The Southern Kintyre Project: Exploring interactions across the Irish Sea from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age 9781407313948, 9781407323022

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Preface
Abstract
List of contributors
Chapter 1. Social interactions in prehistory and the Southern Kintyre Project
Chapter 2. Background: introducing Kintyre
Chapter 3. Archaeology in the mythic landscape
Chapter 4. Results of the fieldwalking
Chapter 5. Lithic assemblages from southern Kintyre: other collections and investigating origins
Chapter 6. Results of the field surveys at Blasthill, Macharioch and Marchfield, Stewarton
Chapter 7. The results of the excavations of a Mesolithic scatter and associated structure at Macharioch Farm
Chapter 8. The results of the excavations at Blasthill chambered tomb
Chapter 9. The results of Jack Scott’s excavations at Ardnacross II chambered tomb and later associated structures, near Peninver, Kintyre
Chapter 10. The biography of early Neolithic pottery assemblages from chambered tombs in western Scotland and eastern Ireland
Chapter 11. Kintyre in a broader context: discussion and conclusions
Appendix 1. The pottery from the Blasthill chambered tomb
Appendix 2. A note on the petrology of the prehistoric pottery from Blasthill chambered tomb, southern Kintyre
Appendix 3. The analysis of organic residues from the Blasthill pottery by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
Appendix 4. The quartz assemblage from Blasthill chambered tomb
Appendix 5. The flint and stone assemblage from Blasthill chambered tomb
Appendix 6. The carbonised plant macrofossils and charcoal from Blasthill chambered tomb
Appendix 7. The micromorphological examination of forecourt deposits from Blasthill chambered tomb
Appendix 8. The Blasthill chambered tomb human remains
Appendix 9. Irish Sea chambered tomb pottery fabric families
Appendix 10. The flint, quartz and stone assemblage from Ardnacross II chambered tomb
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR 618 2015

The Southern Kintyre Project

CUMMINGS AND ROBINSON (Eds)

Exploring interactions across the Irish Sea from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age Edited by

Vicki Cummings Gary Robinson

THE SOUTHERN KINTYRE PROJECT

B A R blue cover template CS6.indd 1

BAR British Series 618 2015 06/07/2015 08:54:44

The Southern Kintyre Project Exploring interactions across the Irish Sea from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age Edited by

Vicki Cummings Gary Robinson

BAR British Series 618 2015

ISBN 9781407313948 paperback ISBN 9781407323022 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407313948 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Contents Preface Abstract List of contributors Chapter 1. Social interactions in prehistory and the Southern Kintyre Project Vicki Cummings and Gary Robinson

1

Chapter 2. Background: introducing Kintyre Gary Robinson

9

Chapter 3. Archaeology in the mythic landscape Angus Martin

14

Chapter 4. Results of the fieldwalking Vicki Cummings

21

Chapter 5. Lithic assemblages from southern Kintyre: other collections and investigating origins Vicki Cummings and Seosaimhim Bradley

47

Chapter 6. Results of the field surveys at Blasthill, Macharioch and Marchfield, Stewarton Vicki Cummings, Chris Green and Gary Robinson

57

Chapter 7. The results of the excavations of a Mesolithic scatter and associated structure at Macharioch Farm Vicki Cummings and Gary Robinson

70

Chapter 8. The results of the excavations at Blasthill chambered tomb Vicki Cummings and Gary Robinson

80

Chapter 9. The results of Jack Scott’s excavations at Ardnacross II chambered tomb and later associated structures, near Peninver, Kintyre Vicki Cummings

97

Chapter 10. The biography of early Neolithic pottery assemblages from chambered tombs in western Scotland and eastern Ireland Emma Thompson, Vicki Cummings and Rick Peterson

113

Chapter 11. Kintyre in a broader context: discussion and conclusions Vicki Cummings and Gary Robinson

138

Appendix 1. The pottery from the Blasthill chambered tomb Emma Thompson and Rick Peterson

147

Appendix 2. A note on the petrology of the prehistoric pottery from Blasthill chambered tomb, southern Kintyre David Williams

155

Appendix 3. The analysis of organic residues from the Blasthill pottery by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Ben Stern

157

Appendix 4. The quartz assemblage from Blasthill chambered tomb Hugo Anderson-Whymark

161

Appendix 5. The flint and stone assemblage from Blasthill chambered tomb Vicki Cummings

170

Appendix 6. The carbonised plant macrofossils and charcoal from Blasthill chambered tomb Diane Aldritt

171

Appendix 7. The micromorphological examination of forecourt deposits from Blasthill chambered tomb Clare Wilson

177

Appendix 8. The Blasthill chambered tomb human remains Michael Wysocki

183

Appendix 9. Irish Sea chambered tomb pottery fabric families Emma Thompson

184

Appendix 10. The flint, quartz and stone assemblage from Ardnacross II chambered tomb Vicki Cummings

186

Bibliography

188

Preface This project was conceived a decade ago in response to a growing area of research in prehistoric studies. Vicki had been looking at Neolithic monuments either side of the Irish Sea, as well as thinking about movements by people in prehistory. Gary had researching movements by boat around the Scilly Isles alongside investigations of how people conceived the sea. Our two strands of research sat alongside other work on seascapes, movements on the sea and cultural interactions being investigated at the time (see chapter one). It therefore seemed timely to pool our different research interests and investigate some key research questions by investigating one region in detail. The main aim, as outlined in this volume, was thus to try and get a better sense of cultural interactions between communities in the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age through a detailed investigation of one particular area, with a focus on considerations of interactions across the sea. Kintyre offered the perfect case study area. While still attached to the Scottish mainland, it is also surrounded on virtually all sides by the sea. Interactions in prehistory would have had the potential to be both by boat and by land. Indeed, Kintyre is the closest point on mainland Britain to Ireland, just 12 miles away, so there may have been interactions by boat with both other parts of Scotland as well as Ireland. However, very little archaeological research had been conducted in Kintyre prior to this project. A few high profile excavations of chambered cairns had taken place by Jack Scott (notably Beacharra and Brackley), and the odd tantalising find had been uncovered, such as the hoard of Antrim flint axes and flakes at Achinoan (Saville 1999). While little recent archaeological work had taken place in Kintyre, there was a small but active Antiquarian Society who welcomed us unreservedly into the area. Initial visits to the southern part of Kintyre showed that there were both regularly ploughed fields in this area, ideal for fieldwalking, along with unimproved land not planted by forestry ideal for walkover survey. Southern Kintyre was thus chosen as our case study area. Over the course of the project, we were helped by many people. Initial advice and support was provided by Alan Saville (NMS) and he put us in touch with Frances Hood and Angus Martin in the Kintyre Antiquarian Society. Frances and Angus provided enormous quantities of help and advice over the course of the project and we cannot thank them enough for this, and their enthusiasm and support. Once the project was up and running, various farmers in Kintyre allowed us access to their land for fieldwalking, walkover survey, geophysical survey and excavation. Special thanks must go to Messrs McCorkindale of Macharioch Farm, who kindly granted us access to Blasthill for various excavations and surveys, and to their farmland around Macharioch. Fieldwalking permission was frequently facilitated by Frances at the Southend Tearooms, who also made many a weather-battered student warm again with her excellent hot chocolates. Many thanks to John Raven from Historic Scotland for arranging Scheduled Monument Consent at Blasthill: sorry the weather wasn’t better for your visit to site! The following kindly visited us in the field at various points and offered invaluable advice: Roger Anderton, Claire Ellis, Adam Stanford, Richard Tipping and Clare Wilson. Particular thanks to Andy Buntin, Mary-Anne Buntin, David Moon and Bronwen Price for all their sterling work and support. The hard work was conducted over the years by students from the Universities of Central Lancashire, Cardiff and Bangor. We can’t name all the students who helped but we are grateful to you all! We would also like to thank the following for providing financial assistance for the running of this project: The University of Central Lancashire, Cardiff University, The British Academy, The Royal Archaeological Institute, The Robert Kiln Charitable Trust, The CBA Challenge Fund, The Prehistoric Society, The Kintyre Antiquarian Society and the National Lottery Awards for All. We benefitted from the experience and advice of many over the course of the project. Chantal Conneller and Hugo Anderson-Whymark answered lots of queries as we tried to understand the dark art of flint analysis. Hugo also kindly commented on the draft chapter on flint. Meli Pannett let us use her lithic analysis methodology and crib sheets. Graeme Warren kindly looked at our first season’s quartz assemblage and offered words of reassurance about the even darker art of quartz analysis. Richard Tipping made many trips to Kintyre to look for and sample peat, and think about coastal morphology. Chris Green and Bob Johnson conducted the geophysical surveys. Rick Peterson offered support with regards all aspects of the pottery analysis and commented on chapter drafts. Gordon Cook at SUERC was exceptionally helpful in assisting with the samples for C-14 dating. Michelle Wienhold, James Morris and Ashley Joynes helped with the GIS. Accessing and writing up Jack Scott’s work at Ardnacross II was only possible with the help and assistance of various institutions and people. At the RCHAMS Iain Fraser provided considerable help and support and Lesley Ferguson kindly agreed for us to work with the material. Jane Flint, the curator for prehistoric archaeology at the Glasgow Museums, tracked down the Ardnacross material, enabled access to this material and also kindly facilitated the reproduction of a number of images held by Glasgow Museums. We are very grateful to Sharon

Webb at Kilmartin House for access to the Kintyre material, and allowing the reproduction of images. Many thanks also to Aaron Watson for allowing us to use two of his images in the book. We did consider writing up the project as a series of papers. Indeed, the excavations at Blasthill chambered cairn are reported on separately as a discussion paper in the Archaeological Journal. We want to state that the decision to write this research up as a monograph was not driven by REF or indeed anything other than our desire to present all the results of this fieldwork project against a broader background of archaeological research in Kintyre to provide as detailed and up-to-date summary of knowledge as possible. We felt this approach does the archaeology more justice than a series of stand-alone papers, and while we may not have answered all of our initial research objectives, we hope that this volume will stand as testament to the quality of the archaeology found in Kintyre. Finally, this volume is dedicated to the memory of Chris Green, who sadly passed away before this project was brought to publication. He worked with us in Kintyre on many occasions, and was particularly instrumental in the geophysical surveys at Macharioch and Blasthill. He also assisted with the training of undergraduate students and on excavation. His passion for archaeology was tremendous, and he is greatly missed. Vicki Cummings, Preston Gary Robinson, Bangor May 2015



Abstract This volume presents the results of a five year research project which investigated the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age of Southern Kintyre. This area of western Scotland had seen little previous archaeological research prior to this project, but work centred on Blasthill has revealed the remains of a rich prehistoric landscape. Alongside a known Neolithic chambered tomb, this project also identified a range of prehistoric features including Bronze Age domestic and ritual structures as well as a series of well-preserved curvilinear field systems. Excavations were conducted at the chambered tomb on Blasthill and revealed a complex and long-lived sequence of construction at this site in association with material culture including a small pottery assemblage. Trial excavations and geophysical surveys were also conducted over other features on Blasthill and at other locations in the wider area, and as such we have been able to identify several other key areas of prehistoric activity, particularly in relation to monument construction. Lithic scatters were also recovered from ploughed fields in Southern Kintyre, revealing a series of hitherto unknown sites. This includes two substantial Mesolithic sites and a number of smaller Neolithic and Bronze Age spreads. The excavations conducted by the late Jack Scott at Ardnacross II chambered tomb are also reported on here in detail for the first time. Research has also been conducted on the pottery assemblages from southern Kintyre in comparison with other mortuary assemblages from western Scotland and eastern Ireland. All of this is set against a broader research question which addresses the issue of how archaeology can inform our understanding of the nature of interactions between prehistoric communities in Southern Kintyre with people in other areas of Britain and Ireland. It seems that there were fluctuating relationships between Kintyre, other parts of western Scotland and eastern Ireland throughout the periods under consideration which we have been able to identify as a result of this project.

List of contributors Diane Alldritt Archaeobotanical Services Glasgow http://www.archaeobotanical.co.uk Hugo Anderson-Whymark Department of Archaeology, University of York, The King’s Manor, York, YO1 7EP Seosaimhin Bradley School of Forensic and Investigative Science, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE Vicki Cummings School of Forensic and Investigative Science, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE Angus Martin Kintyre Antiquarian and Natural History Society 13 Saddell Street, Campbeltown, Argyll, PA28 6DN Rick Peterson School of Forensic and Investigative Science, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE Gary Robinson School of History, Welsh History and Archaeology, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2DG Ben Stern School of Archaeological Science University of Bradford, Bradford, BD7 1DP

Emma Thompson School of Forensic and Investigative Science, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE David Williams Faculty of Humanities University of Southampton Avenue Campus Highfield Southampton SO17 1BF Clare Wilson School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA Mick Wysocki School of Forensic and Investigative Science, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE

Chapter 1. Social interactions in prehistory and the Southern Kintyre Project Vicki Cummings and Gary Robinson

Introduction Social interactions between communities in different parts of Europe in prehistory have been considered by generations of archaeologists. The spread of peoples into previously uninhabited parts of Europe at the onset of the Holocene, the spread of the Neolithic from the Near East and the start of metalworking have all featured heavily in archaeological narratives for over a century. For earlier generations the appearance of new material culture in the archaeological record was considered to be the result of the spread of people from certain origin points (e.g. Childe 1925). More recent generations, however, have critiqued this interpretation, arguing that material culture is not a direct reflection of cultural groupings (cf. Hodder 1982), and that straightforward movements of people are not sufficient to explain the arrival of different sets of material culture and technology. If this is the case, how, then, can we begin to conceptualise and explore interactions between different social groups in prehistory? Is it even possible to identify social groups in prehistory? This chapter outlines the background research agenda which motivated the creation and implementation of the Southern Kintyre Project. It begins by considering how social interaction has been discussed in the archaeological literature. Against this broader background, the key research aims of the Southern Kintyre Project are laid out, detailing why Kintyre was chosen as a study area for investigating these issues. Finally, a brief summary of knowledge of what was known about the prehistory of Kintyre prior to the commencement of the project is presented.

The culture-historical approach to prehistory continued to be significant into the middle part of the twentieth century, although discussions became more nuanced and regionally-specific. For example, Margaret Davis, writing in the 1940s, argued that monuments were an excellent way of identifying primary settlement at the start of the Neolithic. She argued that the Irish Sea was ideal for the spread of people from southern and western Europe (Davis 1945). She suggested that eastern Ireland was the location for the first colonisation of megalith builders as she envisaged passage graves as the earliest form of monument to be constructed in Britain and Ireland: this was followed by extended periods of social interaction across the Irish Sea as populations grew and spread out from areas of primary occupation. Stuart Piggott argued for a different line of Neolithic colonisation, suggesting that Arran and Bute, along with low-lying valleys in Dumfries and Galloway, were the locations of primary settlement, with north-east Ireland being colonised from Scotland (Piggott 1954, 181). Regardless of where primary colonisation was sited, however, there was no doubt amongst those writing at this time that the origins of megalith builders (synonymous with Neolithic, agricultural peoples) was Mainland Europe, brought to Britain and Ireland by sea, and that significant social interactions across the Irish Sea continued throughout the Neolithic, evidenced by the spread of megalithic innovations such as crescentic façades and material culture such as stone axes (Piggott 1954). Indeed, the origins of incoming peoples and the location of primary settlement framed discussions for many years, for both the Neolithic and the subsequent Beaker phase (e.g. Case 1969a; Clark 1966; Corcoran 1960; de Valera 1960; 1965; Piggott 1938), with the sea being key in social interactions at this time. Case (1969b) even spelled out the precise nature of social interaction as he saw it:

Social interaction in prehistory The creation and implementation of the three age system in the nineteenth century placed European prehistoric cultures into a chronological and technological sequence: by the first few decades of the twentieth century scholars had begun to suggest that the big changes in material culture, from stone to bronze to iron, were primarily the product of diffusion, via either the spread of ideas or the movements of people. Childe, for example, argued that the Neolithic revolution occurred in the Near East, which then swept across Europe via diffusion and migration (Childe 1925; 1929). In this culture-historic interpretation of the archaeological record, social interaction was fairly straightforward –technological advances spread out from an origin point, either by the wholesale movement of people, or by the spread of knowledge of these technological advances. There was little consideration of the fate of the people who were swept aside by new technologies – the Mesolithic people who were rapidly replaced by incoming Neolithic farmers, nor the Neolithic people who were replaced by the Beaker folk.

‘We may distinguish two kinds of movement: communal movements (of organised societies) and seasonal movements (of a few individuals)…if the community was large and strong enough a few men able to be spared from the many tasks could have roved widely by land and sea, exploring the near and distant environment…like the voyageurs of North America in historic times. Hundreds of miles could have been covered by determined seamen, before the wild weather of the early Autumn…..’ (Case 1969b, 5-7, emphasis as in original). In considerations of British prehistory right through to the 1970s the emphasis of culture-historical archaeology was on subsistence economy and technology. These had been deemed more knowable by, for example, Hawkes’ on his



ladder of inference, and were in-keeping with the culturehistorical emphasis on material culture. In this sense Case was the exception to the rule in terms of explicitly discussing how social interactions may have taken place. The big change came about with the New Archaeology, developed in America in the 1960s and applied to British case studies by Renfrew in the 1970s. Proponents of the New Archaeology argued that it was possible to gain insights into social organisation as much as the economy and technology. In particular they favoured the use of ethnographic analogy for understanding prehistoric societies. For example Renfrew (1973) discussed the changing nature of social organisation in the British Neolithic and then complemented this with a consideration of the kinds of social interactions we might envisage in prehistory (see Renfrew 1986, also see Bradley and Chapman 1986). Richard Bradley (1978) argued that early pioneer settlement at the start of the Neolithic followed patterns analogous to the expansion of populations as documented in the ethnographic literature on North America. This resulted in fairly small-scale, dispersed settlement patterns from which a clan structure evolved, where ties were maintained via kinship links (Bradley 1978, 102). While drawing on earlier culture-historical approaches, the work in the 1970s also engaged with economic and ethnographic work resulting in the first sophisticated interpretations of social interactions amongst prehistoric people.

Thus the 1980s and 1990s saw a move away from grand European narratives towards increasingly regionallysensitive as well as material specific considerations of prehistory. The chambered tombs which had once dominated discussions on the early Neolithic took a back seat as other forms of material culture came to be considered in more depth. Of particular note and influence were the final publications detailing decades of research into the source of stone axes (Clough and Cummins 1979; 1988). This project used petrology to demonstrate that there were a number of sources of stone axes in Britain and Ireland and that some of these axe factories produced large numbers of axes which were found widely across Britain and Ireland. This played into broader debates about the nature of exchange networks in the Neolithic (see Bradley and Edmonds 1993; Edmonds 1995). Mark Edmonds in particular articulated the way in which social organisation and social interaction was envisaged at this time. Early Neolithic society was often considered by some to be small-scale and kin-based, while others argued it was led by elites (Edmonds 1999, 30, 81). But whichever of these was the case ‘the system is often singular. What is lost is any sense of the mess of people dealing with others, the complex moral economies and the blurrings of regimes of value at different scales. Distant people, ideas and artefacts; people who, in turn, extended contact even further afield; seasonal kin or those seen daily – a tangle of relations’ (Edmonds 1999, 127, emphasis added).

Considerations of social interactions from 1980s onwards were shaped by a number of different discourses. Early work within the new interpretive paradigm focussed on the idea that people may have masked social relations in their creation and use of material culture and architecture (e.g. Parker Pearson 1982; Shanks and Tilley 1982). This actually brought the possibility of a hierarchical and ranked society forward into the early Neolithic. This was reinforced with increasing evidence for there being violent encounters in the early Neolithic (for example, the excavation of the causewayed enclosures of Crickley Hill and Hambledon Hill in the late 1970s and early 1980s: Mercer 1980). Alongside this was an increased emphasis on the role of indigenous people in the transition to the Neolithic, and likewise with the onset of the Beaker culture. This led to the increasing realisation that the straightforward narratives of the arrival of peoples at the start of the Neolithic and Bronze Age were no longer sufficient as explanations for the start of these periods. The debate about the onset of the Neolithic in Britain, for example, became increasingly polemic in terms of whether or not it involved the substantial movement of peoples from Europe into Britain and the role of the native huntergatherers in this process (for a summary see Cummings and Harris 2011; Cummings 2014, also see Thomas 2013). Understanding social interactions was no longer simply about envisaging the kinds of engagements between pioneer farming communities but also needed to take into account indigenous populations continuing hunting and gathering lifestyles.

In contrast to the early Neolithic, late Neolithic and early Bronze Age society was still often seen as hierarchical: societies which were capable of building monuments such as Stonehenge and producing the elaborate material culture from the rich Wessex barrows was easy to conceive as being ranked (but also see Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina 1998; Woodward 2000, 101-3). The implications of this in terms of social interaction was that there would have been increasing social competition, which cumulated in reduced access to resources from the middle of the Bronze Age onwards. While on the one hand the notion on an incoming beaker folk had been soundly rejected decades before, there was also the increasing realisation that some people, at least, were moving substantial distances (Evans et al. 2006). By the start of the 21st century, there was a diminishing number of discussions on social organisation and interaction in British prehistory. This is because there was a broader understanding that social interaction would have been potentially an extremely complex entity, influenced by a whole range of different elements, which in and of themselves have seen increased interest in the last 15 years or so. Identity has featured heavily in considerations of prehistory alongside notions of personhood and the body (Fowler 2004; Robb and Harris 2013). The very notion of a society as a homogenous and definable entity has been challenged, drawing on wider debates in anthropology

2

(e.g. Strathern 1988 and see Whittle 2003). Notions of active agents has also expanded to include animals (e.g. Conneller 2004). As more and more of our assumptions about the past and the creation of knowledge have been problematized, challenged and then debated at length, the harder it has been for archaeologists to discuss issues such as social interaction in broad-brush terms. This is not to say that there is no debate at all, but more that considerations of the nature of interaction in prehistory have become more diffuse or opaque than those found in the earlier literature.

Cummings 2009). These are actually remarkably similar not only in relation to their architectural composition, but also their use and setting within the broader landscape. Another set of sites share many similarities across the Irish Sea. These are the ‘dolmen’ monuments found in western Britain and many parts of Ireland (see Cummings and Richards 2014). Second, because of broad similarities in monumentality, material culture, setting and traditions of practice, it has been argued that communities must have maintained regular contact across the Irish Sea. This work, while focusing on the material remains either side of the Irish Sea, has argued that the sea was a major influence on the arrival of the first Neolithic people or ideas into this area, and it continued to play an important role in both facilitating movement but also shaping identity and beliefs in the Neolithic.

Some of the themes explored in more detail in the archaeology of the 21st century are directly relevant to considering social interaction. There has been a notable resurgence in interest in the role of the sea in facilitating, or restricting, movements in the past. For example Callaghan and Scarre (2009) considered the character and intensity of contact by simulating a series of sea voyages from Mainland Europe to various parts of Britain and Ireland. Their conclusions were that substantial sea voyages were easily achievable in prehistoric boats, although these would have been more successful at certain times of the year than others. Furthermore, with a series of stop-overs, people could have moved around the western seaways with relative ease. Garrow and Sturt (2011) followed a similar line of reasoning, focussing on the conditions provided by the western seaways for facilitating different types of movement and interaction across the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. It should be noted that these two paper have been concerned primarily with the start of the Neolithic. For the Mesolithic, however, the dominant discourse relating to social interaction is still one of cultural isolation. While Saville notes that much more research needs to be done in relation to Mesolithic material culture, he advocates the idea that Britain and Ireland were not connected in the later Mesolithic.

Gary’s work, in contrast, has had a much stronger focus on the sea itself. In a case study focussed on the Scilly Isles it has been argued that the sea was neither a barrier to movement nor a homogenous entity (Robinson 2007b). Instead, the sea provided an important way of navigating between islands like the Scilly Isles, and through the accumulation of experience of particular seaways people would have been able to carefully navigate and land in these areas. The archaeological evidence further enhances our understanding of precisely where and how people were moving as in the case of the Scilly Isles, prehistoric monuments seem to have been constructed in part to be visible to maritime travellers (Robinson 2007a). Furthermore, the sea may have been imbued with the kinds of symbolic meanings archaeologists have previously ascribed only to landscapes (cf. Tilley 1994). This work has thus highlighted the significance of the sea in terms of journeying and moving in prehistory, as well as in broader cosmological terms. Investigating social interaction: the Southern Kintyre Project It was against this background of our own research interests as well as on-going debates on the nature of social interaction in prehistory that we decided to explore this broader research area in more detail by launching the Southern Kintyre Project. Quite clearly exploring the nature of social interaction in prehistory is a large area of research to address in a research project so it was decided to narrow down the research aims of the project by attempting to understand the nature of interaction between two specific parts of Britain and Ireland, namely western Scotland and eastern Ireland. With a diverse range of wellpreserved archaeological sites and considerable collections of material culture, eastern Ireland already has a good record of archaeological research and investigation (particularly in County Antrim). In contrast, western Scotland has seen only limited archaeological investigation over the years. In order to explore social interactions across to the sea it was decided to focus on Kintyre. Not only is this landmass surrounded by the sea, but it is also the closest point between Britain and Ireland.

‘The evidence thus far, therefore, would suggest that the separation of south-west Scotland and north-east Ireland during the Late Mesolithic provides a remarkable example of the reality of regionalisation as distinguishable from the archaeological record’ (Saville 2004, 347). Our own research has fitted alongside this resurgence in work considering the nature of social interaction from the Mesolithic through to the Bronze Age. Vicki has considered the archaeological sequences either side of the Irish Sea, particularly monuments but also material culture (Cummings and Fowler 2004; Cummings 2009). This work has highlighted a number of different elements. Firstly, while monuments are described according to location (Clyde cairns in western Scotland, court cairns in Ireland), and usually studied by scholars in different countries, there are in reality many similarities between early Neolithic monuments either side of the Irish Sea. Of particular note are the court cairns of Ireland and Clyde cairns of western Scotland, which were originally part of Stuart Piggott’s ‘Clyde-Carlingford culture’ (see



It therefore made an ideal case study for investigating the social interactions between maritime communities.

beach took place at Albyn Distillery in 1935 and the lithics were subsequently published by McCallien and Lacaille (1941). This small number of assemblages from the Campbeltown area of Kintyre were considered good evidence for connections with Ireland, and were named part of the ‘Larnian’ culture (Lacaille 1954). This was subsequently rejected by Coles in a reconsideration of the Mesolithic of south-west Scotland more broadly (Coles 1963a; and see Saville 2004, 346-7).

The specific research questions were: what kinds of interaction took place from the Mesolithic through to the Bronze Age between Kintyre, specifically southern Kintyre and other surrounding areas? This was not just eastern Ireland but also other parts of western Scotland. One of the nearest landmasses to Kintyre is the island of Arran, so there were clearly issues to be explored involving maritime connections across a wide area. Furthermore, through what means is it possible to identify social interaction in the archaeological record? We decided to try and investigate this in as many different ways as possible, by examining not only the standing archaeology but also by looking at material culture. One of the largest problems was that there was very little prehistoric material culture from Kintyre, so this research necessitated instigating a new programme of research involving both excavation and fieldwalking. However, once this has been achieved, with the well-documented sequences in both eastern Ireland and Arran, it would then be possible to compare different types of evidence. Having laid out the research aims of the project the last part of this chapter now goes on to consider what was known about the prehistory of Kintyre prior to the start of this project. A brief history of prehistoric research in Kintyre Ritchie (1997a, 6-9) provides a brief summary of archaeological research in Argyll more broadly, which illustrates that there were certain areas which have attracted considerable interest over the last hundred years or so. Of particular note is the area around Oban which saw investigations of shell midden sites and caves in the late nineteenth century. These sites produced early and important evidence for the Mesolithic. The concentration of monuments around Kilmartin also attracted investigation, and Bryce (1902) conducted extensive excavations at the turn of the twentieth century on the chambered tombs of Arran. Prehistoric research in Kintyre blossomed in the mid twentieth century, firstly with the work of Jack Scott (1954; 1955; 1969b), who excavated a series of chambered tombs in the area, and with the publication of the Royal Commission’s inventory in 1971 (RCAHMS 1971). In order to provide more detail on this, individual periods are now considered in more detail.

Figure 1.1. The location of Kintyre in the northern Irish Sea zone The Neolithic In contrast to an overall lack of knowledge on the Mesolithic of Kintyre, the Neolithic of Kintyre has featured much more prominently in research over the last hundred years. This is for several reasons. Firstly, western Scotland more generally is characterised by the presence of a distinctive type of chambered tomb which consists of a chamber divided into compartments, a stone-built façade creating a semi-circular forecourt area, all set within a trapezoidal or long cairn (Henshall 1972; Fig. 1.2). These are the ‘Clyde’ monuments found all along western coasts of Scotland as far as Oban and down into Dumfries and Galloway and it was this form of monument alongside their Irish counterparts (court cairns) which were considered vital for understanding the primary occupation of Britain and Ireland in the Neolithic (see above). Extensive surveys of the Clyde cairns in the 1950s and 1960s followed alongside important discussions on how these monuments related to other forms of British, Irish and European monuments (e.g. Corcoran 1960; Henshall 1972; Piggott 1954; Powell et al. 1969; Scott 1969a).

