A Pictish Burial and Late Norse/Medieval Settlement at Sangobeg, Durness, Sutherland

A Pictish burial and Late Norse/ Medieval settlement atSangobeg, Durness, Sutherland

KEVIN BRADY, OLIVIA LELONG∗ and COLLEEN BATEY∗∗

with contributions from LOUISE GIDNEY, RUBY CERÓN-CARRASCO,JENNIFER MILLER and SUSAN RAMSAY

Summary

Salvage excavation was carried out on an archaeological site, discovered duringthe North Sutherland Coastal Zone Assessment Survey in 1998, in dunes atSangobeg, near Durness in northern Sutherland. The excavation, conducted in2000, uncovered the fragmentary remains of probable Norse-period settlement,including stone walling, a hearth and occupation deposits that had been truncatedby erosion. Sealed beneath the Norse-period remains was the burial of a childof indeterminate sex, aged between 8–10 years, who had been placed in a flexedposition on a bed of quartzite pebbles and covered with a mound of cleansand, capped with larger quartzite stones. The burial was dated by radiocarbonto 170 cal BC–cal AD 30 (GU-12535).

Keywords: Pictish, Norse, burial, settlement

Introduction

In September 2000, the University of Glasgow’s Viking and Early SettlementArchaeological Project (VESARP) excavated an eroding site at Sangobeg, nearDurness in northern Sutherland. The excavation was funded by Historic Scotlandin order to rescue information from the site before its total destruction throughcoastal erosion.

The site first came to the attention of VESARP during the North SutherlandCoastal Zone Assessment Survey, carried out on behalf of Historic Scotland in1997 (Brady and Morris 1998). This rapid examination of a 50–100m strip ofcoastline extended from the west side of the Kyle of Durness to the River Borgiein Strathnaver (excluding Whiten Head). It included the small, sandy bay atSangobeg, approximately 1.5km east of the village of Durness (Fig 1).

The beach at Sangobeg (NGR: NC 242 966) is approximately 0.4km wide,a broad pocket of sand nestled between stretches of steep, craggy coastline.The eastern part of the beach contains a small outcrop of gneiss, but most ofthe surrounding geology is of the Cambrian period, some 550 million years old

∗ Glasgow University Archaeological Research Division (GUARD), Gregory Building, LilybankGardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ∗∗ Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow, Gregory Building, Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow

G12 8QQ

DOI: 10.3366/E147157670800020XScottish Archaeological Journal Vol.29(1) 51–82

52 BRADY, LELONG AND BATEY

Fig 1 Location of Sangobeg, Durness, Sutherland (Caitlin Evans with Gillian McSwan)

(Ross 1982, Table 1). The rear of the beach rises to low dunes covered with thinturf. The adjoining hinterland consists of gently sloping, improved grasslands, withthe ground rising to hills and moorland further inland. On the improved grasslandslie archaeological remains of more recent date, which were recorded during thesurvey (Brady and Morris 1998). These include a revetted trackway leading upfrom the beach, a longhouse and corn-drying kiln, and the unroofed remains ofcroft houses belonging to Sangobeg township (NMRS NC46NW 17).

The Sango river flows off the moorland, descends the dunes and crosses thebeach to the sea (Fig 2). The river frequently changes course on the beach: during

http://www.eupjournals.com/action/showImage?doi=10.3366/E147157670800020X&iName=master.img-000.jpg&w=394&h=410

SANGOBEG: PICTISH BURIAL AND SETTLEMENT 53

the excavation it flowed roughly E-W, parallel to the water’s edge and to the face ofthe dunes containing the site, which isolated these dunes in a sweeping meander.Four years later, however, it was flowing directly down the beach, perpendicular tothe water’s edge. Its direction is usually altered by large storms moving sedimentonto the foreshore.

By September 1997, when the site was discovered, the effects of erosion bythe river and by over-grazing had denuded the dunes of much of their turf cover.The tops of the seaward dunes retained some vegetation, but the area behind (tothe south) had been badly deflated, and this had been exacerbated by the temporarycamp of soldiers on local manoeuvres in the 1980s (J Morrison, pers. comm.).

The site, as discovered and recorded during the 1997 survey, consisted ofa spread of black, charcoal-flecked sand on the seaward side of the dune top(corresponding to excavation area C3, Fig 2). Examination of the surface of thisdeposit yielded mammal and fish bone, two possible iron boat rivets, vitrified fuelash, and a fragment of low-fired, grass-tempered pottery similar to Late Norsematerial from elsewhere in northern Scotland (for example, Freswick Links inCaithness, see Gaimster 1995, 136–141). At the western end of the dune was aconcentration of stones, apparently coursed, with further stones emerging from theerosion scar at the rear of the dune. These were interpreted as potential structuralelements belonging to a settlement. The erosion had disturbed and tumbled theseputative structures, and it seemed likely that any undisturbed structural elementswould lie under the portion of dune that was still grass-covered. It was also thoughtunlikely that archaeology preserved in that portion would survive if the sea brokethrough the dune or if grazing were to continue in this area. The river’s flow inspate was also undermining the seaward face of the dune, where the occupationdeposits were exposed.

This report presents the results of the area excavations undertaken in 2000 ofthe possible structural elements and occupation deposits first identified in 1997and the earlier burial discovered beneath them, and also of the coastal sondagesexcavated in the vicinity.

Archaeological Background

The nature and extent of Viking/Norse period settlement in NW Scotland remainsomewhat enigmatic (Morris, Barrett and Batey 1994; Lelong 2002). By the 13thcentury, the area that now comprises northern Sutherland (stretching westwardfrom Caithness along the N coast) was known as the Province of Strathnaver. Itsterritorial coherence probably originated in the Norse period, when it formed partof the Norse earldom of Caithness and the bishopric of Caithness. The OrkneyingaSaga relates that Earl Thorfinn (d. c.1065) was given Caithness and Sutherland (thelands to the south of Caithness) by his grandfather, Malcolm II (Taylor 1938), andthis would have included the later Province of Strathnaver. Although Strathnaveris not mentioned by name in the Norse sagas, Crawford (2000, 2) suggests thatit equates to the district referred to in the sagas as the ‘Dales’ of Caithness,an argument previously put forward by Skene (1837, 361). The character of theProvince, with its long river valleys and kyles opening onto the Pentland Firth,would be in keeping with this descriptive name. The period when this part of


Fig 2 Topographic Survey of Sangobeg Bay with Trench Locations (Olivia Lelong withJohn Arthur)



northern Scotland first came under the influence of Vikings from Norway and,later, Norse settlers may have begun as early as the mid 9th century AD. Thebeginning of the Late Norse period is taken as the point from which Viking activityended and the Norse earldom was securely established in the late 11th or early 12thcentury AD, through the period in which, while Norse political power was on thewane, its cultural influence continued in the far N (Graham-Campbell and Batey1998, 2).

Place names, both habitative and topographical, attest to fairly widespreadViking/Norse activity in northern Sutherland, especially along the coast (Waugh2000; Fraser 1979; 1995). These are scattered among Gaelic place names, perhapssuggesting that Norse settlement here was more diffuse and less intensive than inCaithness. Indeed, in 1982, Alan Small wrote that ‘the archaeological evidencefor Norse settlement is even more sparse than the place name evidence’ (Small1982, 182). ‘Sangobeg’ itself derives from the Old Norse ‘sand’ and ‘geo’,coupled with the Gaelic ‘beg’, to denote ‘little sandy creek or bay’. Within aradius of a few kilometres are numerous other Norse names (see Fig 1): Durness,Smoo, Sangomore, Eriboll, Borralie, Croispol, Keoldale and, further to the west,Cape Wrath – from hfarf or ‘turning point’, where Norse longships would turnto sail south along the west coast. Other clusters of Norse place names occurfurther to the east in the former Province of Strathnaver, particularly around theKyle of Tongue and in the valley of Strathnaver, suggesting considerable Norsecolonisation and/or linguistic influence in the area.

However, relatively few archaeological remains of certain Viking or Norsedate have so far been discovered in northern Sutherland (Lelong 2003). Almostall of the known archaeological evidence for Viking/Norse activity in the Provincehas been found in the vicinity of Durness (Fig 1). A single, 9th- or 10th-centuryburial of a young male was found in the dunes at Balnakeil Bay (Low, Batey andGourlay 2000; Batey and Paterson forthcoming 2008), and another possible burialis known from Keoldale, less than a kilometre to the south of Loch Borralie (Batey1993). A 9th-century midden excavated in a small cave off Smoo Inlet is thought tohave been left by sailors using the inlet for shelter during the 9th to 12th centuries,although evidence for cereal processing in the cave might indicate links to morepermanent local settlement (Pollard 2005). Ongoing excavation near Loch Borralieby the Strathnaver Province Archaeology Project is uncovering evidence for laterMedieval (14th- to 15th-century) settlement (Gazin-Schwartz and Lelong 2005).Most of the firm archaeological evidence for Norse to Late Norse settlement comesfrom coastal Caithness: from Freswick Links on the east coast (Morris, Batey andRackham 1995; Morris, Barrett and Batey 1994) and from Robert’s Haven on theN (Barrett 1995).

