Shows architectural evolution of Kames Castle, indicating effective conservation techniques.
This necessitated a detailed marking-up of existing architects' drawings with principal features, phasing data and significant analytical observations. It also entailed a narrative report describing the structure and its evolutionary history, and a detailed referenced photographic survey of all exposed masonry both externally and to the interior elevations. Externally the tower had long been encased in a cement-based harl, a finish that was considered to have adversely affected the condition of the structure. The present project involved removal of this surfacing material thereby allowing the building to dry out and to enable re-pointing to take place employing a lime-based mortar. Following removal of the harl the joints of the underlying masonry were cleaned out, with cement pointing removed so as to expose the underlying solid lime-based mortar. At this stage, when the building was at its most 'readable' state, recording work was carried out from the works scaffolding. Existing architects' as-existing drawings of the exterior (Simpson & Brown 2008) were reviewed and corrected on site and further marked up with significant analytical detail that included dressed stonework, blocked openings, changes in build and phase breaks and other significant data. The general exterior elevations were recorded at a scale of 1:50 and a detailed photographic record was made as far as feasible from upon the scaffold. After completion of the exterior re-pointing and following removal of the scaffold additional general photography and photogrammetry was carried out for record purposes. It also enabled a further exercise in correction of the record drawing set. Further refinement was possible through comparison with photographic records taken in the 1940s and 1960s. The conservation works also involved repair of the parapet walls and the covering of much of the parapet interior with protective leadwork. Accordingly, the interior of the parapet walls were subject to a full photographic and drawn record, completed by hand measurement at a scale of 1:20. The interior walling of the tower had been obscured in many areas by a combination of modern re-pointing in cement and masonry paint. These finishes were removed during the project works thereby fully exposing the underlying masonry. Because of the amount of significant detail, all interior spaces of the tower were recorded by hand survey at a scale of 1:20 and by comprehensive photographic record. In addition to the main rooms the interior of the staircase was also recorded, an area that proved to be of very considerable analytical complexity. The narrowness of the staircase meant photography was difficult in this area; however a detailed hand-drawn survey proved an effective means of record. Addyman Archaeology undertook Historic Building Recording at Kames Castle, located 0.5km to the west of Port Bannatyne on Kames Bay on the Isle of Bute. The work focussed upon the principal monument of the site, a Category B Listed tower of late medieval date, carried out in response to a programme of repair that particularly involved the removal of cement finishes to the exterior and parts of the interior. The current works intend to convert the tower into holiday accommodation. Following removal of existing finishes the interior and exterior of the structure was examined from scaffold and analytical and phasing details annotated both onto existing architects' elevation drawings and new survey drawings. A general photographic record was maintained. The archaeological recording permitted a comprehensive reassessment of the architectural evolution of the tower whose austere external appearance was found to belie a complex structural history. It was concluded that overall the tower is a largely complete structure of earlier date than most commentators have suggested, perhaps datable to the 14th century.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Macfadyen et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: