Chapter XXI: Section V: The Bronze Age (1)

This section will deal with the introduction of metals, and touch on the transition from the stone to the bronze period. A description of the various bronze objects, weapons, tools, and gold ornaments will be presented. The defensive works, habitations, and other matters associated with the daily life of the people will be treated. The modes of burial of the bronze period, and the phenomena associated with interments. Finally, an expository statement and summary touching the religion, social state, and culture of the prehistoric people will be offered.

The question of the introduction of the use of metals or bronze is easily understood, but the question of the origin of bronze, or the original centre where it was discovered, is a more difficult matter, and has caused much inquiry and discussion. It is the first only of these questions which comes within the scope of my work, and the second will be very briefly touched. As to the original centre where bronze was discovered, this is a problem still under discussion; and, like the origin of the Aryans, it is not likely to be soon solved. Some writers have pointed to Western Asia, the supposed cradle and original source of early civilisation; but, in truth, when or where the alloy called bronze was first discovered and manufactured for use no one really knows.¹ It is, however, well ascertained that bronze weapons and tools were used much earlier in some quarters of the globe than in others, for instance in Egypt, and the regions around the Mediterranean, long before it was used in Britain or other Northern European countries.²

¹ Touching the early sources of copper and tin in Europe,
it may be observed that native copper occurs in Hungary,
Norway, Sweden, Saxony and Cornwall; and copper and its ores
are abundant in Ireland. Copper pyrites is very general in
most countries of the world, in more or less abundance. In
early times tin seems to have been found in large quantities
in some parts of Spain; and we know that the tin mines of
Cornwall, in Britain, were worked at an early period. In
the East, Malacca was a source from which tin may have been
obtained in early times. Evans’ _Ancient Bronze Implements_,
pages 419, 424.

² Bronze was extensively used in Egypt for weapons and tools
as early as 3000 B.C.; but the use of iron seems to have
been restricted, owing probably to some religious motive.
_Ibid._, pages 6, 7, 8. Among the Aryans iron seems to have
been used at an early period.

Concerning the means through which the use of bronze was introduced to Britain different views have been held. Some authorities have maintained that the use of bronze was spread from a common centre by an intruding and conquering race, or the migration of tribes; others hold that the people of each separate country, where bronze is known to have been used, discovered the art independently and manufactured their own implements; some again maintain that the art was discovered and the articles manufactured on one spot, and thence disseminated by means of commerce; and finally, others aver that the art of making bronze was spread from a common centre, but that the implements were usually made in the countries in which they have been found.¹ A discussion of these views would require a separate volume, and I can only indicate the region whence Britain, or rather Scotland, probably received the first instruction in the use of bronze.

¹ _Ibid._, page 475. “The familiarity of the ancient Britons
with tin, though this metal does not occur in a native state,
may be readily accounted for from the one being frequently
found near the surface, and requiring only the use of
charcoal and a very moderate degree of heat to reduce it
to the state of metal.” Wilson’s _Prehistoric Annals of
Scotland_, Volume I., page 304. 1863.

It has frequently been stated that the use of bronze was introduced into Britain by invasion and conquest. Professor Dawkins advances the idea that the Celts arrived on the southern shores of Britain with bronze swords in their hands, and thus introduced the use of bronze into this country.¹ But this mode of explanation is seldom satisfactory, unless well supported by other circumstances and evidence; and, although it is highly probable that the people of Britain did receive the knowledge of the use of bronze from France, it was by means of barter and not by warfare; seeing that the first arrival of Celtic tribes in the south of Britain was probably long anterior to the general use of bronze in France itself or the Continent. It appears to me that the Celts had overrun the whole of England, and penetrated into Scotland, as far at least as Glenmore, before bronze began to be introduced in the south of Britain. The view which supposes that the art of making bronze was discovered at a single centre, where implements were manufactured and afterwards spread by commerce, is probably in a limited sense true. For wheresoever the discovery of bronze may have originated, there is evidence of its use having spread over the greater part of Europe, and probably at first bronze tools and implements were widely diffused by barter. The view, however, which comes nearest to the requisite conditions of the known facts everywhere associated with the subject, assumes that the art of making bronze was spread from a common centre, though the weapons and tools were manufactured in greater or less numbers in each country where the use of bronze prevailed. This does not imply that in any given district all the weapons and tools found in it were of home manufacture, and none of them imported, for there is evidence in most countries that some of the bronze articles found there are of foreign manufacture, and had been introduced by commerce or other means of intercourse.²

¹ _Early Man in Britain_, pages 321, 322, 343. 1880. This
writer is perhaps wrong in his statement of facts and in
the inferences which he draws. The Silures, whom he supposes
to have been Iberians, were in all probability mixed
Celtic tribes. And this much is certain, that the tribes
called Silures, made a desperate and prolonged resistance
to the advance of the Roman legions――a resistance quite
inconsistent with the feeble characteristics of the Iberians.

² Evans’ _Ancient Bronze Implements_, pages 420, 475‒477.

There is ample evidence that in Britain, in course of time, the manufacture of bronze weapons and tools was extensively and widely carried on. The moulds for casting various tools and weapons have been found both in England and in Scotland, and they are numerous in Ireland; and founders hoards have been found in many places in Britain. There were also travelling founders, who practised their art at any place where their work was required. In these and in other ways, many of the bronze weapons and tools found in England, Scotland, and Ireland, were manufactured. Amongst the hoards of bronze articles which have from time to time been found, some are considered to represent the stock-in-trade of the ancient bronze founders; and other hoards, from their characteristics, are considered to have belonged to dealers in bronze articles.¹ Some of the moulds found in Scotland will be noticed in connection with the description of the weapons and implements.

