The Prehistory and Early History of Atlantic Europe: Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Fourth Annual Meeting in Göteborg 1998 9781841710624, 9781407351988

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Contributors
PREFACE
Achnacreebeag and its French Connections: Vive the 'Auld Alliance'
Early Husbandry in Atlantic Areas. Animal Introductions, Diffusions of Techniques and Native Acculturation at the North-Western Fringe of Europe
The Interaction Between Early Farmers (Linearbandkeramik) and Indigenous People in Central Belgium
Field Systems and the Atlantic Bronze Age: Thoughts on a Regional Perspective
Exchange and Communication: The Relationship Between Early and Middle Bronze Age Ireland and Atlantic Europe
Plain Sailing? Later Bronze Age Western Iberia at the Cross-rads of the Atlantic and Mediterranean
The Scottish Atlantic Iron Age: Indigenous and Isolated or Part of a Wider European World?
Shared Traditions? The Drystone Settlement Records of Atlantic Scotland and Ireland 700 BC-AD 200
First Millennia Settlement Development in the Atlantic West
The Chronology and Affinities of the Stone Forts along the Atlantic Coast of Ireland
Material Culture and North Sea Contacts in the Fifth to Seventh Centuries AD

Citation preview

BAR  S861  2000   HENDERSON (Ed)   THE PREHISTORY AND EARLY HISTORY OF ATLANTIC EUROPE

The Prehistory and Early History of Atlantic Europe Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Fourth Annual Meeting in Göteborg 1998 Edited by

Jon C. Henderson

BAR International Series 861 B A R

2000

The Prehistory and Early History of Atlantic Europe Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Fourth Annual Meeting in Goteborg 1998 Edited by

Jon C. Henderson

BAR International Series 861

2000

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 861 The Prehistory and Early History of Atlantic Europe © The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2000 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841710624 paperback ISBN 9781407351988 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841710624 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2000. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents Preface Jon Henderson, University of Oxford, England

iii

Achnacreebeag and its French Connections: Vive the 'Auld Alliance' Alison Sheridan, National Museums of Scotland, Scotland

1

Early Husbandry in Atlantic Areas. Animal Introductions, Diffusions of Techniques and Native Acculturation at the North-Western Fringe of Europe Anne Tresset, CNRS-MNHN, Laboratoire d'Anatomie Comparee, France The Interaction between Early Farmers (Linearbandkeramik) and Indigenous People in Central Belgium Marc Lodewijckx and Corrie Bakels, Kuntswetenschap en Musicologie Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium

17

33

Field Systems and the Atlantic Bronze Age: Thoughts on a Regional Perspective Robert Johnston, University of Newcastle, England

47

Exchange and Communication: The Relationship between Early and Middle Bronze Age Ireland and Atlantic Europe Charles Mount, The Heritage Council of Ireland, Ireland

57

Plain Sailing? Later Bronze Age Western Iberia at the Cross-Roads of the Atlantic and Mediterranean Catriona Gibson, University of Reading, England

73

The Scottish Atlantic Iron Age: Indigenous and Isolated or Part of a Wider European World? Euan MacKie, The Hunterian Museum, Scotland

99

Shared Traditions? The Drystone Settlement Records of Atlantic Scotland and Ireland 700 BC-AD 200 Jon Henderson, University of Oxford, England

117

1st Millennia Settlement Development in the Atlantic West Simon Gilmour, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

155

The Chronology and Affinities of the Stone Forts along the Atlantic Coast of Ireland Claire Cotter, The Discovery Programme, Ireland

171

Material Culture and North Sea Contacts in the Fifth to Seventh Centuries AD Andrea Smith, Historic Scotland, Scotland

181

List of Contributors

Corrie BAK.ELS Faculty of Archaeology University of Leiden Postbus 9515 NL - 2300 RA LEIDEN BELGIUM

Marc LODEWIJCKX Section Archaeology University ofLeuven Postbus 33 B - 3000 LEUVEN BELGIUM

Claire COTTER Discovery Programme 13-14 Lower Hatch St. Dublin2 IRELAND

EuanMACKIE Honorary Research Fellow The Hunterian Museum University of Glasgow Glasgow SCOTLAND

Catriona GIBSON Department of Archaeology University of Reading Reading ENGLAND

Charles MOUNT The Heritage Council of Ireland Kilkenny IRELAND

Simon GILMOUR Department of Archaeology University of Edinburgh Edinburgh SCOTLAND

Alison SHERIDAN National Museums of Scotland Chambers Street Edinburgh SCOTLAND

Jon HENDERSON Christ Church University of Oxford Oxford ENGLAND

Andrea SMITH Inspector of Ancient Monuments Historic Scotland Edinburgh SCOTLAND

Robert JOHNSTON Department of Archaeology University ofNewcastle Newcastle upon Tyne ENGLAND

