Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 121 (1991), 181-214

The Atlantic Scottish Iron Age: five levels of chronology lan Armit*

ABSTRACT Five forms datingof evidence currentlyare relevant archaeologythe to Atlanticthe of Scottish Iron Age. These defined evaluatedare and constructto sequencea structuralof and artefactual development. arguedItis that lacka of evaluationclaritythe on datingof methodsis responsible currentmuchfor the of confusion literature.the in Alternative chronologies thatto constructed here valid, mustare but explicit be theiron evaluation dating ofthe evidenceon and the weighting primacyand datingof levels. The terminology of the 'atlantic ' is introduced as a framework which enables conventional structural typologies morebe to effectively analysed. Within extendedthe chronology terminology usingnew and the descriptivea as device, developments tracedbe can which perspectives offernew settlementthe on sequenceand undermine the unilinear models of the Atlantic Scottish Iron Age. Differences in development between the Northern and Western Isles are already becoming apparent.

CONTENTS Introduction ...... 2 18 . Five level datinf so g ...... 3 18 . Level 1: C14 dating ...... 184 Patterns in the C14 data ...... 184 800-400 BC ...... 7 18 . 400-200 BC ...... 9 18 . 200 BC-AD 100 ...... 190 Level 2: The quern transition ...... 190 Northern quern evidence ...... 2 19 . Western quern evidence ...... 194 Leve : Romal3 n material ...... 6 19 . Level 4: Native material culture ...... 198 Native pottery ...... 198 Metalwork ...... 0 20 . Glass ...... 200 Level 5: Structural typology ...... 200 Summary sequence ...... 201 Discussion ...... 2 20 .

* Centr r Fielefo d Archaeology, Universit f Edinburgyo h 182 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF , 1991

INTRODUCTION

Atlantie Th c Scottis histora s h ha investigatio f Iroye o nAg n stretching mid-19t e bacth o kt h century when early Scottish antiquaries first became fascinated by the brochs, among the most visually strikin f lateo g r prehistoric monument n Britaini s s wity sucA . an hh impressive monument type the brochs and associated structures were subject to considerable early, albeit inadequate, excavation, producing structural and artefactual information which, while large in quantity, is often deficient in quality. Roman period artefacts were noted in early work as being of relatively well-known chronology and their occurrence on sites was taken to indicate a Roman period floruit of broch architecture. The concept of multi-periodicity was very poorly developed mid-20te prioth o rt h centur eved yan n some later excavator Atlantin si c Scotlands a , Cuien Du rt a (Young 1956, reinterprete Armin di t 1988a), apparently faile distinguiso t d h relatively clear structural phases. The dating of structures was based on comparisons of artefactual material with what were though better-understooe b o tt d region southern si n England and elsewhere. Diffusion fro soute mprocessassumee s th th h wa e whicb y b o d distinctivt e hth e Scottish material and structural assemblages came into being. The history of interpretation has been haunted by a number of preoccupations which have their root n antiquarianismi s e obsessioth : n wite originath h l heigh f brochso t e th , overriding concern wit e detaihth f architecturao l l typologe vieth w d thayan t brochs were outwith the day-to-day settlement patterns of the period, all have their origins in the 19th century. Childe's term, 'Castle Complex', coinesmale th f coveo ldt o drystonl al r e round- houses of the Atlantic Province, unwittingly sustained the emotive and subjective approach to subjece th t (Childe 1935). Childe' sAtlantie worth t kse c Scottis contexe th a n h i f Iroo e t nAg wider diffusionist scheme, linked to historical events in the south of England. His ideas were subsequently refined, most notably by MacKie who attempted to trace the broch builders back to the refugees from Caesar's rout of the Veneti in 56 BC (MacKie 1983, 120). Chronology has often been dictated by these interpretations. Despite much dissatisfaction wit detailee hth d theorie brocf so h origin 1960e th d f san o 1970s, the diffusionist views have proved resilient to change and the field has remained substantially unaffected by new approaches to archaeological problems elsewhere. This paper doe t see sno reinterpreo kt Atlantie th t c Scottish Iron Age: instea wilt d i restrictee b l e th o dt dating evidence. This data is incompatible with the diffusionist views of the 1960s and 1970s and requires instead the adoption of approaches which deal with the evidence in terms of indigenous development (albeit with contacts in several spheres of material culture with areas to the south). e terminologTh y used her o describt e e drystonth e e structure f Atlantio s c Scotland requires some explanation. The term broch has attracted such a wealth of associations and subconscious prejudices tha s usefulnesit t n archaeologicaa s a s l ter s mopei o questiot n n (Armit 1988a) n thiI . s paper broch architecture wile employeb l a collectiv s a d e term encompassin granga structuraf eo l traits froundrystone th n di e structure Atlantie th f so c Iron e (ArmiAg t 1990a) s meani a usefut i ;s a t l shorthand form referrin e techniquth o t g f o e hollow-wall construction and the use of such traits as scarcements, intra-mural stairs, guard-cells etc. The thick-walled drystone roundhouses of the Atlantic Iron Age will be termed atlantic roundhouses', this term covers all those related structures previously subdi- vided into brochs, , galleried t includinsno etct bu , g structures where elementf so broch architecture are used outwith the domestic sphere, for example promontory forts, blockhouse r Harding'so enclosuren sdu s (Harding 1984). ARMIT: THE ATLANTIC SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVELS OF CHRONOLOGY 183

Individual structures will be classed as simple or complex atlantic roundhouses; the simple atlantic roundhouses are those which, although they may be massively built, lack evidence for the use of the specific traits of broch architecture; the complex atlantic roundhouses emplo f theso y l someal traitr o e n theii s r constructio d includan n e those structures previously classe s brocha d towers. This latter term wile useb l o describt d e structures with palpable evidence of multi-storey construction (MacKie's brochs (1983)) but does not imply a typological distinction; conditions of survival are such that it is virtually impossible to separate a class of broch towers from other types of complex roundhouse in the field. Further discussion of this new terminology has been published elsewhere (Armit 1990a). The simple roundhouses encompass structures recently excavated in the north eg Tofts Ness , PierowalBu , l etc s wellarga a ,s a le rang f westereo n structures previously classes da duns e complexTh . roundhouses encompas galleriee sth d wes e more dun th wels th a f t s seo a l familiar brochs. Wheelhouses remain a separate phenomenon in terms of the terminology, reflecting their different architecture (Armit 1990b).

FIVE LEVELS OF DATING Five different types of dating evidence will be considered: the body of C14 dates available from relatively recent excavations; the evidence of quern types; cross-dating using Roman material; native material culture; and structural typology. Having defined these forms of chronological evidence it is necessary to consider the weight to place on each: a hierarchy of dating method e createb n ca sd placing these type f evidenco s n descendino e g levelf o s reliability. In this pape argues i t i revidenc 4 dC1 thae th te shoul startine takee db th s na g poinr fo t analysis assumptione Th . whicn so methoe hth d rest basee sar d outsid reale eth Atlantif mo c Scotlan afford dan chanca d value shako et th f e eof label s which have become associated with various structural forms through a century of typological schematizing. The second level of dating will be the evidence of quern types; the full evidence for chronological significance of quern typology is discussed below but in essence it is a relatively uncomplicated chronological indicator which, if one takes the premise of a 'quern transition', is not subject to multiple interpretations. e thirTh d leve f chronologicao l l evidence, tha f Roman-deriveo t d material s mori , e difficul deao t t l with, principally becaus generalle th f eo y poor recordin sitee whicth n so f go h it has been most often found. Although the meaning of Roman associated material within native Scottish context fror fa ms si clea stils i t li r perhap morsa e reliable chronological guide than the native material culture which has resisted many attempts at typological and chronological ordering. This fourth leve f datino l g base nativn do e material culture wile b l discussed more fully below. The final level of dating to be considered here is that which derives from structural typology. As with the native material culture there is no justification for using structural typology as a starting point for chronology; rather it is something which must be derived at a secondary stage from more reliable data when this is available. This is why the first three dating method s- C14 , quern Romad an s n materia - lhav e been given primac thin yi s study ove e theory-deriveth r d level f nativo s e material cultur structurad an e l typologyf o , is t I . course, simplisti suggeso ct t thaarchaeologicay an t l evidenc othes ei r than theory-derived dan e distinctioth n amongs e formth tf evidenco s e discusse f degreeo d e e abovon Th . s i e | SOCIET 4 18 ANTIQUARIEF YO SCOTLANDF SO , 1991

arrangement of the hierarchy presented here favours those dating forms with less inherent tendency to perpetuate outmoded hypotheses. e relativTh e chronologica l e datinvaluth f o ge method s opei s y o disputt nan t bu e contrary scheme should explicitly state which are given primacy. Traditional approaches have tende tako dt e structural typolog Leves ya lprime 1th , e leve f chronologicao l l reliability,and have used thi evaluato st e other level f evidencso MacKig e(e e 1983). The hierarchy of dating is designed to place the emphasis on the least value-laden sources of chronological information which do not suffer from preconceived ideas controlling data gatherin definitiond gan r exampleFo . , structural typolog somn i n ey ca measur e dictate results if it is used to include certain sites and exclude others at an early stage in the gathering of data; little progres e madb n f analyseei ca s e restrictear s seto dt f dat so a define pre-existiny b d g hypotheses. If we study the chronology of broch towers and adopt too strict a typological definition of the term at the outset (excluding sites which may not have a sufficiently high degre f preservatioeo demonstrato nt originae eth l presenc f architecturaeo l features wile w ) l be denying the possibility of any challenge to our typological scheme. Consequently this paper will examine evidence from a wider range of available structural forms. Atlantic Scotland will be taken to represent Piggott's Atlantic Province as far south as and (Piggott 1966). Muc f Argylho deliberatels i l y omitte avoio dt particulae dth r problems associated with that area with its very diverse and poorly understood settlement forms. e chronologicaTh l period covere n thii d s200 D papeA , t althouga r d wils i en lt i h recognized that this corresponds with no actual break in the archaeological sequence; the continuity of the Atlantic Scottish sequence from the early Iron Age to the immediately pre-Norse period has been stressed by the author elsewhere (Armit 1990b). Full references to the published reports on each of the sites are listed in the appendix and e structurath l details mentione e texth t n di deriv e from these reports. References t wilno l therefor continualle eb y repeate texe th t n dexcepi t where citatio requireds ni .

LEVEL 1: C14 DATING Radiocarbon dates are now available from sites in most parts of Atlantic Scotland and cover many of the known structural forms. Illus 1 gives the location of the sites yielding C14 dates while illus 2, 3 and 4 present the data, calibrated to calendar years by the method describe appendixe th n di e dateTh . s have been calibrate ordederiven 4 di C1 aligo t r e dnth sequence with the evidence of historically derived dates. Confidence levels of 68% have been used and the pitfalls involved in the use of any individual date are obvious. Factors such as laboratory error, the use of different sample materials and contextual problems, must all be taken into account. appendie Th x gives detail datee theith d f san so r context wels s a reference s a l fule th l o st report eachf so somn I . e cases, notablRuaign a n hyDu Ruaidh interpretatioe th , datee th f sno given fundamentahern i s ei l disagreement wit excavatore h th tha f o t e reasonTh . r sucsfo h divergent interpretations are given, where applicable, in the appendix.

PATTERNS IN THE C14 DATA The C14 evidence for the Atlantic Scottish Iron Age is undeniably sparse and occasionally ambiguous but already clear regularities are beginning to emerge which can be use foro d t e chronologybasia mth r sfo possibls i t I . e that onl paucite yth f dateyo s enables ARMIT: THE ATLANTIC SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVELS OF CHRONOLOGY I 185

14

0 200km

ILLUS 1 C14 dated sites in appendix 1 Quarry 7 Upper Suisgill 13 Quanterness 8 Kilphedir, r VauMo 1l 4n Du Howe, Stromness 9 Langwell 15 Eilean Olabhat Bu n LagaidDu 10 h 16 Baleshare Skaill n Ruaiga n hDu 1 1Ruaid h 17 Hornish Point Crosskirk 12 Dun Flodigarry 1 8Bharabhan Du t 186 I SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 1991

o 10 rv> -> g oo 0 0 °§ 0 O

Pierowall |——————— • —————— I

Quanterness

He ow I ——— • —————— 1

M— 1

1 — 1 ————1

1 —— • —-1

1 — • —1 Bu 1———————— • —————————— 1

1——————— • —————————— 1

Skaill 1——————— • —————— 1

1——————— ^ Crosskirk

1————— •————— 1

4 —— • ——— 1

Upper Suisgill 1——— • ————— 1

Kilphedir KH

| . ,

Langwell 1—————— • ———— 1

1—————— • ———————— 1

ILLU S2 Calibrate date4 dC1 s fro e Northermth n Isle Nortd san h Mainland (dat appendixn ai ) ARMIT ATLANTIE TH : C SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVEL CHRONOLOGF SO Y 187

phase e discernedb o t s ; this mus e acknowledgeb t centraa s da l restrictio e followinth n ni g descriptio periodse th f no , dating very broadlfroBd 0 CBC0 an m20 40 ,o t froy o t 0 fro m0 40 m80 B 0 ACo t D20 100, where phasin use s gdescriptivi a s da e rather than analytical tool. This section is restricted to structural features; material culture will be discussed as a separate level of chronological evidence.

