology survey area. This is corroborated by the BGS (2014).
The ages of Marine Isotopic Stages (MIS), British conventional terminology for Quaternary stages, and relative climatic regimes are given in Table 5.1 Open ▸ . The ages are given in thousand years (ky) Before Present (BP). The general association of Quaternary stages and their archaeological periods are shown in Table 5.2 Open ▸ . The Quaternary sediment deposit sequence within the marine archaeology survey area is shown in Table 5.3 Open ▸ . It should be noted that the information presented in Table 5.3 Open ▸ is based on modelling and analysis of the SBP data. Future programmes of geotechnical survey can be designed to confirm the presence of identified units in the latest ground model. The methodology for future geotechnical surveys and analysis that occur post-consent will be covered in method statements and appended to the WSI and PAD and agreed by HES prior to any operations.

Table 5.1: Marine Isotopic Stages, Ages, British Terminology, and Relative Climatic Regime (based on Historic England (no date); dates from Lisiecki and Raymo (2005))

MIS	Age (ky BP)		British conventional chronology	Climate
MIS	Start	End	British conventional chronology	Climate
1	12	Present	Present	Holocene
2	25	12	Devensian	Mainly cold
3	50	25
4	70	50
5a-d	110	70
5e	130	110	Ipswichian	Warm
6	186	130	Wolstonian	Cold
7	245	186		Warm
8	303	245		Cold
9	339	303		Warm
10	380	339		Cold
11	423	380	Hoxnian	Warm
12	478	423	Anglian	Cold
13-21	866	478	Cromerian and earlier	Warm

Table 5.2: Quaternary Stages, the Holocene Epoch, and their Archaeological Associations

Period	Date Range	Notes
Holocene	12,000 BP to Present Day	Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman, Medieval, and modern periods. The Holocene is the current time period within the larger geological time scale known as the Quaternary Period.
Devensian, from Last Glacial Maximum to Lateglacial Interstadial	18,000 to 10,000 BP	Coincides with the late Upper Palaeolithic and the early Mesolithic.
Devensian up to Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)	circa 110,000 to 18,000 BP	Arrival in the UK of late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthals, who were followed approximately 31,000 BP by early Upper Palaeolithic, anatomically modern humans Homo sapiens.
Ipswichian (interglacial)	circa 130,000 to circa 110,000 BP	Last interglacial in the UK. Overlaps with the late Middle Palaeolithic.
Cromerian to Wolstonian	circa 800,000 to circa 130,000 BP	Variable Pleistocene deposition. Incorporates the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic.

As can be seen Table 5.3 Open ▸ , Unit 40 is thought to represent the earliest Quaternary deposit within the marine archaeology survey area and has been tentatively correlated with the Aberdeen Ground Formation which was laid down 2.52 million BP to 500,000 BP (MSDS, 2023). The Aberdeen Ground Formation is an Early to Middle Pleistocene unit with a varied depositional environment. The date range of the formation suggests some contemporaneity with some of the earliest hominid activity in the UK such as in Happisburgh (Westaway, 2011; Historic England, 2023) and Boxgrove (Pope et al., 2020) but it represents low archaeological potential as it predates the earliest evidence of human activity in Scotland.
Unit 30 lies above Unit 40. The facies of Unit 30 indicate deposition in an ice-proximal environment, for example as a glaciolacustrine or glaciofluvial deposit, with evidence of deformation suggesting glaciotectonic actions within the unit (MSDS, 2023). Due to the glacial character of the unit, it is thought to represent low archaeological potential.
Unit 20 lies above Unit 30. Internally the unit is complex, with well-ordered stratigraphy in places, showing evidence of bedding within channel systems but elsewhere in the marine archaeology survey area the unit is chaotic, and evidence of deformation associated with glacial action is noted (MSDS, 2023). The evidence of chaotic facies potentially associated with diamicton deposits are identified particularly along the southern part of the marine archaeology survey area.

Table 5.3: Quaternary Sequence of Deposits in the Marine Archaeology Survey Area

Unit and Base Reflector	Seismic Character and Lithology	Correlated Formation Member	Age	Depositional Environment	Archaeological Potential
Unit 10 – internal reflector (H05: Internal reflector)	Low amplitude to transparent reflections. Good lateral continuity and high amplitude. Parallel or sub-parallel to the seabed.	Forth Formation	Holocene	Marine	Low
Unit 10 (H10)	Well layered, subparallel facies of variable amplitude acoustic contrasts; occasionally transparent, upper sequences appear less organized; prominent internal unconformity.	Forth Formation	Holocene	Marine	Low
Unit 20 (H20)	Well organized internal stratigraphy of variable amplitude contrasts; often depicting fine bedding and stacked channel system, occasionally disrupted basal reflector, chaotic internal facies	Marr Bank Formation	Devensian	Glacial	Low
Unit 30 (H30)	Chaotic at the base, followed by wavy reflector of medium to high amplitude contrasts and less organized (or even transparent) at the top; also well layered, subparallel reflectors; in some instances, appear disrupted	Marr Bank Formation	Devensian	Glacial	Low
Unit 40 (H40)	Highly heterogenous, several channel features, subparallel reflectors, locally disrupted or obliterated, less organized with chaotic facies.	Possibly Aberdeen Ground Formation	Early to middle Pleistocene (MIS 100-MIS 13)	Varied, but predating earliest evidence of human activity in Scotland	Low
Unit 50 (H40: Top reflector)	Layered, with subparallel reflectors of variable amplitude contrasts, occasionally disrupted and obliterated, less organized (chaotic).	Bedrock	Pre-Quaternary	-	None

Together, both Unit 30 and Unit 20 are correlated with the Marr Bank Formation, laid down during the Devensian Glaciation (122,000 - 10,000 BP, MIS 5-1). A BGS core (BGS BH74/07) taken 20 km to the north-east of the Array gave a date of 17,734 +/- 480 BP (minimum age) for the deposit (Stoker et al., 1985). The date falls within the Dimlington Stadial (circa 22,000 - 13,000 BP). While the location and extent of the Scottish Ice Sheet is debated, the evidence from Units 20 and 30 indicate complex glacial environments with likely oscillations in the ice sheet (Ballantyne and Small, 2019). The evidence from Units 20 and 30 indicates subglacial, supraglacial, and outwash deposits. Proximity to the ice created a resource-poor polar desert, except perhaps on unglaciated coastlines where fish and marine mammals could have survived (Westley, et al., 2013). Furthermore, the UK is also thought to have been uninhabited during the Dimlington Stadial (Jacobi and Higham, 2009). Therefore, these units are thought to represent low archaeological potential.
Unit 10 overlies Unit 20 and is correlated with the Forth Formation. The formation originated in the Lateglacial and Holocene periods and can be divided into two members; the Largo Bay and St Andrew’s Bay Members. It is not certain which members are represented by Unit 10 within the Array, but the upper deposits represent modern marine sediments. It is possible that the channels that appear have been formed in an outwash plain setting that has been discussed for the Marr Bank Formation were later filled by Forth Formation sediments. Therefore, sea levels are of relevance to the understanding of the potential depositional environment.

