Towers of Mystery: The Iron Age ... - scholar.dickinson.edu
Transcript of Towers of Mystery: The Iron Age ... - scholar.dickinson.edu
Dickinson College Dickinson College
Dickinson Scholar Dickinson Scholar
Student Honors Theses By Year Student Honors Theses
Spring 5-23-2021
Towers of Mystery: The Iron Age Broch Towers of Atlantic Towers of Mystery: The Iron Age Broch Towers of Atlantic
Scotland Scotland
James Bruce Norton Dickinson College
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.dickinson.edu/student_honors
Part of the Classical Archaeology and Art History Commons, and the Other History of Art, Architecture,
and Archaeology Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Norton, James Bruce, "Towers of Mystery: The Iron Age Broch Towers of Atlantic Scotland" (2021). Dickinson College Honors Theses. Paper 402.
This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Dickinson Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected].
1
Towers of Mystery:
The Iron Age Broch Towers of Atlantic Scotland
by
James B. Norton
Submitted in fulfillment of the Honors Requirements of the Department of Anthropology & Archaeology
Dickinson College
Professor Maria Bruno, Supervisor Carlisle, Pennsylvania
May 2021
2
Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. 3 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Iron Age Background ...................................................................................................................... 7 Controversies ................................................................................................................................... 8 Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 14
Orkney ....................................................................................................................................... 15 The Howe .............................................................................................................................. 15 Broch of Burrian .................................................................................................................... 17 Broch of Ayre ........................................................................................................................ 18
Shetland ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Jarlshof .................................................................................................................................. 19 Underhoull ............................................................................................................................. 20 East Shore .............................................................................................................................. 22
The Hebrides ............................................................................................................................. 23 Dun Cuier .............................................................................................................................. 23 Dun Carloway ........................................................................................................................ 25 Dun Ardtreck ......................................................................................................................... 26
Caithness and Sutherland .......................................................................................................... 27 Durcha ................................................................................................................................... 27 Skitten .................................................................................................................................... 29 The Keiss Brochs ................................................................................................................... 31
Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 32 Domestic Evidence .................................................................................................................... 33 High Status Evidence ................................................................................................................ 37 Ritual Evidence ......................................................................................................................... 41
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 43 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 45 References ..................................................................................................................................... 46 Appendix: List of Scottish Brochs ................................................................................................ 51
3
List of Figures
Figure 1: Britain with the broch sites .............................................................................................. 5 Figure 2 Broch of Mousa (Romankiewicz 2016) ............................................................................ 5 Figure 3 Excavations at Clickhimin 1861-2 (Smith 2015) .............................................................. 8 Figure 4: Location of the brochs studied ....................................................................................... 12 Figure 5 The Howe: pottery distribution example (Waddington 2014) ........................................ 16 Figure 6 Broch of Burrian (MacGregor 1972) .............................................................................. 17 Figure 7 Entrance to Broch of Ayre (Graeme 1913) ..................................................................... 18 Figure 8 Broch at Jarlshof (Bruce 1906) ....................................................................................... 19 Figure 9 Bone pin (Bruce 1906) .................................................................................................... 20 Figure 10 Bone weaving comb (Bruce 1906) ................................................................................ 20 Figure 11 First group of pottery (Small 1964) .............................................................................. 21 Figure 12: Plan of Eastshore Broch (Carter, McCullagh and MacSween 1995) ........................... 22 Figure 13: Cooking pots from Dun Cuier (Young 1955) .............................................................. 24 Figure 14: : Dun Carloway (Armit and Fojut 1998) ...................................................................... 25 Figure 15: Glass, metal, bone and stone finds from Phase 3 (MacKie et al. 2001) ...................... 26 Figure 16: Shale ringlet (Dunwell et al. 1999) .............................................................................. 28 Figure 17: Plan of Skitten (Calder and Platt 1948) ....................................................................... 30 Figure 18: The brochs at Keiss (Heald and Jackson 2001) ........................................................... 31
4
Abstract
Iron Age broch towers in Atlantic Scotland have been the focus of archaeological studies
for centuries. Much of the evidence gathered about brochs comes from excavations from before
the creation of modern archaeological standards, leading many scholars to rely on entrenched
perceptions and the limited amount of recently generated evidence. Most studies focus primarily
on architectural evidence, often leaving out the material culture documented in early reports.
This paper reviews twelve reports on brochs in four regions from a range of time periods,
reevaluating their artifactual finds and their relation to the occupants’ use of the brochs. When
compared to each other, the assemblage from each site reveals the links in function between
brochs as high-status domestic sites in Atlantic Scotland.
Introduction
Iron Age brochs remain some of the most debated structures in British archaeology.
Those that survive appear as the remains of large stone towers, in various states of ruin but still
dominating the landscape. Many more only survive as low, grassy mounds dotting the landscape,
robbed of stone by farmers or simply collapsed over the centuries. Despite the grandeur of the
surviving brochs, there has been no definitive consensus as to their origins and role in society.
Brochs represent a specifically defined architectural tradition that occur in great numbers along
the Atlantic coast of Scotland and its surrounding islands of Orkney, Shetland, the Inner and
Outer Hebrides, and the North-Western Highlands (Fig. 1), though they also occur in much
smaller numbers in central Scotland and the Lowlands. They are, broadly speaking, a form of
stone roundhouse (Fig. 2) with certain characteristics that set them apart from similar structures.
Their most defining characteristics include a single, low entrance passage often accompanied by
5
guard cells, a chamber above that entrance, tall slots on the interior walls, and a double wall
system– the outer protecting the structure from the elements and the inner carrying the roof. The
gap in between the two walls allowed for a staircase to reach upper levels of the broch (Harding
2017).
The interpretation of brochs has followed along theoretical trends in British archaeology,
with early ideas about their distribution explained by diffusion from southern Britain to ideas
Figure 2 Broch of Mousa (Romankiewicz 2016)
Figure 1: Britain with the broch sites
6
based around a native origin for brochs, while more recent studies look at their place in local
belief systems (Cunliffe 2005). Modern debates revolve around two main issues– brochs’ role in
Iron Age Scottish society and their categorization and relation to other structures. The first issue
deals with the practical use and cultural significance of broch towers, with theories ranging from
brochs as semi-occupied fortified farmhouses to high status residences. The second debate
involves the other stone roundhouses of Atlantic Scotland, and whether or not brochs belong in
their own unique category or if they belong with other similar structures. However, instead of
examining all aspects of the broch, including the material culture, most studies have focused on
architectural traits, dominating the studies of brochs for many years. As introduced by Ian Armit
(1990), the term Complex Atlantic Roundhouses forms the basis of many arguments for the
inclusion of brochs in a larger grouping based on architectural traits. These theories have been
informed by the archaeological methods used to investigate these sites. Early excavations,
starting in the mid 19th century and making up the majority of broch excavations, often used
antiquarian methods and occurred before modern standards had been established. Though some
reports had fairly detailed accounts, they varied widely between excavators and often ignored
more mundane artifacts to focus instead on architecture. There have been relatively few modern
excavations to provide new evidence with updated techniques. This is often due to concerns
about preservation and scheduled historic monuments, sites protected by law in the UK. This
situation means that scholars have had to rely on older material supplemented with recent
observations of surviving sites. In this thesis, I reassess the existing information on brochs to
investigate the regional variation of their form and associated remains. By looking at the
published material record of several brochs, I will examine the original purpose of their
construction as well as their primary uses. I will begin by summarizing the controversies
7
surrounding brochs, concerning both their definition and their interpreted use, from the earliest
stages of archaeology to the current stances of experts in the field. I will then look at twelve
brochs from four different regions of Atlantic Scotland–Orkney, Shetland, the Hebrides, and
mainland Caithness and Sutherland–and investigate similarities and differences found in their
material remains according to published dig reports. This will not only give an overview of the
sites but will bring together several reports and studies on sites specifically chosen by researchers
and analyze them in a wider context. Through this analysis I show that brochs acted as high-
status domestic sites, while also acting as distinct communities from one another. This allows for
a greater understanding of their role in the wider Iron Age world, as well as a greater
understanding of their relationship with other sites in the cultural landscape of Atlantic Scotland.
Iron Age Background
Iron Age societies in Britain are very regionalized, the product of ever-increasing details
from excavations and examinations. Some very general trends do tend to emerge, however, in
terms of residences, social organization, and social status. Overall, most residential buildings in
Iron Age Britain consist of wooden roundhouses, which exist in large numbers in the more
thoroughly studied south (Cunliffe 2005). In the northern regions of Scotland, these more
common buildings are largely unknown, though more due to the draw of brochs as inviting sites
to excavate (Cunliffe 2005). Organization within roundhouses tends to reflect occupation by a
single family unit, but what this unit consists of can be argued to vary (Cunliffe 2005; Hingley
1992). The creation of larger settlements may have come from the growth of these families over
time, though this is not the only theorized reason for large settlement growth (Hingley 1992).
Evidence of higher social status across the Iron Age in Britain can be seen in the archaeological
8
record as access to rare commodities, such as metalworking and metal objects, and even material
from the Continent and the Mediterranean (Hingley 1992). Monumentality, too, begins to denote
higher status domestic areas in the Iron Age, with many examples including the proto-urbanized
oppida sites of the south and substantial houses throughout Britain (Hingley 1992). However, as
Hingley (1992) mentions, the wider scope of Iron Age society in Atlantic Scotland is hard to
determine due to the over fixation on more visible, monumental buildings such as brochs.
Controversies
Many studies have investigated these mysterious towers to determine their societal role,
attempting to discern their function as well as how they fit into Iron Age social hierarchy. One
issue revolves around the definition of what makes a broch a broch, and whether or not it
represents a category of structure separate from others in Iron Age Scotland. The descriptions of
brochs set down in the 19th century became the formal definitions used by later scholars to
identify brochs as a unique category based on the inclusion of key architectural details. Later
Figure 3 Excavations at Clickhimin 1861-2 (Smith 2015)
9
studies instead grouped brochs together with related roundhouses, as defined by Armit (1990) in
a category of Complex Atlantic Roundhouses. This view puts brochs into their wider context,
investigating how they relate to similar sites as opposed to studying them separately.
