Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
45
Introduction
Although lime mortar first appears in the archaeological
record of southern Britain during the Roman
Iron Age (Williams 2004:4), it is the evidence
for building with stone during that time which has
often been emphasized (e.g., Parsons 1990, Pearson
2006). This emphasis has become so thoroughly
inscribed into many insular archaeological interpretations
that any subsequent association of people
with stone buildings is now seen to have an implicit
“Romanitas” (Ó Carragáin 2005:101). This concept
has proven very useful for understanding medieval
archaeological and historical material in suggesting
that as Rome continued to be the center of the
Church in western Europe, so “Catholicity” needed
to be expressed and mediated by monumental masonry
architecture (Gem 1983).
Masonry, therefore, expresses identity. In England,
this enabled Bede (731 [1990]) to assert
nationality by comparing early medieval “Irish”,
Pictish, and British timber ecclesiastical buildings
with the contemporary stone-built churches of Roman
Catholic Northumbria. In this early period
of ecclesiastical reform, Bede and Wilfred were
constructing a complex dialectic whereby stone
means permanence, investment, strength, progress,
civilization, and pan-continental, orthodox, universal
Roman-Christian culture, in opposition to the
particular, misguided, peripheral, and ultimately
ephemeral cultural practices from which timber or
turf structures had emerged.
The Scottish “Atlantic Province” (or “Atlantic
Scotland”), however, although relatively unaffected
by the Iron Age Romanization of landscapes further
south, has also been largely defined by its earlier
and broadly contemporary archaeological evidence
for sophisticated monumental stone buildings (Piggott
1966:7). This region was one of the four areas
of Scotland classified by Piggott on the criteria of
“geography, chronology, and culture” (Ibid.:3). In
this scheme, the lands within Atlantic Scotland were
interpreted as forming a coherent Iron Age province,
evidenced by the extensive remains of stone-built
structures found across the coastal north and west of
the country—from the firth of Clyde to just north of
Inverness, including the Northern and Western Isles
(ibid., see also Lamb 2008).
Lime mortar, however, does not generally appear
in the archaeological record here until the early 2nd
millennium A.D., coinciding not only with another
period of widespread Church reform across much
of Europe, but also with the Christianization of the
Late Norse elite throughout the whole North Atlantic.
This conversion was a great victory for the Church
in extending its authority further beyond the former
bounds of Imperial Rome (cf. O’ Reilly 2009), and
this early lime evidence emerges when most domestic
buildings here were indeed constructed of dry-stone,
turf, and/or timber. Often, however, the substantial
remains of Pictish, Iron Age, and earlier prehistoric
stone structures would still have been the most visible
and certainly the most monumental architectural
forms within many settlement landscapes at this time
(Driscoll 1998, Parker Pearson et al. 2004).
In the archaeological record of this province,
therefore, it is the appearance of lime-bonded or
plastered masonry, rather than stone, which somehow
architecturally defines this period of Christianization,
as well as perhaps displaying something
of the concepts of Romanitas and reform seen
elsewhere (Ó Carragáin 2003:151). This is an interpretation
that requires us to look closer at the lime
itself and investigate its affect upon any pre-existing
building traditions, and the wider built environment,
during this and later periods.
This province, however, is also defined by its
geography, and although the archaeology suggests
most medieval European, British, and even Scottish
Cille Donnain Revisited:
Negotiating with Lime Across Atlantic Scotland from the 12th Century
Mark Thacker*
Abstract - This paper introduces the initial findings from an ongoing buildings archaeology research project. I present the
results of two wide-ranging mortar surveys which describe the archaeological evidence for lime mortars within the 12thcentury
bicameral chapels of Atlantic Scotland and pre-Reformation chapels of the Western Isles. The diverse evidence
for materials, plan form, and structure suggest important processes of cultural negotiation. I argue that lime mortar was an
animated technological agent for Christianization, which enabled power and perspective to be mediated by complex culturally
appropriate techniques.
Special Volume 9:45–66
2010 Hebridean Archaeology Forum
Journal of the North Atlantic
*27 Upper Carloway, Isle of Lewis, Scotland, UK; m.thacker@ed.ac.uk.
2015
Journal of the North Atlantic
46
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
west-coast mainland building-limes were created
by burning limestone or chalk with wood or coal in
various kiln types (e.g., Cramp 2006, Hughes and
Cuthbert 2000), Atlantic Scotland presents a range
of regional environments, many of which might challenge
this technological model. Limestone, woodland,
and coal were available in some regions, but in
others, including the Western Isles, archaeological
evidence for 900 years of lime-mortar activity is
evident within past landscapes without any known
outcrop of limestone,1 little woodland, and no coal
(Armit 1996:23, Withrington and Grant 1983:58).
Moreover, focusing further on the Western Isles,
very little archaeological evidence of lime-burning
or mixing sites of any period have been recorded
here. Later historical evidence documents the importation
of lime, limestone, and coal from the late
18th century (Headrick [1800] 1870:17, Knox [1786]
1975:148), but also from this period to within living
memory, building-limes were reported to have
been produced on a small scale, by burning cockle
shells in a peat-fired clamp—a procedure which
would also leave little upstanding archaeology (MacIntyre
1993; Macqueen 1791–1799:145; Monro
1791–1799:42; Thacker, in press). Pre-modern lime
provenances in the Western Isles, however, are not
very well documented, although suggested possible
carbonate sources have included shell sand (Reece
1981:15–16), shell (Young 1955), marl (Barrowman
2008:11) and mainland limestone (Macleod 1998:5).
While this lack of earlier documentation and recorded
physical evidence of production sites, particularly
in the Late Norse and medieval periods, places greater
reliance on the surviving material remains within
the buildings themselves, most surveyors have been
content to ambiguously apply the “shell-” prefix to
Western Isles lime mortars, without further clarification
of whether this refers to the binder, or to an
aggregate material which also often contains a high
shell content (Thacker 2012).
A better archaeological understanding of individual
lime mortars requires a more focused initial
mortar-research agenda, and a more holistic approach
to examining the different environments, buildings,
mortars, and materials of the whole region,
and ultimately the wider province. In this regard, the
landscapes surrounding pre-Reformation chapels
are particularly significant as places where material
evidence of early and continuing lime activity can
often still be observed. While the limited number of
upstanding chapel remains and graveyard sites have
posed considerable challenges to scholarship and
dating (Crawford 1987:183), the ruinous condition
of the buildings, mix of mortar material provenances,
and surviving landscape contexts also make mortar
archaeology an accessible and yet largely neglected
tool with which to explore these places as well as the
techniques from which they emerged.
From the beginning of this project, Fleming and
Woolf’s (1992) excavations and interpretation of the
chapel at Cille Donnain in South Uist provided an
important study in three respects:
Firstly, building on the work of Cant (1975,
1984), this study extended the apparent regionality
of broadly 12th-century bicameral (two-cell) chapels
from the Northern Isles and Caithness to the Western
Isles, and further suggested that this chapel planform
was in these instances a particularly Norse
regional expression. This association with ethnicity
might appear curious given that bicamerality, whereby
various masonry structures divide the nave from
a relatively smaller chancel and so serve to more
emphatically separate the congregation from the
celebrant during mass2, is a common northern European
articulation of Christian reform (see also Raven
2005:178), but this Norse interpretation brings some
much needed complexity to our earlier medieval and
Roman constructional dialectic, and will be further
discussed below.
Secondly, for the archaeologist in the field this
use of masonry, wherever found, is very useful even
where, as at Cille Donnain, the upstanding archaeology
is particularly fragmentary. This site’s building
footprint is distinctive and, although not an absolute
rule, the majority of these chapels were built between
the late 11th and early 13th centuries.
The third important point to emerge from the
Cille Donnain paper was an interpretation that this
chapel’s relatively large size and landscape similarity
to Finlaggan implied a high-status church. This
conclusion is also curious, however, when the chapel
was interpreted as dry-stone and in contrast with the
recorded lime evidence found at many of the other
bicameral chapels within this group as presented
below.
This then is the point from which this paper departs
to introduce the archaeological potential and
meanings of lime mortars across these regions. Our
evidence lies within a province with various environmental
conditions and material sources. Without
at this stage discussing previous work that has convincingly
demonstrated various Iron Age regionalities
here (Armit 1991, Harding 2000, Hingley 1992),
these landscapes do appear to have previously
supported settlements with some degree of conformity
in built culture: sophisticated monumental
dry-stone masonry remains from earlier periods,
contemporary Norse turf-building traditions, and
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
47
emerging masonry chapel forms. The intention is to
explore how, where, and when different lime mortars
are evidenced within the archaeological record from
this point onwards: to assess the potential of more
focused, non-intrusive, on-site mortar-archaeology
methodologies at specific sites; compare inter-site
mortar evidence to establish initial typological
frameworks; and ultimately enable a more informed
discussion of why this agent was, or was not, adopted
by local communities at all. Lime mortar
and bicamerality may have expressed and mediated
Christianization, Romanitas, reform, and identity
in the Late Norse period, but how were the architectural
affordances enabled by these technologies
negotiated within the emerging cultural landscape of
this and later periods?
Methodology and Results
A multi-scalar framework was provided by two
mortar surveys:
Survey 1 investigated broadly 12th-century
bicameral chapels across the former Scottish Atlantic
Province to provide some chronological and
plan-form uniformity for geographical–structural
comparison. This survey was designed to investigate
how the material fabric of chapels from different
regions relates to plan-forms which appear to be
reproduced across diverse landscapes. This survey
began by undertaking a search of the 2687 “chapel”
and 8232 “church” entries on the R.C.A.H.M.S.
CANMORE website (www.rcahms.gov.uk). Further
documentary sources such as local SMRs and
archaeological papers were consulted where identified.
Details of chapel plan-forms and any dating
evidence were refined to include only those chapels
of possible 12th-century construction in the local authority
areas of Shetland, Orkney, Highland, Western
Isles, and Argyll and Bute, and these buildings
were further scrutinized for bonding type, coatings,
wall thicknesses, phasing evidence, inclined jambs,
and vaulting or arches.
