late bronze and iron age lake settlement in scotland and ireland: the development of the...

GRAEME CAVERS

LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGE LAKE SETTLEMENTIN SCOTLAND AND IRELAND: THE DEVELOPMENTOF THE ‘CRANNOG’ IN THE NORTH AND WEST

Summary. This paper considers the evidence for the origins and developmentof the lake settlement tradition of Scotland and Ireland in the Late Bronze andIron Ages. Considering a crannog ‘event horizon’ around the mid-firstmillennium BC, dating and structural evidence are compared and contrasted,and the evidence for non-domestic activity including ritual and votivedeposition is contextualized. It is argued that the concurrent appearance ofcrannogs with the flourish of domestic monumentality in Scotland and Irelandcan be seen as a consequence of the fusion of ritual and domestic spheres of lifein the later first millennium BC, integrating the themes of architecturalmonumentality and the Iron Age reverence of water.

introduction

The longevity of the chronology of crannogs has been known for some time (Morrison1982). Since the discovery of Eilean Domhnuill on North Uist it has been considered apossibility that lake settlement forms in Scotland have been in existence since the Neolithic(Armit 1996), while in Ireland the existence of related lake ‘platform’ structures dating to theMesolithic has been established (O’Sullivan 1998; Fredengren 2002). However, closer analysisof the dating evidence for crannogs has indicated that the majority of sites belong to the ‘LaterPrehistoric’ period, broadly taken to be the period 1000 BC to AD 500 (Crone 1993; Henderson1998). The aim of this paper is to identify the evidence for the origins of lake settlement formsin Scotland and Ireland, considering the likely origin of the concept of the ‘crannog’, as well asthe physical evidence for the structure of early lake settlements and their relationship tocontemporary terrestrial settlements.

The archaeology of lake settlement in the late second and early first millennium BC isbetter documented in Ireland than in Scotland, where so far the earliest dates for a fullydeveloped ‘crannog’ structure come from Loch Tay, from the contemporary sites at Oakbank andFearnan Hotel that may be as early as the ninth century BC (Dixon 1982). Lake settlement in theLater Bronze Age is well represented in Ireland, and several large-scale excavations have meantthat the nature of this early horizon of lake and wetland habitation is relatively well documented.Besides a range of sites which have been demonstrated to have been constructed, inhabited andabandoned in the Later Bronze Age (e.g. Cullyhanna, Hodges 1958; Lough Eskragh, Collins and

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 25(4) 389–412 2006© 2006 The AuthorJournal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKand 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA. 389

Seaby 1960; Clonfinlough, Moloney et al. 1993), it is also apparent that most crannogs dating tothe Early Historic period made use of the foundations of earlier constructions dating to this phase(e.g. Moynagh Lough, Bradley 1991; Ballinderry 2, Hencken 1942; Newman 1997; Rathtinaun,O’Sullivan 1998, 89; Island MacHugh, Ivens et al. 1986). In all, there is now a substantial bodyof evidence relating to a heightened phase of lake settlement construction in the Later BronzeAge in Ireland, specifically in the so-called Dowris phase, from approximately 1100–800 BC(Raftery 1994, 17–37).

Late Bronze Age lake settlement in Scotland is also well attested, though dates tend tobe somewhat later, clustering around the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age transition. Examplesof these early dates come from sites like Oakbank, Loch Tay (2560 � 50 BP [GU-3469],830–520 cal BC), Loch Avich (2560 � 50 BP [GU-11920], 830–510 cal BC), Carn Dubh,Beauly (2530 � 50 BP [GU-2540], 810–410 cal BC) and Redcastle, Beauly (2570 � 50 BP[GU-4542] 840–520 BC). The principal difficulty encountered when trying to parallel Scottishand Irish lake settlement archaeology is the apparently contradictory chronology either side ofthe Irish channel, whereby the growth of lake settlements in the late second/early firstmillennium BC in Ireland is seemingly unmatched by similar developments in Scotland, and,conversely, as lake settlements appear to decline into the Iron Age in Ireland (O’Sullivan 1998,96) crannog construction appears to reach a peak in Scotland by the later first millennium BC.The reasons for this pattern – which is not easily paralleled in the terrestrial settlement record –have never been clearly explained; in the following section I attempt to correlate archaeologicalsimilarities between the Scottish and Irish evidence, and explore some of the reasons for thisapparently complementary developmental sequence, with the simultaneous aim of consideringthe origins of the lake settlement tradition.

ireland

Structural diversity in the Later Bronze Age in Ireland

One of the difficulties involved in characterizing the nature of Late Bronze Age lakesettlement in Ireland is the great degree of differentiation in structural form across the record. Itis clear that artificial islets constructed using a ‘packwerk’ style technique and featuring the useof retaining palisades were a feature of the LBA horizon, though it is also apparent thatfree-standing pile-built structures were also constructed at this time. Undoubtedly there has beensome confusion caused by the use of the term ‘crannog’ to apply to sites located in wetlandcontexts, purely on the basis of inundation subsequent to their abandonment, and it seemsprobable that many of the sites often quoted as ‘lake settlements’ were in actual fact located bythe margins of standing water bodies. Ivens et al. (1986, 102) asserted that:

“The few Bronze Age ‘crannogs’ are quite different in character to those of the EarlyChristian period. The latter tend to be substantial, defended structures with deep piling, theformer little more than small undefended platforms, built in shallow water on lake margins.Nowhere has any continuity between these two groups been demonstrated.”

Similarly, O’Sullivan considers LBA lake settlements to be a different architecturalconcept to the Early Historic ‘crannóg’:

“. . . they [LBA lake settlements] differ somewhat from Early Historic crannógs in thatthey were usually constructed in marshy ground rather than out in open water, and typically only

LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGE LAKE SETTLEMENT IN SCOTLAND AND IRELAND

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© 2006 The Author

Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.390

had foundations of small artificial platforms rather than the substantial cairns of stone and timberfound in the Early Historic and Viking Age crannóg” (O’Sullivan 1998, 115).

This view has also been taken of the early Scottish evidence by Crone (1993, 250).While it may be possible to argue over the details of what does and does not constitute a‘crannog’, the substantial pile-built structures at Ballinderry 2 (Hencken 1942; Newman 1997),and Lough Eskragh (Collins and Seaby 1960; Williams 1978) are testimony to the emergence oflarge structures designed to be over open water during their use in the Dowris phase of the IrishBronze Age, and there can be no doubt that the origins of ‘true’ lake settlements on a widespreadscale are found in the Late Bronze Age. As a concept, the construction of functional habitationsin wetland environments was certainly well established in Ireland by the early first millenniumBC (see Fig. 1).

The most reliable evidence for free-standing structures, constructed over open water inthe LBA in Ireland, comes from two sites, Lough Eskragh and Ballinderry 2. Hencken’sexcavations at Ballinderry 2 initially identified the LBA occupation phase of the site, representedin the excavator’s opinion by a rectangular, pile-built structure measuring approximately 15 by17 m and connected to the shore by a curvilinear causeway, also free standing and constructedwith vertical piles (Hencken 1942). The LBA phase was sealed and stratigraphically separatedfrom the later Early Christian occupation by a thick layer of calcareous lake marl, indicating aperiod of total abandonment of the site, during which the LBA occupation layers were inundated.Newman has since identified a second large rectangular structure through a revision andreinterpretation of the stratigraphy of the site, demonstrating that the LBA occupation was spreadover two, possibly interconnected pile structures (see Fig. 2; Newman 1997). The nature of thestructural remains suggests that the occupied floor levels were raised above these foundations(Newman 1997, 97), while the lacustrine sediments underlying the LBA stratum indicate that thestructure stood over open water, at least most of the time (Hencken 1942, pl. 3; Newman 1997,97). The finds assemblage included bronze artefacts datable to the eighth century BC (Eogan1964), and a range of other organic and ceramic finds that do not sit uncomfortably within adomestic context for the period.