¹ Evans’ _Ancient Bronze Implements_, pages 422, 428, 438‒453.
“Judging from the unfinished condition of the tools and
weapons in some of the old bronze founders hoards, and from
the large deposits of socketed celts having been found with
the clay cores still in them, it seems not improbable that
the founders often bartered away their castings nearly in
the state in which they came from the moulds, with only
the runners broken off, and that those who acquired them
finished the manufacture themselves.” _Ibid._, page 451.

From a concurrence of circumstances and ascertained facts, it is evident that the transitional stage from stone weapons and tools to the use of metal ones extended over a long period. The one class of articles and tools did not supersede the other suddenly; for there is much evidence that stone, bone, and horn weapons and tools continued to be used long after bronze, and even iron, was introduced. For such work as stone and bone tools were naturally suitable, they continued to be used, as they were much easier obtained than bronze ones; and in some instances stone implements were used down to a comparatively recent period. In the case of certain ornaments which belong to a somewhat later period, bronze and brass were used.

In Scotland bronze weapons, tools, and articles have been found under various circumstances. A few have been found associated with interments; a greater number have been discovered in hoards from time to time; some casually found in the soil; and others when carefully sought in excavating the early sites of human habitation. I will first touch on a few of the hoards, and then proceed to describe the different kinds of weapons, implements, and ornaments of the bronze period, as it is represented in Scotland.

In the process of marl dredging in the Loch of Duddingston, near Edinburgh, in 1775, the workmen dragged up a heap of swords, spear-heads, and other lumps of bronze. They seem to have been mostly broken; and the hoard as presented to the National Museum, consisted of twenty-nine pieces of broken swords; twenty-three portions of spear heads; and a ring and staple of large size. The fragments of the swords were mostly under six inches in length, and show that the weapons were of the leaf-shaped type; the spear-heads were pieces of large weapons with sockets and leaf-shaped blades.¹ In 1849, a hoard of bronze weapons was discovered in a moss on the north side of the point of Sleat, in the Isle of Skye, which consisted of one sword of the leaf-shaped form, with a flat handle-plate pierced for rivet holes; two spear-heads; and a long thin pin with a cup-shaped head; and also a curious socketed tool of a bent leaf-shaped form, four inches long. A hoard of bronze weapons and objects was found at Tarves, Aberdeenshire, which mostly consisted of swords; and in 1853, at Cauldhame, near Brechin, a hoard was found, consisting of four leaf-shaped swords, and a large spear-head. One of the swords was twenty-four inches long. In 1868, at Achtertyre, near Elgin, a hoard of bronze articles was discovered in ploughing a mossy field, which consisted of one axe-head; two spear-heads; two penannular rings, some fragments of broken rings; and portions of a ring, which on analysis yielded only tin and lead, no copper. When a gravel hillock was being trenched at Monadhmor, Killin, Perthshire, in 1868, the workmen discovered a hoard of bronze objects, consisting of two socketed axe-heads; a leaf-shaped spear-head; a socketed gouge of rare occurrence in Scotland; a portion of a leaf-shaped sword; a hollow circular ring, a ♦penannular ring, and nine plain annular rings. In 1869, when the foundation of a house in Grosvenor Crescent, Edinburgh, was being dug, a hoard of bronze weapons was found, said to have consisted of some fourteen or fifteen swords, but only four of these are now known; and with them were found a bronze ring and a broken pin.²

¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 132‒133. The proprietor of the estate on
the side of the Loch, Sir Alexander Dick, who commenced
the dredging operations, said――“Some of the lumps of brass
seemed as if half melted; and my conjecture is, that there
had been upon the side of the hill, near the lake, some
manufacture for brass arms of the several kinds for which
there was a demand.”

♦ “pennanular” replaced with “penannular”

² _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 181, 224; Volume III., page 182; Volume IX.,
page 435; Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 142‒153.

All the bronze articles found in Scotland and reasonably assigned to this period, may be classified as weapons, useful tools, and ornaments. The first class includes swords, daggers, spear-heads, and shields. The sword of the bronze period is amongst the finest of the ancient weapons. The small and short leaf-shaped blade, and its hilt without a guard, is a form greatly admired. Different specimens in the Scottish collection vary in size; a fine example was dredged up from the bottom of the Tay near Perth, it measures 28½ inches in length, and is the largest one known in Scotland. Another from the Isle of South Uist, measures 27 inches; and one found in the parish of Latheron, Caithness, is 25 inches long. In rare specimens, such as one of the swords found in the hoard at Edinburgh, the hilt is formed and cast in the same mould with the blade. Another form of sword, of rare occurrence in Scotland, is characterised by a narrow rapier-shaped blade, without a handle-plate, the hilt being made of bone or wood and attached to the flattened base of the blade by rivets. The leaf-shaped swords are numerous in Scotland, and have been found in almost every quarter of the country.¹

¹ “Among ancient weapons of bronze, perhaps the most
remarkable, both for elegance of form and for the skill
displayed in their casting, are the leaf-shaped swords, of
which a considerable number have come down to our time. The
only other forms that can vie with them in these points are
the spear-heads, of which many are gracefully proportioned,
while the coring of their sockets for the reception of the
shafts would do credit to the most skillful modern founder.
Neither the one nor the other belong to the earliest period
when bronze first came into general use for weapons and
tools, the flat celts and the knife-daggers characteristic
of that period being as a rule absent from the hoards in
which fragments of swords and spear-heads are present.”
Evans’ _Ancient Bronze Implements_, page 273.

