Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 82, 2016, pp.

193–225 © The Prehistoric Society

doi:10.1017/ppr.2016.6 First published online 26 July 2016

Settlement Duration and Materiality: Formal Chronological

Models for the Development of Barnhouse, a Grooved Ware
Settlement in Orkney

By COLIN RICHARDS1, ANDREW MEIRION JONES2, ANN MacSWEEN3, ALISON SHERIDAN4, ELAINE DUNBAR5,
PAULA REIMER6, ALEX BAYLISS7, SEREN GRIFFITHS8, and ALASDAIR WHITTLE9

Radiocarbon dating and Bayesian chronological modelling, undertaken as part of the investigation by the Times
of Their Lives project into the development of Late Neolithic settlement and pottery in Orkney, has provided
precise new dating for the Grooved Ware settlement of Barnhouse, excavated in 1985–91. Previous
understandings of the site and its pottery are presented. A Bayesian model based on 70 measurements on 62
samples (of which 50 samples are thought to date accurately the deposits from which they were recovered)
suggests that the settlement probably began in the later 32nd century cal BC (with Houses 2, 9, 3 and
perhaps 5a), possibly as a planned foundation. Structure 8 – a large, monumental structure that differs in
character from the houses – was probably built just after the turn of the millennium. Varied house durations and
replacements are estimated. House 2 went out of use before the end of the settlement, and Structure 8 was
probably the last element to be abandoned, probably during the earlier 29th century cal BC. The Grooved Ware
pottery from the site is characterised by small, medium-sized, and large vessels with incised and impressed
decoration, including a distinctive, false-relief, wavy-line cordon motif. A considerable degree of consistency is
apparent in many aspects of ceramic design and manufacture over the use-life of the settlement, the principal
change being the appearance, from c. 3025–2975 cal BC, of large coarse ware vessels with uneven surfaces and
thick applied cordons, and of the use of applied dimpled circular pellets. The circumstances of new foundation
of settlement in the western part of Mainland are discussed, as well as the maintenance and character of the site.
The pottery from the site is among the earliest Grooved Ware so far dated. Its wider connections are noted, as
well as the significant implications for our understanding of the timing and circumstances of the emergence of
Grooved Ware, and the role of material culture in social strategies.

Keywords: Radiocarbon dating, Bayesian chronological modelling, Orkney, Grooved Ware, Neolithic settlement

1
Department of Archaeology, School of Arts, Languages & Culture, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13
9PL UK
2
Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton SO17 1BJ UK
3
Historic Environment Scotland, Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1SH UK
4
National Museums Scotland, Chambers St, Edinburgh EH1 1JF
5
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Rankine Avenue, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride,
G75 0QF UK
6
School of Geography, Archaeology & Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN UK
7
Historic England, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138–142 Holborn, London, EC1N 2ST UK
8
Department of History, Politics and Philosophy, Manchester Metropolitan University, Rosamond Street West, Off Oxford
Road, Manchester M15 6LL UK
9
Department of Archaeology and Conservation, Cardiff University, John Percival Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff, CF10 3EU
Email: whittle@cardiff.ac.uk

193

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
THE LATE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF BARNHOUSE
Barnhouse lies adjacent to the Loch of Harray, sur-
rounded by other monuments and sites including the
Stones of Stenness nearby, Maeshowe to the east, and
Ness of Brodgar, the Ring of Brodgar, and Bookan to
the north (Richards 2013; Fig. 1). Excavations in
1985–91 revealed that a large proportion of the
settlement remained intact and the shallow stratigraphy
allowed a considerable area of Barnhouse to be exam-
ined (Richards 2005a). Thirteen structures, together
with their associated deposits of refuse and the areas
between the structures, were excavated (Figs 2 & 12).
Occupation was thought to have begun with a group of
at least nine concentrically organised houses which
partly surrounded an open area, which was interpreted
as a communal working area (Jones & Richards 2005,
49–52, fig. 3.31; Downes & Richards 2005). The
subsequent, complicated sequence of developments,
outlined below, included various acts of refurbishment,
abandonment, and rebuilding, with the penultimate
phase of activity involving the construction of a large,
monumental structure, surrounded by a clay platform
(Structure 8). It was suspected that a second large
structure with a platform, similar to Structure 8, had
existed beyond the excavated area, to the south-east.
Ceramic finds included around 6000 sherds of Grooved
Ware pottery (Jones 2005) and the lithic finds included
four maceheads (A. Clarke 2005) and several pieces of
Arran pitchstone (Richards 2005a, 44–5).
Twelve radiocarbon measurements were obtained
on single fragments of short-lived charred plant
material during the original post-excavation pro-
gramme, placing the use of the site within the period
c. 3500–c. 2900 cal BC (Ashmore 2005, fig. 21.4) and
thereby suggesting that Barnhouse stood at, or near,
the beginning of the Grooved Ware ceramic tradition.
The importance of this site to our understanding of
developments in late 4th and early 3rd millennium
cal BC Orkney made it an obvious candidate for a
programme of fresh radiocarbon dating in 2013–15,
undertaken as part of an European Research Council-
funded research project, The Times of their Lives
(ToTL: see acknowledgements), focusing on the
development of Late Neolithic settlement and of
Grooved Ware in Orkney. Sixty-two new radiocarbon
results are reported here, along with a Bayesian
chronological model which combines 70 of the 74
dates now available with the site stratigraphy. The
revised structural and ceramic sequences that have
194
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
emerged as a result of this new chronology are
presented. The principal implications of these new
data are outlined in the discussion below; future
publications will deal more fully with wider issues of
respectively Late Neolithic society on Orkney and the
position of Barnhouse in the emergence and develop-
ment of Grooved Ware.
THE ORGANISATION & DEVELOPMENT OF BARNHOUSE:
THE PICTURE IN 2005
It was proposed in 2005 that the settlement had an
overall spatial arrangement featuring concentric
‘rings’, represented by arcs of structures within the
excavated area, surrounding a central area. Deter-
mining the sequence of construction was undertaken
not only with the aid of the then-available radiocarbon
dates, but also by considering spatial location, strati-
graphy, and the layout of the network of drains that
served the various structures (Jones & Richards 2005,
fig. 3.7). Of the ‘inner arc’ of houses, relationships
based upon the sequence of drains revealed Houses 7,
12a, and 13a to be earlier than Houses 6 and 10.
Houses displayed discrete structural histories, with
varying trajectories of refurbishment, abandonment,
and rebuilding.
It is difficult to relate the inner and outer arcs of
houses with confidence (for example, see the section
between Houses 6 and 2: Jones & Richards 2005, fig.
3.9). During excavation it was thought that the outer
arc of Houses 9, 2, 3, and 5a (see Fig. 12 below) could
have been later than the inner arc of houses, but in the
absence of conclusive stratigraphic evidence (as all were
erected on the glacial till) it was difficult to discern a
temporal-spatial sequence of construction, and when
all the available evidence was synthesised into the site
phasing plans (Jones & Richards 2005, figs 3.8 &
3.11), no clear sequence from inner to outer emerged.
The outstanding building of the outer arc was
House 2 (Richards 2005b; Fig. 3), which was twice the
size of the other structures (excepting the monumental
Structure 8) and which displayed a quality of masonry
only observed within structures at the Ness of Brodgar
and passage graves such as Maeshowe and Howe. The
parallel with structures at Ness of Brodgar extends to
the use of a piered internal architecture and to the
presence of two hearths (Towers et al. 2015). Intern-
ally, House 2 was a place of manufacturing and
depositing fine objects such as maceheads and axes,
and it also contained a slab-covered cist with scraps of
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY

Fig. 1.
Location map

195

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Fig. 2.
Aerial photo of the site

bone, which may be either human or animal remains
(Richards 2005b, 137).
Regardless of the temporal sequence of house con-
struction, the central area between Houses 1, 6, 12,
and 13 seems consistently to have provided a focal
point, as a communal meeting place and a context for
craft activities (namely the manufacture of pottery and
artefacts of bone and possibly wood, together with
hide processing; Jones 2000; 2002, 125). With a
degree of spatial integrity, dumps of ash and debris
from these activities built up directly on the ground
surface (Jones & Richards 2005, 34–8). The work
area was maintained through time, and grew to
encompass the area over the demolished House 7,
where evidence for Grooved Ware manufacture was
also present (Jones & Richards 2005, 35–6).
A distinctive change in the occupation of Barnhouse
is represented by the building of the monumental
Structure 8, which partially overlay the levelled
remains of House 9. Not only was this building of
greater magnitude than earlier buildings, but it pre-
sented a different form of architecture. Essentially,
Structure 8 is a large square house with rounded
corners, architecturally similar to the later houses at
Skara Brae (Childe 1931) and on a scale commensu-
rate with larger structures at the Ness of Brodgar, with
a massive outer wall of c. 3 m, surrounded by a clay
platform which is enclosed by a 1.3 m thick outer wall.
A number of features – stone hearths, boxes, pits, and
spreads of ash – provided evidence for the outer clay
platform having been the context of a range of activ-
ities including cooking and food preparation (Hill &
Richards 2005, 160, fig. 6.10). The central fireplace,
which provided the focal point within the inner
building, had a biography stretching back to a pre-
Structure 8 existence as an open-area hearth on the
periphery of the settlement (Hill & Richards 2005,
160–3).

