Excavations at Northton, Isle of Harris 9781841719368, 9781407320595

Table of contents :
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Opening Photo
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
CONTRIBUTORS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 EARLY OCCUPATION AT NORTHTON
CHAPTER 3 THE BEAKER PERIOD
CHAPTER 4 THE BRONZE AGE, IRON AGE AND LATER PERIODS
CHAPTER 5 THE HISTORY OF THE NORTHTON MACHAIR
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX 1 CATALOGUE OF ILLUSTRATED NEOLITHIC POTTERY
APPENDIX 2 POTTERY PETROLOGY
APPENDIX 3 GEOLOGICAL REPORT ON THE DRIFT PUMICE
APPENDIX 4 PETROLOGY OF THE STONE ARTEFACTS
APPENDIX 5 CATALOGUE OF WORKED BONE AND ANTLER
APPENDIX 6 CATALOGUE OF ILLUSTRATED BEAKER POTTERY

Citation preview

BAR 408 2006

SIMPSON, MURPHY & GREGORY

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTHTON, ISLE OF HARRIS

B A R

21/11/2011 12:44:39 blue cover template.indd 1

Excavations at Northton, Isle of Harris D. D. A. Simpson E. M. Murphy R. A. Gregory

BAR British Series 408 2006

ISBN 9781841719368 paperback ISBN 9781407320595 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841719368 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

The late Professor Derek Simpson on fieldwork in 2001 at Northton, Isle of Harris, Western Isles

ii

CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................................................vi LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ix CONTRIBUTORS ................................................................................................................................................xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................ xii

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1 THE WESTERN ISLES ........................................................................................................................................1 INNSEGALL ‘ISLES OF THE STRANGERS’ R A Gregory ................................................................................1 THE LANDSCAPE R A Gregory ............................................................................................................................3 THE VEGETATION HISTORY OF THE WESTERN ISLES M J Church ..........................................................4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE WESTERN ISLES R A Gregory ....................................................9 NORTHTON ........................................................................................................................................................12 THE GEOLOGICAL SETTING E R Phillips ......................................................................................................12 ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY M J Church ....................................................................................................14 HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION D D A Simpson, E M Murphy & R A Gregory ..................................................................................14

2. EARLY OCCUPATION AT NORTHTON...................................................................... 19 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................19 PRE-NEOLITHIC ACTIVITY .........................................................................................................................19 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES E M Murphy, M J Church, D D A Simpson & R A Gregory ......................19 RADIOCARBON DATING R A Gregory...........................................................................................................22 ARTEFACTS .......................................................................................................................................................23 CHIPPED STONE ARTEFACTS E L Nelis.........................................................................................................23 COARSE STONE ARTEFACTS R A Gregory ....................................................................................................25 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................26 INTRODUCTION M J Church ...........................................................................................................................26 SOIL MICROMORPHOLOGY E B Guttmann....................................................................................................26 ROUTINE SOIL TESTS M J Church ..................................................................................................................30 FAUNAL REMAINS S Hamilton-Dyer ................................................................................................................33 PLANT MACROFOSSILS M J Church ..............................................................................................................35

iii

CHARCOAL M Cressey ......................................................................................................................................36 CARBONISED REMAINS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE WIDER REGION M J Church......................36 POLLEN AND MICROSCOPIC CHARCOAL ANALYSIS K J Edwards.........................................................37 ENVIRONMENTAL SYNTHESIS AND DISCUSSION M J Church & E B Guttmann ...................................39 THE NEOLITHIC HORIZON ..........................................................................................................................40 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES D D A Simpson, E M Murphy & R A Gregory...........................................40 RADIOCARBON DATING R A Gregory...........................................................................................................43 ARTEFACTS .......................................................................................................................................................44 POTTERY M Johnson ..........................................................................................................................................44 DRIFT PUMICE R A Gregory..............................................................................................................................69 CHIPPED STONE ARTEFACTS E L Nelis.........................................................................................................69 WORKED BONE AND ANTLER E M Murphy & D D A Simpson ...................................................................72 FAUNAL REMAINS J Finlay ...........................................................................................................................75 DISCUSSION R A Gregory & D D A Simpson ...................................................................................................78

3. THE BEAKER PERIOD ......................................................................................................................85 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................85 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES ..................................................................................................................85 BEAKER I E M Murphy, D D A Simpson & R A Gregory ...................................................................................85 BEAKER II E M Murphy, D D A Simpson & R A Gregory.................................................................................87 RADIOCARBON DATING R A Gregory..........................................................................................................89 ARTEFACTS ......................................................................................................................................................90 POTTERY A M Gibson ........................................................................................................................................90 DRIFT PUMICE R A Gregory............................................................................................................................133 CHIPPED, POLISHED AND COARSE STONE ARTEFACTS E L Nelis .......................................................133 BRONZE METAL WASTE P Northover ..........................................................................................................139 CLAY BALL R A Gregory .................................................................................................................................140 WORKED BONE AND ANTLER E M Murphy & D D A Simpson ..................................................................140 FAUNAL REMAINS J Finlay ..........................................................................................................................147 DISCUSSION R A Gregory & D D A Simpson..................................................................................................149

iv

4. THE BRONZE AGE, IRON AGE AND LATER PERIODS ................................................155 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................155 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES ................................................................................................................155 THE CORBELLED CIST R A Gregory, E M Murphy & D D A Simpson .........................................................155 MIDDEN I E M Murphy, R A Gregory & D D A Simpson ................................................................................157 MIDDEN II E M Murphy, D D A Simpson, R A Gregory & M J Church.........................................................158 THE INHUMATION BURIALS R A Gregory, E M Murphy & D D A Simpson .............................................160 RADIOCARBON DATING R A Gregory........................................................................................................161 ARTEFACTS .....................................................................................................................................................164 POTTERY M Johnson ........................................................................................................................................164 CHIPPED STONE ARTEFACT E L Nelis.........................................................................................................170 FERROUS OBJECTS AND SLAG A Heald......................................................................................................170 WORKED BONE AND ANTLER E M Murphy & D D A Simpson ..................................................................171 FAUNAL REMAINS J Finlay ..........................................................................................................................173 HUMAN REMAINS E M Murphy & C B Denston ...........................................................................................174 DISCUSSION R A Gregory, E M Murphy & D D A Simpson............................................................................184

5. THE HISTORY OF THE NORTHTON MACHAIR R A Gregory & D D A Simpson.........................................................................................................187

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................191 APPENDIX 1 – CATALOGUE OF ILLUSTRATED NEOLITHIC POTTERY M Johnson ........................205 APPENDIX 2 – POTTERY PETROLOGY E R Phillips ..............................................................................208 APPENDIX 3 – GEOLOGICAL REPORT ON THE DRIFT PUMICE R E Binns ......................................227 APPENDIX 4 – PETROLOGY OF THE STONE ARTEFACTS E R Phillips .............................................233 APPENDIX 5 – CATALOGUE OF WORKED BONE AND ANTLER E M Murphy, D D A Simpson & A S Clarke ...................................................................................................238

APPENDIX 6 - CATALOGUE OF ILLUSTRATED BEAKER POTTERY A M Gibson .............................243

v

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. The Western Isles and the location of Northton, Toe Head, Harris. .....................................................2 Figure 1.2. Palaeoenvironmental sites in the Western Isles. ...................................................................................6 Figure 1.3. Simplified geological map of South Harris after Baba (1999)............................................................13 Figure 1.4. Geology and superficial deposits at Rudh’ an Teampuill, Northton, South Harris.............................13 Figure 1.5. Land snail diagram..............................................................................................................................15 Figure 1.6. Topographic survey at Northton showing the various earthworks identified on the surface of the machair, the 1965 archaeological trenches and recorded sections, and borehole locations and sections examined in 2001. ............................................................................16 Figure 2.1. Section D-C in Trench III. ..................................................................................................................20 Figure 2.2. The ‘Large Section’. The position of section line A-B is marked on Figure 2.3. ...............................21 Figure 2.3. Plan of the stone setting at the western end of the ‘Large Section’. ...................................................22 Figure 2.4. Probability distributions of calibrated AMS dates from the ‘Large Section’......................................22 Figure 2.5. Cobble tool from C5. ..........................................................................................................................25 Figure 2.6. Routine soil test parameters for column samples 5A and 5B. ............................................................32 Figure 2.7. Palynological and related analyses from Northton context S.5A/5B. ................................................38 Figure 2.8. Section A-B in Trench II. ..................................................................................................................41 Figure 2.9. Detail of central area of Section A-B in Trench II..............................................................................42 Figure 2.10. Plan of the child inhumation..............................................................................................................42 Figure 2.11. View of the child inhumation. ..........................................................................................................43 Figure 2.12. View of the dry stone walling identified in the Neolithic horizon. ..................................................43 Figure 2.13. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................45 Figure 2.14. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................46 Figure 2.15. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................47 Figure 2.16. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................48 Figure 2.17. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................49 Figure 2.18. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................50 Figure 2.19. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................51 Figure 2.20. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................52 Figure 2.21. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................53 Figure 2.22. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................54 Figure 2.23. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................55 Figure 2.24. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................56 Figure 2.25. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................57 Figure 2.26. Neolithic pottery. ...............................................................................................................................58 Figure 2.27. All Neolithic rim diameters. .............................................................................................................65 Figure 2.28. Rim diameters of Neolithic uncarinated bowls..................................................................................65 Figure 2.29. Rim diameters of Neolithic carinated bowls......................................................................................66 Figure 2.30. Rim diameters of Neolithic ridged jars. .............................................................................................66 Figure 2.31. Rim diameters of Neolithic unstan bowls. .........................................................................................66 Figure 2.32. Modified pumice from the Neolithic horizon. ...................................................................................69 Figure 2.33. Neolithic knife. .................................................................................................................................71 Figure 2.34. Worked bone and antler artefacts recovered from the Neolithic horizon. .........................................73 Figure 2.35. Neolithic settlement in the Western Isles...........................................................................................81 Figure 3.1. Plan of Structure I in Trench II. ..........................................................................................................86 Figure 3.2. View of the northern area of Structure I. ............................................................................................86 Figure 3.3. Plan of Structure II and Structure III? in Trench III. ..........................................................................88 Figure 3.4. View of Structure II. ...........................................................................................................................88 Figure 3.5. Probability distributions of calibrated radiocarbon dates from the Beaker I and Beaker II horizons. ..........................................................................................................................................90 Figure 3.6. Beaker I pottery. .................................................................................................................................91 Figure 3.7. Beaker I pottery. .................................................................................................................................92 Figure 3.8. Beaker I pottery. .................................................................................................................................93 Figure 3.9. Beaker I pottery. .................................................................................................................................94 Figure 3.10. Beaker I pottery. ................................................................................................................................95 Figure 3.11. Beaker I pottery. ................................................................................................................................96 Figure 3.12. Beaker I pottery. ................................................................................................................................97 Figure 3.13. Beaker I pottery. ................................................................................................................................98 Figure 3.14. Beaker I pottery. ................................................................................................................................99 vi

Figure 3.15. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................100 Figure 3.16. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................101 Figure 3.17. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................102 Figure 3.18. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................103 Figure 3.19. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................104 Figure 3.20. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................105 Figure 3.21. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................106 Figure 3.22. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................107 Figure 3.23. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................108 Figure 3.24. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................109 Figure 3.25. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................110 Figure 3.26. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................111 Figure 3.27. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................112 Figure 3.28. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................113 Figure 3.29. Beaker I pottery. ..............................................................................................................................114 Figure 3.30. Beaker II pottery. .............................................................................................................................115 Figure 3.31. Beaker II pottery. .............................................................................................................................116 Figure 3.32. Beaker II pottery. .............................................................................................................................117 Figure 3.33. Beaker II pottery. .............................................................................................................................118 Figure 3.34. Beaker II pottery. .............................................................................................................................119 Figure 3.35. Beaker II pottery. .............................................................................................................................120 Figure 3.36. Beaker II pottery. .............................................................................................................................121 Figure 3.37. Beaker II pottery. .............................................................................................................................122 Figure 3.38. Beaker II pottery. .............................................................................................................................123 Figure 3.39. Beaker II pottery. .............................................................................................................................124 Figure 3.40. Comparative assemblage sizes.........................................................................................................124 Figure 3.41. Comparative rim and base numbers (by % of assemblage). ............................................................125 Figure 3.42. Comparative fabric types. ................................................................................................................125 Figure 3.43. Beaker levels I and II: Rim diameters..............................................................................................126 Figure 3.44. Beaker levels I and II: Base diameters.............................................................................................127 Figure 3.45. Cockle shell impressions in plasticine with comparable sherd. .......................................................128 Figure 3.46. Limpet shell impressions in plasticine with comparable sherd........................................................129 Figure 3.47. Frequency of decorative techniques.................................................................................................129 Figure 3.48. Frequency of motif groups and motifs.............................................................................................130 Figure 3.49. Beaker I lithics. ...............................................................................................................................134 Figure 3.50. Beaker II stone artefacts. ................................................................................................................134 Figure 3.51. Worked bone and antler artefacts recovered from the Beaker I horizon..........................................141 Figure 3.52. Worked bone and antler artefacts recovered from the Beaker I horizon..........................................142 Figure 3.53. Worked bone and antler artefacts recovered from the Beaker II horizon. .......................................143 Figure 3.54. The use of a bone gorge for baiting. ................................................................................................144 Figure 3.55. Bone tube or bead. ...........................................................................................................................145 Figure 3.56. Bone combs recovered from the Beaker I horizon...........................................................................145 Figure 3.57. Bone combs recovered from the Beaker I horizon...........................................................................145 Figure 3.58. Comb impression in plasticine.........................................................................................................145 Figure 3.59. Beaker ‘domestic’ sites in the Western Isles. .................................................................................150 Figure 4.1. View of the corbelled cist identified in the Beaker II level of Trench III, with the capping still intact. ............................................................................................................................155 Figure 4.2. The sequence of excavation of the corbelled cist recovered from Trench III. .................................156 Figure 4.3. View of the lower layer of partially articulated human remains in the corbelled cist recovered from Trench III. ...............................................................................................................157 Figure 4.4. Plan of the structure identified in the Midden I horizon. ..................................................................157 Figure 4.5. Section F-E in Trench I.....................................................................................................................158 Figure 4.6. View of collapsed wall exposed in Trench I. ....................................................................................159 Figure 4.7. Plan of the adult inhumation recovered from Trench III...................................................................160 Figure 4.8. Plan of the Stone Settings I and II. ...................................................................................................160 Figure 4.9. View of the Stone Settings I and II. .................................................................................................161 Figure 4.10. Probability distributions of calibrated AMS dates obtained from the human burials. .....................163 Figure 4.11. Bronze Age pottery. ........................................................................................................................166 Figure 4.12. Late Iron Age pottery.......................................................................................................................168 Figure 4.13. Craggan Ware. .................................................................................................................................169