The Mesolithic While the Mesolithic of western Scotland as a whole is well-known in the wider literature, particularly the Obanian sites (e.g. Bonsall 1997), relatively little material has been found in Kintyre itself. Mesolithic flints were found on the 25ft raised beach at Campbeltown in the nineteenth century (Gray 1894) and into the early twentieth century. The excavation of a part of the raised



Figure 1.2. An example of a Clyde cairn in Kintyre: Gort na h’Ulaidhe

Figure 1.3. Pottery from Beacharra (after Scott 1969a) In addition to survey, Jack Scott excavated three Neolithic chambered tombs in Kintyre. The best-known site is that of Beacharra which was originally investigated by the Kintyre Scientific Association in 1892 and further excavated by Scott in 1959 and 1961. Six pots were recovered from the chambers, and this site consequently gave its name to a style of western Neolithic ‘developed’ carinated bowl (Beacharra Ware: Scott 1964: Fig. 1.3). Scott also excavated Brackley in 1952-3 which produced a stone disk and a sherd of Beacharra ware from the primary fill, and a food vessel, flint, pitchstone and jet beads associated with a cremation were added at a later date (Scott 1955). Although there was little material from the primary use of the monument, Brackley was considered significant as it was suggested it was an example of a ‘proto-megalith’, one of the earliest and simplest forms of monument found in Britain. These monuments were considered vital for understanding the origins of the

Neolithic in Britain (Scott 1969a; 1972) and thus the monuments of Kintyre featured prominently in Neolithic accounts from the 1970s. Scott also excavated the site of Ardnacross II – this was not published before his death, and the excavations are reported in this volume (see chapter 10). While the chambered monuments of Kintyre are the best known remains of the Neolithic periods, a number of stray finds of axes have also been recovered from the area, the majority being polished stone axes. Nineteen axes are held in the museum in Campbeltown, and 20 are listed on the Sites and Monuments Record. Many of these were recovered during works in Campbeltown, while others have been recovered on farms. A number of the Kintyre axes have been petrologically analysed: at least five are Group IX (Tievebulliagh and Rathlin Island in Antrim) while two are from Langdale in Cumbria. A hoard of axes



and flakes made from Antrim flint has also been found near Campbeltown at Achinhoan (Saville 1999). This cache of 178 items, all made from Antrim flint, was found on the side of a grassy knoll a few hundred metres from the sea. The cache included five axeheads which were all final-stage rough-outs, requiring only polishing to finish them (Saville 1999).

(McKinlay 1946-47). Subsequent excavation and reanalysis of the finds has reinterpreted this monument as a Bronze Age cairn containing 12 cists (Ritchie 1967; Fig. 1.4). The earliest burial in the monument is a short-necked Beaker and two jet beads. Later burials were accompanied by food vessels and cinerary urns. The food vessels from Balnabraid in common with others from the region (e.g. Mount Stuart, Bute) relate to the Irish series of vessels described as Mauchrie Vases (RCHAMS 1971, 10). Further artefacts from Balnabraid Cairn include a Middle Bronze Age tanged razor and a bone toggle (Ritchie 1967, 88, fig. 5). Other cairns containing multiple cist burials are found at Trench Point, Campbeltown and at Carn Ban, Gigha (RCAHMS 1971).

Very little settlement evidence has been uncovered with the exception of Balloch Hill (Peltenburg 1982). While the excavator was primarily interested in exploring the Iron Age fort here he also uncovered Neolithic occupation evidence. This comprised the remains of a structure in the form of a series of postholes and a hearth, a pottery assemblage and flint and quartz tools. Due to an overall absence of developer-led archaeology in Kintyre, little else has been recovered. A few stray flint finds have been recorded, predominately identifiable pieces such as arrowheads and scrapers. More systematic recovery of lithics has taken place in recent years have seen a small quantity of field-walking, conducted by Frances Hood and Angus Martin, which has produced lithics from the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Their work has focussed on the Laggan, as well as small areas to the south near Macharioch and north of Campbeltown.

At least 40 cist burials are also recorded in Kintyre, the majority of which are found grouped together in small cemeteries. Cists date broadly to the second millennium BC and contain both cremation and inhumation burials. At Ballimenach and Campbeltown unurned cremations were found within cists whilst at Kilmaho and Trench Point crouched inhumation burials occur (RCAHMS 1971). At Kilmaho three cists were found, one of which contained two separate inhumation burials within a single cist. Artefacts recovered from these cists include a food vessel, an Early Bronze Age riveted bronze knife, a bronze awl and two flint knives (RCAHMS 1971, 50). A number of cists have been discovered in Campbeltown where they appear to have been dug into the ancient raised beach. A cist from Glebe Street, Campbeltown contained a cord impressed beaker (Gray 1894, 263; Ritchie 1997b, 82; RCAHMS 1971, pl. 4a) whilst others contained cinerary and cordoned urns (Gray 1894, 263). A further cist from Campbeltown contained an Early Bronze Age riveted dagger (RCAHMS 1971, 47) and at the head of Campbeltown Loch a crescentic jet necklace was discovered (RCAHMS 1971, 9, pl. 5). Another cist was uncovered north of Campbeltown at Kilkeddan which contained a food vessel, flint knife and skeletal remains (Hood 2006, 2).

Bronze Age Prior to the commencement of the Southern Kintyre Project very little work had been conducted on the Bronze Age of Kintyre. No evidence for Bronze Age settlement or land enclosure was identified by the Royal Commission’s survey of Kintyre (RCAHMS 1971) although Ritchie (1997b, 48) did locate a possible hut circle at Corputchechan. Ritchie (1997b, 48) suggested that the absence of settlement may be due to the lack of detailed survey in Kintyre and highlighted the possibility that later prehistoric settlement may be buried beneath blanket peat. These suggestions are supported by evidence from elsewhere in Argyll and western Scotland where survey has begun to identify hut circles associated with small field plots (RCAHMS 1984), for example at Achnacree, Lorn and at Sithean on Islay (Barber and Brown 1984; Barrett et al. 1976; Ritchie et al. 1974).

Kintyre also has a fine collection of standing stones, from single stones to multiple stones, for example at Ballochroy (Fig. 1.5). The association of a cist with the standing stones here is suggestive of a Bronze Age date, although not definitively demonstrated. The 38 documented panels of rock art may also date to this period (RCAHMS 1971, 5261; Stevenson 1997).

In contrast to the absence of settlement, there is a wealth of Bronze Age burial monuments documented in Kintyre. The Royal Commission records 47 cairns likely to be Bronze Age in date (RCAHMS 1971, 8). Two thirds of cairns are sited on low-lying ground adjacent to the coast with only a small number of the remainder found in prominent locations (e.g. hilltops and ridges). Cairns range in size from 4.5 – 30m and appear to be built exclusively of stones although two turf and soil mounds are found at Cnocan a’ Chluig, Kilkivan (RCAHMS 1971, 41). Many cairns show evidence of kerbing and excavation has demonstrated the presence of stone burial cists within their interiors. Of these, only Balbnabraid cairn has been fully excavated (McKinlay 1946; Ritchie 1967). Balnabraid cairn was initially excavated in 1910 and 1913 where it was interpreted as a chambered cairn

In addition to the large number of burial monuments, a good selection of Bronze Age metalwork has also been found in Kintyre. With the exception of a Late Bronze Age socketed axe from Southend (Laing 1860-62, 396), all of the metalwork from Kintyre has been found within peat cuttings located between Campbeltown and Machrihanish. This metalwork is not associated with burial and may have been intentionally deposited either as hoards buried in the ground or as votive offerings deposited in water. Several Middle Bronze Age spearheads have been found near Campbeltown (Coles



Figure 1.4. Plan of Balnabraid cairn (after RCAHMS 1971) with one of the food vessels recovered from the site (after Ritchie 1997b)

Figure 1.5. The standing stones at Ballochroy, with the mountains of Jura in the background 1958, 86; Waddell 2000, 179-80; Wilson 1863), including socketed and looped spearheads with both kite-shaped and leaf-shaped blades. Whilst the latter have a wide distribution throughout Britain the former have a very limited distribution and are considered to be of Irish provenance (Coles 1963b, 104). Two moulds for casting bronze weapons have also been discovered (Mitchell 1864, 48). The first mould was for the casting of a socked and looped leaf-shaped spearhead whilst the second was used to cast two different weapons, a socketed and looped kite-

shaped spearhead and a small oval tanged blade (Piggott 1946-47). On two separate occasions (1884 and 1908) later Bronze Age metalwork has been found at Killeonan. The first find comprised five swords, a chape, a spearhead and 11 flints. The second comprised the prongs and butt from a flesh hook and a sword fragment (RCAHMS 1971, l2). All of this metalwork dates broadly to the eighth century BC and is probably part of a single hoard. Another small hoard

7

discovered at Campbeltown comprised a socketed and looped leaf-shaped spearhead, a bronze socketed knife and a bronze sword (Wilson 1863, 390, fig. 65). Also from Campbeltown two late Bronze Age swan’s neck sunflower pins were discovered (Coles 1958, 5). All of this seems to support the suggestions that there was substantial Bronze Age activity in the Campbeltown and Machrihanish areas. Conclusion The nature of social interactions between different communities in prehistory has been discussed by generations of scholars. From early considerations of the impact of movements of people bringing new innovations from overseas, to more nuanced considerations of a diverse range of interactions via the sea, exchange networks and kin relations, the exact nature of social interaction in prehistory still remains little explored. The Southern Kintyre Project was set up with the explicit aim of exploring this issue in more detail through the investigation of different types of material culture and architecture, from the Mesolithic through to the Bronze Age. As outlined above, this region has not seen extensive research over the years, but its vicinity to eastern Ireland and other areas of western Scotland made it an ideal case study for further investigation.

8

Chapter 2. Background: introducing Kintyre Gary Robinson Introduction This chapter aims to provide a brief overview of both the past and contemporary physical landscape of Southern Kintyre. Kintyre is a north-south orientated peninsula in the south-west of Scotland (Figure 2.1). The region stretches approximately 48km from the Mull of Kintyre in the south, to East Loch Tarbert in the north. It is no more than 19km wide at any point and is bounded to the west by the Sound of Jura, to the east by the Kilbrannan Sound, part of the outer Firth of Clyde, and to the south by the North Channel. The northern end of the peninsula is an isthmus, 1·5km wide, between East and West Loch Tarbert, the former opening to Clyde waters and the latter to the Atlantic (Ramsay and Brampton 2000).

The evolving landscape The focus of interest within this volume is the terminal block of the peninsular referred to here as ‘Southern Kintyre’, an area stretching from the village of Southend in the south to Campbeltown in the north. Southern Kintyre is separated from the rest of the peninsular by a low-lying corridor, 10–50m OD, between Campbeltown Loch and Machrihanish Bay and terminated by the Mull of Kintyre. Nearly the whole of southern Kintyre is formed of Dalradian Schists, containing small intrusions of basalt. The eastern part of Southern Kintyre is mainly of Old Red Sandstone, with some Dalradian Schist.

Figure 2.1. The superficial geology of southern Kintyre



Southern Kintyre, from Machrihanish southwards, differs markedly from the northern part of the peninsula. It is cut into broad valleys converging to the southern coast. The high ground along the western coast of Southern Kintyre forms the watershed for the south-western portion of the peninsula. The extensive low-lying flat ground between Campbeltown and Machrihanish is underlain by easily eroded coal-bearing sedimentary rocks of Carboniferous age. These are covered by post-glacial raised beach deposits and wind-blown sand, which provide a wide flat surface for one of the longest airport runways in Europe (Stephenson and Merritt 2010, 24).

An interglacial period around 14,700 years ago saw a climatic warming with summer temperatures at least as high as at present and pioneer plant species soon began to colonise the bare, stony soils. Pollen and spores preserved within a silted-up lake near Oban provide an important record of this period of time (Finlayson et al. 2014; Stephenson and Merritt 2010). Shellfish and other marine organisms flourished in the sea lochs and their remains may be found in thin, gravelly, shell-bearing tills on the eastern coast of Kintyre (Sutherland 1981; Synge and Stephens, 1966). However, the climate soon started to cool again and by 12,650 years ago ice was accumulating in the high corries of Skye, Mull and Arran. A large ice sheet formed in the western Highlands from which outlet glaciers flowed towards the sea, entering sea lochs like Loch Fyne (Finlayson 2014; Stephenson and Merritt 2010). This last Glacial period halted abruptly about 11,500 years ago, during the Younger Dryas event, when our relatively warm, wet climate dominated by the Gulf Stream began.

The western coast, from the Galdrings near Machrihanish, round the south-western corner of the peninsula to Carskey Bay on the southern coast, is rugged and precipitous. The cliffs of south-western Kintyre are composed of metamorphic and igneous rocks, and drop in many cases from 30m into the sea. The eastern coast from near Davaar Island to Macharioch Bay is also precipitous. The cliffs in this stretch of coastline are composed of conglomerates of Lower Old Red Sandstone. Davaar Island is connected to the mainland by a gravel spit (Figure 2.2). In the southwestern cliffs of the island are many good examples of seacaves worn out along vertical joints in the igneous rock of which Davaar is formed (McCallien 1929).

The profound changes in the landscape and vegetation that ensued have been discovered mainly from studying pollen, insect remains and other microfossils contained within lake sediments at Loch Cill and Aonghais in southern Knapdale, and in intertidal muds and peat bogs elsewhere in the district (Brooks et al. 2008; Shennan et al. 2006a; 2006b). It seems that the oak-hazel woodland which characterises western Scotland in the early Holocene saw significant disturbance from the early Neolithic onwards with the elm decline and presumed start of cereal agriculture. It remains a high priority to acquire a detailed vegetation sequence for southern Kintyre so that we may better understand the sequence of environmental changes in this area (Tipping 2006).

Significant accumulations of beach sediment occur at the mouths of a number of rivers and streams, representing both local sediment supply and in places, slightly more sheltered positions resulting from low off-shore gradients. At Southend extensive sand dunes occur on the neck of land separating Dunaverty from Brunerican Bay. The characteristic headland of Dunaverty is composed of Lower Old Red Sandstone conglomerate, and during the Mid Holocene was separated from the mainland to the north-west by the Conieglen Water, which then entered the sea in Dunaverty Bay (McCallien 1929). By the banking up of sand and gravel by the action of the waves and tides, and by the work of the wind in forming sand dunes, this river has been forced to change its course and now cuts its way to the south-east, so that it enters the sea in Brunerican Bay to the east of Dunaverty (McCallien 1929). The dunes appear to have formed before the penetration of the Conieglen Water by the sea during the mid-Holocene and may, at least in part, be prehistoric in date as a Bronze Age standing stone seems to stand on dune sand (Tipping 2006, 37).

Relative sea level change and coastline evolution Sea level dropped relative to the land for several thousand years following the creation of the Main Rock Platform, when Argyll was rebounding faster than the seas of the world were rising (Brooks et al. 2008; May and Hansom 2003; Smith et al. 2000). New islands would have emerged as the sea withdrew, others would have been reunited with the mainland (Stephenson and Merrill 2010). However, relative sea level then rose again sharply, locally reaching a peak of about 10–12m OD between 7000 and 6000 years ago. This ‘high-stand’ coincided with the final melting of ice sheets in North America and Scandinavia (Clark and Mix 2002; Shennan et al. 2002). A distinct set of postGlacial raised beaches and cliff lines were created at this time. Several lower shorelines were formed subsequently, whilst sea level fell towards its present level.

The landscape of Kintyre has formed by the forces of sequences of glaciations and interglaciations. Evidence of many of these early glaciations has been largely destroyed by subsequent glacial erosion, but extensive ice sheets covered Argyll and extended out to sea on at least three separate occasions (Finlayson et al. 2014). The last major glaciation was at its peak about 22,000 years ago, during the Dimlington Stadial, (c. 23,000-20,000 cal BP), when a vast sheet of ice flowed westwards from an ‘ice divide’ that stretched between Ben Nevis and Arran (Stephenson and Merritt 2010).

Synge and Stephens' (1966) work was in understanding the relation between glaciation and relative sea level change. At Carskey (NR 665 080), different lines of evidence for higher relative sea levels were recorded at c. 43m OD, 25m OD, 19m OD, 12m OD and 6.5m OD. The higher three shorelines are related to deglaciation. The lower two surfaces were undated but were formed after deglaciation.



Figure 2.2 Davaar Island with causeway visible, and Ailsa Craig in the distance

Figure 2.3. View out over Campbeltown, taken from the southern flank of Knock Scalbart

Figure 2.4. Fieldwalking at Macharioch with the distinctive post-Glacial coastline



level change in Southern Kintyre. The sites analysed by Shennan et al. (2006a; 2006b) define former sea levels with different degrees of confidence, particularly for Holocene events. They suggest that:

The much indented coastline of Kintyre is characterised by long abandoned platforms cut into the rocks by waves, which have now been raised up to 55m above present-day sea level. The higher platforms were fashioned at various times over the past half a million years or so, during several major glaciations. Platforms lying between about 40 metres and 10 metres above present sea level formed mostly towards the end of the last glaciation, some 15,000 years ago. They are commonly capped by shingle in ‘raised beaches’ that formed when the vast quantities of sand and gravel carried to the sea by glacial meltwaters were washed up and sorted by the waves. A good example of a sequence of raised beaches can be seen at Glenacardoch Point, on the western coast of the Mull of Kintyre and at Polliwilline in south-east Kintyre. The raised beaches were left high and dry whilst sea-level dropped rapidly following the last glaciation.

• Relative sea level in Kintyre fell smoothly from around 30m OD at c. 17,000 cal. BP to 1%) Table 5.4. Classification of quartz from Macharioch

CRF 3 1%

Retouch blade 1 ≤1%

Ret flake Notch 1 (>1%) 1 (>1%)

Core 12 2%

Burnt 37 8%

Microlith 1 ≤1%

Microlith fragments 2 (>1%)

Figure 5.1. Flint artefacts collected by Angus Martin from Macharioch. Far left scraper, left retouched flake, right retouched blade, far right piercer (top) and microlith (bottom)

Figure 5.2. Quartz artefacts collected by Angus Martin. Far left scraper, left retouched flake, right notch, far right microlith fragments originally have been on or just below the old raised beach. 17 additional pieces of flint from this location are definitely Primary Secondary Tertiary struck. The presence of a blade core may suggest that this 33 97 449 was another location in the Campbeltown area used in the (5%) (17%) (78%) Mesolithic. Table 5.5. The technology of the quartz assemblage Jib Field, Kildalloig (NR 745 194) A small assemblage of flint was collected at a location to the south-east of Campbeltown. 48 pieces of flint were recovered which were so heavily rolled it was not possible to identify if they had been flaked by human action. Amongst these 48 rolled pieces were some unworked beach pebbles, the largest of which was 5cm x 3cm x 2.5cm. This location is clearly a source of beach flint, and would

Rolled Patinated Fresh 12 3 2 Table 5.6. The condition of the struck flint assemblage Angular Flake Blade Core shatter 7 3 4 1 Table 5.7. Classification of pieces



Scraper 1

Ret flake 1

Ballygreggan, Drumlemble This location produced 16 flints, 7 with secondary cortex (the rest were tertiary). There was evidence for both beach and terrestrial flint being used, and the only artefact from the site, a small end and side scraper, was made on terrestrial flint. Rolled Patinated Fresh Burnt 1 2 11 2 Table 5.8. The condition of the struck flint assemblage Angular Flakes Pebble Scraper shatter 7 7 1 1 Table 5.9. Classification of pieces Rowantree, Drumlemble A small assemblage of seven flints was found in the garden at Rowantree, Drumlemble. All seven were bright orange beach flint which had been used to create large chunky flakes. One flake has retouch down one side, and another is a fine knife with invasive retouch over the dorsal surface.

number of flakes follow this pattern, with most being tertiary pieces. Where cortex is visible it is clearly that of beach flint. There is evidence of bipolar working which may explain the damaged platforms on some of the cores. One of the characteristics of this assemblage is the presence of notches on a number of pieces. No microlithic working was found in this assemblage although the original report does state the presence of a very small number of microlithic pieces including microburins (McCallien and Lacaille 1941). Mill Dam. These pieces were found when cutting for a pipeline and are likely to be indicative of Mesolithic occupation. Where present, cortex demonstrates that the flint derived from a beach source. There was evidence of bipolar working and some pieces without retouch had signs of edge damage. Blade

Flake

Ang Blade Pebble CRF Ret sh core flake 16 13 4 3 1 1 1 Table 5.11. The classification of pieces from Mill Dam Trench point. On the northern side of Campbeltown Loch is Trench Point, a much disturbed finger of land from which a small quantity of lithics were produced which are now held by the museum. 20 pieces, including an awl, a notched blade and a retouched blade, suggest Mesolithic occupation here. Pieces have secondary beach cortex and are both patinated and rolled. Blade

Flake

Awl

Blade Ret Notched core blade blade 9 7 1 1 1 1 Table 5.12. The classification of pieces from Trench Point “25ft raised beach”. This small assemblage of 12 pieces is likely to be Mesolithic and is broadly similar to other pieces from the raised beach. A notched blade and retouched blade seem to have been utilised.

Figure 5.3. The knife from Drumlemble Summit of Cnoc Scalbert Five pieces have been recovered from the summit of Cnoc Scalbert: three pitchstone and two flint: two blades, a blade core (pitchstone), one flake and one piece of angular shatter. Lithic material held by the museum in Campbeltown Mesolithic Five sites of Mesolithic date are held by the museum. These are broadly comparable and are dealt with here in summary site by site. Millknowe. This is the largest assemblage held by the museum, which comprises 163 flints. However, the report for these excavations states that 1235 lithics were recovered including both flint and quartz (McCallien and Lacaille 1941). There is a large number of blades within this assemblage which are remarkably uniform. They are mostly patinated with very little cortex present. The smaller

49

Parkfergus. Two blade cores were found. It is clear that substantial quantities of lithic material have been recovered from the Glebe Street/Albyn/Millknowe/Calton area Campbeltown over the years. The Royal Commission reports that there are at least five find spots in Campbeltown, recovered between 1886 and 1954, and that material from these various sites is held not only by the Campbeltown museum, but also at various museums in both Edinburgh and Glasgow (CANMORE ID 38795). Furthermore, a report from the Campbeltown Courier in 1894 reports that at Millknowe: ‘Worked flints were found in considerable numbers……(from) the site of an ancient flint-working encampment. It is in reality a dirt band composed of litter and refuse, such as bits of charred sticks, burnt bones, and innumerable chips and splinters of flint, all quite sharp and unworn. From a single pailful of this deposit Mrs Gray

Blade Flake Ang sh Bl core Core Ret bl Notch CRB 85 56 7 4 5 3 2 1 Table 5.10. The classification of pieces from Millknowe held by Campbeltown museum

Scraper 1

Ret fl 1

Figure 5.4. Finds from Millknowe. Top left: blade, top middle: blade, top right: blade core. Bottom far left, left and right: retouched blade, bottom far right: retouched flake. Images taken with the kind permission of Campbeltown Museum (©Kilmartin House Trust) Neolithic The museum in Campbeltown has a collection of 19 stone washed out 498 chips and pieces of flint, 80 fragments of axes, although there are a total of 37 known stone axes from bone, apparently of animals, and 104 pieces of burnt wood.’ Kintyre (of the remainder, some are in the National Museum Excerpt from the Campbeltown Courier, Saturday May 19th, in Edinburgh, and a few are lost). The vast majority of these 1894 have turned up as stray finds, notably either on farms or around developments in Campbeltown. A number have Gray’s (1894) report in PSAS reiterates the richness of this been sourced as part of the Stone Axe Studies work (Clough deposit, and it seems clear that the remains of a Mesolithic and Cummins 1988) and it has been demonstrated that five habitation site were found at Millknowe, including hearths originate from the Tievebulliagh and Rathlin Island source and organic material. Unfortunately Gray also reports that in the north of Ireland, while another three originate from the entire site was ‘entirely removed’ (Gray 1894, 274): this Langdale in Cumbria. Another axe has been sourced to the is a shame because it would have been the best-preserved hornfels group. A carved stone ball has also been found in Mesolithic site in Kintyre, and a full-scale excavation would Kintyre at Dunaverty Bay. This is a rare find outside the have been very revealing. north-east of Scotland.



Figure 5.5. The distribution of known stone axes in Kintyre in relation to other standing monuments (contours at 50m) A small number of Neolithic flint artefacts are also held by the museum. Five leaf-shaped arrowheads have been found, two from Kiblaan Farm near Southend and another three from the mosses by Machrahanish airport. Occasional other flint finds have been recovered including two scrapers and a flint knife. Not including the axes, the most remarkable thing about the Campbeltown collection is the overall lack of Neolithic flintwork held here. Bronze Age Two small assemblages held by the museum are clearly Bronze Age in date. A few other pieces may also date to this period.

Earadale (Erradil). This collection of 50 flints was recovered by Angus Martin in 1995 (Martin 1995, 25; 1996, 29). The most notable component of this assemblage was the presence of exceptionally high quality artefacts. The two barbed and tanged arrowheads are beautifully made on good flint, and along with two thumbnail scrapers, indicate a very late Neolithic/early Bronze Age date for the assemblage. The presence of cremated bone and a jet-like bead amongst the assemblage suggests this may well be the ploughed out remains of a Bronze Age burial deposit. However, some material looks more Mesolithic in character, notably three blade cores and an end scraper, and may be the remains of residual Mesolithic occupation.



Figure 5.6. Stone axe from Kintyre. Photo by Aaron Watson (© Kilmartin House Trust) Flake Ang sh Core Pebble Burnt Scraper Arrow 12 13 7 4 4 4 2 Table 5.13. The classification of pieces from Earadale (total 50)

CRF 1

Knife 1

Ret fl 1

Blade 1

Figure 5.7. Finds from Earadale. Top left: cremated bone, top right: jet-like bead. Bottom left: barbed and tanged arrowhead, tip missing, bottom middle: barbed and tanged arrowhead, barb missing, bottom right: chalk-derived flint knife (Antrim flint?). Images taken with the kind permission of Campbeltown Museum (©Kilmartin House Trust) Flake Ang sh Blade Core Scraper 78 22 23 8 8 Table 5.14. The classification of pieces from Miller’s Field

Burnt 4



Ret fl 3

Ret bl 3

Piercer 1

Technologically, there was very little evidence of primary working amongst this assemblage. Where present, cortex indicated a beach origin, and there was evidence of bipolar working. However, one piece clearly came from a terrestrial chalk source. This is a knife with retouch on both edges, and it has been suggested this may be from Antrim. Miller’s Field. This collection of 147 flints is representative of a small Bronze Age occupation at this location. Three thumbnail scrapers and a number of flakes indicate a Bronze Age date. Like other Bronze Age assemblages from Kintyre, the bulk of pieces here are secondary and tertiary flakes derived from poor quality beach flint. There is evidence of bipolar working to support this. However, the presence of three blade cores, three retouched blades and a possible piercer may indicate that there was also some Mesolithic occupation here. Two further small assemblages are held at the museum which are probably Bronze Age in date, but do not contain any diagnostic pieces to definitively demonstrate this. Ten pieces were found at Drumlemble (to the east of Machrahanish), six of which are brown flakes. The area from Drumlemble to Machrahanish contains a density of Bronze Age monuments along with deposited Bronze Age material culture (see chapter 1). Four flints and a chert flake were also found at Ballochroy in northern Kintyre. Again, this is the location of extensive Bronze Age activity, including a cist, standing stones and cup-and-ring marked stones, and the lithics probably relate to this. Summary of material previously recovered There are some notable differences between the material held in the museum and that recovered as part of the Southern Kintyre Project’s fieldwalking campaign. Firstly, much of the material held by the museum was recovered from the 25ft raised beach in Campbeltown, an area which is built up and therefore inaccessible for fieldwalking. Most of this material is Mesolithic in date and clearly indicates that there was occupation on the raised beach at this time. This is not surprising: Campbeltown is situated on the edge of Campbeltown Loch, a sheltered natural harbour connected to the sea only to the north-east. It would have been an extremely attractive location for settlement. While the location of this Mesolithic occupation is very similar to the Mesolithic sites found as part of this project (Macharioch and Machribeg, both on the raised beach), the types of material represented in the museum collections are rather different. The material held by the museum is, by and large, patinated and often rolled. There may have been rather different post-depositional processes at work with the old raised beach around Campbeltown. Much of the material is also based on a broad blade technology, although long and slender blades are also found within these collections. At its broadest level this may indicate a temporal shift from the use of this bay in the early Mesolithic to the area around Southend in the later Mesolithic.

