N. 23 - Novembre 2009
(LIV)
THE BROCH’S COMPLEX OF EDIN'S HALL, BERWICKSHIRE
an ARCHITECTURAL, SPATIAL AND SOCIAL ACCESS ANALYSIS
di Antonio Montesanti
1.
Introduction
The
following
work
looks
at
different
analyses
layers
that
may
be
used
to
understand
the
architectural-social
relation
following
the
principles
of
access
and
spatial
theory
(Hillier
&
Hanson
1984a;
Graham
1999:
51,
Foster
1989:
40-44)
concerning
Scotland’s
most
southern
Broch’s
enclosure
site.
This
site
has
been
the
subject
of
extensive
excavations
in
nineteenth
century
(Turnbull
1881).
The
study
is
based
on
the
resurveyed
plan
by
Dunwell,
mapped
after
the
excavation
of
nine
trenches
in
winter
1996
(Dunwell
1999).
The
essay’s
structure
assesses
the
functional
space
organization
and
the
access
system,
external
and
internal,
allowing
for
theoretical
approaches
to
be
discussed.
2.
Landscape
and
positioning
(1)
The
enclosure
system
lies
at
the
point
where
the
north-eastern
slope
of
Cockburn
Law
(upon
the
summit
of
which
is
situated
a
poorly
understood
and
under-studied
hillfort)
rises
steeply
to
meet
the
Whiteadder
Water,
north
of
Duns.
Other
relevant
elements
are
constituted
by
two
smaller
settlement
places
and
one
disused
copper
mine
(Hoardweel)
along
the
river
(Armit
2003c:
124).
1 -
Landscape
and
remarkable
elements
map
3.
Exterior
and
carrier
access(es)
evaluation
(2)
Two
ditches
draw
an
elliptical
shape
enclosing
a
wide
area
(140m
by
75m)
the
circumference
of
which,
is
interrupted
by
at
least
six
ancient
breaks,
defined
as
entrances
A-F,
(G
is
modern)
(Dunwell
1999:
309).
It
has
been
proposed
that
the
C
break
is a
primary
feature
and
argued
that
the
walled
passage
F
could
be
associated
with
the
settlement
and
passes
through
the
fort
ramparts
to
an
original
entrance
(Turnbull
1857;
Ritchie
&
Graham
1988,
74;
Dunwell
1999:
312).
Those
two
main
entrances
are
each
connected
with
two
focal
landscape
areas.
The
first
one,
probably
the
foremost
(SW),
with
the
hillfort
and
the
second
with
the
mining
zone
(SSE).
However,
there
is
no
justification
that
the
passages
C
and
F
represent
the
only
primary
original
entrances
to
the
fort
(Dunwell
1999:
312).
2 -
External
accesses
map
(after
Dunwell
1999:
311)
4.
Building,
depth
and
assessment
of
access
map
(3,
4,
5)
Using
the
definition
by
which
Iron
Age
enclosures
are
qualified
as
“buildings”
(Grahame
1999:
51),
we
have
the
justified
access
map
with
respect
to
exterior
by
system
or
access
(gamma)
analysis
(Hillier
&
Hanson
1984a:
82-175;
Grahame
1999:
55-58;
Foster
1989:
44-49).
3 -
Posited
access
map
4 -
Unjustified
access
(gamma)
map
superimposed
5 -
Justified
access
(gamma)
map
The
enclosure’s
plan
appears
disorganized,
chaotic,
and
apparently
random.
However,
this
agglomeration
of
structures
responds
to
the
consequences
of
rules
(Fletcher
1977:
49-53;
Grahame
1999:
51).
Considering
the
entire
structure
as a
unique
“social
unit”
(Wallace-Hadrill
1988:
49;
1994:
7),
we
would
deduce
how
the
social
life
was
constituted
(Grahame
1999:
49)
–
contrasting
the
“theory
of
power”
by
which
the
social
life
would
reproduce
itself
(Thébert
1987:
408)
–
with
a
“practical
consciousness”
(Giddens
1984:
41-45).
Although
the
structures
suggested
that
they
are
unlikely
to
relate
to
different
phases
of
use
(Dunwell
1999:
312),
we
can
deduce
that
there
are
two
phases
by
the
spatial
connection
of
the
gamma
analysis
justified
access
map,
if
we
have
established
the
correct
relationships
between
internal
spaces.
We
have
a
central
primary
“core”
of
the
entire
enclosure
which
allows
us
to
recognise
a
first
phase
virtually
and
chronologically
separated
from
other
elements
correlated
with
the
carrier
route
access
(access
map,
left
side).
In
the
structure’s
core
there
seems
be a
wish
to
link
the
entrance
arrangements
(and
the
movement
of
people
through
it)
to
two
transitional
spaces
(3-14)
that
should
lead
up
to
the
broch.