The discovery of a potentially Norse-period site at Sangobeg, therefore, wasa significant one in the regional context. Because of this potential importance andthe imminent threats to the site, Historic Scotland commissioned its excavation.

Methodology

The fieldwork was carried out over four weeks in September 2000. First, the highwater mark, the course of the river and the extent of the site and of vegetation


were surveyed using a total station. The resulting topographic map (Fig 2) willprovide a useful comparative tool for future analysis of the rate of dune erosion.The survey also included visual assessment of eroding faces to identify potentialarchaeological deposits. These were recorded photographically and their locationswere surveyed.

The excavation strategy relied upon targeting areas deemed the most likely toproduce settlement evidence, based upon the visual assessment. Eroding sectionsin four areas (A, B, D and E in Fig 2) were cleaned and recorded by photograph andmeasured drawing. Each area was then investigated by means of a large sondage,the sides of which were stepped for safety reasons as cleaning and excavationprogressed. Two other areas (C and F) were also cleaned, recorded and investigatedin plan.

Areas A and B

These two small trenches to the west of the main settlement site were excavated asbox-sections or columns through the stratigraphy visible in the eroding section, inorder to recover samples from all anthropogenic layers below the turf-line to therock platform at the base. The trenches measured three metres E-W by two metres.Their locations were chosen because erosion in the western part of the bay wasthought to be less severe than in the centre, although the seaward-facing depositshad clearly suffered storm damage and been undermined by the river. Although nostructural remains were visible in the eroding sections, layers of very dark, humicdeposits were evident after cleaning. The deposits were excavated stratigraphicallyand samples were retrieved for on-site sieving. The column excavated in Area Bhad to be stepped due to health and safety considerations. The lower c. 50cm ofthe trench were excavated by stepping the column to the N in an area contiguouswith the already excavated vertical face.

Area C

Two concentrations of stone in Area C were initially interpreted as possible cairns.These were planned and then partially excavated in quadrants to establish theircharacter and date. To the N of these was a thin spread of midden-rich material,which had been evident when the site was first discovered in 1997 and hadproduced Norse-period artefacts. This area was excavated in plan, and samplesfrom the anthropogenic deposits were recovered for on-site sieving.

Area D

Area D lay along the northern, steeply sloping side of the turf-covered dune.Although modern beach sand had been blown up against the side of the dune,small patches of darker, organic sand were visible in the upper part of the 3m longsection. At the base of the section, what appeared to be the top of a human craniumwas discovered during cleaning. After recording of the section, it was covered toprotect it during excavation of the overlying deposits. The later structural elements,occupation deposits and windblown sand were removed and recorded in plan.


Once exposed, the skeletal remains and associated features were recordedusing standard burial recording techniques, lifted and bagged. The bones wereextremely light and fragile, and despite the care taken they partly disintegratedduring lifting.

Areas E/F

A trench was opened over Area E, to the east of Area D, as the dune was highestat this point and the turf cover was largely intact; it was hoped that the sand andgrass would seal intact structural elements. After de-turfing, it quickly becameevident that this area concealed only amorphous concentrations of stone, alongwith isolated and presumably water-borne boulders, and the sand was heavilyburrowed by rabbits. This area became subsumed within Area F, to the east.

At the eastern edge of the main dune system, structural elements wereobserved in an eroding face. These included a metalled floor or path surface andtwo to three courses of a dry-stone wall. This was the clearest evidence of structuralsurvival at the site. The dune overlay the wall to the west and a trench was openedto expose further the archaeological features. At the suggestion of the land owner,a mechanical earth mover was brought on to site to combine the two trenches intoone large area (E/F on Fig 2). The volume of sand to be moved meant that this couldnot be done by hand over one season. Once the full extent of the archaeology wasexposed, the features were investigated in plan and section, with samples taken foron-site sieving.

Sieving programme

All archaeological deposits sampled during the excavation were floated using amodified Sirâf tank rigged with a 1mm mesh and Endicot sieves (250 micron and1mm) to maximise recovery of palaeo-botanical evidence. The tank, connected toa free-flowing water supply, was set up adjacent to the site to allow for flexibleprocessing. To facilitate feedback to the excavation, the heavy residues (>1mm)were quickly scanned and sorted by hand after processing to retrieve organic andinorganic materials. Four samples taken from around the inhumation burial wereretained for dry sieving under laboratory conditions.

Excavation Results

Areas A and B: Midden deposits and ploughed horizon

While the excavation of Areas A and B uncovered no structural features, it diddemonstrate that there were several phases of human activity in this part of thebay, including cultivation and midden dumping, interspersed with periods of waveincursion. The various phases of midden development suggest habitation veryclose by, probably related to the fragmentary structures excavated in the dunesto the west. The buried plough horizons also attest to attempts to work this land bycombining the domestic refuse with the sandy soils.

At the base of the column excavated in Area A was a layer of medium todark brown, coarse sand with a high humic content (A010), an old ground surface.Overlying and mixed in with it was the lower storm beach deposit (A013), which


directly overlay the low, natural rock platform. The stones appeared to have beendeposited while the humic layer was developing and may have been the result ofone particularly large storm. Overlying both deposits were layers of fairly clean,loose, coarse sand (A009 and A011), which indicated a period of time before theaccumulation of an overlying humic layer or old ground surface (A008). A secondstorm beach deposit (A012), up to 0.35m thick, overlay the clean sand. Anothervery dark brown clay-sand (A008) sealed the stones and had partly filtered throughthem. A further layer of humic, dark brown sand (A007) sealed this. It was inturn sealed by a probable ploughed horizon, consisting of grey/brown fine sand(A006). This was sealed by a substantial deposit of midden material (A005), up toone metre thick and consisting of very dark brown clay sand; it was striated withlenses of clean, windblown sand that suggested the midden had accumulated overa period of time. A patch of black compact sand (A015) sealed it. Windblown sandoverlay the latest midden deposit.

At the base of the column excavated in Area B was a humic old groundsurface (B009 = A010) directly overlying the low, natural rock platforms. As inArea A, the storm beach material (B010) had been thrown onto the ground surfacewhile it was developing. Clean, loose sand deposited by the wind (B008 = A009)overlay the storm beach. A thick layer of clean, orange/brown, fine sand (B006)above contained a second humic layer (B007 = A008). Overlying this was athick midden deposit (B005 = A005). Above this was a very thin layer of clean,wind blown sand (B016), which was only evident at the east of the trench. Theploughed horizon noted in Area A was also present here (as B003). Overlying itwas (B013), a clean pinkish yellow sand marking an interlude in ploughing in theimmediate vicinity. Thick deposits of clean, windblown sand (B002, B001) cappedthe stratigraphy.

Area C: Possible Norse-period remains

This area of deflation lay between the turf-covered dune and the more stable groundto the west (Fig 3). Measuring approximately 25m E-W by 10m, it consisted of astretch of sand dominated by two sandy mounds up to c. 4m in diameter, withboulders and smaller stones concentrated on and around the mounds (Areas C1and C2 on Fig 2). The boulders visible on the surface were of varying geologicalorigins and most were not water-worn beach stones, so it was thought they hadbeen deliberately deposited here, perhaps to form cairns. Along the northern edgeof the area, above the edge of the dune leading down to the river, was an expanseof black, humic sand (Area C3 on Fig 2) from which marine shells and low-firedgrass-tempered pottery were recovered during the 1997 survey. Here, the remainsof a stone box-hearth and associated burnt deposits were discovered.

Areas C1 and C2

The two putative mounds were excavated in quadrants. The mounds andconcentrations of stone proved to be natural products of wind erosion and duneformation; however, they each sealed fragmentary occupation deposits (Fig 3).Evidence for intensive burrowing was found in both Areas C1 and C2, and as a


Fig 3 Fragmentary Norse structural remains in Area C3 (Caitlin Evans)

result the layers were discontinuous and difficult to interpret within each area, letalone between areas.

In the western mound, recent wind-blown sand (C001) partly overlay a spreadof boulders (C006). These in turn sealed a layer of mid brown sand (C007) thatcontained occasional flecks of black, humic material and limpet shells, but wasotherwise fairly clean. The mostly articulated skeleton of a sheep was found in it.