Survey 2 investigated only Western Isles chapels,
but throughout the whole of the pre-Reformation
period, with selected post-Reformation examples
also, to provide some geographical uniformity for
chronological–structural comparison. This survey
began with the same sources as Survey 1, but the
documentary information was then further resolved
by field survey at the majority of any upstanding
sites, in order to verify the evidence and provide a
landscape context for the buildings and a masonry
context for the mortars. As I have described elsewhere,
the mortar constituents themselves were then
examined in-situ with the naked eye and a 10x hand
lens and described with reference to a classification
scheme based upon the various aggregates and any
carbonate/lime burning relicts displayed (Thacker,
in press b).
The lack of previous mortar archaeology in Atlantic
Scotland initially required that this project
take a very broad approach, and much work remains
to be done. However, based on the emerging
recorded evidence, we can now draw a number of
preliminary conclusions:
The earliest widespread evidence for lime mortar
in Atlantic Scotland appears in chapel buildings of
broadly 12th-century construction. There is some,
much rarer, lime-mortar evidence in earlier unicameral
chapel buildings, but these structures either
demonstrate possible secondary lime contexts (as
demonstrated at the Brough of Deerness [Morris
and Emery 1986]) or are only relatively dateable as
earlier phases of chapel structures that eventually
developed a bicameral form.
The earliest widespread lime-mortar evidence
appears coeval with the building of bicameral chapels
with a narrower chancel and, following Fleming
and Woolf (1992), this plan-form has a coherent
contemporary distribution across the Western Isles,
Northern Isles, and Caithness (Fig. 1). Much more
evidence for this distribution is being collated for
this project, demonstrating a very concentrated
archaeological record. Geographically, this pattern
also conforms closely to distributions of “Papar”
placenames (Crawford 2005), and finds of various
examples of late Norse material culture such as
“fish-tail” combs (Clarke and Heald 2002). In a
century characterized in Scotland by constructional
diversity (Fernie 1986), these findings support an
interpretation that this plan-form is a Norse cultural
expression of identity.
It is, of course, dangerous to argue from negative
evidence, but there does appear to be a lack of
evidence for this plan-form in the rest of Atlantic
Scotland, including large areas south of northern
Caithness, the whole Highland west coast, and in the
Hebrides south of South Uist—such as at Skye, Islay,
Iona, and most of Argyll despite good preservation
of other contemporary chapel plan-forms here.
The use of lime mortar in both bicameral and
earlier unicameral chapels is broadly contemporary
with the use of other recorded bonding types, including
dry-stone and clay (see Appendix 1). Mortar,
whether lime or clay, would not then appear to be
a structural requirement of the plan. Furthermore,
12th-century remains suggest a strong element of
regionality within the province, with coherent
Journal of the North Atlantic
48
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
Figure 1. Distribution of evidence for simple 12th-century bicameral chapels with a narrower chancel. From Survey 1 and
Appendix 1.
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
49
evidence for lime use in Orkney, a more mixed picture
of both lime use and survival of evidence in the
Western Isles and Shetland, and a coherent record for
the use of dry-stone in Caithness. However, suitable
limestone for lime making is available in Caithness,
e.g., at Raey, Baligill, and Durness (Saxon 2006),
where dry-stone chapels are the norm in this period,
and was apparently unknown in the Western Isles
where lime bonding is evident. Accepting equality
in the availability of fuel, this suggests the decision
of whether to build with lime, clay, or dry-stone was
not simply predicated on the physical availability or
constraint of carbonate materials. Surely an empirical
knowledge of lime-burning technology would by
this time have been widespread, if not necessarily
lime-burning techniques specific to locally available
materials (see below).
In the bicameral chapels of the province, evidence
for chancel arches and/or barrel vaulting is implicit
where lime bonding is recorded (Figs. 2, 3). Chancel
arches or barrel vaulting are unknown in chapels recorded
as dry-stone3 where trabeate (lintel-headed)
portals are ubiquitous (Fig. 4). Within the recorded
evidence for simple bicameral chapels, barrel vaulting
is only found in those examples from Orkney.
Buildings described as dry-stone tend to have
much thicker walls, relative to those that are described
as lime-bonded. Although the inclining of
window or door jambs is found in both later and
earlier chapel buildings, this is a very common feature
of 12th-century bicameral chapels of all bonding
types, both arched and trabeate.
Throughout the province, until the 19th century,
internal and external lime coatings are implicit with
lime bonding. Further, surviving coating contexts,
at least in the Western Isles, are generally contemporary
with the underlying core masonry, of whatever
phase. Pre-19th century re-pointing was not recorded,
and even major structural developments during the
life of a building did not generally result in recoating
the whole structure. Further, no evidence has yet
been found for the recoating of a chapel in its later
role as a roofless burial aisle (hereafter cabeil), or,
conversely, for the intentional early post-Reformation
stripping of coatings. This evidence contrasts
with that for the removal of both internal and external
coatings, and sometimes re-pointing, during
19th- and 20th-century chapel restorations. Where
unaffected by these late procedures, the archaeological
record presents a series of remarkably pristine, if
fragmentary, surviving pre-Reformation lime contexts
that can serve as a valuable survey tool.
Coatings are not recorded in almost all dry-built
chapels. Clay-bonded chapels form a small percentage
of both surveys, and evidence for chancel arches
in these buildings is mixed. However, evidence for
external lime coatings is not recorded, and only
Eynhallow (Orkney) has any recorded external lime
evidence at all. In contrast, the lower status and
much later 19th/20th-century clay bonded “white-
Figure 2. Lime-bonded, arcuate, Teampull Eoin, Lewis ca.1910–1913. Photograph © N. Morrison, donated by F. Macleod.
Journal of the North Atlantic
50
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
houses” of Lewis usually had an external lime coating,
to various extents.
Lime mortars in Western Isles buildings generally
display burnt relicts of limestone or sea shells
visible to the naked eye, and this evidence is almost
always mutually exclusive (Thacker 2012). A more
specific terminology is therefore proposed, and will
be used throughout this paper, to describe these
two binder types as limestone-lime and shell-lime,
respectively. A spectrum of aggregates from almost
completely lithic to almost completely shell is
also displayed—and so the four main mortar types
will be defined as: limestone-lime/lithic tempered;
limestone-lime/shell tempered; shell-lime/lithic
tempered; and shell-lime/shell tempered (Ibid.).
Shell-lime mortars, of both aggregate types, appear
in chapel mortars of the Western Isles from the
earliest period. This finding contrasts with contemporary
evidence from mainland England, Scotland,
and much of Ireland, where there is strong evidence
for limestone-lime mortars, but does parallel some
evidence from the 12th to 17th century in the Northern
Isles (O’Dell 1959), late medieval Faeroes,
Greenland, and Holland, and early modern evidence
from Galloway (Scotland). The shell-lime relicts
evidenced are overwhelmingly of cockle shell across
all of the Western Isles except Lewis. Cockle shelllime
mortars are occasionally found in Lewis also,
but other pre-Reformation chapel mortars here appear
to employ different shell types. Unfortunately,
where medieval lime sources other than shell have
been suggested, such as at Tur Chliamain (Harris)
and Teampull Pheadair (Shader, Lewis), upstanding,
non-invasive direct evidence is not available.
However, lime-coating evidence which predates the
conservation pointing at Tur Chliamain, suggests a
shell-lime was probably also the primary core mortar
material here. Further, Headrick’s “experiments”
with burning marl on Lewis was a recent 18th-century
innovation (see Anonymous 1791–1799 entry
for Dunnichen:426–427) that was not being burnt
by Lewis builders at the time. Reece’s (1981:15–16)
suggestion that “white sand” was burnt to produce
lime in medieval Iona is particularly interesting
here but is an interpretation that may unfortunately
have added to confusion over binder and aggregate
sources, and further complicated mortar descriptions
and classification (Thacker 2012).
The exclusive use of shell-lime rather than limestone-
lime mortars in the Western Isles is evident in
Figure 3. Looking towards the chancel, lime-bonded, arcuate, an d vaulted Egilsay, Orkney. Photograph © M. Thacker
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
51
20th centuries, supports an interpretation for some
form of unbroken technology, if not necessarily
technique, in the southern Western Isles from the
12th century to the present day. During these later
the archaeological record throughout the whole of
the Late Norse and medieval periods. Physical evidence
in later post medieval and post-Reformation
buildings, and historical evidence from the 18th to
Figure 4. Looking from the chancel at dry-stone St. Mary’ s, Caithness. Photograph © M. Thacker.
Journal of the North Atlantic
52
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
this material as a “fine” lime (e.g., Wallace 1684). In
this instance, then, a hot mix should not be ruled out
on this basis.
Across 12th-century Atlantic Scotland, the bicameral
plan-form suggests shared identities of
one order, while the constructional variability
demonstrated above suggests diverse “accents” at
a more intimate scale. The meanings of lime now
need further examination if we are to interpret the
reasons for the variability of this evidence, as each
constructional solution is the result of a contextually
specific, encultured, and socially negotiated practical
process (Rapaport 1969). Technology and technique
exist as interrelated yet separate (Ingold 2000,
Inker 2000:26) and active media by which identities
are negotiated. Perhaps, like Bede from our introduction,
the bicameral chapel builders of Caithness
and Orkney are expressing dialectics of regional
identity, but the notion of group consensus may not
be appropriate when all material culture is the result
of the negotiation of power between agents at many
different scales. We must push our explanations further
and attempt to understand how decisions were
orchestrated by social and material agents, with
reference to implicated material and technological
meanings. Were the techniques specifically associated
with shell-lime also an expression of identity,
and was the final plan form of the chapel less or more
important to various agents than the techniques by
which it was made?
