	‘Splendid Isolation: Changing perceptions of Dùn Èistean, an island on the north coast of the Isle of Lewis’ by Rachel Barrowman From The Archaeology of Scottish Islands, edited by Noble, G, Poller, T and Raven, J (2008), Tempus, Stroud. Summary Dùn Èistean is a coastal cliff stack in Ness, at the northern tip of the Isle of Lewis. It has been seen in the past by visitors as a romantic and isolated place on the margins of Britain, but to the local population it is a familiar part of the view from the Cnoc Ard township and part of their common grazings. The site is not owned by the local inhabitants however, but by the Clan Morrison, with whom it is traditionally associated. Many Morrisons outwith Lewis consider it their ancestral home, particularly the members of the Clan Morrison Society of America, whose ancestors came from Lewis. In 1999 the Clan Society raised money to fund survey and trial excavation on the Dùn, and this was undertaken by GUARD in 2000 and 2001. The archaeologists were attracted to the wildness and inaccessibility of Dùn Èistean, and had their own connexions with, and perceptions of, the site. As the fieldwork progressed, they also built up their own interpretations of the structures being investigated. However, in 2002, when the Clan commissioned the building of a footbridge across to the site, the Dùn became accessible to all, and no longer the preserve of a select adventurous few. As a result of this, in 2003, the regional archaeologist, the Clan Morrison Society and the Comunn Eachdraidh Nis (Ness Historical Society), instigated the Dùn Èistean Archaeology Project (DEAP) and the challenge for DEAP since then has been to embrace the differing interests and perceptions in Dùn Èistean whilst locating it back into the local Ness community. Dùn Èistean is a fortified inter-tidal sea stack in the township of Cnoc Ard in Ness, on the north east coast of the Isle of Lewis (NB 5355 6501) (1). The landward sides of the stack are enclosed by a low turf and stone wall and partially enclosed by this are the turfed-over footings of seven different groups of structures and an artificial pond dug to collect rain water. The most prominent structure on the site is a large circular mound of rubble situated on the highest point at the seaward edge of the stack. The basement geology at Dùn Èistean is comprised of meta-sediment and metamorphic Lewisian Gneiss, with jointing along lines of structural weakness (Burgess 1997, 281, 283). This jointing has resulted in an incised profile along this part of the north-east Lewis coastline, and the high cliffs in this area display signs of erosion, with block removal and areas of slumping, and the formation of promontories and stacks, e.g. Dùn Èistean, Dùn Eorodale, and Luchruban. The rock which forms Dùn Èistean is in turn overlain by drift boulder clay. The stack is separated from the mainland cliffs by a gap up to 15m wide and 16m deep which until three years ago could only be crossed at low tide by scrambling across the rocks and climbing the steep rock face on the other side, or by specialist rope access techniques. It can be a romantic and deserted setting, especially on a wild and stormy day. Although not practised much today, many local Cnoc Ard men remember the excellent rock fishing from the foot of the seaward cliffs, the quality of the location no doubt enhanced by the difficult access. Dùn Èistean is also part of the common grazings for Cnoc Ard and rams were put onto the stack during the months when they weren’t running with the ewes – a convenient place to keep them separated from the flock, where no fencing was necessary and the grass was lush. An unsourced oblique aerial photograph now in the Lewis and Harris Museum Collection, taken of the site when it was still being regularly grazed (2) shows the structures and walling around the Dùn in amazing clarity. With the decline of the intricacies of crofting life over the past twenty years however, the site has become covered in thick grassy tussocks, and even in winter, the footings of the structures are much harder to discern. Dùn Èistean is not specifically referred to in any of the scant surviving primary documentation of Lewis. In local tradition it is identified as the stronghold of the Clan Morrison of Ness, and since 1967 has been owned by the Clan Morrison Society. Local traditions are strong in Ness, whereas documentary sources are few and far between. In his ‘Early History of Ness: An Interpretation’, Dr Domhnall Uilleam Stiùbhart, director of the Dùn Èistean History Project, discusses the historical sources relating to Ness during the medieval era. He concludes that “Any historian wishing to research the area during this period…immediately runs up against a fundamental obstacle, namely, that conventional primary sources, the contemporary written documents that are grist to the historical mill, are to