RCAHMS Centenary Workshops

Morning
The morning session focused on historical mapping, looking at military mapping, battlefield maps and estate maps. [Chair Dr Piers Dixon]

State Imperatives: Military Maps of Eighteenth-century Scotland (Carolyn Anderson)
Carolyn began with a brief review of cartography in Scotland: Before 1660 mapping was undertaken by four main groups: mariners, geographers, publishers and land measurers. However, by the Early-Modern period, government had come to realise the potential of maps as useful tools for planning and strategy. From this realisation came a new group of mapmaker, the military and state surveyors. By the eighteenth century, reconnaissance and mapping of all genres were strongly linked to the Enlightenment ideals of order and accuracy.

She then gave a brief review of key dates in the Office of Ordnance, the organisation responsible for Scotland’s eighteenth century military maps: The Office of Ordnance was established in 1597 and its remit expanded throughout the seventeenth century to include the provision of garrison. In 1683, map-making was defined as a new responsibility and perfect drafts of every fortification in Britain were to be drawn up and kept. At the end of the seventeenth century, the Office was divided into ‘civil’ and ‘military’ branches.

She then looked at the developing military landscape in Scotland in the eighteenth century. Planning and development of infrastructure and fortifications became a key government priority in the years between and immediately after the Jacobite uprisings of 1715 and 1745.  And when Lieutenant Wade was appointed in 1725, he quickly realised the importance of strategic locations for new fortifications. The following developments in military mapping were considered within this context:

• the development of standard drawings and symbolisation;
• maps remaining in manuscript form to restrict their circulation;
• map-maker and user became one;
• map content was limited to military features or those of military value

With regard to standardisation and symbolisation, three types of maps developed:

• plan
• section and profile (or elevation)
• landscape visualisation

Topographic mapping was drawn at a standard scale of 30 feet to an inch: road maps were drawn at a smaller scale and fort plans to a larger scale. Colour schemes and conventions were standardised (Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland exemplifies this well) and a relatively small number of significant symbols appear very frequently (forts, barracks and roads being the most important). Reports were written to accompany the maps, but many are now lost

Questions and comments:
David Caldwell remarked that before 1705, Scotland had a separate Board of Ordnance headed by John Slezer, perhaps better known for his landscape views of Scotland, Theatrum Scotiae, (1693). This was taken over by the British Board of Ordnance in 1705. Very few maps of the Scottish Board of Ordnance are known to survive.

John Hume remarked that maps are excellent tools for illustrating the development of military strategy and equipment (for example, the length of military fire).

Mapping Mayhem: Scottish battle maps and their contribution to the study of historic conflicts (Natasha Ferguson - for Tony Pollard)
Natasha discussed maps of the Battle of Pinkie (1547), the Battle of Dunbar (1650), the Battle of Glen Shiel (1719) and the Battle of Culloden (1746). Her talk demonstrated the increasing sophistication of map-making from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries and illustrated the potential and limitations of battle maps in informing our knowledge of battles and landscapes.

Battle of Pinkie 1547
This was the last major battle fought between England and Scotland. Two maps were considered. The first, drawn by Paton, c.1548 and the second, un-attributed and undated. Paton drew a series of maps illustrating the progression of the battle. They have the appearance of a basic landscape painting, with the addition of some battle activity. Some geographical features are identifiable, including Holyrood and the River Esk. The second map is thought to have been based on Paton’s map – though comments during the discussion contradicted this suggestion. It attempts to show all stages of the battle in one map and includes much on-the-ground detail, including individual people, weapons, camps and the use of field guns.

Battle of Dunbar 1650
This was Cromwell’s greatest victory in Scotland (against the defeated General Leslie). One map was considered, author unknown. The landscape details depicted include coastline, settlements, rivers, cultivation and ditches around field camps – the detail and style of recording was considered very similar to the Pinkie maps. It has been suggested that the map may have been drawn by an eyewitness or someone who has read an eyewitness account.

Battle of Glen Shiel 1719
The famous landscape painting of the battle by Peter Tilleman (1719) makes some serious errors in its depiction of the landscape, which questions whether he was actually present. It was suggested that he may have attempted to recreate the battle scene using Lieutenant John Bastille’s battle map. Bastille’s map (or rather, maps - he actually created one showing the east-west view and one showing the north-south view) was described as a technical drawing of great detail. Both landscape and military detail are good: it shows lines of mortar fires and musket fires as well as temporary structures, the remains of are still visible on the ground. A key (now lost) must also have been produced, as items on the map are numbered.