The
broch
itself
represents
the
deepest
feature
of
the
access
points
of
the
enclosure.
Other
transitional
access
points
or
spaces
are
2,
14,
15,
29
and
particularly
37
which
seem
to
have
the
characteristics
and
function
of
corridors.
The
creation
of
large
yards
could
have
had
two
aims.
The
first
taken
together
with
the
other
structures,
might
be
the
staging
or
setting
for
human
action.
The
second
aim
might
have
been
to
create
empty
volumes
of
space
as
well
as
big
storage
places
or a
massive
space
that
might
almost
have
acted
like
a
large
open
meeting
space,
as
“all
human
actions
are
social
actions”
(Hillier
and
Hanson
1984,
1;
Grahame
1999:
51;
Giddens
1984:
375).
The
two
great
yards
present
in
the
core
(6
and
16)
are
connected
directly
by
narrow
accesses
respectively
to
other
two
big
yards
(22
and
38).
5.
Close
and
open
spaces
(focus
on
the
yards
and
roundhouses)
Through
the
Main
Depth
it
is
clear
that
the
two
most
important
yards
are
positioned
in
the
furthest
point
with
respect
to
the
external
accesses
and
than
are
the
less
accessible,
excluding
the
core
broch.
In
the
two
external
enclosures
(ramparts),
formed
by
two
large
yards
(33,
35),
the
roundhouses
seem
have
a
properly
aim.
Indeed,
whereon
the
practice’s
fixation
of
the
prior
broch
phase
have
implied
the
fixation
of
meaning
of
the
precedent
experience
in
reproducing
the
two
new
gateways.
By
observing
the
access
map,
it
does
not
appear
difficult
to
link
the
characteristic
situation
of
the
yards
to
the
Defensible
Space
Paradigm
(6)
or
to
the
open
and
close
cell
scheme
(Newman
1972;
Hillier
&
Hanson
1984b:
6;
Grahame
1997:
146-150).
6 -
Difendible
Space
Paradigm
(Grahame
1997:
139)
Considering
the
big
circumferences
as
the
yards
and
the
little
ones
jointed
as
the
roundhouses,
the
access
analysis
experience
brings
out
the
new
conception
of
roundhouse
as
pure
defensive
element.
The
connecting
spaces
are
each
“controlled”
by
the
circular
buildings
as
well
as
each
of
the
large
yards.
Yard
6 is
directly
controlled
by
the
main
broch,
the
yard
16
only
by
the
bigger
example
of
the
roundhouses
(17),
while
the
yards
22
and
28
represent
obligatory
passageways.
The
boundary’s
concept
features
and
the
building
space
create
its
meaning
through
its
relational
order
Space
Paradigm
or
to
the
open
and
closed
cell
scheme
(Hillier
&
Hanson
1984a:
73;
Grahame
1999:
55).
Examination
of
previously
excavated
roundhouses
seems
repeat
the
broch
experience
as
sub-circular
dry-stone
structure
(36,
31,
34,
30,
27,
20,
21,
26,
23,
stand
by
size
the
n.
17
out).
Those
roundhouses,
except
the
6,
are
present
in
all
the
others
yards
sometime
collocated
in
the
boundaries
(26
e
27),
some
other
times
in
the
middle
of
the
yards
(23,
24
and
20,
21)
and
are
incorporated
in
the
architectural
enclosure;
at
same
time,
they
are
instrument
of
spatial
subdivision
for
the
yards
(16
and
38)
connecting
and
splitting
them.
They
take
the
function
of
'guard
chambers',
and
intramural
cells,
which
are
of
indubitably
exotic
influence
to
the
Tyne/Forth
settlement
and
structural
record
(Dunwell
1999:
347;
Armit
2003c:
123).
6.
Comparison
with
other
similar
systems
(7)
The
roundhouses
enclosure
can
be
reasonably
comparable
demonstrate
the
paragon
with
Atlantic,
such
as
Howe,
Lingro
and
Gurness
in
Orkney
(Ballin-Smith
1994;
Foster
1989:
45-47).
Comparison
with
Gurness
or
Bu
main
round
or
“tower
broch”
structures
(Ritchie
&
Graham
1988:
74;
Armit
2003c:
124;
Foster
1989:
44-45)
is
evident.
However
the
surrounding
enclosure
seems
be
totally
different:
squared
elements
instead
circular
houses
whereon
the
disposition
is
placed
along
a
main
straight
access-way
directly
from
the
access
route
until
the
broch’s
entrance
is
reached.
Moreover
the
complex
structures
are
isometrically
disposed
(symmetrically),
based
on
narrow
and
direct
access
point.