Anne TRESSET ESA 8045 CNRS-MNHN Laboratoire d'Anatornie Comparee Museum national d'Histoire naturelle 55 rue Buffon 75 005 Paris FRANCE

ii

PREFACE The contents of this volume are largely made up from papers delivered at The Prehistory and Early History of Atlantic Europe session held on the 25th of September 1998 at the 4th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Goteborg, Sweden. The title of the session is retained here but the collected papers, although ranging geographically from Iberia to Scotland and chronologically from the Neolithic to the Early Historic period, are not presented as, or in any way intended to be, a detailed or exhaustive treatment of developments along the Atlantic seaboard. Instead the aim of this volume, in common with the original aim of the session, is quite simply to promote wider discussion on the existence, scale, and significance of maritime communications between Atlantic communities. The existence of maritime contacts along the Atlantic seaboard is usually viewed in terms of two mutually exclusive arenas of discussion by archaeologists where one is required either to reject all suggestions of contact in favour of indigenous development or embrace visions of thousands of Childean argonauts clogging up the Atlantic sea-lanes from Cadiz to Shetland (Childe 1946, 36). Clearly, more subtle relationships occurred between Atlantic communities and it is the duty of the modem archaeologist to define the nature of these relationships Early diffusionist discussions of Atlantic contacts overstated the case. Studies such as those of Crawford ( 1912; 1936) and Bowen (1969; 1970; 1972) simply constructed maps of sea routes, or 'natural' routes of contact, by directly linking up find distributions. By doing so, uncritically, the image of a complex and constant range of maritime contacts was quickly created. The rise of processual methodology in the 1960's and 70's by its very nature did little to further the debate on Atlantic contacts. Processual or 'New' Archaeology was born out of the radiocarbon revolution which clearly demonstrated that a number of discoveries and practices previously thought to have developed in the eastern Mediterranean were in fact dated earlier in parts of western Europe (Renfrew 1973). As a result processual approaches stressed indigenous developments within regional contexts in a direct reaction against the large scale, but admittedly over-simple, movements and contacts envisaged in the diffusionist period. Instead of looking for outside influence as the major factor in the development of communities, processual methodology emphasised local factors such as environmental change, population pressure, site catchment constraints, and local technological capacity. The more recent post-processual or 'interpretative' studies of the last two decades have - although many can be said to deal with wide ranging concepts such as symbolism and meaning - also tended to emphasise the importance of specific cultural contexts and the role of the individual in society. As a result modem archaeological studies tend to shun large scale overviews regarding them as superficial and prefer instead to construct detailed regional sequences. The papers in this volume are perhaps a reflection of this - although at a general level each paper deals with Atlantic contacts, each does so within the constraints of particular regions within the Atlantic zone during specific chronological periods, rather than attempting more wide-ranging considerations of events along the whole Atlantic seaboard. As Wooding ( 1996, 1) has noted, the concept of the 'western seaways' has entered and influenced archaeological thought up until the present. The 'western approaches' or Atlantic routes of Europe are constantly referred to in general works often with little re-examination of the concept (cf. Cunliffe 1997, 145-167; Kristiansen 1998, 144-160; Waddell 1998, 257-258). It is either accepted by some as a valid argument in at least stressing the importance of maritime contacts or dismissed by others as a throwback to outmoded diffusionist theory. In this respect the debate on the importance of Atlantic routes of contact has progressed little since Crawford's first mention of the idea in an archaeological context in 1912. It should be kept in mind that the contacts and events discussed in the following papers occurred against a background of contacts occurring along the whole of the Atlantic seaboard over thousands of years. For around the past six thousand years or so the Atlantic sea routes have provided a common corridor of communication for the communities of western Europe. At certain points in the archaeological record evidence for these contacts are well known. From at least the fourth millennium BC there was coastal traffic along the Atlantic coasts which interconnected and ultimately linked Iberia to Ireland and northwestern Scotland. The wide distribution of megalithic architecture, and specifically passage graves, at this time clearly suggests that 'different communities must have been developing their belief systems in the general knowledge of what was happening elsewhere' (Cunliffe 1997, 147). The Atlantic distribution of common ideas and concepts reflected in shared tomb morphologies and aspects of material culture implies that people and objects, even if in quite limited numbers, were also moving up and down the coasts. From at least 2300 BC symbolic objects such as stone battle axes, halberds, gold lunalae, bronze razors and faience beads were being traded along the Atlantic seaboard and placed in individual burials in pits and

