Talk:Lunna House

Shetlopedia - The Shetland Encyclopaedia

Where is it?

Contents 1 Amorial ???? 2 Gate & Road 3 image wanted 4 Monument 5 uploaded stuff 6 North 'gate house structure' 7 Category A

Amorial ????

Is this a correct word?? Collins dictionary doesn't have it listed.
Robbie 10:22, 12 April 2007 (MDT)

Ancient query now, but I think I changed it to 'armorial' somewhere ? but where? and when ?Heimdal 17:18, 2 September 2007 (MDT)

... corrected 12 April 2007 by ... ;-) Islandhopper 17:22, 2 September 2007 (MDT)

Not by me on this page then :-))))Heimdal 17:27, 2 September 2007 (MDT)

Gate & Road

@Oddrun

>>>The old road that led stright up to the house can still be seen.<<<

When I visited the house I was told that both the gate and the "old road" have always been nothing else but another decorative landscape feature or folly what was supported by a number of facts like

• the gate actually is on the "wrong side" of the former path, now road to the booth
• if you would walk from the house go through the gate you will end up right on top of Chapel Knowe
• the styres on both sides of the gate were incorporated to allow access because the gate at one time was closed by a decorative iron gate
• the "old road" is laid out only in the lower part of the field to be visible from the house, but it is not tracable in the upper parts of the field (although marked as path in old maps for the whole distance between the booth road and the field wall in front of the house)
• in front of the house the "old road" would have ended up and been blocked by a natural ramp with an old fieldwall on top of it
• the main access road has always been via that road bending to the northeast, then bending back southeast and passing cottages/steading to the "back" (as normally understood as the "back" when approaching Lunna House)
• "old road", the gate, Chapel Knowe and Hunter's Monument form one coaxial assemblage looking down from the house (key view axix ... sorry the standard German architectural term would be "Sichtachse" but I don't find a proper translation for that ;-) )

I'm behind that feature for years now but the early architectural history of Shetland houses and haas is poorly documented (eg. compared with the big Orkney houses). Perhaps Mike Finnie would know better ... :-) Islandhopper 05:37, 2 September 2007 (MDT)

I'm a bit curious about all this... It's got my old braincell wondering ;-)
Looking at the pics of the old gate, and imagining what the house looked like before the ugly extensions, I tend to think that perhaps the info Oddrun is taking from may be reasonably correct. For several reasons.

• All old houses in Shetland, before proper roads were established had a path leading to a front gate, this may not have been the normal access route, but was the accepted 'visitors' access. Or as my Aunt used to call it, 'The ministers gate'. ;-)
  
• In as little as 40 years, proved by my parents house, all traces of the former path can disappear. In many cases by garden redesign, as in my parents case, or in this case by a field wall, or was that a wall built to raise and flatten the garden before the house, after the old path had been given up on, following the building of the extensions.??
  
• The gate and path are too narrow for a horse and cart, or pony and trap, so the other road would always have been in use, to the tradesmans entrance, and with that road getting better the old, 'posh' path would have been given up on.

Having said that, the positioning of the gate in relation to the knowe, did make me wonder, but I was left just assuming that it was like so many others, and just always been 'The Ministers Gate', as my aunt would say. Another weird thing is the styles, which are referred to as mounting stones?? OK most likely double use..
All very intriguing.. :-)
Robbie 06:12, 2 September 2007 (MDT)

Have you had a look on the highest magnification of Google Satellite pictures at this? It's far from clear by a long shot, but if you study the pic it "appears" the old road did go all the way up, but not in a straight line, it "appears" to veer off to the right and merge with a second road that runs off diagonally to the right and ends up at a structure at the head of the beach. The merged road "appears" to head up to the house and go past the right hand side (now carpark), rather than head directly to the house.

There's a dyke across it now certainly, but that dyke looks like a later addition, as there are visible remains of landscaping features within the immediate grounds of the house that are at odds with the dyke line. Also, I'm tempted to wonder which came first, the dyke with the gateway, or the road, looking from above neither seems at home with the other, the road looks out of place to the eye compared to everything else, which might suggests it was the later inclusion, making it as much a question was the road created later at the "back" of the dyke, or was the dyke built on the "wrong" side of the road.