5.4. Sea Level Data

The Largo Bay Member of the Forth Formation is thought to have been deposited during the Lateglacial Interstadial, a relatively warm period that occurred towards the end of the last glaciation in Britain (13,000–11,000 BP). Although sea levels were likely regressing on the east coast during this period, deposits within the inner estuaries in eastern Scotland provide evidence of raised marine deposits during this period (Peacock, 1999; Holloway et al., 2002; Stoker et al., 2008). This demonstrates the likelihood that the marine archaeology study area experienced marine to glaciomarine conditions and was therefore uninhabited during this period.
Colder conditions were re-established during the Loch Lomond Stadial (circa 11,000–10,000 BP), creating a now-submerged shoreline, termed the Main Lateglacial Shoreline (Stoker et al., 2008). Deposition of the St Andrews Bay Member of the Forth Formation is thought to have begun during this period and continued throughout the Holocene (Stoker et al., 2008). The deposit represents shallow marine or estuarine environments; the estuarine elements indicate broad archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential associated with the Forth Formation that spans the late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic.
To the south-east of North Berwick (120.38 km to the south of the Array), the Main Lateglacial Shoreline was encountered at a depth of between -27 m and -18 m Ordnance Datum (OD). The Array lies between -63.82 m and -88.66 m Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), (approximately between -61.6 m and -86.4 m OD) and so is likely to have been submerged during the St Andrews Bay depositional period and therefore suggests very limited potential for archaeological remains. Additionally, the glacial conditions of the region during this period would have been unfavourable for human habitation.
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.

5.5. Submerged Prehistoric Archaeology Potential

This section characterises the potential for submerged prehistoric archaeology to be present within the marine archaeology study area such as chance finds of, or deposits containing archaeological material (e.g. flint tools), or submerged landscapes. This section is informed by the site-specific geophysical data and desk-based review.
The prehistoric period of the UK covers from the earliest hominin occupation (potentially as early as circa 970,000 BP) to the end of the Iron Age and the Roman invasion of Britain in Anno Domini (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 allowing 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.
Submerged prehistoric archaeological potential is determined with reference to evidence for human activity in the UK during each period, and the contemporary environment within the marine archaeology study area. Depositional environment and post-depositional factors are also key to understanding potential, and as such geological deposits present within the marine archaeology study area form an important consideration in understanding archaeological, palaeoenvironmental and palaeolandscape potential. Geological periods referred to in this section are defined by the date ranges presented in Table 5.2 Open ▸ .

5.5.1. Lower Palaeolithic to Late Upper Palaeolithic (800,000 to 18,000 BP)

Deposits representing varied depositional environments in the Early to Middle Pleistocene are present within the marine archaeology study area, indicating that the area may have had landscapes inhabitable by humans.
The very earliest hominin occupations of Britain are represented by the sites of Happisburgh 3 (949,000–935,000 BP or 866,000–815,000 BP) and Pakefield (790,000–761,000 BP) on the coast of East Anglia (Historic England, 2023). Both sites are represented by small numbers of lithic technology artefacts. The hominin species may have been Homo antecessor, whose fossils are known only from Atapuerca (Gran Dolina) in northern Spain. Evidence of Lower Palaeolithic activity increases after about 600,000 BP, with a number of open-air sites in East Anglia and the western Sussex Coastal Plain, such as at Boxgrove (Historic England, 2023; Pope, 2020). Hominins appear to have been absent from Britain in the subsequent Anglian Glacial stage (478,000–423,000 BP). This and subsequent glaciation in the Wolstonian (380,000 –130,000 BP) and Devensian (110,000–12,000 BP) glaciation likely obliterated these landscapes and destroyed or reworked any archaeological material that may have been left. 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 Lower to late Upper Palaeolithic material. So, 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).

5.5.2. Last Glacial Maximum to Mesolithic (18,000 to 10,000 BP)

The marine archaeology study area may have quickly been submerged following the LGM. Deposits within the inner estuaries in eastern Scotland provide evidence of raised marine deposits and were thus submerged by the Windermere Interstadial (circa 15,000 – 13,000 BP) (Peacock, 1999; Holloway et al., 2002; Stoker et al., 2008). 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 be as old as 11,000 BP (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).
The North Berwick Lateglacial shoreline that was created by colder conditions during the Loch Lomond Stadial (circa 13,000 - 12,000 BP), and the marine transgression in this part of the north-western North Sea would have been complete by circa 8,000 BP, or perhaps even earlier (see Sturt et al., 2013; UK Government, 2022). The seabed within the marine archaeology study area, however, is 60 m deeper than the location of the Lateglacial palaeoshoreline. 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.

6. Maritime and Aviation Archaeology

6.1. Maritime Archaeology Potential

The maritime archaeology of the UK is a product of a complex interplay of constantly evolving coastal and marine activities, sea use, and international links from the late Upper Palaeolithic to the Present Day. This section reviews the potential presence of maritime and aviation archaeology (including military remains) within the marine archaeology study area.
Prior to the advent of the Lloyds of London list of shipping casualties in 1751, there was no official record of ship losses (Wessex Archaeology, 2007). Presently, the UKHO maintains a register of wreck locations; the Wrecks Database contains circa 70,000 records, of which approximately 20,000 are named vessels (UK Government, 2022b). The number of known sites for Scottish waters stands at over 20,000 (Wessex Archaeology, 2007). Although shipwrecks are a standalone category of site, they should be seen as integral parts of the wider periods and historical processes with which they were associated. Records of known wreck sites and losses in UK waters are biased towards the modern period, 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). Therefore, the precise locations of most wrecks which pre-date the modern period are not known. Work has been done to try to correct these biases through the collation of information relating to trade routes and patterns of shipping that focus on the Medieval period (Wessex Archaeology, 2009).
The maritime archaeological record for the marine archaeology study area has been considered chronologically for the following broad temporal phases as described in Table 6.1 Open ▸ . However, due to the rare survival of maritime archaeological evidence during the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, these periods have been considered under the umbrella term ‘Early Prehistoric’.

Table 6.1: Archaeological Periods and Associated Date Ranges (ScARF 2012a)

Period	Date Range
Palaeolithic	circa 12,700 to 8,400 BC
Mesolithic	8,400 to 4,100 BC
Neolithic	4,100 to 2,500 BC
Chalcolithic and Bronze Age	2,500 to 800 BC
Iron Age	800 BC to AD 400
Roman presence	AD 77 to 211
Medieval	AD 400 to 1500
Modern	AD 1500 to Present Day

6.1.1. Early Prehistory (Palaeolithic and Mesolithic)

There is no evidence of maritime archaeological remains in the UK that pre-date the start of the Holocene. However, global examples suggest that watercraft were in use by the Middle Palaeolithic period, such as the suggestion that the colonisation of Australia by approximately 40,000 BC involved island hopping (Lourandos, 1997).
During the late Upper Palaeolithic (12,700 to approximately 8,400 BC), it is possible that simple watercraft such as logboats or rafts were used for coastal journeys and fishing around Britain (Wessex Archaeology, 2007). A late Upper Palaeolithic blade (circa 12,000 BC) is known from the floodplain at Ravenscraig, Inverugie 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 existence of watercraft during the Mesolithic is inferred by the presence of Mesolithic archaeological material on insular land masses such as Ireland, for example. 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; multiple-hide boats or basket-boats are thought to have been capable of sea voyages at this time (McGrail, 1987; Dunkley, 2016). Simple watercraft such as logboats and multiple hide boats are cross-period and examples have been recorded from the Bronze Age to the Medieval, thus scientific dating is necessary to determine age rather than typological categorisation (ScARF, 2012b).
The first archaeological evidence for the use of watercraft in the UK is represented by the fragments of a wooden oar, dated to the Mesolithic, found at Star Carr, in Yorkshire (England) (COWRIE, 2007; Van de Noort, 2011). A late Mesolithic or early Neolithic burial in a partially burnt dugout canoe was found in St Albans, Hertfordshire in 1988 (Dunkley, 2016). Middens on Oronsay illustrate a seasonal but sustained reliance on limpet Patella spp. and saithe Pollachius virens from the foreshore. Archaeological experimentation in western Scotland has demonstrated that marine fish could be hooked and trapped from the coast rather than harvested by boat (Groom et al., 2019).
Section 5.5 illustrated the palaeolandscape potential for the marine archaeology study area. It is possible that the glacial and periglacial nature of the region meant that human occupation of this part of Scotland was rare, infrequent, or relatively late. The submergence of the marine archaeology study area and insular nature of early prehistoric archaeology, however, suggests that the potential for human occupation is very low.

