Archaeology Development Plan for the Small Isles · 2013-07-23 · Archaeology Development Plan for the Small Isles December 2005 6 Introduction This Development Plan has been requested

Highland Archaeology Services Ltd

Archaeology Development Plan for the Small Isles:

Canna, Eigg, Muck, Rùm

Report No: HAS051202 Client The Small Isles Community Council

Date December 2005

Archaeology Development Plan for the Small Isles December 2005

2

Summary This report sets out general recommendations and specific proposals for the development of archaeology on and for the Small Isles of Canna, Eigg, Muck and Rùm. It reviews the islands’ history, archaeology and current management and visitor issues, and makes recommendations. Recommendations include

Improved co-ordination and communication between the islands An organisational framework and a resident project officer Policies – research, establishing baseline information, assessment of significance, promotion

and protection Audience development work Specific projects - a website; a guidebook; waymarked trails suitable for different interests

and abilities; a combined museum and archive; and a pioneering GPS based interpretation system

Enhanced use of Gaelic Initial proposals for implementation are included, and Access and Audience Development Plans are attached as appendices. The next stage will be to agree and implement follow-up projects Vision The vision for the archaeology of the Small Isles is of a valued resource providing sustainable and growing benefits to community cohesion, identity, education, and the economy, while avoiding unnecessary damage to the archaeological resource itself or other conservation interests. Acknowledgements The idea of a Development Plan for Archaeology arose from a meeting of the Isle of Eigg Historical Society in 2004. Its development was funded and supported by the Highland Council, Lochaber Enterprise, Historic Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, and the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust, and much help was also received from individual islanders and others. This project would never have been completed without the tireless enthusiasm and energy of Camille Dressler. Special thanks are also due to Community Council members, the Eigg Historical Society, Flis Hough, the MacEwen family, Lucy Conway, Jill Harden, Peter and Susanna Wade-Martins, and all those islanders who assisted in providing accommodation, transport, and comments; and John Wombell and Ann Wakeling for their contributions.


3

Contents Summary................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Vision ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Background............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Aims and objectives................................................................................................................................................ 8 Understanding the heritage resource....................................................................................................................... 8

Geology.............................................................................................................................................................. 9 The Stone Ages (c. 7000 to 2,400 BC) .............................................................................................................. 9 The Bronze and Iron Ages (from c. 2,400 BC)................................................................................................ 10 The Early Historic Period - Romans and Picts (c. 100 – 600 AD)................................................................... 12 Early Christianity............................................................................................................................................. 12 The Norse period ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Place-names ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 The Lordship of the Isles ................................................................................................................................. 16 The 16th to 18th centuries.................................................................................................................................. 18 The 19th century - Landlords and Clearances................................................................................................... 19 Modern archaeology ........................................................................................................................................ 22

Assessment of significance................................................................................................................................... 23

Evidence .......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Aesthetic .......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Associative....................................................................................................................................................... 23 Symbolic .......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Ecological ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 Economic ......................................................................................................................................................... 25 Key Features .................................................................................................................................................... 25

Management issues and sustainability.................................................................................................................. 37

General development issues............................................................................................................................. 37 Archaeology and Historic Environment issues ................................................................................................ 37 The conservation and management of archaeological sites and areas ............................................................. 38

Types of feature .......................................................................................................................................... 39 Management................................................................................................................................................ 40

Issues for individual islands............................................................................................................................. 42 Canna .......................................................................................................................................................... 42 Eigg............................................................................................................................................................. 42 Muck ........................................................................................................................................................... 43 Rum............................................................................................................................................................. 43

Sustainability ................................................................................................................................................... 44 Legislation and Policy Frameworks ..................................................................................................................... 44

The historic and built environment .................................................................................................................. 44 The maritime heritage...................................................................................................................................... 45 Portable artefacts (‘Treasure Trove’) ............................................................................................................... 45

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................ 46

Policies and procedures ................................................................................................................................... 46 1. General principles to adopt .................................................................................................................... 46 2. Buildings ................................................................................................................................................. 47 3. Collections of artefacts and archives...................................................................................................... 47 4. Landscapes ............................................................................................................................................. 47 5. Buried archaeology ................................................................................................................................ 48 6. Intertidal archaeology............................................................................................................................. 48 7. Underwater archaeology ........................................................................................................................ 48 8. Learning ................................................................................................................................................. 48


4

9. Volunteering........................................................................................................................................... 48 10. Managing visitors................................................................................................................................. 48 11. Commercial activities........................................................................................................................... 48 12. Events................................................................................................................................................... 49 13. Contractors ........................................................................................................................................... 49 14. Archaeology and Development............................................................................................................ 49

Recommendations for each island ................................................................................................................... 50 Canna .......................................................................................................................................................... 50 Eigg............................................................................................................................................................. 50 Muck ........................................................................................................................................................... 50 Rum............................................................................................................................................................. 50

Specific recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 51 Project Proposals .................................................................................................................................................. 53

Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... 53 Overall Budget and Timetable .................................................................................................................... 53 Phase / project 1: Setting up, audits, and web-site ..................................................................................... 54 Phase / project 2: Trails and Events ........................................................................................................... 57 Canna .......................................................................................................................................................... 58 Eigg............................................................................................................................................................. 59 Muck ........................................................................................................................................................... 60 Rùm............................................................................................................................................................. 61 Phase /project 3 ........................................................................................................................................... 64

Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 66 Notes and References ........................................................................................................................................... 67 Appendix 1: Access Audit ................................................................................................................................... 70

Executive summary.......................................................................................................................................... 70 Background: Why is an Access Audit needed? .............................................................................................. 70 The Access Audit............................................................................................................................................. 71

The current situation ................................................................................................................................... 71 Recommendations for Access ..................................................................................................................... 72

References: web sites...................................................................................................................................... 72 Reference notes: Manifesto for Inclusion ....................................................................................................... 73

Open Spaces................................................................................................................................................ 73 Information ................................................................................................................................................. 73

Reference Notes: Fieldfare Trust specification for ‘Rural and Working’ paths.............................................. 75 Appendix 2: Audience Development Plan........................................................................................................... 76

Executive summary.......................................................................................................................................... 76 Background: Why is an audience development plan needed? ........................................................................ 76 Audit ................................................................................................................................................................ 76

1. The current situation .............................................................................................................................. 77 2. Current Audiences.................................................................................................................................. 78 3. Potential audiences................................................................................................................................. 79

Assessment: the capacity for audience development ....................................................................................... 79 Planning: audience development actions recommended.................................................................................. 80 Reference notes: Collecting audience data ..................................................................................................... 81

Origin (i.e. where they live) ....................................................................................................................... 81 Age group.................................................................................................................................................... 81 Gender......................................................................................................................................................... 81 Ethnicity...................................................................................................................................................... 81 Language..................................................................................................................................................... 82 Disability..................................................................................................................................................... 82 Work status or social class .......................................................................................................................... 82 Type of visitor............................................................................................................................................. 83 Marketing.................................................................................................................................................... 83 For education groups................................................................................................................................... 83 Impact on wider local tourism economy ..................................................................................................... 83


5

Appendix 3: Archaeological sites and features in the Small Isles ....................................................................... 85 Listed Buildings............................................................................................................................................... 85 Scheduled Monuments..................................................................................................................................... 89 National Monuments Record for Scotland....................................................................................................... 93

Figures Figure 1 A'Chille and Sean Bhaile, Muck ............................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2 Casteal an Duin Bhain, Muck................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 3 Beinn Tigh Souterrain, Canna ............................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4 Canna Cross .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5 Part of a Norse ship from Laig, Eigg, now in the National Museum of Scotland (From PSAS Vol 12, 577-603) ............................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6 Kildonnan church, Eigg......................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 7 Kildonnan Mill, Eigg............................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 8 Canna House ......................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 9 Field systems, Kilmory, Rum................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 10 The 'King of Norway's Grave', Canna................................................................................................. 23 Figure 11 Bullough Mausoleum, Harris, Rum..................................................................................................... 24 Figure 12 Proposed trails - Canna ....................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 13 Proposed Trails – Eigg ........................................................................................................................ 60 Figure 14 Proposed Trails on Muck .................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 15 Proposed Trails on Rùm...................................................................................................................... 62

Figure 1 A'Chille and Sean Bhaile, Muck


6

Introduction This Development Plan has been requested by the Small Isles Community Council to assist them in identifying, protecting and promoting the rich archaeological heritage of the islands. The archaeological and historic environment resources of the islands offer opportunities for economic and social benefits, but also present islanders and others with responsibilities to manage them sustainably for future generations. It aims to raise the profile of the islands’ archaeology and the cultural heritage generally and help to integrate this with other plans and policies as they develop. The specific objective is to identify opportunities and priorities, provide a strategic framework for action, assist co-ordination between the stakeholders, and develop specific project proposals. This Plan has been produced for the Small Isles Community Council, in partnership and consultation with the islanders, the owners of the four islands, and the funding partners. The hope is that it can be agreed and made use of by all stakeholders. It results from fieldwork and background research carried out over the summer of 2005 by John Wood. An initial consultation draft was circulated in September 2005 (Report no HAS 050701) and all comments received have been carefully considered, and as far as possible incorporated here. Background The islands of Canna, Eigg, Muck, Rum and Sanday contain extensive historic landscapes that demonstrate occupation and use by people since the end of the last Ice Age some 8,000 years ago. The wealth of this heritage has been recognised for many years, although its full extent has only recently been recognised following the surveys by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS). These have produced a wealth of excellent, up-to-date information and added enormously to the archaeological record: The survey of Canna in 1994, for example, increased the number of recorded sites from 58 to approximately 400. There are sites and features of virtually all periods, from the Mesolithic (c. 8,000 to 6,000 years ago) to the 20th century. One of the great strengths of the islands is that many of them can be understood in their landscape setting, and offer an opportunity to understand and appreciate the making of the Hebridean (and Scottish) landscape as a whole. In fact, such is the density of archaeology that a decision had to be made not to pick out key areas, but recognise the whole landscape as being of significance. A look at the Pastmap resource on the RCAHMS website (www.rcahms.gov.uk) demonstrates this immediately, with a great density of features plotted. (A list of sites recorded on the National Monuments Record is provided for general reference as an appendix.) This impressive resource could benefit islanders by sustaining community identity and justifiable pride in the islands, offering educational and research opportunities, and stimulating sustainable tourism. A variety of historical and cultural stories could be told and explored here – of Picts and Scots, Vikings and the Celtic church, the clan system and the Lordship of the Isles, as well as 18th – 20th century themes of clearances, landlords, crofting, game-shooting, and New World links. Another major development in recent years has been the creation of a new ferry service and its associated piers, which have improved communications between the islands, as well as access to and from the mainland. The upgrading of the main road to Arisaig and Mallaig will also help to make the islands more accessible to visitors. There is therefore now an opportunity to present some superb historic sites, features and landscapes to a public that might otherwise not be aware of them, and to attract high value, low impact visitors who could benefit the islands’ economy. Educational opportunities could be developed for the islands’ schools, and increased local and wider awareness of this archaeological heritage could help to


7

underpin a sense of local identity and sustain the islands’ communities in the future. Conservation management proposals also need to be developed to make sure the resource and the benefits it offers are sustained in the longer term. In the spring of 2004 the writer was invited to speak to the Comunn Eachdraidh Eige about the archaeology of the island. At that meeting, there was considerable enthusiasm for the idea of a strategic approach to developing the island’s archaeological resource. This enthusiasm was found to be shared by the representatives of the islanders of Rum, Muck, Canna and Sanday on the Small Isles Community Council, which subsequently asked the writer to produce a costed proposal for a Development Plan. A subsequent meeting with John Burns, then Heritage Lottery Fund representative in the Highlands, confirmed that a strategic document would be important in supporting future project funding proposals. Funding was subsequently obtained from Lochaber Enterprise, the Highland Council, and Historic Scotland, and active support was offered by SNH, the National Trust for Scotland, and the owners of the Isle of Muck. It is envisaged that this Development Plan will have three stages:

1. An agreed consensus, vision and strategic framework, and initial project proposals. 2. 3 phased implementation projects to raise awareness more widely and create some facilities

for locals and visitors. 3. A review by the stakeholders at the completion of the implementation stage, identifying

lessons learnt and any further initiatives that might arise out of the first two stages. Stakeholders As part of the preparation of the Plan, the following stakeholders were identified:

Historic Scotland Lawrence and Ewan MacEwen Lochaber Enterprise Scottish Natural Heritage The Eigg Historical Society The Highland Council The Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust The National Trust for Scotland The Scottish Wildlife Trust VisitScotland

However as it was commissioned by the Community Council, the Plan is intended above all to reflect the wishes and views of the islanders themselves. Islanders were consulted by visits to Eigg (17-18 and 20-21 June 2005); Rùm (18-20 June 2005); Canna (16 July 2005) and Muck (1-2 August 2005). Inevitably perhaps it did not prove possible to meet and talk to everyone who might wish to have contributed on these occasions. Islanders have therefore been actively encouraged to comment by telephone, email, fax or letter both informally and subsequently through a consultation process. It was not possible to carry out a formal visitor / non-visitor survey (one is recommended here), but every opportunity was taken to discuss the project with visitors and islanders alike.


8

Aims and objectives The Plan’s purpose is to identify issues affecting the protection and promotion of the islands’ archaeology, as well as local aspirations and opportunities for this rich resource to benefit the islanders. It deals with the man-made historic environment in its widest sense and includes buildings and other features of all dates and periods. It is intended to complement the following other plans and strategies: The Highland Council Structure and Local Plans The Isle of Rum Plan for Kinloch The National Trust for Scotland’s Plan for Canna The Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust Sustainability Strategy It is intended to

1. Build on the recent RCAHMS surveys to identify, protect and promote the archaeology and historic landscape of the Small Isles

2. Stimulate discussion locally, and agree a vision based on consensus for a sustainable future

for the archaeology and historic landscape of the islands, identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

3. Develop a co-ordinated approach for the archaeology of the four islands of Canna (with

Sanday), Eigg, Muck, and Rum, drawing out the links and also what makes each island different historically and archaeologically.

4. Integrate the needs and opportunities of the archaeology with wider strategic concerns and

issues, and take into account existing legislative and policy frameworks.

5. Build a critical mass of features and sites for visitors to see that would justify them spending longer in the area and travelling between the islands.

6. Recommend practical, sustainable policies, actions and implementation projects to maximise

conservation and interpretation benefits.

7. Assist possible project funding proposals in future by demonstrating how they fit within an overall agreed strategic framework

Understanding the heritage resource From sandy beaches to coastal stacks, from remote ridges to clustered houses and from windswept woodland to flowering machair, these islands are a microcosm of the Scottish landscape…1 The four islands of Canna (with Sanday), Eigg, Muck and Rùm form a natural group within the inner Hebrides. By the time of the first Statistical Account in the late 18th c. they formed a parish, and priest, minister, doctor and other services have long been shared. Today they form a National Scenic Area, and have a common Community Council, which commissioned the present study. It is therefore appropriate to consider their archaeology as a whole. This task has been made easier by the excellent survey work carried out by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) over the last ten years.

1 Goodenough and Bradwell, 2004, 35


9

It is important to note here that what follows is just a summary of the islands’ story. For fuller details the reader is advised to consult the books in the list of References.

Geology The archaeology of the Small Isles has to be seen in the context of the environment people have inhabited for some 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age. This has been shaped by the climate and the underlying geology. The rocks of the islands have in fact themselves long been of interest to geologists, including Hugh Miller in the 1850s. The Isle of Rùm contains outcrops of some of the oldest rock in the world, the Lewisian gneiss, formed about 3000 million years ago. About 1100 million years ago the area lay near the equator, and huge amounts of sediments were laid down by fast flowing rivers, producing the Torridonian sandstones. Continental drift meant that the highlands collided with England and Scandinavia about 430 million years ago to form a chain of high mountains. 200 million years later, the mountains had been greatly eroded and the area was a dry, tropical land into which rivers washed more sands and gravels, producing the sandstones, mudstones and limestones of Eigg. However the Small Isles today are made up mainly of volcanic rocks, many of them formed about 55 - 60 million years ago. The Cuillins of Rum are the remains of one volcano. On Eigg, Muck and Canna the dramatic basalt lava columns are a major feature of the landscape. They are similar to the Giants Causeway in Ireland. On Canna, lava mixed with stones and boulders in great rivers to form conglomerates. Until about 2.4 million years ago, the area enjoyed a largely warm, sub-tropical climate. With the onset of the Ice Ages glaciers formed and scoured away large areas leaving hard underlying rocks exposed. At one stage virtually the entire highlands, including much of the Small Isles, was covered by a huge ice sheet flowing west from the mainland. From about 11,000 years ago the climate warmed and the glaciers melted. As the great weight of ice lifted, the mainland and nearby islands began to rise (the process known as isostatic recovery). Between the islands, Skye and the mainland, huge glacier channels became flooded by the sea, forming the islands. On the other hand, as the ice melted, the sea level also began to rise; so the relative sea level around these islands has continued to fall, while in the Western Isles, which escaped the weight of the ice-sheet, sea levels are rising. This has left raised beaches around the islands. The oldest of these, about 30-40m above the present high tide mark, dates to a warmer period about 100,000 years ago, but others, at about 5 – 6m above present high tide, formed only about 6000 years ago, since the last Ice Age. The resulting rocks produce mostly volcanic soils which are more suited for grazing than arable land. The soils of Rum especially are generally poor, and the hills make for a higher rainfall and more extensive areas of colder, steeper land than on the other islands. The only areas much suited to cultivation were deposits of glacial sediments around Kilmory, Harris, and Kinloch. As the climate warmed, scrub, then trees began to colonise. Initially probably juniper, followed by woodlands of mainly birch, hazel, and oak as found in the pollen record, and the pine trees whose preserved stumps have been found on Rum. The first settlers would have found plenty of berries, nuts, plants, animals, fish and shellfish to live on. The Stone Ages (c. 7000 to 2,400 BC) No conclusive evidence of Palaeolithic (Old Stone Age) people has been found in Scotland. The area may well have supported some people in the warmer periods between the glaciations, but all trace has apparently been destroyed by the movement of the ice. The earliest settlement yet found in Scotland is at Kinloch (Rùm), where a carbon 14 date of c.8,700 years ago was obtained. Postholes, pits and hollows were found suggesting a group of well-built shelters or houses which may have been occupied on a seasonal basis. Elsewhere on Rùm, as well as on Skye, around Oban and on the


10

Applecross peninsular, Mesolithic (Middle stone age) middens have been found containing stone tools and waste material from their manufacture. Similar middens almost certainly await discovery on the other Small Isles. These seem to date from a similar period but in some cases they were used and re-used over perhaps 2000 years or more. One problem in understanding this – and indeed later - archaeology in the highlands generally is that many of the things people used were no doubt made of organic materials such as wood, leather, hides, wool, turf or straw, and these materials do not generally survive in the local conditions. No doubt also everything possible was recycled or composted. These people can only have arrived by sea, but as yet no evidence has been found of the boats used: they were probably either canoes made from hollowed logs, or coracles. One attraction for settlers must have been the Rùm bloodstone, a type of agate which was worked into tools like flint. Flint itself is not found in the area, apart from stray nodules on beaches which must have been very much prized. The first indications of farming seem to appear in the highlands and islands about 6,000 years ago. This Neolithic (New Stone Age) period also produces the first evidence of pottery, and of monuments in the landscape - substantial burial cairns in which many individuals were placed. At one time it was believed that these changes represented an influx of new people bringing a new way of life with them, but in recent years this interpretation has been dismissed. The later phases at Kinloch produced pottery, but no sign of farming practice as such. At Bharpa Carinish in North Uist, a site very similar to the Kinloch one was excavated - which adjoined a Neolithic cairn. It now seems much more likely that use of pottery, farming, and the creation of monuments developed in a variety of ways in different places in response to environmental and population pressures, so the great majority of the Neolithic inhabitants of the area are likely to be the descendents of the Mesolithic people. However there was clearly interaction with people elsewhere, as we know that stone tools were transported and exchanged over great distances. As yet very few Neolithic houses have been found in the British Isles, but they seem to have evolved from the Mesolithic style shelters into large substantial buildings, designed to hold a very extended family. On the south side of Eigg is a possible Neolithic house similar to some found on the Shetland Islands. At Tarbert (Canna), mounds previously thought to be medieval shielings have recently produced Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery, providing the earliest evidence of settlement there.

The Bronze and Iron Ages (from c. 2,400 BC) About 4,400 years ago Bronze-working appears in the highlands. Again, the appearance of metal-working does not seem to indicate a general cultural or population change. Rather, individual travelling metalworkers seems to have visited existing communities and traded their wares. Initially they worked copper, then soon began to mix tin with this to make bronze. It is an interesting fact that the nearest sources of copper and tin are many hundreds of miles away from the Hebrides. Hoards probably representing the stock-in-trade of itinerant bronze-smiths have been found in various places in Scotland, including above Galmisdale on Eigg, where excavations by the National Museums of Scotland found signs of an open-air workshop including moulds for casting bronze axes. A cultural change does seem to occur around the middle of the Bronze Age, around 3,500 years ago. Until then the great communal monuments started in the Neolithic seem to continue, but from now on these give way to individual burials of important people only. These are often set in stone boxes or 'cists' and have pottery or other finds buried with them. Sometimes they are found inserted into earlier burial cairns. A cairn containing two Bronze Age cist burials – rectangular boxes made of flat stones – was found near Laig, Eigg, in 1853; ad several other possible cairns and standing stones have been recorded from the island. On Aird nan Uan, Muck, there are two burial cairns, apparently of late Neolithic or early Bronze Age date (NMRS and SMR NM48SW0001). One of these has been reused since the 1920s as a burial place for the MacEwen family.


11

From the middle Bronze Age we also start to get visible evidence in the landscape of round houses (the overgrown stone footings are known as 'hut circles'). These are often surrounded by groups of stone clearance heaps where land has been used for growing crops. Woodland that had grown up since the end of the Ice Age was now being felled in earnest. The climate had improved to a point that it was warmer than it is today. Many hut circles are in areas that are now too high and cold for cultivation. Hut circles continue through the Iron Age, and increasingly we find evidence of field boundary walls as well as scattered groups of clearance heaps. Hut circles can be found on Eigg, Canna, Sanday and even on Eilean nan Each (SMR NM38SE0001). Towards the end of the Bronze Age (about 2,700 years ago), the weather seems to have worsened, and upland houses and fields became abandoned to the encroaching peat. At the same time, iron working was being introduced. This requires much higher temperatures to work than bronze but the result is much harder and more durable. We also find the first clear evidence of conflict - hillforts to protect people and their animals from attack. Often these make use of natural defensive features such as cliffs. Hillforts on the islands include Sean Dun, Canna (SMR NG20SE0013); An Sgurr, Eigg (SMR NM48SE0006); Caisteal an Duin Bhain, Muck (SMR NM47NW0002) and others. However, apart from one example (Cnoc an Tionail) identified on Sanday in 1953, and now largely discounted (SMR NG20SE0008) brochs have not been recorded on the Small Isles – even though they are found in Lewis, Skye and Glenelg. Domestic round houses continue as in the late Bronze Age, but many of them probably occupied sites that were later re-used, so they have not survived. Other smaller forts (duns) are also present. These were not just for defence - they also indicated the status of the chief who lived there. As local centres of power and prestige, they often continued to be important well into the medieval period. At Caisteal an Duin Bhain (Muck), for example, there are substantial buildings which seem to be medieval.

Figure 2 Casteal an Duin Bhain, Muck Crannogs are another type of high status house, built on artificial islands, in lochs. There is a possible example (classified by the Ordnance Survey as a dun) on Eigg in Loch nam Ban Mora (SMR NM48NE0015). There are references elsewhere to crannogs still being occupied in the 16th century. Another curious type of site associated with the Iron Age is the souterrain. This is a curved underground tunnel built of stone slabs and roofed with stone lintels. There is an interesting example at Beinn Tighe on Canna (SMR NG20NW0002). We do not know what souterrains were built for originally, but later they seem to have been used for storage and for hiding from enemies. The entrances to souterrains often seem to have led from the inside of houses.


12

Figure 3 Beinn Tigh Souterrain, Canna

The Early Historic Period - Romans and Picts (c. 100 – 600 AD) In England, the Iron Age is generally said to end with the coming of the Romans. The Highlands and Islands, were never conquered by Rome, and (as in Scandinavia) culturally this period really forms part of the later Iron Age. The main difference is that there are some written sources to help us. Despite this, Roman artefacts have been found on the mainland as far north as Caithness, and no doubt trading and raiding took place on both sides. According to Tacitus a Roman fleet sailed right round Britain in about AD 81. However, no Roman finds have so far been recorded on the Small Isles. From the 4th century AD the people of the northern Scottish mainland were being referred to by Roman writers as 'Picti' - painted people. Very little is known for certain about these people, apart from occasional written references and their characteristic symbols which are found carved on stone and also on finds of jewellery from the period. Pictish stones are found mainly in the eastern highlands. Some of them show influences from Northumbria, Ireland, and Scandinavia, and combine Pictish with Christian symbolism. In fact, the art of the 4th – 10th centuries AD throughout the British Isles is now generally seen as having a great deal in common. One of the cross-slabs found at Kildonnan (Eigg) has carvings very similar in style to these eastern Pictish stones, but lacks the characteristic symbols. At Laig (Eigg) is a double row of square cairns along the edge of the shore, which has been interpreted as Pictish burials. To the present writer, this seems doubtful, and only excavation could resolve the matter. In fact, apart from a few outliers there are very few characteristically Pictish artefacts from the Hebrides, so it may be that this area was already more Irish in culture and language. If so, the arrival of the Dalriadan Scots – in this area at least - was not such a major cultural and linguistic event as it has often been portrayed. Like the Northern Isles, the Hebrides – Ptolemy’s Ebudae – had a strong identity of their own, separate from much of mainland Scotland, from at least the Roman period, and have maintained that until modern times.

Early Christianity The expansion of Dalriadic power from its base in northern Ireland did bring with it extensive missionary activity. Each of the islands contains what seem to be early Christian sites. Canna (NMRS: (SMR NG20NE0001)?) and Muck (NMRS: NM47NW 1) both have places known as A’Chill –


13

and both have produced early medieval carved cross-slabs. The elaborate cross on Canna, apparently still standing on its original site, may be 10th.c. Canna also has another site, Sgorr nam Ban-naomha (Rock of the holy women), which seems to be an enclosed cashel on the Irish model. Three stone cross-slabs have been found there. On Rùm, there are 8th c. sandstone crosses at Kilmory B and Bagh na h-Uamha. Kilmory (apparently meaning St Mary’s church, but probably originally St Maelrubha’s) was an important settlement. This is where the later medieval church and the small burial ground stood. In the south is a place with the Norse name Papadil (Priest’s Dale), which suggests parallels with Papa sites in the Northern Isles and Iceland. One of the most important of these sites however is on Eigg at Kildonnan, where St Donan (or Donnan) is said to have been martyred on Easter day 617. St Donan is thought to have come from Ireland and to have crossed to Galloway on a mission to convert the Picts. The tradition is that while he was celebrating mass, a group of raiders burst in. They allowed him to complete the service, then either beheaded or burned him and 52 other monks in their refectory (the total dead numbered 150 according to the Annals of Tigernach). The raid was apparently provoked by a local woman whose rights of pasturage had been infringed by the monks. The attackers are sometimes referred to as Vikings, but this date is earlier than other known Viking raids, and their origin is not known. A series of dedications to him run up the west coast of Scotland and across to north-east Sutherland.

The monastery seems to have either survived or been re-established: according to the Annals of Ulster, Eogan ‘abbot of Eigg’, died in 725. Kildonan church on Eigg is thought to stand on the site of the monastery. The present building (NMRS: NM48NE19) is a roofless shell, filled with graves. Each island family has a line to itself, which is now continued outside the church. The present building is probably late medieval recessed tomb. Nearby is a later fourteenth century cross-shaft, and there are also four early medieval cross-shafts at The Lodge. The sites of three former crosses are recorded as place-names at Grulin, Cleadale and Kildonnan, but the crosses themselves have disappeared. They could have been preaching crosses or more likely sanctuary or similar boundary markers. It seems likely they may still be on the island, but may have been broken up.

Despite this connection, Eigg did not form part of the medieval church estate. Canna and Muck however did. Canna belonged to the abbey of Iona, founded by St Columba in 563. It is mentioned in a Papal Bull of 1203, and the church (dedicated to St Columba) is mentioned in 1549. Muck belonged to the Bishops of the Isles until their estate was amalgamated with that of Iona in 1499. The dedication of the church on Muck is not known, but according to Robertson’s Topography and Traditions of Eigg (1898) ‘Probably Kilfinan was the full name, as there is Dail Chill Fionain beside the burying-ground’. St Finnan (or Finan) (died 661) was a monk of Iona who became Bishop of Lindisfarne and a leader of the Northumbrian church. He founded Whitby Abbey, converted two Saxon kings and sent missionaries to the south of England. The quantity and quality of early Christian material on the islands is remarkable, and includes (as well as the sites mentioned above) over 20 carved stones, and two 9th or 10th c. crosses. These carved stones need care if they are not to weather away completely. The magnificent Canna Cross is apparently still in its original position, and in principle should remain there; but it should be monitored for weathering. The smaller ones should be taken into a protected environment where they can be seen locally; recommendations for this are made below. The theme is an important one and could draw visitors in its own right. It might be worth creating a specific leaflet linking these sites and features.


14

Figure 4 Canna Cross

The Norse period The first recorded Viking raids in Scotland occur at the end of the 8th century. Between 797 and 823, Iona was attacked at least three times. These attacks were carried out largely by Norwegians who had sailed via Shetland and Orkney, probably following trade routes that were already well established. The Hebrides controlled the western sea-route between Norway, Ireland and on to Spain, lying between the two power centres of Orkney and the Isle of Man. With superior Scandinavian ships and seafaring skills, within 100 years they were securely part of the Scandinavian world. From about 980 to the death of Earl Thorfinn in about 1065, they were ruled by the Orkney Earls; after that power shifted south to the Kingdom of Man. In 1098, King Magnus of Norway (1093-1103) was formally recognised as overlord of Man and the Hebrides by a treaty with the Scots king Edgar. There is some physical evidence. Three grave-mounds at Kildonnan (Eigg), opened in the 19th c., produced a number of Viking artefacts, including a sword hilt which have been dated to the mid – late 9th c. At Laig, also on Eigg, the end-posts of a 10th c. Viking boat were discovered in the 19th. c. These are still the only such examples found anywhere in the British Isles, although similar ones have been discovered in Scandinavia. The finds themselves are in the National Museums of Scotland in Edinburgh.


15

On Canna there is a site known traditionally as the ‘King of Norway’s grave’, on the north of the island, which has never been investigated archaeologically (SMR NG20NW0003). It is a narrow rectangular enclosure, and there is a similar site not far away. Both resemble descriptions of 19th c. kelp kilns rather than Viking graves, but without excavation the matter cannot be resolved for certain. Excavation might reveal evidence of Norse settlements on the islands, but these probably lie beneath the later townships.