Ghostrider 06:54, 2 September 2007 (MDT)

I did so before, Ghostrider, but today it was raining cats and dogs and so I did again (using GoogleEarth) ... Modern road constructions have spoiled a lot (!) but I do think that I now do understand the 19th century plannings on the grounds of that what existed. I have uploaded an exploring graph up here. We have

• the old Lunna road (yellow) passing by Lunna House in the west
• a path connecting both voes running from the lime kiln and pier on West Voe shores to the booth on the East Voe shore passing by the kirk in the north; this area is almoste destroyed by modern roadworks and car park but clear from the 1881 map.
• then we have that what I call the 'Manse path' - that's Ghostrider "diagonally running path". This path has no acces to the grounds of Lunna House, it follows the field walls on the outer side and below zhe embankment on which Lunna House was errected. Comparing the old OS map with the aerial view the field walls in this area were much altered past 1881! These more recent field walls do have a gate a bit out of the direction of the "feature road"; its clearly visible in Image:PicLunna3.jpg and most prossible the reason for the little bend to the right of the "feature road" which Ghostrider mentioned.
• then there are two access roads to Lunna House - a 'business route' to and through the outbuildings (deliveries only) and the 'main access' to Lunna House bypassing the outbuildings (more pleasant for guests ;-) )
• the most interesting technical feature that can be taken from the 1881 map is the narrow strecht of a field to the north of Lunna House and to the east of Lunna - it is exactly where the modern road runs along that stretch of plantation today, the road obviously planned in those days and the land used for it was measured and shown seperatly from the surrounding fields.

And now the architectural philosophy - imagine you were in a horse drawn carriage 1885 or early 1900 in a car - and follow the blue dotted line in the graph:

• you are approaching Lunna on the old Lunna road enjoying the view over West Voe to the Manse
• interruption by the planted shrubs to the left, you look to the right forwad to Lunna House seeing it like we are used to see it
• you go further on the Lunna road up to Lunna, passing Lunna close by or through it ... you turn to the right until you reach that still existing little plantation parallel to the modern road
• then you turn into the then newly built road with the shrubs as a "green gate" for the final approach to Lunna House ... you will enjoy nearly the same stunning view as in the Lunna-banner image ... a bit closer than that which was taken from a few 100 meters up the road but with both West Voe and East Voe adding to the sceene
• then you reach and turn around Lunna House (possible in 1881; not today) and you will enjoy the view over the landscaped features along the 'key view axix' ... a fantasy road, the gate of 'not-a-gate' with that little knowe of (original not modern manmade ;-) ) antique 'rubbish' behind the gate and the field walls climbing up the little hill from both voes pinpointing to Hunter's Monument on top of the hill.

It would have been an absolutely perfect architecture and landscaping concept, to 100% fitting to the time ... :-)))) A little but very interesting detail shown in the Google Satellite image: the lower part of the 'feature road' shows a shadow - its lower part was built on a dam or dyke so that it would be clearly visible when looking down from the house and not disappaering out of sight in that slight depression (similar as East Voe does in Oddrun's/Robbie's banner pic) ... the way may have been used as a kind of pleasure way to and from the kirk on a fine summer day at some time but I'm convinced it was never used as a main access to Lunna House ... bet a fiver :-) Islandhopper 17:07, 2 September 2007 (MDT)

Remember, one of the oil pipelines to SVT passes by the kirk and house, and this will show as a disturbed earth pattern on the G E images, don't let that confuse you !!Heimdal 17:25, 2 September 2007 (MDT)

Near the church??? I've always thought the Ninian pipeline makes its landfall at Grut Wick where a lot of bruck is around the modern road passing Loch of Grutwick ... and that would be well out of the area of discussion ... ;-) Islandhopper 19:02, 2 September 2007 (MDT)

@ Islandhopper. I see what your mean about what you term the Manse road, and the connecting road between east voe booth and west voe pier. When I was studying the satellite image earlier I was paying most attention to the immediate house surrounds, but having it laid out on the map it's easy to pick out on the satellite. In the various photos of the house available on the Web it's clear to see that the old "feature" road and the "manse" road meet, and it's equally clear there's a loop going up round the east side of the house from the general area of that meeting. However, as you say, to prove that that up-going loop is anything more than a result of the obviously later addition of the field gate in the dyke, can only be at best speculation.

It's an intriguing one, which may well stay that way unless perhaps somewhere like the Archives has documentation relating to it. I can see what you're saying about it possibly being there for decorative purposes, but I can also see where Robbie is coming from too, with it having the practical use of being a route reserved for "honoured" or "important" guests. In certain circles in times past, there was a certain protocol/prestige/respect in being invited to visit someone and to "come to the front door", which of course meant your approach was to be made from the front of the building all the way.

It's also a possibility to speculate about the banking that forms the immediate grounds of the house. To my eye it looks man made, if so, when was it formed and/or added to? It would have been a convenient place to dispose of excavated material from the foundations of one or more of the extensions. Might the top part of the road and/or possibly a set of steps or the like have been buried beneath, if the "feature" road had little or no practical purpose any longer.

I assume the pipe track Heimdal is referring to is what shows up as a generally green coloured track which makes land at a beach some distance to the NE of the house, travels south passing just outside the east sides of the house and kirk dykes, over the hill, across the road and twists and turns in a generally westerly direction before exiting via another beach heading in the general direction of Sullom.

Ghostrider 20:10, 2 September 2007 (MDT)

This pic shows the pipe track much better than my written description. Unfortunately the Museum site pic enlargement function is down, but the thumbnail shows it reasonably well. http://photos.shetland-museum.org.uk/index.php?a=wordsearch&s=item&key=Wczo4OiJQaXBlbGluZSI7&pg=2

Ghostrider 20:18, 2 September 2007 (MDT)

THX, Ghostrider, good to know, it's realy close by ... ;-) Wasn't aware of it; always thought the pipeline had its first landfall at Gur Wick and would just cross Lunna Ness somewhere close to it. Knowing now, where it should be its easy to detect it with Google ... ;-)

As to that feature: >>>with it having the practical use of being a route reserved for "honoured" or "important" guests. In certain circles in times past, there was a certain protocol/prestige/respect in being invited to visit someone and to "come to the front door", ...<<< I know, but that's just what made me mad from the very first moment, when I saw it. Well me ist not landed gentry, but I would like to compliment my important guests through such a represantative gate ... not turning from the major road to a minor road and then to an access road and then asking my visiting folks "please, turn around and watch my stunning gate" ... perhaps not enough of "blue blood" in my veins for this kind of humor ... :-) Such an artificial embankment around the house itself thus to seperate the building from the natural surround I do know as a typical feature of late 18th/19th century "castles" and manson houses: Balfour Castle on Shapinsay, Beauly Castle, Invernessshire ... Islandhopper 11:38, 3 September 2007 (MDT)

The gateway being on the "wrong" side of the road is a difficult one to make sense on, looking at it "as is", it being purely for decorative purposes, as you say, offers the only logical explanation. However, in what chronological order were all the component features we see today constructed, the basis of the house as we know it today was established in 1663, but appears to have replaced a previous Haa on the site, is anything we see today a remnant from the old Haa grounds which pre-dates the current house, when was the drying beach established and the booth built, when was the pier constructed in the West Voe, when was the feature road and gateway constructed?

I'm wondering, seeing as the history of the site goes so far back, *if* there could have been a time, either in the early days of the current house, or the latter of the old Haa whereby a situation existed that the gateway and feature road were in place, but there was no booth or pier, hence no need for a connecting road, and there were no roads per se in the area at all. With all visitors, important, or less so, who didn't arrive by sea, arriving over the hill on horseback or foot, thereby making the gateway very functional. A timeline establishing what was constructed and when, would go a long way towards confirming things, but I doubt if enough records exist to compile such a thing from.

From what we do have, your explanation makes a great deal of sense, and covers all bases, so it's what we should go with. I am largely playing devil's advocate here I know, simply due to the fact that the history of the site is so lengthy, with repeated builds and rebuilds, that you do wonder if WYSIWYG, or if something like the gateway and road now appears superficial and cosmetic, but only does so because it dates so far back numerous later works have made it that way.