53

What is perhaps the most surprising is that while numerous finds of Mesolithic and Bronze Age date have been previously found in concentrations centred around Campbeltown and Machrahanish, there is virtually no Neolithic material from these places. Only a few stone axes and Neolithic flint tools are recorded from around Campbeltown, and none from Machrahanish. This is in marked contrast to the numerous scatters of Neolithic material we found centred around Southend and Blasthill, as well as the distribution of chambered cairns in this area. Indeed, there are no chambered cairns close to either Campbeltown or Machrahanish. Is it possible these areas were deliberately avoided by Neolithic people? There must be the intriguing possibility that the earliest Neolithic people, perhaps incoming populations, but certainly those building chambered cairns, avoided areas which were already inhabited. This is an area which would benefit from more research. In contrast to the evidence from the Neolithic, there is good evidence for the Bronze Age occupation of southern Kintyre. It is also quite distinctive when compared to earlier material. The bulk of Bronze Age material recovered by this project and also held by the museum was derived from poor quality beach flint. Primary working may well have taken place where the beach flint was found. There was plenty of evidence for bipolar working as would be expected for poor quality beach flint. The presence of scrapers in most Bronze Age assemblages would indicate that these were locations for occupation. Barbed and tanged arrowheads were also regularly a part of these assemblages. The two arrowheads from Earadale stand out in comparison to all other Bronze Age material recovered from Kintyre as being exceptionally high quality. That the Bronze Age material recovered also seems to have a Mesolithic component is also perhaps not surprising to some extent. Gray’s original investigations in Kintyre in the nineteenth century were of the old raised beach in Campbeltown where he encountered Mesolithic implements along with Bronze Age urns, the two often occurring apparently within the same stratigraphic context. It is not recorded where Gray excavated, but it seems likely that there was a broader Bronze Age tradition of both reusing places for burial, along with deposition in the old raised beach (McCallien and Lacaille 1941). Sourcing flint: portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF) analysis of flint artefacts from Kintyre Portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) has been utilised in archaeological investigations to determine the elemental composition of a variety of artefact types, used specifically to provenance the raw material e.g. ceramics (Bonizzoni et al. 2010), obsidian (Frahm et al. 2014), and flint (Hughes et al. 2012). Large amounts of good quality flint are not available in the Kintyre area, although beach pebbles are abundant. To investigate the origin and procurement of the raw material used in this area, a small number of diagnostic artefacts and in situ beach pebbles from the raised beach at Machribeg were analysed using pXRF. These results were

compared to pXRF results obtained from seven sites in the north of Ireland (White Rocks, White Park Bay, Portbraddan, Ballintoy, Cloughastucan, Garron Point (all on north Antrim coast), and Slieve Gallion (inland site, >30 miles from the coast). The samples from these sites were analysed using the same pXRF spectrometer and using the methodology described below. Methodology The elemental composition of the flint artefacts and beach pebbles (Table 5.15) was measured by pXRF, using a handheld Bruker Tracer IV-SD spectrometer. Each sample was examined for a clean surface which did not have any visible traces of weathering, and was not patinated. The selected surface was also as flat as possible and large enough to permit analysis (approximately 1cm²). The samples were placed in a bench top test stand, with the pXRF instrument underneath, to ensure that the samples did not move during analysis and that a constant distance was maintained between the X-ray beam and the surface selected. Each sample was analysed for 60 seconds, the device was set at 40kV, 15µA, and with no filter applied. The results were gathered by the accompanying pXRF software, S1PXRF, which produced a spectra showing the elements that had been detected. Further analysis of the results was undertaken using ARTAX software, which calculates the net area underneath each peak on the spectra, which were examined and plotted using Microsoft Excel. This analysis is a study of relative elemental percentages and not of absolute element concentrations. The percentages were plotted on graphs using Microsoft Excel in order to distinguish groups of related readings. Sample Artefact Type (Field no) 1 Beach pebble from Kintyre 2 Large nodule from Kintyre 3 Arrowhead from field 4 4 Barbed & tanged arrow from field 16 5 Knife from field 16 6 Leaf arrowhead from field 16 7 Barbed & tanged arrow from field 18 8 Knife from field 19 9 Knife from field 22 10 Leaf shaped arrowhead from field 22 11 Beach pebble from field 25 12 Beach pebble from field 25 13 Knife from field 26 14 Beach pebble from field 27 15 Arrowhead from field 32 16 Arrowhead from field 37 17 Flint flake from field 40 18 Arrowhead from field 40 19 Knife from field 45 20 Arrowhead from field 45 Table 5.15. List of artefacts analysed in this study

beneath the detection limits of the spectrometer. The elements that could be reliably determined are: iron (Fe), calcium (Ca), palladium (Pd), potassium (K), and silicon (Si). Rhodium (Rh) was also detected, however the X-ray tube of the spectrometer contains rhodium, and the results from this element are therefore not reliable. It was decided that calcium and iron would be the most useful in attempting to analyse the samples as both these elements provided high numbers of counts, and have been used in analyses of Scandinavian flint using XRF, with promising results (Högberg et al. 2012). Results Figure 5.8 illustrates the relative percentages of calcium and iron obtained from the Kintyre artefacts and beach pebbles. From the data available there appears to be a distinct grouping of results from samples which contain 1%) (6%) Classification of pieces • Two-thirds of the assemblage was tertiary, with only 10% of the flint primary. This suggests people were doing the primary reduction of material elsewhere. • All flint, where identifiable, came from beach sources. • Many of the pieces of flint were tiny, suggesting that only small beach flints were being utilised here. • Two-thirds of the assemblage was patinated, and where flints were fresh, the vast majority were grey in colour. • There was clear evidence for bipolar working on many pieces. This was either the preferred technique for working flint, or is a reflection of the small size of the flint available. • Over 50% of the assemblage was angular shatter and another 25% flakes and flake fragments. Much of the

Quartz and quartzite. Unlike the flints, the quartz and quartzite was recorded by context only. This was due to difficulty in identifying struck quartz in a field which also contained natural quartz lumps struck by the plough. Since the flint did not reveal any clustering or patterning, this collection method was thus suitable at this site. As with the flint, there is nothing to suggest from analysing the quartz and quartzite by context that this assemblage is multiphase (see below). The material from all contexts is very similar, and we can assume that this was a single assemblage that is distributed throughout the layers excavated. It is also entirely consistent with the flint assemblage.

Figure. 7.13. Retouched flint pieces from Macharioch Total: 525 Primary 15 (3%) Angular shatter 311 (59%)

Secondary 74 (14%)

Flakes & frags 112 (21%) Classification of pieces

Tertiary 436 (83%) Blade & frags 78 (15%)

Core

Scraper

Ret blade

12 (2%)

3 (>1%)

5 (1%)



Ret flake 2 (>1%)

Piercer

Microburin

1 (>1%)

1 (>1%)

Figure. 7.14. Some of the artefacts from the quartz assemblage. Top left: 3 cores, top middle: scraper, top right: piercer, bottom left: 2 cores, bottom middle: 2 scrapers, bottom right: possible microburin Comparison of results from the excavation with those recovered fieldwalking The first material collected from this field was that retrieved by Angus Martin as outlined in chapter 5 and this produced a total of 484 struck flints and 579 struck quartz. Fieldwalking of field 1 after this collection had taken place produced a smaller collection of 133 struck flint and 104 struck quartz pieces. Finally, excavation of the area with the densest concentration of material, as outlined above, produced 668 flints and 525 struck quartz pieces. This means that the total amount of material collected via these three different collection methods has resulted in a total of 1285 flints and 1208 struck quartz pieces. This shows that people at this site were using quartz and flint more or less equally. From the assemblage as a whole there is nothing to suggest anything other than Mesolithic occupation, although there is an exceptionally low count of microliths and microlithic production, especially when compared with the smaller number of flints retrieved from field 25 at Machribeg. Indeed, overall there is a small number of artefacts from all the collections at Macharioch which may suggest this was primarily a knapping site, and people were taking any artefacts away to be used elsewhere. This is entirely in keeping with the suggestion above that the site may be to do with fish processing as opposed to being an occupation site. This was certainly not an occupation on the scale of that located in field 25 at Machribeg.

The quartz and quartzite is remarkably similar to the flint assemblage in terms of quantities of debitage, flakes, blades and artefacts. The scrapers and retouched pieces found, as with those in flint, would be consistent with a Mesolithic date. Over three-quarters of the assemblage was tertiary quartz and quartzite, with very few primary pieces represented. This suggests people were doing the primary reduction of material elsewhere. However, there were also some notable differences between the flint and quartz. • Unlike the flint, much of the quartz and all of the quartzite were large robust pieces, presumably an indication that this type of stone was more commonly found than flint. • Unlike the flint assemblage, which predominately comprised poor-quality flint, much of the quartz, and all of the quartzite, was high quality. It clearly flaked neatly and evenly, and it was possible to produce some beautiful, delicate blades. Artefacts were entirely made from finegrained quartz and quartzite, with no retouched pieces of milky quartz found. • 11 out of 12 of the cores were all blade cores which indicate people were aiming to produce blades. Five retouched blades show people were utilising these, although precisely what for is unclear. Again, all cores were of fine-grained quartz or quartzite. • A single quartz microburin may indicate people were making microliths on the site, although no quartz or quartzite microliths were found in this assemblage.



Conclusions The excavation revealed that in the north-west corner of Field 1 a lithic scatter and ephemeral structure are the remains of short-lived event in this location. At the time of occupation, this site was situated amongst sand dunes, which would have been found at this height OD as sea levels were higher in the post-glacial period. The lithics all point to a later Mesolithic date for this site, which is consistent with the material found here previously by Angus Martin, and recovered through additional fieldwalking. This lithic material has been mixed into all layers by the post-depositional movement of sand dunes and by ploughing. The low artefact count from this assemblage may suggest the scatter is the remains of a short episode of knapping, where raw material has been brought in from elsewhere, and artefacts were taken away with the knappers. In stark contrast to the Mesolithic site at Machribeg near Southend (see chapter 4), few microliths/microlithic production fragments were found in this assemblage. The structure uncovered at the site is more difficult to interpret, due to a lack of definitive dating evidence. While there is the possibility that the structure is contemporary with the lithics (i.e. of a late Mesolithic date), and may be the remains of an ephemeral structure possibly relating to fishing activities, there is also the possibility that the structure post-dates the Mesolithic: however a lack of any other form of material culture (for example pottery which is common at Irish Neolithic houses) makes this hard to ascertain. The presence of a Neolithic polished stone axe just a short distance away, however, does demonstrate that Neolithic people were in the immediate vicinity. Lithic scatters of a Neolithic date have also been found in the next field along at Macharioch, along with the remains of a chambered cairn. It is not impossible to suggest that this structure may have housed the builders of the chambered cairn while it was under construction.



Chapter 8. The results of the excavations at Blasthill chambered tomb Vicki Cummings and Gary Robinson grazing and is surrounded on all sides by cultivated fields. Prior to survey and excavation, Blasthill chambered tomb was considered to be a classic Clyde cairn, similar in size, shape and form to other early Neolithic monuments found throughout western Scotland (Henshall 1972; Scott 1969a). The site survived as a grassy mound with a wellpreserved forecourt defined by a façade. It was considered that the forecourt had been blocked and both the façade and blocking survived in situ. However it was thought that the terminal chamber had been robbed out, due to the absence of a capstone (Henshall 1972, 354).

Introduction This chapter presents the results of the excavations conducted at Blasthill chambered tomb. Two trenches revealed the remains of a complex sequence of construction and use at this site over several millennia. Dateable material culture was also found which can contribute to understanding interactions between the communities building and using this monument and the wider area. Blasthill chambered tomb lies on the northern slopes of the broader area known by the same name, 200m from the summit of the hill (Fig. 8.1-2). Today, this is an upland area of rough open moorland used for seasonal

Figure 8.1. Blasthill chambered tomb from the south-east looking north-west

Figure 8.2. Aerial view of Blasthill under excavation (© Adam Stanford)



Figure 8.3. Pre-excavation survey plan of Blasthill. The dashed-line in the survey drawing represents the known visible extent of the monument. A lateral chamber was also recorded, again with no capstones present, as was the overall lack of cairn material, which was attributed to robbing (Henshall 1972, 354; RCAHMS 1971; Fig. 8.3). Based on survey alone there was thought to be nothing particularly exceptional about the site in terms of its surface appearance, and it could be paralleled with similar sites elsewhere in the Clyde region (Henshall 1972; 1974; Scott 1969a; 1969b).

result of different building techniques used in the construction of primary and secondary cairns. The northern side of the cairn was formed by a fairly consistent kerb of orthostats. However, the relationship between this kerb and the façade could not be determined from the upstanding archaeology. The northern and outermost stone of the façade appeared to be out of alignment with the kerbing on this side of the monument, perhaps suggesting that the façade was extended late within its constructional sequence. On the southern side of the monument kerbstones were less pronounced. Two clearly defined breaks of slope were also apparent, suggesting that this side of the monument may also have been modified. Close scrutiny of the upstanding architecture at Blasthill chambered tomb suggested the possibility of multiple phases. As a result, the research priorities for this component of the project were to look for dateable in situ deposits and to identify the source of the stones used to construct the monument. Another aim was to get a better understanding of the sequence of construction and subsequent use beyond the primary phase. In order to explore these research questions two trenches were opened over the monument itself (Fig. 8.6). The first (trench A) was a 5 x 5m trench over the northeast corner of the forecourt. A second trench (B) was a 3 x 13m trench over the main body of the cairn incorporating 50% of the lateral chamber (Fig. 8.7). A third trench was opened over what appeared to be a quarried outcrop.

A detailed topographic and archaeological survey was carried out on the monument prior to excavation. This 1:100 survey (Fig. 8.3), whilst confirming many earlier documented observations, suggests the possibility of a more complex constructional sequence than previously identified. The chambered tomb occupies a position upon the summit of a small mound. Whether this mound is natural or man-made is uncertain, and today the mound is surrounded on all sides by extensive bogs. The survey emphasised the fact that the areas around both the terminal and lateral chambers were substantially higher than the surrounding long cairn, perhaps suggestive of two primary cairns later enclosed within a single, later long cairn. This disparity was further emphasised by a sub-circular hollow, approximately 4m in diameter, located between the two chambers on the southern edge of the long cairn. This depression may be the result of stone-robbing, however, similar features can also be observed between the terminal and lateral chambers of other chambered long cairns in the area, such as at Gort na h-Ulaidhe (RCAHMS 1971, 35-6). There was therefore the possibility that this feature was the



0

10

20

meters Figure 8.4. Contour survey (0.05m intervals) of Blasthill chambered tomb

Figure 8.5. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of Blasthill chambered tomb



Figure 8.6. Plan of Blasthill cairn and location of the two main trenches (aerial shot by Adam Stanford) Excavation results Trench B. Immediately around the lateral chamber in trench B a mass of large stones was found (030). These substantial stones were heavily bedded although spaced out with gaps (Fig. 8.7). To the south of the trench and the chamber an edge to these stones was identifiable and further defined by the presence of smaller slabs of imported (i.e. not from the immediate environs of Blasthill) green chert (052). There was no evidence for an edge to the mass of large stones to the north, however, but this area saw substantial remodelling in a later phase (see below). It can be suggested that this mass of large stones was a small circular cairn which surrounded the lateral chamber. This may, therefore, be the remains of a primary phase, free-standing, small sub-circular monument: it can be suggested that Blasthill thus has a primary sequence very similar to those sequences found at the Mid Gleniron sites, and suggested for Cairnholy I (Noble 2005). Approximately half of the lateral chamber was excavated at Blasthill. The front and rear parts of the chamber were excavated as separate units, and are recounted here separately, beginning with the rear compartment. Above the natural subsoil (035) was a layer of stones (032). This was followed by a single fill (006) which was found to a depth of 50 cm and bioturbated throughout. Finds from 006 included pottery fragments (Fig. 8.8), a number of small beach pebbles, a flake of quartzite and a chunk of quartz (Anderson-Whymark this volume.). The pottery represents a plain carinated fine-rimmed bowl, which is early Neolithic in date (pot 3: see chapter 10), as well as two fragments from another bowl (pot 4). A number of tiny human tooth enamel fragments were also found in wet sieving which in combination with the high phosphate readings from the surrounding soil suggest burials of some sort. The tooth enamel from this chamber was identified as the remains of one or more children under 12 and the colour and the overall characteristics of this tooth enamel suggested it was probably cremated (Wysocki this volume). Two dates were successfully returned on charcoal fragments from the chamber fill (006), both on short-lived hazel: 3980-3790 cal. BC (GU-21796) and 3950-3710 cal. BC (GU-21795), both at two sigma. It can be argued that these dates relate to the earliest use of this

chamber compartment and may be contemporary with the deposition of human bone. However there is also the possibility that these dates are from residual material, and they may date clearance of the land prior to monument construction, or earlier activity. The bioturbation of this deposit means it is not possible to say for certain which of these two scenarios is the most likely. It is also possible to suggest that this compartment was disturbed in antiquity since sherds of pot 4 (Fig. 8.8) as well as a high quality flint knife (see Fig. 8.17) were also found outside the chamber. These could well have been the original contents of the chamber which were removed at some point after their deposition (and see chapter 10). The outer compartment of the lateral chamber also contained a single homogenous fill (008) which had also been subject to heavy bioturbation. This fill contained a number of large stones, one of which covered a complete vessel, which would have been deposited whole and flattened in situ (Fig. 8.9). This is a decorated, globular bowl (pot 2). This is a developed form of carinated bowl and typically dates to the later part of the early Neolithic, confirmed by the C-14 date on the residue of this pot (see below). Numerous fragments from a decorated early Neolithic pot were found above the whole vessel: this pottery is the remains of a decorated bowl with whipped cord impressions, which could be paralleled with vessels from Beacharra and Achnacreebeag, Scotland, and Ballymacaldrack, County Antrim (Fig. 8.8, pot 1). Again, some sherds of this decorated pot were also found just outside the chamber amongst the cairn material. Fragments from 008 also include a single sherd from pot 4. Other finds from 008 include a hammerstone, a flake of quartzite, four chunks of quartz and two quartz pebbles (AndersonWhymark this volume.). A large number of tiny tooth enamel fragments were also recovered in wet sieving. These fragments represent the remains of one child over 2 years, one child under 12 and an older individual, and also appear to have been cremated. This may not be an accurate representation of the maximum number of individuals deposited, however, as the cremation process favours the preservation of unerupted (child) dentition (Wysocki this volume).



Figure 8.7. Plan of trench B, with the suggested primary phase highlighted to the south



Figure 8.8. Early Neolithic pottery vessels from Trench B at Blasthill (drawing by Emma Thompson)

Figure 8.9. Complete vessel (pot 2) found in the outer lateral chamber Three dates were acquired on material from the fill of this compartment, two on hazelnut shells and one from residue on the complete pot. One hazelnut date (GU-22113) is broadly comparable with those from compartment A (4040-3790 BC). The other two dates are later: residue on

pot 2 dates to 3630-3360 BC (GU-21791) and the hazelnut fragment (GU-22482) to 3520-3360 BC. These two dates are substantially later than the other three from the chamber as a whole. Unfortunately a date on a tooth enamel fragment failed.



Figure 8.10. Section through the chamber only in trench B While there is the possibility that the inner compartment of the lateral chamber was a freestanding monument prior to construction of the outer compartment, this cannot be demonstrated archaeologically without dismantling the chamber, which was not in the remit of these excavations. It is more likely that both the structure and the fill of the outer compartment were contemporary with the inner compartment which together constituted the primary phase of the monument. There is evidence for deposition in the outer compartment in a primary phase from the dated hazelnut fragment (4040-3790 cal BC - GU-22113). However, there is also the possibility that the contents of this chamber have been disturbed and new deposits added at a later date: it is possible to suggest that the earliest deposits were partly removed, and the whole pot deposited into the chamber in a phase of secondary use in the later part of the early Neolithic (sometime between 3630 and 3360 cal BC).

builders only used some stone in its construction. Instead of using stone, found ubiquitously in the makeup of Clyde monuments, they utilised turf for the upper layers. This would have been available in large quantities in the immediate landscape. How this turf was arranged and used within the monument is unclear, but allowing for decomposition and slumping it is possible to imagine the monument to have been at least twice its present height. Thus in its second phase it can therefore be more accurately described as an earthen long mound, not cairn. At present, this has not been identified at any other Clyde sites in western Scotland (Henshall 1972, 32). It is also worth considering here the absence of the chamber capstones on site. Capstones on comparable sites are not always present and in situ. At some sites, such as Cairnholy I in Dumfries and Galloway, the capstones lie to one side of the chamber, presumably left where people have removed them in order to gain access to the chamber. At other sites, capstones are missing, considered to have been removed for building. It is possible that the Blasthill capstones were removed, either recently or in antiquity, but there is another possible scenario. Bearing in mind that much of the long mound at Blasthill was made of turf, it is possible that the roofing for the chambers, at least in the latter phase of the use of the site, was constructed using wood and turf. This scenario would explain the absence of the capstones, but the intact nature of the chamber deposits.

The next phase of activity recorded in Trench B was found in the form of material on top of the larger primary cairn stones (030). There was a rubble layer (029) and a loose spread of stony material within a very substantial humic matrix (003). It was surprising how little cairn material was found above 030: the RCAHMS (1971) had previously suggested the monument had been robbed out in the past. However, the considerable quantity of soil on top of 030 was almost certainly the heavily bioturbated remains of turf stacks, separately identified by two micromorphologists (Wilson this volume; Clare Ellis pers. comm.). Stratigraphically, it was not possible to be able to demonstrate whether this phase of construction pre- or post-dates, or is contemporary with, the secondary use of the chamber (and see below).

It is also worth noting that the edge of the long mound in trench B was clearly defined to the north by an orthostat (009) with coursed kerbing (010 and 011) either side (Fig. 8.11). However, the possible edge of the long cairn was much harder to define to the south and comprised a mass of large stones (028). This is relevant as it was the northern side of the long cairn which would have been visible from the surrounding landscape: the southern side is only visible from a small part of Blasthill itself (see below).

This phase of activity can be interpreted as the conversion of the primary, small, sub-circular cairn into a more typical long Clyde monument. What is particularly interesting here is that it seems likely that when the cairn was converted from a small round cairn to a long cairn, the



Figure 8.11. The edge of the long cairn in trench B, looking south Phase Dates Primary chamber construction Pre-3710 cal. BC Primary use of chamber 4040-3710 cal. BC Secondary use of chamber 3630 and 3360 cal. BC Conversion into Clyde cairn As above? Revetment around kerb EBA? Table 8.1. The preferred sequence of construction for trench B

Material culture Pottery, human remains Pottery, human remains Split quartz pebbles Pottery, split quartz pebbles

Figure 8.12. The façade at Blasthill cairn as seen from the rear (photo looking east over trench B) To the southern side there were a series of rubble layers (007, 031 and 037) abutting the original primary cairn

which constitutes both the blocking of the lateral chamber in this phase as well as the possibility of multiple phases



of cairn/mound remodelling on this side (Fig. 8.10). Pot finds from these layers, particularly from 037, are of a bowl (pot 5), which is stylistically later than the other bowls from the site, although still Neolithic in date, and a sherd from a cinerary urn, characteristic of the Early Bronze Age. This is all suggestive of continued activity at the site into the Bronze Age, involving both construction and deposition. There was also a spread of stone beyond the northern edge of the long cairn/mound (023). Initially this material was interpreted as tumble off the main cairn, but the thick and compacted nature of this material, particularly in front of the kerb, suggests this was a deliberate deposit. There were large quantities of quartz found in the various fills associated with the addition of the long mound, predominately split quartz pebbles, which appear to have been added for decorative purposes (Anderson-Whymark this volume.).

possibly the remnants of activity associated with construction, perhaps as part of the building of the forecourt. Next in the sequence of construction the façade was built (016). In trench A two façade stones definitively date to this phase (Figs. 8.13-15). These façade stones do not sit in sockets, instead they are propped up against the body of the cairn (026). Between two of the façade stones, one large igneous stone (049) and a number of smaller red sandstone slabs (045) were used as dry-stone walling (Fig. 8.14). Abutting these façade stones and the lowest level of dry-stone walling was the forecourt paving (042): the paving may be contemporary with façade construction, but equally, may be later. The kerbstones found around the edge of the cairn share constructional features with the façade: they were also not put in sockets but placed straight on top of rubble which overlay outcropping bedrock and which were propped up against cairn material. Again, drystone walling (019) was found between the taller upright kerbstones (018). This may suggest the kerbing was also added at this time. Around the edge of the kerb, just above the outcropping bedrock in the glacial till (025), were three pieces of Arran pitchstone (one flake, one blade and a core), a leaf-shaped arrowhead, a scraper, a burnt flint chunk, a quartz scraper, a small assemblage of quartzite tools, two hammerstones and numerous angular split fragments of quartz cobbles (Anderson-Whymark this volume). It is possible to suggest, therefore, that the cairn (with kerbing), the façade were contemporary and constructed at some point in the early Neolithic. The forecourt paving may also date to this phase.

Trench A. Above it has been suggested that the primary phase at Blasthill was a small circular or sub-circular cairn set around the lateral chamber, as has been suggested for Mid Gleniron (Corcoran 1969). It could also be postulated that the terminal chamber may also have once been a separate small circular monument, although there is no definitive evidence for this as the terminal chamber was not excavated. It is clear, however, that the façade and forecourt represent a separate phase of construction at the site from the lateral chamber, as detailed above. At present, the façade consists of nine uprights stones, including the two portal or entrance stones into the terminal chamber (Fig. 8.12). On both sides of the façade additional large upright kerbstones mark out the edge of the long cairn, although these are not found the entire length of the cairn (see below).

There are also hints that the façade was remodelled once it had been constructed. Because of the nature of excavating stone monuments in the sense that it is very difficult to ascertain phasing, when all phases involve building with, or moving stones of a similar size, it is not possible to stratigraphically demonstrate phasing. However, a number of the smaller red sandstone blocks (045) were displaced, and there is a notable gap in the façade where one would expect to find another façade stone (Fig. 8.13), suggesting one stone has been removed. Indeed, it can be suggested that at some stage one of the original façade stones (017) was moved to a new location further north in the forecourt. Since these stones did not sit in sockets, however, there is no trace of this on the ground. However, different construction techniques were employed with the northerly façade stone: it was chocked in place with slabs as opposed to being supported by cairn material. Therefore it is suggested that this stone may well have been positioned in its current location later on in the sequence. If this was the case, the façade would have started off being a more typical Clyde-style façade, gently concave like that at Cairnholy I and that at a later stage the two end façade stones were added onto the monument, creating a horned façade, similar to an Irish court cairn. It is argued, then, that the façade underwent at least two periods of remodelling: unfortunately there was no material suitable for dating these events.

In order to try and understand the sequence of forecourt construction a 5 x 5m trench was opened over one section of the façade and kerb. This meant it was possible to excavate a portion of the forecourt, a part of the façade and a small section of kerbed cairn. In the forecourt just above the glacial till the remains of the former topsoil horizon was found (051), although with the turfy upper part of the soil profile missing (Wilson this volume). Above this, and stratigraphically lower than the façade stones thus predating the construction of the forecourt, was a layer of redeposited burnt material (050), containing a considerable amount of burnt wood. After a very short hiatus, another burnt layer was deposited (047), although this contained much finer charred material. On top of this was a fine silty deposit (043). Three dates were obtained on short-lived material from this pre-paving and façade sequence: 3940-3660 BC (GU-21798) from 050, 39503700 BC (GU-21797) from 047 and 3780-3640 BC (GU22115) from 043 (and discussed in more detail below). All these layers were sealed underneath the paving in the forecourt (042). Initially, the burnt layers were interpreted as pre-cairn clearance fires or even in situ hearths, as found at Cairnholy I (Piggott and Powell 1949). However, micromorphological analysis clearly demonstrates that the material is re-deposited, and it is possible to argue that these layers were brought in from elsewhere on site,



Figure 8.13. Trench A illustrating the façade stones, kerb and cairn At a later date in the life of the monument, the forecourt was blocked in what seems to have been a single event (Fig. 8.16). The forecourt was filled with stones of local origin (027), along with a smaller number of the pink sandstone slabs, presumably displaced from façade drystone walling. One find located at the base of the blocking, but on top of the paving, was a fragment of a single bead. This is not jet, although it is dark and glossy, and dates to the Iron Age (Alison Sheridan pers. comm.). While there is the possibility this dates the forecourt blocking it may equally have moved there subsequently. Other finds found amongst the blocking stones were a thumbnail scraper and two burnt flints. Right on the top of the blocking a large thin slab was found (022) which shared parallels with cist lids found elsewhere in the region. A small feature [034] was found underneath the slab but there were no finds.

of which are located in the immediate vicinity of the cairn (Fig. 8.18). No artefactual material was found in the trench, but a geological examination of the rock face indicated that stone had been removed from this location, evidenced by the absence of parts of the outcrop along the natural fracture patterns of the rock (Roger Anderton pers. comm.). Visual examination of the other rock exposures also confirmed that they had seen stone removal, with evidence for several sizeable pieces of stone having been extracted from those locations. Since the rock type matches the bulk of material in the monument, it appears that the stones for the monument were primarily acquired from the immediate vicinity. Only small quantities of material which originated from elsewhere in Kintyre were found at Blasthill (see below). This includes the green chert which does not occur in the immediate vicinity of Blasthill and would have to have been imported from elsewhere, although precisely where it is not possible to ascertain.

Trench C. A final trench (Trench C) 5 x 1m was opened over one of the possible quarry sites for the monument, all



Figure 8.14. The primary façade with in situ dry-stone walling



Figure 8.15. Section of the façade showing the two façade stones, the dry-stone walling, the cairn and a kerbstone

Figure 8.16. The infilled forecourt, looking west

Figure 8.17. Stone artefacts from Blasthill: left-leaf-shaped arrowhead, middle-thumbnail scraper, right-knife, insertbead



Phase Pre-forecourt activity (deposition)

Dates 3950-3654 cal. BC Post-3654 cal. BC

Construction of façade (with paving) and addition of long cairn (with kerb) Remodelling of façade ????? Forecourt blocking Bronze Age? Post-blocking use Iron Age Table 8.2. Proposed sequence of construction (trench A)

Material culture Burnt wood Flint, pitchstone, quartz, quartzite, hammerstones None Flint, hammerstone Bead

Figure 8.18. Location of the quarry faces around Blasthill, and Trench C Having outlined the results of the excavations at Blasthill chambered tomb, we will now consider the dating for the use of this monument from the initial phases of building and remodelling in the early Neolithic through to secondary use and closure in the Bronze Age.

