Chapter 3



Chapter 4

Dwelling in the Hebridean Neolithic

Settlement and material culture

The previous chapter was necessarily long, and primarily descriptive, in an attempt to present to the reader the full and diverse spectrum of activity for these sites – as excavated and published – and their prevalent interpretation. The purpose of this chapter will now be to bring together these different strands of evidence in an attempt to consider a Neolithic of the region which examines and appreciates this diversity. To achieve this I want to examine a series of themes that emerge from the sites, and how these provide a broader illustration of the character of life during this period. Introducing these themes, I would like to make some general observations concerning the evidence from the previous chapter and establish some questions and issues which will be addressed in this chapter.

Temporality and chronology

The first theme concerns the temporal relations between the different sites. This will first consider the different kinds of temporality suggested by individual sites, and secondly the chronological relationship, in absolute terms, between them. With the use of certain kinds of materials, the exploitation of particular places and resources, and the employment of specific subsistence strategies, each site represents a different kind of temporality. By this, I mean to examine the different temporal depths and rhythms embodied by each site, whether explicitly through the built form, or inadvertently, through the accumulation of settlement debris over time. This temporality may also be rhythmic in nature as in the seasonal occupation of a site in relation to particular subsistence strategies.

Ultimately this temporality relates to a particular kind of dwelling, a term which I will consider in greater detail below. Some sites endure for generations, although not necessarily visibly so, whilst others are brief, ephemeral and fleeting. In the context of a broader history for the region, what does this tell us about the significance constructed in or attached to particular places? Through this theme I will consider the varying degrees of temporality embodied by each site and how this relates to, or even derives from, the activities and landscape context of each site. This in turn will be related to the absolute chronology for the sites, examining available radiocarbon dates in an attempt to construct a settlement history for the region. Can we identify developments in the above themes through the Neolithic and do certain kinds of places, practices or kinds of dwelling become more important over this period than others?

Places and dwelling

Our next observation is that there is no single characteristic Neolithic settlement type or practice in the region, although we are only dealing with a handful of sites from a large geographic area spanning over one and a half thousand years. Thomas has highlighted that the Neolithic settlement of the British Isles is quite different to that of mainland Europe, lacking the tradition of large timber-framed buildings (J. Thomas 1997). At a more local level, Barclay has suggested that the people of the earlier Neolithic in Scotland “generally lived in small rectangular houses” (Barclay 1997, 144), highlighting comparable sites from Ireland (Barclay 1997). But as Noble has pointed out (Noble 2002), this is not reflected in the examples from the Outer Hebrides. There is a large amount of variability in the settlement evidence from the region, with only the latest phase at Eilean Domhnuill (itself not certainly Neolithic in date) showing evidence for these ‘characteristic’ rectilinear settlement structures. In fact if there is one thing that unites the settlement evidence from the Outer Hebrides it is the distinct absence of specific architectural features at almost all of the sites. Rather ‘architecture’, in terms of a framework for the activity that took place at these sites, is instead provided by the nature of the activities themselves, and particularly by the materials that came to be used and deposited through these activities. This is a complicated issue to understand, certainly given the emphasis on architecture that is prevalent in the construction of monuments from this period, as will be discussed later in the thesis. Rather, I want to suggest that these sites were defined through the attention to place that they inherently possessed, the embellishment of some of these places through repeated attention over time, and the role and location of these within the broader landscape.

We may understand this in terms of a ‘dwelling perspective’ (Ingold 2000). A dwelling perspective considers people’s engagement with the world and the ways that people and the world are constructed through this engagement. A dwelling perspective is the practical engagement of people with the world, the places that feature through this engagement, and the products – both physical and conceptual – of such engagement. In archaeology settlement invariably becomes a significant concern because it gives us points in the landscape - as dictated by survival - from which to consider a dwelling perspective. However, Ingold has highlighted some of the problems that this has created, particularly noting that a dwelling perspective should not be a perspective concerned with dwellings (Ingold 2000, 172-88). Rather, it is concerned with the processes of dwelling, of which settlement is just one part. The root of this problem, Ingold argues, is in the preference for choosing buildings as units of study. Distinguishing between a building perspective and a dwelling perspective, Ingold highlights the former as a pre-conceived framework through which people act. This framework may be physical in terms of an architectural structure, for example a house, but also considers the structuring framework through which engagement with the world takes place, “a world to which form and meaning have already been attached” (Ingold 2000, 153). A dwelling perspective on the other hand considers how such form and meaning continually undergo construction, and rather than shaping or determining the life activity of people, are themselves given shape only “within the current of their life activities” (Ingold 2000, 154).

The character of settlement in the Outer Hebrides arguably provides an ideal context for considering a dwelling perspective in the Neolithic precisely because it lacks the conventional architectural structures which have, according to Ingold, thwarted the archaeological study of dwelling. The nature and form of settlement is fluid and organic, continually being redefined and subject to new interpretations. A dwelling perspective may then be identifiable in the ad-hoc exploitation of places and materials that we witness in some of the settlement sites of the Hebridean Neolithic. Admittedly, we are concerned with only a handful of specific places, providing biases against a broader landscape perspective. However, we can see from the significance invested in some places, and equally the insignificance invested in others, that there are intricacies involved in the construction of place that are not fixed or pre-given. Furthermore, the ephemeral nature of the settlement remains points to a broader impression of dwelling in the Hebridean Neolithic that cannot be concerned with permanent or isolated points in the landscape. I will argue that these sites can only be understood in the context of some degree of mobility, alluding to a broader engagement with the world than purely at the site level. Such mobility is likely to have been closely related to subsistence.

Subsistence practices

As well as diverse characters of occupation, the settlement remains reveal variability in economic practice. Again this may to some degree be attributable to the large timescale and geographic range presented by the limited number of sites, as well as the varying degrees of preservation experienced by individual sites. The acidic peaty soils which have enveloped much of the region, affecting the majority of excavated sites, have limited the preservation of animal bone to only small amounts, although such conditions have proven conducive to the preservation of charred, and at Eilean Domhnuill waterlogged, plant remains. The potential for this missing evidence is highlighted by the quantities of animal bone found from excavations at Northton (Finlay 1984), owing to its situation in the dry alkali soils of the sandy machair coast. Despite these factors there is evidence overall for a broad economic base featuring hunting, gathering, fishing, pastoralism and cereal cultivation.

Subsistence practices highlight a broader engagement with the landscape, a certain kind of dwelling that is not restricted to the site level. Specifically, subsistence can perhaps be argued as the primary component of a dwelling perspective because it relates to the practical engagement of people with their surroundings (Ingold 2000, 186). This practical engagement results from and simultaneously constructs a familiarity of the landscape and an understanding of appropriate places for particular subsistence activities. The movement of deer and appropriate contexts and conditions where wild plants could be found, as well as the lochs, rivers and shores for certain fish and fowl, would all construct a particular dwelling perspective. This engagement would in some cases be more dynamic, such as in the reduction of woodland for fuel and building materials, or to provide good pasture for livestock and bracken to encourage deer grazing. With a shift to pastoralism, animals would have slowly made impacts upon the vegetation of the region and with their repeated movement through the landscape, paths would have been created. An altogether new dwelling perspective may perhaps be identified in the emergence and increased significance of cereal cultivation, highlighting new kinds of engagement and requiring longer term reference to particular parts of the landscape.

So in the context of the mixed economy highlighted above, we have to ask how the character and form of settlement related to these subsistence practices. Were particular sites influenced by certain subsistence practices and can we trace any developments in subsistence during this period? Furthermore, can we highlight particular kinds and scales of mobility in some sites, and conversely, times and places of permanence, as related to certain economic practices. This will be most notable in examples of cereal cultivation, but also in the use, and ultimately deposition, of certain kinds of materials.

The role and use of materials

In the absence of ‘conventional’ earlier Neolithic architecture, at least as has been suggested by Barclay (1997; 1998), many of the settlement sites from the Outer Hebrides seem primarily to be defined by the materials used there, rather than the architectural contexts which dictated or framed that use. These sites are represented by ashen and charcoal spreads along with midden material comprised of material culture, plant and animal remains, with only a scatter of post-holes and stake-holes, pits and walls between them. A key component of this material is pottery, most of the sites from the region featuring large quantities of pottery, much of it decorated. The use and deposition of certain forms of pottery would seem significant towards the construction of certain kinds of places and therefore cannot be seen purely as the products of the use of such places.

This is of crucial importance to the study of mobility and dwelling because, as Hoopes and Barnett have observed, although pottery is not restricted to sedentary populations its use is usually restricted to periods of sedentary activity (Hoopes and Barnett 1995). Ceramics then, like cereals, hint at a different kind of dwelling, highlighting longer term and perhaps more significant attentions to particular places. So why is it that pottery, often in considerable quantities, in varying condition and occasionally in quite particular contexts, comes to be deposited at settlement sites? Also what is the role and importance of pottery decoration and does this relate to the depositional contexts considered? Are certain pots suitable for certain places or vice versa? Furthermore are other forms of material culture, for example stone axes, afforded comparable significance in the construction and use of places? Such objects, especially when made with materials from exotic sources, highlight an engagement with a broader world and interaction beyond the islands that make up this region. In particular, the circulation, history and biography of such objects would have been integral to their significance, not only referencing a broader world but also a longer term history which transcended the life of the individual. With a broad introduction to themes in mind I now want to consider them each in more detail.

Temporality and chronology

If we are to explore the various relationships that exist between the individual sites discussed in the previous chapter, and the recurrent themes that they reveal, it will first be necessary to consider the temporal properties that they each exhibit. By this I mean two things, firstly the chronological situation of the sites, and secondly the temporal scales, or temporality, that they reveal. A total of 24 radiocarbon dates are available from five of the sites, over half of these from Eilean Domhnuill. All, however, are situated in a temporal sequence for the region that reveals on the one hand a longevity of attention to particular places and practices, and yet somewhat paradoxically a fleeting existence that is shifting, transient and ephemeral. Calibration curves are provided for all of the dates, created in OxCal v3.5, presented on a scale of 4200 to 2200 BC. Where date ranges are provided in the text, this is the date range of each sample with 95.4 % (two sigma levels) confidence.

