assemblage 13 (2014): 39-62

Around the houses. Towards a more robust interpretation

and analysis of the Early Neolithic domestic settlement record
in Britain lessons from Orkney
by GILES CAREY

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

Introduction: About the house

The announcement of a fresh wave of Early
Neolithic settlement evidence from Kingsmead
Quarry, Horton, Berkshire (Chaffey and Brook
2012; Barclay et al. 2012) along with the
previous discovery of a series of houses from
this site dating to around 3800 BC, comes at
an exciting time for the study of the fourth
millennium BC across Britain. The publication
of a significant re-dating programme of
causewayed enclosures across Southern
Britain and Ireland (Whittle et al. 2011a), has
done much to highlight the potential in
redressing previous syntheses of the period
which have operated within a very coarse
chronology (Whittle et al. 2011b: 14). Reliance
on traditional chronologies has long inhibited
a much fuller understanding of the pace of
change in the insular Earlier Neolithic
(Bradley 2007a: 33); now is the time to write
[m]ore detailed Neolithic histories (Whittle et
al. 2007: 123).

This paper takes as a starting point a collation

of the settlement evidence that is now evident
from the Orkney Isles, located off the north
coast of Scotland.
This newly emerging
evidence forces us to reconsider not only the
structural evidence for settlement in the fourth
millennium BC, but the approaches we take to
effectively deal with a multiplicity of domestic
practices. At a wider scale, in Britain, similar
issues are coming to the fore with the rapidly
expanding
evidence-base
provided
by
developer-funded excavation. At the same
time, attention has returned to analyses at a
landscape scale, considering the roles of pits,
lithic scatters and their relationship with the
structural evidence.
Ultimately, the aim is to shift attention away
from one interpretation of the house, and one
interpretation of domesticity. This wider focus
will truly allow us to begin to interpret, on an
equal basis, as wide a range of settlement
traces as possible, in all the guises in which
they appear (Barclay 1996: 75).

Giles Carey gilescarey@gmail.com

Warwickshire County Council (Archaeological Information and Advice)

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.

The example of Early Neolithic

Orkney:
methodological
and
interpretative possibilities
The well-known, well-studied (e.g., Card
2005a)
stone-built
permanent
house
architecture of the Orkney Islands has
seemingly provided an unparalleled opportunity to explore the house societies of early
Neolithic communities (Noble 2006a: 38).
This research has presented the house as a
self-evident category of analysis (Thomas
1996: 11-12), an unchanging cosmological
referent, which, as we shall see, belies the
diversity of domestic practice that is now
beginning to emerge. The variability inherent
in this emerging dataset requires us to reevaluate not only how we think about Early
Neolithic settlement evidence in Orkney, but
also how we look for such sites.
The research context

For nearly 70 years, the interpretation of

domestic life in Early Neolithic Orkney has
been predicated on a single site, the Knap of
Howar, on Papa Westray (Figure 1). After an
erosion event exposed the area in the 1930s,
local landowner William Traill and the
antiquarian William Kirkness cleared and
carried out initial excavations on two
conjoined stone buildings (Traill and Kirkness
1937: 309). Subsequently, Anna Ritchies
excavations, between 1973 and 1975, aimed to
elucidate further the nature and date of the
two-stone built houses, interpreted as the
farmstead of an extended family (Ritchie 1973:
68).

The Orkney Islands form one of the most

intensively studied archaeological areas in
north-west Europe (Card 2005a). Key to their
continuing attraction, as a core area for
research (Barclay 2004: 34-37) is the
exceptional survival of above ground remains
(Cummings and Pannett 2005: 14; Parker
Pearson and Richards 1994: 41). The Later
Neolithic monuments which form the Heart of
Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site (WHS)

Both stone-built houses at Knap of Howar are

constructed of double-skinned walling, cored
with midden material. They are rectangular in
form, with rounded corners, and sub-divided
by orthostats set into the pinched wall form.
Overall, House 2 was interpreted as a possible
workshop, with House 1 forming the main
dwelling house, an understanding influenced
by analogy with living arrangements in the
-40-

assemblage

Hebridean blackhouses (Dalglish 2003: 20).

This architectural repertoire is taken as typical,
providing a blueprint for what an Orcadian
Early Neolithic house should be like (Downes
and Richards 2000: 167). The landscape
context of Knap of Howar is also consistent
with the generally accepted framework for
small, dispersed, self-sufficient farmsteads in
the Early Neolithic (Bradley 2007a: 40;
Richards 1993: 89), giving the impression of
isolated communities living largely independent lives (Noble 2006b: 111 cf. Sturt
2005: 73).

interpretative challenges in dealing with the

architecture of the period (Jones and Richards
2000: 164) and the methodological challenges
in consistently identifying and recording
domestic activity in the archaeological record
(Bradley 2003: 221).
In the 1980s, Colin Richards started to reexamine the evidence for other Early Neolithic
houses in Orkney, such as the structure
underlying the complex Iron Age site at Howe,
near Stromness (Ballin Smith 1994; Richards
1993). This structure was initially interpreted
as a mortuary structure, but similarities in
architectural form with the Knap of Howar
houses might suggest an Early Neolithic date.
More recently at Knowes of Trotty,
Huntiscarth, a small rectangular structure,
securely dated to c. 3500 2910 cal. BC,
underlies one of the barrows in this Bronze
Age
cemetery,
constructed
nearly
a
millennium later (Card 2005b: 177; Card and
Downes 2006: 27; Sheridan and Schulting
2006: 205).

Knap of Howar has provided a powerful legacy

for interpreting the nature of settlement in
Early Neolithic Orkney. However, emerging
evidence is challenging the very notion of the
house, as a physical structure and as a
resource used in the structuring of the social
interaction that reproduces society (Ferguson
1996: 7) across the archipelago. The variety of
house and settlement forms now evident
(Thomas 2009) demonstrate both the

Figure 2 Early Neolithic Orkney location of all sites

mentioned in the text. See Appendix 1 for full
information and references.

-41-

CAREY

Subsequent excavations on a number of sites

have begun to further demonstrate the
variability of occupation practice in the fourth
millennium BC. These discoveries are particularly associated with Colin Richards
programme of survey work in Orkney, using a
nested programme of systematic fieldwalking
and geophysics (Richards, 1986: 21-2, 2005:
9).

stone-built house on almost exactly the same

footprint, although a new hearth was
constructed. In another trench, a short-lived
timber house, consisting of 14 post-holes
around a scoop hearth, seems to have been
replaced by two conjoined stone houses.
Whilst post-excavation analysis of these results
is still ongoing, it is clear that selection of
construction material is not simply a material
consideration, but also relies upon a series of
socially embedded decisions.

A site at Stonehall, on the slopes of Cuween

Hill, rather than being an isolated farmstead
appears to represent a much more clustered
settlement arrangement, usually associated
with the Late Neolithic, as at Skara Brae. The
remains of up to seven possible houses were
recorded at this site (Carruthers and Richards
2000: 64), within an area of 150m by 150m
and with a rapid sequence of rebuilding and
several shifts in settlement focus.

This evidence for the use of timber in house

construction is of particular importance in
light of recent palaeo-environmental studies,
which point to the fact that Orkney may not
have been as treeless in the Neolithic as
previously thought (e.g., Keatinge and Dickson
1979; Davidson and Jones 1990). Current
evidence indicates a diverse pattern of
woodland survival that existed, in some areas
into the Bronze Age (Farrell et al. in press).
Thus, the timber buildings at Wideford Hill
and Braes of HaBreck may be representative
of a much broader distribution (Richards
2003: 19).

Perhaps the most important findings of

Richards excavation programme, however,
were the discovery of a primary timber phase
of construction to the Early Neolithic
settlement on the slopes of Wideford Hill,
overlooked by the famous tomb. For the first
time, this was unequivocal evidence that
timber did form part of the architectural
repertoire in the islands in the fourth
millennium BC, and that traces of such
structures can survive (Wickham-Jones 2006:
26). Three post-built structures were recorded, two of similar sub-circular form
(Structures 1 and 2), with a third that, at least
in its latter phase, resembles a rectilinear
organisation of space (Structure 3).
The
decaying remains of Structure 2 formed a
focus for the construction of a stone-built
longhouse (House 1), probably constructed
whilst the decaying posts of the earlier timber
structure were still in situ. This all reveals a
close grained sequence of building replacement and continuity of occupation
(Richards 2003: 6), spanning c. 3350 2920
cal. BC, with a complex interplay between construction materials.