Apparently both these classes of sword-blades were cast in stone moulds; but no sword moulds have as yet been discovered in Scotland. Two stone moulds were found in the parish of Hennock, in Devonshire, which were both for the production of rapier-shaped blades.¹

¹ _Ibid._, page 434.

The dagger blades are usually thick and heavy in proportion to their length. They differ from the thin flat blades of smaller size occasionally found in the graves of the period. The thick daggers vary much in size, from six inches in length to over thirteen, and in breadth some of the larger ones are from three inches to over four. Some of them have two and others four rivet-holes for attaching their handles. A few of them are slightly ornamented, and many of them are finely shaped.¹

¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume X., pages 84, 459; Volume XII., pages 439, 440, 449,
456; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Annals of Scotland_, Volume I.,
page 392.

The spear-head of the bronze period is usually a socketed weapon, without barbs, and often leaf-shaped; and the variation in their length and the taper of the blades is extreme. The largest specimen in the National Museum is nineteen inches long, and exceedingly well formed. The larger ones are often pierced with segmental openings in the sides, formed in the casting, which diminish their weight and add to the beauty of the finished weapons. Another class, with the base of the blade pierced by loop-like holes, have been found exceeding fifteen inches long, but other specimens of the same class are only eight inches long, and some not over six inches. The looped variety of spear-heads have also been found in Scotland, some specimens of which have the loops low down on the socket. These are very common in Ireland, and are more elaborately ornamented than the Scotch examples.¹

¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume V., page 214; Volume XXIII., pages 9, 150, 224;
Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 184, 185.

The spear-heads, like the sword and dagger blades, were cast in moulds of stone. Two stone moulds for looped spear-heads were found together under the surface of the ground near Campbeltown, in Argyleshire. Similar moulds have been found in England, Ireland, and in other countries.¹

¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume VI., page 48; Volume XVI., page 103; Evans’ _Ancient
Bronze Implements_, pages 435‒438.

Bronze shields are not numerous in Scotland, but a few specimens have been found. In 1779 a fine example was discovered in a peat moss in the parish of Beith, Ayrshire, which was afterwards presented to the Society of Antiquaries of London. This shield is formed of thin beaten bronze, circular in form, and 26½ inches in diameter. Its surface is ornamented with concentric circles of ridges, and also hammered up from the back between the circular rows of studs; the handle is fixed across the inner side of the boss, and the grip rounded by turning the edges inwards. In 1837 a shield of a similar character was found in digging a drain in a marshy piece of ground at Yetholm, in Roxburghshire; and in 1870 another shield was ploughed up in the same piece of ground. They are beautiful and finely finished. They were not intended for use on the arm, like the shields of later times, but held in the left hand by a single handle riveted across the hollow of the central boss.¹

¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 155‒159;
_Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume V., page 165; Volume VIII., page 393.

Only one specimen of a bronze battle-axe is known in Scotland, which was found in a morass at Bannockburn. It is a very peculiar weapon, four pounds in weight, and has been figured by Dr. Anderson.

A fine specimen of a cast bronze war trumpet was found in the parish of Tarbolton, Ayrshire, about the year 1653, and since preserved in Coilsfield House. It is the only one of the class known in Scotland. A portion of a bronze side-blast trumpet was found at Innermessan in the parish of Inch, Wigtonshire. These bronze war trumpets are more common in Ireland and in Denmark than in Scotland.¹

¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume XII., page 565; Volume XXIII., pages 151, 224.

Having noticed the warlike weapons, I turn to the tools and implements which appear to have been used for the purposes of every-day life, beginning with those which seem to have come earliest into use. The flat, bronze axe-heads are broad at the cutting end, and vary greatly in size. Some of them are five inches in length and three inches across the cutting face, which is always their broadest part. The largest specimen known in Scotland is 13⅜ inches in length and 9 inches across the cutting face; it was found in digging a drain on the farm of Loanhead, on the south side of the Pentland Hills. Amongst a number found on the farm of Colleonard, in Banffshire, there were two with a series of short lines incised upon their flat sides, and another one had raised ribs lengthwise. Others have been found over the whole area of Scotland. It has been supposed that this class of axe-heads were cast in open moulds of stone.¹

¹ _Ibid._, Volume IV., pages 187, 380; Volume IX., pages 182,
430, 431; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Annals of Scotland_, Volume
I., page 344; Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages
190‒194.

There are several other varieties of axe-heads which have been termed fanged and socketed. Some of these are very finely formed, and more or less ornamented. The two halfs of a stone mould for casting socketed axe-heads of bronze were found at Rooskeen, in Ross-shire, and have been figured by Wilson and Dr. Anderson.