Discussion
Lime-bonded, and so lime-coated, living castles
and chapels would have had particular power in a
treeless Western Isles landscape in which even the
other buildings are composed of turf and stone. In
order to understand more about lime, therefore, it
is also necessary to investigate these other materials
with which people needed to negotiate on a
daily basis. Turf, stone, and lime are all powerfully
evocative pieces of meaningful places (Bradley
2000:chapter 6), and the settlement landscape itself
emerges from their interactions with each other and
us. From a human perspective, these interactions are
techniques for living—constantly reflexive processes
from which the meanings of various people, materials,
places, and in this case buildings, also emerge.
In this way, the world emerges, through technique,
from the landscapes of the past. Although, as buildings
archaeologists, we are often more concerned
with discreet dates, structures, and phases than the
constantly shifting negotiation, the rite of dedication
of a chapel building, like all other rites of passage,
marks neither completion nor beginning; it marks
contexts, shell-lime use was contemporary with the
use of limestone-lime, and some buildings and sites
display shell-lime evidence which overbuilds or
post-dates limestone-lime contexts. No evidence for
post-late-18th-century shell-lime use in Lewis, however,
has yet been identified.
As introduced above, historical evidence describes
the importation of limestone to Lewis and
Harris from the late 18th century, while this project
demonstrates earlier, physical, 17th-century evidence
for limestone-lime in Lewis. This early appearance
may initially have been restricted to the Stornoway
area—pre-figuring somewhat early cement evidence
here in the mid-19th century. The lack of historical
accounts of shell burning in Lewis parallels both this
relatively early physical evidence of limestone-lime
in some high-status lime-bonded buildings, and the
later widespread evidence of clay-bonded, limestone-
lime–coated white-houses on the island. This
suggests that widespread shell-burning in Lewis, at
least initially in the Stornoway parish, was replaced
by limestone-lime and limestone importation at
a much earlier date than in Harris, the Uists, and
Barra. The late-18th-century historical shell-burning
account from Uig (Lewis; Monro 1791–1799:42) is,
however, later than any physical evidence known
to this author, and much more mortar archaeology
needs to be done in later contexts across the islands
before we can suggest with greater authority when
the technique might have been abandoned.
Limestone-lime was, however, eventually active
throughout the whole of the Western Isles—at the
same time in different places to shell-lime, at different
times to shell-lime in the same buildings, and
there is even some later, rare evidence for different
limestone- and shell- lime mortars in the same building
at the same time.
A local aggregate source was almost invariably
used, in all periods. Within local arrays of possible
aggregates, of very distinctive local composition,
conscious choices appear to have been made, although
occasionally these choices may conflict with
a 21st-century mason’s appreciation of functionality.
This point is important in confirming that the early
mortars were mixed at or very near the chapel site,
and enable further focused examination of carbonate
relicts. As will be discussed below, however, this
evidence also allows us to approach an understanding
of the perceptions, experience, and meanings
of the particular locales from which these materials
were sourced. The lack of obvious lime inclusions in
shell-lime mortars, which are so commonly found in
later limestone-lime mortars, may be a consequence
of the thin source material, and further, may explain
why historical descriptions often seem to refer to
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
53
process and change (Bradley 1998). The social life
of the building, like that of the people, materials,
places, and techniques of which it is constructed,
began long before this point (cf. Sinclair 1995).
Emergent processes force us to consider whether,
or how, meanings have changed even when the material
record may display a marked degree of consistency.
Much has been made of a Hebridean blackhouse
building tradition, which, it has been suggested,
has survived for the last 1000 years (Holden
2004, Smith et al. 2001,Walker and MacGregor
1996). Throughout much of this period, however,
these houses were physically ephemeral turf structures
that moved around the settlement landscape.
19th- and 20th-century material evidence, and tenant
leases and fines, are testament to how the imposition
of stone and lime “improvements” by various
landlords throughout the Highlands and Islands were
resisted by communities here. To contrast function
with symbolism is unhelpful; this material culture
both includes and represents much more than availability
or husbandry needs (Dodgshon 1993:423).
Turf walls and thatch roofs enabled incorporated
building performances to continually re-affirm the
communities’ relationships with the world through a
constant cycle of turf, straw, and peat cutting; building,
domestic fire rituals, and prayer; and finally
the spreading of smoke-blackened turf or thatch
upon the land. That stone and lime are very powerful
agents with which to negotiate, which might
slow this pulse to a standstill, was well understood
(Thacker 2011). This incorporated, mobile ephemerality
within the settlement landscape, however,
also completely contrasted with the inscribed, static,
oriented, monumental, stone and lime buildings with
which this paper is primarily concerned.
Western Isles pre-Reformation chapels are often
sited upon the same ruined dry-stone buildings from
earlier periods that Piggott interpreted as so culturally
defining. Consistency of place here, however,
has more recently been interpreted as the appropriation
of a community’s pre-existing relationship
with a powerful monument—often sited in liminal
locations of commanding visibility (Driscoll 1998,
Parker Pearson et al. 1996). Appropriation is one of
the foremost tools of colonization and conquest, and
like the earlier Iron age buildings, chapels returned
a culturally constructed gaze very much dependent
upon the relationship between the individual human
being and building concerned (Olin 1996)—these
are two negotiating, intersubjective “viewees”. No
longer, if ever, simply a dry-stone broch, however,
the sacred building place is now associated with and
surmounted by Christianity, and has a lime-coated
gaze which required those people who came within
view to kneel or bow their head to pray (Martin
[1695] 1970:28, 88).
Although interpretations suggesting that masonry
chapels were always lime-coated in medieval
Europe have recently been questioned (Armi 1990),
the physical lime-coating evidence apparent in the
lime-bonded chapels of the above survey does parallel
documentary and place-name evidence for white
lime-coated or -washed chapels elsewhere in early
medieval England (Cramp 2006) and Galloway (Hill
1997), 12th-century Wales (Gem 2009) and Scotland
(MacDonald 1999:187), and medieval Greenland
(Nyegaard 2009:7).
Today, in many Christian contexts, perceptions
of this color have powerful culturally loaded meanings
which, in opposition to the color black, symbolize
purity, peace, innocence, cleanliness, virginity,
goodness, and life (Darvill 2002:74). In the last
two centuries in the Hebrides, white has appeared
as Chrisom cloths, confirmation dresses, wedding
dresses, wedding flags, and Presbyterian Orduighean
sheets (Parman 1990). From prehistory, however,
the moon and pieces of quartz have had celestial and
water associations in a Hebridean archaeological
record that appears to further illustrate how an apparently
universal and fundamental human relationship
with this color has been articulated in different
contexts (Jones 1999, Moore and Terry 1894).
In the early medieval period, Coelfrid explained
to the Pictish king Nechtan the pivotal role of the
moon in calculating the correct date of Easter, and
further how:
“... we should celebrate the mysteries of our
Lord’s Resurrection and our own deliverance
with our minds refreshed to love of heavenly
things ... the Lord Jesus, overcame all
the darkness of death by the triumph of His
Resurrection and then, having ascended into
heaven, sent down the Spirit from on high and
so filled His Church, which is often symbolically
described as the moon, with the light
of inward grace.” (Bede [731], Shirley-Price
1990:315; my italics).
The moon, as God’s light, guides us through the
night. In the Late Norse period, Christian meanings
were constructed around white as the means
by which God actively protects those in transition
between two worlds. Again, the pre-existing cultural
landscape, in this case the meanings surrounding
a color, the night, and the heavens, appear to have
been appropriated in a process of negotiation and
power. White lime-coated chapels, like the saints
whose relics they very often contained, loomed protectively
over the people and landscape (cf. Airlie
Journal of the North Atlantic
54
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
to fire a kiln that must also, in the pre-Reformation
period, have been blessed (Thomas 1971:32). The
source material was transformed by fire and its
inherent sanctity revealed as “quick”, animated,
and alive, with a thirst that required slaking. Water,
milk, eggs, blood, and alcohol (Crhova et al. 2010,
Sickels and Alsopp 2005), have all been involved
as slaking materials elsewhere in Europe during the
medieval period, and similar evidence is emerging
as a result of more focused research here—blood in
the mortar at Trondheim Cathedral, “liquor” at Dunvegan
Castle, and blood, eggs, and even human hair
at Scalloway Castle (Bjørken 1994, MacLeod 1906).
These are visceral, powerfully emotive agents and
bodily fluids necessary for life and so the safe birth
of lime. The Late Norse or medieval lime-burner
would not have worked by “scientific” knowledge
of material properties, but by “enminded” technique
to conduct a negotiation between material agents
(Ingold 2000:chapter 16). Their performance was
embodied in the resultant quicklime, which was then
bound to place by mixing with very particular aggregates,
sourced from the local shore. In the Western
Isles, however, this locale was already very much
implicated in the life and identity of the lime-burner;
it was from here that the shell carbonate source had
already been gathered.
As introduced above, much of Atlantic Scotland
presents a coastal landscape, and the influence of
the sea on life here has often driven explanations
for the apparent initial early medieval success of
Norwegian colonization (Crawford 1987:11). In the
Western Isles, the sea, like the wind, is an almost ever-
present powerful agent that has probably always
played a massive part in structuring personal experience
(cf. Tilley 1996). The aggregate arrays within
the historic Western Isles mortars surveyed in this
research display very little change from that in evidence
on the shore today. Modern science describes
how these materials have been created from a mix of
coralline algae from living offshore banks, stone and
minerals from eroding onshore bedrock, and shell
material from the fore-shore to form unique local
compositions (Dawson et al. 2004). Collecting shell
and aggregate for lime-making, however, demanded
people enter this place of ancient and constant negotiation
between land, sea, and sky (cf. Bradley
2000:136); the beach has always been a shifting
amphitheatre of powerful synaesthetic experience.
