Journal of the North Atlantic
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
83
Introduction
This paper shows how threats to the coastal archaeological
resource of Scotland's coast have been
managed in recent years. Although using the Western
Isles to provide examples, the range of threats
described and the development of management strategies
employed are applicable to coastlines around
the globe.
Coastal erosion is one of the gravest natural
threats to archaeological heritage, and Scotland is
particularly affected due to its large number of wellpreserved
sites. Regardless of what may happen
in fifty or one hundred years (with climate change
predictions and fears of sea-level rise suggesting the
worst), thousands of sites are at risk now.
Erosion is a natural process, meaning that legislation
cannot forbid damage and there is no developer
who can be asked to pay for recording in advance
of destruction. Thus, Historic Scotland, the Scottish
Government’s agency charged with safeguarding the
nation’s historic environment, has taken the lead in
devising management strategies. Historic Scotland
has worked with other organizations to gather data,
devise plans, and undertake action at threatened
coastal sites. Two of its principal partners have
been the University of St Andrews and the Scottish
Coastal Archaeology and the Problem of Erosion
(SCAPE) Trust, a charity established in 2001 to promote
action at eroding archaeological sites.
This paper outlines the scale of the threat posed
by coastal erosion and discusses how management
strategies have developed. Using examples from the
Western Isles (or Outer Hebrides), it outlines how
the problem of erosion has been approached, demonstrating
the effectiveness of Coastal Zone Assessment
Surveys (CZAS) aimed at collecting data for
heritage management. These surveys have located
thousands of previously unrecorded sites and have
provided recommendations for further action.
The paper discusses the effectiveness of deskbased
assessments (DBA) at prioritizing areas for
subsequent ground survey, and analyzes the results
of two DBAs that attempted to locate new sites from
aerial photography. It shows how the data gathered
in the CZAS and other surveys has been used to produce
prioritized lists of sites where further action is
required. The paper concludes by showing how local
communities can play a crucial role in the management
and recording of threatened archaeological
sites.
Archaeological Sites and the Coast
Scotland has the second longest coastline in Europe
(see discussion below), partly due to the large
number of islands situated off the north and west
coasts. The geography and topography of Scotland
have encouraged coastal habitation, and the benefits
of coastal settlement have included a proximity to
marine resources, a transportation route by boat, and
access to materials washed up or exposed on beaches.
The coastal zone not only contains most of the
site types that are found inland, but is also home to
remains that had specific maritime-related functions.
Although few studies have been undertaken to show
if there is a greater density of archaeological sites at
the coast edge in comparison to the hinterland, an
analysis was made by researchers from the University
of Sheffield during their study of the Hebridean
island of Barra (Branigan 2005:63–72). Surveys
between 1988 and 1999 determined that the coastal
zone made up just 4 per cent of the total area of the
Eroding Archaeology at the Coast: How a Global Problem is Being
Managed in Scotland, with Examples from the Western Isles
Tom Dawson*
Abstract - Many thousands of archaeological sites are threatened by coastal erosion around the globe. The problem is particularly
grave in Scotland, where a number of management strategies have been developed. Much of this work has been
undertaken by Historic Scotland working in partnership with the SCAPE Trust and the University of St Andrews. This paper
outlines the scale of the problem presented by coastal erosion, using recent work in the Western Isles to provide examples. It
shows how action has developed over the years, with heritage managers often requiring a different approach to other coastal
managers. The effectiveness of desk-based assessment and coastal survey is reviewed, and the results of two desk-based assessments
in areas that were subsequently surveyed are analyzed. The paper outlines how prioritized lists of sites requiring
future action have been produced and describes the important role that community groups can play in heritage management,
giving examples of practical projects that include the community excavation of a site threatened with destruction.
Special Volume 9:83–98
2010 Hebridean Archaeology Forum
Journal of the North Atlantic
*University of St Andrews, St. Katherine’s Lodge, St Andrews, KY16 9AL Scotland, UK; tcd@st-andrews.ac.uk.
2015
Journal of the North Atlantic
84
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
island, yet contained 23 per cent of all the recorded
sites. Branigan (2005:68) cautiously concluded that
“the coastal zone is archaeologically rich and was
a preferred zone for at least some types of human
activity in some periods in the past”.
In some areas around the Scottish coast, access
to durable building materials combined with local
geomorphology has meant that sites have survived
well, making the archaeological resource extremely
rich. Preservation is particularly good in areas where
sand has inundated structures, protecting archaeological
layers from the plough, hiding stone from
“robbers”, and supporting drystone walls that stand
to almost full height. For example, in the Northern
and Western Isles, a lack of timber in areas where
there was easily accessible stone at the coast edge
has resulted in the survival of entire villages buried
under the sand. Recognition of the cultural value of
two sites formerly buried within sand dunes has been
demonstrated by the award of World Heritage status
to Skara Brae, Orkney and the inclusion of Jarlshof,
Shetland on the UK Tentative List for World Heritage
Sites (Fig. 1; DCMS 2011).
Although sites may have survived burial for millennia,
they are not immune to future destruction.
Many archaeological sites by the sea are vulnerable
to erosion, especially if located close to the coast
edge. Both Skara Brae and Jarlshof were originally
revealed due to erosion and both are now defended
by sea walls in an attempt to protect them from further
damage (Fig. 2).
Although a handful of sites have been recorded
or protected, thousands of others have been neither
excavated nor defended and remain vulnerable to
complete destruction. Threatened site types include
everything from Mesolithic shell middens to Iron
Age brochs, Norse settlement sites to military structures
from the two World Wars (Fig. 3).
The Coast and Erosion
Coastal erosion has been identified as one of
the three major threats to Scotland’s archaeological
heritage not covered by planning guidance (Barclay
1997:17). Although erosion is a natural process, it
affects an area’s cultural heritage differently than it
affects its natural heritage. Animals and birds can
move and plants can recolonize cliff edges. Archaeological
sites however are static, and any damage or
loss to them cannot be undone.
Lees (2005:19) noted at least fifteen factors
which could affect the rate of erosion, including
Figure 1. Iron Age structures and the Norse village at Jarlshof in Shetland, excavated after being revealed by storms in the
nineteenth century.
Journal of the North Atlantic
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
85
Figure 2. Workmen extending the coastal defense at the Neolithic village of Skara Brae, Orkney. Continuing erosion of the
coast edge has meant that the defenses need to be maintained and extended regularly.