Figure 5 Part of a Norse ship from Laig, Eigg, now in the National Museum of Scotland (From PSAS Vol 12, 577-603)

Place-names Much of the evidence we have for the Norse period consists of place-names. Those now in use may not be entirely accurate historically, since many of them were first recorded only in the 19th.c by the Ordnance Survey, after the population of Eigg had suffered two massacres in the 17th c., virtually all the inhabitants of Rùm had been expelled, and all the islands had experienced considerable emigration. However, according to the Old Statistical Account (1794)

The language, principally spoken, and universally understood, is Gaelic, and from it the names of places seem mostly to be derived; yet it must be confessed, that there are names of places, which the present inhabitants do not fully understand, that seem to be derived from a language or languages to them unknown; but supposed to be Danish.

The origins of the names of the islands themselves may be very ancient indeed. It seems quite possible that speakers of successive languages have attempted to make sense of them, and the original


16

meanings may be lost. For example, Canna could be related to the Gaelic canach, which can mean either cotton-grass or a porpoise or sturgeon. The suffix –a on the other hand could be the Norse element meaning island, as in adjoining Sanday (Sand island). David Ross2 goes further and suggests that the name derives directly from Norse Kanna, a can or bucket. The 8th c. Ravenna Cosmography lists an island called Cana, which could be Canna; but if so, it seems surprising that none of the other nearby islands seem to be identifiable. At the western end of the island is the Iron Age fort of Dùn Chana, which may be significant. Eigg is generally supposed to be derived from Gaelic eag (an indentation, jag or notch). Certainly the skyline of the island appears jagged or notched when viewed from the west.

The island of Muck is apparently straightforward Gaelic, and generally translated as the island of pigs (mùc). Perhaps it was responsible for supplying them to the Bishops of the Isles. Certainly many place-names derive from similar specialisms. Alternatively the name could derive from mùc bhiorach (dolphins or porpoises, which are fairly common around the island) or even mùc-mhara (whales). Close to Muck are Eilean Aird nan Uan (the island of the lamb headland) and Eilean nan Each (Horse Island). The origin of the name Rùm is not certain. The spelling Rhum was introduced by the then owner of the island, Sir George Bullough, in the early 20th century. It has no historical basis and has now been largely abandoned. David Ross considers it likely to be the Gaelic Rùm, room or space. He claims the name is recorded as Ruim in 677. This is certainly the largest of the Small Isles and with its higher hills it is also the most visible of the islands. The hills of Rùm are An Cuiltheann Rùmach (The Cuillins of Rùm) and one name for the Sea of the Hebrides is An Cuan Rùmach. If Rùm is related to Rùmach it could refer to a marshy, wet place. The island has lower general fertility, harder rocks, and higher rainfall than the others in the group. Rùm may have been a hunting reserve for the Lords of the Isles and possibly for their predecessors. Deer traps, which could be medieval, have been found on the island at Spectacle Lochan (SMR NM39NW0005) Orval (SMR NM39NW0056) and other places. These consist of long walls to funnel the deer into a confined area, with small buildings attached from which archers could shoot them. They are very unusual features which deserve to be made more accessible to visitors. On the south-west coast is the deserted settlement of Harris, which (like the ‘island’ of the same name) probably refers to an administrative centre. However, bringing a boat into Harris is clearly a difficult matter owing to the strength of the swell often running in on the prevailing wind from the south-west. The hills of Rùm have Norse names – for example Askival (‘Ashwood peak’), Ainshval (‘Rocky ridged peak’) and others. They must have been a landmark for Norse and later seafarers, who must also have kept a lookout for the numerous Skerrys or offshore rocks (Sker in Norse; Sgèir in Gaelic). There are other Norse names too in the Small Isles, such as those derived from ON dalr, a dale or valley - Garrisdale (Canna); or Cleadale, Galmisdale (Eigg). On Eigg we also have Laig (ON Laegi, a landing place). There is another place with the same name on the east coast of Rùm, near Bagh na h-Uamh.

The Lordship of the Isles The Hebrides remained formally part of the Kingdom of Norway until transferred to Scotland by the Treaty of Perth in 1266, but beyond the payment of tribute they had for many years maintained a strong local independence. In 1156, Somerled succeeded in taking control of the southern Hebrides, dividing the kingdom of Man, while the Kings of Man retained the northern islands. Somerled’s

2 David Ross, Scottish Place-names, Birlinn 2001


17

name means ‘summer raider’; he was half Norse and half Gael. In 1164 he was killed and his son Ranald was declared ‘King of the Hebrides and Argyll’. The following centuries were marked by a series of attempts of the Scottish kings and their successors to secure control of the area. Robert Bruce granted Eigg and Rùm to the MacDonalds after 1314, for which they were to equip and provide a warship of 26 oars. By 1354, John Macdonald had acknowledged the overlordship of the Scottish kings and is styled (in English and Latin) Lord of the Isles. However in Gaelic, rì (king) continued to be used. On his death in 1386 his son Ranald summoned the island lords to a meeting at Kildonnan on Eigg, where the Lordship of the Isles was passed to his younger half-brother Donald. He kept his mother’s lands himself, including Eigg, and founded the Clan Ranald dynasty which held Eigg until 1828. In 1498 the Scottish crown declared the Lordship forfeit, but sporadic attempts to re-establish it continued until 1615, when a final unsuccessful rebellion assembled on Eigg under Sir James MacDonald. Today, the title ‘Lord of the Isles’ is held by Prince Charles alongside the Principality of Wales and Duchy of Cornwall. The title ‘King of Man’ passed to English aristocrats who diplomatically replaced it with ‘Lord’ in the early 16th century at the court of Henry VIII of England. There is little later medieval archaeology that can be seen today. Apart from An Coroghon (Canna) (SMR NG20NE0004), which may be 17th c. in date, there are no castles or tower-houses in the Small Isles. The medieval churches on Muck and Rùm survive as grass-covered footings, while that on Eigg is a roofless ruin, filled with graves of islanders. Most houses seem to have been built using wood, peat, and thatch and most household items were also made of organic materials. Everything possible was recycled. However, it seems very likely that the visible remains of deserted villages dating to the 18th and 19th centuries occupy the sites of earlier settlements. Despite the lack of archaeological evidence in the landscape, the later medieval period in the Hebrides seems to have been a time of relative security and prosperity under the Lords of the Isles. Gaelic culture and learning flourished, with extensive links to Ireland, the Isle of Man, and continental Europe. Medical science, music, poetry and art all received patronage. The Bishops of Sodor and Man (i.e. Sudreyar, the Norse Southern Isles) held extensive estates which included Muck. Their cathedral was at St Columba's Isle, near Skeabost on Skye until they moved to Iona in 1499. Their estates were then combined with those of Iona, bringing Canna and Muck together.

Figure 6 Kildonnan church, Eigg


18

The 16th to 18th centuries As the Scottish crown attempted to assert itself in the Hebrides, its policy of divide and rule made the area increasingly unstable. In the 16th century the protection offered by the Lordship gave way to increasing feuding, with chief set against chief. This dislocation seems to have derived at least partly from the practice of the Scottish crown to grant lands to former subtenants, cutting out their former feudal superiors under the Lordship. It provided powerful impetus to the development of the clan system. Islands must also have been easy prey for raiders, with relatively small populations trapped by their own coastlines. In the cave of Uamh Fhraing (Eigg), 395 MacDonalds – the entire population of the island - were said to have been suffocated by a party of MacLeods in 1577 (SMR NM48SE0019). Eleven years later the island’s population was said to have been destroyed again, this time by Lachlan MacLean of Duart, aided by survivors of the Spanish Armada. In the 17th century, cattle droving began to develop as a way of life - islanders could raise cattle and sell them on to drovers who took them to markets in central and southern Scotland and on to England. In the early - mid 19th century many drovers and cattlemen emigrated to become the cowboys of the American West. Droves took place from Skye via Kylerhea and Glenelg; the islanders of Eigg seem to have kept cattle although shipping them to the mainland would certainly have added to the costs and difficulties. Lands were let to tacksmen who for a guaranteed fixed rent and a requirement to provide the customary number of fighting men when called on were often able to make extensive profits at the expense of the poor tenants. A pattern of joint tenancy farms developed, with ten of these recorded on Eigg in 1806. Each farm was held by up to 12 tenants who shared the resources and the rent. Summer shielings were used to relieve the pressure on land near the settlement, and some of these shieling huts survive as ruins on Eigg, Rùm and Canna. The Stewart or Stuart kings, and after the Reformation the Kirk, both made considerable efforts over several centuries to destroy Gaelic culture and language, for example through the Statutes of Iona in 1609 which banned Gaelic bards from the islands and required people worth 60 cows or more to send their children to be educated in English speaking households in the lowlands. Clanranald, who claimed overlordship of the Small Isles, strongly resisted both Reformation and Anglicisation. In 1624, Irish Franciscans came to the Hebrides, and thousands of islanders were reconciled to Catholicism. Following the Civil War and Commonwealth period, a new sympathy developed between the Stuarts and the Highlanders. King James VII (II of England) became a Catholic, and was subsequently driven out in 1688 by his daughter Mary and her (Protestant) husband, James’s cousin William Prince of Orange. There followed a series of uprisings to restore James and his heirs. Clanranald was a strong Jacobite (Latin Jacobus = James) and many islanders were no doubt conscripted into his forces. After the final defeat of the Jacobites at Culloden in 1746, the British Government made determined attempts to destroy the highland culture which today would merit the term ‘ethnic cleansing’. The lands of Jacobite clan chiefs were confiscated and given to government supporters or sold. 38 of Clanranald’s men were seized from Eigg by the navy in 1746, of whom all but two were transported to Barbados. Despite these policies it remained a matter of pride for Highland chiefs to raise troops, and the payment of army pensions was an important contributor to the local economy. However, for over two hundred years successive kings and governments had already been encouraging Highland chiefs to see themselves as landlords rather than leaders of men. Influence now came through wealth and many of them were now living beyond their means, often away from the highlands, and looking for increased income to support their lifestyles. Clanranald was no exception and away in England, as part of the Prince Regent’s fashionable set, he found himself in growing financial difficulties. Kelp-burning to make soda ash for gunpowder, soap and glass was very profitable and labour-intensive – between 1808 and 1810, Reginald Macdonald of Clanranald made about £42,000 from kelp produced on Eigg and Canna. There were therefore incentives for landowners to maintain a local pool of cheap labour. This was helped by the introduction of potatoes as a crop in 1743, enabling much more food value to


19

be got from small plots of land. Kelp workers on Eigg were resettled in smallholdings or crofts in 1810, and former joint farms re-let as single tenancies. However, there seems to have been a loss of better-off tenants and skilled craftsmen who began to emigrate in increasing numbers. One way in which medieval and later lords throughout Europe extracted money from their estates was to provide watermills which tenants were required to use. Charges were levied for all grain ground. In the highlands, many tenants would avoid these charges by grinding grain by hand as required, and quern-stones are commonly found at the sites of former settlements. At Kildonnan, Eigg, there is a good example of a 19thth century mill which was used into the 20th century, and was restored some years ago. It could lend itself to interpretation.

Figure 7 Kildonnan Mill, Eigg

The 19th century - Landlords and Clearances As the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions took off in England and southern Scotland, tenants found themselves evicted to make way for large-scale commercial sheep farming to supply the woollen industry and the new urban markets. Sheep and specialist shepherds were brought in from the Scottish borders, Northumberland and the Lake District. After the collapse of the kelp trade, sheep prices, and military opportunities at the end of the Napoleonic War in 1815, there was great hardship. Poor tenants were faced with starvation or emigration, while landowners found themselves facing possible financial ruin and the obligation to provide poor relief. Clearances and emigration occurred on all four islands. These have left us with a number of highly interesting and evocative deserted settlements, including Tarbert on Canna, A’ Chille on Muck; Grulin and Five Pennies on Eigg; Kinloch and Harris on Rùm. At some sites, such as A’Chill on Canna, virtually nothing remains as the walls of the houses were recycled into dykes. All these sites are important and were probably occupied from prehistoric times through to the 19th. c. On the one hand they form a powerful memorial to the generations who lived there and to those who were cleared; on the other hand, as Susanna Wade-Martins points out, ‘Generations of islanders had chosen well when they made their homes at Grulin, until finally, this long continuity of settlement was broken …’ 3 In the 1820s Reginald MacDonald of Clanranald was forced to sell all his estates to support his

3 Susanna Wade-Martins Eigg - An Island Landscape (2004), 42


20

expensive political and social life in England. In 1827, Eigg was bought by Dr Hugh MacPherson, Professor of Greek at Aberdeen University, whose family spent much time on the island and took great interest in its archaeology. The population of the island increased steadily, reaching 546 in the 1841 census; but Hugh Miller, visiting on the Betsy in 1845, reported great poverty and overcrowding on the croftland. Meanwhile, the former joint tenancy farms were now run by a single farmer, his family and a few servants and farm labourers. The potato famine of the later 1840s proved disastrous and over the next 20 years, many people starved or emigrated, leaving 34 out of 89 houses (38%) unlived in. By 1871 the island’s population had declined to 282. These emigrants were mostly poor labourers, who no doubt headed for Glasgow and northern England in search of work, but they included Angus Macdonald of Laig, the last Clanranald tacksman who emigrated to Canada in 1853. On his departure the farm was re-let to a sheep-farmer from the Borders, Stephen Stewart, who took it only on condition he could clear the crofters of Grulin and add their lands to the grazing. In 1853, 57 people were forcibly removed and (apart from two families) transported to Canada. Upper and Lower Grulin today are impressive and extensive sites and the footings of the houses and other buildings can be easily seen.

Figure 8 Canna House

Canna was bought from Clanranald in the same year by the then tenant of the whole island, Donald MacNeill, in 1827 – apparently, according to John Lorne Campbell4, to secure his own position there. Although he appears to have been a good landlord, some islanders emigrated to Cape Breton in Canada and the population declined. In 1848 he was succeeded by his illegitimate teenage son Donald, whose affairs were handled by trustees and solicitors. The island was leased to a grazier, John MacLean, who took the island on condition that the house would be repaired, a stone dyke would be built between the arable land and the grazings, and the island would be cleared of its small tenants. In the event the Tarbert tenants were not cleared, but all the inhabitants of A’Chill were removed and the stones from the houses used to build the dykes. The population of Canna and Sanday virtually halved between the 1851 and 1861 censuses. By 1857, MacNeill had married MacLean’s daughter and taken over the farm on Canna himself, while MacLean had moved to Kildonnan Farm on Eigg. However by 1881 he was seriously in debt and Canna was sold to Robert Thom, a Glasgow shipping magnate., whose son Alan built the church on Sanday in 1913 as a memorial to his father. At the turn of the 19th century, Rùm belonged to the MacLeans of Coll. Here too, voluntary 4 J L Campbell, Canna, Story of a Hebridean Island, 2002 edition, 157


21

emigration had already taken place. Many of these emigrants were tacksmen and others with the resources to pay for their passage, leaving the poorer families behind. With the coming of the Napoleonic Wars in 1793, army pay and pensions contributed to local incomes, but there was considerable pressure on young men to join the army or navy. Those with sufficient children were exempt, which was said to have encouraged early marriage and a rise in population!5 However, with the end of the War, emigration continued. Bishop Ranald Macdonald of the Isles wrote in 1822

Midway between the Outer Isles and the mainland of Scotland are the Isles of Eigg, Rum and Canna, caller the Lesser Isles, where there are 500 Catholics, of whom many emigrated this summer to America6

In 1811 James Macdonald wrote of Rum in his General View of the Agriculture of the Hebrides,

The proprietor’s humanity prevents him from depopulating, although his good sense must convince him that his benevolence is, in the long run, cruelty to the poor creatures whom he feeds at his own expense… its population, however simple and virtuous, are in their present state a dead stock to the community and to themselves7

When Alexander Maclean found himself in debt following a failed kelp making enterprise on Muck, he handed over control to his son Hugh, who was less concerned for his tenants. He leased Rùm to his kinsman, the sheep-grazier Lachlan Maclean, in 1825. The entire population, apart from about 130 poor, were sent to Canada the following year. The remainder worked for the new proprietor for two years before being sent after the others. In the centre of the island, in Kinloch Glen, is the Clach Cuid Fìr, the manhood stone, said to have been placed there by the departing islanders as a gesture of grief and defiance8 The MacLeans of Coll had also been established in Muck for centuries, but Clanranald had taken over by foreclosing on a mortgage in 1799. Alexander MacLean of Coll bought it back in 1814. In 1828, it was cleared of 150 people and in 1854 it was sold to Thomas Swinburne. Sheep-farming, seen by the ‘Improving’ landlords as the saviour of the Highland economy, soon declined. Competition increased with the rise of imports from Australia and New Zealand, while land that had been maintained in good fertility for generations was quickly degraded by the constant grazing. Many highland landowners turned instead to a form of up-market tourism, providing shooting and fishing estates in the highlands where the wealthy could 'get away from it all' among the islands, hills and moors. Many customers were wealthy industrialists who had benefited from the Industrial Revolution. Many were attracted too by the growth of the romantic tartan ‘Highland’ image promoted by Sir Walter Scott and others, and so admired by Queen Victoria. While Canna and Muck have continued to be managed as working farms, the impact of the vogue for romantic shooting estates was felt most keenly on Rùm. In 1845, Maclean of Coll sold the island to the second Marquis of Salisbury, who transformed it into a sporting estate, re-introducing deer which had become extinct there by the end of the 18th century. John Bullough, a wealthy Lancastrian textile mill owner who had previously leased the shooting rights bought the island itself in 1888. After his early death in 1891 it passed to his son George, who built Kinloch Castle between 1897 and 1901. The extravagance of his lifestyle there has become legendary. The trustees of the Bullough Estate sold the island to the UK government in 1957, who established it as a nature reserve managed by the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC). It is now run by the NCC’s successor body, Scottish Natural Heritage, which combines the nature conservation function with the promotion of countryside access.

5 J A Love, Rùm, A Landscape without Figures, 2001, 116, 120 6 Quoted in Love, Rùm, A Landscape without Figures, 2001, 121 7 Quoted in J A Love, op cit, 123 8 C Dressler, Eigg: The Story of an Island (1998)


22

Figure 9 Field systems, Kilmory, Rum

Modern archaeology In life and in death the islands’ owners over the last 100 years have left their mark. On Canna, the house became the home of the noted Gaelic scholar John Lorne Campbell and houses a fine archive. On Rùm, there are still deer, continuing a long tradition that extends back at least to the medieval period; and Kinloch Castle on the island is a remarkable survival of great importance and rarity, which has been seriously undervalued by Historic Scotland - as have its service buildings, such as the corrugated iron laundry at Kilmory, where the washing was done at a suitable distance from the important guests. The mausoleum of the Bulloughs at Harris on Rùm is an imposing Greek style temple, still owned by the estate. This is said to have been erected by George Bullough’s wife to replace the mausoleum nearby built by the man himself which she disapproved of, and had blown up. On Eilean Chathastail (Eigg) is a tomb of Robert Thomson, an arms dealer who bought the island in 1896 and died in 1913. The grave looks across to his other island of Muck, still run as a farm by the resident and locally active MacEwen family – who many years ago converted a prehistoric cairn into a family burial enclosure. On Thomson’s death, Eigg was bought by Sir William Petersen, who was concerned only with the shooting and who rebuilt the Lodge as a sort of castle. In the centre of Eigg is the old post office and shop, from which the community buy-out of June 1997 was launched. Now a museum and recycling centre, the building is already of significant historical interest. Near to the pier is a standing stone put up by the islanders to commemorate the purchase. The background to this historic event has been excellently described in Camille Dressler’s book9 but briefly, following Petersen’s death Eigg was bought in 1926 by Sir Walter Runciman, shipping magnate and cabinet minister, and it remained in his family until 1966. Although regarded as generally benevolent, they were absentee landlords. After them, there was a series of short term owners until the purchase by Keith Schellenberg in 1973. Although he initially had many plans for the island’s improvement, he too was an absentee, and he sold to a German artist called Maruma in 1995, who visited only twice before being forced by creditors to sell two years later. By then the island was very run down. There is very little evidence of 20th century fortification on the islands from the two World Wars.

9 Dressler C, Eigg: The Story of an Island (1998)


23

Figure 10 The 'King of Norway's Grave', Canna

Assessment of significance The Small Isles have a rich archaeological resource with value for islanders and others. Much of this, as we saw above, is important to the story of the Hebrides and indeed of the British Isles. In developing a strategy for individual artefacts, sites, monuments and areas, the Community Council is recommended to consider the following values which can attach to archaeology:

Evidence All the archaeological features and finds of the islands have value as physical evidence of past activity. This value is considerably enhanced where items are still in situ or at least have been recorded fully to modern standards. This value should attempt to be independent of a political or cultural viewpoint, but inevitably different communities and traditions will emphasise different aspects. It is therefore necessary to stand back from these and try to consider objectively what scientific or analytical potential any given site, feature or artefact may have regardless of the research objective. A surviving building or a highly stratified site, containing well-preserved datable material, is more valuable than a degraded fragment about which little can be said.

Aesthetic Some sites, finds and features may have aesthetic value. This is a more difficult value to assess as it may be to some extent a subjective matter of culture, taste, and fashion. Some people will follow the Romantic Movement in finding ruins of aesthetic value, while others will see them only as eyesores to be removed or sources of recyclable material.

Associative Many places and things are associated with past people or events, real or otherwise. It is for example difficult to see without excavation how much physical evidence remains in the Massacre Cave on Eigg. Certainly the writer did not see the heaps of bones referred to by Hugh Miller in The Cruise of the Betsy. Nevertheless the place remains important for its association with that event. Similarly,


24

Kildonnan remains associated with the saint despite very little evidence on the surface. The deserted townships on all four islands have powerful resonances of the Clearances, whether or not the surviving remains date from that episode.

Symbolic This value belongs to different cultural traditions which may identify with or against particular features. Kinloch Castle, and the mausolea of the owners of Muck and Eigg can be seen as symbolic of particular kinds of absentee landlordism to which some modern islanders would be fiercely opposed. Nevertheless they remain important in the landscape.

Figure 11 Bullough Mausoleum, Harris, Rum

Mention has already been made above of the remains of cleared townships. On the one hand these townships stand as memorials to their former inhabitants, and convey a powerful atmosphere as well as providing evidence of the settlements and the people who lived in them. To the descendent of former inhabitants visiting from North America, Australia or New Zealand, these places are very powerful indeed – places of pilgrimage that reinforce identity. To some highlanders however they can appear as reminders of oppression and injustice, better robustly reoccupied in a fierce spirit of renewal. There are no simple answers to this, but there are many such sites, and as suggested above, perhaps the only solution is to debate and consider each case separately and seek wide agreement on what if any development should be permitted there; then to document the decision reached and its justification. When it is decided to build on such deserted settlements, arrangements should be made to make sure any archaeological evidence affected is fully recorded before destruction.

Ecological Where remains have not been cleared away (as happened for example at a’Chill in Canna) the deserted settlements have generally remained under grazing since they were abandoned. This long-term consistent management can mean the development of species-rich habitats, especially with the variety of aspects offered by undulating ground. The writer claims no expertise in this field and further research would be advisable into the ecological potential of the islands’ archaeological sites.


25

Economic All the values above mean that people will wish to visit, see, appreciate, study and maybe collect the islands’ archaeology. This demand leads directly to a further value as a potential economic resource. Identifying such potential is a key objective for this report. Nevertheless, like any other such resource it needs to be managed sustainably, especially as it is not renewable – once an archaeological site has been damaged or destroyed it cannot be regenerated.

Key Features There are well over 700 recorded features and sites on the Small Isles and it has not been possible in the time available to visit them all. The following buildings, sites and areas have however received particular consideration during the present review. Some have particular potential for visitors, but others are considered too inaccessible or unsafe at present to be actively promoted. There are, no doubt, many others that should be included. It is worth noting too that much of the interest of the islands lies not so much in individual features but in the extensive surviving historic landscapes – for example at Cleadale (Eigg), on much of Rum, or on the western end of Canna which, as recent writers have noted, ‘contains what is one of the most extensive landscapes of hut circles and ancient field-walls so far discovered in the Hebrides’ 10

10 Gannon A R and Halliday S P, ‘The Archaeology of Canna and Sanday’, in Campell JL Canna, the story of a Hebridean Island, 2002 edition, xxiv

Site No.

Site Name Island Legal Status

NMRS No SMR No Grid ref Trail No.

Notes

1 Beinn Tigh souterrain Canna Scheduled NG20NW 2 NG20NW0002 NG244062 Canna 3 Two sections of a rock-cut souterrain (underground chamber) are visible, set into a substantial mound about 15m in diameter. The present openings seem to have been made in relatively modern times, perhaps by TC Lethbridge shortly after the Second World War.

2 Canna House Canna Listed B NG20NE 24 NG20NE0030 NG27440551 Canna 2 Built c.1860 by Donald Maclean, replacing the earlier Laird's house at The Bothy.

3 Church Of Scotland Church

Canna Listed B NG20NE 23 NG20NE0058 NG27690538 Canna 2 J Gifford (1992) describes this as a ‘Beautifully simple lancet-windowed rubble rectangle. Pencil-like W tower of Brechin Cathedral tower type. Inside, a pointed tunnel-vault.’ Built 1912 -1914 as a memorial to Robert Thom, owner of Canna from 1881, by his son Allan G Thom and designed by P MacGregor Chalmers. The church lies within a stone-walled burial-ground, which contains only one granite headstone, dedicated to Allan G Thom and his wife Mary Cameron. A Viking bronze pin found here was given to the West Highland Museum in Fort William in 1938.

4 Coroghon Barn Canna Listed B NG20NE 26 NG20NE0028 NG27840552 Canna 1 An exceptional example of a Lochaber ‘bank barn’, built into a slope close to Coroghon bay. Probably late 18th century. It includes a byre, a threshing floor and a stable. These barns are increasingly rare. This is deteriorating and requires urgent maintenance. The RCAHMS has noted indications of other former buildings nearby.


27

Site No.



Notes

5 Coroghon Castle Canna Scheduled NG20NE 4 NG20NE0004 NG 27960552 Canna 1 An impressive stronghold on a rock stack, linked to the land by a narrow neck. Entrance is by steep steps and is not advisable for visitors. It is traditionally said to have been a prison. Use of the stack itself as a refuge is mentioned in the 16th c. and it may be the site of an earlier fort. The castle is illustrated by Pennant (1790).

6 Coroghon House (The Bothy)

Canna - NG20NE 44 NG20NE0055 NG27500549 Canna 2 This single-storey cottage and adjoining outbuildings incorporate parts of Coroghon House, the predecessor to Canna House. Built in the 1780s, it was modified and partly demolished by Donald MacNeill in the 1860's. A sketch of Canna Harbour dated 1787 shows this house as a three-bay three-storey building with adjoining single-storey wings.

7 Dun Channa,fort Canna Scheduled NG20SW 1 NG20SW0010 NG205047 (Guidebook only)

Dun Channa is a promontory fort on an isolated stack of rock, defended by a massive drystone wall on the landward side. It is at the western end of Canna and is virtually inaccessible.

8 Dun Teagh Canna Scheduled NG20NW 8 NG20NW0008 NG209053 (Guidebook only)

A promontory fort with cairns and structures of different dates; but not readily accessible. The name 'Dun Teadh' is actually said to apply to a nearby rock.

9 Glac Bhre-Sgorr Canna Scheduled NG20SW0003 NG217042 (Guidebook only)

A Bronze Age or Iron age roundhouse, adapted later for use as a sheep-pen.

10 Rubha nic Eamoin Canna Scheduled NG20SW 3 NG20SW0002 NG237048 (Guidebook only)

A fort on a precipitous promontory S of Tarbert. Not suitable for promoting general public access.


28

Site No.



Notes

11 Sgorr nam Ban-naomha Canna Scheduled NG20SW 2 NG20SW0001 NG229043 (Guidebook only)

The name means the jagged rock of the Holy Women, and this appears to be the site of an early Christian nunnery. There are remains of walls and other features, and it is potentially of very great interest. However it is not easily accessible. Three carved stones (crosses) found here by the RCAHMS in 1993-4 are at Canna House.

12 Sron Ruail Canna Scheduled NG20SW 5 NG20SW0004 NG210046 (Guidebook only)

A Bronze Age or Iron age roundhouse, with evidence of cultivation and other associated features

13 Standing Cross, A' Chille Canna Scheduled NG20NE 2 NG20NE0002 NG269055 Canna 2 A free-standing and richly decorated sandstone cross, over 2m high, with one arm of the cross missing. Possibly dating from the 8th or 9th centuries AD, this is the jewel in the crown of Canna’s archaeology and should be on every visitor’s list. The cross marks the site of the former church and churchyard at A’ Chille, mentioned in 1549, which was in ruins when visited by Thomas Pennant in 1772. It was destroyed when the township was cleared and the present burial ground was then established about 90m to the south. Several fragments of carved stone have been recovered, some of them from walls built after the clearance of the township.

14 Tarbert Bay or Beinn Tigh

Canna Scheduled NG20NW 5 NG20NW0005 NG24930563 Canna 3 This site has produced the earliest evidence so far for settlement in Canna. It is an unassuming group of mounds, previously thought to be sheilings, but has produced sherds of Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery. This is now in the National Museum of Scotland.


29

Site No.



Notes

15 Rubha Langanes (King of Norway's grave)

Canna - NG20NW 3 NG20NW0003 NG 24110659 Canna 3 Three features, each with two parallel lines of contiguous stones set on edge, some slightly curved. The site is known locally as ‘The King of Norway’s grave, probably because of TC Lethbridge, who identified it as a Viking burial site in the early 1950s. However the sites are probably kelp kilns. Nevertheless they are worth including.

16 Roman Catholic Church of St Edward The Confessor, Sanday

Sanday Listed B NG20SE 25 NG20SE0032 NG27540478 (Guidebook only)

A large, lavish Victorian church, built 1885-89, on a commanding site above Canna Harbour. A landmark for shipping. Ceased to be used as a church c. 1963. Gifted to Canna by 3rd Marchioness of Bute as a memorial to her father, 1st Baron Howard of Glossop. Designed by William Frame, architect to the Marquis of Bute.

17 Sean Dun Sanday Scheduled NG20SE 10 NG20SE0012 NG28110398 (Guidebook only)

The remains of a fort with traces of later houses and structures.

18 Allt Bidein an Tighearna Eigg Scheduled NM48NE 43 NM48NE0069 NM484882 Canna 3 An enclosure and six possible unroofed shieling-huts

19 An Sgurr,fort,Eigg Eigg Scheduled NM48SE 6 NM48SE0006 NM46128474 Eigg 4 A major hillfort with an area of more than 9 acres, on the east end of An Sgurr. It ‘must have formed one of the most inaccessible in the kingdom’ according to Hugh Miller (Cruise of the Betsey, 1844). The approach is up a steep and rocky ascent. There are no traces of internal occupation, but there are other features including roundhouses in the general area.

20 Cleadale, Croft 6 Eigg Listed C(S)

NM48SE 31.04

NM48NE0084 NM47818879 Eigg 3 19th century croft house with rounded corners. Almost certainly the only croft house on the island with rounded corners and in traditional, unaltered form. Representative of the crofting community.


30

Site No.



Notes

21 Cnoc Smeordail Eigg Scheduled NM48NE 55 NM48NE0077 NM48258767 (Guidebook only)

A group of round houses and enclosures

22 Corragan Mor fort Eigg Scheduled NM48NE 56 NM48NE0079 NM49468874 Eigg 3a A Fortified, roughly circular settlement on a knoll.

