1

Trends in the Location and Contents of Bronze-Containing Burials in

Tatjana Beuthe

Abstract

Identifying trends is an important element of archaeology, but there is often a lack of regional and inter-regional analyses with regard to the available evidence. This paper attempts to shed light on one aspect of burial practice in Scotland by investigating geographical trends in Bronze Age burials that contain bronze artifacts.

Introduction In this paper, burials in Scotland found to contain bronze artifacts are analyzed. Previous UK archaeological analyses tend to emphasize evi- dence coming from southern regions when examining Bronze Age buri- als. This can be exemplified in passages from Edmonds(1995, 166–170) and Bradley(2007, 164–166), in which “ culture” is emphasized to such an extent that no complete study has ever been undertaken to explain various aspects of burial in other regions of the UK and Ireland (Bradley 2007, 166). This occurs despite the fact it has been repeatedly stated that burials of the “Wessex culture” are unrepresentative of general burial trends (Harding 2000, 91). It has also been said that the excavations of the graves used to create the Wessex culture typology were “incompetent or unrecorded” (Harding 2000, 90), and that most of the grave contents have not “received specialist examination” (Petersen et al. 1974, 50) Given these factors, as well as the evidence that “rich” graves may have been more of an anomaly than the norm during the Bronze Age (Bradley 2007, 160), it 2 may be that evidence from graves containing fewer artifacts has often been overlooked. Although evidence from Scottish Bronze Age graves has been docu- mented, it has not been critically analyzed until recently. For the purpose of this analysis, accounts taken from the journal Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland prior to 1920 are considered. The evidence used in the present study from this journal has been summarized in Table1 in alphabetical order by author, and the location of the burial sites considered are summarized in the maps shown in Figures1 and2. The period prior to 1920 was chosen because many construction projects and agricultural expansions took place during the 19th and early 20th century in the UK, often appropriating lands on which Bronze Age peoples had buried their dead. Thus, many more burials were discovered and recorded during this period than in later times, enabling a dataset totalling 30 burials to be assembled from journal articles. Although the observations recorded may not be up to present-day standards, they are sufficient to permit a study at the geographical level. This analysis concentrates on the relation between burials and geograph- ical landscapes, taking into account all burials found from the journal’s inception to 1920 that contain bronze artifacts which can be situated geo- graphically in Scotland.

Location of the Burials As shown in the map in Figure1, many sites are clustered around the Firth of Forth and the Morray Firth. A few are also found on the other side of the island near the Firth of Clyde and two are located across from each other at the Firth of Lorn. The others are scattered in various locations inland, but, as the following analysis demonstrates, this distribution is probably not random. When these results are contrasted with the agricultural land classifica- tion map in Edwards and Ralston(2003, Fig. 4.2), it becomes evident that almost all of the sites mapped in this study were found in agriculturally vi- able lands. Three exceptions to this trend are the sites of Balnalick, (inland of Moray Firth in Figure1), and those found on opposite sides of the Firth of Lorn, at the Callachally and the Loch Nell District sites. These findings show that Bronze Age inhabitants were not averse to using the scarce prime agricultural land found in Scotland to bury those deemed worthy of having 3 a bronze artifact deposited in their graves. However, this assumption may not be completely accurate. Bradley(2007, 170) mentions that cairns were often placed around unmovable obstacles in agricultural areas. He inter- prets this in light of a theory which states that the dead may have been integrated into the growing landscape of the field. But a complementary explanation is possible: the inhabitants would probably have wanted to optimize land use, and therefore would have avoided situating burials on cultivated plots. This would likely have lead them to chose these unplough- able tracts as burial places. An example of this behaviour can be found at the Balneil site, said to be located in a farming field “by the edge of a low rocky knowe” (Curle and Bryce 1916). Given the overwhelming prevalence of burials containing bronze in areas of high agricultural potential (Edwards and Ralston 2003, 153), it would be reasonable to say that valuable bronze goods may have been imported by trading surplus crops and animal products for them. It is also possible that these surpluses were partially diverted to support specialized craftspersons in the region who made bronze objects.

