The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland c. 700 BC - AD 500: Architecture and material culture. Part 2. The Northern and Southern Mainland and the Western Islands 9781407301334, 9781407301341, 9781407301327, 9781407321028

Table of contents :
Volume I
Cover Page
Copyright Page
Preface
Table of Contents
List of all illustrations
Index of all site names
Section 6: Introduction to Volume 2
Section 7: The nothern Mainland and the West Coast (north or the mouth of Loch Broom)
Volume II
Cover Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of illustrations
Section 8: The West Coast and the Inner Hebrides
Section 9: The Outer Hebrides
Section 10: The Central and Southern Mainland
Appendix 1: List of previously unpublished finds drawings
Appendix 2: 18th century observations on various brochs
Appendix 3: Broch metrology
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR  444 (I)  2007   MacKIE   THE ROUNDHOUSES, BROCHS AND WHEELHOUSES OF ATLANTIC SCOTLAND - PART 2

9 781407 301334

B A R

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland c. 700 BC - AD 500 Architecture and material culture Part 2 (I) The Northern and Southern Mainland and the Western Islands

Euan W. MacKie

BAR British Series 444 (I) 2007

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland c. 700 BC - AD 500 Architecture and material culture Part 2 (I) The Northern and Southern Mainland and the Western Islands

Euan W. MacKie

BAR British Series 444 (I) 2007

ISBN 9781407301334 (Volume I) paperback ISBN 9781407301341 (Volume II) paperback ISBN 9781407301327 (Volume set) paperback ISBN 9781407321028 (Volume set) e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407301327 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

i

Frontispiece. Drawing by Samuel Laing of the upper levels exposed by him in Keiss South (ND36 6) in 1864.

Thoughts that can be inspired by broch ruins ………… A stately hall A mighty castle, That was Wotan’s wish…. The gleaming wall I tested myself; Whether all was firm I examined carefully; Fasolt and Fafner I found trustworthy: Not a stone shifts from its place. The god Loge in Act 1, Scene 2 of Das Rheingold by Richard Wagner, translated by William Mann. (He is commenting on the quality of the giants’ construction of Valhalla)

The harp that once through Tara’s halls The soul of music shed Now hangs as mute on Tara’s walls As if that soul were fled. – So sleeps the pride of former days, So glory’s thrill is o’er; And hearts, that once beat high for praise, Now feel that pulse no more. No more to chiefs and ladies bright The harp of Tara swells; The chord alone that breaks the night Its tale of ruin tells; Thus freedom now so seldom wakes; The only throb she gives Is when some heart indignant breaks To show that still she lives. Thomas Moore (1779-1852) From Irish Melodies. (The song is usually interpreted as a lament for the onetime lack of Irish self government but is taken here to be one for a vanished way of life)

ii

Preface Background The second and final volume of this descriptive corpus of the Iron Age brochs and allied sites of Scotland covers the whole of the mainland and all of the western islands – the Inner and Outer Hebrides – and is about twice the size of volume 1. The amount of new data presented here is very much larger than in volume 1 (Orkney and Shetland), partly because there are many more sites to describe but mainly for the reason that – with the exception of the Outer Hebrides – the large number and variety of sites in the areas covered tend to be much less well known than those of the Northern Isles; very few sites in this vast area have been subjected to modern excavation. For example although the northern counties (Caithness, Sutherland, Ross-shire and Inverness-shire) contain about 300 definite, probable and possible brochs – some very well preserved and many more with many interesting architectural features visible – few of them are well known. The last general and easily accessible survey of all its ancient and historical monuments – of which the numerous brochs form only a small proportion – was in 1911 in the first two Reports of the newly formed Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, on Caithness and Sutherland. Ross-shire has never been the subject of a similar report. Moreover only two extensive modern excavations have taken place in this area and these were both in Caithness. In 1940 Kilmster (ND35 5) – which had already been opened by Sir F Tress Barry – was explored in two weeks but as systematically as wartime conditions would allow. Crosskirk (ND07 1) – which had never been disturbed – was excavated over several years in the late 1960s but the recording methods used did not really follow the high standards set in the 1950s by Hamilton at Jarlshof in Shetland (HU30 1). Two further previously disturbed brochs – Everley and Nybster (ND36 3 & ND36 9) – have been more systematically examined on a smaller scale since 2000. In addition there are large numbers of comparatively well preserved and unexcavated brochs which – though largely buried under their own rubble – can be made to yield a mass of useful information. This is particularly true in Sutherland and Ross-shire where the builders use the harder local rock which does not disintegrate to soil like the Caithness and Orkney sandstone. The situation in the west coast and the Inner Hebrides is much the same. There is a large concentration of brochs on Skye but again the last systematic general description appeared in 1928 with the Third Report of the Royal Commission. Only three brochs on Skye have been thoroughly explored – namely Dun Beag (NG33 3) and Dun Fiadhairt (NG25 1) in a primitive manner many years ago and the ill- preserved Dun Flodigarry (NG47 1) during the 1980s. In addition a D-shaped semibroch – Dun Ardtreck (NG33 2) – was systematically explored in 1965 with important results. None of the sites in the other parts of this region have been properly excavated. Only in the Outer Isles has a large number of sites been systematically explored but most of these are wheelhouses; the only broch to be thoroughly excavated in modern times is Dun Vulan (NF72 1) and here the results are incomplete because excavation of the interior was not allowed. Beirgh (NB13 3) is another but here too the early and primary levels of the broch have not been reached. Thus in both these vast areas – the northern mainland and the Inner Hebrides – there is a huge amount of architectural information available which is extremely useful and informative but almost impossible to get at in published form. Likewise there are the results of numerous excavations to consider, the reports of the more recent of which are scattered in a number of sources. Also there are many older excavations which were never written up properly at all, although large numbers of finds from these are preserved – mostly in the National Museums of Scotland in Edinburgh but also scattered around in local museums. Purpose of this work The need for this explanation was brought home to the author by a rather waspish review of volume 1 (Davis 2004) which seemed to him to demonstrate a rather basic misunderstanding of why this corpus has been written, and which therefore led him to wonder whether this could be a widespread attitude. The comments which follow are partly a response to that (even though they seem to the author often to be stating the obvious) and partly an attempt to stress how important it is to follow the two basic rules of (1) collecting as much evidence as possible before hypothesising about a subject, and (2) always making a clear distinction between what is observation and recording and what is explanation. The main purpose of this work is to present in easily accessible form a much larger proportion of the archaeological evidence for the remarkable Scottish Atlantic Iron Age structures known as brochs and wheelhouses than is currently conveniently available. Another hope is that this compendium will encourage many more archaeologists from outside Scotland to take an interest in the subject, and in particular to bring the material to the attention of their students. The Iron Age cultures of the far north and north-west of Scotland show a number of features which challenge the ability of the archaeological sciences to understand and explain the appearance of a dynamic new culture in what now seems to be a remote and inaccessible area on the maritime fringes of Europe. Some of the questions posed could include the following. iii

Why does the architecturally sophisticated broch tower – a structure that may surely be regarded as the summit of humanity’s achievement in building in drystone masonry – appear only in Atlantic Scotland, in such large numbers and with few apparent progenitors? Why is the material culture – and in particular the pottery – so much more complex than that found on most of the Scottish mainland at the same time? What is the meaning of the many features of the decorated pottery styles which resemble late Bronze and Iron Age ceramic traditions far away in southern and eastern England and in Brittany? Why are the rotary querns of the Atlantic Province so fundamentally different from those of southern Scotland and England? Does the appearance of sophisticated farming practices mean the arrival of new immigrants or did these develop on the spot? Why does the “broch/wheelhouse culture” in its various regional forms seem to disappear abruptly early in the 6th century after having evolved in its maritime homeland for perhaps twelve or thirteen centuries? Do the small number of contemporary Roman texts help us to understand the archaeological evidence better? Does the relentless northward expansion of the great empire of Rome explain some of the peculiar features of the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age? Lastly the abundance and variety of the archaeological and historical information available allows one to make informed estimates of the nature of the social order, and even of some of the ritual practices, of the broch communities, and even to test these against the evidence. For all these reasons the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age provides abundant and varied evidence with which to test a number of aspects of archaeological methodology. Problems with some current approaches The author believes that there are a number of problems with current methods of studying the Iron Age of Atlantic Scotland which this compendium should help to remedy. A tendency to work from the particular to the general. An important aim of this compendium is to encourage future researchers in the field to break away from using the same dozen or so sites for evidence and to take account of the vast array of data which is actually available and which has been until now very difficult to access. Collecting together in one place a large amount of the available data, much of it unpublished – and in particular providing plenty of primary architectural and material cultural evidence in the form of photographs and drawings – could achieve this purpose. Many writers on brochs over the last century have tended to concentrate on only part of the evidence – using a slowly increasing number of the best-known sites, or the results of their own excavations – with the result that the subject has to some extent stagnated because of repetition and because of the phenomenon which can be known as reinventing the wheel. Newcomers – unaware of (or perhaps even uninterested in) what has already been done – often act is if they were pioneers in an unknown field. * Indeed one might assert that the modern approach to broch/ wheelhouse archaeology seems to be to excavate a site and then use the results to construct a general explanation of the whole phenomenon, thus leaving most of the mass of already available data out of the argument. Examples of this approach are not lacking. Despite a number of severe criticisms of his predecessors’ tendency to treat brochs as a problem of typology (vol.1, 41) Ian Armit (who trained in Edinburgh University) wrote a book (2003) which concentrates almost exclusively on the archaeology of the buildings. Likewise Denis Harding has been equally scathing about the author’s approach (2000) but his own synthesis (2005) – which is a stimulating overview of the Iron Age of the whole country – does not really give the impression of having considered more than a small part of the available evidence when it deals with Atlantic Scotland. Indeed it relies heavily on his own work at Dun Bharabhat (NB03 1) as well as his incomplete excavation of Beirgh in Harris (NB13 3) at which site there was also a failure to explore the primary levels of the broch. † Others have solved “the problem of the brochs” to their own satisfaction in the discussion sections of their own site reports – for example the excavators of Crosskirk (ND07 1) and Dun Vulan (NF72 1), and doubtless eventually of Old Scatness as well (HU31 4) – but inevitably these overviews have to rely heavily on extrapolating the results from single sites to the entire archaeological phenomenon. On the other hand what we do get from some of these modern excavations are systematic studies of buried soils for example which provide immensely valuable evidence about the ancient environment of the brochs, and of the economic practices of their inhabitants. The absence of modern material cultural studies. What is strikingly absent from most modern writing on the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age is any real understanding of – and familiarity with – the evolving material cultural background – across the whole of Atlantic Scotland and beyond – against which the spectacular drystone buildings must be seen. ‡ Indeed – and with a few notable exceptions – the general lack of awareness about, for example, the various local and * The number of times that the claim to have solved “the problem of the brochs” has been made during the last quarter of a century illustrates this continuing obsession with the extraordinary buildings themselves rather than with the archaeological context of which they are part. † There is no reference to Part 1 of this Corpus in the bibliography, though it appeared in 2002. ‡ In his first major publication on the subject (1965b) the author stressed the importance of a tripartite approach to Scottish Atlantic Iron Age studies – namely to study first the architecture of the buildings, second the setting of these in the landscape and, third, the elaborate and obviously partly regionally differentiated material cultures which are associated with them, including of course economic practices. Something he did not foresee then was the current interest in ritual and social practices.

iv

province-wide styles of Iron Age pottery is striking. This is not just the author’s view; similar sentiments have recently been expressed in a national journal (Smith 2002). Bearing in mind that a relatively small number of the many research students who have emerged from the concerned Departments of Archaeology over the last half century have been set to work on analysing Scotland’s Iron Age material cultures in general it seemed advisable to make the presentation of summaries of the artefact record a major aim of this work, and to stress its importance. It is only necessary to mention one major conclusion of a recent study of the material culture of the Orkney and the north-east mainland (MacKie 2000: 2005) – that there is more than one local broch material culture so that the structures themselves are not likely to be culturally specific – to realise how potentially important the study of unpublished artefacts in museums is. The pattern seen in Caithness and Sutherland – preliminary though it has to be (MacKie 2000) – would never have come to light if the author has not spent a long time in the 1960s (and later) examining and drawing unpublished broch finds in what was then the National Museum of Antiquities in Edinburgh. The deductive or a priori approach is too often used to define a broch. Even among work which is concerned to analyse the buildings themselves there are some extraordinary lacunae in knowledge. For example since about 1980 there has been a sustained attempt by archaeologists (mainly in Edinburgh University) to redefine what a broch is (see Section 6.4 below). The approved term for a broch tower in these quarters is now “complex Atlantic roundhouse”, with the many others which lack direct evidence for an original tower-like shape being termed “Atlantic roundhouses”. § The implication drawn from this new terminology is that probably only a minority of what used to be called brochs were ever tall towers; a large proportion – it is alleged – were massive-walled, relatively low roundhouses. Clearly it was important to have the argument (since all established views need to be challenged occasionally) but the author finds this concept – which has huge implications for the very nature of the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age – unconvincing for one main reason, of which there are two aspects. Such a major redefinition, it seems to him, should have been based on a comprehensive and thorough review of the available architectural evidence. Instead what seems to have happened can be described as an example of the popular, modern “theory first” or deductive approach – whereby a new idea is born on the basis of a limited study of the evidence and then becomes widely accepted. Thereafter the actual sites tend to be reinterpreted on the basis of the new theory rather than on that of a fresh review of what is actually visible on the ground. Attempts to show statistically how this approach needs to be more evidence-based (e.g. MacKie 1995a) have tended to be ignored rather than debated. The original catalyst for the new attitude seems to have been John Barrett’s 1981 paper in which he suggested going back to the ideas of Sir Lindsay Scott (1947) who argued that tower brochs were a tiny minority among the large numbers of low-walled, massive roundhouses (vol.1). However Barrett (who, unlike Scott) had limited first hand field experience of the monuments) did not deal with the three major objections to Scott’s idea. The first was the assumption that the scarcement was a roof support so that by definition any broch-like building with such a ledge is unlikely ever to have been more than a few feet higher than it. In fact neither Scott nor anyone else has been able to refute the argument – based on an ever-increasing number of sites – that the ledge supported an annular raised wooden floor or balcony and that the intra-mural features of a broch are designed to get people up on to this raised floor by means of a landing and internal doorway a short distance up the stair (vol.1, Illus. 1.2). The actual broch roof seems to have been much higher up. The true nature of the scarcement was inferred decades ago at Caisteal Grugaig (NG82 1) on the west coast. The second assumption of Scott’s theory was that the amount of debris lying in and on top of an unexcavated broch gives an accurate idea of the original height of the structure; in other words none of it had been removed from the site. Since it is possible to calculate occasionally that the amount of surviving debris is only sufficient to raise the wall by a few feet (for example at Dun Mor Vaul – NM04 4 – (MacKie 1974) this too seems to mean that most brochs were never tall towers. However the discovery – originally also at Dun Mor Vaul – that some brochs were deliberately pulled down in Iron Age times to a height of only about 2m must obviously mean that the argument of original height from surviving debris is invalid. A third major fault in Scott’s theory is that there is abundant historical evidence that many of the better preserved brochs stood considerably higher up to the 19th century. Indeed there is an example of a tall tower which existed in the 18th century of which almost nothing now remains (Dun Alisaig – NH68 1). A primary purpose of this work is to rescue this historical evidence from oblivion and to ensure that it is taken account of in future studies. Yet all this evidence tends not to be considered by those advocating the “Atlantic Roundhouse” terminology which seems to rely on a “pick and mix” approach to the architecture. This evidently involves the assumption that the broch§ Unwisely this term has been extended to include mainland sites like small vitrified duns (NH40 4) and the dun at Dun Lagaidh (NH19 2), thus making it so broad as to be almost useless.

v

like buildings could incorporate various combinations of architectural features – intra-mural stairs, galleries, cells and so on – almost at the whim of the builders and that they did not undergo any meaningful structural development overall. The author by contrast believes that it is possible to show that the peculiar and frequently recurring combination of these features only makes sense if a hollow-walled tower, with very specific standardised stone and wooden features, was being built (although obviously with minor variations in detail, and with differing proportions). He also believes that it is possible to show this by constructing a table of which of these architectural features survive in brochs of various surviving heights; there appears to be a continuum, implying that the great majority of allegedly low brochs are simply the stumps of tall towers (MacKie 1995). The excavation of one or two sites allows one to solve the “Problem of the Brochs”. This is demonstrated by the discussion section in most broch excavation reports over the last half century. compendium should help future excavators to put their own work in better perspective.

This

There is a tendency simply to assert a point of view without systematic justification This “archaeology by assertion” presents the systematic worker with a serious problem. Are such assertions to be ignored – with the risk that non-specialists will assume them to be justified because of the apparent authority of their authors – or are they to be confronted, in which case the objector will have to write a detailed response to every one? ** Archaeological work in the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age over the last thirty years has seen perhaps more than its fair share of assertions of this kind and – while overviews of the field obviously have to summarise material – such summaries should refer back systematically to the hard evidence and the detailed arguments. An example may be given here – one of many such brief assertions in Harding’s overview of the Scottish Iron Age (2004) – and it concerns the sequence at Dun Mor Vaul (NM04 1). “In retrospect we might question whether the supposed pre-broch levels at Dun Mor Vaul were not in fact the primary broch occupation, and the subsequent levels, including the diagnostic three-sided hearth, were not instead part of the later broch and secondary levels.” (Harding 2004, 130). The author hopes he will be forgiven for not mounting yet another detailed refutation of this viewpoint – one of several vain attempts by the “Edinburgh School” to force the Tiree broch back into the middle of the first millennium BC by distorting the evidence from the site. The detailed responses have already been published (MacKie 1997) and it is a matter of concern that a leading authority can simply ignore these counter-arguments (the chapter concerned is not referred to at this point) and continue to cast unexplained doubt on excavated evidence which has, by and large, stood up well to all the hostile comments made about it. †† Summary. The purpose of indicating above some areas of disagreement about the fundamentals of the archaeology of the Iron Age in Atlantic Scotland is not to convince readers of the superiority of the author’s approach. The point is that the data collected together here should allow anyone to test any alternative theories for himself or herself. This, when it comes down to it, must be the primary purpose of any assemblage of remote and inaccessible information – namely to make future debates more informative and reliable simply because they can now be based on a much wider range of information. The Latin tag Quis custodiet ipsos custodies, ‡‡ which Harding employs in another context (2000) seems particularly appropriate here. Sir Henry Dryden One important body of knowledge of which not enough use has been made here is the collection of accurate plans of brochs made in the middle and latter part of the 19th century by Sir Henry Dryden. The plans are in the library of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and, I am told, have yet to be systematically catalogued. Copies of some are in the National Monuments Record but it is still difficult to get a simple list of these. Many of the poorly published early broch excavations are recorded in an unpublished plan by Dryen – as are many then unexcavated brochs – and a thorough survey of these would be of great value. A plea for unexcavated brochs to be left alone Throughout forty-four years of examining ruined brochs in the field in all parts of Scotland the author has seen many sites which have suffered by being unofficially partially cleared or by being ‘restored’ in some way. A small number of brochs are of course legally protected by being under the guardianship of Historic Scotland, and these are clearly identified by having metal signs, official pathways laid out to them, and so on. Usually such sites have been stabilised and consolidated and they rarely suffer damage now; the vast majority of visitors, having been told on site by the notice, respect the need for their protection. Most sites under guardianship are fairly easily reached from a road. However a very much larger number of brochs in more remote locations – including most of the better-preserved ones in the rugged highland areas – are simply **

Indeed the writing of this entire two-volume work was prompted by the desire to make unjustified assertions more difficult in future. The chapter cited reviews the history of the attacks on the Dun Mor Vaul evidence. ‡‡ “Who will guard the guardians themselves?” ††

vi

scheduled, which means only that they are placed on a list of sites worthy of official protection. The landowners concerned are told about this, and have to give notice of intention to disturb such sites (when a rescue excavation may be carried out), but there are no notices at these brochs to warn people of their protected status. It is a paradox of broch architecture in the highland areas (where hard, metamorphic rock was used for building material§§) that – although these drystone towers have massive basal storeys which are usually covered in their own rubble and therefore protected from disturbance without a great amount of labour – the upper works are both fragile and easier to disturb. Moreover it is these upper parts of the towers – usually above 2m in height – which provide the crucial evidence that the structure possessed the peculiar hollow-walled architecture of the class. Features like the chamber over the entrance, the upper gallery or galleries, the voids or openings above the lintels of internal doors and the stairway rising into first floor level all give clear proof that the structure was once a hollow-walled tower. Yet, because all the masonry lacks cement, once these openings are emptied of the rubble that fills or covers them, they are likely to collapse quickly into another heap of featureless stones and the crucial evidence for the nature of the site will have been destroyed. It is essential that these hollow-wall features be conserved and protected once they are exposed but this rarely happens with casual exploration. A good example of well-intentioned but thoughtless clearance occurred at Clachtoll broch in western Sutherland (NC02 2) some years ago. When the author first saw this broch in 1988 there was little to be seen of the entrance passage but the outer end with its massive lintel; piles of rubble concealed everything else. Some years later however the chamber over the entrance had been found and cleared out, probably in the mistaken belief that it was the entrance passage itself.*** The exposed chamber, with the lintels of the entrance passage visible below, is now extremely fragile and could easily be wrecked by careless visitors. In 2005 when the author visited the site to make a plan of it, the situation was much the same and this part of the structure remains at risk from casual disturbance. There are many other unexcavated brochs which could be damaged in the same way, Dun na Maigh (NC55 1) being another example of a well preserved broch which may become a complete wreck within fifty years. A standardised notice should surely be erected at all prominent scheduled sites. Acknowledgements It would be an impossible task to list the hosts of people – both professional colleagues and members of the public – who have helped me in this research task over the last forty-five years. At my interview in 1960 for the post of Assistant in archaeology in the Hunterian Museum the chairman of the committee explained that I was expected to do research and in the following year work started on a PhD on the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age with the newly formed Department of Archaeology. My then superior, the late Anne S Robertson, agreed that I should spend half of each day for three years on it, thus giving the project a vital kick-start. The University of Glasgow funded all my fieldwork trips up until the 1980s, and all the major excavation projects which I undertook, without complaint and with the minimum of form-filling. Those were different times indeed. Several vehicles for fieldwork, and lorries for transporting gear to the remotest locations, came from the University Garage without cost and at the price of a phone call and a visit. Numerous members of the university staff gave me help and encouragement in various ways over the years but three in particular must be mentioned. Horace Fairhurst suggested the subject of brochs for my research and was my supervisor of studies for a number of years. It has always been a cause for regret that he could not always see why I was going in certain directions and not others, but he was always kind and patient. John Corcoran, before his untimely death, encouraged me when things were not going well and was a rock of support when the crisis came. Alex Morrison, whom I first met as a student in 1961, has been a reliable friend and colleague – always ready for a discussion – from that day to this. I shall also always remember how – when I talked about the newly completed Dun Mor Vaul excavations to the Glasgow Archaeological Society in 1964 – various colleagues from Edinburgh (including Robert Stevenson, Leo Rivet and Richard Feachem) came over to hear the results and thus gave vital moral support. Later directors of the Hunterian – including Frank Willett and Malcolm MacLeod – kept up the tradition of help and support for research activities. When the Manpower Services Commission schemes were running in the Hunterian, Miss Miriam MacDonald gave invaluable help in reorganising my broch files. The staff of the then National Museum of Antiquities in Queen Street – now the National Museums of Scotland in Chambers Street – have always given me unstinting help over access to the huge Iron Age collections there, especially the large quantities of unpublished broch material. The help started in 1961 with Robert Stevenson and Audrey Henshall, continued through the time of David Clarke and, more recently, with Fraser Hunter. They all gave valuable advice as well as practical help. Over the last few years I have also had the benefit of numerous discussions with Andy Heald. §§

The unexcavated broch mounds in the sandstone areas of Caithness and Orkney tend to be covered by thick, green turf which gives them better protection from casual exploration. At that time there was a Ranger appointed by the local authority to look after the ancient sites in the area, and to guide visitors to them, and he was interested to be told about the true nature of this ‘pit’ in the rubble, and about its potential importance.

***

vii

The staff of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, and of its subsidiary the National Monuments Record, have always been unfailingly kind and helpful. For many years Graham Ritchie gave me much information and advice, and provided me with numerous broch plans as have, more recently, Lesley Ferguson and Iain Fraser. The Commission and the Record together are surely everyone’s ideal institution for the preservation and dissemination of knowledge about ancient sites. Not being a rescue excavator my dealings with Historic Scotland and its predecessors have been less close but I have nearly always found that the archaeological staff there have been extremely helpful, especially Patrick Ashmore, David Breeze, Noel Fojut and Rod McCullagh. I also must acknowledge the often unwitting help of Dennis Harding and of several of those of his research students who – with him – have been investigating aspects of the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age for more than twenty-five years. Since about 1980 the Dept. of Archaeology in Edinburgh has been relentlessly critical of my ideas and approaches in this field, to an extent that has sometimes seemed a little harsh. However there is no doubt that disagreement, argument and the putting forward of rival hypotheses should have a beneficial effect on any field of study; there is no better motivation for re-assessing existing evidence and one’s ideas about it, and for going into the field to find more evidence, than to be told firmly that one is mistaken, and in retrospect I am grateful for it. At intervals over more than four decades I have travelled throughout the highlands and islands of Scotland looking at archaeological sites (mainly brochs) and have invariably been met with interest, kindness and helpfulness – often in inverse proportion to the remoteness of the location. If I single out two people my thanks to them could be seen as my thanks in general to scores more local people. I particularly recall in 1987 meeting Mr Laurenceson in his remote cottage in Shetland, his interest in what I was doing and being lent his rowing boat to visit the broch of West Burra Firth (HU25 9). Some years earlier I stayed for one night in bed and breakfast lodgings near Kingsburgh in Skye. I failed to write down my elderly hostess’s name but she and her son lived in an old cottage which had not yet been transformed into the “b & b” fashion favoured by the Scottish Tourist Board. They invited me into their small parlour (lined with tongue-and-groove planking as I recall) in the evening for conversation and a drink and thus gave me a delightful experience of the highland hospitality of the old kind. Acknowledgments for permission to reproduce illustrations are in the individual captions. Having just attended a memorial conference in Edinburgh for the late Graham Ritchie (29/4/2006) it seems appropriate to end by saying that the whole experience of working on the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age for all those years has not just been enormously interesting intellectually and socially but has also been great fun. It has been a privilege to be paid by the taxpayer to do such work.

viii

Contents of volumes 1 and 2 This list of the contents is of both parts of this work and is designed to make it easier to understand its basic layout. The list of Contents of vol. 1 was defective in that it included only the major excavated sites. Here by contrast – while again only the important individual site names are included – all the 10km squares containing brochs are listed . Thus anyone wishing to know what is in a specific such square will quickly find it here. The specific lettering and numbering of the various Sections, with their subdivisions,††† shown here is not retained in the main text although the organisation of the text obviously remains the same. In the Contents list the numbering is automated and is useful in that it allows one easily to see how the sometimes lengthy and complex site entries are organised; it also leads one directly to the pages concerned. Using the automated system was also essential for making sure that the subdivisions within complex site entries – like that for Crosskirk (ND07 2) – were logical and internally consistent. However the main text usually shows a simplified system of headings while retaining the basic organisation. Volume 1 1.

Introduction to the Corpus a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

2.

The site reference system Types of brochs i. Classification by degree of preservation ii. Classification by architectural features Broch architecture i. The hollow-walled features Roundhouses Bibliographical sources Photographs Describing brochs i. The clockface reference system ii. The system of Levels Drawings of items of material culture Illustrations for Section 1

1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 5

The tower on Mousa isand a. b. c. d.

†††

1

Introduction The Northern Isles A Viking visit to Shetland The broch of Mousa i. The entrance passage 1. The passage as it is in modern times 2. The original design of the entrance ii. The central court 1. Primary features on the floor 2. Secondary features on the floor iii. Primary features of the wallface iv. Stair and galleries in the wall 1. The intra-mural stair 2. The intra-mural galleries 3. The top of the wall v. External features vi. Finds of pottery vii. Problems to be investigated 1. The date of Mousa 2. Architecture and purpose a. Height and defensiveness b. Intra-mural features and scarcement c. Wooden raised floors d. The hearth and the primary function of the broch e. The main roof

Produced by the ‘Bullets and numbering’ programme on the author’s iBook laptop.

ix

7 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 15 16 16

3. The phases of occupation of the broch 4. The broch in its topographical setting 5. Concluding remarks Illustrations for Section 2

e. 3.

A history of research into brochs a. b. c. d.

Introduction 27 Lost evidence from contemporary observers 27 27 Clues from the 15th and 16th centuries 28 Enlightenment dawns – the 18th and early 19th centuries 28 i. 18th century travellers ii. The first excavations 31 The first flowering of broch studies – 1851 – 1883 31 i. Daniel Wilson and ‘prehistory’ 31 ii. The first accurate surveys 32 iii. New discoveries in Orkney 32 iv. Joseph Andrson’s contributions 33 1. Deduction versus induction 33 2. The final synthesis 34 Half a century of consolidation – 1883 – 1935 34 i. Continuing bad excavations 34 ii. The start of systematic fieldwork 35 iii. The last ‘isolationist’ review 35 Integration with European archaeology – 1935 – 64 36 i. The syntheses of V G Childe 36 ii. Sir Lindsay Scott and a new approach 37 iii. A detailed architectural study 38 iv. Broch material culture 39 v. Modern excavations in Shetland 39 vi. The final synthesis before the modern excavations 40 Recent developments 41 i. Problems which seemed important in 1961 41 ii. Work after 1974 41 1. Were brochs strongholds or farmhouses? 42 2. Brochs in the landscape 42 3. Is there a uniform broch material culture? 42 4. Early Iron Age prototypes and broch origins 43 5. Were brochs ‘variable structures with a long chronology’ or ‘homogeneous structures with a short chronology’? 43 6. The social organisation of the broch builders 43 7. Foreign influence or local development? 43 Illustrations for Section 3 45

e.

f.

g.

h.

i. 4.

17 17 17 19

Shetland a. b. c. d.

Square HP40 Square HP50 Square HP51 Square HP60 i. Jarlshof (HU30 1) 1. Description a. Early work b. The pre-broch settlements i. The earliest levels ii. The late Bronze Age village iii. The early Iron Age village c. The broch complex i. Summary ii. The broch and its courtyard iii. The roundhouse and byre iv. The two wheelhouses x

56 56 57 57 59 59 59 60 60 60 61 62 62 62 64 65

v. Demolition of the broch vi. Finds from the wheelhouses d. Later Pictish structures 2. Discussion a. The broch complex i. The broch and its courtyard ii. The roundhouse and byre iii. The sequence of wheelhouses b. Social background ii. Old Scatness (HU31 4) e. Square HU33 f. Square HU34 g. Square HU35 h. Square HU36 i. Square HU37 j. Square HU38 k. Square HU39 l. Square HU40 m. Square HU41 i. Clumlie (HU41 2) ii. Eastshore (HU41 45) iii. Levenwick (HU41 5) n. Square HU42 i. Mousa (HU42 6) 82 1. General 82 a. The broch tower b. Entrance c. Interior floor d. Mural cells and scarcements e. Raised intra-mural; features f. Finds g. Dimensions 2. History of the site a. Prehistory b. The 18th and 19th centuries c. The 20th century 3. Discussion o. Square HU43 i. Burland (HU43 2) ii. Scalloway (HU43 4) 1. Phase 1 88 2. Dating 3. Finds from the end of Phase 2 4. Carinated pottery p. Square HU44 i. Clickhimin (HU44 1) 1. General 89 2. Early work 3. Description of structures a. The causeway b. Outer wall and landing stage c. Other visible external features d. The broch i. Entrance passage ii. Features of broch wall faces iii. Upper intra-mural galleries iv. Stair and second entrance v. The mural cells vi. Secondary constructions inside broch vii. Outbuildings viii. Site sequence 4. New interpretations xi

65 66 66 66 66 66 67 69 69 75 76 76 77 77 77 78 78 78 78 78 79 80 81 82 82 83 84 84 85 85 85 85 86 86 86 87 87 88 88 89 89 89 89 90 90 90 90 92 93 93 94 94 95 95 96 96 96 96

5.

Phase 1: the late Bronze Age house a. The structure b. Finds of Phase 1 6. Phase 2: Early Iron Age a. Finds of Phase 2 7. Phases 3 & 4: pre-broch fortifications a. The outer wall b. The internal buildings c. The gatehouse d. The finds from Phase 3 8. Phase 4: the inner ring-wall a. Evidence against the orthodox inner ring-wall 9. Phase 5: the construction of the broch a. Stratigraphy b. The round hut c. Alterations to the gatehouse d. The building of the broch e. Finds from the broch levels f. Broch pottery 10. Phase 6: demolition of broch and construction of wheelhouse a. Demolition of broch b. The wheelhouse c. Dating d. Finds from Phase 5 11. Phase 6: late wheelhouse occupation a. Late pits and huts b. The latest finds 12. General discussion a. The nature of the pre-broch forts i. Design of the gatehouse ii. Function of the gatehouse iii. The original nature of the outer wall iv. The age of the second ring-fort v. The structural features of the gatehouse vi. An alternative second ring-fort b. Material culture c. Revised site sequence i. Phase 1: late Bronze Age farm ii. Phases 2 & 3: early Iron Age farm and new ring-fort iii. Phase 4: Ring-fort 2 iv. Phase 5: the broch v. Phase 6: wheelhouse vi. Phase 7: late levels d. Final comments e. Dimensions q. Square HU45 r. Square HU46 s. Square HU47 t. Square HU49 u. Square HU54 v. Square HU56 w. Square HU57 x. Square HU58 y. Square HU59 z. Square HU68 aa. Square HU69 bb. Illustrations for Section 4 5.

97 97 98 98 99 99 99 99 100 101 102 102 103 103 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 107 107 107 108 108 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 110 110 111 112 113 114 114 114 115 115 116 116 117 117 118 118 118 119 119 119 121

Orkney a.

Square HY20 (Hoy & Mainland)

213 xii

b.

c. d. e. f.

g.

i. Bu (HY20 4) 1. The excavations a. The structure of the roundhouse b. The entrance passage c. The central court d. Later occupation 2. The finds a. Finds from the pre-roundhouse phases (Ia & Ib) b. Finds from the roundhouse (Phase IIa) c. Finds from the post-roundhouse silt (Phase IIb) d. Finds from Phases IIIa & IIIb e. Animal bones and plant evidence 3. Radiocarbon dates Square HY21 i. Borwick (HY21 1) ii. The Howe (HY21 6) 1. The excavations a. Continuity with the past? b. Phase 5: the early Iron Age roundhouse c. Phase 6: the dun d. Phase 7: the ‘broch’ e. Later Phase 7 & Phase 8 f. Finds (1): the pottery g. Finds (2): other artefacts 2. Discussion Square HY22 i. Oxtrow (HY22 4) Square HY30 Square HY31 i. Netlater (HY31 14) Square HY32 i. Gurness (HY32 2) 1. Description a. The history of the site as established by excavation b. The broch c. Features inside the broch d. The outbuildings e. The main entrance f. The outer defences 2. The finds a. Bronze b. Fired clay c. Glass d. Stone e. Bone f. Pottery 3. Discussion a. General b. The structure of the broch c. The outbuildings and outer defences d. Continuity between the two phases e. Dating Square HY33 i. Midhowe (HY33 1) 1. Description a. Site sequence deduced by the excavator b. The general situation of the site c. The architecture of the broch i. The main entrance ii. The guard cells iii. The basal intra-mural gallery iv. The intra-mural stair xiii

213 214 214 214 214 215 215 215 215 215 215 216 216 216 216 218 218 218 219 219 219 219 220 220 221 222 223 224 224 225 227 227 227 227 228 229 229 229 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 231 231 231 232 232 232 232 233 233 233 234 234 234 234 235 235

2. 3.

h.

i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t. u. v.

w. x. y. z. aa. bb. cc.

v. Upper galleries and scarcement vi. Well or cellar d. Secondary alterations to the broch e. The outbuildings f. The outer defences The finds Discussion a. Site sequence i. Phase 1: the fortified farmhouse ii. Phase 1b iii. Phase 2 iv. Phase 2b b. A different view c. Material culture d. Dimensions

Square HY40 i. Ayre (HY41 1) 1. The broch 2. The outbuildings 3. Discussion 4. The finds ii. Lingrow (HY40 2) Square HY41 i. Quanterness (HY41 5) Square HY42 Square HY43 Square HY44 i. Pierowall Quarry (HY44 8) Square HY45 Square HY50 Square HY51 Square HY52 i. Burroughstone (HY52 1) Square HY53 i. Calf of Eday (HY53 1) Square HY62 Square HY63 Square HY64 Square HY73 Square HY74 i. Burrian 7, North Ronaldsay (HY75 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion a. The ‘reverse scarcement’ b. The intra-mural gallery c. Stratigraphy d. Finds ii. Howmae (HY74 3) 1. The site 2. Discussion 3. Finds Square ND28 Square ND38 Square ND39 Square ND47 Square ND48 Square ND49 i. Burray East (ND49 1) ii. Howe of Hoxa (ND49 5) Illustrations for Section 5

xiv

235 235 236 237 237 237 238 238 239 239 239 239 240 240 240 241 241 241 241 241 242 242 244 244 245 245 246 247 247 248 249 249 249 251 251 251 252 253 254 254 255 255 256 256 256 257 257 258 258 258 259 259 259 260 260 260 260 260 263 265

Volume 2 Tome I Preface All the illustrations listed Index of all site names 6. Introduction to volume 2 a. How to get information from this work i. Introduction ii. To find the entry for a named site iii. To find what sites are in a given area iv. To locate sites of a specific type v. To find sites with a specific architectural feature vi. To find sites which have produced a specific artefact b. New arrangements and minor changes i. Site indexes and indicators of site names ii. Regions iii. Site numbering system iv. Site indexes v. Map references vi. Bibliographical references c. Corrections and additions to vol. 1 d. The terminology of brochs and allied sites in the west i. Introduction ii. Two terminologies e. Illustrations and finds list i. Photographs and site plans ii. Lists of excavated finds 7.

iii xxxv xlix 389 389 389 389 389 389 390 390 390 390 390 391 391 391 391 392 392 393 395 395 395

The Northern Mainland and the West Coast a. b. c.

d. e. f. g. h.

Introduction Square ND01 (Sutherland) Square ND01 (Caithness) i. Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) 1. Description 2. Discussion Square ND02 (Caithness) Square ND04 (Caithness) Square ND05 (Caithness) Square ND06 (Caithness) Square ND07 (Caithness) i. Crosskirk (ND07 1) 1. Part 1: description a. Introduction b. The excavator’s interpretations i. The system of ‘Periods’ and ‘Phases’ ii. Problems of interpretation c. The promontory fort i. The wall and entrance passage ii. The mural cells iii. Finds from Enclosure III d. The primary broch occupation i. Introduction ii. The plan of the ‘broch’ iii. The structure and height of the ‘broch’ wall iv. The entrance passage and guard cell v. Intra-mural features 1. The mural cell 2. Finds from the cell 3. The intra-mural stair xv

401 402 402 402 402 404 404 404 404 405 405 407 407 407 407 407 407 408 408 409 409 410 410 410 410 411 411 411 411 412

vi. The primary floor 1. Structural features 2. Areas of primary paving 3. The circular court 4. The trapeze-shaped depression 5. The rock-cut well or cistern 6. Associated finds (Phase 1) vii. Phase 2 inside the ‘broch’ 1. Finds in the Phase 2 layer viii. Final broch occupation (Phase 3) 1. Physical evidence 2. Finds from the latest ‘broch’ floor 3. Later finds 4. Broch finds without specific contexts ix. Chronological problems x. The secondary internal wall facings xi. The external ‘casings’ or ‘buttresses’ e. External structures and dwellings i. Extensions of the entrance passage 1. Associated finds ii. Dwelling IV against the ‘broch’ wall 1. Finds from Dwelling IVa 2. Finds from Dwelling IVb iii. Enclosures I and II and the C14 dates 1. Finds from Dwelling I 2. Finds from Dwelling II iv. Finds from the external settlement v. Finds from very late deposits f. The economy of the site 2. Part 2: Discussion a. The evidence to be reviewed b. The promontory fort i. The early pottery ii. Other clues iii. Alternative dates for the outer wall c. The Crosskirk ‘broch’ i. The nature of the building ii. The material culture of the ‘broch’ iii. C-14 and other dating evidence d. Conclusions e. Dimensions i. Square ND12 (Caithness) j. Square ND13 (Caithness) i. Dunbeath (ND13 6) 1. Description 2. The 1866 excavations 3. Recent work 4. Discussion 5. Finds 6. Dimensions k. Square ND14 (Caithness) l. Square ND15 (Caithness) i. Carn na Mairg (ND15 9) m. Square ND16 (Caithness) n. Square ND23 (Caithness) i. Wag of Forse (ND23 14) 1. The site’s name 2. Description 3. Discussion 4. Finds o. Square ND24 (Caithness) p. Square ND25 (Caithness) xvi

412 412 412 412 412 413 413 413 414 414 414 415 415 415 415 416 416 416 417 417 417 418 418 418 419 419 419 419 420 420 420 420 420 421 421 422 422 423 424 426 426 426 427 428 428 429 429 430 430 430 431 432 433 435 437 438 438 438 439 439 440 440

q.

r. s. t.

u.

v.

i. Acharole (ND25 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion 3. Dimensions ii. Coghill (ND25 7) 1. Description 2. Finds 3. Dimensions Square ND26 i. Ha’ of Bowermadden (ND26 4) 1. Finds ii. Hill of Works (ND26 7) 1. Finds Square ND27 Square ND33 Square ND34 i. Brounaban (ND34 2) 1. Description 2. Discussion 3. Finds ii. Old Stirkoke (ND34 8) 1. Finds iii. Yarrows (ND34 17) 1. Summary 2. Description 3. Structural analysis a. Level 1 b. Level 2 c. Level 3 d. The buildings in the Outer Court 4. Site sequence a. Phase 1 b. Phase 2 5. Material culture 6. Dimensions Square ND35 i. Elsay (ND35 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion 3. Finds ii. Hillhead (ND35 3) 1. Contemporary plan and photographs 2. Description 3. Discussion 4. Finds iii. Kettleburn (ND35 4) 1. The excavations 2. Discussion 3. The finds iv. Kilmster (ND35 5) 1. Description a. The broch i. Architecture ii. The interior iii. The outer rampart 2. Discussion 3. Finds v. Norwall (ND35 6) vi. Wester Broch (ND35 8) 1. Description 2. Finds Square ND36 xvii

440 440 440 441 441 441 441 441 443 443 443 443 444 444 445 445 445 446 446 447 447 447 449 449 450 452 452 452 453 453 453 453 453 453 454 454 454 454 455 455 455 456 456 456 456 457 457 457 458 458 458 458 458 459 460 460 461 461 461 461 461 462

i. Everley (ND36 3) 1. Description 2. Finds a. From Tress Barry’s excavations b. From the new excavations ii. Freswick Links (ND36 4) 1. Description 2. Discussion 3. Finds iii. Keiss North (Whitegate: ND36 5) 1. Description 2. Discussion 3. Finds iv. Keiss South (Harbour Mound – ND36 6) 1. Introduction 2. Results of Laing’s 1866 excavations 3. Tress Barry’s excavations of 1893-95 4. Description and interpretations a. The nature of the primary structure 5. Inferred structural sequence a. Phase 1: the building of the broch b. Phase 2: primary occupation c. Phase 3: demolition of the high wall d. Phase 4: secondary occupation e. Phase 5: second reconstruction f. Phases 6a and 6b: tertiary reoccupation 6. The finds a. Laing’s finds b. Tress Barry’s finds v. Keiss West (Road Broch – ND36 7) 1. The early excavations 2. Tress Barry’s work in 1893-95 a. The structure of the broch b. The central court c. Outer face and outbuildings 3. Discussion 4. Probable site sequence a. Pre-broch era: the shell midden b. Phase 1, the broch c. Phase 2: primary occupation d. Phase 3: demolition & conversion to a roundhouse 5. Finds a. From Laing’s excavation b. From Tress Barry’s excavations c. Dimensions vi. Ness (ND36 8) 1. Description 2. Discussion 3. Finds 4. Dimensions vii. Nybster (ND36 9) 1. Description 2. Excavations in 2005 3. Early finds 4. Finds in 2005 5. Dimensions viii. Skirza Head (ND36 10) 1. Description 2. Finds 3. Dimensions w. Square ND37 x. Square ND47 xviii

462 462 462 462 463 463 463 463 464 464 464 464 464 465 465 465 467 467 467 469 469 470 470 470 470 471 471 471 471 472 472 472 472 473 473 473 474 474 474 474 474 475 475 475 475 476 476 476 476 476 476 477 477 478 479 479 479 480 480 480 481 481

aa. Illustrations for ND sites

482

bb. Square NC00 (Ross & Cromarty, west coast) cc. Square NC02 (Sutherland, west coast) i. Clachtoll (NC02 1) 1. Description 2. Structural analysis a. Level 1 b. Level 2 3. Finds dd. Square NC13 ee. Square NC23 ff. Square NC36 (South-east Sutherland) gg. Square NC40 ii. Tor a’ Chorcain 1. Situation a. The dun wall b. The entrance passage c. The guard cell d. The interior 2. Dating a. Radiocarbon dates b. Thermoluminescence dates c. Discussion d. Finds hh. Square NC41 (Northern and South-east Sutherland) ii. Square NC44 iii. Dun Dornaigil (NC44 2) 1. Early ideas 2. Historical information 3. Dating and the place name iv. Structural analysis 1. Level 1 2. Level 2 and higher up v. Dimensions jj. Square NC45 kk. Square NC46 vi. Loch Eriboll (wheelhouse – NC46 2) ll. Square NC50 i. Durcha (NC50 1) 1. Description 2. Find mm. Square NC51 nn. Square NC55 oo. Square NC56 pp. Square NC60 qq. Square NC63 rr. Square NC64 ss. Square NC65 tt. Square NC66 uu. Square NC69 vv. Square NC70 ww. Square NC71 xx. Square NC74 yy. Square NC75 zz. Square NC76 aaa. Square NC80 vii. Backies (NC80 1) 1. Description 2. Inferences from historical evidence

614 614 614 614 615 615 615 616 616 616 617 617 617 617 617 618 618 618 618 618 619 619 619 619 620 620 620 620 621 622 622 622 622 622 623 623 624 624 624 624 625 626 627 627 627 629 630 630 631 631 632 633 633 635 636 636 636 636

xix

bbb. ccc. ddd. eee.

fff. ggg. hhh. iii. jjj. kkk.

a. Outer wall face b. Entrance passage c. Level 1 intra-mural features d. Central hearth? e. The secondary wall f. Other Level 2 features g. Deliberate demolition? 3. Finds 4. Dimensions viii. Carn Liath 1 (NC80 2) 1. Early descriptions 2. The 1868 Excavations 3. Clear secondary constructions 4. Excavations in 1972 5. The recent excavations 6. Rock carvings and calendar orientations 7. Structural analysis and discussion a. Level 1 b. Levels 2 - 4 c. The central underground chamber d. The secondary constructions 8. The excavation and the finds ix. Carrol (NC80 3) 1. Description 2. The excavations 3. Structural analysis 4. Finds 5. Dimensions x. Dunrobin Wood (NC80 5) 1. Early visits and clearance 2. Description 3. Dimensions Square NC82 Square NC85 Square NC86 Square NC90 i. Kintradwell (NC90 1) 1. Description a. The broch b. Secondary constructions 2. Finds 3. Dimensions Square NC91 i. Carn Bran (NC91 3) ii. Kilphedir (NC91 7) Square NC92 Square NC96 i. Achvarasdal Lodge (NC96 3) Illustrations for NC sites

637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 637 638 638 638 639 639 640 640 641 641 641 641 642 642 643 643 644 644 644 644 645 645 645 645 645 647 648 648 648 648 648 649 649 650 650 650 651 652 652 652 655

Square NH18 (Western Ross-shire, mainland) Square NH19 i. Dun Lagaidh (NH19 2) 1. The excavations a. Background b. The Late Bronze Age hillfort c. The Middle Iron Age dun 2. Discussion a. The hillfort b. The dun ii. Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh (NH19 3) 1. Description

763 763 763 763 763 764 764 765 765 766 766 767

xx

a. b.

Introduction The excavations i. General situation of the site ii. The primary structure iii. Features of the central court iv. The observed stratigraphies v. Radiocarbon dates 2. Discussion a. The history and dating of the site i. Phase 1: construction of the dun ii. Phase 2: primary use of dun iii. Phase 3: demolition of dun iv. Phase 4: secondary use v. Phase 5: further masonry collapse vi. Phase 6: Medieval occupation vii. Phases 7 & 8: recent activity b. The stronghold and its builders i. Material culture of builders ii. Design of the original fort iii. The secondary occupation iv. The material culture v. The Iron Age economy vi. Summary of dating vii. Links with Dun Lagaidh c. Finds lll. Square NH 25 (eastern Ross-shire) mmm. Square NH29 (Wester Ross) nnn. Square NH33 (eastern Inverness-shire) ooo. Square NH49 (south-east Sutherland) ppp. Square NH54 (eastern Inverness-shire) qqq. Square NH59 (Sutherland) rrr. Square NH66 sss. Square NH68 (Easter Ross) i. Dun Alisaig (NH68 1) 1. Historical background 2. Early descriptions 3. Structural analysis 4. Dimensions ttt. Square NH79 (Sutherland) uuu. Square NH98 (Eastern Ross & Cromarty) vvv. Illustrations for NH sites

767 767 767 767 769 770 772 772 772 772 773 773 773 774 774 774 775 775 775 776 776 776 777 777 777 778 778 778 778 779 779 780 780 780 780 781 782 782 783 783 784

Tome II 8.

The West Coast and the Inner Hebrides a. Introduction i. Terminology ii. Excavations in the west b. Square NG15 – Isle of Skye i. Dun Boreraig (NG15 1) 1. Description 2. Structural analysis 3. Dimensions c. Square NG24 i. Dun Colbost (NG24 1) 1. Description 2. Recent excavations 3. Dimensions ii. Dun Osdale (NG24 3) 1. Description 2. Find 3. Dimensions

809 809 809 809 809 809 809 810 810 810 810 810 811 811 811 811 812 812 xxi

d. Square NG25 i. Dun Fiadhairt (NG25) 1. Description 2. The excavations of 1892 3. Structural analysis 4. Cultural contacts 5. Finds 6. Dimensions ii. Dun Hallin (NG25 2) 1. Description 2. Dimensions e. Square NG26 i. Dun Gearymore (NG26 1) 1. Description 2. Dimensions ii. Dun Borrafiach (NG26 2) 1. Description 2. Dimensions f. Square NG31 i. Rudh an Dunain (NG31 1) 1. Situation 2. Description 3. Structural analysis 4. Excavations in the cave in 1932 5. Significance of the site g. Square NG32 i. Dun Sleadale (NG32 1) 1. Situation 2. Description 3. Dimensions h. Square NG33 i. Dun ard an’t Sabhail (NG33 1) 1. Description 2. Dimensions ii. Dun Ardtreck (NG33 2) 1. Introduction 2. The situation of the site 3. The primary structures (Phase 1) a. The dun and its foundation platform b. The entrance and guard cell c. The mural gallery d. The outer wall and gate e. Dating 4. Basic Stratigraphy a. The central court b. The outer court 5. The primary occupation of Phase 2 a. The central court b. The entrance passage 6. Phase 2/3 – transformation of the dun a. The central court b. The entrance passage and ramp c. The outer court d. The outer gate 7. The secondary occupation of Phase 3 8. Phase 4: abandonment 9. Discussion a. Site sequence b. Phase 1 c. Phase 2/3 d. Phase 3 e. Phase 4 xxii

812 812 812 813 813 814 814 814 814 814 815 815 815 815 815 815 815 816 816 816 816 816 817 817 817 818 818 818 818 819 819 819 819 819 819 819 820 820 820 820 821 821 821 821 821 822 822 822 822 822 822 822 823 823 823 823 823 823 823 823 824 824

i.

j.

k.

l.

m.

n.

10. Dating a. Radiocarbon dating b. Archaeological dating 11. The nature of the structure 12. Material culture a. Pottery b. The ‘E’ ware 13. The function and status of Dun Ardtreck a. A high status site? b. Roman contact? 14. Finds list a. Finds from Phase 1 b. Finds from Phase 2 c. Finds from Phase 2/3 d. Finds from Phase 3 e. Finds from Phase 4 iii. Dun Beag (NG33 3) 1. Introduction 2. History of visits to the site 3. The structure a. Level 1 b. Levels 2 and 3 4. The excavations 5. Discussion 6. The finds Square NG34 i. Dun Arkaig (NG34 2) 1. Description 2. Dimensions Square NG35 i. Dun Suledale (NG35 1) 1. Description 2. Find Square NG37 i. Dun Liath 1 (NG37 2) 1. Introduction 2. Description 3. The 1964 excavations 4. Discussion 5. Finds Square NG44 i. Tungadal (souterrain – NG44 3) 1. Summary of excavations 2. Discussion 3. Finds Square NG47 i. Dun Flodigarry (NG47 1) 1. Situation 2. The surviving structure 3. The stratification uncovered 4. Discussion 5. The finds 6. Dimensions Square NG51 i. Dun Grugaig 1 (NG51 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion a. Level 1 b. Level 2 ii. Dun Ringill (NG51 4) 1. Description 2. Historical Record xxiii

824 824 824 824 824 824 825 825 825 825 826 826 826 827 827 828 828 828 828 829 829 829 829 830 830 831 831 831 832 832 833 833 833 834 834 834 834 835 835 835 835 836 836 836 836 836 836 836 836 837 837 838 838 838 838 838 839 839 839 841 841 842

3.

Discussion a. Harding’s interpretation b. The nature of the site c. Level 1 d. Level 2 e. Medieval refortification

o. Square NG53 i. Dunan an Aisilidh (NG53 1) ii. Dun Borodale (Raasay) (NG53 2) 1. Description 2. Structural analysis a. The site in 1695 3. Summary of architecture a. Level 1 b. Level 2 4. Shape and dimensions p. Square NG56 – Isle of Skye q. Square NG60 – Isle of Skye r. Square NG74 – Ross & Cromarty (mainland) s. Square NG81 – Western Inverness-shire i. Introduction 1. Four remarkable sites 2. Handled stone cups ii. Dun Grugaig 2 (NG81 1) 1. History 2. Description 3. Structural analysis 4. Comment 5. Dimensions iii. Dun Telve (NG81 2) 1. Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 c. Level 3 d. Levels 4-5 e. Level 6 f. Voids in the inner wall face g. Outbuildings 2. The 1914 excavations and the finds 3. Legends 4. 18th century descriptions 5. Discussion 6. Finds 7. Dimensions iv. Dun Troddan (NG81 3) 1. Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 c. Level 3 d. Level 4 2. 18th century descriptions 3. The excavations of 1920 4. Discussion a. Interior deposits and finds b. Post holes c. Height in 1720 d. Original height e. Primary purpose of the broch 5. The finds 6. Dimensions t. Square NG82 i. Caisteal Grugaig (NG82 1) xxiv

842 842 842 843 843 843 844 844 844 844 845 845 845 845 846 846 846 847 847 847 847 847 847 848 848 848 850 851 851 851 851 852 852 853 853 853 853 853 854 854 854 856 856 856 856 857 857 858 858 858 859 859 859 859 860 860 861 861 861 861 861 861

1.

u. v. w. x. y. z.

Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 c. Level 3 2. Discussion 3. Finds 4. Dimensions Square NG83 – Ross & Cromarty, western Square NG87 – do. Square NG88 – do. Square NG89 – do. Square NG93 – do. Illustrations for NG sites

aa. The island of Tiree bb. Square NL93 – Tiree cc. Square NL94 – do, i. Balevullin (NL94 2) aa. Square NM04 – do. i. Dun Mor a’ Chaolais (NM04 3) 1. Description 2. Discussion ii. Dun Mor Vaul (NM04 4) 1. Background 2. The primary buildings a. Introduction b. The broch, Level 1 i. Entrance passage and drain ii. The galleried wall iii. The central court iv. The stair v. The cess pit c. The broch, Level 2 i. The scarcement ii. The upper gallery iii. Landing and raised door? d. Outer defences 3. Site history a. Introduction b. Phase 1: pre-broch occupations i. Finds from Phase 1a ii. Finds from Phase 1b c. Phase 2a: new arrivals i. Inside the broch 1. Finds from Phase 2a (Context ‘Eta’) 2. Finds from Phase 2a (Context ‘Theta’) ii. Lower levels of the Outer Court 1. Finds from context ‘Rho’ d. Phase 2b: Broch construction i. Finds from Context ‘Alpha’ ii. The core of the outer wall e. Phase 3a: primary occupation of the broch i. Primary floor layer (Context ‘Iota’) ii. Signal fire? iii. Finds from Phase 3a f. Phase 3b: hearth and ash spread i. Finds from Phase 3b g. Phase 4 in the broch i. Phase 4a: demolition of the broch 1. Finds from Context ‘Lambda’ ii. Phase 4 in the mural gallery iii. Phase 4b: secondary occupation of the broch xxv

861 861 862 863 863 863 864 864 864 864 865 865 866 994 994 994 995 995 996 996 996 996 996 997 997 997 997 998 998 998 998 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1002 1002 1002 1002 1003 1003 1003 1003 1003 1003

1. Finds from Contexts ‘Mu’ and ‘Beta’ Phase 4 in the Outer Court i. Finds from Context ‘Sigma’ ii. Finds from Context ‘Tau’ iii. Dating i. Phase 5: abandonment and squatters i. Finds from Phase 5 4. Discussion a. Dating i. Pre-broch Phase 1 ii. Phase 2: broch construction iii. Occupation Phases 3a, 3b and 4 b. Sequence of Material culture and economy i. Pottery and artefact sequence ii. Economy c. Interpretation of Site Phases i. Phase 1, pre-broch ii. Phases 2a and 2b: broch construction iii. Phases 3a and 3b: primary occupation iv. Phase 4: secondary occupation 5. The finds 6. Dimensions Square NM22 (Isle of Mull) i. Dun Cul Bhuirg (NM22 1) 1. The pottery Square NM34 i. Dun Aisgean (NM34 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion 3. Dimensions Square NM41 Square NM42 Square NM44 i. Dun nan Gall (NM44 2) 1. Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 2. Discussion 3. Dimensions Square NM45 i. An Sean Dun (NM45 1) i. Description c. Level 1 d. Level 2 2. Discussion 3. Dimensions Square NM54 i. An Sean Chaisteal (NM54 1) 1. Description e. Level 1 f. Level 2 2. Discussion 3. Dimensions Square NM65 (Mainland Argyll) i. Rahoy (NM65 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion Square NM70 i. Dun Mhuilig (NM70 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion Square NM83 (Isle of Lismore) h.

bb. cc.

dd. ee. ff.

gg.

hh.

ii.

jj.

kk.

xxvi

1004 1004 1004 1004 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1006 1006 1007 1007 1008 1008 1008 1009 1011 1012 1012 1012 1013 1013 1013 1013 1014 1014 1014 1014 1014 1014 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1017 1017 1017 1017 1017 1018 1018 1018 1018 1018 1018 1018

i. Tirefour (NM83 1) 1. Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 c. Outer defences 2. Discussion 3. New excavations ll. Square NR46 (Isle of Islay) i. Dun Bhoraraig (NR46 1) 1. Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 2. Discussion 3. Dimensions mm. Square NR49 (Isle of Jura) nn. Illustrations for NL, NM & NR Sites 9.

The Outer Hebrides a. Introduction i. Erskine Beveridge ii. Terminology again iii. Wheelhouses b. Square NG08 – Harris c. Square NG09 – do. d. Square NB03 – Lewis i. Dun Barabhat (NB03 1) 1. Introduction 2. The roundhouse a. The structure b. The occupations layers i. Site sequence c. The non ceramic finds (by Phase) 3. The submerged buildings a. Introduction b. Structures c. Phases and dates d. Finds (not by Phase) 4. The pottery 5. Discussion a. The structure b. Economy and environment c. Material Culture ii. Cnip (NB03 2) 1. Discovery 2. Site Sequence 3. The 1988 excavations a. Phase 1: the roundhouse settlement b. Phase 2 c. Phase 3: the souterrain 4. Discussion 5. The finds d. Pottery e. Other artefacts e. Square NB13 i. Dun Baravat 2 (NB13 1) 1. Description a. Captain Thomas’ survey b. The building i. Level 1 ii. Level 2 iii. Level 3 & 4 2. Discussion xxvii

1018 1019 1019 1019 1019 1019 1019 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1021 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1076 1076 1076 1076 1076 1077 1077 1078 1078 1078 1079 1079 0079 1079 1079 1080 1081 1081 1081 1081 1082 1082 1082 1083 1083 1083 1083 1083 1084 1084 1084 1084 1084 1084 1084 1085 1085 1086 1086 1086

a. Making sense of the site b. Broch or semibroch? c. The multiple stairs 3. Dimensions ii. Beirgh (NB13 3) 1. The structures and stratigraphy a. Introduction b. The broch i. Broch Level 1 (Phase 12) ii. The inserted roundhouse (Phase 10) iii. Broch Level 2 (Phase 12) iv. Broch Level III (Phase 12) c. The later structures (Phases 9 – 1) i. Radiocarbon dating d. Artefact dating 2. Discussion a. The broch b. Material cultural sequence 3. Dimensions f. Square NB14 i. Dun Carloway (NB14 1) 1. Early accounts a. Legend 2. Description a. General b. Level 1 c. Level 2 d. Level 3 e. Level 4 f. Levels 5 and 6 3. The 1972 excavations in cell A 4. Discussion 5. Dimensions g. Square NB24 i. Loch an Duna (NB24 1) 1. Description of the site in about 1860 2. Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 3. Legend 4. Dimensions h. Square NB35 i. Square NB42 i. Dun Cromore (NB42 1) 1. Early descriptions 2. Description 3. Structural analysis a. Level 1 b. Level 2 c. Level 3 d. Secondary buildings 4. Dimensions j. Square NB44 i. Gress Lodge (souterrain) (NB44 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion k. Square NB45 l. Square NB46 m. Square NB55 n. Square NB56 o. Square NF60 (Barra) i. Dun Cuier (NF60 5) xxviii

1086 1087 1087 1088 1088 1088 1088 1089 1089 1089 1090 1090 1091 1091 1091 1092 1092 1092 1094 1094 1094 1094 1095 1095 1095 1096 1097 1098 1098 1098 1098 1099 1100 1100 1100 1100 1101 1101 1101 1101 1102 1102 1102 1102 1102 1103 1103 1103 1104 1104 1104 1104 1104 1104 1104 1105 1105 1105 1105 1105 1106 1107

1. 2.

p. q.

Introduction The excavations a. Late use b. The wall c. The entrance d. The central court 3. Discussion a. The structure b. Stratigraphy c. One occupation or two? 4. The finds ii. Tigh Talamhanta (NF60 9) 1. Introduction 2. The excavations a. Phase 1 i. The main building ii. Floor levels and finds iii. The farmyard wall iv. The ‘kiln house’ v. The ‘barn/byre’ or ‘steading’ vi. The ‘working place’ b. Phase 2 3. Discussion a. The farm and its significance b. The pottery 4. Finds Square NF70 (Fuday) Square NF72 (South Uist) i. Dun Vulan (NF72 1) 1. Introduction to the report 2. Summary of conclusions a. Phase 0 (c. 700-400 BC) b. Phase 1a, broch construction (c. 150-0 BC) c. Phases 1b-2, broch occupation (c. 0BC – AD 200) d. Phases 3-4, Platform and Building A (c. AD 200-400) e. Phase 5, Bldg B on Platform & house in broch (c. AD 500-800) f. Phases 5-6, Layers, & Building B, on Platform (c. AD 500-800) g. Phase 7, Buildings NE of broch (c. AD 700-1300) 3. Evidence for the sequence of structures and layers a. The broch i. The stair-foot guard cell ii. The entrance passage iii. The first floor wall gallery iv. The late building on top of the broch v. The Revetment Wall b. Structures and deposits E of the broch i. The Midden ii. The rubble N of the broch iii. The Platform and Platform Wall iv. The waterlogged deposits 4. Evidence for the sequence of material culture a. Pre-broch b. Broch construction c. Early broch occupation d. Later primary occupation? e. Broch secondary habitation f. Post broch 5. Discusssion a. The nature of the original building b. The site sequence c. The material culture in general d. The pottery sequence xxix

1107 1107 1107 1107 1107 1108 1108 1108 1108 1108 1109 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1112 1112 1112 1112 1112 1112 1112 1112 1113 1113 1114 1114 1114 1114 1115 1115 1116 1116 1116 1116 1116 1117 1117 1117 1117 1118 1118 1118 1118 1119 1119 1119 1119 1119 1119 1119 1119 1120 1120 1121 1121 1121 1122 1122 1123 1124

r. s.

i. The primary broch pottery ii. Secondary broch pottery and Everted Rim ware e. The study of Hebridean Iron Age pottery f. Dating 6. Environmental data and economic evidence a. Animal bones b. The broch as farmstead 7. Finds a. Broch construction b. Stair-foot guard cell c. Midden on lintels over entrance d. Broch Revetment Wall e. The Midden f. Under the Platform and beach g. Building A on Platform h. Building B on Platform i. Building C on Platform j. Waterlogged deposits on beach k. Cell in Platform Revetment l. Late and ‘unstratified’ deposits ii. Kilpheder (NF72 3) 1. The excavations a. The building 2. Discussion 3. Material culture 4. The finds iii. Cladh Hallan (NF72 6) 1. The Late Bronze Age roundhouses a. Discussion b. Finds 2. The Early Iron Age figure-of-eight houses a. Finds 3. A Late Bronze Age warrior elite? Square NF73 Square NF74 i. A’ Cheardach Beag (NF74 1) 1. The excavation a. The larger roundhouse (no. 1) b. The annexe (Roundhouse 2) c. Evidence of changes of plan d. The furnace 2. Discussion a. Architecture and roofing b. Material culture c. Social stratification? 3. The finds ii. A’ Cheardach Mhor (NF72 2) 1. The excavations a. Phase 1 b. Phase 1a c. Phase 2 d. Phase 3 e. Phases 4 & 5 2. Discussion a. The importance of the site b. Social stratification and relative dating c. Were the two roundhouses of different ages? d. Were the two roundhouses contemporary but of different status? 3. The finds a. Phase 1 b. Phase 1a c. Phase 2 xxx

1124 1125 1125 1126 1126 1126 1126 1127 1127 1127 1127 1127 1127 1128 1128 1128 1128 1128 1128 1128 1129 1129 1129 1130 1130 1131 1132 1132 1133 1133 1133 1134 1134 1134 1135 1135 1135 1135 1135 1135 1135 1136 1136 1136 1137 1137 1137 1138 1138 1138 1138 1138 1138 1138 1138 1139 1139 1139 1139 1140 1140 1140

d. Phase 3 e. Phase 4 f. Phase 5 g. Viking material iii. Hornish Point (NF74 3) t. Square NF75 5 (Benbecula) i. Bruthach a’ Tuath (NF75 1) 1. Introduction 2. The excavations 3. The finds 4. Discussion u. Square NF76 v. Square NF77 i. Bac Mhic Connain (NF77 1) 1. The structures 2. The finds 3. Discussion ii. Clettraval (NF77 2) 1. The excavations a. The original roundhouse b. The farmyard 2. Discussion a. Social status b. Roofing c. Economy d. Non ceramic material culture e. The pottery 3. The finds iii. Cnoc a’ Comdhalach (NF77 3) 1. Description 2. Discussion 3. Finds iv. Dun Thomaidh (NF77 4) 1. Description 2. Comments 3. Finds v. Eilean Maleit (NF77 5) 1. Beveridge’s work 2. The 1995 excavation vi. Foshigarry (NF77 6) 1. The excavations a. The wheelhouse (‘A’) b. The first aisled wheelhouse (‘B’) c. The second aisled wheelhouse (‘C’) d. Other dwellings 2. Discussion 3. The finds vii. Garry Iochdrach (NF77 7) 1. The excavations 2. Discussion 3. The finds viii. Rudh an Duin (NF77 8) 1. Description 2. Discusssion 3. Finds w. Square NF83 i. Uamh Iosal (NF83 1) ii. Description iii. Discussion x. Square NF85 y. Square NF87 i. Dun an Sticir (NF87 2) xxxi

1140 1140 1140 1141 1141 1141 1141 1142 1142 1142 1143 1144 1144 1144 1144 1145 1145 1146 1146 1146 1147 1147 1147 1147 1148 1148 1148 1148 1149 1149 1149 1149 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1151 1151 1151 1151 1151 1152 1152 1152 1153 1154 1154 1155 1155 1156 1156 1156 1156 1157 1157 1157 1158 1158 1159 1159

1. Description 2. Discussion ii. Dun Torcuill (NF87 4) 1. Description 2. Discussion 3. Dimensions iii. Machair Leathann (NF87 4) 1. Introduction 2. The excavations a. Summary of Phasing b. Site A i. Absolute dating of Site A c. Site B (the main wheelhouse) i. The outer wall ii. Entrance passage iii. Piers and bays iv. Central area 1. Period B1 – the primary pits 2. Period B2 – the main occupation 3. Cell A 4. Cell C 5. Middens 6. Ritual activity in Phase B2? v. Absolute dating of Site B 1. Archaeomagnetic dating 2. C-14 dating d. Material culture i. Pottery 3. Discussion a. The wheelhouse i. Building technique ii. Roofing iii. The ritual pits of Phase B1 b. The pottery c. Other finds i. Bone implements 4. Author’s comments a. Strata b. Wheelhouse structure c. Plastering the wall d. The social order e. The pottery 5. Finds z. Square NF96 aa. Square NF99, Harris bb. Square NF99 cc. Square NL98, Barra, Bernera i. Sron an Duin (NF98 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion dd. Square NL68 (Barra, Pabbay) ee. Square NL69 (Barra, Sandray & Vatersay) i. Dun a’ Chaolais (NL69 1) ff. Illustrations for NB, NF and NL sites 10.

The Southern Mainland a. Square NN60 (Stirlingshire) b. Square NN70 (Perthshire) c. Square NO23 (Perth & Kinross) d. Square NO33 (Angus) i. Hurly Hawkin (NO33 1) 1. Background

1159 1160 1160 1161 1161 1161 1161 1161 1162 1162 1162 1162 1162 1163 1163 1163 1163 1163 1164 1164 1164 1164 1164 1164 1164 1164 1165 1165 1165 1165 1165 1165 1166 1166 1166 1166 1166 1166 1167 1167 1167 1167 1167 1168 1168 1168 1168 1168 1168 1169 1170 1170 1170 1171

1301 1301 1301 1302 1302 xxxii

e. f. g. h. i.

j.

k. l.

2. Summary of the site’s evolution 3. The broch 4. The finds 5. Discussion 6. Dimensions Square NO41 (Fife) Square NO43 (Angus) i. Laws Hill (NO43 2) 1. Finds Square NS43 (Ayrshire) Square NS49 (Stirlingshire) Square NS59 (do.) i. Buchlyvie (NS59 2) 1. Description a. The timber roundhouse b. The broch c. Destruction by fire 2. Specialist reports 3. Radiocarbon dates 4. Discussion a. Native pottery b. Roman finds c. Copper alloy artefacts d. Lead artefacts e. Destruction of the broch 5. The finds 6. Dimensions Square NS69 (do.) i. Coldoch (NS69 1) ii. Leckie (NS69 2) 1. Summary of site sequence a. Structural sequence i. Phase 1: small wooden hut ii. Phase 2: broch construction iii. Phase 3a: broch occupation iv. Phase 4: the low-walled stone roundhouse v. Phase 5: the promontory fort b. The sequence of layers i. Subsoil on rock (Layer 1) ii. Dark earth occupation (Layer 2) iii. Scatter of small, dry rubble (Layer 2/3) iv. Upper dark earth (Layer 3) v. Massive dry rubble (Layer 4) vi. Topsoil (Layer 5) vii. Strata in front of south wall c. Phase of occupation i. Phase 0: rock shelter ii. Phase 1: round hut iii. Phase 2: broch construction iv. Phase 3A: primary occupation v. Phase 3A, end: broch destruction vi. Phase 3B: secondary occupation vii. Phase 4: the promontory fort d. Economic data 2. Discussion a. Origin of the broch builders b. Dating the site phases 3. The finds Square NS77 (do.) Square NS88 (do.) i. Torwood (NS88 1) 1. Description xxxiii

1302 1303 1303 1304 1305 1305 1305 1305 1305 1306 1306 1306 1306 1306 1306 1306 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1308 1308 1308 1308 1311 1311 1311 1312 1312 1312 1312 1312 1313 1313 1313 1313 1313 1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1315 1315 1315 1315 1315 1316 1316 1318 1318 1318 1318

a. The broch b. Outer defences c. Chamber on wallhead 2. Discussion 3. Finds 4. Dimensions m. Square NS94 (Lanarkshire) n. Square NT43 (Selkirkshire) i. Torwoodlee (NT43 1) 1. Description of the broch 2. Excavations in 1892 3. Excavations in 1950-51 a. Relationship between broch and hillfort b. The broch floor c. Relationship between Roman finds and broch 4. Finds 5. Discussion 6. Dimensions o. Square NT44 (Midlothian) i. Bow Castle (NT44 1) 1. Description 2. Finds 3. Discussion p. Square NT76 (Berwickshire) i. Edinshall (NT76 1) 1. Description a. The broch b. Shape of central court c. External structures 2. Finds 3. Discussion a. Finds b. Geometry c. Terminology q. Square NX03 (Wigtownshire) r. Square NX04 (do.) s. Square NX06 (do.) i. Teroy (NX06 1) 1. Description 2. Finds t. Square NX25 i. Stairhaven (NX25 1) u. Square NX54 (Kircudbrightshire) i. Castle Haven (NX54 1) 1. Description 2. Restoration work 3. Finds 4. Discussion v. Illustrations for NN, NO, NS, NT & NX sites 11.

Appendices a. Appendix 1: list of illustrated finds b. Appendix 2: 18th century descriptions of brochs c. Appendix 3: broch metrology

12. Bibliography

1318 1319 1319 1319 1319 1319 1319 1320 1320 1320 1320 1321 1321 1321 1321 1321 1322 1323 1323 1323 1323 1323 1323 1323 1323 1324 1324 1324 1324 1324 1325 1325 1325 1325 1325 1325 1326 1326 1326 1326 1326 1326 1327 1327 1327 1327 1328 1328 1329 1391 1397 1406 1418

xxxiv

List of all illustrations Single line entries; the actual figure captions are longer 6.01 6.02 6.03

Section 6: p. 397 Map of Scotland with OS grid superimposed. Map of Scotland with the Broch Regions marked. Clickhimin (HU44 1). The ‘forework’ and outer gate before the 1950s excavations .

7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 7.19 7.20 7.21 7.22 7.23 7.24 7.25 7.26 7.27 7.28 7.29 7.30 7.31 7.32 7.33 7.34 7.35 7.36 7.37 7.38 7.39 7.40 7.41 7.42 7.43 7.44 7.45 7.46 7.47 7.48 7.49 7.50 7.51 7.52 7.53 7.54 7.55 7.56 7.57

Section 7.1, ND sites: p. 482 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6). Plan of the broch and outlying wall, with elevation. Ousedale Burn: general view of site. Ousedale Burn: the broch outer wall and lintelled entrance passage. Ousedale Burn in about 1910: inner end of the entrance passage. Ousedale Burn: the chamber over the entrance. Ousedale Burn: inside the entrance looking in. Ousedale Burn: same view inside the entrance looking outwards. Ousedale Burn: left check of the outer door with bar socket behind it. Ousedale Burn: interior of the guard cell. Ousedale Burn: masonry of the back of the guard cell. Ousedale Burn: re-faced inner end of the entrance passage. Ousedale Burn: interior wall face and the doorway to the stair. Ousedale Burn: inside stair foot guard cell, with the door. Ousedale Burn: interior of the stair-foot guard cell. Ousedale Burn: the stairway with steps concealed under rubbish. Ousedale Burn: interior of the mural cell at 7 o’clock. Ousedale Burn: some of the finds in the National Museums. Plans of Tota an Dranndainn (ND05 3) and Tulloch Gorm (ND05 4). Green Tullochs (ND06 4): general plan of the unexcavated broch. Scrabster 2 (ND06 8): general plan.. Thing’s Va’ (ND06 11): general plan of the broch and surrounding earthwork. Thing’s Va’ : view of the entrance and the interior wall face. Crosskirk (ND07 2): general plan of the broch and surrounding area. Crosskirk: plan of broch interior in Phase 1. Crosskirk: plan of the interior in Phase 3. Crosskirk: generalised cross section through the site. Crosskirk: view of the floor of the first extension to broch entrance. Crosskirk: view of Enclosure IVa with its hearth. Crosskirk: view of the west side of the rock-cut well. Crosskirk: view of slab-lined depression in the broch interior. Crosskirk: plan of broch entrance passage and outward extension. Crosskirk: reconstructed schematic cross section. Finds from Crosskirk, West Burra Firth (Shetland),Thrumster and Dun Phail. Berriedale 1 (ND12 1): view of the landscape from the site. Berriedale 1: view of vegetation-covered ruins. Burg Langwell (ND12 3): view of the site from the west. Burg Langwell: view of walling of the outer face of upper gallery Achorn (ND13 1): plan of the existing remains. Ballentink 1 (ND13 3): general view of site. Ballentink 2 (ND13 4): plan of the existing remains. Ballentink 2: general view of broch mound. Dunbeath (ND13 6): detailed plan of the broch. Dunbeath: distant view of site from the south. Dunbeath: general view east showing part of the monastic site. Dunbeath: view of the outer wall face. Dunbeath: entrance passage looking out after recent clearance. Dunbeath: guard cell on the right of the entrance. Dunbeath: view of upper part of interior wall face at 12.30 o’clock. Dunbeath: view of the central court after the recent clearance. Dunbeath: daylight view inside mural cell at 12.30 o’clock. Dunbeath : south-east (left) end of the same cell, by flash. Wideford Hill chambered tomb, Orkney: interior of a side chamber. Minera (ND13 9): plan of the broch and its surroundings. Minera: general view of broch mound. Achingoul (ND15 6): plan of the existing remains. Tiantulloch (ND13 12): plan of the existing remains. Tiantulloch: view of the broch mound in the distance.

xxxv

7.58 7.59 7.60 7.61 7.62 7.63 7.64 7.65 7.66 7.67 7.68 7.69 7.70 7.71 7.72 7.73 7.74 7.75 7.76 7.77 7.78 7.79 7.80 7.81 7.82 7.83 7.84 7.85 7.86 7.87 7.88 7.89 7.90 7.91 7.92 7.93 7.94 7.95 7.96 7.97 7.98 7.99 7.100 7.101 7.102 7.103 7.104 7.105 7.106 7.107 7.108 7.109 7.110 7.111 7.112 7.113 7.114 7.115 7.116 7.117 7.118 7.119 7.120 7.121 7.122 7.123 7.124 7.125

Tiantulloch: view of the outer wall face. Greysteil Castle (ND14 2; distant view of broch mound on its loch promontory. Tulach Mor (ND14 4); plan of the visible remains. Cairn Merk (ND15 9): view of the broch mound from the north. Cairn Merk : plan of the visible remains. Cairn Merk: view north from the broch mound with ditch or moat. Cairn Merk: view of the broch mound with the exposed outer wall face. Cairn Merk: view of the inner face of the outer wall. Cairn Merk: view of the outer end of the broch entrance. Cairn Merk: lintelled entrance passage. Cairn Merk: view of raised mural gallery. Murkle (ND16 8), general plan. Tulloch of Shalmstry (ND16 15): plan of the visible remains. Plan of the Wag of Forse (ND23 14). Plan of the Wag of Forse made in the 1980s. Finds from the Wag of Forse in the National Museums of Scotland Acharole (ND25 1): distant view of the broch mound on its platform. Acharole. Plan made in 1904. Coghill (ND25 7). Plan made during 1905 excavations. Hill of Works (ND26 7). Plan by John Nicholson during excavations in 1900. Hill of Works, Plan of the site. Bruan (ND33 1) in 1985. General view of the broch mound on its platform. Bruan in about 1980. Plan of the site. Borrowstone (ND34 1): general plan. Brounaban (ND34 2). Plans of the site and reconstructed plan. Brounaban in 1985. General view of the excavated broch. Brounaban in 1985. The inner end of the main entrance. Brounaban in 1985. The right side of main entrance. Brounaban in 1987, view towards the broch interior. Brounaban in 1985. various features. Thrumster (ND34 10) in 1987. General view of the overgrown site. Warehouse (ND34 14): Plan of the unexcavated site. Watenan North (ND34 14) in 1985: General plan of site. Watenan South (ND34 15) in 1985: General plan of site. Yarrows (ND34 16) in 1985. General view of the broch on its loch promontory. Yarrows. Original plan of the broch and surrounding buildings, re-drawn. Yarrows. Drawings of the inner ends of the two entrance passages. Yarrows. Modern plan of broch and surrounding area. Yarrows. Finds of pottery, stone and bone from Anderson’s excavations. Top. Yarrows: pottery. Bottom: Wester Broch (ND35 8): some of the finds. Yarrows in 1985. View south-eastwards across the flooded interior. Yarrows in 1985. View north-westwards across the flooded interior. Yarrows in 1985. Closer view to the wallhead at about 2 o’clock. Yarrows in 1985. View from the east of the lintelled stair doorway. Yarrows in 1985. View of the outer part of the main entrance passage. Yarrows. View of the interior of the long stair-foot guard cell. Yarrows: schematic plans of the probable original design of the broch. Elsay (ND35 1) in 1902. Early plan. Elsay in 1984. Plan of the site. Elsay in 1902. View of the entrance passage from the outside. Elsay in 1902. View of the entrance passage from the inside. Elsay in 1963. View along the shore from the grass-covered site. Hillhead broch (ND35 3) in 1901. Plan made for Sir F Tress Barry. Hillhead in 1901; photograph of the mound with entrance exposed. Finds from Hillhead (ND35 3) and Elsay (ND35 1). Bottom, plan of primary features inside Kilmster (ND35 5). Kettleburn broch (ND35 4): finds from the excavations. Kilmster (ND35 5) in 1904, plan made after Tress Barry’s excavations. Kilmster in 1904, photograph of the interior being exposed. Kilmster in 1940: Calder’s plan and one of his cross sections. Kilmster . Pottery and stone artefacts from Calder’s 1941 excavation. Norwall (ND35 6). Plan made after Tress Barry’s excavations of 1904. Wester Broch (ND35 8) in 1904. Plan by John Nicholson. Wester Broch in 1894; photograph taken during the excavations. Wester Broch. stone finds made in 1894. Everley (ND36 3) in 1897. Photograph of the entrance passage. Everley in 1897. Photograph of the entrance passage looking outwards. Everley in 1897. Photograph, taken during the excavations, of stone finds. Everley: some of Tress Barry’s finds drawn by the author.

xxxvi

7.126 7.127 7.128 7.129 7.130 7.131 7.132 7.133 7.134 7.135 7.136 7.137 7.138 7.139 7.140 7.141 7.142 7.143 7.144 7.145 7.146 7.147 7.148 7.149 7.150 7.151 7.152 7.153 7.154 7.155 7.156 7.157 7.158 7.159 7.160 7.161 7.162 7.163 7.164 7.165 7.166 7.167 7.168 7.169 7.170 7.171 7.172 7.173 7.174 7.175

Freswick Links (ND36 4) in 1898. Plan made during Tress Barry’s excavations. Freswick Links in 1898: photograph of the interior partly cleared of sand. Keiss North (ND36 5) in 1893. Plan, lacking the north point. Keiss North in 1984. Plan of the existing remains. Keiss North in 1892-93: view of the interior during Tress Barry’s excavations. Finds from Keiss North (ND36 5), Freswick (ND 36 4), Ness (ND36 8) and Bowermadden (ND26 4). Keiss South (ND36 6) in 1864). Samuel Laing’s plans. Keiss South in 1864. Samuel Laing’s drawings of two cross sections. Keiss South in 1892. Plan made after Tress Barry’s excavations. Keiss South in 1984: plan of the site. Keiss South in 1892. Photograph of entrance taken during the excavations. Keiss South in 1892. Photograph of the remains of the outer wall face. Keiss South in 1963. The same view of the ruined doorway as in 7.134. Keiss South in 1963. View of the primary and secondary (pole) wall faces. Keiss South in 1892. View of the entrance passage from the interior. Keiss South in 1892. View of the interior showing the raised door to the stair. Keiss South in 1892. Some of the stone finds from Tress Barry’s excavations. Keiss South. Reconstruction by the author of an original plan and cross section. Keiss South. Some of the finds from Tress Barry’s excavations. Keiss West (ND36 7) in 1893. Plan of the whole site. Keiss West in 1884. Plan of the site. Keiss West in 1893. Photograph showing outer end of the secondary entrance. Keiss West . Similar view to above. Keiss West in 1893. Photograph of inner end of the secondary entrance. Keiss West in 1893. of the broch interior showing the slab-faced door. Keiss West in 1893. Photograph of the central court with upright stone slabs. Keiss West in 1893. Various stone artefacts found. Keiss West. Some of the finds from the 1893 excavations. Ness (ND36 8) in 1898. General plan of the broch and surrounding structures. Ness in 1984. Plan of the broch. Ness in 1898. Photograph of the steps leading down to the well. Ness in 1898. of the cleared broch interior. Ness broch in 1898. Photograph of some stone artefacts lying on the grass. Nybster (ND36 9). General plan of the broch and its outbuildings. Nybster in 1894. Plan of the broch. Nybster in 1894. Photograph of a general view of the tiny excavated interior. Nybster in 1895. Photograph during his excavations, Nybster in 1895. Photograph showing stone implements on grass. Nybster in 1863. The entrance passage and ‘Mervyn’s Tower’ beyond. Nybster in 1863. The forework and its entrance, with the broch beyond. Nybster in 1863. Steps up to head of the forework. Skirza Head (ND36 10) in 1984. Plan of the broch. Skirza Head in 1897. Photograph of the excavated interior. Skirza Head in 1963. General view of the broch mound on the cliff edge. Skirza Head in 1971: accurate plan of the interior of the broch by the author. Skirza Head in 1972. The inner wall face re-exposed. Skirza Head in 1972. View of the interior facing inland. Skirza Head in 1897, some of the stone artefacts found during the excavations. Top: Skirza Head: some of the finds. Bottom: Nybster (ND36 9), finds. Sgarbach promontory fort (ND36 11) in 1897. Photograph of entrance.

7.176 7.177 7.178 7.179 7.180 7.181 7.182 7.183 7.184 7.185 7.186 7.187 7.188 7.189 7.190 7.191 7.192

Section 7.2, NC sites: p. 654 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 1988: general view of the broch mound. Clachtoll broch in 2005: general plan of the site. Clachtoll broch in 1988: suggested plans of the broch at Levels I and 2. Clachtoll broch in 1988: the broch entrance with its triangular lintel. Clachtoll broch in 1988: the massive slabs forming the gate in the outer wall. Clachtoll broch in 1988: view from the broch down to the outer gate. Clachtoll broch in 1988: inside the entrance passage looking out. Clachtoll broch in 1988: the partly cleared chamber over the entrance. Clachtoll broch in 1988: view into the left guard cell. Clachtoll broch in 1988: inside the right guard cell. Clachtoll broch in 1988: inside right guard cell with doorway to central court. Clachtoll broch in 1988: the stair foot guard cell. Clachtoll broch in 1988: the inside face of the stair passage. Kylestrome (NC23 1): view of the broch mound on its promontory. Kylestrome: the outer end of the blocked entrance passage. Kylestrome : view across the rubble-filled interior towards the stair and cell. Kylestrome : the upper part of the intra-mural stair.

xxxvii

7.193 7.194 7.195 7.196 7.197 7.198 7.199 7.200 7.201 7.202 7.203 7.204 7.205 7.206 7.207 7.208 7.209 7.210 7.211 7.212 7.213 7.214 7.215 7.216 7.217 7.218 7.219 7.220 7.221 7.222 7.223 7.224 7.225 7.226 7.227 7.228 7.229 7.230 7.231 7.232 7.233 7.234 7.235 7.236 7.237 7.238 7.239 7.240 7.241 7.242 7.243 7.244 7.245 7.246 7.247 7.248 7.249 7.250 7.251 7.252 7.253 7.254 7.255 7.256 7.257 7.258 7.259 7.260 7.261

Achaneas 1 (NC40 1) in 1985: general view of the broch mound. Achaneas 1 in 1985: probable huge triangular lintel on the grass. Langwell: plan of the vitrified dun and the internal post-holes. Dail Langwell (NC41 1) in 1985: view of the site looking downstream. Dail Langwell in 1985: the downstream side with modern enclosures. Dail Langwell in 1985: view upstream across the rubble-filled interior. Dail Langwell in 1985: view of the long lintel over the upper gallery. Dail Langwell in 1985: the lintelled upper gallery on upstream side. Dun Dornadilla (NC44 2) in 1963. Distant view of the broch by the river Dun Dornadilla. Early drawings. Dun Dornadilla in 1963. The broch showing triangular lintel over main entrance. Dun Dornadilla in 1963. Modern masonry buttress. Dun Dornadilla in 1985. The same buttress with the opening blocked up. Dun Dornadilla in 1963. View of the wallhead showing sides of upper gallery. Camas an Duin (NC00 0) in 1963: General view of the broch foundations. Tigh na Fiarnain (NC46 2) in 1963: general view of the ‘wheelhouse’ site. Tigh na Fiarnain in 1963: two of the internal pillars. Top: Tigh na Fiarnain in the 1920s. Bottom: Achbuiligan Tulloch (NC96 1). Durcha (NC50 1) in 1996. Plan of the broch as revealed by excavation. Plans of Sallachaidh (NC50 4) and Allt Breac (NC50 1). Sallachaidh (NC50 4) in 1963. General view of the broch on its hillock. Sallachaidh in 1963. General view of the outer wall face. Sallachaidh in 1985: general view of the interior. Sallachaidh in 1985: the upper part of the intra-mural stair. Sallachaidh in 1963; the entrance passage from the wall head. Sallachaidh in 1963: reconstructed doorway from entrance to right guard cell. Sallachaidh in 1985. the interior of the left guard cell. Allt Breac in 1963: view of the site from below. Allt Breac in 1963: wall head showing the probable entrance passage. Allt Breac in 1963: the wallhead showing probably ground level gallery. Dalchork (NC51 4) in 1963; distant view of broch mound. Dun na Maigh (NC55 1) in 1985: view from the south towards the broch. Dun na Maigh in 1985: View across the rubble-filled interior. Dun na Maigh in 1985: view across the interior to the north. Dun na Maigh in 1963: view of the entrance passage looking out. Dun na Maigh in 1963: view from above of the guard cell doorway. Dun na Maigh in 1985: inside the guard cell (neg. 1985/7/15). Dun na Maigh in 1963: view of the ledge type scarcement on the inner wall face. Dun na Maigh in 1963: view of the intra-mural stairway under the lintels. Dun na Maigh in 1985: view of an alcove at the foot of the stair. A’Mheirle (NC60 1) in 1985: view of the rubble mound from above. A’Mheirle in 1985: view of the rubble mound, pole marking void lintel. A’Mheirle (NC60 1) in 1985: the lintel over the inner end of the entrance. A’Mheirle (NC60 1) in 1985: view of the filled mural cell on the east side. Coill ach a’ Chuill (NC63 1) in 1963. The mound of rubble across Loch Naver. Dun Creagach (NC63 2) in 1985. View of site on its loch promontory. Plans of Dun Creagach and Grum More (NC63 3). Dun Creagach in 1985. The causeway to the broch from the shore. Dun Creagach in 1985. The outer wall face (pole) and an outer wall. Dun Creagach in 1985. The inner wall face on the right with pole at lintel. Grum More (NC63 3) in 1985. The unexcavated broch from the west. Grum More in 1963: view of the ledge type scarcement. Grum More in 1985; ground level gallery on the south-south-east. Grum More in 1985: door to mural gallery, the pole resting on the scarcement Grum More in 1985. Main entrance seen from the interior. Grum More in 1985. Inside the entrance showing the door to the guard cell. Grum More in 1985. Inside the guard cell showing the inner end. Grum More in 1985. Top of the filled-up round mural cell on the east side. Grum More in c. 1860: sketch map showing the brochs round Loch Naver. Langdale Burn (NC64 1) in 1963; distant view of the broch mound. Plans of Langdale Burn and Sandy Dun (NC66 2). Langdale Burn in 1963: view of probable traces of the wall gallery. Sandy Dun (NC66 2) in 1985: distant view of the broch. Sandy Dun in 1963: the sand- and rubble-filled interior with the scarcement. Sketch plans of East Kinnauld 1 (NC70 1) and Castle Cole (NC71 1). East Kinnauld 1 in 1963: Strath Fleet from the site and lintelled entrance visible. East Kinnauld 1 in 1985: entrance passage and door frame at pole. East Kinnauld 1 in 1985: entrance with door-checks and guard cell lintel. East Kinnauld 1 in 1963: lintel over entrance with the inner wall face of broch.

xxxviii

7.262 7.263 7.264 7.265 7.266 7.267 7.268 7.269 7.270 7.271 7.272 7.273 7.274 7.275 7.276 7.277 7.278 7.279 7.280 7.281 7.282 7.283 7.284 7.285 7.286 7.287 7.288 7.289 7.290 7.291 7.292 7.293 7.294 7.295 7.296 7.297 7.298 7.299 7.300 7.301 7.302 7.303 7.304 7.305 7.306 7.307 7.308 7.309 7.310 7.311 7.312 7.313 7.314 7.315 7.316 7.317 7.318 7.319 7.320 7.321 7.322 7.323 7.324 7.325 7.326 7.327 7.328 7.329 7.330

East Kinnauld 1 in 1985: two faces of an upper gallery at 10 o’clock. East Kinnauld 1 in 1985: raised void in the inner wall face at 8 o’clock. Castle Cole (NC71 1) in 1985; distant view of ruins. Castle Cole in 1963; close-up view of broch with entrance. Castle Cole in 1985; inside the entrance passage with the pole at door-checks. Castle Cole in 1985; the entrance (exterior to the left) with the two door frames. Castle Cole in 1985; oval guard cell on the right of the entrance passage Castle Cole in 1963; through the entrance to set of shallow voids or aumbries. Castle Cole in 1963; inner wall face showing more voids or aumbries. Castle Cole and Dun Dornaigil (NC44 2), both in about 1880. Coich Burn (NC71 2) in 1963; general view from below of the mound of rubble. Plans of Inshlampie (NC74 2) and Allt an Duin. Allt an Duin (NC75 2) in 1963; general view of the ruins on a conical knoll. Allt an Duin in 1985; view from the broch down to low lying ground. Allt an Duin in 1963; outer end of entrance with the fallen triangular lintel. Allt an Duin in 1963: the rubble-filled interior with scarcement Dun Carnachaidh (NC75 3) and Feranach (NC82 2): plans. Armadale Burn (NC79 1) in 1963; view from the north of the broch on its knoll. Armadale Burn in 1963; lintelled doorway in the interior wall face. Backies (NC80 1) in 1985. General view of the pale rubble mound. Backies in 1846. Drawings of the excavations for J J Worsaae. Backies in 1846. Final sketch plan of the broch by J J Worsaae. Kilpheder (NC91 7) c. 1864 and Backies not later than 1864. Backies in 1985; the outer end of the entrance passage. Backies in 1985. Inside entrance passage, the door frame visible in silhouette. Backies in 1985; view across interior showing two doorways Backies in 1985; part of the outer wall (pole) of the gallery containing the stair. Backies in 1985; the curved end of the double mural cell at 11 o’clock. Backies: reconstruction of Levels 1 and 2 as exposed in 1846. Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1963; general view of the broch on its raised beach. Carn Liath in 2003: the same view forty years later after repair and restoration. Carn Liath at about 1870; general plan of the site after Joass 1890. Carn Liath at about 1870; two cross sections across the broch. Carn Liath; general plan and situation of the site. Carn Liath; walling of one of the rectangular ‘outbuildings’. Carn Liath; looking down the entrance passage, door frame at pole. Carn Liath in about 1900 or earlier. Carn Liath in 1988; inside the guard cell looking towards the entrance passage. Carn Liath in 1963; the area of the wall head around the entrance passage Carn Liath in 1985; the same area of wallhead now grassed over Carn Liath in 1963; view from wall head to the area around the mural stair. Carn Liath in 1985; the intra-mural stairway, looking from the top down Carn Liath in 1985; looking up the intra-mural stairway. Carn Liath in 1985; view of the internal wall face, showing secondary walling. Carn Liath in 1985; restoration of the area around the door to the stairway. Carn Liath in 1987; view from broch wall head to extension of entrance. Carn Liath in 1972; view of the partially re-excavated central floor chamber. Carn Liath: rock carvings and south-east horizon profile across the sea. Carn Liath: some of the finds in Dunrobin Castle Museum. Plans of Carrol NC80 3), Feranach (NC82 2) and (bottom) Kilphedir (NC97 7). Carrol in 1985; general view of the rubble mound looking like a large cairn Carrol before 1911; the inner end of the entrance. Carrol in 1985; view of the wall head above the entrance. Carrol in 1985; the entrance passage with both door frames visible. Carrol in 1985; the low doorway in the entrance leading to the guard cell. Carrol in 1985; the interior of the guard cell looking towards the passage. Carrol in 1963; the elongated stair-foot guard cell clockwise from the entrance. Carrol in 1985; remains of intra-mural stair with the stair door to the right. Carrol in 1985; end of the stair foot guard cell, close to the entrance passage. Dunrobin Wood (NC80 5) in 1985; view of the outer wall face under the trees. Dunrobin Wood in 1985; the guard cell partly exposed. Dunrobin Wood in 1985; view across the interior to a large mural cell (pole). Dunrobin Wood in 1985; remains of the stairway with snapped-off step stump. Forsinain (NC85 2) c. 1980: General plan of the area around the broch. Plans of Forsinain and Balvalaich (NC91 2). Kintradwell (NC90 1) in about 1870. Plan of broch and surrounding buildings. Kintradwell in about 1870. Two elevations across the site (A-B & C-D). Kintradwell in about 1870. Drawings made after the excavations. Kintradwell in 2003; general view of the site on the raised beach.

xxxix

7.331 7.332 7.333 7.334 7.335 7.336 7.337 7.338 7.339 7.340 7.341 7.342 7.343 7.344 7.345 7.346 7.347 7.348 7.349 7.350 7.351 7.352 7.353 7.354 7.355 7.356 7.357 7.358 7.359 7.360 7.361 7.362 7.363 7.364 7.365 7.366 7.367 7.368 7.369 7.370 7.371 7.372 7.373 7.374 7.375 7.376 7.377 7.378 7.379 7.380 7.381 7.382 7.383 7.384 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.09 8.10 8.11 8.12

Kintradwell in 1963; part of the outer wall face showing a pronounced batter. Kintradwell in 2003: the outer end of the entrance passage. Kintradwell in 1985; the inner end of the entrance. Kintradwell in 1985; the now roofless guard cell. Kintradwell in 1985; general view of the interior with the stair-foot guard cell. Kintradwell in 1963; the elongated stair foot guard cell. Kintradwell in 1985; the oval mural cell at 7 o’clock. Kintradwell, some of the finds. Also general plan of Carn Bran (NC91 3). Carn Bran (NC91 3) in 1963. Distant view of the site in its river valley. Carn Bran in 1963; the unexcavated broch seen from across the stream. Carn Bran in 1987; looking into the roofed entrance from the exterior. Carn Bran in 1987; wall head at 12 o’clock showing an enormous gallery lintel. Carn Bran in 1963; the split gallery lintel in 7.347 with a mural cell beyond. Carn Bran in 1987. Inner wall face (camera box) with a raised void at the pole. Eldrable (NC91 4) in 1987; view of the unexcavated site from above. Eldrable in 1987. The inner wall face with typical, polygonal facing blocks. Plans of Eldrable and Kilpheder (NC91 7). Kilpheder in 1963: view from above of broch and its outer defences. Kilpheder in 1963: the surrounding ditch with the broch mound to the right. Kilpheder in 1963: the intra-mural gallery and the stair. Achvarasdal Lodge (NC96 3) in 1985: view across the central court. Achvarasdal Lodge in 1985: view outwards through the main entrance. Achvarasdal Lodge in 1985: close-up view of the stair door from the interior. Achvarasdal Lodge in 1985. View of blocking wall at the foot of the stairway. Section 7.3, NH sites: p. 784 Dun Lagaidh (NH19 2) in 1968: general plan of the remains on the rocky ridge. Dun Lagaidh in 1968: cross sections of some of the excavated trenches. Dun Lagaidh in 1968. View of stairway in dun wall after excavation. Dun Lagaidh in 1968. Entrance passage of the dun with Medieval blocking. Dun Lagaidh in 1968: Iron Age finds from the dun occupation layer. Loch Broom site map; also Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh cross section. Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2) in 1978: general plan of site. Dun an Rhiroy; plan of semibroch and early Medieval rotary quern below Dun an Rhiroy; elevation of intra-mural features and Iron Age rotary querns. Dun an Rhiroy in 1978; detailed Level 1 plan of the central court. Dun an Rhiroy in 1968. View of the upper gallery with debris removed. Dun an Rhiroy in 1968. Central court with some post-holes showing. Dun an Rhiroy in 1968. View from above down on to the scarcement (pole). Dun an Rhiroy. Sections of trenches in the central court. Dun an Rhiroy. Sections of deposits in the stair doorway and under the cliff. Dun an Rhiroy. Table of the sequences reconstructed on various parts of the site Dun an Rhiroy. Interpretations of C-14 dates and reconstruction of semibroch. Dun an Rhiroy. Map of brochs known early and chronology for Loch Broom. Dun an Rhiroy. The Iron Age finds from the site (see list at end of site entry). Castle Spynie (NH54 1)in 1985: looking south along the west wall. Dun Alisaig (NH68 1) in 1779. James Anderson’s plan and elevation. Dun Alisaig. Cordiner’s and Worsaae’s plan and elevation. Dun Alisaig in the 9th century? Part of Sueno’s stone in Morayshire. Dun Alisaig in 1989 showing the foundation blocks of the wall. Brae (NH79 1) in 1989: distant view from the south. Brae in 1989: mural gallery on the south side. Brae in 1989: looking east across rubble-filled interior, scarcement at pole. Finds from and near Dun Lagaidh (NH19 2). Various finds from Sutherland brochs in the Dunrobin Castle Museum. Querns from brochs near Golspie. Section 8.1, NG sites: p. 866 Diagram illustrating a number of Iron Age dry stone strongholds in the Western Isles. Dun Boreraig (NG15 1) in 1985: view of the broch on its rocky knoll. Dun Boreraig in 1985: view of the broch with rock basin marked by the pole. Top: 1921 plan of Dun Boreraig (1:300). Bottom: the furnace near Rudh an Dunain. Plans of Dun Boreraig and Dun Colbost (NG24 1). Dun Boreraig in 1985: the outer wall face on the south-west side. Dun Boreraig in 1985: the outer end of the entrance, with the door frame (at the pole). Dun Boreraig in 1985: the guard cell. Dun Boreraig in 1985: view over central court to scarcement (pole). Dun Boreraig in 1985: view of the outer wall, pole at gateway. Dun Boreraig in 1985: the pecked basin below the broch. Dun Colbost (NG24 1) in 1985: general view of the ruined broch.

xl

8.13 8.14 8.15 8.16 8.17 8.18 8.19 8.20 8.21 8.22 8.23 8.24 8.25 8.26 8.27 8.28 8.29 8.30 8.31 8.32 8.33 8.34 8.35 8.36 8.37 8.38 8.39 8.40 8.41 8.42 8.43 8.44 8.45 8.46 8.47 8.48 8.49 8.50 8.51 8.52 8.53 8.54 8.55 8.56 8.57 8.58 8.59 8.60 8.61 8.62 8.63 8.64 8.65 8.66 8.67 8.68 8.69 8.70 8.71 8.72 8.73 8.74 8.75 8.76 8.77 8.78 8.79 8.80 8.81

Dun Colbost in 1921. Plan reproduced from the RCAHMS. Dun Colbost in 1985: view across the rubble-filled interior towards probable entrance. Dun Colbost in 1985: the inner face of the intra-mural gallery on the east side Dun Colbost in 1985: the upper gallery on the west, with a lintel. Dun Osdale (NG24 2) in 1985: distant view of the broch at the end of a low ridge. Dun Osdale in 1985: general view of the site on its rock knoll. Plan of Dun Osdale and the broken quern found inside the broch in 1971. Plans of Dun Osdale and Dun Fiadhairt NG25 1). Dun Osdale in 1985: the south side of the entrance passage. Dun Osdale in 1985: inside the mural cell at 7 o’clock. Dun Osdale in 1985: mural cell at 12 o’clock (pole) with scarcement to its right. Dun Osdale in 1985: stair door with the pole above its massive lintel. Dun Fiadhairt (NG25 1) in 1985: general view of the site on its rock knoll. Dun Fiadhairt in 1921. Plan by the RCAHMS. Scale, 1:300. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: the entrance passage looking out showing the built door-checks. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: inside the lintelled section of the mural gallery. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: the intra-mural stair with the door to the central court on right. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: view across interior to entrance with scarcement at top left. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: left guard cell with doorway to entrance passage in foreground. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: the stair-foot guard cell with the same doorway on the left. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: dumb-bell shaped mural cell at 8 o’clock with doorway to court. Dun Fiadhairt: pottery in the National Museums of Scotland, drawn by the author. Dun Hallin (NG25 2) in 1985: general view of the broch from the north. Dun Hallin in 1921. Plan by the RCAHMS. Scale 1:300. Plans of Dun Hallin and Dun Gearymore (NG26 1. Dun Hallin in 1985: view across the entrance passage to the guard cell. Dun Hallin in 1985: the guard cell. Dun Hallin in 1985: view across the rubble-filled interior towards the stair door (pole). Dun Hallin in 1985: the door to the stair with scarcement at the pole. Dun Hallin in 1985: the upper steps of the remaining stair. Dun Gearymore (NG26 1) in 1985: general view of the site in the mist. Dun Gearymore in 1985: the outer face on the south with traces of the mural gallery. Dun Gearymore in 1985: the mural cell at 12 o’clock. Dun Gearymore in 1985: inside the intra-mural gallery showing the lintelled roof. Dun Borrafiach (NG26 2) in 1985: general view from the north in misty weather. Plan of Dun Borrafiach (NG26 2) and Iron Age potsherds from Rudh an Dunain cave. Plans of Dun Borrafiach and Dun Sleadale (NG32 1). Dun Borrafiach in 1985: the outer face on the east side. Dun Borrafiach in 1985: the entrance passage seen from the interior. Dun Borrafiach in 1985: traces of the inner wall of the upper gallery on the east side. Rudh an Dunain (NG31 1) in 1988: general view of the promontory wall from the west. Rudh an Dunain in 1963: general view of the promontory wall from the north-east. Rudh an Dunain in 1963: plan and reconstructed cross section. Rudh an Dunain in 1988: view of the outer face from the front. Rudh an Dunain in 1963: looking along the outer wall face away from the entrance. Rudh an Dunain in 1963: view of the entrance passage from the front. Rudh an Dunain in 1986: the same view from behind the left check. Rudh an Dunain in 1963: the inner face with the door to the mural gallery (lintel). Rudh an Dunain in 1963: the inner face showing the scarcement of the ledge type. Rudh an Dunain in 1988: the ruined west end of the wall with the remains of the entrance. Dun Sleadale (NG32 1) in 1985: general view of the ruined broch on its rocky knoll. Dun Sleadale in 1985: the outer wall face. Dun Sleadale in 1985: outer end of the entrance passage with a door-check (pole). Dun Sleadale in 1985: view from above of the interior of the blocked entrance. Dun Sleadale in 1985: right side of door from the court to the intra-mural stair. Dun Sleadale in 1985: the lintelled upper gallery at 3 o’clock. Dun Sleadale in 1985: inside the gallery at 7 o’clock. Dun Ard an’t Sabhail (NG33 1) in 1963: distant view. Dun Ard an’t Sabhail in 1963: view of the unexcavated site. Dun Ard an t’ Sabhail in 1921. RCAHMS plan: scale 1:300. Plans of Dun Ard an’t Sabhail and Dun Beag (NG33 3). Dun Ard an’t Sabhail (NG33 1) in 1985: the left guard cell. Dun Ardtreck (NG33 2) in 1963: general view of the site before excavation. Dun Ardtreck in 1965: general plan of site. Dun Ardtreck in 1965: the internal trenches at an early stage in the excavations. Dun Ardtreck in 1965: the entrance from outside, after removal of the secondary ramp. Dun Ardtreck in 1965: view of the exposed foundation platform. Dun Ardtreck; the iron ‘door handle’ found in the entrance passage. Dun Ardtreck: the proposed development of the site based on the stratigraphy.

xli

8.82 8.83 8.84 8.85 8.86 8.87 8.88 8.89 8.90 8.91 8.92 8.93 8.94 8.95 8.96 8.97 8.98 8.99 8.100 8.101 8.102 8.103 8.104 8.105 8.106 8.107 8.108 8.109 8.110 8.111 8.112 8.113 8.114 8.115 8.116 8.117 8.118 8.119 8.120 8.121 8.122 8.123 8.124 8.125 8.126 8.127 8.128 8.129 8.130 8.131 8.132 8.133 8.134 8.135 8.136 8.137 8.138 8.139 8.140 8.141 8.142 8.143 8.144 8.145 8.146 8.147 8.148 8.149 8.150

Dun Beag (NG33 3) in 1963: distant view of the broch on its rocky knoll. Dun Beag in 1921. Plan reproduced from the RCAHMS: scale 1:300. Dun Beag in 1985: the outer wall face showing well fitted stone blocks. Dun Beag in 1963: the remains of the paved entrance passage seen from the interior. Dun Beag in 1985: view across the cleared interior towards the entrance. Dun Beag in 2003: view to stair door with the well-fitted blocks of the interior wall face. Dun Beag in 1985: inside mural cell at 5.30 o’clock, with the low door to the interior. Dun Beag in 1985: the intra-mural stair with no lintels remaining. Dun Beag in 1963: the stair foot guard cell. Dun Beag: pottery and stone finds in the National Museums of Scotland. Pottery from Dun Beag: scale 1:2. Dun Arkaig (NG34 2) in 1985: distant view of the site on its rocky knoll. Plans of Dun Arkaig and Kingsburgh (NG35 5). Dun Arkaig in 1985: outer wall face on west with the ‘buttress’ added. Dun Arkaig in 1985: outer end of entrance passage, looking out. Dun Arkaig in 1985: the inner face of the mural gallery, curved end at the pole. Dun Suledale (NG35 5) in 1985: distant view of the site. Dun Suledale in 1921. Plan reproduced from the RCAHMS. Dun Suledale in 1963: outer face of south wall. Dun Suledale in 1985: view to outer end of entrance, showing left door check. Dun Suledale in 1985: inside the entrance looking out with door checks at pole. Dun Suledale in 1963: part of the mural stairway exposed. Plans of Kingsburgh (NG35 5) and Dun Grugaig 1 (NG51 1), both in 1921. Dun Liath 1 (NG37 2) in 1964: view of the structure. Dun Liath 1 in 1964. View of doorway to cell. Dun Liath 1 in 1964. Plan of the site (scale 1:150) with section and pot. Dun Flodigarry (NG47 1): plan of the structure as revealed by excavations. Dun Flodigarry: some of the pottery and other finds. Dun Grugaig 1 (NG51 1) in 1963: distant view of the site on its cliff promontory. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1974: closer view from the opposite side with the walling just visible. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985. Plan by the author, with elevation through the entrance passage. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985: the front wall with the entrance passage. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1963: view down the entrance passage from the exterior. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985: left hand door check from the rear, with the bar-hole or –socket. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985: view along the inner face showing the remains of the scarcement. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985: remains of Level II, above right side of inner part of the entrance. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985: the same Level II stonework seen from the end of the wall. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985: doorway into inner wall face with the steps of the stair. Plans of Dun Kearstach (NG51 2) and Dun Liath 1 (NG37 2) in 1921. Dun Ringill (NG51 4) in 1963: general view of the site with the entrance passage. Dun Ringill in 1986. Plan by the author. Scale 1:150. Dun Ringill in 1985: the site on its cliff promontory. Dun Ringill in 1985: the unlintelled Iron Age entrance, pole in the bar-hole and -socket. Dun Ringill in 1985: looking outwards through the lintelled Medieval entrance passage. Dun Ringill in 1985: the inner part of the Medieval extension of the entrance. Dun Ringill in 1985: the same Medieval parapet walk seen from the side. Dun Ringill in 1985: view across the remains of the Iron Age entrance. Dun Ringill in 1988: inner face of Level II gallery on south side of entrance. Dun Ringill in 1985: the door at 2 o’clock to the large mural cell. Dun Ringill in 1988: inner face of the large mural cell on the south-west. Dunan an Aisilidh (NG53 1) in 1985: general view of site on its cliff promontory. Plans of Dunan an Aisilidh and Dun Ringill, from the RCAHMS. Dunan an Aisilidh in 1985: outer wall face with inner face of mural gallery (pole). Plans of Dun Osdale, Dun Borrafiach, Dun Beag, Dun Borodale and Dun Fiadhairt. Dun Borodale (NG53 2) in 1985: view of outer face of the wall on south (behind pole). Dun Borodale in 1985: wall head on south side. Dun Borodale in 1985: outer end of blocked entrance passage on the east. Dun Borodale in 1985: doorway at 7 o’clock to the mural gallery. Dun Borodale in 1985: the interior looking north. with inner wall face. Dun Borodale in 1971. Plan of the central court. Dun Grianan (NG56 1): general view of site on its short loch promontory. Plans of Dun Grianan and Dun Raisaburgh (NG56 2). Map of Gleann Beag with Iron Age sites, and sketch plan of Dun Grugaig 2. Dun Grugaig 2 (NG81 1) in 1986: general view of the site on its rocky knoll. Dun Grugaig 2. Plan by the author in 1985. Dun Grugaig 2 (NG81 1). Top: elevation. Bottom: O.S. plan. Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: view of the outer wall face from the south-east. Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: the outer wall face on the south. Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: inside the Level II gallery on the east.

xlii

8.151 8.152 8.153 8.154 8.155 8.156 8.157 8.158 8.159 8.160 8.161 8.162 8.163 8.164 8.165 8.166 8.167 8.168 8.169 8.170 8.171 8.172 8.173 8.174 8.175 8.176 8.177 8.178 8.179 8.180 8.181 8.182 8.183 8.184 8.185 8.186 8.187 8.188 8.189 8.190 8.191 8.192 8.193 8.194 8.195 8.196 8.197 8.198 8.199 8.200 8.201

Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: view of the blocked main entrance – ‘Door 1’ – from the north. Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: inside the passage of Door 1, the main entrance. Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: the inner end of Door 3 with its innermost lintel lying in front. Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: inner wall face between Door 2 (on the left) and Door 1. Dun Telve (NG81 2) and Dun Troddan (NG81 3) in the early 1720s: elevations. Dun Telve in 1962: general view of broch from further up the glen. Dun Telve. Plans made by the Office of Works in 1916. Dun Telve in 1916. Elevations made by the Office of Works in 1916. Dun Telve: plan of the base of interior, and plan of Caisteal MhicLeod (NG82 2). Dun Telve in 1963: view of the internal features of the high wall. Dun Telve in 1985: the secondary external addition to the entrance passage. Dun Telve in 1985: inside the entrance passage as seen from the interior. Dun Telve in 1985: interior of guard cell seen from the doorway to the entrance. Dun Telve in 1989: remains of roof of guard cell, showing the stepped lintels. Dun Telve in 1985: interior wall face with scarcement (just above the level of the notice). Dun Telve in 1989: cross section of high part of the wall above guard cell. Dun Telve in 1989: inside the Level II gallery between stair door and entrance. Dun Telve in 1989: the same gallery anti-clockwise from the cross bars. Dun Telve in 1985: intra-mural stair with side of the stair door showing. Dun Telve in 1989: first flight of the intra-mural stairway emerging on landing. Dun Telve in 1989: another view of the interior of the Level II gallery. Dun Telve in 1989: view of the broch from the north-west. Finds fom Dun Telve and Dun Troddan, with decorated stone cup from Caisteal Grugaig. Dun Telve in 1916. Plans of the broch at Level 2 (bottom) and Level 3 (top). Dun Troddan (NG81 3): ground plan and elevation prepared by the Office of Works. Dun Troddan (NG81 3) in 1974: general view of the broch. Dun Troddan in 1986: the outer wall face with large blocks with small filling slabs. Dun Troddan (NG81 3) in 1985: the entrance passage seen from the wall head. Dun Troddan in 1985: view of the inside of the guard cell. Dun Troddan in 1985: the stair door (its lintel missing) with the series of voids above it. Dun Troddan in 1985: the stair-foot guard cell with the doorway to the interior. Dun Troddan in 1985: the first flight of stair with the doorway to the interior on right. Dun Troddan in 1989: the present top of the stair in Level II Dun Troddan in 1985: view of scarcement (pole) from low part of the wall head. Dun Troddan in 1989: Level II gallery above the stair-foot guard cell. Caisteal Grugaig (NG82 1) in 1985: general view of the site from above. Plans of Caisteal Grugaig 2 and of Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: the outer end of the entrance passage. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: view down the sloping entrance passage looking out. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: the chamber over the entrance with its front end curved. Caisteal Grugaig in 1989: the interior of the guard cell showing the corbelling of the roof. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: looking into the doorway in the left side of the entrance. Caisteal Grugaig in 1989: looking down to the central court from the wallhead. Caisteal Grugaig in 1989: the low door to the long mural cell or gallery at 3 o’clock. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: interior of small cell at 8.30 o’clock. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: the first flight of the intra-mural stair. Caisteal Grugaig in 1989: looking anti-clockwise along the Level II landing. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: looking clockwise along the Level II landing. Caisteal Grugaig in 1989: under side of second flight of stairs. Caisteal Grugaig in 1989: left end of the long cell or gallery on the northwest. Dun Telve and Caisteal Grugaig. The doorways of the two brochs in about 1850.

8.202 8.203 8.204 8.205 8.206 8.207 8.208 8.209 8.210 8.211 8.212 8.213 8.214 8.215 8.216 8.217

Section 8.2, NL, NM & NR sites: p. 1021 Dun Hiader (NL93 1) in 1963; general view of the site on its rock knoll. Dun Hiader in 1963; the remains of the outer wall face. Dun Hiader in 1974. RCAHMS plan of the site and the surrounding ground. Dun Boraige Moire (NL94 1) in 1974: RCAHMS plan. Dun Boraige Moire in 1962: general view of the site on its rocky knoll. Balevullin (NL94 2): plan of the site and material from ‘Hut no. 1’. Balevullin hut site. Pottery from the site labelled only ‘Balevullin’. Balevullin hut site. Pottery and other finds from the site. Dun Heanish (NM04 1): general view of the site. Dun Ibrig (NM04 2) in 1974: RCAHMS plan of the site and the surrounding ground. Dun Ibrig in 1962. General view of the site on low ground. Dun Mor a’ Chaolais (NM04 3) in 1974; RCAHMS plan of the broch and its outer wall. Dun Mor a’ Chaolais. General view of the site in its hilltop situation. Dun Mor a’ Chaolais: the outer wall face of large blocks. Dun Mor a’ Chaolais (NM04 3): a fragment of lintelled ground level gallery exposed. Dun Mor Vaul (NM04 4) in 1974: plans by the Royal Commission.

xliii

8.218 8.219 8.220 8.221 8.222 8.223 8.224 8.225 8.226 8.227 8.228 8.229 8.230 8.231 8.232 8.233 8.234 8.235 8.236 8.237 8.238 8.239 8.240 8.241 8.242 8.243 8.244 8.245 8.246 8.247 8.248 8.249 8.250 8.251 8.252 8.253 8.254 8.255 8.256 8.257 8.258 8.259 8.260 8.261 8.262 8.263 8.264 8.265 8.266 8.267 8.268

Dun Mor Vaul: plan of the broch in Phases 2b, 3a and 3b. Dun Mor Vaul. General view of the site on its rock knoll. Dun Mor Vaul in 1962. The door frame in the entrance passage. Dun Mor Vaul in 1962. View of pivot stone. Dun Mor Vaul in 1962. The end of the mural gallery behind the guard cell. Dun Mor Vaul in 1962. Stair in the wall. Dun Mor Vaul in 1962. The stepped wall face. Dun Mor Vaul in 1962. Wind-blown earth in doorway. Dun Mor Vaul in 1963. Section cut across the deposits in the gallery at 9 o’clock. Dun Mor Vaul in 1963. The rectangular Hearth of Phase 3b. Dun Mor Vaul in 1963. The sections cut through the deposits in the mural gallery. Dun Mor Vaul in 1963. View of the north-west quadrant in the central court. Dun Mor Vaul in 1963. View of gallery section with quern in primary level Alpha. Dun Mor Vaul: pictures of restored pots. Dun Mor Vaul. Pottery from the pre-broch deposits. Dun Mor Vaul. Pottery and other finds from Phases 1a, 1b and 2a. Dun Mor Vaul. Pottery and other finds from Phase 2a and Phase 2. Dun Mor Vaul. Pottery from the broch construction deposits of Phase 2b. Dun Mor Vaul. Pottery from the primary occupation of Phase 3a. Dun Mor Vaul. Photographs of six of the miniature Iron Age vessels found on Tiree. Dun Mor Vaul. The five separate site stratigraphical columns found at the site. Dun Mor Vaul: pie charts of pot frequency and animal bone frequency. Dun Mor Vaul. Diagram showing the results of pollen analyses. Dun Mor Vaul: table showing the distribution of artefacts (except pottery). Dun Mor Vaul. A revised chronology for the site. Dun Beg Vaul (NM04 2) in 1962. General view of the site on its rock knoll. Plans of Dun Aisgean (NM34 1) and Dun Bhoreraig (NR46 1). Dun Aisgean (NM34 1), general view. Dun Aisgean, the entrance. Dun Aisgean, gallery door & scarcement. Plans of Dun Bhuirg (NM42 1) and An Sean Dun (NM45 1). Dun nan Gall (NM44 2) in 1989. General view. Dun nan Gall in 1974: general plan of the broch by the RCAHMS. Dun nan Gall in 1989. The entrance. Dun nan Gall in 1989. Raised door and the scarcement. Dun nan Gall, Mull, the intra-mural stair. An Sean Dun (NM45 1), general view. An Sean Dun, the entrance. An Sean Dun, interior with scarcement showing. An Sean Chaisteal (Ardnacross – NM54 1) in 1979, distant view. Rahoy (NM65 1) (vitrified dun or roundhouse) in 1973: general plan. Rahoy in 1938. Plan of the site by V.G. Childe. Dun Mhuilig (NM70 1) in 1983. Plan of the site by the Royal Commission. Plans of An Dun (NM83 1) and Tirefuar (NM84 1). Tirefuar, Lismore, general view. Tirefuar, Lismore- interior. Tirefuar, Lismore, raised gallery. Tirefuar, Lismore, outer wall face. Dun Bhuirg (NM22 1): published pottery from the site. Top: Dun Bhuirg: more pottery from the site. Dun Mhuilig (NM70 1): three views of the galleried wall and the scarcement.

9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15

Section 9, Outer Hebrides: p. 1172 Dun Bharabhat (NB03 1) in 1985. General view of the site on its island. Dun Bharabhat. Top: general plan of the site. Bottom: two large storage urns. Dun Bharabhat in 1985. View of the interior during the excavations. Dun Bharabhat (NB03 1): pottery, all from the roundhouse except nos. 1 & 2. Cnip (NB03 2): reconstruction of the main wheelhouse. Cnip wheelhouse: some of the pottery found. Dun Baravat (NB13 1) in 1985: general view of the building on its islet. Dun Baravat in 1985: the causeway seen from the semibroch. Dun Baravat in 1861: Capt. F W Thomas’ plan and elevation of the structure. Dun Baravat in 1985: the high outer wall face resting on the rock in the north-west. Dun Baravat in 1985: the ground level mural gallery visible on the north side. Dun Baravat in 1985: view of the inner face of the high wall on the north. Dun Baravat in 1985: view of the same inner wall face but from the east. Dun Baravat in 1985: the tangle of vegetation covering the enclosed court. Dun Baravat. Reconstruction of the elevation of the intra-mural features.

xliv

9.16 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20 9.21 9.22 9.23 9.24 9.25 9.26 9.27 9.28 9.29 9.30 9.31 9.32 9.33 9.34 9.35 9.36 9.37 9.38 9.39 9.40 9.41 9.42 9.43 9.44 9.45 9.46 9.47 9.48 9.49 9.50 9.51 9.52 9.53 9.54 9.55 9.56 9.57 9.58 9.59 9.60 9.61 9.62 9.63 9.64 9.65 9.66 9.67 9.68 9.69 9.70 9.71 9.72 9.73 9.74 9.75 9.76 9.77 9.78 9.79 9.80 9.81 9.82

RCAHMS plans (1914) of Dun Carloway, Lewis, Dun Sandray, Barra, Dun an Sticir and Dun Torcuill, North Uist, Sron an Duin, Barra Head. and Dun Baravat, Lewis. Beirgh (NB13 3), Lewis, in 1990. View from nearby crag down on to the site. Beirgh, Lewis: in 1990: the Level 2 stair with the landing leading to it. Beirgh, Lewis: in 1990: view of the interior with the broch scarcement. Beirgh. Top: plan at the base of Level I Bottom: plan at the base of Level II. Beirgh. Pottery from the upper part of the post-broch roundhouse occupation. Beirgh. Top: pottery from the ‘late Pictish’ phase. Beirgh. Top: plan at base of Level 2. Bottom: restored elevation of Dun Cromore. Beirgh. Chronological diagram of sequence of Phases and material culture. Dun Carloway (NB14 1) in 1985. Distant view of broch from further up the hill Top: Dun Carloway in the 1790s: two views for Colin Mackenzie. Dun Carloway in 1861: plan, elevation and longitudinal section by Capt. F W L Thomas. Dun Carloway in 1861: two views of the broch drawn by Capt. F W L Thomas. . Dun Carloway in 1974. The outer wall face where it passes over sloping rock on the east. Dun Carloway in 1990. The entrance passage from the interior. Dun Carloway in 1990. The entrance passage from above. Dun Carloway in 1990. The north side of the inner wall face showing the rock outcrop. Dun Carloway in 1985. The east side of the interior, opposite the entrance. Dun Carloway in 1985. The interior of Cell A from above. Dun Carloway in 1990. The interior of the guard cell (D) showing the southern end Dun Carloway in 1990. The interior of Cell C showing the western end. Dun Carloway in 1990. The same cell with the low opening to the inner chamber. Dun Carloway in 1990. The interior of the inner chamber of Cell C, under the stair. Dun Carloway in 1990. The stair-foot guard cell with its covering lintels. Dun Carloway in 1990. The galleries above cell C, behind the stair. . Dun Carloway in 1985. The first flight of the intra-mural stair. Dun Carloway in 1985. The upper galleries above the present top of the stair. Dun Carloway in 1975?: plan at ground level with cross section of deposits in Cell A. Dun Carloway: pottery and a rotary quern from Cell A, from Tabraham 1977. Dun Carloway: reconstruction drawing by Alan Braby. Reconstruction of the original design of Dun Carloway in Levels 1 and 2. Loch an Duna (NB24 1) in 1985: general view of the site. Loch an Duna in 1861. Captain F W L Thomas’ record of ‘Dun Bhragair’. Plans of Loch an Duna (NB24 1), Dun Borve 4 (NB45 1) and Dun Cromore (NB42 1). with 1861 cross section and elevation of Loch an Duna. Loch an Duna 9NB24 1) in 1985. The ruins from the land, with the main entrance visible. Loch an Duna in 1985. The outer end of the lintelled entrance passage. Loch an Duna in 1985. View across the rubble-strewn interior. Loch an Duin (NB35 1) in 1985: general view of the remains. Dun Cromore (NB42 1) in 1985: general view of the broch on its islet. Dun Cromore in 1985: view of filled-in upper gallery on the south side. Dun Cromore in 1861: plan and elevation of the broch by Capt. F W L Thomas. Dun Borve 4 (NB45 1) in 1985. General view of the site with its modern cairn. Dun Borve 4 in 1985. Pole at the end of an intra-mural gallery or cell on the south. Loch Baravat (NB45 1) in 1985: general view of the site. Dun Ban 2 (NF60 2), Barra, in 1988: general view of site. Dun Ban 2 in 1988: the outer wall face, marked with the pole. Dun Cuier (NF60 5) in 1988 General view of the site on its rocky summit. Dun Cuier in 1988 View of the back-filled central court with the scarcement visible. Dun Cuier: plan of the massive roundhouse, or dun, from Young (1956). Dun Cuier. Top: cross sections Bottom. Cordon-decorated sherds. Dun Cuier. Pottery of Dun Cuier type with one classic Everted Rim sherd. Dun Cuier. Late Iron Age artefacts. Dun Cuier, plain pottery and stone artefacts from the site. Dun Scurrival (NF60 7) in 1988: general view of the site from the west. Dun Scurrival in 1988: view across the interior to the opposite wall face (pole). Dun Scurrival in 1988: inner wall face on west with the scarcement. Top. Dun Scurrival, pottery . Bottom. Tigh Talamhanta (NF60 9) cross sections. Tigh Talamhanta (NF60 9) in 1953: general view of the site. Tigh Talamhanta in 1953: general plan of the site and reconstruction of the farmhouse. Tigh Talamhanta: plan of wheelhouse and surrounding structures. Tigh Talamhanta: wheelhouse pottery of the Everted Rim type. Tigh Talamhanta: wheelhouse pottery of the Balevullin vase type. Tigh Talamhanta: other finds from the wheelhouse. Dun Vulan (NF72 1 in 199? General view of the site under excavation. Dun Vulan: plan of the broch and surrounding features and buildings. Dun Vulan: detailed plan of the broch showing the intra-mural features. Kilpheder (NF72 3). Left: plan and elevation. Right: small finds from the wheelhouse.

xlv

9.83 9.84 9.85 9.86 9.87 9.88 9.89 9.90 9.91 9.92 9.93 9.94 9.95 9.96 9.97 9.98 9.99 9.100 9.101 9.102 9.103 9.104 9.105 9.106 9.107 9.108 9.109 9.110 9.111 9.112 9.113 9.114 9.115 9.116 9.117 9.118 9.119 9.120 9.121 9.122 9.123 9.124 9.125 9.126 9.127 9.128 9.129 9.130 9.131 9.132 9.133 9.134 9.135 9.136 9.137 9.138 9.139 9.140 9.141 9.142 9.143 9.144 9.145 9.146 9.147 9.148 9.149 9.150 9.151

Kilpheder: incised line decorated pottery from the wheelhouse floor. Kilpheder in 1974: general view the interior of the excavated wheelhouse. Kilpheder in 1974: looking through the entrance into the excavated wheelhouse. Finds from Sithean a’ Phiobaire (NF72 5). and Bruthach a Tuath (NF75 1). Plan of A Cheardach Beag (NF74 1) with map of the sites in Vallay, North Uist. A Cheardach Beag in 1956: cross sections. A Cheardach Beag, pottery. A Cheardach Beag, small finds of bone. A Cheardach Mhor (NF74 2): Left: plan. Right: pottery from Phase 1. A Cheardach Mhor : cross sections. A Cheardach Mhor: pottery from Phase 1 – Everted Rim and allied wares. A Cheardach Mhor. Top: Phase 1 bone objects. Bottom: pottery from Phase 1a & 4. Left. A Cheardach Mhor: Phase 1stone objects: Right: Dun Torcusay (NF75 4), plan. A Cheardach Mhor: bone, whalebone and antler, Phase 1a & Phase 3. Dun Buidhe 3, South Uist (NF74 5); general view of the broch mound. Bruthach a’ Tuath (NF75 1): finds from the excavations in August 1956. Dun Buidhe 2 (NF75 3). General view of the much robbed structure on its island. Dun Torcusay (NF75 4). View of the robbed remains on an islet in Loch Torcusay. Top. Bac Mhic Connain (NF77 1): plan. Bottom: bone copy of a bronze mirror handle. Bac Mhic Connain: some of the bone and antler finds. Bac Mhic Connain: some of the bone and antler finds. Bac Mhic Connain. Left: furnace. Right: some of the bone and antler finds. Clettraval (NF77 2): general plan of the roundhouse and other associated structures. Clettraval: detailed plan of roundhouse. Clettraval: sections and wall elevations of the roundhouse Clettraval: evidence for the reconstruction of the low roundhouse roof. Clettraval: some of the larger potsherds, and other finds. Pottery from various Iron Age sites in the Outer Hebrides. Top: Cnoc a’ Comhdhalach (NF77 3): plan. Bottom: Eilean Maleit (NF77 5), plan. Foshigarry (NF77 6): general plan of the site. Foshigarry: pottery from the National Museums. Foshigarry: pottery from the National Museums. Foshigarry: Some of the bone and antler finds. Foshigarry : more bone and antler finds. Foshigarry: bone artefacts. Foshigarry: more bone and antler finds. Foshigarry: more bone and antler finds. Garry Iochdrach (NF77 7): plan of the site. Garry Iochdrach: pottery from the site in the National Museums. Garry Iochdrach: pottery and bone finds from the site in the National Museums. Rudh an Duin (NF77 8): plan of the site. Usinish wheelhouse (NF83 1) in c. 1865: Plan and reconstructed elevation. Usinish wheelhouse in 1984. Five overlapping photographs of the interior. Dun Ban 1, Loch Hornary (NF87 1) c. 1860; plan and cross section of the site. Dun Ban, Loch Hornary in 1988. General view from above. Dun an Sticir (NF82) in 1985: general view of the stump of the broch. Dun an Sticir: the massive long causeway connecting the broch with an adjacent islet Dun an Sticir: view of the broch mound, with the opening into the guard cell showing. Dun an Sticir: the outer wall face (pole) and the doorway into the Medieval building. Dun an Sticir: the lintelled door from the guard cell into the entrance passage. Dun an Sticir : the interior of the right guard cell. Dun an Sticir: inner face of the upper mural gallery at 4 o’clock Dun an Sticir: view of the interior of the rectangular Medieval house Dun an Sticir: walling of the Medieval hall (right) and curved inner face of broch (pole). Dun an Sticir: east end of the islet showing remains of an outer on the left. Dun Torcuill (NF87 3) in 1985: view of the stump of the broch on its islet. Dun Torcuill: the blocked main entrance seen from outside. Dun Torcuill: view of outer wall face on the north-north-west. Dun Torcuill in 1971: view of the inner wall face. Dun Torcuill in 1985: view of the remains of an upper lower gallery. Dun Torcuill: the lintel of the doorway leading to the intra-mural stair. Dun Torcuill: the top of the flight of intra-mural stairs. Dun Torcuill: view inside the ground gallery. Dun Torcuill in 1971: Survey of the inner wall face of the broch. Machair Leathann (NF87 4): plan of the wheelhouse. Machair Leathann: sequence of struct ures. Machair Leathann: plan of the pits. Machair Leathann. View of the site after excavation. Machair Leathann. Selected finds and pottery.

xlvi

9.152 9.153 9.154 9.155 9.156 9.157 9.158 9.159 9.160 9.161 9.162 9.163 9.164 9.165 9.166 9.167

Machair Leathann. Selected finds and pottery. Machair Leathann. Selected finds and pottery. Sron an Duin (NL58 1) c. 1865. Plans and elevations by Capt. F W L Thomas. Sron an Duin in 1988: view from the cliff top close to site. Sron an Duin: the Barra Head lighthouse seen from inside the Iron Age promontory fort. Sron an Duin: view from the lighthouse along its enclosure Sron an Duin. View of the entrance passage from the interior. Sron an Duin: view along the wall face from above the entrance. Sron an Duin: the south-east end of the wall as it approaches the edge of the cliff. Dun a’ Chaolais (NL69 3) in 1988. General view of the rubble mound. Dun a’ Chaolais. The outer wall – marked by the pole – seen from the broch. Dun a’ Chaolais. The outer face of the broch and inner face of the gallery (pole). Dun a’ Chaolais. Looking along the gallery lintels in situ. Dun a’ Chaolais. Looking across the rubble-filled interior to the void (pole). Dun a’ Chaolais. The rubble-filled mural cell. Dun a’ Chaolais. Curved inner wall face showing the lintel of a doorway into the wall.

Section 10: p. 1329 10.1 Hurly Hawkin (NO33 1); general plan of the site after the 1958-67 excavations. 10.2 Hurly Hawkin. Plan of the broch at twice the scale. 10.3 Hurly Hawkin . Some of the bronze and iron finds from the site. 10.4 Hurly Hawkin : glass, stone and bone finds from the site. 10.5 Hurly Hawkin: stone finds and pottery from the site. 10.6 Drumcarrow (NO41 1): view of outer face. 10.7 Drumcarrow: a door lintel. 10.8 The Laws (NO43 2). General plan of the site after Neish (1962). 10.9 The Laws: outer wall face of ‘broch’. 10.10 Top: finds from The Laws. Bottom: finds from Torwood (NS88 1). 10.11 Buchlyvie (NS59 2) in 1976. General plan of the wooden roundhouse. 10.12 Buchlyvie. Plan of the broch. 10.13 Buchlyvie. Two views of the bottom step of the intra-mural stair with its lobby. 10.14 Buchlyvie: suggested original ground plan of the broch, including the stair. 10.15 Buchlyvie. Iron Age and Roman ceramics and glass objects. 10.16 Buchlyvie, bronze finds from the excavations. 10.17 Buchlyvie, lead and iron artefacts found during the excavations. 10.18 Buchlyvie: iron finds. 10.19 Buchlyvie: iron finds. 10.20 Buchlyvie: finds of fired clay. 10.21 Buchlyvie, stone tools. 10.22 Buchlyvie, stone tools. 10.23 Coldoch (NS69 1) in 1948: plan of the broch . 10.24 Coldoch: distant view. 10.25 Leckie (NS69 2) in 1976: plan of the site showing the three phases of occupation. 10.26 Leckie: section drawing of the deposits inside the broch on line K. 10.27 Leckie: view of the rock promontory from the north-west. 10.28 Leckie: view of trench over the ruined north wall. 10.29 Leckie: base of the inner wall face on the north. 10.30 Leckie: the north wall from above, with the latest hearth. 10.31 Leckie: the primary hearth of Phase 3a. 10.32 Leckie : the wrecked intra-mural stair from above. 10.33 Leckie: the inner face of the north wall, from above. 10.34 Leckie: the incomplete promontory fort wall on the south. 10.35 Leckie: table of important finds by Phase. 10.36 Leckie: Table showing periods of contact with the Roman army. 10.37 Leckie: three views of the small sandstone pebble carved into a head. 10.38 Leckie: general view of the excavations in 1976. 10.39 Torwood (NS88 1): view of the mound on its hill top. 10.40 Torwood: general plan of broch and outworks. 10.41 Torwood: plan of broch. 10.42 Torwood: two views of the newly excavated site in 1865. 10.43 Torwood: outer wall face at the entrance. 10.44 Torwood: inside the entrance passage. 10.45 Torwood: view across the central court to the entrance and stair door. 10.46 Torwood: view across the central court from the entrance, with scarcement. 10.47 Torwood: the stair door and the stair, from above. 10.48 Torwood: the chamber on the wallhead, re-opened in 1989. 10.49 Calla (NS94 1): plan of the site. 10.50 Torwoodlee (NT43 1): view of the inner wall face. 10.51 Torwoodlee: plan of the broch and the hillfort.

xlvii

10.52 10.53 10.54 10.55 10.56 10.57 10.58 10.59 10.60 10.61 10.62 10.63 10.64 10.65 10.66 10.67 10.68 10.69 10.70 10.71 10.72 10.73 10.74 10.75 10.76 10.77 10.78 10.79 10.80 10.81 10.82 10.83 10.84 10.85 10.86 10.87

10.88

Torwoodlee: plan of the broch and adjacent hillfort ditch. Torwoodlee: plan of the central court, with poist-holes. Torwoodlee: section across the broch ditch. Bow Castle (NT44 1): general view of the site on its hilltop. Bow Castle: the outer wall face on the north-west. Bow Castle: view across the central court to the inner wall face. Bow Castle: the possible entrance. Bow Castle: the remains of the entrance with displaced lintels. Edinshall (NT76 1): general view from above. Edinshall: general plan of the ‘broch’ and surrounding earthworks. Top: Edinshall, plan of ‘broch’. Bottom: finds from Castle Haven (NX54 1). Edinshall: outer wall face. Edinshall: outer end of entrance, with fallen lintel. Edinshall: entrance passage. Edinshall: view across the interior, towards the entrance. Edinshall: double mural cell at 9 o’clock. Edinshall: mural cell at 3 o’clock. Edinshall: mural cell at 11.30 o’clock. Ardwell Point (NX04 1): general view of the coastal site from above. Ardwell Point: view across the rubble-filled interior, to the entrance. Ardwell Point: the entrance passage from above, Ardwell Point: view along the entrance. Teroy (NX06 1): sketch plan. Stairhaven (NX25 1): view of the coastal site from above. Stairhaven: plan from the Ordnance Survey card. Stairhaven: view across the rubble-filled interior to the entrance. Stairhaven: the entrance passage from above. Stairhaven: the entrance passage showing added masonry. Stairhaven: the intra-mural stair with added masonry. Stairhaven: view down the stair showing added masonry and second stair. Castle Haven (NX54 1): plan of the site in 1907. Castle Haven: general view of overgrown site on its sea promontory. Castle Haven: the main entrance from the exterior. Castle Haven: inner end of main entrance with a gallery door beyond. Castle Haven: main entrance from above, showing door check and bar-hole. Castle Haven: view across the central court with a doorway into the wall. Castle Haven: the inner wall face on the north-west with a raised doorway.

xlviii

Index of all site names All site names, including those in Vol. 1 (‘Orkney and Shetland’), are included here together with their page references. The volume 1 pages are 1-388, those of vol. 2 are 389-1390. The names in CAPITALS are the primary names used here. The coding is – ITALICS ROMAN ROMAN with ** UNDERLINED BOLD BOLD with ** UNDERLINED ITALICS

= = = = = = =

possible brochs probable brochs definite hollow-walled brochs (i.e. with Level 2) other broch-like sites, or sites with similar finds probable semibrochs true semibrochs (i.e. with traces of Level 2 roundhouses & wheelhouses

Names in lower case Roman are alternatives and are shown with the relevant site code; they are not distinguished into categories like the capitalised names. Sites with the same primary name have been numbered ‘BALIASTA 1’, ‘BALIASTA 2’ and so on and these numbers are retained even when the same name appears in both Shetland and Orkney. For example ‘BURRIAN 1’ and ‘BURRIAN 2’ in Orkney are beside the same two names in Shetland in the list. They can be referred to as ‘Burrian 1, Shetland’ and ‘Burrian 1, Orkney’ to distinguish them. Secondary names which are the same as primary names in the other island group are not so distinguished, e.g. ‘Clumlie’. For convenience there are divisions between groups of names starting with the same letter, and also divisions among all the ‘dun’ names – based on the first letter of the second word. Connecting words like ‘an’ and ‘na’ are not counted here. Names like ‘Dunan’ follow the ‘dun’ names, as do those like ‘Dunbeath’ where the ‘dun’ part has been combined with the rest. NG34 ND15 ND15 NC40 NC40 ND25 ND23 ND05 NC46 NC92 NC96 NC75 ND15 NF74 NF74 NF76 ND15 ND15 ND15 ND15 ND15 ND15 ND06 ND25 NC00 ND15 NC71 ND15 ND15 ND13

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 4 5 4 5 6 2 1 6 1 7 8 10

Abhainn Bhaile Mheadonaich ACHANARRAS Achanarras Farm ACHANEAS 1 ACHANEAS 2 ACHAROLE ACHAVAR Achavarn ACH AN DUIN ACH AN FHIONNFHURAIDH ACHBUILIGAN TULLOCH ACHCOILLENABORGIE ACHCOMHAIRLE A’ CHEARDACH BEAG A CHEARDACH MHOR A CHEARDACH RUADH Achies ACHIES 1 ACHIES 2 ACHIES 3 Achies East Achies West Achigremach ACHINGALE ACHILTIBUIE ACHINGOUL Achir na Kyle ACHKEEPSTER ACHLOCHAN MOSS ACHNAGOUL

NC40 ND13 ND23 NC96 NC96 NC96 NC92 HY32 NH69 HU54 HU43 ND15 NF60 NF60 NC51 NC75 NC91 NC75 NC82 ND12 NC51 NH29 NC60 NH19 NC82 NC65 NC60 NC40 ND12 NH59

831 432 432 617 617 440 437 405 623 652 652 633 432 1135 1137 1144 432 432 432 433 432 433 406 441 614 433 632 433 433 431 xlix

2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 24 9 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2

Achness ACHORN ACHOW ACHUNABUST Achvarasdal ACHVARASDAL LODGE ACH an FHIONNFHURAIDH Aikerness AIRD PABBACH AITH AITHSETTER AISLE Allasdale ALLASDALE 2 Alltbreac Allt a’ Chaisteal ALLT a’ CHOIRE MHOIR ALLT an DUIN 1 ALLT an DUIN 2 Allt an Duin 3 ALLT BREAC ALLT DAIL A BHRAID Allt na’ Mheirle ALLT RAON a’ CHROISG Altanduin Alltan na Creige A’ MHEIRLE ** AN DUN 1 An Dun 2 An Dun 3

617 427 437 652 652 652 652 227 1170 117 87 435 1111 1106 625 634 650 634 645 426 625 778 627 763 645 630 627 617 426 779

NC02 NC23 NM83 NM54 NM45 NG74 ND23 NH59 NM54 NG33 NM54 NX04 NN70 NH59 HY21 NC76 NS77 NN60 ND36 NF72 HY40 HU58

1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 4 1 3

An Dun 5 An Dun 6 AN DUN 7 AN SEAN CHAISTEAL ** AN SEAN DUN ** Applecross APPNAG TULLOCH Ardgay ARDNACROSS ARD an t’ SABHAIL Ardnacross ARDWELL POINT Argaty Argay Arion ARMADALE BURN AUCHINCLOCH AUCHINSALT AUCKINGILL Auratote AYRE Aywick

614 616 1018 1016 1016 847 437 779 1016 819 1016 1325 1301 779 222 635 1318 1301 462 1132 241 119

HY63 NC80 HY50 NF77 NC80 ND25 NC66 ND13 ND13 NF76 NF76 NL94 NM45 HP51 HP60 HP60 ND14 ND13 ND13 ND13 NO23 HP60 HP60 NC91 NC91 ND25 ND23 NR79 NL58 ND26 HU25 NB13 HP50 ND07 NL69 NF75 NF75 HY62 NB13

1 1 9 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 11 2 1 7 1 3 6 1 2 1 2 4 3

BACKASKAILL BACKIES ** BACKLAND BAC MHIC CONNAIN Baikies Baile a’ Chairn Baile Margait Balantrath Balcraggy Lodge Baleshare Baleshare BALEVULLIN Baliachrach BALIASTA 1 BALIASTA 2 Baliaston BALLACHLY BALLENTINK 1 BALLENTINK 2 BALLENTRATH Balmacolm BALTA Balta Isle Broch Balvalaich BALVALICH BANKS OF WATTEN Bardintulloch BARNHILL Barra Head Barrock Broch BAY OF GARTH BEIRGH ** Belmont BELL MOUNT BEN na SCUTE Benbecula Aerodrome 2 Benbecula Aerodrome 1 BENNI CUML Berie

252 636 249 1144 636 440 630 428 427 1144 1144 995 1016 57 57 57 431 428 428 428 1301 58 58 650 650 441 438 1020 1168 443 60 1088 56 407 1170 1143 1143 252 1088

NB13 ND12 ND12 ND12 ND12 ND12 ND12 ND12 HY41 NF85 HY21 NC86 HY31 ND25 NH49 NN60 ND16 NC65 ND12 ND12 ND12 NG74 ND34 HY52 HY21 HU25 ND26 NT44 ND26 ND36 HY74 NH79 HY20 HY50 HY63 NB24 HY20 HP50 ND25 NC96 ND13 ND06 HU25 HU25 HY41 NG82 ND36 HP50 HU43 HY21 HY21 HU25 HY32 HU43 HU42 HU41 HU15 HY21 HU35 HU47 ‡‡‡

l

4 1 2 2 3 2 5 1 1 1 13 1 1 4 1 2 10 1 4 3 4 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 10 4 3 1 3 3 1 1 5 5 1 8 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 2

Beries 2 BERRIEDALE 1 BERRIEDALE 2 Berridale Church Berriedale 3 Berriedale Water 1 Berriedale Water 2 Berriedale Water 3 BERSTANE BHAG NAM FEADAG ‡‡‡ Bigging BIGHOUSE BIG HOWE BILBSTER Birchfield BOQUHAPPLE Borgie House BORGIE BRIDGE Borgroy Borgue Langwell Borgue Roy BORRODALE BORROWSTON Borrowstone BORWICK ** Bousta Bowermadden BOW CASTLE BOWERTOWER BRABSTERMIRE BRACE GARTH BRAE BRAEBISTER 1 BRAEBUSTER BRAEHOWAR Bragar BRECKNESS BREI WICK Bridge of Dunn Bridge of Isauld Bridge of Rhemullen BRIMSIDE TULLOCH Brindibister Voe BRINDISTER VOE Briston Broch at Loch Duich Broch at the White Gate Broch Holm of Lundawick Broch of Aithsetter Broch of Arion Broch of Borthwick Broch of Brousta Broch of Burgar Broch of Burland Broch of Burraland Broch of Dalsetter Broch of Easter Broch of Harray Broch of Houlland Broch of Infield

Footnote reference only.