Eilean Domhnuill

The good preservation of organics at Eilean Domhnuill led to the retrieval of a variety of materials suitable for radiocarbon dating and 13 samples provided dates for seven distinct elements of the site (figure 4.1 and table 4.1). The underwater excavations on the east part of the islet provided the earliest dates from the site, supporting the interpretation that this area predated the earliest excavated levels (Armit 1992; Mills et al. 2004; Brown nd.). Three dates were obtained, two from hazelnut shells (OxA-9084 and OxA-9086) dated to around 3660 to 3370 BC whilst one from heather (OxA-9085) was earlier at around 3790 to 3530 BC. Together, these dates suggest that occupation of the islet may pre-date 3500 BC, though the early date from OxA-9085 may result from the use of older heather, perhaps brought to the site with peat or turf for bedding, building material or fuel (Grinter 1999; Mills et al. 2004).

|Lab code |Material |Sample # |context |Date BP |

|OxA-9084 |hazelnut |ed 1003-1 |early, underwater |4735+45 |

|OxA-9085 |heather |ed 1003-2 |early, underwater |4895+50 |

|OxA-9086 |hazel nut |ed 2008-2 |early, underwater |4775+50 |

|OxA-9079 |carbonised barley seed |ed 681-2 |phase 9 hearth |4830+45 |

|OxA-9157 |carbonised barley seed |ed 681-1 |phase 9 hearth |4675+60 |

|OxA-9158 |carbonised barley seed |ed 592-1 |phase 8 hearth |4635+60 |

|OxA-9159 |carbonised barley seed |ed 592-2 |phase 8 hearth |4265+60 |

|OxA-9081 |alder charcoal |ed 279 |block 17 of phase 6 |4555+50 |

|OxA-9080 |birch charcoal |ed 293 |block 17 of phase 5 |4215+45 |

|OxA-9294 |carbonised barley seed |ed 295 |block 17 of phase 5 |4600+100 |

|OxA-9295 |carbonised barley seed |ed 346 |block 17 of phase 5 |4620+70 |

|OxA-9082 |birch charcoal |ed 183 |phase 4 |4010+45 |

|OxA-9083 |birch charcoal |ed 039 |phase 3 |4275+45 |

Table 4.1 Radiocarbon dates from Eilean Domhnuill (after Bronk Ramsey et al. 2000)

[pic]

Figure 4.1 Radiocarbon dates from Eilean Domhnuill (after Bronk Ramsey et al. 2000)

Phase nine was the earliest dated phase from the islet excavations, comparable to the hazelnut dates from the underwater excavations. Two samples of carbonised barley grains (OxA-9079 and OxA-9157) derived from the hearth of house J provided date ranges of 3710 to 3510 BC and 3640 to 3350 BC respectively. A further two dates from phase eight, again both carbonised barley seeds (OxA-9158 and OxA-9159) were obtained from the hearth of house I. One of these dates (OxA-9158) is contemporary to those from the previous phase, at around 3650 to 3100 BC. OxA-9159, however, is significantly later, around 3030 to 2620 BC and importantly, later than samples from subsequent phases. It remains difficult to account for this late date within the sequence of dates provided by the rest of the samples from the site. However, we should note the repeated dismantling and rebuilding of structures throughout the sites history and it is possible that the late date provided from this sample indicates the introduction of later material through this specific character of occupation, with house I of phase eight “truncated by [the succeeding] house H…[and also] under the entrance palisade of phase five” (Armit 1990a, 10). We should also note Ashmore’s observation that ages measured from barley grain may provide a good date for the grain but a less accurate date for the context from which the grain derives (Ashmore 2004c, 126).

Phase six is represented by a single sample of alder charcoal from house G, dated to 3500 to 3090 BC. The dating of phase five was one of the priorities of the dating programme for Eilean Domhnuill as this phase preceded the inundation of the site. One of three samples from this phase was birch charcoal (OxA-9080) and the other two were carbonised barley seeds (OxA-9294 and OxA-9295). The birch sample was significantly later, around 2910 to 2620 BC. The two carbonised barley seeds however provided comparable, although not particularly precise, date ranges of 3650 to 3000 BC and 3650 to 3050 BC. The chronological relationship between these three samples is uncertain but most likely reflects a long period of occupation for this particular phase, the birch charcoal sample OxA-9080 providing a terminus post quem for the formation of a lacustrine silt across the site between phases five and four.

The abandonment of the islet which this lacustrine deposit ultimately signifies lasted less than a century, occurring around 2800 to 2700 BC (Mills et al. 2004, 890), a single fragment of birch charcoal from phase four (OxA-9082) providing a date for the reoccupation of the islet between 2840 and 2400 BC. A single date, also from birch charcoal, was gained from phase three (OxA-9083) dating to 3020 to 2690 BC. This sample significantly predates the single sample from phase four, although environmental analysis at the site hints at one possible explanation for this (Mills et al. 2004). It is unlikely that wood was used as a fuel, instead turf or dung probably preferred. That the birch charcoal sample selected for the dating of this phase was not directly associated with a burning episode (such as from a hearth) but instead derived from a boulder-defined building (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2000) might indicate that this sample derived from old wood used in the building of the house from this phase. This suggestion is reinforced by the character of settlement on the islet, involving the deliberate dismantling of earlier structures in advance of the building of new ones.

Altogether, the dates from Eilean Domhnuill provide a relatively detailed chronological sequence for the site. The earliest excavated layers, phase nine and the underwater excavations, show that the islet was probably occupied before 3500 BC, and continued to provide a focus for settlement until the islet was flooded between 2800 and 2700 BC. Reoccupation of the islet took place shortly after 2700 BC where it continued to provide a focus for activity, but only until around 2600 BC. These dates provide a surprising length of attention to the islet, over a thousand years or forty generations, much longer than had originally been anticipated or should be expected from the ubiquity of ceramic styles from the site. They highlight the considerable sense of permanence that was invested in this place, even though the site itself may never have been permanently occupied.

Bharpa Carinish

The length of occupation exhibited by the radiocarbon dates from Eilean Domhnuill contrasts with the five dates that were obtained from Bharpa Carinish; four from the hearths and one from a pit underlying hearth three (figure 4.2 and table 4.2), all derived from hazel and birch charcoal. A single sample (GU-2669) provided a date range of 4550 to 4050 BC, which may represent residual charcoal. However, the close stratigraphic association of the sample with dated material over a thousand years younger, along with the unabraded nature of the charcoal, led the excavator to believe that this sample was a “statistical aberration” (Crone 1993, 370). The other dates are broadly comparable and suggest a concentrated period of activity between 3400 and 2800 BC. The large standard deviations for the dates, particularly GU-2671 and GU-2672, mean that we cannot state categorically whether the three hearths are contemporary, although the difference in ranges between GU-2670 (3310 to 2880 BC) and GU-2458 (3360 to 3010 BC) is relatively small. It is likely, however, that the hearths and associated structures represent a series of occupations spread over a concentrated period of time, rather than constituent elements of a single occupation, as has been suggested (J. Pollard 1998, 85).

|Lab code |Material |context |Date BP |

|GU-2670 |Charcoal |Deposit E, hearth 2 |4370+50 |

|GU-2671 |Charcoal |Spread D, hearth 3 |4430+100 |

|GU-2672 |Charcoal |F98, hearth 3 |4280+130 |

|GU-2458 |Charcoal |Spread B, hearth 1 |4490+50 |

|GU-2669 |Charcoal |Spread C, hearth 2 |5520+90 |

Table 4.2 Radiocarbon dates from Bharpa Carinish (after Crone 1993, 369-70)

[pic]

Figure 4.2 Radiocarbon dates from Bharpa Carinish (after Crone 1993, 369-70)

Northton

A single date was provided from the later Neolithic - Neolithic II - phase at Northton, derived from animal bone (BM-705). This sample provided a date range of 3350 to 2890 BC (figure 4.3 and table 4.3), predating the Beaker levels from the site by around eight hundred years (Burleigh et al. 1974, 61). With only a single sample, discussion can only be limited, although it falls into the later phases of the Eilean Domhnuill sequence and is broadly contemporary to the dates from Bharpa Carinish. This is supported by the similarities in material culture between Northton and Eilean Domhnuill, notably the considerable quantities of heavily decorated bowls and jars as well as Unstan-type vessels. New dates from the re-examination of the site for publication are clearly required and eagerly anticipated (Simpson et al. forthcoming).

|Lab code |Material |Context |Date BP |

|BM-705 |Animal bone |Deposit E, hearth 2 |4411+79 |

Table 4.3 Radiocarbon date from Northton (after Burleigh et al. 1974)

[pic]

Figure 4.3 Radiocarbon date from Northton (after Burleigh et al. 1974)

Rubh' a' Charnain Mhoir

Two radiocarbon dates were obtained from birch charcoal at Rubh' a' Charnain Mhoir (figure 4.4 and table 4.4), both from the shallow pit that provided the majority of material from the excavations. The dates were broadly comparable, providing a date range of 3350 to 2650 BC. These two dates, like that from Northton, coincide with the later dates from Eilean Domhnuill and the date ranges from Bharpa Carinish.

Figure 4.3 Radiocarbon date from Northton (after Burleigh et al. 1974)

|Lab code |Material |Context |Date BP |

|GU-7537 |Birch charcoal |Pit |4320+70 |

|GU-7538 |Birch charcoal |Pit |4400+80 |

Table 4.4 Radiocarbon dates from Rubh' a' Charnain Mhoir

(after A. Badcock pers. comm.)

[pic]

Figure 4.4 Radiocarbon dates from Rubh' a' Charnain Mhoir

(after A. Badcock pers. comm.)

Alt Chrisal

The three radiocarbon dates from Alt Chrisal all derive from the platform T26/T26A, gained from samples of birch charcoal (figure 4.5 and table 4.5). The earliest phase represented, phase 1b, has a date range of 3720 to 3370 BC (GU-3922), whilst phases four and five have date ranges of 3700 to 3100 BC (GU-3467) and 3360 to 2920 BC (GU-3923) respectively. Together, these three dates correspond to the earlier, pre-inundation, dates from Eilean Domhnuill. Although after calibration the samples from phases four and five experience large date ranges, like Eilean Domhnuill they suggest a significance for this location over a considerable period of time, perhaps as much as 600 years. However, unlike Eilean Domhnuill, a longer-term importance for this locale is also suggested by the later, Beaker presence at the site.

|Lab code |Material |Context |Date BP |

|GU-3467 |Birch charcoal |Context 536, Period I, Phase 4|4700+100 |

|GU-3923 |Birch charcoal |Context 524, Period I, Phase 5|4470+60 |

|GU-3922 |Birch charcoal |Context 564, Period I, Phase |4820+60 |

| | |1b | |

Table 4.5 Radiocarbon dates from Alt Chrisal

(after Branigan and Foster 1995, 51-2)

[pic]

Figure 4.5 Radiocarbon dates from Alt Chrisal (after Branigan and Foster 1995, 51-3)

Chronology and sequence

All the available radiocarbon dates can be said to fall into our conventional understanding of ‘the Neolithic’, i.e. from 4000 to 2500 BC (figure 4.6). There is, however, very limited evidence for general developments or changes during this time. Eilean Domhnuill, and to a lesser extent Alt Chrisal, span a substantial portion of this period with both exhibiting a relative uniformity in their character of settlement, although each reveal specific developments over time. Rubh' a' Charnain Mhoir and Bharpa Carinish on the other hand have more concentrated date ranges, each from the later half of the fourth millennium BC, although the relative lack of comparable sites and the limited number of available dates prevents a more detailed sequence to be constructed. The limited dates also conceal the longer-term picture from some of the sites, with both Northton and Alt Chrisal featuring continued occupation after the Neolithic period.