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

The standard architectural repertoire, typified

by the type-site of Knap of Howar, was subject
to significant reinvention at a local level. Much
has been written on the cosmological
decoding of the Early Neolithic house, with
the stone-built houses of Neolithic Orkney
forming a key part of this narrative (e.g.,
Richards 1990, 1993, 1996). However, it is
evident that, even when we are dealing with
stone-built architecture, we are not dealing
with a static, homogenous codification of

The emerging picture

Recent excavations on Wyre, a small island in
between Mainland and Rousay, have revealed
a similarly fluid and complex relationship
between timber and stone-built elements of
the architecture at the settlement of Braes of
HaBreck (Lee and Thomas 2012). In one
trench, a post-built longhouse with a central
fire pit was rapidly dismantled and its posts
were ripped out prior to the construction of a
-42-

assemblage

meaning, or a set of rules for construction and

dwelling (Garrow et al. 2005: 251; cf. Bourdieu
1990: 26-27). Early Neolithic buildings went
through cycles of change, use, and abandonment, which can be studied at a range of
different timescales. Buildings are, after all, an
element of a material culture, a specialised
artefact entwined with distinct practices and
human identities as well as the self-images of
the societies that created and lived in them
(Thomas 1999: 74; Richards 1998: 525).

and replacement, with the use of a variety of

different softwoods for different purposes,
creating structures with different life spans
(Dickson 1983, 1994; Miller and Ramsay
2000; Richards 2003). Ultimately, timber
buildings appear to possess a life-cycle of their
own, perhaps linked to those of their owners
(Lee and Thomas 2012: 16).
Against such a background, the impressive
Orkney-Cromarty tombs may have provided
some fixity in the landscape, drawing
additional symbolism from [their] very
permanence (Whittle 1988: 85), particularly
when viewed as integral to the construction of
place and time in the Early Neolithic (Bradley
1998: Chapter 1). The evidence is perhaps
suggestive that a more nuanced approach is
required to the concept of house (Bradley
2007b: 354) which integrates evidence from a
variety of unstable settlement practices. It is
the prospection and interpretation of these
unstable settlement practices that lie at the
heart of developing a more robust model for
domestic life in the fourth millennium BC
across Britain.

In addition, the analysis of settlement layout

across Early Neolithic Orkney poses significant
challenges to a generally assumed model of a
segmentary society in fourth millennium BC
Orkney, living in isolated, dispersed settlements such as at Knap of Howar (Farrell 2009:
32; Renfrew 1979: 205-208; Richards 1998:
524; Sharples 1985: 72, 1992: 323). This
picture of settlement might just possibly be an
atypical arrangement, as suggested by the
conglomeration of houses at Stonehall and
Braes of HaBreck and from the shifting nature
of the Early Neolithic building phases at Pool,
Sanday (Hunter 2007: 63-64). As noted
elsewhere in Britain, the extent to which Early
Neolithic structures were isolated or part of a
larger group (Armit et al. 2003: 147; Grogan
2002: 522) remains a very active research
question. A range of concerns associated with,
for example, gender, kinship, and ancestry
may well have determined settlement layout
(cf. Bourdieu 1990: Appendix 1). All of these
have been stressed as important in the Early
Neolithic (e.g., Edmonds 1999: 16), but our
understanding of the actual mechanics of these
systems, and their relationship with
architecture, remains limited (e.g., Fowler
2005: 115-116).
The rapidly changing use of space at many
Early Neolithic settlement sites in Orkney does
much to highlight the limitations inherent in
the use of a particular functionalist conceptualisation
of
settlement
involving
permanent bounded spaces and sedentism
(Pollard 1999: 76).
At Stonehall, this is evident in the close spatial
and chronological connection noted between
the three phases of building in Trench Z
(Richards 2003: 13). At Pool, the general
absence of internal structural features and
materials, together with the use of small and
thin stonework in wall construction is seen as
indicating the shifting nature of these
impermanent
structures,
perhaps
with
seasonal occupation (Hunter 2007: 64). At
Wyre and Wideford, the use of timber
architecture clearly required episodes of repair

Figure 3 Main Early Neolithic structures at

Stonehall. Clockwise from top-left: Location
of Trenches C and Z, with approximate
location of Early Neolithic buildings; Trench
C, showing C1 and C2; Trench Z showing
phase 2 (buildings B, and C); Trench Z
showing phase 1 (Building A). After Richards
et al. 2001: Figs 2, 3, 5, 7.
-43-

CAREY

This emerging dataset can move studies

beyond an impasse which has, for too long,
centred on the nature of sedentism in the
Earliest Neolithic (Thomas 2008: 69), with
lines clearly drawn between proponents of a
settled Irish/Northern British model (Barclay
2000; Cooney 2000) and a transient
Southern English/Wessex model (Thomas
1996, 1999). The argument pursued here is
not designed to marginalise this crucial debate,
or to encourage uncritical acceptance of the
structural evidence as indicative of the house
as a unitary phenomenon (Cooney 1997: 26).
Rather, it is an attempt to use the full depth of
the information gleaned to more fully explore
the ways in which the house gained its social
and cosmological relevance (Hoffman and
Smyth 2013: 1) across Britain. This will allow
us to explore trajectories of sedentism and
house building, which clearly were subject to
significant regional differentiation (SCARF
2013). The challenge is to explore these
trajectories of change at local and regional
scales of analyses (Pollard 2008: 6), tacking
between short and long-term chronologies
(Whittle et al. 2008: 69). By doing so, we can
explore the dynamic interrelationship between
ritual and domestic life, a key theme of recent
studies (e.g., Bruck 1999; Bradley 2005),
which has formed the crux of interpretation for
some of the earliest identified Neolithic
structures in Britain (e.g., at Hazelton North,
Gloucestershire (Thomas 1996: 8 contra
Saville 1990: 17, 268); or Padholme Road,
Fengate, Cambridgshire (Pryor 1982: 20, 63]).
Developer-funded fieldwork, largely focusing
away from extant above ground monuments,
or protected in situ belowground deposits, has
the potential to explore the wider landscape
environs of recorded monuments. This comes
at a time of resurgence in research-led
fieldwork centred on well known monuments
Stonehenge, Avebury, Durrington Walls,
Woodhenge and Marden Henge (Pollard 2012:
93), to name just a selection in Wessex-or their
immediate environs, e.g., the Ness of Brodgar
excavations in Orkney (Card 2012), all of
which have recorded substantial structures.
Taken together, the cumulative evidence may
well allow an exploration of the complex
interplay of contextual and contingent
meanings between ritual and domestic structures and landscapes in use by the earliest
farmers.