The primary chamber also produced dates later in the early Neolithic. A date of 3650-3360 cal BC (GU-21791) was produced from residue on the whole pot recovered from the chamber. Another date of 3520-3360 cal BC (GU22482) on alnus nutshell covers the same date range (Fig. 8.19). It has been suggested above that these dates represent the reuse of the primary chamber: there is also the possibility they represent the primary use of the chamber, and the date on the pottery is certainly the most secure of all of those obtained from the chamber. Whichever is the case, these dates certainly demonstrate that deposits were being made at the site at this time. Material of a similar date has been recovered from Irish court cairns (Schulting et al. 2011, 31-3).

Dating Blasthill A recent project investigating the date of the start of the Neolithic in Britain and Ireland has suggested that Neolithic elements first arrived in southern Scotland around 3800 cal. BC, and that chambered tombs were constructed in the first half of the 37th century cal. BC (Whittle et al. 2011, 833). None of the dates from the excavations at Blasthill contradict this: the three earliest dates from the primary chamber are 4040-3790 cal. BC (GU-22113), 3980-3790 cal. BC (GU-21796) and 39503710 cal. BC (GU-21795). These date either primary use (as argued above) or possibly pre-cairn land clearance. Whatever the case, these dates do suggest that Blasthill was potentially one of the earliest chambered monuments to be constructed in southern Scotland. It should be noted that these dates are earlier than the dated court cairn series (Schulting et al. 2011, 30). It was a pity that the absence of stratigraphy in the chamber meant no Bayesian modelling was possible, as better stratigraphic control would have enabled more precise dates to be modelled (Whittle et al. 2011).

Three radiocarbon dates were also obtained from the forecourt. These were in stratigraphic sequence, and were found beneath the paving of the forecourt and the façade. It has been possible to stratigraphically model these using OxCal (Fig. 8.20). As noted above, context 050 was a redeposited mass of burnt wood and this lowest deposit when modelled dates to between 3937-3708 cal. BC. This does not date the construction of the forecourt, but indicates activity involving the burning of wood (clearance nearby perhaps) in the location that ultimately would become the forecourt. The silt immediately beneath the forecourt paving from 043 produced a modelled date of 3777-3654 cal. BC and is likely to just pre-date the paving of the forecourt.



Figure 8.19. Plot of all radiocarbon dates from Blasthill to 95.4% probability (2 sigma)

Figure 8.20. The sequence of dates in the forecourt modelled on stratigraphic position



The dates from Blasthill were all, bar one, on short-lived, identified charcoal fragments (the other one being on residue from the whole pot). The acidic soils unfortunately prevented bone preservation and all that remained of human bone deposits in the chamber were tiny fragments of tooth enamel. The largest enamel fragment was submitted for radiocarbon dating but had insufficient amounts of C-14 (Gordon Cook pers. comm.). A further complication at Blasthill was severe bioturbation, the result of using turves to construct part of the long cairn/mound, which created particularly favourable conditions for worms: this obscured stratigraphic relationships in the chambers. Even so, the work at Blasthill demonstrates that relatively small-scale excavations can produce material for dating. Securing more dates on Clyde cairns must remain a high priority, both for understanding this monument class, and also for assisting in modelling the start of the Neolithic in this area. Unfortunately since previous excavations of most Clyde cairns occurred pre-radiocarbon dating, material suitable for dating can only be acquired through new programmes of excavation. It is also worth noting that the radiocarbon dates from Blasthill also only date the primary and secondary use of the monument: it would also be desirable to gain more definitive dates for the later phases of construction and use, another research priority, albeit one that is potentially difficult to achieve.

lateral chamber (thus dating somewhere between 36303360 cal BC). With regards architectural form, at this phase at Blasthill was very similar to other Clyde monuments in western Scotland. It had a shallow façade defined by orthostats, multiple functioning chambers and a trapezoidal cairn/mound. It was noted above that there was a discrepancy in the constructional techniques employed in the northern and southern sides of the long cairn/mound. The northern kerb of the monument is formed by a series of impressive orthostats with dry-stone walling in between: in contrast, no attempt was made to create a formal or neat edge to the cairn on the southern side of the long cairn. This may relate to the fact that the monument is highly visible from the northern side which looks out over a valley where numerous spreads of Neolithic material have been found (see chapter 4). This valley also forms a natural route way through the landscape. It seems, then, that the builders of the site were only concerned with the appearance of the monument from certain directions, particularly in relation to the people living or moving through the valley to the north. Furthermore, the builders were expedient in their construction of the long cairn, only expending time and energy on key components. Likewise, instead of quarrying more stone to create the long cairn, they used turves for the bulk of the construction, so that the monument primarily sat within a long mound. Perhaps, then, this was not a monument designed to be scrutinised closely, but built quickly and efficiently appear like other forms of monument in western Scotland (cf. McFadyen 2007; Richards 2013). This phase, then, while seemingly representing the most intensive monumental phase of construction, may actually have been a quick burst of activity.

Construction sequence Above it was argued that the first activity at Blasthill was clearance followed by the construction of a small chamber set within a small cairn. It was only possible to identify the primary cairn in the southern part of the trench via the location of distinctive imported green slabs of chert, so it is not possible to define the shape of the cairn precisely, but could be suggested that it was sub-circular. The presence of a small primary chamber is paralleled elsewhere in both western Scotland and other parts of Britain. Corcoran (1969) suggested that Mid Gleniron I and II in Dumfries and Galloway both started out as single chambers set within small sub-circular cairns which were later converted into typical Clyde cairns. This has been suggested for Cairnholy I and II, and also identified at Cladh Aindreis (Harris et al. 2010). In North Wales, excavations at both Dyffryn Ardudwy and Trefignath revealed small primary chambers which were later turned into larger, multi-chambered monuments (Powell 1973; Smith and Lynch 1987). This notion of a ‘protomegalith’ (Scott 1972) was very popular in the late 1960s and early 1970s when many of these sites were being excavated, and it was subsequently suggested that all Clyde cairns with lateral chambers could have been multi-phase (Henshall 1972, 63, also see Noble 2006 chapter 5). We also suggested that some of the material culture found in and near the lateral chamber dates to this primary phase.

The proposed third phase of construction was the remodelling of the façade, specifically the removal of at least one of the original façade stones and its replacement further out in the forecourt (Fig. 8.21). It seems likely that this took place in the later part of the early Neolithic. The effect of this was to create a more enclosed forecourt area which is a distinctive characteristic of the court cairn series of monuments in Ireland. Archaeologically, there is a lack of material at Blasthill from the later part of the Neolithic. This does not mean to say that people were not visiting Blasthill, but it seems that it was no longer appropriate to make architectural alterations, nor material deposits, at the site. People were still living around the edges of Blasthill as evidenced from a number of late Neolithic lithic scatters found via fieldwalking (see chapter 4). Monumental construction also seems to have taken place elsewhere in the landscape such as at Marchfield pit circle near Campbeltown (see chapter 6). The social function of Blasthill at this time, therefore, did not involve either construction or deposition. It is clear, however, that the chambered tomb saw a renewed focus of activity in the early Bronze Age which is not without precedence. The reuse of Clyde chambers has been noted at other sites in the area. For example, at

There may be additional construction phases at Blasthill that have not been identified, but the next definite phase revealed through excavation was the addition of a long cairn/mound including the façade and kerbing, which it was argued above was contemporary with the reuse of the



Brackley the main chamber was cleared out and deposits of cremated human bone, jet beads, a food vessel and lithics were added (Scott 1955). Likewise, Cairnholy I saw early Bronze Age deposition (Piggott and Powell 1949). While we did not explore the terminal chamber at Blasthill, we were able to demonstrate that the lateral chamber was

not reused in the early Bronze Age. While the chamber itself did not see deposition at this time, early Bronze Age pottery was found to the south of the lateral chamber (see above).

Figure 8.21. The original shape of the forecourt, and the shape of the forecourt with the northern stone moved

Figure 8.22. Possible sequence of construction at Blasthill



In addition to this it seems likely that that the forecourt was blocked in the Bronze Age, again a practice paralleled elsewhere. Clyde cairns such as at Cairnholy I (Piggott and Powell 1949) and Monamore, Arran (Mackie 1963) both had infilled forecourts, and this practice was also found in the court cairn sequence, for example at Ballymacdermot, County Armagh (Collins and Wilson 1964). There is also the possibility that access to the lateral chamber was also sealed off in the early Bronze Age as this was the context the early Bronze Age pottery sherds were found. It has also been suggested above that the extensive deposits of cairn material around the edge of the long cairn/mound were also added, perhaps to prevent immediate access to the monument, or to make the monument look dilapidated. Taken together, these events actually represent a relatively major reworking of the site, involving sustained construction as well as the deposition of material culture. At this point, the chambered tomb was well over a thousand years old. At some point after this date, the monument seems, finally, to have fallen out of use. Conclusion This chapter has presented the results of the excavations at Blasthill chambered tomb. This appears to be a multiphase monument, which started life as a sub-circular cairn with a small chamber constructed in the first half of the 37th century cal. BC. At a later date, probably somewhere between 3630 and 3360 cal. BC, this monument was transformed into a larger, Clyde monument, with a façade and lateral chamber. At this stage the monument also incorporated turf in its construction so it may more accurately be described as a Clyde long cairn/mound. After what appears to be a hiatus in use in the later part of the Neolithic, the monument was subsequently remodelled in the early Bronze Age. This phase of use may also have seen the blocking of the forecourt. Both the architecture and the finds from this site suggest fluctuating relationships with the wider world, specifically other parts of Scotland and Ireland, and this theme is explored in more detail in the final chapter of the book.



Chapter 9. The results of Jack Scott’s excavations at Ardnacross II chambered tomb and later associated structures, near Peninver, Kintyre Vicki Cummings with the kind permission of the RCAHMS and the Kelvingrove Introduction Jack Scott discovered a possible megalithic burial chamber at Ardnacross in 1958, which he named Ardnacross II on account of there already being another chambered tomb a few hundred metres away (now known as Ardnacross I). From 1967 through to 1980 Jack Scott and his wife excavated the site, revealing not only the remains of a chambered cairn but also other possible later structures (Scott and Scott 1967; 1968; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1972; 1973; 1974; 1975; 1976; 1977; 1978; 1979; 1980). Unfortunately Jack Scott died before he was able to publish the results of these excavations. However, the finds from the excavation were acquired by the Kelvingrove, and the paper archive was deposited with the RCAHMS (Iain Fraser pers. comm.). Taking into account the close proximity of this monument to the study area, the RCAHMS kindly agreed that an account of this excavation could be written up as part of this project.

Research aims and methodology The precise research aims of Scott’s excavations have not been found in his diary entries. It seems likely he wanted to get a better understanding of the layout and use of the monument. However, he also enjoyed holidaying in Kintyre (Francis Hood pers. comm.) and the excavations appear to have been more for pleasure than anything else. Whatever the rationale, he explored Ardnacross via a series of small trenches over a number of years (see Fig. 9.1 and below for details). This was to locate key features such as the chamber, façade and extent of the long cairn. The methodology employed in dealing with the Scott archive Everything relating to Ardnacross was photographed digitally at the RCAHMS in Edinburgh and then examined in more detail on printed copies. Firstly, all diary entries were read in order to get a sense of the archaeology in conjunction with the Scotts’ Discovery and Excavation entries (Scott and Scott 1967; 1968; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1972; 1973; 1974; 1975; 1976; 1977; 1978; 1979; 1980). Working out the sequence of activities at the site meant that it was then possible to label most of the plans and sections according to year. Next, the diary entries were worked through again, and at the first mention of a context it was assigned a number in sequential order. This created a context record for the excavations as Scott did not record the archaeology using the single context method, so throughout the diary entries there are only brief descriptions of contexts as he uncovered them. However, by creating a context list, it was then possible to create a narrative for the excavations using the newly-generated context numbers.

The Jack Scott archive held by the RCAHMS Jack Scott kept a diary which detailed his excavations at Ardnacross II (from here on referred to simply as Ardnacross) from 1967 to 1969. He then used a dedicated site notebook for the excavations at Ardnacross from 1970 to 1975. In 1977 and 1979 he went back to using his diary, although in the case of the 1979 diary entries, these are actually in his 1978 diary. There are no written records held by the Commission for 1976, 1978 and 1980. The diary entries contain hand-written notes on what he did on site each day. Some years also contain a list of finds with finds numbers, but not all. In addition to this the Commission holds a series of plans and sections. The early drawings do not have dates on them, but some of the later ones do: it seems that all existing plans and sections are therefore held by the Commission. Scott also took a series of photographs using black and white film and both black and white and colour slide film. The black and white photographs are mostly held as strips of negatives but he had some of these printed out to make black and white photos. The slide films exist either as unmounted images, but there are also a limited number of mounted slides. He had made a start on the images for the final publication, but these only exist as mounted slides – it is unknown where the original drawings are, and they may have been lost (most of Scott’s original drawings for his many publications are held in the RCAHMS but those from Ardnacross could not be identified). Unfortunately none of the photographs are labelled and they are not held in chronological order. In addition to the material held by the Commission, a small number of records are also held by the Kelvingrove. This includes some hand-written papers on Ardnacross and a very small number of black and white photos which are labelled.

Dealing with the finds record was fairly straight forward. For some years work there was a finds register of sorts. This was kept as part of the diary entries. However, from 1970 onwards Scott started his finds register at find number 1 every year, so there are multiple finds with a single finds number. For other years there is no finds register at all, just mention of finds in the diary entries. The Kelvingrove holds most of the finds from the excavation material along with an accession list of material which includes information recorded on the finds bags. This list was useful in terms of identifying what material survives but there are inconsistencies with this when compared to Scott’s diaries. Ultimately a new finds register was produced which was the ‘best fit’ between the museum accession list and the finds mentioned in the diaries: this register is used here. The register indicates what is held by the museum and what has been lost/not retained. Fortunately it seems that most finds are held by the museum.

97

Figure 9.1. Location of Scott’s trenches at Ardnacross (© RCAHMS Licensor www.rcahms.gov.uk)



The photographic record held by the Commission was much more problematic to deal with because Scott did not include any information on the photos/slides themselves (so no date, north arrow, and obviously no context numbers since he did not employ this method). Furthermore, none of the images are labelled and they are not held in the Commission’s archives in chronological order. Again these were worked through and labelled wherever possible, but this could not be done in many cases.

long cairn. His trenches were notably small in size, and were regularly extended by only a few feet in any one direction. He obviously favoured opening up small box trenches and then extending those as the archaeology was revealed instead of wider, open-area excavation. He notes in his diaries that some trenches were covered with plastic before being backfilled so he could reopen them the following year and it seems that there was some sort of rolling trench opening and closure in place over the years. At a number of points in his diary entries he notes that he reopened old trenches to look for particular features or explore unresolved issues.

Finally, although it was possible to work out when most plans and sections had been drawn, they were not all were labelled with relevant information. Most drawings in the archive were plans – very few sections were drawn – and none had any contextual information on them, since Scott did not use single context recording. This meant that his plans are of multiple contexts, none of which were labelled, and there were very few interpretations written/indicated on the plans. Some plans were also missing north arrows and very few had both northings and eastings on them, making it extremely difficult to work out how they related to one another. The grid numbers that Scott used also seem to have changed over the years in relation to shifting origin pegs, so it was not possible to construct the grid for the whole excavation. Suffice to say it was virtually impossible to make sense of the plans as they exist. It was therefore invaluable that Scott had produced a composite and interpreted plan of the trench locations and key features from 1967 through to and including 1974. From this composite it was possible to interpret what archaeology was shown in the dated plans up to 1974, and it is this composite which is reproduced here (Fig. 9.1). Unfortunately Scott continued digging for another six years and no composite plan was produced to indicate the trench locations of this work. From the surviving plans it was just not possible to ascertain the precise location of the trenches after 1974, nor what features are shown in them. Without any annotations on the plans it is also very difficult to identify the archaeology as described by Scott in his diary and/or the Discovery and Excavation Scotland entries. This means that the archaeology to and including 1974 is easy to report, but the work he did from 1975 to 1980 is harder to understand, and it has not been possible to reproduce any of the later plans or sections. What follows is an account based on an interpretation of the Scott archives. The diaries and DES entries were the most use in producing this. It should be noted that as part of this process the archives held by the Commission now include material generated by this writeup, so this should make any re-examinations of the archive easier for future researchers.

As noted above, he did not use any form of single context recording. He simply wrote a diary entry each day describing what he had found. Finds were recorded in a finds register of sorts and sometimes in three dimensions using tape measures, but the absence of a definitive site grid limits the usefulness of this information. He drew plans and a few sections (all in feet and inches) and took photos using both slide and black and white film (again using imperial ranging rods), but he did not keep a photo register or drawing register. There is no record of Scott taking any form of environmental samples, apart from occasionally retaining some charcoal. Unfortunately most of the charcoal retained (and now held by the Kelvingrove) is unlabelled.

Figure 9.2. Ardnacross II prior to excavation. Please note the scale is imperial © CSG CIC Glasgow Museums Collection Ardnacross II: introduction Located at 13m OD beside a field and only 75m from the coastline, Ardnacross chambered tomb survives today as a heavily overgrown mound with a telegraph pole protruding from one side. Prior to excavation Scott recorded the monument as a stony mound measuring roughly 25m long and 17m wide. Some of the tops of the chamber stones were visible, and a large stone, interpreted as a displaced capstone, was found to the north.

Excavation methodology Multiple trenches were opened at Ardnacross over the years Scott worked on the site. He began by examining the chamber and then expanded his trenches to include the forecourt. He then focussed attention on locating the edges and back of the long cairn. In later years he opened trenches beyond the blocking in the forecourt in the gully to the north of the monument. In the final year of excavation he opened another trench over the edge of the

99

Figure 9.3. The location of Ardnacross II in southern Kintyre Scott undertook a topographic survey of Ardnacross in 1958. This demonstrated that the stony mound reached its highest point immediately behind the burial chamber (Fig. 9.4).

was prepared it is likely that the next event was the construction of the chamber, cairn and forecourt: Scott believed that these were all built at the same time. Here each component will be described in turn.

Excavation results Pre-cairn clearance The first event on site was probably clearance in preparation for the construction of the monument. Underneath the burial chamber Scott found yellow boulder clay (013) which is almost certainly the natural subsoil. In other places Scott revealed the underlying bedrock, for example at the rear of the cairn (046) and in the forecourt (066). It is extremely likely that this bedrock was exposed in the Neolithic, and the monument was built over and therefore incorporated an outcrop. On top of the bedrock Scott found patches of a dark soil layer (050) which he suggested related to pre-cairn clearance. A similar layer was observed within the chamber (012). Once the ground

The chamber sequence The chamber was constructed using slabs which do not seem to have been placed in sockets. Scott makes no mention of finding sockets for any of the chamber stones so it can be assumed that either they were not identified or, more likely, that they did not exist. Instead, the stones that make up the chamber seem to have been propped in place by supporting stones (007). The chamber itself actually divides into three different components. These are described here as Scott described them in his diaries: the rear, middle and front compartments. The rear compartment comprises only a septal/dividing slab and a single side-slab found on the eastern side. The western side-slab and rear slab are missing and Scott could find no



Figure 9.4. Topographic survey of Ardnacross II completed by Scott in 1958 and prior to excavation (contours at 15cm) evidence for them, although he was sure that they had once been in place. He describes voids where these stones should have been, and in his plan of the chamber there is a stonehole indicated (see Fig. 9.6 below), although there was no mention of this in his diary. The middle compartment comprised four slabs forming a complete box. The front compartment was predominately made up from two sets of portal stones opening onto the forecourt (see Fig. 9.6).

same time. These contexts were definitely found in the rear compartment but it is unclear whether they also occurred in the smaller middle compartment. Certainly, Scott’s plan of the chamber during excavation hints that the paving may have been in both (see Fig. 9.6).

The rear and middle compartments have similar sequences and here are described together as they were excavated in tandem. In truth, Scott appears to have raced through the sequence in the middle compartment and retrospectively reconsidered it in light of a more considered excavation of the rear compartment. On top of the pre-cairn clearance (012) was a layer of dark sandy soil which included some fragments of cremated bone (005). Scott considered this to be the Neolithic floor level. There were no artefacts from this level, although some cremated bone was recovered and retained from just underneath (in 013) and is probably contemporary. On top of this was a cleaner sandy soil (011) which contained more cremated bone (now lost) and a small Neolithic cup in the rear compartment only (SF 14 and see Fig. 9.5). Next in the sequence was a layer of paving (009) along with a yellow clay floor (010): these two seem to be contemporary and thus laid down at the

Figure 9.5. The cup found in the rear compartment of the chamber in 011. Image published with permission of Culture and Sport Glasgow (Glasgow Museums)

101

Figure 9.6. Plan of the chamber during excavation showing the paving (009) in situ (© RCAHMS Licensor www.rcahms.gov.uk) chamber blocking was a layer of friable earth with small stones (002) and then topsoil (001). Found within a sandy silt (004) on top of the paving/clay floor was a complete Food Vessel (SF 10: Fig. 9.9) and The front compartment of the burial chamber has a slightly some cremated bone. This clearly represents an early different sequence. The base deposit was a coarse sand Bronze Age phase of use within the rear compartment. layer (017) which is likely to be the same as 011 found in Because Scott found cremated bone in the Neolithic levels the rear compartment. On top of this was a layer which he thought that the bone associated with the Food Vessel comprised both clay and small flat slabs (016). It is unclear was residual. On top of the early Bronze Age layer was a whether this is Neolithic or early Bronze Age paving as thick layer of stone blocking (003) which was found there were no associated finds. On top of this was the throughout all parts of the chamber. This layer contained blocking found throughout the chamber (003). Due to the ten sherds of Neolithic pottery (the lugged bowl: Fig. 9.7). nature of the deposits in this area it might be more accurate Scott believed these were the remains of a vessel which to describe it as an antechamber or porch rather than a had been disturbed during the early Bronze Age use of the compartment designed for deposition. The entrance into chamber since they are Neolithic in date, and put back in the front chamber was carefully blocked (022) as part of the chamber after the later deposition event. Overlying the the blocking of the forecourt (see below).



Figure 9.7. The reconstructed lugged bowl found in the rear compartment. Image published with permission of Culture and Sport Glasgow (Glasgow Museums)

Figure 9.8. The paving (009) along with a yellow clay floor (010) in the rear compartment of the chamber. The upright 3 foot ranging rod marks where the Food Vessel was found © CSG CIC Glasgow Museums Collection



Figure 9.9. The Food Vessel found in the rear compartment of the chamber. Image published with permission of Culture and Sport Glasgow (Glasgow Museums)

Figure 9.10. The Food Vessel in situ in the chamber. Please note the scale is imperial © CSG CIC Glasgow Museums Collection



Figure 9.11. The chamber from the south looking towards the entrance still blocked (022). Note the shaped stone used as a sill in the chamber © CSG CIC Glasgow Museums Collection

Figure 9.12. View of the blocking in the chamber (003). This post-dates the deposition of the Food Vessel. A stretch of façade can been seen underneath the 6 foot scale © CSG CIC Glasgow Museums Collection



Figure 9.13. Lithic artefacts from Ardnacross: far left - flint awl (SF23), middle two - flint scrapers (SF 53 and 58), far right – quartz scraper (SF 64) Façade The façade at Ardnacross was constructed using relatively small and thin stones stacked vertically. Scott investigated it over a number of years and here a single context is given to the entire length of the façade, both to the east and west (014). In one area he investigated underneath the façade and found a packed layer of small stones (043) which may represent a prepared surface onto which the façade was built. There is nothing to indicate it was constructed in anything other than a single phase. In many places it survived up to four courses high although Scott thought it may originally have been higher. The relationship between the chamber and façade is discussed in more detail below. The façade is only gently concave and measures c. 7 metres to the east and c. 8 metres to the west of the portal stones. In some places Scott noted that some of the stones making up the façade were slightly displaced (018) but this is perhaps not surprising since the façade stones were found immediately underneath the topsoil. In general, the western side of the façade was better preserved than the eastern side, because the ground slopes down to the west and hill-wash seems to have preserved it.

the forecourt blocking (015 and see below). Various finds were found in this gully. Two fragments of a crucible (SF 57 and 62) were found in the hollow in 075 (another crucible fragment was found close to the tip of the façade underneath the old field dyke 029: SF 46). A flint scraper (SF 53), a quartz scraper (SF 58) and two large quartzite cores (SF 55 and 56) were also found in 075, along with a piece of slag (SF 59) and a possible piece of iron (SF 60). This led Scott to suggest that these objects ‘seem to confirm the recent date of the feature’ (Scott and Scott 1976, 15).

Forecourt The façade created an area to the north of the cairn which can be described as a forecourt. This is one of the most difficult areas to understand since Scott investigated it piecemeal from 1967 right through to 1979. Immediately in front of the chamber he found what he considered to be the original ground surface (023). This was a sandy soil with a considerable component of broken stone which he though was ‘builders’ debris’. Cut into this was a small pit or stone-hole [024] – there is no mention of the fill for this feature, although presumably it must have had one. Another stone-hole was found cut into 023 near the western tip of the façade [033] which was filled with a silt (034). Scott thought this might be evidence for the remodelling of the forecourt at one time.

Figure 9.14. Three of the quartzite cores (SF 55, 44 and 52) found in the gully. Image published with permission of Culture and Sport Glasgow (Glasgow Museums) It seems clear that the hollow was covered with paving in the forecourt (006) which had also been identified closer to the façade in Scott’s earlier trenches. On top of this the forecourt contained a substantial quantity of blocking (015). The blocking has been given a single context here as there is no indication in Scott’s notes that there was anything other than a mass of stones laid down in a single event. However, he did note that the blocking consisted of both vertically stacked slabs which he thought had originally made up the upper courses of the façade, and

There was another significant cut identified in the forecourt: it is described as a hollow cut into the natural (cut 074, fill 075) and this was clearly fairly substantial (unlabelled plans suggest that this was at least 3.5m long and at least 0.5m wide, it may have terminated in a circular cut feature not mentioned anywhere else). The hollow seems to have run roughly south-west to north-east. It seems to have been directly underneath paving (006) and



Clyde cairn Scott investigated various components of the trapezoidal long cairn found at Ardnacross over the years. He frequently encountered large stones at the base of the cairn which have been given a single context here (008). These are the stones of the core of the cairn and seem to have uniformly consisted of a series of large rounded boulders. Because only small areas of the cairn were investigated at any one time it is impossible to say whether 008 formed the foundation layer of the whole cairn. Large stones were found supporting the western portal stone (028) and one of the chamber stones (051) – these may well have been indistinguishable from the core cairn but have been given a separate context number here because it was noted earlier that no sockets were found for the chamber stones. 028 and 051 are thus presumably earlier than the core cairn (008) as stand-alone support for the chamber, even if only by a very short period of time. What is clear is that the core cairn did not extend quite as far as the façade. Immediately behind the dry-stone walling of the façade Scott found loose material including pebbles (027). On top of this were flat slabs (026) which themselves were overlain by small angular slabs (025). This could suggest that the façade was bolted on to the cairn at a later date, but equally this could relate to the chosen construction method. This is discussed in more detail below.

larger boulders. These may have been carefully arranged radially from the chamber. He also suggested that the edge of the blocking may have been marked by big boulders (038). It may be that these boulders actually made up another feature out beyond the forecourt which he investigated at a later date (see below). A whetstone (SF 51) and quartzite core (SF 54) were found among the blocking and may be contemporary with the finds found in the hollow.

Overlying the core cairn (008) were different types of deposit. It is not possible to state how these relate to one another but Scott found various types of cairn material including small angular stones (019), pitched slabs (040) and carefully angled stones (039). On the western side of the cairn he found packed cobbles (032) overlain by 2.5cm thick layer of carbonised material (031) which itself was covered by a deposit of turf (030). 032 contained three stone discs (SF 27, 28 and 75: Fig. 9.16). Indeed, at various points Scott speculated that the cairn had a significant turf component. What is clear is the cairn was bounded by a kerb to both the east (044) and west (047). Scott went to considerable effort to trace this over the years and he found dry-stone walling, up to seven layers thick, creating a distinct edge to the cairn (Fig. 9.17). He found it much harder to clearly identify the rear end of the cairn. In the end he concluded that a single large flat slab (049) marked the end along with some pitched stones (048).

Figure 9.15. Whetstone (SF 51) found in the blocking in the forecourt. Image published with permission of Culture and Sport Glasgow (Glasgow Museums) It seems that the blocking petered out towards the tips of the façade. Here Scott encountered a dark soil with tiny flecks of charcoal and cremated bone (021) which he thought might be deposits marking the edge of the façade. It is clear that after the construction of the façade and the blocking of the forecourt there were a number of later construction events including the building of a structure to the north of the forecourt in the gully (see below). Scott also noted walling crossing the blocking façade (Fig. 9.18) which he suggested was the kerb of a later, Bronze Age cairn (042). This was found in other parts of the monument and will be discussed in more detail below. Also present in this area was the remains of more recent activity including the remains of an old field dyke (029), a spread of blackish earth (045) and a dump of stones from field clearance (052). In association with this dyke was at least one posthole [035] filled with both stone packers (036) and a soft silty soil (037). Scott also felt there were robbing events which accounted for missing components of the façade.

