2. Baseline

2.1. Overview

  1. A baseline review of known and potential archaeological assets within the marine archaeology study areas defined for the Array has been undertaken (as reported in volume 3, appendix 19.1). The marine archaeology study area comprises the Array with an added 2 km buffer, resulting in an overall study area of 1,173 km2. An additional recorded losses study area was implemented and is defined as the Array with an added 5 km buffer resulting in an overall study area of 1,689.6 km2. The following archaeological assets were identified within the marine archaeology study area:
  • known wrecks;
  • recorded shipping and aviation losses;
  • possible unknown and undocumented wrecks from various periods;
  • possible stray finds of shipborne debris from various periods; and
  • geophysical anomalies that appear to be wreck sites or wreck debris.
  1. A summary of the baseline environment is outlined in the following sections (full details are presented within volume 3, appendix 19.1).

2.2. Submerged Prehistoric Archaeology

  1. No prehistoric archaeological material has been recorded within the marine archaeology study area to date and it is unlikely that any archaeological material from the Palaeolithic and/or Mesolithic periods will survive within the marine archaeology study area due to the effects of repeated glaciations, marine transgressions and associated fluvial activity.
  2. The potential for submerged terrestrial landscapes is very low. The Main Lateglacial Shoreline established during the Loch Lomond Stadial (circa 11,000-10,000 Before Present (BP)) was encountered to the south-east of North Berwick (120 km to the south of the Array) at a depth of -27 m and -18 m below Ordnance Datum (OD). The Array, however, lies between -61.6 m and -86.4 m OD, indicating that it would have been already submerged at this time. 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; United Kingdom (UK) Government, 2022). The position of the Array and the palaeoshoreline, and the stages of marine transgression indicates that the marine archaeology study area remained submerged from shortly after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) to the Present Day. This suggests a very low potential for human occupation or activity, and therefore the presence of submerged prehistoric archaeological material.

2.3. Maritime and Aviation Archaeology

2.3.1. Desk-Based Study

                        Maritime archaeology

  1. There are no Historic Marine Protected Areas (HMPAs) or designated sites recorded within the limits of the marine archaeology study area, and no wrecks or obstructions lie within the marine archaeology study area as recorded by the UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO).
  2. Based on the desktop data, two wrecks are recorded on the Canmore National Record of the Historic Environment (NRHE) database for Scotland. One wreck (Canmore ID: 372955; Canmore, 2022a) lies outside of the Array but within the marine archaeology study area ( Figure 2.1   Open ▸ ). This wreck was identified in previous geophysical survey operations but is out with the limits of the site-specific geophysical survey data.
  3. The second wreck present in the NRHE database (Canmore ID: 372595; Canmore, 2022b) is located within the Array and has been corroborated by the geophysical seabed features assessment (Anomaly ID OS23_314) (see Figure 2.1   Open ▸ and section 2.3.2). The anomaly was subject to additional specialist shipwreck analysis which identifies the wreck as a diesel 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 (McCartney, 2023). McCartney (2023) provides an alternative scenario in which the anomaly represents a previously unknown wreck of a submarine. This would indicate a wartime loss and thus protected by the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 but cannot be firmly concluded without visual inspection. Further discussion of the wrecks identified during the archaeological assessment of geophysical data is presented in section 7 of this outline WSI/PAD and section 7.3.3 of volume 3, appendix 19.1. Proposed mitigation is presented in detail within volume 2, chapter 19 of the Array EIA Report.
  4. Recorded losses are a category of record which do not correspond with identified remains on the seabed and are imprecisely located. There are six recorded losses located within the recorded losses study area (volume 2, appendix 19.1). 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. It is possible that the recorded losses relate to the wrecks of unknown origin that have been identified within the geophysical data.