800-40C 0B serieA f dateso s from form almosn a s t indistinguishable group, statisticallyr fo , this period t comprise;i s dates fro primare mth y occupatio , QuanternessBu t na , Pierowald an l the Phase 5 roundhouse at Howe. C14 evidence for settlement in the west at this period is more tenuous and restricted to the hillfort at Dun Lagaidh, early occupation at towards the end of the period, pre-roundhouse occupation at Dun Bharabhat and some of the dates from Hornish Point. These latter dates are discussed further below. At Howe and Pierowall massive solid-walled simple roundhouses were occupied in this period; both wer overaln ei somm 6 le1 diameter formee th , r with latte e wall th thic m d rs4 kan , botm h3 poorly preserved. Howonle date4 th yC1 s edi roundhouse know a hav o nt d eha surrounding enclosur ditcd e an t thi ha s time earle Th . y dates suggest tha roundhouse th t s ewa constructed between 500-400 BC. The roundhouse at Bu was 19.5-20.5 m in external diameter and enclose aren da a some 9-1 diametern i 0m . Agai structure nth solid-walleds ewa y ma t bu , originally guard-cel a hav d eha l leadinentrance th f gof e passage. Althoug excavatoe hth s ha r

> CD D O

•*> oo o 0 0 0 o 0 O O

Dun Lagaidh 1——— • —————— 1 1——— • —————— 1 Ruiagh Ruaidh 1————— • ———— 1 1—— • ——— 1 1——— • ——— 1

———1 ——1

Flodigarry 1

Ardtrecn Du k -•———— 1

Dun Mor Vaul 1 —— • ————— 1 1— • ————— 1 1—— • —— 1

•*—— • —— 1

ILLU S3 Calibrate date4 dC1 s fro Wese mth t Coas Inned an t r Isles (dat appendixn ai ) 188 SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 1991

describe broca s a ht di (Hedges t doe1987i t fulfi) criterie sno th 10 ,l a prescribe MacKiy db e (eg MacKie 1984). Quanterness had a slighter roundhouse structure built into the ruins of a (Renfrew 1979). Littl know s ei primare th f no y internal organizatio f thesno e structures other u thaB t na where there was a complex radial division of space (Hedges 1987, 12) suggestive of parallels with wheelhouses. The interior at Quanterness would appear to have been open in its primary occupation. There is no solid evidence from these Orcadian structures of the appearance at this e specifith earlies f o c y t structuraan stag f o e l characteristics use o defint d e complex roundhouses; ther certainls e i evidenc 4 developmene C1 th o r yn efo highle th f o yt specialized hollow-wall building technique which enable e constructiodth f broco n h towers, neithes i r there evidence of scarcement ledges or intra-mural cells, galleries or stairs. This could simply be the result of an inadequate database but, as will be discussed below, it may well reflect the original situation and be compatible with models for structural and cultural development in the period. Interestingly there is one date from Crosskirk, SRR-266, which calibrates to a reasonably tightly defined period between 487-406 BC at the 68% confidence level. This date from the primary floor at Crosskirk was rejected by Fairhurst (1984) despite its internal consistency with dates fro secondare mth y internal occupation levels vien I . f othewo r dates from solid-walled roundhouse sites it may be permissible to accept this as a genuine date for the primary occupation at Crosskirk. If this were so it would imply the construction of a thick-walled

CD o en oo o O O O o o o O O o o o o

Bharabhan Du t

Eilean Olabhat

Baleshare

Hornish Pt.

ILLUS 4 Calibrated C14 dates from the Outer (data in appendix) ARMIT: THE ATLANTIC SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVELS OF CHRONOLOGY 189

roundhouse of relatively modest height (the clay-cored wall would have restricted potential height) containin gguard-cella , intra-mural intra-muraceld an l l stair Caithnesn i , fifte th h n si century BC. This would be consistent with a development of complexity from the simpler Orcadian type which seeme focuseb o t s d earliee periodth e radialln i rTh . y partitioned interior invites comparison d strengthens an wit u B h e possibilitth s f chronologicayo l prox- imity. The C14 dates suggest an internally consistent development in this period from simple thick-walle dd Howroundhousean o mort u e B et a comple s a s t essentiallbu x y similar structures exemplifie Crosskirky db fiftA . h centur datC yB alss ei o strongly suggestee th r dfo hut circle grou t Kilphedipa r which consisted t thia , s stage f slighteo , r walled roundhouses.

400-20C 0B Dates which fall into confidenc% thi68 s e perioth t ea d level derive from Howe, Crosskir nortSkaile d th kan n hi l (together with enigmatic reconstructio reoccupatiod nan t na Quanterness) and from Hornish Point, Baleshare, Dun an Ruaigh Ruaidh and Dun Mor Vaul in the west. The later dates for the secondary occupation at Dun Bharabhat, Lewis, indicate primary occupatio roundhouse th f no thin ei s period apparentle Th . y continuous nature th f eo structural sequence at Howe together with date GU-1758, indicate that these two centuries saw the construction of the Phase 6 structure, similar to the complex roundhouse at Crosskirk. The Howe structure had walls 3.5 m in width and preserved up to 2 m in height, containin o intra-muratw g o 'guard-cells'l tw stair d an s s interioit : s dividewa r radiay b d l partitions similar to those at Crosskirk and Bu. Like Crosskirk, the Howe structure provides a structural link between the simple roundhouses and broch towers. The occupation at Skaill and Quanterness suggests that settlement in Orkney was by no means restricted to massive complex roundhouses. At Dun Mor Vaul occupation continued but without convincing structural associations ane westerdth 4 evidencC1 n s restricteei d effectivel thao t y t fro e Centramth l Excavation Unit's excavation t Balesharea s e evidencTh . e fro formee mth r site doe y t relatan sno o et convincing settlement structure so in this discussion only Hornish Point is relevant. As discusse appendixe th n di , ther strons ei g dating evidenc t Hornisea hconstructioe Pointh r fo t n and occupation of one or more wheelhouses between 430-300 BC (Barber pers comm and forthcoming). Unfortunately the excavation was restricted in scale but it is clear that Structure 5 represent a smals l drystone sand-revetted structure containin a gnumbe f radiao r l piers converging on a central open interior (Barber forthcoming). This apparently disturbing early dating, relative to conventional dating, will be seen in clearer perspective when other levels of dating are examined but the very great degree of similarity in the organization of interior space between areas and through time in the Atlantic Scottish Iroe shoulunnoteo g nAg t dno t thi da s stage. latee Th rsecondare dateth r sfo y occupatio Bharabhatn Du t na , Lewis, indicate primary occupatio immediatelBCe 0 n prioTh 20 . c o rt y pre-roundhouse occupation material, relatino gt incompletely excavated phases sevente dateth o st h century BCthud foundatioe an ,sth e th f no roundhouse coul substantialle db y earlier tha BC0 structure n20 .Th complea s ei x roundhouse with intra-mural stair d galleriean s entrancd an s e features typica f broco l h architectures It . smal gallere widte on th l f sizd ho y ean entranc widposo o t e(s s ea problem f weighso t stress lintee th mucf n i l o h wallin beed g ha plac n i e abov mak) eit e interpretatio structure th f no s ea a broch tower difficult. 190 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 1991

By c 300 BC there appear to have been structures in Atlantic Scotland which contained e featuremanth f yo s associated with broch architecture conventionally ascribe muca o dt h later period.

200 BC-A0 D10 This period encompasses the broch tower phase at Howe, much of the secondary occupation at Crosskirk, the more reliable dates for Dun an Ruaigh Ruaidh and Dun Mor Vaul together with the single dates from Dun Ardtreck and Dun Flodigarry and secondary occupation in Dun Bharabhat. e interioTh r partitionin generad gan Howle plath f neo broch tower unambiguously link it with the complex roundhouse which previously occupied the site and with the Crosskirk complex roundhouse and thus with the earlier simple roundhouses. The dates from Flodigarry and Ardtreck indicate the building of ground-galleried roundhouses, possibly of tower-like proportion thin i sRuaig n sa periodn he dateDu r Vau Ruaidd Th . Mo san l e fron har m Du consistent with this broad period. occupatioe Ruaign a Th n hDu Ruaidht na discusses a , d above, seem havo st e centren do e firsth t centur Thi. syAD site ground-galleriea , toos wa , d roundhouse, with upper gallery levels preserved contentioe .Th excavatoe th f no r thastructure th t 'semi-brocha s ewa ' seems untenable. The structure, from its position on the eroding cliff-edge, has lost much of its walling through collapse e attempTh . fino t d rubble below, wher cliffallee s eth ha f n awayd di , not in any way disprove this; the collapsed masonry and natural rock must have formed an ideal e manquarrth r y fo yston e building e valleth n yi s below (this also e explainth y wh s remaining structure above has been allowed to survive to upper gallery level). Equivalent circumstances account for the 'semi-broch' interpretation in the case of all of MacKie's D-shaped examples. 'Broch architecture' is meaningful only, in structural terms, in a complete circula r subcirculao r r structure where weight distributio channellee b n nca d evenly. This period also witnesse constructioe dth f roundhouseno s with continuous intra-mural galleries and other features of broch architecture. There may be an increase in architectural complexitnumbee th n i f complexd ro yan roundhouses overall; alternatively this couln a e db dating4 C1 artefac simplo e N .th f o et atlantic roundhous clearles i y attributabl thio et s period. Further sections will attempt to fill out and amplify the very broad outline chronology which is perceptible in the C14 evidence.

LEVEL 2: THE QUERN TRANSITION importance Th adoptioe th rotare f eo th f nyo quern archaie placn i ,th f eo c saddle quern, e chronologth o t e Atlantith f yo c Scottis firss hwa t Irostressee nAg Seamuy db s Caulfield (1977) centrae Th . l hypothesi tha s superiorite sth wa t rotare th f yyo quern botn i ,qualit e hth y speee grais it th f d ndo processingan , would ensure that once adoptearee pare th t ai f on o t n di would supersed saddle eth e quern withi periona d which would archaeologis e seeth mo t e b o tt extremely short. Thus a 'quern replacement horizon' lasting an unknown, but almost certainly very short, period durin e envisagedb gtypeo n whictw ca se e werth h.us Generallyn ei , however e presencth , a saddl f o er rotaro e y quera sit en o nwoul d indicat a pree r o - post-replacement date. Caulfield's main intentio shoo t s w nwa tha prevalence th t saddlf eo e quern northern so n roundhouse sites compared with their absence fro wese mth t suggested thaearliese th t t broch ARMIT ATLANTIE TH : C SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVEL CHRONOLOGF SO 1 19 | Y

towers were constructed in the north, in contrast to the ideas of Euan MacKie. Evidence discussed below, however, suggests that saddle querns were in use on western roundhouse sites. Indeed whole th , e questio f geographicano l 'broch origins centraa e ' b nee t l dno issu e and the importance of quern transition theory lies in the recent evidence for the dating of the f rotaro e implicatione th transitioyus r querne fo th d o f thit nan s o s e wides th dat r rfo e questions of Atlantic Scottish chronology. It is the contention here that if the hypothesis of an archaeologically sudden quern transitio acceptes ni d the muse nw preparee b t addreso dt e sth problem f chronologo s y which that hypothesis raises; problems which render invalid many long-established theorie f structuraso l developmen sucessiond an t . importanIs i t asseso t validite querse th th f nyo transitio short-livea s na d process within the region. The superiority of the rotary quern is not in question: if efficiency and quality of product wer onle eth y criteria there woulrooo n doubr me fo db t tharotare th t y quern would have rendered the saddle quern obsolete in the Atlantic Province in a few years at most. The problem lies in our lack of understanding of the way in which remote and potentially conservative farming communities react to technological innovation. There are two main arguments which suggest that the communities of the Atlantic Scottish Iron Age may have been quick to accept this change in technology. e developmenTh spread an t f structurado l innovations across areas which termn i , f o s primitive transport capabilities, were very extensiv t indicativno e behavious i eth f o e f o r isolated and inward-looking communities. The spread of highly complex and specific building techniques involve brocn di h architecture must show that, whateve processe th r behind their spread, communities were not afraid of change. With the obvious advantages of the rotary quern to influence acceptance it is likely that contacts across the Atlantic Province would have led to the displacement of the saddle quern within a relatively short period. The second argument lies in the economic urgency which may have further opened communities to technological development. The deterioration of the northern climate during firse th t millennium BC - indicated exampler fo , peae th tn i ,growt h over mid-firsa t century BC agricultural settlement at Kilphedir - would have led to substantial social and economic changes opennesn A . agriculturao t s l development sucn i s hsituatioa intrinsicalls ni y more likely tha morn ni e stati successfud can l socio-economic systems. e rotarTh y n isolatequera t s ubiquitoui nno d s wa e period t n i th siteo st f o sbu , agricultural development; the disappearance of stone ards from the artefactual record, suggestive of their replacement by iron versions (Hedges 1987, 93), is another example. The appearanc f horso e e bones, indicativ f smalo e l domestic herds (Macartney 1984, 137)s i , another innovation linked either to agricultural practice or alternatively to the display of prestige through horse ownership and riding. The context of the period under consideration gives every e rapisuppor th e ide f th d o a o adoptiot t spread e rotarth nan f dyo querne Th . datin f thigo s transitio centras ni chronologe th o t lmane th f yyo sites from which saddld ean rotary querns have been obtained. e datinquere th Th f gno transition hierarche th n i , f chronologicayo l levels,e restth n so evidence4 C1 e appendiTh . x gives detail f dateo s s from Crosskir Baleshard kan e whice har relevant to this matter. Both sites have deposits which contain or seal rotary querns, or fragments, and provide dates for a period when the rotary quern was already established, rathe transitionae r th tha r nfo l period. rotare Th y quernston t Balesharea buils ewa t int entrance oth e passag structura f eo a n ei Hebridean machair site (Barber forthcoming, see appendix for further details). This site is dated by a series of C14 dates. The dates presented for Baleshare in illus 4 are contemporary | SOCIET 192 ANTIQUARIEYOF SCOTLANDSOF , 1991

