Later Prehistory in South‐East Scotland: A Critical Review

Abstract

This paper reviews the progress of research over the past twenty years, with particular reference to enclosed and unenclosed settlement, agricultural patterns, domestic structural types and burial practices of the Iron Age in the south-eastern Borders. The concept of a 'trend towards enclosure' in the first millennium BC is reviewed and rejected, not least on the grounds of evidence from excavation for the dating sequences of major enclosed sites. In consequence a new overview of the later prehistoric settlement of the region is now possible, consistent with the accumulating archaeological and environmental data.The publication of the proceedings of a conference held in Edinburgh in 1981 entitled Later Prehistory in South-East Scotland (Harding 1982) represented the culmination of a period of activity in field research in the region which was unparalleled since the pioneer post-war programme particularly associated with the name of Mrs Peggy Piggott. It involved a number of (then) younger staff of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland and younger professional field archaeologists, as well as established staff from the University of Edinburgh and members of local amateur archaeological field groups. Field survey was combined with an intensive programme of air survey, particularly in the Roxburghshire Cheviots, coinciding with the excavation of some key sites in the East Lothian and Berwickshire coastal plain, sponsored by the then Scottish Development Department in advance of destruction.One of the major advances of this programme of fieldwork (Barclay 1995) was the recognition that narrow, 'cord-rig' agriculture (Halliday 1986) was in the Borders associated with both Roman-period and pre-Roman settlement, dating from the mid-first millennium BC at least, along with palisaded enclosures and ring-ditch houses. But it was not simply the recognition of a distinctive class of agricultural remains which marked a significant watershed, but the fact that in some cases these highly fugitive traces, often virtually undetectable from the ground without the evidence of air-photography, occurred extensively in the Borders uplands (though commonly made up of a patchwork of smaller areas), linking extant settlements into a landscape pattern on a scale which was very much more comprehensive than was normally recoverable in lowland areas where later occupation and agriculture had been more intensive. Even in such a well-researched area such as the Borders, these remarkable survivals allowed the potential for a qualitative advance in understanding and interpretation.

Cist burials and an Iron Age settlement at Dryburn Bridge, Innerwick, East Lothian

“…These dates form merely termini ante quem for the date of foundation and longevity of use of the outer enclosure, and provide no positive dating evidence. At best they do not contradict a likely early/mid first millennium bc date for the palisaded enclosure, a chronological context often proposed for this settlement form (Harding 2001; discussed further in Section 11.2).…”

“…A more complex relationship between enclosed and unenclosed settlement forms was propounded. The interim report for Dryburn Bridge (Triscott 1982) is routinely referred to in what remains an area of considerable interest (Ralston 1996;Armit 1999a;Harding 2001), which has been enhanced by more recent large-scale excavations such as those of the Port Seton enclosures (Haselgrove & McCullagh 2000).…”

“…These are the sites that had formerly been understood to form the earliest enclosed phase of the Hownam sequence (eg Ritchie 1970). These sites were proposed as forming a distinct grouping within a more long-lived use of palisaded construction methods, to the extent that Harding (2001) has questioned the usefulness of the term 'palisaded enclosure' as a classificatory term.…”

Unity and Diversity in the European Iron Age: Out of the Mists, Some Clarity?

“…Traditionally, oppida were interpreted as relatively uniform, elite-controlled urban centers, with elite-attached craft specialists, reflecting a centralized political hierarchy with control of prestige-goods trade. Currently, many (Collis 1995a, b;Harding 2001;Haselgrove 1995;Köhler 1995;Woolf 1993) express doubt that oppida form a class of settlement either, as new work confirms they were not uniform in form or development. Some display urban-like settlement, while others are lightly infilled and enclose expansive uninhabited areas (Lorrio and Ruiz Zapatero 2004;Ruiz Zapatero and Á lvarez-Sanchís 1999); some were occupied for long periods, others very briefly.…”