Topic: Archaeology

Iron Age is a cultural period that dates back from 600 BC- 400 AD characterized by the extensive use of iron for weapons and tools. The use of Iron began in Middle East and southeastern Europe, nonetheless its use in Middle East was limited as a precious metal. Despite its slow integration into the market, the export of knowledge on iron and iron objects was rapid. Thus, large scale production of iron subsequently led to the implementation of new patterns of permanent settlements (Ballin and Banks 2002; n.p).

The chronological scheme adopted in the early 1980 was based on the Scandinavian model. The model aimed to break down the barriers between the Iron age, late Bronze age and early historic period. As summarized by Sharples and Pearson, the Iron Age era represents the first millennia BC and AD. Nonetheless, Armit defines this period as the initial millennium AD before the Norse settlement. Armit based his arguments on the aspect that no specific dates were given for the division which evidently utilized the arbitrary approach.

The survey and excavation programs in Northern and Western Isles began in 1980. The advancements in this field facilitated archaeology in the area resulting to debates and radical interpretations of the Iron Age period. In Atlantic Scotland (Harding 2012; p.144), the dominant architecture during the Iron Age period was the broch which was a representation of a complex roundhouse. Hale and Sands (2005; n.p) noted that, the different interpretations and controversy were vital during research. For instance, brochs and the subsequent complex drystone structures have since been a source of disagreements among scholars such as Ferguson, Parker Pearson, Gilmour, Armit and Sharples.

First, Niall Sharples is an archaeology professor with a specific interest in the archaeology of Scotland. Sharples views Orkney, in British Isles, as one of the most vital archaeological landscapes due to the nature of their record and quality of the Neolithic archaeology (Merion-Jones 2011; n.p). As result, he affirms that the Iron Age was likely represented by the presence of the Neolithic monuments that would have been as popular as they currently are today. Furthermore, he acknowledges that the monuments would be visible and better preserved with the clear architectural features. The Iron Age farmers would have vast knowledge regarding the landscape features and would also have a story linked to each features form and social significance (Sharples 2006; p.302).

Despite that the Iron Age period could have facilitated the development of prominent features, the opportunities and obstacles posed by the monuments would be different from those in the 21st century landscapes. The presence of these monuments would also be likely divisive and highly debated as witnessed in modern day times. Regarding the Iron Age architectures, Brochs which largely occupies the Atlantic Fringe are regarded as one of the most beautiful features of the Orkney landscapes.

Based on the various excavations conducted, the results indicated an inverse relationship between the diversity of material culture and monumental architecture. Over time, the construction of impressive buildings reduced and was further replaced by restricted sociality. On the other hand, the importance of material culture increased with imported materials decoratively worn to indicate the significance of an individual. The beginning of the Iron Age marked the disappearance of material culture that was later replaced by hillforts which were monumental structures.

On the other hand, Armit affirms the brochs as the products of invasion from the South. This is contrary to Sharples’s view that the architectural design choices were a mark of pride. In the Atlantic Scottish Iron Age, the significance of the innovations was reviewed based on the current excavations and emerging extended chronologies (Armit 1990; p.435). These architectural innovations were anchored in view of parallel developments in other domains of non-architectural settlements growth and material culture.

In comparison, Parker Pearson interpreted the Iron Age architecture as expressed by Sharples. They both acknowledged that Iron Age societies were identified by fundamental households and local communities in the building blocks. Pearson, just like Sharples noted that the presence of roundhouses with conical roofs was a characteristic of the local architectures in Britain (Webley 2016; n.p). The building materials used were stone, turf and timber with the exception of unique stone houses in northern and western Scotland such as brochs. The symbolic domestic architecture was influenced by ethnographic and structuralist concepts. For instance, the British round houses had their doorways facing the rising sun as a sign of diurnal and life cycles.

The brochs have been a source of controversy among the scholars. Pearson and Armit agree that the development and origins of brochs have been the center of attention due to the new perspectives regarding the settlements. In light of this, Armit in contrast to Pearson, states that buildings during the Iron age period formed one regional exhibition of a more unique tradition of roundhouses. The unique manifestations were a representation of the differences and similarities in views which expressed the architecture as well as the individual’s social/societal identity.

In contract to Sharples and Parker Pearson view on Iron Age architecture, Ian Armit experienced different views. Armit stated that current terms utilized to define round stoned wall buildings of Northern and Western of Scotland should be substituted with a new framework. Initially, the classification looks into brochs and duns as two classes of monument. According to Armit, the system should be replaced by a framework within which monuments can be discussed without making any initial assumptions of function or origin. Armit believed that the human population in the ancient past was defined by landscapes, relict buildings and archaeological finds (Armit 1996; n.p). Parker Pearson and Sharples were against this general form of definition since his descriptive framework also encompassed all other buildings that only existed in a later prehistoric era.

Further, they noted that Armit’s general classification should not be adopted. This due to the vague information provided regarding the differences between brochs, wheelhouses and other structures. They also acknowledged that diverse interpretations on old excavations and unexcavated monuments would always be a source of debate. However, Armit should not assume that excavations conducted in the Western Isles are a representation of all the existing structures. Armit’s argument that Atlantic roundhouse did not directly represent the ruling community was only considered valid if the category incorporates various structures that were initially classified as different and which could have been separated by any classification framework.

Sharples highlights society/social identity changed in the first millennium. This was when there was a shift from a society where power was invested in individuals to one where power lay within the community. Further, the changes from the middle to the late Iron Age had major effects on the social relationships of Atlantic Scotland. Introduction of artefacts had a positive effect since it ensured the individuals were able to break from their comfort zones and create new relationships based on the exchange of exotic crafts (Sharples 2003; p.162).