with or later than the structure containing the quern. This tight cluster of dates strongly suggests the abandonment of this structure prior to the mid or late second century BC. The structure was built after a rotary quern had been made, used and discarded. Even assuming a short lifr thiefo s sand-revetted structure shora quer d e primars th tit an , lifr n ni efo y function, difficuls ii t sustaio t t e vienth w thae rotarth t y quer introduces nwa e Outeth n di r Hebrides substantially later than 200 BC. e HebrideaTh n evidenc paralleles ei t Crosskirda Caithnesn ki s (Fairhurst 1984)e Th . relevant dates from this site relate to the complex roundhouse at a period after its initial occupatio ne date (illuTh e take . sar s2) n from layere build-uth n i s f occupatiopo n material withi roundhouse nth frod ean m associated externae partth f so l occupation. These datea s sa group again suggest that querns had been made, used and broken on this site prior to the perio f 150-10do 0 givBd C an terminuse a ante quer e quernth r nfo transitio Caithnesn i s which is consistent wit Outee h th tha r rfo t Hebrides. Futur datin4 eC1 g will further defin perio e quere eth th f dno transitio datiny nb g deposits containing rotary querns. A date of c 200 BC would seem a reasonable estimate at the present stat knowledgef eo . Ther yets a convincin, o ,en is g internal typolog either yfo r rotar saddlr yo e querns in Atlantic Scotland. Only a broad distinction between the pre- and post-replacement periods is currently possible. Nonetheless, a reasonably secure dating of this replacement to the period c 200 BC provides a wealth of information relevant to existing models of structural and material developmen Atlantie th n i t c Scottish Iron Age. One problem of potential significance for the use of the quern transition as a chronological indicato e possibilitth s survivai e r th f y o f saddl o l e quern r usesfo s other than grain processing e rangTh . f possibleo e function saddlr fo s e quern greates si r thae n th tha r fo t more specialized rotary querns. It is not clear if grinding equipment for non-grain processing function fora f mo s i likelse confuse b o yt d with saddle querns . e HebrideaMosth f o t n sites where rotary querns are found contain no saddle querns and the transition appears to have been complete Howe th t eA . saddle quern survivo sd e int latee oth r period (Beverley Smith pers comm t theibu ) r context e overwhelminglsar y from collapsed building rubble majoA . r forme stud contextth d f yan so f saddlso e querns ove perioe rth d wil needee b l asseso dt e sth degree of survival and the possibility of changes in form and size for saddle querns used for purposes other than grain processing. At present only the appearance of rotary querns is of definite chronological significance while the occurrence of saddle querns in situ, especially where they occur in number and without associated rotary querns, should be treated cautiousl indicaton a s ya f pre-quero r n transition date.

NORTHERN QUERN EVIDENCE As Caulfield pointed out, there are many instances of saddle querns being found on northern roundhouse sites although mos e verar t y poorly recorded r entirelo y without contexts e sequenceTh . siten so s suc Hows ha e give warning that without properly recorded context t cannoi s e certaib t n tha a saddlt e quern fro ma give n sit s associatei e d wite th h occupation of the roundhouse rather than with an underlying and unrecognized structure possibl f simpleyo r type usinn I . e quergth n transitio examino nt e structural sequences i t si valid to use only those examples which can be assigned to a reasonably specific context. principao tw e Th l northern affectee sitere-datine b th o st quere y b th d f gno transition Jarlshoe ar Shetlann i f Gurnesd dan Orkneyn si t JarlshoA . fquern o thern e ear s recorded from withi e roundhousth n e Aisleeth itselt dbu f Roundhouse e earlies, th whic s twa h ARMIT: THE ATLANTIC SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVELS OF CHRONOLOGY 193

identified post-roundhouse structur e siteth , n o yieldee d both saddl d rotaran e y querns (Hamilton 1956) e AisleTh . d Roundhous s beeeha n considere detain di l elsewhere (Armit bees 1992ha nd show)an havo nt e bee nwheelhousa e earlieseves it n i t form wit evidenco hn e timbee oth f r post phase which Hamilton considere havo dt e pre-date insertioe dth f radiano l stone piers e earliesTh . t wheelhous t Jarlshoa e f would see mo straddlt e locath e l quern transitio datd nan arouno et e BClate0 dTh 20 . r structure site th e n containeo s d only rotary querns. e importancTh f thieo s re-datin firse th t f gJarlshoo f wheelhous r aisleeo d roundhouss ei that it places the entire construction and primary occupation of the complex roundhouse into r earlie fa perioe , th rBC dtha 0 e accepteprio20 nth o t r d datin r thagfo t site. This neet dno necessarily surpris sinces eu , although Jarlsho lons ha fg beeclassie th n f accepteo c e on s da 'broch' structures e traditionath n i , l sense t doei ,t havno s e evidenc f greateo e r structural complexity tha e structureth n t Crosskira s d froan km How Phasn i e whic6 e h have been referre abovo dt comples ea x roundhouses Jarlshoe Th . f structur massive-walleda s ei , possibly circular roundhouse wit soliha d bas evidencd ean guard-cella f eo , fragmen basaa f o t l celd an l a scarcement, take o indicatt n n uppea e r floor level. This doe t amounno s a greate o t t r structural complexity tha demonstrates ni t Crosskirda Bharabhatn Du pre-20e r ko th d an 0, BC t inconsistendatno s i e t wite emerginth h 4 chronologyC1 g e scarcemenTh . e onlth ys i t structural feature not present at the latter sites and at it lies at a height of 2.5 m, the maximum heigh o whict t h Crosskir s preservewa k d abov an de preserve th e d heighf o t Bharabhat. The structure at Jarlshof was a complex roundhouse similar to others which had developed from the earlier simpler roundhouses and which was constructed at broadly the same tim s Crosskirkea . Unlik e latteeth r structur abandoneds wa t ei primars t leasa it , n i t y form, much earlier and succeeded by the earliest wheelhouse on the site at c 200 BC. Whether the roundhouse at Jarlshof ever possessed the same radial interior organization as Crosskirk, Bu and the others, is not clear as the primary floor has never been exposed; the one original feature known, the rock-cut well, does however form a striking parallel with the former site and with Gurness, discussed below. By the period of the quern transition Crosskirk was still inhabited, albeit in a progressively modified form, while the Jarlshof roundhouse had been supplante earle th yy db aisle d wheelhouse. Gurnes Orknen si perhaps yi mose sth t importan affectete b sit re-datea o e t y db d quern transition. Gurness displays unambiguous broch architecture; it was a broch tower, with clear evidence of upper galleries and floor levels in combination with other definitive features of broch architecture. Like the demonstrably early sites at Bu, Howe Phase 6 and Crosskirk, Gurness displayed trait f spatiaso l organization base radian do l division accomplishee th y db use of projecting stone piers. In terms of spatial organization as well as construction it lies in e developinth g tradition which springs from these architecturally simpler structurese Th . earliest occupation levels at Gurness yielded saddle querns and the upper levels rotary querns. Thinotes swa d specificall originae th y yb l excavator (Craw quote Hedgen di s 1987 seemd )an s indicato t e primary occupatio structure th f no eB0 prioC20 wit o rt h occupation continuing well beyond this date. The re-interpretation of the site by Hedges does not take the evidence of these querns into accoun d preferan t a firss t centur dat r D constructioA fo ye e basith f Romao sn o n n material which will be examined below (Hedges 1987). This reverses the hierarchy of dating proposed in this paper and is valid if one denies the importance of the quern transition. Since the early e datinsitth e e f inconsistenwoulb o g t no d 4 datintC1 f witcompleo e g th h x 194 SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 1991

roundhouses, and since the quern evidence from other sites provides an internally consistent sequence, the reversal of the hierarchy of the dating methods must be argued. If the later datin accepteds gi inapplicabilite th , quere th f nyo transitio Gurneso nt s mus explainede b t . With reservations expressed above regarding the use of saddle querns as a pre-transition indicator e numberth , d exclusivitan s e Jarlshoth f Gurnesd yo an f s contextse arguth r efo chronological review proposed here. e numberTh f saddlo s e querns from early roundhouse excavation e nortth n hi s give circumstantial suppor hypothesie th o t s thamajorite th t thesf yo e structures were constructed prior to 200 BC to represent the archaeologically most visible phases of sites where the structural development bega earln a t yna period (data collate Caulfieln di d 1977, 131-3)e Th . number contextd san f rotarso y querns similarly indicate thaquere th t n y transitiowa o n n ni f compleo marked en xe droundhousth e occupation evidence Th . querd ean fron4 datinmC1 g for the construction of northern roundhouses after the local quern transition is, however, restricted to the somewhat ambiguous dating of the later broch tower at Howe. One other Orcadian site worthy of consideration in the light of quern dating is the Calf of Eday (Calder 1939) e constructioTh . thick-wallee th f no d roundhous thin eo s site, whicd hha substantial radial stone piers and which is normally regarded as a wheelhouse, should pre-date quere th n transition e closesTh . t Orcadian paralle r thifo ls structur wheelhousa t no s ei t ebu instead is the massive-walled roundhouse at Bu. The Calf of Eday structure would seem to parallel the simple massive-walled roundhouses towards the earlier part of the Orcadian Iron Age. Returning to the description of structural development discussed in the previous section, in the light of the quern transition evidence, the picture can be somewhat amplified. The development of simple roundhouses prior to 400 BC, as at Bu, Howe and possibly the Calf of Eday, would seefollowee b relativele mo t th y db y rapid developmen relatef o t d structuresf o , similar scale but of increasing and variable complexity as at Crosskirk, Jarlshof and Howe with the earliest clear evidence for the building of a broch tower, with all the specialized architectural techniques which that entails, coming from Gurness quer e prioth o nrt transition around 200 BC. Gurness is representative of a number of northern complex roundhouse sites which have extensive associated occupation in slighter structures surrounding and focused on the central roundhouse itself. Occupation of roundhouse sites continues well after this date into the secon d firsdan t centurie althougC B s h some suc s Jarlshoa h e clearlar f y supersedee th y db wheelhouse form. Roundhouse sites form the focus for later settlement into much later periods (even into the post-medieval period in the ) but it is important to differentiate phases of construction and primary occupation from reconstruction and second- ary use.

