The Use and Reuse of Stone Circles

by Richard Bradley

  Figure 5.3. The surviving part of the Midmill long cairn (Richard Bradley).

  Figure 5.4. The position of the Tuach stone circle (arrowed) seen from the Midmill long cairn (Richard Bradley).

  In the centre of the site there was a curious structure which Stuart described as a ‘cromlech’ and Dalrymple termed ‘a small dolmen’. According to the earliest account, it comprised ‘a flat stone supported by smaller ones.... Around [it] four pits were discovered’ (Stuart 1856, xx). One was filled with charcoal and the other three contained cremated bone. Too little detail of this structure is provided to allow further discussion.

  Figure 5.5. A spread of granite flakes overlying the filling of the 1855 excavation (Richard Bradley).

  The site is unusual for two reasons. Its earthwork has most of the attributes of a small henge monument and is of a similar size to other examples surviving as earthworks in northern and north-eastern Scotland; a local example is Wormy Hillock (RCAHMS 2007, 56–57). It also shares their characteristic siting and is located on sloping ground. At the same time the setting of monoliths has features in common with what Aubrey Burl (2000) considered to be the last stone circles in Britain. This view is supported by the discovery of the cinerary urns in the 1855 excavation. What is exceptional is that the Hill of Tuach shares both these characteristics. It resembles recently published henges which date from the later part of the Early Bronze Age (Bradley 2011), but it also includes a stone circle which could be of similar age. It is hard to identify any intact monument which combines these elements, although they may have existed in the past. A possible example is at Fullerton (Coles 1901, 218–19).

  In the absence of a detailed record of the nineteenth century excavation, it seemed important to conduct new fieldwork on the site. It had the following aims:

  • To establish the original plan of the prehistoric stone setting, most of which had been destroyed since the 1855 survey;

  • To establish the nature of the earthwork perimeter and to look for environmental and chronological evidence associated with its construction;

  • To establish the character of any surviving deposits within the enclosure and to look for additional deposits of cremated bone;

  • All the early accounts of the site suggest that it was bounded by a continuous earthwork, but observations of similar enclosures suggest that they often preserve traces of a blocked entrance on the downhill side. It was important to ask whether the same could have happened in this case.

  The monument today

  Richard Bradley and Amanda Clarke

  The site has been damaged on at least three occasions. The first was Dalrymple’s excavation, the extent of which is not indicated on his sketch plan. It seems to have encouraged rabbits to burrow in the filling of his trenches.

  The second was a campaign of deliberate destruction which resulted in the disappearance of substantial fragments of at least five of the six monoliths. One may have been removed from the ground in one piece; another (Stone C) was partly demolished in situ; whilst a third was a fallen monolith, one end of which had been removed (Stone B). It appears to be depicted in the earliest surveys but, if so, it has been rotated through ninety degrees since the first plan was drawn. The other stones were smashed using a sledgehammer and are represented by a dense carpet of granite flakes sealing the filling of the Victorian excavation (Fig. 5.5). This may have happened during a period of agricultural improvement, for in low light it is possible to observe cultivation ridges extending downhill as far as the earthwork. It may be why its bank is reduced on the north side of the monument. The field wall that cuts across the southern perimeter of the enclosure should result from the same process.

  Lastly, at the beginning of the twentieth century the monument was in open grassland, but a photograph in NMRS taken by James Ritchie in 1919 shows it covered by saplings. It is located in a pine plantation today. The root mat is above the deposit of struck flakes that resulted from levelling the stone circle.

  Excavation in 2011

  Richard Bradley and Amanda Clarke

  The excavation was designed to investigate half the interior of the monument and two lengths of the surrounding earthwork (Fig. 5.6). A substantial section was excavated through the ditch and bank on the west side of the enclosure, where it was possible to avoid the positions of growing trees (Trench 1) (Fig. 5.7). A smaller area on the inner lip of the ditch was also examined to look for evidence of a blocked entrance (Trench 4). The section through the earthwork was linked to the largest area investigated inside the enclosure (Trench 2). Because so much of the interior was masked by a large granite boulder (Stone A), a much smaller area was examined on the east side of the enclosure (Trench 3). Only limited parts could be excavated completely, and in the others the work was confined to spaces that were largely free of trees and roots.

  Figure 5.6. The surviving remains of the stone circle and henge monument, showing a profile of the earthwork and the extent of the 2011 excavation.

  Figure 5.7. General view of excavation in between the growing trees (Aaron Watson).

  Figure 5.8. Section of the bank and ditch.

  The earthwork

  The earthwork had been built on a much larger scale than had been anticipated. It consisted of a wide external bank, revetted on the inside by a stone kerb 50 cm high, set on a shallow ledge in the subsoil (Fig. 5.8). There was also a considerable ditch (Fig. 5.9). Both were built in a single phase, and neither showed any sign of subsequent maintenance. The ditch (Contexts 3, 4, 5 and 6) was nearly 2 m deep and 3 m wide. To the east it had cut through a periglacial feature filled with granite boulders. Its steep inner face gives the best indication of the original profile of the earthwork; its outer face was excavated through glacial drift and was more eroded. Apart from two pieces of worked quartz from the secondary filling, no archaeological material was associated with this feature.

