Glengarnock Castle Project Design for a Community Archaeological Investigation Manda Forster and Stuart Noon - DigVentures
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Glengarnock Castle
Project Design for a Community Archaeological Investigation
Manda Forster and Stuart Noon
© DigVentures Limited, all rights reserved
Glengarnock Castle
Project Design for a Community Archaeological Investigation
Prepared on behalf of:
Garnock Connections Landscape Partnership and Historic Environment Scotland
Compiled by:
Manda Forster and Stuart Noon
With contributions from Harriet Tatton, Kimberley Teale, Joshua Hogue, Louise Turner and
Thomas Rees.
DigVentures
The Workshop
Quakers Yard
24 Newgate
Barnard Castle
County Durham
DL12 8NG
hello@digventures.com
0333 011 3990
@thedigventurers
2
Purpose of document
This document has been prepared to outline the aims, objectives and methodology to
undertake a community archaeological investigation at Glengarnock Castle, Ayrshire. The
project forms part of a number of projects delivered as part of the Garnock Connections
Landscape Partnership Project, The project scope has been discussed in full with Historic
Environment Scotland.
DigVentures has no liability regarding the use of this document except to the Garnock
Connections Landscape Partnership Project Team and Historic Environment Scotland.
DigVentures accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document
other than by the Project Team for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and
prepared.
Copyright
© DigVentures Limited 2021
Project summary
DV project code and type GAR21 community archaeological investigation
National Grid Reference NS 31029 57355
Canmore ID 42179 (https://canmore.org.uk/site/42179)
Designations Scheduled Monument SM318
http://portal.historicenvironment.scot/designation/SM318
County North Ayrshire
Title: Glengarnock Castle Project Design for a Community
Archaeological Investigation
Author(s): Manda Forster MCIfA FSA Scot
Stuart Noon MCIfA
Origination date: 01/05/2021
Circulation: Garnock Connections team
Historic Environment Scotland
Reviewed by: Joshua Hogue PhD
Approval: Lisa Wescott-Wilkins MCIfA
3
Social Value Act
DigVentures is a social enterprise dedicated to designing and delivering publicly focussed
archaeology projects. We are constituted as a limited company, with a constitution reflecting
the wider social, economic and environmental benefits of the projects we deliver.
Carbon Footprint
A printed copy of the main text in this document will result in a carbon footprint of 99g if 100%
post-consumer recycled paper is used and 126g if primary-source paper is used. These figures
assume the report is printed in black and white on A4 paper and in duplex.
DigVentures is aiming to reduce its per capita carbon emissions.
Acknowledgements
We’d like to begin with a sincere thank you to the Garnock Connections Team in particular
Simon McGrory, and Historic Environment Scotland. Thanks are also due to our project
partners at Rathmell Archaeology, including Louise Turner, Claire Williamson and Thomas
Rees.
The Project Executive for DigVentures is Lisa Westcott Wilkins, with Manda Forster as Project
Manager, Brendon Wilkins as Projects Director and Harriet Tatton as Project Coordinator.
Maiya Pina-Dacier as Head of Community, supported by Kimberley Teale as Geophysicist and
Ben Swain as Community Archaeologist. Fieldwork and volunteer training will also be
supported by Louise Turner and Claire Williamson (Rathmell Archaeology), who will coordinate
historic buildings and landscape survey elements of the field school.
Copyright
© DigVentures Limited 2021
4
Executive summary
This document is submitted in support of a community-based investigation at Glengarnock
Castle, to be undertaken by DigVentures, with Rathmell Archaeology. This Project Design
supports the first season of fieldwork which includes landscape and geophysical survey, and
archaeological test pitting at Glengarnock Castle (SM318), which will be delivered as a
community field school in July 2021. This stage of the project aims to investigate the potential
and significance of archaeology relating to Glengarnock Castle and environs.
The proposed work will take place as outlined in this document and as agreed with Scheduled
Monument Consent. On this basis a Project Design has been produced, outlining key
archaeological research questions, roles, procedures, stages and outputs.
The overarching aim of this fieldwork is to provide baseline information to contribute to the
future management and research of the site, creating multiple educational and participatory
learning experiences for community participants. This will be achieved through a community-
based archaeological research project designed to:
▪ understand the extent, nature and significance of the surviving archaeological remains by
topographic and geophysical survey
▪ characterise targeted earthworks, refining the chronology of the site through a programme
of test pitting
▪ understand the site’s archaeological and palaeoenvironmental conditions
▪ demonstrate the potential of the archaeology to contribute to the wider understanding of
the form, development and significance of the site in a regional and national context.
This Project Design provides an outline of methodology and planned intervention to
complete:
Survey Geophysical and landscape survey of the castle and its environs aims to
identify and record surviving earthworks or features within the scheduled
area, the promontory and the adjacent landscape. Geophysical survey
will target the same areas with magnetometry and earth resistance
survey. This will provide baseline information for the investigation and
ongoing management of the monument.
Targeted excavation Up to three test pits, measuring up to 4m x 1m, will be hand excavated
and recorded across the promontory, targeting visible earthworks and
possible features located outside the castle structures and scheduled
area. This will provide baseline information on nature of possible
structures and aim to identify the date and character of recorded
features.
Public engagement The project is supported by a comprehensive learning, engagement and
activity plan. An innovative digital recording system will be used to
enable volunteers to record and publish on smartphones or tablets in the
field; specifically developed learning materials will be used to deliver
education sessions, with a dedicated project website, underpinned by a
digital and audience building strategy, aiming to achieve the
engagement and participation numbers outlined in the project brief.