What can we learn from Early

Neolithic Orkney?
The well-preserved, well-studied stone-built
houses of Neolithic Orkney may appear to be
an odd place to start a discussion of the
domestic settlement record of Britain.
However, I would argue their impact on
settlement studies has been critically
influential, whether they are considered an
unusual domestic arrangement (Clarke 2003:
86), or typical of how Early Neolithic houses
were internally organised, if such features
could only be more consistently recognised in
the archaeological record (Barclay 1996: 74;
Darvill 1987: 57; Gibson 2003: 138).
In Scotland, up until recently, discussions of
Early Neolithic houses were dominated by
stone-built forms of architecture, mainly from
the upland zone, and the monumental timber
halls of Aberdeenshire (Barclay 1996; Brophy
2007; Gibson 2003: 138; Murray and Murray
2009: 62-63). However, significant developments have led to a more nuanced
understanding of domestic architecture and in
the more consistent recovery of evidence,
particularly associated with open area
excavation on developer-funded projects (e.g.,
Phillips and Bradley 2004). This excavation
has involved the identification of both sturdy
and ephemeral remains, of both rectilinear and
circular forms, which potentially use a wide
range of construction materials (Barclay 2003;
Loveday 2006: 100). This flurry of developerfunded excavations uncovering remains is
mirrored across the rest of Britain as well as
Ireland (Smyth 2006: 229).
Since the advent of large-scale evaluation;
strip, map, and sample exercises; and
excavations enabled by developer-funded
archaeology, the evidence-base has substantially grown, and there has been
considerable lag in incorporating these results
into mainstream academic discussion. As
Richard Bradley has commented, the
expansion of developer-funded archaeology
has also been liberating for prehistorians. It
has not been based on the old orthodoxies, but
on the requirements of the planning process,
with the result that unfamiliar kinds of
material have been recovered and new areas
have been investigated that had been neglected
before (Bradley 2007a: xv-xvi). This new
material has led to detailed discussion of
settlement outside intensely studied regions
(Barclay 2003), the reconsideration of spatial
patterning of building types (Kirby 2011: 26),
and the placing of type-sites into a much
more representative context.

Unpacking Architecture
Whilst there is a clear recognition that
Neolithic settlement in Britain is not a unitary
-44-

assemblage

phenomenon (Cooney 1997: 26), some

prehistorians have struggled to move towards
a more nuanced understanding of architectural
signatures within different study regions.

slight
structural
remains
surrounding
Neolithic hearths at Bharpa Carinish, North
Uist, can be interpreted as representing a
short-lived transient settlement (Crone 1993:
380).

Arguably, an unhelpful dichotomisation

between mobile hunter-gatherer and settled
agricultural societies (Bruck 2008: 250) is still
rigidly maintained in some existing dialogues
of British prehistory (Barclay 1997: 148), not
least as an artificial disciplinary boundary
(Armit and Finlayson 1996: 269-270).
Conceptualising an absolute contrast between
Mesolithic and Neolithic architecture is
problematic (Armit and Finlayson 1996: 276);
the wide range of evidence from sites with both
Mesolithic and Neolithic dates shows a
complex interplay of both sedentary and
transhumant strategies. As an example, the
depth of stratified occupation deposits and
repeated use of the hearth at a Mesolithic
building at Howick, Northumberland, is
perhaps suggestive of permanent or semipermanent occupation of the site over many
years (Waddington et al. 2003a: 11;
Waddington et al. 2003b); conversely, the

In Scotland, it is rapidly becoming clear that

structures do not fall into a series of clearly
defined types (Phillips and Bradley 2004: 40),
rather we are dealing with a series of levels of
settlement of varying degrees of permanency
and range of functions (Brophy 2006: 18).
Some of these settlements may not have
functioned as autonomous domestic units, an
understanding potentially only valid in a
modern context (Brophy 2006: 19; Whittle
1996: 70).
To illustrate this variability, Figure 4 shows a
sample of structures that have been variously
interpreted as house structures across
Scotland. Whilst it is flawed to ascribe a
uniformity of function to these buildings, it is
clear that there is no fixed architectural
blueprint for the dwelling structure.

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

In this sample, for instance, structures range

vastly in size, shape, and permanence.
Structures vary from the substantial coresidences of perhaps up to 50 people (SCARF
2013)the longhouse at Lockerbie Academy
measures at least 19 x 8m (Kirby 2011: 7), to
the temporary dwellings of a much closer kin
group-the ovoid structures at Cowie measure
from just 3.6 x 2.4m (Structure A; Atkinson
2002). In addition to dry-stone walling (Eilean
Domnhuill), wall construction varies from the
use of substantial posts (e.g., Lockerbie
Academy) to stake-built structures (e.g., Cowie
or Raigmore) including the use of slot trenches
(e.g., Kingarth Quarry). The architectural
evidence from other sites is very fragmentary;
domestic function is inferred from the
presence of a hearth (Bharpa Carinish), or
through associations between structural
evidence and crop-processing refuse, food
remains and hearth debris (at Wardend of
Durris; Russell-White 1995: 20).

centuries BC, formed of 27 postholes, with

wattle walling (Barclay et al. 2012: 1). This
method of construction differs from the first
Early Neolithic house discovered at Horton, a
plank-walled structure measuring c. 9.8 x 6.5m
(Chaffey and Brook 2012). These hall-like
structures are in close proximity to each other,
and there is also the suggestion of a very
different building recorded close by, as a
house void between a formal arrangement of
Early Neolithic pits, measuring c. 4 x 5m
(Chaffey and Brook 2012: 205). In addition,
the excavation of a large number of pits in the
wider landscape at Horton, spanning the
fourth and third millennia, has revealed a
picture of temporary settlement, of mobility
and people gathering in chosen places and
times before perhaps dispersing to other
locales within the wider landscape (Chaffey
and Brook 2012: 210).
At a wider level, in the well-studied region of
the Upper Thames Valley (Figure 5), a number
of strands of evidence attests to the diversity of
domestic practice (Bradley 2010: 10). Traces
of domestic activities in a wider landscape
include lithic scatters, interpreted as
seasonally occupied hunting camps, pits
involved in household rituals at Yarnton, and
repeated visits to the middens at Eton Rowing
Lake (Hey and Barclay 2007: 404, 410, 412).
Architecture itself ranges from insubstantial,
short-lived structures (Hey 1997: 106)
alongside both very small circular structures
(Lambrick 2010: 26) and a substantial timber
longhouse at Yarnton (Hey and Barclay 2007:
415), to the smaller rectilinear buildings at
both Hazelton North (Saville 1990: 20) and the
buildings at Horton (Chaffey and Brook 2012).
All seem to be in broad contemporaneous use
and can tentatively be identified as belonging
to the same settlement tradition, both for the
mundane diurnal activities of the household
as well as being the locales of formal activities
within the domestic sphere (Hey and Barclay
2007: 416).

At Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, a small ovoid

timber building, measuring c. 11 x 8-10m has
been securely dated to c. 38003650 cal. BC
(Murray and Murray 2005: 9). The excavators
noted that the artifactual and environmental
data demonstrate considerable cultural and
economic similarities between the occupants
of this small building and of the two massive
early Neolithic timber halls only a few
kilometres away at Balbridie and Warren
Field, Crathes
(Murray
and
Murray
forthcoming; see Sheridan 2013: 294). The
latter buildings, largely contemporaneous,
measure at least 24 x 12m, completely
dwarfing this structure.
The excavators
conclude that while there are indicators of
domestic life at both Warren Field and
Garthdee, there are also indications that
Warren Field had other more complex roles
(Murray and Murray 2009: 63).
Even the hearth, perhaps seen as central to the
concept of home, is not necessarily architecturally part of the house. One interpretation of the external hearths excavated in
association with possible small Neolithic
houses at Beckton Farm, Lockerbie is that they
may have been used like indoor hearths,
providing cooking facilities, light and a social
focus (Pollard 1997: 83).

A considerable number of architectural

examples may be added to the last gazetteer of
Early Neolithic buildings compiled by Darvill
(1996: Fig.6.3, Appendix 1), and it is possible
that some re-evaluation of the building types
identified in his assessment is required.

The picture of what type of settlement

architecture characterises the English and
Welsh Early Neolithic is also a constantly
changing one, as demonstrated by the example
of Kingsmead Quarry, Horton, Berkshire. The
most recent discovery at Horton is a
substantial building dating to the 38th to 37th

Recently it has been possible to postulate two

distinct architectural groups in England and
Wales, with increasing chronological resolution. Longhouses at sites such as White
Horse Stone, Kent, Yarnton, Oxfordshire and
Lismore Fields, Derbyshire, date between
4000 and 3750 cal. BC; smaller buildings from
-46-

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).

These communal residences of pioneering

groups of colonists (Sheridan 2013: 293) have
understandably
formed
the
focus
of
discussion, but this has tended to sideline the
investigation of smaller, flimsier structures of
multiple form, temporalities of occupation and
potentially of multiple usages (Sheridan 2013:
295). This picture of variability is a constant
reminder that strategies of permanence of
inhabitation
and
transhumance
were
complementary features of the Early Neolithic
landscape.