Ghostrider 12:42, 3 September 2007 (MDT)

Just a little note about the road along the dyke, to the kitk.
In the details found in the kirk, it stated that "Before there was a road to the kirk, people came by boat", or something like that. As the kirk was built about 100 years after the house, I think we can safely ignore the road in any attempt to figure out the layout of the gate, path, etc..
Robbie 15:17, 3 September 2007 (MDT)

PS, The booth was built mid 18th Century, so again, no need for road to that until a long time after the house was built ;-)
Robbie 15:21, 3 September 2007 (MDT)

Absolutely agreed - turning round - absolutely disagreed ... ;-) (well, that's me, you know) ... ;-)
Everything we do discuss under the probable aspect of being a folly feature does not fit with the original building that's to say not even does it fit with the 1707 extensions. I don't know, when the Hunter's Monument was errected (if at that time or earlier) there would have been an architectural genius being active in Shetland who was some 50 years ahead of the continental traditions. I guess it took some time before they arrived in Shetland communicated by some folks who had travelled the continent, England or Scotland mainland before.
Lunna House was not made on one day or date (like planet earth, according to the bible it took a full week to develop this prototype ;-) ) and if ever possible we would have to sort out, when what feature was added and why ... If you have found more details, please let us know. Eg. look at "Gothic Cottage" - The so called 'Gothic revival' took place in the 19th century and later ... that feature might be much younger and refering to later phase of 'house development' than the monument and the gate which match with the "Belvederes" and follies added to so much castles and palaces. Looking at this from 1870 we might guess that the Lunna road just ended in front of Chapel Knowe ... climb over the knowe, pass the gate and ... oops, here we are. Then looking at the OS 1881 map for Lunna on Old OS maps we do find that very sophisticated system of roads and paths ... having in mind all the fish money earned by the landlord it's still unbeleavable. I do think that this is the key to the understanding of all that. Public knowledge in 1870 has one road to Lunna, topographic survey from 1881 shows a very detailed cultural landscape.
I don't have a reference for Hunter's Monument as being an 'early 18th century feature'. Sorry, I'm a continental, but the tradition of a personal 'memoria' in form of building a church is older than the tradition of building any other form of a monument.
My personal interpretation is: the Hunters built and extended the house, the built the church and added to the attraction of the site by building the monument. After Lunna House was sold to the Bruce family in 1893 the other features were added 'for the glory of the summer seat: Gothic Cottage would fit perfectly to the alterations between 1893 and 1910 the others might be the last contributions by the Hunter family ...
We will probably never know ... but that's some kind of living history ... :-))))
Folks, let's finish and give Oddrun a chance to finish the article adding all what she had found, for the moment its all more or less some kind of speculation of enthusiasts ;-). Then we might ask Mike Finnie to add his expert's view. I think there is no-one more familiar with Haas and Houses of Shetland than he is ... ;-))) If he will make an add it would be fine, if not we will ahve another interesting article on Shetopedia anyway ... ;- THX for interest ... Islandhopper 16:32, 3 September 2007 (MDT)

Spent a couple of hours today at university visiting my former place the institute of geography because they have better technique available than all of us together. The result after looking at infra red satellite images and doing some rough measurings on stereoscopic aerials is quite clear to me (now): WE WERE ALL RIGHT ... but at the same moment WE WERE ALL WRONG!!! The result is quite simple:

• The so called access road never was an access to the grounds of the house; it might have been used as a footpath for some time following some indications within its northern section; for all other uses it is unsuitable due to topographic reasons
• Despite that there was a direct land access from the south west; I followed the "modern road" up to about 2 1/2 mile into the hinterland and there are indications that it is more or less following an older track that can be traced at some places parallel to the "modern road" ... and from that track there was a track leading "directly" to the house, that's to say 'directly to the front of the 17th century Haa' with the last meters now without natural vegetation and sealed - for the last 50m or so some questions remain.