vii

Figure 4.14. Bone pin recovered from the corbelled cist. ....................................................................................171 Figure 4.15. Worked bone artefacts recovered from the Midden II horizon.......................................................172 Figure 4.16. Visual inventory (not to scale) of the skeletal elements of Skeleton III from the Corbelled cist. ................................................................................................................................176 Figure 4.17. Dental inventory of Skeleton III from the Corbelled cist. ..............................................................176 Figure 4.18. Visual inventory (not to scale) of the skeletal elements of Skeleton II from the Corbelled cist. ................................................................................................................................177 Figure 4.19. Dental inventory of Skeleton II from the Corbelled cist.................................................................177 Figure 4.20. Visual inventory (not to scale) of the skeletal elements of Skeleton I from the Corbelled cist. ................................................................................................................................177 Figure 4.21. Dental inventory of Skeleton I from the Corbelled cist. .................................................................177 Figure 4.22. Visual inventory (not to scale) of the skeletal elements of Find no. 169. ......................................178 Figure 4.23. Dental inventory of Find no. 169....................................................................................................178 Figure 4.24. Visual inventory (not to scale) of the skeletal elements of Find no. 171. ......................................179 Figure 4.25. Visual inventory (not to scale) of the skeletal elements of Find no. 33, Skeleton III. ...................180 Figure 4.26. Dental inventory of Find no. 33, Skeleton III.................................................................................180 Figure 4.27. Visual inventory (not to scale) of the skeletal elements of Find no. 70, Skeleton II ......................180 Figure 4.28. Dental inventory of Find no. 70, Skeleton II. .................................................................................180 Figure 4.29. Visual inventory (not to scale) of the skeletal elements of Find no. 71, Skeleton IIIA. ................181 Figure 4.30. Dental inventory of Find no. 71, Skeleton IIIA. .............................................................................182 Figure 4.31. Visual inventory (not to scale) of the skeletal elements of Find no. 71, Skeleton IIIB. ................182 Figure 4.32. Dental inventory of Find no. 71, Skeleton IIIB. .............................................................................182 Figure 4.33. Dental inventory of Find no. 71, Skeleton IIIC. .............................................................................182 Figure 4.34. Visual inventory (not to scale) of the skeletal elements of Find no. 35, Skeleton I. ......................183 Figure 4.35. Dental inventory of Find no. 35, Skeleton I....................................................................................183 Figure 5.1. Probability distributions of radiocarbon dates obtained from Northton. ........................................188 Figure A2.1. Bivariant plots showing the variation in modal composition of Neolithic, Beaker, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Medieval pottery sherds.......................................................................209 Figure A2.2. Bivariant plots showing the variation in modal composition of Neolithic, Beaker, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Medieval pottery sherds.......................................................................210 Figure A2.3. Log-ratio plots showing the variation in modal composition of Neolithic, Beaker, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Medieval pottery sherds.......................................................................211 Figure A2.4. Histograms showing the variation in modal composition of Neolithic, Beaker, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Medieval pottery sherds. ..................................................................................212 Figure A2.5. The variation in selected components within Neolithic, Beaker, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Medieval pottery sherds. ..................................................................................................213 Figure A2.6.Ternary plots showing the variation in modal composition of Neolithic, Beaker, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Medieval pottery sherds.......................................................................214 Figure A2.7. Photomicrographs of pottery thin sections. ....................................................................................216 Figure A2.8. Photomicrographs of pottery thin sections. ....................................................................................217 Figure A2.9. Photomicrographs of pottery thin sections. ....................................................................................221 Figure A2.10. Photomicrographs of pottery thin sections....................................................................................222 Figure A3.1. A binary plot of SiO2 against Na2O + K2O to compare drift pumice from Northton, Isle of Harris and other locations in Norway, Scotland, Svalbard, Sweden, Denmark and Greenland with tephra from Icelandic foci. .............................................................................229 Figure A3.2. A binary plot of FeO against TiO2 to compare drift pumice from Northton, Isle of Harris and other locations in Norway, Scotland, Svalbard, Sweden, Denmark and Greenland with tephra from Icelandic foci. ...................................................................................230 Figure A3.3. A binary plot of FeO against MgO to compare drift pumice from Northton, Isle of Harris and other locations in Norway, Scotland, Svalbard, Sweden, Denmark and Greenland with tephra from Icelandic foci. ....................................................................................231

viii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1. Palaeoenvironmental sites plotted in Figure 1.2. ..................................................................................5 Table 2.1. AMS dates obtained from burnt hazelnut shells recovered from the ‘Large Section’. .......................23 Table 2.2. Basal layer excavated in 1965-66: Assemblage classification, showing material used and maximum lengths. .......................................................................................................................24 Table 2.3. Lithic material recovered during investigations at Northton 2001, showing stratigraphic distribution. ....................................................................................................................24 Table 2.4. Composition of lithic assemblage recovered from the 2001 season. ..................................................24 Table 2.5. Thin section analysis...........................................................................................................................27 Table 2.6. Routine soil test results from column Samples 5A and 5B.................................................................31 Table 2.7. Routine soil test results from sub-samples of bulk samples................................................................33 Table 2.8. Taxa distribution from the ‘Large Section’ by individual context. .....................................................34 Table 2.9. Identified carbonised plant macrofossils from bulk samples and SF12. ............................................35 Table 2.10. Identified species and sample weights from charcoal samples recovered from the ‘Large Section’. ..................................................................................................................................36 Table 2.11. Radiocarbon date obtained from the Neolithic horizon. .....................................................................44 Table 2.12. Proportions of Neolithic feature sherds...............................................................................................45 Table 2.13. Criteria used to record Neolithic sherd fabric type. ............................................................................59 Table 2.14. Neolithic vessel types..........................................................................................................................61 Table 2.15. Neolithic rim forms. ............................................................................................................................61 Table 2.16. Neolithic miscellaneous forms. ...........................................................................................................61 Table 2.17. Frequency of decorated and undecorated Neolithic sherds. ................................................................62 Table 2.18. Neolithic rim types..............................................................................................................................64 Table 2.19. Neolithic vessel type, rim type and decoration. ..................................................................................64 Table 2.20. Neolithic body sherd types..................................................................................................................65 Table 2.21. The frequency of residues on Neolithic pottery sherds. .....................................................................67 Table 2.22. Composition of the Neolithic lithic assemblage..................................................................................70 Table 2.23. Composition of the Neolithic primary assemblage, showing material and maximum length of artefact types........................................................................................................................70 Table 2.24. Composition of the Neolithic secondary assemblage, showing material and maximum length of artefact types........................................................................................................................71 Table 2.25. Representation of species by number of fragments from the Neolithic phase. ...................................76 Table 2.26. Fish and bird species from the Neolithic phase represented by number of fragments. .......................76 Table 2.27. Minimum Number estimates and relative percentages of main food mammals..................................76 Table 2.28. Sheep epiphyseal fusion data for the Neolithic phase. ........................................................................77 Table 2.29. Sheep tooth eruption data for the Neolithic phase...............................................................................77 Table 2.30. Cattle epiphyseal fusion data for the Neolithic phase. ........................................................................77 Table 2.31. Cattle tooth eruption data for the Neolithic phase...............................................................................77 Table 3.1. Radiocarbon dates obtained from the Beaker I and Beaker II horizons..............................................90 Table 3.2. Basic comparisons between Beaker I and Beaker II assemblages. ...................................................124 Table 3.3. Beaker motifs associated with the Beaker I assemblage...................................................................130 Table 3.4. Beaker motifs associated with the Beaker II assemblage..................................................................131 Table 3.5. Classification of assemblage and material found in the Beaker I phase. .........................................134 Table 3.6. Beaker I: Primary Technology and material used, showing maximum lengths. ...............................135 Table 3.7. Beaker I: Secondary Technology and material used, showing maximum lengths. ...........................135 Table 3.8. Beaker II: Material used and basic character of assemblage.............................................................137 Table 3.9. Beaker II: Primary assemblage and material used. ...........................................................................137 Table 3.10. Beaker II: Chipped stone modified assemblage and material used. ..................................................137 Table 3.11. Analysis of the bronze waste from Northton. ...................................................................................139 Table 3.12. Representation of species by number of fragments from the Beaker I phase. ..................................147 Table 3.13. Fish and bird species from the Beaker I phase represented by number of fragments. ......................147 Table 3.14. Representation of species by number of fragments from the Beaker II phase. .................................148 Table 3.15. Bird species from the Beaker II phase represented by number of fragments. ...................................148 Table 3.16. Minimum number estimates of main food mammals from Beaker I and II horizons. ......................149 Table 3.17. Relative percentages of main food mammals from Beaker I and II horizons. ..................................149 Table 4.1. AMS dates derived from the Northton human bone samples. ..........................................................162 Table 4.2. Pottery assemblage by date and context............................................................................................164 Table 4.3. Representation of species by number of fragments from the Midden I phase. .................................174 Table 4.4. Fish and bird species from the Midden I phase represented by number of fragments. .....................174 ix

Table 4.5. Representation of species by number of fragments from the Midden II phase. ................................174 Table 4.6. Fish and bird species from the Midden II phase represented by number of fragments.....................174 Table A2.1. Modal compositional data obtained for Neolithic, Beaker, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Medieval pottery sherds....................................................................................................................208 Table A3.1. Selection of whole-rock analyses from strandlines and archaeological sites in Scotland and Norway and microprobe analyses from Barra, Scotland. ...........................................................228 Table A3.2. Selection of whole-rock analyses and glass microprobe analyses of tephra from Icelandic foci.....................................................................................................................................230

x

CONTRIBUTORS Richard Binns

GeoArch, Strindvn, Trondheim, Norway

A S Clarke

Formerly of the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh

Mike Church

School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh

Mike Cressey

CFA Archaeology Ltd, Eskmills Park, Musselburgh, East Lothian

C B Denston

Formerly of the Duckworth Laboratory, University of Cambridge

Kevin Edwards

Department of Geography & Environment and Northern Studies Centre, University of Aberdeen

Judith Finlay

Darlington College of Technology, County Durham

Alex Gibson

Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford

Richard Gregory

University of Manchester Archaeological Unit, University of Manchester

Ericka Guttmann

School of Human & Environmental Science, University of Reading

Shelia Hamilton-Dyer

5 Suffolk Avenue, Shirley, Southampton

Andrew Heald

National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh.

