In this chapter, I consider how archaeologists have
used visual representations to accompany discussions of landscape. In particular, I focus on recent
“postprocessual” considerations of landscape and
the forms of representation that have been used
to illustrate both theoretical points and landscape
case studies. I go on to consider how new virtual
methods of representation offer a way forward for
landscape studies.
The main recommendations of the Panel report can be summarised as follows: The Overall Picture: more needs to be understood about the process of acculturation of indigenous communities; about the Atlantic, Breton strand of Neolithisation; about the ‘how and why’ of the spread of Grooved Ware use and its associated practices and traditions; and about reactions to Continental Beaker novelties which appeared from the 25th century. The Detailed Picture: Our understanding of developments in different parts of Scotland is very uneven, with Shetland and the north-west mainland being in particular need of targeted research. Also, here and elsewhere in Scotland, the chronology of developments needs to be clarified, especially as regards developments in the Hebrides. Lifeways and Lifestyles: Research needs to be directed towards filling the substantial gaps in our understanding of: i) subsistence strategies; ii) landscape use (including issues of population size and distribution); iii) environmental change and its consequences – and in particular issues of sea level rise, peat formation and woodland regeneration; and iv) the nature and organisation of the places where people lived; and to track changes over time in all of these. Material Culture and Use of Resources: In addition to fine-tuning our characterisation of material culture and resource use (and its changes over the course of the Neolithic), we need to apply a wider range of analytical approaches in order to discover more about manufacture and use.Some basic questions still need to be addressed (e.g. the chronology of felsite use in Shetland; what kind of pottery was in use, c 3000–2500, in areas where Grooved Ware was not used, etc.) and are outlined in the relevant section of the document. Our knowledge of organic artefacts is very limited, so research in waterlogged contexts is desirable. Identity, Society, Belief Systems: Basic questions about the organisation of society need to be addressed: are we dealing with communities that started out as egalitarian, but (in some regions) became socially differentiated? Can we identify acculturated indigenous people? How much mobility, and what kind of mobility, was there at different times during the Neolithic? And our chronology of certain monument types and key sites (including the Ring of Brodgar, despite its recent excavation) requires to be clarified, especially since we now know that certain types of monument (including Clava cairns) were not built during the Neolithic. The way in which certain types of site (e.g. large palisaded enclosures) were used remains to be clarified. Research and methodological issues: There is still much ignorance of the results of past and current research, so more effective means of dissemination are required. Basic inventory information (e.g. the Scottish Human Remains Database) needs to be compiled, and Canmore and museum database information needs to be updated and expanded – and, where not already available online, placed online, preferably with a Scottish Neolithic e-hub that directs the enquirer to all the available sources of information. The Historic Scotland on-line radiocarbon date inventory needs to be resurrected and kept up to date. Under-used resources, including the rich aerial photography archive in the NMRS, need to have their potential fully exploited. Multi-disciplinary, collaborative research (and the application of GIS modelling to spatial data in order to process the results) is vital if we are to escape from the current ‘silo’ approach and address key research questions from a range of perspectives; and awareness of relevant research outside Scotland is essential if we are to avoid reinventing the wheel. Our perspective needs to encompass multi-scale approaches, so that ScARF Neolithic Panel Report iv developments within Scotland can be understood at a local, regional and wider level. Most importantly, the right questions need to be framed, and the right research strategies need to be developed, in order to extract the maximum amount of information about the Scottish Neolithic.
This paper builds on the recent aDNA results from Hazleton North chambered tomb to explore how people might have repeatedly negotiated kinship, descent, and affinity in Early Neolithic southern Britain. Hazleton North was constructed around 3700 cal bc , was in use for less than a century, and – unlike many other Cotswold-Severn tombs – was never modified to alter the arrangement of chambers. The aDNA analysis from 35 individuals whose remains were deposited at the site revealed that 27 were biologically related and represented five sequential generations. Here we explore changing practices across those generations. We argue that Hazleton North was constructed to demonstrate the vitality of a lineage at a specific moment in time while choices about who to entomb indicate an inclusive expansion of the lineage in the first two generations which is not evident during the remaining generations. We argue that by the third generation lineage members increasingly chose to dispose of the remains of their dead elsewhere. Hazleton North was built in a landscape rich in earlier tombs, many of which were modified to produce long cairns with multiple chambers: some of those formed opposed pairs similar to the chambered areas at Hazleton North. We argue this was part of a growing trend in ‘kinship work’ which accentuated lineal descent and sub-lineage distinctions in the centuries around 3700 cal bc . However, deposition at Hazleton North was short-lived. This can be set in the local context of not only the construction and use of further chambered tombs but also increasing investment in larger corporate projects like causewayed enclosures. These enclosures formed new arenas where negotiations of descent and community were played out with increased intensity and in different ways to activities at chambered tombs. Overall, we argue that kinship, affiliation, and belonging were repeatedly renegotiated among the monument building communities of Early Neolithic southern Britain.
This book provides a basic introduction to key debates in the study of hunter-gatherers, specifically from an anthropological perspective, but designed for an archaeological audience. Hunter-gatherers have been the focus of intense anthropological research and discussion over the last hundred years, and as such there is an enormous literature on communities all over the world. Yet, among the diverse range of peoples studied, there are a number of recurrent themes, including not only the way in which people make a living (hunting, gathering and fishing) but also striking similarities in other areas of life such as belief systems and social organisation. These themes are described and then explored through archaeological case-studies. The overarching theme throughout the volume is the use of ethnographic analogy, and how archaeologists should be critical in its use.
This paper discusses a form of Neolithic monument found in Ireland and western Britain. It is argued that ‘dolmens’ are a distinctive type of monument, where the key characteristic is the use of enormous capstones which were lifted up and displayed on smaller upright supporters. These monuments were not built in order to create a chamber area, but were displays of important stones and astonishing feats of engineering. Considerable social prestige could be gained or lost through the construction of these monuments, and the paper details some examples which clearly ended in disaster. Finally, this paper suggests that dolmen construction originated in France, amongst communities who had a long tradition of building with big stones. The idea that these monuments were part of a Neolithic package introduced into Britain some time around 4000 BC is also challenged.
This volume presents the methodology and results for the excavations at Cairnderry and Bargrennan, south-west Scotland. A comparative chapter compares the excavation results from both sites, and presents interpretations of these results, particularly in terms of the architecture and the early Bronze Age mortuary practices. Chapter 5 considers the architecture of Cairnderry and Bargrennan in terms of wider trends in the construction of chambered cairns throughout the British Isles and throughout the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Chapter 6 places the early Bronze Age activity at Cairnderry and Bargrennan within a local context by examining mortuary practices across Dumfries and Galloway. It focuses on comparisons with other sites where cremated bones were deposited and cinerary urns used and/or sites where cairns were constructed or re-used in the early Bronze Age. Chapter 7 provides a summary of conclusions as to the finds and revisits the problem of dating Bargrennan chambered cairns, before suggesting avenues for future research in Galloway. The appendices draw together the specialists reports on finds from the excavations (including a substantial contextualisation of some of the early Bronze Age artefacts), context descriptions and radiocarbon dating results.