Figure 3. Part of the eroding prehistoric settlement and cemetery site at Galson, Lewis, Western Isles. Archaeological material
has been reported eroding from the dune since the early twentieth century, and while much has been destroyed, new
structures are still being exposed.
Journal of the North Atlantic
86
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
the nature of the sediment that overlies the bedrock.
Scotland’s geology is dominated by hard,
ancient rocks in the west and softer, younger
sedimentary rocks in the east. The igneous rock
coasts are the toughest, but even sandstone coasts
are relatively durable. In the Western Isles, the
rock foundation is generally stable, but the soft
sediments that overlie the bedrock are at risk from
erosion. For example, the blown-sand landforms
known as machair, which extend along much of the
west coast of the Western Isles, are threatened by
both sea and wind. The sand is highly mobile, and
dry weather combined with strong winds can cause
large amounts of sand to blow, resulting in large
craters, or “blowouts”. The potential for severe erosion
in these locations is especially problematic, as
machair areas appear to have been a focus for settlement
for millennia. For example, Simpson et al.
(2003:185) noted that numerous Early Bronze Age
sites had been recorded on the machair plain, leading
to a suggestion that it was “eminently suitable
for the establishment of early settlement”. These
sites are extremely rare in other parts of Britain, and
their threatened loss by erosion is a cause for concern.
Another factor that affects erosion rates is exposure
to wave attack exacerbated by high winds,
and the entire Scottish coast is vulnerable to violent
storms. Damage is proportional to the size and
power of the waves, and this is increased by two
factors: wind strength and fetch (the distance over
which the wind can travel uninterrupted over the
sea). Exposed areas of coast, not protected by offshore
islands, are often most vulnerable. The west
coasts of the Western Isles are fully exposed to
Atlantic storms, and low-lying areas can be devastated,
especially when the wind is combined with
high spring tides.
Managing Coastal Archaeological Sites
As a first step to planning for future change at the
coast, it is important to know the length of the coastline
and how much of it is at risk. This apparently
simple-sounding job is dependent upon the scale of
map used and the method of measurement. Different
surveyors using different maps have obtained
widely different results. The CIA World Fact Book
states that the length of the coast of the entire United
Kingdom is 12,429 km long (CIA 2011), whereas
the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute (MLURI)
estimated that Scotland’s coast alone is 16,491 km
(MLURI 1993). Archaeological surveyors have also
used different map scales when reporting on lengths
of coast affected by erosion, meaning that comparisons
between areas can be difficult when trying to
obtain a national picture of the problem.
Computer mapping is helping to standardize
calculations of coastal length, and as part of a review
of Scotland’s coastal archaeology for Historic
Scotland (Dawson 2007), GIS was used to analyze
the individual segments of a 1:25,000 vector map.
After cleaning the map for duplicates and removing
erroneous lines, the length of each segment was
added, giving a total length of 16,035 km, a figure
close to the estimate given by MLURI. However,
this total includes small islets and rock outcrops
which, from an archaeological point of view, may
never have been inhabited. Removing all rocks less
than 1 km in circumference (an admittedly arbitrary
figure) brought the length down to 15,415 km. The
contribution of the islands to the overall length of
the Scottish coast is immediately obvious in Table 1,
making up three fifths of the entire coastline. Of
the island groups, the Western Isles has the longest
coastline, with a length of just over 3000 km
Many different specialists have contributed to
coastal management strategies, often during the
preparation of local shoreline management plans
(SMPs). In Scotland, several SMPs have been prepared
(e.g., Fife, East Lothian, parts of the Inner
Moray Firth, Angus, and Dumfries and Galloway).
These give a range of data about coastal assets
and processes and make recommendations about
managing erosion. With regard to erosion, coastal
managers have four main options:
• advance the line—construct defenses out to
sea, for example, across the mouth of a bay,
• defend the line—protect the coast behind
a barrier,
• retreat the line—breach existing sea defenses
in order to create a buffer zone, or
• managed retreat—accept that erosion will
occur and make plans for threatened assets;
the favored option for most parts of the coast.
Each of the options has economic and other implications
(including for the natural and historic environment),
and coastal managers must consider these
Table 1. Length of the Scottish coast, divided into mainland and
island groups
Area Length of coast (km)
Mainland 6235
Western Isles 3032
Inner Hebrides 3000
Shetland 2063
Orkney 1085
Total 15,415
Journal of the North Atlantic
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
87
when recommending action. For example, effective
coastal defenses can be costly both to build and
maintain and can deflect problems to other areas of
the coast, causing erosion elsewhere.
The option recommended by coastal managers
is normally driven by a perception of the “value”
of what is threatened. Protection (advancing or defending
the line) is more likely in areas of greater
economic or political significance, e.g., population
centers or key transport routes. A small number of
archaeological sites have been protected in the past,
(for example, St Andrews Castle in Fife, Skara Brae
[Fig. 2] and the Broch of Gurness in Orkney), but the
majority of sites do not have an obvious or quantifiable
value for most coastal planners and are unlikely
to attract resources to construct defenses.
In general, it has been built-heritage managers
rather than coastal specialists that have taken responsibility
for managing threatened coastal archaeological
sites. In Scotland, Historic Scotland has taken the
lead in developing plans and gathering information.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Historic Scotland’s predecessors
commissioned a small number of detailed archaeological
surveys along stretches of the coast. For
example, parts of the Western Isles were examined in
1978 (Shepherd and Shepherd 1978) and Caithness
was surveyed twice between 1980 and 1982 (Batey
1984, Mercer 1981).
Heritage managers also received reports about
eroding sites, and in 1983 the Central Excavation
Unit (Scotland), in a follow-up to the Western Isles
survey, noted that 32 sites were at immediate threat
from active erosion (Barber 2003:1). As will be
seen below, this figure is small compared to presentday
estimates, possibly as only the larger or more
noticeable sites were being counted, but the report
indicates that there was a growing awareness of the
problem.
The authors of the St. Boniface (Orkney) excavation
report noted that the site was “one of over
100 sites in Orkney where coastal erosion had been
identified as a major threat to the survival and longterm
integrity of the archaeological resource” (Lowe
1998:13). In the mid-1990s, Historic Scotland
reported that over 350 sites were under attack by
coastal erosion in Orkney, Shetland, and the Western
Isles alone (Barclay and Fojut 1995:1).