Particular beaches, however, also mean much more
to different people, as places of experience, emotion,
habitual bodily movements, and memory. The shore
now appears to this writer replete with meanings associated
with journeys and the charged emotions of
leaving and arrival. It has a particularly “temporally
1994:36–37). The unique glow of lime coatings,
especially at sunrise and sunset, may be explained
optically by the “double refractive index” of the
lime crystals themselves (Roz Artis-Young, Scottish
Lime Centre Trust, Fife, Scotland, UK, pers.
comm.), but “throughout the world brilliant things
equate with spiritual enlightenment … and could
have been conceived as earthbound material manifestations
of light’”(Saunders 2002:214; my italics).
Lime, quartz, and the moon are more than white—
they glow, they are candindam4.
In the 8th century, Bede compared Roman
Catholic stone chapels with timber examples from
elsewhere, but in many medieval Western Isles’
contexts, it is surely the external lime coatings that
would have visually confirmed the loca sanctorum,
and the presence of Celtic saints, the Roman
Church, and God. Later in this period, the regional
timing of which is also instructive, lime-bonded
and -coated clan castles would also appropriate
and contrive this physical mechanism—further
linking the sanctity of lime with the clan chief.
Lime-coated buildings are investment (cf. Gondek
2006) and performance opportunities, which reach
back in time and up to heaven to monumentally
present embodied, complex, hybrid relationships
and identities within the landscape (Driscoll 1998;
2000:249). Lime mediates the cult of divine Christian
lordship, and whether making swords, carving
stones, or building chapels, the respective smith,
carver, mason, and lime-burner are all political personnel
(cf. Peregrine 1991:1).
Lime-burning, however, like iron working (Haaland
2004), has often been studied by archaeologists
from an implicitly modern perspective whereby
technologies evolve and diffuse based upon rational
criteria of efficiency and product performance (e.g.,
Leach 1995, Wingate 1985). It is, of course, useful
to recognize how this purified, rational “spin”
was adopted to explain different motivations in
later periods—for instance, during the 19th-century
blackhouse “improvements” discussed above—but
it is also necessary to appreciate that other meanings
are implicit here, and certainly would have pertained
in 12th-century Atlantic Scotland. In whichever context,
however, the lime-burner was one of many different
agents implicated in a performance surrounded
by creative and contingent symbolism. Limeburning
required fire: a vital, sacred, and precious
phenomenon prayed over in nightly post-medieval
Hebridean domestic smooring rituals for centuries
(Gavin- Schwartz 2001); it was not only the moon
which kept the household safe. In the context of
building large, thick-walled, lime-bonded structures,
however, peat was demanded in enormous quantities
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
55
In these burials, Gilchrist (2008) discusses the
apotropaic quality of shell amulets as the pilgrim
undertakes the final journey through purgatory, but
further, the archaeological record of early Christian
burial across Britain documents bodies laid not in
soil but in shell sand, chalk, lime, or even exotic
Gypsum (e.g., Sparey-Green 2003). This process is
also seen in Pictish Sutherland (Brady et al. 2007),
and is strikingly recounted in the burial of Aud the
Deep-Minded who was purported to have been buried
“on an Icelandic beach at the high-water mark
because having been baptised, she didn’t wish to
lie in unconsecrated earth” (Pálsson and Edwards
1978:51–52 and 55, cited in Abrams 2007:183).
Again in direct contrast to the inland cutting of turf
for the incorporated ephemeral domestic buildings
of this whole period, monumental chapel buildings
display their shoreline origins in lithic and shellmortar
aggregates, binder relicts, and water-worn
building stones. These are powerful, universal but
vernacular agents. Later medieval chapels embraced
a wider cultural landscape, hybridizing with Mull/
Ionan Carsaig sandstone details and Argyll Schist
graveslabs, but appropriation isn’t confined to the
modern concept of “cultural reuse” and it is problematic
to define motivations based upon simple categories
such as “casual”, “functional”, or “iconic”
(contra Stocker and Everson 1990). Sourcing shell
and aggregate from the shore for their transformation
and rebirth into white shell-lime mortars also
mediates an evocative interpenetration of place
whereby the chapel is now associated with a powerful,
meaningful locale, and the shore becomes a
Christianized locus. The Western Isles pre-Reformation
chapel is an extension of the shore which it very
often overlooks—a place of transition, contrasting
perspectives and so power.
The apparent dyadic relationships (Tilley
2004:4–10) discussed above between white or black,
shore or inland, and lime-plastered or not, may go
some way to explaining the dichotomy between the
evidence from 12th-century lime-bonded Orkney and
dry-built Caithness as highlighted in Survey 1. That
this evidence also parallels other regional variations
in Norse material culture is very pertinent (Clarke
and Heald 2002), but we might now go one step
further and question the premise of a Scottish Atlantic,
or Scandinavian Scottish, cultural milieu which
was uniformly dominated by the sea.
Caithness is an active landscape very different
from that of Orkney and not only because it is a part
of the Scottish mainland. The Northern Caithness
coastline presents a physical bulwark of high cliffs,
with only small intervening sections of sand and
boulder beaches, and one island (SNH 2002:100).
thick” quality—an immediacy of physical experience
which somehow engenders reflection.
In the 19th century, however, shellfish was often
starvation food, and the shore was structuring a
very different experience. In earlier centuries, the
western trackless ocean, the Uist “an Cuan an Iar”,
was the direction from which the inexplicable often
emerged in Gaelic proverbs (Campbell [1927]
1968:17–18). The ritual ale sacrifice to the sea-god
Shonny, poured into the sea by wading 17th-century
Lewis folk in supplication for a good seaweed
harvest, further describes this embodied landscape
and personified ocean (Martin [1695] 1970). Earlier
still, in 16th-century Barra, the huge quantity
of cockle shells found on the beaches of Eoligarry
were reported to emerge in embryonic form from the
holy well at Cille Bharra (Munro 1961), with all the
liminal, journeying symbolism such a provenance
might infer. But what of the earlier medieval and
Late Norse periods? What did the shore mean to the
parents of a young clansman who, having watched
him climb aboard a galley with bravado, apparently
ready for war, were now waiting impatiently for his
safe return?
Within this region, like the color white, emotive
liminal locales such as the moon, brochs, wells, and
beaches are apparently universal powerful agents
with which to negotiate in our everyday lives and
strong metaphors for wider concepts of the journey
and where we stand in relation to a larger other. In
the religious flux of the early second millennium
A.D., such powerful Scottish Atlantic agents, like
their human counterparts, had to be appropriated
and Christianized. Elsewhere, scallop and cockle
shells were establishing an important and widespread
place in Christian material culture as the
motif above the door of Christ’s tomb in Jerusalem
(Ó Carrogáin 2003:144) and, from the 12th century,
pilgrim badges to the shrine of St. James in Santiago
de Compostela (Alford 1957, Hohler 1957). The
shell has a particular resonance here in representing
the journeys of both the headless body of St. James,
blown to Spain by angels in a boat made of stone,
and that of the pilgrims themselves. Pierced shell
badges also then appear in iconographic images of
James and other disciples right across Christendom,
including on the beautifully carved Carsaig stone
of Alistair Macleod’s late medieval tomb at Tur
Chliamain (Harris). Pierced Scallop shells are found
amongst the translated bones of medieval Irish saints
at Illaunloughan (Edwards 2002:240) and Killoluaig
(Ó Carrogáin 2003:144) and in the Christian burial
contexts of pilgrims at 13th-century Taum, Galway
(Clyne 1990), Fishergate, York, and the 12th-century
church of St. Nicholas in Aberdeen (Gilchrist 2008).
Journal of the North Atlantic
56
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
Significant settlement has historically been concentrated
in the long river valleys characteristic of
the region, and arable land is more widespread and,
compared to Orkney, Shetland, or the Western Isles,
much less coastal (Ritchie and Mather 1970). These
contrasting landscapes are evident in the archaeological
record of Caithness and Orkney from the
Neolithic Period when, although both communities
were building the same chambered cairn monument
type, in Orkney they were oriented to ensure their
gaze was felt most acutely from the sea while in
Caithness it was concentrated on the inland “dales”
(Phillips 2003). This emplaced monumentality is
also evidenced in our survey, whereby half of the
bicameral chapels of Caithness from Survey 1 (Skinnet,
Gavin’s Kirk and Clow) are situated many miles
inland while those of Orkney, like many in the Western
Isles, are classic Norse beachhead sites.
The 12th-century dry-built bicameral chapels
of Caithness, however, are not evidence of simple
environmental constraint, poverty, or conservatism
in the region. They emerge from a more complex
negotiation between Norse landowners, the Scottish
Church, masonry traditions, ancient monuments,
and the landscape (Thacker 2011). Given the evidence
for limestone-lime mortars in much of Europe
and Scotland, and the apparent widespread use of
shell-lime mortars in the Norse Scottish Atlantic,
even in regions such as Shetland and Skye, which
like Caithness do have significant limestone outcrops,
we should not simply question if knowledge
of limestone-burning techniques was available, but
how culturally appropriate those materials and techniques
were. More mortar archaeology fieldwork
within these regions is certainly required.
Further, however, the various bicameral architectural
forms included within Survey 1 represent
a range of dates within the broad chronological parameters
set and will include chapels built both before
and after the establishment of an effective parish
system in different regions. The concentrated
distribution and evidence that most were not parish
churches, however, suggests many were founded as
“private” or “proprietorial” churches by landowners
(Abrams 2007, Cant 1984) who also maintained
the priest. Bicameral chapels evidently were the
culturally appropriate form in many instances—
a norm for a landowner of this status to aspire to
conform to. Christianity, in appropriating the preexisting
local landscape, was itself being appropriated
and localized. Building on this interpretation,
the adoption of the bicameral plan-form would then
appear to reflect the Christianized Norse identity
of these people in the first instance and, given our
understanding of the fiercely independent political
position often taken by members of this landowning
“class”, the majority were probably not initially
intended as overt expressions of reform. This interpretation
does not discount the possibility that
some chapels might have developed this association
in contexts where the clergy were more powerful,
but, crucially, we do not yet know specifics
about where different Norse church proprietors
stood or sat for the mass, or when they entered
the building relative to the priest—perspectives
from within the body of the church. A non-reform
interpretation for the majority of these bicameral
chapels, however, is underscored by the lack of evidence
for this plan-form in Argyll, where evidence
for reform monasticism is very much stronger during
this and later periods—evidence that is almost
completely lacking further north in the Western
Isles (Raven 2005:165, Thacker 2011:60–61).