5
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 Project summary 8
1.2 The Garnock Connection Landscape Partnership 8
2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 9
2.1 Location, topography and site visit 9
3 HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND 10
3.1 Desk based research methodology 10
3.2 12th to 14th Centuries: Early History, and the Scots Wars of Independence 10
3.3 The 15th and 16th centuries: Glengarnock castle and the ‘Ayrshire Vendetta’ 11
3.4 The 17th century: Glengarnock Castle in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms 13
3.5 c. 1670- 1839: The Lindsays of Kilbirnie 14
3.6 Antiquarian and archaeological involvement 16
3.7 The MacGibbon & Ross survey 21
3.8 Stray finds 23
3.9 Reappraisal of mottes 23
3.10 The treatment of the castle in society, art and literature 24
3.11 Designations, HER entries and 20th century interventions 27
4 RESEARCH CONTEXT 28
4.1 Strategy and national policy 28
4.2 The wider research context 28
4.3 Social context 29
5 PROJECT RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 30
5.1 Project model 30
5.2 Aim 1 – Identify the physical extent and character of the castle keep and courtyard 30
5.3 Aim 2 – Characterise the results of non-invasive survey, refining the chronology and
phasing of the site with a programme of targeted excavation 31
5.4 Aim 3 – Understand the site’s archaeological and palaeoenvironmental conditions 31
5.5 Aim 4 – Making recommendations, analysis and publication 32
5.6 Aim 5 – To engage and train local people in the research of Garnock Connections
Study Area, and provide opportunities for public engagement 32
6 FIELDWORK PROPOSALS 2021 32
6.2 Survey 33
6.3 Test pitting 33
6.4 Participation activities 34
6.5 Reporting 34
6.6 Dissemination and reporting 35
6.7 Project archive 35
7 PROJECT TEAM STRUCTURE 36
7.1 Team and responsibilities 36
6
8 PROJECT STAGES, REVIEW AND PROGRAMME 37
8.1 Project stages, reviews points and programme 37
8.2 Stage 1 – Project Start-Up and Design 38
8.3 Stage 2 – Archaeological excavation and public participation 38
8.4 Stage 3 – Assessment Report and Post-Excavation Research Design 38
8.5 Methodological linkages 38
9 OWNERSHIP 39
10 HEALTH AND SAFETY 39
11 RISK LOG 40
12 BIBLIOGRAPHY 41
APPENDIX 1 – METHOD STATEMENTS 54
APPENDIX 2 – CORE TEAM CVS 60
List of tables
Table 1: Core project Team – roles and responsibilities 36
Table 2: Project review stages 38
Table 3: Methodological linkages 39
Table 4: Risk log 40
List of figures
Figure 1: Site location .............................................................................................................. 43
Figure 2: DTM Hill shade visualisations taken from multiple azimuths ................................... 44
Figure 3: Proposed works ........................................................................................................ 45
Figure 4: Images of the site ..................................................................................................... 46
Figure 5: Historic mapping and views of Glengarnock Castle ................................................ 47
7
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project summary
1.1.1 DigVentures has been appointed by the Garnock Connections Landscape
Partnership to undertake a community archaeological investigation at Glengarnock
Castle, Kilbirnie in North Ayrshire (Scheduled Monument SM318). The overarching
aim of the fieldwork is to characterise the nature and significance of extant
archaeological remains and to articulate their potential to inform our understanding
of the history and development of this important monument, within a regional and
national context. The archaeological investigation of Glenarnock Castle outlined in
this Project Design forms part of the delivery of the Garnock Connections Landscape
Partnership (GCLP) project, funded by the National Heritage Lottery Fund under the
Landscape Partnership Scheme.
1.1.2 This document provides a Project Design for delivery of the first season of field
investigations at Glengarnock Castle (hereafter ‘the Site, Figure 1, NGR NS 31029
57355). The initial stage, comprising a weekend community field school, will take
place 9th – 12th July 2021. This document defines how DigVentures intends to
deliver this phase of the project and outlines how research aims and participation
targets will be met.
1.1.3 The Project Design is presented in two parts; Part 1: Description of the Project
provides the project context, including a summary of proposed methodology, key
sources, and intrusive and non-intrusive activities, required to support the delivery
outcomes. Part 2: Resources and Programming identifies responsibilities of individual
project staff members, outlines individual tasks, and provides an expected delivery
programme.
1.2 The Garnock Connection Landscape Partnership
1.2.1 Garnock Connections is a Landscape Partnership Scheme led by RSPB, Scotland in
partnership with North Ayrshire Council, Scottish Environment Protection Agency
(SEPA), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. Historic
Environment Scotland (HES) act as an advisory body to the partnership. Garnock
Connections is funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund through the Landscape
Partnerships grant programme; the Green Infrastructure Community Engagement
Fund; Ayrshire LEADER - The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development:
Europe investing in rural areas; Ayrshire Sustainability Group; and the members of
the Landscape Partnership.
1.2.2 The Partnership commissioned DigVentures, in partnership with Rathmell
Archaeology, to deliver aspects of the Community Heritage and Archaeology Project
(CHAP), including a range of community-based archaeological activities that will
enhance, improve access to, and promote cultural heritage around the River
Garnock. To date, the project has focussed on training local people in heritage skills
that they can then put themselves into practice, learning about the local area, and
creating tangible links between place and community (see RSA’s Networked
Heritage: https://medium.com/networked-heritage). Delivery of the project
therefore provides an important opportunity for local people to learn new skills, meet
new people and make new connections within the area.
8
Part 1: Description of the project
2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
2.1 Location, topography and site visit
2.1.1 The area covered by the Garnock Connections Landscape Partnership encompasses
one of the largest valley landscapes in Ayrshire, running from Lochwinnoch to Irvine
Bay, and extending over 385km2. The project area includes the water catchment of
the River Garnock up into the Clyde Muirshiel Hills, Lochwinnoch and Castle Semple
Loch, and Irvine Bay round towards Troon. The area is close to the Clyde and
Glasgow, and forms an important lowland link between Irvine Bay and Glasgow,
which gave it the potential for settlement, transport and industry at an early stage.
Railways played a critical transport role for industry in the area in the past, and with
a continuing connection to the coast and Glasgow, and the modern road network,
these contribute to the accessibility of the area today. The Garnock Connections
landscape was a glaciated valley, and as such provides a broad flat-bottomed valley
that was ideal for settlement in historic times, and continues to be an important area
for agriculture, industry and settlements today.
2.1.2 The Garnock Connections area lies within the Midland Valley of Scotland, at the
western end of the band of relatively low-lying land between the Highland Boundary
Fault and the Southern Upland Fault. The bedrock geology of the Garnock
Connections area mainly comprises sedimentary rocks laid down during the
Ordovician and Silurian ages (c.500-400 million years ago), with the main rock types
being mudstones and sandstones forming from deposits laid down in oceans and
waterbodies, though these are often interspersed with coal seams where there was
land and vegetation. Volcanic activity introduced granites and basalts which form the
higher hills and some of the more prominent scarps and hills. The distribution of
igneous (volcanic) and sedimentary (formed from ocean and land-based sediments)
across the Garnock catchment is not simple, as the rocks have been shattered by a
series of faults that have fractured the rocks and left a patchy distribution of rock
types. The superficial geology in the Garnock Connections area include deep peats
on high ground, and mixed glacial tills over much of the Garnock catchment. Fluvial
deposits are found along the river valley floors (MGVLA. 2017).