The first theories concerning brochs treated them as their own discrete category of
structure, defined by certain architectural characteristics. These ideas were founded by Joseph
Anderson working in the 19th and early 20th centuries, interpreting the visible remains of existing
sites in Scotland (Baines 2002; Fig. 3). Anderson’s definitions of a broch were based on his own
ideas of an idealized broch, fitting themselves to a generalized category. He described a broch as
a hollow drystone tower, 50 feet tall and 60 feet across, with a doorway inside an entrance
passage as the only opening. Beside the doorway was a guard chamber which, along with a
chamber above the door, was assumed to help protect the entrance. This description still forms
the basis of the definition of a broch today (Anderson 1883; Baines 2002). Euan MacKie (1971),
later in the 20th century, continued the pattern of identifying brochs as a specific area of study,
viewing them separately from other forms of construction along Scotland’s Atlantic coast. This
partly came from his belief that broch construction arrived in Scotland through diffusion from
southern migrants fleeing the advance of the Romans. While his general theories on the
development of brochs did change over time, MacKie still defined them as structures separate
from other roundhouse types based on their architectural typology (Baines 2002). Further, in
response to suggestions of including brochs as a part of the wider category of Complex Atlantic
Roundhouses, MacKie contended that broch construction began later than earlier roundhouses, in
the 1st century BC, indicating no relationship between the two (MacKie 1971). Mike Parker
Pearson and his colleagues (1996) supported this claim, relying on dates from excavations at
Dun Vulan in South Uist and Scalloway in Shetland to prove their point.
10
A more recent view looks at brochs as part of a wider tradition of roundhouses and stone
construction in Scotland, as opposed to the view of brochs as a unique phenomenon. Ian Armit
(1990) coined the term Complex Atlantic Roundhouses, including stone structures not identified
as brochs. This view allows for a more flexible style of research, accounting for other related
sites besides those fitting the narrow criteria to be recognized as brochs. This also accounts for
the problem of survivability. Brochs can only be firmly identified by the architectural framework
defined well over a century ago. The majority of these towers now exist only as ruined mounds,
leaving very little chance of an identification as a broch (Baines 2002; Harding 2017). Sites such
as Howe in Orkney have not survived well enough to show the hallmarks of broch architecture,
but otherwise fit into the category. The new idea of the Complex Atlantic Roundhouses utilizes
information from sites like Howe to underline their similarities with other sites as opposed to
studying them in isolation (Armit 2016). Armit also demonstrates how sites such as Howe link
brochs and possible brochs to a wider stone roundhouse tradition. The possible broch at Howe is
itself a second phase of an earlier roundhouse, built sometime before the 2nd century BC, at
which time it was rebuilt again into a broch. Other brochs such as Old Scatness in Shetland have
dates even earlier, stretching out periods of broch construction to follow and coincide with other
forms of roundhouse construction (Armit 2016). In a response to Parker Pearson et al.’s (1996)
excavation at Dun Vulan, Simon Gilmour and Murray Cook (1998) defended the theories of an
earlier start to broch construction. They argue that the dates, sourced from a midden outside the
broch, do not represent the initial broch phases of the site and instead only account for secondary
occupation phases linked to the secondary structures investigated in the excavation. An earlier
date for the initial construction of the broch would suggest a closer association with earlier
roundhouse types. They further argue that sites with earlier dates, but not all the criteria for
11
brochs, represent this same link. Dun Bharabhat in the Outer Hebrides, The Howe, and Crosskirk
in Caithness all include certain elements of broch architecture, linking them to brochs and other
Atlantic roundhouses. As they say, “the picking of single architectural details from one site to
distinguish it from others is clearly not viable” (Gilmour and Cook 1998: 329). This argument
dismantles earlier strict studies of brochs within a set of architectural parameters, and instead
opens up studies to include a wider variety of related sites previously not studied together.
The purpose and use of brochs have also been sources for controversy over the years.
Original interpretations of brochs portrayed them as Pictish or Norse castles, taking into account
their impressive size and stone construction. The large surviving structures often made local
inhabitants and the earliest researchers mistake the brochs for being fairly recent ruins, often not
knowing how ancient they actually were. The first excavations occurred under the supervision of
antiquarians, with varying results. Some excavators recognized stratigraphical sequences and
kept detailed records, while others simply chased walls and dumped most material as useless
(Smith 2002). Later studies did date them to the Iron Age with the help of Childe’s pottery
sequencing, but the brochs remained poorly understood (Cunliffe 2005). Many still interpreted
brochs as acting in a primarily defensive nature. Other researchers began to theorize brochs acted
as seasonal farmhouses or as storage, while more recent interpretations see brochs as high-status
domestic structures. Much of the confusion has historically come from a lack of published
material, which began to build up in the last few decades of the 20th century (Smith 2002). While
I do not fully explore the different sides to these arguments, I do agree that brochs were both
higher-status and domestic residences, based on the evidence set in a wider Iron Age context
gathered from the papers I discuss here.
12
Methods
The methods for this study consisted primarily of the reinterpretation of previously
published literature to draw my own conclusions on broch material. This brought to light
information often ignored from older excavation reports while simultaneously comparing sites
not often studied together. Moreover, as in-person study was impossible during this research
Figure 4: Location of the brochs studied
13
period, this allowed me to study material assemblages without the need to directly handle
excavated material.
The research process focused on the interpretations and arguments made by previous
authors and the description of physical remains and related data.
I reviewed data gathered from excavations and surveys to draw my own conclusions and
compare them to those of the excavators themselves. This includes the description and
comparison of artifacts, ecofacts, structures, and features as described in previous publications. I
compared the numbers of different artifacts and ecofacts when available, and noted their
presence when numbers were not provided. When possible, a spatial analysis of artifacts helped
to inform my review. In order to do this, I determined similarities or differences in material
remains between different brochs within each region to avoid simply using regionality as the
primary reason for any differences. I examined three different broch sites from four regions: The
Howe, Burrian, and Ayre from Orkney; Jarlshof, Underhoull, and Eastshore from Shetland; Dun
Cuier, Dun Carloway, and Dun Ardtreck from the Western Isles; and Durcha, Skitten, and the
three Keiss brochs from Caithness and Sutherland (Fig. 4; Table 1). The material assemblages of
the brochs within each region help show either similar or different uses for brochs within a single
region. I used these conclusions, along with any supporting ideas, to describe brochs and their
place in Iron Age society in Northern Scotland. This synthesis helps string together the evidence
from a wide range of excavation reports and dig accounts spanning almost two centuries.
14
Data Analysis
This section focuses on twelve separate sites, three from each region. For each site, I
discuss the background of the excavation and the author’s involvement, general architectural
details, and the material assemblage as described in the source. These sites range in their date of
excavation and the quality of their excavation, dependent on both the excavator and the state of
archaeology at the time. Early excavations, from the 19th century to the start of the 20th century,
Region Broch Location Year Excavated Estimated date of occupation
Orkney Howe Mainland 1978-82 200 BC-200 AD
Burrian North Ronaldsay 1870-71
Ayre Mainland 1901
Shetland Jarlshof Mainland 1897, 1900-06
Underhoull Isle of Unst 1962
Eastshore Mainland 1983 ph 4: 50 BC-230AD
ph 5: 50 BC-230AD
Hebrides Dun Cuier Isle of Barra 1955
Dun Carloway Isle of Lewis 1971-72
Dun Ardtreck Isle of Skye 1964-65 ph. 2: 100-200AD
ph 2/3: 200-300
ph 3: 300-
Caithness and Sutherland
Durcha Sutherland 1992, 1996
Skitten Caithness 1940
Keiss Harbour Caithness 1893, 2006
Keiss Road Caithness 1893, 2006
Whitegate Caithness 1893, 2006
Table 1: Brochs by region [Bruce (1906); Calder and Platt (1948); Carter, McCullagh and MacSween (1995); Dockrill and Batt (2004); Dunwell et al. (1999); Graeme (1913); Heald and Jackson (2001); Historic Environment Scotland (2021, Keiss Road Broch); Historic Environment Scotland (2021, Whitegate); MacGregor (1972); MacKie et al. (2001); MacKie (2002); Tabraham and Close-Brooks (1976); Traill (1872); Waddington (2014); Young (1955)] ph.=phase of occupation
15
include Ayre, Jarlshof, Keiss, and Burrian, though the excavation at Burrian stands out as much
more professional. Underhoull, Dun Cuier, Dun Ardtreck, and Dun Carloway were all excavated
in the mid-20th century, under more established archaeological standards and under largely
processualist approaches. Dun Ardtreck’s report, however, was published 35 years later, leading
to large reinterpretations of the original findings. The Howe and Durcha are some of the recent
excavations under more modern standards, though Durcha revealed very limited evidence.
Excavations at East Shore were limited by the amount of erosion on site and acted as a rescue
operation, while Skitten had to be quickly documented under the stresses of the Battle of Britain
in 1940. This results in a wide variety of recorded evidence and quality of reports.
Orkney
The Howe
The Howe represents one of the more complete recent excavations of a broch in Orkney,
excavated from 1978-1982 and described by Waddington (2014). These excavations revealed an
enclosed broch village built on top of a series of previous settlements, with the broch as the
central structure over an older Neolithic tomb. The placing of the broch inside the village
solidifies the idea that brochs represent important domestic buildings as opposed to farmhouses
or fortresses (Waddington 2014). Describing the excavation results, Waddington claims that this
layout and style of living is unique to brochs in Orkney when compared to other regions in
Atlantic Scotland. Finds in the broch and surrounding houses included many bones and bone
objects, as well as bronze and iron artifacts associated with the construction of the walls of the
structures, and a scattering of disarticulated human remains. In addition, she describes a layer
full of artifacts, especially broken pottery (Fig. 5). This layer, and the pottery in particular, she
16
argues, are associated with some sort of feasting ceremony at the abandonment of the broch
village. Waddington (2014) holds these objects to be important traces of beliefs surrounding the
construction of these structures and their connection to everyday life.
Figure 5 The Howe: pottery distribution example (Waddington 2014)
17
Broch of Burrian
In another analysis of a previous excavation at the Broch of Burrian, MacGregor (1972)
compiled a description of the artifacts recorded as finds and those still surviving at the time of
his writing (Fig. 6). Located on North Ronaldsay, the most northerly island in Orkney and only
four-square miles in size, the broch existed as nothing more than a grassy mound when
excavated by Dr. William Traill and Sir Henry Dryden in 1870-71 (MacGregor 1972; Traill
1872). The remains included a solid ground level wall, indicating any possible intramural spaces
would have existed in sections that did not survive. A collapsed section of wall did suggest to the
excavators the presence of a wall void, another marker of broch style architecture (MacGregor
1972). Much of the finds overlap with the Pictish period, though many do resemble those found
at The Howe. Finds included a large amount of bone pins and spindle whorls, evidence of a more
Figure 6 Broch of Burrian (MacGregor 1972)
18
domestic use for the site (MacGregor 1972). A single human jawbone was also found, possibly
similar in purpose to the disarticulated bones found in the collapsed walls at the Howe
(MacGregor 1972; Waddington 2014). Additionally, a large amount of pottery unable to be
properly reconstructed was found, the two largest pieces are identified as red cooking pots
(MacGregor 1972). This could indicate a similar practice as at The Howe, where a large
ceremonial feast marked the end of the site’s occupation.