In Lough Eskragh, siteAwas a similar spread of vertical piles, covering an area in the lakemargins measuring in the region of 40 by 10 m, and seems likely to represent a single continuousstructure (Williams 1978, 38 contra Collins and Seaby 1960, 26). The original excavators interpretthe Eskragh site as a free-standing structure, again with a raised floor above water level; theirinterpretation is apparently supported by the location of the saddle querns found on the site on thesurface of the lacustrine muds which formed after the abandonment of the site, presumably havingfallen there when the superstructure eroded and collapsed (Collins and Seaby 1960, 35).Interestingly, siteAat Lough Eskragh also included a palisaded ‘packwerk’style mound, in deeperwater and constructed from horizontal timbers and brushwood (Fig. 3). There can be little doubtthat this site was deliberately constructed to be sited in open water, and the probability that it wasalso in use contemporaneously (in the ninth to eighth centuries BC; Williams 1978, 46–7) raisesinteresting questions over the function of each element of the site. The high frequency of saddlequerns encountered on the pile site suggested to the original excavators that this area was primarilydomestic in function, though the more conventional domestic assemblage comes from thepackwerk site, in the form of asymmetrical flat rimmed vessels, wooden vessels and a jet bracelet.As Williams considered, there are more uses for a saddle quern than simply grinding grain,particularly in the course of preparing clay and ores for metalworking, though the Eskraghexamples were never tested for this possibility (Williams 1978, 47).

GRAEME CAVERS

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© 2006 The AuthorJournal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 391

The function of site B, a palisade revetted packwerk structure ‘in the same tradition ascrannog A’ (Williams 1978, 47) hardly seems in doubt, as excavations by both Collins and Seabyand Williams returned extensive evidence for the production of bronze swords and axes –hemispherical crucibles and moulds for each type were recovered (Collins and Seaby 1960, 31;Williams 1978, 44–7). The radiocarbon determination of 3105 � 80 BP (1530–1120 cal BC) forsite B need not preclude its contemporaneity with site A, taken as it was from a foundation layerthat was at least partially derived from natural and probably ancient sources (Williams 1978, 47).

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.9 Bronk Ramsey (2003); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

1500CalBC 1000CalBC 500CalBC CalBC/CalAD

Calibrated date

KILC 21 2770±20BP

KILC 21 2740±25BP

KILN 7 2730±30BP

KILC 21 2710±40BP

KILN 7 2700±20BP

KILA 16 2690±20BP

KILC 21 2690±30BP

KILC 21 2680±25BP

BOYL 26 2640±45BP

KILC 21 2610±50BP

KILA 16 2220±30BP

KILA 16 2220±30BP

KILA 46 2210±20BP

KILA 16 2170±30BP

KILA 46 2150±25BP

KILA 16 2140±20BP

KILA 16 2130±20BP

Figure 1Radiocarbon dates for five crannogs in Lough Gara dating to the Late Bronze and Iron Ages (source: Fredengren 2002,

table 1).




Figure 2Ballinderry 2, Co. Offaly: juxtaposed Late Bronze Age pile structures (Newman 1997).

Figure 3Lough Eskragh site A, pile structure and palisade-revetted ‘crannog’ (Collins and Seaby 1960).

GRAEME CAVERS


The free-standing pile structure was clearly not, then, the exclusive form of lakesettlement in Ireland, and there are certainly examples of the palisade-revetted ‘packwerk’mound dating to the same Late Bronze Age horizon. Lough Eskragh site B is the most obviousexample of such a site, though evidence – primarily from the excavation of crannogs dating tothe early medieval period – indicates that this form of lake settlement was widespread, and thereare numerous examples underlying later artificial islets. The Late Bronze Age phases atMoynagh Lough certainly qualify in this category, where the Early Historic site overlay asubstantial LBA phase, occupied around 700 BC (Bradley 1991; O’Sullivan 1998, 81).

The usual difficulties over the definition of a lake settlement are pressing when weconsider the evidence for non-free-standing lake structures dating to the LBA horizon in Ireland.Settlement sites located in wetland contexts, such as Cullyhanna (Fig. 4) and Clonfinlough dateto this same LBA horizon, yet in physical form are somewhat different to true lake dwellings, andneither site stood in or over open water. The Clonfinlough structures, although enclosed by aperimeter stockade of ash piling, were in no way structurally supported by this feature (Moloneyet al. 1993, 63–4), and so the function appears to have been simply to enclose and define the

Figure 4The Late Bronze Age palisaded settlement at Cullyhanna, County Armagh (Hodges 1958).




habitation area rather than physically create it. The internal structures were constructed in a‘packwerk’ style in order to raise the habitation layers above what would have been very boggyground, but the site itself never stood in open water. Similarly, Cullyhanna was a loch-sidesettlement, which was later inundated, preserving organic remains (Hodges 1958). There is adanger that sites on which organics are preserved are categorized as crannogs for this fact alone,and the important characteristics of true lake settlements are complicated by the picture paintedby unrelated sites.

The sites at Ballinderry 2 and Eskragh are almost certainly contemporary, and can beseen as part of a range of lake settlements which appear to proliferate in the Late Bronze Age inIreland. Their structure is quite distinctive, being based on the free-standing, pile-built form oflake settlement, presumably signifying structures that were intended to stand over open water, atleast for part of the year when lake levels were high. This form of lake settlement appears to havebeen characteristic of the Late Bronze Age in Ireland, and may be taken as chronologicallydiagnostic based on the available excavated evidence; ‘crannog’ structures in the sense mostusually defined in Irish archaeology are constructed as palisade-revetted, ‘packwerk’ mounds.This early form of lake settlement is, however, paralleled in Scotland, where the structural originof lake settlements appears to be in a similar form of free-standing pile-built structure.

scotland

The earliest origins: Neolithic islet settlements

There can be no doubt that the islet settlement of Eilean Domhnuill, Loch Olabhat onNorth Uist represents the true beginning of the island settlement tradition in Scotland (Armit1992; 1996). The site was initially targeted by the excavator since its relationship to a second sitenearby suggested that it may represent an early islet Atlantic roundhouse (Armit 1996, 44). In theevent, excavation demonstrated that the site was occupied no later than the Late Neolithic, witha series of occupation levels superimposed as a result of rising water levels. The site consists ofa revetted stone mound which appears to be entirely artificial – no evidence of naturalfoundations was located during the excavation – upon which were a series of small domesticbuildings within a perimeter palisade (Armit 1996, 45–6). The site was approached by a timberwalkway, which led towards a façade entrance; in later phases this walkway was replaced witha stone causeway as part of a sequence of elaboration of this entrance façade (Armit 1996, 47).The site appears to have been abandoned in the Late Neolithic owing to a final flooding episode,and was not reoccupied (ibid.).

Eilean Domhnuill illustrates that the artificial islet settlement tradition existed inScotland from at least the Late Neolithic in the Western Isles. It is difficult, however, to determinehow common this type of site was. Armit suggests that Eilean an Tigh may be a similar Neolithicisland site, and that there may be many more to be found in the interiors of the Hebridean isles,where peat development marginalized many areas for settlement after the mid-secondmillennium BC (Armit 1996, 52). Given the large areas of similarly marginal land in much of theIsles and western Scotland, where modern agriculture rarely causes the type of disturbance towater bodies and marshlands that has led to the discovery of crannogs in other regions, thepossibility is strong that many more early islet settlements await discovery. The existence of theEilean Domhnuill site is also interesting in the context of Irish lake settlement. Fredengren(2002, 158–9) has suggested that the Neolithic was a period when the focus of activity moved

GRAEME CAVERS


away from lakes, where it had been concentrated in the Mesolithic, a development that sheconsiders is due to the changing concerns of society in the Neolithic, when the wider communitytook precedence over the concerns of the individual household. If Fredengren’s interpretation ofthese developments around Lough Gara is correct, it is interesting to contrast the differentsocietal changes that must have occurred in Neolithic North Uist, where lake settlementcommences at precisely this time.