On the other hand, Parker Pearson’s view on society/social relationships looks into the kind of relationships that might have existed in the past. Social identity of a deceased person is communicated to the living so that they can adapt to the loss. Nevertheless, Pearson highlights that funerary practices are inconclusive since it provides a distorted image regarding past relationships (Thomas 2000; p.200). Pearson’s interpretation contrasts with Sharples since the focus is moved away from the society as an object and towards “the social” aspect of friendship through which personal identities such as ‘individual’ can thrive and remain stable. On an analytical view, society exists objectively and has to be reproduced continually. Thus, society has to be “acted upon” since individuals are always struggling to define their own societal identity yet they do not dwell within it.

Simon Gilmour interprets the Iron Age architecture based on their structural features and overall appearance. The design of the roundhouses is vital, according to Gilmour because their architectural scheme consists of more than just the summation of their parts or the height extension of the plain roundhouse (Theodossopoulos et al 2012; p.6). In comparison to Sharples and Pearson’s work, Gilmour also notes that the structural schemes used during construction directly represents the people’s views and opinions. For instance, as highlighted above, the houses could be built with the door facing the sun in acknowledgement of their various life cycles.

The life cycles are similar to Sharples and Pearson’s view. The views describe the temporal cycle in building construction where they are used and abandoned. The organization of circular domestic homes was dictated by time which further enforced that temporal structures reflected the movement of the sun. Gilmour was also interested in the work of Dun Vulan during the excavations in South Uist that focused on the broch site. The similarities between Pearson, Sharples and Gilmour is quite evident since their interests were influenced by structural facts that described the Iron Age architecture.

Regarding, social/society identity both Armit and Gilmour interpreted it differently according to their views on community and social relationships. Gilmour states that identity in either social or societal settings is a balancing act that is not only concerned with diversity but also equality and justice. Community cohesion will encourage aspects of identity since it will inspire individual identity that is anchored on common grounds and principles. On the other hand, Armit states that social/societal identity is a personal initiative that fosters the growth of other sectors within the community. Identity should be discovered on an individual basis to ensure that external influences do not influence one’s overall development.

In summary, all these interpretations are debatable because they are stated based on the professor’s experience and views. Furthermore, each of the professors conducted their own research regarding Iron Age architecture and society/social identity. For instance, Armit conducted his own conclusive research in Western Isles, nonetheless the professor’s challenged his work since he based his study on only a single point on contact. The conclusions provided can only be influenced by archaeological records and literary works of academics and other authors who have spent years conducting research and analysis of this era.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the essay has highlighted the stated objectives that entails how the relationship between funerary and settlement architecture facilitates our understanding of past societies. Moreover, the paper has also stated the interpretations of four academics regarding Iron Age architecture and social/society identity. Archaeology is a growing field that is determined by ancient architecture and cultures. In light of this, the comparisons and different interpretations were vital in outlining architectural strategies that need to be included in the contemporary cultural aspect. Recent findings have shown that the well-maintained stone roundhouses of the Iron Age are instrumental in testing the existing assumptions regarding their development. Therefore, research process is proposed based on the people’s cultural diversity and social identity since it’s a representation of their progressive growth over the years.

References

Armit, I., 1990. Broch building in northern Scotland: the context of innovation. World

Archaeology, 21(3), pp.435.

Armit, I., 1996. The archaeology of Skye and the Western Isles. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Arnold, C.J., 2005. An archaeology of the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Routledge. Pp28

Ballin Smith B & Banks I (eds), 2002, In the Shadow of the Brochs: The Iron Age in Scotland, Tempus

Downes, J., Ritchie, A. & Downes, J. 2003, Sea change: Orkney and Northern Europe in the later Iron Age AD 300-800, Pinkfoot, Balgavies, Forfar.

Downes, J, Foster S. M. and Wickham Jones C. R. 2005 (eds) The Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site. Research Agenda. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland. Downloadable from www.historic -scotland.gov.uk/orkneyresearch

Gowland, R. and Knüsel, C. eds., 2006. Social archaeology of funerary remains. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Pp50

Hale, A and Sands, R. 2005 Controversy on the Clyde. Archaeologists, fakes and forgers: the excavation of Dumbuck crannog. RCAHMS: Edinburgh

Harding, D., 2012. Iron Age hillforts in Britain and beyond. OUP Oxford. Pp144

Johnson, M. 1999 Archaeological theory, an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp14

Kelly, R. L., & Thomas, D. H. (2010). Archaeology. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth. Pp5-28

Merion-Jones, A., Freedman, D., O’Connor, B., Lamdin-Whymark, H., Tipping,. R. and Watson, A. 2011. An Animate Landscape: Rock Art and the Prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland.

Noble, G., Verrill, L., Raven, J. & Poller, T. 2008, Scottish odysseys: the archaeology of islands, Tempus, Stroud

Parker Pearson, M., Sharples, N. and Symonds, J. 2004. South Uist: Archaeology and History of a Hebridean Island. Tempus.

Renfrew, C. 1985, The Prehistory of Orkney, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

Richards, C. 2013. Building the Great Stone Circles of the North. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Pp7

Ritchie, A. 2000, Neolithic Orkney in its European context, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, England.

Sahlén, D. 2011, "Introduction: Archaeological theory and Scottish archaeology in practice", Scottish Archaeological Journal, vol. 33, no. 1-2, pp. 5.