23 Cuig Peighinnean (Five Pennies) township

Eigg Scheduled NM48NE 39 NM48NE0064 NM47858975 Eigg 3a A township and field system.

24 Cuig Peighinneann - hut circle

Eigg Scheduled NM49SE 2 NM49SE0012 NM47769004 Eigg 3a Footings of a Bronze or Iron Age round house

25 Eigg Lodge Eigg Listed B NM48SE 25 NM48SE0030 NM47898420 Eigg 1(?) The present Lodge is largely the work of the architect Balfour Paul who rebuilt it after a fire in1930. Any access for visitors will need to be negotiated with the present occupiers.

26 Eigg Lodge: cairn Eigg - NM48SE 4 NM48SE0004 NM47968407 Eigg 1(?) According to the Ordnance Survey Name Books (1877) a stone cist was found when this overgrown mound by the Lodge drive was excavated about 1861, but no other records or references have yet been found. This is recommended as the possible site for a community excavation, which could reopen the Victorian trenches and clarify the nature and extent of this site using modern techniques and equipment.

27 Rubh' An Tangaird Eigg Scheduled NM48SE 33 NM48SE0047 NM477834 Eigg 2 This consists of the remains of an oval house – considered by Historic Scotland to be possibly late Neolithic or early Bronze age in date. Stone footings are visible on the ground.

28 Garbh Bealach Eigg Scheduled NM48SE 42 NM48SE0046 NM470839 Eigg 2 A small Iron Age fort, on a flat knoll

29 Grulin Shepherd's Bothy Eigg Listed B NM48SE 28 NM48SE0031 NM45608421 Eigg 2 Early-mid 19th century single storey cottage, the sole surviving dwelling of the former township later used as a shepherd's dwelling. Restored in c. 1980.


31

Site No.



Notes

30 Grulin Uachdrach Eigg Scheduled NM48SE 7 NM48SE0007 NM45508420 Eigg 2 Upper Grulin township, now comprising one roofed building, twenty-two unroofed buildings, four enclosures and the field-system

31 Kildonnan Mill Eigg Listed B NM48NE 30 NM48NE0033 NM48828519 Eigg 1 Early – mid 19th century estate mill. A small rectangular rubble building, with an overshot wheel – an unusual survival. Converted to a holiday cottage c. 1980, but it retains some machinery.

32 Kildonnan Church and Burial Ground

Eigg Listed B NM48NE 19 NM48NE0019 NM488853 Eigg 1 St Donan's Church (Kildonnan) is traditionally said to have been erected by John Moydartach, Captain of Clanranald in the 16th century, but probably includes late medieval fabric. It is roofless. The 14th century cross-shaft to the south is mounted on a modern base with the head and part of the shaft of another shaft with similar decoration lies against it.

33 Laig Farmhouse Eigg Listed B NM48NE 33 NM48NE0032 NM46708769 Eigg 3 Late 18th - early 19th century farmhouse 34 Loch nam Ban Mora Eigg Scheduled NM48NE 15 NM48NE0015 NM455852 Eigg 4 This is a small dun or fort, built on a natural

rocky islet which has probably been artificially enlarged. It consists of a roughly D-shaped wall along to the edge of the isle, built of similar pitchstone blocks and in the same style as the fort wall on Sgurr of Eigg. It has the tradition of once being inhabited by abnormally big women.

35 Lochan Nighean Dughaill

Eigg Scheduled NM48NE 26 NM48NE0026 NM45118571 (Guidebook only)

Two stone shieling huts, with associated features, lying in a rocky valley.

36 Na Sidheanan (burial mounds 200m N of Laig Farm)

Eigg Scheduled NM48NE 52 NM48NE0078 NM46668793 Eigg 3 A line of square cairns, scheduled as burial mounds. But are they?!


32

Site No.



Notes

37 Old Post Office Eigg - - NM48SE0051 NM47908656 Eigg 3 This former post office now forms a museum and recycling centre. It is not listed, or recorded on the National Monuments Record, but it is important in the history of the movement towards community ownership in Scotland.

38 Poll Duchaill, fort 250m SE of Clach Alasdair

Eigg Scheduled NM48NE 51 NM48NE0080,87 NM45438816 (Guidebook only)

A Promontory Fort.

39 Rudha na Crannaig Eigg Scheduled NM48SE 15 NM48SE0014 NM49108476 Eigg 1 An eroded fort on a promontory, containing traces of walls, some apparently circular. Suggested by the Ordnance Survey in 1972 as the possible site of St Donnan’s monastery ‘but there is no conclusive evidence for this opinion’.

40 Struidh, or Sron Na H-Iolaire

Eigg Scheduled NM48NE 58 NM49SE0011 NM49298989 Eigg 3a An enclosure and underground chamber of uncertain date

41 A'Chille and Sean Bhaile Muck Scheduled NM47NW 1,7

NM47NW0006 NM42077953 Muck 1 Sean Bhaile is a deserted village of about twenty houses lying on either side of a street, probably deserted in 1828. The burial ground at the south-eastern end, A'Chill, contains the remains of a chapel. Incised and carved stones from here were removed to the craft shop in 1993.

42 Aird nan Uan cairns, Gallanach

Muck Scheduled NM48SW 1 NM48SW0001 NM40118068 Muck 3a Two very eroded kerbed cairns near the northern end of Ard nan Uan The centre of the northern cairn is occupied by the burial enclosure of the MacEwans of Muck; another, damaged cairn is about 20m to the south. There are other possible smaller cairns nearby

43 Beinn Airein, cairn Muck Scheduled NM47NW 4 NM47NW0004 NG403791 (Guidebook only)

Prominently situated on the summit of Beinn Airein is a stony mound – scheduled as a cairn.

44 Caisteal an Duin Bhain Muck Scheduled NM47NW 2 NM47NW0002 NM42177867 Muck 2 A fort occupying the summit of a flat rock. There are foundations of one or two probably medieval rectangular buildings inside.


33

Site No.



Notes

45 The Cottage 1/2 Mile West Of Gallanach Farm

Muck Listed B NM48SW 5 NM48SW0004 NM40098007 Muck 3a This is the only listed building on the island. It is the single surviving cottage of a former pair. Unusually complete survival of an early 20th c. vernacular house.

46 Toaluinn, house to SW of Port na Lice

Muck Scheduled NM48SW 10

- NM41828051 Muck 3 A Possible Norse house, identified by the recent RCAHMS survey

47 Bagh na h-Uamha (cave) Rum Scheduled NM49NW 1 NM49NW0001 NM422974 Rum 2a A cave , about 7.5m above the shore, containing a midden of shells and animal bones. This site is likely to have been used and reused over many thousands of years, and could contain Mesolithic remains - although these have not been found here yet, it offers a good idea of the sorts of location where such material is often found. A 13th c Norse draughtsman or playing piece of narwhal ivory was also found here – it is now in the National Museum of Scotland. The Reserve Handbook (1970) mentions a Norse double-stone burial cist near the cave, but this is uncertain.

48 Bagh na h-Uamha (settlement and cross slab)

Rum Scheduled NM49NW 2 NM49NW0002 NM421973 Rum 2a A stone pillar with an incised cross, probably of 7th – 8th c AD, was found here on the beach in 1977 and re-erected at the head of the shore in 1983. There is a small pre-clearance settlement here, represented by the remains of six structures and associated cultivation.

49 Bullough Mausoleum, Harris

Rum Listed B NM39NW 60

NM39NW0060 NM33629565 Rum 4 This Greek Temple style building has been described by John Love as "of the most surprising monuments in all the inner isles.” It replaced a rock-cut mausoleum nearby which was later blown up. It still belongs to the Bullough estate.

50 Guirdil (cairn) Rum Scheduled NG30SW 4 NG30SW0004 NG322014 (Guidebook only)

Probably a circular Neolithic or Bronze Age burial cairn. (Disturbed)


34

Site No.



Notes

51 Guirdil or Glen Shellesder (fort)

Rum Scheduled NG30SW 1 NG30SW0001 NG327020 (Guidebook only)

A promontory fort with roundhouses and other contemporary and later features

52 Harris (cairns) Rum Scheduled NM39NW 3 NM39NW0003 NM34199552 Rum 4 Five cairns, which may be prehistoric burial cairns and / or field clearance heaps.

53 Harris Lodge (settlement)

Rum Scheduled NM39NW 9 NM39NW0057 NM334959 Rum 4 A small settlement of at least 8 buildings overlooking Harris

54 Harris 9' Rum Scheduled NM39NW 7 NM39NW0007 NM342950 Rum 4 A prehistoric settlement, overlain by a more recent sheepfold. Another area where there is a considerable extent of features of different dates,

55 Harris (settlement) Rum Scheduled NM39NW 8 NM39NW0009 NM338958 Rum 4 The township of Harris: at least 37 buildings with thick drystone walls. Around the township its fields of rig-and-furrow cultivation remain largely undisturbed by later activity. Harris may be the settlement named 'Kaming' on Pont's map.

56 Kilmory (cairn) Rum Scheduled NG30SE 4 NG30SE0005 NG357041 Rum 3 Probably a circular Neolithic or Bronze Age burial cairn. (Disturbed)

57 Kilmory (fort) Rum Scheduled NG30SE 5 NG30SE0046 NG350042 (Guidebook only)

A promontory fort on the north coast west of Kilmory

58 Kilmory (settlement, old burial ground and cross shaft)

Rum Scheduled NG30SE 1,8 NG30SE0001, 49 NG362037 Rum 3 The remains of a substantial, largely undisturbed township cleared in 1828, with a sunken road and the remains of at least sixteen buildings and a burial-ground, with field walls and extensive surrounding traces of rig-and-furrow cultivation. There is a cross incised stone shaft in the graveyard. Kilmory is depicted on Blaeu's Atlas in the 17th century. The remains here are very striking and atmospheric and occupy a wonderful setting


35

Site No.



Notes

59 Kiln and Old Pier, Kinloch

Rum Listed C(S)

NM49NW 13,17

NM49NW0014,17

140591 Rum 1 A mid 19th century circular limekiln and slightly curved rubble pier incorporating some natural rocky outcrops and with coped rubble wall the length of the east (seaward) side.

60 Kinloch Castle and the Gardens

Rum Castle: Listed A; Gazebo: Listed B; Bridge: Listed B. Register of Historic Gardens & Designed Landscape

NM49NW 12

NM49NW0018 NM40159953 Rum 1 Designed by Leeming & Leeming of London for the Lancashire industrialist George Bullough in 1897. Some remodelling took place in 1906. At the S edge of the garden is a harled concrete octagonal and castellated gazebo of c.1900. The present condition of this exceptionally important building and its grounds gives great cause for concern. These are all owned by the State, whose failure over many years adequately to address its responsibilities for upkeep here sets a very poor example. It can only be hoped that current plans will quickly improve matters.

61 Kinloch Farm - Mesolithic settlement

Rum Scheduled NM49NW 3 NM49NW0003 NM403998 (Guidebook only)

In the 1980s several seasons of excavation were carried out here, identifying a substantial Mesolithic and Neolithic settlement. There is nothing for visitors to see on the ground, but finds from the dig could perhaps (subject to agreement) be displayed locally. This scheduled site lies in an area identified for housing development, and it is essential that discussions take place with HIstoric Scotland and the Planning Authority at the earliest possible stage.

62 Loch Monica,shielings SE of

Rum Scheduled NM39NW 44

NM39NW0044 NM333965 (Guidebook only)

This is just part of a great complex of shielings which covers a large area. Many of the huts are built of corbelled stone, and some retain their roofs

63 Loch Sgaorishal Rum Scheduled NG30SW 15 NG30SW0006 NG339018 (Guidebook only)

A group of at least 15 stone shieling huts


36

Site No.



Notes

64 Orval deer traps Rum Scheduled NM39NW 56


The remains of an extensive and complex medieval deer trap. These sites are important and unusual, and demonstrate the importance of the island as a deer park in the medieval period and probably before.

65 Orval deer traps, high on Ard Nev

Rum Scheduled NM39NW 55


The remains of an extensive and complex medieval deer trap. These sites are important and unusual, and demonstrate the importance of the island as a deer park in the medieval period and probably before.

66 Port-na-Caranean settlement

Rum Scheduled NM49NW 8 NM49NW0008 NM421988 Rum 2 The remains of at least 14 buildings and their associated enclosures. While the majority of the buildings are of post-clearance date those at the E end of the settlement may be earlier.

67 Salisbury's Dam Rum Scheduled NM39NE 27 NM39NE0022 NM363998 Rum 4 Built in the late 1840's to divert the head waters of the Kilmory River through a rock-cut lade into the Kinloch River. It was breached almost as soon as the reservoir was filled.

68 Spectacle Lochan Rum Scheduled NM39NW 5 NM39NW0005 NM308986 (Guidebook only)

A complex of medieval deer-traps - about 17 structures along a wall which runs for a distance of at least 750m. There is a whole archaeological landscape here which is very rare indeed.

Management issues and sustainability The sustainability of interpretation and public access projects is considered below under ‘Maintenance’. At this point we will focus on the general need to manage the resource that archaeology represents for the benefit of the present and future generations. Without some agreed, strategic approach the archaeology will gradually disappear.

General development issues The need to improve infrastructure is a key issue common to all four islands, and indeed to all the smaller Scottish Islands:. There is a need for much better communications with the other islands, including Skye; more active consideration of how to develop sustainable tourism as an economic and social strategy; creating waymarked trails, developing new and different audiences; and considering the possible benefits of archaeology to islanders as well as visitors. Each island would also benefit from more visitor accommodation, including an improved camp site with basic facilities. Collaboration between the four islands is considered essential. The present project marks a milestone in this; all islands could benefit from looking more at each others’ experiences and learning from them. It might be worth making specific arrangements to try to do this.

Archaeology and historic environment issues Proposed new houses may coincide with the sites of former ones. There is a need for new housing on the islands, which is clearly essential to the regeneration of the island communities. However in many cases previous generations have identified good sites for houses, which are still desirable today. On the other hand, it can reasonably be argued that there is enough land available within the Small Isles to accommodate old and new together. There is surely a need for a critical debate to take place about how former house-sites and deserted settlements should be treated in future, both on the Small Isles and elsewhere. Certainly the latter can be extremely powerful and emotive places, not least for those descendents of cleared people who come to Scotland seeking their roots. It is in the nature of everything to change, decay, and either be lost or adapted to new purposes. Historic places are no exception to this, but equally, as discussed above, it is believed to have a variety of values for different people. Interested parties therefore need to agree what new purpose is to be found for the ruins of past activity. In some cases it may be that the preservation of evidence for future inspiration, education, and research is paramount; but this must be balanced against the other needs of present and future generations, including the sense of identity with particular locations so strongly felt by many people. However, the archaeological heritage may benefit all humanity, and not only to those who feel this attachment. It has been suggested that if rebuilding cleared townships is prevented, ‘the landlords will have won’. The descendents of the cleared populations should be allowed to re-settle, and revive the deserted places once again. However, understandable objections are raised to those with no connection to a historic place building holiday homes, opening quarries, or undertaking other purely commercial developments that change its character and might not benefit the local area at all. In the UK, it is virtually impossible to restrict development rights to those with a family or cultural connection with a place. Descendents of cleared families who make the journey from the USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand would be horrified to find the remains of the homes of their ancestors cleared away for insensitive, modern commercial development – completing the clearance process, as it were. Clearing landlords did not drive people out simply for the sake of it, but in pursuit of profit, and it might be argued that inappropriate development by outsiders of such sites might be much more a ‘victory’ for them: the deserted townships are at least as much testimony to the landlords’ failure as they are to the


38

suffering of the tenants. For what long-term benefit were people cleared? It may well be that all such sites need not be treated in the same way. The Australian branch of ICOMOS (The International Council on Monuments and Sites) has developed an important and internationally respected approach to the conservation of sites of cultural heritage importance (The Burra Charter, 1999) which emphasises the need to assess the cultural significance of places in devising conservation policies. This approach is strongly recommended, but needs to be developed strategically rather than on a site-by-site basis; and by means of dialogue between the different parties with an interest in them. There is a need for islanders, landowners and public agencies to work towards an agreed strategy for each one. . The solution therefore can surely only be found by negotiation. Scheduling under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 should require much more local consultation than currently occurs, and – since each place is different - a greater variety of approaches should be tried to resolve issues as they arise. There should also be a greater willingness on all sides to review arrangements for particular sites to ensure they are as appropriate now as they were when set up. Archaeological evaluation and recording is increasingly required to meet planning or similar purposes . On Eigg in particular some views were expressed that the cost of rescue archaeology is an excessive for individual crofters wishing to build houses for themselves. This concern is often raised in the Highlands and is not confined to the Small Isles. National Planning Policy Guidance Note 5 and Planning Advice Note 42 (Scottish Executive 1994) make it clear that archaeology is a material consideration in the planning process and it is for applicants to deal with any archaeological issues arising from their proposals (the so-called ‘polluter pays’ principle). This approach works well for major developments in urban centres, where development values are generally high, and there is a wide choice of potential development sites and archaeologists locally for developers to choose from. In the Small Isles, as elsewhere in the Scottish Highlands and Islands, the situation is different: in most cases developers are in fact individuals of modest means, building individual houses for their own occupation, who are facing all the drawbacks of peripherality. At the same time, there are no resident archaeologists on most islands and actual costs are therefore higher. It is the common problem of peripherality that affects many aspects of rural and especially island life. Recommendations are made later to alleviate the problem.

Conservation and management of archaeological sites and areas Rather than attempt to provide detailed prescriptions for every site, some general principles are set out here which should be widely applicable. Conservation of archaeological features in all cases is best arranged as part of an overall estate management plan. Often a policy of minimum intervention is proposed with the aim of preventing natural decay and retaining the site or area in the condition in which it was found. In some cases, there may be a case for more active management to benefit the site - for example, by restoring a declining water table, or taking land out of cultivation, or clearing trees and keeping any regrowth down. Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made when the vegetation which gives a ruin its romantic appeal is destroying the structure itself, or when nature conservation interests conflict with those of archaeology. Increasingly, grant-aid in the countryside encourages planning ahead. This allows problems and opportunities to be identified and helps to avoid possible conflicts of interest. Sometimes, rare species of plant or animal, or natural geomorphological processes can act to damge historic interests. The archaeologist may be concerned about possible tree root disturbance or deep ploughing on buried sites. In other cases, wildlife and historic conservation can support each other, for example where grass-covered settlement remains develop a good diversity of species, or where old buildings or ruins


39

provide homes for owls or bats. Plans for enhanced public access to countryside areas need to be sensitive to possible damage from visitors. It is therefore essential at the earliest possible stage to

Identify in as much detail as possible what is there Establish its nature and extent Identify best management Consider impacts on other activities

Types of feature As has been stated, historic and archaeological features can date from any period, including the 20th century, and may be:

Visible on the ground (for example, old farm buildings; ruins; grass or heather-covered footings of buildings; standing stones; cairns or mounds; shielings; shooting butts; boat-houses; former trackways or railways; surviving dykes and field walls) The Small Isles are rich in these.

Visible from the air (for example, sites which show up only under favourable conditions as marks in crops, grass or bare soil) The Small Isles do not exhibit many of these as they tend to be more prominent where land is under arable cultivation, or closely cropped or mown grass; also, very little aerial photography has been possible in this area owing to the distance from refuelling airports and the presence of military airspace.

Buried sites (for example, structures buried beneath peat or alluvium, or underneath later buildings or features, which cannot been seen on the ground surface at all). Features which lie below the surface may not contribute to the modern landscape in the way that upstanding ones do, but they may be just as important to future understanding of the past. The Mesolithic middens on Rum (and no doubt on the other islands) are not visible on the surface, but may be of very great importance to research. However they are not suitable for visitor trails, and can mean sizeable unbudgeted for costs if encountered during developments.

Finds ( for example, stray finds of portable objects; scatters of pottery, stone implements, or metal-working debris) For these, there is a need to create a suitable storage and display venue. A proposal for a Museum of the Small Isles is presented below.

Patterns in the landscape (for example, field patterns; designed landscapes; shelter belts; former parks and policies of great houses; networks of paths and trackways) Landscapes can be studied archaeologically, by analysing the way in which features relate to each other. They provide evidence of past people and their relationship with the environment, as well as providing the context for individual sites and monuments. The Cleadale area on Eigg is of exceptional interest in this respect, and it has a ready-made viewpoint from the cliffs above. In this area it is possible to ‘read’ a whole series of past uses superimposed on each other.


40

Management The following approaches are suggested:

Buildings Much of the character and historic interest of the countryside, as well as the town, is in its buildings as much as in other features. Sometimes what appear to be relatively modern structures can conceal older ones within. There are no easy solutions to the conservation of old buildings - converting them to new uses is not always the answer. As with the deserted settlements, the issues may be complex. The approach set out in the Burra Charter 1999, previously mentioned, is recommended.

Sites in Cultivated land Here the main threats to buried archaeological features are from drainage, pan-busting, and cultivation which is likely to erode the features. Where they are taken out of cultivation, there is a danger from subsequent neglect. The best solution is probably to manage such features as permanent grassland, as far as possible in context with their surroundings rather than left as isolated islands in large areas under crop. Rather than ploughing right up to them a buffer zone should be left and groups of monuments or features taken together. Management areas should be linked to farm tracks or roads if possible for access purposes. Scrub growth will need to be prevented by periodic cutting or grazing. There may be opportunities to combine archaeological management with the enhancement of wildlife habitats, for example the development of species-rich grasslands.

Sites in permanent pasture

Where meadows and pastures have been in permanent grassland for many years or even centuries some archaeological features are likely to show as earthworks. There may also be stone walls or cairns and other remains. Beneficial management of these sites is by retaining them in permanent pasture under a sympathetic grazing regime. If there is a long established or traditional management pattern, for example where there are traditional common grazings, the best approach is often to leave things as they are. Otherwise there is a risk that the existing relatively stable conservation conditions will be disturbed. Winter grazing in the highlands can cause problems where sheep scrape and dig in to the side of earthworks or dykes to shelter from the cold. Similarly it is important to monitor and minimise poaching by cattle, especially around feeding bins, gates and posts (and standing stones!) Rabbits can be a major problem in these areas, and ongoing control is necessary. Long established meadows and pastures are also likely to have considerable wildlife interest, which can often be best served, like the archaeology, in retaining traditional management.

Sites in existing forestry or proposed tree-planting areas Where land has been forested since the 1950s or earlier, there is a strong possibility that it will contain unrecorded archaeological features of almost any type. These need to be identified and the areas for conservation marked. Survey within standing forest is difficult, and past surveys may be incomplete; but once trees have been harvested by modern mechanical methods it may be impossible to see any archaeological sites because of the mat of brashings that the harvesting machines lay down. Replanting usually takes place without removing this mat, which is allowed to rot naturally. It is therefore essential to identify any archaeological remains as far as possible before felling takes place, and to ensure contractors are aware of the interest and plan their extraction routes to avoid it. Modern harvesting methods can have advantages too: with a mechanical harvester it may be possible to reach into upstanding sites from outside and lift trees out bodily rather than have to fell by chainsaw over a bench of logs. Rum has suffered from the extensive use of forestry ploughing during planting there. This has damaged (although probably not destroyed) the archaeology, and makes walking in the


41

forested areas difficult. Where new planting is proposed it is absolutely essential to ensure that those responsible avoid archaeologically sensitive areas with all machinery and do not plough or cross them to reach other areas. Any forestry proposals, including those for natural regeneration and amenity woodland schemes need thorough checking at the outset, to make sure that any archaeology has been identified fully on the ground and arrangements made to ensure they are kept clear by (for example) periodic strimming. When considering trees on archaeological sites it is worth remembering that different species of tree behave very differently. Some are deep rooted, others shallow. Some are prone to wind-throw, in which case a large root-plate will be lifted, pulling up any archaeology beneath, and the tree may come down on vulnerable structures such as walls.

Sites under water

These include those in freshwater lochs as well as those in the intertidal areas and out at sea. Inland waters may contain the remains of boats, crannogs, articles thrown in at various times, or parts of nearby structures. Unless there are plans to disturb the area (for example by introducing fish-farming, water-skiing, powerboat races or the like) the best form of management is usually minimum intervention in what is probably a reasonably stable situation, but an attempt should be made if possible to determine whether erosion is taking place by scouring from natural currents, or from turbulence produced by passing boats. Without specialist staff and equipment it is difficult to assess and manage underwater archaeology, and advice should be sought. Shoreline and inter-tidal sites are particularly likely to suffer erosion. They can either be physically protected by means of caissons, dykes, or walls, or excavated before they are destroyed. If protection is decided upon care has to be taken to prevent this shifting the erosion problem to another place. Proposals to raise or lower the water levels of lochs or rivers, are likely to lead to the inundation of dry sites or the desiccation of wet ones. If the feature cannot be retained within (or outside) a waterproof bund it may need to be excavated before destruction.

Sites on mountains and moors

In these remote places it is often thought that there is no archaeology. Rum and Eigg demonstrate that this is not so. Shielings, deertraps, hillforts and duns, even hut circles can lie on the top of or high up on mountains and moors. They may be visible as low earthworks or be completely buried by peat formation. The most common threat to these sites in the highlands is from heather burning which can get down into the underlying peat and cause immense damage. Sometimes such fires can burn for months. Hillwalkers can also sometimes damage sites on hilltops by erecting modern cairns on top of them.

Sites in wetlands

The value of wetlands such as bogs and marshes lies in their ability to preserve organic remains in anaerobic conditions, and their potential for palaeo-environmental studies. Preferred management is to stabilise and maintain the water table, ensuring that this does not change its chemical or biological composition if water has to be brought in from elsewhere.

Sites to be promoted for tourism and public access

While tourism can bring benefits, both directly in economic terms and in presenting a good impression of archaeology and of a locality to a wide audience, it can also bring problems. Undesirable visitors can bring vandalism, theft, litter and other pollution, or damage through negligence. Too many visitors will cause erosion to sites. In Caithness in the summer of 1997 some tourists tipped out their barbecue in the heather and started a major fire in the peat, which affected several archaeological sites. At one time the numbers visiting archaeological sites and monuments were fairly small, and


42

visitors tended to be people with a specific interest in the site or in archaeology or history. Many more people are now able and willing to visit sites for a wider range of reasons. Conservation and interpretation therefore go together. It is important to consider what type of visitor is expected or desirable, as well as how many the site can be expected to cope with and how long they are expected to stay (its carrying capacity). There will be a need for facilities, which can sometimes be intrusive and destroy the setting and ambience of the monument itself. There is no simple prescription to deal with issues of visitor management; but some recommendations and specific proposals are set out later.

Issues for individual islands

Canna For the visitor, Canna’s strengths include some remarkable archaeology, such as its magnificent Cross, the souterrains; the stack and tower of An Corroghan. The café is another real asset. On the other hand, there is very little accommodation available on the island, especially for the shorter stay visitor. The Sheerwater does not visit, so all visitors arrive either by Caledonian MacBrayne’s Loch Nevis or by private yacht. With Canna’s excellent harbour, this last market could be developed further, but here above all there is a need for better communication links to the other islands. The association with the Lorne Campbells (and their archive) has potential to attract visitors, although this has not yet been developed. There is a sympathetic landlord in the National Trust, although without a resident factor it may appear rather remote to islanders. The policies of the National Trust for the island are apparently currently being developed so there may be an opportunity to influence them. The resident community on Canna is very small indeed, and it would certainly be more sustainable and benefit the islands as a whole if this could be addressed. More residents would allow for more facilities for islanders and visitors alike, as well as better links with the mainland and other islands.

Eigg Eigg’s key strengths include its community ownership, the Sgùrr, the carved stones at the Lodge, the church and adjoining areas at Kildonnan, the landscape at Cleadale (especially when seen from above – a unique view), the mystery of the ‘Pictish’ graves at Laig; Grulin and the caves. It has a larger community than the other islands including some recent arrivals full of dynamism and enthusiasm. It has a good pierhead café, the Old Post Office, and the best ferry links of the group. However, archaeology and visitors seem to be seen by some islanders as presenting potential problems rather than as having potential for future prosperity. Visitors mainly come in on the Loch Nevis and the Sheerwater, although some yachts visit. The availability of bed and breakfast, self-catering and bunkhouse accommodation improves the potential to attract longer-staying visitors. IEHT has good political potential, with sympathetic politicians and agencies; and it could lead the way with policies and strategies for other landowners – community, public or private. On the other hand, it would be wrong to pretend that the larger community, its nature and the community ownership itself are not without difficulties. Like many Highland communities, there is a potential danger that internal disagreements could make progress more difficult than it need be. As the island with the largest population and the highest public profile, it needs to be particularly sensitive to the concerns of the other islands in the group.


43

Muck Muck’s strengths include its size and accessibility: it can easily be visited and walked round; the settlement at a’ Chill is impressive as it the carved stone housed in the excellent café. The possible Viking house identified by the RCAHMS is intriguing if not proven, and deserves further research. The community is small but it is the most visitor friendly of the four islands and has fairly good ferry links to the mainland. The MacEwens offer a strong sense of leadership and commitment to the island, and continue a traditional economy based on farming. It is fairly easy to walk around, although sometimes this means climbing over fences! On the other hand, owing to its small size many archaeologically-minded visitors might wish to combine their visit to Muck with one to one or more of the other islands, and inter-island transport is poor. As in Eigg, most visitors seem to arrive by the Sheerwater or the Loch Nevis. Many only stay a very short time but gravitate to the café. There is an excellent bed and breakfast! The island would benefit from implementation projects to increase awareness of its archaeological assets and access to them. Some waymarked paths would be beneficial. Improved links with the other islands and Skye as well as the mainland would undoubtedly benefit visitors if not the islanders.

Rum Rum has some important archaeology, including the Mesolithic middens; the deer traps and shielings; the deserted settlements at Kilmory and Harris with the documented clearances; Kinloch Castle and its associated Edwardian story. However, despite being in the ownership of the public body responsible for countryside access, the old reputation of the island as the ‘Forbidden Isle’ has not entirely disappeared and there are very few facilities at all. This is an island for the dedicated, determined, and physically fit visitor, who needs to be warned what to expect! It is the largest island in the group, with some high mountains, and reaching (for example) Harris or Kilmory from Kinloch means a journey of 5 or more miles each way. There are few paths and the island roads are virtually impassable, even with a LandRover; forestry ploughing in the past has also made the plantation areas very difficult to walk in. The climate is wetter and cooler than that of the other islands, and deer ticks and midges are further drawbacks. There is no café (although one is planned) apart from the restaurant in the Castle, which despite the efforts of a dedicated staff is rather unsatisfactory and does not open to suit the ferry times. Islanders run a community shop which opens for a short period in the evenings. The Sheerwater and the Loch Nevis both serve Rum, and some visitors arrive by yacht and moor in Loch Scrizort. Virtually all islanders are dependent on SNH for their presence there, and have arrived within the last few years, so there is no settled long term resident community. However this issue is being addressed by the recent Plan for Kinloch, which identifies a number of possible house sites. These are in an area of potential archaeological interest and arrangements should be made to ensure that any archaeology present there is fully recorded as part of the development. It is hoped that current ongoing discussions about the future of Kinloch Castle will bear fruit. SNH manages the island as a nature reserve and it is essential that archaeology is fully incorporated into all future plans. The island has considerable potential and would benefit greatly from improved local trails, including way-marked routes to the shielings and deer-traps, and an improved path from Kinloch to Port na Caranean. The proposal in the Plan for Kinloch to re-roof and develop one of the ruined cottages on the south side of Loch Scrizort as a holiday bothy is innovative and potentially very worthwhile, but needs to ensure that authenticity is preserved as far as possible and that archaeological recording takes place as necessary. The nature of the Mesolithic middens is such that they cannot be seen by the visitor in the landscape.


