After considering
the broch as a black hole, see:
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2025/01/brochs-iron-age-black-holes.html,
one ponders more about light, and its source. While contemplating the
reality of the broch experience, one comes to understand how we are
encouraged to not only think of broch interiors as brightly lit
spaces, but also that this outcome was achieved by the obvious
solution of a raging central fire, the primeval source of mystery and
ceremony. While we know or can envisage sitting around a campfire in
the bush with all of its allure, and can understand how a larger fire
can indeed successfully light up an area to create a bright ambience,
there are reasons to question this solution for a light source in a
broch.
First of all, the
material being consumed is most likely to be peat, which burns with a
gentle, smoky flame that is no great source of illumination or heat;
but it suffices mainly for the latter in the absence of more
efficient fuels.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e7b4b/e7b4b3debc4f3ae2335bdf43e869f958bc3feaff" alt="".jpg)
The second issue is
that, with large fires giving off bright light, assuming this can be
achieved - timber could be a valuable resource, not something to burn
willy-nilly - one has to recall how the heat radiating from this
source forces one to maintain a safe and comfortable distance. Anyone
who has experienced an Up Helly Aa will know about this. Broch
interiors are really not that expansive, making the clearance
required from a raging, bright fire difficult to achieve, literally
pushing one up against a wall. The interior timber structures inside
the broch would also have to be kept well clear of any fire, causing
one to question the idea that a substantial burning mass might have
been a good light source for the black interiors. Fire could have
been seen as a major concern in a broch envisaged as a place that was meant to keep stores
safe for the community and to hold its most sacred of places and
objects; fire must have been something to control and supervise very
carefully.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/403f8/403f8ce22a526fec73c8662cdf5cc45abfa9049a" alt="".jpg)
The science of
burning is yet another issue to consider. Everyone should know that
open fires in poorly ventilated spaces are a problem, as the carbon
monoxide combustion gases are deadly at higher concentrations. A
large fire could be a serious problem, requiring oxygen to maintain
its brilliance.
So one is left
wondering about the situation that must have remained gloomy, dim,
and smoky at best, with a small peat fire smouldering away 24/7 as it
did in the black house. The fire would have given off some heat and a
little light, but this would have been modest. The desire to consider a
beautiful, bright burning mass prevailing over the broch’s darkness
comes up against so many issues that one has to drop the idea and
revert to thinking about a black hole with the soft glow of the
flames of a peat fire and oil lamps lighting up and defining places
as needed.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5510a/5510a8640352a43d788c494d6bdec2bd0d219e9b" alt="".jpg)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c2cfd/c2cfd6a7071e71fd7c38cadb3b76ce6de69e3166" alt="".jpg)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9266f/9266f5afd7d824258448454ede03ef4111c0dc7b" alt=""
We have become used
to a bright world. It is not that long ago that everyone relied on
oil lamps and candles for light. The Tilley lamps offered a brighter
solution that even the invention of electricity struggled to match;
gas lighting was initially more effective. On visiting the sadly
relocated Macintosh house interior at Glasgow University - one of the
first of many terrible relocations that seem to rely on harsh,
rational logic for their raison detre to ‘protect’ a subtlety
that is more than tested# - one is astonished by its darkness. It has
electric lighting, but the spaces are lit by only a very few carbon
filament bulbs that, with their gentle, mellow glow, look more like
Christmas display lights than a source of illumination to aid life
and the conveniences it seeks: yet the place was apparently happily
occupied and considered ‘avant-garde.’*
#
Other relocated
interiors are:
Francis Bacon’s
studio interior, now in the Hugh Lane Gallery, Dublin: see -
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2013/01/bacons-sacrambled-studio-francis.html
Margaret Olley’s
home interior, now in the Tweed Regional Gallery in Murwillumbah,
Australia: see -
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2014/01/quilty-harding-and-accents.html
Frank Lloyd Wright’s
Kaufmann office interior, now again on display refurbished, in the
V&A in London: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2014/01/a-mere-shadow-of-quilt.html
All of these
beautiful, interesting interiors suffer from the destruction of their
context, with spectators being asked to view things as if nothing had
happened - but do not enter! The acceptability of this awkward
tension created by this transition to a display, a tableau, seems to
be made reasonable with the logic that it is better to have relocated
the things than to have lost them. One could argue that, if these
places have to be kept, they should be in their original location;
that it might have been better to have a photographic/video archive
than to put things through this trauma and leave them as dead, dusty
bits and pieces, lost, left to gawk at from an air conditioned
comfort infused with the amazement of the mechanics of the outcome
that has achieved this ‘real life’ museum/art gallery exhibit:
“Can you imagine
shifting all of that?”
“How did they get
it out?”
“How did they get
it back together?”
“It’s amazing
what can be achieved.”
Astonishment
supersedes and shapes the experience that is meant to be otherwise,
something of a homage. We are left with the pretence of a pastiche
for popular remembrance.
*
The Macintosh
interior can be entered and enjoyed, for a fee. It has been
reassembled into a Brutalist 1970s concrete building, the Hunterian
Art Gallery in Glasgow University, a massive structure that mocks the
considered, subtle delicacy of Mackintosh’s design. The exterior
tries hard to suggest a Macintosh presence, but is crude and
insensitive, with the front door left stranded some metres off the
ground level. The jibe ‘Mockintosh’ comes to mind.
NOTE
15 Jan 25
A THOUGHT
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a3172/a3172b7fb5adffdbfebd03f28d7ff44c7af5c848" alt="".jpg)
While one attends to
one aspect of the broch, it soon becomes clear that this is a complex
subject, raising other questions that need attention. Why were brochs
frequently built close to the sea and/or on prominent locations, or
both? This has been interpreted as lookout opportunities, or
locations for communication, but might it have been primarily to
facilitate defence? High ground is easier to protect than open, flat
country; and having one side of the broch protected naturally by the
sea allows a better control over the remainder of the perimeter. So
it is that one sees the Broch of Gurness in Orkney hugging a cliff;
and Muness sitting close to the rocky island edge. Brochs, if one
accepts that brochs were for stores and for spiritual uses, were
places that needed to be carefully protected; they held the future
viability of the whole community, its sustenance, both physical and
spiritual. Choosing a site by the sea or on raised ground would make
any attack more difficult; more specialised; itemised, as it were:
easier to manage. That these locations might also be good lookout
places seems to be an added bonus, an integral part of the sense in
this choice of siting. Such locations near water would also allow
construction items to be readily shipped in, and for ocean catches to
be more easily carried in for processing (e.g.
distribution/smoking/storage).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6dfc5/6dfc5a4e6610798dc92beee2ecc676085ebd298f" alt="".jpg)