... in addition to that we found a lot of other details: there was an old access from the north leading to a structure to the east of the path which might be interpreted as a "gate house" or something like that (80% of the foundations still tracable in high resolution sattellite images - we used a resolution probably 10times better than GoogleEarth) ... from the infra red results the track from the booth to the manse seems to be of a more recent date than the remains of the link between the booth and the small harbour (which might match with Robbie's info that the folks visited the kirk by boat befor proper roads did exist) ... there is not only one "key view axis" to the south west ... at least all additions of the 19th century are placed equally distant from the main axis to the east and the west ... a similar 18th century concept does exist for the views from the windows of the 18th century extensions of the building ... with the now dominating outlying features built by the Bruces in the 19th century &c &c

the stuff we used today is strictly copyrighted, so I was not allowed to do some screen shots but now - knowing where to look for what - it should be easy to find some pics in the internet or in our own stuff confirming the findings ... tomorrow I will search again ... ;-) Islandhopper 15:47, 7 September 2007 (MDT)

image wanted

Oddrun, Robbie - do you have an image of the northwest elevation of Lunna house? ... that's the one with the flying buttresses (seen on the right on in front of the 'west wing') of the view of the northeast elevation ... ;-) Islandhopper 16:00, 4 September 2007 (MDT)

Sorry, no, I did not blow in that direction.....Cheers, Oddrun 22:36, 4 September 2007 (MDT)

Monument

It seems what's left today is only part of what this thing was originally, and even in this picture it looks like there may at one time have been yet more to the very top of it, as it has an apperance that something may have already broken off from there before this was taken.

http://photos.shetland-museum.org.uk/index.php?a=wordsearch&s=item&key=Wczo4OiJNb251bWVudCI7&pg=2

Just wondering if it would be appropriate to have something in the text to the effect that what's there now is in fact not the complete item?

Ghostrider 10:54, 5 September 2007 (MDT)

Possibly the top was removed by the good people of the district who didn't want a phalic symbol on the skyline :-)))))
Robbie 11:08, 5 September 2007 (MDT)

That, is a distinct possibility, I daresay some found it a little disconcerting. :-))))

Da auld fellow dat riggit yun up yunder man a been prood o' himsell I tink. ;-)

Ghostrider 11:23, 5 September 2007 (MDT)

'phalic' or not ;-) ... for some unknown reason this feature is by far more destroyed: in that picture still visible to the left are the battlemented flanking walls, which continue in dry-stone, extending downhill to the beach mentioned in some secondary publications by Historic Scotland but unfortunately there was no 'building report' for it published by Historic Scotland as for the other features when they updated their websites last month ... Islandhopper 15:43, 5 September 2007 (MDT)

Oooppps, I just realized what kind of people that were living in the area between 1940 and -45....there were a lot of bang-banging, and not only rabbit hunting....maybe they have tried some of their explosives on the monument....Someone in the area must know something. Maybe we shall ask Gary, I think he said sometime that his mother was in the local history group. Oddrun 22:52, 5 September 2007 (MDT)

uploaded stuff

@Oddrun
I have uploaded 3 pieces ( a graph, a fotomontage and a second graph) I want to incorporate in our Lunna page of our SchottlandPortal - feel free to use them, if you want. They are simply the result that we can't expect from our (mostly) German users that they log in to Historic Scotland to look for details which they don't understand due to lack of language capacity ... :-))))
Note: We allready have Melsetter House but focussing on the house, we will add Lunna House but focussing on the landscaping which is unique to the north of Inverness and then we will add Balfour Castle with both the house and its landscape setting and from that pointing back to details "what detail may be seen elsewhere in the Northern Isles" like the Sycamore plantation at Busta ... a longer lasting project ... was one year already ... may be another one ... ;-) Islandhopper 16:05, 5 September 2007 (MDT)

BDW: That was why I asked for the NW elevavtion ... because with its two (now one) flying buttress(es) and its unusual window settings breaking the eaves it might have been in interesting detail to reconstruct the views over the time ... ;-)