Battle of Culloden 1746
The large number of extant maps of the Battle of Culloden bears some reflection on the high level of interest in Scottish activities at this time: more then 60 maps are known, of which around 12 are eye-witness accounts. Significantly, these include maps drawn by both sides. Comparison of these different maps give us a more reliable picture of key landscape and battle features than is possible for earlier battles.

The most coherent and useful map is that drawn by Thomas Sandby, draughtsman to the Duke of Cumberland. Using his and others’ maps, it has been possible to pinpoint the location of enclosures where Jacobite troops were anchored and the location of Lenach steading, where some were later burned. Subsequent plotting of finds by metal detectors has shown that the Jacobite troops must have broken through their enclosures, leading to a re-evaluation of the location of Jacobite and Government lines from the accepted norm.

Questions and comments:
Andrew McMillan asked if field reconnaissance and associated mapping was ever taken prior to battle.

David Caldwell remarked that the second Battle of Pinkie map discussed in the presentation was produced completely independently of Patten’s map and there is good evidence to suggest that it is, in fact, a nineteenth century map.

John Hume supported this comment by noting that the ships appear to belong to a later period than those which would have been present at the Battle of Pinkie. He added that vignette details of ships are useful diagnostic tools for dating maps.

Putting estate maps to work: surveys of Lochtayside from 1769 to 2000 (Steve Boyle)
In 1769 Earl of Breadalbane instructed a survey of his lands along Loch Tayside. Surveyors John Farquharson and John MacArthur each spent 10 months surveying the north and south sides of the loch, respectively.

Farquharson’s surveyed the ground at a scale of approximately 1:25,000. The result of his survey survives as a bound book of 24 maps with an accompanying book of reference. They show the land divided into infield, outfield, meadow (amongst the settlements), woodland (loch-side and recent plantations), grassland, all bounded by a head dyke. The maps themselves are over-drawn with grids, which may date from reorganisation of the estate in 1798 when the joint farms (as surveyed by Farquharson) were replaced with consolidated lots.

Although the farms were run as shared tenancies in 1769, the maps present strong evidence that the landscape was already largely enclosed. For example, arable land is shown enclosed by hedges (i.e. they are not open fields); within the arable land there are various sub-divisions and a gate; woodland is shown with a single line around it – hedged or stone dykes.

RCAHMS surveyed Loch Tay in 2000. The extant buildings, which survive on the ground are thought to date from the re-organisation of the 1790s. During the survey work, some similarities were observed between the archaeology and Farquharson’s maps, but these were not considered in detail until later, when the Commission rectified Farquharson’s maps using aerial photographs. Once this was done, it became possible to compare features mapped by Farquharson with those surviving on the ground and shown on modern maps.

Outfield enclosures show good survival rates. Infield enclosures less-so, but there are some lengths of dykes with stone outer and turf inner faces, for example, which relate well to those depicted in the Farquharson maps. In some cases, the enclosure dykes do not survive, but the extent of rig ties in well. There is a notable absence of dykes in the outfield, but this is not surprising, as the temporary tathing fold dykes would have been ploughed in during the process of outfield cultivation.

The archaeology of the infield and outfield settlements shows some notable differences:  buildings in the infield settlements exhibit  ‘early’ features such as a single entrance into byre-dwellings; buildings in the outfield settlements exhibit more ‘improvement period’ characteristics such as regular, square-edged corners.

Rectification of the Farquharson maps has demonstrated how accurate the Farquharson’s survey was. This leads one to wonder whether his survey was uniquely reliable, or whether we might be persuaded to place greater faith in other estate maps of the period.  We have traditionally, been taught that estate maps show buildings schematically – however evidence from the map rectification suggests that Farquharson appears to have surveyed buildings individually and accurately. 

Questions and comments:
John Hume asked if high grain prices during the French War put pressure on agricultural production in marginal areas of the estate.

Steve Boyle responded that the creation of new farms on the Loch Tay out-fields took place in the 1790s and concluded that this may have been one factor in their establishment. He also noted evidence in the estate papers that the out-field farmers were looking for work as dykers in the 1830s.