Broch of Ayre
In Graeme’s (1913) firsthand excavations at the Broch of Ayre, he seemingly found many
similarities to the finds from The Howe and the Broch of Burrian. Ayre sits on the north bank of
a loch near the sea, on the southern coast of Mainland Orkney near St. Mary’s Holm. When
excavated, it survived as a grassy mound 10-12 feet high above the water (Graeme 1913). The
broch itself had several nearby structures found as Graeme searched for the broch’s primary
entrance (Fig. 7). This could be similar to the layout of the village at The Howe or possibly from
different building phases. Besides the normal architectural markers of a broch, Graeme found
many bone artifacts, including pins like those from Burrian and red deer antler tines like those
from The Howe (Graeme 1913). Additionally, he made note of the fragments of ornamented
Figure 7 Entrance to Broch of Ayre (Graeme 1913)
19
pottery, the majority of it red and coarse ware with traces of burning similar to that at other
brochs in Orkney (Graeme 1913; Waddington 2014). These pieces, as well as much of the rest of
the pottery seem to follow, yet again, the pattern described from excavations at The Howe, where
pottery associated with feasting is found in the abandonment layer. As Waddington (2014) says,
however, a better understanding of the chronology of these sites is needed to properly understand
them, which Graeme’s report does not necessarily provide. Due to this, the similarities in finds
from earlier excavations may not indicate similar uses or practices.
Shetland
Jarlshof
Bruce (1906) describes the discovery and his subsequent excavation of the broch at
Jarlshof next to and under a later structure of the same name. The broch itself was surrounded by
several smaller buildings, forming something of a village (Fig. 8). This village may have had a
protective wall running around the site, reminiscent of the enclosed broch villages of Orkney, but
this has not been definitively proven (Bruce 1906). Additionally, half the site had already been
Figure 8 Broch at Jarlshof (Bruce 1906)
20
destroyed by the sea, leaving a full reconstruction up to the finds in the surviving half. Finds
recovered from Jarlshof include a number of stone artifacts, some of which were round, thin
stone disks. A few of those disks bore designs, at least one quite intricate. Stone was also used to
create querns, as well as many spindle whorls. The presence of the latter indicates the presence
of weaving at the site of the broch and its surrounding buildings, as do the various combs made
of bone (Bruce 1906, Fig. 10). As at other brochs, a bone pin was found, with a single
perforation through the head (Fig. 9), along with several other shaped bone implements for
various uses. Only two metal finds were recovered in Bruce’s excavations: a 3-inch bronze pin
shaped like a crook, and a heavier 6-inch silver pin. Pottery was only recovered in small pieces,
with one showing a buttress-style design along the rim (Bruce 1906). Unfortunately, Bruce does
not provide a full list of artifacts recovered, instead listing only the most interesting ones. This
may limit finding connections between the material remains at Jarlshof and other brochs, at least
in terms of the early excavations.
Underhoull
Excavations undertaken at Underhoull at the invitation of the nearby Royal Air Force
(RAF) post on the isle of Unst focused on the Iron Age settlement at the foot of a slope
Figure 9 Bone weaving comb (Bruce 1906)
Figure 10 Bone pin (Bruce 1906)
21
separating it from the broch itself, less than 50 yards from the shore. The broch at Underhoull
has been all but destroyed and only the traces of its defensive works mark it as the typical layout
of a broch (Irvine n.d.). The broch itself was not directly excavated, and the Iron Age horizons of
the chosen site could not be fully excavated as it partially lay under a later Norse longhouse, but
the excavation team did find a decent amount of material focusing on a midden, a hut, and a
souterrain, or underground passage (Small 1964). While one hut and the souterrain belong to the
early Iron Age, the second hut floor and the midden contained artifacts connecting it to material
found in brochs. In terms of pottery, excavators found three different types. The first group
contains large round cooking pots with rims facing outwards and slash marks or finger pinchings
as decoration (Fig. 11). These sherds closely resemble those found at Jarlshof, as well as sherds
found at Skapa Flow in Orkney (Small 1964). The second group represents a native design
containing steatite, with straighter sides and less decorations. The third group contains pots with
either a rolled rim or decoration to make it appear rolled. All three groups existed simultaneously
(Small 1964). The excavators recovered no complete vessels, nor enough pieces to create one.
Along with pottery sherds, they found pumice attached to bits of clay used to smooth down the
Figure 11 First group of pottery (Small 1964)
22
pottery. Additionally, lumps of bog iron were found nearby, appearing to have been stacked for
storage. Slag was also found, some still stuck to the clay linings of the pits used for smelting
(Small 1964). The evidence for metal working and the bits of pottery seemingly broken while
unfinished point to a sort of open-air manufacturing center, though the primary building may
have been robbed for stonework by the Vikings. Small (1964) mentions that this fits the pattern
of a central defensive area, the broch, surrounded by other buildings in the useful and fertile
areas. This could be the case, using other sites as examples to stand in for the lack of digging at
the broch during this excavation. The area investigated by Small could represent a specialized
area of the broch community, while the broch itself represents the center.
East Shore
The East Shore broch sits on the eastern shore on the southern tip of Mainland Shetland
at the mouth of the Pool of Virkie. Excavations began in 1983 under Peter Strong to investigate
the eroding broch, still in danger of disappearing into the sea to this day. Strong looked at the
Figure 12: Plan of Eastshore Broch (Carter, McCullagh and MacSween 1995)
23
exposed wall and bay sections, as well as the exterior midden, but not the interior as it had
already largely been destroyed (Fig. 12). The walls had been built using well-developed
techniques and collapses within the walls point to the previous existence of intramural galleries
(Carter, McCullagh and MacSween 1995). Most artifacts came from Phases 4 and 5, defined as
the later broch features and external midden deposits, respectively. Phase 4 saw a series of floor
layers superimposed on each other, containing pottery, stone tools and cloth fragments. Most
finds came from the two gravel layers underlying the upper two sequences of floor slabs (Carter
et al. 1995). Phase 5 contained more pottery sherds–similar to those in Phase 4–and stone tools,
as well as pumice and iron slag. It also contained typical midden finds of charcoal, ash, seeds,
and animal bones. The similarity of the pottery in both phases, as well as their carbon-14 dates of
50 BC-AD 230, suggests that they occurred concurrently (Carter, McCullagh and MacSween
1995). A broken rotary quern found in the midden, along with the largely domestic nature of the
finds, suggests that the primary occupation sequence of the broch was largely domestic.
The Hebrides
Dun Cuier
The site of Dun Cuier is located roughly halfway down the Isle of Barra, overlooking the
western coastline from a ridge in the interior of the isle. The broch itself is built atop a rocky
outcropping, clearly not relying on flat terrain for its construction (Young 1955). A bank–
undated as of 1955–surrounded the site, with several other depressions dotted around the
landscape. Within the broch excavators found a large number of pottery sherds, much of it
associated with coarse cooking ware as at other sites (Fig. 13). This pottery seems largely grey in
24
color and is linked to other Hebridean pottery finds (Young 1955). This site also contained a
large number of metal production finds, primarily slag. At least two deposits of slag were
uncovered, and several molds provide evidence for metal manufacturing directly within the site.
One hearth, the central one, had very few domestic finds around it and was assumed to be for
metal working (Young 1955). Artifacts that excavators found included spindle whorls, bone pins
and combs. The combs may have been fashioned after Roman styles and may be from a later
date. One bone needle was found well-preserved in the foundation stones of the broch wall. A
whale bone handle for some sort of tool was also found. In addition to all these finds, excavators
Figure 13: Cooking pots from Dun Cuier (Young 1955)
25
found several gaming pieces, made from both bone and antler, and in various states of
completeness (Young 1955).
Dun Carloway
Located on the Isle of Lewis, Dun Carloway is one of the most recognizable of the
Scottish brochs (Fig. 14). Excavations carried out in 1971 found less of a typical-sized broch,
and one of a more industrial nature. The walls of the broch were built directly onto the natural
rock and peat, with no evidence of work to remove them. The excavation itself found evidence of
successive layers of ash, from burning peat in fairly undefined hearths (Tabraham and Close-
Brooks 1977). These layers contained small pieces of pottery and a small number of flat stones
that acted as the basis of the hearth. The pottery sherds did not form any complete pots, and most
seemed burned. Additionally, the sherds in every layer formed a very homogenous group. A clay
drain led from a pit next to the hearth area to the broch wall (Tabraham and Close-Brooks 1977).
Figure 14: : Dun Carloway (Armit and Fojut 1998)
26
Tabraham noted that no pottery or other finds–such as bones–usually associated with early broch
habitation periods were found, suggesting that the material currently inside the broch came from
a secondary occupation period. The variety of sherds found, along with the drain and possible
flues in the outer wall point to this as an Iron Age pottery manufacturing site. The layout and
structure resembled the only other previously known site of the same use in Orkney (Tabraham
and Close-Brooks 1977).
Dun Ardtreck
Dun Ardtreck is another example of a modern, well-documented excavation. Located on
a small promontory on the western coast of Skye, Dun Ardtreck sits with its remaining walls
Figure 15: Glass, metal, bone and stone finds from Phase 3 (MacKie et al. 2001)
27
forming the curve of a D, with its back against a cliff. Excavations and survey carried out in
1965 included trenches both inside and out of the D-shaped enclosure, and even visual survey
from the bottom of the cliff for eroded rubble (MacKie et al. 2001). MacKie identified three
main phases of the site: Phase 1, the construction, Phase 2, the main occupation and destruction,
and Phase 3, the secondary occupation. Phase 1 saw few finds but did include pottery thought to
exist as far back as the 7th century BC, though this only works as a theoretical and unprecise
dating method. Instead, the excavators dated a small piece of charcoal in this phase to between
114 BC and AD 120 as the probable construction of the broch (MacKie et al. 2001). Phase 2
ended with a large fire that destroyed the probable timber structures on the interior and left
behind a unique rope-styled iron door handle, lost after the door burned and fell. Phase 3
included Roman pots likely from the Antonine period in an access ramp, as well as a Roman axe
head (Fig. 15). At the end of Phase 3, excavators found Dark Age E ware, associated with high
status royal sites in Scotland in the 6-8th centuries AD and provides a probable date for the end of
the site’s occupation. Several fairly complete pots were found, mostly in the burned layer, and
other artifacts included an assortment of pottery, some metal and bone tools, several pieces of
jewelry such as an amber bead and an ornate bronze pin. There was little evidence for weaving,
with one spindle whorl remaining, and no evidence for on-site metal working, though lumps of
slag indicated it occurred nearby (MacKie et al. 2001).