6.1.2. Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age

No evidence of Neolithic, Chalcolithic or Bronze Age maritime activity has been recorded within the marine archaeology study area.
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 (Johnstone, 1980; Wilkinson and Murphy, 1995; Bradley et al., 1997). Shell middens in the UK containing the faunal remains of deep-sea fish are also known from this period, suggesting marine exploitation of those resources (Ellmers, 1996).
The Bronze Age was a period of technological innovation and of expansion of trade and exchange networks. The discovery of porcellanite stone axes from Ireland on the Western Isles of Scotland and the UK mainland implies transport of these objects by sea (Breen and Forsyth, 2004; McGrail, 2004). This was facilitated by the introduction of new forms of boats for both marine and coastal/riverine transport. The evidence for Bronze Age settlement, funerary, and agricultural activity throughout the vast majority of mainland Scotland as well as on the islands implies that widespread movement of people had to have been occurring (ScARF, 2012c).
Evidence for Bronze Age maritime activity has been recorded throughout the UK in the discovery of a number of inland watercraft and sea-faring vessels. The Carpow logboat from the Tay Estuary is an inshore example of a common, cross-period vessel type (Strachan, 2010). An earlier oak log boat fragment from Scotland survives from Catherinefield, Dumfries and Galloway, which dates to circa 2,000 BC (Mowat, 1996). In addition to boat fragments there are also several known examples of potentially prehistoric paddles and oars, although none of the Scottish examples appear to have been directly dated (Strachan, 2010).
Examples of Bronze Age sea-faring craft such as five sewn-plank boats discovered at Ferriby in North Yorkshire (Van de Noort, 2004; Chapman, 2021), the Brigg ‘raft’, also on the Humber (Yorkshire) (McGrail, 1994, Goldcliff, Gwent (Wales) (Parry and McGrail, 1991) and the remains of a boat at Dover, Kent (England) (Clark, 2004) have been discovered elsewhere in the UK. This suggests that boats of this time were being utilised in UK waters and the lack of evidence in Scotland may be down to a lack of archaeological investigation in Scottish waters.
However, due to the organic construction materials that would have been used for these craft, the potential for the survival of Bronze Age archaeological material within the marine archaeology study area is very low.

6.1.3. Iron Age and the Roman Presence

No evidence of Iron Age or Roman maritime activity has been recorded in the marine archaeology study area.
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.
A number of whale bone artefacts have been recovered from Iron Age sites in Scotland (such as Foshigarry, North Uist (Finlay, 1991), Orkney (Nicholson and Davies, 2007) and Shetland (Cussans and Bond, 2010). It is, however, unclear whether these were derived from primary whale hunting from ocean-faring vessels, shore drives, or opportunistic recovery from beached animals (MacGregor, 1974; Baldwin, 2008). Exploitation of other marine resources interpreted from fishbones deposited within middens indicate a concentration of inshore or coastal fishing. This changes towards the end of the Iron Age and turn of the Medieval, where excavated fish bones indicate an increase in offshore fishing practices (Colley, 1983; Sharples, 1984; Seller, 1989; Cerón-Carrasco, 1995, 1998a, 1998b; Finlay, 1996).
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.
While the Roman presence in Scotland was short lived and patchy, the Roman invasion force of AD 43 was necessarily brought to Britain by ship, and the maintenance of the province of Britannia within the empire through the extraction of agricultural surplus, mineral wealth, and the creation of diplomatic ties was in large part a maritime endeavour.
In the north of Scotland, the Pictish period straddles the traditional periodic divide of Iron Age and Early Medieval periods elsewhere in the UK. Pictish culture is heavily demonstrated in the archaeological record of northern and eastern northern Scotland between the late third and early ninth centuries AD (Mann, 1974; Hunter, 2007).
Documentary sources attest that there may have been a maritime element to Pictish society. The annals of Tigernach recorded that in AD 729, 150 Pictish ships were wrecked upon ‘Ros-Cuissine’, possibly Troup Head, Aberdeenshire (Anderson, 1922; Cessford, 2005). Examples of seafaring is present in Pictish Art, surviving on carved stones. The most well-known depiction of a boat is on a stone found at Cossans, Angus. Close to the base on the rear is a double-ended, mastless, plank-built vessel with a high prow and stern, a rudder, and possibly oars (Ritchie, 1989; Laing and Laing, 1993; Foster, 1996; Carver, 1999).
Maritime technology from this period includes a substantial, sea-going vessel (known as the ‘Romano-Celtic’ type) which was developed in north-western Europe during the later Iron Age (Marsden, 1994). Examples include the Blackfriars Boat, from London (Marsden, 1994; Dunkley, 2016) and the Barlands Farm boat, from the Severn Estuary in south-east Wales (Lawer and Nayling, 1993). The ‘County Hall’ ship is a particular example of a boat constructed using typically Mediterranean techniques, but dendrochronological evidence demonstrated that it was constructed in Britain during the Roman period (Marsden, 1994). Roman period wrecks from Scotland are, however, as yet unknown.
Together with the evidence for substantial military movement, diplomatic engagements, and commercial trade this suggests that Iron Age and Roman maritime traffic may have passed through the marine archaeology study area. It is also likely that many more vessels of this period were lost than the available archaeological evidence suggests. The use of organic construction materials, however, means that the potential for the survival of maritime archaeology material from this period is low.