Developer-funded excavation has allowed the

evaluation of a range of these building types.
In particular, the rewards of exploring
previously under-investigated areas have been
reaped.
Of particular interest is the
geographical spread of halls or large houses
(vide Sheridan 2013 for discussion); they are
clearly not confined to Scotland, but have now
been recorded in Derbyshire, Oxfordshire,
Kent, Cornwall and Wales (Myers 2006: 4;
Hey and Barclay 2007: 415; Hayden 2008;
Sheridan 2013: 284; Kenney 2008), all on
developer-funded projects.

The ever-expanding evidence base requires us

to pursue a more nuanced understanding of all
these structures, and locales for domestic
activity, rather than relying upon convenient
labels. Clearly, not all houses, halls, and
habitation structures were the same
(Sheridan 2013), and the full characterisation
of the structures involved in differing
strategies of dwelling is a prerequisite of
unpacking the notion of the fully autonomous
house containing a fully autonomous household. The full publication and synthesis of a
number of sites is eagerly anticipated and, no
doubt will feed into narratives at multiple
scales of analyses. It is, however, immediately
clear, that there are significant limitations with

The interpretation of these structures is

complex, with discussion being polarised
between those who believe them to be houses
(Sheridan 2013) and those who interpret them
as communal feasting halls (Barclay et al.
2002; Thomas 2004: 122), potentially
associated with the very initial stages of the
transition, dating to the 38th and 37th centuries
(Whittle 2003: 41).

-47-

CAREY

a continued overemphasis on one standard

type of house structure, in the Early Neolithic,
as well as one interpretation of domestic
activity.

The same is true of the way that lithic scatters

have been dealt with in the archaeological
record. They remain a key part of the evidence
base for the period, but there seems little
agreement on what kinds of activity they might
actually represent or their direct relationship
with structural settlement evidence (Barclay
2003: 72). General analogy with deposition in
present-day agrarian societies suggests that
dense flint scatters which produce a variety of
implements most likely represent domestic
sites (Holgate 1987: 260), with small dense
clusters of artefacts peaking above the
background-scatter (Zvelebil et al. 1992: 215)
characterising a pattern of isolated farmsteads,
the perceived standard model for Early
Neolithic settlement.

Diversifying the Approach

Houses did not provide the only setting for
domestic activity in the early Neolithic (Smyth
2010: 5). Different practices, carried out in a
variety of buildings and places in the wider
landscape, and involving changing relationships with ritual monuments, are all likely to
have contributed to a notion of domestic life.
Ephemeral scatters of pits and postholes,
ubiquitous across large parts of lowland
Britain and mainland Scotland (Bishop et al.
2009: 48), have been uniformly interpreted as
representing
temporary,
sporadic
and
peripatetic occupation of the landscape.
However, do these forms of evidence necessarily indicate the same phenomenon?

Thomas has argued that lithic scatters, in

themselves, are not necessarily direct evidence
of fixed settlement, and are instead potentially
related to the repeated, sporadic frequenting
of a place (1999: 18).
Indeed, the
interpretation of deposition of quantities of
tools of different types representing domestic
sites presupposes continuous co-residence
within a dwelling structure (Thomas 1999:
18), which may not represent the sole
component of Early Neolithic settlement
activity. The difficulty might lie in our ability
to define domesticity; the functions of home,
rather than confined to a single locus might be
atomised across landscape; the challenge is to
interrogate the data as fully as possible to be
able to identify all traces of domestic
occupation.

Recently, interest has been rekindled in the

studies of pits of all types, including their
interrelationship with domestic architecture
(see papers in Lamdin-Whymark and Thomas
2012), as a frequent feature of Early Neolithic
sites. There has been an explicit attempt to
move beyond binary notions of mundane and
ritual or structured deposition (Garrow 2007,
2012). The detailed analysis, and cumulative
study of pits excavated by research and
commercial archaeologists has revealed
consistent patterns of domesticity (Chaffey
and Brook 2012: 213) across large parts of
Britain, with especial concentrations in East
Anglia, Clackmannanshire and Herefordshire,
for example. Work in East Yorkshire, for
instance, points to the role of pit digging as
part of a social strategy to come to terms with
a developing sense of permanence. Pits are
used to develop a nuanced understanding of
the complex relationship between an ideology
of permanence, the act of settling down and
sedentism as it has traditionally been
envisaged (Carver 2013: 131).

To return to Orkney, the challenges of fully

identifying the range of domestic activity in the
Early Neolithic settlement record are clear.
The ephemerality of the remains of timber
buildings, particularly set against the hypervisibility of stone architecture in Orkney
(Wickham-Jones 2006: 26), poses challenges
which provide lessons for the whole of Britain.
Of particular note is the importance of a nested
methodology, with fieldwalking and geophysical survey forming key tools for identifying sites, allied with programmes of aerial
survey. The use of multi-faceted, multi-scalar
programmes of investigation help redress a
bias towards more substantial, extant structural evidence. Such an approach has recently
located a new site at Smerquoy, on Wideford
Hill (Gee 2013) and has allowed the reevaluation of a possible site at Deepdale, near
Finstown (Carey 2012), as well as suggesting
sites for further research (as at the possible
remains of a large timber structure at
Saviskaill Loch, Rousay (Edwards 2012)).

It is clear that to provide a more holistic view

of what constitutes settlement in the Early
Neolithic, we must deal with pits in a more
detailed wayit seems pits are not just the
surviving components of Neolithic settlement;
they were the major structural component of
[these sites] (Last 2012; contra Kenney 2008:
26).

-48-

assemblage

sites are located on Mainland unless otherwise

indicated.

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.

Appendix 2: Diversity in the Early Neolithic

architectural record across Scotland
A selected sample of 10 Early Neolithic sites
for which a domestic function has been
inferred. This appendix is not designed as a
collation exercise, but to demonstrate the
difficulties associated with both identifying
and interpreting this material. See Figure 4 for
locations and an illustration of selected house
plans.

The integrated interpretation of houses with

elements of domestic activity present in the
wider landscape presents a challenge to the
orthodoxy of what constitutes Early Neolithic
settlement across Britain.
However, by
directly dealing with the heterogeneity inherent in the record we can move discussion
away from a few type-sites, to provide a much
more holistic picture of different modes of
dwelling in the 4th millennium BC.

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.

A great deal has been written about Early

Neolithic habitation structures in Britain and
Ireland over the past 20 years (Sheridan 2013:
283). It is likely that, over the next 20 years,
much more will added on the subject. The
variability of the evidence must have a starring
role in this emerging narrative, and this must
engage fully with the study of both sturdy and
ephemeral remains. There is also clearly much
to do to refine exactly what we mean by
domestic activity, incorporating transient
activity in the landscape with more persistent
settlement traces at specific locales.

The unpublished reports listed in the

references are all held by Orkney Sites and
Monuments Record (SMR) c/o Orkney
College, East Road, Kirkwall, unless where
otherwise noted. Unpublished PhD theses
have been obtained from The British Librarys
EthOS service, at http://ethos.bl.uk.

Acknowledgements

Ultimately, the heterogeneous nature of

settlement practice (Thomas 1996: 2) requires
both our prospection strategies, and our
strategies for interpreting domestic activity,
therefore, to be flexible. There is much to be
learnt from Early Neolithic Orkney in this
regard.

The research underlying this paper was carried

out for an MA dissertation at Orkney College,
UHI. I would like to acknowledge the support
of staff and students at this institution,
particularly for allowing access to unpublished
data. Sincere thanks are owed to Dr Alistair
Barclay, Rosie Bishop, Nick Card, Diana Coles,
Dr Jane Downes, Dr Michelle Farrell, Dan Lee,
Mick Miles, Dr Hilary Murray, Dr Colin
Richards,
Antonia
Thomas,
Caroline
Wickham-Jones and Naomi Woodward, and to
their respective organisations, for allowing me
to consult, quote and reproduce material from
unpublished sources.

