Talk:Broch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Scottish Islands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of islands in Scotland. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Broch article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Roundhouse? 2 Scottish archaeological view? 3 "Problem of the brochs" 4 Citations 5 anon comment 6 Floors 7 Broch: dab floor confusion 8 Unusual claim about origins of broch builders 9 Shambles

[edit] Roundhouse?

Actually, there are only 5 definate known brochs. No others survive to sufficient height for it to be possible to tell if they are indeed brochs, or just any of the numerous varieties of Atlantic Round House. It's likely that several hundred things that are thought of as brochs are indeed brochs, but there's no way to be 100% sure. There are many types of Atlantic Round House, and they are closely related in terms of design and construction - but they're not all brochs. Lianachan 01:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like we might really need an article on the Atlantic Round House. -- Solipsist 09:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Google search = zero hits - not part of any other encyclopedia - Ive redirected it to round tower for now, in case thats what was meant, it can be created as an article if there's material. These round structures seem to have multiple names. --Stbalbach 13:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My bad. That should be Atlantic roundhouse, one word. Google that, and you get several hits. Perhaps the term isn't widely known outside of academical/archaeological circles - but it's not the same thing as a round tower at all. It's a distinct branch of ancient Scottish architecture, including Duns, Brochs and several other varients (a Broch could be more exactly described as a complex Atlantic roundhouse). An external reference, as an example, is this page. Lianachan 13:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to list all the name variants for Atlantic roundhouse? Duns and Brochs. More? Perhaps we should merge all these into a single article with redirects, which would be more meaningful. Or, if you think the term is specialized and not meaningful outside of archaeological circles.. --Stbalbach 14:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that referring to Brochs, et al, as Atlantic roundhouse varients might be pedantic and needlessly academic. The general public, including very knowledgeable amateurs, would always consider all of these things as Brochs, even if they did know that there were several different kinds. There is some debate as to what exactly belongs in the Atlantic roundhouse family and what does not, although the general consencus seems to be that the other varients were an evolutionary process which led to the complex, the Broch of popular imagination. A good source of information on this subject is Ian Armit's book, Towers Of The North. I will mine it extensively for information, and flag up anything relevant. I dareasy there are others who are familiar with this subject who could appraise the situation. Lianachan 14:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As the first link[1] I find by google says, "Thinking further about classification, is the term ‘Complex Atlantic Roundhouse’ (p 15) any more useful? The structures that have traditionally been described as brochs fall into this class and, if the term ‘Atlantic’ has relevance, why do brochs also occur in eastern, central and southern Scotland? Is the term Complex Atlantic Roundhouse really very much of an improvement on the traditional term ‘broch’? "

For information, Dun means a fort, and several Brochs are called "Dun", but many duns are rectangular, as is the one at Glenelg uphill from the two brochs.

Looks as though an article clarifying "Atlantic roundhouse" is desirable, and the term appears to cover many structures that aren't brochs, but presumably not ones that are "North Sea roundhouses". BTW, which 5 are the "definite known" brochs? ...dave souza 15:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC). add link...dave souza 16:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning Dun in the popular sense, meaning a fort, I was referring to a specific type of structure - examples of which are on Loch an Dunain and at Steinaclet (both in Lewis). The 5 definate brochs are - Dun Trodden, Dun Telve (both Glen Elg); Dun Dornaigil (Sutherland); Mousa (Shetland) and Dun Carloway (Lewis). They are the only ones which stand tall enough for such a definate classification to be made. Several hundred others are likely to have been brochs, based on calculations of the thickness of their remaining walls and projected likely height. Having said all that, I always casually refer to pretty much all candidate brochs, and all broch-like structures (including duns) as brochs when I am out photographing them. Lianachan 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Added this afterthought - the word Broch, of course, comes from the Norse word borg, which means more or less the same thing as Dun (in the popular sense). There's a probable broch in Sutherland that's called The Borg, too. The plot thickens. Lianachan 16:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish archaeological view?

An anon user has made a special point to say it is the "Scottish archaeological view" in the article, but provides no alternative view. I'm curious about this. Are Scottish archaeologists motivated by nationalistic concerns, and not by science? Sounds like Scottish archaeologists are politicians not scientists. -- Stbalbach 17:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed many recent POV edits in this article recently. Sad. Lianachan 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Problem of the brochs"

I am tickled by someone's removal of my sentences: 'However, we need to keep in mind that the 'problem of the brochs' is not just an architectural problem. Their massive size, and their large numbers (500 in some estimates) need explanation.' It isn't a new idea. In 1904 Gilbert Goudie wrote: 'It is not merely their architectural features ... that interest us, but equally so the social problems and aspects of primeval civilisation that confront us in attempting to realise what their origin and use may have been.' This isn't a dangerous delusion: it's common sense, however closed some people may imagine thewse questions are --Meaulnes