2.1.3 Garnock Castle (SM318), (NS3102957355) is located in the parish of Kilbirnie in North
Ayrshire 2 miles (3 km) north of Kilbirnie in North Ayrshire KA25 7JZ (Figure 1). The
castle ruins are located in the northern part of the Garnock Connections area, north
of Kilbirnie and southwest of Lochwinnoch. The castle lies within an irregular area of
ground on the east bank of the River Garnock and sits on an unnamed Igneous
intrusion of unknown age comprising Microgabbro Igneous bedrock. The superficial
geology formed through glacial action creating till and glaciofluvial deposits of sand
and gravel during the Devension period of the Quaternary up to 2 million years ago.
The area is also interspersed with alluvial deposits of clay, silt, sand and gravel
resulting from the fluvial processes of the rivers that once existed here (BGS,
http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk). Review of the existing Lidar data does not reveal
additional details regarding existing earthworks but does emphasize the narrow neck
of the promontory and the clear advantages of the site regarding access (see Figure
2).
9
2.1.4 A site visit was undertaken in March 2021 in dry and sunny conditions (Figure 4). The
standing remains of the castle are impressive and located at the end of a natural
promontory created by the river, with steep sided slopes on the north, west and
southern sides (see Figures 1 and 2). Access to the site from the eastern side is across
a narrow promontory, which includes visible earthworks on the northern edge (Figure
4). The building remains are significant although ruinous, with standing walls extant
on all sides and indications of the original structural form suggested by both
architectural features and wall footings within the castle structure. Historical accounts
indicate that the ruins have suffered extensive damage from storms and had seen
some repair in the 1800s, and that the site was utilised as a quarry for building stone
(see Section 3.6). Due to the height of the surviving walls and the extent of damage,
the site would benefit from an assessment of the structural condition, prior to any
intrusive work being undertaken within the castle footprint.
3 HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND
Dr Louise Turner and Thomas Rees
3.1 Desk based research methodology
3.1.1 The background section was compiled to inform on the known historical,
archaeological and cultural background of Glengarnock Castle. The archival sources
consulted during this assessment included:
▪ the National Record of the Historic Environment (NRHE);
▪ the West of Scotland Archaeology Service Historic Environment Record (HER);
▪ National Library of Scotland;
▪ British Library; and
▪ local museums, libraries and other archives.
3.1.2 Information contained within available published and web-based sources was also
consulted. This collation of information was undertaken during the restrictions for the
COVID-19 pandemic; as such no visits to archives were possible and all resources
consulted were either available online or from the company library. Figures linked to
this section are collated below as Figure 5.
3.2 12th to 14th Centuries: Early History, and the Scots Wars of Independence
3.2.1 The origins and early history of Glengarnock Castle are obscure, and all information
relating to the subject should be viewed as being to some extent apocryphal,
derived as it is from 19th century antiquarian sources that do not cite specific
documents and cannot therefore be independently verified.
3.2.2 Two sources provide some insights relating to this period: the first is the New
Statistical Account of 1845 (Urquhart 1845, 700) and the second Paterson’s
subsequent account of the parishes of Ayrshire and their various landed families
(Paterson 1852). Both suggest that the Barony of Glengarnock was held by a branch
of the Riddell family, more usually associated with Teviotdale in the Scottish Borders.
The link with the Riddells ended when this line terminated with an heiress, who
married a son of the Cuninghame family, named variously as Reginald, 2nd son of
10Sir Edward Cunninghame of Kilmaurs (Paterson 1852, 117) and Hervey Cunninghame
of Kilmaurs, who supposedly distinguished himself in the Battle of Largs of 1263, and
established the line of Glengarnock through his second son, Galfidus (Urquhart 1845,
701).
3.2.3 The Riddells are similarly elusive in this early period. Believed to be of Norman
descent, they are represented more widely by a ‘Gervase Ridale,’ who witnessed a
charter issued by David I in AD 1116, with Sir William Riddell of Riddell, who held
lands in both Scotland and England, swearing fealty to Edward I of England in 1296.
This strong association between the Riddell family and the English cause helps to
confirm the association with Glengarnock, as Paterson records that Hervey
Cunninghame’s son, Sir Gilbert Conyngham of Glengarnock, married Ann Lyle,
daughter of Sir Allan Lyle, the Sheriff of Bute, who was himself allied to the English
cause, with Gilbert de Conynghame, styled ‘del Comte de Aire,’ swearing fealty to
Edward I c. 1296 (Paterson 1852, 117).
3.2.4 Glengarnock’s imposing character and impressive situation may also have
contributed to an alternative hypothesis, that it formed the primary seat of the de
Morevilles in the area (Paterson 1852, 113). The de Morevilles were widely viewed
as Ayrshire’s leading family during the reign of David I and beyond, through Hugh
de Moreville’s close association with David, who awarded him the Lordship of
Cunninhame as well as a number of important offices and lands distributed across
southern Scotland, England and France. Although Paterson suggests that the
Glengarnock Castle’s remains may incorporate elements of a castle originating in this
period (ibid.), however later authorities, in particular MacGibbon and Ross, argue
instead that all surviving elements of Glengarnock Castle are later in date, originating
in the first half of the 15th century (MacGibbon & Ross 1887-92, 293), if not later.
3.3 The 15th and 16th centuries: Glengarnock castle and the ‘Ayrshire Vendetta’
3.3.1 Despite their adherence to the cause of Edward I during at least the opening stages
of the Scots Wars of Independence, the Cunninghames of Glengarnock emerged
with their lands and titles intact, clan traditions dictating that the family’s broader
allegiance was to Robert I, and that the family’s motto, ‘Over Fork Over,’ derived
from attempts to hide him during the years he spent as a fugitive. The senior branch
of the family – the Cunninghames of Kilmaurs – had been created the Lords Kilmaurs
by the early 1460s, in the reign of James II. The Cunninghames remained in favour
with James III, and in 1488, Alexander, 1st Lord Kilmaurs was elevated to the status
of 1st Earl of Glencairn. Shortly after this, both the earl himself and James III were
killed at the Battle of Sauchieburn which took place in June 1488. The battle was
fought between forces loyal to those of James III and his son, the fifteen-year old
James IV.