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

All of the above also very kindly answered

questions on their individual sites and
research with great patience.
I would
particularly like to thank staff at Orkney
Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) and
Orkney College, including, Nick Card, Dr Jane
Downes, Dan Lee and Antonia Thomas who
took time explaining to me the intricacies of
their own sites, and shared ideas, drawings
-49-

CAREY

and chronologies, ahead of their publication in

the grey literature. All opinions expressed in
this article are my own.

a history of the Neolithic of Scotland. In:

Shepherd, I. and Barclay, G. (eds.), Scotland in
Ancient Europe: The Neolithic and Early
Bronze Age of Scotland in their European
Context. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland, 31-44.

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.

Barclay, G. Carter, S., Dalland, M., Hastie, M.,

Holden, T., MacSween, A. and WickhamJones, C. 2001. A possible Neolithic settlement at Kinbeachie, Black Isle, Highland.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland 131: 5785.

Armit, I. and Finlayson, B. 1996. The

Transition to Agriculture. In: Pollard, T. and
Morrison, A. (eds.), The Early Prehistory of
Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 26990.

Barclay, G., Brophy, K. and MacGregor, G.

2002. Claish, Stirling: an early Neolithic
structure in its context. Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 132: 65-137.
Barclay, A., Chaffey, G. and Manning, A. 2012.
A possible second Neolithic house and an
unusual Mortlake Bowl from Kingsmead
Quarry, Horton, Berkshire. Past 71: 1-2.

Armit, I., Murphy, E., Nelis, E. and Simpson,

D. 2003. Irish Neolithic houses In: Armit, I.,
Murphy, E., Nelis, E. and Simpson, D. (eds.),
Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western
Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 146-148.

Bishop, R., Church, M. and Rowley-Conwy, P.

2009. Cereals, fruits and nuts in the Scottish
Neolithic. Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland 139: 47103.

Atkinson, J. 2002. Excavation of a Neolithic

occupation site at Chapeleld,
Cowie, Stirling. Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland 132: 139-192.

Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Ballin Smith, B. 1994. Howe: Four Millennia

of Orkney Prehistory Excavations 1978-1982.
Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

Bradley, R. 1998. The significance of

monuments: on the shaping of human experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe.
London: Routledge.

Barclay, G. 1996. Neolithic Buildings in

Scotland. In: Darvill, T. and Thomas, J. (eds.),
Neolithic Houses in Northwest Europe and
Beyond. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 6176.

Bradley, R. 2003. Neolithic expectations. In:

Armit, I. Murphy, E., Nelis, E. and Simpson, D.
(eds.), Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and
Western Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 218222.

Barclay, G. 1997. The Neolithic. In: Edwards,

K. and Ralston, I. (eds.), Scotland After the Ice
Age: Environment, Archaeology and History
8000BC AD1000. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 127-149.

Bradley, R. 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life in

Prehistoric Europe. London: Routledge.

Barclay, G. 2000. Between Orkney and

Wessex: the Search for the Regional Neolithics
of Britain. In: Ritchie, A. (ed.), Neolithic
Orkney in its European Context. Cambridge:
McDonald
Institute
for
Archaeological
Research, 275-285.

Bradley, R. 2007a. The Prehistory of Britain

and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bradley, R. 2007b. Houses, bodies and tombs.
In: Whittle, A. and Cummings, V. (eds.), Going
Over: The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in
North-West Europe. London: The British
Academy, 347-355.

Barclay, G. 2003. Neolithic settlement in the

lowlands of Scotland: a preliminary survey. In:
Armit, I. Murphy, E., Nelis, E. and Simpson, D.
(eds.), Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and
Western Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 71
83.

Bradley, R. 2010. Solent Thames Research

Framework Resource Assessment: The
Neolithic And Early Bronze Age Oxford
Archaeology
[Online].
Available
from:
http://thehumanjourney.net/pdf_store/stham

Barclay, G. 2004. 'Scotland cannot have been

an inviting country for agricultural settlement':
-50-

assemblage

es/phase3/Resource%20Assessments/Neolithi
c%20and%20Early%20Bronze%20Age%20Re
source%20Assessment.pdf [Accessed 09.07.
2013].

Card, N., Downes, J. and Sharman, P. 2006.

Knowes of Trotty: Excavation Discovery and
Excavation in Scotland 7: 118.
Carey, G. 2012. Deepdale Farm: Geophysical
and Topographic Survey Discovery and
Excavation in Scotland 13: 141.

Brend, A. and Saunders, M. 2010. Geophysical

Survey Report 10/06: Braes of HaBreck,
Wyre. Unpublished report. Orkney College
Geophysics Unit (OCGU).

Carruthers, M. and Richards, C. 2000.

Stonehall (Firth parish) Neolithic settlement
Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1: 64.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the

radiocarbon calibration program OxCal.
Radiocarbon 43.2A: 355-363.

Carver, G. 2013. Pits and Placemaking:

Neolithic Habitation and Deposition Practices
in East Yorkshire c. 40002500 BC.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 78: 111134.

Brophy, K. 2006. Rethinking Scotlands

Neolithic: combining circumstance with
context. Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland 136: 7-46.

Chaffey, G. and Brook, E. 2012. Domesticity in

the Neolithic: excavations at Kingsmead
Quarry, Horton, Berkshire. In: LamdinWhymark, H. and Thomas, J. (eds.), Regional
Perspectives on Neolithic Pit Deposition:
beyond the mundane. Oxford: Oxbow Books,
200-215.

Brophy, K. 2007. From Big Houses to Cult

Houses: Early Neolithic Timber Halls in
Scotland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 73: 75-96.
Bruck, J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some
problems of interpretation in European
Archaeology.
European
Journal
of
Archaeology 2.3: 313-344.

Clarke, D. 2003. Once upon a time Skara Brae

was unique. In: Armit, I., Murphy, E., Nelis, E.
and Simpson, D. (eds.), Neolithic Settlement in
Ireland and Western Britain. Oxford: Oxbow
Books, 84-92.

Bruck, J. 2008. The Architecture of Routine

Life. In: Pollard, J. (ed.), Prehistoric Britain.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 248-267.

Cooney, G. 1997. Images of settlement and the

landscape in the Neolithic. In: Topping, P.
(ed.), Neolithic Landscapes Neolithic Studies
Group Seminar Papers 2. Oxford: Oxbow
Books, 23-31.

Card, N. 2005a. History of prehistoric research

In: Downes, J., Foster, S. and Wickham-Jones,
C. (eds.), The Heart of Neolithic Orkney World
Heritage Site: Research Agenda. Edinburgh:
Historic Scotland, 40-46.

Cooney, G. 2000. Landscapes of Neolithic

Ireland. London: Routledge.

Card, N. 2005b. Knowes of Trotty [In:

Ashmore, P. (ed.), A List of Archaeological
Radiocarbon
Dates].
Discovery
and
Excavation in Scotland 6: 177.

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.

Card, N. 2012. The Ness of Brodgar. British

Archaeology Jan-Feb 2013: 14-21.
Card, N. and Downes, J. 2002. Knowes of
Trotty 2002 Data Structure Report.
Unpublished report. Orkney Archaeological
Trust (OAT).

Cummings, V. and Pannett, A. 2005. Island

views: the settings of the chambered cairns of
southern Orkney. In: Cummings, V. and
Pannett, A. (eds.), Set in Stone: New
Approaches to Neolithic Monuments in
Scotland. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 14-24.

Card, N. and Downes, J. 2005. Knowes of

Trotty 2005 Data Structure Report.
Unpublished report. OAT.

Dalglish, C. 2003. Rural society in the age of

reason: an archaeology of the emergence of
modern life in the southern Scottish
highlands. New York: Kluwer.

Card, N. and Downes, J. 2006. Knowes of

Trotty 2006 Data Structure Report.
Unpublished report. OAT.

Darvill, T. 1987. Prehistoric Britain. London:

Routledge.
-51-

CAREY

Darvill, T. 1996. Neolithic buildings in

England, Wales and the Isle of Man. In:
Darvill, T. and Thomas, J. (eds.), Neolithic
Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 77-112.