Bronze Age cairn At certain places Scott noted a layer of fairly large stones overlying the Neolithic monument. This has been noted above in relation to the façade, but Scott also found this in a number of other locations. At certain points stones ran over the top of the edge of the Neolithic cairn, but at a different angle to the Neolithic monument (see Figs 9.18 and 9.19). Scott believed that this was the remains of a kerb of a Bronze Age round cairn (042). Within this was a layer of cairn material which he suggested was the associated cairn material (053). Two quartzite cores were found amongst this material (SF 44 and 52).



Figure 9.16. The three stone discs found in the cairn (SF 27, 28 and 75). Image published with permission of Culture and Sport Glasgow (Glasgow Museums)

Figure 9.17. Photo showing the dry-stone walling on the edge of the Neolithic cairn © CSG CIC Glasgow Museums Collection



Figure 9.18. Photo showing the kerb of the possible Bronze Age cairn crossing the façade © CSG CIC Glasgow Museums Collection

Figure 9.19. Photo showing the kerb of the possible Bronze Age cairn crossing the east side of the Neolithic cairn towards the rear of the cairn © CSG CIC Glasgow Museums Collection



Forecourt gully structure(s) Towards the northern end of the forecourt and running into a gully (070) was the remains of at least one structure. Scott reached the bedrock in places in the forecourt (066) along with clean yellow clay (079) and it seems that the structure was built on top of these. A wall was identified in two areas: to the south (090) and to the north (078), but there was no sign of it to the east. A line of large boulders recognised in an earlier trench in the forecourt (054) may be the west part of this structure. These walls seem to have created a rectangular structure. In association with this structure a whole series of postholes were found which were not recorded or described in any detail. Where they are described they have been assigned both a cut and fill number (cut 056, fill 057; cut 058, fill 059; cut 060, fill 061; cut 062, fill 063; cut 064, fill 065; cut 080, fill 081; cut 082, fill 083; cut 084, fill 085; cut 086, fill 087). Scott also mentions two more possible postholes associated with this structure, for which there is no more detail and so here are given just a single cut [073]. All these postholes are problematic because there is no plan of them, and in his diaries he wasn’t always sure what he was dealing with (so, for example, they are described as a ‘possible’ posthole, but then no further comment is provided after this). It seems, however, that there may have been up to 11 postholes associated with the stone structure. It is possible to suggest that these were the remains of support posts for a roof. Elsewhere Scott excavated a slot which he thought may have been the cut for a palisade [088] and a pit [089]. The pit was filled with a black soil (091) but there is no mention of the fill of 088.

stone walling. At Ardnacross the façade was constructed using small slabs built up into a dry-stone wall. Furthermore, there was a gap between the façade and the large stones of the core cairn. All this could suggest that the façade was added on at a later date. Also supporting this idea are the double portal stones at the site. This is more common at Clyde cairns (for example, at Blasthill) but may be indicative of multi-phase architecture (the addition of the façade by adding an additional pair of portal stones in front of those already there). Since Scott did not explore the area of the cairn where a small, sub-circular cairn would have surrounded the chamber it may still be possible to find this through new excavation at the site. At present, it is only possible to speculate that Ardnacross may originally been a simple sub-rectangular protomegalith which was turned into a large Clyde monument at a later date.

It seems that the structure had some kind of laid flooring, comprising cobbling set in brown clay (055) and/or a paved floor (071) laid on top of yellow clay (072). Two lignite discs were found in 071 (SF 47 and 49). On top of this were a series of deposits, including patches of burnt orange material (067), an ashy layer with small fragments of bone (077) and fragments of burnt wattle and daub (068). A horizontal layer of wattle and daub (092) was described elsewhere in a later trench, and Scott wondered if this was the remains of a second, later structure superimposed on top of the earlier one. Equally, the structure may originally have comprised a stone built base with wattle and daub or turf on top. On top of these burnt layers was a rubbly infill set within a matrix of washed clay (076).

Figure 9.20. The lignite discs (SF 47 and 49) found on paved floor of structure. Image published with permission of Culture and Sport Glasgow (Glasgow Museums) Scott did speculate that the trouble he had finding the tips of the façade at Ardnacross may have been because the façade had been remodelled. At the western tip of the façade he found a stonehole which he suggested was evidence for façade alteration. In light of the excavations at Blasthill where the tips of the façade seem to have been altered at a later date, this may also have been the case at Ardnacross. It is also intriguing to note that Scott found evidence for the use of turf on top of the core cairn: this was also found at Blasthill where it was argued this related to a later aggrandisement of the original cairn. The evidence from Ardnacross may indicate that turf was more commonly used at Clyde cairns than has been previously thought, and may relate to later phases where expedient architecture was used to enhance existing monuments (cf. Richards 2013). Certainly stacking turf is a quick way to heighten or enlarge a cairn.

Discussion: sequence of construction Scott was in favour of the idea that the chamber, the façade and the trapezoidal long cairn were all constructed in a single phase (Scott and Scott 1970, 9). Bearing in mind he was wholeheartedly in favour of there being simple, standalone ‘protomegaliths’ as the primary phase at Clyde cairns, he clearly did not find evidence which convinced him that there was a primary protomegalith at Ardnacross. There are two features at Ardnacross, however, which may suggest otherwise. Firstly, the façade is rather unusual for a Clyde cairn in Kintyre which were more typically constructed using large upright slabs, although Beacharra (also excavated by Scott) had a façade constructed of dry-



Scott was very much in favour of there being a Bronze Age cairn superimposed on top of the Clyde cairn at Ardnacross. There is the possibility that the walling that Scott encountered was later, possibly the remains of an enclosure built using convenient stones from the Clyde cairn. Equally, the kerbing may well be the remains of walls. These possibilities cannot be entirely discounted, but there is strong support for Scott’s original suggestion. First, there is good evidence for Bronze Age activity on the site in the form of the Food Vessel in the chamber. The reuse of the chambered tombs in the early Bronze Age in western Scotland is widely attested at other sites including Beacharra (Scott 1964) and Brackley (Scott 1955). Second, the contour survey highlighted the fact that the highest part of the cairn sits roughly at the centre of where the Bronze Age cairn would be. Thirdly, another Bronze Age monument (the Priest’s Grave, Ardnacross) is found just a few hundred metres away. While it is rather unusual for a Bronze Age cairn to be built directly over an earlier Neolithic monument it is not unparalleled in western Scotland. Balnabraid located just over a kilometre to the south of Achinhoan in Kintyre is a multi-cist Bronze Age cairn. However, one of the cists may well be the altered remains of what originally would have been the chamber of a Clyde cairn.

is rich agricultural land, protected from westerly winds with a mild climate which would have been extremely desirable land. Dating There are no radiocarbon dates from Ardnacross, and so it is only possible to suggest dates from the material culture found at the site. Clearly, there is good evidence that the chambered tomb was built and used in the early Neolithic. The lugged bowl and Beacharra cup both date to this period. The absence of classic early Neolithic Carinated Bowl may suggest that this site was constructed a little later than Blasthill. There is then evidence for Bronze Age activity on the site: the Food Vessel dates to this period and clearly there was significant activity in the forecourt, including possible metalworking. The date of the gully structure remains obscure unfortunately. Recommendations for future work at Ardnacross Ardnacross is clearly a complex site with potentially multiple phases of use. The analysis of the Scott archive has enabled an interpretation of the archaeology he uncovered to be produced. However, it would be desirable to further understand the archive as it exists. A high priority would be to gain a better understanding of Scott’s trenches from 1975 onwards. This could be achieved by reopening the area of and beyond the forecourt. This should make the plans, and descriptions produced by Scott easier to understand. Precisely how much archaeology survives in this area is difficult to ascertain, however, but the recovery of a sealed context containing burnt material from the structure described above would be extremely beneficial to understanding the archaeology in this area. Also unresolved is whether or not Scott did indeed find a round cairn superimposed on the top of the primary Clyde cairn. Substantial areas of the interior of the round cairn/Clyde cairn were untouched by Scott and excavation may be able to resolve this issue. As a strong supporter of the idea of a ‘proto-megalith’ at Clyde cairns it is perhaps surprising that Scott did not attempt to explore this at Ardnacross. His diaries do indicate that he did think there might be a primary, small, sub-circular phase at Ardnacross, but he did not attempt to locate it. Thus, trenches behind and around the chamber may be able to reveal the phasing of construction.

It is possible that the blocking of the forecourt also dates to the Bronze Age. It is worth noting that the blocking would approximately match up with the edge of the superimposed Bronze Age round cairn, so it may have been more of a feature of the round cairn construction than as blocking per se, or fulfilled a dual role. It may be that other alterations were made the site at this time, for example the use of turf on top of the cairn. The hollow underneath the blocking in the forecourt contained a series of objects including crucible fragments, a piece of metal, a piece of slag, and scrapers and this may also date to the Bronze Age. It may suggest that the forecourt was used for craft activities, possibly metalworking and/or stoneworking. Certainly this would be a significant location for making special objects. The most difficult component of the excavation at Ardnacross to understand is the structure located in the gully to the north of the forecourt. As outlined above, the precise relationship between this and the Clyde cairn is difficult to ascertain. It seems the southern end of this structure may have had the blocking abutting it, implying it was already there when the blocking was added. Another possibility is that this structure was incorporated into the forecourt blocking at a later date. Whichever the case it is most likely to represent the last phase of prehistoric use on the site. The absence of a hearth would suggest that this was not a domestic dwelling, but the series of burnt deposits found in association with the structure do support the idea that something involving fire was taking place in this structure.

It may also be instructive to look at the environs around Ardnacross. Quite clearly this was an area that saw extensive monumental construction over many millennia. In addition to the two chambered tombs in this immediate area (Ardnacross I and II) there are also two cists. The best known is that of the Priest’s Grave, Ardnacross, which was examined by the Kintyre Antiquarian Society in 1934. They found a Food Vessel sherd along with many waterworn stones (RCAHMS 1971, 46). Another cist was found more recently at Ardnacross Farm. This site also had the remains of a hearth and a series of stakeholes close by (Ellis 2007). Cup-marked stones and a polished stone axe have also been found nearby (CANMORE 38746). Two further chambered tombs (Gort na h’Ulaidhe and Greenland) are just a few kilometres away. This area,

Finally, there is evidence of more recent activity on the site in the form of dykes or boundary walls being constructed from both stone and turf. This is not surprising: the lowlying area around Ardnacross Bay and up into Glen Lussa



therefore, may have seen extensive settlement in the Neolithic and Bronze Age.

lugged bowl comparable with material from Sliddery Water on Arran, and a small cup similar to that found at Beacharra alongside cremated human remains. Bronze Age activity is also well-attested at Ardnacross. The chamber was cleared and a Food Vessel added. This phase also probably saw metalworking in the forecourt followed by the blocking of both the chamber and the forecourt. Finally, a round cairn seems to have been superimposed over the earlier Clyde cairn. At a later date, possibly in the Bronze Age or Iron Age, a structure was built in the gully to the north of the forecourt, but at present its function remains obscure.

Conclusions Scott’s excavations at Ardnacross II have revealed a complex sequence of activity at this site. The primary construction of a Neolithic chambered tomb in the early Neolithic may have taken the form of a small sub-circular cairn enclosing a small slab-built chamber. Equally, a Clyde cairn, comprising chamber, façade and trapezoidal long cairn may have been built in a single construction event on the site. Primary deposition in the chamber seems to have comprised early Neolithic pottery in the form of a



Chapter 10. The biography of early Neolithic pottery assemblages from chambered tombs in western Scotland and eastern Ireland Emma Thompson, Vicki Cummings and Rick Peterson Introduction This chapter considers early Neolithic pottery found in chambered tombs in both western Scotland and eastern Ireland with the explicit aim of investigating potential interactions between communities on either side of the Irish Sea. Instead of purely utilising a traditional typological approach, this study also explores the biography of production for these vessels. It is argued that the earliest Neolithic pottery was made in broadly comparable ways in both western Scotland and eastern Ireland, suggestive of shared knowledge regarding ceramic production. As the Neolithic progressed, styles and production methods became more regionally specific.

and Ballyalton bowls their Irish equivalent (Case 1961; Scott 1964). As regional studies flourished and incorporated pottery assemblages from increasing numbers of non-megalithic sites, it was realised that there was a uniformly widespread adoption of very early Neolithic Carinated Bowl throughout Britain and Ireland, and from that starting point a whole series of regional styles developed (see Cleal 2004; Cowie 1993; Gibson 2002; Herne 1988; Peterson 2003; Sheridan 1995). In addition to this in recent years it has been possible to date more accurately the start of the Carinated Bowl tradition in both western Scotland and eastern Ireland. Recent Bayesian modelling places the start of the Carinated Bowl tradition in Scotland (south of the Great Glen) at 3825-3750 cal BC (95% probability) and probably 3810-3775 cal BC (65% probability: see Whittle et al. 824-5). The same model places the end of its circulation in the region in 3635–3590 cal BC (95% probability) and probably 3630-3605 cal BC (68% probability). The overall model suggests that the Carinated Bowl appeared in 3810–3765 cal BC (95% probability) and ended in 3645–3595 cal BC (95% probability: see Whittle et al. 2011, 826 and fig. 14.15960).

Previous approaches to the pottery As part of a growing interest in the nature of the Neolithic in Britain and Ireland, a considerable number of chambered tombs in western Scotland and eastern Ireland had been excavated by the mid part of the twentieth century, many of which produced ceramic assemblages. In his seminal work The Neolithic cultures of the British Isles Piggott (1954) considered the chambered tombs of eastern Ireland and western Scotland alongside the material culture found within them. He suggested they were part of the same cultural group (the Clyde-Carlingford culture: see chapter 1). However, from the 1960s onwards the sequences either side of the Irish Sea started to be considered separately: Clyde cairns were a western Scottish phenomenon (Henshall 1972; Scott 1969a) and court cairns were found only in Ireland (Corcoran 1960; de Valera 1960). In keeping with this regional divide, pottery types also became separated, with Beacharra bowls representative of early Neolithic western Scottish pottery,

In order to explore interaction and movement between early Neolithic communities a review of ceramic production on both sides of the north Irish Sea board was carried out, concentrating on assemblages from chambered tombs within 10km of the northern Irish Sea (see Table 10.1 and Figure 10.1).

Scotland Achnacreebeag Achnacree

Location Argyll and Bute Argyll and Bute

Map no 1 2

Type Passage grave Passage grave

Beacharra

Argyll and Bute

3

Clyde cairn

4

Clyde cairn

5 6 7 8 9 Map no 10 11 12 13 14 15

Clyde cairn Clyde cairn Clyde cairn Clyde cairn Clyde cairn Type Court cairn Court cairn Court cairn Court cairn Court cairn Court cairn

Blasthill

Argyll and Bute Dumfries and Cairnholy I Galloway Clachaig Arran Glecknabae Argyll and Bute Sliddery Water Arran Torlin Arran Ireland Location Audleystown Co. Down Ballyutoag Co. Antrim Ballymacaldrack Co. Antrim Ballymarlagh Co. Antrim Ballintaggart Co. Armagh Tamnyrankin Co. Derry Table 10.1. List of sites considered in this study



References Ritchie 1970 Smith 1872; 1885 Gray 1892; Scott 1964 This volume Piggott and Powell 1949 Bryce 1902a Bryce 1904 Bryce 1902a Bryce 1902a References Collins 1954 Herring 1938 Evans 1938 Davies 1949 Flanagan 1966; 1980; 1998 Herring 1941

Figure 10.1. The study area, with chambered tombs investigated as part of this study numbered



The assemblage from Scotland Both Carinated Bowl pottery and plain wares were in use from the early Neolithic onwards. At a later date, probably a few hundred years around 3650 BC, decorated and lugged wares were developed (Sheridan 2007). At Achnacree, Beacharra and Blasthill both early and later bowls are represented by early Carinated bowls, plain closed bowls, bipartite and shouldered vessels and lugged wares. Lugged vessels which appear in the region during the early Neolithic (c. 3800 – 3600 BC) are present in the assemblages from Sliddery Water, Torlin and Clachaig. In addition Clachaig includes a closed decorated bipartite bowl which, having affinities with pottery from Beacharra and Blasthill, is contemporary to these forms. Sheridan places the Achnacreebeag bipartite bowl at the beginning of the passage tomb tradition which she argues is representative of the very earliest Neolithic in this area (Sheridan 2000, 12). Whittle et al. (2011, 850-1), however, do not support this argument and suggest both the monument and the pottery from it are in-keeping with post-3800 BC dates for western Scotland more broadly. Subsequently this bowl is included here as an early form of British pottery but not the earliest form of pottery from Scotland. At Achnacree and Glecknabae developed carinated forms of plain and lugged wares reflect the transitional stages of ceramic technology, as the region shifted into the more progressive ceramic phases of the early Neolithic c. 3750 – 3600 BC (Sheridan 2003, 9).

The assemblages from Ireland In Ireland the sequence is slightly different from western Scotland as in the early Neolithic both the classic Carinated Bowl and slightly modified bowls were circulating at the same time (3950 – 3650 BC). There are dates from a charcoal sample associated with Carinated Bowl pottery from the Ballybriest Court Cairn, Co. Derry (3950-3530 cal BC: UB-534) and also at Ballymacdermot Co. Armagh (3800-3365 cal BC: UB-694), both at two standard deviations for each. The combination of forms is echoed in assemblages from Ballintaggart, Ballyutoag and Tamnyrankin. Within these groups are plain cups, globular bowls and plain perforated vessels represented at Ballyutoag and Ballymacaldrack, while closed forms which developed into the Beacharra bipartite tradition also appeared. Decorated contemporary forms were also in circulation displaying a variety of styles from perforated basket forms to bipartite bowls characteristic of Ballymacaldrack assemblage. The progression of potters moving towards creating more developed forms and distinctive vessel types by site rather than region begins in north-east Ireland between 3650 – 2900 BC. At this time smaller bowls appear in mortuary contexts (Sheridan 2003), along with a domestic repertoire associated with well-known settlement sites often characterised by the presence of Goodland bowls (not included in this analysis). In this analysis the small lugged bowls from the mortuary sites Audleystown, Ballymarlagh, and Tamnyrankin are discussed and appear in various types including perforated, decorated, and globular forms.

The individual assemblages from Scotland are small and range from one to six vessels from the sites in the study. Collectively the regional assemblage is made up of 21 pots ranging from very small to medium sized vessels. These size classifications are based on vessel capacities (litres) that were calculated using the ‘summed cylinders’ method (see Rice 2005, 221-2) and are grouped as follows; very small (0-2.5 l); small (2.5-5.5 l), medium (5.5-8.5 l); large 8.5-12.5 l); and very large (12.5 l +; also see Peterson 2003, 71) The larger assemblages at Beacharra and Blasthill consist of four to six vessels, whilst the smaller collections consisting of one or two vessels are found at Achnacreebeag, Achnacree, Clachaig, Glecknabae, Sliddery Water and Torlin.

The pottery from Ireland is comparable to that from Scotland with individual assemblages of between two to seven vessels. Again the pottery dimensions vary ranging from very small to very large vessels, with the Tamnyrankin collection displaying the full spectrum of pottery sizes. The Irish material is more abundant than that from western Scotland but several assemblages from wellknown sites are found in private collections and are unavailable for study, which reduced the amount of material available to view. The vessels were initially selected based on a 40% sherd representation of whole vessels and were limited to diagnostically early round based Carinated Bowls, modified and decorated forms that began to phase out c.3300 cal BC.

Due to the small quantity of pottery from Clyde cairns and other chambered tombs from the south-west of Scotland vessels of less than 40% of the whole vessel have been included in order to provide a comparable set of data for the Irish material. This includes the Achnacreebeag bowl and one of the Glecknabae pots. Although many sites have produced some form of pottery, these are frequently highly fragmentary or consist of just a single sherd or two, so they were excluded from the analysis. This included the chambered tombs of Brackley (Scott 1956) and Crarae (Scott 1961). Due to access limitations the assemblage from Bicker’s Houses, Bute (Bryce 1904), the Rothesay Wares from chambered cairn at Glenvoidean, Bute (Marshall and Taylor 1976), and the small assemblage from the Monamore chambered tomb on Arran (MacKie 1964) were not included.

Groups of seven, five and four vessels make up the larger assemblages from Tamnyrankin, Ballintaggart and Ballymacaldrack respectively. Three vessels from Audleystown and two in both assemblages from Ballymarlagh and Ballutoag represent the smaller groups. Traditional assemblage assessment A traditional analysis on the assemblages was carried out, most of which had been recorded previously. Since previous morphological investigations and quantifiable reports have been published that accurately catalogue most of the pottery discussed in this analysis (see Cowie 1993; Case 1961; Herity 1987), this element is not repeated here.



Scottish assemblage pottery dimensions 800

Wall Thickness (mm)

700 600

Rim Width (mm)

500 400

Carination Diameter (mm)

300 200

Diameter Rim (mm)

100 0

Height (mm)

Site, Type, Accession Figure 10.2. Pottery dimensions for the assemblages from Scotland Irish assemblage pottery dimensions 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Wall Thickness (mm) Rim Width (mm) Carination Diameter (mm) Diameter Rim (mm) Height (mm)

Site, Type, Accession Figure 10.3. Pottery dimensions for the assemblages from Ireland



Figure 10.4. The overall assemblage dimension comparison including the generic typology of each pot, a regional identification has also been provided, IR –indicating Ireland and SC indicating Scotland. The pot type is represented using initial abbreviations as follows: Carinated Bowl (CB), Plain cup (Cp), Decorated cup (Cd), Decorated bowl (DB), Developed carinated bowl with decoration (DCd), with lugs (DL), with decoration and lugs (DCld), Developed plain carinated bowl (DCp), Developed bowl of basket type with decoration (DBb), Plain bowl (PB) with perforation (PBp), Lugged plain/baggy bowl (LP) Measurements The Scottish material is limited as it is predominately made up of developed carinated pottery, with the exception of the large lugged pot from Beacharra and the bowls from Cairnholy. The vessels from Cairnholy are characteristically large as these are probably early Neolithic in date which fits with the accepted trend for traditional Carinated Bowl (Gibson 2002, 70-71). The Irish pots are comparatively big with assemblages from Ballintaggart and Tamnyrankin containing a higher proportion of the Carinated and shouldered bowls, which are naturally larger-sized vessels. This may seem unbalanced in terms of the typologies represented in the sites selected but this is not unusual and both Scotland and Ireland fit the stylistic trend of mortuary vessels associated with the respective Clyde and court monuments (see Figures 10.2-3 which shows the dimensions of the pottery from Scotland and Ireland).

of 100mm - 200mm. This means that to increase capacity the vessels were expanded at the carination and balanced by widening the rim, thus giving a wider diameter at both these points, which also occurs at Ballintaggart, Tamnyrankin, and Cairnholy; these are predominantly Carinated and shouldered bowls. It is also possible to see that in general large, medium and small vessels all kept to a standard in terms of wall thickness and rim width, with the exception of the globular bowls at Tamnyrankin, Ballintaggart and Beacharra; the trend was to have large rim widths in comparison to wall thickness. Where rims are true the widths also tend to be around 10% of the vessel height (see Table 10.2). Weights Weights were taken of whole vessels (this includes the sherds of whole but fragmented vessels) reconstructed vessels and pots where portions of the vessel were missing. Generally large vessels are heavier than small vessels with the exception of globular bowls, which tend to be made from dense fabrics and have greater wall thicknesses than their more decorative and finely made counterparts. Overall due to the eclectic mix of pottery in various states of preservation weights do not attribute a great deal to this analysis but are important to site-specific analyses of large assemblages (see PCRG 2010 and Fig. 10.5).

Figure 10.4 clearly shows that in Ireland larger vessels were manufactured and deposited in court tombs whilst in Scotland more developed smaller vessels were selected for deposition in Clyde monuments. The figure also indicates that the vessel heights (with the exception of the cups from Tamnyrankin and Ballymarlagh, the fragmented vessels at Achnacree and Glecknabae) are generally within a range



Site

Vessel Height (mm)

Rim Width (mm)

Ballymarlagh Ballymarlagh Ballintaggart Ballintaggart Ballintaggart Ballintaggart Ballintaggart Ballintaggart Ballintaggart Ballymacaldrack Ballymacaldrack Ballymacaldrack Ballymacaldrack Ballyutoag Ballyutoag Audleystown Audleystown Tamnyrankin Tamnyrankin Tamnyrankin Tamnyrankin Tamnyrankin Achnacree Achnacree Achnacreebeag Beacharra Beacharra Beacharra Beacharra Beacharra Beacharra Blasthill Blasthill Blasthill Cairnholy Cairnholy Clachaig Clachaig Glecknabae Sliddery Water Torlin

55 150 160 160 181 120 130 160 180 110 80 170 130 95 140 65 116 200 165 114 75 65 85 104 92 92 170 107 114 109 95 90 110 95 155 115 82 104 80 111 120

3.5 6 8 8 10 5 5 5 12 6 5 5 5 6.5 10 5 5 12 20 5 4 2.5 16 14 12 4 27.5 10 8 6 3 10 9 7 12 9.5 3 7 12.5 9 6.5

Capacities The assemblages follow a general trend with the Irish assemblage containing more of the Carinated Bowl and shouldered bowls that are traditionally larger than most developed bowls of the Beacharra style. The classification followed here is after Peterson (2003), which reflects the diversity of pottery found along the western coast of Britain and its variation in size. What is surprising is that the Carinated Bowls from Cairnholy and the large lugged vessel from Beacharra fall within the small to medium category. However, it should still not be underestimated that these are relatively large vessels with capacities that could be used to cook and serve several people if that were the intention. For example the Beacharra lugged bowl has a capacity of 7 litres that could serve 18-20 people an average bowl of soup (based on a 330ml portion size). In addition to this the cups and bowls which fall within the very small category tend to have capacities which lend themselves to such a portion size, for example the 380ml cup at Ballymacaldrack and 500ml bowl at Achnacree. What is significant is that in Ireland the early vessels are much larger. In contrast to the vessels from Scotland where the earliest forms of Carinated Bowls are smaller the developed bowls also follow this trend. Therefore, with the exclusion of cups which circulated alongside the Carinated Bowl tradition, smaller developed forms appear later in the sequence. In Ireland, with the exception of the large perforated lugged bowl from Tamnyrankin, we do see a significant reduction in vessel size with the introduction of developed carinated bowls, in particular decorated ‘Beacharra’ type pottery: a good example of this is the pot from Ballymarlagh (A23660).

% Of Rim Width to Vessel Height 6.3 4 5 5 5.2 4.1 3.8 3.1 6.6 5.45 6.52 3 3.8 6.8 7 7.6 4.3 6 12 4.3 5.3 3.8 18.8 13.4 13 4.3 16 9.3 7 5 3.1 11.1 8.1 7.3 7.7 8.2 3.6 6.7 15.6 8.1 5.4

Table 10.2. Table showing the rim width, to vessel height ratio. Vessels with a ratio greater than 10% have been highlighted



Figure 10.5. Weight in grams of the pottery from the overall assemblage, variation occurs due to several variables including fragmented vessels and reconstructions. The only true weights are from whole pots at Achnacree, Blasthill, Clachaig, Beacharra, and Tamnyrankin (these are highlighted in darker grey)

Small 2.75-5.5L 5%

Medium 5.75-8.5L 5%

Very small 0 - 2.5L 90% Figure 10.6. Percentages of vessel size/capacities in the assemblages from Scotland



Large 8.75-12.5L Very large 12.75+ 5% 4% Medium 5.75-8.5L 23%

Very small 0 - 2.5L 45%

Small 2.75-5.5L 23% Figure 10.7. Percentages of vessel size/capacities found in the assemblages from Ireland Fabric families in the northern Irish Sea zone A biographic approach will now be considered in order to see what this can add to our understanding of this material. In the past archaeologists and ethnographers have systematically investigated large ceramic assemblages in attempts to identify the clay resources exploited by potters in prehistory. Although this has proved successful in some areas, the gabbroic clays of Glastonbury wares are probably the best sourced British example: in most cases the results of clay sourcing have not been definitive and as such not very useful. This is often due to the alluvial clays that most potters in Britain and Ireland would have utilized and subsequently mixed with various tempers including flints, shell, and rocks that were likely to have been brought in from other locations. Sheridan (1989) carried out a petrological investigation of Irish Neolithic pottery and found that no specific site could be identified as a clay resource for any of the vessels from the 11 sites selected for the analysis. However it was concluded that pottery for both domestic and mortuary use was manufactured from local clays (Sheridan 1989, 126).