6.1.4. Medieval

No evidence of early Medieval or Medieval maritime activity has been recorded within the marine archaeology study area, but regional evidence suggests a lively period of engagement with the sea.
Maritime activity in the North Sea and in the vicinity increased during the early 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 (Kelly, 1992; Hutchinson, 1997; Friel, 2003; Middleton, 2005).
Archaeological evidence for vessels from this period is rare. A small number of early Medieval boats are known from the inland waterways of Perth and Kinross, such as the Errol 2 logboat, one of two surviving examples from a concentration recorded from the Tay Estuary (Mowat, 1996; Strachan, 2010). The boat has yielded radiocarbon dates of AD 548 and AD 599 (Strachan, 2010). As discussed for the previous archaeological periods, logboats and skin-and-hide vessels were well suited to rivers and estuaries and the evolution of plank-built, sail carrying ships over the early Medieval period enabled increased seaborne travel (Crumlin-Pedersen, 2010).
The Viking presence and influence along the east coast of Scotland would have demanded the control of rivers and estuaries which secured access to trade routes and passage across the North Sea. Evidence of Viking influence in Scotland is reflected in place names and also the location of Viking hoards along the Forth and Tay estuaries (Owen, 1999). The range of geographical contact and the richness of procurable objects is demonstrated by the Galloway Hoard, from south-west Scotland. The hoard included objects reflecting cultural affinities as far afield as Central Asia, implying long-distance maritime communication networks (Goldberg, 2023).
The sea was not only a present feature of the Norse community’s lived experience, but maritime identity is also reflected in the mortuary archaeology of Scotland, attested by ‘boat graves’ from pagan Norse cemeteries such as the Scar boat burial (Owen and Dalland, 1999) and two boat graves from Westness (Kaland, 1993; Sellevold, 1999).
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.
The developing trading networks across Europe achieved a degree of formalisation in the latter centuries of the Medieval period. Lübeck, modern Germany, became the capital of the Hanseatic League, a confederation of port cities ultimately encompassing nearly 200 settlements across seven modern day countries across the Baltic and North Seas, from Sweden and Russia in the north and east, to the Netherlands in the south-west. The Hanseatic League and others like it greatly contributed to the maritime transportation of goods across the North Sea (Hutchinson, 1997; Woodman, 2005).
Maritime technology advanced rapidly during this period to accommodate larger cargoes. Relatively few physical remains have been found from Medieval shipping anywhere in Scotland, but boat fragments from a probably substantial sea-faring ship were produced from excavations in Perth, including frames, lengths of clinker planking, an oarport cover and tholes (pins on which oars pivot while rowing) (Martin and Bogdan, 2012; ScARF, 2012a).
Due to the inferred increase in shipping during this period and the potentially increased visibility of possible wrecks, there is moderate to good potential for archaeological remains to exist within the marine archaeology study area.

6.1.5. Modern

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. During this period, the number of vessels crossing the North Sea increased significantly, particularly during the 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.
From the 18th century onwards, records were kept of ship losses, with records becoming more detailed from the 19th century. Rapid industrialisation in the 18th and 19th centuries revolutionised shipbuilding, introducing technological innovation that precipitated fundamental changes in maritime technology. By the end of the 19th century with the advent of the steam engine, the introduction of iron hulls and the development of the screw propeller had wrought major transformations on ships and shipping (Lambert, 2001). Although steam and steel came to dominate shipping during the 19th century, there remained a strong local core of maritime activity around much of the coast of the UK which retained the more traditional, often wooden vessel types. For example, at the turn of the 20th century, much of the fishing in the North Sea was still conducted by fleets of sailing smacks and there was a rise in fishing settlements along the east coast during the 18th and 19th centuries. As the modern period progressed, more vessels were made of metal. The four recorded shipping losses identified within the recorded losses study area are all from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These are discussed in section 6.1.7 .
The potential for the discovery of unknown maritime archaeology from the modern period within the marine archaeology study area is high.

6.1.6. Modern Military Remains

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. It is thought that initial losses in World War I were due to the blackouts along the coast which led to wrecks along the shoreline and then the subsequent U-boat offensive which sunk a number of Royal Navy submarines (and U-boats) in the Outer Tay and Forth and North Sea basin (Ferguson, 1991). During World War II, approximately 50 merchant vessels were sunk off the north-east coast, along with military vessels (Headland Archaeology, 2011). The potential for the discovery of unknown maritime archaeology from both World Wars is high.

6.1.7. Recorded Losses

Data for recorded shipping losses were obtained as appropriate from the NRHE held by HES (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.
Recorded losses represent maritime and aviation losses that are known to have occurred in the vicinity but to which no specific location can be attributed. 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. To account for the imprecise locational information, an additional recorded losses study area was implemented.
There are six recorded losses located within the recorded losses study area. Details of recorded losses are given in volume 3, appendix 19.1, annex A. Four of these six represent records of modern shipping casualties dating to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The remaining two relate to post-World War II aviation losses which are discussed in section 6.1.9.
Scottish Queen is a steam trawler built in 1889 and sunk by gunfire from the German submarine U-39 on 03 May 1915. Titan is a trawler built in Grimsby in 1903 which was also reportedly sunk by a submarine on 26 October 1916. Based on the dimensions of these vessels, it is possible that either Scottish Queen or Titan correlates with the unidentified wreck observed during the archaeological assessment of geophysical data (OS23_312; Canmore ID 372955) discussed in section 6.3.3. Duva is a steel steamship that was built in 1913 in Grangemouth and was abandoned on 14 November and eventually sank on 17 November 1926. Svein Jarl is also a steel steamship built in 1909 in Trondheim, Norway and reportedly torpedoed by a German submarine on 9 June 1915. Based on the known dimensions of these vessels, it may be that either Duva or Svein Jarl correlate with the unidentified wreck observed during the archaeological assessment of geophysical data (OS23_314; Canmore ID 372595) discussed in section 6.3.3.
Three of these four recorded losses were sunk during World War I and therefore any surviving material would be fragmented, there is therefore the possibility that debris identified in the geophysical survey data (section 6.3.2) may represent material from these events.

6.1.8. Navigation Hazards

The majority of known and recorded wreck sites lie relatively close to the coast. The proximity of many historical sailing routes to the coast and the natural hazards of north-eastern Scotland can be expected to have been a determining factor in many maritime casualties in the past (Wessex Archaeology, 2008). Information regarding the whereabouts of wrecks may also be influenced by selective reporting, where knowledge of their whereabouts is advantageous to seafarers, such as around sandbanks and shipping channels (Burton et al., 2007). It may be that there are many undiscovered wreck sites in areas which do not meet these criteria.
There are no UKHO records for navigational hazards within the marine archaeology study area which would represent increased potential for shipwreck casualties and therefore archaeological material on the seabed. Soft sediments in the form of sand across the Array increase the potential for the survival of buried archaeological material without surface expression on the seabed.

6.1.9. Aviation Archaeological Potential

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 north-western North Sea (Wessex Archaeology, 2008).
Although 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).
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.
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 records of aviation losses are located within the recorded losses study area. Details of all recorded losses are given in volume 3, appendix 19.1, annex A. 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.
The full potential for post-war aircraft remains to be discovered within the Array and therefore the potential is considered to be low. Civilian aircraft wrecks are not subject to protection under the terms of the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986.

6.1.10. Overview of Marine Archaeology Potential

An overview of the marine archaeological potential within the marine archaeology study area is presented in Table 6.2 Open ▸ .

Table 6.2: Marine Archaeology Potential

Receptor	Potential	Value
Submerged prehistoric archaeology	Low	Local/Regional/National
Paleoenvironmental evidence	Low	National
Early prehistoric maritime evidence	Low	National
Bronze Age maritime evidence	Low	National
Iron Age and Roman maritime evidence	Low to Moderate	National
Medieval maritime evidence	Moderate	Regional/National
Modern maritime evidence	High	Local/Regional/National
Modern military remains	High	Local/Regional/National

6.2. Designated and Known Wrecks

No designated sites have been identified within the datasets for the marine archaeology study area.

6.2.1. Desktop Data

The wrecks and obstructions dataset held by the UKHO was consulted for relevant marine archaeology records. No UKHO records for wrecks or obstructions are located within the Array. Two wrecks are present on the NRHE (Canmore) database. Their distribution is shown in Figure 6.1 Open ▸ .
One previously unrecorded wreck (Canmore ID 372595) is located within the Array. The record originated from discovery during the site-specific survey operations within the site boundary. This is included in the discussion of high potential anomalies in section 6.3.3.
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 this was an observation only, no geophysical data for this position exists and is therefore not corroborated by geophysical seabed features assessment detailed in section 6.3.