Melanie Johnson

CFA Archaeology Ltd, Eskmills Park, Musselburgh, East Lothian

Eileen Murphy

School of Geography, Archaeology & Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast

Eiméar Nelis

Centre for Archaeological Fieldwork, School of Geography, Archaeology & Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast

Peter Northover

Department of Materials, Oxford University Begbroke Science Park

Emyrs Phillips

British Geological Survey, Edinburgh

Derek Simpson

Formerly of the School of Archaeology & Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast

xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to acknowledge the late Robert B K Stevenson, Keeper of Archaeology, Museum of Scotland, who originally set up the programme of excavations at Northton, and Professor James McEwen, Department of Church History, University of Aberdeen, who discovered the site. We are also grateful to all the volunteers, students and specialists involved in the Northton project during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The people of Northton must also be thanked for permitting and supporting the excavations, Marius Cooke, Department of Archaeology, University of Leicester, for his photographic skills and John Evans, Department of Archaeology, University of Cardiff, for his assistance with the original site drawings. The 2001 season, which was funded by Historic Scotland, would not have been possible without the help and assistance of Patrick Ashmore, Olwyn Owen and Sally Foster, Historic Scotland; Ian Armit, Colm Donnelly, Sarah Gormley, Gerry McCormac and Eiméar Nelis, School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast; Mike Church, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh; Donald Murdie, Historic Scotland Monument Warden; Simon Fraser, Bays of Harris Estate; Gavin Scott-Forrest, Northton Grazings Committee; and Mary MacLeod, Local Authority Archaeologist. Bill and Chris Lawson, Seallam, must also be thanked for the interest they showed in the project and for many valuable discussions of the archaeology and history of the Western Isles. The post-excavation work was also funded by Historic Scotland and has benefited from the help of Trevor Cowie, National Museum of Scotland, who enabled access to the Northton artefacts and Maggie Bellatti, University of Cambridge, who facilitated the examination and AMS sampling of the human remains held in the Duckworth Laboratory. Melanie Johnson would like to thank Ian Armit (Eilean Domhnuill and Eilean Olabhat), Mike Church and Simon Gilmour (Guinnerso), Tim Neighbour (Bostadh Beach, Calanais kerb cairn), Mike Parker Pearson (Cladh Hallan), Alan Saville and Robert Squair (Berneray Causeway and Rubha an Udal Site 6) and Patrick Ashmore (Calanais) for access to unpublished material and information on their excavations, and Trevor Cowie and David Clarke for providing access to the Northton assemblage and work space in the National Museum of Scotland. Emrys Phillips would like to thank David Oates for his expert advice and careful preparation of the thin sections of the pottery sherds, whilst Mike Church would like to thank Tim Lomax, Catherine Flitcroft and Ian Armit for access to unpublished material. The soil samples obtained from the 2001 season were processed by John Davison, School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, whilst Ian Meighan provided geological identifications of the stone artefacts recovered from the ‘Large Section’. We are also grateful to Ian Armit and Patrick Ashmore for comments on earlier drafts of this monograph; Mike Parker Pearson, Niall Sharples and Caroline Wickham-Jones for supplying material in advance of publication and Libby Mulqueeny for preparing the monograph illustrations. The assistance and support of Colm Donnelly and Patrick Ashmore was also essential to the smooth running of the post-excavation project and the completion of this monograph.

xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

integral to the success of the traditional crofting system, as they provided communal pools of labour and areas of common grazing land in their hinterlands. Although the introduction of mechanisation has practically alleviated the demand for communal labour, the remnants of communal spirit can still be felt in the townships today attesting to the presence of an important, inherited, social legacy.

THE WESTERN ISLES The Western Isles, or the Outer Hebrides, are a distinctive chain of islands located approximately 60 km off the north-west coast of mainland Scotland. This island chain stretches for some 210 km from the Butt of Lewis to Barra Head and is composed of the five main islands of Lewis-Harris, North Uist, Benbecula, South Uist and Barra. To the south of the island of Barra, close to the western coastline of Lewis and Harris, and spanning the Sound of Harris there are also a dense scattering of smaller, often uninhabited islands, which when placed alongside their larger counterparts form the most extensive archipelago in the British Isles (Figure 1.1).

This type of land tenure and farming is a fairly recent introduction to the area, however, as it was largely established as a consequence of the socio-political conditions that prevailed following the Jacobite Rebellion in AD 1745, which ultimately resulted in the breaking of the clan system and the notorious Highland Clearances. Prior to the creation of the crofts, land tenure and settlement was characterised in many areas by the farming township, or baile. These townships usually housed a small nucleated community of tenant farmers in an often irregular shaped settlement, many of which were reorganised and rebuilt on a regular basis (Dodgshon 1993). The landholding associated with these fairly dynamic settlement forms appears to have been organised, in many instances, around runrig open fields and infield/outfield cropping, which was probably introduced into region from the 13th century AD onwards (Dodgshon 1993; 1996). A characteristic feature of this type of tenure, was the subdivision of the holdings within the open fields into intermixed strips which were often reallocated periodically (Dodgshon 1996). In some areas, however, a more dispersed pattern of pre-crofting settlement has been identified which was associated with enclosed fields (Dodgshon 1993; 1996; Armit 1997). It is argued that these small enclosed farms may have been held in severalty and were perhaps established in the region prior to the runrig system of tenure (Dodgshon 1993; 1996). Although the baile ultimately replaced this more archaic form of socio-agrarian organisation in many areas, in others it appears to have persisted as a feature of the Post-Medieval landscape up until the 18th century AD (Dodgshon 1993; 1996).

INNSEGALL ‘ISLES OF THE STRANGERS’ Richard Gregory A striking feature of the island chain is its extreme remoteness. Although it would appear that in prehistoric and Early Historic times the region had important sea links with the Northern Isles, and perhaps to a lesser extent Ireland, today the region is largely separated from the modern cultural and political hub of Scotland, and receives a fairly moderate level of tourism. The population of the isles is also comparatively low, with its c. 30,000 inhabitants distributed between the numerous townships that hug the islands’ coastlines, and the main administrative capital at Stornoway, Lewis. From a commercial perspective the economy of the islands is somewhat peripheral, as it was dominated until relatively recent times by a limited reliance on sea fishing, kelp production (Geddes 1955), the Harris tweed industry (Thompson 1968) and perhaps more importantly the crofting system of farming. Crofting is a unique style of land tenure in which the tenant works a plot of land, termed the croft, and shares rights to common grazing land with other crofters. The crofts are located close to the crofter’s dwellings and are usually small in size, with an average land holding of around 5 hectares, although some crofts may contain as little as 0.5 hectares of land (Crofters Commission 1992). The farming of the crofts is characterised traditionally by pastoral farming, with an emphasis on the rearing of store lambs and cattle for sale to lowland farmers for fattening, or as breeding stock. Due to the economic constraints imposed by the climate and soil conditions of the Western Isles many crofters have, however, diversified in recent times, and it is not uncommon to find the crofters supplementing their income through activities such as forestry and tourism. Crofts and the crofting settlement are normally confined to the more fertile coastal soils of the islands where they often cluster to form townships of varying size and form (Collier 1953; Jaatinen 1957). These townships were

In the present context, one advantage of these ‘traditional’ pre-crofting and crofting forms of land management are the benefits they have bestowed on the archaeological remains of the islands. These largely unintensive agricultural regimes have been less detrimental to field monuments than intensive forms of farming practised in the more fertile, and densely occupied, regions of lowland Scotland. Moreover, many of the soils of the islands have probably been unsuitable for farming for an extended period of time and hence the remnants of prehistoric life can still be found on, and preserved beneath, them. Furthermore, the Western Isles also benefit from an unusually rich artefactual record

1

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTHTON, ISLE OF HARRIS

Figure 1.1. The Western Isles and the location of Northton, Toe Head, Harris.

2

INTRODUCTION peatlands indicates that in certain parts of the islands the soils in a more fertile state would have supported a mixed tree cover during particular periods of prehistory (inter alia Bohncke 1988; Bennett et al 1990; 1997; Brayshay & Edwards 1996; Church this volume), and presumably this primeval woodland would have acted as a valuable resource to the burgeoning prehistoric communities of the islands.

associated with many of these prehistoric/Early Historic settlements, burials and other ritual sites. The quality and concentration of the prehistoric and Early Historic remains are therefore largely unparalleled in mainland Britain. In this sense the region, although seemingly remote, occupies a unique and arguably prominent position in Scottish and, indeed, north-west European prehistory (Megaw & Simpson 1984; Armit 1996; Ashmore 1996).

On the western coast of Barra, the Uists, Harris and fragmentary portions of Lewis the rugged and often peatcovered terrain of the eastern coast and interior is transformed. The topography of these areas is characterised by a low-lying gently undulating landscape, which has been greatly affected by the influence of the North Atlantic over the course of the Holocene. Here the dominant landform is termed machair after the Gaelic for ‘fertile plain’. This type of landform is peculiar to western and northern Scotland and restricted areas of Ireland, and invariably consists of substantial shell-sand dunes close to the present coastline, which usually support a vegetation cover composed of dune grasses. The present day dunes often front an area of nowstabilised ancient dunes dating to the Late and Mid Holocene, termed ‘high machair’ (Gilbertson et al 1996b). Behind this high machair, is the ‘low machair’, a grassland plain which usually floods in winter and is often associated with machair lochs and marshes impounded by the dune systems closer to the coast. This plain, in turn, extends back and may partially overlie peat deposits known locally as the ‘blackland’.

THE LANDSCAPE Richard Gregory The Western Isles are dominated by one of the oldest rock groups in Europe, the Lewisian Gneiss, a suite of coarse-grained, crystalline Precambrian gneisses which were formed some 2900 million years ago. Significantly these represent a fragment of a much larger craton, which was only finally broken up by the formation of the North Atlantic Ocean in Jurassic to recent times. Their nearest geological relatives are therefore found in Greenland and eastern Canada (Fettes et al 1992). Other rock types found in the isles include younger red-brown PermoTriassic sandstones and conglomerates confined to the Stornoway basin, and a few isolated igneous dykes of Permo-Carboniferous and early Tertiary age (Fettes et al 1992). Aside from this geological individuality, the landscapes of the Western Isles are often described as dramatic, and this is undoubtedly due to the unique juxtaposition of land, fresh water and sea that characterises the topography of the region. This topography varies greatly in character. In northern Lewis, for example, the landscape is characterised by a low plateau, which then rises in southern Lewis and Harris to form the craggy Harris Hills, with summits extending to between 700 m and 800 m in height above sea level. The eastern regions of the Uists and Benbecula are also characterised by a rocky terrain, but here the landscape is dominated by a multitude of lochs, lochans and low rounded hills. These features attest to the influence of glacial erosion by the Quaternary ice sheets and subsequent phases of inundation following climatic amelioration during the Early Holocene (Peacock 1984; Sutherland 1993). Similarly, the landscapes of the southern isles of Barra, Vatersay and Mingulay are also rugged and contain evidence of glacial scouring (Hall 1996).

In a Hebridean context the machair plain is extremely significant as it forms one of the more fertile, if somewhat fragile, land in the islands. The soils of the machair plain are characterised by a high calcium carbonate content, a low organic matter content and are also generally free-draining (Hudson 1991). This freedraining quality has unfortunately led to leaching and in consequence the machair soils are deficient in phosphates, nitrates, potassium, copper and manganese. In comparison with the more acidic peaty soil complexes which dominate the region the machair soils are, however, relatively productive and this has inevitably led to their use by human communities, particularly for cultivation, over an extended period of time. Although in this respect it forms a valuable focus for archaeological research, the formation and development of the machair system also has significant archaeological implications. The most universally accepted model for the formation of machair landforms in the Western Isles is that developed by Ritchie (1966; 1979; 1985) and Whittington and Ritchie (1988). This model suggests that large dune systems were established close to the present shoreline as glacial sediment mixed with shell-sand was driven inshore as a result of the Holocene marine transgression. These large dunes then progressively ‘blew out’ with sand being deposited further inland to form the typical landforms and topography associated with the machair system.

Over substantial tracts of these glacially moulded landscapes, and in particular the north Lewis plateau, blanket peat, peaty gleys/podzols and rankers now form the dominant soil cover (Hudson et al 1982). These wet, and rather infertile, soils support largely treeless moorland and fen communities composed of bog mosses, heathers and low grasses or sedges. As with the histories of many landscapes in northern Britain this present cover is, however, merely the culmination of millennia of climatic and anthropogenic modification. Indeed, pollen analysis and the remains of buried tree stumps within the 3

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTHTON, ISLE OF HARRIS macrofossil assemblages, which have been recovered from archaeological sites dating from the Neolithic through to the Post-Medieval period (summarised by Church 2002; Smith & Mulville 2004; Church this volume; Cressey this volume). Indirect evidence for vegetation reconstruction is also available from alternative proxy records, such as the molluscan remains from Northton (Evans 1971), peat humification studies (Coles in prep.) and insect analysis of the waterlogged deposits at the Neolithic site of Eilean Domhnuil in North Uist (Warsop 2000).

From Ritchie’s (1979; 1985) and later studies of the machair on the Uists (Gilbertson et al 1995; 1996b; 1999) it is also clear that the process of machair formation is characterised by long periods of stability, alternating with episodic periods of erosion and deposition. The stability of the machair appears to be due to a number of interrelated factors which include the natural succession of dune vegetation, the presence of lakes/marshes, or high winter water tables on the low machair plain, and the presence of human communities who have aided in the process of soil formation (Gilbertson et al 1996b). With the examination of the stratigraphy of the machair it is not uncommon to find, however, former land surfaces forming palaeosols, often associated with archaeological middens, which are now buried beneath layers of wind blown sand (inter alia Simpson 1976; Ritchie 1979; Gilbertson et al 1996b; 1999). These often alternating layers of palaeosols, middens and wind blown sands graphically attest to the periodic erosion and subsequent deposition of the machair system. From an archaeological perspective these processes, while at times destructive, have led to the unique preservation of anthropogenic horizons and structures, and fortuitously the calcareous soils have preserved unique and substantial quantities of prehistoric and historic artefacts, faunal and human remains. In this respect the machair is an important archaeological resource and provides clear testament to the intimate relationships which have emerged between human communities and these unique coastal areas.

The first phase of investigation into the vegetation history of the Western Isles occurred between 1906 and the 1970s and was characterised by the identification of tree stumps, largely birch (Betula sp.), within cut peat banks or exposed peat sections on the coast, or loch edges (Lewis 1906; 1907; Beveridge 1926; Ritchie 1966; von Weymarn 1974; Angus 1987). This established the existence of birch woodland at certain spots in the landscape prior to the large-scale expansion of blanket peat. However, palynological research in Barra (Blackburn 1946), Benbecula (Ritchie 1966) and a number of sites in Lewis (Erdtman 1924) suggested that woodland was not a significant component within the early landscape, due to the presence of low levels of arboreal pollen in these respective pollen sequences. This impression of a ‘forestless zone’ was reinforced by the first well-dated pollen sequence covering the Late-Glacial and Holocene periods from Little Loch Roag, in West Lewis (Birks & Madsen 1979). At this site, the arboreal pollen never exceeded 10% and it was therefore concluded that the Western Isles were dominated by an open landscape throughout the Holocene, consisting of grassland and heath with occasional stands of birch (Betula sp.) and hazel (Corylus sp.). It was further suggested that this landscape experienced increased moorland expansion in the latter half of the Holocene.