Fowler, C. 2005. Identity Politics: Personhood,

Kinship, Gender and Power in Neolithic and
Early Bronze Age Britain. In: Casella, E. and
Fowler, C. (eds.), The Archaeology of Plural
and
Changing
Identities:
Beyond
Identification. London: Kluwer Academic,
109-134.

Davidson, D. and Jones, R. 1990. The

Environment of Orkney. In: Renfrew, C. (ed.),
The Prehistory of Orkney BC4000 1000AD.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 10-35.

Garrow, D. 2007. Placing pits: Landscape

Occupation and Depositional Practice During
the Neolithic in East Anglia. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 73: 1-24.

Dickson, C. 1983. Appendix 9: Macroscopic

Plant Remains From Knap Of Howar, Orkney.
In: Ritchie, A., Excavation of a Neolithic
farmstead at the Knap of Howar, Papa
Westray, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland 113: 114-115.

Garrow, D. 2012. Odd deposits and average

practice. A critical history of the concept of
structured deposition. Archaeological Dialogues 19: 85-115.

Dickson, C. 1994. Plant remains. In: Ballin

Smith, B., Howe: Four Millennia of Orkney
Prehistory
Excavations
1978-1982.
Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,
125-132.

Garrow, D., Raven, J. and Richards, C. 2005.

The Anatomy of a Megalithic Landscape. In:
Richards, C. (ed.), Dwelling among the
monuments: the Neolithic village of
Barnhouse, Maeshowe passage grave and
surrounding monuments at Stenness, Orkney.
Cambridge:
McDonald
Institute
for
Archaeological Research, 249-260.

Downes, J. 2005. Description and status of

The Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage
Site. In: Downes, J., Foster, S. and WickhamJones, C. (eds.), The Heart of Neolithic Orkney
World Heritage Site: Research Agenda.
Edinburgh: Historic Scotland, 20-21.

Gee, C. 2013. Smerquoy Excavation Diary.

Orkneyjar.com [Online]. Available from:
http://www.orkneyjar.com/archaeology/?s=s
merquoy [Accessed 02.07.2013].
Gibson, A. 2003. What do we mean by
Neolithic Settlement In: Armit, I., Murphy, E.,
Nelis, E. and Simpson, D. (eds.), Neolithic
Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 136-145.

Downes, J. and Richards, C. 2000. Excavating

the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Orkney:
Recognition and Interpretation in the Field.
In: Ritchie, A. (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its
European Context. Cambridge: McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research, 159-168.

Grogan, E. 2002. Neolithic houses in Ireland:

a broader perspective. Antiquity 76: 517-525.

Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of

the Neolithic. London: Routledge.

Hayden, C. 2008. South East Research

Framework resource assessment seminar:
White Horse Stone and the earliest Neolithic
in the South East. Kent County Council
[Online]. Available from: https://shareweb.
kent.gov.uk/Documents/Leisure-and-culture/
heritage/serf-seminar-papers-neolithic-andear
ly-bronze-age/chris-hayden.pdf [Accessed 02.
04.2013].

Edwards, P. 2012 Saviskaill Loch: Geophysical

Survey. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland
13: 135.
Farrell, M. 2009. The environmental context
of later prehistoric human activity in Orkney,
Scotland. Unpublished PhD thesis. University
of Hull.
Farrell, M., Bunting, M.J., Lee, D.H.J. and
Thomas, A. in press. Neolithic settlement at
the woodlands edge: palynological data and
timber architecture in Orkney, Scotland.
Journal of Archaeological Science.

Hey, G. 1997. Neolithic settlement at Yarnton,

Oxfordshire. In: Topping, P. (ed.), Neolithic
Landscapes Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 2. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 99-111.
Hey, G. and Barclay, A. 2007. The Thames
Valley in the late fifth and early fourth
millennium cal. BC: the appearance of
domestication and the evidence for change. In:
Whittle, A. and Cummings, V. (eds.), Going

Ferguson, T. 1996. Historic Zuni Architecture

and Society: An Archaeological Application of
Space Syntax. Tuscon: University of Arizona
Press.
-52-

assemblage

Over: The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in

North-West Europe. London: The British
Academy, 399-422.

Kirby, M. 2011. Lockerbie Academy: Neolithic

and Early Historic timber halls, a Bronze Age
cemetery, an undated enclosure and a postmedieval corn-drying kiln in south-west
Scotland. Scottish Archaeological Internet
Reports 46.

Hoffman, D. and Smyth, J. 2013. Introduction:

Dwelling,
Materials,
Cosmology

Transforming Houses in the Neolithic. In:

Hoffman, D. and Smyth, J. (eds.), Tracking
the Neolithic House in Europe: Sedentism,
Architecture and Practice. New York, 1-18.

Lambrick, G. 2010. Neolithic to Saxon social

and environmental change at Mount Farm,
Berinsfield, Dorchester-on-Thames. Oxford:
Oxford Archaeology.

Holgate, R. 1987. Neolithic settlement patterns

at Avebury, Wiltshire Antiquity 61: 259-263.

Lamdin-Whymark, H. and Thomas, J. (eds.),

2012. Regional Perspectives on Neolithic Pit
Deposition: beyond the mundane. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, 200-215.

Hunter, J., 1983. Excavations at Pool Bay,

Sanday: 1983 Interim Report. Unpublished
report. University of Bradford.

Last, J. 2012. Book Review: Regional

Perspectives on Neolithic Pit Deposition:
Beyond the Mundane. The Prehistoric Society
[Online]. Available from: http://www.prehist
oricsociety.org/files/reviews/Neolithic_pits_r
eview_final.pdf [Accessed 11.04.2013].

Hunter, J. 2000. Pool, Sanday and a Sequence

for the Orcadian Neolithic In: Ritchie, A. (ed.),
Neolithic Orkney in its European Context.
Cambridge:
McDonald
Institute
for
Archaeological Research, 117-125.
Hunter, J. 2007. Investigations in Sanday
Orkney Volume 1: Excavations at Pool,
Sanday A Multi-period Settlement from
Neolithic to Late Norse Times. Kirkwall: The
Orcadian.

Last, J. 2013. The end of the Longhouse. In:

Hoffman, B. and Smyth, J. (eds.), Tracking the
Neolithic House in Europe: Sedentism,
Architecture and Practice. New York:
Springer, 261-282.
Lee, D. and Thomas, A. 2012. Orkneys First
Farmers: Early Neolithic Settlement on Wyre.
Current Archaeology 268: 13-19.

Hunter, J. and MacSween, A. 1991. A sequence

for the Orcadian Neolithic? Antiquity 65: 911914.

Loveday, R. 2006. Where Have all the

Neolithic Houses Gone? Turf an Invisible
Component. Scottish Archaeological Journal
28.2: 81104.

Jones, R. 2003. Stonehall. [In: Ashmore, P.

(ed.), A List of Archaeological Radiocarbon
Dates]. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland
4: 163.

McClannahan, A. 2006. Monuments In

Practice: The Heart Of Neolithic Orkney In Its
Contemporary Context. Unpublished PhD
Thesis. University of Manchester.

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.

Miles, M. 2008. A Trial Excavation on a

Neolithic Settlement Site at Green, Isle of
Eday, August 2007. Unpublished report.
British
Excavation
Volunteers
and
Archaeological Research (BEVARS).

Jones, S. and Richards, C. 2000. Neolithic

Cultures in Orkney: Classification and
Interpretation. In: Ritchie, A. (ed.), Neolithic
Orkney in its European Context. Cambridge:
McDonald
Institute
for
Archaeological
Research, 101-106.

Miles, M. 2010. A Third Season of Excavation

on a Neolithic Settlement Site at Green, Isle of
Eday, August 2009. Unpublished report.
BEVARS.

Keatinge, T. and Dickson, J. 1979. MidFlandrian Changes in Vegetation on Mainland

Orkney. New Phytologist 82.2: 585-612.

Miles, M. 2011. A Fourth Season of Excavation

on a Neolithic Settlement Site at Green, Isle of
Eday, August 2010. Unpublished report.
BEVARS.