[pic]

Figure 4.6 Broad chronology of Hebridean settlement sites based on radiocarbon dates

It is difficult then to present a history or chronology for the region in terms of particular developments and it seems unlikely that any one character of settlement was superseded by another during our period of interest. However, we can observe particular developments at specific sites and perhaps more importantly an apparent distinction between two different characters of settlement over this time, each I would argue exhibit a different kind of temporality. As Ingold states (1993; 2000, 194), temporality is neither the order or ordering of events (chronology), nor the attempts to situate particular events within this order (history). Rather, temporality is a social process involving the way people act within a set of available possibilities. With this in mind I want to examine the settlement according to two different kinds of temporality: brief places in time and lasting places over time.

Brief places in time

Rubh' a' Charnain Mhoir and Bharpa Carinish both seem to represent brief and concentrated periods of activity. The brevity represented in the concentration of the radiocarbon dates from these sites is supported by the brief nature of their remains. At Rubh' a' Charnain Mhoir almost all of the material derived from a single shallow pit with only limited structural associations, almost certainly representing a single episode of activity, although of uncertain duration. Charcoal and pottery, along with a variety of lithic materials, some exotic, were placed in the shallow pit, providing what is probably the full temporal extent of the excavated activity from the site. Although the evidence from field-walking suggests that this pit does not represent the full extent of the Neolithic use of this locale, this would seem to have been an area that experienced only brief attention.

At Bharpa Carinish, the three hearths suggest a lengthier period of occupation, although as already mentioned it is uncertain whether these are all contemporary. However, this site was not especially long-lived, possibly for little more than a couple of generations, and the nature of the remains indicate that over this period the use of the site was fleeting and occasional. The vertical rather than horizontal build up and re-cutting of the hearths suggest that Bharpa Carinish did not provide the focus for permanent occupations, but rather was a revisited place featuring the re-use of already defined features, and only occasionally the construction of new ones. The impression is of a locale exploited opportunistically and infrequently, although this is not to deny an ultimate significance for the choice of locale, as suggested by its location near to a chambered long cairn.

This notion of the temporary exploitation of a locale is supported by the low quantities of material culture found at Bharpa Carinish, and their apparently even distribution across the site, with use of the site sufficiently restricted in time to prevent the build up of midden material, or the definition of areas through the construction of enduring super-structures, or the concentration of specific material residues. The presence of three distinct hearths may point to a longer-term interest in this locale, with some movement of features over time, but this was still short lived. In her interpretation of the remains at Bharpa Carinish, Crone suggests that they are likely to represent the residual remains of domestic structures, probably timber- or turf-defined, although she is hesitant to conclude whether these were from a short-lived transient occupation, or alternatively indicative of a more substantial settlement (Crone 1993, 380). She notes, however, that there was only limited evidence for earthfast structures at Eilean Domhnuill and suggests that the removal of walling from that site would produce remains comparable to those from Bharpa Carinish (Crone 1993, 379). However, if this was the case the removal of such features is significant and cannot be explained purely by the removal of stone for functional reasons. The nearby chambered long cairn would clearly have provided a more useful resource for building material. Bharpa Carinish also lacks the long-term attention invested in Eilean Domhnuill.

Ultimately the structures that did survive at the site provided no lasting sense of place and this is reflected in the concentration of activity in both time and space. If more substantial structures had once been constructed at Bharpa Carinish they were deliberately removed, and the activity and occupation that took place at the site was in itself as brief and ephemeral as the architectural remains that have survived, reduced to a series of small ashen spreads, three stone-defined hearths and a small amount of artefactual debris. Irrespective of the original nature of the structures and activity at Bharpa Carinish, the attention to the place is dwarfed by the attention placed upon the islet at Eilean Domhnuill and the platform at Alt Chrisal.

Lasting places over time

Eilean Domhnuill and Alt Chrisal are distinguished by the longevity of occupation that their radiocarbon dates reflect, each spanning several centuries. At Eilean Domhnuill we can see a history of use that has its origins in the mid-fourth millennium BC, although underwater excavations imply that these origins are undoubtedly older still. This history features the repeated construction, abandonment and reconstruction of ‘houses’ and other structures at the site over a period of at least a thousand years. Alt Chrisal, similarly, has a series of dates that span the later half of the fourth millennium BC, with Beaker re-use of the site signalling a longer use of this place. Northton cannot fully be considered in this context because of the single radiocarbon date that is available, although the dense concentration of material culture there and the continuity of occupation into the Beaker period and Bronze Age, suggest that it is more comparable to Eilean Domhnuill and Alt Chrisal than it is to Rubh' a' Charnain Mhoir and Bharpa Carinish. Eilean an Tighe has no radiocarbon dates, but similarly the quantity of the ceramics from the site would perhaps seem to place it in this category.

However, despite this longevity of use, these sites are very rarely defined by enduring or permanent structural remains. Eilean Domhnuill featured a series of structures that were slight and transient, and repeatedly rebuilt and redefined over time. There was evidence that the structures from some phases had been deliberately dismantled, whilst the flooding of the islet between phases five and four highlighted that it cannot have been permanently occupied. Like Bharpa Carinish, the structures were probably timber- or turf-defined with only a limited use of stone, although stone became more frequently used later in the Eilean Domhnuill sequence. Similarly, the evidence from Alt Chrisal and Eilean an Tighe was indicative of a series of apparently timber- and turf-defined structures that were by no means substantial and enduring. These sites then seem to have been the subject of long-term attention, but in the character of this attention existed only as a small part of longer-term strategies involving a movement between places, unlikely to represent a sedentary existence.

In fact we may suggest that all of the sites from the region are comparable in the transient nature of the occupations that they represent. The structures are consistently vague and the scattering of post-holes, pits and brief alignments of stone suggest that the houses that framed the activity at these places would originally have been constructed with timber, turf and only occasionally stone. The distinction lies in the particular attention to place that is manifest in their construction and use, and particularly the continuity of this attention over the longer term. It is the various attentions to place that are manifest in the settlement sites that will provide the second theme.

Places and dwelling

The Neolithic settlement sites from the Outer Hebrides each represent a different kind of place. Each is as much an artefact of when they were excavated and by whom as well as the different landscape developments that each has been subjected to over the past four and half thousand years, as they are artefacts of occupation during the Neolithic. Consequently, each site is quite different with direct comparisons between them difficult. This situation is made worse by the chronological resolution available, which I have just discussed in detail, with only a handful or radiocarbon dates from some sites, none from others and perhaps worse still, dates from some which span several human generations. Furthermore these sites, the majority from the island of North Uist, are all that we have to interpret the Neolithic settlement of a much larger geographic area, and complement the rich monumental evidence from this region that I will be discussing later.

However, it is this diversity which we should embrace and from which our understanding of the Hebridean Neolithic will ultimately benefit. With no characteristic settlement form of the Hebridean Neolithic, our study of settlement must then consider each particular manifestation of settlement in terms of the attitudes and practices that it individually exhibits. This is not to deny that broader patterns and models are achievable or desirable. Indeed, attempts to highlight broader patterns or models of settlement within this diversity can only help in terms of the future identification of more sites, as has been proposed for islet settlement on North Uist (Armit 1992; 1996) and South Uist (Henley 2002). Specifically, we must highlight general trends concerning the different kinds of places that were exploited in the Neolithic of the Outer Hebrides, and the different kinds of dwelling that these may represent. But these models must be situated within an appreciation of the variability exhibited by individual sites.

I want then to consider these different kinds of places and the different ways in which they are constructed and used. This will firstly consider the different ways in which architecture and structures are employed to define certain kinds of places, ultimately highlighting their limited role. From this I want to consider the other ways in which place is defined at each site, considering the context of the site and alternatives to architecture for defining place. Finally I want to highlight the different landscape locations of the sites, paving the way for the next theme which will consider the role of subsistence in defining these places, and the kinds of mobility that they might punctuated.

Architecture and structures

As I have already noted, the evidence for structural remains from the settlement sites of the Outer Hebrides is very limited. This is due to three reasons: the nature of site construction, the nature of site abandonment and the nature of post-depositional influences. It is the first two reasons that I want to consider here. The original nature of settlement did not seem to require substantial structures with only brief stone footings and intermittent timbers. Stone, for example, was only occasionally used, whilst timbers would seem to have provided only the most basic of frames from which other materials such as turf, peat, straw and wattle work were used to provide the remainder of the structure at any site. These sites contrast significantly with the settlement evidence from Orkney, primarily defined by stone structures, and the stone-built chambered cairns from the Outer Hebrides. It is clearly apparent that communities were capable of constructing stone built houses, so we must consider the implications for why it was that they did not, at least given the current range of evidence.

At Bharpa Carinish, Crone argued that the surviving remains probably represented a series of buildings with a turf superstructure and no earth fast elements (Crone 1993, 379). At Eilean Domhnuill, although subject to better preservation, evidence for walling was restricted to the latest phases with earlier architectural features confined to ‘fragmentary boulder wall footings’ (Armit in prep.). These footings, it has been argued, were unlikely to have supported coursed walling (Armit 1989, 9) with turf the most likely candidate for walling material. The use of turves, and peat, in the construction of sites raises some interesting questions concerning the broader nature of settlement. Although turf has a long history of use in Scotland, continuing in use for the construction of rural settlement until the eighteenth century (Fenton and Walker 1981; Martin 1999), its use has predominantly been in the construction of temporary, seasonal structures, notably shielings (Strachan 1999). With such structures turf is often used because it is readily available and provides a quick means for constructing upon a predefined foundation, requiring only a limited use of stone.

[pic]

Figure 4.7 Illustration of shieling (after Stewart 1996, 21)

Turf-built houses are constructed to satisfy a number of needs, examples of which cited by Strachan include the need to move as resources were exhausted and the value placed on organic building materials to facilitate both future rebuilding and the recycling of building materials for other purposes such as fuel, fodder and fertiliser (Strachan 1999). Most important, however, was that the structure satisfied the needs associated with a mobile lifestyle, specifically a lifestyle that was rooted in pastoral mobility. The main example of turf-built structures provided by Strachan is the Airidhean, or timber-roofed shieling (figure 4.7). Here stone footings were limited and seldom earthfast, and “the walling material consist[ed] primarily of turf if so required” (Strachan 1999). Roofing was usually provided by a thatch of straw or grass, or by turf, requiring a bare minimum of supporting timbers. These timbers often provided the most invaluable - and irreplaceable - element of the structure, frequently removed after the site was abandoned and retained for future use.

