Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The emerging narrative for Early Neolithic settlement across Britain is becoming richer,
particularly with the investigation of a wide range of structural evidence from developer-funded
excavation, a renewed interest in exploring landscape settlement traces and increasingly refined
chronological frameworks for discussing the evidence.
In this paper, the case study of Early Neolithic Orkney provides a starting point for a critical
analysis of the heterogeneity of the evidence. Recent discoveries across the archipelago are
providing a picture of considerable variability in fourth millennium BC domestic practice, with an
increasingly wide architectural repertoire now evident. The nature of the evidence provides the
impetus to reconsider the apparently self-evident nature of the autonomous house in Orkney the
picture is one of considerable variance in domestic arrangement. The implications are wide-ranging
for Early Neolithic Britain, and will be considered in the emerging research context, with particular
reference to the expanded evidence base provided by developer-funded excavation. It is argued that
a more robust interpretation of the heterogeneous nature of settlement practice requires both our
prospection strategies, and our strategies for interpreting domestic activity, to be flexible and
nuanced.
Keywords: Britain, domestic, houses, Neolithic, Orkney
Carey 2014
assemblage 2014
CAREY
Figure 1 The architectural repertoire of Early Neolithic buildings in Orkney, as exemplified by Knap
of Howar, letters on plan (left) correspond to photographs of the structure (left, image base plan
redrawn by author, after Ritchie 1983; right, photographs by G. Carey).
have dominated interpretation of life across
the whole Neolithic (Barclay 2000: 275;
Downes 2005: 2; McClanahan 2006: 102). The
evidence for the Orcadian Early Neolithic in
contrast, has often been seen as epiphenomenal, on the periphery of academic
discussion.
assemblage
-41-
CAREY
Undoubtedly,
the
emerging
evidence
represents a securely-dated Early Neolithic
phase of occupation in Orkney, of considerable
variety, in settlement morphology, house form
and, in construction material, c. 3400-3100
cal. BC. The construction of timber buildings
at both Wideford Hill and Braes of HaBreck
presents a radical challenge to an established
image of substantial stone-built houses representing year-round sedentary permanence in
the earliest Neolithic. This new picture of
Early Neolithic houses also has wide-ranging
implications for how such sites are prospected,
particularly given their ephemerality set
against the high visibility of stone in the
archaeological record of the Northern Isles.
The variability
practice
of
settlement
assemblage
CAREY
Unpacking Architecture
Whilst there is a clear recognition that
Neolithic settlement in Britain is not a unitary
-44-
assemblage
slight
structural
remains
surrounding
Neolithic hearths at Bharpa Carinish, North
Uist, can be interpreted as representing a
short-lived transient settlement (Crone 1993:
380).
Figure 4 The diversity of the architectural record for Early Neolithic Scotland. A selection of 10
Early Neolithic sites for which a domestic function has been inferred. Selected house plans redrawn
from sources listed; see Appendix 2 for full information and references. (image redrawn by author;
after references listed in image).
-45-
CAREY
assemblage
Figure 5 Diversity in the domestic settlement record, Upper Thames Valley. Location of sites
referred to in text marked in blue. Information from Thomas 1999: Fig. 8.1 and Hey and Barclay
2007: Fig. 1.
sites such as Horton, Middlesex, Gorhambury,
Hertfordshire and Llandygai, Gwynedd have
been dated to the second quarter of the fourth
millennium (Last 2013: 274-275).
-47-
CAREY
-48-
assemblage
Conclusions
It is clear, then, that the narrative for Early
Neolithic settlement across Britain is suddenly
becoming richer, particularly with the advent
of a wider range of structural evidence from
developer-funded excavation, and increasingly
refined chronological frameworks for discussing this evidence.
Notes
Unless otherwise stated, all radiocarbon dates,
stated as xxxx BC, have been calibrated, using
OxCal 3.10 (Bronk Ramsey 2001), atmospheric
data from Reimer et al. (2004), and are given
to 2.
Acknowledgements
Appendices
Appendix 1: A gazetteer of Early Neolithic
structures in Orkney
Buildings for which sufficient evidence is
available for interpretation only are included,
based on the survival of sufficient structural
material, and an adequate chronological
framework. Plan, dimensions, orientation and
construction material details have been
extracted from available sources. Dating gives
information on whether absolute/relative
dating methodologies have been applied to the
structures, with lab numbers for radiocarbon
dating samples given in [square brackets]. All
CAREY
Bibliography
Armit, I. 1992. The Hebridean Neolithic. In:
Sharples, N. and Sheridan, A. (eds.), Vessels
for the Ancestors: Essays on the Neolithic of
Britain and Ireland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 307-321.
assemblage
es/phase3/Resource%20Assessments/Neolithi
c%20and%20Early%20Bronze%20Age%20Re
source%20Assessment.pdf [Accessed 09.07.
2013].
Crone, A. 1993. Excavation and survey of subpeat features of Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age
Date at Bharpa Carinish, North Uist, Scotland.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59: 361382.
