More Finds on Sanday

Braving the weather on Sanday, Chris managed to take some quick shots of the newly discovered Bronze Age settlement complex. It was blowing a sandstorm at the time so please excuse the quality ! But they are interesting nonetheless.

The first photograph shows a short section of curving wall with the top edge of an upright stone, c0.60m in length, roughly parallel to, presumably, the inside wall face. Just behind the photographer another slightly curving wall face, visible for c2m, was traced among the beach stone and shingle. Reddish brown midden deposits containing shell and bone were also observed close to these features.

The second photograph shows one of several raised ridges of shingle which extend underneath the sand dunes to the east. In the foreground of the photograph can be seen a curving ridge of stone which may represent the remains of a building. Modern vehicle tracks cross the image diagonally. Stone tools including ard points, struck cobbles, Skaill knives and stone bars were visible at this location and along the length of the beach.

Ard points are round section flagstones pointed at one end. Many have been chipped and pecked to shape. Ard points were used as stone shares on ploughs without a mouldboard. They passed through the soil breaking it up. Ard points are familiar at Bronze Age sites, and interestingly are also found associated with barrows and burial mounds from that period.

The third photograph shows two “earthfast” sub-rectangular stones to the right of Vicky. These may form part of a building entrance.

AEA Conference 2016

Islands: Isolation and connectivity

The AEA Spring Conference, April 2016

Hosted in Kirkwall, Orkney by the Archaeology Institute, University of the Highlands and Islands

Followed by meetings of the Professional Zooarchaeology Group and the Archaeomalacology Working Group

We are hosting three consecutive meetings in the Archaeology Institute in Kirkwall.  Following a wine reception and plenary lecture on the evening of Friday the 1st of April, we will hold the one-day AEA spring conference on the 2nd of April.  In the evening we will have a ‘taste of Orkney’ conference dinner at the nearby Lynnfield Hotel.  On the 3rd of April, we will hold the Professional Zooarchaeology Group meeting, while simultaneously providing a field trip option for those wishing to explore more of Orkney.  On the evening of the 3rd we will have a reception at the Stromness Museum which houses superb natural history collections.  Field trips will again be available on the 4th of April, and on the 5th and 6th of April the Archaeomalacology Working Group meeting will then take place.

AEA Conference Abstract

The notion of the island as a laboratory, as a world in microcosm with well-defined boundaries, is an appealing and long established cliché. For almost two centuries, we have explored the distinctive biological and historical trajectories of different islands, and have identified a variety of ‘island effects’; on plants and animals and on human communities. Such work demonstrates that many islands offered distinctive potentials (and barriers) for social and ecological development. That said, research has often struggled to deal with a number of crucial problems; issues of scale and influence, of biogeography, connectivity and sustainability, that we are often ill-equipped to explore. This meeting provides a context in which to take a critical look at some of the premises upon which island-based work has often been undertaken, and asks some fairly fundamental questions. Is it helpful to think of islands as isolated or remote? Was the sea a barrier or a medium of movement and communication? How should we understand the place that island communities occupied in broader worlds? How did the nature of that wider articulation change over time and how was it manifest differently for individual communities/species? Most important of all, how should we reconcile the local details of colonisation, adaptation and (even) abandonment within broader processes of environmental and social change? Structured around the theme of isolation and connectivity, this meeting will give us a chance to look at some of these crucial concerns, with contributions from archaeobotany to zooarchaeology, from biomolecular analyses to climatology, and from landscape to seascape. Although this meeting will take place in the Northern Isles, there is no geographic restriction on submissions: by presenting papers set in various diverse ‘conceptual islands’ and island groups we hope to draw together and share methodologies and discussions.

