Fruitless and forgotten – the 1861 excavation inside the Ring of Brodgar

Thursday, March 6, 2025 (11:12 PM)

A view over the interior of the Ring of Brodgar. (📷 Jim Richardson)

By Sigurd Towrie

What, if anything, lay inside the Ring of Brodgar remains unclear – although the accumulated evidence does suggest that, unlike the Stones of Stenness, it was nothing substantial.

For many years, the uncertainty has been put down to the belief that the stone circle’s interior is unexcavated [1]. But now, it seems, that is not the case.

George Petrie. (📷 Orkney Library and Archives) — George Petrie (1818-1875), from Kirkwall, Orkney.
(📷 Orkney Library and Archives)

George Petrie was a well-respected Orcadian antiquary. Very active around the mid-19th century, he often worked with the visiting MP James Farrer – “a notorious but sadly unmethodical antiquary” [1b] who was “scandalously casual in both method and publication”. [1c]

And it is in one of Petrie’s unpublished notes that we learn of the partial, but fruitless, 1861 excavations at the ring’s centre and around some of the megaliths:

“The area enclosed by the circle of Stones presents a rough, uneven surface and has never been levelled, nor is there any trace of mound or terraced platform within the circle. Excavations were made in 1861 in the neighbourhood of several of the Stones and in the centre of the area in the hope of finding sepulchral remains, but none were found.”

Although the note does not identify the excavators, there is little doubt the operation was instigated by Farrer, possibly accompanied, as usual, by Petrie himself.

To back up this claim requires a little archive digging, so we’ll begin with Petrie’s account of Maeshowe’s excavation [2]:

“On occasion of his visit in 1860, Mr Farrer expressed a desire to open all the larger tumuli in the vicinity of the circle of standing stones at Brogar [sic], Stenness. Some of these had been previously excavated by him, and a large stone urn was found in one of them. [3]

“As it was then late in the season, the work was postponed till the following summer, when it was arranged that a deputation from Edinburgh should be present at the opening of the tumuli.”

Farrer did return in 1861, but by then his primary goal was no longer the Brodgar mounds. Instead his attention had shifted to Maeshowe. He did, however, relocate workers (briefly) to investigate other sites around the Ring of Brodgar. [3b]

Why? Because he was told to…well, strongly encouraged.

In the preface to his 1862 booklet dedicated to the Norse runes found in Maeshowe, Farrer thanked the secretary of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, John Stuart, for his “urgent suggestion” that:

“…the great circle of Stenness [Ring of Brodgar], and the tumuli around it, had not been sufficiently examined…” [4]

Although his Maeshowe plans were far from shelved, it was this academic nudge that presumably led to the hasty excavation of the Bookan cairn and two of the Brodgar tumuli. At the same time, given Stuart’s specific reference to the “great circle of Stenness”, it seems very unlikely that Farrer was not behind the foray into the Ring of Brodgar (and perhaps also the Ring of Bookan to the north-west [5]).

The Ring of Brodgar around the time of the undocumented 1861 excavation.
(📷 George Washington Wilson/University of Aberdeen) — The Ring of Brodgar around the time of the 1861 excavation. The wheel-rutted track in the foreground was described by Lt Thomas as *‘the road to Sandwick and Birsa’* in 1851.
(📷 George Washington Wilson/University of Aberdeen)

The extent of the stone circle investigations is not clear but, given that Farrer’s eye was firmly affixed on Maeshowe and work on the other sites amounted to little more than a few days [6], it is unlikely to have been anything more than cursory.

Maeshowe may have been the ultimate prize, but permission to dig it had clearly come with other expectations. And reading between the lines it is difficult not to come away with the impression that mere lip-service was paid to the peripheral sites.

“Some days were devoted to excavations close to Stennes [sic] … but as several gentlemen of well-known antiquarian reputation from Edinburgh and Aberdeen were expected, and as I was desirous of having the benefit of their experience and advice, I determined at once to commence operations on the great tumulus of Maeshowe…” [3] [My emphasis]

But even at Maeshowe, Farrer anticipated that just “a couple of days would suffice to make a large opening in the tumulus”. [4] [My emphasis]

Then, once inside:

“After a few days’ labour, the whole of the rubbish filling the chamber was removed, but long ere this was accomplished, the keen eye of Mr Joseph Robertson discovered the first of the Runic inscriptions.” [4] [My emphasis]

Once the runes began to emerge everything else was dropped. The six-day Bookan cairn excavation ended [6] and at Salt Knowe and Fresh Knowe (and maybe the Ring of Brodgar) the investigations were abandoned.

That Farrer was expecting a backlash is suggested by his letter to The Orcadian newspaper on July 27, 1861:

“After a careful examination of the two great tumuli on the east and west sides of the [Ring of Brodgar], I have come to the conclusion that it is not expedient to continue the excavations at present. I say at present because it is just possible that the Runic inscription at Turmiston [Maeshowe] may throw some fresh light upon that subject.

“Perhaps some of your numerous readers may like to know my reason for discontinuing the works and should the opinion provoke criticism, they may, at the same time, be the means of eliciting information from those who are better able to handle the subject than I am.”

A 19th century photograph showing the aftermath of Farrer’s Fresh Knowe excavation – a v-shaped gash through the body of the mound.

I have not found any evidence yet, but cannot help but wonder if eyebrows (and hackles) were raised at the manner in which the Brodgar sites had been investigated. [6b]

With the peripheral excavations, discoveries were recorded and published in papers by Petrie [2][6][7] and very briefly summarised in a booklet produced by Farrer“for private circulation among friends and acquaintances”. [4]

So why was the Ring of Brodgar left out?