196

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY

Fig. 3.
House 2

Apart from being a monumental building, the con-
struction of Structure 8 marked a departure from an
architecture that relied on interior furniture being
physically recessed into the wall. Instead, furniture
now projected from the inner wall-face. Interestingly,
this change maintains the relationships between the
hearth, the ‘beds’, the entranceway and the rear
‘dresser’ whilst increasing the internal dimensions of
the house.
THE GROOVED WARE POTTERY
With the exception of one Beaker rim (from an upper
deposit beneath the topsoil), the ceramic assemblage
from Barnhouse belongs to the Grooved Ware tradi-
tion. Details of this pottery, and of the various
analyses undertaken to determine the source of the
raw materials and the use of the pots, are presented in
the 2005 publication (Jones 2005; Jones et al. 2005).
(See also Hurcombe 2014, 156 and pl. 58.1, for fur-
ther information on the basketry matting impression
on the base of one pot from House 3 (Fig. 4, SF 1890);
the spiral-coil matting had been old and ‘quite tat-
tered’ when used.)
The majority of the c. 6000 sherds (which may
represent 200–300 pots: Jones 2005, 39) were found
either outside the structures – in some cases, among
material that appeared to have been cleared out from
individual houses – or else in secondary contexts
within the houses, relating to their re-occupation;
relatively few were found among primary deposits on
the original house floors. One exceptional find was a
near-complete large pot (Fig. 5, SF 4601) found set
into the clay floor inside Structure 8; only its upper-
most, decorated part had stood proud of the floor.
The overwhelming majority of vessels are tub- or
bucket-shaped, with roughly vertical and slightly
splaying walls respectively (eg, Fig. 4, SF 1905 &
Fig. 5, SF 3502/3492/3508/3487), but there are also
examples of shallow bowl-like vessels with splaying
walls (eg, Fig. 4, SF 1890 & Fig. 5, SF 3720) and, in
the drain for Structure 8, a tiny pinch-pot was found

197

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Fig. 4.
Grooved Ware pottery from Barnhouse: vessels ostensibly relating to the early use of the site (plus some associated with the later use
of Houses 2 & 3). Top: from House 2 (SF 1089, 1012, 1181, 1604i, 1613, 1185, & 1655), House 3 (SF 1905, 1933, 1890, & 1852),
& House 9 (SF 5463). Middle: from House 5a/5b (SF 3128, 3151, 3138i, 3166, 3149ii and iii), from occupation material pre-dating
the erection of Structure 8 (SF 5939, 5940, 5940i, 5942i), & from early occupation activity (SF 4261). Bottom: from House 12a &
early occupation/refuse spread beneath House 12b. Most of these sherds probably date to the 31st century cal BC (Fig. 14)

198

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY

Fig. 5.
Grooved Ware pottery from Barnhouse: vessels mostly or all relating to the middle & later use of the site. Top: from
Houses 6 & 10; middle & bottom left: from Structure 8, House 1, & House 12b. Note: the pot at bottom right, from the old
land surface north of House 3, pre-dates the erection of House 4. Most of these sherds probably date to the 30th century
cal BC (Fig. 14)