Having ascertained that the pottery fabrics from these assemblages were all derived from alluvial and boulder clays, the geological nature of each monument within a 3km radius was considered, as this was a good starting point from which to identify available clay resources. Where fabric resources could not be identified the search area was widened to identify the maximum distance that potters would have travelled for clay and additional inclusions. This was generally only necessary where unusual tempers (not present in the local geology) were present in the fabric. In general all the pottery could have been manufactured from clays available within 1km of the chambered tomb from where each was deposited. The results proved that most clay deposits could be sourced within 2km of the monuments at Achnacree, Achnacreebeag and Cairnholy and some much closer within 0.3km Blasthill, Clachaig, Glecknabae, Torlin and Sliddery Water. In Scotland this was the case for each site with the majority of locations having two or three clay resources within a 5km radius. The diversity of bedrock geology and glacial drift providing alluvial resources of various mineral elements supports the identification of granite and feldspar in the assemblage from Glecknabae, and small flakes of pyrite in the pottery from Achnacree and Torlin. The identification of certain minerals in some but not all of the pots from one assemblage at Glecknabae (NMS X.EO 274 & 275), Blasthill (BHT-P01 -05) and Clachaig (NMS X.EO 226 & 227) shows that multiple clay resources were being utilised by potters.

Scotland The natural forms of bedrock in south-west Scotland are predominantly volcanic with granite, olivine, and rhyolitic outcrops occurring in abundance. In addition, the region is also rich in sedimentary rock forms including plentiful amounts of conglomerate, limestone and sandstone. During the last Holocene the melting of ice caused glacial drifts to occur, which led to the forming of floodplains and the scarring of surface rock, leaving behind deep cavities. As the ice moved, the superficial deposits that sat above and within these voids produced a plethora of alluvial clay resources, which were almost certainly exploited by the manufacturers of Neolithic pottery in the region, as recently concluded in the petrology for the report of the Blasthill assemblage (Williams this volume).

Ireland In Ireland the same tradition of local clay procurement was identified with all the sites having access to abundant alluvial clays resources within less than 1km from the monument. In addition some of the Irish potters would have been able to exploit additional clay resources that were rich in naturally-occurring temper materials. Within 5km outcrops of Lough Neagh clays were identified close to the court tombs of Tamnyrakin, Ballintaggart and



Ballyutoag and may also have been exploited by the potters if required.

There were a wide variety of fabric groups in both western Scotland and north-east Ireland. These results were expected as previous large-scale regional investigations have reflected this trend (see Case 1961; Herity 1982, 14855; Herity 1987; Peterson 2003 181-202), as have localized projects like that at Barnhouse, Orkney (Jones and Richards 2005; Jones 2005; 261-86). For example where there are very small percentages for certain fabric types such as Group 11 where only the lugged bowl from Audleystown is represented, this is probably not typical of the fabric nor the region, but due to the limited amount of pottery available from that site included in this analysis. However, larger assemblages with a lot of variation in form such as Tamnyrankin (Group 1, 8, 12 and 13) and Ballymacaldrack (Group 2, 5, 7 and 8) reflect a wide range of fabric types being selected during the monument’s use. Ballintaggart (Groups 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6) seems to have a great deal of variation in fabric selection but these fabrics are found in groups that are made up specifically of ‘plain’ carinated pottery. On the other hand the Scottish fabrics appear less versatile but wide-ranging. Thus there is a general pattern from north to south that reflects a shared understanding of fabric traditions. For example seven of the decorated vessels within the Scottish assemblage, including bipartite bowls, are found in Group 2, 8, 13 and 14 with plain Carinated Bowls in Group 6 and 12 and the plain lugged bowls from Arran in Group 6 and 8.

However, the regional assemblages do differ when we look at the distance travelled to obtain additional temper material. In Ireland pottery does have the use of flint as an inclusion and its availability in abundance was very different to that of Scotland. Flint was commonly used as an inclusion in many assemblages from Ireland, including at Audleystown (ATC46), Ballintaggart (A23650-53 and A23655-56), Ballymarlagh (A23661), Ballymacaldrack (A637.1935), and Tamnyrankin (A23657). This was most likely only obtained from outcrops containing flint in northern Antrim. Whether this was intentionally collected specifically at the time the pots were manufactured, already on site or brought in through exchange cannot be demonstrated, but this does not alter the fact that at sites such as Audleystown, Ballintaggart, Ballymacaldrack and Tamnyrankin, an area greater than 5km was known and utilised. Summary The results show that in general the Neolithic potters of western Scotland preferred to utilize local clay resources and were unlikely to travel beyond 10km for additional temper material. In the two examples where this was not the case the results indicate that significant distances may have been travelled in order to procure additional inclusions. The results for Ireland indicate that a wider range of resources were exploited and potters or procurers of clay were prepared to travel much greater distances for temper materials with the manufactures of the pottery from the County Down sites travelling up to 80 kilometres. Perhaps the use of flint in the Irish pottery was a way of potters or communities defining themselves, as beach flint could be used by the potters from Scotland, particularly around southern Kintyre but it was not selected. A much wider analysis of the fragmented Scottish assemblages not examined for this investigation would emphasise this point more accurately or indeed prove otherwise, but it is certainly worthy of further investigation.

In summary, there are lots of different recipes for pots in both Ireland and Scotland (Fig. 10.9). Every site has pots made from different recipes; in fact this is typical. There does not appear to be a standardised recipe for pottery manufacture, which if you consider the wide range of clays available locally is perhaps not surprising. Manufacturing processes As the pottery from these sites is found across a wide area and it is also not precisely defined chronologically, a detailed account of the potters who made these funerary vessels is difficult. In addition, as British Neolithic pottery has proved to be fairly standardised in its form and appearance, the traces of individual potters are unlikely to be revealed in the context of this analysis. Another very important consideration is not to assume that one potter was responsible for the production of one pot, in fact several people may have been involved in the manufacturing process (Rice 2010). This is largely because clay is a very malleable material, forgiving of mistakes and even in a plastic (wet) state can be passed around easily from one person to the next, with various techniques potentially being applied by various people (Colbeck 1983, 19-68; Müller and Peterson 2015). It is even possible that mistakes were rectified by more experienced potters, wiping away all traces of the original flaws and consequently the original potter’s identity (Budden and Sofaer 2009, 8). Regardless of this, it is possible to ascertain how many phases of construction were needed in order to create each vessel.

Object manufacture: making the recipe Following the procedures advised for the classification of prehistoric fabrics (PCRG 2010), 15 fabric groups were identified in use across the whole of the study area (see Appendix 9). The pottery traditions were classified by the most abundant inclusions present in the matrix. Some pottery incorporates unusual additions within the fabric, such as the fragments of granite in pots from Ballintaggart, suggesting each site exploited its own localised clay resource. However, these inclusions are present in low overall percentages and have not been deemed sufficient enough to classify as a grouping. Furthermore, it cannot be ascertained whether these small amounts of inclusions are either intentional additions or naturally occurring elements present in certain alluvial clay resources, created during glacial activity (Williams this volume). In these cases the overall recipe was therefore similar but the precise fabric makeup was altered according to requirements. As a result the most prominent inclusions that make up the fabrics were used to identify specific clay recipes. The results and classifications are presented in Figure 10.8.

Phases of construction Phases have been identified by categorising the steps that were followed in manufacture prior to any surface treatment or decoration.



Fabric groups in SW Scotland

9%

5%

14% Group 2

14%

18%

Group 6 Group 8 Group 12

18%

Group 13

22%

Group 14 Group 15

Fabric groups NE Ireland

Group 1

4%

4% 4%

Group 2

14%

Group 3

9% 14%

4%

Group 4 Group 5 Group 6

13%

13% 4%

4%

9%

4%

Group 7 Group 8 Group 9 Group 10 Group 11 Group 12 Group 13

Figure 10.8. Percentage distribution of fabric groups in the assemblages from Scotland (above) and Ireland (below)



Fabric traditions in SW Scotland and NE Ireland combined

Group 1

2%

5% 2%

Group 2

7%

Group 3

15%

12%

Group 4 Group 5

2% 5%

7%

2%

2% 5%

Group 6 Group 7 Group 8 Group 9

20%

12%

2%

Group 10 Group 11 Group 12 Group 13 Group 14 Group 15

Figure 10.9. Overall percentage distribution of fabric groups from the combined contact zone assemblage



Phase 1. Phase 1 pots are typically globular bowls, cups or pinch pots without any additional features. These were made from the base to the rim in one phase. These pots are found within the Scottish assemblage at Achnacree,

Beacharra, Blasthill, and within the Irish assemblage at Ballymarlagh, Ballymacaldrack, Audleystown, and Tamnyrankin.

Figure 10.10. Phase one vessels are all cups and bowls shown in the basic undecorated form (a) Tamnyrankin (after Herring 1941 fig.2, 43), (b) Ballymarlagh (after Davies 1949), (c) Ballintaggart (d) Audleystown (after Collins 1954, 24), (e) Ballymacaldrack (after Evans 1938, fig.4, 70), and (f) Beacharra (after Henshall 1972, 302)



Figure 10.11. Phase one vessels showing how the application of decoration can alter the appearance of the pottery as it is transformed from appearing plain and simple to more complex after decorative treatments are applied (a) Tamnyrankin (after Herring 1941 fig.2, 43) (b) Ballymarlagh (after Davies 1949), (c) Ballintaggart (d) Audleystown (after Collins 1954, 24), (e) Ballymacaldrack (after Evans 1938 fig.4, 70) and (f) Beacharra (after Henshall 1972, 302)



Phase 2. Phase 2 pots are simple forms with the addition of singular or multiple perforations; in some cases lugs or nodules have been added. These pots do not have distinctive rims, which is why they have been allocated to a two-phase and not a three-phase manufacturing phase. These pots are found in the Irish assemblage at

Ballintaggart, Ballymacaldrack, and Tamnyrankin. Similarly plain bowls (globular) with defined rims will also fall into this category as only two phases have been followed in the construction; these pots are found at Blasthill in Scotland.

Figure 10.12. Phase two vessels in the basic form (a) from Blasthill (b) from Tamnyrankin (after Herring 1941); (c) from Ballymacaldrack (after Evans 1938 fig.4, 70) shows the flint scattered surface prior to (left) and after decoration (right), the perforations on this vessel are included as stage two of phase two



Phase 3. Phase 3 vessels are typical of developed globular and lugged vessels with rims. Typically the bottom and body are formed, with the addition of a rim, nodules or lugs found at Beacharra, Blasthill, Clachaig, Sliddery Waters and Torlin within the Scottish assemblage. In Ireland the

only phase 3 pot is found at Ballymacaldrack; it is a basketshaped bowl with perforations and a bodice added to it. The appearance of this bowl is very different to the Scottish material but it does not affect the phasing.

Figure 10.13. Phase three vessels prior to decoration. (Top left to right), Sliddery Water, Clachaig, Torlin (after Henshall 1972, 304-305), Ballymacaldrack (after Evans 1938 Fig.4, 70). (Centre left to right) Blasthill, Blasthill, Beacharra. (Bottom left right) Achnacreebeag (after Ritchie 1970 fig. 3, 40), Beacharra, Clachaig (after Henshall 1972, 305)



Figure 10.14. Phase three vessels with decoration (top left to right), Sliddery Water, Clachaig, Torlin (after Henshall 1972, 304-305), (centre left to right) Blasthill, Blasthill, Beacharra (bottom left to right) Achnacreebeag (after Ritchie 1970 fig. 3, 40), Beacharra, Clachaig



Phase 4. Phase 4 vessels are typically Carinated, shouldered and bipartite bowls with the exception of the small lugged bowl at Audleystown. These vessels are built from the bottom to body in one phase, with the carination that is a 4-5mm ledge being defined within phase 2. Phase 3 is the construction of the shoulder and neck and finally in phase 4 the rim is added and shaped. These vessels make

up the majority of the vessels and are found at Achnacree, Achnacreebeag, Beacharra, Blasthill, Cairnholy, Clachaig, and Glecknabae from Scotland and in Ireland at Ballymarlagh, Ballintaggart, Ballyutoag and Audleystown. At Audleystown the pot has been built in the same phased process but replaces a carination with five small upturned lugs.

Figure 10.15. Phase four vessels: Carinated and shouldered bowls (undecorated) Right to left from top 6 Ballintaggart. Bottom row right to left Cairnholy I (after Henshall 1972, 307)



Figure 10.16. Phase four vessels continued: shouldered and the smaller bipartite carinated bowls include decoration as does the carination on the shouldered bowl from Tamnyrankin. Top row right to left. Ballyutoag (after Herring 1938), Tamnyrankin; second row, Tamnyrankin (Herring 1941), Ballyutaog (after Herring 1938) third row left and directly below, Beacharra with and without decoration (after Henshall 1972, 302), bottom left Ballyutoag (after Herring 1938)



Figure 10.17. Phase four continued: from Achnacree (after Henshall 1972, 303), Glecknabae (after Henshall 1972, 306), Glecknabae (after Henshall 1972, 306), Beacharra (after Henshall 1972, 302) and Audleystown (after Collins 1954, 22) with the application of decoration along the rim

Figure 10.18. Phase five: from Achnacree, Achnacree (after Henshall 1972), Tamnyrankin (after Herring 1941 fig.4, 36) and Ballymarlagh (after Davies 1949) including decoration and perforated lugs on the Irish vessels



Phase 5. Phase 5 pots follow the same process as phase 4 vessels but in addition have perforated lugs/handles added to the characteristic body of the carinated and shouldered bowl forms. This phase is found on fluted lugged bowls from Achnacree from Scotland and at Ballymarlagh and Tamnyrakin in Ireland.

and Ireland was making pottery which ended up in a mortuary context in four phases. In Scotland making pottery in three phases was practiced more widely than in Ireland, while in Ireland making pottery in two phases was more common than in Scotland. Overall the phases are common in pottery belonging to the same forms on both sides of the contact zone, which reflects a certain amount of shared knowledge on potting. This study would need to be expanded to see whether this preference for phasing is replicated at domestic sites.

Summary Overall the trend for phased pottery manufacture is reflected in fairly equal proportions across all the sites (see Figs 10.19-21). The most common practice in Scotland

Phases of construction in SW Scotland Phase 5

Phase 1 Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

Figure 10.19. Chart showing the results of phased construction methods of the assemblage from Scotland

Phases of construction in NE Ireland Phase 5 Phase 1

Phase 2 Phase 4 Phase 3

Figure 10.20. Charts showing the results of phased construction methods of the assemblage from Ireland



Phases of construction combined Phase 5

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 4 Phase 3

Figure 10.21. Charts showing the results of phased construction methods of the combined assemblages from Scotland and Ireland Surface treatments and decoration Similar to the results of the fabric analysis, surface treatments and decoration are as diverse as the clays from which the pots are made. Again emphasis must be placed on the impressionable nature of clay in its plastic state (before firing) when many objects can be used to impress, incise, stab and drag the clay altering the formed pot.

internally which would have added extra strength and made them less porous. On further inspection these pots and the noduled pot from Blasthill all have a greasy residue internally that may be the result of cooking processes: recent research indicates that it is also likely that the internal surfaces of pottery may have been treated with animal fats or dairy products in order to waterproof the vessel or may have become waterproofed as a result of heating during brewing processes (Pollard and Heron 2008, 396). Pottery in this surface treatment category, as well as showing evidence for use, also has the highest percentage of grain and grass impressions: this has been linked with identifying the consumption of certain foods and brewing (Dineley and Dineley 2000; Jones et al. 2005) which in turn has aided our interpretation of agricultural practices.

Surface treatments. Various surface treatments have been applied to the pottery in both the assemblages from Scotland and Ireland. As expected a large proportion of the pottery has been burnished which was common practice in the early Neolithic and is well represented within the assemblage from Ballintaggart. This treatment functioned in two ways; firstly it made a pot look appealing in terms of its smoothed shiny surface and it also added strength to the vessel and made it less porous (Gibson 2002, 65).

Decoration The assemblage from Scotland and Ireland shows a great deal of diversity in the range of decorative techniques. Carinated Bowls in general do not display any form of impressed or scored decoration. Whilst some regard fluted vessels, which are often carinated in form, as a type of decoration, it is also thought that like burnishing, fluting is a treatment that is related to strengthening the clay joins on a pot’s surface and making the vessel less porous. Fluted vessels present in this assemblage are found on the fine lugged pots from Achnacree and have been described as decorated developed carinated bowls (see Henshall 1972, 101 and Cowie 1993, 16).

Overall burnishing was the predominant surface treatment in combination with various other treatments including grain impressions and scoring decoration. Where more detailed decoration such as twisted cord impression was added, burnishing was not as prevalent. The pottery was more likely to be polished or smoothed internally and externally, leaving traces of this action on the pottery surface: a good example of this is shown on pot 5 at Blasthill. Some of the pottery with evidence of secondary heat processes including the lugged bowl from Clachaig, Torlin and Sliddery Water has evidence of additional polishing



Finishing techniques in SW Scotland Burnished and scored

5% 5%

Burnished with impressed rim

15%

10%

Polished and smoothed

5%

20%

Smoothed

10%

Smoothed and fluted

10%

20%

Polished with stab and drag Smoothed and twisted cord Burnished, cord impressed and semiperforated

Figure 10.22. The varied surface treatments applied to the pottery within the assemblage from Scotland

Finishing techniques in NE Ireland Burnished

10%

Burnished and scored

5%

Burnished and perforated (1)

5% 47%

Burnished, scored and perforated (+1)

18% 5%

Burnished grain/grass impressed

5% 5%

Burnished with twisted cord Polish, smooth and grain/grass impression Polished/decorated and perforated (+1)

Figure 10.23. The varied surface treatments applied to the pottery within the assemblage from Ireland The most common forms of decoration include scoring which appears in a variety of forms including arched motifs at Beacharra, straight lines at Ballymacaldrack and Ballymarlagh and can be found applied to the whole of the globular bowl at Audleystown facing different directions giving the impression of the bowl spinning, or deeply cut as at Blasthill. This form of decoration is applied prior to

firing when the clay is in a plastic (semi-wet) state and is most common on the body and or rim of a pot. The stab and drag technique involves a tool being stabbed into clay in its plastic state and dragged to create a drawn out puncture (Gibson 2002, 58). This is found on the cup at Beacharra and is a very tactile and exquisite to touch. It



has been applied in a decreasing motion from the rim down to the centre of the body and so the cup has a different appearance with each turn. Puncturing is applied prior to firing and is a technique which is often present on around 20% of a vessels surface: it is most likely to be found on the rim, shoulder and carination. This effect is most clearly displayed at Clachaig, although the lugged pot at Beacharra has this applied to the rim.

The cord allows for greater diversity in decorative motifs but also allows the potter to cover a wider area of the vessel with more accuracy: an excellent example of this is found at Blasthill but is also present on the rim of the Beacharra lugged bowl and in linear form at Clachaig. This technique can be used to create large concentric arched patterns, straight lines or small scalloped sequences. It is most likely to be found in small patterns on upper portions of the base and body increasing in size along the carination and shoulders. It is often used in conjunction with the puncture technique present at Clachaig and on the large perforated lugged vessel at Tamnyrankin.

Cord impressed vessels are less common in the early Neolithic but it is a technique that becomes more widely practiced from c.3600 BC (Gibson and Woods 1997, 65).

Figure 10.23. The diversity in decorative styles applicable to the various forms of pottery within the assemblage from SW Scotland

Figure 10.24. The diversity in decorative styles applicable to the various forms of pottery within the assemblage from NE Ireland



Figure 10.25. The diversity in decorative styles applicable to the various forms of pottery within the assemblage from both SW Scotland and NE Ireland The technique of impressing with a blunt tool is more likely to be found on the rim or carination of a vessel. It is used modestly and is subtle in its appearance; this is shown on the shouldered bowl at Ballintaggart, the rim of Tamnyrankin and Glecknabae. Its use on otherwise plainshouldered bowls and carinated bowls indicates that this may be an early form of decoration from which decorative techniques developed.

nevertheless for giving the last date for the use of a pot prior to its deposition. In the assemblages considered here one pot has a radiocarbon date from charred residues found within the vessel: this is whole pot found in the lateral chamber at Blasthill. This indicates that sometime between 3630-3360 cal BC the Blasthill bowl was used for cooking; this was also indicated by secondary oxidisation to the base. The pot was then placed in the lateral chamber and covered, presumably a short time after it was last used for cooking. This provides a starting point for understanding the fragmentation and deposition of the pottery in this assemblage.

Summary Overall the assemblages follow a fairly even split between decorated and undecorated wares. The assemblage from Ireland is slightly biased in that the pottery from Ballintaggart belongs to the earliest form of Carinated Bowl tradition including plain bowls, which gives a higher percentage of undecorated forms. The most decorated of the assemblages are found at Beacharra and Tamnyrankin where the full range of decorative techniques can be found. SW Scotland NE Ireland Combined

Decorated 57%

Undecorated 43%

36%

64%

53%

47%

The fragmentation of the vessels examined here was that each pot has been fragmented in such a way that the smaller sherds always came from the base, the largest sherds from the neck and rim, whilst the body sherds were either the same, or slightly smaller, than the rim sherds and were all angular. This could be an indication that the pottery was fragmented intentionally and was struck at the base or lowest part of the body creating a wave of percussion from impact, but equally, it could be the result of consistent failure through heat damage. The distribution of pottery which was intentionally broken and remained in situ with identifiable contents was most apparent at Ballymacaldrack were all four vessels were found fragmented in the chamber containing charcoal and flint deposits. This was also noted in the lugged bowls at Torlin, Silddery and Clachaig. Other vessels had been smashed and scattered, although in instances where the pottery was identified within various stratified contexts this may be the result of robbing, or intentional movement.

Table 10.3. The distribution of plain and decorated pottery from the assemblages in Scotland, Ireland, and the overall combined assemblage Fragmentation and deposition Once a pot has been made and fired, it is then available for use. It is possible to comment on the use of individual pots through chemical lipid analysis to identify remnants of foodstuffs: this has proved successful, for example, with the Grooved Ware assemblage from Barnhouse in Orkney (Jones and Richards 2003). What this method cannot tell us, however, is how long each pot was in use. Any remaining residues on the pot’s surface are useful

Within this assemblage, then, there is evidence that whole vessels were deposited in chambers which were often subsequently found fragmented. In addition to this, fragmented vessels are found throughout the architecture of the monument, often mixed with other fragmented pottery which have been intentionally broken at the base.



The pottery can be found in one location such as the forecourt or chambers or a combination of both.

France (Sheridan 1995; 2000; 2003; 2004). This approach has seen a recent, sustained critique from the Gathering Time team (Whittle et al. 2011, 850-3) who do not support Sheridan’s claims of an early, Castellic origin. This research supports Whittle et al.’s arguments. First, the Achnacreebeag bowl is made from a fabric which is entirely typical of the region. It is fine-grained with a sparse amount of natural quartz present in the matrix. It is grouped into group 13 along with three other vessels, and it does not does not stand out from other fabrics in Scotland and Ireland, including the fabric of the decorated bipartite bowl from Blasthill. Although the smooth carination of the Achnacreebeag bowl can be paralleled with the Vierville bowl, the rim design very different. The rim is limited in its sherd representation but if the reconstruction is correct it is not unlike the rim of the globular Blasthill bowl. Likewise the arched motif is very similar to the Vierville bowl, yet arched decoration is present on three other bowls from Scotland (Beacharra and Blasthill) none of which are exactly the same which again shows this element is not unusual in a western Scottish context (also noted by Whittle et al. 2011, 851 who point to this motif’s wider currency in Britain and Ireland). In addition the application of a scored decorative technique is not uncommon on early Neolithic pottery and is found at Ballymacaldrack (A637.1935). Without the decoration the Achnacreebeag bowl has closer resemblance to the construction method of the Blasthill bowl and shares similar elements in form with the Beacharra and Clachaig vessels. Without a sound chronological date for the Achnacreebeag bowl, and with no additional evidence of provenance, we suggest that it is entirely typical of the Scottish material.

Discussion and conclusion: investigating interactions across the Irish Sea The biographical analysis of pottery from Clyde cairns and court tombs in south-west Scotland and north-east Ireland has revealed that there were considerable similarities in the ways in which potters were making their ceramics either side of the Irish Sea. Although there are obvious stylistic differences between the Irish and Scottish assemblages, this new approach has investigated the phases of construction in order to emphasize common manufacturing techniques. While we know that potters on both sides of the Irish Sea were using local materials, there now seems to be significant evidence that Neolithic potting techniques developed via the sharing of knowledge across this broad area. This is in line with Whittle et al.’s (2011) recent Bayesian modelling and Cleal’s (2004) review of early Neolithic pottery in southern England which suggests that Neolithic communities were initially bound by strict manufacture methods for new technologies that came over from the continent. The longer term trajectories either side of the Irish Sea, however, show important differences. A wider range of pottery was manufactured in Ireland than in Scotland where more specific designs remained in place. This is suggestive of regionally-specific stylistic practices becoming dominant. It is also worth commenting in more detail here on the pot from Achnacreebeag, which Sheridan has repeatedly argued is evidence for the introduction of the Neolithic (including pottery techniques) into western Scotland from



Chapter 11. Kintyre in a broader context: discussion and conclusions Vicki Cummings and Gary Robinson Introduction This final chapter returns to the original research question regarding the nature of social interaction between communities living in Kintyre in prehistory with the wider world. In particular fluctuating relations with western Scotland as well as eastern Ireland will be highlighted. It will be suggested that there were periods when people were in contact with other communities both in western Scotland and eastern Ireland, but there also appear to have been times when these distant relationships were less important, certainly in terms of how they were expressed materially or architecturally. This ebb and flow of connections with other people and other places may have related to periods of social tension or instability, or the reassertion of kin or familial ties or other networks of relations.

complex society (Warren 2005a and see Sassaman 2004). The most recent contribution to this debate supports the argument that the Oronsay sites were used only intermittently by one or more groups who utilised the wider area (Wicks et al. 2014), although this is a debate that is likely to continue as more evidence comes to light. In terms of understanding social interactions between Mesolithic communities in Kintyre and the wider world, the poorly-recorded evidence from Campbeltown has not figured in debates in decades, although older accounts refer to interactions between western Scotland and eastern Ireland in particular (McCallien and Lacaille 1941). More recently, the clear stylistic differences in lithics either side of the Irish Sea has been seen as evidence of different technical trajectories, with late Mesolithic western Scotland being part of a wider narrow blade, microlithic tradition, while north-east Ireland is characterised by the absence of microliths and the presence on Bann flakes in the same period (Warren 2005b; Woodman 2004). The most recent account by Alan Saville (2004) summarised how archaeologists understood social interaction across the Irish Sea a decade ago:

Mesolithic interactions Prior to the Southern Kintyre Project, little recent work had been conducted on the Mesolithic of the area. This was not due to an absence of material from this period, but rather the timing of the discoveries of Mesolithic finds. It is clear that during developments in Campbeltown in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries substantial amounts of Mesolithic material were recovered. It seems that the old raised beach around Campbeltown Bay saw repeated Mesolithic occupation, but the recovery of this material predated modern excavation techniques and unfortunately much of the archaeology was not recorded properly. We have been left only with unstratified lithic material to consider. While more recent projects have investigated the Mesolithic of western Scotland, they have focussed on other parts of western Scotland, notably Islay (Mithen 2000), Oban (Bonsall 1997) and Oronsay (Mellars 1987). All of these areas have produced rich and varied assemblages of Mesolithic material, in some instances associated with middens.

‘a real social barrier of some kind existed, either in terms of there being absolutely no contact between the two zones, which would be very hard to believe since it does not appear the case at any subsequent period, or, perhaps more likely, in terms of separately established social systems with mutually exclusive material culture. If so, a rather extraordinary regional difference of population group, one which would have persisted for a millennium or more in the Later Mesolithic, is indicated.’ (Saville 2003, 347, our emphasis). We have emphasised here our preferred interpretation, which is that people were in contact, but materially were using different styles of lithic. This could relate to established ways of making things (the chaîne opératoire at its broadest level) or genuine differences in social identity. It is significant that the range of mammals available for hunters either side of the Irish Sea were different with red deer, roe deer, wild pig and aurochs available in Britain, but only wild pig found in Ireland. This would certainly have affected the types of material culture being produced, but probably had more profound effects, including mobility strategies, social identity and belief systems.

Western Scotland in general has seen considerable research into the Mesolithic period and part of this research has investigated social interaction, in particular in relation to residential and regional mobility in the late Mesolithic. A debate surrounding these issues stems from the discovery and excavation of several large shell midden sites on Oronsay, a small island to the south of Colonsay in the Inner Hebrides. Several authors have suggested that these middens were the result of long-term, permanent occupation on this small island (Mellars 1987; Richards and Mellars 1998), while others have argued that these islands were occupied only seasonally, and would have been part of a seasonal round or range (Mithen 2000; Mithen and Finlayson 1991). This can be seen as fitting in with wider debates relating to whether Mesolithic societies in Britain could be considered ‘complex’, of which sedentism is considered a key defining element of a

The present project has added to our knowledge of the late Mesolithic of Kintyre by the discovery and excavation of two sites, one small coastal site at Macharioch (discovered by Angus Martin) and another, larger occupation site at Machribeg. The lithics from these two sites are quite different from the Campbeltown assemblages, suggesting



that sites around Southend are of a different date or were created by a different community. Macharioch is the remains of a small-scale occupation which appears to have been located in an active dune system. There is evidence for the working of both flint and quartz, using both single platform and bipolar reduction techniques. Both blades and flakes were produced but very few artefacts were found and no microliths: a small number of microburins may be indicative of some microlith manufacture. What is unusual about this site at Macharioch was the discovery of the remains of a lightweight structure of some sort. This structure is undated, but its association with the Mesolithic lithic assemblage does suggest the two were contemporary. In contrast, a larger assemblage was recovered from Machribeg, clearly clustering in two discrete areas of the field. This assemblage may be the remains of an occupation site, and it produced a number of microliths and microburins. Again there was evidence for single platform cores and some bipolar working using a predominately blade-based technology. A smaller cluster in the next field at Machribeg may be another occupation site.

that if there was the movement of material culture in the Mesolithic it was either in extremely small quantities (token pieces) or was organic so does not survive in the archaeological record (and see Kador 2007). While we have found new sites dating to the Mesolithic, it is clear that much more work is required if we are to further understand the nature of interaction between people either side of the Irish Sea in the late Mesolithic. First, a project on the scale of the Southern Hebrides Project (Mithen 2000) would need to be instigated in order to locate and then excavate more Mesolithic sites in Kintyre. Only sites with dateable deposits and/or features would enable us to explore the question of interactions with Ireland in any detail. The potential for furthering understanding of this issue would be via the chemical analysis of flint which would enable us to comment on the source of tertiary flint artefacts: it may be the case that there is more movement of flint than we can currently identify via the cortical pieces alone. Finally, if we were able to find a site with organic preservation this might give us insight into social identity as expressed through non-lithic material culture, although comparable material would also be required from eastern Ireland.