say the least rather thin on the ground. Indeed, they do not really exist at all” (Stiùbhart 2006a, 1). Instead it is the oral traditions that preserve the stories of Ness, and whilst these are far from ideal as an historical source, as Stiùbhart points out “supposedly ‘trustworthy’ contemporary documents… themselves involve manifold difficulties of interpretation… We can either concede defeat and maintain that Ness and its people have no history to speak of before written records began, or else we can attempt to make use of what material we possess” (Stiùbhart 2006a, 2). The first surviving mention of the Dùn by name is by Martin Martin from his excursions in 1695 (Donald Munro, High Dean of the Isles who visited Lewis in 1549, does not write of Dùn Èistean at all). Martin writes that: “There are several natural and artificial Forts in the Coast of this Island, which are call’d Dun, from the Irish word Dain, which signifies a Fort: The natural Forts here are Dun-owle, Dun-eoradil, Dun-eisten” (Martin 1703, 8). [NB Upper case as used in original source) One of Martin Martin’s informants was the Reverend Donald Morrison from Lewis who was a descendent of the Morrison brieves of Ness, traditionally thought to be the hereditary judges of Lewis. Despite this connexion however, he does not seem to have furnished Martin with any particular stories concerning the site and indeed Martin describes the site as being a ‘natural fort’ rather than an artificial one. Presumably Martin is distinguishing here between Dùn sites that utilise a natural island and those that are built structures, such as the broch, Dùn Chàrlabhaigh. However, by implication, his description may suggest that his local informants also had no knowledge of Dun Èistean as an artificially-enhanced fort, and certainly no mention is made of ruins on the Dùn. Could it be that the Dùn’s history was of little significance locally at the time? 150 years later, in 1852, the Ordnance Survey visited Cnoc Ard and recorded Dùn Èistean in their Name Books. Their local informant for this township was a John Morrison. They record Dùn Èistean as follows: “This is a small round Island which is arable on the Sea Shore and Isolated only at high water. There is the ruins of some kind of building on the highest point of it which appears more at present like a heap of stones thrown together than the ruin of a castle as the name Signifies. Nothing regarding it can be collected from the neighbouring people. There are other ruins on the Island beside that considered as the castle” (OS Name Book 3A, 18) There appears to be a significant disinterest or lack of knowledge regarding the historical significance of the site by both local inhabitants and visitors during this period. However, this was all to change twenty years later when Captain F W L Thomas was the first person to recognise and record Dùn Èistean archaeologically, reporting observations made by the Lewis minister and antiquarian Malcolm MacPhail in his 1878 article, ‘Traditions of the Morrisons’ (Thomas 1878, 516) “Towards the north-east corner of the island is a dun or castle, sometimes called Tigh nam Arm; or the House of the Arms, now but 4½ feet high. The outside of the dun is an oblong square, 23 by 18 feet; and this basement is nearly solid, for the central area, which is of an oval shape, is only 6½ by 4½ feet, and there is no appearance of a doorway. The entrance or doorway was no doubt at the height of the first floor, similar to a dun in Taransay. The walls are of dry-stone masonry, but that is no proof of age in this part of the country. When exploring the ruins, the Rev M Macphail, who made the above measurements, found a small piece of flint, fragments of charcoal, and a strip of leather such as was used for making brogues” (Thomas 1878, 516). Thomas was also the first to record a Morrison connexion to the site, noting that “Dun Eystein is a natural stronghold… to which the Morrisons were wont to retire when hard pressed or in times of war” and that there were once “squints or loopholes” in the wall that encloses the site on the landward side. He also writes that “There are the remains of huts upon the island; and on the south sides is a flat ledge, called Palla na Biorlinn, or the Ledge of the Galley or Birlin, wheron tradition tells that the Morrisons used to haul up their boat” (ibid). Later, in an article ‘On the Duns of the Outer Hebrides’ published after Thomas’ death in 1890, the same information was re-iterated, but with no mention of the ‘basement’, and MacPhail’s small find of flint was identified as ‘probably a strike-a-light’ (Thomas 1890, 365-369). In this article, Thomas describes the ‘tigh’ as having the appearance of “an incipient peel”, probably from the twelfth century, by comparison with Cubbie Roo’s castle in Orkney (Thomas 1890, 366). It is unknown where Thomas got his information concerning