It overlay a thick deposit of clean, pale brown sand (C015), which proved to beheavily burrowed. Excavation halted at this point.

In the eastern mound (C2), recent wind-blown sand (C001) overlay aconcentration of boulders and smaller stones (C003). The stones sat in a layer ofwindblown, more humic sand (C005), up to 0.28m deep. This sealed a thin layer ofblack-brown, highly organic sand (C008) which produced two small sherds of low-fired black pottery (SF 12). This overlay another clean layer of windblown sand(C009). Below this was a thick (up to 0.2m) layer of mid brown sand containingfrequent lenses of black, organic clay sand (C010), which yielded a fragment ofburnt peat (SF 5) and sealed another patchy, thin layer of black clay sand (C011).A discrete patch of black clay sand (C012), measuring 0.35m N-S by 0.28m, wasfound in the NW corner of the trench at the same level as (C011), in associationwith some large stones measuring up to 0.3m across. Separating these two organicdeposits was a spread of clean, pale brown windblown sand (C025), which alsocontinued beneath them. This clean layer was excavated to a depth of 0.15 m beforeexcavation of the area halted.These spreads of dark, organic material encountered in Areas C1 and particularlyC2 may have related to those investigated in Area C3, including C019 and C024(see below).

Area C3

Located immediately to the north of Areas C1 and C2, this small excavation areaof two metres by two metres was opened to recover samples of the compact, blackoccupation deposit that first brought this site to the attention of the excavators. Themidden deposit (C019) was 0.15 to 0.20 metres thick in this area and consisted ofdark brown/black, organic-rich sand, containing abundant shell, fish and animalbone. Sherds of grass-tempered and Scottish White Gritty Ware pottery (SFs47, 50, 52–3, 55–6, 59, 62–3) were also recovered from it, as well as ironnail fragments. As the midden was excavated, two small upright stones (C023)were observed protruding through the adjacent sand (C021). After removal ofthe midden deposit to the N, this potential structural feature was investigatedfurther.

Below the midden deposit (C019) was a light, loose, clean sand (C020). Therehad clearly been some mixing of this layer, as occasional flecks of charcoal andpieces of shell and fish bone were found in it. This deposit, and the midden(C019) above, had been truncated on the NW by waves that had deposited clean,very light sand (C021) and scoured the archaeological deposits. Below this beachsand (C021) was a thick (0.1–0.15m) layer of compact black charcoal (C022)with occasional shell, fish and animal bone inclusions. This overlay a large, flatrectangular stone, which clearly formed a hearth with the two orthostatic stones(C023). The hearth measured c. 0.55m E-W by 0.16m. The hearth stone layimmediately N of the orthostats. The compact burnt deposit (C022) continued forapproximately one metre to the N of the hearth stone and was up to 0.7 m wide.

Sherds of 12th- to 15th-century cooking pot were recovered from the middendeposit (C019), as well as a sherd from a possible Martincamp-type vessel, datingto the 16th or 17th century (see Will, below).


Fig 4 Pre-excavation plan of the Pictish cairn (Caitlin Evans)

Area D: The inhumation burial and Norse period remains

In Area D, a flexed inhumation represented the earliest event in the archaeologicalsequence. It had been sealed by a mound of clean sand, capped with quartzitepebbles. After windblown sand accumulated on top of the mound, a structure wasbuilt and occupation deposits accumulated, probably during the Norse period.

The body lay flexed on its right side, on a carefully packed layer of pebbles(D034) (Fig 7). The skeleton was aligned NNE/SSW (25◦ east of magnetic N), withthe head to the NNE. Most of the long bones were present, but all were eroded ateither end and, analysis showed, had been gnawed by rodents (see Roberts below).The cranium was in situ but had been partly crushed by the weight of the overlyingsand and stones.

The bed of pebbles on which the body had been laid measured about 3m NW-SE (as visible in the N-facing section) by 0.95m as exposed during excavation,although the NE side had been eroded away. Its original shape, based on thevisible portion, may have been oval. The stones were all rounded beach pebbles,



Fig 5 East-facing section through the Pictish burial mound and overlying Norsestructural remains (Caitlin Evans)

Fig 6 North-facing section through the Pictish burial cairn (Caitlin Evans)

generally under 0.10m across, many of them quartzite and predominantly blue-white, pale grey or cream in colour. Among them were 14 red stones, most ofthem placed close to or directly beneath the body. The head and upper chest restedon a large, flat stone. Larger, sub-rounded boulders lay around the edges of thepebble platform on the east, south and west; these appeared to form a rough kerb.The pebble platform and kerb lay on clean beach sand (D013/014), which in turnoverlay several thick layers of dark brown, peat-stained sand packed with sorted,rounded stones (D016-023), the glacial till.

The body had been covered with a mound of clean, light yellow-brown coarsesand (D012), up to 0.4m thick. This had been capped with a layer of sub-roundedstones (D015/033), mostly comprising white or pastel quartzite (Fig 5). The stonycapping was sub-rectangular in plan as exposed, measuring about 3m NW-SE by1m, although it had been truncated by wave action on the NE.

The east-facing section (Fig 5) through the burial mound and overlyingdeposits illustrates the subsequent events in the sequence; Fig 6 shows the




Fig 7 Pictish burial on the quartzite pebble setting, with red pebbles indicated (CaitlinEvans)

N-facing section, which had been truncated by storm erosion. After itsconstruction, the south part of the burial mound was sealed by a small dune, madeup of several layers of clean, windblown sand (D007). An old ground surface offirm, orange-brown sand (D005) had formed on the dune, while to the north adeposit of clean, light brown sand and rounded boulders (D006) appeared to be astorm beach deposit that had been thrown up on its seaward side. A thick wedge ofclean, windblown sand (D027) partly overlay the old ground surface to the south,creating a level surface for subsequent activity.

The artefactual evidence (see Batey below) suggests this subsequent activitytook place in the Late Norse period. A drystone wall (D003) running NE-SW wasbuilt on the level surface of the dunes. As exposed in the trench it measured 3.5mlong; the NE end had eroded away, while the SW end ran into the section. It appearsto have been at least three courses high (see section drawing, Fig 5) and of roughdouble-skinned construction. A small iron fishing hook (SF 91) was found betweentwo courses of the wall.

To the N, an occupation deposit of black-brown humic sand with pale lenses(D028) had built up against the base of the wall. A small iron object (SF 80),



possibly a nail head, was found in it. A more compact occupation deposit of mixed,dirty grey-brown sand (D026) had accumulated over it and had also built up tothe south of the wall. Two fragments of indeterminate iron (SFs 23 and 29) andtwo sherds of black, grass-tempered pottery (SF 34) were recovered from it, alongwith abundant marine shells. A thin deposit of clean, windblown sand (D004) layover the wall, and small sherds of black, low-fired pottery (SFs 20–22, 27) wererecovered from it.

A final occupation deposit, consisting of black, humic clay sand (D024),sealed the windblown sand to south of the wall. This appeared to representcontinuing occupation during the use of the structure. Thick layers of clean,windblown sand, interleaved with turf lines and capped by the modern turf, sealedthese features and postdated the abandonment of the site.

Area E/F: Possible Norse period/post-Medieval remains

In Area F, thick deposits of windblown sand (F001) were removed by JCB toexpose as much as possible of the denuded drystone wall (F004) observed in theeroding section and any associated deposits or features. Fig 8 shows the featuresas originally exposed by hand, while Fig 9 shows their full extent after exposureby machine.

A very compact layer of sand and gravel (F006) extended to the east of thewall [F004] and appeared to be a metalled path or floor surface which overlaystorm beach deposits (Fig 8). The gravel component of the metalling was angular,suggesting that it was quarried for its use here as opposed to deriving from thebeach. A sherd of brown-glazed redware (SF 72) was recovered from the stormbeach material. Mechanical removal of the thick sandy overburden to the NW ofthis concentration of structural remnants established that the wall [F004] continuedin a straight line for some two metres to the N before turning to run west forapproximately 1.3 metres, forming a corner. The walling petered out at this point,and here the building had presumably fallen victim to the sea in an earlier phase oferosion.