44

The excavated finds from some of them are of great interest and it would be very beneficial to the island if some could be displayed there – either in the Castle or perhaps the proposed new café / visitor centre.

Sustainability Any projects to maximise the benefits from the rich archaeological resource of the islands must be sustainable. This is an essential consideration, not least because capital projects with finite timetables are often much easier to resource than ongoing revenue costs. For this reason it is proposed that all projects should be designed so as to require minimum maintenance; and so that – as far as possible - any maintenance necessary should be capable of being carried out by the islanders themselves. More specific recommendations for particular projects are made below. It is unrealistic to pretend that repairs and updating could be avoided or postponed indefinitely; and neglect offers a very poor visitor experience. There is therefore a need for ongoing monitoring and regular, periodic review, which needs to be allowed for from the outset. Links could perhaps be forged with the Highland Council’s Countryside Ranger Service; and if one or more islanders could be identified as having Ranger experience and skills this would no doubt have general benefits. A resident Ranger would for example develop an in-depth knowledge of the islands, their archaeology and natural history interests, and raise awareness of them, offering a programme of events such as guided walks and talks for visitors and locals (including schoolchildren), and offer assistance, advice and guidance to those planning their own walks and tours. It may be that such a role could be combined with the Project manager. Legislation and Policy Frameworks The historic and built environment This is protected principally by two separate pieces of legislation: the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (successor to the original Ancient Monuments Act of 1882); and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (successor to Planning legislation dating back mainly to 1949). The first of these defines Scheduled Monuments, which are monuments of ‘national importance’ designated by Historic Scotland and included in a schedule to the Act. Any works at all affecting these monuments are likely to require specific consent from the Scottish Ministers through Historic Scotland. As the older legislation, it takes precedence over the planning acts, but does not remove the need to comply with them. At present about 4% of recorded sites and monuments in Highland are scheduled. Ancient monuments are perceived as ruins, field monuments, or machinery. Roofed buildings in use are generally excluded from being scheduled, as are wrecks below the low water mark and portable artefacts, but there is some overlap with other designations. The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 covers all other land areas and sites. It also covers the designation of Conservation Areas and the Listing of buildings. Unlike the Ancient Monuments Acts, the local authority is mainly responsible for implementing this although some categories are called in by Historic Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Ministers. Local Authorities are required by the Act to draw up Development Plans for their areas which are usually divided into overall strategic Structure Plans and area Local Plans. These documents usually include archaeological policies, which are expected to reflect central government planning policies as set out in advisory and guidance notes for local authorities. For archaeology, there are Planning Policy Guidance Note 5 and Planning Advice Note 42: Planning and Archaeology (both 1994). These set out the principles that archaeology is a material consideration in deciding planning applications and


45

that preservation in situ should always be preferred where possible. Where sites or features cannot reasonably be preserved they must be recorded to professional standards at the applicant’s expense.

The maritime heritage The Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 currently protects 21 vessels in UK waters. There are none within the Small Isles area.

Portable artefacts (‘Treasure Trove’) Portable artefacts in Scotland are not covered by formal legislation. Instead they are included in the Royal Prerogative of bona vacantia, which is essentially a feudal right of the crown to anything without an alternative owner. In Scotland, landowners do not have ownership of finds made on their land, and failure to report a find for Treasure Trove to the local Procurator Fiscal is a criminal offence. The procedure is known as Scottish Treasure Trove and initially the right was largely exercised only in relation to precious metals; but since the mid 19th century it has increasingly been used to ensure the recording and retention of portable antiquities. This process was stimulated by the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, who succeeded in using it to gain many items for their museum in Edinburgh, now the National Museum of Scotland. In Victorian times, the power was exercised with some discretion, but it did mean that many important items were kept in Scotland rather than dispersed to museums around the world. Since the 1950s, there has been a great increase in the numbers of archaeological finds made, partly because of the growth of large-scale redevelopment and alongside it, professional archaeology. More material is also now recognised as having archaeological interest and so claimed by the crown. At the same time, there has been a considerable growth in the number of local museums able to care for artefacts to modern professional standards, a great growth in travel and tourism, and a growing demand around the world for artefacts removed in the days of the British Empire to be returned to the peoples from whom they were taken. When a find is reported, it is put before a panel of experts (The Treasure Trove Advisory Panel) who decide what should happen to it. This panel always includes the director of the National Museum of Scotland, and its secretariat is also provided by the National Museum. If it is of no archaeological value it is usually released to the finder. If it is of archaeological importance, it will then be offered to accredited museums (including the National Museum) who may bid for it. Where more than one museum wishes to take an item the Panel will decide the outcome. There is a general presumption that material from any given site should be kept together. Usually a discretionary reward is paid to those who report chance finds, but this does not apply to the products of archaeological fieldwork. In Scotland there has been an increasing awareness of the value that archaeological finds can have for local communities. This has led to controversial disputes such as those over the Hilton of Cadboll stone, the Shetland St Ninian’s Isle treasure, the Lewis chessmen, the Dupplin Cross and others.


46

Recommendations

Policies and procedures The following general policies are recommended for consideration by the Community Council, landowners and the islanders. They should neither be adopted wholesale nor rejected outright, but seen as the starting point for a vigorous debate from which the final policies will emerge. Although this is a report for the Small Isles Community Council, and is emphatically not proposed to replace, alter or interfere with any policies and strategies of landowners, public bodies or other organisations, it is important that all stakeholders should seek to agree on the broad objectives; and that these also fit within the wider policy framework. Unless action is taken to conserve archaeological resources they will not be there for communities to benefit from. There needs to be ongoing, active consultation with all parties on the Development Plan and review as necessary. There will then be a need for more debate among the islanders and the other stakeholders on the benefits and possible costs of archaeology within the Small Isles, and the development from that debate of a more detailed strategy. Specific recommendations for this are made in the relevant section below. 1. General principles

Policies should be based on the principles of the Burra Charter 1999 produced by Australia ICOMOS.

Archaeological and historical landscapes, buildings, features and artefacts can offer

individual, social and economic benefits

There is a need for further research and local people should be able to participate in and benefit from that directly.

The heritage should not be destroyed needlessly. Development should seek to minimise

damage to historic or archaeological places, features or finds as far as possible.

Not all archaeology is visible on the surface so care should be taken to establish whether hidden features or finds are present if planning to excavate.

Where damage to archaeological places, features or finds is unavoidable, as good a record as

possible should be made for the future, and portable items should be cared for and preferably put on display locally.

The community, landowners and public agencies all need to take their share of responsibility

for heritage conservation by promoting active critical debate about significance, issues and priorities, encouraging participation in decision-making, and documenting the reasons why particular decisions were made.

The Gaelic Language is a key element in the traditional culture and identity of the Small Isles.

It should be given as high a profile as possible, and advantage taken of the proximity of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig in Slèite to encourage the use of Gaelic. Although the number of native Gaelic speakers has declined over many years, there are now signs of a revival, with an increasing number of learners. The writer’s own experience at Sabhal Mòr Ostaig and elsewhere is that there is growing interest in the language in Europe (particularly Germany) as


47

well as in England, Ireland and the New World. Consideration should be given to providing interpretation in Gaelic both through guided tours and guidebooks. There is some experience to draw on: Gaelic events now form part of Highland Archaeology Week, while the Sand (Gairloch), Ord (Lairg) and Strathnaver Archaeology Trails are all available in Gaelic versions which seem to have been popular with learners.

Project development should be accompanied by an ongoing process of access audit and

audience development planning. Initial proposals for both of these have been produced as accompanying but separate reports

Attention is drawn to the charity Common Ground (www.commonground.org.uk), which has

considerable relevant experience and a particular approach which could be of value. In particular, it is suggested that their Rules for Local Distinctiveness might be adapted to provide principles to underpin the implementation projects.

Assess impacts of capital works

Each project identified as a result of the present exercise to be taken forward should include

an assessment of its likely impacts and possible risks. This does not mean that full Environmental Assessment procedures would be appropriate for small projects, but simply that such issues will be raised and briefly considered on a case-by-case basis in developing each project in detail.

Existing policy documents, such as the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust’s Sustainability Strategy,

should be reviewed in the light of the recommendations made here.

2. Buildings This includes any built structure, such as dykes, as well as houses, barns and other roofed buildings. Even apparently minor ones contribute to the overall scene, and may prove more interesting to people in future than they do to the present generation - so attention should not be confined to listed buildings alone. It would be advisable for at least basic photographs to be taken before alterations or demolitions take place. These need not be expensive or difficult to take (They could be good quality digital pictures), but should be clearly labelled – including if possible the approximate position of the photographer. If added to local archives they would quickly develop into an invaluable source of reference for the islands’ changing landscape.

3. Collections of artefacts and archives These can offer enormous benefits to people locally as well as visitors. A project to create a Museum / Archive of the Small Isles, with suitable premises on each island, is strongly recommended (see below). There are superb archaeological artefacts from the islands, including Mesolithic, Viking, and later items, which, if displayed locally, would certainly attract visitors. There are also significant documentary and photographic archives for each island which deserve to be made more accessible. Selections from the excellent collection of photographs assembled by the Eigg Historical Society could be made available on the web. The Eigg Historical Society’s decision to set up a crofting museum at Croft 6 Cleadale is another welcome initiative.

4. Landscapes Key historic landscapes, like that at Cleadale (Eigg) should be identified and special attention paid to developments that affect them. They can also be targeted for interpretation.


48

5. Buried archaeology The potential for buried archaeology to come to light during excavations is high in many parts of the islands. It should be assessed and appropriate approaches taken to identify its nature and extent before possible damage.

6. Intertidal archaeology There is a need for more research into intertidal sites and features. This could be the subject of a community-led project, perhaps linked to the national Shorewatch programme.

7. Underwater archaeology There is a need for more research into underwater sites and features, both offshore and in freshwater lochs and lochans. There could be opportunities here to link with existing nautical archaeology programmes and sub-aqua clubs.

8. Learning Opportunities should be sought to learn about and from the archaeology of the islands by a wide range of people, and at all levels. Research and training can go hand-in-hand giving the chance for islanders and others to discover how archaeology is done and why as well as what it discovers.

9. Volunteering Volunteering is an important means to benefit the heritage while offering the volunteer a chance to take an active part in its discovery, preservation, and interpretation. It should be a specific and defined part of the strategy.

10. Managing visitors There is a need to balance the need to offer a quality experience for different groups of visitors, with the sustainable use of archaeological resources and the maintenance of the islands’ landscapes and lifestyles. This should be based on an audience development planning approach but could mean targeting relatively small numbers of high value, low impact visitors rather than large numbers of relatively low value, high impact ones. However it is essential that this balance includes at least some basic facilities suitable for all visitors to make them feel welcome and wanted. The cafes on Canna, Eigg and Muck are excellent and a similar one is badly needed on Rum. There is also a need for at least some way-marked paths to key points. Despite the understandable fears expressed by some islanders consulted, these need not be intrusive in the landscape. More accommodation for visitors of different types and prices, and much better inter-island communications, are also needed. (An initial audience development plan is attached as an appendix.)

11. Commercial activities Commercial activities related to the archaeological heritage need to be sensitive to the issues discussed in this report, and the need to provide a high standard of customer care and service. This


49

means monitoring visitor feedback and involving the wider community in marketing strategies as far as possible.

12. Events Heritage events should be promoted – for example, for Highland Archaeology Week or Scottish Archaeology Month – but these need not exist in isolation. In fact, integration with other interests can be beneficial to all. As has been shown by Highland Archaeology Week, strong linkages can be made to the arts, music, crafts, nature conservation, schools activities, practical demonstrations and other events. In arranging any type of event on the islands, archaeology (in its broadest sense) may have a part to play.

13. Contractors

Contractors of any type undertaking work in the Small Isles should be made aware of the developing archaeology strategy and the issues involved, and feedback should be sought wherever possible.

14. Archaeology and Development There is a need to negotiate a balance between the need for new houses and facilities and the need to conserve archaeological evidence for the future. Local interests should liaise with the bodies responsible for heritage conservation to identify which locations have special values for each and negotiate agreed approaches for individual sites.

Landowners should take full responsibility for dealing with archaeological issues on their land:

Archaeology needs to be formally included in overall estate management planning -both the

potential for economic and social benefits, and the need to minimise impacts. For the Small Isles, there is now excellent baseline information available following the surveys by the RCAHMS. Specialist advice should be sought before considering possible development sites for sale or lease.

Landowners should ensure that any archaeological potential is identified, and as far as

possible any issues dealt with, before releasing potential sites for development. They are recommended to assist purchasers by paying for any archaeological work needed - at present, purchasers may be faced with unexpected, disproportionate costs where archaeological work is required for planning permission.

Public assistance in the form of grants to help with archaeological costs should be offered to

crofters and others wishing to move to the islands. This is in recognition of the problems of peripherality identified above. If recommendation 2 is agreed, this could also assist landowners.

The development of locally based expertise would reduce costs to all parties and develop a

high level of local knowledge that could benefit islanders, landowners, and the archaeology itself. This would require a project in itself to provide training and professional support.


50

Recommendations for each island

Canna Trails and facilities for Eigg are proposed below. Amenities could be improved for visiting yachtsmen. The resident community on Canna is very small indeed, and it would certainly be more sustainable and benefit the islands as a whole if this could be increased. More residents would allow for more facilities for islanders and visitors alike, as well as better links with the mainland and other islands.

Eigg Trails and facilities for Eigg are proposed below. Amenities could be improved for visiting yachtsmen.

Muck Trails and facilities for Muck are proposed below. Amenities could be improved for visiting yachtsmen. Improved links with the other islands and Skye as well as the mainland would undoubtedly benefit visitors if not the islanders. Facilities could be improved for visiting yachtsmen.

Rum Trails and facilities for Rum are proposed below. They do not include restoration of Kinloch Castle, as this is already the subject of a separate project, but the castle is of exceptional importance and is in serious need of major works. Amenities could be improved for visiting yachtsmen. Improved links with the other islands and Skye as well as the mainland would undoubtedly benefit visitors if not the islanders. Facilities could be improved for visiting yachtsmen. With the management focus on nature conservation, it is essential that archaeology is fully incorporated into all future plans. The island has considerable potential and would benefit greatly from improved local trails, including an improved path from Kinloch to Port na Caranean (see below). The proposal in the Plan for Kinloch to re-roof and develop one of the ruined cottages on the south side of Loch Scrizort as a holiday bothy is innovative and potentially very worthwhile, but needs to ensure that authenticity is preserved as far as possible and that archaeological recording takes place as necessary. There is a potential conflict between the proposed new housing at Kinloch Farm and the scheduled site of the partly-excavated Mesolithic settlement. Early discussion between the interested parties is strongly recommended. The excavated finds from some of the Mesolithic middens are of great interest and it would be very beneficial to the islands if some could be displayed locally in the proposed new café / visitor centre.


51

Specific recommendations This is a summary list of suggested actions. Some of them have been included in the project proposals below.

Create a local database of heritage features derived initially from RCAHMS and Highland Council SMR information, covering all four islands and tailored to the needs of the islands and integrated with archive and artefact catalogues.

Identify an organisation to take forward the development of a strategy and within it,

individual projects. Develop an ongoing, critical debate on the islands about archaeology, focussing on opportunities for benefits.

Create a resident post, independent of local interests, with responsibilities for developing

specific projects, arranging events, monitoring the condition of sites and features, obtaining feedback from local people and visitors, liaising with archaeological interests, and engaging islanders actively with their archaeology. It is essential that the traditional close links between people and places (tìr or dùthaich) are recognised and valued. Perhaps the postholder could develop a project for community recording of minor topographic names which bring the landscape alive. Also, many archaeologists themselves are becoming increasingly interested in values and stories attached to archaeological sites that would traditionally have been seen as ‘non-academic’. (See also (g) below). This postholder, if considered appropriate, might also be trained and supported to provide some basic archaeological services required for planning or land management purposes.

Identify sites for conservation and management, including those where grant aid might be

available to help maintain them (eg those subject to tree regeneration within areas of forestry); and those where integrated and complementary management could be undertaken that would also benefit nature conservation.

Interpret sites and landscapes – including developing local stories and themes with a wider

interest – the Small Isles offer a microcosm of highland archaeology. This could make them, in Michelin Guide terms, worth a special trip, and encourage economic benefits through sustainable tourism, including unobtrusive trails and other facilities to help visitors (and locals) explore the archaeology. For example,

o A guidebook / map / leaflet to the archaeology of the Small Isles as a whole, which will raise awareness of the archaeology to be seen and encourage people to visit other islands in the group. This could also warn would-be visitors of possible difficulties in following routes suggested!

o A review of travel arrangements between the islands, which are very poor at present o The creation of an Archaeology Heritage Trail, linking the islands and including a

network of paths to make sites easier to find. These would also have benefits to other walkers. Proposals for such a Trail are attached as Appendix 1.

o A GPS / PDA based self-guided interpretation system

Attract university research projects. These can raise awareness of the islands and their archaeology, bring in some money directly, and have potential for substantial spin-off effects. (This is a key way in which Orkney has built up community benefits from its archaeology).

Set up a devolved Museum of the Small Isles with premises in each island, but with shared

costs and responsibilities overseen by the Community Council and / or a Small Isles heritage Trust. This would provide an interpretation, curation and countryside ranger service for the four islands with assistance from the relevant public bodies, landowners and a friends organisation. Each island would identify one or more buildings where both the natural and cultural heritage, and their interactions, could be displayed and studied. The building could


52

consist of a single room, perhaps attached to an existing shop / café which could serve as library, archive, and museum. It would offer basic facilities for study, including internet access. It would also provide environmentally controlled conditions and security so that artefacts currently held in Edinburgh and elsewhere could be returned on temporary or permanent loan, and new discoveries could be retained and displayed locally. There would be a curator based on one of the islands, but able to travel to the others, and this post could perhaps be combined with the one mentioned above so as to offer walking tours to local sites as well as monitor their condition. The museum would we hope be supported by, or at least develop close links to, the Isle of Eigg Trust and its partner organisations including the Highland Council and the Scottish Wildlife Trust, SNH, the UHI (perhaps offering local study and research facilities), organisations representing the Hebridean diaspora, including Clan Donald, and the National Trust for Scotland (who already have an important archive and collection at Canna House).

Link the islands with supportive communities elsewhere, for example in the New World,

through the World Wide Web and other means. Open up opportunities for genealogy research.

Interpret and manage the very important and extensive historic landscapes of the islands while

enabling new development too, making use of the suggested approaches set out above.

Make use of Forestry Commission SFGS, SERAD RSS, Lochaber Enterprise and Highland Council grants for improving access to archaeological sites.

Give a high profile to the Gaelic language in interpretation.

The phase 3 project includes a proposal for developing a forward plan for sustainability.

The Plan as a whole should be given a limited life of 5 years, after which it should be

comprehensively reviewed.


53

Project Proposals The three phased proposals set out here are not intended as fully costed projects at this stage, but simply as ideas for discussion by the Community Council. Background maps are reproduced with the permission of the Ordnance Survey (Licence No 100043217) These proposals aim to provide economic, social and educational benefits for the islanders of the Small Isles of Canna, Eigg, Muck and Rùm through promotion of the islands’ archaeological and wider cultural heritage. They will also help protect this heritage for the benefit of future islanders, and initiate a process of continuing sustainability and growth. They link the four islands and promote them together to achieve a greater critical mass and enhanced benefits throughout. The cumulative outcomes will be:

A booklet and a map indicating the visitable sites and features of the four islands

Paths graded to three levels of difficulty

An indoor interpretation, research and visitor orientation facility on each island.

A community-led web site and online resource

Archaeology and heritage related activities and events

A pioneering digital information system hand-held GPS PDA devices

Feedback on the above is invited, which will be collated and forwarded to the Small Isles Community Council for its consideration.

Objectives The strategic objectives of the projects proposed here are 1: Provide sustainable benefits to present and future islanders on all four islands, including:

Economic benefits through income generation for providers of services to visitors Social benefits through enhanced local identity, especially for incomers to the islands, and

active engagement and dialogue with visitors and other supporters of the islanders around the world, who could bring new perspectives, ideas and opportunities.

Educational benefits both for children at the islands’ schools and within the wider local area, and for life-long learning.

2: Protect the archaeology and the wider heritage of the islands as far as possible for the benefit of future generations of islanders, through an increased awareness of its importance and benefits. 3: Initiate a process and an organisational structure that will continue to grow and enable future developments to take place.

Overall Budget and Timetable At this stage, it has not yet been possible to provide detailed costs or a timetable for the project, since


54

too many variables remain to be agreed. Once approval has been obtained from the Community Council, the next stage will be to obtain estimates for the various elements of the work. The intention is to manage the budget, once agreed and established, by means of regular monthly stakeholder meetings to which the project development officer will report. This report can only draw attention to possible sources of funding. It cannot guarantee that any of those listed will be able to contribute. Potential funding partners for the project include the HLF, (but see comments in element 6); the Museums Association; Historic Scotland, SNH; the National Trust for Scotland; and (subject to identifying partners) the EU. Funding might perhaps be attracted through the new Coastal and Marine National Park, to be established in 2006, if this area is chosen. Clearly it is to be hoped that the social and economic benefits to the islands – and to the wider hinterland - from increased numbers of high-spend, low impact visitors should be of interest to the Local Enterprise Company and Highland Council. It could make a superb contribution to the Inverness Highland Year of Culture. The following table is indicative only, and subject to funding and stakeholder agreement.

Description of Work Start and End Dates Anticipated Costs

Phase One

Appointment of Project Development Officer; develop detailed proposals, budgets and timetables for phases two and three. Includes two months (Full time equivalent) of Project Officer’s costs.

Spring Summer 2006

This phase is likely to take a maximum of 3 months FTE and should be achievable within a budget of £7,000 to include salary, materials, travel, office and other costs.

Phase Two

Implementation of trails, leaflet / booklet and website

Summer – December 2006

Costs are dependent on Community Council decisions - to be confirmed by Phase 1

Phase Three

Implementation of heritage centres / archives; and of GPS interpretation

January 2007 onwards

Costs are dependent on Community Council decisions - to be confirmed by Phase 1

Phase / project 1: Setting up, audits, and web-site This establishes the programme and ensures that adequate foundations are in place for success and sustainability. Objectives and outcomes 1.1. Set up an initial organisational structure and appoint a Development Officer.


55

This should include the establishment of a charitable Small Isles Heritage Trust which could receive donations. 1.2. Set up a computerised Small Isles heritage record Preferably as a GIS with linked databases, accessible from each island. 1.3 Set up a website The recommendation is to set up a community-led web site at this stage which can be readily adapted and added to locally with minimal further specialist input.

Many of the interpretative, archive and other resources to be developed in phases 2 and 3 can then be easily made accessible online.

This will immediately help to publicise the project and help ensure registration of a chosen domain name.

The site will be regularly updated with the latest news on progress and provide an opportunity for online donations.

A good example of one system that might be worth investigating further can be seen in the successful Old Home Town system developed by Plexus Media, which enables the widest participation and creates an individual, growing online resource for the community (see http://www.theoldhometown.com/ ).

1.4 Gather baseline information Information is needed on audiences, issues, funding opportunities through consultation, direct research and survey, liaison with other groups. This process could include archaeology and accessibility surveys by local volunteers. 1.5 Review project designs and priorities for phases 2 and 3 It may be desirable to amend these in the light of new information from 1.4. 1.5 Cost and submit revised and agreed Phase 2 and 3 projects for funding Procedures The intention is to set up a locally based heritage development officer who will work with the Community Council to implement the trail. This post must be independent of any of the major interests., and will

create a local job, even if temporarily maintain momentum throughout the project provide a starting point for ongoing, sustainable structures to manage the trail and develop

further initiatives in future. Such structures might include a Small Isles Heritage Trust with Charitable status if the Community Council felt this worthwhile.

It is envisaged that this project will be set up and managed by the Small Isles Community Council. Project development will be subject to a timetable to be agreed by any funding partners, with regular (perhaps monthly) review meetings to which the development officer would report. Copies of this report, and minutes of the meetings, will be circulated to an agreed list of stakeholders. The actual work of the development officer will be to set up and manage all three phased projects, for example (this is not a definitive list):


56

Phase 1: o The Officer will produce and agree a work programme with the steering group and

funding partners to implement this project. o Liaise with the Highland Council’s Countryside Ranger Service, and the museums

and heritage centres in Mallaig, Arisaig, Fort William, Inverness and the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh

o Liaise with the four landowners: The National Trust for Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, The Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust, and the MacEwen family; as well as other stakeholders such as the Scottish Wildlife Trust.

o If considered appropriate, develop separate, linked projects to create new landmarks within the islands that could assist people with orientating themselves. (The Eigg standing stone commemorating the community buy-out illustrates the idea).

o Liaise with natural history interests to ensure that they are fully represented within the three phases and that conservation of local species and habitats is not compromised.

o Develop the organisation and management structures to ensure project sustainability in the future. It is essential that projections are not based on crude and potentially misleading assessments of likely visitor numbers but on

o Identify potential revenue streams and the costs these will have to support. o Identify and maximise in-kind or other non-financial support from public bodies,

museums, charities and others sources.

Phase 2: o The Officer will produce and agree a work programme with the steering group and

funding partners to implement this project. o Agree the routes and other details of the proposed paths with all interested parties,

and cost the path-works and other implementation (eg signage) required. o Arrange the production of a booklet and trail leaflet (including a web version) guiding

visitors to the four islands. o Identify, minimise and as far as possible capitalise future revenue costs by

implementing approaches that require little or no maintenance (for example, carving way-marker arrows into natural boulders).

Phase 3:

o The Officer will produce and agree a work programme with the steering group and funding partners to implement this project.

o Identify a location for a museum / archive centre on each island and obtain necessary agreements.

o Implement the GPS interpretation project Timetable Spring 2006, subject to funding: 3 months’ work Budget Costs will need to be worked out in detail but perhaps £7000 to include 3 months salary for project officer and ancillary costs People Project Officer Part-time professional advice and support as needed (fees for time spent) Volunteers Possibly students to assist with surveys Sustainability / Maintenance:


57

This is a fixed term project to lay the foundations for Phases 2 and 3. However it will produce some enduring products: the website; the heritage database; and the audience, access and other surveys. These will be of use to the Community Council whether or not the second and third phases receive funding. Responsibilities The Project Officer will report direct to the Community Council, who may wish to consider setting up a steering group specifically for this project. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring will be by means of regular reports to the steering group and the funding agencies; progress reports will be by local newsletters produced monthly, posted on local notice-boards on each island and on the website, and also sent to the press. The project will end with a public meeting to evaluate the outcome, followed by a final report and newsletter from the project officer to the Community Council and funders. Endorsements This project arises from the Small Isles Archaeology Development Plan which was endorsed by the Community Council, local organisations, islanders, landowners and relevant national agencies. Next steps The intention is to proceed directly to Phase 2.

Phase / project 2: Trails and Events Objectives and outcomes 2.1. Implement a Small Isles Archaeology Trail. This will achieve the strategic objectives above by providing four levels of access, designed for (1) those with a good level of experience and physical fitness, who wish to discover the islands by themselves with no guidance on the ground, but who would like reasonably detailed information on sites and features they find; (2) walkers with some experience who prefer simple, unobtrusive natural paths that include stiles, gates and footbridges and occasional way-markers where advisable, but may be rough, steep and require several hours to complete; (3) average visitors with less time to spare, who will look for more structured, shorter routes; and (4) all-ability trails for those with poor health, moderate disabilities, or very limited time available. For those intending to follow the paths, a simple leaflet, again for the four islands and covering the defined paths 2,3 and 4, and indicating their levels of difficulty, will be produced and made available on each island and also on the ferries. Initial recommendations for possible elements are as follows:


58

Trail Grade Self-guided (Non-waymarked) trails

One is proposed to cover all four islands, consisting only of an annotated booklet and map (this forms the basis of the GPS/PDA based interpretation proposed in Phase 3). No construction would be made in the landscape at all. This level is suitable only for the experienced who are able to locate and explore archaeological sites and features with minimal assistance. It covers the remoter shielings and settlements that can provide the visitor with a real sense of personal discovery. This level would be most suitable for GPS implementation.

A (Red) Rough, natural trails, with minimal pathwork, signage or other infrastructure to keep intrusion in the landscape to a minimum – we suggest (for example) a simple arrow carved on an existing rock or natural boulder. Suitable for experienced walkers and / or those with archaeological experience. These trails require good boots and a good level of physical fitness, and are recommended for those with a day or more available in the island.

B (Orange) Moderate trails, which require reasonable preparation by users - walking boots and suitable clothing are recommended. This level will attract more users, and implies a recognisable path in the landscape, with some simple, non-intrusive way-marking as well as gates, stiles and footbridges to facilitate walking and minimise the danger of damage to fences and ditches as necessary. The opportunity could perhaps be taken to create non-intrusive sculptures or simple artistic objects in the landscape that can act as way-marks and add interest and attraction.

C (Green) All-ability, shorter routes to important sites that (on completion) could be undertaken by the disabled or those with little time available. These avoid steep gradients and have clear finger posts or similar way-markers; and a good path, possibly to wheelchair standard, are recommended where the trail does not follow existing metalled road. As above, the opportunity could perhaps be taken to create non-intrusive sculptures or simple artistic objects in the landscape that would add interest and attraction.

Canna Canna 1 An Coroghon [C] This runs only to the foot of the castle rock. Exceptionally, some form of

on-site information should be provided here, and visitors should be discouraged from trying to climb up to the castle itself.

Canna 2 A'Chill [C] This includes the Canna Cross which is exceptionally fine and should be accessible to all visitors

Canna 3 “King of Norway’ Grave” and Souterrains [A]. The souterrains are rare and of great interest with two constructed above each other.

Canna would benefit considerably from a more frequent ferry service and more accommodation on the island for visitors.


59

Figure 12 Proposed trails - Canna

Eigg Eigg 1 Kildonnan [C] Mostly on metalled roads, but consideration should be given to

creating a path along the bay from Galmisdale. The church, graveyard, mill and nearby sites should be on every visitor’s itinerary.

Eigg 2 Grulin [B] Eigg 2a Massacre Cave [B] – extension of [2]. This is currently hard to find and steep at the

cliff. Eigg 3 Cleadale [A] – along the top of the cliffs to view the extensive historic landscape Eigg 3a North Circuit [A] – extension of [3]. A rough but rewarding tour, including shielings and other features not normally visted. Eigg 4 An Sgurr [A] – to the hillfort, the crannog, and the view of the Small Isles and the surrounding area

Eigg has some existing well-thought-out trail guides which contain good and detailed information. However not all routes are easy for the uninitiated to follow, and there is a need for better guidance on the ground.