These new lithic assemblages reinforce Saville’s comments above because both sets of material culture are technologically in-keeping with lithics found in western Scotland more widely, but not with the Irish material. Furthermore, there is no evidence of flint being imported on a large scale from Ireland in this phase as people were predominately utilising beach flint which could easily have been acquired locally. There is the caveat that people could have imported beach flint from Ireland, and we know that late Mesolithic assemblages in Ireland also predominately used beach flint (Woodman et al. 2006, 112), but it would be very difficult to demonstrate that. We did find two possible Bann flakes (butt-trimmed flakes) in the fieldwalking assemblages (one from the field at Machribeg, the other from the adjacent field to the Macharioch Mesolithic scatter). These two pieces suggest

Wicks et al. (2014) note that late Mesolithic people did seem attracted to small islands, with Oronsay being a good case in point. There are two small islands both within sight of known Mesolithic sites in Kintyre which would be worthy of further investigation. The first is Island Davaar which sits to the eastern side of Campbeltown Loch (Fig. 11.1). This island is currently connected to the mainland at low tide by a causeway but with slightly higher sea levels as would have been in the case in the late Mesolithic it would have been a true island. The second is that of Sanda Island, roughly two kilometres off the south-eastern coastline of Kintyre. Both are comparable in size to Oronsay and would make interesting comparisons to that site.

Figure 11.1. Island Davaar in Campbeltown Loch



Neolithic interactions If the evidence for the nature of social interaction in the Mesolithic remains limited, the evidence acquired by the project from the Neolithic period enables us to comment in much more detail about the nature of interaction between communities in Kintyre and the wider world. This is in three different forms. Firstly, the flint assemblages collected via fieldwalking have been particularly informative for understanding the movement of objects. This can, in turn, gives insights into the types of interaction in place throughout the Neolithic. Second, the study of early Neolithic pottery from both western Scotland and eastern Ireland has revealed shared traditions of practice between these two areas, and finally, a detailed study of the architecture, particularly at Blasthill chambered tomb, has also revealed changing architectural influences at this site. Each of these will now be dealt with in turn.

Technologically, there are also both similarities and differences between the Kintyre material and that from Ireland. Leaf-shaped arrowheads recovered from Kintyre are very similar to those in north-east Ireland as well as other parts of Britain, but this perhaps indicates a similarity in practice across quite large areas in the early Neolithic instead of specific connections between Scotland and Ireland. In contrast, we found no hollow-based arrowheads in Kintyre: these are probably late Neolithic/early Bronze Age in date and are rarely found outside of Ireland (Woodman et al. 2006, 134-5). Likewise, a range of similar forms of scraper are found either side of the Irish Sea, but no hollow scrapers were found in Kintyre. The problems associated with dating lithic assemblages as well as understanding interactions based on technological characteristics remains hugely problematic and is unlikely to further our understanding of this issue, particularly using assemblages gained through fieldwalking. However, the preliminary results of the pXRF suggests it will be possible to identify the actual movement of flint from its primary source in the future (see chapter 5). This technique, alongside the use of more detailed chemical analysis of flint using ICP-MS has the potential to revolutionise our understanding of the movement of objects made from flint, and may reveal hitherto unknown material connections between different areas at this time (Bradley in prep).

Stone Prior to start of the Kintyre project there was clear evidence for connections with other parts of the Neolithic world in the form of material from other places. The stone axe collection held by the museum has stone axes from further afield, including five provenanced to the Tievebulliagh/Rathlin Island source in northern Ireland and another three from Langdale in Cumbria (see chapter 5). We have added to that another stone axe fragment from Langdale, which indicates connections both across the sea to Ireland as well as with other parts of Britain. This does not necessarily indicate direct contact with these two areas, as axes may have been exchanged multiple times over short distances, but it does show a broader set of networks involving the movement of objects at this time. In addition to the stone axes, our fieldwalking has also produced quantities of Arran pitchstone. As with other Neolithic assemblages in Scotland, Arran pitchstone only occurs in small quantities in relation to the flint and quartz component of an assemblage (Warren 2007) which can be interpreted as token pieces being exchanged across wider areas. Nevertheless these finds do illustrate connections with Arran and suggest a commonality of practice shared across western Scotland more broadly. It is also worth noting that pitchstone is found in small amounts in Ireland as well (Woodman et al. 2006, 85).

Pottery Only a small amount of pottery was found as part of this project: six vessels from the excavations at Blasthill chambered tomb. Five of these vessels were early Neolithic in date and one was early Bronze Age. Typologically, there were the remains of a single early Carinated Bowl alongside four modified or developed carinated bowls. The vessels were made from local clays and were very much in-keeping with a local style of pottery manufacture (appendix 1). However, when this assemblage was compared with material from monuments in western Scotland and eastern Ireland more broadly it seems that there were methods of making pottery shared by this wider region (chapter 10). This biographical approach has demonstrated that moving beyond straightforward typological understandings of this kind of material culture can reveal shared traditions of practice which would have been relevant and recognised by communities living in different parts of the landscape.

The flint collected during the fieldwalking component of this project has also been very instructive in terms of understanding the movement of this particular type of material. In complete contrast to the Mesolithic assemblages which seem to comprise solely of beach flint, the Neolithic material collected also has a component of terrestrial flint. This demonstrates that alongside the movement of porcellanite and tuff for making axes, and pitchstone from Arran, flint was also being moved in the Neolithic. We have suggested that the flint found in Kintyre was acquired in Antrim and moved across the Irish Sea, as is supported by other finds from Kintyre such as the Achinhoan hoard (Saville 1999), but there remains the possibility that it was imported from further afield.

Architecture: setting, form and deposition The excavations conducted at Blasthill chambered tomb are able to inform us about changing relationships between the people living in this area and the wider world in a number of ways. Before we consider the results of that work it is worth noting the setting of Blasthill chambered tomb. The builders of the monument had a wide range of locations in southern Kintyre where outcropping rock was readily available for monument construction, so it can be argued that location was not simply due to the availability of stone. It can be suggested, therefore, that the location chosen for monument construction was significant in and



of its own right. Indeed, we would like to suggest that the significance of the location related to which landmasses were visible from the site (e.g. Cummings 2009; Tilley 1994). Blasthill chambered tomb is positioned in the landscape with views to the north and east out over southern Kintyre and the Isle of Arran, and to the west and south of the Mull of Kintyre, the sea and Ireland (County Antrim). However, the monument is not placed within the landscape to maximise these vistas, as more dramatic views could easily have been achieved from other locales elsewhere upon Blasthill, particularly the summit. However, early Neolithic chambered cairns in both Britain and Ireland are never situated on the summit of hills, so the setting of Blasthill chambered tomb is entirely consistent with other monuments in both western Scotland and eastern Ireland (see Cummings 2009). What is interesting, therefore, is that the builders of the monument have chosen a location with views to other parts of the wider world, most notably in terms of other known early Neolithic monument clusters, especially Arran and Ireland. It is also worth noting that walking in towards the forecourt and façade Ireland is visible in the distance. In contrast, when exiting the forecourt, it is Arran which is visible on the horizon.

from nodular, terrestrial sources which we can postulate were from County Antrim although this has not been definitively demonstrated as again, these pieces could also have come from further afield. The pitchstone definitely originated from Arran. The changing form of the monument also suggests changing influences over time. In chapter 8 we outlined our proposed sequence of construction. In summary this was: 1. A small sub-circular cairn enclosing a chamber (what became the lateral chamber) 2. The addition of the terminal chamber and façade along with a trapezoidal long cairn/mound 3. The creation of a more enclosed forecourt area 4. The addition of extra revetment along the edges of the cairn and the infilling of the forecourt In its primary phase of construction Blasthill shared architectural similarities with other monuments in western Britain. These are the sites Scott (1972) described as ‘protomegaliths’ (see chapter 1) and include Cairnholy, Mid Gleniron and possibly Ardnacross II (see chapter 9) in western Scotland, but also sites further afield such as Dyffryn Ardudwy and Trefignath. So far there is no evidence for protomegaliths in the court cairns of Ireland, but this does not mean that that they did not occur: Dooey’s Cairn (Ballymacaldrack) in County Antrim had a primary timber phase (Collins 1976) and this is paralleled at sites in western Scotland such as Slewcairn and Lochhill (Masters 1973).

The broader influences of western Scotland and eastern Ireland are seen in other elements of the monument. The material culture found during excavations demonstrates links with both areas. The pottery was made from local clays (Williams this volume) but stylistically there are similarities with assemblages from both Ireland and Scotland (see above). Some of the lithics also originate

Figure 11.2. Blasthill chambered tomb with the Mull of Kintyre and Ireland in the background



At a later date Blasthill was converted into what can be described as a more typical Clyde cairn. This includes a terminal chamber and façade at one end of the monument, with the existing chamber converted into a lateral chamber and the whole encased within a long cairn/mound. This is similar to the monument at Ardnacross II, except there was no lateral chamber at Ardnacross. The fact that both Blasthill and Ardnacross II are very similar to monuments found throughout western Scotland suggests that at this point the people building and using these monuments felt part of a broader social phenomenon very much focussed on western Scotland more generally. Similar monuments to Blasthill in this phase are found in many parts of western Scotland with concentrations in southern Kintyre, Arran and around Loch Fyne. The intensive building of chambered tombs and the burial of selected dead was clearly a phenomenon which had resonance in other parts of Britain and Ireland, notably in the northern half of Ireland with the court cairn series, in the Cotswold-Severn region and in northern Scotland in Caithness, Sutherland and Orkney. While some of these other areas used turf to make long mounds, until the excavation of Blasthill and Ardnacross II this had not been noted in the Clyde monuments. It may have been used even more widely as a quick way to construct or enhance a long cairn/mound.

stone would have been easy to quarry with wooden wedges, water and hammerstones, the latter found in small quantities within the monument. However, other stone types were also found in the monument. A few slabs of non-local banded chert with distinctive green pigmented bands were located around the entranceway at the very edge of the primary cairn (Dave Jenkins pers. comm.). These banded chert slabs are unfortunately harder to source but probably come from the Carboniferous lava succession (Clyde Plateau Lavas), the nearest of which is at Machrihanish. These are small slabs, which could be carried by a single person, and are present at the site in only small quantities. Their location around the entranceway into the primary monument suggests the deliberate display of these presumably significant stones. This may suggest the deliberate import and incorporation of something visually distinctive, with references to a wider world. Thus in its primary phase, the monument was made from two stone types, the local dolerite quarried from the immediate locality on Blasthill, and imported banded chert. In the second phase, when the monument was converted to a Clyde cairn, a number of conglomerate slabs were incorporated as part of the cairn material. The conglomerate was most likely quarried 2km away at Macharioch. A small number of these conglomerates were found in sizes that could be transported by a single person. The conglomerate was used in the cairn, and was mixed in with the dolerite cairn stones. The stone itself has distinctive qualities, particularly when compared to the dolerite. As a conglomerate it consists of a mix of stones, including lumps of quartz. It is worth noting that the only other chambered tomb in the area is at Macharioch (see chapter 6) which was also the location of extended occupation stretching back to the Mesolithic. By incorporating the visually distinctive conglomerate into the body of the cairn at Blasthill it may have made key connections with another monumental site and possibly another community. This stone type, then, may have been representative of both living and dead communities at Macharioch, fitting perhaps for a conglomerate stone. These stones were added to the body of the cairn, a small part of a bigger whole.

The next part of the sequence at Blasthill seems to have involved a rather more subtle alteration of the architecture. We have argued in chapter 8 that several stones in the façade were moved around to create a more court cairnlike façade: Clyde cairns typically have a much flatter façade (see Henshall 1972). It is possible to suggest, therefore, that the people who were now using Blasthill were deliberately attempting to create similarities between their monument and court cairns. It cannot be a coincidence that when standing in the forecourt at Blasthill there is a direct view of Ireland. It is also worth noting that the passage grave on the summit of Carnanmore is clearly visible from Blasthill, which was presumably constructed sometime in the middle Neolithic (Cooney 2000, 15-16). Therefore people living and visiting Blasthill would have seen this monument being constructed across the water and may well have wished to realign their allegiances with this part of the world. The final acts of reconfiguring Blasthill, which we think were conducted in the Bronze Age, are considered below.

Small pink slabs of siltstone were also added during the second phase of construction. They are found in only one part of the monument, in between the façade stones which frame the forecourt. A smooth but angular reddy-pink colour, these are visually the most striking stones in the monument, and for a monument which held the dead, may have created connections with blood, fire or birth (cf. Jones and McGregor 2002). These stones would have been quarried from outcrops at Machribeg near Southend, an area which saw occupation in the late Mesolithic (see above). Their angular form clearly shows that these were quarried slabs, and again, these are slabs small enough to have been carried up by a single person. Their source is a coastal location, with wide views of the sea and good

We now turn our attention to a more considered analysis of the stones which make up the main Neolithic phases of construction at Blasthill to see what these can tell us about broader connections. The geological assessment of the stones in the monument revealed the use of a variety of different stone types. The bulk of the monument is constructed from olivine dolerite which outcrops in a number of places in the immediate area (Roger Anderton pers. comm.). Indeed, many of these quarried outcrops are still visible immediately around the monument itself, so that it is possible to say that the stone for the monument was therefore probably quarried from these locations. This



landing places for boats. There are also wide views of Ireland, Sanda Island and Dunaverty rocks, a very distinctive landmass which was later the site of a castle. These stones would have been highly visible for people standing in the forecourt, looking at a monument that now had been in use for quite some time. Their vibrant colour, careful quarrying and shaping, origin point from a location used in the Mesolithic and their prominence in the outer skin of the monument could again suggest connections with other local communities.

taken from the surrounding landscape. The monument could easily have been constructed just from the local dolerite stone only, but it seems that people were choosing to incorporate smaller amounts of stone from the wider setting. It seems these stones came from southern Kintyre but they may be representative of communities living in these areas (Fig. 11.3). These different strands of evidence from the Neolithic in Kintyre suggest quite complex, shifting sets of connections between people and wider area. The monument at Blasthill enables us to see localised connections between the people building the monument and those living in the immediate area, as people seem to have brought in stones from the surrounding landscape. The architecture also appears to demonstrate changing influences, which began drawing on a phenomenon found quite widely along the shores of the Irish Sea (protomegaliths), which then changed to a form found more specifically in western Scotland (Clyde cairns), before switching again to incorporate Irish influences. Material culture from Kintyre reveals different sets of connections again, with evidence for the import of material from as far away as Cumbria. Nevertheless, while exotic material was used, traditions of practice seem to have been more localised.

The main monumental phase also saw the extensive use of quartz pebbles. These pebbles were not quarried but would have been collected on the beach or raised beach (Anderson-Whymark this volume) both of which are within 1km of the site. Individuals could have carried these stones to the site. For the most part these quartz pebbles were smashed into smaller pieces, into halves, quarters or even eighths and scattered around the edge of the monument. These smashed pebbles appear to have then been used to ‘dress’ the outside of the monument, as they were only found around the edges and on top of the cairn, so they were essentially ‘wrapping’ the monument (cf. Richards 2013). The stones which make up the main body of the monument, then, are an assemblage of material

Figure 11.3. The origins of stones used in the construction and use of Blasthill



Bronze Age We have less securely-dated material and architecture from the Bronze Age in Kintyre, but there are hints that a broad set of connections continued into this period. Like other parts of Britain and Ireland monuments typical of the Bronze Age were constructed. The complex at Marchfield is perhaps the best example of this, and this concentration of sites, along with the general spread of sites between Campbeltown and Machrihanish, share similarities with monumental complexes elsewhere, particularly those of Scotland. There are four cairns between Machrihanish and Drumlemble, along with a spread of Bronze Age lithic material and the complex at Marchfield (see chapter 6). At least five cists or cist cemeteries have been found around Campbeltown. While not quite on par with the extraordinary set of monuments in Kilmartin, these monuments seem to mark out a routeway through the landscape for people moving east-west (Jones et al. 2011). They may represent the commemoration of a routeway which had been used for many hundreds or thousands of years (and see Noble 2006). Boggy land either side of this

routeway also saw the deposition of metal throughout the Bronze Age (see chapter 1) further supporting the idea that this was an important location. There is also evidence for the reworking of existing sites at this time. At Ardnacross II Scott suggested that a Bronze Age round cairn was superimposed over the top of the existing Clyde cairn (see chapter 9). In addition to this the chamber at Ardnacross II also saw Bronze Age deposition, most notably in the form of a Food Vessel. Bronze Age deposition at Neolithic chambered tombs is well-attested at other sites in western Scotland such as Beacharra (Scott 1964) and Brackley (Scott 1955). It is perhaps surprising, then, that the lateral chamber at Blasthill did not see further depositional activity, although we have argued in chapter 8 that Blasthill itself was remodelled in the Bronze Age, particularly in relation to the infilling of the forecourt, and the addition of stone working around the edge of the cairn/mound: some Bronze Age pottery was found in association with the latter.

Figure 11.4. Spacer-plate jet (and cannel coal) necklace from Kintyre Nurseries, Campbeltown. Photo by Aaron Watson (© Kilmartin House Trust)



Broader connections can be seen in other forms of material culture from Bronze Age Kintyre. The Food Vessel from Ardnacross II is strikingly similar to Irish styles of pottery (Rick Peterson pers. comm. and noted by Scott in his excavation diaries). The jet necklace from Kintyre Nurseries in Campbeltown is one of the most ostentatious displays of wider connections. This spacer-plate necklace is predominately made of jet which would have originated from Whitby in Yorkshire (Fig. 11.4). The small number of cannel coal beads were presumably local replacements for lost beads. Small amounts of flint too continued to be imported from a terrestrial source, possibly still Antrim, but there is also the possibility that flint was also being imported from Yorkshire. Broader connections are demonstrated elsewhere in western Scotland, for example with the Food Vessel from Upper Largie in Kilmartin (Cook et al. 2010), which combined Irish and Yorkshire features of this style of pottery. Even more intriguing is evidence from the same site of a Beaker with stylistic links to the Netherlands (Cook et al. 2010, and see Jones et al. 2011, 319-20). The Bronze Age, then, may have seen an intensification of existing networks with communities across northern Europe.

objects are frequently found a considerable distance from their source (Clough and Cummins 1979; 1988), but what this work does not demonstrate, however, is whether stone axes were traded as part of small-scale, localised exchange networks between local communities or whether people were moving longer distances to acquire these objects. This means we can investigate the origin of things, but struggle to understand the social mechanisms behind an object’s biography. Conversely, at other times when there is little evidence for the movement of material culture across the Irish Sea into western Scotland, for example in the late Mesolithic, other evidence suggests that people were competent fishers and seafarers. There is significant evidence for people using the sea from the evidence of the occupation of small islands such as Oronsay, and from the use of marine resources (also documented via stable isotope analysis: Schulting and Richards 2002a; 2002b). Quite clearly, if people were able to navigate around the Inner Hebrides, people would have had the capability to cross from Kintyre to Ireland. If they were doing this, however, they do not seem to have been returning with much material culture. Again, the broader absence of human remains from the Mesolithic of both Britain and Ireland has hampered our attempts to understand these issues through techniques such as strontium isotope analysis.

Conclusions: the nature of interaction in prehistory The material and architectural record of Kintyre indicates a changing range of influences and actual movement of objects from the Mesolithic through to the Bronze Age. In this final section we consider what kinds of social interaction we are actually envisaging at particular times in prehistory.

So far we have said little about the sea and the boats which were necessary for sea travel. Quite clearly, if there were interactions between communities in Kintyre and many other parts of Scotland and Ireland this would involve sea travel. While there are only small numbers of actual boats surviving from earlier prehistory, well-preserved later examples, alongside ethnographic examples, indicate the kinds of boat people could have made (McGrail 2001; Robinson 2013). Other studies have indicated the feasibility of quite long sea crossings in prehistory using simple boat technology (e.g. Callaghan and Scarre 2009), which we know must have also involved the movement of animals from the Continent (Case 1969). Sea travel, then, was possible and clearly achieved from the Mesolithic through to the Bronze Age (and see Robinson 2013), albeit partly dependent on prevailing conditions.

Specifically, at certain key points we might be looking at substantial movements of people into an area, for example in the transition to the Neolithic. Humphrey Case’s 1969 article dealt with the practical implications of moving both people and animals across from mainland Europe to Britain at the start of the Neolithic. But once this initial movement of people and animals had taken place at the start of the Neolithic, scholars have been reluctant to specify precisely what kind of interaction occurred between peoples in different areas. Did people remain in contact with communities back on the Continent? Did only more localised connections exist? Did people regularly move long distances or did people settle down once the initial movement of people and ideas had taken place at the start of the Neolithic? One of the reasons for a lack of clarity with regards these issues is obvious: it is extremely difficult to coherently model population movements or social networks with a very limited set of material remains, particularly when areas like western Scotland lack substantial quantities of human remains. Human remains are particularly useful for answering these questions because we are now in a position to start to demonstrate geographic origin via strontium isotope analysis (e.g. Bentley et al. 2003). With only material culture sets we are left speculating with regards the mechanisms which resulted in their final deposition in a particular location. For example, the results of the petrological analysis of both stone axe sources and stone axes revealed that these

In terms of the specifics of travelling by sea for communities in Kintyre, the admiralty charts are instructive for indicating which parts of the sea would be easier to navigate than others. In southern Kintyre, the waters around the Mull of Kintyre would have been difficult to traverse with numerous rip-tides and eddies. However, the sea around Carskey Bay along to Dunaverty, and again around Macharioch, are all calmer, more navigable waters which also afford a number of natural bays and landing places for small boats. These are also the places we have found substantial traces of settlement evidence, and which acted as harbours in more recent times (and see Martin 1984, 94-5 for a discussion on movements of people in historic times between Ireland and Kintyre). The sea, then, may well have facilitated

145

movement in prehistory rather than being a barrier, being easier to navigate that some of the forested hills and valleys. Furthermore, the location of Kintyre in the northern part of the Irish Sea, surrounded on most sides by water, may well have featured heavily in peoples’ identity and possibly belief systems. Particular features of the sea may have been as imbued with meaning as their landscape counterparts: specific eddies around the Mull of Kintyre perhaps conceptualised as gateways to the underworld, or calmer shallow waters around Carskey with specific species of fish. The style of boat used to navigate the sea may also have been intimately linked to social identity, as much as, or perhaps at certain times, more so, than other forms of material culture such as stone tools or pottery. One’s prowess at crossing the sea may have been indicative of status within a group as much as being a good hunter or the bringing together of communities for monumental construction events.

Since the advent of culture history, it has been tempting to see material culture remains as direct expressions of ethnic identity (cf. Childe 1925), but this is too simplistic: an object from Yorkshire or Cumbria found in Kintyre does not mean that it was brought there by someone from those areas. Understanding architecture in this way is equally as problematic. At best we might envisage some kind of contact between people in these areas, and this could vary from direct contact between groups across a wide area involving the actual movement of people over large distances. Equally, things and ideas can be spread via more localised exchange networks. While we might never get to understand the precise nature of social interaction, we can envisage material culture and architecture coming into sharp focus at particular times, especially during periods of social tension or instability when broader networks may be evoked both in terms of current social alliances or descent networks. The more evidence we have to draw on in understanding these moments of tension or reassertion of specific kin relations can begin to give us insights into the types of mechanisms being employed in various social strategies. The use of the dead in legitimising current living populations has long been recognised by archaeologists (e.g. Shanks and Tilley 1982; Whittle et al. 2005) but more can be revealed through studying similar traditions of practice or deposition strategies.

That the sea was significant in facilitating movement as well as featuring in the creation and maintenance of social identity, how should we then understand what appear to be fluctuations in the levels of interaction between groups in different areas? This may relate to a whole range of different things. We can assume that there were significant kinship ties between a wide range of communities which would have been used for maintaining marriage networks and broader political alliances. We do not have archaeological evidence for either matrilineal or patrilineal descent systems, although evidence from late Mesolithic Brittany seems to suggest that it was women who may have moved to marry (Schulting 1999) which could be indicative of patrilineal descent. There may of course have been considerable variation both temporally and spatially. Furthermore, how wide-ranging kin networks were would be dependent on population densities, an issue prehistorians have always struggled with. There is no reason to suggest that only very localised kinship groups existed, and if we are to take evidence from later in prehistory, then some people may well have moved considerable distances in their lifetimes, as part of wideranging kinship networks spread across northern Europe.

The present study of Kintyre has shown that hitherto little studied regions have considerable potential to add to our understanding of particular research questions. It seems that Kintyre, both in the distant past and in more recent history, was intimately connected to other parts of the world bordering the Irish Sea. At certain points, other parts of western Scotland were evoked through material use and architectural form, while at other times, the sea and more distant networks of relations were drawn upon. It is also clear that the sea would have been crucial in forming people’s identities, in terms of origins and also in terms of social standing and kin networks. A future aim, then, should be to explore these issues in as many areas of Britain and Ireland as possible, and then we will be in a stronger position to chart changing social interactions across these areas in prehistory.

Figure 11.5. Southern Kintyre with views out to Ireland

146

Appendix 1. The pottery from the Blasthill chambered tomb Emma Thompson and Rick Peterson Summary The Blasthill chambered tomb produced a small but relatively well-preserved pottery assemblage consisting of six pottery vessels ranging in date from the early Neolithic to the early Bronze Age. Typologically, the material from Blasthill reflects a long chronology for the use and deposition of pottery at the site which spanned almost two millennia. A total of 167 pottery fragments were recovered during the excavation all of which came from the trench B, a 13 x 3m rectangular area that extended across the main body of the cairn and incorporated a 50% portion of the lateral chamber (see Fig. A1.1). The Blasthill monument has been interpreted as a multiphase construction, which began life as a small chamber surrounded by a low sub-circular cairn. After subsequent remodeling of the site during a secondary construction phase the small cairn and now-lateral chamber became part of a much larger monument which included the addition of a terminal chamber, a long cairn and a forecourt. At a later date the forecourt was remodeled and finally the monument was decommissioned by the infilling of the forecourt and chambers, and by adding extra cairn material around the edge of the cairn (see chapter 8 for full details). All the Neolithic pottery came from contexts associated with both the primary and secondary construction phases while the fragments of the Bronze Age cinerary urn came from within the blocking of the chamber and is considered to be associated with the final use phase of the cairn. Methodology A non-invasive analysis of the pot sherds from Blasthill was undertaken and a total of six vessels were identified. Samples considered suitable for more invasive examination were then selected for petrological sampling and lipid analysis through gas chromatography (see appendices 2 and 3). However, as pot 3 was limited to only three surviving rim sherds this vessel was excluded from the more destructive examination processes. Heavily sooted sherd samples from the mid /lower body of pot 2 were sampled for C-14 dating. The pot displayed



characteristic evidence of use as both interior and exterior surfaces had areas of secondary oxidization whilst residues from organic material was apparent on the internal surface of the pot. Pot 2 also displayed evidence of secondary oxidization at the base indicative of a cooking vessel thus the organic matter provided sound dating for the final use of the pottery and its subsequent deposition in the monument. Analysis of the Blasthill pottery assemblage All the pots were initially treated to a non-invasive examination and the following description of the fabrics is based on the results of the macroscopic analysis. All the pottery from the Blasthill chambered tomb was hand built, the Neolithic pottery all displaying evidence of a coil construction method. The limitations of the sherd representation from the Bronze Age vessel make it difficult to ascertain exactly how the pot was constructed but it is evident that it was hand built and decorated with deep grooving. Early Neolithic - Traditional Carinated Bowl repertoire Pot 3. Four sherds from an early Neolithic Carinated Bowl were found. The pot would have been around 125mm in diameter at the rim, although an element of error has to be accounted for here due to the limitations of small sherd sample. It has not been possible to determine the height of the vessel however, the average wall thickness is around 5mm and the total weight of the sherds is 12.5g. The rim is fine and well rounded, the neck having only a slight curve to the profile giving a neutral form to the bowl. The surviving sherds are all well burnished, the fabric is fine comprising small igneous rock and very fine sand inclusions at a 5% density. The colour is uniformly grey brown on both internal and external surfaces, the core very dark grey brown. The sherds were found high up within the fill 006 of the inner compartment of the chamber situated beneath a shallow layer of stones (036) in the top of the chamber. The sherds were found in conjunction with small beach pebbles, a chunk of quartz and flakes of quartzite in what is almost certainly a re-deposited context.

