Talk:Broch

message: An anon user has made a special point to say it is the "Scottish archaeological view" in the article, but provides no alternative view. I'm curious about this. Are Scottish archaeologists motivated by nationalistic concerns, and not by science? Sounds like Scottish archaeologists are politicians not scientists. -- Stbalbach 17:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed many recent POV edits in this article recently. Sad. Lianachan 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish archaeological view? 

message: I am tickled by someone's removal of my sentences: 'However, we need to keep in mind that the 'problem of the brochs' is not just an architectural problem. Their massive size, and their large numbers (500 in some estimates) need explanation.' It isn't a new idea. In 1904 Gilbert Goudie wrote: 'It is not merely their architectural features ... that interest us, but equally so the social problems and aspects of primeval civilisation that confront us in attempting to realise what their origin and use may have been.' This isn't a dangerous delusion: it's common sense, however closed some people may imagine thewse questions are --Meaulnes
:Well, perhaps it can be re-worded, but it's not really wikipedia-like .. who are "we"? This is a general purpose encyclopedia, not an article for specialists. Telling the reader to "keep in mind" something is also somewhat off - appropriate it we knew the author and his context, strange-sounding in an anonymous-authored encyclopedia. Also there is no providence for the quoted 'problem of the brochs', as if the reader is already aware of the historiography of Brochs and who and where the phrase came from and its underlying meanings. -- Stbalbach 20:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Problem of the brochs"

message: The two citation required notices that were added to the page - both of these can be found in either Armit, I 2003 Towers of the North, the Brochs of Scotland or Hingley, R 1992 'Society in Scotland from 700BC to 200AD', both of which are listed as references.  Being a relative newcomer to wiki, I have no idea how to tie them all together (although I did tidy them, the original statements were not mine). Lianachan 13:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You changed "Orkney" to "Shetland" as the place where the earliest radiocarbon dates for brochs have been obtained.  My source for mentioning Orkney was Dr Ian Armit's The Atlantic Scottish Iron Age: Five Levels Of Chronology.  What was your source for this change? Lianachan 18:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: ok thanks removed. --Stbalbach 14:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not read anything from last year - I think 2003 was the last reports I read from Scatness.  That's certainly more up to date information than Armit's 1991 paper. A few things, though.  Where do you draw the line? Brochs are very much a constantly evolving kind of structure, so how do you decide what's a broch and what's a proto-broch type structure?  The roundhouse at Howe, Orkney, for example, has been dated to before 500BC - for a structure with a guard cell, etc..., would you think that counts?  In terms of wikipedia, I would think that the term broch is probably best applied to all forms of what we would call broch architecture - rather than what the man in the street would consider a broch, ie the broch towers like Mousa, Dun Carloway, etc...  That's certainly how I've always regarded the article, otherwise we'd just confuse people or weigh them down with unneccesary differentiation of the spectrum of "brochs".  By mentioning early remains in Orkney (Bu, Pierowall, Howe) and Caithness (Crosskirk) I wasn't attempting to covertly suggest where brochs originally came from, I was merely stating the locations of the earliest C14 dates of which I was aware.  I'm a bit curious as to why you replaced "Orkney" with "Shetland", yet left "Caithness". If you were confident (and probably justifiably) that your more recent research would predate Orkadian brochs, without (presumably) having read my source, then why was there persistant doubt about Caithness dating? Lianachan 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I tend to consider brochs as just a sort of extreme roundhouse - a complex atlantic roundhouse, in fact.  The simple atlantic roundhouses (their 'ancestors', like the earliest broch type structure at Bu) I would think should count for this article, if only because they probably don't merit an article to themselves.  When I talk about "roundhouses", I don't mean in general terms (including hut circles, etc) I'm talking about a specific architectural branch.  There's a very hastily strung together, and very vague, atlantic roundhouse article which you may not have noticed, by the way.  Yes, I'd very much like to read your paper.  Drop me an email and we can chat about it (and brochs in general!) if you like. Lianachan 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hiya.  I would say that other than being made of stone, being mortarless, and more or less round there are very few similarities - there are more differences than there are similarities.  There's certainly no architectural or archaeological link between the two structures.  Nuraghe look very interesting though, will have to go and visit Sardina. Lianachan 09:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Transferred anon comment - Skysmith 11:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anon comment 