iii

cists. By the Late Bronze Age (c.1200 to 600 BC), the widespread distribution of related metalwork forms provides compelling evidence of the intensification and expansion of Atlantic maritime contacts. The occurrence of elites and the networks of exchange they used at this time can be viewed as very much the end result of the alliances and traditions created in earlier periods compounded by a greater need and desire for metals both within the Atlantic zone itself and throughout west central Europe. These networks of metalwork exchange came to an end around 600 BC and apart from some evidence of cross-Channel trade between southern Britain and Armorica in the first century BC, there is little evidence for the exchange of material goods between Atlantic communities throughout the Iron Age. After the Iron Age, contacts are archaeologically detectable once again through the historic movement of Britons to Brittany in the fourth and fifth centuries AD and the importation of Mediterranean and western French pottery, along with presumably commodities to Cornwall, Ireland, Wales and Scotland (Wooding 1996). Alison Sheridan kicks off proceedings with a consideration of the potential impact of Atlantic contacts in the Early Neolithic through a re-examination of the Achnacreebeag chambered cairn near Oban, Scotland, and its material assemblage. Anne Tresset's paper is also concerned with Neolithic material, charting the introduction of domesticated animals in northern Atlantic areas and the implications this evidence has for the existence of Atlantic contacts between Neolithic communties. The final Neolithic paper, by Lodewijckx and Bakels, may at first seem a strange inclusion in a volume primarily concerned with Atlantic contacts as it deals with evidence from Central Belgium. However, its focus on the evidence of interaction between incoming Linearbankeramik farming groups and indigenous people has a relevance to views of indigenous Neolithic groups throughout western Europe and their reaction to the spread of farming. The following three papers are concerned with the Atlantic Bronze Age. Robert Johnston discusses the potential significance of distinctively Atlantic distributions of field systems during the second and early first millennia BC. Of particular interest are his ideas that the construction of field systems represented similarities in the way Atlantic groups lived and, as part of the formation of the agricultural environment, reflected a vital aspect of cultural identities and their expression. In the next paper Charles Mount compares the Early and Middle Bronze Age metalwork evidence from Ireland with the rest of Atlantic Europe, focusing on the evidence from Britain and Scandinavia. Through comparisons with evidence for elite exchanges in the medieval period, he concludes that not only was contact taking place in the Bronze Age but that broadly similar symbolic and ritual practices were shared between Atlantic communities. Catriona Gibson's paper provides some important insights on the Atlantic Bronze Age in western Iberia. Through an analysis of the distribution of Atlantic bronzes she demonstrates that Atlantic contact and communication was not restricted to the coastal regions, but that interior zones were also connected with the sea through terrestrial and fluvial routes. In addition the distributions of metal types reveal not only the existence of contrasting Atlantic and Mediterranean networks but also specific linkages between the two networks. The next five papers deal with the first millennia BC and AD and focus on the evidence from Ireland and Scotland. Different opinions on the dating and wider significance of Irish drystone forts are expressed in papers by Jon Henderson and Claire Cotter while conflicting views on the definition of Iron Age roundhouse sites in Atlantic Scotland exist between the paper by Euan Mackie and those by Jon Henderson and Simon Gilmour 1• The views of the original authors have been retained and no attempt has been made during editing to bring contrasting opinions together. It is hoped that the views presented in these papers, as well promoting future discussion, manage to capture something of the excitement of archaeological debate, so often based on uncertainties, while highlighting some of the problem areas in Atlantic archaeology. Euan MacKie's paper examines the evidence for influences from southern Atlantic areas in the construction of drystone settlements in Atlantic Scotland during the Iron Age. He notes the differences between what he terms 'maritime Atlantic broch cultures' and 'mainland broch cultures' and applies Renfrew's peer polity interaction hypothesis to explain the relationship between them. In the next paper Jon Henderson carries out a detailed examination of the Iron Age settlement evidence from Atlantic Scotland and Ireland in an effort to determine the existence of shared traditions and what such traditions may reveal about the nature of Atlantic contacts between Irish and Scottish communities. Simon Gilmour charts the development of drystone settlement in Atlantic Scotland from the second half of the first millennium BC into the first millennium AD. The shift to cellular settlement forms from around the fourth 1 In his paper, Mackie adheres to the traditional view of thick-walled drystone roundhouses which display a range of complex architectural features representing a homogenous type with a short chronology termed 'brochs.' Following Armit's (1990; 1992) definition of Atlantic roundhouses, the papers by Henderson and Gilmour instead view all drystone roundhouses in Atlantic Scotland as related structures which develop over a much longer period of time (see respective papers for full references).

iv

century AD is identified as a dramatic development in Atlantic Scottish society and Gilmour argues that similar cellular structures can be recognised across the northern Atlantic seaboard particularly in Ireland. Following on from this, Claire Cotter discusses some of the findings of the exciting Western Stone Forts Project in Ireland in advance of full publication. In the final paper Andrea Smith examines the potential similarities between combs represented on Pictish symbols stones in north east Scotland and actual Continental comb types found throughout the North Sea coastal area to suggest that contact and exchange may have been occurring between communities living along the North Sea prior to the seventh century AD. It is hoped that the papers in this volume go some way in bridging the gap between the macro-diffusionist scale and the more limited processual studies by facilitating a combined approach to archaeological data, such as that proposed by Sherratt (1993; 1995), where detailed regional studies are considered within a broader conceptual and geographical context. The view that large scale contact (interventionist) and regional (autonomist) approaches are diametrically opposed has worked to the detriment of studies concerned with large scale processes over a broad geographic area. It is becoming increasingly clear that large scale processes and long lasting traditions are more extensive in scope than that covered by regional research agendas. The original session and the papers in this volume should serve as a reminder that for far too long now Atlantic Europe has been regarded as a periphery with little role to play in the mainstream of European prehistory and development. Such a notion is untenable and is a result more of the development of archaeological sequences and archaeology itself in continental areas than a true reflection of the potential importance of Atlantic areas. In the context of European archaeology as a whole, the richness and diversity of Atlantic areas are only just beginning to be appreciated. I would like to thank everyone who participated in and attended the session in Goteburg for helping to make it such a success. I would also like to thank the organisers of the conference in Sweden for allowing me to run a session in the first place and providing sufficient back up and support to ensure everything ran smoothly on the day. My warmest thanks are also due to Melissa Terras for her support during the editing of this volume. Jon C. Henderson Christ Church Oxford