the Morrison connexion, but it presumably originated in oral tradition, either contemporary with Thomas’ life or recorded in earlier documents. As mentioned above, traditionally the Morrisons functioned as the britheamhan, brieves or judges, of Ness in the late medieval period. Recent assertions by Michael Robson suggest that Thomas may have taken Dùn Èistean as being the unnamed fort connected with the brieves and described in a 1630s account of ‘The ewill trowbles of the Lewes, and how the Mackleoid of the Lewes was with his whol tribe destroyed and put from the Possesion of the Lewes’ which recounts the replacement of the MacLeods by the MacKenzies (NLS Advocates Manuscript 22.7.11 ff.9-10, cited by Robson in 2004, 41). In one passage in the ewill trowbles it is stated that “…the breiwe and his kinn.. strengthened themselfe within a fort in the Iland called Ness” (ibid). This account relates to a turbulent time in Lewis’ history (see for instance MacCoinnich 2002) and was written only twenty years or so after the MacKenzies succeeded. A more extensive archaeological description of the Dùn was made by the Royal Commission in 1928, who describe the foundations of various “small huts” and enclosures, an “artificial pond” to the south of the ‘tigh’ “banked on the E and excavated on the W, still showing moisture” (RCAHMS 1928, 7, no. 15). Forty years later the site was again visited by the Ordnance Survey and described as a settlement, “probably medieval, comprising a complex of small rectangular stone built huts with rounded corners, now heavily turfed”. The artificial pond on this occasion was described as being dry, the ‘tigh’ is described as oval, but with “no trace of built walling” and overall the OS found this structure “impossible to classify” (NMRS; visited by OS (RL) 16 June 1969). These surveys led to the site being scheduled as a monument of national importance in 1992, at the same time as many others in the Western Isles, and in 1997 it was recognised as being under threat from coastal erosion during the Lewis Coastal Erosion Survey (Burgess & Church 1997, 281-2). None of these archaeological descriptions record any local traditions however, and Thomas’ article of a hundred years earlier remains the first account to name Dùn Èistean in connexion with the Morrisons. The earlier perception of the site as being empty, ‘natural’ and ‘ruinous’, from the descriptions by Martin Martin and the OS surveyors, changes with Thomas’ account. His description of Dùn Èistean furnishes the stack with great significance and importance – the picture of the Morrisons hauling their boats up Palla nan Biorlinn and defending their home is vivid and immediately populates the site (3). His words create a strong imagery of the activities that may have occurred on the island in the past, an imagery that has been embraced by many Morrisons since, the world over, especially those overseas whose ancestors originate from Lewis. When the Clan Morrison society was founded in 1909 an image of a castle on Dùn Èistean was used as the Clan crest, with a defiant fist extended from the castellated wall heads, and the war cry of the Clan is said to be ‘Dùn Èistean!’. The launching of the Clan’s website in 1999 has meant that the tiny island of Dùn Èistean has met an international audience of Morrisons. This far north west corner of the British Isles, considered remote and marginal by many British mainlanders, has become at the same time internationally renowned and a familiar friend to many individuals living thousands of miles away, most of whom have never stepped on the turf of Dùn Èistean. The Morrison’s enthusiasm for the island and its history, and frustration at the lack of physical proof to support the vivid traditions associated with it, led to the creation of a project committee in 1999, with representatives from the Comunn Eachdraidh Nis (the Ness Historical Society), the Clan Morrison Society and the Western Isles regional archaeologist, Dr Mary Macleod. The committee initiated the investigation of the site with a view to its interpretation and presentation to the public, and its protection, if possible, from further deterioration. The Clan Morrison Society was convinced that their castle, as depicted on their crest, was waiting to be uncovered. Glasgow University Archaeological Research Division (GUARD) were commissioned by the Dùn Èistean committee to start archaeological investigation of the site in 2000, and topographical survey was carried out in April and May of that year (Barrowman & Driscoll 2000). The results of the survey work revealed more extensive structural remains than had previously been described. The topographic survey and structure by structure account of the site produced by Barrowman and Driscoll in 2000 demonstrated that “Dùn Èistean is exceptional for both its complex form and its fine state of preservation, but its