Who made them, and why?

This article is dedicated to my father, for reasons that will become obvious, and to Robert Brydon, FSAScot,who passed along his own torch of inquiry on May 21, 2014

Only about 400 of Scotland’s 4,000-year-old carved stone balls have been found. They are of fairly uniform size, with the diameters of most measuring around 2.75 inches. Fitting nicely within the cupped hand, they are made from a variety of stone -- from soft sandstones to hard granitics. The numbers of projections or knobs range from between three and 160, with six knobs being by far the most common. They display varying degrees of workmanship. A few, like the remarkable Towie Stone, display beautifully intricate carvings, while others are unadorned. All but five of the stones have been found in Scotland, with the majority discovered in the Aberdeenshire area. Along with its vitrified forts and Loch Ness Monster, these carved stone balls take their place as one of Scotland’s most enduring mysteries, and never fail to excite the inquisitive mind. Although many theories have been presented, no one is sure who made them or why. In her exhaustive study of the balls, published in the 1976-77.

 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland, Dorothy N. Marshall reports their distribution “is much the same as that of the Pictish symbol stones which led to the original idea that the balls were of Pictish origin,” but goes on to say that the small collection found while excavating Skara Brae, a stone-built settlement in the Orkney Islands, place them firmly in the later Neolithic or New Stone Age period, which is too early for the Iron-Age Picts. Marshall also says, however, that the area where the majority of the balls were found “is also the area of good land which today, as well as in antiquity, can support the largest population,” an observation we’ll get back to later. First, as listed in Marshall’s paper, let’s look at the various theories about how the balls were used.

• J. Alexander Smith, in an 1876 paper, believed the balls had been attached to sticks and used as weapons. But Marshall counters, “when one appreciates the skill and time which has been used in the fashioning of these balls, it does not seem possible that the owner would have risked their loss or damage in war or chase.”

• Ludovic Mann also refuted Smith's belief in 1914, theorizing the balls were instead used as weights in primitive scales. While Marshall agrees that the balls’ general uniformity of size and weight lends some credence to the theory, she cites the opinion of Major Colville, a farmer in Kenya, who said his farm workers “were suspicious of weighing, preferring to have their meal issued to them by measure,” and felt that Neolithic people might feel the same.

• Marshall also relates the theory that the balls may have been used in competitive throwing games, but argues “if this had been the case surely more balls would have been chipped.”

• A fourth theory is that the balls were used as oracles by rolling them on the ground and interpreting the future from both the way they rolled and their positions at rest. Marshall admits that this theory is a possibility, “although the diversity of shape in the balls would make interpretation of the signs different too.”

• The last theory Marshall lists is that the balls may have been used as ceremonial speaking stones at important gatherings, with the right to speak given to the holder of the stone. Unsatisfied with any of the theories made before the publication of her paper, Marshall concludes her presentation by quoting the opinion of archaeologists Stuart Piggott and Glyn Daniel that the usage of the balls is still “wholly unknown.”