CAREY
assemblage
Jones, R. 2005. Wideford Hill, CuweenWideford Project. [In: Ashmore, P. (ed.), A List
of Archaeological Radiocarbon Dates]. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 6: 177-178.
CAREY
assemblage
Sheridan, A. and Higham, T. 2006. The ReDating of some Scottish specimens by the
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU).
Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 7: 202204.
Sheridan, A. and Schulting, R., 2006. The
National Museums Scotland Radiocarbon
Dating Programmes: Results Obtained During
2005/6. Discovery and Excavation in
Scotland 7: 204-206.
CAREY
-56-
assemblage
Appendix 1: A gazetteer of Early Neolithic structures in Orkney
Site
Name
Trench
/Phase
Building
House 3
House 4
House 5
Length
(m)1
5.8
c. 4.8
Width
(m)1
3.8
c. 3.2
Orient
ation
Plan
NNW
/SSE
subrectan
gular
NNW
/SSE
subrectan
gular
NNW
/SSE
subrectan
gular
House 1
c. 6.5
c. 3.7
NW/S
E
subrectan
gular
House 2
c. 6.5
c. 3.7
NW/S
E
subrectan
gular
Constru
ction
Material
Dating
Geophysical
Survey
Main
Referenc
e(s)
4495 +/- 40 BP
[SUERC-34504]; by
stone
kind permission of
A. Thomas, prior
to publication
wood
4510 +/- 40 BP
[SUERC-34503]; by
kind permission of
A. Thomas, prior
to publication
stone
Relative
chronology stratigraphically
later than
House 3
wood
stone
4395 +/-40 BP
[SUERC-35990];
by kind
permission of A.
Thomas, prior to
publication
4435 +/- 40 BP
[SUERC-34506];
by kind
permission of A.
Thomas, prior to
publication
Fluxgate
gradiometer
undertaken with
a programme of
intensive
fieldwalking,
with a close
correlation noted
between the two
datasets
(Ovenden 2006;
Thomas 2006).
Subsequent,
targeted,
resistivity survey
was undertaken
in 2010 to
investigate
potential
structural
elements to the
site (Brend and
Saunders 2010).
Notes
Lee and
Thomas
2012
Where possible, this refers to an internal measurement as the most consistent comparator between buildings with walls of substantially different thicknesses, and is taken across the
widest point. In some instances, external measurements are given where interior measurements cannot be determined. In most instances these are the dimensions given in the text of the
reports, if measured off reproduced plans, then the measurement should be considered approximate and is marked with c.
-57-
Green, Eday
CAREY
Structur
e1
c. 5.4
c. 7
c. 4.5
NNE/
SSW
subrectan
gular
subrectan
gular
stone
stone
Unfortunately, no
dating evidence
was recovered
from Phase 1 at
Howe. However,
this structure
predates the
Stalled Tomb'.
stone
Unfortunately, no
dating evidence
was recovered from
Phase 1 at Howe.
However, this
structure postdates the 'mortuary
structure', which it
is suggested
changes function at
this stage in the
building process.
Howe
Phase 1
Mortua
ry
Structur
e
c. 13
NNE/
SSW
Dating is
problematic. No
absolute
chronology but
now interpreted as
EN, with later
Neolithic finds
coming from other
occupation
deposits
associated with
the later Structure
2.
Phase 1
Stalled
Tomb
c. 15
c. 5
NNW
/SSE
subrectan
gular
-58-
Fluxgate
gradiometer
survey, with
subsequent
targeted
resistivity survey
to "investigate
the apparent
structures
suggested by the
gradiometry"
(Moore 2006: 1).
Miles
2008,
2010,
2011
Pool, Sanday
Pool, Sanday
Knowes of Trotty
assemblage
Period
II
Period
II
Phase
1.2
Phase
1.2
Phase
1.2
House 1
House 2
?cult
house
Structur
e1
Structur
e2
Structur
e3
10
7.5
c. 5.5
c. 2.5
c. 2
c. 4
4.3
NW/S
E
subrectan
gular
3.6
NW/S
E
subrectan
gular
c. 3
c. 2.5
c. 2
c. 3
NNE/
SSW
subrectan
gular
NNE/
SSW?
subcircul
ar
NNE/
SSW?
E/W?
subcircul
ar
subcircul
ar?
stone
4485 +/- 40 BP
[OxA-16475]
Sheridan and
Higham 2006: 202
stone
4485 +/- 55 BP
[OxA-16479]
Sheridan and
Higham 2006: 202
stone
stone
stone
stone
4480 +/- 35 BP
[SUERC-18233];
by kind
permission of J.
Downes, prior to
publication
Problems with
dating, although
TL dating of
pottery from
phase 1 points to
c.3 650 BC (see
Hunter and
MacSween 1991;
Hunter 2000)
Problems with
dating, although
TL dating of
pottery from
phase 1 points to c.
3650 BC (Hunter
and MacSween
1991; Hunter
2000)
-59-
Traill
and
Kirkness
1937;
Ritchie
1983
None focused
on Early
Neolithic
element of site.