WESTERN QUERN EVIDENCE e situatio Th e westerth n i n n Atlantic Provinc s somewhai e t different regardine th g relation of quern types to structural form. For the reasons presented above this discussion assumes an archaeologically indistinguishable date for the quern transition across the Atlantic Provinc perioe th t ea d aroun BC0 s Caulfield20 . A d observed evidence th , r querne efo th n si western roundhouse sites shows significant differences from those of the north (Caulfield 1977). Ground-galleried complex roundhouses such as Dun Mor Vaul and Dun an Ruaigh ARMIT ATLANTIE TH : C SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVEL CHRONOLOGF SO 5 19 Y

Ruaidh have rotary quern fragments stratified in pre-roundhouse contexts at the former site and primary structural context e latteth t ra s (MacKie 197 41980)& . Such developed broch-towers were being constructed after the local quern transition and thus later than any securely dated northern example. Some western sites, which Caulfield did not consider, do show evidence of earlier construction of complex roundhouses. Dun Cuier, in , is a ground-galleried complex roundhouse which yielde a saddld e quern fro n uncleaa m r context n ThomaidDu . n i h North provide a futhes r exampl a saddl f o e e quern occurrin a re-occupie n o g d complex roundhouse site (Armit 1992). This Hebridean evidence would suggest that, as in northe th , complex roundhouses were constructe occupied dan althougC B d0 prio20 n h i o t r the west there is unambiguous evidence of construction extending into the last two cen- turie. sBC C14 dating has not yet been deployed in the west on sites likely to shed light on the earlie re Iroe sequencepartth n Ag f o s e westerTh . n equivalent , CrosskirBu f o sd kan e rest th f thei , y exist t bee, ye hav nt exploredno eo regiona tw e lTh . sequencee b y ma s focusing on different parts of the same sequence and may be complementary in developing a unified mode r developmenfo l e Atlantith n i t c Province r theindicaty o , ma y e genuine differences with an early development in the north followed by abandonment soon after the quern transition while broch architecture arrives fully developed in the west and persists longer. One initial observation of possible significance is that the best understood complex roundhouse excavation e westth t Vauln a ,i s , Ruaigh Ruaid d Flodigarryhan l al , represent structural developments on sites without apparent previous massive-walled stone buildings. e westerTh n situatio complicates ni parallee th y db l occurrenc seemingla f eo y distinct but clearly contemporary structura l e wheelhouse traditioth e for th f o m n i e n Th . distinctivenes wheelhousee th f so structuraa s a , oncs greas a wa le t s typethoughta t no s i , e th ; spatial organizatio northerthe nof n roundhouses show similasa r traditio organizatiothe nof n and divisio domestif no c space. Several Hebridean wheelhouses, those whic free-standine har g and massive-walled, seem as close to the northern roundhouse architectural tradition as to their neighbouring sand-revetted wheelhouses (Armit 1992) e definitivTh . e characteristif co the wheelhouses which sets them apart architecturally from the traditions of broch architecture e structuraith s f drystono e us l e corbelled bays, founde n drystono d e piers r roofinfo , e th g peripher e structureth f yo . Rather than simple spatial divisions e irregularl, b whic y ma h y spaced and may be formed of single set slabs, the piers of the wheelhouses form a regular radial foundation for peripheral roofing. e sit f Foshigarryo eTh , , show sequenca s f developmeno e t from aisleo dt bonded-pier wheelhouse which strikingly parallels tha t Jarlshoa t d bear an fn identica a s l relationshi locae th lo p t quer n transition firse Th t. wheelhous t Foshigarrea botd yha h saddle and rotary querns while the later two had only rotary querns (Armit 1992). The great majority of the Hebridean wheelhouses yield only rotary querns and some eg Kilpheder (Lethbridge 1952) and A'Cheardach Mhor (Young & Richardson 1960) incorporate rotary querns in their wallin werd gan e built afte quere th r n transition evidence Th . datinr efo g wheelhousee th o st period from the third to fifth centuries AD has been considered elsewhere and shown to be untenable (Armit 1992) e d combinequerTh an . n4 evidencC1 de Hebridea th r fo e n wheelhouses indicates development possibl BC0 s early30 a , s suggesteya e dateth y sdb from Hornish Point d continuinan , g constructio d occupatioan n n well aftee locath r l quern replacement horizon. | SOCIET 196 ANTIQUARIEYOF SCOTLANDSOF , 1991

LEVEL 3: ROMAN MATERIAL

The greatest impact of C14 dating in the Atlantic Scottish Iron Age has been in our understandin e earlth f ye periodg o th par f o t , whil e datine querth eth f ngo transitios ha n increase r awarenesdou f developmentso perioe e studth n Th si f dRoma . yo arounBC 0 n d20 d Roman-associatean d materia s restrictedi l y definitionb , o elucidatint , g developments towards the end of the conventional Atlantic Iron Age. Roman material was originally the only means of dating the Atlantic Scottish Iron Age so it is not surprising that the notion of a Roman period floruit bees ha resistano ns changeo t t . e type Th f Romao s n materia l e Atlantifounth n i d c Scottish e IrocomprisAg n e essentially coinage, glass and pottery, both Coarse Wares and Samian. In absolute terms the quantity is very small. An obstacle to interpretation is our lack of knowledge as to the processes by which these objects come to be on native sites outwith the areas of Roman penetration and the context of their use in native societies. No attempt has been made to analyse the types of Roman material and their contexts with a view to explaining the processes which lead to their introduction into Atlantic Scotland. Without such a model it is difficult to assess the value of Roman material as a chronological tool except insofar as such material, wher s dat it ef manufacturo e s knowni e , provide a terminuss post s associatequernit r fo d material. e dat f RomaTh eo n influenc Scottisn eo h material cultur generalls ei late th ey e helb o dt firsd seconan t d centurie wheD A s n Roman militar s heighty it strengt t a e nort s th . n hwa hi Generally Roman materia sees i l representativs na f heirloomeo r trophieso f raidso r eveso n scavenging on Roman sites. Other interpretations could be envisaged which involve gift exchange or direct trade. Roman finds have tended to be regarded as exotic curios in otherwise mundane cultural assemblages. Several of the sites dated by C14 and quern evidence have yielded Roman material. Crosskir valuabla s ki e exampl highlightinn ei presence th w gf Romaho e o n material couldn i , th sequenc4 e evidenc e absencC1 th quere e d th th ean f f eno o transition, entirely misleas du into believing that the site had been constructed in the first or second centuries AD. Several fragment f Samiao s n pottery from Crosskirk, dating fro secone mth d century AD, occu contextn i r s secondar constructioe th o yt originad nan l occupatio structuree th f no l Al . appear to belong to Period 4 possibly, but not conclusively, after a break in the occupation of the site (Fairhurst 1984, 115). A small fragment of Roman glass belongs to this same occupation material. A sherd of Castor Ware found under the turf outside the roundhouse at Crosskirk demonstrates that occupatio e sitth e n continueo n d inte fourtth o h centurD A y (Breeze 1984, 115) althoug presence hth complee th f eo x roundhous site e thi y forth eb sn mo timhavy ema e been incidental. There is no convincing evidence for a break in the occupation at Crosskirk, this belief apparently stemming from incredulity at the relatively shallow depth of stratification which had built up inside the roundhouse after several centuries of occupation. It need not cause major surprise that a society who possessed the technological ability to construct a complex roundhouse also possessed the practical sense to keep the build-up of debris on the floor to a minimum. Most of the Roman finds from Atlantic Scotland are small fragments of larger pottery or glass vessels; whilst glass may have been brought into the structures broken for re-use, unless small broken potsherds were treasured in their own right it is likely that these original Roman artefacts were useeventualld dan y broke structuree th n ni s themselves. That only smald an l ARMIT ATLANTIE TH : C SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVEL CHRONOLOGF SO 7 19 | Y

occasional fragments are found again suggests that debris was regularly removed from domestic floors. e relativelTh y well-understood sequenc t Crosskirka e , which, despit s wealtit e f o h Roman a constructio findss wa , f muco n h earlier centuries f greao s i ,t relevanca o t e reinterpretatio sequence th f no t Gurnessea previoue Th . s section propose dfoundatioa n date for the broch tower at Gurness prior to c 200 BC, a view clearly at variance with that expressed in the recent publication of the site (Hedges 1987) which favours a first century AD date on the basis of Roman period finds. This is the result of allotting primacy to the Roman material over quere th n evidence ,contradictory e althoug b neeo t tw dno e hth . To take the Roman material as evidence of a first century AD date for the foundation of the broch tower entail numbesa f difficultiesro t implieI . s thabuildere th t f thiso s structure, mose th f tsurel o architecturall e yon y advanced building periode th f so , continue large us eo dt number f saddlso e querns whic beed hha n rendered obsolete processine th r fo , f graingo n i , neighbouring Caithnes sr thre o som o e etw centurie s previously. Thi especialls si y difficulo t t sustain since they were manifestl contactn yi , however indirectly, wit Romae hth n world. The original excavator stated expressly that the saddle querns came from the lowest level werd an s e supersede rotare th sit e y yth eb formn do . Hedges notes thin i , s reinterpre- tation, that the stratigraphic basis for this interpretation is insufficient from the extant records and that all that is known is that specimens of both saddle and rotary querns were located beneath the final floor (Hedges 1987, 78). This tells us nothing of the relative stratigraphy of the two types. Nonetheless Craw's belief in the spatial separation remains, and reflects the situation which woul expectede db clearls i t i o ys , necessar examino yt reinterpretatioe eth n made some forty years afte e excavatioth r n which refute e observatioth s e excavatorth f no . This entails examining the Roman material and its contexts. The Roman material from the site comprises a glass globule and toggle, possibly made from re-used Roman glass, and fragments of a Roman amphora dated to the second century AD. Som f thieo s material derives from contexts belo e finawth l identified floo t nonbu r s ei clearly associated with primary occupation glaso tw s e fragmentTh . s were found when material whic subsided hha d int underlyine oth g welsieveds wa ll tha knowAl s .i t thas ni t they came from below the final floor; not, as Hedges states, that they came from the 'earliest' floor. It would seem likely that material subsiding into a well would be disturbed stratigraphically and likel o havt y e been deposited originally f use afte o e d wel gon t e th somi rha , lou e e considerable time after the construction of the well and thus presumably long after the primary occupation of the broch tower. e compleTh x constructions withi alse wely th no ma l datperioa o et d afte e initiath r l occupation onle Th .y convincing stratigraphic determinan Gurnese th r fo t s interior deposits si whethe givea r n find derives fro finae mth l flooe leve r beforth f o informatiorf o lI . eit n from Crosskirk had been similar, then that site too would have been interpreted as a Roman Period construction. The broch tower at Gurness was occupied well into the Roman period but this is not inconsistent with a foundation in the third or second century BC as was the case at the even earlier site of Crosskirk, this view being consistent with the presence of seven saddle querns in the site assemblage. No other northern roundhouse site has well-stratified evidence linking Roman material primaro t y occupatio r constructionno . Clickhimi Shetlann ni d yielde fragmenda Romaa f o t n colourless glass bowl from its secondary interior modification stage (Hamilton 1968, 138). This would date this re-occupation and rebuilding to the late first or second century AD. In Orkney Roman finds show continuing occupatio complef no x roundhouse secone th n si d century At Da | SOCIET 8 19 ANTIQUARIEF YO SCOTLANDF SO , 1991

sites suc s Oxroha , TafBorthwicd an t k (Hedges 1987 ) demonstrate,30 presence th y db f eo Samian Ware. A series of denarii from Lingro included at least two of Crispina dating their production to AD 180-3 (ibid 30). In the western Atlantic Province the only secure contexts for Roman material from a roundhouse site com r Vau Tireeen Mo i l fron m.Du Sherd f Antoninso e Samian Wara d ean numbe f Romaro n glass fragments combin exteno et secondare date th dth f eo y occupatiof no structure th e int secone oth d century AD. Hebridean wheelhouses have produce examplew dfe s of Roma r Romano n associated material Samiaa ; n sherd froc MhimBa c Connai Nortn ni h Uist (Beveridge recorde1930o n s )ha d contex lino t witt k i occupatio e hth wheelhouse th f no e than o t sitee fibulTh . a founaumbren a Kilphedee n di th t ya r wheelhous Soutn ei h Uisy ma t again date from the late second century AD but its context could indicate deposition at any time prior to the total infilling of the wheelhouse (Lethbridge 1952, 182). There is extensive evidence of Roman Period occupation of complex roundhouses but no r theievidencfo t r constructioye s ea Atlantin ni c Scotlan t thida s time possibls i t I . e thae th t large external settlements which were associated with many northern roundhouses became the more important elemen sitee th t thi sa n so t tim thad ean t they, rather tha roundhousese nth , were the focus for expansion. The Orcadian sites with Roman occupation tend also to be those with evidence of substantial associated external settlements, eg Gurness, Midhowe, etc. This pattern is not exclusive and in the west the typical single-structure settlements seem to have r VaulpersistedMo .n Du g e , Indications that the period of currency of broch architecture may have continued into the first century AD comes from the lowland complex roundhouses outwith Atlantic Scotland and outwit scope hth thif eo s paper (Macinnes 1984)Atlantie th n I . c Provinc evidence eth thif eo s third chronological level clarifie pattere th s lattee ndate4 th suggeste r C1 r sfo pare f th o t y db the Iron Age querd discussinn an .I n4 evidencC1 suggestes e gth wa t ei d thabroce th t h tower developed from complex roundhouses present between 400-200 BC. Sites such as Gurness would have represented early example e fullth yf o sdevelope d form, Gurness being con- structed not later than c 200-150 BC. The evidence of Roman material is compatible with this picture and extends the occupation of these structures into the second century AD although the paucity of well-defined stratigraphic contexts means that it is not possible to be sure that broch architectur s stilewa l current afte e firsth r t centur Atlantin i D yA c Scotland. e evidencTh f continuito e y inte Pictisoth h perio s ampli d y demonstrate n Orknedi y (Hedges 1987) and in the Outer Hebrides (Harding & Topping 1986; Armit 1988a) and would seem to reflect a generally continuous development of settlement into the period beyond that considere thin di s paper nexe Th . t chronologicae stagth n ei l investigatio Atlantie th f no c Iron Age will be to examine the less independently datable levels of native material culture and structural typolog e broa e lighth th f do tn y i chronolog y constructe faro ds .