1094 426 427 427 427 427 427 426 244 1046 222 648 224 441 778 1301 436 630 427 427 427 847 445 249 216 60 443 1323 443 462 254 783 213 248 252 1100 213 56 442 653 428 405 60 60 244 861 464 56 87 222 216 60 227 87 81 79 58 217 77 116

00

HY63 HU41 HU42 HU15 HU45 HY31 HU25 HY51 NX25 HY40 ND34 ND33 ND33 HU54 HU56 HY44 HP60 HU33 HU54 HU24 HU45 NC96 ND06 ND06 ND48 ND36 HU41 HP50 HP50 HY21 HU59 HY21 HU69 HU59 HP60 ND34 HU25 NF75 NF75 NF75 ND33 ND33 HU25 NF72 NF72 NF75 NF72 NF72 HY20 HY20 NF77 NS59 NC85 ND13 ND12 ND12 HU37 HY32 HP61 HU46 HU25 HU36

3 5 4 2 8 16 8 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 6 3 2 9 7 1 9 4 5 5 13 1 9 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 4 4a 9 2 1 11 3 4 1 1 1 1 4 1

Broch of Lamaness Broch of Levenwick Broch of Mail Broch of Ness Broch of Railsburgh Broch of Redland Broch o’ Setter Broch o’ Steiro Broken Castle Brough of Warbuster Bronnaben BROUAN 1 BROUAN 2 BROUGH 1 BROUGH 3 BROUGH Brough Brough Brough Brough Brough Brough Brough Broughs BROUGH FARM Brough Head Brough Head BROUGH HOLM Brough Holm of Lundawick BROUGH OF BIGGING Brough of Burraness Brough of Clumlie Brough of Houbie BROUGH LODGE BROUGH TAING BROUNABAN BROUSTA BRUACH BAN Bruach Ban 1 1143 Bruach Ban 2 1143 Bruan 1 Bruan 2 Brundibister Voe Bruthach a’ Sithan Bruthach Sitheanach BRUTHACH a’ TUATH BRUTHACH a’ TIGH TALLAN Bruthach an Tionail BU BU (Phase 2) BUAILE RISARY BUCHLYVIE BUNAHOUN Bunellich BURG LANGWELL BURGH RUADH ** BURGAN BURGAR BURGAR STACK BURGA WATER 1 BURGA WATER 2 BURGASTOO

252 80 82 58 116 226 60 249 1326 244 445 445 445 117 118 246 57 76 117 59 115 652 406 406 260 477 79 56 56 222 119 222 120 119 58 445 60 1143 445 445 60 1129 1129 1141 1143 1143 213 213 1156 1306 647 431 427 427 77 227 58 116 60 77 li

HU25 HU56 ND12 HY32 HP50 HU33 HU43 HU42 ND06 ND13 HY31 HU34 HU59 HU36 HU57 HU38 HU57 HU42 HU24 ND49 ND49 HU24 HU45 HU45 HY21 HY21 HY31 HY31 HY75 HY31 HY31 HY31 HY74 HY21 HY21 HY52 ND38 HY21 HU34 HU34 HY74 HU31

9 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 1 5 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 4 4 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 4 8

Burgh of Burrafirth Burgh of Hogsetter Burgh Ruaidh Burgher Burgi Geo BURLAND 1 BURLAND 2 Burn of Aith Burn of Brimside BURN OF LATHERONWHEEL BURNESS BURRA HOLM BURRA NESS ** BURRAVOE 1 BURRAVOE 2 BURRA VOE Burra Voe BURRALAND 1 ** BURRALAND 2 BURRAY59EAST ** BURRAY WEST BURRASTOW BURRIAN 1, SHETLAND BURRIAN 2, SHETLAND BURRIAN 2, Orkney BURRIAN 5 BURRIAN 3 BURRIAN 4 BURRIAN 7 BURRIAN 6 Burrian broch, Harray Burrian, Corriegall Burrian, Lopness Burrian Broch, Russland Burrian, Loch of Harray BURROUGHSTON ** BURROWSTONE Burwick BURWICK HOLM BURWICK Buryan BYRELANDS

60 118 427 227 56 76 87 82 405 428 224 76 119 77 118 78 118 81 59 260 262 59 115 115 217 218 224 224 255 224 224 224 254 217 218 249 259 216 76 77 254 76

NC66 ND01 ND01 ND01 NC76 ND 34 ND25 ND25 ND35 ND34 ND34 ND15 ND16 HY21 NG81 NG82 NG82 NC71 NG81

2 1 2 2 1 4 3 5 1 3 8 9 12 6 1 1 2 1 2

Ca’ an Duin CAEN BURN 1 CAEN BURN 2 Caen Burn CAI DUN CAIRNQUOY Cairn of Achoy CAIRN OF DUNN Cairn of Elsay CAIRN OF HUMSTER Cairn Hill Cairn Merk Cairn of Sibmister Cairston Caisteal Chonil CAISTEAL GRUGAIG ** CAISTEAL MHICLEOD 60Coille Caisteal na Caisteal Teilbah

630 401 401 401 635 447 441 441 454 447 447 433 436 218 848 861 864 632 851

HY53 NS94 NB13 NC45 NS43 ND24 ND24 ND26 HY50 ND37 ND38 NH25 ND25 NC91 NH59 NC80 NC85 NH59 NC50 NH49 NH59 ND15 NG83 NC82 NC80 ND16 NC44 ND16 HY21 HY44 HY44 NG82 NG81 NC71 NH98 NG82 NX54 ND35 NG82 HY44 NH54 NG81 NG53 HU46 HY31 ND07 HY74 NF76 ND36 NF72 NC90 NC02 NF72 NC90 NC76 NF77 HU41 HU44 HU44 §§§

1 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 6 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 9 1 5 3 17 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 8 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 6 1 7 3 1 1 7 1 2 2 1 1a 1b

CALF OF EDAY CALLA Calum MacLeod’s wheelhouse CAMAS AN DUIN CAMP CASTLE CAMSTER 1 CAMSTER 2 CAMSTER 3 CAMPSTON CANISBAY CANTICK HEAD CARNOCH CARN A’ CHLADHA CARN BRAN ** CARN DEASGAN CARN LIATH 1 ** Carn Liath 2 CARN LIATH 3 CARN MOR 1 CARN MOR 2 CARN MOR 3 CARN NA MAIRG ** CARN NA SEAN-CHREIGE Carn nam Buth CARROL ** CARSGOE CASHELL DUBH CASTLEHILL CASTLE BLOODY CASTLE OF BOTHICAN §§§ Castle of Bothikan Castle Chalamine Castle Chonil CASTLE COLE ** CASTLE CORBET Castle Grugag CASTLE HAVEN Castle Linglas Castle Malcomb Castle o’ Millyemay 1 CASTLE SPYNIE Castle Troddan Castle Vreokle CHAPEL KNOWE Chapel Knowe Chapel Pool CHAPEL OF ANSTON Cheardach Ruadh Churchyard Mound Cill Pheadhair Cinn Trolla CLACHTOLL ** CLADH HALLAN Clentrolla CLERKHILL CLETTRAVAL CLEVIGARTH CLICKHIMIN ** CLICKHIMIN **

251 1319 1094 622 1306 440 440 443 248 480 260 778 441 650 779 637 647 779 631 778 779 433 864 647 643 437 620 435 218 246 246 864 848 632 783 861 1327 461 864 246 779 856 844 116 224 407 225 1144 472 1129 648 614 1132 648 636 1146 78 89 89

This site does not exist. The data refer to St. Boniface Church HY45 3 (Lowe 1994).

lii

HU44 HU42 HU41 HY21 HY21 HY21 NB03 NF77 ND01 ND15 NF74 NF87 NH98 NF87 ND25 ND25 NC71 NC63 NS69 HY64 HU45 NX06 NG87 NC80 NO43 ND01 NS43 NS49 NO43 NX03 NG87 NH49 HP60 HY63 ND07 NX25 HP50 HU25 HU54 HU24 HU24 HU25 HY21 HU54

1c 2 2 9 9 9 2 3 3 10 3 4 1 6 7 7 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 1 4 5 3 3 3 5 5 3

CLICKHIMIN CLODIE KNOWE CLUMLIE Clumley Clumlie Clumly CNIP CNOC a’ COMHDHALACH CNOC CHAISTEAL CNOC DONN Cnoc Mor Cnoc Sligeach Cnoc Tigh Coileagan am Udail COGHILL Cogle COICH BURN COILL ACH a’CHUIL COLDOCH COLLI NESS CORN HOLM Craigcaffie CRAIG BRAN Craig Carril CRAIG HILL Craig Marril Craigie CRAIGIEVERN CRAIGHILL CRAMMAG HEAD Creagan Bana CROICK Croon o’ de Ura Croos of Nebister CROSSKIRK Crow’s Neith CRUNESS CULERYIN LOCH CULLINGSBURGH Cullswick CULSWICK ** Cumis Brough CUMMI HOWE Cunningsburgh

NC41 NC51 ND15 ND15 ND15 ND15 ND15 NC65 NC65 ND04 ND04 HU41 NC56 HY50 HY75 HY50 HY50

1 2 11 12 11 12 25 2 2 1 1 3 1 3 2 4 4

DAIL LANGWELL ** DALCHORK DALE 1 DALE 2 Dale Farm Dale House 2 DALE HOUSE 1 Dallchairn DALLCHARN DALNAWILLAN Dalnawillan Graveyard DALSETTER Dalvraid DEERNESS CHURCH DENNIS NESS DINGIESHOWE Dingy’s Howe

89 82 78 222 222 222 1082 1149 402 434 1141 1161 783 1168 441 441 633 627 1311 253 115 1326 864 643 1305 401 1306 1306 1305 1325 864 779 58 252 407 1326 56 60 117 59 59 60 218 117 619 625 434 434 434 434 435 630 630 404 404 79 627 248 258 248 248

HY41 NC50 NH68 NX04 NG82 NF74 NF74 NF74 NF74 NO41 NO43 NC80 NG82

3 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 3

Discrow Doir a’ Chatha Doniskaig Doon Castle Dornie Drimore 1 Drimore 2 Drimore Farm Drimore Smiddy DRUMCARROW CRAIG Drumsturdy DUCHARY DUNAN

244 624 780 1325 864 1135 1137 1135 1137 1305 1305 644 864

NH68 NB46 NM34 NH68 NF73 NG34 NH68 NG33 NG33 NG34

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

Dun Agglesag DUN AIRNISTEAN DUN AISGEAN ** Dun Alascaig DUN ALIGARRY DUN ALIGHLINN DUN ALISAIG ** Dun Ard an t’ Sabhail DUN ARDTRECK DUN ARKAIG **

780 1105 1013 780 1134 831 780 819 819 831

NB42 NF60 NF85 NBO3 NB13 NB13 NG33 NM04 NB03 NB13 NR46 NR46 NB24 NM42 NB45 NG09 NB55 NL94 NGl5 NG37 NG53 NG26 NB45 NG35 NG44 NG09 NG09 NF74 NC56 NF75 NF74 NC56 NB13

1 2 1 1 1 2 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 I 1 1 2 4 1 3 5 1 1

Dun Ban DUN BAN 2 DUN BAN 1 Dun Baravat 1 DUN BARAVAT 2 ** DUN BARRAGLOM DUN BEAG ** DUN BEAG VAUL DUN BHARABHAT 1 Dun Bharabhat 2 Dun Bhoreraic DUN BHORERAIG ** Dun Bhragair DUN BHUIRG Dun Bhuirg Dun Bhuirigh DUN BILASCLEITER DUN BORAIGE MOIRE DUN BORERAIG ** DUN BORNASKITAIG DUN BORODALE ** DUN BORRAFIACH ** DUN BORVE 5 DUN BORVE I DUN BORVE 2 DUN BORVE 3 DUN BORVE 4 DUN na BUAIL’ UACHDRAICH DUN BUIDHE 1 DUN BUIDHE 2 DUN BUIDHE 3 DUN BUIDHE 4 Dun Burravat

1102 1106 1158 1076 1084 1088 828 1012 1076 1084 1020 1020 1100 1014 1105 1076 1105 994 809 834 844 815 1105 832 835 1076 1076 1141 627 1143 1141 627 1084

NB03 NB14 NC75

3 1 3

Dun Camus na Clibhe DUN CARLOWAY ** DUN CARNACHAIDH

1084 1094 634 liii

NC75 NF96 NL69 NC75 NG44 NB14 NF60 NG60 NM44 NF60 NH33 NG24 NC50 NC63 NB42 NF60 NM22

3 – 3 4 2 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 5 1

Dun Carnachie DUN CARRAGARY DUN a’ CHAOLAIS DUN CHEALAMY DUN a’ CHEITECHIN Dun Charlobhaidh DUN CHLIF DUN CHOINNICH DUN CHOINICHEAN DUN na CILLE DUN COILLE STRUY DUN COLBOST ** Dun Cor DUN CREAGACH ** DUN CROMORE DUN CUIER DUN CUL BHUIRG

NG33 NC44 NC44 NC44

4 2 2 2

DUN Dun Dun DUN

NG35 NG35

2 3

DUN EDINBAIN Dun Edinbane

832 832

NG24 NG25 NG35 NG47

2 1 3 1

DUN DUN DUN DUN

810 812 832 836

NM44 NG33 NM41 NG26 NG56 NG56 NG51 NG81

2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1

DUN nan GALL ** DUN GARSIN DUN a’ GEARD DUN GEARYMORE DUN GRIANAN Dun Greanan DUN GRUGAIG 1 ** DUN GRUGAIG 2 **

DIARMAID Dornadilla Dhoirneghil DORNAIGIL **

FEORLIG FIADHAIRT FLASHADER FLODIGARRY

634 Illus. 9.110 1170 634 836 1094 1106 847 1015 1106 778 810 624 628 1102 1107 1013 831 620 620 620

1015 831 1013 815 846 846 838 848

NG25 2 NM04 1 NL93 1

DUN HALLIN ** DUN HEANISH DUN HIADER

814 995 994

NG25 1 NM04 2

Dun Iardhard DUN IBRIG

812 995

NC74 NG51

4 2

Dun Kealmie DUN KEARSTACH

634 841

NH19 NG37 NG51 NF60 NB24

2 2 3 6 1

DUN DUN DUN DUN Dun

NC55 NC55 NC55 NF87 NM70 NM04

1 1 1 1 1 3

Dun Mai Dun Maigh DUN na MAIGH ** DUN na MHAIRBHE DUN MHUILIG ** DUN MOR a’ CHAOLAIS

LAGAIDH LIATH 1 LIATH 2 LOCH AN DUIN Loch an Duna

763 834 841 1110 1100 626 626 626 1159 1018 996

NM04 4 NM04 4

DUN MOR VAUL ** Dun Mor 996

996

NC45

2

DUN NEACHDIE

623

NG24

3

DUN OSDALE **

810

ND01

4

DUN PHAIL

402

NG56 NH19 NC66 NC66 NG51 NC80 NG08 NH19

2 3 1 1 4 5 1 3

DUN RAISABURGH Dun an Rhiroy DUN RIASKIDH Dun Richard DUN RINGILL ** Dun Robin Broch DUN RODIL DUN an RUIGH RUAIDH **

846 766 630 630 841 645 1076 766

NL69 NF60 NL93 NF87 NG32 NF60 NF60 NB56 NL58 NF87 NB14 NG35 NG35

4 7 1 3 1 8 8 1 1 2 2 1 5

DUN SANDRAY DUN SCURRIVAL Dun Shiader DUN SKELLOR DUN SLEADALE ** Dun an’t Sleibhe DUN SLEIBHE 2 DUN SMIRVIG Dun Sron Duin DUN an STICIR ** DUN STUIGH Dun Suladale DUN SULEDALE **

1171 1111 994 1160 818 1111 1111 1105 1168 1159 1100 833 833

NG81 NF77 NC66 NF77 NF87 NF87 NF75 NC66 NG81

2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

DUN TELVE ** DUN THOMAIDH Dun Thorsadal Dun Tomi DUN TORCUILL ** Dun Torquil DUN TORCUSAY Dun Torrisdale DUN TRODDAN **

851 1150 631 1150 1160 1160 1144 631 856

NC75 NC75 NG55 NG55 NF72

5 5 1 1 1

Dun Vidden635 DUN VIDEN Dun Voradale Dun Voradel DUN VULAN **

635 844 844 1114

NH68 NG82 NG58 NF70 NL68 NF60 ND13 ND13 ND13 NC56 ND47 ND27 NC80 NC80

1 3 1 1 1 3 6 2 4 1 2 1 2 5

Dunaliscaigh DUNAN DUNAN an AISILIDH DUNAN RUADH 1 DUNAN RUADH 2 Dunan Ruadh na Chlif DUNBEATH Dunbeath Water Dunbrae Dunbuie DUNCANSBY HEAD DUNNET Dunrobin DUNROBIN WOOD

780 864 844 1114 1170 1106 428 428 428 627 481 444 637 645 liv

NF867 NC44 NC44 NC50 ND16

3 2 2 2 4

Dunskellor Dune of Dornadilla Dune of Dornghiall DURCHA Durran

1160 620 620 624 436

HU35 ND23 ND49 NC70 NC70 ND06 NN60 HU39 HU41 HU41 NT76 NC74 NF77 NC91 ND35 HY63 HY63 HU27 HY64 HU42 ND36 HY50 HY50

1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 4a 1 1 5 4 1 5 5 2 2 5 3 1 1

EAST BURRA FIRTH EAST CLYTH East Broch of Burray EAST KINNAULD 1 ** EAST KINNAULD 2 EAST SHEBSTER Easter Borland Easter Wick EASTSHORE ** EASTSHORE EDINSHALL EILEAN GARBH EILEAN MALEIT ELDRABLE ELSAY ELSNESS Els Ness Esha Ness Essiegarth EVERGLADES NORTH EVERLEY Eve’s Howe Evie Howe

77 437 260 631 631 405 1301 78 79 79 1324 633 1150 651 454 252 252 61 253 82 462 248 248

NS59 NC76 HU69 HU69 NC82 NC50 HU39 HP50 HY31 NG47 HP51 HU24 ND05 NC85 NF77 NC45 ND06 ND36 ND36 HU47

2 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 6 1 2 4 2 2 6 3 3 4 4 1

Fairy Knowe Farr FEAL Feal Broch FERANACH ** Ferry Wood FETHALAND Fillacomb Point FINSTOWN Flodigarry Hotel Flubersgerdie FOOTABROUGH Forss Water FORSINAIN FOSHIGARRY FOUHLIN FRAMSIDE FRESWICK LINKS Freswick Sands FUGLA NESS

1306 636 119 119 646 624 78 56 225 836 57 59 405 647 1151 623 405 463 463 116

NC91 NN70 ND34 NF77 HY31 ND01 ND25 ND16 ND16 HP60 ND15

5 1 5 7 5 4 8 2 3 2 14

Gailable GALLOW HILL GANSCLET GARRY IOCHDRACH Garth Gartymore GEARSAY CAIRN GEISE 1 GEISE 2 Geo of the Brough Gerston

651 1301 447 1154 224 402 441 435 436 58 434

ND37 NG24 HU45 HP50 ND23 HU42 HU58 HU49 HP50 ND23 ND25 ND35 ND37 HY63 HY20 ND39 ND38 ND39 HY20 ND06 NH59 NB44 ND14 ND25 NF85 NH59 NC63 HU33 ND26 ND33 HY32 NC91

2 3 4 3 5 2 1 2 2 9 18 6 3 8 2 1 2 2 2 4 4 1 2 9 1 4 3 3 3 3 2 5

GILLS GLEN HEYSDAL GLETNESS Gloup GOLSARY Gord GOSSABROUGH GRAVELAND GREENBANK Green Hill 1 Green Hill 2 Green Hill 3 Green Hill 4 GREEN HILL 1 GREEN HILL 2 213 GREEN HILL 3 GREEN HILL OF HESTI GEO GREEN HILL OF SCARTON Green Hill of Quoyness GREEN TULLOCHS Greenyards GRESS LODGE GREYSTEIL CASTLE Grey Cairn Grimsay GRUINARDS 779 GRUM MORE ** GRUNA SOUND GUNN’S HILLOCK 1 GUNN’S HILLOCK 2 GURNESS ** GYLABLE BURN

ND26 ND16 ND26 ND26 ND15 ND16 HY42 HU28 HY73 ND36 ND15 ND49 HY21 HY31 HY31 HY41 HY22 HU44 HU48 HU67 ND34 HU35 HU25 HY41 HU41 ND01 ND01 ND34 HU44

4 4 5 6 13 4 1 1 1 6 5 4 2 7 15 2 4 2 1 1 13 2 6 8 5 3 1 6 3

HA’ OF BOWERMADDEN HA’ OF DURAN HA’ OF GREENLAND HALCRO HALKIRK Hall of Durran HALL OF RENDALL HAMNAVOE HANGI HEAD Harbour Mound Harpsdale HARRA BROUGH Harray HARRAY CHURCH Harray Churchyard HATSTON Haughster Howe HAWK’S NESS HEAD OF BROUGH HEAD OF GRUNAY Heatherquoy HEGLIBISTER 2 HEGLIBISTER 1 HELLIAR HOLM Helm Helmsdale Helmsdale Valley HEMPRIGGS HEOGAN

481 812 115 56 437 82 118 117 56 438 442 461 481 253 260 259 260 213 405 779 1104 431 441 1158 628 76 443 445 227 651 443 436 443 443 434 436 245 62 254 465 433 263 217 225 226 244 223 115 117 119 448 77 61 245 80 402 401 447 115 lv

ND35 ND35 ND26 HY62 HY30 HY52 HY51 HU27 ND06 HY44 HP50 HU27 HU34 ND27 ND27 HU45 HU45 HY44 HU25 HU47 HU25 NF74 HU69 HU35 HU34 HU45 ND15 ND15 ND15 HY21 HY21 HY21 HY63 HY51 ND49 HY50 HY31 HY50 HY75 ND16 ND16 ND49 HY62 NO33

3 2 7 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 6 4 4 2 2 1 6 4 4 3 9 3 2 3 5 5 14 15 15 6 7 6 6 1 5 5 8 9 3 5 6 6 2 1

HILLHEAD HILL OF STEMSTER HILL OF WORKS HILLOCK OF BAYWEST HILLOCK OF BRECKNA Hillock o’ Burroughston Hillock of Howe HILLSWICK Hills of Lieurary HODGALEE HOGA NESS Hogaland HOGALAND HOLLANDMAY Hollmey Holm of Benston HOLM OF BENSTON HOOR NESS Holm of Burga Water HOLM OF COPISTER ** Holm of Hebrista HORNISH POINT HOUBIE ** HOULLAND HOULLANDS HOUSABISTER HOUSLE CAIRN HOUSTRY Houstry Mains Howe of Howe HOWANS Howe HOWE FARM HOWE HILL HOWE OF HOXA HOWE OF LANGSKAILL HOWEN BROCH Howie o’ Backland HOWMAE HOY HOY STATION HUNDA HUNTON HURLEY HAWKIN

HY64 HY64 HY64 HU47 HY31 NC74 NH59 NC96 HU36

2 2 2 2 9 2 5 4 3

ICEGARTH Iciegarth Icegarth Castle INFIELD INGSHOWE ** INSHLAMPIE INVERSHIEL STATION ISAULD ISLESBURGH

HU30 HU30

1 1a

JARLSHOF JARLSHOF

ND36 ND36 ND36 ND36

6 5 6 7

Keiss Broch KEISS NORTH KEISS SOUTH KEISS WEST

456 455 443 251 224 249 000 61 405 246 56 62 77 444 444 115 116 246 60 116 60 1141 120 77 77 115 434 434 434 218 221 218 252 249 263 248 225 249 258 436 436 264 251 1301 253 253 253 116 225 633 779 653 77 62 66 465 463 465 472

NC45 NG87 ND35 NC80 NC80 NC91 NG93 NC80 NC91 ND35 NC91 ND35 NC91 NC91 NF72 NC91 NC44 NG35 NC90 NB03 NC96 NC80 ND35 HU27 HY31 HY45 HP50 HP50 ND36 NB03 ND16 ND06 ND06 ND15 ND06 ND06 NC96 ND13 HY44 HY31 HY42 HY31 HY44 HY41 HY32 HY31 HU42 HY42 HY44 HY21 HY32 HY44 HY22 HY32 HY32 HY22 HY21 ND49 NC23 NC23 NC65

1 2 4 6 6 1 1 7 6 5 6 5 6 7 3 7 2 5 1 2 5 6 5 1 10 2 7 3 7 2 7 5 6 16 5 6 5 7 7 11 6 5 5 3 3 12 3 7 6 8 3 9 1 4 8 6 12 3 1 1 3

Kempie KERNSARY KETTLEBURN KILBRARE Kilbruar Kilearnan KILLILAN KILLIN Kilearnan Hill Killimster KILLOURAN KILMSTER Kilournan Kilphader Tower KILPHEDER KILPHEDIR King Dornadilla’s Castle KINGSBURGH KINTRADWELL ** Kneep KNOCK URRAY KILBRARE KILMSTER Kirk Loch KIRK OF CLEATON KIRK OF HOWE KIRKABY KIRKS Kirk Tofts Kneep KNOCKDEE KNOCKGLASS 1 ** KNOCKGLASS 2 KNOCKGLASS 3 Knock Glass 1 Knock Glass 2 KNOCK URRAY KNOCKINNON KNOLL OF SKULZIE KNOWE OF BOSQUOY KNOWE OF BURRIAN Knowe of Burrian KNOWE OF BURRISTAE ** KNOWE OF DISHERO Knowe of Grugar KNOWE OF GULLOW KNOWE OF HOULLAND KNOWE OF HUNCLETT KNOWE OF QUEEN O’ HOWE KNOWE OF REDLAND KNOWE OF RYO KNOWE OF SKEA KNOWE OF SKOGAR KNOWE OF STENSO KNOWE OF SWANDRO Knowe o’ Taft Knowe of Verron KYELITTLE Kylesku KYLESTROME KYLE OF TONGUE

622 864 457 645 645 650 865 645 651 458 651 458 651 651 1129 651 620 834 648 1082 653 645 458 61 225 247 57 56 472 1082 436 405 406 434 405 406 653 430 247 225 245 224 246 244 233 225 82 245 247 222 233 247 222 233 233 224 222 262 616 616 630

ND48 NG84 HY62 HY63 NG84 NC64 NC64 NC40 ND02 ND12 ND02 ND02 ND12 ND13 ND13 ND13 ND13 NO43 NO43 NH68 NC80 NC82 NH68 NS69 NH19 ND15 HU41 HU41 HU33 HY40 HY40 ND26 HY44 NF72 NO23 NH18 NC13 NF72 NC80 NB35 NF60 NB24 NBO3 NB45 NH18 NB13 ND05 NG88 NC46 NC45 NF96 NG09 NC65 NC00 NC86 NC70 NC5O ND05 NC76 ND34 ****

lvi

2 1 3 3 1 1 1 4 2 5 1 1 3 8 11 5 8 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 1 23 5 5a 4 2 2 8 2 4 1 1 1 7 7 1 6 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 3 4 3 7

Lady Weem’s Castle LAG AN DUIN LAMB HEAD LAMANESS Langanduin Langdale LANGDALE BURN ** Langwell Langwell House 1 Langwell House 2 LANGWELL TULLOCH Langwell Water 1 Langwell Water 2 LATHERONWHEEL Latheronwheel Burn Latheronwheel Bridge Latheronwheel Mains LAWS HILL Laws of Monifieth Leachonich Leadoch LEARABLE LECHANICH LECKIE Leckmelm LEOSAG LEVENWICK ** LEVENWICK LINGA LINGRO Lingrow LINKS OF DUNNET Links of Moclett **** LINNE LASKER LITTLE DUNSINANE LITTLE LOCHBROOM LOCH ARDBHAIR LOCH A’ BHARP Loch Brora LOCH an DUIN Loch an Duin LOCH an DUNA ** Loch Baravat LOCH BARAVAT Loch Broom Loch na Berie Loch Calder LOCH NAN DAILTHEAN LOCH ERIBOLL Loch Eriboll LOCH HUNDER Loch Langavat LOCH LOYAL Loch Poll an Dunain LOCH MOR 2 Loch Sallachaidh LOCH SHIN Loch Shurrery LOCH SWORDLY LOCH WATENAN

See vol. 2, xxx.

260 864 252 252 864 629 629 617 404 427 404 404 427 430 431 428 430 1305 1305 782 644 646 782 1312 763 435 50 50 76 242 242 444 246 1132 1301 763 616 1134 645 1102 1110 1100 1076 1105 763 1088 405 865 623 623 1168 1076 630 614 648 632 624 405 636 447

ND34 HY40 HU24 HU43 HU31 HU37 HY21 HU27 HY22 HU15 HU56 HY22 HU58 HP50 HU45 HU15 HY41 NH19 HU45 NC91 NC86 NG81 ND24 ND25 ND25 HU31 ND23 HY21 ND25

15 1 1 3 1 3 9 2 2 1 4 3 2 9 7 2 9 2 4 8 1 2 2 11 12 2 6 11 9

Loch Watenan 2 Loch of Ayre Loch of Breibister LOCH OF BRINDISTER LOCH OF BROW LOCH OF BURRALAND LOCH OF CLUMLY LOCH OF HOULLAND LOCH OF HUNDLAND LOCH OF HUXTER 1 LOCH OF HUXTER 2 LOCH OF ISBISTER LOCH OF KETTLESTER Loch of Sna Broch LOCH OF STAVANESS LOCH OF WATSNESS LOCH OF WESTHILL Loggie Longa Skerries Loth Lower Bighouse Lower Broch Lower Camster Lower Dunn Lower Dunn North LUNABISTER LYBSTER Lyking LYNEGAR

NF87 NG82 HU42 ND26 HY64 HU37 NC46 NG89 NC70 ND23 NF87 ND01 HY33 HY44 ND13 HY32 NO43 HY20 HY20 HU42 HU42 HU25 HU15 ND47 HY45 ND16 ND26 HP50 ND15

5 2 4 1 3 4 2 1 3 7 5 5 1 2 9 5 2 5 5 6 6 2 3 1 3 8 9 8 17

MACHAIR LEATHANN McLeod’s Castle MAIL Mains of Bowertower MARYGARTH MANSE MARKI NESS Meall Meadhonach MEALLAN UDRIGILL MEARLIG MID CLYTH Middlequarter MIDGARTY MIDHOWE ** Millymay 1 MINERA MITHOUSE Monifieth Monkerhouse Monkers Green MOUSA ** MOUSA Muckle Brousta MUCKLE HEOGAN MUCKLE SKERRY Munkerhoose †††† MURKLE MURZA MUSSELBURGH MYBSTER

††††

449 241 59 88 75 78 222 61 222 58 118 222 119 57 116 58 245 763 115 652 648 851 440 442 442 75 437 222 441 1161 864 82 443 253 78 623 865 632 438 1161 402 233 246 431 233 1305 216 216 7 & 82 7 & 82 60 59 260 247 436 444 57 434

See vol. 2, xxx.

lvii

HY20 HY20 HY63 ND36 HY42 HU30 HU34 HU58 HY52 HP50 HY42 HY31 HY31 HY31 HY74 HU25 HU25 HU16 ND25 ND16 HY41 HU37 HP51 HY33 HP60 HU38 ND35 HU54 HU25 ND36

4 4 4 8 2 2 3 1 2 11 3 13 5 14 2 7 7 1 4 9 4 1 2 2 5 1 6 4 7 9

Navershaw Navershough NEBISTER NESS NESS OF BORAY NESS OF BURGI Ness of Burwick Ness of Gossabrough NESS OF ORK NESS OF WADBISTER NESS OF WOODWICK NETHER HOUSE Netherbrough NETLATER NEWARK ** Noonsborough Noonsbrough NORTH BANK North Bilbster NORTH CALDER NORTH ETTIT North Gluss NORTH GEO OF BROUGH NORTH HOWE NORTH LINKS North Roe NORWALL NOSS SOUND NOUNSBOROUGH NYBSTER

ND23 HY22 ND25 ND25 ND25 HU31 HU31 HU31 ND34 HY37 ND16 ND16 ND16 HU37 NF70 ND01 ND06 ND38 HY31 HY22 HY22 HY31

8 4 10 11 12 3 4 4a 8 2 11 10 11 5 2 6 7 3 15 4 4 6

OCCUMSTER Okstrow OLD HALL OF DUNN 1 OLD HALL OF DUNN 2 OLD HALL OF DUNN 3 OLD HOUSE OF BROW OLD SCATNESS ** OLD SCATNESS OLD STIRKOKE Olnesfirth Olrig OLRIG GLEBE OLRIG HOUSE ORBISTER OROSAY OUSEDALE BURN ** OUST OUTER GREEN HILL OVERBROUGH OXTROW Oxtro Oyce

ND35 HY74 NC96 ND13 ND15 ND15 ND15 ND16

9 3 5 10 13 15 19 2

PAPIGOE PETERKIRK Pict’s House 1 Pict’s House 2 Pict’s House 3 Pict’s House 4 Pict’s House 4a Pict’s House 5

213 213 252 476 245 73 77 118 250 57 245 225 224 225 254 60 60 59 441 436 244 77 57 240 58 78 461 117 60 477 438 223 442 442 442 75 75 75 447 77 436 436 436 78 1114 402 406 260 226 223 223 225 462 254 653 431 434 434 435 435

ND16 ND23 ND23 ND25 ND25 ND34 ND35 ND27 HY44 HP40 HU24 HY74 ND12 ND01

3 11 12 13 16 4 4 2 8 1 5 4 7 5

Pict’s House 6 Pict’s House 7 Pict’s House 8 Pict’s House 9 Pict’s House 10 Pict’s House 11 Pict’s House 12 Pictish House PIEROWALL QUARRY PIGEON HELLIE PINHOULLAND POINT OF BURYAN POLL GORM Portgower

436 438 438 442 442 447 457 444 247 56 59 254 427 402

HY41 HY44 HY50

5 6 9

QUANTERNESS Queena Howe Quoyburing

244 247 249

NM65 HU45 ND27 ND27 ND27 ND27 ND27 HY31 NB13 NH66 ND13 ND23 NH19 HU31 HY50 HY50 ND12 NB13 NC36 ND36 HU31 ND23 HY50 NF99 NF77 NG31 HU68 ND23 HY64

1 8 3 4 4 4 3 16 3 1 4 2 3 5 6a 6b 2 3 1 7 7 9 5 1 8 1 1 10 4

RAHOY RAILSBURGH RATTAR Rattarburn Rattar Broch RATTAR BURN Ratter REDLAND ** Reef RESOLIS Rhemullen Rhianvarich Rhiroy Rhu-Allen RIGGAN OF KAMI RIGGAN OF KAMI Rinsary Riof RIVER DIONARD Road Broch Robin’s Brae ROSTER Round Howe Rubh an Teampuill RUDH AN DUIN RUDH’ AN DUNAIN ** RUIR TAING RUMSTER Runna Clett

HU27 HU27 HY 45 HP61 ND07 HY40 HY31 HY31 HU69 HY45 NC50

3 3 3 2 2 1 17 18 1 1 3

SAE BRECK Saebrig ST. BONIFACE CHURCH ‡‡‡‡ ST. JOHN’S CHURCH St. Mary’s Church St. Mary’s Holm ST. MARY’S KIRK 1 ST. MARY’S KIRK 2 St. Rognvald’s ST. TREDWELL’S CHAPEL SALLACHADH **

‡‡‡‡

NC70 NC50 HP60 ND36 NC66 HU56 HU43 HY64 ND27 HY21 HU30 HU31 NC75 NC75 HY43 HY43 ND26 ND25 ND05 ND25 HU31 ND06 ND06 NC66 HU35 ND36 NC51 ND35 ND05 ND16 ND16 ND05 NF72 NC74 NC74 HY22 HU31 NH79 NF87 NC75 HU33 ND16 ND36 ND35 NF60 HY63 ND13 ND13 ND49 HP50 HP50 HU59 HU59 NF87 HU33 NF73 HU41 ND15 ND15 ND15 NL58 NB24

1017 116 444 445 445 445 444 226 1088 780 428 437 766 76 248 248 427 1088 617 472 76 438 248 1168 1156 816 119 438 253 61 61 247 58 407 241 226 227 119 247 624

See vol. 2, xxx.

lviii

4 3 4 4 2 3 4 4 5 10 3 4 6 6 1 2 10 13 1 14 5 8 9 3 4 11 3 9 2 12 6 1 6 1 3 5 6 2 3 6 5 13 10 5 11 5 11 12 7 9 9 3 3 5 6 2 6 18 19 19 1 2

SALLACHIE Sallachy SAND WICK Sands Broch SANDY DUN Salt Ness SCALLOWAY SCAR SCARFSKERRY SCARRATAING SCATNESS Scatness SKELPICK Skelpick Lodge SCOCKNESS 1 SCOCKNESS 2 SCOOLARY SCORRICLET SCOTSCALDER SCOTTAG SCOUSEBURGH SCRABSTER SCRABSTER MAINS SCULLOMIE SEMBLISTER SGARBACH SHINESS SHORELANDS Shurrery SIBMISTER Sibster Sithean Harraig SITHEAN a’ PHIOBAIRE Skail SKAIL SKEABRAE SKELBERRY SKELBO WOOD Skellor SKELPICK 1 SKEO HILL SKINNET SKIRZA HEAD Skitten SLIGEANACH Small Brough SMERRAL SMERRAL WOOD SMIDDYBANKS Snabrough SNA BROCH 1 SNA BROCH 2 Sna Brough Sollas SOUND OF MEAL SOUTH UIST SOUTHVOE SPITAL 1 SPITAL 2 Spittal Farm SRON AN DUIN ** STAC a’ CHAISTEAL

632 624 58 463 630 118 88 253 445 229 74 75 635 635 245 246 444 442 404 442 76 406 406 631 77 480 626 462 405 436 436 404 1132 633 633 224 76 783 1160 635 76 436 479 458 1114 252 431 431 264 57 57 119 119 1161 76 1134 81 435 435 435 1168 1102

HY21 NX25 HY21 HU56 HY51 ND37 ND 06 ND16 ND35 ND06 HY31 HU58 NC02 HU25 NC44 NH79 NC44 HY20 HY20 NH68 NH68 HY63 HU31 HU40 NC82 NC92 HU56 NC91

11 STACKRUE 1 STAIRHAVEN 11 Staker-row 2 STAVA NESS 2 STEIRO 3 STEMSTER 1 10 STEMSTER 2 14 STEMSTER 3 2 Stemster 4 10 Stemster Hill 16 Stirlingo 3 STOAL 1 STOER 8 STOURA BROUGH 2 Stra Yrredell 1 Strath Carnaig 1 Strathmore River 5 Stromness 5 Stromness Churchyard 3 STRUIE 3 Struy 8 STYWICK BAY §§§§ 4 Sumburgh Airport 1 SUMBURGH HEAD 4 SUISGILL 1 Suisgill Lodge 3 SYMBISTER 8 STRONRUNKIE

222 1326 222 118 249 481 406 437 455 406 226 119 614 60 620 783 620 216 216 782 782 – 75 78 646 652 118 652

ND34 HY22 HY43 HY44 HY74 HY50 HY50 ND34 ND34 NX06 ND 15 HU30 NF60 NF74 NC85 NC86 HU25 HU34 HU48 ND33 HY33 HU45 HY31 HU37 HU27 ND36 HY31 HY52 HY21

9 6 1 10 5 7 8 9 9 1 24 3 8 2 2 2 10 5 2 3 4 3 12 2 5 6 6 2 6a

448 224 245 247 254 249 249 448 448 1326 435 73 1111 1137 647 648 61 77 117 445 241 115 225 77 62 465 225 250 218

§§§§

TANNACH TAFT Taft o’ Farraclett TAFTS Taft’s Ness TANKERNESS 1 TANKERNESS 2 TANNACH Tannach Mains TEROY The Aisle The Aith The Allasdale The Big Smiddy The Borg 1 The Borg 2 The Broch The Brough The Brough The Burnt Ha’ THE BURRIAN The Burrian The Castle THE CUMLINS THE HAMARS The Harbour Mound The Hillock The Hillock THE HOWE, Phase 5

HY21 HY21 HY63 NO43 NF74 ND35 ND28 NS88 ND23 ND23 NF87 ND06 ND06 HY42 NH79 NH79 ND34 ND34 ND34 ND26 NG88 ND35 ND13 NL69 NC46 NF60 NF60 HY42 NM84 NM84 NF99 ND24 HY40 HY74 HY74 NC40 NH79 ND14 ND14 NC66 ND15 NS88 NT43 ND05 NG88 NG09 NB13 NB13 NB03 NC85 ND15 ND15 ND14 ND15 ND05 ND25 ND15 ND15 ND14 ND12 ND05 ND06

Underground site on Sanday, omitted from volume 1: RCAHMS site no. HY63NE 2, grid reference HY/6933 3990. Standard middle Iron Age finds are in the National Museums.

lix

6b 6 7 2 1 3 1 1 13 6 6 8 11 4 3 3 10 11 10 11 1 7 13 5 2 8 10 4 1 1 1 3 3 5 5 4 3 3 4 4 18 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 20 20 3 22 4 15 21 21 4 5 3 12

THE HOWE, Phase 6 218 THE HOWE, Phase 7 218 THE KNOWES 253 The Laws 1305 The Little Smiddy 1135 The Pap 456 THE SKEO 259 The Tappoch 1318 The Tulloch 438 The Tullochs 437 1168 THE UDAL Thing’s Va’ 2 406 THING’S VA’ 406 Thing’s Voll 245 Thor’s Field 783 THOR’S TOWER 783 THRUMSTER 448 THRUMSTER LITTLE 448 Thrumster Mains 448 THURDISTOFT 444 THURNAIG 864 THUSTER 461 TIANTULLOCH 431 1171 TIGH CLACH Tigh nan Fiarnain 623 1111 TIGH TALAMHANTA 1 1114 TIGH TALAMHANTA 2 TINGWALL 245 Tirefuar 1018 TIREFOUR CASTLE 1018 TOE HEAD 1168 TOFTGUN 440 TOFTS 244 TOFTSNESS 254 Toft’s Ness 254 617 TOR A’ CHORCAIN Torboll 783 Tormsdale 1 432 Tormsdale 2 432 TORRISDAIL 631 Torr an Fhidhlier 435 TORWOOD ** 1318 TORWOODLEE 1320 TOTA AN DRANNDAIN 405 Tournaig 864 1076 TRAIGH IAR Traigh na Berie 1 1088 1094 TRAIGH NA BERIE 2 1084 TRAIGH NA CLIBHE TRANTLEMORE 648 Tulach an Fheurain 435 TULACH AN FHUARAIN 435 TULACH BEAG 432 Tulach Buaile a’ Chroic 435 TULACH GORM 1 405 TULACH GORM 2 442 TULACH LOCHAIN BRAISEAL 435 Tulach Lochan Bhraiseil 435 TULACH MOR 432 TULACH BAD a’ CHOILICH 427 TULLOCH OF ACHAVARN 405 TULLOCH OF LYBSTER 406

ND16 ND06 ND02 HU35 NG44

15 13 2 3 3

TULLOCH OF SHALMSTRY TULLOCH OF STEMSTER TULLOCH TURNAL Tumblin TUNGADALE

437 406 404 77 836

NF83 NF87 ND34 ND34 ND34 HP50 NC85 ND12 NG81 ND23 ND13 ND23 ND16 HU43 NC82 ND23 HP61 NF83 NF83 HP50

1 6 12 13 12 10 4 6 3 11 14 12 16 4 5 13 3 1 1 8

UAMH IOSAL Udal ULBSTER 1 ULBSTER 2 Ulbster School UNDERHOULL UPPER BIGHOUSE UPPER BORGUE Upper Broch UPPER CLYTH UPPER LATHERON UPPER LYBSTER UPPER SOUR Upper Scalloway UPPER SUISGILL USSHILLY TULLOCH URA GEO Ushinish Usinish Uyeasound

1157 1168 448 448 448 57 648 427 856 438 431 438 437 88 647 438 58 1157 1157 57

NF77 HY21 HY32 HU46 HY32 HY32 HU31 HU25

1 12 6 3 9 7 4 7

Vallay VERRON 2 VERRON 1 VIDLIN VIERA LODGE VINQUIN Virkie Voe of Clousta

1144 222 233 116 233 233 75 60

HU45 ND23 HU31 HY20 HY20 ND34 ND34 HY73 HY73 HY73 HY42 ND34 ND34 ND34 ND25 ND48 HY64 ND15 ND15 HU27 NC56 ND49 HU33 HU25 HU27 HU25

9 14 7 5 5 14 13 2 2 2 5 7 15 16 16 2 5 9 22 4 1 2 1 9 4 10

WADBISTER NESS WAG OF FORSE WARD HILL Warebeth WAREBETH CEMETERY WAREHOUSE Warehouse Hill Wassa Wasshow WASSO WASS WICK Watenan WATENAN NORTH ** WATENAN SOUTH WATTEN WEEMS CASTLE WESTBROUGH Westerdale 1 WESTERDALE 2 West Ayre West Strathan West Broch of Burray WEST BURRA WEST BURRA FIRTH WEST HOGALAND WEST HOULLAND

116 438 76 216 216 448 448 254 254 254 245 447 449 449 442 260 253 433 435 62 627 262 76 60 62 61 lx

HU48 NC51 HY33 NC56 ND35 HU24 ND25 ND36 ND36 HY41 NC91 HU49 HY41

2 4 3 1 8 6 17 5 5 6 8 1 7

WEST SANDWICK WEST SHINESS LODGE WEST SIDE West Strathan WESTER BROCH WESTER SKELD WESTER WATTEN White Broch Whitegate broch WIDEFORD HILL Wilkhouse WINDHOUSE WORK

117 626 240 627 461 59 442 463 463 244 652 117 245

ND34 ND34

17 17

Yarhouse YARROWS **

449 449

Section 6: Introduction to Volume 2 O.S. grid – of the six regions into which the site descriptions in these two volumes fall (these are described in Section 6.2 below). Every 100km square has a two-letter code and each 10km square within it is numbered according to the easting and northing lines which cross at its south-west corner; thus the 10km square in the south-west corner of, for example, 100km square NC is NC00 and that in the north-east corner is NC99. It is important to remember that while the successive 10km squares in numerical order in each group of ten – running from south to north – are adjacent, adjacent squares running from west to east are numbered NC05, NC15, NC25 and so on.

6.1. How to get information from this work 6.1.1. Introduction There are a few minor differences between the way the second part of this Corpus has been organised compared with volume 1. In the first place it seemed sensible and convenient to include in the ‘Index of site names all the broch and allied sites which appear in both parts of this work. In response to complaints about inconvenience in the field – page numbers have been included to make it easier to find specific entries. Secondly, a minor change has been made to the catalogue which should also make it easier to find a particular entry when leafing through the pages. At the top left and right of each pair of facing pages are site numbers which guide the reader to what is on that page; as in a dictionary the number of the first new entry on the left page is at top left and, at top right, that of the last entry on that pair of pages. In this way the reader should be able to flick through the pages more rapidly to find any given entry.

Once the relevant 10km square has been identified all the sites known to be in it will be found listed together in the descriptive section concerned. The easiest way to find this is through the main ‘Contents’ list (p. i). Although only the major site entries are shown in this, all the 10km squares are mentioned, in the order shown in the Table in Section 6.2.2 below. This improved list of Contents includes the descriptive sections of volume 1 which lacked this feature.2

There are five ways of easily accessing information in these two volumes and five lists or indexes which can be consulted to do this. Those relevant to 1, 2 and 3 below are at the front of this volume whereas the indexes for 4 and 5 are at the back. The categories of information are designed to do the following.

6.1.4 To locate sites of a specific type The great majority of the listed sites are brochs but there are a large number of wheelhouses in Shetland and the Outer Hebrides. The format of the primary (capitalised) entries in the Index of Site Names (p. xlix) indicate what kind of site is being referred to; the details are at the beginning of that Index. For example if one wishes to located all the known and suspected semibrochs one must run through the Site Name Index and pick out the names printed in bold; the wheelhouses (and other relevant stone roundhouses) likewise are printed with their primary names in italics and underlined.

1. Find the entry for a named site. 2. Find out what sites are in a specific area. . 3. Find sites of a specific type, e.g. wheelhouses. 6.1.2 To find the entry for a named site Consult the ‘Index of Site Names’ on p. xlix These are arranged in alphabetical order with the primary names in capitals and all the alternative names that the author has come across in lower case. With each name is the site code, together with the page number of the descriptive entry. For example if a reference to the ‘Broch of Easter’ has been found in an old book on Shetland antiquities then its identity as site HU15 1 is discovered in the list referred to and the entry on the given page shows that the modern name is ‘Loch of Huxter’. The relevant details of the site follow, together with a reference to the entry on the National Monuments Record web site (which may contain more bibliographical references).1

6.1.5 Architectural and artefact indexes The original plan was to produce two Indexes, of characteristic broch architectural features and of the occurrence of the most important finds. Regrettably there was not enough time to do this during the lengthy process of proof correction, without incurring further delays to production. 6.2. New arrangements and minor changes 6.2.1 Regions A slight change has been made to the list of regions into which the brochs have been grouped and the map (Illus. 6.2 shows where these are. The sites in the whole of northern Scotland – including the north-west coast – have now been grouped together as Section 7: the Northern Mainland, while Section 8: the West coast and Inner Hebrides the few sites on the mainland opposite Skye and Mull. The main reason for this is that, on reflection, it

6.1.3 To find sites in a given area The ability to read an Ordnance Survey map is assumed, as is an understanding of the grid references used on these maps (Illus. 6.1). To find what sites there are in a given neighbourhood first identify from the O.S. 1:50,000 (or larger scale) map the 10km square that is of interest. Illus. 6.2 shows the location – in relation to the 1

2 The author is grateful to Brian Davis (2005) for his complaint about his difficulty in finding sites in volume 1 and hopes that the combined contents of both volumes given here will make things much easier.

www.rcahms.gov.uk/canmore/

389

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland seemed arbitrary to separate the sites on the north-west coast of Sutherland and Ross-shire from those in the rest of Sutherland and in Easter Ross; although they are few they really form a continuum with the sites on the north coast. By contrast the few brochs on the mainland opposite Skye are a long way south of the last group and are clearly – in geographical terms at least – an eastward extension of the sites on Skye; they are in glens leading down to the western sea and the regions inland are mountainous, barren and inhospitable. Likewise the brochs on Lismore can be regarded as an eastern outpost of those on Mull, rather than a westward extension of those far away in the Central Valley. Putting all these sites together in one group thus seemed logical.

6.2.2 Site numbering system The correlation of the 100km squares of the Ordnance Survey grid system with the geography of the western regions may be repeated here. The map in Illus. 6.2 also shows how the main Regions used here are defined in terms of the O.S. grid. Volume 2: Mainland Scotland and the Western Islands Section 7: The Northern Mainland and the West Coast The flat plain of Caithness ND01-47 Sutherland and the highland part of Caithness NC36-96 Eastern part of Ross-shire NH33-98 The north-west coast north of Loch Broom and including Loch Broom itself NC00-23 and NH18 & 19

In addition the Ordnance Survey 100km grid by chance favours this separation (Illus. 6.1). The catalogue is broadly designed to work from the north (Shetland) to the south and the NC square, which includes most of Sutherland, extends south to the mouth of Loch Broom and therefore conveniently includes its western coast with the rest of the north-east mainland west of Caithness (Section 7). The NG square includes the whole of Skye – the largest of the western islands and the one with the greatest density of brochs – as well as the adjacent mainland coast up to the mouth of Little Loch Broom; thus the few brochs on that coast fall conveniently into Section 8.

Section 8: The West Coat and the Inner Hebrides Skye NG15-60 West coast of Ross-shire & Inverness-shire south of the mouth of Loch Broom NG 74 & 81-93 Inner Hebrides south of Skye (inc. Mull & Lismore) NM04-83 & NL93 & 94 Mainland Argyll & Islay NR46 & 79

The amended list of regions is therefore as follows (Illus. 6.2): Sections 1-5 and 9 and 10 retain their original numbers. Volume 1 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Volume 2 Section 6 Section 7

Section 8

Section 9 Section 10 Section 11 Section 12

Section 9: The Outer Hebrides Lewis NB03-55 Harris NG08 & 09 with NF60-99 & NL58-69 Benbecula, Uists and Barra NF60-87 Islands at southern tip NL58-69

Introduction (to volume 1) The Tower on Mousa Island A History of Broch Research The Shetland Islands The Orkney Islands

Section 10: The Southern Mainland The central mainland NN60 & 70, N033, 41 & 43, NS43, 49, 59, 69, 77, 88 & 94 South-east Scotland NT43, 44 & 76 South-west Scotland NX04, 06, 25 & 54

Introduction to Volume 2 The Northern Mainland (Caithness and Sutherland) and the West Coast including the north-west coast down to the mouth of Loch Broom. The West Coast and the Inner Hebrides: all the Inner Hebridean islands together with the west coast of mainland Inverness-shire and Ross and Cromarty – up to the mouth of Little Loch Broom – and the coast of Argyllshire. The Outer Hebrides The Southern Mainland Appendices. Indexes

As noted in volume 1 (MacKie 2002, 1) sites on individual islands (except very small offshore ones) are grouped separately within the 100km square where appropriate; sometimes this means that sites on the same island will appear under more than one of these squares (as in Shetland). In volume 2 the same thing applies to the County names. For example, although most of the 100km square ND falls inside Caithness, a small area in the south-west corner is in Sutherland. Thus, because the sites are listed primarily by their site codes (starting with ND, NC, etc.), the County names have occasionally to be inserted into the list. Since 10km square ND01 is partly in Sutherland the catalogue starts with ‘Sutherland’ for sites ND01 1-5 but reverts to ‘Caithness’ for ND01 6.

390

Section 6: Introduction to Volume 2 The main benefits of the numbering system used here are, first, that it relates directly to the Ordnance Survey grid system as described and, second, that newly discovered sites can be incorporated into it in their proper place and without any disruption. The only difficulty that will occur is if a new site is found, for example, on Orkney Mainland in Square HY42, which includes both this area and part of Rousay. It would have to be numbered HY42 8 and come directly after number 5 (since 6 and 7 are on Rousay). It is hoped that the problem will not arise very often.

and obtained ten-figure grid references for them; these are included in brackets after the ‘official’ figure and mainly proved to be exactly the same as those on the card index. 6.2.4 Bibliographical references These follow the system described in volume 1. At the end of each site entry is a numbered list of the sources used and within that entry these are referred to by the number concerned in a square bracket, sometimes with a page reference following it. Other more general references are in the Harvard system (author and year of publication) and are linked to the bibliography at the end of the volume. Quite often other sites described in this work are alluded to and these are identified by their site code, sometimes followed by a page reference. The page numbering in volumes 1 and 2 is continuous.

A third reason for the appropriateness of this numbering system is that it relates directly to the Site Numbers on the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland web site. 3 Because of the very large number of sites included in this system each 10km grid square is there sub-divided into four 5km squares, named NE, SE, SW and NW; the sites are then numbered within the 5km squares concerned. This is the ‘NMRS number’ that appears as no. 1 in the ‘Sources’ for each site listed here, and it is the key to finding the relevant information on the web site. For example site HU 49 NE 3 is the possible broch of Graveland on the island of Yell, in the Shetland group which in this Catalogue has the number HU49 2 (p. 117).

6.3 Corrections and additions to volume 1 A few omissions and mistakes in vol. 1 have been brought to the author’s attention. They are given in order of the page numbers on which they occur. 1.

It is easy to infer most of each NMRS site number from the six-figure grid reference of any site. If a second and third numbers of the easting reading fall between 01 and 49 the site will be in the west half of the 10km square (NW or SW), if between 50 and 99 in the east half. The quarter square can then be pinned down in the same way with the northing reading, which will give the north or south half of the square. One will then have, for example, ‘NG 82 SW’ and one then has only to find out what sites there are in that 5km square and identify that with the desired grid reference. The web site entries for excavated sites often have a larger bibliography than that included in the equivalent Catalogue entry here, since the latter usually only cites books and articles which give the site more than a passing mention. If a search by the site’s number fails then one by the site’s name will most probably be successful.

2.

6.2.3 Map references The great majority of the Ordnance Survey grid references for the sites listed here are taken directly from the NMR web site mentioned 4 which gives them to eight figures (the nearest 10m) instead of the six-figure references (to the nearest 100m) used in volume 1. Since 2002 the author has visited a few broch sites with a GPS 5

3.

4. 5.

3

www.rcahms.gov.uk/canmore/ Would-be users have to register with a user name and a password. 4 Originally based on a card index compiled by the now defunct Archaeology Division of the Ordnance Survey. 5 Global Positioning System. The instrument gives a 10 figure grid reference (theoretically accurate to the nearest metre) and the altitude of the site computed from readings from those artificial satellites which are above the horizon at the time.

391

As noted the reference to the old Ordnance Survey card index in the Sources for each entry is now to the NMRS site number, available on the RCAHMS web site. (17) Brian Smith (2005, 170) in effect contradicts the author’s statement that the island of Mousa (with broch HU42 6) was once cultivated, saying that “this will be news to anyone who has visited the island”. He also doubts whether it ever held a large enough population (several hundred) to support a ‘broch estate’. He should perhaps have consulted George Low’s book (1879, 181), based on his ms of 1774; Low writes “Took a boat for Mousa, a small island inhabited by eleven families, tolerably well cultivated and producing well.” Presumably the estate of a fine island broch could have included part of the adjacent mainland. The author has not yet been able to find any evidence to assuage Davis’ similar doubts about the cultivable nature of the land immediately around Culswick (HU24 3); however the villages nearby were “all tolerably well cultivated spots…” in 1774 (Low 1879, 87). (28) I am indebted to Lawrence Keppie for pointing out that Alexander Gordon, the author of Itinerarium Septentrionale, (c. 1692-1754) was a well known Scottish antiquarian in his time, Sir Daniel Wilson wrote two accounts of him. (30) Charles Cordiner (1776, 1780 & 1788-95) did not include a drawing of Castle Cole. (54) No explanation was given for the presence of Illus. 3.13; it was included to illustrate what one might call the ‘restrained diffusionist’ thinking of the 1960s which supposed that the presence of exotic artifacts indicated actual immigrations of people, even if in small numbers.

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland 6. (55) No explanation was given for the presence of Illus. 3.14 which was designed to show how statistics can help modern landscape studies. 7. (59) Muckle Heogan (HU15 3) is on Papa Stour. 8. (60) Brian Davis (2005) and David Lynn (in person) separately provided the information to correct nos. 8-16. Both tell me that ‘Brousta’ (HU25 2) is actually spelled ‘BOUSTA’. 9. (60) ‘Nounsborough’ (HU25 7) should apparently be spelled ‘NOONSBOROUGH’; however it was already ‘Nounsborough’ in 1774 (Low 1879, 127) so this version is retained. 10. (60-1) The two brochs called ‘Heglibister’ (HU25 6 and HU25 11) are actually only one, which is in Weisdale. D Lynn confirms this and suggests deleting the second. Thus HU25 6 is ‘Heglibister 1’ and HU35 2 is ‘Heglibister 2’. 11. (76) Burland 2 (HU33 2) is not in Mainland but in Trondra, just off the island of that name. 12. (114) Heogan (HU44 3) is on Bressay. 13. (56) Pigeon Hellie (HP40 1) is on Gloup Holm, off the N coast of Yell: Fojut (1993, 122) says that “many years ago traces of what might have been a broch were dug up.” 14. (56) Breiwick (HP50 1) - Peter Guy’s Yell instalment in the Walking the coast of Shetland series says “the prominent but ruined croft named Toft may have been built from the ruins of a now untraceable broch” (1996, pp. 25-6). 15. (60) HU25 5 Culeryin Loch: according to Lynn there is no evidence now of any broch-like structure in this area, nor of a plausible position in the landscape where one might have been. His guess is that it is a misidentification (“a Pight’s [sic] house” from the Canmore record) for an otherwise unrecorded heel cairn nearby at HU 27928 54518. Canmore gives the alternative name Cunnis Brough, rather than the alternative ‘Cumis Brough’, given here. 16. (60) Stoura Brough (HU25 8) is on a hilltop rather than a hillside (Lynn). 17. (89) Clickhimin (HU44 1): Illus. 6.3 shows an old photograph of the outer gateway, evidently taken from the broch wallhead and before Hamilton’s post-war excavations. When compared with Illus. 4.106 it shows how much restoration has been done to the outer wall here. 18. (117) Graveland broch (HU49 2): the NMRS no. is HU 49 NE 3 and a small amount of information is available. 19. (227) The lost ‘treasure’ from the Broch of Burgar (HY32 1) has been the subject of a fairly recent study (Graham Campbell 1985). 20. (246) Castle of Bothikan (NY44 2): this site on Papa Westray does not exist; there is nothing at this grid reference and the information refers to the broch site at Munkerhoose (HY45 3). 21. A decorated potsherd from West Burra Firth broch in Shetland (HU25 9) is included in Illus. 7.033.

6.4 The terminology of brochs and allied sites in the west 6.4.1 Introduction It was perhaps not explained clearly enough in volume one what are the author’s basic criteria for including a broch or a broch-like site in this Corpus. The primary and fundamental point is that the drystone building can be reasonably interpreted as a monumental, single, probably roofed dwelling and the second such point is that should have – or is likely once to have had – at least one of the architectural features signifying a high, hollow wall (vol. 1, 2, Section 1.3 & fig. 1.2). In the vast majority of cases these two qualifications occur together but there is a small number of sites which are unlikely to have been roofed dwellings but the architecture of which indicates a clear and close link with the brochs; the promontory semibrochs are a good example. There are a large variety of buildings in the western Atlantic Province, including many which have no close architectural link with brochs, of which this can be said. The latter, known as duns, are excluded from this survey for reasons given below. If one’s field experience has been confined to the brochs of the northern islands and the northern mainland it is easy to assume that these broch-like structures follow a basically uniform design and layout; buildings in these regions tend to be fairly easily recognised as probable or definite brochs and nearly all the others are equally obviously something quite different (see the discussion of the Wag of Forse – site ND23 14). Hence – and unless he or she was deliberately proposing a loose, ‘catch all’ definition (for example Swanson 1985) – such a fieldworker would probably devise a fairly strict definition of what brochs are or are not. Conversely someone who has worked mainly in the west will be familiar with the much greater variety of small drystone structures there. There are for example some hundreds of very varied small stone buildings on the mainland and islands of Argyllshire which are generally referred to as duns and which mostly have a wall which is primarily solid; they all seem to lack that peculiar combination of hollow-walled architectural features which define a broch (RCAHMS 1928, 1980, 1989 and the rest of Argyll) yet they tend to have very similar narrow, lintelled entrance passages with door-checks and bar-hole and socket, together with the occasional intramural stair, and guard cell or other mural chamber. They are often markedly non-circular and they include a significant number which are too large to have been roofed over entirely (Alcock 1987, Illus. 7). Despite the fact that the dimensions of the duns allow them to be grouped into two categories their architectural features form a continuum. By contrast duns and brochs broadly have, on the whole, mutually exclusive distributions (Rivet (ed.) 1966, map in back pocket) but there are major overlaps, for example on Tiree, Skye and in the Outer Hebrides. The large 392

Section 6: Introduction to Volume 2 number and variety of possible ‘related structures’ in these regions means that there has to be a much greater uncertainty about the nature of many unexplored or badly preserved sites and it is not feasible or accurate (as it is in the north) to group all of these into categories like ‘possible’ and ‘probable brochs’. In other words a relatively small number of probable and definite brochs and semibrochs can be identified in Tiree and the Outer Isles but there are a large number of unexcavated sites whose exact architectural nature is likely to remain uncertain until they are explored. Dun Barabhat on Lewis is a good example of what appeared before excavation to be a very broch-like structure which nevertheless was found to be more of a ‘broch-like related structure’ than a clear example of a hollowwalled tower (Harding & Dixon 2000) (Site NB03 1). 6.4.2 Two terminologies This seems to be the main reason why Ian Armit – whose fieldwork has mainly been in the west – has devised an alternative terminology (Table below). This uses the term ‘Atlantic roundhouses’ for all small round stone structures which look like individual dwellings and reserves the name ‘Complex Atlantic Roundhouses’ for the minority of these which show evidence of having once been high, hollow-walled brochs.

points – which are consistently ignored by advocates of the view that broch towers were an unimportant rarity – show very clearly that a significant and random 6 sample of ruinous broch sites, most of which would now be classed by Armit as Atlantic roundhouses, were in fact the remains of hollow-walled broch towers. The first point, concerning the distribution of surviving architectural features, confirms this view by showing that signs of hollow-walled architecture are consistently found in broch-like sites whatever their state of preservation – a point made more than half a century ago by Graham (1948) and by MacKie (2002). Thus unless one insists on regarding intra-mural staircases, raised galleries, voids over doorways, raised doorways next to landings in the stair, chambers over entrances and scarcements as having been put into round, thick-walled Iron Age drystone structures almost randomly – on a ‘pick and mix’ basis as it were – then one must conclude that a very much larger proportion of probable brochs were true, hollowwalled towers than can be inferred directly from the surviving details of the structures. The author’s terminology takes this possibility into account by using the fairly neutral terms ‘possible broch’ and ‘probable broch’ to describe buildings which cannot be proved to have once been tall towers but which are in all other respects good candidates for this title.

The author has two main doubts about Armit’s system, one major and one more minor. The first and major reservation is that it appears to prejudge the question of whether a ruined site was once a hollow-walled broch tower or a lower, thick-walled stone roundhouse solely on the criterion of its current state of preservation; if a hollow-walled broch is so ruined that its high, galleried wall has disappeared, together with other associated features in Level 2, then it is classed as an ‘Atlantic roundhouse’ even though it may once have been a ‘complex Atlantic roundhouse’. This begs the question of what proportion of possible and probable brochs were once high towers and thus risks downgrading by means of a priori assumptions the importance of the whole hollow-walled broch phenomenon, just as Scott (1947) did (making similar but explicit assumptions from the state of preservation of the sites) nearly sixty years ago (MacKie 2002, 37-8). The question of how widespread hollow-walled brochs really were can only be answered unequivocally by studying the surviving evidence objectively and not just by a superficial renaming of sites as they are now. This topic has already been discussed in print (MacKie 1995a).

Of course no system of classification can be perfect and, since most of the relevant sites are already completely ruined and most of the better preserved ones remain unexcavated, there will always remain many opportunities for wrong diagnoses. These are particularly likely in the Outer Hebrides where, as observed earlier, there seem to be many more ‘brochlike’ sites than in the northern mainland and islands. A classic example is Dun Cuier on Barra (NF60 5) which, although it looked remarkably like a broch before excavation – and after excavation strongly resembles the ground-galleried form – may still be something quite different.7 Moreover it appears to belong entirely to the late Iron Age period rather than to the middle phase – the period of the brochs. An even more difficult example is Dun Barabhat in Harris (NB03 1) which excavation showed to belong to the middle Iron Age, to be very like the basal storey of a ground-galleried broch but to possess certain architectural features that seem to disqualify it from ever having been a high tower. A third example of an easily misdiagnosed sites is Dun Lagaidh in Wester Ross (NH19 2) the nature of which is discussed in the site entry.

There are three essential points to be considered, namely (1) the distribution of hollow-walled broch architectural features among all round broch-like structures (thus excluding semibrochs) from about 1.8 – 2.1m (6-7ft) in height, (2) historical evidence that many now ruinous brochs and probable brochs were much higher within the last three centuries and (3) evidence from excavation that some, perhaps many, tall brochs were deliberately demolished in Iron Age times. The second and third

6 Random in the sense that the sites concerned are defined by either or both of the following criteria – (1) by having been competently excavated in modern times, or (2) by having been specifically described by an educated observer in the 18th or 19th centuries so that we can be sure that they were better preserved then. 7 The arguments about the nature of Dun Cuier are summarised in the site entry.

393

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Description of visible features

Term used here

Armit’s term

possible broch

possible roundhouse?

probable broch

atlantic roundhouse

3. As above but with signs of intra-mural features like traces of a ground level gallery, a stair and so on.

probable broch

complex atlantic roundhouse

4. As 3 but with evidence of hollow wall construction like an upper gallery, a chamber over the entrance, raised voids, etc.

broch

5. Round stone dwelling with radial piers presumably designed as roof supports

wheelhouse

complex atlantic roundhouse atlantic roundhouse?

6. Broch-like building but designed as a promontory defence or as an open-sided D- or C-shaped structure

semibroch

galleried dun

7. As no. 6 but without clear signs of hollow-wall architecture

probable semibroch

galleried dun

8. A non-circular dun with a length of gallery of some kind in the wall but with no evidence at all of the hollow-wall structure; also included are such buildings which are too large to have been roofed.

galleried dun

galleried dun?

1. Low mound or scattered heap of rubble with no clear signs of building but general appearance and situation suggest a wrecked broch site. 2. Ruins have indications of circularity and a massive wall of broch-like dimensions

Table 6.1: correlation between the author’s preferred terminology for brochs and allied structures and that devised by Ian Armit.

Thus it could be argued that the author’s system of classification by ‘possible’ and ‘probable brochs’ itself has the potential to obscure important structural types in the western islands and in Argyllshire and, for this reason, the additional term ‘broch-like building’ is used here when there seems reason to believe that a structure with broch-like shape and dimensions is something different. This is in addition to the term ‘dun’ which has already been applied to numerous small, massive drystone buildings in the west which are small enough to be roofed dwellings but which are clearly not round and thick-walled (RCAHMS 1928); structures generally accepted as duns are not included in this Corpus. True understanding of the Outer Hebridean Iron Age buildings will nevertheless probably only be achieved when a sufficiently large and represent-ative sample has been thoroughly excavated.

which there is a gap between the radial piers and the surrounding wall – and wheelhouses where the piers are bonded to the surrounding wall like the spokes of a wheel. The houses come in yet two more forms depending on whether they have relatively low roofs or tall piers which widen as they rise to produce stoneroofed bays. All the architectural forms can be found as above-ground and dug-out structures. The terminology used here is as follows; in the initial classification in each entry only the first two sets of terms are used; ‘above ground’ and ‘wheelhouse’ are assumed in the absence of the other terms respectively. primary classification a. dug-out b. above ground

secondary tertiary c. aisled wheelhouse e. tall d. wheelhouse f. low

Thus a ‘dug-out aisled wheelhouse’ (a and c) is not a ‘dug-out wheelhouse’ (a and d) and a ‘wheelhouse’ (b and d) is different from both. Since it is rarely easy to be sure that the structures were definitely tall or not these qualities are explained within the site entries. The only known tall, above-ground wheelhouses of both types are at Jarlshof in Shetland, and the only known tall dug-out forms are in the Uists.

The second more minor point concerns wheelhouses, and how to describe them. Broadly the author believes that wheelhouses come in six different varieties – two depending on the ground on which they were built (above-ground on solid terrain and dug-out in sand) and four depending on their architectural style. The latter classification includes, first, aisled wheelhouses – in

394

Section 6: Introduction to Volume 2 6.5 Illustrations and finds lists 6.5.1 Photographs and site plans As in volume 1 the better preserved sites are illustrated mainly by large numbers of photographs – the great majority taken by the author – but also with most of the available published site plans, including the old ones. Particularly in the north-eastern mainland there is an acute shortage of modern, accurate site plans (the kind which show what is visible on the ground rather than what the surveyor has reconstructed) of most unexcavated brochs, although some exist in unpublished Because of this there are more manuscripts.8 photographs for many of the illustrated sites than in volume 1. The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland has prepared many excellent plans of brochs in the western islands and I am extremely grateful to the then Secretary, Roger Mercer, for permission to include these here.

6.6 Need for protection It should be generally known by now that hollow-walled brochs – while having massive foundations which are often buried in, and protected by, the rubble from the upper storeys – are surprisingly vulnerable in those upper storeys. The elaborate hollow wall drystone structures like voids, upper galleries, chambers over entrances and so on are easily demolished once they are exposed. There is an increasing tendency for unexcavated brochs to be partially explored by visitors to the site who thus unwittingly put at risk this fragile evidence for the original nature of the building. This is particularly tragic because up until the early part of the 19th century the great majority of the highland brochs seem to have remained untouched and undisturbed. Referring to the antiquities of the lower part of Strathnaver the Rev. Angus Mackay of Westerdale spoke the following warning to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland almost exactly a century ago.

Some detailed field surveys have been carried out on brochs in various parts of the Atlantic province which remain in unpublished sources, and they have provided valuable extra information for sites which the author has not yet visited. The most important such work is that of Carol Swanson (sites in Caithness, Sutherland and Skye)9 and this includes a large number of carefully surveyed, detailed site plans. Information from these descriptions and plans has been included where appropriate in the relevant site entries in this work (a few are shown as redrawn versions here). Figure references to these plans are included in the relevant site entries, together with some comments on the information they convey. Anne MacSween (1984-85) has published short descriptions of a wide variety of ancient defensive sites in Skye, including brochs; there are many site plans but in a much more diagrammatic format than Swanson’s.

“When that valley was cleared of its inhabitants during the second decade of the last” (i.e. 19th) “century, the people up to that time had such a dread of touching any old structure, lest they should incur the ill-will of the spirits of the ancient dead, that brochs, barrows, cairns, tumuli, etc., were left untouched. About four years ago” (that is in 1901 or 1902) “the lower part of that valley was replanted with tenants under the auspices of the Congested Districts Board; and now that the ground is being improved in a way in which it never was before, interesting ‘finds’ may be expected, and should be looked for. Nay, more, the old dread of ghosts is not now entertained by the new tenants, so that unless they are warned and directed, interesting structures may be ruthlessly torn down for stones to build drains, dykes, etc.” (Mackay 1906, 131-32).

6.5.2 Lists of excavated finds The nature of the lists of finds which appear at the end of each entry for an excavated site was explained in the first volume (MacKie 2002, 3-4). The author’s drawings which appear there and in the present volume were mainly made in 1963-64 at the National Museums of Scotland and were a selection of what seemed the most significant (by the criteria of the time) interesting and/or well preserved artifacts. Inevitably some finds were not seen then but they will all ultimately be on the museum’s computerised catalogue.

Of course many ancient buildings have legal protection now, a small number being completely safe under Guardianship and a much larger number having basic protection by being placed on the list of scheduled sites.10 Yet being scheduled does not give a broch in a remote situation any real protection from the evident desire of a small number of visitors to ‘improve’ the structure by digging out cells and galleries and even ‘reconstructing’ or enhancing certain visible features. A few years ago the author gave an example of one site which has suffered in this way and mentioned another which could easily be damaged (MacKie 1995a). Over the last forty-five years he has seen a number of examples of brochs which have been interfered with in various ways, and the number seems to be growing as visiting ancient sites in remote regions becomes more popular. He would suggest that a much larger number of important

8 Most of the broch plans included in the RCAHMS volumes for Caithness and Sutherland were prepared, like the site descriptions, single-handedly by A O Curle, mostly working from a bicycle, in 1909 and 1910. 9 A Ph.D thesis for the Dept. of Archaeology, University of Edinburgh (1985). Much of it consists of a corpus of valuable detailed site descriptions but the sections with general discussions are often rather biased against the author’s views, sometimes quite vehemently. A good example is her classification of the round building at the Wag of Forse in Caithness (ND23 1) as a broch, which is done even though it contains none of the diagnostic features of the hollow-walled tower and though the term broch can be legitimately applied only by extending the definition until it becomes almost meaningless.

10 In the case of scheduling the landowner must give three month’s notice to Historic Scotland of any intention to disturb the site so that a rescue excavation or recording operation can be mounted.

395

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland and reasonably well preserved scheduled sites should be equipped with a solid and immovable notice board which states that the site is scheduled and warns the visitor about unintentionally damaging the structure by trying to uncover bits of it.

396

Section 6: Introduction to Volume 2

6.1 Map of Scotland with the Ordnance Survey 100km grid superimposed. The inset shows how each of these 100km squares are divided into the numbered 10km squares which are the basis for the broch catalogue numbers used in this work. Each broch within a given 10km square is numbered, for example from ND16 1 to ND16 17 (in Caithness, and an unusually large concentration). Looking at the inset helps to locate the 10km square, the positions of which are otherwise difficult to envisage.

397

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

6.2 Map of Scotland showing the six Regions (‘Sections’ in the text) by which the brochs and related sites are described in the main part of this work, set against the 100km grid of the Ordnance Survey – the basis of the site numbering system. 4. Shetland islands: 5. Orkney islands (both in volume 1): 7. the northern mainland: 8. the west coast and Inner Hebrides: 9. the Outer Hebrides: 10. the southern mainland. The numbering of the Regions in vol. 2 is slightly different from that outlined in vol. 1, as explained in Section 6.2.2.

398

Section 6: Introduction to Volume 2

6.3 HU44 1 Clickhimin. View of the 'forework' and outer gate taken from the broch wallhead at some time before Hamilton's excavations in the 1950s. It can be seen that both the 'forework' and the wallhead of the broch (foreground) already have their present level and turf-covered tops – presumably because of the 19th century consolidation. The outer gateway by contrast seems never to have been cleaned up. The origin and whereabouts of the negative is unknown.

399

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) Mound’ near Keiss (ND36 6) without having any real idea of what he might find (Frintispiece). His plan of the structural remains he found in the upper levels, and his drawings of aspects of those structures, were far in advance of the practice of the times, and his attempts to record and understand the sequence of buildings and layers he found (Illus. 7.133) were truly revolutionary. Unfortunately his procedures were not followed up until C S T Calder excavated the broch at Kilmster (ND35 5) in 1940.

1. Introduction This area consists of the whole of the north-eastern tip of Scotland north of the Moray Firth – that is the counties of Caithness, Sutherland and Ross-shire. The few sites on the west coast of Sutherland are included, together with some of those in Wester Ross. The dividing line between the sites on the west coast included here in Section 7 and those which are in Section 8 (‘The West Coast and the Western Islands’) is taken to be the boundary between the O.S. 100km square NC in the north and the adjacent squares NH and NG to its south; this boundary falls at the tip of Loch Broom on its southern shore (Illus. 6.2) (see p. xv).11 Thus Clachtoll (NC02 2) is in this Section but Dun Lagaidh and Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh – the two major sites on the south shore of Loch Broom, which runs from north-west to south-east – are in Section 8 (NH19 2 & 3).

Compared with Laing’s work, Joseph Anderson’s techniques for excavating brochs in the county ten years later were much inferior, particularly the perfunctory work at Brounaban (ND34 2) where not even a plan was produced. Even at Yarrows (ND34 16) no elevation or cross- section was drawn. However Anderson’s work (Clarke 2002) was mostly good by the generally low standards of the time and he did produce the first coherent ground plans of a Caithness broch – that at Yarrows (Illus. 7.93). He also reproduced two photographs of the interior of Yarrows which are of great value in interpreting the site now (Illus. 7.94).

The county boundary between Caithness – which forms the north-east tip of the Scottish mainland – and Sutherland coincides quite neatly with a highly visible geological boundary. The horizontally bedded Old Red Sandstone gives the former county its green and flat appearance (and continues under the sea to form the Orkney Islands) while the rugged, hilly area of folded metamorphic rocks to the south provides a sharp contrast (Illus. 7.34). The broch mounds of Caithness tend to be featureless green ‘tullochs’ (the local name) in which stone wallfaces are rarely seen unless the site has been disturbed. In Sutherland by contrast (as in most of the west coast and the western islands) the harder rock usually means that the mounds of rubble of the ruined brochs are rarely covered with vegetation and structural features can often be seen even on unexcavated sites.

The largest number of Caithness brochs to have been dug out before the 1914-18 war were explored between about 1890 and 1904 by Sir Frances Tress Barry MP on his own land in the north-east tip of the county. This was one of the most remarkable, and potentially one of the most disastrous, episodes in Scotland’s early archaeology. Tress Barry himself seems to have kept no notes on the work – at least none are known to have survived – and had it not been for the efforts of the then Keeper of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland very little would now be known about the work (Anderson 1901).

The brochs of Caithness have suffered more than those of any other area from unskilled excavation and it is no exaggeration to say that in 2006 – incredible as it may seem – the county still awaits the first modern, thorough stratigraphical exploration of an undisturbed broch site. 12 Among the many sites which were badly excavated in the period between about 1850 and 1910 only two – Everley (ND36 3) and Nybster (ND36 9) (see below) – have been partly re-explored according to modern standards. This disastrous situation explains why there is almost no reliable archaeological knowledge about the Iron Age in Caithness – apart from what are in effect heaps of unstratified finds from known sites in the National Museums.

By a fortunate chance Tress Barry’s work was recorded in two other ways, and this additional information allows us to reconstruct his work in a little more detail. Many photographs were taken, by an unknown operator with a plate camera, of the work in progress at a number of sites, and several of these were used in Anderson’s paper (some are reproduced here). Secondly a local man, John Nicholson, made careful plans – usually in colour – of several of the brochs as they were being explored, and most of these survive in the Nicholson Institute in Nybster. A fresh study of these plans, and of Tress Barry’s finds in the NMS, will form part of the new research project mentioned in the final paragraph. The RCAHMS (1998) has prepared a list of the material in its collection concerning Tress Barry’s work.

It would not be fair to write this depressing summary of the history of Caithness Iron Age archaeology without paying tribute to one of its earliest practitioners, Samuel Laing, who in about 1860 partly explored the ‘Harbour

Sir Henry Dryden, an architect, also surveyed many broch sites in the north – accurately and in detail – in the latter part of the 19th century and his drawings are

11

All NH sites on the east coast are in Section 7. For reasons which are explained in the site entry (ND07 2) the investigations at Crosskirk in the late 1960s do not really qualify. 12

400

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) preserved in the library of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Photographs of some of these are included with the site files in the National Monuments Record of Scotland.

However it is fair to say that both Swanson and Mercer adopted what one might call the classic approach to archaeological fieldwork – that is, they simply recorded what was visible at the time. Neither made any attempt to incorporate into their accounts the evidence from earlier surveys which often describe the sites when they were much better preserved. Thus much valuable information – essential to a proper interpretation of many sites – is missing. The site entries here by contrast take account of earlier work and are thus able on occasions to offer a reconstructed picture of a broch which it would be impossible to gain in the field now.

Modern excavation on Iron Age sites in Caithness began with C S T Calder in 1940. The mound containing the broch of Kilmster, or Skitten (ND35 5), had to be rapidly removed under wartime conditions to make way for Skitten aerodrome and Calder had two weeks to do this. Despite the haste he managed to record the plans of the structures and a number of crosssections in extraordinary detail (Calder 1948) and in doing so demonstrated for the first time how a broch ought to be examined. His contribution to Iron Age studies in the north is thus of outstanding importance and has not been adequately recognized; even the author, in Part 1 of this work, attributed the beginning of modern broch excavation to J R C Hamilton in his post-war work at Jarlshof in Shetland (site HU30 1) (MacKie 2002, 39). Sadly, excavation standards in Caithness declined again after this (site ND07 2) and really modern methods only began again in the new millennium (sites ND36 3 & ND36 9, below).

Thus in general the Iron Age sites of Caithness comprise a treasure house of archaeological information which has hardly begun to be recovered by skilled excavation. Fortunately there are signs that this situation is beginning to change. In 2005 a joint project between the National Museums of Scotland and the Archaeology Dept. of Nottingham University will begin a new study of Caithness in the Iron Age with a fresh survey of the visible remains of all the brochs excavated by Sir Francis Tress Barry. It will also carry out a trial excavation 14 at Nybster broch (ND36 9) with another at Keiss West (ND36 7) in 2006.

In marked contrast with the bad excavations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries already mentioned is the skilled surface fieldwork which has been carried out during the last twenty-five years and which has shown just how much valuable information would be obtained if a broch mound in Caithness was properly excavated. Two such surveys were carried out during the late 1970s and early 1980s. First, a selection of broch sites was surveyed in detail by Carol Swanson for her PhD thesis 13 but the results remain unpublished (Swanson (ms) 1985).

1. ND sites Sutherland Square ND01 ND01 1 CAEN BURN 1 (‘Helmsdale Valley’, ‘Craig Marril’) ND/015174 Site of possible broch in Kildonan parish, Sutherland, about 2.25km (1.4 miles) from the sea and now covered by the railway line [2]; no trace of it was found in recent times [1, 3]. A steatite cup is reported to have been found in it [2] and this, and a shale ring which may also be from the site, are in the Dunrobin Museum [1]. The grid reference is taken from the find spot described for the ring [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 01 NW 34: 2. Anderson 1890, 188: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 777.

Second, over a number of years Roger Mercer worked with larger teams from Edinburgh University and mapped a much wider range of ancient and recent sites, and this material was published (Mercer 1980, 1981 & 1985). Both Swanson and Mercer recognised the peculiar structure of many Caithness broch mounds which suggest that the massive round buildings were built on top of preexisting artificial platforms and may thus represent the final period of occupation on very ancient sites. The commentaries in the two surveys differ in style. Mercer’s general remarks about the various classes of sites he identifies are objective and are dictated by what was found in the field. Swanson by contrast – particularly in her more general comments – often adopts a more polemical approach in order to question much that the author had previously written on the subject of brochs (see for example her 1984 paper which is a good example of a number of ‘revisionist’ efforts of the time). The site descriptions themselves however are admirably objective, and the plans lucid. 13

ND01 2 CAEN BURN 2 (‘Caen Burn’) ND/0118, approx. Site of possible broch in Kildonan parish, Sutherland, 4km (2.5 miles) from the sea and on the north side of the valley; no trace of a broch was observed in 1960 [1], and the report may refer to some enclosures c. 500m north-west of Caen [1].

14 I am very grateful to Andy Heald of the National Museums of Scotland for up-to-date information about this project, and also for showing me copies of the plans of Tress Barry’s excavations made by John Nicholson.

For the Dept. of Archaeology in Edinburgh University (see vol. 1,

41).

401

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 01 NW 38: 2. Anderson 1890, 188: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 778. ND01 3 CNOC CHAISTEAL (‘Helmsdale’) ND/0310 1525 Site of possible broch in Kildonan, Sutherland, named after a house which was built on top of it at about 1880. When the foundations were excavated there were found a handled steatite cup, a stone lamp, a saddle quern of granite, fragments of rotary querns and a thick stone whorl. Part of a shell midden was seen in the garden [2]. In 1976 no trace of the site could be found and the whereabouts of the finds is unknown [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 01 NW 24: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 134, no. 386: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 777. ND01 4 DUN PHAIL (‘Gartymore’) ND/0148 1387 Site of a broch in Kildonan, Sutherland, near the shore at Gartymore. In 1841 it was reported to have been a “very large Pictish tower” which “crowned the brow of the high ground close to the public road and about half way between Portgower and Helmsdale” [1]. Only an amorphous mound of turf-covered stones remains, the large stones forming the foundations having been dug up for building purposes a few years earlier [1]. Some walling was exposed in 1959 and a few artifacts recovered, including a bloom of iron and a triangular crucible [3] (Illus. 7.33). A stone cup from the site is in Dunrobin Museum together with fragments of charcoal and deer horn [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 01 SW 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 134, no. 387: 3. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 93 (195960), 253 (donations).

1891 by James Mackay [2] but only the interior was thoroughly cleared out, most of the outer wall being left buried (Illus. 7.2). Presumably the few courses of the outer wall now visible always were exposed. The interior floor level is much lower than the present ground level outside so there is doubtless a considerable height of external wallface still buried. On the uphill side, where the entrance passage emerges, there is probably less; steps can be seen leading down to the entrance in an old photograph taken soon after the site was cleared, though they may show that debris accumulated against the foot of the tower in the Iron Age (Illus. 7.4). Description The main entrance is on the south-west and is 4.27m (14ft) long; nearly all the roofing lintels are still in position, the outer one being more massive and shaped like a truncated triangle (Illus. 7.3). The passage is now 1.68m (5.5ft) high and 76cm (2.5ft) wide. There are two sets of door-checks – at distances of 1.14m (3ft 9in) and 3.13m (10ft 3in) from the exterior – each being formed of a long stone slab set into the passage wall and projecting from it (Illus. 7.4, 7.7 & 7.8). A guard cell opens to the right from between these doorways, its entrance being about 84cm (2ft 9in) high. The corbelled chamber behind it is almost complete and measures 2.59m (8ft 6in) long, 1.53m (5ft) wide and nearly 2.44m (8ft) high (Illus. 7.9 & 7.10). A bar-hole behind the front checks runs through the wall into this cell; the bar socket is opposite it (Illus. 7.9). Inside the guard cell the excavator found a cist 60cm (2ft) square and covered with flagstone; it contained “ashes, charcoal and a dark unctuous clay”. [2, 353]. The seven lintels found roofing the entrance passage were described by Mackay as being 20cm (8in) apart but those observed by the author in front of the rear door-checks were only 2.5-5.0cm (1-2in) apart, hardly sufficient to make an effectively defensive meurtrière. The chamber over the entrance is still traceable throughout most of its length and was specifically described by the excavator: “A gallery runs the whole length of the entrance passage, the floor of the gallery being formed by the lintels, which are placed 8 inches apart…” [2, 353]. It appears to extend forward as far as the massive front lintel (Illus. 7.5). However it was apparently much better preserved in about 1910 judging from the photograph in the Inventory [3. pl. XVIII] which shows the innermost lintel of the upper chamber still in position (Illus. 7.4). However one has to conclude from the clear evidence for the reconstruction of the inner end of the passage (below) that this upper chamber has been partly restored though no such restorations are mentioned by the Commission [3] or in the excavation report [2].

ND01 5 MIDGARTY (‘Portgower’) ND/0008 1279 Site of a broch in Loth, Sutherland, once described as a “Pictish tower”; it stood on a coastal spur with a steep slope on the seaward side, but there is nothing there now but a low turf-covered mound [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 01 SW 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 164, no. 476b. Caithness ND01 6 OUSEDALE BURN ND/0713 1881 (GPS – 07131 18802) (visited 12/7/63, in 1971, 10/7/85 & 24/7/03). This well preserved, solid-based broch (Illus. 7.1) in Latheron, Caithness, stands on a narrow terrace at the foot of a long shallow slope (Illus. 7.2). This terrace is bounded on the north-east by a deep ravine containing the Ousedale burn flowing down to the sea and, on the southeast, by a shallower ravine containing the Allt a Bhurg (‘the burn of the fort’) which joins the former just below the site (Illus. 7.2). There are high sea cliffs further down the slope. The broch terrace is dotted with ruined stone walls and small cairns. The site was excavated in

It is clear that someone, presumably Mackay, restored the walling around the inner end of the entrance very soon after the excavation was completed; doubtless this was done to make sure that the upper parts of the broch in this important area did not gradually collapse after exposure, 402

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) and in this sense the work was successful. The Royal Commission’s account [3] does not mention this restoration and it is easy to conclude that the photograph of the inner end of the entrance with the latter (Illus. 7.4) shows the structure as it was when it was uncovered. However Mackay undertook the consolidation himself.

is partly roofed – as it should be – with the lintels which would here form the floor of the Level II gallery. There is an aumbry or small wall cupboard opposite the stair, and fifteen steps of the latter were found in 1891; these are now mostly covered by rubble and debris (Illus. 7.1 & 7.15). The sills of both the doorway to the stair and that to the mural cell are raised about 60cm (2ft) and 45cm (18in) respectively above the present level of debris. There are the remains of a void over the stair door, and a human burial was found in this during excavation, lying face down. There are now no traces of a gallery on the present wallhead though whether this was cleared in 1891 is doubtful; Mackay does not mention doing this.

“In carrying on the work of excavation the greatest care was taken not to injure any part of the tower which was still intact, and by strengthening it at a few weak points it should stand in its present condition for many years to come. His Grace the Duke of Portland has kindly fenced it in for better protection.” [2, 356]. A comparison of the old photograph with one taken in 1963 shows plainly that the walling at the inner end of the entrance is the same, except that the (presumably replaced) innermost lintel of the chamber over the entrance has fallen (Illus. 7.11). It is particularly obvious that the edging blocks of the upper part of the left side of the doorway are the same in both photographs. The later one is clearer because it shows the end of the modern masonry a short distance clockwise from the passage and slightly overlapping the doorway to the mural cell.

Clearly visible on the inner wallface for a short distance clockwise from the stair doorway at 9 o’clock is the scarcement (Illus. 7.12, pole lying on it); it is about at the level of the lintel over the doorway, in other words at the base of Level 2. Mackay did not mention this feature and the fact that he did not replace the ledge at the main entrance shows that its importance was not appreciated – perhaps that its existence was not suspected. During the excavations it was observed that there was an upper floor in the interior, about 1.22m (4ft) above the primary floor level. Traces of flagstones were found set on edge in this upper floor the occupation on top of which may have taken place after the tower was partly in ruins [2, 354]. Presumably this secondary floor was entirely removed by Mackay.

This modern buttressing rises up to the present wallhead, a height of c. 3.4m (11ft). The straight joint against the broch wall is visible up to about 30cm above the lintel of the cell door, and thereafter the stonework is continuous (Illus. 7.11); thus all the upper part of the inner face clockwise from the entrance for several metres is modern. Moreover the well-preserved, partly corbelled ledge scarcement – 2.03cm (6ft 8in) wide – which runs round 2.44m (8ft) above the floor (now only 1.83m, or 6 ft, above the debris) (Illus. 7.11, pole) is absent from 5-8 o’clock (around both sides of the entrance) even though the wallface is standing much higher than its level elsewhere.

The primary floor “consisted of two feet of fine puddled clay laid on the natural bed” (and presumably running up against the base of the wall). On this were layers of ashes and charcoal, with many broken animal bones many of which were half burnt with some split for their marrow. There were also large quantities of periwinkle and limpet shells and many wild hazel nuts. On this primary floor, and embedded in firm black clay, was an upright piece of wood possibly a post, bearing the marks of an axe. There was a series of tanks set into the floor (presumably the primary clay floor) made of stone slabs luted with clay; they were about 75cm (2ft 6in) square and 60cm (2ft) deep and were connected by a stone-built drain which led from the exterior to them, presumably downhill into the broch; the description is not clear and these features are not now visible.

The right inner end of the entrance is also rebuilt; the corner of the part above the passage lintels now contrasts sharply with the ruinous remains of the walls of the upper chamber. Thus one cannot be sure what original architectural features were found above the entrance lintels in 1891; one might guess that the excavator found the chamber over the entrance reasonably well preserved, with one probably dislodged lintel lying on the ground at the inner end, and so put it back on top of the restored walling.

Near the centre, and about 30cm (12in) above the floor, was a setting of four flags on edge forming what seems to have been a square fireplace. A covered V-shaped drain led from this to a vat in the floor near the stair doorway (shown schematically in Illus. 7.1). This vat was 75cm (2.5ft) in diameter, and the same in depth, and it had been dug out of the natural bed: it was carefully lined with flags luted with clay and contained a 2.5cm (1in) thick layer of a clear green jelly-like substance at its base. A sample of this was analysed by Professor Japp of Aberdeen who found it to be probably humus formed by

The interior varies from 6.41-7.47m (21-24.5ft) in diameter, and a recent careful survey produced a figure diameter of 21.84ft). The oval mural cell at 7 o’clock has already been mentioned; its doorway can be seen in Illus. 7.11 (pole). At 9 o’clock is the doorway to the mural stair with a stair-foot guard cell 1.98m (6.5ft) long opening to its left (Illus. 7.13); this cell is described as being “built in the usual beehive style, with stones overlapping” [2, 354]; rough corbelling can be seen in the photograph (Illus. 7.14). The author omitted to check whether the cell 403

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland decomposed vegetation, probably peat, in contact with water. The vat may therefore have been a water tank.

north-east mainland (except those in the north-east tip of Caithness); the latter were evidently built for an entirely different archaeological culture [4].

The outer fortifications of the broch consist of a wall 2.44m (8ft) thick which runs round the broch on all sides except where the slope drops away to the burn below. There may have been a ditch outside this [2, 350] and there are signs of outbuildings inside this wall on the west.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 01 NE 1: 2. Mackay 1892: 3. RCAHMS 1911b, 54-6, no. 204, fig. 12 & pl. 18: 4. MacKie 2000: 5. Young 1964, 174, 197; 6. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 26 (1891-2), 260. Square ND02

Dimensions: (author’s measurements). External diameter 6-12 o’clock, 15.33m (50.25ft); from 9-3 o’clock, 16.01m (52.5ft): internal diameter 6.56m (21.5ft) and 7.47m (24.5ft) respectively: wall proportion (from averages) 54.9%. In 1971 an accurate survey of the primary interior wallface was undertaken and this proved to have been built around a reasonably accurately laid out true circle with a radius of 3.33 + 0.05m (equal to a diameter of 21.84ft) .

ND02 1 LANGWELL TULLOCH (‘Langwell Water 1’) ND/0974 2231 A probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, in the valley of the Langwell Water, and now a much-mutilated mass of rubble; part of the curved outer face of the wall is visible on the south [1]. The remains of the structure appear to be sited on an artificial mound [1]. A large stone-and-turf enclosure next to the broch was recorded later [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 02 SE 10: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 83, no. 301: 3. Moloney & Baker 1998, 56-7.

Finds (Illus. 7.17) [2, 354-5: 5]. These include evidence of metalworking in the form of a crucible (a cup-shaped vessel the clay of which is burnt to a coke-like texture), and a mass of bone refuse with remains of sheep, deer, ox, hare and birds: no bone tools were recorded. Artifacts of stone included 1 damaged “hatchet” with a groove round its centre, 1 granite mortar, the hollow being 30cm (12in) across and 25cm (10in) deep, several crude querns, including at least one rotary form (no. 20), 3 discs of mica schist, 5cm (8in) in diameter, each with a 5cm (2in) hole in the centre, several whorls of sandstone and steatite, one decorated with two concentric circles of drilled pits, several whetstones and a segment of a jet armlet 9cm (3.5in) in diameter. Also mentioned are two quartzite pebble strike-a-lights.

ND02 2 TULLOCH TURNAL (‘Langwell House 1’) ND/0904 2286 A probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a robbed heap of stone the features of which suggest a large, circular construction 14.64-15.25m (48-50ft) in diameter [2]. More recently traces of the outer wallface were seen in places, indicating a diameter of 15.5m [1]. There are signs of a ditch on the east side. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 02 SE 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 134, no. 386: 3. Batey 2002, 187. Square ND04

There were also ‘large quantities’ of native pottery including two rims of vases with slightly out-turned lips and made of hard grey clay. There was also a fragment of a wooden dish or scoop with an everted rim, 13cm (5in) in diameter and 5cm (2in) deep.

ND04 1 DALNAWILLAN (‘Dalnawillan Graveyard’) ND/0302 4094 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, reputed to be underneath the burial ground [2]; there is nothing to be seen on the ground to support this idea. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 04 SW 1: 2. Anderson 1890, 186: 3. Mackay 1914, 33.

Discussion There is no doubt that – despite the early date of the exploration of this site, and despite the work of restoring and shoring up the old drystone stonework – this was a hollow-walled broch tower of the usual type. However it has been pointed out that the material culture found inside it is an interesting blend of the mainland and the Atlantic Iron Age traditions [4]. While many sherds of Atlantic pottery were found (Illus. 7.17), the rest of the material culture is of stone and very sparse. Missing entirely are any of the many characteristic bone artifacts of the maritime broch province and this is despite the fact that many well preserved animal bones were found. It is suggested that Ousedale Burn is near the boundary between the maritime zone and most of the brochs of the

Square ND05 ND05 1 SCOTSCALDER (‘Sithean Harraig’) ND/0964 5686 Possible broch or cairn in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a mound of turf-covered stones about 23.2m (76ft) in dia-meter. No masonry is exposed and the site is more likely to be a cairn [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 05 NE 30: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 35, no. 113: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 647.

404

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) ND05 2 TOTA AN DRANNDAIN (‘Forss Water’, ‘Shurrery’) ND/037579 Probable broch in Reay, Caithness, set beside a stream in low-lying country [3] and consisting of a mound of stones with structural features visible (Illus. 7.18). Courses of facing stones of the outer wall are visible in places, some being of great size, and suggest a circular building with an overall diameter of 16m [3] (or 53ft [1]). The entrance has been on the north-west, 60cm (2ft) wide at the exterior; its right wall can be traced for 3m (10ft), and there may be a chamber on the left A linear depression in the south arc of the mound might be the remains of a mural gallery [3]. The building is on top of an older mound, itself possibly of two phases [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 05 NW 8 & fig.: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 106, no. 391: 3. Mercer 1985, 101, fig. 56 & Mon. no. FOR 312.

ND06 2 EAST SHEBSTER ND/0250 6339 A possible broch in Thurso, Caithness, consisting of a much-quarried oval, grass-covered mound – some 25m in diameter and 2m high – with traces of a silted-up surrounding ditch on the north. In 1873 it was stated that “This Pictish house was almost levelled many years ago. The remains of one small chamber are still visible.” [1]. The “chamber” was thought unconvincing in 1981 [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 06 SW 10: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 105, no. 385. ND06 3 FRAMSIDE (‘Hills of Lieurary’) ND/0890 6199 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a grass-covered circular mound in which no trace of walling is visible. Despite this an estimated diameter of about 16m has been suggested [1], or 54 ft (16.5m) [2]. Outworks are reported [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 06 SE 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 34, no. 11.

ND05 3 TULLOCH OF ACHAVARN (‘Achavarn’, ‘Loch Calder’) ND/0854 5962 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, on the east shore of Loch Calder; the structure has been almost entirely removed [2]. Two low, almost concentric encircling banks surround the site and are the result of a robber trench some 16m in diameter [1]. This suggests that a massive wall has been quarried away. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 05 NE 29: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 34-5, no. 112.

ND06 4 GREEN TULLOCHS ND/0131 6964 This probable broch in Reay, Caithness, is situated on the edge of cliffs from which a narrow geo (cleft) has eaten away part of the structure on the north-east. The same cleft has exposed the cross-section of an earthen bank about 20m to the seaward of the site. A surface survey of the site was carried out in 1980 [4] (Illus. 7.19). The broch was partially destroyed in about 1815 and a human skeleton was found under a flagstone leaning against the circular wallface [2].

ND05 4 TULACH GORM (‘Loch Shurrery’) ND/0467 5608 Possible broch in Reay, Caithness, and 600m from the north end of Loch Shurrery; it consists of a grasscovered mound with many upright stones protruding. The Commission was uncertain about its nature [2]. There appear to be no traces of broch-like masonry, but the mound is on top of an older one [3] (Illus. 7.18). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 05 NW 22: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 105, no. 389: 3. Mercer 1985, 102, fig. 57 & 200, no. 333.

The outer and inner faces of the broch wall are visible in places, suggesting an inner diameter of 13.1m (43ft) and a wall thickness of 4.27-4.58m (14-15ft). A depression on the west may be the broch entrance. There appears to be a wall 1.45m (4ft 9in) thick surrounding the broch only 78cm (2ft 7in) from its base [3]; the remains of an outer wall are suspected on the north-east [4]. A double outer rampart surrounds the broch at a distance of 8-10m from it, and the structure may sit on an earlier mound [4]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 06 NW 18: 2. Anderson 1890, 185: 3. RCAHMS 1911a, 93-4, no. 348: 4. Mercer 1981, 79 & 139, no. 326 & 80, fig. 32.

Square ND06 ND06 1 BRIMSIDE TULLOCH (‘Burn of Brimside’) ND/0495 6696 Probable broch in Thurso parish, Caithness, consisting of a turf-covered mound up to 1.4m (4.5ft) high on a rock outcrop on the north bank of the Burn of Brimside [1]. Part of the outer face is exposed in the east side, indicating an overall diameter of 19.0m (58ft). Nearby on the east side is a stone block with a basin-shaped depression in its top, 20cm in diameter and 15cm deep (see site NG15 1). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 06 NW 22: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 119-20, no. 434: 3. Mercer 1985, 177, no. 173.

ND06 5 KNOCKGLASS 1 (‘Knock Glass 1’) ND/0547 6358 Broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a turf-covered mound 18.5m in diameter and 2m high and standing on a flat-topped knoll [1]; the outer scarp of the mound shows signs of walling. There are suggestions of outer defences and two concentric stretches of curved wallface 2.3m apart, on the south-east and one course high, have been interpreted as parts of the outer face of the broch and of the inner face of the first-floor intra-mural gallery [1].

405

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 06 SE 18: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 35, no. 117.

11ft (3.4m) high; no masonry can be seen and the possibility that it may be a cairn has been raised [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 06 NW 21: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 93, no. 345.

ND06 6 KNOCKGLASS 2 (‘Achigremach’, ‘Knock Glass 2’) ND/0489 6345 Probable broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a grass-covered mound, 1.2m high in which, in 1910, was visible part of a curved wallface which looked broch-like [2]; this can no longer be seen [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 06 SW 11: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 47, no. 171.

ND06 11 THING’S VA ND/0808 6824 (visited 9/7/63) This partly excavated probable broch is in Thurso parish, Caithness, and is typical of those on the Caithness plain, standing as it does on gently rolling terrain and on an artificial platform – a wide, flat mound surrounded by a ditch and with an outer rampart beyond it (Illus. 7.21). In 1910 limited excavation had left exposed the entrance on the south-east and this is about 4.58m (15ft) long and 1.07m (3.5ft) wide at the exterior; there are door-checks, formed of slabs set at right angles into the walls, 1.17m (3ft 10in) in. Thereafter the passage is 1.30m (4ft 3in) wide. There are signs of the doorway to a guard cell on the right behind the checks, and of a second set of checks 2.44m (8ft) in from the first set. The inner wallface is visible in places, indicating an internal diameter of about 9.15m (30ft), and there are signs of a secondary wall built against it to the left of the entrance [2]. Traces of a guard cell on the left of the entrance passage have been seen [1].

ND06 7 OUST (‘Broughs’) ND/0632 6552 Probable broch in Thurso, Caithness, consisting of two excavated drystone chambers in the stack yard at Oust [2]. One is 1.53m (5ft) square and 3.43m (11ft 3in) deep with the lower part rock-cut, and may have been a cellar or well; a flight of 14 rock-cut steps leads down into it, and it has been roofed with converging slabs. A short distance away is a ‘shaft’ 60cm (2ft) square, also rock-cut at the base. These features were still visible in 1981 [1] but no other signs of a broch are apparent. The nature of the ‘well’ strongly recalls those found in Orkney brochs, for example at Gurness (site HY32 2). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 06 NE 7: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 125-26, no. 455.

A recent survey showed that most of the features described by the Commission are not now visible [3] (Illus. 7.21) but in 1963 there were still traces of part of the interior wallface with what may be a radial wall projecting from it (Illus. 7.22). The name of the site derives from the Norse Thing-vollr – a local assembly or law court. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 06 NE 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 119, no. 432: 3. Mercer 1981, 150, no. 461 & fig. 34.

ND06 8 SCRABSTER (‘Thing’s Va 2’) ND/0818 6822 Cairn (or possible broch) in Thurso, Caithness, consisting of a low grassy mound about 2m high and 20m in diameter. It has been quarried on the north side. The mound has been diagnosed as a cairn in 1965 [1] and also more recently [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 06 NE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 119, no. 433: 3. Mercer 1981, 150, no. 462.

ND06 12 TULLOCH OF LYBSTER ND/0268 6947 Probable broch in Thurso, Caithness, which has been cleared out at some time, and a wide gap made in the wall on the south-east and north-west. Small parts of the inner face were visible in 1910 [2], giving an internal diameter of 9.91m (32ft 6in) and a wall thickness of some 4.42m (14ft 6in); the overall diameter would therefore be about 18.76m (61ft 6in). Traces of the outer face are also visible [1]. The broch is surrounded by a wide ditch and part of a surrounding wall beyond this is on the west; this wallface was not visible in 1981 [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 06 NW 20: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 83, no. 346: 3. Mercer 1981, 140, no. 337.

ND06 9 SCRABSTER MAINS (‘Brough’) ND/0867 6969 Possible broch in Thurso, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound surrounded by a ditch and bank [2]. A survey in 1962 claimed that the mound clearly contained a broch [1] but a more recent one produced a plan (Illus. 7.20) which shows no broch masonry and discloses two banks on the north; the existence of the ditch is doubted [3]. This site seems likely to be the same as the one described as a ‘Pict’s house’ which was alleged to have been opened up a few years before 1911 and a few coins dug up [4]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 06 NE 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 118, no. 429: 3. Mercer 1981, 81, fig. 33 & 149, no. 449: 4. NMRS site no. ND 06 NE 8.

ND06 13 TULLOCH OF STEMSTER ND/0399 6548 Possible broch in Reay, Caithness, on top of a grassy knoll which has a parapet running round its edge; the site is invisible from the Forse Water below. The mound is now 1.5m (5ft) high and 21. 4m (70ft) in diameter [1]. No masonry is visible in what is assumed to be the

ND06 10 STEMSTER 2 (‘Stemster Hill’) ND/0400 6642 Possible broch in Reay, Caithness, consisting of a conical grassy mound 108ft (33m) in diameter and about

406

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) broch mound but in 1981 a local memory survived of a lintelled passage, 1.0m to 1.5m, wide, running into the mound [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 06 NW 13: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 92-93, no. 344: 3. Mercer 1981, no. 179. Square ND07

work (a hollow-walled, tower-like structure) remains dubious. The vertical cliff immediately below the ‘broch’ had been substantially undermined (apparently because of the erosion of a softer stratum of sandstone) so that the structure in effect stood on a shelf of rock about 3m thick and seemed likely one day to fall into the sea. This was the reason for the excavation, which was designed as an early example of a rescue project.

ND07 1 BELL MOUNT ND/0936 7035 Possible broch or cairn, in Thurso, Caithness, consisting of scanty remains on top of a knoll. No masonry is visible and it has been suggested that this is the remains of a cairn [1] or a hut circle [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 07 SE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 119, no. 431: 3. Mercer 1981, no. 444 & fig. 41: 4. Anderson 1890, 184.

In spite of this by 1966 the masonry had hardly been damaged at all by natural forces; the cliff had eroded almost as far as the foot of the wall on the north side of the ‘broch’ and a small slide of masonry from the exposed outer wallface next to the edge was the extent of the natural damage [6, Illus. 3]. This slide had revealed at least one inner built face (subsequently identified as an added ‘casing’ or ‘buttress’ built against the outer wallface). The landward side of the mound on the other hand had been extensively looted of stone at some time, probably for the nearby St. Mary’s Church. The erosion of the cliff appears to have progressed fairly fast during the last century [6, 19].

ND07 2 CROSSKIRK (‘St. Mary’s Church’, ‘Chapel Pool’) ND/0248 7012 (visited 9/7/63 & 23/7/66) This massive roundhouse or solid-based broch-like building in Reay, Caithness, stands on flat ground at the edge of the laminated sandstone sea cliff. When first visited by the excavator this site was an untouched stony mound [6, Illus. 5] which had been broken into on the south side, exposing what was thought to be the entrance [4]. Traces of the massive curved wall were visible and the site was classed only as a probable broch; before excavation started there were no signs of the extensive outbuildings later discovered, though an outer rampart was suspected (Illus. 7.23).

Before excavation, signs of the entrance passage on the south side were recorded by the Commission [4] although the author saw nothing in 1963. Traces of a mural cell, apparently with parallel sides, were apparent at that time on the west and a mound, presumably covering a bank or wall, seemed to form an outer defence on the landward side. Very striking was the fact that the many outbuildings exposed by the excavations immediately outside the ‘broch’ gave no hint of their presence earlier.

Sir Henry Dryden made a coloured plan and crosssection of the circular building in 1871 and inferred an internal diameter of 33ft 6in (10.22m). Both his plan and cross-section imply that half of the perimeter of both inner and outer wallfaces was visible and that the former stood well above the debris in the interior.15 The ‘broch’ evidently deteriorated considerably during the following century.

The undermining of the cliff below the ‘broch’, with the consequent threat of a potentially dangerous collapse of the site into the sea at some future date, was the reason given for the bulldozing of the ‘broch’ at the end of the excavations. Whatever the merits or otherwise of this decision, it was possible because of it to examine a section cut by the machine through the entire ‘broch’ wall, with interesting results (Illus. 7.26).

For reasons explained below this account of the discoveries at Crosskirk is fairly detailed and the discussion at the end offers some interpretations which are substantially different from those of the excavator. A major difference from the report is that those finds with contexts are here grouped by those contexts and not by the material of which they are made.

2. The excavators’ interpretations 2.1 The system of ‘Periods’ and ‘Phases’ It is explained at the beginning of the report how the various sequences of layers and structures found were grouped together into five major site Periods. Because the layers inside the ‘broch’ could not be linked directly to those outside, a separate series of Phases was devised to describe the development of the ‘broch’ itself. The sequence constructed is given in Table 1, which also shows the suggested correlation between the overall site Periods and the Phases of the ‘broch’.

Part 1: Description 1. Introduction The site was excavated by Dr. Horace Fairhurst in four seasons between 1966 and 1972 and much information about its age and structure was recovered [6]; yet the architectural identification of the main circular building as a broch according to the definition employed in this 15

2.2 Problems of interpretation Anyone attempting to analyse critically the Crosskirk report, and the conclusions drawn there on the basis of the discoveries described, faces some daunting problems. The accounts of the stratigraphical sequences on which the history of the site is based are nowhere near as clear

There is a copy of the plan in the NMRS (neg. CAD/68/1/CN).

407

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland as one would expect. There are very few section drawings [6, Illus. 14, 15, 59 & 60], and these are all at a small scale (1: 200). Large numbers of photographs are printed in the report and many contain useful, sometimes vital, information, but almost invariably the only record supplied of the sequences of structures and strata found consists of extensive and sometimes confused verbal descriptions. Neither is it clear that all the finds have been listed (there are many in the collection in the Hunterian Museum of the University of Glasgow which are not mentioned in the report) and there is no simple table of the distribution of the finds throughout the various layers and areas of the site. Some of the small finds (of potsherds and artifacts) thought to be important are mentioned with the descriptions of the contexts in which they were found, but are only given very general horizontal and vertical locations. Systematic such lists are absent and have been included here by sorting slowly through the artifact appendices and the finds in the Hunterian Museum.

outside, including the entrance.

first extension of the Phase 2

Period 4 Laying of final floor and hearth inside the ‘broch’ and construction of extended entrance passage through the gateway in the Period 1 rampart. Phase 3 Period 5 ‘broch’ abandoned; burials in settlement area: Pictish symbol stone: building of St. Mary’s Chapel. ––––––– Table 7.1: Fairhurst’s site sequence for Crosskirk ‘broch’.

---------------------------------------------------------------------For all these reasons – and particularly because the confident statements about general problems which are in the final chapter often seem too weighty for the evidence on which they are founded – a systematic attempt is made in Part 1 to re-assess the conclusions drawn in the report and to establish a site sequence as objectively as is possible under the present circumstances. For the first time lists of the finds from each major context are given. In Part 2 the excavator’s conclusions are re-examined.

Unfortunately a considerable number of the finds have no precise contexts. Although a 15ft (4.50m) grid was evidently laid over the site at an early stage, accurate grid references for the finds are not supplied. Neither does a horizontal datum seem to have been established, so there was evidently no standard way of plotting the vertical positions of the finds, or indeed of the architectural features and the deposits accumulated around and within them.

3. The ‘Promontory fort’ 3.1 The wall and entrance passage About 10m south-east of the ‘broch’ were found the remains of a drystone wall with a clay core which apparently ran from the ‘geo’ (cliff-edged bay) on the east and curved round to the similar Chapel Geo on the west (Illus. 7.23). The low linear mound previously noted on the site evidently covered it. A passageway running through this wall had later been extended seawards to join up with the ‘broch’ entrance passage. This barrier wall was about 4.5m wide at its entrance, though narrower elsewhere, and was founded on the natural boulder clay; it survived to a height of 1.25m [6, Illus. 8]. The core of the wall was entirely of clay and the two faces were only one stone thick, the inner one being vertical and the outer slightly battered; the construction of the outer wall was thus very similar to that of the ‘broch’ wall (below).

As noted, much of the evidence is presented purely verbally, making it difficult to assess critically, and sometimes there are no plans of important areas of the structures so that one has to rely on photographs. The field records of the excavation deposited with the National Monuments Record in Edinburgh do not include material helpful in filling these gaps. The plausibility of the excavator’s site sequence, and of his absolute dating of the various Periods and Phases, is considered again in Part 2 of this entry but it must be obvious that, without precise information, absolute confidence in any scheme now devised must be lacking. The discussions too tend to refer only to the discoveries and thoughts of the 1950s. Numerous questions about the suggested site sequence which are not dealt with in the report occurred to the author while preparing this entry. ---------------------------------------------------------------------Site period Broch phase

Period 2 Construction and primary use of the broch, together with everything outside the ‘broch’ supposed to be contemporary. Phase 1

The gateway was slightly funnel-shaped at the outer end, with door-checks about 3m from the exterior and formed of upright slabs projecting from the sides; at this doorframe the passage narrowed to 1.4m and thereafter the sides were about parallel. A bar-hole was in the west wall behind the check. The floor of this passage was of stone paving resting on boulder clay, and a drain cut into the clay ran out under these slabs. Although it is stated that the floor outside the doorway was of clay [6, 32] the photograph [6, Illus. 8] shows that even here there were stone paving slabs projecting from under the sides of the passage, suggesting that the outer part of the floor had been destroyed at some stage. The drain lintel is clearly visible [6, Illus. 8] .

Period 3 Later period of occupation inside the ‘broch’ and the supposedly contemporary structures

The areas of the outer wall so far described are all within its eastern half [6, Illus. 6]; it was assumed to continue

Period 1 The ‘promontory fort’, dating to about the 8th century BC. ––––––

408

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) further west to the next cliff-bordered inlet but only one trench was dug in this area. This failed to reveal the clay-cored stone-faced wall and found only a row of large slabs on edge which seemed to continue the line of its inner face. There were also signs of a rock-cut ditch close in front of the main wall [6, Illus. 12] but this too seems not to have extended as far west as the line of flagstones on end. With the information recovered it was not possible to decide what the primary purpose of the promontory wall was, and not even to be absolutely certain about its date.

and naked barley [6, 150-51]. It is not explained what happened to this midden layer when it reached the front edge of the recess. 3.3 Finds from Enclosure III The finds come from three distinct levels, namely the clay foundations under the lowest floor, the primary floor of Enclosure IIIa and the raised floor of Enclosure IIIb. Although the pottery from the first context is clearly defined, the finds listed from the later horizons are often described only as from ‘Encl. III’; these last are marked with a ++ in the lists below. The catalogue numbers of the finds are given, either alone in brackets or with the reference to the published illustration.

3.2 The intra-mural cells A paved walk ran east from the entrance along the inside face of the promontory wall. A short distance to the west an opening in its inner face led into a large, intra-mural cell which had undergone modification (‘Enclosure III’). In its earliest form (IIIa) it was slightly dumb-belled in shape, and here the total width of the wall increased to 5m to accommodate it. This cell had a floor of packed clay which was about 30cm above the paving of the adjacent entrance passage [6, 33]; it is stated that this layer had been ‘built up’ so it was presumably not part of the clay core of the wall. Presumably there was a stone sill at the cell entrance to act as a revetment for the clay, but this is not mentioned or illustrated. There were potsherds within this clay (below) – which supports the idea that the floor was gradually built up during an occupation of the chamber – and a paved and kerbed hearth rested on its surface.16 A number of artifacts were found on this (below) as well as some charcoal from which a C-14 date of 2120 + 70 (170 + 50 bc) (SRR 268) was obtained.

(1) In the clay core. Here was found a type of pottery which occurred unmixed with other styles, a phenomenon observed nowhere else on the site [6, fig. 62 & pp. 10810: no. 701]. It consisted of plain gritty ware with a characteristic, slightly everted rim in the angle of which was a row of pinched-in depressions. Also present, although not mentioned or illustrated in the report, were fragments of a pot base having a pattern of finger-made depressions on their inside surfaces (Illus. 7.33). No other artifacts are mentioned from this context. (2) On the primary floor with hearth (IIIa). Pottery: although ‘the usual (broch) pottery’ is said to have come from this floor [6, p. 34] only one sherd is catalogued and illustrated [6, fig. 63, no. 502]. This was found on the hearth and is a fragment of an incurving jar rim with an upright lip with a slight external horizontal ridge immediately below it; it does not appear among the drawings of pottery from other contexts. It resembles the Iron Age Class I pottery from Jarlshof [7 site HU30 1].

Subsequently the cell was made smaller by the insertion of a new east wall but only the foundations of this remained, over-running the hearth [6, Illus. 10]. It is suggested that this contraction was designed to thicken the drystone wall between cell and passage which originally was only 60cm thick. The contracted cell had a carbonised earthen floor (presumably above the level of the earlier one) on which were a few artifacts (below), and the cell was evidently filled with large stone slabs at the end of its period of use.

Traces of iron included a fragment of slag ++, and of course the whetstones mentioned below. Bone objects include a needle or, more probably, a fish gorge ++ [6, fig. 72, no. 670], a pin ++ [6, fig. 72, no. 652], a point ++ 7.9cm long (617), a perforated toggle or button ++ apparently from the head of a human femur [6, fig. 72, no. 541], an abraded 4-sided die ++ of standard Iron Age type (the markings worn off) [6, fig. 72, no. 542], 1 antler handle ++ bored longitudinally (488), another such handle (755) evidently from Enclosure IIIb. Stone artifacts on this floor included a circular baking stone (522) 24cm in diameter, 2 chipped discs (525 & 656) of shale, a hammerstone (693) made from a waterworn pebble, a fine-grained hone ++ (529) of sandstone, another probable hone ++ (696) and a chipped shale counter or small disc ++ (732). There was also a small sandstone whorl or bead [6, fig. 79].

Another trench across the rampart wall was cut 6m to the west and revealed a second cell within the core, this time no more than a semicircular recess about 1.5m deep and without a doorway. Its wall consisted of a row of facing slabs set on edge surmounted by drystone masonry [6, Illus. 11]. The floor was paved (the paving had evidently not been exposed when the photograph was taken [6, Illus. 11] and on it rested a layer of midden material nearly 50cm deep in which were found shells, bones, some potsherds and some cereal grains, apparently of oats

(3) On the upper floor (IIIb): the only material specifically labelled as from the IIIb floor is some pottery which includes a rim sherd with faint vertical grooving (seen on Hebridean pottery from, for example, the Balevullin hut site on Tiree (NL94 2 & Illus.), and “nine

16

At Dun Mor Vaul on Tiree (NM04 4) a similar clay layer – full of animal bones and potsherds – was found on the primary floor in one part of the mural gallery. This could be interpreted as a single deposit – perhaps a ritual one – but the clay layers were clearly laminated and looked like an accumulated floor.

409

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland sherds including two bases and two sharply-angled rim sherds” [6, fig. 65, no. 498].

composed of earth, mixed with clay, stone slabs and food refuse; the inner and outer faces consisted of a single thickness of stone slabs laid horizontally. However the intra-mural features were all set within local areas of stone cores made of carefully laid, flat slabs, presumably to increase their stability; the raised base of the stairway rested on a stratum of sandy clay [7, Illus. 17]. Just north of the stair the wall core became an earthen one again, and stood to a height of 2.15m. Like that of the outer wall this core was firm but had not been rammed; when the sections were cut the material spilled out and came to rest at an angle of 60 degrees. The situation at Crosskirk is thus in marked contrast with that at Gurness and Midhowe brochs in Orkney, for example, where the wall cores can be seen to be of laid stone throughout [7, sites HY32 2 & HY33 1].

4. The primary broch occupation 4.1 Introduction The 1966 and subsequent seasons of excavation showed that the stump of the circular stone building could superficially be classed as a solid-based broch with the wall still standing in part to a height of 3.6m (12ft) (Illus. 7.24). Yet no clear scarcement was preserved on the inside wallface,17 and no trace of an intra-mural gallery was found anywhere on the wallhead. This situation contrasts sharply with that at Carn na Mairg, Westerdale (ND15 9), for example, where an upper mural gallery on top of a solid wall base was quickly revealed by a single narrow trench dug in the 1950s (Illus. 7.68). The question of whether Crosskirk was a true, hollowwalled broch thus becomes important and is considered later.

At the time of excavation this earthen wall core stood to a maximum height of 4m and the stone inner face survived in places up to 3.0m (given as 2.5m in another place); however no trace of a scarcement ledge was found on this face, and neither could any trace of the base of an intramural gallery be found on the wallhead. The excavator doubted whether a load-bearing, high ledge was a feasible proposition in a wallface only one course thick; such a ledge is usually assumed to have been a support for the outer edge of a roof or a raised wooden floor also resting on a ring of posts.

4.2 The plan of the ‘broch’ (Illus. 7.23) The plan of the building is unusual in that all the intramural features – namely (in a clockwise direction) the guard cell, the entrance passage, the mural cell and the doorway to the intra-mural stair – are contained in the segment from 5-9 o’clock; the rest of the wall is solid. The well or cellar in the interior floor is also near the wall in that sector, and looks uncomfortably close to the stair doorway if it is indeed a primary feature (Illus. 7.29). The guard cell is irregular in plan, and its doorway is very close to the inner end of the entrance passage [7, Illus. 31]. The inner wallface is vertical and stands in places 2.0-2.5m (6ft 8 in-8ft 4in) high; the outer face is much lower, having been completely demolished in places and being at the time of excavation nowhere more than 1.01.5m (3ft 4in-5ft 6in) high; it has a batter (slope) of about 6 in 1.

The question of the original height of the wall was considered, and the nature of the interior deposits was thought to be clearly important in this context [6, 44]. For example most of the interior face was severely weathered – indicating that the building had been unroofed and open to the elements for many years after it had been abandoned [6, Illus. 13]; however the bottom 60cm, the part covered by the accumulated deposits of the floor levels, was unweathered. Lying on the uppermost floor – that is on the surface of those deposits – was a 30cm-thick layer consisting of many stone slabs mixed with earth, and these had presumably fallen from the upper part of the inner face as the building became more dilapidated. It is not clear from the description whether this layer also covers the unweathered part of the inner face; one may perhaps presume not, since such a collapse would surely not have occurred for many years after the abandonment of the building and the rotting or removal of the roof.

The base of the interior wallface was marked by the inner edges of a course of foundation blocks resting on the underlying boulder clay which followed an exact circle18 9.86m in diameter. The wallface above follows the line of this foundation closely in the south arc but on the north side it is set back from it as much as 35cm; thus the base course here forms a sort of plinth. The thickness of the wall base varied from 4.27-4.42m in the southern sector but increased to 5.8m on the north side, where the underlying ground surface seems to slope down towards the cliff.

On top of this stone and earth layer was a thick deposit, of wet, sticky clay, 1.5-2.2m in depth and mixed with rubble, a few stone slabs, small pockets of bones and shells and a number of pebble hammer-stones. The nature of this deposit puzzled the excavators until the end of the excavation, when the clay and earth core of the main wall was discovered. It then became clear that this interior clay layer must have been formed through the sudden collapse of the upper part of this wall core into the interior, after a long period when the building had been empty and abandoned (shown by the weathering of the

4.3 Structure and height of the ‘broch’ wall Because a bulldozer was used to level the structure at the end of the excavations it was possible to cut a section right through the wall of the building, a rare opportunity (Illus. 7.26). The wall core was thus found to be mainly 17

There is however one photograph in the Crosskirk collection which shows what may be a fragment of such a ledge at the top of the inner face (NMRS neg. B 59490). This looks slightly more convincing than the description in the report suggests [6, 43]. 18 This exactness is not defined mathematically.

410

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) now buried inner stone facing mentioned). The absence of any visible stratigraphy in the clay layer led to the assumption of a sudden collapse. There was only sufficient material in this layer to bring the whole of the ‘broch’ wall up to the height still surviving on the north side (2.5m, or 8ft 4in), and the excavator doubted that the wall could ever have been more than about 4.5m high – partly because of this evidence but also because of the unstable nature of the core. Even this may be an overestimate. Thus Crosskirk could never have been a tall, hollow-walled tower.

IVa strongly suggests that the entire passage was in use after that blocking was put in place. The passage had a guard cell on the right, entered by a doorway only 60cm from its inner end, and therefore from the inner face of the ‘broch’ wall [6, Illus. 31]. A large rounded stone lintel covered the outer end of the doorway to the cell, which was approximately pearshaped and measured about 2.2m by 1.85m internally. The cell walls overhung slightly, suggesting that it originally had a corbelled domed roof. For various reasons the cell was not cleared down to floor level; the rubble in it appeared to have been packed in deliberately. The bar-hole behind the door-frame in the entrance passage led through into the cell. No finds are reported from this chamber.

4.4 The entrance passage and guard cell The main entrance faced just south of east and was a typical broch doorway (Illus. 7.24). Most of the passage was unroofed and only the innermost lintel survived, although it had slipped [6, 48]. The passage was 0.05m wide at the outside, narrowed to 80cm near the middle and widened again to 1.0m at the inner end. The floor was paved with large, flat flags below which was a drain about 25cm deep and 35cm wide. Presumably this floor rested on the boulder clay.

4.5 Intra-mural features (Illus. 7.25) The mural cell, with its 92cm wide doorway at 7 o’clock was approximately rectangular – the long sides being concentric with the curvature of the wall – and measured about 5.2m long by 1.75m wide [6, Illus. 28]. The north end of the cell is only 1m from the entrance passage, and the other end is about 2.75m from the stair door. When exposed the cell was badly ruined owing to the collapse of the inner face of the ‘broch’ in this sector, but is thought to have been provided with a corbelled roof originally; the plan, though angular at ground level, quickly became oval higher up. The floor was of earth and stone slabs, and a low built stone bench was against the north end [6, Illus. 19].

At a distance of about 2.3m from the exterior were the checks of the door-frame; the one on the right (north) had disappeared but the other was formed from a large stone slab set on end and at right angles into the wallface so that it projected 15cm. From the plan [6, Illus. 31) the passage appears to be slightly narrower outside the checks. A bar-hole was found on the right side, running back into the guard cell. No mention is made of a socket for the door-post behind either of the checks, comparable to that found at the first doorway in the outward extension of the passage [6, Illus. 40]; one may assume that it had been taken up during a secondary phase of use of the building, perhaps after the first outward extension of the passage was built. This had a complete door-frame in it (below). Alternatively it is possible that the passage floor was a secondary one which had been laid on top of the pivot stone, as probably happened at Gurness in Orkney (HY32 2). No mention is made of any of the slabs being taken up to explore below.

A deposit of soil, containing refuse and artifacts, was found between the cell floor and the underlying boulder clay and is similar to the rest of the ‘broch’ wall core exposed. The interior of this cell had also been packed with rubble at some stage. Part of the outer face of the ‘broch’ had been robbed at this point. The collapse of this part of the wall was inferred to have occurred at an early stage, and a secondary wall or ‘buttress’ had been built in front of the cell [6, Illus. 31]. The ‘buttress’ is said to have been founded within the Phase 2 floor deposits – that is between the beginning of the occupation of the building and the laying of its final paved floor and hearth. Presumably the ‘buttress’ was built across the cell doorway at the same time that the chamber and the guard cell were blocked.

The outer end of the entrance may have been blocked by the first secondary wallface (or ‘casing’) constructed along the inner face of the ‘broch’ wall [6, 51]. This evidence was noted by the excavators at an early stage, before the significance of the secondary wall was realised, but appears to be supported by the very dilapidated state of the inner end of the passage [6, 49]. This was built of a shaly flagstone which had crumbled at the corner in the lower courses. Such a disintegration at this level (as well as, presumably, higher up) would surely have rendered the roofed passage dangerous and caused it either to be blocked off or to be unroofed. However there is no sign of such blocking in a very clear photograph (Illus. 7.27) [6, Illus. 40]; here the entrance paving is clearly continuous with that of its extension outwards. Moreover the blocked doorway to Enclosure

Finds from the cell, presumably assignable to the early part of the primary occupation of the ‘broch’ (Phase 2), included the following. Pottery included 15 sherds from a large jar or ‘basin’ of a thick, plain ware [6, fig. 65, no. 52]; the idea of a presumably round-based basin being used in the Iron Age is not very plausible; all base sherds so far found indicated that the vessels had flat bottoms with sides at a sharp angle to these; however this vessel does seem unusually wide in proportion to its height. There were also 3 sherds with incised decoration [6, fig. 65, no. 395) and 1 unusual sherd of a fine, black ware, slightly 411

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland burnished on the exterior surface and with a decoration of incised chevrons [6, fig. 65, no. 99]. This last sherd looks very like Hebridean Vaul ware (MacKie 1974, fig. 15, etc.).

several centuries earlier than is usually supposed. If on the other hand it relates to the period of the supposedly older promontory fort, as the excavator suggests, it implies that paved structures existed on the site before the ‘broch’ was built. This idea is supported by the dark midden material found underlying the wall itself on the west, and by the probably pre-broch date of the well (below).

The intra-mural stair: the doorway to the stair was at 9 o’clock and, though stone robbers had destroyed most of it, its sill could still be traced some 55cm above the floor (presumably the primary floor, before any occupation debris had accumulated on it). The flight of steps, of which sixteen remained, rose to the right of this door, along the mid-line of the wall; many of the steps were snapped [6, Illus. 17], presumably because of the distortion and sagging of the side walls into which they had been bonded (see also The Howe and Leckie sites – HY21 11 and NS69 3 – for a similar phenomenon). The stair was very broch-like; the steep flight rose 2.14m over a distance of 3.30m, a slope of 1 in 1.54, and the largest step had a tread only 15cm wide. The excavator thought he could distinguish signs that a second entrance through the ‘broch’ wall had existed here [6, 47] but the evidence was not clear because of the great destruction of the wall at this point. Such second entrances at the base of intra-mural stairways have been found in two of the brochs at Keiss (sites ND36 6 & ND36 7). As noted no trace was found on the wallhead of a gallery or landing to which the stair might have led, though obviously such a feature might have existed slightly higher up.

Areas of primary paving were found, presumably resting on the clay, and the plan of the ‘broch’ in Phase 1 [6, Illus. 28) shows that these areas were all in the outer half of the central court; they formed what might be parts of a peripheral strip of paving some 2-3m wide such as is found in other brochs. Immediately in front of the stair doorway this paving was found to cover a dry, steepsided, rock-cut cellar or well [6, Illus. 26) 2.15m deep, of which 1.84m was cut through solid rock (Illus. 7.29); thus the clay was some 31cm thick here. The excavator thought that the situation of this hole meant that it antedated the ‘broch’ and had to be covered up to allow access to the stair [6, 59]; a superficially similar situation was found at The Howe in Orkney [7, site HY26 6]. The circular central court was sub-divided at its lowest level by radial rows of stone flagstones set on edge into the boulder clay; these had all vanished but their positions were defined by packing stones set in the clay [6, Illus. 28] (Illus. 7.24). Such partitions had evidently existed from the beginning, but had been re-arranged from time to time, domestic refuse having accumulated on the floor areas between them. The plan suggests that the partitions divided the circular central court into two equal areas along a line which continued that of the main entrance; the flags ended just before the passage so that access to either half could be gained. The north half was partly sub-divided by shorter radial partitions projecting only about 2.0m from the wall; within the clear, Dshaped central area thus left by these was a large partly kerbed hearth the presence of which was shown by the fact that the boulder clay was baked hard here [6, Illus. 28].

4.6 The primary ‘broch’ floor: Phase 1 [6, Illus. 28] (Illus. 7.24) 4.6.1 Structural features: the excavator assumed that the surface of the boulder clay, and the artificial features resting on it, define the primary period of the ‘broch’s’ use (Phase 1) and that the dark occupation layer resting on the clay represents a period of later use (Phase 2). There is however no obvious reason to accept this assumption; the dark material could have begun to accumulate at the start of the occupation and could mostly relate to the primary occupants, before any major structural changes occurred. This question is discussed further later. Most if not all of the inner face of the ‘broch’ wall was found to have been built directly on the surface of the natural boulder clay, which itself lay on top of the horizontal bedrock to a thickness of about 30cm. At least part of the basal course of the wall – which as noted projected in places slightly forward from the masonry above – can be seen to be resting directly on the clay [6, Illus. 23). The surface of this clay was exposed all over the interior but no post-holes were identified in it despite a careful search; a number of irregular depressions, some stone-lined, were found but were difficult to interpret [6, 56-7].

The southern half of the court – which contained a slablined depression, the well or cellar and the two doors to the intra-mural features – lacked both these radial partitions and any trace of a hearth. In both halves the dark, carbonised earth which lay on and between the earliest flagstones contained quantities of domestic refuse including pottery, bone tools, spindle whorls, rotary querns and bronze objects [6, 63]. A curious, approximately trapeze-shaped depression, measuring c. 2 x 3m, was found on the west side, next to the ‘broch’ wall; here the boulder clay had been dug away to expose the bedrock, and a paved surface laid on it. The western or outer edge of the depression was bounded by slabs on edge which were exactly below the

A stone slab resting flat on the clay near the centre was found to cover organic material which gave a C-14 date of 430 + 45 bc (SR 266: see Table). If this relates to the construction of the ‘broch’ it could put this event back 412

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) face of the ‘broch’ wall (Illus. 7.30); because of this,19 and because this slab-lined face followed the line of the main wall, the depression was assumed by the excavator to belong to the first phase of the ‘broch’s’ use. At the inner edge was a small slab-lined stone pit or tank. The depression had evidently been filled in at some stage; it was packed with stone slabs to the level of the surrounding ‘broch’ floor when first discovered, and organic material found on its paving suggested that it might have been used as a threshing floor [6, 60]. When some of the vertical slabs of the outer edge were removed they revealed that the ‘broch’ wall here rested on dark earth instead of clay [6, Illus. 27].

[6, fig. 65, nos. 138 & 312] and several other sherds (319, 339-341). Inside the well was found an unique sherd apparently of Bronze Age type (408). Only 1 bronze object was found, part of a spiral fingerring (59); although allocated to Phase 2 [6, p. 117] the description of the find spot as “foot of north wallface” suggests that it was on the primary floor. Of antler there was a plain, straight-sided, long-handled comb. A bone toggle or whorl (348) was found, made from the head of a human femur. Stone artifacts included a sandstone spindle whorl (286), a saddle quern (314) of coarse mica schist, evidently reused, a socket stone (269), part of a trough (452) set in the floor, 1 lid (332) for a tank, and lying next to it and a hammerstone (323) abraded at both ends.

An alternative explanation for the depression could be considered. Facts which might suggest a pre-broch age for the structure include that it was dug down to bedrock, and apparently into midden material which pre-dated the ‘broch’ wall, and also that it was filled with stone slabs on which the early ‘broch’ floor rested. No C-14 date was obtained for the organic debris on its floor but not far away a similar early organic deposit – under the primary paving and resting on bedrock – gave a date between the 8th and 5th centuries BC (Table 2). The fact that the inner face of the ‘broch’ wall was neatly laid along the curved, slab-lined western edge of the depression could be explained if the builders respected the earlier structures they found on the site. The deep rock-cut well (below) is likely to be another example of this concern, and the phenomenon was exceptionally clear at Howe in Orkney (HY21 6).

4.7 Phase 2 inside the ‘broch’ (Illus. 7.25) Evidently contrasting with the black earth resting directly on the primary paving was a deposit of earth up to 30cm thick – dark brown to almost black in colour – which was mixed with slabs and stones. This layer presumably covered and defined the lowest, unweathered part of the inner face of the ‘broch’ wall, so should also have accumulated while the roofed building was more or less intact. The excavator describes this layer as belonging to Phase 2 of the ‘broch’ occupation, but as noted it is not clear that it is a truly separate stratum; from the descriptions (there are no detailed section drawings of the interior deposits, or of those anywhere else) the Phase 1 and Phase 2 strata appear to be continuous. On the other hand one might suppose that the covering up of the lowest fireplace in the east half of the court – if that happened – marked some kind of change in the character of the occupation of the central court. Charcoal from this ‘secondary’ deposit, “selected from a level distinctly above that of the primary floor” [6, 66], gave a C-14 date of 100 + 50 bc (SRR 272) (Table 7.2).

The rock-cut well or cistern was found hidden under the primary paving of the ‘broch’ and almost immediately in front of the stair door, in a position where it was difficult to see how it could have been a part of the original furnishings of the building (Illus. 7.29). Not only was its situation inconvenient for users of the stair but it had clearly been flagged over and sealed with clay at the beginning of the site’s history. Yet such deep internal wells or cellars are a fairly common feature of brochs in Orkney, for example. The pit was 2.15m deep, the bottom 1.84m being cut into solid rock, and three rough steps descended a short distance into the cavity. There was no trace of the pit ever having held water and the excavator suggested that it was intended to be a ‘broch’ well but that a fissure in the sandstone had been found and the project abandoned [6,59]. However this still does not explain the bad positioning of the well in relation to the stair door, and the possibility – even likelihood – remains that it was already on the site when the ‘broch’ was built and is connected with the late Bronze Age occupation. The possible Bronze Age sherd found inside it may support this view (below). 4.6.2 Associated finds (Phase 1). Pottery included 2 nearly complete jars with flat, footed bases, bulging smoothly rounded waists and smoothly turned out rims

Presumably the peripheral radial bays, defined by slabs set on edge in the primary clay, had been removed by the time these ‘secondary’ floor deposits were accumulating, since there is no mention that the foundations for the radial rows of slabs were discovered until the deposit had been removed. On the other hand it is stated that “the early partition which bisected the interior ... was largely obliterated” although this is still shown in the Phase 2 plan (Illus. 7.25). It is clear that areas of paving were laid at various levels within the floor deposits, although it is stated that “there was no evidence of any break in occupation” [6, 64]. The description of the Phase 2 deposits in the interior is extremely confusing (as are those of several other parts of the site), and the excavator was clearly puzzled by the sequence of events [6, 64-5]; it was not even possible to detect how long the primary hearth had remained in use, as the deposits piled up around it [6, 65]. Two slab-lined tanks were constructed during this phase [6, Illus. 31]. The plan of the interior in Phase 2 [6, Illus. 31] (Illus. 7.25) implies that the various added wall-facings, or

19

“The upper edges of the slabs were carefully inserted under the edge of the foundations stones of the broch wall.” [6, 59].

413

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland ‘buttresses’, were put in place during this occupation. The foundations of these various added walls were evidently within the dark occupation layer concerned. There had thus been – and at a relatively early stage in the history of this ‘broch’ – serious collapses of masonry in the mural cell at 7 o’clock and in the area of the stairway.

with a small pecked hollow in each face (but not opposed), “possibly a hand-guard for a bow-drill”, another similar one (139) and 1 perforated discoid stone 5.0cm thick and 18.5-17.0cm in diameter [6, Illus. 82, no. 139]. Of rotary quern stones 4 were found, one being a half stone of mica-schist (126), one being a complete upper stone of sandy shale, of uneven thickness and having an unusual funnel-shaped hopper and only a shallow depression as the beginnings of a handle hole (presumably ‘broken in manufacture’) [6, Illus. 81, no. 270], one quarter upper stone of close-grained sandstone (271) and one half upper stone of mica-schist completely perforated by the handle hole [6, Illus. 82, no. 331]. Of small discs, diagnosed as counters, 7 were found made of various stones (61A, 61B, 79A, 79B, 96, 97A, 171 & 306) [6, Illus. 79, no. 61A]. Of medium-sized discs, diagnosed as ‘small discs’, 10 of various stones were found (24, 64, 133, 186, 204, 553, 657, 687, 265 & 298) [6, Illus. 79, nos. 657 & 687]. Of larger discs, diagnosed as pot lids, 7 were found, made of various stones (86B, 206, 262, 301, 302, 374 & 689). Finally a small pounder or hammerstone was found (187).

4.7.1 Finds in the Phase 2 layer. Pottery: only 1 fragment from this horizon is illustrated [6, Illus. 63, no. 308], a thin, vase rim sherd with decoration of incised horizontal chevrons; 2 rims (143 & 310) and a complete base (159) are also mentioned. Bronze artifacts included part of a ring-headed pin of north British type (with a projecting head) [6, Illus. 68, no. 261], part of another spiral finger-ring [6, Illus. 68, no. 195], 1 small piece of bent plate (203) and 3 pieces of a pin shaft [6, Illus. 68, no. 201]. Traces of iron included 1 fragment of slag (135) and 1 possible nail [6, Illus. 69, no. 198]. Bone and antler artifacts included 1 long-handled comb of antler with a fishtail handle [6, Illus. 71, no. 200], another abraded one of bone (140), another with a blunt end and decorated with an incised St. Andrew’s cross [6, Illus. 71, no. 280], 1 probable blank for a long-handled comb (251), a curious leg-shaped piece of worked antler, with an angled ‘knee’ and a ‘foot’ (243 & 248), implausibly diagnosed as an unfinished long-handled comb [6, Illus. 71, no. 243], 1 presumably bone needle (on ‘broch’ stair) [6, Illus. 72, no. 46], 1 presumably bone pin (768), 2 presumably bone awls (183 & 304), 1 polished presumably bone spatulate pin [6, Illus. 72, no. 321], 1 bone spatulate tool [6, Illus. 72, no. 335], 1 spatulate tool (285), 1 antler spatulate tool (289), 1 thick spatulate tool (337), 1 antler spatulate tool (338), 1 curved bone or horn tool (259), 1 grooved ox horn tool (769), 1 perforated bone toggle or button made from the head of a human femur [6, Illus. 72, no. 128], 1 perforated ox astragulus [6, Illus. 73, no. 770] and 1 possible unfinished antler bridle cheek-piece [6, Illus. 73, no. 324] (‘horn item’ in the catalogue). Amber. Part of a discoid bead was found [6, Illus. 70, no. 763]. Flint artifacts included 1 worked flake (89) and 1 chip (169). Stone objects included part of an armlet of fine-grained sandstone [6, Illus. 70, no. 347], about 8.0cm in overall diameter, 1 small cylindrical unperforated bead (72B), 1 cup (366) of micaceous sandstone [6, Illus. 75, no. 1], 1 painted pebble (292) with three faint brown marks on one side [6, Illus. 74, no. 2], 1 ball of sandstone (82A) 3.1cm in diameter [6, Illus. 74], 1 perforated stone (216) with an hourglass hole and now 6.0cm in diameter, 1 whetstone or small pounder (134), 1 water-worn whetstone [6, Illus. 77, no. 184], 1 finely-shaped whetstone of mudstone [6, Illus. 77, no. 207], 1 similar whetstone [6, Illus. 77, no. 299], 8 whetstones of various materials (185, 208, 220, 257, 267, 300, 354 & 388), 1 spindle whorl 4.4cm in diameter (297), 1 finely shaped whorl [6, Illus. 78, no. 422], 1 pear-shaped, flat stone

4.8 Final ‘broch’ occupation (Phase 3) 4.8.1 Physical evidence. A third phase of interior occupation was inferred, though “there was no sign of sterile layer or turf lines between the occupation deposits of Phase 2 and 3, and no obvious break in continuity could at first be recognised” [6, 66]. A kerbed and paved stone hearth was found overlying the tanks mentioned above, and charcoal associated with it gave a C-14 date of a.d. 70 + 70 (SRR 267) (Table 2) [6, Illus. 33]. It is explained that, with this hearth as a guide, it was possible to trace a floor at the same level over part of the interior, though the problem would seem to be simply that of locating the top of the Iron Age floor deposits. Here too the descriptions are confusing and they suggest that the relationships between the features and the deposits were not clearly unravelled during the work, and that unsolved problems have simply been written into the report. One infers, as noted, that the secondary masonry inside and in front of the mural cell was in place by this stage, since the Phase 3 floor is stated to run as far as this “buttress”; elsewhere it is stated that the first “buttresses” were founded within the Phase 2 deposits. This is a crucial piece of evidence because it is stated in another place that the “buttress” post-dates an extensive collapse of the ‘broch’ wall here and one would otherwise expect this collapse to post-date the latest complete floor level. It does seem reasonably clear that major damage to some of the intra-mural features was sustained during the occupations of Phases 1-3. On the whole it seems sensible to regard the basal floor layer, the deposits of Phase 2 and the Phase 3 floor on the surface of those deposits (see 4.10 below) as the strata laid down during the continuous primary occupation of the ‘broch’, though doubtless there were minor changes 414

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) of function in different areas. This view seems especially probable in view of the apparent fact that – judging from the state of the interior wallface – the interior was more or less continuously roofed throughout this period, and was then permanently unroofed. One can see for example in some of the photographs [6, Illus. 23 & 24] that the lowest four or five courses of the wallface seem to be in good order but that, above this, the stonework is distinctly ragged and weathered-looking. This height of well preserved walling must be about the same as the depth of the occupation layers of Phases 1-3, and one must infer that the roof of the ‘broch’ was removed – or just collapsed – at the end of Phase 3.

shale disc (in the entrance), 1 larger sandstone disc (765) and 3 hammerstones or pounders (148, 180 & 146). 4.8.4 ‘Broch’ finds without specific contexts. A number of finds are listed in the catalogue as coming from ‘broch QNE’ and similar contexts. They are assumed here to have been found in the primary floor deposits and therefore to belong to Phases 1-3. Pottery includes several joining pieces of a basin-shaped pot with a bead rim [6, Illus. 66, no. 58], another bead rim (71), a base sherd (83) and several wall sherds (93 & 85). Bone objects include a needle broken at the eye [6, Illus. 775], a smoothly pointed pin (44) and an awl (179). Stone objects included a handle-less lamp (764) of sandstone [6, Illus. 75, no. 2], 1 fine mudstone whetstone (67), 1 whetstone of micaceous sandstone with slightly convex sides [6, Illus. 76, no. 65], 1 whetstone [6, Illus. 77, no. 72A] and 3 more whetstones (80, 95 & 100b). There was also 1 roughly made perforated stone or weight (69).

4.8.2 Finds from the latest ‘broch’ floor. The native pottery associated with this latest floor inside the ‘broch’ was thought to be different from the earlier material, though none of it is illustrated; the vessels were less gritty than the earlier sherds and were mainly ‘bowls’ with rolled-over or bead rims, presumably like the pot included under section 4.9.1 below. The term ‘bowl’ suggests a vessel with a rounded base but none such were found; ‘jar’ seems a better term. Only 4 sherds (172) and 3 rims (155, 172 & 118) are mentioned as having been found on the floor. Roman material found on the floor included 2 Samian sherds (214 & 103) and a fragment of glass (66). Bronze: 1 decorated nail-headed pin, of a type datable to the 7th-9th centuries AD (Stevenson 1955), was found before the Phase 3 floor had been recognised but “it undoubtedly came from the horizon of a Samian sherd ...” [6, 116 & Illus. 68, no. 70]. It was found “a little north of the late hearth, among irregular stones and slabs.” This late pin presents an acute dating problem which is discussed later. Bone or antler artifacts included a pin (538) with a polished point (from the fill of the guard cell, so perhaps later than Phase 3) and a smoothly cut object which may be an unfinished bone die [6, Illus. 72, no. 79A]. Stone objects included a sandstone whetstone (168), 1 spindle whorl or toggle (60), 1 fine-grained sandstone spindle whorl (149) and 1 perforated weight of sandstone, with an hourglass perforation [6, Illus. 82, no. 170].

4.9 Chronological problems Obviously very important for dating the ‘broch’ was the discovery on the latest paved floor of two sherds of Roman Samian pottery (the manufacture of one of which is datable to the 2nd century AD) together with a piece of Roman glass, presumably of the same age. From a very similar level, though not apparently directly on the floor, came the late, decorated, bronze pin with a nail-shaped head. The Roman material is the evidence cited by the excavator for linking the ‘Phase 3’ floor inside the ‘broch’ with Period 4 in the external settlement. On the other hand the bronze pin is of a type usually dated half a millennium or more after the 2nd century AD and it appears to present a potentially serious clash between the various elements in the chronological evidence, a clash which becomes even more serious when the excavator’s chronological conclusions drawn from the C-14 dates are considered. A minor problem may be posed by the discovery that the extent of the final floor over the central court may have been limited because slabs fallen from the wallface were apparently already lying around the outer parts; the presence of a central hearth and a living floor imply a roofed building, and falling stones from the upper parts of the wall imply the place had already been at least partly abandoned. Here again the descriptions are not as clear as one would like.

4.8.3 Later finds: slabs, evidently fallen from the upper parts of the inside wallface, were found accumulated – presumably as sloping debris – against the base of the wall, and against the “buttresses”, and on top of the ‘broch’ floor deposits. Thus the Phase 3 floor level with its hearth may not have occupied the whole of the interior [6, Illus. 33]. The mass of clay, supposed to be slumped wall core, later fell into the interior.

However even ignoring the date of the bronze pin a difficulty was apparent with this Roman artefact-based chronology [6, 67] since the radiocarbon dates – including those from the post-’broch’ huts outside – suggested to the excavator that occupation inside the ‘broch’ started at about 200 BC, but “second century BC” elsewhere [6, 67]. In this case a continuous occupation of at least 250 years (and perhaps as much as 350) inside the ‘broch’ is implied, and this seemed impossible to him

A few finds came from the deposits immediately on top of the Phase 3 floor. They include some iron slag (114) found in the rubble filling of the ‘broch’, and 1 stone saddle quern (37), also from the rubble. Other items from the same rubble include 1 small stone disc (14), 1

415

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland because of the abundant evidence that the building was unstable and started to collapse not long after its construction (the blocked intra-mural cells and the damaged stair). The excavator therefore assumes that a break occurred between Phases 2 and 3 in the ‘broch’, for which no evidence at all was found on the ground.

An external ‘buttress’ or ‘casing’ was found, consisting of two separate layers of neatly laid, drystone masonry. This added masonry apparently ran all the way round the ‘broch’ from the east (about 2m north of the main entrance) along the northern arc and round to almost due south. However it was excavated only at the two ends – at about 5 and 9 o’clock respectively [6, Illus. 36] (Illus. 7.28) – and in a small trench at about 12 o’clock. At the east (5 o’clock) end the two successive layers of masonry were very clear [6, Illus. 21 & 22], and they seemed to be composed almost entirely of laid facing slabs, with a little rubble behind; the inner one ran further towards the ‘broch’ entrance than the outer, and both had carefully built ends. Weathering had taken place on the outer wallface before the ‘casings’ were added [6, 53] from which one must surely conclude – though the excavator does not – that these casings (against which Enclosure IVa was built) were added some time after the construction of the ‘broch’. Judging from one of the photographs the casings appear to be resting on the boulder clay [6, Illus. 22].

On the other hand he rightly stresses [6, 67] the importance of remembering that distinct horizons in the deposits above the primary floor were very hard to trace, and that a clear narrative should not be read into the evidence, with the benefit of hindsight, where none existed. Presumably to have the ‘broch’ inhabited until about AD 600 or 700 would compound the problem enormously. It is also necessary to remember that the Roman fragments could have reached their final resting places several centuries after their manufacture; a fairly clear example of a Samian sherd in a 6th or even 7th century AD context was found at Dun Ardtreck in Skye (site NG33 2). 4.10 The secondary internal wall facings The stone ‘casings’ laid against the inner wallface consisted, first, of a length of masonry up to 1.15m wide in front of the cell door (Illus. 7.25). This ran clockwise from the main entrance (where its end had been damaged), past the doorway to the mural cell (and into the cell) as far as the doorway to the stair, where it finished at an upright slab in line with the left side of that doorway [6, 53 & Illus. 31]. This slab also formed the outer end of a short radial row of similar slabs allocated to Phase 2 [6, Illus. 31]. The ‘casing’ could be seen to be holding back collapsed debris around the cell entrance, but another, cruder ‘casing’ up to 1.20m wide was later added on top of the first (none of this is clear in the plans or photographs).

At 9 o’clock, on the west side of the ‘broch’, the ‘casing’ was a single low masonry platform [6, Illus. 7]. It appears that by the time the first extension of the entrance had been built (below), a larger, wedge-shaped block of masonry had been added to the end of the west ‘casing’ ; its east end formed the side of the first passage extension. Here too it is not clear that these added masonry facings could actually have had any purpose in holding up the sagging wall of the ‘broch’, as the excavator assumes; their remains at the time of discovery seem rather too low for that [6, fig. 7]. To shore up a sagging ‘broch’ wall a massive, high block of masonry with a markedly sloping outer face would surely have been needed. An alternative explanation20 is that the two layers of stonework represent successive clearing and stacking episodes of facing stones which had either fallen from the upper part of the clay-cored wall or which had been deliberately taken down for safety reasons. The excavator emphasises the inexperience and ineffectiveness of the builders in constructing a high wall [6, 54] but does not draw this obvious conclusion.

Beyond the stair doorway a thinner secondary wallface about 30cm thick ran on clockwise for a distance of 4.1 m; this one was said to be founded in the floor layers [6, 53]. The photograph [6, Illus. 32] makes it clear that this ‘casing’ was only four or five courses of masonry high. It is admitted that such masonry added against the vertical inner face of the ‘broch’ can hardly have remained stable (especially if it was once much higher, presumably) [6, 51]; one may therefore argue that it is even less plausible to suggest that they could have supported a sagging wall. These casings are surely more likely to have been made from tidied-up stone debris which had already fallen from the upper parts of the wallface.

5. External structures and dwellings In general terms the ground on the landward side of the ‘broch’, and between it and the outer wall, was found on excavation to be full of buildings, and the stone debris of buildings, which were ranged on either side of a passageway which extended from the entrance to the ‘broch’ to the gateway in the outer wall. In the absence of any signs of a systematic stratigraphical study of these features (no section drawings appear to have been made of the strata overlying the stone features) little attempt at a re-assessment of the settlement is made here, and the features are discussed mainly in terms of the light they throw on the date and purpose of the ‘broch’.

4.11 The external ‘casings’ or ‘buttresses’ A number of buildings abutted against the outer wall of the ‘broch’, and were therefore constructed later. These are of great importance for establishing the chronology of the ‘broch’.

20

416

Suggested to Dr Fairhurst by the author on the site in 1966.

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) 5.1 Extensions of the entrance passage The ‘broch’ entrance passage was extended outwards in two stages, ultimately to join up with the gateway through the outer wall; presumably this passage became necessary as stone dwellings accumulated in the space between the ‘broch’ and the outer wall (see Gurness – site HY32 2) (Illus. 7.31). The first such extension – allocated to Period 3 – was paved and it led outwards from the ‘broch’ wall for at least 4m (its junction with the second extension was obscured). A pair of slab door-checks was found in this passage with a fine socket-stone behind the one on the right and a bar-hole behind that on the left [6, Illus. 40 & 41] (Illus. 7.27). The right wall stopped short of the ‘broch’ wall and its end formed a doorway into Enclosure IV, later blocked up. This Enclosure was an approximately rectangular stone building the back wall of which was formed by the ‘broch’ wall and the added ‘casing’ and the new doorway in the passage was presumably designed to control access into this hut. The left wall of the extension was the end of the large, wedgeshaped ‘buttress’ referred to earlier; this was added against the ‘broch’ wall, apparently in two layers [6, Illus. 41, 49 & 52], but is not shown on the overall plan [6, Illus. 6].

walling, and short flights of steps led up into adjacent stone dwellings. This last section of passageway had a drain under its paving and was founded on a mass of laid stone slabs, up to 1.0m deep in the gateway through the outer rampart. 5.1.1 Associated finds: only a few objects are described in the catalogue as coming specifically from the extended passage. Pottery comprised only 1 rim sherd remarkably like a Vaul ware vase from the Hebrides [6, fig. 67, no. 549], having a curved out-turning rim and incised decoration of straight lines; it was found near the “secondary door-check”, presumably in the first passage extension. Bone tools included 1 broken bone pin with a spatulate head [6, fig. 72, no. 416]. Stone implements includeed 1 fragment of a lignite bracelet (384) with an original overall diameter of 9.0cm, 1 sandstone whetstone (504) and 1 fine whetstone of mudstone [6, fig. 77, no. 513], and a complete upper stone of a rotary quern [6, fig. 81, no. 605], of discoid type with a vertical handle hole in the upper surface (and penetrating the stone). 5.2 Dwelling IV against the ‘broch’ wall ‘Enclosure IV’ has already been mentioned; it was the lowest stone hut which rested directly against the ‘broch’ wall and its ‘casings’ immediately to the right of the entrance. As noted it was entered by a doorway from the first extension of the ‘broch’ entrance, also next to the ‘broch’ wall, and the first doorway in that new passage presumably protected it. The excavator distinguished an early and a later phase of this structure (IVa and IVb), the upper floor of which was overlaid by midden material on top of which were the floors of the much later Enclosures I and II. The primary floor and the hearth of IVa were lower down and rested on the boulder clay.

It is not clear from the verbal descriptions whether the ‘broch’ entrance was still free of debris and usable, even if unlintelled, when the first extension was added and if therefore the interior was still accessible by the original route. The excavator thought that the inner end of the ‘broch’ entrance may have been blocked at some stage by the internal ‘buttress’ [6, 50], but the evidence was very uncertain. If it was so blocked – presumably at some stage during the primary occupation – the first outward extension could either have been constructed before that point (in which case it would also have led into the ‘broch’) or later, in which case it would only have led to Hut IV.

Because the ‘casings’ were already in existence when it was constructed [6, Illus. 36, Illus 7.27 & 7.28), the first Enclosure IV must have been built some time after the construction of the adjacent ‘broch’, and after the upper parts of its wall had started disintegrating. However it is not possible to tell from the photograph [6, Illus. 36] whether this earliest floor really was entirely later than the ‘broch’, or whether it ran under its wall; the assumption of a post-’broch’ date depends partly on the fact that the wall of the hut only defined three of its sides, the fourth presumably being formed by the convex ‘broch’ wall. However such a date is clearly supported also by the first extension to the ‘broch’ entrance, which forms the south wall of this Enclosure and which contained its doorway.

On the other hand the photograph (Illus. 7.27) seems to show quite clearly that the first extension led straight into the ‘broch’ doorway, and that the two sets of paving were continuous. It seems most likely to the author that the first extension at least was built when access into the ‘broch’ by the original doorway was still possible, though the passage may of course have been unroofed by then.21 The evidence for a second entrance into the ‘broch’ at the base of the stair, discussed by the excavator, seems very weak. Later, and supposedly in Period 4, the passage was extended further outwards for about 8m, joining – by means of a short flight of steps up – with the gateway in the outer wall; the level of this passage had been much heightened by this stage. Another doorway was in this passage, which was later reduced in width by added

The hearth of Enclosure IVa was well preserved under the later floor; it was rectangular and much cracked by heat [6, Illus. 36]. There was little else on the floor except a few sherds of ‘broch pottery’. The re-arrangement to form Enclosure IVb was marked by the laying of a new floor in which was incorporated a rotary quern [6, 83]. The report states that “By this time a casing had been built along the ‘broch’ wall...” [6, 83], which implies that

21 This would also imply that the paving inside the ‘broch’ entrance is a secondary insertion and that the socket stone for the door may still have been under it, as probably at Gurness (HY32 2), at the time of the bulldozing.

417

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Enclosure IVa had been built before the ‘casing’. However, as noted, this seems to be clearly contradicted by the photograph which evidently shows that Enclosure IVa also rests against the ‘casing’ [6, Illus. 36]; moreover the plan shows the north wall of the Enclosure clearly abutting against the ‘casing’ [6, Illus. 39]. The walling of the doorway into the Enclosure rests directly against the ‘broch’ wall but this is well beyond the end of the ‘casing’ [6, Illus. 39 & 40].

--------------------------------------------------------------------1. ‘broch’ SRR 266 2380 + 45 (430 bc) or 760-380 BC. Organic detritus from below flagstone of ‘primary ‘broch’ floor and resting on boulder clay (‘Phase 1’). SRR 272 2050 + 50 (100 bc) or 340 BC-AD 60. Charcoal from occupation deposit within ‘broch’ floor deposits (‘Phase 2’).

5.2.1 Finds from Dwelling IVa: only one artifact is specifically recorded as coming from the lower floor of the hut (though others may have – see below), namely 1 upper stone of a discoid rotary quern of unusual thinness (perhaps very worn – the handle hole penetrated the stone) with an upright handle hole [6, fig. 81, no. 420].

SRR 267 1880 + 70 (ad 70) or AD 5-340. Charcoal from hearth on top of ‘broch’ floor deposits (‘Phase 3’). 2. Enclosure III SRR 268 2120 + 50 (170 bc) or 370 BC-AD 5. Charcoal from hearth in cell in outer rampart.

5.2.2 Finds from Dwelling IVb: only two finds are said specifically to have come from the upper floor, but the rest – simply labelled ‘Enclosure IV’ – are included here for convenience and marked ++. Pottery included 20 wall sherds ++ of a single vessel with the rim and base missing (647), “wiped externally to give a slightly ridged effect”. Of bronzes only traces of 1 pin shaft ++ (520) were found. Horn or antler implements included 1 cut horn tine ++ with an abraded point [6, fig. 73, no. 772] and 1 perforated and pointed antler tool ++ [6, fig. 73, no. 471]. Stone objects included 1 handle-less sandstone lamp (209) at hearth level [6, fig. 75, no. 3], part of 1 saddle quern (494), 1 complete lower stone of a rotary quern of sandstone [6, fig. 81, no. 540] and 1 fine, smooth disc of sandstone (228).

3. Enclosure VII SRR 269 2770 + 100 (820 bc) or Charcoal from floor.

1260-790 BC.

4. Enclosure I SRR 271 2070 + 80 (120 bc) or 380 BC-AD 130. Charcoal from the floor. SRR 270 2100 + 100 (150 bc) or 400 BC-AD 30. Bone protein from burial in cist inserted into hut floor. Table 7.2: C-14 dates from Crosskirk site. The equivalent calendar year time spans are the 2 sigma ones (at the 95% confidence level) given by Harkness [6, 163].

---------------------------------------------------------------------

5.3 Enclosures I and II and the C-14 dates Enclosures I and II were both built at a higher level than the structures just discussed; no. II partly overlay no. IV whereas no. I – a large circular dwelling – was a short distance to the east of it [6, Illus. 42). Enclosure II seems to have occupied the same site as no. IV but only part of its paved floor survived, laid clearly at a higher level than that of IV [6, Illus. 43). The remains of its doorway led into no. I, the original doorway into the extended entrance passage having been blocked up some time earlier. The excavator thought that this structure was simply an annexe to the much larger Enclosure I.

The series of layers found inside the hut were as follows (there is no section drawing). The earth floor of the hut had been reddened by fire and contained occasional flagstones and a central paved hearth from which much ash had been spread around; charcoal from this floor gave a C-14 date of 120 + 80 bc (SRR 271: see Table 2 above). On top of the floor was a deposit of burnt organic material 8-15cm thick which the excavator assumed to be the remains of the thatched roof. This was covered by a midden layer 30cm thick containing many shell fragments and Iron Age potsherds assumed to belong to a late period in the site’s history. This was covered by a layer of brown earth with stones and “resting on slabs” at its base, and the turf was on top of this.

The hut circle no. 1 was important because of the dating evidence it provided. The plan of the dwelling was slightly oval, with internal diameters of 7-8m with the surviving wall indicating a thickness of 1.5m [6, Illus. 49]. The main entrance was 1m wide and on the southwest side, and it led into the second extension of the entrance passage by way of two steps down; a rotary quernstone was built into the outer corner of the south side.

Also on and partly sunk into the floor of Enclosure I was a long cist containing a human skeleton thought to have been buried in a sitting position (no plan is provided). It is clear from the photograph [6, Illus. 46) and the description that, although the burial is discussed as if it was associated with the occupation of Enclosure I, it must be much later. The side slabs of the cist appear to 418

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) project 30-40cm above the hut floor, and are embedded only slightly into it. They clearly cannot have been constructed so, but only after much of the midden deposit had already accumulated on top of the burnt remains of the roof of the abandoned hut; the cist must have been inserted into that midden. A bone from the skeleton gave a C-14 date of 150 + 100 bc (SRR 270: see Table 2 above).

fig. 66, no. 234]. Also found were 2 possible examples of Hebridean Vaul ware vase rims, with smoothly outturned rim and incised decoration [6, fig. 66, nos. 613 & 600], 1 rim sherd, slightly out-turned and with a row of finger impressions below it, which morphologically resembles a Dunagoil jar but the ware of which is smoother, like ‘broch’ pottery [6, fig. 63, no. 660], 1 wall sherd with an applied band [6, fig. 63, no. 740], a group of rim and body sherds of a jar like ‘Early Broch ware’ [6, fig. 63, no. 238], several sherds including 1 rim and 1 base, perhaps from a thick-walled pot with a flat rim, and 1 incised wall sherd [6, fig. 63, no. 410], 1 slightly everted rim sherd [6, fig. 63, no. 677] and 5 thin, footed base sherds of what seems to be a Hebridean Vaul ware vase [6, fig. 63, no. 517]. Roman pottery included 2 small Samian sherds (113 & 115) and 1 larger (641). Bronze artifacts and evidence for bronze working included parts of 1 corroded ring-headed pin of north British type, found somewhere outside the ‘broch’ entrance [6, fig. 68, no. 664], 1 fragment of a pin shaft (256), 1 flat fragment (697) and 1 piece of a cast bowl with ribbed decoration [6, fig. 68, no. 123]. There was also part of the spout of a small bronze-casting crucible (707). Iron objects included 1 nail [6, fig. 69, no. 227] and 1 piece of slag (223). Objects of bone and antler included part of 1 single-sided comb of antler, decorated with dot-&-ring markings and with a ring-shaped projection opposite the teeth [6, fig. 72, no. 632], 1 double-pointed fish gorge [6, fig. 72, no. 622], 4 pieces of a possible needle (774), 1 pin with an expanded point [6, fig. 72, no. 655] and 1 femur head toggle-button [6, fig. 72, no. 597]. Stone artifacts included half of the upper stone of a discoid rotary quern of sandstone with two upright handle holes [6, fig. 81, no. 453], 1 lower stone of a rotary quern, possibly medieval [6, fig. 82, no. 672], half of the lower stone of a rotary quern (688), a quarter of the upper stone of another (690), 1 upper stone of another with upright handle-hole (543), part of another (558), 1 thin shale disc [6, fig. 79, no. 624]. There was also 1 well-finished disc-shaped bead of lignite [6, fig. 70, no. 608], 2 sandstone whetstones (461 & 495), 2 pebble hammerstones (663 & 662) and half of a stone disc (606).

Illus. 7.32 shows a reconstructed cross-section through the eastern part of the ‘broch’ wall, just north of the entrance passage, and tries to elucidate the stratigraphical relationships between it, the internal stratigraphy and the external ‘casings’ and the subsequently added stone dwellings. More comments on this are below. The excavator accepted that the stratigraphical position of Enclosure I and its burial meant that it belonged to “a very late phase in Period Three when perhaps the ‘broch’ itself was already out of use.” [6, 90]. The C-14 dates could be indicating that the round hut belongs to a period as early as the 2nd or even the 3rd centuries BC. The significance of the site’s dating evidence is discussed later. 5.3.1 Finds from Dwelling I. Pottery included 1 rim and 7 wall sherds of a vessel with a sharply everted rim of Hebridean type [6, fig. 67, no. 470], and 5 thick beaded rim sherds found next to the hearth [6, fig. 67, no. 640]. Of bronze there was only 1 crutch-headed pin [6, fig. 68, no. 412], found in the external wallface, and 2 fragments of a pin shaft found under the floor [6, fig. 68, no. 459]. 5.3.2 Finds from Dwelling II. Pottery included 2 rim and 6 wall sherds from a large ‘basin’ with an inturned ‘squeezed’ rim (54). Bone implements included 1 possible hair pin 16.5cm long [6, fig. 72, no. 435] and another hair pin found in its bird bone case [6, fig. 72, no. 451]. Stone objects comprised a sandstone hammerstone (258), perhaps a pestle. 5.4 Finds from the external settlement A number of finds are listed in the catalogue as from various parts of the settlement apart from those discussed above, and the find spots mentioned are usually vague. Thus few of them can be linked stratigraphically to those features, and they are listed here as a group.

5.5 Finds from very late deposits A few finds were found immediately under the turf or in other late contexts. Roman objects include 1 fragment of Samian ware (110), 1 rouletted sherd of a Roman Castor ware beaker of early 4th century date [6, p. 115 & fig. 67, no. 607] and 1 tiny fragment of what may be another (767). Bronze and bronze-working objects included 1 pin with a bulbous head containing a cup-shaped depression and with fine horizontal lines forming a band on the shaft immediately below this [6, fig. 68, no. 752] and part of the spout of 1 bronze-casting crucible (566) with a greenish glaze.

The pottery included a variety of material. Sherds not illustrated include nos. 735b (16 sherds of ‘Early Broch ware’), 637 (inturned rim), 760 (vertical rim), 731, 238, 181, 358, 552, 609, 635, 480, 633 & 745. There was also a rim sherd of a Dunagoil jar of early type [6, fig. 63, no. 440A], a thick gritty base of the same early style, with internal decoration [6, fig. 63, no. 708] and a thick rim sherd of plain, gravelly ware – a good example of a Dunagoil urn [6, fig. 66, no. 447]. A large part of a sooty ‘basin’ with a bead rim was found, this time reconstructed with a more plausible near-vertical side [6, 419

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Of fired clay there was 1 disc-shaped bead with suggestions of a dark-brown glaze [6, fig. 70, no. 514]. Bone objects included 1 point (615).

radiocarbon dates and their inherent reliability, the Roman material (which is very important as it gives independent absolute dates potentially more accurate than those of C-14 measurements), and the stratigraphical context of both kinds of dating evidence.

6. The economy of the site Although, in contrast to the situation at Dun Mor Vaul (Noddle 1974), the animal and fish bones and shells from the Crosskirk site had to be treated as only a representative sample of the total found22 they were thoroughly studied by Ellison McCartney [6, 133-47]. Another drawback to understanding the use of wild and domestic animals at Crosskirk – a site which may have been occupied for between 500 and 1000 years – is that the excavated bones were effectively unstratified; they had to be treated as a single group.23 This means that the elaborate analytical tables provided [6, 134-47] are more or less meaningless in terms of a modern study of an evolving environment.

8. The “promontory fort” There is a certain amount of conflict between the various strands of evidence bearing on the date and function of the outer wall, which the excavator describes as a “promontory fort”, believing it to be much older than the ‘broch’. Two facts clearly do show that an early occupation took place on the site, probably towards the end of the Bronze Age in the 9th or 8th centuries BC. The first is the C-14 date of 820 + 100 bc (SRR 269) for what seems to be a stratigraphically reliable sample of charcoal, lying right on the floor of Hut VII, adjacent to the outer wall. The equivalent tree-ring corrected time span (to the 95% level of confidence) is from 1260-790 BC. The early date for organic material recovered from below the primary paving inside the ‘broch’ may also support this hypothesis; this was 430 + 60 bc (SRR 266), equivalent to 760-380 BC at the 95% confidence level. Neither of these dated samples however could be associated with the early pottery about to be described.

Part 2: Discussion This discussion is in two parts. First comes a review of the evidence described earlier, and an analysis of the sequence of structures, layers and artifacts presented in the report, and of the system of absolute dating presented for these (Section 7). Then follow some comments on the wider implications of the site.

The second indication of such an early occupation is provided by a closed group of pottery – quite distinct from the ‘broch’ wares – found associated with the outer wall [6, Illus. 62]. The excavator assumed that these sherds were earlier than the pottery found on the rest of the site, first because of their morphological and stylistic distinctiveness and also because they came unmixed with other wares in only two contexts, both associated with the outer wall.

7. The evidence to be reviewed In essence there are four categories of evidence to consider here. In the first place is the stratigraphical evidence recorded and presented, and the sequence of structures and layers inferred by the excavator from this. Here we must ask if the history of the site described in the report is the most plausible one.