I suspect it was simply because nothing was found that they considered to be (or recognised as) significant. Like the surrounding mounds, Farrer was specifically looking for “sepulchral remains” and came up blank.

Nothing found, nothing to report.

On saying that, we also know that Farrer was not averse to digging into sites and documenting nothing. See endnote [3b]: “…should they contain anything worthy of record I will furnish you with the particulars…”

Fortunately, Petrie often followed in the MP’s wake, recording Farrer’s investigations after he, and his crew, had moved on.

For example:

“Mr Farrer opened a tumulus at Pickaquoy, near Kirkwall, in 1853, but this I did not see till some time afterwards, when it was in so dilapidated a state that I could not make out whether it had been a barrow containing two built cists or graves, or a Pict’s house…” [7]

And on at least one occasion Petrie politely urged Farrer to moderate his activities:

“Mr Farrer again visited Orkney last summer, and resumed the excavations in Burray. I accompanied him to the island, and suggested the propriety of leaving the building undisturbed, and of the careful removal of the rubbish, both outside and inside.” [7]

The brevity of Petrie’s Ring of Brodgar note leaves me wondering whether, as in the Pickaquoy example above, he was actually present and perhaps only witnessed the excavations’ aftermath.

When digging sites Farrer considered to be without value but Petrie thought otherwise, he made sure to record the fact. At Fresh Knowe, for example, he strongly disagreed with Farrer’s declaration that “nothing was found”, stating that the mound showed “evidence of far more care in its construction than was likely to be expended on a mere heap of rubbish”. [7]

Are we seeing something similar within the stone circle? Probably not, or he would surely have mentioned it in his notes.

Whatever the situation, it is, again, solely due to Petrie that the meagre scrap of information relating to the Ring of Brodgar was recorded.

But, although disappointing, the apparent lack of remains inside the stone circle not only ties in with earlier accounts but the results of modern geophysical surveys.

Hampered by the underlying geology of the area, geophysics has not detected anything conclusive within the ring [8], mirroring Petrie’s 1861 remark and that of Lieutenant Thomas ten years before:

“There are now no indications of structure within the area, nor has it been either smoothed or levelled…” [9]

Lt Thomas' 1848 plan of the Ring of Brodgar (Account of some of the Celtic Antiquities of Orkney) — Lt Thomas’ 1848 plan of the Ring of Brodgar (📷 *Account of some of the Celtic Antiquities of Orkney*)

Thomas did, however, highlight the damage around, and inside, the stone circle:

“[It] must be observed that not only has the peat or turf been cut for fuel, but every layer of soil has been removed, as fast as it has formed, to serve as manure for the infield.

“The general appearance of the country is sufficiently uninteresting; but a barren and desolate aspect, not natural to the place, is produced by the practice of paring the soil from the outfield, that is, from all the land lying without the inclosures [sic]; and the Ring of Brogar has had no sanctity with these barbarous depredators, as the broken and scarified turf will witness.” [9]

It is unlikely that centuries of disturbance and turf-stripping would have completely obliterated any major structures or features within the ring, but it is doubtful that evidence of smaller, more ephemeral, activity would have survived.

But, as always, it would take excavation to know for sure.

Notes

[1] Excavations, led by Professor Lord Colin Renfrew, focusing on the ditch, took place at the ring in 1973. In 2008, Renfrew’s trenches were re-excavated and extended by the UHI Archaeology Institute.
[1b] Vere Gordon Childe.
[1c] Davidson, J. L. & Henshall, A. S. (1989). The Chambered Cairns of Orkney. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[2] Petrie, G., (1861). Notice of the opening of a tumulus in the parish of Stenness, on the Mainland of Orkney. Archaeological Journal, 18 (1), pp.353-358.
[3] This was the so-called Plumcake Mound, to the north-east of the Ring of Brodgar, and Fresh Knowe, to the east.
[3b] And at the same time (July 1861) Farrer got stuck into one of the Skara Brae mounds: “I caused several chambers and passages to be opened…[but] I do not think anything is likely to result from further excavations at Skaill…” Clearly not satisfied with his Skara Brae findings, he added: “I hope to examine some tumuli in the neighbourhood and should they contain anything worthy of record I will furnish you with the particulars next week.” (Letter to The Orcadian newspaper, July 27, 1861). Fortunately, Petrie made repeated visits to Skara Brae afterwards and documented and planned the ongoing “clearing out”.
[4] Farrer, J. (1862) Notice of runic inscriptions discovered during recent excavations in the Orkneys. Private circulation.
[5] In the same unpublished note, it is clear Petrie surveyed the interior of the Ring of Bookan but makes no mention of any excavation work.
[6] Petrie, G. (1863) The Picts’-houses in the Orkneys. Archaeological Journal, 20 (1), pp.32-37.
[6b] The damage caused during Farrer’s 1854 excavation of Plumcake Mound all but destroyed it and caused some unrest at the time. His 1861 excavation of Fresh Knowe left a deep, v-shaped gash through the body of the mound (pictured above). Reading between the lines, it also seems that the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland had concerns and were attempting to rein him in.
[7] Petrie, G. (1855) Description of antiquities in Orkney recently examined, with illustrative drawings. In Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (Vol. 2, pp. 56-62)
[8] Brend, A., Card, N., Downes, J., Edmonds, M. and Moore, J. (2020) Landscapes Revealed: Geophysical Survey in the Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Area 2002-2011. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
[9] Thomas, F.W.L. (1851) Account of some of the Celtic Antiquities of Orkney, including the Stones of Stenness, Tumuli, Picts-houses, &c., with Plans, by FWL Thomas, RN, Corr. Mem. SA Scot., Lieutenant Commanding HM Surveying Vessel Woodlark. Archaeologia, 34 (1).