We should not hurry to make direct analogies between the Neolithic settlement sites of the previous chapter and these relatively modern shielings. We should be particularly cautious because the form and use of the shieling are intimately bound up in the lifestyle of the people who built them, in turn shaped by the particular locations in which they are built and the specific economies to which they relate, in most examples a seasonal migration concentrated on dairying. However, there are connections between the two - in terms of the architectural elements adopted, the materials used for construction and a particular way of life - that I think should be highlighted. If the shielings referred to by Strachan were removed to the foundations the remains would be comparable to those from the Neolithic I have discussed. Indeed, Strachan observes for even recent examples that “the identification of the shielings can be fraught as building for their temporary function has resulted in the rapid loss of the more fragile matter, principally turf, used in their construction”, an observation that is considerably relevant to our settlement sites of the Neolithic. Can we highlight comparisons then not only between forms of architecture but their function? Although specifics concerning the form of shielings, and the associated way of life, may not be appropriate here, broader themes such as a pastoral way of life may be directly relevant to our interpretation of the Neolithic examples.

With both the Neolithic and modern examples, an important part of their life history is concerned with abandonment, which may be responsible for the insubstantial remains we are left with. The timbers from shielings were often deliberately removed and retained because they were difficult to replace, especially given the scarcity of timber in large parts of highland Scotland. Turf and stone on the other hand were commonly and quickly available and consequently often left in situ. However, these were deconstructed in particular ways to facilitate rebuilding when returned to. This pattern of abandonment may be suggested at some of the archaeological examples. Interpreting the remains at Bharpa Carinish, Crone has suggested that the more substantial components of the site, such as large timbers, may have been removed and retained upon abandonment. Armit has proposed that “each structure [at Eilean Domhnuill] had been dismantled to its foundations” (Armit in prep.) whilst there was evidence from houses G and H that the boulder footings for the house walls were almost entirely removed, the house plan visible in the extent of ashen spread from the house interior (Armit 1989, 9).

It seems difficult to deny the active role for deconstruction at these sites, one that is perhaps bound up in the life history of such structures or places, and particular ways of dwelling at these places and in the broader landscape? To investigate this possibility I want to examine the particular ways, as well as architecture, in which the places discussed in the previous chapter were constructed.

Attention to place: context or association?

In my earlier consideration of the dwelling perspective I suggested, after Ingold, that one of the problems with archaeological attempts to consider dwelling was a prevalent concern with built places. I want then to consider the other ways in which places are constructed. Following on from this idea, I also want to examine how these places are involved in the construction - or playing out - of different kinds of dwelling. Ultimately these would also be built or constructed forms. However, as different kinds of construction we can perhaps begin to step outside of the house as our focal point for settlement towards a broader concept of dwelling in a Neolithic world.

As an extension of - and closely related to - the two kinds of temporality discussed, I want to consider a distinction between two different kinds of place that define Neolithic settlement in the Outer Hebrides: places of permanence and places of transience, each of these representing different kinds of dwelling. With this distinction we are not focusing on the built form of the settlement, but rather are considering the contexts for settlement and the significance of these contexts over time. Our places of permanence may be related to what Tilley refers to as ‘locales’, “places created and known through common experiences, symbols and meanings” (Tilley 1994, 18). Of course neither locales, nor places of permanence, are restricted to settlement sites. However, this distinction is useful in highlighting the broader landscape context of such settlement. Places of permanence represent a kind of dwelling that is rooted in particular places in the landscape, providing contexts of permanence in what may otherwise have been a transient lifestyle. In particular, it is the context of settlement in places of permanence that is often key to the permanence that they come to embody, this context often constructed. At Eilean Domhnuill this context is provided by its location on an islet constructed within a loch, whilst at Alt Chrisal this is a platform built into the hillside. This permanence is manifest then in both the context for occupation (place) and the length of occupation that each exhibits (time). But at neither of these places is this ‘permanence’ permanent.

At both sites there is a significance attached to place yet a similar permanence - or significance of place - may be suggested for the other, less substantial sites. At Bharpa Carinish this is provided by the nearby chambered cairn of Carinish. However, this ‘permanence’ is less enduring and powerful, and we can suggest that the attitude to place embodied at this site is one of association rather than context, specifically association with the chambered long cairn. This is not to deny a significance embedded in these places, one that was ultimately responsible for the location of settlement there, but that this significance was not sufficient to ensure the prolonged attention to these places over time. Places where the context for settlement is not constructed are ultimately temporary. Remains are ephemeral and activity is short-lived. These sites represent a form of dwelling that is itself temporary and mobile, where certain places may only have been used on a limited number of occasions and then probably only for short periods of time.

At Eilean Domhnuill however, this significance was constructed. This construction was either through the embellishment of an established small, natural islet, or through the construction of a completely artificial islet within Loch Olabhat (Armit 1992, 309). It is doubtful that the initial occupiers of Eilean Domhnuill envisaged the long history of use that would follow, but we can envisage that the significance that they perceived, and in turn invested in this place was considerable enough to endure. Similarly, at Alt Chrisal the levelling of a platform into the hillside was to provide a locale for activity that was to last for several hundred years. We will see later how at both Eilean Domhnuill, and to a lesser extent Alt Chrisal, this construction of significance was perpetually reinforced through the use - and particularly the deposition - of certain materials, and through the building, dismantling and rebuilding of structures with reference to previous occupations. In other words, as well as a sense of temporality, these sites also had a sense of history. The significance of these places over time was directly related to this history.

[pic]

Figure 4.8 Phases six to eight at Eilean Domhnuill (after Armit 1990, 11)

Eilean Domhnuill exists today as the result of a series of occupations superimposed over each other, where occupation debris and the remains of structures and floors are levelled and rebuilt upon over hundreds of years. The construction of new structures involved digging postholes into the residues of previous occupation, clearing floor deposits and debris, dismantling old walls to make new ones. But as I began to suggest earlier, this was not ad hoc demolition or reoccupation. Each phase reflected and respected the previous one. Figure 4.8 shows the shift from west to east across the islet as the structure of each phase shifted eastwards in relation to the location of the previous phase. Hearths within individual structures were also moved, horizontally, each new one cut into the ash-rich accumulation of the previous (Armit 1989, 10). Despite the apparently deliberate dismantling of each structure to its foundations, it was surprising that “in seemingly all excavated cases the hearths of these buildings had been left intact” (Armit in prep.). This contrasts with the examples from Bharpa Carinish where reoccupation involved the re-cutting and reuse of the existing hearths (Crone 1993, 376). At T26A, Alt Chrisal, the construction of the main hearth in phase three directly overlay that from phase two, although the orientation and form of the later hearth was slightly different. It seems that it was appropriate for this hearth to reference the previous hearth, yet it was not acceptable simply to reuse it. A sense of history and permanence was invested in this site, a sense that was lacking at sites like Bharpa Carinish.

So in considering the context of settlement, and the distinction between contexts of permanence and transience, we can begin to move away from the built form as the focus for considering settlement and dwelling. We can begin to see a distinction between contexts that are constructed, and contexts of association, and from this distinction we can begin to see how some places come to be used for generations, whilst others were used in response to more transient requirements. We can perhaps go further by considering the landscape context of sites, and begin to consider the kinds and scales of settlement mobility that they might signify.

In his original interpretation of the Neolithic settlement of the Outer Hebrides, Armit considered that there were three different kinds of settlement according to their location within the landscape: coastal or machair sites, peatland sites and islet sites (Armit 1996). In this interpretation, Armit suggested that “it is possible that islet settlements like Eilean Domhnuill were permanent bases, occupied all year round, whilst the coastal and peatland sites were more transient or seasonal activity areas” (Armit 1996, 57). This highlights movement around the landscape and the exploitation of different parts of the landscape at different times. It also offers an interpretation of the islet sites that suggests they provided a stable, sedentary basis from which only limited mobility took place, involving the occasional movement into the hills and the coasts for the particular resources that they offered.

However, there are problems with this threefold classification of the sites, and the inherent settlement model that they provide. For example, Alt Chrisal may be considered to fall into both coastal and peatland categories, as might the site of Rubh’ a’ Charnain Mhoir. Armit concedes that the real distinction may lie between the islet sites and the non-islet sites, the latter he suggests “appear to have more in common with Mesolithic settlements even though they were clearly occupied by communities with some commitment to farming” (Armit 1996, 57) . This viewpoint has privileged the evidence from Eilean Domhnuill, with the evidence from the islet site of Eilean an Tighe not dissimilar to the ephemeral remains from sites like Bharpa Carinish and Northton. However, the location of settlement upon an islet, whether natural as at Eilean an Tighe and Loch a’ Choire, or artificial as may be the case at Eilean Domhnuill, is clearly a significant act and the decision at Eilean Domhnuill for this settlement to continue for over a thousand years emphasises this significance. However, the interpretation of islet sites as ‘permanent bases occupied all year round’ can be challenged. To understand this we must consider the specific modes of subsistence in this period and how this shaped mobility and the use of certain settlement locales.

Subsistence practices and mobility

If we are to challenge the settlement model offered by Armit (1989; 1992; 1996), we must be aware of some of the assumptions that have influenced, and continue to influence, our interpretation of the Neolithic period in this region. As Whittle (1997) has highlighted, reluctance in Neolithic studies to model or define specific kinds of mobility during the Neolithic may, in part, derive from limited and generalising concepts of subsistence. In particular, Whittle has suggested that the root of this problem may be found in the emphasis in past studies upon an evolutionary trend towards sedentism, a perspective that has relegated the study of mobility to specialised, secondary developments, often interpreted as a response to localised stresses (Whittle 1997, 16-17).

We can observe some of these generalisations in recent studies on the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition of western Scotland (Armit and Finlayson 1992; 1995; 1996). In an attempt to move away from the passive role for Mesolithic populations, as provided in the transition models of Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy (e.g. Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy 1984), Armit and Finlayson fail to account for or explain the scale and character of agriculture. To some extent this may be deliberate, stating “it has not been our intention to discuss a definition of the Mesolithic, but rather to consider the relationship between post-glacial hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers” (Armit and Finlayson 1992, 672). Their intention is desirable because by refusing to define the Mesolithic they have attempted to play down some of the biases and generalisations inherent in the evolutionary models provided by Zvelebil, Rowley-Conwy and others. However, in sacrificing detail and definition to highlight a diverse rather uniform ‘Mesolithic’, they instead seem to have highlighted the Neolithic as a single entity synonymous with farming, and farming as an assumed and undefined economic practice. Furthermore, Armit and Finlayson go on to state that ‘subsistence economy is wholly distinct from social organization’ (1992, 674). This can perhaps be seen as a broader post-processual agenda which has, in attempting to escape the broad sweeping economic and environmental generalisations offered in previous years, afforded only limited attention to economic aspects of social life. I would argue that our recent studies have thrown the food out with processual carrier bag. In particular, the different kinds of settlement and dwelling highlighted above derive from forms of dwelling which are intimately related to, although not exclusively determined by, various kinds of economic practice.