The difference between the axes and the chisels of the bronze period appears more in the mode of hafting and of use than in the form of the tool itself. Tools of the chisel form are not very numerous in Scotland, they are much more common in Ireland. Some good specimens, however, have been found in the southern and northern counties of Scotland.¹

¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume XII., pages 6, 13; Volume XVII., page 338; Anderson’s
_Bronze and Stone Ages_, page 201.

Awls, needles, and fish-hooks of bronze have occasionally been found in Scotland. Bronze awls have frequently been found in England, and sometimes in association with interments.¹ Only three specimens of bronze sickles are known in Scotland. One was found at Edengerach, in the parish of Premnay, Aberdeenshire, which is a curved, tapering blade set at right angles to the end of an oval socket; the blade is imperfect, but seems to have been over four inches in length. Another sickle was dredged from the bed of the Tay, near Errol, in 1840, and it is preserved in the Museum of the Literary and Antiquarian Society of Perth. The blade is a little over six inches in length, and over an inch in breadth at its junction with the socket. The third sickle is in the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, and its blade is five inches in length. These are the only agricultural implements of the bronze period as yet discovered in the kingdom, though it was stated in the _Old Statistical Account of Scotland_ that an implement of this class was found at Ledberg, in Sutherlandshire.²

¹ Evans’ _Ancient Bronze Implements_, pages 188‒191.

² _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume VII., page 376; Volume XXII., pages 339, 350.

No bronze hammers have been found in Scotland, and only one example of the Bronze Age anvil has yet been discovered. The anvil was found near Kyle of Oykel, in Sutherlandshire, and is preserved in the museum of Dunrobin Castle. Several good specimens of large cauldrons, formed of thin bronze plates riveted together, have been found associated with the leaf-shaped swords and the socketed axe-heads, as in the loch of Duddingston, Kilkerran in Ayrshire, and Poolewe; some of them are beautifully formed and finely made.¹

¹ _Ibid._, Volume XXII., pages 36‒42; Anderson’s _Bronze and
Stone Ages_, pages 205‒207.

The people of the Bronze Age seem to have adorned themselves profusely with fine ornaments, for gold ornaments assigned to this period have been found in every quarter of the kingdom. They are suggestive of a magnificence of attire and a life which ill accords with the view that I have often seen stated, namely, that our prehistoric ancestors were simply untutored savages! Men, indeed, who assumed the upright attitude, but savages nevertheless. Two beautiful golden diadems were found on the farm of Southside, near Coulter, Lanarkshire, in 1860. Their form is a broad lunette of beaten gold, terminating in disc-shaped ends; and the central opening is wide enough to admit of the ornament being worn on the head as a diadem or on the neck as a gorget. Another beautiful gold diadem of a similar form was found at Auchentaggart, in the parish of Sanquhar, Dumfriesshire, which, when turned up by the plough, was folded and rolled up almost into a ball. A magnificent specimen of a large and massive armlet, formed of intertwisted rods of gold, was found at Slateford, near Edinburgh, in 1864. It consisted of three gold rods twisted together round a common centre, and uniting at the ends in a single rod, which recurves and forms a terminal hook; and it was so coiled as to encircle the arm in four complete coils, which, when extended, measured 4½ feet long. This armlet “was by far the finest specimen of goldsmith’s work from the bronze age that had ever been seen in this country, and the only one of its kind then or now known to exist; yet it was clipped to pieces and consigned to the melting-pot by a jeweller in Edinburgh. A cast of it, however, is preserved in the National Museum.”¹

¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 220‒223.

Another exceedingly beautiful gold armlet is formed of a flat band, tapering slightly from the middle to the end, and twisted like the thread of a screw, passing at the ends into slender hook-like terminations, with conical knobs which interlock and serve to fasten the armlet when worn. In 1848 a hoard of four of these armlets was discovered on the top of a steep bank at the village of Lower Largo, in Fifeshire. They are most beautifully formed, and all nearly of the same size. Another hoard of gold armlets of a similar type was turned up by the plough on the farm of Law, in the parish of Urquhart, Elginshire, in 1857; the number found amounted to thirty-six, and they were all nearly of the same style and pattern. A gold armlet of a similar pattern was found at Belhelvie, in Aberdeenshire; another near the border of the parish of Coulter, Lanarkshire; one at the head of Little Lochbroom, in Ross-shire; and a very massive one on the Moor of Rannoch.¹

¹ _Ibid._, pages 214, 219.

In 1856 a hoard of gold ornaments was discovered in a moss in the West Highlands, amongst which were two penannular armlets. These are formed of solid rods of gold, bent to a slightly elliptical form, and terminating in slightly expanded ends. The heaviest one weighed 19 dwts. 6 grs. In 1852 a massive gold armlet, formed of solid rods, was found at Bonnyside, in Stirlingshire, and it weighed 6 ozs. 10 dwts. 6 grs. Four armlets, formed of solid rods of gold, of a similar pattern, were found in digging a drain at Ormidale, near Brodick, in the Island of Arran, in 1864. In 1845 five similar armlets were found in digging a drain in the vicinity of the Gallow Hill, in the parish of St. Vigeans, Forfarshire, and these were sold to a pedlar “as old drawer handles.” In 1834 three penannular gold armlets were found in Stonehill Wood, in the parish of Carmichael, Lanarkshire, and the largest one weighed 4 ozs. 212 grs. A hoard of thirty-six gold armlets was ploughed up on the farm of Coul, in the Isle of Islay, in 1780; and about 1784 a gold armlet, weighing over 5 ozs., was found by a labourer in Galloway. In 1871 two gold armlets were found in the vicinity of Killmailie, Inverness-shire; other two found in Argyleshire are preserved in Inveraray Castle. About 1827 five penannular gold rings were discovered on the estate of the Duke of Fife, near Duff House, Banffshire, and these rings were associated with a bronze age interment. From the associated circumstances in which several of these gold ornaments have been found, there is no question that they belong to the bronze period. Besides the gold ornaments mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, and many others of gold which I have not mentioned, there were bronze rings, armlets, pins, and jet necklaces, which have been found in many parts of the country. Some of the jet necklaces and the bronze armlets are very pretty.¹

¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, pages 58, 59, 60, 61‒63,
144, 208‒214; _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland_, Volume VI., page 311; Volume VII., pages 351, 352;
Volume VIII., pages 28‒32, 407, 408; Wilson’s _Prehistoric
Annals of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 434‒475.

The curious phenomena of the prevalence of the use of gold in the form of ornaments amongst the Bronze Age people, at a time when silver and iron were unknown, and bronze the only metal used in their manufactured products, seems to indicate a taste and culture which could scarcely have been expected. This will be again touched on after the available evidence in other directions has been gone over, to which attention must be directed.

It may be “that not a trace of a dwelling or site of a settlement of the Bronze Age has been discovered in Scotland.”¹ Still, when the historian finds that the people lived, and moved, and died, and were interred in various forms in the Bronze Age, he must endeavour to find traces of their dwellings and sites. Seeing that their tombs have been discovered, it is more than probable that their sites and dwellings were at no great distance from their tombs. We have already seen evidence that there must have been considerable organisation and united action among our ancestors of the Stone and Bronze Ages, and therefore, in consistency, we should try to find traces of their dwellings; although possibly we cannot obtain positive information about them.

¹ Anderson’s _Bronze and Stone Ages_, page 227.

Traces of what may reasonably be supposed to have been the foundations of prehistoric dwellings, have been observed in many quarters of Scotland, in short from Mid Lothian to Caithness. The rudest of these hut foundations are simply shallow excavations in the ground, usually circular in form and from seven to eight feet in diameter, and generally occur in groups. But the foundations of many groups of circular huts of larger dimensions have been observed in Scotland. The structure of those hut circles consists of two concentric rows of stones separated by a space of six or eight inches, which is filled by small stones and earth, the whole forming a rude wall of about eighteen inches in height; and the space within this wall is generally from twenty to thirty feet in diameter. They have often been discovered on the summits, the brows, and the sides of hills; and also on the lower grounds, the sea beaches, and on the banks of lochs and of rivers.¹ Now it is probable that these were the foundations of prehistoric dwellings, and that above these foundations a structure formed of wood was erected. Many indications, circumstances, and final results, tend to show that the sites and settlements of the prehistoric people of Scotland were often on elevated positions――on heights and hills. The natural reasons and circumstances which originally led the prehistoric people to select the heights for their habitations, probably were that abodes erected upon the high grounds would be more likely to escape the ravages of inundation from a high tide, a heavy rainfall, a sudden thaw of snow, or any unusual rising of the waters upon the lower grounds; while the heights were also best adapted for defence against the attacks of enemies. Thus it is in the highest degree probable that the earliest dwellings of man in Scotland were on pretty elevated positions. Further, many of the towns of Scotland which stretch back into the prehistoric period, were originally sites of human habitation upon heights or hills, such as Edinburgh, Stirling, Paisley, Dundee, Aberdeen, Banff, Inverness, and many others. As indicated in the second section, man selected the sites for his dwellings with remarkable sagacity.

¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume VII., pages 291, 297, 300, 541; Volume VIII., page
410; Volume IX., pages 158, 169; Wilson’s _Prehistoric
Annals of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 103‒106.

But in the prehistoric ages it frequently happened that the advantages of the elevated sites, great as they were――mainly owing to the difficulties of obtaining food――these advantages were partly counterbalanced, and hence the selection of spots on the banks of lakes and rivers, and near the sea, as sites of early occupation. Thus, traces of hut foundations have been observed on the sea beaches, the banks of lakes and rivers, in close association with shell mounds, kitchen middens, and grave mounds. On the links between the Meikle and Little Ferries, Sutherlandshire, the hut foundations, the shell mounds, and the grave mounds, were found in close proximity with each other; and similar traces and remains occur in Elginshire, and in other parts of the country. From these indications it has reasonably been inferred that these places were sites of early habitation, and that shell fish or eatable mussel formed a main part of the food of those people. A few flint and stone implements, and the bones of animals, were found embedded amongst these shell heaps.¹

¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume VI., pages 423‒426; Volume VIII., pages 63‒64,
177‒178; Volume IX., pages 250‒260, 452‒454, 45‒52.

There are a number of caves in Scotland which appear to have
been used for human habitations, or hiding places; but their
occupation cannot be assigned to definite periods, unless in
rare instances. In quite recent times travelling tinkers and
bands of vagrants occasionally lived in caves. Several of
the early Scottish saints sometimes resorted to caves.

In the Gaswork Cave, at Wemyss, there was a mass of debris
like a kitchen midden, containing bones of the ox, sheep,
pig, deer, hare, and bones of birds; and also shells of the
limpet and the whelk. Another cave at Seacliff, near North
Berwick, contained similar evidence of human occupation.
――_Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 87‒88.