Proximity to Water There is an additional aspect to these burials that becomes apparent on detailed examination of their location: 70% of the sites are located directly on or within 1.7 kilometres of a body of water, whether a river, loch, or the sea. Use of the Distance Measurement Tool in QGIS revealed that nine burials roughly situated around the Firth of Tay are all located within 2 kilometres from nearby rivers (see Figure2). Such a discrepancy could point to a distinct group inhabiting this area, a theory supported by the fact that all but one grave (Williamston, which contained an armlet) contained daggers of a similar style. Mains of Craichie, another cist burial site located near the Firth of Tay, was also found to contain a similar dagger (Gerloff 1975, Plate 8, No. 85). Figure2 illustrates the cluster of sites around the Firth of Tay. Only 5 sites are not near water: Burreldales and Balcalk have no bodies of water in their vicinity, Gilchorn is at least 4 kilometres from the sea, Shanwell house is also approximately 5.5 kilometres from nearby Loch Leven, and Stobshiel is 7.4 kilometres from the river Tyne. The results presented are not unique to the dataset being examined here. Other maps made of burials at various times have also charted this tendency, although the recognition of such a phenomenon has only occurred 4 within the last few decades. It also appears that the practice of situating burials or monuments near water is not restricted to the Bronze Age.

Changing Practices, Unchanging Water Until recent decades, maps have primarily served to detect patterns in the distribution of certain types of monuments and artifacts. Only recently have these interpretations been cast aside in favour of more general trend analyses. However, previous maps can also be reinterpreted in new ways. For the purpose of the present study, a number of maps can be reexamined with regards to a site’s proximity to water. In 1935, Childe was one of the first to fully map discovery sites in Scot- land in his book The Prehistory of Scotland. This book contains an ap- pendix with maps of all major prehistoric structural and artifactual find locations up to the time of publication (Childe 1935, 268–75). His maps clearly show that structures and artifact finds are overwhelmingly concen- trated around rivers from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. This is supported by evidence from various subsequent publications. Henshall’s (1963, 2) maps of Scottish Neolithic cairns clearly place them near water. A more recent study also indicates that over half of all cham- bered tombs have entrances that face the sea (Fowler and Cummings 2003). Another type of Neolithic monument, the Cursus, is generally found to fol- low the course of rivers situated nearby (Bradley 2007, 67; Brophy 1999). The majority of (Richards 1996, 320) and monumental complexes in general (Noble 2006, 184) have also been discovered to lie near water. In the Bronze Age, “metalwork burials” mapped by Bradley(1984, Fig. 5.3a,b) tend to be located near water. Ritchie’s map (1997, 85), also shows that nearly all cairns in Argyll seem to be found along the seashore. However, with one notable exception (Field 1999), the trend to build near water has rarely been discussed with regards to Bronze Age burials similar to those analyzed here.

Landscape and People Overall, there seems to have been a considerable degree of continuity with regard to placing monuments and burials near water into the Bronze Age. Examining the evidence that indicates why this practice existed in the Ne- olithic might help discern how this tradition evolved into the Bronze Age. 5

Richards(1996, 316) states that water was an element of nature that was integrated into rituals taking place inside henges in the Neolithic. This idea is taken somewhat further in Fowler and Cummings(2003), who note that the transformative power associated with water in many societies may have been associated with the “transition into death” of bodies being interred in chambered tombs. The aforementioned cursus monuments have often been theorized to be places traversed during an initiation rite (Fowler and Cum- mings 2003, 10; Brophy 1999), again attesting to the transformative power of water (Fowler and Cummings 2003, 10). Another theory about cursus monuments (Bradley 2007, 68) again draws on the association of the de- ceased with water, but states that the monuments may have marked former migration routes. This is not necessarily accurate, since waterways would likely have served as convenient transportation routes even in the Neolithic. Conversely, water, especially rivers, were also places where the dead could be deposited (Fowler and Cummings 2003, 8). Noble(2006, 183–93) takes this idea to its logical conclusion by theorizing that monument complexes were found in areas where transportation routes, whether by land or by water, intersected. Thus the complexes would have been gathering places used for exchange and ritual. This leads to a point that must be consid- ered if the difference between Bronze Age monuments and their Neolithic counterparts is to be examined: the rituals surrounding burial and societal organization.