This growing awareness of the scale of the
threat led Historic Scotland to work towards a
policy for the management of archaeological sites
in the coastal zone. Echoing the options available to
coastal managers, Ashmore (1994:34) outlined three
options for built-heritage managers with regard to
threatened sites:
• ignore erosion (regarded by Ashmore as an
unacceptable option),
• defend the coastline, or
• work at sites before they are destroyed.
These options were refined by Barclay and Fojut
(1995:3–4) in “The Management and Conservation
of the Built and Maritime Heritage in the Coastal
Zone”. They listed the following options for threatened
sites:
• legal designation,
• conscious/justified abandonment,
• routine recording or extensive sampling of
the site as it is destroyed,
• low-cost sea defense,
• small-scale excavation,
• high-cost sea defense, and
• large-scale excavation.
Barclay and Fojut (1995) recognized that, for most
sites, more information was needed before an option
could be chosen, and they detailed a progression of
work for developing management plans as follows:
• identify coastal processes that impact upon
archaeological sites in order to target highrisk
areas,
• conduct rapid coastal surveys to identify
areas at risk,
• conduct detailed follow-up surveys where
necessary,
• prioritize action at threatened sites, and
• where possible, implement appropriate solutions
at priority sites.
In order to fulfil the first of these targets,
Historic Scotland collaborated in an innovative
partnership with Scottish Natural Heritage and
the Scottish Office Agricultural, Environment,
and Fisheries Department (SOAEFD) to gather
information on the processes that impact upon the
coast. The work examined the Scottish coastal
cells, and the first report was published in 1997
(HR Wallingford 1997). Coastal cells are relatively
self-contained units that are usually defined by
headlands and other prominent features that block
the pathways within which beach sediments move.
The initial publication was followed by a series of
detailed reports for each of the eleven cells identified.
These reports contained maps accompanied by
accounts of the geology and geomorphology of the
mapped stretches of coastline, details of wave and
tidal regimes, littoral processes, coastal defenses,
and areas of erosion and accretion.
Areas of soft sediment were highlighted, and
the locations of archaeological sites within 500 m
Journal of the North Atlantic
88
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
In 1996, Historic Scotland attempted to standardize
the data collected during the coastal surveys with
the publication of Archaeological Procedure Paper
4: Coastal Zone Assessment Survey (HS APP4;
Historic Scotland 1996). HS APP4 specified that the
area to be surveyed should include the coast edge,
the intertidal zone, a 50-m wide landward strip for
detailed survey, and the area between 50–100 m
from the coast edge for a less-detailed survey. It
also noted the possibility of including “an offshore
area in which wrecks and other underwater artefacts
should be recorded” (Historic Scotland 1996:3).
Archaeological sites located were recorded on
1:25,000 maps, with additional details given in
gazetteers. HS APP4 specified that descriptions
were to be “merely enough to characterise the
sites in terms of size; complexity; nature of their
contents; and relationships.” If possible, period,
archaeological potential, condition, and threat from
erosion were also to be provided (Historic Scotland
1996:5). Surveyors were also required to recommend
future action at the site, to be selected from
one of three choices: survey (to include intrusive
fieldwork), monitor, or nil.
The coastal geology and geomorphology were
recorded using a system developed in Wales by
the Gwynedd Archaeological Trust during the Aberdaron
to Great Orme survey (Smith 1995). This
approach was based on British Geological Survey
mapping and field verification undertaken by geomorphologists
working with the archaeological
team. Again, reporting was provided on 1:25,000
maps, giving much greater detail than provided in
the coastal cell reports.
The erosion class noted was as observed on the
day of survey. There are recognized problems in
classifying the stability of the coast, as both erosion
and deposition can be localized and can change
rapidly from one status to the other. A storm can
wash away loose material such as sand, causing
the coast edge to retreat temporarily until wind and
tidal action replaces the lost sediment (Ramsay and
Brampton 2000:10–11). However, both an accreting
and an eroding coast can be classified as dynamic,
and therefore warrant monitoring.
As is the nature with rapid surveys, only sites
visible on the day of survey were recorded. For
example, thick deposits of sand obscure many wellpreserved
archaeological sites, and on South Uist,
Sheffield and Cardiff University surveys of the
machair have located over 200 ancient settlements,
many of which were identified by shell, pottery, or
bone found at the entrance to rabbit burrows (Parker
Pearson et al. 2011). Often, the first indication that
of the coast were plotted as derived from the database
of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and
Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS). As
each coastal cell extended for tens or hundreds of
kilometers, the scale of the mapping used was generally
very small. For the Western Isles (cells 8 and
9), archaeological sites were not plotted individually;
instead, the coast was color-coded depending
upon the density of sites per 10 km (Ramsay
and Brampton 2000). For the great majority of the
coast, the density of sites was under ten per 10 km
(less than one site per kilometer). The notable exception
was Barra, where much of the island had
a density of over thirty sites per 10 km. However,
the high number of sites on Barra was a reflection
of the recent publication of archaeological coastal
survey results (for example, Branigan and Foster
1995) and their inclusion within RCAHMS records
rather than an actual difference in site density.
Taken on its own, the coastal cells report for the
Western Isles suggested that Barra had the best
preservation of coastal sites in the Western Isles,
something which has not been backed up by subsequent
surveys. This example demonstrates that the
management of archaeological sites can be influenced
by the level of detail of preceding surveys.
The reporting of archaeological sites was inadequate
in the coastal cells reports. The scale of the
maps was too small to allow the importance of sites
and landscapes to be demonstrated in any way
other than site density. This problem has persisted
in the publication of most of the Scottish shoreline
management plans, produced at a local rather than
national level. The recording of archaeological sites
has usually been undertaken in the same way as in
the coastal cells report, with small-scale maps showing
hundreds of sites as dots or color-coded areas.
The coastal cells reports and shoreline management
plans proved inadequate for archaeological management,
and more detailed surveys were required.
This situation led to the next stage in the progression
of work suggested by Barclay and Fojut
(1995), the undertaking of rapid coastal surveys.
