Around the Houses. Towards a More Robust Interpretation and Analysis of the Early Neolithic Domestic Settlement Record in Britain

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 This paper takes as a starting point a collation of the settlement evidence that is now evident The announcement of a fresh wave of Early from the Orkney Isles, located off the north Neolithic settlement evidence from Kingsmead coast of Scotland. This newly emerging Quarry, Horton, Berkshire (Chaffey and Brook evidence forces us to reconsider not only the 2012; Barclay et al. 2012) along with the structural evidence for settlement in the fourth previous discovery of a series of houses from millennium BC, but the approaches we take to this site dating to around 3800 BC, comes at effectively deal with a multiplicity of domestic an exciting time for the study of the fourth practices. At a wider scale, in Britain, similar millennium BC across Britain. The publication issues are coming to the fore with the rapidly of a significant re-dating programme of expanding evidence-base provided by causewayed enclosures across Southern developer-funded excavation. At the same Britain and Ireland (Whittle et al. 2011a), has time, attention has returned to analyses at a done much to highlight the potential in landscape scale, considering the roles of pits, redressing previous syntheses of the period lithic scatters and their relationship with the which ‘have operated within a very coarse structural evidence. chronology’ (Whittle et al. 2011b: 14). Reliance on traditional chronologies has long inhibited Ultimately, the aim is to shift attention away a much fuller understanding of the pace of from one interpretation of the house, and one change in the insular Earlier Neolithic interpretation of domesticity. This wider focus (Bradley 2007a: 33); now is the time to write will truly allow us to begin to interpret, on an ‘[m]ore detailed Neolithic histories’ (Whittle et equal basis, as wide a range of settlement al. 2007: 123). traces as possible, in all the guises in which they appear (Barclay 1996: 75).

Giles Carey – [email protected] © Carey 2014 Warwickshire County Council (Archaeological Information and Advice) © 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).

The example of Early Neolithic have dominated interpretation of life across Orkney: methodological and the whole Neolithic (Barclay 2000: 275; Downes 2005: 2; McClanahan 2006: 102). The interpretative possibilities evidence for the Orcadian Early Neolithic in contrast, has often been seen as epiphe- The well-known, well-studied (e.g., Card nomenal, on the periphery of academic 2005a) stone-built ‘permanent house discussion. architecture’ of the Orkney Islands has seemingly provided an unparalleled opp- For nearly 70 years, the interpretation of ortunity to explore the ‘house societies’ of early domestic life in Early Neolithic Orkney has Neolithic communities (Noble 2006a: 38). been predicated on a single site, the Knap of This research has presented the ‘house’ as a Howar, on Papa Westray (Figure 1). After an self-evident category of analysis (Thomas erosion event exposed the area in the 1930s, 1996: 11-12), an unchanging cosmological local landowner William Traill and the referent, which, as we shall see, belies the antiquarian William Kirkness cleared and diversity of domestic practice that is now carried out initial excavations on two beginning to emerge. The variability inherent conjoined stone buildings (Traill and Kirkness in this emerging dataset requires us to re- 1937: 309). Subsequently, Anna Ritchie’s evaluate not only how we think about Early excavations, between 1973 and 1975, aimed to Neolithic settlement evidence in Orkney, but ‘elucidate further the nature and date of the also how we look for such sites. two-stone built houses’, interpreted as the farmstead of an extended family (Ritchie 1973: The research context 68). The Orkney Islands form one of the most intensively studied archaeological areas in Both stone-built houses at Knap of Howar are north-west Europe (Card 2005a). Key to their constructed of double-skinned walling, cored continuing attraction, as a ‘core area’ for with midden material. They are rectangular in research (Barclay 2004: 34-37) is the form, with rounded corners, and sub-divided exceptional survival of above ground remains by orthostats set into the ‘pinched’ wall form. (Cummings and Pannett 2005: 14; Parker Overall, House 2 was interpreted as a possible Pearson and Richards 1994: 41). The Later workshop, with House 1 forming the main Neolithic monuments which form the Heart of dwelling house, an understanding influenced Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site (WHS) by analogy with living arrangements in the

-40-

assemblage

Hebridean blackhouses (Dalglish 2003: 20). interpretative challenges in dealing with the This architectural repertoire is taken as typical, architecture of the period (Jones and Richards providing a blueprint for what an Orcadian 2000: 164) and the methodological challenges Early Neolithic house should be like (Downes in consistently identifying and recording and Richards 2000: 167). The landscape domestic activity in the archaeological record context of Knap of Howar is also ‘consistent (Bradley 2003: 221). with the generally accepted framework’ for small, dispersed, self-sufficient farmsteads in In the 1980s, Colin Richards started to re- the Early Neolithic (Bradley 2007a: 40; examine the evidence for other Early Neolithic Richards 1993: 89), giving ‘the impression of houses in Orkney, such as the structure isolated communities living largely in- underlying the complex Iron Age site at Howe, dependent lives’ (Noble 2006b: 111 cf. Sturt near Stromness (Ballin Smith 1994; Richards 2005: 73). 1993). This structure was initially interpreted as a mortuary structure, but similarities in Knap of Howar has provided a powerful legacy architectural form with the Knap of Howar for interpreting the nature of settlement in houses might suggest an Early Neolithic date. Early Neolithic Orkney. However, emerging More recently at Knowes of Trotty, evidence is challenging the very notion of the Huntiscarth, a small rectangular structure, ‘house’, as a physical structure and as a securely dated to c. 3500 – 2910 cal. BC, ‘resource used in the structuring of the social underlies one of the barrows in this Bronze interaction that reproduces society’ (Ferguson Age cemetery, constructed nearly a 1996: 7) across the archipelago. The variety of millennium later (Card 2005b: 177; Card and house and settlement forms now evident Downes 2006: 27; Sheridan and Schulting (Thomas 2009) demonstrate both the 2006: 205).

F i g u r e

E a r l y

N e o l i t h i c

O r k n ey – location of all sites mentioned in the text. See Appendix 1 for full information and references.

Subsequent excavations on a number of sites variability of occupation practice in the fourth have begun to further demonstrate the millennium BC. These discoveries are par-

-41-

CAREY ticularly associated with Colin Richard’s around a scoop hearth, seems to have been programme of survey work in Orkney, using a replaced by two conjoined stone houses. nested programme of systematic fieldwalking Whilst post-excavation analysis of these results and geophysics (Richards, 1986: 21-2, 2005: is still ongoing, it is clear that selection of 9). construction material is not simply a material consideration, but also relies upon a series of A site at Stonehall, on the slopes of Cuween socially embedded decisions. Hill, rather than being an ‘isolated’ farmstead appears to represent a much more clustered This evidence for the use of timber in house settlement arrangement, usually associated construction is of particular importance in with the Late Neolithic, as at Skara Brae. The light of recent palaeo-environmental studies, remains of up to seven possible houses were which point to the fact that Orkney may not recorded at this site (Carruthers and Richards have been as treeless in the Neolithic as 2000: 64), within an area of 150m by 150m previously thought (e.g., Keatinge and Dickson and with a rapid sequence of rebuilding and 1979; Davidson and Jones 1990). Current several shifts in settlement focus. evidence indicates a diverse pattern of woodland survival that existed, in some areas Perhaps the most important findings of into the Bronze Age (Farrell et al. in press). Richards’ excavation programme, however, Thus, the timber buildings at Wideford Hill were the discovery of a primary timber phase and Braes of Ha’Breck may be ‘representative of construction to the Early Neolithic of a much broader distribution’ (Richards settlement on the slopes of Wideford Hill, 2003: 19). overlooked by the famous tomb. For the first time, this was unequivocal evidence that Undoubtedly, the emerging evidence timber did form part of the architectural represents a securely-dated Early Neolithic repertoire in the islands in the fourth phase of occupation in Orkney, of considerable millennium BC, and that traces of such variety, in settlement morphology, house form structures can survive (Wickham-Jones 2006: and, in construction material, c. 3400-3100 26). Three post-built structures were re- cal. BC. The construction of timber buildings corded, two of similar sub-circular form at both Wideford Hill and Braes of Ha’Breck (Structures 1 and 2), with a third that, at least presents a radical challenge to an established in its latter phase, resembles a rectilinear image of substantial stone-built houses rep- organisation of space (Structure 3). The resenting year-round sedentary permanence in decaying remains of Structure 2 formed a the earliest Neolithic. This new picture of focus for the construction of a stone-built Early Neolithic houses also has wide-ranging longhouse (House 1), probably constructed implications for how such sites are prospected, whilst the decaying posts of the earlier timber particularly given their ephemerality set structure were still in situ. This all reveals a against the high visibility of stone in the ‘close grained sequence of building re- archaeological record of the Northern Isles. placement and continuity of occupation’ (Richards 2003: 6), spanning c. 3350 – 2920 cal. BC, with a complex interplay between construction materials. The variability of settlement practice