Society and Ritual Given currently available evidence, it seems that monument complexes of Scotland (Noble 2006, 183–93) and causewayed enclosures of Britain (Bradley 2007, 74) were forums of public ceremony and events. Despite this consen- sus, opinions differ on the nature of the societies who built these monuments. Noble supports the idea of a society without formal hierarchy (2006, 192) in which individuals from different groups collaborated to build and hold ceremonies in monument complexes. Bradley’s causewayed enclosure build- ing society, on the other hand, is defined somewhat differently. Given that the monuments are said to be found in “neutral locations” between popu- lation centres (Bradley 2007, 75), they are the geographical opposite of the exchange nexuses envisioned by Noble. However, people buried there were found to have followed diverse lifestyles. Thus even if territorial division had existed at this time, it did not take prevalence over a non-hierarchical 6 form of burial. As the Bronze Age was likely an age of long distance com- munication (Noble 2006, 232), such territorial social conventions may have been transmitted from Britain to Scotland.

The advent of the Bronze Age saw populations expand into formerly un- exploited territories, a trend perhaps begun in the Later Neolithic (Bradley 2007, 171). Along with an influx of “foreign” ideas, this expansion may have been one of the major factors leading to a different perspective of the land. The available evidence tends to support the theory that Bronze Age societies were considerably more hierarchical than the Neolithic.

The idea that Scottish Bronze Age societies were more hierarchical is supported by burial evidence. The burial places analyzed in this study never contained more than 10 burials (Dalmore, (Jolly and Aitken 1879)), and having two or three burials per site was more common. These areas could have been reserved for people of specific status or lineage (Noble 2006, 232). Monuments built in this era may have been erected for competitive rather than cooperative reasons (Bradley 2007, 142), with the ultimate aim of increasing status. It should be kept in mind, however, that this evidence of a more hierarchical society could conversely also be an indication of the increasing importance of small communities in comparison to large inter- group ties (Noble 2006, 230).

Examined in this context, the graves considered in this paper may have been created by the principal occupants of the area they are found in. Expanses of water found within their territory would likely have held special significance for them as places where the living and the dead intersected and people underwent rituals of passage. By associating them with water, the sanctity of the burial grounds could be emphasized and perhaps even magnified. It remains impossible to know if the select few buried in these areas were all members of a community that occupied a certain hierarchical level, or if they were simply singled out for other reasons and honoured by having bronze objects placed in their graves. The graves analyzed here are often accompanied by several other burials. To date, it has not been researched if individuals buried in the Bronze Age had lifestyles as diverse as may have been the case in the Neolithic (Bradley 2007, 75). Researching this question through isotopic analysis might shed some light on whether the smaller villages of the Bronze Age encouraged lifestyle (and therefore dietary) uniformity or not. 7