Meldalloch Island, Argyll

The islet site in Eilean Domhnuill demonstrates that the tradition of living over waterwas established at least as early as the Late Neolithic in the Western Isles. However, the siteremains unique and no such early examples of islet settlements have been located elsewhere. Thedate of the primary foundations of many of the islet Atlantic roundhouses of the Western Islesmay well belong to such early horizons, though only large-scale excavations – probablyinvolving underwater work – are likely to identify such levels where they exist, and so far EileanDomhnuill remains unparalleled. Indications that the lake settlement tradition has origins earlierthan the earliest dated crannogs are also given, however, by the site in Meldalloch Loch, nearKilfinan in Argyll (see Fig. 5). The island is natural, with no obvious indications of artificialenhancement, other than a stone-built causeway which connects the island to the shore.Excavations and survey by the Glasgow Association of Field Archaeologists showed that prior tothe reuse of the island in the late medieval period evidenced by two West Highland longhousesthe site had been defended by a palisade and embankments; radiocarbon dating of charcoal fromthe palisade slot yielded a date spanning 1130–830 BC (Rennie and Newall 2001, 7). At least oneroundhouse had been built in the interior, with dates from the floor and post-holes in theexcavated example spanning the period 810–480 BC (ibid.).

As an example of a Late Bronze Age palisaded settlement the Meldalloch site is entirelyunremarkable, and can be seen as a typical example of the kind of settlement found in largenumbers across the country at this time. Rennie and Newall’s excavations were relatively smallscale, but there is little indication that the site was of any particular significance in terms of statusand function. What is of direct importance, however, is the fact that the site was constructed onan islet location, probably in the early centuries of the first millennium BC, demonstrating thatthe socio-cultural conditions that caused the combination of domestic structures and isletlocations existed on the mainland of Scotland by this time.

While it is perhaps not possible to generalize and extrapolate the evidence from one site,it seems likely that natural island settlements such as the one in Loch Meldalloch are likely to befound widely, particularly since natural islands have not tended to be investigated during fieldsurvey. Unlike crannogs, there is no easy way to shortlist natural islands as candidate sites forprehistoric occupation on the basis of aerial photographs, and even when natural islets are divedaround they are unlikely to be recognized as settlements unless the dry areas are surveyed. Sowhile we may identify the period 800 to 500 BC as the undoubted commencement of crannogconstruction on a large scale in Scotland, there are indications that the tradition of islandsettlement has earlier origins.

Oakbank crannog

Until recently, Oakbank crannog in Loch Tay (Fig. 6) was the only crannog site inScotland to have been excavated underwater, and was furthermore one of the very few to have




been excavated to acceptable modern levels of recording (Dixon 1981; 1982; 1984; 2004).Numerous specialist studies have been undertaken at the site, and although only around 25 percent of the total volume of the site has been excavated, the dating and details of the structure arerelatively well known. Issues of construction and taphonomy of the Oakbank crannog have been

CAUSEWAY

Roundhouse 1

N

0

5

10

20m

Palisade Slot

MELDALLOCH ISLANDARGYLL

959 55 Cal.BC(GU-8188)

+-

Longhouses

LOCH MELDALLOCH

Figure 5The Late Bronze Age defended settlement on Meldalloch Island, Kilfinan, Argyll (redrawn by the author, after Rennie

and Newall 2001).

GRAEME CAVERS


the source of some debate within crannog studies, but as the best known example of a LateBronze and Early Iron Age ‘Highland’ crannog, it sets the precedent against which all similarsites are compared.

Radiocarbon dates for the site span the period 830 to 250 BC, and while these dates areaffected by the flatness of the calibration curve for this period, the structural evidence suggeststhat the site was occupied and refurbished over several centuries through the Late Bronze andEarly Iron Ages (Sands 1997, 41; Dixon 2004, 134), with the ‘last stakes’ driven into the top ofthe mound yielding dates with centre points c.410 bc (Dixon 2004, 134). Physically, the siteconsists of a massive oval boulder mound measuring c.25 by 20 m, with a conjoined extensionfeature on the west. Beneath the boulder layer the mound comprises a mass of organic material,consisting principally of upright stakes, substantial piles and horizontal branches within a matrixof compacted plant debris containing bracken, twigs, straw, leaves, animal excreta and hazel nuts(Clapham and Scaife 1988; Miller 2002; Dixon 2004, 130). Throughout this organic matrix andsurrounding the mound are a large number of vertical piles which seem to have been the principalstructure of the crannog. Several hundred structural piles have been located at Oakbank, bothsurrounding the mound and through the organic matrix as well as forming a 20 m long walkway

10m

Walkway

Figure 6Oakbank crannog, Loch Tay (redrawn by author, after Dixon 2004).




to the shore. The number of piles encountered within the Oakbank mound – along with detailsof the deposits and stratigraphy – has led to the suggestion by the excavator that the site may haveinitially been a free-standing structure, built on piles and elevated above the surface of the water(Dixon 1984, 218; 1994; 2004, 143). This theory is not without difficulties and it seems certainthat the physical form and structure of the crannog changed considerably through its history, butthe free-standing model can certainly be argued for the primary phases of the site, andexperimental reconstruction work has demonstrated how a pile-built structure can support aroundhouse that fits the evidence recovered from the excavation (Dixon 1994; 2004, 170).

The material assemblage from the excavation fits well with the radiocarbon dating,supporting an occupation spanning the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age transition. A wide range ofwooden artefacts were recovered from the site, including bowls, plates and stave vessels, as wellas a wide range of artefacts relating to craft activities such as weaving and dairying (Dixon 2004,146–51). As might be expected from a LBA/EIA settlement in central Scotland, pottery was notfound in large quantities, though sherds recovered showed evidence of having been used forcooking (Dixon 2004, 157) and a few small sherds with a vitreous residue may be cruciblefragments (Dixon and Cavers 2001, 76). The metalwork assemblage is small, though a small ironknife was recovered, as well as a swan’s neck pin, derivative of the crook-headed pin typical ofthe period in central/eastern Scotland (Dunning 1935; Coles 1960; Dixon 2004, 158).

While the bone assemblage is small, probably due to the acidic water conditions in LochTay (Dixon 1981, 19), the ecofactual material offered a wealth of information relating to theeconomy of the occupants. The economy seems to have been mixed pastoral and arable, withevidence for the exploitation of cultivated cereals and domesticated animals kept on site (Miller2002; Clapham and Scaife 1988). Wild resources were also exploited as a supplement to thebasic agricultural economy. In all, the Oakbank occupants seem to have been productive and selfsufficient, engaged in a successful agricultural regime. There is no indication of any particularstatus of the Oakbank site, so that the local distribution of large, disaggregated roundhouses maysupport the interpretation of a local society where social relationships were not generallyreflected in the physical form of settlements (cf. Armit 1997a).

Evidence of any activities that can easily be interpreted as ritual has yet to be recoveredfrom the Oakbank site. Although agricultural implements have been recovered from the crannog,objects sometimes seen as deliberate deposits related to fertility and the agricultural success ofthe household (Hingley 1992, 24), the excavator does not describe these in any context thatwould allow them to be easily seen in this way (Dixon 2004, 152) and more details of thetaphonomy of the site are needed before such an explanation could reliably be considered. If theOakbank crannog had symbolic importance, it may have been the simple fact of its waterylocation; as a display of defensibility and architectural prowess, occupying a watery location itmay have been typical of the way monumental homesteads of the Earlier Iron Age acted assymbols of the authority of the occupants.

