3.5 Research Agenda

This section presents the agenda themes for the Neolithic in Perth and Kinross. Some are nested under the overarching PKARF theme headings, aimed at addressing wider multi-period priorities, while others are period-based and specific to the scope of this chapter. Where appropriate, a short explanatory note is provided, detailing underlying period-based thematic priorities which is then followed by the research questions generated to address them. 

Environment

Although valuable palaeoenvironmental work has been carried out as part of landscape and site-based investigations, clarity is still lacking on the overall palaeoenvironmental context (including climate) of the region’s Neolithic. The reliance on timber and other woodland resources in Neolithic lifeways is evident (Noble 2017), but there is much to learn about how these resources were obtained and used, what technologies were deployed and what evidence there is for impact on or stewardship of woodland. A better understanding of human / climate interactions is needed.

Upland / Lowland Relationships

The upland Neolithic remains poorly understood with relatively few modern excavations having been undertaken. More needs to be known about the chronology of funerary and other ceremonial monuments and potentially Neolithic earthworks and hilltop enclosures which remain unexplored. Thought processes as followed by Loveday (2016) have proved effective and could be applied here even prior to fieldwork, with an upland Neolithic survey providing an opportunity to answer key questions.

Periods of Transition

The traditional approach to characterising the past in terms of periods (ie Mesolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic etc) has its limitations, especially with regard to defining and explaining the transition from one period to the next. As far as the Neolithic to Chalcolithic transition is concerned, for example, a perspective that considers developments in the centuries before and after the first appearance of the ‘Beaker phenomenon’ might help us to understand better the context in which changes were occurring, the impact of Continental influences (including new people) and the response to them. Following the approach taken by Younger (2015), one potentially fruitful approach might be to focus attention on henges, since in several cases they are known to have been constructed during the second half of the third millennium BC in places where earlier monuments, dating to the first half of the third millennium BC, had existed.

Cropmarks

The region’s cropmark record is of significant importance for understanding the monument landscape of this period and this has been clearly demonstrated through recent research such as the SERF Project. Although valuable work has been carried out, further synthesis and characterisation of the cropmark record is still needed and the potentially Neolithic structures that have been identified, such as by Millican (2016a, 2016b), require further assessment and ground-truthing.

Something went wrong. Nothing recieved from the server

Settlements and Timber ‘Square-in-circle’ Structures

Priority 1: There is a need to improve our current poor understanding of Neolithic settlements and how they changed over time. For example, what was the architecture of houses that succeeded the Claish ‘hall’, particularly at sites where only pits are found? There is currently very little evidence for domestic timber structures across the region with knowledge largely dependent on pits and cropmarks.

Priority 2: The record for the Middle Neolithic (around 3500–3000 BC) is particularly thin. Recent developer-funded discoveries and cropmark identifications offer potential targets and present opportunities for focusing future research. A systematic fieldwalking campaign, akin to that employed by Phillips in Strathtay in 1994 (Phillips and Bradley 2005), could help to identify settlement sites and contextualise the cropmark record while also encouraging community participation and skills training. It may also aid identification of lowland late Mesolithic sites. Ground-truthing by excavation following fieldwalking would be key to capitalising on the information gathered (cf Barclay and Wickham-Jones 2002).

Economy, social organisation, material culture and patterns of resource use

Priority 1: Only a vague sense of the agricultural and animal husbandry regime exists and of what wild resources were consumed during the Neolithic in Perth and Kinross.

Priority 2: There is a need to better understand the nature of social organisation and its possible changes over the course of the Neolithic in this part of Scotland.

Priority 3: Our understanding of the Middle Neolithic pottery in Perth and Kinross is constrained by its paucity.

Priority 4: Greater understanding is required concerning the use of resources and the changing patterns of connectivity linking the Neolithic inhabitants of Perth and Kinross with each other and with people elsewhere. In particular, it would be useful to find out whether any English (probably Yorkshire) flint arrived in this part of Scotland prior to 3000 BC.

Monuments, funerary practices and enclosures

Priority 1: The chronology and associated funerary practices of monument types such as long mounds, cursus monuments and bank barrows remain poorly understood. A wider assessment of the potential for further Early Neolithic round barrows is also required.

Priority 2: Greater clarity of the chronology and form of the Cleaven Dyke (MPK6611) is required, including whether its north-west end consisted of a long barrow with an oval barrow adjacent to it.

Priority 3: Very little is known about the funerary practices of the Late Neolithic users of Grooved Ware pottery. For example, the Forteviot cemetery (MPK1888) featuring deposits of cremated remains was not associated with this kind of pottery.

Priority 4: It still remains unclear as to whether there are any Neolithic causewayed enclosures in Perth and Kinross and how many Neolithic enclosures of any type there are in this region.

Priority 5: It is unclear whether any standing stones, stone circles or other orthostatic stone settings (apart from the Forteviot standing stone) were erected in Perth and Kinross during the Neolithic.

Rock Art

Priority 1: The region has a rich rock art record, but its chronology is unclear. Further work is required to acquire dating evidence for the lifecycle of decorated stones and practices associated with them.

Priority 2: Rock art requires better integration into the narratives of the period where it can contribute more effectively to the understanding of the Neolithic in both the uplands and lowlands.

---