Nice graph and "pic up through the years"....but I'm confused...I have found only one graph...and if you with flying butresses means the thingy that is sticking up to the left of the wall with the armorial,,,,there is a similar one at the backside too..
As for the views, we should have taken more pictures in that area, but it was a VERY windy day, I had problems standing upright sometimes, ;-), nearly blew off a hill ;-)(I'm not so very heavy ;-)) I have some more, one is clearly showing the path to that water basin,,but not the basin...but there are no views down from the house...Robbie was sitting in the car when I was sneaking around the house, taking pics of the front, and I was just clic-clicking and ran back to take shelter !!
Cheers Oddrun 23:11, 5 September 2007 (MDT)

Right, that asparagus like thin thing ... :-) The other one is an that pic from the northeast, I know, but I just wanted to see how they were positioned esp. with regard to the catslide dormerheads above the upper windows of the NW elevation ... ;-) Islandhopper 05:04, 6 September 2007 (MDT)

North 'gate house structure'

What I called the 'north gate house structure' in my last post under "gates & pathes" is still visible here with the opposite (right) ashlar gate pierhead (in the Museum's pic behind the car) now incorporated into the more recent wall but still visible in one of our own pics here at hard right.

Category A

The article states that the complex is: Category A listed - that's to say it is a scheduled area of outstanding national and international interest. This is not strictly correct. There are two criteria used to justify A listing, not only national and international importance. The other reason concerns the level of modification which has taken place. I have no idea which criteria Lunna was deemed to satisfy, but the existing article text is misleading.

Historic Scotland's criteria are:

Category A: Buildings of national or international importance, either architectural or historic, or fine little-altered examples of some particular period, style or building type.

Category B: Buildings of regional or more than local importance, or major examples of some particular period, style or building type which may have been altered.

Category C(S): Buildings of local importance, lesser examples of any period, style or building type, as originally constructed or altered; and simple, traditional buildings which group well with others in categories A and B or are part of a planned group such as an estate or an industrial complex.

Buildings may also be linked in A or B class groups to indicate their position in relation to a wider set of buildings with which they form a related whole such as an industrial estate, an urban square or a village high street.

EM 10:46, 7 January 2008 (MST)

Thanks for pointing that out.
I think Islandhopper may have written that bit, so not sure where the info came from, as Historic Scotland clearly states that the house is Category B, some other features Category C.
Hopefully Islandhopper will be online later, and as old buildings just ain't my subject, I'll leave it to him.
However, my old rusty braincell tells me that there is something afoot to have the whole site designated Category A. I may be wrong but I'm sure I read that somewhere while researching something else. God knows where, as my braincell is always running at silly tangents. ;-) :-))))

Robbie 12:09, 7 January 2008 (MST)

Sorry folks, but the text is absolutely not misleading:
The text clearly says that the building itself is B-listed ...
Then the text continues Despite that the whole complex of the landscaped area including all built features is Category A listed (Group Category A in the following link) - that's to say it is a scheduled area of outstanding national and international interest. ... and that is absolutely in accordance with what is published by Historic Scotland listing records. ;-)
Don't see any problem at all ... ;-) Islandhopper 14:59, 7 January 2008 (MST)

[edit]
With regard to EM's last sentence the term schedulded area applies to the whole area marked in orange in the later following graph which itself is based on the same PASTMAP source and the register links provided there ... to compare zoom to the highest PASTMAP level ... ;-) Islandhopper 15:15, 7 January 2008 (MST)

Thanks IH,
That link's the article I remember seeing before. Beer maybe hasn't screwed all by memory cells after all ;-)
Robbie 15:42, 7 January 2008 (MST)

OK, it is clear that my point has been misinterpreted. I will elaborate further and explain why the text is misleading.

Firstly, there is nothing wrong or misleading concerning the category listings in the article for either the house or the group, that is quite clear. What is misleading is the statement: Category A listed - that's to say it is a scheduled area of outstanding national and international interest. This is misleading because it is factually incorrect. It is a malformed argument. If it said that due to being of national and international importance it is category A then it might be correct, but it is not true to say the reverse. The logic is very simple (and in this case absolute). Historic Scotlands criteria may be defined as follows:

• state1 = "is nationally or internationally important"
• state2 = "is little altered..."
• state3 = "is Category A"
• IF ( state1 OR state2 ) THEN state3 is true

It is incorrect to claim, as the contentious line does, that:

• state3 is true therefore state1 is true.