These economic practices would have involved and required particular engagements with the world, essential to which would have been some degree of mobility. Such mobility is an integral part of dwelling and one that enables us to make the transition from dwelling as ‘being’, towards dwelling as ‘being-in-the-world’ (Tilley 1994, 12; J. Thomas 1996a, 65; Ingold 2000, 185). Ingold suggests that dwelling in the world entails movement between places in a network of comings and goings (Ingold 2000, 155). When these places are not themselves fixed and permanent, as may be the case with the Neolithic settlement sites, then the process of movement itself becomes a form of practical engagement with the world, an act of dwelling. In particular, this would have involved movement associated with animals, both the hunting of wild animals and movement with domesticated animals, as well as the fishing of freshwater and seawater fish and shellfish. I want to examine in turn these different kinds of movements and the respective roles of these different components in the Neolithic economy. I want to consider the various influences of wild plants and animals, domesticated animals and cereals and specifically begin to suggest, as forms of practical engagement with the world, how these may have shaped the settlement forms considered above and the mobility these would have been a part of.

Wild resources – hunting, gathering and collecting

In his study of the Hebridean Neolithic, Armit acknowledged that wild resources would probably have still contributed significantly to the Neolithic economy, particularly fishing and fowling (Armit 1996, 62). In the analysis of charred and water logged plant remains from Eilean Domhnuill, Grinter argues that the foraging and collection of wild plants “would have had an important role to play in the economy” (Grinter 1999, 61). Charred and waterlogged hazelnut shells were found across the site, in addition to other wild berries and seeds. A similar range of wild foodstuffs was found at Alt Chrisal (Boardman in Branigan and Foster 1995, 152), whilst hazelnut shell fragments were also found at Bharpa Carinish along with crab apple pips (Boardman in Crone 1993, 375). Furthermore, three fragments of hazelnut shell from the topsoil underlying the chambered cairn of Geirisclett on North Uist, along with other carbonised material, has been thought to represent middening of the ground surface with domestic hearth refuse prior to the construction of the cairn (Church and Cressey 1999). Whilst we can and should be critical about the role of wild resources in this period as suggested by archaeobotanical remains (G. Jones 2000), the presence of hazelnut shells at these sites points to the collection of this plant for some use, if not contributing significantly to diet. We may observe other uses for wild plants, and Grinter highlights the medicinal properties for many of the wild plants found at Eilean Domhnuill (Grinter 1999, 56), an intimate knowledge of which is more recently evident in Martin Martin’s accounts from the region in the seventeenth century (Martin 1999).

Evidence for the exploitation of wild animals is less convincing, where an animal bone assemblage of over three thousand pieces from Eilean Domhnuill contained only a single red deer tooth and one piece of worked antler (Hallén nd.). Red deer was only slightly more abundant in the Neolithic levels at Northton, with 17 fragments (from a single animal) and six teeth providing 5.9% of the animal bone from this phase (Finlay 1984, 189-90). An antler macehead was also found (Simpson 1976), the only such example outside Orkney (Simpson and Ransom 1992, 229). In contrast, red deer represented 41.4% and 31.5% of the animal bone from the two beaker phases at the site, and 82.6% of the bone assemblage from the earliest Iron Age levels (Finlay 1984). It would seem, at least from the available bone evidence, that the hunting of wild animals provided only a limited component of the economic base in the Hebridean Neolithic. This is to some extent paralleled in the evidence from Orkney where most sites produce only limited numbers of red deer bone, although large quantities have been found at a restricted number of sites (Sharples 2000). Sharples highlights the differential quantities of red deer bone at certain sites, noting that large quantities can be found at some, exceptional sites whilst they are often excluded from other depositional contexts, notably henges and causewayed enclosures (Sharples 2000, 114). A single tusk, probably from a wild boar, was recovered from Northton whilst there is a possible fragment of pig skull at Eilean Domhnuill, although Finlay has noted that pig does not appear in significant quantities in the region until the Bronze Age (Finlay 1984, 35). Whale bone was represented in the bone assemblages at both Northton and Eilean Domhnuill, although these would most probably be restricted to the opportunist exploitation of beached whales (Armit 1996, 64). Fragments of seal bone and seal teeth found at Northton may, however, point to a more active exploitation of marine fauna (Finlay 1984).

There is also evidence from the region for fishing and fowling, with seaduck and redshank at Eilean Domhnuill (Hallén nd.), and shag, gannet, guillemot, puffin, redshank and gull at Northton (Finlay 1984). At Northton evidence for fishing was provided by four fragments of fishbone including a fragment of conger eel jaw, and at Alt Chrisal worked pieces of pumice have been interpreted as fishing floats (Newton and Dugmore in Branigan and Foster 1995, 148). A variety of fish species were recovered from excavations at the chambered cairn of Geirisclett, and although stratigraphically related to the Neolithic exploitation of the cairn (I. Armit pers. comm.), the assemblage is indicative of animal activity probably representing offal and faeces from a coastal otter holt (Cerón-Carrasco 1999). A substantial shellfish assemblage was also found at Northton with cockle dominating, but limpet, dog whelk and mussel also represented (Evans 1971, 60-1). However, the fragmentary nature of fish, shellfish and seabird bone, combined with the acidic soils at most of the sites, probably means that these are underrepresented at the other sites.

[pic]

Figure 4.9 Proportions of animal bone by fragments from Northton and Eilean Domhnuill (after Finlay 1984, table 17 and Hallén nd., table 1i)

Pastoralism and the role of animals

There is considerably more evidence for the exploitation of domesticated animals with cattle and sheep dominating the animal bone assemblages from both Northton and Eilean Domhnuill (figure 4.9), and some calcined sheep or goat bone also found at the chambered cairn of Clettraval (Jackson in W. L. Scott 1935, 499). At Northton, 219 fragments of sheep bone and 195 sheep teeth represented 75.5% of the animal bones from the Neolithic levels at the site, a further 18.6% represented by 54 fragments of cattle bone and 116 cattle teeth (Finlay 1984, 189-90). The age profile of the sheep bones suggests ‘a double-peaked kill-off pattern’, where the bones predominantly represent individuals under a year and over 30 months old (figure 4.10a). This is supported by the evidence from sheep teeth where the majority of teeth derived from individuals under a year and over forty months (figure 4.10b). This age pattern is suggestive of “a subsistence economy where surplus animals are culled at around a year old before the winter, while the older animals are maintained to replenish the flock” (Finlay 1984, 54).

a [pic]b [pic]

Figure 4.10 Age profile of sheep from Northton a. epiphyseal fusion data (Finlay 1984, table 23), b. sheep tooth eruption (Finlay 1984, table 25)

This pattern is contrasted with the age-profile of the cattle bones, although a smaller sample is available (figure 4.11a). The majority of cattle from Northton were culled before eighteen months old suggesting that they were not being exploited for their meat, but killed before reaching full meat weight (i.e. 36 to 48 months). It has been suggested from similar cattle mortuary profiles in eastern and southern Africa that the culling of immature cattle is unlikely to represent a subsistence practice “but rather the emphasis is on their growth and reproduction” (Reid 1996, 50). This is particularly commonplace in pastoral economies, with such practice concerned with either milking or dairying, or the management of cattle in socio-political relations (Reid 1996, 51-5).

a[pic] b[pic]

Figure 4.11 Epiphyseal fusion data of a. cattle from Northton (Finlay 1984, table 24), b. sheep from Eilean Domhnuill (Hallén nd., table 2)

The domesticated animal bone from Eilean Domhnuill is broadly comparable to that from Northton, although the quantities are smaller (Hallén nd.). At Eilean Domhnuill, sheep also dominated throughout the sequence, with the exception of phase seven in which cattle was prevalent (Hallén nd., diagrams 1 and 2). We can observe a broad transition in the animal bone sequence at Eilean Domhnuill, from slaughter bones to meat bones, representing a shift from butchery to consumption on the site, which has been argued to suggest a “change in economy from one based on domestic production to a more centralized economy” (Hallén nd., 6). The age profile of sheep epiphyseal data from Eilean Domhnuill (figure 4.11b) is not comparable to the ‘double kill-off’ pattern for sheep from Northton, Hallén commenting that “the sheep bones are almost all from young sheep that have not reached adulthood” (Hallén nd., 8), although only a small sample is available. Comparison of the Eilean Domhnuill sheep bones with examples from other sites suggest that the sheep were of a primitive form, similar to mouflon, and possibly only recently domesticated (Hallén nd., 8). Hallén goes on to suggest that it would be unlikely for this primitive form of sheep to have had wool, which combined with the young age structure of the assemblage suggests that the sheep were being exploited for meat and hides (Hallén nd., 9).

Arable agriculture and a time for cereals

Three of the settlement sites from the Outer Hebrides have produced cereal grains, Bharpa Carinish, Alt Chrisal and Eilean Domhnuill, the latter producing both charred and waterlogged examples. Barley (Hordeum vulgare) dominates the species represented, although six grains of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) were recovered from Eilean Domhnuill (Grinter 1999) whilst several grains of emmer wheat (Triticum dococcum) and a single possible grain of bread wheat were recovered from Bharpa Carinish (Boardman in Crone 1993). Despite the presence of several saddle querns at Eilean Domhnuill (Armit 1989), there were very few chaff fragments or weed seeds (Grinter 1999) from which it has been suggested that crops were not being processed on the site (Armit in prep.). This was also observed at Bharpa Carinish where “the lack of cereal/straw and the few weed seeds are suggestive of fully processed crops” (Boardman in Crone 1993, 376).

a [pic]b [pic]

Figure 4.12 Quantities of charred barley from Bharpa Carinish, Alt Chrisal and Eilean Domhnuill, a. with context 330 b. without context 330 (after Boardman in Crone 1993; Boardman in Branigan and Foster 1995; Grinter 1999)

Of these three sites the most substantial quantity of cereals came from Eilean Domhnuill with over 1800 charred barley grains (figure 4.12a), plus an additional 50 waterlogged barley grains. However, of these eighteen hundred grains just over sixteen hundred derived from a single context, context 330, described as a ‘dumped deposit’ (Grinter 1999, 55) probably representing a single accidental burning episode (Helen Smith pers. comm.). When we compare these assemblages without this exceptional deposit we can see a much less significant, although still important concentration at Eilean Domhnuill (figure 4.12b).