199

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
(Fig. 5, SF 6025). That pot resembles the small ochre-
mortars found elsewhere in Late Neolithic Orkney; an
example in stone is also known from Barnhouse (Hill
& Richards 2005, fig. 6.44). Excepting the tiny pot,
three size classes were defined in the original report –
small (rim diameters ranging between 140 mm and
210 mm), medium (rim diameters 211–280 mm) and
large (rim diameters 281–420 mm) – with wall
thicknesses generally increasing with vessel size (Jones
2005, 261–82).
Where pottery could be associated with specific
structures, examples representing more than one size
category (and sometimes all three) were present in
each (Jones 2005, fig. 11.12), although large pots were
noticeably the dominant size of pot on the Structure 8
platform (Jones 2005, 271). In many cases, the large
vessels showed less careful surface smoothing than the
medium-sized and small pots. The rim forms (Jones
2005, fig. 11.6) include one example with paired
projecting applied pellets from a deposit behind
House 3 (Fig. 5, SF 3502/3492/3508/3487); in
addition to being a distinctive decorative feature, this
could have been a device to prevent the pot’s contents
from boiling over when used with a lid.
Decoration, where present, is by incision, impres-
sion and the application of cordons and pellets, with
incised linear designs predominating (Figs 4–5; Jones
2005, 264). Pre-eminent among the incised designs,
present on 73% of all decorated sherds, are bands
featuring three parallel wavy lines forming a serpen-
tine design, often found in association with bands of
horizontal lines (Fig. 4, SF 1933; Jones & Richards
2005, 200). A distinction can be drawn between
relatively narrow, fine cordons, which are found on
vessels with carefully-finished surfaces and are either
applied (eg, Fig. 5, SF 3720) or created in false relief
(eg, Fig. 4, SF 1905), and thicker cordons, which are
found on coarser vessels with relatively uneven sur-
faces and are invariably applied (eg, Fig. 5, SF 6016).
Also of note is the recurrent use of a linear false-relief
‘cordon’ motif in which a wavy line has been created
by making alternating depressions (eg, Fig. 4, SF 1905;
Fig. 5, SF 4109), and the fairly common use of stab
impressions, some arranged as rosettes (Fig. 4,
SF3149ii, 5940, 4261, 5116xii), others as fringes for
incised lines (Fig. 4, SF 5116vii & viii) and a few as
fillers for what had probably been triangular and/or
lozenge motifs (Fig. 4, SF 5463, 1085, 3138i); one
exceptional sherd from the inner building of Structure 8
features incised cross-hatching used to fill the spaces
200
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
between diagonal incised lines (Fig. 5, SF 4648). Where
much or all of a pot is present or reconstructable, the
decoration does not extend over the whole of the
exterior, and this is particularly the case with the large
vessels, where only the area immediately below the rim
is usually decorated (Jones 2005, 265). The condition
of the assemblage was such that it was not possible to
determine how many pots had been wholly undeco-
rated. The degree of variability in decorative schemes
among the pottery from the different structures is dis-
cussed by Jones (2005, figs 11.16–26).
Six fabric groups (A, B, B1, C, D, & E) were iden-
tified by Jones on the basis of the type and amount of
material (crushed stone and/or shell) that had been
added to the clay as a filler; of these, the last two have
no deliberately added material, with fabric D contain-
ing only naturally-present rounded quartz grains (Jones
2005, 261). Some correlation between fabric and pot
size (and wall thickness) was noted. Small pots – with
wall thicknesses between 5 mm and 9 mm – have either
no deliberately-added material (ie, fabrics D & E) or else
a moderate amount of shell (attested by voids where the
shell had leached out); medium-sized pots (9–15 mm
thick) have a moderate amount of either stone (fabric A)
or shell (fabric C); and large pots (16–30 mm thick)
have either a moderate amount of stone (fabric A) or
else a large amount of stone (fabric B), in some cases
with a little shell as well (fabric B1).
Furthermore, some spatial patterning in the choice
of filler was evident. Sherds containing shell tended to
concentrate in the ‘midden’ deposits in the east-central
part of the site, and evidence suggesting a manu-
facturing area for such pottery was found on the site of
the levelled House 7 (Jones & Richards 2005, 35–7).
Regarding the use of stone as a filler, petrological
analysis revealed that each house in the western part of
the site employed its own distinctive ‘recipe’ of stone
types, while the pottery found in Structure 8 contained
the full range of stone types, with the stone coming
from various sources around and near the Lochs of
Harray and Stenness, all within a 10 km radius of the
site (Jones 2002; 2005; see Jones 2005, 279–281 on
the probable source of ‘Dyke X’ rock).
AIMS OF THE DATING PROJECT AT BARNHOUSE
In considering the chronology of Grooved Ware in
Scotland, Patrick Ashmore (1998, 142–5) asserted that
there was limited potential for refining the dating of its
first occurrence, as the shape of the radiocarbon
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY
calibration curve means that results on short-lived sam-
ples actually dating to between 3300 BC and 3100 BC
would calibrate to ‘somewhere in the period 3400 to
3000 (or even 2900) cal BC.’ Furthermore, he suggested
that Bayesian ‘analysis of the kind carried out for Skara
Brae’ (by Buck et al. 1991) is impossible for Barnhouse,
‘since its direct stratigraphic relationships are few’.
Two decades later, we consider that technical
developments in both radiocarbon dating and the sta-
tistical modelling of dates make it possible to revisit this
assessment. Not only has the error on radiocarbon
measurements approximately halved in the intervening
period (Table 1), but it has become possible to date
calcined bone (Lanting et al. 2001), and the potential
for Bayesian statistics to provide refined chronologies
on a routine basis has become clearly apparent (Bayliss
2009). The increased precision which is currently
available means that what in the 1990s was a undif-
ferentiated plateau in the calibration curve for the late
4th millennium cal BC now comes into focus as a series
of micro-wiggles which can be employed as the basis
for much more constrained chronologies (Reimer et al.
2013). So, one general aim of this dating programme
was to explore the potential for the construction of
such constrained chronologies in this period.
A number of specific objectives relating to the site
sequence at Barnhouse were identified:
∙ to provide formal estimates of the date and duration
of occupation at Barnhouse,
∙ to determine the duration of use of the houses and
Structure 8,
∙ to determine the date of different pottery forms,
fabrics and decorative schemes.
RADIOCARBON DATING AND CHRONOLOGICAL
MODELLING
The new radiocarbon dating programme for Barnhouse
was conceived within the framework of Bayesian
chronological modelling (Buck et al. 1996). This allows
the combination of calibrated radiocarbon dates with
archaeological prior information using a formal statis-
tical methodology. At Barnhouse a number of strati-
graphic relationships between stone structures and the
surrounding midden layers were available to constrain
the radiocarbon dates, even though the archaeological
deposits were shallow (0.6–0.7 m at most).
Material suitable for radiocarbon dating was scarce.
Unburnt bone did not survive, and charred plant
remains were rare. All the pottery was scanned for the
201
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
presence of carbonised residues which might represent
charred food. Fragments of calcined bone were
available from hand-collection. A complete inventory of
the available datable material was produced and
annotated on the site matrix. Rarely was there choice of
material for sampling. For a number of houses
(eg, Houses 6 & 10), no datable material at all could be
located. For others, material was severely limited and
only a few samples could be dated (eg, Houses 7 & 11).
Only in the case of Structure 8 did multiple contexts
produce material suitable for dating. None of the
samples was articulated or refitting, and so all have the
potential to be residual in the context from which they
were recovered. Some have a plausible functional rela-
tionship with their parent contexts (e.g. OxA-2734),
but in other cases the taphonomy of the dated material
is much more uncertain (e.g. OxA-2736).
Radiocarbon results
A total of 74 radiocarbon measurements are now
available from Barnhouse (Table 1). All are conven-
tional radiocarbon ages, corrected for fractionation
(Stuiver & Polach 1977).
Radiocarbon samples of charred plant remains dated
as part of the original post-excavation programme were
measured by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) at
the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit using
methods outlined in Gillespie et al. (1983), Hedges
(1981), and Bronk and Hedges (1990). Samples of
charred plant material and charred residues at the
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre
were pre-treated as described by Mook and Waterbolk
(1985); samples of calcined bone were pre-treated as
described by Lanting et al. (2001). All samples
were combusted to carbon dioxide (Vandeputte et al.
1996), graphitised (Slota et al. 1987), and dated by
AMS (Freeman et al. 2010). Pre-treatment, combus-
tion, graphitisation, and measurement by AMS at
the 14CHRONO Centre, Queen’s University, Belfast,
are detailed in Reimer et al. (2015).1 Here, charred
residues were pre-treated using an acid wash;
charred plant remains were prepared using an
acid-base-acid protocol; samples of calcined bone were
pre-treated as described by Lanting et al. (2001).
Samples were reduced to graphite using zinc reduction
(Slota et al. 1987), except for UBA-28539, UBA-22549,
UBA-22554–7, UBA-22561–2, and UBA-22594–5
for which hydrogen reduction was employed (Vogel
et al. 1984).
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

TABLE 1: RADIOCARBON AGES AND STABLE ISOTOPIC MEASUREMENTS FROM BARNHOUSE

Lab. no. Sample and context description δ13C (‰) 14

C age (BP) Weighted
mean
SUERC-59554 Calcined large mammal bone frag. Context [130], infill − 21.2 ± 0.2 4308 ± 29
within House 2, following its abandonment. Overlies
context [321].
SUERC-59555 Calcined large mammal bone frag. Context [136], spit 1 − 20.8 ± 0.2 4364 ± 29
within House 9. Stratigraphically later than
context [281].
SUERC-57981 Calcined cattle left humerus shaft. Context [145], upper − 20.6 ± 0.2 4305 ± 30
fill of western hearth in House 2. Stratigraphically
later than context [374].
SUERC-57982 Calcined cattle radius shaft. Context [145], upper fill of − 23.0 ± 0.2 4362 ± 30
western hearth in House 2. Stratigraphically later
than context [374].
SUERC-53360 Calcined large ungulate scapula frag. Context [148], fill − 23.8 ± 0.2 4408 ± 31
of large cut through lower floor layers (to recover
original hearth stones); associated with final 4437 ± 22
occupation of House 3. Stratigraphically underlies (T’ = 0.7)
[205]. Stratigraphically later than context [146].
UBA-22563 Replicate of SUERC-53360. – 4444 ± 30
SUERC-57983 Calcined large ungulate long bone. Context [148], fill of − 24.0 ± 0.2 4302 ± 30
large cut through lower floor layers (to recover
original hearth stones); associated with final
occupation of House 3. Stratigraphically
underlies [205]. Stratigraphically later than
context [146].
SUERC-57984 Calcined large ungulate rib. Context [148], fill − 28.2 ± 0.2 4415 ± 30
of large cut through lower floor layers (to recover
original hearth stones); associated with final
occupation of House 3. Stratigraphically
underlies [205]. Stratigraphically later than
context [146].
UBA-22544 Charred residue on SF 1801. Context [171], midden − 27.2 ± 0.22 4519 ± 26
deposit abutting House 3. Stratigraphically
underlies [205].
UBA-22589 Calcined cattle left tibia frag. Context [191], later – 4287 ± 28
occupation/midden deposit over demolished House 7.
Stratigraphically later than House 9. House 7, &
House 11.
SUERC-57985 Calcined cattle right tibia frag. Context [191], later − 16.5 ± 0.2 4138 ± 30
occupation/midden deposit over demolished House 7.
Stratigraphically later than House 9. House 7, & 4274 ± 25
House 11. (T’ = 54.6)
UBA-22590 Replicate of SUERC-57985. – 4511 ± 41
SUERC-57986 Calcined cattle left scapula frag. Context [200], spread − 26.3 ± 0.2 4575 ± 30
of ash/midden deposit associated with later activity in
central area. Stratigraphically later than context
[396], & House 7.
SUERC-57990 Calcined cattle right pelvis frag. Context [200], spread − 22.0 ± 0.2 4455 ± 30
of ash/midden deposit associated with later activity in
central area. Stratigraphically later than context
[396], & House 7.
SUERC-59556 Calcined medium-sized mammal bone frag. Context − 22.5 ± 0.2 4483 ± 26
[200], spread of ash/midden deposit associated with
later activity in central area. Stratigraphically later
than context [396], and House 7.
UBA-22546 Charred residue on SF 1841. Context [205], upper − 29.3 ± 0.22 4337 ± 38
midden deposit later than construction of House 3,
same as context [250]. Stratigraphically overlies
[171], & [1004]. 3 sherds, design code 1, fabric
code 1, decorated with grooves, abraded.