Well, perhaps it can be re-worded, but it's not really wikipedia-like .. who are "we"? This is a general purpose encyclopedia, not an article for specialists. Telling the reader to "keep in mind" something is also somewhat off - appropriate it we knew the author and his context, strange-sounding in an anonymous-authored encyclopedia. Also there is no providence for the quoted 'problem of the brochs', as if the reader is already aware of the historiography of Brochs and who and where the phrase came from and its underlying meanings. -- Stbalbach 20:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

The two citation required notices that were added to the page - both of these can be found in either Armit, I 2003 Towers of the North, the Brochs of Scotland or Hingley, R 1992 'Society in Scotland from 700BC to 200AD', both of which are listed as references. Being a relative newcomer to wiki, I have no idea how to tie them all together (although I did tidy them, the original statements were not mine). Lianachan 13:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The 'problem of the brochs' is the fact that there have been umpteen explanations proposed for their existence and strange shape. The article that I edited implied that modern archaeologists have answered all these questions. They haven't!81.129.241.251 17:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Meaulnes

You changed "Orkney" to "Shetland" as the place where the earliest radiocarbon dates for brochs have been obtained. My source for mentioning Orkney was Dr Ian Armit's The Atlantic Scottish Iron Age: Five Levels Of Chronology. What was your source for this change? Lianachan 18:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

ok thanks removed. --Stbalbach 14:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The change is based on last year's carbon 14 dates for the Scatness broch by Bradford, which are the earliest yet acquired for a broch. I suspect that Armit's reference to Orkney is to pre-broch structures.81.129.241.251 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Meaulnes

I've not read anything from last year - I think 2003 was the last reports I read from Scatness. That's certainly more up to date information than Armit's 1991 paper. A few things, though. Where do you draw the line? Brochs are very much a constantly evolving kind of structure, so how do you decide what's a broch and what's a proto-broch type structure? The roundhouse at Howe, Orkney, for example, has been dated to before 500BC - for a structure with a guard cell, etc..., would you think that counts? In terms of wikipedia, I would think that the term broch is probably best applied to all forms of what we would call broch architecture - rather than what the man in the street would consider a broch, ie the broch towers like Mousa, Dun Carloway, etc... That's certainly how I've always regarded the article, otherwise we'd just confuse people or weigh them down with unneccesary differentiation of the spectrum of "brochs". By mentioning early remains in Orkney (Bu, Pierowall, Howe) and Caithness (Crosskirk) I wasn't attempting to covertly suggest where brochs originally came from, I was merely stating the locations of the earliest C14 dates of which I was aware. I'm a bit curious as to why you replaced "Orkney" with "Shetland", yet left "Caithness". If you were confident (and probably justifiably) that your more recent research would predate Orkadian brochs, without (presumably) having read my source, then why was there persistant doubt about Caithness dating? Lianachan 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The Scatness dates haven't been published yet, but you will find them on the Bradford University website. The reason I left Caithness is that there are early dates for Crosskirk, in line with Scatness. There is a distinction to be made between early roundhouses and brochs - otherwise we automatically assume (as some archaeologists do) that roundhouses are in some sense 'ancestors' of brochs. Incidentally, by 'we' I mean 'we poor sods who are interested in brochs'! Meaulnes 13:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Meaulnes

PS - if you would like I can send you a provocative paper on brochs I have written. 212.219.242.162 14:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to consider brochs as just a sort of extreme roundhouse - a complex atlantic roundhouse, in fact. The simple atlantic roundhouses (their 'ancestors', like the earliest broch type structure at Bu) I would think should count for this article, if only because they probably don't merit an article to themselves. When I talk about "roundhouses", I don't mean in general terms (including hut circles, etc) I'm talking about a specific architectural branch. There's a very hastily strung together, and very vague, atlantic roundhouse article which you may not have noticed, by the way. Yes, I'd very much like to read your paper. Drop me an email and we can chat about it (and brochs in general!) if you like. Lianachan 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Query

I have been struck on while on holiday in Sardinia with the similarity of brochs to Sardinian Nuraghe (have a look at pictures in the Wikipedia article), of which large numbers remain. Any thoughts on this?

81.86.72.52 08:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiya. I would say that other than being made of stone, being mortarless, and more or less round there are very few similarities - there are more differences than there are similarities. There's certainly no architectural or archaeological link between the two structures. Nuraghe look very interesting though, will have to go and visit Sardina. Lianachan 09:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anon comment

Transferred anon comment - Skysmith 11:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone point out that there are structures identical to brochs, called nuragghi (there may be too many "g's" in that) in Sardinia. The size and external shape are identical (and Sardinians believe that nuragghi are unique, just as Shetlanders believe brochs are unique) even to the external door and staircase within the wall. The only difference I've noted is that nuragghi are built from far larger blocks and nuragghi are browny-yellow whereas brocks are grey. Paint Clickimin and it would fit right in to the sardinian landscape. The similarities may be more apparent than real, but they are none-the-less quite remarkable and worthy of investigation.