THE VEGETATION HISTORY OF THE WESTERN ISLES Mike Church Development of the debate The Holocene vegetation history of the Western Isles is one of the more controversial and debated topics within Scottish palaeoecology (inter alia Bennett et al 1997; Dickson & Dickson 2000, 64-7). Many researchers have undertaken detailed work over the past 25 years, and this has resulted in the publication of over 20 pollen sequences from the island chain. A common thread linking all of these sequences, however, is a desire to assess the development of the open landscape, with particular reference to the scale and nature of possible woodland cover. Three basic categories of evidence are used to evaluate the development of the landscape and these include pollen, plant macrofossils and the indirect evidence for vegetation cover. The extraction of cores and samples from lochs or blanket bog sequences, which are ideal environments for pollen preservation, have formed the main line of evidence. These environments also favour the preservation of uncarbonised plant macrofossils, such as tree stumps and leaf litter, and these have been used to reconstruct past vegetation communities at specific points in the landscape. Direct evidence of anthropogenic exploitation of various plant communities is also found in the form of carbonised plant

One of the first modern studies to challenge this view was Evans’ (1971) analysis of a molluscan assemblage from Northton, which is considered in detail in a later section. This work highlighted the presence of significant areas of woodland during the Holocene which were, at certain times, subjected to phases of possible anthropogenic clearance. More direct evidence of the presence of a significant woodland component was, however, presented by Wilkins’ (1984) description and sampling of over 40 macrofossil remains of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), birch (Betula sp.) and willow (Salix sp.) in the lower portions of peat profiles across Lewis. Radiocarbon dating of eleven tree stumps suggested that the willow (Salix sp.) dated to between 9200 to 8500 BP, the birch (Betula sp.) between 8000 and 5000 BP and the Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) from 4800-3900 BP. A further 40 sites with woodland macrofossils from Lewis to South Uist were also identified by Fossitt (1996). The first palynological evidence for significant areas of woodland came from a composite pollen diagram from peat bank profiles at Tob nan Leobag (Bohncke 1988), a small 4

INTRODUCTION peninsula with evidence of Bronze Age field systems, located near the Callanish stones. Early to Mid-Holocene arboreal pollen levels ranged between 30% and 80%, with high percentages of birch (Betula sp.) pollen and some hazel (Corylus sp.), rowan (Sorbus aucuparia L.) and willow (Salix sp.) pollen. A Mid-Holocene peak between 5500 and 4500 cal. BP was also noted, indicating an open type of birch (Betula sp.) woodland in this area, during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Both Wilkins (1984) and Bohncke (1988) therefore contested Birks and Madsen’s (1979) assertions that the Western Isles were predominantly open landscapes throughout the Holocene. Birks (1994, 35) responded, however, by suggesting that there was no disparity between the data from Little Loch Roag and Tob nan Leobag as ‘both can indicate small areas of scrub in local, sheltered situations and a predominantly treeless regional vegetation’. Label Site name Lewis and Harris 1 Guinnerso East Moor 2 Little Loch Roag 3 Loch Bharabhat 4 Loch Builaval Beag 5 Loch na Beinne Bige 6 Loch na Beirgh 7 Loch nan Cnamh 8 Loch Ruadh Guinnerso 9 Sheshader 10 Toa Galson 11 Tob nan Leobag 12 Tolsta Head

Problems and resolution of interpretation The two competing research hypotheses on the nature and extent of Holocene woodland, attracted further detailed palynological sampling, including doctoral research projects by Fossitt (1990), Brayshay (1992) and Lomax (1997). As a result, over 20 pollen diagrams now exist for the Western Isles in various stages and states of publication. However, these diagrams vary in their chronological range of coverage, and only a small proportion cover the entire Holocene due to truncation of the later periods. Variable levels of dating control have also been used, with some diagrams only utilising a few bulk radiocarbon dates, whilst others have a complete absence of radiocarbon dates. Direct comparison with archaeological periods and sites is also complicated by the lack of calibrated radiocarbon dates within all of the diagrams.

Type of evidence

Reference

Holocene humification Late glacial / Holocene pollen Late glacial / Holocene pollen Late glacial / Holocene pollen Late glacial / Holocene pollen Mid - Late Holocene pollen Holocene humification Late glacial / Holocene pollen Mid - Late Holocene pollen Late Quaternary pollen Holocene pollen Late Quaternary pollen

Coles in prep. Birks & Madsen 1979 Lomax 1997 Fossitt 1996 Edwards et al 1994 Lomax 1997 Coles in prep. Flitcroft 1997 Newell 1988 Sutherland & Walker 1984 Bohncke1988 von Weymarn 1974

13 14

North Uist Bharpa Carinish Loch Portain

Mid - Late Holocene pollen Mid - Late Holocene pollen

Crone 1993 Mills et al 1994

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

South Uist Kildonan Glen Loch Airigh na h-Aon Oidhche Loch an t-Sil Loch a’Phuinnd Loch Hellisdale Loch Lang North Locheynort Peninerine Reineval

Late glacial / Holocene pollen Late glacial / Holocene pollen Late glacial / Holocene pollen Late glacial / Holocene pollen Late glacial / Holocene pollen Late glacial / Holocene pollen Late glacial / Holocene pollen Early - Mid Holocene pollen Late glacial / Holocene pollen

Brayshay & Edwards 1996 Edwards & Whittington 1994 Edwards & Whittington 1994 Fossitt 1996 Brayshay & Edwards 1996 Bennett et al 1990 Edwards & Whittington 1994 Edwards & Whittington 1994 Edwards & Whittington 1994

24 25 26 27

Barra Borve mire Glen Bretadale Lochan na Cartach Port Caol

Late glacial / Holocene pollen Late glacial / Holocene pollen Late glacial / Holocene pollen Late glacial / early Holocene pollen

Ashmore et al 2000 Gilbertson et al 1995 Brayshay & Edwards 1996 Brayshay & Edwards 1996

28 29

Vatersay Kerb Cairn VS7 Kerb Cairn VS4B

Bronze Age OGS pollen Bronze Age OGS pollen

Edwards & Craigie 2000a Edwards & Craigie 2000b

Table 1.1. Palaeoenvironmental sites plotted in Figure 1.2.

5

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTHTON, ISLE OF HARRIS

Figure 1.2. Palaeoenvironmental sites in the Western Isles.

Further problems in interpreting pollen data from the Western Isles stem from taphonomic complexity, particularly the movement and redeposition of peat within a mire or blanket bog. For instance, close interval dating of peat within a valley mire sequence at Borve in Barra revealed older peat overlying younger peat, which was

interpreted as the result of peat creep, or landslides (Ashmore et al 2000). These findings may present a serious problem for pollen diagrams derived from peat columns, especially the composite profile from the three peat banks at Tob nan Leobag. Some of the profiles examined from the Western Isles also have relatively 6

INTRODUCTION crowberry (Empetrum nigrum L.) heath developed with increased warming, which included mugwort (Artemesia spp.), meadowsweet (Filipendula spp.) and some possible birch (Betula sp.) shrubs. Despite the presence of birch the landscape was open, however, especially following the return of glacial conditions associated with the Loch Lomond stadial.

poor dating controls and so, in the absence of close interval AMS dating, redeposition is unlikely to be spotted. The direct pollen taphonomy in an Atlantic environment also presents an extra interpretative complication. Pollen traps set in and around Allt Volagir wood and the Northbay plantation in Barra indicated that modern tree pollen falls to background levels only a few tens of metres from the edge of the wood (Fossitt 1994; Gearey & Gilbertson 1997). This suggests that past woodland will only be detected if a sampling point is within or immediately adjacent to the wood at any given time in the pollen sequence.

Early to Mid-Holocene vegetation of Lewis and Harris (c. 10000-5000 BP) The immediate post-glacial period saw a very rapid rise in temperature marking the beginning of the Holocene. The Empetrum heath was replaced by a more mixed tall herb and grass vegetation with the introduction of juniper (Juniperus communis L.) and tree birch (Betula sp.). When comparing the various pollen profiles it also appears that woodland development was not spatially or temporally controlled. For example, at Loch Bharabhat, Loch na Beinne Bige and Loch Builaval Beag woodland cover became increasingly dense and diverse with the appearance of hazel (Corylus sp.) and some pine (Pinus sp.), oak (Quercus sp.), elm (Ulmus sp.) and alder (Alnus sp.). However, some sites, such as Loch Ruadh Guinnerso and Little Loch Roag, remained open with little significant arboreal pollen, except for some birch (Betula sp.) representing very localised stands. There is also evidence from Tob nan Leobag and Loch Builaval Beag of variation in the woodland cover that has been tentatively attributed to human clearance, through possible fire ecology, during the Early to Mid-Holocene (Edwards 1996; Edwards et al 1995). All of the diagrams display the first signs of heath and moorland development with the appearance of ling (Calluna vulgaris L. Hull.) and other heathers (Erica spp.) between 9000 and 8000 BP.

Due to these problems, only three relatively simple issues have been addressed when interpreting and synthesising the pollen diagrams from the two main island groups of Lewis/Harris and the Uists/Barra, as part of the following overview. These include: identifying periods of significant tree cover and the timing of major deforestation, if any; the timing of significant expansion of moorland; and the timing and relative expanse of significant arable and grassland/pastoral components. The evidence from Lewis and Harris Eight pollen diagrams are used in this brief overview of vegetation history from the Late Glacial through to the Late Holocene. The evidence is discussed in terms of broad chronological changes, with particular reference to the role of human impact in the long-term vegetation history and the landscape of the first millennia BC and AD. Seven of the eight diagrams are from West Lewis (Figure 1.2; Table 1.1). The evidence includes almost complete sequences from lochs and mires at Little Loch Roag (Birks & Madsen 1979), Loch Bharabhat (Edwards et al 1994; Edwards 1996; Lomax & Edwards 2000), Loch Builaval Beag (Fossitt 1996), Loch Ruadh Guinnerso (Flitcroft 1997) and Loch na Beinne Bige (Edwards et al 1994). Shorter sequences are from peat sections adjacent to buried field walls at Tob nan Leobag, near Callanish (Bohncke 1988), Sheshader, on the east coast (Newell 1988), and the later prehistoric infilling of the machair slack of Loch na Beirgh (Lomax 1997). All of the dates are expressed as uncalibrated radiocarbon years before 1950 (C14 yr BP).

Neolithic to Late Bronze Age vegetation of Lewis and Harris (c. 5000-3000 BP) The landscape confronting the first agriculturists was probably a mosaic of tall herb grassland, Calluna heath, bog and predominantly birch-hazel woodland in more sheltered areas. A number of important events also took place during the sixth millennium BP. The evidence of significant woodland clearance, for example, which is presumably a result of human action, is recorded from all of the sites with previous woodland cover. However, from the Neolithic through to the Early Bronze Age this woodland cover, following the initial deforestation at Loch Bharabhat, Tob nan Leobag and Loch an Beinne Bige, varied in density suggesting possible controlled regeneration as part of a wider economic strategy. Significantly, the timing of this regeneration fits with the model proposed by Evans (1971) from the molluscan evidence at Northton. Further evidence of human activity is seen with the first appearance of cereal type pollen during the Neolithic at Tob nan Leobag. However, caution must be exercised when identifying cereal pollen in Atlantic oceanic climates as maritime grasses have

Late Devensian vegetation of Lewis and Harris (c. 14000-10000 BP) Evidence for Late Devensian vegetation change comes from the base of the profiles at Loch Bharabhat and Loch na Beinne Bige. Both show similar environmental conditions with the vegetation reflecting the initial warming of the Windermere interstadial (14000-11500 BP), followed by the short lived return to tundra environments during the Loch Lomond stadial (1150010500 BP). The first plants to colonise the tundra were dwarf willow (Salix herbacea L.), grasses (Poaceae undiff.), sedges (Cyperaceae undiff.), docks (Rumex spp.), some buttercups (Ranunculaceae undiff.), daisies (Asteraceae undiff.) and various mosses. An extensive 7

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTHTON, ISLE OF HARRIS sections associated with prehistoric field systems in North Uist, at Loch Portain (Mills et al 1994) and Bharpa Carinish (Crone 1993), whilst Late Glacial through to Late Holocene profiles from South Uist include Kildonan Glen, Loch Hellisdale (Brayshay & Edwards 1996), Loch Lang (Bennett et al 1990), Loch an t-Sil, Reineval, North Locheynort, Loch Airigh na h-Aon Oidhche (Edwards & Whittington 1994) and Loch a’Phuinnd (Fossitt 1996). A shorter profile from an Early to Mid-Holocene peat deposit was also recovered from Peninerine (Edwards & Whittington 1994). Late Glacial through to Late Holocene profiles from Barra include Lochan na Cartach (Brayshay & Edwards 1996), Glen Bretadale (Gilbertson et al 1995) and Borve mire (Ashmore et al 2000), with a sequence of inter-tidal Late Glacial/Early Holocene peats and clays at Port Caol (Brayshay & Edwards 1996). Two short profiles from old ground surfaces, located beneath two kerbed cairns, on South Vatersay (Edwards & Craigie 2000a; 2000b) complete the data set of this lower island group.

very similar pollen morphologies to those of cereals (Anderson 1978). Indeed, these morphological similarities appear to explain the occurrence of preNeolithic ‘cereal type’ pollen at levels dating just after 7600 BP at Loch Builaval. Further arable and pastoral indicators are apparent from the sixth millennium BP onwards in most of the diagrams and include ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.), tormentil (Potentilla spp.), docks (Rumex spp.), nettles (Urtica spp.) and members of the Ranunculaceae and Brassicaceae families. This spread of agricultural land is more apparent in the Early to Mid-Bronze Age and is accompanied by a major woodland clearance at Loch Bharabhat, Tob nan Leobag and Loch an Beinne Bige. Throughout the Neolithic and Bronze Age moorland was also expanding, reflected by the gradual but perceptible rise of heather (Calluna/Erica spp.) and sedge (Cyperaceae undiff.) pollen. This expansion is presumably a function of climate, topography, natural pedogenesis and woodland clearance and human activity that would have exposed the relatively fragile soils to erosion, waterlogging and leaching (Coles in prep.).