60

Figure 13 Proposed Trails – Eigg

Muck Muck 1 A'Chille [C] Muck 2 Fort [B] Muck 3 Viking house [B] – a short walk across the hill is required to reach this possible

Viking House. Muck 3a Aird nan Uan [A] – this is mostly along the public road but the last section heads up

onto the headland which can be windy and exposed. The destination is the burial cairn of the MacEwens which is an atmospheric and interesting spot as well as being (apparently) an adaptation of an older cairn.

Muck offers the easiest walking of the four islands, and its size makes more manageable in a short visit. Visitors are encouraged to explore for themselves. There is a need to improve some stiles, and


61

more could be made of the easy walk up to A’ Chille where there are clear remains to be seen of the former settlement there.

Figure 14 Proposed Trails on Muck

Rùm

Rum 1 Kinloch Castle [C] – along the metalled road Rum 2 Port na Caranean [B] – this existing path requires significant upgrading Rum 2a Bagh na Uamh [A] – extension to 2 Rum 3 Kilmory [A] – a long, rough walk of about 5 miles from Kinloch, with no shelter.

The graveyard and the laundry are both of interest and should be included. Rum 4 Harris [A] – a longer and rougher walk even than 3, leading to the mausoleum and

deserted settlement.

Rum is generally suitable only for the experienced walker and the visitor with longer to spend. Most visitors are likely to be in the self-guiding group. If the roads, which are in very poor condition, were to receive even minimal maintenance, opportunities might open up to offer mountain bike and / or pony trekking tours to Kilmory and Harris. There is a need for more (and more varied) accommodation and visitor facilities on the island.


62

Figure 15 Proposed Trails on Rùm 2.2. Enhance the website to include the results of 2.1 2.2 Develop a programme of events and activities (e.g. Small Isles Archaeology Week, Community dig, etc)


63

Procedures The Project Officer will produce and agree a work programme with the steering group and funding partners to implement this project Timetable Starting Summer 2006, subject to funding: 6 months’ work. The events programme could extend into 2007 subject to approval of funders. Budget Costs will need to be worked out in detail to include path-works, printing and design and other items People Project Officer Part-time professional advice and support as needed (fees for time spent) Volunteers Possibly specialist help with path creation, interpretation, design, web design Sustainability / Maintenance This is a fixed term project to implement the paths, booklet, leaflet and set up a programme of activities and events. As far as possible all these will be designed to minimise maintenance and ongoing costs, e.g. by storing digital copies of leaflets that can be printed on demand locally or made available online; by avoiding structures such as panels in the landscape and use of local stone for markers. Responsibilities The Project Officer will oversee any contractors employed on design, path creation or other works, and report direct to the Community Council, who may wish to consider continuing the steering group set up for the Phase 1 project. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring will be by means of regular reports to the steering group and the funding agencies; progress reports will be by local newsletters produced monthly, posted on local noticeboards on each island and on the website, and also sent to the press. The project will end with a public meeting to evaluate the outcome, followed by a final report and newsletter from the project officer to the Community Council and funders. Endorsements This project arises from the Small Isles Archaeology Development Plan which was endorsed by the Community Council, local organisations, islanders, landowners and relevant national agencies. Next steps The intention is to proceed directly to Phase 3.


64

Phase /project 3 Objectives and outcomes 3.1 Implement a Small Isles Archive / Museum. The intention is to create a decentralised archive / museum for the Small Isles that would have a premises on each island, but share resources and a curator / manager:

An indoor interpretation, research and visitor orientation facility will be set up on each island. It is suggested that these should be attached to the existing island cafés and the proposed new café on Rùm, as these locations naturally provide a focus for visitors, are already staffed and readily accessible.

Each one will contain exhibition spaces constructed to Museums Association standards which

will allow the local display of material currently held either in Edinburgh, London, or other museums, or currently in local but less than satisfactory conditions.

Each will also include archives and networked computer facilities with internet access to

enable researchers to work locally on genealogy or topography. Simple videoconferencing will be available enabling direct communication between the islands.

The intention is that the four facilities should be managed together to build critical mass and

sustainability. Links could perhaps be forged with museums locally, regionally, and nationally to facilitate temporary exhibitions, accessing specialist expertise, and publicise the Small Isles to a wider potential market.

3.2 Implement a GPS based interpretation system. A pioneering digital information system is proposed, using the latest GPS technology. Users could hire hand-held devices in a similar way to many existing audio tours; but these would enable them to locate themselves on a map, find sites, learn about them, and navigate as required around the islands. This will be an adaptable and updatable multi-media interpretation system, with minimal maintenance costs and virtually no intrusion in the landscape.

Each visitor will be offered the hire of a hand-held GPS-enabled PDA device, on which is stored detailed maps of the 4 islands and information on sites, features and points of interest. Visitors will be able to collect these from the café centres on each island on payment of a deposit or credit card details, and deliver them back to any of the other islands. The devices will be updatable from desk-based PCs, which in turn will be linked so all can be synchronised with each other. It may also be possible to track the GPS units centrally for security and safety, but this has not been confirmed. Alternatively, increasing numbers of visitors may arrive with devices of their own.

Locational accuracy at the moment for EGNOS enabled units is typically 3-5m, which is

considered adequate for the purpose, and with the development of the new EU Galileo satellite system over the next five years, accuracy will dramatically increase. Most units can be fitted with data cards holding 1Gb of information.

Information provided can be of any kind the Community Council wishes, including multiple

versions in different languages and / or for different audiences, as script, images, audio or video. Content could include natural or social history material including for example local people telling traditional stories about particular sites, traditional music. The core of the presentation will consist of maps of the islands centred on the user’s current location, with clickable links to information about nearby locations.


65

This element should be very suitable for use in a Highland and Island context; and could become a model for others to follow. A number of current initiatives are now using PDA technology, for example the downloadable Edinburgh City Guides (http://orbitz.wcities.com/en/mobile/4/mobile.html ), or the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park mopark project (http://www.lochlomond-trossachs.org/park/default.asp?p=32 ); but as yet this would we believe be the first in Scotland to integrate a GPS capability. Therefore, until it has been become more widespread, the demonstration of this technology will become a destination in itself for those interested in it. One spin-off might be the development of local high-tech expertise and the sale of similar products to other communities and organisations.

3.3 Enhance the website to include the products of 3.1 and 3.2 3.4 Produce a forward plan to ensure sustainability This will be based on experience gained to date. Procedures The Project Officer will produce and agree a work programme with the steering group and funding partners to implement this project Timetable Starting early 2007, subject to funding. GPS system could be set up within a 6 month project; the archive / museum initiative will require approvals, agreements and building work. Budget Costs will need to be worked out in detail as part of the Phase 1 project. The costs of these elements will depend very much on what the Community Council wishes to do. As the project is scheduled for 2007, it might be considered suitable for Inverness Highland 2007 funding. Since the HLF has indicated that new build heritage centres may no longer be eligible for their funding, discussion about 3.1 with potential funding partners will be needed. For 3.2, costs include the purchase of the hand-held units and possibly the (standard spec) desktop computers if necessary. As an indication, at the time of writing, apparently suitable complete hand-held units are retailing on the internet for £200 each (for example, the RoyalTek Empus RTW1000), but this is rapidly developing technology - prices are dropping, and specifications are increasing all the time. Software will also need to be written or adapted from standard packages; but since this is not technically complex or difficult it should not prove particularly expensive. People Project Officer Part-time professional and specialist advice and support as needed (fees for time spent) Volunteers Building contractors, architects etc Sustainability / Maintenance As far as possible any buildings and the GPS interpretation system will be designed to minimise maintenance and ongoing costs, e.g. by use of eco-building techniques and by storing digital information which can be readily downloaded to the hand-held devices and updated as needed. Hire charges for portable devices will need to cover replacement over an agreed timescale, and any additional costs identified. However, GPS PDA devices are becoming cheaper and more robust, and also more widely available; increasingly it may be possible to provide content to visitors’ own devices


66

rather than having to hire them out. There is also a potential income stream from selling the technology to other similar projects elsewhere – provided that this project is completed within a timescale that means it is still innovative. Responsibilities The Project Officer will oversee any contractors employed on design, path creation or other works, and report direct to the Community Council, who may wish to consider continuing the steering group set up for the Phase 1 project. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring will be by means of regular reports to the steering group and the funding agencies; progress reports will be by local newsletters produced monthly, posted on local noticeboards on each island and on the website, and also sent to the press. The project will end with a public meeting to evaluate the outcome, followed by a final report and newsletter from the project officer to the Community Council and funders. Endorsements This project arises from the Small Isles Archaeology Development Plan which was endorsed by the Community Council, local organisations, islanders, landowners and relevant national agencies. Next steps At this stage a major review should be held of the project as a whole, perhaps including one or more public meetings, a user survey and consultations with stakeholders. This should be used to produce a final project report with recommendations for any follow up work. Summary and Conclusions 1. There is an important archaeological resource on the Small Isles with potential social and economic benefits for the islanders 2. This resource has been thoroughly surveyed by the RCAHMS, providing excellent baseline information for study, protection and promotion. 3. There is a need to improve arrangements for protection or recording of sites affected by new developments on the islands. At present archaeological costs to islanders are disproportionate to the value of the developments. This is a wider policy issue that affects the highlands and islands in general. 4. There are opportunities to improve access to, and awareness and understanding of, the archaeology of the islands for a variety of audiences. Specific proposals are submitted for the consideration of stakeholders and the Small Isles Community Council. 5. If the islanders and other stakeholders so wish, the intention will be to prioritise, research indicative costs and timetables, and then submit applications for agreed projects to appropriate funding agencies.


67

Notes and References Anon ` n.d. Isle of Eigg Walking Maps:

Cleadale, Grulin, Cleadale (Isle of Eigg Craft Shop) Anon ` n.d. Isle of Muck Walking Map Armit I 1996 The Archaeology of Skye and the Western Isles

(Edinburgh UP)

Australia ICOMOS 2000 The Burra Charter:

The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 1999 (Australia ICOMOS)

Berry. A.Q. and Brown, I.W. (eds), 1994, Erosion on Archaeological Earthworks: Its Prevention, Control and Repair,

Clwyd County Council Berry. A.Q and Brown, I.W.(eds), 1995, Managing Ancient Monuments: An Integrated Approach, Clwyd County Council Betjeman, J 1959 Rhum and Kinloch Castle

(Scotland’s Magazine, Dec 1959)

Birch, S A 2001 Raonapoll Lithic Scatter site, (typescript at SNH Office, Rum, dated Dec 2001)

‘Am Bodach Creannach’ n.d. From the Craft Shop to the Pier Brisbane M and Wood J 1996 A Future for our Past? An Introduction to

Heritage Studies (English Heritage) Cameron A 2004 Bare Feet and Tackety Boots: A Boyhood on

the Island of Rum (Luath Press) Campbell, J L 2002 Canna: The Story of a Hebridean Island

(4th edition, ed Hugh Cheape: Birlinn)

Collins V 2005 Revealed: plan for a national marine park (The Herald, 16 June 2005)

Darvill, T, 1987, Ancient Monuments in the Countryside

English Heritage Dickinson, S 1998 Women and Children First? Shielings and

Deer-Traps on Rùm (Draft, in typescript, at SNH Office Rum, dated 16/9/1998)

Dodgshon R 2002 The Age of the Clans

(Birlinn / Historic Scotland) Dressler C 1998 Eigg: The Story of an Island (Polygon)


68

Gifford J 1992 Highland and Islands, The Buildings of Scotland

series, London Goodenough K and Bradwell T 2004 Rum and the Small Isles: A Landscape

fashioned by Geology (SNH) Hedderwick M 1989 An Eye on the Hebrides (Canongate 1989) Hudson J and Allwright A 2003 The Geology of Eigg

(Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust) Hughes, M. and Rowley, L. (eds), 1986, The Management and Presentation of Field Monuments ,

Oxford University Dept. for External Studies

Hume, J R 1977 The Industrial Archaeology of Scotland (2), the Highlands and Islands, London

Johnson S and Boswell J 1775 A Journey to the Western Isles of Scotland

and The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides Love J A 2001 Rum: A Landscape without Figures (Birlinn) MacInnes, L, and Wickham-Jones, C, 1992, All Natural Things: Archaeology and the Green Debate, Oxbow Monograph 21 Magnusson M 1997 Rùm: Nature’s Island (Luath Press) Martin M 1716 A Description of the Western Islands of Scotland (London 1716) (reprint) MacEwen L 2005 The Isle of Muck: A Short Guide Martin M c.1695 A Description of the Western Islands of Scotland Martin P 2005 Lochaber: A Historical Guide (Birlinn) Miller H 1858 The Cruise of the Betsy and Rambles of a

Geologist (National Museums of Scotland Facsimile Edition, ed M A Taylor, n.d.)

Monro D c.1549 A Description of the Occidental, i.e. Western Isles of Scotland Munby J 2000 Isle of Muck, Small Isles Parish:

An Archaeological Survey of the Historic Landscape (unpub report, at Guest House, Port Mòr, Muck)

National Trust for Scotland 2004 St Kilda World Heritage Site: and Scottish Executive A Comparative Analysis of the Cultural

Landscape

Ordnance Survey Rum, Eigg and Muck (1:50,000 Landranger map 39)


69

Ordnance Survey Rùm, Eigg, Muck, Canna and Sanday

(1:25000 Explorer Map 397) RCAHMS and Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust 2003 Eigg: The Archaeology of a Hebridean

Landscape (RCAHMS Broadsheet 12) RCAHMS and NTS 1999 Canna: The Archaeology of a Hebridean

Landscape (RCAHMS Broadsheet 5) Rixson D 2001 The Small Isles: Canna, Rum, Eigg and Muck (Birlinn) Ritchie G and Harman M 1990 Exploring Scotland’s Heritage:

Argyll and the Western Isles (RCAHMS) Ross D 2001 Scottish Place-names (Birlinn) Simpson and Brown 2004 An Indicative Planning Framework: the Plan for Architects Kinloch, Isle of Rùm

(report dated October 2004, at SNH Office, Rum)

Statistical Accounts for Scotland (checked online at http://stat-acc-scot.edina.ac.uk/stat-acc-scot)

Wade Martins S 2004 Eigg – an Island Landscape

(PMW Heritage Management Ltd) Watson W J 1926 The Celtic Placenames of Scotland

(Facsimile edition, Birlinn 2004)

Wickham-Jones, C 1990 Rhum, Mesolithic and Later Sites at Kinloch: Excavations 1984-6 (Edinburgh, Soc Ant Scot Monograph Series 7)

Williamson, K 1961 Rhum and Kinloch Castle (Scotland’s Magazine September and December 1961)

The Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland DVD 2004 The Isle of Eigg - A Jewel in the Hebridean

Crown: A Walk around the Island (A C Shears; narrated by Phyllida Law)


70

Appendix 1: Access Audit

Executive summary This rapid audit considers the legislation and current disabled access to the islands’ archaeology and makes recommendations for improvements within the Development Plan and the proposed projects. The key conclusion is that the needs of the disabled should be considered, monitored, and met as far as is reasonable throughout the life of the Development Plan.

Background: Why is an Access Audit needed? An Access Audit is needed to ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Acts; because it is expected by some potential funding bodies; and to help in taking forward projects that take into account the possible needs of all users. It should therefore be useful to everyone who wishes to see the creation of facilities that area safe, convenient and enjoyable for use by everyone. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and 2005 (DDA), the revision of Part M of the Building Regulations and the British Standard, BS 8300:2001, are all contributing to growing interest in the accessibility of the built environment. Access audits are now identified in the Code of Practice for Part 3 of the DDA as the best tool for the planned improvement of services and premises. The DDA was extended to Scotland by the Scottish Executive under a Sewell Motion in November 2004. This document is intended to provide an interim DDA access audit report that recognises the Act’s requirements and demonstrates an intention to take action to implement improvements within project finances. It does not claim to be comprehensive, but offers a starting point for developing an access strategy, noting some immediate issues for consideration in designing and developing projects. Consideration for the needs of disabled people needs to be designed into projects at the outset, then subject to continual monitoring, reflection, and review as circumstances change; and it implies building a longer-term relationship with the users. The DDA defines disability as “a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial or long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities.” To affect day-to-day activities an effect must be in one of the following broad categories: mobility, manual dexterity, physical co-ordination, continence, lifting, carrying or moving objects, speech, hearing or eyesight, memory, concentration, learning or understanding, or recognition of physical danger. Inclusion Scotland’s Manifesto for Inclusion states that 16% of the UK population of working age is disabled. The Act applies to the ‘built environment’ and to virtually everyone who provides any service at all to the public – a ‘Service Provider’. It is unlawful to

Discriminate (without justifiable reason) against a disabled person by refusing to provide a service normally provided to the able-bodied.

Provide a service to a lower standard or in a worse manner or on worse terms. Fail to make reasonable adjustments.

This means that all Service Providers must ensure that access into and around any premises is adapted to suit the needs of the disabled. This may include ramps or rails, signage, provision for hearing devices, lighting, counter heights, stairs and lifts, alarms, WCs, doors and surfaces. Compliance is the responsibility of the Service Provider, who may be the tenant rather than the owner of a building, but


71

it is good practice for anyone with an interest to take any steps necessary. Although much of the present proposed development deals with open countryside, the principles of the Act should be followed throughout as far as practicable.

The Access Audit Note that this is simply an initial assessment and that there is a need for more detailed consultation with, and participation by all interested parties.

The current situation (SWOT analysis - Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Strengths

Ferries are suitable for people with a wide range of disabilities The cafés on Eigg, Muck and Canna and the proposed café on Rùm should all be accessible

to those with mobility difficulties, although the cafes on Muck and Canna may require improvements to toilets to make these wheelchair accessible.

Weaknesses

There are no all ability trails at present to enable those with mobility difficulties to access any of the archaeological sites or monuments

Accessing most of the archaeology requires a good level of physical fitness and preparedness (but this is normal in the Highlands). Some areas, eg high cliffs, are a safety risk even for these users.

Archaeological sites by their very nature can be uneven, with concealed drops, pits and tripping hazards. These can present particular problems for those with mobility or visual impairment.

There is no provision for interpretation for those with aural or visual impairment There are no interpretative materials available for those with mental impairments or learning

difficulties There is only one GP on the islands, based in Eigg, in case of emergencies, and (apparently)

few facilities for the disabled Opportunities

The current projects provide opportunities to address the weaknesses identified

Threats Lack of funding support could jeopardise improvements Resistance by islanders to the adjustments needed in the landscape could prove a threat


72

Recommendations for Access The following is not an exhaustive list.

1. The Community Council is recommended to produce a strategic plan for its provision of disabled access across all its work that includes the archaeology and heritage.

2. Contact should be made at an early stage with one of the organisations working in the field of disabled access ( for example, Inclusion Scotland, or the British Council of Disabled People (BCODP), which are both run by disabled people), to obtain expert advice and a more comprehensive assessment than can be offered here.

3. The creation of archive / museum centres, preferably at the café sites, could enable visitors with disabilities to access the portable artefacts and archive material, enable all visitors to orientate themselves before visiting sites and / or answer questions raised during their visits, provide a location for special facilities, and a range of interpretative materials for different groups and needs.

4. At least one all-abilities trail should be set up on each island. (See Project 1). However this does not mean that intrusive interpretation such as panels need be erected in the countryside.

5. It has to be accepted that even if major paths were to be created all over the four islands, much of the archaeology will in practice remain beyond the physical reach of those with mobility or visual difficulties.

6. Those unable or unwilling to visit the islands physically in person could be enabled to take a virtual tour, and download information and resources, over the web.

7. Consideration should be given to either enhancing the mobile phone coverage, or providing visitors with short-wave radio sets, to summon help if need be when away from population centres ( i.e. in much of the islands, and especially on Rùm).

8. Visitor information and advice for those with disabilities (and any carers) should be made available on the web and at the visitor centres at each café.

9. Feedback on and from visitors with disabilities should be sought through the audience development process (see separate report)

10. The Open Spaces and Information sections of Inclusion Scotland’s Manifesto for Inclusion (2005) were produced by disabled people and are commended to the Community Council. They are attached as Appendix 1.

11. The Fieldfare Trust’s path standards are attached as Appendix 2

References: web sites Disability Rights Commission http://www.drc-gb.org Fieldfare Trust www.fieldfare.org.uk This site includes details of some all-ability trails set up in the highlands by the Forestry Commission. See also below. Inclusion Scotland www.inclusionscotland.org


73

Reference notes: Manifesto for Inclusion (Extract from Inclusion Scotland’s Manifesto for Inclusion, Feb 2005, pp 27-29.

Open Spaces Many studies on health and well-being have indicated that physical, mental and spiritual health is greatly improved by exercise, particularly in Open Spaces. Accessible outdoor spaces are places people can use and enjoy, regardless of background, age or economic status. Inclusive access to high quality public spaces is therefore a cornerstone of democracy and social equity. Inclusive access is at the forefront of good planning and design today and is central to government priorities in Scotland to improve people’s quality of life. Access for everyone to the Scottish countryside would greatly be enhanced if path providers and landowners recognised the needs of mobility and sensory impaired persons by looking at the following:

Barrier Free or self closing gates for stock control Surfaces – firm, stable and slip-resistant Width, camber and gradient for wheelchair users Reliable, up-to-date information should extend to parking, public toilets, public transport

accessibility and local ranger/landowner details

We call for: Inclusive access for all to all public spaces Implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and Land Reform Act (Countryside Access Code) for access requirements by service providers,

land managers and land owners An Access Officer in every area Improved access and signage to all public open spaces & parks Improved information on public open spaces & parks

“Social, cultural and governmental drivers call for greater engagement with all areas of the wider community in the delivery and enjoyment of public services. Inherent within this are National Parks which were arguably themselves established as part of the vanguard of social change.” Sean Prendergast, Head of Access & Recreation, Peak District National Park “There is increasing recognition that green spaces play an important role within society, not only in promoting health and wellbeing, but also in increasing social inclusion and community engagement with local natural environments.” Nina Morris & SG Cant, School of Geography, Plymouth

Information Disabled people have a right to information that is accurate, up-to-date, relevant and impartial. It also needs to be accessible to recipients. Information should be readily available in whatever format or language the recipient requests. Information and advice centres must recognise disabled people’s needs and aspirations. Services must


74

enable users to make informed decisions. This applies to every type of information that someone may request – not just impairment-related subjects. Service providers should take the following practical steps in order to meet the needs of disabled people:

Produce all information in plain language and a minimum type size of 14 point Use a clear, easily recognisable, sans serif font. Use a matt paper of contrasting colour. Justify

type on the left. Don’t print sentences in block capitals On request, provide information in alternative formats such as large print, audio tape, Braille,

and an easy-to-understand version Use interpreters for people who need to communicate in a sign language or other community

language Websites should be designed and developed in a way which makes them accessible for

disabled people Services should be provided in a flexible way, where appropriate using home visits,

telephones, the internet or different opening hours Ensure that premises are fully accessible to people with mobility or sensory impairments Provide publicity materials which tell disabled people what a service can or cannot do Provide staff with disability equality training. A key barrier for disabled people is negative

attitudes towards them Get regular and organised feedback from disabled people about the accessibility of the service Involve disabled people in service planning and training delivery.

Information is not a luxury. It is an essential tool in all our lives. This is no less true for disabled people than it is for anyone else. We call for:

Disabled people to have the right to information in appropriate formats Disability equality training for all service providers


75

Reference Notes: Fieldfare Trust specification for ‘Rural and Working’ paths. Paths that meet these standards can be registered with the Trust and promoted as Millennium Paths 1. Path Surface Surface must be hard but may have some loose stones but not covering the whole surface (stones no bigger than 10mm). 2. Path Width 1000mm minimum width. 3. Width Restrictions 815mm minimum width for no more than 300mm along the length of path – 915mm width for no more than 1600mm along the length of the path. 4. Barriers No stiles, steps, fences, hedges etc., blocking the path . 5. Ramp Gradient 1:10 maximum. 6. Rise of ramps Where the place is steeper than 1:20 (i.e. a ramp), a level, resting place should be provided. The maximum height rise between landings is 950mm. Maximum distance between landings for 950mm vertical climb at the following gradients

1:18 17.10

1:16 15.2 1:14 13.3 1:12 11.4 1:10 9.5 7. Cross Slope 1:35 maximum. 8. Steps 15mm maximum. 9. Surface Break Breaks in path surface as in boardwalks, grates, grills etc., should be no more than 12mm measured in the direction of travel along the path. 10. Clear Walking A tunnel clear of overhanging or encroaching Tunnel vegetation, and other obstructions should be a minimum of 1000mm wide and 2100 high. 11. Passing Place There should be a passing place every 150 metres along the path. The minimum width of the path should be 1500mm for 2000mm along the length of the path. 12. Resting Places There should be a resting point every 300m along the path. Each resting point should have a seat or perch which is placed on surfaced, level ground. Resting points should be set back from the path and, in addition to the path width, be at least 1200mm wide and 1500mm long.


76

Appendix 2: Audience Development Plan

Executive summary This document is intended to provide the starting point for a process of audience development planning for the promotion of archaeology and heritage tourism in the Small Isles. It sets out an initial analysis of the current position, and recommends an immediate baseline survey and an ongoing process of audience planning, including consultation, monitoring and review. An appendix provides suggestions for aspects and types of audiences that the Community Council might wish to research and consider.

Background: Why is an audience development plan needed? Audience development is a procedure that has grown out of arts administration, which is why it has the name. However it is just as relevant to heritage interpretation and the process is now widespread in museums and in the management of historic buildings and sites. It is partly about attracting new visitors, and partly about knowing who currently takes an interest in the facility or project, and who doesn’t. Whoever our ‘users’ are (or are not), we need to decide who we want to appeal to especially, and aim to ensure they become active, satisfied customers. It is important to note that this process is not simply a one-off exercise for the projects proposed in the report. It needs to be an ongoing process of monitoring, reflection, and review as circumstances change; and it implies building a longer-term relationship with the people who use the proposed facilities, whether local or not. The intention has to be to encourage people to use the facilities again and again, and to recommend them to others. Ways of sustaining and developing archaeological initiatives might include:

Undertaking surveys to reassess who the current audience is and how well it is being served Ensuring ongoing contact with partner organisations and individuals Keeping visitors updated with developments, eg, by the website and / or regular newsletters, Establishing a consultation group for disabled users – with regular meetings/contacts.

At one level, an audience development plan is needed because it is expected by some potential funding bodies. However, it is expected because it is useful to everyone who wishes to see a successful outcome. Audience development is all about focusing on users and developing a service to meet their needs. The planning process should help provide a focus to help everyone involved become better informed about current and potential users, and develop services that people actually want and will use. This is the only way to ensure the long-term future of the projects.

Audit The audit focuses on what is known about various factors relating to audience development. It can also help to identify what is not known and needs to be found out. Note that this is simply an initial assessment and that there is a need for more detailed consultation with, and participation by all interested parties.


77

1. The current situation (SWOT analysis - Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Strengths

– Good range of different archaeological or historical locations with some extensive and impressive historic landscapes

– Range of different experiences available to the visitor from easily accessed and highly visible sites and monuments to more challenging features

– Commitment and interest from the Community Council, landowners, and islanders – Commitment among islanders and agencies to implementing the Small Isles Archaeology

Development Plan Weaknesses

– Lack of infrastructure to help visitors access and enjoy the heritage or to link it to other interests

– Lack of people and resources to develop the Plan and sustain it – Competing interests could damage the archaeological resource – Lack of suitable existing buildings for extra facilities, eg, archive / museum – Poor physical access to the archaeological sites and monuments for the disabled – Lack of signage/interpretation – Few resources for teachers and school groups – Little information about current visitors – Lack of local visitor facilities, shops, or amenities

Opportunities

– Develop partnerships between the islands and with neighbours (eg Mallaig, Arisaig, Skye) – New developments planned in Rùm, Eigg – Build on existing Lorne Campbell collection and other resources to create a Small Isles

archive and museum collection with a local focus – Link-up / sponsorship from larger / wider organisations or businesses – Subsidised training may be available through local Enterprise Company – EU Interreg Programme may offer opportunities for projects – Highland 2008

Threats

– External funding is uncertain and subject to changes of policy – Increased competition from other local or regional places seeking to develop sustainable

cultural tourism – Increased competition from other activities available to people, especially those based near

good transport connections – Island ferry services could be subject to changes or reduction. – Loss of project momentum and sustainability if key individuals are no longer available to it

STEEPLE Analysis (Social, Technological, Environmental, Economic, Political, Legal, Educational) Social

– Population increases in new housing planned for Rùm; some population increase expected on Eigg and possibly Muck

– Increase in incomer community locally changes the culture, but likely to bring in families with children


78

Technological – Development of telecommunications, Web technology and satellite infrastructure – Developments in accessible software/ hardware

Environmental and Economic

– Local authority environmental policies - lack of waste disposal facilities on the islands – Island peripherality – distance from facilities, services and communication infrastructure – Lack of employment opportunities – Small resident populations means more difficult to sustain local markets

Political and Legal

– The next Elections for the Scottish Parliament and the Highland Council are expected to take place in 2007. Multi-member wards are expected to be introduced for Highland Council elections, with the Small Isles sharing 4 Councillors with large areas of Lochaber

– The next General Election for the Westminster Parliament is unlikely to be before 2009 – Disability Discrimination Act 2005: see access audit – Race Relations Act (Amendment) 2000: not thought to apply in this case, but a solicitor’s

advice should be sought – Data Protection Act 1998 – This covers personal data held on computer or in a complex

paper filing system. It is unlikely to apply unless detailed records of visitors were to be kept – The Protection of Children Act 1999 – this might apply to a Young Archaeologists Club. It is

believed it would not be compulsory to submit a list of volunteers and staff for checks under this Act but voluntary compliance would be advisable.

– Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 – Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997: this includes provisions for listed buildings

Educational

– Need to consider the current curriculum at Primary and Secondary levels and possible future changes

– Need to consider the very small size of the schools on the Small Isles and possible ways to enable them to work together through this project

– Need to consider possible input from and benefits to universities in the UK and elsewhere, especially the UHI. The nearest UHI college is Sabhal Mòr Ostaig in Skye.

– Need to consider adult and further education learners, on the islands and from elsewhere. – Need to consider opportunities to develop a range of studies that can make use of the

archaeological resources and planned infrastructure – for example, Gaelic, geography, social and economic courses , business and tourism, environmental conservation and interpretation – as well as archaeology departments

2. Current Audiences It will be essential in developing the audience to establish as far as possible who visits at present, who does not, and why. However we are starting from a very low baseline - we do not know very much about existing visitors apart from informal, casual feedback received. This makes it difficult to profile them.

Profiles of existing audiences and non-users

As far as is possible to establish in the circumstances outlined, users seem to divide into two main categories – fit outdoor walkers, attracted mainly by the islands’ natural history, who may spend a few days looking around; and people on very short visits of a few hours at most between ferries, who may do little or no exploring.


79

Barriers to access

There are very few opportunities for the disabled to explore the archaeology of the islands owing to the limited infrastructure.

3. Potential audiences The following is not an exhaustive list but could include people who

Visit the islands on a short (day) visit within the constraints of ferry times. This seems to include the great majority of visitors at present.

Spend more than one day within the Small Isles. Many visitors appear, from informal questioning, to be touring the Hebrides or the western Highlands, and visiting several islands or areas on their trip.

