Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T19:46:04.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pins and the Chronology of Brochs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

Robert B. K. Stevenson
Robert B. K. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Keeper, National Museum of Antiquities, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Prehistorians have unreservedly extended the Early Iron Age in territories north of the Roman Empire to include, in addition to a pre-Roman Iron Age, a Roman Iron Age during which the native barbarism evolved without a break though not unaffected by the Empire. That a Late Iron Age continued in Scotland, as in Scandinavia, during post-Roman times has been less readily realized. Professor Childe nominally ended his Prehistory of Scotland with the 4th century A.D. and spoke of an unbridged chasm thereafter, four or five centuries long, to which few and undecisive relics were attributable. The extent of archaeological perplexity 30 years ago was such that J. G. Callander maintained that Skara Brae represented the same Iron Age culture as the brochs and earth-houses. Following the studies of brochs and wheel-houses by Lindsay Scott and Lethbridge, which agreed that they formed a single culture datable to the first three centuries A.D., the latter wrote recently that the culture of the Western Isles between the 3rd century and the 9th ‘is completely unknown and I think unsought’.

Type
Iron Age
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 21 , July 1956 , pp. 282 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 282 note 1 V. G. Childe, op. cit., 1935, 259.

page 282 note 2 P.S.A.S., 1930–1931, 114Google Scholar.

page 282 note 3 P.P.S., 1947, 1–36Google Scholar; 1948, 46–125.

page 282 note 4 ibid., 1952, 176–93.

page 282 note 5 Painted Men, 1954, 184–5Google Scholar.

page 282 note 6 Prehistoric Communities, 1940, 248Google Scholar.

page 282 note 7 Arch. News Letter, 1951–1952, 123Google Scholar.

page 282 note 8 P.R.I.A., 1950–1951, 1–247Google Scholar.

page 283 note 1 Simpson, W. D., Celtic Church in Scotland, 1935Google Scholar. One result was that Latin was first used for native inscriptions, gravestones, in the immediately post-Roman centuries.

page 283 note 2 Antiquity, 1955, 79–80Google Scholar.

page 283 note 3 Oxford History of England, vol. II, 74Google Scholar.

page 283 note 4 P.S.A.S., 1931–1932, 380Google Scholar.

page 283 note 5 ibid., 1900–01, 293–4; Ancient Scottish Lake Dwellings, 1882, 190–239Google Scholar.

page 283 note 6 P.S.A.S., 1948–1949, 192Google Scholar (refs.). For post-Roman knives see J.R.S.A.I. Supplement, 1938. (Cahercommaun), 46, and P.S.A.S., 1947–1948, 219–20Google Scholar. One was found at Traprain, and one at Corbridge in Northumberland.

page 283 note 7 Arch. Scot., V, 1890, 341–64Google Scholar. Refs. in the present paper are all to this Burrian (one of many).

page 283 note 8 On dice see Lagore, cit., 196.

page 285 note 1 P.S.A.S., 1872–1874, 476 ffGoogle Scholar. It is a serious handicap in such comparisons that at Traprain Law bone does not survive the soil conditions.

page 285 note 2 Below, p. 286. There is a small ballhead pin of iron from Dunadd.

page 285 note 3 P.R.I.A., 1942, 1–76Google Scholar. There are none among the many pins from Cahercommaun, Co. Clare, preserved in Dublin, Mr B. Ó Ríordáin kindly tells me.

page 285 note 4 From Keiss broch there is one of the slotted and pointed iron objects known at Lagore (cit. 118), and other Irish sites, and Dunadd.

page 285 note 5 C.A.S. Quarto Pub. III, 1931Google Scholar, fig. 38.

page 285 note 6 P.C.A.S., 1906–08, pl. XXI.

page 285 note 7 Fox, C., Arch. Camb. Reg., 1923Google Scholar, pl. XXVII, 2; Quarto Pub., cit. fig. 27.

page 285 note 8 Archaeol., 1943, 71Google Scholar.