7 -
Comparison
Gurness
and
Edin’s
Hill
gamma
maps
(after
Foster
1989)
We
can
use
the
hierarchical
scheme
of
'broch
towers'
and
compare
the
'Atlantic
roundhouses',
contrasting
the
theory
by
which
they
would
be
such
'substantial
houses'
or
'complex
roundhouses'
(Armit
1990a;
Dunwell
1999:
347).
It
has
been
proposed
that
southern
brochs
were
local
stone
versions
of
'substantial
houses'
incorporating
in
the
Atlantic
roundhouses
enclosures
(Hingley
1992:
27-28;
Dunwell
1999:
351),
can
not
explain
totally
why
such
novel
architectural
forms
were
adopted
at
Edin’s
Hall,
because
most
of
them
appear
isolated
in
the
enclosure.
7.
Relationship
among
enclosure,
buildings
and
landscape
Topographical
and
positioning
comparison
of
broch’s
philosophy
seek
the
necessity
to
find
their
collocation
above
a
terrace
eroded
by a
water-course
or
by
sea
detectable
in
the
northern
Atlantic
above
the
sea
coastal
and
in
the
eastern
Scottish
Borders,
according
to
'scarp-edge'
type
(Christison
1895:
167-9;
Lynn
1895;
Macinnes
1984a:
181;
Dunwell
1999:
309),
in
the
way
can
be
ensure
the
defence
of
one
long
side.
The
building
of
fort
ramparts
and
new
enclosures
located
at
the
northeast
slope
and
with
the
addition
of
two
new
protecting
gates
justify
the
need
to
open
them
on
that
side.
However,
the
creation
of
this
yard
required
the
levelling
of a
sector
of
the
fort
earthworks
(Dunwell
1999:
319).
The
direction
of
the
gates
look
to
the
copper
mine
not
too
far
from
there,
that
could
explain
the
construction
on
this
side,
where
the
roundhouses’
role
and
position
is
connected
with
the
yards.
However,
the
ramparts
are
bounded
to
the
‘core
enclosure’
only
by
one
access,
permitting
so a
major
control.
8.
Findings
Among
the
few
artefacts,
the
most
significant
is
represented
by
the
discovery
of
two
copper
ingots
in
pure
metal
(20
kg
each),
that
explain
the
exploitation
of
the
near
copper
mine.
The
circumstances
of
discovery
are
very
strange.
Only
one
of
the
ingots
is
still
with
us
and
was
found
under
the
stairs
of
one
access
point
of
the
broch
(Dunwell
1999:
338-340;
Armit
2003c:
124).
9.
Structural
and
social
function
Recent
commentators
have
tended
to
argue
that
the
broch
reflects
the
high
status
of
the
personage
or a
pre-eminent
family
through
its
foundation
on a
previously
unoccupied
site,
with
a
later
settlement
developing
around
it (Macinnes
1984b:
236;
Hingley
1992,
28-9;
Dunwell
1999:
351;
Foster 1989:
49).
It
is
not
tenable
that
the
enclosure
structures
have
east-facing
entrances,
following
the
prehistoric
roundhouse
entrances.
Perhaps
they
are
imbued
with
cosmological
significance
(Armit
1997b:
99).
More
than
a
doubt
comes
that
the
broch
was
constructed
as a
status
symbol
reflecting
the
wealth
and
importance
of
its
occupants
in
the
‘centre’
of
which
lived
the
family
(Macinnes
1984a:
192-195;
Hingley
1992;
Dunwell
1999:
348).
The
site
does
not
appear
to
primarily
reflect
considerations
of
defence
due
to
the
lack
of
non-defensive
location,
as
appears
to
be
the
case
at
the
hillfort
above.
That
could
be
disputable,
looking
at
the
circumstances
and
the
positioning
of
ingots
found,
might
lead
us
to
think
and
considering
the
access
map,
the
further
access
point,
is
that
the
ingot
was
laid
in a
hidden
position
perhaps
as a
votive
deposit
(Armit
2003c:
124;
Dunwell
1999:
345).
The
importance
of
the
ingot
is
that
it
represents
the
resource
which
gave
Edin's
Hall
its
wealth.
The
entire
structure
could
have
been
used
to
defend
the
mining
as
well
as
the
control
system
of
the
area,
where
it
could
be a
copper
storage
centre.
10.
Final
considerations
“The
peripheral
position
of
these
structures
may
reflect
an
expansion
of
the
settlement”
(Dunwell
1999:
319).
The
structure’s
enclosure
neither
reflects
a
very
complex
system
nor
a
settlement
system,
since
there
are
fairly
few
house
structures
within
it.
Position,
internal
disposition
and
external
accesses
collocate
like
a
nodal
point
in a
position
of
control
of
production
area
in
the
middle
between
the
hillfort
and
the
mine,
reflecting
an
architectural
system
based
on
resource
exploitation,
storage
and
defence,
where
the
river
become
a
fundamental
element.