It might also be suggested that this higher concentration at Eilean Domhnuill could be the result of research bias and the length of occupation as compared to the other two sites. However, if we look at the densities of charred barley grains recovered from the sites, in other words the number of grains found per litre of material sampled from each site, this concentration persists (figures 4.13a and 4.13b). In figures 4.13a and 4.13b the density of cereal grains is considered with and without context 330 from Eilean Domhnuill. We can see that even without this exceptional single deposit, the density of charred barley grains recovered from Eilean Domhnuill is almost four times that of Alt Chrisal and practically 40 times those from Bharpa Carinish. This concentration cannot purely be explained as products of differential research strategies or degrees of preservation. Rather there seems to be a genuine concentration of charred barley grains at Eilean Domhnuill far in excess of those from the other sites in the region.

a [pic]b [pic]

Figure 4.13 Densities of charred cereal barley from Bharpa Carinish, Alt Chrisal and Eilean Domhnuill, a. with context 330 b. without context 330 (after Boardman in Crone 1993; Boardman in Branigan and Foster 1995; Grinter 1999)

Moving on and around - subsistence and mobility

We have then a broad base of economic resources being exploited in the Neolithic and these would all have influenced the kinds of settlement found. We have the use of wild resources, although these perhaps do not seem to have been as influential as has been suggested (e.g. Armit 1996). There has recently been compelling evidence to suggest that wild resources were of only limited significance in the Neolithic subsistence practices of western Scotland, despite the fact that it “presents a relatively marginal environment for farming” (Schulting and Richards 2002, 147). Stable isotope analysis of human remains from Mesolithic and Neolithic sites in western Scotland has indicated a dramatic shift from marine to terrestrial resources around 3850 BC, on the basis of δ13C values (Bonsall et al. 2002; Schulting and Richards 2002), supported by the minimal evidence for wild plants and animals from the Hebridean sites discussed. Wild resources then seem unlikely to have provided the bulk of subsistence but rather served as a supplement to the use of domesticated cattle, sheep and cereals. It is these domesticates that would have provided the greatest influence upon settlement.

Pastoralism with sheep and cattle would have required movement around the landscape for grazing, punctuated by transient and ephemeral settlement. Cereals, however, were clearly an important component of the Neolithic economy and would have required longer-term and more fixed attentions to place, yet also would have required the movement of animals into upland pasture to limit their impact upon growing crops. A similar pattern of mobility can be observed in the Outer Hebrides and other regions of Scotland into the recent past, with the seasonal movement of people with cattle into the uplands during the summer months until harvest, persisting in large areas of highland Scotland until the eighteenth century (Stewart 1996; Strachan 1999).

We can probably suggest then some degree of mobility during the Neolithic of the Outer Hebrides which may best be described as ‘embedded or tethered mobility’ (Whittle 1997, 21), characterised by transient and short-lived settlement but rooted in the use of more enduring places at certain times of the year. Seasonality would clearly have been an integral part of settlement mobility, and in turn would have been of crucial significance to the character of dwelling. Barley would have been grown over the summer months in sheltered lowland areas, perhaps in relatively small but undefined plots, with planting in March to April and harvesting from September to October (Dickson and Dickson 2000, 233). During the growth of crops some if not all of the population would possibly have moved into the uplands with their livestock. The mortality profiles for the animal bone assemblages also suggest some degree of seasonality in the management of sheep and cattle. Andrew Jones has suggested that the large number of neo-natal and juvenile cattle from Neolithic sites on Orkney represents the culling of cattle around autumn to midwinter (A. Jones 1996, 295; 1999, 64). A comparable impression is given by the cattle bones from Northton, and we can perhaps envisage the ‘double-peaked kill-off’ pattern for the sheep from Northton indicating the culling of juvenile sheep at around the same time.

However, although modes of subsistence would have informed, and perhaps even determined the location and character of settlement, their ultimate form would have equally been shaped in other ways, particularly through the use and deposition of materials at them.

The role and use of materials

Without obvious or substantial settlement architecture, a significant influence on the construction and definition of place, as well as the scale and character of settlement mobility, would have been the use of certain forms of material culture, particularly pottery. Hoopes and Barnett have suggested that whilst the use of ceramics is not restricted to sedentary populations, their use is typically limited to periods of sedentary activity, “even by groups that are mobile for part of the year” (Hoopes and Barnett 1995, 4). The use of pottery would also have been closely related to the particular modes of subsistence I have just discussed, affording new opportunities for the storage, processing and consumption of foods (A. Jones 1996; 1999). Another form of material culture that would have been closely related to mobility is the procurement of lithics. Flint was scarcely available as a natural resource so would have been carefully curated whilst exotic lithics suggest longer distance contacts and movement than those involved in a pastoral economy. I want now to examine the relationship between material culture and the aspects of settlement I have already discussed, particularly the relationship between cereal and ceramics and the role of pottery decoration in this relationship.

Lithics: the importance of stone

Mobility was not exclusively restricted to subsistence practices, although this would probably have provided one of the main reasons for moving on and around. Flint was a rare resource available as pebbles of beach flint only in a restricted number of locations (Wickham-Jones and Collins 1978). The lithic technology employed on the worked flint that has been found suggests an exhaustive and maximal use of what was available, with extensive retouching evident (Finlayson in Crone 1993; Finlayson in Downes and Badcock 1998; Wickham-Jones in Branigan and Foster 1995). Flint was supplemented by the use of quartz, which unlike flint is abundant in the local geology (Johnstone and Mykura 1989), though not as easy to work as flint. Unfortunately, the significance of quartz in Scotland during prehistory has only recently become appreciated (Bradley 1995) and the difficulty in identifying worked-quartz has meant that this chief component of Scottish lithic assemblages has been discarded from many sites. The presence at some of the Hebridean sites of exotic lithic materials such as Arran pitchstone, bloodstone from Rhum and porcellanite from Northern Ireland point to broader still movement than the localised procurement of flint and quartz. Bloodstone and pitchstone finds have been restricted to a few isolated examples but point to some degree of contact with the Inner Hebrides. This should not be surprising given that Skye and some of the Inner Hebridean islands can be seen from parts of the Outer Hebrides even on an overcast day.

Far more compelling evidence for such long distance links and movements, however, is provided by the use and deposition of polished stone axes. Five flakes from polished axes were found during Lindsay Scott’s excavations at Eilean an Tighe (W. L. Scott 1951). Two flakes were serpentised peridotite and one siltstone, all locally available, but one flake was from a porcellanite stone axe which could only have come from Tievebulliagh or Rathlin, Northern Ireland (Clough and Cummins 1988). Twelve other porcellanite axeheads and axehead flakes have since been found in the Outer Hebrides (Sheridan 1992, 201), the most notable example being the hafted Shulishader axe found in peat cuttings on the Eye Peninsula, Lewis (figure 4.14), its hawthorn haft preserved in the peat (Sheridan 1992). For the haft to have been preserved this axe would have had to have been deliberately deposited within a waterlogged hollow or pool. There was no evidence that the axe had ever been used.

[pic]

Figure 4.14 Shulishader axe, Lewis (after Sheridan 1992, 199)

An imported igneous axe was found in a phase five occupation surface at Eilean Domhnuill (Armit 1988, 26), suggesting that the item had been placed rather than discarded and given the degree of preservation experienced at the site it also seems unlikely that the axe had been hafted when it was deposited. Another, smaller, igneous axe was also recovered from a cobbled surface of house F at the site (Armit 1990, 16).

With just these few examples of the numerous polished stone axes found in the region we can see that they would seem to be deposited in quite special ways and often in quite particular contexts. Apart from those found at settlement sites - the Eilean an Tighe examples, two from Eilean Domhnuill and a further four axeheads and axehead fragments from Alt Chrisal (Sheridan and Addison in Branigan and Foster 1995) - many of the polished axes would seem, like the Shulishader example, to have been deliberately deposited in watery contexts. At Loch nan Geireann, North Uist a hoard of six polished stone axes were found at the loch edge (Beveridge 1911, 262) whilst five stone axeheads were found by the shore of Loch Airigh na Ceardaich, Lewis (Cowie 1981, 50). Three stone axes and a flint fragment were found in peat-cuttings arranged touching with tips down, the flint fragment beneath them (Ponting and Ponting 1977). The position of the axes suggested that they had been buried or deposited in a container, perhaps a bag (Close-Brooks 1980).

There has been a great deal of work in recent years on the symbolic properties of axes (Bradley and Edmonds 1993; Edmonds 1993; J. Thomas and Tilley 1993) and Whittle has highlighted three possible dimensions to this symbolism (Whittle 1995). Axes may symbolise control over nature, objects associated with the control and management of woodland. Secondly, it is likely that some of this symbolism derived from the particular stone that the axe had been crafted from, itself possibly metaphoric for the distant places where these materials had been quarried (McBryde 1984; Taçon 1991). Thirdly, these axes may also have been prestigious items acting as symbols of wealth, status or identity (Burton 1984; Bradley and Edmonds 1993). As Whittle suggests (Whittle 1995), it is unlikely that the symbolism of axes was restricted to any one of these examples and the metaphoric power of axes may itself derive from the potential of these objects to represent a number of broader associations. So given this symbolic power why is it that so many come to be deposited, apparently deliberately so, in such a restricted range of contexts? What was the particular significance of depositing such prestigious materials at settlement sites and how were these involved in the construction of place or character of dwelling at such sites? I think to understand and explain this we must begin to think about the kinds of activities that were taking place at these sites. One explanation may relate to another form of material culture that comes to be quite deliberately deposited at the sites, pottery, and its potential symbolic properties.

Pottery forms and contexts of deposition

Pottery, like cereals, was not evenly distributed between the sites (figure 4.15) and we can see once again that a significant quantity of pottery was recovered from Eilean Domhnuill, over three times the number of sherds from Alt Chrisal and nearly ten times those from Northton. Unlike cereals we cannot demonstrate that this large concentration is not an artefact of excavation or the duration of occupation at the site, but it does appear that ceramics are significantly over-represented at Eilean Domhnuill, particularly decorated sherds (Armit 1988, 22). Although decoration was also prominent in the ceramic assemblages from Northton and Eilean an Tighe, this was to a much lesser extent than had been observed at Eilean Domhnuill. Without detailed stratigraphic information, currently lacking for all the sites from the region, we cannot examine specific acts or patterns of ceramic deposition at individual sites. We can, however, make broad comparisons between them based on the quantity and nature of the ceramics found.

[pic]

Figure 4.15 Quantity of pottery sherds from settlement sites (after Armit in Crone 1993; Squair in Downes and Badcock 1998; Brown nd.; Scott 1950; A. Gibson 1995; Squair 1998)

The low number of sherds from Bharpa Carinish would seem to support the interpretation that this site was only briefly occupied, as suggested by the ambiguous structural remains and the low concentration of cereal grains from environmental sampling. There was also a high degree of fragmentation and abrasion for the sherds from the site implying that these may have been casually discarded rather than carefully or deliberately deposited (Armit in Crone 1993, 371-2). The quality and quantity of the ceramics therefore indicate that the pottery from this site might represent background noise for what was only a temporary, transient and ephemeral occupation. The comparably larger assemblage from Rubh’ a’ Charnain Mhoir would seem to derive from a more concentrated, possibly deliberate, episode of deposition (Squair in Downes and Badcock 1998, 34). Unfortunately, the excavations were too limited to provide a greater insight into the nature of this assemblage, although it would seem that parts of around 140 vessels, some probably complete, were deposited within the shallow pit which provided the focus for the site.