structures are unusual and not easily paralleled in the archaeological record.” Despite the unusual nature of the site, it was presumed that it had probably been utilized in the Iron Age with later re-use in the medieval and later periods. This same assumption had been the predominant hypothesis made for the many other Iron Age promontory and island Dùn sites in Lewis (see for instance Armit 1996, 217-8). It was also thought possible that the site may be an early medieval site, comparable in form to others identified in Celtic Britain and Ireland. These sites are typically situated on a promontory or coastal stack site and consist of a group or groups of buildings, often enclosed by a wall or bank (e.g. Tintagel, Cornwall; Barrowman et al forthcoming; Morris 1996) A group of coastal settlements surveyed by Dr Raymond Lamb in the Northern Isles and Sutherland and published in the Scottish Archaeological Forum; Lamb 1973) are particularly relevant. There are few examples of comparable sites that have been surveyed in Lewis, although two may be found at the coastal chapel-sites of Rubha Chirc and, possibly, Cunndal (Barrowman 2005a, 66-69 & 75). Seven groups of features were recorded on Dùn Èistean (4): Structures A to G, protected on the north, west and south sides of the island by the perimeter wall, Structure H; Structure A consists of two rectangular conjoining buildings set into a triangular-shaped enclosure joined on to the perimeter wall; Structures B and D, two groups of interconnecting cellular structures, are also each set against the perimeter wall; Structure C, an upstanding sub-rectangular building, stands between Structures D and A; a man-made lochan, Structure E, sits at the lowest point of the stack, on the east side; Structure F, two hollows, possibly buildings, are situated at the top of Palla na Biorlinn; and Structure G, the Dùn, on the highest point of the stack situated beneath the mound of rubble (Barrowman & Driscoll 2000). The topographic survey was followed in 2001 by geophysical surveys and evaluation excavations (Barrowman2002). The geophysical survey revealed a strong series of linear positive and negative anomalies around Structure G in particular, suggesting a possible rock-cut ditch on the west side of the structure. Strong positive magnetic anomalies to the north of Structure A also suggested that burning might be present. High resistance features were also interpreted as the possible remains of further buildings below the turf (MacGuire in Barrowman 2002). During the trial trench evaluation in 2001 four small trenches were opened. Trench 1 through the south side of the circular mound, Structure G, confirmed, to everyone's surprise, Thomas' identification of an 'incipient peel'. Beneath the layers of collapsed rubble the wall of a significant clay-bonded stone building was uncovered. Finds from the topsoil and collapse from this structure included a perforated schist roof tile and sherds of local coarse pottery, of a type found throughout the Western Isles (see Campbell 2002; 2005; Cheape 1993). Trench 2 was excavated over one of the geophysical anomalies of high resistance but uncovered only bedrock. Trench 3 was excavated through part of one of the buildings in the Structure D cellular complex, where it joined the perimeter wall (Structure H) around the site. It revealed that the structure was built of turf whilst the perimeter wall was built of turf with a stone facing. The finds from this small trench were particularly rich, comprising of over a hundred sherds of local hand-made pottery (or craggan), burnt bone, flint and quartz flakes, and small pieces of iron. A rim sherd of Scottish post-medieval Reduced ware and a neck sherd from a German stoneware vessel, decorated with applied circular decoration, give a date for the occupation of the building between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries. Trench 4 through the east wall of Structure A uncovered only the layers of collapse from the building, and several sherds of craggan. All the trenches, apart from Trench 2, confirmed the depth, survival and complexity of the archaeological deposits (Barrowman 2002). No evidence of an earlier Iron Age dun was uncovered under the rubble in Trench 1, and what was thought to have been an earlier, possibly circular, structure below later adaptations, was in fact the collapsed remains of an earlier rectangular building. The artefactual assemblage recovered from the trial excavations also pointed to a Late Medieval date for the buildings. Thomas’ identification of the stone mound as ‘Tigh nan Arm’, an ‘incipient keep’, and the Morrison depiction of a castle on their crest, seemed much more likely than before. The perception of the site for those working on it changed considerably with this interpretative shift and occurred at the same time as a more subtle change in perception experienced