The ‘standard’ architectural repertoire, typified The emerging picture by the type-site of Knap of Howar, was subject to significant reinvention at a local level. Much Recent excavations on Wyre, a small island in has been written on the cosmological between Mainland and Rousay, have revealed ‘decoding’ of the Early Neolithic house, with a similarly fluid and complex relationship the stone-built houses of Neolithic Orkney between timber and stone-built elements of forming a key part of this narrative (e.g., the architecture at the settlement of Braes of Richards 1990, 1993, 1996). However, it is Ha’Breck (Lee and Thomas 2012). In one evident that, even when we are dealing with trench, a post-built longhouse with a central stone-built architecture, we are not dealing fire pit was rapidly dismantled and its posts with a static, homogenous codification of were ripped out prior to the construction of a meaning, or a set of ‘rules’ for construction and stone-built house on almost exactly the same dwelling (Garrow et al. 2005: 251; cf. Bourdieu footprint, although a new hearth was 1990: 26-27). Early Neolithic buildings went constructed. In another trench, a short-lived through cycles of change, use, and abandon- timber house, consisting of 14 post-holes

-42-

assemblage ment, which can be studied at a range of 2000; Richards 2003). Ultimately, timber different timescales. Buildings are, after all, an buildings appear to possess ‘a life-cycle of their element of a material culture, a specialised own, perhaps linked to those of their owners’ artefact entwined with ‘distinct practices and (Lee and Thomas 2012: 16). human identities’ as well as the self-images of the societies that created and lived in them Against such a background, the impressive (Thomas 1999: 74; Richards 1998: 525). Orkney-Cromarty tombs may have provided some fixity in the landscape, drawing In addition, the analysis of settlement layout ‘additional symbolism from [their] very across Early Neolithic Orkney poses significant permanence’ (Whittle 1988: 85), particularly challenges to a generally assumed model of a when viewed as integral to the construction of segmentary society in fourth millennium BC place and time in the Early Neolithic (Bradley Orkney, living in isolated, dispersed settle- 1998: Chapter 1). The evidence is perhaps ments such as at Knap of Howar (Farrell 2009: suggestive that a more nuanced approach is 32; Renfrew 1979: 205-208; Richards 1998: required to the concept of ‘house’ (Bradley 524; Sharples 1985: 72, 1992: 323). This 2007b: 354) which integrates evidence from a picture of settlement might just possibly be an variety of unstable settlement practices. It is atypical arrangement, as suggested by the the prospection and interpretation of these conglomeration of houses at Stonehall and unstable settlement practices that lie at the Braes of Ha’Breck and from the shifting nature heart of developing a more robust model for of the Early Neolithic building phases at Pool, domestic life in the fourth millennium BC Sanday (Hunter 2007: 63-64). As noted across Britain. 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 con- ceptualisation 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 Figure 3 Main Early Neolithic structures at materials’, together with the use of small and Stonehall. Clockwise from top-left: Location thin stonework in wall construction is seen as of Trenches C and Z, with approximate indicating the ‘shifting’ nature of these location of Early Neolithic buildings; Trench impermanent structures, perhaps with C, showing C1 and C2; Trench Z showing seasonal occupation (Hunter 2007: 64). At phase 2 (buildings B, and C); Trench Z Wyre and Wideford, the use of timber showing phase 1 (Building A). After Richards architecture clearly required episodes of repair et al. 2001: Figs 2, 3, 5, 7. and replacement, with the use of a variety of What can we learn from Early different softwoods for different purposes, Neolithic Orkney? creating structures with different life spans (Dickson 1983, 1994; Miller and Ramsay

-43-

CAREY

The well-preserved, well-studied stone-built Earliest Neolithic (Thomas 2008: 69), with houses of Neolithic Orkney may appear to be lines clearly drawn between proponents of a an odd place to start a discussion of the ‘settled’ Irish/Northern British model (Barclay domestic settlement record of Britain. 2000; Cooney 2000) and a ‘transient’ However, I would argue their impact on Southern English/Wessex model (Thomas settlement studies has been critically 1996, 1999). The argument pursued here is influential, whether they are considered an not designed to marginalise this crucial debate, ‘unusual domestic arrangement’ (Clarke 2003: or to encourage uncritical acceptance of the 86), or typical of how Early Neolithic houses structural evidence as indicative of the house were internally organised, if such features as a ‘unitary phenomenon’ (Cooney 1997: 26). could only be more consistently recognised in Rather, it is an attempt to use the full depth of the archaeological record (Barclay 1996: 74; the information gleaned to more fully explore Darvill 1987: 57; Gibson 2003: 138). the ways in which the house ‘gained its social and cosmological relevance’ (Hoffman and In Scotland, up until recently, discussions of Smyth 2013: 1) across Britain. This will allow Early Neolithic ‘houses’ were dominated by us to explore trajectories of sedentism and stone-built forms of architecture, mainly from house building, which clearly were subject to the upland zone, and the monumental timber significant regional differentiation (SCARF halls of Aberdeenshire (Barclay 1996; Brophy 2013). The challenge is to explore these 2007; Gibson 2003: 138; Murray and Murray trajectories of change at local and regional 2009: 62-63). However, significant devel- scales of analyses (Pollard 2008: 6), tacking opments have led to a more nuanced between short and long-term chronologies understanding of domestic architecture and in (Whittle et al. 2008: 69). By doing so, we can the more consistent recovery of evidence, explore the dynamic interrelationship between particularly associated with open area ritual and domestic life, a key theme of recent excavation on developer-funded projects (e.g., studies (e.g., Bruck 1999; Bradley 2005), Phillips and Bradley 2004). This excavation which has formed the crux of interpretation for has involved the identification of both ‘sturdy’ some of the earliest identified Neolithic and ephemeral remains, of both rectilinear and structures in Britain (e.g., at Hazelton North, circular forms, which potentially use a wide Gloucestershire (Thomas 1996: 8 contra range of construction materials (Barclay 2003; Saville 1990: 17, 268); or Padholme Road, Loveday 2006: 100). This flurry of developer- Fengate, Cambridgshire (Pryor 1982: 20, 63]). funded excavations uncovering remains is Developer-funded fieldwork, largely focusing mirrored across the rest of Britain as well as away from extant above ground monuments, Ireland (Smyth 2006: 229). or protected in situ belowground deposits, has the potential to explore the wider landscape Since the advent of large-scale evaluation; environs of recorded monuments. This comes strip, map, and sample exercises; and at a time of resurgence in research-led excavations enabled by developer-funded fieldwork centred on well known monuments– archaeology, the evidence-base has sub- Stonehenge, Avebury, Durrington Walls, stantially grown, and there has been Woodhenge and Marden Henge (Pollard 2012: considerable ‘lag’ in incorporating these results 93), to name just a selection in Wessex-or their into mainstream academic discussion. As immediate environs, e.g., the Ness of Brodgar Richard Bradley has commented, ‘the excavations in Orkney (Card 2012), all of expansion of developer-funded archaeology which have recorded substantial structures. has also been liberating for prehistorians. It Taken together, the cumulative evidence may has not been based on the old orthodoxies, but well allow an exploration of the complex on the requirements of the planning process, interplay of contextual and contingent with the result that unfamiliar kinds of meanings between ritual and domestic struc- material have been recovered and new areas tures and landscapes in use by the earliest have been investigated that had been neglected farmers. 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 Unpacking Architecture patterning of building types (Kirby 2011: 26), and the placing of ‘type-sites’ into a much Whilst there is a clear recognition that more representative context. Neolithic settlement in Britain is not a ‘unitary This emerging dataset can move studies phenomenon’ (Cooney 1997: 26), some beyond an impasse which has, for too long, prehistorians have struggled to move towards centred on the nature of sedentism in the