The removal of several tonnes of sand failed to uncover any substantialstructural elements surviving to the west of the walling and metalling. Due topressures of time and resources, and given the rescue nature of the excavation,a slot trench, c. 8.2m SE/NW by 1m wide, was excavated perpendicular to thewall [F004] and extending two metres to the west of it (Fig 9). This would crossthe putative interior of the structure and expose any surviving floor or occupationdeposits. The only other structural feature it revealed was a more fragmentarystretch of walling [F017], running along a similar alignment to wall [F004] andabout four metres to the west of it (Fig 9). Only 1.4 metres of this wall wereexposed in the course of the excavation, but its construction and the stone usedwere similar to those of wall [F004]. Burrowing in the area between the two wallshad destroyed any stratigraphic relationship between them, but together they mayhave defined a building.

The deposits exposed in the slot trench displayed a high degree of mixing,due to burrowing and previous periods of marine or riverine incursion. The slottrench was excavated to a depth of up to 0.6 metres below the base of wall


Fig 8 Walling and occupation deposits in Area F (Caitlin Evans)



Fig 9 Fragmentary walling and occupation deposits revealed in the slot trench in Area F(Caitlin Evans)

[F004]. The patchy remains of organic-rich, dark brown sandy occupation deposits(including F019/F023) were encountered in the area between the two walls, withclean windblown sand (F024) surrounding them. It proved impossible to relatethe occupation deposits stratigraphically either to the walls or to the associatedmetalled surface (F006). The base of the slot trench lay below the bases of bothwalls and it was clear that no intact floor layers remained. The organic-rich depositsencountered did not appear sufficiently compacted to represent floors; they mayhave been midden material deposited at a later stage over an abandoned building.It is also possible that this area had been scoured by the sea or river and that themixed, humic sands represented redeposition of floor/midden deposits. The lowestlayers encountered (F030/F031), well below the wall bases, still displayed organiccontent and mixing.

The antiquity of the features uncovered in Area E/F is unclear. The sherd ofbrown-glazed redware (SF 72) sealed beneath the metalled surface (F006) wouldsuggest that it and the associated walling [F004] date to the 18th or 19th centuries.However, the extent of burrowing and mixing of the deposits means that it is diffi-cult to be confident of the sherd’s stratigraphic security. A sherd of low-fired, grass-impressed pottery (SF 66) was recovered (unstratified from Area F). The characterof the walling and fragmentary occupation deposits are similar to the Late Norse-period features elsewhere on the site (Areas C and D), and the unstratified sherds of



Norse and Medieval pottery could indicate that activity took place in these periodsin Area F. The evidence, however, is too slight to allow certainty either way.

THE SKELETAL REMAINS

Julie Roberts

The remains analysed from the flexed inhumation in Area D were those of asingle individual. The skeleton was approximately 60% complete, and it was ina very poor condition. All of the elements were fragmented to some degree andheavily eroded. The cortex of the bones was thinned and there were multiple rootimpressions on the surfaces. In addition, there was evidence of rodent gnawingat the ends of all the long bones. There was good (almost 100%) recovery of thedentition, but they too were degraded and eroded.

The age at death of the individual was based on dental development anderuption (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). No epiphyseal ends of the long bones oractual epiphyses had been preserved, so epiphyseal fusion could not be assessed.Good recovery of the dentition meant that it was possible to determine an accurateage at death of 9 years ± 24 months. As yet there are no acceptable osteologicalstandards for determining the sex of immature individuals. DNA analysis (if it werepossible) would therefore be the only means of establishing the sex of the child.

The condition of the skeleton precluded the identification of most pathologicaldisorders, because of the extreme fragmentation and erosion. Each element wasexamined for evidence of pathology, but nothing conclusive was found. Both theright and the left femur were flattened antero-posteriorly at the proximal and distalends of the shafts, but this may have occurred post-mortem, as a result of theirhaving been compressed after burial. No oral pathology was observed, but thedeciduous teeth were very heavily worn. This would suggest a very coarse dietduring childhood. The permanent teeth were healthy and developing normally.As there were no intact long bones, it was not possible to assess the growth andnutritional status of the child by comparing the lengths of the long bones withdental development.

ARTEFACTSLate Norse materialColleen Batey

The initial identification of the site as Norse rested on the recovery of a few sherdsof grass-tempered pottery. These can be assigned to the period by comparison withother assemblages, such as that from Freswick Links in Caithness (e.g. Gaimster1995) and Robertshaven (Barrett 1995). However, a total of only eight finds unitsscattered across several contexts on the site is a very small quantity on which tobase a discussion of period. There is a small group of indeterminate fabrics (suchas SF 20) and others which have gritting to varying degrees in their make-up (suchas SF 32 from D024 and SF 53 from C019), but their chronological significancecannot be confirmed. A small quantity of wheelthrown sherds may also fall intothis phase of activity or slightly later (such as SFs 50, 59 and 105; see Will, thisreport) This is, however, probably consistent with the fact that the Norse-periodmiddens had been almost completely lost by 1997, when the site was identified,


Fig 10 Small Finds: Worked pumice SF 102, Glass Bead SF 111, Iron Rivet Plate SF 096and Decorative Plaque SF 089 (Caitlin Evans)



and certainly by 2000 when it was excavated. The single bead of black, opaqueglass (SF 111; Fig 10) may have a Norse origin, but in its form it is not especiallydiagnostic. Among the small collection of ironwork, rivets such as SF 78 or SF 96(Fig 10) may relate to this phase of activity on the site.

Medieval materialRobert Will

Three body sherds are from Scottish White Gritty cooking pots (SFs 50 and 59,context C019, and SF 105, Area A midden). This type of pottery dates from thelate 12th century through to the 15th century and is found on many excavations,particularly along the east coast of Scotland. This sherd may date to the late 12thor 13th century. One of the best assemblages of this material was recovered fromthe excavations at Kelso Abbey (Tabraham 1984), where these distinctive straight-sided cooking vessels with thin walls were recovered. These vessels are thought todate to the late 12th century and mark the beginning of the Scottish White Grittyindustry. Similar vessels have been found at a number of sites throughout Scotland,including Aberdeen (Murray 1982) and more recently Robert’s Haven in Caithness(Barrett 1995).

One sherd (SF 62, context C019) could be part of a Martincamp Type III flask;this would date to the late 16th or 17th centuries. Although Martincamp vesselsare relatively common in Scotland, it is usually the Type I or Type II vessels thatare found, although a Type III sherd was recently excavated at Drumoig in Fife(Haggerty 2006, Gazetteer D2j, 1). These vessels, in general, date to from the mid-15th century through to the 17th century and are thought to have been made in ornear Martincamp in NW France, between Dieppe and Beauvais (Hurst et al. 1986).The vessels are mainly long-necked globular flasks.

Although this is a small assemblage of pottery, it does confirm the tradinglinks within Scotland and across Europe in the Medieval and post-Medieval period.In addition, the presence of both hand-made and wheel-thrown pottery in theassemblage again confirms that wheel-thrown ceramics did not completely replacehand-made wares and that the local hand-made tradition did continue through theNorse/Medieval period.

Post-Norse to modern materialColleen Batey

A small number of artefacts may relate to immediately after the late Norse period.However, the majority of identifiable items suggest a 19th-century presence (in theform of clay pipe stems, SFs 14 and 15) and 20th-century activity in the form ofthe stoneware base (SF 104) as well as the brown glazed vessel sherd (SF 193 fromarea A).

The most diagnostic item is the small decorative metal plaque (SF 89; Fig 10),commemorating a gift to a church organist named Mr John Young by his choir inOctober 1901, from a church at Lugar in Ayrshire.

Pieces in the assemblage which cannot be assigned to a specific phase ofactivity on the site include waterborne pumice (SFs 101 and 102; Fig 10) and twosmall chips of whalebone (SFs 28 and 61), both from area C.


PALAEOBOTANICAL ANALYSISJennifer Miller and Susan Ramsay

The carbonised macroplant remains are fully discussed and tabulated in the sitearchive, and are summarised here. In Area A, botanical remains from the middenlayer (A005) were abundant. They included quantities of birch, heather familyand willow charcoal, together with substantial quantities of burnt peat/turf, somebrown (Fucoid) seaweed and numerous cereal grains. Cereal types identifiedincluded oat and both naked and hulled barley. Other carbonised seeds includedone of ribwort plantain and two of bilberry/cowberry. This mixed assemblagerepresents general occupation detritus, including hearth deposits and possiblycereal processing waste. The seaweed may suggest small domestic-scale industry,such as ash production for detergent or, less likely, metallurgy.

In Area B, the midden deposit (B005) contained a similar carbonisedassemblage to its equivalent midden layer (A005) in Area A, suggesting a similarprovenance. Charcoal of alder, birch, hazel, heather family, Scot’s pine type andwillow was recorded, together with substantial quantities of burnt minerogenicpeat/turf and turf indicators, including sedges and heath grass remains. Severalcereal grains, including oats and hulled barley, were also recorded, as wasburnt seaweed. This very mixed assemblage is indicative of waste depositsfrom various sources, including probably fire waste and/or general occupationsweepings, consistent with the midden (A005) in Area A. Interestingly, thesetwo midden deposits contained the only evidence for fucoid seaweed from theentire site.