Landscape and Monument When deducing that causewayed enclosures were found in “neutral loca- tions”, Bradley states that these monuments may often have been placed in wooded areas (2007, 75). This raises the question of how visible the burials studied here actually were. Certainly, the Neolithic monument complexes mentioned by Noble(2006, 184–6), especially the ones located on the sea- coast, would have been visible from a great distance. But what of the burials studied here? Generally speaking, the burials are found on some manner of hill. However, only 11 (or 34%) of a total of 32 burials had been rendered more visible by piling cairns on top of them (Table1). The re- maining burials may originally have had cairns, but none were in evidence at the time of excavation (since cairn monuments employed no mortar, they may easily have been quarried for building material). The fact that even the most cursory reports tend to mention that the burials were found in sandy or gravelly hills lends support to the theory that most burials once had cairns or barrows over them. Given this assumption, their function becomes clearer. The burial mounds and cairns may have served as mark- ers for the expanded territories of different groups. It is also possible that different types of burial markers (Bradley 2007, 174) would serve to distin- guish the groups occupying certain territories (for example, the Four Poster burial at Machrie Moor (Bryce, J. 1862, 511, Pl. XVII)). The elevated lo- cation of the mounds, as well as their artificial nature, would have made them highly visible signposts for travellers utilizing the lakes and rivers they faced. Seaside cairns might have served as landmarks for sea-going voyagers, indicating that a settlement was present nearby. Even when located inside woodland, Neolithic causewayed enclosures may have served the purpose of a landmark to forest travellers. Bronze Age burials seem to have served the same purpose for land and sea voyagers. In this respect, the functionality of burial places did not change from one era to another. However, the gatherings taking place at a Bronze Age burial site may have been considerably smaller and more localized than those occurring at Neolithic monuments.

Use of Bronze The depositional pattern of bronze and metal in Bronze Age graves is very distinctive. Generally, only one metal item was found in the burials. The 8 exceptions to this trend are; Kinneff Castle (Smith, J. A. 1859), containing a bronze spear and armlet, Barnhill (Hutcheson 1887), a dagger with two gold disks and Cambusbarron (Anderson 1883), a bronze dagger, two bracelets and three rings of gold (Table1). Also, the bronze objects found tend to conform to those associated by Needham(1988) with Bronze Age burials (daggers, knives, a vessel, awls, bracelets, and a chisel). The association of smaller artifacts with hillside or cist burials appears to be a longstanding one in British prehistory. Beginning from Neolithic times (Bradley 1990, 70–3), specific types of artifacts, sometimes made from rare stone, were restricted to mound burials. This tradition seems to have carried over into the Bronze Age, when valuable metal artifacts replaced ones made of rare stone (Bradley 1990). Thus it is not only the association of burials and monuments with water that may have carried over into the Bronze Age, but also a substantial portion of the beliefs that regulated object deposition. When examining these , it must be remembered that while they could symbolize the status of the grave occupant, this may not have been their only function. It has been proposed that the deposition of ar- tifacts in a grave actually involved a kind of “graveside potlach” in which the status of high ranking people was reinforced by the objects they placed in the grave of a deceased leader / high status individual (Edmonds 1995, 153; Bradley 2007, 158) However, among the graves analyzed here, only 9 (or 28%) of a total 32 burials (Table1) were found to contain more than a single artifact. All other graves contained only a single bronze artifact. The findings discussed here seem to show that ostentatious quantities of bronze grave goods were relatively rare throughout Scotland. Thus, the idea of a “graveside potlach” may not be applicable to most Bronze Age burials, with the possible exception of those that are found to contain multiple artifacts. That artifacts were offered by the living as a tribute to the dead remains a more plausible scenario (Bradley 2007, 159). Burials analyzed here were often (59%) found in proximity to many other graves, but only one of the burials in each of these grave groupings ever contained bronze. The only exception was Magdalen Bridge (Lowson 1882, 419), where bronze residue was found in another urn. Bradley mentions (2007, 165) that bronze age “cemeteries” may have been arranged as a function of the social relationships of the people buried there. If bronze artifacts are interpreted as an object of prestige, then it appears that only one burial of a group was allowed the privilege of having bronze buried with 9 him / her. This evidence contributes another variable of interpretation to the theory that “cemeteries” were socially structured. Evidence from the graves analyzed here also shows why the traditional definition of a grave as “rich” or “poor” should be abolished (Bradley 2007, 159). It would be rather subjective to call graves the majority of which contain only one bronze artifact “rich”. Also, the definition of “rich” seems too vague to be applied to graves; does the word apply to the quantity of the grave goods, or their quality? Although varying preservation conditions prevent objective judgement on this subject, it may be that the single bronze artifacts deposited in graves were high quality objects. Examples include the gold dagger handle mounts at Blackwaterfoot (Bryce, T. H. 1902) and Gask Hill (Anderson 1878), the tanged knives (Coles 1963, 116) of Shanwell House (Anderson 1885) and Magdalen Bridge (Lowson 1882), and the West Mains dagger (Hutcheson 1898). It may also have been that the definition of quality was different for the people who actually deposited these grave goods. Symbolic function may have been more important to them than the actual usefulness of the object deposited (Bradley 2007, 158; Smith, J. 2006, 26)