Caithness and Sutherland
Durcha
The broch at Durcha, located in Sutherland, suffered severely from stone robbing before
excavations took place in 1992 and 1996. The overall structure had already become indiscernible
28
by the time of surveys done by the Royal Commission in 1909 and had already likely lost much
of its form by the time of the first ordinance survey in 1874 (Dunwell et al. 1999). Durcha can
only be identified as a broch as opposed to a general roundhouse based on accounts of travels in
the 18th Century and the recorded memories of locals, as the upper galleries have completely
disappeared. At the time of excavation, the site had become a grassy mound, completely
obscuring the remaining stones. The general round shape could still be seen, along with some of
the filling stones of the walls. The limited excavation carried out by Dunwell used five trenches
to examine the cross section of the stone wall, the interior and inner face of the wall, and the
outer wall face and cobbled surface covered by a midden (Dunwell et al. 1999). Finds were
extremely limited, likely on account of both the size and focus of the excavation and the damage
done to the site in the past. The midden provided a number of finds, including a piece of course
pottery, part of a stone ringlet, iron slag, and a number of animal bone fragments, including two
cattle molars (Dunwell et al. 1999, Fig. 16). The pottery and ringlet both suggest an origin of
Figure 16: Shale ringlet (Dunwell et al. 1999)
29
sometime in the 1st millennium BC or AD but do nothing to narrow down the date. The slag and
bone fragments do suggest activities of metal working and animal husbandry, but the incredibly
small amount of material cannot prove if these activities happened onsite or elsewhere. They
would, however, fall in line with the typical assemblage of artifacts found at Iron Age domestic
sites.
Skitten
The broch at Skitten, Caithness was excavated in 1940 under wartime stresses, resulting
in a rescue operation to find as much information as possible before the entire site was flattened
for the construction of the airfield at RAF Skitten. By 1940 the broch only existed as a grassy
mound and had only been briefly excavated by Sir Francis Barry in 1904 (Calder and Platt
1948). The 1940 excavation exposed the entire structure to record it before construction on the
airfield began (Figure 17). Calder’s excavation found a standard round tower with outer
earthworks, with the outer walls damaged by modern cultivation and the western wall in
particular left unprotected by the 1904 excavation. When exposed the surviving structure did
30
show some of the architectural criteria for the classification of brochs, including a cell in the
position of a guard cell and a void directly above the entrance (Calder and Platt 1948). In
addition, a central drain led out the entrance for farther than the excavators were able to uncover.
The broch held a central hearth, under which was a pit containing dark soil, animal bones and
pottery fragments. A branch drain associated with the radial compartments extended into the
natural clay layer, with two rows of stones set up parallel to it around which excavators found
Figure 17: Plan of Skitten (Calder and Platt 1948)
31
peat ash and calcined deer horn (Calder and Platt 1948). The completeness of the excavation led
to the discovery of a number of artifacts, including a disintegrated pot in a radial chamber,
broken stone dishes reused as cobbling, general stone tools, coastal shells interpreted as liquid
containers, and bones from sheep, red deer, pigs, and oxen (Calder and Platt 1948). Stone objects
such as querns, whorls, and dishes point towards a more domestic nature of the site, as does the
diversity of animal bones found at the site. In addition, several bones from one unidentified
person of small stature were found in the debris. As the site did not show evidence of many
burials, these bones may have been placed in the structure for some meaningful purpose.
The Keiss Brochs
The brochs at Keiss actually consist of a cluster of three brochs–Keiss Harbour, White
Gate, and Keiss Road– all within a radius of 400 meters (Heald and Jackson 2001, Fig. 18). The
three sites had been primarily excavated in the last ten years of the 19th century by Sir Francis
Figure 18: The brochs at Keiss (Heald and Jackson 2001)
32
Barry, generating a list of artifacts and description of structures reevaluated by Heald and
Jackson in 2000. Keiss Harbour and White Gate both sit on the coast, while Keiss Road sits
farther inland. White Gate may be an earlier broch or roundhouse form, as it contained notably
less finds and a simpler foundation design than its neighbors. This close association of brochs
repeats farther north at Freswick Bay, apparently an arrangement of brochs unique to Caithness.
Reexamination of the sites at Keiss saw that they had a series of outer buildings and clearly
engaged in activities ranging outside of the walls of their roundhouses (Heald and Jackson 2001).
There may have even been a series of nuclear villages in the unexcavated area between the sites,
similar to those found in Orkney. While stratigraphy for the sites was not recorded, Barry did
report the excavation of an impressive number of finds. All three Keiss sites showed evidence for
non-ferrous metalworking, out of a total of six Iron Age sites in Caithness that have similar
production evidence. This could point towards a higher social status, as does the bronze and iron
shears (Heald and Jackson 2001). Barry also found a large amount of Roman material, including
Samian ware, fine ware, glass, and reused metal, making these sites important trade links of
some degree, while the general stone and bone tools such as querns and pins point to a largely
domestic use for these brochs.
Discussion
Through examining these brochs and their material assemblages, I hoped to note
similarities and differences between sites and regions as a whole. Three main lines of evidence
emerged as patterns of similar use across all of the brochs–domestic evidence, high-status
evidence, and ritual evidence. The majority of the material found at brochs point towards a
largely common use across geographic areas, despite differences that can occur regionally.
33
Before review of the patterns, it is worth mentioning that many of these finds come from
a very haphazard standard for excavations over the past century and a half, leading to all sorts of
biases regarding what an excavator might report or leave out. Archaeologists at the turn of the
century, for example, had an equal chance of noting down the presence or amount of animal
bone as they would have for simply calling them rubbish and throwing them out. Many early
excavations paid more attention to the more interesting and valuable artifacts, giving little
description of the more common items that often play a large part in the interpretation of a site.
The focus given to brochs themselves also constrains the material of these sites to the stone
roundhouse while rarely investigating the surrounding building, creating another possible bias
and gap in the material record. With all these factors in consideration, it is still possible to
consider different categories of archaeological finds that help to create an overall picture of the
usage of brochs across the four defined geographic areas.
Domestic Evidence
Brochs all share a relatively similar assemblage of domestic material. This material
represents the everyday activities of a residential site, from eating, to making and fixing clothes,
to the presence of domesticated animals. Evidence for food preparation and consumption, along
with the use of wool from a settlement’s sheep flock, are both recognized as domestic activities
in Iron Age contexts (Cunliffe 2005). The Howe contained many sherds of a heavy, reddish
coarse ware interpreted as cooking pots. The other two broch excavations on Orkney at Burrian
and Ayre both contained the reddish coarse pot sherds with burn marks.
Table 2: Number/Presence of Pottery
34
Broch Estimated date of occupation
Pottery
Howe 200 BC-200 AD >3400 Burrian
22
Ayre
60 Jarlshof
X
Underhoull
X Eastshore ph 4: 50 BC-230AD 48 ph 5: 50 BC-230AD 30 Dun Cuier
110
Dun Carloway
647 Dun Ardtreck ph. 2: 100-200AD 5 pots
ph 2/3: 200-300 9 ph 3: 300- X
Durcha
1 Skitten
X
Keiss Harbour
8 Keiss Road
6
Whitegate 1
All three are tied together by the presence of cooking and food preparation, which leads towards
an interpretation as a domestic context (Table 2). Similar coarse ware identified as originating
from Orkney was discovered at the Shetland sites of Jarlshof and Underhoull, alongside native
Shetland styles.
The amounts of non-fashioned animal bone found at the Howe indicates that large
amounts of animals were eaten on site, found in several different contexts and likely
accumulating over a period of habitation. None of the other brochs show the same numbers of
animal bone as the Howe, but only due to the lack of reporting of accurate numbers from the
excavations as well as the excavators’ preferences for “interesting” artifacts or the limited nature
of the excavation.
Table 2: Pottery sherd count/presence
35
Broch Estimated date of occupation Cattle Sheep Pig Red Deer
Other animal bones
Antler
Howe 200 BC-200 AD >2100 >1000 >300 >600 78 Burrian 14 2 27 19 1 Ayre X X X X X X Jarlshof X Underhoull Eastshore ph 4: 50 BC-230AD ph 5: 50 BC-230AD X X X X Dun Cuier X X X X X Dun Carloway Dun Ardtreck ph. 2: 100-200AD
ph 2/3: 200-300 89 20 25 48 19 ph 3: 300- 545 22 125 227 18 X
Durcha 2 11 Skitten X X X X X X Keiss Harbour
Keiss Road X Whitegate X
Larger numbers were instead found in Phases 2/3 and 3 at Dun Ardtreck, a more complete
excavation and report (Table 3). The finds at Dun Carloway make it an outlier, where the
existing pottery seems to point towards a use of the broch as a manufacturing center as opposed
to a residential one. However, Tabraham (1977) noted that the entire first phase of occupation
had likely been cleared out to make way for a secondary use of the broch as a pottery
manufacturing site. The midden at Durcha instead acts as an example of the contemporaneity of
these finds, where coarse pottery sherds, cattle bone fragments, iron slag and a stone ringlet were
all found together (Dunwell et al. 1999). While the presence of just pottery or iron slag could
point to use of the broch as a manufacturing center, the addition of the animal bone and a
personal item such as the stone ring suggests a more residential occupation.
Table 3: Number/presence of unfashioned animal bones
36
Other artifacts such as spindle whorls made from both bone and stone and long handled
combs of bone, such as the one found at Jarlshof, show evidence for weaving at the brochs,
another likely domestic activity (Cunliffe 2005; Table 4). Eastshore even preserved a small
sample of woven cloth, consistent with the activities indicated by these tools. Some of the most
common bone artifacts found at these brochs were pins, used for fastening clothing.
Broch Estimated date of occupation
Fashioned Bone/Antler
Stone Objects
Howe 200 BC-200 AD 155 258 Burrian
228 50
Ayre
47 26 Jarlshof
X X
Underhoull
X Eastshore ph 4: 50 BC-230AD X ph 5: 50 BC-230AD X Dun Cuier
X X
Dun Carloway
X Dun Ardtreck ph. 2: 100-200AD 7 5
ph 2/3: 200-300 2 10 ph 3: 300- 11 20
Durcha
Skitten
X 50
Keiss Harbour
77 35 Keiss Road
29 43
Whitegate 5 8
Such high quantities of these artifacts, particularly at Burrian, help establish the sites as domestic
areas as opposed to manufacturing centers. It should be noted, however, that these bone pins
have been identified to shortly before the arrival of the Vikings and may just represent the latest
Iron Age phases of the brochs (MacGregor 1972). While they appear at almost all the brochs,
they may not represent the primary habitation phases of the structures.
