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 scholar@dickinson.edu.

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)