Piers Dixon commented on the distinction between ‘inclosure’ and ‘enclosure’ – Farquharson’s maps clearly showed an enclosed landscape (areas of wood and arable enclosed by distinct boundaries in stone or turf), but the farms were still worked as shared tenancies.

Afternoon Session
The afternoon session focused on modern mapping, looking at the contribution of GIS, the application of Gaelic place names and historic landscape characterisation.
[Chair Professor Charlie Withers]

 

The Benefits and Limitations of Geographic Information Systems Thirty Years On (Bruce Gittings)

• Cartography is now in the hands of designers
• A distributed GIS poses new problems
• Cartography is poor
• GI data needs to be richer
• GI data silos need to be connected
• There is not enough attention to place-names
• Commentary is important
• Is there a strategy for getting cartography back into the map?

 

Characterisation (Peter Herring)

• How is the HLC engaging the community? – By using the GIS and hyperlinks from the polygons to other data sources and by presentations at parish meetings
• Place names are fundamental to the definition of the amount of enclosed land along with field pattern morphology

 

Frank Lockwood and the Case of the Missing Monadhs: Promoting the Plurality of Scotland’s Naming Tradition (Paedar Morgan)

• Wrong names have to be dealt with and maintained just as much as correct names as they will have been used in error
• There is an issue with both Gaelic and non-Gaelic names
• The definitive source for place names is the local authority
• For smaller settlements it the definitive source for names is the people that live there
• Gaelic is to be incorporated into the National Gazetteer
• On the Western Isle there is the issue of Gaelicisation of names even though there was no Gaelic community there

 

 

[top of page]

Chris Fleet (discussant) began by identifying three broad themes: meaning; trust; and technology.

1. Meaning:
   An appreciation of mapmakers’ ideologies has refreshed our approach to cartographic history. Deconstructing the map, the remit and the players can let us place greater meaning on the map itself and can assist greatly when it comes to interpreting landscapes.
   
   When we look closely at maps, their ‘real’ versus ‘symbolic’ construction of landscape is very apparent – this is especially notable in military maps.
   The differences between eighteenth century estate maps and battle maps may be explained by their different purposes.
2. Trust:
   Our trust in maps may be improved by comparing maps alongside other sources. For example, looking at battle maps in conjunction with engineers’ reports, or, estate maps in conjunction with travellers’ reports.
3. Technology:
   The use of GIS allows us to integrate historic maps with other sources via overlay and rectification. However, this approach works better with some sources than others and we shouldn’t presume that geometric accuracy was achieved or even desired in early maps. Some knowledge about how a historic map was made and what survey tools/technology were used will ensure better results.

Natasha Ferguson, commenting on the difference between ‘meaning’ and ‘trust’, noted that battlefield maps focus on features which are not fixed in the landscape (e.g. troops, battle equipment, etc.)

Pat Dennison asked if any information exists about the day before Culloden, when troops marched to Nairn and then retreated (Cumberland’s birthday).

Natasha Ferguson replied that it would be very difficult to map this.

Carolyn Anderson replied that maps do exist of Cumberland’s battle troop formation marching from Nairn to Culloden.

Steve Boyle asked what purpose the battle maps served – were they commemorative, for training, or something else?

Carolyn Anderson replied that they may have been used after the event as working documents to analyse successes and failures – some are annotated or have features crossed out.

John Hume noted that the navy still use battle maps for training purposes. He also said that metal detector evidence at Culloden and Glen Shiel (where musket balls have been retrieved) gives good evidence that battles were fought with guns, rather than other, more primitive methods.

Simon Gilmour noted that the value and importance of battlefield sites has been recognised by Historic Scotland’s Battlefield Inventory. However, he asked how one goes about defining the boundaries of a battlefield site.

Richard Strachan replied that it comes down to identifying the core of the battlefield – which has been done with certainty for Culloden and Prestonpans

Peter McKeague commented that a battlefield is an ‘event’ and not a topographic feature - and this is why the Battle of Pinkie has been removed from recent Landranger maps (the OS want to be able to identify sites with certainty).

Richard Strachan commented that there is a tier system of battlefields in the inventory, from those, which can be identified with certainty down to those which are less definite.