-44-

assemblage a more nuanced understanding of architectural Neolithic hearths at Bharpa Carinish, North signatures within different study regions. Uist, can be interpreted as representing ‘a short-lived transient settlement’ (Crone 1993: Arguably, an unhelpful dichotomisation 380). ‘between mobile hunter-gatherer and settled agricultural societies’ (Bruck 2008: 250) is still In Scotland, it is rapidly becoming clear that rigidly maintained in some existing dialogues structures do not ‘fall into a series of clearly of British prehistory (Barclay 1997: 148), not defined types’ (Phillips and Bradley 2004: 40), least as an artificial disciplinary boundary rather we are dealing with a ‘series of ‘levels’ of (Armit and Finlayson 1996: 269-270). settlement of varying degrees of permanency Conceptualising an absolute ‘contrast’ between and range of functions’ (Brophy 2006: 18). Mesolithic and Neolithic architecture is Some of these settlements may not have problematic (Armit and Finlayson 1996: 276); functioned as autonomous domestic units, an the wide range of evidence from sites with both understanding potentially only valid in a ‘Mesolithic’ and ‘Neolithic’ dates shows a modern context (Brophy 2006: 19; Whittle complex interplay of both sedentary and 1996: 70). transhumant strategies. As an example, the depth of stratified occupation deposits and To illustrate this variability, Figure 4 shows a repeated use of the hearth at a Mesolithic sample of structures that have been variously building at Howick, Northumberland, is interpreted as house structures across perhaps suggestive of ‘permanent or semi- Scotland. Whilst it is flawed to ascribe a permanent occupation of the site over many uniformity of function to these buildings, it is years’ (Waddington et al. 2003a: 11; clear that there is no fixed architectural Waddington et al. 2003b); conversely, the blueprint for the dwelling structure. slight structural remains surrounding

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 centuries BC, formed of 27 postholes, with vastly in size, shape, and permanence. wattle walling (Barclay et al. 2012: 1). This Structures vary from the substantial co- method of construction differs from the first residences of perhaps up to 50 people (SCARF Early Neolithic house discovered at Horton, a 2013)–the longhouse at Lockerbie Academy plank-walled structure measuring c. 9.8 x 6.5m measures at least 19 x 8m (Kirby 2011: 7), to (Chaffey and Brook 2012). These hall-like the temporary dwellings of a much closer kin structures are in close proximity to each other, group-the ovoid structures at Cowie measure and there is also the suggestion of a very from just 3.6 x 2.4m (Structure A; Atkinson different building recorded close by, as a 2002). In addition to dry-stone walling (Eilean ‘house void’ between a formal arrangement of Domnhuill), wall construction varies from the Early Neolithic pits, measuring c. 4 x 5m use of substantial posts (e.g., Lockerbie (Chaffey and Brook 2012: 205). In addition, Academy) to stake-built structures (e.g., Cowie the excavation of a large number of pits in the or Raigmore) including the use of slot trenches wider landscape at Horton, spanning the (e.g., Kingarth Quarry). The architectural fourth and third millennia, has revealed a evidence from other sites is very fragmentary; ‘picture of temporary settlement, of mobility domestic function is inferred from the and people gathering in chosen places and presence of a hearth (Bharpa Carinish), or times before perhaps dispersing to other through associations between structural locales within the wider landscape’ (Chaffey evidence and crop-processing refuse, food and Brook 2012: 210). remains and hearth debris (at Wardend of Durris; Russell-White 1995: 20). At a wider level, in the well-studied region of the Upper Thames Valley (Figure 5), a number At Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, a small ovoid of strands of evidence attests to the diversity of timber building, measuring c. 11 x 8-10m has domestic practice (Bradley 2010: 10). Traces been securely dated to c. 3800–3650 cal. BC of domestic activities in a wider landscape (Murray and Murray 2005: 9). The excavators include lithic scatters, interpreted as noted that ‘the artifactual and environmental seasonally occupied hunting camps, pits data demonstrate considerable cultural and involved in ‘household rituals’ at Yarnton, and economic similarities between the occupants repeated visits to the middens at Eton Rowing of this small building and of the two massive Lake (Hey and Barclay 2007: 404, 410, 412). early Neolithic timber halls only a few Architecture itself ranges from ‘insubstantial, kilometres away at Balbridie and Warren short-lived structures’ (Hey 1997: 106) Field, Crathes’ (Murray and Murray alongside both very small circular structures forthcoming; see Sheridan 2013: 294). The (Lambrick 2010: 26) and a substantial timber latter buildings, largely contemporaneous, longhouse at Yarnton (Hey and Barclay 2007: measure at least 24 x 12m, completely 415), to the smaller rectilinear buildings at dwarfing this structure. The excavators both Hazelton North (Saville 1990: 20) and the conclude that ‘while there are indicators of buildings at Horton (Chaffey and Brook 2012). “domestic life” at both Warren Field and All seem to be in broad contemporaneous use Garthdee, there are also indications that and can tentatively be identified as belonging Warren Field had other more complex roles’ to the same settlement tradition, both for the (Murray and Murray 2009: 63). ‘mundane’ diurnal activities of the household as well as ‘being the locales of formal activities Even the hearth, perhaps seen as central to the within the domestic sphere’ (Hey and Barclay concept of home, is not necessarily archi- 2007: 416). tecturally part of the ‘house’. One interpretation of the external hearths excavated in A considerable number of architectural association with possible small Neolithic examples may be added to the last gazetteer of houses at Beckton Farm, Lockerbie is that they Early Neolithic buildings compiled by Darvill ‘may have been used like indoor hearths, (1996: Fig.6.3, Appendix 1), and it is possible providing cooking facilities, light and a social that some re-evaluation of the building types focus’ (Pollard 1997: 83). identified in his assessment is required.

The picture of what type of settlement Recently it has been possible to postulate two architecture ‘characterises’ the English and distinct architectural groups in England and Welsh Early Neolithic is also a constantly Wales, with increasing chronological reso- changing one, as demonstrated by the example lution. Longhouses at sites such as White of Kingsmead Quarry, Horton, Berkshire. The Horse Stone, Kent, Yarnton, Oxfordshire and most recent discovery at Horton is a Lismore Fields, Derbyshire, date between substantial building dating to the 38th to 37th 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, These ‘communal residences of pioneering Hertfordshire and Llandygai, Gwynedd have groups of colonists’ (Sheridan 2013: 293) have been dated to the second quarter of the fourth understandably formed the focus of millennium (Last 2013: 274-275). discussion, but this has tended to sideline the investigation of smaller, flimsier structures of Developer-funded excavation has allowed the multiple form, temporalities of occupation and evaluation of a range of these building ‘types’. potentially of multiple usages (Sheridan 2013: In particular, the rewards of exploring 295). This picture of variability is a constant previously under-investigated areas have been reminder that strategies of permanence of reaped. Of particular interest is the inhabitation and transhumance were geographical spread of ‘halls’ or ‘large houses’ complementary features of the Early Neolithic (vide Sheridan 2013 for discussion); they are landscape. clearly not confined to Scotland, but have now been recorded in Derbyshire, Oxfordshire, The ever-expanding evidence base requires us Kent, Cornwall and Wales (Myers 2006: 4; to pursue a more nuanced understanding of all Hey and Barclay 2007: 415; Hayden 2008; these structures, and locales for domestic Sheridan 2013: 284; Kenney 2008), all on activity, rather than relying upon convenient developer-funded projects. labels. Clearly, not all ‘houses’, ‘halls’, and ‘habitation structures’ were the same The interpretation of these structures is (Sheridan 2013), and the full characterisation complex, with discussion being polarised of the structures involved in differing between those who believe them to be houses strategies of dwelling is a prerequisite of (Sheridan 2013) and those who interpret them unpacking the notion of the fully autonomous as communal ‘feasting’ halls (Barclay et al. house containing a fully autonomous house- 2002; Thomas 2004: 122), potentially hold. The full publication and synthesis of a associated with the very initial stages of the number of sites is eagerly anticipated and, no transition, dating to the 38th and 37th centuries doubt will feed into narratives at multiple (Whittle 2003: 41). scales of analyses. It is, however, immediately clear, that there are significant limitations with

