Calling Citizen Cairn'd

close
more_vert
GLADMAN G
GLADMAN Jun 22, 2013 16:55:28
Replying to tiompan

tiompan wrote:
The Canmore view is not only based on excavation or lack of i.e. some cairns are considered possibly "ancient" without excavation , but many are known to be relatively recent from hsistorical recording and excavation .
Most Scottish hills have summit cairns and there many others on lower slopes and "tops " , it's part of the hill walking culture . Certainly on the bigger more remote hills the likelihood of anything prehistoric seems unlikely . As for the the lower hills in areas closer to known prehistoric settlement and monuments , Scotland hasn't provided the same evidence as found in Wales and Cumbria .
I believe the Canmore approach to be a reasonable one based on the evidence and knowledge of cairn erection .
I agree the Canmore approach may well be reasonable within the constraints of available data... but could a lack of data be an issue here, George? How would you rate the current state of knowledge of upland monuments in Scotland, compared to, say, Wales where the archaeological trusts have undertaken systematic field reviews over recent times focussing on the impact recreational walking is having upon funerary monuments etc? Clearly there is a lot more high ground to take into account and cover in Scotland - so this is not intended as a criticism - but could a lack of data from up to date field work be determining Canmore's approach.

To use a current example, the great cairn upon Beinn na Caillich.... the RCAHMS entry contains two (aerial) images and a report from 1928, confirmed in 1961, for what is not exactly a remote site. This makes no mention of what I took to be evidence of kerbing. Bearing this in mind, the huge dimensions, the folklore, the unpopularity of the peak (I saw no one at all during 9-odd hours on a cloudless May day) and - to my knowledge - no evidence suggesting modern foundation, if the cairn isn't prehistoric, who built it... and why?

T tiompan
tiompan Jun 22, 2013 19:10:21
Replying to GLADMAN

It is a huge amount data that could never be covered , Canmore actually ignores the vast majority of hill cairns and some genuine prehistoric examples may have slipped through the net , see below ,but they do tend to mention the possibles /more likely examples .

The cairns found on the bigger hills in those less hospitable areas where there has never been any evidence of settlement or monuments and little settled even in early modern period are likely to be exluded because they are unlikely and often the bigger cairns in those areas are known to have been built by the OS , walkers or the estate .

I think the reason the others are ignored is that the sheer volume of cairns , most of which are clearly markers ,found on nearly every hilltop are usually too insubstantial to be a burial and some of bigger examples are known to be relatively recent , this suggests something other than the cairn with cists found in Wales ,Cumbria and to a lesser extent in Scotland .

Each should be judged on it's merits and I agree that Beinn na Caillich is a prehistoric possible as is Mad Meg's on Creag Meagaidh see http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/100577 , the latter isn't even mentioned on Canmore and both have folklore that only muddies the picture ,although mad meg isn't quite so unlikley as a Norwegian princess .