                        Aviation archaeology

  1. Thousands of military and civilian aircraft casualties have occurred in UK waters since the advent of powered flight in the early 20th century. The bulk of these are casualties of World War II and most are concentrated off the south and south-east coasts of England. However, there is clear potential for aircraft casualties in the northern North Sea (Wessex Archaeology, 2008).
  2. There are no known aviation wreck sites within the marine archaeology study area, but there are significant wartime aviation facilities in north-eastern Scotland (volume 3, appendix 19.1). For example, aviation training and mission flights were conducted from eastern Scotland such as Royal Air Force (RAF) Dalcross, RAF Kinloss, RAF Lossiemouth, Crimond (HMS Merganser), and RAF Dyce during World War II, all of which may contribute as yet unlocated aviation losses within the marine archaeology study area (Scottish Aviation Trail, 2024).
  3. Although the aviation archaeology record is potentially very large, the ephemeral nature of aircraft wrecks ensures that many sites remain unknown and unrecorded. In addition, despite the potential extensive losses at sea, records are seldom tied to an accurate position. These difficulties complicate any assessment of the likely presence of aircraft wreckage on any particular area of seabed.
  4. No aviation losses have been recorded on either the UKHO or NRHE databases for within the marine archaeology study area, and no material consistent with aviation losses was identified on the seabed. Two recorded aviation losses were identified within the recorded losses study area and are presented within volume 3, appendix 19.1. Civilian aircraft wrecks are not subject to protection under the terms of the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986.

2.3.2. Site-Specific Survey Data

  1. Site-specific geophysical survey data have been assessed by a marine archaeology specialist. The detailed assessment methodology and results are presented within volume 3, appendix 19.1. A total of 324 anomalies of potential archaeological interest were identified through geophysical seabed features analysis within the marine archaeology survey area. Of these, 295 are within the site boundary; the remaining 29 anomalies lie outside of the site boundary but within the extents of the marine archaeology survey area. Of the 324 anomalies within the marine archaeology survey area, three have been classified as high potential anomalies, 14 as medium potential, and 307 as low potential. Within the site boundary only, two were classified as high potential anomalies, 14 as medium potential, and 279 as low potential. Details of high and medium potential anomalies are provided below in paragraphs 27 and 28 details of low potential anomalies are provided in volume 3, appendix 19.2, annex D. The distribution of anomalies with high and medium archaeological potential are shown in Figure 2.3   Open ▸ . All low potential anomalies are presented in volume 3, appendix 19.2, annex D.
  2. The high potential anomalies comprise of two certain wrecks (one of which is corroborated with the NRHE database as Canmore ID 372595, see paragraph 20) and one potential wreck. Two are located within the Array (OS23_312 and OS23_314) and one is located outside the Array (OS23_92). The distribution of these is shown in Figure 2.3   Open ▸ . It is possible that the unidentified wreck observed during the archaeological assessment of geophysical data (OS23_312) correlates with one of two recorded losses: either Scottish Queen or Titan, based on the size of the anomaly and the reported dimensions of those vessels. Similarly, the unidentified wreck observed during the archaeological assessment of geophysical data (OS23_314; Canmore ID 372595) may be one of two other recorded losses: either Duva or Svein Jarl. Full descriptions of the high potential anomalies are presented by MSDS (2023) and in section 7.3.3 of volume 3, appendix 19.1.
  3. Medium potential anomalies have characteristics that indicate a likelihood of representing anthropogenic material such as debris or potential debris. The distribution of these is shown in Figure 2.3   Open ▸ . Full descriptions of the medium potential anomalies are presented by MSDS (2023) and in section 7.3.2 of volume 3, appendix 19.1.

Figure 2.1:
Marine Archaeology Identified Within the Marine Archaeology Study Area

Figure 2.1: Marine Archaeology Identified Within the Marine Archaeology Study Area

Figure 2.2:
Marine Archaeology Survey Area and Marine Archaeology Study Area


Figure 2.3:
Distribution of Medium and High Potential Geophysical Contacts Within the Marine Archaeology Survey Area

Figure 2.3: Distribution of Medium and High Potential Geophysical Contacts Within the Marine Archaeology Survey Area