8.1 The early pottery As described in the Introduction there is in fact no doubt that this style goes back to the late Bronze Age, though no reference is made to the published evidence in the Crosskirk report. The vessels are plain jars made from a hard gritty, buff-coloured clay and they have a slightly out-turned lip which has a row of finger-made depressions immediately below it; they appear to be a sub-style of the well-known and widespread Dunagoil ware, the primary pottery style of the eastern and central mainland from the late Bronze Age onwards [3, 440, fig. 2]. The majority of these pots – all plain and containing many pieces of grit and gravel (some quite large) mixed with the clay – are barrel-shaped urns with simple inturning lips. The few smaller vessels with slightly everted rims, and also with smaller grits in the clay, may be called Dunagoil jars.

Second is the evidence for the material culture of the site’s inhabitants and here we must analyse both the content of that culture and its development, if any, during the occupation of the site. Clearly this aspect of the work is an important one, not only because every modern excavation should provide valuable new information to help us understand the development of the Atlantic Iron Age populations over a thousand years, but also because the report itself gives very little attention to this topic per se. The third kind is the evidence for economic activity recovered; this is really a part of the second group but for convenience is treated separately here. In effect it consists of the conclusions that can be drawn from a specialist study of the animal bones recovered. The fourth category of evidence is that for the absolute dating of the various periods of the site’s history. Here we have to consider a combination of three factors, namely the

A large part of such a jar was found under the wall of the second hill fort at Sheep Hill, Dunbartonshire, a few miles west of Glasgow and on the north bank of the Clyde. The midden in which it was found should be associated with, and was external to, the first settlement on the site – a small timber-framed fort which was

22

The excavators kept only the pieces that looked identifiable. In the 1970s, when preparing, to deliver the animal bones (stored in the Hunterian Museum) to Ms McCartney, the author asked the excavator for a list of the layers and phases from which these bones had come, but none were available. 23

420

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) subsequently burned and its walls vitrified. Larger examples of such hill forts were evidently being built in the late Bronze Age (MacKie 1976), but the only evidence for dating Sheep Hill 1 was this midden (not physically connected with the vitrified remains higher up). Fortunately this also contained pieces of clay moulds for making large bronze objects apparently of late Bronze Age type [3, 211-14 & 441, fig. 3].

mean that the outer wall was of the same age, and some of the other facts seem to conflict with this idea. For example the very early date of the charcoal on the floor of Hut VII seems to be at odds with the associated pottery, which is said to be of ‘broch’ type [6, 74]. Unfortunately this evidence too is vague; the sherds are not illustrated, but are merely described as “gritty”, as not being like the early material from the cell in the outer wall and in terms of being at home among the pottery of the early ‘broch’ occupation; none of them is described in the catalogue of pottery [6, 74]. The absence of any proper stratigraphical analysis of the position of Hut VII (which was discovered at the end of the final season) makes it impossible to decide whether the C-14 date is giving a reliable idea of the age of the dwelling or not. It seems to the author that it may well be, within the time span indicated, because it fits with the presence nearby of the Dunagoil jars, because it is many centuries earlier than the ‘broch’ date and also because of the reported good context of the dated sample.

The Sheep Hill jar is of a very similar type to the vessels found at Crosskirk, having a slightly everted lip with finger-impressions in a row immediately below it, and it should not be later than about the 7th or 6th centuries BC (assuming that to be the latest time when bronze weapons were in use in quantity [Coles 1959). A very similar, almost complete, Dunagoil jar came from the Keiss North broch on the east coast of Caithness, though it is not clear if this badly excavated site was occupied earlier than the middle Iron Age (site ND36 5). Since this particular jar was almost intact one may suppose it to have been contemporary with a later ‘broch’ occupation; alternatively the ‘broch’ here may be a much earlier roundhouse of the type seen at Bu in Orkney (site HY20 3).

8.3 Alternative dates for the outer wall Concerning the date of the outer wall itself there are two obvious possibilities. Either it was an early promontory fort as the excavator concluded, and was built long before the ‘broch’, or it was built with the ‘broch’ as its outer defence. Again this problem might have been solved if it had been clearly identified during the excavation and if a thorough stratigraphical study had been undertaken – if for example a section of the deposits connecting the ‘broch’ and the outer wall had been left standing, taken down to subsoil and carefully studied and drawn at a large scale. However this did not happen (all there is available is the small-scale section in Illus. 7.24 from which one cannot even tell whether the outer wall rests on bedrock or on earth) and the incomplete evidence has to suffice unless and until further sections are cut at the site.

Another important feature of this distinctive pottery from Crosskirk is the design of the bases of some of the jars, which have been decorated internally with a pattern of finger-impressions [Illus. 7.33]. One of them is mentioned in the report as being from a late context [6, Illus. 63, no. 708]. The second base sherd, not illustrated in the report, is larger and with a more irregular pattern of finger-impressions [Illus. 7.33]; it was found in the same context as the Dunagoil jar (CK 79). An internally decorated base was found in the late Bronze Age site at Plumpton Plain, Sussex (Hawkes 1935), and they turn up quite frequently in Scottish Atlantic Iron Age sites, often on everted rim jars of middle Iron Age type (for example at Clickhimin – HU44 1). However at Dun Mor Vaul a few such bases were from Vaul ware vases from the earliest occupation, dateable to perhaps as early as the 7th or 6th centuries BC (site NM04 4).

It would be easy to conclude that the outer wall was contemporary with the ‘broch’ because it is of exactly similar construction; it has a clay and earth core with a battered outer face and a vertical inner one, each face being formed of a single layer of drystone walling. Likewise the material found on the primary floor level of the mural cell included pottery of ‘broch’ type – the “usual pottery” in the excavator’s words – and the bone and stone objects are similarly of ‘broch’ type (sec. 3.2.2). The charcoal sample from the same horizon was dated to 170 + 50 bc (SRR 268) which gives a real year time span of 370 BC-AD 5 (at the 95% level of confidence). This time span is similar to those of the three other dates from ‘broch’ and post-’broch’ contexts (Table 2) (though whether they are accurate is another matter – see below, and also the caption to Illus. 7.32). Also the stylistically early Dunagoil jars came from the clay packing below this floor – probably wall core material; presumably these sherds could have been collected with other early rubbish lying about when the

As far as the author is aware such bases have been found nowhere else in north Britain, and are not yet known from the Dunagoil ware province of central and eastern Scotland. The appearance of this decorated base at an early date at Crosskirk could confirm that the Dunagoil jars there are of late Bronze Age date. The early pottery from the site could be diagnosed as a hybrid style in which two quite diverse traditions can be detected – namely the thick, gritty, plain pottery of the late Bronze and early Iron Age periods of central and eastern Scotland and at least one element of the indigenous pottery of the same period from Atlantic Scotland. 8.2 Other clues However this ceramic and radiocarbon evidence for a late Bronze Age occupation at Crosskirk does not have to

421

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland outer wall was built, and dumped in with the other core material. The core does not seem to have been cut into anywhere else so this idea cannot be checked.

However when all the available information is considered, and when the incompletely unravelled evidence is revealed, most of the available facts do seem to fit best the hypothesis that ‘broch’ and outer wall (and its ditch) were built together. Likewise the fact that the outer wall diminished to a completely ineffective barrier at the west end surely confirms that it could never have stood as a fortification by itself (unless it was robbed later). The early pottery in the wall core must in this case remain a puzzle, and one which only a fresh section cut right through the wall is likely to solve.

It is therefore difficult to agree with the excavator’s conclusion – based on the stratigraphy of the Dunagoil jars under the intra-mural cell floor – that “it follows that the rampart wall must be assigned to Period 1”. For this to be true the intra-mural cell would have to have been cut into the wall at a much later date and, while this is possible, no evidence is presented to support the idea (which is not in fact mentioned).

9. The Crosskirk ‘broch’ 9.1 The nature of the building As is described in the previous section the author believes that it is most likely that the ‘broch’ and the outer wall were built as a unit; this contrasts with the hypothesis put forward by the excavator that it is the remains of an earlier promontory fort and for which there now seems to be only one reasonably firm piece of evidence, namely the pottery.

The facts which are presented seem clearly to imply the opposite – that the wall is probably later, perhaps much later, than the pottery. The one discovery which does at first sight appear to support the assignation of the outer wall to Period 1 is the semicircular recess in it further west. The thick layer of midden material found on the floor of this apparently contained Dunagoil jar sherds, suggesting that the wall was built before these jars were used and sharply contradicting the evidence from the intra-mural cell.

The nature of the nearby ‘broch’ seems clear enough; it was a massive, circular building with a thick but unstable and badly built wall which was perhaps originally only 4m high (perhaps with a parapet on top of that); an intramural stair led up to the wallhead and here, and around the entrance passage, the wall core was of stone. Elsewhere the core was of clay and earth with a single skin of drystone masonry forming each face, and the evidence for the rapid dilapidation and partial collapse of this wall seems incontrovertible. The evidence here is very similar to that found in the Howe ‘broch’ in Orkney, and the structures may be closely related (site HY21 11).

However, judging from the detailed descriptions [6, 10810], only plain gritty sherds of similar ware were found in this midden, with one decoration of an applied boss; no clear Dunagoil jars as defined above are reported from it. Since a few sherds of similar fabric, and at least one Dunagoil jar rim, were found in later levels among masses of ‘broch’ pottery [6, Illus. 63] the contradiction might be resolved by assuming that the sherds in the wall recess were also late, and by taking at face value the evidence from the mural cell. This would mean that the outer wall was built with the ‘broch’, and that the nature of the late Bronze Age occupation is unknown, except perhaps for Hut VII.

There is no evidence that the earthen wall base of Crosskirk ‘broch’ supported the high galleried wall of a true tower and it may be safely concluded that it never could have. Such a hollow stone wall would have been enormously heavy, far too massive for the existing soft clay foundation. Neither was there any trace of a wooden raised floor, resting on an internal ring of posts, such as is found in classic hollow-walled brochs like Clickhimin, Dun Troddan, Leckie and probably Dun Mor Vaul; no ring of post-holes was found in the primary internal floor level, and no scarcement was found on the remaining inner wallface. The primary floor in fact seems to have been divided up by upright stone slabs forming both radial divisions of the outer part of the court and a ‘fence’ dividing this court into two halves.

This solution is not entirely satisfactory. For example if the outer wall was of ‘broch’ date why was typical ‘broch’ pottery not found in the recess as well (this objection also applies to any explanation which puts the ‘broch’ back to the 5th or 6th centuries BC, or earlier). Also the slightly funnel-shaped entrance passage resembles the similar gateway in the outer wall at Clickhimin, Shetland (site HU44 1), which seems clearly to have been a pre-broch fort. Likewise it seems strange that, if the outer wall was a middle Iron Age structure, only late Bronze or early Iron Age pottery was found in its wall core. This fact could well mean, as the excavator concluded, that only such pottery was on the site when the wall was built, and that it is therefore an early structure. It may have been left unfinished or – more likely – raided for stones when the ‘broch’ was built.

Yet despite this the entrance passage was of standard broch design, and the guard cell, the mural cell and the stairway are all features closely associated with hollowwalled brochs. Crosskirk appears to be either a hybrid building, or a primitive prototype such as might have been ancestral to the tower brochs. The excavator proposed the latter hypothesis, mainly because of the C14 dates which proved to his satisfaction that it was built in the 2nd or even the 3rd century BC, but also, one

The well or cellar inside the ‘broch’ might also be as early, although no evidence in favour of this ida can be cited at present. If it was it might be connected with the ‘promontory fort’.

422

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) suspects, because of a long-standing opposition to the author’s idea that brochs developed in the west [6, 17579]. If the building was indeed as early as suggested his hypothesis would be strongly supported since the majority of C-14 dates for hollow-walled brochs suggest that they do not go back earlier than about the first century BC [12, 358, Table 12.3].24

It is clear from the associated finds that this building, with the other well- excavated brochs, falls easily into the middle Iron Age period. This term is a simplification of the scheme of Iron Age ‘stages’ originally proposed by the author (MacKie 1965, fig. 6; 1971, fig. 7). Artifacts characteristic of this period appear in the primary floor deposits of the ‘broch’, and they include the bronze spiral finger-rings, the bronze projecting-head ring-headed pin, plenty of evidence for iron-working in the form of whetstones, bone or antler artifacts like the long-handled weaving comb, the double-pointed fish gorge, the needle, the toggle-button made from the ball of a human femur, the spatulate tool, probably the bone gaming die and perhaps the antler bridle cheek-piece. Stone objects include the rotary quern (of disc type, with the upright hole for a loose handle), the cup-shaped lamp, the spindle whorl, the stone armlet (usually of jet or lignite at this stage) (though the last two may be more characteristic of the mainland Iron Age), and the ubiquitous pebble hammerstone or grinder.

It is worth repeating that the arrangement of the living space on the primary floor in Crosskirk ‘broch’ is quite different to that inside standard hollow-walled brochs like Clickhimin (site HU44 1), Dun Troddan (site NG8 13), Leckie (site NS69 3) and probably Dun Mor Vaul (site NM4 4). In such buildings the original interior plan seems to have been a flat, unobstructed floor area only the outer part of which was paved; the central space had a large stone hearth, usually kerbed. There was also a raised annular wooden floor or balcony resting on a ring of heavy posts, the holes for which are usually found in the primary floor. The interior court of Crosskirk on the other hand more closely resembles those of the early Orkney broch-like structures like Bu (site HY20 3) and The Howe (site HY21 11), in which (with the exception of ‘Howe broch 1’) no trace of the ring of posts (and the associated scarcement on the inside wallface) was found and in which the central court was split into irregular zones by rows of stone slabs set on edge. However there is a certain amount of peripheral paving as well as a large fireplace, though the latter was not placed centrally.

The native pottery is of straight-forward northern broch type and consists both of the smooth, plain jars found in quantity on Orkney sites and a small quantity of the grittier wares characteristic of what used to be called the late ‘Abernethy complex’ of the central and eastern mainland (MacKie 1969). Crosskirk ‘broch’ clearly belongs to the same cultural horizon as Dun Mor Vaul on Tiree and Midhowe and Gurness in Orkney. It is also surely significant that the stratification inside Crosskirk resembles quite closely that of the broch period levels found inside Dun Mor Vaul (site NM04 4). In the Tiree site most of the broch primary floor deposits – which contained middle Iron Age pottery and artifacts – had already accumulated before the first Roman objects arrived on the site; stratigraphically the earliest of these was a piece of a 2nd century glass bowl near the top of the primary floor layer (Phase 3A), but the rest of the fragments of Roman glass and pottery were in deposits of Phase 3B and 4 (MacKie 1974, fig. 10). This situation – combined with the now rejected belief that some pottery and artifacts closely resembled those of the later preRoman Iron Age of southern and south-western England – gave rise to the belief that the ‘broch culture’ in the Western Isles appeared around the middle of the 1st century BC (MacKie 1971). A slightly earlier date, in the 2nd century BC, now seems more plausible for the start of the middle Iron Age (MacKie 2000, 364 ff), although at Clickhimin in Shetland some elements of the middle Iron Age material assemblage may have appeared in the 5th century BC (Site HU44 1).

Particularly significant for dating the site may be the dividing wall of stone slabs which splits the central court into two halves (Illus. 7.24). This is exactly paralleled at Midhowe broch on Rousay, Orkney (HY33 1), and it is very clear that there the dividing wall was put up in a secondary phase of use of the site (MacKie 1995). Of course the construction of Midhowe cannot be precisely dated but its evidence clearly implies that Crosskirk was an imitation of an Orkney broch at the time of its secondary occupation. There is nothing among the finds from that site to suggest that this occupation began earlier than the early first millennium. 9.2 The material culture of the ‘broch’ Before considering the date of the Crosskirk ‘broch’ as indicated by the set of C-14 dates (Table 2), the associated material culture must be considered. This should give an idea, first, of the technology and economy of the occupants of the ‘broch’, second, of approximately what stage of the Atlantic Iron Age its occupation falls into and, third, of whether this north Caithness site – despite the peculiarities of its architecture – was part of the general ‘broch culture’ found throughout Atlantic Scotland and which defines the middle Iron Age period there.

24

At Crosskirk too the only Roman material inside the ‘broch’ – of 2nd century date – was found on the paved floor (Phase 3) covering the floor deposits of Phase 2 and immediately under the debris of the wall collapse. As noted the floor strata suggest only a relatively brief occupation of the ‘broch’ while it was roofed and while the inside wallface was unweathered. Also clearly

But see the evidence from Old Scatness in Shetland (HU31 4).

423

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland implying a short occupation inside an intact building was the evidence for its having been unroofed and abandoned for a long period of time, after some collapse of the inner wallface and before the massive collapse of the wall core filled the interior. The severe weathering of the inner wallface showed this. All this could suggest that the Crosskirk ‘broch’ was built in the 1st century AD at the earliest, in any case surely not more than about a century before the first Roman objects were brought into the building, which itself was shortly before the end of its primary occupation.

show clearly (by means of a cluster of C-14 dates) that the middle Iron Age material culture was still in use in this broch up to at least AD 500 and perhaps for some decades after that (Sharples 1999). The same thing is apparent at Dun Ardtreck where a sherd of E ware dating to the later 6th century at the earliest, was in the top of the dark middle Iron Age occupation layer (which was covered by rubble) together with a Samian sherd of the second century AD (site NG33 2). This surely makes the presence of the late bronze pin in its ‘early’ context much more plausible and implies that the Crosskirk ‘broch’ was roofed and inhabited, and in reasonably good order structurally, until at least the 6th century. The pin could have been brought in and lost some decades later, after the building had been abandoned and unroofed but while the wall was still standing. Soon after that the last major collapse of the wall must surely have occurred.

It has regretfully to be admitted however that the quality of the evidence recovered and of its reporting is not quite good enough for there to be certainty on these points of chronology. For example it has to be accepted that the late nail-headed bronze pin (of a type normally dated to the 8th century AD at the earliest) must be giving us a true indication of the latest date at which the interior of the unroofed ‘broch’ remained open and relatively free of debris. How else could the pin have found its way under the massive clay layer and almost on to the Phase 3 floor? There is no way that the pin could have found its way down through the clay layer. In this case the Roman fragments could have been introduced to the site as historical relics, much later than the 2nd century AD, and they would then be useless for precisely dating the final Iron Age occupation. One could then argue that the C-14 dates were accurate and that both the ‘broch’ and its middle Iron Age material culture could be put back to the 2nd century BC, or even to the 4th or 5th. Against such a long chronology – extending both backwards and forwards from the time span suggested for the shorter version (below) – is of course the evidence of the short occupation of the interior already alluded to.

If this was then case the 2nd century Roman sherd on the Phase 3 floor would have to be an heirloom (like that at Dun Ardtreck) and the associated C-14 date would have to have been done unwittingly on old material (though the measurement could in fact be signifying a 4th century date). Unless the belief that the pin cannot be earlier than the 8th century turns out to be unfounded this is the conclusion that has to be drawn. 9.3 C-14 and other dating evidence However all this does not resolve the problem of the likeliest date of the construction of the ‘broch’. At first sight the impressive clustering of four of the C-14 dates from Crosskirk the means of which fall into the 2nd century bc (Table 2) – appears sharply to contradict the evidence of the Roman finds and to imply that the ‘broch’ is up to two centuries older than suggested above. It has also been argued on the basis of the oldest date from the interior deposits that it was constructed in the 4th or 5th century BC.

It is accepted that the ‘broch’ did remain unroofed and abandoned while its topmost floor was exposed, or covered by only a little debris, and that this period lasted long enough for the sandstone slabs forming its inner wallface to become severely weathered. But could it have remained open in this way for five or more centuries, from perhaps its abandonment as an occupied dwelling in the 3rd century AD until the 7th or 8th? This at first seems highly unlikely, not least because a sterile layer of some thickness, formed from blown leaves and dust, would surely have accumulated on the latest Iron Age floor during that time. No such layer was reported. Also strongly against this interpretation is the C-14 date from the latest floor, from the same horizon as the Roman sherds and slightly below that of the nail-headed bronze pin. It seems very unlikely that this charcoal sample remained undisturbed and uncontaminated if other material was introduced to the same level centuries later. Also the rest of the material from the Phase 3 floor is of middle Iron Age type.

Illus. 7.32 is a diagrammatic representation of the stratigraphy of the ‘broch’ interior and of the adjacent Enclosures IV, II and I. The imaginary section runs approximately east-west and just to the north of the entrance passage. The details have had to be reconstructed from photographs and verbal descriptions so the ‘section’ can only be an approximation of what was actually found but not properly recorded. Carbondated samples, and artifacts with historical dating, are marked in at their approximate stratigraphical positions. Whether this kind of stratigraphical analysis was carried out on site is unclear; it is conspicuously absent from the excavation report. All the stone structures are shown as resting on the boulder clay, itself overlying sandstone bedrock. In fact parts of the inner face of the ‘broch’ wall seem to have been resting on an older dark layer, but nothing of the sort is described for the outer Enclosures. The interior of the ‘broch’ is fairly straightforward; the oldest C-14 date (SRR 266: 2380 + 45 bp) comes from plant material

In recent years however evidence has accumulated that makes this apparent chronological conflict less severe. The discoveries at Scalloway in Shetland (site HU43 4) 424

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) resting on the underlying clay and covered by a large paving slab; it is almost certainly part of the pre-’broch’ occupation (Point ‘A’ on the section). The sample from within the first layer of occupation debris (lying directly on the primary paving and marked ‘B’) gave a somewhat later date (SRR 272: 2050 + 50 bp); also within this layer seems to have been the foundation of the ‘casing’ wall built along the inner wallface (but not where the imaginary section is drawn).

While various arguments by special pleading can doubtless be put forward to explain why these two dates from Enclosure I still help to date the construction of the Crosskirk ‘broch’ to the 2nd century BC or even earlier [6, 164-65], none of them are convincing in the light of the stratigraphical data just described. They are even less so when the real significance of the late bronze pin from inside the ‘broch’ is considered. Thus the earliest of the external buildings adjacent to the ‘broch’ – Enclosure IVa – seems most likely to be contemporary with the later part of the Phase 2 ‘broch’ occupation, and this occupation – culminating in the Phase 3 paved floor – is now seen, from the bronze pin, to have almost certainly continued at least until the 6th century AD, despite the 2nd century AD Roman sherd, and the associated C-14 dated sample of similar age, resting on it. Thus all the various floors of Enclosures IV, II and I should be spread out over a time range which began at an intermediate stage in the occupation of the ‘broch’ interior (perhaps in the 1st or 2nd centuries AD, after some demolition and tidying up of the main structure had occurred) and continued on until the 6th, or even the 7th century when occupation of the ‘broch’ was finally abandoned and the building unroofed.

An organic sample lying on the paving (marked ‘C’) on top of this stratum gave an even later date of 1880 + 70 bp (SRR 267). Also on this paving were two Roman Samian sherds, one of 2nd century AD manufacture. The 7th/8th century (or later) bronze pin was close to this paved floor but in a layer of stone slabs which sounds like fallen debris. The great mass of wet clayey soil rests on all these features and fills up the rest of the ‘broch’ interior. As noted earlier all the stonework of the inner wallface above the topmost ‘broch’ floor (‘C’) showed signs of weathering, indicating that the roof had gone by this stage. The right part of the section shows the approximate situation outside the ‘broch’. The equivalent, and presumably contemporary, ‘casing’ wall here seems by contrast to have rested on boulder clay, giving the clear impression that the external dwellings (which all postdate the ‘casing’ here) did not begin to be constructed until the ‘broch’ had been occupied for some considerable time (the stonework behind the ‘casing’ was weathered). This is of some importance when the significance of the C-14 dates from these dwellings is considered.

The nature of the pottery and artifacts show that all these occupation strata belong to the middle Iron Age period which, it is becoming clear, lasted at least until AD 500 in various parts of the Atlantic province (MacKie 2000). From its stratigraphical position it seems certain that the long cist burial in Grave III post-dates this final occupation and therefore belongs to the 6th century at the very earliest, and perhaps to the 7th or even the 8th century. It could well be associated with the presence of the bronze pin in the early Christian period.25 The radiocarbon date for the long cist skeleton thus seems to be too old by half a millennium at least, as inferred previously, and on other grounds, in the report by Harkness [6, 160-63]. Therefore the C-14 date for the floor of Enclosure I – which should be towards the end of the middle Iron Age occupation of the settlement – also seems far too early.

It can be seen that part of Enclosure IV rests against the ‘casing’ wall (itself built against weathered ‘broch’ wall), that its primary paved floor is on the boulder clay and its secondary floor higher up. The fact that in its earliest phase it was entered from the extension of the entrance passage supports the allocation of its construction to a time long after the ‘broch’ was built. Higher still is the floor of Enclosure II which appears to have been an annexe to Enclosure I, the round hut further out; a doorway connects the two spaces and the floors of each are continuous (it is presumed that the floor level of Enclosure IVa is below this but the descriptions are not clear).

The only way one could pull the construction of the ‘broch’, back to the 5th or 6th centuries BC – and thus pull back the occupation of the Enclosures mentioned to start in perhaps the 2nd or 3rd centuries BC in order to match the impression given if one takes the two C-14 dates concerned at face value – would be by accepting the date for material lying under the earliest floor on boulder clay as referring to the construction of the ‘broch’. If there were no other signs of a late Bronze Age or early Iron Age occupation on the site this might be conceivable (if one ignored the pattern of the vast majority of the other C-14 dates for broch construction and early use) but there are such signs, and the probability that this deposit

On this floor in Enclosure I was an organic sample which gave another of the dates centred (before correction) in the later 2nd century bc (SRR 271: 2070 + 80 bp). Dug down into this highest floor at a much later stage, after a considerable thickness of deposits had accumulated on it, was the long cist the skeleton in which provided another date, of 2100 + 100 bp (SRR 270). This is the measurement which Harkness thought might be up to four centuries too old because of the sea food effect. A piece of 4th century Roman Castor ware was found just below the turf somewhere above Enclosure I.

25 A Pictish symbol stone, now lost, is supposed to have been found at the site [6, 100].

425

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland is clearly from the late Bronze Age, pre-broch occupation cannot be dismissed.

fairly long period, starting some time after the ‘broch’ was built (or perhaps when it was built – the evidence is not clear here) and probably continuing after the central circular building was abandoned and disintegrating, probably in the 6th or 7th centuries. The nature of the post abandonment, or Pictish occupation is problematic but the cist burial and the ornamented bronze pin belong to it. A Pictish symbol stone was found on the site [6, 100] and its presence probably explains the late Iron Age bronze pin. Though the adjacent St. Mary’s Chapel (which gives the site its name) is of Medieval date [6, 103-06], it is quite possible that there was an early Christian burial ground nearby. The latter might explain the late burials.

In summary, a date for the construction of the Crosskirk ‘broch’ in the 1st or 2nd centuries BC seems reasonably probable, though SRR 272 could also be indicating a 1st century BC to 1st century AD date (which seems much more probable to the author). The stratigraphical and absolute dating evidence, even with all its faults, seems best interpreted by supposing that the entire middle Iron Age occupation of the site ran from some time in the 1st century BC to AD 500 or even beyond. The only evidence which may not fit this scenario is the poor quality of the ‘broch’ masonry but whether one can judge reliably from this if the structure is more likely to have been roofed and inhabited for one or two centuries, or for six or seven, is another matter. The exact meaning of ‘poor quality’ in chronological terms cannot be defined as the site has been bulldozed.

11. Dimensions The inner edge of the plinth of flat slabs on which the wall was founded was laid around an exact circle 9.86m (32.33ft) in diameter and was nowhere more than 0.017m from this line [6, 41]. However the northern half of the base of the wall itself did not follow the line of this circle exactly, and stood from 30-35cm back from it. At its base the wall varied in thickness from 4.3 – 5.8m (14.1 – 19.1ft) so the overall diameter (which could rarely be measured directly) seems to have varied between about 19.65 and 18.55m (64.4 – 60.8ft).

10. Conclusions Although there was almost certainly occupation on the Crosskirk site towards the end of the Bronze Age, its nature is not very clear unless one assigns the outer wall to that period, which is difficult. Otherwise there is only some pottery, perhaps one stone dwelling and some occupation debris underneath the ‘broch’. However the early pottery from the clay core of the outer wall may be more explicable in the light of the discoveries at Dun Vulan in South Uist (site NF72 1). On that site were found two distinct deposits of late Bronze Age pottery in primary broch contexts; the material appeared to have been deliberately incorporated in what looked like foundation deposits. The situation at Crosskirk may be similar, except that the deposit was in the core of the outer wall (there may of course have been more such deposits in the clay core of the ‘broch’ wall but we shall never know now).

Sources: there is a fuller list in [1]: 1. NMRS site no. ND 07 SW 4: 2. Ritchie 1985, 11: 3. MacKie 1976: 4. RCAHMS 1911b, 93, no. 347: 5. MacKie 1969: 6. Fairhurst 1984. 7. MacKie 2002: 8. Heald & Jackson 2001, 129-47: 9. Armit 1992, 207: 10. Armit 2003, 468, 50-2 & 58-9: 11. Batey 2002, 188: 12. Parker Pearson & Sharples 1999. Square ND12 ND12 1 BERRIEDALE 1 (‘An Dun’, ‘Berriedale Water 3’, ‘Allt an Duin 3’) ND/1033 2492 Probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, standing in a prominent position on the moor, on top of steep banks between the junction of two burns, the Berriedale Water and Allt an Duin (Illus. 7.34 & 7.35). It stands on the centre of a hillock which is encircled by an outer ditch 4.88m (16ft) wide and 1.83m (6ft) deep; on the northeast side there are traces of possibly three ditches [1]. The main entrance is on the west but cannot now be measured; in 1910 it was recorded as 76cm (2ft 6in) wide [2]. A guard cell on its left is apparent of which the back wall is visible 4.27m (14ft) from the passage. The greatest height of wall visible is 90cm (3ft). The interior is now a mass of rubble [1]. The external diameter is 14.0m (46ft) (exceptionally small, unless the wall is still standing to a considerable height, which seems unlikely) and the wall is about 3.36m (11ft) thick; the internal diameter is thus probably about 7.3m (24ft) and the wall proportion c. 47.8%. Sources: 1 NMRS site no. ND 12 SW 10, with sketch plan: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 54, no. 203.

The massive, circular building and its outer defensive wall, which dominated the site in later times, was not a true hollow-walled, stone, tower broch but a relatively low, solid-walled stump with similar proportions and some true broch architectural features. It had a wall core mainly of clay and earth, with wallfaces of a single skin of stone, and was not stable. It was almost certainly built early in the middle Iron Age period, and its occupants possessed several artifacts of types found all over Atlantic Scotland. Both the dating evidence found on the site itself and general considerations favour the view that Crosskirk ‘broch’ was not built before the 1st century BC at the earliest and the analogy with Midhowe (HY33 1) could mean that it belongs to the 1st or 2nd centuries AD. Crosskirk could therefore be interpreted as a cheap imitation of the hollow-walled broch towers that were being built in Caithness and Orkney at the same time. It is not easy to disentangle the nature of the surrounding settlement, but it seems to have been inhabited for a 426

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) ND12 2 BERRIEDALE 2 (‘Rinsary’, ‘Berriedale Water 1’, ‘Berriedale Church’) ND/1168 2335 Probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, high above the Berriedale Water, and consisting of a conical mound 2.12.4m (7-8ft) high containing a very dilapidated circular building; the lowest course of the curved outer wallface is visible in places. The overall diameter is 16.5m (54ft). On the west is the side of a steep glen and in front is the steep side of the Berriedale valley. A later survey gives the building a diameter of 15.0m on the basis of the outer wallface, which can be traced for more than half its circumference [3]. A later farmstead, now abandoned, has been built round the broch and one building has been dug into it. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 12 SW 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 56, no. 205: 3. S. Carter in Discovery & Excavation in Scotland 1999, 57.

Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, in the form of a wrecked mound standing on a spit of land east of the stream Allt Bad a’ Choilich. Traces of the outer face are visible towards the river. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 12 SW 9: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 53-4, no. 202. ND12 6 UPPER BORGUE ND/1243 2708 Probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a vegetation-covered mound 3.7-4.3m (12-14ft) high and in which the entrance, 90cm (3ft) wide, is traceable on the east-south-east; in 1910 it had been partly exposed [2] and was then in a good state of preservation, though being used as a midden dump. Part of the curved outer wallface was exposed on the west, for a distance of 12.0m (40ft) and up to a height of 1.5m (5ft). The overall diameter is 19.2m (63ft), and the building has been erected on a natural hillock. There are traces on the north-west of an encircling wall 6.4m (21ft) out. The structure has deteriorated considerably since 1910 [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 12 NW 7: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 56, no. 206.

ND12 3 BURG LANGWELL (‘Borgue Langwell’, ‘Langwell Water 2’, ‘Berriedale 3’) ND/1026 2181 Probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, standing on low ground at the upper end of a small glen (Illus. 7.36 & 7.37). In 1910 some excavation had been done “recently” and exposed a length of mural gallery 80cm (2ft 8in) wide and 3.2m long on the south side which probably contained the stair. Part of a mural cell was visible on the west. The outer wallface survives to a height of up to 1.2m on the south-west. The external diameter is about 17m (55.7ft) and the wall was 5m (16.4ft) thick above the gallery [1]. If this gallery is an upper one the site should be re-classified as a broch. The outer wallface was ruined down to foundation level. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 12 SW 1 & plate: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 53, no. 201: 3. C Moloney & L Baker in Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1998, 56.

ND12 7 POLL GORM ND/1703 2949 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, on a precipitous coastal cliff promontory. Little can be seen but the remains suggest a circular drystone structure about 20m in overall diameter. A single course of stones on the south may be the inner wallface. There are outer defences consisting of two banks 14.0m long and 5.0m wide crossing the neck of the promontory. The site could be a broch either within a promontory fort or with outer defences. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 12 NE 3: 2. Batey (ms) 1982, no. 281.

ND12 4 BURGH RUADH (‘Borgroy’, ‘Burgh Ruaidh’, ‘Borgue Roy’) ND/1160 2852 Broch in Latheron, Caithness, standing at the head of a small valley about half a mile north of Berriedale Water. On the north the exterior wallface is exposed to a height of 2.14m (7ft) with an estimated 1.2 m (4ft) more hidden under debris; part of a stairway has been exposed on the same side [1]. A 1982 report states that the mural gallery at first floor level is exposed intermittently all the way round [1]. The external diameter is 16.0m (54ft) but there are no indications of the main entrance or of the wall thickness. Openings to galleries or chambers in the wall are visible in places. The building seems to have been enclosed by a stone wall and there are signs of outbuildings to the south. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 12 NW 6: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 56-7, no. 207.

Square ND13 ND13 1 ACHORN (‘Balcraggy Lodge’) ND/1369 3050 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a mutilated grassy mound of earth and stone in the highest of the cultivated fields near Balcraggy Lodge (Illus. 7.38). Despite the damage there are traces of what may be an intra-mural gallery on the south side, and the site has been diagnosed as another typical Caithness ‘mound on mound’ [3]. There are also suggestions of an outer wall [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 SW 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 58, no. 214: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 700-02 & plan. ND13 2 BALLENTRATH (‘Balantrath’, ‘Dunbeath Water’) ND/1439 3072 Probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, in the shape of a quarried mound standing on a rock on the left bank of the Dunbeath Water, just opposite the junction with the

ND12 5 TULACH BAD a’ CHOILICH (‘Berriedale Water 2’, ‘Langwell House 2’) ND/1005 2404 427

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Achorn Burn. A stretch of curved outer wallface about 2.0m long is exposed at one point and the greatest height of the mound, away from the river, is 2.75-3.05m (9-10 ft) [1]. Traces of the ditch have been reported on the north-east and south-east sides but Swanson says that there is nothing to be seen [3]. There a few courses of what may be an outer wall are showing on the north-west and again on the west-south-west [3]. The appearance of the site is of a broch mound on top of an artificial platform [3]. Swanson’s plan shows no significant masonry apart from the wallface. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 SW 6: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 58, no. 213: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 697-99 & plan.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 SE 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 58, no. 212. ND13 6 DUNBEATH ND/1553 3044 (visited 22/7/63, July 1971, 10/7/85 & 4/8/2002). Poorly excavated and partly restored probable solidbased broch in Latheron, Caithness, standing at the edge of flat ground which falls away on two sides of the site as terraces with some vertical rock faces (Illus. 7.42-7.52). On the south side there is a cliff below which runs the Dunbeath Water, and on the east a less precipitous slope descends to the Burn of Shoustry. The interior of the broch was cleared of debris in 1866 by W S T Sinclair of Dunbeath who communicated the results to Joseph Anderson in a letter [2]. The site was subsequently surrounded by a wall, and trees grow within the cleared interior; no doubt any external buildings within this wall were cleared away though skilled excavation might still reveal some traces. Further clearance and restoration took place in 1990 (Illus. 7.42, 7.43 & 7.44). The site is in an attractive setting and well worth a visit; it is reached by a half-mile walk from the main road along the Dunbeath Water.

ND13 3 BALLENTINK 1 (‘Bridge of Rhemullen’) ND/1508 3135 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a grassy knoll with numerous projecting stones (Illus. 7.39). Part of a curved wall 1.2m (4ft) high is exposed on the west side, and suggests a diameter of 20m [1]; a 1968 description strongly suggests that the site is a broch [1]. There are several upright stones and slabs in disturbed ground to the south-east of the mound, suggesting an outer settlement. The mound appears to have been extensively quarried to the extent that its identity as a broch must be uncertain [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 SE 12: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 71, no. 261: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 692-93 & plan.

There are traces of what may be an outer wall a short distance south-east of the broch but excavation would be needed to establish or disprove contemporaneity with the broch. Description The entrance, on the south-east, is in a badly broken down section of wall and stands only about 8 courses high (Illus. 7.45 & 7.46); it is 4.27m (14ft) long and 1.07m (3ft 6in) wide at the exterior. At a distance of 1.17m (3ft 10in) from the outside the passage widens to 1.2m (4ft) where there are built checks for a door-frame; only the left hand one is now visible. At a distance of 2.85m (9ft 4in) from the outside a slab projecting from the right wall was once visible [3] and seems to have marked the position of a second door-frame. Between the two door-frames a guard cell opens off the right wall, but the doorway to it is now wrecked (Illus. 7.46). The length of the cell was given as 3.81m (12ft 6in) and the width as 1.98m (6ft 6 in), and its back wall is 4.27m (14ft) from the passage. In plan it is an elongated oval and it curves round sharply towards the interior wallface (Illus. 7.47). In 1871 its corbelled interior wallface was said to stand 4.0m (13ft) in height, but it is now much less than that. Many water-worn sandstone slabs, presumably brought up from the river, are in this part of the wall.

ND13 4 BALLENTINK 2 (‘Dunbrae’, ‘Rhemullen’) ND/1532 3098 Probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a large hillock on which traces of masonry can be seen, including an entrance passage with one large lintel (Illus. 7.40 & 7.41). A door-check and a bar-hole were seen in the entrance (on the south-east) in 1968 [1] but not in 1985 [3], though the passage walls were then visible for a length of 1.8m [3]. There is also a short stretch of curved, battered wallface, and all these features imply that there is a broch inside the mound. There are traces of an outer wall on north and west arcs of the mound together with some signs of buildings in the outer court thus enclosed [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 SE 11: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 84, no. 304: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 694-96 & plan. ND13 5 BURN OF LATHERONWHEEL (‘Latheronwheel Bridge’) ND/1865 3260 Probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a mound 3m (10ft) high with, on the south side, a stretch of curved wallface 3m (10ft) long and 60-90cm (2-3ft) high. Against this wallface can be seen part of an outer casing wall 90cm thick [1]. Some forty human skulls were said to have been found here many years before 1910, but no contemporary record of the discovery is known.

The position of the doorway to the intra-mural stair – if it existed – cannot now be traced and neither can the stair itself. This, and the absence of any visible traces of an intra-mural gallery on the turfed-over wallhead, means that the site can be classed only as a probable broch, although there can be little doubt as to its true nature. Indeed, judging from the fact that the inner wallface rises about 1.5m above the scarcement (below), there may 428

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) well be an upper gallery well preserved in the southern arc of the wall. Why the stair and its doorway were not found during the excavations when the entire inner wallface should have been exposed is a puzzle.26 It seems likely to have been in the 7-9 o’clock sector where the wall is badly broken down (as well as being damaged by the surrounding wall – Illus. 7.42).

kinds of jaws, the enamel of the teeth retaining its pristine freshness, although the bone bears evidence to the lengthened period of its inhumation. Along with these, the horny portion of two right hoofs of a deer, pared down upon the upper edge; a section of an antler an inch long, chipped and ground at both ends; a rib reduced by grinding to an edge; and several bones sawn across, or fractured by a blow, are indisputable traces of its former occupation by man; while at the further end, a shell heap of whelks and limpets adjoined a few small pieces of wood charcoal, above which the marks of fire were plainly visible. ... The further search for vestiges of man’s handicraft did not reveal the finds of implements, etc., which I had expected on first breaking open the cairn; but on the other hand, a varied collection of bones of carnivora and herbivora. There appears to be but one trace of the human form divine, – a single vertebra of an adult, while jaws and teeth of many of the lower animals abound. Among these, there appear to me to be teeth of the ox, deer, wolf (?), boar, and stoat, with fragments of fish bones. Among this second lot was a piece of freestone, covered with numerous indentations, all nearly of the same size. One of these passes right through the stone; possibly it was used for grinding some kind of weapon. . . . The effect of intense heat is discernible on the east side of the inclosure, in the reddened and disintegrated stones on that part of the wall. This appears to have been occasioned by a smelting fire, employed for the reduction of iron ore, several nodules of which were mixed up with animal remains, and as if in proof of the supposition, an iron spearhead, five inches long, lay beside the lumps of reduced iron in that place. Further evidence of the occupation by man is adduced by the discovery of burnt grain, bere, and oats, of which I obtained a handful close to the wall, and next to the clay bottom” [5, 238-40].

The wall on the north-west arc still stands up to 3.97m (13ft) high and the battered exterior face in this arc is impressive, standing up to 2.7m (9ft) high. On the inner face is a turfed-over ledge scarcement some 30cm wide and 1.93m (6ft 4in) above the present floor level (Illus. 7.49). At 12.30 o’clock is the lintelled, intact doorway to a rectangular mural cell; it measures 99cm (3ft 3in) high, 71cm (2ft 4in) wide and the same in depth. The nearrectangular corbelled cell itself is almost complete apart from the roof and, before the 1990 restorations, the latter had suffered some some crude rebuilding immediately above the doorway (Illus. 7.48); it now has a complete modern roof (Illus. 7.49). The cell measures 2.4m (8ft) long, 1.8m (6ft) wide and before 1990 still stood up to 3.10m (10ft 2in). It is remarkable for the quality of its drystone masonry, the whole of the lower part of which is made of freshly quarried blocks and is far superior to that in the guard cell opposite (Illus. 7.50 & 7.51); it resembles the interior of a Neolithic chambered tomb rather than an Iron Age broch (Illus. 7.52). It is quite possible that the broch builders incorporated the intact chamber of an otherwise wrecked Neolithic tomb within their structure but very careful excavation round about would be required to test this idea. On the south side of the central court was found a possible well dug into the floor, 1.2-1.5m (4-5ft) in diameter. The1866 excavations Sinclair’s letter to Joseph Anderson27 described his excavations into a ‘cairn’, so he seems not to have realised at that stage that he was dealing with a broch. Nothing much apart from animal bones seems to have been recovered.

Recent work A notice now at the site says that in 1990 some consolidation work was done on the stonework and this has been described in some detail [7]. No re-excavation was undertaken of the central court, which still contains grassed-over rubble, presumably that fallen in after the 19th century clearance. Neither was any clearing and consolidation of the wallhead done (though this would surely have exposed the upper gallery and perhaps the mural stair), nor were the young trees inside the central court removed.28 The recent, rebuilt, corbelled roof of the mural cell at 12.30 o’clock was removed and replaced, and extensive patching and repair of the inner wallface was done. A possible opening in the “west side of the wall” was found but not further investigated.

“Beginning on the south side, and clearing away the earth and loose stones, we found an oval chamber” [this was the guard chamber leading off the entrance passage] “with a portion of the converging roof, or dome, remaining, twelve feet six inches long, six feet six inches wide, and about thirteen feet to the highest part of the converging sides. In this preliminary experiment, I obtained the bones of various animals, among which are horns of the deer, bones of a bird, and of the cod and haddock; fragments of various 26 It is also curious that it seems not to have been looked for in the 1990 operations. 27 Then Keeper of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland.

28 The author urged at the time that such new excavation work should be undertaken, mainly to see if the primary floor was still preserved and, if so, to establish its nature.

429

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland One interesting discovery made by the consolidator was that the core of the stonework contained quantities of earth which, it was suggested, had been used to bed down the stones. Normally brochs are assumed to be of drystone construction so the immediate conclusion might be that the external sandstone blocks had weathered and that sandy soil had thus drifted down between the stones. However midden material, including bone fragments, was found so, since this can hardly have found its way in to the wall core accidentally, it does appear that padding of the stonework was employed during the construction of this broch. The restoration of the inner wallface above the mural cell at 1 o’clock, and of the corbelled dome of the cell itself, deserves comment (Illus. 7.49). The wallface has been built up as a blank façade for about 3ft above the scarcement, which runs over the cell doorway, slightly above its lintel. Nearly every well preserved internal broch doorway shows at least one void, and usually a series of them, above the doorway lintel – the obvious purpose being to stop the huge weight of the high wall from pressing down directly on to the lintel.29 It could therefore be argued that the present restoration gives an impression of broch architecture which is not in keeping with modern knowledge of these structures.30

accessible broch deserves a systematic new excavation with specific research goals. In addition to the outstanding problems just mentioned, the possibility that there was a Neolithic chambered cairn on the site is intriguing and ought to be investigated further. Finds Sinclair’s finds in the 19th century [3] include a supposed iron spearhead 13cm (5in) long and several pieces of iron ore; a piece of antler about 2.4cm (1in) long chipped and ground at both ends, 1 whetstone, a number of animal bones of ox, dog or wolf, and pig, fish bones and a sample of charred grain (bere and oats) at the foot of the wall. Dimensions The internal diameter of the broch was recorded as 8.24m (27ft) [3] and two measurements in 1963 gave totals of 8.24m and 8.39m (27ft 0in. and 27ft 6 in). A careful survey of the interior in 1971 showed that this was set out very close to an exact circle with a radius of 4.24m + 0.05m (that is a diameter of 8.48m). There is an important Early Christian monastic site at Ballachly on the north bank of the river a short distance east of the broch [4, 123 ff.]; the most prominent feature is a high wall (Illus. 7.44) [6, pl. V].

On the other hand it does seem that the level scarcement is slightly lower than the lintel of the cell doorway (Illus. 7.48 & 7.49), whereas this lintel is often incorporated into the ledge. Therefore there were probably a few courses of masonry on top of this lintel. However one would expect a weight-relieving void, or a series of them, a short distance higher up unless the structure (like Crosskirk – ND07 2) was never much higher than it is now. The midden material found in the wallface may perhaps indicate this.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 SE 17: 2. Anderson 1890, 144-46: 3. RCAHMS 1911b, 58-9 , no. 215: 4. Macdonald and Laing 1968: 5. Anderson 1869: 6. Morrison 1996, 47-53 & fig. 15 & pl. III: 7. Banks 1999: 8. Swanson (ms) 1985, 703-06 & plan: 9. Batey 2002, 188: 10. Close-Brooks 1995, 26, 56, 148, 165: Cowley 1999, 73. ND13 7 KNOCKINNON ND/1764 3105 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound on the west side of the road to Wick; no structural features can be seen, but part of an encircling wall or bank is visible on the north side, some 3.6m (12ft) from the mound. It is 1.8m (6ft) high on the inner side and 3.0m (10ft) on the outer. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 SE 10: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 59, no. 216.

Discussion Dunbeath is one of the more notorious examples of a broch cleared out in the early days of this branch of archaeology and from which almost no useful information has been recovered. The fact that hardly any artifacts were found may not be the fault of the excavator. However the continuing absence of any more useful information after the consolidation and clearance work in 1990 is noteworthy. We still know nothing of the condition of the primary floor level, nothing of the state of the wallhead (whether there are traces of an upper gallery for example, or whether Dunbeath is a ‘low broch’ like Crosskirk) and nothing about the location of the stair (which may possibly have started at first floor level). There is therefore nothing more to be said about this site except that such a well preserved and easily

ND13 8 LATHERONWHEEL (‘Latheronwheel Mains’) ND/1762 3251 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a green mound 1.8-2.4m (6-8ft) apparently covering a ruined broch; a depression in the summit suggests a central court. The outer wallface was exposed on the west side in 1968 [1] but can no longer be seen [1]. An encircling wall, about 1.8m (6ft) high, can be traced at a distance of about 3.6m (12ft) out from the base of the mound.

29

An exception is Dun Carloway, Lewis (NB14 1). Neither does any effort seem to have been made to help the visitor distinguish modern from ancient stonework; however this is a fairly general fault with all such restorations of prehistoric buildings in Britain.

30

430

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 SE 6: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 57, no. 211.

ND13 13 TIANTULLOCH ND/1524 3522 Probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a grass-covered mound 3m (10ft) high with a length of curved outer wallface on the south-east standing 1.5m (5ft) high (Illus. 7.56 – 7.58). In the south-south-east is a cell which seems to have been built into the outer face [3]. The overall diameter is about 17.1m (56ft) and “substantial revetments” about 1.0m in height abut the outer face on the east and south-west [3]; these are composed of large blocks of stone, similar to those in the broch stonework and a lintelled entrance can be seen in the eastern one, close to the broch wall [3]. The broch mound seems to rise from a larger mound containing outbuildings on the north-east [1]; an exposed wall bounds the site on the south Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 NE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 52, no. 196: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 684-86 & plan.

ND13 9 MINERA ND/1558 3461 Probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a grass-covered mound 3.36-3.66m (11-12ft) high with many stones projecting from it (Illus. 7.53 & 7.54). The base of the curved outer wallface is visible in places, suggesting an overall diameter of 21.4m (70ft). The height of the mound suggests that the inner wallface could survive to a height of 4-5m [3]. A broken depression running into the mound from the west may mark the position of the entrance passage, and a massive stone slab may be a lintel [1]. On the north the base of the surrounding modern wall shows earlier massive foundations [3] (Illus. 7.53). ‘The remains of the Minera complex must rank as one of the best preserved broch mounds in Caithness, containing substantial structural remains and a largely untouched stratigraphy” [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 SE 19: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 52-3, no. 197: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 687-89 & plan.

ND13 14 UPPER LATHERON ND/1824 3186 The grass-grown ruins of a possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, stand on top of a rock; part of the outer wallface, with four courses showing, is exposed on the north-east and suggests an overall diameter of about 17.4m (57ft). There are traces of outbuildings to the east. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 SE 8: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 59, no. 217.

ND13 10 ACHNAGOUL (‘Pict’s house’) ND/1627 3233 Probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a turf-covered mound 23.0m in diameter and 1.5m high with the lintelled entrance and a curved stretch of the outer wallface – 8m long and two courses high – exposed on the south-east side; the diameter of the building is estimated at 17.0m [1] (Illus. 7.55). There may be traces of an outer defence to the north. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 SE 14: 2, Swanson (ms) 1985, 690-91 & plan.

Square ND14 ND14 1 BALLACHLY ND/1956 4423 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a turf-covered mound, up to 3.97m (13ft) high, on moorland from which a few large stones protrude. There are traces of a broad ditch most of the way round, and of outbuildings on the east. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 14 SE 6: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 52, no. 192.

ND13 11 SMERRAL (‘Bunellich’, ‘Latheronwheel Burn’) ND/1780 3379 Probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a grass-grown mound up to 3.66m (12ft) high with a little of the curved outer wallface showing; this suggests an overall diameter of 19.2m (63ft). There are traces of outbuildings on the SE. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 SE 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, no. 209, 57.

ND14 2 GREYSTEIL CASTLE ND/1795 4167 (visited 22/7/63) This probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, stands on the east shore of Loch Rangag on a low spit of land projecting into the water (Illus. 7.59). The structure is built of irregular blocks of igneous or metamorphic rock and is unexcavated so that little can be seen but a mound of stones. A few facing stones of the outer face are visible in the south and west arcs, suggesting an overall diameter of 21m (c. 69ft).

ND13 12 SMERRAL WOOD ND/1773 3396 Probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, lying about 200m north of ND13 11 and consisting of dilapidated ruins among the remains of various constructions. Part of a curved wallface is visible on the north and this suggests a diameter of about 18.0m [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 13 SE 23: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 57, no. 210.

The inner face can be traced intermittently, suggesting an internal diameter of 9.0m (29.5ft) [1], but as this is at the top of the mound it probably represents the diameter above the scarcement. The wall would appear to be from 4.27-4.58m (14-15ft) thick. The entrance faces east, towards the shore, and there are traces of a guard cell on its right. The Commission noted a mural cell on the north 431

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland about 3.3m (11ft) long and 1.5m (5ft) wide [2]. A curved outer wall 2.4m (8ft) thick, concentric with the broch and about 7.93m (26ft) from it, crosses the neck of the short promontory; there is a 1.8m (6ft)-wide gateway through it.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 14 NW 2 (with plan & photograph): 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 34, no. 108: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 678-80 & plan.

A recent report [1] mentions a raised beach about 0.5m above the present surface of the loch and implies that the promontory on which the broch stands was formerly an island, and may have been a crannog. There are indications of a stone causeway leading from the broch to the shore along the isthmus, and which appears to be earlier than the outwork wall. The possibility thus exists that the causeway belongs to an earlier crannog on which the broch was built, or that broch and causeway are contemporary and the promontory wall is later. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 14 SE 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 60-1, no. 222.

ND15 1 ACHANARRAS (‘Achanarras Farm’) ND/1511 5515 The site of a possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, which in 1910 consisted of a grassy mound 7.6m (25ft) in diameter and 1.2m (4ft) high [2]. There were traces of a semicircular bank which might have been the scanty remains of the wall of half a broch [1]. The site no longer exists [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 NE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 32, no. 99: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 655.

Square ND15

ND15 2 ACHCOMHAIRLE ND/1596 5556 Possible broch or cairn in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a low circular mound about 24.0m in diameter and 0.80m high, with a central depression. There are no signs of structural features now and the site may be that of a cairn. Source: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 NE 5.

ND14 3 TULACH BEAG (‘Tormsdale 1’) ND/1459 4980 The scanty ruins, no more than 1.5m (5ft) high, of a possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, are on flat moorland at Tormisdale, and about 40m from the right bank of the river Thurso. Most of the stones have been removed from the site and few structural features are visible. The remains of a mural cell are visible on the north-west and a slight dip on the south side may indicate the position of the entrance. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 14 NW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 33-4, no. 107: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 676.

ND15 3 ACHIES 1 (‘Achies’) ND/1364 5506 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a mutilated grass-covered hillock 2.4m (8ft) high in which no clear structural remains are visible. It appears to be in the ‘mound on mound’ category [3]. The plan [3] shows little. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 NW 15: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 31, no. 97: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 650-51 & plan.

ND14 4 TULACH MOR (‘Tormsdale 2’) ND/1485 4940 (visited in 1984) This possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, is a prominent mound standing on a rock rising from the edge of the right (east) bank of the river Thurso, about 2 miles above Westerdale (Illus. 7.60). Defended on one side (the south-west) by the river and a sheer rock face, it is protected elsewhere by a ditch of varying width, best preserved on the north-east and now up to 1.8m (6ft) deep. On the same side is a terrace about 6m (20ft) wide, diminishing in breadth as it approaches the base of the mound on either side; there has been a wall or parapet at the edge of this terrace, crowning the scarp.

ND15 4 ACHIES 2 (‘Achies East’) ND/1400 5565 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a large grassy mound some 46.8m (150ft) in diameter and 3.7-4.3m (12-14ft) high. There is a central mound c. 23.8m (78ft) in diameter – presumably the broch – on top of a flat platform which projects from under the mound as a terrace 3.7-6.1m (12-20ft) wide. The edge of the platform forms a steep scarp 1.8-2.4m (6-8ft) above field level. In the top of the central mound is a circular depression about 8.5m (28ft) in diameter and 1.5m (5ft) deep. The mound has been dug into from the south-east and human remains were found in 1850 [1]. There seems little doubt that the site is a broch, but it has to be categorised here a ‘possible’ because of the absence of visible masonry. There are traces of a surrounding wall or rampart with an outer ditch [4]. The plan [4] shows little. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 NW 13: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 31, no. 98 & pl. XIII: 3. Graham 1947, 94: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 648-49 & plan.

An outer face is visible on the south and the west-southwest and suggests a diameter of about 19.0m (62.3ft) [1] or 16.5m (54ft) [2]. The top of the mound contains a saucer-shaped depression resembling the filled-in court of a broch [3]. The inner end of an intra-mural chamber seems to be visible in the south quadrant but Swanson says that “it does not respect the line of the broch wall, and is open at both ends” [3]. There has been much quarrying into the face of the terrace on the east side. This mound is typical of a Caithness broch on a platform with an outer ditch that there can be little doubt as to its nature.

432

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) about six years earlier.31 Spoil heaps from his clearances are marked on Swanson’s plan beyond the ditch [3] (Illus. 7.62).

ND15 5 ACHIES 3 (‘Achies West’, ‘Harpsdale’) ND/1305 5522 Site of a possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, reported by Anderson to have been destroyed in 1841 and to have had a well with clear water in it [3]. There is nothing to be seen now but a slight rise in the ground. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 NW 16: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 47, no. 180: 3. Anderson 1890, 185: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985 (ms), 652.

The broch stands a few feet above the surrounding flat moorland on what seems to be a raised artificial platform; this has a masonry wall running round its perimeter so that there is a flat terrace between the broch and the edge of the platform (Illus. 7.65). A ditch 6.7m (22ft) wide surrounds the mound, ending at the river bank (Illus. 7.63); it was probably originally a moat filled by the river, and – even though obviously nearly full with silt – is still apparently flooded when the river is high. Swanson reports modern drainage ditches leading from each end of the old ditch to the river [3]. There are no signs of an outer bank.

ND15 6 ACHINGOUL ND/1047 5463 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a low, circular, grass-covered mound 24.0m in diameter which Swanson describes as a ring [2]. No traces of structures can be seen but there has been an outer defensive bank running from north-west to north and a hollow way on the north side may be the entrance. The plan [2] shows little. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SW 1: 2. Swanson (ms) 1985, 653-54 & plan.

Three narrow stone causeways cross the moat – a feature not known elsewhere. One of them is in line with the entrance on the south-east and seems to be older than the rest, being low and turf-covered; if it is of Iron Age date it should have an opening in its lower part to let the water of the moat through. The other two causeways have vertical sides of drystone masonry and are on the northeast side (Illus. 7.64). They are usually described as modern and Swanson suggests that they were built by Murray Threipland to help remove excavated stone from the site [3]. This seems highly probable.

ND15 7 ACHKEEPSTER (‘Balvedavist’) ND/1680 5158 Site of a possible broch or ‘Pictish house’ in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of the scanty remains of a mound which were removed many years before 1871 [1]. Human remains and animal bones were then found. No identifiable remains are visible. Source: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SE 11.

The main entrance is on the south-east and the outer and inner ends were already partly exposed in 1910 so that its lintels could be seen [2]. Although the Commission stated that the outer one had gone [2] they all seem to be in position now so the front one may have been replaced. The Commission gives the entrance a length of 3.20m (10ft 6in) but the wall nearby is now more exposed because of the trench dug in the 1950s and can be seen to be nearer 3.6m (12ft) thick, taking into account the visible batter on the outer face. The width of the passage is 1.0m (3ft 4in) at the outside, and there are no visible signs of door-checks or of a guard cell (Illus. 7.67). Rubble fills the passage now, apparently blocking it to a greater extent than in 1910 when 2.4m (8ft) of lintelled roof was visible [2]. No guard chamber or door-checks were exposed then and none are now. Also exposed by the recent excavations was a secondary outward extension of the entrance in the form of a passage containing door-checks (Illus.7.66).

ND15 8 ACHLOCHAN MOSS ND/1418 5306 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a grassy, ring-shaped mound about 22.6-21.1m (74-69ft) in diameter and 1.2-1.8m (4-6ft) high. Depressions around the summit may be the remains of a mural gallery [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SW 6: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 32, no. 102: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 661-62 & plan. ND15 9 CARN NA MAIRG (‘Cairn Merk’, ‘Westerdale 1’) ND/1331 5103 (visited 14/7/63, 12/7/85 & 4/8/02) Partially excavated broch, probably solid-based, on flat moorland in Halkirk, Caithness, and next to the river Thurso; it stands on a flat artificial platform and is surrounded by a damp ditch which seems originally to have been connected with the river at each end, forming a moat (Illus. 7.61-7.68). The site is a conspicuous mound (Illus. 7.61) and has been explored by a long trench on the south-east side which runs from the outer end of the entrance to the inner face of the outer wall. From about 3.30 to 5 o’clock the outer wallface has been cleared of debris and exposed, and a section of the upper intra-mural gallery above this has also been cleared out for about half of this length. This was all done after the Commission’s visit in 1910 and the author was told in 1963 that Mr Murray Threipland, the then landowner, did the work

Another recent, and wider, trench has been dug some distance anti-clockwise from the entrance, running from the outer rampart – exposing its inner face (Illus. 7.65) – up to the broch wall – where the battered outer face is exposed (Illus. 7.64) – and over the wallhead itself. There it has exposed a short length of a mural gallery 60cm (2ft) deep (Illus. 7.68). This latter must be the first tier of what was once a series of raised galleries on 31 The remains of the neatly cut trenches indicate some familiarity with modern archaeological techniques.

433

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland top of a solid wall base. There is no sign of its floor being of lintels, which would be the case if there was a ground level gallery below.

existence is available [1]. A cist with some bones is reported to have been found, and destroyed, in about 1850 when digging the foundations of some outhouses. More recent visits revealed no trace of a broch [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SW 16: 2. Anderson 1890, 185.

The space between the outer wall and the mound is about 9.0m (30ft) across and there are signs of outbuildings under the turf [3, plan].

ND15 13 HALKIRK (‘Pict’s house’) ND/1347 5951 Site of possible broch or cairn which stood at the east end of Sinclair Street in Halkirk. There is nothing to be seen now, the mound having been destroyed some years ago by the tenant of the croft on which it stood. It could have been a cairn as easily as a broch. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 NW 10: 2. Swanson (ms) 1985, 645.

The whole site is an exceptionally interesting one in that it provides a typical example of a Caithness broch on its own mound surrounded by wall and ditch and with a presumably secondary settlement clustered around it, the whole now in complete isolation and relatively undisturbed. It also shows how easily a true hollow-walled broch can be detected in this area with a trench over the wallhead. The height of the base of this gallery must be at about the level of the roof of the entrance – that is about 2.0m above the Iron Age floor; this is a lot less than the wallhead at Crosskirk (ND07 2) where no Level 2 gallery was found. The surrounding waterlogged ditch should offer an unusual opportunity for recovering organic remains and the peat-covered flat land round about might conceal an Iron Age field system. The site is one of the most promising in Caithness and well worthy of a full-scale excavation. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SW 22: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 33, no. 105: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 672-75 & plan.

ND15 14 HOUSLE CAIRN (‘Gerston’) ND/1190 5960 A probable broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a much-pillaged large mound about 24m in diameter on top of a larger ‘cairn’; this is the classic Caithness ‘mound on mound’ [3]. In about 1850 some cists were found here with human remains and other finds, including iron [2]. By 1965 traces of a curved wallface had been exposed which makes the diagnosis of the mound on top as a broch more likely [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 NW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 35, no. 115: 3. Graham 1947, 96: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 641.

ND15 10 CNOC DONN ND/1400 5330 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound 1.8-2.1m (6-7ft) high on level ground with strong outer defences; the mound seems to be on top of a platform. The whole is partly surrounded by a ditch preserved from north-east southward to south-west and from 18.3-20.1m (60-66ft) wide. A parapet or wall 90120cm (3-4ft) high on the inside runs along the inner edge of this and there is also an encircling mound beyond the ditch, separated from it by a berm 2.1m (7ft) wide. There is a causewayed approach through these outer defences on the south-west [1], and the ground beyond the ditch ends may formerly have been more marshy than it is now [1]. The plan shows no masonry [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SW 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 32, no. 103: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 658 & plan.

ND15 15 HOUSTRY (‘Houstry Mains’, ‘Pict’s house’) ND/1404 5801 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a low, indefinite mound about 22m in diameter and 0.8m high; it has been almost completely ploughed out and has been tentatively diagnosed as the fragmentary remains of a cairn as well as of a broch [1]. Source: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 NW 9. ND15 16 KNOCKGLASS 3 ND/1761 5329 Possible broch in Watten, Caithness, in the form of a conical grass-covered mound 3.66-3.96m (12-13ft) high; a very short fragment of a curved outer wallface is visible half way up the south side of the mound, possibly too short to make the diagnosis of a broch probable. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SE 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 131, no. 475.

ND15 11 DALE 1 (‘Dale Farm’) ND/1320 5304 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a mound which has been half removed from the east. The original dimensions were about 42.7 x 37.2m (140 x 122ft). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SW 7: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 33, no. 104: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 656.

ND15 17 MYBSTER ND/1619 5280 A possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, in the form of a large, grass-covered mound about 41.2m (135 ft) eastwest, 37.5m (123ft) transversely and 3.66m (12ft) high; there is a suggestion that it may be the remains of a broch standing on a platform. The north-east side has been much reduced by quarrying for a road. The ‘mound on mound’ effect so common in Caithness brochs is apparent on the west side [1].

ND15 12 DALE 2 (‘Dale House 2’) ND/1297 5227 Site of possible broch, or ‘Pict’s house’, where the present house of Dale stands [2], but no evidence of its 434

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SE 8: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 31, no. 96: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 663-64 & plan.

broch, traces of the walling of which were diagnosed nearly a century ago [2]; however no clear traces of masonry are now visible [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SW 20: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 33, no. 106: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 670-71.

ND15 18 SPITAL 1 (‘Torr an Fhidhlier’) ND/1632 5473 Possible broch or cairn in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound two thirds of which have been removed [2]. Soil erosion has exposed a mass of stone slabs, but the identity of the ruined building remains uncertain. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. (unlocated) 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 32, no. 101.

ND15 23 LEOSAG ND/1162 5384 Possible broch or cairn in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a much-destroyed mound in a field originally identified as a probable broch [2]. It now seems more likely to be a cairn [1, 3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SW 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 34, no. 109: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 655.

ND15 19 SPITAL 2 (‘Spittal Farm’, ‘Pict’s house’) ND/1756 5438 Probable broch in Watten, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound about 30m (98 ft 4in) north-south by 26m (85ft 3in) east-west and up to 2.9m (6ft 11in) high [1]. It was opened up in the centre some years before 1910 and a “few small chambers” were discovered [2]; there is no trace of these now. A central depression suggests a round, hollow building and there is a section of the curved outer wallface on the north side, 3.5m long and 0.3m high, which seems to confirm the diagnosis of a broch. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 131, no. 474.

ND15 24 AISLE (‘The Aisle’) ND/130525 (approx). Possible broch in Halkirk, mentioned by Anderson as having been a short distance east [2] of the burial ground of that name. The broch is supposed to have been partly removed in about 1824 and entirely destroyed in about 1858, at which time half a stone dish was found [1, 2]. Sources: 1. Anderson 1890, 185: 2. Swanson (ms) 1985, 665. ND15 25 DALE HOUSE 1 ND/1297 52327 Possible broch in Halkirk reported to have been on the site of the present Dale House; a red sandstone quern, presumably rotary, was found when it was built. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SW 16: 2. Anderson 1890, 185: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 665.

ND15 20 TULACH AN FHUARAIN (‘Tulach an Fheurain’) ND/1287 5208 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a featureless mound part of the north side of which has been removed; it stands on the edge of a terrace above the flood plain of the river Thurso. There is a suggestion of a mound on top of a platform, similar to other known Caithness brochs [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SW 18: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 41, no. 144: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 666.

Square ND16 ND16 1 CASTLEHILL ND/1936 6876 Possible broch in Olrig, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound with many protruding stone slabs; it has been robbed on the south. A Norse burial was found on top of the mound in 1786, with two 10th century brooches, a jet armlet and a bone pin (7.6cm long) [2, 3 & 5]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 NE 11: 2. Anderson 1875, 549-50: 3. Anderson 1878, 329-30: 4. RCAHMS 1911b, 87, no. 320: 5. Greig 1940, 2, 23-4: 6. Mercer 1981, 156, no. 530: 7. Anderson 1890, 184.

ND15 21 TULACH LOCHAIN BRAISEAL (‘Tulach Lochan Bhraiseil’) ND/1282 5203 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a conical grassy mound with no traces of a building visible. There are slight suggestions of the ‘mound on mound’ effect common in Caithness brochs [1]; the plan shows no masonry [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 15 SW 19: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 41, no. 143: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 668-69 & plan.

ND16 2 GEISE 1 (‘Pict’s house’) ND/1036 6480 Possible broch in Olrig, Caithness, consisting of the remains of a grass-covered mound most of which has been removed by quarrying; it stands next to the small Geise Burn, a tributary of the river Thurso. There are no clues as to the nature of the original building which may be the ‘Pict’s house’ referred to by Pococke in 1760 [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 SW 9: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 118-19, no. 430: 3. Kemp 1887, 133: 5. Swanson (ms) 1985, 630-31.

ND15 22 WESTERDALE 2 (‘Tulach Buaile a’ Chroic’) ND/12995186 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of an oblong mound of a suitable size to cover the remains of a 435

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland ND16 3 GEISE 2 (‘Pict’s house’) ND/1054 6514 Site of possible broch in Olrig, Caithness, said to have been where a ‘Pict’s house’ stood [1]. There are no traces of anything in the arable field. Source: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 NW 6.

whole, with a bank beyond it on the south-east and south sides [3]. There are traces of outbuildings between bank and ditch on the north-east. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 NE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 87, no. 319: Mercer 1981, 154, no. 516. ND16 9 NORTH CALDER ND/1035 6160 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, standing on the summit of a grassy hillock about 46.0m in diameter and 4.0m high which may be partly artificial. There are no wallfaces visible but the site looks like a classic example of a broch mound on top of a flat platform [1], although this feature was not seen by Swanson, possibly because of dense vegetation [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 SW 10: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 34, no. 110: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 635.

ND16 4 HA’ OF DURAN (‘Hall of Durran’, ‘Durran’) ND/1951 6359 Possible broch in Thurso, Caithness, consisting of a low grassy mound showing no clear remains of a structure. On the north and east sides are traces of a terrace, suggesting that, as with other Caithness brochs, the building stands on a flat-topped mound. In the south-east quarter there are signs of a ditch at the base of the mound [1]. A Mr Durran removed part of the mound before 1872 and found some gravestones, possibly associated with the nearby chapel [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 SE 13: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 120, no. 436: 3. Anderson 1890, 184.

ND 16 10 OLRIG GLEBE (‘Borgie House’) ND/1912 6710 Possible broch or cairn in Olrig, Caithness, consisting of a grass-covered, stony mound about 30.0m in diameter and much reduced by cultivation; no fragments of a structure are to be seen, and the site may be that of a cairn [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 NE 12: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 87-8, no. 322.

ND16 5 HOY ND/1416 6062 Probable broch in Thurso, Caithness, consisting of a grass-covered mound 5m high close to a farmhouse; one side of the mound has been demolished for material for the farm buildings [2]. A section of the wall was exposed in 1910 and was 4.58m (15ft) thick [2]. Fragments of the outer face are still visible [1]. The site exhibits the ‘mound on mound’ structure in three levels [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 SW 6: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 120, no. 435: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 643-44 & plan.

ND16 11 OLRIG HOUSE (‘Olrig’) ND/1890 6628 Possible broch in Olrig, Caithness, consisting of a large grassy mound about 40m in diameter and spread out by past cultivation; no parts of any building are visible. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 NE 14: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 88, no. 323: 3. Anderson 1890, 184.

ND16 6 HOY STATION (‘Sibster’) ND/1499 6011 Site of possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, which was removed in 1841; a sculptured stone was found at the time. There is nothing to be seen now. Source: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 SW 7: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 47, no. 179: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 645.

ND16 12 SIBMISTER (‘Cairn of Sibmister’) ND/1651 6622 Possible broch in Olrig, Caithness, consisting of a mound with stone slabs protruding on top of a grassy hillock; no clear signs of masonry are visible, except that a revetment is exposed near the top of the underlying hillock [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 NE 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 87, no. 321: 3. Anderson 1890, 184.

ND16 7 KNOCKDEE ND/16 60 approx. A possible broch, in Bower, Caithness, has been reported at this site [2] but no further information is available. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 SE 25: 2. H Morrison 1883, 49.

ND16 13 SKINNET ND/1257 6136 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a grass-grown mound part of which (on the east side) has been removed; there are no traces of any building, but it has been suggested that the arc of rubble visible on top indicates a diameter of 15.0m, “too great for a broch” [1]. There are fairly clear signs of a ditch on the east and south-east [4]. The mound had been partially destroyed early in the 19th century [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 SW 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 35, no. 116: 3. Anderson 1890, 185: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 637.

ND16 8 MURKLE ND 1626 6881 Possible broch in Olrig, Caithness, consisting of a grassy, flat-topped hillock on which is another mound, thought to be the remains of a broch [2] (Illus. 7.69). No part of the structure is visible, and the overall height is 4.88m (16ft). Querns and human remains have been found here [1], and there are traces of a ditch around the

436

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) ND16 14 STEMSTER 3 ND 1762 (approx.) A possible broch in Bower, Caithness, is recorded but no details are available and the exact site is not known. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 SE 26: 2. Morrison 1883, 49.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NW 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 57, no. 208. ND23 3 APPNAG TULLOCH ND/2121 3591 This probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, is a grassgrown mound standing on the summit of a rocky outcrop in a meadow about half a mile north of Forse. The ruins are now entirely overgrown but in 1910 a recent excavation had exposed a few features [2]. These included the entrance on the west side which is about 3.63.9m (12-13ft) long; a single course of the outer face shows north of it [1]. The overall diameter is about 18.0m (60ft) and the internal diameter is about 10.7m (35ft). There are signs of an outwork on the east, which is the easiest line of approach, and of traces of outbuildings on the west, in front of the entrance. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NW 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 59-60, no. 218.

ND16 15 TULLOCH OF SHALMSTRY ND/1316 6443 Probable broch in Thurso, Caithness, consisting of a flat-topped green mound 2.1m (7ft) high in which part of a curved outer wallface is exposed on the south-east, indicating an overall diameter of c. 22.0m (72ft) (Illus. 7.70). The outer end of the entrance passage – which is on the east – has been cleared out [2], and its width is 86cm (2ft 10 in). There may be traces of outbuildings on the south-west [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 SW 8: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 120, no. 437: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 632-33 & plan.

ND23 4 EAST CLYTH ND/2995 3923 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a low, turf-covered mound with a slightly concave centre and standing on level ground next to a burn. Erosion has revealed many stones but the only trace of a wallface is on the north-west; here a single course is visible in a horseshoe shape, possibly marking the presence of a mural cell. Source: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NE 11.

ND16 16 UPPER SOUR ND/1085 6056 Possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness, consisting of a large grassy mound 2.4-2.7m (8-9ft) in height in which no traces of masonry can be seen. This is another classic Caithness ‘mound on mound’ site [3] and it has been partly quarried. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 16 SW 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 35, no. 114: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 639. ND16 17 CARSGOE ND/1463 (approx.) Site of a possible broch in Thurso noted by Anderson as having been destroyed well before his time [2]. There is nothing to be seen on the site now [3]. Sources: 1. Anderson 1890, 184: 2. Swanson (ms) 1985, 634.

ND23 5 GOLSARY ND/2057 3749 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a conical grassy mound, on top of a rock, in which traces of the outer wallface are visible, indicating an overall diameter of 17.08m (56ft); it stands up to 3.6m (12ft) in height. On the north is an outer rampart or wall with an external ditch which crosses the ridge at a distance of 5.49-6.10m (18-20ft). The rampart is 1.05m (3ft 6in) high on the inside face and the flat-bottomed ditch is 8.24m (27ft) wide and 2.1m (7ft) deep. There is another rampart on the outer edge of the ditch with traces of a second ditch beyond [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NW 14: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 60, no. 220.

Square ND23 ND23 1 ACHAVAR ND/2617 3697 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a mound standing on the north end of a rocky ridge, 1.8m (6ft) high and 20.7m (68ft) in overall diameter, with a circular depression in the top. No part of the structure is visible. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NE 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 53, no. 199.

ND23 6 LYBSTER (‘The Tullochs’) ND/2529 3597 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of an amorphous mound 14 x 20m with very large stones visible which might be the remains of a broch. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NE 16: 2. Batey (ms) 1982, no. 239.

ND23 2 ACHOW (‘Rhianvarich’) ND/2303 3617 Possible broch consisting of a grassy mound c. 2.4m (8ft) high and 18m (60ft) in diameter. There are slight traces of a mound or bank encircling the broch mound a short distance from its base, and traces of outbuildings between the two features and on west.

ND23 7 MID CLYTH ND/2945 3732 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a grass-grown hillock 4.6m (15ft) high and about 33.6m

437

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland (110ft) in overall diameter. No part of the structure is visible. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NE 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 52, no. 195.

There are suggestions of outbuildings all round it except on the north. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NW 6: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 60, no. 221.

ND23 8 OCCUMSTER ND/2693 3565 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a conical grassy mound 3.6m (12ft) in height and 24m (80ft) in overall diameter. No fragment of masonry was visible in 1910 [2] but by 1967 a large trench had been dug into the mound, revealing an entrance passage 90cm wide on the west side [2, 3]; no architectural details of this are given. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 53, no. 198: 3. Batey (ms) 1982, no. 232.

ND23 14 WAG OF FORSE ND/2048 3520 This domestic site (with stone longhouses) and dun in Latheron, Caithness, forms a curious complex of structures which was partially excavated by A O Curle just before the last war and again in 1947 and 1948 [2, 3 & 4] (visited in 1971) (Illus. 7.71-7.73) A short description of the site is included here for three reasons. The first is that a case can be made out for assigning the circular building to a pre-broch period, and the second is that the material culture found – while it cannot be related to specific structures – supports that idea. The third reason is that the site was evidently occupied over a long period by people who built a variety of structures, and would repay further investigation and accurate dating. Like all other Iron Age structures in Caithness apart from brochs there is an absolute lack of precise dating evidence for the rectangular wags, or galleried dwellings.

ND23 9 ROSTER (‘Green Hill 1’) ND/2664 3986 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a green mound 2.4m (8ft) high with a curved outer wallface exposed in places; this suggests a diameter of c. 19.5m (64ft) [2]. There are traces of outbuildings on the slope west of the base of the mound. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NE 10: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 51-2, no. 191.

The site’s name The curious term ‘wag’ was explained by Curle who had first noticed the long rectangular structures – termed “galleried dwellings” – in 1910 during fieldwork in Caithness for the second report of the Royal Commission.

ND23 10 RUMSTER ND/2125 3725 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a grassy hillock 2.7m (9ft) high in which one course of a curved wallface, made of heavy stones, is exposed in the south-west arc [1]; this indicates an overall diameter of the building of 15.86m (52ft). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NW 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 60, no. 219.

“Hitherto un-noticed by modern antiquaries, they were designated on the maps of the Ordnance Survey by the comprehensive but inapplicable term ‘Picts’ Houses.’ The occasional place-name ‘Wag’ or ‘Wagmore’ occurring in their immediate vicinity seems to indicate their original designation, a term for which a derivation has been suggested in the Gaelic word uamh32 – a cave, with its diminutive uamheg – pointing to the fact that the completed structure under a roof must have presented a cave-like appearance.” [3, 11]

ND23 11 UPPER CLYTH (‘Bardintulloch’, ‘Pict’s house’) ND/2730 3727 Site of a possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, now almost completely destroyed by ploughing except for a section of “typical broch walling” [1] on the north-west. There was a ‘Pict’s house’ here until about 1867 [1]. Source: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NE 9.

Description There were two main types of structures at this site, namely the stone longhouses just mentioned, with rows of orthostats (presumably roof supports) standing inside, and small circular or near-circular chambers. In addition there was one large round building called the ‘circular wag’ but which is more like a dun or fort than anything else; it was diagnosed as a cattlefold by the excavator [3]. The whole complex had evidently been occupied over a period of time and the buildings were not all of the same age. However since no detailed stratigraphy was observed apart from the relationships between adjacent walls, and in many cases the floors of structures were not

ND23 12 UPPER LYBSTER (‘Pict’s house’) ND/2724 3811 Site of a possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, recorded as a ‘Pict’s house’ of which only a few foundation stones remain. There are suggestions of a berm on the southwest. Source: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NE 7. ND23 13 USSHILLY TULLOCH (‘The Tulloch’) ND/2075 3552 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a rubbly mound about 1.8-2.4m (6-8ft) high and on top of a low, outcropping rock. The wallface is not well defined but the diameter has been estimated at 19.5m (64ft).

32 Uamh is pronounced approximately ‘‘weem’ which term is a traditional one for underground structures like souterrains. It is also found in place names like East Wemyss (pron. ‘Weems’) in Fife, where there are a number of caves along the shore.

438

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) properly cleared, the detailed history of the site remains obscure. The complex was surrounded by a turf wall.

suggests defence. On the other hand the later rectangular stone longhouses were surely for domestic purposes and the dun (if it was such) had presumably ceased to be needed for defence by the time they were erected around it.

The ‘circular wag’ on the north side is earlier than at least one of the long rectangular stone buildings which overlies it; however it seems not to have been the earliest structure on the site (Illus. 7.71: ‘secondary wag’ and ‘pre-wag’). Its internal diameter is 13.73m (45 ft) or 14.33m (47 ft) on the plan, and the wall is 1.22-1.53m (45ft) thick except at two places. The first is the main entrance, where the wall had been thickened inwards, and again at about 3 o’clock where it had again been extended inwards in a bulge to accommodate a mural chamber.

The fact that the finds are without precise contexts also hinders the interpretation of the site. A few of them suggest that the site continued in use until the broch period in Caithness; the rotary quern in particular favours this dating, as does the whorl or bead made from a human femur head, a typical broch artifact. Likewise the fine jar sherd with an everted rim suggests the same (Illus. 7.73, no. 10). However some of the other material recalls the simple early Iron Age (even late Bronze Age) material culture of the mainland hillforts further south. The jet armlets are a case in point as also is the ‘cooking pot’ found on one of the hearths (Illus. 7.73, nos. 4 & 5).

The main entrance was only 90cm (3ft) high and the outer lintel was massive and sub-triangular; the passage was 76cm (2ft. 6in) wide. Checks for the door were 1.2m (4 ft) in but there were no bar-holes. A “light” socket stone suggested to Curle that the door had been wooden. The entrance passage was 3.97m (13ft) in length (measured from the plan) and the plan and text suggest that the entrance section had been built separately as a thicker block of masonry. Half way down the passage a stair rose to the wallhead on the left and opposite its foot, in the right wall, was a narrow chamber or guard cell. Seven steps remained of the stair, 1.14m (3ft. 9in) wide and, by prolonging the angle of ascent of the steps to the end of the entrance section and allowing for a platform at the top, an original height for the wall of 3.05-3.66m (10-12ft) was inferred. At a later stage the inner end of the passage was blocked and a new entrance pushed through the back of the guard cell. There was another entrance, also thought to be original by the excavator, through the thin part of the wall at about 8.30 o’clock. Two rectangular longhouses had been built partly over the circular structure and two more were a short distance south-west of the circular building. A curious building, containing two chambers forming a figure-of-eight, underlay one of the latter (Illus. 7.71).

These last are examples of the characteristic Dunagoil vase, with a slightly turned-out rim with a row of shallow finger-impressions immediately below it, which was found in the late Bronze Age levels at Crosskirk (ND07 2) and at Sheep Hill in West Dunbartonshire (MacKie 1976, fig. 6). In the light of this pot, and also because of the absence of any broch-like architectural features, it seems reasonable to suggest that the site at Forse was established in the early Iron Age and perhaps continued in occupation until the early broch period. Evidence for this at two Caithness brochs – Yarrows and Keiss North – has been described [6] and is reviewed again below (ND34 17 & ND36 5). In essence it consists of the presence in these two sites of what appears to be a primary intra-mural stair rising from one side of the entrance passage. This feature is otherwise unknown in brochs and could be reasonably explained by the example nearby in the older dun at Forse. Other potsherds from the site are indistinguishable from Caithness/Orkney broch jars (Illus. 7.73, nos. 6-10) and imply a middle Iron Age occupation.

Discussion The rarity of this complex site makes it difficult to suggest plausible affinities for the circular building, or to offer a guess at its age better than ‘Iron Age’. The way in which the exploration was conducted precludes much in the way of reliable inference about its function; the idea of a cattlefold seems inherently improbable because of the narrowness of the passage (76cm) and also because a formal stone door-frame built into the passage seems excessive for animals, even if they could have been squeezed down the passage.33 Some kind of defensive stronghold, or dún, seems more likely, and the lengthened entrance passage surely supports this idea (as it argues against the cattlefold theory). The stairs leading from the entrance to the wallhead should be for a watchman and the narrow chamber, or guard cell, opposite its foot also

Finds (Illus. 7.73: most of these are not clearly assigned to the various structures which are marked on the plan but they include the following. Stone: fragments of 3 saddle querns, hammerstones, several jet rings and armlets (two of the latter being 8.3 and 10.2cm (3.25 and 4 ins) in diameter), parts of a rotary quern and1 sandstone disc bead. From the small circular Chamber A, supposedly later than the adjacent longhouse A, came 1 polished sandstone disc. Bone: from below the floor of the circular structure came a human femur-head whorl, 1 stone whorl, 2 saddle querns (used as paving), stone ‘pot lids’, and fragments of a cannel coal ring. Pottery: also from the small circular Chamber A, came potsherds (including the pot illustrated by Curle [2, pl. lx] (Illus. 7.73, no. 4).

33

Of course Iron Age cattle were smaller than their modern counterparts.

439

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 23 NW 1: 2. Curle 1941: 3. Curle 1946: 4. Curle 1948: 5. Young 1962: 6. MacKie 1969: 7. Baines 1999, 77-8: 8. Cowley 199, 71.

was filled in again before the excavation was completed by the order of the proprietor; there seems to be no record of the finds.

Square ND24

Description The site is now an oval mound up to 5.5m (18ft) high with a terrace or glacis 3.6-4.2m (12-14ft) wide running round it. The outer edge of this on the north was defined by a wall or stony rampart up to 3.0m (10ft) wide at the base. The broch itself thus seems to have been built on a flat-topped platform, presumably artificial; this ‘mound on mound’ appearance is clear in the 1910 photograph [2, pl. XLII] (Illus. 7.74).

ND24 1 CAMSTER 1 ND/2520 4518 Possible broch on moorland in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a green, flat-topped mound 1.2-1.5m (4-5ft) high and 10.7m (35ft) in diameter across the top. There are no traces of wallfaces in it, but some traces of what appears to be a surrounding wall forming a circle about 25.9m (85ft) in diameter can be seen at the base of the mound. There seems to be an entrance through this on the east-north-east. A ditch 13.4m (44ft) wide surrounds the mound beyond this wall; it cuts the site off from rising ground. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 24 NE 4: 2. RCAHMS. 1911b, 51, no. 189.

The entrance passage was on the east and had been extended outwards through a sort of added casing wall for a distance of 6.7m (22ft); there was a door-frame in this secondary passage 1.53m (5ft) from the outer end and probably also another one 4.27m (14ft) in; about 1.53m (5ft) in from the outer secondary door was a guard chamber on the right side but none of these details are shown on the plan (Illus. 7.75). This secondary entrance was about 60cm (2ft) wide at the outer end widening to 1.2m (4ft) where it abutted against the broch wall.

ND24 2 CAMSTER 2 (‘Lower Camster’) ND/2555 4558 This possible broch in Watten, Caithness, stands on a rounded rock about 3.6m (12ft) high on the summit of a rocky escarpment 3.6-4.5m (12-15ft) high. Two segments of what appear to be the turf-covered wall of the broch survive, but no wallfaces can be seen. An approximate external diameter of 23.8m (78ft) and an internal one of 10.7m (35ft) are indicated. The site seems to have been encircled by a ditch on the west, north and east, which stops at the escarpment at each end. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 24 NE 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 163, no. 522.

The original broch doorway was 4.27m (14ft) long and 90cm (3ft) wide at the exterior. A pair of door-checks, apparently built of slabs set in to the passage walls, was 3.3m (11ft) in from the exterior, and thereafter the passage widened to 1.2m (4ft). There were lintels in position over most of the passage, at a height of 1.65m (5.5ft) above the floor. At 9.30 o’clock in the interior was a lintelled doorway in the wall 61cm (2ft) wide and 1.37m (4ft 6in) high which lead to a 7.63m (25ft) long flight of stairs rising to the right: the sill of the doorway was 61cm (2ft) above the broch floor. A stretch of ground- or near ground-level gallery 10.07m (33ft) long ran anticlockwise (away from the stair) from this doorway towards the entrance passage; it was partly lintelled and had a window or void leading to the interior (not on the plan).

ND24 3 TOFTGUN ND/2798 4241 Site of a possible broch in Wick, Caithness, consisting of a low grassy mound which has been almost completely removed; no structural details survive, but there may be traces of outbuildings on the south, in the form of several large stone slabs set on end. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 24 SE 6: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 164, no. 525: 3. Mercer 1980, 89, ‘TOF 2’.

At about 3 o’clock was another doorway into the wall – 60cm (2ft) wide and 1.53m (5ft) deep – leading to a second stair (neither are shown on the plan), which also rose to the right. The maximum height of wall preserved was 3.05m (10ft). Two aumbries or recesses were found in the inside wallface, and upright flagstones had been set up in the central court, against the wall to the left of the main entrance and immediately in front of it.

Square ND25 ND25 1 ACHAROLE (‘Baile a’ Chairn’) ND/2281 5171 A probable ground-galleried broch in Watten, Caithness, which is now a conspicuous grassy mound on flat land with stones protruding through the turf (Illus. 7.74 & 7.75) (the Gaelic name means ‘the farm of the Cairn’: visited 13/7/63). It was almost completely excavated in 1904 by Sir F Tress Barry, MP, and the only available plan [2] was apparently made, together with many others, by John Nicholson of Lybster.34 The broch 34

Discussion The lack of a clear description of the structural features, and the absence of any contemporary photographs of the excavations, makes it difficult to be sure what type of broch this was, but the long stair-foot gallery may well indicate that the structure is at least partly ground-

Information received with gratitude from Andy Heald .

440

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) galleried. On the other hand the rest of the wall base may still be solid as at Carrol (NC80 3 below).

Site of a probable solid-based broch in Watten, Caithness, standing on flat ground. The structure was excavated in 1905 by Dr. Anstruther Davidson and a plan was made of the exposed building by Mr. J Nicholson of Lybster (Illus. 7.76); it survives now as a low mound 60cm high and covered with vegetation.

Dimensions: internal diameter c. 9.0m (30ft): wall 4.27m (14ft) thick at entrance so external diameter may be about 17.39-17.69m (57-58ft). The wall proportion would thus be about 48-48.5%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 SW 8: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 127-9, no. 466, fig. 30 & pl. xlii.

Description The entrance passage, 5.19m (17ft) long, is on the west; its width is 75cm (2.5ft) for the first 3.97m (13ft) at which point it is rebated for door-checks, with slabs set in the wall according to the plan. Thereafter the width is 1.21m (4ft), narrowing a little at the inner end. A pivot stone was found just inside from the left check. At 3 o’clock is the doorway to a mural stair, rising to the right, with a stair-foot guard cell on the left. The latter is 5.03m (16.5ft) long by 1.22m (4ft) wide, widening to 2.13m (7ft) at the far end.

ND25 2 ACHINGALE ND/2434 5353 Probable broch in Watten, Caithness, consisting of a large mound which was opened up in 1841 [3]; it was then said to have contained the ruins of a broch, and midden material was found [2]. Most of the mound was later removed and during the work human remains were found in a cist [3], after which the work stopped. The situation is on the edge of a natural slope above the flood plain of the Wick river, and is typical of a broch [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 SW 14: 2. R MacAdam 1872, 183: 3. RCAHMS 1911b, 131, no. 473.

Four radial slabs were set in the interior against the broch wallface to the left of the entrance. A curved U-shaped wall, probably also secondary, was in the interior and had a hearth at one end of it, against its inside face. The convexity of the ‘U’ faced the entrance so one presumably had to go round this obstruction to get to the fireplace. The entrance passage seemed to have been secondarily extended outwards by a “casing wall”. There are no signs of this structure now [1].

ND25 3 BANKS OF WATTEN (‘Cairn of Achoy’) ND/2260 5348 Possible broch in Watten, Caithness, consisting of a featureless grassy mound the status of which is unclear. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 SW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 127, no. 465.

Finds: in 1911 these were in the school house at Gersa and included fragments of three “vessels of unornamented pottery”, many hammerstones, rubbing stones, thin shale discs and a fine bone pin. Only saddle querns are preserved, although a rotary quern and a stone mortar of uncertain origin were seen at the farm in 1982 [1]. In 1934 some further finds were recorded [3]; they included 1 pointed and socketed deer horn implement, a deer horn handle with socket and 2 pointed implements of deer-horn and bone respectively.

ND25 4 BILBSTER (‘North Bilbster’) ND/2817 5381 Possible broch in Wick, Caithness, consisting of a low, grassy hillock on flat arable land which has been under cultivation. It is about 26m in overall diameter and about 1m high but no stones are visible. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 SE 14: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 154, no. 514: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 615. ND25 5 CAIRN OF DUNN ND/2065 5605 Possible broch in Watten, Caithness, consisting of a stony mound in cultivated land, now ploughed out and almost invisible; it is about 30.5m (100ft) in diameter. There is nothing now to indicate what structure stood here. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 NW 8: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 127, no. 462.

Dimensions: external diameter (from plan) c. 19.22m (63ft), internal 8.85m (29ft): the wall proportion is therefore c. 54%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 NE 8: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 129-30, no. 469 & fig. 31: 3. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 69 (1934-35), 14-15 (donations). ND25 8 GEARSAY CAIRN ND/2726 5819 Possible broch in Watten, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound about 20-18m broad and 1.6m high; there are no signs of walling. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 NE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 131, no. 472.

ND25 6 CARN A’ CHLADHA ND/2313 5233 Possible broch in Watten, Caithness, consisting of a grassy hillock about 21m (70ft) in diameter and 3.0m (10ft) high which rests on the flat top of a larger mound 1.0m high [1]. One course of the curved outer wallface, 3.7m long, can be seen on the south-east. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 SW 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 129, no. 467. ND25 7 COGHILL (‘Cogle’) ND/2670 5708

ND25 9 LYNEGAR (‘Grey Cairn’) ND/2304 5662 Possible broch in Watten, Caithness, consisting of an oval grassy mound about 30m by 26m (79ft) in diameter 441

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland and 1.7m (5.5ft) high. There are several large flat stones on and about it. A “tunnel” was found in it during ploughing in about 1935 [1]. The fairly confident diagnosis of the site as a broch in 1910 [2] may be less plausible in view of the discovery of human remains in it in about 1850 [1], though such discoveries in broch ruins are not uncommon. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 NW 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 131, no. 471.

ND25 14 SCOTTAG ND/2566 5699 Possible broch in Watten, Caithness, now a low stony mound about 1.5m (5ft) high. In 1870, while part of the mound was being removed, a stone cist was found containing decayed bones, black earth, a finger-ring and a bronze buckle; there were also some well-preserved fragments of deer antler. The cist may mean that the mound is a cairn but if the bronze spiral finger-ring of Iron Age type, found in ‘a mound at Watten”, which was bought by the National Museum in 1894 [3], is from this site then it is likely to be a broch. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 NE 5: 2. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 28 (1893-94), 239 (find): 3. RCAHMS 1911b, 130-31, no. 470.

ND25 10 OLD HALL OF DUNN 1 (‘Bridge of Dunn’) ND/2041 5613 Possible broch in Watten, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound up to 1.2m (4ft) high. There are no clear traces of the building inside but it looks like a mound on a mound, typical of Caithness brochs [1]. The site is next to a burn and there are traces of a rampart along the edge of this, and along the east and south of the mound. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 NW 7: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 126-7, no. 461.

ND25 15 TULACH GORM 2 ND/2510 5604 Site of a possible broch in Watten, Caithness – a “Pict’s house” which was cut through by a road in 1790 [1]. There is nothing to be seen now but a greater density of broken stones in the plough furrows. Source: 1. NMRS site ND 25 NE 1.

ND25 11 OLD HALL OF DUNN 2 (‘Lower Dunn’) ND/2026 5670 Possible broch in Watten, Caithness, consisting of a grass-covered mound, 32.0m in diameter, in which no clear traces of the structure are visible; it gives the appearance of a ‘mound on a mound’, like many other brochs in the area [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 NW 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 127, no. 463.

ND25 16 WATTEN ND/2410 5397 Possible broch in Watten, Caithness, consisting of a turfcovered mound 19.5m (64ft) in diameter and 2.4m (8ft) high standing on the edge of the natural slopes above the flood plain of the Wick river. A fragment of curved wall was visible on the south-east side, 2.0m long and 40cm high and is evidently part of the inner wall of a chamber, but had evidently vanished in 1982 [1]. There are several large boulders in a line which suggest the foundations of an outer wall. Sources: 1. NMRS site ND 25 SW 13: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 129, no. 468.

ND25 12 OLD HALL OF DUNN 3 (‘Lower Dunn North’) ND/2035 5694 Site of a possible broch in Halkirk, Caithness. This ‘Pictish house’ was opened up and destroyed at about 1848 when some human bones, a sword and several other things were found [1]. It is now a ploughed-out mound in a field and about 1.1m high. The ‘sword’ is supposed to have been sent to the National Museums in Edinburgh but cannot be traced [1]. Source: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 NW 6.

ND25 17 WESTER WATTEN (‘Green Hill 2’) ND/2299 5502 Probable broch in Watten, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound c. 32m in diameter and 2.4m high. A broch-like entrance passage had been partly cleared out before 1910 [2] and is still visible, facing south-east [1]. A stretch of the north wall of this, 5.4m long, is visible but most of the lintels have all vanished and a door-check is preserved on the south side. Both checks were apparent in 1910, at distances from the exterior of 2.44m (8ft) on the left and 2.60m (8ft 6in) on the right [2]. In front of the door-frame the passage is 90cm wide and 1.4m behind it, contracting again to 81cm (2ft 8in) at a distance of 4.27m (14ft) from the exterior. Here the first surviving lintel is met. The doorway to a guard chamber 25cm (2ft 6in) wide can be seen in the north wall, 5.64m (18ft 6in) from the exterior. In 1910 the length of passage wall visible was 9.46m (31ft) on the left and 8.75m (29ft) on the right. This great length must mean that the broch entrance has been extended at some stage. The extension might be inwards since the door-checks are relatively close to the

ND25 13 SCORRICLET (‘Pict’s house’) ND/2485 5051 Site of possible broch in Watten, Caithness, now consisting of a low mound containing cleared stone and refuse. Two “underground rooms” and a well are supposed to have been discovered years ago [1] and more recently finds have been made on the site like stone spindle whorls or loom weights. In 1985 the late Gordon Johnston of the Hunterian Museum showed the author drawings of two decorated stone whorls which were said to have come from the mound at Scorriclet Farm.35 Source: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 SW 9.

35

The farmer was a relative of his.

442

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) outer end; on the other hand the great distance of the guard cell from the exterior suggests an outward extension, in which case there would be a door in this such as is found in other brochs. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 25 NW 9: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 56-7, no. 464.

west England an example of which was found at Leckie broch (NS69 3) [6, 86 & 195]; it was originally illustrated as if complete [3, fig. 204] but only a third of a bead is in the National Museums (Illus. 7.131). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 26 SW 7: 2. Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 9 (1870-2), 247 (finds): 3. Anderson 1890, 143-4: 4. RCAHMS 1911b, 6-7, no. 22: 5. Stevenson 1955, 291: 6. Guido 1978: 7. Young 1962, 174.

Square ND26 ND26 1 BOWERTOWER (‘Mains of Bowertower’) ND/2279 6179 Possible broch in Bower, Caithness, consisting of a grass-covered mound in a field which has been badly mutilated. There are no traces of a building. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 26 SW 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 6, no. 19.

ND26 5 HA’ OF GREENLAND ND/2490 6709 Site of a possible broch in Dunnet, Caithness, consisting of a mound much reduced by ploughing [2], now visible only as a slight rise [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 26 NW 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 22, no. 64.

ND26 2 CAMSTER 3 ND/2093 6098 Possible broch in Bower, Caithness, consisting of a low mound surrounded by a broad ditch about 12.2m (40ft) wide. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 26 SW 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 6, no. 18.

ND26 6 HALCRO ND/2389 6119 Possible broch in Bower, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound about 3.0m (10ft) high, 20.1m (66ft) in diameter [1] and with a flat top. Pits have been dug into it on the north-east and south-west sides, and the finding of human remains is recorded [1]. A recent report diagnosed the site as a mound on a platform about 60cm high [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 26 SW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 1, no. 1.

ND26 3 GUNN’S HILLOCK 1 ND/2792 6201 Possible broch in Bower, Caithness, consisting of a treecovered mound 90cm (3ft) high and 18m (60ft) in diameter. It appears to consist of a 0.5m high platform with a mound on top of it, but no masonry is visible. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 26 SE 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 1, no. 2: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 600.

ND26 7 HILL OF WORKS (‘Barrock Broch’) ND/2903 6255 This probable solid-based broch in Bower, Caithness, stands on flat ground. It was excavated in 1900 by Sir F Tress Barry and the only available account of the work is that compiled by the Royal Commission. Barry’s plan is reproduced here (Illus. 7.77). A much more recent plan of the still visible remains was made by Swanson [5] (Illus. 7.78). Some trees grow on the site but the broch is still well preserved [5].

ND26 4 HA’ OF BOWERMADDEN (‘Bowermadden’) ND/2398 6369 Site of a probable broch in Bower, Caithness, which was trenched by the farmer sometime before 1870 after it had been used for many years as a stone quarry. Joseph Anderson obtained from the farmer a number of finds (below) but no plan could be made of the building. The internal diameter was estimated at about 9.15m (30ft) and there was a well in the middle with 12 or 14 steps down into it which the farmer filled up. There is now no trace of the broch. Finds (Illus. 7.31) included the following. Bronze: 1 cast ring-headed pin, 76mm (3in) long of 4th5th century A.D. type, with an ornamented head [4, 144, figs. 6 & 7: 6, 291]. Bone: 1 small, single-piece, single-edged comb with 13 short teeth. Stone: 1 oval, fire-blackened, sand-stone cup, 2 whorls; 1 sandstone disc 178mm (7in) in diameter with a 38mm (1.5in) hole in the middle, several round balls, 1 small mortar and several large vessels, one 91cm (3ft) deep. Glass: part of a perforated triangular blue bead with spiral yellow inlay, an example of Guido’s North Scottish spiral-decorated beads which, she supposes, started as copies of the ‘Meare spiral’ bead from south-

The main entrance is on the west-south-west and is 3.97m (13ft) long, 1.02m (3ft 4in) wide at the outer end with a pair of door-checks 2.4m (8ft) from the exterior. From the plan these seem to have been built, rather than made from projecting slabs on edge; however the masonry in this area is now broken down [5]. The passage behind them is 1.2m (4ft) wide. A mural cell was at 8 o’clock and may have contained the stair, though this is not marked on the plan; this is a common position for a broch stair. The remains of two skeletons (presumably human) were found on its floor. Swanson observed another break in the inner face at about 2 o’clock which she thought might be another doorway [5], even though the original plan does not show one (Illus. 7.77). A well with steps leading down into it was found in the floor in front of this cell and slightly clockwise from it 443

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland and there are various flagstones on edge in the interior which might be secondary. A line of masonry continues the right side of the entrance into the interior for 2.1m (7ft). The maximum height of the wall at the time of excavation was 1.2m (4ft).

ND26 10 SCOOLARY ND/2982 6847 Possible broch in Canisbay, Caithness; there is nothing here but a low rise in the ground. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 26 NE 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 16, no. 38.

There seems to have been a concentric face of masonry around the outer face of the broch, forming in effect a long curved passage around the structure. Another long passage containing a sharp bend, presumably secondary, leads to the main entrance and also connects with the concentric passage. Yet another passage leads outward from the latter at about 2.30 o’clock; part of the concentric wall can still be traced, as can the lines of the approach passages [5]. An outer ditch can still be traced running two thirds of the way round the broch, 7.9m (26ft) from it on the north and 15.25m (50ft) on the west; it is obliterated elsewhere. No doubt there were outbuildings between the ditch and the broch but they do not seem to have been explored. A stony rampart lies beyond the ditch [5].

ND26 11 THURDISTOFT ND/2078 6731 Probable broch in Olrig, Caithness, consisting of a flattopped, grassy mound 24.0m in diameter and 2.0m high. Two distinct sections of the outer wallface are visible in the north and south, there being eight courses on the north-east. There is no sign of the entrance. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 26 NW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 87, no. 318: 3. Mercer 1981, no. 547: 4. Anderson 1890, 184. Square ND27 ND27 1 DUNNET ND/2214 7028 Possible broch in Dunnet, Caithness, consisting of a sandy mound 4.91-5.21m (16-17ft) high and with a diameter at the top of about 14.03m (46ft). It is not clear whether there is a building inside it [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 27 SW 10: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 26-7, no. 78: 3. Mercer 1981, no. 657.

Dimensions: internal diameter 8.85m (29ft), external c. 16.47m (54ft), so the wall proportion is about 48%. Swanson gives the internal diameter as 8.6m [5]. Finds [3]: these include 4 sandstone whorls; 1 handled stone cup [3] and the basal half of 1 large pottery vessel similar to those found at Keiss North (ND36 5) [2].

ND27 2 HOLLANDMAY (‘Hollmey’) ND/2930 7083 Site of possible broch in Canisbay, Caithness, consisting of a low mound at the edge of a field in which a small excavation was carried out by J Nicholson of Nybster, and a polished bone ring recovered [2, 3]. A different source says that this “Pictish house” was entirely removed in about 1869 and a piece of silver (unidentified) was found [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 27 SE 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 16, no. 39: 3. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 43 (1908-09), 18 (find).

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 26 SE 2: 2. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 38 (1903-4), 252 (find): 3. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 43 (1908-9), 17 (finds): 4. RCAHMS 1911b, 1-2, no. 3 & fig. 1: 5. Swanson (ms) 596-99 & plan. ND26 8 LINKS OF DUNNET ND/222696 Originally diagnosed as a hut circle [2] this site, in an area of grass-covered sand dunes in Dunnet, Caithness, was later identified as a probable broch 15m in diameter and 2m high comprising a circular banked structure on top of a mound with stones visible in the centre. Excavation revealed a sub-oval chamber of slabs and dry walling [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 26 NW 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 24, no. 66 & 26, no. 77: 3. Mercer 1981, 158, no. 552.

ND27 3 RATTAR (‘Ratter’) ND/2504 7378 Possible broch in Dunnet, Caithness, consisting of the fragmentary remains of a large circular building of which no clear traces remain. It has also been diagnosed as a cairn [1, 3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 27 SE 8: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 27, no. 83: 3. Batey (ms) 1982, Dun 17.

ND26 9 MURZA ND/2538 6290 Possible broch in Dunnet, Caithness, consisting of a mound in a field which was 3.66m (12ft) high in 1873 but which is now reduced to 2.4m. It has a flat summit 19.0m by 13.0m and no traces of masonry can be seen. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 26 SE 7: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 22, no. 63.

ND27 4 RATTAR BURN (‘Rattarburn’, ‘Rattar Broch’) ND/2525 7389 Site of possible broch in Dunnet, Caithness, at the mouth of the Burn, visible only as a slight depression. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 27 SE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 27, no. 84: 3. Anderson 1890, 184: 4. Batey (ms) 1982, Dun 18.

444

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) ND27 5 SCARFSKERRY ND/2564 7420 Possible broch in Dunnet, Caithness, situated on the outer end of a coastal promontory 9.2m (30ft) wide; it is now an irregular, turf-covered stony mound which has been diminished by erosion. Walling was seen on the north and south-west, suggesting a thickness of 1.55m and an internal diameter of c. 5.25 m, rather small for a broch [3]. Traces of a ditch are visible across the promontory on the landward side. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 27 SE 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 22, no. 620: 3. Batey (ms) 1982, Dun 21 (with plan).

Square ND34 ND34 1 BORROWSTON ND/3288 4353 Possible broch in Wick, Caithness, consisting of a grass-covered mound with several steps or tiers, 34.8m (114ft) in diameter and 3m (10ft) high overall (Illus. 7.81). There are two clear tiers, the upper part presumably being the broch mound itself which rests on a flat-topped platform and which thus has a terrace round it [1, 2]. A more recent survey detected four, perhaps five, steps in the mound and cast doubt on whether any of these was a ruined broch [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 SW 8: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 152, no. 510: 3. Mercer 1985, 105, no. WAR 232, fig. 65.

Square ND28 (see under ‘Orkney’, vol. 1) Square ND33

ND34 2 BROUNABAN (‘Bronnaben’) ND/3231 4347 (visited 11/7/85) Solid-based probable broch in Wick, Caithness, explored perfunctorily by Joseph Anderson and Robert I. Shearer in about 1871 [2, 3] but only briefly reported on without any plan [3] (Illus. 7.82-7.87).36 The project was carried out for the Rhind excavation committee at the same time as the work at the broch of Yarrows (ND34 15). The name is now pronounced locally ‘Brown-aybun’37 though apparently differently in Anderson’s day [3]. This broch is of interest because it appears to contain two primary intra-mural stairs – a very rare phenomenon.

ND33 1 BROUAN 1 (‘Bruan 1’) ND/3102 3949 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a conspicuous turf-covered, stony mound about 3.05m (10ft) high and 4.58m (50ft) in diameter (Illus. 7.79); the outer wall could be seen in the south arc as a single, disconnected course of heavy stones [1]. The broch mound appears to be sitting on a platform some 42m in diameter with a number of orthostats visible on its outer edge [4] (Illus. 7.80). This has been surrounded by a ditch and a counterscarp bank which survive on northwest and north-east sides [4]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 33 NW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 52, no. 193: 3. Feachem 1963, 164: 4. Mercer 1985, no. WAR 113 & fig. 60.

The site is on a low mound in a cultivated field in an otherwise flat landscape; the mound itself shows some wallfaces, suggesting that it may be a ‘tel’ on which the broch was built [6] (Illus. 7.82).38 It is clear that the building itself was partly restored after – perhaps long after – the excavation; the upper parts of the low surviving inner wallface are relatively loosely built to a standard height of about 1.5m (5ft) (Illus. 7.83). The interior was once used as a garden [4] and is still clear of debris, and the alterations are doubtless connected with this. The most detailed description is by the Royal Commission [4] which mentions features which Anderson omits, but most of the structural features – except parts of the intra-mural gallery – are now hidden again [6]. The outer wallface seems never to have been exposed [2].

ND33 2 BROUAN 2 (‘Bruan 2’) ND/3108 3946 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a stony, grass-covered mound 25cm high and roughly rectangular in shape; on top of it is a high, central stony patch [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 33 NW 8: 2. Batey (ms) 1982, no. 217. ND33 3 GUNN’S HILLOCK 2 (‘The Burnt Ha’ ‘) ND/3029 3904 Possible broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of an amorphous, grassy mound heavily mutilated by the later building of cottages. A rough sandstone vessel was found at the site and donated to the National Museum (GA 957) [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 33 NW 2: 2. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 45 (1910-11), 220 (donations): 3. RCAHMS 1911b, 52, no. 194.

The following description combines information obtained, first, during the author’s visit in 1985 with, second, by Mercer shortly before and also that by the Royal Commission’s investigator in 1910 (Illus. 7.82).

36 This exploration is not one of Joseph Anderson’s best efforts, even by the standards of the time: compare Samuel Laing’s careful work, e.g. on the Keiss brochs. The omission of any kind of plan is difficult to forgive, especially as his contemporary work at Yarrows was much better reported. 37 This is probably an Anglicised pronunciation. 38 A Near Eastern term meaning a mound of accumulated structures and occupation layers.

445

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Description The main entrance is on the east and is about 4.27m (14ft) long (the outer end has been removed); no signs of door-checks or guard chambers were noted by the Commission [2] but in fact a broken door-check is clearly visible, made of a slab set on edge into the south side at a distance of 60cm from the inner end (Illus. 7.84). The inner end of this side of the passage is clearly original broch masonry, but the opposite face is all modern rebuild (Illus. 7.85). Mercer thought that this passage was modern but the door-check and the residual massive masonry contradict this [6]. The door-frame is so far down the passage that almost certainly there was another one about 2m in from the front end.

without further excavation. However it does seem, once the available information has been put together, that this is not a ground-galleried broch (as the author once thought) but a relatively slim solid-based one with four long intra-mural cells. The two intra-mural stairs and two entrances are such unusual features that they demand an explanation [5]. The brochs of Keiss South (ND36 6) and Keiss West (ND36 7) showed these features much more clearly, and to such an extent that – even though the excavations took place many years ago – it is possible to infer in each case that one of the entrances was the original and that the other was driven through the wall (past the base of one of the stairs) much later, probably after the squat towers (if that is what they were) had been substantially demolished. At the Keiss sites on the other hand both stairs seem to have been primary features and this is highly unusual in brochs [5].

The end of a long intra-mural chamber or gallery is 1.83m (6ft) from the right wall of this passage; it has a maximum width of 1.30m (4ft 3in) wide and 4.27m (14ft) long. There is a doorway to the interior (not on Mercer’s plan) which is built up and was also in 1910 [4].

The situation at Brounaban is probably similar, and the eastern entrance seems to be the primary one; it is easier, if a second entrance is needed, to prolong the doorway at the foot of the stair out through the outer third of the wall. This would presumably have been done to the stair at 9 o’clock after much of the high wall of the tower (if it was such) had been pulled down (see Yarrows – ND34 17 and Illus. 7.104). Brochs with two primary intra-mural stairs seem to be confined to Caithness. Since no proper plan was made at the time of the excavation, it is not possible to be more precise. The restored plan given here combines features from Mercer’s survey, the Royal Commission’s description and the author’s observations (Illus. 7.82).

Beyond this long cell, at about 2.30 o’clock, there is another doorway 1.07m (3ft 6in) wide leading to an intramural stair rising to the right, that is towards the entrance; it therefore rose above the cell just described. This looks wide enough to have required a corbelled roof so presumably the stair rose quickly enough into the vanished Level 2 to avoid this. The steps, now invisible, were seen in 1910. A stair-foot guard cell 3.97m (13ft) long ran back to the left of the door. On the opposite side, at 9 o’clock, is a third doorway from the interior into the wall, also 1.07m (3ft 6in) wide, which leads to a second, presumably primary, intra-mural stair which also rises clockwise to the right (Illus. 7.86). Here too is a long stair-foot guard-cell, or length of intra-mural gallery, running to the left of this doorway for 5.19m (17ft) but it is only 60cm (2ft) wide now (Mercer shows it to be much longer, as in the two plans (Illus. 7.82). Another entrance from the outside appears to have passed through the wall at the foot of this stair, but only its east wall was visible in 1910 [4].

Anderson’s brief account of the interior strongly suggests that the paved floor which he found all over it was a secondary one; deep deposits of ash were found underneath it. This surely implies that Brounaban was occupied for a long time and makes more plausible the inferences just made about drastic changes to the fabric after partial demolition. At this site it should be comparatively easy to re-expose the paved floor of the central court (assuming that Anderson did not lift it all, though the paucity of the finds suggests that he did not) and to explore below it. A primary floor with a ring of post-holes and a lower central hearth might be found.

At about 11.30 o’clock from the east or main entrance is a fourth doorway (now also blocked up) into the wall, leading to another stretch of wall gallery 1.02m (3ft 4in) wide and 5.19m (17ft) long. The outer wallface has not been properly exposed anywhere.

The restored plan (Illus. 7.82) shows two sets of doorchecks in the primary entrance and again this is something that could probably be checked quite easily with further excavation. The surviving check is so far down the passage that a second, outer door is implied. Such are known in several other sites in the north-east Mainland.

The central court was found to be paved all over and with a hollow fireplace near the centre; under this pavement was “considerable depth of ashes” [3] as well as a square drain round the fireplace. The remains of a human skeleton were found in one of the stair-foot guard cells, and there was a long cist beside the same stair doorway (presumably in the court) containing another skeleton.

Finds [2]: these were few – presumably reflecting the rapidity of the exploration suggested by Anderson’s brief description.

Discussion It is unfortunate that this broch is so briefly described and also that most of the structural details are now invisible 446

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) Stone: 1 “rude mortar stone” 7.5cm (3in) across with a cavity in the top, 2 stone balls about the size of large oranges, 2 hammerstones or pounders and 5 chipped discs of slaty stone 7-10cm (2.75-4in) in diameter.

ND34 7 LOCH WATENAN (‘Watenan’) ND/3171 4114 Probable broch on a rocky ridge in Wick, Caithness, consisting of the remains of a circular stone building with a wall 3.6m (12ft) thick, standing 90-120cm high and enclosing a court 8.24m (27ft) in diameter. There was a suggestion of an entrance in the south-east in 1910 but the absence of debris led to doubts about the identification of the site as a broch [2]. However one course of a heavy stone wall was seen in 1967 [1]. An outer wall 3.66-5.49m (12-18ft) thick surrounds the circular building at a distance of up to 9m (30ft). There are traces of an external ditch on the north. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 SW 11: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 164, no. 526.

Dimensions: in 1971 a survey of the central court showed that this had been laid out close to an exact circle with a radius of 4.29 + 0.06m (diam. 8.58 m). Mercer gives the internal diameter as 8.7m and the overall diameter at about 16 m. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 SW 33: 2. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 9 (1870-72), 245 (finds): 3. Anderson 1890, 142: 4. RCAHMS 1911b, 152, no. 511: 5. Graham 1947: 6. Mercer 1985, 105, no. WAR 230, & fig. 64. ND34 3 CAIRN OF HUMSTER ND/3529 4848 Possible broch in Wick, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound 29.3m (96ft) in diameter and 1.5m (5ft) high in which no traces of a building are visible. The east end has been spread by ploughing [1]. There are traces of a surrounding ditch on the west, about 13m (43ft) wide. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 NE 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 146, no. 506.

ND34 8 OLD STIRKOKE (‘Cairn Hill’) ND/3275 4928 Probable solid-based broch in Wick, Caithness, which was originally a mound with a diameter of 24-27m (8090ft), but two thirds of it had been removed on the north side by 1871 when Joseph Anderson visited the site and recorded what he could of the vanishing building. “Owing to the way in which the operations were conducted, no plan of the building could be obtained; but the farmer gave every facility for the preservation of such relics as happened to be noticed during the progress of the work, and collected most of them himself.” [5, p. 143].

ND34 4 CAIRNQUOY (‘Pict’s house’) ND/3309 4743 Probable broch in Wick, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound with a diameter of 20m and up to 1.5m high. Traces of a circular wallface can be seen near the top of the east side, and they suggest the presence of a building about 14.5m in diameter, a little small for a broch. Source: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 NW 6.

The broch wall was about 3.97m (13ft) thick and the diameter of the central court about 9.15m (30ft). It was possible to detect one long, oval-ended intra-mural chamber, and a square drain ran under the floor of the court. A cist-like construction 51cm (20in) deep was found near the middle; it had a stone slab for a base and four similar slabs for sides, and measured 1.22m (4ft) long and 76cm (2ft 6in) broad in the middle. It was completely full of ashes, with no earth, lacked a lid, and was covered by a layer of ashes 30cm (1ft) thick. Some years later the building was still being quarried, and in 1882 a long cist with a skeleton was discovered [3].

ND34 5 GANSCLET ND/3362 4441 This possible broch in Wick, Caithness, was reported in 1910 as consisting of a mound 21.4m (70ft) in diameter, 1.5m (5ft) high and partly under the house which was thought to have contained a ruined broch [2]. It is supposed to have been removed in the 1930s to provide material for the approach road [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 SW 7: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 145, no. 501.

Finds [2, 5] included the following. Iron: a fragment like the hilt end of a sword with a broad, double-edged blade. Bronze: a fragment of a rod. Bone and antler: 1 bodkin 20cm (8in) long, 1 polished needle with a round bevelled eye, several cut and sawn pieces of deer antler. Stone: 2 sandstone whorls, 2 whetstones, several hammerstones, 1 lamp, several thin discs of slaty stone (pot lids?), half of a thin disc of polished garnetiferous mica schist, several stone ‘pestles’, and a block of red sandstone with two intersecting hollows in its upper surface. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 NW 4: 2. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 9 (1870-72), 247-8 (finds): 3. The Antiquary 5 (1882), 228: 4. Anderson 1883, 232: 5. Anderson 1890,

ND34 6 HEMPRIGGS ND/3511 4717 Possible broch in Wick, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound 3m (10ft) high with an overall diameter of 42m (56ft) which has been partly removed on the east side. It is a ‘mound on a mound’, the upper one being 1.5m high and 16.8m (56ft) in diameter and resting on top of a lower mound or platform about 1.5m high and 42m across. There is a flat berm between the two about 12m wide [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 NE 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 146, no. 504.

447

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland 142: 6. RCAHMS 1911b, 144-5, no. 499: 7. Anderson 1866.

[1], but the void is enough to allow the structure to be classified with reasonable confidence as a broch.

ND34 9 TANNACH (‘Tannach Mains’) ND/3736 4748 Possible broch in Wick, Caithness, consisting of a partly grass-covered stony mound, once much ploughed over, standing in the middle of a field; it measures about 24.5m (77ft) in diameter and 1.5-1.8m high (5 -6ft). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 NW 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 145, no. 500.

Dimensions: the overall diameter is now about 17m and the wall is some 3.8m thick; this would suggest an internal diameter of about 9.4 m. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 NW 2 (with photo.): 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 146, no. 503: 3. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 7 (1868-70), 416. ND34 12 ULBSTER 1 (‘Ulbster School’) ND/3243 4149 Possible broch in Wick, Caithness, consisting of a muchquarried mound about 20.1m (66ft) in diameter and 1.21.5m (4-5ft) high; there is a circular depression 7m in diameter in the top, suggesting that there is a ruined broch below. A possible intra-mural feature can be seen on the south [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 SW 9: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 163, no. 523: 3. Mercer 1985, no. 194.

ND34 10 THRUMSTER (‘Thrumster Mains’) ND/3319 4505 (visited in 1971 & 1987) Probable solid-based broch in Wick, Caithness, which was cleared out some time before 1910 – possibly at the end of the 18th century judging from the comb (below) – and had part of the wall on the south side removed to accommodate a summerhouse (Illus. 7.88). The greatest wall height remaining is 1.07m (3ft 6in), and it is now turfed over and fairly secure [1]. During the clearance a cist containing a skeleton was found in the rubbish piled against the outer wallface. A long-handled weaving comb, presented to the National Museum in 1783 by Mr Innes of Thrumster (GA 66), is believed to have come from this site [2] (Illus 7.33).

ND34 13 ULBSTER 2 (‘Heatherquoy’) ND/3271 4171 Possible broch in Wick, Caithness, consisting of a grassy knoll measuring 33.6m (110ft) by 29.0m (95ft) transversely and with no depression on the summit. There is no real evidence that it is an ancient structure and only the fact that such mounds often contain brochs warrants the inclusion of the site here. Sources: 1. NMRS site ND 34 SW 27: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 190, no. 586.

Dimensions: interior diameter 10.98m (36ft), the wall 4.48m (15ft) thick at the base. In 1987 a new survey of the central court showed that this had been laid out close to an exact circle with a radius of 6.13 + 0.04m, giving a diameter of 12.26m (40.2ft), somewhat larger than earlier measurements suggested.

ND34 14 WAREHOUSE (‘Warehouse Hill’) ND/3034 4124 Probable broch in Latheron, Caithness, consisting of a grass-covered mound about 2.0m high and sited on the east end of a grassy hillock which may be partly artificial [3]. There is a broad ditch to the south and east and a rampart on the north and west and, in addition, a burn runs past the site outside the rampart (Illus. 7.89).

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 NW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 145, no. 502: 3. Batey 2002, 188. ND34 11 THRUMSTER LITTLE ND/3384 4583 Probable solid-based broch in Wick, Caithness, standing in a flat field; it is mostly a grassy mound now but has been partly cleared so that all the outer face, though fragmentary in places, is visible all the way round [1]. The foundation stones are very large.

The base of the outer wallface can be traced from the south-west round to the north, and stands to a height of up to six courses, that is 1.5m [1, 3]. The estimated diameter is about 18.3m (60ft) [1]. The outer end of the entrance passage, 0.8m wide, is on the west by southwest (Illus. 7.89). The meaning of the phrase “There are traces of a corbelled gallery opening from the north (left) side of the entrance passage at the innermost visible limit.” [3] is not entirely clear; mural galleries are almost invariably lintelled so there may be a corbelled guard cell here. The earlier mound projects from the broch to the west and there are traces of structures of uncertain type on its surface.

The entrance (which has lost all its lintels) is on the eastnorth-east side and in 1910 was 3.9m (13ft) long in and 1.0m (3ft 3in) wide at the outer end [2]; it is no longer completely exposed [1]. A pair of door-checks formed of projecting stone slabs is situated 1.83m (5ft 6in) from the exterior, and the passage is 1.17m (3ft 10in) wide behind these; only one check is now visible, and is reported as at 1.2m in [1]. It is not possible tell whether a guard chamber existed without further excavation. Only part of the inner face is exposed, for some 6m (19.7ft) to the left of the inner end of the entrance. About 2.4m (8ft) clockwise along this wall there was visible in 1910 an opening which appeared to be the void over the buried doorway to an intra-mural chamber, visible behind [2]; these features can no longer be seen

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 SW 43: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 50, no. 90: 3. Mercer 1985, no. WAR 76 & fig. 59.

448

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) ND34 15 WATENAN NORTH ND/3180 4146 This broch in Wick, Caithness, is now almost completely grass-covered and stands on a mound in flat country near the north end of Loch Watenan. It is one of the finest examples in the area of a ruined broch standing on a probably multi-period earlier mound [3]. A recent careful survey has located no fewer than three outer wallfaces of stone in the ruins of the central building [3]; the outer one suggests an overall diameter of about 18m (64ft), and the inner one of about 12m (40ft) (Illus. 7.90).

ditch; the stone-face inner side of the bank forms two revetted courtyards to the north and south of the broch, and there are possible outbuildings between the inner and outer ramparts on the south-east side [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 SW 11: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 164, no. 526: 3. Mercer 1985, 104, no. WAR 177 & fig. 61. ND34 17 YARROWS (‘Yarhouse’) ND/3083 4349 (ND/30834 43490 – GPS)39 This ground-galleried or transitional broch stands at the foot of a shallow slope on a very short, blunt promontory projecting into the Loch of Yarrows (Illus. 7.91) (visited 14/7/63, 10/7/85, 5/8/02 and 23/7/03).

Both faces of an intra-mural cell or gallery can still be seen on the east side [3] (Illus. 7.90) and it was better exposed in 1910 (through the collapse of part of its corbelled roof) when a doorway to the interior was visible from inside it [2]. This doorway was 60cm (2ft) wide and 1.2m (4ft) long. The inner face of this feature could be the innermost “face” mentioned by Mercer (Illus. 7.90), in which case it is probably a gallery, and presumably an upper one since the height of the broch mound itself is 4 m. Thus it might be supposed that the structure is not so much a “complex of superimposed buildings” [3] but rather a simple broch with upper mural gallery preserved. The doorway to the interior seen in 1910 could be a raised doorway or void connecting with a Level 2 gallery. However if this intra-mural space really is a cell as claimed by Mercer (no ends are shown on the plan) then things may not be so simple; excavation will be needed to make things clear.

Originally a conical grassy mound 5.49-6.10m (18-20ft) high, it was excavated by Dr Joseph Anderson in 1866-67 on behalf of the Rhind Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. His description of the results is regrettably brief, even by the standards of the time, but useful information can still be gained from examining the extant remains, even though these are partly hidden by falls of stone-work after 1867 (no consolidation appears to have taken place). The central court is now often flooded by water from the loch which was raised by a dam some time after Anderson’s work (Illus. 7.91-7.103) No exploration of the high surviving wallhead seems to have been carried out; thus without uncovering the remains further we cannot know whether there were any upper galleries, although – for reasons given below – it seems highly likely that there were. The relatively good preservation of the buildings at Yarrows means that the broch and its accompanying buildings are a prime candidate for re-excavation and consolidation.

The “intermediate” face may be the actual outer face of the broch, though the indicated diameter of 15m is small, or, perhaps more likely, an intermediate wall-face. The wall here is 3.6m (12ft) thick [2]. There are signs of outbuildings on the east, between the base of the broch and the edge of the underlying mound, which itself displays at least three wall facings at different levels [3]. This is a complex site which would surely repay systematic excavation.

1. Summary (Illus. 7.103) A broad ditch runs round the landward side of the site and presumably once formed a moat connecting with the waters of the loch; one would expect a wall to have been built around the inner edge of this ditch but no clear traces of one have been located. The broch itself is near the shore of the loch and a number of buildings stand in the enclosed courtyard to its west, east and south; the most extensive set are on the southern side where the distance between broch and moat is greatest.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 34 SW 10: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 163-4, no. 524: 3. Mercer 1985, no. WAR 184 & fig. 63. ND34 16 WATENAN SOUTH (‘Loch Watenan 2’) ND/317411* This possible broch in Wick, Caithness, is another example of a ruined building at the centre of a complex of other features [3]. The site stands on top of a natural crag, with its rocky face towards the east, among farmland. The circular central earthwork shows stone facing on its outer side and might be a ruined broch, although the small amount of visible rubble made the Commission doubt that it was [2]. The enclosed area is 8m in diameter and linear grassy depressions around this might be intra-mural galleries [3]. There is a suggestion of an entrance on the east side in the form of two facing stones. To the north-west, west and south are outer defences consisting of an inner bank with an external

The broch was found to have two entrances, one facing south and one just south of east; for reasons to be explained shortly the latter is taken to be the primary entrance and all clock face positions are given in relation to this (Illus. 7.103). The secondary one on the south, at 9 o’clock, had a long mural stair rising from its left side (looking in). Opposite this is what looks like a long stairfoot guard cell, or mural gallery, at ground level, running back towards the primary entrance.

39

449

At the centre of the inner court.

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland On the west side of the court – at about 2.20 o’clock (not 1 o’clock as on Anderson’s plan) – is a doorway to a long mural cell or length of gallery which Anderson shows as extending on either side of this opening. At the right end (clockwise) from this doorway the gallery expands into an oval cell at about 3 o’clock. The wall between this point and the eastern doorway is shown solid on his plan (Illus. 7.92). However Mercer’s plan suggests that the oval cell has its own doorway (at about 2.30 o’clock) and no opening at 1 o’clock is shown. This is more or less what can be seen now (Illus. 7.98) except that the doorway at 2.30 o’clock evidently has a heavy stone sill raised at least 60cm above the primary floor. It is assumed that Anderson’s position for this doorway is wrong.

as a broch, rather than only as a probable example. The internal secondary wall is here about 1.02m (40in) thick so the total length of the passage at present is almost exactly 4.58m (15ft). On the original plan this overall length is about 3.81m (12ft 6in) so one must infer that this was a sketch plan rather than an exact survey. There is also a discrepancy between this plan and Mercer’s over what is shown in the north-west arc (below – Illus. 7.94). The 1867 plan also seems to show the eastern passage lined on both sides with very large stone slabs, up to 2.44m (8ft) in length, but these are not visible on site and must be a draughtsman’s idiosyncrasy. The absence of a door-frame suggests that the long ‘slabs’ are a device to show that the original passage walls were lined with later masonry, to match the secondary extensions inwards and outwards (Illus. 7.101). The other primary doorways lack this feature.

A secondary wall has been added to the inner face of the broch wall, leaving openings to reach the three doorways mentioned (Illus. 7.98). Another lines the outer face but apparently only on the southern arc (anti-clockwise from the entrance) but it is difficult to make out the details of this now.

A drawing based on a photograph taken at the time of the excavations, or soon afterwards, shows the inner end of this passage as it was when first exposed; there is a wellpreserved chamber above the lintel, itself with a doorsized opening to the interior [5, fig. 196] (Illus. 7.93, A). This leaves no reasonable doubt that this passage is the primary broch entrance and it ought to have been equipped with the usual features, now invisible. Only a fragment of one wall of this Level 2 chamber remains but – with the photograph – is enough (with the design of the intra-mural stair – below) to show that Yarrows is the stump of a hollow-walled tower.

There are other constructions in the central court none of which can be traced now. There is an inward extension of the main (eastern) entrance which has also been prolonged outwards in a long curving passage which also gives access to the long chamber running along the outer wall of the broch (below). This is one of two long stone enclosures, containing rows of upright orthostats, which are adjacent to the broch on its eastern and southern sides; three small chambers were found on the other sides. There is no mention of a scarcement on the primary inner wallface. Five later burials were found in the topsoil at the start of the work. One was 75-90cm (2.5-3.0ft) beneath the surface and the skull of another in a similar position. A third was in the upper part of Chamber E in the outbuildings, together with a bronze brooch with a Christian inscription [5, fig. 195], while a fourth was found in Chamber G, north-west of the broch.

What were thought by Anderson to be the checks for a door were found 11ft (3.36m) from the exterior but these were certainly formed by the junction of the original passage with the slightly wider inward extension through the secondary wall; they are not a primary feature. The passage was also continued outwards at some stage to lead into the pillared outbuilding Chamber C (Illus. 7.93). Thus this exterior chamber and the broch interior would seem to have been in use at the same time.

2. Description When first exposed the broch wall stood up to 4.58m (15ft) high in places [4]; presumably this refers to the wall core and the actual wallfaces were lower, as they are now. The eastern entrance was then lintelled and about 1.83m (6ft) high and 81cm (2ft 8in) wide, exceptionally narrow for a broch; the length of the primary passage according to measurements made in 2003 is 3.56m (11ft 8in) [6].40 No guard cell or door-frame is visible either on site now or shown on Anderson’s plan (Illus. 7.101). The designs of the inner end of the main entrance and of the doorway to the stair are typical of broch architecture and this – with the landing at the top of the stair (below) – is the main reason that this structure has been classified

Assuming therefore that the eastern entrance was the primary one, the other entrance, facing south, is at about 8.30 o’clock and it also forms the doorway to the mural stair which rises to the right from its west wall (Illus. 7.100). The Commission’s account does not mention that this passage goes right through the wall [5]. The sill of this passage, at its inner end, was reported to have been found raised 60cm (2ft) above the floor of the court, though this is not at all obvious now and no sill is marked on the original ground plan. It seems probable that Anderson mixed up his notes on this doorway with those concerning the raised doorway at 2.30 o’clock (below). Moreover when it was first exposed there were several lintelled voids above the inner end of the south doorway [5, fig. 197] (Illus. 7.94, B), and these are highly char-

40

Anderson’s diagrammatic plan shows this passage to have been a little shorter, at about 3.05m (10ft).

450

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) acteristic of an internal opening in a tall broch which leads only to an intra-mural feature; the lowest of these voids is still visible (Illus. 7.98 & 7.101). All this confirms that the outer part of the south doorway was not part of the original broch design but was pushed through this thin part of the outer wall later, presumably after the high galleried wall had been substantially pulled down.

At about 12.30 o’clock Anderson’s plan shows the doorway to an elongated mural cell of which the lintels of one end can still be seen; the secondary wall is shown as leaving a gap in front of this doorway (Illus. 7.99 & 7.100). Mercer’s survey conflicts with this picture (Illus. 7.95) and shows this doorway as further round to the right, at about 2.30 o’clock; it also shows the secondary interior wall facing as blocking this off.42 The solution here is that the doorway is a raised one (leading directly to the ‘cell’) with a massive sill which could be as much as 60cm above the interior floor; the sill stone is shown on Mercer’s plan (Illus. 7.95). Contrary to what Anderson’s plan suggests the sides of a gallery can be traced a short distance to the right of the expanded section, or ‘cell’.

Mercer [6] argues that the entrance here was original because the broch wall widens substantially at this point to 4m (13ft 4in) [6, fig. 58] as if to accommodate it (the Commission says the stair is only 90cm (3ft) wide [5]). However this could as easily have been designed to accommodate the base of the stair which is in an unusually wide passage (about 1.3 m, or 4ft 4 in, across) [7, fig. 58] (Illus. 7.94).

Immediately to the left, or anti-clock-wise, of this raised doorway there are several massive lintels on edge under which the gallery can be seen to run (Illus. 7.100); neither this section of exposed gallery nor its covering lintels are shown on Mercer’s plan so it may be a fairly recent exposure. The gallery then continues anti-clockwise to about 12 o’clock where it is obscured; no built end can now be seen so it may run right round to beneath the stair, making Yarrows close to a ground-galleried broch in design.

Originally sixteen steps of the stair remained – extending about a fifth of the way round the broch – but most of these are now hidden by debris (Illus. 7.101). There are however clear indications of a landing starting 4.98m (16ft 4in) from the near side of the stair door; the next flight appears to start about 0.92m (36in) further along; the 19th century plan suggests such a landing by a gap in the steps (Illus. 7.93) and this is mentioned by Anderson who also refers to a ‘light-hole’ there, looking into the interior (though this is not shown on his plan).

In addition to the presumed insertion of a new entrance at the foot of the stair already mentioned other clear signs of secondary alterations to the broch were found. A wall up to 75cm (2ft 6in) thick, and up to 2.44m (8ft) high when first exposed, had been added against the inner face of the broch wall (Illus. 7.98). Its base was found to rest above the level of the bottom course of the latter, and on top of 30-35cm (12-14in) of debris which must already have accumulated in the interior. This added wall is clearly visible in the drawings (taken from contemporary photographs) of two of the primary doorways [5, figs. 196 & 197] (Illus. 7.94); their edges have been shaded here. Gaps were left in this secondary wall in front of all three doorways. There were also partition walls across the interior, built partly of long slabs on end, some up to 2.44m (8ft) high. The secondary wall rose to the same height when first uncovered and the slabs may possibly have been roof supports connected with it.

Moreover a huge flat slab forms part of this landing, its inner edge being flush with the interior wallface; it is only a few cm higher than the topmost step of the first flight. This looks like the sill of a large raised doorway leading out from the landing into the central court, about 2m above its floor (Illus. 7.98).41 Thus the stair landing appears to have given access to a wide, raised door to the interior and one would therefore expect a scarcement ledge level with this sill, supporting a high, wooden raised floor. However none is now apparent on the small amount of masonry preserved above this sill (Illus. 7.98); this remains to a height of about 2.44-2.75m (8-9ft) here. A long, lintelled stair-foot guard cell runs round from the southern doorway towards the entrance, almost at ground level as far as can be seen (Illus. 7.103). In view of the design of the rest of the wall it might be regarded as a length of basal gallery 3.97m (13ft) long. It is 1.12m (3ft 8in) wide and partly corbelled longitudinally; in other words the sides converge slightly as they rise. The lintelled roof is 1.88m (6ft 2in) above the floor (Illus. 7.103). These lintels seem to confirm that this is a ground-level wall gallery and they should form the floor of the gallery of Level 2, part of which might still be preserved under the rubbish on the wallhead here. This could be yet another piece of evidence for Yarrows having been a high, hollow-walled broch.

There were several outbuildings on the landward side of the broch and enclosed by the outer ditch. Two of these were unusual long chambers (Anderson refers to them, slightly confusingly, as “galleries”) with rows of orthostatic stone pillars set upright in their floors and at right angles to their long sides; these pillars were presumably roof supports, and they strongly resemble the pillared longhouses found at the Wag of Forse (ND23 14). When first exposed the side walls remained intact up 42

Mercer refers to this secondary wall as a “scarcement wall”, following Anderson, even though the latter was writing at a time when the importance of the ledge on the primary broch wallface was not appreciated. It is this primary ledge which is now called the scarcement, and has been for many years.

41

If the purpose of the aperture was only to admit light it would probably have been one of a series of fairly low voids and there would have been no need for a landing in the stair; such a feature elsewhere indicates a full-sized doorway.

451

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland to a height of 3.0m (10ft) with no sign of any overlapping for a corbelled roof. The south entrance through the broch wall, at the foot of the stair, leads into one of them. Some of the walls of these massive external structures are still standing quite high.

The narrowness of the primary entrance (81cm) and the absence of any indication of a door-frame demands an explanation. In no other broch the primary entrance of which is exposed can it be shown to be of this design. Even though there are no obvious signs of this now the possibility must therefore be considered that both sides of the passage were skilfully re-lined with dry masonry and that the door-frame – complete with checks, bar-hole and socket – may still be preserved behind it (as the pivot stone may be hidden under secondary paving). Whether such a lining was inserted in Iron Age times or after the 19th century excavations is not clear;43 the former seems much more likely as the passage could have been narrowed when its inward and outward extensions were built. Also Anderson’s plan suggests that the lining already existed when the passage was exposed (Illus. 7.93).

Anderson assumed that these outbuildings were secondary constructions built around the broch because of the similarity between their orthostatic pillars and those inside the broch, which he thought had been added later. Mercer confirms that the north side of pillared longhouse C rests against the broch outer face and is of inferior masonry [6]. The long, curved passageway – also presumably secondary – running up to the main entrance of the broch also gave access to this longhouse a short distance in front of the broch door. 3. Structural analysis Level 1 The structure of the broch of Yarrows seems to be different to that of most of the other exposed Caithness brochs in that it has considerable lengths of mural gallery at or near ground level, though the wall from 2-5 o’clock arc may be solid. This gallery, together with the relative thinness of the primary wall, may give Yarrows a stronger architectural affinity with some of the brochs of the Western Isles, particularly of Skye, than with its northern neighbours (except for Brounaban – ND34 2). However the finds show that this affinity was not shared by the associated material culture, although the single cordoned sherd looks like a Hebridean style.

Level 2 There are a few clues to the nature of the second storey of Yarrows. In 1910 the stairway still had twenty-three steps preserved with a landing about two thirds of the way up (Illus. 7.93).44 What the original plan does not show is the floor of a void or doorway looking into the interior of the broch at the level of the landing; the massive sill of this doorway is only a little higher than the lintels of the entrance passages. This important feature can easily be traced now, as explained earlier. Normally the landing would indicate the height of the scarcement on the inner wallface, and the opening would have given access from inside the wall out on to the raised wooden interior floor resting on the scarcement.

The two entrances are also unusual and have parallels in other local brochs such as two of those at Keiss (ND36 6 & ND36 7). Moreover the intra-mural stair rises from one of these ‘entrances’, in a similar manner to the ancient dun at Forse (ND23 14). However whereas the stairs in the Keiss brochs started from the primary entrance passages – and could therefore be argued to be showing influence from the probably earlier local architectural tradition seen at Forse [9] – there is little doubt that at Yarrows the entrance at the base of the stair is a secondary one, continuing the stair doorway through the outer half of the wall; it was presumably inserted after much of the high hollow-wall had already been pulled down. The early photographs of the two interior doorways, already described (Illus. 7.94) [5, figs. 11 & 14], make it quite clear that the doorway to the stair was originally just that. A good parallel for a second doorway being pushed through the wall at the base of the stair – again presumably after extensive demolition of the upper parts of the tower – is to be seen at Clickhimin in Shetland (site HU44 1).

However no ledge is apparent at this level and the internal wallface goes up at least 60cm higher. A large raised doorway opening to the central court away from a scarcement is very rare in brochs; Mousa (HU42 6) provides one obvious parallel. One could perhaps assume that the scarcement at Yarrows was at the base of Level 3, as at Midhowe and Gurness (HY33 1 & HY32 2), and that there was a second landing with a doorway leading out on to this – but the raised doorway at a lower level is still rather a puzzle. An alternative explanation is that the small part of this high part of the inner face which survives was reconstructed after the excavation without the remains of the ledge being noticed, but there are no obvious signs of this. There may be traces of the Level 2 gallery hidden by turf and debris on other parts of the wallhead, particularly on top of the long stair-foot guard cell and perhaps clockwise from the present top of the stair. Level 3? As noted the evidence of the landing suggests that the scarcement might have been at the base of Level 3 –

If the internal floor was re-exposed a central hearth might be found (though none was mentioned by Anderson), as well as a ring of post-holes for the support of a raised wooden floor. These last two features are inferred from the design of Level 2 (below).

43 The hypothesis could easily be tested by re-clearing the passage floor and examining its relationship with the present passage walls. 44 Anderson’s plan clearly shows the landing with sixteen steps below it and six above it. (Illus. 7.9).

452

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) perhaps 3.66m (12ft) above the primary floor – but no masonry survives at that height.

clutter of pre-existing buildings some of which are quite substantial. Other arguments in favour of the ‘outbuildings’ being secondary are given below.

The buildings in the outer court Understanding the relationship of the pillared buildings immediately outside the broch is essential to reconstructing a reliable site history but the lack of systematic stratigraphical excavation makes firm conclusions impossible at present. The resemblance between the long pillared chambers C and D and the large rectangular buildings at the Forse (site ND23 14) is marked and one or two of the excavated rim sherds from Yarrows show the peculiar thick short everted rim also found at Forse (Illus. 7.97, no. 19). The chronological relationship of the Forse site to the brochs is not altogether clear but the possibility that it was earlier (belonging to the late Bronze and the early Iron Ages) raises the question of whether Chambers C and D at Yarrows were also earlier than the broch rather than later.

Phase 2 If we assume that the broch stood alone in Phase 1 then Phase 2 witnessed a drastic reconstruction of the tower. The pushing of the extra doorway through the outer part of the wall at the foot of the stair surely implies that the upper wall was taken down first – that the broch was partly demolished in fact.45 Such demolition of brochs in the Iron Age appears to have been widespread. The secondary wall built around the court implies a new support for a lower roof, so any complex wooden roundhouse associated with the primary broch phase will have already been taken down. More debris from the demolition could have been stacked around the base of the outer face of the tower. The fact that both the entrances in Phase 2 lead into chambers in the ‘out-buildings’ suggests that the latter were added around the demolished broch, and indeed were built with the stone removed from the tower.

The fact that longhouse C seems to be concentric with the curve of the broch wall seems to argue against this as might also the secondary doorway through the broch wall into C. On the other hand the longhouse seems to be designed either to have a second row of orthostats nearer the broch (as in the wider part of longhouse D) or to have been much narrower. In either case its northern wall could have been demolished and this suggests that it was in position before the broch was erected. The question must remain an open one but needs to be raised in case of future work at the site. However, as Mercer points out [6], the fact that both broch doors lead into these pillared dwellings does imply that the interior of the tower was not only in existence but still in use when they were built. One must ask whether this is likely if they were very much older than the tower.

5. Material culture It has to be assumed that only a proportion of the pottery and other artifacts was recovered. Only the pottery need be referred to here, because – although the number of sherds is small – it does seem to represent two distinct Caithness Iron Age styles. The first is a fine ware of small, barrel- and bucket-shaped vessels with thin, hardfired walls; this ware seems to be confined to Caithness and may go back to pre-broch times. The second style is the coarser, gritty pottery – usually called Dunagoil ware – which is widespread in mainland Scotland north of the Forth/Clyde valley and which certainly goes back at least into the early Iron Age period and probably into the late Bronze Age as well. Strikingly absent from Yarrows is any decorated pottery suggesting a link with Atlantic Iron Age sites.

4. Site sequence Although the dating of the occupation of the Yarrows broch, and of the various outbuildings, has to depend on analogies with other sites it is possible to infer a broad sequence of events for the site as a whole. Unfortunately, as indicated above, two quite different schemes can be proposed.

Finds included the following (Illus. 7.96 & 7.97). Bronze objects included an armlet 6.5cm (2.5in) in diameter and made of a rod which is round and unornamented for half its length and then squaresectioned and twisted: this arrangement is strikingly similar to that of the long zoomorphic pin found at Howe (site HY21 6) and there dated to about the 3rd-4th centuries AD. There was also a small ring 12.7mm (0.5in) in diameter, 1 circular, flat brooch 5.46cm (2.15in) in diameter, the band 6.3mm (0.25in) wide. An inscription on it seems to read ISVSNAZAR, or

Phase 1 This could be represented by the galleried dwellings (the ‘outbuildings’) constructed within a ditched enclosure on the blunt promontory. As noted there are some signs that these formed an early Iron Age settlement and were much older than the broch; some of the pottery could indicate such an early date and longhouse C might have been partly taken down when the broch was constructed next to it.

45 It would surely have been impossible, or at least extremely dangerous, to push a new doorway through the outer wall of a tall, standing sandstone broch (see Midhowe and Gurness – HY33 1 & HY32 2 – for the instability of such structures). However it is true that the doorway of Mousa was doubled in height at one stage without causing a collapse (HU42 6), though one might argue that this tower is exceptionally stable and well built, and its stone less liable to crumble.

The alternative view is that the broch and its ditch represent the first human activity on the promontory and all the ‘outbuildings’ are later. It could be argued that a broch tower – having a certain amount of defensive capacity – is unlikely to have been inserted among a 453

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (this brooch was found close to one of the late graves in the upper part of the broch mound). Iron objects included some fragmentary knives found in the outbuildings. Stone implements included 2 rude mortars or basins (just irregular stone lumps hollowed out) 6 pebble hammerstones, a fragment of a steatite vessel, 3 whetstones, 7 whorls, one decorated with concentric circles, 1 ball about 9.1cm (3.5in) in diameter with facets struck off, 11 flat thin sandstone discs, from 6.4- 30cm (2.5-12in) in diameter, and 1 perforated quartz pebble 3.8cm (1.5in) long. Anderson [4] also mentioned “nearly a dozen” rude stone mortars and rubbing stones, and some scratched pebbles. He suggested that these last were palm protectors for coarse needlework, having seen a fisherman using one in this way. They are now usually interpreted as strike-a-lights (see Leckie, site NS69 2). Flint: 1 small conical flint core. Pottery: the potsherds in Illus. 7.96 & 7.97 include the following types. Fine ware includes small, thin-walled, hard-fired bucket- and barrel-shaped urns of grey clay with light brown-buff surfaces (nos. 6 & 18); there is also a similar fine vessel (no. 4) which has the slightly out-turned lip of Orkney broch pottery. Two others (nos. 3 & 1) have more markedly everted rims. Coarser ware is represented by one cordoned sherd (no. 2) and by a thicker vessel (no. 19) which resembles the Dunagoil jar (see the example from Forse (Illus. 7.73) and from Sheep Hill on the north bank of the river Clyde (MacKie 1976, 440, Fig. 2). Animal remains included reindeer antlers [2] and bones of ox, horse, sheep or goat, and pig.

Batey 2002, 187: 12. Close-Brooks 1995, no. 105: 13. Cowley 1999, 71-2. Square ND35 ND35 1 ELSAY (‘Cairn of Elsay’) ND/3871 5198 (visited 13/7/63) This probable solid-based broch in Wick, Caithness, stands at the landward end of a low sea promontory next to flat farmland (Illus. 7.105-7.109); the site was excavated by Sir Francis Tress Barry in 1902 and the plan of the exposed building was drawn by John Nicholson. The excavator also had some useful photographs taken (Illus. 7.107 & 7.108). The secondhand report on the work was compiled by the Royal Commission some years later [2]. Except for what seemed to be the entrance passage, facing the sea, nothing was seen by the author in 1963 but grass-covered hummocks. However another report of that year describes a mound up to 2.7m high in which a fragment of the inner face of the curved wall could be seen on the east; a stretch of outer face 7.0m long is exposed on the northeast for a height of 1.2m [1]. The entrance passage, 70cm wide, was also mentioned. Swanson’s plan [5] also shows all these features (Illus. 7.106). Description The entrance passage, facing south, was described as 5.19m (17ft) long and with a width of 90cm (3ft) for the first 3.36m (11ft). Door-checks, apparently made of slabs set into the wall, were found at that distance from the original outer face (Illus. 7.105); thereafter the passage is 1.22m (4ft) wide, narrowing again to 1.05m (3ft 6in) at the inner end. One of the slab checks is visible in the early photograph (Illus. 7.108). The bar-hole and socket were found in the passage walls immediately behind the door-frame, and one of these can also be seen (Illus. 7.108). In 1910 only one lintel remained in position, above the door-frame, but photographs taken in 1902 show that the entire inner half of the passage was then roofed (Illus. 7.107 & 7.108).

Dimensions. External diameter c. 55ft (or 16.78m [6]), internal diameter 9.15m (30ft) [6]; the wall thickness is therefore about 12.5ft (or c. 3.81m [6]). The wall proportion should therefore be about 45.5%. However according to the author’s own measurements the internal diameter varies from 9.76-9.97m (32-32.75ft) (“just under 10 m” according to Mercer [7]) and the main, eastern entrance is only 3.43m (11ft 3in) long: the wall thickness at 9 o’clock is about 3.97m (13ft). It seems that the Commission took the overall thickness of the wall for the measurements and included the secondary facing inside. Careful measurement of the interior in 1971 showed that the primary central court has a diameter of 4.86 + 0.06m, which is close to a true circle (with a diameter of 9.72 m). Mercer’s plan shows that the wall varies in thickness from 4m near the south entrance to 3.6m at the eastern one and for most of the rest of the circumference (Illus. 7.94); as in many other brochs the outer face of the wall does not therefore follow anything like a true circle.

One of these (Illus. 7.108) shows that the passage was bridged by a long, thin stone lintel with one, perhaps two, courses of masonry resting on this. This suggests that there was a large void above, forming the inner end of the chamber over the entrance, and one would normally expect the scarcement to be here and utilising this lintel. However there is no sign of a scarcement on the inner wallface next to the passage. Moreover it would be unusual for the innermost lintel, or chamber sill, to be thickened in this way, even if the scarcement was higher up at the base of Level 3. This feature is discussed below.

Sources: 1. NMRS site ND 34 SW 1: 2. Smith 1869: 3. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 9 (1870-2), 243-5 (finds): 4. Anderson 1883, 223-31: 5. Anderson 1890, 131 ff.: 6. RCAHMS 1911b, 149-51, no. 509, & fig. 37: 7. Mercer 1985, WAR 13 & fig. 58: 8. MacKie 1975a, 227-8: 9. MacKie 1969, 11 ff.: 10. Baines 1999, 79 & 83: 11.

The doorway to the intra mural stair, 71cm (2ft 4in) wide, is at 8.30 o’clock and the steps, as usual, rise to the right; the stair was 1.09m (3ft 7in) wide at its foot. To the left of the stair doorway was a stair-foot guard cell 2.75m (9ft) long according to the plan (Illus. 7.105). At first reading it seems that the stair doorway was raised 454

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) well above the floor of the central court since there was a small, circular, corbelled cell “beneath its position”; this can be seen on the plan as a dotted circle. However it seems much more likely that this is a hitherto unrecognised ‘well’ or other underground chamber. This ‘cell’ was 91cm (3ft) in diameter at the lowest point which could be seen in 1910. Another small intra-mural cell, also 91cm (3ft) in diameter, was found at about 3 o’clock and close to the inner wallface. There was an apparently secondary construction in the court projecting from the south-east arc of the wall.

above its present height and the scarcement – by that time destroyed – would have been at the base of Level 3, at the top of the chamber over the entrance (as at Midhowe – HY33 1). On the other hand Elsay may have been a ‘low broch’ without a high hollow-wall (like Crosskirk – ND7 2) and may never have had either a scarcement on the inner face or a chamber over the entrance (since the solid wall would have risen only a few feet above this point). With the data available it is not possible to decide confidently which of these interpretations is the more plausible, although – if one had to choose – the long, thin lintel surely points to the structure having originally been a high hollow-walled tower.

The wall in the north arc was well preserved, the inner face being up to 1.68m (5ft 6in) high. Secondary masonry in a crescent shape was added to the outer face around the entrance passage and the passage was extended by about 1.65m (5ft 6in) to run through it. Although this was not visible in 1910 it appears from the photograph (Illus. 7.107) to be another example of a widespread broch phenomenon; part of the secondary door-frame, in the form of a slab door-check and a massive sill, are visible in the photograph.

Finds [3] (Illus. 7.112). Metal objects included 2 fragmentary bronze rings and 2 pieces of small iron bars. Bone tools included 1 long-handled comb (no. 11), 2 fragments of double-edged composite combs, iron-riveted (nos. 15 & 16), 1 cylindrical handle for an iron tool 10cm (4in) long (no. 13), 1 hollow handle, 1 needle of Iron Age type (no. 14), fragments of two pins, 1 fragment of a whalebone vessel and 1 cannon bone perforated in the middle (no. 12). Stone tools included 2 much used whetstones and 1 disc of slaty stone 7cm (2.75in) in diameter. There was also a sherd of a “rude vessel of red clay.”

In the north-east arc of the wall, at about 2 o’clock, the plan shows a second but apparently blocked entrance passage (Illus. 7.105). It seems not to have any doorframe but is not mentioned in the earliest account [2]. There was also a block of secondary masonry running from about 3.30 to 5.30 o’clock and projecting into the central court; it stood 2.44-2.71m (8-9ft) high in 1910.

Dimensions [1]: internal diameter 8.85m (29ft), wall thickness at entrance 5.19m (17ft) and external diameter about 18.0m (59ft). The wall proportion is therefore about 57.5 %.

Discussion It is clear from the discovery of the composite bone combs (below) that this broch was still in use in some form in the late Iron Age (which started in about the 7th century AD), although the information available is too vague to do more than guess as to how the structure evolved over the several centuries concerned. One could surmise that the original high tower (if indeed it was one; there are no means of knowing for sure) was partly demolished at some stage and, presumably after the original entrance was badly damaged, an extra passageway with a new door was added in front of it and internal buildings of uncertain nature were added.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 35 SE 6: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 162-3, no. 521 & fig. 44: 3. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 44 (1908-09), 17 (finds): 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 619-23 & plan: 5. Batey (ms) 1981, no. 152. ND35 2 HILL OF STEMSTER (‘Stemster 4’) ND/3384 5029 Possible broch or cairn in Wick, Caithness, consisting of a spread-out mound with a diameter of about 33.6m (110ft) and from 90-120cm (3-4ft) high. It was originally diagnosed a cairn [2] but a number of flat stones lying about on its surface suggested a wrecked broch [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 35 SW 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 146, no. 505.

The photograph of the inner end of the entrance passage may be showing that the upper part of the reduced broch was modified here (Illus. 7.108). There appears to be at least one course of masonry laid on top of the long thin lintel at the inner end of the passage whereas normally one would expect the inner end of a void, or chamber over the entrance, here, especially above such a thin lintel. Neither is any scarcement apparent on the inner wallface at the level of this lintel (the base of Level 2), where one would normally expect to find it.

ND35 3 HILLHEAD (‘The Pap’) ND/3762 5140 Probable solid-based broch near Broadhaven in Wick, Caithness, sited on flat ground (Illus. 7.110-7.112). It was excavated by Tress Barry in 1901 and one photograph of the operation survives (Illus. 7.111); the resulting plan by John Nicholson was published by the Commission a few years later [2] (Illus. 7.110). By the time the latter’s investigator visited the site in 1910 the building was again choked with debris (perhaps the

This incomplete evidence can be interpreted in two ways. If Elsay broch was originally a tall, hollow-walled tower the courses of masonry on the lintel should have been placed there after it was demolished to only a few feet 455

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland excavated interior had been back-filled), the only feature visible being about 60cm (2ft) of the outer wallface on the west.

when the photograph (Illus. 7.111) was taken, though there is a suggestion of its face in the right foreground. Just within this door-frame six steps lead from the left side of the passage down into a well about 2.4m (8ft) deep. It is not explained whether this well (not visible in the photograph) was cut into the underlying sandstone but it surely must have been. The well is likely to have been earlier than the passage extension and would originally have been just outside the broch doorway.

Contemporary plan and photographs The contemporary photograph suggests that the explorations were confined to the interior and to the entrance passage, and that the outer wallface remains mostly buried (Illus. 7.111). There is little to be seen at the site now but a badly damaged mound with a length of the broch outer wall visible [4 & plan].

The passage extension mentioned leads into a further passage up to 1.5m (5ft) wide 2.29m (7ft 6in) long where there are rebates which could have held another door. Beyond this the passage splits into two diverging ways with a door-frame in each. Their junction is about 9.15m (30ft) from the broch entrance.

The contemporary plan of the excavations provides some further information (Illus. 7.110) [2]. The main entrance faces east and was 3.96m (13ft) long and 1.0m (3ft 3in) wide at its outer end. The plan shows that it had been extended outwards at some stage.46 There were two narrow and elongated guard cells, one on either side, and these appear at first sight to be in front of the primary door-frame; this looks as if it is formed of two 60cm long recesses in each wall the front edges of which, each evidently faced with a slab on edge, formed the doorchecks, some 3.35m (11ft) from the exterior.

Discussion There is little to be said about this site since the evidence is so sparse and ill-recorded. The design of the primary entrance passage is so unusual that one wonders whether it was recorded properly. The occurrence of the doors to the two guard cells in front of the door-frame makes no sense and in fact the photograph makes it clear that there was a door-frame near the outer end. The broch therefore almost certainly had two doors in its entrance passage – one near the outer end and the other near the inner end; several examples are known in the north-east mainland of brochs with two sets of doors.

However the photograph shows things differently. The secondary extension of the entrance is in the foreground, with a door-frame defined by slab checks and a sill stone. This doorway with a sill is obviously that shown in the plan about 1.2m (4ft) in front of the broch. Behind this is the lintelled broch passage with a tall slab-check clearly showing on the left – part of a door-frame which must be close to the outer end of the passage but which does not appear on Nicholson’s plan.

Most of the finds would fit easily into the standard middle Iron Age broch assemblage but the composite bone comb indicates that the site probably continued in occupation – no doubt with the high wall long pulled down – until the late Iron Age period, starting in about the 7th century. However it is of course possible that the comb was found high up in the debris; no contexts for the finds are given.

Description The average height of the interior wallface when exposed was about 2.7m (9ft) and the diameter of the court was 9.15m (30ft); however this had been reduced by 60-90cm (2-3ft) (presumably overall) by a secondary wallface. At 9 o’clock in the interior was found a doorway 98cm (6.5ft) high leading to the mural stair, rising to the right, and to a stair-foot guard cell opening to the left; the passage thus formed was 90cm (3ft) wide and roofed with flat lintels. An oval mural cell with its doorway opening to the central court was found at 3 o’clock (on the north); its length was not determined but its east end at least had the remains of a corbelled roof (“a roof of converging stones”).

