5.1.4 Conclusions and outstanding questions

While the overall trajectory of pottery development can be traced for Scotland as a whole, and for regions within Scotland, several questions remain:

  1. the chronology of ceramic developments needs to be improved further
  2. regional imbalances in our knowledge need to be addressed (notably in Shetland and the north-west mainland of Scotland)
  3. Was there any chronological overlap (and/or any sharing of design features) between the use of Impressed Ware and Grooved Ware on mainland Scotland? Or of Grooved Ware and Beaker?
  4. Was all pottery manufacture organised on a small-scale, settlement basis? Did any pottery move around between settlements, or farther afield? More characterisation studies (eg using ceramic thin sectioning) need to be undertaken
  5. Can any regional or temporal trends in traditions of pot manufacture be identified?
  6. The beginnings and ends of Grooved Ware use in Scotland need to be clarified. The sequence at Pool (where evolution of Grooved Ware from a previous style of pottery can be traced) is currently very poorly dated; and at the other end of this pottery tradition's use, the dating of the Littleour assemblage needs to eb revisited
  7. What chronological overlap (if any) was there between the use of Grooved Ware and non-Grooved Ware pottery in Orkney?