One problem with this data, however, is the lack of sensitivity in identifying the development of the machair and plain vegetation of South Uist. The nature of pollen preservation demands that samples are taken from permanently waterlogged, acid conditions which are unfortunately the opposite to the conditions that exist within or immediately adjacent to the machair. Due, therefore, to the largely extra-local taphonomy of the pollen within the Western Isles (Fossitt 1994; 1996; Gearey & Gilbertson 1997) most of the vegetation reconstruction will be within a few hundred metres of the pollen site, whether blanket bog or small loch.

Iron Age to Early Medieval vegetation of Lewis and Harris (c. 3000-1000 BP) At the beginning of the first millennium BC nearly all of the woodland had disappeared and the predominantly open landscape was a mix of acid grassland, heathland and bog with smaller areas of cultivation and tall herb pasture. The general configuration of this landscape has essentially remained the same up to the present day. Changes in the vegetation are not as pronounced as previous periods, but again these changes are not chronologically or spatially concurrent. For example, at Loch Bharabhat from approximately 2800 BP a number of disturbed ground and erosion indicators, including minerogenic inwash and aquatic taxa such as the quillworts (Isoetes sp.), increase markedly showing disturbance of the soil in the surrounding catchment, presumably due to agriculture and the worsening climate. By approximately 2000 BP these erosion indicators decrease indicating stability in the soil system, which may relate to less agricultural activity in the area. Conversely, from this time a period of disturbance accompanied by the first appearance of significant numbers of cereal grain and other arable and pastoral indicators are recorded at Little Loch Roag. One constant factor of this period is the dominance of heath and moorland taxa within the diagrams and this is accompanied by a number of microscopic charcoal peaks that may relate to deliberate management of the heath, through a form of muirbuin (Edwards et al 1995; Edwards 1996).

Late Devensian vegetation of the Uists and Barra (c. 14000-10000 BP) All of the diagrams covering this period indicate an open landscape similar in character to that suggested for Lewis. However, unlike the Lewis profiles, it is not possible to differentiate between the Windermere interstadial and Loch Lomond stadial. Empetrum heath is the most notable landscape unit with mugwort (Artemesia spp.), dwarf birch (Betula nana L.) and willow (Salix herbacea L.), juniper (Juniperus communis L.) and various grasses. Slightly different proportions of these various taxa can be seen between the easterly and westerly pollen sites, a function of the respective sensitivity and possible microclimates between the locations (Brayshay & Edwards 1996). Early to Mid-Holocene vegetation of Uists and Barra (c. 10000-5000 BP) The climatic amelioration at the beginning of the Holocene marks the replacement of the Empetrum heath and grassland with a more diverse mosaic of tall herb grassland, moorland, bog and woodland communities. This landscape development is not, however, spatially or chronologically simultaneous. For instance, the increase

The evidence from the Uists, Barra and Vatersay Fifteen pollen profiles with radiocarbon dating controls are available from the Uists, Barra and Vatersay (see Figure 1.4). Two short profiles were taken from peat 8

INTRODUCTION in birch at the beginning of the Holocene occurs over a period of 1000 years at thirteen sites. In general most of the profiles have significant proportions of arboreal pollen during this period, with some profiles such as Lochan na Cartach, Loch Hellisdale and Kildonan Glen displaying over 80%. The woodland is dominated by birch (Betula sp.) with some hazel (Corylus sp.) and some diagrams, such as Loch Lang, also contain significant proportions of other tree species, such as oak (Quercus sp.), elm (Ulmus sp.) and even ash (Fraxinus sp.). Ling (Calluna vulgaris L. Hull.) and other heath plants appear in most profiles at an early date (c. 95008000 BP), and increase in proportion throughout the Holocene. Possible Mesolithic fire ecology (cf Edwards 1996) of both the woodland and heath can be inferred from the presence of microcharcoal peaks associated with reductions of woodland cover (e.g. Loch an t-Sil at approximately 8040-7910 BP) and small increases in heathland taxa (e.g. Loch Lang from approximately 9500 BP).

Comparative summary of the vegetation history of the Western Isles When comparing the two island groups a number of similarities and differences are apparent. Evidence of the Late Devensian is now emerging from throughout the island chain, demonstrating the tundra nature of the vegetation. However, the differentiation between the Windermere interstadial and the Loch Lomond stadial can only be seen in two profiles in Lewis. The Early Holocene amelioration saw a varied mosaic of habitats developing, with a possible north-south divide in woodland cover. For instance, the Uists and Barra show woodland cover in most places whereas Lewis is more open with only certain sheltered areas, such as Callanish and Loch Bharabhat, supporting woodland. The actual woodland cover is dominated by birch (Betula sp.) with some hazel (Corylus sp.), willow (Salix sp.) and pine (Pinus sp.), though some of the southern sites and Loch Bharabhat, in Lewis, also have significant proportions of more mixed forest taxa, such as oak (Quercus sp.), elm (Ulmus sp.) and even ash (Fraxinus sp.). Many of the longer profiles show initial signs of heathland between 9500 and 8000 BP and the encroachment of blanket bog is seen throughout the Holocene, with both gradual and sharp increases in heath taxa. These increases are intimately linked to climatic, pedogenic and anthropogenic processes, with possible fire-heathland management becoming increasingly marked in the later millennia. The woodland replacement by arable and pasture land, grassland and heath is non-synchronous over the island chain and displays both gradual replacement and also marked deforestation events. The first signs of arable cultivation are seen in the early Neolithic in certain profiles, such as Tob nan Leobag, but the first appearance of pollen indicators is not concurrent chronologically or spatially, with some profiles only registering a background level of cereal type pollen in the last millennium BP. A number of profiles, including Loch Lang in South Uist and Loch a’Phuinnd and Little Loch Roag, display significant arable activity within their immediate catchments in the middle to late first millennium AD, which may be due to arable intensification and expansion into more marginal areas. By the beginning of the first millennium BC the landscape of the Western Isles was almost totally open, dominated by heath and blanket bog, with smaller areas of agricultural land, tall herb grassland and machair and only very isolated stands of trees. The regional scale configuration of this vegetation landscape has remained essentially the same up to the present day.

Neolithic to Late Bronze Age vegetation of Uists and Barra (c. 5000-3000 BP) The decline of the woodland during the Mid-Holocene to Late Holocene is not a simultaneous process. At Loch an t-Sil the birch-hazel woodland is gradually replaced by grasses (Poaceae undiff.), sedges (Carex spp.) and heath taxa from the eighth millennium BP, but the major deforestation at some sites, such as Lochan na Cartach occurs three millennia later. Clearly, a range of processes interacted to create this replacement of the woodland cover. Most of the sites display a gradual replacement, rather than the clear deforestation events shown by some of the Lewis profiles. This may imply that climate and pedogenesis rather than human action are the main forcing mechanisms in the southern island group. There is, however, widespread microcharcoal evidence for possible fire-heathland management from the Neolithic to the present day, which may account in part for the inexorable spread of blanket peat and bog. Evidence for agriculture, including cereal pollen and disturbed ground and weed taxa, appears from the Neolithic but the evidence is not as marked as some of the profiles from Lewis. Iron Age to Early Medieval vegetation of Uists and Barra (c. 3000-1000 BP) The landscape at the beginning of the first millennium BC was similar to that in Lewis, with a predominantly open aspect of largely heath and blanket bog with some areas of cultivation and tall herb pasture. Woodland cover is only present in sheltered areas inaccessible to animals, such as cliffs or areas deliberately cordoned off by humans. The development of the machair systems, especially the machair plain of western South Uist, was well established during this period and the configuration of this landscape has remained essentially the same up to the present day.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE WESTERN ISLES Richard Gregory The development of archaeological research in the Western Isles has a distinguished history, which stretches back to the topographic and antiquarian accounts produced by numerous early travellers to the region. Of 9

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTHTON, ISLE OF HARRIS In the intervening years between RCAHMS and the intensive programmes of fieldwork in the 1980s, archaeological research continued through the work of a number of dedicated individuals. Notably, the research of Sir Lindsay Scott during the 1930s and 1940s was of paramount importance for the development of prehistoric archaeology in the isles. Scott excavated a range of prehistoric sites which included the Neolithic chambered tombs at Clettraval and Unival, North Uist (Scott 1935; 1947a) and a Neolithic site at Eilean an Tighe, North Uist (Scott 1951a). This latter site was particularly significant as it produced a substantial assemblage of pottery found associated with a number of ephemeral structures and ash spreads. Scott (1951a) interpreted these features as the remains of pottery kilns and argued that the site was a Neolithic pottery workshop. In hindsight this work represents the first modern excavation of a Neolithic settlement in the region as the features Scott identified probably represent the detritus and degraded structures of a Neolithic domestic site rather than an industrial site, particularly in view of the absence of kiln wasters (Simpson 1976). Scott is perhaps best known, however, for his seminal contributions towards the study of later prehistoric settlements, a subject which was to dominate the majority of subsequent research in the region. Based on a survey of the brochs of Harris and Barra and excavation at the Clettraval wheelhouse, Scott (1947b; 1948) suggested that the brochs of the region functioned as low defended settlements, which were perhaps occupied intermittently. Scott also argued that architecturally these settlements were merely part of a tradition that included wheelhouses and duns, and that this tradition was ultimately derived from south-west England. Scott’s (1951b) diffusionist arguments inevitably reflected the prevailing intellectual ethos of the time, which was largely dominated by the persuasive cultural-historical arguments of Gordon Childe (Childe 1935; 1946). However, many of Scott’s astute field observations and typological arguments remained significant as they pre-empted the classificatory and interpretative schemes applied to later prehistoric settlements which were developed during the 1980s and 1990s (inter alia Barrett 1981; Armit 1990a; 1992a).

these, the earliest and most valuable account was written by the first great traveller of Scotland, Martin Martin. Martin visited the Western Isles and St. Kilda in c. 1695 and published a chorographic depiction of the history, customs and traditions of the isles prior to the Jacobite rebellions (Martin 1716). Contained within this account are the first descriptions of the ancient monuments, such as the numerous cairns and ‘artificial forts’, which Martin invariably encountered during his travels of the islands. It was however, the ‘remarkable’ Callanish stones in Lewis (Martin 1716, 9) that most forcefully captured Martin’s attention and led him to write a detailed account of the arrangement of the stone circle and associated stone rows, speculate on the monuments’ function, and prepare the first plan of this important prehistoric ritual site. Later in 1857 under the instruction of Sir James Matheson, the blanket peat which partially covered the stones was removed, and although this was largely an aesthetic exercise it represents the first archaeological excavation in the Western Isles. It was not, however, until the late 19th/early 20th century that more concerted archaeological work began in the region through the work of Captain F W L Thomas, Erskine Beveridge and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland (RCHAMS). Thomas’ work is the first recognisable, if somewhat haphazard, archaeological survey of many of the conspicuous monuments of the isles, and included plans and descriptions of a number of brochs (Thomas 1890), a series of ‘hypogea’, or souterrains, and the remains of various wheelhouses (Thomas 1868). It was not long after Thomas’ initial survey that this work was complemented through the research of Erskine Beveridge, who turned his attention to the Western Isles following a survey of the ancients monuments in Coll and Tiree (Beveridge 1905), and undertook an exhaustive campaign of survey and excavation in North Uist. This work was published as a substantial volume in 1911 and includes a discussion of the topography, history, place names and archaeology of the Vallay Strand area, and a valuable corpus of photographs of the sites and monuments of this region. In many respects Beveridge’s influential work on North Uist, Coll and Tiree, was a forerunner to the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) survey of the ‘The Outer Hebrides, Skye and the Small Isles’ which was published in 1928, after a lengthy gestation period. In the grand tradition of the Royal Commission’s work this volume attempted to document ‘the contemporary culture, civilisation and conditions of life of the people in Scotland from the earliest times to the year 1707’ (1928, v), although the difficulty in gaining access to particular sites and islands meant that many remains, or archaeologically rich landscapes, were unintentionally omitted. Aside from these shortcomings, the Royal Commission’s work was to form the basis for the classification and distribution of archaeological sites in the isles until the more intensive archaeological surveys of the 1980s.