202

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY

TABLE 1: Continued
Lab. no. Sample and context description δ13C (‰) 14
C age (BP) Weighted
mean
SUERC-53369 Charred residue on SF 1852. Context [205], upper − 29.9 ± 0.2 4505 ± 31
midden deposit later than construction of House 3,
same as context [250]. Stratigraphically overlies
[171], & [1004]. 9 sherds, design *A, fabric code 1A,
decorated with grooves.
UBA-22545 Charred residue on SF 1818. Context [250], upper − 29.3 ± 0.22 4344 ± 30
midden deposit later than construction of House 3,
same as context [205]. 33 sherds, plain sherds,
fabric 1.
SUERC-53361 Calcined ungulate long bone frag. Context [281], ash − 20.5 ± 0.2 4334 ± 31
spread in House 9, stratigraphically later than context
[1044]. House 9 stratigraphically earlier than House
8.
SUERC-59560 Calcined large mammal long bone, SF 1143. Context − 23.9 ± 0.2 4337 ± 29
[281], ash spread in House 9, stratigraphically later
than context [1044]. House is stratigraphically earlier 4328 ± 20
than House 8. (T’ = 0.2)
UBA-28537 Replicate of SUERC-59560. – 4320 ± 27
UBA-22557 Charred residue on SF 1680. Context 321, a small pit − 27.5 ± 0.22 4273 ± 37
within western area of House 2. Stratigraphically later
than contexts [374] & [498], earlier than House 8.
OxA-3500 Charred barley grain. Context [374], intermediate − 26.8 4420 ± 75
occupation around House 2 NE hearth.
SUERC-53362 Calcined ungulate skull frag. Context [396], layer − 23.6 ± 0.2 4431 ± 31
overlying demolished House 7, associated with
ceramic firing zone. Stratigraphically later than
House 7, & constituent contexts [754] & [398].
OxA-2735 Naked barley grain. Context [398], fill of central hearth − 27.3 4460 ± 70
from House 7.
SUERC-59561 Calcined large mammal bone. Context [441], primary − 25.3 ± 0.2 4394 ± 29
occupation deposit in House 3, stratigraphically later 4406 ± 25
than context [146]. (T’ = 0.5)
UBA-28538 Replicate of SUERC-59561 – 4432 ± 44
OxA-3498 Barley grain. Context [498], primary occupation of − 24.4 4590 ± 75
House 2.
OxA-3499 Barley grain. Context [498], primary occupation of − 21.3 4570 ± 75
House 2
UBA-22550 Carbonised residue on SF 6322. Context [619], − 27.2 ± 0.22 4349 ± 41
intermediate midden spit central area.
Stratigraphically earlier than [670], stratigraphically
later than [924].
SUERC-57991 Calcined sheep/goat right pelvis frag. Context [619], − 19.0 ± 0.2 4394 ± 30
intermediate midden spit central area.
Stratigraphically later than context [924].
Stratigraphically earlier than context [1015].
SUERC-57992 Calcined cattle right pelvis frag. Context [619], − 27.4 ± 0.2 4382 ± 30
intermediate midden spit central area.
Stratigraphically later than context [924]. 4367 ± 21
Stratigraphically earlier than context [1015]. (T’ = 0.5)
UBA-22591 Replicate of SUERC-57992. – 4353 ± 28
SUERC-53559 Calcined ungulate long bone. Context [654], spit 5 − 18.7 ± 0.2 4492 ± 27
lower midden below House 12. Stratigraphically
earlier than [924].
SUERC-57993 Calcined ungulate long bone. Context [654], spit 5 − 21.5 ± 0.2 4357 ± 30
lower midden below House 12. Stratigraphically
earlier than [924].

203

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

TABLE 1: Continued
Lab. no. Sample and context description δ13C (‰) 14
C age (BP) Weighted
mean
SUERC-57994 Calcined large ungulate long bone frag. Context [654], − 22.3 ± 0.2 4445 ± 30
spit 5 lower midden below House 12.
Stratigraphically earlier than [924].
SUERC-53363 Calcined cattle left humerus. Context [670], floor − 20.3 ± 0.2 4448 ± 31
around interior of periphery of House 11,
stratigraphically later than context [619].
SUERC-59562 Calcined large mammal long bone. Context [670], floor − 21.9 ± 0.2 4352 ± 29
around interior of periphery of House 11,
stratigraphically later than context [619].
SUERC-59563 Calcined large mammal long bone. Context [670], floor − 21.6 ± 0.2 4412 ± 26
around interior of periphery of House 11, 4375 ± 21
stratigraphically later than context [619]. (T’ = 5.7)
UBA-28539 Replicate of SUERC-59563. – 4310 ± 34
SUERC-59564 Calcined large mammal distal humerus frag. Context − 20.6 ± 0.2 4412 ± 26
[687], from flagstone drain covering in House 5b.
Stratigraphically lower than context [225], & later
than [828] & [794].
SUERC-59565 Calcined sheep/goat left radius frag. Context [687], from − 20.9 ± 0.2 4488 ± 26
flagstone drain covering in House 5b.
Stratigraphically lower than context [225], & later
than [828] & [794].
SUERC-53356 Calcined sheep proximal left tibia. Context [754]. Fill of − 25.5 ± 0.2 4448 ± 31
great drain outside House 7. Stratigraphically earlier
than context [396].
OxA-2736 Naked barley grains. Context [754], fill of great drain − 23.4 4360 ± 70
outside House 7. Stratigraph-ically earlier than
context [396].
SUERC-57995 Calcined large ungulate long bone frag. Context [754], − 24.1 ± 0.2 4393 ± 30
fill of great drain outside House 7. Stratigraphically 4375 ± 23
earlier than context [396]. (T’ = 0.8)
UBA-22592 Replicate of SUERC-57995. – 4354 ± 33
OxA-3764 Birch charcoal. Context [763], from floor deposit in − 26.9 4400 ± 65
Structure 8.
OxA-3763 Birch charcoal. Context [763], from floor deposit in − 26.3 4360 ± 60
Structure 8.
OxA-3765 Birch/alder charcoal. Context [763], from floor deposit − 26.8 4475 ± 65
in Structure 8
SUERC-53374 Birch charcoal. Context [769], ash fill of hearth [1236] − 25.0 ± 0.2 4483 ± 31 4440 ± 25
on platform of Structure 8. (T = 5.7)
UBA-22561 Birch charcoal. Context [769], ash fill of hearth [1236] − 25.1 ± 0.22 4358 ± 42
on platform of Structure 8.
SUERC-53375 Ericaceae roundwood charcoal. Context [769], ash fill − 27.4 ± 0.2 4425 ± 31
of hearth [1236] on platform of Structure 8.
OxA-2737 Naked barley grains. Context [828], ash spread on the − 24.4 4400 ± 70
clay floor to the east of the hearth of House 5b.
OxA-3501 Barley grains. Context [924], lower midden in N central − 23.7 4450 ± 75
activity area.
SUERC-53364 Calcined cattle left radius. Context [924], spit 5 lower − 21.4 ± 0.2 4433 ± 31
midden N of House 6. Stratigraphically later than 4412 ± 26
[654], underlying [619]. (T = 1.4)
UBA-22543 Replicate of SUERC-53364. – 4371 ± 43
SUERC-57996 Calcined pig right metacarpal III. Context [924], − 26.3 ± 0.2 4543 ± 30
occupation/midden deposit. Stratigraphically later
than context [654] & earlier than context [619].
SUERC-58000 Calcined sheep/goat left calcaneum. Context [924], − 27.4 ± 0.2 4490 ± 30
occupation/midden deposit. Stratigraphically later
than context [654] & earlier than context [619].