It could be the case that state3 is true due to state2 being true.

When listing buildings and groups Historic Scotland do not specify which of the two criteria have been satisfied, and there is no real need for them to do so. The important thing is that, for at least one of the criteria, importance has been established. The contentious line does, however, make a claim which perpetuates a common misconception regarding the reason for A listing generally. It also provides an absolute fact (namely the actual criteria used in the specific case of this group) which as far as I am aware is not generally known. If that fact is true then it is interesting to state, but either way the text as it stands is incorrect.

Now, I would agree entirely with anyone who said that this may seem to be hair-splitting and overly pedantic, but that is just what should be done with encyclopedias. Indeed it is the beauty of the Wiki technology that such gradual fine tuning of information can be achieved so efficiently.

Finally I will note that I do find the overuse of the term "absolutely" by IH a tad irritating. As I hope I have shown, it is absolutely not "absolutely not" ;-)

EM 09:03, 9 January 2008 (MST)

Well,,, I read and re-read the link Islandhopper posted. And at fear of falling into an argument with him again ;-)
I have to admit there is 'reasonable doubt'. Enough, for an uneducated person like myself to agree with EM.
Sorry Islandhopper, but there is 'absolutely' some doubt about that statement in the article. ;-)
And yes EM, it may be hair splitting, but we've split so many hairs here over the last 18 months, and pulled a lot out, that a little more hair splitting won't really matter. :-)))
Damn,,, now I know why I'm going bald... :-)))
Robbie 10:21, 9 January 2008 (MST)

PS, EM. I haven't forgot about your question on the Yoal paint scheme, some weeks/months ago. At the moment all I can find points to the paint following the top 2 boards until early to mid 20th century, when it would seem that there were changes in some districts. I'll put a message on your talk page when I gather all my bits of info together.Robbie 10:21, 9 January 2008 (MST)

For what it's worth, the casual observance of another uneducated one here. Firstly, I do agree with EM that the description of what constitutes Category A, as stated in the article is not the complete definition, therefor strictly speaking is incorrect.

However, is there really any need to record the omitted part of the definition in this case, as it's well known and documented, including in the article, that the subject of the Category A schedule, ie the house itself, has been significantly altered on numerous occasions, therefor the alternate criteria of 'little altered' cannot apply in this case? The facts, as known, regardless of comfirmation in writing from Historic Scotland, place it outwith the 'little altered' criteria, leaving only the 'national or international importance' criteria as the reason for Category A designation

Ghostrider 10:37, 9 January 2008 (MST)

I can only reiterate that it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia to include incorrect statements of fact. I personally don't think it is particularly important which (or indeed perhaps both) of the criteria was deemed to be reached, it is Category A which is most interesting. If it is known that the specific reason is due to the first criteria, then the text should say something like the alternate text I provided which does not mention the other criteria. Having said that, I don't think it is actually so clear. The modifications to the Category B house would not necessarily exclude the overall group from being considered a relatively unmodified group.

Having already been so pedantic on the logic it is interesting to consider the implications of the other "or" in Historic Scotland's definition text (which is here by the way). It says nationally or internationally. This begs the question "Which building could be considered internationally important but not also be nationally important?" Theoretically possible but I can't think of a possible candidate.

Something technical now. Why are the datestamps on these messages in MST?

EM 11:15, 9 January 2008 (MST)

Sorry again but the text does not say *state3 is true therefore state1 is true. The text says: state3 is true due to state1 being true ... with regard to the whole arrangement but not its individual features which are B/C listed only.

EM's say It could be the case that state3 is true due to state2 being true. is right within a theoretical discussion about defining categories ... but not applicable for the object in discussion, neither for individual features nor for the whole landscaped arrangement. Ghostrider got it ... ;-)

Never mind. I leave it up to you to find a better phrasing ... Islandhopper 11:25, 9 January 2008 (MST)

Are you pulling my leg? The words are as clear as day. I know English is not your native tongue and German verbs do come later in sentences and so on, but I can not see how you can interpret that's to say it is... as not being an unambiguous clarifying definition of the previous statement. Logically it constitutes a therefore given the order of the words. There is a world of difference between the expressions it is and due to being.