BIBLIOGRAPHY Armit, I. 1990: Brochs and Beyond in the Western Isles. In Armit, I. (ed.) Beyond the Brochs: Changing Perspectives on the Atlantic Scottish Iron Age Edinburgh University Press: 41-70. Armit, I. 1992: The Later Prehistory of the Western Isles of Scotland British Archaeological Reports British Series 221, Oxford. Bowen, E.G. 1969: Saints, Seaways and Settlements in the Celtic Lands. Cardiff. Bowen, E. G. 1970: Britain and the British Seas. In Moore, D.(ed.), The Irish Sea Province in Archaeology and Early History. Cardiff: 13-28. Bowen, E. G. 1972: Britain and the Western Seaways. London. Childe, V. G. 1946: Scotland before the Scots. Edinburgh. Crawford, 0. G. S. 1912: The Distribution of Early Bronze Age Settlements in Britain. Geographical Journal 40: 184-203. Crawford, 0. G. S. 1936: Western Seaways. In Buxton (ed.), Custom is King: Studies in Hounor or R.R. Marett, London: 181-200. Cunliffe, B. W. 1997: The Ancient Celts. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Kristiansen, K. 1998: Europe before history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Renfrew, A. C. 1973: Before civilisation: the radiocarbon revolution and prehistoric Europe. Jonathan Cape, London. Sherratt, A. G. 1993: What would a Bronze-Age world system look like? Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later prehistory. Journal of European Archaeology 1.2: 1-58. Sherratt, A. G. 1995: Reviving the Grand Narrative: Archaeology and Long-term Change. Journal of European Archaeology 3: 1-32. Waddell, J. 1998: The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland. Galway University Press, Galway. Wooding, J. M. 1996: Communication and Commerce along the Western Sealanes AD 400-800. British Archaeological Reports International Series 654, Oxford. V

Achnacreebeag and its French Connections: Vive the 'Auld Alliance' Alison Sheridan

The material from the two-phase chamberedcairn at Achnacreebeag,excavatedbetween 1968 and 1970 by Graham Ritchie, is reconsideredin the light of developmentsin the archaeologyof north-westFrance and refinementsin the dating of Scottish and Irish neolithic pottery. The significance of the similarities in tomb type between Achnacreebeagand north-westFrance are discussed, and it is suggestedthat the simple passage tomb may lie at the beginning of the passage tomb sequence for Scotland. The overall conclusion is that the Achnacreebeagevidence supports the long-held (but often inadequately argued) idea that Scotland's Early Neolithic reflects two major sources of influence, however that 'influence'is defined: the Atlantic facade is one, and the tradition representedin carinatedbowl assemblagesand principallynon-megalithicfunerarymonumentsis another.

INTRODUCTION

The history of research into neolithic connections along the Atlantic fai;:ade is rich in bold assertions and grandly sweeping hypotheses, and anyone venturing into the territory of megalithic or ceramic interpretation would be well advised to avoid megalithic missionaries (C. Hawkes 1940, 211), foreign chiefs with 'magical attributes' (Childe 1935, 78) and Mediterranean mother-goddess cults (J. Hawkes 1938, 172). Many claims for long-distance Atlantic connections are easy to dismiss. However there are some pieces of evidence which are so compelling that they demand closer scrutiny and explanation. This paper deals with one such example: the neolithic pottery from the simple passage tomb at Achnacreebeag, Argyll, excavated by Graham Ritchie between 1968 and 1970 (Ritchie 1970). A critical reassessment of this pottery in the light of developments in north-west French archaeology, and in particular the work of Christine Boujot and Serge Cassen (e.g. Boujot and Cassen 1992; 1993; 1997), allows us to identify it as Late Castellic in style, Armorican in tradition, and with a date of around 4000 BC. Furthermore, thanks to advances in our understanding of Scottish and Irish neolithic pottery, we are able to place this pottery at the beginning of the Scottish so-called 'Beacharra ware tradition', and to trace the course of its adoption and adaptation in Scotland and Ireland (Sheridan 1995). The simple passage tomb in which the pottery was found, and the closed chamber within a round cairn which formed the first phase of this two-phase monument, also find parallels in Brittany. This paper will explore the significance of this evidence for Franco-Scottish links contacts which pre-date the historical 'auld alliance' between these countries by over five millennia - and its implications for subsequent developments in the Scottish passage tomb tradition.