Conclusion These results show that the location and grave good content of Bronze Age burials can be traced back to patterns that were already established in the Neolithic. Despite the fact that the outward appearance of “monuments” such as these burials may have changed, the underlying beliefs surrounding them seems to have remained relatively constant. In contrast, these burials could have served many uses. They may have functioned as easily recogniz- able landmarks, whose shape was indicative of the population group they represented. By having these burial sites overlook and be in proximity to a body of water, an association was formed between death and the transfor- mative power of water. As a result, the burial area was possibly considered sacred territory. Only individuals of a certain status were permitted to have bronze artifacts buried with them. There is also the possibility that differ- ent burial locales were chosen each time such a person died, as convention may have dictated there be only one bronze-containing burial per “ceme- tery”. Further investigation by isotopic analysis may help determine just what category of persons were buried with bronze artifacts. More spatial analysis of the arrangement of burials across Scotland might reveal if there 10 are consistencies in the spatial arrangement of burials containing bronze relative to those without bronze. Over the course of writing this paper, an- other problem became clear. Several of the daggers found in graves could not be assigned to any known type, and even in cases where this was pos- sible, the source of these artifacts had not been found. A great deal could be learnt about exchange networks if the source of these artifacts could be traced. By extension, archaeology would profit from further geographic analysis of all monuments/burials close to water throughout the Neolithic and Bronze Age. This might eventually lead to a better understanding of how they were situated in relation to settlements and other localities. 11