whilst working on and accessing the site. Access to the site was difficult during the topographic survey in 2000, it was only possible to approach the island for a couple of hours at a low tide, and there was then a scramble across steep and slippery rocks using climbing gear and ropes. In May 2000 the team had climbed the cliff onto the site at a suitable low tide and then camped overnight on the island in order to complete the survey. Working on the site during this time gave them a unique opportunity to experience the site in complete isolation – as people had experienced it in history, truly cut off from the mainland of Lewis if only for a short time. The geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation, which took place the following year, required a longer season of three weeks work and also more equipment. Camping on the island was no longer a practical solution and moving equipment backwards and forwards would have been very time consuming under the previous year’s set up. Ropes and climbing harnesses had already been used as a back-up when accessing the site in previous years, but in 2001 this was taken one step further with the designing of a ‘Tyrolean traverse’, which was set up to allow unrestricted movement to and from the site regardless of tides. Personnel were able to clip a rope harness onto the traverse and pull themselves, equipment or soil samples backwards and forwards across the gap. As a result, normal working hours were now possible and staying overnight on the island was no longer necessary. Also, although physically the site still had the feeling of being exclusive and isolated, the work itself became less exclusively the preserve of the archaeologist when the interim reports for 2000 and 2001 were made available to a wider audience through the GUARD and Comunn Eachdraidh Nis websites, and could be read worldwide by anyone with access to a computer. The experience of accessing and working on Dùn Èistean changed more dramatically for the archaeology team in 2002 due to the growing interest in the site from the international Morrison community. Following a publicity drive over the internet, fund-raising by the Clan Morrison Society in the USA, UK and further afield succeeded in raising enough money to commission the building of a steel footbridge across the ravine to the island from the mainland side. This was to be completed in time for the Clan Morrison Gathering on the Isle of Lewis planned for July 2002 so that members of the Clan Morrison community could step foot on their ancestral home. In June 2002 the rope traverse was used for the last time when the excavation of two trenches in advance of the construction of the footings of the bridge was undertaken, jointly funded with Historic Scotland. The evaluation in 2002 of the areas on the island and mainland sides to be affected by the footings revealed interesting results. Trench 1 was placed over the portion of the perimeter wall that was to be affected by the bridge, and also an area to the north of that, from which several worked pieces of flint and a piece of lead pistol shot were recovered. Trench 2 covered the mainland side and an area of feannagan (lazybeds). Sherds of craggan and a gun flint were recovered from this trench, but no remains of structures (Barrowman 2004). Just in time for the clan gathering, the Clan Morrison Society succeeded in getting the bridge finished and in place. For years visitors to the site, many of whom had travelled miles to see it, had been unable to access the stack, and could only gaze upon it from a distance or gain virtual access via the web. Now it was possible for them to walk on the site and at the opening of the bridge over a hundred Morrisons and local visitors from Ness did just that. For the archaeologists who had undertaken the work so far, however, the romance and unique feeling of isolation on Dùn Èistean had now disappeared - access had become easier over two years to the point where it was not a problem at all (see Barrowman in prep). The site was no longer the exclusive preserve of the academic or specialist – it had been handed back to its rightful owners. But who really owns Dùn Èistean? The Morrisons have a legal right to the land itself, and feel they have a right to its history, but is it not also a part of the history of Ness, the Western Isles, Scotland? The initial three years work on the island for the Clan Morrison Society had culminated with the construction of the bridge. Although this access improvement came about due largely to the perseverance of the Morrisons, it means that almost anyone can now access the island and make it their own for an hour or two. Indeed, it has become a place to which people are drawn even if they have no interest in the Morrisons or archaeology – a new section of the Ness coast has been opened to all with Dùn Èistean included as a