Bibliography:
Armit,
I.
(1990a)
(ed.)
Beyond
the
Brochs:
Changing
perspectives
on
the
Atlantic
Scottish
Iron
Age.
Edinburgh,
Edinburgh
University
Press
Armit,
I.
(1997b)
Celtic
Scotland,
London:
Batsford
Armit,
I. (2003c)
Towers
in
The
North:
The
Brochs
Of
Scotland.
Edinburgh:
Tempus
Ballin-Smith,
B.
(ed.)
(1994)
“Howe:
four
millennia
of
Orkney
prehistory”,
in
Soc
Antiq
Scotl
Monogr
Ser,
9
1994,
Edinburgh
Dunwell,
A.
(1999)
“Edin's
Hall
Fort,
Broch
and
Settlement,
Berwickshire
(Scottish
Borders):
Recent
Fieldwork
and
New
Perceptions”,
Proc
Soc
Antiq
Scotl,
129(1),
1999,
303–357
Fletcher,
R.J.
(1977)
“Settlement
Studies
(micro
and
semi-micro)”,
in
David
L.
Clarke,
(ed.),
Spatial
Archaeology,
47-162,
London:
Academic
Press
Foster,
S.
(1989) “Analysis
of
spatial
patterns
in
buildings
(access
analysis)
as
an
insight
into
social
structure:
Examples
from
the
Scottish
Atlantic
Iron
Age”,
Antiquity
63,
40-50
Giddens,
A.
(1984)
The
constitution
of
Society,
Cambridge:
Polity
Press
Grahame,
M.
(1997)
“Public
and
private
in
the
Roman
house:
the
spatial
order
of
the
Casa
del
Fauno”
in
Laurence,
R.
and
Wallace-Hadrill,
A.
(eds.)
“Domestic
Space
in
the
Roman
World
and
Beyond”,
Journal
of
Roman
Archaeology
Supplementary
Series,
No.
22
(1997),
137-164
Grahame,
M.
(1999)
“Reading
the
Roman
house:
the
social
interpretation
of
spatial
order”,
in
Alan
Leslie
(ed.),
Theoretical
Roman
Archaeology
and
Architecture,
Glasgow:
Cruithne
Press,
48-74
Hillier,
B. &
Hanson,
J.
(1984a)
The
Social
Logic
of
Space,
Cambridge:
University
Press
Hillier,
B. &
Hanson,
J.
(1984b)
“Domestic
space
organization:
two
domestic
space
codes
compared”,
Architecture
et
Comportment/Architecture
and
Behavior,
2
(1),
5-25
Hingley,
R.
(1992)
“Society
in
Scotland
from
700
BC
to
AD
200”,
Proc
Soc
Antiq
Scot,
122
(1992),
7-53
Lynn,
F.
(1895)
“Bunkle
Edge
forts”,
Hist
Berwickshire
Natur
Club,
15
(1893-4),
364-76
Macinnes,
L.
(1984a)
“Settlement
and
economy:
East
Lothian
and
the
Tyne/Forth
province”,
in
Miket,
R. &
Burgess,
C.
(eds.),
Between
and
Beyond
the
Walls:
essays
on
the
prehistory
and
history
of
north
Britain.
Edinburgh:
John
Donald,
176-198
Macinnes,
L.
(1984b)
Brochs
and
the
Roman
occupation
of
lowland
Scotland,
Proc
Soc
Antiq
Scotl,
114,
1984,
235-49
Newman,
O.
(1972)
Defensible
Space.
London:
Architectural
Press
Richie,
A.
(1988)
Scotland
BC,
Edinburgh:
HMSO
Ritchie,
A. &
Graham,
R.
1998,
Scotland:
An
Oxford
Archaeological
Guide,
Oxford:
University
Press
Thébert,
Y.
(1987)
“Private
life
and
domestic
architecture
in
Roman
Africa”,
in
Paul
Veyne
(ed.),
A
History
of
Private
Life:
from
Pagan
Rome
to
Byzantium,
Cambridge
Mass.,
Harvard
University
Press,
315-409
Turnbull,
G.
(1857)
“An
account
of
Edin's
Hall,
in
the
parish
of
Dunse,
and
County
of
Berwick”,
Hist
Berwickshire
Natur
Club,
3
(1850-6),
9-20.
Turnbull,
J.
(1881)
“On
Edin's
Hall”,
Hist
Berwickshire
Natur
Club,
9
(1879-81),
81-99.
Wallace-Hadrill
A.
(1988)
“The
social
structure
of
the
Roman
house”,
Papers
of
the
British
School
at
Rome,
56,
43-97