Figure 1: Geographical distribution of burials containing bronze artifacts in Scotland, discovered between 1851–1920. Rectangle indicates area depicted in Figure2. (Map outline data from Natural Earth.) 12 Figure 2: Site subgroup(Map around outline the Firth data of fromLicence Tay. Natural The v3.0.) site Earth. referenced in ContainsGerloff ( 1975 ) SNH is information indicated licensed in green. under the Open Government 13 Structure surrounding the burial Cairn Cairn (kerb) Cairn Found alone /together with other burials, total of those found along with others Together (3) Together (2,burial another incist) theAlone same Together (“several” urns) Together (2 at least) Grave contents Bronze dagger Bronze dagger with gold handle mount Bronze blade Bronze blade, two gold bracelets, three gold rings Bronze blade, stone bracer http://ads. Presentaccording day to ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/ location search/index.cfm North Yarrows; Wick; Highland Gask Hill; Collessie; Fife Drumlanrick; Callander; Stirling Cambusbarron; St Ninians; Stirling Callachally, Mull; Torosay; Argyll And Bute Site bibliography Anderson 1868 Anderson 1878 Anderson 1883 Table 1: The locationscontents, indication of of the whether gravestioned) they studied surrounded were here the found (total burial. in 30), conjunction with with their other respective burials, bibliographic and what sources, structure grave (if men- 14 Structure surrounding the burial Urnfield / cremation cemetery Four Poster stone circle Cairn Barrow (“”) Found alone /together with other burials, total of those found along with others Together (4 urns, also unspecified amount of cremation deposits) Alone Alone Alone Together (2) Grave contents Bronze blade Bronze pin, three flints Bronze dagger with twohandle mounts gold Bronzejet bead,scraper pin, flint Bronze armlet http://ads. Table 1: Locations of the graves studied here - (continued) Presentaccording day to ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/ location search/index.cfm Shanwell House Orwell; Perth And Kinross Machrie Moor; Kilmory; North Ayrshire Arran, Blackwaterfoot; Kilmory; North Ayrshire Scalpsie Tumulus; Scalpsie, Bute; North Bute; Argyll and Bute Williamston; St Martins; Perth and Kinross Site bibliography Anderson 1885 Bryce, J. 1862 Bryce, T. H. 1902 Bryce, T. H. 1904 Callander 1919 15 Structure surrounding the burial Cairn (Kerb) Cairn Found alone /together with other burials, total of those found along with others Alone Alone Alone Together (7) Together (3) Grave contents Bronze blade Bronze chisel, bone pin, bead “of vitreous paste” (faience?) Bronze blade Bronze blade, two gold disks Bronze knife http://ads. Table 1: Locations of the graves studied here - (continued) Presentaccording day to ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/ location search/index.cfm Letham; Tibbermore; Perth and Kinross Balneil; New Luce; Dumfries and Galloway Balnalick; Urquhart and Glenmoriston; Highland; Barnhill; City of Dundee Gilchorn; ; Angus Site bibliography Coles 1896 Curle and1916 Bryce Grant 1888 Hutcheson 1887 Hutcheson 1891 16 Structure surrounding the burial Cairn Barrow (“tumulus”) Found alone /together with other burials, total of those found along with others Alone Together with “others” Together (2) Together (10) Together (6) Together (4) Grave contents Bronze dagger Bronze blade, glass bead Bronze pin Bronze blade Bronze blade Bronze vessel http://ads. Table 1: Locations of the graves studied here - (continued) Presentaccording day to ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/ location search/index.cfm West Mains; ; Angus Glebe At Edderton; Edderton; Highland; Fendom Sands; Tain; Highland Dalmore; Rosskeen; Highland Edinburgh, Magdalen Bridge; City of Edinburgh Ardoe; Banchory-Devenick; Aberdeenshire Site bibliography Hutcheson 1898 Joass 1864 Joass 1866 Jolly and1879 Aitken Lowson 1882 Ogston 1872 17 Structure surrounding the burial Cairn (“small moundsthe on top of the hill”the where cistfound) was Cairn Found alone /together with other burials, total of those found along with others Alone Together (2) Alone Alone Alone Grave contents Bronze blade Bronze dagger Bronze spear head, bronze armlets Bronze blade Bronze dagger http://ads. Table 1: Locations of the graves studied here - (continued) Presentaccording day to ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/ location search/index.cfm Shuttlefield, Lockerbie; Dryfesdale; Dumfries and Galloway Law of Mauldslie; Carluke; South Lanarkshire Kinneff Castle; Kinneff; Aberdeenshire Balblair; Creich (Sutherland); Highland Stobshiel; Humbie (East Lothian); East Lothian Site bibliography Rae 1880 Rankin 1868 Smith, J. A. 1859 Smith, J. A. 1868 Smith, J. A. 1882 18 Structure surrounding the burial Cairn Cairn Barrow (?) Found alone /together with other burials, total of those found along with others Together (3 at least) Alone Together (2) Together (2) Together (3) Grave contents Bronze dagger Bronze dagger, depicted in: Anderson ( 1878 , 455) Bronze awl, flint scraper (called knife), jet necklace Bronze pin Bronze dagger, whet stone http://ads. Table 1: Locations of the graves studied here - (continued) Presentaccording day to ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/ location search/index.cfm Loch Nell District; Kilmore and Kilbride; Argyll and Bute Castle Greg; Monifieth; City of Dundee Balcalk; ; Angus Drummond Farm; Kiltearn; Highland Mid Torrs; Old Luce; Dumfries and Galloway Site bibliography Smith, R. A. 1874 Stuart 1866 Sturrock 1880 Watson 1889 Wilson 1888 19

