Publication Account
Date 2007
Event ID 1039129
Category Descriptive Accounts
Type Publication Account
Permalink http://canmore.org.uk/event/1039129
NB03 1 DUN BHARABHAT 1 ('Loch Baravat', 'Dun Baravat 1')
NB/0987 3530
...Continued from Part 1 Event ID 587279.
5. Discussion
5.1 The structure
The identification of the building as a hollow-walled broch is not absolutely secure for three reasons. These are (1) that it is small, with an overall diameter of only about 11.29m (37 ft); (2) the foundations appear to be unstable which is unknown in a true broch tower and (3) the doorway to the mural stair (opposite the main entrance) is unusually wide at 1.83m (6 ft). This is much too wide for a stone lintel and – unless the doorway was widened at some stage – must raise doubts that the building was ever much higher than it is now.
Harding uses this example make a general point.
"The case of Dun Bharabhat therefore underlines the point, which has been widely recognised in recent years, that the study of Atlantic Iron Age settlements based exclusively or primarily on architectural typology can be unproductive and imposes a rigidity of classification up the evidence that was plainly not a determinant of the builders. In effect these galleried structures all come within the spectrum of complex Atlantic round-houses (Armit 1992), within which can be recognised not only regional variations (enclosed, unenclosed, nucleated) but also arguably a chronological progression in which some variants of monumental towers may indeed have been a late manifestation." [3, 103].
Attentive readers of the introduction sections of these two volumes may already have noticed that what one might call this 'pick and mix' view of the architectural elements of brochs and roundhouses does not find favour with the author. This is because of the clear evidence for the widespread use of the classic, standardised hollow-walled tower and also because of the resulting probability that many 'broch-like buildings', or 'Atlantic round-houses', may be unskilled copies of these [vol. 1, 6, Illus. 1.2]. It may also be mentioned here that the new dating of Old Scatness in Shetland (HU31 4) to perhaps as early as the 3rd century BC will, if reliable, completely undermine the last part of the statement quoted above. The architecturally complex and sophisticated broch towers are turning out to be a very early phenomenon and this has huge implications for our understanding of the whole phenomenon.
Dating. As far as the dating of Dun Bharabhat is concerned, if one leaves aside for the moment the oldest C-14 date for the floor horizon under the round-house, a general conclusion seems clear. Both the remaining radiocarbon dates and the evidence of the pottery and artifacts do not conflict with the idea that the main roundhouse was probably built in the 2nd or 1st centuries BC – or perhaps the 3rd – and that occupation continued at least until the 2nd century AD and probably later. Looking at the evidence in detail it is clear that Armit's statement that –
"The radiocarbon dates from Dun Barabhat demonstrate secondary occupation in the last two centuries BC and construction some time about the middle of the millennium.” (Armit 1991, 211).
demonstrates more a desire to push the site as far back in time as possible than to interpret the whole of the dating evidence objectively. In particular it is hard to understand how the evidence of the dates for a secondary occupation of the submerged structures – which seem to be, with the roundhouse, part of a single complex of buildings – can be ignored in this way. The single date for the stratum below the roundhouse wall might date the construction of the building but equally it might refer to a completely distinct earlier horizon. With the evidence presented there is no way of being sure either way and it is misleading to pretend otherwise. The main occupation of the site seems to fall firmly into the period between the 2nd century BC and the 2nd or 3rd AD.
5.2 Economy and environment
A considerable amount of environ-mental evidence was obtained from the submerged structures of Dun Bharabhat and some analyses of this are included in the report [3, Appendices 1-5]. A brief discussion of the economy of the site is also there [3, 104].
5.3 Material culture
The material culture found in both parts of the site is indistinguishable from the middle Iron Age material found in broch and wheelhouse excavations throughout the Western Isles. No clear sequence could be built up because of the nature of the site.
Pottery. The potsherds from both the roundhouse and the underwater site are essentially the same, and are typical Middle Iron Age ware from the Outer Hebrides. There is little discussion of this material in the report so what follows are the author’s preliminary thoughts, themselves based on the stratified sequences recovered from Dun Mor Vaul on Tiree (NM04 4) and Dun Ardtreck, Skye (NG33 2), between 1962 and 1965, as well as on the results of subsequent excavations by others in the west.
