Scottish Battlefield Register

It must have been over 2 years now since I read your editorial in Military Journal about the battlefield register, do you know when it will be online, and its purpose?

Im sure Neil said he got a reply from historic scotland some time ago, must have been over a year now

come to think of it, maybe two years ago!

It was over 2 years since the article but I did not know that Historic Scotland sent a reply to his email.

But my main point was what is the point to it? In my opinion there is none.

I got a reply from HS sometime in 2006, I have since lost the email.

The register is finished and online here: http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/

The register covers all of the UK. Here is the outline of the Scottish one:

QUOTE

In 2004-5, with a grant from Historic Scotland, the Battlefields Trust carried out an assessment of Scottish Fields of Conflict. The report and the associated gazetteer was prepared to assist them in defining the most appropriate management strategies for Scotland’s historic fields of conflict and to provide guidance on this to Council Archaeologists and others involved in the management of the resource.

In the assessment of individual sites priority was given to their potential as archaeological monuments, where the archaeology of the battle and battlefield offers the potential to develop a better understanding of the individual actions. Memorialization and related issues were not a primary objective, although data was recorded where incidentally identified.

This was a desk based project working largely from secondary sources plus data from the National Monuments Record of Scotland and most Sites and Monuments Records in Scotland. The Battlefield Trust’s UK Fields of Conflict database has been enhanced to provide an initial listing of sites. This does not claim to represent comprehensive coverage of all sites, though it seeks to include all located battles as well as iconic lesser actions. The actions have been classified according to scale and character, to enable comparative study across the UK and to allow Scottish actions to be viewed in a wider Western European context. Siege sites, that is military actions consisting primarily of assaults upon heavily fortified sites, and naval actions were excluded because they represent a distinctly different resource which requires separate assessment.

Each site was classified according to the type of action, distinguishing battles from skirmishes, clan warfare and other events of civil unrest. A bibliography of secondary sources was compiled from a specified list of battlefield and related publications to provide an initial assessment of perceived cultural importance of each site.

Twenty of the highest scoring actions were then selected for more detailed examination. These are reported upon in the gazetteer, with a brief description and assessment, supported by a more extensive bibliography and maps. These entries do not claim to represent a comprehensive statement on the current state of knowledge of each site, though where practicable the most recent publications on the battle and battlefield have been consulted.

The Report provides an overview defining the character of the Scottish resource by type of action, and spatial and chronological distribution; reviews the character of the physical evidence for battles and battlefields and the type of threats to that resource. Finally a series of recommendations are given for further action.

The register seems to be 'work in progess' with more battlesites to be added.

It also appears that Sherriffmuir is the only battlefield 'under threat' at the moment.

So the register is in a way supposed to prevent any development work? or is it an educational package which can be given to local councils? it makes no sense to me since as you mentioned Sherriffmuir is current under threat from pylons. Another example would be Bannockburn, hardly any of the battlefield is left!

Is it going to do anything? I doubt it. If developers want to build over battlesites i cant see this stopping them.

I was just looking at the pylon proposal - it seems that the line of pylons will come from Ullapool to Beauly and then on to Denny near Falkirk.

I must also point out that English battlefields are protected why not Scottish ones?

Hi everyone

Bannockburn is under threat from the same pylon proposal as Sherriffmuir.
Its interesting that Cullodens new visitor center wasn't allowed to be placed on certain areas because of the graves of the jacobites and redcoats, was any consideration given about Sherriffmuir I wonder?

From what I was told and from what is published on their website the register is to provide local councils with information on battlesites in their area. If a battlesite comes under threat then there will be a process that will be followed that may end with a public inquiry, like the one for Sherriffmuir.

Now what seem strange to me is the fact that a number of sources have claimed that the pylon proposal has been scraped, I need to get sources. But what Argyll said is also a strange thing, the graves at Culloden prevent any development, what not Sherriffmuir?

Finally the battlefields trust says that most developers are sympathetic to any issues, provided they are given accurate info, and the fact that Scottish sites are not fully protected doesn't suprise me.

The public inquiry started in Feb 07 and they said it would take 11 months, can we expect something this month?