Bibliography

Anderson, J., 1868. On the Horned Cairns of Caithness, their Structural Arrangement, Contents of Chambers, &c. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 7, 480–512. Anderson, J., 1878. Notes on the Character and Contents of a large Sepul- chral Cairn of the Bronze Age at Collessie, Fife, excavated by William Wallace, Esq., of Newton of Collessie, in August 1876 and 1877. Proceed- ings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 12, 439–61. Anderson, J., 1883. Notice of Urns in the Museum that have been found with Articles of Use or Ornament. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 17, 446–59. Anderson, J., 1885. Notice of a Small Cemetery of the Bronze Age, re- cently discovered at Shanwell, Milnathort, Kinross-shire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 19, 114–7. Bradley, R., 1984. The social foundations of : themes and variations in the archaeology of power. London; New York: Longman. Bradley, R., 1990. The passage of arms: an archaeological analysis of pre- historic hoards and votive deposits. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bradley, R., 2007. The prehistory of Britain and Ireland. New York: Cam- bridge University Press. Brophy, K., 1999. Seeing the cursus as a symbolic river. British archaeology 44, 6–7. Bryce, J., 1862. Account of Excavations within the Stone Circles of Arran. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 4, 499–524. Bryce, T. H., 1902. On the Cairns of Arran – A Record of Explorations with an Anatomical Description of the Human Remains discovered. Pro- ceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 36, 74–181. Bryce, T. H., 1904. On the Cairns and Tumuli of the Island of Bute. A Record of Explorations during the Season of 1903. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 38, 17–81. 20

Callander, J. G., 1919. Discovery of (1) a Short Cist containing Human Re- mains and a Bronze Armlet, and (2) a Cup-marked Stone, at Williamston, St Martins, Perthshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scot- land 53, 15–24.

Childe, V. G., 1935. The prehistory of Scotland. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & co.

Coles, F. R., 1896. Notices (I.) Of the Discovery of a Cist and Bronze Blade at Letham Quarry, Perth; (II.) of the Standing Stones at High Auchenlarie, Anwoth, Kirkcudbrightshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 31, 181–8.

Coles, J. M., 1963. Scottish Middle Bronze Age metalwork. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 97, 82–156.

Curle, A. O. and Bryce, T. H., 1916. Notes (1) On the Discovery of a Grave at Balneil, New Luce, Wigtownshire, containing a Partially Burnt Interment, a Cinerary Urn, a Bronze Chisel, a Bone Pin, and a Bead of Vitreous Paste. (2) On a Socketed Axe of Bronze found at Cambusmore, the Mound, Sutherlandshire. With Report on Bones from the Interment. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 50, 302–6.

Edmonds, M., 1995. Stone tools and society: working stone in Neolithic and . London: Batsford.

Edwards, K. J. and Ralston, I. B. M., 2003. Scotland after the Ice Age: environment, archaeology and history, 8000 BC - AD 1000. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Field, D., 1999. Bury the dead in a sacred landscape. British archaeology 43, 6–7.

Fowler, C. and Cummings, V., 2003. Places of Transformation: Building Monuments from Water and Stone in the Neolithic of the Irish Sea. Jour- nal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9, 1–20.

Gerloff, S., 1975. The Early Bronze Age Daggers in Great Britain. Pr¨ahistoricheBronzfunde Vol. 4, Part 2. M¨unchen: Beck. 21

