ENOUGH already with the jokes about finding signs of civilisation in South Lanarkshire.
We're talking about the Biggar area, and that's a fine neck of the woods. The Biggar picture is that archaeologists have found the earliest evidence of human civilisation in Scotland.
Analysing 5000 flint artefacts recovered between 2005 and 2009 from fields at Howburn, near Biggar, they've deduced that the owners were mincing aboot the place 14,000 years ago.
Previously, the oldest evidence of human occupation in Scotland was some 13,000-year-old antiques found in a cave in Argyll.
Speaking as a leading ignoramus, I thought human occupation happened much earlier, but I'm probably thinking of warmer climes. In Scotia Minor, the weather was rubbish as usual and, whenever folk thought of sallying hither to find things to put on the barbie - bang! - another ice age descended, and the tribe packed its bags for Torremolinos.
Indeed, even the folk who made the above flint tools had to do a runner as, 13,000 years ago, the blowpipes froze up again — for another 1000 years.
A thousand years: a blink of the universe's eye. Fourteen thousand: a quick glance. Or, if you prefer, about the last time Hibs won the Scottish Cup.
I've been trying to think what life must have been like back then in Howburn. My betting is that it wouldn't have been that much different from today. In some respects, of course, it would have been awful. Imagine a life without chips. A lack of qualified dentists would have been another pain. And counselling was in its infancy.
But, even without these essentials of modern life, my guess is that, back in the past, it was same old, same old. You say: "But they probably just communicated in grunts." And your point, caller? Have you listened to Scottish footballers being interviewed?
Gathered round the fire at night, Howburn man would be falling out over burdz, hairstyles, and who'd killed the most wildlife. Howburn youth would be hanging about the grove corner, wearing baggy loincloths with low-slung waistbands.
The person without halitosis would have been ostracised. There'd be sectarian rivalry, principally between those who believe the bone should go through the nose from left to right and those who say right to left.
You'd never get any peace really. There were no lone existentialists back in the day. Everyone was part of the herd. You'd be lucky if you had an original thought, thereby leading you to vote No in any referendum ("Hands up those who think this wheel might come in handy.")
And, just like today, as in any human group, there'd always be one, their equivalent of our one nutter per bus, one spoiler per evening class, one bully in the community. Indeed, the latter would have been the chief and a forerunner of today's aristocracy. Is there a Lord Howburn on the premises? If so, he could fair cock a snook at all the other Johnny-Come-Latelies at the House of Lords, or the Labour Club as it is now known.
And you'd have had to make your own club. There was no Sainsbury's to supply all your needs. They didn't even have a Poundland or a Skinstretcher. Everyone was into DIY, which is why historians describe life then as nasty, brutish and short.
But was it really that nasty? Maybe they had a bit of a laugh. Maybe they were kind of content. They were certainly too dim for angst. And they never lived long enough to have a mid-life crisis.
They didn't suffer the misery of reality TV, or indeed any TV. Human beings had to wait till the Middle Ages till they could have a nice night in watching the tapestry. So Howburn man made his own entertainment, and doubtless somebody would suggest charades ("It's a deer — again!").
Yup, these too were Jock Tamson's bairns. And, after a schooner of fermented yak urine and a night dancing to the latest hit drum solos, lo, our great-great-etc grandad got up the gumption to procreate. So here we are today.
Enjoying a contented life of crinkle-cut oven chips and counselling that our ancestors could never have imagined.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article