-47-

CAREY a continued overemphasis on one standard The same is true of the way that lithic scatters ‘type’ of house structure, in the Early Neolithic, have been dealt with in the archaeological as well as one interpretation of domestic record. They remain a key part of the evidence activity. 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 Diversifying the Approach 2003: 72). General analogy with deposition in present-day agrarian societies suggests that Houses did not provide the ‘only setting for ‘dense flint scatters which produce a variety of domestic activity in the early Neolithic’ (Smyth implements’ most likely represent domestic 2010: 5). Different practices, carried out in a sites (Holgate 1987: 260), with ‘small dense variety of buildings and places in the wider clusters of artefacts peaking above the landscape, and involving changing relation- background-scatter’ (Zvelebil et al. 1992: 215) ships with ritual monuments, are all likely to characterising a pattern of isolated farmsteads, have contributed to a notion of ‘domestic’ life. the perceived ‘standard’ model for Early Neolithic settlement. Ephemeral scatters of pits and postholes, ubiquitous across large parts of lowland Thomas has argued that lithic scatters, in Britain and mainland Scotland (Bishop et al. themselves, are not necessarily direct evidence 2009: 48), have been uniformly interpreted as of fixed settlement, and are instead potentially representing temporary, sporadic and related to the ‘repeated, sporadic frequenting peripatetic occupation of the landscape. of a place’ (1999: 18). Indeed, the However, do these forms of evidence necess- interpretation of deposition of quantities of arily indicate the same phenomenon? tools of different types representing domestic sites presupposes ‘continuous co-residence Recently, interest has been rekindled in the within a dwelling structure’ (Thomas 1999: studies of pits of all types, including their 18), which may not represent the sole interrelationship with domestic architecture component of Early Neolithic settlement (see papers in Lamdin-Whymark and Thomas activity. The difficulty might lie in our ability 2012), as a frequent feature of Early Neolithic to define domesticity; the functions of ‘home’, sites. There has been an explicit attempt to rather than confined to a single locus might be move beyond binary notions of mundane and atomised across landscape; the challenge is to ritual or structured deposition (Garrow 2007, interrogate the data as fully as possible to be 2012). The detailed analysis, and cumulative able to identify all traces of domestic study of pits excavated by research and occupation. commercial archaeologists has revealed ‘consistent patterns of domesticity’ (Chaffey To return to Orkney, the challenges of fully and Brook 2012: 213) across large parts of identifying the range of domestic activity in the Britain, with especial concentrations in East Early Neolithic settlement record are clear. Anglia, Clackmannanshire and Herefordshire, The ephemerality of the remains of timber for example. Work in East Yorkshire, for buildings, particularly set against the ‘hyper- instance, points to the role of pit digging as visibility’ of stone architecture in Orkney part of a social strategy to ‘come to terms with’ (Wickham-Jones 2006: 26), poses challenges a developing sense of permanence. Pits are which provide lessons for the whole of Britain. used to develop a nuanced understanding of Of particular note is the importance of a nested the complex relationship between an ideology methodology, with fieldwalking and geo- of permanence, the act of ‘settling down’ and physical survey forming key tools for ident- sedentism as it has traditionally been ifying sites, allied with programmes of aerial envisaged (Carver 2013: 131). survey. The use of multi-faceted, multi-scalar programmes of investigation help redress a It is clear that to provide a more holistic view bias towards more substantial, extant struc- of what constitutes settlement in the Early tural evidence. Such an approach has recently Neolithic, we must deal with pits in a more located a new site at Smerquoy, on Wideford detailed way–‘it seems pits are not just the Hill (Gee 2013) and has allowed the re- surviving components of Neolithic settlement; evaluation of a possible site at Deepdale, near they were the major structural component of Finstown (Carey 2012), as well as suggesting [these sites]’ (Last 2012; contra Kenney 2008: sites for further research (as at the possible 26). remains of a large timber structure at Saviskaill Loch, Rousay (Edwards 2012)).

-48-

assemblage

Conclusions sites are located on Mainland unless otherwise indicated. It is clear, then, that the narrative for Early Neolithic settlement across Britain is suddenly Appendix 2: Diversity in the Early Neolithic becoming richer, particularly with the advent architectural record across Scotland of a wider range of structural evidence from A selected sample of 10 Early Neolithic sites developer-funded excavation, and increasingly for which a domestic function has been refined chronological frameworks for dis- inferred. This appendix is not designed as a cussing this evidence. collation exercise, but to demonstrate the difficulties associated with both identifying The integrated interpretation of ‘houses’ with and interpreting this material. See Figure 4 for elements of domestic activity present in the locations and an illustration of selected house wider landscape presents a challenge to the plans. 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 Notes more holistic picture of different modes of dwelling in the 4th millennium BC. Unless otherwise stated, all radiocarbon dates, stated as xxxx BC, have been calibrated, using ‘A great deal has been written about Early OxCal 3.10 (Bronk Ramsey 2001), atmospheric Neolithic habitation structures in Britain and data from Reimer et al. (2004), and are given Ireland over the past 20 years’ (Sheridan 2013: to 2σ. 283). It is likely that, over the next 20 years, much more will added on the subject. The The unpublished reports listed in the variability of the evidence must have a starring references are all held by Orkney Sites and role in this emerging narrative, and this must Monuments Record (SMR) c/o Orkney engage fully with the study of both ‘sturdy’ and College, East Road, Kirkwall, unless where ephemeral remains. There is also clearly much otherwise noted. Unpublished PhD theses to do to refine exactly what we mean by have been obtained from The British Library’s ‘domestic activity’, incorporating transient EthOS service, at http://ethos.bl.uk. activity in the landscape with more persistent settlement traces at specific locales.

Ultimately, the heterogeneous nature of Acknowledgements settlement practice (Thomas 1996: 2) requires both our prospection strategies, and our The research underlying this paper was carried strategies for interpreting ‘domestic’ activity, out for an MA dissertation at Orkney College, therefore, to be flexible. There is much to be UHI. I would like to acknowledge the support learnt from Early Neolithic Orkney in this of staff and students at this institution, regard. 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, Appendices Mick Miles, Dr Hilary Murray, Dr Colin Richards, Antonia Thomas, Caroline Appendix 1: A gazetteer of Early Neolithic Wickham-Jones and Naomi Woodward, and to structures in Orkney their respective organisations, for allowing me to consult, quote and reproduce material from Buildings for which sufficient evidence is unpublished sources. available for interpretation only are included, based on the survival of sufficient structural All of the above also very kindly answered material, and an adequate chronological questions on their individual sites and framework. Plan, dimensions, orientation and research with great patience. I would construction material details have been particularly like to thank staff at Orkney extracted from available sources. Dating gives Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) and information on whether absolute/relative Orkney College, including, Nick Card, Dr Jane dating methodologies have been applied to the Downes, Dan Lee and Antonia Thomas who structures, with lab numbers for radiocarbon took time explaining to me the intricacies of dating samples given in [square brackets]. All their own sites, and shared ideas, drawings

-49-

CAREY and chronologies, ahead of their publication in a history of the Neolithic of Scotland. In: the grey literature. All opinions expressed in Shepherd, I. and Barclay, G. (eds.), Scotland in this article are my own. Ancient Europe: The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Scotland in their European Context. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Bibliography Scotland, 31-44.

Armit, I. 1992. The Hebridean Neolithic. In: Barclay, G. Carter, S., Dalland, M., Hastie, M., Sharples, N. and Sheridan, A. (eds.), Vessels Holden, T., MacSween, A. and Wickham- for the Ancestors: Essays on the Neolithic of Jones, C. 2001. A possible Neolithic settle- Britain and Ireland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh ment at Kinbeachie, Black Isle, Highland. University Press, 307-321. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 131: 57–85. Armit, I. and Finlayson, B. 1996. The Transition to Agriculture. In: Pollard, T. and Barclay, G., Brophy, K. and MacGregor, G. Morrison, A. (eds.), The Early Prehistory of 2002. Claish, Stirling: an early Neolithic Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University structure in its context. Proceedings of the Press, 269–90. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 132: 65-137.