EM 11:55, 9 January 2008 (MST)

Naw, nobody pulls legs here,, except me sometimes ;-) Although normally I pull the pi*s ;-)
In attempt to moderate the debate:

EM, can you suggest how you would like to see the text written. That would be the easiest way forward. At least when we can see a suggested change in writing it may be easier for dumb brains like me to understand. :-)))
Robbie 15:25, 9 January 2008 (MST)

@EM
Please, change it the way you like it ... as long as it is in accordance with the registers ... and not telling that the building is A and the grounds are B-listed ... ;-) Do it or leave it ... over and out. Islandhopper 19:28, 9 January 2008 (MST)

I've given it some thought and what seems to me to be the best approach is to create four redirect pages Listed Buildings, Category A, Category B and Category C all pointing to the existing Historic Scotland article. The information about Historic Scotland's role in listing buildings, as well as the criteria for the categories could then be added to the Historic Scotland article. There are 349 listed buildings in Shetland (though the search engine strangely states 348) so it is not really feasible to list them. This [link] can be provided under External Links to generate a query for all Shetland, as well as a [link] to the top level search engine. It would be a good idea to mention the Lunna Category A group listing here as well as on the Lunna House page because the search engine does not really deal properly with group listings.

As for the Lunna House page the text:

Despite that the whole complex of the landscaped area including all built features is Category A listed - that's to say it is a scheduled area of outstanding national and international interest.

can be changed to:

Despite that, being considered of national or international importance, the whole landscaped area complex including all built features is Category A group listed.

Is this OK?

EM 14:47, 10 January 2008 (MST)

Thanks EM, That makes sense. "Group Listed" is the catch phrase which I was looking for, but my knackered old brain couldn't see it until you posted that.
The two sentences, as is, and as you have suggested, can be, and will be read by some, to mean exactly the same. But the difference is in the term "Group Listed"
I would say, go ahead and make the change. End of subject.. ;-)

But EM,,,, and this is a BIG but,,,, That listed buildings link has opened a real can of worms,,,,, Neither me or Oddrun have seen that before, and it's given us about a trillion ideas of how to improve/extend/interlink a lot of pages. It's also given us ammunition for the Churches & Chapels category.....
So thanks for many, many hours of research ahead ;-) ;-)
Robbie 15:29, 10 January 2008 (MST)

@EM:

Despite that, being considered of national or international importance, the whole landscaped area complex including all built features is Category A group listed.

altered to: Despite that, being considered of national or international importance, the whole landscaped area complex including all built features is a Category A listed group with items. ... with group with items being the term used by Historic Scotland in its Information Supplementary to the Statutory List ... ;-)

@Robbie:

For objects like churches of which you do know the location it might be better to work with PASTMAP in case you want to know more than just the name and the category listed. PASTMAP links directly to Historic Scotlands Information Supplementary to the Statutory List ... ;-) Use only the layer Listed Buildings ... much quicker then ... ;-) Islandhopper 18:58, 10 January 2008 (MST)

I'll try PASTMAP again, as well... afraid to say my pooter and it never saw eye to eye... Maybe that's because I don't like Internet Explorer.... ;-)))
Robbie 21:53, 10 January 2008 (MST)

I know. Pointed to the technical probs with the PASTMAP site within a different context ages ago ;-). EM already talked about the probs with the "smart" HS link he provided. When you search there for keyword=Lunna, council=Shetland Islands, parish=Nesting then 10 results are shown. At a first glance that result fits with the A listed "Lunna group" which includes 10 individual listed "buildings" ... BUT that result includes Lunnasting, Outrabister (HB Number 45281) which is not part of the "Lunna group" while on the other hand HB Number 45279 "Walled Garden", which is a part of the "Lunna group", is not shown among the search results. Quite common probs which can be sorted out when looking into the details :-)))) cheers Islandhopper 16:53, 11 January 2008 (MST)