Finds (Illus. 7.112) [3]. Bone objects include 1 double-edged composite comb 13.4cm (5.25in) long and with the side strips fastened with iron rivets, 2 awls 13.4cm and 9.2cm (5.25 and 3.6in) long, 2 pins with the point of a third, 2 needles with the usual pointed top (nos. 6 & 8), 3 slender bone points, 2 flat, perforated haft plates (nos. 1 & 2), 1 solid tubular haft 4.8cm long (no. 3), 2 bone dice, one hollow (no. 4) and one solid (no. 5), 1 polished hollow fragment, 1 femur-head whorl or button, 1 polished bone tube cut smooth at the ends, another hollow bone fragment, a piece of red deer antler and a disc-shaped fragment of a human cranium with 3 perforations arranged in a triangle. Stone objects included half a sandstone whorl (no. 10), 3 sandstone discs, a flat circular quartzite pebble with a perforation begun on one face (probably a strike-a-light) (no. 9) and an oval disc of grey quartzite with pecked markings on one face.

There are a number of later features in front of the broch entrance. There is a short outward extension, with a door-frame (mentioned earlier), which passes through what looks like a crescent-shaped ‘casing wall’ 1.68m (5ft 6in) thick which has been added against the broch wall. As noted this added wall had not been exposed 46 The further outward extension – to a point where the passage divides into two, with another door-frame at the junction – was evidently not exposed when this photograph was taken. Likewise the outer casing wall remained to be found.

456

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) Pottery: there were also many small potsherds “of which about eighty typical specimens are shown in the case ... and need not be described in detail” [3, 18].

Rhind found a number of walls in the central court but did not realise that the spaces these defined were not the same as the cells in the broch wall proper. Thus he could not explain why in “chamber” s there was a curved double facing at k which we can now interpret as a secondary wall which had been built round the interior of the broch. Another secondary wall ran from p to p inwards from the broch wall at a greater angle and overran the top of the well which had been partly roofed to support it and which was full of water when discovered. Steps led down into the well from the adjacent enclosure o so it was presumably still in use at a late date (Illus. 3.9).

Dimensions: external diameter 16.8m (55ft), internal 9.2m (30ft), so the wall proportion is 45.5%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 35 SE 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 161-2, no. 520 & fig. 43: 3. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 43 (1908-09), 17 (finds): 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 624-26 & plan. ND35 4 KETTLEBURN (‘Pict’s house’) ND/3497 5191 The site of a probable solid-based broch in Wick, Caithness. The building was on “a rather commanding site, on the brow of a gentle eminence … in the centre of a cultivated field.” [2, 211]. The river Wick is a quarter of a mile away. It was explored by A H Rhind of Silbster in 1853 in what was an early example of a rescue excavation. Mr James Henderson of Bilbster “found their (the ruins’) demolition indispensable ...” but gave Rhind every assistance in the project. The remains were removed afterwards by agricultural operations. The mound had already been ploughed for a quarter of a century and a nearby cottage “of no mean size” had been built entirely from the ruins. This is one of the earliest broch excavations to have been published in more than the briefest way (MacKie 2002, 31 & Illus. 3.9).

Rhind’s description of the excavation gives some more details. Both the entrance passages as well as the doors to the two guard cells, and that to the probable stair, seem to have been lintelled over at about 76cm (2ft 6in) from the floor level which was of “damp clay” except in the left guard cell t where it was paved. The guard chambers and the mural cell r stood to 1.8-2.1m (6-7ft) and preserved the very beginnings of corbelled roofs; Rhind surmised that they may once have stood 3.05m (10ft) high. As noted something like a secondary facing to the inner wallface of the broch wall seems to extend anticlockwise for a short distance from the main entrance. From the waterlogged well were recovered a bone object, pottery and two fragments of wood, one having cut marks on it. There were heaps of ashes in most of the chambers and food refuse was strewn all over the building – bones and whelk and limpet shells. Boar tusks and many deer horns were also found. It seems likely that at this early date a large number of finds were missed.

The excavations During the work several men were employed for three months to dig into a vast mound 3.05m (10ft) high and 36.6m (120ft) in diameter. Rhind’s plan depicts the entire mound as a single structure though it was clear twenty years later that the central building is a solidbased broch and that it was surrounded by outer walls [5, 209]. Despite all his care Rhind could not make much sense of the piles of rubble and occasional wallfaces that his men encountered between the outermost wall a (only 90cm (3ft) thick and unlikely to have been primarily defensive) and wallface b 7.63m (25ft) inwards from it (judging from the plan) and which we would call the outer face of the broch. It stood 1.2-1.5m (4-5ft) high most of the way round (Illus. 3.9).

Discussion There are too few accurate data for any but the most elementary conclusions to be drawn about the site. Kettleburn may well have been demolished and turned into a dwelling like Keiss South and West: the probable secondary entrance suggests this as does the ash and food refuse all over the building. The lintelled broch passageways seem very low at 76cm and it must surely be the case that the primary floor level was never reached and that it lay at least 80cm below the clay floor described. Thus all the finds probably belong to a late stage in the occupation of the site, even though they include several standard middle Iron Age forms like the long-handled bone comb and the bone ball-headed iron pin. No local parallels are known for the remarkable pair of bronze tweezers [7] although Rhind mentions that smaller, similar ones had been found in grave deposits, especially in Denmark.

Two entrances into the broch were found and the men entered the building by clearing these. It is now clear that the main entrance was on the north-east and had two opposed guard cells. The second entrance was on the north-west and from the plan it looks as if it was a secondary one and had been broken through the outer part of the wall from the doorway to the intra-mural stair (though no stair was recognised). A doorway in the inner wall at i (a short distance anti-clockwise from the passage), and a cell behind it, look as if they might have been part of the stair doorway and the stair- foot guard cell. The only other intra-mural feature is a large, elongated mural cell at 11 o’clock. There was a well in the central court 2.74m (9ft) deep.

He himself offered some conclusions which are of interest in view of their early date. He thought the metal objects found showed clearly that the view that the brochs were of Stone Age date, then current, was wrong and he also suggested the possibility that the brochs may contain 457

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland objects of diverse peoples over a long period of time. He surmised that they should be assigned a pre-Roman, metal age date [2, 221-23].

wallface and central court, on the western side (Illus. 7.114 & 7.115); no report was published about this work although a plan (made by Mr John Nicholson of Nybster) was made available [2, fig. 35]. In 1940 C S T Calder spent just over two weeks rapidly but thoroughly excavating the broch before it was bulldozed to make way for Skitten aerodrome.

Finds (Illus. 7.111). These were described in two groups, namely those which were recovered during the excavations [2, 217-21 & fig.] and those which were found afterwards when the mound was being removed [3 & figs. 4 & 5]. Iron: some slag was found as was also the remains of a pin with ball-shaped bone head (no. 8) and a bar which may perhaps be the tip of a sword blade (no. 17). Bronze objects included a fine and complete pair of tweezers 11.1cm (4.6in) long and a pin. Bone tools included a long-handled weaving comb decorated with incised horizontal lines (no. 2), the solid ball-head of an iron pin with a fragment of the pin remaining (no. 8), 1 small single-piece; single-edged comb (no. 5); 1 possible bridle cheek-piece (no. 7), an antler haft with a socket at one end and a transverse elongated perforation (no. 4), another probable haft with a groove cut round the opposite end to the socket (no. 3), 2 solid flattened balls (max. diam. 3.8cm), a boar’s tusk, a fragment of a whalebone trough, and several other worked bones. Stone tools included hammerstones; discs (diams. 1025cm (4 -10 ins), lamps, cups (some handled), 7 whorls or beads, 2 whetstones (no. 12), 1 quartzite round pebble with grooves, namely a strike-a-light (no. 16), 1 complete and 3 broken rotary quern upper stones, 4 discs of slate 7.5-10cm (3-4in) in diameter There was also a large piece of sandstone with a round, dish-shaped hollow in one surface, 23cm (9in) in diameter and 15cm (6in) deep which Rhind thought might have been a grain crusher but which might equally be a pivot stone (though a small hole in the bottom of the cavity penetrates the stone). A piece of granite with what sound like cupmarks was also found. Pottery: many fragments of plain pottery were also found, “some exceedingly coarse, but none by any means fine”; the sherds illustrated (nos. 9-11) show these to have been the standard Caithness broch pottery jars.

It is a pity that this site yielded so few finds as it was the first Caithness broch ever to have been even partly excavated in modern times and with proper care and regard to stratigraphic principles. Indeed Calder – who in this respect must be regarded as the founder of modern Iron Age archaeology in northern Scotland – was able to make many section drawings and plans despite the urgency of the work undertaken under wartime conditions. His report also includes a number of useful photographs. The sharp contrast with the situation at Crosskirk, excavated over a much longer period in the 1960s, is striking and extraordinary; no adequate section large-scale drawings are known to have been made there (ND07 2). 47 1. Description The structures consisted of the stump of a massive broch surrounded eccentrically by a wide, stone-faced rampart with a broad, shallow ditch outside this. The rampart was subsequently thickened on its inner face, and to such an extent that only a narrow passage was left between it and the broch wall [4, pl. xxviii, 3]. Only the east half of the outworks was explored but its alignment suggested that the widest part of the enclosed outer court – presumably containing outbuildings – had probably been on the west or north-west. The outer defences on the western side had been obliterated by cultivation. The main structural features were very dilapidated with 1.5-1.8m (5-6ft) of earth and rubble covering them in places. 1.1 The broch (Illus. 7.112 & 7.116) Architecture: the building survived only in Level 1, to a maximum height of 1.8m (6ft); it was only 45cm (18in) high at the entrance passage which faced west. The wall had a batter of just over 1 in 4 (35.5 in 152.5cm) on the exterior and 11 in 1 (7.5 in 81cm) on the interior: wall footings projected 30-48cm (12-19in) from below the outer face. The masonry was of high quality where freshly exposed though the sandstone slabs were thin. The only openings or spaces in the wall were the entrance passage and the guard cell which opened off its right wall; the whole of the rest of the wall was solid with no sign even of an intra-mural stair (which could of course have been in Level 2). Presumably the wall core was of stone slabs but no information on this point is given; the wall was evidently not sectioned before being bulldozed. The lowest part of the wall appears to have been well built with neatly-fitting sandstone slabs [4, pl. xxviii, 3]

Dimensions. No reliable ones are given by Rhind but Anderson gives the wall thickness as 4.575m (15ft) and the diameter of the central court as 9.15m (30ft) [5, 210]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 35 SW 11: 2. Rhind 1853: 3. Rhind 1854 (inc. finds): 4. Anderson 1866: 5. Anderson 1883, 209-16: 6. RCAHMS 1911a, 191, no. 588: 7. MacGregor 1976, no. 276: 8. Swanson (ms) 1985, 616-618. ND35 5 KILMSTER (‘Killimster’, ‘Skitten’) ND/3234 5655 This probable solid-based broch in Wick, Caithness, used to be a grass-covered knoll about 45.75m (150ft) in diameter and 2.74m (9ft) high on flat farmland (Illus. 7.112 & 7.114-7.117). It was partly excavated in 1904 by Sir F Tress Barry who exposed about half of the inner

47 Nor – judging from the report – were they at Buchlyvie in Stirlingshire, excavated even later in the 1970s (site NS59 2).

458

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) although it lacks the really large blocks which often occur near the foundations of these structures.

primary feature of the building [4, fig. 4]. One of these compartments, next to the entrance, was closed at its inner end with a high slab and others may also have been at one time. These slabs could well be secondary (because of the boxes in the clay under the paving) and the excavator surmised that not much time should have elapsed between the building of the broch and the insertion of the slab-built con-structions because the latter rested right on the clay: in other words, hardly any debris had accumulated on the broch’s clay floor before the slabs were set up. On the other hand, since they are linked with the peripheral paving they might well be primary features; no ring of post-holes was located at the inner edge of this paving.

The entrance (Illus. 7.112) had two sets of door-checks, one 1.17m (3ft 10in) in from the outer end and the other at 2.90m (9ft 6in); they were formed of built rebates in the passage walls but only those on the north side were preserved. The passage was 91cm (3ft) wide at the exterior but varied from 84cm-102cm (2.75ft-3.5ft) at the first check and from 91-117cm (3ft- 3ft 10in) at the second. There was a bar-hole on the left behind the first set of checks but the wall behind the second set was too low for anything to be preserved there. The passage had a drain running under its paved floor, 25.5-30.5cm (10-12in) wide and from 17.5-23.0cm (79in) deep; it had been scooped out of the natural clay subsoil. At each door-frame there was a sill stone set upright across the floor which avoided the drain; the outer kerb was 21.5cm (8.5in) high, the inner from 1520cm (6-8in), being composed of two stones. A slablined socket for a hinge post was preserved behind the left check of the inner door-frame [4, pl. xxxii, 3].48 The guard cell doorway was badly ruined but was probably only 60cm (2ft) wide, less than in Barry’s plan. Barry described a slab-lined box set in the clay floor of the cell: only a hollow was left in 1940. The cell was about 3.0m (10ft) long by 1.63m (5ft 4in) wide: the Commission’s dimensions (“some 15 feet” and “6ft. 6ins.”) are presumably not accurate.

One radial compartment – no. 11 – definitely was secondary. Its back had been let 53cm (1ft 9in) into the inner face of the broch and faced with a huge upright slab. The excavator was in little doubt that this slab had been inserted [4, pl. xxviii, 2]. A large, built stone fire-back stood in the centre, its long axis in line with the entrance and overlying the drain. It was 2.74m (9ft 4in). long, 76cm (30in) thick and when excavated was 38-61cm (15-24in) high; presumably its upper part had been destroyed. Two hearths, one on each side of it, were defined by a kerb and 25.5cm (10in) of peat ash covered each. There were other secondary, kerbed hearths in the interior and some had hammerstones used in their kerbs. The main entrance had been extended inwards by slabs on edge, and towards this fire-back, but one could turn left or right just before it; thus the interior was effectively divided into two halves in the secondary stage of use (Illus. 7.116), almost exactly like in the secondary period of use of Midhowe in Orkney (HY33 1). Although this division of the interior into two halves seems to have occurred some time after the broch was built the ‘fire-back’ seems to rest on the primary clay floor, judging from Section RS [4, fig. 3].

The interior (Illus 7.112, bottom): this was full of slabbuilt constructions such as the thirteen radial compartments, sunk pits and hearths. In some places two levels of paving could be distinguished [4, fig. 3, sections] though the original floor was probably the underlying clay layer on which the broch wall rested. Two sunk stone boxes and a deep, partly rock-cut pit (full of rubbish and peat ash) [4, fig. 3, section RS] were found below the lower paving and seem to support this idea; alternatively they could relate to a pre-broch occupation. The surviving lower paving was mostly peripheral, laid in a strip round the outer part of the court (Illus. 7.112). The upper floor only overlapped it at this inner edge and this rested on blue puddled clay on 12.5cm (5in) of peat ash and covered some stone settings in which there had been post-holes. The description does not make it clear if these are stone-lined post-holes or holes inside a larger setting, nor how the drain relates to these layers of paving. The drain was open for part of its length, indicating late use, but its situation in the entrance passage strongly suggests that it was a primary feature.

A partly rock-cut pit underneath everything may have been a primary broch feature [4, pl. xxxii, 4]. It extended under the fire-back from the south side and its upper twothirds had been deliberately filled with rubble (on top of a layer of black soil and bones), presumably when the hearth was constructed over it. The paving slabs which covered the filled-in pit appear to be part of the primary floor [4, fig. 3, section RS] so the pit may well be a prebroch feature. One would expect such a deep hole to be analogous to the clean, deep ‘wells’ which have been found in other brochs but this one evidently served as a rubbish pit in its final period of use.

The radial slabs around the interior formed several compartments in the outer part of the court (Illus. 7.112); here also there was peripheral paving which could be a

There were also 6 post-holes in the floor, 3 of them under paving. They formed no particular plan. 1.2 The outer rampart (Illus. 7.115) This was 5.5-6.7m (18-22ft) thick and had a maximum height of 1.5m (5ft). It was built of a clay core revetted

48

This rare feature (most broch doors have true pivot stones) recalls one in the entrance passage of Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh (NH19 3); see (MacKie 1980, pl. 6b).

459

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland with facings 25-48cm (10-l9in) thick formed of battered dry stone masonry. The excavator suggested that the primary outer defence had been a simple clay rampart since there was a space, packed with rubble, between the curved surface of the clay core and the near-vertical masonry faces. Alternatively this feature may have been due to the method of construction. A ditch was in front of the wall dug into the clay and presumably provided the clay for the wall core.

The interior was split into two halves by this arrangement, as at Midhowe (HY33 1), and one would like to think that the single, primary, central hearth was once where the fire-back is now, probably partly under the secondary Hearth 2. However no trace of such a feature is mentioned by the excavator. The masonry added to the inner face of the outer rampart presents an interesting problem. If the rampart had been composed throughout of stone rubble there would have been little reason to doubt that it was the debris from the demolished upper works of the tower, such as has been observed at other sites. But the core was of topsoil and clay with stone rubble on top so it was by no means all debris from a demolished stone broch. On the other hand the buttress on the east and the secondary outer facing might be regarded as debris from such demolition, if it was once a tall tower; these features must antedate the rampart addition. Not enough evidence is available to come to definite conclusions on these matters, but it seems that two distinct secondary phases of construction and alteration occurred.

A considerable extra thickness of masonry-faced rubble and clay had been added to the inner face of the outer rampart, leaving only a narrow passage around the foot of the broch wall. The core of this addition consisted of 60cm (2ft) of top soil at the bottom surmounted by 30cm (1ft) of clay with rubble on top; this is the stratigraphy of the outer ditch in reverse order and it seems to imply that the addition was formed of material from the deepened ditch. The inner edge of the addition ran round a buttress of masonry against the foot of the broch wall on the north-north-east (at 10 o’clock), so post-dated this feature. A much thinner extra facing of masonry, of even thickness, had been added to the outer face of the broch wall anti-clockwise from the buttress to the main entrance; the excavator surmised that, since there was no damage to the broch masonry behind these two added features, they were designed to shore up the upper walls. The thin feature closely parallels the ‘buttresses’ at Crosskirk (ND07 1).

Yet another hypothesis could be constructed by assuming that the broch was, like Crosskirk not many miles away, never a tall tower; no signs of hollow-wall construction were found, and it could well be that Kilmster was also a massive, low-walled roundhouse with some broch-like features. It may even have had a clay core to its wall, as did the outer rampart, but we shall never know because the wall was not sectioned under controlled conditions but was rapidly bulldozed at the end of the excavation. The absence of really heavy blocks in the lower part of the outer face might support this idea.

2. Discussion Despite the cross-sections [4, fig. 3] the verbal descriptions of the internal stratigraphy of the Kilmster broch are quite brief and it is not always easy to tell which are the primary broch features and which were added later. Certainly the slab constructions, hearths and fire-back seem to be secondary, and the primary furniture of the tower probably included the drain, the central pit in the floor (if that was not older) and the peripheral paving, together with those post-holes associated with it. But the primacy of these last depends more on comparative data from other sites than from the evidence from this one.

The stratigraphy of the addition to the outer rampart – composed as it seems to be of material excavated from the outer ditch – is surely telling us that the site underwent an extensive, though not very thorough, refortification at some stage. Indeed the entire ditch is quite shallow so it may itself be a late feature, intended to be an extra protection for the surrounding wall, perhaps after the broch (if it was one) had been partly pulled down.

However there is no doubt that the interior was drastically modified at some stage. The stone fire-back49 ought to be secondary (although it seems to rest on the oldest floor) and has a hearth on either side, at least one of which definitely is on the later floor [4, fig. 3, section RS]; presumably – since the only purpose of this fire-back was to cater for the two later hearths – the back itself was built in a shallow pit cut down to the oldest floor level. It was also built partly on top of the filled-in pit and may thus be indicating that the latter was indeed a primary feature, filled up when the new hearths were laid.

The material culture found in the broch (below) is remarkably impoverished when contrasted with that found in some other Caithness brochs – Crosskirk in particular. It is not clear whether this paucity of finds reflects the actual situation, or whether the conditions under which the site was excavated on two occasions made it difficult to recover all the finds. 3. Finds (Illus. 7.117) Few finds were described by Calder [4]. Pottery. The few rim sherds fit reasonably well into the Orkney/Caithness jar style. Stone. A variety of implements were found including 3 deep dishes, 4 broken upper and 1 lower rotary quern

49 In 2005, sixty-five years later, this is still an unique feature in an excavated broch.

460

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) stones [4, fig. 5], 1 saddle quern, 5 pot lids, 1 long pestle, 8 hammerstones, 1 whorl and 1 polished smoother.

ND35 7 THUSTER ND/3004 5254 Possible broch in Wick, Caithness, now a low mound 1.2-1.5m (4-5ft) high in the corner of a field and with much slaty stone lying on its surface. A handled stone cup of Iron Age type was found nearby and was obtained by Sir F Tress Barry [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 35 SW 6: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 160, no. 519.

Those of Tress Barry’s finds [2] which were given to the National Museum included a bone needle 7.5cm long, a bone borer and 2 stone whorls, 1 of sandstone and 1 of steatite. Dimensions: external diameter 19.06m (62.5ft), internal 9.91m (32.5ft): the wall proportion is therefore 48%.

ND35 8 WESTER BROCH (‘Castle Linglas’) ND/3385 5831 This probable solid-based broch in Wick, Caithness, stands among sandhills near the shore. It was excavated by Sir F Tress Barry in 1894 and stands on low ground “just within the fringe of sandhills which border the shore” [3]. There is very little to be seen now except the outline of a curving wall [7]. The information about the site therefore comes entirely from the excavator, by way of Joseph Anderson and a plan and a photograph [2, 4] (Illus. 7.97 & 7.119-7.121).

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 35 NW 3: 2. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 43 (1908-09), 18 (finds): 3. RCAHMS 1911b, no. 507, pp. 146-8 & fig. 35: 4. Calder 1948: 5. Swanson (ms) 1985, 606-10. ND35 6 NORWALL (‘Green Hill 3’) ND/3266 5445 This probable broch in Wick, Caithness, stands on a very gentle, north-east-facing slope and has been cut off from the higher ground to the south-east by a wide ditch which is still about 1.0m deep even though under the plough [1]. The broch was partly excavated in 1903 or soon after by Sir Francis Tress Barry and by 1910 it was a grassy mound with some structural features visible; now it is lower and ploughed out [4 & plan]. The original plan was made by Mr J. Nicolson of Lybster at the time of the excavation (Illus. 7.118); there is nothing to be seen at the site now [4].

Description The main entrance is on the west-north-west and was 3.97m (13ft) long, 1.07m (3.5ft) wide at the exterior and 79cm (2ft 7in) at the inner end. The door-frame is 2.75m (9ft) in but the design of the checks is not described (see below). At 9 o’clock is the doorway to the mural stair which is raised 92cm (3ft) above the interior floor; it is 76cm (2ft 6in) wide. There was a stair-foot guard cell 2.90m (9ft 6in) long and 92cm (3ft) wide but this had become invisible again in 1910 [3]. The photograph (Illus. 7.120) shows the partially cleared interior and the inner end of the entrance passage with the two slabchecks of the door-frame close to the inner end.

Description The entrance was on the west, 4.12m (13.5ft) long, and an outward extension had been added to it at some stage, evidently running through some outbuildings. One doorcheck face with a thin stone slab was found in this, 1.07m (3.5ft) outwards from the broch. About half the inner wallface was exposed during the excavation, and the internal diameter was found to be 7.93m (26ft).

The broch is surrounded by traces of outbuildings but – as with many another ‘excavated’ Caithness broch – the plan of their walls is incoherent and they were evidently not explored systematically. Around these on the northwest and south-west runs a wall which may have surrounded the whole complex. It is impossible to tell from the plan and description whether it was an outer defence or simply a boundary wall for the presumably secondary settlement around the tower.

The broch door-frame is about 2.7m (9ft) in from the outside but the passage was badly ruined; the design of the checks is not mentioned. The published plan shows a doorway to a mural stair, rising to the right, at about 9 o’clock and traces of outbuildings in front of the entrance. No such structural features are now visible [1], and even in 1910 hardly anything remained of the outer wallface [2]. There is no record of any finds.

Finds (Illus. 7.97 & 7.121): Bone and antler: 1 needle (no. 23) and (also described as a needle) a fish gorge (no. 24), 2 pins or awls, 1 pin with a globular head, 2 more pins (broken), 1 plain longhandled comb (no. 21), 3 antler rings, 1 femur-head whorl or button (no. 25) and 1 possible bridle cheekpiece – a “curved bone” 10cm (4in) long with an oval hole (no. 22). Stone tools included 4 roughly chipped discs or pot-lids, 2 whetstones, 1 decorated whorl ornamented with 15 drilled pits and half a plain whorl (no. 28). Some pottery is also included with the finds in the National Museums (nos. 26 & 27) and it includes 2 rim sherds which in form resemble the late Bronze Age

Dimensions: the internal diameter is 27ft. (8.24m) and the wall, at the entrance, some 13ft 6in (4.12m); if it is this thickness throughout the external diameter would be 16.17m (53ft) and the wall proportion 50.9%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 35 SW 10: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 148-9, no. 508, fig. 36: 3. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 82 (1947-48), 317 (finds): 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 611-14 & plan.

461

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland ‘Dunagoil vases’ from Crosskirk (Illus. 7.33) – particularly no. 27 with the indentations under the slightly out-turned rim – but which are made of a hardfired, smooth, grey ware. Joseph Anderson also mentions the following objects which do not seem to have reached the National Museum [2]: 1 upper stone of a rotary quern, several saddle querns, and 3 quartzite pebbles with painted spots [2, fig. 22] (Illus. 7.121). One of the querns is the standard Atlantic, disc-shaped type with a loose handle-hole in the upper surface; the one on the left of the photograph appears to be a lower stone of the same type.

Finds included a stone rotary quern, 3 grooved pebbles some 15cm (6in) long –possibly loom weights – and a small stone cup only 7cm (2.75in) long. One of the “loom weights” is in the National Museum [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 36 NW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 16, no. 37: 3. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 45 (191011), 220 (find): 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 552. ND36 3 EVERLEY ND/3699 6828 Probable solid-based broch in Canisbay, Caithness, situated on flat ground. It was excavated by Sir F Tress Barry in 1897 when it was a substantial mound (Illus. 7.122-7.125); much of it has since been removed by being quarried for stone. Very little information about the first excavation is available apart from the basic dimensions of the building, although some unusual Roman finds were recovered. The site was re-excavated in 2002 and 2003 by Andy Heald on behalf of the National Museums of Scotland50 and much more is now known about it [6, 11 & 12].

Dimensions: external diameter c. 16.47m (54ft), internal 8.24m (27ft); the wall proportion is about 50%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 35 NW 4: 2. Anderson 1901, 119-22: 3. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 43 (1908-9), 119 (finds): 4. RCAHMS 1911b, 153-4, no. 513, & fig. 58: 5. Young 1962, 184: 6. Caulfield 1978, 132, no. 19: 7. Swanson (ms) 1985, 604-05: 8. Batey 2002, 187: 9. J Wordsworth in Discovery and Excavation Scotland 1997, 52.

Description The main entrance, on the west-south-west, was 92cm (3ft) wide at the exterior with door-checks 2.44m (8ft) in at which point the passage was 81cm (2ft 8in) wide; the gap between the checks themselves was only 46cm (18in), unusually narrow. A photograph (Illus. 7.122) shows that these were stone slabs set at right angles into the walls. Thereafter the entrance widened to 1.14m (3ft 9in) and to 1.22m (4ft) at the inner end. The height of the broch wall when excavated was not more than 1.07m (3.5ft) (Illus. 7.123) and there were no signs of internal doors, intra-mural chambers or stairs in the surviving masonry.

ND35 9 PAPIGOE ND/3828 5176 Natural mound in Wick, once thought to be a possible broch site [2]. It was ploughed in 1981 and no stone was revealed [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 35 SE 7: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 190, no. 585: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 627: 4. Batey (ms) 1981, no. 154. ND35 10 SHORELANDS ND/3647 5425 Possible broch in Wick, Caithness, consisting in 1910 of a low mound under cultivation which seemed to be artificial. The mound had vanished by 1981 [3] (there is another, similar mound a little further from the road [1]). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 35 SE 19: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 190, no. 584: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 615.

The modern excavations were design to re-examine the “Atlantic roundhouse” [11], part of the external settlement and a late Norse building. They revealed a broch which, though it had been severely robbed in the intervening one hundred and four years, still had part of its primary floor level intact. These deposits, untouched by Tress Barry, yielded pottery and artifacts.

Square ND36

Finds from Tress Barry’s excavation [4] (Illus. 7.125). Bone objects included 2 pins, 1 needle of ‘Iron Age A’ type (that is, with a point above the eye) and 8 boars’ tusks. Stone objects included 2 lamps (one a half only), several other oval stone vessels one of which is definitely a lamp,51 1 handled stone cup, 2 whetstones, several hammerstones, 4 slaty stone discs 5-10cm (2-4in) in diameter, 1 sandstone disc, diameter 4.5cm (1.75in), 5 stone whorls, several querns, presumably the rotary form (only mentioned by Anderson [2]) and half of a rough jet

ND36 1 AUCKINGILL ND/36 64 approx. Site of a possible broch in Canisbay, Caithness; it was situated on cultivated ground but no traces were visible in 1910 [2] or in 1984 [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 36 SE 7: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 20, no. 52: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 577. ND36 2 BRABSTERMIRE ND/3285 6993 This probable broch in Canisbay, Caithness, was partially explored by John Nicholson of Nybster some time before 1910 at which time parts of a circular wall were uncovered [1]. Nothing is visible now except a low, grassy mound.

50

The work is part of a wider project to re-examine the Iron Age of Caithness by a new survey of brochs sites, by selective excavation, and by examining afresh the finds from the old excavations. 51 The lamp, with a wick holder, is shown with the drawings (Illus. 7.125) and can be seen near the bottom in the photograph (Illus. 7.124).

462

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) disc. The lower stone of a quern is clearly visible in the photograph, as also is (on the left) a fragment of an upper stone of the rare Traprain type, with a lateral handle groove defined by raised ridges (Illus. 7.124). The photograph also shows what looks like a cup-marked stone (lower left). Pottery: several sherds, type unspecified. Roman material: 2 fragments of Samian ware, 1 fragment of the hollow rim of a Roman glass bowl, pale yellow-green in colour. The decorated Samian fragment (Illus. 7.125) is a late Antonine (mid 2nd century) vessel probably of Dechelette form 72 with barbotine decoration [7, 8]. The glass bowl rim is from a rare ribbed vessel – either a jug (Isings form 52b) or a bowl (Isings form 67c) [9, 70 & 88]; both are thought to have been made in the Seine/Rhine area between about AD 70-160.52 The only other native sites in Scotland to have yielded this type of vessel are two brochs far away to the south – Leckie in Stirlingshire (NS69 2) and Torwoodlee in Selkirk (NT43 1).

Description The building was full of sand and apparently rested on pure sand, which raises doubts as to whether it could ever have been a tall tower. One of the entrances was on the south-west and no door-checks or bar-holes are shown. A second entrance at the foot of the stair is on the northeast and no door-checks are shown here either. If one can apply the sequence of alterations inferred for Yarrows (ND34 17) and Keiss South (ND36 6) to this site, the north-east doorway seems highly likely to be a secondary passage pushed through the thin outer part of the wall as an extension of the doorway to the mural stair. Also this passage leads on into the outbuildings and a chamber opens off its left side just outside the broch wall proper. The contemporary photograph (Illus. 7.127) shows the stairway, the doorway leading to it and the doorway of the mural cell beyond, but does not shed any light on the outer part of the passage here. The stairway rises to the right and 14 steps remained; there is a guard cell on the right side of the passage which should originally have been a stair-foot guard cell.

From the new excavations: these have not yet been published in detail but the pottery is remarkably similar, in shape and ware, to the grey ‘Orkney jars’ found at Crosskirk (ND07 2).

Assuming that the south-west entrance is the original one (despite the apparent absence of a door-frame) the stair doorway would be at 12 o’clock; there is an oval mural cell at 7 o’clock and another at 3 o’clock. The doorway to the latter seems to have been blocked off by the secondary facing (Illus. 7.126) but this is not clearly apparent in the photograph. Indeed there one can see what might be a low wall extending the far side of the cell doorway into the interior (Illus. 7.127). The quality of the structural evidence from this site is too low for a proper interpretation of these features.

Dimensions: internal diameter 8.845m (29ft), wall 4.423m (14.5ft) [2] or 4.728m (15.5ft) [3] thick: the average external diameter is therefore about 17.96m (59ft) and the wall proportion is about 50.8%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 36 NE 6: 2. Anderson 1901, 142-3: 3. RCAHMS. 1911b, 16, no. 36: 4. Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 43 (1908-09), 15 (finds): 5. Young 1962, 183: 6. A. Heald in Discovery and Excavation Scotland 2002: 7. Hartley 1972, 55: 8. Robertson 1970, Table II: 9. Swanson (ms) 1985, 558-59: 10. Heald & Jackson 2001: 11. A Heald & A Jackson in Discovery and Excavation Scotland 2002, 64-5.

On excavation the broch wall was found to be 2.13m (7ft) high and a “scarcement 12 to 18ins. wide” is described as being on the interior wallface; however in 1910 this term was usually employed to describe a secondary interior wallface and there appears to be such a thing shown on the plan from 2 to 6 o’clock (Illus. 7.126). There are other presumably secondary divisional walls in the interior and traces of presumably outbuildings abutting against the broch on the east side.

ND36 4 FRESWICK LINKS (‘Freswick Sands’, ‘Sands Broch’) ND/3761 6761 Site of a probable solid-based broch in Canisbay, Caithness. It used to stand among the sandhills half a mile north of Freswick House (Illus. 7.126 & 7.127) and was excavated by Sir F Tress Barry in 1898 and described by Anderson [2]. Already in “a ruinous condition” in 1910 [3] it is now almost completely destroyed and the site is difficult to locate [8]. A plan53 by John Nicholson was published by the Commission [3] and shows that this site too had two entrances as well as some outbuildings (Illus. 7.126). There is a later, Viking settlement nearby [5, 6].

Discussion Judging from the composite bone comb and the hipped bone pin (below) this broch was occupied over a long period, both in the middle and in the late Iron Age, but the exploration of the interior was so crude that no evidence survives of superimposed floor levels, as it did at Burrian broch in North Ronaldsay (HY75 1). Like many another it appears to have been modified – perhaps partly demolished – in the later stages of the middle Iron Age and as part of these changes a second doorway was pushed through the wall at the base of the stair. Presumably the various chambers outside the wall on the west side were built at this time. The absence of Viking artifacts suggests that the broch was abandoned and filling with sand when the Norsemen settled nearby.

52

I am very grateful to Dr Dominick Ingemark for this information. The north point is clearly reversed in the Commission’s plan. The site lies half a mile north of Freswick House which can be seen in the background in Illus. 7.127, with the sea and the cliffs to the left. The photographer was therefore facing south and along the stair in the direction of its rising; on the plan it rises towards the north. 53

463

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Finds [7] (Illus. 7.131) Bronze objects included a thin flat fragment with 3 rivet holes. Bone objects included 2 decorated ball-headed pins, one hipped (Illus. 7.131), the socketed spherical head for an iron pin, 1 needle, 2 awls, a cylindrical object notched at both ends, half a whorl and 2 composite, riveted, double-edged combs with 4 fragments of others. Stone implements included 2 decorated whorls, 1 grooved weight and a stone with 9 cup-marks on it.54 Glass. Young mentions a small yellow glass ring bead [4, 183] but it is not clear on what evidence the statement is based; the find is not mentioned anywhere else. The following are mentioned only by Anderson – 1 crude sandstone vessel and some fragments, and 1 or 2 querns.

have been built on the wallhead opposite the entrance and there are two rows of flagstones on edge in the interior, probably also secondary, with a probable hearth (a “cistlike cavity or fireplace some 2.5ft square”) between them; these rows are parallel with the entrance [5, pl. LII]. There are several radial slabs along the 8-10 o’clock arc of the inner wallface, and an aumbry 60cm (2ft) square was found in the inner wallface at about 9 o’clock. No trace of a secondary facing in the court was observed and the fact that the plan of the court is an exact circle (below) tends to confirm that there was no such addition to the primary wall. Discussion There is not much that can be said about this probable broch, as the quality of the available information is so poor. One cannot even tell from the available description whether the building had an intra-mural stair; if it did it was either in Level 1 and not uncovered or higher up in Level 2 and no longer extant. Since most of the local brochs have stairs at ground level the former seems probable, but there is no way of knowing if one ever existed. If it did not Keiss North must have been a fairly low structure.

Dimensions: wall thickness 3.51m (11ft 6in) (assuming the “scarcement” to be a secondary wallface), internal diameter 9.96m (32ft 8in), overall diameter therefore c. 17m (56ft) and the wall proportion would be about 41%, relatively low. Sources: 1. O.S. card ND 36 NE 5: 2. Anderson 1901, 143-4: 3. RCAHMS 1911b, 14-15, no. 34 & fig. 6: 4. Young 1962, 183: 5. Curle 1939: 6. Childe 1943: 7. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 43 (1908-09), 16 (finds): 8. Swanson (ms) 1985, 560-61: 9. Caulfield 1978, 132, no. 26: 10. Batey 2002, 187.

The finds such as they are could indicate a middle Iron Age occupation although the restored pot is of unusual interest and could be earlier [2, fig. 2] (Illus. 7.131). This is a well-known late Bronze Age style known as the Dunagoil vase, being a finer version of the larger and coarser Dunagoil urn. Local examples dated to the end of the Bronze Age were found not many miles away at Crosskirk (ND01 7). Whether this pot, which was clearly in use during the occupation of the broch,55 indicates that the site is much earlier than the others nearby, or whether it means that the local ancient pottery style continued in use until the early first millennium AD, is not clear from the evidence available. The latter hypothesis should be preferred unless and until some other local massive roundhouse is clearly dated to the 8th-6th centuries BC.

ND36 5 KEISS NORTH (‘Broch at the White Gate’, ‘Whitegate broch’) ND/3541 6120 (visited 13/7/63 & in 1971) This probable solid-based broch in Wick, Caithness, is one of a group of three sited close together near Keiss and which were excavated by Sir F Tress Barry; this one was explored in 1892-93. It is now in ruins and overgrown with turf, standing on flat ground with no sign of outer defences; a mass of ruinous outbuildings surrounds it [9, plan] (Illus. 7.128-7.130). Description The single entrance faces east towards the sea and is 4.12m (13.5ft) long, 76cm (2.5ft) wide at the exterior. It has two door-frames in it, the first being 1.12m (3ft 8in) from the exterior and evidently with only a single rebated door-check in the right wall [5, 156] (though the small plan seems to show another opposite and slightly in front of it – Illus. 7.128). The second door-frame is 1.65m (5.5ft) further in (or 1.77m from the outside) and the checks of this are formed of slabs set into the walls. One of these last is visible on one of Tress Barry’s photographs [5, pl. LII] (Illus. 7.130). There are no traces of guard cells.

Finds (Illus. 7.131) [2 & 4] Bone items included 14 pointed and other implements and 1 fragment of a needle. Stone tools included fragments of rotary querns, several ‘grain rubbers’ (which could be the mullers of saddle querns), 1 whorl, 4 roughly chipped discs (pot lids?), from 6.5-11cm (2.5-4.5in) in diameter, 1 bead and 1 pebble 5cm (2in) in diameter with a hollow pecked in one face. This last could be a palm protector for use when pushing an awl or needle through tough material (see Dun Ardtreck, NG33 2). Amber? 1 ring-bead. Pottery: there were enough potsherds to reconstruct one large vessel of plain, gritty ware with a slightly everted rim having a row of shallow impressions under it [2, fig. 2].

No other intra-mural features were found anywhere except for a break in the inner wallface at about 9 o’clock which may be the entrance to the mural stair; the stair, if it exists, was not uncovered. A secondary cell seems to 54

55 ‘It was found in excavating the interior …. in a multitude of fragments which lay in a group…’ [2].

RCAHMS 1911b, 187, no. 576.

464

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) (Illus. 7.133);57 he also prepared a plan and several drawings of individual features [2, figs. 33, 34, 37 & pl. viii] (Illus. 7.132). All that was lacking was the recording of the context of each find in the various layers he identified. However he did observe that the crudest implements and pottery came from the lowest levels and that metal objects were only found higher up. This led him to suppose that the brochs were built in the Stone Age [3]. A number of the finds were illustrated [2, pls. vi, vii, ix & x].

Dimensions: internal diameter 7.93m (26ft), external c. 15.86m (52ft); the wall proportion is therefore 50%. In 1971 a survey of the central court showed that this had been laid out very close to an exact circle with a radius of 3.95 + 0.03m (diam. 7.90 m). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 36 SE 3.00: 2. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 27 (1892-93) 42-44 (pot): 3. Anderson 1901, 127: 4. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 43 (1908-9), 13 (more finds): 5. RCAHMS 1911b, 156-7, no. 516, fig. 40 & pl. 52: 6. Childe 1943, 16: 7. Young 1962, 184: 8. Batey (ms) 1981, nos. 98 & 100 (plan): 9. Swanson (ms) 1985, 586-89 & plan: 10. Baines 1999, 81-2: 11. Heald & Jackson 2001, 129-47.

Thirty years later the mound was further explored by Sir Francis Tress Barry [5, 6] and it then became apparent that, although Laing had exposed several superimposed paved floors in the upper part of the mound, he had not cleared much of the lowest, original floor. In fact he seems not to have appreciated the full extent of the structure he found and left the impression that it was a circular chamber inside a mound. Tress Barry uncovered the complete stump of a circular building and found that the main wall was about 3.6m (12ft) thick; he established its overall diameter and located the two entrances.

ND36 6 KEISS SOUTH (‘The Harbour Mound’, ‘Keiss Broch’) ND/3531 6108 (visited 13/7/63 & in 1971) This probable solid-based broch in Wick, Caithness stands on the flat raised beach next to the shore and only a few hundred yards south of Keiss North (ND36 5) (Frontispiece & Illus. 7.132-7.144). It was explored in 1893-95 and is the most interesting of all those excavated by Sir Francis Tress Barry because more information than usual is available. When combined with the several surviving photographs this allows some useful conclusions to be drawn [8]. However although many artifacts were recovered, including some diagnostic ones, none of them have clear contexts and they cannot be related to the scheme of structural development suggested below. Because of the unusual possibilities for reinterpreting old evidence here this site entry is longer than usual for this Section.

By 1963 the site had become almost a complete wreck with little visible but the interior wallface and the triangular lintel in front of the north-east entrance. Swanson’s plan of the site in 1984 shows the internal wallface and the north-east passage but little else but a mass of hummocks and hollows [12, fig.] (Illus. 7.135). 2. Results of Laing’s 1864 excavations Laing exposed what we would now call a late post-broch structure, founded on top of about 1.3m of midden deposits resting on the primary floor [2]. His sketch plan (Illus. 7.132, left) is not particularly clear but is made more so by the drawing reproduced here as the Frontispiece as well as the drawings also in Illus 7.132. These (perhaps made from photographs) show the inner face of the broch wall with the doorway to the stair and the stair itself in the south-west, very clearly descending below the exposed paved floor. There is also another circular wall running round the interior concentric with the broch but standing free of it forming a sort of roofed corridor (another drawing seems to show this blocked – Illus. 7.132, lower right).

1. Introduction The site, originally a prominent green mound [2, fig. 4], was first explored by Samuel Laing in 1864; paved floors at different levels in the central court were found at that time, as well as various secondary walls [2].56 The main wall is said to have stood 3.6m (12ft) high at that time though much of the structure on the north side had already been quarried away [2, 24]; the site is now reduced to a low, irregular grassy mound projecting only slightly above the surrounding flat ground. Laing’s recording techniques were well in advance of his time. He carefully drew cross-sections of the internal deposits which show how later walls were built on accumulations of stone and rubbish [2, figs. 35 & 36]

Laing decided that the ‘middle’ wall was the oldest since it was “by far the most massively built and went down to a lower pavement of large flags, resting on a layer of flat beach stones laid on the natural rock.” [2, 24]. This must be one of the earliest clear descriptions of a stratigraphical sequence in Scottish archaeology and shows that this wall can only be the inner wallface of the primary building, the broch. He could not recognise that the ‘outer’ wall had an outer as well as an inner face and that he was exploring a free-standing structure – hardly

56 Joseph Anderson is usually thought to have been the first modern, professional excavator in Caithness but Samuel Laing’s techniques – both of digging and recording – were considerably in advance of his. Despite the small amount of work he did Laing could well be called the father of Caithness archaeology. His reputation as an excavator has probably been unfairly over-shadowed by his belief – based on the evidence found at Keiss – that the brochs were of Stone Age date, a theory refuted by Dr William Traill on the basis of his own excavations at Burrian broch, Orkney (HY75 1) (vol. 1, 33).

57 These sketches of archaeological section drawings may well be among the oldest in Britain; they certainly pre-date Pitt Rivers’s work at Cranbourne Chase, which inspired R E M Wheeler to develop modern techniques of stratigraphical excavation.

465

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland surprising as he was digging down in the inside and not from the outer edge of the mound inwards.

course was then found to go to the same depth as the inner face of the middle ‘wall’.

Thus the only place he could see his three concentric ‘walls’ – and think them distinct at a time when broch architecture was not properly understood – was at the mural stair on the south side. When he exposed this feature Laing doubtless assumed that this outer ‘wall’ also extended all the way round. Certainly his sketch plan shows three complete circuits in contrast to Tress Barry’s (Illus. 7.134) which shows – presumably at a lower level – only the solid wall of the broch. The innermost, free-standing late wall had presumably been demolished by Laing or had collapsed in the intervening years.

Yet another midden layer had accumulated on this upper paving to a depth of 46cm (1.5ft) and had been overlaid by a third paved floor which formed the floor of the “inner circle” – the free-standing ring-wall in the broch interior. This floor was thus about 46cm higher than the foundation of the ring-wall, and it is not absolutely clear whether this was the first floor of the contracted central court or the second. The two floors existed outside the ring-wall but the section does not extend inside it. On this third floor was yet another accumulation of midden, mixed this time with fallen stones. The doorway to the stairway was blocked when first exposed and formed a recess for a fireplace, presumably associated with the third paved floor (Illus. 7.132).

If he did see three ‘walls’ all the way round the observation is of some importance because the outer two can only have been the foundations of an upper intramural gallery running round on top of a solid wall foundation. This is very likely in a wall which, when it was first exposed, stood up to 3.66m (12ft) high and such a feature would show that Keiss West was a true, hollow-walled broch. By 1893 this feature, if it existed, must have disappeared, or become unrecognisable to Tress Barry. Such a raised gallery on a solid base has been partly exposed at Carn na Mairg, Westerdale (ND15 9), not many miles away.

Laing had evidently found the exceptionally well stratified remains of the early occupation of a broch (but probably not the earliest – see section (f)), followed by two later phases at successively higher levels. This is still the only Caithness broch with such a clearly recorded history of prolonged occupation inside it and has been matched in a recently excavated site only by Berie in Harris (NB13 3). It is a pity that Keiss South was excavated at a time when archaeological techniques were so primitive. The many interesting finds recovered would certainly, if they had been properly related to the various phases of the broch’s history, have yielded much information about the sequence of Iron Age cultures in Caithness about which there is still, in 2005, very little reliable information.

One feature described by Laing which might not fit this hypothesis is the wide variation in the distances given between the middle and outer walls – from 1.22-4.58m (4-15ft) [2, 23] – but this variation may well be due to the difficulty in understanding the nature of the partly exposed and complicated structures.

On the other hand when one compares Laing’s relatively careful recording of strata with what happened to the site a quarter of a century later one can only regret that it was not he who explored all the other sites in the region.

Laing’s section drawings are remarkably advanced for the period and deserve to be more widely appreciated (Illus. 7.143) as they established the stratigraphical relationship between the various features mentioned. An attempt to reconstruct schematically the various layers and stone walls is shown in the new plan and elevation (Illus. 7.143). It can thus be seen that the inner ring-wall is secondary and stands on top of 1.52m (5ft) of debris which had accumulated on the broch paving below. This midden, containing shells, bones and ash, had formed on this primary floor and had itself been covered with a paving of large flagstones. It was at this level that the innermost ring-wall was founded – obviously long after the foundation of the site.

Laing supplies a little information about the distribution of the finds throughout the levels. He states that the artifacts from the two lower middens – on the primary paved floor (which was presumably exposed in only a limited area) and on the one 1.3m higher up – tended to be different from those in higher layers which had fine pottery, metal and good bone tools. Very large quantities of bone were taken out; cartloads of them were apparently taken away to manure the surrounding land. In addition wood charcoal and ash seemed to be commoner in the lower middens while peat ash was found higher up.

Laing also thought that the outer ring was founded at this high level but this probably means that the floor of the doorway to the intra-mural stairway was not removed; in this case the ‘outer wall’ would have appeared to be resting on it, at the same level as the high, secondary floor of the court (at Laing’s “section at C” (Illus. 7.133) [2, 24]). The actual outer face of this wall – in reality the outer third or so of the massive solid wall base of the broch – was apparently not exposed until 1890, and of

3. Tress Barry’s clearance in 1893-95 Sir Francis Tress Barry MP conducted his own excavation on the mound 30 years later and a summary of the new evidence recovered was published by Joseph Anderson [5]. Informative plans, still unpublished, were made by John Nicholson as the excavation progressed [10, fig. 1] and many other interesting details can be recovered from several of the photographs taken during 466

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) the work and which are now in the National Monuments Record in Edinburgh. In using a plate camera in this way Tress Barry was an innovator, like John Bruce at Jarlshof in Shetland (HU30 1).

floor at ground level. Four steps lead down into this chamber and to a water hole inside it, presumably cut out of the underlying rock. The second entrance, on the south-south-east at 9 o’clock, has the remains of the floor of a cell next to it [6], though this feature is not shown on the Commission’s plan (Illus. 7.134). A drain was found running out under the paving of this passage. Around the inner wallface was a ‘scarcement’ 38cm (15in) thick which appears in fact to be a secondary facing built against the broch wall, a conclusion which is confirmed by the fact that it is shown as blocking off the inner end of the north-east entrance passage. Various secondary features are shown in the interior on Tress Barry’s plan and more were discovered earlier by Laing; they are discussed in section 5 below. A well 1.83m (6ft) deep is in the interior close to the wall and near the mural stair doorway (at about 11 o’clock) and it presumably connected with the water hole found in the stair-foot guard cell there. There are four steps down into the well which was covered with stone slabs when first exposed.

Tress Barry exposed the broch down to ground level inside and out and thus found a variety of structural features which Laing had not reached (he had seen only the raised doorway in the inner wallface in the southwest58 and had cut one or two deep holes to follow the ‘middle’ wall to bedrock). He also evidently took off all the secondary floor levels and structures which Laing found and exposed the entrance passage on the north-east which had been blocked at its inner end by the secondary inner wallface. As already noted there was a stone slab still wedged in position behind and against the doorchecks and the sides of the passage were very solidly built. A large triangular stone was found standing upright on the ground a short distance outside this and evidently incorporated into a secondary blocking wall (Illus. 7.134 & 7.136); it was almost certainly once the front lintel of the entrance passage, and its size and shape strongly support the idea that Keiss South was once a tall tower (see Discussion).

Until 1969 [8] most interpretations of this broch had assumed that the open entrance on the south-east found by Tress Barry was the primary one; the status of the doorway on the north-east, blocked in ancient times, was usually left unclear but implications of its secondary date could be detected. For example Anderson, while not giving an opinion on which was the main doorway, described the south-east one as the entrance [4]. Likewise the Royal Commission’s account states that “the entrance has been from the seaward direction”, that is on the south-east, clearly implying that this was the main doorway into the broch [5]; only later is it stated that the north-east doorway was “a main entrance at one time”. Similarly Graham, describing much later the phenomenon of brochs in Caithness with two intra-mural staircases, states that “The fact that, in three of these cases (Brounaban, Keiss Road and Keiss), one of the stairs rises from the duplicated entrance has raised a doubt as to whether both stairs are primary in all or any of these structures” [Graham 1947, 65]. In other words there is a clear suggestion that any entrances with stairs rising from them are secondary, though Graham went on to conclude that both stairs in each of the brochs mentioned were in fact primary constructions.

4. Description and interpretations The nature of the primary structure The external diameter of the broch cannot now be measured but can be estimated as about 18.9m (62ft) on the basis that the internal diameter was originally given as about 11.59m (38ft) and the wall thickness as about 3.66m (12ft). On the basis of these figures the proportion of the total diameter occupied by two opposing wall bases would be about 39%, quite thin for a broch in the far north. Tress Barry’s plan (Illus. 7.134) shows a circular building with an overall diameter of 17.23m (56.5ft) and an original internal one (excluding the secondary wall) of 11.13m (36.5ft); in this case the wall proportion is 33.5%, a lot less than the first estimate. Two entrances were found, one facing north-east and the other south-east (Illus. 7.134); for reasons given below – and contrary to the Commission’s diagnosis [6] – the first is believed here to be the primary entrance and the position of other features is given in relation to it. This north-east entrance is 3.66m (12ft) long and has a pair of rebated door-checks about 1.22m (4ft) from the outside; when first uncovered a stone slab was found wedged upright against these checks with stone chocks (Illus. 7.136). A guard cell opens off the right side of this passage (looking in) with another on the left with a few steps leading up into it; the Commission diagnosed this as the remains of a second intra-mural stair [6]. Opposite this entrance passage at 12 o’clock is the raised doorway to the mural stair which rises to the right from it; a stairfoot guard cell is on the left of this, apparently with its

Alison Young later made an attempt to infer the history of structural alterations in two of the Keiss brochs and concluded that the blocked doorways in both were secondary features which had been pushed through the standing walls at the base of one of the staircases [6, 180-81]. Thus most interpretations of the site, influenced no doubt by the very unusual occurrence of a stairway rising from an entrance passage, concluded that the primary doorway was the one unconnected with any stair. Yet in both this

58 The north point on Laing’s plan does not agree with that on Tress Barry’s, pointing as it does to just north of east.

467

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland site and Keiss West (ND36 7) the allegedly secondary entrance was built of massive blocks of stone, markedly more so than in the case of the supposed primary doorways. Moreover the outer end of the north-east passage must once have had a triangular stone lintel over it; this can still be seen at the site (Illus. 7.138) and a photograph taken during the excavations clearly shows that in ancient times it had been removed from its position and built into a wall which ran across the outer end of the passage, a short distance in front of it, and thus blocked it (Illus. 7.136). The lintel is also shown on the plan (Illus. 7.134) and has been emphasised there by the author with an ‘X’.

relatively early stage in its history. The deep layers of midden deposits and paved floor surfaces found in the interior by Samuel Laing all accumulated against this secondary wallface and were therefore later than the demolition (Illus. 7.133). There was also a raised paved pathway along the line of the north-east entrance, on top of the rubble filling it and about 76cm (2ft 6in) above the primary floor [5, 125]. This surely implies that the passage continued in use as a convenient way into the buildings after its lintels had been removed. The secondary internal wallface seems to have run across the inner end of the north-east entrance; the plan (Illus. 7.134) suggests this and the contemporary photograph, while not completely clear (Illus. 7.140), does also. In the latter the secondary masonry can clearly be seen on the left and its ragged edge suggests that the section in front of the passage has been cleared away. One of the plans made during the excavation work is also equivocal, seeming to show the wall both continuing across the passage and with a gap in it there! [10, Fig. 1].

A satisfactory interpretation of this broch can really only be reached if it is assumed that the north-east entrance was the primary one. The massiveness of the stone blocks forming its sides (the outer end is visible in the photograph, behind the blocking wall with its lintel – Illus. 7.136), the ponderous door-checks and the round guard chamber opening off the right side, these are all features which confirm this view as does the lack of all of them in the south-east passageway. It seems improbable that a building heavily defended with this kind of doorway was simultaneously equipped with another entrance lacking such means of defence; the south-east doorway should surely belong to a period after the need for a defensible building had passed.

However clear gaps were left in front of both the inner end of the south-east entrance and the doorway to the stairway on the south-west (Illus. 7.134). This last must surely be a primary feature of the building – it was raised some distance above the floor of the court (Illus. 7.141)– and access to it (and to the water cistern at its foot) was presumably still needed after the demolition and the construction of the secondary wall. There is also fairly clear evidence that the south-east entrance was pushed through the wall at the same time that the secondary wall was built, that is after the demolition of the broch and the blocking of the north-east entrance. This evidence is quite independent of the inferences about the primacy of the north-east doorway made above.

Several other minor features also support this view. For example the guard chamber opening off the north-east passage has a restricted doorway, just like the vast majority of such guardrooms, whereas every cell at the base of a broch stairway – which this one should be if the north-east passage is assumed to be secondary – invariably lacks such a constriction and is simply a short continuation of the passage containing the clockwisemounting stair-case itself. The dismantled triangular lintel is an example of a type which is well known in situ in other brochs, for example in Culswick, Shetland (HU24 3) and Dun Dornaigil, Sutherland (NC44 2).

In the plan prepared for Tress Barry and published by the Commission (Illus. 7.134) the facing stones of the primary broch wall are indicated in several places, mostly in the passages and in the intra-mural features. The fact that these slabs are shown as varying in size and shape, and are not a standard symbolic shape, suggests that they represent approximately the length and thickness of the facing blocks noted at ground level by the maker of the plan in about 1895. The south-east entrance is shown lined with these facing blocks, and the innermost one on each face is long enough to overlap both the thickness of the ends of the secondary wall and the first 30cm or so of the passage through the original broch wall (in contrast with the situation at the north-east passage). This could be fairly clear evidence that the south-east entrance and the secondary internal face were constructed at the same time.

This huge lintel is itself a sign that the wall of the building was once very high and heavy, and it could not have been removed from its original position before the whole of the upper part of the wall had been dismantled and the entrance passage unroofed. In other words the blocking of this entrance (a stone slab was found still wedged against the door-checks – Illus. 7.134) should have been the result of the deliberate demolition of the broch and it surely marked the end of its use as a defended tower house. Moreover the secondary wall running round the interior of the broch may have continued across the inner end of the north-east passage (see below). It may therefore also have been erected as part of the changes to the building accompanying the demolition and entrance-blocking operations.

Thus because the same secondary wall blocks the inner end of the north-east entrance, and since the outer end of this is blocked by a wall containing its triangular lintel, all these features – secondary wall, outer blocking and south-east doorway – ought to post-date the substantial

The outer blocking certainly shows that this drastic change in the function of Keiss South happened at a 468

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) demolition of the broch without which the triangular lintel could not have been released from its original position. In any case if it is accepted that the south-east passage is secondary, it surely cannot antedate the demolition of the broch since pushing a new doorway through the wall of a high broch at ground level must surely have been technically extremely difficult and dangerous, if not impossible. The laying of a drain under the floor of the south-eastern entrance suggests that the demolished broch had been turned into a permanently inhabited dwelling of a different type.

might suggest – or they could be the remains of another complete mural stair. There is some evidence that several structures on the east coast of Caithness had such stairs leading up from the entrance passage, notably at Keiss West (below). 5. Inferred structural sequence The actual stages in the evolution of the site, in so far as they can be reconstructed from the meagre evidence available, may have been as follows. A new schematic plan showing the masonry of the various phases is shown in Illus. 7.143, together with a tentative reconstruction of the internal stratigraphy.

If the north-east entrance is indeed the primary one then it would seem that the few steps of the intra-mural staircase which remain – rising from its left or southern wall (opposite the doorway to the round guard cell) and leading up to a rectangular intra-mural space – are probably the remains of a second primary intra-mural stairway running right up inside the wall and similar to the much better preserved example in Keiss West (ND36 7).

Phase 1: the building of the broch When the broch was in its primary state, just after it had been built, it was a circular building with a relatively thin wall, probably like a squat tower in its proportions (see below) and with its only entrance on the north-east.59 This doorway had a heavy triangular lintel over the outer end, a guard cell on the right side (probably with a corbelled roof) and, opposite this, a flight of steps leading up along what looks like a fragment of mural gallery. This entrance was equipped with door-checks and a bar-hole and socket. It is highly unlikely that the low stone slab found jammed against the checks was the original door (Illus. 7.136); a wooden one is much more likely but unfortunately no-one recorded whether there was a pivot stone in the lowest passage floor.

The various accounts of Keiss South, or the ‘Harbour Mound’, are not as clear as one would like, but this is not surprising in view of the techniques of exploration and recording employed. In 1962 Alison Young attempted to make sense of the available information and put forward a new inter-pretation of the various features found [6]. She suggested that in her Phase 1 the original entrance faced south-south-east towards the sea, but was destroyed at an early date, only traces of the accompanying guard cell on the right being visible on excavation [7, 155].

The doorway to the mural stair was opposite at 12 o’clock and its sill was 1.05m (3ft 6in) above the primary floor (Illus. 7.140); it had a stair-foot guard cell opening from its left side with its floor on the old ground surface and in which was a well. A short flight of steps led down into this. A longer flight of steps ran up inside the wall to the right of the doorway and there seems to have been a mural cell at about 9 o’clock, next to the place where the south-east entrance was eventually pushed through the wall.

In her Phase 2 the ruined entrance was blocked up and a new one contrived through the second stairway doorway on the north-east, no doubt because the masonry was thinner there. The markedly massive masonry of this entrance is noted. In Phase 3 the north-east entrance was blocked up, the fallen triangular lintel being incorporated in a masonry facing added to the outer wallface and blocking the outer end of the passage, and the inner end being blocked by the secondary inner wallface, built at this time. The entrance on the south-south-east was reconstructed in simpler form, without the guard cell, and with a drain laid under the paved floor.

No unequivocal evidence of an upper mural gallery was reported by either of the excavators although it is highly likely that one existed in 1866 when the masonry still stood 3m high; Laing’s description of the “middle” and “outer” walls at the level of the latest occupation seems to admit of no other explanation. By 1890 the wall, doubtless much reduced, evidently appeared to be quite solid and no sign of Laing’s “outer wall” was noted. All traces of any upper gallery must have vanished rapidly with the progressive dilapidation of the wallhead.

This interpretation seems over-complex and depends on assumptions about the structural sequence for which no evidence is offered. No reasons are given for supposing that there were two phases in the evolution of the southeast entrance, nor any for assuming the secondary nature of the north-east entrance. As noted the whole site makes much more sense if the north-east doorway is assumed to be what the massiveness of its masonry, its door-checks, guard cell and its triangular lintel all suggest – the primary main entrance to the broch. Outer lintels of triangular form are not uncommon in brochs [7] and the three or four steps rising from the right of this passage could either lead to a second guard cell – as the plan

There is further circumstantial evidence that the building had once been a squat tower rising perhaps to 9.15m (30ft) or more and with a hollow, galleried wall on top of the solid basal part. This consists, first, of the triangular 59 Swanson firmly opposed the idea that this doorway was the primary entrance (ms 1985, chap. 8), as she did various other ideas of the author’s (Ibid., Appendix 1).

469

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland lintel which evidently once roofed the outer end of northeast entrance; such lintels are only known elsewhere in Scotland in the ruins of tower brochs like Culswick (HU24 3) and Dun Dornaigil (NC44 2) and their purpose in those seems to have been to divert the enormous weight of the very high outer wallface down on to the sides of the entrance passage instead of letting it press down on a flat lintel. Secondly the evidence for the substantial demolition of the broch in Phase 2 (below) obviously implies that it was originally much higher than when first found (3.6 m).

as a rectangular block (shaded and marked ‘x’ in the versions shown here – Illus. 7.134 & 7.143). The massive triangular stone is set about 1m (3ft) out from the broch outer wall, slightly to the right of the entrance but partly in front of it, and is evidently part of the blocking wall; presumably there was a mass of rubble between this face and the broch most of which had been removed when the picture was taken. Other masonry can be seen to be overlapping its right side – forming a block in front of the doorway – and the massive broch masonry is clear behind it. One may assume that, at the start of Phase 4, the floor level in the interior was still the primary one of massive paving but that the various slab constructions or partitions were also inserted at this time, against and bonded with the secondary lining inside.

Phase 2: primary occupation Presumably the broch was occupied in its original state for some time but no direct evidence of this survives now. Most of the substantial thickness of occupation debris which was found resting on the primary floor seems to have accumulated against the secondary wall of Phase 3 (below) and therefore to belong to that phase. If any of it ran under the secondary wall and therefore accumulated in Phase 2 this is nowhere mentioned; the conditions inside the broch during the excavation were such that any such feature is unlikely to have been noticed (Illus. 7.140).

Phase 4: secondary occupation During the Phase 4 occupation which followed 1.5m (5ft) of debris gradually accumulated on the broch floor and the raised paving of the original north-east entrance may have been put in later in this phase. Presumably the stone slabs found covering the well were laid down at the start of this phase, a strikingly clear confirmation that the building had ceased to be primarily a refuge needing its own internal water supply. One suspects too that the methods of refuse disposal became more relaxed now; although no specific observation is recorded on this point one would expect that there would have been no such debris, or very little, under the secondary wall.60

Phase 3: demolition of the high wall The upper levels of the broch wall were taken down to a height of about 3.6m (12ft). How extensive this demolition was depends on the original height of the wall, which cannot now be known, but it may well, for reasons explained earlier, have reached 8.10-10.0m (2530ft). The triangular lintel over the main entrance was removed at this time and this could not have been done unless the whole of the masonry above it had been taken down; presumably all the other passage lintels were removed as well.

Phase 5: second reconstruction When the interior floor deposits had accumulated to the level of the sill of the raised doorway to the mural stair at 12 o’clock (which was still open, doubtless to provide another way into the building over the reduced wallhead), a new paved floor was laid over the whole of the interior. Presumably it was the same flagged floor that ran out through the north-east entrance, on top of the blocking rubble, though here it was only 75cm (2.5ft) above the primary passage paving. If so the secondary entrance on the south-east may have been abandoned, having become difficult to use because of the steadily rising interior floor level.

These operations obviously marked the conversion of the structure to a different kind of roundhouse in which a heavily defended entrance and a high, impressive wall were not so important. Masonry from the upper wall was used to build a secondary wall most of the way around the broch interior and resting against the primary wall; this may have blocked the inner end of the main entrance but it left open the doorway to the small cell at 7 o’clock and the raised doorway to the mural stair at 12 o’clock. The newly unroofed original entrance was clearly abandoned by this time, the outer end blocked with demolition debris and the triangular lintel; it was evidently filled with about 75cm of rubble. The new south-east entrance, lacking a door-frame but equipped with a drain, was driven through the wall and became the primary doorway into the roundhouse.

A circular, free-standing wall of masonry 61cm (2ft) thick was built around the interior 92cm (3ft) from the broch wall. This new roundhouse had an internal diameter of about 7.32m or 24 ft. When the Phase 4 floor deposits reached a certain thickness they must have made the roof resting on the secondary wall too low, and it became obsolete as a roof support; hence new arrangements had to be made. From one of Laing’s drawings [3, fig. 33] it appears that the secondary wall had been levelled off so that it was concealed by the new paved floor, thus exposing the original broch masonry.

A secondary facing was built around at least part of the outer wallface (including the original entrance) and was doubtless made from stones pulled down from the upper part of the tower. The contemporary photographs show rather clearly how this was done [5, p. li] (Illus. 7.136) and Tress Barry’s plan shows the huge lintel from above

60

Not many brochs have yielded evidence to show that the primary occupation was cleaner than the later ones, but Dun an Ruigh Ruiadh is an example (NH19 3). Here the original cobbled floor had no refuse on it at all until the secondary occupation began. The extensive external midden at Dun Vulan (NF72 1) may signify the same.

470

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) Despite its faulty north point (which is aligned towards the east) it appears from Laing’s plan (Illus. 7.132) that both the broch entrances were out of use and hidden in Phase 5. The two doorways through the new interior ringwall, which opposed one another, were not in line with either of the older entrances. Laing’s failure to mention either of the older doorways must be significant; he thought that the Phase 5 entrance was down the upper part of the old broch stairway on the south-west [2, 25-6].

plain awls and pins, tubular pieces, presumably handles, and several “whorls” at least one of which is made from a human femur head. In the NMS collections are also several large antler fragments. Animal remains included limpet shells and animal bones. 6.2 Tress Barry’s finds Most of these probably belong to Phase 4, the secondary occupation [9]. Pottery objects include 1 triangular crucible with a little bronze in it (not ill.). Bone implements include 2 long-handled horn combs, 6 plain pins, 1 cylinder with perforations lengthways and crosswise, 2 bobbins, 1 flat perforated haft-plate, half an armlet, and 1 whalebone hammerhead. Stone tools included 1 jet ring, 1 broken jet armlet, 1 grooved quartzite pebble strike-a-light, 1 small polished schist disc, 1 whorl, 1 sandstone lamp, 1 cup 3.2cm (1.25in) deep, 3 painted pebbles (marked with spots and lines), saddle querns, 3 upper stones of rotary querns, several broken sandstone vessels with crude cavities, 1 large mortar and 1 mould. Many of the stone implements were photographed in a group at the time (Illus. 7.142). Glass objects included a fragment of what was described as an armlet of blue glass but which, since it has a flange on one side, seems to be part of the rim of a Roman vessel of blue glass. This is not listed [10]. There was also a cylindrical black bead. Other Roman finds included 3 Samian sherds, one of a decorated bowl of form Dr. 37 [10] and dated to the 2nd century AD and 3 sherds of a ‘Rhenish’ beaker of white ware with a black slip with white painted decoration on it [10, 15].

In Phases 5 and 6 the structure could be interpreted as a large roundhouse with an internal diameter of 11.6m (38 ft, that of the original broch) with the ring-wall serving as an internal support for a large, conical timber and thatch roof (much as the Iron Age wooden roundhouses of southern Scotland and England had rings of internal posts which supported their roofs). On the other hand one of Laing’s drawings suggests that the space between the new ring-wall and the broch wall was roofed, probably with overlapping stone slabs [2, fig. 33]. Hence any conical wooden roof may have spanned only the 7.2m (24ft) of the reduced central court. Stone chests of some kind, with sloping lids, were put against the inner face of the new ring-wall [2, fig. 33]. Phases 6a and 6b: tertiary occupation The new dwelling was evidently inhabited for a long period and was modified at one stage. In Phase 6a floor deposits accumulated on the new paved floor to a depth of 46cm (1.5ft), presumably over the whole of the circular area though Laing’s cross-sections show the situation only in the zone between the ring-wall and the broch wall. In Phase 6b a new paved floor was laid on top of this debris and there were further accumulations of midden material on top of this, together with a mass of stones and rubbish, evidently the debris from the final dilapidation of the structure. Probably during the second part of Phase 6 the doorway to the south-west stairway was blocked by the construction of a large masonry fireplace which had a huge flagstone for the hearth inside and in front of the recess [3, pl. viii, 2]. Judging from the thickness of the deposits Phase 6 could have lasted well into the historical Pictish period.

Dimensions An accurate survey of the central court was made in 1971 and its radius is in fact 5.84 + 0.03m, giving a diameter of 11.68m;61 it was not possible to measure the wall thickness at that time, but if the figure of 3.6m (12ft) given below for the entrance passage is about right, the true wall proportion will be about 38.3%, very close to the figure based on the measurements by the Royal Commission [6]. Overall diam

6. The finds (Illus. 7.144) 6.1 Laing’s finds Most of the objects recovered in 1866 almost certainly belong to Phases 4 and 6 in the scheme presented here [1866, figs. 26-31: 1867, pls. ix & x]. Metal implements include 1 pair of bronze shears with iron blades and a pair of scissors, both found near the surface of the mound, Stone artifacts included various ‘rude implements’ (unspecified) and some chipped flints. Objects of bone included crude tools of unspecified type. The illustrations show what is almost certainly a longhandled comb with the teeth yet to be cut (Illus. 7.144), a fragment of an antler tine with cut marks, a number of

[2] ? [6] 62 ft* EWM

internal diam. 34ft 38ft 11.68 m (38.32ft)

wall wall % thickness – 12 ft –

39% 38.3%?

61 Perhaps by chance the computed radius of this circle is, at 5.84 m, almost exactly 7 of Alexander Thom’s megalithic yards (5.803 m), found in the British stone circles (Thom 1967). Although many other brochs have central courts which are close to exact circles (Appendix) the radii of few are as close to multiples of the MY as this one is. Dun Telve (NG81 2) is one of the others. John Neal offers an alternative explanation for the dimensions of the brochs in Appendix 3.

471

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 36 SE 2: 2. Laing 1866, 22-30: 3. Laing 1867: 4. J A Smith 1869, 192-200: 5. Anderson 1901, 122-7: 6. RCAHMS 1911b, 154-5, no. 515, fig. 39 & pl. 51: 7. A. Young 1962, 180-1: 8. MacKie 1969b: 9. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 43 (1908-9), 1112 (Tress Barry’s finds): 10. RCAHMS 1998: 11. Robertson 1970, 205 & Table II: 12. Swanson (ms) 1985, 590-95 & plan: 13. Caulfield 1978, 132, no. 20: 14. Heald & Jackson 2001, 129-47: 15. Hartley 1972, 54, no. 3.

2. Tress Barry’s work in 1893-95 Laing did not explore the massive building overlying his midden and Sir F Tress Barry undertook this work in 1893-95. 2.1 The structure of the broch Making a preliminary judgement from the close similarity between this site and its neighbour Keiss South (ND36 6), the primary entrance seems to have been that on the north (Illus. 7.145 & 7.149). There is a stair ascending into the wall from an opening in its left wall and, when first exposed, eleven steps of it were visible [4, pl. liii]. The passage leading to it was 1.07m (3ft 6in) wide. Opposite the foot of this stair a long cell or gallery runs back into the wall for 9.15m (30ft) and the rounded inner end was corbelled; the lintels had all disappeared and it was 1.37m (4ft 6in) wide at ground level and the walls still stood 1.8m (6ft) high. This long cell was described by the Commission as being “now filled” and this probably means it had become so through dilapidation since it was excavated, rather than that it was found so at the time of its exposure by Tress Barry; Anderson makes no mention of the point.

ND36 7 KEISS WEST (‘Road Broch’, ‘Kirk Tafts’ or ‘Kirk Tofts’, near the ‘Churchyard Mound’) ND/3488 6151 (visited 13/7/63) This probable solid-based broch in Wick, Caithness, stands on flat farmland, just west of the main road north to Wick, and was partially excavated by Laing in 1864 [2], after Joseph Anderson had found some “rude bone pins and pottery” [0, 131] (Illus. 7.145-7.153). Laing described the site as the “Churchyard mound” but seems mostly to have been exploring a shell midden lying between it and the road but clearly running under the broch. Sir F Tress Barry dug out the broch in 1893-95 [3] and revealed a solid-walled ring of masonry very similar to Keiss South (above) in having two entrances (Illus. 7.145). Keiss West is also the clearest example in Caithness of a broch-like structure with what appears to be a second and primary intra-mural stair rising from the primary entrance. The broch sits at the centre of a complex of ‘outbuildings’ within an approximately circular walled enclosure about 43.9m (144ft) across (Illus. 7.145).

The doorway from the interior to this stair was in fact a passage right through the wall and, as at Keiss South (above), a massive stone slab was wedged in position against the door-checks; a large, long stone leaned against its inner face as if to prop it in position. Presumably the original wooden door was removed at some stage. This door-frame was about 90-120cm (3-4ft) in from the outside, judging from the plan, and there was a bar-hole in both sides of the passage wall behind the slab. The outer end of this entrance had been blocked by a secondary facing of masonry against the outer face of the broch wall, again as at Keiss South (ND36 6), and this can also be seen on the plan (Illus. 7.145). The Royal Commission’s account makes no mention of the door-frame or blocking slab, thus giving the impression that this broch only had one entrance [4].

The existence of the early photographs provides a good illustration of how the verbal descriptions of what was found can sometimes be reinterpreted on the basis of modern knowledge (below). 1. The early excavations Samuel Laing explored an extensive shell midden at Keiss in 1864. It consisted of

At about 9.30 o’clock from this, the assumed main entrance, there was a second doorway (on the east, pointing to the bottom right corner on the plan62) which is 75cm (2ft 6in) wide at the outer end and which also has a pair of slabs set into the wall as a door-frame 2.13m (7ft) in from the outside; within these the passage is 96cm (3ft 2in) wide. At a distance of 76cm (2ft 6in) behind these checks is a doorway in the right wall (looking in), apparently leading to some kind of guard cell or mural chamber which is now ruined and inaccessible. No lintels were found in position over its doorway, and no details of the chamber were recorded on the plan.

“… a great mass of shells, at least five feet deep, and covering an area of several hundred square yards, (which) rests on the natural soil and is itself covered by the foundation of a massive building . . .” Numerous stone, quartz and bone implements were found among the shells and have been considered to be of early post-Mesolithic age and “not unlike the late Larnian” (Mesolithic culture) in north-east Ireland [8, 266]. Very similar material has been found in middens at Freswick Bay, where sherds of Beaker pottery were also found [8, figs. 117 & 118]. The deposits are presumably at least two, and perhaps up to three, thousand years older than the broch.

At 12 o’clock from the assumed main entrance, on the south, is a doorway from the interior which leads to a 62 There is no north point on any of the reproductions of the plan of this site. Swanson’s plan supplies the information (Illus. 7.146).

472

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) second mural stair rising to the right and having a long stair-foot guard cell on its left; the latter was 3.66m (12ft) long by 1.52m (5ft) wide, and twelve steps were found when it was first exposed.

circular building, partly overlapping the reduced broch foundations. If this interpretation is correct the photograph rather neatly demonstrates how the eastern entrance has to be a secondary one; this passage, with its paved floor, can be clearly seen to be framed by the wall of the circular enclosure and to be emerging on top of the original broch foundations (which may run continuously in front of it). There is a short flight of small steps leading up from the lower level formed by the broch foundations up to the passage floor. The thick “casing” wall on the right evidently abuts against the wall of the circular enclosure, as is implied by the plan (Illus. 7.145).

At 4.30 o’clock is a shallow mural cell (in the space between the long guard chamber of the north-west entrance and the inside wallface) with a curious doorway – an opening cut in the middle of a large stone slab set upright in the wall [3, fig. 16] (Illus. 7.150 shows this clearly); the cell to which this leads measures 1.37m (4ft 6in) long by 1.14m (3ft 9in) wide by 1.38m (4ft 7in) high and is corbelled.

This part of the original broch has evidently been extensively altered. If one supposes that the broch was very substantially demolished in Phase 3 (below), particularly in the eastern arc where a new doorway was to be constructed, the two photographs (Illus. 7.147 & 7.148) are probably showing clear evidence of this event. In the foreground is the original line of the broch wall – now reduced to one visible course although there are doubtless several more still buried. This extensive demolition was undertaken to allow the new entrance to be built easily.

The central court In the middle of the central court was a partly rock-cut well or underground chamber 1.68m (5ft 6in) deep and 1.55m (5ft 1in) long by 91cm (3ft) wide: it was roofed with stone flags. None of the available photographs of the interior show this feature clearly. Two tanks formed of slabs on edge were set into the floor of the central court and rows of large flags on edge, set at right angles to each other, divided the central court into four approximately equal areas [3, fig. 15: 4, pl. 54] (Illus. 7.150). One of these rows was a double one which extended the line of the eastern doorway inwards to the centre. A stone vessel having a cavity 30cm (12in) square and 23cm (9in) deep stood in the floor [3, fig. 19].

Above this is the end of the inner wallface of the external circular building where it approaches the new entrance, evidently formed at a considerable distance above the original ground surface outside (presumably the equivalent amount of debris had accumulated in the interior). A short flight of steps leads up to the sill of the new passage and, on the right, the end of thick, added “casing” wall can be seen in the upper photograph, abutting against the outer circle (also as shown on the plan). The masonry of the latter shows very high quality masonry, including one very neat infill of small slabs) (Illus. 7.148).

The outer face and the outbuildings The northern entrance emerges into a sort of circular courtyard with a diameter of 10.07m (33ft) – about the same diameter as the broch interior. The inner face of this court (which seems to have been the only part exposed) runs up against or under the masonry of the outer end of the broch entrance is a manner which is not altogether clear despite the survival of some good photographs of these features taken soon after they were excavated [3, fig. 17] (Illus. 7.147 & 7.148).

A massive outer wall enclosed the whole site, an area about 43.9m (144ft) in diameter; at the time of excavation the wall stood to a maximum height of 2.2m (7ft 3in). Many stone buildings were between this and the broch, and an even later rectangular building was found on top of these.

The plan (Illus. 7.145) clearly implies that a thick mass of masonry has been added to the outer face of the broch here, on both sides of the entrance, and Anderson's account confirms this [3, 137]. In Illus. 7.147 the wallface on the right, projecting at right-angles to the broch wall, must be the end of the thick added “casing”, just to the north of the passage. He also says that this added wall is "partly founded on an accumulation of debris 2.5ft in height." and this could be the earthy deposit at its foot (Illus. 7.147, lower right).

2. Discussion It is likely that the same error that was evidently made in the early interpretations of Keiss South (ND36 6) – of assuming that the most massive and best defended entrance passage was secondary because there was a stair rising from its left wall – was also made at this site. In this case too the entrance passage diagnosed as primary – that on the east – is more likely to be a secondary one (though here the existence of a doorway to a cell in its right wall makes the original interpretation easier to understand). Even so a number of facts suggest that it was the former entrance which was the primary broch doorway; they include the door-checks, bar-holes and long guard cell of the north-west entrance, together with the fact that a stone slab was chocked in position in place

This photograph together with the other (Illus. 7.148), also shows the outer end of the eastern broch passage on the left 63 (with a high sill) with what appears to be the original foundations of the broch wall in the foreground. The curved face on top of and set back from this is presumably the end of the inner face of the large, added 63

This feature is not included in Anderson's cut-down reproduction of the photograph [3, fig. 17].

473

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland of the wooden door, and the outer end of the passage blocked with a secondary facing of masonry which continued along the outer face of the broch wall.

any great time. If it is analogous to the Freswick midden a date in the third millennium BC seems plausible. Phase 1: the broch Structurally this building is very similar to its neighbour Keiss South. The overall diameter is about 17.7m (58ft) but this is inferred from the only two measurements which are actually given – the internal diameter of 10.41m (34ft) and the primary wall thickness of some 3.66m (12ft). The northern entrance is inferred here to have been the primary one; as noted the stone door – or at least a blocking slab – was still in position, wedged upright against something by a leaning slab; a thin secondary facing of masonry, laid against the outer wallface, blocked the outer end.

It seems possible that this entrance too went out of use when most of the upper wall of the tower-like building was largely pulled down (when the building ceased to be primarily a tall defended roundhouse) and when some of the masonry removed from the upper walls was used to block the outer end. The other doorway could well have been driven through the wall at this time, perhaps either through or next to a pre-existing mural cell. As we have seen the photographs of the outer end of this appear to support this view (Illus. 7.147 & 7.148). It is true that, if one considers Keiss West by itself, this interpretation is perhaps only moderately more plausible than the original one – particularly because one could argue that the northern doorway, if secondary, was driven through the wall at the most convenient point where it was already thinnest (the base of the mural stair). This argument certainly applies to Yarrows (ND34 17). Nevertheless, in the author’s opinion, the very clear evidence from Keiss South renders it much more plausible.

This passage was equipped with a bar-hole and socket, and also presumably with door-checks, though these are not actually mentioned in the early accounts [3, 135]; the plan seems to show them and the stone slab must have rested against something. Immediately behind the upright blocking slab a passage opened from the left wall (looking in) in which was the second intra-mural stairway. Opposite this a long guard cell opened from the right side of the passage, running back for 9.15m (30ft).

This being the case, the highly unusual mural stair rising from the left wall of the main entrance, opposite the long guard cell, is of great interest. This time there can be no doubt that it is a proper mural stair and not a second guard cell and that, if the structure was a true broch, it must somehow have run up among the intra-mural galleries. Though it is behind the main door it seems a very curious and not altogether satisfactory arrangement; it seems to offer an opportunity for attackers breaking in to force their way into the broch via the intra-mural galleries and to take the defenders in the rear. Some further comments on this feature are made below.

On the opposite side of the central court, at 12 o’clock, is the doorway to the second mural stair – apparently also a primary feature of the building – of which 12 steps remained at the time of the excavation, rising to the right as usual. A stair-foot guard cell opened to the left of this doorway and was 3.66m (12ft) long by 1.52m (5ft) wide. In the floor of the central court there appear to have been sunk a well and some water tanks. The broch may have had an outer defensive wall in the shape of the perimeter wall shown on the plan as surrounding both the broch and the outbuildings.

3. Probable site sequence As has been indicated above, less information is available about the history of Keiss West than was the case with Keiss South, because the whole of its interior was cleared out by Tress Barry who, as usual, left no records of any sequence of later buildings he may have encountered, as Laing did with the other site. However this broch was evidently much less well preserved than the other; the photographs imply that not more than about 1.5m (5ft) of wallface remained. This is less than half of that found by Laing at Keiss South and there is unlikely to have been the same wealth of later structures at this site.

Phase 2: primary occupation Presumably the broch was occupied as a defended building of some kind for a considerable period but no information about this phase can be recovered now. The observation that the outer “circle” was partly founded on 76cm of debris suggests that this phase was a long one. Phase 3: demolition and conversion to a low roundhouse The blocking of the northern entrance suggests that – as was evidently the case with Keiss South – most of the upper part of the high wall of this broch was pulled down after the building ceased to be needed as a defended roundhouse. According to Anderson [3, 131] a thick secondary 'casing wall' was added against the outside of the broch, varying in thickness from 61cm (2ft) to 1.09m (3ft 9in). On the plan this is shown most clearly on the arc from north-east to south-east, around the eastern entrance (Illus.7.145); as we have seen one photograph (Illus. 7.147) appears to show the end of this added masonry very clearly. There also seems to be a

Pre-broch era – the shell midden Laing recovered a quantity of material from this midden including some potsherds, chipped flints, stone implements including hammerstones, some smaller pebbles interpreted as sling stones, and various pointed bone implements. The age of this midden is uncertain but, if the potsherds were truly found in it (of which one cannot now be certain), it need not antedate the broch by 474

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) thinner ‘casing’ on the north-west arc, blocking the outer end of the primary entrance.

4. Finds From Laing’s excavations [2, 20-22] (Illus. 7.153) This material all came from the shell midden under the broch. Flint and stone tools included chipped flints, hammerstones made from beach pebbles, a rude mortar and some small beach pebbles interpreted as sling-stones. Bone tools included 3 points (called “arrowheads” [2, figs. 26-28], about 18 “skewers” or awls [2, figs. 29-31] made from both bone and horn. There was also some “rude pottery” (Illus. 7.153). However in the National Museums of Scotland there are sherds among Laing’s collection which do not fit this description, being a thin, fine, smooth ware with a near black surface. Presumably this material, which is clearly of Iron Age date, belongs to the broch horizon. Food refuse included periwinkles (“4/5ths” of the total) and some animal bones (unidentified).

The eastern entrance was evidently pushed through the wall – or, more probably, built on top of its reduced foundations – at the time of demolition and, as described, the photographs clearly show that its paved floor emerged well above the broch foundations (Illus. 7.147 & 7.148). The door-checks mentioned by Anderson are not apparent on the plan (Illus. 7.145) but they evidently consisted of massive opposing slabs set into the walls about half way down. The doorway to the filled mural cell in the right wall has already been mentioned (traced to a length of 8ft); this suggests that the new passage was laid out at a point where there was already a mural cell. The large external circular enclosure was laid out at the same time, and the thick “casing wall” – presumably built from debris from the demolished broch wall – was added against it.

From Tress Barry’s excavation [6] (Illus. 7.153) Metal objects included 1 small bronze ring decorated with small diagonal slashes on the outer side (diameter 19mm or 0.75in). Bone implements included 1 long-handled comb, 2 awls, 1 double-pointed tool perforated in the centre, 2 broken needles, 1 pin with ornamented head and a swelling on the shank of late Iron Age type [6, 285], 1 sheep shank (centrally perforated) is probably a bobbin, and 1 toggle. Stone tools (see Illus. 7.153) included 11 slaty discs, diams. 57-178mm (2.25-7.0in), 1 polished schist disc, diam. 83mm (3.25in), 1 cup without a handle, 1 broken handled cup, 1 sandstone lamp, 1 fragment of a jet armlet, 12 upper and lower rotary quern stones, 2 large saddle querns, 2 moulds (one, for an ingot, carved in the rubbing face of a piece of rotary quern), 1 crudely hollowed vessel, 2 oval vessels, 2 pivot stones, 3 hammerstones, 8 whetstones, 2 sandstone whorls and 1 of steatite, 2 small discs. diams. 45mm (1.75in), 2 broken quartzite pebbles, grooved on both faces – presumably strike-a-lights – and 1 carved sandstone disc [3, fig. 18]. Pottery included 1 base sherd from a Roman Samian decorated bowl of Form Dr. 37 (2nd century) [10, Table II], and several native sherds including one with an indented cordon (Illus. 7.153). Food refuse included bones of ox, sheep, goat and pig?, with pieces of red deer horns, and edible mollusc shells. Small quantities of charred grain (bere?) were found and the canine tooth of a bear, Ursus arctos.

None of the demolition debris seems to have been used to build a secondary facing wall around the central court. Anderson states that no such “scarcement” was found, using the word in the same (now old-fashioned) sense as with Keiss South. Yet there are one or two suggestions that there might have been such an added facing. In one of the original photographs (Illus. 7.150) a distinct kink is visible in one wall of the passage of the main entrance near its inner end, as though the end of a secondary wall did not quite fit flush with the corner of the primary masonry [3, 135, fig. 16]. Also the curious mural cell close to the left of this entrance might have been built in Phase 4; a single stone slab with a doorway cut into it forms its front wall and may imply that a secondary facing had previously been built. Perhaps it is less likely – though not impossible – that such a slab was let into the primary wall after part of the core was torn out to make the cell. However the circularity of the central court (below) suggests that its masonry is original. Presumably the various arrangements of upright slabs in the floor of the court were put in at this stage; they divide it into four quadrants which are clearly aligned on the secondary or northern entrance. Also the many outbuildings which were partly revealed by the excavations might be said to fit best into a period after the site had ceased to be primarily defensive, and when plenty of building material was available from the demolished high wall of the broch. The inner part of the primary (northern) entrance, with the 9.15m (30ft) long guard cell, may have remained in use in Phase 4 since its inner end seems to have remained unblocked.

5. Dimensions The internal diameter of the broch was given as 10.2m (34ft) [4], and the original wall was apparently c. 3.6m (12ft) thick; thus the external diameter should be c. 17.4m (58ft) and the wall proportion c. 41.4%. A new survey of the interior by the author in 1971 showed that its plan was extremely close to a true circle, with a radius of 5.18 + 0.04m (diam. 10.36 m, or a fraction under 34 ft). This suggests that the inner wallface is the primary one, not a secondary addition, and that the “kink” in the masonry of

Presumably also the occupation deposits accumulated in the interior at this time and many of the recorded finds must have come from this secondary stratum. However no information is available about the stratigraphy of the site. 475

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland the passage in Illus. 7.151 is a door-check near its inner end.

immediately in front of the guard cell probably marked the position of the door-frame.64

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 36 SW 1: 2. Laing 1866, 19 ff.: 3. Anderson 1901, 131-9: 4. RCAHMS 1911b, no. 517, 157-8, fig. 41, pls. 53 & 54: 5. Young 1962, 181-2: 6. Stevenson 1955, 285; 7. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 43 (1908-09), 12-13 (finds): 8. Lacaille 1954, 266: 9. Laing 1966: 10. Robertson 1972: 11. Swanson (ms) 1984, 586-89 & plan: 12. Heald & Jackson 2001, 129-47: 13. Armit 2003, 106.

The central court is exceptionally small and is recorded as circular in Tress Barry’s plan, having a diameter of 6.71m (22ft) [4]. However a careful survey of the remaining face in 1971 and 1972 (in the latter year after some clearance of the inner face [6]) showed that it was far from that; some kind of geometrically constructed egg-shape may be a possibility (below). At 5 o’clock from the main (east) doorway was visible the curved end of a long intra-mural cell or gallery running anti-clockwise and which was traced for about 4.58m (15ft) but the other end of which was not located. The second entrance on the south-west may have originally been the doorway to the intra-mural stair but no sign of any steps was recorded. The plan shows what seems to be a drain running down this passage, but this is not mentioned in any of the published accounts; it closely resembles the drain along the presumably secondary doorway in Keiss South (ND36 6).

ND36 8 NESS ND/3814 6665 (visited in 1963, 1971 & 1972) An unusually small probable solid-based broch in Canisbay, Caithness, excavated by Sir F Tress Barry in 1898; the results were briefly described by Anderson with no details of any deposits found [2]. A limited amount of clearance of the interior wallface was undertaken by the author in 1972, mainly for the purpose of making an exact plan (Illus. 7.154-7.158). Description The broch is situated at the landward end, or neck, of a cliff promontory which projects eastwards about 24m into the sea and is apparently defended by a massive cross wall, 19.5m (64ft) long and 1.83m (6ft) high, running across the neck. The plan suggests that erosion since the Iron Age has caused a gully to breach this wall at its north end and that it once ran about 3.66m (12ft) further north before curving round to the west, or forwards. Further erosion of the cliff immediately north-east of the broch had by 1910 already caused its outer face to fall into the sea on the south-east side. There are traces of stone buildings close to the broch on its seaward (eastern) side and also immediately west of the promontory wall (Illus. 7.154 & 7.155).

It is clearer at Ness than in the cases of the Keiss brochs why a second door would have been needed if the broch ceased to be primarily a defended tower house. Here one originally had to go all the way round the tower to the seaward side to get in (as at Nybster, ND36 9), and the landward-facing doorway was therefore much more convenient. The plan shows various slab-built constructions in the court which ought also to be secondary, but reliable evidence is inevitably lacking. The outer wall crossing the neck of the promontory is slightly convex as seen from the landward approach with a gateway in it about one third of the way across from the south side. It stood about 1.8m (6ft) high when first exposed, and a depression in front of it is doubtless a filled-in ditch. Whether the wall and ditch originally formed a promontory fort antedating the broch cannot be discovered without new, stratigraphical excavations but it is a distinct possibility. A well was found in front of this wall and immediately to the right of the gateway, evidently in the outer ditch; it was 2.90m (9ft 6in) deep, roofed with stone flags when found and had 12 steps leading down into it (Illus. 7.154 & 7.156).

Tress Barry’s plan, drawn by Nicholson (Illus. 7.154), shows two entrances, one facing south-west towards the land, and also towards the single passage through the outer wall; the other faces east towards the seaward end of the promontory. The original doorway seems certain to have been the latter; it was common practice for the entrances of brochs built on narrow strips of ground to be sited facing away from the easiest approach. The southwestern doorway seems to lack a door-frame and is doubtless a later insertion, comparable to those found in Keiss South (ND36 6) and Keiss West (ND36 7).

The curved walls of several chambers were found in front of the promontory wall and the plan suggests that they, like the wall itself, are continuous, in some way not easy to understand, with structures beyond the ravine to the north of the landward end of the promontory [7].

The length of the primary entrance – and thus the thickness of the wall here – was 4.65m (15ft 3in); the width at the outer end is 1.12m (3ft 8in) and at the inner 1.32m (4ft 4in). An elongated guard cell was on the left side at about 1.0m (6ft 4in) from the exterior and, though no signs were recorded of checks in the passage walls, a stone sill in the presumably paved floor

Discussion It is not possible to infer much about the original form of this site, or about its history, from the meagre information 64 Any thin stone slabs forming the checks could have been removed in antiquity and the slots for them could easily have been overlooked, or at least not noted, by an excavator like Tress Barry.

476

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) available. The broch seems likely to have been a towerlike structure originally but the only evidence for this is indirect – the assumption that the eastern doorway was the original one and that the other door was made when the site became less defence-orientated, presumably when the upper parts of the tower were pulled down. The simplest hypothesis is that the promontory wall was an outer defence for the broch but one cannot be sure that it was not there earlier. Why the well was placed outside this wall is a mystery; a well suggests precautions against a siege but this one may belong to the post-broch era. There are no clear traces of a late Iron Age occupation in the finds.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 36 NE 1: 2. Anderson 1901, 143: 3. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 35 (1907-08) 15-16 (finds): 4. RCAHMS 1911b, 13-14, no. 33 & fig. 5: 5. Young 1962, 184: 6. E W MacKie in Discovery and Excavation Scotland 1972, 17: 7. Swanson (ms) 1985, 562-67 & plan: 8. Lamb 1980, 20, 74, 96: 9. Heald & Jackson 2001, 129-47. ND36 9 NYBSTER (‘Brough Head’) ND/3702 6314 Probable solid-based broch in Wick, Caithness, standing in a similar situation to Skirza Head (ND36 10, below) and Ness (ND36 8) – that is on a sheer-sided cliff promontory approachable only from one direction and which is defended by a massive curved outer wall (Illus. 7.159 - 7.166 & 7.174.). The site was excavated by Sir F Tress Barry in 1895-96 and the limited information gained was described by Anderson [2] who provides the only information about the work apart from a few photographs taken of the excavations.67 (visited in 1963, 1971 & 2005).

Finds [3] (Illus. 7.131) Metal objects included 1 broken bronze ring-headed pin, 2 bronze rings (now welded together side by side by corrosion) 16mm in diameter, 1 small spiral bronze bead, 2 tiny bronze chain links (one spiral) linked together, 1 bronze bar 223mm long by 9mm wide (found in the guard cell [4]) and a fragment of sheet bronze 70mm long. Bone implements included 1 handle of an iron tool, 1 broken needle 9cm long with the eye broken, 3 pins (1 with a grooved head), 1 “chess pawn” or gaming piece and 2 polished implements. Stone objects: Anderson also mentions [2] 3 querns (evidently rotary judging from the examples in the photograph – Illus. 7.158), and several vessels, both circular and oval. There were also 2 small circular polished pebbles [3]. Fired clay: in the guard chamber were found several moulds for casting bronze ingots and the chain links mentioned above. There was also a small clay crucible. A small sherd of neck-band Everted Rim ware was recovered in 1972.65

Nybster broch underwent further explorations in the summer of 2005 by a team from the National Museums of Scotland [16]. The discoveries made then will doubtless cause some of the ideas set out below to be modified. Description The promontory on which the site stands is about 45.8m (150ft) long and 41.2m (135ft) across at its widest part; it narrows to about 21.4m (70ft) at the seaward end. The main entrance faces just north of north-east, towards the sea, and is 4.27m (14ft) long; it is consistently 92cm (3ft) wide for the first 3.05m (10ft) at which point is set the door-frame. A pivot stone was found in position behind one of the door-checks. One check can be seen in a contemporary photograph (Illus. 7.161) and it gives the impression of being of built masonry rather than of a projecting slab. The pivot stone for the door was still in position in 1910, presumably behind the left check. No guard cell was found, and neither were any intra-mural features located during the original excavations; thus Nybster may be a simple ring of solid masonry and it stands nowhere higher than 1.53m (5ft).

Dimensions: External diameter c. 15.5m (52ft), internal c. 6.6m (22ft) so the wall proportion is about 58.5%, remarkably high. A survey by the author in 1971-72 showed that the central court was not exactly circular; on the assumption that the exact circularity of most of the other brochs measured in this way means that the central court was carefully planned, a geometrical egg-shape was tentatively fitted on to it. If this is correct the diameter along the ‘base’ of the egg would be 6.63m and that at right angles to this 6.65 m; it would thus be easy to assume the broch to be circular if no complete plan had been made. It is interesting that an egg-shape is detectable in Swanson’s plan [7].66

However at about 10 o’clock there are signs of a possible raised doorway in the inner wallface, now built up; this was noticed both by the Commission [3] and by the author in 1963 but there are now no straight edges in the masonry and no firm conclusions can be drawn. On the general photograph which shows the interior after excavation (Illus. 7.161) this ‘gap’ should be at the left end of the circle but nothing seems to have been spotted at the time. Blocks may have been pulled out of the wall later.

65

In the Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow. The egg-shape’s dimensions are as follows. The inner wallface along the arc from just east of north to just west of south fits closely to half an ellipse with a long axis of 6.632m and a short one of 4.974 m; these could be equivalent to 8 and 6 megalithic yards (of 0.829m) respectively. The other half of the wallface, though more ruinous, fits well to an egg-shape. This is drawn with arcs the centre points of which are defined by an equilateral triangle with sides of 1.66m or 2 MY. It is not possible to decide from a single site whether this close fit has come about by chance or by design, but one can at least infer that some kind of length unit was probably involved in setting out the site. 66

67 There are copies of all the Tress Barry photographs in the Nicholson institute in Caithness and in the National Monuments Record of Scotland in Edinburgh.

477

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland It is quite possible that any intra-mural features which existed in this building were raised well above the floor, as at many other sites, so that no signs of these are preserved in the bottom 1.53m (5ft) of the inner face (Level 1). Nevertheless it is not impossible that Nybster was never more than a simple, massive-walled dun or roundhouse which was never very high; without evidence even of an intra-mural stairway its classification as a broch must remain tentative only. This site provides the well-known ambiguous answer to the question of whether the stump of a broch could ever have been a tall tower – “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” It is striking that there is no second entrance here despite the fact that the broch doorway faces away from the outer defensive wall.

A number of round and nearly round chambers, connected by various walls, was found outside the broch on three sides. Again one tends to assume from the data from better excavated sites that these belong to a secondary phase of occupation (those abutting the broch on the seaward side surely do) but there is no way of being sure that this was the case at Nybster. The state of these ‘outbuildings’ in 1984 was recorded by Swanson [9]. Excavations in 2005 Re-excavation of the site began in 2005, by Andy Heald on behalf of the National Museums of Scotland [16]. Towards the end of July the work had already yielded some interesting results, including a bronze spiral fingerring of classic middle Iron Age type from occupation deposits in one of the ‘outbuildings’ on the north-east side, confirming that the brochs in the north-east tip of Caithness belong to the Atlantic Iron Age tradition.

Two floor tanks or hearths were found on the north side of the central court and a drain ran out through the entrance passage. There are several radial slabs still visible set upright in the central court, which may be the remains of secondary structures (Illus. 7.162 & 7.164); some of these continue the right side of the entrance into the interior. There is a small pit or well with a covering slab in the floor opposite the entrance.

The broch itself is being re-examined, both in the central court and on the wallhead. An important discovery in 2005 was an occupation layer that extended under the wall, suggesting that the broch was built on an already inhabited site. This may support the idea that the promontory wall was the original defensive feature and that the broch was added later. Other internal features uncovered include a large rectangular enclosure of uncertain purpose – defined by large stone slabs on edge – and a water tank apparently sunk into the primary floor.

According to Anderson the outer defences consist of a curved ditch and a massive wall just within this; the ‘ditch’ (not shown on the plan – Illus. 7.159) was said to be nearly 6.1m (20ft) wide and to run along “the segment of a circle” from one ravine to the other. No causeway is mentioned. However Swanson points out that there are no signs of a ditch apart from the trench dug by Tress Barry to expose the outer face of the outer wall [9], so Anderson may have mixed up his notes on Nybster with those on another site.

Trenches across the broch wall appear to confirm that it lacks any intra-mural features apart from the entrance. The core of packed sandstone slabs and rubble is preserved at the base, and looks suitable broch-like, but this is covered by shattered small rubble and soil; this gives the impression that the stump of the broch had been partly further destroyed and then evened off again with small rubble to provide the level, turfed wallhead seen in the photographs of the original excavation (Illus. 7.161 & 7.162). It is curious that most of the the inner wallface stands higher than the surviving original wall core.

The wall is a massive curved barrier 3.05m (10ft) thick, increasing to about 4.58m (15ft) at the centre where the solitary entrance passage is situated (Illus. 7.159 & 7.160). This wall is only about 1.89m (6ft) from the broch at its nearest point. The entrance is 4.5m long and 1.07m (3ft 6in) wide at the outer end; at 1.37m (4ft 6in) from the outside is the first door-frame built of slabs on edge set into the passage walls (Illus. 7.165); after this the passage widens to 1.22m (4ft). A second door-frame is 3.66m (12ft) from the exterior and the plan suggests that there is an upright slab forming a sill stone at each door.

One interesting feature was found on the wallhead in the form of a small area of large, carefully laid flat slabs at about 9 o’clock (Illus. 7.000). These are about 1.5m above the interior floor and may be the only direct evidence for Nybster having once been a hollow-walled tower. The slabs look like the neat floor of a raised doorway into the wall (the sides of which have completely vanished), which perhaps once led out on to the scarcement and on to the raised wooden floor which rested on it. The evidence is striking but is perhaps not yet quite positive enough to classify the site as a ‘broch’ rather than as a ‘probable broch’.

The thicker central part of this outer wall is relatively short (about 7.6m or 25 ft, including the passage) and at each end, on the inside face, is a short flight of steps, leading up towards the passage, which presumably gave access to the wallhead (Illus. 7.166). The closeness of these flights of steps to the passage suggests that the outer wall was never very high; perhaps there was a parapet fronting the flat wall walk. The outer wall has evidently been modified more than once [9].

Early finds [2, 142: 7] (Illus. 7.174) Bone objects included 7 awls or borers from 95-172mm in length, 3 long-handled combs, 2 of them decorated and 2 (including the plain one) with a fishtail handle, a 478

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) flat almost rectangular piece (with slightly convex sides) 95mm long, perforated with 3 holes and having a flat, disc-shaped protrusion on one face, a small strip 54mm long with rounded ends and a carefully bored hole at each end and 1 small bead 13mm in diam. Stone implements included half of a small cup or lamp, a sandstone whorl, a rough sandstone disc with a depression in the middle of one face, a thin, well-shaped disc of slaty stone, 95mm in diam. and smoothed on both faces, a sandstone disc 95mm in diam. and with an incomplete perforation 19mm wide in the centre, 1 broken whetstone 54mm long, an oval sandstone vessel 292mm long, 191mm wide and 83mm deep and a sandstone vessel 215mm by 184mm and 92mm deep. In the NMS (GA 698) there is also a complete handled cup (the handle mostly broken off) 112-114mm in diam. and 48mm deep which seems not to be one of those mentioned above; it has an incised groove running round it just below the rim. Pottery included 1 sherd of a Roman Samian decorated bowl of form Dr. 37 [6, Table II]. Objects of fired clay included 2 small cups or crucibles of reddish clay and a mould fragment with a tapering, square-sided hollow. Animals bones and food refuse included the skull of an ox and antlers of red deer and a sample of carbonised oats.

Head (Illus. 7.167 -7.174). It is the northernmost of the string of brochs along the most northerly part of the east coast of Caithness and was excavated by Sir F Tress Barry in the 1890s. This work was described by Joseph Anderson [2]. No plan made at the time of the excavation was published and only a few signs of out-buildings were detected. The broch was defended on the landward side by a ditch 9.1m (30ft) wide. Swanson made a plan of the entire site in 1984 which shows that a good part of the northern arc of the building has now fallen over the cliff [8]. A limited amount of re-clearance of the interior wallface was undertaken by the author in 1972, mainly for the purpose of making an exact plan [6] (Illus. 7.170). Skirza Head may be a rare example of a badly excavated broch which nevertheless proved to have an earlier stone structure preserved beneath it (Illus. 7.168). Description The entrance is on the seaward side, facing south-east, and is 4.27m (14ft) in length, 91cm (3ft) wide at the outer end with door-checks 2.44m (8ft) in; thereafter the passage is 1.22m (4ft) wide, narrowing to 90cm again at the inner end [2]. Although checks for a door were apparently seen in 1910 [4] little is visible now. Swanson saw a ‘slight rebate’ in the left wall, 1.3m from the inner end, but nothing on the right side [8].

Finds in 2005 A major discovery was a complete bronze spiral fingerring in the occupation deposits of a chamber north-east of the broch.

A doorway to the mural stair is apparent at 9 o’clock, 4.88 m, (16ft) to the left of the entrance, and a small stairfoot guard cell opened from it to the left: two steps of the intra-mural stair were visible when the excavation took place but had vanished by 1910 [2]. None of this can be seen now except the sides of the doorway or passage. Anderson describes a tank-like feature here which might be interpreted as the remains of a second entrance at the foot of the stair [8]. The inner face of the broch stood up to 1.52m (5ft) high for a short distance at the time of excavation (Illus. 7.168) but was mostly broken down well below this.

Dimensions: (1) wall thickness 4.27m (14ft), internal diameter 7.02m (23ft) and overall diameter therefore 15.56m (51ft) [3]; (2) from the author’s measurements – overall diameter 15.71m (51ft 6in), internal diameter (avg.) 6.25m (20ft 6in), therefore wall thickness c. 4.73m (15ft 6in). The average wall proportion is thus 60%. A careful survey of the central court in 1971 showed that it had been built close to an exact circle with a radius of 3.21 + 0.06 m, that is with a diameter of 6.42m (21.05ft).

A “scarcement” – in the old meaning of a secondary wall – is described as running round part of the interior from about 12-5 o’clock. This varied considerably in width, from a maximum of 83cm (2ft 9in) at 12 o’clock [2] to about 20cm just to the right of the entrance. A large rectangular fire-place was found, still with ashes on it, not in the centre as claimed [2] but just in front of the entrance passage (Illus. 7.168); it may be a secondary feature. There was also a floor tank, not visible in the photograph.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 36 SE 4: 2. Anderson 1901, 139-42: 3. RCAHMS 1911b, 159-60, no. 518, & fig. 42: 4. Young 1962, 184: 5. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1981, 18: 6. Robertson 1970. 205: 7. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 43 (1908-09), 14-15 (finds): 8. Lamb 1980b, 20-1: 9. Swanson (ms) 1985, 571-76 & plan: 10. Batey (ms) 1981, no. 91: 11. R Gourlay in Discovery and Excavation Scotland 1981, 18: 12. Close-Brooks 1995, 148-9: 13. Hartley 1972, 54, no. 2: 14. Heald & Jackson 2001, 129-47: 15. A. Heald in Discovery and Excavation in Scotland, 2005.

A contemporary photograph shows the interior cleared (Illus. 7.168) and at first sight the “scarcement” seems to be a very low secondary wall, as one might expect. The front edge of this was re-exposed and planned in 1972 [5] (Illus. 7.170), before the author had seen the Tress Barry photograph. The latter shows these walls to have been extremely low at the time of discovery – like a low

ND36 10 SKIRZA HEAD ND3940 6844 (visited 13/7/63, in 1971 and in 1972) Probable solid-based broch in Canisbay, Caithness, standing on the neck of a high cliff promontory about 3 miles south of the north-east tip of Scotland, Duncansby 479

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland platform or bench – and there is a clear indication that the wider part projects from under the broch wall rather than having been built against it. In 1972 the author was able to trace the front edge of this right round almost to the entrance (where it is much thinner) and it appeared then to be continuous with the primary broch wallface just behind it. The photograph however suggests that the masonry may be a little more complex. The impression that at least part of this feature is older than the broch wall seems clear.

ND36 11 SGARBACH ND/3729 6375 This promontory fort in Canisbay, Caithness was partly excavated by Sir Francis Tress Barry during the 1890s and is included here because of the similarity of the doorframe to that found in brochs. No plan made at the time of the excavations is known but some photographs were taken (Illus. 7.175); the only nearly contemporary description is that of the Royal Commission [2]. The site consists of a simple curved wall crossing the landward end of a high, cliff promontory of which the length from cliff to cliff was 18.9m (62ft); it was 3.8m (12ft 6in) thick and about 1.2m (4ft) high near the middle. Slightly east of the mid point the entrance passage was found, 96.5cm (3ft 2in) wide at the outer end. Although its left wall was broken down (Illus. 7.175), the right wall was reasonably well preserved and a door-check, formed of an upright slab against a built face, was found in it 2.03m (6ft 8in) from the exterior; behind this the passage widened to 1.45m (4ft 9in). The floor of the passage was paved with large sandstone slabs and another thin slab, projecting 20cm (8in) above the floor, formed a sill stone.68 Behind the door-frame a bar hole is in the right wall; this was 20cm (8in) square and was found to be at least 1.07m (3ft 6in) deep. A drain was found under the flags of the passage floor, leading from the interior to the outside.

Outside the entrance and to the south of it was a chamber or well, now visible as a large hole. The forework defence consists of a 9.0m (30ft) wide ditch across the neck of the promontory and the broch is close behind this. The entire promontory is about 70m long by 30m wide, providing a large defended enclosure. Finds (Illus. 7.173 & 7.174) Metal objects include a lump of slag (presumably iron). Bone tools found include a small rectangular perforated plate, 1 needle, 1 broken spoon with 3 grooves incised on its back (almost as if it was about to be made into a long-handled comb, except that it looks too flimsy), 1 broken fish-tailed long-handled comb, lacking the teeth, and 4 awls or borers. Stone objects included 1 sandstone lamp (133mm by 108mm by 50mm high), 1 sandstone whorl, 2 whetstones, 1 carefully smoothed sandstone disc 86mm in diam. and a small, thick sandstone disc. Anderson mentions in addition door pivot stones, 2 rough vessels of undressed boulders, 2 quern stones (presumably rotary) and hammerstones, but these do not seem to have reached the National Museum. A contemporary photograph of some of the stone finds shows all these items (Illus. 7.173) including two clear rotary querns, one thin and large (probably a lower stone) and the other thicker and smaller. Pottery includes a native sherd with a cordon decoration – similar to that found commonly in the Hebrides. Animal debris included a fragment of elk antler.

Behind the wall and approximately in line with the entrance was a hearth formed of flags set on edge and full of ashes, food refuse and pottery. To the left of the inner edge of the passage and about 1.22m (4ft) back from it was found an oval chamber in the wall, measuring about 3.05 by 2.14m (10 x 7ft). Discussion It is pity that so little is known about this site, and in particular that nothing is known about the pottery found. There are good reasons for thinking that some promontory defences belong to the early Iron Age, probably at least as early as the 6th century BC; examples are the promontory semibrochs (sites NG31 1 and HU44 1) as well as the Shetland ‘gatehouse forts (sites HU30 3 & HU56 4). Sgarbach may be another of these early defensive sites and it would be worth reexcavating it with the aim of establishing its date.

Dimensions: according to the Commission’s description [2] the external diameter is about 15.25m (50ft), the internal probably about 6.71m (22ft) when the thickness of the “scarcement” has been subtracted; the wall proportion would thus be about 44%. A new survey of the interior in 1971 showed that in plan the inside wallface was very close to a true circle with a radius of 3.32 + 0.06m (diam. 6.64 m); the outer face could not be traced at that time.

Sources: NMRS site no. ND 36 SE 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 18, no. 45: 3. Feachem 1977, 180: 4. Lamb 1980, 26 & fig. 8: 5. Batey 1982, 65, site CAN 086: 6. Swanson (ms) 1985, 569-70.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 36 NE 2: 2. Anderson 1901, 144-5: 3. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 43 (1908-09), 1617 (finds): 4. RCAHMS 1911b, 15-16, no. 35: 5. Young 1962, 183: 6. E W MacKie in Discovery and Excavation Scotland 1972, 16-17: 7. Caulfield 1978, 132, no. 27: 8. Swanson (ms) 1985, 553-57 & plan: 9. Heald & Jackson 2001.

68 This is described [2] as being in front of the door-check but the photograph suggests that it is in line with it (Illus. 7.175).

480

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) Square ND37 ND37 1 CANISBAY ND/3434 7285 Possible broch in Canisbay, Caithness, supposed to be under the ruins of a 13th century church [3, 4]. A hammerstone and some fragments of red deer antler were found in the churchyard and presented to the National Museum in 1871 [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 37 SW 4: 2. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 9 (1870-72), 248: 3. Anderson 1890, 184: 4. RCAHMS 1911b, 7-9 (‘broch’ finds not mentioned). ND37 2 GILLS ND/3204 7238 Possible broch in Canisbay, Caithness, consisting of a ploughed-over mound in a field measuring about 30m by 22m and 0.7m high; it had been quarried for stones and a rotary quern was found in it [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 37 SW 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 20, no. 53. ND37 3 STEMSTER 1 (‘Green Hill 4’) ND/3691 7194 Possible broch in Canisbay, Caithness, consisting of a grass-covered, stony mound; in 1965 traces of walling were seen in a silage pit dug in the centre [1]. In 1972 a trench had been bulldozed through the mound and in 1982 signs of an external settlement were reported [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 37 SE 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911b, 20, no. 54. Square ND38 see under ‘Orkney’ Square ND39 see under ‘Orkney’ Square ND47 ND47 1 – see under ‘Orkney’ ND47 2 DUNCANSBY HEAD ND/4054 7326 Possible broch in Canisbay, Caithness, situated on the top of the Head. Though nothing can be seen now [1] late 18th [2] and 19th century accounts [3] describe the remains of a circular building about 7.63m (25ft) in diameter and ‘apparently one of those circular edifices known as Picts’ Houses.” [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. ND 47 SW 1: 2. Old Statistical Account (1771-79): 3. New Statistical Account (1845), vol. 15 (Caithness), 25. Square ND48 see under ‘Orkney’ Square ND49 see under ‘Orkney’

481

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.1 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6). Schematic plan of the broch and an outlying wall, with elevations across the doorway to the guard cell (C-D) and across the entrance passage and guard cell just behind the outer door frame (A-B) (Mackay 1892, Fig. 12). Scale of plan 1:150. Copyright with the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

482

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.2 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1985. General view of site with its two flanking ravines and with the sea in the background; the broch stands on the intermediate horizon, just below and to the left of the hillock silhouetted against the sea (arrows). (neg. 1985/3/21)

7.3 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1985. View of the broch outer wall – mostly still buried – with the lintelled entrance passage at the pole. (neg. 1985/3/24)

483

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.4 Ousedale Burn in about 1910 (ND01 6). A view of the inner end of the entrance passage, presumably taken in 1910 at the time of the Commission’s visit, showing the innermost lintel of the chamber over the entrance still in position (though perhaps replaced) and at least the lower part of this chamber intact (RC 1911a, pl. XVIII). The stonework of the inner face is modern, as can be seen by a comparison with Illus. 7.011. Steps leading down to the outer end of the passage can be seen and (unless laid by the excavator) suggest that debris had piled up outside the broch during its period of use. (NMRS neg. CA 40: Crown Copyright reserved)

7.5 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1985. View of the remains of the chamber over the entrance (pole) with the top of the broch outer wall face in the background. (neg. 1985/3/29)

484

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.6 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1989. View inside the entrance looking in, with the door to the guard cell visible on the right; the outermost left door-check – formed of a large sandstone slab – is next to the pole and the top of its damaged opposite number is visible on the right. (neg. 1989/2/33A)

7.7. Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1989. The same view inside the entrance looking outwards; one of the slab checks of the inner door is visible on the left, with the doorway to the guard cell behind it. (neg. 1989/2/34A)

485

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.8 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1989. View of the left check of the outer door with the bar socket behind it (looking out). (neg. 1989/2/35A)

7.9 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1989. View of the interior of the guard cell showing the door to the entrance passage. (neg. 1989/2/36A)

7.10 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1985. View of the masonry of the back of the guard cell; note the use of rounded boulders in the wall face. (neg. 1985/3/31)

486

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.11 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1963. The re-faced inner end of the entrance passage, to be compared with the much older photograph in Illus. 7.004. The presumably replaced upper (Level 2) lintel visible in the latter, and some of the lower lintels, have fallen since about 1910. The modern facing can clearly be seen to end at the left edge of the door to the mural cell at 7 o’clock; a short distance above the lintel of this door the modern and the Iron Age masonry blend together, showing that much of the upper part of the inner face in this sector is probably modern. (neg. 1963/3/10)

7.12 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1985. View of the interior wall face and the doorway to the stair (at 9 o’clock) with the void over it partly preserved; the scarcement is visible at the right, with the pole resting on it. (neg. 1985/3/25)

487

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.13 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1989. View into the stair foot guard cell, with the door to the interior to the left; the two massive superimposed lintels bridging the cell are unusual and may have been inserted in modern times. (neg. 1989/3/1)

7.14 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1985. View of the interior of the stair-foot guard cell (behind the massive lintels in the previous photograph), the floor covered with rubble. (neg. 1985/3/27)

7.15 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1989. View up the stairway, the steps concealed under rubbish; the lintels presumably formed the floor of the Level 2 gallery above, although there would have been a gap in these to let the stair through. (neg. 1989/3/3)

7.16 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6) in 1989. View of the interior of the mural cell at 7 o’clock showing the door to the central court; there appears to be a double lintel over this opening, not visible on the inside wall face. (neg. 1989/2/37)

488

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.17 Ousedale Burn (ND01 6). Some of the finds from the site in the National Museums of Scotland; they include three stone whorls (one decorated), a fragment of the upper stone of a rotary quern, a jet armlet, an unusual small vessel which may be a crucible and several fragments of plain pottery (Appendix B). Scale 1:2.

489

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.18 Top: Tota an Dranndainn (ND05 2): general plan of the unexcavated site (Mercer 1985, fig. 56). Bottom: Tulloch Gorm (ND05 4), general plan of the unexcavated site (Mercer 1985, fig. 57). Both at scale 1:300. The author is very grateful to Roger Mercer for permission to reproduce this and the drawings.

490

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.19 Green Tulloch (ND06 4). General plan of the unexcavated broch and its surrounding earthworks (Mercer 1981, fig. 32). Scale 1:300.

491

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.20 Scrabster Mains. General plan of this fairly featureless site (Mercer 1981, fig. 33). Scale 1:300.

492

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.21 Thing’s Va’ (ND06 11). General plan of the broch and its surrounding earthwork (Mercer 1981, fig.34); the outer bank seen on the north and south continues evenly round through the western arc. Scale 1:300.

493

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.22 Thing’s Va’ (ND06 11) in 1963: view of the entrance (left foreground) and the interior wall face on the opposite side (at the pole). (neg. 1963/2/30)

494

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.23 Crosskirk (ND07 2): general plan of the broch and surrounding area (bounded by the cliff), with the excavated trenches marked (from Fairhurst 1984, Ill. 6). Crown copyright reserved. Scale 1:600.

495

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.24 Crosskirk (ND07 2). Plan of the interior of the broch in Phase 1, showing the sockets of the radial stone slabs and those dividing the interior into two halves, and the areas of paving (from Fairhurst 1984, Ills. 28). Numbers – 1, broch entrance: 2, 1st door check: 3, slipped lintel: 4, guard cell (not excavated): 5, hearth: 6, later flagging: 7, well: 8, stair entrance: 9, cell: 10, low platform: 11. outer face of foundations. Crown copyright reserved. Scale 1:75.

496

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.25 Crosskirk (ND07 2). Plan of the interior in Phase 3, showing the blocking of the intra-mural cells and the stone ‘buttressing’ against the inner wall face in the same area (from Fairhurst 1984, Ills. 31). Numbers – 1, broch entrance: 2, 1st door check: 3, slipped lintel: 4, guard cell (probably blocked): 5, boulder: 6, clay: 7, burnt area: 8, stake hole: 9, casing: 10, shell deposits under casing: 11. stair entrance: 12, to secondary entrance: 13, cell (blocked latterly): 14, buttress. Crown copyright reserved. Scale 1:75.

497

7.26 Crosskirk (ND07 2). Generalised cross section through the site, drawn before the final section was cut by a bulldozer through the main wall (from Fairhurst 1984, Ill. 15). Crown copyright reserved. Scale: 1: 150.

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

498

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.27 Crosskirk (ND07 2) in 1971. View of the floor of the first extension to the broch entrance (note door check and pivot stone) with the masonry of Enclosure IVb resting against the primary broch wall; later blocking of this entrance is in position (at the pole) (from Fairhurst 1964, Ill. 40). Crown copyright reserved. (NMRS neg. B/61218)

7.28 Crosskirk (ND07 2) in 1971. View of Enclosure IVa with its hearth, the broch wall in the background (from Fairhurst 1964, Ill. 36). Crown copyright reserved. (NMRS neg. B/61217)

499

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.29 Crosskirk (ND07 2) in 1971. View of the west side of the rock-cut well, or underground chamber, inside the broch (from Fairhurst 1964, Ill. 26). Crown copyright reserved. (NMRS neg. B/61201)

7.30 Crosskirk (ND07 2) in 1971. Previously unpublished photograph of the slab-lined depression in the broch interior

and below the level of the primary floor (see Fairhurst 1984, Ill. 27). Crown copyright reserved. (NMRS neg. B/59498) 500

7.31 Crosskirk (ND07 2). Plan of the broch entrance passage, and its outward extension, with the positions of Enclosures II and I shown; the position of the reconstructed section in Illus. 7.29 is shown (from Fairhurst 1984, Ill. 49). Crown copyright reserved. Scale, 1:150.

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

501

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland 7.32 Crosskirk (ND07 2). Reconstructed schematic cross section – drawn by the author – of the structures and layers running approximately east from the broch interior, across the wall and through the adjacent outbuildings. For clarity Grave III is shown sunk deeper into the floor of Enclosure I than it should be. The positions of the five relevant C-14 dated samples are shown, as are those of Roman objects and the late Iron Age bronze pin. From this it can be seen that three of the cluster of four similar C-14 dates – the uncorrected means of which fall between 2050 and 2150 bp, or 100 - 170 bc and which, the excavator thought, were a reliable indication of a primary broch occupation in the later 1st millennium BC – in fact come from stratigraphical positions which are widely separate. The first (e) is the dated burial (SRR 270) has been inserted slightly into the floor of Enclosure I -- perhaps a long time after the abandonment of that building, a hypothesis which is supported by the presence of a sherd of 4th century Roman Castor ware in the topsoil above the abandoned Enclosures I and II. The second (d) comes from the early deposits inside Enclosure I and that floor could be a lot later than the primary midden layer inside the broch, which produced the third. he third (b) is the only one which relates directly to an early stage of the broch occupation (the fourth comes from Enclosure IIIa which cannot be linked directly to the broch at all). Another slightly younger date (c) relates directly to the latest paved floor inside the broch and matches well with the Roman pottery also found on that floor. However the late Iron Age bronze pin seems to have been found almost at the same level as this Roman fragment which suggests a long period of disuse between about the second and the seventh centuries. It is possible that date (a) – for the deposit of organic matter below the earliest broch paved floor – relates to the construction of that building, and this would then plausibly push the ‘broch’ back several centuries BC (Armit 2003, 000); it is equally possible however that it relates to the late Bronze Age occupation nearby, which is demonstrated by the closed deposit of early pottery and by the date of 2770 + 100 bp (SRR 269) for charcoal on the pavement of Enclosure VII in the outer rampart. Moreover any dating scheme for the sequence of occupations in and around this broch must take account of the fundamental fact that the circular building was still open and roofless, but still largely free of debris in the interior, in the 7th and perhaps in the 8th century AD (the bronze pin). Because of the basic instability of the massive wall core (attested by the final large scale collapse of tons of clay and stones into the interior), the further back from this point the date of construction is set the more implausible it becomes. This is the first of the three basic facts about the Crosskirk dating evidence which have to be borne in mind. The second is that the C14 date of the Grave III burial could be as much as half a millennium too early because of the ‘sea food factor’ [6, 162], and this error is supported by the site stratigraphy -- a fact not observed, or at least not stressed, by the excavator. The third is the existence of a late Bronze Age occupation, attested by one, and perhaps two, C14 dates and by characteristic pottery. There is no decisive evidence either way relating to whether the site was abandoned, and if so for how long, between this occupation and the construction of the broch. Everything hinges on the stratigraphical context of SRR 266 which is unfortunately ambiguous in terms of which event it relates to. This being so the evidence of the late Iron Age bronze pin should, in my opinion, be given most weight, and a date in the first century BC or AD, or even the 2nd AD, for the construction of the ‘broch’ favoured. However, since the length of time the ‘broch’ could have stood unroofed without collapsing has to be an estimate, a somewhat earlier date could be argued for, but to outweigh the contrary evidence cited such an argument would have to depend primarily on dating evidence from other relevant sites Scale 1:57.

502

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.33 Top. Crosskirk (ND07 2): drawings of two hitherto unpublished base sherds, each with internal decoration of finger impressions (Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow). Centre: similar base sherd from ‘West Burra’, Shetland (HU25 a): Botttom, (left) long-handled bone comb from ‘Thrumster’, Caithness(ND34 10): (right) triangular crucible from ‘Dun Phail’, Sutherland (ND01 4) (the last two in the National Museums of Scotland). All at scale 1:2.

503

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.34 Berriedale 1 (ND12 1) in 1989. View of the landscape from the site; a ruined settlement can be seen on the grassy area below the near hill ton the right. (neg. 1989/3/15)

7.35 Berriedale 1 (ND12 1) in 1989. View of vegetation-covered ruins surrounded by the outer ditch and rampart (pole); the broch entrance is to the left and leads leftwards to the filled in central court. (neg. 1989/3/12)

504

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.36 Burg Langwell (ND12 3) in 1989. View of the site from the west (neg. 1989/3/8).

7.37 Burg Langwell (ND12 3) in 1989. View of fragments of the walling of the outer face of an upper gallery (pole) (neg. 1989/3/7).

505

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.38 Achorn (ND13 1) in 1985: plan of the existing remains, re-drawn from Swanson (ms) 1985, 702. Scale: 1:300.

506

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.39 Ballentink 1 (ND13 3) in 1989. General view of site with the farmhouse beyond (neg. 1989/2/23A).

507

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.40 Ballentink 2 (ND13 4) in 1985: plan of the existing remains re-drawn from Swanson (ms) 1985, 696. Scale: 1:300.

508

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.41 Ballentink 2 (ND13 4) in 1989. General view of broch mound surrounded by a recent wall (neg. 1989/2/22A).

509

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.42 Dunbeath (ND13 6): detailed plan of the broch and its surroundings redrawn from a survey by C Swanson ((ms) 1985, 706). Scale: 1:150.

510

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.43 Dunbeath (ND13 6) in 1963. Distant view of site from the south, showing the two streams which form the promontory on which it stands; the masonry under the clump of trees is the modern surrounding wall. (neg. 1963/6/5)

7.44 Dunbeath (ND13 6) in 1989. General view eastwards from the broch showing part of the monastic site on the left of the river. The main part of this site is on the higher ground to the left of the short wall. (neg. 1989/2/17A)

511

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.45 Dunbeath (ND13 6) in 1985. View of the outer wall face at 5-6 o’clock and the ruined entrance passage. (neg. 1985/3/34)

7.46 Dunbeath (ND13 6) in 1990. The entrance passage (looking out) after recent clearance; the left door-check is visible (pole). (neg. 1990/6/3)

512

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.47 Dunbeath (ND13 6) in 1985: the guard cell on the right of the entrance; the water-worn slabs of which the masonry is entirely composed are clearly visible and they contrast strikingly with the quarried slabs of the cell at 12.30 o’clock. (neg. 1985/3/37)

7.48 Dunbeath (ND13 6) in 1963. View of upper part of the interior wall face at 12.30 o’clock with the gap – presumably the remains of a void – above the door to the mural cell on the right (its lintel as visible). This gap was filled in during the 1990 restoration work. The scarcement is just visible, turfed over, at the top of the pole (see also Illus. 6.48). (neg. 1963/6/6)

513

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.49 Dunbeath (ND13 6) in 1990, view of the central court after the recent clearance; the scarcement has either been turfed over again or never cleared, and the roof of the mural cell at 12 o’clock has been restored. Most probably there was originally at least one void over the cell doorway (see Illus. 7.048) but all traces of this have been removed. (neg. 1990/6/1)

7.50 Dunbeath (ND13 6) in 1989. Daylight view of the interior of the mural cell (north-east end) at 12.30 o’clock, taken before the recent restoration; the niche and the shelf beneath it are very clear. The masonry for the first 1.5 metres (pole) is of quarried sandstone slabs – similar to that of the Neolithic chambered tombs of Caithness and Orkney – while on top of this is the usual Iron Age stonework of water-worn slabs. Sharp corners in Iron Age broch cells are very unusual but are often found in the local Neolithic buildings. (neg. 1989/2/18A).

7.51 Dunbeath (ND13 6) in 1989. The south-east (left) end of the same cell, by flash, showing the second aumbry or cupboard; the contrast between the quarried sandstone slabs in the lower part of the wall and the water-worn slabs higher up is clear here too. (neg. 1985/3/35)

514

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.52 Wideford Hill chambered tomb, Orkney. View of the interior of a sub-rectangular side chamber showing the characteristic Neolithic masonry of neatly fitted, quarried sandstone slabs. The similarity with the lower part of the cell in the Dunbeath broch is striking (neg. 1985/3/20).

515

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.53 Minera (ND13 9) in 1985: detailed plan of the broch and its surroundings redrawn from Swanson (ms) 1985, 689. Scale: 1:300.

516

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.54 Minera (ND13 9) in 1989, general view of broch mound (neg. 1989/2/25A).

517

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.55 Achnagoul (ND13 10) in 1985: plan of the existing remains redrawn from Swanson (ms) 1985, 691. Scale: 1:300.

518

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.56 Tiantulloch (ND13 12) in 1985: plan of the existing remains redrawn from Swanson (ms) 1985, 686. Scale: 1:300.

519

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.57 Tiantulloch (ND13 12) in 1989; view of the broch mound in the distance with the mountains of Sutherland beyond. (neg. 1989/2/27A)

7.58 Tiantulloch (ND13 12) in 1989. View of the outer wall face with the eastern radial wall abutting it to the right of the pole; the lintelled entrance in the latter described by Swanson [3] is not visible from this position. (neg. 1989/2/28A)

520

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.59 Greysteil Castle (ND14 2) in 1963; distant view of broch mound on its loch promontory. (neg. 1963/3/13)

521

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.60 Tulach Mor (ND14 4) in 1984. Plan of the visible remains redrawn from Swanson (ms) 1985, 680. Scale: 1:300.

522

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.61 Cairn Merk (ND15 9) in 1985. View of the broch mound from the north. The ‘mound on mound’ structure of the site is just visible, although the platform is at the same level as the horizon. (neg. 1985/5/16)

523

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.62 Cairn Merk (ND15 9) in 1984. Plan of the visible remains redrawn from Swanson (ms) 1985, 675. Scale: 1:300.

524

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.63 Cairn Merk (ND15 9) in 1985. View north from the broch mound with the reeds on the left marking the water-logged ditch or moat; the river Thurso is in the background. (neg. 1985/5/21)

7.64 Cairn Merk (ND15 9) in 1986. View of the broch mound with the exposed outer wall face showing; the trench exposing the entrance can just be seen on the left. Two massive stone causeways crossing the moat on the north-east side – probably built later than the Iron Age –can be seen in the foreground, the pole standing next to the right one. A third causeway on the south-east (not visible here) may be ancient. (neg. 1985/5/17)

525

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.65 Cairn Merk (ND15 9) in 1963. View of the inner face of the outer wall (pole) exposed a few years earlier in the broad trench on the eastern side; this wall is at the edge of the flat broch platform, just within the moat. (neg. 1963/3/27)

7.66 Cairn Merk (ND15 9) in 1963. View of the outer end of the broch entrance, most of which was exposed by the excavations in about 1957. Note the secondary extension of passage outwards in the right wall of which a doorway can be seen, apparently with a raised sill; this presum-ably leads to a secondary hut built against the broch wall face. The chamber over the entrance – evidently not sought by Murray Threipland – is not visible but its foundations may still be in situ. (neg. 1963/3/28)

526

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.67 Cairn Merk (ND15 9) in 1985. The interior of the lintelled entrance passage, looking in; the door frame cannot be seen and seems to be well down the passage. (neg. 1985/5/19)

7.68 Cairn Merk (ND15 9) in 1963. View of the extension of the 1957 wide trench (on the east) up on to the wall head, exposing the raised mural gallery 92 cm (3 ft) wide. The broch outer wall face is to the left. (neg. 1963/3/29).

527

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.69 Murkle (ND16 8): general plan of site from Mercer 1981, fig. 35. Scale 1:300.

528

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.70 Tulloch of Shalmstry (ND16 15) in 1984. Plan of the visible remains redrawn from Swanson (ms) 1985, 000. Scale: 1:150.

529

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.71 Plan of the Wag of Forse after Curle (neg. 1946). Scale 1:300. Copyright, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

530

7.72 Plan of the Wag of Forse in about 1984: general plan by Roger Mercer to whom the author is very grateful for permission to publish. Scale 1:300. Crown Copyright reserved (NMR neg. C 67345).

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

531

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.73 Finds from the Wag of Forse in the National Museums of Scotland; drawn by the author. Scale 1:2.

532

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.74 Acharole (ND25 1) in 1963. Distant view of the broch mound on its platform (neg. 1963/3/25).

533

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.75 Acharole (ND25 1). Plan prepared by John Nicholson for Sir F Tress Barry during his excavations in 1904 (RCAHMS 1911a, fig. 30); some of the details in the secondary extension of the entrance are not shown. Scale 1:150. Crown copyright reserved.

534

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.76 Coghill (ND25 7). Plan of the site prepared by John Nicholson for Dr Anstruther Davidson during his excavations in 1905 (RCAHMS 1911a, fig. 31). Scale 1:150. Crown copyright reserved.

535

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.77 Hill of Works (ND26 7). Plan prepared by John Nicholson for Sir F Tress Barry during his excavations in 1900 (RCAHMS 1911a, fig. 1). Scale 1:150. Crown copyright reserved.

536

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.78 Hill of Works (ND26 7) in 1984. Plan of the visible remains redrawn from Swanson (ms) 1985, 599. Scale: 1:300.

537

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.79 Bruan (ND33 1) in 1985. General view of the broch mound on its platform (neg. 1985/5/8).

538

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.80 Bruan (ND33 1) in about 1980. Plan of the visible remains from R. Mercer (1985, Fig. 60). Scale 1:300.

539

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.81 Borrowstone (ND34 1): General plan of the site from R. Mercer (1985, fig. 65). Scale 1:300.

540

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.82 Brounaban (ND34 2). Top: general plan by R. Mercer (1985, fig. 64). Bottom: reconstructed plan of the broch as it probably was after Anderson’s excavation in 1871. The size, proportions and the features shown are inferred from the author’s visits, from Mercer’s plan and from the RCAHMS description in 1910. The fine line continuing the wall faces across the outer part of the southern entrance suggests the original line of the broch masonry; the circularity of the central court is based on the author’s survey. Scale 1:300.

541

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.83 Brounaban (ND34 2) in 1985. General view of the excavated broch from the west, with the pole at the main entrance. The top of the wall head has been built up slightly in modern times. (neg. 1985/5/10)

7.84 Brounaban (ND34 2) in 1985. The inner end of the main entrance, showing what looks like original masonry; the upright slab of a door check can be seen, just to the left of the pole. (neg. 1985/4/13)

542

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.85 Brounaban (ND34 2) in 1985. The right side of main entrance showing mostly modern masonry, although the lower courses to the left of the pole look original. (neg. 1985/4/14)

7.86 Brounaban in 1987, view towards the broch interior showing the door to the stair at 2.30 o’clock (spanned by pole and with modern blocking covering it) and with its upright stone jambs next to the pole; to the left a single step of the flight has been uncovered (small scale). The main entrance is in the background. (neg. 1987/1/11)

543

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.87 Brounaban (ND34 2) in 1985. Blocked by the modern reconstruction to the right of the pole the second door from the interior to the mural gallery at 9 o’clock can be seen under it, with the near side of the secondary entrance; the second stair is under the blocks in the background. (neg. 1985/5/15).

7.88 Thrumster (ND34 10) in 1987. General view of the overgrown site, the pole marking some visible masonry. (neg. 1987/1/12)

544

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.89 Warehouse: (ND34 14). Plan of the unexcavated site with part of the inner wall face showing (Mercer 1985, fig. 59). Scale 1:300.

545

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.90 Watenan North (ND34 15) in 1985: General plan of site (Mercer 1985, fig. 63). Scale 1:300 .

546

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.91 Watenan South (ND34 16) in 1985: General plan of site (Mercer 1985, fig. 61). Scale 1:300.

547

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.92 Yarrows (ND34 17) in 1985. General view of the broch on its loch promontory (neg. 1985/4/0).

548

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.93 Yarrows (ND34 17). Plan of the broch and surrounding buildings, re-drawn from Anderson’s plan for J R C Hamilton (1968, fig. 74). Scale 1:300. Crown copyright reserved. .

549

7.94 Yarrows (ND34 17). Drawings of the inner ends of the two entrance passages, prepared from photographs presumably taken either in 1866-67 or not long before 1883, for Anderson’s book (Anderson 1883, figs. 196 & 197); a is the eastern or main entrance with the inner end of the chamber above it clearly showing; b is the stair doorway at 8.30 o’clock with the series of voids above it characteristic of such an internal opening. In both drawings the edges of the secondary masonry in front of the openings have been emphasised, except at the left edge of a where it is indistinguishable.

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

550

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.95 Yarrows (ND34 17). Plan of broch and surrounding area (Mercer 1985, Fig. 58). Scale 1:300.

551

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.96 Yarrows (ND34 17). Finds of pottery, stone and bone from Anderson’s excavations; all in the National Museums of Scotland and drawn by the author at scale 1:2.

552

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.97 Top. Yarrows (ND34 17): more pottery from Anderson’s excavations. Bottom: Wester Broch (ND35 8): some of the finds. All in the National Museums of Scotland and drawn by the author (scale 1:4).

553

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.98 Yarrows (ND34 17) in 1985. View south-eastwards across the flooded interior towards the primary entrance passage (immediately left of pole) and the voids over the doorway to the stair (right of pole). The pole stands in front of the secondary walling and the slab sill of the raised doorway at the stair landing can be seen on the right, marked by the arrows. (neg. 1985/5/1).

7.99 Yarrows (ND34 17) in 1985. View north-westwards across the flooded interior showing the turf-covered secondary wall in front of the broch wall. The pole is immediately in front of the short section of the Level 1 gallery which is still lintelled and also .marks the doorway to the cell at 2.30 o’clock. The outer wall of the gallery running clockwise from the cell is visible a short way to the left of the pole. (neg. 1985/5/2).

554

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.100 Yarrows (ND34 17) in 1985. Closer view down on to the wallhead at about 2 o’clock showing the lintel covering the fragment of intra-mural gallery (behind the pole in the previous photograph). Below and in front of this is the raised sill of the doorway to the interior. (neg. 1985/5/6).

7.101 Yarrows (ND34 17) in 1985. View from the east of the lintelled doorway from the central court (on the right) to the stair with, beyond, the stairway (hidden under debris) rising from the left side of this passage; no steps were visible then but the turfed-over landing, with its doorway to the interior, is just below the pole. (neg. 1985/5/4).

555

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.102 Yarrows (ND34 17) in 1985. View of the outer part of the main entrance passage (on the east), seen from the interior, showing the absence of a door frame. (neg. 2003/1/8).

7.103 Yarrows (ND34 17) in the dry summer of 2003. View of the interior of the long stair-foot guard cell, or gallery, showing the lintelled roof; the dark area near the floor is where the water level usually is. (neg. 2003/1/6).

556

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) 7.104 Yarrows (ND34 17): schematic plans of the probable original design of the broch at ground and first floor level in Phase 1 and at ground floor level in Phase 2, as discovered by Anderson in 1871. Many of the assumptions made here could probably be tested by new excavations. The general shape, with the positions of the architectural features, are taken from Mercer’s plan (Illus. 7.092) but the interpretations are the author’s. The crucial evidence is in Illus. 7.094, from a 19th century photograph and which clearly shows the difference between the main entrance and the stair door. At the time of its construction and primary occupation the broch at Level 1 is taken to have been equipped with an entrance facing just south of east, a door to the stairway at 8.30 o’clock (with a long stairfoot guard cell, or length of gallery) and, at 2.30, a raised door (with a massive sill stone) into a cell-like expansion of the ground level mural gallery in that sector. For reasons explained in the text the entrance is assumed to have been of the standard type and to have been narrowed by re-lining in Phase 2 (or, much less probably, in the 19th century), thus concealing the door frame, the bar-hole and socket and probably the pivot stone. There is assumed to be a central hearth in the floor of the central court, as well as a ring of postholes, awaiting discovery (the latter being inferred because of the design of Level 2). In Level 2 the expansion in the gallery at 2.30 o’clock is assumed to have had a corbelled roof. At this height in the stairway is a broad landing with the steps continuing beyond it and a substantial doorway leading from it to the interior at a height of about 2m above the floor. Although there are no clear signs of a scarcement on the small amount of interior wall face which is preserved above the sill of this door, and clockwise from it, the many examples of this arrangement of the stair in other sites suggests that there was one once. A raised wooden ring-shaped floor is therefore included in the plan of this Level. In Phase 2 the broch is assumed to have undergone a drastic reorganisation, probably including substantial demolition of the upper parts of the tower (which however probably remained intact at least up to the base of Level 3), and including the breaking of a new doorway through the outer part of the wall at the base of the stair. Any internal wooden floors were doubtless removed. The main entrance was also re-lined and narrowed, and a secondary facing of masonry – presumably to support a low roundhouse and built of material obtained from the demolition – was constructed around the interior. The raised internal door at 2.30 o’clock was still accessible through this, as were the other two doorways. Similar thicknesses of masonry were added to the outer face. Many of the ‘outbuildings’ which now fill the space between the broch and the outer rampart were doubtless built at this time (though this does not exclude there having been a few in Phase 1) and the eastern entrance was extended outwards and inwards. Scale 1:150.

557

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.105 Elsay (ND35 1) in 1902. Plan of the broch drawn for Sir F Tress Barry by John Nicholson during his excavations (RCAHMS 1911b, fig. 44): Crown copyright reserved. Scale 1:150.

558

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.106 Elsay (ND35 1) in 1984. Plan of the visible remains redrawn from that by C Swanson (ms 1985, 623). Scale 1:300.

559

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.107 Elsay (ND35 1) in 1902. View of the entrance passage from the outside taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations. The flat lintels look as if they have been placed there to help the excavators moving along the wall head; a thicker one can be seen underneath. There appears to be a secondary outward extension of the broch entrance. Crown copyright reserved. (NMRS neg. A 53261).

7.108 Elsay (ND35 1) in 1902. View of the entrance passage from the inside taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations. The stone slab forming right door-check can be seen clearly. The lintels spanning the inner end look rather thin but this suggests that originally a chamber over the entrance relieved them of weight. Crown copyright reserved. (NMRS neg. A 53262)

560

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.109 Elsay in 1963 (ND35 1), view along the shore from the grass-covered site. (neg. 1963/3/24)

561

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.110 Hillhead broch (ND35 3) in 1901. Plan made for Sir F Tress Barry after his excavations (RCAHMS 1911b, fig. 43): scale 1:150. Crown copyright reserved.

562

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.111 Hillhead (ND35 1) in 1901; photograph of the mound with entrance exposed in the foreground, taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations; the front lintel of the passage and one upright slab of the door frame can be seen, as can an apparently secondary doorway in the foreground. The apparently sunken entrance shows how Caithness brochs could then be interpreted as underground structures. Crown copyright reserved. (NMRS neg. A 53283).

563

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.112 Top – finds from Hillhead broch (ND35 3); centre – finds from Elsay (ND35 1); all in the National Museums of Scotland and all drawn by the author at scale 1:2. Bottom, plan of features on and in the primary floor level inside Kilmster (‘Skitten’: ND35 5) as exposed in 1940; the shadings representing the different periods are as in Illus. 7.116: scale 1:150. Copyright lies with the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

564

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.113 Kettleburn broch: some of the finds from the excavations, now in the National Museums of Scotland: scale 1:4.

565

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.114 Kilmster (‘Skitten’: ND35 5) in 1904, plan made after Tress Barry’s excavations of 1904 (RCAHMS 1911b, fig 35): scale 1:150. Crown copyright reserved

566

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.115 Kilmster (‘Skitten’: ND35 5) in 1904, photograph of the interior being cleared out, taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations. The view is evidently one of the large guard cell taken from the north; the partially excavated and badly ruined entrance passage runs from the left (broch interior) to the right immediately in front of the cell. The upright slab in the foreground should be part of the north wall of the passage but none of the slab door-checks can be seen. Compare pl. XXIX.2 in [4]. Crown copyright reserved. (NMRS neg. A 53266).

567

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.116 Kilmster (‘Skitten’: ND35 5) in 1940: plan and one of the cross sections made after Calder’s excavations: scale of plan 1:300, of cross section 1:150. Copyright lies with the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

568

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.117 Kilmster (‘Skitten’: ND35 5). Pottery and stone artefacts from Calder’s 1941 dig. Scales; that of the pottery drawings is not given: that for the larger stone finds is 1:14 and for the smaller 1:7. Copyright, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

569

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.118 Norwall (ND35 6), plan made after Tress Barry’s excavations of 1904 or later (RCAHMS 1911b, fig. 36*): scale 1:150. Crown copyright reserved.

570

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.119 Wester Broch (ND35 8) in 1904. Plan by John Nicholson made during the excavations (RCAHMS 1911b, fig. 38): scale 1:300. Crown copyright reserved.

571

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.120 Wester Broch (‘Castle Linglas’: ND35 8) in 1894; photograph taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations, showing the entrance passage from the central court. Crown copyright reserved (NMRS neg. A 53285).

7.121 Wester Broch (ND35 8), stone finds made in 1894; photograph taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations. Crown copyright reserved (NMRS neg. A 53284).

572

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.122 Everley (ND36 3) in 1897. Photograph of the entrance passage looking inwards, taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations. The stone slab is not a lintel but a bridge for the excavators. Crown copyright reserved (neg. A 53260).

7.123 Everley (ND36 3) in 1897. Photograph of the entrance passage looking outwards, taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations. The slab door-checks are clearly visible. Crown copyright reserved (neg. A 53258).

573

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.124 Everley (ND36 3) in 1897. Photograph, taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations, of stone finds laid on grass; the circular object on the right seems to be the lower stone of a rotary quern. Crown copyright reserved (neg. A 53259).

574

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.125 Everley (ND36 3): some of Tress Barry’s finds from Everley, drawn by the author. Scale 1:2.

575

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.126 Freswick Links (ND36 4) in 1898. Plan made during Tress Barry’s excavations (RCAHMS 1911b, fig. 6): the north point has been corrected. Scale 1:150.

576

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.127 Freswick Links (ND36 4) in 1898: photograph, taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations, showing the interior partly cleared of sand (with possible stone structures on the floor), the intra-mural stair, the interior wall face and a door to a cell in the latter. Crown copyright reserved (NMRS neg. A 53282).

577

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.128 Keiss North (‘White Gate’: ND36 5) in 1893. Plan, lacking the north point, made after Tress Barry’s excavations (RCAHMS 1911b, fig. 40): scale 1:150. Crown copyright reserved.

578

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.129 Keiss North (‘White Gate’: ND36 5) in 1984. Plan of the existing remains based on that of C Swanson (ms) 1984. Scale 1:150.

579

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.130 Keiss North (‘White Gate’: ND36 5) in 1892-93: view of the interior during Tress Barry’s excavations. The massive stone just inwards from the entrance may be a fallen lintel. Crown copyright reserved. (NMRS neg. A 40436).

580

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.131 Some of the finds from four broch sites: from the top – Keiss North (‘White Gate’: ND36 5), Freswick (ND 36 4), Ness (ND36 8) and Bowermadden (ND26 4). See Appendix 1. Scale 1:2.

581

7.132 Keiss South (‘Harbour Mound’: ND36 6) in 1864: Left: new drawing of the sketch ground plan of the walls revealed by S. Laing’s excavations (Laing 1866, fig. 34). What we now know to have been the broch wall is shown with thicker lines (the outer face being visible) and the positions of the two sections in Illus. 7.133 are marked. Scale about 1:150: Right: Laing’s drawings – perhaps based on photographs – of the structures revealed in the upper levels of the mound (1867, pl. viii). 1. is the same as the Frontispiece, and 3. is a view out through the raised stair door in Level 2

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

582

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.133 Keiss South (‘Harbour Mound’: ND36 6) in 1864. Samuel Laing’s sketches of two cross sections of the structures and layers found in the mound at points A and B in the plan in Illus. 7.132 (after Laing 1866, figs. 35 & 36). These drawings are of considerable historical interest in that they are – to author’s knowledge – the oldest graphic representations of superimposed layers exposed on an archaeological excavation in Scotland. Not until 1902, at the Broch of Ayre in Orkney (HY40 1), was anything comparable done on another Iron Age site (MacKie 2002, Illus. 5.111b).

583

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.134 Keiss South (‘Harbour Mound’: ND36 6) in 1892. Plan made after Tress Barry’s excavations (RCAHMS 1911b, fig. 39): the triangular lintel is marked with an X. Scale 1:150. Crown copyright reserved.

584

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.135 Keiss South (‘Harbour Mound’: ND36 6) in 1984: redrawn from a plan of the visible remains by C Swanson (ms 1984). Scale 1:300.

585

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.136 Keiss South (‘Harbour Mound’: ND36 6) in 1892. Photograph taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations. The entrance passage seen from the exterior with the stone ‘door’ in the passage (resting against the checks) and the triangular lintel on the ground in front, evidently forming part of secondary walling blocking the entrance; the far wall of the central court is visible in the background (NMRS neg. CA/225). Crown copyright reserved.

7.137 Keiss South (‘Harbour Mound’: ND36 6) in 1892. Photograph taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations. View of the remains of the outer wall face with some paving (A53270). Crown copyright reserved.

586

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.138 Keiss South (‘Harbour Mound’: ND36 6) in 1963. The same view of the ruined doorway as in 7.134 (neg. 1963/3/23). Crown copyright reserved.

7.139 Keiss South (‘Harbour Mound’: ND36 6) in 1963. View showing the primary and secondary (pole) wall faces (neg. 1963/3/21).

587

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.140 Keiss South (‘Harbour Mound’: ND36 6) in 1892. View of the entrance passage from the interior; the secondary facing on both sides of the doorway is clear, and the passage paving looks as if it is secondary. Crown copyright reserved. (NMRS neg. A 53272).

7.141 Keiss South (‘Harbour Mound’: ND36 6) in 1892. View of the interior showing the raised doorway to the stair (partly reconstructed) at 12 o’clock. Also visible are the secondary interior wall face and the opening of the well next to the wall on the left. Crown copyright reserved. (NMRS neg. CA/645).

588

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.142 Keiss South (‘Harbour Mound’: ND36 6) in 1892. Some of the stone finds from Tress Barry’s excavations. Crown copyright reserved. (NMRS neg. A 53271).

589

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.143 Keiss South (‘Harbour Mound’: ND36 6): Reconstruction by the author of an idealised plan and cross section of broch showing the discoveries of Laing and Tress Barry (NB the triangular lintel is drawn too close to the wall) (MacKie 1969). Scale 1:150

590

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.144 Keiss South (‘Harbour Mound’: ND36 6). Some of the finds from Tress Barry’s excavations, in the National Museums of Scotland (drawn by the author): scale 1:2. See Appendix 1.

591

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.145 Keiss West (‘Road Broch’: ND36 7) in 1893. Plan of the broch, the outbuildings and the surrounding wall made after Tress Barry’s excavations (RCAHMS 1911b, fig. 41): the north point has been inserted from the information on Illus. 7.146. Scale 1:300. Crown copyright reserved.

592

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

10m 7.146 Keiss West (‘Road Broch’: ND36 7) in 1984: plan of the visible remains redrawn from a survey by C Swanson (ms 1984). Scale 1:300.

593

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.147 Keiss West (‘Road broch’: ND36 7) in 1893. Photograph taken during Sir F Tress Barry’s excavations showing the outer end of the secondary entrance – emerging at a high level – on the east (top left), and the masonry immediately outside it. The heavy blocks with fine infilling are evidently part of the inner face of the large circular enclosure, while the built end of the added “casing” wall is on the right. The reduced broch wall is in the foreground and there are probably several more courses of it still under the ground (NMRS neg. A 53277). Crown Copyright reserved.

7.148 Keiss West (‘Road Broch’: ND36 7) in 1893. Similar view to above (NMRS neg. A 53274). Crown copyright reserved.

594

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.149 Keiss West (‘Road Broch’: ND36 7) in 1893. Photograph taken during Sir F Tress Barry’s excavations. The inner end of the secondary entrance with the circular building beyond (NMRS neg. A 53278). Crown copyright reserved.

7.150 Keiss West (‘Road Broch’: ND36 7) in 1893. Photograph taken during Sir F Tress Barry’s excavations. View of the broch interior showing the slab-faced door to the mural cell at 4.30 o’clock and the inner end of the primary entrance to its right (NMRS neg. A 53275). Crown copyright reserved.

595

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.151 Keiss West (‘Road Broch’: ND36 7) in 1893. Photograph taken during Sir F Tress Barry’s excavations. View of the central court with upright stone slabs, looking towards the doorway to the stair at 12 o’clock (NMRS neg. A 53273). Crown copyright reserved.

7.152 Keiss West (‘Road Broch’: ND36 7) in 1893. Various stone artefacts found (NMRS neg. A 53276). Crown copyright reserved.

596

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.153 Keiss West (‘Road Broch’: ND36 7): some of the finds from the 1893 excavations in the National Museums of Scotland (drawn by the author): scale 1: 2. See Appendix 1.

597

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.154 Ness (ND36 8) in 1898. General plan of the broch and surrounding structures made at the time of the excavations, after RCAHMS 1911b, fig. 5. Scale 1:150. Crown copyright reserved.

598

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.155 Ness (ND36 8) in 1984. Plan of the visible remains on a cliff promontory redrawn from a survey by C Swanson (ms 1984). Scale 1:300.

599

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.156 Ness (ND36 8) in 1898. Photograph taken during Sir F. Tress Barry’s excavations; view of the steps leading down to the well (NMRS negs. C 9414 or C 7575 or C 7574). Crown copyright reserved.

7.157 Ness (ND36 8) in 1898. Photograph taken during Sir F. Tress Barry’s excavations; view of the cleared broch interior (NMRS neg. C 7576). Crown copyright reserved.

600

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.158 Ness (ND36 8) in 1898. Photograph, taken for Sir F Tress Barry at the time of the excavations, of some stone artefacts lying on the grass (NMRS neg. neg. A 53267). Crown copyright reserved.

601

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.159 Nybster (ND36 9) in 1895: general plan of the broch and its outbuildings, based originally on the RCAHMS plan (1911b, fig. 42), from Hamilton (1968, fig. 73). Crown copyright reserved. Scale 1:300.

602

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.160 Nybster (ND36 9) in 1984. Plan of the broch and surrounding structures on a cliff promontory, redrawn from a field survey by C Swanson (ms 1984). The ‘monument’ has recently been rebuilt beyond the site on the west but a mass of rubble remains. Scale 1:300.

603

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.161 Nybster (ND36 9) in 1895. A photograph, taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations showing a general view of the tiny excavated interior with the entrance in the foreground. The beginnings of the curious, ornamental structure (made from cleared stones) can be seen in the background (this was rebuilt on the landwards side in 2004?). (NMRS neg. A 53265). Crown copyright reserved.

7.162 Nybster (ND36 9) in 1895. Photograph, taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations, showing the entrance from the interior; the passage seems to have been extended inwards (NMRS neg. A 53263). Crown copyright reserved.

604

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.163 Nybster (ND36 9) in 1895. Photograph, taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations showing stone implements on grass (NMRS neg. A 53264). Crown copyright reserved.

7.164 Nybster (ND36 9) in 1963. A more recent view showing the same passage and ‘Mervyn’s Tower’ beyond, as in Illus. 7.162 (neg. 1963/3/9).

605

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.165 Nybster (ND36 9) in 1963. View of the forework and the passage through it, with the broch beyond (neg. 1963/3/17).

7.166 Nybster (ND36 9) in 1963. Steps up to head of the forework (on the south side of its entrance), with the broch wall to the right (neg. 1963/3/19).

606

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.167 Skirza Head (ND36 10) in 1984. Plan of the visible remains on the cliff promontory, redrawn from a survey by C Swanson (1984 ms). Scale 1:150.

607

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.168 Skirza Head (ND36 10) in 1897. Photograph, taken for Sir F. Tress Barry during his excavations, showing view of excavated interior. The entrance is in the background, with a large rectangular hearth in front of it, and the curious incurving low platform can be seen at lower left (NMRS neg. A 53268). Crown copyright reserved.

7.169 Skirza Head (ND36 10) in 1963. General view of the broch mound on the cliff edge (neg. 1963/3/14).

608

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.170 Skirza Head in 1971: accurate theodolite and steel tape (angle and distance) plan of the interior of the broch by the author showing the good fit of the wall with a true circle. The crosses are the measured points on the (shaded) wall, the dotted circle is the best fitting one – with a radius of 3.32 + 0.06m . Scale 1:50.

609

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.171 Skirza Head in 1972. The inner wall face re-exposed in 1972, the inner end of the entrance marked by the pole, the sea beyond (neg. 1972/10/13).

7.172 Skirza Head in 1972. view of the interior facing inland (neg. 1972/10/32).

610

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.173 Skirza Head in 1897, some of the stone artefacts found during the excavations (NMRS neg. A 53269). Crown copyright reserved.

611

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.174 Top: Skirza Head (ND36 10), some of the finds in the National Museums of Scotland. Bottom: Nybster (ND36 9), some of the finds in the National Museums of Scotland. All at scale 1:2. See Appendix 1.

612

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.175 Sgarbach promontory fort (ND36 11) in 1897. Photograph by Tress Barry of the entrance passage from the exterior (NMRS neg. A 53281). Crown copyright reserved.

613

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Some indication of how well this broch is preserved is gained from the height of the scarcement which is exposed at the two broken ends of theinner wallface – at 1 o’clock and 4 o’clock (Illus. 7.177); elsewhere the ledge is hidden under rubble. The ledge at the latter position is at exactly the same height as the lintels covering the central part of the entrance (it is slightly lower at 1 o’clock). The schematic cross section (Illus. 7.177) shows how most of the wall is below this ledge but how parts of it are higher; thus Level I of Clachtoll is well preserved and Level II above it is preserved up to 60-90cm in places. The highest part of the wall could be about 3.5m (11.4ft) above the rock. The internal diameter is about 9.6m (32ft) [2] and the central court has a radius (above the scarcement) of 4.78 + 0.08 m. Allowing for the width of the ledge the internal diameter at ground level should be about 10.2m (33.4ft).70

NC sites Ross and Cromarty, west coast Square NC00 NC00 1 ACHILTIBUIE (‘Loch Poll an Dunain’) NC/02989 0694 This probable broch or dun in Lochbroom, Ross and Cromarty, stands on a narrow, grassed-over shingle bar between the sea shore and the reed-grown Loch Poll an Dunain (visited in 1968). This marsh was probably once a sea loch in which case the site would originally have stood on a narrow strip of land between the loch and the sea [2]. It was described in 1961 as a “broch robbed within living memory” [1]. The structure stands on top of an apparently artificial mound, and a section of the inner face was seen standing to a height of 1.2m on the east [1]. Other traces of the same face suggest that the internal diameter is c. 9.0m, and the wall seems to be about 3.8m thick. In 1962 a Mr Fraser of Achiltibuie said that his grandmother remembered seeing chambers in the building before it was pillaged of stone [1]. There are at present no means of deciding whether the building is a broch or a round dun.