Historic Scotland initiated a program of CZAS in
the mid-1990s. The CZAS were intended as rapid,
though detailed, surveys that gathered data on the
historic environment as well as on the geology and
geomorphology of the coast and the erosion class as
observed on the day of survey. The Scottish CZAS
were modelled on the surveys of the Welsh coast,
managed by Cadw (the Welsh Government’s historic
environment service) and undertaken by the
four Welsh Archaeological Trusts between 1993 and
1998 (Davidson and Jones 2002).
Journal of the North Atlantic
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
89
hidden by the deposition of recycled sediment. Thus,
vulnerable sites may not be visible on the day of
survey (Figs. 4, 5), which may have been the case
during the CZAS of the west coast of South Uist (see
below).
In order to counteract this problem, the coast
needs to be monitored or surveyed immediately
such deeply buried sites are present is when they are
revealed in an eroding dune face or a blowout (hollow
caused by wind erosion). In such cases, the site
is already vulnerable to damage.
Another problem with locating sites is that,
due to the dynamic nature of the coast, some sites
exposed during storms may subsequently become
Figure 4. Archaeological remains exposed on the beach at Kilpheder , South Uist, February 2005.
Figure 5. The same beach (as in Fig. 4) at Kilpheder in May 2005 showing the archaeological remains covered in sand.
Journal of the North Atlantic
90
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
after damaging storms. This is an area where local
communities have made a real contribution,
and in Scotland, many groups have helped to locate,
monitor, and record eroding sites as part of
the Shorewatch project, managed by the SCAPE
Trust. Shorewatch groups are composed of local
people who have been given basic training in identifying
archaeological sites. Supported by SCAPE,
group members are encouraged to report new discoveries,
which is especially useful after damaging
storms. The group members take photographs and
record information about potential sites that they
then submit for verification. Groups have been
established around the entire Scottish coast, and
they have provided much valuable information,
highlighting new exposures or reporting damage to
known sites. In some cases, group members have
desired to undertake more detailed recording or
excavation projects, and SCAPE has worked with
groups to obtain funding and provide professional
support to achieve these objectives (see below).
Between 1996 and 2011, twenty-nine full surveys
(and one stand-alone desk-based assessment)
were completed (Fig. 6) and over 11,500 sites were
recorded. Two of the earliest surveys completed
were undertaken in the Western Isles by teams from
universities, with much of the west and north of
Lewis being surveyed by the University of Edinburgh
(Burgess and Church 1996), and a survey of
Barra completed by Sheffield University (Branigan
and Grattan 1998).
The length of coast surveyed, broken down into
island groups and the mainland, is shown in Table 2.
These data show that ≈30% of the Scottish coast has
been examined, with the surveys generally targeting
the areas thought to be most at risk of erosion. For
this reason, a greater proportion of the coasts of the
island archipelagos of Orkney, Shetland, and the
Western Isles have been surveyed, and almost 44%
of the entire coastline of the Western Isles has been
examined to date.
Reports on the first sixteen CZAS, completed
between 1996 and 2000, were produced as paper reports.
In general, there was limited distribution of the
data, with copies sent to the Local Authority archaeologists,
Historic Scotland, and RCAHMS.
Since 2001, the University of St Andrews and the
SCAPE Trust have worked with Historic Scotland to
manage the surveys and analyze the data contained
within them (Dawson 2006, 2007, 2010). Surveyors
have been required to provide digital copies of
reports, databases, and GIS files. In 2005, SCAPE
undertook the digitization and web publication of
the earlier CZAS reports, and pdf versions have been
placed on the SCAPE website (www.scapetrust.org).
SCAPE also produced databases from all of the survey
reports and added data (including information
about the coast edge) to a GIS, although much of
the survey data from these earlier surveys is yet to
be added to local or national Historic Environment
Records.
Analysis of the Results of Surveys and
Desk-based Assessments
In 2007, the author analyzed the data by the
CZAS (Dawson 2007), including results from the
Western Isles. The following discussion is based
on the results of four surveys and two desk-based
assessments conducted in North and South Uist between
2005 and 2007.
A severe storm struck the Western Isles on 11–12
January 2005. It was associated with a deep depression
(≈944 mb) that passed to the north of Scotland
(Wolf 2007). Wind speeds reached hurricane force
with tragic results, and the sea driven onto the land
claimed the lives of five people from one South Uist
family. The sea had a severe impact on the coastal
zone, eroding the coast edge and damaging buildings
and roads. Although some stretches of coast
were relatively unchanged, there was great damage
to other areas, and in extreme cases the coast edge
retreated by up to 50 m (for example, parts of the
Baile Sear coast, North Uist).
In the immediate aftermath of the storm, numerous
reports of newly exposed archaeological sites
were received by Historic Scotland and the SCAPE
Trust. In order to assess the effects of the storm,
Historic Scotland sponsored two coastal surveys.
Fieldwork was undertaken immediately after the
storm, and the survey reports were completed by the
end of March 2005 (Johnson et al. 2005, Moore and
Wilson 2005).
CFA Archaeology Ltd. worked on the west coast
of North Uist from the North Causeway to the South
Causeway (including the islands of Berneray, Baile
Sear, and Bhalaigh)—a total length of ≈210 km.
EASE Archaeology was commissioned to survey
South Uist from Bagh na Creige Loisgte to Caolas
Table 2. Length of coast and survey areas, ordered by percentage
of coast surveyed.
Length (km)
Area Coast Surveyed %
Western Isles 3032 1327 43.76
Orkney 1085 415 38.25
Shetland 2063 580 28.11
Mainland 6235 1683 27.00
Inner Hebridean Islands 3000 600 20.00
Total 15,415 4605 29.87
Journal of the North Atlantic
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
91
Figure 6. Map showing location of all CZAS 1996–201 1. © RCAHMS. Reproduced by kind permission of ScARF.
Journal of the North Atlantic
92
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
reported to be low, and rabbit burrows were not
regarded as constituting a major threat (Moore and
Wilson 2005).
The percentage of sites carrying a recommendation
for survey (the highest level of recommendation
used in CZAS) was similar between the surveys,
both at about 7% of the total number of sites recorded.
The numbers of sites this represents is very
different though, due to the larger number of sites
located in North Uist (Table 5).
The two surveys located a very large number of
previously unrecorded sites, some of which had been
revealed due to the storm. Of these, 368 sites carried
a recommendation for further work, either survey or
monitoring.