LEVE : NATIVL4 E MATERIAL CULTURE Chronological patterns in the native material culture of the Atlantic Scottish Iron Age are poorly understood and a major re-evaluation of the subject is overdue. Within the scope of this paper all that can usefully be done is to assess the chronological value of current typological schemes in relation to the preceding discussion of the emerging chronology.

NATIVE POTTERY The chronological value of native pottery in the region is greatest for the early period in ARMIT ATLANTIE TH : C SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVEL CHRONOLOGF SO 9 19 | Y

the north where the scheme defined by Hamilton (1956 & 1968) and developed by Renfrew (1979) cross-datine basie th th f sn o o , stratigraphif go c sequence severan so l sites supportes i , d by recent excavation e lateth e northerr th parFo .f o t nwhole e th th sequenc r f eo fo d ean western sequenc greatee eth r variet profusiod yan f decorationo ford nan m seems paradoxi- call lesr yfa s sensitiv chronologicao et l change, although well-stratified sequences fro mseriea s of excavation Lewin so clarif y e picturesma th y . pottere earle Th th yf y o perio Northere th n di Late nth ef Isles o Bronz d , en fro e mth BC0 inte 40 Iro,e possible c formoAg th nAg o t coherena p s yu t sequence whic4 C1 h e fitth s evidence from recently excavated sites. The pottery from the sites of Bu, Quanterness and Pierowall, all occupied in the period 800-400 BC, shares common features with Village II at Jarlsho witd e firsan fhth t roundhous t Clickhiminea e undecoratedTh . , high-shoulderer dja occur t bota s f thesho e sites wit e firshth t appearanc f roundhouseseo . These jars replace the plain bucket and barrel forms of the preceding period. The Pierowall assemblage parallels the Jarlshof rim forms closely with hints of internal flanging on some rims again parallel to the Jarlshof assemblage (eg Sharpies 1984, no 21). The other Jarlshof pot form which appears dominan e catalogueth n i t d assemblage, with globular bodie d curvinan s g out-turne r everteo d d rim s alsi s o parallele t Quanternesa d Clickhimind an s . Thero n s ei indication at the C14 dated sites of the plain Late Bronze Age wares. 4 datinC1 g indicate a probabls e rang f 800-40o er thes fo C e0B forms, althouge th h weighted centroids of the dates concentrate on the second two centuries of that span. obviouThero n e ear s parallel northere th n si n assemblag pre-roundhouse th r efo e wares from Crosskirk and the early-roundhouse wares from that site show closer resemblance to the succeeding types at Clickhimin and the roundhouse period types at Jarlshof, although with significant difference n decorationi s . Thiindicaty ma s e that Crosskirk e earliesth , t dated complex roundhouse is of a period somewhat later than the Orcadian and Shetland group as evidenc4 C1 e th e suggests. Ther scarcita s ei f reliablyo e ceramic sequences fro e nortmth h after this early period, which should be remedied by the publication of the Howe assemblage. e pottere lateTh th f r yo e centurienort th n hi C containB s a greates r variet f formyo d an s decoration, although the latter is very restricted in comparison to the western pottery of the period. At present, without dated stratigraphic assemblages, it is impossible to assess the chronological significanc f thio e s traitpottere th t containsd si yan . westere Inth n Atlantic Provinc sequence eth less ei s clear pottere Th . y sequencn Du t ea Mor Vaul (MacKie 1974, 161) demonstrates the persistence of a wide range of forms and decorative motifs throughout the entire sequence of occupation from c 600 BC to c AD 300. The Vaul assemblage is one of the largest in the region and contains the vast majority of the forms and motifs curren westere th n i t n Atlantic Iron Age presence Th . absencr eo thesf eo e traitn so any western site canno takene presene b t th n i , r tknowledge statou f eo s chronologicalla , y sensitive withi perioe nth d concerned. Patrick Topping's recent wor Hebridean ko n pottery leo similat d r conclusion e nativth r efo s potter f thayo t area (Topping 1985). Correlation between west and north is virtually impossible given the poor state of our understanding of development in either area for most of the period. One of the few motifs not present at Vaul - applied roundels or bosses - was present at Flodigarry in a primary, thus probably first century BC, context. This form, however, is paralleled in the pre-roundhouse ware at Crosskirk and so again illustrates vividly the recurrence of traits over long periods. It must be concluded from current evidence that the pottery typology of the period is not chronologically significant but may instead reflect functiona d symbolian l c differences e continuitTh . f specifiyo c traits over suc htime-spaa n | SOCIET 0 20 ANTIQUARIEF YO SCOTLANDF SO , 1991

reinforce pictur4 C1 continuoua f e eo th s s progressio developmend nan culturaa f o t l group sharing a similar ideological background.

METALWORK probleme Th lengthf so y chronological survival which limi usefulnese th t pottere th f o s y sequence also apply to the remainder of the native material. A prime example is the projecting ring-headed pin, originally earldatee th yo dt centurie basie sth Af Romasn o D o n associations thoughw atno Traprait havo t bu ew beenLa n curren fifte earl s r fourta th to h s ya h century BC at Dun Mor Vaul, by its association with stamped pottery sherds (MacKie 1974, 128). With the prospect of many, conventionally late, assemblages representing long sequences it is difficult placo t e chronological significanc nativn o e e metalwork withou wide-rangina t g reviee th f wo evidence and its contexts.

GLASS chronologicae Th l valu f Romaeo n glas alreads sha y been discussed probleme Th . s with the native materia bese ar l t examine casa y ed b commo e studon f yo n type smale th : l annular yellow glass beads of Guide's Class 88 (Guido 1978, 181). The conventional dating of the type is based on two concepts: diffusion and time-lag. The beads have close parallels in south-west England, particularly at Meare which is taken to be the centre of their manufacture, and the type is dated in the south from the third to first century BC. Although the Scottish series is though havo t t e been manufacture Scotlann i d t Culbida n Sand possibld san numbea t ya f o r other locations (ibid, seriee 74)datth e r s- th firs, e fo t century B firso Ct t century base s Ai D - d on the hypothesis that the idea for the type must have originated in the south and arrived in Scotland by an unexplained process much later. The reverse direction of diffusion is not considered. However, therreasonablo n s ei e explanatio thiy s wh proces o t s na s should have taken upwards of 200 years, and it seems preferable to assume that the Scottish series is at least as early as the English series, dating from the third to first century BC. This revised dating is easier to reconcile with the Scottish occurrences of annular yellow glass beads which hav widea e chronologica contextuad an l l currency. Examples occue th n i r pre-roundhouse fort at Clickhimin which would pre-date the quern transition in that area, and at Dun Mor Vaul and as well as at the Hebridean wheelhouses of A' Cheardach Mhor and Tigh Talamhanta. All of these sites would fit easily into the period as newly defined. r morFo e specific chronological separatio typee indeend th an , beae dth d evidenc generaln ei , t helpfulino s .

LEVEL 5: STRUCTURAL TYPOLOGY This for f studmo s bee centraye ha nth l featur greae th f teo traditio f brocno h studien si mid-twentiete th h century e schemeTh . f MacKieso , Hamilto theid nan r predecessors rested extractioe th n s muco a f no h dat s possibla e fro cataloguine mth comparisod gan e th f no architectural minutiae of their rigorously defined structural forms (eg MacKie 1965, Hamilton 1968). The problem with this approach centred on the inferences drawn from structural typology. These tende o rest dn preconceive o t d hyper-diffusionist theories stretchine th g metho beyonr dfa bounde dth f legitimatso e inference. These studies were characterizea y db highly particularist approac structurao ht l typology without adequate consideratio f whano t structural variation or similarities actually mean within societies. The problems of over- ARMIT: THE ATLANTIC SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVELS OF CHRONOLOGY | 201

definition and the reductionist approach in general have been discussed in case-study form elsewhere (Armit 1988a thid )an s discussion will limitecentre th n eo d inferences e whicb n hca drawn by a cautious structural typological approach constructed with respect to the evidence of more reliable chronological indicators. While brochs were viewed as the specific development of a relatively brief period from secone th dfirse halth tf centuro f consideres y Bwa Ct i d justifiabl structurae us o et l typologo yt link large numbers of these structures to one overall historical process and to infer close chronological proximity between structures sharin e traditionallgth y defined trait f broco s h architecture. Wit extendee hth d chronology establishe mory db e reliable dating methods ha t si become apparent thachronologicae th t l tightnes f broco s h architectur s disappearedeha A . period of several centuries when the characteristic traits of broch architecture are found in varying combinations acros Atlantie sth c Scottish Provinc appearw eno s more likely. Although the broch towers may be a relatively late development within the Iron Age structural sequence stils ii t l probable that they were built ove perioa r f thredo e centurie r moreso . In terms of field survey, it is generally impossible to distinguish between simple and complex roundhouse brocd an s h towers. Collapsed masonry, stone-robbing, local environ- mental change, etc, can all contribute to the problems of assigning a site to a specific place withi a structuran l typological scheme e pase tendencth th t n I . s bee yha o assig nt n poorly preserved structures to the lowliest of the available classes. Thus, in the Western Isles, there are very large numbers of sites classified as duns which have all the superficial features to be expecte similarla f do y preserved broch tower (Armit 1988a). cellulae Th r structure Late th ef so Bronz t Jarlshoa e Clickhimi d type Ag fan th ef o d nan which cluster around northern broch towers, assignablwoule b specifit y fielde no an th o dt cn ei class or period on the basis of structural typology alone. Although this is an obvious and accepted point it appears to be far more difficult to appreciate when dealing with the roundhouses of the Iron Age; these have often been casually assigned to specific categories in a typological sequence and thence to the chronological positions dictated by that typology. Wester e dune th f Th so n prima Isle e sar e exampl f thieo s process (Armit 1985, 1988a). In an area where structural developments occur very gradually and where traits recur widel chronologicalln yi y remote periods dangerous i t i , structurae us o st l typolog meana s ya s of datin geventually sitesma t I . e possibl b ye specifi us o t ec combination f architecturao s l features ,hollow-wallee sucth s ha d buildin broce th f hgo towers givo t , terminusea post quern for a structure if that patterning can be shown to be specific to a relatively restricted period, but only when securely fixed by more reliable dating methods. To establish a structural typological sequence based on a development from simple to complex roundhouses and thence to broch towers, for example, would be to fossilize an opinion in the literature and effectively hinder objective future work.

SUMMARY SEQUENCE e earlth e yperiodn I th par f o t , broadl y4 evidenc dateC1 y b do 800-40t e th , 0BC Orcadian record is dominated by simple atlantic roundhouses such as Pierowall, Bu, Tofts Nes Quanternessd san l isolateal , d single farmhouses. Additional stratigraphic evidence from Shetland suggests that this typ f settlemeneo directls wa t y successiv cellulae th o et r houses which characterize the Late Bronze Age in the area and which share structural traits with the Orcadia Shetland nan d Neolithic houses e nativTh . e material culture particulan i , r pottery, helps to give greater definition to the C14 sequence suggesting that the development of the 202 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 1991 roundhouse havy sma e occurre perioe th n di d 600-400 BC wher weightee eth d centroide th f so calibrated date distributions cluster. dat4 C1 a FroBindicate 0 Cth 40 m c e that eac thesf ho e excavated simple roundhoused sha been abandone e structureth d dan s whic e representehar complee dar x roundhouses incor- porating feature f broco s h architecture. e Howsolth es i edate d Orcadian examplt bu e Crosskir Caithnesn ki parallela s i s . Both appea havo t r e been havenclosey d ma eha d dan ancillary outer structures. From 200 BC the C14 evidence is less helpful in the north and the second level of dating, the quern evidence, becomes more useful. This indicates that a number of broch towers occupy sites with occupation earlier tha quere nth n transition. Gurnes Orknen si prime th s yi e exampl broca f eo h tower whic s artefactuahha l evidenc r constructioefo n e locaprioth lo t r quern transition. At this period the northern broch towers appear often to be enclosed and surrounded by clustered settlements. Roman material indicates the continued occupation and importanc f theseo e settlements int earle oth y centuries AD althoug t currentlno s i t hi y possible identifo t northery an y n roundhouse likel havo yt e been buil t thia t s time e sit f Skaileo Th . l wit cellulas hit r architectur usefua s ei l reminder tha archaeologicae th t l concentratioe th n no most obvious sitey havma se greatly distorte r overalou d l impressio e developinth f o n g settlement pattern. The revised chronology brought about by the C14 evidence has highlighted the development of nucleated settlement in the and possibly in . The development, from single roundhouse earliese th n si t Iron Age followes i ,appearanc e th y db e of enclosed roundhouse settlement at Crosskirk and Howe. With the development of the broch tower large nucleated settlements appear clustered around roundhouse sites which may, t aHowea s , have developed from earlier simpler roundhouses. Against this pattern Hedges has observed a contemporary settlement form represented at Skaill where slighter structures are present (Hedges 1987). Unfortunately, the dating of this site is imprecise and it cannot be convincingly related to any specific chronological position. Exploring the complementary development of these two distinct elements of the settlement pattern must form a prime research objective in the north. The settlement patterns of the west throughout the period are currently much less well defined although current work will help establis hdatabasa e comparabl thao e t Orkneyf o t t A . present the west provides a series of comparisons and contradictions to the Orcadian record which are discussed below.