Table 4: Fashioned bone and stone
37
High Status Evidence
High status in an Iron Age society generally means a group in a society with a higher
level of control and access to resources, labor, and exotic goods. An artifact can be identified as
high status when its possession seems limited to a smaller percentage of the population. Metal
finds do tend to point towards a higher status context in Iron Age communities, especially due to
their restricted ownership (Hunter 2007), but they do not receive much lengthy discussion in
most of the papers reviewed here. MacGregor (1972) does describe an iron bell of Irish design
that may have implications for a Christian presence from the 5th century AD onwards. At Ayre,
Graeme (1913) mentions the presence of a few iron spear heads and an axe head, along with
bronze pins made in the same style as the ones made of bone. Burrian has a
Broch Estimated date of occupation
Bronze Iron Copper Alloy
Unidentified/ combination
Howe 200 BC-200 AD 18 16 Burrian
4 6
Ayre
3 5 Jarlshof
2 1
Underhoull
X Eastshore ph 4: 50 BC-230AD ph 5: 50 BC-230AD X Dun Cuier
X X
Dun Carloway
Dun Ardtreck ph. 2: 100-200AD 18 3 2 ph 2/3: 200-300 2 4 ph 3: 300- 20 107 7
Durcha
Skitten
Keiss Harbour
3
Keiss Road
1 Whitegate
similar assemblage of metal artifacts after the bell, but neither Burrian nor Ayre show the amount
of metal objects expected at a higher status site (Table 5). Even the Howe showed a fairly small
number of metal artifacts when compared to other categories. MacKie (2001) notes the presence
Table 5: Metal finds
38
of an elaborate rope-styled iron ring attached to nails, a probable door handle from the
destruction layer at Dun Ardtreck. The workmanship of the ring suggests its use as a status
symbol displayed to visitors of the broch.
Overlapping with metal finds, the presence of Roman artifacts can also indicate the
higher status of brochs (Table 6). Roman material found at a broch would point towards trade
connections with the south, either with the Romans themselves or through intermediaries in
Broch Estimated date of occupation
Glass Roman finds
Howe 200 BC-200 AD Burrian
2
Ayre
Jarlshof
Underhoull
Eastshore ph 4: 50 BC-230AD ph 5: 50 BC-230AD Dun Cuier
Dun Carloway
Dun Ardtreck ph. 2: 100-200AD 21
ph 2/3: 200-300 6 ph 3: 300- 6 7
Durcha
Skitten
Keiss Harbour
3 X Keiss Road
X
Whitegate
contact with the Romans (Cunliffe 2005; Hingley 1992). In either case, the brochs receiving the
material represent higher status centers to act as part of these trade links. Dun Ardtreck shows a
number of Roman finds, including an iron axe that MacKie (2001) notes as an unusual Roman
artifact to be found in Scotland. Alongside the axe, sherds of Samian ware, small bits of glass
and a melon bead were all found, as well as a bronze pin of a unique design. The brochs at Keiss
also held a number of Roman finds, the most found in a single site in Caithness (Heald and
Jackson 2001). This assemblage included Samian ware, fine ware, and glass, along with metal
Table 6: Roman material
39
recycled from a Roman source. Both Dun Ardtreck and the Keiss brochs acted as important
enough centers to receive as much Roman material as they did, pointing towards their higher
status.
Other unique materials can also indicate the status of the individuals occupying the
brochs. A cannel-coal finger ring, bangle and bracelet were found at Underhoull, Durcha and
Keiss Harbour respectively (Table 7). These jewelry pieces have all been interpreted as higher
status items, as the decoration on the bangle from Durcha is very rare and the cannel-coal itself
could not be obtained locally for Underhoull in Shetland (Heald and Jackson 2001, Small 1964).
Broch Estimated date of occupation
Amber Miscellaneous
Howe 200 BC-200 AD Burrian
Ayre
Jarlshof
Underhoull
2 cannel-coal finger ring Eastshore ph 4: 50 BC-230AD woven cloth ph 5: 50 BC-230AD pumice Dun Cuier
Dun Carloway
Dun Ardtreck ph. 2: 100-200AD 5 jet pendants; 13 hazelnuts
ph 2/3: 200-300 1 1 jet pendant ph 3: 300- 3 jet pendants; black pumice
Durcha
cannel-coal bracelet Skitten
Keiss Harbour
cannel-coal bangle; pendant Keiss Road
Whitegate 2 2 amber beads
Whitegate also contains two amber beads, and both Underhoull and Dun Ardtreck contain amber
material. Amber almost certainly acts as a high-status material, as an exotic material not readily
available in Scotland.
More compelling evidence for the status of the brochs can also be found in their
architectural remains. The construction of a broch on its own represents a significant engineering
Table 7: Miscellaneous finds
40
feat and level of care and importance compared to that of a simple timber roundhouse.
Experimental roundhouses have shown that without upkeep a standard roundhouse would not
last much longer than 25 years before completely falling apart (Main et al. 1998). A stone broch
would have been–and often still is–a continuous presence on the landscape, a constant reminder
of those who lived in it. In addition, the scale of construction shows that a large amount of
people would have had to help build it, indicating some sway or control to rally that amount of
labor (Hingley 1992). All would have stood as important monuments on the Iron Age Scottish
landscape, possibly to impose a certain level of intimidation and at the very least prominently
marking the spot where a specific group of people lived.
Some brochs seem to also act as the focus for a wider community. The broch at the Howe
holds the central position within an enclosed village complex, acting as the focal point for a
series of buildings. Ayre also shows some signs of outer buildings surrounding the broch, and the
unexcavated area at Burrian may well have held similar remains. Though Waddington (2014)
contends that these enclosed broch villages only exist in Orkney, a similar layout seems to exist
at Jarlshof, including even a possible outer defensive wall (Bruce 1906). At Keiss, too, there
seems to be a high chance of unexcavated settlements at each of the three brochs. The close
proximity of the three brochs themselves also seems to indicate a close relationship between each
tower, one not paralleled in any of the other regions. In the Western Isles, brochs seem to exist
more isolated from each other, without a surrounding settlement. In the case of Dun Cuier, for
example, there seems to be little evidence of surrounding buildings, but may be due to the
widespread existence of other brochs and habituated sites on the relatively small isle. Durcha and
Skitten both seem to also exist without an accompanying settlement, though that may only reflect
the limited investigation of either site. Brochs, then, can exist both with and without surrounding
41
settlements, possibly a result of different levels in a hierarchy or as a result of regional
differences.
Ritual Evidence
While brochs do seem to primarily act as high-status domestic sites, some evidence does
exist to suggest an important cultural or religious purpose as well. One marker of possible ritual
practices is the presence of human remains in the broch, which occurs as both burials and
disarticulated bones. Burials are less common than the fragments, which follows trends across
Iron Age Britain (Hingley 1992). Depending on local traditions, excarnation or cremation could
have been used for the majority of the population while the surviving bones could have been
retrieved later (Carr 2007; Hingley 1992). All three brochs in Orkney contain human remains as
do Skitten and Whitegate, though only the Howe and Whitegate have discrete burials discovered
during excavation (Table 8). At the Howe, a neonatal skeleton had been scattered over a male
inhumation, the only skeleton deliberately buried at the site. This individual, it has been argued,
died violently, possibly from some form of human sacrifice (Waddington 2014). In House 6, four
skeletons were found, along with the scattered bones of a child in a layer of ash. While both of
these represent very concentrated groups of human remains, most bones came individually from
construction and abandonment layers sometime after being defleshed (Waddington 2014).
Waddington points out that two other Iron Age sites–Cladh Hallan and Dun Vulan–have shown
that human bones can stay in circulation long after an individual’s death, as may be the case at
the Howe. She suggests that people deliberately placed these disarticulated bones into the walls
of the broch at various stages of construction, and possibly at its destruction as well, linking the
very architecture of the broch with their beliefs.
42
Broch Estimated date of occupation
Human Remains: Burial
Human Remains:
Disarticulated
Howe 200 BC-200 AD X X Burrian 1 Ayre 3 Jarlshof Underhoull Eastshore ph 4: 50 BC-230AD ph 5: 50 BC-230AD Dun Cuier Dun Carloway Dun Ardtreck ph. 2: 100-200AD
ph 2/3: 200-300 ph 3: 300-
Durcha Skitten 10 Keiss Harbour
Keiss Road Whitegate X X
This explanation could extend to the other brochs with disarticulated remains, providing a reason
for the presence of a single jawbone at Burrian. The jumble of bones at Ayre seems to indicate at
least two burials, while at Keiss, Laing (1867) describes a number of burial cists (“kists”)
complete with simple grave goods, though these may not be contemporary with the Keiss
Harbour broch.
Waddington’s (2014) note of the possible use of much of the present pottery at the Howe
as feasting material, especially the larger coarse ware sherds, points to a use as a combination of
both ritual and domestic uses. Other brochs with surviving cooking ware–such as Ayre and
Burrian–could also have participated in similar feasting activities, though a lack of solid
evidence makes this hard to prove. While human bones and possible evidence of feasting do
Table 8: Human remains
43
suggest connections between brochs and their inhabitants’ beliefs, more research is undoubtedly
needed to further our knowledge of these connections, as Laing’s descriptions suggest.
Conclusions
Most debates about brochs have usually revolved around the architectural details of the
remaining structures. By looking at the material remains, I reintroduce an often-overlooked line
of inquiry into these sites. The evidence found at almost every broch points towards the same
conclusion–that they acted primarily as high-status residential sites, varying somewhat in their
assemblages, architectural details, and wider community relations. The spread of the common
cooking wares in the north–continuously linked back to Orkney–acts as an example to suggest a
certain level of communication between the communities that built the brochs, though whether
that means simple trade links, or a closer association remains harder to tell. Local level exchange
did occur fairly widely in the Iron Age, but why that exchange took place is more difficult to
answer (Hingley 1992). Other similar artifacts, such as the spindle whorls and bone combs used
for weaving, point towards comparable technology and economies, perhaps due to the nature of
societies in Atlantic Scotland or again due to closer cultural ties.
The brochs themselves most likely represent the center building of a local area, built for
longevity and an outward show of higher status. When available, evidence from the interiors of
brochs suggest a more domestic rather than a purely defensive purpose, likely acting as the home
of a higher status family group. The exact assemblage of artifacts does vary from site to site, as
does the organization of the community. Villages surrounding the broch seems more common in
Orkney, Shetland and possibly Caithness, while very little evidence exists for them in the
Western Isles. Even between the two sites in Shetland, the nature of the settlements differs from
one another. At Jarlshof, buildings closely surround the broch in the style of Orkney while
44
remaining unenclosed, and at Underhoull a single pottery manufacturing area and souterrain
feature exist further down a hill accommodating for the rough terrain (Bruce 1906; Small 1964).