THE ACHNACREEBEAG CHAMBERED CAIRN, ITS CONTENTS AND ITS ORIGINAL INTERPRETATION

The chambered cairn at Achnacreebeag is located on the west coast of mainland Scotland, a few kilometres northeast of Oban (NGR NM 929363; Figure 1). The site and its contents are described in exemplary detail by Ritchie (op. cit.), so only the salient points will be repeated here. Excavation confirmed initial suspicions that this was a twophase monument (Figure 2). The earliest structure consisted of a closed polygonal chamber, 1.25 by 0.9 m, constructed of five boulders with a little interstitial drystone walling, covered by a single granite capstone. The chamber had been surrounded and originally covered by a round cairn, some 18 m in diameter, which had been edged by a modest boulder kerb. The presence of charcoal flecks just above the subsoil, both in the chamber and under the cairn, may indicate initial burning as part of the construction rites. The second construction phase consisted of the addition of a small, q-shaped passage tomb onto the SE perimeter of the cairn; the cairn was extended to cover this, giving it an overall pear shape in plan. The passage tomb consisted of a small polygonal chamber and short passage, constructed of ten boulders with interstitial drystone walling. Overall internal dimensions are around 4.5 m in length and just over 2 m in maximum width. The passage and chamber had originally been covered by massive capstones, the roof increasing from a height of0.80.9 m in the passage to an estimated 1.4-1.5 m in the chamber. In attempting to classify the Achnacreebeag structures, the excavator at first argued that they both belonged to a widespread tradition of simple passage tombs, represented in Scotland in "the Hebridean province of cairn-building with more specialised forms in the North and East" (ibid., 36-7). The Phase I chamber was regarded as a passageless variant. However, it was later suggested (p4 7) that the two structures might belong to separate traditions, with the passage tomb representing "an

ALISON SHERIDAN: ACHNACREEBEAG AND ITS FRENCH CONNECTIONS: VIVE THE 'AULD ALLIANCE'

0

200

km

Figure 1 Location of: 1. Achnacreebeag; 2. Vierville; 3. The Morbihan area.

intrusive", widespread tradition, and the closed chamber having indeterminate cultural affiliations; possible links with early chambers thought to be in the 'Clyde' tradition were tentatively suggested.

that the tomb had been reused and sealed during the Early Bronze Age. Material relating to the earlier use of the passage tomb was sealed below the blocking, and comprised sherds of three vessels, a piano-convex flint knife and a pressure-flaked flint fragment. The sherds were at the back of the chamber, and the flints were at the chamber entrance. No bones were present, but it is assumed that the structure had been used as a tomb. No datable organic material was found in any part of the chambered cairn.

No bones or artefactual material were found in the Phase I chamber, and the only artefacts relating to this Phase are three flint chips, one found in one of the sub-cairn charcoal patches. The Phase II passage tomb contents had been badly disturbed, and only half survived, but these revealed

2

THE PREHISTORY AND EARLY HISTORY OF ATLANTIC EUROPE

~s

ntt

~ 1 st.onrimprrssi.on

1,,~,,.~,,t"t }, 5 to

.

♦

15

dwrcal

.

"

0

.. 0

0

1'LAN

' fT1 S[CTION

SW-NL -----1

laycn

- - -1,

,·3

stone itnprtssi.on_,/ arystont,.

Figure 2 Achnacreebeag: plan and sections. From Ritchie 1970.

3

ALISON SHERIDAN: ACHNACREEBEAG AND ITS FRENCH CONNECTIONS: VIVE THE 'AULD ALLIANCE'

The third pot (Figure 3.3; NMS X.EO 1017) consisted of 37 small and worn sherds of "a vessel with one (or more) horizontal cordon and impressed decoration", and it was suggested that the latter had been made using a short stretch of whipped cord. A rimsherd, of grittier and paler fabric and with a row of oval impressions around its bevel, was described as possibly belonging to this pot, and possibly having lost half of its original thickness. The pot was tentatively identified as an unusually thin-walled and small Food Vessel, implying an Early Bronze Age date.

In discussing the finds from the pre-blocking period of the passage tomb's use, the excavator argued that these may not have related to the initial use of the tomb, since "earlier deposits may well have been cleared out" (ibid, 4 7). The chief reason for this suggestion was the fact that one of the pots (Figure 3.1; NMS X.EO 1015) - a fine, thin-walled carinated bowl decorated with incised nested arcs above the carination and vertical lines below it - had been ascribed to the 'Beacharra' tradition of western Scotland. This tradition, discussed by Stuart Piggott (1954) and Jack Scott (1964;1969), was mainly associated with the 'Clyde' type of non-passage-tomb chambered cairn, and congeners for its decorated carinated bowls were found in similar tombs in Ireland, where Humphrey Case (1961) had called them 'Ballyalton bowls' (see Figure 5). At that time this pottery was believed to be of late neolithic date, and Audrey Henshall, who reported on the Achnacreebeag pottery, followed Isla Mcinnes' suggested date of the 18th century BC (Mcinnes 1969) for Beacharra/Ballyalton vessels. This dating, proposed at a time when few radiocarbon dates for Scottish artefacts existed, was itself based on the belief of the near-contemporaneity of the six pots in the Beacharra 'Clyde cairn' with a late neolithic jet belt slider stratified above them.