Tiny quantities of burnt minerogenic peat/turf were recorded from fourcontexts from area C2 (C008, C010, C011 and C016) and one deposit (C007) fromArea C1, possibly from anthropogenic activity in the immediate vicinity or fromnatural events. The midden spread (C019) in Area C3 contained a variety of cerealgrains, some arable weed seeds and a mixed charcoal assemblage, suggestingorigins from both domestic hearth waste and crop processing events.

A deposit of black ash and charcoal (C022) lay directly on the flat slab of thebox hearth, while a surrounding burnt deposit (C024) was interpreted as materialswept out of the hearth. Indicators of heathland minerogenic turf dominated thebotanical assemblage from both deposits, with heather seed capsules and leafyshoots and bearberry leaves observed, together with grass/sedge rhizomes andprolific numbers of heather family twigs.

The latest occupation deposit (D024) in Area D produced charcoal ofalder, birch, heather family and pine, together with mineral turf/peat and afew cereals, primarily barley. This is evidence of a domestic midden deposit,probably including both hearth and cereal processing waste. A mixed occupationlayer (D026) that built up around the base of the Norse-period wall [D003]contained similar evidence of domestic activity, albeit with less variety of charcoaltypes.

In Area F, scant carbonised cereal grains and minerogenic heathland turfremains were recorded from two layers (F019, F023), suggesting they were theresidues of domestic activities.


Discussion

The remains of minerogenic, heathland turf dominated the carbonised assemblagesfrom the samples, indicating that this had been was the primary fuel during the LateNorse and possible post-Medieval occupation. The exposed coastline of northernSutherland would never have had full, dense tree cover; however, the woody taxarecorded (birch, alder, hazel, cherry and Scots pine types) probably do representfairly local, albeit not abundant, scrub woodland resources. This is likely to havebeen present as small tracts growing in sheltered spots slightly inland, and wasprobably also washed up as driftwood from further afield. This situation is similarto that interpreted for the Norse settlement at Freswick, Caithness (Morris et al.1995), where the very low tree pollen levels recorded by Jacqui Huntley alsoindicated an almost treeless landscape other than small pockets in sheltered areas(Dickson and Dickson 2000).

Turf and heather are valuable commodities in a marginal landscape. Heathercan be used for thatching, bedding, cereal parching, rope making or textile dyeing,while minerogenic heather turf is the fuel of necessity when more satisfactorywoody resources are in short supply. It is also the main component of walls orwall cores in many marginal environment dwellings, and forms satisfactory under-felt to heather thatch. Both the thatch and underlying turf can then be burned asfuel when roofing repairs are made, and the soot-blackened turf is an excellentsource of enrichment for impoverished soils. These uses are well documented fromethnographic studies in the Northern Isles (Fenton 1978), where they continued tobe applied well into the 20th century. Midden material would also have eventuallybeen reused for soil enrichment. Fragments of brown (Fucoid) seaweed frommidden in Areas A and B may have resulted from potash production for domesticuse, but could also have been burned for soil enrichment.

The cereals recorded from Sangobeg include both naked and hulled barley, andoats. This is entirely in keeping with the suspected Late Norse and potentially laterperiods of occupation for the areas examined. There are many northern Scottishexamples of this type of cereal assemblage from Norse occupation, including atFreswick (Morris et al. 1995), Howe (Ballin-Smith 1994) and Birsay Bay (Morris1989; 1996). In some instances, naked barley may be an indication of an earlierNorse occupation, although in such a marginal landscape as Sangobeg naked barleymay well have remained as a relict within crops far longer than it would have donein a wealthier economy, since every grain would have valuable at this site.

ANIMAL BONES Louise Gidney

A very small assemblage of animal bone was recovered from the excavations.Stratified finds from Area F included fragments of sheep-size longbone (SF76 from occupation deposit F023) and cattle teeth (SF 81, from fragmentaryoccupation deposit F025). In Area C3, cattle-sized long bone fragments and teeth(SF 51 and SF 33) were recovered from midden spread (C019). The assemblageincluded two unworn, deciduous calf teeth and a calf astralagus (SF 33 and anunstratified piece from Area E). A high proportion of calves were noted in parts


Table 1 Fish species representation according to area

Species/Area A B C C1 C2 C3 D F

Cod 13 72 5 43 16 39Gadus morhuaHaddock 11 98 53 1 1 93 44 37MelanogrammusaeglefinusSaithe 49 19 33 10 9Pollachius virensSaithe 1 2 1Pollachius spGadidae 2 93 31 2 78 23 31Gurnard 2 8 7 1 18Eutrigla gurnardusTriglidae 8Rocker 2 2 1Raja clavataTope 1 1 1Galeorhinus galeusElasmobranchii 6Herring 1 1Clupea harengusDab 2Limanda limandaPleronectidae 8 1Butterfish 2Pholis gunnelusAmmoditae 1

Total 31 319 120 2 11 255 97 149

of the assemblage from Late Norse contexts at Freswick Links (Gidney 1995, 195,200). The killing of calves was carried out not only so that milk could be collectedfrom the mother, but also to obtain the rennet from the calf’s stomach for makingcheese.

THE FISH REMAINS Ruby Cerón-Carrasco

The level of preservation of the fish bone was consistent throughout the site interms of fragment size and condition. Elements were most frequently 20–80%complete. Their condition score was generally in the range of 6–9, indicating well-preserved to extremely poorly-preserved bone (after Nicholson 1991).

A total of 15 taxa were identified, consisting of 10 identified to speciesand five to family level. Haddock (Melannogramus aeglefinus) was the mainspecies represented in the assemblage. Other species of the same group (Gadidae)recovered included cod (Gadus morhua), saithe (Pollachius virens), Pollachius spand other unidentified Gadidae. The other species recovered included gurnard(Eutrigla gurnardus), unidentified gurnard species (family Triglidae), skate


Table 2 Gadidae size category representation

COD Haddock SaitheArea S M L S M L VS S M

20–30 30–60 60–120 20–30 30–60 60–120 15–20 20–30 30–60cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm

A 4 1 8 5 6B 62 9 1 65 30 3 23 24 2C 4 1 20 33 13 6C1 1C2 1C3 6 33 4 42 50 1 17 16D 8 4 4 26 18 4 6F 12 25 2 24 13 9

Total 92 76 20 184 150 4 57 61 2

(Raja clavata), tope (Galeorhinus galeus) and other unidentified Elasmobranchs,Dab (Limanda limanda), other unidentified flatfish (family Pleuronectidae),herring (Clupea harengus), remains of the tiny butterfish (Pholis gunnellus) andunidentified sand eel (family Ammoditae) (see Table 1).

From the range of species, particularly the range of Gadidae, and the differentsizes represented, fishing at Sangobeg appears to have been a broad-based activity.Gadid bones were also dominant in the assemblage, and their size range impliesthat fish were caught from rocky shores, inshore and deeper water using boats(see Table 2). The importance of Gadids, the cod family fish, to the inhabitantsof Scotland is well known; they were common in all periods, but their relativeimportance did change through time (Barrett et al. 1999).

In all the excavation areas, the most common species was haddock. In mostfish bone assemblages belonging to the Late Norse period throughout Caithnessand the Northern Isles, cod has been the main species present (Barrett et al. 1999).Other contemporary assemblages with substantial proportions of haddock remainsinclude Smoo, about 2km from Sangobeg, and Earl’s Bu in Orkney (Barrett 1997).

The presence of substantial haddock remains at Sangobeg may also indicatethat these were caught to be consumed on site fresh, and were not meant fortrading. Haddock, unlike cod, is less suitable for preservation through salting ordrying, as its flesh is more delicate than any of the other gadids (Lockhart 1997).Cod was preserved using these methods in the Northern Isles as far back as the11th century AD (Cerón-Carrasco 1994; 1998a; 1998b), and it became part of asubstantial trade in stock-fish from at least the 15th century (Barrett 1995). None ofthe elements recovered showed cut-marks, which usually indicate the production ofstock-fish. The earliest record of haddock preservation involved smoking and datesto the 19th century (Walker 1982; Lockhart 1997). Therefore, it is more likely thatthe haddock was consumed fresh at the site.