204

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY

TABLE 1: Continued
Lab. no. Sample and context description δ13C (‰) 14
C age (BP) Weighted
mean
SUERC-58001 Calcined cattle right tibia shaft frag. Context [924], − 0.2 ± 0.2 4319 ± 30
occupation/midden deposit. Stratigraphically later 4370 ± 23
than context [654] & earlier than context [619]. (T = 6.6)
UBA-22593 Replicate of SUERC-58001. – 4437 ± 35
UBA-22554 Birch charcoal. Context [984], layer in the platform − 26.4 ± 0.22 4366 ± 36
associated with its use. Stratigraphically later than
[1158].
UBA-22553 Ericaceae roundwood charcoal. Context [997], layer of − 28.3 ± 0.22 4271 ± 44
ash within hearth [930] on Structure 8 platform
[1007]. Stratigraphically later than [1163].
OxA-2734 Naked barley grain. Context [1004], ash from final fire − 23.6 4520 ± 70
in hearth fill from House 12.
OxA-3766 Barley grain. Context [1044], fill of a pit in House 9. − 25.1 4420 ± 60
SUERC-53370 Ericaceae roundwood charcoal. Context [1163], − 27.3 ± 0.2 4455 ± 31
Structure 8. Bottom fill of hearth [930].
Stratigraphically later than [1158], underlies [997].
UBA-22594 Ericaceae roundwood charcoal. Context [1163, − 28.1 ± 0.22 4285 ± 35
Structure 8. Bottom fill of hearth [930].
Stratigraphically later than [1158], underlies [997].
SUERC-53372 Birch charcoal. Context [1196], fill of small pit [1195] − 26.9 ± 0.2 4494 ± 31
dug into clay surface to S of entrance as part of later
reuse of Structure 8.
UBA-22555 Ericaceae roundwood charcoal. Context [1196], fill of − 27.4 ± 0.22 4470 ± 37
small pit [1195] dug into clay surface to S of entrance
as part of later reuse of structure 8.
SUERC-53371 Ericaceae roundwood charcoal. Context 1197, discrete − 27.5 ± 0.2 4409 ± 31
ash deposit within northern hearth on eastern area of
the platform of Structure 8. Underlies context 769.
Stratigraphically later than [1158].
UBA-22556 Ericaceae roundwood charcoal. Context [1197], discrete − 27.4 ± 0.22 4336 ± 38
ash deposit within northern hearth on eastern area of
platform of Structure 8. Underlies context [769].
Stratigraphically later than [1158].
UBA-22562 Ericaceae roundwood charcoal. Context [1205], deposit − 27.3 ± 0.22 4390 ± 38
from central fireplace to W of northern hearth [1207],
on eastern area of the platform of Structure 8.
Underlies context [769]. Stratigraphically later than
[1158].
UBA-22595 Ericaceae roundwood charcoal. Context [1205], from − 26.6 ± 0.22 4347 ± 38
deposit from central fireplace to W of northern hearth
[1207], on eastern area of the platform of Structure 8.
Underlies context [769]. Stratigraphically later than
[1158].
SUERC-53373 Ericaceae roundwood charcoal. Context [1207], discrete − 27.0 ± 0.2 4420 ± 31
ash deposit from northern hearth on eastern area of
platform of Structure 8. Underlies context [769].
Stratigraphically later than [1158].
UBA-22560 Ericaceae roundwood charcoal. Context [1207], discrete − 27.7 ± 0.22 4341 ± 43
ash deposit from northern hearth on eastern area of
platform of Structure 8. Underlies context [769].
Stratigraphically later than [1158].
The statistical consistency of replicate measurements has been assessed using the method of Ward & Wilson (1978;
T’(5%) = 3.8; T’(1%) = 6.0; ν = 1 for all). Reported δ13C values are those measured by Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry
(IRMS) on sub-samples of the carbon dioxide combusted for dating. These values have been used in the calculation of
the reported conventional radiocarbon age, except for UBA- where the fractionation correction has been made using the
values measured in the AMS

205

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
Ten pairs of replicate measurements are available
on samples that were divided and submitted for dating
to both laboratories. Nine of these pairs are on single
fragments of calcined bone. In six cases the results are
statistically consistent at 95% confidence; in one case
the results are statistically inconsistent at 95% con-
fidence but consistent at 99% confidence; and in two
cases the results are statistically inconsistent at 99%
confidence. A pair of measurements on a single frag-
ment of birch charcoal are statistically inconsistent at
95% confidence but consistent at 99% confidence
(Table 1; Ward & Wilson 1978).
Although this reproducibility is less than would be
expected on statistical grounds, we have taken weigh-
ted means of the pairs of measurements which are
statistically consistent at 99% confidence. In the other
two cases, both measurements were initially included in
the model and a judgement made on which was more
likely to accurately represent the age of the sample,
based on its individual index of agreement in relation to
the stratigraphy and other dates in the model.
Bayesian modelling
The chronological modelling described in this section
has been undertaken using OxCal 4.2 (Bronk Ramsey
1995; 2009a; 2009b), and the internationally agreed
calibration curve of the northern hemisphere
(IntCal13; Reimer et al. 2013). The models are defined
by the OxCal CQL2 keywords and by the brackets on
the left-hand side of Figures 6–8. In the diagrams,
calibrated radiocarbon dates are shown in outline and
the posterior density estimates produced by the
chronological modelling are shown in solid black.
The Highest Posterior Density intervals which describe
the posterior distributions are given in italics.
A stratigraphic model
The chronological model for Barnhouse is defined in
Figures 6–8, and Highest Posteror Density intervals
for key parameters are given in Table 2. This is based
on the stratigraphic sequence revealed through
excavation. The relationships that are included in the
model are summarised in Figure 9. This model has
good overall agreement (Amodel: 62; Fig. 6).
Three samples have been dated from the occupation
of House 9. These are earlier than the construction of
the overlying Structure 8. Seventeen samples of single-
entity short-lived charred plant remains have been dated
206
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
from deposits associated with the use of this building, of
which we judge five samples to be residual on the basis
of their dates in relation to those from the underlying
House 9 (OxA-3765; UBA-22555, & SUERC-53372;
769A; & SUERC-53370). These results are incorpo-
rated as termini post quos in the model (Fig. 7).
House 2 and House 9 share the same drain, and
have opposed entrances, which suggest they were a
single unit of construction. The model incorporates
this interpretation by estimating a single construction
date for both buildings. Six samples have been dated
from the sequence of occupation in House 2.
UBA-22557 provides a direct date on a charred resi-
due from SF 1680, an undecorated sherd. One sample
has been dated from [130], the infill following the
disuse of the building (Fig. 7).
Three samples have been dated from the lower mid-
den underlying House 12. One of the samples from this
deposit appears to be intrusive (SUERC-57993) and has
been excluded from the model. Five samples have been
dated from the overlying midden, [924]. One of these
has divergent replicate measurements and, on the basis
of the other dates from this sequence, we believe that
UBA-22593 provides a more accurate indication of the
date of this sample. SUERC-58001 seems to be slightly
late and has been excluded from the model.
SUERC-58000 and SUERC-57996 are probably resi-
dual and have been included in the model as termini post
quos. Overlying this layer there is more midden ([619])
from which three samples have been dated, one of which
(UBA-22550) was a charred residue on SF 6322 (Fig. 8).
Above this, a sample from a hearth in House 12
appears to be residual (OxA-2734) and is incorporated
in the model as a terminus post quem. One of three
samples from the floor of House 11 (SUERC-53363) is
similarly residual and used as a terminus post quem.
The dating of a building on the basis of two samples
from one context is obviously not ideal. Four samples
have been dated from the use of House 7. Above this,
SUERC-53362 from [396], a layer associated with the
ceramic firing zone, appears to be residual and provides
a terminus post quem for overlying deposits. Houses 7,
11, and 12 were overlain by the upper midden
([191]=[136]). Three samples have been dated from
these contexts. On the basis of the stratigraphy, we
think that SUERC-57985 provides a more accurate
indication of the age of sample 191B than UBA-22590,
which appears to be anomalously old and has been
excluded from the model. An equivalent layer, [200],
ran across the central area and covered House 7 and
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY

TABLE 2: HIGHEST POSTERIOR DENSITY INTERVALS FROM KEY PARAMETERS FROM BARNHOUSE, TAKEN FROM
THE MODEL DEFINED IN FIGS 6–8

Parameter name Parameter description Posterior density estimate Posterior density