DISCUSSION A chronological framework independen f preconceiveo t d interpretations muse b t constructed, linkin time gth e dimension with aspect culturaf so l production, suc structures ha s and artefacts. Advances in methods of interpreting contexts and associations of cultural product sf littl o wil e eb l valu foundef ei schemen do s constructe previoue basie th th f so n do s generation's assumptions necessars i t I . y applicatioe prioth o interpretativrt w ne f no e models, to understand the dependence of the archaeological sequence on preceding and potentially outmoded hypotheses. The differential weighting of various forms of evidence can contribute eliminatino t g this dependency. e centraf thio Th s m papeai l bees ha rclarifo nt chronologicae yth studle basith f r yo sfo the Atlantic Scottish Iron Age. The hierarchy of dating methods is not definitive but it is explicit; future work wile morb l e e constructivequallb n ca y t i explici f i e t regardins it g ARMIT: THE ATLANTIC SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVELS OF CHRONOLOGY | 203

underlying assumptions hopes i t I . d that this will hel provido pt e criteri mora r afo e realistic evaluatio f competinno g hypotheses. picture Th e resulting from this re-evaluation indicate seriesa developmentf so s whice har of far greater complexity than they may have appeared prior to the excavations of the 1970s and 1980s. Ther littls ei e suppor unilineaa r fo t r sequenc encompaso et entire th s e aref ao Atlantic Scotland. This brief discussion will not attempt to offer an all-embracing model but simply conside re problemsomth f o e s which have become apparen e precedinth n i t g chronologica e usefulb review y isolato t l ma t I numbeea . differencee th f o r s which appear broadl distinguiso yt regione wese th e nortth f o htth d . han Difference e apparenar s : in t (a) The absence in the west of large nucleated settlements clustered around complex roundhouses. (b) The interior organization of the excavated western roundhouses which lack the consistent radial or bipartite division of the northern examples. (c) The presence and importance in parts of the west of a contemporary domestic form, the wheelhouse, which has an unclear relationship with broch architecture; the relative rarity of this form in the north is important. (d) The far greater abundance of decorated pottery in the west particularly in the early periode th par f o t . These are a few of the more immediately striking examples of the disparity between the two areas, although the west/north dichotomy may well be over-stressed; Shetland, for example, shares traits a-c with the west rather than with Orkney. The central point is that the presenc f broco e h architecture ove e wholth r e area nee t indicatdno e shared processef o s development throughout the period. The historical narrative approach, which attempts an all-embracing explanatory descriptive model, can only be a goal for the remote future. Over the years the attitude of prehistorians to brochs has encouraged ideas of uniformity of origin and development in all of the areas where broch architecture occurs. It has been considered thae uniformitth t e structureth f o y s coupled with their degref o e specialization must indicat a powerfue l cultural relationship amongst their builders. This view can be challenged. It has been usual to see structural evidence as separate from artefactual evidence. Thiconvenienca s si f classificatioeo n which enable devoto t s r su eou analytical energies to relatively restricted aspects of society at any one time, and as such it ia valuabls e conceptual division s utilityIt . , however, doe t mak no a reas t i el division i n terms of prehistoric society. When the specific structural form of the broch tower is interpreted as an artefact, we can begin to appreciate that its use and meaning could vary between cultural contexts. To use an analogy with the spread of the rotary quern, we can appreciate that the adoption of this artefact by a wide range of societies does not in any way necessitate cultural uniformity. What was adopted was a specialized artefact which utilized a specific technique f rotaro , y d whicmotion s accommodate an a give wa h d o t en ,n d withia n pre-existing cultural context. The complex roundhouse, as an artefact, utilizes the central techniqu f hollow-walleeo d constructio produco nt desiree eth d end-product high-wallea : d structure. The adoption of this technique and this structural form need not be seen a priori n indicatoaa s f culturao r l uniformity among participant groups e morTh . e restricted distributio f broco n h architecture compare e rotarth o yt d quern arises fro ma numbe f o r restrictions based on the limited geographical background of drystone building skill and the perceived social use of a product which lacks the universal applicability of the rotary quern. In such a context the variation in architecture between areas need not be surprising. The 204 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 1991

dichotomy between the open-interior roundhouses of the west and the radially partitioned roundhouses of the north may show the superficial unity of broch architecture cloaking two very different domestic forms. Complex roundhouses can be seen as one 'artefact' amongst a whole range in Atlantic Scotland and not necessarily as the one that holds the key to the formulation of models to explain the entire process of development in the area. Structural types form an important element in the cultural fabric of material forms and associations; the view of brochs as artefacts withi widena r cultural context shoultakee b t deno nt dno y their importance sheee Th . r scale of broch towers would inevitably have made them extremely powerful symbols and this could well have led to their adoption within different cultural contexts and with varying contextual meanings. Nonetheles Atlantistude e sth th f yo c Scottish Iromuse nAg t los dependencs eit n yo structural typology. The disentangling of the valuable aspects of our antiquarian and architectural/historical inheritance fro cluttee mth f prejudico r unfounded ean d assumptios ni an essential step toward propesa r re-evaluatio Atlantie th f no c Iron Age.

APPENDIX

C14 DATES FOR THE ATLANTIC SCOTTISH IRON AGE

The following section lists the sites from which the dates in illus 2, 3 & 4 are derived. Bot datee hth s usethosd listede dan ar reasone t lefTh . ou tthir sfo s selectio discussee nar d and it must be made explicit that an element of subjective interpretation cannot be excised from the use of C14 dates; indeed it is inherent from the initial stage of sample gathering and selection on-site. Some sites have been excluded wher et relat dateno Iroe o o et s d nAg activity (as at ) or where full data are unavailable (as for the Udal wheelhouse). The sites are discussed from north to south within three subdivisions of the Atlantic Province e Northerth : n IsleNortd an s h Mainland e Outeth ; r Hebridese th d an ; West Coast and Inner Isles. The following tables list the dates from each site first in their uncalibrated form with laboratory reference numbe a not n sitd o ee an r context e dateTh . s use n thii d s paper, however, are calibrated using the micro-computer package CALND which uses the high- precision dendrochronological data of Stuiver & Pearson (1986) and the calibration procedure of Robinson (1984). Each calibrated dat s presentei e d a Weighteher s a e d Averager o , centroid, of the calibrated distribution (the range of possible dates) with a note of the upper and lowe confidenc% 68 r e limits.

Refb La : Laboratory reference number Context: Sample context within site Uncal: Uncalibrated date with standard deviation WA: Weighted average (centroid) after calibration 68% H: 68% confidence upper (oldest) limit confidenc% 68 : L e lowe% 68 r (youngest) limit ARMIT ATLANTIE TH : C SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVEL CHRONOLOGF SO Y 205

NORTHERN ISLES & NORTH MAINLAND (illus 2)

PIEROWALL QUARRY. ORKNEY (Sharpies 1984) Laf bRe ContexL % 68 t H % 68 A W Uncal

GU-1580 Occupation immediately 560±80 be 657 BC 804 BC 470 BC preceding roundhouse GU-1581 Contemporary occupation 475±60 be 511 BC 681 BC 416 BC to roundhouse

Thes dateso etw , derived from animal bone, have both been include illun di . GU-158s2 0 is a terminus post quern for the roundhouse construction while GU-1581 is derived from contemporary occupation debris (Sharpies 1984, 89). The 68% confidence levels cover almost 400 calendar years from 804 to 416 BC. The spread of potential dates matches almost exactly those from the occupation material at Bu and Quanterness. OUANTERNESS, ORKNEY (Renfrew 1979) Lab Ref Context Uncal WA 68% H 68% L

Q-1465 Primary occupatioC B 9 63 n C B 8 82 620±8 C B 8 573 be Q-1464 Primary occupation 490±85 be 545 BC 759 BC 414 BC Q-1463 Secondary occupation 180±60 be 186 BC 323 BC 98 BC

These dates taken from soil ric organin hi c material (Renfrew 1974 ) combin,72 suggeso et t primary roundhouse occupation between 800-400 BC. This is not as desperate a situation as it ma t firsconfidencya % t 95 appea e th s ea r level f thest exten so dateo no etw e rango sd th e significantly beyond 900-40 Secondar. 0BC y occupation appear o havt s e been substantially later possibly as late as the third or second century BC.

HOWE, STROMNESS, ORKNEY (Carte t ale r 1984) Lab Ref Context Uncal WA 68% H 68% L

GU-1760 Phase 3 silt in well 455±75 be 489 BC 670 BC 407 BC GU-1804 Phas middee3 C B 5 n41 C B 6 66 470±5 C B 0 550 be GU-1805 Phas settlemene4 C B 1 37 t flooC B r1 42 355±6C B 0 038 be GU-1799 Phase 5 skeleton in 430±50 be 439 BC 487 BC 406 BC roundhouse drain GU-1789 Phase 5 rampart const. 455±70 be 486 BC 656 BC 409 BC GU-1759 Phase 5/6 ditch fill adlO±60 AD 48 25 BC AD 113 GU-1758 Phase 5/6 east rampart 305±95 be 329 BC 415 BC 220 BC GU-1750 Phase 7 end of main 120±50 be 103 BC 177 BC 64 BC broch village 3 GU-17811 D A 8 C B 5 Phas earle7 4 5 yd 15±5D a burninA 5 n gi broch tower GU-1786 Phase 7 late burning 25±55 be AD 9 86 BC AD 59 206 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 1991

Excluded Dates GU-1787 Phase 7 workshop floor ad 280±65 AD 371 AD 265 AD 421 Pictis3 + h settlement dates e dateTh s from Howe provid a ereasonabl e degre f internao e l % consistenc68 e th t a y confidenc e publisheth e f o level l dAl . dates have been include illun di excep2 s r thosfo t e relatin post-broce Phaso gt th , e8 h tower 'Pictish' occupatio frod nan m late Phas , these7 e being outwit perioe hth d under discussio thin ni s paper. Although structure t identifiablno e sar e until Phas wite 5 constructio e hth earle th yf no roundhouse, hearths, paving, etc in Phase 4 indicate earlier structures of indeterminate form (Carte t ale r 1984, 64) e late.Th r dates fro e site ambiguousmth ear e absencth n i , f fuleo l publication of their contexts; the Phase 7 occupation appears to cover a long chronological span including broch tower and ancillary structure occupation.

BU,ORKNEY (Hedges 1987) Lab Ref Context Uncal WA 68% H 68% L

GU-1228 Primary occupation 520±95 be 593 BC 797 BC 419 BC GU-1154 Primary occupation 510±80 be 576 BC 783 BC 420 BC GU-1152 Bas f infileo C B l 8 41 C B 5 70 490±6 C B 9 553 be GU-1153 Earth-housC eB occupatio2 62 C B n 9 80 595±6 C B 7 5 71 be

Al datee l fouth f sro fro havu mB e been include firse illun dTh ti . thres2 e listed provide strong evidenc r occupatioefo e roundhousth f no t somea e perioe BC0 timth 40 .n ei d o t fro0 m80 date Th e fro earth-house mth e occupation, clearly later tha othere nth stratigraphin so c grounds s superficialli , f sequenco t ou y e wit e others th hs wort i t I . h notin% g95 thae th t confidence levels r GU-151fo 3 exten B9 C43 indicatindo t fro 9 m83 g tha implausibls it t y early leveartificiall% y 68 ma l datine th t yga stres s irregularitsit y when compared with stratigra- phically later dates. Nevertheless this doee s th indicat f o e a neeeus r cautioe dfo th n i n percentage confidence levels.