Identification of the selective deposition of ceramics at Eilean Domhnuill was difficult, where “there is little variation in pottery throughout the deposits, and the pottery itself gives an impression of general uniformity” (Brown nd.). However, it was certainly significant at the site that hundreds if not thousands of vessels came to be deposited there, most of them partially to fully decorated and in a relatively restricted range of forms. This range of forms was mirrored at the sites of Northton and Eilean an Tighe, although in considerably smaller quantities. The range of vessels from Alt Chrisal were perhaps less restricted, and decoration less prolific. Nevertheless, at Alt Chrisal a large quantity of sherds were found, almost as much as the total number found at Eilean an Tighe and Northton combined.

At Northton, Eilean an Tighe and particularly Eilean Domhnuill, the assemblages were dominated by heavily decorated ridged jars and Unstan bowls, whilst at Rubh’ a’ Charnain Mhoir and Alt Chrisal plain lugged jars and bowls were predominant, although Unstan bowls were also present at the latter. At these last two sites the vessels found were comparable to the vessels from the chambered cairns. At the others, however, the ceramic assemblages were clearly distinct from those found at the cairns.

Like in my earlier distinction between two different kinds of place - lasting places over time and brief places in time - I think we can distinguish between two different kinds of pottery deposition. At sites like Rubh’ a’ Charnain Mhoir deposition of ceramics, although apparently significant, is brief and short-lived. Similarly at Bharpa Carinish ceramics do feature significantly in the use of this locale over time. Northton and Eilean an Tighe are more problematic as ceramics provide a considerable proportion of the finds from both sites but again this does not seem to endure for long, irrespective of the quantities and qualities of pots used there. At Eilean Domhnuill and Alt Chrisal however, the deposition of ceramics seems to be crucial and an important part of the long histories that both sites exhibit. We can perhaps envisage an architectural role for the deposition of ceramics at these two sites in that it is active in the construction, demarcation and designation of space, and frames a certain kind of dwelling. Although these sites were both initially defined through the modification of a particular locale, the significance of both these places was maintained through the continued deposition of quantities of pottery. That the ultimate forms of the ceramics deposited at either site are not similar need not be important. Rather each would seem, in the materials employed and deposited there, to be a localised realisation of a similar theme, although perhaps for dissimilar reasons or functions. To explore this idea further I want to examine the role of pottery decoration and the relationship between pottery and cereals at the site of Eilean Domhnuill.

Pots, plants and the role of ceramic decoration

I have already commented on the considerable proportion of decorated sherds from Eilean Domhnuill, far exceeding the numbers from other sites in the region. Can we explain the considerable attention to decorated vessels at this site and the large quantity of ceramics that are ultimately deposited there? The relationship between pottery and cereals at Eilean Domhnuill seems important and may help us to understand this intensity of deposition. Furthermore we might suggest that the decoration of the Eilean Domhnuill vessels was crucially involved in this relationship between pot and plant.

[pic]

Figure 4.16 Decorated objects from Eilean Domhnuill (after Armit 1988, 23-5)

The repetition of particular decorative elements is significantly not restricted to the pottery from the site but also occurs on a single carved stone ball as well as two ceramic phalli (figure 4.16). These were apparently deliberately deposited at the site, the carved ball incorporated into the walling of the phase one structures, whilst one ceramic phallus was found within a stone alignment of phase five and the other in midden deposits beneath phase five (Armit 1988, 24). So what was the function of this decoration and why was it important for the vessels at Eilean Domhnuill to be decorated?

In discussing the function of decorative (rather than representational) art, Alfred Gell has suggested that decorating an object establishes a relationship between the decorator, the object and the social projects that the object entails (Gell 1998). For Gell decoration is a process, a choreography where it is the process of decorating an object that is important, rather than the finished product itself: “patterns…generate relationships over time between persons and things” (Gell 1998, 80). This point is mirrored in a brief study by Maurice Bloch on Malagasy house carvings, who comments that “the carvings are not pointing outwards - mutely trying to say something, voulant dire as the questions expected - they are an essential element of the material and the social principle on which they occur; they are not referring or signifying” (M. Bloch 1995, 215). For both Gell and Bloch decoration is not there to communicate a message, or to signify a particular identity for the owner of the object, but rather it is an act aimed at creating an agency for that object. Gell goes on to suggest that much decorative art serves as a medium for protection, whether it is to protect the object decorated, the decorator or in the case of pottery, its contents.

To understand this further I want to refer to a study based on the ceramics of the Bulahay communities of Mafa in Cameroon (David et al. 1988; Sterner 1989). The decoration of pottery for the Bulahay creates a ritual boundary that becomes the medium through which power flows, essentially as a medium for protection. Decoration in this case is not an art, it is essential to the pots ‘being’ and indeed the well-being of the community. Here, pottery decoration is strongly paralleled with the decoration of people, tattoos and scarification, oiling or painting of the body and bodily adornment all primarily intended as mediums for protection (David et al. 1988, 377). Power here is generally thought of as destructive, incorporating both aggressive supernatural or cosmic powers such as spirits, but also powers inherent in people. Much bodily adornment for example is designed to protect individuals from their own, potentially dangerous, powers. Similarly, the majority of decorated pottery is employed where power provides a threat. Everyday pots tend not to be decorated but rather decoration is focused on pots for special occasions or certain contexts such as men’s meat pots or pots that are designed to contain the souls of the living. Equally children’s pots are undecorated because children are regarded as powerless.

These ideas about decoration contrast significantly with the predominant modern western view of ‘art’ emphasising the product rather than production or process of art. Performance art, music, theatre and dance provide notable exceptions and these are frequently employed as metaphors and direct analogies in the works cited above. For Gell and the work on the Bulahay decoration is not representation nor is it necessarily intended to communicate or broadcast information. It is a social process of transformation essential to an object fulfilling its role. This can particular be seen in the Cameroon examples where “sacred pots are more elaborately decorated…but rarely seen…the decoration is ritually, magically essential to the vessel fulfilling its role, but it does not have to be visible – that it exists and is known to exist is sufficient” (Sterner 1989, 457-8). So how does this help with our interpretation of the large quantity of heavily decorated ceramics found at Eilean Domhnuill?

For the Bulahay, the primary cultivated crop of millet is, until processed, regarded as a wild crop and as such is often associated with potentially harmful natural spirits. Not until the millet is processed can it be brought into the settlement compound, “at this stage, and until it has been threshed, the millet is still considered a wild, natural product and thus less controllable or at risk than the processed grains, whose entry into fully cultural space and status is accompanied by various rituals” (David et al. 1988, 374). Vessels that are associated with millet are regarded as sacred pots and usually heavily decorated, the decoration itself representing the spirit of the processed millet, a symbol that is also associated with God’s hair, one of the most powerful symbols in the Bulahay cosmology (David et al. 1988, 373-4). Whilst I am not advocating this anthropological example as a direct means for interpreting the Eilean Domhnuill evidence, it provides compelling insights into the possible relationships between cereals, pottery decoration and site architecture. Despite the presence of several saddle querns, there was no evidence for the earlier stages of cereal processing on Eilean Domhnuill “such as winnowing and threshing, although the conditions were ideal for the preservation of chaff” (Armit in prep.; Grinter 1999). Can we envisage a comparable scenario at Eilean Domhnuill to the Bulahay example where cereals were not allowed on to the site in their unprocessed form? One way we may explore this possibility is through a consideration for the nature and role of boundaries at this one site.

Boundaries at Eilean Domhnuill

Boundaries, like I have already suggested for material culture, are architectural. I do not by this term refer to architecture in terms of a building or structure, in the literal sense, but rather I want to consider that what boundaries do is frame certain notions of categorisation. This clearly does not have to be restricted to the framing of physical space, such as a wall frames the space either side of it, because boundaries are equally likely to be conceptual. However, what is important for archaeology is that conceptual boundaries very often gain and sustain their value through manifestation in physical forms, made concrete through specific acts or through the use and deposition of certain materials. Through emphasising the conceptual nature of boundaries we begin to see that boundaries are not fixed, enduring or absolute. Rather, they are dynamic and may constantly be subject to interpretation, movement and negotiation. Boundaries then exist as a system of framing given value and made concrete through physical and material acts.

The evidence from Eilean Domhnuill seems to suggest a site evoking if not involving a powerful series of boundaries. When we look at the site, even today, the site is bounded by its location within a loch surrounded by water on all sides and accessible only by a brief causeway (figure 4.17). Within the site the most impressive structural element throughout its sequence was invariably the façade and entranceway. In the earliest excavated levels a stone revetment was built to support a timber palisade and frame the entrance. Subsequently, the revetment and palisade were replaced by a stone wall with turf or earth packing. In later phases the entrance became more elaborate still, defined by paving and small stone orthostats, the timber causeway replaced by a more enduring stone one.

[pic]

Figure 4.17 Eilean Domhnuill

The form and decoration of some of the pottery from Eilean Domhnuill seem to reflect the boundaries inherent in the architecture of the site (figure 4.18). In both the interior is defined by a strong set of rigid but not impermeable boundaries, and at no point are these boundaries more striking than at the threshold between the interior and exterior: in the pottery through the elaborate decoration and sometimes closed form of the upper potion and mouth of the vessel, at Eilean Domhnuill through the entranceway and façade to the site.

[pic]

Figure 4.18 Hypothetical similarities between architecture and ceramics at Eilean Domhnuill

It is not difficult to envisage that the pottery from this site would have been used for the storage and consumption of the large quantities of cereals that were found. Deep closed jars, shallow open bowls and cups would have been well suited to the storage, cooking, presentation and consumption of cereal products. Can we go further to suggest that the decoration on these vessels was intimately related to these cereals, and that cereals themselves may have contributed significantly to the construction of the boundaries at the site? As noted the decoration of the sacred pots of the Bulahay was specifically designed to protect the contents of the vessels from the potentially harmful powers inherent in millet. It was no coincidence that decoration and ornamentation was predominantly focused on the mouth and rim of the pot, the threshold of the vessel. This decoration served to act as insulation, drawing power away from the millet, “the pellet motif represents, we contend, millet that has been tamed by culture; somewhat like a vaccine, it offers protection against the darker side of a potent spirit of nature that is at the same time the staff of life” (David et al. 1988, 374).