(see Figs 6–8 for complete definition (95% probability unless estimate (68%
of the model) otherwise stated) probability unless
otherwise stated)
start Barnhouse Boundary parameter estimating 3160–3090 cal BC (86%) or 3135–3100 cal BC
start of late Neolithic Grooved Ware 3080–3045 cal BC (9%)
village at Barnhouse
end Barnhouse Boundary parameter estimating end 2890–2845 cal BC 2885–2860 cal BC
of late Neolithic Grooved Ware village
at Barnhouse
use Barnhouse Span parameter estimating duration of 165–205 years (8%) or 225–275 years
late Neolithic Grooved Ware village at 210–295 years (87%)
Barnhouse between start & end
Boundary parameters
build H2 & H9 First parameter estimating first 3140–3035 cal BC 3130–3070 cal BC
dated event in Houses 2 & 9
end H2 Date parameter estimating end of 2955–2880 cal BC 2915–2890 cal BC
activity associated with House 2,
occurring after occupation of
structure, & before formation of
context 130, which represents infilling
of House 2
use H2 Difference parameter estimating 115–245 years 155–225 years
duration of use of House 2 between
build H2 & H9 & end H2
build H3 First parameter estimating first 3145–3080 cal BC (83%) or 3125–3095 cal BC
dated event in House 3 3070–3030 cal BC (12%)
end H3 Last parameter estimating last dated 3000–2990 cal BC (1%) or 2920–2890 cal BC
event in House 3 2980–2880 cal BC (94%)
use H3 Difference parameter estimating 105–245 years 145–155 years (2%) or
duration of use of House 3 between 170–230 years (66%)
build H3 & end H3
build H5 First parameter estimating first 3125–2955 cal BC 3105–3015 cal BC
dated event in House 5
end H5 Last parameter estimating last dated 3080–2920 cal BC 3040–3005 cal BC (18%)
event in House 5 or 2990–2925 cal BC
(50%)
use H5 Difference parameter estimating 1–145 years 1–75 years
duration of use of House 5 between
build H5 & end H5
build H7 First parameter estimating first 3130–3025 cal BC 3120–3060 cal BC
dated event in House 7
end H7 Last parameter estimating last dated 3055–2965 cal BC 3020–2985 cal BC
event in House 7
use H7 Difference parameter estimating 20–135 years 45–110 years
duration of use of House 7 between
build H7 & end H7
build S8 First parameter estimating first 3010–2955 cal BC 3000–2975 cal BC
dated event in Structure 8
end S8 Last parameter estimating last dated 2915–2870 cal BC 2905–2880 cal BC
event in Structure 8
use S8 Difference parameter estimating 60–130 years 80–115 years
duration of use of Structure 8 between
build S8 & end S8
end H9 Last parameter estimating last dated 3020–2970 cal BC 3010–2985 cal BC
event in House 9

207

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

TABLE 2: Continued

Parameter name Parameter description Posterior density estimate Posterior density

(see Figs 6–8 for complete definition (95% probability unless estimate (68%
of the model) otherwise stated) probability unless
otherwise stated)
use H9 Difference parameter estimating 35–155 years 70–135 years
duration of use of House 9 between
build H2 & H9 & end H9
build H11 First parameter estimating first 3000–2920 cal BC 2975–2930 cal BC
dated event in House 11
end H11 Last parameter estimating last dated 2980–2910 cal BC 2955–2915 cal BC
event in House 11
use H11 Difference parameter estimating 1–50 years 1–20 years
duration of use of House 11 between
build H11 & end H11
start work area First parameter estimating first 3140–3080 cal BC (84%) or 3125–3090 cal BC
dated event in work area 3070–3035 cal BC (11%)
end work area Last parameter estimating last dated 2995–2870 cal BC 2950–2890 cal BC
event in work area
use work area Difference parameter estimating 95–245 years 145–220 years
duration of use of work area between
start work area & end work area

Four samples have been dated from the occupation

Fig. 6.
Overall structure of chronological model for Neolithic
occupation at Barnhouse. The component sections of this
model are shown in detail in Figs 7–8. Each distribution
represents the relative probability that an event occurs at a
particular time. For each of the dates two distributions have
been plotted: one in outline, which is the result of simple
radiocarbon calibration, & a solid one, based on the
chronological model used. Distributions other than those
relating to particular samples correspond to aspects of the
model. For example, the distribution ‘start Barnhouse’ is the
estimated date when activity associated with the late
Neolithic village at Barnhouse began. The large square
brackets down the left-hand side of Figs 6–8 along with the
OxCal keywords define the overall model exactly
produced three samples, one of which (SUERC-57986)
must be residual and provides a terminus post quem for
the end of the use of the Barnhouse central midden area
(Fig. 8).
of House 3. A fifth sample, from an ash-heap that
accumulated against its north-eastern wall, also post-
dates the construction of this building (Jones &
Richards 2005, figs 3.32 & 3.33). This sample, and
deposits within House 12 (see above), are earlier than
the uppermost ash-spread ([205]=[250]). Three mea-
surements have been made on charred residues from
groups of sherds from the three vessels from the upper
ash-spread (Fig. 8). SUERC-53369 (SF 1852) is
anomalously early and probably does not provide an
accurate date for this pot. It has been excluded from
the model. UBA-22545 dates an undecorated vessel
containing stone filler (SF 1818; not illustrated), and
UBA-22546 dates a vessel with parallel grooved
decoration and stone filler (SF 1841; not illustrated).
Three samples have been dated from House 5b, the
second of four superimposed buildings on the same
footprint. One of these, SUERC-59565, appears to be
residual and has been modelled as a terminus post
quem (Fig. 8).
Of the 74 radiocarbon measurements from Barn-
house, three are excluded from the analysis because
they are considered to be inaccurate. Two are incon-
sistent with true replicates, and one is a charred resi-
due on a vessel represented by nine sherds. One result
is excluded from the model as the sample is thought to

208

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY

Fig. 7.
Probability distributions of dates from House 2, House 3 and related deposits in the work area, House 9, and Structure 8.
The format is identical to that of Fig. 6, which shows the overall structure of this model. The large square brackets down the
left-hand side of Figs 6–8, along with the OxCal keywords, define the overall model exactly

209

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Fig. 8.
Probability distributions of dates from Houses 5, 7, 11, & 12 and from the work area. The format is identical to that
of Fig. 6, which shows the overall structure of this model. The large square brackets down the left-hand side of Figs 6–8,
along with the OxCal keywords, define the overall model exactly

210

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY

be intrusive. So, 70 measurements on 62 samples are
included in the model. Twelve of these are interpreted
as residual and so have been modelled as termini post
quos for overlying deposits, because of the relation-
ships between their dates and those from associated
and stratigraphically related contexts. The remaining
50 samples are thought to date accurately the deposits
from which they were recovered.
We must consider the number of dated samples
available from different parts of Barnhouse in asses-
sing the reliability of this model. Structure 8 has 17
dated samples (of which five are regarded as
residual); the houses in the outer arc have 16 dated
samples (of which one is residual); the midden has 21
dated samples (of which four are considered residual);
but the houses of the inner arc have only eight dated
samples (of which two are considered residual). All the
houses have fewer samples than is ideal and our
sample from the inner arc is clearly inadequate. It is
particularly regrettable that no samples could be
found from House 6, which is clearly inter-stratified
between Houses 7 and 11.
A second consideration relating to the reliability of
this model is our reliance on samples of calcined bone
(31 of the 62 samples included in the modelling).
Experimental evidence suggests that the carbon in
calcined bone apatite may derive not only from the
dated individual, but from the fuel used in the crema-
tion process, and the atmosphere during the time of
cremation (Snoeck et al. 2014). This can lead to offsets
in dates on calcined bone (Olsen et al. 2013). We
believe that this is not a significant issue at Barnhouse.
First, the dates on calcined bone and charred plant
remains are comparable. Secondly, the wood charcoal
from Barnhouse is dominated by heather, hazel, and
birch, with only minor components of driftwood, oak,
and ash (Cartwright 2005). The presence of cramp
across the site, however, probably indicates the use of
seaweed in fuel (Stapleton & Bowman 2005), although
we do not have evidence that this has imparted a
marine offset to the dated calcined bone at this site.
A structural narrative
The model shown in Figures 6–8 and summarised
schematically in Figure 9, suggests that habitation at
Barnhouse began in 3160–3090 cal BC (86%
probability; start Barnhouse; Fig. 6) or 3080–3045
cal BC (9% probability), probably in 3135–3100 cal BC
(68% probability). The first houses to be built were
Houses 2 and 9, in 3140–3035 cal BC (95%
probability; build H2 & H9; Fig. 10), probably in
3130–3070 cal BC (68% probability). The model
incorporates the interpretation that these two buildings