Armit, I., Murphy, E., Nelis, E. and Simpson, Barclay, A., Chaffey, G. and Manning, A. 2012. D. 2003. Irish Neolithic houses In: Armit, I., A possible second Neolithic house and an Murphy, E., Nelis, E. and Simpson, D. (eds.), unusual Mortlake Bowl from Kingsmead Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Quarry, Horton, Berkshire. Past 71: 1-2. Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 146-148. Bishop, R., Church, M. and Rowley-Conwy, P. Atkinson, J. 2002. Excavation of a Neolithic 2009. Cereals, fruits and nuts in the Scottish occupation site at Chapelﬁeld, Neolithic. Proceedings of the Society of Cowie, Stirling. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 139: 47–103. Antiquaries of Scotland 132: 139-192. Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Ballin Smith, B. 1994. Howe: Four Millennia Stanford: Stanford University Press. of Orkney Prehistory Excavations 1978-1982. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Bradley, R. 1998. The significance of monuments: on the shaping of human ex- Barclay, G. 1996. Neolithic Buildings in perience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. Scotland. In: Darvill, T. and Thomas, J. (eds.), London: Routledge. Neolithic Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 61–76. Bradley, R. 2003. Neolithic expectations. In: Armit, I. Murphy, E., Nelis, E. and Simpson, D. Barclay, G. 1997. The Neolithic. In: Edwards, (eds.), Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and K. and Ralston, I. (eds.), Scotland After the Ice Western Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 218- Age: Environment, Archaeology and History 222. 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 Bradley, R. 2007a. The Prehistory of Britain of Britain. In: Ritchie, A. (ed.), Neolithic and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Orkney in its European Context. Cambridge: versity Press. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 275-285. Bradley, R. 2007b. Houses, bodies and tombs. In: Whittle, A. and Cummings, V. (eds.), Going Barclay, G. 2003. Neolithic settlement in the Over: The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in lowlands of Scotland: a preliminary survey. In: North-West Europe. London: The British Armit, I. Murphy, E., Nelis, E. and Simpson, D. Academy, 347-355. (eds.), Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 71– Bradley, R. 2010. Solent Thames Research 83. Framework Resource Assessment: The Neolithic And Early Bronze Age Oxford Barclay, G. 2004. '…Scotland cannot have been Archaeology [Online]. Available from: an inviting country for agricultural settlement': http://thehumanjourney.net/pdf_store/stham

-50-

assemblage es/phase3/Resource%20Assessments/Neolithi Card, N., Downes, J. and Sharman, P. 2006. c%20and%20Early%20Bronze%20Age%20Re Knowes of Trotty: Excavation Discovery and source%20Assessment.pdf [Accessed 09.07. Excavation in Scotland 7: 118. 2013]. Carey, G. 2012. Deepdale Farm: Geophysical Brend, A. and Saunders, M. 2010. Geophysical and Topographic Survey Discovery and Survey Report 10/06: Braes of Ha’Breck, Excavation in Scotland 13: 141. Wyre. Unpublished report. Orkney College Geophysics Unit (OCGU). Carruthers, M. and Richards, C. 2000. Stonehall (Firth parish) Neolithic settlement Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1: 64. radiocarbon calibration program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43.2A: 355-363. Carver, G. 2013. Pits and Placemaking: Neolithic Habitation and Deposition Practices Brophy, K. 2006. Rethinking Scotland’s in East Yorkshire c. 4000–2500 BC. Neolithic: combining circumstance with Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 78: 111- context. Proceedings of the Society of 134. Antiquaries of Scotland 136: 7-46. Chaffey, G. and Brook, E. 2012. Domesticity in Brophy, K. 2007. From Big Houses to Cult the Neolithic: excavations at Kingsmead Houses: Early Neolithic Timber Halls in Quarry, Horton, Berkshire. In: Lamdin- Scotland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Whymark, H. and Thomas, J. (eds.), Regional Society 73: 75-96. Perspectives on Neolithic Pit Deposition: beyond the mundane. Oxford: Oxbow Books, Bruck, J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some 200-215. problems of interpretation in European Archaeology. European Journal of Clarke, D. 2003. Once upon a time Skara Brae Archaeology 2.3: 313-344. was unique. In: Armit, I., Murphy, E., Nelis, E. and Simpson, D. (eds.), Neolithic Settlement in Bruck, J. 2008. The Architecture of Routine Ireland and Western Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Life. In: Pollard, J. (ed.), Prehistoric Britain. Books, 84-92. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 248-267. Cooney, G. 1997. Images of settlement and the Card, N. 2005a. History of prehistoric research landscape in the Neolithic. In: Topping, P. In: Downes, J., Foster, S. and Wickham-Jones, (ed.), Neolithic Landscapes – Neolithic Studies C. (eds.), The Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Group Seminar Papers 2. Oxford: Oxbow Heritage Site: Research Agenda. Edinburgh: Books, 23-31. Historic Scotland, 40-46. Cooney, G. 2000. Landscapes of Neolithic Card, N. 2005b. Knowes of Trotty [In: Ireland. London: Routledge. Ashmore, P. (ed.), A List of Archaeological Radiocarbon Dates]. Discovery and Crone, A. 1993. Excavation and survey of sub- Excavation in Scotland 6: 177. peat features of Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age Date at Bharpa Carinish, North Uist, Scotland. Card, N. 2012. The Ness of Brodgar. British Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59: 361- Archaeology Jan-Feb 2013: 14-21. 382.

Card, N. and Downes, J. 2002. Knowes of Cummings, V. and Pannett, A. 2005. Island Trotty 2002 Data Structure Report. views: the settings of the chambered cairns of Unpublished report. Orkney Archaeological southern Orkney. In: Cummings, V. and Trust (OAT). Pannett, A. (eds.), Set in Stone: New Approaches to Neolithic Monuments in Card, N. and Downes, J. 2005. Knowes of Scotland. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 14-24. Trotty 2005 Data Structure Report. Unpublished report. OAT. Dalglish, C. 2003. Rural society in the age of reason: an archaeology of the emergence of Card, N. and Downes, J. 2006. Knowes of modern life in the southern Scottish Trotty 2006 Data Structure Report. highlands. New York: Kluwer. Unpublished report. OAT. Darvill, T. 1987. Prehistoric Britain. London: Routledge.

-51-

CAREY

Darvill, T. 1996. Neolithic buildings in Fowler, C. 2005. Identity Politics: Personhood, England, Wales and the Isle of Man. In: Kinship, Gender and Power in Neolithic and Darvill, T. and Thomas, J. (eds.), Neolithic Early Bronze Age Britain. In: Casella, E. and Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond. Fowler, C. (eds.), The Archaeology of Plural Oxford: Oxbow Books, 77-112. and Changing Identities: Beyond Identification. London: Kluwer Academic, Davidson, D. and Jones, R. 1990. The 109-134. Environment of Orkney. In: Renfrew, C. (ed.), The Prehistory of Orkney BC4000 – 1000AD. Garrow, D. 2007. Placing pits: Landscape Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 10-35. Occupation and Depositional Practice During the Neolithic in East Anglia. Proceedings of Dickson, C. 1983. Appendix 9: Macroscopic the Prehistoric Society 73: 1-24. Plant Remains From Knap Of Howar, Orkney. In: Ritchie, A., Excavation of a Neolithic Garrow, D. 2012. Odd deposits and average farmstead at the Knap of Howar, Papa practice. A critical history of the concept of Westray, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of structured deposition. Archaeological Dia- Antiquaries of Scotland 113: 114-115. logues 19: 85-115.

Dickson, C. 1994. Plant remains. In: Ballin Garrow, D., Raven, J. and Richards, C. 2005. Smith, B., Howe: Four Millennia of Orkney The Anatomy of a Megalithic Landscape. In: Prehistory Excavations 1978-1982. Richards, C. (ed.), Dwelling among the Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, monuments: the Neolithic village of 125-132. Barnhouse, Maeshowe passage grave and surrounding monuments at Stenness, Orkney. Downes, J. 2005. Description and status of Cambridge: McDonald Institute for The Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Archaeological Research, 249-260. Site. In: Downes, J., Foster, S. and Wickham- Jones, C. (eds.), The Heart of Neolithic Orkney Gee, C. 2013. Smerquoy Excavation Diary. World Heritage Site: Research Agenda. Orkneyjar.com [Online]. Available from: Edinburgh: Historic Scotland, 20-21. http://www.orkneyjar.com/archaeology/?s=s merquoy [Accessed 02.07.2013]. Downes, J. and Richards, C. 2000. Excavating Gibson, A. 2003. What do we mean by the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Orkney: Neolithic Settlement In: Armit, I., Murphy, E., Recognition and Interpretation in the Field. Nelis, E. and Simpson, D. (eds.), Neolithic In: Ritchie, A. (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain. European Context. Cambridge: McDonald Oxford: Oxbow Books, 136-145. Institute for Archaeological Research, 159-168. Grogan, E. 2002. Neolithic houses in Ireland: Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of a broader perspective. Antiquity 76: 517-525. the Neolithic. London: Routledge. Hayden, C. 2008. South East Research Edwards, P. 2012 Saviskaill Loch: Geophysical Framework resource assessment seminar: Survey. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland White Horse Stone and the earliest Neolithic 13: 135. in the South East. Kent County Council [Online]. Available from: https://shareweb. Farrell, M. 2009. The environmental context kent.gov.uk/Documents/Leisure-and-culture/ of later prehistoric human activity in Orkney, heritage/serf-seminar-papers-neolithic-andear Scotland. Unpublished PhD thesis. University ly-bronze-age/chris-hayden.pdf [Accessed 02. of Hull. 04.2013].

