Dun Carloway Broch, Isle of Lewis

The research was conducted primarily during two fieldtrips to Lewis, of 1 week and 3 weeks. The 4 weeks was split between this and the Arnol Blackhouse study, with Dun Carloway Broch being the more rapid of the two. In addition, about 1 week of full time equivalent was spent on preparatory work, liaison and meetings, including a short third visit to Lewis as part of this study only, for discussion on the draft findings.

While staying on Lewis, observation was conducted at the site about twice a week, in blocks of one to two hours, in a range of weather and times of day.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of managing organisations and people living or working close to the monument. These took place in people’s places of work and on one occasion in the participant’s home, with a family member present. Two Carloway residents were also engaged as part of the Arnol Blackhouse study, providing an opportunity to speak with them about the site.

Community gatherings became a central method in the study, as the research activities were incorporated into group activities convened as part of the on-going community consultation. There were two events: a stakeholder meeting and a drop in community forum. Both events lasted about two hours and provided an opportunity to observe group dynamics as well as participate in the discussion.

• The stakeholder meeting included representatives of managing organisations (one connected via skype), community structures, other relevant agencies, and local residents. The round-table discussion was facilitated by the external consultant and focused on a set of key questions they had prepared.
• The community forum was structured around group work at tables, each addressing one of the questions discussed in the stakeholder meeting. A participatory mapping technique was trialled with participants at one of the tables. In addition to informing the assessment, notes from the mapping exercise were used as an input to the community discussions and included in the consultancy report.

The draft report, including the outcomes of the participatory mapping, was discussed at a face-to-face group meeting during the third visit to Lewis. The meeting was advertised by the Carloway Estate Trust and was held in the Carloway community centre. There were ten participants, some of whom had been part of the community consultation activities and some who were new to the research. In light of this, a short presentation was made about the research and there was an opportunity for people to ask questions prior to the round table discussion on the report.

Hard copy reports as well as a large-scale print out of the participatory mapping were provided, which people were invited to add to if they had additional comments. All research participants had received the draft report over email in advance of the meeting and feedback was also invited either by email or over the phone, if they preferred.

The following communities of interest, identity and geography were identified during this study:

Members of the Community Estate Trust
Local residents* in Doune Carloway
Local residents* in Carloway
Crofters
Crafters
Artists/photographers
Local children
Local tour guides

*temporary and more permanent (in and out) migration is a contemporary, as well as an historic, feature of life on Lewis. Who is present may depend upon the time of year, particular activities, or personal factors, and who is considered a ‘resident’ can depend on the circumstances within which the discussion is taking place.

The research identified a number of communities for whom the Broch was of value. These were not all people who regularly visit the Broch; its position in the landscape allowing for engagement from a distance.

Standing on a rise above Doune Carloway, the Broch is part of the surrounding landscape:

• Its setting – within a working croft and with views across the surrounding area – is critical to the experience of the site and links the monument to wider narratives of place.
• Respondents’ displayed intimate familiarity with the setting and sensitivity to potential changes.

There is a sense of ownership of the Broch, largely not conceived in legal terms, but akin to belonging:

• It is a distinctive symbol of community identity (appearing on the Carloway flag and mirrored in the signage for the village).
• People are proud of the site and feel it is deserving of attention and care.

The Broch is a site of physical interaction and activity:

• Many people’s memories of the site and primary engagements have been through childhood exploration and play, and it is a place that continues to attract and intrigue children.
• The multi-sensory experience (in particular touch) contributes to the sense of place.

The site is also somewhere people go to for inspiration and reflection:

• It is a place that sparks the imagination and a focus for creative activities (e.g. photography).
• At quieter times, it is somewhere people go for solitude and peace.

This report concludes with some implications of the findings, which may contribute to on-going discussions around the management of the site. Key points:

• Changes to the appearance of the structure or access to the site are particularly sensitive.
• While tourism presents practical challenges, the recognition of significance, applied at various scales (village, Estate, Island), contributes to communities’ sense of identity and ‘place-making’.