Each broch site has a unique design, but with underlying shared characteristics. Given all
this evidence, the brochs of Atlantic Scotland all have the shared attributes of higher social status
and a domestic focused use, while each remains unique from the others. Brochs simultaneously
act as a common cultural marker yet stand as indicators of distinct communities or settlements.
This research gives credence to the idea of regional archaeological cultures, while still
emphasizing that each site has its own local identity.
As I have previously mentioned, this research has had limiting factors. Many brochs are
situated on coastlines and are subject to coastal erosion, slowly eating away at archaeological
sites. Any surviving evidence has had to escape degradation over time, the erosion of sites and
antiquarian excavations. Modern laws also conserve many brochs as cultural heritage sites,
limiting the amount of new information available. In addition, this particular research has been
constrained by the current state of the world, with restrictions on travel making access to library
resources and artifacts in museums difficult. Despite these limitations, the patterns that I
observed prove the importance of re-examining older, often overlooked reports.
To continue this research in the future, a further exploration of the belief systems of these
societies may help build our understanding of the people who built and lived in the brochs.
While some research has been done on topics such as human remains, decorative styles and
demarcation of space, a larger collation of this material may help bring a more well-rounded
understanding. Perhaps the best way to generate new evidence would be to conduct modern,
well-recorded and well-dug excavations to fill in the gaps in our knowledge before these
monuments are lost forever.
45
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professor Maria Bruno for putting me on the path for this thesis and
helping push me to do my very best work. I would also like to thank Dr. Tom Moore and Dr.
Murray Cook, who provided excellent advice on both the subject matter and my research
strategies, as well as Professor James Ellison and Dr. Nikki Cummings for their insight and
advice on my final draft. Both of my classmates, Luke Nicosia and Natalie Ginez, provided
helpful comments on this project from the very beginning and aided in forming my thoughts into
coherent arguments. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, who encouraged me the entire
way through.
46
References
Anderson, Joseph. 1871. “Notice of the Excavation of the Brochs of Yarhouse, Brounaben, Bowermadden, Old Stirkoke, and Dunbeath, in Caithness, with Remarks on the Period of the Brochs; and an Appendix Containing a Collected List of the Brochs of Scotland, and Early Notices of Many of Them.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland: 131-198.
Anderson, Joseph. 1883. Scotland in Pagan Times: The Iron Age. Edinburgh: David Douglas. Anderson, Joseph. 1901. “Notices of Nine Brochs Along the Caithness Coast from Keiss Bay to
Skirza Head, Excavated by Sir Frances Tress Barry, Bart., M.P., of Keiss Castle, Caithness.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland: 112-148.
Armit, Ian. 1990. “Broch Building in Northern Scotland: The Context of Innovation.” World
Archaeology 21 (3): 435-445. Armit, Ian. 1991. “The Atlantic Scottish Iron Age: Five Levels of Chronology.” Proceedings of
the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 121: 181-214. Armit, Ian. 2011. Towers in the North: the Brochs of Scotland. Stroud: The History Press. Armit, Ian. 2016. Celtic Scotland: Iron Age Scotland in its European Context. Edinburgh:
Birlinn Ltd. Armit, Ian and Noel Fojut. 1998. Dun Charlabaigh and the Hebridean Iron Age. Inverness,
Scotland: Urras nan Tursachan Ltd. Baines, Andrew. 2002. “The Inherited Past of the Broch: On Antiquarian Discourse and
Contemporary Archaeology.” Scottish Archaeological Journal 24 (1): 1-20. Bruce, John. 1906. “Excavation of a Broch at Jarlshof, Sumburgh, Shetland.” Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 41: 11-33. Calder, Charles S. T. and Margery I. Platt. 1948. “Report on the Excavation of a Broch at
Skitten, in the Kilmster District of Caithness.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 82: 124-145.
Callander, J. Graham. 1921. “Report on the Excavation of Dun Beag, a Broch Near Struan,
Skye.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland: 444-516. Callander, J. Graham. 1933. “The Broch of Midhowe, Rousay, Orkney.” Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries in Scotland: 110-131.
47
Carr, Gillian. 2007. “Excarnation to Cremation: Continuity or Change?” In The Later Iron Age in Britain and Beyond, edited by Colin Haselgrove and Tom Moore, 444-453. Havertown: Oxbow Books.
Carter, S. P., D. Haigh, N. R. J. Neil and Beverley Smith. 1984. “Interim Report on the
Structures at Howe, Stromness, Orkney.” Glasgow Archaeological Journal 11: 61-73. Carter, Stephen P., Roderick P. J. McCullagh and Ann MacSween. 1995. “The Iron Age in
Shetland: Excavations at Five Sites Threatened by Coastal Erosion.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 125: 429-482.
Cavers, G., J. Barber and M. Ritchie. 2015. “The Survey and Analysis of Brochs.” Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 145: 153-176. Childe, V. Gordon. 1938. “Excavations Carried out by H.M. Office of Works in the Bronze-Age
Levels at Jarlshof in 1937.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland: 348-363.
Cunliffe, Barry. 2005. Iron Age Communities in Britain: An Account of England, Scotland and
Wales from the Seventh Century BC Until the Roman Conquest. 4th Edition. New York: Routledge.
Dockrill, Stephen J. and Catherine N. Batt. 2004. “Power over Time: An Overview of the Old
Scatness Broch Excavations.” In Atlantic Connections and Adaptations: Economies, Environments, and Subsistence in Lands Bordering the North Atlantic, edited by R.A. Housley and G. Coles, 128-137. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Dockrill, S. J., Z. Outram and C. Batt. 2006. “Time and Place: A New Chronology for the Origin
of the Broch Based on the Scientific Dating Program at the Old Scatness Broch, Shetland.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 136: 89-110.
Dryden, Sir Henry. 1872. “Notes of the Brochs or ‘Pictish Towers’ of Mousa, Clickemin, etc., in
Shetland, Illustrative of Part of the Series of Plans and Sections Deposited in the Library of the Society.” Archaeologia Scotica: 199-212.
Dunwell, Andrew, D. Alexander, F. Hunter and N. Murray. 1999. “An Atlantic Roundhouse at
Durcha, Sutherland.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 129: 281-302. Gilmour, Simon and Murray Cook. 1998. “Excavations at Dun Vulan: A Reinterpretation of the
Reappraised Iron Age.” Antiquity 72: 327-337. Graeme, A. Sutherland. 1913. “An Account of the Excavation of the Broch of Ayre, St Mary’s
Holm, Orkney.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 3: 31-51. Graham, A. 1947. “Some Observations on the Brochs.” Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries in Scotland, 1946-48: 48-99.
48
Hamilton, J. R. C. 1953. “An Iron Age Settlement in the Shetlands.” Archaeology 6 (2): 104-107. Harding, Dennis W. 2017. The Iron Age in Northern Britain: Britons and Romans, Natives and
Settlers. 2nd Edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Heald, Andrew and Adam Jackson. 2001. “Towards A New Understanding of Iron Age
Caithness.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 131: 129-147. Hingley, Richard. 1992. “Society in Scotland from 700 BC to AD 200.” Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 122: 7-53. Historic Environment Scotland. 2021. “Keiss Road Broch.” Canmore: National Record of the
Historic Environment. Accessed March 25, 2021. https://canmore.org.uk/site/9333/keiss-kirk-tofts-road-broch.
Historic Environment Scotland. 2021. “Whitegate.” Canmore: National Record of the Historic Environment. Accessed March 25, 2021. https://canmore.org.uk/site/9328/whitegate.
Hunter, Fraser. 2007. “Artefacts, Regions, and Identities in the Northern British Iron Age.” In The Later Iron Age in Britain and Beyond, edited by Colin Haselgrove and Tom Moore, 286-296. Havertown: Oxbow Books.
Irvine, J.T. [n.d.] Miscellaneous Literary Collections. In “Unst, Underhoull.” Historic Environment Scotland. 2021. Canmore: National Record of the Historic Environment. Accessed March 25, 2021. https://canmore.org.uk/site/31/unst-underhoull.
Irvine, J. T. 1866. “On the Brough of Clickimin, in the Loch of Clickimin, near Lerwick, Mainland of Shetland. Journal of the British Archaeological Association 22 (4): 369-375.
Laing, Samuel. 1867. “On the Age of the Burgs or ‘Brochs’ and Some Other Prehistoric Remains of Orkney and Caithness.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland: 56-100.
MacGregor, Arthur. 1972. “The Broch of Burrian, North Ronaldsay, Orkney.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 4: 63-119.
Mackay, James. 1892. “Notice of the Excavation of the Broch at Ousdale, Caithness.”
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland: 351-357. MacKie, Euan W. 1971. “English Migrants and Scottish Brochs.” Glasgow Archaeological
Journal 2: 39-71. MacKie, Euan W. 1994. “Gurness and Midhowe Brochs in Orkney: Some Problems of
Misinterpretation.” Archaeological Journal 151 (1): 98-157.
49
MacKie, Euan W., E. Campbell, J. Henderson, A. Newman, B. Noddle, E. Photos-Jones, A. Robertson and P. Webster. 2001. “Excavations at Dun Ardtreck, Skye, in 1964 and 1965.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 130: 301-411.
Main, Lorna, J. Barber, W. E. Boyd, D. Caldwell, A. Clarke, G. Collins, P. Davidson, D.
Dungworth, F. Hunter, D. Ingemark, G. McDonnell, A. S. Robertson, L. Slater, C. Smith, M. Spearman, S. Willis, and A. Young. 1998. “Excavation of a Timber Roundhouse and Broch at the Fairy Knowe, Buchlyvie, Stirlingshire, 1975-8.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 128: 293-417.
Outram, C., C. M. Batt, E. J. Rhodes and S. J. Dockrill. 2010. “The Integration of Chronological
and Archaeological Information to Date Building Construction: An Example from Shetland, Scotland, U.K.” Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2821-2830.
Parker Pearson, Mike, Niall Sharples and Jacqui Mulville. 1996. “Brochs and Iron Age Society:
A Reappraisal.” Antiquity 70: 57-67. Paterson, J. Wilson. 1922. “The Broch of Mousa: A Survey by H.M. Office of Works.”
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland: 172-183. Petrie, George. 1866. “Notice of the Brochs or Large Round Towers of Orkney. With Plans,
Sections, and Drawings, and Tables of Measurements of Orkney and Shetland Brochs.” Archaeologia Scotica: 71-94.
Rhind, A. Henry. 1852. “An Account of an Extensive Collection of Archaeological Relics,
Osteological Remains, from a ‘Pict’s House’ at Kettleburn, Caithness.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries: 264-269.