Fig. 9.
Schematic diagram showing the stratigraphic relationships that have been included in the Bayesian model defined in Figs 6–8,
and samples that have been included as termini post quos for reasons described in the text

211

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
Fig. 10.
Key parameters for the start and end of use of different buildings & the work area from Barnhouse, derived from the models
shown in Figs 6–8
were contemporary constructions. House 3 was also
constructed at this time, being built in 3145–3080 cal BC
(83% probability; build H3; Fig. 10) or 3070–3030
cal BC (12% probability), probably in 3125–3095 cal BC
(68% probability). At this time, the first residues from
craft activities began to accumulate in the work area, in
3140–3080 cal BC (84% probability; start work area;
Fig. 10) or 3070–3035 (11% probability), probably in
3125–3090 cal BC (68% probability).
It is not possible to determine the relative order of
the appearance of these elements of the settlement
(Table 3). For example, on the basis of the dating, it is
53% probable that House 3 precedes the start
of the work area and 47% probable that the converse
applies. The first, undated, phase of House 5 (5a)
almost certainly also falls in this initial period of
construction, as its second phase began in 3125–2955
cal BC (95% probability; build H5; Fig. 10), probably
in 3105–3015 cal BC (68% probability). This estimate
is imprecise, since it relies on only three dates.
The fact that Houses 2, 9, and 3 are structurally
linked, and a single drainage network serving these
houses conjoins with House 5a (Jones & Richards
2005, fig. 3.7), encourages the view that these
212
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
elements were built as a single unit. Of these, Houses 3
and 9 are intimately linked to the larger House 2. If we
combine the date estimates for these early elements of
the settlement, suggesting they were part of a unified
foundation, the model has good overall agreement
(Acomb: 181.3; An = 40.8; n = 3). In this reading
the foundation of Barnhouse occurred in 3125–3090
cal BC (95% probability; foundation; Fig. 11),
probably in 3115–3095 cal BC (68% probability).
This could best be described as a well-choreographed
constructional event.
Probably slightly later than this initial construction
(Table 3) came the building of House 7, in 3130–3025
cal BC (95% probability; build H7; Fig. 10), probably
in 3120–3060 cal BC (68% probability).2 House 6 was
constructed further north, some time after the building
of House 7, as its drain cuts that of House 7. House 1
represents an addition to House 6 while it was
standing and still in use, but is similarly without
radiocarbon dates. Both Houses 6 and 1 must have
gone out of use before the stratigraphically later
House 11. House 11 was constructed in 3000–2920
cal BC (95% probability; build H11; Fig. 10), probably
in 2975–2930 cal BC (68% probability).
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY

TABLE 3: PROBABILITIES OF THE ORDER OF KEY CONSTRUCTION EVENTS AT BARNHOUSE

build S8 build H11 build H7 build H5 build H3 build H2 & H9 start work area
build S8 – 88 0 12 0 0 0
build H11 – 0 4 0 0 0
build H7 – 76 21 35 22
build H5 – 8 16 9
build H3 – 62 53
build H2 & H9 – 39
start work area –
The table gives the probability that the parameter down the left-hand column is earlier than the para-
meter along the top row. For example, the probability that build S8 is earlier than build H11 is 88%

House 3. To the south-east, a small section of walling

Fig. 11.
Combined probability distribution estimating the
construction date of all the early structures at Barnhouse,
if these are interpreted as representing a single planned
construction
Houses 4, 10, and 12 do not have formal date
estimates from the model. Only House 12 has a single
radiocarbon date, and that is probably on a residual
sample (OxA-2734). As with so many of the houses at
Barnhouse, House 12 had been rebuilt at least once.
The primary construction was directly on the natural
till. The second building was slightly offset and
partially covered midden deposits. The first House 12a
preceded the building of the adjacent House 10 (which
was never remodelled). The construction of House 10
was probably sandwiched between those of House 12a
and 12. That House 12a was erected directly on the
natural till suggests that it may not have been much
different in construction date to Houses 7 and 6.
House 4 was constructed late in the sequence, lying on
top of deposits that had accumulated during the use of
from House 13 was present, being built directly on the
natural till, and may have been in contemporary use
with House 7, as the drain running around the latter
respects the outer wall of the former (see Jones &
Richards 2005, fig. 3.7). The house wall of the over-
lying House 13b shared constructional similarities with
Houses 10 and 6.
Structure 8 was constructed in 3010–2955 cal BC
(95% probability; build S8; Fig. 10), probably in
3000–2975 cal BC (68% probability). It was clearly
built after all of the dated domestic structures at
Barnhouse had been constructed, with the exception
of House 11, which is probably later (88% probable;
Table 3). Structure 8 was built 60–180 years (95%
probability; start Barnhouse – build S8; distribution
not shown), probably 110–155 years (68%
probability) after the foundation of the settlement. The
overall sequence of construction inferred from the
chronological modelling and archaeological evidence
is summarised in Figure 12.
It is important not to confuse the sequence of con-
struction with the period when particular buildings
were occupied. A number of buildings were recon-
structed on several occasions (for example, House 5,
which was rebuilt on four occasions in almost precisely
the same position). In contrast, House 3 does not seem
to have been rebuilt, but rather was refurbished and the
floor renewed at least twice. It is clear (Table 4) that
Houses 2 and 3, and the work area were maintained
into the final decades of the 30th century cal BC
(Fig. 10). House 2 may not have been in use right to the
end of the settlement, as it appears to be sealed by a
layer of dark soil [130], rich in material culture. The
interpretation of this deposit is difficult and it is not
impossible that this in fact represents the final use of the
building. In this reading, House 2 would have

213

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Fig. 12.
Interpretive plan showing the estimates for the dates of construction of different buildings at Barnhouse derived from
the model shown in Figs 6–8, & the discussion of the interpretation of the stratigraphy detailed in the text

214

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY

TABLE 4: PROBABILITIES OF THE ORDER OF KEY ENDINGS AT BARNHOUSE

end S8 end H11 end H9 end H7 end H5 end H3 end H2 end work area
end S8 – 0 0 0 0 12 15 11
end H11 – 1 1 17 84 91 71
end H9 – 33 57 98 >99 98
end H7 – 62 98 >99 98
end H5 – 94 97 89
end H3 – 57 37
end H2 – 31
end work area –
The table gives the probability that the parameter down the left-hand column is earlier than the para-
meter along the top row. For example, the probability that end S8 is earlier than end H3 is 12%