The finely retouched flint piano-convex knife, while sharing points of similarity with Food Vessel-associated examples, was assumed to be of third millennium be date. THE PRE-BLOCKING PASSAGE TOMB MATERIAL REASSESSED

Developments since 1970 in the study of neolithic pottery in north-west France, Ireland and Scotland enable us to cast the Achnacreebeag pottery in a different light. The French Connection

The possibility of a connection between Scottish and Irish decorated carinated bowls and those from Brittany had been discussed in 1938, when Jacquetta Hawkes proposed the existence of a widespread tradition of 'channelled ware', extending from Sardinia and North Africa to Scandinavia, encompassing the Atlantic fac;ade. This, together with Stuart Piggott's reworking of the idea in 1954, was rightly dismissed as "!es ambitieuses, mais fallacieuses syntheses" by Gerard Bailloud in his study of Morbihan 'channelled wares' (Bailloud 1975); and subsequent work by Serge Cassen (e.g. Cassen 1993) has provided further chronological deconstruction of the concept of a 'channelled ware horizon'. However Bailloud reiterated the claim that similarities existed between some of the Morbihan material and 'Beacharra ware' in Scotland (and its Irish parallels), remarking that these were "ressemblances troublantes" (ibid, 365). Of particular note

As for the other two vessels, one (Figure 3.2; NMS X.EO 1016) was regarded as having almost certainly been "a plain round-based bowl", of a gritty fabric; it had a slightly expanded, bevelled rim, which had probably risen vertically from the rest of the pot. This was classified as "Western Neolithic or Neolithic A family of pottery" - in other words, the tradition which Isobel Smith subsequently called 'Grimston-Lyles Hill' pottery (Smith 1974) and which, following Heme's reassessment (1988), might now arguably be called a 'traditional Carinated Bowl' (see Sheridan 1997 for discussion of terminology). A date in the third, or possibly early second millennium be in radiocarbon years, was suggested by analogy with the pottery from Pitnacree non-megalithic round mound, which was associated with a radiocarbon date of 4810±90 BP (GaK-601 ).

~ 2

3

1

Figure 3 Pottery from Achnacreebeag, as published in Ritchie 1970. Scale 1:3.

4

THE PREHISTORY AND EARLY HISTORY OF ATLANTIC EUROPE

Figure 4 Decorated carinated bowls from: 1. Achnacreebeag (photo: National Museums of Scotland); 2. Vierville (photo: Musee de Normandie).

5

ALISON SHERIDAN: ACHNACREEBEAG AND ITS FRENCH CONNECTIONS: VIVE THE 'AULD ALLIANCE'

'fringe' motif, and one from Le Castellic itself (Figure 5) has both the fringe and the nested arcs above.

in this regard was a bowl from a simple passage tomb at Vierville in Normandy, excavated in 1972 (Figure 4.2; Verron 1976). The existence of fine carinated bowls with decoration including nested arcs in Brittany, Normandy, Scotland and Ireland was taken by Bailloud as evidence for maritime contact between these areas.

Boujot and Cassen's reappraisal of western French middle neolithic pottery in the light of new stratigraphic and radiocarbon dates, particularly those from Locmariaquer, allowed them to define 'Early' and 'Late' variants of the Castellic style, and to link the former with Cerny pottery from the Paris Basin (Boujot and Cassen 1992; Cassen 1993; Le Roux 1998). The carinated bowls of open or 'neutral' shape (i.e. with splaying or roughly upright necks, as at Le Castellic) belong to the former, along with a few closed carinated bowls (as at Manio 5) and other ceramic items with similar decoration (namely the 'vase-support' from Moustoir, and the unique footed dish from Lannec er Gadouer: Boujot and Cassen 1997). This Early Castellic pottery is associated with closed funerary chambers, under long low mounds ('tertres tumulaires '), massive long mounds ('tumulus carnaceens'), and round mounds; it has also been found in non-funerary contexts, which may be settlements or areas of activity associated with the tombs. Boujot and Cassen have argued for a date within the period 4400-4000 BC ('Armorican Middle Neolithic I') for this pottery (Cassen 1993, fig. I; Boujot and Cassen 1992). Associated artefacts include exotic jadeite ceremonial axeheads from the West Alpine Piedmont (ibid. fig. 5.4). Axeheads of this type have been found in Britain and Ireland, although they appear to post-date the Breton specimens: the Sweet Track axehead, at 3807/3806 BC, is several centuries later than the estimated date range of 4800-4300 BC for the Breton ones (Cassen and Petrequin 1999). It has been assumed that they arrived in Britain via the Rhine and Seine (Petrequin et al. 1997, fig. 1).