3.3.2 As the fortunes of the Cunninghames had improved following the eclipse of Douglas
power from the 1460s onwards, so too did those of another family based in the north
of Ayrshire: the Montgomeries. The death of King James III and the instability which
followed the regime change brought about a period of violent unrest in Ayrshire as
the Cunninghames and the Montgomeries vied for political supremacy. The roots of
their disagreement lay in the allocation of a legal office, that of Bailie of
Cunninghame. This had passed to the Montgomeries through their marriage into the
Ardrossan family but following the untimely death of Alexander 2nd Lord
11Montgomerie and throughout the long minority of his son and heir Hugh, it was held
by the Cunninghames. When Hugh 3rd Lord Montgomerie came into his majority in
1483, he worked tirelessly to try and reclaim the powers that he believed to be
rightfully his. A legal claim, witnessed by many of the local gentry, came to nothing,
which makes it likely that Montgomerie threw his lot in with Prince James and his
rebel forces in the hope (or perhaps even on the condition) that he would be
confirmed in the office when the new regime came to power.
3.3.3 A year later, Montgomerie was not only appointed Bailie of Cunninghame, but also
Justiciar of Arran and the West, which gave him wide-ranging powers to deal with
‘trespassers,’ a wide ranging term which covered various misdemeanours including
reiving and thieving. He was then able to punish wrong-doers himself, or send them
to the king for justice (Macdougall 1997, 60). It is telling that during this time,
Montgomerie was personally responsible for the slaughter of Robert, 2nd Lord
Kilmaurs during this period (ibid. 84). This merely inflamed the situation, and the
Cunninghames’ refusal to accept Montgomerie’s authority, and his claim to the Bailie
of Cuninghame’s title resulted in a violent feud which lasted over 120 years and which
culminated in the murder of the 4th Earl of Eglinton in 1586.
3.3.4 Throughout the earlier decades of the feud, and in the period running up to it, the
Cunninghames of Glengarnock appear to have succeeded in remaining aloof from
the turmoil which was unfolding further to the south around Irvine and Ardrossan. A
few minor legal disputes are recorded, including an instance of a case brought
against them by the Abbot of ‘Inchechaff,’ who accused William of Conynggam of
Glengarnock, and his sons Thomas and William, of casting down the mill lade and
dam of Dunfallie in 1474. The offending Cunninghames were found guilty and
ordered to rebuild the structures at their own expense (Paterson 1852, 115).
3.3.5 It was probably the younger of the two Williams named above who found himself
more deeply embroiled in the feud, as we find him named in a number of documents
which demonstrate escalating tensions between the Cunninghames and the Sempills
of neighbouring Renfrewshire. The area remained relatively stable throughout the
lifetime of John 1st Lord Sempill, but following his death at the Battle of Flodden in
1513 and the succession of his eldest son, William, 2nd Lord Sempill, the feud
impacted further north, with Cunninghame of Glengarnock implicated in some of the
acts of violence which occurred during the early 1530s.
3.3.6 William 2nd Lord Semple was married to a Montgomerie and therefore allied to them
in the feud. He also had a track record for violence: prior to 1530, he had been
implicated, along with the 1st Earl of Eglinton, in the death of the laird of Lochleven,
had invaded the lands of Caldwell with armed men, and had been granted a respite
for the murder of a Dutchman, Cornelius de Mathetama, during a sitting of
parliament in Edinburgh (Beaumont-Sempill 2015, 70).
3.3.7 It was William, 2nd Lord Semple, his eldest son and heir and others amongst their
kin and servants who set upon William Cunningham of Craigends and his servant
John Alanson and killed them both. The trial was set for 25th November, and a bond
of mutual assurance was made between the two factions in which both parties
undertook not to molest one another’s persons, goods, lands or houses until after
the trial had passed (Crawfurd 1885, 159). Despite this, a number of Cunninghames
– including William Cunninghame of Glengarnock – were charged with lying in wait
12for William, 2nd Lord Semple, with a great company, and with intent to kill him. Both
parties were bound to keep the peace, and in the end William, 2nd Lord Sempill was
acquitted and four of his servants beheaded (ibid. 81).
3.3.8 This was not the first time, however, that William Cunninghame of Glengarnock had
become embroiled in an altercation with the Sempills. Paterson recounts how three
years earlier, he had been cautioned to appear at the Justice-Aire at Ayr ‘for art and
part of the forethought, felony and oppression done to Gabriel Sympill ... For his
slaughter, of forethought, felony and old feud’ (Paterson 1852, 118).
3.3.9 William Cunninghame of Glengarnock died at the Battle of Pinkie in 1547, enduring
a violent end to a turbulent life. Perhaps his greatest legacy lies, however, in a will
which provides us with a detailed insight into the final wishes of a minor Scottish laird
during this period, with stipulations that his four best horses should be granted to
his four sons, and sums paid to his chaplain, and to various churches and friaries
(ibid.).
3.3.10 William’s descendants were also deeply involved in the violence and unrest of their
times. His son John was summoned to appear at the Juctice-aire of Ayr for breaking
and entering the home of Humphry Galbraith in Easter Glenne with thirty men in
1554, and ‘searching for him for his slaughter’ (ibid. 119). John’s son, named William,
presumably after his grandsire, was then slain by Sir Patrick Houston of Houston in
1591, who in turn was set upon by William’s sons John and William.
3.3.11 The lands and title subsequently passed to James Cunninghame of Glengarnock,
who was knighted by 1609 and who married one of the daughters of the Earl of
Glencairn. Despite the obvious wealth this marriage would have brought him, Sir
James found himself in dire financial straits and in 1609 he assigned the lands of
Glengarnock ‘in behoof of his creditors, and went to Ireland, where he had got a
grant of 12,000 acres of land from King James VI (ibid. 120).