Remotely use outreach elements such as the website Are based elsewhere but wish to benefit remotely from the projects – either for personal

historical research, to adapt ideas or technology developed for the project for use elsewhere (these might wish to have an email , telephone, and / or postal contact and the ability to receive material sent from the islands)

Are occupied full or part-time in the archaeology or heritage sector, either on a paid or a voluntary basis

Work for the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, or the National Trust for Scotland as major bodies with considerable interests in the islands

Wish to support the islands as descendents of former islanders or with some other connection Could deposit material with, or donate objects to the archives / museum Research family history, Are students of archaeology, Scottish history, or related subjects Are members or leaders of school, scout, special interest, university or other organised

groups, Come to the islands primarily for other reasons such as music or arts festivals Work for the projects themselves – on a paid or voluntary basis Are in all age groups - children, teenagers, young adults, couples, middle aged people, older

visitors, including those of all ages cared for in the community or residents of care and nursing homes

Are sophisticated highly educated people looking for assumptions to be challenged Are people with educational or physical special needs Are people with particular medical conditions, eg diabetes, risk of heart failure, haemophilia

Assessment: the capacity for audience development There is considered to be excellent potential for audience development. There are good strengths and opportunities to build on; the main weakness is the lack of people, resources, and infrastructure which this project aims to help to address. However, there are still major constraints which can only be addressed in the longer term if projects such as this increase demand overall. There was found to be some understandable ambivalence on the islands to the idea of increasing the numbers of visitors. The development of benefits from the local archaeology cannot be achieved without some impact, however minor, on the landscape. The best safeguard against undesirable consequences is however to ensure that any development is carried out carefully, in a planned way, and includes full consultation with everyone who might be affected. Given the very small overall


80

resident population this should not be impossible to achieve. The best approach to dealing with the threats identified must be collaboration and co-operation with other attractions in the area to build a larger overall critical mass of different things for visitors to experience, appealing to different groups and interests and avoiding duplication. It may be possible to engage with Arisaig Marine, CalMac or others to help build a Small Isles destination through timetabling, revised fare structures, special offers and so on. Co-operation should also help to build support for the project as a whole. Organisational structures need to take account of the danger of relying over-much on one or two individuals. If the new technology (GPS) project is implemented there might be a market for the content, the data structures and system, and the developed expertise, with other countryside and heritage tourism projects. The possibility of increasing the numbers of families with children is to be very much welcomed, and one possible local benefit from the current project could be a means for incoming families to learn about, identify and integrate with the traditional culture and language of the islands. If so, change, though inevitable, could be at least sympathetic to the past and help maintain a living tradition rather than sweep it away. Clearly there is a need to undertake some audience research to establish who visits, who does not, and why. Some facilities for disabled visitors must be a priority.

Planning: audience development actions recommended 1. Deal with information gaps There is an urgent need for a baseline survey. The Community Council may wish to consider:

How they profile other existing ‘audiences’, such as users of the island cafés and accommodation

Data relating to existing audiences of similar projects such as local trails and museums – the Highland Council, the National Trust for Scotland, SNH, the Forestry Commission, and the Scottish Museums Council might all prove useful sources here, as would the heritage centres or museums at Arisaig, Mallaig, and the Clan Donald Centre.

Planning to record information on users once the projects are ‘open for business’. Carrying out a study, perhaps in collaboration with one of the university degree courses in

heritage conservation and interpretation (eg UHI BSc (Hons) Environment and Heritage or MSc Heritage Interpretation)

Ongoing Audience Development in parallel with the project development work and regular monitoring and review.

2. Action planning for audience development activity The Community Council needs to identify its priority objectives, including the audiences it wishes to focus on initially, and how best to serve them. The survey recommended above should help to establish what the target audiences want. This will help to focus and prioritise, and so timetable, the projects to be taken forward. Then its conclusions need to form a simple, agreed plan of action. There may well be a need to create parallel plans for more than one target group. Dividing the work up may help spread the workload and enable a more detailed focus on the needs of particular groups.


81

If this is done it is essential that the relationships between these individual plans are continually reviewed to make sure they work together. 3. Create a timetable for audience development activities It is recommended that Audience development planning be given a high priority in the project timetable as it underpins other work. However it could be taken in parallel with initiating some projects seen as likely to be important to all groups such as the establishment of a website and the creation of all-ability trails (grade C). 4. Review the audience development plan Dates need to be set at the outset for review meetings of the audience development plan specifically, at a convenient interval – perhaps annually.

Reference notes: Collecting audience data The intention here is not to prescribe the data to be collected, or how collection should be done, but simply to suggest some criteria for consideration. Questions asked of visitors will depend on what the Community Council wish to find out and how it is intended to analyse and use the data collected.

Origin (i.e. where they live) It might be worth noting whether visitors are from the island itself; other Small Isles; Highlands and Islands; Scotland; rest of UK; Eire; Europe, North America, rest of the world. Within the UK, postcodes can help identify if your users/non-users are local/ regional residents or tourists and can also help you to find out more about patterns of usage, such as whether there are many users from a particular geographical area. Postcodes can also provide information about other neighbourhood characteristics, without identifying individuals. In the case of tourists it might be worthwhile collecting the name of the place they are staying too.

Age group The government’s official statistics summarise age groups as: under 5, 6-15, 16-19, 20-44, 45-64, 65+. Given greater modern life expectancy it might be worth adding a further division at / about 75.

Gender (female/male)

Ethnicity The UK government statistics use the following categories (Note that ‘Scottish’ does not appear!):

Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi / Indian / Other Asian / Pakistani Black or Black British: African / Caribbean / Other Black Chinese or other ethnic group: Chinese / Other ethnic group Mixed: Other Mixed / White and Asian / White and Black African / White and Black

Caribbean White: British / Irish / Other White People identifying themselves as Welsh


82

Language Apart from identifying the numbers of French, German, Japanese speaking visitors, it would certainly be worth noting whether people are Gaelic native speakers or learners

Disability One question that is sometimes used is: “Do you consider yourself to have a disability? (yes/no)”. Alternatively, “Do you consider yourself to have a disability? (please tick as many as applicable): blind/visually impaired, deaf/hard of hearing, mobility difficulties, learning difficulties, mental health problems (etc)”

Work status or social class The UK government statistics use the following socio-economic categories:

Higher / Lower managerial and professional occupations Intermediate occupations Small employers and own account workers Lower supervisory and technical Semi-routine occupations Routine occupations Long-term unemployed

Other possible categories to consider might include

working full-time working part-time retired home carer/at home with children permanently sick/disabled student unemployed / not working other

Alternatively, The Market Research Society (Occupation Groupings: A Job Dictionary, 5th ed, 2003) has produced the following, which might be more useful. A (Approximately 3% of the total population.)

These are professional people, very senior managers in business or commerce or top-level civil

servants. Retired people, previously grade A, and their widows.

B (Approximately 20% of the total population)

Middle management executives in large organisations, with appropriate qualifications. Principal officers in local government and civil service. Top management or owners of small business concerns, educational and service

establishments. Retired people, previously grade B, and their widows.

C1 (Approximately 28% of the total population)

Junior management, owners of small establishments, and all others in non-manual positions. Jobs in this group have very varied responsibilities and educational requirements. Retired people, previously grade C1, and their widows.

C2 (Approximately 21% of the total population)


83

All skilled manual workers, and those manual workers with responsibility for other people. Retired people, previously grade C2, with pensions from their job. Widows, if receiving pensions from their late husband's job.

D (Approximately 18% of the total population)

All semi-skilled and un-skilled manual workers, and apprentices and trainees to skilled workers.

Retired people, previously grade D, with pensions from their job. Widows, if receiving a pension from their late husband's job.

E (Approximately 10% of the total population)

All those entirely dependant on the state long-term, through sickness, unemployment, old age or other reasons.

Those unemployed for a period exceeding six months (otherwise classify on previous occupation).

Casual workers and those without a regular income. Only households without a Chief Income Earner will be coded in this group.

Type of visitor Visiting alone, with family, friends, school / club / association / community group, visitors

staying with them Interests / motivations / reason for visit When they visit – time / date / season Length of stay on the Small Isles - less than one hour; 1 – 2 hours; 1 day; 2-7 days; longer First visit / frequency of visit, - first / second visit, regular visitor (weekly, monthly, twice a

year, once a year, last visit more than 12 months ago etc. Activities undertaken What services and facilities do they use / not use?

Marketing How did they find out about the Small Isles? eg, word of mouth, leaflet, radio/TV/press,

website, teacher, passing by, previous visit etc. Which newspaper; where did they see the leaflet, web site, etc

For education groups The following might help plan for future visits from school groups or for outreach sessions with schools, identify what types of school groups are currently attracted and where there is potential to develop this work further.

Size of group Year group Type of school Curriculum areas studied by pupils while on school visits

Impact on wider local tourism economy Length of stay in the wider area - one day, two to three days, up to one week, longer than one

week. Type of accommodation they’re staying in -with friends/family, B&B/hotel, camping, self-

catering etc. Method of travel to the Small Isles - Mallaig ferry; Sheerwater; own boat; other (ferry

passengers could identify how they reached Mallaig or Arisaig - on foot, by car, bus, train,


84

bike, motorbike, boat, coach etc.; those from further afield could indicate how they arrived in Scotland eg Air to Glasgow; Rosyth ferry)

Appendix 3: Archaeological sites and features in the Small Isles

Listed Buildings

HB No. DETAILS ADDRESS CATEGORIES LIST DATES

ISLAND

14128 Council: HIGHLAND Parish/Burgh: SMALL ISLES Item No: 1

ISLE OF CANNA, CANNA HOUSE (CANNA, CANNA HOUSE)

Category: B List Date: 29-MAY-1985

Canna


ISLE OF CANNA, CHANGE HOUSE AND STEADING/BARN (CANNA, CHANGE HOUSE)

Category: C(S) List Date: 29-MAY-1985

Canna


ISLE OF CANNA, COROGHON BARN (CANNA, COROGHON BARN)

Category: B List Date: 05-OCT-1971

Canna


ISLE OF CANNA, CHURCH OF SCOTLAND AND BURIAL GROUND (CANNA, CHURCH OF SCOTLAND)


Canna


ISLE OF CANNA, SANDAY, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (SANDAY, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ST EDWARD THE CONFESSOR)


Canna


ISLE OF EIGG, CLANRANALD HARBOUR (EIGG, CLANRANALD HARBOUR)

Category: C(S) List Date: 05-OCT-1971

Eigg


ISLE OF EIGG, EIGG LODGE. (EIGG, EIGG LODGE)


Eigg


86

HB No. DETAILS ADDRESS CATEGORIES LIST DATES ISLAND


ISLE OF EIGG, GRULIN SHEPHERD'S BOTHY. (EIGG, GRULIN SHEPHERD'S BOTHY)


Eigg


ISLE OF EIGG, KILDONNAN BARN (EIGG, KILDONNAN FARM, BANK BARN)


Eigg


ISLE OF EIGG, LAIG FARMHOUSE. (EIGG, LAIG FARMHOUSE)


Eigg


ISLE OF EIGG, OLD MANSE AND WALLED GARDEN (FORMER CHURCH OF SCOTLAND MANSE) (EIGG, OLD MANSE)


Eigg


ISLE OF EIGG, FORMER MILL (EIGG, KILDONNAN, MILL)


Eigg


ISLE OF EIGG, ST. DONNAN'S CHURCH AND BURIAL GROUND. (EIGG, KILDONNAN, ST DONNAN'S CHURCH AND BURIAL-GROUND)


Eigg


ISLE OF EIGG, SCHOOLHOUSE AND SCHOOL. (EIGG, PUBLIC SCHOOL)


Eigg


ISLE OF EIGG, CHURCH OF SCOTLAND AND BURIAL GROUND. (EIGG, CHURCH OF SCOTLAND)


Eigg


ISLE OF EIGG, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND PRESBYTERY (EIGG, CLEADALE, ST DONNAN'S ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH)

Category: C(S) List Date: 11-FEB-1998

Eigg


87

HB No. DETAILS ADDRESS CATEGORIES LIST

DATES ISLAND


ISLE OF EIGG, HOWLIN (EIGG, HOWLIN HOUSE)

Category: B List Date: 11-FEB-1998

Eigg


ISLE OF EIGG, CLEADALE, CROFT HOUSE (EIGG, CLEADALE, CROFT HOUSE)

Category: C(S) List Date: 11-FEB-1998

Eigg


ISLE OF MUCK, COTTAGE 1/2 MILE WEST OF GALLANACH FARM (ONLY BUILDING) (MUCK, GALLANACH, COTTAGE)


Muck


ISLE OF RHUM, BAYVIEW (RUM, BAYVIEW)


Rum


ISLE OF RHUM, BULLOUGH MAUSOLEUM, HARRIS (RUM, HARRIS, BULLOUGH MAUSOLEUM)


Rum


ISLE OF RHUM, KILN BY PIER. (RUM, KINLOCH PIER, KILN)

Category: C(S) List Date: 05-OCT-1971

Rum


ISLE OF RHUM, OLD PIER. (RUM, KINLOCH PIER)


Rum


ISLE OF RHUM, KINLOCH CASTLE (RUM, KINLOCH CASTLE)

Category: A List Date: 05-OCT-1971

Rum


ISLE OF RHUM, KINLOCH CASTLE GARDEN GAZEBO (RUM, KINLOCH CASTLE, GAZEBO)


Rum


88

HB No. DETAILS ADDRESS CATEGORIES LIST

DATES ISLAND


ISLE OF RHUM, KINLOCH CASTLE BRIDGE OVER THE SLUGAN BURN (RUM, KINLOCH CASTLE, BRIDGE OVER THE SLUGAN BURN)

Category: B List Date: 08-SEP-1982

Rum


89

Scheduled Monuments HS INDEX NUMBER

NAME SCHEDULE DATE

NGRs ISLAND

5903 Garrisdale,fort 500m NW of 22/02/1994 NG209053 Canna

5904 Garrisdale,hut circle 430m SSW of 22/02/1994 NG210046 Canna

5905 Garrisdale,hut circle 870m SSE of 22/02/1994 NG217042 Canna

5906 Tarbert,souterrains 1050m NE of 22/02/1994 NG244062 Canna

5907 Tarbert,settlement 1100m E of 22/02/1994 NG248056 Canna

5954 Dun Channa,fort,Canna 21/03/1994 NG205047 Canna

5955 Rubha nic Eamoin,fort 600m S of Tarbert,Canna 21/03/1994 NG237048 Canna

6224 Sgorr nam Ban-naomha, cashel 09/10/1995 NG229043 Canna

6290 Coroghon Castle,Canna 09/01/1996 NG279055 Canna

933 Canna,St Columba's Graveyard,cross 31/05/1925 NG269055 Canna

10991 Cnoc Smeordail, hut circles and enclosures, Eigg 23/02/2004 NM482876 Eigg

10993 Garbh Bealach, fort, 1000m SW of Sandavore, Eigg 23/02/2004 NM470839 Eigg

10994 Na Sidheanan, burial mounds 200m N of Laig Farm, Eigg 23/02/2004 NM466879 Eigg

10995 Allt Bidein an Tighearna, shielings and enclosures, Eigg 23/02/2004 NM484882 Eigg


90

HS INDEX NUMBER

NAME SCHEDULE DATE

NGRs ISLAND

10997 Cuig Peighinnean, township and field system N of Howlin, Eigg 23/02/2004 NM478896 Eigg

10998 Cuig Peighinneann, hut circle 340m SSE of Guala Mhor, Eigg 23/02/2004 NM476901 Eigg

10999 Corragan Mor, fort, Eigg 23/02/2004 NM494886 Eigg

11000 Galmisdale, house 300m NNE of Rubh' an Tangaird, Eigg 23/02/2004 NM477834 Eigg

11001 Rubha na Crannaig, fort, Kildonnan, Eigg 23/02/2004 NM491847 Eigg

11002 Grulin Uachdrach, depopulated settlement 500m SSW of An Sgurr, Eigg

23/02/2004 NM454841 Eigg

11003 Poll Duchaill, fort 250m SE of Clach Alasdair, Eigg 23/02/2004 NM454881 Eigg

11004 Lochan Nighean Dughaill, shielings at head of Gleann Charadail, Eigg 23/02/2004 NM451857 Eigg

11005 Loch nam Ban Mora, dun, Eigg 23/02/2004 NM455852 Eigg

2373 An Sgurr,fort,Eigg 04/12/1963 NM462846 Eigg

11006 Sean Bhaile and A'Chille, settlement, chapel and cross-slab, Port Mor 29/09/2004 NG419795 Muck

11007 Toaluinn, house to SW of Port na Lice, Muck 29/09/2004 NM418805 Muck

11008 Aird nan Uan, cairns, Gallanach, Muck 29/09/2004 NG401806 Muck

11009 Beinn Airein, cairn, Muck 29/09/2004 NG403791 Muck

11010 Caisteal an Duin Bhain, fort 600m S of Port Mor, Muck 29/09/2004 NG421786 Muck

5908 Greod,fort and kelp kiln 900m SE of 22/02/1994 NG281040 Rum


91

HS INDEX NUMBER

NAME SCHEDULE DATE

NGRs ISLAND

6324 Harris Lodge,cairn 550m ESE of,Rum 05/03/1996 NM342955 Rum

6325 Harris Lodge,settlement 900m SE of,Rum 05/03/1996 NM342950 Rum

6326 Kinloch Farm,settlement 400m NE of Kinloch Castle,Rum 05/03/1996 NM403998 Rum

6327 Port-na-Caranean,settlement,Rum 05/03/1996 NM421988 Rum

6328 Bagh na h-Uamha,cave,Mullach Ard,Rum 05/03/1996 NM422974 Rum

6329 Bagh na h-Uamha,cross 150m NE of waterfall in An Uamh,Rum 05/03/1996 NM421973 Rum

6425 Guirdil,cairn 250m ENE of,Rum 15/08/1996 NG322014 Rum

6426 Guirdil,promontory fort 970m NE of,Rum 15/08/1996 NG327020 Rum

6427 Loch Sgaorishal,shielings 800m SW of W end,Rum 15/08/1996 NG339018 Rum

6428 Kilmory Lodge,fort 750m WNW of,Rum 15/08/1996 NG350042 Rum

6429 Kilmory Lodge,cairn 250m N of,Rum 15/08/1996 NG357041 Rum

6430 Salisbury's Dam,dam and associated works,Rum 15/08/1996 NM363998 Rum

6431 Spectacle Lochan,deer traps 400m SW and 1000m SSW of,Rum 15/08/1996 NM308986 Rum

6432 Loch Monica,shielings SE of,Rum 15/08/1996 NM333965 Rum

6433 Harris Lodge,settlement 300m NW of,Rum 15/08/1996 NM334959 Rum

6434 Harris,settlement,Rum 15/08/1996 NM338958 Rum


92

HS INDEX NUMBER

NAME SCHEDULE DATE

NGRs ISLAND

6891 Kilmory, settlement, old burial ground and cross shaft, Rum 30/09/1997 NG362037 Rum

8179 Orval, deer trap 700m SW of summit cairn, Rum 03/03/1999 NM328987 Rum

8180 Orval, deer traps E of, Rum 03/03/1999 NM342986 Rum


93

National Monuments Record for Scotland This is included simply to provide an indication of the archaeology recorded. For details of any of the sites listed below, please visit www.rcahms.gov.uk and enter the reference number in the CANMORE database. These can be compared with the Highland Sites and Monuments Record, Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Historic Landscapes records by looking at the PASTMAP system on the same site. This includes maps showing site locations. Reference No. Site Name Site type Island

NG20NE.1. CANNA, A' CHILL, ST COLUMBA'S CHAPEL. Alternative(s): KEILL, ST. COLUMBA'S CHAPEL, CANNA HOUSE, CANNA 2

CHAPEL, BURIAL-GROUND, CROSSES

Canna

NG20NE.109.0 CANNA, A' CHILL. Alternative(s): ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Canna

NG20NE.109.2 CANNA, A' CHILL. Alternative(s): LAZY BEDS, FIELD WALLS Canna NG20NE.19. CANNA, A' CHILL. Alternative(s): HUTS Canna NG20NE.38. CANNA, A' CHILL. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE, MOUND Canna NG20NE.109.5 CANNA, A' CHILL. Alternative(s):

COROGHON, EALAIST LAZY-BEDS, FIELD WALLS Canna

NG20NE.13. CANNA, A' CHILL. Alternative(s): KEILL STONES: CROSS-INCISED, BURIAL-GROUND, CHAPEL (POSSIBLE), CAVE

Canna

NG20NE.33. CANNA, A' CHILL. Alternative(s): KEILL BUILDING (POSSIBLE) Canna NG20NE.34. CANNA, A' CHILL. Alternative(s): KEILL BUILDING Canna NG20NE.37. CANNA, A' CHILL. Alternative(s): KEILL ENCLOSURE Canna NG20NE.45. CANNA, A' CHILL. Alternative(s): KEILL TOWNSHIP Canna NG20NE.3. CANNA, A' CHILL. Alternative(s): STONE

OF PUNISHMENT, KEILL, 'PUNISHMENT STONE'

STANDING STONE Canna

NG20SW.9. CANNA, ALLT BHRE-SGORR. Alternative(s): GLAC BHRE-SGORR

MOUND, WALL Canna

NG20NE.70. CANNA, ALLT GHEODRAIN. Alternative(s):

MOUNDS Canna


HUTS, MOUNDS Canna


HUT (POSSIBLE), LAZY-BEDS Canna


HUTS Canna


STRUCTURE Canna

NG20NE.83. CANNA, ALLT GHEODRAIN. Alternative(s): EALAIST

HUT, MOUNDS, POTTERY Canna

NG20NE.72. CANNA, ALLT LAG A' GHRIUMADEAL. Alternative(s):

MOUNDS Canna


MOUNDS, LAZY-BEDS Canna


HUTS, MOUNDS Canna


HUT (POSSIBLE) Canna


94

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island


MOUNDS Canna


STRUCTURE Canna

NG20NE.18. CANNA, ALLT LAG A' GHRIUMADEAL. Alternative(s): A' CHILL, KEILL

HUTS, QUARRY (POSSIBLE) Canna

NG20NE.64. CANNA, ALLT LAG A' GHRUIMADEAL. Alternative(s):

HUTS, MOUNDS Canna

NG20NE.8. CANNA, ALMAN. Alternative(s): STRUCTURES, POTTERY, LAZY-BEDS

Canna

NG20SW.23. CANNA, AM BEANNAN. Alternative(s): MOUND, LAZY-BEDS Canna NG20SW.24. CANNA, AM BEANNAN. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20SW.29. CANNA, AM BEANNAN. Alternative(s): STRUCTURE Canna NG20NE.111. CANNA, AN COROGHON. Alternative(s): HOUSE Canna NG20NE.100. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): HUTS, MOUNDS, POTTERY Canna NG20NE.101. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): HUT, ENCLOSURE Canna NG20NE.11. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): HUTS, MOUNDS, POTTERY,

LAZY-BEDS Canna

NG20NE.17. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): STONE ARTIFACTS, POTTERY, SLAG

Canna

NG20NE.7. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): STRUCTURES Canna NG20NE.97. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): BUILDINGS, HUTS, MOUNDS,

POTTERY Canna

NG20NE.98. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): HUTS, MOUNDS Canna NG20NE.99. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): HUTS, MOUNDS, POTTERY Canna NG20NW.10. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): MOUND, STRUCTURE,

STONES, POTTERY, FLINT FLAKES, SLAG

Canna

NG20NW.11. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): MOUNDS, POTTERY, FLINT Canna NG20NW.118. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): STRUCTURE Canna NG20NW.123. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20NW.124. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE (POSSIBLE) Canna NG20NW.125. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): MOUND, POTTERY Canna NG20NW.128. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): STONE Canna NG20NW.13. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20NW.14. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): HUTS, MOUNDS, POTTERY Canna NG20NW.15. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): HUT-CIRCLE, HUT Canna NG20NW.2. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): SOUTERRAINS, MOUND,

POTTERY Canna

NG20NW.119. CANNA, BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): TARBERT

HUT-CIRCLE Canna

NG20SW.20. CANNA, BEUL AN IOLA-SGOIR. Alternative(s):

STRUCTURE, ENCLOSURE Canna


ENCLOSURE, STRUCTURE Canna


ENCLOSURE Canna


STRUCTURES, FIELD-SYSTEM Canna


95


NG20NE.58. CANNA, BEUL LAMA SGORR. Alternative(s):

MOUND: NIL ANTIQUITY Canna


MOUND Canna


HUTS, MOUNDS, ENCLOSURES

Canna


BUILDING, MOUNDS Canna


STRUCTURES, MOUND Canna


HUTS, MOUND Canna


MOUND Canna

NG20NE.91. CANNA, BLAR BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s):

MOUND Canna


HUTS, MOUNDS, STRUCTURES, POTTERY

Canna


MOUND Canna


HUT-CIRCLE (POSSIBLE), MOUND

Canna


MOUND: NIL ANTIQUITY Canna

NG20NE.109.3 CANNA, BLAR BEINN TIGHE. Alternative(s): A' CHILL, EALAIST

LAZY-BEDS, FIELD WALLS Canna

NG20NE.10. CANNA, BLAR NA CARRAIGH. Alternative(s): BEUL LAMA SGORR

HUTS, MOUNDS, PLATFORM Canna

NG20NW.106. CANNA, BUAILE NAN GABHAR. Alternative(s):

MOUND Canna


ENCLOSURES, HUTS, FIELD CLEARANCE CAIRNS

Canna


HUT, PEN, MOUND Canna


ENCLOSURE Canna

NG20NW.101. CANNA, BUAILE NAN GABHAR. Alternative(s): CAMAS THAIRBEARNAIS

KELP KILN Canna

NG20NW.110. CANNA, BUAILE NAN GABHAR. Alternative(s): TARBERT

HUT (POSSIBLE) Canna

NG20NE.46. CANNA, BUAL THIAL-SGORR. Alternative(s):

HUTS, MOUNDS, ENCLOSURE Canna

NG20NE.9. CANNA, BUAL THIAL-SGORR. Alternative(s): COMPASS HILL

HUTS, MOUNDS, ENCLOSURE, LAZY-BEDS

Canna

NG20NE.27.0 CANNA, CANNA HARBOUR. Alternative(s): SANDAY

HARBOUR Canna

NG20NE.24. CANNA, CANNA HOUSE. Alternative(s): COUNTRY HOUSE Canna NG20NE.15. CANNA, CARN A' GHAILL. Alternative(s): CAIRN Canna NG20NW.47. CANNA, CEANN CREAG-AIRIGHE.

Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE Canna

NG20NW.48. CANNA, CEANN CREAG-AIRIGHE. Alternative(s):

HUT Canna

NG20NW.49. CANNA, CEANN CREAG-AIRIGHE. Alternative(s): ALLT NA CRICHE TUATHA

HUT-CIRCLE, MOUND, HUT, FIELD-SYSTEM

Canna

NG20NW.17. CANNA, CEANN CREAG-AIRIGHE. Alternative(s): DRUIM NA TIRE

HUTS, MOUNDS, POTTERY, FIELD-SYSTEM

Canna

NG20NE.25. CANNA, CHANGE HOUSE. Alternative(s): CANNA, CHANGE HOUSE AND BARN, CHANGEHOUSE, FORMER INN

FARMHOUSE, FARMSTEADING, BARN, BYRE, INN

Canna


96

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island NG20NE.12. CANNA, CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

Alternative(s): BRONZE PIN Canna

NG20NE.23. CANNA, CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. Alternative(s): CANNA, PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, MEMORIAL CHURCH, ISLE OF CANNA, CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, CANNA HARBOUR

CHURCH, BURIAL-GROUND Canna

NG20NE.52. CANNA, CNOC BHROSTAN. Alternative(s): CNOC BROSTAN

MOUNDS, FIELD CLEARANCE CAIRN

Canna


STRUCTURE (POSSIBLE) Canna


MOUND Canna


HUTS Canna

NG20SW.26. CANNA, CNOC LOISGTE. Alternative(s): MOUNDS, HUT (POSSIBLE) Canna NG20SW.27. CANNA, CNOC LOISGTE. Alternative(s): HUT Canna NG20SW.28. CANNA, CNOC LOISGTE. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20SW.10. CANNA, CNOC LOISGTE. Alternative(s):

GLAC NA CRICHE DEISE ENCLOSURE Canna

NG20SW.25. CANNA, CNOC LOISGTE. Alternative(s): GLAC NA CRICHE DEISE

HUT-CIRCLE, HUT (POSSIBLE), FIELD-SYSTEM

Canna

NG20NE.68. CANNA, CNOC MOR. Alternative(s): HUT, MOUND Canna NG20NE.69. CANNA, CNOC MOR. Alternative(s): STRUCTURE Canna NG20NE.85. CANNA, CNOC MOR. Alternative(s): HUT (POSSIBLE), MOUND Canna NG20NE.94. CANNA, CNOC MOR. Alternative(s): STRUCTURE Canna NG20NE.78. CANNA, CNOC MOR. Alternative(s): ALLT

GHEODRAIN HUT, MOUNDS Canna

NG20NE.79. CANNA, CNOC MOR. Alternative(s): ALLT GHEODRAIN

STRUCTURES Canna

NG20NE.67. CANNA, CNOC MOR. Alternative(s): BLAR BEINN TIGHE

HUTS Canna

NG20NE.84. CANNA, CNOC MOR. Alternative(s): EALAIST

HUT, POTTERY Canna

NG20NE.49. CANNA, CNOC NA CARRAIGH. HUT, ENCLOSURE Canna NG20NE.50. CANNA, CNOC NA CARRAIGH. HUTS, ENCLOSURE

(POSSIBLE) Canna

NG20NE.51. CANNA, CNOC NA CARRAIGH. Alternative(s): ALLT THALIGARIDH

HUT Canna

NG20NW.19. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. HUT Canna NG20NW.59. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE, HUT Canna NG20NW.60. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20NW.61. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): MOUNDS Canna NG20NW.62. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20NW.63. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE, MOUND,

POTTERY, FLINT FLAKE, SPINDLE WHORL

Canna

NG20NW.64. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): MOUNDS Canna NG20NW.65. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): HUT (POSSIBLE) Canna NG20NW.66. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): CAIRN, MOUNDS Canna NG20NW.67. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20NW.68. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE, MOUNDS Canna NG20NW.70. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): STRUCTURE Canna NG20NW.71. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): MOUNDS (POSSIBLE), HUT

(POSSIBLE) Canna


97

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island NG20NW.72. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): MOUNDS, STRUCTURE,

ENCLOSURE Canna

NG20NW.69. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): ALLT NA CRICHE TUATHA

HUT-CIRCLE (POSSIBLE), HUTS, STRUCTURE, MOUND, PEN, FIELD-SYSTEM

Canna

NG20NW.73. CANNA, CNOC RUGAIL. Alternative(s): TARBERT

STRUCTURE Canna


MOUNDS, HUT, PEN Canna


MOUNDS, ENCLOSURES Canna


PEN Canna


MOUND Canna


MOUND Canna

NG20NE.47. CANNA, COMPASS HILL. Alternative(s): HUT, MOUNDS, BANKS Canna NG20NW.18. CANNA, CONAGEARAIDH, BURIAL-

GROUND. Alternative(s): BURIAL-GROUND Canna

NG20NW.20. CANNA, CONAGEARAIDH. Alternative(s): GRAVE Canna NG20NW.28. CANNA, CONAGEARAIDH. Alternative(s): KELP KILN, PLATFORM Canna NG20NW.36. CANNA, CONAGEARAIDH. Alternative(s): STRUCTURES, BUILDINGS,