Structural parallels

The free-standing phase of crannog construction at Oakbank, Loch Tay is the mostobvious parallel for the Irish Late Bronze Age pile structures. There are other examples, however,of similar structural styles in the lake settlement record of Scotland. Coatbridge crannog inLochend Loch (Fig. 7) appears to have constituted a substantial free-standing structure,evidenced by an extensive area of vertical piling surrounding a small artificial islet (Monteith and

GRAEME CAVERS


Robb 1937). Similarly, Asgog Loch in Argyll, Dhu Loch on Bute (MacKinlay 1864) and WhiteLoch of Myrton in Dumfries and Galloway (Henderson et al. 2003, 93–4) all constituted largeareas of vertical piling, apparently for the purposes of supporting raised platforms over openwater. These examples indicate the presence of this type of site in Scotland, and given the lackof comprehensive loch survey in this country it seems likely that many more examples awaitdiscovery, especially since these non-islet structures would be particularly difficult to detect inthe course of routine loch surveys. Indeed, it seems most probable that these site types will onlyrealistically be found when they are associated with secondary or allied island structures (as theyhave been in Ireland) which draw the initial attention of surveyors.

The dating of these structures in Scotland is imprecise. At Oakbank, it is probable thatthe free-standing phase represents the earliest activity at the site, and so most likely relating tothe Late Bronze Age, in the eighth to seventh centuries BC, and as such can be seen as parallelwith the Irish Late Bronze Age types. It is notable that the distribution of piles at Oakbank bearsa resemblance to the Lough Eskragh site A pile structure. Dating the other examples is moredifficult, however, and there are no radiocarbon determinations from these sites. The Coatbridgesite was clearly multi-phase, as demonstrated by the excavations carried out by Monteith in1937; however, the plain coarseware from Coatbridge may suggest the presence of an Early IronAge horizon at that site (Monteith and Robb 1937, 37). What is certain is that the Coatbridge siteincorporated a substantial free-standing pile structure, which either pre-dated or greatly extendedthe occupation area of the site out from the main packwerk-style mound. It is not the purpose ofthis paper to discuss constructional techniques (Cavers forthcoming a), though it is important to

Figure 7Lochend crannog, Coatbridge: the pile-built structure and second-phase ‘packwerk’ mound (Monteith and Robb 1937).




note the probable distinction between the free-standing and packwerk modes, which likelydenotes different phases of construction and occupation where these two styles are found on thesame site.

Inter-tidal crannogs

Some of the earliest crannog dates in Scotland come from sites constructed in theinter-tidal zones of the Beauly and Clyde estuaries (Hale 2004). Specifically, Redcastle crannogand Carn Dubh, both in the Beauly Firth, have yielded evidence of LBA/EIA occupation, withradiocarbon dates in the region 800–400 BC. Hale’s excavations at Redcastle demonstratedoccupation in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, with many similar features to Oakbank,including the use of bracken and keeping animals on site (Hale 2004, 94–5, 105–6). Thewattle-lined ‘fire-baskets’, very similar in form to those excavated at Rathtinaun and Ballinderry,were a major feature of the site; the function of these features is debated, but the possibility thatthey were hearths designed to create a reducing atmosphere may suggest they were related tometalworking (Hale 2004, 149–50).

The estuarine sites have been interpreted as activity-specific, perhaps related to accessto trading vessels and transport into and out of the estuaries (Hale 2000, 557; Sands and Hale2001, 51; Hale 2004, 159–60). Furthermore, there is a degree of structural variability in theestuarine sites that perhaps warns against categorizing them as one site type. Munro himself haddoubts about categorizing the site at Dumbuck as a ‘crannog’ (Munro 1905, 133; Sands and Hale2001, 47), yet it has certainly been demonstrated that there are a range of lake dwelling sites inScotland that do not conform closely to what constituted Munro’s definition of a ‘crannog’.Sands and Hale’s justification (2001, 47) of the label may leave room for inclusiveness, but, asthey argue, there are obvious reasons for including the estuarine sites reported by Hale as closelyrelated to the overall ‘lake’ dwelling theme in Scotland. In morphological and geographical/locational terms the estuarine crannogs clearly aimed to be located over water; while manyexploit natural promontories and steep shoreline topography (Hale 2000, 555), and theabundance of jetty and harbour features associated with the sites suggests that vessels could bedocked close to the habitable area of the structures. Dumbuck crannog was the best preserved ofthe sites investigated by Hale, where a radial arrangement of vertical piles supported a horizontaltimber floor level. Superficially, in terms of size and construction, there seems to be no reasonwhy the site should be separated from other crannog structures, and may hint that free-standingpile structures in water bodies with fluctuating water levels were a reality within the suite of lakesettlement types.

Sands and Hale (2001, 50) consider that the range of estuarine dates in the Late Bronzeand Earlier Iron Ages is due to an accident of preservation, and that other similar sites fromearlier and later periods have been lost owing to changes in river patterns. While it is impossibleto disprove this contention, this chronological range sits well in the context of a late firstmillennium BC crannog construction horizon, evident in both the Highlands and the south-westof Scotland, and it is perhaps unsurprising that the estuarine sites seem to be firmly located in thischronological range. The dates from Dumbuck indicate a potentially long period of use on thatsite, though there is no structural indication of multiple phases of construction that would surelybe evident if the site was occupied for longer than 20 to 30 years, the suggested lifespan ofstructural timbers in water based on experimental reconstruction (Dixon 1994). However, all ofthe Clyde sites show a similar pattern and the recovered assemblages would appear to concur that

GRAEME CAVERS


occupation at the Clyde sites was comparatively short-lived. Indeed, the complexities involved inbuilding in such an actively erosive location would further support the view that the centuriesaround the turn of the last millennium BC were a time of heightened investment in crannogconstruction, and that at this time the cultural imperatives of living over water were prevalentover the difficulties involved in doing so.

Other sites with evidence relating to construction or occupation around the LBA/EIAtransition are Bishop Loch, Coatbridge, where a socketed iron axe and crucible were recoveredin the nineteenth century (Scott 1966, 58), Loch Avich, which has a radiocarbon date from asample taken during survey work spanning the period 830–510 BC (Cavers 2005) and LochMigdale, Morayshire, which has similar radiocarbon dates from samples taken during small-scale excavation. It is worth noting that Late Bronze Age dates were also obtained from timbersexcavated at Buiston, Ayrshire, though these are interpreted by the excavator as relict andunrelated to a concurrent horizon of settlement on the site (Crone 2000, 58).

