To some, it might seem obvious that prehistory is no respecter of modern national borders. For example, even the most cursory examination of hillforts across the northern part of Britain readily reveals that the dense concentration of such sites apparent in south-eastern Scotland easily spills into what today is north-eastern England. The same pattern can be seen in other forms of Iron Age settlement, such as rectilinear enclosures and roundhouse architecture – but this is only part of the picture. Some kinds of constructions, namely brochs, duns, crannogs, and souterrains, are found widely across Scotland, but this architectural array is not replicated in northern England.
Why were Iron Age peoples in Scotland building and occupying these structures when their contemporaries to the south were not? There is no environmental reason behind this difference. Drystone architecture was common enough amongst Iron Age communities in northern England, but brochs and duns were evidently not to their taste. Nor is there any inherent environmental condition that largely prevented souterrains being constructed south of Scotland (until we reach Cornwall). It is also surely not credible that not one lake in England was conducive to crannog construction – even the Lake District, actually visible from much of crannog-rich Galloway, contains no known examples. There is a single crannog in Wales, but this is early medieval in date and is the result of Irish influence. Indeed, Ireland possesses numerous crannogs but the vast majority of these are much later than most Scottish examples, demonstrating that, while equivalent, they are not part of the same contemporary settlement pattern. Souterrains are also found in Ireland, but again these are predominantly much later in date (see CA 263), suggesting that they too are an independent cultural response to analogous circumstances. Perhaps, then, this differentiation can be explained through cultural reasons – the collective choices one community made that were distinct from those of other groups and which were not dictated by environmental factors.
Surprisingly, the fact that various types of Iron Age settlement do not breach the modern Anglo-Scottish border is something that has not been previously examined in detail. The reasons for this may lie in the way Iron Age archaeology is studied in Scotland, much like in the rest of Britain – that is, largely by region. This approach is understandable given the sheer volume of evidence, and there undoubtedly is considerable regional variation apparent in the settlement and material record of later prehistoric Scotland – we are not talking about one homogenous group. Take, for example, the dominance of different settlement types, with brochs and duns common in the north-west, and hillforts and souterrains more common in the east. Material culture, meanwhile, is particularly diverse, with a pottery-rich Atlantic zone and a pot-poor remainder, while differential patterns of quern types and hoarding can be seen between northern and southern Scotland. We can also see regional idiosyncrasies in the personal ornamentation worn by people in different areas, such as the ring-headed and spiral finger rings that were common to the Atlantic zone but largely absent in Galloway. What can we understand from these trends? My research, recently published in the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (see ‘Further Reading’ on p. 45), set out to make sense of these shifting patterns and perceptions.
Roman towns and cities: St Albans – Excavating the CA archive