Found this nice little map of archaeological sites near Portree . Seems to have been quite a well populated area from neolithic onwards and of course there must have been far more settlements, hut circles etc where the evidence has been lost or has yet to be uncovered. We can only guess at the true extent of population.
The map is taken from the report on the excavation
carried out by CFA archaeology prior to
the building of the Kiltaraglen residential area in Portree . (“Excavation
of post-built roundhouses and a circular ditched enclosure at Kiltaraglen, Portree,
Isle of Skye, 2006–07”) . The report can be seen online http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-310-1/dissemination/pdf/sair54.pdf
Worth reading but very technical and so hard going if you are not (as I am not) totally au fait with terminology used .
Shame that the only times we get a decent archaeological dig is when someone wants to raze everything to the ground to build structures which probably won't survive 100 years let alone 2,000. However, that "someone" has to pay for the dig:-)
well ... I have mixed views about digs. When you read reports from 100 years ago, and all the information now lost/destroyed - I'm sure the same will be said of what's being done now in 100 years' time when technology has moved on again and every layer can be dated - oh how they will curse us! On balance, I think I belong to the 'leave it alone' brigade.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has worked for a commercial archaeology company I may be regarded as biased. I agree entirely that archaeology that is not 'at risk' should be left well alone. However, in this case, planning permission had been given to build and the archaeology would have been completely destroyed in the building process. Under our planning laws, archaeology (and other things such as rare animals and plants) must be mitigated, and that is where commercial archaeology comes in. It is paid for by the developer. I've had a quick look at this report and it seems to be excellent - they have covered absolutely everything. As you say, Su, in 100 years they may well complain, but this has been done as well as it could possibly have been in our time. The alternative would be almost total destruction with no record at all.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that anywhere that is not at risk of destruction should be excavated, unless there is an extremely good reason and the excavation is carried out to the highest standards.
I think all modern academic archaeology (as opposed to commercial archaeology) is carried out to answer very specific questions and I would support anyone whose intention is to increase our knowledge about the lives of our ancestors.
ReplyDeleteCommercial archaeology is also subject to research frameworks which cover the whole country.
Delete