Bailloud's publication did not mention the recentlydiscovered example from Achnacreebeag, nor did the Achnacreebeag pottery report mention previous claims for links between 'Beacharra ware' and France. The present author, however, remarked upon the especially striking similarity between the bowls from Vierville and Achnacreebeag in 1985; and recent research and reconstruction work to prepare the pot for display in the new Museum of Scotland has permitted a closer examination of the two vessels (Figure 4). The Vierville bowl (Figure 4.2) is a closed carinated vessel, with a long neck and everted, rounded, slightly thickened rim. The pot stands c 118 mm high and has a maximum diameter, at its carination, of c.160 mm. It is thin-walled (c 4-7 mm) and made of a fine clay with virtually no inclusions; the external surface is an orangebuff colour, and is very smooth. Decoration consists of a set of double nested arcs, running around the outside of the neck just above the carination. Verron (1976; 1986) described these as having been made by impressing something into the clay; but incision with a blunt tool could equally well have caused the inner surface of this thin pot to bulge inwards. The Achnacreebeag bowl (Figure 4.1) is also a closed carinated bowl with an everted, slightly thickened rim. Its neck is not as long as had been shown on the published 1970 reconstruction drawing (Figure 3.1 ), however: having physically reconstructed the vessel according to this shape for the Museum of Scotland displays, it was discovered during photography that the sherd on the left of the 'conjoining' fragments actually bore a fragmentary arc, and was a mis-conjoin. Figure 4.1 shows the newlyreconstructed bowl in what is now believed to be its correct shape. The bowl therefore has a shorter neck than the Vierville vessel. It is also slightly smaller, with a height of 92 mm and maximum diameter of 143 mm. The wall thickness is comparable at 5-6 mm and the fabric, though not identical, is fine and almost grit-free. The exterior surface is a rich brown and has been slightly polished. The decoration consists of a set of triple arcs, plus a fringe of vertical lines below, all incised. Despite these minor differences, the resemblance between the pots is nevertheless striking; and it is obvious that the Achnacreebeag pot was made by a skilled potter.

The Vierville bowl, with its closed shape and simple nested arc decoration, belongs to Boujot and Cassen's 'Late Castellic' style, which they date to around 4000 BC ('Armorican Middle Neolithic II'). Significantly, this is associated with a simple passage tomb, as was the Achnacreebeag pottery (although, as shall be discussed below, the Norman tomb does not provide an exact match for the Scottish). Boujot and Cassen argue that this type of burial monument began to be used in southern Brittany around 4100/4000 BC 1 ( as at Kerlagat, with its Late Castellic pottery); and they have interpreted its appearance in terms of a period of social change, associated with a 'consolidation' of an agricultural lifestyle. The re-use of broken decorated menhirs in some passage tombs is seen as a deliberate destruction and re-casting of earlier monuments, themselves associated with an earlier stage of 'Neolithicisation' (Boujot and Cassen 1992; 1993). Whether this social change, with its apparent spread of a Breton pottery style northwards, may help to explain the

As noted above, the Vierville pot was recognised as belonging to a southern Armorican tradition, found almost exclusively in the Morbihan peninsula of Brittany. Bailloud (1975), following L'Helgouach (1971 ), referred to this as 'Castellic style' pottery, and illustrated numerous examples in his review. Among these are several bowls bearing the

1 In his most recent publication, Cassen has stated that the dates for settlements contemporary with all types of passage tomb in NW France range from 4300-3200 BC, with a significant grouping around 3800 BC (Cassen and Petrequin 1999). lf the beginning of this date range includes outlying dates, then Boujot and Cassen's earlier estimated 'start date' of 4100 BC (5300 BP) should still apply (Boujot and Cassen 1992, 205-6; 1993,485).

6

THE PREHISTORY AND EARLY HISTORY OF ATLANTIC EUROPE

appearance of Late Castellic pottery at Achnacreebeag will be discussed below.

indicates that the use of decorated carinated bowls in court tombs (the Irish congeners of 'Clyde cairns') is likely to have begun between 4000-3750 BC.

