Enclosed Spaces and open settlements
- How can we better understand the visibility and representativity of known settlement patterns beyond the enclosures?
- What lies behind the diversity of enclosure forms in our area, as shown by Cowley’s (2009) analysis of East Lothian? This requires a regionally-structured review of the classification and social context of enclosed places is required.
- How can we develop an overall picture regarding the role of ‘hillforts’, whether as tribal capitals, (seasonal) meeting places, elite residences, or other functions?
- The lack of dating evidence for enclosed sites is an issue across the board, as it is a severe constraint in understanding them. ‘Key-hole’ work offers the prospect of obtaining at least an outline chronology in an area relatively quickly, but with the caveat that such approaches will inevitably simplify each site sequence and can only produce a first-stage model.
- How can we address the lack of evidence for activities within enclosed sites?
- How did settlements change through the Iron Age? Is the apparent move away from enclosure in the early first millennium AD a general phenomenon, and what lay behind it? Did it have anything to do with the Roman incursions?
Houses
- What factors lie behind variation in house size and construction? Can clearer patterns in space and time be discerned?
- How can we test questions of detailed chronology of buildings in Iron Age South East Scotland?
- What is the significance of ‘lowland’ brochs in the SESARF Region in terms of the sites themselves and wider settlement and economy during the Iron Age?
- How do scooped settlements fit into the wider south-east tradition?
- What forces led to the move away from roundhouse architecture in different parts of the country? The contexts, chronology and significance of the introduction of rectilinear forms of architecture in various parts of Scotland during the 1st millennium AD require a major input of future research and synthesis.
- How do we recognise the non-roundhouse buildings that have become apparent at sites like Phantassie?
Landscape Organisation and Use
- Virtually all of the work in the area has concentrated on individuals sites and enclosures. It remains a priority to move beyond the enclosures. How was the landscape being utilised in other locations?
- How can we define relict land boundaries from studies of Medieval charter evidence or later parish boundaries (see Cowley 2009)?
- How can archaeological research improve our understanding of the nature and chronology of enclosure systems and land divisions and their link to enclosures, by building on the limited, but important work, to date (see Cowley 2009; Halliday 2002; Barber 1985; Savory 2023)?
- What would excavating fields in plan, rather than section, help us to understand about their character?
- What was the date and nature of the well-defined field terraces in Iron Age South East Scotland?
- Integrated landscape study, considering not just settlements but the agricultural landscape, use of other resources, location of votive deposits etc
- What more can we learn about inherited landscapes, as demonstrated by Cowley (2009) and by the work at Broxmouth (Armit and McKenzie 2013) and the A1 excavations (LeLong and MacGregor 2007) where we can see reuse of ancient monuments (eg cists in earlier mounds), structured deposition, symbolic artefact placement and people choosing to build their first enclosures in landscapes with earlier Neolithic and Bronze age ruins?
- Why were certain sites chosen for hoards? When fresh hoard /stray finds are found they should be excavated to gain an understanding of their context.
Subsistence, Farming and Food Production
- What was the nature of the Iron Age economy? What was the proportionate relationship between pastoralism and cereal cultivation?
- How can we gain a full understanding of the production and procurement of resources? This requires an integrated ‘field to feast’ or lifecycle approach, considering the nature of the various stages from procurement/production, processing and storage, to consumption/use.
- What tools could we employ to better characterise agricultural practice, including whether crops were produced at all sites or whether there were specific producer and consumer sites, forms another strand?
- How can we recognise inter-site differences in terms of status and the domestic animals produced and consumed?
- What was the nature of agriculture and animal husbandry outside of hillforts? There is a degree of survival of cord rig in the uplands of the Borders, while field systems, drove roads and possible stock enclosures all potentially related to the Iron Age have been observed within aerial photography and cropmarks within the region.
- The dating of cultivation remains is highly problematic, however, as the landscapes in which the remains occur are multi-period and often with minimal, if any, stratigraphy. Which sites/areas would benefit from high resolution palaeoenvironmental study of features that includes sediments?
- To what extent did changes in the settlement record correspond to episodes of arable expansion and woodland clearance?
- How can palaeoecology help to understand the drivers of intensifying land-use in the Iron Age? For example, population growth is now viewed as a simplistic explanation, instead can we develop more complex interpretations such as cattle ranching, settlement re-organisation, production of agricultural surpluses and changes in status and wealth?
- What was the nature of people’s interaction with coastal, marine and riverine environments and boats, watercraft and maritime activity in Iron Age South East Scotland? The identification of Iron Age coastal, marine and maritime interactions would enhance our understanding of everyday life in the Iron Age of South East Scotland.