12 Campbell.Indd

ProcPOST-MEDIEVAL Soc Antiq Scot 139 SETTLEMENT (2009), 315–332 IN THE ISLE OF LEWIS: A STUDY IN ADAPTABILITY OR CHANGE? | 315 Post-medieval settlement in the Isle of Lewis: a study in adaptability or change? Stuart D Campbell* ABSTRACT While the work of historical geographers has produced a rich literature concerning medieval and later rural settlement in Scotland this body of work has frequently been used in an uncritical manner by those archaeologists who study the period, often to the exclusion of developing a suitable theoretical and methodological basis for archaeological research. However appropriate these models are for the ‘big history’ paradigms of the disciplines which generated them, they fail to address several issues which are key to the archaeologist. By way of contrast, this paper investigates the pre-crofting settlement of two areas of the Isle of Lewis to argue that to understand post-medieval settlement it is necessary to utilise both conventional archaeological survey and theoretical considerations of how societies interact and react to the particular environment in which they are placed. INTRODUCTION responses to local conditions, or whether aspects of regional cultures might well override such The nature of the Scottish farming township has broad brush concepts. More pertinent is the fact become so well known that its appearance has that many of the field remains encountered by largely been set in stone; a rough agglomeration the archaeologist – particularly those presented of peasant housing set amongst unenclosed in this paper – do not fit readily or at all into the fields, a basic form which remains unchanging familiar framework of the historical geographer be it baile, fermtoun or clachan, medieval or and indeed may contradict basic aspects of the pre-Improvement. If the lowland fermtoun or most familiar historical tenets used to describe Highland baile was a chaotic institution then medieval and later settlement. its disorder is prescribed within strictly defined While traditional models may serve the limits, if it was subject to a dynamic process needs of historical geographers and economic then it is a thoroughly predictable dynamism; historians the author believes they serve poorly coalescing, dividing and evolving within a basic, the needs of the archaeologist, largely because immutable form. they concern themselves with questions the That, with an admitted rhetorical flourish, archaeologist by and large does not ask. Equally may best describe the historical picture of so some admittedly pioneering work in the field Scottish post-medieval settlement in the broadest of rural settlement has found itself cowed by terms. The seed for this paper is a growing the primacy of the historical record, relying on awareness of the limitations of such generalist a historical construct of the field remains rather models, especially so when they fail to recognise than utilising the archaeology as the primary the importance of adaptability and individual source of information. * Treasure Trove Unit, National Museums Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JT 316 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2009 HORACE FAIRHURST AND THE This standard model of how a township CREATION OF THE CLACHAN should look and behave provided a convenient physical template upon which to hang the The purpose of this section is not to discuss historical geographical models of post-medieval the history of research of Scotland’s rural past, settlement in Scotland. This model of township as has been done elsewhere (Morrison 2000). organisation is familiar enough that it would be Rather, it is to critically examine the manner redundant to elaborate here and attained fullest in which general concepts of the nature of expression in Whittington’s contribution to Baker medieval and post-medieval settlement have and Butlin’s UK wide volume (Whittington taken precedence over a nuanced examination 1973). As with Fairhurst, Whittington’s model of the subject. The figure of Horace Fairhurst for Scotland dwells little on regional variation; stands undoubtedly at the forefront of Scottish this is a very odd omission in a volume where rural settlement studies and his work at Lix and regionalism is allowed full vent in the English Rosal are amongst the first serious excavations and Welsh contexts; there are no less than eight of such sites. Fairhurst’s work was undoubtedly chapters on differing English regions whilst pioneering but his methodology included a Scotland – and intriguingly, Ireland – has one number of false turnings, most important of chapter. which is what might be termed his creation of The familiar ingredients of infield-outfield, the clachan. This term is synonymous with post- runrig and head-dykes come together to produce medieval settlement today but it is important a ‘formless group of houses’ (Whittington to remember that it is not a term with deep 1973, 536) huddled between the head-dyke historical roots but rather was first formalised and the cultivable land, the latter organised as a term in Fairhurst’s work (Fairhurst 1960, and farmed by the communal endeavour of 69). Although a brief concession to regional the runrig system. The historical evidence variation is made, Fairhurst’s clachan appears for this township organisation is thought to as an idealised universal form with its ‘group be so convincing that it comes as a surprise farms, worked in runrig, with infield and outfield to discover that much of it deals with very cultivation, involving the co-operative efforts of specific cases, often dealing with only one farm some four or more tenants’ with the argument or township. For example, the standard model that cooperative farming was the raison d’être for infield-outfield is based on the study of a of the clachan (ibid). single mid-18th-century Aberdeenshire farm It may seem unfair to criticise a work almost (Dixon 1994, 30). It is, of course, the job of 50 years old at the time of writing and this is the historian to build a wider picture from these not the author’s aim. Rather, it is to argue that individual observations but it is justifiable to Fairhurst’s methodology relied on historical ask to what extent a universal model can be documents to provide a settled view of post- constructed from specific and unique instances, medieval settlement with the field evidence being or to what extent we are justified in looking adapted or ignored to better fit this unwieldy for a universal model at all. It must be stressed frame. In effect, Fairhurst’s creation or invention this is not an attempt to perform a wholesale of the quintessential clachan relied heavily on the act of iconoclasm; there is no doubt that the historical rather than the archaeological record. many historical sources are accurate reflections For a paper purporting to deal with the physical for the specific time and locality they pertain remains of such settlements it is striking how to yet it is by no means a foregone conclusion little the field remains feature and how often that they reflect aspects of universal practices. their features are subverted to the narrative of Doubtless many of the aspects discussed above the historical records. hold true when applied with discrimination POST-MEDIEVAL SETTLEMENT IN THE ISLE OF LEWIS: A STUDY IN ADAPTABILITY OR CHANGE? | 317 (eg Dodghson 1977) yet it is the case that the and place, from a system whereby different application of historical records is most effective strips of township land are allotted to different when applied consistently to the locality from tenants to one where the land was worked which they are derived (eg Donnelly 2000) communally and the crop only divided up rather than distilled and refined into universal after harvesting (Whittington 1973, 539–40). conclusions. The assumptions that Scotland had Whatever the intricacies of the runrig system such a universal system of agriculture appear and the manner in which it varied from place to be simply assumptions, no matter how well to place – and reading the various first-hand referenced they appear to be, and as far as this accounts, there seems no doubt that it did – author is aware, there seems to be no explicit it is probably best summed up as a generic rationale to justify such a belief. agricultural system based on a communal Simply put, can such a simple schematic system of land management in each township form of settlement – with all its political and (Dixon 1994, 30). Again, in spite of the apparent social implications – explain the strategies universality of the system it cannot be assumed required to exist in environments as distinct that runrig was a standard method of township from the Aberdeenshire heartlands as the Outer organisation, nor that the runrig system was Hebrides? More important is whether we are an inevitable happenstance of history; rather justified in viewing a society solely through in some cases the tenants themselves could the prism of its agricultural organisation. The decide whether or not to employ it (Dodghson point here is that the most common models 1998, 54). used were designed by and for historical The final aspect to be considered here is one geographers and economic historians, not for often thought to be central to Highland rural the use of archaeologists. As such they touch settlement: that of the system of land holding upon the concerns and aims of these disciplines, and the attendant tripartite social structure not those of the archaeologist; the question of of proprietor, tacksman and tenant. Again, it whether a society should be categorised solely would seem redundant to describe in detail by the method of agricultural production would a system covered elsewhere and the author’s not even be posed, less answered, for any other objection is not that this system did not exist or archaeological period.

Load more