Kenney, J. 2008. Recent Excavations at Parc

Bryn Cegin, Llandygai, near Bangor, North
Wales.
Gwynedd
Archaeological
Trust
[Online]. Available from: http://www.coflein.
gov.uk/pdf/PBC_01_01/
[Accessed
11.04.2013].

Miller, J. and Ramsay, S. 2000. Stonehall

(1995-99) & Crossiecrown (1998-9): Interim
-53-

CAREY

Archaeobotanical Report. Unpublished report.

Glasgow University Archaeological Research
Division (GUARD).

Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of

Scotland 134: 17-51.
Pollard, T. 1997. Excavation of a Neolithic
settlement and ritual complex at Beckton
Farm, Lockerbie, Dumfries & Galloway.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland 127: 69-121.

Moore, J. 2006. Geophysical Survey Report

06/09: Green, Eday. Unpublished report.
OCGU.
Mudie, G. and Richardson, P. 2006.
Excavation of a Possible Neolithic Structure,
Lithic Finds and Later Ditch Features at
Kingarth Quarry, Isle of Bute. Scottish
Archaeological Journal 28.2: 105124.

Pollard, J. 1999 These places have their

moments: thoughts on settlement practices in
the British Neolithic. In: Bruck, J. and
Goodman, M. (eds.), Making Places in the
Prehistoric World. London: UCL Press, 76-93.

Murray, H. and Murray, C. 2005. David Lloyd

Leisure Centre, Garthdee Road. Discovery and
Excavation in Scotland 6: 8-9.

Pollard, J. 2008. The Construction of

Prehistoric Britain. In: Pollard, J. (ed.),
Prehistoric Britain. Oxford: Blackwell, 1-17.

Murray, H. and Murray C. 2009. Discussion of

the structure. In: Murray, H., Murray, C. and
Fraser, S. (eds.), A Tale of the Unknown
Unknowns: A Mesolithic Pit Alignment and a
Neolithic Timber Hall at Warren Field,
Crathes, Aberdeenshire. Oxford: Oxbow
Books, 50-63.

Pollard, J. 2012. Living with Sacred Spaces:

The Henge Monuments of Wessex. In: Gibson,
A. (ed.), Enclosing the Neolithic: Recent
studies in Britain and Europe. Oxford:
Archaeopress, 93-107.
Pryor, F. 1982. Fengate. Princes Risborough:
Shire Publications.

Murray, H. and Murray, C. forth. An early

Neolithic building and Mesolithic occupation
at Garthdee Road Aberdeen. Unpublished
report. Murray Archaeological Services.

Reimer, P., Baillie, M., Bard, E., Bayliss, A.

Beck, J., Bertrand, C., Blackwell, P., Buck, C.,
Burr, G., Cutler, K., Damon, P., Edwards, R.,
Fairbanks, R., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.,
Hogg, A., Hughen, K., Kromer, B., McCormac,
G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R.,
Remmele, S., Southon, J., Stuiver, M., Talamo,
S., Taylor, F., van der Plicht, J. and
Weyhenmeyer, C. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial
radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP.
Radiocarbon 46.3: 1029-1058.

Myers, A. 2006. An Archaeological Resource

Assessment of the Neolithic and Early Bronze
Age in Derbyshire. University of Leicester
[Online]. Available from: http://www.le.ac.
uk/ulas/publications/documents/11derneba_
000.pdf [Accessed 02.04.2013].
Noble, G. 2006a. Neolithic Scotland: Timber,
Stone, Earth and Fire. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.

Renfrew, C. 1979. Investigations in Orkney.

London: The Society of Antiquaries of London.

Noble, G. 2006b. Harnessing the waves:

Monuments and ceremonial complexes in
Orkney and beyond. Journal of Maritime
Archaeology 1: 100117.

Richards, C. 1986. Orkney Survey Project

Summary. Discovery and Excavation in
Scotland 1986: 21-22.

Ovenden, S. 2006. Geophysical Survey Report

06/14: Hallbreck, Wyre. Unpublished report.
OCGU.

Richards, C. 1990. The late Neolithic house in

Orkney. In: Samson, R. (ed.), The Social
Archaeology
of
Houses.
Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 111-124.

Parker Pearson, M. and Richards, C. 1994.

Architecture and Order: Spatial Representation and Archaeology. In: Parker
Pearson, M. and Richards, C. (eds.),
Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social
Space. London: Routledge, 38-72.

Richards, C. 1993. An archaeological study of

Neolithic Orkney: architecture, order and
social classification. Unpublished PhD Thesis.
University of Glasgow.
Richards, C. 1996. Monuments as Landscape:
Creating the Centre of the World in Late
Neolithic Orkney. World Archaeology 28.2,
190-208.

Phillips, T. and Bradley, R. 2004. Developerfunded fieldwork in Scotland, 19902003: an

overview of the prehistoric evidence.
-54-

assemblage

Richards, C. 1998. Centralising Tendencies? A

Re-examination of Social Evolution in Late
Neolithic Orkney. In: Edmonds, M. and
Richards, C. (eds.), Understanding the
Neolithic of North-Western Europe. Glasgow:
Cruithne Press, 516-533.

Sharples, N. 1992. Aspects of Regionalisation

in the Scottish Neolithic. In: Sharples, N. and
Sheridan, A. (eds.), Vessels for the Ancestors:
Essays on the Neolithic of Britain and Ireland.
Edinburgh University Press, 322-331.
Sheridan, A. 2013. Early Neolithic Habitation
Structures in Britain and Ireland: a Matter of
Circumstance and Context. In: Hoffman, D.
and Smyth, J. (eds.), Tracking the Neolithic
House in Europe: Sedentism, Architecture and
Practice. New York: Springer, 283-300.

Richards, C. 2003. Excavation of the early

Neolithic settlement at Wideford Hill,
Mainland, Orkney: Structures Report for
Historic Scotland. Unpublished report.
University of Manchester.
Richards, C., Downes, J., Card, N., Carruthers,
M., Challands, A., Jones, A., Jones, R and
Jones, S. 2000. The Cuween-Wideford
Landscape Project, Mainland, Orkney:
Fieldwork 1999: Data Structure Report.
Unpublished report. University of Glasgow,
Orkney College UHI, Manchester University,
UCD, OAT.

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.

Richards, C., Downes, J., Card, N., Carruthers,

M., Jones, S., Challands, A. and Jones, R.
2001. The Cuween-Wideford Landscape
Project, Mainland, Orkney: Fieldwork 2000:
Data Structure Report. Unpublished report.
University of Glasgow.

Simpson, D. 1996. Excavation of a kerbed

funerary monument at Stoneyfield, Raigmore,
Inverness, Highland, 1972-3. Proceedings of
the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 126: 5386.

Ritchie, A. 1973. Knap of Howar, Papa

Westray. Discovery and Excavation in
Scotland 1973: 68-69.

Smith, A. 1995. The excavation of Neolithic,

Bronze Age and Early Historic features near
Ratho, Edinburgh. Proceedings of the Society
of Antiquaries Scotland 125: 69-138.

Ritchie, A. 1983. Excavation of a Neolithic

farmstead at the Knap of Howar, Papa
Westray, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland 113: 40-121.

Smyth, J. 2010. The house and group identity

in the Irish Neolithic. Proceedings of the Royal
Irish Academy 111C: 1-31.

Russell-White, C. 1995. The excavation of a

Neolithic and Iron Age settlement at Wardend
of Durris, Aberdeenshire. Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 125: 9-27.

Sturt, F. 2005. Fishing for meaning: lived

space and the early Neolithic of Orkney. In:
Cummings, V. and Pannett, A. (eds.), Set in
Stone: New Approaches to Neolithic
Monuments in Scotland. Oxford: Oxbow
Books, 68-80.

Saville, A. 1990. Hazelton North: The

excavation of a Neolithic long cairn of the
Cotswold-Severn Group. London: English
Heritage.