A map of the ocean with a red line

Description automatically generated

Figure 6.1: Marine Archaeology Identified Within the Marine Archaeology Study Area

6.3. Geophysical Seabed Features Assessment

A total of 324 anomalies of potential archaeological interest were identified within the marine archaeology survey area during the archaeological assessment of the geophysical data. Of these, 295 are within the Array and the remaining 29 anomalies lie outside of the Array but within the extents of the geophysical survey area. Of the 324 anomalies, three have been classified as high potential anomalies (further discussed in section 6.3.3), 14 as medium potential, and 307 as low potential anomalies. The distribution of these can be seen in Figure 6.2 Open ▸ . Full details of the anomalies of archaeological interest identified during the geophysical survey are presented in volume 3, appendix 19.1, annex C.

6.3.1. Low Potential Anomalies

The 307 low potential anomalies predominantly represent likely geological features, modern debris such as infrastructure, chain, cable or rope, or small items of debris with no features indicating archaeological potential and are therefore not considered further within this report. 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).

A map of a land with green and red dots

Description automatically generated

Figure 6.2: Geophysical Anomalies Within the Marine Archaeology Survey Area

6.3.2. Medium Potential Anomalies

Medium potential anomalies are those that have characteristics that indicate a likelihood of representing anthropogenic material such as debris or potential debris.
The 14 medium potential anomalies are presented in Table 6.3 Open ▸ and the distribution of these is shown in Figure 6.3 Open ▸ .
Further assessment of the medium potential anomalies, possibly by Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) would be required to better understand the origin and character, and therefore the archaeological significance of all medium potential anomalies.

Table 6.3: Medium Potential Anomalies

ID	Category	Description
OS23_035	Anthropogenic material	OS23_035 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has an associated magnetic anomaly of 35.3 nT, but does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records. However, a NRHE record lies circa 0.4 km to the north-east. The overall form of the anomaly is indicative of anthropogenic material, as does the association with a 35.3 nT magnetic anomaly for which ferrous and therefore anthropogenic origin is inferred. It is possible the anomaly represents modern debris such as fishing gear; however due to the size, a medium potential rating has been assigned.
OS23_037	Anthropogenic material	OS23_037 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has no associated magnetic anomaly, and does not correspond to any UKHO or NRHE records. The overall form indicates anthropogenic material of unknown origin. The size and distribution of the features within the identified anomaly means that a medium potential rating has been assigned.
OS23_049	Anthropogenic material	OS23_049 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has no associated magnetic anomaly, and does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records. It is not possible to determine whether the extents of the anomaly are true or whether the object is partially buried. The features are predominantly curvilinear in form and likely of anthropogenic origin, possibly wire. Due to the uncertain characterisation of the anomaly, a medium potential rating has been assigned.
OS23_059	Possible anthropogenic material	OS23_059 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has no associated magnetic anomaly, and does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records. The form of the feature suggests possibly coiled and partially buried wire. However, due to the low level of surface visibility and possible partial burial, a precautionary medium potential rating has been assigned.
OS23_062	Anthropogenic material	OS23_062 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has no associated magnetic anomaly, and does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records. The features are predominantly curvilinear in form and likely anthropogenic. The curvilinear form suggests a potential to be wire, though this is not definitive. Due to its form a medium potential rating has been assigned.
OS23_084	Anthropogenic material	OS23_084 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has no associated magnetic anomaly, and does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records. The curvilinear form of the anomaly suggests an anthropogenic origin, potentially modern debris such as fishing gear, or rope, though due to its size, a medium potential rating has been assigned.
OS23_101	Possible anthropogenic material	OS23_101 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has no associated magnetic anomaly, and does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records. The overall form is not dissimilar to geological material, though in the SSS data the anomaly appears more irregular and associated with prominent linear features. Although the origin of the anomaly is unclear, it appears at least associated with anthropogenic material and so a medium potential rating has been assigned.
OS23_119	Anthropogenic material	OS23_119 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has no associated magnetic anomaly, and does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records. The anomaly appears to be an elongated dome-shaped feature with protrusions, suggesting anthropogenic material rather than a geological feature. It could be an object of archaeological interest or perhaps modern material such as a partially buried fishing net. Due to its form, a medium potential rating has been assigned.
OS23_168	Possible anthropogenic material	OS23_168 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has no associated magnetic anomaly, and does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records. The anomaly is visible in the SSS data as a semi-circular portion with a linear portion attached, not dissimilar to the shape of an anchor; in the MBES data the anomaly sits within a depression, so it unclear if the semi-circular portion is a representation of the edge of the depression. Due to difficulties in interpreting anchors within geophysical data and dating anchors archaeologically generally, a precautionary medium potential rating has been assigned.
OS23_181	Anthropogenic material	OS23_181 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has no associated magnetic anomaly, and does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records. The anomaly appears as a 25 x 3.4 m area of debris, with scour on all sides. Multiple incoherent features are visible. The unknown origin of the anomaly, the potential for partial burial, and the size of the overall potential debris field means a medium potential rating has been assigned.
OS23_184	Anthropogenic material	OS23_184 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has no associated magnetic anomaly, and does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records. The anomaly is an irregular and incoherent cluster of potential debris covering an area of 6.2 x 2.3 m. Due to the area of the clusters and the form of the internal components, a medium potential rating has been assigned.
OS23_212	Anthropogenic material	OS23_212 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has no associated magnetic anomaly, and does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records. The feature appears to be several interwoven or overlapping curvilinear features, potentially indicative of a bundle of wire. The origin of the anomaly is unclear, but the form is suggestive of material of archaeological interest or could be modern debris such as fishing gear or wire. Due to the lack of clarity in origin, a medium potential rating has been assigned.
OS23_248	Anthropogenic material	OS23_248 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has no associated magnetic anomaly, and does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records. Within the extents of the anomaly are several linear and angular features suggestive of anthropogenic debris, although the origin is not possible to determine. Furthermore, the anomaly is similar in form to the two southernmost features identified as anomaly OS23_212. Due to the form and the size, a medium potential rating has been assigned.
OS23_280	Anthropogenic material	OS23_280 is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has no associated magnetic anomaly, and does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records. The anomaly appears as an area of curvilinear features in the SSS data, but only appears in the MBES dataset as a slight depression likely caused by scour. Due to the likelihood of anthropogenic origin, similarity with other anomalies in the marine archaeology survey area, but an inability to further characterise the anomaly, a medium potential rating has been assigned.

A map of a island

Description automatically generated

Figure 6.3: Distribution of Medium and High Potential Anomalies Within the Marine Archaeology Survey Area

A collage of different colors of a wall

Description automatically generated

Figure 6.4: Medium Potential Anomalies Within the Marine Archaeology Survey Area

A collage of different colored images

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 6.5: Medium Potential Anomalies Within the Marine Archaeology Survey Area