  The bank was of a single phase (Contexts 8, 9 and 10) (Fig. 5.10). It was 3.3 m wide and survived to a height of 60 cm. It sealed an old land surface (Context 11). Examination of the pollen from the buried soil shows that the enclosure was built in a largely open environment. Although the earthwork is in a modern wood, the almost complete absence of pine pollen demonstrates that the buried soil was securely sealed. Three small pieces of charcoal were submitted for radiocarbon dating. Two provided dates in the Early Bronze Age, but the third was Late Bronze Age. Since this layer showed no signs of later disturbance, the older samples must be residual and the latest should provide a terminus post quem for the construction of the earthwork. It would be contemporary with the reuse of other stone monuments during this phase. This question is considered in detail in Chapter 8.

  Figure 5.9. The enclosure ditch looking into the interior of the monument (Richard Bradley).

  Figure 5.10. General view of the enclosure earthwork seen from the interior of the monument. Note the low kerb located at the base of the external bank (Richard Bradley).

  Figure 5.11. The surviving part of Stone 4 overlying the filling of the enclosure ditch on the south-west perimeter of the monument. The ditch is unusually shallow at this point, and may have been dug through an earlier entrance (Richard Bradley).

  The 2011 excavation also investigated the area in which there was a possibility of a blocked entrance (Trench 4) (Fig. 5.11). Most of this is occupied by growing trees and part of the earthwork is buried beneath a substantial field wall. For those reasons the work had to be conducted on a small scale. The results were suggestive but not entirely conclusive. Here the ditch had a quite different profile from that observed elsewhere. It was significantly shallower and was filled with similar material to the interior of the enclosure. One reason for suggesting that there had originally been an entrance at this point is the course of the hollowed trackway leading to the quarry. It crossed the earthwork where there might have been a gap in the bank. A possible parallel can be observed at Wormy Hillock where the bank is interrupted at the entrance to the site, whilst a causeway in t
he ditch is partly dug away (RCAHMS 2007, fig. 5.19).

  The interior

  Almost the entire area inside the earthwork had been disturbed by Dalrymple. Towards the edges of his excavation it was also affected by rabbit burrows. As a result it was easy to establish which areas had been dug before, but it was difficult to identify the exact limits of the nineteenth century excavation except where it was unusually deep, as it was in parts of Trenches 2 and 3. In 1855 the interior of the enclosure was removed to a depth of between 40 and 50 cm; that agrees with the account provided by Stuart. There were only small amounts of cremated bone in the filling of Dalrymple’s excavation, and it seems possible that he retained the rest or disposed of it in another location. Because rabbit disturbance was especially severe along the inner lip of the ditch there was no longer any trace of the burial pits he had found beside the standing stones.

  The stone setting

  The positions of three of those stones were clear from the new excavation. In Trench 3 there were the unambiguous traces of an oval stone socket 20 cm deep (Feature 1). It was not accompanied by the granite flakes that occurred on other parts of the site, and it seems as if a complete monolith was lifted from the ground and taken away. The remains of another monolith (Stone D) were identified in Trench 4 on the edge of the ditch where trees are growing today. Its characteristic outline can be recognised in every plan of the site from 1855 to the present day, and this suggests that even in Dalrymple’s time it was lying on the ground. The badly disturbed remains of the base of another standing stone were recognised in Trench 2 and were located beside what seems to have been the disturbed remains of another socket and a shallow posthole (Features 2 and 3 respectively).

  Observations made in the field suggest that all the flakes encountered in the excavation come from the same kind of grey to white granite as the surviving remains of the standing stones. They are indistinguishable from the stump of another monolith which still survives outside the excavated area (Stone C). It had also been attacked with a sledgehammer but was not completely destroyed. This evidence establishes the positions of four of the six monoliths recorded by Dalrymple before their destruction in the nineteenth century. The new work suggests that they were located at intervals of approximately 4.4 m. The size of the enclosure rules out the possibility that there were ever more than six monoliths. They seem to have formed a circle approximately 8.5 m in diameter, with one of the stones at the putative entrance to the site. Taken in combination with the natural gradient of the hill, it suggests that the entire structure was orientated towards the southwest.

  It was important to establish whether the stone setting was contemporary with the bank and ditch. There is no stratigraphic evidence, but the earthwork was built on such a large scale that it would have been very difficult to introduce the monoliths after its construction. It might have been equally difficult to raise them as space inside the enclosure was so restricted. Moreover the stones seem to have stood very close to the inner lip of the ditch. It is clear that the earthwork was fitted around them, rather than the reverse.

