Under this thematic section, Alexander (2015) discussed settlement development and chronology, enclosure boundaries, economies, material culture, ritual activity, caves and natural features, tribal groupings, Roman-native interaction in the 2015 essay . This chapter shows how the sites outlined in the previous section, as well as the reinterpretation of two Crannogs in the Clyde enhances our understanding of the complexity of communities throughout the Iron Age.
Crannogs have been historically interpreted as highly defensive structures but two crannogs in the study area have been recently reexamined and recontextualised with current understanding of the Iron Age. These were the Erskine Crannog (7863) which was examined from the surface structure in the estuarian muds of the Clyde and Old Kirkpatrick Crannog (7828) which was subject to early excavation in 1906. The surviving finds of Old Kirkpatrick were reexamined (Hanson et al 2022, 1). The conditions of crannogs on the estuarian Clyde are much different to those placed on Lochs such as Hyndford Crannog (10770, Munro 1899) and Lochend Loch Crannog (Montieth and Robb 1937), as the tidal nature of the estuary limits the defensive capacity. At low tide the Crannogs in the Clyde are surrounded by mudflats and therefore more easily accessible by land (Hanson et al 2022, 40). The two crannogs revisited through this research have in the past been interpreted as non-dwelling structures with specialist functions for food processing or ease of access to the Clyde but the reexamination of the crannogs has suggested the opposite. Finds and ecofacts recovered from Erskine and Old Kirkpatrick are typical assemblages found at Iron Age dwelling sites, with several seeds, such as barley, emmer, wild fruit and hazel nut fragments and stone artefacts such as flint artefacts, a saddle quern, and coarse stone implements which retell the story of these crannogs as non-defensive dwellings on the Clyde (Hanson et al 2022, 40).
There is a special relationship between people and water throughout the Iron Age, firstly due to the presence of Crannogs, built specifically on bodies of water, but also deposition of objects and hoards in wetlands. A copper alloy cauldron was found in Elvanfoot, South Lanarkshire as a single object deposition unrelated to a settlement (MacGregor 1976; Treadway 2023). Single object deposition is thought to represent an individual or household with the object tied to a culture of a community or group. Study of single object deposition in Scotland has shown that the most populus objects found are Cauldrons like found at Elvanfoot (10377, Treadway 2023, 37). Furthermore, the waterlogged context of the enclosed settlement at Hyndford Quarry (O’Connell 2022) also highlights the relationship between people and watery places. The deliberate choice to build upon bog would not only call for an altered method of construction of the roundhouses but also greater need for constant repair of the wooden structure highlighting the complexity of the site and communities that inhabited them.
Woodend Hillfort (10440) also shows an enhanced complexity from the traditional view of a hillfort, partially due to its positioning as a low lying fort. Although a small sample of the site was tested, we have a greater understanding of the hillfort and can understand it as a more complex site. The morphology of the site is more complicated than originally thought as the interpretation of the site from aerial photography, seen as an enclosed settlement bounded by one ditch. The site was then later reinterpreted as a fort with a single rampart and through excavation an exterior ditch, interior ditch and interior gully for wooden palisade. The series of post holes close to the palisade but not within the gully indicate series of repairs to the wooden palisade throughout the lifetime of the fort (Cox and Marshall 2023, 17). The finds of hammerscale and ironworking slag within the interior indicate that blacksmithing was an activity done in the fort. Further information on the settlement and use of the hillfort is limited as only 5% of the interior was excavated. A palimpsest of pits and postholes were located during the excavation, an alignment of three postholes arranged in an arc has been recorded as an inferred structure. Pits close to the structure were filled with a deposit of burnt material and a high amount of burnt bone (Cox and Marshall 2023, 19). Within only a small area of the fort, two separate activities can be interpreted, blacksmithing and domestic activity, the fort itself is much more complex in the defensive nature of the structure.