A close-up of a blue and green background

Description automatically generated

Figure 6.6: Medium Potential Anomalies Within the Marine Archaeology Survey Area

6.3.3. High Potential Anomalies

The three high potential anomalies are described in this section and the distribution of these is shown in Figure 6.3 Open ▸ . Two have been located within the Array and one is located outside the Array boundary.
Anomalies that are likely to represent archaeological features have been classed as high potential anomalies. The high potential anomalies include two wrecks and one potential wreck.
Further assessment of the high potential anomalies, possibly by ROV, would be required to better understand the origin, and therefore the archaeological significance of all high potential anomalies.
OS23_092 lies 910 m from the north-west boundary of the Array. The anomaly is visible in the SSS dataset but outside the MBES acquisition area and has no associated magnetic anomaly. The location does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records.
The anomaly has been classified as high potential based on its form, which is an irregular mound that measures 15.6 m x 5.4 m x 0.8 m, and protrusions are visible to the mound’s north and south. The overall size of the anomaly may indicate the potential remains of a wrecked vessel.
OS23_312 lies in the south-east portion of the Array. The anomaly is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has an associated magnetic anomaly of 202.4 nT, but does not correlate with any UKHO or NRHE records.
The anomaly clearly represents the remains of a wrecked vessel, measuring 33.7 m x 6.6 m with a measurable height of 2.8 m. The wreck is oriented north-west to south-west, with the bow towards the north-west. The wreck appears largely coherent, though there is evidence of collapse circa 9.0 m amidships from the bow. Features visible in the SSS dataset suggest that the wreck may lie on the seabed upside down. Other than being of at least partial ferrous construction, no other characteristics of the wreck are known, such as its age or date of sinking. Linear features, likely ropes, chains, or wire extend from the stern, potentially originating from the wreck itself or as a result of snag from another vessel. Despite not correlating with any UKHO or NRHE records, based on the measurements of the anomaly, it is possible that OS23_312 may represent the remains of one of two recorded losses: either Scottish Queen (Canmore ID: 313238) or Titan (Canmore ID: 328826).
OS23_314 lies 4.3 km from the western boundary of the Array. The anomaly is visible in the SSS and MBES data, has an associated magnetic anomaly of 41.0 nT. The location does not correlate with any UKHO records but has an associated NRHE record (Canmore ID 372595) which was created by the survey contractor when the anomaly was originally observed during data acquisition.
The anomaly is the remains of a wrecked vessel measuring 59.3 m x 13.0 m and with a measurable height of 5.1 m. The wreck is oriented north-west to south-east; it is not possible to identify the bow though it potentially lies to the south-east. The wreck is largely collapsed and broken up. Other than the association with a magnetic anomaly which suggests at least partial ferrous construction, it is not possible to provide an age, or a date of sinking. The measurements of the wreck leave open the possibility that this anomaly represents the remains of one of two recorded losses: either Svein Jarl (Canmore ID 314131) or Duva (Canmore ID 313790).
The anomaly was subject to additional specialist shipwreck analysis which identifies the wreck as a MV (merchant vessel) 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). This would indicate a wartime loss, but cannot be firmly concluded without further investigation.

A collage of images of a volcano

Description automatically generated

Figure 6.7: High Potential Anomalies Within the Marine Archaeology Survey Area

7. Summary

7.1. Submerged Prehistoric Archaeology

The potential for the survival of submerged prehistoric archaeology within the marine archaeology study area is very low. Geophysical survey data has identified deposits which are either glacial or marine, indicating that the environment was either inhospitable for humans or submerged relatively shortly after the end of the LGM.
The proposed analysis of site investigation geotechnical surveys post-consent will help to further characterise the nature of the prehistoric environment in the marine archaeology study area.

7.2. Maritime and Aviation Archaeology

Geophysical survey has identified three high potential anomalies and 14 medium potential anomalies within the marine archaeology survey area. The high potential anomalies comprise of two certain wrecks and one potential wreck. The two certain wrecks have been located within the Array and the one potential wreck is located outside the Array boundary.
There is low potential to encounter any maritime archaeology predating the Medieval Period (i.e. pre- AD 400), but moderate to good potential towards the latter end of this period and into the Modern Period. The four recorded shipping losses identified within the recorded losses study area are all from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Three of these four recorded losses were sunk during World War I and therefore any surviving material would be fragmented, there is therefore the possibility that debris identified in the geophysical survey data (section 7.3.2) may represent material from these events.
There are no known aviation wreck sites within the marine archaeology study area, but there are significant wartime aviation facilities in north-eastern Scotland, all of which may contribute as yet unlocated aviation losses within the marine archaeology study area (Scottish Aviation Trail, 2024). Two records of aviation losses located within the recorded losses study area date to the post-World War II period: 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, a wreckage identified as being from a RAF Phantom was brought up by a trawler.
The identified marine archaeology represents a broad range of material, representative of the potential types of previously unknown marine archaeology which may be encountered within the marine archaeology study area. This ranges from established wreck sites to possible archaeological debris. Archaeological material from the Modern Period, relating to fishing, transport, or trade, and including modern military remains, is most likely to be encountered within the marine archaeology study area.

8. References

Anderson, A. (1922). Early sources of Scottish history, AD 500-1286. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

Baldwin, J. (2008). Subsistence whaling in the Western and Northern Isles of Scotland, in Whaling and the Hebrides, Islands Book Trust, Kershader, Lewis. 69-130.

Ballantyne, C. K. and Small, D. (2019). The Last Scottish Ice Sheet, Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh, 110(1-2). 93–131.

Ballin, T. B., Saville, A., Tipping, R., and Ward, T. (2010). An Upper Palaeolithic flint and chert assemblage from Howburn Farm, South Lanarkshire, Scotland: first results. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29(4): 323-360.

Bradley, R., Bradley, R., Fulford, M., and Tyson, H. (1997). The archaeological resource: A regional review, in: Fulford, M. Champion, T. and Long, A. (eds.) England’s Coastal Heritage: A survey for English Heritage and the RCHME. English Heritage, Swindon.

Breen, C., and Forsythe, W. (2004). Boats and Shipwrecks of Ireland. Tempus, Stroud.

British Geological Survey (BGS) (1985) Marr Bank Sheet 56 N - 02 W Quaternary Geology. Available at: https://largeimages.bgs.ac.uk/iip/mapsportal.html?id=1003835. Accessed on: 26 April 2024.

British Geological Survey (2014). Offshore GeoIndex. Available at: https://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex_offshore/home.html?_ga=2.227456346.671481726.1639228033-183223392.1589786690. Accessed on: 25 May 2023.

Burton, E., Clark, A., and Jamieson, D. (2007). Severn Estuary: Assessment of survey and research sources and appraisal of the impact of marine aggregate extraction. MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology), London.

Carver, M. (1999). Surviving in symbols: A visit to the Pictish nation. Cannongate Books, Edinburgh.

Cerón-Carrasco, R. (1995). Fish bone (Scatness and East Shore) in: Carter, S., McCullagh, R. and MacSween, A. (eds) The Iron Age in Shetland: excavations at five sites threatened by coastal erosion. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 125, pp. 429-482.

Cerón-Carrasco, R. (1998a). Fish bone in: Lowe, C (ed.) St Boniface Church, Orkney: Coastal Erosion and Archaeological Assessment. Sutton Publishing and Historic Scotland, Stroud, pp. 149-155.

Cerón-Carrasco, R. (1998b). Fish in: Sharples, N. (ed.) Scalloway: A Broch, Late Iron Age Settlement and Medieval Cemetery in Shetland. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 112-116.

Cessford, C. (2005). Pictish Art and the Sea. The Heroic Age: A Journal of Early Medieval Northwestern Europe 8. Available at: https://www.heroicage.org/issues/8/cessford.html. Accessed on: 30 May 2023.

Chapman, H. (2021). Seascapes and Landscapes: the siting of the Ferriby boat finds in the context of prehistoric pilotage. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 34(1), pp 43-50.

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) (2014a). Code of Conduct. Available at: https://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/CodesofConduct.pdf. Accessed on: 25 May 2023.

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) (2014b). Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment. Swindon, CIfA. Available at: https://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/CIfAS%26GDBA_4.pdf. Accessed on: 26 April 2024.

Clark, P. (ed.) (2004). The Dover Bronze Age Boat. Historic England, Swindon.