page 285 note 9 Artis, E. T., The Durobrivae of Antoninus, 1828Google Scholar, pl. XLI.

page 285 note 10 op. cit., fig. 104.

page 285 note 11 Below, p. 291.

page 286 note 1 P.S.A.S., 1929–1930, 120–2Google Scholar and 1913–14, 147–8.

page 286 note 2 J.R.S.A.I., 1938 (Suppl.): two-fifths of all shapes of bone pin head there are perforated for a thread, while in Scotland perforation is confined to uncarved animal fibula pins, e.g., at Buston.

page 286 note 3 Recently cleaned; cf. Anderson, J., Scotland in Pagan Times: Iron Age, 1883Google Scholar, fig. 210.

page 286 note 4 B.M. Anglo-Saxon Guide, 1923, pl. IX.

page 286 note 5 P.S.A.S., 1912–1913, 15Google Scholar.

page 286 note 6 Soc. Ant. Research Report, IX, 1932Google Scholar, fig. 18.

page 286 note 7 Y Commrodor, 1923, fig. 58.

page 286 note 8 op. cit., fig. 16, cf. P.S.A.S., 1913–1914, 147Google Scholar, Dunadd, mould.

page 286 note 9 ibid., 1930–1, 412, fig. 4.

page 286 note 10 P.P.S., 1948, 75Google Scholar.

page 286 note 11 P.S.A.S., 1930–1931, 336Google Scholar.

page 286 note 12 P.P.S., 1952, 184Google Scholar.

page 286 note 13 P.S.A.S., 1933–1934, 444–516Google Scholar and unpublished.

page 287 note 1 Thickness remained much the same, unlike the very thin pins in some Anglo-Saxon graves—which may have been fastened to linen instead of to tweed, a suggestion I owe to Mr Lethbridge.

page 287 note 2 P.S.A.S., 1930–1931, 194–8Google Scholar.

page 287 note 3 Below, p. 290.

page 287 note 4 Lagore, op. cit., 184 ff. The only exception seems to be circa A.D. 220 at Leicester; Soc. Ant. Research Report, XV, 1948, 269Google Scholar.

page 287 note 5 Curle, J., A Roman Frontier Post, 1911Google Scholar, pl. XCIII.

page 287 note 6 Trans. Glasgow Arch. Soc., V, 1902–1906, 46Google Scholar and fig. 1, with a Belgic penannular brooch.

page 287 note 7 e.g. Corder, P., Langton Villa, 1932, 73Google Scholar (Roman Malton and District, No. 4).

page 287 note 8 P.S.A.S., 1904–1905, 317Google Scholar and 1930–1, 312.

page 287 note 9 Munro dated his site at Elie by the two combs analogous to Buston, but J. Curie included it in his Romano-British list because of pseudo-Samian sherds (ibid., 1900–01, 281 ff. and 1931–2, 384); an iron trident is closely similar to one from Lagore, and another late feature is a turned bone whorl. For combs on Pictish monuments see ibid., 1946–7, 3 ff.; mirrors are an example of ‘native’ continuity which led Clapham, A. W., Antiquity, 1934, 44–5Google Scholar, to assign an otherwise unjustifiably early start to Pictish sculpture.

page 287 note 10 Refs. Prehistory of Scotland, 235Google Scholar.

page 288 note 1 Arch. J., 1934, 269–95Google Scholar.

page 288 note 2 P.P.S., 1954, 15Google Scholar (All Cannings Cross).

page 288 note 3 Prehist. Communities, 219 (Danes Graves).

page 288 note 4 Soc. Ant. Research Report, XII (Maiden Castle), 1943, 270Google Scholar.

page 288 note 5 P.S.A.S., 1949–1950, 129 ffGoogle Scholar. (The Clairinch pin is iron, its head oval but perhaps not crooked).

page 288 note 6 These have been distinguished as ‘wry-necked’ or ‘shouldered’, expressions that unfortunately could be used of either series.