ENCLOSURES Canna

NG20NW.51. CANNA, CONAGEARAIDH. Alternative(s): FARMSTEAD, BUILDINGS, ENCLOSURES, LAZY-BEDS

Canna

NG20NW.1. CANNA, CONAGEARAIDH. Alternative(s): GARRISDALE POINT

STONE, BURIAL Canna

NG20NE.4. CANNA, COROGHAN CASTLE. Alternative(s): COROGHON CASTLE, COROGHON MOR

CASTLE, POTTERY, DUN (POSSIBLE)

Canna

NG20NE.26. CANNA, COROGHON BARN. Alternative(s): AN COROGHON, AN COROGHAN, COROGHON BAY

BARN, BUILDING, STRUCTURE

Canna

NG20NE.110. CANNA, COROGHON. Alternative(s): A' CHILL, CORRYGAN

FIELD-SYSTEM, LAZY-BEDS, FIELD CLEARANCE CAIRNS

Canna

NG20NW.100. CANNA, CREAG A-CHAIRN. Alternative(s):

MOUND, DRAIN Canna


ENCLOSURES, MOUNDS, STRUCTURE

Canna


CAIRN, STRUCTURE Canna

NG20NE.81. CANNA, CUIL A' BHAINNE. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE Canna NG20NW.112. CANNA, CUIL NAM MARBH. Alternative(s):

MOUND Canna

NG20NW.113. CANNA, CUIL NAM MARBH. Alternative(s):

PEN Canna

NG20NW.99. CANNA, CUIL NAM MARBH. Alternative(s):

BUILDING Canna

NG20NW.46. CANNA, DRUIM NA TIRE. Alternative(s): STRUCTURES, HUT, FIELD-SYSTEM

Canna

NG20SW.1. CANNA, DUN CHANNA. Alternative(s): FORT Canna NG20NW.6. CANNA, DUN NAM BERBH. Alternative(s): SETTLEMENT, POTTERY Canna NG20NW.29. CANNA, DUN TEADH. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE, PEN Canna NG20NW.8. CANNA, DUN TEADH. Alternative(s):

GARRISDALE FORT, STRUCTURE, BUILDING (POSSIBLE), MOUND, POTTERY, FIELD CLEARANCE CAIRNS

Canna

NG20NE.16. CANNA, EALAIST. Alternative(s): BLOODSTONE FLAKES Canna


98

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island NG20NW.104. CANNA, EARNAGREAM. Alternative(s): HUT Canna NG20NW.105. CANNA, EARNAGREAM. Alternative(s): STRUCTURE Canna NG20NW.102. CANNA, EARNAGREAM. Alternative(s):

CAMAS THAIRBEARNAIS SMALL CAIRNS Canna

NG20NW.103. CANNA, EARNAGREAM. Alternative(s): CAMAS THAIRBEARNAIS

MOUND Canna

NG20NW.4. CANNA, EARNAGREAM. Alternative(s): RUDHA LANGANINNIS, TARBERT

HUTS, MOUNDS, FIELD CLEARANCE CAIRNS, POTTERY

Canna

NG20NE.36. CANNA, EILEAN A' BHAIRD. Alternative(s):

BUILDINGS, STRUCTURE, ENCLOSURE, LAZY-BEDS

Canna

NG20NE.5. CANNA, EILEAN A' BHAIRD. Alternative(s): CANNA HARBOUR

CAIRN Canna

NG20NE.14. CANNA, EILEAN GILLE MHAIRTEIN. Alternative(s): CANNA HARBOUR

ENCLOSURES, CHAPEL (POSSIBLE)

Canna

NG20NW.53. CANNA, FANG NA FOLA. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20NW.54. CANNA, FANG NA FOLA. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE, MOUND,

POTTERY Canna

NG20NW.55. CANNA, FANG NA FOLA. Alternative(s): MOUNDS, POTTERY Canna NG20NW.56. CANNA, FANG NA FOLA. Alternative(s): MOUND, HUT, POTTERY Canna NG20NW.57. CANNA, FANG NA FOLA. Alternative(s): MOUND, STRUCTURES

(POSSIBLE), POTTERY Canna

NG20NW.58. CANNA, FANG NA FOLA. Alternative(s): HUTS, PENS, MOUNDS, POTTERY

Canna

NG20SW.37. CANNA, FANG NA FOLA. Alternative(s): HUTS, MOUNDS Canna NG20SW.38. CANNA, FANG NA FOLA. Alternative(s): MOUNDS Canna NG20SW.39. CANNA, FANG NA FOLA. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20SW.40. CANNA, FANG NA FOLA. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE, MOUND,

STRUCTURE Canna

NG20SW.41. CANNA, FANG NA FOLA. Alternative(s): BUILDING, MOUNDS, STRUCTURE, PEN

Canna

NG20NW.25. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): INDETERMINATE REMAINS Canna NG20NW.30. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): MOUND, STRUCTURES, HUT Canna NG20NW.31. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): BUILDING Canna NG20NW.32. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): MOUND, HUTS, STRUCTURES Canna NG20NW.33. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): MOUNDS Canna NG20NW.34. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): MOUNDS Canna NG20NW.35. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): STRUCTURES, HUTS Canna NG20NW.37. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): MOUNDS, HUT, STRUCTURES,

ENCLOSURE, FIELD CLEARANCE CAIRNS, POTTERY

Canna

NG20NW.38. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20NW.39. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): BUILDINGS Canna NG20NW.40. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20NW.42. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): BUILDING, HUT, MOUNDS,

POTTERY Canna

NG20NW.43. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): HUTS, MOUND Canna NG20NW.44. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): TOWNSHIP, FARMSTEAD Canna NG20NW.45. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): HUTS Canna NG20NW.129.3 CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s):

CONAGEARAIDH FIELD-SYSTEM, LAZY-BEDS, CLEARANCE CAIRNS

Canna

NG20NW.41. CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): CONAGEARAIDH

MOUND Canna


99


NG20NW.129.0 CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): CONAGEARAIDH, GARRESDALE, SRON RUAIL, SRON BHROSGOR

ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Canna

NG20NW.129.1 CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): DUN TEADH

LAZY-BEDS, FIELD BANK Canna

NG20NW.129.2 CANNA, GARRISDALE. Alternative(s): GARRESDALE


Canna

NG20NW.120. CANNA, GEODHA NA NIGHINN DUIBHE. Alternative(s):

MOUND Canna

NG20SW.4. CANNA, GLAC BHRE-SGORR. Alternative(s):

HUT-CIRCLE, MOUND (POSSIBLE), FIELD-SYSTEM, CORD RIG (POSSIBLE), LAZY-BEDS

Canna

NG20SW.31. CANNA, GLAC NA CRICHE DEISE. Alternative(s):

HUTS, MOUNDS, POTTERY Canna

NG20SW.8. CANNA, GLAC NA CRICHE DEISE. Alternative(s): AM BEANNAN

MOUNDS, POTTERY Canna

NG20NW.50. CANNA, GLAC NA CRICHE TUATHA. Alternative(s): ALLT NA CRICHE TUATHA

MOUND Canna

NG20NW.52. CANNA, GLAC NA CRICHE TUATHA. Alternative(s): ALLT NA CRICHE TUATHA

STRUCTURE Canna

NG20NW.132. CANNA, GUALANN SGORR AN DUINE. Alternative(s):

STRUCTURE Canna

NG20SW.44. CANNA, GUALANN SGORR AN DUINE. Alternative(s):

HUTS, STRUCTURE, PEN, MOUND, FIELD-SYSTEM

Canna

NG20NW.88. CANNA, GUALANN SGORR AN DUINE. Alternative(s): TARBERT

MOUNDS Canna


MOUND Canna


HUTS (POSSIBLE), ENCLOSURE, FIELD-SYSTEM

Canna

NG20NE.20. CANNA, LAG A' BHAILE. Alternative(s): CANNA HARBOUR

TOWNSHIP Canna

NG20NE.20. CANNA, LAG A' BHAILE. Alternative(s): CANNA HARBOUR

TOWNSHIP Canna

NG20NE.56. CANNA, LAMA SGORR. Alternative(s): HUT (POSSIBLE) Canna NG20NE.57. CANNA, LAMA SGORR. Alternative(s): HUT (POSSIBLE), ENCLOSURE Canna NG20SW.13. CANNA, LEOB AN FHIONNAIDH.

Alternative(s): PEN Canna

NG20SW.14. CANNA, LEOB AN FHIONNAIDH. Alternative(s):

PEN Canna

NG20SW.16. CANNA, LEOB AN FHIONNAIDH. Alternative(s):

STRUCTURE, FIELD-SYSTEM Canna

NG20SW.17. CANNA, LEOB AN FHIONNAIDH. Alternative(s): ALLT BHRE-SGORR

STRUCTURES Canna

NG20NE.66. CANNA, LON A' GHEUG-SGORR. Alternative(s):

MOUND Canna

NG20NE.87. CANNA, LOSAID AN T-SAGAIRT. Alternative(s):

STRUCTURE Canna

NG20NE.88. CANNA, LOSAID AN T-SAGAIRT. Alternative(s):

ENCLOSURES Canna

NG20NE.109.4 CANNA, LOSAID AN T-SAGAIRT. Alternative(s): A' CHILL, DUN NAM BERBH, LOSAID MHOR

LAZY-BEDS, FIELD WALLS Canna

NG20NE.102. CANNA, LOSAID EAG. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE (POSSIBLE) Canna NG20NW.7. CANNA, LOSAID EAG. Alternative(s): 'DUN', ENCLOSURES Canna


100


NG20NW.121. CANNA, LOSAID EAG. Alternative(s): TARBERT

ENCLOSURE (POSSIBLE) Canna

NG20NW.122. CANNA, LOSAID EAG. Alternative(s): TARBERT

ENCLOSURES Canna

NG20NE.89. CANNA, LOSAID MHOR. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE (POSSIBLE) Canna NG20NE.90. CANNA, LOSAID MHOR. Alternative(s): BUILDING Canna NG20NE.114. CANNA, POST OFFICE AND TELEPHONE

BOX. Alternative(s): POST OFFICE, TELEPHONE CALL BOX

Canna

NG20NW.130. CANNA, RUADH-SGORR. Alternative(s): TARBET, GARRESDALE, CUMHA CHOLAIN, ALLT NA CRICHE TUATHA

ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE, LAZY-BEDS

Canna

NG20NE.29. CANNA, RUBHA DUBH. Alternative(s): STRUCTURE Canna NG20NE.30. CANNA, RUBHA DUBH. Alternative(s): BUILDING, MOUND Canna NG20NE.31. CANNA, RUBHA DUBH. Alternative(s): BUILDING Canna NG20NE.32. CANNA, RUBHA DUBH. Alternative(s): CAIRNS Canna NG20NE.35. CANNA, RUBHA DUBH. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE Canna NG20NE.109.6 CANNA, RUBHA DUBH. Alternative(s): A'

CHILL LAZY-BEDS, FIELD CLEARANCE CAIRNS

Canna

NG20NW.126. CANNA, RUBHA LANGANES. Alternative(s):

ENCLOSURE Canna


ENCLOSURE, STRUCTURE Canna


BUILDING, HUTS, MOUNDS, SMALL CAIRNS

Canna


MOUNDS Canna

NG20NW.3. CANNA, RUBHA LANGANES. Alternative(s): RUDHA LANGANES, RUDHA LANGANINNIS

STRUCTURES Canna

NG20SW.3. CANNA, RUBHA NIC EAMOIN. Alternative(s): RUDHA NIC EAMOIN, TARBERT

FORT Canna

NG20NE.6. CANNA, RUDHA DUBH. Alternative(s): FARMSTEAD Canna NG20SW.2. CANNA, SGOR NAM BAN-NAOMHA.

Alternative(s): SKERRY OF THE HOLY WOMEN, CASHEL

MONASTIC SETTLEMENT (POSSIBLE), CROSS, CROSS-SLABS

Canna

NG20SW.42. CANNA, SGORR AN DUINE. Alternative(s): STRUCTURE Canna NG20SW.43. CANNA, SGORR AN DUINE. Alternative(s): HUTS Canna NG20SW.30. CANNA, SGORR NAM BAN-NAOMHA.

Alternative(s): HUTS, MOUNDS Canna

NG20SW.35. CANNA, SGORR NAM BAN-NAOMHA. Alternative(s):

ENCLOSURES, MOUND, PEN Canna

NG20SW.18. CANNA, SLIABH MEADHONACH. Alternative(s):

STRUCTURES, ENCLOSURE Canna

NG20SW.19. CANNA, SLIABH MEADHONACH. Alternative(s): GLAC NA CRICHE DEISE

HUT-CIRCLE, FIELD-SYSTEM Canna

NG20SW.15. CANNA, SRON BHROSGOR. Alternative(s): HUT, MOUND Canna NG20SW.6. CANNA, SRON BHROSGOR. Alternative(s): STRUCTURE Canna NG20SW.11. CANNA, SRON RUAIL. Alternative(s): STRUCTURE Canna NG20SW.5. CANNA, SRON RUAIL. Alternative(s): HUT-CIRCLE, PEN,

ENCLOSURE, FIELD-SYSTEM Canna

NG20SW.12. CANNA, SRON RUAIL. Alternative(s): DUN CHANNA

HUT, ENCLOSURE Canna

NG20NE.2. CANNA, ST COLUMBA'S GRAVEYARD, SCULPTURED CROSS. Alternative(s): KEILL, ST COLUMBA'S CHAPEL, CANNA CROSS

CROSS: SCULPTURED Canna


101

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island NG20NW.114. CANNA, TARBERT BAY. Alternative(s): STRUCTURES, MOUNDS, PEN Canna NG20NW.115. CANNA, TARBERT BAY. Alternative(s): MOUNDS Canna NG20NW.116. CANNA, TARBERT BAY. Alternative(s): MOUNDS, ENCLOSURE Canna NG20NW.117. CANNA, TARBERT BAY. Alternative(s): HUT Canna NG20NW.5. CANNA, TARBERT BAY. Alternative(s): SHIELING-HUTS,

SETTLEMENT, POTTERY, FLINT FLAKE

Canna

NG20NW.9. CANNA, TARBERT FARM. Alternative(s): SHIELING-HUT (POSSIBLE) Canna NG20NE.112. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): LAZY-BEDS, FIELD WALLS Canna NG20NW.12. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20NW.131.0 CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): ARCHAEOLOGICAL

LANDSCAPE Canna

NG20NW.131.0 CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Canna

NG20NW.131.1 CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): FIELD-SYSTEM, LAZY-BEDS, FIELD CLEARANCE CAIRNS

Canna

NG20NW.131.3 CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): FIELD-SYSTEM, LAZY-BEDS, FIELD WALLS

Canna

NG20NW.131.4 CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): FIELD-SYSTEM, LAZY-BEDS Canna NG20NW.131.4 CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): FIELD-SYSTEM, LAZY-BEDS Canna NG20NW.131.4 CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): FIELD-SYSTEM, LAZY-BEDS Canna NG20NW.26. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): FARMSTEAD, MOUNDS Canna NG20NW.79. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): MOUNDS, POTTERY Canna NG20NW.80. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): SHEEPFOLD, PEN, SHEEP DIP Canna NG20NW.81. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): STRUCTURE Canna NG20NW.82. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): MOUNDS, POTTERY Canna NG20NW.83. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): STRUCTURE (POSSIBLE) Canna NG20NW.84. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): HUT Canna NG20NW.85. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): MOUNDS, HUT (POSSIBLE) Canna NG20NW.86. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20NW.87. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): MOUND Canna NG20NW.91. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s):

GUALANN SGORR NA DUINE INDETERMINATE REMAINS Canna

NG20NW.92. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): GUALANN SGORR NA DUINE

MOUND Canna

NG20NW.93. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): GUALANN SGORR NA DUINE

MOUND Canna

NG20NW.97. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): NA H-ATHANNAN

ENCLOSURE Canna

NG20NW.98. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): NA H-ATHANNAN

BUILDING (POSSIBLE) Canna

NG20NW.23. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): NA H-ATHANNAN, CREAG A-CHAIRN

TOWNSHIP Canna

NG20NW.95. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): NA H-ATHANNAN, TARBERT BAY

BUILDING Canna

NG20NW.96. CANNA, TARBERT. Alternative(s): NA H-ATHANNAN, TARBERT BAY

ENCLOSURE, PEN (POSSIBLE) Canna

NG20NE.44. CANNA, THE BOTHY. Alternative(s): MR MACNEIL'S HOUSE AND GARDEN

COTTAGE, LAIRD'S HOUSE Canna

NG20NE.40. CANNA, THE SQUARE, CORN MILL. Alternative(s):

MILL: CORN, DAM, LADE Canna

NG20NE.41. CANNA, THE SQUARE, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPEL. Alternative(s):

CHAPEL Canna

NG20NE.42. CANNA, THE SQUARE, SMITHY. Alternative(s):

SMITHY Canna


102

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island NG20NE.48. CANNA, TIAL-SGORR. Alternative(s): MOUNDS, ENCLOSURE Canna NG20NE.39. CANNA, TIGHARD. Alternative(s): BUILDING Canna NG20NE.43. CANNA, TIGHARD. Alternative(s): HOUSE Canna NG20NW.24. CANNA, TOBAR MHOIRE, TARBERT.

Alternative(s): WELL Canna

NG20NW.94. CANNA, TOTA TARRA. Alternative(s): TARBERT

FIELD CLEARANCE CAIRNS Canna

NG20SW.46. CANNA. Alternative(s): GENERAL VIEW Canna NG20SE.61. SANDAY, AM MIALAGAN,

SCHOOLHOUSE. Alternative(s): CANNA, SANDAY SCHOOLHOUSE

SCHOOLHOUSE Canna

NG20SE.57. SANDAY, AM MIALAGAN. Alternative(s): CANNA

BUILDINGS, HUTS Canna


BUILDING, STRUCTURE, ENCLOSURE

Canna


BUILDINGS, FIELD CLEARANCE CAIRNS

Canna


BUILDINGS, ENCLOSURE, PLATFORM

Canna


COTTAGE, BUILDINGS Canna


LAZY-BEDS, FIELD WALLS, CULTIVATION REMAINS

Canna

NG20SE.56. SANDAY, AN DOIRLINN. Alternative(s): CANNA HARBOUR

CAIRN, MOUNDS, LAZY-BEDS Canna

NG20SE.54. SANDAY, AN DOIRLINN. Alternative(s): CANNA

BUILDINGS, ENCLOSURES, LAZY-BEDS

Canna


CAIRN Canna


CAIRN Canna

NG20SE.5. SANDAY, AN T-OBAN, 'CAIRNS'. Alternative(s): CANNA

HUTS, STRUCTURES, WALLS, POTTERY

Canna

NG20SE.3. SANDAY, AN T-OBAN, 'VIKING BURIAL'. Alternative(s): CANNA

STRUCTURE Canna

NG20SE.23. SANDAY, AN T-OBAN. Alternative(s): CANNA

STRUCTURE Canna

NG20SE.28. SANDAY, AN T-OBAN. Alternative(s): CANNA

HUT Canna

NG20SE.8. SANDAY, BUAILE NA H-UAMHA. Alternative(s): CANNA

CAIRN, MOUND Canna

NG20SE.70. SANDAY, CAMAS AN AIL, COTTAGES AND BOATSHED. Alternative(s): CANNA HARBOUR, POINT HOUSE

COTTAGES, BOATHOUSE, BUILDING

Canna

NG20SE.12. SANDAY, CAMAS AN AIL. Alternative(s): CANNA

'CAIRN', MOUNDS Canna

NG20SE.14. SANDAY, CAMAS STIANABHAIG. Alternative(s): CANNA

HUT, MOUND, WALLS, ENCLOSURE

Canna


HUTS Canna


HUTS, STRUCTURES, MOUND, WALLS

Canna

NG20SE.83.2 SANDAY, CAMAS STIANABHAIG. Alternative(s): DRUIM AN LOCHAIN, GREOD, CANNA


Canna

NG20SE.2. SANDAY, CEANN AN EILEAN, 'VIKING BURIAL'. Alternative(s): CANNA

STRUCTURES Canna

NG20SE.32. SANDAY, CEANN AN EILEIN. Alternative(s): CANNA

STRUCTURE Canna


103

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island NG20SE.33. SANDAY, CEANN AN EILEIN.

Alternative(s): CANNA HUT Canna

NG20SE.41. SANDAY, CNOC AN TIONAIL. Alternative(s): CANNA

HUTS Canna


STRUCTURE Canna


BUILDING, ENCLOSURE, LAZY-BEDS

Canna


BUILDING PLATFORM: NIL ANTIQUITY

Canna


COTTAGE, BUILDINGS, ENCLOSURE

Canna


COTTAGE, BUILDINGS, HUT, ENCLOSURES, STACK STANDS

Canna


COTTAGE, BUILDINGS Canna


COTTAGE, BUILDINGS, ENCLOSURE

Canna


COTTAGE, BUILDING, ENCLOSURES, FIELD CLEARANCE CAIRN

Canna


STANDING STONE (POSSIBLE)

Canna

NG20SE.18. SANDAY, CNOC GHREANNABRIC. Alternative(s): CANNA

ENCLOSURE, BUILDING (POSSIBLE), PENS (POSSIBLE)

Canna


STRUCTURES, ENCLOSURE (POSSIBLE)

Canna


HUT Canna


HUT Canna


BUILDING, HUT, ENCLOSURE, LAZY-BEDS

Canna


BUILDING, ENCLOSURE, LAZY-BEDS

Canna


STRUCTURE Canna

NG20SE.72. SANDAY, CREAG LIATH. Alternative(s): CANNA

HUTS Canna

NG20SE.77. SANDAY, CREAG MAIRE NIGHINN ALASDAIR. Alternative(s): CANNA

BUILDING Canna

NG20SE.78. SANDAY, CREAG MAIRE NIGHINN ALASDAIR. Alternative(s): CANNA

HUTS Canna

NG20SE.9. SANDAY, CREAG NAM FAOILEANN, 'VIKING BURIAL'. Alternative(s): CANNA

STRUCTURES Canna

NG20SE.31. SANDAY, CREAG NAM FAOILEANN. Alternative(s): CANNA

HUT Canna

NG20SE.15. SANDAY, DRUIM AN LOCHAIN. Alternative(s): CANNA

ENCLOSURE (POSSIBLE), MOUNDS, HUT, POTTERY

Canna

NG20SE.80. SANDAY, DRUIM AN LOCHAIN. Alternative(s): CANNA

HUT Canna

NG20SE.21. SANDAY, EASUBRIC. Alternative(s): CANNA

HUTS Canna

NG20SE.24. SANDAY, GREOD. Alternative(s): CANNA TOWNSHIP, CULTIVATION REMAINS

Canna

NG20SE.74. SANDAY, GREOD. Alternative(s): CNOC AN TIONAIL, CREAG LIATH, CANNA

BUILDING Canna

NG20SE.71. SANDAY, GREOD. Alternative(s): CREAG LIATH, CANNA

COTTAGE, BUILDING Canna


104


NG20SE.75. SANDAY, GREOD. Alternative(s): CREAG LIATH, CANNA

BUILDING, STRUCTURE Canna

NG20SE.73. SANDAY, GREOD. Alternative(s): CREAG LIATH, CNOC AN TIONAIL, CANNA

BUILDING Canna

NG20SE.83.1 SANDAY, GREOD. Alternative(s): DRUIM AN LOCHAIN, CANNA


Canna

NG20SE.13. SANDAY, RUBHA CAMAS STIANABHAIG, 'VIKING BURIAL'. Alternative(s): CANNA

STRUCTURE Canna

NG20SE.34. SANDAY, RUBHA CAMAS STIANABHAIG. Alternative(s): CANNA

STRUCTURES Canna

NG20SE.6. SANDAY, RUBHA NAM FEANNAG. Alternative(s): CANNA

'BROCH', MIDDEN Canna

NG20SE.68. SANDAY, RUBHA NAN FEANNAG. Alternative(s): CANNA

STRUCTURES Canna

NG20SE.69. SANDAY, RUBHA NAN FEANNAG. Alternative(s): CANNA

BUILDINGS Canna

NG20SE.76. SANDAY, RUBHA NAN LION. Alternative(s): CANNA

MOUND, LAZY-BEDS Canna

NG20SE.10. SANDAY, SEAN DUN. Alternative(s): DUN EASUBRIC, GREOD, SUILEABHAIG, CANNA

FORT, ENCLOSURES, HUTS, POTTERY

Canna

NG20SE.49. SANDAY, SLIABH NA CREIGE AIRDE. Alternative(s): CANNA

BUILDING, ENCLOSURES Canna


STRUCTURES Canna


HUTS, ENCLOSURE, FIELD WALL

Canna


HUTS, KELP KILNS Canna


ENCLOSURE Canna

NG20SE.11. SANDAY, SUILEABHAIG, 'VIKING BURIAL'. Alternative(s): CANNA

KELP KILN Canna

NG20SE.4. SANDAY, SUILEABHAIG, 'VIKING BURIALS'. Alternative(s): SEAN DUN, CANNA

KELP KILN Canna

NG20SE.16. SANDAY, SUILEABHAIG. Alternative(s): CANNA

ENCLOSURE, HUT (POSSIBLE) Canna


BUILDING Canna


BUILDINGS Canna


ENCLOSURE, HUT, STRUCTURE

Canna

NG20SE.1. SANDAY, SUILEABHAIG. Alternative(s): SEAN DUN, CANNA

STRUCTURE Canna

NG20SE.22. SANDAY, TALLABRIC. Alternative(s): CANNA

FLINTS Canna


BUILDING Canna


MOUND, FIELD WALL Canna


HUT, FIELD WALL Canna


HUT Canna

NG20SE.85. SANDAY. Alternative(s): CANNA GENERAL VIEW Canna


105


NG20SE.8001. UNKNOWN: SGEIR STANASHAIG, CANNA, SEA OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): CANNA HARBOUR

CRAFT (POSSIBLE) Canna

NM48NE.1. EIGG, TOBAR CHALLUIM CHILLE, CLEADALE. Alternative(s):

WELL Eigg

NM48NE.10. EIGG, LAIG. Alternative(s): LAIG 3 HUT-CIRCLE Eigg NM48NE.11. EIGG, GLEANN CHARADAIL.

Alternative(s): SHIELING-HUTS Eigg

NM48NE.12. EIGG, LAIG. Alternative(s): BAY OF LAIG, NA SIDHEANAN

ENCLOSURE, CAIRNS (POSSIBLE)

Eigg

NM48NE.13. EIGG, KILDONNAN. Alternative(s): KILDONAN

CIST Eigg


FLINT ARROWHEAD Eigg

NM48NE.15. EIGG, LOCH NAM BAN MORA. Alternative(s): SCURR OF EIGG

DUN Eigg


STONE BASIN, HUMAN REMAINS, FONT (POSSIBLE)

Eigg

NM48NE.19.0 EIGG, KILDONNAN, ST DONNAN'S CHURCH AND BURIAL-GROUND. Alternative(s): KILDONNAN CHURCH, ST DONNAN'S CHAPEL, ST DONAN'S CHURCH, OLD ST DONNAN'S CHURCH, KILDONAN

CHURCH, BURIAL-GROUND, CROSS, CROSS-SLABS

Eigg

NM48NE.19.1 EIGG, KILDONNAN, ST DONNAN'S CHURCH AND BURIAL-GROUND, CROSS-SHAFT. Alternative(s): KILDONNAN CHURCH, ST DONNAN'S CHAPEL, ST DONAN'S CHURCH, KILDONAN

CROSS-SHAFT Eigg

NM48NE.2. EIGG, LAIG. Alternative(s): SIDHEAN NA CAILLEICH, SILHEAN NA CAILLLEACH

CAIRN, STONE AXE Eigg

NM48NE.20. EIGG, ST DONAN'S WELL. Alternative(s): WELL Eigg NM48NE.21. EIGG, KILDONNAN. Alternative(s):

KILDONAN VIKING BURIAL, SWORD, WHETSTONE, BRONZE OBJECTS

Eigg

NM48NE.23. EIGG, CROIS MHOR. Alternative(s): CROSS Eigg NM48NE.24. EIGG, KILDONNAN. Alternative(s):

KILDONAN MONASTERY, CROSS-SLABS Eigg

NM48NE.25. EIGG, GLAC AN DORCHADAIS. Alternative(s):

STONE, CROSS Eigg

NM48NE.26. EIGG, LOCHAN NIGHEAN DUGHAILL. Alternative(s): BEEHIVE CELLS, GLEANN CHARADAIL

BEEHIVE STRUCTURES, SHIELING-HUTS

Eigg

NM48NE.28. EIGG, LAIG. Alternative(s): HUT-CIRCLE, STRUCTURE Eigg NM48NE.29.1 EIGG, OLD MANSE, BARN. Alternative(s): BARN Eigg NM48NE.29.2 EIGG, OLD MANSE, WALLED GARDEN.

Alternative(s): WALLED GARDEN Eigg

NM48NE.3. EIGG, LAIG. Alternative(s): VIKING BOAT-STEMS Eigg NM48NE.30. EIGG, KILDONNAN, MILL. Alternative(s):

ISLE OF EIGG, KILDONAN, FORMER MILL

MILL Eigg

NM48NE.31.0 EIGG, CLEADALE. Alternative(s): ISLE OF EIGG, CLEADALE TOWNSHIP

CROFTING TOWNSHIP Eigg

NM48NE.31.1 EIGG, CLEADALE, FARM. Alternative(s): EIGG, CLEADALE, CROFT

Eigg

NM48NE.31.2 EIGG, CLEADALE, FARM. Alternative(s): EIGG, CLEADALE, CROFT

Eigg

NM48NE.31.3 EIGG, CLEADALE, LONGHOUSE. Alternative(s):

Eigg


106

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island NM48NE.31.4 EIGG, CLEADALE, CROFT HOUSE.