point of interest on a coastal path. The demonstrated archaeological potential of the site (e.g. Barrowman & Driscoll 2000, 7) and renewed local support led Dr Mary Macleod to make a successful bid to place Dùn Èistean at the centre of a Heritage Lottery Fund and Historic Scotland funded project across Ness. In March 2005 GUARD were commissioned by a steering committee to undertake and manage the Dùn Èistean Archaeology Project (Atkinson et al 2004). DEAP is a multi-disciplinary field project running for three years and draws on the previous work by GUARD at the site. It also incorporates the results of a series of separately funded projects, which include documentary research, placename analysis (Cox forthcoming) and the collection of oral traditions (Stiùbhart 2006a; Stiùbhart 2006b). It is funded by a partnership between the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), Historic Scotland, the Clan Morrison Society, Comunn Eachdraidh Nis and the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles Council). The project includes an ambitious archaeological survey of the north of Ness (the Ness Archaeological Landscape Survey, NALS (see Barrowman 2006) as well as the excavations and post-excavation work at Dùn Èistean. The DEAP fieldwork started in 2005 and includes three seasons of survey and excavation followed by two seasons of post-excavation and analysis. The first season of excavation on Dùn Èistean was completed at the end of August 2005, and incorporated local and student volunteers. Postexcavation processing and other back-up, such as leaflet production and web-site maintenance, were all undertaken locally in Ness at the Comunn Eachdraidh. Comunn na Gaidhlig also funds a Gaelic student placement for the project each year, who works with the archaeology team, giving Gaelic tours of the site, writing Gaelic text for leaflets and the website, and working with other groups visiting the site, such as the Ness Sgoil Shamhraidh, through the medium of Gaelic. The first season of the DEAP excavations by GUARD opened larger trenches over Structures A and G, with successful results (Barrowman 2005b). The ruined turf walls and stone footings of the large structure A, appeared from the 2000 topographic survey to be divided into two buildings, aligned south-west to north-east and possibly representing a dwelling and an outbuilding built side-by-side with a gap between them (Barrowman & Driscoll 2000, 14). Results from the 2005 excavation trench in Structure A (Trench A) bore out many of the conclusions from the topographic survey, although they also demonstrated that both buildings were domestic in nature, each with a central peat hearth. Below an abandonment layer of peat ash and broken pottery, each building had a compact clay floor utilising the surface of the natural clay above the bedrock. Both dwellings were aligned with the prevailing wind and built from dry-stone clad wall footings, packed with a dense clay and peat mix, with turf on top – features reminiscent of the more recent (nineteenth century) black houses, the ruins of which can still be seen in Ness. The building at the north end (5) was more solid in its construction than that to the south and the hearth deposits suggested that it had been used more frequently. Environmental samples were taken from all contexts, and flotation was undertaken at the Comunn Eachdraidh whilst the excavation was ongoing. Analysis of the samples overall produced only occasional carbonised plant macrofossils, with the majority of samples containing nothing. However nine of the samples, all originating from Structure A hearth contexts or dumps/sweepings from hearth places, were rich in cereal grains, the larger hearth in the north room being particularly rich. These samples all suggest waste from cooking or other domestic activities such as cereal drying, and the cereal grain has been identified as oats and barley, although occasional six row hulled barley was also noted (work ongoing). Finds were limited to sherds of locally hand-made pottery, flakes of flint, corroded pieces of iron, a pistol shot and a small sherd of glass, and all suggest a sixteenth to eighteenth century date. At the end of the excavation, part of the abutting earth and stone walls of each structure was dismantled and traces of a third, earlier, structure were uncovered directly below. These included the hearth and some adjacent paving with a possible post-slot, the remainder of the building was presumably destroyed during the construction of the two more recent structures. Following the cessation of primary use and abandonment of the structures, the walls slumped and a temporary shelter was built into the rubble at the north end of Room 1. In the second structure investigated, Structure G, the topographic survey in 2000 and small evaluation trench dug in 2001, had revealed that below the circular