Ingrid Mainland
https://www.uhi.ac.uk/en/archaeology-institute/events/association-for-environmental-archaeology-conference-2016

 

 

Going Underground – Souterrains at The Cairns

Following on from our Facebook features on The Cairns excavation in South Ronaldsay, people have been asking questions about the Souterrain and other undergound places found at the site.If you want to be part of the Archaeology Institute University of the Highlands and Islands research programme as a student of archaeology or a volunteer then please contact Mary at archaeology@uhi.ac.uk or go to our webpage https://www.uhi.ac.uk/en/archaeology-institute

Where else are they found?

Souterrains are found in Brittany, Cornwall (fougous), Ireland, prolifically up the East of Scotland north of the Firth of Forth , but more sporadically anywhere in Scotland and then quite densely in Atlantic Scotland.  There’s also a small and slightly strange spread of them in the Jutland region of Denmark, which have sometimes been suggested to bear a resemblance to Scottish examples! 

When were they in use?

Traditionally, they are seen as a fundamentally Iron Age phenomenon, with the expectation of a south-to-north development and spread and with the French examples as the earliest with early examples in the earlier Iron Age of the 6th and 5th Centuries BC.  However, we can now see more clearly that these earlier assumptions hold no water.  The earliest dated examples that I am aware of come from Orkney, where we have radiocarbon dates of the very early Iron Age for at least three examples and artefactual material from a few others  that supports a very early date here.  Additionally, the is a further example from Orkney, which will be published by the Institute soon that yields a spectacularly early date for construction and use (watch this space)!  Souterrains in Scotland were also clearly being constructed late in the Iron Age or in the Pictish period.  Our souterrain at The Cairns, for example was built after the end of the main use of the broch.  In Ireland the souterrains there are frequently dated to a much later period from the 800’s AD to about the 12th Century AD and are often seen as refuges in times of strife (see below).  

Why were they abandoned?

To answer this we need to look at individual examples.  One archaeologist has suggested that for the souterrains in NE mainland Scotland there is an ‘abandonment horizon’ chronologically and he attributes this to the collapse of relationships with the Roman army in the mid to late 2nd Century AD, which he would suggest had, until then, fostered a growth in the agrarian economy of that part of Scotland to feed the needs of the Roman army, and hence a growth in local storage facilities to cope with this demand.  It’s fair to say this explanation has not received universal support from Iron Age scholars, and there is plenty of evidence of souterrains being constructed in the NE long before the Romans arrived and abandoned long after they left.  Indeed, many souterrains in that part of the world incorporate fragments of Roman masonry often showing that they were built, at least a short time, after the Romans had abandoned their local garrison forts.

What are they used for?

The age old question and one that we aim to give at least some sensible contributions to through our research at The Cairns and in the Windwick Bay landscape more generally, at least for Orkney and Atlantic Scotland.

The short answer is we still do not know for certain what role the souterrains played in the societies that built them.  For one thing they may not all have been used for the same purpose in each of the key regions in which they are found.  Indeed, the chronological variety that I’ve mentioned above could encourage us to contemplate whether they are the same thing at all, in which case our term souterrain becomes nothing more than a descriptive typology, rather than a cultural phenomenon representing affinities across a large regional canvass during the Iron Age and early Historic periods.    Additionally, there is no particular reason why souterrains should have a single use even within the smaller regions within which they were built and used.  A further extension to this is that some individual souterrains show evidence of having been used for a very long time, many centuries in some cases, so again there’s no necessary reason why an individual souterrain should not have been used for a variety of different purposes over that long life. 

The traditional explanations are largely three-fold and usually argued to be mutually exclusive:

1. Storage

2. Refuge

3. Ritual/religious

The first of these; Storage, is largely where the consensus of scholars lies currently, and it is indeed perfectly possible and interesting to contemplate that souterrains could have been used to store agricultural produce such as grain, or indeed dairy produce such as milk, butter and cheeses.  It is tempting to see them as essentially analogous to the cold stores: the ‘tattie houses’ or ice houses of a much later period.  The idea of storing grain in the souterrains of the Scottish Isles seems problematic because there is almost always only one entrance into the structures and therefore to use the space effectively (i.e. be able to rotate the stored produce or be able to access the oldest produce first you would have to refrain from storing the grain en masse, and therefore have to store it in containers such as pots or kegs first and this just simply renders much of the space of the souterrain chambers redundant.  If you are going to store grain in pots then you can do that in any type of reasonably sheltered space it doesn’t require an underground facility and you could as easily do it aboveground in roundhouses and brochs and we have very good evidence from Orkney and Shetland that that is exactly what Iron Age communities were doing in several of the broch excavations.  We also know that people were storing grain in other ways both before and after the Iron Age in above ground structures.  So why underground storage during the Iron Age?  Therefore if we are to redeem the idea of souterrains as implicated in storage of agrarian produce then we have to consider that it was not a necessary and environmentally determined purpose but more likely a cultural and quite possibly political and ritual motivation for storing produce.

This leads us on to discuss other motivations for their construction including ritual.  Firstly, some general considerations: it has to be said that ritual has a bit of a bad reputation amongst the public when it comes to archaeology and indeed amongst some archaeologists too!     It often seems to the public that archaeologists all too readily nominate any aspect of excavation sites and past societies that they fail to understand in a common-sensical or logical manner as stemming from the hopelessly arcane ritual lives of past people.  There has been an unfortunate tendency in the recent past for excavators to relegate anything they recover from a site that cannot be immediately explained in pragmatic terms to the dust-bin of ritual.  This probably explains why some members of the public are tempted to throw their eyes heavenward when archaeologists evoke ritual as an explanation for various phenomena.  However, more recently many archaeologists have come  to appreciate the importance of ritual practice in the lives of many, if not all, ‘non-Western’ or traditional societies. 

In terms of souterrains specifically I feel there are at least three key areas of the archaeology of souterrains that we need to consider, here.  These are 1. Their construction (& architecture), 2. their chronological place within specific sites and the objects and 3. the artefacts and materials that have been deposited inside them.  The detail of each of these considerations leads me to think there is a strong ideological/ritual aspect to souterrains.  For example, just using data from Orkney and Shetland, various souterrains sites have been found to contain human remains, including full inhumations (whole burials of bodies), fragments of bodies, especially collections of heads, and cremated bone.  Other objects/materials found in them have included stone figurines, or ‘necked stones’ in the local parlance; broken stone tools and querns apparently deliberately formally deposited, and fragments of metalwork or pottery that again look like they have been formally deposited and not simply casually discarded.  So it looks like there is quite a degree of formal deliberate deposition, or ‘structured deposition’ as it’s known in archaeology, involved in the practices and activities that were underway at souterrains during the Iron Age.  Essentially, I think we’re talking about ritual practices here.  Now ritual can be in attendance at a whole variety of types of place – it doesn’t have to mean that a particular place or type of site was specifically intended to be primarily a ritual place, even though ritual practices were sometimes undertaken there.  When we factor in the construction and architecture of souterrains we also have to ponder aspects such as the very underground nature; the darkness of these places, often accentuated by twists, turns or kinks in the entrance passages.  We can also consider the way these entrance passages often turn in an anti-clockwise direction (against the sun’s movement), when almost all aboveground built space in the Iron Age is laid out in a clock-wise direction (with the sun’s movement), as if there is a deliberate wish to contravene the normal social rules in the construction and use of souterrains.  These are just a few of many aspects that make it clear to me that there is strong potential for souterrains to have ritual and ideological dimensions built into their architecture. 