The Sangobeg fish bone assemblage is quite significant since it providesfurther evidence that the Norse took advantage of their knowledge of the availablemarine resources to exploit the areas they settled. Knowledge of the availability


of these resources appears to have played an important role in settlement andsubsistence. Recently-analysed fish bone assemblages from the Western Isles,for example, indicate that during the Norse period herring was the main speciesexploited (Cerón-Carrasco 2002), a very different trend from those in Caithness,the Northern Isles and (with Sangobeg) northern Sutherland (Barrett et al. 1999).The Sangobeg assemblage shows that haddock, not cod, was the main object offishing during the site’s occupation.

In the Norse period, fishing appears to have been a year-round activity, carriedout for subsistence. Fishing from rocks or from boats in shallow water would haveproduced young saithe, which could have been eaten fresh or preserved for laterconsumption; their livers may also have been used for oil. Other species wouldhave been caught while fishing for this species, including young cod and haddock.The capture of mature haddock and cod would have required the use of boats forventuring into deeper waters and hooked hand-lines, and these would have alsocaught other species such as gurnards, rocker, tope and herring. This pattern ofexploitation appears to be in evidence in all the excavated areas that produced fishremains.

A note on hand-collected fish bones

A very small amount of fish remains were collected by hand during the excavation.However, no reference was made to size categories and since the remains are sofew these were not incorporated into the main sieved fish remains analysed byRuby Cerón-Carrasco. The only significant aspect of this small hand-collectedassemblage is the presence of ling (Molva molva), which is generally a deep-water fish and normally requires the use of boats for its capture. However, since noremains of ling were recovered in the sieved material, it is better to assume that thiselement belongs to a specimen that was caught while fishing for mature haddockand cod, which require similar fishing techniques.

Discussion

The Pictish burial

The burial found at Sangobeg was the most dramatic discovery of the excavation,and a wholly unexpected one. It occupied a secure position in the relativelycomplex stratigraphy in Area D, pre-dating the later, Norse-period occupation ofthe site. The burial itself merits discussion on at least three levels: comparison toother excavated burials of broadly similar form and date; the symbolic aspectsof the burial itself, and the juxtaposition of the burial with later, Norse-periodsettlement.

Analysis of the human remains has shown that they were those of a child,aged between 8 and 10 years old. A platform of small, quartzite pebbles probablygathered from the beach had first been laid. Several red stones were placed closeto the body, a flat slab was set beneath the head and a rough kerb of larger stonesdefined the platform. The child had been laid on its right side with the head tothe NNE, the body flexed, and covered with a mound of clean beach sand. This


Table 3 Radiocarbon date from the burial (calibrated using Oxcal v 3.9)

Calibrated datesLab Lab.Age 1 sigma (68.2% probability)code Sample material BP �13C 2 sigma (95.4% probability)

SUERC Human femur 2050 ± 35 −19.4%0 110 BC–AD 10 170 BC–AD 30−4527 from flexed(GU- inhumation12535) (Sk 1)

was capped with a layer of larger quartzite stones that were probably also gatheredfrom the beach.

Because of the poor condition of the bones, little could be said about diseasesor lifestyle, other than that the child had a very coarse diet. The ends of the longbones had been gnawed by rodents, but the articulated state of the skeletal remainssuggests this occurred after the body had been buried, as a result of burrowing. Theburial appeared to be isolated. While it is possible that there were formerly otherburials to seaward that were later washed away by encroaching waves, there are nolocal traditions of other human remains in the vicinity and no evidence to indicatethere was a cemetery here.

The Sangobeg burial has certain affinities with other excavated burials in theN and W of Scotland, both in its form and its date of 170 cal BC–cal AD 30(see Table 3). Ashmore (1980) has reviewed the corpus of low ditched moundsand low kerbed cairns in Scotland and has pointed out that some of these, foundpredominantly in northern Scotland, date to the pre-Viking Iron Age. That dis-cussion focused upon extended inhumations. However, several aspects of theSangobeg burial fall within the broad traditions that Ashmore discusses and thatare represented by more recently published burials. A brief discussion of these willhelp to place the Sangobeg burial in its chronological and regional context.

The geographically closest comparable site is a cairn partially excavated nearLoch Borralie, to the east of the Kyle of Durness and about 4km to the WSWof Sangobeg (MacGregor 2003). Two inhumations were recovered during rescueexcavation here in 2000. One had been placed on a platform of stone and earthand covered with a low mound of sand, while a second had been cut through thismound and covered with another layer of sand. A layer of sub-angular and sub-rounded (including quartz and quartzite) stones and cobbles sealed both burials.Both were extended and supine and aligned E-W, with their heads to the east. Aniron ring-headed pin was recovered from near one of the skeletons. One of theskeletons was radiocarbon dated to 40 cal BC–cal AD 210 (OxA-10253).

The burial at Sangobeg is also somewhat similar to two kerbed cairnsexcavated at Sandwick, on Unst in Shetland (Bigelow 1984). Here, one inhumationlay aligned NNW–SSE and extended on its left side, facing downward, in a shallowtrench. It had been covered with a thick layer of clean sand, which was sealed witha carefully-packed layer of angular rubble defined by a kerb of upright slabs. Thishad been capped with beach pebbles, many of them white quartzite. The secondcairn, built on the same old ground surface, was very similar except that it lacked


an occupant. The inhumation was dated by radiocarbon to cal AD 370–520 (GU-1291). Another extended inhumation was discovered about 80m to the south on thesame beach in 2006. It was aligned WSW/ESE and lay in a shallow trench cut intosand; the trench had been filled with clean beach sand and large stones had beenplaced above it, forming a small cairn at the head (Lelong 2007). This inhumationwas dated by radiocarbon to cal AD 130–390 (SUERC-10745).

The Sangobeg burial might also be compared to burials at Ackergill inCaithness, considered by the excavator of the later Sandwick burials to be thatsite’s closest parallel (Bigelow 1984, 123). Seven low, square or rectangular cairnswere found in two groups, along with two separate long cists and one round cairn(Edwards 1926). All of the cairns sealed long cists, generally orientated NW-SE but also ENE/WNW and NNE/SSW, which contained extended inhumations.The cists were typically surrounded by a layer of waterworn stones defined bya kerb. Several of the cairns had been covered with white quartzite pebbles. Noradiocarbon dates have been obtained from any of the Ackergill skeletons. Abronze chain was found around the neck of a skeleton in the round cairn, but ithas not been possible to determine its origins (Close-Brooks 1984, 97).

Comparable burials are also known from the Western Isles. At Galson onthe Isle of Lewis, a flexed inhumation in a cist and an extended inhumation in ashallow cut were excavated and found to date between the 1st and 5th centuries AD(Neighbour et al. 2000, 562–74). At An Corran, Boreray, a contracted inhumationin a small cist and a flexed inhumation in a long cist were excavated along witha small corbelled structure; the inhumations dated to cal AD 20–250 and cal AD120–340 (Badcock and Downes 2000, 206). A square kerbed cairn (very similarto the Sandwick cairn) at Cille Pheadair on South Uist contained an extendedinhumation dated to cal AD 620–780 (AA-48605) (Mulville et al. 2003, 25). Inthe Northern Isles, oval cairns at Birsay Brough Road (Morris 1989, 113) might becompared to the Sangobeg burial; inhumations from these dated to the 5th to 7thcenturies AD.

Certain phrases from a shared symbolic language appear again and againin these burials, and at Sangobeg. Like the burials at Loch Borralie, Sandwick,Birsay and Ackergill, as well as at Dunrobin in eastern Sutherland, Pityoulishin Strathspey and Lundin Links in Fife (see Ashmore 1980, 347), the body atSangobeg had been covered over with a sterile sandy layer. As at Sandwick, LochBorralie and Ackergill, white quartzite pebbles were used for the capping material.While at some of the sites reviewed above the inhumations lay in cists, this wasnot the case at Sandwick, Loch Borralie and in one of the Galson burials. Burialin short or long cists appears to have been a tradition dating from later prehistoryand adopted as a Christian rite, but clearly it was not considered mandatory inthe later Iron Age; it may have depended on the availability of suitable stone.Commenting on the lack of a cist at Sandwick, Bigelow (1984, 123) noted thedearth of flagstone in the vicinity for building a cist. The same is true of the geologyaround Sangobeg and Borralie, which consists mainly of Lewisian gneiss andlimestone.