Farrell, M., Bunting, M.J., Lee, D.H.J. and Hey, G. 1997. Neolithic settlement at Yarnton, Thomas, A. in press. Neolithic settlement at Oxfordshire. In: Topping, P. (ed.), Neolithic the woodland’s edge: palynological data and Landscapes – Neolithic Studies Group Sem- timber architecture in Orkney, Scotland. inar Papers 2. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 99-111. Journal of Archaeological Science. Hey, G. and Barclay, A. 2007. The Thames Ferguson, T. 1996. Historic Zuni Architecture Valley in the late fifth and early fourth and Society: An Archaeological Application of millennium cal. BC: the appearance of Space Syntax. Tuscon: University of Arizona domestication and the evidence for change. In: Press. Whittle, A. and Cummings, V. (eds.), Going

-52-

assemblage

Over: The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in Kirby, M. 2011. Lockerbie Academy: Neolithic North-West Europe. London: The British and Early Historic timber halls, a Bronze Age Academy, 399-422. cemetery, an undated enclosure and a post- medieval corn-drying kiln in south-west Hoffman, D. and Smyth, J. 2013. Introduction: Scotland. Scottish Archaeological Internet Dwelling, Materials, Cosmology – Reports 46. Transforming Houses in the Neolithic. In: Hoffman, D. and Smyth, J. (eds.), Tracking Lambrick, G. 2010. Neolithic to Saxon social the Neolithic House in Europe: Sedentism, and environmental change at Mount Farm, Architecture and Practice. New York, 1-18. 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 Hunter, J., 1983. Excavations at Pool Bay, Deposition: beyond the mundane. Oxford: Sanday: 1983 Interim Report. Unpublished Oxbow Books, 200-215. report. University of Bradford. Last, J. 2012. Book Review: Regional Hunter, J. 2000. Pool, Sanday and a Sequence Perspectives on Neolithic Pit Deposition: for the Orcadian Neolithic In: Ritchie, A. (ed.), Beyond the Mundane. The Prehistoric Society Neolithic Orkney in its European Context. [Online]. Available from: http://www.prehist Cambridge: McDonald Institute for oricsociety.org/files/reviews/Neolithic_pits_r Archaeological Research, 117-125. eview_final.pdf [Accessed 11.04.2013].

Hunter, J. 2007. Investigations in Sanday Last, J. 2013. The end of the Longhouse. In: Orkney Volume 1: Excavations at Pool, Hoffman, B. and Smyth, J. (eds.), Tracking the Sanday A Multi-period Settlement from Neolithic House in Europe: Sedentism, Neolithic to Late Norse Times. Kirkwall: The Architecture and Practice. New York: Orcadian. Springer, 261-282. Lee, D. and Thomas, A. 2012. Orkney’s First Hunter, J. and MacSween, A. 1991. A sequence Farmers: Early Neolithic Settlement on Wyre. for the Orcadian Neolithic? Antiquity 65: 911- Current Archaeology 268: 13-19. 914. Loveday, R. 2006. Where Have all the Jones, R. 2003. Stonehall. [In: Ashmore, P. Neolithic Houses Gone? Turf – an Invisible (ed.), A List of Archaeological Radiocarbon Component. Scottish Archaeological Journal Dates]. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 28.2: 81–104. 4: 163. McClannahan, A. 2006. Monuments In Jones, R. 2005. Wideford Hill, Cuween- Practice: The Heart Of Neolithic Orkney In Its Wideford Project. [In: Ashmore, P. (ed.), A List Contemporary Context. Unpublished PhD of Archaeological Radiocarbon Dates]. Dis- Thesis. University of Manchester. covery and Excavation in Scotland 6: 177-178. Miles, M. 2008. A Trial Excavation on a Jones, S. and Richards, C. 2000. Neolithic Neolithic Settlement Site at Green, Isle of Cultures in Orkney: Classification and Eday, August 2007. Unpublished report. Interpretation. In: Ritchie, A. (ed.), Neolithic British Excavation Volunteers and Orkney in its European Context. Cambridge: Archaeological Research (BEVARS). McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 101-106. Miles, M. 2010. A Third Season of Excavation on a Neolithic Settlement Site at Green, Isle of Keatinge, T. and Dickson, J. 1979. Mid- Eday, August 2009. Unpublished report. Flandrian Changes in Vegetation on Mainland BEVARS. Orkney. New Phytologist 82.2: 585-612. Miles, M. 2011. A Fourth Season of Excavation Kenney, J. 2008. Recent Excavations at Parc on a Neolithic Settlement Site at Green, Isle of Bryn Cegin, Llandygai, near Bangor, North Eday, August 2010. Unpublished report. Wales. Gwynedd Archaeological Trust BEVARS. [Online]. Available from: http://www.coflein. gov.uk/pdf/PBC_01_01/ [Accessed Miller, J. and Ramsay, S. 2000. Stonehall 11.04.2013]. (1995-99) & Crossiecrown (1998-9): Interim

-53-

CAREY

Archaeobotanical Report. Unpublished report. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Glasgow University Archaeological Research Scotland 134: 17-51. Division (GUARD). Pollard, T. 1997. Excavation of a Neolithic Moore, J. 2006. Geophysical Survey Report settlement and ritual complex at Beckton 06/09: Green, Eday. Unpublished report. Farm, Lockerbie, Dumfries & Galloway. OCGU. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 127: 69-121. Mudie, G. and Richardson, P. 2006. Excavation of a Possible Neolithic Structure, Pollard, J. 1999 ‘These places have their Lithic Finds and Later Ditch Features at moments’: thoughts on settlement practices in Kingarth Quarry, Isle of Bute. Scottish the British Neolithic. In: Bruck, J. and Archaeological Journal 28.2: 105–124. 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 Pollard, J. 2008. The Construction of Excavation in Scotland 6: 8-9. 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 Pollard, J. 2012. Living with Sacred Spaces: Fraser, S. (eds.), A Tale of the Unknown The Henge Monuments of Wessex. In: Gibson, Unknowns: A Mesolithic Pit Alignment and a A. (ed.), Enclosing the Neolithic: Recent Neolithic Timber Hall at Warren Field, studies in Britain and Europe. Oxford: Crathes, Aberdeenshire. Oxford: Oxbow Archaeopress, 93-107. Books, 50-63. Pryor, F. 1982. Fengate. Princes Risborough: Murray, H. and Murray, C. forth. An early Shire Publications. Neolithic building and Mesolithic occupation at Garthdee Road Aberdeen. Unpublished Reimer, P., Baillie, M., Bard, E., Bayliss, A. report. Murray Archaeological Services. Beck, J., Bertrand, C., Blackwell, P., Buck, C., Burr, G., Cutler, K., Damon, P., Edwards, R., Myers, A. 2006. An Archaeological Resource Fairbanks, R., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T., Assessment of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Hogg, A., Hughen, K., Kromer, B., McCormac, Age in Derbyshire. University of Leicester G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R., [Online]. Available from: http://www.le.ac. Remmele, S., Southon, J., Stuiver, M., Talamo, uk/ulas/publications/documents/11derneba_ S., Taylor, F., van der Plicht, J. and 000.pdf [Accessed 02.04.2013]. Weyhenmeyer, C. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Noble, G. 2006a. Neolithic Scotland: Timber, Radiocarbon 46.3: 1029-1058. 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 Richards, C. 1986. Orkney Survey Project – Orkney and beyond. Journal of Maritime Summary. Discovery and Excavation in Archaeology 1: 100–117. Scotland 1986: 21-22.

Ovenden, S. 2006. Geophysical Survey Report Richards, C. 1990. The late Neolithic house in 06/14: Hallbreck, Wyre. Unpublished report. Orkney. In: Samson, R. (ed.), The Social OCGU. Archaeology of Houses. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 111-124. Parker Pearson, M. and Richards, C. 1994. Architecture and Order: Spatial Repre- Richards, C. 1993. An archaeological study of sentation and Archaeology. In: Parker Neolithic Orkney: architecture, order and Pearson, M. and Richards, C. (eds.), social classification. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social University of Glasgow. Space. London: Routledge, 38-72. Richards, C. 1996. Monuments as Landscape: Phillips, T. and Bradley, R. 2004. Developer- Creating the Centre of the World in Late funded fieldwork in Scotland, 1990–2003: an Neolithic Orkney. World Archaeology 28.2, overview of the prehistoric evidence. 190-208.