Thomas, A. 2006. Wyre: Desk-based

assessment, Walkover survey, Gradiometry
Survey,
Fieldwalking.
Discovery
and
Excavation in Scotland 7: 122.

ScARF 2013. Places to Live and Ways of

Living. In: Sheridan, A. and Brophy, K. (eds.),
Neolithic
Panel
Report.
Scottish
Archaeological Research Framework: Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland [Online]. Available
from: http://www.scottishheritagehub.com/
content/43-places-live-and-ways-living
[Accessed 06.07.2013].

Thomas, A. 2009. Excavations At The Braes

Of Habreck, Wyre. Orkney College, UHI
[Online]. Available from: http://www.orkney.
uhi.ac.uk/courses/archaeology/staff/excavatio
ns-at-the-braes-of-ha2019breck-wyre
[Accessed 31.06.2013].

Sharples, N. 1985. Individual and Community:

The Changing Role of Megaliths in the
Orcadian Neolithic. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 51: 59-74

Thomas, J. 1996. Neolithic houses in mainland

Britain and Ireland A sceptical view. In:
-55-

CAREY

Darvill, T. and Thomas, J. (eds.), Neolithic

Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1-12.

Whittle, A., Healy, F. and Bayliss, A (eds.),

2011a. Gathering Time: Dating the Early
Neolithic Enclosures of Southern Britain and
Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Thomas, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic.

London: Routledge.

Whittle, A., Healy, F. and Bayliss, A. 2011b.

Gathering time: Causewayed enclosures and
the early Neolithic of southern Britain and
Ireland. In: Whittle, A., Healy, F. and Bayliss,
A. (eds.), Gathering Time: Dating the Early
Neolithic Enclosures of Southern Britain and
Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1-16.

Thomas, J. 2004. Current debates on the

Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain and
Ireland. Documenta Praehistorica 31: 113-130.
Thomas, J. 2008. The Mesolithic-Neolithic
Transition in Britain. In: Pollard, J. (ed.),
Prehistoric Britain. Oxford: Blackwell, 58-89.

Wickham-Jones, C. 2006. Between the Wind

and the Water: World Heritage Orkney.
Macclesfield: Windgather Press.

Traill, W. and Kirkness, W. 1937. Hower,

Prehistoric Structure on Papa Westray.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland 71: 309-322.

Zvelebil, M., Green, S. and Macklin, M. 1992.

Archaeological Landscapes, Lithic Scatters and
Human Behaviour. In: Rossingol, J. and
Wandsnider, L. (eds.), Space, Time and
Archaeological Landscapes. New York:
Plenum Press, 193-226.

Waddington, C., Bailey, G., Bayliss, A.,

Boomer, I., Milner, N., Pedersen, K., Shiel, R.
and Stevenson, T. 2003a. A Mesolithic
settlement site at Howick, Northumberland: a
preliminary report. Archaeologia Aeliana 32:
1-12.
Waddington, C., Bailey, G., Boomer, I., Milner,
N., Pederson, K., Shiel, R. and Stevenson, T.
2003b. A Mesolithic Settlement at Howick,
Northumberland. Antiquity 77 [Online].
Available from: http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/waddington/waddington.html [Accessed:
07.07.2013].
Whittle, A. 1988. Problems in Neolithic
archaeology.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University Press.
Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: the
creation of new worlds. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Whittle, A. 2003. The archaeology of people:
dimensions of Neolithic life. London:
Routledge.
Whittle, A., Barclay, A., Bayliss, A., McFadyen,
L., Schulting, R. and Wysocki, M. 2007.
Building for the Dead: Events, Processes and
Changing Worldviews from the Thirty-eighth
to the Thirty-fourth Centuries cal. BC in
Southern Britain. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 17: 12347.
Whittle, A., Bayliss, A. and Healy, F. 2008. The
Timing and Tempo of Change: Examples from
the Fourth Millennium cal. BC in Southern
England. Cambridge Archaeological Journal
18: 65-70.

-56-

assemblage
Appendix 1: A gazetteer of Early Neolithic structures in Orkney

Site
Name

Trench
/Phase

Braes of Ha'Breck, Wyre

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

House sub-divided into two

unequal 'rooms'. Appears to
respect the ground plan of
House 4.

[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

Truncated beam slots on

WSW and NNW wall lines.
Linear arrangement of
postholes projecting into
interior, mirroring central
orthostats in the stone-built
structures.
Appended to the south of
House 3, but although
stratigraphically later, there
does seem to have been a
period of overlap in the
occupation of the two houses.

Rapidly dismantled, its posts

were removed before the
construction of a stone-built
house on the same footprint
(House 2).

Built on the same footprint

as the post-built building
(House 1).

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

Not fully excavated as of

2012, and post-excavation
studies are still in their
infancy. Superficial
similarities can be noted
with House 1 at Knap of
Howar, which is also noted
in the original geophysical
survey report (Moore 2006).

Originally interpreted by the

excavators as a mortuary
enclosure, but, a domestic
function has been suggested
by Colin Richards, on the
basis of the presence of the
hearth.
Ballin
Smith
1994: 1113.

Originally interpreted by the

excavators as a stalled tomb,
but, a domestic function has
been suggested by Colin
Richards on the basis of the
presence of orthostatic
divisions and a hearth.

Pool, Sanday

Pool, Sanday

Knowes of Trotty

Knap of Howar, Papa

Westray

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

The type site for Early

Neolithic settlement in
Orkney, consisting of a
single isolated dwelling.
The type site for Early
Neolithic settlement in
Orkney, consisting of a
single isolated dwelling.
A stone building with a hearth
and orthostatic divisions,
originally interpreted as a 'cult
house' associated with the
LN/EBA use of the barrow
cemetery, but absolute dating
indicates it is Early Neolithic,
and affinities with Knap of
Howar and Stonehall are
noted (Card et al. 2006).

A small structure only

partially revealed; associated
with Unstan Ware but not
absolutely dated.
Entirely revealed in
excavation, with clear
entranceway to SSE, and
possibly part of a larger
complex.
Formed of two curvilinear
chambers to the north and
south. Had undergone
substantial alteration or
repair, and had been badly
eroded through plough
damage.

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).

Site currently undergoing

excavation and analysis
(2013).

Found under midden

underneath elements of the
Late Neolithic settlement at
Stonehall. Suggested as Early
Neolithic based upon
orthostat at right angles to
collapsed walling, although
plan is not clear.

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

Very easily made comparisons

with Knap of Howar particularly given nature of
orthostatic subdivisions.
Heavily truncated but hearth
setting and some orthostats
seems to suggest subrectangular structure.
Small length of walling, reused in the later phase,
Building C. Two entrances;
primary one to the north (later
blocked) and one in the E wall
which was the later entrance
for Building C.

Probably contemporary with

Building C but primary. Wall
cored in a similar way to C1
and C, and at Knap of
Howar.
Suggestion of a conjoining
passageway between
Building B and Building C.

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

5 post-holes, found directly

underlying Stone built
House, and posts had rotted
in situ, suggesting only just
out-of-use when Stone Built
house was built. Interpreted
as slighter construction than
Structure 1.
*A circular structure might
have formed the initial phase
of this building, centred on
the scoop hearth,
subsequently rebuilt in a
more rectangular form. The
remains were difficult to
interpret.
A stone built house, quickly
following the abandonment
of structure 2, which it
overlay. No apparent
subdivisions, unlike other
Knap of Howar style houses,
but a rectangular form with
pinched walling and
rounded corners.

CAREY

Appendix 2: Diversity in the Early Neolithic architectural record across Scotland

No.

Site Name

Bharpa Carinish, North

Uist

Cowie, Stirlingshire

Eilean Domnhuill,
North Uist

Garthdee Road,
Aberdeen

Kinbeachie, Easter
Ross

Kingarth Quarry, Isle of

Bute

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

Murray and Murray

forthcoming

First recorded
through
fieldwalking,
subsequently
excavated

Barclay et al. 2001

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

Simpson 1996: 6265

Evaluative
fieldwork, ahead of
development

Smith 1995

Exposed during
gravel quarrying

Russell-White,
1995: 23