Tom Gaynor, Aberdeen, 01224 572 354.--34.253.3.200 10:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Floors

Um, this paragraph seems a little confused:

On the islands of Orkney and Shetland there are very few cells at ground floor level. However, most brochs have scarcements (ledges) which would have allowed the construction of a very sturdy wooden first floor, and excavations at Loch Na Berie on the Isle Of Lewis show signs of a further, second floor (eg stairs on the first floor, which head up).

Isn't a "ground floor" on the "first floor", or is this a Scottish thing? 70.20.136.170 19:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't a Scottish thing. It's an everywhere thing: ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor, etc... Lianachan 20:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, according to Ground_floor this is another example of where American is different from English. Lianachan 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broch: dab floor confusion

Was that edit really neccessary? I mean, is there likely to have been any confusion in the first place? Lianachan 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Seemed like it based on the above discussion. I welcome other suggestions how to best clarify it, but yeah, it's defiantly a source of confusion. -- Stbalbach 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm astonished that it could be confusing, especially within context. Still, that's Wikipedia for you I guess :-( Lianachan 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

An afterthought - all published material about brochs also refers to this mysterious, "ground" floor. I hate to think what havoc that may bring. Lianachan 12:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, American and English differences are often a source of havoc. I'm not sure why that it is astonishing, we even have an entire Wikipedia article about it List of words having different meanings in British and American English. There is a great story about the English ordering tons of "corn" from the US after the end of WWII and ending up with tons of something they didn't want or expect. -- Stbalbach 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual claim about origins of broch builders

In recent years, studies of the Y-Chromosome of males inhabiting locales where brochs are located have revealed a connection between the males of such faraway locales as Sardinia and the Balearic Isles, where nuraghi, structures extremely similar to the brochs are located. This suggests a demic diffusion of the culture or people responsible for the blochs. (Gatto, et. al., 2007). - added to the main article by 76.173.118.56, moved here by Lianachan 22:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC) for discussion.

~~Can you provide sources for this claim? Lianachan 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shambles

This article has been reduced to a shambles by somebody who appears to having a raging hard-on for Shetland and keeps overstating what is an extreme minority opinion. I'm tired of trying to restore some perspective, and instead suggest that anybody who really does want to know about brochs shoul pick up book instead of wasting their time reading the crap on the wikipedia article. I wash my hands of this appalling mess. Lianachan 16:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

O Lianachan! what pouting! Is it really credible that the people of the Iron Age who erected these large buildings were interested in the sort of architectural problems that agitated Scottish archaeologists of the Thatcher years? [Hey Brude! Let's put up a Complex Atlantic roundhouse! No you bounder. I prefer Simple.] The perspective that excites you so much (raging or no) is the minority interest par excellence. Archaeology will never make progress if it is indulged in solely from the library or the individual site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.242.181 (talk • contribs).

Thsi page now listed at WP:SCOWNB as in need of assistance. This is a decent enough article, but with an absurdly long list of 'references' that I have moved some of to 'further reading' and which is subject to repeated additions of apparently unsourced material.Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see an eminent broch scholar contributing to the broch article! 81.129.69.52 11:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

PS What is the 'apparently unsourced material'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.80.24 (talk) 08:07:25, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

I shall assume from your use of a PS that 81.132.80.24 = 81.129.242.181 = 81.129.69.52. I mean by 'unsourced material' assertions that are not backed up by an in-line reference that can be checked and verified. Thus, for example, we are now to believe that someone called John Hamilton took part in the debate. However the interested but non-specialist reader has no way of knowing who this might be. It needs a citation. Minor transgressions of this policy might be acceptable if the article was already well-sourced and relatively stable. It is neither and it is not therefore even credible to guess that the information was drawn from an existing reference. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your tidying up, Ben. One point tho: Fojut is not the source for Stewart. Stewart (in bibliog) is the source for Stewart. Could you rectify? I shall provide the Hamiltons refs later.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.67.251 (talk • contribs).

\i'm afraid the latest revision has removed the Hamilton reference. 81.129.67.195 06:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply adding data to the References section is not helpful. If it is a reference we need to know what it refers to using an in-line citation. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, but simply removing it isn't helpful either! 62.172.188.76 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

O - o - h dear. 81.129.67.195 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Burroughston broch isn't a good example of a broch near arable land ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.168.153 (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few POV statements throughout this article, and it places undue weight on the 'brochs as defensive' POV in particular. It also contains apologia for MacKie ('not, as commonly thought', or whatever the exact formulation is), and puts too much stres on the 'there is no excavation evidence for any of this' aspect of archaeology. While excavation is useful, it is not the be-all and end-all of archaeological analysis! There, now I've nailed my colours to the mast. I'll try and work up some proposed changes over the weekend. BRahn (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)