Co-cheangal agus Iomallachd

Connections and insularity

The degree to which historic and prehistoric communities across the Outer Hebrides were connected to, or distinctive from, broader regions across Scotland, Britain and Europe are recurring research themes. This includes questions about the movement of people, about physical connections between communities inter-and intra-island, as well as island-mainland, about material and cultural connections, shared and distinct identities, as well as economic links and trade connections or the lack thereof. Whilst it is tempting to view these questions as specifically important to islands, the reality is that they are relevant questions in all archaeological contexts. The challenge for researchers of Outer Hebridean material is to better understand the mechanisms for physical and cultural interactions in this specific island-setting. This means addressing modern assumptions about Outer Hebridean island insularity and peripherality, engaging more effectively with the nature of island and marine travel, and questioning the appropriate region and scale of island case studies – more often a connected archipelago than an individual island.

Assumptions about the insularity of island communities, past and present, proliferate within many traditional archaeological narratives for the Outer Hebrides. Preconceived assumptions on the inherent insularity and remoteness of the Outer Hebrides continue to impact archaeological research. Yet, for much of the past these islands were clearly not ‘remote’, as we might now perceive them, but instead optimally located for marine-based travel that placed the islands at the centre of a busy network of island and coastal communities connected via the Atlantic, Irish Sea, Minch, North Sea, and beyond. Conversely, however, there are periods where archaeological evidence points to some distinct traditions and practices across the Outer Hebrides perhaps suggestive of more insular-identities and regionally specific systems of cultural meaning and value. Integrating Gaelic language and culture into studies on this theme can greatly enhance researcher knowledge and understanding of connectivity in the past and present, as well providing insight into how island communities have considered their role in the wider world.

Arguably, the archaeology of the Outer Hebrides is too frequently viewed as an area of specific, and therefore of insular study. Although most archaeological research addresses connectivity themes in one form or another, comparison with wider or alternative narratives for example (Parker Pearson 2004, Sharples 2021), there are surprising few recent research projects concerned primarily with wider Hebridean connections. For early prehistory, the Stepping Stones Project is an excellent example of a research project with a particularly focus on how evidence from the Outer Hebrides articulates with wider patterns of Neolithic expansion (SIRFA Case Study: Islands of Stone). The Boyne to Brodgar project has a similar connectivity theme, setting out to enhance understanding of the cultural connections between the Outer Hebrides  and other parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland via Neolithic monument construction, a topic that will be further enhanced with the results of the forthcoming Scotland’s Earliest Megalithic Monuments project. Another notable example here is the Scottish Grave Goods project (Cooper et al 2020).

The strength of these research initiatives is the focused consideration of Outer Hebridean material within a broader prehistoric context and recognition that Hebridean material has relevance to wider prehistoric narratives. However, like all good research, one of the outcomes of these research initiatives has been the emergence of new questions and research avenues on this theme. We still lack an adequate explanation for why the Neolithic across the Outer Hebrides looks so different from the Neolithic in Orkney, from mainland Scotland and from Ireland, in terms of settlement types and locales, and monumental expressions. Furthermore, what these differences suggest about the extent and depth of contact and connections between these different communities and about Outer Hebridean identities? To what extent were Neolithic communities within the Outer Hebrides connected? Perhaps more fundamentally, it is still unclear whether the first farming communities in the Outer Hebrides developed culturally from indigenous island populations or if they arrived from elsewhere.