Romankiewicz, Tanja. 2016. “Land, Stone, Trees, Identity, Ambition: The Building Blocks of
Brochs.” Archaeological Journal 173 (1): 1-29. Small, Alan. 1964. “Excavations at Underhoull, Unst, Shetland.” Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries in Scotland 1964-66: 225-248. Smith, Andrea N. 2002. “Artefacts of the Iron Age in Atlantic Scotland: Past, Present, and
Future.” Antiquity 76: 808-812. Smith, Brian. 2015. “How Not to Reconstruct the Iron Age in Shetland: Modern Interpretations
of Clickhimin Broch.” Northern Studies 47: 1-31. Stuart, John. 1858. “Remarks on the Ancient Structures Called Picts’ Houses and Burghs, with
Especial Reference to the Burgh of Mousa in Shetland.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland: 187-195.
Tabraham, Christopher and Joanna Close-Brooks. 1977. “Excavations at Dun Carloway Broch,
Isle of Lewis.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 108: 156-168.
50
Traill, William. 1872. “Results of Excavations at the Broch of Burrian, North Ronaldsay,
Orkney, during the Summers of 1870 and 1871.” Archaeologia Scotica: 341-364. Waddington, Kate. 2014. “The Biography of a Settlement: An Analysis of Middle Iron Age
Deposits and Houses at Howe, Orkney.” Archaeological Journal 171 (1): 61-96. Young, Alison. 1955. “Excavations at Dun Cuier, Isle of Barra, Outer Hebrides.” Proceedings of
the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 89: 290-337. Young, Alison. 1961. “Brochs and Duns.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland.
1961-62: 171-198.
51
Appendix: List of Scottish Brochs
Compilation of brochs by region, with location information, known excavator and/or surveyor and date, and primary and secondary sources consulted for specific brochs. This list is not complete but aims to give a resource for identified brochs and the amount of research conducted on them.
Broch Location
(Island/County/ Town/Natl Grid
Ref) Excavator/Surveyor Source
Orkney
Ayre St. Mary's Holm, Mainland; HY 4702 0136
A. Sutherland Graeme, 1901, 1909 Graeme (1913)
Borrowston (Burroughston) Shapinsay George Petrie, 1860s; Sir
Henry Dryden, 1860s Petrie (1866); Armit (2011)
Borwick (Borthwick)
Sandwick, Mainland W.G.T. Watt, 1881 Young (1961); Armit (1991); Armit
(2011)
Breckness Stromness, Mainland
Samuel Laing/George Petrie, 1866 Laing (1867)
Broch Callander (1933)
Bu John Hedges, 1987 Armit (1991); MacKie (1994); Dunwell et al. (1999); Armit (2011)
Burgar Evie, Mainland Captain F.W.L. Thomas, R.N, 1852; Gordon, ~1840; Wilson; George Petrie, 1860s
Petrie (1866)
Burness Graham (1947) Burray (same as East broch?) Burray Petrie (1866); Anderson (1901);
Graham (1947) Burrian Russland Harray, Mainland James Farrer, 1866; George
Petrie, 1860s Petrie (1866); Armit (2011)
Burrian Island of North Ronaldsay; HY 7627 5138
Dr. William Traill and Sir Henry Dryden, 1870-71
Traill (1872); Callander (1933); Graham (1947); MacGregor (1972); A. Smith (2002)
Burroughston Graham (1947) Calf of Eday Charles Calder, 1930s Armit (1991)
Dingis-How St. Andrews, Mainland
James Farrer, 1850s; George Petrie, 1860s Petrie (1866)
East Broch Island of Burray James Farrer, 1851; George Petrie, 1860s Petrie (1866); Armit (2011)
Gurness (Aikerness)
Mainland, Birsay; HY 381 268
Robert Rendell, 1929; Hewat Craw, 1930-33; J.S. Richardson (Inspector of Ancient Monuments), 1934-39
Graham (1947); Armit (1991); Mackie (1994); Armit (2011); Waddington (2014)
Harray (Manse) Harray, Mainland Rev. Dr. Traill, 1800s; George Petrie, 1860s
Petrie (1866); Laing (1867); Anderson (1901)
Howe at Howe Stromness, Mainland; HY 2759 1092
Dr. Pollexsen(?), 1840s; Carter, Haigh, Neil and Smith, 1978-82
Carter, McCullagh and MacSween (1984); MacKie (1994); Dunwell et al. (1999); Armit (2011); Waddington (2014); Romankiewicz (2016)
52
Broch Location
(Island/County/ Town/Natl Grid
Ref) Excavator/Surveyor Source
Hoxa Island of South Ronaldsay
Captain F.W.L. Thomas; Wilson; George Petrie, 1871 Petrie (1866)
Ingis-How Firth, Mainland James Farrer, 1850s; George Petrie, 1860s Petrie (1866)
Knowe o' Burristae Graham (1947)
Lingrow (Lingro) George Petrie, 1870 Anderson (1901); Armit (2011); Waddington (2014)
Mid Howe Island of Rousay; HY 371 305 Walter G. Grant, 1930-34
Callander (1933); Graham (1947); MacKie (1994); Armit (2011); Waddington (2014)
Netlater J. Graham Callander and James K. Yorston, 1930s Graham (1947)
North Howe Callander (1933)
Okstrow (Oxtro) Birsay, Mainland Henry Leask, 1850s; George Petrie, 1860s
Petrie (1866); Laing (1867); Anderson (1901); Bruce (1906); Young (1961); Armit (1991)
Pierowall Quarry Sharples, 1981 Armit (1991)
Quanterness A.C. Renfrew, 1979 Armit (1991); Dunwell et al. (1999) Redland (Stirlingo) Firth, Mainland James Farrer, 1858; George
Petrie, 1860s Petrie (1866); Graham (1947)
Stackrue Graham (1947) Taft Armit (1991) Tofts Ness Island of Sanday Stephen Dockrill,1990s Dockrill and Batt (2004)
West Broch Island of Burray James Farrer, 1850s; George Petrie , 1860s Petrie (1866)
West Howe Graham (1947) Shetland
Burland Brindister, Mainland
RCAHMS, 1946; R.G. Lamb, 1980; Peter Strong, 1983
Dryden (1872); Young (1961); Carter, McCullagh and MacSween (1995)
Burraland Mainland Dryden (1872) Burraness Island of Yell Dryden (1872)
Clickhimin (Clickemin)
Lerwick, Mainland; HU 464 408
Sir Henry Dryden, 1855-56, 1866; Robert Spence, 1861; Ministry of Works, early 1900s; J.R. C. Hamilton, 1953-57
Irvine (1866); Dryden (1872); Bruce (1906); Graham (1947); Armit (1991); Carter, McCullagh and MacSween (1995); Armit (2011)
Clumlie Dunrossness Gilbert Goudie, 1904 Graham (1947); Young (1961)
Cullswick (Culswick)
Standsting, Mainland; HU 2538 4481
George Low, 1774; Samuel Hibbert, 1822
Stuart (1858); Anderson (1901); Graham (1947); Young (1961); Armit (2011)
East Shore (Brough Head)
Pool of Virkie; HU 4023 1125
RCAHMS investigator, 1930; Stewart, 1956; Alison Haggerty and Peter Strong, 1983; John Barber, 1989
Carter, McCullagh and MacSween (1995)
Hillswick Coughtrey, 1871-72 Small (1964) Hoga Ness Island of Unst Romankiewicz (2016) Houbie Island of Fetlar George Low, 1774 Graham (1947)
53
Broch Location
(Island/County/ Town/Natl Grid
Ref) Excavator/Surveyor Source
Houland (Northmaven) Mainland Dryden (1872)
Jarlshof
Dunrossness, Sumburgh, Mainland; HU 39819 09551
E.M. Nelson and Gunther, 1897; John Bruce, 1900-1906; A.O. Curle, 1932-33; V. Gordon Childe, 1937; J.R.C. Hamilton, 1949-52; Val Turner, 1998
Bruce (1906); Childe (1938); Graham (1947); Hamilton (1953); Young (1961); Armit (1991); Dockrill and Batt (2004); Armit (2011)
Levenwick Dunrossness, Mainland Gilbert Goudie, 1871 Dryden (1872); Graham (1947); Young
(1961)
Mousa Dunrossness, Island of Mousa; HU 457 237
George Low, 1774; Samuel Hibbert, 1822; Sir Henry Dryden, 1852, 1866; J. Bruce, 1861; Dryden, 1882; Ministry of Works, 1919
Dryden (1872); Bruce (1906); Paterson (1922); Graham (1947); Young (1961); Armit (2011)
Ness of Burgi Scatness peninsula; HU 388 084
Armit (2011)
Oganess Island of Unst Dryden (1872)
Old Scatness (same as Sumburgh?)