Evidence for a crannog ‘event horizon’ in Scotland

On the basis of the available radiocarbon dates it is clear that the period c.800–500 BCwas when artificial islets began to be constructed on a large scale across the country (see Fig. 8).Indeed, the available dates for the LBA/EIA in Scotland are remarkably concurrent, so that wemay identify this period as a significant ‘event horizon’ in the chronology of crannogconstruction. As we have considered, the tradition of settlement may demonstrably have earlierorigins, certainly extending into the early first millennium AD on the mainland and as far backas the Neolithic in the Western Isles. The full geographical extent of early lake settlement formswill only be established with continued research, but the available evidence suggests that a majorepisode of crannog construction began in the LBA/EIA transition. While calibration bracketsmay equally ‘suck in’ and ‘smear’ the dating of this horizon (Baillie 1991), it seems that thistransitional period was when many crannogs were first constructed. As noted in the previoussection, the early dates from crannogs in Scotland are widespread, occurring across the countryfrom Dumfries and Galloway to Morayshire. Whether or not the pattern of LBA lake settlementcan be correlated to the highest densities of crannog sites – i.e. suggesting the westernconcentration of early sites – is unlikely to be easily resolved without much more intensivesurvey, sampling and excavation programmes.

the socio-cultural context: activity on late bronze age andiron age crannogs

When considered within the wider context of developments in the domestic and ritualarchaeology of the period, the first millennium BC lake settlements of Scotland and Ireland offera perspective on the increasing significance of the domestic sphere within ritual practice. Inparticular, the increase in the deposition of metalwork and other objects in watery locations isnotably concurrent with the construction of lake settlements across much of Scotland andIreland. Interpretation of the archaeology of the Late Bronze Age has been dominated in the pastby the paradigm of conspicuous consumption as an explanation for the metalwork deposition thatforms the traditional study basis of the period (Cooney and Grogan 1999, 144–5). Implicit in thishas been the assumption of the equation of high-value metalwork to high-status people, andconsequently Late Bronze Age settlements associated with high-value metalwork, such as




Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.9 Bronk Ramsey (2003); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

1500CalBC 1000CalBC 500CalBC CalBC/CalAD

Calibrated date

Redcastle 2570±50BP

OBK 2560±50BP

Avich 2560±50BP


OBK 2545±55BP

Carn Dubh 2530±50BP

Migdale 2515±40BP


OBK 2490±50BP

OBK 2490±50BP

Leathan 2480±50BP

Fearnan Hotel 2475±55BP

OBK 2450±50BP

Milton 1 2440±100BP

Name Lab Code Age BP ± Cal. Range 2 sRedcastle GU-4542 2570 50 830-520 BCOakbank GU-3469 2560 50 830-510 BCLoch Avich GU-11920 2560 50 830-510 BCRedcastle GU-4543 2550 50 810-410 BCOakbank GU-1323 2545 55 810-410 BCCarn Dubh GU-2540 2530 50 810-410 BCMigdale NZA-18102 2515 40 800-410 BCRedcastle GU-4531 2510 50 800-410 BCOakbank GU-3468 2490 50 790-410 BCOakbank GU-3471 2490 50 790-410 BCLoch Leathan GU-11921 2480 50 790-410 BCFearnan Hotel GU-1322 2475 55 780-400 BCOakbank GU-3472 2450 50 770-400 BCMilton 1 K-2027 2440 100 850-350 BC

Figure 8Radiocarbon determinations for Late Bronze and Early Iron Age lake settlement sites in Scotland.

GRAEME CAVERS


Rathtinaun and Ballinderry 2 have been interpreted in terms of high-status residents (O’Sullivan1997, 118; Raftery 1994, 34). Lakes have been postulated as central meeting places for ritualceremonies by O’Sullivan (1997, 118), but it perhaps seems more appropriate to consider theevidence for ritual activities around water in the Later Bronze and Iron Ages in terms of the widerdevelopmental pattern of the merging of ritual and domestic activities, with the householdemerging as the principal forum for ritualistic activity after the Late Bronze Age. The argumentfor conspicuous consumption as an explanation for the deposition of Late Bronze and Iron Agemetalwork is now questionable, and the strong link between the disposal of the dead and thedeposition of metalwork in wetland locations instead strongly suggests a votive explanation(Wait 1985, 15; Cooney and Grogan 1999, 147) entirely in keeping with the same phenomenonacross much of western Europe (Bradley 1998). It is argued here that this association betweenritual acts and lake settlement can be aligned with the development of the household as the centreplace for ritual activity in the later first millennium BC, and as such is directly relevant to anappreciation of the significance of lake dwellings during this period.

Ireland

Votive deposition is well known in association with Irish Later Bronze Age lakesettlements. Lough Gara illustrates the pattern, with considerable quantities of Dowris phaseLBA and EIA objects from the lough, particularly bronze rings and swords, often in associationwith crannogs (Fredengren 2002, 190). Lough Gara is paralleled, however, by the LBA flange-hilted swords from lake settlements at Knocknalappa, Co. Clare (Raftery 1942, 63), and IslandMacHugh, Co. Tyrone (Simpson 1986, 103), as well as examples from Bohermeen, Co. Meath(Wood-Martin 1886, 171) and Ballycroghan, Co. Down (Jope 1953). The bronze hoard fromRathtinaun has relevance here; while it seems possible that the intention of the owner was toreturn for the objects (Raftery 1994, 34), the possible votive significance of the deposition of alarge collection of valuable metal objects on a crannog structure should not be overlooked in thelight of the wider pattern of metalwork deposition. Similarly, although it is clear that bronzeswere being manufactured at Lough Eskragh Site B (Collins and Seaby 1960, 27, 30), Rathtinaun(O’Sullivan 1998, 90) and Killymoon (Hurl 1995; Ó Faoláin 2004, 67–8) the occurrence ofsword moulds in the apparently specifically-built deposition pool at King’s Stables (Mallory andMcNeill 1991, 123; Lynn 1977) suggests that the association of metalworking, water anddeposition may well be significant in a ritual context (cf. Fredengren 2002, 194). Less equivocalevidence for ritual deposition is the frequent occurrence of human body parts and in particularhuman skulls in watery contexts. Again, Lough Gara is strongly representative of this practice,with numerous skull finds from the shores of the lough and its vicinity (Fredengren 2002, 191and fig. 38) and examples in association with crannogs are widespread, as at Ballinderry 1 and2 (Hencken 1936, 227–9), Clonfinlough (Moloney et al. 1993), Lagore (Hencken 1950, 199) andMoynagh Lough (Newman 1997, 99) to cite only a few. It is clear that the link between thedisposal of human body parts (often with evidence of violent death, mutilation ordismemberment), metalwork (particularly weapons) and watery contexts is strong, and thesepractices were certainly carried out on and around crannogs.

This three-way association of metalwork, human body parts and water is well knownacross the British Isles in the Later Bronze Age, with particular concentrations in the Thames(Bradley and Gordon 1988; Bradley 1998, 108) as well as at Flag Fen (Pryor 2001), Caldicot(Nayling and Caseldine 1997), Poulton-le-Fylde (Wells and Hodgkinson 2001) and Holderness,




Yorkshire (Smith 1911). Bradley has related this phenomenon to the decrease in burial evidence,suggesting that this change indicates a move away from burial towards votive offering as theprincipal ritual activity in the Late Bronze Age (Bradley 1998, 102), and Brück has argued thatthis signifies a reinvention and elaboration of the established practice of wetland deposition,reflecting changing social concerns of Late Bronze Age communities (Brück 1995, 252–3).Similarly, the deposition of metalwork may have taken the place of mortuary rituals as theprincipal mechanisms for the renegotiation of social relationships (ibid. 263; Cooney and Grogan1999, 164; Richards and Thomas 1984).