3.3.12 Throughout this extensive period, Glengarnock Castle must have provided its
residents with a solid defensive structure, conveniently situated on the periphery of
those places which tended to be the main focus of unrest. MacGibbon and Ross’s
observations that the castle’s fabric is likely to have its origins in the first half of the
15th century would suggest that the castle was constructed during the relatively
peaceful period which predated the almost-constant feuding of the late 15th and
16th centuries. It is likely that the main portion of the structure – the tower-house –
was constructed around the mid-15th century, when the Cunninghames were
beginning to come into their own as major regional and even national players. This
was a period when even their cadet branches would have had sufficient wealth and
status to construct such an imposing structure.
3.4 The 17th century: Glengarnock Castle in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms
3.4.1 The barony of Glengarnock passed into the hands of another branch of the
Cunninghame family: the Cuninghames of Robertland. David Cuninghame of
Robertland, who made the purchase, had six sons: one of the youngest, Alexander,
whose residence was at nearby Ladyland, joined the rebellion of the Marquis of
Montrose in 1647 (ibid.). Despite being publicly rebuked in Kilbirnie parish church
13for his allegiance to the Marquis, he appears to have actively garrisoned the castle
in pursuit of this cause, as he was assigned the sum of £51 and 15s as expenses.
3.4.2 Further information relating to this period, and the years of the Commonwealth
which follows, is elusive. If Glengarnock was indeed brought into use a garrison for
a short period during the late 1640s, then some of the later structures observed by
MacGibbon and Ross (in particular, the external buildings and ranges which abut the
barmkin wall) may well have their origins in this period. The role Glengarnock Castle
played cannot, however, have been a significant one, as the site was never subject
to the attentions of Cromwell in the succeeding Commonwealth period, either as a
potentially useful defensive site or as a latent threat which required to be destroyed.
3.4.3 The Commonwealth period co-incided with the production of Blaeu’s map, which
was itself a revision of an earlier map surveyed by Timothy Pont in the 1570s. Blaeu’s
map is very stylised in its depiction of the landscape and the various buildings
located within it (Figure 5.1a), but it is possible to infer, from the various symbols that
he employs, the size and character of each structure. The larger castles and country-
houses are shown as substantial buildings set within extensive parkland, sometimes
enclosed, with woodland present. By contrast, Glengarnock is depicted here as a
modest site denoted only by a simple circle. This form of annotation more commonly
denotes a farmstead; its use in association with Glengarnock Castle suggests that
already, the castle has already lost its role as a high status dwelling.
3.4.4 Glengarnock’s decline is mirrored in the failing fortunes of the Robertland
Cuninghames who purchased it. Richard Cuninghame inherited the barony of
Glengarnock from his father David when still a minor, and Paterson notes that the
young heir’s education was neglected on account of the dire financial circumstances
of his father. The barony was sold, apparently in two lots, to Patrick Lindsay of
Kilbirnie in 1672 and 1677 (Paterson 1852, 121), thus ending the long association
between the Cunninghame family and the barony of Glengarnock.
3.4.5 Richard’s younger brothers included Alexander, who was ordained minister of
Dreghorn in 1695, and Robert, who made his fortune as a slave-owning sugar-planter
in the Caribbean island of St Christopher’s. The decline of the family’s fortunes were
further illustrated by the fates of his children: the eldest son served as a soldier in
Flanders c. 1710, while another son became an apprentice surgeon, and one of his
daughters had to be content with marriage to the factor at nearby Castle Semple
estate, then under the ownership of the McDowall family (ibid.).
3.5 c. 1670- 1839: The Lindsays of Kilbirnie
3.5.1 The purchaser of the barony of Glengarnock was Patrick Lindsay, second son of the
Earl of Lindsay. He had established links with north Ayrshire through his marriage to
Margaret Craufurd, heiress to the barony of Kilbirnie which lay adjacent to the lands
of Glengarnock. Paterson records that both Lindsay and his wife died of a fever in
1680: Margaret Craufurd allegedly died first (ibid. 115) although a later document,
issued in 1681, which describes Margaret Craufurd as relict of Mr Patrick Lindsay
casts some doubt on this (GD20/1/482).
3.5.2 Their eldest son, John, took the Crauford name and established himself both
politically and militarily in the Revolution of 1688. He served as a member of the
14Scots Parliament for Ayr on several occasions, and was elevated to the peerage,
being granted the title Viscount Mount Craufurd, which he later changed to Viscount
Garnock. His eldest daughter married David, 1st Earl of Glasgow, and ultimately it
was the 4th Earl of Glasgow who would inherit the baronies of Kilbirnie and
Glengarnock in 1833, following the death of Lady Mary Lindsay Craufurd of Craufurd,
Lindsay and Garnock, unmarried, and without issue. This does not, however, appear
to have taken the form of the wholesale transfer of the barony into the ownership of
the Earls of Glasgow; instead, it appears to have fragmented at a much earlier date.
3.5.3 Paterson notes that a part of the Glengarnock estate had passed into the possession
of the Cochrans of Ladyland in 1756, through the marriage of William Cochrane of
Ladyland to Janet, daughter of Robert Glasgow of Pudevenholme (i.e. modern
‘Paddockholm’), who had inherited this portion from ‘Jean, daughter of John
Cuninghame of Wattieston (representative of Robertland)’ (Paterson 1852, 124). An
1820 account by Robertson confirms that the barony had become split by this time,
with Lady Mary Lindsay Craufurd retaining ownership of 700 arable acres, Mr
Cochrane of Ladyland 150 acres and a further eight lesser proprietors also owning
smaller portions (Robertson 1820, 266). Robertson also states that Cochrane of
Ladyland is in possession of the ruined remains of Glengarnock Castle at this time
(ibid. 262), although this was disputed at a later date.
3.5.4 The period which saw the fragmentation of the barony of also saw a range of historic
mapping which can provide us with further insights into the condition of the castle
and its surrounding landscape. Roy’s Military Survey of 1752-5 (Figure 5.1b) shows a
single large structure (or potentially, a group of structures arranged around a central
courtyard) with the annotation ‘Garnock Castle.’ The land in its vicinity is unenclosed
and largely uncultivated: Ladyland House is shown amongst an area of woodland
plantations, to the north of an expanse of cultivated (presumably arable) ground lying
to the east of the Millside burn (unnamed on Roy’s map). Although the ground here
is being intensively farmed, this is probably being undertaken via the traditional
runrig method, with different portions of ground being allocated variously to
different tenants, although the proliferation of farms, some associated with planted
shelter belts of trees, may indicate that the improvement process is underway.