The sanctity of lime is demonstrated in one
of the earliest contexts we have in this province
where, at the pre-Romanesque unicameral chapel
on the Brough of Deerness in Orkney, lime mortar
was used in a secondary phase to plaster the building’s
internal east-end and altar only (Morris with
Emery 1986). Like bicameral plan-forms, however,
lime was also not initially an expression of reform
in many contexts but as discussed above, paradoxically
often an expression of the closeness of the lay/
Church relationship. This interpretation may help
us understand something more of the Caithnessian
dry-stone chapels of Survey 1 given our historical
understanding of the very different relationships
12th-century Norse landowners had with the Norse
Church in Orkney, and the Scottish Church in Caithness.
Historically low 13th-century tithe revenues
from Caithness do not necessarily infer secular
poverty and neither, archaeologically, do dry-stone
chapels. Both sources of evidence may further demonstrate
the:
“... process of implementing Scottish policies
and Scottish ecclesiastical usage in an area
where church structures had already been
developed according to Norse patterns of
Christian society.” (Crawford 1989:130).
The dry-built chapels of Caithness positively referenced
a Norse Caithnessian secular inland cultural
and political Christian landscape.
Lime, however, like the Scottish Church was a
relentless and powerful agent with which to negotiate
and would eventually even become a part of
Caithnessian networks. Bicameral chapels, of whatever
structure, externally displayed the important
nave/chancel distinction, and so presented a constant
mnemonic for the performances that took place
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
57
inside, and although we might question where the
proprietal landowners may have initially placed
themselves within this dichotomy, the chancel was
certainly occupied by the priest. In most of northern
Atlantic Scotland, lime mortar had hybridized with
this bicameral chapel form and so enabled internal
plaster, chancel arches, and/or even chancel vaulting.
Compared to the very low lintel-headed doorways
set within dry-stone thick walls (for instance
at St. Marys Crosskirk or St. Ronans North Rona),
lime mortar had enabled architectural forms which
physically dematerialized the nave/chancel boundary
and yet negotiated a much more sophisticated
separation—a distinctly synaesthetic performance
of color, light, and music (Thacker 2011). External
lime coatings here provided a new mnemonic for a
more intense internal chapel experience—a powerful
demonstration of another world that, rather like
the experience of standing on the shore, mediated a
perspective articulating the congregation’s relatedness
to a larger divine other.
Given these different architectural forms, it is
important to highlight that in Survey 1 no attempt
was made to refine the mostly late 11th-century to
13th-century chronology. This paper takes an inherently
broad chronological approach in an attempt
to describe a period of great change in terms of
processes and meanings negotiated over the longer
term (cf. Romankiewicz 2009). Nor was any attempt
made at this stage to physically verify the evidence
recorded from outside the Western Isles. In that
respect, this initial stage in the research was more
about investigating our current state of knowledge
to set the agenda before continuing, broadening, and
refining the work (see especially Thacker, in prep a).
It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss in
detail the emerging evidence of changes in medieval
masonry or how lime techniques developed at particular
sites or from later contexts. Where sites were
surveyed within the Western Isles, however, then the
potential for on-site mortar archaeology to establish
the development of specific buildings, and the
wider site, was often very effectively demonstrated.
Eaglais na h’Aoidhe (Lewis) for example, displays
seven clear stratigraphic phases of contrasting
shell and limestone mortars within the chapel walls
(Knott and Thacker 2011; Thacker 2011, 2012, in
press a), evidence which is allowing a more refined
interpretation of other chapels in the region such as
Teampull Aulaidh (Gress) and Teampull Colm Cille
(Lochs) (Thacker 2011); Tur Chliamain (Harris)
displays similar evidence over the wider chapel/
cabeil complex, and Cille Bharra and Kisimul castle
(Barra) demonstrate relationships between secular
and ecclesiastical buildings which have also helped
to refine the development of both groups (Ibid.).
Unfortunately, however, at Cille Donnain, only fragmentary
basal courses remain—this was ultimately
a dry-built interpretation based on a lack of mortar
evidence, rather than definitive evidence of the absence
of mortar (Fig. 5).
Teampall Eoin in Bragar (Lewis; Fig. 2), however,
as a substantially upstanding, bicameral, probably
single-phase, 12th-century, shell-lime-bonded,
internally and externally coated, chancel-arched
chapel in the Western isles, provided a significant
link between the two surveys undertaken above,
and as a result, is emerging from this research as an
even more significant site. Many aspects of the wider
settlement, however, have already been well documented
and now provide a valuable record of how
negotiations between people, lime, turf, stone, sea,
shore, and landscape physically emerged here (see
also Barrowman 2005:32; 2008:15–17, 24–29). The
chapel is sited on Iron age remains (ibid:15), but of
further pertinence to the discussion above is research
that suggests that, while Improvement was insisting
on more monumental and so less frequent domestic
building performances on individual crofts, in
Bragar as elsewhere, this siting at this location was
also a move inland—away from the sea, away from
the shore, away from the lime-bonded chapel and
its surrounding graves, and perhaps also away from
the past (Thacker, in press b). But then a significant
amount of the year had always been spent inland—
“out the way”, away from the white glowing gaze
which demands the kneel or bow, to the summer, the
black lands, and the freedom of the sheilings.
Conclusion
The world emerges from negotiations between
living people and living things from the landscapes
of the past. The bicameral chapel emerged as an
active agent within that negotiation in the archaeological
record of many different cultural landscapes
across Europe. These chapels developed a plan-form
that architecturally articulated apparently universal
human perspectives on another world through their
use of space and the materiality of this world. The
generic technologies associated with lime mortar
suggest it was an agent for sacred universality: plastering
over different geologies to create a glowing
white specifically Roman gaze which, like the priest
who performs within, might be found right across
Europe; and, indeed, lime was soon to be active right
across Atlantic Scotland—an agent for conquest and
a powerful new negotiator for the “new” religion.
But this universal lime technology was performed
within variously emerging landscapes, by different
Journal of the North Atlantic
58
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
In English archaeology, much has been made of
the early medieval re-use of Roman sites and stone.
Elsewhere I have argued that the dry-stone chapel
masonry of 12th-century Caithness referenced the
monumental building techniques of an earlier age,
as well as appropriating their sites—more “Pictitas”
than Romanitas (Thacker 2011:58). This is questionable.
As this research project continues, it will be a
key objective to refine the chronology of these masonry
buildings, question the development of these
masonry techniques, and reassess external influences
(especially from Ireland), but also, following Raymond
Lamb (1989:269), assess “for how long and
to what extent those [Pictish] institutions influenced
the development of the Norse culture here”—continuous
or otherwise. In this regard, and returning
to the introduction of this paper, it may appear from
the above surveys that universal “Catholicity” in Atlantic
Scotland did not require monumental masonry
architecture per se, but somehow Romanized monumental
masonry—Roman arches, Roman vaults, and
Roman plasters all enabled by lime mortars. This
interpretation, however, is both problematic and full
of potential when we realize that of the substantially
contextually specific techniques, involving negotiations
between diverse meaningful agents. In the
various contexts of Atlantic Scotland, as elsewhere,
these agents are powerful, culturally constructed
hybrids with networked meanings associated with
the various pre-existing cultural landscapes—materials
(turf, shell, stone), places (brochs, beaches,
the moor), people (lime-burners, priests, chiefs) and
times (the Iron Age, last year, summer). The meanings
of these agents were appropriated and Christianized—
and a Christianized world emerged. Other
cultural factors and other layers of identity were
also at play, however, negotiating appropriate forms
of Christian expression. The above surveys and the
continuing research are beginning to demonstrate
something of that process: how the meanings of
some of these hybrids have emerged, and how some
meanings subsequently changed even when the form
in some ways remained constant. There were also,
of course, new forms, new materials emerging from
different places, and new negotiations—techniques
which became, and continue to become, appropriate
in the variously changing cultural circumstances
displayed in the archaeological record.
Figure 5. Cille Donnain 2010, from the northwest. Photograph © M. Thacker.
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
59
Bjørken, A. 1994. Restoring Kristiansten Fort to its 1684
condition. Gemini – Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, Trondheim, Sweden. Available online
at http://www.ntnu.no/gemini/1994-02E/sog_side_40.
html. Accessed 21 March 2011
Bradley, R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments. Routledge,
London, UK.
Bradley, R. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places.
Routledge, London, UK.
Brady, K., O. Lelong, and C. Batey. 2007. A Pictish burial
and Late Norse/Medieval settlement at Sangobeg,
Durness, Sutherland. Scottish Archaeological Journal
29(1):51–82.
British Geological Survey. 1992. Geology of the Outer
Hebrides. HMSO, London, UK.
Caldwell, D., M. Hall, and C. Wilkinson. 2009) The Lewis
hoard of gaming pieces: A reexamination of their context,
meanings, discovery, and manufacture. Medieval
Archaeology 53:155–203.
Campbell, D. [1927] 1968. Gaelic proverbs. Transactions
of the Gaelic Society of Inverness 45:1–32.
Cant, R. 1975. The Medieval Churches and Chapels of
Shetland. Shetland Archaeological and Historical Society,
Lerwick, Shetland, UK.
Cant, R. 1984. Norse influences in the or ganisation of the
medieval church in the Western Isles. Northern Studies
21:1–14.
Clarke, D., and A. Heald. 2002. Beyond typology: Combs,
economics, symbolism, and regional identity in Late
Norse Scotland. Norwegian Archaeological Review
35:81–93.