Scotland

Metalwork deposition in Scotland was equally widespread during the Late Bronze Age,with numerous hoards of weaponry found in wet locations across the country. Again, theprincipal objects are bronze swords and axes such as the examples from Carlingwark Loch(Anderson 1879), Bowling on the Clyde (Coles 1960, 85–6), Breachacha in Argyll (ibid.),Ballymore in Argyll (Childe 1943, 184–7) as well as Point of Sleat, Skye (Henderson 1938, 173;Coles 1960, 111) and Adabrock, Lewis (Anderson 1911; Armit 1996, 101–2), to demonstrate thewide geographical range of these finds. Evidence for vessel deposition is also recurrent, withfrequent cauldron rings, such as those from Duddingston and Dowalton. Human body parts seemto be less frequently encountered in Scotland, although it is probable that this can be explainedas a factor of recovery rates. Perhaps the most obviously relevant site is that in DuddingstonLoch, Edinburgh, where a hoard consisting of a range of deliberately bent and broken Ewart Parkswords, spearheads and a cauldron ring were recovered in association with ‘skulls and otherhuman bones, together with the bones of animals of the deer and elk species’ (Fig. 10; Callander1922, 360). The precise nature of the wooden structure that seems to have been associated withthese deposits is unclear, but the description given in the nineteenth century appears to suggestthat it may have been some form of pile-built structure (Stuart 1868, 161–2). While we cannotbe confident of the association of this putative structure to the LBA hoard deposits, theconnection between water, human body parts and weaponry deposition is again consistent withthe wider LBA pattern. Human bones were among those recovered from the margins of theCoatbridge crannog, though the details of the context are vague (Monteith and Robb 1937), aswell as from Loch a’ Mhuillin, Oban from around the margins of a stone structure, resting on anorganic artificial island (Blundell 1913, 288; RCAHMS 1975, 93).

As always, we must be aware of the lack of any comprehensive survey of lochs – aproblem which is most pressing in areas of the north and west where agricultural drainageoperations have not been carried out to any great extent – and the complex distribution andchronology of crannogs in Scotland makes the association of early lake settlement structureswith metalwork deposition difficult. However, we can confidently say that the west EuropeanLBA practice of metalwork deposition in watery locations was also prevalent in Scotland,apparently across most of the country, and the same ritual importance of water was applicablein Late Bronze Age Scottish society. The continuity of these traditions into the latter half ofthe first millennium and later – when they can be linked to crannogs – is demonstrated by twoimportant sites in south-west Scotland, at Dowalton and Carlingwark Loch. At Carlingwark, asubstantial quantity of native and Roman metalwork, principally weapons and tools, weredeposited into the loch inside a sheet bronze cauldron (Piggott 1953, 28–40), some time in theearly second century AD. The hoard included broken sword tips, iron hammers and chain mail

GRAEME CAVERS


as well as more mundane objects such as the cooking gridiron (see Fig. 9). The character ofthe Carlingwark hoard is closely paralleled by the hoards from Blackburn Mill and Eckford,all three consisting of cauldrons containing metalwork deposited in watery places (Piggott1953, 2–3), suggesting that much of southern Scotland shared the tradition through the MiddleIron Age (Wait 1985, 47; Hunter 1997, 119). Metalwork deposition in Dowalton Loch was ofa somewhat different nature, consisting of individual items rather than cauldron deposits,though the character of the items, principally valuable vessels and tools, would support avotive interpretation (Hunter 1994).

What Carlingwark and Dowalton have in common is that both lochs are denselypopulated with crannog structures. Carlingwark remains unsurveyed, but it seems that at leasttwo of the four occupied islands in the loch are artificial (Stuart 1874), while at Dowalton

Figure 9The Carlingwark Loch metalwork hoard, dating to the early second century AD (photo: author).

Figure 10The Duddingston Loch Late Bronze Age metalwork hoard (Scran).




there are at least four crannogs (and very probably more) (Stuart 1866). As such, it is clearthat the votive deposition of valuable objects took place within areas of settlement in theMiddle Iron Age in southern Scotland, and consequently if – as seems likely – the reverenceof water was of utmost importance then the crannogs of the area must surely have beenviewed as significant and powerful symbols, in their explicit merging of the ritual anddomestic spheres of life.

discussion: lake settlement, ritual and domestic

As we have seen, the Late Bronze Age veneration of watery contexts is well attestedacross much of Britain and Europe, and the continuity of the importance of water into later Celticreligion is well known (e.g. Green 1997, 138). Fitzpatrick and others, however, have noted thedecline of metalwork deposition after the Late Bronze Age (Fitzpatrick 1984, 181; Bradley 1998,166), so that the apparent continuity and even increase of this practice in the Middle Iron Age insouthern Scotland stand out as anomalous (Hunter 1997, 119). Ritual activity in the Middle IronAge in southern Scotland, particularly in south-eastern regions, seems to have involved thedeposition of high-value metalwork as an act of votive offering as one of the main focuses ofritual activity (Wait 1985, 48), and this is certainly paralleled by parts of Britain and Ireland (cf.Raftery 1994, 184). In the Atlantic regions of Scotland, by contrast, this practice seems to havedeclined almost to insignificance (Hunter 1997, 111), and the character of votive offeringschanges. In the transitional period from the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, then, there appearsto have been a significant divergence in the manifestation of ritual behaviour, distinguishing thenorth and west of the country from the south and east.

It is possible to link this distinction to the changes that occur in the settlement record inthe second half of the first millennium BC, and specifically to the phenomenon of domesticmonumentality, which sees the monumental roundhouse come to dominate the archaeologicalrecord of the period after c.500 BC. Hingley has discussed the evidence for the origins of themonumental roundhouses of the Scottish Iron Age, noting the general trend of the abandonmentof central, communal ritual monuments and burial sites towards the increasing incorporation ofritual activity into the domestic arena, particularly noticeably in the Atlantic regions (Hingley1992, 23–4). In particular, the deposition of objects related to fertility and agriculturalproductivity in and around houses was common from the Late Bronze Age onwards, and theevidence for the close association of ritual deposition and the house is strong (ibid.). At the sametime, wet locations continued to be revered, and the combination of fertility and wetlanddeposition was also strong, perhaps illustrated most clearly by the Ballachulish figurine,interpreted as a ‘fertility goddess’ and deliberately deposited in a peat bog (Glob 1969; Coles1990; Coles and Coles 1996, 75). A radiocarbon date for the figurine places it in the secondquarter of the first millennium BC (Coles and Coles 1996, 75).

The association of ritual activity with mundane structures with primary functionsother than for ritual purposes is known from much of Earlier Iron Age Britain, though it isclear that there were strong regional variations on the theme. In the opinion of the excavatorsthe wooden causeway structure at Fiskerton in Lincolnshire was not primarily ritual infunction, serving first and foremost as a crossing point, a routeway and a boat mooring point.It was also the site of votive offering on a large scale, however, involving the deposition oflarge quantities of fine metalwork through the second half of the first millennium BC (Fieldand Parker Pearson 2003, 193). The ritual significance of Fiskerton cannot be questioned, but

GRAEME CAVERS


it seems probable that the site was also constructed to perform some other more functionalpurpose, illustrating the carrying out of ritual activities within a non-ritual context (cf.Bradley’s interpretation of La Tène and Cornaux, 1998, 173). It seems possible that theliminal location of the Fiskerton structure – its ‘betwixt and between’ situation – may havemade it particularly suitable as a place for carrying out ritual deposition (Field and ParkerPearson 2003, 193), and it is furthermore possible that it was this quality that made lakesettlements favoured places for the construction of monumental houses as products of themerging of ritual and domestic spheres of life. As Brown has noted, islands can be thought ofas both within and outside the domestic and agricultural sphere, thus combining the ritual andthe social, and furthermore signifying power since they can be ‘seen but not touched’ (Brown2003, 10).

There is a growing body of evidence that in Scotland – and perhaps especiallyAtlantic Scotland – rituals related to death and burial were increasingly carried out withindomestic areas and that houses became the principal focus of funerary deposition. At CladhHallan on South Uist Sheffield University have been excavating a Late Bronze Age site whereinterment of human bodies occurred under the floors of three thick-walled roundhouses, whilethe more normal LBA rite of cremation was also found, but deposited within the living areasof the site (Parker Pearson et al. 2002; Parker Pearson et al. 2004, 74). The excavators seeCladh Hallan as representing the origins of the symbolic emphasis on the household, with thenormal practices of ritual deposition and burial being carried out within a domestic context inconjunction with the increasing elaboration of the architecture of the house structure (ibid.).This theme of the symbolic importance of domestic structures continues into the Iron Age,and, despite the variety of interpretations of settlement status, is frequently suggested as oneof the principal reasons for the phenomenon of domestic monumentality in northern andwestern Scotland (e.g. Parker Pearson et al. 1996; Parker Pearson and Sharples 1999; Armit1997b; 2002). The wheelhouses of the Western Isles illustrate the continuity of thisemphasis, with a range of structured deposits occurring behind the walls and beneath thefloors of structures at Sollas, A’ Cheardach Mhor and Cnip (Armit 1996, 155; Campbell 1991;Crawford 2002, 123).