Paterson notes, almost a hundred years later, that William Cochrane of Ladyland was
responsible for implementing significant improvements, including draining, liming
and enclosure, during the period in which he was responsible for his estate, with the
Earl of Glasgow implementing a similar programme of improvements on his lands in
the baronies of Glengarnock and Kilbirnie (Paterson 1852, 106-7). Roy’s map
illustrates this clearly, in the contrast between the more intensively cultivated land
lying to the southeast of Ladyland House, and the relatively undeveloped ground to
the west around Glengarnock, which he had not yet managed to acquire.
3.5.5 Armstrong’s slightly later map of 1775 does not show the area in sufficient detail to
provide much greater insight, but it does show the castle and annotates it as ‘ruins,’
which yields some insights into its condition at the time (Figure 5.1c). Thomson’s
map of 1828 is similarly vague in terms of its detail (Figure 5.1d), but it does show
Glengarnock Castle as sitting at the east end of a road which runs west from the
newly established town of Lochwinnoch, passing just to the south of Ladyland house
and providing a convenient access route for a number of small farms which have
been established in the lower, cultivable areas between Lochwinnoch and Kilbirnie.
153.6 Antiquarian and archaeological involvement
3.6.1 The later 18th century saw an increasing interest in Scottish history and traditions,
albeit in an idealised form, through the popularity of the works of Ossian, a supposed
Gaelic bard who was in reality the creation of a poet named James Macpherson.
Over the following decades, the growing Romantic movement flourished, with the
novels of Walter Scott further promoting an interest in Scotland’s medieval and
chivalric past. This brought about a widespread interest in local historic sites, with
landed families and antiquarians keen to learn more about the sites and monuments
associated with their own, local, historic past. This interest provided the backdrop to
a range of antiquarian and archaeological events undertaken at the castle during the
first half of the 19th century in particular, a discussion of each which is presented
below.
Early descriptions of the Castle
3.6.2 The closing decade of the 18th century saw the publication of The Old Statistical
account (Adams 1793, 1799) for the Parish of Kilbirnie. Compiled by the minister of
the parish, this document represents a reflection of the minister’s interests and
concerns, and the amount of time and space devoted to matters historical and
antiquarian varies according to the author. In this case, Adams makes no mention of
Glengarnock Castle.
3.6.3 One of our earliest descriptions comes instead a few decades later from George
Robertson (1820, p260), who describes its remains as follows:
Antiquities – The old Castle of Glengarnock is perhaps among the most ancient
and most stately ruinous fabrics in Ayrshire. It is pitched on the top of a high
precipitous rock, in a peninsula formed by the Garnock, about 2 mile north-west
of the village of Kilbirnie. To look down from it is awful. The rock on which it is
erected, appears to be from 80 to 100 feet in height, altogether perpendicular,
whilst the building itself is of great elevation. The deep chasm with which it is
nearly surrounded, is dismally dark, the waters being almost hid by the
overshadowing woods, springing from both sides of the stream.
There is no account, nor tradition, at what time it was erected, nor by whom –
whether by its last Lords of the family of Cunninghame, or by the Riddels who
preceded them. It has no affinity in its architecture to the sombre square towers
so frequent in this part of the country; and yet it is fully as ill accommodated with
lights. There is no appearance of works of defence, neither gun-ports nor arrow-
slits. It is indeed so inaccessible, that confidence might be placed for security in
its natural situation. It is at present much dilapidated; - the out buildings in
particular can be traced only by their foundations. It belongs to Mr Cochran of
Ladyland.
3.6.4 This was supplemented with the footnote ‘There is a tradition in the neighbourhood,
that Glengarnock Castle is the ancient castle of Hardyknute, of early legendary fame
in the Battle of Largs’.
3.6.5 From Robertson’s description, we can not only see a traditional local link with a well
known historical event (the Battle of Largs) but also reference to the long-term history
of the site, commencing with the Riddels and then moving on to the Cunninghames.
163.6.6 A second early account comes from James Dobbie’s 1831 (p6-7) description:
The manor-place of this estate was Glengarnock Castle, which was placed on a
promontory on the banks of the Garnock. The river winded round two sides of this
projection, and the only access to the house was at the front, from the northeast,
on which side, and at a distance of 200 feet, there was a dry moat, and draw-
bridge. There is still a hollow in the surface, which marks out the course of the
moat. The house has not been inhabited for a long period, and is now a complete
ruin. The ground-plan can still be traced, though with considerable difficulty. From
a measurement lately taken it appears that the entrance front was forty-six feet
long, and twenty feet height, with a window on each side of the door. After
entering, there was a passage of fifty-six feet long, and sixteen wide, leading to
the main building, which presented a front of forty-four feet in length, and twelve
feet higher than the outer walls. The upper story contained only one room, which
was thirty-two feet long, and twenty-one wide, within the walls. One window in
this room, overlooked the chasm of the river, at a height of sixty feet, and two
looked into the front passage. The roof seems to have been flat, and covered with
stones. Notwithstanding the magnitude of this edifice, it appears to have afforded
poor accommodation, and though it must have been reared at great expense, it
could not have been a place of great strength, at least under the system of modern
warfare; as it is fully commanded from several adjoining heights. The ruins show
neither the machicolated battlement, or arrow-slit of ancient defence; nor the
embrasures of more modern times.
3.6.7 A fuller description is afforded us from the New Statistical Account (Urquhart 1845,
706-7):
Glengarnock Castle – The ruins of Glengarnock Castle stand on a precipitous ridge
or knoll, overhanging the Garnock, about two miles north of Kilbirnie. This
brawling stream skirts two sides of the knoll, and, as the ravine through which it
flows is fully eighty feet in depth, the position, under the ancient system of warfare,
must have combined security with the means of easy defence. The only access to
the castle is from the northeast, in which direction the ridge, upon which it is
situated, is connected with the adjoining field. At the distance of thirty yards from
its entrance, a depression in the ground indicates what has been the course of a
dry moat, by which, and a drawbridge, the approach is said to have been
protected. The ground plan of this ancient stronghold could, until lately, be easily
traced, and as a portion of the exterior walls still maintains nearly the original
height, its appearance when entire, may, with little difficulty, be yet shadowed out.