 Souterrains are often built as some of the first features on brand new Iron Age settlement sites.  They appear to be part of the foundation sequences of sites and we suspect that this makes them a very important aspect of these big politically and socially important building projects that were underway during the early and Middle Iron Age.  At the opposite end of the sequence we often find souterrains built at the end of the main period of use of big impressive buildings such as massive roundhouses and brochs, with souterrains often built into the remains of these (as, for example, with our souterrain at The Cairns).     In this case it again looks like building a souterrain was sometimes part of the act of decommissioning the broch or roundhouse as though the souterrain memorialises the earlier building.  Indeed, we can push this apparent interest in the past on the part of souterrain builders even further because there are quite a large number of souterrains, in Orkney at least, that are built into the remains of much earlier archaeological sites; such as tombs dating to the Neolithic.  Indeed, some souterrains have carved and decorated stones of a type more at home in the Neolithic built into their architecture.  I think all of this makes us think that the souterrains were about more than simple prosaic storage, and had strong cultural belief built into them as well.

 Finally, lets deal with refuge.  Although the consensus position in Ireland for the souterrains there is that they provided refuge places in times of trouble, it is inherently unlikely that many of the souterrains in most other parts of Britain can be adequately explained in this way.  For example, souterrains in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland almost always have one entrance and therefore one exit, they do not possess the air ventilation shafts seen in Irish souterrains and they do not very often lead out from an aboveground building or enclosure to exit outside of that space offering escape as many of the Irish ones do.  Essentially, many Scottish souterrains would be more death-trap than refuge in hostile circumstances.  Additionally, most souterrains in Scotland  probably had a very specific relationship with above ground buildings and settlement.  The nature of warfare during the Iron Age in Scotland (as for most of Britain) was probably fairly small-scale and effectively internecine, therefore its probable that any hostile party attempting to overrun a settlement would know very well to expect souterrain type features at any settlement as they would possess them themselves and therefore souterrains are not a very effective hide-out strategy.  Imagine the nightmare of being ‘holed up’ in a souterrain where an aggressor had overrun the settlement above and then you are discovered, the hostile party need only set a fire at the entrance to the souterrain and smoke you out, or burn you alive, or even just seal you up and bury you alive!  I therefore think refuge is highly unlikely in a North of Scotland souterrain context.

 All of this I think leads to the possibility that souterrains have strong ritual and ideological aspects embedded in them but that this does not preclude them being used also for the storage of important materials and foodstuffs or seed corn, indeed the importance of these things like agricultural surpluses, and the status that can be negotiated/achieved through its control would mean that storage is highly likely to be complementary to important seasonal rituals and political performances.  

Our work at The Cairns is intended to try to determine if this is the case or not!

If you want to be part of the Institutes research programme as a student of archaeology or a volunteer then please contact Mary at archaeology@uhi.ac.uk or go to our webpage https://www.uhi.ac.uk/en/archaeology-institute

 

Bronze Age Settlement Discovered on Sanday

Tresness (2)
Professor Jane Downes examines one of the house structures on the beach.

Archaeological discoveries are often made when least expected, and this is exactly what happened last Monday 7th December at Tresness, Sanday. In very poor weather, Prof. Jane Downes (University of the Highlands and Islands), Prof. Colin Richards (Manchester University), Dr Vicki Cummings (University of Central Lancaster) and Christopher Gee (ORCA, UHI) were walking out to Tresness to examine the eroding stalled cairn on the point. Initially, Christopher noticed what appeared to be the top of a substantial cairn of stones emerging through the sand. Then, Jane and Vicki spotted a circular spread of stones lying nearby in the intertidal zone on the western side of the ness. Investigating the spread, a large number of ard-points, stone mattocks, stone bars, hammerstones and stone flaked knives were immediately visible on the surface. Closer examination revealed sections of stone walls and uprights, which were clearly part of a house structure. No sooner was the spread of stones identified as the remains of a Bronze Age house, when another spread of stones was seen lying just a few metres away. This too was another house structure covered with a mass of stone tools. As the group continued walking along the sand, one after another, a series of Bronze Age sites were discovered.