Following the post-storm surveys of the west
coast of the Uists, an examination of the east coast
was undertaken in 2006. It was decided to evaluate
the utility of conducting a DBA as a standalone project,
as had been done in England, rather than as an
integral part of the CZAS. The effectiveness of using
the DBA for determining priority areas for subsequent
fieldwork was tested, and the study also aimed
to assess how many new sites could be identified
from an analysis of aerial photographs, maps, and
other sources in a remote area where few site records
existed. There was also a widely held idea that there
would be low site densities and a low vulnerability
to erosion along much of the mountainous, steep,
hard-rock-based, and sheltered east coast. A further
aim of the DBA was to check these assumptions
The Glasgow University Archaeological Research
Division (GUARD) undertook the two DBAs
(Sneddon 2006), examining a coastal strip that
extended from approximately 1 km inland to 4 km
offshore. The DBA report highlighted priority areas,
dividing them into high, medium, and low priority.
Low-priority areas, not recommended for field
survey, were generally located where the coastline
was deemed to be under no immediate threat from
coastal processes and/or where there were very few
or no previously recorded archaeological or builtheritage
sites.
Following completion of the DBA report, field
surveys were conducted to test areas identified as
high, medium, and low priority (Johnson et al. 2006,
Eiriosgaih; Benbecula from Oban Uaine to Ob Saile,
and the entire island of Grimsay—a total length of
≈199 km.
The two surveys, although of similar lengths, obtained
widely different results. Both located a large
percentage of previously unrecorded sites (sites not
recorded in the records of either the Western Isles
Council or RCAHMS), with almost 70% of the North
Uist sites and over 87% of the South Uist sites being
new records (Table 3). However, the actual numbers
of sites recorded are widely different, with the North
Uist survey recording over four times as many sites
(880 sites) as the South Uist survey (200 sites).
One of the reasons for the difference is that there
were a greater number of previously known sites in
North Uist, partly due to the work of local antiquarian
Erskine Beveridge (1911). However, discounting
these sites still meant that a far greater number of
sites were located in North Uist (609) compared to
South Uist (175).
It is possible that part of the reason for the difference
may be due to some South Uist sites having
been obscured by the deposition of sediment by the
time the survey commenced (Figs. 4, 5). For example,
two large South Uist sites (SU46 and SU19)
were only revealed intermittently along the length
of a coastal section, other parts of these sites were
covered with sand or cobbles. There is a suspicion
that many other sites may have been exposed immediately
after the storm but were hidden again by
the time of the survey. The dynamic nature of the
South Uist coast after the storm is shown by the
much larger number of the sites that were considered
to be eroding: over 50% of all South Uist sites
located (105 sites), as opposed to just 7% (58 sites)
in North Uist (Table 4). In South Uist, wave action
was the principal threat, and only minimal damage
was attributed to animals, as stocking numbers were
Table 4. Erosion class of sites recorded along the west coast of
North and South Uist.
North Uist west South Uist west
Erosion class Number % Number %
Eroding 58 6.59 105 52.50
Not eroding 822 93.41 92 46.00
Unknown 3 1.50
Table 3. Numbers of sites located along the west coast of North
and South Uist.
North Uist west South Uist west
Sites Number % Number %
Found by this survey 609 69.20 175 87.50
Previously known 271 30.80 25 12.50
Total 880 100.00 200 100.00
Table 5. Recommended action at sites along the west coast of
North and South Uist.
North Uist west South Uist west
Recommendation Number % Number %
Survey 54 6.14 14 7.00
Monitor 276 31.36 24 12.00
Nil, N/A, Unknown 550 62.50 162 81.00
Journal of the North Atlantic
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
93
Moore and Wilson, 2007). EASE Archaeology surveyed
parts of South Uist and Benbecula (171 km);
CFA Archaeology examined parts of North Uist
(149 km). The survey teams were asked to compare
their findings with the DBA in regard to the coastal
geology and geomorphology, the identification of
archaeological sites, and the success in highlighting
priority survey areas.
Both survey teams found that the DBA was very
successful at identifying geological and geomorphological
features and at providing an assessment
of vulnerability to erosion. The DBA was not as
useful when it came to identifying archaeological
sites (Table 6). Only 38 sites were noted in the
DBA of Benbecula and South Uist, whereas the
survey located a further 248 sites (87% of the total
recorded during field survey). The North Uist DBA
identified 44 sites (recorded as 70 individual sites
on the ground); 660 additional sites were recorded
as a result of the fieldwork (90% of the total recorded
during field survey).
It must be stressed that the reason for the vast
difference in the numbers of sites identified through
DBA and through field surveys was not due to any
inadequacy on the part of the desk-based assessment.
The North Uist survey report noted that there
were very few examples where sites missing from
the DBA would have been expected to have been
visible on aerial photographs or maps.
The numbers of new sites recorded led both
survey teams to question the value of prioritizing
survey areas on the basis of archaeological potential.
The authors of the South Uist report noted that
there was no appreciable difference between the
archaeological potential of any of the areas surveyed,
even though they had been awarded different
levels of priority (Moore and Wilson 2007). Just
as many sites were found in areas of low priority as
in areas of high priority. The North Uist survey also
noted that a large number of archaeological sites
were located within an area identified as being of
low priority, stating that “if this area had been excluded
then some potentially important information
regarding the nature and distribution of land-use
and settlement in the post-medieval period would
have been missed” (Johnson et al. 2006). The
study showed that although a DBA could be used
to highlight priority areas for survey, the criteria
for prioritization should be based on the physical
nature of the coast and its vulnerability to storm
damage, not on the anticipated density of archaeological
remains.
The analysis of the DBA and survey results also
demonstrated that pre-survey assumptions about
site density and vulnerability along the remote and
sheltered east coast were only partly correct. A comparison
of Table 3 with Table 6 shows that although
the length of the east coast surveyed was less than
in the west (as only selected areas were surveyed),
similar numbers of sites were located. The major difference
between the results of the east and west coast
surveys was the date of the sites, with over 90% of
east coast sites being identified as post medieval or
later and the rest being of unknown date.
Assumptions about site vulnerability, based on
the physical setting of sites, were found to be more
correct. Very few east coast sites carried any recommendation
for further work (Table 7), partly due to
low risks from erosion. Over 96% of sites recorded
during the North Uist survey carried no recommendation.