Finally, regarding the other two pots from Achnacreebeag, a reassessment in the light of the French evidence reveals that these, too, could be of French design - and thus contemporary with the arc-decorated bowl. As for the plain bowl (Figure 3.2), fine plain round-based bowls have been found with Castellic style pottery, both in the Morbihan (Er-Lannie: Bailloud 1975, fig. 4.1-7) and at Vierville (Verron 1986, fig. 3.1-4, 7). And the decorated bowl (Figure 3.3) could, according to Serge Cassen (pers. comm.), represent 'Pinacle' style pottery - a style contemporary with and similar to Castellic pottery, found in Brittany and the Channel Islands. The term 'Castellic/Pinacle', or 'Castellic/Pinacle-F ouaillages ', is sometimes used to cover both styles (Patton 1994). Although this Cerny-related 'Pinacle' pottery seems to be contemporary with the Early Castellic style, its continued use into the time frame envisaged for Achnacreebeag is possible: Pinacle-like pottery was found in a Late Castellic assemblage under the Table des Marchand (Boujot and Cassen 1993, 483). Re-examination of the sherds of the Achnacreebeag pot leads this author to conclude that it: i) was decorated with stab impressions, not cord impressions, and these consistently run both above and below the cordon; ii) had just one cordon, unevenly applied, which acted as a 'carination'; iii) had a rim not broader than the sherd shown in Figure 3.3. This is indicated by a small rimsherd with both surfaces surviving; neither rimsherd is significantly grittier than the rest of the sherds, as had been originally claimed. The presence of the double line of stab impressions is what Cassen regards as a 'Pinacle' feature; single rows, found on, above or below carinations, are characteristic of the Castellic style.

Before presenting the Scottish evidence, a brief review of the concept of a 'Beacharra ware tradition' is required, to show how the ceramic sequence in the Clyde region and the Hebrides has previously been characterised. The term 'Beacharra ware' was coined by Stuart Piggott in 1954, following a much older suggestion by Bryce (1902) of the existence of a distinctive pottery style associated with the 'Clyde cairns' of south-west Scotland. Piggott, dealing with this material and its Irish congeners, defined the ware in terms of three main types of pot, namely: Beacharra A: mostly simple bag-shaped lugged bowls, usually plain (e.g. Sliddery, Figure 6); Beacharra B: decorated carinated pots (i.e. the material closest to Achnacreebeag); Beacharra C: a local, and slightly later subgroup of these in Ulster and Bute, featuring the use of cord impressions. He also included some other vessels from Ulster in this group. Piggott regarded 'Beacharra Ware' as representing a western, Atlantic 'colonisation' of south-west Scotland (1954, 171), quite separate from the 'eastern', ultimately Belgian/Netherlands, 'colonisation' of eastern England, Scotland and Ireland, with its 'Grimston' (i.e. 'Carinated Bowl') pottery and non-megalithic long barrow associations. This idea was supported by Atkinson ( 1962, 7-11 ), who drew particular attention to the distribution of plain lugged bowls, linking western Scotland with southwest England. In 1964, Jack Scott enlarged the definition of 'Beacharra Ware' to encompass material from funerary and domestic sites in the Hebrides, and proposed a four-stage developmental sequence, based on a Beacharra 'assemblage' of lugged bowls, plain bowls, cups and decorated carinated bowls (Scott 1964, fig. 10; cf Scott 1969). This scheme proposed divergent sequences for the Clyde and the Hebrides, following a period of contact.

The flint artefacts from the pre-blocking phase at Achnacreebeag are spatially distinct from the pottery and need not have related to the same episode of deposition.

Irish and Scottish Neolithic Pottery; 'Beacharra Ware' Reconsidered The resemblance of the Achnacreebeag pottery to some 'Beacharra ware' and to Irish 'Ballyalton bowls' was acknowledged in the original excavation report, and can be seen in Figures 5 and 6. However, none of the Scottish or Irish parallels are closer to the Castellic bowls in France than the Achnacreebeag material; and all the relevant radiocarbon dating evidence amassed since 1970 including the dates for French Late Castellic pottery strongly indicates that Achnacreebeag stands at the beginning of a process of adoption and adaptation.

Subsequent commentators (e.g. Mcinnes 1969; Henshall 1972; Kinnes 1985) have tended to discuss this pottery in terms of individual vessel types, rather than as a 'Beacharra ware tradition'. Kinnes, for example, uses the categories 'plain [or simple - i.e. uncarinated] bowls' (encompassing Piggott's Beacharra A), 'Beacharra bowls' (equivalent to Beacharra B) and 'Hebridean style' (for the elaborately decorated jars and bowls from Hebridean sites; ibid., 48-9). He described the last two as "the products of a clear local ancestry" (ibid., 23), although he did not elaborate as to the nature of that ancestry.

The evidence from Ireland has been discussed by this author in 1995, so will not be repeated here, except in the summary form of Figure 5. This diagram, updated to take into account the most up-to-date French dating evidence,

However one chooses to approach this pottery, it is possible to use the currently available dating evidence to

7

)>

r 'Tl

W/SW Scotlandand NE Ulsterc3250-c3000 be (c4000-c3750 ca/, BC)

NW France c3800-c3050 be (c4600-c3900 cal BC)

10·

... I

'
·

I

c:,·

j:>·

c:,'l, j:>·

log-ratio

Southern England

log-ratio

~

:;I

Louviers

n=162

~ 20

10 0

I

I

i:,f'

i:,'P

I

l',p,

i:,':-'b

~'!' ~-:-"'

log--ratio

Berey

j

160 -.---------------,

)~g

!! 140 ~

c:

80 60 40 20 0-1--f----+----,,.-

I

i:,'?"' l''J,,