-54-

assemblage

Richards, C. 1998. Centralising Tendencies? A Sharples, N. 1992. Aspects of Regionalisation Re-examination of Social Evolution in Late in the Scottish Neolithic. In: Sharples, N. and Neolithic Orkney. In: Edmonds, M. and Sheridan, A. (eds.), Vessels for the Ancestors: Richards, C. (eds.), Understanding the Essays on the Neolithic of Britain and Ireland. Neolithic of North-Western Europe. Glasgow: Edinburgh University Press, 322-331. Cruithne Press, 516-533. Sheridan, A. 2013. Early Neolithic Habitation Richards, C. 2003. Excavation of the early Structures in Britain and Ireland: a Matter of Neolithic settlement at Wideford Hill, Circumstance and Context. In: Hoffman, D. Mainland, Orkney: Structures Report for and Smyth, J. (eds.), Tracking the Neolithic Historic Scotland. Unpublished report. House in Europe: Sedentism, Architecture and University of Manchester. Practice. New York: Springer, 283-300.

Richards, C., Downes, J., Card, N., Carruthers, Sheridan, A. and Higham, T. 2006. The Re- M., Challands, A., Jones, A., Jones, R and Dating of some Scottish specimens by the Jones, S. 2000. The Cuween-Wideford Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Landscape Project, Mainland, Orkney: Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 7: 202- Fieldwork 1999: Data Structure Report. 204. Unpublished report. University of Glasgow, Orkney College UHI, Manchester University, Sheridan, A. and Schulting, R., 2006. The UCD, OAT. National Museums Scotland Radiocarbon Dating Programmes: Results Obtained During Richards, C., Downes, J., Card, N., Carruthers, 2005/6. Discovery and Excavation in M., Jones, S., Challands, A. and Jones, R. Scotland 7: 204-206. 2001. The Cuween-Wideford Landscape Project, Mainland, Orkney: Fieldwork 2000: Simpson, D. 1996. Excavation of a kerbed Data Structure Report. Unpublished report. funerary monument at Stoneyfield, Raigmore, University of Glasgow. Inverness, Highland, 1972-3. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 126: 53- Ritchie, A. 1973. Knap of Howar, Papa 86. Westray. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1973: 68-69. Smith, A. 1995. The excavation of Neolithic, Bronze Age and Early Historic features near Ritchie, A. 1983. Excavation of a Neolithic Ratho, Edinburgh. Proceedings of the Society farmstead at the Knap of Howar, Papa of Antiquaries Scotland 125: 69-138. 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 Russell-White, C. 1995. The excavation of a Irish Academy 111C: 1-31. Neolithic and Iron Age settlement at Wardend of Durris, Aberdeenshire. Proceedings of the Sturt, F. 2005. Fishing for meaning: lived Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 125: 9-27. space and the early Neolithic of Orkney. In: Cummings, V. and Pannett, A. (eds.), Set in Saville, A. 1990. Hazelton North: The Stone: New Approaches to Neolithic excavation of a Neolithic long cairn of the Monuments in Scotland. Oxford: Oxbow Cotswold-Severn Group. London: English Books, 68-80. Heritage. Thomas, A. 2006. Wyre: Desk-based ScARF 2013. Places to Live and Ways of assessment, Walkover survey, Gradiometry Living. In: Sheridan, A. and Brophy, K. (eds.), Survey, Fieldwalking. Discovery and Neolithic Panel Report. Scottish Excavation in Scotland 7: 122. Archaeological Research Framework: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland [Online]. Available Thomas, A. 2009. Excavations At The Braes from: http://www.scottishheritagehub.com/ Of Ha’breck, Wyre. Orkney College, UHI content/43-places-live-and-ways-living [Online]. Available from: http://www.orkney. [Accessed 06.07.2013]. uhi.ac.uk/courses/archaeology/staff/excavatio ns-at-the-braes-of-ha2019breck-wyre Sharples, N. 1985. Individual and Community: [Accessed 31.06.2013]. The Changing Role of Megaliths in the Orcadian Neolithic. Proceedings of the Thomas, J. 1996. Neolithic houses in mainland Prehistoric Society 51: 59-74 Britain and Ireland – A sceptical view. In:

-55-

CAREY

Darvill, T. and Thomas, J. (eds.), Neolithic Whittle, A., Healy, F. and Bayliss, A (eds.), Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond. 2011a. Gathering Time: Dating the Early Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1-12. 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 Thomas, J. 2004. Current debates on the the early Neolithic of southern Britain and Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain and Ireland. In: Whittle, A., Healy, F. and Bayliss, Ireland. Documenta Praehistorica 31: 113-130. A. (eds.), Gathering Time: Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of Southern Britain and Thomas, J. 2008. The Mesolithic-Neolithic Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1-16. 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. Traill, W. and Kirkness, W. 1937. Hower, Macclesfield: Windgather Press. Prehistoric Structure on Papa Westray. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Zvelebil, M., Green, S. and Macklin, M. 1992. Scotland 71: 309-322. Archaeological Landscapes, Lithic Scatters and Human Behaviour. In: Rossingol, J. and Waddington, C., Bailey, G., Bayliss, A., Wandsnider, L. (eds.), Space, Time and Boomer, I., Milner, N., Pedersen, K., Shiel, R. Archaeological Landscapes. New York: and Stevenson, T. 2003a. A Mesolithic Plenum Press, 193-226. 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/proj- gall/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: 123–47.

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

Constru Main Site Trench Length Width Orient Geophysical Building Plan ction Dating Referenc Notes Name /Phase (m)1 (m)1 ation Survey Material e(s)

4495 +/- 40 BP House sub-divided into two sub- [SUERC-34504]; by NNW unequal 'rooms'. Appears to A House 3 8 4 rectan stone kind permission of /SSE respect the ground plan of gular A. Thomas, prior House 4. to publication Fluxgate gradiometer undertaken with Truncated beam slots on 4510 +/- 40 BP a programme of WSW and NNW wall lines. sub- [SUERC-34503]; by Linear arrangement of NNW intensive A House 4 5.8 3.8 rectan wood kind permission of postholes projecting into /SSE fieldwalking, interior, mirroring central gular A. Thomas, prior with a close to publication correlation noted orthostats in the stone-built between the two structures. , Wyre Relative datasets Appended to the south of sub- chronology - (Ovenden 2006; Lee and House 3, but although NNW stratigraphically later, there A House 5 c. 4.8 c. 3.2 rectan stone stratigraphically Thomas 2006). Thomas does seem to have been a Ha'Breck /SSE Subsequent, 2012 gular later than period of overlap in the House 3 targeted, resistivity survey occupation of the two houses. 4395 +/-40 BP was undertaken Braes of Rapidly dismantled, its posts [SUERC-35990]; in 2010 to sub- were removed before the NW/S by kind investigate C House 1 c. 6.5 c. 3.7 rectan wood construction of a stone-built E permission of A. potential gular house on the same footprint Thomas, prior to structural (House 2). publication elements to the 4435 +/- 40 BP site (Brend and Saunders 2010). [SUERC-34506]; sub- Built on the same footprint NW/S by kind C House 2 c. 6.5 c. 3.7 rectan stone as the post-built building E permission of A. gular (House 1). Thomas, prior to publication

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-

CAREY

Dating is problematic. No Fluxgate absolute gradiometer Not fully excavated as of chronology but survey, with 2012, and post-excavation

now interpreted as subsequent studies are still in their Miles sub- EN, with later targeted infancy. Superficial Structur NNE/ resistivity survey 2008, c. 13 c. 7 rectan stone Neolithic finds similarities can be noted e 1 SSW to "investigate 2010, gular coming from other with House 1 at Knap of the apparent 2011 Green, Eday Green, occupation structures Howar, which is also noted deposits suggested by the in the original geophysical associated with gradiometry" survey report (Moore 2006). the later Structure (Moore 2006: 1). 2.

Unfortunately, no Originally interpreted by the dating evidence excavators as a mortuary ‘Mortua was recovered sub- enclosure, but, a domestic ry NNE/ from Phase 1 at Phase 1 c. 5.4 c. 4.5 rectan stone function has been suggested Structur SSW Howe. However, gular by Colin Richards, on the e’ this structure basis of the presence of the predates the hearth. ‘Stalled Tomb'.