Grant, A., 1888. Notice of the Opening of a Sepulchral Cairn at Balnalick, Glen Urquhart, Inverness-shire; with Notes on Cup-Marked Stones in Glen Urquhart. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 22, 42–51. Harding, A. F., 2000. European societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Henshall, A. S., 1963. The chambered tombs of Scotland, volume 1. Edin- burgh: University Press. Hutcheson, A., 1887. Notice of a Burial Place of the Bronze Age at Barnhill, near Broughty Ferry. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 21, 316–24. Hutcheson, A., 1891. Notice of the Discovery and Examination of a Burial Cairn of the Bronze Age at the farm of Gilchorn, parish of Inverkeillor, Forfarshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 25, 447– 63. Hutcheson, A., 1898. Notice of the Discovery of a Burial of the Bronze Age on the Hill of West Mains of Auchterhouse, the property of D.S. Cowans, Esq. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 32, 205–20. Joass, J. M., 1864. Notice of a Cist and its Contents in the Parish of Ed- dertoun, Ross-shire, recently opened. Proceedings of the Society of Anti- quaries of Scotland 5, 311–5. Joass, J. M., 1866. Notice of the Discovery of Cists containing Urns and Burned Bones at Torran Dubh, near Tain. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 6, 418–9. Jolly, W. and Aitken, T., 1879. Notice of the Excavation and Contents of Ancient Graves at Dalmore, Alness, Ross-shire. With Notes on the Crania. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 13, 252–64. Lowson, W., 1882. Notes of a small Cemetery of Cists and Urns at Magdalen Bridge, near Joppa. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 16, 419–29. Needham, S. P., 1988. Selective Deposition in the British Early Bronze Age. World Archaeology 20, 229–48. 22

Noble, G., 2006. Neolithic Scotland: timber, stone, earth and fire. Edin- burgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Ogston, A., 1872. Notice of Cists and Urns recently found at Ardoe, near Aberdeen. In a Letter to John Stuart, LL.D., Sec. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 9, 269–71.

Petersen, F., Shepherd, I. A. G. and Tuckwell, A. N., 1974. A short cist at Horsbrugh Castle Farm, Peebleshire. Proceedings of the Society of Anti- quaries of Scotland 105, 43–62.

Rae, W., 1880. Notice of an Urn and Bronze Blade, found at Shuttlefield, Lockerbie. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 14, 280– 2.

Rankin, D. R., 1868. Note of Ancient Remains recently discovered in the Parish of Carluke. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 7, 440–2.

Richards, C., 1996. Henges and water: towards an elemental understanding of monuments and landscape in late Neolithic Britain. Journal of material culture 1, 313–336.

Ritchie, G., 1997. Monuments associated with burial and ritual in Argyll. In: Ritchie, G. (ed.), The archaeology of Argyll, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 67–94.

Smith, J., 2006. Early Bronze Age Stone Wrist-Guards in Britain: Archer’s bracer or social symbol? Retrieved on Nov 20, 2008 from World Wide Web: http://www.geocities.com/archchaos1/article1/j.smith2006.pdf.

Smith, J. A., 1859. Notice of Bronze Relics, &c., found in the Isle of Skye. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 3, 101–6.

Smith, J. A., 1868. Notice of a Small Bronze Blade found in a Cinerary Urn at Balblair, Sutherlandshire; also Two Small Bronze Plates, in the Collection of His Grace the Duke of Sutherland. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 7, 475–7. 23

Smith, J. A., 1882. Note of a Stone Celt found at Stobshiel, now presented to the Museum; also, of a large Cinerary Urn found at Stobshiel, Hadding- tonshire, recently presented to the Museum. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 16, 473–6.

Smith, R. A., 1874. Descriptive List of Antiquities near Loch Etive. Part III. – Continued. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 10, 70–90.

Stuart, J., 1866. Account of the Recent Examination of a Cairn, called ‘Cairngreg,’ on the Estate of Linlathen. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 6, 98–103.

Sturrock, J., 1880. Notice of a Jet Necklace and Urn of the Food-Vessel Type, found in a Cist at Balcalk, Tealing, and of the opening of Hat- ton Cairn, Parish of , Forfarshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 14, 260–7.

Watson, W., 1889. Notice of the Discovery of Two Cists with Unburnt Burials, one containing an Urn and a Small Bronze Pin, on the Farm of Drummond, Parish of Kiltearn, Ross-shire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 23, 138–9.

Wilson, G., 1888. Additional Notes on Funereal Urns, from Glenluce, Wig- townshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 22, 66–70.