Whilst a wider perspective to the Hebridean Neolithic has been relatively well explored, by comparison later periods are less frequently integrated into broader research projects. For the Iron Age, despite decades of focused research, we still lack an adequate explanation for apparent similarities and difference in monumental architecture between the Western and Northern Isles (although see Sharples 2021). We still do not fully understand why wheelhouses became a distinctive feature in both the Outer Hebrides and Shetland, but have yet to be identified in Orkney. The early historic period is characterised by a series of complex off-island connections – with evidence pointing to a mixture of new people, new languages, new cultural norms and practices, new belief systems that imply a series of complex inter and intra-island networks. Yet the mechanisms for these connections and the relationship between these varying off-island influences is still poorly understood. For the medieval and post-medieval period, the archaeological narrative is viewed as one where cultural insularity deepens as a result of external influences that inflict increasing economic and political marginality (Barrowman 2019). However, there is clearly scope for bringing later prehistoric and historic period material from the Outer Hebrides into wider comparative research projects.

Many key research gaps on these topics stem from a poor understanding of prehistoric and early historic seafaring and boat technology. There is clear need for more research that directly tackles these knowledge gaps for all periods. We know very little about prehistoric and early historic period boats that were used by Outer Hebridean communities. Likewise, knowledge of the marine and seafaring landscape is poor: Where were boats launched from? Which natural harbours were utilised in the past? What routes from, to and between the Outer Hebridean islands were likely exploited given available technology, weather systems, currents etc? How were inland waterways connected? As Blankshein has argued, we need a better understanding of maritime spaces and a more nuanced and holistic perspective on past seafaring and maritime movement (2021, see also McWhannell 2017, Angus 2020).

To aid these research questions, and to counter the likely lack of physical evidence, experimental work is highly recommended. Gaelic research is also of huge relevance here. The birlinn, a distinctive type of wooden galley ship propelled by oar and sail, is a well-known symbol of Hebridean power and navel prowess which features in a range of historical contexts. Although material remains of these vessels are yet to be identified, they are prevalent within Gaelic stories, poetry and song, perhaps most famously Birlinn Chlann Raghnaill (Cland Ranald’s Galley) by Alasdair MacMhaistir. Cheape discusses at length the Gaelic literary evidence for water travel technology, specifically logboats, amongst the west Highlands in lieu of any archaeological or physical evidence (1999). Use of such stories and other Gaelic resources to explore and understand the connections between the islands in the past could be hugely insightful about historic and prehistoric seafaring, marine travel and wider sea-based connections.

The degree to which people moved into and out of the Hebrides over time has become a topic with renewed potential and interest given methodological and theoretical advancements in aDNA and stable isotope analysis over the last few decades. There is huge potential for Outer Hebridean material to contribute to wider British and European debates about population changes during the Neolithic, Bronze Age and the early historic period specifically. However, the lack of human remains continues to be a barrier here. In a commercial and research context, recovery and post-excavation work on human remains needs to be prioritised. The use of isotope and aDNA work is obviously reliant on the collation of skeletal remains. This is difficult and presents issues (as referenced elsewhere) and it is unlikely this area will see development until an increase in the availability of skeletal remains is achieved.

Archaeological questions about cultural and ethnic identity have much to draw from Gaelic language resources that address cultural affiliations, political connections and the impact of incoming populations. Norse-Gaelic place names and Gaelic loan words from Old Norse are prime examples where archaeological and linguistic research are combined to great effect. Likewise, Gaelic-place names continue to be fundamental to discussions about population displacement during the early historic period (Clancy 2024, Whyte 2024). In Ireland, stories of the Tuatha Dé Dannan, aos sídhe, and the Ulster Cycle are often discussed in direct relation to the archaeological evidence (Cunliffe 1999, 25-27, Waddell 2000, 334, 360) and there is great potential within Hebridean archaeology to employ similar approaches and thinking. Further exploration of Cù Chulainn and Finn and his Fianna, for example, potentially informs on cultural links between communities across the Outer Hebrides, Ireland, and the Isle of Man. The potential for using etymological and toponymic evidence to reflect on the relationship between ethnicity, language, cultural identity and population movement suggests research value here that extends beyond historic periods. For example, can our understanding of early historic period population movements, enhanced by linguistics and oral history resources, help us make sense of apparent population and cultural changes during early prehistory?

Connections and Insularity Research Questions