Alternative(s): CROFTHOUSE Eigg

NM48NE.32.0 EIGG, CLEADALE, ST DONNAN'S ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Alternative(s): EIGG, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPEL

CHURCH Eigg

NM48NE.33. EIGG, LAIG FARMHOUSE. Alternative(s): ISLE OF EIGG, LAIG, INN

FARMHOUSE, GARDEN WALL Eigg

NM48NE.34.0 EIGG, KILDONNAN FARM, FARMHOUSE. Alternative(s): KILDONAN

FARMHOUSE Eigg

NM48NE.34.1 EIGG, KILDONNAN FARM, BANK BARN. Alternative(s): POTTERY, HOSTEL, KILDONAN

FARMSTEADING Eigg

NM48NE.34.2 EIGG, KILDONNAN FARM, STORE. Alternative(s): BLACK HOUSE, KILDONAN

Eigg

NM48NE.36. EIGG, PUBLIC SCHOOL. Alternative(s): SCHOOLHOUSE, SCHOOL Eigg NM48NE.37.0 EIGG, CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

Alternative(s): CHURCH Eigg

NM48NE.38. EIGG, A'CHUAGACH, GENERAL. Alternative(s): EIGG, CLEADALE, CHUAGACH

Eigg

NM48NE.39. EIGG, TOLAIN. Alternative(s): CUIG PEIGHINNEAN, HOWLIN

TOWNSHIP, FIELD-SYSTEM Eigg

NM48NE.4. EIGG, LAIG. Alternative(s): BRONZE RING, BRONZE BROOCH

Eigg

NM48NE.40. EIGG, STRUIDH. Alternative(s): FARMSTEAD, SHIELING-HUTS, RIG

Eigg


BUILDING Eigg

NM48NE.42. EIGG, ALLT EAS CHUTHAIN. Alternative(s):

BUILDING Eigg

NM48NE.43. EIGG, BIDEIN AN TIGHEARNA. Alternative(s):

ENCLOSURE, SHIELING-HUTS (POSSIBLE)

Eigg

NM48NE.44. EIGG, CHLEITH MHOR. Alternative(s): FIELD-SYSTEM Eigg NM48NE.45. EIGG, DRUIM AN LOCHAIN. Alternative(s):

STRUCTURE, WALL Eigg

NM48NE.46. EIGG, HOWLIN. Alternative(s): FARMSTEAD Eigg NM48NE.47. EIGG, GENERAL. Alternative(s): Eigg NM48NE.49. EIGG, HOWLIN HOUSE. Alternative(s):

HULIN Eigg

NM48NE.5. EIGG, DRUIM NA CROISE. Alternative(s): CROSS Eigg NM48NE.50. EIGG, COTTAGE. Alternative(s): COTTAGE Eigg NM48NE.51. EIGG, POLL DUCHAILL. Alternative(s): FORT Eigg NM48NE.52. EIGG, LAIG. Alternative(s): NA

SIDHEANAN, BAY OF LAIG CAIRNS: SQUARE, CEMETERY

Eigg

NM48NE.53. EIGG, STRUIDH. Alternative(s): ROCK SHELTER Eigg NM48NE.6. EIGG, DRUIM NA CROISE. Alternative(s): CAIRN Eigg NM48NE.7. EIGG, LAIG. Alternative(s): LAIG 1 HUT-CIRCLE Eigg NM48NE.8. EIGG, LAIG. Alternative(s): LAIG 2 HUT-CIRCLE Eigg NM48NE.8008. UNKNOWN: SEA OF THE HEBRIDES.

Alternative(s): MUCK, EIGG CRAFT Eigg

NM48NE.8011. SAMUEL: BAY OF LAG, EIGG, SEA OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): EGG ISLAND

BRIGANTINE Eigg

NM48NE.9. EIGG, CHLEITH MHOR. Alternative(s): HUT-CIRCLES Eigg

NM48NW.1. EIGG, GRULIN IOCHDRACH. Alternative(s): LOWER GRULIN


NM48SE.1. EIGG, GALMISDALE. Alternative(s): DUN Eigg


107

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island NM48SE.10. EIGG, ST CATHERINE'S WELL.

Alternative(s): WELL Eigg

NM48SE.11. EIGG, GUALAINN NA SGURRA. Alternative(s):

HUT-CIRCLE Eigg

NM48SE.12. EIGG, SANDAVORE. Alternative(s): HUT-CIRCLE Eigg NM48SE.13. EIGG, GALMISDALE. Alternative(s): CAIRN Eigg

NM48SE.14. EILEAN CHATHASTAIL. Alternative(s): CAIRNS Eigg NM48SE.15. EIGG, RUBHA NA CRANNAIG,

KILDONNAN. Alternative(s): KILDONAN, ST DONAN'S MONASTERY

FORT, MONASTERY (POSSIBLE)

Eigg

NM48SE.16. EILEAN CHATHASTAIL. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE, SHIELING-HUTS Eigg NM48SE.17. EIGG, GALMISDALE. Alternative(s): CAIRN (POSSIBLE) Eigg NM48SE.18. EIGG, NA BREACHNAICH. Alternative(s): CAIRN (POSSIBLE) Eigg NM48SE.19. EIGG, TOBAR NA BEANMHA.

Alternative(s): WELL Eigg

NM48SE.2. EIGG, KILDONNAN. Alternative(s): KILDONAN

CAIRNS, VIKING BURIALS Eigg

NM48SE.20. EIGG, UAMH FHRAING. Alternative(s): MASSACRE CAVE

CAVE, HUMAN REMAINS Eigg

NM48SE.21. EIGG, KILDONNAN. Alternative(s): KILDONAN

CAIRN (POSSIBLE) Eigg

NM48SE.22. EIGG, AN SGURR. Alternative(s): AN SGURR 1

CAIRN: RING (POSSIBLE) Eigg

NM48SE.23. EIGG, AN SGURR. Alternative(s): AN SGURR 2

CAIRN: RING (POSSIBLE) Eigg

NM48SE.24. EIGG, GALMISDALE, OLD INN. Alternative(s): GALMISDALE HOUSE, POST OFFICE

Eigg

NM48SE.25.0 EIGG, EIGG LODGE. Alternative(s): GALMISDALE, THE LODGE

LODGE Eigg

NM48SE.25.1 EIGG, EIGG LODGE, GARDENS AND GATES. Alternative(s): THE LODGE

LODGE, GATES, GARDEN Eigg

NM48SE.25.2 EIGG, EIGG LODGE, CROW'S NEST. Alternative(s): DOCTOR'S COTTAGE

Eigg

NM48SE.26. EIGG, CLANRANALD HARBOUR. Alternative(s): PIER

HARBOUR, PIER Eigg

NM48SE.27. EIGG, GALMISDALE, FARMSTEAD. Alternative(s):

FARMSTEAD Eigg

NM48SE.28. EIGG, GRULIN SHEPHERD'S BOTHY. Alternative(s): EIGG, GRULIN, COTTAGE

BOTHY Eigg

NM48SE.29. EIGG, GALMISDALE. Alternative(s): ISLE OF EIGG, EAST SHORE, CROFT

FARMSTEAD Eigg

NM48SE.3. EIGG, CROIS MORAIG. Alternative(s): ST MARY'S CROSS

CROSS Eigg

NM48SE.30. EIGG, GALMISDALE. Alternative(s): CROFTING TOWNSHIP, FIELD-SYSTEM

Eigg

NM48SE.31. EIGG, GALMISDALE. Alternative(s): FARMSTEAD Eigg NM48SE.32. EIGG, DRUIM NA AL. Alternative(s): BUILDING Eigg NM48SE.33. EIGG, RUBH' AN TANGAIRD.

Alternative(s): GALMISDALE, CNOC LEATHAN

STRUCTURES Eigg

NM48SE.35. EIGG POST OFFICE. Alternative(s): POST OFFICE Eigg NM48SE.36. EIGG, GALMISDALE. Alternative(s): METAL WORKING SITE, FLINT

OBJECTS Eigg

NM48SE.37. EIGG, MANSE WOOD. Alternative(s): GORTAIN IC IAIN

HUT-CIRCLE Eigg

NM48SE.38. EIGG, GALMISDALE BAY. Alternative(s): FISH TRAPS Eigg


108


NM48SE.39. EIGG, GALMISDALE. Alternative(s): GALMISDALE PIER DEVELOPMENT

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY, TRIAL EXCAVATION

Eigg

NM48SE.4. GALMISDALE, EIGG. Alternative(s): CAIRN, CIST Eigg NM48SE.5. GALMISDALE, EIGG. Alternative(s): CAIRNS, CIST Eigg NM48SE.6. EIGG, AN SGURR. Alternative(s): SCUIRR

OF EIGG, FORT FORT Eigg

NM48SE.7. EIGG, GRULIN UACHDRACH. Alternative(s): UPPER GRULIN, AN SGURR


NM48SE.8. EILEAN CHATHASTAIL. Alternative(s): EILEAN A'CHAISTEAL

NATURAL FEATURE Eigg

NM48SE.8001. SOUTH ESK: GALMISDALE PIER, EIGG, SEA OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): SOUTHESK

BRIGANTINE Eigg

NM48SE.8002. UNKNOWN: SEA OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): GALMISDALE, EIGG

ANCHOR Eigg

NM48SE.8003. HERMANN: GALMISDALE PIER, EIGG, SEA OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): GALMSDATE PIER

STEAMSHIP Eigg

NM48SE.8005. UNKNOWN: GALMISDALE BAY, EIGG, SEA OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): 'DUBH GHLEANNAG', 'AN DUBH GHLEANNACH', GALMISDALE PIER, EIGG PIER

CRAFT Eigg

NM49SE.1. EIGG, FIVEPENNIES WELL. Alternative(s): CUIG PEIGHINNEAN

WELL Eigg

NM49SE.2. EIGG, HOWLIN. Alternative(s): CUIG PEIGHINNEAN, GUALA MHOR

ENCLOSURE Eigg

NM49SE.3. EIGG, TALM. Alternative(s): BUILDING, SHIELING-HUTS Eigg NM49SE.4. EIGG, TALM. Alternative(s): ENCLOSURE, RIG Eigg NM49SE.8001. LYTHE: SGORR SGAILEACH, EIGG, SEA

OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): LYTHIE, SOUND OF RUM, SOUND OF RHUM, 'NORTH TIP OF EIGG'

STEAMSHIP Eigg

NM49SE.8002. NELLIE: SGORR SGAILEACH, EIGG, SEA OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): JENNIE, SOUND OF RUM, SOUND OF RHUM, 'NORTH TIP OF EIGG'

CRAFT Eigg

NM49SE.8003. JENNIE: SGORR SGAILEACH, EIGG, SEA OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): NELLIE, RHUM, 'SOUTH OF RUM', 'NORTH END OF EIGG'

STEAMSHIP Eigg

NM49SE.8004. UNKNOWN: SGORR SGAILEACH, EIGG, SEA OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): BOGHA RUADH

STEAMSHIP Eigg

NM37NE.1. MUCK. Alternative(s): DUN Muck

NM38SE.1. MUCK, EILEAN NAN EACH. Alternative(s): HORSE ISLAND

HUT-CIRCLE, ENCLOSURE Muck

NM38SE.2. ACHADH NA CREIGE, MUCK. Alternative(s):

BUILDINGS Muck

NM38SE.8001. TALIFOO: HORSE ISLAND REEF, SOUND OF EIGG, SEA OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): H 1425, EIGG, MUCK, ARDROSSAN, FIRTH OF CLYDE

STEAM TRAWLER Muck

NM47NW.1. MUCK, SEAN BHAILE, A'CHILL. Alternative(s): PORT MOR

CHAPEL, BURIAL-GROUND, FONT (POSSIBLE), CROSS-SLABS

Muck

NM47NW.10. MUCK, PORT MOR. Alternative(s): BUILDINGS Muck NM47NW.11. MUCK, PORT MOR. Alternative(s): FARMSTEAD Muck


109


NM47NW.12. MUCK, PORT MOR. Alternative(s): BUILDINGS, ENCLOSURE Muck NM47NW.13. MUCK, CNOC AN FHEUR LOCHAIN.

Alternative(s): FARMSTEAD, ENCLOSURE, FIELD-SYSTEM

Muck

NM47NW.14. MUCK, DRUIM MOR. Alternative(s): BUILDING Muck NM47NW.15. MUCK, PORT MOR. Alternative(s): FARMSTEAD Muck NM47NW.17. MUCK, PORT MOR. Alternative(s): FARMSTEAD Muck NM47NW.18. MUCK, GENERAL. Alternative(s): GENERAL VIEW Muck NM47NW.2. MUCK, CAISTEAL AN DUIN BHAIN.

Alternative(s): PORT MOR FORT Muck

NM47NW.3. MUCK, PORT MOR. Alternative(s): PORT MOR 1, MUCK

CAIRN Muck

NM47NW.4. MUCK, BEINN AIREIN. Alternative(s): CAIRN Muck NM47NW.5. MUCK, PORT MOR. Alternative(s): PORT

MOR 2, MUCK CAIRN Muck

NM47NW.8. MUCK, LEABAIDH DHONNCHAIDH. Alternative(s):

BUILDING Muck

NM47NW.8001. TARTAR: PORT MOR, MUCK, SEA OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): SOUTH HARBOUR, MUCK

STEAMSHIP Muck

NM47NW.9. MUCK, LEABAIDH DHONNCHAIDH. Alternative(s):

BUILDINGS, ENCLOSURES Muck

NM48NE.16. EIGG. Alternative(s): SOCKETED, BRONZE AXE Muck NM48NE.17. EIGG. Alternative(s): BRONZE PIN, WHETSTONE,

WHORL, IRON OBJECTS Muck

NM48NE.22. EIGG. Alternative(s): FLINT SPEARHEAD Muck NM48NE.27. EIGG. Alternative(s): STONE AXE Muck NM48SW.1. MUCK, AIRD NAN UAN. Alternative(s):

ARD NAN UAN, GALLANACH CAIRNS Muck

NM48SW.2. MUCK, TORR A' BHUILG. Alternative(s): CAIRN Muck NM48SW.3. CARN DEARG, MUCK. Alternative(s): BRONZE SWORD Muck NM48SW.4. MUCK, GALLANACH. Alternative(s): FARMSTEADING Muck NM48SW.5. MUCK, GALLANACH, COTTAGE.

Alternative(s): Muck

NM48SW.6. MUCK, CACHLAIDH RUADH. Alternative(s):

FARMSTEAD Muck

NM48SW.7. MUCK, CACHLAIDH RUADH. Alternative(s):

FARMSTEAD Muck

NM48SW.8. MUCK, BLAR MOR. Alternative(s): FARMSTEAD Muck NM48SW.9. MUCK, BLAR MOR. Alternative(s): BUILDING Muck

NG30SE.1. RUM, KILMORY, ST MARY'S CHURCH BURIAL GROUND. Alternative(s): RHUM

CHURCH, BURIAL-GROUND, CROSS

Rum

NG30SE.10. RUM, KILMORY. Alternative(s): RHUM BUILDING Rum NG30SE.11. RUM, KILMORY. Alternative(s): RHUM BUILDINGS Rum NG30SE.12. RUM, KILMORY GLEN. Alternative(s):

RHUM FARMSTEAD Rum

NG30SE.13. RUM, KILMORY GLEN. Alternative(s): RHUM

FARMSTEAD Rum


FARMSTEAD (POSSIBLE) Rum

NG30SE.15. RUM, KILMORY LODGE. Alternative(s): RHUM

FARMSTEAD Rum

NG30SE.16. RUM, KILMORY LODGE. Alternative(s): RHUM

FARMSTEAD Rum

NG30SE.17. RUM, RUADH-MHOL. Alternative(s): RHUM

FARMSTEAD Rum

NG30SE.18. RUM, SAMHNAN INSIR. Alternative(s): RHUM

FARMSTEAD Rum


110



FARMSTEAD Rum


STONE ARROWHEADS, BLOODSTONE FLAKES, POTTERY

Rum

NG30SE.20. RUM, ALLT NA GLAIC MOINE. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NG30SE.21. RUM, KILMORY. Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUT Rum NG30SE.22. RUM, KILMORY. Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUTS Rum NG30SE.23. RUM, KILMORY GLEN. Alternative(s):

RHUM SHIELING-HUT Rum


SHIELING-HUT Rum


SHIELING-HUT Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUT (POSSIBLE) Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUT Rum

NG30SE.3. RUM, KINLOCH GLEN. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS, MIDDENS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUT Rum

NG30SE.33. RUM, KILMORY GLEN, ALLT LOCH AN TAIRBH. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NG30SE.34. RUM, KILMORY GLEN, MINISHAL. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NG30SE.35. RUM, KILMORY GLEN, MINISHAL. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT, STRUCTURE Rum

NG30SE.36. RUM, KILMORY GLEN, SALISBURY'S DAM. Alternative(s): RHUM

BUILDING Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NG30SE.4. RUM, KILMORY. Alternative(s): RHUM CAIRN Rum NG30SE.40. RUM, KINLOCH GLEN. Alternative(s):

RHUM SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUT Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NG30SE.43. RUM, KINLOCH GLEN, AIRIGH THALABAIRT. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NG30SE.44. RUM, RUBHA MOL RUDHA. Alternative(s): RHUM, MUILACH MOR

SHIELING-HUTS, CULTIVATION REMAINS

Rum


SHIELING-HUTS (POSSIBLE) Rum

NG30SE.46. RUM, KILMORY. Alternative(s): RHUM BUILDING (POSSIBLE) Rum


111

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island NG30SE.47. RUM, SAMHNAN INSIR. Alternative(s):

RHUM ENCLOSURE Rum

NG30SE.48. RUM, KILMORY, LAUNDRY BUILDING. Alternative(s): RHUM

BUILDING Rum

NG30SE.49. RUM, KILMORY. Alternative(s): RHUM CULTIVATION REMAINS Rum NG30SE.5. RUM, KILMORY. Alternative(s): RHUM FORT Rum NG30SE.50. RUM, SHAMHNAN INSIR. Alternative(s):

RHUM HOUSE Rum

NG30SE.51. RUM, KILMORY. Alternative(s): RHUM ENCLOSURE Rum NG30SE.52. RUM, KILMORY. Alternative(s): RHUM ENCLOSURE Rum NG30SE.53. RUM, ALLT LOCH SGAORISHAL.

Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUTS (POSSIBLE) Rum

NG30SE.55. RUM, KILMORY, LODGE. Alternative(s): RHUM

LODGE. Rum


BLOODSTONE FLAKES Rum

NG30SE.7. RUM, SAMHNAN INSIR, GLAC MHOR. Alternative(s): RHUM

FARMSTEAD Rum

NG30SE.8. RUM, KILMORY. Alternative(s): RHUM TOWNSHIP, HEAD-DYKE Rum NG30SE.8001. MIDAS: KILMORY BAY, RUM, SOUND OF

RUM. Alternative(s): RHUM, SEA OF THE HEBRIDES

BARQUE Rum

NG30SE.9. RUM, KILMORY. Alternative(s): RHUM FARMSTEAD Rum

NG30SW.1. RUM, SHELLESDER. Alternative(s): RHUM FORT Rum NG30SW.10. RUM, GLEN GUIRDIL. Alternative(s):

RHUM SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NG30SW.11. RUM, GLEN GUIRDIL. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT Rum

NG30SW.12. RUM, GLEN SHELLESDER. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUT Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NG30SW.19. RUM, GLEN SHELLESDER, MATERNITY HOLLOW. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS, STRUCTURES

Rum

NG30SW.2. RUM, GUIRDIL. Alternative(s): RHUM 'HUT-CIRCLE', INDETERMINATE REMAINS

Rum

NG30SW.20. RUM, GUIRDIL, FIONCHRA. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NG30SW.24. RUM, MONADH DUBH. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NG30SW.25. RUM, MONADH DUBH. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT Rum


112

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island NG30SW.26. RUM, GUIRDIL, WHITE HOUSE.

Alternative(s): RHUM HOUSE Rum

NG30SW.3. RUM, BLOODSTONE HILL. Alternative(s): RHUM, CREAG NAN STAIRDEAN

QUARRY, BLOODSTONE IMPLEMENTS

Rum

NG30SW.4. RUM, GUIRDIL. Alternative(s): RHUM CAIRN Rum NG30SW.5. RUM, SHELLESDER. Alternative(s): RHUM CAVE, MIDDEN Rum NG30SW.6. RUM, GLEN SHELLESDER. Alternative(s):

RHUM FARMSTEAD Rum

NG30SW.7. RUM, GUIRDIL. Alternative(s): RHUM TOWNSHIP Rum NG30SW.8. RUM, GUIRDIL. Alternative(s): RHUM DESERTED TOWNSHIP Rum NG30SW.8001. UNKNOWN: GUIRDIL, RUM, SEA OF THE

HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): RHUM, GUERDLE, GUIRDIL BAY, SOUND OF CANNA, COLL, 'ON GUIRDIL'

BARQUE Rum

NG30SW.8002. UNKNOWN: GUIRDIL BAY, RUM, SEA OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): RHUM, GUERDLE, SOUND OF CANNA

CRAFT Rum

NG30SW.9. RUM, ALLT LOCH SGAORISHAL. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT Rum

NG40SW.1. RUM, KINLOCH GLEN. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NG40SW.2. RUM, CAMAS PLIASGAIG. Alternative(s): RHUM

BLOODSTONE FLAKES, FLINT FLAKES

Rum

NG40SW.3. RUM, RUBHA NAM FEANNAG. Alternative(s): RHUM

BLOODSTONE FLAKES Rum

NG40SW.4. RUM, CAMAS PLIASGAIG. Alternative(s): RHUM

DESERTED TOWNSHIP Rum

NG40SW.5. RUM, TIGH BHRALIE. Alternative(s): RHUM

TOWNSHIP Rum

NG40SW.6. RUM, CREAG NA H-IOLAIRE. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT Rum

NG40SW.7. RUM, KINLOCH, RUBHA NAM FEANNAG. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM29NE.1. RUM, A' BHRIDEANACH. Alternative(s): RHUM

CAIRN Rum

NM39NE.1. RUM, MONADH MHILTICH. Alternative(s): RHUM

BUILDING (POSSIBLE) Rum

NM39NE.10. RUM, GLEN HARRIS, BARKEVAL 2. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NE.12. RUM, GLEN HARRIS, CLACH MHOR, MHIC-ILLEAN. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NE.13. RUM, HARRIS, AN DORNABAC 1. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUT Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NE.19. RUM, KILMORY GLEN, SALISBURY'S DAM 1. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NE.2. RUM, GLEN HARRIS 1. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum


113

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island NM39NE.20. RUM, MALCOLM'S BRIDGE 1.

Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NE.21. RUM, MALCOLM'S BRIDGE 2. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NE.25. RUM, MALCOLM'S BRIDGE, MONADH MHILTICH 1. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS (POSSIBLE), ENCLOSURE

Rum

NM39NE.26. RUM, PRIOMH-LOCH BEAG. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NE.27. RUM, SALISBURY'S DAM. Alternative(s): RHUM

DAM, LADE, BUILDING Rum

NM39NE.28. RUM, GLEN HARRIS, BARKEVAL. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NE.30. RUM, ALLT SLUGAN A' CHOILICH. Alternative(s): RHUM

BUILDING (POSSIBLE) Rum

NM39NE.31. RUM. Alternative(s): RHUM GENERAL VIEW Rum NM39NE.32. RUM, RUM CULLIN. Alternative(s): RHUM

CUILLIN Rum

NM39NE.33. RUM, GENERAL. Alternative(s): ISLE OF RUM

Rum


SHIELING-HUT Rum


SHIELING-HUT Rum

NM39NE.6. RUM, GLEN HARRIS, ABHAINN SGATHAIG. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT (POSSIBLE) Rum

NM39NE.7. RUM, GLEN HARRIS, ATH NAN DAOINE 1. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS, STRUCTURE Rum

NM39NE.8. RUM, GLEN HARRIS, ATH NAN DAOINE 2. Alternative(s): RHUM

WALL, STRUCTURE Rum


SHIELING-HUT Rum

NM39NW.12. RUM, ARD NEV. Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUTS Rum NM39NW.19. RUM, GLEN HARRIS 5. Alternative(s):

RHUM SHIELING - HUTS Rum

NM39NW.20. RUM, GLEN HARRIS 6. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING - HUTS Rum

NM39NW.21. RUM, GLEN HARRIS, ALLT LAG SLEITIR 1. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT Rum

NM39NW.22. RUM, GLEN HARRIS, ALLT LAG SLEITIR 2. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT Rum

NM39NW.23. RUM, HARRIS 1. Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUT Rum NM39NW.24. RUM, HARRIS 2. Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUTS Rum NM39NW.25. RUM, HARRIS. Alternative(s): RHUM ENCLOSURE, SHIELING-HUT,

CULTIVATION REMAINS Rum

NM39NW.26. RUM, HARRIS 4. Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUTS Rum NM39NW.27. RUM, HARRIS 5. Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUTS (POSSIBLE) Rum NM39NW.28. RUM, HARRIS 6. Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUTS, ENCLOSURE Rum NM39NW.29. RUM, HARRIS. Alternative(s): RHUM ENCLOSURE Rum NM39NW.3. RUM, HARRIS. Alternative(s): RHUM CAIRN, MOUNDS Rum


114

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island NM39NW.30. RUM, HARRIS. Alternative(s): RHUM STACK SETTING, STOCK

ENCLOSURE Rum

NM39NW.31. RUM, HARRIS, ARD MHEALL 1. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT Rum


SHIELING - HUT Rum


SHIELING - HUT Rum

NM39NW.34. RUM, HARRIS, GLEN DUIAN 1. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NW.4. RUM, HARRIS. Alternative(s): RHUM CAIRNS Rum NM39NW.41. RUM, HARRIS, GUALANN NA PAIRCE 1.

Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NW.42. RUM, HARRIS, GUALANN NA PAIRCE 2, SHIELING. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NW.43. RUM, HARRIS, GUALANN NA PAIRCE 3. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NW.44. RUM, HARRIS, GUALANN NA PAIRCE 4. Alternative(s): RHUM, LOCH MONICA

SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS Rum


SHIELING-HUTS (POSSIBLE) Rum


SHIELING-HUT Rum

NM39NW.48. RUM, HARRIS, HUGH'S BRAE 1. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NW.49. RUM, HARRIS, HUGH'S BRAE. Alternative(s): RHUM

ENCLOSURE, SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NW.50. RUM, HARRIS, HUGH'S BRAE 3. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39NW.57. RUM, HARRIS. Alternative(s): RHUM ENCLOSURE Rum NM39NW.58. RUM, HARRIS. Alternative(s): RHUM CULTIVATION REMAINS Rum NM39NW.60.0 RUM, HARRIS, BULLOUGH

MAUSOLEUM. Alternative(s): RHUM, KINLOCH ESTATE

MAUSOLEUM Rum

NM39NW.60.1 RUM, HARRIS, OLD BULLOUGH MAUSOLEUM. Alternative(s): FIRST BULLOUGH MAUSOLEUM

Rum

NM39NW.61. RUM, HARRIS BAY. Alternative(s): RHUM TOPOGRAPHICAL VIEW Rum NM39NW.62. HARRIS. Alternative(s): TOWNSHIP Rum NM39NW.63. RUM, HARRIS LODGE. Alternative(s):

KINLOCH CASTLE, HARRIS LODGE, KINLOCH ESTATE, HARRIS LODGE

Rum

NM39NW.7. RUM, HARRIS 9. Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUTS Rum NM39NW.8. RUM, HARRIS 1. Alternative(s): RHUM TOWNSHIP, FIELD-SYSTEM,

HEAD-DYKE Rum

NM39NW.9. RUM, HARRIS 2. Alternative(s): RHUM TOWNSHIP Rum


115

Reference No. Site Name Site type Island NM39SE.1. RUM, PAPADIL. Alternative(s): RHUM FORT Rum NM39SE.10. RUM, INBHIR GHIL 2. Alternative(s):

RHUM, ALT NA GILE SHIELING-HUT Rum

NM39SE.11. RUM, INBHIR GHIL 3. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT, KELP-WORKING SITE

Rum

NM39SE.12. RUM, INBHIR GHIL, RUINSIVAL 1. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS Rum

NM39SE.13. RUM, PAPADIL. Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUTS Rum NM39SE.14. RUM, SGORR MOR. Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUTS, ENCLOSURE,

DYKES Rum

NM39SE.15. RUM, PAPADIL. Alternative(s): RHUM STRUCTURE Rum NM39SE.16. RUM, DIBIDIL. Alternative(s): RHUM ENCLOSURE Rum NM39SE.18. RUM, DIBIDIL. Alternative(s): RHUM BOTHY Rum NM39SE.2. RUM, DIBIDIL. Alternative(s): RHUM FARMSTEAD Rum NM39SE.3. RUM, INBHIR GHIL. Alternative(s): RHUM FARMSTEAD Rum NM39SE.4. RUM, PAPADIL. Alternative(s): RHUM FARMSTEAD, CULTIVATION

REMAINS Rum

NM39SE.5. RUM, PAPADIL LODGE. Alternative(s): RHUM

BUILDINGS Rum

NM39SE.6. RUM, ALLT AN SGOIR MHOIR. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUT Rum

NM39SE.7. RUM, GLEN DIBIDIL. Alternative(s): RHUM SHIELING-HUTS Rum NM39SE.8001. LBF: SGEIREAN MORA, RUM, SOUND OF

RUM, SEA OF THE HEBRIDES. Alternative(s): SGEIRAN MORA, RHUM

STEAM TRAWLER Rum

NM39SE.9. RUM, INBHIR GHIL 1. Alternative(s): RHUM

SHIELING-HUTS, STRUCTURES

Rum

NM49NW.1. RUM, BAGH NA H-UAMHA. Alternative(s): RHUM

CAVE, MIDDEN, BONE GAMING PIECE, CIST

Rum

NM49NW.10. RUM, BUAIL'-A-GHOIRTEIN. Alternative(s): RHUM

BLOODSTONE SCATTER Rum


BLOODSTONE SCATTER Rum

NM49NW.12.0 RUM, KINLOCH CASTLE. Alternative(s): RHUM, ISLE OF RHUM, KINLOCH CASTLE

HOUSE Rum

NM49NW.12.1 RUM, KINLOCH CASTLE, GAZEBO. Alternative(s): RHUM, KINLOCH CASTLE GARDEN GAZEBO, KINLOCH CASTLE POLICIES

GAZEBO Rum

NM49NW.12.2 RUM, KINLOCH CASTLE, BRIDGE OVER THE SLUGAN BURN. Alternative(s): RHUM, SLUGAN BURN, KINLOCH CASTLE POLICIES:SOUTH BRIDGE

ROAD BRIDGE Rum

NM49NW.12.3 RUM, KINLOCH CASTLE, WALLED GARDEN. Alternative(s):

Garden Rum

NM49NW.12.4 RUM, KINLOCH CASTLE, FORMAL GARDENS. Alternative(s): LADY MONICA'S GARDEN

Rum

NM49NW.13. RUM, KINLOCH PIER. Alternative(s): RHUM, OLD PIER

PIER Rum

NM49NW.14. RUM, KINLOCH, HOME FARM. Alternative(s): RHUM, KINLOCH CASTLE, STABLES AND FARM

FARMSTEAD Rum

NM49NW.15. RUM, KINLOCH, POST OFFICE. Alternative(s): RHUM

POST OFFICE Rum

NM49NW.16. RUM, BAYVIEW. Alternative(s): RHUM Rum NM49NW.17. RUM, KINLOCH PIER, KILN. Alternative(s):

RHUM, KILN BY PIER KILN Rum


116


NM49NW.18. RUM, KINLOCH. Alternative(s): RHUM BUILDING Rum NM49NW.19. RUM, CARN-AN-DOBHRAIN-BHIG.

Alternative(s): RHUM BUILDINGS Rum


CROSS-SLAB Rum

NM49NW.20. RUM, RAONAPOLL. Alternative(s): RHUM BUILDING Rum NM49NW.21. RUM, RAONAPOLL. Alternative(s): RHUM FARMSTEAD Rum NM49NW.22. RUM, KINLOCH WARDEN'S HOUSE.

Alternative(s): Rum


DESERTED TOWNSHIP Rum

Documents

Archaeology Development Plan for the Small Isles · 2013-07-23 · Archaeology Development Plan for the Small Isles December 2005 6 Introduction This Development Plan has been requested