From notes and measurements taken a few years ago, it may be described in
general terms, as having consisted of a quadrilateral tower, with a court of less
elevated buildings extending from its east side. The entrance has been from the
eastern extremity of the latter. This facade is 46 feet long, and has been about 24
feet in height. A court or passage, 59 feet in length, lay between the entrance and
the tower, on each side of which has been a range of two-storied apartments. The
tower is 45 feet long, 33 feet wide, and its height has been above 40 feet, Its
upper and now only accessible storey has consisted of a hall occupying the whole
extent within the walls. One of the windows overlooks the rugged chasm through
which murmurs the Garnock, and from two narrow apertures facing the east, the
eye may yet revel over a beautiful extent of the district bearing the name as the
old lords of the castle. From the gall, a narrow circular stair led to the upper part
17of the building, which has been surrounded by a parapet wall. The ruins show
neither the arrow-slit nor gun-port of defence so common in similar old houses.
Perhaps the situation was of itself so secure as to render unnecessary the ordinary
means of repelling an attack. The uniformity of style in all castellated mansions,
erected prior to the discovery of gunpowder, renders it hazardous to be precise
regarding the date of their construction. Few, however, conversant with such
remnants of feudal architecture, would hesitate to assign ruins of this stronghold
an antiquity as remote as that of any remains of masonry in the west of Scotland.
It is not, therefore, improbable that Glengarnock Castle may have existed in the
time of the De Morvilles, though the conjecture of its having been the residence
of these ancient lords of Cunninghame, appears entitled to mearly the same
consideration as that of its having been the castle of Hardyknute.
It may be added in justification of so minute an account, that the ruins of this castle
will soon cease to be an object of interest to the local antiquary, or to form a
picturesque feature in the landscape. The storms of January 1839 overthrew the
north wall of the tower, containing between 4000 and 5000 solid feet of masonry;
and unequivocal symptoms portend, that, at no distant date, the bed of the
Garnock will receive the greater part of the time-worn remains.
3.6.8 A detailed reading of Urquhart’s account ends with an extremely significant piece of
information: the fact that the remains of the castle suffered catastrophic damage in
January 1839 when winter storms brought down the north wall of the tower. This
makes the pre-1839 accounts particularly valuable as they provide insights into the
site’s character prior to this catastrophic event.
Erosion, Quarrying, Repair, Consolidation and Ownership
3.6.9 The impact of the 1839 storms is reported again in a newspaper account of
Glengarnock Castle under the name William Dobie in the Ardrossan and Saltcoats
Herald (Friday 22 June 1894). Much of the description in the account is heavily
derivative from Urquhart (1845) before breaking into new comment:
… The castle is said to have been abandoned as a residence, and shortly
afterwards to have fallen into ruin early in the last century. Besides exposure “to
the injuries of stormy weather” it has suffered more from the destructive shock of
violence, the materials for building several farm-houses having been at different
periods torn from the structure. The heaviest blow, however, inflicted on the ruins
within the present century was by the storms of January, 1839, which overthrew
the north wall of the tower, containing between four and five thousand feet of
solid masonry, besides weakening considerably the more elevated parts of the
remaining walls. But though thus long dismantled, and yearly lessened and
enfeebled, the ruins still maintain …
… Since 1840, the date of the foregoing remarks, we feel no little satisfaction in
being enabled to state that much has been recently done by the spirited and
enlightened proprietor of the ruins, R.W. Cochran-Patrick, Esq, of Ladyland to
arrest their further dilapidation. The foundations, where undermined, have been
secured; wasted portions of the walls taken down and substantially restored, the
whole of which have been carefully pointed with mortar; while the interior has
been cleared of the rubbish and soil accumulated during more than a hundred
years of abandonment and degradation.
183.6.10 This appears to have been a reworking of a longer text Dobie published in 1855 in
the Ayrshire Wreath, crudely updated with the contemporary landowner’s name. The
original 1855 outing of this text (Dobie 1855) was companied with a drawing of the
castle (Figure 5.5a). Turning to an account in the Paisley & Renfrewshire Gazette
(Saturday 23 July 1887):
A tablet in the wall informs us that “William Cochrane-Patrick, Esq., of Ladyland
and Waterside, strengthened the ruins of this ancient castle in 1841.” As we
mentally pay a vote of thanks to Mr Patrick for thus performing a duty, in too many
instances neglected, we wonder how far the antiquarian’s tastes and tendencies
of his accomplished son and heir are due to is close acquaintance with
Glengarnock, Ladyland, and Barr, the history of whose old-world treasures we can
only this darkly hint at.’
3.6.11 This indicates that repairs were undertaken in response to the collapse of 1839 in
1840-given the detailed listing of works by Dobbie in 1855/1894, this would appear
to have been an extensive programme. The son and heir referred to is Robert William
Cochran-Patrick (1842-1897) who, having graduated from Edinburgh University and
Cambridge University, settled as a country gentleman at Woodside in Ayrshire. As
recounted in the Dictionary of National Biography (1901 supplement):
Taking up the study of archæology, he became a fellow of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland, and contributed a large series of most valuable papers to
the 'Proceedings' of the society. In 1871 he was elected a fellow of the Society of
Antiquaries of London, and in 1874 he was sent to Stockholm to represent Great
Britain at the international congress of archæology. In 1874 he was one of the
founders of the Ayrshire and Wigtonshire Archæological Association. To the
collections of this society he contributed numerous able articles.
But it is as a numismatist that Cochran-Patrick is best known, and his collection of
Scottish coins was wellnigh unrivalled. On this subject in 1876 he published his
first book, entitled 'Records of the Coinage of Scotland from the earliest Period to
the Union,' 2 vols. This he followed up in 1878 with 'Early Records relating to
Mining in Scotland,' in which he gave an account of the discovery of gold in
Scotland, and descriptions of the lead and silver mines.
3.6.12 He also followed a political career, elected to parliament from the North Ayrshire
constituency in 1880. Though unsuccessful in the subsequent election, by December
1887 he was the permanent under-secretary for Scotland. Given this profile, there is
a remarkable court case reported in the Glasgow Evening Post on Wednesday 23
May 1888:
Disputed Possession of Glengarnock Castle: Lord Trayner closed the record to-
day in an action in which R.W. Cochran Patrick of Woodside, Ayr, asks that John
Hutcheson Kerr, Aberdona Castle, Clackmannan; James Dunbar, mason, Kilbirnie;
and Robert McCosh, Karnehall Farm, Kilbirnie, should be interdicted from
trespassing upon or interfering with the ruins of the old Castle of Glengarnock.