In South Uist, no sites were recommended
for survey of any sort, due to most of the coast being
classified as stable and the majority of sites considered
of limited archaeological potential.
The study indicated that not all parts of the
Western Isles are equally vulnerable to erosion.
Sites on the sheltered east coast are not under as
much threat as those along the west coast. Although
this may seem obvious, the study has helped demonstrate
that the selection of CZAS area to date,
concentrating on the more exposed and softer
coastlines, has been justified. It has also shown that
stand-alone DBAs are able to identify areas most at
risk and will allow future surveys to target the most
vulnerable areas.
Prioritizing Action
The final steps in Barclay and Fojut’s (1995)
progression were to prioritize action and, where
possible, implement appropriate solutions. One of
the aims of HS APP4 was to “encourage consistent
fieldwork and reporting so that the results of future
rapid surveys will be more comparable with each
Table 6. Numbers of sites located during DBA and coastal surveys
of the east coast of North and South Uist.
North Uist east South Uist east
Sites Number % Number %
Found by this survey 660 90.41 248 86.71
Previously known (DBA) 70 9.59 38 13.20
Total 730 100.00 286 100.00
Table 7. Recommended action at sites along the east coast of
North and South Uist.
North Uist east South Uist east
Recommendation Number % Number %
Survey 2 0.27 0 0.00
Monitor 21 2.88 2 0.70
Nil, N/A, Unknown 707 96.85 284 99.30
Journal of the North Atlantic
94
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
other and national priorities can be decided more
transparently” (Historic Scotland 1996:2).
An attempt at prioritizing action based on the
results of the coastal surveys has been made by this
author (Dawson 2010). Prioritization was based on
an analysis of the type of site recorded and the scale
of the threat posed by erosion (see Dawson 2010
for detailed discussion). The threat to the sites was
partly assessed on the geology, geomorphology, and
erosion class of the coastline assigned during the
original surveys and partly (where possible) on past
rates of erosion. It can be very difficult to determine
past and future rates of erosion, as its progress is not
measured and orderly, with, say, one meter of land
being lost every ten years. Local sedimentation and
erosion patterns are complex and remain largely
unpredictable. A stretch of coastline can be stable,
or even accreting, over a number of years or decades
until a combination of natural processes causes significant
change.
One useful way of judging past rates of erosion
is to compare contemporary erosion surveys with
previous ones. Highly accurate dGPS systems and
terrestrial laser scanners allow large areas of the
coast to be surveyed rapidly (e.g., Dawson, 2011a).
Although it will be easier to determine erosion rates
in the future, there are few detailed historical surveys
to compare with modern data. Semi-permanent
grid pegs have been left at some archaeological sites
to allow repeat visits, for example, at Galson, Lewis,
where a 1-m strip was observed to have eroded between
1997 and 2000 (Neighbour et al. 2000).
Desk-based surveys can give an indication of the
rate of coastal change over time, but it is known that
nineteenth-century surveyors used the coast in order
to rectify mapping errors (Hansom et al. 2011). The
result is that coastlines were not always depicted
accurately. A comparison of aerial photographs can
be more accurate, but it is usually necessary to georectify
the images first within a GIS to eliminate tilt
distortion.
A comparison of georectified images can highlight
the unpredictability of erosion. As an example,
a site located within the sand cliffs at A’ Cheardach
Ruadh on Baile Sear, North Uist, was selected for
evaluation in the 1980s after being identified as
actively eroding (Barber 2003:p1). A comparison of
georectified aerial photographs from 1946 and 1992
show that there was actually very little erosion in the
46 years between the photographs, with a maximum
of 5 m of the site being lost. This is not to say that
the evaluation was unjustified. The site’s location
at the coast edge, buried in sand on an exposed,
west-facing beach meant that the site was extremely
vulnerable, and it would have been a high priority
for full-scale excavation if it, together with up to
50 m of the coast, had not been completely lost in
the storm of January 2005.
The prioritization project ranked sites into one
of five priority classes, with the highest-ranked sites
(priority 1) requiring urgent attention. The results
of the prioritization project are currently being reviewed
by Historic Scotland, but the Western Isles
was home to the largest number of prioritized sites,
with over 80 sites being classed as either priority 1
or priority 2.
Within the prioritization report, a staged set of
actions was suggested for all ranked sites, with one
action following on from the preceding one if necessary.
In many cases, the initial action was to revisit
the site to see if it still survived, as many of the sites
were identified as eroding over fifteen years ago.
A project is currently being planned that will ask
members of local groups, such as Shorewatch group
members, to assist in updating survey information
and therefore to refine the priorities list. Managed
by SCAPE, the Scottish Coastal Heritage at Risk
Project (www.scharp.co.uk) will use mobile phone
apps and an interactive, map-based website to encourage
local communities to update descriptions
of known sites. Participants will be asked to provide
photographs and complete a simple, multiple-choice
recording form to allow management information
to be gathered. This approach will allow existing
records to be updated and sites that have been destroyed
to be removed from the prioritized list.
Implement Appropriate Solutions
Historic Scotland has implemented solutions at a
number of sites by sponsoring surveys and excavations,
and details of these can be found in the relevant
site reports. In the late 1990s, a series of focal
studies based on the results of coastal surveys were
initiated (for example, see section III, “Coastal Archaeology
and Erosion in Scotland”; Dawson 2005).
Historic Scotland has sponsored several excavations
in the Western Isles, including excavations prompted
by aeolian erosion (for example, Dunwell et al.
1995, Sharples 2000) and coastal erosion (Armit
2006, Parker Pearson and Sharples 1999).
In recent years, there have been an increasing
number of community-focused excavations, enabling
members of local groups to work with professional
archaeologists on sites that would otherwise
be lost to erosion. SCAPE has managed several of
these excavations around Scotland, including one
in the Western Isles. The North Uist heritage group,
Journal of the North Atlantic
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
95
their archaeological competence and confidence.
Working to high professional standards, the group
has also helped with post-excavation work, including
wet-sieving and the sorting of samples. The site
was open to all, either as participant or visitor. Many
local people came to the site regularly to watch
progress and learn about new discoveries (Fig. 7).
Visits were arranged for local schoolchildren and for
art students from Taigh Chearsabhagh, Lochmaddy,
who used the site to help inspire their work (Fig. 8).
