A Conservative Party? Pots and People in the Hebridean Neolithic

Abstract

Recent analysis of the ceramic assemblage from the Neolithic loch islet settlement of Eilean Dòmhnuill, North Uist, in the Western Isles of Scotland has highlighted the intense conservatism of the potting traditions over a period of more than 800 years. Hebridean Neolithic pottery exhibits clear relationships with pottery from Argyll, Arran, and Bute, as well as Orkney and the north-east mainland of Scotland. It appears to have developed a distinctive, often decoratively elaborate regional form very soon after its initial appearance, which subsequently appears to have undergone little or no significant change until the introduction of Grooved Ware in the early 3rd millenniumbc. An association exists between large assemblages of elaborately decorated Hebridean pottery and a number of artificial islets in freshwater lochs, some very small and producing little or no evidence for domestic activities. This might be explained by the importance of commensality in mediating relations between small communities in the Western Isle at such sites following the introduction of agriculture in the 2nd quarter of the 4th millenniumbc. The conservatism and stasis evident at Eilean Dòmhnuill, in the face of environmental decline, raises wider issues around the adaptive capabilities of the first farming communities prior to significant social changes in the earlier 3rd millenniumbc.

Neolithic crannogs: rethinking settlement, monumentality and deposition in the Outer Hebrides and beyond

“…Armit has suggested, for example, that it may have been a place of special significance in the landscape, albeit one of impermanent occupation: its permanence, its monumentality, its peculiar location, and the repeated renewal of its buildings, combine to suggest that it played a pivotal role in the cultural landscape of Neolithic North Uist comparable with the role played by the better-known funerary monuments (Armit 2003: 99).Cummings and Richards (2013: 198–200) compared travelling to Eilean Domhnuill on a causeway across the water with the journey along the tunnel-like passageways of contemporaneous passage grave tombs; others have commented on the site's isolation and ‘liminal’ location (Henley 2003: 137; Cummings & Richards 2013). Most recently, Copper and Armit (2018)—now aware of the newly discovered Lewis islet sites—have suggested that they could have been special places associated with social gatherings, ritualised feasting and commensality.…”

“…Armit (1996) has suggested that architectural differences between sites may have been related to settlement function, with some occupied all year round and others only seasonally. Similarly, Henley (2003: 133) and Copper and Armit (2018) have observed that apparently contemporaneous sites produce very different ceramic assemblages, and that differences in social status and identity may explain this divergence in material culture.…”

“…2600 cal BC (at 95 per cent confidence) (the latter phases of the site are currently not well defined chronologically; Garrow et al . 2017a: 115; see also Copper & Armit 2018). The best-preserved layers contained stone walls, stone-built hearths, postholes and spreads of occupation debris including 22 000 sherds of pottery.…”

“…The notion that crannogs could date to as early as the Neolithic period first arose following Armit's 1980s excavations at Eilean Domhnuill (Armit 2003; Copper & Armit 2018). Soon after commencing excavation, Armit and his team encountered substantial quantities of Neolithic pottery on what was expected to be an Iron Age islet.…”

Stepping Stones to the Neolithic? Radiocarbon Dating the Early Neolithic on Islands Within the ‘Western Seaways’ of Britain

“…As bone does not survive well on the islands, this would almost certainly involve new excavation under modern conditions to obtain contextually secure young wood charcoal. Given the clear material links and thus presumed cultural connections between the Outer Hebrides and Orkney during the 4th millennium bc (expressed most clearly in the regions’ shared use of Unstan pottery), it is interesting to note the quite different archaeological records and chronologies of change associated with the earliest Neolithic in the two regions – connections around the western seaways may have existed, but they did not straightforwardly lead to similar trajectories of change (these are of course highly complex issues; see Copper 2015 for a more detailed discussion of the relationship between the Outer Hebrides and Orkney).…”