SKAILL, ORNKEY (Gelling 1985) Lab Ref Context Uncal WA 68% H 68% L

Birm-413 Iroe occupationC Ag B 9 12 n C B 9 40 260±120b C B 6 27 c Birm-397 Iroe occupatioC nAg B 4 n C B 3 33 150±110b C B 6 14 c Birm-768 5 D 4A C B Primar5 17 0 y ±107 C Iron/DarB 07 4 b ee kAg t full Iroe site ye yt t Skail eTh a npublisheAg no s i l thesd dan e dat takee aar n fro interin ma m report (Gellin Renfren gi w (ed) 1985, 176-82) e verTh .y wide standard deviation f thesso e dates in their uncalibrated state mean that occupation may have taken place in the last five-four centurie. sBC ARMIT: THE ATLANTIC SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVELS OF CHRONOLOGY 207

CROSSKIRK, CAITHNESS (Fairhurst 1984)

Laf bRe ContexL % 68 t H % 68 A W Uncal

SRR-266 Primary floor const. 430±50 be 439 BC 487 BC 406 BC SRR-272 Broch occupatioC B 8 1 n C B 0 15 100±5 C B 8 07 be SRR-271 Enc floo1 . C rB (broc4 h C phaseB 3 )21 120±8C B 7 010 be SRR-270 Enc (broc1 . h phaseB0 C2 ) C B 7 31 150±100b C B 6 14 c SRR-268 Enc. 3a hearth 170±50 be 172 BC 262 BC 97 BC 5 20 D A 2 3 D A SRR-26 7 11 7 70±7d D a A 0 Late hearth SRR-269 Enc. 7 820±100bc 944 BC 1064 BC 834 BC

The dates from Crosskirk give another coherent sequence, all from charcoal samples except for dates SRR-266 (organic detritus) and SRR-270 (bone protein) (Fairhurst 1984, 164-5). All includee ar dismissae illun dTh i . s2 datf o l e SRR-26 excavatoe th y 6b beins ra g representative oconstructioa f beins it o gt regardee n du earl o dats to eys wa d a (ibid, 165); therotheo n s ei r justification give sinc d t inconsisten date nan no e th s ei t wit othee hth r dates from thi r otheso r siteacceptes i t si d herreliabla s ea e indicato constructioe th f o r n phase. Dates SRR-270, 271, 272, and 268 derive from contexts deposited during the occupation e structuroth f t post-datinbu e e primargth y occupation while SRR-26 s fro 7i e lates mth t reorganization of the roundhouse interior. All of these dates give a plausible dating of the occupation sequence. The very early date, SRR-269, comes from a structure of unclear type whicd an stratigraphicalls hi y ambiguous.

UPPER SUISGILL. SUTHERLAND (Barclay 1985) LabRef ContexL 68% t H 68% WA Uncal

GU-1491 Perio I dV C B 6 19 B6 C39 255±6 C B 0 528 be

Excluded Dates

GU-1492 Structure la 825±105 be 951 BC 1073 BC 834 BC GU-1490 Structure Ib 885±90 be 1021 BC 1161 BC 911 BC GU-1493 Period III bank debris 990±60 be 1167 BC 1287 BC 1069 BC GU-1326 Period V 630±60 be 763 BC 823 BC 681 BC

The majority of the dates have been excluded from illus 2 owing to their lack of association with well-defined structural units. The one date which is included relates to the latest phase on site th e whe souterraine nth s wer usen ei . 208 SOCIET ANTIQUARIEF YO SCOTLANDF SO , 1991

KILPHEDIR, SUTHERLAND (Fairhurst & Taylor 1971) f Re b La Context Uncal WA L % 68 H

GU-299 Hut Circle Occupation 420±40 be 422 BC 438 BC 406 BC GU-10 Abandonment ad 42 ±60 AD 84 AD 18 AD 128 GU-11 Abandonment 114+55 be 96 BCC B 6 17 32 BC GU-67 Abandonment ad 28 ±60 AD 68 AD 9 AD 122 L-1061 Abandonment 150+80 be 146 BC B 6 27 69 BC SRR-3 Abandonment 150±50 bC eB 3 14 214 BC 83 BC Al f theso l e e firsdate th e include tt sar deriv bu l illun Al edi . fro2 s msingla e sample taken from charcoal deposited after the abandonment of the final roundhouse on the site.

TOR A CHORCAIN, LANGWELL (Nisbet 1974) f Re b La Context Uncal WAL % 68 68 %H

GaK-4860 Primary posthole 230±90 be 245 BC 395 BC 128 BC GaK-4862 Foundatio f inneno r wall 350±90 be 375 BC 426 BC 278 BC GaK-4861 Fallen roof timber? 310±100 be 334 BC 418 BC 220 BC

This sits neveeha r been fully publishe contexte t entirel th datee no d th e f dan sar ys o clear. The associatee yb seeo t l mal d wit constructioe hth vitrifiea f n o buil n ddu t ove hillforra t a s a t Lagaidhn Du e roundhousTh . e incorporate dnumbea featuree th f o rf broc o s h architecture including a guard cell and was of characteristic broch size and shape but from the vitrification must have incorporated timbers in its construction.

WEST COAS INNET& R ISLES (illu) 3 s DUN LAGAIDH (MacKie 1975) Laf bRe Context Uncal WA 68% H 68% L

GaK-1121 Construction of hillfort 490±80 be 544 BC 750 BC 415 BC GaK-2492 Destructio f hillforno t 460±100bc 507 BC 704 BC 402 BC

Excluded Dates GaK-1948 ground Ol d surface 880±90 be 1014 BC 1151 BC 906 BC GaK-1947 Medieval reoccupation ad 840 ±90 1 AD92 2 AD78 AD 990

The two dates incorporated in illus 3 relate to the hillfort which was built over by a roundhouse (the excavator refers to the site as a dun because it lacks unambiguous evidence of superimposed mural galleries; this type of structural typology has been argued against in this paper and elsewhere, eg Armit 1988). The roundhouse itself is not dated by C14 as GaK-1947 relates to medieval reoccupation. Dun Lagaidh in its initial hillfort period is more closely relate structurao dt l developments outsid maie eth n are Atlantif ao c Scotlan consideres da n di this survey. ARMIT ATLANTIE TH : C SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVEL CHRONOLOGF SO 9 20 Y

DU RUAIGN NA H RUAIDH (MacKie 1980) Lab Ref Context Uncal WA 68% H 68% L

GU-1365 Pre-broch turf-Phi 135±80 be 126 BC 234 BC 26 BC GU-1366 Pesthole -Phi 275±80 be 299 BC 404 BC 206 BC GU-1368 Pesthole -Phi 1±65 be AD 36 73 BC AD 101 GaK-2493 Posthole -Phi 580±80 be 687 BC 809 BC 527 BC GU-1367 9 5 D A heartn o Lat 2 C hePh B 1 9 30±63 D A 0 be GaK-2496 Lat 2 floo2 ePh 12 r D A C B 9 9 10±10 5 2 D 0A be Excluded Dates GaK-2495 Late Ph4 1020±90 be 121 C 1136B C 7107B C 0B C B 3 97 C B 9 75 C B 790±8d a 5 86 0 GaK-249 6 GallerPh y 4 Gak-2497 Pre-broch 970±110bc 119 C 5137B C 6B 102 C 9B

e dateTh s from this site presen erratin a t c series which requires detailed consideratiod nan cautious useoriginae Th . l excavation report doe t adequatelsno y analyse these date used san s the argumo variett a r efo f possiblyo e hypotheses. problematie Th c date those sar e which derive from constructio primard nan y occupation contexts; the first four listed. The only dates which are out of sequence are those deriving from charcoal from Phase 1 pestholes. The use of old timbers in construction could easily account for apparent anomalies and in this instance only the youngest date is of real value; each of these dates represents a terminus post quern for occupation so clearly the youngest is the most archaeologically useful and indeed the only useful one which dates the phase of activity. GU-1368 is the most important date, representing the infill of the pestholes during the primary occupation period. This date confidencrange% 68 e sth fro t a Be 3 m ACo 7 1 levet D 10 l wit hweightea d centroi extrems It f A d. o D oldes% 36 unlikels i e95 t i tB8 limio Cs 10 ys i ttha t the charcoa deposites wa l d before that dat thud ean s tha pestholee thith ty b se us sf weno t tou date. MacKie's claim that radiocarbon dates show thastructure th t thire buils th r do en wa i t second centuries be appears to be contradicted by this evidence. The statistically most likely date for the filling of the postholes (prior to the completion of the primary pebble floor of the roundhouse) is the weighted centroid of the calibration for GU-1368, ie AD 36. This datin consistens gi t wit date hth e GU-136 pre-structurae th r 5fo l turf-lin r whicefo h the weighte Thi. d sBC centroi dat6 anothes 12 ei s di r terminus post e structura quernth r fo l activity on the site. The two dates for Phase 2 suggest continuing occupation on the site in the first centur. yAD

DUN FLODIGARRY, SKYE (MartleW 1985) Lab Ref Context Uncal WA 68% H 68% L

GU-1662 Immediatel3 5 yD A post-const C B 0 . 10 45±6C B 4 1 5 be

The single date from Flodigarry relates to a structure which has been convincingly interpreted as an unfinished broch of ground-galleried type and relatively massive proportions (Martlew 1985) derives i t I . d from corylus charcoal deposited soon afte constructioe th r broce th f hno wall. The usefulness of a single date is severely limited. | SOCIET 0 21 ANTIQUARIEF YO SCOTLANDF SO , 1991

DUN ARDTRECK, SKYE (MacKie 1974)

Laf bRe ContexL % 68 t H % 68 A W Uncal

Gx-1120 Construction 55±105 be 29 BC 160 BC AD 68

The single C14 date from this structure is rendered almost useless by the wide dating range which extends rapidly after the 68% confidence level. At 90% confidence it spans seven centuries between 500 BC and AD 200.

DUN MOR VAUL, TiREE (MacKie 1974)

Laf bRe ContexL % 68 t H % 68 A W Uncal

GaK-1092 Phase IA under midden 400±110bc 424 BC 592 BC 359 BC f Phaso GaK-109d e En I A- grai 8 n B0 C445±9 40 B4 C 67 B3 0C48 be GaK-1225 Phase I B- anima l bonC B e2 18 B9 C40 280±100b C B 1 30 c GaK-1096 Phase 2s gallery floor 1195±90 be 142 C 9151B C 9134B C 3B GaK-1097 4 21 D PhasA e 2s1 1 gallerD A y 6 chambe10 60±9d D a A r0 GaK-1521 Phas - topsoi e4 l B0 C290±822 B7 C 40 B6 0C 31 be GaK-1096 33 D A 9 1 11 PhasD A galler5 e 6 160±9d 22 ya rubblD A 0 e

Excluded Dates

8 74 D A 0 39 D A 490±20d a 6 GaK-15257 D A 0 0 Norse 101D A 2 5 67 D A 80d a 1 5Gx-34288 ±15D A 5 6 Burial

All but two of the C14 dates from the site are included in illus 3. GaK-1520 and Gx-3426 are both from much later re-use relationshie Th . p betwee remainine nth structurge dateth d san s ei unclear and MacKie's interpretation is based on the assumption that the floor level which he identifie originae th s dwa l one. MacKie postulated thae firsth t t three dates relate o pre-roundhoust d e occupation although the sections and plans do not support this and the absence of convincing structures associated with phase sId BIA an mean s tha cannoe tw possibilite tth rul t eou y that those levels were the primary roundhouse occupation levels (MacKie 1974, 92). MacKie's failure to consider this possibility appear derivo t s e fro belies mhi f tharoundhouse th t e would havd eha a level floor while the early deposits lie deep in a cleft; evidence from many other roundhouse sites does not warrant this assumption. An alternative and opposite view suggests that MacKie's floor levels were construction level tha d secondars san hi t y occupatio facn i s t nwa primary occupation (Nieke 1984, 172). The excavation report does not permit one to choose between these hypotheses with any confidence. ARMIT: THE ATLANTIC SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVELS OF CHRONOLOGY | 211

OUTER HEBRIDES (illus 4)

DUN BHARABHAT. LEWIS (Harding & Dixon pers comm) Lab Ref Context Uncal WA 68% H 68% L

GU-2434 Secondar3 y3 OccupatioD A C B n1 10 C 60±5B 1 3 0 be GU-2435 SecondaryC B Occupatio 3 8 C nB 4 21 150±5C B 3 014 be GU-2436 Material undeC B 1 r 67 foundatio C B 7 n 80 600±5 C B 3 073 be

These dates derive from the interior occupation of the complex roundhouse on Dun Bharabhat, with GU-2436 providing a terminus post quern for construction and the remaining two dates providin gterminusa ante primare quernth r fo y occupatio partiad nan l collapsf eo the structure.

EILEAN OLABHAT. NORTH LUST (Armit 1986 & 1988b) Lab Ref Context Uncal WA 68% H 68% L

GU-2326 Phas 3 e3 3 D A C B 1 10 C 60±5B 1 03 be GU-2327 Phase 3b ad 150±50 AD 214 AD 124 AD 273

Dates obtained since this pape writtes rwa n suggest tha Eileae tth n Olabhat charcoa bees lha n contaminated through being burnt with peat. These dates cannot therefor e considereb e d reliable.