The main entrance is on the north-east (not on the east [2]) and is blocked at its inner end; there is a massive triangular lintel over the outer end of the entrance which measures 1.35m (4.5ft) long, 1.17m (3ft 10in) high and 30cm (1ft) thick (Illus. 7.179). The passage has evidently been further emptied of debris since 1909 and the chamber over the entrance is now clearly visible; its walls seem continuous so no upper gallery connected with it (Illus. 7.183). The passage below can be seen through a gap in the lintels forming the floor of this chamber.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 00 NW 3: 2. E W MacKie in Discovery and Excavation Scotland 1968, 42.

The door-frame is 1.50m (5ft) from the exterior and is formed of two recessed checks faced with upright slabs. Immediately inside these are a deep bar-hole on the right and a shallower bar socket opposite it on the left; the drawbar was probably about 1.2m above the original floor of the passage. This passage, 1.0m wide at the outer end, widens to 1.20m (3ft 11in) after the checks, expanding further inwards to 1.26m (4ft 2in) at the opposed doors to the intra-mural spaces.

Sutherland, west coast Square NC02 NC02 1 CLACHTOLL (‘Stoer’, ‘An Dun 5’) NC/0366 2784 This broch, possibly ground-galleried, in Assynt, Sutherland, stands on a low rocky knoll just above the flat rocks fringing the shore at the south end of the Bay of Stoer. It is in a fairly good state of preservation except towards the sea where a segment of the wall has vanished, presumably having been washed down the sloping rock of the foreshore (visited 10/9/84, 28/6/88, in August 2001 and July 2005) (Illus. 7.176 – 7.188).

The right door leads to a guard cell which follows the curve of the wall for 3.95m (13ft) and has a partly corbelled roof; this is capped with lintels which rise up like steps from either end to the highest point in the middle, to a height of 1.83m (6ft) above the debris (Illus. 7.185). The highest lintel has been removed to allow accessinto the cell, the doorway to the passage being at present impassable without crawling. The existence of the lintels riding over the domed roof of the cell implies that an upper gallery once ran over it. This guard cell has a very unusual feature in the form of a low doorway at its innermost end communicating with the central court (Illus. 7.186); it must emerge well below the present level of the rubble there.

Description It is clear from the plan (Illus. 7.178) that this was a complete broch and not a D-shaped structure. The wall was somewhat thicker along the seaward side where the large segment has disappeared, a fact which is doubtless to be explained by the relatively smooth, sloping rock surface here. The base of the outer face must have descended as it crossed this rock and would have to have been built further out. The interior of the broch is full of debris, the inner wallface standing up to 90cm (3ft) above the rubble and 90cm -1.2m above the top of the outer wallface, itself standing in places 1.8-2.1m (6-7ft) high (Illus. 7.180).

70 The shape of the central court in Illus 7.178 is derived from the plane table survey of the whole broch in 2005 and is probably less accurate than the theodolite angle and distance survey of 1988, which concentrated on the inner wallface.

614

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) The left doorway leads from the entranceinto a space which is hard to identify; a flash photograph taken with the camera held in the entrance suggests that it is part of a long gallery. In 1909 it was described as “small and low, and a hole in the back of it suggests a connection with something beyond” [2]. This “something beyond” appears, as noted, to be a ground level gallery. Further clockwise along the wallhead from this opening are several long stones aligned radially to the broch and tipped downwards and outwards; they should be the dislodged lintels of an upper, not a ground level, gallery since they are well above the exposed chamber over the main entrance.

on the south; this distance increases to 7m on the east. Since the broch itself was built practically on the rocky foreshore it seems unlikely that this outer wall ever completely surrounded it, unless the sea was significantly further out two thousand years ago. As it runs towards the north, and towards the line of the broch entrance, this wallface, as noted, lies further away from the broch and becomes a turf-covered stony bank about 2.4m (8ft) thick and walled on its inner face; no doubt this changed appearance is the result of dilapidation. An outer gateway is in this ‘bank’, more or lessin line with the broch doorway, and is 1.8m (6ft) wide with some stone uprights flanking it. Two huge blocks form the outer end of each side (Illus. 7.180). Another stone wall 90m (100yds) from the broch was thought by the Commission to be part of the outer defences, but Feachem considered it more likely to be a farm wall of a much later date [3].

At 8 o’clock is the top of a huge intra-mural domed cell capped with lintels; its curved end can be seen just clockwise from this point and in the opposite direction it doubtless narrows to the lower ground level gallery which connects with the left doorway in the entrance. In 1909 the top of a stairway was said to be visible opposite the entrance, at 12 o’clock [2]. Further clearance has evidently taken place since then which shows that what the Commission saw was probably not a stairway but the remains of the lintelled roof of the passage leading to the stair, at 11.30 o’clock (Illus. 7.1898). A short length of the neatly built inner wallface of the gallery containing the stair stands above the rubble from about 12-1 o’clock, and immediately anti-clockwise of this are the lintels referred to. The stair must be still hidden below rubble and many steps of it are likely to be preserved.

A secondary external extension has been added to the broch entrance passage but the exact details are obscure because of the covering rubble. The extension curves outwards to the left or east for about 6.0m (20ft) but only the east side is visible beyond about 3.0m (10ft) out, and the upper part of this looks like modern re-building. There is a gapin this east wall about 1.8m (6ft) out and the masonry curves back towards the broch wall, forming a wedge-shaped block; it may be the south side of a doorway leading to outbuildings. A single lintel still spans that part of the secondary passage closest to the broch, which may well be an added, secondary doorframe, though any checks are invisible. Similar structures can be seen at many other brochs.

The clearance has also revealed, just anti-clockwise from the gallery lintels referred to and at about 11 o’clock, the massive lintel of the doorway from the stair to the central court and, to the left (anti-clockwise), the almost blocked opening into what must be either the stair-foot guard cell or another length of ground level gallery and which still has its lintelled roof (Illus. 7.187). Aninspection of this last might reveal whether Clachtoll is a ground-galleried or a solid-based broch but it is inaccessible at present.

Structural analysis (Illus. 7.178) Level I: although part of the ground level storey has disappeared, much of the surviving wall contains galleries and chambers. These include the right-hand guard cell and, left of the entrance, a length of gallery which may expand into the high domed cell at 9 o’clock. Further round at 11 o’clock is the door to the stair with a gallery or cell running anti-clockwise from it for an unknown distance; the stair runs upwards in the opposite direction, and it is conceivable that the ground level gallery continued beyond this right round to the guard cell (although nothing is visible among the rubble at the end of the wall).

The stair door (itsinner end isinvisible under the rubblein the central court) appears to be about 1.2m (3.9ft) wide and the even longer sandstone lintel bridging its visible end has – not surprisingly – cracked in the middle. A cubical block of stone is now jammed between this slab at the crack and the earth and rubble debris some 20cm lower down. This may somehow have been inserted recently but it is possible that it may be the top of a pillar put in to hold up the fractured lintel while the broch was occupied in the Iron Age.

Level II: a fine ledge scarcement of Hebridean type runs round the interior at an unknown height above the primary floor and marks the beginning of the first floor storey. The scarcement at 4.30 o’clock is at exactly the same level as the top of the lintels covering the entrance so the innermost of the latter (hidden under rubble) doubtless forms part of the ledge. The chamber over the entrance is clear but no upper gallery joins it; it was thus entered only from its inner end. The rows of dislodged lintels in the southern and south-western arcs could well have fallen from the roof of the wrecked first floor

An outer defence is visible at the base of the knoll from south-south-east round to east and consists of a single heavy stone wallface – built of massive blocks and boulders. Presumably it was intended to make the base of the rock knoll impassable. It only partly surrounds the broch on the landward side and is as little as 3m from it 615

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland gallery and the inner wallface of this is clearly preserved between 11 and 12.30 o’clock.

the inner end [1]. There are no traces of intra-mural galleries or cells, and the quality of the masonry is not high.

The two cellsin Level I appear to project upwardsinto the Level II gallery. The guard cell has a roof of stepped lintels and the tall chamber at 8.30 o’clock has the apex of its roof above scarcement level, which is doubtless also the level of the lintels roofing the ground gallery.

Dimensions: the most recent figures [1] are aninternal diameter of 6.9m and a wall which is 3.1m thick at the entrance and 3.6m on the west. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 13 SE 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 2, no. 4: 3. Graham 1949, 95.

Finds A steatite cup or lamp was foundin a recess in the wall of the guard cell to the right of the entrance “many years ago” by the Rev. J. M. Joass of Golspie who still had it in 1909 [2]. It is nowin the Dunrobin Castle Museum . 71

Square NC23 NC23 1 KYLESTROME (‘Kylesku’‘An Dun 6’) NC/2170 3411 Probable solid-based broch72 in Eddrachillis, Sutherland, situated near the end of a rocky promontory or islet in the large sea loch Loch a’ Chairn Bhain; the site is connected to the shore by a causeway, made of boulders, about 21m (70ft) long, 3m (10ft) wide and 60cm (2ft) high. The islet is now only cut off at high tide (visited 30/6/88) (Illus. 7.189 – 7.192).

In 2005 the author found a battered fragment of what appears to be the lower stone of a discoid rotary quern of sandstone among the rubble on the wallhead on the southern side. As with the shattered upper quernstone found at Dun Osdale (NG24 3) this fragment seems most likely to have been thrown into the wall core when the broch was built. In this case it would have been used in pre-broch times. The quern is now in the Ranger’s hut nearby.

The building has been partly cleared out and some crude restoration of the wallfaces has been attempted. It is circular, the internal diameter being measured originally at 8.69m (28ft 6in); in 1988 a fresh survey revealed that the central court has a radius of 4.57 + 0.25m, giving a diameter of 9.14m.73 The surrounding wall is about 3.6m (12ft) thick, but is wider on the north-east – 4.27m4.58m (14-15ft). The outer face can be tracedin several places and in 1909 the inner was said to be several feet high all round and to rise to 2.1m (7ft) on the south [2]; now it is only about 1.2m (4ft) and is visible only for about half of the circumference (Illus. 7.191).

Dimensions: the internal diameter (now known to have been taken above the scarcement) was originally measured as 9.6m (32ft) [2]; a new survey in 1988 found the radius of this to be 4.78 + 0.08m, giving a diameter of 9.56 m. The scarcement is about 30cm wide so the diameter of the central court at ground level should be about 8.96m. Most of the external diameter is about 18.0m (60ft) if the walls are 4.2m (14ft) thick as reported [3]; the wall proportion is therefore approximately 48.5%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 02 NW 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 2-3, no. 7: 3. Feachem 1963, 174: 4. Young 1962, 185 & Illus. V, no. 3: 6. Close-Brooks 1995, 150 (Illus.).

The entrance was reported to be on the south-east but the author’s compass revealed it to be on the west, facing down the loch to the sea; it is 4.8m long and 1.1m wide [1] (Illus. 7.190).

Square NC13 The blocks forming the inner and outer ends of the right side are visible, as is part of the left wall. No door-frame can be seen at present. The entrance faces and is immediately above the steep rocky shore of the promontory. By 1971 part of an intra-mural gallery had been exposed on the north side, with a suggestion of a doorway leading into it; eight steps of the stair can be seen clockwise from this doorway ascending to the wallhead [1]. By 1988 the stair doorway had been skilfully blocked up and its sides are not easy to trace. There is a stair-foot guard cell to its left and in view of

NC13 1 LOCH ARDBHAIR NC/1688 3323 Probable broch in Assynt, Sutherland, standing on an isolated tidal rocky islet at the inner end of the sea loch of that name. A causeway about 100m long connects it with the shore. The inner and outer faces of the circular drystone structure can be traced in places, suggesting aninternal diameter of 7.32m (24ft) and a wall thickness of 3.15m (10ft 6in); the inner face stands 2.24m (7ft 4in) high in places. An entrance passage is visible on the south side, only 60cm (2ft) wide at the outer end and standing 1.07m (3ft 6in) high on the left side [1]; there is a suggestion of the doorway to a guard chamber in the left wall 1.1m from

72 The diagnosis of the site in 1974 [1] as a “galleried dun” was presumably because the building then seemed to be sub-circular inside. 73 The standard deviation is unusually large for a broch and may mean that the central court was not in fact set out with a peg-and-string compass, like so many others were. On the other hand the circularity of the wall may have become distorted at the high point at which the measurements had to be taken.

71 For some reason the author did not draw this cup when he saw it in 1989.

616

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) this, and of the absence of any signs of other doorways into the wall, the site is probably a solid-based broch.

South-east Ross and Cromarty NC40 4 TOR a’ CHORCA in (‘Langwell’) NC/4104 0088 This vitrified dun or massive roundhouse (of broch-like proportions and standing on top of an earlier hillfort) is included here because it may be an example of how a broch-like structure – in the sense that it is a complex wooden roundhouse protected by a ponderous shell wall of stone – has evolved from quite a different pedigree (Illus. 7.195). The site is on high ground overlooking Strath Oykell and its river and with wide views up and down it (visited during the excavationsin 1974).

Finds: a small near-circular steatite dish was found on the sitein 1974 [1] together with a silver finger ring, but the latter was lost. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 23 SW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, no. 168, 56: 3. T C Welsh in Discovery and Excavationin Scotland 1971, 47: 4. Close-Brooks 1995, 134: 5. F Hunter in Discovery and Excavation Scotland 2002, 68. South-east Sutherland

Excavations were carried out on the dun by Helen Nisbet in 1973 and 1974 [4]. A single trial trench into the west flank of the hillfort failed to reveal any vitrification but located two occupation layers under fallen rubble. Signs of the hillfort occupation – with a few artifacts such as stone rubbers, hones and a few pounders – were also noted at the base of some post-holes and elsewhere.

Square NC 36 NC36 1 RIVER DIONARD NC/3633 6200 Probable broch in Durness, Sutherland, sited on a spur above the west bank of the River Dionard. It consists of a large mound of earth and stones about 34min diameter on top of which are fragmentary remains of walling which suggest a round building about 18.6-19.0min diameter. Source: 1. NMRS site no. NC 36 SE 6.

The excavator gives a fairly detailed account of the likely structure of the timber-framed wall, and also discusses the wider significance of the site [4, inc. Appendix]. Here however, after a brief description of the wall and entrance, we will concentrate on the primary wooden roundhouse, traces of which were found in the central court of the ‘dun’. The fact that only about half of the interior was excavated is to be explained by the concentration of the work on sectioning the vitrified wall, a huge task [4, pls. 5 & 6]. The project was paid for by the late Mr S P Fay of Los Angeles who was interested primarily in the phenomenon of vitrification.

Square NC 40 NC40 1 ACHANEAS 1 NC/4701 0253 Possible broch in Creich now consisting of a large, treecovered mound 2m high and situated on flat ground not far from the river Cassley (Illus. 7.193) (visitedin 1985). Several large stones protrude from it,including a huge triangular stone 1.5m high which – despite its enormous weight – may conceivably be the lintel from the front end of the entrance passage (now invisible) (Illus. 7.194). The diameter of the top of the mound is about 14m [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 40 SE 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 19, no. 50.

1. Situation The dun stands on the higher, western summit of the hill and on top of the remains of the hillfort defences. Heavy vitrification was visible before work started. The structure was found to be almost circular in plan with an entrance facing east, an internal diameter of 15.0-15.5m and a wall averaging 5.0min thickness; the inner face of this still stood in places to a height of over 2m above the primary floor. On the basis of the quantity of rubble lying about the original height was estimated at about 3-4 m.

NC40 2 ACHANEAS 2 (‘Achness’) NC/4686 0273 Possible broch in Creich, about 300m north of NC40 1 (above), also lying on flat ground; the mound has been very large but has been heavily robbed and is now almost featureless. The lowest course of the external wall was visible in 1909 [2] and suggests an external diameter of about 22m. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 40 SE 2: RCAHMS 1911a, 19, no. 51.

2. Description The dun wall The inner and outer faces were of well-coursed slabs, with a core of roughly laid water-worn cobbles having a central spine of solid vitrified stone. The original presence of some kind of timber-framing inside the wall was proved by the finding of beam holes containing charcoal. The burning of such a drystone wall laced with wooden beams is usually supposed to have produced the vitrified masses in the wall core [5].

NC40 3 AN DUN NC/ 4445 0085 This possible broch in Kincardine stands on a small knoll (visited Oct. 1984). Most of the stones have been taken away but in 1875 part of the circular wall base was apparently visible [1]. Nothing can be seen now although the situation is a likely one for a broch [1]. Source: NMRS site no. NC 40 SW 2. 617

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland The entrance passage The stone walls of the entrance passage were 2.50m apart and the floor had been paved with transverse logs. Massive upright posts – four on the south or left (with a fifth in line with them just inside the dun) and three on the right – had been partly set into the wall (in vertical post slits) and must have supported a massive wooden entrance tunnel, presumably with some kind of tower on top and a wooden gate (no stone door-checks were found). The posts were presumably setin place before the stone walling was built and the excavator thought that they were likely to have been fastened to the timber frameworkin the wall core. There were signs that some of the posts had been pulled out, and the timber entrance presumably destroyed, before the burning and vitrification of the wall. No traces of stone lintels roofing the passage seem to have been found so doubtless the entire entrance structure was of wood; presumably this was connected with a fence or palisade which ran round the top of the wall near its front edge.

rafters, the outer ends of which were presumably on the wallhead. No scarcement was found on the remaining side wallface but if there was a raised wooden floor also attached to the posts these would surely have been attached to some of the beams which doubtless projected from the wall core. However the burnt roof debris (below) formed a relatively thin layer and there was an absence of burned timbers from the central area of the floor which made the excavator think that the roof might have been a lean-to affair, with the middle of the floor having been left open to the sky. Despite the uneven surface of the foundation platform the inhabitants seem to have lived on this, and a thin occupation layer, also baked hard, was found. However there were no artifacts inside “and there was a complete lack of evidence for normal domestic activities.” [4, 60]; the interior had evidently been kept clean. Not a single sherd of pottery was found. There were some stone slab settings in this floor which might have been small hearths but one would normally expect a large central hearthinside a roundhouse of this size. It is possible that there was one which was not uncovered; the excavated areas could just have missed it (Illus. 7.195), as they did at first at Rhiroy (NH19 3).

The guard cell In the left wall of the passage is the opening to a mural chamber or guard cell, the upper part of the wall of which had vitrified; this had caused a slump of once-molten rock into the room itself. The chamber was 3.25m deep and about 2m wide, the entrance being 0.5m wide. There was no sign of corbelling in those parts of the vertical wallface which had survived (up to about 50 cm) below the vitrification. A thin black occupation layer rested on the subsoil and above this was a mass of carbonised logs, presumably the remains of the wooden roof capped with turf.

Traces of occupation were also found outside the dun and there was a distinct accumulation of midden material on the slope outside the entrance, which contained many fragments of the bones and teeth of sheep and cattle. A layer of what appeared to be burned and collapsed roof material lay all over the outer part of the floor in the interior, forming a network of charred timbers, twigs and burnt turf. The charred stumps of several of the posts were found in position in their sockets. Between these posts and the wall lay a roughly radial pattern of fallen roof timbers mixed with turf (Illus. 7.196), and the absence of such debris from the central area suggests, as noted, that the roundhouse had an annular, lean-to roof with a clear middle part.

“The guard cell exhibits in miniature the entire vitrification process; well-built wallfaces passing upwards and sideways into vitrification, with cracking and bending of the stones, and mobile vitrified material appearing to ‘ooze’ between them. It leaves no room for doubt that, in suitable blanketed conditions, stones do actually melt to give vitrified masses.” [4, 56]. The interior The stratigraphy of the interior provided evidence of a primary occupation on the old ground surface, then a layer of burning with collapsed roof material on top of this and, finally, traces of a secondary occupation on top of the ruins. A level platform with a very irregular surface was built up before the dun wall was constructed, and this was subsequently baked hard by the fire which destroyed the latter.

There was evidence of two phases of occupation on top of the burned strata in the interior, implying that people continued to live there after the destruction and vitrification of the wall. The floor had first been levelled up with available rubble and debris which had fallen from the walls. Part of the interior at least was then apparently re-roofed using fresh posts, and occupation continued for some time thereafter (there are more details of this later habitation in the report).

A ring of wooden posts was set up in the area enclosed by the dun wall, at a distance of about 4.0m from it; eight post-holes were actually exposed and the original total was probably fourteen. The holes were about 50cm deep but the size of the posts they contained was not estimated. The ring would have been about 8.5m (27.9ft) in diameter and must surely have supported the mid point of the roof

3. Dating Radiocarbon dates A set of five C-14 dates was obtained for burnt material. No. 1 was for charcoal from a large post-hole at the entrance to the guard chamber; no. 2 for charcoal from the foundation course of the inner face of wall; nos. 3-5 618

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) are all for charcoal from a fallen roof timber. It was observed that the roof timbers tended to be full of beetle holes, suggesting re-used wood, whereas the post-hole timbers were not. In the absence of any indication of how the dated fragments related to the start of the growth of the trees concerned one can only assume that the C-14 dates relate to a time a little before the cutting of the timbers for usein the building. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

GaK GaK GaK GX GX

4860 4862 4861 3274a 3274b

2210 + 2240 + 2200 + 1040 + 2040 +

Langwell Farm. Other finds were extremely sparse. It is not entirely certain what the ‘scoop’ is, or what ‘hand mortars’ are. From the primary occupation levels came 15 hones and whetstones, 3 sling-stones, 7 rubbing stones, 1 scoop, 1 quartzite strike-a-light, 1 bone bead (from the floor of the guard cell), and an unidentified iron object. From the destruction debris came 28 hones and whetstones, 3 sling-stones, 8 rubbing stones, 2 hand mortars, 7 pounders and a well-preserved iron blade [4, fig. 9). From the secondary occupation layers came 11 hones and whetstones, 1 sling-stone, 26 rubbing stones, 4 hand mortars, 3 scoops, 1 pounder and a polished ring-bead of green serpentine. In the topsoil outside the dun was found a fragment of a shale bracelet [4, fig. 9.1).

90 (260 bc) 90 (290 bc) 100 (250 bc) 210 (ad 1010) 140 (90 bc)

Table of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates obtained for Langwell. No. 5 was obtained after no. 4 had been received. Although the reliability of the early Gakushuin laboratory dates (GaK) has been questioned the three from that laboratory are reasonably consistent and match the second Geochron date well. There is no obvious explanation for the first Geochron (GX) date being so much later. Broadly speaking the four consistent dates, when calibrated, suggest that the timber-framed dun was built at some time during the 3rd or the 2nd centuries BC [4, fig. 10].

Dimensions (taken from the plan) Overall diameter about 25.7m (84ft 3in), internal diameter about 15.4m (50ft 6in), wall proportion about 40%. This is a very large roundhouse by broch standards; Mousa in Shetland (HU42 6), for example, could just about fit inside it. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 40 SW 3: 2. H. Nisbet in Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1974, 59-60: 3. H Nisbetin do., 1973, 48-49: 4. Nisbet 1996: 5. MacKie 1977: 6. Sanderson et al. 1988: 7. Alexander 2002: 8. Church 2002, 74-5.

Thermoluminescence dates After the excavation was completed Sanderson and others obtained a number of TL dates for several vitrified forts including Langwell [6]. One would expect that such dates, being performed on the vitrified material itself, would give an indication of when the stone was last heated – that is, when the dun was destroyed by fire. The date for Langwell has a mean age of AD 205 which suggests that the site was in use for several centuries. However other dates from vitrified forts vary wildly from the equivalent C-14 dates [6, 7] so caution over the interpretation of this one seems advisable.

Northern and South-east Sutherland Square NC41 NC41 1 DAIL LANGWELL NC/4116 1121 This unexcavated broch in Creich, Sutherland, stands on the west side of Glencassley about 7.5 miles above the junction of the rivers CassIey and Oykel (visited 7/7/85) (Illus. 7.196-7.200). The huge mound of stone sits on a hillock on a slope about 24m (80ft) above the river (Illus. 7.196). There are no modern stone buildings anywhere near except for some large sheep enclosures built next to the broch on the south-east side (Illus. 7.197).

4. Discussion In many ways the size, shape and internal wooden structure of Tor a’ Chorcain resemble those of a hollowwalled broch far more closely than, for example, the drystone roundhouse at Bu in Orkney (ND20 3), and the site provides an interesting case study of how some form of complex, and perhaps two-storeyed, wooden roundhouse – enclosed by a strong defensive wall – emerged from the timber-framed hillfort tradition in the 3rd or 2nd centuries BC. However the internal diameter is, at 15.4m, very large and raises the question of whether it would have been possible roof such a structure completely.

The structure is full of debris and dilapidated (Illus. 7.198) but the wall stands 3.36m (11ft) high on the upstream or north-west side, where the inner face is some 2m higher than the outer. On this side there is a stretch of lintelled intra-mural gallery the roof of which is not far below the top of the adjacent internal wallface (Illus. 7.199 & 7.200). Because of the height of the wall it must be an upper gallery, thus making Dail Langwell a true hollow-walled broch. The inner wallface is even higher on the opposite side. No trace of a scarcement can be seen on the inner face, and the evident height of the wall suggests that it is still buried under the debris in the interior.

5. Finds There were large numbers of whetstones and hones, and also pebble hammerstones and grinders, all over the site and in all levels; most of these stone tools are now at 619

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland The entrance was clearly visible on the east side in 1909 [2] but is hard to trace now; its outer end is presumably hidden by the sheep pens. It is evidently about 5.64m (18ft 6in) long and the inner end wasintact; it was then still lintelled over for a distance of 3.0m (10ft). The doorway to a guard cell on the right of the passage was visible 2.59m (8ft 6in) from the exterior, and the roof of its corbelled chamber then also seemed to be intact; no trace of this cell was observed in 1985. A pair of doorchecks were visible 1.22m (4ft) inwards from the doorway to this cell so there ought to be another doorframe further forward and hidden by debris. The space between the visible pair is 51cm (20in) and they are composed of 10cm (4in)-thick slabs set at right angles into the wall and projecting slightly from it. A bar-hole and -socket were seen behind the checks and the right hole seemed to lead into the guard cell.

This broch in Strath Hope, Durness, Sutherland stands on the flat flood plain of the valley floor and beside the steep bank of the river Naver (Illus. 7.201-7.206) (visited l0/7/63 & 20/7/85). Most of the structure stands only 2.42.7m (8-9ft) high but the part over the entrance passage is still 6.7m (22ft) high. However the inner half of the double wall has fallen and the outer half is supported by a modern buttress against the inside. Some 18th century descriptions of this broch are reproducedin Appendix 2. 1. Early ideas Historical information It seems that this broch was known – at least as a geographical feature – to a few scholars as early as the late 16th century. This was the time when Timothy Pont was making his (unpublished) maps of Scotland which were later incorporated into Blaeu’s Atlas of 1664 [10, 11]. In the map of “Strathnavernia” Blaeu shows the river “Avon Yrredell” (now the Strathmore River) running south of “Loch Houpp” (Hope) and,in about the correct spot for Dun Dornadilla, is a small circle which usuallyindicates a settlement or a building. It is labelled “Stra Yrredell” and this place name, in contrast with the others nearby, also appears on the much smaller scale map of EXTIMA SCOTIAE (northern Scotland) [10, 11], suggesting that it was a conspicuous place – which a high, ruined, old tower certainly would have been.

All the other features describedin 1909 are still visible. South of the entrance part of an oval mural cell can be seen – probably at about 7.30 o’clock – and the parts of the upper mural gallery about 1.07m (3ft 5in) wide on the north and north-west have already been mentioned (Illus. 7.200). A raised void to theinterior can be seen next to the north sector, at about 3 o’clock. On the south side is another stretch of roofed upper gallery with one huge lintel spanning it at about 9 o’clock (Illus. 7.199); this measures 2.13m (7ft) long, 61cm (2ft) wide and 25cm (l0in) thick. There is another raised lintelled void to the interior here. Some of the stones in the wall are very large; one on the south is 1.52m (5ft) long by 91cm (3ft) wide by 30cm (1ft) thick: its upper edge is 1.52m (5ft) above the ground.

If the Pont place name does refer to the broch (which is by no means certain) it suggests that the name ‘Dornaigil’ (or ‘Dornadilla’, which sounds more anglicised) is a more recent corruption of ‘Yrredell’ (below).74 It is surely significant that the other north mainland broch which was still in a tower-like state until recently – Dun Alisaig (NH68 1) in Easter Ross – is also marked with its name on Pont’s map.

Dimensions (taken from [2]); the internal diameter is c. 9.46m (31ft), the wall is about 5.64m (18.5ft) thick at the entrance so the overall diameter is probably about 20.74m (68ft). The wall proportion might therefore be about 54.5%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 41 SW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 19, no 49.

However about 150 years later the broch was already well known to a few antiquaries as “Dornadilla”. Alexander Gordon, when writing about his visit to the two brochs near Glenelg on the west coast, states – “There are several of these Fabricksin the North Parts of Scotland, ….; one near Glandunin, 75 two at Easter-Fairnin Ross-shire, and two or threein my Lord Reay’s country, one of which goes by the Name of King Dornadilla’s Castle.”[12, 168].

Square NC44 NC44 1 CASHEL DUBH (‘Strathmore River’) NC/453498 Site of doubtful possible broch in Durness, Sutherland. The suggestion is based solely on the place name ‘Cashel Dhu’ at the head of Loch Hope which was thought to refer to a stronghold [2], but the name may be ‘Caiseal Dubh’, or ‘the dark ford’ [1]. No trace of any building was found during an extensive search in 1959 [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 44 NE 4: 2. J Horsburgh 1868, 278.

He also repeats the story, recountedin Buchanan (1582), that King Dornadilla reigned in Scotland from 260 BC. The earliest detailed description of this site seems to be that by Bishop Richard Pococke in 1760 (Appendix 2) (Illus. 7.202); he described the structure as “in a very tottering condition”. Yet the tower seems to have been entire all the way round when he visited it, and about 30ft

NC44 2 DUN DORNAIGIL (‘Dun Dornadilla’, ‘Dune of Dornadilla’, ‘Dune of Dornghiall’, ‘Stra Yrredell’, ‘King Dornadilla’s Castle’) NC/4572 4501

74

On the other hand ‘Stra’ is probably the Gaelic srath – a valley with a river running through it – even though it is written right beside the circle. 75 This place name has not been identified.

620

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) high in part; his comment that “The top is crowned with long even stones; it consists of two walls.” suggests that part of the covering of the topmost surviving gallery was still in place. His comment that “There is a set-off within of one foot three inches . . . “ may be describing a scarcement but, if so, no trace is now visible above the rubble which fills the central court.76

the steps of the stair should still be preserved behind the modern buttress. The anonymous 18th century author in the Edinburgh Magazin ein 1795 [4] also says that “there is some remains of an awkward staircase”, which has also vanished. This author may also be describing a scarcement ledge, though at an uncertain height.

The drawing made for Pococke is the earliest known (Illus. 7.202). The general view – also reproduced by Cordiner – shows the state of the broch in 1760 and it is clear that the inner face of the double wall still survived; the vertical series of voids described by the Bishop are also clearly seen. The part which is now only about 2m high was then much better preserved.

“The stones which compose these shelves are supported chiefly by the stones which form the walls, and which project all round justin that place where the shelves are, andin no other.” He also seems to have been able to get into the broch by way of the entrance passage, which is now completely blocked.

The elevation is an attempt to restore the broch to its original condition and shows the double wall clearly, even though the galleries and voids are obviously schematic. Assuming that the restoration is based on the best-preserved section, three galleries were evidently preserved in 1760, with the beginnings of a fourth. Likewise the voids in the inner wallface were then extensive (though they can hardly have been so ladderlike). The shading at the bottom represents the rubblefilled base of the broch, and the possibility of a solid base was not then envisaged.

“The entrance is by way of a very low and narrow door, to pass through which one is obliged to stoop much; but, perhaps, the ground may have been raised since the first erection.” Dating and the place name Dun Dornaigil is also of interest because its name provided the evidence for one of the earliest attempts to give an absolute date to the brochs. The Rev. J M Joass of Golspie ‘corrected’ the name to ‘Dornadilla’ (1874) [1]; this name appears in the early king lists of Scotland and ‘King Dornadilla’ was once thought to have reigned at about 260 BC [4, 340]. However one must suppose that he had read about this in Gordon’s book of 1726 (above). Yet at the end of the 18th century no-one who lived locally seems to have heard of this idea.

Seventeen years later the Rev. Alexander Pope [2], the local minister, quoted a local Gaelic verse (Appendix 10. 0) which also mentions the name. He translates it as – “The Dune of Dornghiall the son of Duff, built on the side of the Strath next to Reay, seven miles from the ocean, and in the road by which the warriors, or Cearn, travel to Caithnes.” 77

“The most learned among the inhabitants, such as the gentry and clergy, who all speak the Irish language, could give no information or tradition concerning its use, or the origin and meaning of its name.” [4, 341].

This mention of Dornghiall the son of Duff contrasts sharply with another contemporary statement (below) that no educated local person had heard of the name [4]. It still leaves open the question of whether Pont’s ‘Yrredell’ is the same as ‘Dornaigil’ or ‘Dornadilla’, orindeed whether the latter is the same as ‘Dornghiall’.

This of course seems to be directly contradicted by the Rev. Pope’s quotation in 1777 of a local verse about ‘King Dornghiall’. The relationship, if any, between the broch Dun Dornaigil, the earlier place name ‘Stra Yrredell’ and the legendary King Dornadilla seems rather confusing now.

Pope provided a longer but similar description in 1776 [2] with one interesting additional detail.

However a working hypothesis may be offered. In about 1580 Timothy Pont doubtless transliterated to “Stra Yrredell” the name of the broch he presumably heard from a local informant while mapping along Loch Hope. Srath is the Gaelic word for a valley with a river running through it and, since Pont evidently got that word down accurately, it may be assumed that “Yrredell” is a reasonable effort also. One might tentatively suppose that by the time Gordon wrote about the site in 1726 someone had already read Buchanan’s work and made a connection between the King Dornadilla mentioned there and the roughly similar local place-ame “Yrredell” recorded on the Blaeu map. Thus perhaps “Stra Yrredell”

“The entry to the gal1eries was from the North side of the doorway by a stair that went to the top; but, as the stair is not entire, we cannot pretend to describe it. Doubtless it was a very rude piece of architecture.” This implies that the doorway to the intra-mural stair was to be seen at about 3 or even 4 o’clock (the main entrance faces north-east) which is an unusual position. Traces of 76 There may well have been much less rubble then if the upper parts of the broch were more complete. 77 In Medieval times Caithness included much of what is now eastern Sutherland.

621

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland became irrevocably and wrongly converted into Dun Dornadilla, to fit with Buchanan’s historical scheme, and the best evidence for its original name was forgotten. If this is so the alleged historical link with the mythical Scottish king was a figment of someone’s imagination, probably in the later 17th century. It is also intriguing that the ancient P-Celtic word Avon was evidently attached to “Yrredell” to denote Strath Hope. Could both names have come down from pre-Gaelic times?

so strong that one wonders whether the same man was responsible for both buildings. 3. Dimensions The broch is approximately circular and the circumference at the foot of the wall on the flat ground is (by the author’s measurement) 45.45m (149ft); assuming circularity the average external diameter is therefore about 14.49m (47.5ft). If the wall is 3.51m (11.5ft) thick at the base the wall proportion should be about 48.9%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 44 NE 3: 2. Pope 1779, 216-18 & fig.: 3. Cordiner 1780, 108-10: 1795, plate (pages un-numbered): 4. Anon. In The Edinburgh Magazine, quoted in Pennant 1795, 340-41: 5. RCAHMS 1911a, 53-4, no. 155: 6. Young 1962, 184-5: 7. Feachem 1963, 173-4: 8. Kemp 1887, 121 (fig.): 9. Logan, The Scottish Gael, 2 (1831), 16 (fig.): 10. Stuart 1867, 298: 11. Blaeu 1967: 12. Stone 1991: 13. Gordon 1926: 14. Close-Brooks 1986, 151, no. 82.

2. Structural analysis Level 1 The interior is full of rubble up to the present low wallhead but this, and the interior, are now turfed over so that all structural details are hidden (Illus. 7.205); more was visible in 1963 before the turfing (Illus. 7.206). It may be assumed that the broch has a solid-based wall. Traces of a mural gallery were clearly visible on the wallhead in 1963 before the turf was laid on it and the top of a tall, corbelled, mural cell could be seen at about 2 o’clock. The Commission also noted a probable doorway lintel at approximately 10 o’clock which may lead to the stairway, still buried. The entrance on the north-east appears to be partly intact but it is full of debris to not far below the lintels. A massive triangular lintel covers the outer end (Illus. 7.203 & 7.274, B) and this impressive stone measures 1.42m (4ft 8in) along the base, and 91cm (3ft) in height. One door-check remained visible on the left in 1963, 1.09m (3ft 9in) from the outside. The Commission saw signs of a guard cell on the right side of the passage.

Square NC45 NC45 1 CAMAS AN DUIN (‘Kempie’) NC/4459 5797 This probable broch at Kempie in Durness, Sutherland, stands on the east shore of Loch Eriboll on a short, low, rock promontory a few feet above the water (Illus. 7.207) (visited 10/7/63). Since the Commission’s visit in 1909 it has been almost totally obscured by the concrete floor of the yard attached to the house which has been built next to the site. A few massive foundation stones are still visible. The description below refers to the state of the site in 1909.

The outer wallface is built down over the lip of the river bank at one point and is sharply battered all round. Near the cell the batter, or slope, of the wallface is 90cm (3ft) in a height of 3.05- 3.66m (10-12ft), or about 1 in 3.6; it must surely have curved up more nearly to the vertical as the wall rose. The wallhead here is 2.59m (8.5ft) thick.

The building seems to have been elliptical with an entrance 1.5m (5ft) wide facing the water and the point of the rock; the external diameters are about 16.8 and 12.8m (55 and 42ft), though the position of the wall on the north side is uncertain. The wall seems to vary in thickness, being 4.27m (14ft) at the entrance, and 3m (10ft) on the south side. The outer wallface is 2.4m (8ft) high on the south side of the entrance and is here visible for 13.1m (43ft). There is a suggestion of a doorway into the wall from the interior on the right of the entrance, and of chambers in the wall elsewhere. The remains of steps leading down to the shore were visible [2].

Level 2 and higher up Traces of some of the broken-off lintels of the upper galleries can still be seen at the right end of the buttress (looking outwards: Illus. 7.205). They show that there were at one time at least two upper galleries although Cordiner’s drawing suggests that there were once at least four (Illus. 7.202). The chamber over the entrance is also preserved. In 1963 it was accessible through an opening in the modern buttress (Illus. 7.204) but by 1985 this had been filled up (Illus. 7.205), thus concealing a significant architectural feature.

It seems highly probable that this is the broch referred to by Joass as having been explored in about 1870 by Captain Clarke of Meddat, Ross-shire, and from which came the two bronze spiral finger-rings which he illustrates, without explanation [3, 4]. Also found were bones of seal, deer, ox and pig, together with some “rude scrapers of quartzite” [3]. No other information about this excavation has been traced.

It seems possible that the intra-mural stair is partly preserved just clockwise from the buttress but – although signs of an intra-mural feature were visible here in 1963 (Illus. 7.206) – the area is now grassed over (Illus. 7.205). In its size, proportions and surviving height (below) – and even in the way one side of the tower is built down a steep slope – Dun Dornadilla is surprisingly similar to Dun Carloway in Lewis (NB14 1). The resemblances are

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 45 NW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 54, no. 157: 3. Joass 1890, pl. xvl: 4. MacKie 1971, 69. 622

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 46 SE 1.00: 2. Horsburgh 1868, 278: 3. RCAHMS 1911a, 54, no. 156.

NC45 2 DUN NEACHDIE NC/446597? Dubious possible broch in Durness, Sutherland; the name may mean “Nechtan’s dun” [1]. 78 The site was described in 1883 [2] but there is nothing at the most plausible place name, the island of Ard Neackie. That writer may have been thinking of the broch at Kempie (NC45 1). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 45 NW 7: 2. Morrison 1883, 106.

NC46 2 LOCH ERIBOLL (‘Tigh nan Fiarnain’, ‘Meall Meadhonach’) NC/4049 6102 This apparent wheelhouse – the Gaelic name of which means ‘House of the Fingalians’ or ‘Fenians’ – lies in Durness parish, about 1.5 miles west of Loch Eriboll on high moorland with much bare rock in evidence; the site itself is on the slope of a small hillock and nearly 1000ft above sea level (Illus. 7.208-7.210) (visited in 1963). It was described in 1925 [2] but no photographs were included so one cannot tell whether the building was cleared out at that time. It is not mentioned by the Royal Commission.

NC45 3 FOUHLIN (Loch Eriboll’) NC/4038 5409 This souterrain near the head of Loch Eriboll is mentioned briefly here because of the finds. It was discovered at Fouhlin in September 1960 during excavations for the foundations of a bungalow.

The structure was described as an “earth-house” [2] but at that time the term was used for the wheelhouse type of roundhouse as well as the true underground souterrains. This is a round drystone house sitting on the surface and, though small, it resembles the wheelhouses of Shetland and the Outer Hebrides. Alternatively it might be a compact, round version of the ‘galleried dwellings’, with rows of internal orthostatic pillars, found in Caithness – for example at the Wag of Forse (ND23 14) and Yarrows (ND34 17).

Excavations in 1964 and 1965 by A Morrison and R Reid [2] revealed that the underground passage was about 60ft long, curved almost at right angles and had no side chambers. The entrance, at the downslope end, had steps down into the souterrain, and the entrance passage, about 61cm (2ft) wide, was lined by large slabs surmounted by drystone walling. The souterrain itself had been formed by digging a trench into a glacial mound, lining the sides with drystone walling and roofing it with slabs. The average width was 1.38m (4.5ft). Associated surface structures, presumably dwellings, were located at the upper end of the souterrain.

The main building (Illus. 7.208 & 7.209) is approximately circular but with one straight section on the east side. The entrance passage faces north-east but contains no door-frame and the interior contains an oval setting of six upright orthostats about 1.22m (4ft) high with a seventh projecting from the straight section of the wall on the east. Just before 1925 it was stated that “slabs measuring 5ft in length radiate from these to the circumference. The space between these lintels also appears to have been covered with large slabs…” (author’s emphasis) [2, 222]. Illus. 7.209 shows the one remaining covered section between two orthostats.

Finds: when the souterrain was first discovered a pair of bronze shears was found on a ledge inside [4, 5]. Among the finds from the excavation were rotary querns and a triangular glass bead with spiral inlays, probably dating to the Roman Iron Age [6]. Sources: 1. NMRS site NC 45 SW 2: 2. A Morrison and R K W Reid in Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1964, 51: 3. Ibid. 1965, 39: 4. Donation of shears in Proc Soc Antiq Scot 94 (1960-61), 327: 5. MacGregor 1976, 144, 146, no. 277: 6. Guido 1978, 197.

However the contrast between this completely lintelled area and both adjacent ‘chambers’, which have nothing resting on their pillars, suggests that some reconstruction has taken place, indeed the whole ‘roof’ may be modern. Mathieson says that, while the north side of the main building was well preserved, the south side was “level with the ground.” Now, the wall is standing fairly high all the way round, rubble having been added to it (Illus. 7.208). Moreover in 1925 –

Square NC46 NC46 1 ACH AN DUIN NC/4601 6053 Probable broch in Durness, Sutherland, standing on the end of a rocky ridge and partly overlaid by a cottage [2, 278]; very little walling remained in 1909 [3]. The entrance faces north, along the ridge, and a doorway to a guard chamber can be seen in the right wall of the passage 1.5m (5ft) from the exterior. The cell itself appeared, from the description, to be almost intact [3]; it was 2.44m (8ft) long and 1.30m (4ft 3in) high above its present floor. About 7.32m (24ft) along the wall clockwise from the entrance (i.e. to the south-east) the top of another mural cell could be seen in 1909 and was noted again in 1978 [1]. 78

“The inner part of the building is so tumbled that it is impossible, without excavation, to say what was the original formation.” [2, 221] (Illus. 2.10, top) In 1963 there was very little rubble inside or around the structure (Illus. 7.208 & 7.209). Extensive clearance and crude reconstruction have evidently taken place during the 38 years separating the visits of Mathieson and the author. Thus, even leaving aside the extremely small

Nechtan was a Pictish king.

623

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland size, the architectural resemblance to Hebridean wheelhouses – seen in the lintels stretching from orthostats to surrounding wall – must be ignored as almost certainly a modern re-building. A link with the ‘galleried dwellings’ of Caithness seems most probable, although the siting of the building in such barren terrain is puzzling.

The wall still stood up to 2.1m high in places and no formal intra-mural spaces were located in the areas excavated; however there were indications that the rubble core of the wall had been laid in distinct dumps, presumably to increase stability. Find Only one Iron Age artifact was found, the segment of a shale bracelet with the usual D-shaped cross section [7, Illus. 12]. Originally the ring was about 110mm in diameter externally and 95mm internally. Dimensions: the estimated diameter of the building as revealed by the new excavations is 18.25m and the thickness of the wall is 4.5 m. The wall proportion would thus be about 49.3%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 50 SW 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 20, no. 52: 3. Kemp 1887, 115: 4. Kemp 1888: 5. Graham 1948, 94: 6. Hamilton 1968, 175: 7. Dunwell 1999.

There is an external annexe on the southern and western sides of the round building (Illus. 7.210), 8.5m long and 3m wide, the wall being defined by erect slabs bedded in the peat [1]. This wall does not survive above these foundations and no doorway in it has been located. The peat in the interior has been scooped out. Dimensions [2]: the maximum internal diameter is c. 5.2m (17ft) and the wall is from 60-105cm (2ft-4ft 6in) thick. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 46 SW 1: 2. Mathieson 1925.

NC5O 2 LOCH SHIN (‘Ferry Wood’) NC/5719 0679 Probable broch in Lairg, Sutherland, standing on a natural hillock near the south-east end of Loch Shin. Stretches of the lowest course of the outer wallface are visible all round the perimeter, formed of massive stone blocks protruding from the turf; they indicate an oval plan, with maximum and minimum diameters of 15.0 by 14.0m [1]. There is a suggestion that the thickness of the wall at one point is about 5.0m The site was reported as “mutilated” in 1976 [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 50 NE 42: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 135, no. 391.

Square NC50 NC50 1 DURCHA (‘Doir a’ Chatha’, ‘Dun Cor’) NC/5017 0239 Probable broch in Creich, Sutherland, which until recently was a featureless heap of ruins [7, Illus. 2]. It was partially excavated in 1992 and 1996 – as a rescue project on behalf of Historic Scotland – and proved to be the remains of a probable broch [6] (Illus. 7.211). The structure was once much better preserved than it is now. in 1760 the internal diameter was measured by Bishop Pococke as 9.15m (30ft) and the wall as 1.83m (6ft) thick [3]. Kemp [4, 48], referring to Pococke’s 1760 visit, says that –

NC50 3 SALLACHADH (‘Sallachy’) NC/5491 0922 Well preserved solid-based broch in Lairg, Sutherland, standing on a small shallow rock knoll on the west bank of Loch Shin, about 100ft above the water and at the foot of the long slope down to the loch (Illus. 7.212 – 7.219) (visited 11/7/63 & 8/7/85).

“… the older inhabitants of the district remember when many feet of it was (sic) standing, and when hundreds of loads of stone were taken to build the dyke which now encloses the Invernauld Wood” [7, 281]. Description The foundations and plan of the wall were explored by means of four trenches which hardly impinged at all on the area of the central court (Illus. 7.211) [7, Illus. 3]. Thus no real attempt was made to explore the enclosed living area, even when a fragment of it was exposed [7, 287].79

The interior was cleared out some time before 1909 but no records of this have been found; grass-grown mounds of stony debris lie outside and on either side of the main entrance and are evidently the debris from the interior. However there are still large piles of rubble in the central court so it may not have been cleared down to floor level (Illus. 7.215). Thus the amount of wall concealed by the rubble is uncertain.

79

This persistent failure to explore of the interior of undisturbed brochs is one of the more remarkable aspects of archaeology in the north in the last two decades of the 20th century and the first of the 21st. The failure to finish the work at Beirgh (NB13 3) or Old Scatness (HU31 4), the refusal by Historic Scotland to allow the interior or Dun Vulan (NF72 1) to be explored down to the primary floor level or to allow limited excavation inside Gurness broch to establish the nature of its primary floor, all represent several missed opportunities to unravel the original purpose of brochs which future generations of archaeologists will surely find hard to understand. These events are even more puzzling in the light of Historic Scotland’s published policy that the understanding of the original form of brochs is an urgent research task (Barclay 1990). However in fairness to HS it must be added that the colossal expense incurred during the total rescue

Much of the outer face is still concealed by debris, although a good view of the stump of the tower is to be had from the top of the nearby slope (Illus. 7.213). excavation of Howe in Orkney (HY21 6) between 1978 and 1982 doubtless played a part in some of these decisions. Yet the partial exploration of the interior of Durcha would surely not have broken the bank.

624

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) Although the interior wall is exposed to a height of between 2.4 and 2.7m (8 and 9ft) no scarcement ledge is now visible; the upper part of both faces has been rebuilt – to a height of about 1.2m (4ft) in places – in an inferior style of masonry (Illus. 7.214 & 7.215). This is confirmed by the appearance of the ruin from a distance; the wallhead is quite level (Illus. 7.213 & 7.214). Illus. 7.215 shows the contrast between the neatly set primary masonry of the inner face – built of rectangular blocks like sandstone – and the crude re-building on top of this.

Square NC51 NC51 1 ALLT BREAC (‘Alltbreac’) NC/5911 1035 This probable ground-galleried broch stands on the summit of a gradual rise on the north side of a shallow glen running down to the flat land around Loch Shin, which is a mile away (Illus. 7.212 & 7.220 – 7.222) (visited 11/7/63). The structure has been badly quarried and ruined and the walls are down to a height of from 0.9 to l.2m (3 or 4ft). Some of the stones in the outer face are very large, over 90cm (3ft) long and up to 60cm (2ft) high [2].

The entrance passage is on the south-east and has been largely cleared; it is about 4.5m (15ft) long but the outer end does not seem to have been fully exposed. There are two cleared guard cells opening off it, their opposed doorways being 2.64m (8ft 8in) from the exterior; each has a sill 51cm (20in) above the passage floor. The doorway to the right guard cell has been crudely re-built (Illus. 7.218), as has the entrance passage, presumably by the excavators; any traces of the door-frame were presumably obscured by this work. The left guard cell is a corbelled chamber which is still largely intact (Illus. 7.219). A bar-hole was noted in 1963 [1]. There are no traces of openings in the interior wallface except for the doorway to the cleared mural stair at 8.30 o’clock, which is 51cm (20in) above the floor inside.

The entrance is on the north-north-east (Illus. 7.221) and there are traces of a guard cell on the right with its doorway l.93m (6ft 4in) from the exterior (the doorchecks have vanished). The doorway is 51cm (1ft 8in) wide and 1.22m (4ft) deep, and the cell behind is 3.05m (10ft) long (Commission’s measurements [2]). The Commission also saw a guard cell on the left with a doorway 61cm (2ft) wide and 76cm (2.5ft) long; this led to a badly ruined cell 2.13m (7ft) long and 81cm (2ft 8in) wide, but this can no longer be seen. There are clear traces of a mural gallery, or of several cells, in the wall and these must be at ground level because of the low wallhead (Illus. 7.222). At present they look like the fragmentary remains of a single gallery but the Commission describes more than one built end to the various visible sections, which suggests that there may be a series of sub-divided sections of gallery. In 1963 the feature was visible at about 10 o’clock (with a square-built end facing back towards the entrance), again from 11 to 1 o’clock (with a rounded end at the former point) and finally at 3 o’clock (where a left end was reported in 1909 [2]). This broch thus seems to be an example of the ground-galleried form, or of something very close to it; presumably one of the subdivisions is a stair-foot guard cell; no traces of the stair have been reported and it must still be buried.

A stair-foot guard cell has also been exposed and as usual opens to the left of the door; it is 2.85m (9ft 4in) long and one lintel (lying radially to the broch) is still in position over the passage (Illus. 7.217). The stair rises to the right and seven steps were preserved at the time of the Commission’s visit, some of which can still be seen (Illus. 7.216). There are no traces of intra-mural galleries on the wallhead, presumably because of the re-building activities. The Commission detected projecting stones – possibly signs of a partly corbelled scarcement – at three places on the inner wall and at a height of nearly 2.7m (9ft) [2]. These can no longer be seen, doubtless because the wall has collapsed to below that level since that time, but in any case the ‘scarcement’ is unlikely to be original since it must have been well above the re-built level, which is still obvious.

Dimensions The external diameters from 6-12 and from 9-3 o’clock seem to be l8.61m (61ft) and l5.86m (52ft) respectively, which would make the structure markedly oval. The wall thicknesses along the first diameter are 4.8m and 4.35m (13.5 and 14.5ft) and the first wall thickness on the second diameter is also 4.35m (14.5ft). The oval shape was confirmed by Mercer’s survey but he gives the diameters as 20m and 25m [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 51 SE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 136-8, no. 395, & fig. 56: 3. Mercer 1980, 125, site DAL 256.

There are signs of an outer wall 14m (46ft) from the broch and south-east of the entrance, which appears to curve in to meet the broch in both directions further round. Dimensions (author’s measurements): external diameter (assuming the walls to be 4.5m or 15ft thick), about 18.9m (63ft): internal diameter 9.9m (33ft): wall proportion approximately 47.5%.

NC51 2 DALCHORK NC/5725 1116 Possible broch in Lairg, Sutherland, standing on the flat summit of an apparently artificial knoll amidst flat farmland and about 9m (30ft) above the river (Illus.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 50 NW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 135-36, no. 392 & fig. 55: 3. Young 1962, 185.

625

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland 7.223). The surrounding ground was once marshy [2]. The mound covering the ruined building – 17m in diameter and up to 2.7m high – is now featureless except for some walling on the west side; it occupies the centre of the flat summit of the knoll. The knoll surface itself is about 2m above the surrounding ground level and the descriptions suggest that there are traces of ditches around it. There is a presumably recent kiln about 20m north-east of the centre and there are signs of enclosures on the north and east sides, coming up to the edge of the broch [2]. This site seems to be an outlying example of the ‘mound on mound’ type commonly found in Caithness [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 51 SE 8: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 136, no. 394: 3. Mercer 1980, 119, site DAL 181b (the grid reference given here, 573182, does not fit with position of the site on the OS map).

up to support the broch wall, a few feet back from its edge. At the foot of the cliff below this cleft is a huge pile of rubble, fallen from the broch, and the structure itself, from about this point to perhaps 2 o’clock, appears to be badly collapsed. It may be that the upper part of the masonry in the cleft gave way – perhaps while the broch was in use – and caused a major outward collapse of the wall on the west.80 A scarcement of the ledge type is visible on the inner wallface at about 10.30 o’clock (Illus. 7.230) and at this point it is little more than about 1.0m above the level of the rock outside. Its width is 23-30.5cm (9-12in) and it is partly corbelled. However this ledge can be seen to be from 1.50 to 1.60m above the top of the remaining entrance lintels (measured with an indian clinometer) so the surface of the rock at the entrance is clearly well below that on the opposite side. If one supposes that the passage lintels are about 1.7m above the rock at the inner end, a level scarcement will here have been about 3.70m above the floor (it is now destroyed in this segment of the wall). The situation at Dun na Maigh is thus likely to be rather similar to that at Caisteal Grugaig in Wester Ross (NG82 1) where a level scarcement also comes close to the interior rock floor on the uphill side and is much higher at the entrance on the downhill side. Assuming the ledge to have been level there can be little doubt that this is a true, hollow-walled broch.

NC51 3 SHINESS NC/5273 1526 Possible broch in Lairg, Sutherland, consisting in 1909 of a featureless cairn of stones some 2.1-2.4m (7-8ft) high in which the remains of two chambers were visible on the south-east side [2]. It stands on a natural knoll which may have been levelled off to accommodate it [1]. A fragment of the outer wallface can be seen on the south [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 51 NW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 136, no. 393.

The entrance passage itself is 5.03m (16.5ft) long and has been cleared out since 1909 [2]; several of the passage lintels are in position (Illus. 7.227 & 7.228). Two sets of door-checks are visible, with a doorway leading to an oval guard cell in the right wall between them (invisible in 1909) (Illus. 7.228). The cell itself is partly corbelled but with a roof of flat lintels (Illus. 7.229). The front door-frame has checks of built masonry and a bar-hole is behind them in the left wall. The checks of the rear door-frame are built of stone slabs set into the walls at right angles but these are now broken off short (Illus. 7.227).

NC51 4 WEST SHINESS LODGE NC/5295 1509 A natural knoll, marked as the site of a “Pictish tower” on the first OS 6-inch map of Sutherland but which was probably mistaken for site no. NC51 3 above [1]. Source: 1. NMRS site no. NC 51 NW 5. Square NC55 NC55 1 DUN NA MAIGH (‘Dun Mai’, ‘Dun Maigh’) NC/5523 5303 (NC/5524 5321 – GPS) This broch in Tongue, Sutherland, has been partly cleared out and is in a prominent and strategically well situated position (visited 10/7/63, 19/7/85 & 22/7/03) (Illus. 7.224 - 7.232). It stands in a dramatic situation on a high knoll of rock at the front or north end of a long ridge which divides the valley of the Kyle of Tongue at its inland end and projects into it (Illus. 7.224). The site looks down on to the estuary and has an extensive view both over this and over the fertile land of the Kinloch river valley to the east. The rock knoll is precipitous on the west with a height of 15.25m (50ft) or more and there is an abrupt slope on the east where the entrance is. On the north and south the approaches are easier but they are blocked by outer defensive walls. The broch itself is evidently built on sloping rock with the entrance passage on the downhill side on the east-south-east.

There are clear signs that the inner end of the passage has been partly rebuilt. The innermost right corner is a complete reconstruction and sits about 20cm in from the actual corner and resting on loose rubble; the lintel now over the inner end is supported by it. The interior of the broch is full of debris but parts of the inner wallface are exposed (Illus. 7.225 & 7.226). At about 2 o’clock is visible a long intra-mural space the left-hand part of which is a corbelled cell, choked with debris, and the right-hand section of which contains the stairway (the steps of which were not visible in 1963) rising to the right. One or two lintels are still in position above it but were probably replaced when the stair passage was exposed (Illus. 7.231 & 7.232). The doorway

There is a V-shaped cleft in the face of the cliff on the west (at about 12 o’clock) the upper part of which is built

80 If this broch is ever excavated an exploration under this rubble heap might prove rewarding, especially if the first collapse was ancient.

626

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) leading into the wall here from the central court was not apparent in 1985 but had been partly exposed by 2003. In the outer face of the intra-mural gallery, and presumably opposite where the doorway should be and facing it, is a curious, large, double-tiered aumbry, next to the bottom step of the stair (Illus. 7.232); its design is almost exactly the same as that in the Achvarasdal Lodge broch (NC96 3). By 2003 the upper opening had been carefully blocked with laid slabs.

of the hill, ‘Dunbuie’, allocated to the alternative and incorrect position.81 The site is situated in the steep, narrow valley of the Strathmelness Burn about a mile from the sea, and consists of a quarried heap of stones in which chambers are said to have been seen in about 1914 [1]. An examination in 1981 revealed what appeared to be the massive base footings of a curved wall up to three courses high and some 6.0m long, strongly suggesting that there is a broch on the site about l5.5m in diameter [1]. Source: 1. NMRS site no. NC 56 SE 7: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 187, no. 544: 3. Horsburgh 1867, 277.

Also after 1985 some extensive rebuilding must have been undertaken to the inner wallface anti-clockwise from the stair door. A considerable amount of rubble had been removed from this face for the purpose. This face now curves round into the interior (in a ‘pit’ in the rubble) and partly blocks the stair door. This site is urgently in need of proper consolidation, and of protection from uninformed digging and ‘restoration’.

Square NC60 NC60 1 A’MHEIRLE (‘Allt na Mheirle’) NC/3000 0484 This broch in Rogart, Sutherland, stands at the upper end of Strath Fleet and about 100m above the road on once cultivated, sloping ground; there is a sheep pen next to it and field clearance cairns close by (Illus. 7.233-7.236) (visited 1963 and 1985).

There are traces of what is probably a single defensive outer wall protecting the broch on the north, east and south sides [1]. Dun na Maigh is a rare example of a broch which has been examined by a geologist – Kevin O’Reilly.

There is a modern cairn on the rubble heap (Illus. 7.233 & 7.234). The outer wallface is visible in places but the inner one is obscured. What seems to be the entrance is visible on the east side through an aperture in front of a lintel (Illus. 7.235). The end of a mural cell is visible on the south-east (Illus. 7.236) with traces of a lintelled intra-mural passage on the south side. Another possible cell is on the north. The wall may thus be standing quite high in places, and there is a pile of rubble about 4m high on the downhill side. Indeed the roof of one of the cells can be seen to be corbelling inwards about 2m below the top of this heap which suggests that the interior floor is about 3.5m below the present top of the wall. One of the visible lintels is at a similar height so should be that of a raised void, confirming that the structure is a hollowwalled broch. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 60 SW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 165, no. 478.

“The local rock is a coarse-grained garnet mica schist, packed with large silvery flakes of muscovite (mica) and studded with dark reddish brown crystals of garnet. You will find that the broch itself is built from a very different rock; finer grained and largely made of quartz and feldspar, with only minor amounts of muscovite in tiny flakes. This material must have been quarried elsewhere and carried up the slope to the broch site – no easy task as the total weight involved was over a thousand tons.” [4] The stones in the broch resemble sandstone in the sense that many are even and brick-like in shape. Dimensions: the structure’s external diameter through the entrance measures 18.61m (61ft) , the internal one 8.44m (27ft 8in). At right angles to this the measurements are respectively 18.91m (62ft) and 9.38m (30ft 9in): the average wall proportion is 52.8%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 55 SE 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 183-4, no. 527: 3. Close-Brooks 1986, 150-1, no. 81: 4. O’Reilly & Crockford 2005, Locality 14.

Square NC63 NC63 1 COILL ACH a’CHUIL NC/6585 3815 This probable broch in Farr stands about half a mile from the east end of Loch Naver, on the south shore and on a short spit of land projecting into the water (Illus. 7.237). The structure is almost completely ruined and only a short stretch of the outer wallface is visible on the south-south-east side, at the entrance. The latter is at least 3.7m long [3] and 76cm (2.5ft) wide at the outer end; the majority of the lintels of the passage were still in position in 1910 [2] but have now been pulled off; the west or left

Square NC56 NC56 1 DUN BUIDHE 4 (‘Dalvraid’, (‘West Strathan’: originally ‘Dunbuie’) NC/5645 6401 A probable broch in Tongue, Sutherland, not recorded by the Commission but which is almost certainly the ‘Dun Buidhe’ (‘the burnt dun’) which its investigator placed 2.5 miles to the south-east where there is a hill called Dunbuie close by [1]. The name ‘Dun Buidhe’ has therefore here been transferred to this site and the name

81 NMRS site no. NC 56 SE 4: see also RCAHMS 1911a, 187, no. 544.

627

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland side has been destroyed [3] and a “narrow door rebate” can be seen in the right wall at 1.3m from the outside [3]. There are signs of a guard cell on the right of the passage the probable doorway to which, with one lintel still remaining, was visible in 1985 [3].

about 1.22m (4ft) above the debris which fills and surrounds it (Illus. 7.241). In 1909 the entrance was reported as being on the east side, as being 76cm (2.5ft) wide at the outer end and nearly full of debris; no checks were then apparent but a blocked guard cell was visible on the right [2]. Most of the passage lintels were then in position [2]. Swanson suggests that a line of walling visible in this position is one side of the chamber over the entrance [5], in which case the structure must be a hollow-walled broch. The lower levels are now completely buried.

There are signs of an outer wall 11.6m (38ft) from the broch on the landward side, but no facing stones are visible; it is possible that this joined the broch wall on the west side [3]. The “causeway” south-south-east of the broch [2] may be a the remains of a path to assist the collection of stone from the site in modern times [3].

The interior is full of debris almost up to the level of the wallhead (Illus. 7.242) but the inner wallface is well preserved. On the south, or shoreward, side (at about 9 o’clock) an opening from the interior is visible leading to an intra-mural gallery extending in both directions; this must be a raised void leading to a raised gallery. A row of lintels covers this gallery. Whether this void is above the buried doorway to the intra-mural stair is not clear but it seems likely that it is. No steps are visible on the wallhead.

Dimensions: the external diameter of the broch is about 15.86m (52ft). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 63 NE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 59, no. 176: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 746-48 & plan. NC63 2 DUN CREAGACH NC/60463558 This well preserved and comparatively undisturbed broch in Farr, Sutherland, stands on a small island on the south side of Loch Naver (visited 20/7/85) (Illus. 7.238 7.242). In 1860 it was described as a “circular tower, built of large stones without cement” [3] and the outer wall still stands 3m high in places (Illus. 7.241).

To the left of the raised void or doorway is a pair of lintels, also aligned radially to the building but below the roofing lintels; their significance is not clear. On the north side a short stretch of the upper gallery is visible on the wallhead, with one lintel of what is presumably a lower level visible (Illus. 7.242); if this is so the structure might be a ground-galleried broch, and it is certainly a true hollow-walled broch. Swanson maintains that traces of a ground level gallery with two more on top of it are visible [5].

The site is reached by a causeway to the shore, formed of rough boulders, 30.5m (100ft) long and about 3.05m (10ft) broad (Illus. 7.238 & 7.240). This causeway now extends about 18m inland [5] so the water level of the loch may have sunk somewhat since the broch was built. 82 Judging from Outer Hebridean examples the top of the causeway should be just below the surface but this one is at least 30cm above it (Illus. 7.240) and there is now no effective protection for the islet at all. However this interpretation depends on the assumption that the causeway was part of the broch’s defences, and therefore mainly just below water, which is by no means certain.83

There is no scarcement on the visible parts of the interior wallface but, since this seems to be well above the floor, the ledge may be buried. The entrance to a debris-filled mural chamber was seen on the south-west in 1961 [1], but this must be the feature described earlier is and assumed here probably to be the void above the stair door.

Few structural features are visible now because of the quantities of rubble covering and surrounding the building, and indeed the site might repay a careful survey to assess how much stone is lying around since little seems to have been moved (unless by boat, but there are no buildings nearby) (Illus. 7.239). The maximum height of the wall is about 3.36m (11ft) and the outer face – which can be traced nearly all the way round – stands

There is a probable stone outer wall 4.58m (15ft) from the broch on the shore side (Illus. 7.241). A doorway 90cm (3ft) wide can be seen in this facing down the causeway and having door-checks in it still preserved [2]. Dimensions: the external diameter is difficult to estimate since any wall thickness can be measured only at the wallhead (where it is 4.12m, or 13ft 6in): the internal diameter is 9.46m (31ft).

82 Alternatively the shore may have been more marshy then, or the causeway may have been constructed to accommodate the often higher level of the loch in winter [5]. 83 At Dun an Sticir the causeway simply runs over marshy ground and looks more like a broad, turf-covered dry path towards the broch (Illus. 9129, site NF87 2); however there was a medieval re-occupation here and the massive causeway may belong to that period. A better example of an almost submerged Iron Age causeway is at Dun Barabhat, Lewis (NB03 1).

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 63 NW 11: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 59, no. 175: 3. Joass 1864, 358. 4. Oliver and Boyd’s Tourist Guide 1860: 5. Swanson (ms) 1985, 75354.

628

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) NC63 3 GRUM MORE NC/6107 3669 This broch, probably ground-galleried, is unexcavated and occupies a short, flat, projecting point of low ground on the north shore of Loch Naver; it is bounded by the water on two sides (Illus. 7.239 & 7.243 - 7.251) (visited 10/7/63 & 20/7/85).

galleries (Illus. 7.251) It was also said at about the same time that – “One can walk all round on top of the covering stones of the passage between the external and internal walls, . .”, ++ in other words on top of the gallery lintels [4, 271]. These have since nearly all vanished.

The building is three-quarters full of debris and nowhere stands more than 2.44m (8ft) high, though in the 1860s it was described by Joass as a “double-walled round tower” with walls about 12ft high [3] (Illus. 7.251). This description, and the evidence for a chamber over the entrance (below), is the justification for classifying the site as a ‘broch’ here. Joass also noticed a causeway running from the broch out into deeper water.

The structural features visible on this broch strongly suggest that Grum More has lengths of basal gallery in the wall similar to those commonly found in Hebridean brochs, and early descriptions seem to confirm this. The relative thinness of the wall increases the resemblance to many western sites, as indeed does the ledge scarcement. On the low, fertile ground around the shores of Loch Naver stand many modern farms as well as another broch on the opposite shore (Illus. 7.251).

The entrance is on the west side with the doorway to the guard cell visible on the right about 1.83m (6ft) in (Illus. 7.249); part of the oval cell itself has been cleared, and there is a broken lintel over the inner end of its doorway to the entrance (Illus. 7.248). There are now no signs of door-checks but the Commission reported one on the right, 1.07m (3.5ft) from the exterior [2]. Several lintels are still in position over the inner end of the passage and one or two stones remain of the right side of the chamber over the entrance (Illus. 7.247).

Dimensions: (author’s measurements): external diameter from 9-3 o’clock 16.47m (54ft), internal diameter here about 8.69m (28.5ft). The Commission gives the internal diameter as 8.85-9.15m (29-30ft) and the wall thickness at the entrance as 3.81m (12.5ft). Thus the wall proportion is about 45.5% from the Commission’s dimensions [2], or 47.2 % from the author’s. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 63 NW 2 (the grid reference given is slightly too far north): 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 58-9, no. 174: 3. Joass 1864, 358: 4. Horsburgh 1868: 5. Swanson (ms) 1985, 749-52 & plan.

A well preserved scarcement of the ledge type, but partly corbelled in places, is visible on the inside wallface (Illus. 7.244). The top of another corbelled mural cell is visible at about 10 o’clock (Illus. 7.250) and the sides of a mural gallery can be seen running anti-clockwise from this back towards the main entrance At about 8 o’clock can be seen what appear to be some displaced lintels of this gallery and, since these are very little higher than those still in situ over the main entrance, they should belong to a ground-level gallery.

Square NC64 NC64 1 LANGDALE BURN (‘Langdale’) NC/6926 4496 This broch stands on a steep, conical rock knoll next to the Langdale Burn (a quarter mile from the river Naver), with a more shallow slope on the upstream side (Illus. 7.252-7.254) (visited 11/7/63). There is a modern farm nearby and the site has a good outlook in all directions [3].

At about 3 o’clock is a lintelled doorway in the inner wallface; the lintel itself forms part of the scarcement in the usual way (Illus. 7.246). Another length of mural gallery, only l5cm (6in) wide at the wallhead (it has perhaps collapsed inwards), runs anti-clockwise from this opening and starts from a distinct built end (Illus. 7.245). The wallhead here is about 2.l3m (7ft) above the ground outside so this gallery is also likely to be a ground level one. On the other side of this doorway, at about 4 o’clock, is the built end of another section of gallery (or of a mural cell) which has evidently stopped at this point because of the guard cell for the main entrance. Nearly 150 years ago Joass described the hollow wall as follows.

The entrance is on the west, facing upstream, and is about 4.58m (15ft) long and 91cm (3ft) wide at the outer end. A built door-check on the right (south) is 91cm (3ft) from the inner end and all the lintels have been displaced. There may be a rebate for an outer doorway in the ruined left wall, 1.3m from the exterior [3], so this broch may have had two doors in its entrance passage. There are signs of the upper part of a round mural cell at about 7 o’clock and this may be a guard cell on the left of the passage. The broch is full of debris so that the inner and outer wallfaces are mostly obscured. There are signs of a mural gallery on the wallhead at about 5 o’clock (Illus. 7.254); this is probably an upper one since it seems to be above the level where the entrance lintels should be.

“Access is to be had to the passage between the walls by a small, flag-roofed entrance opening from the interior of the tower” [3, 358]. The accompanying sketch cross section [3, fig. 2] shows a relatively high-standing broch with deep intra-mural

Dimensions: interior diameter 9.15m (30ft: author’s measurement): wall 4.58m (15ft) thick at the entrance and 629

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland 4.88-5.l9m (16-17ft) on the south side [2]: assuming an average thickness of 4.88m (16ft) the external diameter would be about 18.91m (62ft) and the wall proportion approximately 51%. Swanson gives the internal north/south diameter as 9.4m [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 64 SE 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 59-60, no. 177: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 739-41 & plan.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 65 SW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 186, no. 538: 3. Horsburgh 1868. Square NC66 NC66 1 DUN RIASKIDH (‘Dun Richard’) NC/6876 6140 Once thought to be a possible broch this chambered cairn in Tongue, Sutherland, consists of an apparently structureless heap of stones about half a mile from the river Borgie and on the west side of Druim a’ Chleib. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 66 SE 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 184, no. 529: 3. Horsburgh 1868, 275.

Square NC65 NC65 1 BORGIE BRIDGE NC/6653 5871 This probable broch or defended homestead is in Tongue, Sutherland. In 1909 a large gravel mound, some 12.2m (40ft) high on the side towards the river, was found to have the remains of a circular building on its summit. Its diameter was about 15.86m (52ft). Around its base was a deep ditch 7.3m (24 f t) across with a causeway across it on the south-east side [2]. In 1971 it was classified as a defended homestead by the Archaeology Division of the O.S. [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 65 NE 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 61-2, no. 185: 3. Graham 1949, 96: 4. CloseBrooks 1995, 32.

NC66 2 SANDY DUN (‘Ca an Duin’, ‘Baile Mhargait’) NC/6973 6097 This unexcavated probable broch in Farr, Sutherland, stands on an extremely high and steep conical hill overlooking the west side of the sandy estuary of the river Naver (Illus. 7.253 & 7.255 - 7.256) (visited 9/7/63 and in 198585). The site is 68.5m (225ft) above the sea but it is full of wind-blown sand which obscures many structural details. There are many traces of enclosures, hut circles and cairns on the Invernaver raised beach to the east [7].

NC65 2 DALLCHARN (‘Dallchairn’, Alltan na Creige’) NC/6210 5875 This possible broch in Tongue consists of a mutilated, turf-covered mound on the east bank of the Allt (“stream”) na Creige in a pasture field. Although no facing stones are visible the size of the mound and its situation suggest a broch [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 65 NW 5: 2. Horsburgh 1868, 275.

The Commission saw the entrance on the south-west sidein 1909 but this is not now clear; Swanson places it on the north-west because of a gap in the wall debris and because of an apparently in situ lintel at its outer end [7]. A ledge-type scarcement about 23cm (9in) wide was visible in 1963 on the inner wallface on the west side (Illus. 7.258) but Swanson says that, by June 1985, some rebuilding had been done in the interior and the scarcement had been largely concealed by freshly laid stonework [7].

NC65 3 KYLE OF TONGUE NC/6036 5977 Possible broch in Tongue, Sutherland, consisting of a turf-covered, stony mound on the summit of a hill in a reasonably defensive position. It measured about 18.0min diameter and 2.0m high and has a depression in the centre with a gap leading into it from the south-west side [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 65 NW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 184, no. 530.

At 12 o’clock there is another doorway into the wall from the interior which has been completely filled by the reconstruction work, its position being traceable by a vertical slab in the middle of the wall which is presumably part of its side [7, plan]. This is likely to be above scarcement level (though Swanson does not specify this) and therefore to lead to some feature in level 2, perhaps an upper gallery; there is a possible gallery face just anti-clockwise from this [7, plan]. Alternatively it might be part of the doorway to a stair or intra-mural cell [7].

NC65 4 LOCH LOYAL NC/622510 Cairn, once thought to be a possible broch, in Tongue, Sutherland, on the spit of land which divides Loch Craggie from Loch Loyal. Horsburgh says there were the remains of a Pictish tower there [3, 277] but the Commission diagnosed it as a round cairn [2]. The kerb of boulders doubtless caused the confusion. 84

The position of the site is almost impregnable with steep slopes falling away in all directions except along the ridge towards the sea. Young classes the site as a dun but there is no reason to distinguish it from the other ruined brochs in the vicinity. The wall of this ‘tower’ was apparently 2.44-3.05m (8-10ft) high in 1867 [2]. There are traces of a wide natural ditch on the west side [1], where the easiest approach is made, across a low saddle.

84 This mistake illustrates why an early diagnosis of a site as a “Pictish tower” does not necessarily mean that the author concerned saw a tall tower, since demolished; he may only have noted the remains of a ring of massive stones and made the assumption from that.

85

630

In the latter year the site was only photographed from a distance.

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) Mercer classes the site as a “fortlice broch”, one of a small number built in exceptionally strong positions and which seem therefore not to be as closely linked with farmland as most.

Square NC70 NC70 1 EAST KINNAULD 1 NC/7438 0159 This broch in Rogart, Sutherland, stands in a very remote position, high among the crags on the north side of and overlooking Strath Fleet – a fertile valley with many modern farms (Illus. 7.257 – 7.263) (visited 11/7/63 & 9/7/85). The structure, now a vast heap of stones, is built of irregular blocks of igneous or metamorphic rock and is full of its own debris. It stands about 122m (400ft) above the sea.

Dimensions The outer wallface is obscured but the measurements made in 1909 indicated a wall thickness of 3.66m (12ft). The internal diameter is 9.67m (29ft) and the external one must be about 16.2m (53ft) if the wall is 3.66m (12ft) thick all round: if so the wall proportion would be about 45.5%. Swanson gives the internal diameter as 8.2m north/south so the Commission was probably measuring above scarcement level. If so the wall proportion is about 49.5%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 66 SE 2: 2. Horsburgh 1868, 272 & 274: 3. Mackay 1906, 132: 4. RCAHMS 1911a, 61, no. 184: 5. Young 1962, 188-89: 6. Mercer 1981, 20-21 & 107, no. 7: 7. Swanson (ms) 1985, 709-12 & plan.

The entrance is on the west and fairly clear of debris at the outer end (Illus. 7.259). There is an oval guard cell on its right, choked with debris but apparently 3.05m (10ft) deep; the lintel of the doorway to this cell is visible, immediately behind a built door-check at a distance of 2.74m (9ft) from the exterior (Illus. 7.260). The passage is 5.19m (17ft) long and 84cm (2ft 9in) wide at the outer end. Three lintels are still in position over the outer part of the passage, starting at the doorchecks (Illus. 7.259).

NC66 3 SCULLOMIE NC/615610 Possible broch in Tongue described in the mid 19th century as a “Pictish tower” on the road to Scullamy [2]. The site was not located during later field investigations [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 66 SW 1: 2. Horsburgh 1868, 275.

On the left of the passage is the curved wall of another mural cell with a doorway to the interior of the broch, capped with a small triangular lintel (Illus. 7.261) [2, fig. 65]. It is not clear exactly what this is, but it is unlikely to be a second guard cell; such rarely communicate with the interior (but see Clachtoll – NC02 1). However the Commission also saw what seemed to be the edge of a doorway leading from this cell to the entrance passage, but this feature is now obscured. Thus the broch may have two guard cells.

NC66 4 TORRISDAIL (‘Dun Thorsadal’, ‘Dun Torrisdale’) NC/6773 6185 Possible broch in Tongue, Sutherland, consisting of the wrecked remains of a building on a knoll of clay; the mound is 15m in diameter and 3m in maximum height. Several “underground chambers” are reported to have been robbed for building stone [1] and a stone lamp from the nearby sandpit was given to the National Museum in Edinburgh in 1955 [4]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 66 SE 4: 2. Morrison 1883, 98: 3. RCAHMS 1911a, 184, no. 528: 4. Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 89 (1955-6), 459, no. 20.

Traces of a mural gallery are visible in places all round the wallhead (Illus. 7.262). At 7-8 o’clock it is higher than the entrance lintels, so it should be an upper gallery at this point. Yet it continues round to 12 o’clock where it looks as if it is at ground level since the natural rock surface outside the broch is much higher at this point. However at 8 o’clock there is a void from the gallery to the interior, the sill of which is exposed (Illus. 7.263); thus the gallery here ought to be an upper one. The author saw no trace of a scarcement on the exposed inner wallface in 1963, but one was reported in 1966 and denied in 1981 [1]. The inner face is well built in spite of the coarse nature of the stone.

Square NC 69 NC69 1 CARN MOR 1 NC/60 90 (approx.) Site of a possible broch near Swordale in Creich, Sutherland; only a low mound of stone now remains although the ruin still measured 32.3m (106ft) across in 1909 [2]. This site has not been found on the “Canmore” web site. Sources: 1. RCAHMS 1911a, 20, no. 53: 2. Pococke 1760, 115.

Dimensions (authors measurements): 6-12 o’clock, overall diameter 18.61m (61ft); internal diameter 9.61m (31ft31 6in). The wall is therefore c. 4.42m thick and the wall proportion would then be about 48.4% (the entrance passage was found to be only 4.88m (16ft) long, not 5.19m (17ft) ). More recently the wall was stated to vary in thickness from 4.1m on the east to 5.1min the sides of the entrance on the west [1]. This last measurement conflicts with the author’s. Sources: 1 NMRS site no. NC 70 SW 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 164-5, no. 477. 631

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Castle Cole86 (Illus. 7.265 & 7.271) was visited and described by Charles Cordiner in 1775 and he found it –

NC70 2 EAST KINNAULD 2 NC/7421 0145 Possib1e broch in Rogart, Sutherland, originally described as a fort [2]. It stands on top of a bluff and consists of an ‘inner circular enclosure’ with an internal diameter of 9.46m (31ft) and a walI 3.66-4.56m (12-15ft) thick [2]. This stands in an area of the summit enclosed by the remains of a stone wall 1.83-2.14m (6-7ft) thick and measuring 38.43m (126ft) north-south and 29.28m (96ft) east-west. There is a length of extra wall on the east slope which in 1909 still showed parts of its faces. The absence of debris in the interior persuaded the Commission’s investigator that the inner enclosure was not a broch. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 70 SW 17: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 165-66, no. 479.

“… free of rubbish even then so that one without stooping can enter by the inner doors to the apartments within the walls; and several of the staircases to the second storey are perfectly entire.” [8]. The fact that this broch was well known at an early date, and relatively well preserved and tower-like, suggests that – even though it is some distance to the north of Dun Alisaig (NH68 1) – it might be the second of the pair thought to be in the “Kyle of Sutherland” by early authors (but see site NH49 1). The rock used to build this tower is a sandstone which happens to split neatly into horizontal ‘bricks’; thus the structure appears much more sophisticated architecturally than its neighbours and resembles the brochs of Orkney and Caithness. The entrance has neatly constructed door-checks and bar-holes and other features not usually found in Sutherland (Illus. 7.266).

NC70 3 MEARLIG c.NC/73 03 Site of a possible broch in Rogart, Sutherland, which is mentioned by Anderson [2] but about which no other information is available. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 70 SW 28: 2. Anderson 1890, 190.

The entrance passage (Illus. 7.266) is on the east-southeast and is 3.91m (12ft 10in) long and facing the steep slope down to the stream; many of its lintels are still in place. The front one is shaped like a non-equilateral triangle (Illus. 7.265 & 7.271). The sides of the passage continue above the lintels so there must have been a chamber there, a standard feature of hollow-walled brochs.

NC70 4 SALLACHIE (‘Loch Sallachaidh’) c.NC/76 03 Site of possible broch in Golspie, Sutherland, reported in 1883 and described as a “Pictish tower” [2]. However no broch is near Loch Sallachaidh at this map reference, although there are some hut circles round the shores one of which may have been confused with a broch [1]. It is also possible that the record refers to the well preserved broch at Sallachy on Loch Shin (NC50 4). Sources: 1 NMRS site no. NC 70 SE 15: 2. Morrison 1883, 14.

The passage contains two door-frames, each of rebated door-checks at 1.5m (5ft) and 2.95m (9ft 8in) from the exterior; it widens slightly inside each door-frame (Illus. 7.267). A bar-socket is in the left wall immediately behind the front checks. There is a guard cell opening to the right between them, now mostly clear of debris; it is 1.73m (5ft 8in) long and 1.52m (5ft 0in) wide inside a doorway 1. 22m (4ft 0in) deep (Illus. 7.268). About 30cm (1ft) in front of the first door-frame is a gap between the passage lintels from 8-l5cm (3-6in) wide which might have served as a meurtrière for defence (see Midhowe: site HY33 1).

Square NC71 NC71 1 CASTLE COLE (‘Caisteal na Coille’, ‘Achir na Kyle’) NC/7957 1337 This broch in Clyne, Sutherland, stands in a picturesque situation, on top of a steep-sided rocky knoll which overlooks a deep gully containing the Blackwater, a tributary of the river Brora (Illus. 7.264 - 7.271) (visited 12/7/63 & 10/7/85). The face of the knoll down to the burn is a sheer cliff 21.4 -24.4m (70-80ft) and it is high and steep on the landward side (Illus. 7.264); the site is two miles from Strath Brora and the modern valley farmland. There seems little doubt therefore that, in this case, the broch served people who lived on the high moorland, though they doubtless dominated the farming population lower down. Castle Cole has been described as a “fortalice broch” [7].

The interior has been partly cleared and there a small fragment of a scarcement of the ledge type on the exposed wallface at 1.30 o’clock; this must be at least 3m above the interior floor (Illus. 7.273). The Commission noted signs of mural cells or galleries on the wallhead from about 3-4 o’clock and again from about 89 o’clock but no doors or raised voids into them were visible. There are a number of aumbries or cupboards in the inner wallface, the largest being 60cm (2ft) square 86 The name ‘Castle Cole’ is doubtless an anglicised form of ‘Achir na Kyle’, the second word being from the Gaelic caol, a long narrow sound of the sea. It is a curious name as there is no kyle near at hand, although the long, narrow Loch Brora is not far away.

632

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) (Illus. 7.270). The building has been completely destroyed along the side next to the cliff.

remains consist of the footings of a wall about 4.2m thick, now of negligible height, enclosing an area some 8.3min diameter and with an entrance in the south-east. The inner face cannot be identified with certainty but the overall diameter of the building may be about 15.7m [2].

There are two outer walls around the broch; one follows the edge of the flat platform which is the top of the knoll on which the site stands and the other is at the foot of the slope of the knoll. Both walls are visible only on the sides away from the stream.

The outer defences consist of a double rampart and ditch springing from the rock edge behind the broch on the west and running through north, east and south with a break opposite the entrance on the south-east. The inner ditch is 8.5m wide and 3m deep, and the outer one is 6m wide and 1.2m deep. Swanson gives more details of these outworks and provides an excellent plan [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 74 NW 3: 2. Swanson (ms) 1985, 734-36 & plan.

Dimensions: (author’s 1963 measurements): external diameter (6-12 o’clock) l4.79m (48ft 6in), internal diameter 6.71m (22ft 0in): the wall therefore should be 4.04m (13ft 3in) thick on average and the wall proportion is 54.6%. The central court was planned exactly in 1985 and the radius of its best-fitting circle 3.38 + 0.12m. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 71 SE 13: 2. Mitchell 1880, 310 & figs. 6, 7, 9 & 10: 3. Anderson 1883, 185 & fig. 178: 4. RCAHMS 1911a, 7-9, no. 25, fig. 1 & pl. 1: 5. Feachem 1963, 173: 6. Mercer 1981: 7. Cordiner 1776.

NC74 2 INSHLAMPIE NC/7159 4657 Probable broch in Farr, Sutherland, standing in a naturally defensive situation, overlooking the river Naver and flanked by ravines on the north and south (Illus. 7.276). Neither the entrance nor any intra-mural chambers are visible, though the fact that the rubble is lower on the west-north-west suggests that the entrance is here [1]. Both wallfaces are intermittently visible and suggest an overall diameter of 15.5m [1], or 16.78m (55ft) [2]. The internal diameter is about 6.5m [1] or 8.84m (29ft) [2]. On the east side the inner wallface was visible to a height of about 1.2m (4ft) in 1909 [2] but by 1985 few traces of the feature could be seen [3].

NC71 2 COICH BURN NC/7880 1087 This probable broch in Clyne, Sutherland, is extremely ruinous (Illus. 7.272) and stands on the hillside above the valley of the river Brora and next to a deep gully containing a tributary of that river (Illus. 7.272) (visited 12/7/63). It is about 0.25 miles above the junction. The author could take no useful measurements in 1963 but in 1909 the Commission gave the internal diameter as about 8.54m (28ft) and the wall thickness as 3.97m (13ft) [2]: the overall diameter would therefore be about 16.47m (54ft) and the wall proportion about 48%.

There are a few traces of structures on the terrace between the west side of the broch and the steep drop to the river. There is another terrace on the east side bounded by a possible ditch running across the promontory and there are traces of massive walling at the foot of the outer slope of the former [3, plan]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 74 NW 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 60, no. 178: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 737-38 & plan.

There were also traces in 1909 of a mural cell about 90cm (3ft) across on the north-west side, and the outer face survives here to a height of 90cm (3ft) for a short distance [1]. In 1975 the overall diameter was measured as 16.4m and the wall thickness as 4.2m on the south-east [1]; this would give a wall proportion of 51.2%.

NC74 3 SKAIL NC/7135 4744 This possible broch is on the west side of Strathnaver on the summit of a knoll. There is little to be seen at the site itself but to the west a deep ditch cuts off an easy approach to the knoll [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 74 NW 20: 2. Swanson (ms) 1985, 733.

The situation of the broch, high on moorland and far from the fertile land at the bottom of the valley, suggests that its builders may have lived on the moor close by. There is also much dead ground in the approach to the site from the valley but this of course may be much reduced when the landscape is viewed from the top of a tower 9-12m (30- 40ft) high. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 71 SE 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 7, no. 23.

Square NC75 NC75 1 ACHCOILLENABORGIE NC/7139 5942 This probable broch in Farr, Sutherland, stands at about 15m OD on a slight knoll between the base of a hill and the river Naver, and about half a mile south of the road bridge over the Naver near Bettyhill (visited in 1963). The structure is now low and badly ruined, no doubt

Square NC74 NC74 1 EILEAN GARBH (‘Skail’) NC/7201 4732 This probable broch with outworksin Farr, Sutherland, was discovered in 1960 by the investigators of the onetime Archaeology Division of the Ordnance Survey. The name used here was suggested by Swanson [2]. The 633

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland because of stone robbing by the builders of nearby settlements.

arrangement which might explain the apparent absence of the left door-check.

In 1910 the entrance was seen on the north and the walls of a possible mural chamber were exposed west of the passage and 2.44m (8ft) from it [2]. These features were no longer visible in 1960 but traces of a drystone chamber were then noted on the northern arc, partly built into the wall [1]. The side of a possible entry in to the broch wall from the interior was noted on the south side in 1985 [3].

There are faint traces of a stone structure on the west side of the terrace outside the broch, and of another on the east; part of a stone wall can be seen in a gully to the north-west of the broch. These are all shown on Swanson’s plan [6]. Dimensions (authors measurements): from 6-12 o’clock, external diameter 20.13m (66ft), internal diameter 9.61m (31.5ft): from 9-3 o’clock, 20.13m (66ft) and 9.91m (32.5ft): the wall proportion is therefore 51.5%. A different set of measurements [1] give 8.4m for the internal diameter and 4.2m for the wall thickness: the wall proportion would then be 50.0%. Sources: l. NMRS site no. NC 75 NW 6: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 60-1, no. 182: 3. Young 1962, 185: 4. MacKie 1965, 221: 5. Stuart 1868, 296: 6. Swanson (ms) 1985, 716-19 & plan: 7. Close-Brooks 1995, 31.

There are signs of outbuildings around the site [2] but Swanson doubts if these are contemporary with the broch [3]. There are also signs of an outer ditch with an outer rampart on the north-east [3, plan]. Dimensions: the interior diameter is about 8.54m (28ft) and the wall is about 4.27m (14ft) thick; the wall proportion would thus be 50%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 75 NW 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 61, no. 183: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 713-15 & plan.

NC75 3 DUN CARNACHAIDH (‘Dun Carnachie’) NC/72l3 5269 Probable broch in Farr, Sutherland, standing on a cliff overlooking the river valley, at about 45m OD. It consists now of a mound of fallen stone but was described as a “Pictish tower” in 1867 [4, 272] (Illus. 7.278). The inner wallface is visible and indicates an internal diameter of about 9.2 m; the wall is 4.1-4.8m thick [1], or 4.8-5.0m [4]. The lower courses of the inner and outer wallfaces are visible in places, the latter as a line of massive boulders [4]. There are traces of an intramural gallery on the west arc. No clear signs of an entrance are apparent although Swanson suggests that an earth-fast upright slab on the west, immediately south of the mural gallery mentioned, might be a door-check [4].

NC75 2 ALLT AN DUIN 1 (‘Allt a’ Chaisteal’) NC/7235 5752 This probable broch in Farr, Sutherland, stands on top of a high and steep conical rock knoll overlooking the fertile valley of the river Naver (Illus. 7.273 - 7.277) (visited 9/7/63 & 19/7/85). The slope down towards the river from the broch is steep and difficult but less so on the other side where it descends to higher moorland. The site is about a mile from the river and curiously situated in that there are one or two eminences of rock down in the valley, and much closer to the farmland at the bottom, which would have made suitable broch sites. The broch is built of lumps of igneous or metamorphic rock and the collapsed debris effectively conceals its structural features.

There are signs of what seems to be the outer face of an outer wall 6m from the broch on the north and 4m on the south-west [4, plan]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 75 SW 8: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 60, no. 180: 3. Horsburgh 1868: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 724-26 & plan.

The entrance is on the north-west and a very large and thick triangular rock 87 lies on the turf in front of it; it was probably the front lintel (Illus. 7.276). A long flat thinner stone, probably another lintel, lies displaced behind it, suggesting the onetime presence of a chamber over the entrance. The entrance itself is 5.34m (17.5ft) long and there is a door-check, made from an upright slab, on the right and about 1.6m from the outside. A clear ledge-type scarcement is visible on the inner wallface on the east side (opposite the river) (Illus. 7.277) and is about 15cm (6in) wide. There are no signs of mural galleries.

NC75 4 DUN CHEALAMY (‘Dun Kealmie’) NC/7199 5140 Probable broch in Farr, Sutherland, the heavily robbed 88 remains of which stand on the end of a spur. The site is thus naturally defended on all sides except the south-west where there is an outwork consisting of a double rampart with either one or two ditches associated with it [1]. Swanson describes two ditches [5, plan].

There are obvious signs of a secondary wall against the interior face from about 6 to 12 o’clock and again at about 3.30 o’clock (Illus. &.277). It is distinct from the scarcement ledge yet seems to join the left side of the entrance passage without a break. This suggests that one side at least of the entrance was re-faced – an unusual 87

There are traces of both wallfaces of the circular building within this defence, and these indicate an internal diameter of 7.0m [1] or 9.0m (30ft) [2] or 6.8m from 88 ‘Three years ago” (that is, in 1902 or 1903) “Dun Kealmie was badly damaged in a search of stones for building a bridge and a dwelling house.’ (Mackay 1906, 132).

Not shown on the plan, Illus. 7.273.

634

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) west-south-west to east-north-east [5], and a wall thickness of 3.7 to 4.3m [1] or 4.2m [2]. Traces of a gallery in the wall were noted in 1979 [1] and by 1985 a scarcement had been exposed in the west by stone clearance [5]. There are no signs of the entrance. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 75 SW 9: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 60, no. 179: 3. Young 1962, 189: 4. Horsburgh 1867, 272: 5. Swanson (ms) 1985, 730-32 & plan.

This probable ground-galleried broch in Farr, Sutherland, is 1.5 miles from the sea and stands on top of a steep, high, conical knoll on the top of the west bank of the deep ravine down which flows the Armadale Burn (visited 9/7/63 & 22/7/03) (Illus. 7.279 & 7.280). The east slope of the knoll is continuous with that of the ravine but the western one slopes down more gradually to higher moorland (Illus. 7.279). The shape of the circular drystone building is clearly visible although the wall is badly ruined, the outer face consisting only of the foundation course for most of the circuit. The inner face survives to a height of 1.3m and heavy rubble fills the interior (Illus. 7.280).

NC75 5 DUN VIDEN (‘Dun Vidden’) NC/7265 5188 This probable broch in Farr, Sutherland – described as “double-walled” in 1864 [7, 360] and as a “Pictish tower” in 1867 [6, 272] – stands on the east bank of the river Naver in a very strong position on top of a 21-24m (7080ft) high knoll which has steep sides except on the east. There is an abandoned settlement close by which was doubtless built with stones from the site.

The entrance is on the south-east, facing upstream, and is 4.27m (14ft) long and 91cm (3ft) wide with no sign of the door-frame. The passage has been partly cleared out since 1963 but there are still no signs of a door-frame or of fallen lintels. The corbelling of a right-hand guard chamber is visible immediately north of this passage [1] and traces of the end wall of a mural cell are visible about 3.5m to its west. The lintel of what seems to be a doorway into the wall is visible on the north side. This doorway was photographed by the author in 1963 (Illus. 7.281) but is not mentioned in his notes, and neither is it mentioned in any other account. It could not be located in 2003. A report in 1960 [1] claims that the entrance is on the north side and is presumably referring to this doorway, which must be that of an intra-mural gallery or chamber.

The structure is badly ruined and the entrance, on the south-east side, is 1.04m (3ft 5in) wide and 30cm high near the inner end. “Some of the flags which covered the passages have been made use of for enclosing calves when weaned ...” [6, 272]. There are slight traces of what may be the inner wall of a cell or gallery at about 5 o’clock but this could have come about by chance [9]. The steepest slope up to the site is on the west and elsewhere it is defended by outworks. These consist of the remains of a rampart on the north and south and, on the east, traces of a rampart, ditch and outer stony bank. Swanson gives more details of these features [9].

In 2003 were seen, at c. 9-11 o’clock, clear traces of the inner wall of a mural gallery together with two huge, dislodged lintels. That this is a ground level rather than an upper gallery is implied by traces of the foundation of the outer wallface at 2 o’clock. Here are visible two huge, superimposed and neatly laid blocks which must be close to bedrock and the relative heights of the two features suggest that the gallery lintels are only about 2m high.

Dimensions: internal diameter about 9.5m [1] or 9. 15m (30ft) [2], and the wall is about 4.88m [1,2] (16ft) thick. This indicates an overall diameter of about 18.91m (62ft), or a little more (19m has been suggested [9]), and the wall proportion should be approximately 51.5%. Find: a barbed and socketed iron arrowhead was found outside the site [5]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 75 SW 11: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 60, no. 181: 3. Young 1962, 189 (‘dun’): 4. Feachem 1963, 173: 5. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 89 (1955-56), 460, no. 25: 6. Horsburgh 1868: 7. Joass 1864: 8. Mackay 1906, 132: 9. Swanson (ms) 1985, 727-29 & plan.

Some excavation has been made into the rubble filling the interior and this now gives the impression that a huge wall projects radially into the interior at about 1 o’clock. An outer wall of uncertain width surrounds the broch and ends at the cliff on both sides. The bottom of the burn ravine is very narrow at this point and the nearest modern cultivated land is a mile away downstream to the north; thus unless the adjacent moorland was cultivated Armadale Burn might be classed as one of those brochs inhabited by a community which concentrated more on sheep and cattle.

NC75 6 SKELPICK (‘Skelpick Lodge’) NC/7230 5620 Site of possible broch in Farr, Sutherland. It was marked as a ‘Pict’s House’ on the 6-inch map of 1873 but there are no traces of a building and the site is not a suitable one for a broch [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 75 NW 28: 2. Swanson (ms) 1985, 720.

Dimensions (taken by the author in 1963): overall diameter through the entrance is 16.47m (54ft) and 16.17m (53ft) at right angles; the corresponding internal diameters are both 7.17m (23.5ft). The wall proportion is thus about 52.3%.

Square NC76 NC76 1 ARMADALE BURN NC/7994 6266 (7995 6265 – GPS) 635

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 76 SE 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 63, no. 190: 3. MacKie 1975, 219.

by Joass (Illus. 7.284), show that in 1847 the chamber over the entrance passage was preserved for a height of several feet. There is no guard cell.

NC76 2 CAI DUN c. NC/71 61 Site of a possible broch in Farr, Sutherland; it wasmarked as a “Pict’s house” on the OSmap of 1873 but recent visits have failed to locate any structure [1]. Source: 1. NMRS site no. NC 76 SW 18:

The central court is now full of rubble again (Illus. 3.8). Opposite the entrance at 12 o’clock (shown at 11 o’clock on Worsaae’s sketch plan) is a mural cell with a doorway having a void over its lintel (Illus. 7.287 & 7.289). The lintel of this void forms part of a scarcement of the ledge type which still survives in this part of the wall, and the beginnings of the sides of another void can be seen above this. Both Worsaae’s and Joass’ sketches show that in 1846 there were three lintelled voids above the doorway lintel (Illus. 3.7, 7.283 & 7.284), the second one of which was evidently a low doorway leading out on to the scarcement. Worsaae’s plan likewise shows that the cell was 5.49m (18ft) long with curved ends and sides which were approximately concentric with the curvature of the wall (Illus. 3.7, upper). He also shows two door-checks in the short passage leading to this cell; assuming that these were there and not transposed by mistake from somewhere else, they form a feature unknown in any other broch (they are also shown in the doorway leading to the intra-mural stair – below). If these are correctly shown the door was designed to be operated from inside the large cell and perhaps provides a unique glimpse of the need for privacy inside a broch.

NC76 3 CLERKHILL (‘Farr’) NC/7175 6338 Possible broch in Farr, Sutherland, consisting of a turfcovered, quarried mound on the end of a ridge, the east half of which has been removed to make way for the outbuildings of a croft. On the west side is a part of the basal course of the outer wall of a broch-like structure forming an arc about 9.0m long [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 76 SW 1: 2. Horsburgh 1868, 275: 3. RCAHMS 19l1a, 90, no. 265. NC76 4 LOCH SWORDLY NC/729628 Site of possible broch in Farr, Suther-land, reported by Joass [2]; no trace of it has been found by recent investigators [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 76 NW 16: 2. Joass 1890, 190.

At about 8.30 o’clock is another doorway which leads to the intra-mural stair; the sides of a void over the doorway are apparent here too, and it is shown complete in an early drawing (Illus. 7.284). The steps of the stair are now invisible (Illus. 7.288) but were seen by the Commission in 1909 [4]; about eleven steps were sketched by Worsaae, both in plan and elevation [2] (Illus. 3.7). The opening of a stair-foot guard cell can be seen, and this is shown as 3.13m (10ft 3in) deep [2]. Worsaae also drew door-checks in the passage to the stair (Illus. 3.7) and it is of interest to note that here – and in contrast with those shown in the cell doorway – the door can only be opened from the central court. This makes sense if the stair was regarded as a possible entrance for enemies who had scaled the wall. The fact that these two internal door-frames are drawn differently might confirm that they are genuine.89

Square NC80 NC80 1 BACKIES (‘Baikies’) NC/8345 0261 This excavated, probably solid-based broch in Golspie, Sutherland, is situated on a steep-sided rock knoll with smooth, glaciated sides and which projects from the north slope of a fertile valley running in from the sea (visited 8/7/63 & 9/7/1985) (Illus. 3.7, 3.8 & 7.281 – 7.290). The site is a huge pile of pale stones when seen from the outside (Illus. 7.281) but the interior of was cleared out in 1846 [2]; by good fortune the exposed structure was sketched during the work by the Danish archaeologist J J Worsaae during his tour of Scotland in 1846-47 [2, 8] (Illus. 3.7 & 7.283); he later prepared twomore formal drawings for his book (Illus. 7.282) [8].

The interior wallface is still preserved up to a height of 2.59m (8.5ft) above the present floor level and there is a well-preserved ledge scarcement, about 15cm (6in) wide, about 1.73m (5ft 8in) above the present floor. There are clear traces of a secondary wall around the interior at about 4 o’clock. The broch is well built of fine flat slabs of stone looking like bricks – presumably a metamorphosed sandstone as at Castle Cole. An outer

Description The outer face of the broch is not exposed except at the entrance, on the west-north-west (Illus. 7.285). The passage is 5.03m (16.5ft) in length and most of its lintels are still in position. Built checks in the sides about 2.97m (9ft 9in) in from the exterior form the door-frame (Illus. 7.286) and the passage in front of this is 91cm (3ft) wide and 1.42m (4ft 8in) high. Inwards from the door-frame the passage widens to 1.22m (4ft) narrowing again to 1.07m (3ft 6in) at the inner end (the dimensions are Worsaae’s [2] (Illus. 3.7)). At present the inner end of the entrance is preserved only up to the height of the massive innermost lintel (Illus. 3.8) but Worsaae’s sketches (Illus. 3.7 & 7.283), as well as that reproduced

89

Because this feature has never been rercorded in any other broch one could argue that Worsaae drew in these checks after he had left the site because – having seen them in themain entrance – he thought theymust be in the other doorways too. Yet they are perfectly clear in his field notebook and have measurements attached (Illus. 3.7).

636

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) wall is visible about 12.2m (40ft) from the entrance with signs of outbuildings between it and the broch.

wall between 12 and 5.30 o’clock and another cell or length of gallery here is possible. Worsae’s plans suggest that this part of the interior had not been cleared when he visited the site.

Inferences from historical evidence Backies is a good example of a once well preserved, hollow-walled broch which is steadily falling into ruin. Only its remoteness has it preserved it from greater destruction, but there can be little doubt that in a few more decades all the surviving traces of hollow-wall architecture in Level 2 will have disappeared. The importance of the historical record – J J Worsaae’s sketches made when the broch was cleared out – cannot be emphasised enough. Without these drawings – and to a lesser extent without the author’s early photographs – there will eventually be no proof that Backies was ever a hollow-walled tower.

Central hearth? There is no mention by Worsaae of a fireplace in the central court so presumably the primary floor level had not been reached at the time of his visit. It may still be intact. The secondary wall. In his original sketch plan of the site (Illus 3.7) Worsaae does not make it clear whether the secondary wall blocked the two internal doorways, but the final plan (Illus. 7.283) implies that it did not. Other Level 2 features. The “cells” being narrow enough to be lengths of gallery, they are shown lintelled here. The parts where the Level 2 gallery seems to run over a solid-based wall are shown dotted. Because the doorway out on to the scarcement at 12 o’clock is so clear, it is assumed that a long landing connected the top of the first flight of the stair with this door, and that the stair continued upwards clockwise of this. The innermost lintels at the two interior doorways clearly form part of the scarcement.

However the early drawings show plainly that this broch had the standard Level 2 features of the tower form. The large chamber over the entrance is clear, and its lintelled floor (the roof of the entrance) is at scarcement level. The stairway runs up to a substantial raised door leading out on to the same scarcement, and thus on to the raised wooden floor which doubtless once rested on it. If the broch is ever cleared out and stabilised the remains of a landing in the stair at this point may still be preserved. Such fresh explorations could also confirm or disprove the existence of door-frames in the inner doorways.

Deliberate demolition? As at a number of other brochs the existence of the secondary wall could mean that the upper parts of the tower of Backies were pulled down at some stage, presumably to make the structure safe, and that the elaborate internal raised wooden floor or floors were replaced with a low roof resting on the secondary wall.

As usual the preparation of new plans of Levels 1 and 2, based on historical information and on current fieldwork (Illus. 7.290), helps one to fit together the evidence. Working clockwise from the entrance the following comments on this drawing can be made. Outer wallface. entrance.

Finds There is little information about these [5]: they are probably in the Dunrobin Museum and include 1 small stone cup (it is uncertain whether it is handled or not), 1 piece of a jet armlet and “fragments of rude pottery”. There were also “bits of vitrified stones” [4].

This is still invisible except at the

The entrance passage. The bar-hole and socket are shown as part of the door-frame even though Worsaae does not mention them. The chamber over the entrance is clear from the early drawings and one of these (Illus. 7.284) appears to show a gallery joining the chamber on the left side (looking in). The Level 2 plan therefore shows the “cross-shaped” pattern for this part of the broch also seen, for example, at Dun Telve (NG81 2) and The orientation of the Dun Carloway (NB14 1).90 passage is approximate.

Dimensions Internal diameter 8.24m (27ft) : external diameter is unmeasurable as the outer face is not exposed but may be about 18.3m (60ft) if the whole wall is 5.03m (16.5ft) thick as it is at the entrance. If so the wall proportion may be about 55.5%. In 1985 the author made an accurate survey of the primary interior wallface which revealed that the central court is almost exactly circular, having a radius of 4.13 + 0.07m (or a diameter of 8.26m, or 27ft 1in).

Level 1 intra-mural features. The two cells are so narrow according to Worsaae’s measurements that they look more like lengths of intra-mural galleries. The doorframes in the doorways leading to these cells are an unique feature in brochs but are assumed to be genuine simply because Worsaae’s notebook shows dimensions for them, which he is hardly likely to have made up (Illus. 3.7). There is no evidence for the design of the Level 1

Illus. 7.290 shows Levels 1 and 2 of Backies broch as the building probably was immediately after the Duke of Sutherland’s clearance in 1846. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 80 SW 1: 2. Worsaae mss in the National Museum in Copenhagen: 3. Wilson 1851, 423: 4. Stuart 1868, 291: 5. RCAHMS 1911a, 92-3, no. 272: 6. Young 1962, 186: 7 Worsaae 1934.

90 There is as yet no record of the right hand Level 2 gallery joining the chamber.

637

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Since that time extensive restoration and reconstruction work has been carried out by the Government agency now known as Historic Scotland and – as is the usual practice in this country – it is rarely possible for the visitor to tell which parts of the monument are original and which have been restored. To compare, for example, the state of the broch stairway in 1963 (Illus. 7.302) with its present state (Illus. 7.303 & 7.304) is to get a vivid impression of how the site has been altered. Restoration and stabilisation were of course essential; the broch is next to, and clearly visible from, the main road north (the A9), as well as from the nearby railway, and is visited by hundreds if not thousands of people every year.

NC80 2 CARN LIATH 1 (‘Dunrobin’) NC/871013 (8704 0137 – GPS). This solid-based broch in Golspie, Sutherland, stands a short distance from the sea on an apparently flat-topped rock knoll which rises from flat ground; it stands on a fertile strip of raised beach which runs along the coast here for several miles. The site is immediately east of the main road and above the old shore line, now a bank nearer to the sea. The name means “the white” or “fair cairn”, a reference to the pile of pale stones that it was before excavation (Illus. 7.291 - 2.310 ) [9, pl. 5] (visited 8 & 22/7/63, in 1971, in 10/7/85 & 21/7/03). Early descriptions In 1769 the site was visited by Thomas Pennant when it was evidently much better preserved than it is now. He wrote –

The primary entrance passage is on the east side and 5.49m (18ft) in length, with several of the outermost lintels in position (Illus. 7.297). Joass gave the height of the passage under the lintels as 2.14m (7ft) and its width is 91cm (3ft) [3, 103]. The door-frame is about 1.53m (5ft) from the exterior and now consists of one rebated check (faced with an upright slab) in the right wall; what looks like a broken-off projecting slab in the opposite wall, and what is presumably a sill stone, are marked on Joass’ plan [3, pl. xiv] (Illus. 7.290) and both are visible in a photograph taken at about 1900 [4, 117, fig. 3] (Illus. 7.298). In 1909 a bar-hole 69cm (2ft 3in) deep was behind the left check with a socket in the opposite wall [5], but these have now disappeared, having presumably been filled up.

“Not far from Dunrobin is a very entire piece of antiquity of the kind known in Scotland by the name of Pictish Castles, and called here ‘Carn Lia’ or a grey tower; that I saw was about 130 yards in circumference” (or 124ft across overall) “round, and raised so high above the ground as to form a considerable mount; on the top was an extensive but shallow hollow; within were three low concentric galleries, at small distances from each other, covered with large stones; and the side walls were about four or five feet thick, rudely made.”

The same early photograph of the inner end of the passage clearly shows its sides extending upwards above the lintels for about 1m, indicating that there was a chamber over the entrance – a characteristic feature of hollow-walled brochs. Indeed Joass’ cross-sections through the entrance show this clearly [3, pl. xv, sections A-B & E-F] (Illus. 7.294, top). No doubt this feature – not specifically mentioned in previous accounts of the site except, briefly, in that of Anderson [4] – was somewhat restored after the original excavations but there is no reason to doubt its existence. At about 1900 all the passage lintels seem to have been in position (again no doubt some had been replaced) and Anderson mentions gaps between them, through which intruders could be attacked from the chamber above.

Comments on these observations are made below under ‘Structural analysis’. Excavation in 1868 The broch and some of the surrounding outbuildings were cleared out by the third Duke of Sutherland, the owner of the land, in 1868 and, inevitably for that period of antiquarian research, the finds recovered were not related to any clear stratigraphy. A summary of the results was published by Rev. JMJoass [2]. The site is now under guardianship and the interior was further explored in 1972 by John X W P Corcoran whose untimely death not long afterwards prevented publication of his work. Further excavations were undertaken by Paula Love in 1986 and 1987 [9], mainly to improve the appearance of the visible features but also to establish exactly what the Duke of Sutherland and Corcoran had found (see below).

The 1985 photograph (Illus. 7.297) shows just how much damage the restored inner part of the entrance passage has suffered in the intervening years (the large block at lower right in this picture, from which a huge flake has been removed, can be identified in the older photograph – Illus. 7.298). Most of the lintels have gone and the chamber above the entrance is no longer traceable.

Much of the wall still stands up to 3.66m (12ft) high, though the faces are lower (Illus. 7.291 & 7.292) and it is lower overall at the entrance. Many traces of stone-walled buildings surround the broch (Illus. 7.293 & 7.296) and they appeared to be contained within a massive outer wall which has been only partly exposed.

A guard cell opens off the right side of the passage, and is reached through a low lintelled doorway behind the main door-frame, by way of a step down into the interior [9]. It measures 3.0m (10ft) by 1.5m (5ft) by 2.4m (8ft) high and its roof was “flatly arched with flags” [3, 103] (Illus. 7.299 & 7.300); in other words it had roof of

When the author first visited this broch in 1963 it appeared to be much as it had been left after the 19th century explorations, apart from considerable dilapidation in the intervening century (Illus. 7.291, 7.300 & 7.302). 638

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) lintels which were apparently stepped to form a shallow dome [4, pl. xv, section E-F] (Illus. 7.294). These stepped lintels must have formed the floor of the Level 2 gallery which, we know from historical evidence, was once immediately above it. If the gallery joined the chamber over the entrance (which seems at first sight to be very unlikely, but see below) this shallow dome would have restricted access into its inner parts of the Level 2 gallery (there is a similar situation at Mousa: HU42 6).

other openings in the interior wallface (although the stretch of secondary walling from about 6 to 9 o’clock might conceal the opening to a mural cell). Joass discovered two large chambers sunk into the floor (Illus. 7.293). That on the south is near the centre and was then thought to be 2.44m (8ft) deep, 3.36m (11ft) long by 2.14m (7ft) wide; it is built of large upright flags about 1.5m (5ft) high surmounted by dry walling, and it connects with a small subsidiary chamber on the east 91cm (3ft) deep. The positioning of this underground chamber or cellar is curious as one would normally expect a large paved hearth in the middle of a broch central court. There was a third sunken chamber on the north side of the court next to the wall; this was found to be 2.44m (8ft) long, 1.83m (6ft) deep and the same at maximum width. It was built in the same way – of upright slabs facing inwards and surmounted by drystone walling – and a narrow stone slab, 2.44m (8ft) high, stood on its floor at the north end, projecting from the wall into the interior.

In 1963 there was visible above the entrance a curious structural feature not specifically mentioned either by Joass or by the Royal Commission. This is a long, rectangular chamber on the present wallhead and crossing the entrance passage about half way down it (Illus. 7.300) and it extends to about 4.3m (14ft) on either side of it, following the curve of the wall. Only the lower courses are preserved and such a feature would normally be regarded as a length of the first floor gallery; however its built ends were clearly visible in 1963, suggesting that – unless these ends are the result of modern restoration – that it is not a gallery but some kind of long chamber. It crosses the entrance passage behind the door-checks and could only have been reached by way of the chamber above the passage, which opened into the interior, probably at the height of the scarcement.

Excavations in 1972 The re-excavation of the central chamber by Corcoran in 1972 (Illus. 7.308) [9, pl. 3] was described by Paula Love some years later [9]; she also re-exposed the chamber on the north [9, pl. 8]. This work showed that the structure of their walls was not as unequivocal as was suggested by Joass; upright slabs were visible at the base of the drystone walling but the bases of these appeared to be lower than the depth given by Joass. The Duke’s diggers had evidently not reached the bottom.

However the 1901 photograph (Illus. 7.298) appears to show both sides of this upper chamber complete, with no lateral openings leading to this long wallhead feature [4]. It is difficult now to assess the precise nature of these first floor features. The author knows of no comparable closed chamber at other sites, although there are a few examples of first floor galleries connecting with the chamber over the entrance. Restoration work and the grassing-over of the wallhead since 1963 (Illus. 7.301) has obliterated most of this first floor feature which, all things considered, is perhaps most likely to be a length of the Level 2 (first floor) gallery to which – its nature being unclear because it had only been partly exposed – ends were added after the 19th century excavation.

Moreover the lower parts of the chamber proved to have been excavated out of the underlying sand layer (starting 1.20m below broch floor level) which rendered deep reexcavation hazardous. As a result, and because adequate shoring was not available, the work on both chambers was abandoned by Corcoran and the chambers were filled in permanently. Their precise nature thus remains somewhat obscure and the conditions in the central chamber “rendered the interpretation of the structure purely conjectural, save to say that it would have made an unlikely well or cistern (Young 1962, 182).” [9, 159]. Some tentative further suggestions are made below; all these pits in the central court may well be secondary.

At about 9 o’clock (10 o’clock on the 19th century plan) is the doorway to the mural stair, rising as usual to the right; there is no sign of a stair-foot guard cell. There were twenty-one steps preserved in 1909 [5] but about a third of these has since disappeared. Both the stair doorway and the stair itself, roofless in 1963 (Illus. 7.302), have since been restored and several stone lintels were replaced over them (Illus. 7.303 & 7.304).

Judging from the photograph Corcoran also started to explore the northern sunken chamber but presumably abandoned the work [9, pl. 2, lower]; as noted Love cleared it out properly. He also discovered a paved hearth on the north side of the central court, close to the secondary wall (Ibid.).

The inner wallface now stands up to 3.05 - 3.66m (10 12ft) high in places and a well preserved ledge type scarcement, about 15cm (6in) wide, runs round the southeast sector of the wall at a height of about 2.44m (8ft) above the present floor (Illus. 7.305, pole). The Commission gives the height of the ledge as about 1.83m (6ft), and Joass as 1.53m (5ft), above the floor but they were probably referring to the much more obvious secondary wall (below). There do not seem to be any

Clear secondary constructions These include the wall added around the interior (Illus. 7.295, 7.301, 7.305 & 7.306) – which was not identified on Joass’ plan (Illus. 7.293) – and a number of external buildings and features. The internal secondary wall is about 46cm (18in) thick and runs all the way round the 639

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland court, with apparently original gaps in it in front of the two doors; after modern consolidation its width varies between about 0.6-1.5m (2-5ft). This was probably the “scarcement” referred to by Joass; 19th century broch excavators often used the same term to describe both a secondary wall and the ledge on the inner face of the primary wall. Extensive restoration has taken place at the stair doorway (which was blocked off in the early ‘70s [1]) and this has resulted in the primary and secondary masonry of the left side of the stair doorway now being continuous, the assumed straight joint having been obliterated (not quite visible on Illus. 7.306). Likewise the lintels over this doorway have been replaced wrongly, with three superimposed, whereas there was almost certainly a void here; such a feature is suggested – though not absolutely clearly – by Joass’ cross section (Illus. 7.294, lower) and is a standard feature of stair doors in other brochs.

demolished (MacKie 1995, 000). Some of these external features were examined by Love (below). The recent excavations [9] There was apparently some unauthorised clearance of the broch interior by a school party in 1971 and this led to fresh excavations by the late John Corcoran in 1972, the results of which have been alluded to above. Shortly afterwards the site was taken into state care. The early death of the excavator prevented him publishing his work although numerous photographs of the features he uncovered are in the National Monuments Record.91 New excavations took place in 1984 and 1986-87 in order to find out if any undisturbed deposits remained in and around the broch, and also to make the site more comprehensible to visitors; summaries of Corcoran’s discoveries are given [9]. The only new work inside the broch took place in the guard cell, which had been blocked up in the late 1960s because of increasing dilapidation. This was re-exposed and consolidated, and a complete Iron Age pot base was found on the floor (not illustrated in the report). In addition the northern pit in the central court was cleared out [9, pl. 8].

Corcoran examined the secondary wall in 1972 and observed that its foundations rested at a higher level than the lips of the central underground chamber and on “a well defined layer of moist charcoal” [9, 159]; the date of this wall relative to the broch was thus confirmed. He also discovered five previously un-recorded postholes, on the south and south-west sides of the central court and fairly close to the secondary wall (Illus. 7.295). Two more, much shallower, depressions which might have been post-holes were found in the north sector. These are assumed to be secondary features, apparently because they are “not of the proportions to have supported timber uprights for an upper floor or gallery” [9, 160] but no dimensions were published. Taking account of the thickness of the secondary wall four of the post-holes in the southern arc might have formed part of an irregular arc suitable for some kind of internal wooden roundhouse, though they are certainly not as regular, nor apparently so massive, as the ring of posts inside, for example, Leckie (NS69 2) and Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 3).

Extensive new excavations were undertaken in the “outbuildings” surrounding the broch and a plan of the new trenches is included in Illus. 7.295. However it was clear that the Victorian diggers had disrupted the stratified deposits over large areas and it was difficult to arrange the structures in their correct relative order [9, 10]. Rock carvings and calendar orientations One of the several lintels which then roofed the secondary extension of the entrance passage (Illus. 7.294, upper) was found to bear three cup-marks on its upper face [3, 104] (these stones cannot now be located). Assuming that this secondary doorway was originally more massive, these lintels would have been covered by masonry and would probably have been invisible before the ruination of the site. Thus it is difficult to be sure whether the later builders attached any importance to the cup carvings. There is some evidence that cup-marks, and even cup-and-rings, were still being carved in the late Bronze and early Iron Ages (Morris 1989, 58 ff.: MacKie & Davis 1989, 142 ff). Presumably this stone had been brought from elsewhere to form part of the roof.

Outside the broch there are a number of wallfaces, approximately concentric with the tower, on the northwest arc and some polygonal chambers abutting against the broch wall on the north-east, immediately to the right (north) of the entrance (Illus. 7.295). An important feature, found at many other brochs, is the secondary passage – with door-frame included – which has been added against the outer end of the entrance (Illus. 7.307) [9, pl. 4, left & right]. This door-frame is evidently at the inner end of a long extension east of the main entrance most of which has now disappeared (Illus. 7.293). At the junction with the broch wall another passage turns south from this passage and runs along the outer face of the tower. The usual explanation of such features is that the addition of this new door housing means that, at a later stage in the history of the broch, the primary door had become broken down and useless, probably after the upper works of the tower had been

A few years later other lines, presumably pecked, were observed on the same lintel [10] (Illus. 7.309, top). One group of these consisted of two long, pointed ovals, joined end to end and about 9cm (3.5in) in length with a straight line 4.5cm (1.75in) long below this. When the lintel was still in situ the orientation of these lines was measured with a compass and it then appeared that the 91

Corcoran’s Day Book (diary of the excavations) is also with the NMRS.

640

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) straight line pointed due north-south and the ovals northwest and south-east [10]. The discoverer, believing (for unstated reasons) that the broch builders were probably sun-worshippers, surmised that the long ovals indicated the directions of midsummer sunset (in the north-west) and midwinter sunrise. The carved lintel cannot now be located on the site and is doubtless buried.

a primary feature it is difficult to understand the need for it unless it was designed as two sideways extensions for the chamber over the entrance, but such openings in the sides of the latter were not referred to by Joass. By the time the broch stairway came round from 10 to 6 o’clock it would have risen high above these potential obstructions. It is possible however that, after the upper levels of the broch were in ruins (and the entrance passage perhaps blocked), a long chamber was constructed on the low wallhead at this point. A small such chamber was built into the raised mural galleries, after ruination, at about 1 o’clock at Midhowe and at Gurness in Orkney (HY33 1 & HY32 2).

Assuming that Wise's diagram was based on a rubbing and is therefore accurate, one can measure the angle of the supposed north-west/south-east line in relation to the assumed north/south marker (Illus. 7.309, top). The angle is close to 312o/132o, presumably in relation to magnetic north. Making allowances for the difference between magnetic and true north in 1880 (when the former was about 21o west of the latter) the actual azimuth should be about 3133o/153o. At the latitude of Golspie (almost exactly 58o north) the azimuth of the midwinter sunrise at altitude 0o is now about 141o. 92

There were doubtless several tiers of galleries above Level 2 but nothing of these survives. The central underground chambers: the curious sunken chambers or cellars inside the broch are such an unusual feature that they require some explanation, particularly as their situation would appear to interrupt the course of the ring of posts of any internal roundhouse and the positioning of the standard broch fireplace in the centre. As Joass observed [3, 103] the design of the sides of these chambers – flat orthostats with dry walling on top – strongly resembles some of the chambered tombs further north in Caithness. Unfortunately such a resemblance could not be confirmed from the modern re-excavations which were not completed due to safety considerations, but underground chambers inside brochs which are clearly not wells or cisterns (being cut into sand) are sufficiently unusual to require some kind of explanation.

Of course there are no means of knowing whether Wises’s diagram does show magnetic or true north. The author has not yet had an opportunity to measure the Aberdeenshire horizon from Carn Liath, but such an exercise might prove fruitful and might show some plausible horizon markers for calendar dates. Structural Analysis and Discussion Pennant’s 1769 description makes it clear that two hundred and thirty five years ago Carn Liath looked like the stump of a tower projecting above a heap of rubble. His description of the three “low concentric galleries … covered with large stones” can only refer to superimposed and still lintelled galleries between the outer and inner elements of the hollow wall, which were 4-5ft thick. Since Carn Liath is now known to be a solid-based broch all these galleries must have been upper ones, resting on the solid base. The discovery in about 1868 of a chamber over the broch entrance confirms the diagnosis.

From the discoveries at Howe in Orkney (HY21 6) we now know that, very occasionally, a broch or broch-like building could be deliberately sited on top of an ancient Neolithic chambered tomb and that a part of that tomb – in this case an underground chamber – was inside the building, open and accessible. The feeling that a succession of Iron Age buildings were put up on this unstable site for primarily religious reasons is very strong at Howe [11].

Level 1: the ground level storey contains the entrance passage just north of east and the doorway to the stair (without a guard cell) at 10 o’clock, on the south-west. Simply from the available space it seems possible that there may be an undiscovered intra-mural cell somewhere but specific evidence is lacking.

Much closer geographically to Carn Liath is the broch at Dunbeath (ND13 6), about 42km to the north-east, where there seems to be a very strong likelihood that one chamber of a Neolithic tomb was incorporated into the broch wall and used as an open chamber; if so the rest of the tomb must have been pulled down before the broch was put up, as could also have happened at Howe.

Levels 2-4: the nature of the first floor (Level 2) gallery is complicated by the existence of what appears to be a long cell running across the entrance passage. If this was

Could the two large underground chambers at Carn Liath therefore be the remains of the underground parts of a now vanished Neolithic tomb, and could this broch therefore have been primarily a religious site as Howe seems to have been? Despite the general similarities

92 Sunrise on the first sixteenth of the solar year before and after the winter solstice (Thom 1967, Table 9.1) occurs here at about 133o, much closer to the position indicated by the carving, if it is related to true North. However whether one can assume such an intention with such meagre evidence is another matter. A pointer to sunrise on the first eighth of the year before and after the winter solstice (Feb. 1st and Nov. 1st) would be more plausible and would have many more parallels in Neolithic monuments (MacKie 2002).

641

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland with some Caithness tombs – seen in the orthostatic walling surmounted by drystone masonry – it seems improbable for four reasons.

If the underground chambers were added inside the reduced broch at this stage it is possible that the site then acquired a more ritual function, or that a previous primary such function was enhanced during the secondary occupation. A tiny clue to the nature of such ceremonial activity may be provided by the curious carving on one of the lintels of the secondary entrance passage which rather clearly suggests a concern with the solar calendar, particularly with midsummer and midwinter (Illus. 7.309). Indeed one might conclude that this secondary carving also supports the allocation of the underground chambers to the later phase of occupation of the broch. The fact that Carn Liath is situated on the shore with clear views across the sea to the north coast of Aberdeenshire could confirm that the site was sometimes used as some kind of simple calendar observatory, with long alignments to the uneven, distant horizon to the south-east providing some useful dates. More work needs to be done on this aspect of the site.

The first is that underground chambers seem to be extremely rare in Scottish Neolithic tombs, so there would surely hardly be two such in the assumed Carn Liath tomb. The second reason is that these particular chambers are not well built, being in part hollowed out of soft sand with single layers of stone revetment forming the sides. The stonework of Neolithic chambered tombs is generally of extremely high quality (the slabs facing the passage and chambers usually having been freshly quarried) and any underground compartments would surely not have been any less well built, particularly as a jerry-built, below-ground part would surely have compromised the stability of the heavy tomb. The third reason is that everything about Howe is unusual, especially the design of the ‘broch’ which was planted on unstable clay foundations and could never have been a high, hollow-walled tower (it had a wall core also partly of clay); there were several signs of wall collapse. Carn Liath by contrast is a classic solid-walled, stone tower broch of the standard kind and – again in contrast to Howe – there is no reason to single it out from all other such except for the underground chambers. The fourth reason follows on from this. In its primary state Carn Liath should have had in its central court a large stone hearth (in the middle) as well as a massive wooden roundhouse resting on a ring of posts (of which there may be some traces) and on the scarcement in the primary wall. The positioning of the underground chambers is incompatible with such a design and indeed an apparently secondary fireplace was found on the north side of the interior [9, pl. 2, upper].

The excavations and the finds (Illus. 7.310) Joass [3] describes the deposits inside the broch as consisting of 90cm (3ft) of “unctuous earth” and ash strata resting on the floor and surmounted by 3.05m (10ft) of stony debris. We must assume that much of this 3ft-deep occupation layer accumulated during the secondary occupation but unfortunately no-one thought to make a note of how this deposit related to the base of the secondary wall. The wall above these floor deposits was apparently fire-marked. The finds [3, pl. xvl] are in the Dunrobin Castle museum (Illus. 7.309 & 7.310) and the most important included the following: Bronze objects included 2 heavy plates with hammermarks on both faces (found near the floor). Bone objects included 2 long-handled combs, 1 whalebone ‘club’ and much food refuse. Stone objects included many hammer-stones, 2 long pestles (inside the broch), 3 mortars (outside), about 12 rotary querns (inside and out), pot lids (in and out), spindle whorls (in and out), 1 possible loom-weight, 1 sandstone slab with pecked concentric rings (on broch floor), 2 small steatite cups (one handled) (inside), many shale rings with diameters of 0.25-3.0in., in all stages of manufacture (inside and out). Romano-British finds: there was also a silver fibula the ornament on the stem of which is thought to derive from 4th century Roman brooches [5, 392 & 337, fig. 36, nos. 5 & 6]; it may however be later and date to the 7th century [1]. It was found “outside the broch” [6, 392].

For all these reasons it seems most likely to the author that the deep chambers at Carn Liath are secondary inserts. They may be simpler versions of the deep and elaborate underground, often rock-cut chambers found in many Orkney and Caithness brochs which are usually described as wells. However they are likely to have had a more complex function than water storage (below). The secondary constructions: the presence of the secondary internal wallface and of the outward extension of the entrance passage implies – judging from analogies with many other sites – that at some stage the high, hollow wall of the broch was taken down (the debris presumably being used to construct the secondary wall which supported the new low roof). The entrance must also have been damaged at some stage since it needed a new door-frame in its outward extension. Since this secondary passage runs through some outbuildings these too may all be secondary, though one cannot be sure about this. Despite the recent excavations we still lack much insight into what these ‘outbuildings’ were used for.

Finds made by Corcoran and Love in their excavations are not published in detail. As regards the latter they – “…were relatively few and generally undistinguished, the more outstanding artifacts having been collected by the Third Duke in 1868. The majority of these are now in Dunrobin Castle Museum, although some have been misplaced. Unfortunately, disturbance on 642

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) site has meant that few of the finds from recent excavations have been securely stratified. They can only therefore be regarded as representative of activities on site, domestic and industrial, rather than as useful chronological indicators tied into stratigraphy.

NC80 3 CARROL (‘Craig Carril’) NC/8462 0646 This solid-based broch in Clyne, Sutherland, is situated on the west side of Strath Brora overlooking the Loch Brora and about 61m (200ft) above it (visited 11/7/63, 1971 & 10/7/85: in 2002 it was behind a deer fence) (Illus. 7.311 – 7.320).

Domestic occupations were represented by a variety of artifacts – spindle whorls, bone needles, perforated weights or sinkers, and pottery, the latter predominantly undecorated Iron Age coarseware, with the notable exceptions of the Beaker fragment and Food Vessel. Shale objects were ubiquitous across the area excavated, occurring in such quantities as to indicate that jewellery manufacture was taking place on site. Various stages of production were represented from waste flakes through to roughed-out armlets complete with chisel marks, and finally to the end product, polished beads and rings. As evidenced by the small, undecorated, perforated disc washers from the cist burial, this medium enjoyed a protracted popularity, with local supplies of the raw material outcropping on the beach at Brora, a short distance up the coast.

Description The site, a huge heap of stones when seen from a distance (Illus. 7.312), stands on a broad, level platform or plateau projecting from the shallowly ascending side of the valley. It is invisible from the water’s edge. An outer wall, with traces of a ditch beyond, surrounds the broch and there are signs of a gateway in this in line with the broch entrance. This broch was cleared out by order of the Duke of Sutherland probably in about 1870 and “during the visit at Dunrobin of a distinguished lady associate of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland” [2, 107].93 A short description of the results of the work was published by the local minister, the Rev. J M Joass [2]. Most of the outer face is still buried by the debris which was thrown out of the interior at that time. The finds are in the museum in the grounds of Dunrobin Castle [3]. Thick bushes were growing in the interior of the broch in 1971 and were cut down by the author in that year for a theodolite and tape survey. They have since grown up again, sheltered by the massive wall which still stands 3.6m (12ft) high most of the way round (Illus. 7.319). The entrance passage is on the east-south-east and is 4.27m (14ft) long, 84cm (2ft 9in) wide at the outer end and 1.14m (3ft 9in) at the inner [3, fig. 2]. Traces of the lower parts of the sides of the chamber over the entrance, opening only to the interior, are clearly visible above the lintels and confirm that the structure is a hollow-walled broch (Illus. 7.313 & 7.314). The passage does not seem to have been any better preserved at the beginning of the 20th century (Illus. 7.313).

Iron working was also represented in the form of crucible fragments and numerous lumps of iron slag from both outbuildings and midden. There were few personal objects found however, save for a couple of glass beads, one clear, the other spherical with a decorative whorl design, and the shale washer necklace associated with the Food Vessel burial” [9, 169]. Dimensions (taken by the author in 1963): Ext. Diam. Internal Diam. Wall prop. % 6-12 o’clock 67.0ft 32.5ft 51.5% 9-3 o’clock 72.0ft 27.5ft 55.6% Average 69.5ft 30.0ft 53.5%

There are two door-frames at distances of 1.0m (3ft 4in) and 2.77m (9ft 1in) from the outside, and both sets of checks are faced with massive stone slabs set at right angles to the walls (Illus. 7.315). The front checks are formed by the passage widening to 1.17m (3ft 10in) behind them but the rear ones are formed of slabs projecting from straight walls. All except two of the passage lintels are in situ and their height above the floor (which seems to be the original one, though strewn with rubble) is 1.73m (5ft 8in). A bar-hole and socket are behind the inner checks at heights of 60cm (2ft) and 71cm (2ft 4in) above the passage floor respectively.

A fresh survey of the shape of the central court was undertaken in 1971 and showed that the primary wall is almost exactly circular; the radius of the circle which fits it best is 5.10 + 0.09m, or 33ft 6in. The difference from the 1963 taped dimension from 9-3 o’clock was probably due to difficulties in distinguishing between the primary and secondary wallfaces at that time. The wall proportion can now be estimated, using the average overall diameter, at 48.2%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 80 SE 4.00: 2. Anderson 1883, 221: 3. Joass 1890: 4. Anderson 1901, 117, fig. 3: 5. RCAHMS 1911a, 91-2, no. 270: 6. J. Curle 1932, 337-38: 7. Young 1962, 182: 8. Robertson 1970, table 2: 9. Love 1991: 10. Wise 1881: 11. MacKie 2000: 12. Close-Brooks 1995, 12, 134 & 147: 13. Cowley 1999, 71: 14. Armit 2003, 14, 151 & pl. 11.

A guard cell opens off the right of the passage 61cm (2ft) behind the outer checks (Illus. 7.316); its doorway is 1.20m (3ft 11in) high and contrasts with the height of the

93

This might have been Christine MacLaglan of Stirling (see Scott Archaeol Journ 27.1 (2005), 102-4).

643

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland almost complete corbelled cell behind, which is 2.90m (9.5ft) (Illus. 7.317).

The excavations The description of the excavations [2] is brief and simply refers to 91cm (3ft) of “unctuous earth” found lying on the floor of the central court, presumably covered by rubble. One extended human skeleton was found on the floor (presumably on top of the earth mentioned) to the right of the entrance, and another on the landing at the foot of the intra-mural stair; a copper finger-ring was found with the former, and both were presumably burials put in place shortly after the broch was abandoned.

The doorway to the mural stair is at 9 o’clock and its sill is at least 91cm (3ft) above the floor. The stair rises to the right and in 1909 13 steps were preserved up to a height of 3.3m (11ft) to the wallhead; the same number can be seen now and there could be more at the base of the flight hidden by rubble (Illus. 7.319). The uppermost three steps of the flight are rising at a more inward angle than the rest, as if there was a shallow corner in the stairway here.

Few traces of obvious secondary occupation were reported (there was no secondary wall around the central court, for example), though one might assume that the human burials were such. One might also suppose – judging from comparable deposits in more skilfully explored brochs – that the “unctuous earth” itself belonged to a later stage of the occupation of the tower but because of the primitive methods of exploration used decisive evidence is lacking.

Three steps lead down to the left of the doorway into the stair-foot guard cell which is in fact a long stretch of mural gallery running for 5.80m (19ft), almost as far as the entrance passage and not far above ground level (Illus. 7.318). This cell or gallery is now almost completely unroofed although it was apparently found with half the roof – described as “corbelled” [2] – intact. Joass describes how the bar-hole in the entrance passage mentioned earlier runs 91cm (3ft) back from the entrance passage to the end of this long cell, but the author omitted to look for this feature during his last visit; it does not appear on the relevant photograph (though the inner quarter of the end is invisible on this: Illus. 7.320).

Structural analysis That this is a definite hollow-walled broch is shown by the remains of the chamber over the entrance passage and by those of the upper intra-mural gallery in the north-east arc. No further details are preserved so one cannot know, for example, if the stairway led up to a landing with a door-sized opening leading from it inwards to the scarcement.

Because of the length of the stair-foot cell the broch might be classified as a hybrid form between the groundgalleried and solid-based types; however the remainder of the wall base is completely solid and in every way a standard northern structure.

Finds [2, 108 - 9] (in Dunrobin Castle Museum) The internal deposits of the broch consisted of 91cm (3ft) of “unctuous earth” and ashes lying directly on the floor and surmounted by stony debris. Evidence of iron consisted of 2 fragments of slag (outside the broch) and the 2 rivets mentioned below. Bronze objects included 1 finger ring (with the human skeleton mentioned above, which was either put down through the “unctuous earth” or laid on top of it). Objects of bone and antler included 1 horn oval plate with 4 rivet holes and with 2 iron rivets still in position, and 1 deer’s horn handle with a pin-hole. Stone objects included a few hammerstones, 2 mortars, some quern fragments (presumably rotary), a sandstone disc (diam. 17.5cm or 7in), 1 steatite handled cup (Illus. 7.383) and 1 crude jet ring 6.5cm (2.5in) in diameter. Other items: there were also 1 amber bead, broken, 2 flint flakes and 1 chert flake. Pottery: in the museum are 5 small, plain wall sherds (ARC 501B).

A scarcement of the ledge type is preserved on the interior wallface from about 1 to 5 o’clock and 2.75m (9ft) above the floor; its width is about 40-46cm (1518in). Part of the upper mural gallery is visible at about 5 o’clock, going anti-clockwise for some distance and on top of the massive solid wallbase; it is about 46cm (18in) wide and its present base is at about scarcement level. The lintels for the stair-foot gallery would have been at about the same height. The upper gallery also runs over the guard cell, making use of the capstone of the latter in its floor, and it must be at least 91cm (3ft) higher than the entrance lintels here. The sides of the chamber over the entrance show no trace of the gallery, which presumably was blocked by it. The outer wall is 2.14 - 2.44m (7 - 8ft) thick and its distance from the broch varies from 3.97 - 8.54m (13 28ft) ; there is a ditch 6.10m (20ft) wide beyond. The outer entrance is in line with that of the broch and a walled passage 1.53m (5ft) wide connects the two features; it is protected by a forework wall about 3.05m (10ft) further out, instead of by the ditch. There were various presumably secondary flagged structures inside the broch which were considerably dilapidated in 1909.

Dimensions Internal diameter 9.30 - 9.46m (30.5 - 31ft); external diameter not measurable but should be about 18.0m (59ft) if the whole wall is the same thickness as the length of the entrance, that is 4.42m (14.5ft). In this case the wall proportion would be about 51.6%. In 1971 a fresh survey of the central court showed that the plan of this was almost exactly circular, and that the radius of the circle

644

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) that fits it best is 4.69 + 0.06m. The internal diameter is thus close to 9.396m (30.81ft). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 80 NW 1: 2. Joass 1890, 107 - 9: 3. RCAHMS 1911a, 9 - 11, no. 27, fig. 2 & pl. II: 4. Close-Brooks 1995, 134.

Description The broch is built of red sandstone and the entrance faces west and has a guard cell on its right (Illus. 7.322) but the connecting doorway is obscured by rubble. The doorframe was reported as being 2.75m (9ft) from the exterior in 1909 [2] but only one door-check in the left (north) wall can now be seen [1]. The passage is 1.22m (4ft) wide at the outside but is now almost completely choked with debris, only the left side being visible.

NC80 4 DUCHARY (‘Leadoch’) NC/8550 0520 This probable broch in Clyne, Sutherland, is situated on a knoll towards the south end of Loch Brora and about 1 mile south-east of Carrol broch (NC80 3). The site is an overgrown mound about 1.53m (5ft) high and, though there is no trace of the interior wallface, the outer face is visible in places, indicating an overall diameter of 17.69m (58ft) [2]; this was measured more recently as exactly 18.2m (59ft 8in) [1].

At a distance of 1.83m (6ft) north of the entrance (at about 7 o’clock) is the curved end wall of a long mural cell or ground level gallery which extends for at least 7.32m (24ft); the doorway leading into this is probably at about 8 o’clock but the wallface is broken down here and hidden under debris (Illus. 7.323, pole). A modern crosswall projects from the outer face of the gallery at this point. The remains of the intra-mural stair are visible immediately clockwise of this, in the form of the snapped-off stumps of several steps projecting from the outer face (Illus. 7.324). Such violent destruction of the intra-mural stair is unusual in brochs and it is possible that the damage was caused unwittingly by unskilled clearance activities during the last 250 years.

The entrance passage, about 4.0m long, is exposed on the east although it is blocked by a mass of rubble; a doorcheck is exposed as is the doorway in the right (north) wall leading to a chamber, presumably a guard cell [1]. Traces of another probable guard cell are on the left side, and traces of an apparently ground level intra-mural gallery extend from the west to the south-east (approximately from 12 to 7.30 o’clock) [1]. The site may thus be a probable ground-galleried broch. An enclosure about 3.0m wide abuts the wall on the north side and extends for about a quarter of the circumference. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 80 NE 16: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 11, no. 28.

There are signs of an outer wall around the broch 1.22m (4ft) from it and a wide natural trench separates the knoll from the hillside to the north. Dimensions According to the Commission the internal diameters seem to vary, that from south-west to north-east being about 7.02m (23ft), but on the north-east/south-west axis the distance is nearer 8.54m (28ft). In 1985 an accurate survey of the visible interior wallface was made, and the shape of the court proved to be close to circular, with a radius of 4.02 + 0.11m; the internal diameter would thus be 8.04m, or 26ft 4.3 in. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 80 SW 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 92, no. 271: 3. Kemp 1887, 166.

NC80 5 DUNROBIN WOOD (‘Dun Robin Broch’) NC/8407 0176 This probable broch in Golspie stands on a rocky knoll high above the fertile coastal strip on which Kintradwell and Carn Liath brochs are also situated (NC90 1 & NC85 1) (visited on 9/7/85) (Illus. 7.321 - 7.324). The site is now entirely surrounded by a fir wood and trees are growing on the wall; good photography of the remains is thus rather difficult (Illus. 7.321). Early visits and clearance The outer face was partly cleared at some time before 1909 but in that year the internal diameter was “not fully ascertainable” [2] so a considerable clearance of rubble from the interior must have taken place since. A local informant told the author that a party of schoolchildren cleared out the interior, and exposed some intra-mural features, in about 1982. In the summer of 1985 a path was made, and some of the trees cleared, for a clan Sutherland reunion. The outer face is exposed to a height of about 1.5 min places (Illus. 7.321).

NC80 6 KILBRARE (‘Kilbruar’) NC/8229 0987 Site of a possible broch in Clyne, Sutherland; it originally stood on an isolated knoll but has been almost completely destroyed, only scattered traces of the wall remaining [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 80 NW 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 7, no. 24. NC80 7 KILLIN (‘Loch Brora’) NC/8673 0761 This probable broch stands about 198m (650ft) above the sea and was already a structureless mass of stones in 1909 [2]. The entrance is probably on the west side where one side of a passage is exposed for 3.05m (10ft). A very large slab – at least 1.63m (5ft 4in) in height, 91cm (3ft) wide and 15 - 20cm (6 - 8in) thick – may be a door-check. Short lengths of the outer wallface are

Bishop Pococke visited this site, and that at Backies (NC80 1), in 1760 [3]. He mentions the central court being 30ft in diameter and saw the outer wall (below). He also saw the right-hand guard cell and the mural chamber on the left of the entrance. All this suggests that Dunrobin Wood may already have been partly cleared out by the middle of the 18th century. 645

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland visible, suggesting that the overall diameter is 19.6m, and the wall of a mural cell can be seen on the south-west [1]. There seems to be a secondary doorway connecting this chamber to the exterior [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 80 NE 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 9, no. 26.

well above the level of the scarcement, which should be hidden under the rubble [3]. Swanson suggests that it is unlikely that a stairway can be here if it is founded at ground level because it could not have cleared the corbelled roof of the cell at 12 o’clock; however if it started to rise immediately clockwise of the doorway at 8.30 o’clock there would probably be enough room.

Square NC82 Over the lintel of the doorway to the elongated cell at 7 o’clock are two super-imposed lintels forming a void. The lower lintel projects 0.5m forward from the upper and suggests that it is part of the otherwise buried scarcement [3]. The three cells in the south-eastern and southern arc are normal small, elongated chambers with rounded ends.

NC82 1 ALLT an DUIN 2 (‘Altanduin’) NC/8097 2605 Site of possible broch or ditched homestead in Kildonan, Sutherland, which had been demolished by 1871 [1]; it is now a heap of stones, doubtless having been robbed to build the recent longhouses nearby [3]. Although there are some large stones which may be from the bottom of the outer face of a broch wall “there is no surviving evidence that a broch was located at this site” [3]. On the west there are outer defences consisting of a curved double ditch with two ramparts but how these defences continue around the site is not clear [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 82 NW 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 106, no. 313: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 807 - 09 & plan: 4. RCAHMS, 1993.

There are no signs of outworks or anything else around the broch. Dimensions: interior diameter c. 11.0m [1]; wall thickness (at entrance) 4.73m. The wall proportion may thus be about 46%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 82 NW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 106 - 07, no. 314 & fig. 36: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 803 - 06 & plan: 4. RCAHMS, 1993.

NC82 2 FERANACH NC/8441 2730 This is a well-preserved broch of the rare transitional type, albeit of unusual design, in Kildonan, Sutherland (Illus. 7.278). It is about two miles above the junction of the rivers Helmsdale and Frithe, situated on the side of the Strath of Kildonan, 30.5m (100ft) above the river. There are several features in Level 2 which confirm that the structure is a hollow-walled broch. The interior wallface survives to a height of about 2.14m (7ft) above the debris which may be 0.9 - 1.2m (3 - 4ft) deep; the outer face stands up to 2.14 - 2.44m (7 - 8ft) in places.

NC82 3 LEARABLE NC/8949 2403 Possible broch or cairn [1] in Kildonan, Sutherland, now an almost featureless heap of stones [2]. The overall diameter seems to be about 23.8m (78ft) and the wall about 5.80m (19ft) thick; the entrance seems to be on the south-east. The remains are so badly robbed and overgrown that the identity of the building must remain uncertain [2, 3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 82 SE 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 107, no. 315: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 797: 4. RCAHMS 1993.

The entrance is on the west, 4.73m (15.5ft) in length, 76cm (2.5ft) wide at the outer end and with door-checks 1.68m (5.5ft) from the outside. The passage then widens to 1.19m (3ft 11in), narrowing again to 1.07m (3.5ft) at the inner end. Five lintels are in position 1.07m (3.5ft) above the debris, and a sixth lies on the ground in front. The innermost lintel appears to be part of the scarcement running round the interior wallface [3]. A guard cell opens off the right side and measures 1.83 by 1.53m (6 by 5ft); the doorway to this cell is not apparent but its lintel may just be visible [3].

NC82 4 SUISGILL NC/8875 2530 This probable broch in Kildonan, Sutherland, stands about 0.75 miles above the junction of the Suisgill burn and the river Helmsdale and on the summit of a mound 9.2m (30ft) above the river. It is in the centre of the pass at a narrow point of the Strath. This broch seems to have been much better preserved 250 years ago. The Rev. Alexander Pope, in discussing the “Pictish” buildings of the north of Scotland in 1774, says – “There is one of them entire in the parish of Loth” (probably NC90 1, Kintradwell). “It is the only one that is, as far as I could find, excepting one at Suisgill in the parish of Kildonan.” [3].

There are five other intra-mural cells, at about 4, 2, 12.30, 8.30 and 7 o’clock; the one with its doorway at 8.30 is 10.8m (36ft) long and could be classed as a gallery; it may contain the mural stair [2] but any steps are invisible under rubble. There are traces of an upper gallery on top of this with three lintels of the lower visible on the east, at 12 o’clock [3]. This upper gallery has openings to the interior at 8.30 o’clock (on top of the doorway to the lower level, which can only be seen from the intra-mural space) and at 11 o’clock; both these openings must be

Little of the broch is left – much of the wall having been removed at about 1909 [2] – and the north wall has disappeared entirely. The remains of a mural cell are visible on the south and there are no signs of the entrance. The interior diameter is about 12.2m (40ft), the wall on the north is 4.58m (15ft) thick and 3.7m (12ft) thick 646

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) on the south (the river side). In 1985 signs of a mural gallery about 0.9 mwide were seen on the south-east side [4].

Halladale (flowing from south to north) and is the furthest inland broch known in Strath Halladale. The ground falls sharply away from the site on all sides except the south.

There are massive outer defences on the level approaches to the site on the west, north and east [4], which “bear a close resemblance to those of the neighbouring broch of Kilphedir” (NC91 7) [2, 105]. These are most complex on the east, away from the river, and consist of three ramparts with two deep ditches between them starting about 5.49m (18ft) from the broch. On the north there is a single rampart with a gap, perhaps recent, through it on the north-east [4]. The original entrance through these outer defences is on the south-east, between the steep drop to the river and the eastern defences; it is defended by a forework mound 3.7m (12ft) wide and 8.5m (28ft) further out. The innermost rampart appears to surround the broch completely [4]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 82 NE 12: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 105, no. 308: 3. Pope 1774, 318 - 19: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 800-801 & plan: 5. RCAHMS, 1993.

The outer wallface, built with a considerable batter, survives to a height of nine courses (3m) on the west and the whole is built of squarish blocks of igneous or metamorphic rock, in sharp contrast to the sandstone sites in neighbouring Caithness. The entrance is on the eastsouth-east, facing uphill and away from the river, and the lintels are mostly still in position though the passage, and the broch itself, are choked with debris. The passage is now 6.71m (22ft) long (having been extended inwards, below), 76cm (2.5ft) wide at the exterior and widening to 1.14m (3ft 9in) at a distance of 4.58m (15ft) in. The doorway to a guard cell is 2.59m (8.5ft) in from the outside and is described as being on the east side of the passage: since this is more or less the way the passage faces it is not clear whether the cell is on the left or right. This feature was not visible in 1985 [5]. The central court appears partly to have been cleared out [2] and the author saw traces of a mural cell at about 9 o’clock; the doorway to this has been noted [2, 5]. Though the wall stands 2.44 - 2.75m (8 - 9ft) high in places there are no traces of a gallery on the wallhead. Through the entrance the external diameter of the broch is 19.52m (64ft), the internal one 8.24m (27ft): however the Commission noted 2.75m (9ft) of secondary walling against the interior on the east side [2] and later observers saw that the entrance passage had been extended inwards here [1], giving rise to its unusual length. The author’s plan of the interior wallface confirms that there is a secondary wall inside this broch (below).

NC82 5 UPPER SUISGILL (‘Carn nam Buth’) NC/8989 2498 This possible broch or ditched home-stead or dun in Kildonan stands on the summit of a prominent knoll but any structure on it is almost completely destroyed [2]. There are however traces of defences surrounding the knoll [2], although the possibility of the site being a more recent homestead, or a dun, has been raised [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 82 SE 11: 2. Swanson (ms) 1985, 798 - 99 & plan: 4. RCAHMS, 1993. Square NC85

A number of walls emerge from the heavy rubble fallen from the broch wall to form several outer enclosures. In 1977 these were all planned by a team from Edinburgh University under Mercer [4, fig. 12] (Illus. 7.325) who put forward the interesting hypothesis that they can be plausibly interpreted as being contemporary with the broch, or with the immediately post-broch occupation witnessed by the secondary interior wall. If so there exists at ‘The Borg’ a reasonably intact set of Iron Age garden and stock enclosures which may one day repay detailed study and excavation.

NC85 1 BUNAHOUN (‘Carn Liath’) NC/8940 5233 Probable broch in Farr, Sutherland; it is a mainly featureless heap of stones 2m high and situated on a slight rise between the road and the river. Traces of an entrance passage 4.27m (14ft) long were visible on the east [2] and occasional foundation stones of the wallfaces suggest an overall diameter of 18.8m over a wall 4.5m thick [1]; the internal diameter would thus be 9.8m[2]. Few structural features are visible now except an arc of massive basal stones on the south forming the foundations of the outer wall [4]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 85 SE 3: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 62, no. 187: 3. Mercer 1980, 146 no. 1: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 768 –69 & plan.

Important in this context was the discovery that clearance cairns exist on the moor above, suggesting that the ‘broch farmstead’, if that is what it was, cultivated the high arable land to the east. The contrast with the two later abandoned farmsteads nearby, which used the lower ground on the valley floor and practised rig-and-furrow agriculture, was marked and seemed to support the argument that the complex around The Borg was earlier, and probably of late prehistoric age.

NC85 2 FORSINAIN (‘The Borg 1’) NC/8993 5095 This probable broch with enclosures in Farr, Sutherland, is situated a few miles west of the geological boundary between the flat lands of north-east Caithness (sandstone) and the highlands of Sutherland (visited 9/7/63 & in 1971) (Illus. 7.325 & 7.326). It stands on a rock knoll on the east valley slope above the river

Dimensions: in 1971 the author carried out an accurate survey of the primary inner wallface of this broch which was thus shown to have been laid out close to a true circle 647

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland with a radius of 5.20 + 0.04m. Thus if the broch was oval, as Swanson surmises [5], such a shape would apply only to the outer wallface. The original internal diameter would thus have been 10.40m, on 34.1ft, which confirms that there is a secondary wall inside the broch. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 85 SE 1: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 62, no. 186: 3. Young 1962, 185, no. 28: 4. Mercer 1980, 24 - 6 & fig. 12, 103, no. 41: 5. Swanson (ms) 1985, 770-73 & plan.

features are visible now and there are no real signs of circularity [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 86 SE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 62 - 3, no. 189: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 760. Square NC90 NC90 1 KINTRADWELL (‘Cinn Trolla’, ‘Clentrolla’) NC/9293 0807 Solid-based broch in Loth, Sutherland, standing on flat ground a few miles to the south of Carn Liath (NC80 2) and on the same raised beach (Illus. 7.327 - 7.338) (visited 8/7/63, 1971 & Aug. 2003). It was excavated by Joass shortly before 1871 when he read an account of the work to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland [3]. The interior and a number of outbuildings were then cleared out. Joass states that earlier the site had been a featureless green mound and the accidental discovery of the top of a corbelled mural cell in it provoked the explorations. However Stuart says that the broch had already been partially cleared out and that midden material, possibly derived from that clearance, was visible [7, 305]. If this is the “entire” broch in the parish of Loth referred to by the Rev. Alexander Pope in 1774 (see Suisgill, NC82 4) it may have been a lot better preserved a century before it was explored.

NC85 3 TRANTLEMORE NC/8918 5338 Probable broch in Farr, Sutherland, situated on a slight rise 250mwest of the Halladale river. It consists of a turfgrown mound of stones 1.2m high; facing stones visible suggest an overall diameter of 17.6m[1] over a wall 4.2m thick. The entrance seems to have been from the north in 1909 [2] but nothing can be seen now [4]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 85 SE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 62, no. 188: 3. Mercer 1980, 146, no. 2: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 766-67 & plan. NC85 4 UPPER BIGHOUSE NC/8896 5752 This probable broch in Farr, Sutherland, stands on a ridge of moraine and consists of a turf-covered stony heap with some wallfaces showing; the inner face stands up to 1.5m high [1]. The wall seems to be about 4.5m thick and the internal diameter about 10.0m. There are two lines of outer defences, an outer ditch and an inner rampart of earth and stone, the latter having an entrance on the north-west. This entrance has a revetment of boulder-like stone slabs [1]. In 1985 hardly any structural features were visible except for an outer bank on the west [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 85 NE 1: 2. Joass 1890, 190: 3. Mercer 1980, 149, no. 39: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 763 - 65 & plan.

1. Description The broch The outer face of the structure still stands about 2 m high in places, is built of rectangular sandstone blocks in regular courses and has a steep batter (Illus. 7.330 & 7.331). The entrance is on the west side (Illus. 7.336) and is 2.14m (7ft) high at the outer end, with many of the lintels still in position. The passage is 92cm (3ft) wide and about 5.49m (18ft) long with rebated door-checks at 1.83m (6ft) and 4.27m (14ft) from the exterior; these doorways have stone sills set in the floor and the checks are faced with upright slabs which are projecting from the walls; the innermost left hand check is a built, rebated one. Another stone sill is described as being at the inner end of the passage but does not appear in the drawing or the plan. The passage has become partly filled again with stone blocks (Illus. 7.333).

Square NC86 NC86 1 BIGHOUSE (‘Lower Bighouse’) NC/8984 6387 Possible broch or cairn in Farr, Sutherland, consisting of the remains of a circular building with a massive wall and an overall diameter of about 20m [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 86 SE 7: 2. Mercer 1980, 145, BIG 27: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 758.

A round guard cell opens to the right between the two doorways and the sill of its doorway is 61cm (2ft) above the passage floor; the domed roof of the cell rose at least 1.53m (5ft) above the lintel of the doorway and its height to its capstone was given as 3.3m (11ft) originally. Now the wall around the cell is reduced to a height of less than 1.8m (6ft) and the corbelled dome has gone (Illus. 7.334).

NC86 2 LOCH MOR 2 (‘The Borg 2’) NC/8889 6344 Probable broch in Farr, Sutherland, of which only fragmentary remains existed in 1909 [2]. The overall diameter of the circular building seems to have been about 17.0m [1] and an upright stone on the north side was thought in 1909 to mark the outer end of the entrance [1]. Stones from the nearby fields may have been dumped on the ruins since 1909 [1]. The site may originally have been on an island or promontory when the water level of Loch Mor was higher. Few structural

The Commission’s photograph [5, pl. VII] shows that by 1909 the inner end of the passage had solid walling running across it instead of the usual void (everything above the lintel has since vanished – Illus. 7.334) but this was almost certainly built some time after the excavations. Joass’ drawing of the interior (Illus. 7.329) 648

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) must have been done very soon after as some of the finds – mainly rotary querns – are shown arranged round the interior and all the features on the floor (below) are visible. This drawing shows clearly that the sides of the passage continue above the lintels – in other words there was the standard broch chamber over the entrance. The masonry was doubtless partly restored but it seems that Kintradwell was a true, hollow-walled broch.

ashes and splintered bones lay within this. An area of ‘double paving’ was between this setting and the south wall. In the floor of the central court, next to the wall on the south-east (at 12 o’clock), there is an underground chamber, diagnosed as a ‘well’, 2.14m (7ft) deep; steep steps, formed like a ladder, led down into it to within 92cm (3ft) of the bottom. Another floor chamber is near the wall at about 8 o’clock and was reported as having had clay-lined walls with 3 steps leading down into it on to a flagged (paved) base. The similarity with the underground chambers in neighbour-ing Carn Liath (NC80 2) is noteworthy (both are shown in Illus. 7.328). This broch is likewise situated on the raised beach close to the sea and with a fine view to the south-east across to Aberdeenshire, and it may be that here too the site came to have a more ceremonial function in the later stages of its use.