Clyne, M. 1990. A Medieval pilgrim: From Taum to Santiago
De Compostela. Archaeology Ireland 4:21–22.
Cramp, R. 2006. Wearmouth and Jarrow, Monastic Sites.
Vol. 2. English Heritage, London, UK.
Crawford, B. 1987. Scandinavian Scotland. Leicester University
Press, Leicester, UK.
Crawford, B. 1989. Norse earls and Scottish bishops in
Caithness. Pp. 129–147, In C. Batey, J. Jesch, and C.
Morris (Eds.). The Viking Age in Caithness, Orkney,
and the North Atlantic. Edinburgh University Press,
Edinburgh, UK.
Crawford, B. 2005. The Papar Project: Inception, parameters,
and purpose. Available online at http://www.
paparproject.org.uk. Accessed 06 October 2010.
Crhova, M., S. Kuckova, R. Hynek, and M. Kodicek 2010.
Proteomic identification of milk proteins in historical
mortars. Pp. 91–98, In J.Valek, C. Groot, and J.J.
Hughes (Eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd Historic Mortars
Conference and Rilem TC 203-RHM. Repair Mortars
for Historic Masonry, Final Workshop, Prague 22–24
September 2010. Institute of Theoretical and Applied
Mechanics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech
Republic, Prague, Czech Republic.
Darvill, T. 2002. White on blond: Quartz pebbles and the
use of quartz at Neolithic monuments in the Isle of
Man and beyond. Pp. 73–92, In A. Jones and G. Mac-
Gregor (Eds.). Colouring the Past: The Significance
of Colour in Archaeological Research. Berg, Oxford,
UK, and New York, NY, USA.
upstanding dry-stone architectural forms recorded
above as trabeate, all had either inclined jambs, corbelled
opes, or vaults, and these are all arch forms
too. Further, many lime-bonded contexts share these
features also. It is time to bear the gaze of these hybrids
again, and take another look.
Acknowledgments
I would like to convey my thanks to those who organized
the conference in Uist, and to Rachel Barrowman
and the two anonymous reviewers whose comments and
suggestions markedly improved this paper.
The results presented here were previously presented
in an unpublished MA (buildings arch) thesis at York
University (Thacker 2011), and the subject is now being
pursued more widely in an ongoing PhD (arch) at the departments
of Archaeology and Geosciences, University of
Edinburgh (Thacker, in prep a).
Literature Cited
Abrams, L. 2007. Conversion and the church in the Hebrides
in the Viking Age: “A very difficult thing indeed”.
Pp. 169–194, In B. Ballin Smith, S. Taylor, and G. Williams
(Eds.). West over Sea: Studies in Scandinavian
Sea-Borne Expansion and Settlement Before 1300.
Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Airlie, S. 1994. A view from Maastricht. Pp. 33–46, In
B. Crawford (Ed.). Scotland in Dark Age Europe. The
Committee for Dark Age Studies University of St.
Andrews, St. Andrews, UK.
Alford, V. 1957. The feast of Santiago in Galicia 1956.
Folklore 68:489–495.
Anonymous. 1791–1799. Entry for Dunnichen, County of
Forfar. Available online at http://www.monikie.org.uk/
statisticalaccounts. Accessed 21 August 2010.
Armi, C. 1990. Report on the destruction of Romanesque
architecture in Burgundy. Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians 55(3):300–327.
Armit, I. 1991. The Atlantic Scottish Iron Age: Five levels
of chronology. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland 121:181–214.
Armit, I. 1996. The Archaeology of Skye and the Western
Isles. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, UK.
Baden-Powell, D. 1938. On the glacial and interglacial
marine beds of northern Lewis. Geological Magazine
75:395–409.
Barnwell, P. 2004. The Laity, the clergy, and the divine
presence: The use of space in smaller churches of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries. Journal of the British
Archaeological Association 157:41–60.
Barrowman, R. 2005. Lewis coastal chapel-sites survey
2004/2005. Unpublished Document, Glasgow University,
Glasgow, UK.
Barrowman, R. 2008. Lewis coastal chapel-cites survey
2007–2008. Unpublished Document, Guard 2395,
Glasgow University, Glasgow, UK.
Bede [731] 1990. Ecclesiastical History of the English People.
L. Shirley-Price (Trans.). Penguin, London, UK.
Journal of the North Atlantic
60
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
Hingley, R. 1992. Society in Scotland from 700 BC to
AD 200. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland 122:7–53.
Hohler, C. 1957. The badge of St. James. Pp. 49–70, In
I. Cox (Ed.). The Scallop: Studies of a Shell and its
Influences on Mankind. Shell Transport and Trading
Co, London, UK.
Holden, T. 2004. The Blackhouses of Arnol. Historic Scotland,
Edinburgh, UK.
Hughes, J.,and S. Cuthbert. 2000. The petrography and
microstructure of medieval lime mortars from the west
of Scotland: Implications for the formulation of repair
and replacement mortars. Materials and Structures
33:594–600.
Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays
in Livelihood, Dwelling, and Skill. Routledge,
London, UK, and New York, NY, USA.
Inker, P. 2000. Technology as active material culture: The
Quoit brooch style. Medieval Archaeology 44:25–52.
Johnstone, G.S., and W. Mykura. 1989. British Regional
Geology: The Northern Highlands of Scotland.
HMSO, London, UK.
Jones, A. 1999. Local colour: Megalithic architecture and
colour symbolism in Neolithic Arran. Oxford Journal
of Archaeology 18:339–350.
Knott, C.M., and M. Thacker. 2011. Eaglais na h’Aoidhe.
Archaeological Survey. Unpublished document.
Prepared for Urras Eaglais na h’Aoidhe and Historic
Scotland, Edinburgh, UK.
Knox, J. [1786] 1975. A Tour through the Highlands of
Scotland and the Hebride Isles in 1786. James Thin,
Edinburgh, UK.
Lamb, D. 2008. Peeling back the layers: Reconstructing a
vanished Iron Age landscape. Pp. 73–94, In G. Noble,
T. Poller, J. Raven, and L. Verril (Eds.) Scottish Odysseys:
The Archaeology of Islands. Tempus, Stroud, UK.
Lamb, R. 1989. Carolingian Orkney and its transformation.
Pp. 260–271, In C. Batey, J. Jesch, and C.D. Morris
(Eds.). The Viking Age in Caithness, Orkney, and
the North Atlantic. Selected papers from the proceedings
of the 11th Viking Congress. Edinburgh University
Press, Edinburgh, UK.
Leach, J. 1995. Burning lime in Derbyshire pye kilns.
Industrial Archaeology Review 17:145–158.
MacDonald, A. 1999. Coming in from the margins: The
Descendents of Somerled and cultural accommodation
in the Hebrides, 1164–1317. Pp. 179–198, In B.
Smith (Ed.). Britain and Ireland 900–1300: Insular
Responses to Medieval European Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
MacIntyre, M. 1993. Making hydrated lime from seashells:
As recalled by Domhnall lain Monk, Benbecula
recorded December 1992 by Martin Maclntyre. Transcript
published in ComunnEachdraidh nan Eilean mu
Dheas 4:8.
MacKenzie, Rev. C. 1791–1799. Statistical account of
Scotland 1791–1799, volume 19, Parish of Stornoway
county of Ross and Cromarty. Pp. 241–262. Available
online at http://www.edina.ac.uk.
Dawson, S., D. Smith, and J. Jordon. 2004. Late Holocene
coastal sand movements in the Outer Hebrides, NW
Scotland. Marine Geology 210:281–306.
Dodgshon, R. 1993. West Highland and Hebridean settlement
prior to crofting and the Clearances. Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 123:419–438.
Driscoll, S. 1998. Picts and prehistory: Cultural resource
management in Early Medieval Scotland. World Archaeology
30:142–158.
Driscoll, S. 2000. Christian monumental sculpture and
ethnic expression in early Scotland. Pp. 233–252, In
W. Frazer and A. Tyrrell (Eds.). Social Identity in
Early Medieval Britain. Leicester University Press,
London, UK.
Edwards, N. 2002. Celtic saints and Early Medieval archaeology.
Pp. 225-266, In A. Thacker and R. Sharpe
(Eds.). Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early
Medieval West. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Etheridge, R. 1876. Note on the fossils from the glacial
deposits of the northwest coast of the Island of Lewis,
Outer Hebrides. Geological Magazine 13:552–555.
Fernie, E. 1986. Early church architecture in Scotland.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquiries of Scotland
116:393–411.
Fleming, A., and A. Woolf. 1992. CilleDonnain: A late
Norse church in South Uist. Proceedings of the Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland. 122:329–350.
Gavin-Schwartz, A. 2001. Archaeology and folklore of
material culture, ritual, and everyday life. International
Journal of Historical Archaeology 5(4):263–280.
Gem, R. 1983. Towards an iconography of Anglo-Saxon
architecture. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes 46:1–18.
Gem, R. 2009. Gruffudd ap Cynan and the Romanesque
church of Penmon, Anglesey. Pp. 301–314, In N. Edwards
(Ed.). The Archaeology of the Early Medieval
Celtic Churches. Maney, Leeds, UK.
Gilchrist, R. 2008. Magic for the dead? The Archaeology
of magic in later medieval burials. Medieval Archaeology
52:119–159.
Gondek, M. 2006. Investing in sculpture: Power in Early
Historic Scotland. Medieval Archaeology 50:105–142.
Goodenough, K., and A. Finlayson. 2006. The Geodiversity
of Harris: Statement of Significance and Identification
of Opportunities. British Geological Survey,
Nottingham, UK.
Haaland, R. 2004. Technology, transformation, and symbolism:
Ethnographic perspectives on European iron
working. Norwegian Archaeological Review 37:1–19.
Harding, D.W. 2000. The Hebridean Iron Age: Twenty
years research. Occasional Papers Series no. 20, University
of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Headrick, J. [1800] 1870. Report on the Isle of Lewis by
the Rev. Mr. Headrick. Contained in a letter to The
Right Hon. Lord Seaforth, The Proprietor. Vacher and
Sons, London, UK.