  Features in the interior

  Stuart’s account of the 1855 excavation raised the possibility that Dalrymple’s trench was so deep that it had removed any subsoil features in the interior. That was not the case, and even in the comparatively small area available for investigation in Trench 2 a series of circular pits was identified (Figs 5.12–5.13). Features 6–11 resemble the charcoal-filled pit described in the earliest account of the site. Their distribution extended across much of the available area, but they were absent immediately to the west and northwest of the flat slab encountered by Dalrymple. The most likely explanation is that shallower features in this area were destroyed during the 1855 excavation. Six examples were recorded in 2011 and, to judge from Stuart’s account, at least four more could have existed in the centre of the enclosure. It is likely that that the upper levels of all the features excavated in 2011 were removed without record in the nineteenth century.

  Pits

  The pits found in 2011 took two forms. They were precisely circular or oval and 50 to 70 cm in maximum dimensions, with flat or rounded bottoms and seem to have been filled in a single operation. For the most part their positions respected one another, but Feature 6 cut through Feature 7, although both seem to have been closed together. One of these pits (Feature 11) had a small deposit of cremated bone on its base. Much smaller quantities of burnt bone were found inside three of the others (Features 6, 7 and 10), but they should not be regarded as burial pits. Like the example encountered by Dalrymple in the centre of the monument, their filling included pieces of charcoal, but again they were represented in small quantities. The base of Feature 7 was lined with flat slabs of granite on which a few pieces of quartz and a distinctive specked pebble had been placed. Similarly, a conspicuous quartzite pebble had been placed on the bottom of Feature 9. Cremated bone from Feature 11 has been dated to the Early Bronze Age. It is broadly contemporary with the cremated remains within the Cordoned Urn (Urn 5) in Feature 5, and with those within the Cordoned Urn (Urn 1), and within the urn of indeterminate form (Urn 3) from the 1855 excavation.

  Figure 5.12. Plan of the excavated features at Tuach.

  Figure 5.13. Excavated pits in the interior of the enclosure at Tuach (Aaron Watson).

  Figure 5.14. (above) Urn 4 on its discovery, and (below) Urn 5 showing the cap of redeposited clay over the inverted vessel. Both had been disturbed during the 1855 excavation (Richard Bradley).

  Cremation burials

  Two burials were discovered in the 2011 excavation (Fig. 5.14). One was in an inverted Collared Urn (Urn 4) which had been buried in a steep-sided pit (Feature 4). It was tightly packed in the ground and surrounded by series of pebbles derived from the local drift. Its base was missing and may have been removed in the course of Dalrymple’s excavation. The vessel contained the cremated remains of a young adult, probably a man. Unlike two of the urns encountered in 1855, it was not supported on a granite slab, but five smaller pieces of granite had been placed beneath its rim. Because it had been cut by the Victorian excavation it is not known whether this deposit had been covered by a stone.

  The second burial was in a cylindrical pit (Feature 5), one edge of which had been cut by a trench excavated in 1855. It was in an inverted Cordoned Urn (Urn 5) which had been placed on a thin layer of charcoal. The top of this feature was sealed by a plug of clay indistinguishable from the surrounding subsoil; it is obvious that the position of the burial had been concealed. Again there was no evidence that the urn had been supported on a slab. It contained the cremated bones of an adult who was over 30 years old. It was not clear from the bones themselves whether this burial was male or female. A bronze object, identified below as a razor, had been added to its contents before the vessel was buried and was located just inside the rim. Surviving residues suggest that it was originally inside a sheath made of animal hide. Examination of the metal fragments by Dr Peter Northover (pers. comm.) confirmed the impression, given by the presence of the sheath, that this artefact had not passed through the pyre. The presence of this artefact – a type of object invariably associated with males – strongly suggests that the burial was of a man. One feature that connects both burials is that red pebbles derived from the local drift had been placed in and around the inverted pots. By contrast, all the monoliths at Tuach seem to have been grey or white.

  The distribution of excavated artefacts

  Apart from the urns and razor that were found in 2011, a few artefacts were discovered in superficial contexts or in the filling of Dalrymple’s excavation. Small sherds were found in the topsoil above the Feature 9 and Feature 11 pits and there was also a scatter of worked and unworked pebbles and a small quantity of flaked flint and quartz. Very few of these items had been burnt and it is unlikely that they were pyre goods. Whilst some were towards the centre of the monument, nearly all the others occurred in Trench 4. They were virtually absent elsewhere on the site, suggesting
that they had been deposited over a restricted area. Both worked and unworked pebbles were commonest in the topsoil in the northern half of Trench 2. That also applied to finds of worked flint, but pieces of flaked quartz were more frequent towards the south. Trench 4 contained a higher density of finds, including five worked pebbles and seven pieces of flint. In contrast with the evidence from Trench 2, worked quartz was absent. It is difficult to interpret these variations, but it seems likely that some of the artefacts found in Trench 1 had originally been deposited in features whose upper levels were truncated by the 1855 excavation. More may have come from pits whose fillings were completely removed at that time.