Considering the combination, therefore, of the Iron Age veneration of watery places andpreference for liminal and isolated locations with the Atlantic Scottish trend towards thesymbolic importance of the house after the Late Bronze Age helps to understand thedevelopment of lake settlement in Scotland as part of the wider process of the fusion of the ritualand domestic spheres of life. By thinking about lake settlement in these terms it is possible tomove past practical and functional interpretations, towards a contextualized appreciation of theconceptual origins of the lake settlement tradition in Scotland (Cavers forthcoming b). Thecoterminous appearance of crannog structures and the monumental roundhouse tradition is notcoincidental: in this paper I have considered how the investment of ritual symbolism in thedomestic structure was as significant a factor in the origin and development of lake settlement asin the development of monumental drystone roundhouses on land.

AOC Archaeology LtdEdgefield Road

LoanheadMidlothian, EH20 9SY

Email: [email protected]




mailto:[email protected]

references

anderson, j. 1879: Notice of a remarkable find of bronze swords and other bronze articles in Edinburgh;with notes on other bronze swords in Scotland. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 13,320–33.

anderson, j. 1911: Notice of a hoard of bronze implements recently found on Lewis. Proceedings of theSociety of Antiquaries of Scotland 45, 27–46.

armit, i. 1992: The Neolithic Settlement of Eilean Domhnuill, Loch Olabahat, North Uist (lecturesummary). Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 121, 444–5.

armit, i. 1996: The Archaeology of Skye and the Western Isles (Edinburgh).

armit, i. 1997a: Cultural landscapes and identities: a case study in the Scottish Iron Age. In Gwilt andHaselgrove (eds.) 1997, 248–53.

armit, i. 1997b: Architecture and the household: a response to Sharples and Parker Pearson. In Gwilt andHaselgrove (eds.) 1997, 266–9.

armit, i. 2002: Land and freedom: implications of Atlantic Scottish settlement patterns for Iron Age landholding and social organisation. In Ballin-Smith, B. and Banks, I. (eds.) 2002, In the Shadow of the Brochs:the Iron Age in Scotland (Stroud), 15–26.

baillie, m.g.l. 1991: Suck in and smear: two related chronological problems for the 90s. Journal ofTheoretical Archaeology 2, 12–16.

blundell, f.o. 1913: Further notes on the artificial islands in the Highland area. Proceedings of theSociety of Antiquaries of Scotland 47, 257–302.

bradley, j. 1991: Excavations at Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquariesof Ireland 121, 5–26.

bradley, r. 1998: The Passage of Arms: an archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoard and votivedeposits (2nd ed.) (Oxford).

bradley, r. and gordon, k. 1988: Human skulls from the River Thames: their dating and significance.Antiquity 62, 503–9.

brown, a. 2003: Divisions of floodplain space and sites on riverine ‘islands’: functional, social, ritual orliminal places? Journal of Wetland Archaeology 3, 3–15.

brück, j. 1995: A Place for the Dead: the role of human remains in late Bronze Age Britain. Proceedingsof the Prehistoric Society 61, 245–77.

callander, j.g. 1922: Three Bronze Age hoards recently added to the National Collection, with noteson the hoard from Duddingston Loch. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 56, 351–64.

campbell, e. 1991: Excavation of a wheelhouse and other Iron Age structures at Sollas, North Uist, byR.J.C.Atkinson in 1957. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 121, 117–73.

cavers, m.g. 2005: Crannogs and Later Prehistoric Settlement in Western Scotland (Unpublished Ph.D.thesis, Department of Archaeology/UARC, University of Nottingham).

cavers, m.g. forthcoming a: The complexity of crannog taphonomy: old evidence and new. In Proceedingsof International Wetland Archaeology Research Project (Edinburgh).

cavers, m.g. forthcoming b: Crannogs in context: Scottish lake dwellings and later prehistoric settlement.In Osborne-Martin, E. and Werner, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 Iron Age Research Students’Seminar, Edinburgh.

childe, v.g. 1943: A hoard of bronzes from Ballymore, Cowal, Argyll. Proceedings of the Society ofAntiquaries of Scotland 77, 184–7.

GRAEME CAVERS


clapham, a.j. and scaife, r. 1988: A pollen and plant macrofossil investigation of Oakbank crannog, LochTay, Scotland. In Murphy, P. and French, C. (eds.), The Exploitation of Wetlands (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser.186), 293–325.

coles, b. 1990: Anthropomorphic wooden figures from Britain and Ireland. Proceedings of the PrehistoricSociety 56, 315–33.

coles, j.m. 1960: Scottish Late Bronze Age Metalwork: typology, distributions and chronology.Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 93, 16–134.

coles, j. and coles, b. 1996: Enlarging the Past: the contribution of wetland archaeology (Edinburgh,Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Monograph 11).

collins, a.e.p. and seaby, w.a. 1960: Structures and small finds discovered at Lough Eskragh, Co.Tyrone. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 23, 25–48.

cooney, g. and grogan, g. 1999: Irish Prehistory: a social perspective (2nd ed.) (Dublin).

crawford, i. 2002: The Wheelhouse. In Ballin-Smith and Banks (eds.) 2002, 111–28.

crone, b.a. 1993: Crannogs and Chronologies. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 123,245–54.

crone, b.a. 2000: The History of a Scottish Lowland Crannog: Excavations at Buiston, Ayrshire, 1989–90(Edinburgh, STAR Monograph 4, AOC/Historic Scotland).

dixon, t.n. 1981: Preliminary excavation of Oakbank crannog, Loch Tay: interim report. InternationalJournal of Nautical Archaeology 10(1), 15–21.

dixon, t.n. 1982: A survey of crannogs in Loch Tay. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland112, 17–38.

dixon, t.n. 1984: Oakbank crannog. Current Archaeology 90, 217–20.

dixon, t.n. 1994: Reconstructing a Bronze Age lake dwelling in Loch Tay. In Boloeil, D. (ed.), Les SitesReconstitutions Archaeologiques (Belgium, Archèosite d’Aubechies).

dixon, t.n. 2004: Scottish Crannogs: an underwater archaeology (Stroud).

dixon, t.n. and cavers, m.g. 2001: Oakbank crannog. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland New Series1, 76–7.

dunning, r. 1935: The Swan’s Neck and Ring-headed Pins of the Early Iron Age in Britain.Archaeological Journal 91, 269–95.

eogan, g. 1964: The later bronze age in Ireland in the light of recent research. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 30, 268–351.

field, n. and parker pearson, m. 2003: Fiskerton: An Iron Age timber causeway with Iron Age andRoman Votive Offerings (Oxford).

fitzpatrick, a. 1984: The deposition of La Tène Iron Age metalwork in watery contexts in SouthernEngland. In Cunliffe, B. and Miles, D. (eds.), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain (Oxford),178–90.

fredengren, c. 2002: Crannogs: a study of people’s interaction with lakes, with special reference to LochGara in the North West of Ireland (Bray).

glob, p.v. 1969: The Bog People: Iron Age Man Preserved (London).

green, m. 1997: The Gods of the Celts (London).