Colley, S. (1983). Marine resource exploitation. In: Hedges, J W (ed.) ‘Trial excavations on Pictish and Viking settlements at Saevar Howe, Birsay, Orkney’, Glasgow Archaeological Journal 10. 73-124.

COWRIE (2007). Historic Environment Guidance for the Offshore Renewable Energy Sector. Available at: https://www.wessexarch.co.uk/sites/default/files/field_file/COWRIE_2007_Wessex_%20-%20archaeo_%20guidance_Final_1-2-07.pdf. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

Crumlin-Pedersen, O. (2010). Archaeology and the sea in Scandinavia and Britain: a personal account. The Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde.

Cunliffe, B. (2001). Facing the ocean: The Atlantic and its peoples 8000 BC-AD 1500. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Cussans, J. and Bond, J. (2010). Mammal bone. In Dockrill, S., Bond, J., Turner, V., Brown, L., Bashford, D., Cussans, J., and Nicholson, R. (eds) Excavations at Old Scatness, Shetland Volume 1: The Pictish village and Viking settlement. Shetland Heritage Publications, Lerwick.

Dunkley, M. (2016). Ships and Boats: Prehistory to 1840. Historic England, Swindon.

Ellmers, D. (1996). The Earliest Ships. In: Gardiner, R. and Christensen, A. E. (eds) The earliest ships: The evolution of boats into ships. Conway Maritime Press, London.

Ferguson, D (1991). Shipwrecks of North East Scotland 1444 – 1990. Mercat Press, Edinburgh.

Finlay, J. (1991). Animal bone. In Campbell, E. Excavations of a wheelhouse and other Iron Age structures at Solas, North Uist, by R.J.C. Atkinson in 1957. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 121. 117-173.

Finlay, J. (1996) Human and animal bone. In: Mercer, R. (ed.) The excavation of a succession of pre-historic round houses at Cnoc Stanger, Reay, Caithness, Highland, 1981-2. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 126, pp. 157-189.

Finlayson, B, and Edwards, K. (2003). The Mesolithic. In: Edwards, K., and Ralston, I. (eds) Scotland after the Ice Age: Environment, Archaeology and History, 8000 BC-AD 1000. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 109-126.

Flemming, N. (2003). The scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment of North Sea SEA5 in regard to prehistoric archaeological remains. Technical Report to the DTI.

Foster, S. (1996). Picts, Gaels and Scots. Batsford, London.

Friel, I. (2003) Maritime History of Great Britain, c. 400-2001. London: British Museum Press, London.

Gatliff, R., Richards, P., Smith, K., Graham, C., McCormac, M., Smith, N., Cameron, T., Evans, D., Stevenson, A., Bulat, J., and Ritchie, J. (1994). United Kingdom offshore regional report: the geology of the central North Sea. HMSO for the British Geological Survey, London.

Goldberg, M. (2023). The Galloway Hoard. In: Horne, T., Pierce, E., Barrowman, R. (eds) The Viking Age in Scotland: Studies in Scottish Scandinavian Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Gribble, J. and Leather, S. for EMU Ltd (2011). Offshore Geotechnical Investigations and Historic Environment Analysis: Guidance for the Renewable Energy Sector. Available at: https://www.historicenvironment.scot/media/2376/2011-01-offshore-geotechnical-investigations-and-historic-environment-analysis-guidance-for-the-renewable-energy-sector.pdf. Accessed on: 24 May 2023.

Groom, P, Pickard, C and Bonsall, C. (2019). Early Holocene sea fishing in Western Scotland: An experimental study. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology (JICA), 14(3) 426-450.

Historic England (No Date). Scientific Dating of Pleistocene Sites: Guidelines for Best Practice. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/guidance/scientific-dating-pleistocene-sites-consultation-draft/. Accessed on: 18 September 2023.

Historic England (2008). Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/conservation-principles-sustainable-management-historic-environment/conservationprinciplespoliciesandguidanceapril08web/. Accessed on: 24 May 2023.

Historic England (2023). Curating the Palaeolithic. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/curating-the-palaeolithic/heag313-curating-the-palaeolithic/. Accessed on: 26 April 2024.

Holloway, L., Peacock, J., Smith, D., and Wood, A. (2002). A Windermere Interstadial marine sequence: environmental and relative sea level interpretation for the western Forth valley, Scotland. Scottish Journal of Geology 38, pp. 41-54.

Hunter, F. (2007). Artefacts, regions and identities in the northern British Iron Age. In: Haselgrove, C. and Moore, T., (eds) The later Iron Age in Britain and beyond. Oxbow, Oxford, Pp. 286-296.

Hutchinson, G. (1997). Medieval Ships and Shipping. Leicester University Press, Leicester.

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (1996). Charter on the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage. Available at: https://www.icomos.org/en/faq-doccen/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/161-charter-on-the-protection-and-management-of-underwater-cultural-heritage. Accessed on: 25 May 2023.

Jacobi, R. and Higham, T. (2009). The early lateglacial re-colonization of Britain: new radiocarbon evidence from Gough’s Cave, southwest England. Quaternary Science Reviews 28(19-20), pp. 1895-1913.

Johnstone, P. (1980). The Sea-craft of Prehistory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (2006). The Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee Code of Practice for Seabed Development. The Crown Estate.

Kaland, S. (1993). The settlement of Westness, Rousay. In: Batey et al. (eds) The Viking Age in Caithness, Orkney and the North Atlantic, Select Papers from the Proceedings of the Eleventh Viking Congress, Thurso and Kirkwall, 22 August 1 September 1989: Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. 308-317.

Kelly, S. (1992). Trading privileges from eighth-century England. Early Medieval Europe 1(1), pp. 3-28.

Laing, L. and Laing, J. (1993). The Picts and the Scots. Alan Sutton, Stroud.

Lawer, M., and Nayling, N. (1993). Investigations at Barland’s Farm, Magor 1993. Archaeology in the Severn Estuary 4. 109-112.

Lisiecki, L. E. and Raymo, M. E. (2005). A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic δ18O records. Paleoceanography 20. Available at: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004PA001071. Accessed on: 18 September 2023.

Long, D., et al. (1986). A flint artifact fromt he northern North Sea. Studies in the Upper Palaeolithic of Britain and Northwest Europe. D. Roe. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports.

Lourandos, H. (1997). Continent of Hunter-Gatherers: New Perspectives in Australian Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MacGregor, A. (1974). The Broch of Burrain, North Ronaldsay. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 105: 63-118.

Mann, J. (1974). The Northern Frontier after AD 367. Glasgow Archaeological Journal 3. 34-42.

Marsden, P. (2014). Ships of the Port of London: First to eleventh centuries AD. Swindon, English Heritage.

Martin, C. and N. Bogdan (2012). The boat timbers. Perth High Street Archaeological Excavation 1975-1977. D. Perry, H. Murray, T. Beumont James and N. Bogdan (eds.). Perth, Tayside and Fife Archaeological Committee.

McCartney, I. (2023). Shipwreck survey analysis of survey contact S_NM_B_0001 on behalf of SSE Renewables. Periscope Archaeology, Penzance.

McGrail, S. (1987). Ancient boats in North-West Europe: the archaeology of water transport to AD 1500. Longman, Harlow.

McGrail, S. (1994). The Brigg 'raft: a flat-bottomed boat. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 23(4): 283-288.

Middleton, N. (2005). Early medieval port customs, tolls and controls on foreign trade. Early Medieval Europe 13(4). 313-358.