The Burness Cave in the Parish of Borgue, Kirkcudbrightshire,
the exploration of which commenced in 1872, presented
evidence of prolonged occupation. Large quantities of the
bones of animals and of birds were found in it, and also
indications that its occupiers had used grain. Nearly two
hundred implements, tools, and objects of human art, were
disinterred from this cave; and the greater part of these
implements were made of bone, comparatively few stone or
bronze tools were found in it. _Proceedings of the Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland_, Volume X., pages 479‒507; also
Volume XI.

There is always more or less uncertainty in assigning prehistoric structures to a given period; for from the nature of the subject such evidence as exists is rarely conclusive. This is the case with the Scotch Crannogs and the Hill Forts. Both these classes of structures are prehistoric, and it would be difficult to determine which of them is the oldest. The period of the Scotch Crannogs has been placed after the departure of the Romans; a time of darkness and confusion, which somehow seems to have been exceedingly fertile in originating new buildings and structures.¹ But looking at the antiquity assigned to a somewhat similar class of structures in Switzerland and Italy, which were constructed by a kindred race, and other circumstances of the people themselves associated with the Crannogs in Scotland, it appears to me highly probable that they were originated and some of them constructed in the later stage of the Bronze Age. In fact, only the origin of the Crannogs within the area of the Kingdom of Strathclyde are accounted for, on Dr. Munro’s hypothesis, as he explicitly admits:――“Turning now to the Celtic area beyond the limits of the Scottish portion of the Kingdom of Strathclyde, I may at once state that there is no data derived from an examination of its artificial islands, nor any relics of their occupiers, which can give even an approximate notion of their chronological range.”² Thus the question of their origin and possible age is left unsettled for the greater part of Scotland. An attempt therefore may be made to indicate the natural causes and the conditions which led to their origin and construction, without having recourse to a special line of explanation.

¹ Dr. P. Munro, who has specially examined and has given a
very interesting account of the Scottish Crannogs, and also
in a larger work presented a masterly account of this class
of structures in Europe; touching those of Scotland, he
says:――“There is, in my opinion, only one hypothesis that
can satisfactorily account for all the facts and phenomena
here adduced, viz., that the lake dwellings in the south-west
of Scotland were constructed by the Celtic inhabitants as a
means of protecting themselves and their movable property,
when, upon the frequent withdrawal of the Roman soldiers
from the district, they were left single-handed, to contend
against the Angles on the east, and the Picts and Scots on
the south. It is not likely that these provincials ... would
become the assailants of such fierce and lawless enemies....
Hence their military tactics and operations would assume
more the character of defence than of aggression, and
in order to defeat the object of the frequent and sudden
inroads of the northern tribes, which was to plunder the
inhabitants rather than to conquer the country, experience
taught them the necessity of being prepared for emergencies,
by having certain places of more than ordinary security,
where they could deposit their wealth, or to which they
could retire as a last resource when hard pressed. These
retreats might be caves, fortified camps, or inaccessible
islands; but in localities where no such natural strongholds
exists, the military genius of the Celtic inhabitants,
prompted perhaps by inherited notions, led them to construct
these wooden islands. Since the final departure of the
Romans till the conquest of the Kingdom of Strathclyde by
the Northumbrian Angles, a period of several centuries,
this unfortunate people had few intervals of peace, and
with their subjugation, ended the special function of the
lake-dwellings as a national system of protection.”――_Ancient
Scottish Lake-dwellings_, pages 283‒284.

² _Ibid._, page 287.

The area of the Crannogs and artificial islands embrace the whole of modern Scotland, excepting its two northmost counties, and one or two on its south-eastern extremity, and even in these such structures may yet be discovered. The question then is, what were the causes of their origin? We need not travel beyond the natural and known circumstances of the country and its inhabitants, and the motives of human action and effort. All Crannogs have in view one common end,――defence, protection, and security. They were probably often used as places of refuge, though no doubt they were often in many instances occupied continuously. “There is often a fort on the top of some neighbouring hill, to which the lake-dwellers may have gone when the lochs were frozen and the Crannogs open to invasion.”¹

¹ _Ibid._, page 187.

In the later part of the bronze period the people of Scotland were organised and formed into strong tribes, which were separate and independent, and each tribe living under the rule of its own head. No doubt these tribes sometimes waged war with one another. But before this time, there was a strong and constant pressure from the south on the tribes to the north of the Tweed and the Cheviot Hills, which arose from fresh migrations from the Continent to the southern shores of the Island. So there was a continuous onward and outward movement of the tribes from the south of the Island toward the north, which naturally caused the tribes to construct defensive works for their self-preservation, protection, and security. Such then were the causes of the origin of the Hill Forts and the Crannogs of Scotland. As to which of those two classes of structures was the earliest, I will not undertake to determine; but that both were in use many centuries before the Roman invasion, I have no doubt whatever. Thus we have a real historic explanation of the origin of the Crannogs and the Hill Forts; they were the effects of the state of the inhabitants of the whole Island, and the historic conditions which had arisen.

Crannogs would continue to be used so long as the circumstances of the people rendered them necessary, or till they were superseded by structures more in harmony with the conditions of society. Thus many of them may have been occasionally occupied long after the departure of the Romans, and even after the kingdom of Strathclyde was annexed to Scotland.