These ruins, complainer says, form part of his lands, and it is averred that on 7th
April last the respondents Dunbar and McCosh, on the instructions of Mr Kerr,
trespassed on the ruins, destroyed one of the walls of the castle, and removed a
memorial stone erected in 1842 by the complainer’s father. The defence is that
19the ruins do not belong to the complainer, but that they are the property of the
respondent Kerr, who purchased them from the Earl of Glasgow’s trustees in 1886.
3.6.13 Within the subsequent reporting, the Greenock Telegraph and Clyde Shipping
Gazette on Saturday 26 May 1888 sided strongly with the castle being the possession
of the Earl of Glasgow. This piece reports that the contention of Mr Hutcheson-Kerr
that the destruction of the memorial stone had been his duty as it was placed there
to create title. The paper goes on to allude that ‘… it may be permissible to say that
the insertion of a tablet in the wall of a ruined castle is somewhat uncommon
proceeding on the part of any one to whom such a property really belongs.’
3.6.14 A response to this article in the Thursday 7 June 1888 edition suggests the paper
has confused Glengarnock Castle with Kilbirnie Castle, the latter in the ownership of
the Earl of Glasgow. The correspondent then recounts that in the mid-18th century
the marches between holdings of the Earls of Crawfurd and the lairds of Ladyland
were settled, setting the castle to the latter. A history of the Ladyland planting of
woods around the castle is further cast in to show the evident ownership of the castle.
The Editor rejoins this piece with an immediate rebuttal of each point, defending the
original article in full.
3.6.15 After such an extensive pondering on the case in May and early June, a much terser
entry in The Greenock Telegraph and Clyde Shipping Gazette reported the
conclusion of this case on Thursday 28 June 1888:
Glengarnock Castle: The interdict craved for in the Court of Session by Mr
Cochran-Patrick, of Woodside, Ayrshire to have Mr John Hutchenson Kerr,
Aberdona Castle, Clackmannan, and others, prevented from entering upon or
interfering with the ruins of the ancient Castle of Glengarnock, has been made
perpetual, Mr Kerr having admitted his inability to contest the title of Mr Patrick
to the Castle, he not having received a good title from the Earl of Glasgow. Mr
Kerr, we understand, pays all expenses.
3.6.16 In the aftermath of the court case, Robert William Cochran-Patrick must have
commissioned some level of works given that the memorial stone was restored to
the fabric of the castle.
3.6.17 The 1st edition Ordnance Survey map, published in 1856, provides us with the first
modern mapping of the castle and also with further insights into its character and
setting (Figure 5.3a). The surveying of the map always predates its publication by
several years, but in this case the survey still postdates the 1841 consolidation. The
depiction of the castle lacks detail and definition, with the site defined as the outline
of the external walls which make up keep and barmkin. The same is true of the
succeeding 2nd edition Ordnance Survey map (Figure 5.3b), surveyed in the mid-
1890s.
3.6.18 The contemporaneous description from the Ordnance Survey Name Book (1855-
1857) states:
The ruins of Glengarnock Castle stand on a precipice overhanging the River
Garnock: about 2 miles North of the Village of Kilbirnie, the River Skirts two Sides
of the precipice and flows through a ravine fully 80 feet in depth. The only access
20to the Castle is from the East in which direction the ridge on which it is perched -
Slopes gently upwards to the [adjoining] fields. This Castle was formerly the
residence of a Family of the name Cunninghame. it now belongs to William
Cochran Patrick Esq Ladyland. who endeavours to Keep it in repair
3.6.19 In terms of wider landscape changes, we see that the area around the castle is now
being subject to enclosure with hedges and shelter belts planted. The precipitous
valley of the Garnock is wooded by 1856, and by the 1890s, the promontory on
which the castle sits is also depicted as lightly wooded.
3.7 The MacGibbon & Ross survey
3.7.1 MacGibbon & Ross (1887-92, p 293-296) recorded Glengarnock Castle as part of
their compendium of castellated architecture and is quoted in full below (with the
main accompanying figures reproduced as Figures 5.4a and 5.4b):
An ancient structure with a keep and courtyard, grandly situated in a wild ravine
among the hills lying to the north of Kilbirnie. It stands on the extreme edge of a
long narrow plateau, the sides of which are very steep, and in placed quite
precipitous beneath the walls of the castle. The neck on the east side, where the
plateau leaves the side of the glen, has been cut through by a ditch, strengthened
with a mound on the inside, at a distance of about seventy paces from the walls.
The wild brawling stream of the Garnock runs round the west end of the plateau,
through a rough and rocky gorge, which effectually defends the castle from
approach on that side.
The remains of the building (Fig 223), which are considerable, consist of a keep,
occupying the whole of the western extremity of the plateau, and irregular
structures surrounding a courtyard, with an approach on the east side. The various
buildings inside the curtain walls are all now in a state of ruin. The west or outer
wall of the keep, as well as the south wall, with part of the north all, are entire up
to the height of a string-course, which doubtless supported the parapet and
battlements (Fig 224).
The keep measures about 45 feet 6 inches from north to south by 35 feet 6 inches
from east to west. The ground floor was vaulted, and has no opening in any of the
three walls now standing, so that it must have been very dark. The hall floor is
likewise vaulted, and is of great height. There has not apparently been any upper
floor in this vault, but it is too ruinous to enable one to speak positively on this
point. The entrance to the hall floor was probably by a high door in the north wall,
and there seems to have been a wheel-stair in the south-west corner leading to
the top. There is a handsome rounded arched window in the west wall of the hall,
overlooking the stream, some 60 feet or so beneath; there are also two narrow
windows in the south gable. The fireplace must have been in part of the east wall
next the courtyard, now destroyed. The buildings round the courtyard have been
at least two stories high, and have been, like the whole castle, well and strongly
built. A curious fireplace occurs in the north wall of the front building. The jamb
mouldings with their capitals, which alone exist, the lintel or arch being gone, do
not correspond n design, as will be seen from Sketch (Fig 225). We are satisfied
that this is original, and that the fireplace, which is 10 or 12 feet above the ground,
has not been tampered with.
21You can also read