message: Um, this paragraph seems a little confused:
:On the islands of Orkney and Shetland there are very few cells at ground floor level. However, most brochs have scarcements (ledges) which would have allowed the construction of a very sturdy wooden first floor, and excavations at Loch Na Berie on the Isle Of Lewis show signs of a further, second floor (eg stairs on the first floor, which head up).
Isn't a "ground floor" on the "first floor", or is this a Scottish thing? 70.20.136.170 19:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't a Scottish thing.  It's an everywhere thing: ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor, etc... Lianachan 20:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, according to Ground_floor this is another example of where American is different from English. Lianachan 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Floors 

message: Was that edit really neccessary? I mean, is there likely to have been any confusion in the first place? Lianachan 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seemed like it based on the above discussion. I welcome other suggestions how to best clarify it, but yeah, it's defiantly a source of confusion. -- Stbalbach 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm astonished that it could be confusing, especially within context.  Still, that's Wikipedia for you I guess :-( Lianachan 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: An afterthought - all published material about brochs also refers to this mysterious, "ground" floor.  I hate to think what havoc that may bring. Lianachan 12:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, American and English differences are often a source of havoc. I'm not sure why that it is astonishing, we even have an entire Wikipedia article about it List of words having different meanings in British and American English. There is a great story about the English ordering tons of "corn" from the US after the end of WWII and ending up with tons of something they didn't want or expect. -- Stbalbach 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broch: dab floor confusion 

message: In recent years, studies of the Y-Chromosome of males inhabiting locales where brochs are located have revealed a connection between the males of such faraway locales as Sardinia and the Balearic Isles, where nuraghi, structures extremely similar to the brochs are located.  This suggests a demic diffusion of the culture or people responsible for the blochs.  (Gatto, et. al., 2007). - added to the main article by 76.173.118.56, moved here by Lianachan 22:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual claim about origins of broch builders 

message: This article has been reduced to a shambles by somebody who appears to having a raging hard-on for Shetland and keeps overstating what is an extreme minority opinion.  I'm tired of trying to restore some perspective, and instead suggest that anybody who really does want to know about brochs shoul pick up book instead of wasting their time reading the crap on the wikipedia article. I wash my hands of this appalling mess. Lianachan 16:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply adding data to the References section is not helpful. If it is a reference we need to know what it refers to using an in-line citation. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shambles 

message: I've removed a section on modern day brochs. This was a thinly-veiled advert for an architect who builds structures that are as similar in appearance to brochs as my house is. I'm sure they're nice to live in, but they don't belong in this article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If they or he are sufficiently notable they can feature in a bio of the architect, but they don't belong in this article. . dave souza, talk 13:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed another introduced section on "Brochs in modern architecture". While the Maggie's Centre in Dundee has a cylindrical feature that was inspired by the outward appearance of brochs, it is not a broch and has no relevance to this article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern day brochs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Broch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504043656/http://www.shetland-heritage.co.uk/amenitytrust/archaeology/scatness/scatness_2002.html to http://www.shetland-heritage.co.uk/amenitytrust/archaeology/scatness/scatness_2002.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513010427/http://www.rockstanza.info/node/11 to http://www.rockstanza.info/node/11
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312110327/http://www.pretanicworld.com/monuments.html to http://www.pretanicworld.com/Monuments.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505052152/http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/info/History/GlenelgBrochs to http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/info/History/GlenelgBrochs
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I tried to add the Applecross broch to the map, but I was unable to do so due to a lack of edit permissions on the image.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FTp92hvSpk
Here is the preliminary edit showing the location of the newly discovered broch in Applecross,  https://imgur.com/a/sUqWL3v.
Also, I added a reference to this video on the page about the village :  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applecross#Media_and_the_arts 172.126.161.16 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the Map to show newly excavated broch locations. 

message: The locations of the brochs on the map suggest an exclusively sea-faring, coastal and estuary hugging people. Has no-one ever suggested this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.189.222 (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Sea farers