Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 21 April 2009 Version of attached le: Published Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Church, M. J. and Burgess, C. P. G. (2003) 'Assessment survey : Lewis.', in Coastal erosion and archaeology in Scotland. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland, pp. 55-64. Further information on publisher's website: Publisher's copyright statement: Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND EROSION IN SCOTLAND II. ASSESSMENT SURVEYS 35 COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND EROSION IN SCOTLAND 36 COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND EROSION IN SCOTLAND 5 ASSESSMENT SURVEY: SHETLAND GRAEME WILSON Introduction activity has been intermittent and has had varying aims, from academic enquiry to rescue excavation. It is no Coastal zone assessment surveys have been undertaken surprise, however, that the little work that has been in Shetland over four seasons by EASE Archaeology. done should have such relevance for the whole of Surveys have been undertaken on Mainland, Westside, Scotland. The multi-phase settlement site at Jarlshof in Northmavine, Lunna, South Mainland and on the South Mainland (outwith the survey area) remains one islands of Whalsay, East Burra, West Burra and of the most important type sites in addressing Trondra (Figure 5.1) (Moore & Wilson 1998a; 1998b; settlement change through time in Atlantic Scotland. 1999). The areas surveyed were chosen in consultation Clickhimin (Hamilton 1968) and Scalloway (Sharples with the Shetland archaeologist, Val Turner, and the 1998) brochs are two of the very few which have been projects were entirely funded by Historic Scotland. The completely excavated and published. surveys were carried out in accordance with guidelines provided by Historic Scotland (see Ashmore 1994; One of the earliest and most important large-scale Historic Scotland 1996). As it is difficult to condense bodies of work is the Royal Commission Inventory the large body of information generated by these (RCAHMS 1946) which covered the whole of Shetland surveys within the space available, this discussion is and has provided a basic data set, against which all unavoidably brief. subsequent survey can be compared. The next significant phase of activity was carried out by C S T In general, the Shetland landscape can be characterised Calder during the 1950s and 1960s. Calder recognised as rugged and hilly with small well-defined areas of that the 1946 survey was incomplete and attempted to good land. Within the survey area, the nature of the correct this through a combination of excavation and landscape varies greatly. South Mainland contains further survey, much of which took place either within much of the richest, low-lying land surveyed and the area of this survey or nearby (see Calder 1958; Northmavine much of the poorest, yet each has pockets 1963). of land representing all types encountered. Calder's work demonstrated the huge potential of At present, much of the land is given over to sheep. Shetland archaeology, particularly for the study of very Very little arable was encountered during the course of early settlement. However, there has, with only one survey, even in those areas where it was deemed likely exception (Whittle 1986), been no attempt to expand that crops could be grown. It was quite common to upon this. The most recent work has tended to be encounter land which had apparently been cultivated in rescue orientated and has, with few exceptions (eg the recent past but which was now poorly tended and Hedges 1986), lain outwith the area of this survey. The waterlogged and declining into moorland (Stapf in results, however, have informed this work. Moore & Wilson 1998a). Habitations have either contracted towards the towns or moved inland towards the modern roads. There are numerous reasons for Analysis these recent changes in land use. However, the effect is that the landscape is for the most part deserted and free Introduction of modern 'clutter'. This, together with the history of past land use, makes Shetland an ideal place to carry In all, some 846 'sites' were encountered during survey. out this kind of fast audit survey. This does not include the figures for East Burra, West Burra and Trondra (report in preparation). Analysis of this information is not straightforward, partly due to Previous Work the sheer scale of the information but also because of Previous work in the survey areas, as in Shetland as a the nature of the resource and the problems of whole, has been very limited. South Mainland has summarising an extremely heterogeneous data set perhaps had relatively more attention than Westside within tight parameters. The survey results presented and Northmavine has seen the least previous work. here encompass five different areas, each of which, as Shetland has, perhaps, suffered from its extreme noted above, has its own character. There are some geographical location in relation to the centres of very interesting trends which will be discussed below archaeological enquiry further south. Archaeological after the following provisos. 37 COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND EROSION IN SCOTLAND - Coastline walked Fethaland Hamnavoe NNORTHMAVINEORTHMAVINE Tangwick LUNNA WHALSAY WESTSIDEWESTSIDE LerwickLerwick ScallowayScalloway TRONDA CClickhiminlickhimin N WEST BURRA D N A L N I EAST A M BURRA H T Burraland U O Broch SOUTHS MAINLAND Jarlshof 0 20 40 km Figure 5.1. Location map showing the areas of survey and places mentioned in the text. 38 COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND EROSION IN SCOTLAND It should be noted that the aims of the fieldwork were could be seen to be related to others then the whole was to characterise the archaeological resource within the given one site number. In this way, when an abandoned coastal zone. This was achieved by systematic survey croft could be seen to be related to outbuildings, field and presented in a map-based format. There was no systems, etc, then all was counted as a single site and clear requirement to reduce the information to statistics its location and extent recorded. of the kind presented here. Also, although the survey Where practical, sites of widely different date have was systematic, it was also subjective, since it reflects been separated, such as where a 19th-century sheep the opinions and experience of the fieldworkers. In crue clearly overlies a prehistoric house. This was the many cases a site formed the focus for much argument only practical way that the survey could progress regarding its identity and significance; some without becoming bogged down, but it has no doubt interpretations were also changed in the light of new meant that certain phases of multi-period sites are fieldwork, and others will undoubtedly be changed under-represented. Nevertheless, even taking account after future investigations. The histograms presented of the provisos outlined here, the histograms are useful: here, then, will give an unjustly objective impression to they paint a broad picture of the scale of the resource, the casual observer and will be, if anything, more its strengths and its weaknesses. subjective than the survey since sites with long organic development over time must be 'shoe horned' into what are in essence (but unavoidably) arbitrary and modern Sites by date categories of period and type. The histogram showing sites by date is interesting for One of the most basic problems encountered during several reasons (Figure 5.2). Firstly it highlights the survey was how to define a 'site'. At one level this is huge number of sites of early prehistoric date (4th–3rd simple: a site is any residue of human activity either millennium BC and 3rd–1st millennium BC) which are visible or previously recorded within the survey area. It visible in the Shetland landscape. Most of these sites becomes more troublesome when dealing with large are interpreted as houses, which are more often than complex sites which span large areas of land and which not associated with field systems. These structures are functioned over a long period of time. It was not a homogenous group; they survive in such good commonplace to encounter isolated fragments of what condition that it is possible to discern several sub- were most likely to be much larger residues of past groups of types which can be found in each survey area activity. An example of this might be a ruinous dyke, or and throughout Shetland. It is not clear whether they an outbuilding which functioned only as part of a field reflect changes through time or differences in function system, or a croft lying away from the survey area. (Figure 5.3). In several cases, groups of houses of Each fragment of dyke or outbuilding would have been varying type were found surviving together in the same recorded as an individual site. Where these elements location. 450 400 350 300 250 Number 200 150 100 50 0 4th–3rd millennium 3rd–1st millennium 1st millennium 10th–14th century 14th–18th century 18th–20th century Indeterminate BC BC BC–1st millennium AD AD AD AD Date Figure 5.2. Graph showing the total number of sites located, grouped by date.