The decorative motifs found on the vessels from Eilean Domhnuill, and also on the ceramic phalli and carved stone ball, provide exactly the qualities that Gell refers to in his consideration for the function of decorative art (Gell 1998), particularly the bands of incised diagonal lines and herring bone motifs that dominate the assemblage. Gell highlights the ‘maze-like’ quality of decorative art, designed to draw in, confuse and disorientate (Gell 1998). We might perhaps even suggest a more direct association between decoration and ceramics drawing on a recently found vessel from the Black Isle near Inverness (figure 4.19) featuring “corrugated decoration with a herringbone effect” (MacSween in Barclay et al. 2001, 62). Quite a large number of barley grains were found at this site, along with some emmer wheat (Holden and Hastie in Barclay et al. 2001) and the ‘herringbone effect’ decoration would appear to be a direct imitation of the heads of unprocessed cereals. I am not suggesting that specific decorative motifs on ceramics at Eilean Domhnuill and other Hebridean sites were designed as visual representations of cereals, but there would seem to be a strong relationship between the two.

[pic]

Figure 4.19 Pot from Kinbeachie, Black Isle (after Barclay et al. 2001, 65)

As noted, whilst evidence for the early stages of cereal processing was absent at the site we must recall the recovery of several saddle querns during excavation. These were initially thought to represent the casual reuse of old stone whilst at least a couple appear to have been found in situ within floor deposits (Armit 1988, 24). Some were certainly used in walling and paving at the site. But can we suggest a more active role for these materials in the context of this discussion? It is possible that these querns were deposited because of their symbolic association with the processing of crops. If the processing of cereals was dangerous then this may have restricted the use of querns to certain places at certain times and perhaps for only a limited number of occasions. I would argue that these saddle querns were not casually re-incorporated into later structures but actively incorporated into the site in a carefully staged appropriation or negotiation of power and space. That there was no evidence, even in the water-logged excavations, of cereal processing (Mills et al. 2004) would suggest that the querns were brought to the site having been employed somewhere else altogether. If this is the case then we have an intriguing glimpse into the biography of objects and the ‘social projects’ that these objects were involved in.

So why go to all this trouble? Unlike the Bulahay, the people who built and rebuilt Eilean Domhnuill were not dependent on an arable subsistence base. The faunal and botanical evidence from the Hebridean sites is strongly suggestive of a mixed economy focused on movements with sheep and some cattle and only the occasional exploitation of cereals. Yet at Eilean Domhnuill we have overwhelming evidence for the use of cereals and pottery that is quite different from the other site of this period and the kind of settlement that we would expect from this form of dwelling. Furthermore this site was set apart from this broader world through its situation within a loch, and set apart from normal everyday practice through the use and deposition of considerable quantities of elaborately decorated and well-made ceramic vessels. Recent work has emphasised the social implications of changes in subsistence and diet (J. Thomas 1996b, 319; Bradley 1998, 66). More recently still, isotopic studies have stressed the relatively dramatic uptake of domesticated animals within the earliest Neolithic diet (Bonsall et al. 2002; Schulting and Richards 2002). Yet evidence of a shift from pastoral to arable agriculture is much less acute (Mike Richards pers. comm.). We might suggest that the shift from hunter-gatherer-fishing to pastoralism was not substantially dramatic, both involving some degree of movement through the landscape throughout the year. In contrast cereal crops required a longer-term and more fixed attention to place, involving a more gradual incorporation into the Neolithic way of life. This, however, does not account for Eilean Domhnuill with evidence for cereal consumption very early in the Neolithic (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2000).

An important question then must be what were people growing crops for. Even if barley was a subsistence crop, given the analogies above and rich artefactual evidence from Eilean Domhnuill, we should consider that the consumption of cereals would have been a closely controlled and structured act, possibly restricted to certain individuals, groups, activities, events, times of the year, or for certain motivations. Feasting and consumption within small-scale societies are highly political events, creating bonds of association within and between communities and also debts of reciprocal obligation. But such acts also serve to exclude and establish or assert particular socio-political hierarchies (Potter 2000). This would have been accentuated had the cereals been fermented to create beer or sugars. The elaborate decoration of the Eilean Domhnuill vessels may have specifically been associated with the transformation of the vessel contents. Hodder has highlighted the decoration of vessels involved in the transformation of milk into butter and yoghurt (Hodder 1982, 70), with work on the Bulahay suggesting that this decoration was expressly intended to protect the vessel and its contents during this transformation (David et al. 1988, 374).

The use of cereals for brewing, or restricted and occasional acts of feasting, might explain the relative absence of cereals from Neolithic diets on the basis of the isotopic evidence, beer consisting mostly of carbohydrates whereas isotopes measure protein (Mike Richards pers. comm.). The charring of the grains at Eilean Domhnuill could have resulted from parching as part of the brewing process, with the large ‘dump’ of context 330 certainly consistent with an accidental burning during parching. According to Merryn and Graham Dineley one of the fundamental requirements for brewing is the availability of water for all stages of the fermenting process (Dineley and Dineley 2000) which may provide one, but not necessarily the only, explanation for the location of Eilean Domhnuill within a freshwater loch. In a personal communication Dr. Thomas Kavanagh at the University of Pittsburgh has discounted the possibility of brewing in the British Neolithic on the absence of a suitable ceramic technology to provide the watertight conditions required. However, burnishing may improve the ability of pottery to store liquids, a technique that is evident from Eilean Domhnuill despite its susceptibility to taphonomic damage (Brown nd., Scott 1951). The burning of high-fat milk into the surface of a vessel, a long established tradition in the Outer Hebrides (U. MacKlellan and S. Blair pers. comm.) may also provide adequate conditions for fermentation and it is possible that milk fats identified in residue analysis of later prehistoric pottery (Craig et al. 2000), conventionally used to infer the role of dairying in a subsistence economy, may derive from the construction rather than use of ceramic vessels. Beeswax may also be used to limit the permeability of vessels, noted in analysis of the vessels from Balfarg (M. Dineley pers. comm.).

It has been argued by some that beer might have been much more favourable than bread as a reason for adopting elements of an arable economy (Braidwood 1953; Katz and Voight 1986; Whittle 1996, 68-9). Certainly, technology permitting, beyond the physiological and social effects of beer or alcoholic foods, “the fermentation process, in addition to adding nutritional value, preservatives, and alcohol…adds flavour to an otherwise monotonous dish” (Webber 1995). Fermentation may then have been an important reason for the decision to cultivate cereals and may have been instrumental in the setting apart of Eilean Domhnuill from the rest of the landscape.

Whether Neolithic people were brewing at Eilean Domhnuill, ceramics and cereals were an integral part of the things that took place at this site; so integral that it is perhaps these above anything else that define the site, at least in terms of the material record we are left with today. It was clearly important for the people at Eilean Domhnuill to use and deposit several hundred vessels of pottery during its history and for these vessels to have been decorated and embody particular forms. Furthermore it was important for cereals to be brought to the site but have already undergone processing. In addition to these two elements it was important that at various stages in the sites history other significant objects were to be deposited there, such as saddle querns, stone axes and stone balls. What is perhaps most striking is not the nature of this material wealth, but that it lasted for so long, almost the length of the Neolithic itself in this region. What kind of dwelling does this represent? What kind of practical engagement with the world can we see taking place at Eilean Domhnuill and what may have brought about this quite deliberated and structured activity, in such a particular context?

Summary

In this section I have tried to examine a history of events, a history of the Neolithic that is made up of the pockets of daily existence from this period, revealed through a handful of excavated settlement remains. I have tried to reveal a number of themes that connect these diverse sites and suggested that despite their diversity, broad patterns highlight similarities between them. Together, the sites suggest some degree of mobility in this period, part of a wide-ranging engagement with the world, possibly originating in earlier settlement practices, perhaps from the Mesolithic. However, the sites from this time are fundamentally distinct through a subsistence emphasising domesticated animals and plants, and the use of ceramics. The evidence from the settlement sites reflects the tension between this broader mobility and the fixed places that this lifestyle required, however fleeting in use they may once have been. Movement with domesticated animals would have required a more punctuated use of the landscape, a situation that would have been magnified with the use of pottery and even more so with the growth, processing and consumption of cereals. Yet in addition to these small-scale, fleeting contexts of settlement a series of enduring locales, though not permanently occupied, would have provided a more permanent focus.

It is the tensions provided by these new subsistence practices and new materials, exaggerated by the needs for mobility and yet also the needs to settle in certain places and at certain times, which seem to bring about the exceptional site of Eilean Domhnuill. I have spent a large part of this section talking about this one site and its extraordinary evidence. Primarily this is because of the considerable quality and quantity of archaeological evidence from the site, benefiting from a high-quality of excavation with modern techniques. Yet this quantity and intensity of deposition, enduring for several hundred years, sets this site apart from the others, even Alt Chrisal. The stuff that this site is made up of - its essence - is essentially the same as the other settlement sites; slight structural remains accompanied by pits, post-holes, stake-holes and brief stone alignments, and hearths associated with ashen and charcoal spreads filled with midden material and artefactual debris.

Yet at this one site all these together seem to provide a monumentalisation of the more mundane moments of daily life played out at the more ephemeral sites, more a representation of settlement than a settlement site itself. The pottery is considerably more decorated, the motifs employed also used on other objects, some apparently deliberately discarded along with further items of apparent significance. The cereals occur in much larger quantities, suggesting more than a background noise to domestic consumption that this may have been a place for ostentatious consumption, not only of cereals and animals but also of prestigious and valued objects. It is these activities that set apart Eilean Domhnuill from the other settlement sites of the period and furthermore, it is these that are responsible for the setting apart of this site through the construction of a powerful series of boundaries; its setting in a loch, the elaborate threshold to the site and the restricted and complicated range of heavily decorated ceramics. Furthermore, these activities were so crucial that the site was repeatedly re-used over a millennium, and with each phase the boundaries employed at the site were elaborated and intensified.

I do not wish to argue that Eilean Domhnuill was the only such site in the region at this time, nor that it provided the only such focus for the activities that came to define it. The similarities in ceramics between Northton and Eilean Domhnuill argue against a complete distinction in the role of these two sites, despite their differing locations and forms. Similarly, the orchestration of settlement at Alt Chrisal and its ongoing use throughout the Neolithic (and later) hints at some form of connection between the two sites, despite differences in the material culture at each. Rather it would seem that Eilean Domhnuill represents the pinnacle of such a spectrum. The question to ask now is what brought about this site and these practices. Can it just be attributed to the emergence of new subsistence practices and new forms of material culture, and the restrictions on mobility that these afforded? If so, can this explain the elaborate boundaries employed at the site, or the ongoing significance of this site with time?

If we are to attempt to answer these question I propose that we must investigate a different kind of evidence from this period, one that reveals an altogether different history for the Neolithic of the Outer Hebrides, the slower history of the megalithic monuments from this time.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download