The illustration also suggests that there were gaps between the lintels of the entrance passage – which were presumably meurtrières for defence against anyone attacking the door. This also tends to confirm that there was a chamber over the entrance opening into the interior. Joass says that “the inner wall is faced to a height of 8 feet by a scarcement 1 foot thick” [3, 97], which sounds like a secondary wall, and the drawing of the interior confirms that it is. The straight joint is still clearly visible (Illus. 7.329). The same drawing shows no sign of a true scarcement in the primary wallface and neither is one visible now. It is possible that one did exist but was obscured by rebuilding after the excavation; for example one might suppose that the scarcement crossed the entrance passage at the height of the innermost lintel, which is preserved, but there is no sign of the feature in the drawing. Alternatively it might have been at the top of Level 2, as at Midhowe in Orkney (HY33 1). This seems more likely when one considers that, like Midhowe, Kintradwell contains many neat sandstone slabs the availability of which may have encouraged the builders to attempt great architectural sophistication.

Secondary constructions On the plan [3, pl. XII] (Illus. 7.327) the south-east sector of the main wall is much thicker than the rest, and Joass explains that about a third of the outer face here has been rebuilt and thickened in much cruder masonry, the joint with the original face of the broch on the north-east being very poor. By contrast a low wall, “backed by stone detritus”, was built against the outer face of the broch from the west round to the north-east, and this is clearly secondary (Illus. 7.327). It could well be composed of stones from the upper parts of the broch, stacked in this way after partial demolition. The entrance – adjacent to the south end of this wall – has been extended outwards by a secondary passage which appears to have two door-frames close together a short distance in front of the broch. There is also, as at Carn Liath, a lateral passage here next to the broch wall and running along it in both directions. From the main passage a number of doorways lead into chambers of various shapes and sizes, some of which had upright stone pillars set into their floors. An approximately circular chamber is on the south-west, entered by two passages leading from the main extension passage. The absence of any stratigraphical analysis of the relative ages of these various outbuildings makes it difficult to assess the likely functions of the various chambers.

There is an oval mural cell at 7 o’clock reached by a small, raised opening in the secondary inner wallface; the primary cell doorway is doubtless larger (Illus. 7.337). The cell itself measures 3.36m (11ft) in length and is 3.05m (10ft) high. The doorway to the mural stair is at 9 o’clock with its sill 1.22m (4ft) above the floor; the secondary facing does not appear ever to have blocked this opening (Illus. 7.329). The stair rises to the right and there were 13 steps originally, now concealed by debris. The stair-foot guard cell is 3.05m (10ft) long and 2.75m (9ft) high and still has one lintel in position at its far end (Illus. 7.336); this was presumably once part of the floor of the Level 2 intra-mural gallery. Although there are now no signs of this on the wallhead, and no such feature was mentioned by Joass, its existence may be assumed because of the chamber over the entrance.

Joass suggested that all the external constructions were later than the broch, citing the poorer quality of the masonry; unlike the massive broch wall the stones of the outbuildings were small and had been packed with earthy midden material, including bones and shells.

At the time of excavation the deposits inside the tower were found to consist of an accumulation of 1.83m (6ft) of ash and earth floors on the original broch paving, with 1.83m (6ft) of stony debris on top of this. There was a fire-blackened stone slab lying flat in the centre, evidently a hearth, with nearby an L-shaped setting of long beach pebbles set on end in the floor. A heap of

2. Finds (Illus. 7.338 & 7.383) [6] Metal objects include 1 iron spear, 1 iron dagger blade and a lead ring (all found with burials in wall chambers, on steps and in the topsoil), 1 piece of a smaller iron dagger blade and an iron chisel-shaped tool, both found in the outbuildings. No bronze was found but there were 649

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland “fragments, greenish glazed, like portions of a crucible” [3, 102]. Bone artifacts: all these except one were on or near the broch floor and included 1 small blade, smooth and pointed; 2 socketed deer antler implements with transverse perforations (possibly bridle cheek-pieces), 1 ‘bow tip’ of deer horn, 2 small spatulae and 1 whale vertebra cup. Stone tools included many hammerstones, some long pestles, mortars, about 50 querns and rubbers (the drawing [3, pl. XI] (Illus. 7.329) shows only rotary querns but the mention of rubbers probably indicates that saddle querns were found as well), 1 steatite cup, 1 flat pebble scratched on both faces, probably a strike-a-light, spindle whorls, 1 cup-marked sandstone block and several mortars, one with the pestle in it (two of these are marked in the large circular enclosure in the outbuildings). There were also 1 smooth mica-schist disc and fragments of “well finished” jet rings, presumably armlets.

RCAHMS 1911a, 160-61, no. 467 & pl. VII: 6. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 9 (1870-2), 53-6 (finds): 7. Stuart 1868: 8. Graham-Campbell & Paterson, forthcoming. Square NC91 NC91 1 ALLT a’ CHOIRE MHOIR (‘Kilearnan’) NC/9216 1887 Probable broch in Kildonan, Sutherland, in the form of a conspicuous rubble-covered mound next to the steep side of the burn (allt) valley; the stream leads down to the river Helmsdale. Traces of the inner and outer face are visible, indicating a thick-walled circular building with an internal diameter of 10.0m and a wall about 4.9m thick. By 1985 the internal diameter was evidently not measurable [3]. From the edge of the steep gulley on the south-east and round to the north-west are traces of outer defences in the form of a shallow ditch and a low, external stone rampart. On the east side, where the approach to the site is also over level ground, there appear to be no outer defences [3]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 91 NW 2: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 106, no. 312: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 792 –93 & plan.

A number of human burials were found in the broch ruins [3, 99], and these included: 1 skull 61cm (2ft) below the turf on top of the broch mound, 1 skeleton in a similar position, 1 headless skeleton 61cm (2ft) lower down and near the south wall (the skull was found later in its own small cist close to the inner end of the entrance), 1 fragmentary skeleton near the outer end of the entrance and 61cm (2ft) below the surface, fragments of 1 skull close under the roof of the stair-foot chamber, 2 skeletons on the intra-mural stair, fragments of a child’s skull in the guard cell, and 1 skull vault and parts of a skeleton on the paved floor close to the entrance.

NC91 2 BALVALICH (‘Balvalaich’) NC/9452 1898 Possible broch in Kildonan, Sutherland, situated in an undefended position on the open, sloping side of the Strath. It consists of a quarried heap of stones in which most of the inner and outer faces can be discerned. There may be a short outer defensive turf and stone wall, or hornwork, on the north-west side but the identity of the feature is uncertain [2].

In the outbuildings more human remains were found and they included 1 skeleton with an iron spear-head (possibly Viking [8]) and a small lead ring (noted earlier) nearby (found in a small chamber – “nearest on the left, looking from the broch doorway”), 2 skulls, in fragments, from the large circular enclosure south-west of the tower, and 1 skeleton in the shallow oval enclosure north-west of the tower with an iron dagger blade close by.

Dimensions: the inner diameter is about 9.0m[1] or 8.7m north-south [2]; the wall varies in thickness from 4.0 4.4m [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 91 SW 14: 2. Swanson (ms) 1985, 789. NC91 3 CARN BRAN NC/9420 1220 (NC/94202 12196 – GPS) This broch in Loth, Sutherland, stands on a slight knoll in the centre of the flat floor of the narrow Glen Loth, and next to the north bank of the river (Illus. 7.338 (bottom) & 7.339 - 7.344 ) (visited 12/7/63, 22/7/87 & 24/7/03). The valley bottom is here about one hundred yards wide. The huge pile of stones, 3.6m (12ft) high, conceals most of the structural features but the entrance is visible directly above the river bank (Illus. 7.340). There is a massive drystone revetment immediately below the entrance and another lower down and a little to the west (upstream). The only way to get into the broch would have been by crossing the stream and climbing the steep bank, where doubtless there was once a flight of steps. The outer face of the broch can be traced in places and suggests an overall diameter of 17.0m.

2. Dimensions (author’s measurements) External diameter from 6-12 o’clock 20.28m (66.5ft): 93 o’clock 19.83m (65ft): internal diameters 9.00m (29.5ft) and 8.39 (27.5ft) respectively: wall proportion, from average dimensions, 56.6%. If Joass’ plan is reasonably accurate the original thickness of the wall (subtracting 1ft. of “scarcement”) was about 4.58m (15ft) and the overall diameter about 18.91m (62ft) – giving an internal diameter of 9.76m (32ft). In 1971 a fresh survey of the primary inner wallface showed that the inner court was very nearly circular, with a radius of 4.72 + 0.07m; thus the diameter of the court is 9.44m, or 30.95ft . Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 90 SW 5: 2. Joass 1864b: 3. Joass 1890: 4. Anderson 1883, 216: 5. 650

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) The entrance passage faces south-west (Illus. 7.341) and one lintel can be seen in position near the inner end; this indicates that some 1.53 - 1.83m (5-6ft) of structure lie buried below the rubble here. Two door-checks can be seen below the lintel; the one on the left (looking in) is made of a slab on edge projecting from the wall and the one on the right appears to be built. This door-frame seems to be about 3.0m from the outer end of the passage. There is a suggestion of another door-frame at about 1.3m from the exterior but some clearance of rubble would be needed to verify this; the left wall is invisible at this point. The rubble filling the passage rises to within 30cm of the lintel .

The doorway to the mural stair is visible 4.12m (13.5ft) to the left (clockwise) of the entrance (at about 9 o’clock) and 4 steps of the stair are visible rising to the right. The sides of the stair-foot guard cell can be traced for a short distance to the left of the door. The inner face is visible, several courses high in places (Illus. 7.346) and there is a suggestion of a gallery 0.9m wide in the north-west [4]. There are slight signs of some outer defence works but they are not easily made sense of [1, 4]. Dimensions: the inner face indicates an internal diameter of about 7.63m (25ft). The wall thickness is about 3.66m (12ft) – or 3.2 - 4.0m [4] – so the external diameter would thus be about 14.95m (49ft) and the wall proportion 49% of the total. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 91 NE 20: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 106, no. 309: 3. Stuart 1867: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 783-84 & plan.

At about 12 o’clock can be seen the built end of a long mural cell or gallery running clockwise from it – with one lintel in position (Illus. 7.343); the doorway to the interior from this was apparent in 1963. This is likely to be the stair doorway and the long stair-foot guard cell [1, plan] (Illus. 7.338). The inner face of a continuation of this gallery is traceable further round towards the south – from about 3-4 o’clock – and, since this is well above the lintel over the main entrance, it must be an upper gallery. The structure is therefore a definite hollow-walled broch. The rounded end of another cell or gallery, with a deep, corbelled overhang, is at about 9 o’clock. The 1976 O.S. observer thought he saw traces of a scarcement on the inner wallface around the southern arc [1] and there is a raised void in the inner wallface at about 4 o’clock (Illus. 7.344).

NC91 5 GYLABLE BURN (‘Gailable’) NC/9487 1823 Probable broch in Kildonan, Sutherland, standing in a fairly open position on a low spur on the east side of the burn and about 0.25 miles from the river Helmsdale. There are the remains of a pre-Clearance township close by [3]. The structure is a badly ruined mound of stones 2m high and only the basal courses of the inner and outer faces can be intermittently traced; some of the blocks in the latter are very large. The entrance is on the east with the north (right) side of the passage partly preserved [4]. Just south (clockwise) of this is what appears to be the inner face of a gallery or cell in the wall. There are no outer defences.

At a distance of 5.49m (18ft) on the south-east is a curved outer wall 2.44m (8ft) thick with another a little further out. Traces of a curved outer wall are also visible on the north but there are no signs now of connecting masonry round the north-east and east sides (Illus. 7.338). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 91 SW 2 & plan: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 161-62, no. 468: 3. Pennant 1774, 356.

Dimensions: the wallfaces suggest an internal diameter of 9.5m (31ft) and a wall thickness of 4.9m (16ft) [1]; Swanson gives the former as 7.8m east-west and 8.3mat right angles [4]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 91 NW 9: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 106, no. 311: 3. A Haggarty in Discovery & Excavation Scotland 1983, 16.: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 787.

NC91 4 ELDRABLE NC/9833 1816 This probable broch in Kildonan, Sutherland, stands on the west bank of the Eldrable burn about 200m from the junction with the river Helmsdale, and about 60m (200ft) above it; it is most easily reached by way of a suspension footbridge at NC/987184 (visited in 1987) (Illus. 7.345 7.347). It stands on the upper end of a ridge with the burn gorge on one side and a hollow on the other.

NC91 6 KILLOURAN (‘Kilournan’, ‘Kilearnan Hill’) NC/9293 1882 Possible broch in Kildonan, Sutherland, now a featureless heap of stones in which no structural features are visible. It is in a position without natural defences and there are no signs of any outer walls or ditches. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 91 NW 8: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 106, no. 310: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 791.

The building is fairly well preserved but, being made of polygonal blocks of metamorphic rock, few structural features are apparent (Illus. 7.346). The outer face can be traced nearly all the way round and stands several courses high in places, above the surrounding rubble. The entrance was on the east-north-east facing the stream and was about 1.22m (4ft) wide at the outer end [2]; however the passage has evidently since been destroyed or buried [4].

NC91 7 KILPHEDIR (‘Kilphader Tower’) NC/9943 1891 This probable broch in Kildonan stands high up on the moor overlooking the valley of the river Helmsdale, with a clear view up and down the strath (visited 12/7/63) (Illus. 7.284 & 7.347 - 7.350). It stands on a natural knoll which has been entirely surrounded at its base by a formidable ditch 2.75m (9ft) deep within an earthen 651

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland rampart 4.27m (14ft) wide (Illus. 7.284, 7.348 & 7.350). There is a short outer ditch, parallel with the inner and about 6.10m (20ft) long, at the north end, facing the river where the approach is over flat ground. On the south-west a causeway crosses the main surrounding ditch and Swanson describes a ramp on the north-west which she thinks was the main approach to the broch (Illus. 7.347) [8].

NC/9764 1117 This possible broch in Loth, Sutherland, was reported as being near the shore by the Rev. G McCulloch in 1798 [2]. Little can be seen now but the likeliest spot is on the south-east spur of an isolated hillock [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 91 SE 3: 2. New Statistical Account, 15, 200: 3. RCAHMS 1911a, 164, no.476b.

The broch itself is almost completely hidden under a vast pile of stones (Illus. 7.348) which look as though they have never been disturbed. Several features are visible however. The entrance is on the north-west (facing the ramp) with three lintels still in position: it is 4.73m (15.5ft) long, 92cm (3ft) wide at the outer end, 1.48m (4ft 10in) at the inner and with 15cm (6in)-deep doorchecks at a distance 3.05m (10ft) in; these are presumably built rebates but were not noted by the author in 1963, though Swanson saw the one on the right [8, 780]. No signs of a guard cell are visible.

Square NC92 NC92 1 ACH an FHIONNFHURAIDH (‘Suisgill Lodge’) NC/9020 2396 The wasted remains of this possible broch in Kildonan were found during Ordnance Survey field investigations in 1963 [1], standing on a gentle, west-facing slope on open moorland. The building measures about 18.3m in diameter and the wall is about 4m thick and 1.5m in height. A broad-bottomed ditch surrounds the structure, which has also been diagnosed as a homestead [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site NC 92 SW 13: 2. Swanson (ms) 1985, 795-96 & plan: 3. RCAHMS, 1993.

At 12 o’clock can be seen the doorway from the interior to an intra-mural gallery which probably contains the stair (Illus. 7.350): this was in fact seen here, together with a stair-foot guard cell, in 1909, but there were no signs of the steps in 1963 even though the gallery – 7692cm (2.5 - 3ft) wide – is exposed down to 61cm (2ft) below the present wallhead (Illus. 7.350). A short stretch of the inner face of a mural gallery is visible at 10 o’clock but no signs of a scarcement ledge are apparent on the interior wallface. Three lintels are in position over the gallery in the arc from 2-5 o’clock. A quartzite pebble from the broch was in the collection of the Dunrobin Castle Museum [1].

Caithness Square NC96 NC96 1 ACHBUILIGAN TULLOCH NC/9894 6570 Possible broch, or natural mound, in Reay, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound situated in a field about 100m north of Loch Achbuiligan (Illus. 7.210). On the south-west the slope is steep and rises to 3.97m (13ft), but elsewhere the mound rises gradually. The depression marking the interior is apparent but no wallfaces are exposed. The mound may be partly natural and doubts about its covering a broch have been expressed [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 96 NE 17: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 94, no. 350: 3. Mercer 1985, no. FOR 14, 101, 156 & fig. 57.

This is another site which seems to have been somewhat better preserved in the recent past. Stuart visited it in about 1866 and stated that “The present example has walls of about fifteen feet in thickness, containing chambers which enter from the central open space.” He also noted that “A flight of stairs, formed of flags in the centre of the wall, is yet entire.” [7, 290]. The drawing from the early 1860s shows this better preservation well (Illus. 7.284).

NC96 2 ACHUNABUST (‘Brough’) NC/9943 6463 Probable broch in Reay, Caithness, consisting of a grassy hillock 1.83m (6ft) high; the wallfaces are exposed in places and suggest an overall diameter of 30.0m and an internal one of 8.0 - 9.0m[1]. Traces of an intra-mural chamber, aligned east-west, can be seen on the south-east with a doorway to the interior. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 96 SE 7: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 94-5, no. 351: 3. Mercer 1985, 158, no. 24.

Dimensions: the broch’s internal diameter is 10.07m (33ft) from north-east to south-west (on the 6-12 o’clock axis) and 9.76m (32ft) transversely. Swanson gives it as 9.6m north-south [8]. The wall thickness at the entrance is 4.27m (14ft) (4.73m, or 15.5ft, according to the Commission) and the total diameter here is 18.15m (59.5ft): the wall proportion would thus be 45.5%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 91 NE 27: 2. Joass 1864b, 246: 3. RCAHMS 1911a, 104-05, no. 307, fig. 35 & pl. III: 4. Young 1962, 186: 5. Feachem 1963, 173: 6. MacKie 1975, 218: 7. Stuart 1868: 8. Swanson (ms) 1985, 779-82: 9. Close-Brooks 1995, 152-3, no. 84: 10. Armit 2003, 36, 80: 11. Dockrill 2002, 160. NC91 8

NC96 3 ACHVARASDAL LODGE (‘Achvarasdal’) NC/9834 6469 This probable solid-based broch in Reay, Caithness, stands on flat ground on top of a slight rise: it has been excavated, probably at around 1870 [1], but without exposing the exterior wallface (Illus. 7.351-7.354 ). The structure is built of brick-like slabs of whitish sandstone

STRONRUNKIE (‘Wilkhouse’, ‘Loth’) 652

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) and now stands some 1.60m (5ft 3in) high. It is worth noting that none of these slabs are very large; in particular there are no very large blocks in the basal course. This broch may therefore never have been very high (visited 9/7/63, 19/7/85 & 22/7/03).

Dimensions: internal diameter 10.07m (33ft), external c. 18.00m (59ft), wall proportion c. 44.0%. In 1971 a new angle-and-distance survey of the interior wallface found that its ground plan is close to a true circle with a radius of 5.04 + 0.05m; the diameter would thus be 10.08m (33.05ft). This measurement surely indicates that, though the site may well indeed be “much restored” [3, 156], the basal courses at least of the broch’s interior are original. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 96 SE 5: 2. RCAHMS 1911, 95, no. 353: 3. Mercer 1985, 156, no. 12: 4. MacKie 1972: 5. MacKie 1975, 230.

The entrance is on the east-south-east (Illus. 7.351 & 7.352) and is 3.97m (13ft) long with two built doorchecks 1.22m (4ft) from the exterior. No guard cell is now visible but the Commission suspected that a rebuilt part of the passage wall on the left may have been a blocked-up doorway to a guard cell. The passage is 0.84m (2ft 9in) wide at the outer end, 1.09m (3ft 7in) behind the checks and 0.76m (2ft 6in) at the inner end. It may have been substantially reconstructed after excavation as there are no bar-holes apparent now.

NC96 4 ISAULD (‘Bridge of Isauld’) NC/9767 6504 Site of possible broch in Reay, Caithness, which was marked as a ‘Pict’s house’ on the OS 6-inch map of 1877 [1]. It had evidently been removed by about 1860 when some querns and animal bones were found. A spring found in the centre of the broch now drains into the burn [1]. No trace of a building now remains. Source: 1. NMRS site no. NC 96 NE 19.

There is an internal doorway at 3 o’clock (Illus. 7.353), which seems to lead to the mural stair, though the passage leading to this has evidently been blocked off at some stage (Illus. 7.354). The secondary masonry here is difficult to unravel without clearing away the vegetation, but there is definitely a passage leading to the right (presumably approaching the stair) which has been blocked with a drystone face about 30cm in from the right edge of the doorway. Likewise there seems to be a passage leading to the left (perhaps to a stair-foot cell) which has been blocked off in a similar manner.

NC96 5 KNOCK URRAY NC/98438 6630 Possible broch in Reay, Caithness, consisting of a grassy mound some 26.54m (87ft) in diameter and 3.05m (10ft) high and with a flat top 16.47m (54ft) in diameter on which may be a ruined broch. However no wallfaces are visible. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NC 96 NE 16: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 94, no. 349.

It is not clear whether these blocking features are ancient or were done after the 19th century excavations. By 2003 the stair doorway itself had been blocked with neatly laid stonework so none of these other blocking features – including the one described below – is now visible. The rear wall of the intra-mural space reached by what is assumed to be the stair door (3.05m from the inner wallface) is also a secondary filling of an opening in the primary stonework of about the same width as the doorway to the interior. At first glance this looks as if it may have been a passage – a secondary entrance perhaps – running right through the wall but an examination of Dun na Maigh (NC55 1), about 44km further west, reveals there a curious alcove in the rear wallface, facing the stair door. Achvarasdal Lodge probably had a similar arrangement and, since the feature has not been noted in any other brochs, one might surmise that the same architect designed both. A huge mound surrounds the broch and has signs of many buildings which have not been excavated. In 2003 this site was much more overgrown than in 1985. Finds: those recorded in 1909 [2] are a discoid rotary quern (found lying in the interior and now in the Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow) [4, 140], a stone mortar (not seen by the author) and 2 whetstones once preserved in the Lodge [2], but now lost [1]. There were also found in the interior at about 1870 some bones and 2 or 3 human skulls [1]. 653

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.176 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 1988. General view of the broch mound from the east with the outer wall face lower down (pole); the view shows how in Illus. 7.177 the rock slopes away from the broch on all sides (neg. 1988/4/23).

654

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.177 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 2005: general plan of the unexcavated and partly washed away broch, with a diagrammatic cross section, surveyed by the author in 2005; the spot heights for the cross section were taken with an indian clinometer. The fragment of the scarcement shown at the inner end of the passage is actually at 4 o’clock, it being buried at the former place. The tall cell is evidently founded at lower level than the internal floor. Scale 1:150.

655

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.178 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 1988: suggested plans of the broch at Levels I and 2, based on the survey in Illus. 7.177. In Level 1 it is assumed that the left opening in the passage leads to a narrow gallery connecting with the tall cell at 8.30 o’clock; it is also assumed that a ground level gallery ran round the destroyed part of the wall and was entered by a doorway at about 1 o’clock. In Level 2 it is assumed that there was a landing and a doorway (above the lower door) to the interior also at about 1 o’clock; it is not clear if the tall cell at 8.30 interrupted the Level 2 gallery in this arc. Scale 1:150.

7.179 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 1988: the broch entrance with its triangular lintel. The outwards extension of the passage runs towards the camera (pole) (neg. 1988/4/26).

656

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.180 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 1988: view showing the massive slabs forming the gate through the outer wall (pole at left outer corner) (neg.1988/4/24).

0 7.181 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 1988: view from the broch down to the outer gate, the pole in the same position as in the previous photograph. Then extension of the broch entrance is in the foreground (Ill. 7.04) (neg. 1988/4/25).

657

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.182 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 1988: inside the entrance passage looking out with the door frame clearly visible (note the lintel of the door to the guard cell on the left) (neg. 1988/4/11).

7.183 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 1988: the partly cleared chamber over the entrance with one lintel of its floor visible (pole) (neg. 1988/4/17).

658

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.184 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 1988: from the entrance left into the gallery (neg. 1988/4/16).

7.185 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 1988: inside the right guard cell with the pole in the entrance passage and showing the stepped roof of lintels (neg. 1988/4/13).

659

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.186 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 1988: inside the right guard cell showing the doorway to the central court. (neg. 1988/4/14).

7.187 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 1988: the stair foot guard cell. The pole marks the lintel over the beginning of this with the wall of the Level 2 gallery above it; to the left (in shadow) is the broken lintel of the stair door (to the central court) (neg. 1988/4/21).

660

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.188 Clachtoll broch (NC02 1) in 1988: the pole stands next to the inside face of the stair passage, the steps being hidden under rubble. The bare rock to the left shows where the rest of the broch has been swept away by the sea (neg. 1988/4/20).

661

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.189 Kylestrome (NC23 1): view of the broch mound on its promontory (neg. 1988/4/29).

7.190 Kylestrome (NC23 1): the outer end of the blocked entrance passage with the pole marking the corner made with the outer wall face (neg. 1988/4/30).

662

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.191 Kylestrome (NC23 1): view across the rubble-filled interior towards the stair and mural cell (neg. 1988/4/31).

7.192 Kylestrome (NC23 1): the upper part of the intra-mural stair (neg. 1988/4/32).

663

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.193 Achaneas 1 in 1985: general view of the broch mound among trees (neg. 1985/1/8).

7.194 Achaneas 1 (NC40 1) in 1985: probable huge triangular lintel on the grass (neg. 1985/1/7).

664

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.195 Langwell: plan of the vitrified dun and the internal post-holes with, below, a cross section of the interior deposits (Nisbet 1996, fig. 3). Scale of plan 1:300 (grid of 5m). Copyright with Glasgow Archaeological Society.

665

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.196 Dail Langwell (NC41 1) in 1985: view of the site looking downstream (neg. 1985/1/18).

7.197 Dail Langwell (NC41 1) in 1985: the downstream side with modern enclosures, the pole at the right (in front of the tree) being at the raised mural cell (neg. 1985/1/17).

666

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.198 Dail Langwell (NC41 1) in 1985: view upstream across the rubble-filled interior to the high outer face (neg. 1985/1/11).

7.199 Dail Langwell (NC41 1) in 1985: view of the long lintel over the upper gallery (left) with the lintelled doorway

from the gallery to the interior at the pole (neg. 1985/1/13). 667

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.200 Dail Langwell (NC41 1) in 1985: the lintelled upper gallery on upstream side (neg. 1985/1/14).

7.201 Dun Dornadilla (NC44 2) in 1963. Distant view of the broch by the river (neg. 1963/43).

668

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.202 Dun Dornadilla (NC44 2). Top: late 18th C drawing showing the condition of the tower in about 1780. Bottom: the restored, schematic cross section drawn for Alexander Pope. .

669

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.203 Dun Dornadilla (NC44 2): Close-up view of the broch in 1963 showing triangular lintel over main entrance; Illus. 7.271 is a similar view from about 1880, showing how much dilapidation has occurred since then (neg. 1963/44).

7.204 Dun Dornadilla (NC44 2) in 1963: The modern masonry buttress shoring up the remaining part of the high hollow wall, with an opening left to give access to the chamber over the entrance. (neg. 1963/45).

670

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.205 Dun Dornadilla (NC44 2) in 1985: The same buttress twenty-two years later with the opening blocked up (neg. 1985/8/17).

7.206 Dun Dornadilla (NC44 2): View in 1963 of the wallhead (now grassed over) showing the inner face (pole) and the sides of an upper gallery (neg. 1963/46).

671

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.207 Camas an Duin (NC45 1): General view of the foundations of the broch outer wall just above the water of Loch Eriboll in 1963 (neg. 1963/439).

7.208 Tigh nan Fiarnain (NC46 2) in 1963: general view of the ‘wheelhouse’ site (neg. 1963/4/2).

672

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.209 Tigh na Fiarnain in 1963; two of the internal monolithic stone pillars supporting roofing over overlapping slabs (neg. 1963/4/42).

673

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.210 Top: Tigh na Fiarnain (ND46 2) in 1925: plan and cross section of the site, from Mathieson (1925). Scale 1:150. Copyright Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Bottom: NC96 1 Achbuiligan Tulloch General plan of unexcavated site (Mercer 1985, fig. 57): scale 1:300.

674

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.211 Durcha (NC50 1) in 1996. Plan of the broch as revealed by the excavated trenches (marked); no north point was included (Dunwell 1999). Scale 1:150. Copyright Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

675

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.212 Simple plans of brochs by the RCAHMS (1911a, figs. 55 & 56) : top, Sallachaidh (NC50 4): bottom, Allt Breac (NC50 1): scale 1:300. Crown copyright reserved.

676

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.213 Sallachaidh (NC50 4) in 1963. General view of the broch on its hillock with Loch Sallachy in the background (neg. 1963/4/23).

7.214 Sallachaidh (NC50 4) in 1963. General view of the outer wall face (neg. 1963/4/21).

677

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.215 Sallachaidh (NC50 4) in 1985: general view of the interior, looking towards the entrance passage (neg. 1985/1/20).

7.216 Sallachaidh (NC50 4) in 1985: the upper part of the intra-mural stair exposed with the door to the interior on the right (neg. 1985/1/21).

678

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.217 Sallachaidh (NC50 4) in 1963; view towards the entrance passage from the wallhead at about 10 o’clock; in the foreground is the stair-foot guard cell and door to the interior and in the background the door to the right guard cell can be seen (neg. 1963/4/22).

7.218 Sallachaidh (NC50 4) in 1963: the crudely reconstructed doorway from the entrance passage leading into the right guard cell (neg. 1963/4/23).

7.219 Sallachaidh (NC50 4) in 1985. the interior of the left guard cell (neg. 1985/1/23).

679

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.220 Allt Breac (NC51 1) in 1963: view of the site from below (neg. 1963/4/17).

7.221 Allt Breac (NC51 1) in 1963: the wall head showing the probable entrance passage (side wall at pole) with a guard cell in foreground; the outer wallface of the broch is at top left (neg. 1963/4/15).

680

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.222 Allt Breac (NC51 1) in 1963: the wallhead showing a stretch of probably ground level gallery on the south side (neg. 1963/4/16).

7.223 Dalchork (NC51 4) in 1963; distant view of broch mound (neg. 1963/418).

681

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.224 Dun na Maigh (NC55 1) in 1985: view from the south towards the broch on its rocky knoll (neg. 1985/7/16).

7.225 Dun na Maigh (NC55 1) in 1985: View across the rubble-filled interior towards the entrance passage in the south (?) (neg. 1985/7/10).

682

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.226 Dun na Maigh (NC55 1) in 1985: view across the interior to the north (neg. 1985/7/11).

7.227 Dun na Maigh (NC55 1) in 1963: view of the entrance passage looking out, the door-checks being by the pole; in the foreground can be seen the inner door frame with the remains of one of the snapped-off slab-checks at bottom left (neg. 1963/4/35).

683

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.228 Dun na Maigh (NC55 1) in 1963: view from above of the guard cell doorway (pole) opening off the right wall of the entrance passage; the chamber over the entrance lintel is just visible in the right foreground (neg. 1963/4/36).

7.229 Dun na Maigh (NC55 1)in 1985: inside the guard cell (neg. 1985/7/15). 684

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.230 Dun na Maigh (NC55 1) in 1963: view of the ledge type scarcement on the inner wall face with the pole resting on it (neg. 1963/2/38).

7.231 Dun na Maigh (NC55 1) in 1963: view of the intra-mural stairway under the lintels (pole) with the broch inner wall face on the right (neg. 1963/2/39).

685

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.232 Dun na Maigh (NC55 1) in 1985: view of an alcove or cupboard in the outer half of the wall at the foot of the stair, which rises to the right (neg. 1985/7/13).

7.233 A’Mheirle (NC60 1) in 1985: view of the rubble mound from above (neg. 1985/1/32).

686

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.234 A’Mheirle (NC60 1) in 1985: general view of the rubble mound in 1985, the pole marking the lintel over a void (neg. 1985/1/37).

7.235 A’Mheirle (NC60 1) in 1985: view of the lintel over the inner end of the entrance on the east side (neg. 1985/1/35).

687

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.236 A’Mheirle (NC60 1) in 1985: view of the filled mural cell on the east side (neg. 1985/1/34).

7.237 Coill ach a’ Chuill (NC63 1) in 1963. View across the water to the mound of rubble on the opposite side of Loch Naver (neg. 1963/4/11).

688

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.238 Dun Creagach (NC63 2) in 1985. View of site on its loch promontory (neg. 1985/7/17).

689

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.239 Top: Dun Creagach (NC63 2) in 1985. Bottom: Grum More (NC63 3) in 1985: Plans of the sites adapted from those of C Swanson (ms 1984): scale 1:300.

690

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.240 Dun Creagach (NC63 2) in 1985. The causeway to the broch from the shore in 1985 (neg. 1985/8/3).

7.241 Dun Creagach (NC63 2) in 1985. View of the outer wall face (pole) with the remains of an outer wall on the beach below it (neg. 1985/8/4).

691

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.242 Dun Creagach (NC63 2) in 1985. View of the rubble-filled interior with the inner wall face on the right; the pole marks a lintel of the upper gallery on the north side (1985/8/2).

7.243 Grum More (NC63 3) in 1985. View of the unexcavated broch from the west (neg. 1985/8/6).

692

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.244 Grum More (NC63 3) in 1963: view of the ledge type scarcement (neg. 1963/4/9).

7.245 Grum More (NC63 3) in 1985. The ground level gallery on the south-south-east in 1985 (neg. 1985/8/11).

693

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.246 Grum More in 1985: view of the door to the mural gallery on the south by south-west with the pole resting on the scarcement (neg. 1985/8/12).

7.247 Grum More (NC63 3) in 1985. The main entrance seen from the interior; the side of the void or chamber above it is just to the right of the pole (neg. 1985/8/8).

694

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.248 Grum More (NC63 3) in 1985. Inside the entrance showing the door to the guard cell at lower left (neg. 1985/8/7).

7.249 Grum More (NC63 3) in 1985. Inside the guard cell showing the inner end. The object next to the white part of the pole is not an ancient notebook but a fragment of sandstone (neg. 1985/8/14).

695

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.250 Grum More (NC63 3) in 1985. Top of the filled-up round mural cell on the east side (neg. 1985/8/9).

696

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.251 Grum More (NC63 3) in c. 1860: sketch map by Joass (1864, fig. 3) showing the brochs round Loch Naver and with a rough cross section of Grum More (site ‘D’) showing clearly the hollow-wall construction. Copyright with Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

697

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.252 Langdale Burn (NC64 1) in 1963; distant view of the broch mound (neg. 1963/4/12).

698

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.253 Top: Langdale Burn (NC64 1) in 1985. Bottom: Sandy Dun (NC66 2) in 1985. Plans of the sites after C Swanson (ms 1984): scale 1:300.

699

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.254 Langdale Burn (NC64 1) in 1963: view of probable traces of the wall gallery (neg. 1963/4/13).

7.255 Sandy Dun (NC66 2) in 1985: distant view of the broch (just left of centre and just below the top of the ridge – 1985/7/9).

700

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.256 Sandy Dun (NC66 2) in 1963: view of the sand- and rubble-filled interior of the broch with the ledge type scarcement visible running round behind the pole (neg. 1963/4/36).

7.257 East Kinnauld 1 (NC70 1) and Castle Cole (NC71 1: sketch plans by the RCAHMS (1911a, figs. 65 & 1): scales, 1:300. Crown copyright reserved.

701

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.258 East Kinnauld 1 (NC70 1) in 1963: view of Strath Fleet from the site; the lintelled entrance passage is visible in the foreground (neg. 1963/4/25).

7.259 East Kinnauld 1 (NC70 1) in 1985: looking along the entrance passage from the outside; the door frame is at the pole (neg. 1985/2/7 ).

702

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.260 East Kinnauld 1 (NC70 1) in 1985: the entrance passage from the inner end showing the door-checks below the ends of the upper lintel and the lintel of the door to the right guard cell (pole) (neg. 1985/2/6).

7.261 East Kinnauld 1 (NC70 1) in 1963: the same lintel over the entrance passage with the inner wall face of the broch in the foreground, showing a triangular lintel over a small doorway to an intra-mural cell (neg. 1963/4/24).

7.262 East Kinnauld 1 (NC70 1) in 1985: the two faces of what seems to be an upper gallery at 10 o’clock, clearly visible in the foreground, below the pole (neg. 1985/2/3).

703

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.263 East Kinnauld 1 (NC70 1) in 1985: a raised void in the inner wall face at 8 o’clock (notebook on its sill) with the upper gallery behind (pole): the small triangular lintel of the cell doorway is in the foreground (neg. 1985/2/4).

7.264 Castle Cole (NC71 1) in 1985; distant view of ruins on rocky knoll above stream (neg. 1985/3/13).

704

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.265 Castle Cole (NC71 1) in 1963; close-up view of broch with entrance; the structure has lost much of its height over the last one hundred and twenty years – compare Illus. 7.271 (neg. 1963/3/41).

7.266 Castle Cole (NC71 1) in 1985; inside the entrance passage looking in with the pole at the door-checks (neg. 1985/3/12).

705

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.267 Castle Cole (NC71 1) in 1985; view down into the entrance (exterior to the left) showing the two door frames, one being at extreme left and the other under the lintel at the right. The socket for the draw bar is next to the check at the front door frame, at the bottom with a small lintel of its own. The inner wall face is at extreme right (neg. 1985/3/9).

7.268 Castle Cole (NC71 1) in 1985; oval guard cell on the right of the entrance passage (neg. 1985/3/10).

706

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.269 Castle Cole (NC71 1) in 1963; looking through the entrance passage (pole) from the inner end with, to its left, a set of shallow voids or aumbries in the inner wall face (neg. 1963/3/39).

7.270 Castle Cole (NC71 1) in 1963; the inner wall face opposite the entrance showing more shallow voids or aumbries (which do not penetrate into any intra-mural space) and the remains of the scarcement (at the top of the pole) (neg. 1963/3/40).

707

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.271 A, Castle Cole (NC71 1) and B, Dun Dornaigil (NC44 2), both in about 1880. These drawings of the profiles of the two brochs, and of the outer ends of their entrance passages, are taken from Mitchell (1881, figs. 6-12). The profiles show that both brochs were much higher and better preserved one hundred and twenty-five years ago. Copyright: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

708

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.272 Coich Burn (NC71 2) in 1963; general view from below of the mound of rubble on its rocky crag (neg. 1963/4/38).

709

7.273 Left: Inshlampie (NC74 2) in 1985. Right: Allt an Duin (NC75 2) in 1985. Plans of the sites based on those of C Swanson (ms 1984): scale 1:300.

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

710

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.274 Allt an Duin (NC75 2) in 1963; general view of the ruins on a conical knoll (neg. 1963/2/33).

7.275 Allt an Duin (NC75 2) in 1985; view from the broch down to low lying ground, with the outer end of the entrance passage in the foreground (see next photo) (neg. 1985/7/8).

711

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.276 Allt an Duin (NC75 2) in 1963; the outer end of the entrance passage with the triangular lintel fallen forward (pole) and another thinner, flat one still almost in position in front of it, though it seems to have fallen backwards (neg. 1963/2/34).

7.277 Allt an Duin (NC75 2) in 1963; view across the rubble-filled interior from the entrance, showing the remains of a secondary wall (vertical pole) and the ledge type scarcement on the primary wall face (horizontal pole) (neg. 1963/2/35).

712

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.278 Top: Dun Carnachaidh (NC75 3) in 1985. Bottom: Feranach (NC82 2) in 1985. Plans of the sites based on those of C Swanson (ms 1984): scale 1:300.

713

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.279 Armadale Burn (NC79 1) in 1963; view from the north of the broch on its knoll (centre, small cairn visible on it) (neg. 1963/2/32).

7.280 Armadale Burn (NC79 1) in 1963; lintelled doorway in the interior wall face (neg. 1963/2/31).

714

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.281 Backies (NC80 1) in 1985. General view of the pale rubble mound with the North Sea on the right; the outer face was not explored and the rubble from the interior was evidently piled up around the broch (neg. 1985/2/9).

715

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.282 Backies (NC80 1) in 1846. Drawings of the broch at the time of excavation made later for J J Worsaae, the Danish archaeologist, from sketches made during his visit to the excavations (Worsaae 1934, 157 & 161). Top, a view along the entrance passage from the interior showing the door frame, with raised sill stone, and roofing lintels; the vertical perspective is exaggerated, as in Illus. 7.284. Bottom, a view of the central court from the wall head at about 2 o’clock showing the same features as in Illus. 7.284 for which it may be the prototype. One feature which does not appear on the later drawing is the secondary wall which is shown as clearly distinct from the scarcement, which is overlapped by it at one point (as at Midhowe – HY33 1).

716

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.283 Backies (NC80 1) in 1846. Final sketch plan made by J J Worsaae from his plan and notes made on site (Illus. 3.7). This drawing makes it clear that the secondary wall did not block up the three doorways, and also confirms the existence of the doorframes in the inner two doorways. Reproduced with the permission of the National Museum in Copenhagen (neg. R86502).

717

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.284 Top: Kilpheder (NC91 7) not later than 1864. Drawing of the site as seen from further up the hill (compare Illus. 7.348). The stump of the hollow-walled tower then projected above the surrounding rubble but is quite invisible now. Bottom: Backies (NC80 1) not later than 1864, showing the interior of the broch (the main entrance is on the left) as exposed in 1846, still far better preserved than it is now. The inner wall face evidently stood well above the scarcement and several complete Level 2 openings to the interior are visible. For some reason the secondary wall is not shown (see Illus. 7.282). Both from Joass 1864, pl. XV. Copyright: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

718

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.285 Backies (NC80 1) in 1985; the outer end of the entrance passage with a little of the outer wall face visible; the inner wallface at about 12 o’clock is visible in the background (neg. 1985/2/19).

7.286 Backies (NC80 1) in 1985. Inside the entrance passage, looking out; the door frame is visible in silhouette beyond the pole (neg. 1985/2/12)

719

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.287 Backies (NC80 1) in 1985; view across the interior showing (extreme left) the door to the stair at 8 o’clock and the low door to the elongated mural cell at 12 o’clock, with its void below the scarcement (pole). The tall door above the scarcement has almost completely vanished. Compare Illus. 7.282 & 7.284 which show the interior clear of rubble and the doorway above the scarcement almost complete (neg. 1985/2/11).

7.288 Backies (NC80 1) in 1985; part of the well preserved outer wall (pole) of the gallery containing the stair, the steps now mostly hidden under rubble; the wall face evidently rises into Level 2 here. (neg. 1985/2/15).

720

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.289 Backies (NC80 1) in 1985; the curved end of the rubble-filled double mural cell at 12 o’clock (neg. 1985/2/16).

721

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.290 Backies (NC80 1) in 1846: new diagrammatic plans of the broch, at Levels 1 and 2, showing how the structure probably appeared immediately after excavation, based on J J Worsaae’s sketch plans and measurements. Because of the distance between the Level 1 section of the stair and the doorway out on to the scarcement at 12 o’clock, a long landing is assumed to connect the two, between about 9.30 and 12 o’clock. Scale 1:150.

7.291 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1963; general view of the broch on its raised beach (neg. 1963/6/8).

722

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.292 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 2003: the same view forty years later after repair, consolidation and some reconstruction by Historic Scotland (neg. 2003/1/14).

723

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.293 Carn Liath (NC80 2) at about 1870; general plan of the site after Joass 1890- scale 1:240

724

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.294 Carn Liath (NC80 2) at about 1870; two cross sections across the broch, at right angles to one another, and a longitudinal section across the guard cell, after Joass 1890: scale 1:240

725

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.295 Carn Liath (NC80 2); C, general plan of the site at scale 1:320; B, situation of the site in relation to Golspie (Paula Love (1991, fig. 1). Copyright Glasgow Archaeological Society.

726

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.296 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1985; walling of one of the rectangular ‘outbuildings’ approaching the broch wall (neg. 1985/2/26).

7.297 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1985; looking down the entrance passage from the interior with the door frame at the pole; the lintel of the doorway to the guard cell is visible at left (neg. 1985/2/28).

727

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.298 Carn Liath (NC80 2): Carn Liath; Old photo of entrance from interior (Anderson 1901).

7.299 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1988; inside the guard cell looking towards the entrance passage and showing its roof of lintels (neg. 1988/4/34).

728

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.300 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1963; the area of the wall head around the entrance passage (inner end to right) showing the two faces of an upper mural gallery approaching it (foreground: it is on top of the lintelled roof of the guard cell) and a fragment of another one is on the other side (pole). The lintel in the middle – above the passage door frame – is the same stone seen in Illus. 7.297 & 7.301 (neg. 1963/6/10).

7.301 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1985; the same area of wallhead now grassed over. Only a fragment of the upper gallery in the foreground remains visible and the segment on the other side of the passage has been entirely obscured (neg. 1985/2/27).

729

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.302 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1963; general view from the wall head to the area around the mural stair, the top few steps of which can be seen (to right of pole) emerging from rubble. It can be seen from this that all the upper parts of the walling next to the stairway, including the roofing lintels which are shown in the next two photographs, are modern reconstructions (neg. 1963/6/9).

7.303 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1985; the intra-mural stairway, looking from the top down; the modern iron bar supporting one of the replaced lintels can be clearly seen. (neg. 1985/2/30).

7.304 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1985; looking up the intra-mural stairway. (neg. 1985/2/31).

730

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.305 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1985; general view of the internal wall face, showing the secondary walling (turfed over) near the bottom and the scarcement higher up (pole) (neg. 1985/2/32).

7.306 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1985; more restoration has taken place in the area around the door to the stairway. In the passage wall (extreme right) it can just be seen that the masonry of the secondary wall (turfed over) and that of the primary broch wall behind it have been blended together, whereas there should be a straight joint here (neg. 1985/2/33).

731

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.307 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1987; view from the grassed-over broch wall head (lower right) down on to the secondary outward extension of the entrance passage with its door frame (one slab check is visible); the doorway opening to the right behind the check leads to its guard cell or to some other feature (neg. 1987/1/2).

732

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.308 Carn Liath (NC80 2) in 1972; view of the partially re-excavated central floor chamber; photograph by J X W P Corcoran (Love 1991 pl. 2, bottom. Copyright with the Glasgow Archaeological Society.

733

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.309a Carn Liath (NC80 2). the line carvings found on one of the lintels of the outward extension of the entrance passage, now vanished (after Wise 1881).

734

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.309 Carn Liathb (NC80 2). Finds from Carn Liath NC80 2) from Joass (1890). The two spiral bronze finger rings are almost certainly from Camas an Duin (NC45 1).

735

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.310 Carn Liath (NC80 2); some of the stone and bone finds in the Dunrobin Castle Museum (drawn by the author). The stone whorl no. 7 is from Carrol broch (NC80 1). Scale 1:2. See Appendix 1.

736

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.311 Plans of brochs by the RCAHMS in 1911. Top, Carrol NC80 3): middle, Feranach (NC82 2): bottom, Kilphedir (NC97 7). Scales 1:300. Crown copyright reserved.

737

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.312 Carrol (NC80 3) in 1985; general view of the rubble mound looking like a large cairn. As was usual in the 19th century the rubble from the interior was piled up around the broch, the outer wall face of which was not explored (neg. 1985/3/3).

7.313 Carrol (NC80 3) photographed before 1911; the inner end of the entrance with suggestions of the chamber above it (RCAHMS 1911b pl. 2: neg. SU 963). Crown copyright reserved.

738

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.314 Carrol (NC80 3) in 1985; view of the wall head above the entrance (which leads to the tree-filled interior on the left) showing traces of the void above it. The flat, tilted lintel is thin enough to require such a weight-relieving device (neg. 1985/2/35).

7.315 Carrol (NC80 3) in 1985; inside the entrance passage looking out with both door frames visible; the slab-built checks of the inner one are by the pole (neg. 1985/3/0).

739

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.316 Carrol (NC80 3) in 1985; the low doorway in the entrance leading to the guard cell (neg. 1985/3/1).

7.317 Carrol (NC80 3) in 1985; the interior of the guard cell looking towards the passage (neg. 1985/3/2).

740

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.318 Carrol (NC80 3) in 1963; the elongated stair-foot guard cell clockwise from the entrance, which is in the background (left). One face of the stair door is in the foreground (neg. 1963/4/28).

7.319 Carrol (NC80 3) in 1985; the remains of the intra-mural stair with the stair door to the right, filled with bushes (the interior had become filled with these again since I first cut them down in 1971) (neg. 1985/2/36).

741

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.320 Carrol (NC80 3) in 1985; the end of the stair foot guard cell, close to the entrance passage (neg. 1985/2/37).

7.321 Dunrobin Wood (NC80 5) in 1985; view of the outer wall face under the trees, running from the pole to behind the tree in the foreground (neg. 1985/2/21).

742

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.322 Dunrobin Wood (NC80 5) in 1985; the guard cell partly exposed (neg. 1985/2/22).

7.323 Dunrobin Wood (NC80 5) in 1985; view across the interior to a large mural cell (pole) (neg. 1985/2/24).

743

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.324 Dunrobin Wood (NC80 5) in 1985; the remains of the intra-mural stairway with the point of the pole resting on the snappedoff stump of one step and the black notebook on another one above it (neg. 1985/2/25).

744

7.325 Forsinain (NC85 2): General plan of the area around the broch (Mercer 1980 fig. 12).

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

745

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.326 Top: Forsinain (NC85 2) in 1985: Bottom: Balvalaich (NC91 2) in 1985. Plans of the sites based on those of C Swanson (ms 1984): scale 1:300.

746

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.327 Kintradwell (NC90 1) in about 1870. Plan of the broch and its surrounding buildings made at the time of excavation (Joass 1890, pl. XII): scale 1:225. Copyright with the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

747

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.328 Kintradwell (NC90 1) in about 1870. Two elevations across the site (A-B & C-D) together with a longitudinal section across the entrance (E-F) (Joass 1890, fig. XIII): scales 1:235 Copyright with the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

748

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.329 Kintradwell (NC90 1) in about 1870. Drawings made after the excavations, showing a general view of the interior, looking towards the entrance. It is clear that the wall was much higher then, and part of the chamber over the entrance is clearly seen (Joass 1890, fig. XX). Copyright with the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

749

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.330 Kintradwell (NC90 1) in 2003; general view of the site on the raised beach. The low horizon of Aberdeenshire can just be made out faintly in the background on the negative (see Illus. 7.313) (neg. 2003/1/15).

7.331 Kintradwell (NC90 1) in 1963; part of the outer wall face showing a pronounced batter produced by stepping each course back slightly from the one below (neg. 1963/2/28).

750

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.332 Kintradwell (NC90 1) in 2003: the outer end of the entrance passage (neg. 2003/1/16).

7.333 Kintradwell (NC90 1) in 1985; the inner end of the entrance showing how the secondary wall abuts against the broch wall (at the pole); the scale of the destruction of this broch can be gauged by comparing this view with the drawing in Illus. 7.333 (neg. 1985/3/15).

751

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.334 Kintradwell (NC90 1) in 1985; the now roofless guard cell (neg. 1985/3/17).

7.335 Kintradwell (NC90 1) in 1985; general view of the interior with the stair-foot guard cell on the right and the entrance at the pole (neg. 1985/3/14).

752

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.336 Kintradwell (NC90 1) in 1963; the elongated stair foot guard cell (neg. 1963/2/27).

7.337 Kintradwell (NC90 1) in 1985; the oval mural cell at 7 o’clock (neg. 1985/3/16). 753

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.338 Top: Kintradwell (NC90 1); some of the finds, including the author’s drawings of pottery. See Appendix 1. Bottom: Carn Bran (NC91 3), a general plan after the Ordnance Survey: scale 1:300. Crown copyright reserved.

754

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.339 Carn Bran (NC91 3) in 1963. General view of the site which is the tiny pale mound (in line with the road in the foreground) next to the stream on the flat ground, just below the distant clump of trees. (neg. 1963/3/1).

7.340 Carn Bran (NC91 3) in 1963; the unexcavated broch seen from across the stream with the pole marking the outer wall face just to the left of the rubble filled entrance passage, which was approached by a steep slope. Note the massive revetment at lower left, by the water (neg. 1963/3/4).

755

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.341 Carn Bran (NC91 3) in 1987; looking into the roofed entrance from the exterior, a slab-built door-check can be seen on the left and a built one on the right (neg. 1987/1/5).

7.342 Carn Bran (NC91 3) in 1987; the wall head at 12 o’clock showing an enormous lintel covering the mural gallery in the foreground (below the left end of the pole) and another, split, to the right (below its right end). The gallery wall rises above the former (point of pole) (neg. 1987/1/7).

756

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.343 Carn Bran (NC91 3) in 1963; the split gallery lintel seen in the previous photograph with a mural cell beyond it (neg. 1963/3/3).

7.344 Carn Bran (NC91 3) in 1987. The inner wall face (camera box) facing right with a raised void at the pole; the flat stone on the left is probably a lintel for this (neg. 1987/1/6).

757

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.345 Eldrable (NC91 4) in 1987; view of the unexcavated site from above (neg. 1987/1/9).

7.346 Eldrable (NC91 4) in 1987. The inner wall face; note the irregularly-shaped, polygonal facing blocks typical of broch masonry in the highlands (neg. 1987/1/10).

758

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.347 Top: Eldrable (NC91 4) in 1985: Bottom: Kilpheder (NC91 7) in 1985: general plans of the site adapted from those of C Swanson: scales 1:300 and 1:600 respectively.

759

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.348 Kilpheder (NC91 7) in 1963: view from above of the broch mound and its outer defences (neg. 1963/3/8).

7.349 Kilpheder (NC91 7) in 1963: the surrounding ditch with the broch mound to the right (neg. 1963/3/7).

760

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.350 Kilpheder (NC91 7) in 1963: the intra-mural gallery and the stair (neg. 1963/3/6).

7.351 Achvarasdal Lodge (NC96 3) in 1985: view across the central court with the main entrance (on the right) and the stair door at about 4 o’clock (neg. 1985/7/4).

761

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.352 Achvarasdal Lodge (NC96 3) in 1985: a view outwards through the main entrance with the built door checks visible at the far end, at the pole (neg. 1985/7/0).

7.353 Achvarasdal Lodge (NC96 3) in 1985: close-up view of the stair door from the interior (neg. 1985/7/1).

7.354 Achvarasdal Lodge (NC96 3) in 1985. View of the blocking wall at the foot of and hiding the stairway; the inner end of the doorway in Illus. 7.353 is on the right (neg. 1985/7/3).

762

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) form of a huge mound of pale sandstone slabs – was thought to be a broch [2]. Like the vitrified dun Torr a’ Chorcain (NC40 4) it is close enough to the broch type to require discussion here. The final, medieval, phase of use is however only briefly alluded to. The full report has not yet appeared although a fairly detailed summary has [5].

NH sites This mountainous area of the far north-west mainland contains relatively few brochs and broch-like sites; most of the terrain is uninhabitable and cultivable land is found only along the bottoms of glens and on the flood plains at the mouths of rivers. The most interesting sites here are the two on the south-east shore of Loch Broom, both of which have been excavated. When the sequences of occupation in both are compared some plausible interconnections can be detected which shed light on some general problems of brochs.

The name ‘Dun Lagaidh’ refers to the prominent ‘broch’ mound; the existence of the surrounding hillfort was, as far as is known, not suspected before 1947.94 The site stands on an isolated, hog-backed ridge of rock on the south shore of Loch Broom and about 1 mile south of Ullapool across the water. Originally described as a broch sitting on top of a burnt (vitrified) timber-framed hillfort, the circular structure on the eastern end of the ramparts proved to be a mainly solid-walled round dun, probably of Argyllshire type (Illus. 7.355).Many centuries later this dun was refortified in medieval times.

Western Ross-shire (mainland) Square NH18 NH18 1 LITTLE LOCH BROOM (‘Loch Broom’) NH/08 88 (or NH/17 85) Possible broch in Lochbroom, Wester Ross, somewhere near the head of Little Loch Broom. The only record which might indicate a site comes from the discovery in 1860 or shortly before of a middle Bronze Age gold ribbon torc [5], donated to the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland by Hugh MacKenzie of Ardross [2]. The finder stated that it came from “a Pictish Burg at the head of Lochbroom” [2] at Little Lochbroom [4], subsequently defined as the head of Little Lochbroom [3]. Although it is now attributed to Loch Broom [1] the apparent mention by the finder of the smaller sea loch to the south surely means that Anderson was correct in placing the find spot at about NH/0888. There is no other report of a broch-like structure at the head of either of the two lochs. Sources: 1. NMRS no. NH 18 NE 7: 2. ‘Donations to the museum and library’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 3 (185760), 339-41, 361-5, 389-90, 404-7, 437-40, 462-4, 480-9, 363: 3. Anderson 1886, 218: 4. Anon. 1892, accession no. FE 34: 5. Coles 1962, 147.

1. The excavations 1.1 Background Excavations were undertaken at Dun Lagaidh for a number of reasons which seemed important in the mid 1960s. (1) It seemed to be the only remaining undisturbed example of a hillfort with a broch on top of it, all the other comparable sites having been damaged to varying extents in the 19th century (although useful information was subsequently extracted from Torwoodlee in Selkirkshire – site NT43 1). At that time the radiocarbon dating of brochs was in its infancy, only Dun Mor Vaul on Tiree having been subjected systematically to the new dating method (site NM04 4), and a clear stratigraphical relationship between a broch and a hillfort would have been useful in constructing a reliable and detailed Iron Age structural sequence. (2) Loch Broom seemed to be one of the rare examples of an isolated glen on the west coast in which a broch and a semibroch had been built close together; Glen Beag near Glenelg is another good example, with two well preserved solid-based brochs and a fine D- or C-shaped semibroch at the head of the valley (site NG8 1). Thus it seemed that excavation of the two sites might reveal and date structures which spanned the whole of the Iron Age – the hillfort presumably being the oldest, followed (if the author’s scheme was correct) by the semibroch at Rhiroy and with the apparently solid-based broch at Dun Lagaidh coming at the end of the sequence. The work on Loch Broom was designed to test this hypothesis.

Square NH19 NH19 1 ALLT RAON A’ CHROISG (‘Leckmelm’) NH/1695 9008 Possible broch in Lochbroom, Ross and Cromarty, described as a ‘Pictish tower’ on the 1906 OS 6-inch map [1], and in 1875 apparently visible as the foundations of a circular mound or wall about 30ft in diameter [1]. Nothing can be seen now [3] except a rubbly knoll which does not look very like a broch site [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 19 SE 1: 2. Macdonald & Polson 1931, 75: 3. Calder & Steer, 1949, 76.

(3) Exploring Dun Lagaidh might be expected to shed light on the overlap of two entirely distinct material cultures. Timber-framed hillforts are distributed mainly in the eastern and central mainland of Scotland whereas

NH19 2 DUN LAGAIDH (‘Loggie’) NH/1423 9135 Round dun or massive roundhouse, on top of a vitrified (timber-framed) hill-fort in Lochbroom, Ross and Cromarty (Illus. 7.355 - 7.359). The hillfort and dun are described in some detail here because, before its excavation by the author in 1967-68, the latter – in the

94 In May of that year Mrs Elizabeth Gibb visited the site and found the remains of the vitrified hillfort [3, 68].

763

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland brochs – confined mainly to the maritime Atlantic province – tend to produce a quite different array of pottery and artifacts. It might be possible at this site to test the idea that drystone defensive structures belong to specific material cultures, and perhaps to build up a long sequence of pottery and artifacts from the three buildings.

wall at its southern extremity, and its passage rose quite steeply up the sloping rock. Though this outer hornwork had been almost completely demolished in the centre it was still standing 6ft (1.8m) high at the northern end. Here a trench exposed the inner face in which could be seen rectangular holes for wooden beams and, next to them, a mass of vitrified rubble from the wall core which appeared to have burst through the face [4, plate). This is a final demonstration – if such is needed – that vitrified forts are nothing but burnt timberframed stone walls [4]. The face of the hornwork – like that of the main wall – is founded on a row of rounded boulders which were partly sunk into a bedding trench.

In the end Dun Lagaidh proved not to be a broch so most of these aims were not realised. However other valuable evidence was recovered. 1.2 The late Bronze Age hillfort The western end and the side walls. Several trenches were dug to explore the interior, at the west end and far from the debris of the dun (Illus. 7.355). A clear section of vitrified wall could be seen running round that end. However although the inner foundations of the hillfort wall were revealed (resting on a massive boulder plinth), no traces of human occupation were found except for scatters of charcoal on the old ground surface.

The interior at the east end. Only when the floor of the interior of the ‘broch’ was cut through was a substantial hillfort occupation layer reached. This was a short distance behind the main entrance at the eastern end and here the black layer, resting on the whitish subsoil which covered the rock in places, was up to 3in (7.6cm) thick. It overlay a large paved area which looked like a hearth without a kerb. Evidently this hearth, if it was such, had been abandoned at an early stage and the occupation layer then accumulated on top of it. No paving was found anywhere else and there were no artifacts in the parts of the occupation layer explored.

There were few visible traces of the hillfort wall along the long northern and southern sides of the ridge, much of which consisted of bare rock at a higher level than the west end of the interior. Its position was only established in two places as the result of the excavation of later features (Illus. 7.355). Most of the wall along the sides has been completely destroyed.

A mass of charcoal fragments, evidently the remains of carbonised branches, lay on the hillfort occupation layer in the area behind the main entrance. Evidently these had been on fire and had been covered by masonry falling from the wall before they could be completely turned to ash. Among these branches was a heap of charred barley which gave a radiocarbon date of 460 + 100 bc (GaK 2492). Presumably this dates the destruction and vitrification of the hillfort.

The eastern end and the main entrance. A long trench was dug across the eastern end of the site and revealed the clear stratigraphical relationship between the hillfort and the ‘broch’ (Illus. 7.356). The loose rubble of the ruined fort wall had evidently been removed before the dun was built and the foundation platform for it had been planted on the scanty remains of the hillfort wall – 15ft (4.58m) thick in this sector and apparently unburnt. Little of its vertical face was preserved and this was mounted on a foundation of a double row of boulders [4]. A few feet to the south the foundations of the main entrance into the hillfort were discovered with massive blocks underpinning the outer corners of the passage [5, pl.]. This passage was about 4.5ft wide and its floor was the bedrock which rose rapidly towards the interior of the hillfort.

Two pieces of carbonised branches were found in contexts which dated from the construction of the hillfort. One was under the core of the wall at the western end and gave a date of 490 + 80 bc (GaK-1121). The other rested on the white subsoil just south of the ‘broch’ entrance at a point where its wall was founded on the subsoil. It gave a date of 880 + 90 bc (GaK-1948). These dates are considered under ‘Discussion’ below.

From the entrance passage, and wedged under the base of the wall, came the only artifact which could be definitely associated with the timber-framed hillfort – a small thin fragment of a perforated polished bronze plate (Illus. 7.382) (see ‘Finds’ at end).

1.3 The middle Iron Age dun Results from the excavations. Before excavation it was noted that the wall of the hillfort had been extensively robbed of stone, presumably to build the ‘broch’ which lay on top of its eastern end. The sections showed that what must have been an enormous mass of fallen rubble and still standing wall foundations – relics of the destruction of the hillfort – were quarried to provide building material for the ‘broch’ and levelled off to make a flat rubble platform on which to site it (Illus. 7.356).

Despite the complex appearance of the surface “banks” and “ditches” which, before excavation, seemed to form the outer defences [2], the outwork of the hillfort was in fact a single timber-laced wall 8ft (2.44m) thick which crossed the promontory in a curve 38ft (11.6m) in front of the main eastern wall. The hard rock of the promontory precluded ditch digging. A narrow gateway was in this

The ‘broch’ itself is a circular structure with a drystone wall which contains one or more median faces at several 764

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) points. The enclosed area, approximately circular, is 35ft (10.68m) in diameter along the line of the doorway in the south-east. The overall diameter on this line is about 59ft (17.96m), so the wall at floor level is some 12ft (3.66m) thick. The main entrance had two sets of door-checks (Illus. 7.358) but no pivot-sockets for the hinge-posts were preserved in its rock floor. An elongated guard cell opened from the right side of the passage (looking in).

actual construction. However, the age received was ad 840 + 90 (GaK-1947), clearly far too late for the Iron Age occupation. 1.4 The medieval refortification This last phase of use of the site is described here only briefly. The dun was cleared out and refortified in medieval times, lime-mortared masonry being used to block up the entrance passage (Illus. 7.358) and to construct two radial walls projecting outwards from the western side; the stronghold thus became a simple castle and bailey. A bone pin and bone bobbins from this period were found at the same level as the Iron Age artifacts, so the old floor level had evidently been reexposed. A hoard of short-cross English silver pennies and half pennies – which had been lost sometime after 1230 [3] – was found below the outer face of the north radial wall.

On the opposite side of the central court, at 10 o’clock, was the doorway to the mural stair (Illus. 7.357). Fifteen steps of this were preserved, rising to a height of 4ft 10in. (1.47m) in a horizontal distance of 7ft 6in. (2.29m), which is at an average angle of 33°. No trace of an upper gallery was found on the wallhead, which was presumably flat with a stone parapet or breastwork. Neither were any other traces of hollow-wall architectural features found so – despite its size and proportions – Dun Lagaidh seems not to have been a broch. Other reasons for this conclusion are given in the ‘Discussion’ section.

2. Discussion 2.1 The hillfort In spite of the large area occupied by the hillfort – the walls of which enclose approximately 3000 square yards (2500 square metres) – very little sign of intensive occupation was found in it except at the eastern end, near the entrance. Despite that, no artifacts were found in the black occupation layer. The closeness of the youngest C14 date for the construction of the wall to that dating the destruction could mean that this hillfort was not used for very long, perhaps not more than a century or so.96 The absence of pottery was also a feature of the later levels at this site, and also of Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh half a mile to the south-east (next entry), so it doubtless indicates a genuine aceramic material culture on Loch Broom in late prehistoric times.

The stratigraphy of the interior of the dun, from top to bottom, consisted of the following layers. No. 1 was dry rubble (of pale Torridonian sandstone); no. 2 was rubble and a brown soil containing many tiny shells; no. 3 was rubble and black earth with many fragments of charcoal, and no. 4 was the hillfort occupation layer already described (Illus. 7.356).95 The top of layer 3 was evidently the floor level of the dun and, although no paved areas were found, a number of undoubted Iron Age artifacts were found on and in this layer. There was a reddish patch in the centre of the floor which is doubtless the remains of a number of fires. Finds from the dun floor level. As noted the lower level of black earth, charcoal and rubble under the ‘broch’ floor is the remains of the burning and later levelling of the hillfort debris. It seems to have been extensively disturbed, although the hillfort occupation layer under it was intact: several fragments of iron, including a small spear-point, were found in it. The finds made on the surface of the black layer included some that are almost certainly medieval in date; most were found before it was realised that the layer of heavy rubble mixed with a pale shelly soil, which lay on the dark occupation layer, belonged to the debris of the collapsed lime-mortared walls of the medieval refortification. The finds are listed at the end of this entry (Illus. 7.359).

Local late Bronze Age metalwork. An extremely elegant, decorated late Bronze Age Swan’s neck sunflower pin [14] was found not far away on a hillside but has not hitherto been discussed in relation to this site [9].97 These pins belong to what Coles called the Adabrock phase and date to the 7th/6th centuries BC [11, 54, fig. 7]. The local example was found in about 1944 and an investigation twenty years later [9] concluded that it had been found close to the semibroch Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh, less than a mile to the south-east (see next entry).98 However a grid reference for the find spot was worked out when the pin was received by the National Museum [10] and this is in

Some large pieces of charcoal were found at the top of the black layer and seemed to be fragments of wooden planks, or something similar, which had been on fire and which had been buried before being completely consumed. A sample of one of these “planks” was sent for dating and it was expected that the result would date some wooden furniture inside the dun, and perhaps its

96 Although the vagaries of the tree-ring calibration around this period mean that there can be no certainty about this. 97 Also known as a wheel-headed pin; in the Atlantic Province moulds for casting these have been found at Jarlshof in Shetland (HU30 1) and at Cladh Hallan in South Uist (NF72 7). “Bronze pin, 11.3 inches long, with a ‘sunflower’ head 2.05 inches across, having in the centre a conical boss surrounded by seven fine concentric grooves forming a zone 0.22 inches wide, outside which nine dot-and-three-circles decorate a zone 0.35 inches wide, followed by three more grooves and the slightly raised edge of the disc. Found on the south-west side of Loch Broom by the donors (NGR 28.137906).” [12]. The finders were Betty and John Munro of Rhiroy. 98 The Munros had by this time moved to Glasgow and could not be consulted.

95 The distinction between layers 3 and 4 was hard to establish until the underlying paved hearth and burnt branches had been reached. All the earth was extremely black.

765

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland fact closer to Dun Lagaidh; the alleged connection with Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh can therefore probably be dismissed.

3.2 Dun The finds on the floor, as noted, belong to both the Iron Age and the medieval period (the bone objects are probably medieval 100). The former include many squaresectioned iron nails from 1-2in long, several fragments of thin bronze sheeting, one with “paper-clip” double rivets, a complete bronze ring-headed pin with a projecting head, and a broken, iron three-link bridle bit. A boar’s tusk suggests hunting for sport and a small iron spearhead, although it was embedded in layer 3 below the floor level, suggests the same. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 19 SW 3.00: 2. Calder & Steer 1949: 3. Barlow & Robertson 1969: 4. MacKie 1969b: 5. MacKie 1977, 214-19 & figs. 4 & 5 & pls. II & IV-X: 6. Armit 1991, 208: 7: MacKie 1969a, 17-18: 8. MacKie 1969a, 8-13: 9. NMRS no. NH 19 SW 5: 10. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 83 (1948-49), 243 & pl. XXXVIII, 1 (donation of bronze pin): 11. Coles 1960: 12. 13. NMRS no. NH 18 SE 2: 13. Coles 1959.

Further clear evidence of a late Bronze Age warrior élite on Loch Broom in the 7th/6th centuries BC comes from a leaf-shaped sword found in 1896 in a cleft in a rock on the hillside above Inverbroom (at the head of the loch). This is a member of the group classified by Coles as ‘Minch swords’ (because of their north-west Scottish distribution and, presumably, manufacture) and dated by him to from about 550 BC onwards. It seems almost certain that this weapon was in use when the Dun Lagaidh hillfort was occupied, and it could well have belonged to one of the inhabitants.99 2.2 The dùn This type of round, solid-walled dun is known in Argyllshire, at Ardifuar for example (Christison & Ross 1905). Several duns in that region have produced fragments of Roman Samian ware and are quite likely to have been built at a late stage in the pre-Roman Iron Age. In spite of the C-14 date (see below) Dun Lagaidh ought to belong to the first century AD and the finds do not contradict this assumption. However, the central hearth surely implies that a single group lived in the dùn and the character of the finds provides a clue to what sort of people these were (Illus. 7.359).

NH19 3 DUN AN RUIGH RUAIDH (‘Dun an Ruigh Ruadh’, ‘Rhiroy’) NH/1493 9008 D-shaped semibroch (or, much less probably, a solidbased broch) in Lochbroom, Ross and Cromarty, situated about 93m above the water on the edge of a low cliff forming the edge of a sloping terrace; this projects from the steep slope of the south side of Loch Broom itself (Illus. 7.360 - 7.373 & 8.187, lower). The name means ‘fort of the ridge red’ and is preserved in Anglicised form in the name of the hamlet, Rhiroy, strung out along the shore road below. This latter name is used throughout instead of the typographically rather cumbersome Gaelic form. The site was explored by the author in 1968 and in 1978 [5].

The iron bridle bit surely means that an Iron Age chieftain built and inhabited the dun and the fragments of riveted bronze sheeting must confirm this. These are clear signs of aristocratic horse-riding on the one hand (no Iron Age bridle bits of either bronze or iron had hitherto been found north of the Tay/Clyde line – Thomas 1961, fig. 2) and of the patronage of a skilled craftsman on the other. There must have been a sheet bronze cauldron in the dun which needed to be repaired and a craftsman who visited, or was on hand, to do the work.

The results from the excavations have been fully published [5] but are presented here in rather more than summary form. There are several reasons for this. In the first place the full report may not be easily available outside Scotland and in the second there has been a certain amount of dispute about the nature of the structure despite the data gained from the excavation. The evidence for its primary design is therefore dealt with fairly fully here.

Correlations between Dun Lagaidh and Dun an Rhiroy (Illus. 7.372) The table shows how the various phases of occupation of the two neighbouring sites (Illus. 7.360) may be connected, and is discussed further at the end of the entry on Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh.

A third point is that Rhiroy is one of the few broch-like buildings which have been excavated down to the earliest floor level and the information about the original builders and inhabitants gained from this is so important (particularly in view of the failure of other modern broch excavators to get down to the lowest floor) that it deserves detailed discussion. The implications of this evidence are, for example, of value when Dun Vulan on South Uist is reinterpreted (NF72 1).

3. Finds (Illus. 7.359) 3.1 Hillfort Bronze ‘razor’: the original edges are nowhere preserved and there are numerous small straight scratches on both polished faces, aligned in all directions. These scratches appear to have been made before the surfaces were polished. Examination under a binocular microscope confirmed this: the edges of all the scratches were smooth and polished and they could have been cast into the metal. The central hole certainly was cast: its edges were also smooth and rounded with no trace of fracturing. 99

100

These include a bone pin with an ornamental cylindrical head and a circular bone counter 35mm in diameter. A bone handle with the iron tang of the snapped-off blade still in it was found tucked between the stones of the wall of the stair lobby.

The sword is now in the Aberdeen City Museum.

766

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) A fourth reason for this fairly full account is that the history of Rhiroy can only be properly understood in relation to that of its neighbour, Dun Lagaidh (NH19 2). The assumption here is that – the sites being so close – each of the three prehistoric strongholds (and indeed the medieval one as well), with their different cultural origins, is only likely to have been in use as such when its neighbour was not fortified. The implications of this have not been discussed before (Illus. 7.372).

the entrance (though it thickens again immediately downhill from this point). The clay subsoil under the deposits of the central court slopes towards the cliff edge and is about 60cm higher at the wall footing on the uphill (south-west) side than next to the cliff. The scarcement: on the inner face of the wall is a level ledge, or scarcement, formed by the setting back of the vertical wallface above it c. 35cm from that below (Illus. 7.360, lower & 7.367). It is preserved for about half the circumference of the interior, on the uphill side, and its height above the primary floor level is c. 1.2m opposite the cliff and 1.5m on the north-west.

1. Description 1.1 Introduction The site itself was first described when unexcavated [2] and was then diagnosed as a broch one third of which had fallen over the adjacent low but sheer cliff. About fifteen years later the author came to believe that it was more probably designed as an open-sided, D-shaped structure built at the edge of the cliff – that it was in fact one of the newly defined class of semibrochs, a group of buildings (all then unexcavated) which seemed likely to be ancestral to the brochs [3]. The site was excavated in two stages, in 1968 and 1978, and a primary aim of the work was to decide what the original design of the structure was. If it proved to be a semibroch it was also highly desirable to establish whether it was much older than the brochs as had been predicted in 1965 [3]. Because of disagreements about the nature of the site the general term dún is used until the final ‘Discussion’ section (Illus. 8.187, lower).

The entrance passage faces south-east along the line of the cliff and is 4.2m long, 1.34m wide at its outer end and 1.0m wide at the inner; the lowest floor is paved with stone slabs resting on the clayey subsoil (Illus. 7.364). At a distance of c. 1.0m from the exterior is the door-frame consisting of two stone slab-checks set at right angles into the walls of the passage; the right-hand one (looking inwards) is broken off short. The passage does not widen perceptibly within the checks as is usual in brochs, although the right side is set back a few centimetres. Immediately next to the inside face of the left check is a stone-lined post-hole cut into the underlying clay which must have been the pivot socket for the door. Its crude construction contrasts strikingly with the pivot stones with smoothly hollowed sockets which are usually found in this position in brochs.

1.2. The excavations 1.2.1 General situation of the site The Iron Age stronghold stands on a sloping terrace which ends in a steep rock face which is roughly parallel to the shore of Loch Broom below; this cliff is about 50m long and more or less level along its edge. The cliff is about 10m high in the centre, immediately below the dun, but because the ground at the foot of the rock face rises from there in both directions, its height diminishes to nothing at its ends. Piles of rubble lie on the steep slope below the cliff – heaps of drystone rubble in the centre and turf-covered slides to the right and left; these last seem to have slid down through the two re-entrants in the hill face above, one on either side of the dun. Excavations were carried out into the deposits below the cliff. There are recent sheep pens built against the south and west sides of the dun and a modern concrete sheep dip is part of these (Illus. 7.361).

Three more post-holes were found in the central court immediately within the entrance and hard against the inner wallface (Illus. 7.364); indeed one of them is partly overlapped by the adjacent wall-block. They seem likely either to have been the doorway of an earlier wooden roundhouse or part of a second, inner doorway for the stone building, although the latter would be an unique find in brochs and broch-like buildings. No other postholes were observed at the inner wallface so – unless the rest of the hypothetical earlier roundhouse was entirely concealed under the wall – an inner gate for the dun seems most likely. One of these post-holes (no. 10) is at the right (downhill) corner of the passage and two (nos. 11 & 12) are at the corner opposite it (Illus. 7.364). This last pair differed somewhat in their depths and in the nature of their fills; the one next the passage (no. 11) was a cylindrical hole 50cm deep, 17.5cm in diameter and lined with pebbles. The upper part was filled with similar pebbles and earth but about half way down this gradually changed to a fill of pebbles in a wet, creamy-grey sandy soil. There was no trace here of the black earth of layer 4 which covered the central court and all the post-holes (see below).

1.2.2 The primary structure The building is founded on a stiff yellow clay subsoil (presumably boulder clay) and is approximately circular with a maximum overall diameter of 20.0m parallel with the cliff edge; the corresponding measurement at right angles to this is about 16.5m to the edge of the cliff. The corresponding internal diameters are 11.3m and 10.4m (the latter having been taken to a remaining basal block of the inner wallface near the cliff). The wall base varies in thickness from 4.25m at the entrance on the southsouth-east, 4.45m on the uphill side and 3.7m opposite

The other post-hole next to this (no. 12) was similar but much shallower – only about 10cm deep – and it contained dark brown earth and a few small stones. The single post-hole at the inner, right-hand corner of the 767

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland passage (no. 10) was another deep, cylindrical, pebblelined one with a similar fill to that of the first described. It seems probable that these three holes held an inner wooden door the nature of which is discussed later.

being bonded into the gallery walls, a gap of up to 8cm having been left between each pair of steps. This suggested at first that there was an open space behind the steps, but in fact the uneven rubble floor of the upper gallery behind rose up to the level of the fifth step, so that solid rubble lay behind the lower part of the flight.

The mural doorway and ground-level gallery (Illus. 7.362 & 7.363). At a distance of 4m along the inner wallface clockwise (westwards) from the main entrance is a doorway 1.0m wide, 1.7m deep and 1.65m high which leads to the intramural galleries and stair. The sill is a huge stone slab which forms a step 30cm high from the court into the passage; the rest of the short passage floor is of stone slabs resting on rubble. In 1968 a thin stone lintel still spanned the doorway above the sill and clearly indicated that there was once a space, or void, over it. The rest of the passage roof had been taken off at some time in the past; no more lintel stones were found in the rubble which completely filled the passage.

The Level 2 gallery continued clock-wise from behind the upper steps and could be traced for 18m from the raised doorway; thereafter the north arc of the wall was too poorly preserved for any traces of the raised gallery to remain. It was clear that no ground-level gallery existed in this part of the wall and the fact that the floor of the upper gallery was of heavy rubble rather than stone lintels showed the whole of the wall had a solid base except for part of the segment between the main entrance and the gallery door. Four contiguous stone lintels were still in position over the upper gallery, and at a height of up to 1.60m above its sloping rubble floor (Illus. 7.365). Thus there must have been a second raised gallery reached by the second flight of the stair (Illus. 7.363, top). However no traces of its sides were preserved above the lintels, which were covered only with a small quantity of loose rubble. The Level 2 gallery was narrow – about 40cm wide immediately below the lintels – and the sides are of rough walling with many projecting stones (Illus. 7.365).

To the left of the inner end of the doorway is an elongated stair-foot guard cell, or ground-level gallery, extending for 3.3m to within 2.7m of the entrance. It is up to 70cm wide at the far end and the wall still stands 1.7m high. Unlike the doorway just described the floor of this chamber was formed of flat paving slabs resting directly on the clay subsoil, with natural rock protruding in places. Both wallfaces were built of flat-faced stone blocks carefully laid and underpinned to produce a relatively smooth surface, in sharp contrast to the upper gallery. The end of the chamber was rounded and similarly smoothly built; it overhangs as if it once corbelled inwards to meet the vanished roof of flat lintels. No fallen lintels were found inside the chamber though one was still in position not far from the doorway.

The shape of the building. The outer face of the wall could not be traced all the way along the cliff edge; some of the masonry here had either been demolished or had fallen over the edge (see the section below on the strata below the cliff). There was very little masonry left at the point closest to the cliff but the inner face was almost complete, though reduced to a single course of masonry (Illus. 7.362 & 7.364); there was a distinct suggestion that the circular shape of the central court was slightly flattened along the cliff edge. The remains of the northeast segment of the wall were perhaps not sufficiently clear for it to be determined on this evidence alone whether Rhiroy had originally been a circular broch or a D-shaped semibroch.

Stairways and upper gallery. If one turns to the right after entering the doorway mentioned one immediately encounters the remains of a flight of steps rising to the right (Illus. 7.362).101 Three steps remain, built against solid rubble, and they were once part of a flight which rose steeply to a paved landing 1.6m above the floor of the lower gallery (Illus. 7.360, lower, & 7.363, top). The upper two-thirds of the stairway had been destroyed, as had the first 1.5m of the landing. The purpose of the landing was evidently to give access to a raised doorway or void 70cm wide at 8 o’clock which emerged in the inner wallface with its sill c. 20cm above the scarcement. This is yet another example of the stone stair giving easy access to some kind of raised wooden floor resting on the scarcement.

Summary of the structural features. In Level 1 it is not entirely clear whether the basal part of the wall running along the cliff was solid or once had a ground-level gallery. The latter seems improbable; the entire wall of the uphill half of the site in Level 1 is solid-based except for the segment from 6.30 - 8 o’clock and there is no reason to believe the situation to have been any different along the arc from north to south-east. Thus the intramural features in Level 1 consist of the entrance passage and (clockwise from this, after about 2.7m of solid wall) the long mural cell, the doorway leading to this from the court (at 7.30 o’clock) and the lower part of the first flight of steps.

The landing had been about 2.9m long originally and it led to a second flight of steps of which five were preserved, rising at an angle of about 55 degrees (Illus. 7.363, top). They differed from the lower flight in that each step was a stone slab which was supported only by 101

After the 1978 season of excavation the mural cell and the stairway were covered by rubble for their protection, and the large gallery doorway was carefully blocked.

Parts of Level 2 survive only in the arc from about 8 - 1 o’clock and the massive ledge scarcement on the inner 768

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) wallface defines the base of this Level all the way round. The lowest flight of the stair leads up to a long landing102 running from about 8 - 8.30 o’clock and from this a raised doorway or void at the latter position leads out to the central court, emerging a short distance above the scarcement (Illus. 7.360, lower). The second flight of steps immediately clockwise from this raised doorway blocks the upper gallery beyond, which can be traced round to about 1 o’clock; it must also once have extended anti-clockwise at least as far as the entrance passage. This gallery has four lintels still in position at about 9.30 - 10 o’clock, and its inner faces are roughly built (Illus. 7.365).

the central court (Illus. 7.364). As noted many in the south-east half were hidden under the cobbled floor, which elsewhere rested directly on the subsoil, showing that the timbers which stood in them belonged to an early stage in the site’s history. These post-holes were of two kinds – first those which contained an earthy fill which, though it was often fairly dark near the top, was much lighter in colour lower down, and, second, those which were filled almost entirely with the black earth which formed the superimposed occupation layer 4; most of the latter were little more than shallow depressions. Most of the deep ones in the first category formed an oval ring with one double hole on the south side (which presumably means that this timber had been replaced, or perhaps propped up with a fresh beam). All the other holes and pits, including those near the hearth (but excluding the three at the inner end of the entrance), were filled with black earth. There were also a number of small stake-holes near the hearth and near the wall on the north-west side (Illus. 7. 364).

Very little of Level 3 is left, the four remaining lintels of the Level 2 gallery forming its floor. No trace of the sides of the gallery which was once above these is left, though its existence is clearly proved by the fact that the second flight of steps is obviously leading up to it. Whether Level 3 consisted of a complete, closed gallery or was an open wallhead walk cannot be determined now. The likely nature of the wall along the cliff edge is discussed later.

Three radiocarbon dates were obtained for charcoal fragments found in the fill of the post-holes of the main oval ring (Illus. 7.371): their significance is discussed later.

1.2.3 Features of the central court Several structural features in the central court can be diagnosed as having been built with the dun and therefore to belong to its first period of use.

The drain. A small, lintelled, built hole had been set into the wall just downhill from the entrance passage. Its inner end, preserved in the inner wallface, measured 15 x 15cm and the tunnel could be traced for about 1m before it was blocked by rubble. It pointed diagonally downhill towards the cliff (Illus. 7.364).

The cobbled floor (Illus. 7.366). A dense layer of rounded river pebbles had been laid directly on the yellowish clayey subsoil and rammed well in; they evidently served as the primary floor of the original building. These cobbles were most dense in the south-east half of the court (next to the entrance) where they covered several filled-in post-holes, but were much sparser in the northwest half where several post-holes became visible as soon as the floor was exposed. The assumption is that the cobbled floor was there from the start, with the post-holes (see below), and that most of the latter were covered with more pebbles when they went out of use.

The tank. A rectangular box or tank made of five sandstone slabs was found in the south-west side of the central court near the wall; it had been partly flattened by a fall of heavy stones from the wall above (Illus. 7.364) and a large boulder was found in it. The original internal measurements were presumably those of the base, a single stone slab, now cracked, measuring about 0.5 x 1.0m which was sunk about 20cm into the subsoil. This, together with the fact that the thin layer (no. 4) of dark secondary occupation earth abutted against the southwest end slab, might suggest that the tank was a primary feature of the dun, set into the subsoil and projecting about 20cm above the earliest floor. Whether such a structure could have held water without extensive clay luting of the joints may be doubted. On the other hand the tank may have been sunk into these early deposits at a much later date (see below).

The hearth. A large, kerbless stone fireplace was found in the centre of the court, irregular in shape and apparently constructed of a single huge stone slab (now badly cracked by heat) with some smaller ones added to bring the shape nearer to the circular (Illus. 7.364). There was no kerb and the entire paved area measured about 1.2 x 1.5m. The hearth lies in a slight depression in the centre of the court and directly on a layer of whitish soil; this was at first diagnosed as an earlier layer of ash but proved to be the clay subsoil altered by heat.

The shape of the site. An attempt was made – by means of angle-and-distance measurements with a theodolite and steel tape – to discover if the plan of the interior wallface had been set out along a systematically constructed geometrical shape. The results were inconclusive; it proved difficult to decide whether the builders had intended the plan to be a true circle or a

Post-holes. A number of massive post-holes. some stonelined, were found sunk into the subsoil in various parts of 102

Part of the paving of the landing was removed by mistake during excavation, before the feature had been recognised. This is why pl. IIIc in the report [6] appears to show only rubble at the base of the stairs.

769

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland near-circular ellipse, or whether indeed the wallface had been laid out other than by eye and by pacing [6, 44].

Stage 3 is marked by the start of the accumulation over a long period of layer 4, a dark midden layer which covered all the features previously mentioned except the stone tank. As noted occasional layers of paving were laid within this deposit. Whether the tank was in use then or inserted at a later Stage is not entirely clear.

On the other hand the main ring of post-holes much more obviously describes an ellipse, with the hearth at its centre [6, Appendix D]; the assumption is made that the innermost of the pair of post-holes 8a and 8b on the south side is the original one. The long and short axes of the ellipse which best fits this ring (measured to the estimated centre points of the post-holes) are 6.644m and 5.444m respectively, with a standard deviation of 0.056m. It may not be a coincidence that an ellipse with an eccentricity of one half,103 and a long axis measured out as 8 megalithic yards (MY),104 turns out to have a long axis of 6.632 m, or 12 mm less than the computed one. The corresponding short axis has then to be twice the square root of 12 – that is 6.928 MY, or 5.743m. This is about 30cm more than the computed length, and a less good fit [6, fig. 19]. Nevertheless the simplicity of the construction is attractive.

Stage 4: there was evidently a later occupation in the south-west part of the interior – below the highest surviving part of the wall and in front of the gallery door – and on top of the Iron Age dark layer (although no junction between the two was observed at the time of the excavation). The breaking of the stone tank and of the complete rotary quern was presumably caused by the fall of part of the wall at the end of this Stage. At first it was thought that this occupation occurred towards the end of the Iron Age secondary use of the site (Phase 4) but it now seems to the author that the very worn complete quern is of post Iron Age date and that it was in use during the medieval occupation inferred inside the mural gallery (see below).

1.2.4 The observed stratigraphies The several sequences of layers uncovered are described fairly briefly here. There were three main areas where such superimposed layers were found and they could all be connected up; the fourth area, below the cliff, was independent. Each area is described by the Stages of activity which seem to be indicated by the individual strata and these separated sequences were correlated in a Table [6, fig. 12], which shows the sequences of site Phases into which they can be grouped. A revised version is given here (Illus. 7.370).

Stage 5 saw a further collapse of part of the remaining wall above the stair doorway, breaking the complete quern. Such falls of masonry must eventually have covered most of the interior with rubble. Stage 6 saw the growth of a thin layer of turf over the north-west part of the court but elsewhere, as noted, heavy rubble and earth (layer 2) lay directly on the Iron Age occupation layer. As is explained later, the turf layer is probably many centuries younger than the origina1 layer 2 and only grew after that layer had been removed.

Strata in the central court. The following periods of activity can be inferred for this area. Stage 1 saw the excavation of some of the post-holes in the clay subsoil, presumably at the time the dun was built since there are no definite traces of earlier activity. The central hearth was evidently laid at this time, and probably most of the cobbled floor, and the stone tank was built. The wooden construction resting on the nine heavy posts was built and a thatched roof was put on the whole.

Stage 7 saw the later accumulation of more rubble and brown earth on top of the buried turf line and the growth of much bracken; this plant filled the interior before excavation began in 1968. Strata in the mural gallery. Before excavation started the doorway to the stair and the stair-foot guard cell (or gallery) was almost completely concealed by fallen rubble and earth which had piled up against the inner face (burying the complete quern); soon after its sides were exposed a clear series of layers became visible just inside the passageway [5, fig. 10] (Illus. 7.369, upper). These strata showed clearly that the dark earth in the central court immediately in front of the doorway must indeed have accumulated in two distinct stages even though, as noted, this was not observed during its excavation.

Stage 2 saw the removal of the wooden posts from the main oval ring of sockets, the filling of most of these with light-coloured, silty debris (including some pebbles and stones from the upper parts of the post packing) and the laying of cobbles on top of some of them. Obviously none of the black occupation layer 4 had accumulated at this time. Probably the black fill of the holes immediately south and south-east of the hearth was due to part of layer 5 falling into them; these too were invisible until the cobbled floor had been removed (Illus. 7.372).

The layers in the doorway and the gallery behind imply the following sequence of activities in the lowest intramural spaces. In Stage 1 the dun wall was built and the paved floor of gallery and doorway laid directly on boulder clay. In Stage 2 the dark, secondary occupation layer of the central court just overlapped the high stone sill of the doorway.

103

That is one in which the distance between the foci (the two centre points on the long axis round which the ellipse is drawn) is half the length of the long axis. 104 The unit of length (of 0.829m) deduced by Alexander Thom to have been used by the Neolithic stone circle builders of the British Isles (A. Thom, Megalithic sites in Britain, 1967).

770

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) Stage 3 is evidently marked by some kind of building activity, or by a destruction; a thin layer of dry rubble rests on the thin black earth layer in the doorway. This of course cannot represent the partial demolition of the dun at the end of its primary phase of use as it rests on top of the secondary occupation layer. It must represent a much later collapse or reorganisation of the building.

In Stage 5 rubble accumulated in the passage but occasional layers of shells, clayey soil and charcoal show that sporadic activity – presumably the dumping of midden material – continued. At least one roofing lintel seems to have still been in position but this eventually fell, or was pushedin. The deposits below the cliff. The strata below the cliff were examined in the hope of finding the midden of the original inhabitants of the dun, since very little occupation debris had been found in the central court in the form of animal bones and artifacts (Illus. 7.369, lower). It was also necessary to check whether the fort had been a circular broch tower; if it had, the fall of most of the segment of high, galleried wall (which would then have run along the edge of the cliff) would have produced a vast mass of dry rubble below it (see for example Dun na Maigh, Illus. 7.224).

Stage 4 is marked by an upper dark earth layer which signifies a new occupation – at first thought to be confined to the mural gallery but now linked with the complete quern just in from the gallery door – which seems to have occurred in the 8th or 9th centuries, judging from a single C-14 date (Illus. 7.371). In Stage 5 the now open gallery was used as a cess-pit (suggesting that there might have still been one or two lintels in place here), while Stage 6 was marked by the latest falls of dry rubble from the wallhead (with no obvious lintels included).

Two trenches were cut into what appeared to be the deepest part of the rubble which had accumulated at the foot of the rock face (Illus. 7.369, lower). One was at a point just to the south of the outer end of the dun entrance and the other was right below the south end of the wall running along the cliff edge.105 Both revealed a mass of heavy drystone rubble as the topmost layer and in both this rested on layer 2, a similar deposit of rubble but mixed with brown earth. In the north trench this second layer produced a long, flat iron bar with rivet- or nailholes and a shallow D-shaped cross-section – probably a piece of the iron strap of the keel of a boat; a similar piece was found not far away among the bracken on the slope south of the fort. In the top rubble layer in the southern trench, just below the entrance of the dun, were found an enamelled saucepan and several pieces of china and glass.

The entrance passage. In Stage 1 the dun was built and the primary paved floor of the passage was laid directly on the subsoil. The pivot socket for the door was dug and the passage must then have been somewhat higher (c. 1.8 - 2.0m) and roofed with flat stone lintels. The slab doorchecks must also have been intact. No doubt there was a chamber over this entrance opening to the interior (Illus. 7.371). In Stage 2 some alterations were carried out involving the repaving of the passage floor and apparently also requiring the removal of the door-frame; the pivot socket was filled with rubble at this time and the left-hand check may have been snapped off also (though this could have happened later). Possibly the whole of the upper part of the galleried wall on this side, including the passage lintels, was taken down at this time since it seems unlikely that the door-check would have been broken, and the main door removed, while the dun was intact. A shallow step up was laid at the inner end of the passage, level with the cobbled floor of the court; thus the black occupation layer 4 in the central court had evidently not begun to accumulate when these alterations were made.

Layer 3 was composed of dark earth with charcoal fragment and was fairly free of stones. In the northern trench it was in two parts, the upper being of brown earth and the lower (layer 3a) of greyer soil [5, fig. 11]. Fragments of burnt bones were recovered from both parts and two plain potsherds of Hebridean Iron Age type were found in layer 3a, resting on what appeared to be a thin, buried turf-line on top of reddish-brown subsoil; this last, layer 6, contains some large blocks of stone, presumably fragments fallen from the cliff above. In contrast to the layers above, which sloped continuously upwards towards the base of the cliff, the subsoil dropped down at that point to form a gully along the rock face; this was filled with a grey-brown silt.

Stage 3 saw the secondary use of the entrance passage which occurred during the time layer 4 was accumulating in the central court since some of the latter spread outwards along the passage, on top of the secondary floor. Stage 4 saw the fall of the outer, uphill corner of the passage which must therefore have already been unroofed and reduced to its present height; only three corner blocks remained of which two fell directly on to the secondary floor [6, pl. 3a]. This event seems to have marked the end of the use of the passage which remained blocked; no doubt access to the interior was gained over the reduced wallhead.

105

Harding maintained that both trenches were too far south to check whether there was indeed a mass of rubble below the cliff (1984, 211) but a glance at the plan (Illus. 7.361) will show that this is not so (MacKie 1991, 176). He also maintained that much of the debris falling from a high tower would have rolled far down the steep slope before the site, and was therefore not investigated by the trenches. However a plan of the major fragments of debris on this slope [6, fig. 2] (Illus. 7.361), as well as the section of the deposits [6, fig. 11] (Illus. 7.369, lower), shows that this did not happen; most of the blocks that did fall stopped within 12m of the foot of the cliff.

771

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Thus the sequence of events reflected by the layers below the cliff seems to have been as follows.

GaK 2496 10 + 100 bc; charcoal lying on primary cobbled floor; Phases 2 or early 4.

Before the time of human activity on the site the subsoil accumulated, presumably starting in post-glacial times, and it incorporated some fragments of rock fallen from the cliff. At some point a short period of very heavy rain evidently occurred, causing water to rush in large quantities over the cliff and along the slope at its foot, thus cutting a gully in the subsoil which became filled with water-laid silt. After this rainy period ceased a layer of turf formed.

GaK 2497 970 + 110 bc; charcoal from top of subsoil near tank; Phase 1. Table of nine uncorrected C-14 dates from Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh

2. The history and dating of the site Using the four separate stratigraphical sequences just described, and noting the points at which they can be connected, it is possible to reconstruct some of those events in the history of the site which are reflected in the stone structures and other tangible features. The dating of the sequence depends almost entirely on the nine C-14 measurements – shown in Illus. 7.371 with their suggested significance. The late Bronze Age wheelheaded bronze pin discussed in the previous entry was thought at one stage to be associated with this site but is much more likely to be connected with Dun Lagaidh. The earlier of the two Iron Age rotary querns may also have an impact on the dating of the site (see below).

In Stage 1 a deposit of grey earth, containing evidence of human habitation in the form of bones and potsherds, accumulated at the foot of the cliff and directly on the turf, while Stage 2 saw the deposition of a similar but lighter-coloured midden under the central part of the rock face. Stage 3 saw falls of rubble and brown earth from the fort above and the incorporation in that layer of a piece of modern iron, while Stage 4 was marked by faIls of dry rubble (surmounted by at least one fragment of cliff) also containing modern artifacts.

2.1 Phase 1: the construction of the ‘dùn’ The exact nature of the stone dùn is discussed in Section 3; here it is enough to note that it seems to have been built on a virgin site.

1.2.5 Radiocarbon dates Nine C-14 dates were obtained for organic material recovered in the two seasons of work; those from the 1968 season (supervised indirectly by the author106) were performed at Gakushin University, Japan (GaK), and those from the 1978 season (supervised directly by him) by the University of Glasgow (GU). Their significance is discussed later.

The C-14 dates for this event are somewhat contradictory. The Table (Illus. 7.371) shows the two alternative chronologies which can be constructed from the scatter of five dates from material from primary contexts. The first scheme suggests a date in the 3rd or 2nd centuries BC, at the beginning of the middle Iron Age period, and the second one in the 6th/5th centuries BC, in the early Iron Age. There seems no way to decide from the dates themselves which scheme is more plausible and the few finds associated with the construction and early occupation of the site have to be brought into the argument, as does evidence from similar sites.

GU 1365 2085 + 80, 135 + 80 bc: charcoal from layer 5, pre-fort buried turf; Phase 1. GU 1366 2225 + 80, 275 + 80 bc; charcoal from near base of post-hole 4, main ring; Phases 1 or 3. GU 1367 1980 + 60, 30 + 60 bc; charcoal from ash layer 5 resting on hearth; Phase 2.

If we consider the dating evidence from Dun Ardtreck on Skye (NG33 2), which could be another D-shaped semibroch, and also that from the vitrified dun at Langwell (NC40 4), which contained a massive wooden roundhouse similar to that found inside Rhiroy, then the lower chronology seems preferable and a date for the building of Rhiroy in the 3rd or 2nd centuries BC becomes very probable.

GU 1388 1950 + 65, 1 + 65 bc; charcoal from fill of post-hole 1 or main ring; Phases 1 or 3. OaK 2493 2530 + 80, 580 + 80 bc; charcoal from fill of post-hole 8b of main ring; Phases 1 or 3. OaK 2494 1160 + 80, ad 790 + 80; charcoal from layer 3 in wall gallery; Phase 6.

More circumstantial evidence in favour of the later date comes from the late Bronze Age hillfort at Dun Lagaidh (NH19 2). Since it seems highly unlikely that such a massive drystone stronghold would have been built less than a mile from the hillfort if the latter was still occupied it may be assumed that the latter was already a burnt ruin by the time Rhiroy was erected. Thus the long chronology – which would put Rhiroy into the 6th or 5th

GaK 2495 2970 + 90, 1020 + 90 bc; charcoal on secondary paving in layer 4; Phase 4.

106

The assistant director on the site in 1968 was Harry E Kelly, to whom the author is very grateful.

772

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) centuries BC – seems improbable as the hillfort could well have been occupied at that time.107

It is obvious for several reasons that both the entrance passage and the ground-level mural gallery (or stair-foot guard cell) were carefully unroofed at some stage. Firstly, only one lintel stone was found in the debris in these spaces so all the others must have been taken away at some time. Secondly, a thick layer of tertiary occupation deposits accumulated inside the gallery, closer to where its roof would have been than would have been possible had the lintels been in position.

2.2 Phase 2: the primary use of the ‘dun’ No deposits which accumulated in this Phase could be identified in the central court except for the ash around and on top of the hearth (which rested on subsoil). The first inhabitants evidently used the cobbled floor either without dropping any debris on it or with a strict floorcleaning regime. It is hard to overestimate the significance of this discovery and Dun an Rhiroy was evidently a very unusual site indeed.

Thirdly, the uphill outer end of the entrance passage fell in, showing that its lintel roof had already gone and that the walls had probably already been reduced to their present height. The two massive superimposed blocks were found lying directly on the cobbled passage floor so the dun was still in use at the time [6, pl. 3a]. The passage wall, even though reduced in height, must have become unstable after the lintels of its roof had been removed; these evidently braced the uphill wall against the opposite one (the whole passage was built across a distinct slope).109

Any hypotheses about what it was used for have to take into account four main points. First, the stone and wooden building was – though small in area – extremely imposing and architecturally sophisticated; nothing like it was built along this stretch of the north-west coast in earlier or later times. Second, there was a huge and muchused fireplace in the middle of the oval of posts. Third, there was no domestic refuse of any kind on the cobbled primary floor. There was a primary midden below the adjacent cliff but it was not extensive and yielded hardly any finds. Fourth, those finds did include two Iron Age potsherds, and sherds of all kinds were completely absent from all the layers directly associated with the semibroch.

Likewise the establishment of the round dùn on the neighbouring ruined hillfort, probably in the 1st centuries BC or AD, must surely imply in return that at that time – or not long before – Rhiroy no longer had its high, defensible hollow wall. The demolition of the semibroch could well be linked with the establishment of the dùn half a mile to the north-west (Illus. 7.372).

The few artifacts from this Phase are listed at the end. 2.3 Phase 3: demolition of the dùn Two C-14 dates are from material clearly associated with this primary occupation and a third, from material in a post-hole, is so close to these two that all three must surely relate to the same event, that is between the end of Phase 2 and the beginning of Phase 4, the secondary occupation. Indeed it is the youngest of the post-hole dates which gives the vital clue because the posts in their oval ring were pulled out of their sockets at some stage, implying that the wooden roundhouse inside the dun was dismantled. The three dates are so similar that they clearly imply that the demolition occurred in the 1st century BC or the 1st AD.

2.4 Phase 4: secondary use The black earth deposit which built up in the central court links the series of stratified layers there with those in the entrance passage and in the mural gallery. If demolition of some of the wall occurred at the start of this phase no debris was left lying around since the new midden layer everywhere rested directly on stone or cobbled floors, even inside the gallery. The fragments of paving which were laid during the time the black earth was accumulating arc shown [6, fig. 13]. The nature of this new occupation is not entirely clear, mainly because the large fireplace had gone out of use (it was covered up by the dark midden) and no clear secondary hearths were located. The stone tank seems still to have been in use, perhaps to hold water (though this may belong to a later Phase – below). Nevertheless the artifacts associated with this phase are mainly domestic in character and they include one typologically early rotary quern [6, fig. 17, no. 16], four hammerstones, several flint flakes, a stone ‘pot lid’ and a lump of iron (Illus. 7.373). A certain number of shallow pits, only about 7cm deep, were dug into the subsoil at some stage in Phase 4 and could be distinguished from the oval of primary postholes by their black fill, evidently the same soil as that of

That this was a deliberate demolition and not a violent destruction is shown by the evidence from the entrance passage where the main door was taken out, the pivot socket covered up and the door at the inner end also removed (cobbled flooring was found to be covering the single post-hole of this on the right side of the passage – no. 10). In the central court the same evidence shows that the oval ring of posts was removed and their sockets filled up and f1oored over with cobbles. No charred or waterlogged post-stumps were found in any of the sockets; thus the timbers were evidently extracted fairly easily.108 107

Unless of course Rhiroy was established very soon after the burning of the hillfort. This might mean that the structure was not very old when it was partially dismantled.

109 The inner end of the same wall fell in, in exactly the same way, during the 1968 excavations; fortunately the excavator had just left the trench to report earth trickling out of the wall.

108

773

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland layer 4. They may have been shallow bases for posts although no very clear pattern could be seen in them except that a rough arc appeared in the north-west sector (Illus. 7.364). The stake-holes found in the central and north-east part of the court may also belong to this phase but, again, no clear pattern can be seen.

directly on the Iron Age midden in the doorway. This shows that the intramural space was roofed and empty up until the final collapse of the inner wallface of the dun, which also covered layer 3. Thus this final collapse can now be seen to have happened after the carbon-dated material had been deposited in layer 3, so the complete quern, and perhaps the water tank also, should be of early medieval date.

2.5 Phase 5: further masonry collapse The evidence for further damage to the walls which brought about, or coincided with, the end of the secondary phase of the Iron Age occupation on the site is reasonably clear. It is also fairly clear that, as has been explained, at least part of the high, galleried wall had already been demolished by this stage and the wooden roundhouse removed from the interior; thus this later collapse was probably quite minor.

The date of this late occupation suggests that it happened at about the time of the start of the Norse colonisation of the Western Isles. A very similar C-14 date of ad 840 + 90 (GaK 1947) was obtained for a late occupation inside the dun at Dun Lagaidh, half a mile to the north-west (previous entry) but its context is not absolutely clear (it was obtained from charcoal on the floor level with Iron Age artifacts) and it may in fact refer to the start of the medieval refortification. Phase 7 at Rhiroy may thus be connected with the start of the same early medieval period of activity on Loch Broom which culminated in the establishment of a small castle (the refortified Iron Age dun) at Dun Lagaidh. A major collapse of masonry evidently brought this occupation to an end.

The only evidence for this was the thin layer of dry rubble which was found in the doorway to the mural gallery and lying on the thin layer of black earth which covered the massive sill stone; this was itself an extension of layer 4 in the central court. This rubble clearly showed that the dun sustained damage at some time after the end of Phase 4 – the secondary occupation. However the fact that the rubble was directly on the dark layer suggests that the interval was not very long. The ground-level gallery was evidently intact up to this point.

2.7 Phases 7 & 8: abandonment and recent activity The construction – probably late in the 19th century and after a long period when the site was abandoned – of a sheep enclosure, and later a dipping tank, outside the dun neatly explains the latest strata in the mural gallery, the central court and under the cliff. This is important in the present context because of the light it throws on the accumulation of rubble below the cliff and thus, indirectly, on the primary nature of the Iron Age building.

2.6 Phase 6: medieval occupation The original interpretation of this thin rubble layer in the doorway – based mainly on the assumption that the complete quern was of Iron Age date – was that the mass of dry rubble lying against the uphill wall of the dun, and against the stair doorway, was part of this collapse and broke and buried the stone tank and the quern [6, 60]. However three pieces of evidence can now be seen to argue quite strongly against this view.

The use of the open gallery as a cesspit is appropriate for the early part of this period; judging from the curious shape of the underlying black layer [5, fig. 10, left], some remaining lintels were probably taken off and some rubble was first cleared out to make a pit.

The first is that the quern (Illus. 7.362, lower), with its distinct collar on the upper stone, can now be seen not to fit easily into the Iron Age tradition but to resemble more closely the late medieval and recent highland type. The main difference from the latter is that it has one socket for an upright, loose handle instead of three.

The grey sandy layer discovered over large parts of the north half of the central court was evidently a turf-line which must have grown on top of the later Iron Age layer at this time. The fragments of an iron kettle and of china jars which were associated with it (and which lay under the rubble layer) confirm this late date.110 This buried turf-line was not observed as such throughout most of the south half, where a thick layer of rubble and earth rested directly on the Iron Age layer 4, so it seems likely that part of the north half was cleared of rubble in the 19th century to produce an area of fairly smooth turf.111 The

The second fragment of evidence is clearer and consists of the fact that the massive collapse of stonework referred to (and now allocated to Phase 7 – Illus. 7.370) had piled up against the stair door, largely concealing it and all the compact lower layers that had previously accumulated inside it. The thin layers of dry rubble that were found near the base of these deposits (mainly between layer 4 and an upper black layer 3) must therefore have accumulated long before the final collapse which broke the quern.

110 A similar china jar fragment was found tucked into a space in the wall of the sheep enclosure. 111 Before the invention of suitable liquid disinfectants to dip sheep in, chemicals were smeared on the animals by hand; these had first to be melted in a pan on the site. A suitable enamelled saucepan was found in the upper rubble layer below the cliff and the iron bar also found there (in the lower rubble) would have served, with other similar fragments, to make a grid over the fire on which to stand the pan, and also the kettle when tea was needed. Later, when sheep dipping was introduced (and thermos flasks invented), some of this equipment would have been

The third piece of evidence is that the same dark midden layer 3 inside the doorway and the mural gallery – directly covered by a cess-pit and for which a C-14 date late in the first millennium AD was obtained – also lay 774

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) use of the enclosure and sheep dip ceased in the 1930s; some time before that the gallery had been filled with stone to prevent the animals falling in,112 and this presumably explains layer 1 there.

the building was constructed along the edge of the cliff [6, fig. 15] (Illus. 7.371). It is reasonably clear that Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh was never a broch in the sense of having been a round tower with a high, galleried wall of equal height all the way round. The wall along the edge of the cliff is almost completely destroyed but what remains shows that it must have narrowed sharply to run along the steep, short slope which leads down to the cliff face. The outer face of the wall on the south-east turns sharply inwards near the cliff face, confirming that the wall here was narrow and almost certainly solid in construction. A single block of the inner face shows that it was built entirely on the steep slope immediately above the cliff; this seems an improbable foundation for a really high and heavy wall.

The large pile of rubble below the cliff (layers 1 and 2) seems also to belong to this most recent period of activity on the site, judging from the modern artifacts found among the stones, some quite deep down. Indeed, since the iron bar was found in layer 2, not far above the Iron Age midden, it seems that little stone fell over the cliff until very recently, a deduction which is hard to accept when one considers the number of earlier destructions and demolitions inferred from the strata inside the dun. However, both sections cut below the cliff showed the same two rubble layers and the evidence does seem quitc clear; a great mass of rubble and earth accumulated on top of the sheep dippers’ turf layer inside the fort and below the cliff, probably in the early part of the twentieth century. It is possible of course that the fallen rubble was taken away in fairly recent times but it surely strains credulity to maintain that all of it was so removed.

By contrast the wall on the uphill side – extending from close to the main entrance to at least 1 o’clock – was a high, hollow-built broch construction which contained a stair and at least two upper galleries on top of a solid base about 2m high. The massive ledge scarcement on the inner wallface is preserved only as far as the entrance on one side and to about 7 o’clock on the opposite side, but it could well have gone all the way round. There can be little doubt that, as with the circular brochs, this ledge supported either the outer edge of a ring-shaped raised wooden floor or a lean-to roof; here the complete oval of nine holes for the timbers supporting the inner edge of this wooden construction was found and confirms that the wooden structure went all the way round.

This failure to find evidence of earlier rubble falls under the cliff has some significance for the nature of the Iron Age fort and is discussed in the next section. 3. The stronghold and its builders 3.1 The material culture of the builders There is a strong contrast between the hollow-walled broch-like building – with its origin in the maritime province – and the material culture of its occupants which bears little resemblance to the Atlantic Iron Age material found for example in the very similar Dun Ardtreck on Skye (NG33 2) (see Section 3.4 below).

There are several reasons for preferring the hypothesis of the raised floor to that of the lean-to roof. The first is the existence of the large fireplace in the centre of the court; if the lean-to roof was the only such shelter the fire would have been under the open sky. The second is the existence of the landing in the stairway and the doorsized opening leading from it to the interior; although about 30cm above the scarcement this is the obvious way up on to a level, raised, ring-shaped floor under a higher roof covering the whole interior. The dun would have contained a massive, two-storeyed wooden roundhouse of the type which was widespread in England and southern Scotland.

The one exception to this generalisation is the group of three potsherds in the basal midden layer (3A) below the cliff. These plain wall sherds look like fragments from an Atlantic Iron Age pot and – if it can be assumed that layer 3A accumulated during the construction work rather than at the beginning of the primary occupation – they could support the idea that the semibroch was erected by specialised builders from the maritime zone who could have brought a few pots with them. 3.2 The design of the original fort The original design of the dun has been discussed at length [6, 63-74] and the arguments may be summarised here. The evidence seems strong that there was never a high, galleried wall along the edge of the cliff, so Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh cannot have been a broch; it is a good example of a D-shaped semibroch. On the other hand this open-sided, D-shaped design – with the high, hollow wall on the uphill side and a wooden roundhouse in the interior – presents difficulties in explaining exactly how

The third is the fact that, although the floor of the court slopes towards the cliff, the scarcement is level; thus the ledge is only 1.2m (4 ft) above the primary floor on the uphill side and would have been about 2.5m (8 ft) above it on the downhill side if it extended along the cliff wall. At Caisteal Grugaig on Loch Alsh the situation is similar but the scarcement comes to within 70cm (2ft 4in) of the ground on the uphill side – too low for a lean-to roof (Illus. 8.187). At Rhiroy also a lean-to roof seems unlikely for the same reason and a ring-shaped wooden floor seems more likely. The large central fireplace must surely preclude a complete upper wooden floor.

abandoned and the whole operation became much quicker, making it less necessary to stay at the site for long periods. Probably the cesspit ceased to be used then. 112 Information from Mr Ian Mackenzie.

775

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland The hypothesis of a complete oval roundhouse inside Rhiroy brings up the question of the nature of the wall along the cliff edge. For a D-shaped semibroch it is necessary to assume some kind of thinner, solid wall with a scarcement up to 2.5m (8.2 ft) above the adjacent floor and also to assume that the high galleried wall around two-thirds of the circuit somehow blended with this thinner, solid wall. That this could be and was done is shown clearly by the design of the D-semibrochs Dun Ringill (NG51 4), Dun Grugaig (NG81 1) and perhaps Dun Baravat (NB13 1) (MacKie 1992).

A simpler explanation may be that a new ruler arrived in the area, built the dun at Dun Lagaidh, and forced the inhabitants of Rhiroy to dismantle their stronghold (Illus. 7.372). 3.4 The material culture The probable significance of the finds was discussed in detail in the report (where their contexts are given in detail) [6, 75-6] and need only be summarised here. The finds are listed at the end of this entry (Illus. 7.373). Most notable is the aceramic nature of the material culture; only two plain, hard, well-fired sherds were found in the primary midden below the cliff. This surely means that the occupants were not part of the Atlantic Iron Age cultures of the Western Isles, where goodquality plain and decorated pottery is usually abundant. On the other hand all but one of the best local parallels for the building itself are found in the western islands [8, map in fig. 2] and there can be little doubt that the builders came from there. This contrast suggests that professional architect/builders from the islands were employed by a local group to put up the building on Loch Broom.

Some specific suggestions about how the builders of Rhiroy solved these problems (and also about the design of the second doorway) have been made [5, 65-7 & figs. 14 & 15] (Illus. 7.371). The essential point still seems to be that there was a central hearth in Phase 2 and that the roundhouse roof must therefore have been a conical one somehow resting on the wallhead and rising to its apex above the centre of the court. 3.3 The secondary occupation The reason for the drastic reorganisation of the interior in Phase 3, in preparation for the secondary occupation in phase 4, is not clear if one considers only the evidence from this site. To lower the high, galleried wall and to remove a perfectly good and solidly built, two-storeyed roundhouse – originally protected by this wall – seems a rash act unless either the hollow wall had become unsafe and dangerous or the social order in the locality had changed drastically.

The sparse material culture found in the primary and secondary occupation levels, consisting mainly of stone objects, suggests that the inhabitants were part of the mainland Iron Age culture. The jet armlet fragment supports this and so in particular does one of the rotary querns (Illus. 7.363, no. 16). This is a late form – the most northerly of its type known – of the ‘La Tène’ quern tradition of the central and southern mainland. The deep, conical handle-hole, the funnel-shaped hopper and the bun-shaped profile are all characteristic of the south mainland querns.

There is no way of knowing from the available evidence if either of these explanations is plausible; the fact that the demolition of the high wall inaugurated the secondary occupation of a number of excavated brochs perhaps supports the first idea. Also hard to understand is the covering up of the fireplace with the midden material of the new habitation (as at Dun Mor Vaul – NM04 4) and the absence of any obvious new hearth. In addition the black midden shows a sharp deterioration in cleanliness compared with the clean pebble floor of Phase 2.

There is also a shallow bulge on the side with the handlehole which – with the upright socket for a fixed handle – links the stone firmly to the Fintry sub-type of the La Tène quern tradition; examples of this type have otherwise been found only in northern Argyllshire and Stirlingshire, just north of the Antonine Roman wall (MacKie 2002, fig. 2). It is hard not to conclude that the earliest occupants of Rhiroy had strong links with that more southerly region.

One has the strong feeling that the original, architecturally sophisticated, building was occupied by a high-status group with high standards of cleanliness but that in Phase 4 the stone and wood buildings were dismantled and standards dropped inside. Yet in Dun Ardtreck on Skye (NG33 2) the same thing seems to have happened while the material culture there (much more abundant than at Rhiroy) of the secondary occupation remained essentially the same as that of the primary. Perhaps one has to fall back on the assumption that the first two or three generations of broch and semibroch builders had high prestige and great authority for some reason (military prowess, or foreign origin, or both?) but that their descendants gradually came down in the world (perhaps through intermarriage with the local community) and could not – or did not have the incentive to – command the same unquestioned authority.

The second quern, found jammed into a post-hole, is closer to the Atlantic discoid stones in form (Illus. 7.363, no. 15). The date when such querns arrived in the maritime zone is still not clear. 3.5 The Iron Age economy The only evidence was from a few animal bones recovered, most of which were too weathered and badly fragmented to be identified [6, 77]. Animals represented in Phases 1-4 include sheep, cattle, red deer and roe deer. The finding of one horse molar may be significant as also perhaps is the complete absence of pig. That an intact recent sheep tibia was found in the most recent layers is 776

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) explicable by the sheep smearing and dipping activities that went on in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

first according to their Site Phases. The numbers refer to those on the drawings and items without numbers are not illustrated.

It may be assumed that barley was grown in fields round about the site but the only direct evidence is in the form of the hand mills.

Phase 1: construction Stone: a jet armlet fragment (no. 4) in layer 5 in the interior (could be early Phase 2), 1 spindle whorl (no. 8) from layer 5B, the probable pre-fort turf-line (which might belong to early Phase 2), 1 upper stone of a rotary quern (no. 15, Illus. 7.363) of mica schist, discoid in shape but with no handle hole preserved: from layer 4 but jammed into post-hole 5 of the oval ring, presumably when the post was set up.

3.6 Summary of dating The Table (Illus. 7.371) shows two alternative schemes for the chronology of the sites, based on the nine radiocarbon dates obtained (see Table above). 3.7 Links with Dun Lagaidh The chart (Illus. 7.372, lower) shows how the two archaeological sequences on the south shore of Loch Broom may be interrelated. As mentioned earlier it seems highly unlikely that two such formidable strongholds could have been occupied at the same time in their primary phases of use. Thus the older chronology for the semibroch, while not impossible (Illus. 7.371), seems much less likely now that we know that a large timber-framed hillfort was in existence a short distance away in the late Bronze Age. Moreover the dating of the burning of the hillfort relies on one C-14 measurement and could have happened a little later than suggested, further pushing the construction of the semibroch towards the younger alternative date.

Phase 2: primary use Iron: a nail head (no. 2) found in layer 3A below the cliff, and a fragment of slag lying on the primary cobbled floor (might be Phase 4). Possible leather: 1 squarish fragment came from layer 5A. Fired clay: 2 plain, dark, hard-fired, thin wall sherds were found in layer 3A below the cliff. Stone: a jet counter (no. 5) lying on the primary cobbled floor (could be early Phase 4), a spindle whorl (no. 9) from the ashy deposit on the hearth and a disc or pot lid (no. 14) one edge of which was resting on the subsoil (layer 6) (it may be Phase 4).

Surely very convincing are the two later suggested correlations. The dismantling of the semibroch and the start of its secondary phase of occupation are well dated to about the first century AD and it cannot be a coincidence that the southern dun was built on the ruins of Dun Lagaidh at about this time. It seems reasonable to suppose that the aristocratic chief, with his south Scottish artifacts, quickly made sure that the older rival stronghold not far away was put out of commission.

Phase 3: demolition Nothing found. Phase 4: secondary use Flint: 1 flake from the top of layer 4 and 3 fragments from layer 4 (all presumably much earlier than their contexts) (no. 10). Stone: Another upper stone of a rotary quern (no. 16, Illus. 7.363) of bun-shaped design, of mica schist (used as a paving slab in layer 4), with a cup-shaped hopper and a deep, conical hole for a non-rotating handle (this too was presumably actually used in Phase 2). A fragment of the upper stone of a rotary quern of mica schist was found in layer 4, close to the primary cobbled floor. There were also 4 hammerstones – one from the corner of the stone tank (no. 12), one from near the base of layer 4 and therefore early in the Phase, one from on secondary paving in layer 4 and the last from within that layer – and 1 disc or pot lid (no. 13) from layer 4.

Likewise the final (Phase VI) occupation of Rhiroy makes much better sense when it is linked with the refurbishment of the Iron Age dun down the road as a medieval mortared stronghold. Indeed the reoccupied Rhiroy may have been an outpost, or forward guardhouse, for the castle since no-one could have approached Dun Lagaidh along the shore from the south-east without being spotted from its high position. The chronology for this medieval phase suggested in Illus. 7.372 may be too long. The C-14 date which suggests a 9th century start was done on charcoal inside the dun which may have been from old wood, and the early 13th century coin hoard may give a better idea of the time the castle was occupied. The latest quern may fit with this later date.

Phase 5: destruction Stone: the spindle whorl (no. 7) which fell out of a baulk is thought to be from layer 3; also 1 thumbnail flint scraper (no. 11) from the corner of the stone tank (this should be much earlier than its context). Phase 6: early medieval use: Iron: 1 nail or prong (no. 20, not illustrated) found in layer 3 inside the mural gallery. Stone: a complete adjustable rotary quern (no. 17, Illus. 7.362) of mica schist – both upper and lower stones being perforated and the upper much worn – was found on top

3.8 Finds (all Illus. 7.373 unless indicated) Relatively few artefacts were recovered during the excavations and pottery was almost completely absent (as it was at Dun Lagaidh). The finds are listed below as usual by the material of which they are made but divided 777

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland of layer 4 and had evidently been broken in situ by the final fall of masonry. It was originally thought to date from the end of Phase 4 [5, 76] but is clearly not an Iron Age type, having a wide feed hole with a collar round it and a ridge around the hole in the lower stone; it now seems much more likely that it was in use during the early medieval occupation.

Wester Ross Square NH29 NH29 1 ALLT DAIL a’ BHRAID NH/2136 9494 This probable broch in Lochbroom, Ross and Cromarty, stands on the bank of a stream and consists of traces of a circular building with an internal diameter of 8m and a wall thickness of about 6m. There are traces of a mural gallery on the north-east and the entrance seems to be on the east side. There are signs of an outer defensive bank on the south and west, close to the broch. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 29 SW 10: 2. T Welsh in Discovery and Excavation in Scotland, 1992, 46.

Phase 7: abandonment. Nothing found. Phase 8: recent use [6, fig. 17 unless otherwise indicated] Iron: fragments of a cast iron kettle found in layer 1 (turf) and in layer 3 (buried turf-line); 2 pieces of the keel strap of a boat found in layer 2 below the cliff and lying among the bracken on the adjacent slope; there was also the probable toe-cap of a boot in layer 1 (turf). Silver: a finger-ring (no. 1) found in a buried sandy turfline deduced to be of recent formation. Stone: 1 counter from the turf layer 1 in the interior and 2 flint flakes, 1 in layer 2 below the cliff and the other in layer 1, interior (both are presumably much older than their contexts). Glass: 1 tiny ring bead in the turf layer 1. China vessels included a jar several fragments of which were found in layers 1 (turf) and 3 (buried turf line); part of another jar was found in a crevice in the wall of the adjacent sheep pen. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 19 SW 3.00: 2. Calder & Steer 1949, 72-4 & fig. 3: 3. MacKie 1965: 4. Feachem 1977, 169-70: 5. MacKie 1975a, 213-14: 6. MacKie 1980: 7. Harding 1984, 211: 8. Close-Brooks 1986, 1401, no. 72, 149-50: 9. MacKie 1991, 175-76: 10. Armit 1991, 209: 11. Armit 2003, 29.

Inverness-shire (east) Square NH33 NH33 1 DUN COILLE STRUY NH/3964 3976 This probable broch in Kilmorack near Beauly has been described as a mutilated broch on top of a steep, rocky spur [1]. The overall diameter is 18.5m with a wall thickness of 2.4m at the entrance on the west. The battered outer face survives to 1.2m on the north-east and there are signs of intramural cells. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 33 NE 1.00: 2. Graham 1949, 99: Wallace 1886, 344. Sutherland (south-east) Square NH49 NH49 1 CARN MOR 2 (‘Birchfield’) NH/4903 9926 This probable broch in Kincardine, Sutherland, survives as a mound of tumbled stone and was once considered to be a cairn [1]. The outer wallface, showing to a maximum height of three courses, can be seen on the south side for a length of 12.0 m; traces of the inner face in the same arc suggest that the wall is 4.3m thick here [1]. No other details are now visible among the rubble.

Eastern Ross-shire Square NH25 NH25 1 CARNOCH NH/252507 This oval probable broch or ‘galleried dun’ in Urray, Ross and Cromarty, consists of a “walled oval enclosure on a glacial mound, measuring some 20m E-W by 16m N-S. The wall is about 4m thick and, thickening to the N where there are traces of side chambers on either side of the entrance. It has been much jumbled by 19th century excavations; the finds are locally believed to have been sent to the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland but the latter have (sic) been unable to trace them” [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 25 SE 4: 2. Blundell 1913, 280.

However in his comments on Bishop Pococke’s tour of the area in 1760, Kemp says that in 1887 the inside of the “Birchfield broch” was “still standing, 5 or 6 feet in height and 33 feet in diameter.”; he also says that “The outside diameter was about 65 feet.” [3, 113, f.n. 4], though no source is given for these statements. If this was the second site mentioned by Boece early in the 16th century as standing near the Dornoch Firth113 then Carn

113 “There are preserved, in a certain valley in Ross, two edifices of antiquity, monuments of a round shape, made in the form of bells.” (See NH68 1), It might be thought that reference was being made to the two brochs in Glen Beag, near Glenelg (NG81 2 and NG81 3); though now in western Inverness-shire the border with Ross-shire is only a few miles to the north of the glen. However Boece’s reference to

778

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) Mor 2 may also have been a high tower just under five hundred years ago. However it is not clearly marked as ‘Dun’ on Pont’s map (see the entry for Dun Alisaig – NH68 1) [4] even though the place names of the nearby farms are recognisable there. The second bell-like tower may in fact have been Leachonich (NH68 2) below. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 49 NE 3: 2. Graham 1947, 96: 3. Kemp (ed.) 1887: 4. Stone 1991: 5. Watson 1904, 19.

Sutherland Square NH59 NH59 1 CARN DEASGAN (‘Ardgay’, ‘Argay’) c. NH/59 90 Site of possible broch in Kincardine, Sutherland, recorded in 1904 as “probably the remains of a broch” [2] but not located in 1963 [1]. It is possible that this description may refer to the unfinished fort at NH/592903 (NMRS site NH 59 SE 9). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 59 SE 8: 2. Watson 1904, 4.

NH49 2 CROICK NH/4564 9143 Probable broch in Kincardine made of large boulders and which has been much robbed [1]. The inner and outer faces can be traced here and there and suggest an overall diameter of about 18.4m over a wall 4.3m thick. Within the wall on the south side are traces of a wallface, presumably for the stabilisation of the rubble core. Source: 1. NMRS site no. NH 49 SE 1: 2.

NH59 2 CARN LIATH 3 (‘An Dun 3’) NH/5669 9098 Possible broch with outworks in Kincardine, Sutherland, standing in a strong defensive position on a promontory between the river Carron and the stream Allt Dounie. It consists of an overgrown mound with a central depression in which there are traces of a circular inner wallface, suggesting an internal diameter of c. 10.5m. There is a gap in the south-east, with a displaced lintel, which might be the entrance [1]. There are outer defences on the east, the shallowest approach, consisting of two substantial ramparts across the neck of the promontory with traces of a third beyond these. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 59 SE 5: 2. Watson 1904, 31: 3. Graham 1947, 95.

Inverness-shire (east) Square NH54 NH54 1 CASTLE SPYNIE NH/5414 4204 This probable broch (or dun) in Kintarlity and Convinth, Inverness-shire, occupies a rocky knoll with steep sides on the north side and shallower approaches on the south and west; it stands near the south shore of the Beauly Firth (Illus. 7.374). The diagnosis of this site as either a hollow-walled broch or a solid-walled dun has not yet been finally determined, although the absence of large quantities of stone debris may indicate the latter [1].

NH59 3 CARN MOR 3 NH/5039 9853 Possible broch in Kincardine, Sutherland, consisting of a mound of tumbled stones with a central depression [1]: Both the outer and the inner face were seen in places in 1963, giving an overall diameter of 15.5m and a wall thickness of 4.3m. The inner face was no longer visible in 1969 [1]. There are suggestions of an outer defence on the north. Source: 1. NMRS site no. NH 59 NW 2.

The entrance has been cleared and is on the south-west, but there are no signs of the door-frame. The outer wallface is visible intermittently, and on the north-west it stands four courses (1.0m) high above the rubble; the inner face can be seen on the south-west to a maximum height of 0.8m (Illus. 7.374). No signs of an intramural gallery can be seen at present. Traces of outer fortifications are visible including, on the north-east, a section of curved wall composed of gigantic boulders fronted by two walls which are now reduced to stony banks [1]. Ditches were described in 1857 [2] but nothing of these can be seen now.

NH59 4 GRUINARDS (‘Greenyards’) NH/549908 Possible broch in Kincardine, Sutherland the only record of which is a name on Joseph Anderson’s list [2]. This may however refer to site NH59 2 above. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 59 SW 1: 2. Anderson 1873, 193.

Dimensions (taken by author in 1985): wall thickness at 1 o’clock 3.9m (13.0 ft), diameter on 1-7 o’clock axis 19.95m (66.5 ft), wall thickness at 4 o’clock 3.9m (13 ft) and internal diameter here 10.8m (36 ft). The structure may thus be slightly oval, with estimated overall diameters of 19.95 and 18.60m. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 54 SW 9: 2. Anderson 1857, 188-9: 3. Mackenzie 1857, 189-91 & fig.: 4. Feachem 1963, 164: 5. RCAHMS 1979b, 17, no. 100.

NH59 5 INVERSHIEL STATION NH/57953 Possible broch in Kincardine, Sutherland, also listed by Anderson [2] but about which no other information is available. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 59 NE 7: 2. Anderson 1890, 190.

the town of Tain makes it clear that they were on the Dornoch Firth (see Dun Alisaig, below).

779

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland The brochs near Glenelg had been described in the early 1720s by Gordon (1726), and again about fifty years later (and after they had been substantially damaged) by Pennant, but thereafter they remained more or less ignored until Curle’s early 20th century excavations. Dun Dornadilla was first described in print by Bishop Richard Pococke in 1760.

Square NH66 NH66 1 RESOLIS NH/679655 Possible broch on the glebe of the manse of Resolis, exposed in 1834 as “the circular base of an ancient Pictish house” which was “trenched over” in about 1834 [1]. No trace of any structure is visible now [1]. The find (see below) tends to support the diagnosis of the site as a broch.

Dun Alisaig by contrast may have been known as early as the 1520s. The Scottish historian Hector Boece, after describing the town of Tain, wrote (in Latin) –

Find: in 1836 a handled stone cup found at the site was apparently in the possession of the Minister, the Rev. D Sage [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 66 NE 7: 2. New Statistical Account 1845, 14, 45.

“There are preserved, in a certain valley in Ross, two edifices of antiquity, monuments of a round shape, made in the form of bells.” [7]. This suggests that in 1526 both Dun Alisaig and another unknown broch nearby closely resembled Mousa in their profiles [2]. The second site may be Carn Mor at Birchfield some miles further up the Kyle of Sutherland (which must be the “valley in Ross” – NH49 1). Indeed if the belief is correct that Dun Alisaig is depicted on Sueno’s stone, about 40km to the south-east as the crow flies [10] (Illus. 7.377), then this would be independent evidence that as late as the 9th century Dun Alisaig (or the other one in Ross-shire) was still a tall tower with a single doorway. If the doorway depicted on the stone is about 1.8m high the height of the tower as shown can be estimated. However some believe that the doorway represents a round-arched rather than a lintelled form which would point to an early medieval round tower rather than a broch. To the author – naturally – the roundness looks more like erosion.

Easter Ross Square NH68 NH68 1 DUN ALISAIG (‘Dun Alascaig’, ‘Dun Alliscaig’*, ‘Dunaliscaigh’, ‘Dun Agglesag’, ‘Doniskaig’) NH/6569 8682 (visited in 1989 & 25/7/03) Site of a broch, probably solid-based, in Edderton, Easter Ross; it stood just above the road on the rising ground on the south shore of the Dornoch Firth, one of the very few on that side of the estuary (Illus. 7.375 7.378). It is now a total wreck and only a heap of stones and about twenty earth-fast boulders can be seen [9], though another recent report says that a single course of the outer face survives almost intact around the north and west arcs [1], and some years ago Alison Young found the triangular lintel of the main entrance lying overgrown among the grass. This stone was exceptionally large, the base being 1.5m (5 ft) long and the sides 85cm (2ft 10 in) and 1.05m (3ft 6 in) [9]. The author did not locate this site until his third visit and even then was unable to find the triangular lintel or the basal course of the outer face. He saw nothing but a scatter of rubble among the trees.114

In the last two decades of the 16th century Timothy Pont was making his maps of Scotland which, less than a century later, were incorporated into Blaeu’s Atlas (Blaeu 1967). Colour versions have recently been printed (Stone 1991). The map of ‘Southerlandia’ shows a small circle marked ‘Dun Alliscaig’ on the south shore of the Dornoch Firth. The broch was described in detail by the historian William Maitland in 1757, who attempted to infer the likely purpose of such “Danish forts” from the architectural details he saw there. In the following years this well-preserved broch was visited and described – often accompanied by a ground plan with or without an elevation – by Bishop Richard Pococke in 1760 (Kemp 1887), by Charles Cordiner (1776) (Illus. 7.376) and by James Anderson a few years later (1779). This is the last published account of the upstanding broch that has been traced here.

Historical background (Illus. 7.372, top) Dun Alisaig is of particular interest because of the contrast between its one-time fame and its present totally destroyed state. In the later 18th century it was one of five well-preserved brochs of which detailed descriptions had been published and which were therefore well known to the interested antiquaries of the day. However the three others – the two fine examples near Glenelg on the west coast (Dun Troddan and Dun Telve – NG81 3 and NG81 2) – and Dun Dornadilla and Castle Cole in Sutherland (NC44 2 & NC71 1) – were much more remote and difficult of access. Dun Alisaig, being close to and just above the main road a few miles west of Tain, was much more easily accessible, as the number of 18thcentury visits testifies. 114

Until recently the author thought that the Danish archaeologist J J Worsaae saw the ruined tower – in 1846 during his tour of Scotland – still standing about 20 feet high, and sketched it in his notebook (Illus. 7.376) (MacKie 1995). However comparing Worsaae’s drawings with those published by Charles Cordiner it is quite clear

It is impossible to find a car-parking space close to the site.

780

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) that the former were copied from the latter115 and that Worsaae probably did not see Dun Alisaig himself. Although Cordiner’s elevation is quite fanciful, and shows a series of what look like large voids with shallow, arched roofs facing into the interior, Worsaae reproduced it despite having sketched the Backies broch during its excavation and thus being familiar with the basics of this kind of Iron Age architecture.

gallery) and with four ‘windows’, and the upper probably of the same height but dilapidated at the top. Bishop Pococke saw the broch in June 1760 [4] and gives the height as 4.58m (15 ft); he also provides a useful ground plan. From this it is clear that Dun Alisaig had the usual door-frame in the main entrance passage, 1.22m (4 ft) from the outside. The intramural openings on either side can now be seen to be a pair of elongated guard cells each of which apparently communicates with the intramural gallery beyond (but Cordiner’s drawing contradicts this – Illus. 7.376). He also shows three doors from the central court (the diameter of which is 9.15m or 30 ft) to the gallery at 9, 12 and 3 o’clock.

During all these decades Dun Alisaig was regarded by antiquaries as the typical ‘Danish fort’ to cite and discuss. The 18th century descriptions are reproduced in Appendix 1. Some time after Cordiner’s visit the broch was totally destroyed, probably by road builders, and memory of it sank into oblivion [12] (Watson says that it was destroyed at about 1818 [8]). The even better preserved broch of Mousa in Shetland might have supplanted Dun Alisaig in reputation except for its remoteness; it is marked on Blaeu’s Atlas as ‘the ancient burgh of Mousa’ so Pont knew about it, perhaps saw it, in the late 17th century. The earliest detailed description of it was by George Low in 1777 but this remained unpublished until 1879 (HU42 6). The 19th century observers and excavators looked elsewhere – to Orkney, Caithness and Sutherland and to the Western Isles – for examples to describe and, later, to excavate [Vol. 1, 31ff).

Charles Cordiner visited the site in about 1775 but his description is less clear [4]. He gives a diagrammatic ground plan which shows four mural chambers with oval ends (Illus. 7.376), in contrast to Pococke’s. Unfortunately it is impossible now to disentangle from these conflicting and imprecise accounts the true nature of the ground-level storey of Dun Alisaig. The fact that these Level 1 features were almost certainly completely buried under fallen rubble helps to explain the different interpretations. James Anderson saw the broch in the summer of 1775 and, even though he lost his notes and had to rely on his memory, his account is still useful [6, 248-55 & pl. XXII] (Illus. 7.375). His sketch plan and elevation suggest that the broch was at least 6.1m (20 ft) high when he saw it, even allowing for the exaggeration of the vertical scale [6, 255].116 He mentions that about twenty years earlier – that is presumably just after Maitland’s visit – the local laird had removed about 2.44 - 3.05m (8-10 ft) of stonework from the top of the wall to use for building purposes [6, 250].

Early descriptions William Maitland visited the site in about 1755 and wrote a detailed description, though without a drawing (Appendix 1). He found it standing about 6.1m (20 ft) high, but with large quantities of rubble lying round about which implied that it was originally somewhat higher [3]. He gives the overall diameter as 16.7m (54ft 9 in) which is not much more than that of Mousa, but the wall, at only 3.66m (12 ft) thick, was thinner. He was probably measuring above the surrounding rubble which may well have accumulated to a depth of 1.8m at least, so the wall at ground-level was doubtless wider.

Anderson described the entrance with its massive triangular outer lintel covering a passage which was about 1.22m (4 ft) wide and partly blocked with debris. He gave the sides of the lintel as 6 ft and the thickness as 4ft., but these measurements are exaggerated [9]. He could not find the longitudinal gallery inside the wall which had been described by previous observers but he did locate and climb the intramural stair; presumably he did not look behind him as he climbed or he would surely have seen the galleries (perhaps it was too dark). His description of a continuous stair roof composed of stepped lintels rising parallel to the steps of the stairway sounds somewhat improbable. When considering the descriptions of 18th century observers one must make allowances for the absence at that time of a real understanding of the detailed features of broch architecture.

The single entrance passage was about 1.83m (6 ft) high and 97cm (3ft 2 in) wide, with a massive triangular outermost lintel. Thus any rubble which had accumulated at the base of the outside of the tower evidently did not obstruct the doorway. The description suggests that there was a doorway in each side of the entrance passage – presumably inwards from the door-frame (which is not mentioned) – “leading into the cavity between the walls, which extends round the inside of the building, of the breadth of five feet and ten inches.” This sounds at least partly like the basal gallery of a ground-galleried broch. He also describes the wall as standing up to three storeys, the lowest being 2.14m (7 ft) high with two doorways (presumably four if there were in fact four cells), the middle being 2.44m (8 ft) high (very lofty for a first-floor

116

He may have been allowing for about 1.8m of the wall footings being concealed by rubble, as Pope did in his drawing of Dun Dornadilla (Illus. 7.202).

115

Which was doubtless in the library of Dunrobin Castle, where he stayed.

781

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland The central court must have been full of at least 1.8m of rubble at that time and the interior doorway by which he got access to the stair (presumably that at 9 o’clock) may in fact have been the large void which presumably existed over the ground-level door. In this case the bottom part of the stair would have been concealed under rubble, and indeed he describes some lower steps as being partly covered with rubbish. He doubtless walked over this rubble, to the right of the opening, to reach the exposed steps.

other such Hebridean broch forms are known in the area. There can be no certainty about some of the architectural features of this site. The first continuous intramural gallery was therefore probably in Level 2 and was interrupted, as usual, by the stair rising from ground-level at 9 o’clock. The stair evidently had at least two landings in the surviving part which suggests (if it started at about 9 o’clock) that it led to a large raised doorway out onto a fairly low scarcement ledge (not mentioned by any of the observers) at between about 10-11 o’clock. Cordiner’s rather strange sketch (Illus. 7.376) suggests that there were a number of voids visible in the interior wallface at the time of his visit, including one which fronted the chamber over the entrance passage. There will have been at least two more galleries – Levels 3 and 4 – surviving until early in the 18th century.

The stairs evidently ascended by way of a series of landings about 1.83m (6 ft) long, each of which was presumably formed by the lintels of the wall gallery below; the first landing should have been on top of the presumably solid wall base, or on top of the presumably lintelled roof of one of the cells. Anderson mentions one complete flight with such a landing at either end; the flight below the lower landing was partly blocked by rubbish (confirming that he was at first-floor level) and that above the upper one, in “an imperfect state”, emerged on to the wallhead as it existed at that time. If each of the two landings was at the base and roof of the first-floor gallery respectively, the broch was probably between 4.58m and 5.49m (15-18 ft) high in 1775. It must have had one intact upper gallery and a second almost intact if not completely so. A third complete gallery doubtless existed until about 1735. Anderson describes voids in the inner wallface and these are shown in his elevation, albeit in a somewhat random manner.

Dimensions (from Maitland [3]): internal diameter 9.15m (30 ft), wall base (battered externally) 3.76m (12ft 4 in), external diameter 16.70m (54ft 9 in). The wall proportion is thus about 45%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 68 NE 11: 2. Boece 1520: 3. Maitland 1757, vol. 1, 145: 4. Kemp, ed. 1887: 5. Cordiner 1776, 118 & pl. XX: 6. James Anderson 1779, 241: 7. Joseph Anderson 1870, 192-3: 8. Watson 1904, 31: 9. Young 1962, 186: 10. MacKie 1975a, 204: 11. RCAHMS 1979, 23, no. 185: 12. MacKie 1995a, 144.

Anderson specifies that the roofs of all these “rooms” or cells inside the wall were lintelled rather than corbelled. His plan (Illus. 7.375) shows a long intramural stair rising clockwise from an internal doorway at about 9 o’clock, and his elevation shows the triangular lintel clearly, with the stair emerging at the wallhead at about 12 o’clock.

NH68 2 LECHANICH (‘Leachonich’) NH/6812 8546 Probable broch in Edderton, Easter Ross, situated on top of a rise with a wide view; it now consists of a mound of tumbled stones [1]. A few base stones of the outer wallface survive and indicate an overall diameter of 18.5m from north-east to south-west, and a short stretch of inner face on the north-east indicates a wall thickness of 4.6m here. There are traces of an intramural cell on the south; it may be a guard chamber since the entrance passage is visible on the east-south-east. The passage seems to be about 4.7m long and one door-check can be seen 3.2m from the exterior [1]. In 1904 the site was said to have been 6 or 7ft high, and to have had chambers, within living memory [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 68 NE 13: 2. Watson 1904, 31: 3. Graham 1947, 96: 4. RCAHMS 1979a, 23, no. 186.

Structural analysis It seems most probable that Dun Alisaig was technically a solid-based broch, albeit one with a large number of mural cells in Level 1. Pococke’s drawing of each of the guard cells connecting with a mural gallery behind seems to be mistaken; Cordiner’s sketch clearly shows them to be isolated but not far from the ends of the dumb-bellshaped mural chambers beyond. Although Cordiner was not able to trace the stairway – so that he shows a dumbbell chamber at 9 o’clock instead of the usual guard cell at the foot of the stair – his sketch confirms the separateness of all the cells.

NH68 3 STRUIE (‘Struy’) NH/600800 (approx.) Possible broch in Edderton, the only evidence for which is a remark by Williams in 1777 [1, 2] who said that there was “another famous structure” just south of Dun Alisaig, which had been pulled down a few years earlier to repair a mill dam. He may however have been referring to site NH68 2 above. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 68 NE 54: 2. Williams 1777, 60.

Thus, including the guard cells, there seem to have been no less than eight chambers scattered round inside the wall in Level 1 all of which, it seems, had lintelled roofs rather than corbelled domes. On the other hand it is just possible that these lintelled roofs imply that the early observers were seeing sections of a continuous groundlevel gallery rather than separate chambers, and that Pococke’s impression was right. However this interpretation seems less likely, not least because no 782

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom) Sutherland

In 1964 Mr Duncan Vass of Torboll pointed out the spot where in dry summers he has observed a circular green mark in pasture or a dark mark in crops. He estimated the diameter of the circle at 10 to 12 yards. No crop marks could be seen on the available air photographs. Mr Vass had no knowledge of the names ‘Thor’s Tower’ or ‘Thor’s Field’ [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 79 NE 6: 2. Survey of Skelbo, 1788, no. 13: 3. L. Tait 1868, 528.

Square NH79 NH79 1 BRAE (‘Strath Carnaig’) NH/7050 9903 (visited in 1989) Probable broch in Dornoch, Sutherland, in the form of a crater-like mound of rubble on a rise above a flood plain (Illus. 7.379 - 7.381); there is turf growing in the interior. The structure is badly ruined although both wallfaces are visible throughout most of the circuit. These indicate an internal diameter of about 8.3m with the wall thickness varying from 4.3m to c. 5.7m.

Eastern Ross & Cromarty Square NH98

An entrance was reported on the west-south-west in 1963 but later visitors, including the author, could not see it [1]. A gap 0.7m wide in the inner face on the north side was thought to be the entrance to an intramural gallery and by 1989 a fragment of this gallery had become exposed (Illus. 7.380). A small section of scarcement can also be seen now (Illus. 7.381).

NH98 1 CASTLE CORBET (‘Cnoc Tigh’) ++ NH/9026 8326 This possible broch or dún in Tarbat, Ross and Cromarty, was first mentioned as a castle in the first half of the 18th century [2] but was unknown to the local farmer two centuries later [3]. A suitable site was found in 1972, on a spur between a stream, gully and a raised beach and an off-square structure identified [1]. A few years after that it seemed more like a broch with a diameter of 22m over a wall 5.5m thick [1]. A single outer facing-stone was visible on the north-west. A later visit in 1981 returned the site to the dún category and noted that crude excavations into part of the wall on the north arc had revealed no sign of the core of massive stone rubble one would expect in a broch wall [1]. On the south-west side, among modern stone clearance, is a possible cup-marked stone bearing three poorly-defined cups. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 98 SW 12: 2. acfarlane 1906-08, 215: 3. Davidson 1946, 28: 4. RCAHMS 1979a, 23, no. 184.

Dimensions: internal diameter c. 8.3m, wall thickness 4.3m thick in the east-north-east, and c. 5.7m in the westsouth-west. The overall diameter should therefore be about 18.3m (60.0 ft) along that diameter but is perhaps less elsewhere. In 1989 an accurate survey of the inner wallface was undertaken and showed it to have been set out close to a true circle with a radius of 4.05 + 0.11m (a diameter of 8.10 m, or 26.56 ft) . Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 79 NW 11: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 38, no. 107. NH79 2 SKELBO WOOD NH/7820 9443 (NH/78203 94433 – GPS) Visited 21/7/03 This possible broch in Dornoch, Sutherland, stands on a low knoll in the wood overlooking Loch Fleet and is now an overgrown ruin. It appears as a huge mound of large, rounded stones with a shallow crater in the centre. No wallfaces can be seen but the overall diameter has been estimated at 18.0m (60 ft) [2]. An outer wall surrounds the broch at a distance of 5.1m (17 ft), increasing on the north-east arc where walls cross the intervening space. There seems to be a break in the outer wall just east of this enclosure, and the space between it and the broch has been levelled; this suggests that the entrance is here [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NH 79 SE 4: 2. RCAHMS 1911a, 37-8, no. 106. NH79 3 THOR’S TOWER (‘Thor’s Field’, ‘Torboll’) NH/7537 9920 Site of a probable broch in Dornoch, Sutherland, reported as the “ruins of Druid temple” in 1788 [2]. In about 1833 a fine broch, known as Thor’s Tower, is said to have stood on the farm of Torboll, in ‘Thor’s field’ [3]. Nothing can be seen now, although the situation is a good one for a broch, being on the summit of a low ridge and overlooking a wide expanse of cultivated land [1].

783

7.355 Dun Lagaidh (NH19 2) in 1968: general plan of the remains on the rocky ridge showing the three main phases of the site’s occupation – Late Bronze Age, Middle Iron Age and Medieval. Scale: 1:300.

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

784

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.356 Dun Lagaidh (NH19 2) in 1968: cross sections of some of the excavated trenches. Top: along line J (see Illus. 7.355) showing the eastern end of the hillfort with its forework, with the dun superimposed on the main hillfort wall. Middle: along line K across the dun, showing the intra-mural stair and the guard cell; the deposits in the interior show the hillfort occupation (the hearth with layer 6 on top of it), debris from the burning of the hillfort (layer 4), the black dun occupation deposits (layer 5) and the debris from the Medieval refortification of the dun in the form of brown soil with fragments of shell mortar among rubble (layer 3). The Medieval inhabitants evidently cleaned out rubble from the interior and used the Iron Age deposits as a floor level; hence artefacts from the two periods were found together. Bottom: elevation along the Iron Age stair . Scale: 1:100.

785

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.357 Dun Lagaidh (NH19 2) in 1968. View of stairway in dun wall after excavation. (neg. 1968/1/25).

7.358 Dun Lagaidh (NH19 2) in 1968. View of entrance passage of the dun, looking out, with Medieval blocking in place. (neg. 1968/4/36)

786

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.359 Dun Lagaidh (NH19 2). Some of the finds from inside the dun, all but no. 1 are from the black occupation layer inside the dun (the bone material is not illustrated as some of it is clearly from the Medieval occupation) (in the Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow). 1: small discoid bronze object with a central perforation cast into it (see Illus. 7.382); the upper surface is shiny with numerous fine scratches; from the hillfort level. 2-11: fragments of bronze sheet, some folded; some are clippings from larger pieces and others (3 & 4) have rivets or rivet holes. They appear to be the remains of repair work on a sheet bronze cauldron (which has not survived), and no. 2 is a ‘paper-clip’ rivet. 12: bronze ring-headed pin of characteristic north British type. 13 & 14: two fragments of an iron two-link bridle bit, the link on the left half having been broken before deposition. 15 – 21: various fragments of iron, including nails (19 - 21) and some kind of rivet (17) which has been in a fairly thick piece of wood, now vanished. Originally drawn by the author at 1:1: scale 1:2.

787

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.360 Top: plan of Loch Broom showing the location of the two sites, Dun Lagaidh and Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh. Bottom: Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2) in 1978. Cross section of the wall through the raised void and the upper stair: the horizontal line is the site datum (MacKie 1980, figs. 1 & 8). Copyright Glasgow Archaeological Society.

788

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.361 Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2) in 1978: general plan of site showing its cliff-top situation and the distribution of fallen rubble on the slope below (MacKie 1980, fig. 2). The grid of 3m squares was used for planning and plotting the positions of the finds (NB: the fallen rubble immediately outside the entrance was omitted by mistake). The position of the two trenches dug below the cliff is shown with dotted lines. Copyright Glasgow Archaeological Society. Scale 1:300.

789

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.362 Top. Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2); plan of semibroch showing features of Levels 1 and 2, including the hearth, post-holes, entrance passage and intra-mural features (MacKie 1980, fig. 3). Bottom. The early Medieval rotary quern no. 17 (MacKie 1980, fig. 17): scale 1:10. Copyright Glasgow Archaeological Society. Scale of plan 1:150.

790

7.363 Top: Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2); elevation of the intra-mural features from the end of the ground gallery at 7 o’clock to the end of the upper gallery at 1 o’clock (MacKie 1980, fig. 5). Bottom. Two of the Iron Age rotary querns – nos. 15 & 16 – found at the site (MacKie 1980, fig. 17); scale 1:10. Copyright Glasgow Archaeological Society. Scale of elevation 1:80.

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

791

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.364 Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2) in 1978; detailed Level 1 plan of the central court (post-holes, tank and hearth), the entrance passage and the stair doorway (MacKie 1980, fig. 4). The same 3m grid is shown. Copyright Glasgow Archaeological Society. Scale 1:75.

792

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.365 Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2) in 1968. View of the upper gallery with debris removed from its interior (neg.. 1968/1/5A).

7.366 Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2) in 1968. View of the central court looking towards the cliff, with some post-holes showing as dark marks in the boulder clay. (neg.. 1968/1/6A)

793

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.367 Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2) in 1968 before the start of the excavations. View from above down on to the scarcement (pole). (neg. 1968/1/7A).

794

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.368 Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2). Sections of trenches in the central court. (MacKie 1980, fig. 9). Copyright Glasgow Archaeological Society. Scale 1:40.

795

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.369 Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2). Sections of deposits in the stair doorway and in the north trench under the cliff. (MacKie 1980, figs. 10 & 11). Copyright Glasgow Archaeological Society. Scale 1:40.

796

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.370 Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2). Table of the main events on the site reconstructed from several stratigraphical sequences. The main difference from the original chart (MacKie 1980, fig 12) is that the activity in the central court marked by the complete quern is now assigned to the C-14 dated early Medieval occupation in the gallery. The typology of the quern fits better here, and a late occupation solely in the wall gallery always seemed improbable.

797

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.371 Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2). Top: table showing two alternative interpretations of the C-14 dates for the site (MacKie 1995). Bottom: reconstruction of how the semibroch may have looked when it was intact in Phase 2. (MacKie 1980, fig. 15). Copyright Glasgow Archaeological Society.

798

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.372 Top. Top. Map of northern Scotland showing the location of six brochs which evidently became known between the 16th and 18th centuries; Sueno’s stone is also shown. Bottom. Suggested chronology of the main events at the two Loch Broom sites, based on the assumption that only one independent fortified stronghold was occupied at any one time.

799

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.373 Dun an Rhiroy (NH19 2). The Iron Age finds from the site (see list at end of site entry). Scale 1:2 except nos 12 (1:4) and 13 and 14 (1:8).

800

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.374 Castle Spynie in 1985: looking south along the west wall with pole at inner face (neg. 1985/1/1).

801

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.375 Dun Alisaig (NH68 1). James Anderson’s plan and elevation (1779).

802

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.376 Dun Alisaig (NH68 1). Top: Cordiner’s plan and elevation of the broch in the late 18th century (1790). Bottom: J J Worsaae’s plan and elevation drawn in his notebook in 1946 during his visit to the area (Copyright: National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen). It is clear from the similarity of the elevations (which is like no other known broch) that Worsaae copied his drawing from Cordiner’s book and may never have seen the site.

803

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.377 Dun Alisaig (NH68 1) in the 9th century? View of the bottom of the second panel from the top, and the top of the third, on the back of the 9th century Sueno's stone in Morayshire (grid ref. NJ/0465 5953) which may show a broch, probably Dun Alisaig. The scene clearly depicts the aftermath of a battle, with victorious soldiers looking at a row of headless bodies on the left, and several decapitated heads below a tower-like building with a single doorway and no windows. The fact that the doorway may be roundarched rather than bridged with a flat lintel could point to its being a depiction of an early Medieval round tower (like those at Brechin and Abernethy) rather than a broch. On the other hand the tower is somewhat bell-shaped (like Mousa (HU42 6), whereas the round towers taper slightly and evenly (MacKie 1975, 183, pl. 30). Also Dun Alisaig is only about 40 kilometres (25 miles) to the north-west of Sueno’s stone as the crow flies whereas the surviving Scottish round towers are far away to the south. Crown Copyright reserved (NMRS neg. E 56685).

804

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.378 Dun Alisaig (NH68 1) in 1989 showing the foundation blocks of the wall. (neg. no. 1989/2/8)

7.379 Brae (NH79 1) in 1989: distant view from the south (neg. 1989/3/20A)

805

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.380 Brae (NH79 1) in 1989: mural gallery on the south side (neg. 1989/3/24A).

7.381 Brae (NH79 1) in 1989: looking across rubble-filled interior to east with scarcement at pole (neg. 1989/3/21A).

806

Section 7: The northern Mainland and the West Coast (north of the mouth of Loch Broom)

7.382 Finds from and near Dun Lagaidh (NH19 2). Left: the perforated bronze plate found in the hillfort levels, showing the numerous fine scratches which appear to have been cast into the metal. A small part of the disc is bent in relation to the rest and is therefore in shadow (Hunterian Museum no. A.1973.29). Right: handled stone cup seen in 1968 in the possession of an inhabitant of Loggie. The exact find spot could not be identified but it was evidently found near Dun Lagaidh. An association with the inhabitants of the Iron Age dun – or even with the hillfort – seems quite probable. Regrettably the author did not have a scale with him when he was shown the cup.

807

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

7.383 Various finds from northern brochs in Dunrobin Castle Museum (drawn by the author). 1. From Carrol (NC80 3), a decorated steatite handled cup (ARC 648): 2. from Backies (NC80 1), an unfinished bracelet of cannel coal (ARC 414): 3. from Carn Liath 1 (NC80 2), a steatite bowl or lamp (ARC 310): 4. Probably from Backies (NC80 1) or Kintradwell (NC90 1), ring pendant of polished cannel coal (ARC 409): 5. Backies (NC80 1), perforated stone disc (ARC 403): 6. Carn Liath (NC80 2), large whetstone (ARC 298). Scale 1:2.

808

BAR  444 (II)  2007   MacKIE   THE ROUNDHOUSES, BROCHS AND WHEELHOUSES OF ATLANTIC SCOTLAND - PART 2

9 781407 301341

B A R

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland c. 700 BC - AD 500 Architecture and material culture Part 2 (II) The Northern and Southern Mainland and the Western Islands

Euan W. MacKie

BAR British Series 444 (II) 2007

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland c. 700 BC - AD 500 Architecture and material culture Part 2 (II) The Northern and Southern Mainland and the Western Islands

Euan W. MacKie

BAR British Series 444 (II) 2007

Published in 2017 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 444 (II) The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses ofAtlantic Scotland c. 700 BC - AD 500: Architecture and material culture. Part 2 (II)

© E \V MacKie and the Publisher 2007

The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407301334 (Volume I) paperback ISBN 9781407301341 (Volume II) paperback ISBN 9781407301327 (Volume set) paperback ISBN 9781407321028 (Volume set) e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407301327 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2007. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2017.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL

PHONE FAX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbui.y Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents Tome II 4.

The West Coast and the Inner Hebrides a. Introduction i. Terminology ii. Excavations in the west b. Square NG15 – Isle of Skye i. Dun Boreraig (NG15 1) 1. Description 2. Structural analysis 3. Dimensions c. Square NG24 i. Dun Colbost (NG24 1) 1. Description 2. Recent excavations 3. Dimensions ii. Dun Osdale (NG24 3) 1. Description 2. Find 3. Dimensions d. Square NG25 i. Dun Fiadhairt (NG25) 1. Description 2. The excavations of 1892 3. Structural analysis 4. Cultural contacts 5. Finds 6. Dimensions ii. Dun Hallin (NG25 2) 1. Description 2. Dimensions e. Square NG26 i. Dun Gearymore (NG26 1) 1. Description 2. Dimensions ii. Dun Borrafiach (NG26 2) 1. Description 2. Dimensions f. Square NG31 i. Rudh an Dunain (NG31 1) 1. Situation 2. Description 3. Structural analysis 4. Excavations in the cave in 1932 5. Significance of the site g. Square NG32 i. Dun Sleadale (NG32 1) 1. Situation 2. Description 3. Dimensions h. Square NG33 i. Dun ard an’t Sabhail (NG33 1) 1. Description 2. Dimensions ii. Dun Ardtreck (NG33 2) 1. Introduction 2. The situation of the site 3. The primary structures (Phase 1) a. The dun and its foundation platform b. The entrance and guard cell c. The mural gallery i

809 809 809 809 809 809 809 810 810 810 810 810 811 811 811 811 812 812 812 812 812 813 813 814 814 814 814 814 815 815 815 815 815 815 815 816 816 816 816 816 817 817 817 818 818 818 818 819 819 819 819 819 819 819 820 820 820 820 821

i.

j.

k.

l.

d. The outer wall and gate e. Dating 4. Basic Stratigraphy a. The central court b. The outer court 5. The primary occupation of Phase 2 a. The central court b. The entrance passage 6. Phase 2/3 – transformation of the dun a. The central court b. The entrance passage and ramp c. The outer court d. The outer gate 7. The secondary occupation of Phase 3 8. Phase 4: abandonment 9. Discussion a. Site sequence b. Phase 1 c. Phase 2/3 d. Phase 3 e. Phase 4 10. Dating a. Radiocarbon dating b. Archaeological dating 11. The nature of the structure 12. Material culture a. Pottery b. The ‘E’ ware 13. The function and status of Dun Ardtreck a. A high status site? b. Roman contact? 14. Finds list a. Finds from Phase 1 b. Finds from Phase 2 c. Finds from Phase 2/3 d. Finds from Phase 3 e. Finds from Phase 4 iii. Dun Beag (NG33 3) 1. Introduction 2. History of visits to the site 3. The structure a. Level 1 b. Levels 2 and 3 4. The excavations 5. Discussion 6. The finds Square NG34 i. Dun Arkaig (NG34 2) 1. Description 2. Dimensions Square NG35 i. Dun Suledale (NG35 1) 1. Description 2. Find Square NG37 i. Dun Liath 1 (NG37 2) 1. Introduction 2. Description 3. The 1964 excavations 4. Discussion 5. Finds Square NG44 ii

821 821 821 821 822 822 822 822 822 822 822 823 823 823 823 823 823 823 823 824 824 824 824 824 824 824 824 825 825 825 825 826 826 826 827 827 828 828 828 828 829 829 829 829 830 830 831 831 831 832 832 833 833 833 834 834 834 834 835 835 835 835

m.

n.

o.

p. q. r. s.

i. Tungadal (souterrain – NG44 3) 1. Summary of excavations 2. Discussion 3. Finds Square NG47 i. Dun Flodigarry (NG47 1) 1. Situation 2. The surviving structure 3. The stratification uncovered 4. Discussion 5. The finds 6. Dimensions Square NG51 i. Dun Grugaig 1 (NG51 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion a. Level 1 b. Level 2 ii. Dun Ringill (NG51 4) 1. Description 2. Historical Record 3. Discussion a. Harding’s interpretation b. The nature of the site c. Level 1 d. Level 2 e. Medieval refortification Square NG53 i. Dunan an Aisilidh (NG53 1) ii. Dun Borodale (Raasay) (NG53 2) 1. Description 2. Structural analysis a. The site in 1695 3. Summary of architecture a. Level 1 b. Level 2 4. Shape and dimensions Square NG56 – Isle of Skye Square NG60 – Isle of Skye Square NG74 – Ross & Cromarty (mainland) Square NG81 – Western Inverness-shire i. Introduction 1. Four remarkable sites 2. Handled stone cups ii. Dun Grugaig 2 (NG81 1) 1. History 2. Description 3. Structural analysis 4. Comment 5. Dimensions iii. Dun Telve (NG81 2) 1. Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 c. Level 3 d. Levels 4-5 e. Level 6 f. Voids in the inner wall face g. Outbuildings 2. The 1914 excavations and the finds 3. Legends 4. 18th century descriptions iii

836 836 836 836 836 836 836 836 837 837 838 838 838 838 838 839 839 839 841 841 842 842 842 842 843 843 843 844 844 844 844 845 845 845 845 846 846 846 847 847 847 847 847 847 848 848 848 850 851 851 851 851 852 852 853 853 853 853 853 854 854 854

t.

u. v. w. x. y. z.