BALESHARE. NORTH LUST (Barber forthcoming) Laf bRe ContexL % 68 t H % 68 A W Uncal

GU-1962 Buria - lpro b contaminated B 2 C205±5 14 B2 C34 B2 C022 be GU-1964 Sand after structures 160±80 be 159 BC 303 BC 75 BC GU-1972 Dumped material 135±50 be 122 BC 189 BC 75 BC GU-1968 Sand sealing quern 95±50 be 72 BC 140 BC 11 BC GU-1975 Dumped deposits 107±50 be 86 BC 181 BC 28 BC

Excluded Dates GU-1960 Midden under quern/walls 290±55 be 321 BC 403 BC 238 BC GU-1974 Cultivated deposit 260±50 be 288 BC 393 BC 219 BC GU-1970 Midden 315±50 be 348 BC 407 BC 274 BC GU-1961 Cultivated deposit 440±55 be 455 BC 526 BC 409 BC GU-1963 Midden C B 3 40 C B 6 48 425±5 C B 8 543 be DateA LB s6 +

The extensive Hebridean machair site at Baleshare was partially excavated in 1984 by the Scottish Central Excavation Unit as part of a wider programme of rescue excavation which also included wor t Horniska h Point (Barber forthcoming) excavatioe Th . n reveale dnumbea r 2 21 SOCIET ANTIQUARIEF YO SCOTLANDF SO , 1991

of fragmentary structures none of which can be linked conclusively with specific structural forms e importancTh . e datinth f f thieo go presene s th sit n ei t contex presence th s i a t f eo rotary quern stone re-used in the walling of a partially excavated drystone structure. Dates GU-1962, GU-1964 and GU-1968 all seal the quern fragment and dates GU-1972 and GU-1975 are contemporary or later. The other dates all derive from contexts pre-dating th ethue querar sd excludenan d fro me date illuTh . ss 4 combin suggeso et abandonmene th t t structure oth f e e mid-latprioth o t r e second century BC wit e weightehth d centroide th f o s calibrated dates concentrating around this period. This represent e abandonmenth s a f o t structure which was itself built after the breakage and re-use of a rotary quern. Rotary querns in the Outer Hebrides must have been in use before the contexts dated here were formed. Evetake vere w ef th ni y latesconfidenc% 68 t e partth f eso level thesr sfo e five date stils i t sli very probable that this structur abandones ewa late th e n dseconi d century BC. A date for the local 'quern transition' at around 200 BC or earlier would seem to be the implication of these dates. These dates were derived from marine shell and may be somewhat too old. They are soon to be calibrated by a series of charcoal dates from the same contexts.

HORNISH POINT, (Barber forthcoming) Laf bRe ContexL % 68 t H % 68 A W Uncal

GU-2015 Midden above structures 230±50 be 253 BC 358 BC 181 BC GU-2024 DumpeC B 0 17 d deposit C B 2 s35 ove. 220±5 Wh rC B 1 024 be GU-2025 Dumped deposits over Wh. 335±50 be 367 BC 410 BC 295 BC GU-2028 Structur - contemp e7 . Wh. B?4 C320±5 27 B7 C 40 B3 C035 be GU-2026 Structure 7 - contemp. Wh.? 235±50 be 259 BC 362 BC 187 BC GU-2017 Sand - Structures contemp? 385±50 be 402 BC 426 BC 395 BC walv GU-202 Re - lStructure C 2 B 1 s 39 B0 C 42 B6 C 38 36b0 e0 ±5 contemp? GU-2021 Cultivation - Structures 375±50 be 395 BC 424 BC 393 BC contemp? GU-2027 Cultivation under Wh. 420±50 be 429 BC 474 BC 402 BC GU-2020 CultivatioC nB unde 1 52 r sit C e B 2 79 550+5 C B 0 065 be

Hornish Point is another Hebridean machair site excavated in the Central Excavation Unit's rescue programme in 1984 (Barber forthcoming). The dates form a coherent series and are all from reliable contexts linke seriea o d t structuref so s whch includ t leas o ea certaie tw on t d nan probable wheelhouses. The last two dates, GU-2027 and 2020, indicate that the structural sequence bega e are r cultivatioth afo nf o afte late e th us er n nfifti h centure probleTh . yBC m wit e datehth t Balesharethats a i s s a , , they derive from marin therefory ema sheld e an b el slightly older than they appear e sequencTh . shortls ei calibratee b o yt charcoay db l dates. preliminare Th y stratigraphic matrisite th e r showxfo s tha vere th t y tight cluste f datero s GU-2017, 202 2022d 1likele contemporare an b ar , o yt y wit occupatioe hth f Structureno 1 s an , botd2 f whicho h hav characteristie eth c radial piers associated with wheelhouses (Barber pers comm). This would date the structures with a high degree of probability to between 430 and 390 BC. The best preserved wheelhouse, Structure 5, is not dated directly but is post-dated by GU-2014, 202 202d 4an 5 which together suggest abandonmen arouny b t BC0 datee d30 .Th s ARMIT: THE ATLANTIC SCOTTISH IRON AGE: FIVE LEVELS OF CHRONOLOGY 213

for the fragmentary Structure 7, which is stratigraphically parallel to Structure 5, are not inconsistent with this dating. The whole structure sequence of wheelhouses and associated structures would appear to occur from approximately 430 BC until 300 BC at the latest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is grateful to Mr John Barber (AOC (Scotland) Ltd) for making available the date4 C1 s fro excavations mhi t Balesharsa Hornisd ean h Poin advancn i t f publicationeo r M . Steve s DockrilBeverleM d an ly Smith also provided unpublished informatioe th n o n excavation t Toftsa Howe s th Nes d e san respectively RalstoM B Professod I nan r D .W D r Harding read preliminary drafts of this paper and their advice has been gratefully received. Illustratio prepares wa n1 Martiy db n remainine Wilsoth d nan g illustration Alay sb n Braby.

AUTHOR'S NOTE The text of this paper was prepared in 1988. Subsequent development of some of the arguments can be found in Armit (1990b).

REFERENCES Armit I , 1985 Later Prehistoric Defensive Structures f Lewiso d Harrisan unpublishe DisserA M d - tation, Dep f Archaeologyo t , Uni f Edinburghvo . Armit I , 1986 Excavations t Locha Olabhat, North Uist, 1986, t Interim1s Report Dep f Archaeoo t - logy, Uni f Edinburghvo , Edinburgh, Project Pape. 5 o n r Armit I , 1988a 'Broch Landscape Westere th n si n Isles', Scott Archaeol Rev, (1988)5 , 78-86. Armit, I 1988b Excavations at Loch Olabhat, North Uist, 1988, 3rd Interim Report Dept of Archaeology, Univ of Edinburgh, Project Paper no 10. Armit I , 1990 'Broch-Buildin Northern gi n Scotland Contexe th : Innovation'f o t , World Archaeol,1 2 (1989-90), 435-45. Armit; I (ed) 1990b Beyond the Brocks: the Later Iron Age in Atlantic Scotland. Edinburgh. Armit I , 199 Latere 2Th e Westernth f o Isles f Scotland.o Oxford. (=BAR Brit221)r Se . Barber J , forthcoming Western Isles Excavations. Barclay J 198G , 5 'Excavation t Uppea s r Suisgill, Sutherland', Proc c AntiqSo Scot, (1985)5 11 , 159-98. Beveridge E , 1930 'Excavatio Eartn a f no h Hous t Foshigarrea Fort a Thomaidh n d yDu ,an Nortn i , h Uist', Proc Antiqc So Scot, (1929-30)5 6 , 299-357. Beveridge E , 1931 'Earth House t Garrsa y lochdrac Mhic Ba c d Connaihan Nortn ni h Uist', Procc So Antiq Scot, 66 (1930-1), 32-67. Breeze D 198, 4 'A Potsher f Castoo d r Ware from Crosskirk n Fairhursti ' , ExcavationsH , t a Crosskirk, Caithness. Edinburgh. Calder, C 1939 'Excavations of Iron Age Dwellings on the Calf of Eday, Orkney', Proc Soc Antiq Scot, (1938-9)3 7 , 167-85. Carter , HaighSmithP & S J ,, NeilR B D ,198 N , 4 'Interim ReporStructuree th n o t t Howea s , Stromness, Orkney', Glasgow Archaeol J', 11 (1984), 61-73. Caulfield S ,197 7 'Quern Replacemen Origie th d f Brochs'no an t , Proc Antiqc So Scot, (1977)9 10 , 129-39. Childe, V G 1935 The Prehistory of Scotland. Edinburgh. Fairhurst H ,198 4 Excavations t Crosskirka Broch, Caithness. Edinburgh c AntiSo q= ( Sco. t Monograp. h3) Fairhurst, H & Taylor, D B 1971 'A Hut-Circle Settlement at Kilphedir, Sutherland' Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 103 (1971), 65-99. | SOCIET 4 21 ANTIQUARIEF YO SCOTLANDF SO , 1991

Gelling, P 1985 'Excavations at Skaill, Deerness', in Renfrew, A C (ed), The Prehistory of Orkney. Edinburgh, 176-82. Guido, C M 1978 The Glass Beads of the Prehistoric and Roman Period in Great Britain and Ireland. London. Hamilton, J R C 1956 Excavations at Jarlshof. Edinburgh. Hamilton, J R C 1968 Excavations at Clickhimin. Edinburgh. Harding W 198 D , 4 'The Functio Classificatiod nan Brochf no Dunsd san Miketn i ' Burgess& R , C , (eds), Between beyondd an walls,e th Edinburgh, 206-20. Harding, D W & Topping, P G 1986 Callanish Archaeological Research Centre, 1st Report. Edinburgh. Hedges W 198 J , 7 Bu, GurnessBrochse th d f Orkneyo an 1-3. Oxford. (=BAR Brit Ser, 163-5). Lethbridge, T C 1952 'Excavations at Kilpheder, South Uist, and the Problem of Brochs and Wheelhouses', Proc Prehist Soc, 18 (1952), 176-93. Macartney, E 1984 'Analysis of Faunal Material' in Fairhurst, H, Excavations at Crosskirk, Caith- ness, Edinburgh, 133-47. (= Soc Antiq Scot Monograph 3). Macinnes L , 1984 'BrochRomae th d nan s Occupatio f Lowlanno d Scotland', Proc Antiqc So Scot, 114 (1984), 235-50. MacKie 196W e E Origi, 5 Th Developmend nan Broce Wheelhouseth d f hto an Building Culturef so the Scottish Iron Age', Proc Prehist Soc, 30 (1965), 93-146. MacKie W 197 E , 1 'English Migrant Scottisd san h Brochs' Glasgow Archaeol (1971)2 , J , 39-71. MacKie, E W 1974 Dun Mor Vaul: an Iron Age broch on Tiree. Glasgow. MacKie W 197 e E Vitrifie, 5Th d Fort f Scotland'o s Hardingn i , (ed)W D ,, Hillforts, London, 205-36. MacKie, E W 1980 'Dun an Ruaigh Ruaidh, Loch Broom, Ross and Cromarty', Glasgow ArchaeolJ, (1980)1 , 32-79. MacKie W 198 E , 3 Testing Hypotheses about Brochs', Scott Archaeol (1983)2 v Re , 117-28. Nieke M ,198 4 Settlement Patterns Atlantice th n i Province t Millennium f Scotland1s o e a th : n i AD Study of Argyll. Unpublished PhD thesis, Univ. of Glasgow. Nisbet, H C 1974 'Langwell, Tor a'Chorcain', Discovery Excav Scot (1974), 59-60. Piggott, S 1955 The Archaeological Background' in Rivet, A L F (ed), The Problem of the , London, 54-65. Renfrew C 197 A , 9 Investigations Orkney.n i London. Renfrew (ed)C ,A , Prehistorye 198Th 5 f Orkney.o Edinburgh. Robinson W 198 S , 6ComputationalA Procedure Utilizatione th r fo of High-Precision Radiocarbon Calibration Curves Open-File Report DeptS U , f Interioo . r Geological Survey. Sharpies M 198 N , 4 'Excavation t Pierowalsa l Quarry, , Orkney', Proc Antiqc So Scot,4 11 (1984), 75-126. Stuiver Pearson& M ,W 198 G , 6 'High-Precision Calibratio e Radiocarboth f no n Time-ScalD A e 1950-500 BC', Radiocarbon, 28, no 2e, 805-39. Topping G 198 P , 5 Later Prehistoric PotteryWesterne th f o Isles. Unpublishe thesisD dPh , Unif vo Edinburgh. Young A ,195 6 'Excavation Cuiern Du t ,sa Isl Barraf eo , Outer Hebrides', Proc Antiqc So Scot,9 8 (1955-6), 290-328. Young, A & Richardson, K M 1960 'A'Cheardhach Mhor, Drimore, South Uist', Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 93 (1959-60), 135-73.