Hill, P. 1997. Whithorn and St. Ninian: The Excavation of
a Monastic Town 1984–1991. Sutton/Whithorn Trust,
Stroud, UK.
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
61
Pálsson, H., and P. Edwards, 1978. Orkneyinga Saga. The
History of the Earls of Orkney. Penguin, Middlesex, UK.
Parker Pearson, M., N. Sharples, and J. Mulville. 1996.
Brochs and Iron Age society. Antiquity 70:57–68.
Parker Pearson, M., N. Sharples, and J. Symonds. 2004.
South Uist: Archaeology and History of a Hebridean
Island. Oxbow, Oxford, UK.
Parman, S. 1990. Orduighean: A dominant symbol in the
Free Church of the Scottish Highlands. American Anthropologist
92:295–305.
Parsons, D. 1990. Review and prospect: The stone industry
in Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Medieval England.
Pp.1-15, In D. Parsons (Ed.). Stone Quarrying and
Building in England AD 43–1525. Phillimore and Co.,
Sussex, UK.
Parsons, D. 1994 The Church and its architecture before
and after the Reformation. Pp. 264–282, In B. Vyner
(Ed.). Building on the Past. The Royal Archaeological
Institute, London, UK.
Pearson, A. 2006. The Work of Giants: Stone and Quarrying
in Roman Britain. Tempus, Stroud, UK.
Peregrine, P. 1991. Some political aspects of craft specialization.
World Archaeology 23:1–11.
Phillips, T. 2003. Seascapes and landscapes in Orkney and
northern Scotland. World Archaeology 35:371–384.
Piggott, S. 1966. A scheme for the Scottish Iron Age. Pp.
1–15, In A.L.F. Rivet (Ed.) The Iron Age in Northern
Britain. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, UK.
Rapaport, A. 1969. House, Form and Culture. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, USA.
Raven, J. 2005. Medieval landscapes and lordship in
South Uist. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Glasgow.
Available online at http://www.theses.gla.ac.uk. Accessed
2 October 2010.
Reece, R. 1981. Excavations at Iona 1964 to 1974. Institute
of Archaeology Occasional Papers 5:15–17.
Institute of Archaeology, London, UK.
Ritchey, S. 2009. Rethinking the twelfth-century discovery
of nature. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern
Studies 39(2):225–255.
Ritchie, W., and A. Mather. 1970. Beaches of Caithness:
A survey of the beach, dune, and dune pasture areas of
Caithness. Commissioned by the Countryside Commission
for Scotland. Available online at http://www.
snh.org.uk. Accessed 16 October 2010.
Romankiewicz, T. 2009. Simple stones but complex
constructions: Analysis of architectural developments
in the Scottish Iron Age. World Archaeology
41(3):379–395.
Saunders, N. 2002. The Colours of light: Materiality and
chromatic cultures of the Americas. Pp. 209–226, In
A.Jones, and G. MacGregor (Eds.). Colouring the
Past: The Significance of Colour in Archaeological
Research. Berg, Oxford, UK, and New York, NY, USA.
Saxon, J. 2006. A geological tour of the North. Caithness
Field Club Bulletin. Available online at http://www.
caithness.org. Accessed 23 November 2010.
Sickels, L., and P. Allsopp. 2005. Lime and its Place in
the 21st Century: Combining Tradition, Innovation
and Science in Building Preservation. International
Building Lime Symposium 2005. NLA Building Lime
Group, Arlington, VA, USA.
Macleod, Rev. J. 1791–1799. Statistical account of Scotland
1791–1799, volume 10, Parish of Harris, County
of Inverness. Pp. 342–392. Available online at http://
www.edina.ac.uk.
Macleod, R.C. 1906. The Macleods: A Short Sketch of
their Clan, History, Folklore, Tales, and Biographical
Notices of Some Eminent Clansmen. The Clan Macleod
Society, Edinburgh, UK.
Macleod, R.H. 1998. Building St. Clement’s Church, Rodel,
Harris. Halmac, Shetland, UK.
MacQueen, Rev. E. 1791–1799. The Statistical Account
of Scotland 1791–1799, Volume 20—Parish of
Barray, The Western Isles. (Withrington and Grant
[Eds.]1983).
Malone, C. 2003. St. Bénigne in Dijon as Exemplum of
Rodulf Glaber’s Metephoric “White Mantle”. Pp.
161–180, In N.Hiscock (Ed.). The White Mantle of
Churches. International Medieval Research 10: Art
History subseries 2. Brepols, Turnhout, Belgium.
Martin, M. [1695] 1970. A Description of the Western
Isles of Scotland. James Thin, EdinBurgh, UK
Monro, Rev. H. 1791–1799. The Statistical Account of
Scotland 1791–1799, Volume 20, The Western Isles.
Parish of Uig. (Withrington and Grant [Eds.] 1983).
Moore, A., and J. Terry. 1894. Water and well-worship in
Man. Folklore 5:212–229.
Morris, C., and N. Emery, 1986. The Chapel and enclosure
on the Brough of Deerness, Orkney: Survey and
excavations, 1975–1977. Proceedings of the Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland 116:301–374.
Munro, R. 1961. Monro’s Western Isles of Scotland and
Genealogies of the Clans 1549. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh,
UK.
Myatt, L. 1975. The early ecclesiastical remains of
Halkirk Parish. Available online at http://www.caithness.
org. Accessed 24 July 2010.
Nyegaard, G. 2009. Restoration of the Hvalsey Fjord
church. In Norse Greenland: Selected Papers from the
Hvalsey Conference 2008. Journal of the North Atlantic
Special Volume 2:7–18.
Ó’ Carragáin, T. 2003. The Architectural setting of the
cult of relics in Early Medieval Ireland. Journal of the
Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 133:130–176.
Ó’ Carragáin, T. 2005. Habitual masonry styles and the
local organisation of church building in Early Medieval
Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy
105C(3):99–149.
Ó’ Carragáin,T. 2009. The architectural setting of the mass
in Early Medieval Ireland. Medieval Archaeology
53:119–154.
O’ Dell, A.C. 1959. Excavations at St. Ninian’s Isle. Scottish
Geographical Journal 75:41–43.
Olin, M. 1996. Gaze. Pp. 318–329, In R. Nelson, and R.
Shiff (Eds.). Critical Terms for Art History. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.
O’ Reilly, J. 2009. “All that Peter Stands For”: The Romanitas
of the Codex Amiatinus reconsidered. Pp.
367–396, In J. Graham-Campbell, and M. Ryan (Eds.)
Anglo-Saxon/Irish Relations Before the Vikings. Proceedings
of the British Academy 157. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK 462 pp.
Journal of the North Atlantic
62
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
Withrington, D., and I. Grant (Eds.). 1983. The Statistical
Account of Scotland 1791–1799, Vol. 20—The Western
Isles. E.P. Publishing Ltd., Wakefield, UK.
Young, A. 1955. Excavations at Dun Cuier, Isle of Barra,
Outer Hebrides. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland 89:290–327.
Sinclair, A. 1995. The Technique as symbol in Late Glacial
Europe. World Archaeology 27(1):50–62.
Slade, H., and G. Watson. 1989. St. Peter’s Kirk, Thurso,
Caithness c. 1150–1832. Proceedings of the Society of
antiquities of Scotland 119:297–325.
Smith, H., P. Marshall, and M. Parker-Pearson. 2001.
Reconstructing house activity areas. Pp. 249–270,
In U. Albarella (Ed.). Environmental Archaeology:
Meaning and Purpose. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
London, UK.
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). 2002. Natural heritage
futures: Orkney and Northern Caithness. Available
online at http://www.snh.org.uk/futures/Data/pdfdocs/
Orkney_Caithness.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2010.
Sparey-Green, C. 2003. Where are the Christians? Late
Roman cemeteries in Britain. Pp. 93–108, In M.
Carver (Ed.) The Cross Goes North. Processes of
Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300–1300. York
Medieval Press, York, UK.
Stocker, D., and P. Everson. 1990. Rubbish recycled:
A study of the re-use of stone in Lincolnshire. Pp.
83–101, In D. Parsons (Ed.). Stone Quarrying and
Building in England AD 43–1525. Phillimore and Co.,
Sussex, UK.
Thacker, M. 2011. An archaeology of the lime and shelllime
mortars of the Western Isles. M.A. Thesis. University
of York, York, UK.
Thacker, M. 2012. Towards an on-site mortar archaeology
of the Isle of Lewis. Journal of the Building Limes
Forum 19:38–44.
Thacker, M. In press a. A Petrographic report on the microstructure
of the lime mortars of the chapel-site at
Eaglais na h’Aoidhe, Isle of Lewis. Historic Scotland,
Edinburgh, UK.
Thacker, M. In press b. The architectural development of
post-Reformation burial aisles in the northern Hebrides.
The Island Book Trust, Stornoway, UK.
Thacker, M. In prep a. The quick and the dead: The archaeological
potential of the lime mortars of the Mediebal
and later North Atlantic. (working title). Ph.D.
Thesis. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Thacker, M. In prep b. The ArdKenneth Lime Kiln
Project: The surviving lime-burning heritage of the
Western Isles.
Thomas, K. 1971. Religion and the Decline of Magic.
Penguin, London, UK.
Tilley, C. 1996. The Power of rocks: Topography and
monument construction on Bodmin Moor. World Archaeology
28:161–176.
Tilley, C. 2004. The Materiality of Stone. Berg, Oxford ,
UK and New York, NY, USA.
Walker, B., and C. Macgregor. 1996. The Hebridean
Blackhouse. Historic Scotland, Edinburgh, UK.
Wallace, J. 1684. Description of the Isles of Orkney.
Available online at http://www.scran.org.uk Accessed
24 February 2011.
Williams, R. 2004. Limekilns and Limeburning. Shire
Publications, Princess Risborough, UK.