The houses are visible as differently shaped spreads of stones, and in all some 14 examples were located distributed over a kilometre stretch along the sand. This vast spread of Bronze Age settlement appears to have been sealed beneath the massive sand-dunes that characterise the approach to Tresness. Indeed, a number are actually in the process of eroding from beneath the dune complex. What this discovery reveals is that an entire Bronze Age landscape on Sanday was covered by the sand dunes formed in the second millennium BC. It was the scale and density of occupation that really surprised the archaeologists as they proceeded along the ness. Not only are house structures present but working areas are also visible. Prof. Downes, who specialises in the Bronze Age was stunned by the extent of the settlement area, “this must be one of the biggest complexes of Bronze Age settlement in the Scottish isles, rivalling the spreads of hut circles in other parts of mainland Scotland”, she exclaimed.

The Bronze Age, in terms of settlement and associated agricultural practices, is probably the least understood period in Orcadian prehistory, and the vast quantity of ard-points testifies to the dominance of arable agriculture occurring at this time. It also confirms the strange practice of depositing numerous ard-points and stone tools in houses after they were ‘decommissioned’ noted by Prof. Downes. Similar Bronze Age houses have been recently excavated at the Links of Noltland, Westray; however, the scale of the Sanday discoveries is unparalleled in Orkney. Cath Parker, leader of the Sanday Archaeology Group, says “This is incredibly exciting. The archaeological landscape concealed beneath Sanday’s  shifting sands never ceases to amaze us. I’m sure the local community will relish the opportunity to be involved with any work which stems from this thrilling discovery.”

This new discovery offers the possibility of examining a dispersed Bronze Age settlement context in detail; an occurrence that will surely shed new light on this rather hazy period in Orcadian prehistory. Prof. Richards noted that “after a long history of excavating the large late Neolithic settlements or ‘villages’, most recently the Ness of Brodgar and Links of Noltland, we now possess a detailed understanding of Neolithic life in Orkney, but what happens in the following Bronze Age period is a bit of a mystery”.

Of course, given their position in the intertidal zone, the settlement complex on Sanday is under substantial threat from coastal erosion and it is only a matter of time before they will be further damaged and destroyed.

 

Discovering Hidden Kirkwall 12th December

Discovering Hidden KirkwallKirkwall Townscape Heritage Initiative Archaeology Programme is calling for volunteers !

The Archaeology Institute University of Highlands and Islands is running the first in a series of projects in the Kirkwall  Townscape Heritage Initiative. The project aims to involve local people in archaeology and discover a hidden Kirkwall.

During the day volunteers will undertake a basic archaeological survey in the Kirkwall conservation area – taking photographs, making sketches and describing buildings.

There are 10 places availabe for volunteers
Sat 12th Dec. 10.00am – 2.00pm
Meet Outside the cathedral
Contact to book Daniel Lee
Tel : 01856 569214

 

Kirkwall THI

The Kirkwall Townscape Heritage Initiative is a two year programme of archaeological investigations in Kirkwall conservation area offering community training and memorable hands-on experiences.


This Archaeological Programme has four stages of community archaeological work and training situated in the centre of Kirkwall within the Conservation Area. A range of non-intrusive and intrusive techniques are proposed, including Archaeological Standing Building Recording, Geophysical Survey, Palaeoenvironmental Survey and Sample Excavation, which will provide opportunities for the local community to take part and learn about archaeology, enhance community understanding of our urban heritage and provide short and long term economic benefits to Kirkwall town centre.

Activities will happen over a series of weekends throughout 2015 and 2016.

Contact Daniel Lee if you want to volunteer or just want to know more about this exciting project. Click Daniel Lee and Kirkwall THI project

New Masters Module in Art and Archaeology

updatedAB_art  arch module (003) (003)


 

One of the underlying principles of the Archaeology Institute is to promote archaeology in the community. Using the considerable resources of both the Art & Design department and the Archaeology Institute, we can offer courses that combine the two disciplines.

Just a quick reminder about the new Masters module Art and Archaeology course : Contemporary Theory and Practice starting in January 2016. Fridays 10-12 over 12 weeks.

Enrol today by contacting : email : studyarchaeology@uhi.ac.uk or telephone 01856 569000