The excavation also featured regularly in local and
national press articles, further helping to increase
awareness about the site locally and nationally, and
helping the project to win the public vote as the Current
Archaeology Rescue Dig of the Year in 2012.
Conclusion
Managing coastal heritage threatened by erosion
is challenging in Scotland due to the length of
the coast and the incredible preservation of many
archaeological sites. Management strategies have
been developed and revised over the years, and the
lessons learned are applicable to other coastlines
around the world. Desk-based assessments have
been excellent at highlighting the most vulnerable
areas for survey, but have been less useful at locating
Access Archaeology, reported masonry exposed
on the beach at Sloc Sàbhaidh, Baile Sear after the
2005 storm. The site lay 1 km south of A’ Cheardach
Ruadh (above), and SCAPE worked with the group
to survey and characterize the remains, revealing the
eroding remains of Iron Age structures, including
a wheelhouse. Erosion was rapidly destroying the
site, and part of the buried wall of one structure was
reduced in height by 1 m in a single year due to a
change in the profile of the beach.
The destruction of the site provided an opportunity
for the local group and archaeologists to work
together on a project that could completely excavate
the site, taking down walls and looking under floor
deposits. This “total excavation” allowed a large
number of dating samples to be taken from above,
within, and below the structure. It is unusual for such
opportunities to exist at similar sites, where wellpreserved
prehistoric masonry structures are often
legally protected, and total excavation is prohibited.
The excavation has run over several seasons as
a Shorewatch project, and the group has worked
with SCAPE and other archaeologists to excavate
the structures (Dawson 2011b, MacDonald
and McHardy 2008, Rennell and McHardy 2009,
Stentoft et al. 2007). Many group members have
attended regularly over the years, increasing both
Figure 7. Local visitors at the excavations on the beach at Slo c Sàbhaidh, Baile Sear, North Uist.
Journal of the North Atlantic
96
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
in some cases when assessing where to allocate
funds. Community survey and excavation projects
often receive good publicity, helping to further increase
the profile of the threat to archaeological sites
from erosion, both locally and nationally.
Erosion is not predictable, and a single storm
can completely destroy an archaeological site.
Thus, time is not on the side of the heritage manager.
Although erosion is a problem, it also presents
an opportunity for professionals and community
groups to work together. Experimental research
methods can be devised and specific questions
asked of sites that would otherwise be lost. There
are a huge number of sites at risk, and it is up to
archaeologists to take up this challenge. In Scotland,
the coastal zone contains sites of all periods
and all types, many of which are also found inland.
Archaeologists involved in research projects should
consider designing their strategies so that it is the
vulnerable coastal sites that are examined. They
should also involve local communities in the project
as much as possible. In Scotland, information
from the coastal surveys and the prioritized list
of sites is starting to be used to inform excavation
sites or assessing areas of high archaeological potential.
Targeted Coastal Zone Assessment Surveys
have located thousands of previously unrecorded
sites, and the data collected has helped to produce
lists of priorities for sites that need urgent work.
Producing lists of priorities is not an end in itself;
without further action, the sites will eventually
be destroyed. In order to prioritize action, survey
data needs to be analyzed in a systematic and repeatable
way. This analysis has been completed
in Scotland, and large numbers of sites have been
classified as high priority. However, the dynamic
nature of coastal erosion means that the prioritized
list is not static, and erosion will destroy some sites
while exposing others.
In order to gain up-to-date information, heritage
managers in Scotland have recognized the very important
role that the general public can play in updating
records and reporting new discoveries. Involving
local groups in heritage management also increases
awareness of the problem and the local importance
of sites. The public has also played a key role in
helping to determine which sites should be worked
at, and the concept of public value has been adopted
Figure 8. Art students from Taigh Chearsabhagh depicting archaeologists at the Sloc S àbhaidh wheelhouse on Baile Sear.
Journal of the North Atlantic
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
97
Dawson, T. 2006. Archaeology and coastal erosion in
Scotland: The current state of knowledge and future
directions. Internal report for Historic Scotland, Edinburgh,
Scotland, UK.
Dawson, T. 2007. A review of the Coastal Zone Assessment
Surveys of Scotland, 1996–2007: Methods and
collected data. Internal report for Historic Scotland,
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Dawson, T. 2010. A system for prioritising action at
archaeological sites recorded in the Coastal Zone
Assessment Surveys. Internal report for Historic Scotland,
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Dawson, T. 2011a. Fethaland Fishing Station: Shetland
desk-based assessment and preservation by digital record.
Unpublished report of the SCAPE Trust and the
University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Dawson, T. 2011b. Baile Sear Community Excavation:
Sloc Sàbhaidh, Baile Sear, North Uist. Season 4
(2010) Data Structure Report. Unpublished report of
the SCAPE Trust and the University of St Andrews,
St Andrews, UK.
Dunwell, A.J., T.G. Cowie, M.F.T. Bruce, T. Neighbour,
and A.R. Rees. 1995. A Viking Age cemetery at Cnip,
Uig, Isle of Lewis, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland 125:719–752.
Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS). 2011.
The United Kingdom’s world heritage: Review of the
tentative list of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland. London, UK.
Hansom, J.D., A.F. Rennie, A. Dunlop, and J. Drummond.
2011. A methodology to assess the causes and rates of
change to Scotland’s beaches and sand dunes Phase 1.
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.
364. Inverness, Scotland, UK.
Historic Scotland. 1996. Coastal Zone Assessment Survey:
Historic Scotland Archaeological Procedure
Paper 4. Historic Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
HR Wallingford. 1997 Coastal cells in Scotland. Scottish
Natural Heritage Research, Survey, and Monitoring
Report No. 56. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Johnson, M., M. Cressey, S. Badger, and P. Richardson.
2005. Coastal Zone Assessment Survey: North Uist,
Report 1051. Unpublished report of CFA Archaeology,
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Johnson, M., M. Cressey, and P. Richardson. 2006. Coastal
Zone Assessment Survey: North Uist, Report 1262.
Unpublished report of CFA Archaeology, Edinburgh,
Scotland, UK.
Lees, G. 2005. Contemporary coastal processes in Scotland.
Pp. 13–21, In T. Dawson (Ed.). Coastal Archaeology
and Erosion in Scotland. Historic Scotland,
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Lowe, C. 1998. St. Boniface Church, Orkney: Coastal
Erosion and Archaeological Assessment. Sutton Publishing,
Stroud, UK.