Fluxgate
gradiometer and
resistivity surveys
covering similar
areas, with good
correspondence
between
anomalies
(Hunter 1983: 34, Fig. 4; 2007:
14-16, Illus 2.4)
Fluxgate
gradiometer and
resistivity surveys
covering similar
areas, with good
correspondence
between
anomalies
(Hunter 1983: 34, Fig. 4; 2007:
14-16, Illus 2.4)
Card and
Downes
2002,
2005,
2006;
Card et
al.,2006
Hunter
2007
Hunter
2007
Smerquoy
CAREY
House 1
Stonehall
House 3
C1
8.2
n/a
c. 8.5
5.2
n/a
c. 4.5
NNW
/SSE
subrectan
gular
n/a
subrectan
gular
NW/S
E
subrectan
gular;
tripartite
stone
stone
stone
No absolute
chronology yet
available, but
diagnostic finds
and architecture/
4450 +/- 35 BP
[AA-51370]
Jones 2003: 163
C2
n/a
n/a
n/a
Building
A
n/a
n/a
N/S
subrectan
gular
subrectan
gular?
stone
directly associated
with Building C,
although probably
the primary
structure
subrectan
gular
stone
4633 +/- 41 BP
[AA-51383]
Jones 2003: 163
Building
B
n/a
n/a
Building
C
4.2
6.7
ESE/
WNW
?
C. Gee,
pers.
comm.
Gee
2013
stone
Stratigraphically
earlier than C1
stone
predates Building
C
-60-
?Proton
magnetometer
survey
undertaken in
1994 "revealed
discrete areas of
magnetic
enhancement
surrounding a
more
substantial area
of activity"
(Richards et al.
2000: 6;
Downes and
Richards 2000:
Figure 13.2).
4510 +/- 39 BP
[AA-51376]
Jones 2003: 163
subrectan
gular?
ESE/
WNW
?
Fluxgate
gradiometer and
resistivity
surveys covering
similar areas;
midden
signature noted
(C. Gee, pers.
comm.)
Carruthe
rs and
Richards
2000;
Richards
et al.
2000,
2001
assemblage
Phase 1
Wideford Hill
Phase 1
Structur
e1
Structur
e2
c. 4
c. 2.5
c. 3
c. 1.5
NE/S
W?
E/W?
subcircul
ar
subcircul
ar
wood
wood
Consisted of 9 posts
supporting a sloping roof.
Scoop hearth in centre, from
which all dating evidence
was recovered.
4490 +/- 35 BP
[SUERC-4868]
Jones 2005: 178
Relative
chronology similar phase to
Structure 1
Phase 2
Structur
e3
c. 8
c. 3
ENE/
WSW
subrectan
gular*
wood
Relative
chronology - postdating Phase 1
Phase 3
House 1
c. 8
c. 5
NNE/
SSW
subrectan
gular
stone
4425 +/- 30 BP
[SUERC-4870]
Jones 2005: 178
-61-
Proton
magnetometer
survey
undertaken in
1992 revealed "a
clearly defined
magnetic
anomaly"
(Richards 2003:
2)
Richards
2003
CAREY
Site Name
Cowie, Stirlingshire
Eilean Domnhuill,
North Uist
Garthdee Road,
Aberdeen
Kinbeachie, Easter
Ross
Lockerbie Academy,
Dumfrieshire
Raigmore, Invernessshire
Ratho, Edinburgh
10
Wardend of Durris,
Aberdeenshire
Nature of evidence
No coherent
structural evidence
could be located, but
a series of hearth
complexes were
identified
A series of very slight
oval structures,
defined by stakes and
pressure trenches
A succession of
rectilinear/oval
stone-built buildings
on an islet, with
superficial similarity
to Knap of Howar
buildings
Small ovoid timber
building, in
permanent use over
at least a generation
Small rectangular
building, defined by
pits
Small oval structure,
formed by a
continuous slot
trench, similar to
other possibly turfbuilt structures in
Argyll and Ireland
Longhouse of
possible domestic
use
Rectangular
?building, with two
double-rows of posts;
a central hearth is
taken as indicative of
a domestic function
Two rectilinear
buildings, defined by
slot trenches but with
no internal features
Very ephemeral
remains of a possible
fragmentary Early
Neolithic settlement
-62-
Nature of
discovery
Reference
Located during
prospection in
peat-cuttings
Crone 1993
Evaluative
fieldwork, ahead of
development
Barclay 2003: 78
Research fieldwork:
Originally
interpreted as an
Iron Age dun,
subsequently reexcavated
Armit 1992
Evaluative
fieldwork, ahead of
development
First recorded
through
fieldwalking,
subsequently
excavated
Evaluative
fieldwork, ahead of
quarry expansion
Mudie and
Richardson 2006
Evaluative
fieldwork, ahead of
development
Kirby 2011
Encountered
during rescue
excavation of
overlying kerbed
cairn
Evaluative
fieldwork, ahead of
development
Smith 1995
Exposed during
gravel quarrying
Russell-White,
1995: 23