Wingate, M. 1985. Small-Scale Lime-Burning: A Practical
Introduction. Intermediate Technology Publications,
London, UK.
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
63
Endnotes
1Very small isolated “limestone” outcrops have been
mapped in the Western Isles, notably at Rodel, Harris
(Goodenough and Finlayson 2006), and Garrabost, Lewis
(Baden-Powel 1938). Given their size and rarity, however,
it is perhaps unsurprising that these were often not
apparently historically identified until either lime sourcing
became an important Improvement strategy (e.g.,
Headrick [1800] 1870) or professional geologists studied
the islands (Etheridge 1876). Macleod (1791–1799:372),
for instance, states for Harris that “There is neither marble
nor limestone nor freestone yet discovered”, while in
Stornoway at this time “the houses are built at a considerable
cost, because all the materials are imported, the
stones not excepted …”. (MacKenzie 1791–1799:242–
243). The isolated carbonate-stone sources which have
been recognized and documented will be important at
some sites and do require more archaeological work
(Thacker, in press a). At this point in the research, however,
they should not detract from the interpretative and
methodological (Thacker, in press b) consequences of
a treeless Western Isles landscape which geologically
consists “almost entirely” of quartzofeldspathic gneisses
(British Geological Survey 1992, Johnstone and Mykura
1989:22).
2This masonry structure should be compared to the
evidence for timber screens separating clergy from the
congregation found in later churches and often presumed
for earlier buildings. The chapel on the Brough of Deerness,
however, did evidence a form of stone cancellum.
For wider Insular discussion of how bicameral masonry
mediates reform, see for example, Barnwell (2004),
Ó’Carragáin (2009), Parsons (1994:278), or, more specifically
for the Western Isles, Raven (2005:173–176) and
Thacker (2011:40–47).
3St. Catherines, Linton, Orkney stands out here as the only
chapel recorded as dry-stone with a chancel arch, thin
chancel walls, and exterior pointing. These details require
verification.
4Candida/candidus/candidam is usually translated as
“shining white”, but the word has a much stronger
spiritual resonance than this simple descriptive phrase
might imply. It is found in medieval bible references
to describe, for instance, Christ’s garments during the
Transfiguration, the throne of God, the Eucharist, and
a few other particularly significant contexts (Malone
2003:170). While there might appear to be some danger
of tautology regarding use of this word to describe chapels,
and particularly the plaster subsequently found at
the putative site of Candida Casa (Whithorn), this point
is irrelevant. Candidam is a literary metaphor for how
we might perceive or conceive transition to the kingdom
of heaven; importantly, the Scottish Atlantic archaeological
evidence of shining white chapel lime coatings
is evidence of that same metaphor made physical. For
more discussion, especially with reference the apparent
12th-century “discovery of nature” (e.g., Ritchey 2009)
see Thacker (in prep b).
Journal of the North Atlantic
64
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
Appendix 1. 12th-century bicameral churches of the Scottish Atlantic Province.A No. refers to number as shown on map in Figure 1.
Region/No. Chapel site NGR Bonding Wall width (ft.) Lime coatings Arching, vaulting, or inclined jambs
Simple bicameral chapels with narrower chancel than nave
Western. Isles
01. C. Donnain, S. Uist. NF 731 281 Dry 2’11”-3’0” No evidence Narrow (2’4”) chancel portal.
02. T. Eoin, Lewis. NB 288 489 Lime 2’5”–3’5 Interior and exterior coatings Chancel arch.
03. T. Pheadair, Lewis. NB 379 549 LimeB Turf-covered footings only.
04. T. Mhuir, N. Uist. NF 785 763 3’0 Turf-covered footings only.
05. T. Bhrìghid, Lewis. NB 409 573 Turf-covered footings only.
06. C. ‘Ic Ailean, S. Uist. NF 758 364 Lime 2’4”–2’7” In. and ex. coatings Chancel arch. Inclined jambs.
07. T. Ronain, N. Rona. HW 809 323 Dry 3’0–4’0” Internal coatings Lintelled portals. Corbel vault.
Orkney
08. St. Mary’s, Wyre. HY 442 262 Lime 3’0” Interior and exterior coatings Chancel arch. ‘Harled’exterior.
09. St. Thomas, Rendall HY 424 210 Lime 3’0”–4’6” Barrel vaulted chancel.
10. St. Catherines, Lint. HY 529 018 Dry 2’10”–3’0 Exterior pointing Chancel arch.
11. St. Nicholas, P. Str. HY 669 291 Lime 2’0” Interior Plaster Chancel arch, Barrel vault.
12. Xkirk, Tuquoy. HY455 431 Lime Chancl.arch. Barrel valt. Incl. Jambs
13. Ladykirk, Westray. HY439 488 Clay 4’0” Chancel arch
14. St. Brides, Stronsay. HY666 291 Lime 2’0” Turf-covered footings only.
15. St. Peters, Evie. HY338 287 “Nave and chancel”
Shetland
16. Uyea, Unst. HU 608 985 Lime/dryC 2’5”–3’3” Lintelled and corbelled chancel arch
17. Xkirk, Clibberswick. HP650 121 3’2”–5’6”
18. Kirk o Ness, N. Yell. HP532 048 LimeD 3’–3’9” Chancel arch
19. St. Mary’s, Sandstg. HU346 472 Lime 2’10” Chancel arch
20. St. John’s, Unst. HP651 141 2’4” Turf-covered footings only.
21. Meal Colvidale. HP622 045 3’0” Turf-covered footings only.
22. Kirkaby, Westing. HP566 064 2’9” Turf-covered footings only.
23. Hascosay, Yell. HU 545 918 2’4” Turf-covered footings only.
24. Kirkhouse, Fetglar. HU659 911 Turf-covered footings only.
25. Gungstie Noss. HU530 409 Turf-covered footings only.
Caithness
26. St. Mary’s, Xkirk. ND 024 700 Dry 4’0” None Lintelled portals. Inclined jambs.
27. Skinnet, Halkirk. ND130 620 Dry/ClayE 3’6” None S. Entrance to nave and chancel.
28. St. Drostan’s. ND 317 693 Dry 4’0” Interior plaster
29. St. Mary’s, Clow ND 233 524 DryF 4’0”
30. Gavin’s kirk, Dorr. ND077 547 DryG 3’6” Turf-covered footings only.
31. Kirk o banks.D ND 253 739 Dry Turf-covered footings only.
Argyll
32. St. Blane’s, Bute. NS 094 534 Lime Chancel arch.
33. St. Marnoc’s, Bute. NS 023 596 Lime 2’8” Chancel arch.
Journal of the North Atlantic
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
65
Region/No. Chapel site NGR Bonding Wall width (ft.) Lime coatings Arching, vaulting, or inclined jambs
Complex Sites
Orkney
34. St. Magnus, Egilsay. HY 466 303 Lime 3’0” Barrel-vaulted chancel.
35. Eynhallow. HY 359 288 Clay 2’6” Lime pointed Chancel arch.
36. Brough of Birsay. HY 247 277
37. St. Nicholas, Orphir. HY334 044 Lime Vaulted chancel.
Shetland
38. St. Ninian’s. HU 368 209 Lime Interior and exterior coatings Chancel arch.
39. St. Mary’s Bressay. HU 521 422 Dry/Clay 2’3” Cruciform plan.
Caithness
40. St. Peter’s, Thurso. ND 120 686 Lime 2’10”E Vaulted chancel.
Western Isles
41. T. Moluaidh, Ness.H NB 519 651 Lime 2’9” Interior and exterior coatings Arched south entrance .
Unicameral
Western Isles
42. Cille Bharra, Barra. NF 705 073 Lime 2’6” Interior and exterior coatings Arches, inclnd jmbs, screen evidence..
Shetland
43. St. Olaf’s, Lund. HP566 040 Lime 3’6”–4’6” Inclined jambs.
Argyll
44. Cille Dalton, Islay. NR 458 508 Lime 2’11” Interior coatings Wooden chancel screen.
Oblong Bicameral Sites
Western Isles
45. St. Brendon’s, BarraI NF 647 016 Lime 3’3”
Orkney
46. St. Boniface HY488 527 Lime 3’0” Interior and exterior coatings Chancel arch.
47. Muckle House.J ND 325 992
Shetland
48. Chapel Knowe HU 485 691 Lime 2’0” Cross-wall, apsidal chancel.
Caithness
49. St. Cuthbert’s, Wick.K ND 330 502
Argyll
50. Lismore Cathedral. NM 860 434 Lime 3’3” Later west tower.
51. KilChenzie. NR673 248 Lime 3’2”
52. St. John’s, Killean. NR 695 445 Lime
53. St. Cormac’s NR 666 752 Vaulted chancel.
Skye
54. St. Assind’s NG 355 388 Lime 4’11”
Journal of the North Atlantic
66
M. Thacker
2015 Special Volume 9
AThis list is taken from Thacker 2011. It is still, however, incomplete and currently being researched and compiled. It is presented here in interim. Details yet to be included
include for instance those for the chapels at Portmahomack and St. Magnus, Birsay, and unpublished mortar archaeology details of upstanding monuments outside the Western
Isles.
BFrom oral tradition (Barrowman 2008:11).
CRCHMS (although http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk described as drystone. Accessed 24 July 2010).
DSimilar to St. Mary’s Crosskirk, and similar to Gunstie Voe in plan (RCAHMS).
EDescriptions vary.
F“Walls apparently umortared”.
GMyatt (1975).
HWhile the foundation date of the church at Eoropie is uncertain and often contested, many do consider the church to be 12 th century, including Caldwell et al. (2009:176).
ISt. Brendon’s is known to have had a nave and shorter chancel “constructionally seperated”. The lack of descriptions of the chancel width have led to an assumption here
that it was oblong overall.
JChancel described as “small and square” but here classified as i n footnote I above.
KSlade and Watson (1989)