rubble mound lay the remains of a square tower (Barrowman 2002, 26). In 2005 a large trench (Trench G) was opened across the mound, measuring 30m by 9 m maximum to investigate not only the tower, but also the area around it where geophysical survey had suggested there are the remains of a circular structure, possibly a rock-cut ditch. Only the removal of turf, topsoil and the upper layers of rubble and modern disturbance was possible over this large trench within the first short season in 2005. An early twentieth-century marker cairn that had been constructed on top of the mound first had to be removed for health and safety reasons, and the stone from this was quantified and stacked separately to allow for possible reconstruction in the future. The removal of the turf and the latest layer of collapsed soil and rubble from the trench revealed that the circular raised area upon which the tower is built is a natural rock platform, and not an earlier structure as first thought. By the end of the first season of excavation, part of the collapse around the tower has been completely removed to reveal a wall of well-built stonework, bonded with clay, and apparently utilising a core of specially-mixed clay and peat. At first the interior face of the wall remained elusive, having been damaged during the nineteenth century investigations by MacPhail described above (Thomas 1878, 516) and later re-working of the resulting hollow in the top of the mound into a temporary shelter. By the end of the excavation the first indications of an interior face were uncovered giving a possible overall thickness of up to 2m for the base of the tower wall. The wall incorporates around 1m of core material, and was clearly built to carry a considerable load and therefore height of masonry. This structure will be investigated over the next two years, with the interior of the tower being the focus of the project next year. First indications are that it was built in one phase, and finds of a musket ball, flakes of flint and sherds of Cragan within the rubble indicate that, like Structure A, the final use of the tower may date to between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries AD. The results of the first year of large-scale excavation have so far provided no evidence for an earlier use for the site and many of the signifiers which had previously been taken to suggest use in the Iron Age have not been found. No evidence has been uncovered as yet of an earlier structure below the tower, or for modification of a pre-existing building, and the finds assemblages from both structures also contain no residual earlier material, being all in keeping with a sixteenth to eighteenth century date. It seems more likely now that the structures on Dùn Èistean belong to one unified, contemporary site, not unlike the castle favoured by the ever-optimistic Clan Morrison Society. This high status site has been overlooked in the past, when Ness, and indeed Lewis, has been seen as a romantic and isolated region on the margins of Britain. It is an often stressed, but still very important point however, that before the eighteenth century the Western Isles were not out-ofthe- way, they were just remote from some of the individuals who chose to write about them. For centuries the Minch has been a busy thoroughfare for shipping and Ness and the inhabitants of Lewis were right in the thick of things. They were far from being remote, isolated or marginal. For example, historian Aonghas MacCoinnich draws attention to the English traffic in the Minch en route to the Newfoundland and Arctic fishing grounds in the mid-1500s, and to the large Dutch fishing fleets and also Dutch traffic to and from the East and West Indies in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (MacCoinnich forthcoming). It was not just goods that were being traded between these countries, but also news and information, which must surely have been one of the most powerful tools in any Clan’s armoury. Now we hope that we are re-invigorating and almost imitating this movement of information and ideas. Although in more recent times the site was forgotten, even by the people in Ness, the access improvements since 2000 have changed this and allowed almost anyone to walk onto and explore the site. With a small number of local volunteers taking part in the project in its first year, and visiting the site, many more have shown an interest in helping in 2006 and we hope that the site is slowly being adopted by Ness. Perceptions of the site have changed as access has improved, and they have changed mainly for the better. We hope that the perception of Dùn Èistean as the exclusive preserve of the Clan Morrison or the academic is slowly being altered through the work of the Dùn Èistean Archaeology Project. Acknowledgements I am indebted to the team who first worked on the site before I became involved