The other, perhaps more significant difference between the Sangobeg burialand most of the others reviewed above is in the body’s position – flexed rather


than extended. In broad terms, the preferred mode of burial during the Iron Agein northern Britain appears to have been for inhumations in crouched or flexedpositions (Close-Brooks 1984, 87; also see Whimster 1981). Flexed inhumationsdating to the late first millennium BC are more abundant in southern Scotland(Ashmore 2003, 39); during the first few centuries AD, extended inhumation burialappears to have become the preferred rite (Close-Brooks 1984, 89). The overlapin dates between the burials at Boreray (Badcock and Downes 2000) and Galson(Neighbour et al. 2000), where both flexed and extended inhumations were found,appears to indicate that chronological distinctions between these body positionsare blurred. The date from the Sangobeg inhumation is somewhat earlier thanmost of these examples cited here; this may reflect an earlier preference for flexedinhumation that was soon to fade.

The burial at Sangobeg is particularly striking in the evident care and delicacywith which it was composed. During the excavation, it evoked a sense of poignancyin visitors and excavators alike, partly because it appeared to be that of a child.The components of the burial are worth closer contextual consideration for theirpotential symbolic qualities.

The use of white quartzite pebbles, with red pebbles placed close to andbeneath the body, and the sterile sand that covered it are part of a burial vocabularythat, as the above examples suggest, appears to have been current in northernBritain over much of the first millennium AD, and perhaps had more ancientroots. Quartzite pebbles were clearly an important component of that vocabulary.They had a broad and long-running symbolic currency. A number of paintedquartzite pebbles have been found in Pictish domestic contexts in Caithness andthe Northern Isles; some of these may date to the late first millennium BC (Ritchie1972, 298). St. Columba reportedly used a white stone for healing when he visitedthe court of the Pictish king Bridei in c. 565 AD (Sharpe 1995, Book II 33,181). In more recent centuries, pebbles were used to convert water into a healingpotion for cattle (Hutcheson 1900), and they were deposited as offerings at sacredsites such as holy wells during the Medieval and post-Medieval periods. Colouredpebbles are less commonly found, but some instances of their selective use areknown; for example, a red pebble was buried with the body of a child, who diedbetween cal AD 1150–1280 (AA-45873), outside the chapel of St. Trolla in easternSutherland (Lelong 2005). White or coloured pebbles may have been perceived ascharms, possessing magical properties, and therefore fitting objects to accompanythe deceased in the afterlife.

The sand that covered the burial at Sangobeg was absolutely free of carboniseddomestic detritus, which suggests that it was gathered at a spot well away fromhuman settlement. That purity, and the place from which it was collected, may havebeen considered important. It was most likely gathered from the beach, where thesea or wind had deposited it and where it had been washed by the tide. An inter-tidal context for the covering sand would have marked it as distinct from the zoneof everyday domestic life, and its use may have underlined the deceased’s departurefrom that sphere to another. The decision to bury the child at the head of a beach, aposition similar to many other burials from later prehistory and the early Medievalperiod (including most of those noted above), also seems significant. The liminal


nature of the foreshore, poised between land and sea, may also have reflectedthe transitional status of the dead and a way for their communities to negotiatethat transition (see Pollard 1999 for a more comprehensive exploration of thisnotion).

Finally, the juxtaposition here of a Pictish burial with Norse-period settlementis worth a brief comment. In the far N of Scotland, at least two other examplesof Norse-period settlement that overlay or stood near Pictish burials are known:at Sandwick on Unst (Bigelow 1984) and at Cille Pheadair, South Uist (Mulvilleet al. 2003). There are even more examples known, of course, where Viking Agesettlement was established on the site of earlier, Pictish settlement (such as atJarlshof on Shetland, Hamilton 1956). At Sangobeg, the absence of carbonisedbotanical remains in the pre-settlement ground surface in Area D suggests therewas no pre-existing settlement on the site when people settled here in the Norseperiod. At Cille Pheadair, the cairn covering the burial would have been highlyvisible when the later farmstead was established (Mulville et al. 2003, 26). AtSandwick, the Pictish burials lay close to a complex orthostatic cellular structureof later prehistoric date, which lay in ruins and had been partly covered withwindblown sand by the time the first inhumation was put into the ground betweencal AD 130–390 (Lelong 2007).

The dataset of Pictish burials juxtaposed with later, Norse settlement is fartoo small to represent a pattern, but it does raise questions: Did Norse settlerson these spots know of the earlier burials? Did they deliberately choose placesthat the indigenous population left alone because of their spiritual or symbolicconnotations? Did their settling at such spots represent a kind of cultural insult,or was it purely coincidental? Even if we cannot answer these questions based onpresent evidence, they are worth asking. Future fieldwork, along with processesof coastal erosion and recording, may reveal more instances of juxtaposition andprovide some answers.

The Late Norse phase

The initial identification of the site at Sangobeg as a Norse site hinged on thesmall amount of artefactual material which was recovered from the heavily erodingmiddens in 1997: a small bead and ceramic fragments, iron rivets and scatteredlarge fish bones. However, by the time excavation was undertaken in 2000, muchof the midden material had been lost to the elements and a few sherds of grass-tempered pottery associated with the wall which was found to overlie the Pictishburial and localised midden scatters in Area C were all that remained. It is clearthat originally the settlement extended closer to the sea, and that it had alreadybeen mostly washed away.

However, the significance of even this fragmentary survival is clear in thecontext of the paucity of evidence for contemporary activity in the far N ofScotland (see above). The site at Sangobeg provides a valuable addition to theseries of Norse sites so far identified in northern Sutherland, which include SmooCave (Pollard 2005), Balnakeil (Low, Batey and Gourlay 2000) and probablyBorralie (Gazin-Schwartz and Lelong 2005).


The post-Medieval phase

The upper levels of sand and parts of the rock-strewn beach had obviously beenbattered by the sea. These deposits produced evidence of the latest stages of thesite’s use, where casual loss of items shed a little light on the character of morerecent visitors to this beautiful bay. Of most interest is a small metal plaque,perhaps originally affixed to a box or a walking stick, gifted ‘By the Choir andOffice Bearers of LUGAR CHURCH on 25 October 1901’ to their organist MrJohn Young. The plaque also notes that his wife was given a token of esteem in theform of a pearl brooch. The rest of the material culture from this phase of activityis mundane by comparison: indeterminate fragments of iron, clay pipe stems andwaterborne pieces of pumice – the common detritus of everyday life mixed withthat left by the waves.

Acknowledgements

The excavation and post-excavation analysis were funded by Historic Scotland.John and Joyce Morrison, crofters at Sangobeg, kindly permitted access to thesite and assisted the team in many ways. The excavations were directed in thefield by Kevin Brady with additional supervision by Dr. Olivia Lelong and Dr.Andrew Baines. Aileen Maule supervised the on-site flotation, with assistancefrom Chris Connor. Professor Chris Morris gave advice during the fieldwork.The illustrations were prepared by Caitlin Evans, with additional work by JohnArthur and Gillian McSwan. The authors would also like to thank the studentswhose hard work made the excavations successful.

The site archive will be deposited with the National Monuments Record ofScotland and the deposition of the artefacts will be allocated through the TreasureTrove Panel.

Bibliography

Ashmore, P.J. 1980 Low cairns, long cists and symbol stones, Proc. Soc. Antiq.Scot. 110, 346–55.

Ashmore, P.J. 2003 Orkney burials in the first millenium AD, in J. Downes, andA. Ritchie (eds) 2003 Sea Change: Orkney and Northern Europe in the LaterIron Age AD 300–800, Balgavies, 35–50.

Badcock, A. and J. Downes 2000 Excavation of Iron Age burials at An Corran,Boreray, Outer Hebrides, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. 130, 197–222.

Ballin-Smith, B. 1994 Howe: Four Millennia of Orkney Prehistory. Society ofAntiquaries of Scotland Monograph 9, Edinburgh.

Barrett, J.H. 1995 “Few know an earl in fishing-clothes” Fish middens andthe economy of the Viking Age and Late Norse earldoms of Orkneyand Caithness, northern Scotland. Unpublished PhD thesis, University ofGlasgow.

Barrett, J.H. 1997 Fish trade in Norse Orkney and Caithness: a zooarchaeologicalapproach, Antiquity 71, 616–638.


Barrett, J.H., R.A. Nicholson and R. Cerón-Carrasco 1999 Archaeo-icthyologicalEvidence for Long-Term Economic Trends in Northern Scotland: 3500 BC to1500 AD. Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 353–388.

Batey, C.E. 1993 The Viking and Late Norse Graves of Caithness and Sutherland,in. C.E. Batey, J. Jesch, and C.D. Morris (eds), The Viking Age in Caithness,Orkney and the North Atlantic, Edinburgh, 148–72.

Batey, C.E. and C. Paterson forthcoming 2008 A Viking Burial at Balnakeil,Sutherland, in A. Reynolds and L. Webster (eds) Early Medieval Art andArchaeology in the Northern World: Studies in Honour of James Graham-Campbell.