During the 1950s certain advances were also made in the study of later prehistoric settlements through a number of important excavations in the Uists. These included Lethbridge’s (1952) excavation and analysis of the Kilphedar wheelhouse in South Uist and excavation commissioned by the then Ministry of Works in advance of a Ministry of Defence rocket testing facility. This rescue work led to the excavation of the Sollas wheelhouse in North Uist by R J C Atkinson (Campbell 1991) and the excavation of two wheelhouses, A’Cheardach Mhor (Young & Richardson 1960) and A’Cheardach Bheag (Fairhurst 1971), a Viking period house (Maclaren 1974) and a number of hut circles all found in the Drimore machair, South Uist. The excavation of the Uist wheelhouses was particularly important as the excellent architectural preservation and 10

INTRODUCTION During the 1980s and 1990s excavation and survey continued and successfully identified prehistoric and historic remains at sites such as Barvas, Lewis (Cowie 1986; 1987), Bharpa Carinish, North Uist (Crone 1993) and Bostadh (Neighbour & Burgess 1996; Neighbour 1997). During the 1980s limited excavation also occurred at the Callanish standing stones (Ashmore 1984; n.d.) and saw the completion of a coastal survey along the machair of the Uists in order to identify those sites that were under immediate threat from coastal erosion (Barber 2003). This survey successfully identified and excavated Bronze and Iron Age structures, burials and midden deposits (Barber et al 1989; Barber 2003). The late 1980s were also significant due to the initiation of a number of ambitious multidisciplinary research projects. Generally, these projects utilised vigorous research methodologies and combined programmes of landscape and site based analysis in order to comprehend the archaeological and environmental history of a number of diverse landscapes within the region. The first of these programmes was undertaken in 1985 by the University of Edinburgh, which established a research centre at Callanish. In consequence, the programme of archaeological research included a concerted survey of the Valtos peninsula, western Lewis, alongside an experimental programme of research into prehistoric and Early Historic agriculture, and building technology (Harding 1990). As part of the survey programme a range of later prehistoric settlement types were successfully identified (Harding & Armit 1990; Armit 1994), and a number of these settlement sites excavated. These sites included a dun at Dun Bharabhat, two wheelhouses, a number of cellular structures and a substantial linear house structure at Cnip, and a broch and secondary cellular structures at Loch na Berie (Harding & Armit 1990; Armit & Dunwell 1992; Harding & Dixon 2000; Harding & Gilmour 2000).

the survival of various deposits have subsequently allowed a fruitful discussion into a number of themes pertinent to Iron Age studies, which have centred on the important issues of architecture, cosmology and settlement history (cf Campbell 1991; Armit 1996; Parker Pearson & Sharples 1999). The most prominent contribution to the study of prehistoric archaeology during the 1950s can, however, be attributed to Alison Young. Young adopted Scott’s pottery typology and diffusionist beliefs as applied to the later prehistoric settlement of the region, and attempted to reclassify the settlement evidence in terms of a rigid typological criterion (Young 1961). Utilising this strict typology and based on her excavations at the wheelhouse at Tigh Talamhanta, Barra, and the galleried dun at Dun Cuier, Barra (Young 1952; 1955), she suggested a developmental sequence within which the foundation of brochs, wheelhouses and duns was viewed as the outcome of different phases of unrest and stability. Within this scheme the construction of brochs was equated with the incursion of new settlers into the area during the Iron Age. It was then envisaged that these settlers later constructed wheelhouses during a period of stability and then, due to the incursion of Dalriadic Scots, reverted to the construction of duns, which Young viewed as a more defensive, and in turn appropriate, form of settlement. The diffusionist elements of this interpretation were also somewhat similar to Lethbridge’s (1954) suggestions that both brochs and wheelhouses were constructed by a Pictish race who had originated from the French Biscay coast. Although Young’s and Lethbridge’s cultural-historical interpretations were to form the basis of later prehistoric studies in the region until the renewed, and somewhat reflective, studies of the 1980s and 1990s, excavation and synthesis continued on a range of sites during the 1960s and 1970s. In terms of excavation, the initiation of work at a series of machair sites across the region was particularly valuable in providing an insight into both prehistoric and historic activity in these unique coastal regions. This work included the long-term research excavation at the Udal, North Uist (Crawford & Switsur 1977; Crawford n.d.; Selkirk 1996), excavation at Rosinish, Benbecula (Crawford 1978; Shepherd 1976), rescue excavation at Dalmore, Lewis (Ponting & Ponting 1984; Sharples 1984; n.d.) and rescue excavation at Northton, Harris, the results of which form the subject of the present monograph. Other noteworthy studies undertaken during the 1960s and 1970s include Henshall’s (1963; 1972) catalogue and discussion of the Neolithic burial tombs of the region, as part of her general work on the chambered tombs of Scotland, the excavation of prehistoric and historic burial sites at Cnip, Lewis (Close-Brooks 1995), the coastal erosion surveys of Uists and Benbecula by Shepherd and Shepherd and Lewis and Harris by Cowie and Shepherd, and the excavation of the well preserved broch at Dun Carloway, Lewis (Tabraham 1977).

The establishment of the University of Edinburgh research centre at Callanish also acted as the initial impetus for Ian Armit’s influential work in the Western Isles. This work has included an important reassessment of the later prehistoric settlement of the region, which has introduced the term ‘Atlantic roundhouse’ into the archaeological literature. This all encompassing term was formulated by Armit as a means of condensing many of the older, and somewhat confusing, typological classifications into a single group and this is divided architecturally and chronologically into simple and complex roundhouses (Armit 1991; 1992a). During the late 1980s Armit also initiated the Loch Olabhat research programme in North Uist. This has led to the investigation of a multi-phased Neolithic islet settlement at Eilean Domhnuill (Armit 1986; 1987; 1988a; 1990b; 1992b; 1996), a Neolithic chambered tomb at Geirisclett (Dunwell et al 2003), Iron Age remains and an Early Historic specialist metalworking workshop on the islet site of Eilean Olabhat (Armit 1986; 1988a; 1990b; 1996), an Iron Age wheelhouse and earlier Atlantic roundhouse at Eilean Maleit (Armit 1998), a sweat lodge complex at Ceann Nan Clachan (Armit & Braby 2002) and a multi11

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTHTON, ISLE OF HARRIS orthogneisses by their biotite-garnet-bearing mineral assemblages. On South Harris these metasedimentary rocks occur as two discrete belts (Figure 1.3): the Leverburgh Belt (Dearnley 1963; Fettes et al 1992), extending from Toe Head south-eastwards to Rodel; and the Langavat Belt, which extends from Borve Lodge in the north through Loch Langavat to Loch Finsbay in the south (Myers 1968; Fettes et al 1992). These metasedimentary belts contain quartzites, limestones and pelitic gneisses, as well as finely banded amphibolite-acid gneiss units that are interpreted as possible metavolcanic rocks. However, some doubts have been raised about the age of the protoliths to these belts. Cliff et al (1998) have recently published model isotopic (Sm-Nd) ages of between 2410 Ma and 2450 Ma for the metasedimentary rocks of the Leverburgh Belt. Spatially associated with the metasedimentary rocks are a suite of lithologically distinct, lenticular, finely compositionally banded, mafic and ultramafic bodies referred to as the ‘Older Basics’.

period survey of crofting and earlier settlement in the Vallay area (Armit 1997). A further multidisciplinary research programme was also initiated in 1987 by a collaboration of researchers based at Sheffield University and was appropriately coined the Sheffield Environmental and Archaeological Research Campaign in the Hebrides (SEARCH). This research project combined field survey, excavation and palaeoenvironmental investigation over a selection of diverse landscapes in South Uist, Barra, Vatersay, Sandray, Pabbay, Mingulay and Berneray. The work has been extremely significant and has resulted in a detailed body of knowledge relating to the environmental and archaeological history of the region (Gilbertson et al 1996a), and has led to the discovery of a large number of previously unknown archaeological sites. Excavation has also been central to this research with the investigation of over 50 sites (Branigan & Foster 1995; 2000; 2002; Parker Pearson & Sharples 1999; Parker Pearson et al 2004). This has included the important Neolithic and Beaker period settlement at Alt Chrisal, Barra (Branigan & Foster 1995), and a series of sites on South Uist which include Beaker and Early Bronze Age remains at Dun Cillian (Sharples 1998; Hamilton & Sharples forthcoming), a Beaker cultivation soil and Bronze/Early Iron Age remains at Cladh Hallan (Parker Pearson et al 1999; 2002; 2004), an Iron Age broch at Dun Vulan (Parker Pearson & Sharples 1999), and an Iron Age and Norse period settlement at Bornish (Sharples 1996; 1997; 1999).

The geology and scenery of South Harris is, however, dominated by the meta-igneous rocks of the South Harris Igneous Complex which intrudes the adjacent Leverburgh and Langavat metasedimentary belts (Figure 1.3). This meta-igneous complex effectively separates the metasedimentary belts and comprises a suite of metagabbros, metatonalites, meta-anorthosites and metadiorites. These meta-igneous rocks have yielded model isotopic ages of 2180 ± 160 Ma (Cliff et al 1983) and have been metamorphosed under granulite facies to lower amphibolite conditions.

NORTHTON

To the north of the Langavat Belt metasedimentary rocks lies an extensive zone of Scourian (c. 2600 Ma) grey gneisses, pink granitic gneiss sheets and lenses, intruded by Laxfordian (c. 1700 Ma) granite sheets and pegmatites. To the south-west of the Leverburgh Belt, is a metanorite body (the pyroxene-granulite of Dearnley 1963) which underlies much of the Sound of Harris. This metanorite locally contains relict high-grade garnetpyroxene and two pyroxene assemblages and is separated from the metasedimentary rocks by a Laxfordian shear zone which trends north-west along the south-west coast of South Harris.

The present volume is specifically concerned with the archaeology of the machair, as it represents the fruition of research undertaken at a machair site in south Harris (NGR: NF 975 912). Geographically, this area of machair is located on the southern side of Toe Head, a rocky peninsula jutting precariously into the North Atlantic, which is separated from South Harris by the expansive Scarista sands (Tràigh Sgarasta) and a low lying area of marsh (Tràigh an Taoibh Thuath) found immediately to the north-west of the present settlement at Northton (Figure 1.1).

The Northton site lies within the south-western extremity of the Leverburgh Belt high-grade of metasedimentary rocks; including foliated quartz-feldspar-biotite (± garnet) gneisses, with occasional bands of calc-silicate gneiss (dolomite-diopside) and rusty-weathering pyrite-bearing quartzofeldspathic gneisses (Figure 1.4). Approximately 360 m to the east of the site these rocks pass into a suite of foliated metapelitic gneisses which contain the assemblage: garnet; kyanite; sillimanite; biotite; quartz and feldspar.

THE GEOLOGICAL SETTING Emrys R Phillips The basement Lewisian Gneiss Complex of South Harris is a product of a multiphase depositional, intrusive, deformational and metamorphic history that spans a time period between approximately 3000 million years (Ma) ago and 400 Ma ago. The major part of this activity occurred between 3000 to 1500 Ma. The oldest rocks within this ancient complex are the metasediments and associated metamorphosed banded mafic and ultramafic intrusions. By analogy with Greenland these units are probably between 300 and 2850 Ma old. The metasediments are distinguished from the surrounding

These metasedimentary rocks are separated from the metanorite body which crops out along the south-west coast of South Harris by a prominent Laxfordian shear zone. The dark grey metanorite is well exposed at Rudh’ 12

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.3. Simplified geological map of South Harris after Baba (1999).

Figure 1.4. Geology and superficial deposits at Northton, Rudh’ an Teampuill, South Harris.

an Teampuill (Figure 1.3), where it is relatively massive and locally retrogressed to feldspar-pyroxene-hornblende assemblage. On the western side of Rudh’ an Teampuill, the metanorite is intruded by a dark grey porphyritic basalt dyke of probable Tertiary age and, further to the north-west, by Laxfordian pegmatites. These coarse-

grained, granitic pegmatites are well exposed in the cliffs and rocky shore. The Laxfordian shear zone, which forms the western boundary of Leverburgh metasedimentary belt, passes through the eastern end of Traigh an Teampuill about 270 13

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTHTON, ISLE OF HARRIS in hygrophile and shade-loving species was interpreted as a phase of woodland regeneration. Evans, though acknowledging the taphonomic and interpretative complexities of the profile, argued that the presence of woodland was indicated at each of these phases by the relative abundance of shade-loving land snails, especially the Chrysalis snail (Lauria cylindracea L.), the Garlic glass snail (Oxychilus alliarus L.) and the Long-toothed herald snail (Carychium tridentatum L.). An element of caution must, however, be exercised in the interpretation of the habitat information used by Evans as the first two snail species were common in a wide range of habitats examined in a later faunal survey of machair (Kerney 1976 quoted by Angus 2001). Recent research has also shown that other shade-loving species traditionally used to indicate the presence of woodland are common throughout the machair (Angus 2001), as well as in many contexts associated with archaeological settlements, such as wall fills (Carter pers comm.). Evans’ study is, however, important as it highlights the presence of a potential area of woodland in the Northton area during the Holocene. Evans’ model of clearance followed by regeneration also hints at both complexity and human management in the woodland cover.

m to the west of the Northton site (Figure 1.4). Adjacent to this high strain zone the metanorite and metasedimentary rocks are highly deformed (cataclased) and bands of mylonite are locally developed within both lithologies. The widest development of mylonites occurs immediately adjacent to the shear zone within the quartzfeldspar-biotite (± garnet) gneisses. These rocks are highly deformed (sheared) with the early gneissose fabric having been transposed by a finely banded mylonitic fabric. A lenticular body of garnet-metagabbro, which crops out to the east of these mylonites, also shows signs of having been deformed. Myers (n.d.) concluded that much of the area around the Northton site was covered by a Pleistocene till (variable thickness). This diamicton comprises poorly sorted angular rock fragments of local origin within a dark bluegrey clay-rich matrix. The archaeological excavation undertaken at the site indicates that this diamicton is immediately overlain by a thin soil horizon, which is in turn overlain by stratified, calcareous sands. Immediately north of the broch on Rudh’ an Teampuill a c. 0.1 m thick peat horizon is developed between the diamicton and the sands. The wind blown calcareous sands locally form a narrow, elongate, east-west-trending deposit which occurs parallel to the coast line and the Chiapaval Ridge. Myers (n.d.) reported that these calcareous sands were being actively eroded (reworked) at the time of his investigation. Myers (n.d.) stated that the sands were being reworked by the dominant south-west and westerly winds, and transported across the Northton machair to be re-deposited at sea-level on the Traigh an Toaibh Thuath. Consequently, he concluded that the Northton site occupies the last remnant of sand dunes which once probably extended much further to the south.

HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION Derek Simpson, Eileen Murphy & Richard Gregory The Toe Head peninsula has few upstanding archaeological remains, the most conspicuous being the ruins of a 16th century chapel situated at Rubh’ an Teampaill (NGR: NF 9700 9134) which seals the remains of an earlier broch (Simpson 1965). In other areas of the peninsula, prehistoric activity is also found but in a less conspicuous form. Discovery may therefore depend on a number of chance factors or circumstances, which are illustrated by the identification of prehistoric remains in the machair close to Northton. Here the discovery of archaeological remains were made in the summer of 1963 when during a walking holiday with his family, Professor James McEwen of the Department of Church History, University of Aberdeen, recognised a potential archaeological site (NGR: NF 9753 9123) eroding from the machair.

ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY Mike Church As part of the archaeological research at Northton a series of stratified samples were taken and analysed for land snails by John Evans. Following analysis Evans constructed a histogram showing the variation in landsnail species frequency over a 4.5 m profile which extended from a sterile sand layer found at the base of the Northton machair through to the modern turf layer (Figure 1.5). The detailed analysis was subsequently published (Evans 1971) and only a summary of the findings is presented here.

With closer examination of a short vertical exposure McEwen identified a layer of dark brown stained sand associated with a dense mass of discoloured mussel, cockle and limpet shells, animal bones and teeth, and pottery sherds, which he suggested might represent the remains of a prehistoric ‘kitchen midden’ (McEwen n.d. a). On returning to the site, during the summer of 1964, McEwen discovered that a substantial depth of this midden had become exposed and was being damaged in its upper horizons by rabbit trappers and through trampling by grazing animals. This prompted McEwen and his family to undertake a rescue operation at the midden in order to clear the exposed section, retrieve as much of the exposed midden material as possible and to

The sand layer found at the base of the machair overlay a possible pre-machair occupation deposit and contained a significant proportion of hygrophile and shade-loving species. The presence of these species was interpreted as faunal elements of a woodland environment in the catchment. During the Neolithic period, the fauna showed a marked increase in open-country species, implying woodland clearance, probably by human agency. An open landscape was then indicated by the assemblage until a later phase of Beaker period occupation when an increase 14

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.5. Land snail diagram.

investigation in the environs of Northton, and on the nearby islands of Ensay, Killegray and Taransay, in order to locate comparable coastal midden sites (Murphy & Simpson 2002; Simpson et al 2003).

determine the nature of the site. Following excavation McEwen took the finds to the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh where they were examined by the then keeper of archaeology, R B K Stevenson. Stevenson immediately recognised the importance of the material, in particular the occurrence of Beaker pottery in quantity from a domestic context associated with animal bone, and recommended that a professional archaeologist be employed to undertake further investigations of the site (McEwen n.d. b).

At Northton the archaeological investigation began with the completion of a topographic survey of the site over an area c. 55.5 m N-S by c. 63 m E-W. This survey identified a rectangular earthwork associated with three probable sub-circular annexes on the surface of the promontory (Figure 1.6: Earthworks 5, 4 & 3). Following topographic survey two trenches, Trench I and II, were excavated by hand (Figure 1.6). Trench I measured c. 4.3 m NW-SE by c. 2.7 m NE-SW and was positioned close to the SW corner of the rectilinear turf-covered stone enclosure identified during the topographic survey of the site (Figure 1.6: Earthwork 5). The trench was excavated to a depth of c. 1.9 m in order to examine the stone bank in section (Figure 1.6: Section E-F) and to identify any associated and underlying stratigraphic horizons. Trench II, referred to by the excavators as the ‘Long Cutting’, was originally 21 m NW-SE by 1.7 m NE-SW and

During the summers of 1965 and 1966 a subsequent rescue excavation was therefore undertaken under the direction of Derek Simpson, then of the Department of Archaeology, University of Leicester, employing an excavation team of c. 20 students assembled from the Universities of Leicester, Edinburgh and Cardiff, in addition to a number of local volunteers. Significantly, this work comprised one of the first multi-disciplinary studies in the Western Isles as the excavation was complemented by topographic and geological survey, palaeoenvironmental analysis and an exploratory 15

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTHTON, ISLE OF HARRIS

Figure 1.6. Topographic survey at Northton showing the various earthworks identified on the surface of the machair (Earthworks 1-5), the 1965 archaeological trenches (Trenches I-IV) and recorded sections (A-B, C-D & E-F), and borehole locations (A-I) and sections examined in 2001. The survey was undertaken by Sarah Gormley and Prof Gerry McCormac, Queen’s University Belfast.

examined a section running parallel to the present coastline (Figure 1.6: Section A-B). With the discovery of a dry stone walled Beaker structure the trench was, however, extended c. 5.7 m NW-SE and c. 9.3 m NE-SW at its SE end. Following excavation the exposed section (A-B) was recorded and was found to provide a near complete stratigraphic record of activity on the site. Unfortunately, although the recorded stratigraphy from this exposure survives in a scaled schematic drawing of the section (Figure 2.5), a detailed stratigraphic narrative can only be constructed for a c. 10.8 m sector of the face located within the central area of the trench (Figure 2.6).

excavator was employed to remove the layers of sterile sand which lay between the archaeological horizons. Trench III, which measured c. 7.7 m NW-SE by c. 10.3 m NE-SW, was excavated in order to investigate the SE corner of the rectilinear turf-covered stone enclosure identified during the topographic survey of the site, and to examine any underlying stratigraphy (Figure 1.6). Trench IV, which measured 3 m NW-SE by 3.7 m NESW, was opened in order to investigate an area situated to the NE of Trench II’s extension and to the SE of Trench III (Figure 1.6). None of the sections associated with this trench were, however, drawn during fieldwork.

During the second season two further trenches, Trench III and IV, were excavated (Figure 1.6). Due to the excavator’s familiarity with the deposits from the site and the very substantial quantities of overburden that needed to be moved these trenches were excavated partially by hand and partially mechanically, as a mechanical

Both seasons’ excavation enabled the successful identification of a complex series of archaeological horizons, structures and corporeal remains, and produced a sizeable assemblage of artefacts. The majority of the archaeological deposits were composed of dark brown/black stained sand containing animal bone, shell, 16

INTRODUCTION salient features of the site and offered a brief assessment of the artefactual evidence. Unfortunately, following this preliminary account a lack of concerted post-excavation funding meant that the main corpus of the evidence and its potential significance for British prehistory remained unpublished.

artefacts and small quantities of human bone and were therefore described as ‘midden’ horizons. These horizons appeared chronologically distinct and were separated by layers of sterile wind-blown sand, and significantly they appeared to be consistent across the entire excavated area. The observed stratigraphy of the site enabled the excavators to refine McEwan’s earlier observations and identify six main phases which could, based on the stratigraphic position of the midden layers and their associated artefacts, be divided into two Neolithic (I and II), two Beaker (I and II) and two Iron Age/Historic (I and II) phases (Simpson 1966; 1976). Moreover, the dating of the Neolithic II, Beaker I and Beaker II horizons was confirmed by a series of radiocarbon dates obtained from Gakushuin University, Tokyo, and the British Museum Research Laboratory (Burleigh et al 1973). A large quantity of stratified land and marine mollusca were also obtained by Professor John Evans, University of Wales, Cardiff, during the course of the excavations and these proved invaluable for reconstructing the palaeoenvironmental history of the site, due to the absence of palynological remains in the abrasive, freedraining, machair deposits (Evans 1971; 1972; 1975; Church this volume).

The funding of this post-excavation work commenced, however, in 2000 through a Historic Scotland grant designed to renew excavation analysis and archiving. This work extended over two years and aimed initially to assess the contents of the site archive and to formulate a suitable strategy to bring the excavation and the recovered artefactual and environmental remains to full publication (Murphy & Simpson 2000). This initial work catalogued the remains from the site and extracted information relevant to the construction of a site narrative (Murphy & Simpson 2000). In piecing together an account of the excavation it is important to emphasise, however, that this work, like all excavation, was a product of its age and hence was constrained by the methodological orthodoxies of the time. In this respect, it was completed during a period when the single context recording of archaeological deposits and their associated small finds was not common practice and when techniques such as ‘tapestry’ excavation had not yet been applied to the excavation of machair sites (Barber 2003). Although context numbers and descriptions have now been designated to the deposits from the site (Murphy & Simpson 2000), it has unfortunately proved impossible to determine which individual context the small finds and a number of the human burials originated from as during the excavation these were merely ascribed to one of the site’s six main phases. It is also unfortunate that in the intervening years between the excavations and the preparation of this final report a number of the original field drawings have been lost, or were in some cases discarded following the production of publication standard drawings. These field drawings contained valuable descriptive annotations that are absent from their inked-up counterparts and so it is probable that the finer nuances of the site’s stratigraphy have been lost from a number of the excavated areas.

During and following the two seasons of excavation at Northton a number of preliminary statements were published. These included an account of the 1965 season in Discovery and Excavation in Scotland (Simpson 1965), and summary accounts of the 1965 and 1966 seasons in Antiquity (Simpson 1966), the Actes du VII Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistorique (Thomas 1970) and in a review article of British Beaker houses and settlements (Simpson 1971b). A note on the radiocarbon dates obtained from the Neolithic and Beaker horizons was also published in Antiquity (Burleigh et al 1973) and a series of specialist reports, which were principally concerned with the geological and the palaeoenvironmental data from the site, were published during the early 1970s (Binns 1971; Binns 1972a; 1972b; 1972c; Evans 1971; 1972; 1975). A number of unpublished specialist reports and preliminary comments on the geology of the site (Myers n.d.), the human remains (Denston n.d.), animal bone (Finlay n.d; 1984), worked animal bone (Clarke n.d.) and metallurgy (Tylecote n.d.) were also completed between the late 1960s and early 1980s. The extensive assemblage of Beaker pottery from the Beaker I horizon at the site also formed the basis of an undergraduate dissertation (Langley 1978), whilst a discussion of the Beaker assemblage from both Beaker horizons was included in Gibson’s (1982) analyses of British Beaker domestic sites. Following the completion of this work, Gibson made a complete catalogue of the decorated Beaker pottery during 1982/3 for inclusion in an anticipated report on the site (see Gibson this volume). The most comprehensive account of the excavations was, however, published as a preliminary report in Settlement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC (Simpson 1976). This article summarised many of the

Inevitably during the intervening years between the excavation, the completion of certain specialist reports and the renewed programme of post-excavation work significant advances have also been made in the study of archaeological remains and more pertinently towards an understanding of the prehistory and environment of the Western Isles. It was therefore decided that the original specialist reports completed in the 1970s and 1980s should be updated to take account of these methodological and interpretative advances, and that a number of fresh studies should be commissioned in order to analyse particular elements of the site which had not been fully considered during the original post-excavation work. This work has also been enhanced by a new suite of AMS dates obtained from single entity samples derived from the majority of the funerary remains, and a 17

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTHTON, ISLE OF HARRIS series of plant macrofossils associated with the earliest activity identified at the site. As a corollary to this work a further season of archaeological and environmental investigation was undertaken at Northton in 2001 (Murphy et al 2001; 2002). This research was also generously funded by Historic Scotland and aimed to supplement the 1965 and 1966 work through an inter-related programme of fieldwork. The programme of research included an EDMbased topographic survey of the site which recorded the remains of two probable circular house sites, and one small rectilinear enclosure located to the west of the 1965-66 excavations (Figure 1.6: Earthworks 1, 2 & 3). Two sections of archaeological and palaeoenvironmental significance that were under threat from coastal erosion were also recorded. An area c. 1.6 m in length, designated the ‘Small Section’, located along the SW shoreline was found to contain a sequence of natural deposits of Late Glacial to probable Mid-Holocene date (Figure 1.6). Another section, c. 6 m in length, termed the ‘Large Section’ was also identified on the shoreline at the southern tip of the promontory (Figure 1.6), and this was found to contain deposits which suggest a Mesolithic phase of occupation at the site. Finally, a programme of coring was undertaken over the site in order to define the limits of the midden deposits. The objective of the coring exercise was to assess the extent of the main deposits of the site identified during the 1965 and 1966 excavations. A single 40 m transect was therefore positioned running in a NE-SW direction from the approximate edge of the original Trench II (Figure 1.6). Reconnaissance boreholes were taken at 5 m intervals along this transect using a screw bucket auger of 5 cm diameter (Figure 1.6). Major soil horizons were noted and related along the section and cored material was carefully checked for artefacts and ecofacts. This monograph presents the results obtained from the 1960s and 2001 archaeological investigations, alongside a re-analysis of the material culture obtained during the excavation of the site, and the incorporation of the results of the AMS dating programme. The following chapters are divided chronologically and discuss the evidence for Mesolithic and Neolithic, Beaker, and later activity at the site in the form of Bronze, Iron Age and Medieval structural and artefactual remains. A short section at the end of each chapter also provides a summary and discussion of the evidence from the respective period and places the remains within their wider regional context. The final chapter synthesises the archaeological and geomorphological evidence and assesses, in turn, the long-term history of the Northton machair. In producing the monograph it is hoped, however, that this new account of the findings from Northton will allow these significant archaeological remains to be considered afresh, and for the site to assume its rightful position as an important component within the study of British prehistory.

