A classic broch tower is a cooling-tower-shaped drystone-built structure, unique to Scotland, and iconic of that nation’s Iron Age. Over 200 of the roughly 700 brochs in Scotland are to be found in Caithness, which in consequence has the highest regional concentration of brochs. In the popular imagination, however, brochs remain most commonly associated with the Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland. The broch at Mousa, Shetland, is the tallest at 13m, and is certainly the most famous. Relatively few brochs in mainland Scotland have been excavated in recent years. In Caithness, however, community groups have begun to excavate examples of these impressive and complex sites. This will begin to redress the geographical bias and expand the information base, helping to shed light on the people who built, rebuilt, used and reused them.
Thrumster Broch, a few miles south of Wick, was, like Nybster Broch, subject to 19th century interventions, but in this case for aesthetic reasons: the roundhouse formed the focus of an elegant landscaped garden in the Regency period. It had long and reasonably been assumed that the entrance to the broch lay to the south, whence it has been completely removed by the insertion in the Victorian period of a summer house. The surviving wallhead over the rest of the broch’s circuit was raised or lowered as appropriate to create a smooth, grassed, penannular walkway. Given the evidence for Regency and Victorian landscaping and building, it seemed unlikely that in situ deposits would survive either inside or outside the broch; therefore July 2011’s excavations focussed on the wall itself.
Having never been formally excavated, Thrumster Broch was widely believed to be a ‘probable solid-based broch’ (MacKie 2007 part II, p448) but work in July proved that this is not the case. Both the inner and outer walls of the broch consist of three concentric circles of drystone walling. The enclosed spaces were in some areas filled with rubble. An intra-mural cell and galleries accessed from the interior of the structure were also discovered.
In excavating the gallery in the trench in the north of the building[2], an entranceway with a very worn threshold was revealed. This entranceway had been built through the core of the broch wall, and was subsequently sealed by the two outermost walls. This, and other evidence, suggests that the broch wall is in fact a composite structure with chronological depth.
The most surprising structural discovery in the complex broch wall was that of a blocked entranceway in western side of the broch (T3 on the plan). Paved with massive slabs, the 1m wide passage through the 4m thickness of the broch had been filled with rubble in a sandy matrix, as had the gallery to its north. This remodelling may have been undertaken to counter the effects of subsidence on the broch. Cracked and shattered stones consistent with this postulation are clearly visible in the inner wallface in the north-west of the broch, showing where the structure was subject to insupportable stress. It is tentatively suggested that this, the broch’s original entrance, and adjacent galleries were filled with rubble in an attempt to stabilise the structure. The entrance was then relocated to the southern side of the building, where it remained until the gardeners of the 18th or 19th century remodelled the monument. This relatively recent remodelling means that almost all evidence of the original floor surface has been destroyed in the interior of the broch. We did however discover two layers rich in charcoal, peat ash and Iron Age potsherds. These ran under the innermost wallface and abut the next wallface and will help to clarify the relative chronology of this complex wall structure.
During excavations at Thrumster, we surmised that the broch must have been dismantled to ground level to enable the insertion of a new entrance. However, recent work by CAT and the Archie Sinclair Fossil Trust with AOC suggests otherwise. STONEworks Early Architecture Project, conducted in September/October 2011, involved the construction of section of a broch at full-scale. A mechanism intended to force the collapse of the broch was inserted into the build. The results suggest that it would in fact have been possible to remove quite large areas of stone from the broch wall without causing the structure to collapse.
Evidence for the use of the broch survives with the cells and galleries at Thrumster and hold the promise of insights into the lives of the people who built and used the broch where the interior could not. The intra-mural cell in the north-east of the building contained deposits extremely rich in archaeobotanical evidence. A single context contained over a thousand charred cereal grains including probable barley, wheat and oat; pottery (base, rim and body sherds); charcoal; animal bone, including pig, sheep and rodent; and a single fish rib. Moreover, decorated pottery of two discrete types was recovered from the cell (pictured). Decorated pottery from the later prehistoric period is very rare in Caithness, so to find two strikingly different types on one site is rather unusual.
Evidence of prehistoric life, however, is not the only interesting thread of Thrumster Broch’s complex story; we also found intriguing clues to the Regency/Victorian use of the garden. In the centre of the broch, we discovered large fragments of a probably late Victorian vessel with a white glaze and a sponge-applied pattern of leaves in a green hue. Fragments of this rather pleasing bowl were surrounded by stones and covered with a single stone slab. Beneath the vessel was a large iron strap solidly riveted onto the bedrock, which had been quarried by blasting to a depth of well over a metre. It is likely that this strap supported a flagpole; there are no other records of this grand garden feature. The deposition of the bowl in the space left by the flagpole gave rise to various theories among volunteers and archaeologists alike.
Ancient sites excavated and altered by antiquarian enthusiasts have long been considered unworthy of re-excavation. Thrumster Broch has provided ample evidence to refute this view. We should view these relatively recent phases of activity as another chapter in an ancient monument’s story, one just as worthy of archaeologists’ attention.
There is a pleasing parallel in the communal effort that must have been employed in building, reusing and maintaining these impressive sites, and in the community’s excavation of them many centuries later. We have barely begun to investigate Caithness’ brochs. Over three thousand person hours have been volunteered to this end so far; perhaps with a few thousand more we may begin to understand these enigmatic sites and those who lived, worked and died there.
Thrumster Broch Community Excavation generously funded by Highland LEADER+, Heritage Lottery Fund, Scottish Natural Heritage and Highland Council.