gwilt, a. and haselgrove, c. (eds.) 1997: Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: new approaches to theBritish Iron Age (Oxford, Oxbow Monographs 71).

hale, a. 2000: Marine crannogs: recent research and previous surveys. Proceedings of the Society ofAntiquaries of Scotland 130, 537–58.

hale, a. 2004: Scottish Marine Crannogs (Oxford, BAR Brit. Ser. 369).




hencken, h.o. 1936: Ballinderry crannog no. 1. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 43(C), 103–239.

hencken, h.o. 1942: Ballinderry crannog no. 2. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 47(C), 1–76.

hencken, h.o. 1950: Lagore crannog: an Irish royal residence of the seventh to tenth century AD.Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 53(C), 1–248.

henderson, j.c. 1998: Islets through time: the definition, dating and distribution of Scottish crannogs.Oxford Journal of Archaeology 17(2), 227–44.

henderson, j.c., crone, b.a. and cavers, m.g. 2003: A condition survey of selected crannogs in south westScotland. Transactions of the Dumfries and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society 77, 79–102.

henderson, w. 1938: Scottish late Bronze Age axes and swords. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquariesof Scotland 72, 150–77.

hingley, r. 1992: Society in Scotland from 700 BC to AD 200. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquariesof Scotland 122, 7–53.

hodges, h.w.m. 1958: A hunting camp at Cullyhanna Lough, near Newton Hamilton, Co. Armagh. UlsterJournal of Archaeology 21, 7–13.

hunter, f. 1994: Dowalton Loch Reconsidered. Transactions of the Dumfries and Galloway NaturalHistory and Antiquarian Society 68, 53–71.

hunter, f. 1997: Iron Age Hoarding in Scotland and Northern England. In Gwilt and Haselgrove (eds.)1997, 108–33.

hurl, d. 1995: Killymoon: new light on the Bronze Age. Archaeology Ireland 34, 24–7.

ivens, r.j., simpson, d.d.a. and brown, d. 1986: Excavations at Island MacHugh: Interim report. UlsterJournal of Archaeology 49, 99–102.

jope, e.m. 1953: Three late Bronze Age swords from Ballycroghan, near Bangor, County Down. UlsterJournal of Archaeology 16, 37–41.

lynn, c.j. 1977: Trial excavations at King’s Stables, Tray Townland, County Armagh. Ulster Journal ofArchaeology 40, 42–62.

mackinlay, j. 1864: Notice of two ‘crannoges’ or palisaded islands, on Bute, with plans. Proceedings ofthe Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 3, 43–6.

mallory, j.p. and mcneill, t.e. 1991: The Archaeology of Ulster from Colonization to Plantation(Belfast, Queen’s University Belfast, Institute of Irish Studies).

miller, j. 2002: The Oakbank crannog: building a house of plants. In Ballin-Smith and Banks (eds.) 2002,35–43.

moloney, a., jennings, d., keane, m. and mcdermott, c. 1993: Excavations at Clonfinlough, CountyOffaly (Dublin, University College Dublin, Irish Archaeological Wetlands Unit Transactions, Vol. 2).

monteith, j. and robb, j.r. 1937: The crannog at Lochend, Coatbridge, with a report on the osseousremains. Transactions of the Glasgow Archaeological Society 9(1), 26–43.

morrison, i. 1982: The extension of the chronology of the crannogs of Scotland. International Journal ofNautical Archaeology 10(4), 344–6.

munro, r. 1905: Archaeology and False Antiquities (London).

nayling, n. and caseldine, a. 1997: Excavations at Caldicot, Gwent: Bronze Age palaeochannels in thelower Nedern valley (York, CBA Res. Rep. 108).

newman, c. 1997: Ballinderry Crannog No. 2, Co. Offaly: the later bronze age. Journal of IrishArchaeology 8, 91–100.

ó faoláin, s. 2004: Bronze Artefact Production in Late Bronze Age Ireland (Oxford, BAR Brit. Ser. 382).

o’sullivan, a. 1997: Interpreting the archaeology of late Bronze Age lake settlements. Journal of IrishArchaeology 8, 115–21.

GRAEME CAVERS


o’sullivan, a. 1998: The Archaeology of Lake Settlement in Ireland (Dublin, Discovery Programme).

parker pearson, m. and sharples, n. 1999: Between Land and Sea: excavations at Dun Vulan (Sheffield,SEARCH Monograph).

parker pearson, m., sharples, n. and mulville, j. 1996: Brochs and Iron Age Society: a reappraisal.Antiquity 70, 57–67.

parker pearson, m., marshall, p., mulville, j. and smith, h. 2002: The Dead Beneath Their Feet:Housewarming c.1000BC, roundhouse rituals at Cladh Hallan. Past: Newsletter of the Prehistoric Society40, 1–2.

parker pearson, m., sharples, N. and symonds, n. 2004: South Uist: archaeology and history of aHebridean island (Stroud).

piggott, s. 1953: Three metalwork hoards of the Roman period from Southern Scotland. Proceedings ofthe Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 87, 1–53.

pryor, f. 2001: The Flag Fen Basin: archaeology and environment of a fenland landscape (London,English Heritage).

raftery, b. 1994: Pagan Celtic Ireland: the enigma of the Irish Iron Age (London).

raftery, j. 1942: Knocknalappa crannog, Co. Clare. North Munster Archaeological Journal 3, 53–72.

rcahms 1975: The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland: Argyll: aninventory of monuments 2: Lorn (Edinburgh).

rennie, e.b. and newall, f. 2001: An Excavation of an Early Iron Age enclosure and a description ofadjacent West Highland long houses on Meldalloch Island, Kilfinan, Argyll (Glasgow, Association ofCertified Field Archaeologists, Occasional Papers No. 2).

richards, c. and thomas, j. 1984: Ritual activity and structured deposition in later Neolithic Wessex. InBradley, R. and Gardiner, J. (eds.), Neolithic Studies (Oxford, BAR Brit. Ser. 133), 198–218.

sands, r.j.s. 1997: Prehistoric Woodworking (London, Institute of Archaeology, UCL).

sands, r.j.s. and hale, a. 2001: Evidence from marine crannogs of later prehistoric use of the Firth ofClyde. Journal of Wetland Archaeology 1, 41–54.

scott, j. 1966: Regional Archaeologies: South West Scotland (Edinburgh).

simpson, d.d.a. 1986: A late Bronze Age sword from Island MacHugh, Co. Tyrone. Ulster Journal ofArchaeology 49, 103–4.

smith, r.a. 1911: Lake dwellings in Holderness, Yorkshire, discovered by Thos. Boynton, 1880–1.Archaeologia 62, 593–610.

stuart, j. 1866: Notice of a group of artificial islands in the loch of Dowalton, Wigtownshire, and of otherartificial islands, or ‘crannogs’, throughout Scotland. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland6, 114–83.

stuart, j. 1868: Notes of Wooden Structures discovered in the Moss of Whiteburn, on the Estate ofSpottiswoode, Berwickshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 8, 19–20.

stuart, j. 1874: Notice of a Bronze Sword found in Carlingwark Loch. Presented to the Museum by D AGordon Esq of Greenlaw. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 10, 286.

wait, g.a. 1985: Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain (Oxford, BAR Brit. Ser. 149).

wells, c.e. and hodgkinson, d. 2001: A late Bronze Age human skull and associated worked wood froma Lancashire wetland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 67, 163–74.

williams, b.b. 1978: Excavations at Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 41,37–47.

wood-martin, w.g. 1886 (reprint 2003): The Lake Dwellings of Ireland, or ancient lacustrine habitationsof Erin (Dublin [1886]; Cribyn [2003]).




late bronze and iron age lake settlement in scotland and ireland: the development of the...

Documents