18

CHAPTER 2

EARLY OCCUPATION AT NORTHTON

horizon was composed of a black clay loam interlaced with layers of charcoal and quartz sand (Evans 1971, 53). In contrast to the upper the horizons this early horizon was devoid of land snails, molluscs and crustaceans. A single fragment of pottery and 13 flint/quartz artefacts were, however, recovered from the basal horizon. The lithics were generally undiagnostic (Nelis this volume), but the small sherd of pottery appeared to be Neolithic in date. This sherd was a short everted rim sherd with a fine hard fabric, and was examined by M Johnson as part of the analysis of Neolithic pottery from the site. Johnson (pers comm.) suggests that the form, fabric and style of this sherd would not be in anyway out of place with the assemblage retrieved from the upper, Neolithic, horizon, and that its characteristics do not immediately suggest an earlier or distinct phase of use. Due to the presence of only one sherd of Neolithic pottery, compared with the 2756 sherds recovered from the upper Neolithic horizon, and based on its apparent similarity with the stratigraphically later material, it seems possible that this single sherd might in fact represent an intrusive find, which was potentially deposited within the lower horizon through a post-depositional mechanism such as the action of burrowing animals, or even through the cultivation of the basal horizon during the Neolithic period (Guttmann this volume). If this is correct the absence of any other diagnostic material associated with the basal horizon suggests that this horizon might represent an earlier, preNeolithic, phase of activity.

INTRODUCTION During the 1965 and 1966 excavations two early horizons were identified beneath and close to the base of the machair sands. With excavation the stratigraphically later of these horizons furnished evidence for a probable stone structure, funerary and faunal remains, and an abundance of artefacts, particularly pottery, which in turn dated the horizon to the Neolithic period. In contrast, the lower horizon lay directly above the natural boulder clay, was sealed by the machair sands, and contained a general paucity of faunal and artefactual remains. Due to the discovery of one small sherd of Neolithic pottery it was assumed, however, that this horizon might represent an earlier phase of Neolithic occupation (Simpson 1976; Murphy & Simpson 2000; 2003). During a brief season of fieldwork in 2001 a seemingly comparable horizon, which also rested above the boulder clay, was identified in a section which had been exposed through coastal erosion. Following a limited investigation this basal horizon produced evidence for human activity in the form of possible stone settings, charred plant macrofossils, faunal remains and a small assemblage of chipped stone artefacts (Murphy et al 2001; 2002). Significantly, a series of AMS dates obtained from the plant macrofossils indicate that this material dates unambiguously to the Mesolithic period. Whilst these somewhat unexpected results have major implications for constructing the internal chronology of the site, as they appear to extend human activity at Northton back to the seventh millennium cal. BC, they are also of considerable interest at both a regional and national level, as they may represent the first direct evidence for Mesolithic activity in the Western Isles (Gregory et al 2005). Alongside the evidence for Neolithic activity these early horizons therefore provide a significant insight into the nature of the early communities who occupied this and other coastal areas of the region.

Evidence from the ‘Large Section’ The possibility of a pre-Neolithic phase of activity at the site has been strengthened through the recent discovery and examination of a section at the site, which had been exposed by coastal erosion (Murphy et al 2001). This exposure was located at the southern tip of the promontory to the south of the 1965 and 1966 trenches, and was described during fieldwork as the ‘Large Section’ (Figure 1.6).

PRE-NEOLITHIC ACTIVITY

Within this section a clear horizon was identified which, in a similar manner to the basal horizon identified during the 1966 season work, was found to rest directly above the natural boulder clay (Figure 2.2). It therefore seems likely that this horizon and the basal horizon identified in Trench III during the 1966 seasons work are comparable. The horizon identified in 2001 differed, however, to the basal horizon examined in 1966 in that it could be subdivided into two phases, Phase 1 and 2.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES Eileen Murphy, Mike Church, Derek Simpson & Richard Gregory The basal horizon During the 1966 season an early horizon [318] which lay directly above the boulder clay at the base of the machair was identified in Trench III (see Figure 1.6). This horizon was found beneath a thin layer of non-calcareous sand that was mottled green, which was sealed by a layer of ‘clean’ wind-blown sand [317] located directly below a Neolithic midden layer [316] (Figure 2.1). The basal

Phase 1 constituted a thin layer of grey/brown, slightly organic silty sand [C7 & C14] which sealed the natural boulder clay [C8] found at the base of the section (Figure 2.1). This layer was found to contain fragments of 19

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTHTON, ISLE OF HARRIS

Figure 2.1. Section D-C in Trench III.

charred hazelnut shells, 1.4 g of bone, and a fragment of quartzite. Two fragments of charred hazelnut shells retrieved from C7 were submitted for AMS dating.

possible cobble tool and three small periwinkle shells (Littorina neritoides). In the central area of the section there was also a compacted dark grey silty sand [C10] with few stone inclusions that partially overlapped layer C5. This layer contained charcoal, bone and quartz and, although truncated by later erosion, was probably contemporary with layer C5. At the eastern end of the section a pair of large stones [C4] were also contained within C5. These stones measured c. 0.5 m E-W, and may represent the remains of a stone setting that corresponds with setting C2. In contrast to C2, these stones did not appear, however, to be contained within a cut, and as such the exact definition of C4 remains elusive.

Phase 2 could be discerned at the western end of the section where a setting of three large stones [C2], measuring approximately 0.9 m E-W, had been placed in a cut [C13 & C11] which truncated the surface of layers C7 and C14 (Figure 2.2). Between these stones, and contained within the cut, was a black organic soil [C3]. A possible hammerstone, numerous fragments of bone and lithics were also recovered from this context. At the base of this deposit [C3], and also contained within the interior of the stone setting, was a layer of stones [C9] which was located above a lower deposit [C6]. This lower deposit was composed of a black peaty soil and was associated with a fragment of animal bone and patches of dark grey/brown silty sand, possibly representing degraded turf.

The surface of C14, C12, C3, C5, C10 and C4 were covered by a thin layer of sterile machair sand [C1]. This layer [C1] was removed by trowel from the ground surface at the western end of the profile to investigate the extent of the stone setting [C2]. This revealed in plan the upper surfaces of a group of three large angular stones [C15] with evidence that C3 and C5 continued in and around these stones (Figure 2.3). The extent of this horizon was also ascertained through coring across the site which suggested that the levels were confined to the excavated areas examined in 1966 and 2001 (Murphy et al 2001).

Either side of the stone setting [C2] a black organic layer [C5 & C12], with stone and burnt stone inclusions, was identified across the length of the section. Following sampling this layer was found to contain faunal remains and fragments of charred hazelnut shells, a degraded grain of barley, charcoal, bone, flint, quartz, hornfels, a

20

Figure 2.2. The ‘Large Section’. The position of section line A-B is marked on Figure 2.3.

EARLY OCCUPATION AT NORTHTON

21

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTHTON, ISLE OF HARRIS

Figure 2.3. Plan of the stone setting at the western end of the ‘Large Section’.

Richard Gregory

from two stratigraphically discrete contexts identified in the ‘Large Section’ examined in 2001.

Preamble

AMS Results

Five fragments of charred hazelnut shell (Corylus avellana L.) were submitted to the SURRC for AMS dating, and these samples were subsequently measured by the University of Arizona AMS Facility as part of a longterm research programme funded by Historic Scotland. These ‘single entity’ hazelnut fragments (cf Ashmore 1999) were retrieved from bulk soil samples extracted

The results of the AMS dating are set out in Table 2.1. Dates are tabulated in conventional years BP (before 1950 AD) using the half life of 5568 years, and the error is expressed at the one sigma level. The dates have been calibrated using OxCal v3.5 and the probability distributions of these calibrated dates are plotted in Figure 2.4.

RADIOCARBON DATING

Figure 2.4. Probability distributions of calibrated AMS dates from the ‘Large Section’.

22

EARLY OCCUPATION AT NORTHTON Calibrated date 68.2% probability

Calibrated date 95.4% probability

7525±80 BP

Delta 13 C rel. PDB -24.4‰

6450-6330 BC (46.2%) 6320-6250 BC (22.0%)

6510-6210 BC

7395±45 BP

-23.7‰

6390-6160 BC (84.8%) 6140-6090 BC (10.6%)

7420±45 BP

-24.1‰

7980±50 BP

-24.0‰

6380-6310 BC (30.1%) 6300-6280 BC (4.0%) 6270-6210 BC (29.5%) 6170-6160 BC (2.1%) 6130-6110 BC (2.6%) 6380-6310 BC (39.1%) 6300-6280 BC (6.3%) 6270-6220 BC (22.8%) 7050-6820 BC (67.0%) 6790-6770 BC (1.2%)

7925±55 BP

-26.3‰

7030-6960 BC (12.0%) 6950-6930 BC (4.5%) 6920-6880 BC (9.5%) 6830-6690 BC (42.3%)

7040-6650 BC

Sample Number

Sample Details

Radiocarbon Age BP

AA-50332

Burnt hazelnut fragment from C5 Burnt hazelnut fragment from C5 Burnt hazelnut fragment from C5 Burnt hazelnut fragment from C7 Burnt hazelnut fragment from C7

AA-50333

AA-50334 AA-50335 AA-50336

6400-6210 BC (90.6%) 6190-6160 BC (1.7%) 6140-6100 BC (3.1%) 7060-6690 BC (95.4%)

Table 2.1. AMS dates obtained from burnt hazelnut shells recovered from the ‘Large Section’.

Context C7

into the basal layers of the Northton machair through anthropogenic discard (see below). If this is the case they appear, along with other associated archaeological and faunal material present within these early horizons, to represent the first direct evidence for Mesolithic activity in the Western Isles (Gregory et al 2005).

Two hazelnut shell fragments were dated from C7. This layer sealed the natural boulder clay and was associated with the first phase of activity in the horizon (Phase 1). The dates were comparable (Table 2.1 & Figure 2.4) and when calibrated it seems likely that both samples date between approximately 7060-6650 cal. BC at the 95.4% probability level.

ARTEFACTS CHIPPED STONE ARTEFACTS Eiméar Nelis

Context C5 Three hazelnut shell fragments were dated from C5. This layer sealed layer C7 and was associated with a second phase of activity occurring within the horizon (Phase 2). This phase contained the majority of the artefactual and faunal remains and was also associated with the possible stone settings. The dates from the layer are also consistent (Table 2.1 & Figure 2.4) and when calibrated they fall between 6510-6090 cal. BC at the 95.4% confidence level.

1965-66 excavations The 1965 and 1966 excavations produced a small assemblage of 13 artefacts, of which all but one were débitage (Table 2.2) from the basal horizon identified below the Neolithic horizon. This horizon was originally termed the ‘Neolithic I’ horizon by the excavators. It is possible, however, based on the horizon’s stratigraphic similarities to the basal layer identified in the ‘Large Section’, examined in 2001, and the associated AMS dates from this layer, that it dates to the Mesolithic period.

Discussion The AMS dates show two distinct calibrated ranges for the charred hazelnut shells. The earlier date range falls between 7060-6650 cal. BC, whilst the later date range spans the period 6510-6090 cal. BC. Significantly, the uncalibrated dates from each stratigraphic unit are internally consistent, and accord perfectly with the stratigraphic sequence observed in the section. Although the precise source of the hazelnut shells is not entirely clear it is at least possible, on the basis of the archaeological characteristics of the contexts from which the fragments were retrieved, that they were incorporated

The small assemblage is dominated by flint (9 pieces, 69%), with the remainder being quartz (4 pieces, 31%), and is mostly comprised of flakes (both complete and shattered), blades (complete) and angular shatter (Table 2.2). Of the complete flakes and blades, half were formed using platform technology (2 flakes, 1 microdébitage) and half were formed using bipolar technology (1 flake, 2 blades). Only one tool, a barely modified piercer, was found within the assemblage.

23

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTHTON, ISLE OF HARRIS

Material

Flint

Type

N o. 5

Max Length (mm) -

1 1 2 1

Complete flakes & blades Flake - platform Flake – bipolar Blade - bipolar Flake Microdebitage Shattered flakes & blades Flake indeterminate Micro-debitage Angular Shatter Angular shatter Possibly modified/utilised Piercer- on flake shatter TOTAL

Quartz

2001 excavations

1

Max Length (mm) -

17