5. Discussion 6. Finds 7. Dimensions iv. Dun Troddan (NG81 3) 1. Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 c. Level 3 d. Level 4 2. 18th century descriptions 3. The excavations of 1920 4. Discussion a. Interior deposits and finds b. Post holes c. Height in 1720 d. Original height e. Primary purpose of the broch 5. The finds 6. Dimensions Square NG82 i. Caisteal Grugaig (NG82 1) 1. Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 c. Level 3 2. Discussion 3. Finds 4. Dimensions Square NG83 – Ross & Cromarty, western Square NG87 – do. Square NG88 – do. Square NG89 – do. Square NG93 – do. Illustrations for NG sites

aa. The island of Tiree bb. Square NL93 – Tiree cc. Square NL94 – do, i. Balevullin (NL94 2) aa. Square NM04 – do. i. Dun Mor a’ Chaolais (NM04 3) 1. Description 2. Discussion ii. Dun Mor Vaul (NM04 4) 1. Background 2. The primary buildings a. Introduction b. The broch, Level 1 i. Entrance passage and drain ii. The galleried wall iii. The central court iv. The stair v. The cess pit c. The broch, Level 2 i. The scarcement ii. The upper gallery iii. Landing and raised door? d. Outer defences 3. Site history a. Introduction b. Phase 1: pre-broch occupations i. Finds from Phase 1a iv

856 856 856 856 857 857 858 858 858 859 859 859 859 860 860 861 861 861 861 861 861 861 861 862 863 863 863 864 864 864 864 865 865 866 994 994 994 995 995 996 996 996 996 996 997 997 997 997 998 998 998 998 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 1000

ii. Finds from Phase 1b Phase 2a: new arrivals i. Inside the broch 1. Finds from Phase 2a (Context ‘Eta’) 2. Finds from Phase 2a (Context ‘Theta’) ii. Lower levels of the Outer Court 1. Finds from context ‘Rho’ d. Phase 2b: Broch construction i. Finds from Context ‘Alpha’ ii. The core of the outer wall e. Phase 3a: primary occupation of the broch i. Primary floor layer (Context ‘Iota’) ii. Signal fire? iii. Finds from Phase 3a f. Phase 3b: hearth and ash spread i. Finds from Phase 3b g. Phase 4 in the broch i. Phase 4a: demolition of the broch 1. Finds from Context ‘Lambda’ ii. Phase 4 in the mural gallery iii. Phase 4b: secondary occupation of the broch 1. Finds from Contexts ‘Mu’ and ‘Beta’ h. Phase 4 in the Outer Court i. Finds from Context ‘Sigma’ ii. Finds from Context ‘Tau’ iii. Dating i. Phase 5: abandonment and squatters i. Finds from Phase 5 4. Discussion a. Dating i. Pre-broch Phase 1 ii. Phase 2: broch construction iii. Occupation Phases 3a, 3b and 4 b. Sequence of Material culture and economy i. Pottery and artefact sequence ii. Economy c. Interpretation of Site Phases i. Phase 1, pre-broch ii. Phases 2a and 2b: broch construction iii. Phases 3a and 3b: primary occupation iv. Phase 4: secondary occupation 5. The finds 6. Dimensions Square NM22 (Isle of Mull) i. Dun Cul Bhuirg (NM22 1) 1. The pottery Square NM34 i. Dun Aisgean (NM34 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion 3. Dimensions Square NM41 Square NM42 Square NM44 i. Dun nan Gall (NM44 2) 1. Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 2. Discussion 3. Dimensions Square NM45 i. An Sean Dun (NM45 1) c.

bb. cc.

dd. ee. ff.

gg.

v

1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1002 1002 1002 1002 1003 1003 1003 1003 1003 1003 1004 1004 1004 1004 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1006 1006 1007 1007 1008 1008 1008 1009 1011 1012 1012 1012 1013 1013 1013 1013 1014 1014 1014 1014 1014 1014 1015 1015 1015 1015 1015 1016 1016 1016 1016

i. Description c. Level 1 d. Level 2 2. Discussion 3. Dimensions hh. Square NM54 i. An Sean Chaisteal (NM54 1) 1. Description e. Level 1 f. Level 2 2. Discussion 3. Dimensions ii. Square NM65 (Mainland Argyll) i. Rahoy (NM65 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion jj. Square NM70 i. Dun Mhuilig (NM70 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion kk. Square NM83 (Isle of Lismore) i. Tirefour (NM83 1) 1. Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 c. Outer defences 2. Discussion 3. New excavations ll. Square NR46 (Isle of Islay) i. Dun Bhoraraig (NR46 1) 1. Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 2. Discussion 3. Dimensions mm. Square NR49 (Isle of Jura) nn. Illustrations for NL, NM & NR Sites 5.

The Outer Hebrides a. Introduction i. Erskine Beveridge ii. Terminology again iii. Wheelhouses b. Square NG08 – Harris c. Square NG09 – do. d. Square NB03 – Lewis i. Dun Barabhat (NB03 1) 1. Introduction 2. The roundhouse a. The structure b. The occupations layers i. Site sequence c. The non ceramic finds (by Phase) 3. The submerged buildings a. Introduction b. Structures c. Phases and dates d. Finds (not by Phase) 4. The pottery 5. Discussion a. The structure b. Economy and environment vi

1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1017 1017 1017 1017 1017 1018 1018 1018 1018 1018 1018 1018 1018 1019 1019 1019 1019 1019 1019 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1021 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1076 1076 1076 1076 1076 1077 1077 1078 1078 1078 1079 1079 0079 1079 1079 1080 1081 1081 1081

e.

f.

g.

c. Material Culture ii. Cnip (NB03 2) 1. Discovery 2. Site Sequence 3. The 1988 excavations a. Phase 1: the roundhouse settlement b. Phase 2 c. Phase 3: the souterrain 4. Discussion 5. The finds d. Pottery e. Other artefacts Square NB13 i. Dun Baravat 2 (NB13 1) 1. Description a. Captain Thomas’ survey b. The building i. Level 1 ii. Level 2 iii. Level 3 & 4 2. Discussion a. Making sense of the site b. Broch or semibroch? c. The multiple stairs 3. Dimensions ii. Beirgh (NB13 3) 1. The structures and stratigraphy a. Introduction b. The broch i. Broch Level 1 (Phase 12) ii. The inserted roundhouse (Phase 10) iii. Broch Level 2 (Phase 12) iv. Broch Level III (Phase 12) c. The later structures (Phases 9 – 1) i. Radiocarbon dating d. Artefact dating 2. Discussion a. The broch b. Material cultural sequence 3. Dimensions Square NB14 i. Dun Carloway (NB14 1) 1. Early accounts a. Legend 2. Description a. General b. Level 1 c. Level 2 d. Level 3 e. Level 4 f. Levels 5 and 6 3. The 1972 excavations in cell A 4. Discussion 5. Dimensions Square NB24 i. Loch an Duna (NB24 1) 1. Description of the site in about 1860 2. Description a. Level 1 b. Level 2 3. Legend 4. Dimensions vii

1081 1082 1082 1082 1083 1083 1083 1083 1083 1084 1084 1084 1084 1084 1084 1084 1085 1085 1086 1086 1086 1086 1087 1087 1088 1088 1088 1088 1089 1089 1089 1090 1090 1091 1091 1091 1092 1092 1092 1094 1094 1094 1094 1095 1095 1095 1096 1097 1098 1098 1098 1098 1099 1100 1100 1100 1100 1101 1101 1101 1101 1102

h. i.

Square NB35 Square NB42 i. Dun Cromore (NB42 1) 1. Early descriptions 2. Description 3. Structural analysis a. Level 1 b. Level 2 c. Level 3 d. Secondary buildings 4. Dimensions j. Square NB44 i. Gress Lodge (souterrain) (NB44 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion k. Square NB45 l. Square NB46 m. Square NB55 n. Square NB56 o. Square NF60 (Barra) i. Dun Cuier (NF60 5) 1. Introduction 2. The excavations a. Late use b. The wall c. The entrance d. The central court 3. Discussion a. The structure b. Stratigraphy c. One occupation or two? 4. The finds ii. Tigh Talamhanta (NF60 9) 1. Introduction 2. The excavations a. Phase 1 i. The main building ii. Floor levels and finds iii. The farmyard wall iv. The ‘kiln house’ v. The ‘barn/byre’ or ‘steading’ vi. The ‘working place’ b. Phase 2 3. Discussion a. The farm and its significance b. The pottery 4. Finds p. Square NF70 (Fuday) q. Square NF72 (South Uist) i. Dun Vulan (NF72 1) 1. Introduction to the report 2. Summary of conclusions a. Phase 0 (c. 700-400 BC) b. Phase 1a, broch construction (c. 150-0 BC) c. Phases 1b-2, broch occupation (c. 0BC – AD 200) d. Phases 3-4, Platform and Building A (c. AD 200-400) e. Phase 5, Bldg B on Platform & house in broch (c. AD 500-800) f. Phases 5-6, Layers, & Building B, on Platform (c. AD 500-800) g. Phase 7, Buildings NE of broch (c. AD 700-1300) 3. Evidence for the sequence of structures and layers a. The broch i. The stair-foot guard cell viii

1102 1102 1102 1102 1103 1103 1103 1104 1104 1104 1104 1104 1104 1104 1105 1105 1105 1105 1105 1106 1107 1107 1107 1107 1107 1107 1108 1108 1108 1108 1108 1109 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1112 1112 1112 1112 1112 1112 1112 1112 1113 1113 1114 1114 1114 1114 1115 1115 1116 1116 1116 1116 1116 1117 1117 1117 1117

r. s.

ii. The entrance passage iii. The first floor wall gallery iv. The late building on top of the broch v. The Revetment Wall b. Structures and deposits E of the broch i. The Midden ii. The rubble N of the broch iii. The Platform and Platform Wall iv. The waterlogged deposits 4. Evidence for the sequence of material culture a. Pre-broch b. Broch construction c. Early broch occupation d. Later primary occupation? e. Broch secondary habitation f. Post broch 5. Discusssion a. The nature of the original building b. The site sequence c. The material culture in general d. The pottery sequence i. The primary broch pottery ii. Secondary broch pottery and Everted Rim ware e. The study of Hebridean Iron Age pottery f. Dating 6. Environmental data and economic evidence a. Animal bones b. The broch as farmstead 7. Finds a. Broch construction b. Stair-foot guard cell c. Midden on lintels over entrance d. Broch Revetment Wall e. The Midden f. Under the Platform and beach g. Building A on Platform h. Building B on Platform i. Building C on Platform j. Waterlogged deposits on beach k. Cell in Platform Revetment l. Late and ‘unstratified’ deposits ii. Kilpheder (NF72 3) 1. The excavations a. The building 2. Discussion 3. Material culture 4. The finds iii. Cladh Hallan (NF72 6) 1. The Late Bronze Age roundhouses a. Discussion b. Finds 2. The Early Iron Age figure-of-eight houses a. Finds 3. A Late Bronze Age warrior elite? Square NF73 Square NF74 i. A’ Cheardach Beag (NF74 1) 1. The excavation a. The larger roundhouse (no. 1) b. The annexe (Roundhouse 2) c. Evidence of changes of plan d. The furnace ix

1118 1118 1118 1118 1119 1119 1119 1119 1119 1119 1119 1119 1120 1120 1121 1121 1121 1122 1122 1123 1124 1124 1125 1125 1126 1126 1126 1126 1127 1127 1127 1127 1127 1127 1128 1128 1128 1128 1128 1128 1128 1129 1129 1129 1130 1130 1131 1132 1132 1133 1133 1133 1134 1134 1134 1135 1135 1135 1135 1135 1135 1135

2.

t.

u. v.

Discussion a. Architecture and roofing b. Material culture c. Social stratification? 3. The finds ii. A’ Cheardach Mhor (NF72 2) 1. The excavations a. Phase 1 b. Phase 1a c. Phase 2 d. Phase 3 e. Phases 4 & 5 2. Discussion a. The importance of the site b. Social stratification and relative dating c. Were the two roundhouses of different ages? d. Were the two roundhouses contemporary but of different status? 3. The finds a. Phase 1 b. Phase 1a c. Phase 2 d. Phase 3 e. Phase 4 f. Phase 5 g. Viking material iii. Hornish Point (NF74 3) Square NF75 5 (Benbecula) i. Bruthach a’ Tuath (NF75 1) 1. Introduction 2. The excavations 3. The finds 4. Discussion Square NF76 Square NF77 i. Bac Mhic Connain (NF77 1) 1. The structures 2. The finds 3. Discussion ii. Clettraval (NF77 2) 1. The excavations a. The original roundhouse b. The farmyard 2. Discussion a. Social status b. Roofing c. Economy d. Non ceramic material culture e. The pottery 3. The finds iii. Cnoc a’ Comdhalach (NF77 3) 1. Description 2. Discussion 3. Finds iv. Dun Thomaidh (NF77 4) 1. Description 2. Comments 3. Finds v. Eilean Maleit (NF77 5) 1. Beveridge’s work 2. The 1995 excavation vi. Foshigarry (NF77 6) 1. The excavations x

1136 1136 1136 1137 1137 1137 1138 1138 1138 1138 1138 1138 1138 1138 1139 1139 1139 1139 1140 1140 1140 1140 1140 1140 1141 1141 1141 1141 1142 1142 1142 1143 1144 1144 1144 1144 1145 1145 1146 1146 1146 1147 1147 1147 1147 1148 1148 1148 1148 1149 1149 1149 1149 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1151 1151 1151

a. The wheelhouse (‘A’) b. The first aisled wheelhouse (‘B’) c. The second aisled wheelhouse (‘C’) d. Other dwellings 2. Discussion 3. The finds vii. Garry Iochdrach (NF77 7) 1. The excavations 2. Discussion 3. The finds viii. Rudh an Duin (NF77 8) 1. Description 2. Discusssion 3. Finds w. Square NF83 i. Uamh Iosal (NF83 1) ii. Description iii. Discussion x. Square NF85 y. Square NF87 i. Dun an Sticir (NF87 2) 1. Description 2. Discussion ii. Dun Torcuill (NF87 4) 1. Description 2. Discussion 3. Dimensions iii. Machair Leathann (NF87 4) 1. Introduction 2. The excavations a. Summary of Phasing b. Site A i. Absolute dating of Site A c. Site B (the main wheelhouse) i. The outer wall ii. Entrance passage iii. Piers and bays iv. Central area 1. Period B1 – the primary pits 2. Period B2 – the main occupation 3. Cell A 4. Cell C 5. Middens 6. Ritual activity in Phase B2? v. Absolute dating of Site B 1. Archaeomagnetic dating 2. C-14 dating d. Material culture i. Pottery 3. Discussion a. The wheelhouse i. Building technique ii. Roofing iii. The ritual pits of Phase B1 b. The pottery c. Other finds i. Bone implements 4. Author’s comments a. Strata b. Wheelhouse structure c. Plastering the wall d. The social order xi

1151 1151 1152 1152 1152 1153 1154 1154 1155 1155 1156 1156 1156 1156 1157 1157 1157 1158 1158 1159 1159 1159 1160 1160 1161 1161 1161 1161 1161 1162 1162 1162 1162 1162 1163 1163 1163 1163 1163 1164 1164 1164 1164 1164 1164 1164 1164 1165 1165 1165 1165 1165 1165 1166 1166 1166 1166 1166 1166 1167 1167 1167

e. The pottery 5. Finds z. Square NF96 aa. Square NF99, Harris bb. Square NF99 cc. Square NL98, Barra, Bernera i. Sron an Duin (NF98 1) 1. Description 2. Discussion dd. Square NL68 (Barra, Pabbay) ee. Square NL69 (Barra, Sandray & Vatersay) i. Dun a’ Chaolais (NL69 1) ff. Illustrations for NB, NF and NL sites 6.

The Southern Mainland a. Square NN60 (Stirlingshire) b. Square NN70 (Perthshire) c. Square NO23 (Perth & Kinross) d. Square NO33 (Angus) i. Hurly Hawkin (NO33 1) 1. Background 2. Summary of the site’s evolution 3. The broch 4. The finds 5. Discussion 6. Dimensions e. Square NO41 (Fife) f. Square NO43 (Angus) i. Laws Hill (NO43 2) 1. Finds g. Square NS43 (Ayrshire) h. Square NS49 (Stirlingshire) i. Square NS59 (do.) i. Buchlyvie (NS59 2) 1. Description a. The timber roundhouse b. The broch c. Destruction by fire 2. Specialist reports 3. Radiocarbon dates 4. Discussion a. Native pottery b. Roman finds c. Copper alloy artefacts d. Lead artefacts e. Destruction of the broch 5. The finds 6. Dimensions j. Square NS69 (do.) i. Coldoch (NS69 1) ii. Leckie (NS69 2) 1. Summary of site sequence a. Structural sequence i. Phase 1: small wooden hut ii. Phase 2: broch construction iii. Phase 3a: broch occupation iv. Phase 4: the low-walled stone roundhouse v. Phase 5: the promontory fort b. The sequence of layers i. Subsoil on rock (Layer 1) ii. Dark earth occupation (Layer 2) iii. Scatter of small, dry rubble (Layer 2/3) xii

1167 1167 1168 1168 1168 1168 1168 1168 1169 1170 1170 1170 1171

1301 1301 1301 1302 1302 1302 1303 1303 1304 1305 1305 1305 1305 1305 1306 1306 1306 1306 1306 1306 1306 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1308 1308 1308 1308 1311 1311 1311 1312 1312 1312 1312 1312 1313 1313 1313 1313 1313 1314 1314

iv. Upper dark earth (Layer 3) v. Massive dry rubble (Layer 4) vi. Topsoil (Layer 5) vii. Strata in front of south wall c. Phase of occupation i. Phase 0: rock shelter ii. Phase 1: round hut iii. Phase 2: broch construction iv. Phase 3A: primary occupation v. Phase 3A, end: broch destruction vi. Phase 3B: secondary occupation vii. Phase 4: the promontory fort d. Economic data 2. Discussion a. Origin of the broch builders b. Dating the site phases 3. The finds k. Square NS77 (do.) l. Square NS88 (do.) i. Torwood (NS88 1) 1. Description a. The broch b. Outer defences c. Chamber on wallhead 2. Discussion 3. Finds 4. Dimensions m. Square NS94 (Lanarkshire) n. Square NT43 (Selkirkshire) i. Torwoodlee (NT43 1) 1. Description of the broch 2. Excavations in 1892 3. Excavations in 1950-51 a. Relationship between broch and hillfort b. The broch floor c. Relationship between Roman finds and broch 4. Finds 5. Discussion 6. Dimensions o. Square NT44 (Midlothian) i. Bow Castle (NT44 1) 1. Description 2. Finds 3. Discussion p. Square NT76 (Berwickshire) i. Edinshall (NT76 1) 1. Description a. The broch b. Shape of central court c. External structures 2. Finds 3. Discussion a. Finds b. Geometry c. Terminology q. Square NX03 (Wigtownshire) r. Square NX04 (do.) s. Square NX06 (do.) i. Teroy (NX06 1) 1. Description 2. Finds t. Square NX25 xiii

1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1314 1315 1315 1315 1315 1315 1316 1316 1318 1318 1318 1318 1318 1319 1319 1319 1319 1319 1319 1320 1320 1320 1320 1321 1321 1321 1321 1321 1322 1323 1323 1323 1323 1323 1323 1323 1323 1324 1324 1324 1324 1324 1325 1325 1325 1325 1325 1325 1326 1326 1326 1326 1326

u.

v. 7.

8.

i. Stairhaven (NX25 1) Square NX54 (Kircudbrightshire) i. Castle Haven (NX54 1) 1. Description 2. Restoration work 3. Finds 4. Discussion Illustrations for NN, NO, NS, NT & NX sites

1326 1327 1327 1327 1327 1328 1328 1329

Appendices a. Appendix 1: list of illustrated finds b. Appendix 2: 18th century descriptions of brochs c. Appendix 3: broch metrology

1391 1397 1406

Bibliography

1418

xiv

List of illustrations Single line entries; the actual figure captions are longer 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.09 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.16 8.17 8.18 8.19 8.20 8.21 8.22 8.23 8.24 8.25 8.26 8.27 8.28 8.29 8.30 8.31 8.32 8.33 8.34 8.35 8.36 8.37 8.38 8.39 8.40 8.41 8.42 8.43 8.44 8.45 8.46 8.47 8.48 8.49 8.50 8.51 8.52 8.53 8.54 8.55 8.56 8.57 8.58 8.59 8.60 8.61 8.62

Section 8.1, NG sites: p. 866 Diagram illustrating a number of Iron Age dry stone strongholds in the Western Isles. Dun Boreraig (NG15 1) in 1985: view of the broch on its rocky knoll. Dun Boreraig in 1985: view of the broch with rock basin marked by the pole. Top: 1921 plan of Dun Boreraig (1:300). Bottom: the furnace near Rudh an Dunain. Plans of Dun Boreraig and Dun Colbost (NG24 1). Dun Boreraig in 1985: the outer wall face on the south-west side. Dun Boreraig in 1985: the outer end of the entrance, with the door frame (at the pole). Dun Boreraig in 1985: the guard cell. Dun Boreraig in 1985: view over central court to scarcement (pole). Dun Boreraig in 1985: view of the outer wall, pole at gateway. Dun Boreraig in 1985: the pecked basin below the broch. Dun Colbost (NG24 1) in 1985: general view of the ruined broch. Dun Colbost in 1921. Plan reproduced from the RCAHMS. Dun Colbost in 1985: view across the rubble-filled interior towards probable entrance. Dun Colbost in 1985: the inner face of the intra-mural gallery on the east side Dun Colbost in 1985: the upper gallery on the west, with a lintel. Dun Osdale (NG24 2) in 1985: distant view of the broch at the end of a low ridge. Dun Osdale in 1985: general view of the site on its rock knoll. Plan of Dun Osdale and the broken quern found inside the broch in 1971. Plans of Dun Osdale and Dun Fiadhairt NG25 1). Dun Osdale in 1985: the south side of the entrance passage. Dun Osdale in 1985: inside the mural cell at 7 o’clock. Dun Osdale in 1985: mural cell at 12 o’clock (pole) with scarcement to its right. Dun Osdale in 1985: stair door with the pole above its massive lintel. Dun Fiadhairt (NG25 1) in 1985: general view of the site on its rock knoll. Dun Fiadhairt in 1921. Plan by the RCAHMS. Scale, 1:300. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: the entrance passage looking out showing the built door-checks. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: inside the lintelled section of the mural gallery. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: the intra-mural stair with the door to the central court on right. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: view across interior to entrance with scarcement at top left. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: left guard cell with doorway to entrance passage in foreground. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: the stair-foot guard cell with the same doorway on the left. Dun Fiadhairt in 1985: dumb-bell shaped mural cell at 8 o’clock with doorway to court. Dun Fiadhairt: pottery in the National Museums of Scotland, drawn by the author. Dun Hallin (NG25 2) in 1985: general view of the broch from the north. Dun Hallin in 1921. Plan by the RCAHMS. Scale 1:300. Plans of Dun Hallin and Dun Gearymore (NG26 1. Dun Hallin in 1985: view across the entrance passage to the guard cell. Dun Hallin in 1985: the guard cell. Dun Hallin in 1985: view across the rubble-filled interior towards the stair door (pole). Dun Hallin in 1985: the door to the stair with scarcement at the pole. Dun Hallin in 1985: the upper steps of the remaining stair. Dun Gearymore (NG26 1) in 1985: general view of the site in the mist. Dun Gearymore in 1985: the outer face on the south with traces of the mural gallery. Dun Gearymore in 1985: the mural cell at 12 o’clock. Dun Gearymore in 1985: inside the intra-mural gallery showing the lintelled roof. Dun Borrafiach (NG26 2) in 1985: general view from the north in misty weather. Plan of Dun Borrafiach (NG26 2) and Iron Age potsherds from Rudh an Dunain cave. Plans of Dun Borrafiach and Dun Sleadale (NG32 1). Dun Borrafiach in 1985: the outer face on the east side. Dun Borrafiach in 1985: the entrance passage seen from the interior. Dun Borrafiach in 1985: traces of the inner wall of the upper gallery on the east side. Rudh an Dunain (NG31 1) in 1988: general view of the promontory wall from the west. Rudh an Dunain in 1963: general view of the promontory wall from the north-east. Rudh an Dunain in 1963: plan and reconstructed cross section. Rudh an Dunain in 1988: view of the outer face from the front. Rudh an Dunain in 1963: looking along the outer wall face away from the entrance. Rudh an Dunain in 1963: view of the entrance passage from the front. Rudh an Dunain in 1986: the same view from behind the left check. Rudh an Dunain in 1963: the inner face with the door to the mural gallery (lintel). Rudh an Dunain in 1963: the inner face showing the scarcement of the ledge type. Rudh an Dunain in 1988: the ruined west end of the wall with the remains of the entrance.

xv

8.63 8.64 8.65 8.66 8.67 8.68 8.69 8.70 8.71 8.72 8.73 8.74 8.75 8.76 8.77 8.78 8.79 8.80 8.81 8.82 8.83 8.84 8.85 8.86 8.87 8.88 8.89 8.90 8.91 8.92 8.93 8.94 8.95 8.96 8.97 8.98 8.99 8.100 8.101 8.102 8.103 8.104 8.105 8.106 8.107 8.108 8.109 8.110 8.111 8.112 8.113 8.114 8.115 8.116 8.117 8.118 8.119 8.120 8.121 8.122 8.123 8.124 8.125 8.126 8.127 8.128 8.129 8.130 8.131

Dun Sleadale (NG32 1) in 1985: general view of the ruined broch on its rocky knoll. Dun Sleadale in 1985: the outer wall face. Dun Sleadale in 1985: outer end of the entrance passage with a door-check (pole). Dun Sleadale in 1985: view from above of the interior of the blocked entrance. Dun Sleadale in 1985: right side of door from the court to the intra-mural stair. Dun Sleadale in 1985: the lintelled upper gallery at 3 o’clock. Dun Sleadale in 1985: inside the gallery at 7 o’clock. Dun Ard an’t Sabhail (NG33 1) in 1963: distant view. Dun Ard an’t Sabhail in 1963: view of the unexcavated site. Dun Ard an t’ Sabhail in 1921. RCAHMS plan: scale 1:300. Plans of Dun Ard an’t Sabhail and Dun Beag (NG33 3). Dun Ard an’t Sabhail (NG33 1) in 1985: the left guard cell. Dun Ardtreck (NG33 2) in 1963: general view of the site before excavation. Dun Ardtreck in 1965: general plan of site. Dun Ardtreck in 1965: the internal trenches at an early stage in the excavations. Dun Ardtreck in 1965: the entrance from outside, after removal of the secondary ramp. Dun Ardtreck in 1965: view of the exposed foundation platform. Dun Ardtreck; the iron ‘door handle’ found in the entrance passage. Dun Ardtreck: the proposed development of the site based on the stratigraphy. Dun Beag (NG33 3) in 1963: distant view of the broch on its rocky knoll. Dun Beag in 1921. Plan reproduced from the RCAHMS: scale 1:300. Dun Beag in 1985: the outer wall face showing well fitted stone blocks. Dun Beag in 1963: the remains of the paved entrance passage seen from the interior. Dun Beag in 1985: view across the cleared interior towards the entrance. Dun Beag in 2003: view to stair door with the well-fitted blocks of the interior wall face. Dun Beag in 1985: inside mural cell at 5.30 o’clock, with the low door to the interior. Dun Beag in 1985: the intra-mural stair with no lintels remaining. Dun Beag in 1963: the stair foot guard cell. Dun Beag: pottery and stone finds in the National Museums of Scotland. Pottery from Dun Beag: scale 1:2. Dun Arkaig (NG34 2) in 1985: distant view of the site on its rocky knoll. Plans of Dun Arkaig and Kingsburgh (NG35 5). Dun Arkaig in 1985: outer wall face on west with the ‘buttress’ added. Dun Arkaig in 1985: outer end of entrance passage, looking out. Dun Arkaig in 1985: the inner face of the mural gallery, curved end at the pole. Dun Suledale (NG35 5) in 1985: distant view of the site. Dun Suledale in 1921. Plan reproduced from the RCAHMS. Dun Suledale in 1963: outer face of south wall. Dun Suledale in 1985: view to outer end of entrance, showing left door check. Dun Suledale in 1985: inside the entrance looking out with door checks at pole. Dun Suledale in 1963: part of the mural stairway exposed. Plans of Kingsburgh (NG35 5) and Dun Grugaig 1 (NG51 1), both in 1921. Dun Liath 1 (NG37 2) in 1964: view of the structure. Dun Liath 1 in 1964. View of doorway to cell. Dun Liath 1 in 1964. Plan of the site (scale 1:150) with section and pot. Dun Flodigarry (NG47 1): plan of the structure as revealed by excavations. Dun Flodigarry: some of the pottery and other finds. Dun Grugaig 1 (NG51 1) in 1963: distant view of the site on its cliff promontory. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1974: closer view from the opposite side with the walling just visible. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985. Plan by the author, with elevation through the entrance passage. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985: the front wall with the entrance passage. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1963: view down the entrance passage from the exterior. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985: left hand door check from the rear, with the bar-hole or –socket. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985: view along the inner face showing the remains of the scarcement. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985: remains of Level II, above right side of inner part of the entrance. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985: the same Level II stonework seen from the end of the wall. Dun Grugaig 1 in 1985: doorway into inner wall face with the steps of the stair. Plans of Dun Kearstach (NG51 2) and Dun Liath 1 (NG37 2) in 1921. Dun Ringill (NG51 4) in 1963: general view of the site with the entrance passage. Dun Ringill in 1986. Plan by the author. Scale 1:150. Dun Ringill in 1985: the site on its cliff promontory. Dun Ringill in 1985: the unlintelled Iron Age entrance, pole in the bar-hole and -socket. Dun Ringill in 1985: looking outwards through the lintelled Medieval entrance passage. Dun Ringill in 1985: the inner part of the Medieval extension of the entrance. Dun Ringill in 1985: the same Medieval parapet walk seen from the side. Dun Ringill in 1985: view across the remains of the Iron Age entrance. Dun Ringill in 1988: inner face of Level II gallery on south side of entrance. Dun Ringill in 1985: the door at 2 o’clock to the large mural cell. Dun Ringill in 1988: inner face of the large mural cell on the south-west.

xvi

8.132 8.133 8.134 8.135 8.136 8.137 8.138 8.139 8.140 8.141 8.142 8.143 8.144 8.145 8.146 8.147 8.148 8.149 8.150 8.151 8.152 8.153 8.154 8.155 8.156 8.157 8.158 8.159 8.160 8.161 8.162 8.163 8.164 8.165 8.166 8.167 8.168 8.169 8.170 8.171 8.172 8.173 8.174 8.175 8.176 8.177 8.178 8.179 8.180 8.181 8.182 8.183 8.184 8.185 8.186 8.187 8.188 8.189 8.190 8.191 8.192 8.193 8.194 8.195 8.196 8.197 8.198 8.199 8.200

Dunan an Aisilidh (NG53 1) in 1985: general view of site on its cliff promontory. Plans of Dunan an Aisilidh and Dun Ringill, from the RCAHMS. Dunan an Aisilidh in 1985: outer wall face with inner face of mural gallery (pole). Plans of Dun Osdale, Dun Borrafiach, Dun Beag, Dun Borodale and Dun Fiadhairt. Dun Borodale (NG53 2) in 1985: view of outer face of the wall on south (behind pole). Dun Borodale in 1985: wall head on south side. Dun Borodale in 1985: outer end of blocked entrance passage on the east. Dun Borodale in 1985: doorway at 7 o’clock to the mural gallery. Dun Borodale in 1985: the interior looking north. with inner wall face. Dun Borodale in 1971. Plan of the central court. Dun Grianan (NG56 1): general view of site on its short loch promontory. Plans of Dun Grianan and Dun Raisaburgh (NG56 2). Map of Gleann Beag with Iron Age sites, and sketch plan of Dun Grugaig 2. Dun Grugaig 2 (NG81 1) in 1986: general view of the site on its rocky knoll. Dun Grugaig 2. Plan by the author in 1985. Dun Grugaig 2 (NG81 1). Top: elevation. Bottom: O.S. plan. Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: view of the outer wall face from the south-east. Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: the outer wall face on the south. Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: inside the Level II gallery on the east. Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: view of the blocked main entrance – ‘Door 1’ – from the north. Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: inside the passage of Door 1, the main entrance. Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: the inner end of Door 3 with its innermost lintel lying in front. Dun Grugaig 2 in 1985: inner wall face between Door 2 (on the left) and Door 1. Dun Telve (NG81 2) and Dun Troddan (NG81 3) in the early 1720s: elevations. Dun Telve in 1962: general view of broch from further up the glen. Dun Telve. Plans made by the Office of Works in 1916. Dun Telve in 1916. Elevations made by the Office of Works in 1916. Dun Telve: plan of the base of interior, and plan of Caisteal MhicLeod (NG82 2). Dun Telve in 1963: view of the internal features of the high wall. Dun Telve in 1985: the secondary external addition to the entrance passage. Dun Telve in 1985: inside the entrance passage as seen from the interior. Dun Telve in 1985: interior of guard cell seen from the doorway to the entrance. Dun Telve in 1989: remains of roof of guard cell, showing the stepped lintels. Dun Telve in 1985: interior wall face with scarcement (just above the level of the notice). Dun Telve in 1989: cross section of high part of the wall above guard cell. Dun Telve in 1989: inside the Level II gallery between stair door and entrance. Dun Telve in 1989: the same gallery anti-clockwise from the cross bars. Dun Telve in 1985: intra-mural stair with side of the stair door showing. Dun Telve in 1989: first flight of the intra-mural stairway emerging on landing. Dun Telve in 1989: another view of the interior of the Level II gallery. Dun Telve in 1989: view of the broch from the north-west. Finds fom Dun Telve and Dun Troddan, with decorated stone cup from Caisteal Grugaig. Dun Telve in 1916. Plans of the broch at Level 2 (bottom) and Level 3 (top). Dun Troddan (NG81 3): ground plan and elevation prepared by the Office of Works. Dun Troddan (NG81 3) in 1974: general view of the broch. Dun Troddan in 1986: the outer wall face with large blocks with small filling slabs. Dun Troddan (NG81 3) in 1985: the entrance passage seen from the wall head. Dun Troddan in 1985: view of the inside of the guard cell. Dun Troddan in 1985: the stair door (its lintel missing) with the series of voids above it. Dun Troddan in 1985: the stair-foot guard cell with the doorway to the interior. Dun Troddan in 1985: the first flight of stair with the doorway to the interior on right. Dun Troddan in 1989: the present top of the stair in Level II Dun Troddan in 1985: view of scarcement (pole) from low part of the wall head. Dun Troddan in 1989: Level II gallery above the stair-foot guard cell. Caisteal Grugaig (NG82 1) in 1985: general view of the site from above. Plans of Caisteal Grugaig 2 and of Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: the outer end of the entrance passage. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: view down the sloping entrance passage looking out. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: the chamber over the entrance with its front end curved. Caisteal Grugaig in 1989: the interior of the guard cell showing the corbelling of the roof. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: looking into the doorway in the left side of the entrance. Caisteal Grugaig in 1989: looking down to the central court from the wallhead. Caisteal Grugaig in 1989: the low door to the long mural cell or gallery at 3 o’clock. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: interior of small cell at 8.30 o’clock. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: the first flight of the intra-mural stair. Caisteal Grugaig in 1989: looking anti-clockwise along the Level II landing. Caisteal Grugaig in 1985: looking clockwise along the Level II landing. Caisteal Grugaig in 1989: under side of second flight of stairs. Caisteal Grugaig in 1989: left end of the long cell or gallery on the northwest.

xvii

8.201

Dun Telve and Caisteal Grugaig. The doorways of the two brochs in about 1850.

8.202 8.203 8.204 8.205 8.206 8.207 8.208 8.209 8.210 8.211 8.212 8.213 8.214 8.215 8.216 8.217 8.218 8.219 8.220 8.221 8.222 8.223 8.224 8.225 8.226 8.227 8.228 8.229 8.230 8.231 8.232 8.233 8.234 8.235 8.236 8.237 8.238 8.239 8.240 8.241 8.242 8.243 8.244 8.245 8.246 8.247 8.248 8.249 8.250 8.251 8.252 8.253 8.254 8.255 8.256 8.257 8.258 8.259 8.260 8.261 8.262 8.263 8.264 8.265 8.266 8.267

Section 8.2, NL, NM & NR sites: p. 1021 Dun Hiader (NL93 1) in 1963; general view of the site on its rock knoll. Dun Hiader in 1963; the remains of the outer wall face. Dun Hiader in 1974. RCAHMS plan of the site and the surrounding ground. Dun Boraige Moire (NL94 1) in 1974: RCAHMS plan. Dun Boraige Moire in 1962: general view of the site on its rocky knoll. Balevullin (NL94 2): plan of the site and material from ‘Hut no. 1’. Balevullin hut site. Pottery from the site labelled only ‘Balevullin’. Balevullin hut site. Pottery and other finds from the site. Dun Heanish (NM04 1): general view of the site. Dun Ibrig (NM04 2) in 1974: RCAHMS plan of the site and the surrounding ground. Dun Ibrig in 1962. General view of the site on low ground. Dun Mor a’ Chaolais (NM04 3) in 1974; RCAHMS plan of the broch and its outer wall. Dun Mor a’ Chaolais. General view of the site in its hilltop situation. Dun Mor a’ Chaolais: the outer wall face of large blocks. Dun Mor a’ Chaolais (NM04 3): a fragment of lintelled ground level gallery exposed. Dun Mor Vaul (NM04 4) in 1974: plans by the Royal Commission. Dun Mor Vaul: plan of the broch in Phases 2b, 3a and 3b. Dun Mor Vaul. General view of the site on its rock knoll. Dun Mor Vaul in 1962. The door frame in the entrance passage. Dun Mor Vaul in 1962. View of pivot stone. Dun Mor Vaul in 1962. The end of the mural gallery behind the guard cell. Dun Mor Vaul in 1962. Stair in the wall. Dun Mor Vaul in 1962. The stepped wall face. Dun Mor Vaul in 1962. Wind-blown earth in doorway. Dun Mor Vaul in 1963. Section cut across the deposits in the gallery at 9 o’clock. Dun Mor Vaul in 1963. The rectangular Hearth of Phase 3b. Dun Mor Vaul in 1963. The sections cut through the deposits in the mural gallery. Dun Mor Vaul in 1963. View of the north-west quadrant in the central court. Dun Mor Vaul in 1963. View of gallery section with quern in primary level Alpha. Dun Mor Vaul: pictures of restored pots. Dun Mor Vaul. Pottery from the pre-broch deposits. Dun Mor Vaul. Pottery and other finds from Phases 1a, 1b and 2a. Dun Mor Vaul. Pottery and other finds from Phase 2a and Phase 2. Dun Mor Vaul. Pottery from the broch construction deposits of Phase 2b. Dun Mor Vaul. Pottery from the primary occupation of Phase 3a. Dun Mor Vaul. Photographs of six of the miniature Iron Age vessels found on Tiree. Dun Mor Vaul. The five separate site stratigraphical columns found at the site. Dun Mor Vaul: pie charts of pot frequency and animal bone frequency. Dun Mor Vaul. Diagram showing the results of pollen analyses. Dun Mor Vaul: table showing the distribution of artefacts (except pottery). Dun Mor Vaul. A revised chronology for the site. Dun Beg Vaul (NM04 2) in 1962. General view of the site on its rock knoll. Plans of Dun Aisgean (NM34 1) and Dun Bhoreraig (NR46 1). Dun Aisgean (NM34 1), general view. Dun Aisgean, the entrance. Dun Aisgean, gallery door & scarcement. Plans of Dun Bhuirg (NM42 1) and An Sean Dun (NM45 1). Dun nan Gall (NM44 2) in 1989. General view. Dun nan Gall in 1974: general plan of the broch by the RCAHMS. Dun nan Gall in 1989. The entrance. Dun nan Gall in 1989. Raised door and the scarcement. Dun nan Gall, Mull, the intra-mural stair. An Sean Dun (NM45 1), general view. An Sean Dun, the entrance. An Sean Dun, interior with scarcement showing. An Sean Chaisteal (Ardnacross – NM54 1) in 1979, distant view. Rahoy (NM65 1) (vitrified dun or roundhouse) in 1973: general plan. Rahoy in 1938. Plan of the site by V.G. Childe. Dun Mhuilig (NM70 1) in 1983. Plan of the site by the Royal Commission. Plans of An Dun (NM83 1) and Tirefuar (NM84 1). Tirefuar, Lismore, general view. Tirefuar, Lismore- interior. Tirefuar, Lismore, raised gallery. Tirefuar, Lismore, outer wall face. Dun Bhuirg (NM22 1): published pottery from the site. Top: Dun Bhuirg: more pottery from the site.

xviii

8.268 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20 9.21 9.22 9.23 9.24 9.25 9.26 9.27 9.28 9.29 9.30 9.31 9.32 9.33 9.34 9.35 9.36 9.37 9.38 9.39 9.40 9.41 9.42 9.43 9.44 9.45 9.46 9.47 9.48 9.49 9.50 9.51 9.52 9.53 9.54 9.55 9.56 9.57 9.58 9.59 9.60 9.61 9.62 9.63 9.64

Dun Mhuilig (NM70 1): three views of the galleried wall and the scarcement. Section 9, Outer Hebrides: p. 1172 Dun Bharabhat (NB03 1) in 1985. General view of the site on its island. Dun Bharabhat. Top: general plan of the site. Bottom: two large storage urns. Dun Bharabhat in 1985. View of the interior during the excavations. Dun Bharabhat (NB03 1): pottery, all from the roundhouse except nos. 1 & 2. Cnip (NB03 2): reconstruction of the main wheelhouse. Cnip wheelhouse: some of the pottery found. Dun Baravat (NB13 1) in 1985: general view of the building on its islet. Dun Baravat in 1985: the causeway seen from the semibroch. Dun Baravat in 1861: Capt. F W Thomas’ plan and elevation of the structure. Dun Baravat in 1985: the high outer wall face resting on the rock in the north-west. Dun Baravat in 1985: the ground level mural gallery visible on the north side. Dun Baravat in 1985: view of the inner face of the high wall on the north. Dun Baravat in 1985: view of the same inner wall face but from the east. Dun Baravat in 1985: the tangle of vegetation covering the enclosed court. Dun Baravat. Reconstruction of the elevation of the intra-mural features. RCAHMS plans (1914) of Dun Carloway, Lewis, Dun Sandray, Barra, Dun an Sticir and Dun Torcuill, North Uist, Sron an Duin, Barra Head. and Dun Baravat, Lewis. Beirgh (NB13 3), Lewis, in 1990. View from nearby crag down on to the site. Beirgh, Lewis: in 1990: the Level 2 stair with the landing leading to it. Beirgh, Lewis: in 1990: view of the interior with the broch scarcement. Beirgh. Top: plan at the base of Level I Bottom: plan at the base of Level II. Beirgh. Pottery from the upper part of the post-broch roundhouse occupation. Beirgh. Top: pottery from the ‘late Pictish’ phase. Beirgh. Top: plan at base of Level 2. Bottom: restored elevation of Dun Cromore. Beirgh. Chronological diagram of sequence of Phases and material culture. Dun Carloway (NB14 1) in 1985. Distant view of broch from further up the hill Top: Dun Carloway in the 1790s: two views for Colin Mackenzie. Dun Carloway in 1861: plan, elevation and longitudinal section by Capt. F W L Thomas. Dun Carloway in 1861: two views of the broch drawn by Capt. F W L Thomas. . Dun Carloway in 1974. The outer wall face where it passes over sloping rock on the east. Dun Carloway in 1990. The entrance passage from the interior. Dun Carloway in 1990. The entrance passage from above. Dun Carloway in 1990. The north side of the inner wall face showing the rock outcrop. Dun Carloway in 1985. The east side of the interior, opposite the entrance. Dun Carloway in 1985. The interior of Cell A from above. Dun Carloway in 1990. The interior of the guard cell (D) showing the southern end Dun Carloway in 1990. The interior of Cell C showing the western end. Dun Carloway in 1990. The same cell with the low opening to the inner chamber. Dun Carloway in 1990. The interior of the inner chamber of Cell C, under the stair. Dun Carloway in 1990. The stair-foot guard cell with its covering lintels. Dun Carloway in 1990. The galleries above cell C, behind the stair. . Dun Carloway in 1985. The first flight of the intra-mural stair. Dun Carloway in 1985. The upper galleries above the present top of the stair. Dun Carloway in 1975?: plan at ground level with cross section of deposits in Cell A. Dun Carloway: pottery and a rotary quern from Cell A, from Tabraham 1977. Dun Carloway: reconstruction drawing by Alan Braby. Reconstruction of the original design of Dun Carloway in Levels 1 and 2. Loch an Duna (NB24 1) in 1985: general view of the site. Loch an Duna in 1861. Captain F W L Thomas’ record of ‘Dun Bhragair’. Plans of Loch an Duna (NB24 1), Dun Borve 4 (NB45 1) and Dun Cromore (NB42 1). with 1861 cross section and elevation of Loch an Duna. Loch an Duna 9NB24 1) in 1985. The ruins from the land, with the main entrance visible. Loch an Duna in 1985. The outer end of the lintelled entrance passage. Loch an Duna in 1985. View across the rubble-strewn interior. Loch an Duin (NB35 1) in 1985: general view of the remains. Dun Cromore (NB42 1) in 1985: general view of the broch on its islet. Dun Cromore in 1985: view of filled-in upper gallery on the south side. Dun Cromore in 1861: plan and elevation of the broch by Capt. F W L Thomas. Dun Borve 4 (NB45 1) in 1985. General view of the site with its modern cairn. Dun Borve 4 in 1985. Pole at the end of an intra-mural gallery or cell on the south. Loch Baravat (NB45 1) in 1985: general view of the site. Dun Ban 2 (NF60 2), Barra, in 1988: general view of site. Dun Ban 2 in 1988: the outer wall face, marked with the pole. Dun Cuier (NF60 5) in 1988 General view of the site on its rocky summit. Dun Cuier in 1988 View of the back-filled central court with the scarcement visible. Dun Cuier: plan of the massive roundhouse, or dun, from Young (1956).

xix

9.65 9.66 9.67 9.68 9.69 9.70 9.71 9.72 9.73 9.74 9.75 9.76 9.77 9.78 9.79 9.80 9.81 9.82 9.83 9.84 9.85 9.86 9.87 9.88 9.89 9.90 9.91 9.92 9.93 9.94 9.95 9.96 9.97 9.98 9.99 9.100 9.101 9.102 9.103 9.104 9.105 9.106 9.107 9.108 9.109 9.110 9.111 9.112 9.113 9.114 9.115 9.116 9.117 9.118 9.119 9.120 9.121 9.122 9.123 9.124 9.125 9.126 9.127 9.128 9.129 9.130 9.131 9.132 9.133

Dun Cuier. Top: cross sections Bottom. Cordon-decorated sherds. Dun Cuier. Pottery of Dun Cuier type with one classic Everted Rim sherd. Dun Cuier. Late Iron Age artefacts. Dun Cuier, plain pottery and stone artefacts from the site. Dun Scurrival (NF60 7) in 1988: general view of the site from the west. Dun Scurrival in 1988: view across the interior to the opposite wall face (pole). Dun Scurrival in 1988: inner wall face on west with the scarcement. Top. Dun Scurrival, pottery . Bottom. Tigh Talamhanta (NF60 9) cross sections. Tigh Talamhanta (NF60 9) in 1953: general view of the site. Tigh Talamhanta in 1953: general plan of the site and reconstruction of the farmhouse. Tigh Talamhanta: plan of wheelhouse and surrounding structures. Tigh Talamhanta: wheelhouse pottery of the Everted Rim type. Tigh Talamhanta: wheelhouse pottery of the Balevullin vase type. Tigh Talamhanta: other finds from the wheelhouse. Dun Vulan (NF72 1 in 199? General view of the site under excavation. Dun Vulan: plan of the broch and surrounding features and buildings. Dun Vulan: detailed plan of the broch showing the intra-mural features. Kilpheder (NF72 3). Left: plan and elevation. Right: small finds from the wheelhouse. Kilpheder: incised line decorated pottery from the wheelhouse floor. Kilpheder in 1974: general view the interior of the excavated wheelhouse. Kilpheder in 1974: looking through the entrance into the excavated wheelhouse. Finds from Sithean a’ Phiobaire (NF72 5). and Bruthach a Tuath (NF75 1). Plan of A Cheardach Beag (NF74 1) with map of the sites in Vallay, North Uist. A Cheardach Beag in 1956: cross sections. A Cheardach Beag, pottery. A Cheardach Beag, small finds of bone. A Cheardach Mhor (NF74 2): Left: plan. Right: pottery from Phase 1. A Cheardach Mhor : cross sections. A Cheardach Mhor: pottery from Phase 1 – Everted Rim and allied wares. A Cheardach Mhor. Top: Phase 1 bone objects. Bottom: pottery from Phase 1a & 4. Left. A Cheardach Mhor: Phase 1stone objects: Right: Dun Torcusay (NF75 4), plan. A Cheardach Mhor: bone, whalebone and antler, Phase 1a & Phase 3. Dun Buidhe 3, South Uist (NF74 5); general view of the broch mound. Bruthach a’ Tuath (NF75 1): finds from the excavations in August 1956. Dun Buidhe 2 (NF75 3). General view of the much robbed structure on its island. Dun Torcusay (NF75 4). View of the robbed remains on an islet in Loch Torcusay. Top. Bac Mhic Connain (NF77 1): plan. Bottom: bone copy of a bronze mirror handle. Bac Mhic Connain: some of the bone and antler finds. Bac Mhic Connain: some of the bone and antler finds. Bac Mhic Connain. Left: furnace. Right: some of the bone and antler finds. Clettraval (NF77 2): general plan of the roundhouse and other associated structures. Clettraval: detailed plan of roundhouse. Clettraval: sections and wall elevations of the roundhouse Clettraval: evidence for the reconstruction of the low roundhouse roof. Clettraval: some of the larger potsherds, and other finds. DONE? Pottery from various Iron Age sites in the Outer Hebrides. Top: Cnoc a’ Comhdhalach (NF77 3): plan. Bottom: Eilean Maleit (NF77 5), plan. Foshigarry (NF77 6): general plan of the site. Foshigarry: pottery from the National Museums. Foshigarry: pottery from the National Museums. Foshigarry: Some of the bone and antler finds. Foshigarry : more bone and antler finds. Foshigarry: bone artefacts. Foshigarry: more bone and antler finds. Foshigarry: more bone and antler finds. Garry Iochdrach (NF77 7): plan of the site. Garry Iochdrach: pottery from the site in the National Museums. Garry Iochdrach: pottery and bone finds from the site in the National Museums. Rudh an Duin (NF77 8): plan of the site. Usinish wheelhouse (NF83 1) in c. 1865: Plan and reconstructed elevation. Usinish wheelhouse in 1984. Five overlapping photographs of the interior. Dun Ban 1, Loch Hornary (NF87 1) c. 1860; plan and cross section of the site. Dun Ban, Loch Hornary in 1988. General view from above. Dun an Sticir (NF82) in 1985: general view of the stump of the broch. Dun an Sticir: the massive long causeway connecting the broch with an adjacent islet Dun an Sticir: view of the broch mound, with the opening into the guard cell showing. Dun an Sticir: the outer wall face (pole) and the doorway into the Medieval building. Dun an Sticir: the lintelled door from the guard cell into the entrance passage. Dun an Sticir : the interior of the right guard cell.

xx

9.134 9.135 9.136 9.137 9.138 9.139 9.140 9.141 9.142 9.143 9.144 9.145 9.146 9.147 9.148 9.149 9.150 9.151 9.152 9.153 9.154 9.155 9.156 9.157 9.158 9.159 9.160 9.161 9.162 9.163 9.164 9.165 9.166 9.167

Dun an Sticir: inner face of the upper mural gallery at 4 o’clock Dun an Sticir: view of the interior of the rectangular Medieval house Dun an Sticir: walling of the Medieval hall (right) and curved inner face of broch (pole). Dun an Sticir: east end of the islet showing remains of an outer on the left. Dun Torcuill (NF87 3) in 1985: view of the stump of the broch on its islet. Dun Torcuill: the blocked main entrance seen from outside. Dun Torcuill: view of outer wall face on the north-north-west. Dun Torcuill in 1971: view of the inner wall face. Dun Torcuill in 1985: f the remains of an upper lower gallery. Dun Torcuill: the lintel of the doorway leading to the intra-mural stair. Dun Torcuill: the top of the flight of intra-mural stairs. Dun Torcuill: view inside the ground gallery. Dun Torcuill in 1971: Survey of the inner wall face of the broch. Machair Leathann (NF87 4): plan of the wheelhouse. Machair Leathann: sequence of struct ures. Machair Leathann: plan of the pits. Machair Leathann. View of the site after excavation. Machair Leathann. Selected finds and pottery. Machair Leathann. Selected finds and pottery. Machair Leathann. Selected finds and pottery. Sron an Duin (NL58 1) c. 1865. Plans and elevations by Capt. F W L Thomas. Sron an Duin in 1988: view from the cliff top close to site. Sron an Duin: the Barra Head lighthouse seen from inside the Iron Age promontory fort. Sron an Duin: view from the lighthouse along its enclosure Sron an Duin. View of the entrance passage from the interior. Sron an Duin: view along the wall face from above the entrance. Sron an Duin: the south-east end of the wall as it approaches the edge of the cliff. Dun a’ Chaolais (NL69 3) in 1988. General view of the rubble mound. Dun a’ Chaolais. The outer wall – marked by the pole – seen from the broch. Dun a’ Chaolais. The outer face of the broch and inner face of the gallery (pole). Dun a’ Chaolais. Looking along the gallery lintels in situ. Dun a’ Chaolais. Looking across the rubble-filled interior to the void (pole). Dun a’ Chaolais. The rubble-filled mural cell. Dun a’ Chaolais. Curved inner wall face showing the lintel of a doorway into the wall.

Section 10: p. 1329 10.1 Hurly Hawkin (NO33 1); general plan of the site after the 1958-67 excavations. 10.2 Hurly Hawkin. Plan of the broch at twice the scale. 10.3 Hurly Hawkin . Some of the bronze and iron finds from the site. 10.4 Hurly Hawkin : glass, stone and bone finds from the site. 10.5 Hurly Hawkin: stone finds and pottery from the site. 10.6 Drumcarrow (NO41 1): view of outer face. 10.7 Drumcarrow: a door lintel. 10.8 The Laws (NO43 2). General plan of the site after Neish (1962). 10.9 The Laws: outer wall face of ‘broch’. 10.10 Top: finds from The Laws. Bottom: finds from Torwood (NS88 1). 10.11 Buchlyvie (NS59 2) in 1976. General plan of the wooden roundhouse. 10.12 Buchlyvie. Plan of the broch. 10.13 Buchlyvie. Two views of the bottom step of the intra-mural stair with its lobby. 10.14 Buchlyvie: suggested original ground plan of the broch, including the stair. 10.15 Buchlyvie. Iron Age and Roman ceramics and glass objects. 10.16 Buchlyvie, bronze finds from the excavations. 10.17 Buchlyvie, lead and iron artefacts found during the excavations. 10.18 Buchlyvie: iron finds. 10.19 Buchlyvie: iron finds. 10.20 Buchlyvie: finds of fired clay. 10.21 Buchlyvie, stone tools. 10.22 Buchlyvie, stone tools. 10.23 Coldoch (NS69 1) in 1948: plan of the broch . 10.24 Coldoch: distant view. 10.25 Leckie (NS69 2) in 1976: plan of the site showing the three phases of occupation. 10.26 Leckie: section drawing of the deposits inside the broch on line K. 10.27 Leckie: view of the rock promontory from the north-west. 10.28 Leckie: view of trench over the ruined north wall. 10.29 Leckie: base of the inner wall face on the norh. 10.30 Leckie: the north wall from above, with the latest hearth. 10.31 Leckie: the primary hearth of Phase 3a. 10.32 Leckie : the wrecked intra-mural stair from above. 10.33 Leckie: the inner face of the north wall, from above.

xxi

10.34 10.35 10.36 10.37 10.38 10.39 10.40 10.41 10.42 10.43 10.44 10.45 10.46 10.47 10.48 10.49 10.50 10.51 10.52 10.53 10.54 10.55 10.56 10.57 10.58 10.59 10.60 10.61 10.62 10.63 10.64 10.65 10.66 10.67 10.68 10.69 10.70 10.71 10.72 10.73 10.74 10.75 10.76 10.77 10.78 10.79 10.80 10.81 10.82 10.83 10.84 10.85 10.86 10.87

10.88

Leckie: the incomplete promontory fort wall on the south. Leckie: table of important finds by Phase. Leckie: Table showing periods of contact with the Roman army. Leckie: three views of the small sandstone pebble carved into a head. Leckie: general view of the excavations in 1976. Torwood (NS88 1): view of the mound on its hill top. Torwood: general plan of broch and outworks. Torwood: plan of broch. Torwood: two views of the newly excavated site in 1865. Torwood: outer wall face at the entrance. Torwood: inside the entrance passage. Torwood: view across the central court to the entrance and stair door. Torwood: view across the central court from the entrance, with scarcement. Torwood: the stair door and the stair, from above. Torwood: the chamber on the wallhead, re-opened in 1989. Calla (NS94 1): plan of the site. Torwoodlee (NT43 1): view of the inner wall face. Torwoodlee: plan of the broch and the hillfort. Torwoodlee: plan of the broch and adjacent hillfort ditch. Torwoodlee: plan of the central court, with poist-holes. Torwoodlee: section across the broch ditch. Bow Castle (NT44 1): general view of the site on its hilltop. Bow Castle: the outer wall face on the north-west. Bow Castle: view across the central court to the inner wall face. Bow Castle: the possible entrance. Bow Castle: the remains of the entrance with displaced lintels. Edinshall (NT76 1): general view from above. Edinshall: general plan of the ‘broch’ and surrounding earthworks. Top: Edinshall, plan of ‘broch’. Bottom: finds from Castle Haven (NX54 1). Edinshall: outer wall face. Edinshall: outer end of entrance, with fallen lintel. Edinshall: entrance passage. Edinshall: view across the interior, towards the entrance. Edinshall: double mural cell at 9 o’clock. Edinshall: mural cell at 3 o’clock. Edinshall: mural cell at 11.30 o’clock. Ardwell Point (NX04 1): general view of the coastal site from above. Ardwell Point: view across the rubble-filled interior, to the entrance. Ardwell Point: the entrance passage from above, Ardwell Point: view along the entrance. Teroy (NX06 1): sketch plan. Stairhaven (NX25 1): view of the coastal site from above. Stairhaven: plan from the Ordnance Survey card. Stairhaven: view across the rubble-filled interior to the entrance. Stairhaven: the entrance passage from above. Stairhaven: the entrance passage showing added masonry. Stairhaven: the intra-mural stair with added masonry. Stairhaven: view down the stair showing added masonry and second stair. Castle Haven (NX54 1): plan of the site in 1907. Castle Haven: general view of overgrown site on its sea promontory. Castle Haven: the main entrance from the exterior. Castle Haven: inner end of main entrance with a gallery door beyond. Castle Haven: main entrance from above, showing door check and bar-hole. Castle Haven: view across the central court with a doorway into the wall. Castle Haven: the inner wallface on the north-west with a raised doorway.

xxii

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides Only one detailed map has been published of the complete distribution of brochs, duns and hybrid structures and this is in the back pocket of The Iron Age in Northern Britain (Rivet, ed., 1966). Although some of the sites marked on it have been re-identified it still provides an extremely valuable overview of this extraordinary North British archaeological phenomenon. The one major aspect of the evidence which is not included is the absence of any indication of when ‘duns’ are round, like brochs and roundhouses.

Introduction Terminology The brochs and allied structures of the Western Isles (the Inner and Outer Hebrides) demand a slightly more flexible method of analysis than those of the northern islands (Sections 4 and 5) and of the north mainland (Section 7). In these northern regions the brochs are almost the only forms of those small massive drystone buildings and they are easy to recognise. Even the many badly ruined and dilapidated examples can safely be called ‘possible brochs’. In the west however there are many other kinds of small stone buildings which have a defensive appearance and which are clearly quite different to brochs. These are broadly termed ‘duns’ and they are heavily concentrated in the mainland and islands of Argyllshire where there are hardly any brochs.

Excavations in the west The author has undertaken three major excavations of brochs and broch-like structures in the west – the first of their type to have been explored according to modern methods – which are published in detail (sites NH33 2, NH19 3 & NM04 4). The entries for these sites here are fairly detailed because they were the first and also because of the clear stratigraphies found which, with the finds, tell us much about the social context of these monumental drystone buildings.

Yet in places like Skye, Tiree and the Outer Hebrides the brochs and duns – the two great provinces of what Childe called the “Castle Complex” (vol. 1, 36-7) and the author later termed the “Small Stone Fort Complex” (MacKie 1965) – are completely intermingled so that it is often very difficult to decide exactly what kind of building a ruined and unexcavated site is. In addition there are a number of structures which appear to be hybrids between the two main groups (Illus. 8.01). As a result those who work mainly in the western Atlantic Province tend to see the various forms of these buildings as forming an architectural continuum in which similar structural features are mixed together in a variety of forms and also tend to doubt whether hollowwalled brochs are truly a class apart. It is no coincidence that the term ‘Atlantic roundhouses’ was coined as an all-embracing alternative by Ian Armit who has worked almost entirely in the west.

Isle of Skye Square NG15 NG15 1 DUN BORERAIG NG/1948 5311 Unexcavated broch in Duirinish, Skye, standing about 100 ft above the sea on a high, rocky headland and situated on a sheer-sided, flat-topped rock knoll rising 6.1-9.2m (20-30 ft) above the flat surrounding ground (Illus. 8.2-8.11); it has an outer defensive wall and overlooks modern farmland as well as Loch Dunvegan (visited 22/4/63 & in Aug. 1985). Description Both the outer and inner faces of the broch wall are intact and the former, containing huge, squarish blocks, survives up to six courses high on the east (Illus. 8.2 & 8.5). The entrance passage is on the west and, though full of debris, appears to be about 0.86m (2 ft 10in) wide at the outer end (Illus. 8.7). The door-frame, consisting of two built checks, can be seen 1.22m (4 ft) from the exterior after which the passage widens to 1.15m before narrowing again to 1.02m (3 ft 4in) at the inner (the width here has also been measured as 0.6m [3, 856]). These door-checks were not observed by the Commission [2].

By contrast many, but not all,117 of those who have studied in detail the massive Iron Age round stone buildings of the far north tend more easily to recognise the uniqueness of the hollow-walled brochs and to suspect that, even in the west, they remain a class apart (see Section 6.5). One of the reasons that the author has compiled this account of the architectural evidence from brochs and allied structures is to make it easier to decide which of these views is more accurate, and thus to come to a better understanding of the whole phenomenon of the hollow-walled towers and their associated material cultures.

A circular mural chamber about 1.52m (5 ft) in diameter to the right (south) of the entrance may be a guard cell but the door to it was invisible when the author last saw the site (Illus. 8.8); according to Swanson “narrow,

117

John Hedges (Hedges et al. 1987, vol. 3) tends to emphasise the architectural variation of the brochs of Orkney rather than their basic similarity.

809

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland lintelled openings into the cell are visible near its present floor level in the south and east”, both being only about 30cm wide [3, 856]. What looks like a square aumbry118 is visible in the rear wall of the cell and traces of the corbelled roof are still visible.

proved to be close to a true circle with a radius of 5.072 + 0.054 m; thus the true diameter is 10.144m (33.26 ft). The original internal diameter [2] was probably taken above scarcement level and the wall proportion is in fact about 42%.

A ledge-type scarcement, some 20cm (8in) wide, is exposed on the inner wallface from the entrance passage anti-clockwise to about 1.30 o’clock and at the level of the rubble which fills the interior (Illus. 8.9). There are three well built courses (with one block of a fourth) of the inner face – made of massive blocks, rising to 1.35m (4 ft 6in) – above the scarcement which itself appears to be about 2.1m (7 ft) above the ground outside the entrance (Illus. 8.9). The sides of an upper gallery, well above scarcement level, are visible at intervals most of the way round the wallhead (Illus. 8.6), so the structure is clearly a hollow-walled broch. Swanson suggests that there is a void, perhaps 1.15m wide at its inner end, leading into this gallery, and above the scarcement, at 6 o’clock [3] but the author did not see this.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 15 SE 1: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 154-56, no. 505, & figs. 222 & 279: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 855-56 & plan: 4. MacSween 1985, 42, no. 7, fig. 7 & pl. 4: 5. Graham 1949, 00. Square NG24 NG24 1 DUN COLBOST NG/2055 4947 Broch in Duirinish, Skye, standing on a sheer-sided, flat-topped, rock knoll from 6.1 -9.2m (20-30 ft) high (Illus. 8.5, 8.12 & 8.13); it stands on a bleak stretch of moorland but overlooking modern houses and fertile fields below (visited 22/4/63 & 15?/8/85) (Illus. 8.5 & 8.11 – 8.16). The sea is not far away, nearly 61m (200 ft) below. The structure is badly ruined and full of debris, much of which is grass-covered; stone-robbing had apparently taken place not long before 1921 [2]. During the 1980s excavations took place outside the broch (below).

A formidable outer wall almost surrounds the broch, running round the edge of the knoll; it is about 1.2m (4 ft) wide and still stands 90cm (3 ft) high [3, plan] (Illus. 8.5 & 8.10). The broch is within 1m of the edge of the knoll on the north side – where there is no outer wall – but elsewhere there is an enclosure of varying width within the wall. It has been suggested that the entrance through the outer wall has been up over sloping rock on the south side [2]. Here on an exposed rock face of the side of the knoll, below the outer wall just west of south, is a pecked bowl or hollow 215 mm (8.5in) in diameter and 90 mm (3.5 in) deep (Illus. 8.3 & 8.11) (see site ND06 1).

Description The exterior wallface is visible and includes some large stone blocks; it has a battered slope. The entrance is not apparent but may be on the west side where there is a radial depression in the rubble; a possible fallen innermost lintel for the passage has been seen among the rubble in the interior [4]. The Commission’s plan (Illus. 8.13) shows the central court as oval in plan [2] but Swanson thinks it more circular [4, plan].

Structural analysis Since the Level 2 intra-mural gallery is clearly visible this must be a broch, probably of the ground-galleried type even though nothing of the basal gallery in Level 1 can be seen (except perhaps at the probable guard cell [3, 856]). No trace of any Level 1 subsidiary doorways can be seen in the interior wallface because of the rubble filling the interior, so the location of the intramural stair is uncertain. However if there is a wide void in Level 2 – at 6 o’clock and above the scarcement – this might well mean that there is a landing inside the wall behind this and that the first flight of the stair leads up to it. The void would then be the remains of the doorway leading from the stair out to a wooden annular raised floor in the court.

On the north (or at about 9 o’clock) is a mural cell of which only the rounded west end is apparent: its width is about 1.17m (3 ft 10in). This feature was not as clear in 1985 as it was in 1921 [2] but one possible function for it is a stair-foot guard cell; an entrance to the interior was once apparent here [2]. Immediately clockwise of this (at about 10 o’clock) a short length of upper mural gallery is apparent with one lintel in position over it (Illus. 8.16). There may be a lower gallery connecting with the west end of the cell and running anti-clockwise from it; one of its lintels has been noted [4]. On the east side (at about 1 o’clock) is a partially lintelled doorway in the inner wallface – 0.86m (2 ft 10in) wide (or 0.55m [4]) and 1.68m (5 ft 6in) long – which leads to what is almost certainly a ground level gallery with a width of 0.69m (2 ft 3in). A short length of this can be seen to the left of the door where it runs under some lintels still in position (Illus. 8.15). There are traces of an upper gallery in the south-eastern arc of the wall, above the lower one just described; at about 2 o’clock there seems to be a raised void leading from the gallery to the central court. It is possible that a stair

Dimensions Internal diameter (below scarcement level) 10.7m (35 ft): external diameter about 17.4m (57 ft) [2]. From these early measurements of the author’s the wall proportion would be about 39%. In 1971 and 1986 the shape of the central court was accurately mapped and it 118

An open-fronted cupboard or shelf built into the wall.

810

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides leading to the upper galleries rises to the right of the doorway instead of at 10 o’clock. Presumably there is a scarcement in the inner wallface hidden below the rubble.

There is a neck connecting the rock with the land around and what seems to be a shallow ditch crosses this. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 24 SE 8: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 161, no. 516: 3. Graham 1947, 97: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 873-4 & plan: 5. MacSween 1985, 45, no. 25 & fig. 25.

In the north-west (from about 7-8 o’clock) there are further traces of a mural gallery visible on the wallhead and 48cm (1 ft 7in) wide: since the wall stands in places up to 2.75m (9 ft) high these would seem also to be part of an upper gallery.

NG24 3 DUN OSDALE NG/2412 4641 Broch, probably ground-galleried, in Duirinish, Skye, situated about 130 ft (39.7m) above the sea (Loch Dunvegan) on a steep rocky knoll which forms the end of a ridge (visited 22/4/63, 1971 and 15/8/85). It overlooks farmland and also a village less than a mile away (Illus. 8.17-8.24).

An outer wall runs round the edge of the plateau on the east and south, and across the ridge on the west; its distance from the broch varies from about 3.05m (10 ft) on the south-east to some 8.24m (27 ft) on the north. The part crossing the ridge to the west and south-west – the easiest approach to the site – has a width of 1.83m (6 ft) and a height of 91cm (3 ft) in places. There may be a narrow doorway through this wall on the north-west (Illus. 8.5 & 8.13).

Description The outer face is mostly reduced to a few courses but on the west-south-west a section still rises to about 2.14m (7 ft). The stones are large and laid in regular courses. The entrance (Illus. 8.21) is on the east side, facing the easiest approach along the ridge, and is badly dilapidated. It measures 0.86m (2 ft 10in) in width at the outer end and about 0.96m (3 ft 2in) near the inner; no door-frame can be seen and in 1921 the left wall apparently lacked a door-check [2].

Recent excavations Three areas outside the broch were explored in 19891991 and a summary of the details is available [1, 6]. The explorations were evidently not deep enough to reconstruct the history of the site. 119 Dimensions The broch appears to be slightly oval with external diameters of, from east to west, 15.86m (52 ft) and from north to south 17.39m (57 ft): Swanson records an internal diameter of 9.6m [4]. The wall is from 3.353.66m (11-12 ft) thick so the average wall proportion, only approximate, is about 42-43%.

The Commission described an oval mural cell a short distance clockwise from the entrance, at about 7.30 o’clock (Illus. 8.22): it measures about 3.05m (10 ft) long by nearly 1.52m (5 ft) wide above the debris filling it. The lintel of its doorway is buried. This cell seems rather far from the entrance passage (Illus. 8.19) to be a guard cell and was probably reached from the central court. The beginning of its corbelled dome is clear. Swanson by contrast believes this feature to be part of the gallery described below [6].

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 24 NW 5 (plan): 2. RCAHMS 1928, 156, no. 506 & fig. 223: 3. Graham 1949: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 864-65 & plan: 5. MacSween 1985, 42, no. 8 & fig. 8: 6. A MacSween & D Reed in Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1989, 35: Ibid. 1990, 28 & Ibid. 1994, 40.

There are three other doorways leading from the central court to various intra-mural features. The sides of one, with lintels in situ, are visible at about 8.30 o’clock (close to the end of the cell just described) and they probably lead to the mural stair (Illus. 8.24); the sides of the passage which could contain it are visible for a short distance but no steps can be seen. In 1921 the sides of another, higher stretch of mural gallery were visible nearby and were probably those of an upper level [2]; this feature was not seen by the author but Swanson mentions it [6]. As noted it can be argued that the ground level mural gallery extends to the left of this door as well as to the right [6].

NG24 2 DUN FEORLIG NG/2993 4235 Probable broch in Duirinish, Skye, which stands on an elevated rock projecting into the west side of Loch Caroy. Only a ring-shaped stony mound survives with fragments of the foundation course of the outer wallface preserved on the south and north sides; a few stones of the inner face are also preserved, suggesting a wall thickness of 3.2m [4]. The overall diameter is about 16.2m (53 ft) [2]. There are no clear signs of the entrance but it ought to be on the west side where the easiest approach lies; a single slab may represent the northern inner corner of the passage [4].

At about 12 o’clock is another clear, oval mural ceIl 3.66m (12 ft) long and 1.37m (4.5 ft) wide with a massively lintelled doorway to the central court (Illus. 8.24). The remains of the corbelled roof of this chamber are still visible. The door lintel has cracked and dropped and evidently once formed part of the

119

It is not easy to understand the purpose of such a limited exploration, unless as a training exercise.

811

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland adjacent scarcement, of the ledgetype. This feature is 9in (23cm) wide (or 25-45cm [6]) and is visible in two lengths, from about 12 o’clock (starting just anticlockwise of the door to the cell) to 2.30 and from 6 o’clock to about 8.30. More traces of an upper gallery are visible clockwise from this cell [6].

Dimensions: the internal diameter is 11.5m (34.5 ft) and the wall 4.0m (12 ft) thick, so the external diameter must be about 17.0m (58 ft) and the wall proportion about 47%. According to Swanson an internal diameter of about 10.4m is indicated and the wall varies in width from 3.7m (in the north-west) to 3.9-4.0m (on the east). This suggests a wall proportion of about 48 %.

Find The site is unexcavated and full of rubble but in 1971 two joining fragments of the upper stone of a rotary quern (making up about half of the stone) were discovered on top of the rubble in the interior [5] (Illus. 8.19). For various reasons the broken hand-mill could be confidently deduced to have been dropped into the rubble core of the wall when the broch was built; it was therefore in use some years before the broch [5].

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 24 NE 5: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 160, no. 514: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 870-71 & plan: 4. MacSween 1985, 42, no. 6 & fig. 6. Square NG25 NG25 1 DUN FIADHAIRT (‘Dun Iardhard’) NG/2311 5042 (GPS NG 2315 5044) This is a slightly abnormal, probable ground-galleried broch in Duirinish, Skye, which was excavated in about 1892 by the Countess Vincent Baillet de Latour (Illus. 8.20 & 8.25 – 8.34). F T MacLeod of the National Museum, who wrote the report, only saw the site after the work was completed (visited 22/4/63, 1971, 15/8/85 & 13/11/03). 120 In 1995 the Royal Commission obtained copies of some photographs taken during the excavations [13] and, since these are dated 1892, some or all of the work evidently took place during that year.

Dimensions According to the Commission [2] the internal diameter is 35-36.5 ft (10.68-11.131m), the wall thickness 13.5 ft (4.12m) on the south side and 10.0 ft (3.05m) on the north. The external diameter may therefore be about 59 ft (18.0m) and the wall proportion approximately 40%. In 1971 and 1986 the shape of the central court was accurately planned and it proved to be close to a true circle with a radius of 5.16 + 0.06 m; this equals a diameter of 10.32m (33.84 ft). So at this site too the internal diameter measured by the Commission [2] was evidently of the wall above the scarcement; the wall proportion should in fact be about 42.5%.

Description The structure stands on a low, fairly steep-sided rocky knoll in the midst of now desolate moorland, and on the large peninsula which juts into the east side of Loch Dunvegan and is joined to the mainland by a low, narrow neck (Illus. 8.25).

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 24 NW 4: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 156-7, no. 507, & fig. 224: 3. Graham 1949: 4. Ross 1961, 206-9: 5. MacKie 1972, 137-38 & fig. 1b: 6. Swanson (ms) 1985, 867-68 & plan: 7. MacSween 1985, 42, no. 9, fig. 9 & pl. 5.

The outer wallface is mainly concealed by debris (presumably that thrown out of the interior during the excavations) but the visible masonry is in general of good quality, being made of rectangular blocks of metamorphic rock; it stands up to eight courses high in places. The main entrance is on the west side (Illus. 8.27) and steps lead up to it; piles of what is surely debris from the excavation lie on either side of the approach, giving the illusion of a later outwards extension to the passage. This passage is 3.66m (12 ft) long, 91cm (3 ft) wide at the outer end and 84cm (2 ft 9 in ) at the inner. The door-frame is about 91cm (3 ft) from the exterior and the checks are well-built rebates in the passage walls; the bar socket is in the left wall and the bar-hole (mainly blocked) in the right.

NG24 4 GLEN HEYSDAL NG/2987 4537 This probable broch in Duirinish, Skye, is extremely dilapidated and stands on the summit of a slight rocky knoll on the west side of Glen Heysdal; it is at a height of about 61m (200 ft) above the sea (Loch Caroy) and overlooks it. The structure is reduced to its foundations and in 1915 only parts of the south wall of the entrance were visible on the west-south-west, together with, on the north-west, the curve of the wall of an oval mural cell [2]; neither of these features can now be seen [1]. There are no signs of outer defences despite the absence of naturally defensive features round about [3].

A short distance behind the checks are the doors to two opposing guard cells (Illus. 8.31). The one on the left is a fine, corbelled oval chamber with the domed roof still rising about 1.83m (6 ft) above the floor; one lintel remains over the doorway. On the other hand the cell on the right is much cruder, measuring 1.86m (6 ft) by

Swanson visited the site in 1985 and noted the extensive robbery of stone [3]. Enough of the basal blocks of the outer and inner faces remain to indicate the size and dimensions of a broch [3, plan]. She was unable to see any trace of the mural cell on the north-west, nor clear traces of the alleged entrance on the west-south-west. An intra-mural gallery, presumably at ground level, is clearly traceable in the south-south-west arc.

120

This situation contrasts with that of Dun Beag (NG33 3 below) where J G Callander seems to have visited the excavation several times as it progressed.

812

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides 1.30m (4 ft 3in); it is in fact the broadened end of the mural gallery behind, blocked off from the rest by a primary rear wall which abuts against the outer wall in a straight joint; thus only the inner wall of the cell is curved (see Dun Ardtreck – site NG33 2 below). This feature is not shown on the original site plan (Illus. 8.26).

The mural gallery has some stone lintels still in position, though doubtless fewer than when it was first exposed. It measures 1.37m (4.5 ft) in width at the lop and 15.48m (50 ft 9 in) in length, excluding the section to the left of the door. If the whole distance from the back of the base of the stair is hollow this section of gallery is about 70 ft 9 in (21.6m) long. In the southern arc there are a few traces of an upper gallery above the lintels of the lower [11].

In the side of this blocking wall which faces the entrance is what looks like a short, thick lintel with a space below it; it gives the impression that there was a low opening from the cell to the gallery behind, but on the opposite side the masonry is now in too poor a state to judge if the opening came right through.

The door to this gallery now goes right through the wall to form a second entrance and this seems to be a primary feature, there being a large lintel over its outer end (which is 76cm or 2.5 ft, wide) [3. fig. 228]. The doorway is only about 76cm (2.5 ft) high under the lintel. If this small entrance really is part of the original broch architecture it makes Dun Fiadhairt unique (Illus. 8.26, cross-section). A crude secondary wall was found running across the interior, from 0.9-1.5m (3-5 ft) thick.

A fragment of the scarcement, of the ledge-type, is preserved on the inner wallface just to the left of, clockwise from, the entrance; it is 15cm (6in) wide and about 1.98m (6 ft 6in) above the ground. This feature is not so convincing now as when the author first saw it in 1963. At several points the inner face has been restored with one or two courses of crude masonry, presumably after the excavations.

The excavations of 1892 Little clear information about the stratigraphy inside the broch was obtained by Mr MacLeod; no doubt the need for an improved technique of excavation was pointed out to the Countess by the National Museum archaeologists and resulted in her excavating Dun Beag with more care. According to MacLeod the method of excavation adopted by the Countess at Dun Fiadhairt was to locate an inner wallface and work along it, sifting all soil removed through the fingers. In fact this was an improvement on most other Scottish excavations carried out at that time and is doubtless the reason that so many small objects were found.

Looking at the plan of the broch overall (Illus. 8.20 & 8.26), the south-east half of Level 1 of the wall is occupied by a continuous mural gallery while the other half – from 5 to 11 o’clock – contains the entrance passage with its two guard cells, another dumb-bellshaped mural cell at 8.30 o’clock and the stair with a long stair-foot guard cell, entered by a door at 10 o’clock. The double mural cell at 8.30 o’clock is 5.26m (17 ft 3 in ) long by 1.37m (4.5 ft) wide and is shaped like a dumb-bell because of a curious masonry buttress projecting inwards from the outer wall opposite the doorway (Illus. 8.33). There is an aumbry in its southwest end.

Structural analysis The signs of an upper gallery in the southern sector show that Dun Fiadhairt is a true hollow-walled broch. Its ground plan (Level 1) however is unusual in that most of the sector from 5-10 o’clock is occupied by guard cells, entrance passage, double cell and stair-foot guard cell with stair [12, plan] (Illus. 8.26). The rest of the circuit is occupied by a ground level gallery which appears to run back to the rear of the stair, as at Dun Mor Vaul (NM04 4). In the author’s original classification the site would be termed a transitional broch (half way between ground-galleried and solidbased) but this implies that Dun Fiadhairt somehow stands apart from its neighbours on Skye, which it does not do in any meaningful way. To all intents and purposes it is a ground-galleried broch.

The stair-foot guard cell (Illus. 8.32) is 2.68m (8 ft 10in) long and only 1.0 – 0.71m (3 ft 3 in to 2 ft 4 in) wide; it is thus more of a length of mural gallery than a true wall chamber. Six steps of the mural stair were found during the excavations. At 12 o’clock is the doorway to the mural gallery which runs clockwise from that point to join the inner end of the right guard cell (Illus. 8.28). Although the Commission’s plan (Illus. 8.26) shows the wall to the left of this door as solid the gallery actually runs to the left and probably finishes blind under the stair. While examining the left side of the doorway in 1963 the author caused the fall of some loose debris (left by the excavator) which disclosed the outer face of the gallery continuing to the left. Presumably the Commission surveyors – assuming that low door was a primary one – supposed that the left side of the doorway continued right across the wall (but see below). It may be assumed that this gallery extends to behind the stair.

The one puzzling feature is the narrow and low second entrance at 12 o’clock. If this site is considered alone the passage can be interpreted as primary; there are no obvious signs of the outer part of the passage being secondary. However all the other second entrances found in brochs appear to be of later construction, most probably inserted after the upper parts of the towers had been pulled down, and this does seem the most likely 813

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland explanation for the eastern passage at Dun Fiadhairt. It would have been much easier to insert the lintel in the outer face if the latter was only 1.8-2.1m (6-7 ft) high than when it was 10.7m (35 ft). The floor of this passage appears to be raised above the level of the central court but it is possible that not all the rubble has been cleared out of it.

Dimensions The external diameter was given as 55 ft (16.78m), the internal as 31.5 ft (9.61m); the walls were from 10.5 ft to 12 ft (3.20m -3.66m) thick [3] so the wall proportion would be c. 42.5%. In 1971 the shape of the central court was accurately planned and it proved to be close to a true circle with a radius of 4.76 + 0.09 m; the mean diameter is thus 9.52m (31.2 ft), very close to the original measurement.

Cultural contacts The clay model of a bale of wool, thought to be Roman (below), is an unique find and demands some explanation [2, fig. 11]. Normally one would assume that Roman finds on Iron Age sites in the Western Isles had come from Roman-occupied southern Scotland in either the late 1st or the mid 2nd centuries AD and that they drifted out there by means of exchanges between Iron Age tribesmen. There is however a possibility of direct contact on one occasion in the late AD 70s between at least one site on Skye and an exploring Roman fleet (discussed in the entry on Dun Ardtreck NG33 1), and the object might be better explained in this way.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 25 SW 1: 2. MacLeod 1915: 3. RCAHMS 1928, 57-70, no. 508 & figs. 227-29: 4. J Curle 1932, 349: 5. Feachem 1976, 171-72: 6. A Robertson 1970, Table 2: 7. Mann 1974, 35-6, 1975, 31, no. 40: 8. MacKie 1975, 167: 9. Guido 1978, 195 & 200: 10. Green 1978, 59: 11. Swanson (ms) 1985, 859-62 & plan: 12. MacSween 1985, 42, no. 10, fig. 10 & pls. 6 & 7: 13. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1995, 123. NG25 2 DUN HALLIN NG/2566 5927 This unexcavated broch in Duirinish, Skye, stands about 137m (450 ft) above the sea and on the southeast end of a flat-topped, steep-sided rock knoll overlooking a fertile valley and the sea (visited 24/4/63 & 15/8/85) (Illus. 8.35-8.42).

Finds (Illus. 8.34) [2] The only metal found was a large quantity of “iron refuse” and some fragments of “iron bolts”: there was no bronze. Stone objects included 1 rotary quern, 1 whetstone, 3 rubbing stones, 3 sandstone whorls (1 being decorated with incised lines on one face and a concentric incised circle on the other), 2 oval quartzite pebbles with ironstained grooves, presumably strike-a-lights, 1 quartzite hammerstone and 1 fragment of a steatite armlet; 3 flint scrapers were also found. Glass and amber objects included 3 spheroid beads of translucent green glass, 1 fawn-coloured with a spiral pattern, 1 fragment of a fat ring bead of black glass with blue and yellow streaks twisted round it and 1 small yellow ring-bead; there were also 2 beads of reddish opaque glass shaped like double-truncated cones (possibly Anglo-Saxon) [2, fig. 10]. In addition there were also 59 amber beads in the form of short cylinders which can make a necklace 26.0cm (10.25 in) long when strung [2, fig. 9]. Forty-eight of them were under a hollowed slab in the doorway to the dumb-bell-shaped mural chamber and 11 more were in the clay of a hearth in the same cell. Fired clay: a quantity of Iron Age pottery was found (Illus. 8.34), much of it at the foot of the staircase. The rim sherds include several vases with geometrical incised decoration closely similar to the Vaul ware found on Tiree (site NM04 4); there are also two with curvilinear channelled decoration similar to that on the Everted Rim ware from the same site. Roman: there was also found a baked clay object, deduced to be a Roman votivc model of a bale of wool [4, 6 & 7]. Animal bones: a very brief report on this is appended to the report [2, 70].

Description The broch wall is well preserved, up to 3.81m (12.5 ft) high on the north and west, and the outer face has a marked batter (Illus. 8.35); both faces are built of cubical stone blocks and the interior is full of debris (Illus. 8.40). The entrance is on the south-east but is either too dilapidated or too concealed under rubble for measuring (Illus. 8.38); there seems to be one lintel near the inner end, which – if in situ – might suggest that it could be intact here and standing up to 1.8m high under the rubble. On each side of the passage is an oval mural cell neither of the doors of which are visible; they seem likely to be a pair of guard cells [3, plan] (Illus. 8.36). The northern, right hand cell measures 2.85m (9.5 ft) long by 1.35m (4.5 ft) wide and has been cleared out to a depth of over 1m at the end furthest from the passage (Illus 8.39). The lintel of what seems to be a doorway to the interior has been seen [3]. The south cell was measured as 2.1m (9 ft) long in 1921 but is not easily seen now. The interior of the broch is full of rubble, much of it grassed over (Illus. 8.40); the inner wallface now stands one or two courses above the rubble, less than the 1.2m (4 ft) mentioned in 1921 [2]. A mural gallery is visible on the south-west arc and the Commission’s plan shows a door leading to it, though the text does not mention it. In fact at least one lintel remains in position over this door, at the level of the surrounding rubble, and a scarcement of the ledge-type can be seen at its inner end, mostly grassed over (Illus. 8.41). 814

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides Moreover, though the sides of the gallery leading clockwise from this door seen in 1921 [2] are not now apparent, the outer ends of six steps of the intra-mural stairway were found just exposed; the outer half of the wall has fallen away from them (Illus. 8.42). The highest steps are 3-3.6m (10-12 ft) above the external turf, and are rising above the scarcement; there is therefore litt1e doubt that the upper intra-mural gallery is partly preserved under the rubble and that the structure is a hollow-walled broch. This seems to be confirmed by traces of an upper intra-mural gallery seen at about 4 o’clock [3, plan].

about 7-10.30 o’clock if the entrance is just south of west (below) – and is rarely more than 45cm (18in) wide and 1.5m (5 ft) in height now. A possible doorway to this mural gallery is visible, 45cm (18in) square. At the east end of the roofed section, at about 10.30 o’clock, there is the curved end of an apparently elongated mural cell which was described as two adjacent cells which might be opposed guard cells on either side of an invisible entrance [2] (Illus. 8.45). The position of the entrance seems to the author more likely to be on the opposite side of the broch, just south of west, and the cell mentioned perhaps to be the stair-foot guard cell. There are traces of the sides of the gallery throughout other parts of the wall, particularly from about 12-2.30 o’clock.

An outer stone wall runs round the edge of the knoll, which is about 6.1m (20 ft) high at the south; it is up to 25.9m (85 ft) from the broch on the north-west but only 2.44m (8 ft) on the south-east. The enclosed ground is a flat, grassy area.

The dilapidated state of much of the outer half of the broch wall is probably to be explained by the ruins of recent buildings and stone dykes a few yards away on the north-east side [3, plan].

Dimensions The internal diameter is given as 36 ft (10.98m) [2] but this is above the scarcement; the actual measurement across the central court is likely to be about 10.52m (34.5 ft); similarly in 1921 the wall was measured as from 9 ft 9 in to 11 ft) (2.95-3.36m) but these measurements must also have been taken above the scarcement. It is also not clear whether the batter of the outer face was allowed for. The external diameter should be about 17.39m (57 ft) and the wall proportion perhaps about 39.5%.

Dimensions The internal diameter is about 35 ft 3 in (10.75m) and the wall is about 11 ft thick (3.36m). The external diameter would thus be about 57 ft (17.4m) and the wall proportion about 38%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 26 SW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 159-60, no. 511: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 845-46 & plan: 4. MacSween 1985, 43, no. 13 & fig. 13: 5. Ritchie & Harman 1996, 29.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 25 NE 1.01: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 158-89, no. 509 & figs. 206 & 226: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 851-52 with plan: 4. MacSween 1985, 42-3, no. 11 & fig. 11.

NG26 2 DUN BORRAFIACH NG/2355 6371 This broch in Duirinish, Skye – the second one encountered when going north along the west coast of the Vaternish peninsula – stands above old field systems but directly on the sloping hillside instead of on a rocky knoll (visited 24/4/63 & in 1985) (Illus. 8.47-8.52). There are no modern settlements nearby but abundant traces of former cultivation are apparent in the form of ruined dykes and stone longhouses .

Square NG26 NG26 1 DUN GEARYMORE NG/2368 6490 This probable ground-galleried broch in Duirinish, Skye, is the most northerly of the three brochs on the Vaternish peninsula and stands on a rocky knoll in an uninhabited tract of country; nevertheless there are many signs of former cultivation, including several small structures, and ‘lazy beds’, close to the broch [3, plan] (visited 24/4/63 & 15/8/85). There are traces of a defensive ditch to the east of the broch (Illus. 8.37 & 8.43-8.46)

Description The broch is well preserved but encumbered with debris inside and out; the outer face of the wall stands from 610 ft (1.8-3.05m) high (Illus. 8.47, 8.50 & 8.52). Some of the blocks in the wall are very large; one measures 3 ft (91cm) in length by 2 ft 9 (83cm) high; most are rectangular blocks neatly fitted together.

Description As is often the case with dilapidated brochs the outer wallface is now quite low – being reduced to one course of masonry above the rubble in places (Illus. 8.44) – whereas the inner face is higher, though mostly hidden under rubble (Illus. 8.45). Both faces are built neatly of squarish blocks of metamorphic rock. A long stretch of ground-level intra-mural gallery, completely lintelled over and intact, is accessible on the north-west arc (Illus. 8.46) [3, plan]; it runs for 8.1m (29 ft) – from

The entrance is visible on the north-west, having been partly cleared out, and its left wall rises to the position of the lintels, now displaced (Illus. 8.51). A slab doorcheck on the right is apparent 0.5m from the outer end [3]. A further side wall is visible on the right above lintel level, set back slightly from the face below, which should be part of a void or chamber over the entrance. 815

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland Swanson observed that the inside face of the upper gallery meets the upper part of the entrance passage on this side [3, plan]. She recorded two faces on the left side of the passage and considers the lower one to be the remains of a secondary narrowing because it continues into the interior; her plan certainly seems to support this [3] (Illus. 8.49).

Loch Harport, by way of the narrow pass of Glen Brittle. Coming by sea is not much easier because of the exposed nature of the Rudh’ an Dunain (Scott gives details of possible landing places [4]: there is a boat port at the exit stream from Loch na h’Airde). The only cultivable ground nearby is the shallow valley running for just under half a mile west-south-west to Loch na h’Airde, a short distance north-west of the promontory fort.

The sides of the inner face of an upper mural gallery (about 12 ft, or 3.66 m, above the ground on the east side) are visible at about 8.30-9 o’clock and again from 12-2 and 3.30-6 o’clock, confirming that the structure is a hollow-walled broch (Illus. 8.52). A short section of the outer face of this is preserved at about 11.30 o’clock.

Description Although unexcavated this promontory semibroch could be providing important evidence both for the dating of its type and for the significance of semibrochs in the evolution of the broch type, as is explained below. Its full excavation is highly desirable.

Dimensions The external diameter is about 57 ft (17.4m), the internal one 32 ft 9 in (10.0m): the wall proportion is therefore about 42.5%. Swanson gives the internal diameter as 9.9m from north to south with a wall width of from 3-4m.

The wall of the structure is fairly well preserved and is certainly not a “ruined ring” as thought by Childe [3, 198]; the diameter of a circular building of which this wall was a part would be something like 40-45m (up to 150 ft) – two-and-a-half times the size of the average broch. The fact that the wall narrows considerably as it approaches the cliff at the north-east end (furthest from the doorway) appears to confirm that the wall was never much longer than it is at present (Illus. 8.55). Of course a huge amount of the cliff would have to have disappeared over the last two-and-a-half millennia if the structure was once a complete ring.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 26 SW 2.0: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 159, no. 510 & fig. 230: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 848-49 & plan: 4. MacSween 1985, 43, no. 12, fig. 2 & pl. 8. Square NG31

The entrance in the convex outer wallface – which has a pronounced batter (Illus. 8.57) – is near the right or south-west end and is 3.6m (12 ft) from the high and sheer cliff edge; it is just over 3.66m (12 ft) long and filled with rubble. Its lintels have disappeared but the door-frame is visible 1.14m (3 ft 9in) from the outside, where there are two well-built, opposed rebates in the walls; the bar-hole is not visible (Illus. 8.58 & 8.59).

NG31 1 RUDH’ AN DUNAIN NG/396160 (visited 20/4/63 & in 1986). This unexcavated promontory semibroch is a classic site of its type and consists of a simple, gently curved wall barring the neck of a short, high cliff promontory in a very wild and remote part of south-west Skye (Illus. 8.53-8.62). There is an abandoned two-storeyed house nearby,121 and a Neolithic chambered tomb a few hundred yards away which was excavated by Sir Lindsay Scott in 1931 [4]. Scott also explored the nearby cave in 1932 [5] with results that probably have a bearing on the date of the Iron Age promontory fort (below). The name ‘Rudh’ an Dunain’ is applied to the large promontory south-west of the site and means ‘promontory of the fort’.

In the inner face, a short distance to the left of the inner end of the entrance (looking inwards), is the door to the mural gallery which runs along the rest of the wall to the opposite edge (Illus. 8.60). The left side of this door is continuous with the end wall of the gallery which thus stops several feet short of the main entrance. One lintel remains over the door but none are visible over the gallery itself. However its walls rise well above this lintel to the wallhead, which is here 10-12 ft (3.0-3.6m) high above the level grassy surface outside; thus an upper as well as a lower tier of gallery must be preserved. A fine ledge scarcement 9 in (25cm) wide is preserved on the inner wallface; it runs along more or less level (Illus. 8.61). It is not clear whether this ledge included the lintel over the doorway to the gallery but it seems probable.

Situation It is worth summarising Scott’s comments on the remoteness and difficulty of access of this area [4, 13233]. Contrary to what one might conclude from the presence of the two large prehistoric monuments, the inhabited cave and the abandoned house it is not easy to reach the small cultivable area on which they stand. Because the rugged, high Cuillins mountains lie immediately behind the site, and come down to the shore of Soay Sound to the east, the land approach involves a walk of three miles along the east shore of Loch Brittle, which itself is reached, from the head of 121

The space enclosed by the drystone barrier is now quite small, measuring about 250 sq yds. (Illus. 8.55), but the area of the promontory may have been reduced by cliff

Inhabited by the Macaskill family until about 1850 [4, 185].

816

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides falls since Iron Age times. Very large angular rock fragments can be seen under water below the cliffs.

evidently linked to this smelting activity [5, fig. 7] (Illus. 8.48). One of these is a fairly clear example of a carinated rim sherd of early Iron Age type, datable to the 7th and 6th centuries BC at, for example, Bu and Quanterness in Orkney (sites HY20 4 & HY41 5) (Illus. 8.48, bottom).

Structural analysis It has been noted before that, although the promontory defence is a simple curved wall, its hollow construction is of equal sophistication to that found in the broch towers [3]. The entrance passage is of standard broch design and the wall to the left of this appears to have two continuous, superimposed galleries in it (Levels 1 and 2). It is reached by a doorway from the interior of which the front lintel would probably once have formed part of the scarcement on the inner face. Doubtless there is a stair to the upper levels just to the right of the door but no steps are exposed.

Tylecote [8] considers that the furnace was for smelting iron ore and offers a reconstruction of how it may have worked (Illus. 8.4). A small amount of slag was found in the furnace but most of it was found in a heap on the north side.122 The slag was of the “typical fayalitemagnetite type.” The remains of a pinewood shovel were found nearby which he thought was probably used for shovelling charcoal. Significance of the site It seems reasonable to associate the two periods of major activity inside the cave with the two large prehistoric structures close by. Thus, although a chambered cairn of this type was almost certainly built and used in the early Neolithic period, this one was reused in the early Bronze Age judging from the Beaker found at an upper level in it [4, 198]. The Beaker period lithic workshop in the cave fits with this.

No doubt there was once a chamber over the entrance passage and a void over the gallery door, both facing inwards, but nothing of these is preserved. However the fact that the wall has such a shallow curve means that the scarcement cannot have supported a twostoreyed wooden roundhouse in the interior and it must have had some other purpose. In this way Rudh’ an Dunain is sharply distinct from the round towers and from D-shaped semibrochs like Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh (NH19 3). Some further comments on its probable age are in ‘Significance of the site’ below.

Since the promontory fort has not been excavated its connection with the establishment of an iron smeltery in the cave, evidently in early Iron Age times, must be regarded as more tentative but it seems highly likely. This hypothesis is strongly supported by the appearance of extensive iron-working at Jarlshof in Shetland at the same early period (site HU30 1: 64-65].

Excavations in the cave in 1932 [5] There is a small cave in the cliff face of the raised shore-line about 500m east of the fort (c. NG/400163) and this was explored by Scott in 1932. Under some slabs fallen from the roof was a homogeneous deposit of fine, peaty earth resting on a thin layer of sea sand; traces of human occupation were found at all levels in the earth.

The conclusion seems to follow that this promontory semibroch belongs to the early Iron Age and is also strongly supported by the evidence from Clickhimin in Shetland. A reassessment of the nature of the ‘blockhouse’ at that site, and of the associated pottery and artifacts, makes it extremely probable that that building is also a form of promontory semibroch which was constructed towards the end of the early Iron Age period, perhaps in the 6th or 5th centuries BC (site HU44 1, 89-115). The appearance of all the basic features of broch architecture in Atlantic Scotland at this early date is of great potential significance.

Essentially the cave seems to have been used at two separate periods in prehistoric times, and one would expect these occupations to correspond with the occupations represented by the two large ancient monuments nearby – the Neolithic chambered tomb and the Iron Age promontory fort. No domestic hearths were found so these occupations seem to have been by specialised workers associated with the communities concerned, and this is confirmed by the debris. The cave was excavated in square or rectangular trenches and, since no stratification could be observed in the earth deposits, these were divided into four arbitrary spits or levels [5, Pls. III & IV); these were labelled AD from the top down. However considerable signs of disturbance from later levels into earlier ones were seen.

Rudh’ an Dunain and the two other very similar sites – Dun Grugaig, Skye (NG51 1), and Barra head (NL58 1) – show rather clearly that the high hollow wall was not originally designed as a protection for the multistoreyed wooden roundhouse, which is what the tower broch seems to be. The curvature of their walls is much too shallow and the scarcements here must have supported some kind of two-storeyed range of buildings

At the base of the earth, immediately above the sand, were found sherds of early Bronze Age Beaker pottery [5, fig. 5 & 6] together with abundant refuse of stoneknappers’ activities [5, fig. 1] Higher up were abundant signs of iron-smelting including a furnace built of stone slabs with quantities of slag around it [5, figs. 2 & 3] (Illus. 8.4). A small number of Iron Age sherds were

122

Although Sir Lindsay Scott gave the artifacts from his excavations at Rudh’ an Dunain to the National Museums of Scotland, a search on behalf of the author in 2003 failed to find any of the slag.

817

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland along its rear wall, as Hamilton envisaged at Clickhimin (site HU44 1, Illus. 4.102).

and the broch which would have meant a journey of at least twenty minutes up from the fields below. This situation might suggest that – at this site at least – any danger was expected from the sea; as with many another Hebridean broch a land attack sweeping down on to the farmland from the mountains would cut the villagers off from their refuge, assuming that they lived beside the fields. The broch itself is out of sight of the sea but a short extra climb of about 60m (200 ft) gives an extensive view of the western sea approaches; a lookout there could give ample warning of a raid.

Iron Age pottery from the cave The probable early Iron Age rim sherds are described in Appendix 1. Broadly there appear to be two classes of Iron Age sherds among the Scott collection in the National Museums (in which there are hardly any rim sherds). The first group is similar to the Everted Rim ware found on Tiree – namely fairly thin sherds of plain, buff to buff-grey, sandy-textured hard ware with fairly smooth external surfaces, the cross-sections tending to be two thirds grey with the outer third buff; there are many tiny pits as if vegetable matter tempering in the clay has been burned during firing. The second group of sherds is thicker (8-12mm) and of similar fabric but the ware is grey-brown throughout with many small, black stone grits (Illus. 8.48).

Description The broch itself stands on the higher end of a short rocky ridge and few structuraI features are now visible [3, plan] (Illus. 8.49). The outer wallface (Illus. 8.64) stands from 8 ft (2.44m) high down to nothing in the south-west arc, and large quantities of fallen stones obscure the interior; there is a distinct batter to the outer face on the north-west. The entrance is on the eastnorth-east and is 2 ft 10 in (86cm) wide at the exterior, which is unlintelled (Illus. 8.65 & 8.66). Several lintels are still in position further in and the door-frame is apparent 3 ft (91cm) from the exterior. The checks are of built masonry and the passage then widens to 4 ft 2 in (1.27m), narrowing again to 3 ft 1 in (94cm) at the inner end.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 31 NE 1: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 144, no. 483, & fig. 296: 3. Childe 1930, 77: 4. Scott 1932, 185: 5. Scott 1934b: 6. MacKie 1965, pl. XVIII, upper, and XIX, left: 7. MacSween 1985, 51, no. 60 & pls. 14 & 15: 8. Tylecote 1962, 195-97. Square NG32 NG32 1 DUN SLEADALE NG/3238 2920 Broch, probably ground-galleried, in Bracadale, Skye (Illus. 8.49 & 8.63- 8.69). It stands in a particularly interesting situation, on a rocky knoll about 160m (550 ft) above sea level and up on a steep hillside about half a mile from cultivated land; the knoll itself rises from a level terrace (Illus. 8.63). Swanson has a good plan of this broch [3, 899] (Illus. 8.49) (visited 23/4/63 & 18/8/85).

There is another lintelled door opening from the interior into the wall on the north, at about 12 o’clock, with a lintelled stretch of gallery running to the right (clockwise) from it (Illus. 8.49 & 8.67). In 1915 there was one course of the outer wall of an upper gallery on top of this [2]. This is almost certainly the stair door, and the steps of the flight are probably a short distance below the rubble under the lintels (though there would have to be a substantial gap in these to allow the flight to reach Level 2). Another inner doorway has been seen at about 4.30 o’clock [3].

Situation This farmland is on the flat seaward end of Glen Oraid, a fine, isolated, V-shaped glaciated valley running down from high moorland to a curved sandy beach in a bay bounded at both ends by high cliffs. Thus the valley bottom, limited in area to about 0.25 square miles and containing the village of Talisker, is completely isolated by mountain and moor. The farmland is green and fertile, in striking contrast to the surrounding moor, and is formed of a thick deposit of alluvial soil which has presumably washed down from the surrounding land over many millennia. Marks of old rig-and-furrow cultivation are very clear near the sea when viewed from the moors above, and this suggests that the low ground was cultivated in Iron Age times also.

A fine scarcement of the ledge-type is preserved in the 2-4 o’clock arc (not noted by the Commission) and the inner wallface stands up to six courses above it. The rocky ground outside is only about 6 ft (1.8m) below the gallery lintels here (Illus. 8.68) so the scarcement may only be 60-90cm (2-3 ft) above the interior floor at this point. However this does not leave much room for the rise of the supposed stairway so the rock may slope down under the wall towards the interior. There is another stretch of gallery, or a cell with a few lintels in position, just clockwise of the main entrance at 7 o’clock (Illus. 8.69); there are several courses of stonework exposed under the roof and in 1915 the outer face stood 8 ft (2.4m) high above the ground outside [2]. These lintels are much higher than those roofing the entrance and the gallery must technically be an upper one. There is therefore little doubt that the structure is a hollow-walled broch.

The broch overlooks this small stretch of cultivable land, and it is difficult to resist the conclusion that it was intimately connected with the Iron Age farmers who presumably used it. Moreover there are steep slopes and a difficult burn gully between the farmland

818

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides Dimensions [2] The internal diameter in line with the entrance is 31.5 ft (11.25m) and at right angles to this (north-west to southeast) 39 ft (12.0m): the wall thickness at the entrance is 10 ft 3 in (3.1m) so the overall diameter here is about 58 ft (17.7m). The wall proportion might thus be about 35%, unusually small.

the surrounding crags has been blocked by a stone breastwork immediately below the broch [3, plan]. The main outer wall abuts the broch at about 10 o’clock and runs south-east to the crag where it turns north-east along its edge for a short distance. There is an outer entrance here. Traces of enclosures of uncertain date are on the south-east [3, 896, plan].

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 32 NW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 140-41, no. 411: 3. Swanson 1985, 897-99 & plan: 4. MacSween 1985, 41, no. 1 & fig. 1.

Dimensions Internal diameter 34.5-36.51 ft (10.5-11.1m): walls 9-12 ft (2.1-3.6m) thick. Wall proportion approx. 39%.

Square NG 33

Sources: NMRS site no. NG 33 SW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1928. 141, no. 418 & fig. 200: 3. Swanson 1985, 89394 and plan: 4. MacSween 1985, 41, no. 1, fig. 1 & pl. 1.

NG33 1 ARD an t’ SABHAIL (‘Dun Ard an t’ Sabhail’) NG/3180 3333 This probable ground-galleried broch stands in a dominating position on a rocky summit of crags amid rugged moorland and about 180m (600 ft) above the sea and half a mile from it (visited 20/4/63) (Illus. 8.708.74). There is a fine view of Loch Bracadale to the north with the twin peaks of MacLeod’s Tables beyond [4, pl. 1]. The site towers high above the adjacent valley in which are modern settlements and farmland. Swanson has a good plan of the broch [3, 896] (Illus. 8.73, upper).

NG33 2 DUN ARDTRECK NG/3350 3581 This probable D-shaped semibroch in Bracadale, Skye, was excavated by the author in 1964-65 and was the first of its class to be explored (Illus. 8.75-8.81); it proved to be a very productive site and to have had four main phases of occupation, starting in the middle Iron Age. The identification of the building as a D-shaped semibroch cannot be proved beyond doubt (all traces of Level 2 in the hollow wall having vanished) but the circumstantial evidence in favour is very strong. The site is therefore referred to by the Gaelic word dun throughout; the argument for its being a semibroch is briefly presented in the final section but reference should be made to the excavation report for details.

Description Few of the architectural features are now visible; like most Skye brochs this one is built of irregular blocks of igneous rock many of which have collapsed into featureless rubble. The main entrance is on the east side but no door-frame is visible; it is about 1.15m wide at the outer end and 0.9m at the inner [3]. A roofless oval guard cell, measuring about 7 ft (2.13m) long by 5 ft 2 in (1.57m) is on the left side of the passage (Illus. 8.74); the door to this from the entrance is visible. There is another doorway in the right wall of the passage which leads to another guard cell or to the intra-mural gallery [3].

1. Introduction The excavation has been fully published [10] so only a summary account is given here, without most of the accompanying line drawings and photographs. The finds are listed in greater detail because of the unusual nature of some of them and because of the importance of the site in a wider context. It is important in this way for at least two reasons. Firstly it may have been visited by the Roman fleet in the early AD 80s (a topic not pursued here in detail: Breeze 2002, 308-11: MacKie 2003), thus perhaps conferring high status on the chief concerned and on his descendants (see the comments in the Discussion section).

In 1921 there were clear traces of a narrow mural gallery on the wallhead to the left of (clockwise from) the entrance and a short length on the right side as well; the former has since disappeared but the latter is still visible [3]. On the south-east, at about 7 o’clock, was a scarcement of the ledge-type on the inner wallface and 9 in (25cm) wide, but this too has disappeared. The inner face then stood 2 ft (60cm) above the ledge [2]. The gallery on the wallhead behind may be at ground level since there was no sign of any covering lintels. There are traces of a doorway into the wall at about 10 o’clock which were not noted by the Commission; this could well be the stair door. A probably modern revetment can be seen from about 7-9 o’clock and presumably obscures the inner face here [3].

Secondly it was the first excavated site in the west to show that the middle Iron Age culture of Atlantic Scotland lasted far longer than was once thought – at this site probably well into the 6th century. A third point is that the pottery shows quite clearly that brochs and allied structures were adopted by communities with a variety of ceramic styles; the idea that there was a uniform ‘broch culture’ thus seems doubtful. 2. The situation of the site The site is on the west side of the north tip of the peninsula between Loch Harport on the east and the open sea on the west. The drystone building stands on a

Fragments of an outer defensive wall can be seen on the south and south-east and a gully in the north-east side of 819

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland high rocky knoll – an isolated block of rock which ends in a sheer cliff 21m (70 ft) high next to the sea (Illus. 8.75). The grassy summit of the knoll consists of three natural levels – the topmost plateau and two lower terraces – separated by low, concentrically curved, irregular rocky faces; thus one has to climb up over two natural walls to approach the dun. A built outer wall runs along the edge of the topmost plateau, the rock face below being an uneven, rough precipice with a maximum height of about 2.4m (8 ft).

foundation platform was to avoid building the galleried wall on an uneven and sloping rock surface, but perhaps the plan had been adhered to too rigidly. Since there was no obvious horizontal straight joint visible in the outer face it was also concluded that platform and wall were built in a single operation. The core of the platform was made of irregular stone rubble with occasional patches of dark earth. The wall was on average 2.85m (9 ft 6in) thick at the level of the top of the foundation platform, though somewhat thicker if one measures forward to the base of the outer face, especially at the entrance. On the north-west (at 9 o’clock) it narrowed to 2.4m (8 ft). As the wall approached the cliff the outer face on both sides straightened out while the inner faces curved more sharply inwards to run along the edge. It seems that a low, thin wall, perhaps only 45cm (18in) thick, ran along the cliff edge but most of this has vanished. Two facing stones of the end of the wall on the south side were found, running parallel with the cliff edge, showing that both ends probably terminated in a built face.

The dun itself stands on the highest point of the plateau, next to the sea cliff, and is D-shaped in plan (Illus. 8.76); the straight side, next to the cliff edge, seems to have been protected only by a thin wall. The underlying rock rises slightly from the cliff edge but then slopes downwards further inland [10, Illus. 6]. The cliff edge itself slopes gradually downward on either side of the highest point [10, Illus. 7]. Four main phases in the site’s history were uncovered by the excavations (Illus. 8.81). 3. The primary structures (Phase 1) 3.1 The dun and its foundation platform The dun was constructed on top of the thin turf line which covered the rock knoll, traces of which were found under the outer wall. As noted the underlying rock slopes downwards from its highest point, about 2m in from the edge of the cliff, and levels out again as it approaches the outer wall and the first natural terrace [10, Illus. 6]. Thus, although the surviving wallhead is now approximately level, the number of courses of the outer face preserved increases towards the main entrance, which is aligned at right angles to the cliff edge and faces directly inland [10, Illus. 8]. The wall was preserved only to a height of about 45cm (1 ft 8in) next to the cliff but stood to about 2.4m (8 ft) high at the main entrance. Though the wall of the D-shaped dun was a double one, containing a continuous gallery, it was actually founded on a solid platform of rubble which projected from below the inner wallface into the interior; the outer face of the platform, made of massive rectangular and squarish blocks (Illus. 8.75 & 8.78), formed a continuous face with that of the galleried wall on top and no junction was visible [10, Illus. 4].

The central court enclosed by the dun wall has the shape of a flattened circle and measured at most 13.2m (44 ft) along the line of the cliff and 10.5m (35 ft) at right angles to the cliff; the area thus enclosed is about 105 square metres (125 sq yds.). A typical circular Hebridean broch with an internal diameter of 10.7m (34.8 ft) encloses 89.9 sqm. Dun Ardtreck has one of the largest central courts known in brochs and brochlike structures. 3.2 The entrance and guard cell The paved passage floor slopes downwards and outwards but, because the underlying rock slopes even more steeply, the paving slabs at the inner end lay directly on rock whereas the floor of the outer part lay on an increasing thickness of rubble. The surface of the large sill stone of the outer end emerges 60cm (2 ft) above a limited paved area in front of the dun. The sill is lower than the top of the rubble platform so the passage was in effect cut slightly into this (Illus. 8.78). Some 1.2m (4 ft) in from the outside end was the doorframe consisting of two rebated checks, both being mainly formed of massive slabs with some built masonry on top [10, Illus. 11]. A bar-hole and socket were behind the checks but no pivot stone was found, not even a socket cut into the rock. The iron ringhandle of what must have been a wooden door was found lying on the passage floor, next to the base of the left wall (Illus. 8.80).

Because the rock surface sloped steeply down inland the part of the rubble platform close to the cliff edge projected only a short distance into the interior before petering out against the rock (Illus. 8.77); elsewhere it underlay the whole floor area (Illus. 8.79). The floor of the mural gallery was also approximately level and was formed by the top of the rubble platform, as was that of the rectangular guard cell which opened off the right of the entrance passage. For some reason even where the gallery wall approached the cliff edge – where it could have been safely founded on nearly flat rock – it still rested on a thin layer of rubble hardly wider than itself [10, Illus. 7]. At an early stage in the investigations it was concluded that the primary purpose of the rubble

A rectangular guard cell opened from the right wall immediately behind the door-frame, the sill of its door and its rubble floor being about 30cm (1 ft) above the adjacent passage floor. As in the case of Dun Fiadhairt (site NG25 1) the guard cell was essentially a 820

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides continuation of the mural gallery behind, the outer face of both running past the cross-wall. Presumably the cell was once roofed with flat stone lintels, like the gallery, and would never have been very high.

widens to 1.5m within a short distance of the gateway. The width of the passage varies from 90cm (3 ft) at the outer end to 95cm (3 ft 2in) at the inner. 3.5 Dating Two charcoal samples were collected from deep inside the rubble foundation platform in the central court and, when amalgamated, provided a radiocarbon date for the construction of the dun of 55 + 105 bc (GX-1120).

3.3 The mural gallery The mural gallery extended almost the whole way to the cliff edge in two sections – one on either side of the entrance – and each section had a narrow doorway to the central court [10, Illus. 14, 15 & 16]. The sides of the south-east half of the gallery were poorly built with many projecting rocks, as was the seaward end of the north-west half; the width varied between about 6055cm (2 ft - l ft 9in). The part between the back of the guard cell and the gallery door at 3 o’clock was, by contrast, better built and much wider, reaching a maximum width of 90cm (3 ft) a short distance to the east of the door; here its sides were more neatly built of squarish blocks without the inwardly projecting fragments found in the south-east half [10, Illus. 14].

4. Basic stratigraphy It is convenient at this point to outline the nature of the layers found, both in the central court and in the outer court. How these provided the sequence of Site Phases into which the site’s history is divided is explained in detail in the report [10] (Illus. 8.81). 4.1 The central court Since the dun was built on a fairly even, sloping rock surface from which the turf had been mainly removed, the stratigraphy of this area was fairly simple. From top to bottom the layers were as follows. On top of all was the turf covering a large part of the interior but with heavy drystone rubble instead of this on top of and on either side of the dun wall. Layer 1, immediately below the turf and dry rubble, consisted of loose, brownish soil mixed with heavy rubble; it contained very few finds and appeared to represent the final abandonment of the site.

This wider and more carefully built stretch, leading clockwise from a doorway, implies that it was the approach to the intra-mural stair but a careful search revealed no clear signs of one. There were a number of curious cross-slabs just to the left of the gallery door mentioned which might possibly be the remains of the base of one but this is an improbable position for a stair. It is possible that the stone steps were extracted at some stage. That there must have been upper galleries for such a stair to connect with is argued in the Discussion section. No stones suitable for roofing lintels for the gallery were found anywhere on the site.

A compact layer of dark grey earth – Layer 2, full of Iron Age pottery and other finds – lay below this; the contrast with the superimposed soil was so marked that the top of Layer 2 was at first taken to be a floor level. A scatter of heavy stone blocks, along the foot of the inside wallface and at the base of the dark earth, suggested that extensive demolition of the wall had taken place before Layer 2 began to accumulate.

3.4 The outer wall and gate An outer wall about 1.8m (6 ft) thick ran round the edge of the first natural terrace; it is assumed to belong to Phase 1 and to be an outer defence for the dun. The outer courtyard thus enclosed had a maximum width of about 24m on the north-east. There were signs that this wall may have been at least partly galleried; the edge of what seems to be a door in the inner face was found in Trench VIII but lack of time forbade further investigation. Yet the narrowness of the wall makes it improbable that it contained a true gallery and no traces of one were seen on the wallhead. If a door does exist in Trench VIII it is more likely to have been some kind of wicket gate.

In many places, particularly towards the cliff edge where the depth of the deposits was less, Layer 2 rested directly on the rock and for this reason it was thought at first to be the primary occupation deposit of the dun. However in the deeper deposits, on top of the foundation platform and the rock surface adjacent to this, Layer 3 was found. This consisted of a thin layer of light brown or reddish ashy soil resting directly on the rock or the rubble of the foundation platform; several severely burnt objects were found in this layer confirming that it was an ashy deposit, presumably the result of a fire in the interior. Occasionally a thin layer of fine brown earth was found immediately under the red. Layer 4 was the rubble foundation platform already described.

A gateway in this wall was found on the east side, at the top of the grassy slope which forms a natural ramp up to a gap in the face of the rock terrace here. On the seaward side of the gateway the rock rises rapidly and little wall remains, but it is well preserved on the other side, though only to a maximum height of 75cm (2.5 ft). The gateway is a simple gap in the wall with straight sides and a rock floor; there are no signs of a doorframe and the length of the passage (and hence the wall thickness) is 1.28m (4 ft 3in) on the north side and 1.58m (5 ft 3in) on the south. However the north wall

4.2 The outer court The deposits in the outer court were damp, even waterlogged at the lower side, and this was doubtless due to the stump of the outer having retained the rainwater. With the exception of the ramp outside the 821

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland entrance passage, which is described later, finds were completely absent from the strata in the outer court.

The only major artifact found in the passage was an iron ring attached to a flat bar which had been bent round it to form a simple hinge (Illus. 8.80). This lay against the foot of the left passage and a short distance behind the door-check and it had been so severely heated that some small stones which it had fallen onto had partly fused with it. Some of the stone had melted and formed a small patch of vitrified material.

A considerable heap of heavy drystone rubble lay at the foot of the dun wall and on top of an old turf line; elsewhere the outer court was covered by a thick layer of green turf. Under this was Layer 1, grey-brown topsoil, and below that was Layer 2, a very dark homogeneous earth. This was found only in the inner two thirds of the long trench across the court and it extended up to the dun wall; it is almost certainly equivalent to the dark Layer 2 of the secondary occupation inside the dun.

6. Phase 2/3: transformation of the dun As already described there is clear evidence that a fierce fire raged inside the dun and its entrance passage at the end of Phase 2, and that a number of artifacts inside were badly burned as a result. There is also fairly clear evidence that the wall was much reduced in height after the fire and that the dun became a much less defensive dwelling.

Below that was a very large mass of heavy rubble which seems to fill the whole of the lower areas of the court and which is embedded in various damp and sticky earth deposits – Layers 3 and 4 – as shown in the section drawing [10, Illus. 20, Trench VIII]. Resting on the rock in the outer, lower part of the court was an old turf line which ran under the outer wall.

6.1 The central court One of the clearest signs of the reduction in height of the main wall comes from the two narrow doorways leading from the central court to the intra-mural gallery. Both these lacked a lintel so the entire wall above a height of about 60cm from the interior floor had evidently been taken down. Both doorways were neatly blocked at their inner ends but these blocking walls had no outer face (towards the gallery); both parts of the gallery were full of rubble so it appears that the door blockings were simple revetments for debris which had already filled the galleries. This can only mean that the hollow, galleried wall had been pulled down to its lowest few courses, causing debris to fill up the unroofed ground level gallery. That this blocking followed the fire in the interior is confirmed by the discovery of a fragment of vitrified earth in the fill of one of the doorways.

5. The primary occupation of Phase 2 5.1 The central court No clue was found to how long the site had been in use for its primary purpose. Throughout most of the interior the layer which lay directly on the rock and the rubble foundation platform was the layer of dark grey earth just described. As noted there were in places thin but distinctive layers under this. For example in the south part of the central court (Trenches IV and VII) quantities of reddish ash were found resting on the rock, and here also were many fragments of burnt bones and part of the heated upper stone of a rotary quern. In Trench I a thin layer of dull brown earth containing a patch of ash was found on the rock, and in Trench IV an ash layer rests directly on the surface of the rubble foundation platform. Where it overruns the rock this is on top of the brown earth layer mentioned, which seems likely to be the incinerated old turf line.

6.2 The entrance passage and ramp The re-arrangement of the entrance passage which took place at this time sheds further light on what happened. No stone roofing lintels were found in the passage nor in the guard cell, so they must have been removed, either deliberately or after having fallen in. At the outer end of the main entrance was a massive sill stone about 30cm above the external paving, forming a high step up into the passage. However this paving had been covered by a sloping ramp of large stones and earth, covered with a pebbled surface, which led up almost to the level of the sill and concealed the step. It seems reasonable to assume that this ramp was built against the dun entrance when it had ceased to function as a stronghold and was converted into a relatively undefended dwelling, presumably at the start of Phase 3.

In addition a number of almost complete shattered pots, together with a few other objects, were found on or nearly on the rock in various parts of the interior and suggest that the primary occupation of the dun ended in violence. This is supported by the severely burnt condition of some of the sherds of one of the pots and even more vividly by the iron door-handle found in the entrance passage (below). 5.2 The entrance passage No signs were found of any of the flat stone lintels which must once have roofed the entrance passage of the dun, so these had evidently been taken away after the higher parts of the wall had been pulled down. The passage was full of a mass of heavy dry rubble but under this, and close to the paved floor was a thin layer of black earth full of specks of charcoal.

6.3. The outer court In the outer court there were immense quantities of stone blocks and rubble, which are only likely to have come from the dun wall; these filled almost the whole space in front of, and on both sides of, the entrance and extended down almost on to the old turf line; the mass 822

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides was contained by the stump of the outer wall. The very dark earth Layer 4, which seems to be equivalent to Layer 2 in the central court, lies on top of this mass of rubble which neatly confirms that the whole of Phase 3 (below) was a post-destruction habitation. The fact that the mass of rubble in the outer court was solidly embedded in various earth deposits also seems to confirm that human activity continued on top of it for a very long time before the final abandonment (below), when the current layer of turf grew over the court.

8. Phase 4: abandonment Layer 1 was the topmost stratum of loose rubble and brown earth, immediately under the turf inside the dun; it represents the final sporadic occupation of the site and it also yielded a few artifacts. 9. Discussion 9.1 Site sequence. Most of the evidence for the inferred sequence is explained in detail in the report [10] and will only be outlined here (Illus. 8.81).

6.4 The outer entrance When this apparently doorless passage was cleared a large number of fragments of iron slag were found on the underlying rock. Presumably some smelting of iron took place in a furnace close by – either just inside or outside the passage. Since these fragments lay under the mass of rubble lying in the outer court, and which extended into the passage, it appears that this episode of iron smelting occurred at the end of Phase 2 and immediately before the burning and demolition of the dun.

Phase 1 represents the construction of the dun, apparently directly on to the turf-covered rock of an uninhabited knoll. Phase 2 is the primary habitation of this dun, the nature of which is discussed below. It appears to have been a defended stronghold, probably permanently inhabited, with a high galleried wall, a fortified tunnel of an entrance passage with a wooden door secured by a draw-bar, and a high step leading up into this passage from the outside. Although the lowest interior deposits were thin, the number of pots and other finds which could be allocated to this phase, as well as the ash layers, seems to show that the dun was roofed and inhabited for some time, though the habitation need not have been continuous. 123

7. The secondary occupation of Phase 3 Throughout the whole of the central court a distinct layer of dark grey earth (no. 2) with few stones was found below the topmost stratum of brown earth and heavy stones (which lay immediately below the turf). As explained earlier it was soon realised that Layer 2 was a secondary feature; very little debris had accumulated inside the dun before the dark earth began to accumulate but in some areas it did rest on the thin Layer 3, the burnt deposit of Phase 2.

Phase 2/3 is the transition between two periods of occupation, and was evidently marked by the partial destruction or demolition of the wall as well as by signs of severe burning in the entrance passage and the central court. The most vivid evidence for this is the iron doorhandle in the passage, which was heated so severely that it has become fused to some small stones; actual vitrified stone can be seen adhering. The position of the handle – lying on the floor behind the left door-check – suggests that the wooden door fell, or was battered, inwards and that the draught of air that then rushed through the passage fanned its carbonised wooden remains on the floor to a heat sufficient partially to melt stones. Likewise the partly fused pot found at the lower level in the interior, and the heat-fractured quern stone, also show clearly that the dun was burned out. It seems reasonable to conclude that the dun was attacked and burned, captured, the high wall (below) partly demolished, and that it was then reoccupied as a domestic site.

Significant too was the discovery in Trench IV of a few large blocks fallen from the inner wallface which had landed near the base of the dark earth and almost on the rock and had not been cleared away; they were embedded in Layer 2 most of which must have accumulated around them. This strongly suggests that the wall was becoming dilapidated – or had been deliberately demolished – at the end of Phase 2. Two paved hearths were found in Layer 2 inside the dun [10, Illus. 30] but the only other secondary stone structure found was a short flight of three shallow stone steps just inside the inner end of the entrance passage [10, Illus. 31]. These had been added on top of the primary paving and rested against the dark earth of Layer 2; they were bounded by a low curved revetment on the uphill side. The insertion of the steps was presumably necessary because of the steadily accumulating layer 2, which caused the floor level in the interior to get higher. Immediately to the north-west of these steps was a straight row of stone blocks which looked as if it too was holding back from the sunken entrance the piling up layers beyond it.

Phase 3 is this secondary re-occupation during which the two doorways from the central court to the intramural gallery were blocked up, and perhaps the remains of the intra-mural stair were removed. That some damage to the wall had been suffered before the Phase 3 occupation layer began to accumulate is shown 123 This comment reflects the failure to find a central hearth in Phase 2. If one is eventually found to exist under the shallow undug strata, north-west of Trench VI for example, then continuous habitation is more likely.

823

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland independently by the wall blocks lying in the interior near its base [10, Illus. 20, Trench IV, NE section).

There are two other objects which support this long chronology for the Hebridean middle Iron Age. The first is a fragment of silicic pumice from Phase 3 which was probably used as an abrader. The dark-brown fragment almost certainly comes from an eruption of Katla volcano in Iceland at around AD 400 (Newton 2002). A very similar piece comes from the later levels of Dun Mor Vaul, Tiree (site NM04 4).

Phase 4 is the final period of sporadic occupation to which only a handful of finds can be assigned, all from the topmost Layer 1 of earth and rubble in the interior of the dun. However these finds include two unique sherds apparently of late date, which are important for the chronology of the site (section 9.2 below).

The second piece of evidence is the fragment of what seems to be the twisted shaft of a zoomorphic pin, again from Phase 3 deposits [10, Illus. 25, no. 44). This type of pin (and the related Type F penannular brooch) is an almost exclusively Scottish development, concentrated in the highland area, and the form with the square head does not seem to appear in Atlantic Scotland before the 4th/5th centuries (Fowler 1963, 103, 121-22). A complete example comes from Howe (site HU21 6) (Ballin Smith (ed.) 1994, Illus. 133, no. 4314).

9.2 Dating Radiocarbon date: one C-14 date is never enough to give a really reliable indication of age. However, taken at face value, the one of 55 + 105 bc for the construction of Dun Ardtreck means, when calibrated, that there is a 2:1 chance that the dun was built between 114 BC and AD. 120. 124 There is no statistically significant difference between this date and others for the construction of hollow-walled brochs like Dun Mor Vaul on Tiree (site NM04 4), Leckie in Stirlingshire (site NS69 3) and Dun Flodigarry, Skye (site NG47 1).

9.3 The nature of the structure The arguments for and against Dun Ardtreck having been a D-shaped semibroch when it was built are set out in detail in the report and need not be repeated here. It is enough to note that the wall must have been considerably higher – containing at least two upper galleries – in order to be effective so Dun Ardtreck was once a truly broch-like structure, though perhaps not really tower-like. The absence of a stone intra-mural stair is a problem but the circumstantial evidence for there having been one at about 4 o’clock is quite strong.

Archaeological dating: reasonably firm dating for the end of Phase 2, the primary occupation of the stone stronghold, may be provided by the 2nd century Roman fragments 125 in the Phase 3 deposits, and more particularly in the body of the ramp which was probably constructed at the very beginning of Phase 3. If the sherds are of Antonine date the secondary occupation can hardly have begun before about AD 140, that being about the earliest date that such Roman fragments would have been available at the military sites in southern Scotland.

9.4 Material culture The material culture used from the very beginning of the site’s history seems to have been the standard middle Iron Age assemblage seen in so many other broch sites; there are no signs of early Iron Age material (except for the two black burnished sherds in a Phase 3 deposit). There is certainly nothing in to put the site back substantially earlier than the majority of the hollow-walled brochs.

The E ware fragment provides very important evidence for the length of the Phase 3 occupation and, by implication, for the time span of the middle period of the Atlantic Iron Age material culture in the west (classic middle Iron Age pot sherds were found in all parts of the Phase 3 deposits). The late 6th or 7th century imported sherd was recorded as coming from the base of the Phase 4 deposits, and resting on the dark earth of Phase 3, so it may be slightly later than the end of the middle Iron Age habitation. However it cannot be much later as almost no rubble and topsoil had accumulated on the habitation floor when it was dropped, and it seems certain that the final middle Iron Age occupation of Dun Ardtreck lasted well into the AD 500s. Evidence from a number of C-14 dates which points to a similar conclusion came from the broch at Scalloway, Shetland (site HU43 4).

Pottery: the pottery of the primary occupation, Phase 2, lacks any trace of Everted Rim ware which only appears on the site shortly after its destruction by fire. Only Vaul ware vases were found in the Phase 2 levels; for some reason the barrel-shaped Vaul urns – found with the vases in large numbers at Dun Mor Vaul – were absent from the site. This leads to the important conclusion that, contrary to what is clearly observable on Tiree (site NM04 4), Dun Ardtreck was not built by people with the new Everted Rim ware but by those using the much older native style. Thus it seems that most brochs and broch-like buildings do not by themselves mark the arrival of a new culture but were evidently adopted by local cultures in the western islands. This is also clearly seen at Dun Vulan in South Uist (site NF72 1) and at Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh on Loch Broom (site NH19 3).

124

Parker Pearson & Sharples (1999), 357. The 95% probability time span is 206 BC – AD 242. It is clear however that some 2nd century Samian sherds survived into much later contexts. For example one of those from Dun Ardtreck was in the topmost part of Layer 2, not far from the 7th century E ware sherd. A similar process can be seen in the late context of the two sherds of early Iron Age black-burnished ware.

125

824

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides However other major features of the Phase 2 material culture – like discoid rotary querns and tiny glass ring beads – are classic middle Iron Age types, so a range of new artifacts had evidently appeared on Skye not long before.

since the fortifications had been largely done away with. Domestic rubbish like animal bones occurred in all levels and tends to confirm that the site was permanently inhabited. A high status site? Other circumstantial evidence supports the view that this was a particularly high status site. If D- and C-shaped semibrochs are in general a little older than round broch towers then Dun Ardtreck is likely to have been one of the first – if not the first – of the new tower-like residences to have been built in the area, and this in itself surely implies that the resident chief was at least primus inter pares.

The E ware: the main recipient of these traded vessels was Dalriata, the ancient kingdom of the Scots in Argyllshire, and many sherds were found at Dunadd, the Scotic capital. Elsewhere in Scotland only individual pots have been found at three other sites apart from Dun Ardtreck, all important Pictish hillforts. It has been suggested that the E ware vessels there were diplomatic gifts sent by the king of Scots in Dunadd to Pictish potentates, possibly with Christian monks acting as intermediaries (Campbell 1986: 1991(ms)).

The discovery of two fragments of a fine, early Iron Age small, black-burnished carinated pot also surely implies high prestige. Larger forms of this kind of glossy pottery were in use in southern England in the 7th and 6th centuries BC and the presence of a small version on Skye (and a very similar copper-coloured one on Tiree – site NM04 4) must mean that the local chiefly line had social and perhaps trading relations with the far south. Lastly the presence of the piece of imported E ware on the site when it was about to be abandoned also clearly implies that Dun Ardtreck was a special place, perhaps because of its antiquity

The 7th century author and monk Adomnán of Iona tells the story of how Saint Columba visited Skye and preached (via an interpreter) to the chieftain Artbranan, at a place called dobur artbranani, the ‘water of Artbranan’. Watson (1926, 74) suggested that ‘Totarder’, or ‘Totardor’, might preserve this name; this settlement is in Bracadale, just across Loch Harport from Dun Ardtreck (NG/371399) and close to the stream Allt Mor which runs down into Loch Beag. This all suggests that even at this late date Dun Ardtreck was a place of high prestige which might have been closely linked with Columba’s missionary efforts in Skye and therefore with the Pictish élite. It is striking too that one of the few Pictish stones found in Skye came from the beach of Fiskavaig Bay, just south of Dun Ardtreck (RCAHMS 1999, 28) [2, 149, fig. 213].

Roman contact? The array of Roman finds from this site is certainly unusual and might be interpreted as the result of a visit by a Roman fleet seeking a safe harbour in Loch Harport. Particularly striking are the fragments of a small jar of Severn Valley ware which was on the site – perhaps intact and containing wine – before the fire and destruction. Likewise the unique door-handle was also on the site before the fire and, though no parallels have yet been found, the possibility cannot be excluded that this too – like the burnt melon bead – was a Roman gi ft to the resident chief in Phase 2. Lastly the axe-hammer – although it was dropped and abandoned at the end of Phase 3 (perhaps in the 6th century) – seems to be a standard Roman military type; it too might have arrived with the other items mentioned, survived the fire and been kept as an heirloom. The steel of which it is made is of very high quality (Photos Jones 2002).

9.5 Function and status of Dun Ardtreck The primary purpose of Dun Ardtreck can be partly inferred from its situation on an almost perfect naturally defensive knoll on a high cliff. The heavy outer wall, the massive structure of the original main wall, its probable great height and the fortified entrance passage all imply that Dun Ardtreck was built as a defensible stronghold – presumably either as the military castle or the fortified farmhouse of a local chief. Questions of prestige and display were doubtless important too. Unfortunately the evidence recovered from the primary floor was insufficient to fill out either of these pictures; the failure to find a large central hearth could be significant,126 though it is just possible that one still exists undiscovered between trenches VI and XIV. Neither were any post-holes discovered, though of course any resting directly on the bedrock are unlikely to have left any trace. However the material on the primary floor included ordinary domestic material like rotary querns, so Dun Ardtreck was presumably built as a fortified dwelling of some kind. Clearly the site was a more ordinary dwelling, with a lower roof, in Phase 3

If a Roman fleet did indeed come by at some stage, and if the Praefectus classis (admiral) or his representative did give some presents to the chief of the day, then the implications of what was doubtless a spectacular Imperial visit could have been twofold. In the first place the Prefect would surely have made his first contact with the most important chief of the district, perhaps of the whole island; this supports the idea that there was something special about Dun Ardtreck. In the second place such an Imperial visit, at the height of Roman power and with spectacular gifts, would itself have contributed to the prestige of the ruling family and their stronghold. Perhaps this partly explains why the

126

The hearth at Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh (NH19 3) was missed in the first season of excavation because of the layout of the trenches.

825

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland E ware vessel (or a bit of it) arrived there some centuries later.

‘cords’ seem likely to be tubular iron rods. The flat bar forms a hinge with the ring by being bent loosely round it and it has been fastened to the wooden door with two flat-headed nails or rivets; a square metal washer can be seen under the head of the one nearest the ring..

10. Finds list The full catalogue of the metal finds was prepared by Angela Nicholson (née Jensen), and that for the stone, glass and pottery by Philip Dearie. A detailed account of everything – prepared by material and linked to the site stratigraphy – is in the National Monuments Record in Edinburgh. The more important finds have been illustrated and published [10, Illus. 21-29]; the figure references below are to this report and the numbers in brackets refer to specific objects illustrated there.

There is reason to believe that this artifact originally had another purpose and that its function as the door handle for a dun was secondary. The two rivets clearly show that the bar was originally fastened to a flat piece of wood only 7-10 mm thick which seems much too thin for the massive door of an Iron Age dun. Perhaps the piece of wood bearing the handle was itself nailed to the door and the fitting had been taken, for example, from a wooden chest.128

10.1 Finds from Phase 1 The only stratum likely to contain objects deposited when the fort was constructed was the rubble foundation platform. The parts which projected into the central court were extensively searched but only two base sherds were found [10, Illus. 21, no. 1]. However both of these bore a finger-impressed pattern on their upper surfaces, possibly a significant trait.

Objects of copper alloy. These include a small piece of spiral wire found with the red bead (Phase 2/3, below) and a small penannular ring (no. 21). An intact ringheaded pin with a projecting head (no. 7) was found lying on the external paving after the excavation had ended and almost certainly belongs to Phase 1 or 2. Bone implements include a spatulate tool (no. 26), a perforated fish gorge (no. 25), and a heavy awl or piercer (no. 28).

Bone objects included a spatulate implement (no. 5). Glass objects included 2 small ring-beads, though these are likely to have slipped down from the cluster of such beads dropped at the end of Phase 2.

Stone objects include an oval disc, perhaps a small palette (no. 31), 2 joining fragments of a rotary quern showing signs of severe heating (no. 30), half of another such quern (no. 29), a hammerstone, a faceted pebble grinder (like no. 33), a fragment of mica and 69 cokelike lumps, presumably severely heated bits of soil and stones.

10.2 Finds from Phase 2 These included artifacts which were found in the central court and more or less directly on the rock or on the surface of the rubble platform. The assumption is made that a fierce fire burnt inside the dun at the end of Phase 2 so that any heated objects at the appropriate level also belong to the end of this phase. Objects which might belong to the very beginning of Phase 3 – i.e. Phase 2/3 – are listed separately in Section 10.4 below.

Fired clay: 2 crucible fragments without any clear signs of heating (nos. 4 & 8). Glass: 21 small ring-beads (nos. 8-9) [10, Illus. 28], a large red ring-bead (which had a small length of spiral bronze wire threaded through it) (no. 51) [10, Illus. 28].

Iron objects. The main find is the unique ring-handle which was found in the entrance passage (above) and is assumed to have been attached to the inside of the wooden door; it must have been lying there buried throughout the long secondary use of the dun. A detailed description has been published [10, 384]. The object is in two parts, a ring and a flat iron bar wrapped round it to form a simple hinge (Illus. 8.84).

Pottery: the main finds of pottery from the primary level were fragments of 4 vessels, apparently broken in situ; the pieces of Vases 1-4 were resting on the rock floor and the paved area in the south-east part of the interior. Vase 5 was less well preserved and may be slightly later (nos. 6, 7, 12, 16 & 31). All these pots are Vaul ware vases of the kind found in large numbers in all levels at Dun Mor Vaul on Tiree and in other Hebridean sites. No Vaul barrel-shaped urns were found at Dun Ardtreck. Two of these vases showed very clear signs of severe heating. For example some of the sherds of Vase 4 were relatively undamaged but joining fragments were blistered and coke-like, implying that the pot had been broken before the destructive fire re-heated the pieces.

The ring itself appears to be unique in Iron Age and Roman Britain and looks like a rope quoit. Three lengths of an iron cord 4-5 mm thick have been twisted to form a rope 11-13mm in diameter. Although each cord looks as if it is made by twisting together several thin iron wires (Illus. 8.80) neither conservation and cleaning 127 nor examination under a binocular microscope revealed clear traces of such strands; the 127 The author is extremely grateful to will Murray who undertook, during the 1980s, the cleaning and conservation of the many iron finds from Leckie broch (site NS69 2) and also of the ‘door handle’ from Dun Ardtreck. The excellent results can be clearly seen in Illus. 8.80.

128

Perhaps a search of through the records of Roman stone relief carvings might reveal a representation of an iron- handled chest.

826

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides 10.3 Finds from Phase 2/3 As mentioned earlier some of these finds could belong to the time of the destruction of the dun and some to the very beginning of the secondary occupation inside the reduced walls which seems to have followed the fire quite quickly. Most of the objects came from inside the dun; the few which came from the body of the ramp are indicated.

axe hammer, apparently of standard Roman army issue, was found embedded in the top of the layer (no. 24). There were 15 lumps of slag. Copper alloy: an apparent spiral finger-ring of unusual design in fact seems to be the twisted shaft of a long zoomorphic pin, probably of 4th or 5th century date (no. 44) (Ballin Smith 1994, Illus, 133, no. 4314). A length of double-linked chain must be part of a chain brooch a complete example of which was found at Leckie broch (site NS69 2); a similar fragment was found at Clickhimin in the pre-broch fort middens (Hamilton 1956, 80 & fig. 40, no. 3). A well preserved needle with short grooves above and below the eye could be Roman (no. 41). A corroded ring-headed pin with the head detached from the sha ft is probable of the Scottish type with a projecting head (no. 38). Several fragments of rod were found, perhaps pieces of a pin shaft, and there were fragments of sheet metal with small rivets (no. 22).

Iron objects included a tanged knife blade (no. 36) and a nail or bolt. Also probably belonging to the end of Phase 2 is a considerable quantity of iron slag which was found scattered over the rock floor of the outer entrance. Copper alloy objects included 1 corroded ring-headed pin with a projecting head (no. 38), a pin shaft, probably of a short ring-headed pin (no. 34), a small ring swivelling in the tubular end of a flat bar (no. 43) and a small disc-shaped object with an upright flange (like a tiny frying-pan) of unknown function (no. 42).

Bone and antler: a long, thin rod, perhaps a probe combined with a spatula, with one pointed end and the other thicker and spatulate (no. 58), 1 polished antler tine sawn across (no. 6), 2 antler tines looking as if they were being made into bridle cheek-pieces (nos. 60 & 61), 1 tine sawn as if to be a knife handle (no. 62), 1 tine with a utilised point (no. 8), and a polished bone spatulate implement (no. 59). Many large pieces of unworked antler were also in Layer 2.

Bone and antler: 1 fragment of bone with cut-marks, 1 small cylindrical handle, probably for a tiny metal pin or awl (no. 40) and a small awl or point (no. 64). Stone objects: 2 pebble hammer-stones. Amber: 1 triangular perforated bead with clear signs of burning on one face (no. 39). Pottery: there were sherds of both decorated Vaul ware vases and of Everted Rim ware, the first presence of the latter on the site being confirmed by 2 base fragments without a foot. One of the rim sherds has fluting along the inner face, a form sometimes known as the Clickhimin style after the Shetland site (HU44 1).

Stone objects: these included 1 complete jet ring or pendant (no. 56), 2 small washer-like rings which may also be a form of shale (no. 57), 4 crude pebble hammerstones (nos. 9 & 10), 1 fine pebble grinder, 1 large whetstone, suitable originally for a sword blade or something similar but both ends of which were used, presumably after breakage, for grinding (no. 68), several smaller whetstones (no. 67), 1 with a rectangular crosssection, 1 fragment of the upper stone of a rotary quern, a large decorated spindle whorl (no. 65), one oval pebble, probably a palm protector, with a pecked hollow in the middle of each face (no. 66) and 2 possible counters made from small, unworked pebbles. The rectangular stone palette (no. 73) was found in a spoil heap but probably belongs here. A fragment of Icelandic pumice was an abrader of some kind.

Roman finds: 8 sherds of a small storage jar of Severn valley ware were found inside the body of the ramp (no. 21). This pottery is not found before the Antonine period (c. AD 140-160) on Roman sites in southern Scotland and continues to appear on Hadrian’s wall sites in even later contexts; a few late 1st century examples have been found at Chester (Webster 2002). The small bronze swivelling ring attached to a tube formed by the end of a folded-over strip may be Roman, as also may be the tiny ‘frying-pan’-like object.

Glass: 2 small yellow annular beads (nos. 3 & 4) and 2 similar beads of blue glass (nos. 52 & 53) [10, Illus 28]. A Roman bead and a glass fragment are mentioned below.

10.4 Finds from Phase 3 The great majority of these finds came from the dark earth Layer 2 inside the dun; those which were found near the bottom of Layer 2, and may belong to the end of Phase 2, have already been listed. Iron objects: blade, perhaps probable knife shaft (no. 49).

Objects of fired clay: these include a spindle whorl made from a potsherd (no. 63) and a crucible or miniature pot (no. 47). There was also a small red counter made from a piece of Roman samian ware.

these included 1 well preserved knife tanged (no. 47), 2 more fragments of blades (nos. 6 & 7) and a rod or pin There were also many nails. A massive

Roman finds: these included the iron axe-hammer already mentioned, 1 tiny fragment of green glass and 827

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland about a quarter of a melon bead of once blue faience but which had been severely burned to a grey, coke-like texture (no. 54) [10, Illus. 28]. There were also 3 samian sherds of Central Gaulish make and of Antonine (mid 2nd century) date, including a rim fragment of a decorated bowl (no. 64) and a sherd cut down into a circular counter (no. 65). The bronze needle has already been mentioned, as have 2 other curious bronze objects.

1965a, 277: 5. MacKie 1965b; 6. MacKie 1969, 23-24: 7. MacKie 1975b, 166: 8. MacSween 1985, 53, no. 76 & fig. 76: 9. Swanson 1985 (ms), 888-91: 10. MacKie 2002a. NG33 3 DUN BEAG NG/340386 (GPS NG/3401 3856) This ground-galleried broch in Bracadale, Skye, stands in a commanding position, on a steep-sided rock knoll on relatively low, undulating moorland (visited 20/4/63, in 1985 & in 2003) (Illus. 3.5, 8.73 & 8.82 8.92); it is only about 200m from the old road from which it could be clearly seen and it overlooks the sea and tracts of agricultural land (Illus. 8.82).

Pottery: many sherds were found, including numerous pieces of cordoned Everted Rim ware with footless bases (with occasional examples of the curvilinear decoration (nos. 50 & 53) and incised line-decorated Vaul ware vases with footed bases (nos. 40 & 44). There were occasional examples of the variety of Everted Rim ware with parallel fluted lines along the inner face of the rim – the Clickhimin style (nos. 19, 23, 24, 29 & 30). This middle Iron Age pottery was found right up to the top of layer 2.

1. Introduction The broch was excavated by the Countess Vincent Baillet de Latour and the work lasted from 1914 until 1920. Although the standard of recording and publication was low even for that date a careful search seems to have been made for finds even though these could not be related to any site stratigraphy. Some 200 tons of earth and stones were removed from the broch and all the soil was sifted through the excavators’ fingers. Also the Countess evidently hoped to discover a sequence of floor levels inside (see “The excavations” below).

Two sherds of a very unusual small, black burnished early Iron Age vessel were found (no. 65a); it is of hard-fired, fine ware with a glossy black surface, a footless base with a slight upward curvature of the underside 129 and a shallow but distinct and sharp shoulder. The similarity with the copper-coloured small jar at Dun Mor Vaul is extraordinary (MacKie 1974, fig. 13, no. 113) (Illus. 8.237) and one can assume that this vessel also had a straight and sharply everted rim. Its manufacture ought to date to the 7th or 6th centuries BC and it has surely to be diagnosed as an heirloom, kept for many years.

2. History of visits to the site A local resident informed Callender [4] that much damage had been done to the structure in the middle of the 19th century at which time the lintels over the entrance passage had been removed. This story of destruction seems to be confirmed by Pennant’s account which says –

Another important sherd was found lying on top of the Phase 3 dark earth deposits and proved to be a fragment of the rim of a wheel-made pot of E ware of west French origin and dateable to the late 6th and 7th centuries (Campbell 2000). This strongly implies that Dun Ardtreck, if not still continuously occupied, was probably still roofed and useable in the later 6th century. Some further comments on this sherd are in the Discussion (above).

“Within are the vestiges of five apartments, one in the centre” (presumably the central court) “four around; the walls are eighteen feet high.” [2, 202 & pl. xxxvi] (vol. 1, Illus. 3.5). However in the following year a broch near Ullinish – which must be Dun Beag – was visited by Dr Samuel Johnson and James Boswell and the former described the wall as having a height of only 9 feet (2.75m) [3, 64]. The discrepancy illustrates how difficult it is to rely on the measurements of 18th century travellers who rarely say whether they were making estimates of dimensions by eye or whether they carried a tape measure. In fact the figure given by Pennant (who seems to have carried a tape: see footnote 154) seems to match his drawing (Illus. 3.05) which shows the maximum wall height as about a third of the total diameter 18.6m (61 ft) in places, that is about 6.1m (20 ft).

Fired clay: objects include a spindle whorl made from a potsherd (no. 63), and a crucible or miniature pot (no. 47). 10.5 Finds from Phase 4 Few were found and they include 2 sherds of an unique slightly barrel-shaped pot with an upright rim. This, being quite unlike the Iron Age wares on the site, has been tentatively compared with Irish Dark Age ‘souterrain ware’ and with the Dark Age pottery from Dun Cuier on Barra (Young 1956). There was also a steatite spindle whorl or bead (no. 72). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 33 NW 5: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 144-45, no. 484: 3. MacKie 1965c: 4. MacKie 129

Even if one makes allowances for the tendency of early illustrators to exaggerate the vertical scale, a height of at least 3.67-4.58m (12-15 ft) in 1772 seems indicated. Since the wall is now not much above 1.83m [6 ft) high

The so-called omphalos or omphaloid base.

828

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides it is clear that the broch has lost at least a half of its wall height during the last 230 years. This must mean that Dun Beag was once a true broch tower, with at least one upper intra-mural gallery, and probably at least part of a second, still remaining in 1772. By 1985 the wallhead had been turfed over by the then Scottish Development Department130 which has also erected a notice. By 2003 there was an excellent path to the site from a convenient parking place on the main road.

gallery at about scarcement level (which would therefore have been in Level 2), but may be confusing this with the (now buried) raised gallery door in Level 1 at the same point (below). At 5.30 o’clock there is a round mural cell in the position of a guard cell but with its door leading into the central court (Illus. 8.88). On the opposite side of the entrance, at just beyond 7 o’clock, is the doorway to the intra-mural stair which rises to the right (Illus. 8.87 & 8.89); a stair-foot guard cell opens to the left (Illus. 8.90). Both these cells are round-ended with traces of a corbelled beehive roof, but both have lost most of their domes. When first exposed the stair had 21 steps rising 2.4m (8 ft) over 3.3m (11 ft), that is at an angle of 36 degrees; 13 steps are visible now (Illus. 8.89). The average height of the risers is 10cm (4.5in) and the average width of the steps 15cm (6in).

3. The structure The outer face is exceptionally well built of rectangular and square blocks of stone skilfully fitted together with the minimum of pinning (Illus. 8.84). This kind of care in selecting and fitting facing stones is extremely unusual in brochs outside the sandstone areas of Caithness and Orkney and suggests a particularly high status site. The outer face also shows a marked batter. Where it has fallen away the rubble core can be seen and this too seems to have been unusually well and carefully laid; there are few signs of this core collapsing outwards.

On the opposite side of the court, at about 1 o’clock, is the slightly raised doorway to the mural gallery; the latter appears to run right round the wall from below the stair at 8 o’clock as far as the cell at 5 o’clock. When first exposed the doorway was carefully blocked with good masonry (see Dun Ardtreck – NG33 1). The raised sill of this door is level with the rocky outcrop in the central court but is 73cm (2 ft 5in) above the floor of the gallery. The opening is now hidden under debris.

Level 1: the entrance (Illus. 8.85), on the east-southeast, faces the edge of the knoll and is difficult to get into; it is 3.91m (13 ft) in length and 91cm (3 ft) wide at the outer end where there is a large threshold stone. A door-frame formed of built rebates or checks is at 4.33m (4 ft 5in) from the exterior; the rebates are 17.5 and 20.0cm (7 and 8in) deep. The passage then expands to 1.28m (4 ft 3in), decreasing again to 90cm (3 ft) at the inner end. No bar-holes are now visible and there are no guard cells. The passage is paved with stone slabs. As noted above, the passage seems to have retained its roofing lintels until about the mid 19th century [4]; in 1772 Samuel Johnson noted that “the entrance is covered with flat stones and is narrow.”

The gallery itself varies in width from 60 - 75cm (2-2.5 ft) and its walls remain standing to a height of 1.35m (4 ft 6 in). It was not completely cleared by the excavators at either end for fear of collapse. At present (2003) it is about half full of debris and the irregular surface formed by this is turfed. Levels 2 & 3: there may be traces of an upper gallery at about 5 o’clock, at a height of about 2.15m (7 ft) above the floor, but no flooring lintels can be seen. As noted the 18th century records imply that at least one and perhaps two upper galleries were preserved in 1772 but no details of these can be recovered.

The central court is clear of debris and very nearly circular [4, 113], having a diameter of 10.78m (35 ft 4in); there is a large, rather uneven area of rock outcrop in the middle [9, 883, plan] and Swanson points out that this feature implies the existence of a level, raised wooden floor [9, 881]. On the other hand the high level of the sill of the gallery door at 1.30 o’clock (below) could suggest that the primary floor of the interior was made up to this height, which is also about the height of the top of the rock outcrop; presumably there would then have been steps up to it from the entrance passage. The excavators could well have removed such floor packing without recognising its significance.

4. The excavations Before the Countess’ excavations began there were 1.2 1.8m (4 - 6 ft) of debris inside the broch, the cells and entrance passage. It was hoped that distinct occupation levels would be found inside the building, especially near the floor [4]. However the interior had evidently been much disturbed in later times; regular networks of stone-built drains were found at all levels in the fill in which there were also many layers of red peat ash. A crude secondary wall, faced on only one side, was found in the north-east sector; the core of this included deposits of ash and sherds implying that the debris round about was used to build it. The mural gallery was full of earth with many animal bones. In the 18th century there were evidently traces of round stone structures in the central court [2, 3] and these doubtless belong to one of these later periods of occupation.

No trace of a scarcement was observed by the author on the inner wallface which nowhere now stands more than about 1.8m high. Swanson however says that a fragment of it is still visible on the south-west arc, its width being about 40 cm. She also refers to the remains of a raised door at about 1.30 o’clock which leads into the 130

Now Historic Scotland.

829

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland The south part of the central court had a pavement of slabs which evened off the floor to the level of the rock outcrop.

Bone and antler: the only bone tools were 1 wedgeshaped awl or borer and 1 pick of red deer antler with all the tines cut off. Stone artifacts included about 20 hammerstones, 2 whetstones, 1 thin polished disc (the upper side polished), 1 ground disc of dark micaceous stone (both faces and edges ground: diameter 8.5cm); 1 rough disc (diameter 8.2cm), probably a pot-lid, 1 handled cup of steatite (Illus. 8.91, upper left), 8 grooved pebble strikea-lights with signs of use with iron strikers, 10 whorls, several of steatite, 1 ball 3.8cm in diameter with a deep hole 7 mm in diameter drilled into it, 1 pear-shaped pendant, 10 fragmentary upper and lower stones of rotary querns, 1 miniature rotary quern, 3 moulds for casting bronze bars or ingots (one cut into a rotary quern fragment – Illus. 8.91, top right), and several pumice fragments, one with sharpening grooves. Glass objects included several hundred globular beads, some plain and others in various shades of blue, amber, red, green and white; they were not thought to be prehistoric though, oddly, most were found near the bottom of the debris inside the broch. There were several other beads including two – dark and milky-blue respectively – with inlays of white and yellow respectively; 1 armlet fragment of Iron Age type was found at the lowest level, D-shaped in section and made of translucent green glass with an external coat of opaque milky white and inlaid with three narrow bands of yellow. Pottery: the Iron Age pottery from this site has recently been discussed by MacSween [10] but the absence of any except the most general stratigraphical information inhibits any useful interpretation unless the evidence from other sites is considered.131 It consists of a mixture of plain and decorated wares, the latter mostly having patterns of incised lines and looking like Vaul ware vases. One or two cordoned sherds, and at least one rim, of Everted Rim ware are present. A complete base sherd shows a pattern of finger-impressions on the inside surface (Illus. 8.92, bottom). The plain ware appears mainly to be of Vaul ware vases but one unusual fine, barrel-shaped vessel is present (Illus. 8.91, lower right).

5. Discussion The information from the excavation of this broch is not detailed enough to allow any confident inferences about whether the broch had a primary and a secondary occupation, or whether the high, hollow wall was largely pulled down at some stage. These possibilities do exist, but mainly because of evidence from other sites. The fact that the interior seems to have been comprehensively disturbed in later times probably means that any internal stratigraphy had already been destroyed. One clue may be relevant however; the gallery door was carefully blocked with walling when it was found. This almost certainly means that – as at Dun Ardtreck (NG33 2) – the upper walls of the broch were pulled down at some stage, filling the lowest gallery with rubble which was retained by this blocking. Using this one small clue, and evidence from other better excavated sites, one could infer that some of the Iron Age pottery and relics found in Dun Beag belong to a secondary phase of occupation, probably a fter part of the upper wall of what is assumed to have been a tower had been pulled down; the fill of earth and bone refuse in the mural gallery also suggests this. However the Iron Age pottery forms a homogeneous collection so – even though some of it apparently came from under paving at a low level – it cannot be used by itself to suggest an earlier and a later occupation. It is also obvious that a variety of later occupations took place inside the ruined broch, perhaps during the Norse period [10, fig. 45, no. 15] and certainly during historic times. 6. The finds: (Illus. 8.91 & 8.92) Most of the Iron Age pottery and nearly all the other ancient relics were found at the lowest level inside the broch, sometimes under the paving. By contrast there were many fragments of craggans, a relatively recent pottery style, at various higher levels of the central court. There was an almost complete absence of horn and bone tools. Iron implements included fragments of slag, 1 tanged knife 12cm (4.75 in) long, and a possible spearhead 8cm (3.25 in) long. Copper alloy included 2 rings, 1 thin, oval, penannular wire ring (possibly from a loose-ring-headed pin), and 4 bronze pins. There were also several crucibles, round or conical of which only 1 was complete, and some stone moulds (below). Gold: 1 flattened ring was found about 91cm (3 ft) high in the debris, and there was also 1 small strip. Lead: a small piece of sheet lead was found (if ancient this should indicate some kind of Roman contact).

7. Dimensions [5] External diameter c. 18.61m (61 ft), internal 10.68m (35 ft 0in), very close to the 1971 survey figure given below; the wall base varies from 3.66 - 4.17m (12 ft -13 ft 8in) and the wall proportion is therefore c. 42.5%. In 1971 an angle and distance survey of the inner wallface was undertaken with a theodolite and steel tape. The central court proved to be very close to an exact circle [4, 113] with a radius of 5.39 + 0.05 m, equivalent to a diameter of 10.78m (35 ft 4in).