Charles Withers commented that we are assuming that maps have integrity because we can identify landscape features and cautioned that we should be wary of map rectification because they only represent a moment in time.

Chris Fleet remarked that maps give us an impression of society and culture at a set point in time – for example, General Roy’s Antiquities have more the appearance of a military survey than the antiquities which they depict – as a result, they say very little about Roman antiquity

John Home remarked that battle maps drawn on the spot are likely to be more accurate than those drawn after the event because those drawn after the event are likely to be clouded by a desire to learn lessons for the future.

Natasha responded that battle maps drawn on the spot are created very quickly and with a great deal of distraction. As a result, any mapping errors are not planned, but purely consequential.

Charles Withers commented that no map is either true or accurate. In the eighteenth century, symbolism was developing.

Steve Boyle agreed that not even modern maps are truly accurate, but this does not invalidate them as tools. Rectification of Farquharson’s Loch Tay maps was not done  just for the sake of it, but rather, as a tool to assist in understanding what was on the ground.

Bruce Gittings stated that it was a mistake to try and rectify maps exactly.

Pete Herring commented on the value of a commentary to help interpret maps.

 

Afternoon Chairman’s Summary

1. A lot of people are ignorant of cartography. We need to know how to make a good map.
2. The best quote of the day was ‘Every landscape is a dance’. There is a temporal depth to the landscape. Do we understand the characterisation choices in an HLC(A)? There is an assumption that hut circles are phenomena that equals a period.
3. Has English been suppressed by Gaelic – i.e. Islay?

Questions for debate are:

• What do we want from our maps?
• How do we get layers of meaning into maps?

 

General Discussion

• Is the HLC user-led, from which we work back to methodology?
• The HLC has metadata (source and confidence) along with a report/user guide
• Maps are too simple to portray everything
• There is an assumption that we are trying to capture all of reality
• We produce maps for ourselves, not for the public
• A map is a statement of authoritative abstraction
• There is a danger that technology is trying to represent the whole experience rather than enhancing the real experience
• Technology structures information
• Trust – We must be transparent
• Encouraging disagreement makes the process more informative
• The map is the glue that joins datasets to create meaning
• What would it take to join up the GI data silos?
• Joining GI data silos is not a technological issue but rather a political issue
• There is an economic gain from releasing data
• We have institutionalised the ownership of data
• Are we producing maps that people understand?
• Digitisation of the OS Name Book is a priority

 

Final Remarks

1. Looking at mapping as a procedure, audience and productive systems must be considered
2. Mapping is a resource to reduce geo-complexity and therefore maps are a responsibility. Audiences do not understand selection in relation to responsibility
3. Maps are not an end in themselves. They produce stories or a consequence of stories.

 

[top of page]

1 Research findings from paper sessions

Board of Ordnance and other military maps in Scotland do need to be seen in wider context (cf. European military mapping, development of a standard cartographic vocabulary in the 18thC);

Battle Maps can be used with other visual depictions as a source to supplement understanding of battles/historic sites;

OS maps and their toponomic authority: we need to know the definitive source for names;

Maps need to be understood in terms of their institutional imperatives/potential audiences/ideologies/as abstract devices.

Estate maps as a tool, when used in conjunction with archaeological and other datasets, to understand the development of the landscape and the traces that remain, and their use in GIS (the issue of geo-referencing).

 

2 Matters of collective institutional responsibility

Map makers have a responsibility to produce clear maps to different public audiences (and to understand maps as 'flexible documents' in (say) illustrating a battlefield or other historic site);

Maps should always have a clear purpose. Preparation of a map for public consumption demands trade-off between users' needs and makers' responsibilities and technical capacities;

 

3 Potential inter-institutional research projects

Consideration should be given to the formation of a Maps of Scotland Network, possibly by building on and through the NLS Scottish Maps Forum, in order to exchange information;

Consideration must be given to the sharing of information across the holdings and images banks of the several institutions in Scotland who have maps and other historical or environmental data, and conduct map-based research and public outreach.

Digitise the Ordnance Survey Original Object Name Books [top priority as a new cross-institution, Scotland-wide, map and related archive project].

The digitisation of estate maps (post-Charting the Nation and pre-OS) and their presentation online – a joint NAS, NLS, RCAHMS and University exercise.

 

[top of page]