Mercer, R.J. 1981. Archaeological field survey in northern
Scotland. Vol. II. University of Edinburgh Department
of Archaeology Occasional Paper No 7, Edinburgh,
Scotland, UK.
strategies; hopefully, this model can be applied to
many other coastlines around the globe.
Literature Cited
Armit, I. 2006. Anatomy of an Iron Age Roundhouse:
The Cnip Wheelhouse Excavations, Lewis. Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
272 pp.
Ashmore, P.J. 1994. Archaeology and the coastal zone:
towards a Historic Scotland policy. Historic Scotland,
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 35 pp.
Barber, J. 2003. Bronze Age farms and Iron Age farm
mounds of the Outer Hebrides SAIR 3.Available
online at http://www.sair.org.uk/sair3/. Accessed 20
December 2012.
Barclay, G.J. 1997. State-funded rescue archaeology in
Scotland: Past, present, and future. Historic Scotland
Occasional Paper No. 2. Historic Scotland, Edinburgh,
Scotland, UK.38 pp.
Barclay, G.J., and N. Fojut. 1995. The management and
conservation of the built and maritime heritage in the
coastal zone. Historic Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland,
UK.
Batey, C.E. 1984 Caithness coastal survey 1980–1982:
Dunnet Head to Ousdale. Durham University Department
of Archaeology Occasional Paper No. 3, Durham,
UK.
Beveridge, E. 2001 [1911]. North Uist: Its Archæology
and Topography with Notes upon the Early History
of the Outer Hebrides. Birlinn, Edinburgh, Scotland,
UK. 348 pp.
Branigan, K. 2005. Assessment survey: Isle of Barra. Pp
63–72, In T. Dawson (Ed.). Coastal Archaeology and
Erosion in Scotland. Historic Scotland, Edinburgh,
Scotland, UK.
Branigan, K., and P. Foster (Eds.). 1995. Barra: Archaeological
Research on Ben Tangaval. Continuum, Sheffield,
UK. 231 pp.
Branigan, K., and J. Grattan. 1998. Coastal assessment
survey: Barra and Vatersay. Unpublished Report for
Historic Scotland, SEARCH, University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, UK.
Burgess, C., and M. Church. 1996. Coastal erosion assessment,
Lewis. Unpublished Report for Historic
Scotland, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland,
UK.
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 2011. The world
factbook. Field listing: coastline. Available online at
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/
fields/2060.html. Accessed 20 April 2011.
Davidson, A., and N. Jones. 2002. The archaeological
survey of the Welsh coast. Pp. 19–24, In A. Davidson
(Ed.). The Coastal Archaeology of Wales. CBA Research
Report 131, York, UK.
Dawson, T. (Ed.). 2005 (revised). Coastal Archaeology
and Erosion in Scotland. Historic Scotland, Edinburgh,
Scotland, UK. 222 pp.
Journal of the North Atlantic
98
T. Dawson
2015 Special Volume 9
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute (MLURI). 1993.
The land cover of Scotland 1988. Aberdeen, Scotland,
UK.
MacDonald, K., and I. McHardy. 2008. Baile Sear community
archaeology project. Sloc Sàbhaidh, Baile Sear,
North Uist. Season 2 (2007) Data structure report. Unpublished
report of the SCAPE Trust and the University
of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland, UK.
Moore, H., and G. Wilson. 2005. Western Isles (South)
Coastal Zone Assessment Survey: Grimsay, Benbecula,
and South Uist. Unpublished report of EASE
Archaeology, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Moore, H., and G. Wilson. 2007. Report on Western Isles
(South) Coastal Zone Assessment Survey: South Uist,
and Benbecula (east coasts). [Unpublished report of
EASE Archaeology, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Neighbour, T., C. Knott, M.F. Bruce, and N.W. Kerr. 2000.
Excavation of two burials at Galson, Isle of Lewis,
1993 and 1996. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland 130:559–584.
Parker Pearson, M., and N.M. Sharples. 1999. Between
Land and Sea: Excavations at Dun Vulan, South Uist.
Sheffield University Press, Sheffield, UK.
Parker Pearson, M., P. Marshall, J. Mulville, and H. Smith
2011. The prehistoric village at Cladh Hallan. Available
online at http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/
research/cladh-hallan. Accessed 23 April 2011.
Ramsay, D.L., and A.H. Brampton. 2000. Coastal cells
in Scotland: Cells 8 and 9. The Western Isles Scottish
Natural Heritage Research, Survey, and Monitoring
Report No 150. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Rennell, R., and I. McHardy. 2009. Baile Sear Community
Archaeology Project. Sloc Sàbhaidh, Baile Sear, North
Uist. Season 3 (2008) Data structure report. Unpublished
report of the SCAPE Trust and the University
of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland, UK.
Sharples, N.M. 2000. The Iron Age and Norse settlement
at Bornish, South Uist: An interim report on the 2000
excavations. Cardiff Studies in Archaeology Specialist
Report 18. Cardiff, UK.
Shepherd, I.A.G., and A.N. Shepherd. 1978. Machair sites
survey: Uists and Benbecula. Internal HBM/SDD report.
HBM, Edinurgh, Scotland, UK.
Simpson, D.D.A., R.A. Gregory, and E.M. Murphy. 2003.
Excavations at Manish Strand, Ensay, Western Isles.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland
133:173–189.
Smith, G. 1995. Aberdaron Bay to the Great Orme. Unpublished
Report. GAT Report No. 79. Unpublished
report of GAT, Bangor, Wales, UK.
Sneddon, D. 2006. Coastal Zone Assessment Survey. East
Coast of North Uist, Benbecula, and South Uist. Deskbased
assessment. GUARD Project 2198. Unpublished
report of GUARD, Glasglow, Scotland, UK.
Stentoft, K., T. Dawson, and L. McKenna. 2007. Baile
Sear Community Archaeology Project. Sloc Sàbhaidh,
Baile Sear, North Uist. Unpublished report: The
SCAPE Trust and the University of St Andrews, St
Andrews, Scotland, UK.
Wolf, J. 2007. Modelling of waves and set-up for the
storm of 11–12 January 2005 Proudman Oceanographic
Laboratory Internal Document. Liverpool, UK.