page 288 note 7 P.S.A.S., 1930–1931, 194Google Scholar.

page 288 note 8 Dunning, op. cit.: Maiden Castle Report, 1943.

page 288 note 9 Corbridge, Northumberland, Arch. Ael., 1910, 189Google Scholar and Anglesey, , B.M. Early Iron Age Guide, 1925Google Scholar, fig. 109.

page 288 note 10 P.S.A.S., 1931–1932, 396Google Scholar.

page 288 note 11 Also Ness broch, Caithness (B.M. Guide, fig. 110—in N.M.A.S.); more sophisticated from Culbin Sands, Coupar Angus and Dunadd (P.S.A.S., 1904–1905, 317Google Scholar).

page 288 note 12 I am indebted to Mr Hamilton for this information.

page 288 note 13 P.S.A.S., 1933–1934, 463, 466Google Scholar (the ‘Roman patera’ is a doubtful identification), 500.

page 288 note 14 P.P.S., 1952, 184Google Scholar.

page 288 note 15 P.S.A.S., 1952–1953, 92–4Google Scholar, also below, p. 292.

page 289 note 1 Antiquity, 1938, 261 ff.Google Scholar

page 289 note 2 See n. 2, p. 294.

page 289 note 3 P.S.A. Lond., 1903–1905, 344–54Google Scholar; Montelius Festschrift, 1913, 281–9Google Scholar.

page 290 note 1 Small Beads: Traprain; Tentsmuir, Fife; Lingrow broch (mould). Rosettes: Covesea; Traprain 8 (including mould). P-h-pins: Berneray, N. Uist; Covesea: Traprain 6 (including moulds); Corbridge (Arch. Ael., 1910, 189Google Scholar). Ireland, no prov. (Mahr, , Early Christian Art, I, 1932Google Scholar, pl. I, 6).

page 290 note 2 P.S.A.S., 1930–1931, 194–6Google Scholar.

page 290 note 3 Early Christian Art, vol. II, 1941, 25Google Scholar; torc: B.M. Later Prehistoric Antiquities, 1953, pl. XIV.

page 290 note 4 Swandale, Rousay, Orkney (unpub.); Covesea, 7; North Berwick (B.M. Guide, fig. III and P.S.A.S., 1906–1907, 428–30Google Scholar—(one pin, in Nat. Mus. of Antiquities, Edinburgh); Corbridge (unpub.); Lydney: Carriag Aille II, Co. Limerick, perhaps an ibex-head, however (P.R.I.A., 1949, 69–70Google Scholar).

page 290 note 5 P.S.A.Lond., 1903–1905, 350Google Scholar.

page 290 note 6 Wheeler, , Lydney Report, 83Google Scholar.

page 290 note 7 Montelius Fest., 285–6.

page 290 note 8 Freeman Coll., 1899; grave: V.C.H. Cambs., I, 1938Google Scholar, fig. 26b.

page 290 note 9 U.J.A., 1950, 54–6Google Scholar. Jope there points out that such pins do not in fact occur in France.

page 291 note 1 Ibex, True: Covesea; Leicester Report, 262; Sandy, Beds.; Woodperry, Oxon.Arch. J. 1846, 120Google Scholar; Duston, Northants. in an Anglo-Saxon grave (423) (unpub. Northampton Mus., cf. P.S.A. Lond., 1901–1903, 311Google Scholar), information from E. M. Jope; Dunfanaghy, Donegal and Ireland no prov., two; prob. N. Ireland (in Nat. Mus. Antiquities, Edinburgh, unpub.) Ibex, enamel spots: Newnham, Cambs.; Ballybunnion, Kerry, J. Cork H. and A.S., 1940, 56Google Scholar; Dundrum, Co. Down (unpub. Belfast Mus.), information from E. M. Jope.

page 291 note 2 Report, fig. 18.

page 291 note 3 Cf. Keady, N. Ireland (Smith, , P.S.A.Lond., 1903–1905Google Scholar, fig. 4).