In many instances natural islands in lochs were selected as suitable sites on which to erect defensive works and secure dwellings. Advantage also was often taken of the natural ridges and the shallows in the bottom of the lochs, on which to construct abodes with stones or wood, and then connect them with the shore by a causeway.¹

¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume VI., pages 114‒117; Volume X., pages 31‒34, 741.

But the class of structures most frequently found in lochs in Scotland, is usually constructed wholly or principally of wood, and on that account are called Crannogs. They are pretty numerous, and a considerable number of them have been systematically explored by Dr. Munro; and he gives the following account of the method of their construction:――“This is how they worked: 1, Immediately over the chosen site a circular raft of trunks of trees laid above branches and brushwood was formed, and above it additional layers of logs, together with stones, gravel, etc., were heaped up till the whole was grounded. 2, As this process went on, upright piles, made of oak and of the requisite length, were inserted into prepared holes in the structure, and probably also a few were inserted into the bed of the lake. 3, The rough logs forming horizontal layers were made of various kinds of wood, generally birch, it being the most abundant. These were occasionally pinned together by thick oak pegs, and here and there at intervals oak beams mortised into one another stretched across the substance of the island, and fixed the surrounding piles. 4, When a sufficient height above the water-line was attained, a prepared pavement of oak beams was constructed, and mortised beams were laid over the tops of the encircling piles, which bound them firmly together as already described. The margin of the island was also slantingly shaped by an intricate arrangement of beams and stones, constituting in some cases a well-formed breakwater. 5, When the skeleton of the island was thus finished, probably turf would be laid over its margin, where the pointed piles protruded, and a superficial barrier of hurdles, or some such fence, erected close to the edge of the water. 6, Frequently a wooden gangway, probably submerged, stretched to the shore, by means of which secret access to the Crannog could be obtained without the use of a canoe.

“Bearing in mind that all these structures were solidly put together without nails or bolts, and that the gangways, which have remained permanently fixed to the present time, had neither joint nor mortise, we may fearlessly challenge modern science to produce better results under these, or indeed under any circumstances. Not only do these wooden islands evince much mechanical and technical skill on the part of their producers, but what is still more singular, their area of distribution appears to have been co-extensive with the districts formerly occupied by Celtic tribes. Hence we have here another proof of the extraordinary vigour, intense individuality, and plastic character of early Celtic civilisation, in thus developing, from its own inherent resources, an unique form of stronghold, simple in its structure, but admirably adapted to the unsettled conditions of life and military requirements of the period.”¹

¹ _Ancient Lake Dwellings of Scotland_, pages 262‒264.

The dimensions of the Crannogs vary considerably, some of them are twenty-three feet in diameter, while others are much less. The character of the relics and implements found in association with them are pretty various, embracing culinary articles, tools, weapons, and ornaments, such as cauldrons, stone-hammers, spindle-whorls, objects in bronze, bone pins, needles, and borers, and deer horn implements, and many ornaments. Altogether the collection of articles discovered in the Scottish Crannogs, indicates that some of them were frequented and occasionally occupied after the Christian era.¹ But this in no way proves that they were not originated and constructed, and many of them occupied at a much earlier period; indeed the very nature of the construction of these Crannogs, without nails or bolts of any kind, points to an early and prehistoric origin, and it was already observed that the primitive canoes have been often found associated with the Crannogs.

¹ _Ibid._, page 277; _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 121, 132, 148; Volume IX.,
pages 389, 391; Volume XX., iii. page 148.

The Hill Forts may be divided into three classes:――1, Those formed of earth; 2, Those formed partly or wholly of stones; and 3, Those formed of stones and partly vitrified. Seeing that they are all prehistoric, there seems no necessity for placing them after the Roman invasion. Although it may be quite true, that we cannot with certainty assign any of them to the Bronze Age, still I have sufficiently shown, on probably historic grounds, that the movements of the population in the island, and the tribal organisation of society, would have naturally and politically led to the construction of such defensive works; and that at least some of these works were constructed several centuries before the Christian era. The movement of the tribes from the southern parts of the Island, inwards and outwards, issued in the first creation of historic conditions in Britain; and the consequent necessity of efforts for self-preservation and defence. It is therefore of comparatively little importance whether the defensive works in question be assigned to the Bronze Age or the Iron Age, provided that the causes of their origin and their consecutive development can be shown, in association with the advance of the people.

The first class of hill-forts, which were probably the earliest, consists of a number of low mounds of earth drawn round the brow, or summits of natural heights. They are mostly circular or oval in form, as this was often modified by the nature of the sites selected, and the number of the enclosing mounds of earth vary for similar reasons, sometimes there are two, three, four or more, which enclose a central space. They differ from most of the other early constructions, inasmuch as they are adaptations of naturally elevated sites for purposes of defence. They are numerous and extend over the whole area of Scotland; and, as noticed in a preceding page, they were probably sometimes used in connection with the crannogs. A characteristic example occurs on a height on the estate of Borthwick Hall, in Mid Lothian, which has recently been examined. It consists of four mounds of earth which enclose a space of 410 feet in length from east to west, and 284 feet in breadth from north to south. The mounds are only a few feet in height; and there are three entrances to the central enclosure. This class of earthworks in general, simply consist of a series of earthen walls enclosing the highest part of a hill of moderate elevation.¹

