HANDA ISLAND – ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT
Handa Island, Port an Eilein
HIGHLAND COUNCIL ARCHAEOLOGY UNIT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICE
1.
INTRODUCTION
This report has been compiled following a rapid visit to the island by
Graham Robins, Project Officer with the Highland Council Archaeology
Unit on the 19th April 1999.
The report is not the result of a
comprehensive desk based survey and field assessment. It is the product
of a scan of the available Highland Council Sites and Monuments Record
information, and the visit to the island.
2.
SITE INSPECTIONS
Midden - NC14NW0003
The midden appears to be around 50 metres in diameter, and is exposed
in two eroding dune faces (north and south-east sides). Bands of shell are
visible, approximately 90% limpet shell, along with some mussel and sea
snail shells.
There are also quantities of bone - some large pieces,
probably bird and mammal (possibly sea mammal); ceramics - prehistoric
(buff and black with very coarse grit used as temper) and modern (fine,
glazed). Much of it is in evidence and continuously eroding out of the
face, mainly on the north side.
The midden
The deposit appears to run right under the dune system and be exposed on
the south-east side; it has evidently been used over a long period of time,
from prehistoric to recent and represents a resource for investigating the
human settlement history on the island; earlier reports quoted in the SMR
speak of the foundation of a building being exposed.
Graveyard – NC14NW0001
This is a small, sub-rectangular area defined by low banks which are
difficult to follow over entire length. A single, flat grave slab is all that
remains to indicate that this is a graveyard - there is nothing at present to
prevent visitors from using this area, particularly the graveslab, for
picnics, etc. The Scottish Wildlife Trust are concerned that this area
should be fenced off.
The Graveyard
Settlement – NC14NW0002
This comprises 6 individual buildings arranged in linear fashion, with a
modern pathway running through the settlement between the buildings.
Each building has enclosures associated with it, extending down the slope
to the south towards the bay.
The Settlement Remains
The enclosures are defined by large boulders, which may have been
topped with turf. It is however, also possible that smaller stones were
also used, but that these have been robbed away to construct dykes for
stock enclosure after the settlement had been abandoned. The eastern end
of the settlement is more reduced than the west, and this is closer to a
later, main dyke. The obvious implication is that the stone was re-used
for this dyke.
A corn-drying kiln is located fairly centrally to the
settlement and is reasonably well preserved.
Corn Drying Kiln
One building retains evidence of a chimney built into a central gable. In
general, doorways have been blocked up, sometimes quite roughly but
sometimes also quite finely. Whether this work was done before or after
abandonment of the settlement, to enable the use of the buildings as stock
enclosures is open to question.
The settlement is south facing, and
overlooks a wide bowl which leads down to the sandy beach.
The
prevailing wind often blows sand up over the area of cleared and enclosed
fields in front of the settlement. Although the fields are now scrubby and
overgrown, drainage ditches are evident.
A head dyke runs across to the south of the settlement. In the east, it is
overlain by the later sheepfold, and in the west it encloses a large area of
the south-facing bay. A branch of the dyke heads west to Traigh na hAirigh, where it runs right to the shore. There is a clear distinction
between the improved and unimproved land.
Improved/Unimproved Land
Boundary Dyke to the West
At Traigh na h-Airigh (Bay of the Shieling?) there are two possible
structures which have not previously been recorded(NC1318 4725).
They are located at the back of a high storm beach, immediately to the
east and west of a small burn and survive as patches of stone. The eastern
one (structure 1) is sub-rectangular, measuring 5-6 metres across with
clear evidence of built walling (approximately 2 metre internal diameter).
The western one (structure 2) is sub-circular and measures approximately
5 metres in diameter. It is flat with no evidence of structure, however, the
clearly defined edges suggest a “built” arrangement – but nothing to
suggest a function. It is quite likely that these are shieling structures,
hence the place-name containing “Airidh”. However, they are only 10
minutes walk from the settlement, and it is perhaps questionable whether
the system of summer shielings would have operated on such a small
island. The purpose of the sheiling system was however, to remove the
animals from the agricultural area, so that they could not damage or eat
the crops, so it is not impossible that such a system was in operation.
