The research questions below derive from the archaeological research baseline presented in Chapter 5 Neolithic of the South West Scotland Archaeological Research Framework.
Please also consider the research questions raised in Chapter 2 Archaeological Practice and Chapter 3 Land and Environment of the South West Scotland Archaeological Research Framework.
Many of the research recommendations from the original National ScARF and other regional research frameworks are also relevant and applicable in South West Scotland.
1. Can we identify chronological overlap in late Mesolithic populations or cultural traits with the early Neolithic populations in our region? If so, can we recognise the retention or assimilation of Mesolithic characteristics within the emerging Neolithic tradition?
2. Can we recognise in our archaeological record any evidence for the extra-regional origin of the first Early Neolithic communities? How does this compare with the connections of neighbouring regions? Further, is there evidence for multiple and/or later population movements between regions?
3. Separate from population movement, can we refine the patterning of cultural affinities and connections with neighbouring or more distant regions through material culture? How does this compare with the late Mesolithic connections?
4. Can we identify any early Neolithic causewayed enclosures given the consistent presence in other regions of this monument type in association with initial settlement? If not, is the character of initial settlement in our region different from other regions?
5. Do apparent geographical concentrations of Neolithic settlement, funerary and ritual monuments reflect areas of focused activity or survival and archaeological practice? If the former, what shared characteristics (e.g. environmental, topographic, marine access, resources) do the locations have that may inform on their selection? Further, can we identify new concentrations using these characteristics?
6. In addition, do the geographical concentrations vary over time, or between them, in the suite of monuments or material culture present? If variation is present, does this follow an intra-regional, chronological or functional pattern? With material culture present, does variation reflect different exchange networks that the geographical concentration connects to or forms?
7. Can we establish evidence that structures are used as dwellings? Further, if there is a chronological transition in architectural form, such as from longhouse to sub-oval houses, why may this have happened and what could have been the consequence of the change?
8. Can environmental and material culture evidence create a discrete, regional picture of subsistence for our communities? If so, can the pattern of resource exploitation be shown to change over time or show intra-regional variation?
9. Through re-examination of artefact assemblages, in particular using petrology for stone axeheads and lithic sourcing, can we recognise coherent exchange networks? If so, can we identify chronological or spatial variability in those communities engaged in these networks?
10. Can we interrogate the development and change in ritual and funerary monuments to identify consistent regional or inter-regional patterns? Are such patterns linked to recuring sets of material culture? In combination, can we infer any symbolism or meaning within this practice?
11. Does the known distribution of rock art in the region reflect the original distribution of this monument type? If so, how can this inform on intra-regional variation of practices? Further, how should we interpret isolated and/or unusual rock art?
12. Can we further refine the regional typology for Neolithic pottery, recognising divergent extra-regional influences in form and style? Within this typology can we establish absolute dates for transitions between vessel types and wares? Further, can we recognise and explain ware-specific depositional patterns between monument types?
13. Can we establish a start and end date for structured deposition in pits and the digging of pit clusters within the region? If so, does the broader record inform a reason for these events? Further, can we identify changes over time or intra-regional variation in these practices?
14. Does inter-regional variation in monument types and material culture increase through this period? If so, does this occur in common or are differences seen between monuments and material culture?
15. Can we recover evidence of the means of transport used in our region during this period? In the absence of direct evidence, can proxy evidence be used to infer reasonable options for transportation and travel?
16. Can we recover evidence of conflict or inter personal violence in our region during this period? In the absence of direct evidence, can proxy evidence be used to infer violent actions or the potential for this?
17. Can we re-examine museum assemblages, particularly unanalysed multi-period lithic assemblages, or unreported excavation assemblages, rehabilitate currently inaccessible research materials that can broaden our understanding?
18. Can we re-examine funerary monuments investigated in the 1920s to 1950s through targeted re-excavation for the recovery of palaeoenvironmental material to inform the reappraisal of the original published record? If so, can we deliver single entity radiometric dating programmes, enhance our comprehension of the funerary process and undertake environmental reconstruction for the monument?
19. Where complex archaeological information is known from historic excavations, can we supplement this through reanalysis of retained material in our museums? In particular, the rehabilitation of funerary sites where the human skeletal material was assessed using prejudicial methods.