The National Iron Age ScARF Framework provided a series of overall research recommendations to cover the whole of Scotland. Many are still relevant to South East Scotland so they are integrated into the following recommendations. Further, recent publications (e.g Armit 2013; Haselgrove 2009; Hunter 2009 and others) have indicated further research questions that should be addressed in any future work in South East Scotland; where practical these have also been included below. Recommendations gleaned from the review of South East Scotland archaeological record are also included.
6.2.6 Settlement and Daily Life Research Questions
6.3.8 Burial and Ritual Research Questions
6.4.1 Material Culture, Craft and Trade Research Questions
Some considerations
Over the last fifty years there has been an explosion in national and regional research frameworks across the UK. These have largely been initiated by university and/or museum professionals and largely used within those arenas. Since the late 1980s many research agendas have been integrated into developer-led archaeology with a good example being the Historic Environment Research Design (HERDS) utilised for the HS2 enabling works. This document outlined key research objectives along the infrastructure route. Importantly, the document aimed to ‘not just dig archaeology for the sake of digging’ but to be used as a ‘live document’ – as archaeology was found in the ground excavation and sampling strategies were tailored to attempt to answer live and relevant research questions. This should be the ethos for any research recommendations, particularly on developer-led projects which will always be the main driver for new information, as has been the case over the last thirty years in South East Scotland.
Further, any future recommendation must be based on the reality of whether we can actually answer the question. Otherwise the whole premise of a research framework is futile. On a very basic level we need to ask – can we actually answer the question in real life through a trowel or a scientific technique back in the laboratory? Anyone can ponder what the inhabitants of Traprain Law must have felt when the Roman representatives wandered up the hill but we will never be able to answer it through archaeology.
More fundamentally, we need to understand that if we genuinely want to answer most of the recommendations below then we simply have to think big and act big. Yes, key hole excavations are of value but if we really want to answer some of the big questions then we need to be bold enough to dig on the scale required. Research agendas are littered with sanguine statements like ‘we need to know more about hillforts’ or ‘we need to understand that type of enclosure better’. The fact that Broxmouth, Dryburn Bridge, Fishers Road, Phantassie, Knowes, Standingstone etc are all integral to new narratives of the South East Iron Age is because they have been excavated on a massive scale. Waiting for such sites to be discovered through future develop-led archaeology is probably wishful thinking – the entire design process for the A1 focussed on avoiding the known archaeology. The TELP project only worked as one of the key drivers was working in partnership with HES to strip large areas to assess, not only the research, but also the management of said sites.
The reality it is most of the key sites and landscapes that will answer the recommendations below are scheduled and will require bold thinking – there is no point digging these sites or landscapes if we cannot remove large swathes of enclosure walls, ditches and interiors or field boundaries If we can’t then there is no point putting it as a research recommendation.
And resource ambition is not just needed for sites. We must also learn from our previous endeavours and commitments. Recent publications (eg Armit and McKenzie 2013; Hunter 2009; Cowley 2009) have stressed that East Lothian, for example, is now one of the best studied areas in Iron Age Europe. But said individuals can only say this as it has been due to their decades of work (and their colleagues) that has led us to this remarkable understanding. Of course, every region is different and has its own challenges, but we would do well to learn from the handful of individuals whose commitment to landscape analysis (be it crop-marks, artefacts, sites, burials, use of Bayesian statistics, DNA analysis) provides such a fantastic basis to progress our work in the future. This is the level of detail, commitment and resource we now need for other areas.
In sum:
- We need to actively use research agendas and recommendations in future live projects, the majority of which will always be carried out under the auspices of planning legislation.
- We should only pose questions we know we can answer. This is not a philosophical consideration but a practical one – everyone knows that to answer the big questions then we need to dig large swathes of scheduled monuments and/or landscapes – but if that is what is needed then perhaps that is the debate that needs to be had, the argument made, the partnerships formed, and the funding found
- The majority of the Iron Age research in the Borders and East Lothian was driven by a handful of key individuals – we must encourage the next generations to become these new pioneers, regardless of what sector they work for, and we should all embrace partnership working that is so apparent in the recent publications.
- We should focus on the known honeypots that already have created frameworks from which we can build on.