Examples of the three main wares found (and partly separated stratigraphically) at Dun Mor Vaul are numerous in both structures at Dun Bharabhat. The indigenous pottery at the Tiree site consists of three, possibly four, forms – Dunagoil urns (barrel-shaped vessels with gravel incorporated in the fabrics) and the smoother and often decorated Vaul ware, itself in two vessel forms (large, barrel-shaped urns and smaller vases with slightly out-turned lips. A variation of the last is known as the Balevullin vase because it was first identified at that site on Tiree (NM04 4). A key feature both of the pre-broch Vaul ware on Tiree, and of most of it in later levels, is that the decoration was invariably of incised lines in geometric patterns.
All these vessels occur in quantity at Dun Bharabhat although the remarkable similarities with the Tiree material are ignored. This could of course be because the excavator wished first, under-standably, to establish the nature of the local Iron Age wares without reference to material elsewhere. However having done that the similarities ought to have been noted. As they are not we are offered a variety of local vessel names which give the superficial impression that the pottery does not have analogues outside the Outer Isles. For example the oddly named “hole-mouthed jars” are quite clearly similar to the barrel-shaped urns of Dun Mor Vaul [3, figs. 44 and 45] and it is confusing to use the term “jar” for these when the word is already established to mean something quite different (it is usually applied specifically to the Everted Rim jar).
Likewise there are some fine examples of decorated Balevullin vases [3, fig. 21, no. 18], and decorated Vaul ware vases (without the applied cordon) are also common [3, fig. 43, nos. 4 and 5 and perhaps fig. 18, nos. 4 and 5 also] (for reasons explained below it is difficult at this site to distinguish clearly between Everted Rim jars and Vaul ware vases).
Everted Rim jars – which do not occur in pre-broch levels on Tiree – occur at Dun Bharabhat, and apparently in all levels. They are distinguished by their sharply turned-out rims [3, figs. 18 and 43] but they appear to be hybrids, lacking the characteristic channelled curvilinear ornament (above an applied cordon) on the Tiree pots. Those at Dun Bharabhat often have an applied waist cordon but the decoration above this tends to be of incised lines.
The point at which Everted Rim ware appears in both Skye and the Outer Isles seems to be chronologically significant and – apart from Tiree – it seems not to have been in use in the west before about the 2nd century AD, or perhaps the 3rd in places (see Dun Vulan below, NF72 1) (MacKie 2002, Illus. 35). One way of detecting its appearance is by studying the base sherds; those of Everted Rim jars tend to lack a foot whereas Vaul ware and allied vessels have footed bases. One clear jar base sherd is illustrated from Dun Bharabhat – from the underwater site [3, fig. 47, no. 15]. In addition the number of hybrid forms – mixtures of the traditions of the ancient Vaul ware vases and urns and the new fashion of Everted Rim jars – strongly suggests that the occupation of Dun Bharabhat was still going strong in the 3rd century AD.
There are other vessels which seem to be characteristic of the Outer Isles, for example two very large storage urns with nearly upright rims [3, fig. 16]. There are also a few vessels with the characteristic L-shaped rim, which has an inward-pointing flange. This is an ancient form which goes back to the late Bronze Age and was dated to the early 1st millennium BC (there is a site at Halmie in south-east Sutherland, as yet unpublished, where this has been demonstrated.).
Conspicuous by its absence is the carinated pottery of the early Iron Age.
Bronze. Good examples of the classic middle Iron Age metal work were found in the underwater site [3, fig. 40]. These include a projecting head ring-headed pin (no. 1) and an unusual pin with a domed head. Several finger-rings were found which are simply described as ‘penannular rings’ although at least three appear to be broken spiral finger-rings (nos. 3, 7 and 8).
Glass beads. The several glass beads found in the roundhouse surely indicate a high-status site [3, fig. 12]. The triangular bead with spiral inlay has good parallels in northern Scotland, and also with those found at the Meare ‘lake village’ in Somerset. Harding doubts any connection with the latter but, in the apparent absence of any analysis of the glass the question must remain open (see the glass beads from Leckie (NS69 2) and Dun Ardtreck (NG33 2). The small ring bead of opaque yellow glass [3, fig. 12, no. 5] is a “type fossil” of the middle phase of the Atlantic Iron Age while similar beads of blue and red glass were found at Dun Ardtreck.
Sources: 1. NMRS site no. NB 03 NE 4: 2. RCAHMS 1928, 21, no. 72: 3. Harding and Dixon 2000.
E W MacKie 2007