¹ Chalmers’ _Caledonia_, Volume I., pages 87‒98; _Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_, Volume XVI.,
page 254, _et seq._

The second class of hill-forts formed of stones, in some instances have only a single wall round the brow of a hill, which encloses ♦the area of its summit; while others have two, three, or more walls drawn round the ribs of a conical hill, at short distances apart. In Argyleshire there are a number of prehistoric forts with only one line of walls: in all, there are fifty-nine forts in this ancient district: of these thirty-seven are simply enclosed by a single wall, some of which are circular or oval in form, and others whose figure follow the contour of the site, and others again on sites partly protected from attack by nature――steep crags and rocks are only partially defended by walls on the accessible sides. The greater part of the Argyle forts have had only one entrance. Out of fifty-four of these forts, sixteen are under 50 feet in length inside the walls, and four of them had outworks; twenty-four were between 50 and 100 feet inside, and seven had outworks; eight were between 100 and 200 feet in length inside, and three had outworks; and four were between 200 and 300 feet in length, but comparatively narrow. Evidence of wells of water within these Argyle forts is rare.¹

♦ duplicate word “the” removed

¹ _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume XXIII., pages 368‒431. In the same volume of the
_Proceedings of the Society_, Mr. Alexander Hutcheson,
architect, gives an interesting description of several
hill-forts in Aberfeldy, Perthshire. One of these is on
the eastern spur of Drummond Hill, and occupies the summit
of a projecting rock, a site admirably chosen for defence.
“The walls of the fort have followed the contour of the
hill, twisting out and in to suit the exigencies of the
site. The area within the walls is thus of very irregular
outline, measuring in greatest longitude from north-west
to south-east about 100 yards, and at right angles to this
about 70 yards.... The walls are much broken down ... but
there are many parts where the inside and outside faces of
the walls can still be traced. In one part from 16 to 20
feet in length by about 6 feet in height of the original
wall may still be seen. This fragment shows that the walls
had been erected of rough and massive unhewed blocks without
any mortar or cementing material. The wall here is some 9
feet in thickness at the base, and is almost perpendicular
externally, but in the inside it is considerably sloped.
There are at some parts evidences that the ground had been
raised or filled in at the back of the walls, probably
to give those inside the fort an advantage in scaling the
walls for defence. This feature I have observed elsewhere
in similar structures.” Pages 359‒361.

The largest hill-fort in Scotland crowns the summit of a conical hill, called the White Caterthun, in the parish of Menmuir, Forfarshire. It is on a well-chosen and commanding position, overlooking the great plain of Strathmore. The central area enclosed is a long oval of about 450 by 200 feet, and this inner space represents the citadel. The inmost inclosing wall, now in ruins, was of enormous size and strength. At 150 feet from it down the slope of the hill there is a second wall, and below it the remains of a third wall; and beyond this the outer wall, enclosing an oblong area, which is supposed to have been used for a cattle-fold. As similar out-enclosures have been observed in connection with these forts, it is reasonably assumed that they were used in cases of emergency, such as war or invasion, for the protection of the live stock, on which the people mainly depended for their food and clothing.¹ On another hill in the neighbourhood there is a smaller fort of the same class.

¹ Roy’s _Military Antiquities_, page 47, plates 47‒48. The vast
and massive structure of this fort, and the immense labour
which its construction must have involved, will be best
understood by an examination of the plans and sections in
Roy’s great work.

Farther northward, on the Barmekyn Hill, in the Echt district, Aberdeenshire, there is a remarkable hill-fort. It consists of five concentric ramparts, which enclose the summit of the hill, and about the beginning of this century it was in a perfect state of preservation, so far as regarded the lines of fortification, though otherwise partly crumbled into ruins, and much of it removed to supply materials for the fences in the neighbourhood. The walls were about five feet in thickness, of dry masonry, and appear to have been of considerable height, but the inner rampart was twelve feet thick at the base, and several feet of its height then remained entire. The outer ditches were nine feet in breadth, and the inner one over thirty feet. The interior enclosure was reduced to a level, nearly circular, three hundred feet in diameter, and included about one acre of ground. Traces of a similar class of hill-forts may still be observed all over the country.¹

¹ _Archæologia Scotica_, Volume II., pages 322‒326. 1822.

The third class of hill-forts are those which show vitrification in their walls. They have attracted much attention, and yet very little decisive result as to the cause or the extent of the vitrification of their walls has been obtained. For all that has been written about these curious forts, very few of them have as yet been thoroughly excavated and explored. So far as known, there is no specimen in Scotland of a fort with its walls vitrified throughout. In every case where careful examination has been made, “vitrified portions of walling were found overlying portions built in the ordinary manner and unvitrified.” This was the result which Dr. Angus Smith obtained from his investigation of a vitrified fort at Loch Etive. And recently Mr. Macdonald examined the remains on the Hill of Noath, in the parish of Rhynie, Aberdeenshire, and found a similar result. He made wide cuts through the wall in two places down to the natural soil, and found that it consisted of a mass of loose stones in one of the sections without any vitrification whatever, and in the other section it was only vitrified at the top. This is a valuable contribution, as it touches the precise points which must be determined before satisfactory conclusions can be formed, as to whether the vitrification is structural or incidental; or, in other words, a result of design or the effect of a long series of incidental agencies and circumstances.¹