page 291 note 4 P.S.A. Newcastle, 1924, 206Google Scholar.

page 291 note 5 Early Christian Art, vol. II, 24Google Scholar; Smith, op. cit., fig. 7.

page 291 note 6 P.P.S., 1952, 184Google Scholar.

page 291 note 7 Summarized, P.R.I.A., 1943–1944, 22–3Google Scholar.

page 291 note 8 Problem of the Picts, 1955 (ed. Wainwright, F. T.), 110–11Google Scholar.

page 291 note 9 P.S.A.S., 1919–1920, 88Google Scholar, cf. Montelius Festschrift, fig. 14 (Moresby, Cumberland).

page 291 note 10 P.S.A.S., 1930–1931, 15Google Scholar (six fingers).

page 291 note 11 P.R.I.A., 1948–1950, 67–8, 96–7Google Scholar, 69.

page 291 note 12 P.S.A.S., 1904–1905, 316–17Google Scholar.

page 291 note 13 Hand-pins in Scotland: 14 from ten places—to foregoing refs, add P.S.A.S., 1900–1901, 278–9Google Scholar; 1908–09, 8–9; 1939–40, 57; 1946–7, 196.

page 292 note 1 Archaeol., 1921–1922 (72), 71Google Scholar.

page 292 note 2 e.g. P.R.I.A., 1950–1951, 71–2Google Scholar. It may be derived from Anglo-Saxon needle-headed pins with wire slipknot rings (e.g. C.A.S. Quarto Pub., III, 1931, 40Google Scholar), as suggested to me by Mrs A. N. Young.

page 292 note 3 P.S.A.S., 1926–1927, 202–7Google Scholar.

page 292 note 4 Cahercommaun Report, 37–8.

page 292 note 5 P.S.A.S., 1952–1953, 94Google Scholar. The top of the head leaves a concave impression because it is rocked when each side of the ring is pressed down.

page 292 note 6 Burrian and Burray, Orkney, Kettleburn and Freswick, Caithness.

page 292 note 7 Munro, , Ancient Scottish Lake Dwellings, 1882Google Scholar, figs. 214–15.

page 292 note 8 Brochs of Midhowe, Oxtrow, Burrian and Howe, Sanday.

page 292 note 9 P.S.A.S., 1930–1931, 339Google Scholar and fig. 8.

page 292 note 10 Aikerness (Gurness), Ayre, Harray, Midhowe and Oxtrow.

page 293 note 1 P.R.I.A., 1941–1942, 53–4Google Scholar. The ref. to one at Buston is an error.

page 293 note 2 Lagore, , P.R.I.A., 1950–1951Google Scholar, fig. 81.

page 293 note 3 B.M. E.I.A. Guide, 158.

page 293 note 4 P.P.S., 1948, 103 ff.Google Scholar

page 293 note 5 Hints come from pottery found in Tiree (Hunterian Museum, Glasgow).

page 293 note 6 The supposed analogies with S.W. British pottery seem insufficient to show an immediate connection.

page 293 note 7 Turned whorls are found in Irish crannogs, and Anglo-Saxon sites such as Sutton Courtney (Archaeologia, LXXIII, 1923, 104Google Scholar), but one is said to be later 3rd-4th century at Richborough, (Soc. Ant. Research Report, XVI, 1949, 147)Google Scholar.

page 294 note 1 So Prof. K. H. Jackson tells me: cf. Ant. J., 1952, 71–3Google Scholar.

page 294 note 2 P.S.A.S., 1935–1936, 130–1Google Scholar. The 2nd century Romano-British brooch found at Kilpheder may well have been much older when left in the wheel-house than Lethbridge suggests (P.P.S., 1952, 182–4Google Scholar); for re-examination shows that it had been lost once before for an unknowable length of time, sufficient for a firm crust of green corrosion to coat it, and had been worn again so that the projections became smooth and free of corrosion. Incidentally the repair to the catch-plate is neat and of matching metal, and may be due to the maker mending a faulty casting.