Figure A1.1. Distribution of pottery sherds at Blasthill



Figure A1.2. The five Neolithic bowls from Blasthill quartzite inclusions are large and angular measuring between 1.0 - 3.0mm their density c.10%. Also included within the matrix is naturally occurring fine mica and feldspar, poorly sorted flakes of pyrite and black iron ore at less than 3% frequency. The internal surface of the sherds is heavily pitted having a corky appearance. This pitting is only visible on the interior surface and is a good indication that the pot had contained acidic foodstuffs prior to the deposition (PCRG 2010). Although specific residues are not visible on the surface further analysis of this vessel would be required to give a better indication of use: whether the bowl was a container or cooking pot is difficult to determine in the absence of base and body sherds.

Figure A1.3. Pot 3 from Blasthill Early Neolithic – Modified carinated bowl Tradition Pot 4. Five connecting rim sherds from an early Neolithic developed carinated bowl weighing 46.84g were found. The pot would have been around 182mm in diameter at the rim. This is a large open form vessel finely made with an average sherd wall thickness of 6-7mm. The neck has been built up from the shoulder to flow discretely into an almost imperceptible smoothed narrow rim of c.3mm depth. The surviving sherds have all been burnished and three of the five have a great deal of spalling. Where the outer surface has come away during firing (see Gibson 2002, 44) a very common poorly-sorted coarse quartz tempered fabric has been exposed. The quartz and



Where the burnished surface remains the colour is a dark yellowish brown. The exposed surfaces have a brown pink hue and this is consistent throughout, the core a darker reddish brown and internally the pitted surface is a stronger reddish brown. Two fragments were found in the fill of inner compartment of the chamber (006), one in the outer compartment (008) and two fragments from within the cairn material (038). The two fragments from the cairn material 038 [SF 266 and 325] were found in close proximity to a finely crafted flint knife [SF 280]. This is a good indication that these may well have been the original contents of the chamber associated with the primary use phase which were removed in favour of new deposits. The vessel form and fabric share similarities with modified carinated bowls from other chambered tombs in Scotland at Beacharra (CAPTM 0151) and the perforated lugged bowl at Ballymarlagh (Davis 1949).

the clay pellets the pot is decorated with seven sets of four vertical incised lines. The rim is similarly decorated with three sets of six or seven vertical incised lines, which run around the circumference of the mouth.

Figure A1.4. Pot 4 from Blasthill Pot 2. This is a developed carinated bowl of globular form. 150mm diameter at the rim, 160mm at the belly, it stands at a height of 110mm and has an average wall thickness of around 9mm. The pot was found fragmented in situ, 28 sherds weighing 898.52g make up the complete vessel. The bowl has a slight carination upon which seven clay pellets have been attached and spaced intermittently around the vessel. The whole pot is highly burnished, the surface is smooth yet irregular. Between

Figure A1.5. Pot 2 from Blasthill



The fabric is predominantly a coarse basic igneous rock and mica mix. The inclusions are angular and subrounded ranging in size from 0.5-7.0mm with around a 10% density. One large rectangular void c.7.0mm is visible on the internal wall of the body and several voids are visible within the exposed fabric of the base fragments. At the base, sooting is present on the external surface, internally are the remains of a charred residue. Voids at the base have been attributed to abrasion of the surface caused by exposure to secondary heat processes is a good indication that the pot sat in the embers of a fire for cooking purposes (Fig. A1.6). Unfortunately the results of the residue analysis were inconclusive although trace fats from organic material were identified the lipids did not provide conclusive results for a specific source (see appendix 3). Radiocarbon dating of the charred residue on the sherd calibrates to 3630-3360 BC [GU21791] at two sigma.

Figure A1.7. Sherd from pot 2 showing coil joins in cross section

Figure A1.6. Pot 2 showing the secondary oxidation of the base and external sooting, clear indications of use as a cooking vessel (Rice 1987, 235) The pot has a mottled appearance, overall the colour very dark grey to black: the core is black. Where the burnished surface has spalled away at the base the sherds are much lighter, almost ash grey yellow and the core very dark grey brown to black. The vessel was constructed in two phases, one primary and one secondary. Using coils of clay the vessel was built up to the neck, each coil joined, smoothed and the internal wall scrapped to strengthen the joins. A final thickened coil c.15-20mm thick was attached to the neck then smoothed using the fingers to secure the join to the bowl. The rim was then skimmed with a sharp edged tool to create the flat open rim. The final stage was the addition of the rounded clay pellets. One sherd provides a good indication of how this process was carried out as one pellet has spalled away from the surface during firing. The drying surface of the pot was scratched to give some purchase to the fit and moistened with slip before the pellets were attached. When the vessel was leather hard the bowl was burnished and the final decoration was added. Sets of four incised vertical lines were applied to the body intermittently between the burnished pellets. This incised decoration was replicated in sets of six and seven scored vertical lines across the rim. The relief modeling of the clay pellets can be paralleled with the tiny pinch pot at Tamnyrankin, Co. Antrim (Herring 1941). The pot was deposited in the outer compartment of the chamber (008) beneath a layer of stones. It was found in association with a hammerstone and beneath the fragments of the decorated bipartite bowl.



Pot 1. This is a developed carinated closed bowl with bipartite decoration. The diameter of this pot is around 130mm at the rim and 150mm at the carination. The minimum vessel height is around 90mm and the average wall thickness 6-7mm. 17 slightly abraded sherds weighing 250.51g make up around 45% of the surviving portion of this vessel. Approximately one third of the rim survives, the majority of which is part of one large sherd [SF 270] found in the north-east corner of the outer compartment of the chamber abutting the dividing orthostat of the inner and outer compartments. This sherd is approximately 139 x 63mm and represents around 50% of the surviving portion of the vessel combining rim, neck and body. A small sherd found in flotation and a larger sherd combined of rim and neck both attach to the main sherd and came from the outer compartment of the chamber (008) and from rubble layers of the cairn material (037). Three large sherds and smaller fragments of the body and base were also recovered from 008 and 037. The fabric is of fine sandy clay with small quartz inclusions moderately sorted with a maximum of c.4mm and 5% density; the inclusions are angular with low sphericity. Some voids within the internal and external are present up to 7mm but no evidence of rhombs or striations suggests this is from a limestone inclusion. Testing with dilute hydrochloric acid confirmed that a very white non-transparent inclusion was degraded quartzite. The pot is finely made and good evidence of the coil method is displayed on the internal sherds. The pot carination is rounded, the neck short, the rim is fine and well rounded joined to the bowl in a final phase of construction smoothed and scrapped at the neck. The sherd exterior show the vessel was smoothed throughout and scraped internally. Decoration was applied when the pot was in a plastic state. On the upper base and body whipped cord impression of scalloped motif cover the surface to the carination. At the carination and up to the neck 13 vertical rows of whipped cord impression alternate between a distinctive rainbow motif made of

four arched panels. This pattern is repeated three times around the vessel which is similar to the bipartite bowl from Becharra, Kintyre. A similar decorative system is used on the whole bipartite vessel from Clachaig, Arran (Bryce 1902) and close similarities with the Irish material specifically vessel E at Ballymacaldrack, County Antrim (Evans 1938). Overall the pot has a uniform colour of light yellowish brown, internally grayish brown to dark grey. Where

Figure A1.8. Pot 1 from Blasthill

Figure A1.9. Pot 5 from Blasthill



spalling has occurred on the lower body the internal fabric is grayish brown to dark grey. The pot has varied core colour and is irregularly oxidized indicative of a quick openly fired vessel (Gibson 2003, 6). A small amount of dried residue of unknown type is present on the internal surface but there is no evidence of the bowl being exposed to secondary heat processes that are usually associated with a cooking pot.

Pot 5. This is a modified carinated bowl of around 150mm in diameter with an estimated height of 95mm and an average wall thickness of around 6-7mm. Around 40% of this vessel survives and is made up of 47 rim, body and base sherds weighing 256.88g. The largest fragment is 68.3 x 43.8mm and the smallest 6 x 5mm, both body sherds. The vessel is highly fragmented and was found within one of a series of rubble layers (037). There are slight abrasions to the sherds but not enough to indicate the pot was exposed or moved significantly; the location of the sherds indicate this was likely to have been a singular deposit associated with the remodeling of the cairn. It is a hard fired ware, reddish brown in colour, although it does not have the visible appearance of burnishing it has been polished and smoothed externally. The majority of the sherds display crazing, the lack of evidence for secondary heat processes on any of the sherds indicates that this was caused by exposure to extreme heat during rapid firing and varied reduction of external polished surface and internal fabric during cooling (Rice 1987). The bowl was polished rather than burnished and significant amount of spalling has also occurred on the body, neck and rim of much of the vessel. The internal surface has been scraped and the rim moulded onto the neck. The core of the fabric gives the appearance of folds within the clay; a comparable vessel of similar shape, proportions was found at Machrie Moor (Herity 1991, vessel 14). The fabric analysis showed the clay to be predominantly grog, small quartzite sand, black iron ore and possible limestone inclusions. In addition there is evidence of grain and grasses being present in the clay, small elongated and rounded voids are noticeable on the surface which have come away none was recorded within the internal core; this feature was also noted on the plain cup at Beacharra (Scott 1964) and the globular and basket bowls at Ballymacaldrack, County Antrim (Evans 1938). The pot was made from clay rings in a similar fashion to that of pot 1. It has been scraped and wiped smooth but undulations of the clay coils are still visible on the internal wall of this vessel. The rim has been fashioned as a separate entity to the rest of the bowl and added in the final stages possibly when in a leather hard state. Although the rim has been smoothed to the neck of the vessel the scraping at the join is clearly visible; an internal lip where the rim attaches to the neck has been left without attempting to conceal the join measuring 10mm from rim to neck. Although the bowl is a plain and undecorated there are traces of grains (see above) and fingernail marks on various body sherds, which may have been accidental are present on two non connective sherds, and a thumb indent is present on one of the rim sherds [SF 449]. Bronze Age material Pot 6. 24 sherds representing only a small proportion of this early Bronze Age cinerary urn were found clustered together within the blocking of the axial chambers (037).



This was possibly one large sherd deposited within the blocking material that eventually became fragmented in situ. The sherds have an average wall thickness of 18.1mm, the inclusions c.10mm and 10% density. These sherds probably came from a fairly substantial vessel (but not unusual for cinerary urns). As no rim sherds survive and less than 5% of the vessel is represented, the absolute form and size of the vessel is unclear. Where the external surface remains the sherds are decorated with heavy grooving. On inspection a slight inflection on the upper edge of three connecting sherds indicates that the fragments are from either the neck or below the shoulder and indicate the decoration most probably runs horizontally. The fabric is robust, heavily tempered with basic igneous rock inclusions sand and grog; nothing other than a local source is considered for the fabric.

Figure A1.10. The Bronze Age pottery from Blasthill Pottery manufacture at Blasthill The clay used for the Blasthill vessels is rather diverse. All the pots are of sedimentary sandy clay and have high iron contents. Petrologic analysis shows that all the clays though varied are available locally within 10km. Pot 4 contains an element of granophyre within the fabric matrix and could be attributed to a clay sourced in Antrim although the clays near Blasthill formed from alluvial drift deposits may well contain small amounts of this clay type. The Blasthill pots were formed from sedimentary sandy clays, high in iron and mineral content most probably from riverbeds and streams. The geology of the region is such that an abundance of clay resources would have been available for the potters to exploit and refine. The clay pockets formed through glacial drift deposits contain a wide ranging and varied mix of minerals but nevertheless, all the elements identified in the pottery are present within 10km of Blasthill. The macroscopic analysis and thin sectioning indicate that although raw material used to form the pots within the assemblage are also very diverse, nothing other than local clay resources were exploited by the Blasthill potters (see appendix 2).

Location of the pottery at Blasthill Excavation of the western half of the lateral chamber produced three rim sherds from the early Neolithic Carinated Bowl (pot 3) found in the upper fill (006) of the inner compartment of the chamber. A substantial portion of a decorated bipartite bowl (pot 1) which dates typologically to the latter half of the mid Neolithic is found in the north-west corner of the outer compartment within a homogenous fill (008). Further fragments belonging to this vessel were also found in the upper portion of the cairn material within one of a series of rubble layers (037) associated with the remodeling of the cairn and abutting the original primary cairn. The whole vessel (pot 2) with decorative modeled relief work was found fragmented in situ in the south-western corner of the outer compartment (008) situated lower down in the stratigraphy than the bipartite bowl. It was covered by a layer of stones and was found in connection with a hammerstone. The pottery from the cairn material was fairly abundant albeit in a highly fragmented state. Sherds belonging to five vessels (1, 3, 4, 5, and 6) came from contexts within the cairn. Found mostly around the orthostats of the chambers, small sherds from the vessels were also found in the upper contexts (006) of the chamber. The pottery from the cairn varied in type, form and fabric yet each was typologically mid Neolithic in date. A fair proportion of the sherds had edges that were abraded, some more than others but none significantly. The fragmentation, condition and scattered nature of the sherds is indicative of the pots having been disturbed and dispersed due to activities which had occurred in the chamber after the initial deposition had taken place and is likely to be associated with the remodelling of the cairn. A small percentage of sherds from a Bronze Age cinerary urn (pot 6) were found clustered together within the chamber blocking material associated with the final use of the monument. Concluding remarks The five Neolithic bowls and single early Bronze Age vessel from Blasthill are useful for furthering our understanding of the construction and use of the monument. The earliest style of pottery at Blasthill is represented by four sherds which are all that has been found of a Carinated Bowl (pot 3). These are found in the rear compartment of the lateral chamber, but their fragmentary state suggests that this compartment had been disturbed at some point. Also found in the rear compartment of this chamber were two fragments from a modified carinated bowl (pot 4). Sherds from this pot were also found in the outer compartment and within the cairn material. Assuming this pot was originally deposited whole, this is suggestive of a second phase of disturbance in the chamber. The sherds found amongst the cairn material were also found alongside a flint knife [SF 280] and may well represent a second phase of deposition in the chamber which may also have included the addition of pot 1 and pot 5. Both vessels are also



found fragmented and distributed in several different parts of the monument. Conversely, the addition of pot 2 which survives as a complete vessel may well represent the final phase of deposition in the mid-Neolithic. This pot was covered in stones and placed in the chamber in association human remains as evidenced by the tooth enamel fragments (see appendix 8). When pot 6 was deposited at the monument in the early Bronze Age the lateral chamber was left undisturbed and the urn was placed amongst the blocking to the chamber. Although the traditional Carinated Bowl is now fairly well represented at large ceremonial and domestic complexes in Scotland, the assemblages from chambered tombs do not reflect the same variety or size of pottery forms. Quite clearly, only certain pot sizes and designs were considered appropriate to deposit in chambered tombs, a tradition seen in both the Clyde cairns of Scotland and the court cairns of Ireland. This is inkeeping with the most recent regional studies which have shown that there were much greater repetoires of pottery circulating from the early Neolithic than had previously been recognised (Muller and Peterson 2015). As the evidence from Blasthill shows it wasn’t the case that some pottery was made specifically for deposition in chambered tombs, as much of the pottery shows clear evidence of use, rather that only some types were deemed appropriate for subsequent deposition. There are also a range of modified carinated bowls from Blasthill which are useful for understanding the later development of this style of pottery. Pot 1 is a highly decorated bipartite bowl with a well-defined rim. It has strong affinities with Beacharra type wares found on both sides of the Irish Sea. In contrast, Pot 5 is a hard-fired fine ware, which along with Pot 1 and Pot 2 can be paralleled with a fabric of the pottery from Achnacreebeag: Pot 5 also has a stylistic closed rim, the morphology of which reflects a style that saw pots in Scotland reduce in size at a time when decoration became more abundant. The construction and fine fabric of Pot 1 and the fabric of Pot 4 is also comparable to the pottery from Achnacreebeag based on mix and inclusions. This pottery, then, is more indicative of local identities being reflected in pottery style. Blasthill has also provided us with a sound date in which to place the manufacture, use and probably deposition of this style of modified carinated bowl. Pot 2 produced a date of date of 36303360 BC [GU-21791] on residue from within the pot. This is a useful date in terms of understanding the development of these more regionally specific forms. This may represent a deliberate attempt to consciously create distinctions between styles of pottery found in different regions.

Appendix 2. A note on the petrology of the prehistoric pottery from Blasthill chambered tomb, southern Kintyre David Williams Five small sherds taken from Neolithic and Bronze Age vessels recovered from excavations at the Neolithic chambered tomb at Blasthill were submitted for a detailed fabric examination in thin section under the petrological microscope. The main object of the analysis was to characterize the fabric or fabrics present and, at the same time, to see if any useful comments might be made about the likely source or sources of the pottery. Whether, for example, the non-plastic tempering materials in the clay are suggestive of a fairly local source to the find-site. Alternatively, as some of the vessels are stylistically suggestive of an Irish origin, whether instead they indicate that the vessels were imported from further afield, perhaps from the short distance across the North Channel in Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland.

to suspect anything other than a fairly local source for nos. 1-4, as all of the non-plastic inclusions present in the five vessel fabrics could well have been obtained locally, either entering the clay as a deliberate tempering material added by the potter or already being naturally present in the clay. However, it should also be pointed out that the majority of the landmass of Antrim is also made up of similar basaltic formations, with the coastal area nearest to south Kintyre also including schists, Old Red Sandstone, chalk, greywacke and other sandstones (Geological Map of Northern Ireland, 1:250,000, GSNI; Wilson 1972). The possibility of importation cannot therefore be totally ruled out, though as olivine-dolerite seems to have been locally common at Blasthill and was used in the construction of the chambered tomb, it is perhaps less likely for nos. 1-3.

Sample no. 5 presents problems for sourcing. It contains basaltic rocks and sandstone, which can both be found locally in south Kintyre, but in addition also has granophyre in the clay. Granophyres typically are intrusive rocks that crystallized at shallow depths, and are frequently found as sills and dykes. They have compositions similar to those of the granite family (Le Maitre 2002). It is at first glance difficult to suggest a source for this material. Granophyres are not uncommon rocks and tend to occur within layered igneous intrusions dominated by rocks with compositions like that of gabbro. They are present, for example, on Mull and Skye (Mussett et al. 1980) and at Slieve Gullion in County Armagh in Northern Ireland (Gamble et al. 1992). However, it may be significant that accompanying the granophyre in no. 5 are inclusions of both basaltic and sandstone rocks, which may possibly indicate a more local source. Conglomerates dominate much of the thick Lower Old Red Sandstone succession of the north-east Midland Valley of Scotland, for example, and these contain a diverse All five samples of pottery contain igneous inclusions, in suite of granitoid boulders (Haughton et al. 1990). Extensive some cases together with fragments of sandstone. The outcrops of Conglomerate rocks can be found in the Blasthill geology of southern Kintyre is varied, comprising large area and it is possible that this is where the granophyre areas of schist and Old Red Sandstone, with smaller outcrops derives from. of Conglomerate, Alluvium and Carboniferous volcanics (Wilson 1978, figs. 2 and 5). The immediate geology of the Catalogue Blasthill tomb consists of Dinantian volcanics, Conglomerate and Alluvium (Wilson 1978). The Dinantian 1] Sample from pot 6 (context 037, SF 277) volcanics include basalt, basaltic hawaiite, hawaiite, Bronze Age cinerary urn benmoreite and trachyte (Smedley 1988, fig. 2 and table 2). Thin sectioning shows a distinctive looking fabric in which The majority of the rock used in the construction of the frequent angular pieces of olivine-dolerite are scattered chambered tomb was identified as locally quarried olivine- throughout the clay matrix. The rock is made up laths of a dolerite (Roger Anderton pers. comm.). Sample no. 1 triclinic feldspar, together with olivine, pyroxene and a little contains fresh looking olivine-dolerite, while this rock type iron oxide. Also present in the fabric are some grains of subis also present in samples nos. 2 and 3. The latter also angular quartz, normally under 0.4mm in size, together with contains some small pieces of basaltic rock and some a few flecks of mica. The angularity of the olivine-dolerite sandstone. Basalt was also found in no. 4, together with suggests that it was deliberately crushed by the potter and sandstone, while no. 5 contained basaltic rocks, granophyre added to the clay as a tempering material. and sandstone. On the face of it, there seems to be no reason It is interesting to note that the petrology results suggest that none of the five fabrics look closely similar to any of the others to indicate that they were made from the same clays or used the same temper. Of course, the time-scale of each individual vessel could vary considerably and different clay sources may have been in operation at certain periods. Alternatively, the evidence of the fabrics might suggest that at this time each ‘household’ was responsible for producing its own range of pottery and the choice of clay and temper could easily vary according to the nuances of individual choice (see, for example, Williams 1982; Jones 2002). Alternatively, another explanation to account for the variability of the fabrics, is that some of these vessels might have been introduced from some distance away, either from further north up the Kintyre peninsular or by a comparatively short sea voyage south-west across the North Channel to Co. Antrim.



2] Sample from pot 1 (context 008, SF 270) Decorated carinated bowl Thin sectioning showed a clay matrix which contained closely-packed ill-sorted quartz grains, ranging up to 0.8mm in size. Interspersed with the quartz grains are large pieces of olivine-dolerite rock, composed essentially of a triclinic feldspar, pyroxene, olivine and some magnetic iron. Also present scattered throughout the fabric are large discrete grains of pyroxene, a few small discrete pieces of plagioclase and some flecks of mica. The olivine-dolerite in this sample appears more weathered looking and less angular than is the case for no. 1, perhaps pointing to it already being present in the clay prior to manufacture. 3] Sample from pot 2 (context 008, SF 278) Globular bowl This sample also contains a few small fragments of olivinedolerite together with some pieces of a finer-grained basaltic rock. Also present is some argillaceous material, ill-sorted quartz grains generally under 0.8mm in size, and a couple of small fragments of sandstone. The rock inclusions generally appear rounded suggesting they occurred naturally in the clay.



4] Sample from pot 5 (context 037, SF 344) Body fragment from bowl When viewed under the microscope, various lenses of slightly different coloured clay can be seen suggesting a poorly mixed clay matrix. Frequent ill-sorted quartz grains are scattered throughout, ranging up to over 1mm in size, together with a few small pieces of a weathered fine-grained basaltic rock, some argillaceous material, a little sandstone and black iron oxide. 5] Sample from pot 4 (context 006, SF 42) Rim sherd This sample shows a mixed range of igneous and sedimentary rocks present in the fabric. There are a few pieces of basalt and slightly more of a coarser-grained granophyre, together with two large pieces of sandstone. The granophyre is made up of quartz and feldspar, mostly orthoclase but with some laths of plagioclase, in characteristic angular intergrowths. Also in the clay matrix are ill-sorted grains of quartz ranging up to 0.8mm in size, discrete grains of orthoclase and plagioclase feldspar, strands of mica and black iron oxide.

Appendix 3. The analysis of organic residues from the Blasthill pottery by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Ben Stern discrete peaks, the area under each peak being representative of the abundance. C18:0 FA = Fatty acid with carbon number and degree of unsaturation P = Phthalate plasticiser

Sample preparation Sub-samples from the interior surfaces of each sherd were obtained by drilling to a depth of 2 mm over an area of approximately 1X1 cm. The resultant sherd powders were solvent extracted with 3X ~2 ml DCM:MeOH (dichloromethane:methanol 2:1, v/v). The solvent extract was transferred to another vial and removed under a stream of nitrogen to leave the lipid extract. Excess BSTFA (N,Obis(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide) with 1% TMCS (trimethylchlorosilane) was added to derivatise the sample. Excess derivatising agent was removed under a stream of nitrogen. The samples were diluted in approximately 0.1 ml of DCM for analysis by GC-MS. A method blank was prepared and analysed alongside the samples.

Interpretation All the samples contained a similar range of extracted lipids. Two phthalate plasticisers (labelled, P) were extracted in all samples, these are modern synthetic compounds, found associated with plastic materials, they were also found in the blank sample and are therefore likely to originate from the sample preparation. However their presence does not interfere with any of the other extracted components and they can be excluded from any further interpretation.

Analysis was carried out by combined gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) using an Agilent 7890A Series GC connected to an 5975C Inert XL mass selective detector. The splitless injector and interface were maintained at 300°C and 340°C respectively. Helium was the carrier gas at constant inlet pressure. The temperature of the oven was programmed from 50°C (2 min) to 350°C (10 min) at 10°C/min. The GC was fitted with a 15m X 0.25mm, 0.25 m HP -5MS 5% Phenyl Methyl Siloxane phase fused silica column. The column was directly inserted into the ion source where electron impact (EI) spectra were obtained at 70 eV with full scan from m/z 50 to 800.

All samples yielded fatty acids, dominated by C16:0 and C18:0. The method blank sample also yielded these compounds but relative to the column bleed (the rise in the baseline from 30 minutes retention time) the amounts of these ubiquitous compounds is relatively low. Vessels 1, 5 and 6 contain these fatty acids in levels which are significantly higher than the blank and I would be confident in stating that these fatty acids are indigenous to the vessels and are not the result of contamination (vessels 2 and 4 having yields which are above the blank, but not significantly so). No other lipid components were extracted, therefore it is only possible to state that vessels 1, 5 and 6 (and possibly vessels 2 and 4) contain fatty acids, which are likely to represent a degraded oil or fat. It is not possible to identify this as being either a plant or animal origin.

Results (GC-MS) The results are presented as total ion chromatograms of the BSTFA derivatized solvent extract (-Si(CH3)3 derivatives). These show each separated component of the solvent extract as

C16:0

Relative intensity

C18:0

Vessel 1

P 10

15

P 20

25



30

35 40 Retention time (min)

P

C16:0

Relative intensity

C18:0

Vessel 2

P

10

15

20

25

30

35 40 Retention time (min)

10

15

P

C18:0

P

C16:0

Relative intensity

Vessel 3

20

25



30

35 40 Retention time (min)

Relative intensity

C18:0

Vessel 4

C16:0

P

P

10

15

20

25

30

35 40 Retention time (min)

25

30

35 40 Retention time (min)

10

15

C20:0

P

C18:1

P

C14:0

C16:0

Relative intensity

C18:0

Vessel 5

20



10

15

C20:0

P

C18:1

P

C16:0

Relative intensity

C18:0

Vessel 6

20

25

30

35 40 Retention time (min)

25

30

35 40 Retention time (min)

Relative intensity

Method blank

10

15

C18:0

P

C16:0

P

20



Appendix 4. The quartz assemblage from Blasthill chambered tomb Hugo Anderson-Whymark

Introduction Excavations at Blasthill yielded 928 pieces of quartz and quartzite weighing 33.072 kg (Table A4.1-3). The greater part of this total comprises large fragments of milky quartz cobbles that have been split and incorporated into the structure of the cairn and the soil in the forecourt (context 025 and 039). A small number of flakes and tools manufactured from quartzite and quartz were recovered from both trenches with a concentration from the soil in the forecourt area in Trench A. Many of the quartz flakes represent accidental bi-products from splitting cobbles, but the presence of a side scraper (Trench A, context 025) and a core with a refitting flake (Trench B, context 023) indicate that some of these artefacts were intentionally worked. In addition, three quartz hammerstones and a fine hammerstone/burnishing stone was recovered; the former were probably used to split quartz cobbles.

The pebbles and cobbles of milky quartz originate from at least two sources. The most common form, accounting for the majority of the assemblage, was imported as large sub-rounded cobbles. The surfaces of these cobbles are comparatively smooth and some are almost polished, but they also exhibit numerous chatter marks indicating they originate from a high energy fluvial environment, such as a beach. The surface of these cobbles is stained orangebrown and several exhibit mineralised deposits containing quartz grains. This surface condition suggests these pebbles have been gathered from a raised beach deposit. This quartz has a strong tendency to part along well developed rhombohedral planes of weakness. As a result, the pebbles of this material have a tendency to form regular halves, quarters, eighths and flat tablets when split. Four unworked pebble/cobbles of this material were recorded and these weigh 78g, 132g, 581g and 695g respectively.

Methodology The lithics were catalogued according to broad artefact/debitage types and retouched pieces were classified following standard morphological descriptions developed for lithic artefacts (Ballin 2008; Bamford 1985; Bradley 1999; Butler 2005; Healy 1988). The fracture mechanics of quartz differ from many lithic materials and clear evidence of percussion, in the form of conchoidal fracture, is not always apparent as it tends to part along internal planes of weakness. The manner in which quartz fragments is, however, not entirely random and specific reduction techniques will generate distinctive forms. The quartz pebbles and cobbles in this assemblage were being reduced by percussion generating split fragments representing one half, a quarter or an eighth of a pebble. These pieces were separately classified but other fragments, including fine slithers, slabs parted on lines of weakness and irregular pieces were classed as chunks. All lithics weighing over 1g were individually recorded to allow consideration of patterns of fragmentation and the size of unworked raw materials. The assemblage was catalogued directly onto a Microsoft Access 2007 database and data manipulated in Microsoft Excel 2007.

The second type of milky quartz is translucent greyish white quartz, with occasional pieces exhibiting red banding, and in this respect this material is similar to the first. However, the pebbles are smaller (c