Nr Sumburgh, Mainland; HU 3898 1065
Stephen Dockrill, 1995; Val Turner, 1990s; Dockrill, 2004
Dockrill and Batt (2004); Outram et al. (2010)
Snaburgh Island of Fetlar Samuel Hibbert, early 1800s Dryden (1872) Sumburgh Mainland Dryden (1872)
Taft Burrafirth, Island of Unst Dryden (1872)
Toab Mainland; HU 3891 1152 Dockrill and Batt (2004)
Underhoull (Underhool; Overbrough)
Island of Unst, East of Burga Sand; HP 5746 0445
J.T. Irvine, 1865; Alan Small, 1962
Dryden (1872); Small (1964); Romankiewicz (2016)
Upper Scalloway Niall Sharples, 1990s Dockrill, Outram and Batt (2010)
Western Isles A Cheardach Mor South Uist Alison Young, early 1956 MacKie (1994)
Bac Mhic Connain North Uist Erskine Beveridge, 1910s Armit (1991)
Cnip Lewis Armit (2011); Waddington (2014) Dun Aonghas North Uist Armit (2011) Dun an Sticir North Uist Erskine Beveridge, 1910s Callander (1921) Dun Ard an t-Sabhail Skye Graham (1947)
Dun Ard Iardhard Skye, Dunvegan Countess Vincent Baillet de
Latour, 1910s Callander (1921)
Dun Ardtreck Skye, Ardtreck Peninsula; NG 3350 3581
RCAHMS, 1915; Euan MacKie, 1964-65 MacKie et al. (2001)
54
Broch Location
(Island/County/ Town/Natl Grid
Ref) Excavator/Surveyor Source
Dun Baravat Gt. Bernera Capt. F.W.L. Thomas, mid-1800s Graham (1947)
Dun Beag Skye, Struan, Loch Bracadale; NG 339 386
Thomas Pennant, 1772; Dr. Samuel Johnson, 1773; Rev. Donald M'Nicol, 1780s?, Countess Vincent Baillet de Latour, 1914-1920 (rep by J. Graham Callander), 1921
Callander (1921); Graham (1947); Young (1961); Armit (2011)
Dun Bharabhat Lewis, Uig, Bhaltos Peninsula; NB 098 353
Armit (2011); Romankiewicz (2016)
Dun Borairaic Skye Graham (1947) Dun Boredale Raasay Cavers and Ritchie (2015)
Dun Carloway (Charlabhaigh)
Lewis, Uig; NB 19002 41230
Capt. Thomas, 1861; RCAMS, 1921; Christopher Tabraham, 1972
Graham (1947); Young (1961); Tabraham and Close-Brooks (1977); Armit (2011); Romankiewicz (2016)
Dun Cromore Lewis Capt. Thomas, mid-1800s Graham (1947)
Dun Cuier Barra, Allisdale; NF 66420 03406 Alison Young, early 1956 Young (1955); Young (1961)
Dun Fhiardhairt Skye Graham (1947) Dun Flodigarry Skye Armit (1991); MacKie (1994) Dun Loch Druim an Iasgair Benbecula Armit (2011)
Dun Loch an Duin Lewis, Shader Armit (2011)
Dun Mor Vaul Tiree, Vaul; NM 042 492 Euan MacKie, early 1960s Armit (1991); MacKie (1994); Armit
(2011) Dun na Kille Barra Armit (2011) Dun Suladale Skye Cavers and Ritchie (2015) Dun Thomaidh North Uist Erskine Beveridge, 1910s Armit (2011) Dun Torcuill North Uist Erskine Beveridge, 1910s Armit (2011); Romankiewicz (2016) Dun Velg (Iardhard) Skye, Duirnish Countess Vincent Baillet de
Latour (rep by F.T. MacLeod) Young (1961)
Dun Vulan South Uist, Bornish; NF 714 298
Gilmour and Cook (1998); Armit (2011)
Dunan Ruadh Pabbay Armit (2011) Foshigarry North Uist Armit (1991) Kilpheder South Uist Armit (1991) Kingsburgh Skye Graham (1947)
Loch na Beirgh Lewis, Riof, Bhaltos peninsula; NB 103 352
Armit (2011)
Loch an Duna Lewis, Bragar Graham (1947); Armit (2011) Loch na Berie Uig Romankiewicz (2016) Sollas North Uist R.J.C. Atkinson, 1957 Waddington (2014)
55
Broch Location
(Island/County/ Town/Natl Grid
Ref) Excavator/Surveyor Source
Caithness and Sutherland Bowermadden Caithness Joseph Anderson, 1871 Anderson (1871)
Brounaben Caithness, Wick R. I. Shearer and Anderson, 1866-67; Graham, 1946 Anderson (1871); Graham (1947)
Burnthus Caithness
Crosskirk Caithness Horace Fairhurst, 1966-72, 1984
Armit (1991); Dunwell (1999); Armit (2011)
Dunbeath Caithness W.S. Thomson Sinclair, 1866 Anderson (1871) Elsay Caithness Graham (1947)
Everly Broch Caithness, Keiss, Canisbay; ND 3699 6828
Sir Francis Barry, 1890s Anderson (1901); Young (1961)
Freswick Sands Broch
Caithness, Freswick Bay, Canisbay
Sir Francis Barry, 1890s Anderson (1901); Graham (1947); Young (1961)
Harpsdale Caithness, Thurso 1841 Anderson (1871) Hill of Works Caithness Graham (1947)
Hillhead Caithness; ND 3762 5140 Graham (1947); Waddington (2014)
Keiss Harbour Broch (Keiss)
Caithness, Keiss; ND 3531 6107
Sir Francis Barry, 1893; Samuel Laing, 1864; Graham, 1946; R.W. Feachem, 1963
Laing (1867); Anderson (1901); Graham (1947); Young (1961); Heald and Jackson (2001)
Keiss Road Broch (Kirk Tofts)
Caithness, Keiss; ND 3487 6150
Joseph Anderson, 1864; Samuel Laing, 1864; Sir Francis Barry, 1890s
Laing (1867); Anderson (1901); Graham (1947); Young (1961); Heald and Jackson (2001)
Kettleburn Caithness, Wick Alexander Rhind, 1852 Rhind (1852); Anderson (1871); Anderson (1901)
Ness Broch Caithness, Keiss, Canisbay Sir Francis Barry, 1890s Anderson (1901); Graham (1947);
Young (1961)
Nybster Caithness, Wick Sir Francis Barry, 1890s Anderson (1901); Graham (1947); Young (1961)
Old Stirkoke Caithness Joseph Anderson, 1871 Anderson (1871) Ousdale (Ousdale Burn) Caithness James Mackay, 1891 Anderson (1871); Mackay (1892);
Graham (1947) Skinnet Caithness ~1820 Anderson (1871)
Skirza Head Broch
Caithness, Skirza Head, Canisbay; ND 3940 6844
Sir Francis Barry, 1890s Anderson (1901); Graham (1947); Young (1961)
Skitten (Kilmster)
Caithness, Kilmster; ND 3234 5654
Sir Francis Barry, 1904; C.S.T. Calder, 1940 Calder and Platt (1948)
Thrumster Mains Caithness Cavers and Ritchie (2015)
Warhus Caithness
Wester Broch Caithness, Keiss, Wick Sir Francis Barry, 1890s Anderson (1901); Graham (1947);
Young (1961)
56
Broch Location
(Island/County/ Town/Natl Grid
Ref) Excavator/Surveyor Source
Whitegate Caithness, Keiss, Wick; ND 3541 6120
Sir Francis Barry, 1893; Graeme Cavers, 2006
Anderson (1901); Young (1961); Heald and Jackson (2001); Cavers and Ritchie (2015)
Yarhouse Caithness, Wick R. I. Shearer and Joseph Anderson, 1866-67 Anderson (1871)
Yarrows Graham (1947) Achaneas Sutherland Graham (1947) Allbreac (Altbrek; Allt Breac)
Sutherland, Loch Shinn Dunwell (1999); Cavers and Ritchie
(2015)
Altanduin (Allt an Duin) Sutherland Graham (1947); Dunwell et al. (1999)
Backies Sutherland, Golspie J. Maxwell Joass, 1855 Young (1961); Dunwell et al. (1999) Balvalaich Sutherland Dunwell et al. (1999) Caisteal na Coil (Rhinovie) Sutherland, Farr Young (1961); Dunwell et al. (1999)
Carn Bran Sutherland Dunwell et al. (1999)
Carn Liath Sutherland, Dunrobin, Golspie; NC 870 013
J. Maxwell Joass, 1871 Anderson (1871); Anderson (1901); Young (1961); Dunwell et al. (1999); Armit (2011)
Carrol Sutherland Graham (1947); Dunwell et al. (1999)
Clachtoll Sutherland, Assynt Young (1961); Cavers and Ritchie (2015); Romankiewicz (2016)
Coich Burn Sutherland Dunwell et al. (1999) Dail Langwell Sutherland Dunwell et al. (1999)
Dun Dornadilla Sutherland, Durness Anderson (1871); Young (1961)
Dun Dornaigil
Sutherland, R. Strathmore, Alltnacaillich; NC 457 450
Armit (2011)
Dun Mhaigh Sutherland, Tongue Romankiewicz (2016) Durcha (Doir A' Chata; Dun Cor)
Sutherland, Rosehall; NC 5017 0239
Pococke, 1760; Dunwell, 1992, 1996 Dunwell et al. (1999)
East Kinnauld Sutherland Graham (1947); Dunwell et al. (1999) Feranach Sutherland Dunwell et al. (1999) Gailiable Sutherland Dunwell et al. (1999)
Kilphedir Sutherland, Helmsdale, Kildonan
Horace Fairhurst, 1971 Young (1961); Dunwell et al. (1999)
Kintradwell Sutherland Anderson (1901); Graham (1947); Dunwell et al. (1999)
Leadoch Sutherland Dunwell et al. (1999) Sallachadh (Sallachaidh) Sutherland, Lairg Graham (1947); Young (1961); Dunwell
et al. (1999) Suissgill Sutherland Dunwell et al. (1999) The Borg Sutherland, Farr Young (1961)
Tor a' Chorcain Sutherland, Langwell Nisbet, 1996 Dunwell et al. (1999)
57
Broch Location
(Island/County/ Town/Natl Grid
Ref) Excavator/Surveyor Source
Highlands Caistail Grugaig (Dut Totaig)
W. Ross, Loch Alsh, Totaig
Dryden, 1872; Wallace, 1897; Graham, 1949
Graham (1947); Armit (2011); Cavers and Ritchie (2015)
Dun Alascaig (Alisaig)
E. Ross, Dornoch Firth; NH 657 868
Maitland, 1757; Cordiner, 1766; J.J. Worsaae, 1848 Graham (1947); MacKie (1994)
Dun An Ruigh Ruadh
W. Ross, Lochbroom Euan MacKie, 1960s Graham (1947); Armit (2011);
Romankiewicz (2016)
Dun Grugaig Invernesshire, Glenelg, Lochalsh Armit (2011)
Dun Lagaidh W. Ross C.S.T. Calder, 1930s Graham (1947); Armit (1991)
Dun Telve Invernesshire, Glenelg, Lochalsh; NG 829 172
Gordon, 1720; Pennant, 1772; Alexander O. Curle, 1916
Graham (1947); Young (1961); MacKie (1994); Armit (2011)
Dun Troddan Invernesshire, Glenelg, Lochalsh; NG 834 172
Gordon, 1720; Pennant, 1772; Alexander. O. Curle, 1921
Graham (1947); Young (1961); Armit (2011)
Scotsburn Ross, Logie Easter, Tarbat Peninsula Candice Hatherley, 2010s Romankiewicz (2016)
Tarlogie Ross, Tain Candice Hatherley, 2010s Romankiewicz (2016)
Tirefour Lismore, Achnacroish; NM 867 429
Armit (2011)
Torr a' Chaisteal Arran; NR 921 232 Armit (2011)
Central Scotland
Black Spout Perth and Kinross, Pitlochry D. Strachan, 2013 Romankiewicz (2016)
Buchlyvie Stirlingshire 1970s MacKie (1994) Coldoch Perthshire Graham (1947)
Fairy Knowe Stirlingshire, Buchlyvie, Forth Valley
Lorna Main, 1975-78 Armit (2011)
Leckie Stirlingshire Euan MacKie, 1970s Armit (2011) The Laws Angus Graham (1947) Tor Wood Stirlingshire Graham (1947); Armit (2011) Scottish Borders
Edin's Hall Berwickshire, Duns; NT 772 603 Andrew Dunwell, mid-1990s Graham (1947); Armit (2011);
Romankiewicz (2016)
Torwoodlee Selkirkshire Stuart Piggott, early 1950s Anderson (1901); Graham (1947); Armit (2011)