Ballin Unfortunately, no Smith

dating evidence 1994: 11- Howe was recovered from 13. Originally interpreted by the Phase 1 at Howe. excavators as a stalled tomb, sub- However, this but, a domestic function has ‘Stalled NNW structure post- Phase 1 c. 15 c. 5 rectan stone been suggested by Colin Tomb’ /SSE dates the 'mortuary gular structure', which it Richards on the basis of the is suggested presence of orthostatic changes function at divisions and a hearth. this stage in the building process.

-58-

assemblage

The type site for Early sub- 4485 +/- 40 BP Period NW/S [OxA-16475] Neolithic settlement in House 1 10 4.3 rectan stone Traill

II E Sheridan and Orkney, consisting of a gular and Higham 2006: 202 single isolated dwelling. Kirkness

1937; 4485 +/- 55 BP The type site for Early Westray sub- Ritchie Period NW/S [OxA-16479] Neolithic settlement in House 2 7.5 3.6 rectan stone 1983 II E Sheridan and Orkney, consisting of a gular Knap of Howar, Papa Knap of Howar, Higham 2006: 202 single isolated dwelling. A stone building with a hearth

Card and and orthostatic divisions, 4480 +/- 35 BP Downes originally interpreted as a 'cult [SUERC-18233]; None focused sub- 2002, house' associated with the ?cult NNE/ by kind on Early LN/EBA use of the barrow B c. 5.5 c. 3 rectan stone 2005, house SSW permission of J. Neolithic cemetery, but absolute dating gular 2006; Downes, prior to element of site. indicates it is Early Neolithic, Card et publication and affinities with Knap of Knowes of Trotty of Knowes al.,2006 Howar and Stonehall are noted (Card et al. 2006). Fluxgate Problems with A small structure only sub- gradiometer and

Phase Structur NNE/ dating, although partially revealed; associated c. 2.5 c. 2.5 circul stone resistivity surveys 1.2 e 1 SSW? TL dating of with Unstan Ware but not ar covering similar pottery from absolutely dated. areas, with good Hunter phase 1 points to correspondence 2007 Entirely revealed in c.3 650 BC (see between sub- anomalies excavation, with clear

Pool, Sanday Phase Structur NNE/ Hunter and c. 2 c. 2 circul stone entranceway to SSE, and 1.2 e 2 SSW? MacSween 1991; (Hunter 1983: 3- ar 4, Fig. 4; 2007: possibly part of a larger Hunter 2000) 14-16, Illus 2.4) complex. Fluxgate Problems with gradiometer and

dating, although resistivity surveys Formed of two curvilinear TL dating of covering similar chambers to the north and sub- pottery from south. Had undergone Phase Structur areas, with good Hunter c. 4 c. 3 E/W? circul stone phase 1 points to c. correspondence substantial alteration or 1.2 e 3 2007 ar? 3650 BC (Hunter between repair, and had been badly anomalies eroded through plough

Pool, Sanday and MacSween 1991; Hunter (Hunter 1983: 3- damage. 2000) 4, Fig. 4; 2007: 14-16, Illus 2.4)

-59-

CAREY

Fluxgate gradiometer and

y No absolute resistivity C. Gee, sub- chronology yet surveys covering pers. Site currently undergoing NNW House 1 8.2 5.2 rectan stone available, but similar areas; comm. excavation and analysis /SSE gular diagnostic finds midden Gee (2013). Smerquo and architecture/ ‘signature’ noted 2013 (C. Gee, pers. comm.) Found under midden underneath elements of the

sub- Late Neolithic settlement at 4510 +/- 39 BP Stonehall. Suggested as Early B House 3 n/a n/a n/a rectan stone [AA-51376] Neolithic based upon gular Jones 2003: 163 orthostat at right angles to collapsed walling, although plan is not clear. ?Proton sub- magnetometer rectan 4450 +/- 35 BP Very easily made comparisons NW/S survey with Knap of Howar - C C1 c. 8.5 c. 4.5 gular; stone [AA-51370] E undertaken in particularly given nature of tri- Jones 2003: 163 1994 "revealed orthostatic subdivisions. partite Carruthe discrete areas of rs and Heavily truncated but hearth sub- magnetic Stratigraphically Richards setting and some orthostats C C2 n/a n/a n/a rectan stone enhancement earlier than C1 2000; seems to suggest sub- gular? surrounding a Richards rectangular structure. more

Stonehall et al. Small length of walling, re- substantial area 2000, used in the later phase, sub- of activity" Building C. Two entrances; Building predates Building 2001 Z n/a n/a N/S rectan stone (Richards et al. primary one to the north (later A C gular 2000: 6; blocked) and one in the E wall Downes and which was the later entrance Richards 2000: for Building C. directly associated Figure 13.2). Probably contemporary with ESE/ sub- with Building C, Building C but primary. Wall Building Z n/a n/a WNW rectan stone although probably cored in a similar way to C1 B ? gular? the primary and C, and at Knap of structure Howar. ESE/ sub- 4633 +/- 41 BP Suggestion of a conjoining Building Z 4.2 6.7 WNW rectan stone [AA-51383] passageway between C ? gular Jones 2003: 163 Building B and Building C.

-60-

assemblage

Consisted of 9 posts sub- 4490 +/- 35 BP supporting a sloping roof. Structur NE/S Phase 1 c. 4 c. 3 circul wood [SUERC-4868] Scoop hearth in centre, from e 1 W? ar Jones 2005: 178 which all dating evidence was recovered.

5 post-holes, found directly underlying Stone built Relative House, and posts had rotted sub- Structur chronology - in situ, suggesting only just Phase 1 c. 2.5 c. 1.5 E/W? circul wood e 2 similar phase to out-of-use when Stone Built ar Proton Structure 1 magnetometer house was built. Interpreted survey as slighter construction than undertaken in Structure 1. 1992 revealed "a Richards *A circular structure might clearly defined 2003 have formed the initial phase of this building, centred on sub- Relative magnetic Wideford Hill Wideford Structur ENE/ the scoop hearth, Phase 2 c. 8 c. 3 rectan wood chronology - post- anomaly" e 3 WSW subsequently rebuilt in a gular* dating Phase 1 (Richards 2003: 2) more rectangular form. The remains were difficult to interpret. A stone built house, quickly following the abandonment of structure 2, which it sub- 4425 +/- 30 BP overlay. No apparent NNE/ Phase 3 House 1 c. 8 c. 5 rectan stone [SUERC-4870] subdivisions, unlike other SSW gular Jones 2005: 178 Knap of Howar style houses, but a rectangular form with pinched walling and rounded corners.

-61-

CAREY

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

Nature of No. Site Name Nature of evidence Reference discovery No coherent structural evidence Located during Bharpa Carinish, North could be located, but 1 prospection in Crone 1993 Uist a series of hearth peat-cuttings complexes were identified A series of very slight Evaluative oval structures, 2 Cowie, Stirlingshire fieldwork, ahead of Barclay 2003: 78 defined by stakes and development ‘pressure trenches’ A succession of Research fieldwork: rectilinear/oval Originally stone-built buildings Eilean Domnhuill, interpreted as an 3 on an islet, with Armit 1992 North Uist Iron Age dun, superficial similarity subsequently re- to Knap of Howar excavated buildings Small ovoid timber Evaluative Garthdee Road, building, ‘in Murray and Murray 4 fieldwork, ahead of Aberdeen permanent use over forthcoming development at least a generation’ First recorded Small rectangular through Kinbeachie, Easter 5 building, defined by fieldwalking, Barclay et al. 2001 Ross pits subsequently excavated Small oval structure, formed by a continuous slot Evaluative Kingarth Quarry, Isle of Mudie and 6 trench, similar to fieldwork, ahead of Bute Richardson 2006 other possibly turf- quarry expansion built structures in Argyll and Ireland Longhouse of Evaluative Lockerbie Academy, 7 possible ‘domestic’ fieldwork, ahead of Kirby 2011 Dumfrieshire use development Rectangular Encountered ?building, with two during rescue Raigmore, Inverness- double-rows of posts; Simpson 1996: 62- 8 excavation of shire a central hearth is 65 overlying kerbed taken as indicative of cairn a domestic function Two rectilinear Evaluative buildings, defined by 9 Ratho, Edinburgh fieldwork, ahead of Smith 1995 slot trenches but with development no internal features Very ephemeral Wardend of Durris, remains of a possible Exposed during Russell-White, 10 Aberdeenshire fragmentary Early gravel quarrying 1995: 23 Neolithic settlement

-62-