131 MacSween’s analysis is hampered by her not considering the evidence of the long and reasonably well dated ceramic sequence from Dun Mor Vaul, Tiree, published twenty-eight years earlier (site NM04 4: MacKie 1965a & 1974).

830

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 33 NW 3: 2. Pennant 1784-96, [5th edn.), pt. 2, 292 & pl. xxxvii: 3. Chapman, ed., 1995, 64-65: 4. Callender 1921: 5. RCAHMS 1928, 142-43, no. 479, & figs. 201-04: 6. Graham 1947, 97: 7. Young 1962, 188, no. 43: 8. MacSween 1985, 41, no. 4 & fig. 4: 9. Swanson 1985 (ms), 880-83 & plan: 10. MacSween 2002.

NG/3098 4260 A very dilapidated possible broch in Bracadale, Skye, standing on a rocky knoll 9.05-12.2m (30-40 ft) high. The name used here is instead of that created by the Commission (after the nearby stream) and was suggested by Swanson [4]; it seems very appropriate because Dunalighlinn, the abandoned settlement nearby, must surely have taken its own name from the traditional one of the much older fortified site.

NG33 4 DUN DIARMAID NG/3545 3816 The remains of a possible broch or dun [3] stand on an irregular rocky knoll in Bracadale, Skye. The building has been oval and the entrance has been on the westsouth-west [4] but is destroyed; however enough remains to indicate a length of 3.43m (11 ft 3in); another source says 3.7m [4]. A more recent account says that the outer and inner wallfaces survive in places [1]. On the south side the wall is only about 2.2m [4], somewhat thin for a broch. On the other hand a scarcement about 45cm wide has been observed on the inner wallface on the south side, at about 3 o’clock [4, plan].

The building [4, plan] has been reduced to a ring of stones and earth 1.22-1.83m (4-6 ft) high. Traces of the lowest course of the inner and outer faces of the wall indicate an internal diameter of 10.98-9.46m (36 - 31 ft) and a wall thick-ness of from 3.51 - 3.66m (11.5 - 12 ft) [2]. There are signs of the entrance on the east-northeast with the remains of a door-check in its south side in the form of an upright slab [1]. There are traces of a later, possibly circular structure inside the broch [4, plan]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 34 SW 2: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 143, no. 481: 3. MacSween 1985, 45, no. 24: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 875, plan.

Dimensions: the internal diameter is 8.85m (29 ft) east-west and 7.63m (25 ft) north-south [2]. Swanson gives the north-south measurement as 8m below scarcement level [4].

NG34 2 DUN ARKAIG NG/3499 4261 This broch, probably ground-galleried, in Bracadale, Skye, stands about 30.5m (100 ft) above sea level on a rocky crag half way up the side of Glen Ose, a shallow valley in the middle of the west coast of the island (visited 21/4/63 & 17/8/85) (Illus. 8.93 – 8.97). This valley contains abundant traces of former cultivation in the form of ruined crofts, rig-and-furrow marks, old field dykes and so on. It is in fact the second largest ‘green glen’ in Skye. The valley floor is now very wet, presumably because it is no longer drained and cultivated.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 33 NE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 145, no. 485: 3. MacSween 1985, 44, no. 23: 4. Swanson 1985 (ms), 886 & plan. NG33 5 DUN GARSIN NG/3609 3878 This probable broch, perhaps ground-galleried, in Bracadale, Skye, stands on the summit of a flat-topped crag; most of its stones were removed to build a revetment on the side of the road to Sligachan “many years” before 1915 [2]. There are faint traces of an outer wall around the summit but the main building is nothing but a mass of stones. The overall diameter has been about 16.78m (55 ft) and on the south-south-east there is a trace of what may be the face of the inner wall of a ground level mural gallery. There may be an entrance on the east-north-east [1].

Description The structure is dilapidated, a condition explained by the many recent walls nearby [4, plan] (Illus. 8.93). The outer wallface stands 0.9 - 1.5m (3 - 5 ft) high in places but is reduced to the foundation course on the north. The ruined and blocked entrance passage is on the north-east and is 0.9m (3 ft) wide at the outer end (Illus. 8.196); a large slab is set into its right or north wall at 1.2m (4 ft) from the exterior and appears to be a doorcheck. There are no signs of a check on the left but what appears to be the side of a doorway to a left guard cell is visible [4].

Dimensions: a recent survey [1] gives an internal diameter north-south of 8.0m and a wall thickness of 3.1m in the north and 3.5m in the south [1]. However Swanson’s 1985 plan does not show enough of the wallfaces to measure [4, plan].

The inner wallface may be 2.1m (7 ft) high but it is largely hidden by debris except on the south [4]. There are traces of a mural gallery visible from about 6.30-10 o’clock, and at one point near the entrance two lintels can be seen with one or two courses of the inner face of what should be an upper gallery above them. Clearly there is a gallery at ground level here. However it may not be a continuous one as this stretch, to the left of the

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 33 NE 1: 2. RCAHMS 1928, no. 482, p. 143: 3. MacSween 1985, 41, no. 3: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 884 & plan. Square NG34 NG34 1 DUN Mheadonaich’)

ALIGHLINN

(‘Abhainn

Bhaile

831

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland main entrance, ends in a curved wall (Illus. 8.97); by this point it has gradually widened to about 1.53m (5 ft) [2]. Swanson shows the inner face of a gallery continuing clockwise from this point, from about 9.3012 o’clock [4, plan]. She also shows a blocked-up door to this gallery at 12 o’clock which is not mentioned in her text.

ft) above sea level on a hillside; it is built near the edge of a slight rocky bluff. In the shapeless heap of stones only the foundation stones of the outer wallface are visible as a ring of boulders [2] but most of the inner wallface can be traced [1]. There are no signs of the entrance but short lengths of a narrow mural gallery are apparent on the north-west, south-west and south-east sides; in the north-west it is from 0.5 - 0.8m in width [4].

There is an outer casing wall, strongly battered, resting against the outer face of the broch on the west, from about 11.30 to 2 o’clock (Illus. 8.95); this feature seems likely to be a mass of stones, faced with squarish blocks, which has been stacked against the foot of the broch here in early times. Its appearance recalls the ‘casing walls’ found against some brochs in Caithness and Orkney, and it is possible that the feature is evidence of the deliberate demolition of the broch in Iron Age times. It is of particular interest in that it is, so far, unique in the west. There may be a later structure buried in the rubble of the interior [4].

The remains of a bank of earth and stone run across the ridge, some 4.0m from the broch on the north-west, and some outward facing blocks suggest that this was a massive outer defensive wall. At least two buildings can be traced around its base, one on the north-west and the other on the south-east [1]. Dimensions: external diameter c. 17.1m (56 ft), internal c. 10.07m (33 ft): the wall proportion is therefore about 41%.

There are traces of an outer wall crossing the ridge about 11m from the broch entrance (Illus. 8.94); in line with this entrance there seems to be a break which could be an outer gate [4]. On both sides of the ridge this wall turns west as if to pass close by the broch but there is little to be seen here because of the steepness of the slopes, and because of the presence of sheer crags on the north.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 35 SE 4: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 160, no. 512: 3. MacSween 1985, 43, no. 14 & fig. 14: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 842-43 & plan. NG35 3 DUN FLASHADER NG/3511 5349 This very dilapidated probable broch in Duirinish, Skye, stands about 66m (200 ft) above the sea on a flattopped rocky eminence surrounded by crags about 8.3m (25 ft) high (visited 24/4/63). It dominates a fertile patch of land on which the village of Flashader stands and lies between the village and the sea. The situation suggests that a view of the sea was considered desirable when the broch was built as there are equally suitable elevations further inland.

Dimensions External diameter c. 16.5m (54 ft): the wall is about 3.97m (13 ft) thick at the foundations so the internal diameter is about 8.54m (28 ft) and the wall proportion about 48%. Swanson gives the internal diameter as about 9m [4]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 34 SW 1.00: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 143, no. 480: 3. MacSween 1985, 412, no. 5 & fig. 5: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 877-79 & plan.

The structure is badly ruined and the only parts of the outer face visible are on the north and west arcs (with a short length on the south [4]), where the foundation stones remain. The north wall of the entrance passage is traceable on the west-south-west, with a possible slab door-check near the present outer end and another similar upright slab directly opposite it [4]. There is a ruined cell or gallery, 1.02m (3 ft 5in) wide, in the wall nearby and to the right of the passage; one lintel over the cell can be seen in situ at the end furthest from the entrance but whether this is a guard cell or not cannot now be determined [4]. The interior wallface stands from 90cm - 1.5m high (3 5 ft) and was mainly hidden by rubble in 1963; in 1985 it was visible most of the way round [4]. On the north-east, at about 1 o’clock [4, plan], are signs of another cell or gallery in the wall with traces of the right side of a door into it; this door is 1.28m (4 ft 4in) deep. The curved west end of the gallery can be seen and it is possible that this is the end of the stair-foot guard cell and that the intra-mural stair is to the right of the doorway [4].

Square NG35 NG35 1 DUN BORVE 1 NG/3426 5257 Possible broch in Duirinish, Skye, standing on a rocky ridge on the east shore of Loch Greshornish. The building has been almost completely removed leaving a heap of stone about 1.53m (5 ft) high and 16.17m (53 ft) in diameter overall. The dimensions and the situation suggest that this is a broch. Sources: 1. as card NG 35 SW 3: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 160-61, no. 515: 3. MacSween 1985, 45, no. 27: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 836 & plan. NG35 2 DUN EDINBAIN (‘Dun Edinbane’) NG/3535 5092 This probable ground-galleried broch in Duirinish, Skye, is badly dilapidated and stands about 107m (350 832

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides There are two ruined hut circles to the south and west of the broch, and there is part of what seems to be a separate galleried wall about 13m to its north-east [1]. This feature is shown on Swanson’s plan where it appears to be part of a long mound or forework; however the chronological relationship of this feature to the broch has to remain uncertain [4, plan].

possible to see whether defensive gaps had been left between them which could be used from the chamber above. This feature has been described as the curved north end of an oval cell or long gallery [1, 5] but this is hardly possible in view of the fact that it faces the domed corbelled roof of the guard cell on the opposite side of the passage. The existence of this chamber confirms that the building is a broch.

Dimensions: external diameter about 17.4m (58 ft), internal diameter 10.35m (34 ft 6 in), wall 3.68m (12 ft 3 in) thick: the wall proportion is therefore c. 42.5%. Swanson gives the internal diameter as 10.6m north/ south and 10.8m east/west, and the wall thickness as from 3.8-4.0m [4]. The wall proportion would then be about 48%.

Another oval mural cell is visible at about 10.30 o’clock but its door is concealed: it is 3.56m (11 ft 8 in) in length, 1.66m (5 ft 5 in) wide and 2.1m (7 ft) high to the broken roof. A short distance to the right of this cell, at about 12 o’clock, is the lintelled door to a length of mural gallery which runs to the right (clockwise) and which contains the mural stair; several steps of this are exposed at about 1 o’clock (Illus. 8.103). It is doubtful if there is a stair-foot guard cell in this broch as the cell, at 10.30 o’clock, seems too close to the stair door.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 35 SE 3: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 160, no. 513: 3. MacSween 1985, 43, no. 15 & fig. 15: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 833-34 & plan. NG35 4 DUN SULEDALE (‘Dun Suladale’) NG/3744 5255 This broch, perhaps of the solid-based type, is in Snizort, Skye, and is the best preserved of these structures in the island and stands about 91.5m (300 ft) above the sea on a broad-topped rock knoll on hilly moorland (visited 22/4/63 & 14/8/85). An outer wall runs round the edge of the knoll. The site has an excellent view of the sea and overlooks an agricultural valley below (Illus. 8.98 -8.103).

At about 3 o’clock is visible the curved end of a gallery or cell, full of rubble, running clockwise towards the guard cell [5, plan]; this is 1.22m (4 ft) wide and 2.75m (9 ft) of it was seen by the Commission in 1921 [2]. There are traces also of what must be an upper gallery on part of the wallhead, which is 3.05 - 3.66m (10 - 12 ft) above the ground. There are the remains of an outer wall running round the broch; on the north-west it is about 7.6m (25 ft) distant, 4.57m (15 ft) on the south-west, 6.7m (22 ft) on the north-east and 16.5m (54 ft) on the south-east. The entrance through it is on the north-west, nearly opposite the broch doorway (a passage through the rubble to the broch entrance has been cleared here in modern times). At this point the outer wall is about 1.2m (4 ft) thick.

Description The broch wall stands about 2.7m (9 ft) in places (Illus. 8.100) but masses of rubble conceal much of it; the inwardly battered outer face is visible most of the way round. The well preserved entrance passage is on the west-north-west and has several lintels still in position (Illus. 8.101 & 8.102). The passage is 79cm (2 ft 7 in) wide at the outer end, and the door-checks – one of which is formed of a large slab set on edge like those of the Caithness and Orkney brochs – are 1.07m (3 ft 6 in) down the passage and 12 - 15cm (5 - 6 in) deep. There is a bar-hole in the left wall [5].

Find A bronze spiral finger-ring from this site is in the British Museum (no. 1948, 5-4.1) [3]. Dimensions Internal diameter at wallhead (and probably above scarcement) 12.90m (42 ft 4 in), wall thickness at same height 3.05 - 3.66m (10 - 12 ft). The dimensions at ground level are not available.

Inwards from the door-frame the passage widens to 1.22m (4 ft) and narrows again to 1.1m (3 ft 7 in) at the inner end. The low door to a guard cell opens off the right side of the passage and the corbelled roof of the cell still rises about 2.44m (8 ft) above the debris inside it. From the angle of the slope of the roof the dome is unlikely to have risen more than another 30-60cm (1-2 ft). The cell door is only 66cm (2 ft 2 in) high.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 35 SE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 194-96, no. 618, & figs. 280 & 281: 3. Clarke 1971, 48, no. 72: 4. MacSween 1985, no. 16 & fig. 16: 5. Swanson (ms) 1985, 838-41 & plan. NG35 5 KINGSBURGH NG/3891 5688 This probable ground-galleried broch in Snizort, Skye, stands on the southern and highest end of a rocky ridge about 7.5m (25 ft) above the surrounding ground

There are clear traces of an opening or chamber on top of the entrance passage, the curved front wall of which is visible on the left of the passage and several feet back from it; thus the chamber is wider than the passage below. Access to it must have been directly from the interior. The lintels at the front end of the passage are displaced from their original positions so it is not 833

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland (Illus. 8.94 & 8.104).132 There is a recent settlement of longhouses close by which doubtless explains why so much stone has vanished from the site. Even so the outline of the structure is still clearly discernible [4, plan].

edge of the knoll; it encloses an area measuring 44.0m north-south by 22.0m trans-versely. It cannot be asserted that this wall is contemporary with the broch [4]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 37 SE 4: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 176, no. 564: 3. MacSween 1985, 45, no. 30 & fig. 30: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 817-18 & plan.

The entrance faces north-north-west but, though it is well defined and 1.07m (3.5 ft) wide, there were no signs of door-checks in 1921 [2]. However one on the left was seen in 1985 at 1.4m from the outer end, together with a sill stone at the front of the passage [4]. Beyond the door-frame the passage widens to about 1.4m.

NG37 2 DUN LIATH 1 NG/3598 7002 This large galleried dun or small stone-walled hillfort in Kilmuir, Skye, stands on the edge of a steep rocky bluff, precipitous in parts, which runs along the sea shore and about 100 yds. back from it (visited 24/4/63: small excavation carried out in 1964) (Illus. 8.105 8.107 & 8.120).

The main wall is reduced to about 61cm (2 ft) in height along the inner face and to not more than 1.83m (6 ft) on the outer: both faces are traceable most of the way round. Thus the mural gallery, which is also traceable most of the way round, must be at ground level. A doorway to the gallery is apparent at about 12.30 o’clock.

Introduction On the inland side the fort is isolated from the surrounding land by steep slopes and rock terraces. The terrain round about is markedly different from that of most of the other sites described here. The parish of Kilvaxter stands on flat, fertile land, the most extensive such area in Skye, and the cliff-bound hills to the south of it are rolling and undulating without the rocky knolls which are a feature of most other parts of the island. The large size of the enclosure of Dun Liath, and the rolling country around, are more reminiscent of southern Scottish hillfort country than of the west coast and western isles.

Much of the interior is occupied by the foundations of a circular structure with an internal diameter of about 5.49m (18 ft) with a wall 92cm (3 ft) thick; this slightly overrides the inner face of the broch wall on the south, at the gallery door. There is also a secondary radial wall projecting outwards from the broch on the north-east. Dimensions: external diameter about 17.4m (57 ft), internal about 10.37m (34 ft), wall proportion c. 40.4%. Swanson gives the internal diameter as c. 10.8m and the external one from 18.5 - 17.8 m, which gives about the same wall proportion. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 35 NE 10: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 196, no. 619, & fig. 282: 3. MacSween 1985, 4344, no. 17 & fig. 17: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 825-27 & plan.

Description The wall of the enclosure is tied to the edge of the bluff (Illus. 8.107 & 8.120) and forms a loop enclosing the summit of the rocky ridge on which it stands; there are only a few traces of walling along the cliff itself. The principle is evidently the same as that of the D-shaped semibrochs like Dun Ardtreck (NG33 2) and Dun Ringill (NG51 4) although in shape Dun Liath is a flattened D. The enclosed area, measures overall c. 52m (170 ft) along the north-north-west/south-south-east axis (along the cliff) and 32.6m (107 ft) at right angles to this.

Square NG37 NG37 1 DUN BORNASKITAIG NG/3726 7161 Possible broch in Kilmuir, Skye, consisting of a turfcovered mound on a flat-topped rocky knoll; the height above OD is about 30m. The structure itself is badly ruined having evidently been robbed of stone for a recent settlement at the base of the crag. A few facing stones of the outer face are visible, giving an overall diameter of 17.4m [1], or 57 ft [2], or 18.4m [4]. The side of a possible doorway to a mural gallery can be seen on the west [4, plan]. There is no trace of the entrance on the north side noted by the Royal Commission [1].

The main wall, facing inland, is galleried in at least four separate sections with four doors to the interior; it reaches a maximum width of 3.66m (12 ft) in the hollow sections but diminishes to c. 2.44m (8 ft) at the north end where it is solid. To the north of the main entrance – which faces more or less directly inland and which is about in the middle of the landward side of the wall – is a long stretch of gallery with a doorway situated about 7.9m (26 ft) north of the entrance; the gallery is about 21.4m (70 ft) long and both its ends are visible.

A late rectangular building sits on top of the mound. An outer stone wall, from 2.4-3.2m wide, runs round the 132

On the other side of the entrance is a shorter length, about 7.02m (23 ft) long, which the Commission thought led into the entrance. However small-scale excavations in 1964 revealed it to be an oval cell with a

The author failed to find this site on two occasions.

834

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides door to the interior. The third stretch is 15.3m (50 ft) long with a doorway in the middle, while the fourth, dilapidated, stretch has the door at its east end, nearest the entrance. The width of the galleries is about 76cm (2.5 ft), though the oval cell is slightly wider.

the pottery cannot be confidently assigned to either the early or the middle Iron Age in the Western Isles. The internally decorated base could signify a date in the early Iron Age (similar ones were found in the earliest levels at Dun Mor Vaul, Tiree – site NM04 4) but this feature is found in middle Iron Age assemblages also.

There are traces of an outer wall on the shallower slope on the south side and about 4.6 - 5.8m (15 - 19 ft) from the main wall. Another stone wall, running along the middle of the shallow valley separating the fortified ridge from the higher moor inland, was not mentioned in the Commission’s description. At the south end it terminates in boggy ground in the middle of the valley and, at the north, at a steep slope down to the beach. At its nearest point it is 30m (100 ft) from the dun.

The structure of the galleried wall and the way the wall is tied to the edge of a sheer cliff strongly resembles the design of the D-shaped semibrochs. However the dating of these structures seems unlikely, on present evidence, to be earlier than about the 3rd century BC (MacKie 2002). The function of Dun Liath was surely primarily to serve as a refuge for a fairly large number of people although, in the absence of excavations in the enclosed area away from the wall, the presence of permanently occupied huts is still possible. Evidence against the refuge hypothesis may be found in the narrowness of the main entrance which could not have been negotiated by cattle.

In what seemed in 1964 to be the complete absence of other modern dykes or ruined clachans nearby, and in view of the fact that the wall serves no obvious function by itself, it seemed likely to the author that this wall was a forward defence for Dun Liath, designed to inhibit a direct rush at the walls across the flat bottom of the adjacent valley. However a more recent survey found depopulated buildings and enclosures nearby and concluded that the wall mentioned was associated with these [1]. The question must remain open but the possibility that the outlying wall is old should perhaps not be entirely excluded.

The author would be inclined to infer, on the basis of the probable early Iron Age date of the promontory semibrochs, that Dun Liath could be as early as the 6th or 5th centuries BC but it could also be later. The apparent absence of the typical middle Iron Age material culture (though the areas excavated were small, making this absence perhaps illusory) could mean a date between about 600 and 300 BC. Further excavation of this site would be desirable.

The 1964 excavations Three days of trial excavations were carried out at the site in August 1964 [3]. A trench was sunk into the ground against the inner wallface north of the main entrance but only a few sherds were found in a thin occupation layer below modem humus and turf (Illus. 8.106 (A) & 8.107, section).

Finds134 Several potsherds were found in the occupation layer of the mural gallery which were reconstructed into a footed base and into most of a small barrel-shaped vessel with an incurving rim; the latter also had a footed base which was decorated on its inner surface with fingernail marks (Illus. 8.107). Iron objects included a long spike or prong and a small socketed sickle or reaping hook. Stone: 1 hammerstone. A polished mace head from the site is in Dundee Museum (no. 1956-370) [1].

The short end-section of the mural gallery to the south of the main entrance was examined and the dilapidated door to the interior was found. The north side of this door had been deliberately dismantled, enlarging the opening, and this had been done in Iron Age times. A stratum of red and black peat ash in the doorway and in the gallery behind overlaid the footings of the left jamb and yielded several sherds. A long slab was found on the ash layer inside the gallery and was probably a lintel fallen from the doorway or the gallery. On top of the ash lay a stratum of brown earth (which yielded two iron objects) and this was covered by drystone rubble from the walls. The stone of which the fort was built is remarkably heavy and probably contains a high proportion of iron.133

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 31 SE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1928. 169-70, no. 541 & fig. 242: 3. MacKie 1965c. Square NG44 NG44 1 DUN BORVE 2 NG/4591 4772 Probable broch in Snizort. Skye, standing on a flattopped rocky knoll about 153m (500 ft) above sea level. It consists of a large heap of stones, apparently mainly undisturbed [4], about 21m (70 ft) across and 3.05m (10 ft) high. The broch may stand up to 2m high below the rubble [4]. Two sections of the outer wallface on the south side suggest that the building had an overall diameter of 17.4m (57 ft); a short length of the inner

Discussion In the absence of material suitable for radiocarbon dating the age of Dun Liath cannot be inferred directly; 133

The prismatic compass was affected when on site. As a result of lifting these heavy blocks the author suffered a slipped disc two months later, while pushing a pram.

134

835

See www.huntsearch.gla.ac.uk

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland wall is also visible, indicating a thickness of 3.8m (or 3.7-4.1m [4]) and an internal diameter of 11.6m or 10.0m [4, plan]. The position of the entrance is not apparent.

Ardtreck Everted Rim ware appeared in about the 2nd century so its absence from Tungadale could imply that the site was abandoned before that date.

An outer stone wall runs round the edge of the knoll and has two entrances, both 1.07m (3 ft 6 in) wide on the north- west and north-north-east. A second wall can be traced outside the first on the north side, about 5m further out, and beyond this is a rock-cut ditch with an external rampart which were not noted before 1985 [4, plan]. There are faint traces of walling on the west side, between the broch and the outer wall.

Finds: there are no details of these except for illustrations – without descriptions – of about 40 potsherds [3, figs. 31-33]. The pottery however is strikingly similar to that found in the early levels of Dun Ardtreck a few miles to the west across Loch Harport (NG33 2). It consists mainly of Vaul ware vases and barrel-shaped urns but with far less ornament than in the semibroch. There are no clear signs of Everted Rim ware.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 44 NE 2: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 196-97, no 620: 3. MacSween 1985, 44, no. 21 & fig. 21: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 828-30 & plan.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 44 SW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 148, no. 497: 3. Miket 2002: 4. MacKie 1975a, 166-7: 5. Ritchie & Harman 1996, 29.

NG44 2 DUN a’ CHEITECHIN NG/4175 4785 Possible broch in Snizort, Skye, consisting of a muchquarried, turf-covered mound standing on a roundtopped, rocky knoll; no structural features can be seen except a few facing stones of the outer wallface [1]. Faint traces of an outer wall, or turf-covered bank [3, plan], can be seen enclosing the summit, and there are signs of an entrance through this in the north-west corner [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 44 NW 8: 2. MacSween 1985, 45, no. 29 & fig. 29: 3. Swanson (ms) 1985, 83132 & plan.

Square NG47 NG47 1 DUN FLODIGARRY (‘Flodigarry Hotel’) NG/4639 7196 This probable unfinished ground-galleried broch in Snizort, Skye, was identified as a broch only in 1977 when the owner of the Flodigarry Hotel drew the attention of the Scottish Development Department 135 to the site and suggested that it be excavated [4]. The work took place over three seasons from 1979-81 [2] (Illus. 8.108 & 8.109). 1. Situation The site stands in the disused walled vegetable garden of the 19th century house which is now the hotel, on a low rock outcrop (4.5m high at the most) below high crags; the surrounding ground is fairly level [2, pl. l]. Excavation revealed that the wall of the prehistoric structure did not form a complete circuit and only stood to a few courses, being nowhere higher than 1.0m. The steepest slope of the knoll is on the east and the wall is missing in this arc (Illus. 8.108). It thus seemed possible that the structure had been extensively robbed.

NG44 3 TUNGADALE NG/4076 4006 This souterrain, associated with a rectangular homestead (partly excavated into the hill slope) in Bracadale, Skye, is situated in Glen Bracadale a few feet above the east shore of Loch Duagrich near its east end. The house is on the north-facing crest of a small knoll and about 300 ft (90.2m) above sea level [2]. Excavations were carried out in 1988 by Roger Miket [3] and are briefly described here because the pottery recovered is the standard early or middle Iron Age indigenous ware of the Western Isles.

2. The surviving structure The entrance passage faces north-west and stands only two courses high at the most [2, pl 9]; the door-frame – consisting of built, inset checks – is just over 1m from the outside. There is a ground level, intra-mural gallery of uneven width running along most of the surviving wall; on either side of the entrance it ends in a wider, wedge-shaped cell, the one on the left (south) being linked with the passage by a narrow door. The end wall of this cell, forming the south side of the passage, appears to form a straight joint with the outer half of the broch wall, and this suggested to the excavator that the quality of the masonry was not as high as usual. 136 The cell on the north (right) has curved walls and is

Summary of excavations The underground passage was located within the thickness of the house wall, between the inner face and the natural hill slope, and had evidently been used while the house was occupied [3]. The pottery and finds seem mostly to have been in the successive floor deposits of the Iron Age house. No C-14 dates were obtained for the Iron Age occupation. Discussion Like Dun Ardtreck in its primary phase of occupation the pottery suggests that Tungadale house and souterrain could have been occupied, by elements of the indigenous population, almost at any time between the 7th century BC and the 2nd century AD. At Dun

135 136

2).

836

Now Historic Scotland. Exactly the same arrangement is to be seen at Dun Ardtreck (NG33

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides separated from the gallery beyond by what is termed a “blocking stone” [2, 31]; it has its own door to the interior.

Dating: charcoal from primary deposits gave a C-14 date of 45 + 65 bc (GU 1662), and the mean point calibrates to about AD 55 in real years.

There are three doors from the central court to the intramural spaces – at 5, 7 and 8 o’clock; the length of gallery between the left guard cell and the door at 8 o’clock is very rough. This crowding of all the doorways into a short arc of the wall is also unusual. Along the east edge of the rock knoll the only traces of the wall were some small boulders filling in natural clefts in the rock.

4. Discussion There is evidently no way of proving that Dun Flodigarry was a hollow-walled broch since the wall is so poorly preserved that not even a trace of an intramural stair was found. The excavator did not consider the problem of the stair in detail, but it deserves some thought. The intra-mural galleries in the preserved part of the wall do not seem suitable at any point to contain a stairway. At Dun Ardtreck, where the absence of the base of a stair posed a similar problem (NG33 2), there was at least a wide section of the basal gallery, with suitably smoothly built sides, which could have served as the approach to the vanished steps. However at Dun FIodigarry the only wide sections are the terminal expansions at either side of the entrance both of which are too short to have housed a stairway. The rest of the preserved galleries are narrow and with roughly built walls. The stairway may of course have been planned for the missing arc of the wall on the east side.

3. The stratification uncovered The wall of the building was founded directly on bedrock, any turf and rubbish evidently having been cleared away from the knoll in advance of construction work. This underlying rock was uneven and a clay layer had been put down on it in places to provide a more level surface. In the south guard cell a pebble floor had been laid on this clay, and extended through part of the entrance passage, though not far into the central court. It underlay the inner wallface in the south-west quadrant, and scatters of charcoal were found on top of the clay here, and extending into the interior. There was none of the other usual evidence of primary broch activity – such as hearths, post-holes and drains – and neither was there any sign that the rough interior surface had been flattened off. The entrance passage was paved although it lacked a lintelled drain underneath.

The hypothesis that Dun Flodigarry was an unfinished building – or, more accurately, one which had only just been started – explains these curious features and allows us to assume on the basis of the size and ground plan that it was intended to be a ground-galleried broch of standard Hebridean type. The excavator considered the possibility that it might be a D-shaped semibroch but decided against it, mainly on the grounds that such structures are invariably built against high cliffs. In addition it may be noted here that the absence of any plausible position for an intra-mural stair in the surviving wall is a decisive argument against the site being a semibroch; some trace of the stair – even if only an empty but suitably designed stretch of gallery – would have to have been preserved in such a structure.

A rubble bank was found immediately outside, and these two areas provided the most interesting information recovered. The primary paving of the entrance emerged on top of the rubble bank which itself contained the upper stone of a rotary quern [2, fig. 12, no. 367]; both bank and quern must therefore belong to the construction phase of the broch. The rubble of this ‘bank’ was loose and rested directly on bedrock. A section was cut at the foot of the rock knoll on the east side to discover whether the absence of a wall on this side could be explained by its having fallen down the slope. However there was no sign of this. This discovery, the general absence of stone debris, and the fact that the rubble bank was a primary feature and was not composed of material fallen from the wall, all led the excavator to conclude that the broch had never been higher than it was when he uncovered it; it was evidently an unfinished building.

On the other hand there is evidence which might argue against the hypothesis of an unfinished structure – particularly the long history of recent and modern settlement close by and the numerous adjacent stone structures which could have been built with material robbed from the broch. It seems unlikely however, judging from numerous examples of brochs elsewhere which are known to have been robbed, that the wall would have been so completely removed that even the foundation stones on the east arc were taken. The absence of any trace of internal furnishings, and the fact that the intra-mural gallery extended further than the inner wallface at both ends, seems to confirm that the site has not been significantly disturbed in modern times but had simply been abandoned unfinished in the Iron Age.

Traces of secondary activity were found in the entrance passage in the form of two thin layers of soil, containing midden material, and a rough stone paving, all laid on the original paving. A midden layer with animal bones and shells lay on top of the secondary paving. Nothing comparable was found in the central court.

837

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland 5. The finds (Illus. 8.109) All the pottery and finds were of Iron Age type so it seems that the site was finally abandoned not long a fter building activity had halted.

Dun Grugaig is a dangerous site to visit because sea erosion has narrowed the neck of the promontory and the clefts in it – next to the path – can be concealed by bushes. The fragmentary remains of the Level 2 stonework are fragile and could easily be destroyed (Illus. 8.118). Nevertheless this site – like Dun Ringill (NG51 4) and Rudh’ an Dunain (NG31 1) also on Skye, and Dun Grugaig 2 near Glenelg (NG81 1) – is an extremely important one for understanding the early development of the broch hollow wall.

The pottery comprised mainly plain body sherds but the few decorated fragments [2, fig. 6] are well matched, for example, by the ‘native’ incised wares of Vaul ware found at Dun Mor Vaul, Tiree (NM04 3). The two base sherds with internal decoration are also Vaul ware types. There are few signs of the Everted Rim pottery found at that site and, in its later levels, at Dun Ardtreck on Skye (NG33 2), though no. 484 [2, fig. 9] looks like one. There are also some bead- or roll-rims [2, fig. 9, nos. 243, 286, 238 & 293]. Roman material: a fragment of Roman Samian ware was found among the material stored in Portree museum which was not mentioned in the report [3]; the dating implications of this neatly coincide with those of the radiocarbon date. Stone objects include many pebble hammerstones (it is suggested that they may have been used for hammering small filler stones into gaps in the wall), some faceted grinding hammerstones (the material which was ground is as yet unknown) [2, fig. 11], 2 unstratified flint scrapers [2, fig. 7], and 1 complete and 2 incomplete upper stones of rotary querns, all without handle holes [2, fig. 12]. The complete quern is a flat discoid stone, and the fragments belong to stones with a tapering edge.

1. Description Although the structure has been described as rectangular [4] the shape is dictated by the limited area of the promontory on which it stands; the salient feature is in fact the massively thick and short cross-wall. This is hollow-built, on top of a solid base, but the remains of only one upper gallery survive. This cross-wall is 4.4m thick at the centre and the front face is markedly battered. The entrance passage is in the middle and most of its lintels are still in position (Illus. 8.114), the ones behind the checks having no gaps between them. The two front lintels are set on edge and are exceptionally massive, the front one having the shape of a truncated triangle (Illus. 8.113). There may be up to about 80cm of debris on the passage floor at the front end but less further back (Illus. 8.112). The door-frame is 1.5m from the outside and has two built rebates with a bar-hole (on the left) and opposed socket behind these (Illus. 8.114 & 8.115). There is no guard cell. At present the entrance is 1.2m (4 ft) high at the outer end and 91cm (3 ft) wide at the base, narrowing slightly at the lintels. At the inner end it is 1.65m (5.5 ft) high and 1.15m (3 ft 9 in) wide at the base.

6. Dimensions The overall diameter of the broch ranges from 17.82 18.35 m, an average of 18.1 m; the internal diameter is estimated at about 10.0 m, and the hollow wall is therefore about 7.8 - 8.4m thick, giving a wall proportion of about 44.8%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 47 SE 6: 2. Martlew 1985: 3. Information from Mr Roger Miket: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 813-15.

NG51 1 DUN GRUGAIG 1 NG/5354 1229 This well preserved, unexcavated promontory semibroch (or “galleried dun” [2]) in Strath, Skye, is situated on a narrow, sheer-sided cliff promontory about 15m (50 ft) high and at the foot of a long, fairly steep slope (visited 19/4/63, 19/8/85, and in 1986 and 1988) (Illus. 8.104 & 8.110 - 8.119). This part of the coast is formed of a block of horizontally bedded Jurassic sandstone which terminates in a sheer cliff; this has been eroded into sheer-sided inlets very similar to the north-east coast of Caithness.

There is a clearly defined chamber above the passage roof which communicates with the interior (Illus. 8.116 & 8.117); its right face is traceable all the way forward as far as the massive front lintel. This is not shown on the Commission’s plan [2] which wrongly implies that the outer half of the front wall in Level 2 is continuous (Illus. 8.104, lower). A short length of upper gallery runs at an angle from this chamber towards the south, and the inner half of the chamber, and of the gallery wall so defined, is still preserved to a height of 1.5m as a rather precarious block of masonry (Illus. 8.118). There is a possibility that there may have been defensive gaps, or meurtrières, between three of the flat lintels in front of the door-frame but the central one of the three is displaced and confirmation cannot now be obtained.

In addition to the plan prepared by the Royal Commission in 1921 (Illus. 8.104, lower) two more detailed plans of the site are available [8, 909, & 9, fig. 7] (Illus. 8.112); the north point on the latter (the author’s) became reversed during re-drawing.

The remains of a ledge scarcement 20cm (8in) wide are visible on the interior wallface to the right (west) of the passage but only one surface slab of this remains, next to the passage (Illus. 8.116); this ledge is about 60cm (2 ft) below the level of the passage lintels – an unusual

Square NG51

838

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides arrangement. Thus it would have been difficult, without wooden steps, to get up into the chamber over the entrance from any hypothetical wooden balcony resting on the ledge in the interior.

Level I of the structure consists of a short, thick, slightly curved, solid wall barring the neck of the cliff promontory and extending, as a thinner side wall, all the way round the enclosed area. The entrance which pierces the cross-wall in the middle is of classic broch type (Illus. 8.114 & 8.115) and there is a scarcement of the ledge-type on the inner face, perhaps 1.8m above the original ground surface (Illus. 8.112, elevation). The inner face of the cross-wall is even more curved than the outer so it is possible that a wooden roundhouse, containing a raised peripheral balcony resting on the ledge, could have been attached to it if it was slightly oval in plan. Excavations would be required to check this hypothesis which would require a ring of post-holes immediately inwards from the entrance. Such an oval roundhouse would have been quite small and would have had an internal diameter of about 5.4m (17.7 ft) from south-west to north-east.

In the inner wallface to the left of the passage, and 1.5m from it, is a narrow opening leading into the wall; immediately inside this a few steps of a narrow stairway can be seen ascending directly into the wall, with a slight suggestion of the start of a curve round to the left, towards the entrance (Illus. 8.119). This stair must have risen through the solid wall base into the upper gallery which presumably ran all the way along the thick crosswall. It may in fact have led up over the entrance passage to a second upper gallery. This intra-mural stair is unique among all known brochs and broch-like structures in that it runs straight into the wall and then, presumably, turns through a right angle to line up with the gallery. It is also almost unique in rising in an anticlockwise direction; only the analogous ‘forework’ at Clickhimin in Shetland (HU44 1) has a stairway similarly rising to the left, or counter-sunwise (as seen from the interior).

Level II: only a fragment of the second storey of the cross-wall is preserved but this shows clearly that the classic, sophisticated hollow-walled broch architecture was employed at this site. The chamber over the entrance extends as far forward as the massive front lintels, which evidently supported the high outer face of the cross-wall (which probably contained a second and perhaps a third gallery). The first floor gallery apparently crosses this chamber (though it is only preserved on the right), implying that the cross-wall was much higher than the rest. The intra-mural stair seems likely to have risen over the chamber over the entrance rather than connected with it (the inner end of which would have been accessible from the wooden floor resting on the scarcement) and to have connected with a second and perhaps even a third gallery. However the shortness of the cross-wall perhaps implies that a third gallery would have been too high for the stair to reach in the space available.

At both cliff edges the thick cross-wall turns backwards (towards the open sea) and – thinning rapidly and much reduced in height – runs along the edge of the promontory for a short distance. Since the line of blocks of the foundation course on the north-west side can be traced for some 12m back from the entrance passage it seems likely that the whole promontory was surrounded by this narrow wall, as is shown on the Commission’s plan [2, fig. 210, fig. 294] (Illus. 8.104). Its thickness can be measured as 1.5m on the north-east side and 2m on the south-west. The broken west end of the main cross-wall makes it clear that the structure is solid at ground level (Illus. 8.118). It has been said that “Because of the danger posed by the high cliffs forming the promontory margins, it is impossible to ascertain whether the outer face of the (main) wall turns along each margin, or has fallen away as the result of erosion.” [8, 907]. In fact the outer faces of the walling along the south-west and north-east cliff edges were clearly visible at that time for many metres, as is shown on the author’s plan (Illus. 8.112) and, even more plainly, on the Commission’s, which was made in 1921 [2, 210, fig. 294) (Illus. 8.104).

In typological terms, and also because of the available dating evidence from similar sites, Dun Grugaig seems likely to be one of the earliest structures of the broch class of buildings; in many ways it bears a striking resemblance – both in shape and proportions – to the ‘blockhouse’ at Clickhimin in Shetland (HU44 1). This close similarity implies that Dun Grugaig probably belongs to the same period, probably to the 6th century BC, perhaps even the 7th.

2. Discussion Dun Grugaig is one of four classic promontory semibrochs in the Inner and Outer Hebrides and is closely related architecturally to the ‘blockhouse’ at Clickhimin in Shetland (HU44 1) [5, 140, Table] (these parallels are elaborated below). From this latter similarity a date in the 7th or 6th centuries BC, in the early Iron Age, may be tentatively inferred for this unexcavated building (vol. 1, 110 ff: MacKie 2005, 111ff.).

The promontory wall here contrasts with Rudh an Dunain, Skye (NG31 1), and Sron an Duin in Berneray (NL58 1) in that the ends of the cross-wall curve round to merge with the thinner side walls; in the other two promontory semibrochs mentioned the cross-walls run straight to the cliff edges and seem to finish with built ends (one of which is visible at Sron an Duin). In this sense Dun Grugaig is closer to a D-shaped semibroch like Dun Ringill (NG51 4), Skye (below), and Dun Grugaig in Glenelg (NG81 1). On the other hand Rudh’ an Dunain has the standard form of gallery door in the 839

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland interior wallface with, presumably, the stairway a short distance down the gallery to its right and rising clockwise. The intra-mural stair in Dun Grugaig is atypical.

slope which leads straight to a cliff and is now covered with thickets and bogs. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 51 SW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 210, no. 651, figs. 294 & 298: 3. Young 1962, 192: 4. Feachem 1963, 185: 5. MacKie 1965b, 139: 6. MacKie 1975, 164 & fig. 24: 7. MacSween 1985, 50, no. 59 & fig. 59: 8. Swanson (ms) 1985, 907-09 & plan: 9. MacKie 1991, 166-68 & fig. 7.

The parallels between the design of Dun Grugaig, Skye, and the Clickhimin ‘blockhouse’ in Shetland are so numerous that, as noted, they must surely imply a very close relationship and a similar age [5]. These similarities include – (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(7)

(8) (9)

NG51 2 DUN KEARSTACH NG/5964 1745 This galleried dun in Strath, Skye, is a medium-sized, oval, stone-walled fort with a good quality, galleried wall enclosing an area 20.4 x 13.1m (67 x 43 ft) (Illus. 8.120). The site stands in Glen Boreraig, on a steep-sided ridge running east-west and rising about 10.7m (35 ft) above the moor around it; there is a gradual ascent approaching from the west. The wall varies from 6.4 - 4.0m (21 - 13 ft) in thickness and the outer face now stands nowhere above 46cm (18in) high; debris from the wall covers the flanking slopes for up to 12m (40 ft) from it. Much of the wall has disappeared. However there are traces of a mural gallery for about l1.6m (38 ft) from the west end of the north wall; the outer face has gone but the inner stands up to 69cm (2 ft 3 in) high. There are traces of two doorways to the interior and of more mural gallery on the south side. There are faint traces of the entrance at the west end. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 51 SE 3: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 208, no. 649 & fig. 292.

a central entrance passage in a slightly curved wall (the other two promontory semibrochs having their entrances at one end). a smoothly battered outer wallface. a ledge scarcement on the inner face. a standardised ‘broch’ entrance passage but without a guard cell. large flat lintels roofing the passage with a chamber above. an upper gallery which runs across over the entrance and thereby communicates with the chamber over the entrance from both sides (this ‘cross-shaped’ design of the first floor features over the entrance does not normally occur in brochs). This feature is also seen in the C-shaped semibroch Dun Ringill, not far away (NG51 4). the fact that the entrance section in both sites is wider than the rest of the wall to which it is attached (built as a separate block of masonry in the case of Clickhimin). the chamber over the entrance extends forward to the front lintel. the intra-mural stair rises from the right end of the wall (looking out) anti-clockwise towards the central passage. Every other known broch stair rises clockwise or sunwise, to the right, from its doorway and away from the entrance passage.

NG51 3 DUN LIATH 2 NG/5433 1427 This possible broch in Elgol, Skye, stands on a flat, grassy plateau 10m from the edge of the steep slope leading down to Loch Seiapin. There is little left but a large circle of tumbled stones although traces of the foundations of the outer and inner faces of the wall are visible in several places. These indicate an internal diameter of 11.6m (38 ft) north-south and 10.7m (35 ft) east-west. The wall seems to vary in thickness, from 3.05m (10 ft) in the south, 3.7m (12 ft) in the west and 4.19m (13 ft 9 in) on the north-west. Swanson’s figures differ slightly from these [4]. There are slight traces of the entrance on the south-east.

There are a number of differences between the two sites the most important of which are – (1) (2) (3)

the two large mural cells in Clickhimin which contrast with the solid wall base of Dun Grugaig. The stairway in Clickhimin rises from the end of the building (but perhaps from inside a galleried wall) and not from a door in the inner face. Clickhimin was built as a separate block of masonry to the ends of which galleried walls were apparently attached.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 51 SW 2: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 211, no. 655: 3. MacSween 1985, 44, no. 22 & fig. 22: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 905.

The overall impression gained from Dun Grugaig is that in the sophistication of its hollow-walled architecture – particularly in the design of the entrance passage, the neatly constructed chamber over the entrance, the upper gallery and the scarcement ledge – the structure is hardly inferior to a well built broch. However in terms of the design and situation of the stronghold it is markedly inferior, being confined on a cramped sheersided promontory at the foot of a steep and awkward

NG51 4 DUN RINGILL NG/5619 1708 This D-shaped semibroch in Strath, Skye, stands about 10.7m (35 ft) above the sea on the end of a small, isolated, precipitous sea promontory rising above flattish moorland; the promontory has a flat but sloping surface rising up to sheer cliff edges so that the longitudinal section of the knoll is triangular (Illus. 8.121-8.131 & 840

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides 8.133). A steep-sided gully bounds the knoll on the south side (visited 19/4/63, June 1986 & June 1988).

the entrance passage and this joins the chamber over the entrance – a feature otherwise known only at the nearby Dun Grugaig (site NG51 1); only the junction on the north-east side can now be seen although the Commission’s plan shows both sides of the inner end of the chamber linked with the inner wallfaces of the galleries [2, fig. 293] (Illus. 8.133). The Commission saw two voids from this raised gallery leading to the interior – in addition both to that over the entrance and to the stair door – but only one of these (at 3 o’clock) is still visible 138 ; the other one, at 8.30 o’clock, can no longer be seen.

The building has been claimed to be a partly collapsed circular broch by Harding [9] and this has been echoed by those of his research students who have visited the site [10, 11, 15]. The point is an important one because if Dun Ringill really is a broch part of which has fallen over the cliff the identity of a specific class of D-shaped semibrochs – possible broch prototypes – is thrown into doubt. The nature of this site is discussed in Section 2 below and, because of this dispute, the description here of Dun Ringill is fairly detailed.

The upper gallery – of which only the inner wall is preserved – runs round in both directions from the entrance; the section going south, or anti-clockwise, runs close to the top of the surviving half of a large oval mural cell in the south-west arc, which has its own doorway to the interior at 2 o’clock. In 1921 there were two lintels in position over the passage between the cell and its doorway, but these have now disappeared [3]. This doorway leads to a passage which has a curved end immediately to its left (opposite the cell) so it is clear that the wall between this point and the cliff is solid. The floor of the cell is well below the doorway – the rock surface slopes downwards and outwards here – so it seems highly likely that there is a short flight of steps in the passage leading down into the cell [2, fig. 293].

1. Description In plan the structure is like a slightly squashed D with the curved main wall running round the sloping landwardfacing surface from cliff to cliff; the high, seaward cliff edge has no traces of walling now although the outer faces can be seen to start to run along it, which of course they should not if the building was once a round broch (Illus. 8.122). Swanson maintains that “No evidence was found during survey to support the view put forward by the RCAHMS, that a slight wall had edged the cliff on the east, completing the structure.” [11, 902 & plan]. However the author’s survey a year or so later identified some of the facing blocks of the outer edge of this thinner wall and these are marked on the plan (Illus. 8.126) [12, fig. 8]. This curious discrepancy between what two careful field surveyors saw – also evident in the accounts of Dun Grugaig 1, above (site NG51 1) – is worthy of note.137

Careful examination of this floor shows a feature not commented on by other visitors to the site. The inner face of the cell is smoothly curved and well built, and can be seen descending to what at first sight seems to be its floor (Illus. 8.131). However the smooth, vertical face abruptly turns into a slope of rough rubble which continues down for a further 30cm or so, to a very rough floor (the outer half of the cell has of course vanished). It is clear that the original, presumably paved, floor has been torn out and that the rubble core of the wall was thus exposed at the base of the back wall of the cell (Illus. 8.131) [12, pl. XA]. It is a tribute to the skills of the Iron Age builders that the remains of this large mural cell are still stable, even though its outer half has fallen away and the inner half has been undermined.

The building stands on the sloping rock surface (Illus. 8.123) and the wallhead is approximately level all the way round; thus the preserved height of the wall varies from nothing where it peters out against the sea cliff to about 3.4m (11 ft) at the entrance. The entrance passage has been badly damaged by a secondary reconstruction of lime-mortared masonry during which all the lintels were taken off and re-used on an extension built back into the interior (Illus. 8.125). It faces north-west and inland and is 4.58m (15 ft) long with built rebates for the door about 1.37m (4.5 ft) from the exterior; a bar-hole and socket are preserved behind them. The passage is 1.32m (4 ft 4 in) wide at the outer end, widening to 1.68m (5.5 ft) behind the door and contracting again to 1.14m (3 ft 9 in) at the inner end.

Although the inside face of the Iron Age building is preserved to a considerable height – for example by the secondary cemented construction laid against it at the inner end of the entrance – there is no sign of a scarcement ledge in the resulting straight joint (Illus. 8.125); it is doubtless higher up and has been obscured by the re-laid lintels. Alternatively the outermost secondary lintel may actually be resting on this ledge. 139 Neither is there any sign of a guard cell opening off the

At first sight there is no evidence for the structure of the basal part of the wall near the entrance, but because of the rising ground in the interior, it is almost certain that the wall base is solid (except for one large mural cell – below). An upper gallery is preserved on either side of

138

Although it is hardly visible now this void is marked on the RCAHMS plan (Illus. 8.133). It was omitted – apart from a ‘v’ – on the author’s previously published plan (MacKie 1991, fig. 8) and this shows the importance of taking account of earlier surveys. Swanson marks one side of the opening clearly [11, 904]. 139 The author omitted to check this possibility when he was last surveying at the site in 1986.

137

This seems to be a classic case of a preconceived idea strongly affecting what is seen in the field, a condition with which the author is familiar (MacKie & Davis 1989 131). All the counter-arguments advanced about these sites seem to stem from a basic desire to disprove a priori the existence of semibrochs as a distinct class of broch-like buildings (see f.n. 106, p.771).

841

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland primary entrance passage nor any indication of whether there is a ground level mural gallery in the parts of the wall not occupied by the mural cell. The cell is immediately above a dry gully, forming the innermost end – beyond the reach of the sea – of the cleft on the south side of the knoll.

It is also useful to know that a medieval clan chief, and presumably his family and retainers, could live in and around such a small stronghold; the interior space of Dun Ringill was even smaller after it had been reduced in size with the mortared masonry. There is a rectangular hall inside the ruined broch Dun an Sticir in North Uist (site NF87 2) and this measures internally about 9.5 by 4.9m (31 x 16 ft). This is probably somewhat larger than the original Mackinnon hall in Dun Ringill (if the latter was rectangular) and indicates a living space of some 47 square metres on a level ground floor. This can be compared with the 66m2 which is enclosed by a broch with an internal diameter of 9.15m (30 ft)

The secondary, mortared masonry consists of a wall with a vertical inner face (Illus. 8.126) forming a chord against the curved Iron Age wall on either side of the entrance and through which the Iron Age passage has been extended inwards (Illus. 8.127). It seems to have been built when there was hardly any debris in the interior, or after such debris had been removed; the fact that a short flight of steps was added at the inner end suggests that there was still some debris inside or, more likely, that the steadily rising underlying rock made such steps necessary. The sides of the inward extension of the passage continue inwards for a few feet beyond the straight vertical wallface of mortared masonry, as if to act as revetments against uncleared older debris on either side. The debris was doubtless cleared away from next to the inner face first. On top of the straight mortared wall is a parapet walk about a metre wide, with the remains of the parapet in front of it (Illus. 8.127); the junction between the parapet masonry and the curved Iron Age wall is clear.

3. Discussion Harding’s interpretation. There is no doubt that Harding was wrong to claim that Dun Ringill is a circular broch which has partly fallen over the cliff [9], though it is correct to say that the building in its pristine state almost certainly formed a complete enclosure [3], and was not quite the D-shaped structure seen at Dun Ardtreck (NG33 2). The outer face of the wall running along the sea cliff is quite clear on the north-east arc and that on the south arc appears to be curving round to join it (Illus. 8.122). This cliff-edge wall was obviously much thinner than the galleried wall on the landward side of the knoll. Harding is surely also mistaken to claim that the remaining half of the large mural cell on the south-west side shows that a circular broch has partly collapsed over the cliff edge here; the massive foundation stones of the outer face run smoothly past below the cell and close to the edge of the rocky gully, and they are intact and undisturbed. There is no rubble to speak of in the gully, and there has been no subsidence or collapse of the wall foundations. There are large areas of flat rock forming the shore below the promontory and there are no signs of fallen cliff fragments on these.

Another potentially important feature, not mentioned in previous accounts of the site (except that of Swanson [11]), is an old trench which has been dug along the curved outer face of the building on the south-west, from below the mural cell to about 5m short of the main entrance; it is clearly visible on the left in Illus. 8.123. This has evidently been dug to expose the remains of the wallface, and looks at first sight like a 19th century antiquary’s exploration trench. Its significance is probably greater than this however and it is discussed further below.

The nature of the site. Dun Ringill is thus a true D- or Cshaped semibroch which has been built in a situation characteristic of the class – on an uneven knoll with a steep cliff on more than one side which serves as an essential part of the defences. It is more skilfully built than Dun Ardtreck (NG33 2) where the D-shaped wall was built in a very similar situation – on a sloping rock surface descending from a cliff edge. However whereas a level rubble platform, reveted with heavy walling, had to be built on the slope to support the galleried wall of Dun Ardtreck, at Dun Ringill the galleried wall – while still resting on a solid base – has a wallface all the way down to the rock on both sides (the inner one being visible in the straight joints in the entrance passage). A greater confidence in building heavy drystone walls on uneven rock is thus apparent at this site.

2. Historical record A story about this Iron Age ruin seems still to have been current in this part of Skye in the 1920s: “Dun Ringill castle was originally the Mackinnon stronghold and is reputed to have been occupied as early as the 9th century. It was from here that their galleys sailed out to hold the kyles in fee… But later the Mackinnons decided in favour of a more modern house and built Strathaird.” [4] The tale is confirmed by Sir Robert Monro’s 16th century account of the Western Isles [2] and is particularly interesting in view of the lime-mortared medieval refortification inside the semibroch. Swire makes reference neither to the Royal Commission’s account [3] – being evidently unaware of the two phases of masonry on the site – nor to the information in Monro’s work, so it is tempting to suppose that she recorded a genuine local folk memory about the site.

This confidence appears to be confirmed by the large mural cell on the south-west, otherwise unknown in the semibrochs (except for the two in the Clickhimin ‘blockhouse’ in Shetland which appear to have a different 842

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides origin – HU44 1) and which is more usual in the solidbased brochs of the far north. However it seems very likely that this cell had a purpose that was primarily structural. At this point the underlying rock surface of the promontory dips sharply down and the massive main wall had to be constructed along the slope to prevent any attackers approaching up the side of the knoll. The large cell may be regarded as a variant of the weight saving, hollow-wall principle – used to avoid the necessity of building an extra thick and solid wall base along this slope, and thus saving a considerable quantity of stone.

Level 2 consists of the hollow-walled elements of the building – a galleried wall which seems to run round towards the cliff on the north-east and to be interrupted by the domed roof of the large cell on the south-west. There is also a chamber over the entrance passage and the gallery appears to have joined this on both sides. Two voids – at 8.30 and 3 o’clock – lead from the interior into this gallery and both could be above scarcement level, in which case they should be voids above doorways. However their height above the underlying rock is unclear so they might be the tops of the doorways themselves.

The mural gallery presumably starts close to rock level at both ends, and quickly becomes an upper one as it approaches the entrance. It is not clear what happens at the mural cell, which appears to have corbelled up to a height which would have blocked the first floor gallery. Neither is it clear where the intra-mural stairway is; presumably the now invisible void at 8.30 o’clock was the stair door and this – doubtless starting at ground level here but already at the height of the entrance lintels – would have risen up above the level of the chamber over the entrance and would have connected with the hypothetical second and third floor galleries. In this case the only way into the first floor gallery would have been through the void at 3 o’clock and by way of the chamber over the entrance.

The opening at 3 o’clock is probably the doorway to the mural stair and the steps are doubtless concealed under rubble; any such flight, starting fairly high up, must surely have led to a landing at the level of the roof of the chamber over the entrance and, in this case, the stone stair would have provided the primary route to the upper galleries. Any raised wooden floor which rested on the scarcement, being at rock level near the cliff, was probably reached directly from the main entrance by way of a gap in itself. The doorway at 8.30 o’clock is another entry to the first floor gallery and its sill too may be at scarcement level. Confirmation or otherwise of these ideas must await excavation. Medieval refortification. The alterations made to Dun Ringill with lime-mortared masonry make sense of some of the other features commented on above. The deep trench along the outer wallface in the south-west arc must surely belong to the period of secondary re-fortification; it looks as if the old Iron Age wallface was re-exposed on the south-west to increase the defensive capacity of the building on that side. Moreover this must surely have been the time when the floor of the mural cell was torn out; doubtless there was a heap of rubble here from the collapsed outer half (though, as noted, the foundations are intact) which was cleared away to expose the fine vertical inner wall of the chamber and use it as part of the defences on that side. The Mackinnon workers would be unlikely either to have recognised the floor of the cell when they reached it or to have bothered about it if they did.

The downward slope of the underlying rock offers an explanation for one of the functions of the scarcement ledge in these primitive D-shaped structures. The only way a level floor could be arranged in the interior would either be to pile up rubble against the inner face (for which there is no evidence here but which in effect happened at Dun Ardtreck) or to build a raised level wooden floor, which does seem to have been done here. Whether a complete oval roundhouse was built inside is unclear and likely to remain so until the interior is carefully excavated. If a level wooden floor continued over to the wall at the cliff edge the scarcement on the landward wall would have to have been at least 2.4m up on the inner face. This seems rather high, although the sills of the two voids in the inner face are doubtless at the level of the scarcement, If they were exposed a better picture of the Iron Age wooden furnishings might be obtained.

This torn-out floor neatly demonstrates the superb quality of the Iron Age masonry of the mural cell and makes nonsense of the notion that it has been undermined; the outwardly curving inner half of the great cell stands as a solid as a rock even after the support provided by the outer half has gone, and after part of its foundations had been torn out!

Level 1. The two plans in Illus. 8.122 show how the two Levels of Dun Ringill can be defined. Level 1 appears to exist only on the landward side of the knoll since the rock surface evidently rises above its probable height (perhaps 2m) well before the cliff edge is reached. It seems to be a solid wall and contains the primary entrance and most of the large mural cell on the southwest arc. It is probable that a scarcement runs round the inner wallface at a height of about 2m but this is obscured by rubble and later masonry.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 51 NE 4: 2. Monro 1961, 68: 3. RCAHMS 1928, 208-10, no. 650 & fig. 293: 4. Swire 1961, 225: 5. Young 1962, 192: 6. MacKie 1966: 7 Hamilton 1966: 8. MacKie 1975, 162-4: 9. Harding 1984: 10. MacSween 1985, 47, no. 38 & fig. 38: 11. Swanson (ms) 1985, 900-03 & plan: 12. MacKie 1991, 169-72 &

843

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland pls. XB and XA & B: 13. Monro 1961, 38: 14. Miket & Roberts 1990, 45-8: 15. Armit 1996, 118 & 219.

of 17m; the wallfaces themselves are traceable for 3m more as far as the cliff edge.

Square NG53

In 1921 a door from the gallery to the interior was visible about 9.0m (30 ft) anticlockwise from the main entrance but this can no longer be seen; it was 0.75m (2.5 ft) wide with the outer lintel still in position [2]. A turf-covered gap in the visible inner wallface probably marks its position. The gallery shows an average width of 53cm (1 ft 9 in).

NG53 1 DUNAN AN AISILIDH NG/5320 3571 This is a ruinous probable D- or C-shaped semibroch (or “galleried dun”) in Portree, Skye, situated on the edge of a cliff, at the far, or northern, end of a mile-long, sickle-shaped peninsula jutting into the Narrows of Raasay (visited 25/4/63 & 18/08/85) (Illus. 8.132 8.134). The end of the promontory is formed by a slightly higher, flat-topped rock bounded on the east and north-east by a cliff about 15m (50 ft) high; the defensive enclosure stands next to this. There is a shallow gully separating this high end from the rest of the promontory and, on the far side of this, are two lines of large boulders – perhaps the remains of outer defences. As in the case of Dun Ringill (NG51 4) the ground slopes gently downwards to the south-west and away from the cliff edge, and the thicker galleried wall curves in a Dshape along this shallow slope.

The wall varies in width from 2.0m near the cliff on the east to a maximum of perhaps 3.6m near the entrance. The outer face on the south and south-west side is best preserved, standing about 3 or 4 courses (1m) high above masses of rubble. The internal diameter from east to west is about 15m and some 17m from north to south (Illus. 8.133). This large interior and the relatively thin wall seems to confirm that the structure was never a freestanding broch. The oddly zig-zag plan of the wall on the north in the Commission’s plan is due to the presence of a deep gully projecting into the enclosed space. In fact there are traces of an outer wallface beyond this gully – not marked on the Commission’s plan – so it seems that this subsidence has occurred since the dun was built, and has carried away some of the wall. The plan now appears to be a more straightforward C-shape. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 53 NW 5: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 181-82, no. 576 & fig. 256.

The plan prepared by the Commission [2, fig. 256] (Illus. 8.133) is misleading in two ways. Firstly it suggests that there is a rocky shore immediately under the wall on the lower, south-west side of the knoll, but there is in fact a grassy terrace in front of the entrance and which extends round towards the south from it. The second point concerns the configuration of the stone wall in relation to the high cliffs on the east and north-east. The plan suggests that the wall curves round from the south arc – where it crosses the neck of the promontory above the shallow gully – along the east and along the cliff edge, thus implying that the site is nearly circular.

Raasay NG53 2 DUN BORODALE (‘Dun Voradel’, ‘Dun Voradale’, or ‘Castle Vreokle’) NG/5547 3633 This broch on Raasay Island in Portree, Skye, is of markedly sub-circular if not oval form (visited in 1963, in 1971 & on 19/8/85) (Illus. 8.135 – 8.141). It stands on a rocky ridge on a hill at about 91m (300 ft) above the sea and in “a position of great natural strength” [3]. The ridge slopes sharply down on all sides except in the north. The building was planned as a pear-shape in 1926 [3] but a new survey in 1971 showed that the central court fits an ellipse accurately (Illus. 8.141), and the whole broch is likely to be that shape; the long axis is aligned a little clockwise of north-south (10-190o, magnetic north) and along the spine of the ridge.

However the end of the visible part of the galleried wall in the south can be clearly traced pointing towards the cliff, and the structure appears to have a D-shaped plan, with the straight edge being formed by the cliff. There are faint traces of walling along the cliff edges. The similarity of the plan and situation with those of Dun Ringill and Dun Ardtreck is striking and makes it more likely that Dunan an Aisilidh is a semibroch. The entrance faces west, towards a grassy slope and the rocky shore, and is at right angles to the line of the end of the promontory, pointing well away from the line of easiest approach. It is marked by a depression which is full of rubble, and no wallfaces can be seen; however the sides of an extension of the entrance back into the enclosed court can be clearly seen. The structure of the wall north of the passage cannot be made out although the outer face extends almost to the cliff; the pile of rubble here suggests that the wall is thick enough to contain a gallery. On the opposite side, in the southern arc, the wall shows a longitudinal gallery extending from a rounded end about 1m from the passage, for a distance

1. Description The easiest approach is along the spine of the ridge from the north, and here the wall is broken down and hidden under rubble. On the south-east and south-west arc the outer wallface, with a pronounced batter, still stands to a height of 2.55m (8.5 ft) (Illus. 8.136). The wallhead is about level so the underlying rock appears to be sloping downwards to the north, along the long axis of the structure (Illus. 8.141). The entrance passage is on the east by south-east side – facing a steep slope – and is full 844

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides of rubble (Illus. 8.138); the outermost lintel appears to be only slightly dislodged and there is a massive, built doorcheck on the north (right) side 1.37m (4.5 ft) from the outside. The width of the passage is about 92cm (3 ft) and it appears to rise sharply towards the interior. Judd’s comment that it is 2.14m (7 ft) wide at the inner end must be a mistake [3].

from 2.0 - 2.2m above the visible foot of the outer face on the south, which is concealed bymasses of heavy rubble (Illus. 8.136) and it could easily be 3.0m or more above the actual foot of the wall. On the other hand the ledge is 1.05m below the visible base of the outer wallface at the north end, where there is also some fallen rubble against the outer face; the rock thus appears to descend about 4.0m from north to south over the length of the long axis, a distance of some 19.0m. The scarcement could be quite close to the rock at the north end, as at Caisteal Grugaig (NG82 1), and the north wall must have had at least two raised galleries inside it to have been any use at all.

To the left, or south, of the entrance the rounded end of a mural gallery (thought to be a cell by the Commission [4]) can be seen in the wall and the sides of the doorway from this to the interior can be seen at 7 o’clock, about 1.98m (6.5 ft) from it (Illus. 8.139); this door may well lead to the intra-mural stair. The gallery evidently continues round to the south-west – where it can be seen on the wallhead (Illus. 8.137) – and was noted in the north-west in 1926 [4]. This feature is above the level of a ledge-type scarcement which is visible along the whole of the west sector of the inner wallface and is about 38cm (15 in) wide (Illus. 8.140). A small “crudely lintelled recess” was seen immediately above the scarcement on the west-north-west [1, 4] and may be a void or raised doorway to the mural gallery; it was not seen by the author. The scarcement was noticed in 1874, one of the earliest comments on this standard feature of the brochs [3].

In 1874 Judd recorded local information stating that some years before that the broch was better preserved and the “wall chambers” (presumably the intra-mural gallery) could be entered [2]. He also mentioned seeing the west narrow end as rising 6.1m (20 ft) above the ground (the rest being much lower), whereas at present the height of the outer face about 2.44m (8 ft). Even allowing for exaggeration Dun Borodale does seem to have been considerably better preserved a century and a half ago. It has been pointed out that the figure of 6.0m is about the present distance of the west wallhead above the base of the knoll, the implication being that Judd thought the wall went right down to the base of the knoll under the rubble; in this case the height in 1873 would have been much as at present. However Judd also said that the west end was higher than the rest, whereas it is now lower.

In 1971 the Ordnance Survey’s archaeological investigator mentioned that the outer face of the supposed mural gallery could not be seen and supposed that the inner face should be interpreted as a median face. This inner face is clearly visible at the south end where it stands three courses above the rest of the wallhead (Illus. 8.137). The area immediately in front of it is grassed over so it cannot be said with certainty that no outer wall of a gallery exists.

The site in 1695. The brief comment by Martin Martin in about 1695 that ‘Castle Vreokle’ is “an Artificial Fort, three Stories high,...” [2] not only supports the view that Dun Boroda1e was substantially higher only three centuries ago but also implies that three superimposed galleries were then visible in its wall.

There are traces of an overgrown, boulder-faced outwork crossing the spine of the ridge about 12m from the north end of the broch [1].

3. Summary of architecture The basic structure of Dun Borodale may have been as follows (Illus. 8.141).

2. Structural analysis The identification of Dun Borodale as a broch, though an oval one, seems straightforward; the conjunction of a scarcement ledge, a doorway of the appropriate design and signs of an intra-mural gallery on the wallhead above the scarcement would normally be quite sufficient to confirm its nature. The uneven nature of the rocky foundation of the site, and the scarcement which is level despite this (discussed below), also tend to confirm the identification.

Level I: this seems to exist to its full height only at the southern end and is probably solid; as at Dun Ringill (NG51 4) it probably compensates for the lower surface of the rock here. Without systematic excavation it cannot be determined whether the scarcement runs along the top of Level 1 but it seems probable; the ledge, as noted, could be close to the rock at the north end so that, as at Caisteal Grugaig (NG82 1), any wooden floor resting on it would also be close to the rock here but perhaps 2m or more above it at the southern end. The entrance on the south-east would be mainly in this Level and probably rises steeply, as at Dun Ardtreck (NG33 2). Whether there is enough room for the lintelled passage to be entirely within Level 1 is not clear. Likewise if the door to the mural stair is at about 7 or 8 o’clock it too is likely to be in Level I. On the other hand the possible void above the scarcement at 12 o’clock could be a raised door

Some basic levelling with an indian clinometer in 1985 demonstrated beyond doubt that Dun Borodale is founded on sloping rock and that itmust be a hollow-walled broch (Illus. 8.141). Two points on the scarcement on the south and west sides were levelled and proved to be within 5cm of the same height; thus the ledge, as is usual in brochs, appears to have been built horizontal despite the unevenness of the underlying rock. The scarcement is 845

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland from a landing in the stair out to the wooden floor on the scarcement and, if so, the stair should start at about 10 o’clock.

two of its lintels are in place on the north-west arc. In the north-north-west – facing inland – can be seen a lintelled door to the gallery from the interior with a possible second such door in the south-west [4]. Part of the foundations are just under water at present [4, plan]. The inner face is about 1.2m (4 ft) high but has been rebuilt in modern times. A trace of the entrance passage was noted on the east side [2] and this is confirmed by Swanson [4].

Level 2 would then be the first tier of the normal galleried broch wall the base of which would be horizontal and at the level of the scarcement. Since this hollow part of the wall seems to be fairly close to the rock at the north end a second gallery, Level 3, can be confidently assumed to have existed on top of it if the wall had an adequate defensive height. Another, Level IV, was probably on top of that, as suggested by the early accounts [2, 3].

The lintels over the gallery on the north-west side are only about 20cm above the rubble in the interior [4] so, despite its dilapidated appearance and closeness to the water level, Dun Grianan may be standing at least 1.5m high as far as the central court is concerned.

4. Shape and dimensions Only the wall thickness – varying from 3.36m (11 ft) on the east to 4.27m (14 ft) on the west – is mentioned by the Commission. From their plan the longest and shortest overall diameters are 19.5m (64 ft) north-south and 16.17m (53 ft) east-west. In 1873 the internal measurements were given, inaccurately, as 10.68m (35 ft) northsouth and 7.32m (24 ft) east-west [2]. In 1961 the equivalent internal measurements were determined as 11.4m north-south and 8.0m east-west and the wall was measured as from 3.2 - 4.2m thick [1].

Dimensions: internal diameter about 10.75m (35 ft 3 in), wall thickness 3.05m (10 ft) on the west and 3.3m (11 ft) on the north; so the external diameter is about 17.lm (56 ft) and the wall proportion about 37.5%. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 56 NW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 169, no. 539: 3. MacSween 1985, 44, no. 19 & fig. 19: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 819-21 & plan.

A new survey of the interior wallface was carried out in 1971 (Illus. 8.141) and shows fairly convincingly that the central court was elliptical, with a long axis of c. 11.6m and a short axis of 8.3m.140 The inner face below scarcement level (assumed to represent the shape at ground level) is only visible for about half of the circumference, and had evidently sagged inwards a little in several places (as at Dun Torcuill in North. Uist – site NF87 4); however the face above the scarcement continues round to the opposite side and confirms the elliptical shape.

NG56 2 DUN RAISABURGH NG/5032 6427 This probable broch in Kilmuir, Skye, stands on a narrow rocky ridge about 30m wide and 400m south-west of Loch Mealt (and Dun Grianan, above: NG56 1) and which rises 10.7 - 15.3m (35 - 50 ft) above the moor (Illus. 8.143). The scanty remains of the structure are near the south of the end of this ridge but not on the highest point. The east side is broken down but there may be 1.53m (5 ft) of masonry standing on the north side, the lowest 60 - 90cm (2-3 ft) of which are buried below debris. A length of wall gallery is visible for 6.7m (22 ft) on the north-east arc and its outer wall is 90cm (3 ft) high in places [4, plan].

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 53 NE 1: 2. Martin 1994, 214: 3. Judd 1875, 308-09: 4. RCAHMS 1928, 181, no. 575 & fig. 255; 5. Graham 1948, 48-49: 6. Ritchie & Harman 1996, 125,

The entrance passage may be on the south-east where two parallel faces can be seen within the wall. The inner face of the broch wall is visible only in the south (at about 7 o’clock) for a short distance with traces of an irregular oval cell behind this [4, plan]. A lintelled doorway gives access from the interior to this cell which seems to have been exposed fairly recently. It may also be a guard cell for the broch entrance passage [4].

Skye Square NG56 NG56 1 DUN GRIANAN (‘Dun Greanan’) NG/5055 6529 This badly dilapidated probable ground-galleried broch in Kilmuir, Skye, stands on a low, short promontory on the north shore of Loch Mealt and next to an area of flat farmland; it must often have been robbed for stones in the past (visited in 1963 & 22/06/88) (Illus. 8.142 & 8.143). much of the outer wallface is reduced to the lowest course, but the inner face of the mural gallery – clearly at ground level – is easily traceable much of the way round. Both faces can be seen in the west and north-west and

An outer wall 1.83m (6 ft) thick, and now reduced to foundation level, can be seen 9.9m (32.5 ft) south of the main building. It runs across the ridge and seems to return north on the east edge towards the broch. There are faint signs of another outer wall 7.6m (25 ft) north of the broch. More details of these features are given by Swanson [4]. Dimensions: external diameter from north to south 16.24m (53 ft 3 in) [2], or 17m [4]. The wall is about 3.2-3.4m thick on the south [4].

140

It is striking that 14 and 10 megalithic yards are, respectively, 11.606 and 8.29m.

846

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 56 SW 1: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 169, no. 540: 3. MacSween 1985, 44, no. 20 & fig. 20: 4. Swanson (ms) 1985, 822-24 & plan.

Loch Alsh. Because of its situation (like Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh in Wester Ross – NH19 3) it provides valuable information about the function of the ubiquitous broch scarcement (NG82 1).

Square NG60 Unfortunately three of these sites – Dun Troddan, Dun Telve and Caisteal Grugaig – were cleared out at a time when techniques of archaeological excavation were extremely primitive so a great deal of information must have been lost. Even so the finds that have survived tell us something useful about the people who built these sites. This part of the west coast, like that near the mouth of Loch Linnhé to the south and the west coast of Sutherland to the north, appears to have been a transitional zone between the Atlantic traditions of the islands and the mainland Iron Age cultures of the eastern and central Scottish lowlands. This is most clearly seen in the few finds from Dun Telve (Illus. 8.173) which include a few sherds of decorated Atlantic wares but also two handled stone cups. The vast majority of the latter have a classical mainland distribution, far from the broch zone, but with a few outliers in the Atlantic province (Steer 1956, fig. 7).

NG60 1 DUN CHOINNICH (‘Dunan Choinnich’) NG/6829 0834 This possible broch is in Sleat, Skye, and stands at the end of a small promontory, on top of a rocky knoll; this has a precipitous face towards the sea and a lower sheer edge facing towards the land. The few signs of masonry visible suggest a circular building with a wall perhaps 3.05m (10 ft) thick and internal diameters of 12.2m (40 ft) from north-south and 10.8m (36 ft) from east-west. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 60 NE 6: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 189, no. 605: 3. Graham 1949, 97 (list). Ross and Cromarty (mainland) Square NG74 NG74 1 BORRODALE (‘Applecross’, ‘Mains of Applecross’) NG/7118 4432 This possible broch in Applecross, Ross and Cromarty, stands on the highest point of a low ridge; it is now a grass-covered mound 0.8m high and about 18.5m in diameter [1]. The adjoining farm, Mains of Applecross, was formerly ‘Borrodale’ which comes from the Old Norse for ‘fort valley’ [2]; this supports the idea that there was a broch nearby which was once more conspicuous. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 74 SW 2: 2. Watson 1904, 204.

Handled stone cups. As at 2005 every explored broch on the west coast north of the Firth of Clyde has produced at least one handled stone cup. One was found in that year at Tirefuar on Lismore (NM84 1) and the three brochs in Squares NG81 and NG82 have all produced them. Clachtoll in Assynt has not been excavated but a handled stone cup was found in a chamber in it in the 19th century (NC02 1). On Loch Broom the excavations of the semibroch Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh (NH19 3) failed to yield one as did those on the Iron Age dun on Dun Lagaidh (NH19 2).

Square NG81

However a handled stone cup was found near the latter site many years ago (Illus. 7.382) and this seems to confirm the importance of the stone cup as a diagnostic artifact of the mainland Iron Age. The dun there is a classic Argyllshire type and the aceramic material culture included finds – like an iron bridle bit and fragments of a sheet bronze cauldron – which are completely atypical of the Atlantic province. It seems that the handled stone cup was a high status object among the mainland Iron Age cultures which was adopted by the élite families who built brochs on the west coast. The brochs on the east coast of Caithness and Sutherland seem to be in a similar transitional zone between maritime and mainland traditions and a number of cups have been obtained from these.

Inverness-shire (western) Introduction Four remarkable sites. On the west coast of the County where the mainland is closest to the island of Skye, within a few miles of Glenelg, stand four major Iron Age structures (with a fifth more ruinous one) which together provide a considerable amount of information about what one might call the ‘broch class’ of Iron Age monumental drystone buildings. Nowhere else is there a similar concentration of varied and well preserved and exposed such buildings. Four of the group stand close together in Glen Beag (Illus. 8.144) and include two solid-based broch towers standing on fairly flat ground close to farmland (NG81 2 & 3) and one D-shaped semibroch built near the head of the glen and on a rocky knoll next to a cliff (NG81 1); it lies a little beyond the nearest arable land. The fourth, less well preserved, site is near the mouth of Glen Beag and may be another semibroch (NG82 2).

NG81 1 DUN GRUGAIG 2 (‘Caisteal Chonil’) NG/8515 1591 This unexcavated D- or C-shaped semibroch in Glen Beag, Glenelg, Inverness-shire, stands at the head of the glen on a steep-sided, conical knoll; this has a precipitous southern side, now tree-covered, falling down to a stream far below (visited in 1962, 1964 and 1985 and planned in June 1986) (Illus. 8.144 - 8.154). This straight, steep

Some miles to the north – over a steep hill – is the fifth site – a ‘transitional’ broch built on a slope overlooking 847

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland slope forms the western edge of the open-sided structure which in plan is like a slightly squashed ‘D’. Dun Grugaig is a classic example of its type, the best preserved, and in some ways the most informative, among the whole group of these broch-like buildings (Illus. 8.146).

same attention to Dun Grugaig, an excellent idea that has still not been taken up one hundred and ten years later. The next systematic description is that of Graham [4] who calls the structure not a broch but a “galleried dun”, evidently because of its non-circular plan. Unfortunately his plan, like Bogle’s, is diagrammatic and – being exactly D-shaped – was not based on systematic measurements [4, fig. 4]. He identified the main entrance in the same place as Bogle, in the north-north-west and 3.66m (12 ft) from the precipice; he saw the door-checks and also a bar-hole in the left or east wall, and the gallery door was seen 2.7m (9 ft) east of this.

Glen Beag is an isolated, landlocked valley in which, closer to the sea, stand the two well preserved, solidbased brochs Dun Troddan and Dun Telve (NG81 2 & 3). Whereas these tower brochs are on or very close to flat ground in the cultivable part of the valley, the semibroch is situated on the rugged rising ground at the foot of the steep mountain slopes which surround the valley on three sides. A new plan of the structure (with cross-elevation) was made by the author in 1986 (Illus. 8.147); unknown to him then Swanson had made a plan two years earlier [9, fig. 98].

The south-east doorway, described by Dryden as the main entrance, was diagnosed as another gallery door by Graham, who could find no trace of its outer end and thought its position unsuitable for a main entrance; it is aligned transversely to a steep slope and would have been awkward to get at. He noted the lintel over the inner end of this door, and the void above it which connected with the length of lintelled upper gallery on the south-east. He was unable to decide whether this gallery was an ordinary first floor one or an inaccessible space.

This building, as well as the interpretation of it offered here, is difficult to understand from verbal descriptions alone. The text should be read in conjunction with Illus. 8.146 and 8.147. 1. History In contrast with many other sites the 19th century plans and descriptions show Dun Grugaig in much the same state as it is today. The oldest recorder appears to be Alexander Gordon in 1720 who refers to a ‘Castle Chonil’ in the east part of the glen and as being distinct from the two brochs lower down [2], though he published no description of the site. Sir Henry Dryden surveyed the ruins in 1871 and his plan is in the library of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

The site was first diagnosed, in 1972 by the author [7], as a semibroch – that is a structure with the same hollowwall construction as a broch but non-circular and with one open side – and this diagnosis is confirmed below. A description by the field investigator of the Ordnance Survey in 1974 [1] notes that the “main entrance is undoubtedly in the east at the easiest approach. The whole of its north side can be seen in the debris, including the door-check.” He suggests that the entrance in the north-west may be secondary. For reasons given later the author is also certain that the eastern entrance was the main one so the clock-face references given below take 6 o’clock to be at this point. The essentials of the description given here were published in 1991 [10].

In 1895 Lockhart Bogle called it a “broch-like structure” and maintained that it could never have been circular because of its closeness to the river ravine [3]. He saw what he assumed to be the first floor (Level 2) gallery exposed on the wallhead most of the way round (Illus. 8.144, bottom) with the wall on the south (uphill) side containing a short section of a lintelled, higher gallery, presumably in Level 3. He also noted a narrow wall along the edge of the cliff and saw several walls in the rubblestrewn interior. His sketch plan (Illus. 8.144) shows the main entrance on the north-west, close to the cliff; a gallery door is a few feet east of this and linked to the end of the long stretch of wallhead gallery. What appears to be a scarcement of the ledge type on the inner face is shown most of the way round, disappearing under rubble on the south side, and there is another door into the wall on the south-east. Bogle’s diagram clearly shows lintels in position over the inner ends of all three doorways and evidently forming parts of the scarcement [3].

Traces of outworks were seen in the south and the east. 2. Description (Illus. 8.146 & 8.147) In plan the fort is like a slightly squashed D or C with the open, straight side along the edge of the precipice on the east, the curved stone wall being slightly distorted towards the south. The easiest approach, almost level and along the line of the precipice, is from the south (in the opposite direction to the glen below) and this ground is the highest on which the building stands (Illus. 8.145 & 8.149). The edge of this precipice itself slopes gradually down towards the north. Thus the foundations of the wall are lowest along the northern arc and rest on a fairly steep slope. Three doorways can be seen in the inner wallface – no. 1 at 6 o’clock facing east, no. 2 at about 3 o’clock and facing north-east by north, and no. 3 at about 2 o’clock facing north-west by north. At the edge of the cliff (9-1 o’clock) the outer face is almost down to foundation level but elsewhere it is much better preserved, particularly on the east side (Illus. 8.145).

It is of interest too that Bogle says that the two brochs lower down – Dun Troddan and Dun Telve – had already been “propped up” in his time, presumably by the Board of Works. He thought that the Board should pay the

848

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides Traces of what looks like an unroofed upper141 intramural gallery can be seen on the high wallhead on the south, at about 8 o’clock. A little further round, on the south-east, some kind of faulting has produced a vertical discontinuity in the coursing of the masonry (Illus. 8.148) but the length of higher, roofed gallery behind it (below) is intact (Illus. 8.150). This section is much higher than the rest of the galleried wall on the north and is therefore an upper one; however since its floor is of rubble, it must be resting on a solid wall base (Illus. 8.150). Its interior was thought by Bogle to have contracted within the last century [3, p. 183], and Graham also concluded that the opening had probably become distorted [4]. However the photograph taken inside it by the author shows how all the lintels are still close together, level and undistorted (Illus. 8.150); neither does the rubble floor appear to be composed of loose material, but rather to be of solidly packed wall core. This roofed gallery also has a carefully built inner end and in the author’s opinion – and unless some unknown restoration has taken place142 – it is intact.

8.147). Unfortunately the outer half of the passage is now badly destroyed and hidden under rubble and the features seen in 1974 are invisible; a radial depression in the rubble certainly suggests that it goes right through. The door-check seen in the left wall in 1974 [1] could not be observed in 1986. An interesting feature, not hitherto commented on specifically, is visible in the right (north) wall of the passage. By peering under the main passage lintels a narrow vertical opening, bridged with a short lintel, can be seen in the side of the passage about half way through the wall; it resembles the opening to an unusually narrow intra-mural gallery (Illus. 8.152). As far as can be seen the opposite, south wall of the passage is quite solid. This small opening was probably seen by Bogle as he indicates that the wall gallery joins this passageway (Illus. 8.144). The inner face of an intra-mural gallery is exposed on the wallhead for some distance clockwise from gallery door 2 on the north – from about 3.30 to 4.30 o’clock. This door leads in from the interior, where its innermost lintel is in position; the corner which the right wall makes with the inner face of the gallery leading to the right can also be seen. The left face can be traced further into the wall so the gallery evidently ends here, as both Bogle and the O.S. investigator saw [1, 3].

As noted the outer wallface in the same area has subsided and faulted a little (at about 7.30 o’clock) although this does not seem to have damaged the gallery [4, pl. VI, 5) (Illus. 8.148). As was observed by Graham this short, roofed gallery communicates with a large chamber above the eastern doorway (no. 1); the rubble floor of the latter is at the level of the passage lintels and not “3 feet higher up” as maintained by Graham [4, 22]. It is possible that some rubble has been removed from the gallery since 1949. The inner half of the left or south side of this chamber is preserved for a height of about 75cm, and the corner between it and the inner wall of the raised gallery is clearly visible (Illus. 8.151).

About 4m further round anticlockwise, and only a few feet from the west end of the wall at the precipice, is a second entrance (no. 3) at 2.30 o’clock which goes right through the wall and faces down a very steep slope. It apparently has a complete door-frame with checks of built rebates with a bar-hole and socket behind them [4]. Only the door-check on the left (west) can now be seen, and the same side of the passage can be traced right through the wall.

From what was observed by the O.S. investigator in 1974 [1] it must be concluded that this partly lintelled southeast doorway must be the main entrance into the building; the small plan on the original O.S. index card shows the right or north side of the passage complete, including the outer corner, and a door-check about 1.8m in from it (Illus. 8.147, lower). The four long lintels in position over the inner half of the passage, and the well built chamber above these, are characteristic of a fully developed broch entrance passage. The innermost lintel appears to be about 40cm above the adjacent ledge scarcement which runs round the inner wallface (Illus.

A fine ledge-type scarcement about 30cm wide runs round the inner wallface from this entrance and almost to doorway 1 in the east. As noted this seems to have been much better preserved at the end of the 19th century, when Bogle describes it, and when the three innermost door lintels seem to have formed part of it (Illus. 8.144). The interior is full of rubble almost to the level of this ledge but the underlying rock surface probably rises towards the cliff edge as at Dun Ardtreck (site no. NG33 2). The outer wallface on the north-east arc (north of door 1) is mostly only a few courses high; however at one point, where the wall crosses a cleft in the rock, it is built down skilfully into this gap.

141

The reasons for thinking it to be an upper rather than a ground level gallery are given later. 142 The possibility that this gallery became ruinous and was reconstructed into its present form some time after Dryden’s visit – probably early in the 20th century – must be considered, although the remoteness of the site would seem to argue against this. On the other hand Office of Works employees, including stonemasons, were not far away in the same glen in 1914 (at Dun Troddan) and in about 19181920 (at Dun Telve), to clear out and consolidate those brochs. It is possible that they did some consolidation work at Dun Grugaig also. We also know from Bogle [3, 183] that the brochs were “propped up” some time before 1895 but earlier consolidation of Dun Grugaig at the same time seems unlikely because of Bogle’s description of the state of the roofed gallery. A search in the archives of Historic Scotland might reveal something.

There are traces of an outer defence on the south side a few metres from the wall and running across the line of easiest approach. More outer walls are further down the slope to the east [1, ill.]. Within the central court there is a curved secondary wall on the north and west, looking like the remains of a circular roundhouse inserted into the

849

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland dun. There is no trace now of the wall along the cliff edge observed by Bogle [3].

and reaching a total height of about 6.1m (20 ft), would seem to be the absolute minimum here, and a 7.6m (25 ft) wall would be safer. Yet the ground under the north end of the wall may be 3.0m lower so a level wallhead and galleries would require two extra galleries on that side, on a wall base only 4.3m thick. The question must be left open until the site is excavated and the nature of the wall foundations all the way round revealed; however a stepped wall seems most probable.

3. Structural analysis A cross-section of the site from north-south – surveyed in 1986 and measured with a steel tape and an indian clinometer (Illus. 8.147) – makes it possible to infer with some confidence the way the hollow, galleried wall of Dun Grugaig was built on the sloping and uneven top of the knoll. A number of structural features can now be seen to be important – for example the fact that the wall is built on uneven rock, so that the basal courses of the higher, or southern, end of the building are considerably higher than those of the north end – perhaps as much as 3 - 4m.

The structure of the wall at the uphill, or south, end is in fact fairly clear. Immediately south of the lintelled main entrance there appears to be a solid wall or platform of which the left wall of the passage forms the end and on which stands the Level 2 covered gallery (Illus. 8.147); this is Level 1 south of the entrance. However the covered gallery itself also ends at a carefully built wall so evidently Level 2 also becomes solid as the ground rises towards the south. What we seem to have in the southern arc is a solid platform which has been built in two steps to counteract the sloping ground – the first step being the left wall of the passage and the second the end of the lintelled gallery.

Secondly the 3m length of upper gallery on the east arc is hardly damaged at all, and neither is its inner end blocked by the crushing together of the side walls; it appears to be intact, with level lintels and a carefully and deliberately built wall at its inner end. Thirdly this gallery is resting on a solid wall base which can be seen inside it since there is in fact very little loose rubble on its floor. It is also apparent in the continuous left wall of the entrance passage below it, which is in effect the end of this solid basal section. The cross-section and the reconstructed elevation in Illus. 8.147 – viewed from the interior – should be studied in conjunction with the following remarks.

The lintels of the Level 2 gallery above the entrance are less than a metre above the present ground surface outside the south end of the wall. Thus any intra-mural gallery in the south end must be up in Level 3, with its base presumably at the level of the lintels of the Level 2 gallery, and must rest on a minimum of about 1.5m of solid wall, as at Dun Ardtreck (NG33 2).

In the absence of a really well preserved semibroch standing on uneven ground one cannot be sure how the top of the galleried wall would have been built. In such circumstances a level top would have to accommodate the fact that its height above the ground would steadily increase so that more galleries would be needed on the downhill side (Illus. 8.147). Otherwise it would have to have been stepped in some way to compensate for the slope. The fact that all observable scarcements and galleries in brochs and semibrochs are always built level143 suggests that the wallhead was also level, whatever the nature of the underlying ground surface; yet much building material would be saved, and perhaps greater stability achieved without loss of defensive effectiveness, if the wallhead followed the ground surface approximately by being stepped.

The remains of this Level 3 gallery should be inside the wall here and may be completely enclosed and inaccessible unless there is a doorway to the central court hidden under the piles of rubble now resting against the inner face; there is a suggestion of a void in the inner face here (Illus. 8.146). Moreover there ought once to have been Level 4 and 5 galleries on top of it, with a parapet on top of everything (Illus. 8.147); the top of Level 3 would only have been about 2.0m above the ground outside which is far too low for an effectively defensive, high, galleried wall. This high, stepped foundation platform on the south – which must have supported a great weight – obviously needed to be braced against the galleried wall further north. This was effectively achieved by the row of lintels, some of which still remain, roofing the main entrance, by a second row which once spanned the inner half of the wall on top of the chamber over the entrance, and no doubt by at least two more such shorter rows higher up. A similar arrangement, though on a shallower slope, was employed at the entrance of Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh (NH19 2).

For example the cross-section of Dun Grugaig from north-north-west to south-south-east shows that one would expect the wall at the south end (on the highest ground) to be reasonably high because this is the line of easiest approach; the foundations are also at the highest point here. A barrier containing at least three galleries (perhaps on a low solid base – see below) with a parapet, 143

There are good reasons for thinking that, of the two sites which clearly do possess some uneven and sloping galleries – Clickhimin (HU44 1) in Shetland and Midhowe (HY33 1) in Orkney – the first has been unskilfully restored in modern times. Midhowe may also have been but distortion due to partial collapse in Iron Age times could also account for the irregularities.

To the south of the main entrance is the long mural gallery which connects with the former and joins with doorway 2 at 3 o’clock. Although it is not entirely clear 850

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides whether what one sees on the wallhead now is the base of the Level 2 gallery or the top of that in Level 1 (the latter seems more likely144), it is clear that Level 1 from the main entrance round to the second entrance on the north (and probably to the cliff edge on the north-west) is hollow-walled, in sharp contrast with the same Level south of the passage.

tradition. The way the galleried wall at this site is carefully and skilfully built on uneven, sloping ground with a remarkable stepped construction shows great knowledge and experience among the builders; both Dun Ardtreck and Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh have similar features but these were much less skillfully built. Because of its proximity to the two tower brochs Dun Troddan and Dun Telve (described below) – which are much more conveniently situated sites on or very close to flat farmland lower down the glen – Dun Grugaig surely shows us that hollow-walled broch architecture had evolved to an extraordinary degree of sophistication before the round tower itself was developed. It is hard to think of any other reason why this building should have been put up on such difficult ground if the concept of a round tower suitable for flat land was already known.

The descending ground suggests that, further round to the north, this gallery itself rests on a solid wall core of increasing thickness. This has to be called Level –1 and is doubtless similar to – although probably better built than – the basal rubble platform on which part of the hollow wall of Dun Ardtreck was founded (NG33 2). The second entrance near the north end of the wall may well be partly sunk into this presumed solid basement level and may have a high outer sill, also as at Dun Ardtreck. The gallery door at 3 o’clock on the north-north-east (no. 2)must be the door to the stair inside the Level 1 gallery It seems certain that the stair must rise clockwise a short distance south of this door so its remains should be buried inside the wall on the north-east arc. The Level 1 gallery to the right (north) of the main entrance, being behind the stair, should thus have been another inaccessible space, sealed by the ascending stair (the tiny opening to it in the main entrance is too small to get into). It seems likely that there was a long landing at the top of the first flight of steps which led to the chamber over the entrance. The inner end of this would have been the doorway to the raised wooden floor on the scarcement. It is interesting that the ledge scarcement on the inner wallface is about 40cm below the lintels of the main entrance,145 and therefore presumably below the lintels of the Level 1 gallery. Usually one would expect the innermost lintel of the main door to serve as part of the scarcement – for example as at Midhowe (HY33 1) – and indeed this implied on Bogle’s sketch plan (Illus. 8.144). Assuming that it supported the raised, annular floor of a wooden roundhouse inside the central court, the stone ledge may be quite close to the original ground surface on the upper (south) side of the court (perhaps only 60cm above it) – as at Caisteal Grugaig (NG82 1) and Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh (NH19 2). Conversely it could be as much as 3m above it on the downhill side. If there is a reason for the scarcement being slightly lower than expected it will only be revealed when the court is excavated.

5. Dimensions Maximum width of central court along the cliff, 17.2m; maximum width, at about right angles to this, c. 12m; thickness of wall – 4.9m at door 1, 3.3m at door 2 and 3.8m at door 3. Door 3 itself, being at a slight angle to the line of the wall, is slightly longer. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 81 NE 3: 2. Gordon 1726, 166: 3. Bogle 1895, 180-83; 4. Graham 1949, 19-22; 5. Young 1962, 189-90; 6. Feachem 1963, 181-82; 7. MacKie 1965b, 139: 8. MacKie 1975, 162: 9. Swanson (ms) 1985: 10. MacKie 1991. NG81 2 DUN TELVE (‘Caisteal Teilbah’) NG/8290 1725 This excavated and consolidated solid-based broch in Glenelg, western Inverness-shire, is under Guardianship and stands on the flat ground of the valley bottom of Glen Beag (visited Sept. 1962, in 1963, 1985 & 1986) (Illus. 8.155 - 8.173 & 8.201). It is one of two unusually well preserved brochs in the isolated glen on the mainland opposite Skye. Because of several early descriptions of the structure it is possible to make an accurate estimate of its probable original height [5]. In the present account the description of the structure as it is today comes first, and is followed by some early accounts. 1. Description Five distinct Levels with a part of a sixth are preserved in this building. At present the broch stands to a height of 10.22m (33.5 ft) but for only about a quarter of its circumference running clockwise from the entrance (from 6-10 o’clock) (Illus. 8.160). Inside this high wall, on top of the solid wall base some 1.83m (6 ft) high, are four complete mural galleries with part of a fifth on top, and on the inner face of this part of an upper scarcement is preserved 9.00m (29.5 ft) above the floor.

The existence of what looks like a second primary entrance at Dun Grugaig, is, so far, unique in broch and broch-like buildings. 4. Comment If the interpretation offered here is correct Dun Grugaig is one of the most sophisticated buildings in the entire group showing the broch hollow wall architectural

Level 1 consists of a solid wall base varying in thickness from 3.66 - 4.58m (12.0 -15.0 ft) at ground level; it rises up to 1.95m where a shelf type scarcement runs all the way round the interior (below). This basal storey contains

144

Bogle’s drawing shows what look like the foundations of the Level 2 gallery here (Illus. 8.144). 145 The author’s earlier drawing wrongly shows it too high, at the level of these lintels (MacKie 1991, fig. 6) (Illus. 8.148).

851

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland several intra-mural features. The entrance is on the west side. 4.12m (13.5 ft) long with a door-frame 1.45m (4 ft 9 in) from the outside; the door-checks are made of stone slabs set at right-angles into the passage walls and a barhole and socket are behind these. The width of the passage is 0.99m (3 ft 3 in) at the outside, 92cm (3 ft) between the checks and 1.32m (4 ft 4 in) inside these; thereafter it widens to 1.60m (5 ft 3 in) and narrows again slightly to 1.42m (4 ft 8 in) at the inner end.

Level 2 (Illus. 8.174): This consists of the preserved segment of the lowest intra-mural gallery, the chamber over the entrance, part of the vanished stairway (once dividing the gallery into two parts) and the raised wooden floor or balcony presumed once to have rested on the scarcement. The floor of this (first-floor) gallery, level with the scarcement, is 76cm (2.5 ft) wide and is roofed with lintels 1.5 - 1.8m (5 – 6 ft) above it (Illus. 8.167 & 8.168). Its sides are neat and well built, as if it was intended to be used. This gallery might originally have connected with the chamber over the entrance but the northern part is now separated from this chamber by 76cm (2.5 ft) of solid masonry. 146 The southern part originally ran right over the guard cell (which was therefore relatively low) and still connects with the chamber over the entrance through a large doorway (Illus. 8.162). Thus if the first gallery was continuous, and if there were no more voids leading to it in the vanished part of the wall, the only convenient way into it would have been by way of the chamber over the entrance, itself reachable easily only from the raised wooden floor or balcony resting on the scarcement.

All the lintels of the entrance passage have been snapped off except for the massive front one which supports the outer wallface (Illus. 8.162); the stumps of the rest remain in the walls. Thus, as at Mousa in Shetland (HU42 6), anyone entering the broch now has the impression that the entrance rises suddenly immediately after the outer opening; however one is in fact looking into the chamber above the entrance in Level 2, now without its lintelled floor. Unlike Mousa however there is no sign that the outer end of the passage has ever been extended upwards; the massive front lintel seems undisturbed, and there is no cement in the wall above it (Illus. 8.161).

The quarter of the surviving gallery from 6-9 o'clock can now only be entered from the stair, by crossing the gap above the stair door. However this shorter section of the gallery is now partly blocked by a vertical series of crossslabs some 4.8m (15 ft) from the inner end; these are marked on Patterson's plan as ‘E’ [5, fig. 6, lower] (Illus. 8.174, lower). This innermost section can otherwise conveniently be reached now only from the gallery above, through two gaps in the roofing lintels (marked F on the same plan) one of which is above the blocking slabs. This might suggest that the slabs could have been used as steps to get down into the gallery which might have been some kind of prison. However there are good reasons for thinking that the stone bars are part of some propping up a little later (p. 855 below and f.n. 149).

A long guard chamber opens to the right behind the checks, through a low, lintelled doorway; the cell is 5.49m (18 ft) in length and has a maximum width of 1.53m (5 ft). All its roofing has disappeared except for a single lintel at the inner end (Illus. 8.163). By contrast with many such cells – which have corbelled, beehive roofs rising into Level 2 – the whole of this chamber was clearly lintelled over at one time, like a ground level gallery, and was thus confined to Level 1. Several lintels are preserved forming the roof of the short passage which leads into this cell [5, fig. 6, lower]; they are stepped so that the doorway rises slightly to meet the lintelled roof of the cell (Illus. 8.164). The central court is almost exactly circular, having a standard deviation of only + 2cm from a true circle (below). A scarcement, partly corbelled and partly of the ledge type, runs round the inner wallface about 1.98m (6.5 ft) above the floor and, as noted, it is at the level of the base of the first floor gallery (Illus. 8.158 & 8.165).

The chamber over the entrance passage – now floorless – communicates with the interior and also with the southwestern arc of the first floor gallery, now vanished. This chamber is also partly roofed with lintels across which the Level 3 gallery passes [5, fig. 6, upper] (Illus. 8.162). The wide inner end of this chamber must have led out on to the raised annular wooden floor inferred to have rested on the scarcement. The fact that no ring of post-holes was noted in the earth floor of the central court is no argument that none existed, or that they could not be found now; the excavations were extremely crude by modem standards (below) and just such a ring of post-holes was found a few years later in neighbouring Dun Troddan (NG81 3). Moreover this only happened because an archaeologist happened to be on the latter site at the end of the clearance and got the men to scrape the primary surface, revealing the post-holes.

At 9 o’clock a doorway 99cm (3 ft 3 in) wide leads into the wall; to the left of this is the opening into a lintelled stair-foot guard cell 2.7m (9 ft) long. The stairway rises to the right, and is approached by way of a broad, wellbuilt passage having walls made from evenly faced blocks (Illus. 8.169). Some clearance of the wallhead has occurred since the author’s first visits in the 1960s and in 1989 it could be seen that the first flight of the stair ends at what appears to be a paved landing (Illus. 8.170). There are no clear signs now of a Level 2 doorway from here to the interior at scarcement level, but there surely must have been one originally. The edge of the inner half of the high wall here looks like the side of a large doorway but it is much too far back from the landing to be one (Illus. 8.165, extreme right). It is in fact the side of a large void over the stair door (below).

146

There are reasons for thinking that this blocking might be modern – see Alexander Gordon's description below and Illus. 8.201, upper.

852

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides At first sight it is not clear how the inhabitants would have reached any such raised wooden floor. A wooden step-ladder leading up to its inner edge is the simplest solution, though unverifiable, but the existence at some brochs of voids opening from the first floor gallery out on to the scarcement – as at Mousa (site HU42 5) – suggests that the same intra-mural access might have been available at Dun Telve. If so it must have been by way of the stair, which would then have reached a landing at first floor level (just beyond where it survives to at present) on which should have been a large void forming a doorway to the interior. The landing, as noted, is now exposed (Illus. 8.170) and surely confirms the existence of a large doorway here.

towards the stair door at about 8 o’clock; this has no obvious structural function except as a way of lightening the wall and, perhaps, letting light into the galleries. The upper part of this is above the upper scarcement and its topmost surviving lintel forms part of this ledge. There was probably a third long void rising to the top of the tower over the door to the mural stair, at 9 o’clock, though only about 92cm (3 ft) of one side is preserved above the door lintel to a height of about 3.05m (10 ft) (Illus. 8.158 & 8.165); above that the stonework is sloping and obviously restored. Outbuildings (Illus. 8.157). There are no traces of outer fortifications around the broch but structures, presumably secondary, were built against the tower immediately in front of and to the left of the entrance. The entrance itself has been extended outwards for a distance of about 2.44m (8 ft) with some very massive stone blocks (Illus. 8.161), and this passage contains a pair of door-checks some 1.5m (5.0 ft) from the broch wall. Between this door and the broch wall are opposed lateral passages, of the left hand one of which the broch outer face forms one side. The one on the left (north) leads into an oblong chamber the inner side of which is a relatively thin skin of masonry laid against the broch. The one to the right seems to lead into another similarly placed chamber the remains of which are fragmentary; the face next to the broch is curved and it may have been circular or oval originally (see Pennant’s description, below).

Level 3: the second gallery runs continuously over the chamber over the entrance passage, the circumferential lintels of the latter resting on the radial lintels of the gallery; its walls too are smoothly and neatly finished. Its height is 1.68m (5.5 ft) with a width at floor level of 63cm (2 ft 1 in) and at the top of 46cm (1.5 ft). Levels 4-5: the remains of the two galleries above – the third and fourth – are littlemore than 30cm (1 ft) wide with sides of rough masonry having many projecting stones. Level 6: the foundations of the fifth gallery are preserved at the present wallhead (the greatest height of which is now 10.22m (33.5 ft), its floor of lintels being at the same height as the upper scarcement, namely 9.00m (29.5 ft). Thus Level 6 should include the vanished wooden structure partly resting on this ledge, which was presumably some kind of pitched roof with a covering of thatch. Whether a hole in its centre would have been required to admit light and let out smoke is not clear.

It has to be said however that most of the long rectangular ‘chamber’ to the left of the entrance looks entirely unconvincing apart from the skin of walling along the foot of the broch wall. The other ‘walls’ look like a modern excavation into heavy rubble and that is probably exactly what they are – an exploratory trench dug down into the rubble surrounding the broch and which was unfortunately added into the ground plan (Illus. 8.157). There is of course no question about the antiquity of the extended entrance passage; some of the heavy blocks fronting it can be clearly seen in Pennant’s drawing (Illus. 3.03, top left).

The topmost two segments of the long void over the entrance passage are also above the upper scarcement (Illus. 8.158, upper, & 8.160). Another void at about 7 o’clock starts at this level so that the upper scarcement forms its sill; no lintels remain in it and it looks like a narrow doorway giving access to whatever rested on the high ledge. If this was a functional doorway the gallery lintels on either side of it should have served as a landing between two ascending flights of the stair. However the floor of this topmost gallery extends for some distance anti-clockwise from this high door, running past the voids over the entrance, so this must have been a very long landing. The topmost galleries themselves must also have been wider originally (Illus. 8.166). It is possible that a final short flight of the stairway, rising to the wallhead, started from this level at about 10 o’clock but no trace of it survives.

By contrast Pennant’s observations in 1772 imply that the vestiges of the circular chamber to the right of the secondary door are almost certainly very old. “The entrance was a square hole, on the West side; before it were the remains of some building, with a narrow opening that led to the door. Almost contiguous to this entrance or portico, was a small circle formed of rude stones, which was called the foundation of the Druids houses. It probably was formed for some religious purpose. I was told there were many others of this kind scattered over the valley.” (Pennant 1998, 338).

Voids in the inner wallface. The void over the entrance passage rises, gradually narrowing, to the present wallhead with frequent cross-lintels bracing the sides apart. A second high void starts in Level 3 (at the height of the roofing lintels of the first gallery) further round

The possible remains of this circular building are visible on the plan. 853

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland 2. The 1914 excavation and the finds The broch was cleared out in 1914 by H.M. Office of Works and it does not appear that the work was supervised by anyone with archaeological knowledge. Alexander Curle simply notes that “It remains to acknowledge my indebtedness to H.M. Office of Works for enabling me to describe the broch by rendering me every assistance in the shape of plans and photographs.” [5, 254]. It seems that, as part of the process of stabilising the broch and preparing it for display, the structure was simply cleared of the debris that filled it by the Office’s workmen who kept aside any interesting relics that they noticed while digging (below). No accounts of anything uncovered inside the broch were published, The finds are listed at the end of this entry.

hole can be inferred to have been nearer the north-east, at about 10 o’clock. Gordon’s entry hole must have been at the level somewhat above the floor of the first gallery (Level 2) because he then found himself some way up the intramural stair (which is now cut off short because of the later demolition: Illus. 8.170). Once inside he was completely enclosed within the double wall. Presumably the stair carried on upwards, to his left, to the wallhead but Gordon does not mention climbing it. Instead he descended a few steps and found himself in a gallery which “led me round the whole building”; on the opposite side he found a large doorway which led him through the inner wall and into the central court. Thus he must have walked inside the first floor gallery for about a third of the broch’s circumference towards the main entrance and should have emerged into the central court by way of the large void which forms the inner end of the chamber over the entrance.147 He must have walked on the compacted rubble and debris which then filled the entrance; the lintels having been removed much earlier there was no obvious way for him to know that the building went down about another 1.8m.

3. Legends A story about the building of Dun Telve was recorded by Alison Young “from a native of Glenelg”, presumably in the 1950s [7, 198]. The stones for the two brochs were brought from a quarry up the glen and handed along a chain of men; the way can be traced by chips of the stone used. An earlier story about whom the four ‘castles’ of Glenelg once belonged to is quoted below (Section 4). Castle Chonil is the semibroch Dun Grugaig 2 at the head of the glen (NG81 1); Castle Malcomb (or ‘Castle Chalamine – NG82 2) apparently once stood nearer the sea but little remains of it now (Illus. 8.159, bottom).

If he had come in through a hole on the west, as he says, he would have been confronted immediately with the large opening into the central court in Level 2 (the chamber over the entrance), which seems to be clearly shown in his elevation (Illus. 8.155, right).

4. 18th century descriptions The first recorded visit to the two brochs in Glen Beag is that by Alexander Gordon in about 1720, just a few years after the first Stuart uprising and shortly after the Glenelg barracks had been built for the army. Fortunately his journey occurred just before the two brochs (the other being Dun Troddan, below) were badly damaged so his account is a valuable record of two Iron Age buildings which had survived almost intact for 1700 years or more [2]. Thomas Pennant came to Glenelg in 1772 and says that Dun Telve was damaged in 1722 when “some Goth purloined from the top some seven feet and a half under pretence of applying the materials to certain public buildings” [3, 337]. Gordon provides a drawing of Dun Telve showing it as a completely enclosed tower, seen from the outside (Illus. 8.155), and his description confirms this. This seems to contradict Curle’s view that Dun Telve was already rather ruinous at this time [5, 241].

After emerging into the court Gordon says “When I was there, I perceiv’d that one half of the building was fallen down and thereby had the Opportunity of seeing a complete Section thereof” [2, 166]. This must mean that it was the inner half of the galleried wall which had fallen away, not the entire wall,148 because the broch appeared to be substantially intact from the outside, at least to the extent that no part of the wall was lower than about 6 or 7 metres (Gordon specifically says that Dun Troddan, below, was better preserved). The exposure of the galleries by the fall of part of the inner wall allowed Gordon to prepare his well- known elevation. A problem is however posed by Gordon’s statement that he walked unobstructed along what must have been the first floor gallery of Level 2. If one tries to do that now from the stair – with the help of a plank (Gordon must have walked on top of debris concealing the lowest part of the stair) – one soon encounters barriers. The first is formed by the stone cross slabs a few feet from the stair, which are not in fact impassable (Illus. 8.167).149 The

It is clear from the 1914 clearance that before that time most of the bottom two metres of the tower, inside and out, was buried by debris. Thus neither Gordon nor Pennant saw the lower scarcement on the inner wallface, which is 1.83m (6 ft) above the floor level. Gordon says that he got in through “…a Hole towards the West, at the Base; so very low and narrow that I was forc’d to creep in upon Hands and Knees; …” (see Appendix 1). This sounds like a hole into the chamber over the entrance (which faces west) but the rest of the description does not fit this idea and, for reasons which will become clear, the

147

It is curious that he did not get into the court by way of the large void, part of which remains over the stair door, which he would have found on his left as he descended the steps. Perhaps it was too small, or clogged with the debris filling the interior. 148 This is probably the explanation of Curle’s misunderstanding. 149 One could infer that the stone bars across the gallery here were inserted as bracers by the stonemasons in 1914. However Thomas Pennant described them in about 1770.

854

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides second, and more fundamental, obstacle is the left or west wall of the chamber over the main entrance. The Level 2 gallery now connects with this chamber on its south side but not on the north (Illus. 8.162). Pennant (below) confirms that the Level 2 gallery once joined the chamber over the entrance on both sides so the opening in the north wall of the chamber seems to have been blocked up during the restoration work in 1914 (see below).

The upper scarcement is mentioned but the lower one was evidently still underground and out of sight, or at least not obvious.152 Pennant only saw two galleries, though more must have been there; presumably they were obscured by debris. On the other hand Pennant describes the entrance as “a square hole, on the West side” and mentions the ruins of buildings in front of it. This is of course where the main entrance is but one would have thought that it this stage it was buried by debris; evidently the outer lintel of the passage and the tops of some of the large blocks which face the secondary addition to the passage, were visible (Illus. 3.03, top le ft). In fact a more exact drawing done in about the middle of the 19th century by J Romilly Allen shows that it was possible to crawl in and out under the front lintel (Illus. 8.201, top) moreover the accompanying elevation shows that the roofing lintels of the passage had already vanished at this time and that, once one had negotiated the front lintel, there was plenty of room to stand up inside the broch.

Looking at Gordon’s restored elevation of Dun Telve as seen from the interior (Illus. 8.155), and assuming that the entrance passage is buried (the intra-mural galleries go right down to the ground), it can be seen that there are six stylised voids150 between the top of the chamber over the entrance and the upper scarcement – as there are now – with three complete ones above the ledge. The chamber over the entrance is shown markedly larger than the upper voids. The Office of Works elevation of 1916 (Illus. 8.158, AB) shows six (of widely varying sizes) in the former group but only two complete above the upper scarcement; the chamber over the entrance is larger, with upright sides, than the rest. This is good evidence that Gordon’s descriptions are fairly accurate and that he did get into the interior above the buried entrance passage. The extra top void shown by Gordon also makes clear that Dun Telve was several feet higher in 1720 than it is now.

What is more, Romilly Allen’s plan of the entrance clearly shows that the Level 2 (first floor) gallery joins the chamber over the entrance on both sides (it must be the upper gallery because of the relative level of the front lintels and also because the door to the guard cell in Level 1 is hidden under debris). Thus only a few years before 1883, when Joseph Anderson’s book was published, both the entrance passage of Dun Telve and the chamber on top of it were in their original condition and the latter opening was accessible from the gallery on both sides. Gordon’s descriptions may therefore be taken at face value. By 1916, when J Wilson Paterson drew the plan of Level 2, the end of the left gallery had been blocked (Illus. 8.174), evidently by the masons employed by the Office of Works.

By the time Thomas Pennant visited the “celebrated edifices attributed to the Danes” in Glen Beag in 1772, also apparently after enjoying the hospitality of the military in Glenelg barracks, a huge gash had been torn in the wall of Dun Telve; he says “on one side is a breach of at last” (i.e. “least”) “one quarter of the circumference” [3, 338]. The breach now occupies three-quarters of the circumference so it appears that a very large amount of stone has been looted from the broch since Pennant’s visit.151 He also mentions two “doors’” leading into the basal gallery (we would call them voids over doorways, the solid-walled foundation still being buried) each with more voids above it.

It thus seems certain that major changes in the fabric of the broch were made in the years up to and including 1914. It is regrettable that this is not made clear at the site and the change is another example of the custom prevailing in Scotland (and elsewhere) of not always clearly marking153 the boundaries between original and modern masonry on ancient sites.

Pennant also says that the first floor gallery went right round the surviving building and – though saying it was divided into “Apartments” – does not specifically mention the block of masonry now existing at the chamber over the main entrance. That he at least had not mixed up his notes on the two brochs is shown by the fact that he does mention the six stone “flags” across this gallery a few feet anti-clockwise from the stair. From this account it again seems probable that the solid left wall of the chamber over the entrance is a modern reconstruction and that in the 18th century the first floor gallery connected with the chamber on both sides.

Pennant records the height of the high part of the wall as 9.30m (30 ft 6 in), working from the ground surface at that time. He adds on the 2.29m (7.5 ft) pulled from the wallhead in 1722 and another 0.92m (3 ft) for fallen debris. His estimate of the total height is thus 12.51m (41 ft).154 It seems that, even allowing for some exaggeration, Dun Telve might still have been standing to a height of from 12.2 - 14.0m (40 - 46 ft) in the later 18th century. 152

Sir Henry Dryden seems to have been the first to see the scarcement, probably in the 1860s or 1870s (Illus. 8.211) [12, fig. 166]. 153 Perhaps with a dull red cement such as that used as plugs at the stone rows of Carnac in Brittany, to mark re-erected stones. 154 Pennant evidently had a tape measure with him. “The height was taken by a little boy, who scrambled to the top.” [3, 339].

150

Originally seven but one lintel has been snapped off. Presumably for the building of the nearby road during the first half of the 19th century.

151

855

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland 5. Discussion Angus Graham estimated the original height of Dun Telve by comparing Gordon’s drawing of the structure, made in about 1720 (Illus. 3.02), with the Ministry’s survey of 1916 by J Wilson Patterson [6, fig. 3] (Illus. 8.159). The former showed that three voids of the series above the main entrance were still intact above the upper scarcement whereas in 1916 only the lowest one was still intact, the one above having lost its lintel (presumably a lintel was put back in place during the restoration work: Illus. 8.158).

Stone artifacts included 1 steatite whorl decorated on both faces with radial lines of pits, 4 plain whorls (1 lenticular, of schist, 1 almost spherical of sandstone, and 2 discoid of schist), 1 perforated disc of micaceous schist (with diameters of 11.7 & 8.9cm [4.6 & 3.5 in]) [5, fig, 10], 3 handled cups of micaceous schist (1 having incised decoration around the rim) [5, fig, 9], 3 fragments of 2 round dishes of micaceous schist, the smaller with a convex moulding below the rim with a row of chevrons above it (the diameters being about 26.0 & 13.0cm [10.25 & 5.13 in]), 1 broken whetstone, 1 rectangular flat sharpening stone, 2 hammerstones, 7 complete and 2 fragments of rotary querns. [5, fig, 10]. Pottery found included 9 sherds, parts of 5 different vessels, including 2 rims (1 with an incised chevron) and 1 base sherd. There was also a sherd of a coarse, dark grey wheel-made jar subsequently diagnosed as Roman and probably of 2nd century date [8].

Thus in 1916 this part of the wall was about 1.53m (5 ft) lower than in 1720, and the broch should have been about 11.59m (38 ft) high at the earlier date (including the then buried base). This is a somewhat lower estimate than that offered by the author (above). It seems very unlikely that Dun Telve was ever the same height as the diameter of its base (60 ft, or 18.3m), as is the case with Mousa (site HU42 5). This possibility was suggested by Graham but the relationship between original height and basal measurements is likely to have been more complex (MacKie 1965, fig. 7, lower).

7. Dimensions Curle [5] gives the external diameter as 18.3m (60 ft) and the internal one as 9.76m (32 ft); the wall proportion would thus be 46.7%. A fresh survey of the central court in 1971 showed that this is almost an exact circle with a radius of 4.92 + 0.002m. The internal diameter as laid out by the broch architect with a peg-and-string compass155 is thus 9.84m or 32.26 ft (Illus. 8.159). This is equivalent to 11.69 of A Thom’s “megalithic yards” of 0.829m but the fact that some other brochs with equally circular central courts not match this unit so closely may mean that this is a coincidence.

It has already been observed that all the lintels of the entrance – forming the floor of the chamber above it – except the massive outermost have been torn off at some time in the past, as at Mousa (HU42 5) (Illus. 8.162). Is it possible also, as at Mousa, that the outer end of the entrance was heightened at some stage after the original passage was blocked with debris? In this case the Office of Works could have re-built it to its original lower height early in the 20th century, as they did likewise at Mousa. However if this upward extension of the passage had been done long ago one would have expected Gordon and Pennant to have noticed such a conspicuous tall doorway.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 81 NW 7: 2. Gordon 1726: 3. Pennant 1784-96, 337-42: 4. MacCulloch 1824, 249-58: 5. Curle 1916: 6. Graham 1947, 81-4: 7. Young 1962, 186-87: 8. Robertson 1970, table 2: 9. MacKie 1975, 161: 10. MacKie 1995a: 11. MacKie 2002c, 28-9: 12. Anderson 1883, 180-82.

Nevertheless the presence of the secondary extension of the entrance – particularly as it is founded at the same level as the floor of the main entrance – implies that the primary broch door had been broken or partly buried in ancient times. The removal of the lintels implies the same; at some stage it was impossible to get into the broch because the primary passage was choked with debris. The clearance of the outer end and the removal of the inner lintels would have allowed people to walk in to the higher floor level inside up a sloping passage and a new door was built outside. No doubt a later occupation horizon existed at a height of several feet above the primary floor but nothing was recorded during clearance. We can also assume that any wooden floors inside had long gone by that stage.

NG81 3 DUN TRODDAN (‘Castle Troddan’) NG/8338 1723 This solid-based broch in Glenelg, western Invernessshire, is the second of the pair of well preserved such structures standing in Glen Beag, an isolated valley opening on the narrows of Kyle Rhea, between the mainland and the Isle of Skye. It stands on a shallow slope just above the valley floor and only a quarter of a mile from Dun Telve (NG81 2) (visited Sept. 1962, 1963, 1971 & 20/8/85) (Illus. 8.175 – 8.185). The broch was cleared of debris and consolidated by the then Office of Works in the years leading up to 1920, and A O Curle “was privileged to superintend the final stage” (of the clearance) “with somewhat happy results” [4, 84] (Illus. 8.175). The structure is in a similar state to Dun Telve, though slightly lower, and four complete levels survive for about a third of its circumference, including

6. Finds (Illus. 8.173) Finds made during the clearance activities of 1914 include the following; the nature of the clearance suggests that many finds must have been missed. Metal: 2 fragments of iron slag and 1 small bronze ring 3.2cm (1.25 in) in diameter.

155 The smallness of the standard deviation hardly admits of any other explanation.

856

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides three tiers of intra-mural galleries on top of the solid base. The published description of this broch is not so detailed as that of Dun Telve, nor are the plans and elevations so comprehensive [4].

suggest that, as at Dun Telve, the entire cell was never corbelled but was once roofed with flat stones (which served as the floor of the gallery above). The door to the mural stair is at 9 o’clock, in the remaining high part of the wall, and is 90cm (3 ft) wide (Illus. 8.180) although its lintel has disappeared (this would have formed a continuation of the scarcement on the inner wallface – below). It forms the base of a long, vertical opening in the inner wallface which reaches to the present top of the tower and which is divided into several voids by upper cross-lintels. The gap narrows gradually, from 75-15cm (2ft 5 in - 6 in) as it rises. A stair-foot guard cell opens to the left of the door and is 1.8m (6 ft) deep; it is roofed with lintels which also form the floor of the first gallery (Illus. 8.181).157

1. Description The broch stands on a level rock platform on the side of the north slope of the glen, only a short distance above its flat bottom. There is a moderately difficult approach immediately below the site and the entrance passage faces down this (Illus. 8.176). Level 1: the broch wall has a solid base, rising to a height of about 2.1m (7 ft), which contains only the entrance passage with its guard cell on the left, and the base of the stairway with its guard cell. These intra-mural spaces are all in the 6-10 o’clock sector (Illus. 8.156). The masonry of the outer face in Level 1 is remarkably good, with very careful underpinning between the larger blocks (Illus. 8.177).

The stairway rises to the right in a flight of nine steps, and the sides of the passage leading to and containing this are smooth and well built (Illus. 8.182). The ninth step reaches a long landing (below).

In contrast with the nearby Dun Telve (above) the entrance passage (Illus. 8.178) is in the low sector of the wall and is now roofless, as also is part of the long guard cell which opens off it to the left. The passage is not radial to the centre of the broch (its axis passes well to the left of such a line – Illus. 8.175) and faces south-west, looking down the glen; it is 4.05m (13.5 ft) long with the door-frame, formed of built checks, at 1.35m (4.5 ft) from the outer end. The short part of the passage outside the checks is unusually narrow at about 83cm (2 ft 9 in), and the right check is correspondingly deep; the innermost part has the more normal width of 1.5m (5 ft). It seems very probable that the outer part of the passage was reconstructed during a secondary phase of the broch’s occupation, although no clear signs of this are visible in the masonry. A bar-hole and its opposed socket are preserved immediately behind the left check (Illus. 8.178, behind the pole).

The inner court is almost exactly circular, and Curle gives the diameter as 8.40m (28 ft) all round. In 1971 a new theodolite survey showed that it was a fraction larger, with a radius of 4.28 + 0.03m, equivalent to a diameter of 8.56m or 28.07 ft. The clearance of the accumulated debris from the central court revealed a series of superimposed central hearths [4, figs. 4 & 5) and a ring of post -holes in the primary floor (Illus. 8.175), features which are described further in Section 3 below. The artifacts found in the broch floor are described there also. The thickness of the wall at the base of the tower varies from 4.05m (13.5 ft) at the entrance to 4.5m (15 ft) almost everywhere else. Because of the exact circularity of the central court this irregularity can be seen to be caused partly by the outer face on the west curving inwards slightly as it approaches the entrance passage, and partly by that east of the passage being slightly thicker than normal to accommodate the sloping ground.

Because it faces down the slope the floor of the passage rises from the exterior; there is a small level platform, or pavement edged with stones, outside which was evidently designed for the convenience of people standing there (Illus. 8.175). This pavement extends only about 30cm (1 ft) to the right of the door jambs but about 4.58m (15 ft) to the left.156 The passage enters the central court at a lower level than the rest of the floor and there is a small circular area of low floor here with a kerb or step 45cm (1 ft 6 in) high separating it from the remaining area, which is fairly level.

As at Dun Telve the masonry of both faces of the wall in Level 1 is of high quality, having been formed of many large, regular stone blocks that appear to have been hit with heavy hammers so that they split along the grain; the interstices are neatly packed with smaller stones (Illus. 8.177). The external profile of the tower is even and smooth (Illus. 8.175 & 8.176) and the quality of the masonry among the highest to be found in the whole is of the broch province.

The guard cell is an elongated chamber, following the curve of the wall, 1.5m (5 ft) wide and 5.41m (17 ft 9 in) long (Illus. 8.179); the low, lintelled door to it from the passage is 1.22m (4 ft) inwards from the left check. At its innermost end are several stepped lintels which

Level 2: the lowest flight of the intra-mural stair leads to a first floor landing 5.67m (18 ft 6 in) long, at a height of 2.44m (8 ft) above the central court, and at the end of which only the first step of the next flight is preserved 157

For some reason Curle describes the guard cell as having a corbelled roof but there is no doubt that it is lintelled [4, 87]. A corbelled dome would interrupt the Level 2 gallery, as at Dun Mor Vaul (NM04 4).

156

This suggests that the normal approach to the broch entrance was along the base of the tower from the north.

857

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland gallery, from the right,158 could have met it too, giving the Level 2 plan here a curious cross-shaped pattern, as at Dun Telve (Illus. 8.201).

(Illus. 8.183). This paved landing emerges from the surviving high part of the wall and most of it runs along the present wallhead of the low segment. A scarcement, partly corbelled and partly of the ledge type, runs round the inner wallface at a height of about 1.8m (6 ft) above the floor – about 60cm below the landing (Illus. 8.180, top of pole, and 8.184). One would suppose that – assuming that the purpose of the stone ledge was to support a raised wooden floor (Section 3) – the first floor landing of the stairway should have passed a large void or doorway which gave access to this raised floor. The left jamb of this raised door is in fact well preserved though it has never previously been identified as such (Illus. 8.183). No doubt it has been thought to be a product of modern consolidation but its nature is quite clear and is confirmed by the evidence of an early 18th century visitor (below). Presumably when the broch was occupied one or two wooden steps led down from its sill on to the structure resting on the stone ledge slightly below.

Level 3: the second mural gallery (like the third) is also continuous and unobstructed throughout its short surviving length. It is 1.95m (6.5 ft) high and 82cm (2ft 9 in) wide at the base. The width of the two uppermost galleries, and the evenness of their inner facings, seem greater than those of Dun Telve. Level 4: the third and uppermost surviving gallery is about 1.65m (5.5 ft) high and is still more than 45cm (18 in) wide at its floor; its lintels are immediately below the present turfed-over wallhead which is obviously a modern construction. A second raised void is at about 12 o’clock (some 3.3m or 11 ft clockwise from the first) and starts at the floor of the third gallery. It is about 45cm (1.5 ft) wide at the base where it is about 5.4m (I5 ft) above the floor. No doubt another high series of voids reaching into Level 4 once rose above the inner end of the main entrance, but the wall here has vanished.

The lowest of the mural galleries – resting on a solid base except where it crosses the two ground level cells – is 1.5m (5 ft) high and 1.05m (3.5 ft) wide at the base (Illus. 8.185). From the single published cross-section (Illus. 8.175) this wall base appears to rise to about 2.15m (7 ft 3 in) above the ground floor level where the Level 2 gallery overrides the guard cell at about 8 o’clock. On the opposite side, at about 2 o’clock, the paved stair landing is slightly higher, at about 2.4m (8 ft). As noted these levels are higher than the scarcement which is about 1.8m (6 ft) above the floor.

There are some discrepancies between the various descriptions of the topmost gallery of Dun Troddan. Graham states that – “the surviving fragment” (of the broch) “shows two galleries intact and a third partially preserved.... In its present state it is about 25 ft. in height.” [5] However as noted the gallery is at present complete and roofed, and appears to be the same in the 1920 elevation [4, fig. 3] (Illus. 8.175). This drawing also shows a slightly higher and more irregular wallhead – presumably of rubble covered with turf – and no doubt displays it before the final tidying up had occurred. Curle’s description does not say that the third gallery is incomplete, but he does say that “the uppermost gallery has apparently had a height of 5 ft 6 in.” [4, 87]. The drawing (Illus. 8.175) shows the wallhead – at the lintels of the third gallery but excluding the turf – at a height of almost exactly 7.63m (25 ft), the same as that given by Graham for a wall with an incomplete upper gallery. Part of the wall of this broch may well have remained intact to the top of Level 4 since the Iron Age. It is possible of course that this, like the drawn elevation, could show the site after some restoration – particularly the replacement of some lintels on the wallhead – but if so this restoration was not mentioned by Curle.159

The first gallery runs round unobstructed for the quarter of that part of its circuit which remains except that, as usual, its floor comes to an end at the left jamb of the stair door. Presumably its other end was once blocked behind the flight of steps above the first landing. The door-sized void over the stair door leads directly out on to the scarcement but, unless wooden planks were used to form a bridge, no easy access to the gallery floor from the stairs seems to have been possible. However there is a single lintel of the gallery floor preserved just to the right of the stair door (Illus. 8.182, top of the pole) so it is more than likely that the floor of lintels originally ran right past this Level 2 doorway; in this case one or two of their inner ends would have rested on the door lintel. In this case access from scarcement floor to first gallery through the Level 2 door here would have been simple. Since the stair only begins a good 60cm (2 ft) to the right of the door there is no danger of anyone banging their head on the solitary lintel as they walk up it.

In general the upper galleries of Dun Troddan are wider and more roomy than the corresponding ones in Dun Telve and this tends to confirm that the upper part of the hollow wall of the latter has become crushed inwards over the centuries.

What happened at the junction of the first gallery with the main entrance is not known, but the similarity with Dun Telve – where there is also a guard cell roofed with flat lintels – suggests that it ran across the cell and met the chamber over the entrance from the left. The opposite

158

This one would have ended blind behind the stair. The two neighbouring brochs near Glenelg are so close together and so similar that it is quite likely that occasionally features of one have been attributed to the other in observers’ notebooks. 159

858

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides 2. 18th century descriptions The early records about Dun Troddan were by the same people who described Dun Telve (NG8I 2). In about 1720 Gordon drew a view of the broch from the outside which shows it to be an intact tower. In fact he says that this broch –

3. The excavations of 1920 The clearance of the debris inside and around Dun Troddan seems to have been undertaken, without any supervision, by the workmen employed to consolidate it and prepare it for public display. The digging showed that there was a depth of 1.2m (4 ft) or more of debris inside the tower and up to 1.5m (5 ft) piled against the exterior [4, 87]. Alexander O Curle came to the site late in August 1920 and found that all the debris inside the broch had been removed except for a rectangular, paved stone hearth exposed just north of the centre and resting on the gravelly subsoil; it measured 1.35 x 0.9m (4.5 ft x 3 ft) and its long axis was aligned east-west [4, figs. 4 & 5]. Nearby a heap of undisturbed soil 1.2m (4 ft) high had been left, and this was carefully removed by Curle. In it he found a series of paved surfaces and layers of peat and charcoal. Two superimposed hearths were also found in it; the lower one was paved and was about 27cm (11 in) above the one at floor level mentioned above, while a fragmentary second one was above it with its paving 3336cm (13-14 in) above the subsoil. A 10cm 4 in-thick layer of peat ash lay on the upper hearth with, above this, a thick layer of tumbled stone debris, presumably fallen from the broch wall. Stone debris in fact occurred in lesser quantities down to the level of the middle hearth. Part of a rotary quern was found 28cm (9 in) above the subsoil.

“ … is by far the most entire of any in that Country, and from whence I had a very clear notion of how these Fabricks were originally contriv’d.” He got inside the tower, apparently through the ragged hole shown in the drawing (presumably the damaged entrance passage: Illus. 3.02 & 8.155) and found four doors in the inner wallface, above each of which were nine “square windows” or voids. This broch too must then have been full of at least 1.8m (6 ft) of debris, so these doors must have been at first floor level. The height is given as exactly 33 ft but this must be from the ground level at the time which, as noted, is likely to have been at least 1.8m (6 ft) or even 2.4m (8 ft) above the broch floor. If Gordon’s measurement is accurate this would imply that Dun Troddan was about 12.2m (40 ft) high in 1720; this is an important point when considering the design of the upper part of the tower (below). Its present maximum height is 7.63m (25 ft) to the lintels roofing the top gallery. This question of height is discussed further below.

A series of eleven post-holes lined with stone slabs was found in the primary floor level, and ten of them formed a rough circle about 4.5m (15 ft) in diameter and 1.8 - 2.1m (6-7 ft) from the broch wall; nine of these were from 0.9 1.5m (3-5 ft) apart but two near the entrance were only 22cm (9 in) apart (Illus. 8.175). The holes were on average 52cm (21 in) deep and 30-36cm (12-14 in) in diameter. There was an extra hole directly inwards from the entrance, further in than the rest. Decayed wood was found in no. 6.

The four “doors” are described as being on the north, south, east and west sides, but the only one now remaining is the spacious opening over the stair door on the north-west (Illus. 8.180). There was almost certainly another one over the main entrance, not far west of south, and there could have been two more in the part of the wall from north-east to south-east, now reduced to Level 1 and only about 2.44m (8 ft) high at the most. A large door in the south-east (at about 4 o’clock) would have been on the solid base and rather unusual but one in the north-east (at about 1 o’clock) would have been in exactly the right place to lead from the stair landing out on to the scarcement ledge. As noted earlier the vertical left jamb of this door survives though it has not been previously identified as such (Illus. 8.183). Gordon’s description thus provides valuable confirmation of its existence.

4. Discussion Interior deposits and finds: Curle thought that the marked lack of finds meant that the broch was only inhabited sporadically and probably only for a short period overall; however it is impossible now to estimate how many other objects were missed during what must have been a fairly vigorous emptying of the broch of its debris and during which two of the massive paved hearths were partly destroyed. Neither can one know how much rubbish was thrown out of the interior during the occupancies of the tower. The three hearths could also imply that debris and rubbish had accumulated in the interior between the various habitations, although the first signs of an extensive collapse of stone from the wall appear to have been at a higher level. From such an early and unsystematic excavation it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the nature of the primary occupation.

Four lintelled galleries in the wall are described of which the lowest at least ran continuously round the building; this one is described as partly subterranean, which suggests that the thickness of the fallen debris inside at 1720 was at least 2.44m (8 ft). Here Gordon might have been describing Dun Telve because he mentions the upper “cornice” or scarcement at this point which is now only to be seen in the other broch. On the other hand, as Dun Troddan was so much higher in 1720, Gordon may be providing valuable evidence that an upper scarcement existed then in both brochs, and there is indeed a fairly clear suggestion of such an upper “cornice” in the shaded part of the top of the tower (Illus. 8.155).

Post-holes: the function of the ring of post-holes inside the broch is of great interest; it was the first time such a feature – subsequently discovered to be common in well 859

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland excavated sites – had been noticed. Curle thought that the posts once supported a roof resting on the stone scarcement and he evidently thought that a screen of wattling, or something similar, joined the posts to form a barrier between the central area with the hearths and the outer zone. This seems quite possible. The two extra postholes opposite the main entrance were, he thought, for the doorway through this screen.

Height in 1720: on the basis of Gordon’s description of the broch in 1720 the height of Dun Troddan at that time was estimated by Graham as in the region of 10.07 10.37m (33 - 34 ft) [5, 80-81]. In 1720 Gordon gave the height of the building as exactly 9.9m (33 ft), and this must have been above the immediately surrounding and internal debris; that there was at least 2.44m (8 ft) of this is implied by his statement that the lowest gallery was “somewhat below the surface of the ground.”

However the great size of the sockets – 30-35cm (12-14 in) in diameter and averaging 53cm (1 ft 9 in) deep – suggests that they supported a structure somewhat more massive than the light roof that would have sufficed so far down inside the well of the stone tower. As mentioned earlier the usual explanation for such holes now is that they supported an annular wooden floor, or balcony, running round the outer part of the court (see Caisteal Grugaig, NG82 1, below). The existence of an upper scarcement at Dun Telve nearby, and very probably at Dun Troddan itself, certainly implies that the main roof was at a higher level.

Assuming the accuracy of Gordon’s figure for the overall height in 1722 (which Graham doubts) this does suggests a height above the old ground surface of about 12.2 12.81m (40 - 42 ft). However Gordon also stated that there were then four tiers of wall galleries intact but, as noted, there are now only three (not two and a bit as stated by Graham) and the present height is 7.68m (25 ft) above the original ground surface. If each Level is about 1.83m (6 ft) high, five such (including the four galleries) would only reach about 9.15m (30 ft). It is difficult to reconcile these two alternative estimates; if Gordon measured the tower correctly there must have been another one and a half galleries on top of the four he mentions. It is probably best to agree with Graham – that Gordon’s height is exaggerated and that Dun Troddan was about 10.07 - 10.37m (33 - 34 ft) in his time.

It is potentially important that the ring of post-holes was not found until Curle had decided, near the end of the operation, to have the gravelly soil of the primary floor (previously exposed by the workmen) scraped over and cleaned; the post-holes then showed up as dark marks. Because of the unsystematic way the overlying deposits were removed before Curle arrived at the site one cannot be sure that traces of the posts were not visible some distance up into the overlying deposits.

In 1772 Pennant gave the height of Dun Troddan as 7.47m (24 ft 5 in) with only three galleries visible. He could not see the stair mentioned by Gordon so the segment of the high wall containing its upper parts must have been demolished between 1722 and 1772. Presumably the actual height in Pennant’s time, allowing for the buried basal storey, was about 9.76 - 10.07m (32 or 33 ft), a lot less than Gordon’s figure and more or less what Graham inferred (above). This makes it possible that Gordon’s description of a “cornice”, or scarcement, near the top of the inside wallface was correct and that the high part of the wall on which this was had been taken, or fallen, down before Pennant arrived. The height of the upper scarcement at Dun Telve is 9.00m (29 ft 6 in), well above the surviving height of Dun Troddan. Thus even if the lower of the two estimates for the height of Dun Troddan in Gordon’s time is correct – say 9.15 9.46m (30 - 31 ft) – there would still have been room for the upper scarcement he mentions.

However it is at least if not more likely that they were not, and that the ring of posts and its associated wooden raised roof or floor had been dismantled before much of the secondary deposits had accumulated in the interior. In this case only the central hearth on the subsoil would be associated with the broch in its primary state. The later hearths and burnt deposits, on top of increasing deposits of accumulating debris, would represent qualitatively different habitations of the tower. The evidence found at Mousa (HU42 6), Clickhimin (HU44 1), Midhowe (HY33 1), Gurness (HY33 2) and Leckie (NS69 3) show clearly that this happened many times inside brochs. It might be argued that the floor level with the ring of posts was itself a secondary occupation, the evidence being the kerbed area of a lower floor immediately inside the entrance passage. However Curle specifically describes the gravelly early floor as “subsoil” [4, 88] and must surely therefore have observed that the base of much of the interior wallface was at this level. The slope on which the broch was built probably accounts for the lower level inside the entrance. On the other hand at Dun Ardtreck a small flight of steps was built from the inner end of the similarly sloping entrance up to the higher secondary floor; the latter however was of black earth on top of an earlier horizon, not of gravel or rock (NG33 2).

Original height: Graham also tried to estimate how much stone had fallen from the wallhead before 1720. He suggests that the 1.8m (6 ft) of debris cleared from the inner court can be used to estimate how much of the wall had already fallen. Assuming that laid stone occupies only half the volume of randomly fallen debris, the approximately 3,700 cubic feet of rubble removed from the broch in 1919-20 (which presumably fell only from the inner half of the wall) would carry the tower up about another 2.1m (7 ft). However this last calculation is very doubtful, firstly because Curle describes the internal debris as consisting 860

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides largely of earth (whereas a broch wall is normally built of pure stone) and secondly because much of the rubble in the tower surely came from a large part of the upper wall which was removed by “some Goth” not long after Gordon’s visit, to about 1.83m (6 ft) above the ground. Further extensive destruction obviously took place between 1772 and 1914.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 81 NW 6: 2. Gordon 1726, 166: 3. Pennant 1784-96, 239-40 & 1998: 4. Curle 1921: 5. Graham 1947, 80-81: 6. Young 1962, 187: 7. MacKie 1965b: 8. MacKie 1975, 161: 9. Feachem 1976. Square NG82 NG82 1 CAISTEAL GRUGAIG (‘Castle Grugag’, ‘Broch at Loch Duich’) NG/8669 2508 This well preserved transitional (partly groundgalleried) broch in Loch Alsh, Ross and Cromarty, stands on a small rocky knoll on a grassy slope (Illus. 8.186); it was cleared of debris in 1889160 but no detailed record of the excavation seems to have survived (Illus. 8186 - 8.201). This is the fourth of the major, well preserved sites on the coast of western Inverness-shire, near Glenelg, and is the least well known. The 18th century visitors who came to the area were evidently not told about it, presumably because it is much further than an easy walk or ride from the army barracks and had not been discovered by the military. No doubt also it was nothing but a huge heap of stones at that time.

Adding about 0.92m (3 ft) to the 1720 height of the wall would seem more realistic, and that does not bring the broch up to more than about 10.07m (33 ft) originally. However the great width of the upper galleries of this broch, which contrast with the extremely narrow ones of Dun Telve (though these were surely once wider), may mean that there were one or even two galleries on top of the four seen by Gordon, and that the wall did originally rise to over 12.2m (40 ft). However the fact that Gordon’s estimate of height can be interpreted in two different ways (above) means that there can be no certainty about these figures. The author is inclined to think that the higher one of 12.2m (40 ft) or more is more likely, simply because of the spaciousness of the surviving galleries.

The rock surface which forms the floor of the central court rises 1.5m (5 ft) from one side to the other (Illus. 8.187), and this has resulted in some unusual architectural features which enlighten us about the interior furnishings of brochs. Graham [4] provides a number of useful photographs of these.

Primary purpose of broch: the lowest hearth, resting directly on the subsoil, was probably inserted near the beginning of the use of the broch and is a valuable further clue that most of these structures, no matter how tall, were built as the permanently inhabited dwellings of a single family. A similar arrangement was found in Mousa (HU44 6).

1. Description Level 1. The outer face of the broch (Illus. 8.188) is slightly battered and is constructed of large blocks of stone; the quality of the masonry is inferior to that of Dun Troddan and Dun Telve, a few miles to the south. The lowest level is, as usual, defined as that part below scarcement level although, as in the case of Dun Grugaig 1 (NG81 1), the thickness of Level 1 varies because of the unevenness of the underlying rock. The segment between about 10 and 2 o’clock seems to be solid, although quite low because of the height of the rock. Elsewhere there are galleries, cells, the entrance passage and the stair.

5. The finds The methods employed in removing the debris were doubtless not conducive to the discovery of small objects and few artifacts were found, and no pottery. There are no indications of which strata the finds came from. Metal: the only find was some small pieces of iron, perhaps a nail, resting on the paving of one of the upper hearths. Bone tools: these included a curved whalebone object 15cm (6 in) long and a disc. Stone tools included 7 whorls, 2 perforated discs of schist with diameters of 12.0 and 19.4cm (4.8 and 7.75 in), 1 hammerstone, 1 pebble polisher, ovoid pebbles and a fragment of a rotary quern. Glass: a small bead of opaque yellow glass of standard Iron Age type was also found.

The well preserved main entrance is at the lowest point of the slope, faces north-east and has a large triangular lintel bridging the outer end (Illus. 8.188). The passage is 1.45m (4 ft 9 in) high and 92cm (3 ft) wide at the exterior; the door-frame is about 1.32m (4 ft 4 in) from the outside [2]. The door-checks are made of large blocks including upright facing slabs at the base (Illus. 8.189). The passage widens to 1.17m (3 ft 10 in) behind the door-frame and a bar-hole, over 1.95m (6.5 ft) deep, is behind the right check; the opposed socket is not mentioned anywhere and may not be preserved.

6. Dimensions The thickness of the wall at the base of the tower is 4.05m (13.5 ft) at the entrance and 4.5m (15 ft) almost everywhere else; the overall diameter varies from 17.07 17.52m (55ft 11.5 in, or 57.44 ft); the central court as noted fits an exact circle with a radius of 4.28 + 0.03m, giving a diameter of 8.56m (28.07 ft). The wall proportion is therefore about 50.4%.

160

“I had the privilege of seeing this broch cleared out in 1889, and can give the following particulars of the ruins as they now stand.” [2, 86].

861

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland The door-frame of this broch has an unusual feature; the lintels in front of the door checks are lower than those behind, the rear edge of the one immediately over the door-frame being flush with the checks (Illus. 8.189 & 8.201). Thus there is effectively a check in the roof as well. The lintel behind this forms another step up, presumably to compensate for the upward slope of the passage floor; the rest are on the same level. Exactly the same arrangement is to be seen in the broch at Torwood, Stirlingshire (NS88 1). The inner end of the passage has converging jambs (Illus. 8.193) [4, pl. Vc].

At 3 o’clock is the blocked door – 92cm (3 ft) high and 76cm (2 ft 6 in) wide – to another long mural cell, or length of ground gallery, 10.68m (35 ft) long and apparently built directly on the rock (Illus. 8.194). Most of this gallery is also blocked with stone debris but there is a gap in its roof of flat lintels – forming the floor of the first floor gallery (below) – through which the curved left end can be seen some 3.36m (11 ft) west of the doorway [4, 16] (Illus. 8.200). Sir Henry Dryden’s plan shows the other curved end 2.44m (8 ft) south of the cell door, so the total length should be about 10.68m (35 ft). The door to this long cell or gallery has its lintel below scarcement level and there are no signs of a void above it.

An elongated guard cell, 4.22m (13 ft 10 in) in length and 1.53m (5 ft) wide, opens off the left wall of the passage through a narrow, low doorway (Illus. 8.191 & 8.192). Its roof is now badly ruined but an elevation of this part of the wall drawn by Sir H Dryden in the later 19th century shows it rising to a beehive dome and the author’s photograph of the lower part of the dome (Illus. 8.191) tends to confirm this. This is rather a strange arrangement if a Level 2 gallery communicated with the chamber over the entrance (below).161

Level 2 is as usual defined as beginning at scarcement level. The sides of a chamber are apparent above the entrance passage, its floor being formed from the lintels of that passage; it has a curved outer end, behind the triangular lintel (Illus. 8.190). The main opening into this chamber is through the inner wallface where the innermost passage lintel forms the sill of a large, doorsized opening and is also part of the scarcement. According to Graham [4, 17], in 1924 Watson saw the junction between this chamber and the stretch of first floor gallery running clockwise from the entrance (this was presumably blocked by the corbelled roofing of the guard cell and the mural cell). The photograph reproduced here may show this junction but the masonry is now ruinous (Illus. 8.190).

At about 8.30 o’clock in the inner wallface is the door to a small, oval mural cell measuring 2.09m (6 ft 10 in) by 1.37m (4.5 ft); its door is 46cm (1.5 ft) wide and 94cm (3 ft 1 in) high and there is an aumbry (or cupboard) in its wall (Illus. 8.195). The cell is slightly corbelled and then roofed with flat lintels some of which can still be seen in position immediately behind the doorway; as in the main entrance the lintel of the doorway is lower than those behind.

The scarcement itself (Illus. 8.187 & 8.193) is 31cm (12 in) wide, partly corbelled and partly of the ledge type. It is more or less horizontal and, since the rock floor of the central court varies in level over a vertical distance of 1.53m (5 ft), the height of the ledge above it ranges from 2.14m (7 ft) immediately east of the entrance to 71cm (2 ft 4 in) from 10 - 11 o’clock. Between 9 and 10 o’clock however the ledge rises up, and then descends to the original level, in a series of shallow steps in order to override the two adjacent doorways there. This is an unique feature in broch scarcements so far as is known at present (illus. 8.187, upper).

Immediately south of this, at 9 o’clock, is the doorway to the mural stair 1.45m (4 ft 9 in) high [4] and the rock threshold of which is only about 1.22m (4 ft) below the scarcement; the lintel is correspondingly about 92cm (3 ft) above the scarcement, an unusual arrangement. There is now no trace in the dilapidated masonry of a void above this doorway. The reason for this interruption to the scarcement is clearly because of the high level of the rock at this point and the need to make the stair door reasonably high. The means by which the ledge passed over the doorway is described below (Level 2).

There appears to have been a first floor, intra-mural gallery running most or all of the way round the wall – interrupted as usual only by the stairway and perhaps on one side by the chamber over the entrance – and with its mainly lintelled floor at about scarcement level. However if the guard cell had a corbelled roof this Level 2 gallery would have been interrupted there as well; the small cell at 8.30 o’clock seems to have a flat, lintelled roof (Illus. 8.195). Running clockwise from the main entrance there are traces of the gallery on the wallhead, filled with rubble, with one or two lintels in position; the wallhead at 9 o’clock stands about 1.53m (5 ft) above the scarcement.

The five steps of the stair (Illus. 8.196) rise 1.09m (3 ft 7 in) to the right and lead up to a long landing (below); there is no stair-foot guard cell. Because of the higher level of the rock surface under this uphill part of the broch wall the segment of the wall base here – from 9.30 o’clock (under the first flight of steps) to 2 o’clock – is relatively low and appears to be solid. This explains why there is a clearly built end to the next long segment of ground level gallery clockwise from this point (below).

A landing (Illus. 8.197), about 4.27m (14 ft) long, runs from the top of the first flight of steps at 9.30 o’clock to the beginning of the second flight at almost 12 o’clock.

161

Notes on the back of the author’s photograph of the interior of this cell specifically state that there is a stairway in it which rises over the small cell at 8.30 o’clock – but this is not mentioned by Graham .

862

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides This landing forms the floor of an empty section of the upper gallery, still with its lintelled roof in position about 2.4m (8 ft) above the floor, and the walls of which are smooth and neatly built. The wallhead at 12 o’clock is still about 4.0m (13 ft) high and the inner face overhangs here for about 23cm (9 in) inwards; it is possible that there was an upper scarcement here a little higher up. After about 7.02m (23 ft) this raised gallery reaches a tall, lintelled void or doorway in the inner wallface, 2.44m (8 ft) high and 61cm (2 ft) wide, and two steps lead down to its scarcement level sill from the gallery floor (Illus. 8.187).

Graham was the first to draw attention to the significance of the variation in the height of the level scarcement above the sloping rock floor of the central court [4, 1719] (Illus. 8.187). That the idea that the scarcement supported the main roof of this broch – argued for in general by Scott (1947)163 – is wholly implausible here is shown by its being only 71cm (2 ft 4 in) above the floor on the uphill side. Here, as at the other sites mentioned, it seems quite clear that the scarcement supported a raised, level wooden floor or balcony and that the main roof was higher up. There may even be a trace of the upper scarcement here on the inner wallface on the uphill side.

In 1924 Watson saw nine steps of a further flight just beyond this void which led to an even higher gallery but in 1948 these were obscured by debris [4, 17]; however it is still possible to see the underside of the steps (Illus. 8.199). Beyond this the wallhead rapidly becomes lower but there are more traces on it of the Level 2 gallery; this section must have been inaccessible, being blocked at one end by the second flight of stairs and at the other by the presumably solid side wall of the chamber over the entrance. There are no signs of any voids in the inner wallface in this north-west arc of the wall.

Moreover at this site it is exceptionally clear how this wooden balcony was reached by way of the intra-mural stone stair and the first landing. This led to the tall raised void or doorway at 12 o’clock which, the landing being slightly above scarcement level, was equipped with two stone steps leading down to the ledge (Illus. 8.187). Also such an annular wooden floor would have given easy access to any other raised doorways in the inner wallface, such as the chamber over the entrance the sill of which forms part of the scarcement. The curious arrangement at 10 - 11 o’clock – where the scarcement is interrupted by the stair door and rises up over it as a shallowly ascending and descending ledge of projecting stones – also in fact supports the hypothesis of a stone support for a level wooden floor even though, at first sight, it might seem to count against it. The need to have the scarcement at the level of the floor of the chamber above the entrance evidently dictated its height on the opposite side of the court where – if it was to be level – it would have cut through the stair door. Thus at this site we have the only known occasion of an interrupted scarcement which, as Graham says, probably supported a form of gangway or shallow flight of wooden steps rising over the door.

Level 3: since the tall first floor gallery containing the landing has a lintelled roof it seems that there must have been at least one more gallery all the way round the wall. The second flight of intra-mural stairs at 12 o’clock must have given access to this upper level and either used part of it as a second landing or blocked it off and gone straight up to a Level 4 gallery. As noted the lintels forming the floor of this upper gallery are visible above the first stairway. 2. Discussion There are several interesting architectural features in Caisteal Grugaig. In the first place it contrasts sharply with the neighbouring Dun Troddan and Dun Telve in not being solid-based, not being built on flat ground and in lacking the high standard of skill in drystone masonry shown in the smooth profiles and neatly underpinned blocks of the two Glenelg brochs. It is also another example of the increasing number of brochs and semibrochs (so far all in the west – see footnote) known to have been built on such uneven ground that special arrangements had to be made by the builders to keep the galleries level.162 Here the basal part of the wall (Level 1) had to be low and solid on the uphill side, and the cells and the entrance passage are all in the arc from northwest to south-east. If the original upper levels and wallhead were horizontal all the way round, which seems highly likely, the downhill wall must have been 1.53m (5 ft) or more higher than the uphill one.

Finds In the National Museum is a fine, decorated handled stone cup of steatite, presumably imported, from this site (AQ 116) (Illus. 8.173). Half of a quern, presumably rotary, was found in the broch during clearance [2, 87]. Dimensions According to Graham [4] the external diameter of the structure is 16.50 - 16.78m (54 - 55 ft), the internal one is 9.61m (31.5 ft); the walls thus occupy 42.2% of the total diameter and vary in thickness from 3.50m (11 ft 5 in) to 3.74m (12 ft 3 in). In 1971 a fresh survey of the central court, undertaken with a theodolite and steel tape, showed that in plan it is almost an exact circle with a radius of 4.69 + 0.06m; this gives a diameter of 9.38m (30 ft 9 in). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 82 NE 2: 2. Wallace 1897: 3. Watson 1924: 4. Graham 1949, 14-19, fig. 3 &

162

The other sites on uneven ground include the three semibrochs Dun an Ruigh Ruaidh (NH19 2), Dun Ardtreck (NG33 2) and Dun Grugaig 2, Glenelg (NG811) and also Dun Borodale broch on Raasay (NG53 2).

163

863

See also Section 3.7.2, 37-8.

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland pls. IV-VI: 5. Young 1962, 189: 6. Feachem 1963, 170: 7. MacKie 1975, 160: 8. MacKie 2000: 9. Close-Brooks 1986, 148-49: 10. Armit 2003, 66.

position. The entrance is in the middle of the north-east side, opposite the cliff, and both door-checks can be seen, 1.3m in from the outer face. The passage is 1.3m wide in front of the door-frame, and 1.6m behind it. Source: 1. NMRS site no. NG 83 SW 2 (with plan).

NG82 2 CAISTEAL MHICLEOD (‘McLeod’s Castle’, ‘Castle Chalamine’, ‘Castle Malcomb’) NG/8155 2024 This possible D-shaped semibroch [1] in Glenelg, Inverness-shire, stands on the edge of a precipice. It was firstmentioned by Gordon [2] and later by Pennant [3] as the nearest to the sea of the fourmajor “Danish forts” in Glen Beag but the first to visit and describe the site seems to have been Bogle in 1895 [4] (Illus. 8.144, top, & 8.159).

Square NG84 NG84 1 LAG an DUIN (‘Langanduin’) NG/8362 4044 Possible broch near Kishorn in Lochcarron, Ross and Cromarty, of which nothing is left now but a quarried and turf-covered stony mound about 21.0m in diameter and 1.0m high. A circular building was seen on the site in 1845 [1]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 84 SW 2: 2. New Statistical Account 1845, 14, 110: 3. Anderson 1890, 193 (list): 4. Watson 1904, 193: 5. Graham 1947, 97 (list).

The structure consists of a massive, irregular, grassgrown, semicircular wall occupying the level area of the summit apparently with a narrow entrance on the east side. Several heavy boulders of the outer face survive and the wall appears to be 4.4m thick. A narrow wall runs along the south along the edge of the precipice, and there is a strong outwork wall 9.0m out on the north (though this may be later [1]). There are two large blocks within the wall which might be traces of an intra-mural gallery but the identity of the site as a D-shaped semibroch is suggested mainly by its shape and situation [1].

Square NG87 NG87 1 CRAIG BRAN (‘Creagan Bana’) NG/865796 Possible broch in Gairloch, Ross and Cromarty, which has not been located in modern times [1]. It was referred to as a “Pictish broch or roundhouse” in 1886 [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG87 NE 1: 2. Dixon 1886, 97.

Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 82 SW l: 2. Gordon 1726: 3. Pennant 1998, 340: 4. Bogle 1895, 185-87: 5. Harding 1984.

NG87 2 KERNSARY NG/89 79 This possible broch in Gairloch, Ross and Cromarty, has not been located in modern times [1]. It was referred to as a “Pictish broch or roundhouse” in 1886 [2]. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 87 NE 5: 2. Dixon 1886, 97-8.

NG82 3 DUNAN (‘Dornie’) NG/8824 2645 Possible broch in Lochalsh, Ross & Cromarty, parts of the walls of which were apparently standing 3.0 - 3.6m (10-12 ft) high in 1800; the foundations could be seen in 1890 [2]. There is nothing to be seen now [1] at the site which is on a small, flat-topped spur. Finds reported to have been made there include 2 stone “ladles” – perhaps handled cups, a stone “image”, and a “block seal”. Sources 1. NMRS site no. NG 82 NE 13: 2. Wallace 1897, 115.

Square NG88 NG88 1 THURNAIG (‘Tournaig’) NG/87 82 Site of probable broch in Gairloch, Ross and Cromarty, no trace of which has been found in modern times [1]. In 1886 Dixon described it as a “broch with unusually high and perfect walls” standing on a grassy eminence east of the road from Poolewe and Tournaig [2]. The tower may be another casualty of 19th century road-building. Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 88 SE 2: 2. Dixon 1886, 97.

Ross and Cromarty (western) Square NG83 NG83 1 CARN NA SEAN-CHREIGE NG/81988 3147 This galleried dun in Lochalsh, Ross and Cromarty, may be a gallery-walled fort of an architecturally related but more primitive kind, like Dun Liath or Dun Kearstach on Skye (NG37 2 & NG51 2). It stands on a low crag with one face of its diamond-shaped plan along the precipitous edge. It measures 30.0m north-west/south-east by 28.0m transversely and the wall is about 3.9m thick. There are traces of a “stabilizing” wallface in the core in places but definite signs of a gallery near the north-west comer (near the cliff edge), with one lintel still in

NG88 2 LOCH nan DAILTHEAN NG/877 830 Three possible brochs or roundhouses are reported to have been found near Tournaig in Gairloch, Ross and Cromarty, on the shores of Loch nan Dailthean some years before 1886 together with some steatite whorls, stone “troughs”, ashes and other remains [2]. It seems unlikely that the foundations of three brochs were found close together. 864

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 88 SE 3: 2. Dixon 1886, 97-8, 104, 142 & 146 (figs.): 3. Close-Brooks 1984, 288. Square NG89 NG89 1 MEALLAN UDRIGILL NG/894929 This possible wheelhouse in Gairloch lacks a description. The identification came from R Perm in 1970 and from Professor S. Piggott [1]. Source: 1. NMRS site NG 89 SE 3. Square NG93 NG93 1 KILLILAN NG/94 30 Possible broch in Kintail, Ross and Cromarty, which has not been located in modern times [1]. It was a circular building of drystone masonry which yielded a handled steatite cup 14.0cm (5.5 in) in diameter which was acquired by the National Museum in 1882 (No. AG 14). Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NG 93 SW 2: 2. Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 16 (1881-82), 145 & 148 (donation). 3. NMAS 1892, 59.

865

The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland

RING.ILL

GRUGAIG

CROMORE.

DUN

BE.AG, STRUAN

FIADHAIRT

8.1 Diagram illustrating a number of Iron Age dry stone strongholds in the Western Isles with various forms of hollow-wall construction (RCAHMS 1928, fig. 6). This was the first attempt to show how the broch form might have evolved. The suggested sequence shows various open-sided buildings with galleried walls – starting with what the author terms the promontory semibroch on Barra Head – leading up to the enclosed tower form, the broch proper.

866

Section 8: The West Coast (south of the mouth of Loch Broom) and the Inner Hebrides

8.2 Dun Boreraig (NG15 1) in 1985: view of the broch on its rocky knoll, seen from the south-south-west (neg..1985/13/5).

8.3 Dun Boreraig (NG15 1) in 1985: view of the broch with the position of the rock basin marked by the pole (neg. 1985/13/14).

867

NG15 1 Dun Boreraig SE.A

~

....

~,rv··-'-~ ~

~--......,:

SE.A

~

1.