Bigelow, G.F. 1984 Two kerbed cairns from Sandwick, Unst, Shetland, in J.G.PFriell and W.G. Watson (eds) Pictish Studies: Settlement, Burial and Art inDark Age Northern Britain. Oxford: BAR British Series 125, 115–30.

Brady, K.B. and C.D. Morris 1998 Sutherland Coastal Survey. University ofGlasgow Department of Archaeology Report.

Buikstra, J.E. and D. Ubelaker (eds) 1994 Standards for Data Collection FromHuman Skeletal Remains, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Cerón-Carrasco, R. 1994 Investigation of the fish remains from an Orkney farmmound, in W. Van Neer (ed.) Fish Exploitation in the Past. Annales SciencesZoologiques 274, 155–122.

Cerón-Carrasco, R. 1998a The fish bone assemblage from St. Boniface, PapaWestray, Orkney, in C. Lowe St. Boniface Church, Orkney: Coastal Erosionand Archaeological Assessment. Gloucester.

Cerón-Carrasco, R. 1998b Fishing: Evidence for Seasonality and Processing ofFish for Preservation in the Northern Isles of Scotland During the Iron Ageand Norse Times. Environmental Archaeology 3, 73–80.

Cerón-Carrasco, R. 2002 ‘Of fish and men’ (‘De iasg agus dhaoine’): Aspectsof the utilization of marine resources as recovered from selected Hebrideanarchaeological sites’. Unpublished D. Phil. Thesis. University of Edinburgh.

Close-Brooks, J. 1984 Pictish and other burials, in J.G.P. Friell and W.G. Watson(eds) Pictish Studies: Settlement, Burial and Art in Dark Age Northern Britain,Oxford: BAR British Series 125, 87–114.

Crawford, B.E. 2000 Medieval Strathnaver, in J.R. Baldwin (ed.) 2000 TheProvince of Strathnaver. Edinburgh, 1–12.

Dickson, C.A. and J.H. Dickson 2000 Plants and People in Ancient Scotland,Stroud.

Edlin, H. 1973. Woodland Crafts of Britain, Newton Abbot.Edwards, A.J.H. 1926 Excavation of a Number of Graves in a Mound at Ackergill,

Caithness, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. 60 (1925–26), 160–82.Fenton, A. 1978 The Northern Isles: Orkney and Shetland. Edinburgh.Fraser, I.A. 1979 The Norse Element in Sutherland Place Names Scottish Literary

Journal, Language Suppl. No. 9, 17–27.Fraser, I.A. 1995 Norse settlement on the north-west seaboard. In B.E. Crawford

(ed.), Scandinavian Settlement in Northern Britain, 92–107.Gaimster, D.R.M. 1995 The Pottery, in C.D Morris et al. 1995, 136–148.Gazin-Schwartz, A. and O. Lelong 2005 Borralie, Durness: Data Structure Report.

GUARD 1634.


Gidney, L. 1995 11.1 Mammal Bone, in C.D. Morris et al. 1995, 192–208.Graham-Campbell, J. and C.E. Batey 1998 Vikings in Scotland. Edinburgh.Haggerty, G. 2006 A Gazetteer and Summary of French Pottery in Scotland, c.

1150-c. 1650, Edinburgh.Hamilton, J.R.C.1956 Excavations at Jarlshof, Shetland. Edinburgh.Hurst, J.G., D.S. Neal and H.J.E. van Beuningen 1986 Pottery Produced and

Traded in North-West Europe 1350–1650. Rotterdam Papers VI.Hutcheson, A. 1900 Notice of a charm-stone used for the cure of diseases amongst

cattle in Sutherland, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. 34 (1899–1900), 483–8.Lelong, O. 2002 Writing People into the Landscape: Approaches to the

Archaeology of Badenoch and Strathnaver. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,University of Glasgow.

Lelong, O. 2003 Medieval (or later) Settlement in the Highlands and Islands: Thecase for optimism, in S. Govan (ed.), Medieval or Later Rural Settlement inScotland: 10 Years On, Edinburgh, 7–16.

Lelong, O. 2005 St Trolla’s Chapel, Kintradwell, Sutherland: the occupants of theMedieval burial ground and their patron saint, Scottish Archaeological Journal25.2, 147–164.

Lelong, O. 2007 Sandwick, Unst: Shetland Community Archaeology Project.GUARD 2325.

Lockhart, G.W. 1997 The Scots and their Fish, Edinburgh.Low, D.M., C.E. Batey and R. Gourlay 2000 A Viking Burial at Balnakeil,

Sutherland, in Baldwin (ed.) 2000, 24–34.MacGregor, G. 2003 Excavation of an Iron Age burial mound, Loch Borralie,

Durness, Sutherland, Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports (SAIR) 9.Morris, C.D. 1989 The Birsay Bay Project 1 Coastal Sites beside the Brough Road,

Birsay, Orkney. Excavations 1976–1982. Volume 1. University of DurhamMonograph Series 1.

Morris, C.D. 1996 The Birsay Bay Project Volume 2. Sites in Birsay Village andthe Brough of Birsay, Orkney. University of Durham Monograph Series 2.

Morris, C.D., J.H. Barrett and C.E. Batey 1994 The Viking and Early SettlementArchaeological Research Project: Past, Present and Future, in Ambrosiani, B.and H. Clarke (eds) 1994 The 12th Viking Congress. Birka Studies 3,Developments Around the Baltic and North Sea in the Viking Age. Stockholm,144–148.

Morris, C.D., C.E. Batey and D.J. Rackham 1995 Freswick Links, Caithness.Excavation and Survey of a Norse Settlement. North Atlantic BioculturalOrganisation Monograph 1/Highland Archaeological Monograph 1.

Mulville, J., M. Parker Pearson, N. Sharples, H. Smith and A. Chamberlain 2003Quarters, arcs and squares: human and animal remains in the Hebridean LateIron Age, in J. Downes and A. Ritchie (eds) 2003 Sea Change: Orkney andNorthern Europe in the Later Iron Age AD 300–800, Balgavies, 21–34.

Murray, J.C. (ed.) 1982 Excavations in the Medieval Burgh of Aberdeen 1973-81,Edinburgh.

Neighbour, T. et al. 2000 Excavation of two burials at Galson, Isle of Lewis, 1993and 1996, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. 130, 559–84.


Nicholson, R.A. 1991 An investigation into variability within archaeologicallyrecovered assemblages of faunal remains: The influence of pre-depositionaltaphonomic processes. D. Phil. Thesis. University of York.

Omand, D. (ed.) 1982 The Sutherland Book, Golspie.Pollard, T. 1999 The drowned and the saved: archaeological perspectives on the

sea as grave, in J. Downes and T. Pollard (eds), The Loved Body’s Corruption:Archaeological Contributions to the Study of Human Mortality. Glasgow,30–51.

Pollard, T. 2005 The Excavation of Four Caves in the Geodha Smoo, near Durness,Sutherland, Scottish Archaeology Internet Reports (SAIR) 18.

Ritchie, A. 1972 Painted pebbles in early Scotland, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. 104,297–301.

Ross, S. 1982 The Geology of Sutherland, in Omand (ed.) 1982, 17–40.Schweingruber, F.H. 1990 Anatomy of European Woods. Haupt, Berne and

Stuttgart.Sharpe, R. (trans.) 1995 Adomnán Of Iona. Life of Saint Columba, London.Skene, W.F. 1837 Highlanders of Scotland. Edinburgh.Small, A. 1982 Viking Sutherland, in Omand (ed.) 1982, 180–184.Stace, C. 1997 New Flora of the British Isles, Cambridge.Tabraham, C. 1984 Excavations at Kelso Abbey, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. 114,

365–404.Taylor, A.B. 1938 The Orkneyinga Saga – A new translation, London.Walker, B. 1982 Scottish methods of Preserving White Fish, in, A. Gailey (ed.)

Gold Under the Furze: Studies in Folk Tradition, Dublin, 138–149.Waugh, D. 2000 A Scattering of Norse Names in Strathnaver, in Baldwin (ed.)

2000, 13–23.Whimster, R. 1981 Burial Practices in Iron Age Britain: A Discussion and

Gazetteer of the Evidence c 700 BC–AD 43. BAR British Series 90, Oxford.

This paper is published with the aid of a grant from Historic Scotland.

Date post:	26-Mar-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	oldenglishblog
View:	250 times
Download:	2 times

A Pictish Burial and Late Norse/Medieval Settlement at Sangobeg, Durness, Sutherland

Documents