in DEAP in 2003 – namely Dr Chris Barrowman (director of the survey and excavations from 2000 to 2002) and the teams: John Arthur, Gary Thomsett and John Duncan (2000 survey), Ian McHardy (rope access 2001 & 2002), Andrew Baines and Donna McGuire (2001 survey and excavation), and Alastair Becket, Ian McHardy and Scott Coulter (2002 excavation). Also to the 2005 excavation team, especially Chris Dalglish and Ian McHardy, and to Diane Aldritt who identified the palaeobotanical material. Thanks also to Professor Steve Driscoll and Robert Will (GUARD), Dr Mary Macleod (Western Isles Archaeologist, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar) and Comunn Eachdraidh Nis for their support. References Armit, I 1996 The Archaeology of Skye and the Western Isles, Edinburgh. Atkinson, J, Barrowman, C & Barrowman, R 2004 Dùn Èistean Archaeology Project (DEAP), GUARD Project 2000: published by GUARD, Glasgow University. Barrowman, C & Driscoll S T 2000 Dun Eistean, Lewis: Archaeological and Topographical Survey. GUARD Project 716.1: published by GUARD, Glasgow University. Barrowman, C 2002 Dun Eistean, Lewis: Geophysical Survey and Trial Excavation – Description of the Archaeological Structures, with contributions from D MacGuire. GUARD Projects 716.2 & 716.3: published by GUARD, Glasgow University. Barrowman, C 2004 Dun Eistean, Lewis. GUARD Project 716.4: published by GUARD, Glasgow University. Barrowman, C S 2006 Ness Archaeological Landscape Survey 2005: Data Structure Report. GUARD Project 2000: published by GUARD, Glasgow University. Barrowman, C in prep ‘Breaching the Defences of a Clan Stronghold – Past Work on a Sea Stack in Lewis’, publication of the Theoretical Archaeology Group conference session: Archaeology of the Inaccessible, Dec 2005. Barrowman, R C2005a Lewis Coastal Chapel-Sites Survey 2004/5, Report published by the Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow. Barrowman, R C 2005b Dùn Èistean Archaeology Project Excavations 2005: Data Structure Report. GUARD Project 2000: published by GUARD, Glasgow University. Barrowman, R C, Batey, C E & Morris, C D forthcoming Excavations at Tintagel Castle, Cornwall 1990-1999, Society of Antiquaries of London Monograph, London. Burgess, C & Church, M 1997 Coastal Erosion Assessment, Lewis: A Report for Historic Scotland, 2 vols. Unpublished report, Edinburgh. Campbell, E 2002 ‘The Western Isles Pottery Sequence’, in Ballin-Smith, B & Banks, I (eds) In the Shadow of the Brochs: The Iron Age in Scotland, 139-144. Stroud. Campbell, E 2005 ‘Pottery’, in Branigan, K, From Clan to Clearance: History and Archaeology on the Isle of Barra c. 850-1850 AD, 53-4. Oxford. Cheape, H 1993 ‘Crogans and Barvas Ware: Handmade Pottery in the Hebrides’, Scottish Studies 31(1992-3), 109-127. Cox, R A V Forthcoming The Norse Element in the Place-names of Ness, Project Dùn Èistean Lamb, R G 1973 ‘Coastal Settlements of the North’, Scottish Archaeological Forum 5 (1973), Martin M 1703 A Description of the Western Isles of Scotland. London OS Name Books 3A, for Sheet 3 Barvas Parish, Index no 145, Ross County 1-8 MacCoinnich A 2002 ‘”His Spirit was Given Only to Warre”: Conflict and Identity in the Scottish Gàidhhealtachd c. 1580 – c. 1630’, in Murdoch, S & MacKillop, A (eds), Fighting for Identity: Scottish Military Experience, C. 1550-1900, 133-161, Leiden. MacCoinnich A forthcoming ‘Native, Stranger and the Fishing of the Isles, 1611-1637’, in Macinnes, A I & Grosjean, A (eds), Pirates, Capitalists and Imperialists in the North Sea and Baltic States [PAGES, PUBLISHER LOCATION] Morris, C D 1996 ‘From Birsay to Tintagel: A Personal View’, in Crawford B E (ed.) Scotland in Dark Age Britain, St John’s House Publications no. 6, 37-78.Aberdeen. RCAHMS 1928 The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions of Scotland. Ninth report with inventory of monuments and constructions in the Outer Hebrides, Skye and the Small Isles. Edinburgh, 7, no. 15. Robson, M 2004 Forts and Fallen Walls: The duns of Northern Lewis. 10 Callicvol, Port of Ness. Stiùbhart, D U 2006a ‘The Early History of Ness: An Interpretation’, Island Notes, 23 (English) and 24 (Gaelic). Stiùbhart, D U 2006b ‘Some Heathenish and Superstitious Rites: A Letter from Lewis, 1700’, Scottish Studies 34, [PAGES]. Thomas, F W L 1878 ‘Traditions of the Morrisons (Clan MacGhillemhuire), Hereditary Judges of Lewis’ in Proc Soc Antiq Scot 12, 503-556. Thomas, F W L 1890 ‘On the Duns of the Outer Hebrides’ in Archaeologia Scotica, V, 365-415 Figures 1. Location of Dun Eistean, Ness. GUARD 2. Aerial photograph, oblique from the east. Lewis Museum Trust. 3. Postcard of Dun Eistean. Reproduced with kind permission of Mr Tony Morrison. 4. GUARD topographic survey 2000 5. Structure A from the SE, 2005, showing central hearth, stone and clay walls and turf and clay perimeter wall Structure H to the north. Rachel Barrowman 18/12/06