At the eastern end of the same bay there is a possible structure (structure
3) located immediately above the rocky shoreline (NC1290 4734). It
comprises a low “wall” of large stones enclosing a sub-rectangular area
approximately 6 metres by 3 metres, the wall rising to a maximum two
courses (c0.40 metres). The location at the head of a narrow inlet suggests
some sort of rough storage area, perhaps originally having a higher, turf
built structure, but the locality is not suitable for landing boats.
There is evidence for cultivation areas over much of the island, where the
local topography and drainage permits it. These areas resemble linear
strips normally running parallel to the slope. It is possible that some of
these “features” may be the result of natural patterns formed by the
gradual shifting of peat.
The feature marked on the SMR as NC14NW0005 was not located, and it
would appear that this locality - open, bare, heather moor-land on the
west slope of the highest hill on the island - is completely devoid of manmade structures.
3.
ISSUES
There are a number of issues to consider in terms of the management of
the cultural heritage of the island.
One of these appears to be the modern stone pathway for which
upgrading has been suggested. SWT already have a policy in place
which means that stone from the settlement is not taken away for re-use,
so damage to the settlement should not be an issue.
However, any
upgrading to the path has to be considered also from an aesthetic
viewpoint. It is important that any upgrading work would be in keeping
with the appearance of the settlement. It would be preferable for the path
to blend in rather than stick out.
The midden is perhaps the most fragile site of all those recorded. It
appears to be constantly eroding due to the pressures of nature.
In
addition to this, it is likely that visitors collect finds from the midden and
remove them from the island, with no level of archaeological recording,
which in itself is worrying.
The head dyke is an important element of the pre-clearance economy of
the island, and though it is obvious on the ground for most of its length,
the current pathway does run alongside it and this could cause problems
relating to damage from visitor numbers, erosion, etc.
SWT also expressed a concern to keep their interpretation information
relating to the human settlement of the island up to date, particularly as
there is a possibility that existing information boards will be renewed in
the near future.
4.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A full survey of the island should be carried out. This would involve a
desk based assessment and field survey. The desk based assesment
comprises a search of relevant historical maps and documents to identify
previous land use.
The field survey would identify all of the
archaeological sites on the island, and produce a detailed report on each
one, not only in terms of its archaeological value, but in terms of its
potential visitor value, and suitability for increased visitor numbers.
The end product would be a report, which detailed all of the standing
archaeological and historical remains on the island.
Once this had been produced, it could be combined with the social history
of the island – it is likely that there is a lot of local knowledge about the
island and how it has been used over the years. Combines, these two
sources of information would provide a much more complete information
base for further work on the island
The midden should be a source of concern. It is important that some
steps are taken to prevent its erosion. This could for example involve
planting marram grass over the site, if it is a suitable location for this.
The main aim here is to prevent further erosion without damaging the
site.
SWT should be aware that finds from the site should not be
removed from the island. Under Scots Law, any man-made items such as
pottery, or metal has to be declared as Treasure Trove. The visitors
should be advised not to touch the midden, as removal of material is
likely to exacerbate the erosion. Any items however taken from the
midden should be given to the Ranger, who must in turn report them to
the Highland Council Archaeology Unit. The finds should be kept safely,
without any interference, until they can be delivered to, or collected by
the Archaeology Unit.
All of the above recommendations should help to increase the
information available for interpretation of the site. The usual advice
given by the Archaeology Unit is that interpretation boards should not be
erected on site, as they will visually interfere with the archaeology.
Rather, they should be erected a distance from the site, on the approach,
or alternatively a leaflet or booklet would be preferable.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
The island certainly has a story to tell about its past. It is however,
important that this is done in a sensitive manner. Improving access and
interpretation at archaeological sites is all well and good, but the fragility
of the site has to be considered – how well it will stand up to visitor
pressure. It is especially important for the island to emphasise the human
story – how and why people once lived there, and the traces of their
presence which have been left behind.
Dorothy M Low
Archaeologist
21st December 1999