Ministry of Defence (2018). Crashed military aircraft of historical interest: Licensing of excavations in the UK. Notes for guidance of recovery groups. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916555/20180514_Licence_NotesforGuidance_2018-3.pdf. Accessed on: 14 July 2023.

Mowat, R. (1996). The logboats of Scotland, with notes on related artefact types. Oxford: Oxbow.

MSDS (2023). Ossian: Archaeological Assessment of Geophysical and Hydrographic Data. MSDS, Holbrook.

Murdoch, S. (2010). The Terror of the Seas? Scottish Maritime Warfare, 1513-1713. Brill, Leiden.

Nicholson, R. and G. Davies (2007). Mammal bones. Investigations in Sanday, Orkney, Volume 2: Tofts Ness, Sanday. An island landscape through 3000 years of prehistory. S. Dockrill, J. Bond, A. Smith and R. Nicholson (eds.). Kirkwall, The Orcadian: 169-195.

Ocean Infinity (2022). Interpretative Report. SSE Scotwind. Geophysical and Environmental Survey E1E. Ocean Infinity, Göteborg.

Owen, O. (1999). The Sea Road: A Viking Voyage Through Scotland. Birlinn, Edinburgh.

Owen, O. and Dalland, M. (1999). Scar – A Viking boat burial on Sanday, Orkney. Tuckwell Press, East Linton.

Parry, S. and S. McGrail (1991). A sewn plank boat and a hard from Caldicot Castle Lake, Gwent, Wales. NewsWARP 10: 9-10.

Peacock, J. (1999). The Pre-Windermere Interstadial (Late Devensian) raised marine strata of eastern Scotland and their macrofauna: a review. Quaternary Science Reviews 18. 1655-1680.

Pope, M., Parfitt, S., Roberts, M. (2020). The Horse Butchery Site: A high-resolution record of Lower Palaeolithic hominin behaviour at Boxgrove, UK. London: Spoilheap.

Ritchie, A. (1989). Picts. HMSO, Edinburgh.

ScARF (2012a). Panel reports chronology and downloads. Available at: https://scarf.scot/national/panel-report-chronology-and-downloads/. Accessed on: 14 June 2023.

ScARF (2012b). Hall, M. and Price, N., (eds) ScARF Summary Medieval Panel Report. Scottish Archaeological Research Framework: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/uzt2ffh. Accessed on: 13 June 2023.

ScARF (2012c). Downes, J. (ed.) ScARF Summary Bronze Age Panel Report. Scottish Archaeological Research Framework: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/v8yd423. Accessed on: 13 June 2023.

Scottish Aviation Trail (2024). "Scottish Aviation Trail - Map." Available at: https://www.scottishaviation.org.uk/map. Accessed on: 26/04/2024.

Scottish Government (2010). Making the Most of Scotland’s Seas. Available at: https://www.historicenvironment.scot/media/2332/making-the-most-of-scotlands-seas.pdf. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

Scottish Government (2015a). The Scottish National Marine Plan. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-national-marine-plan/pages/5/. Accessed on: 03 August 2023.

Scottish Government (2015b). The Scottish Marine Regions Order 2015, No. 193. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2015/193/. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

Seller, T. (1989). Bone report. In: Bell, B and Dickson, C. (eds) ‘Excavations at Warebeth (Stromness cemetery) Broch, Orkney’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 119. 101-131

Sellevold, B. (1999). Picts and Vikings at Westness: Anthropological investigations of the skeletal material from the cemetery at Westness, Rousay, Orkney Islands. Norsk institutt for kulturminneforskning, Oslo.

Sharples, N. (1984). Excavations at Pierowall Quarry, Westray, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 114, pp. 75-125.

Stoker, M., et al. (2008). Lateglacial-Holocene shoreface progradation offshore eastern Scotland: a response to climatic and coastal hydrographic change. Boreas 38: 292-314.

Strachan, D. (2010). Carpow in Context: A Late Bronze Age logboat from the Tay. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh.

Sturt, F., Garrow, D., and Bradley, S. (2013). New models of North West European Holocene palaeogeography and inundation. Journal of Archaeological Science 40(1): 3963-3976.

The Crown Estate (2014). Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries: Offshore Renewables Projects. Available at: https://www.wessexarch.co.uk/sites/default/files/field_file/2_Protocol%20For%20Archaeological%20Discoveries.pdf. Accessed on: 18 July 2023.

The Crown Estate (2021). Archaeological Written Schemes of Investigation for Offshore Wind Farm Projects. Available at: https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/3917/guide-to-archaeological-requirements-for-offshore-wind.pdf. Accessed on: 19 June 2023.

UK Government (1973). Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, c. 33. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/33/. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

UK Government (1979). Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, c. 46. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/46/. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

UK Government (1986). Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, c. 35. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/35/. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

UK Government (1995). Merchant Shipping Act 1995, c. 21. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/21/. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

UK Government (1997). Town and Country (Scotland) Planning Act 1997, c. 8. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/8/. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

UK Government (2009). Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, c. 23. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/23/. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

UK Government (2010). Marine Scotland Act 2010, asp. 5. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/5. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

UK Government (2011). UK Marine Policy Statement. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69322/pb3654-marine-policy-statement-110316.pdf. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

UK Government (2022). UK Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment 4 (OESEA4) Appendix 1i: Cultural Heritage. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1061599/Appendix_1i_-_Cultural_heritage.pdf. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

UNESCO (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

UNESCO (2001). Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000126065. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

United Nations (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Available at: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf. Accessed on: 22 May 2023.

Van de Noort, R. (2004). An ancient seascape: the social context of seafaring in the early Bronze Age. World Archaeology 35(3). Pp. 404-415.

Van de Noort, R. (2011). North Sea Archaeologies: A Maritime Biography, 10,000 BC to AD 1500. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Wessex Archaeology (2007). UKCS Offshore Oil and Gas and Wind Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment. Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury.

Wessex Archaeology for English Heritage (Historic England) (2008). Aircraft Crash Sites at Sea: A Scoping Study. Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury.

Wessex Archaeology (2009). UKCS Offshore Oil and Gas and Wind Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment: Archaeological Baseline. Technical Report prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.

Westaway, R. (2011). A re-evaluation of the timing of the earliest reported human occupation of Britain: the age of the sediments at Happisburgh, eastern England. Proceedings of the Geologist’s Association 122(3), pp. 383-396.

Westley, K., Bailey, G., Davies, W., Firth, A., Flemming, N., Gaffney, V., and Gibbard, P. (2013). The Palaeolithic. In: Ransley, J., Sturt, F., Dix, J., Adams, J., Blue, L. (eds) People and the Sea: A Maritime Archaeological Research Agenda for England. Council for British Archaeology, York, Pp. 10-29.

Wilkinson, T.J. and Murphy, P.L. (1995). The Archaeology of the Essex Coast, Volume I: The Hullbridge Survey. East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 71. Chelmsford: Essex County Archaeology Service.

Woodman, R. (2005). The History of the Ship: The Comprehensive Story of Seafaring from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Conway Maritime, London.

Annex A: Gazetteer of Recorded Losses

Please find Annex A attached to this document separately.

Link to document Open ▸

Annex B: Gazetteer of Marine Archaeology Identified within the Desktop Data

Please find Annex B attached to this document separately.

Link to document Open ▸

Annex C: Gazetteer of Potential Anomalies Within the Marine Archaeology Study Area

Please find Annex C attached to this document separately.

Link to document Open ▸