continued in use until the very end of the settlement.
House 5 may similarly continue in use into the late 30th
century cal BC. Our estimate for its ending (Fig. 10;
Table 2) in fact only relates to the end of House 5b.
Some houses did not endure for as long. House 9
goes out of use in 3020–2970 cal BC (95% probability;
end H9; Fig. 10), probably in 3010–2985 cal BC (68%
probability); and House 7 was last used in 3060–2965
cal BC (95% probability; end H7; Fig. 10), probably in
3020–2985 cal BC (68% probability). It is probable
that House 9 was demolished to make way for
Structure 8, its walling being robbed for use in that
construction, and, since House 7 also went out of use
at this time, perhaps its demise was also related to
changes in the settlement layout arising from the
decision to build Structure 8. This idea is supported by
the fact that the masonry of House 7 was also
completely robbed.
House 11, the latest dated construction at
Barnhouse, went out of use in 2980–2910 cal BC (95%
probability; end H11; Fig. 10), probably in 2955–
2915 cal BC (68% probability). Structure 8 was
probably the last element of Barnhouse to be aban-
doned (66% probable), in 2915–2870 cal BC (95%
probability; end S8; Fig. 10), probably in 2905–2880
cal BC (68% probability). Overall, final activity
occurred in 2890–2845 cal BC (95% probability; end
Barnhouse; Fig. 6), probably in 2885–2860 cal BC
(68% probability).
By comparing the date estimates for the start and
end of occupation at Barnhouse, we can calculate the
duration of its use. It was occupied for 165–205 years
(9% probability; use Barnhouse; Table 2) or 210–295
years (86% probability), probably for 225–275 years
(68% probability). A few of the original houses
endured for the entire lifespan of the settlement
(Houses 3, 5, and possibly 2) (Fig. 13). The occupation
of House 9 was curtailed by the decision to build
Structure 8; as a result, it was in use for a period of
35–155 years (95% probability; use H9; Fig. 13),
probably for 70–135 years (68% probability).
House 7, whose demise may have been linked to the
same event, likewise was in use for 20–135 years
(95% probability; use H7; Fig. 13), probably for
45–110 years (68% probability). The use of House 11
may have been even shorter, for 1–50 years (95%
probability; use H11; Fig. 13), probably for 1–20
years (68% probability). On the basis of these dura-
tions, it seems likely that the other houses which were
constructed during the lifetime of the settlement were
occupied for significant periods on the scale of human
experience, but that they did not last for as long as the
founder buildings (Fig. 14). The formal modelling has
enabled a contrast to emerge, therefore, between the
original row or line of founder houses and the sub-
sequent accretion of other buildings in the area to its
east, partly infilling the original work area in the
process. Some houses remained rooted to the spot, as
it were, being rebuilt or refurbished on exactly the
same footprint. In other cases, rebuilding might have
involved very slight shifts in location. House 5 could
be contrasted with the complex of House 7, House 6,
House 1, and House 11 from this perspective.
On the same basis, the duration of Structure 8 can be
estimated as 60–130 years (95% probability; use S8;
Fig. 13), probably 80–115 years (68% probability).
A ceramic narrative
Given that the modelled dating indicates a duration of
occupation at Barnhouse spanning more than two
centuries (use Barnhouse; Table 2), can any chrono-
logical patterning in the ceramic record be discerned?

215

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Fig. 13.
Durations of dated phases of activity at Barnhouse, derived from the model defined in Figs 6–8

Fig. 14.
Schematic diagram showing the periods of use of the different structures at Barnhouse (shading derived from the model
defined in Figs 6–8; the dotted bars are inferred from archaeological relationships with dated buildings)

Perhaps surprisingly, there appears to be a con- medium-sized, and large vessels in the repertoire
siderable degree of consistency in ceramic design and appears to have been recurrent; incised and impressed
manufacture over the life of the site. The use of small, decoration (including the distinctive false-relief

216

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY
wavy-line ‘cordon’ motif: eg, Fig. 4, SF 1905) seems to
be present from the earliest period of activity to the
latest, with applied decoration being present from at
least the earlier 30th century cal BC (as shown by the
splayed-sided vessel from House 6, Fig. 5, SF 3720);
and both shell and stone were used as a filler through
the entire life of the site. The only clear trend appears
to be that the large, coarse vessels with uneven sur-
faces and thick applied cordons (eg, Fig. 5, SF 6016)
seem to relate to the later activity at the site (30th
century cal BC), being found in the upper levels of
midden deposits and in and around Structure 8.
Other changes appear to be a cessation of the use of
the impressed ‘rosette’ motif (eg, Fig. 4, SF 4261) by
the time Structure 8 was built, and the appearance – in
House 12b – of applied dimpled circular pellets
(Fig. 5, SF 5010).
Other differences in pot manufacture and decora-
tion could relate to factors other than chronological
change, such as relative importance or specific
activities. For example, there are certain specific
decorative schemes that are only found in House 2,
which was in use for more or less the entire span of the
settlement (Fig. 14).
One thing that has become clear as a result of the
re-dating of the site, however, is that the previous
argument (Jones 2002, 126–9; 2005, 282), to the
effect that a shift had taken place from the use of
distinctive ‘recipes’ of clay fillers in individual houses
to the use of all types of rock as fillers in Structure 8
pottery, and that this indicated a social change to
communal pottery production, can now be aban-
doned. It is clear that several houses were still in use
when Structure 8 was built, and it may be that pots
made in those houses ended up being deposited in
Structure 8. Nevertheless, the use of different kinds of
rock filler in different houses still needs to be
explained. Perhaps differing fillers were used for pots
made to be used in different contexts, for different
functions and in different social arenas. This would
arguably account for the exclusive use of shell as filler
in Houses 6 and 7, and the mixture of fillers used in
Structure 8.
DISCUSSION
The foundation of new settlements
The model presented above (Figs 6–8) shows that
Barnhouse began in the last decades of the 32nd
century cal BC. It is striking that this is a new site, built
217
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
on fresh ground, without any sign of previous
occupation. The further estimate given in Figure 11
allows – but does not prove – that Barnhouse could
have been a planned foundation, rather than having
just emerged building by building. In such a scenario,
the life of the site would have begun with the building
of Houses 2, 9, 3, and perhaps 5a, and the initiation of
the work area, forming an initial cluster of buildings
with an adjacent work and midden area (Fig. 12).
From the outset, therefore, the Barnhouse settle-
ment could represent ‘planned’ agglomerated occupa-
tion, which expanded through its lifespan by the
addition of further buildings. Quite apart from the
range of other innovations accompanying the emer-
gence of Grooved Ware in Orkney, this represents a
significant change in the nature of Orcadian Neolithic
settlement. The earliest Neolithic occupations had
consisted of clustered timber-framed buildings, which
at a later date were superseded by stone-walled
buildings (Richards et al. 2016). This transformation
from timber to stone house construction might date,
though there is still much uncertainty about the precise
chronology, to the century or two immediately pre-
ceding the start of Barnhouse (Griffiths 2016). At
Knap of Howar, in Westray, Green in Eday, Knowes
of Trotty, Stonehall Meadow, Mainland, and prob-
ably Wideford Hill, single houses were enlarged into
double house units, whereas at Braes of Ha’Breck,
Wyre (Thomas & Lee 2012), and Brae of Smerquoy,
Mainland (Gee et al. 2016), individual houses were
elongated. Importantly, Braes of Ha’Breck and
Stonehall also reveal the beginnings of conglomera-
tion, with the stone-built houses at the latter being
placed some 50–100 m apart (Richards et al. 2016).
The context for the foundation of Barnhouse is also
potentially significant. The Mainland sites just men-
tioned are mostly grouped in the long occupied area of
the Bay of Firth. Though Barnhouse is a component of
a clustering of settlements and monuments centrally
placed within the large natural bowl of western Main-
land, the majority of these are of slightly later date.
What else was already there in the local landscape?
Curiously, apart from the north coast, western
Mainland Orkney is notable for the absence of Early
Neolithic chambered cairns of stalled architecture. The
majority of chambered cairns in this area are later
passage graves of one form or another and many of
these cluster around the Stenness–Brodgar area. On the
south-east shore of the Loch of Stenness is the pre-
sumably older chambered cairn of Unstan, and the long
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
horned cairn of Staneyhill lies to the north, though this
could be of 3rd millennium cal BC date (Downes et al.
2013). In short, earlier monuments within the
immediate area are not abundant. Where we do possess
detailed information such as from Deepdale Bay to the
south-west of the Loch of Stenness, a picture of closely
situated, seemingly short-lived, small-scale settlements
dating back to the late Mesolithic emerges (Richards
2005a, 11–16). Accepting the absence of total survey in
the Stenness–Brodgar area, the recent discovery of
round-based bowl pottery from lower deposits at the
Ness of Brodgar (Nick Card, pers. comm.) suggests that
people had been or were residing nearby when
Barnhouse was founded, and the inter-relation of these
communities will be discussed below. Nonetheless, with
the discovery and location of a substantial late Neo-
lithic settlement at Bookan (Chris Gee, pers. comm.),
we can begin to recognise a pattern of expansion of
Late Neolithic settlement focussed on the Stenness–
Brodgar–Bookan landscape. Barnhouse fits rather well
into this process and the intake of heavier soils in the
interior of Mainland (Sharples 1992), and we can now
see that this happened in the case of Barnhouse early
within the Grooved Ware sequence in Orkney (and see
further below). The new foundation was part of a series
of other changes, not least that it is this very landscape
which becomes increasingly ‘monumentalised’ through
the early–mid-3rd millennium cal BC.
In an island context such as Orkney, where agri-
culture and Neolithic practices inevitably involved a
degree of sea transportation and colonisation from
elsewhere, a founder-focused set of core beliefs could
well have prevailed. Under such circumstances, the
notion of origins would be of great significance, as
would the idea and vitality of ‘founders’. Within such
a proposition, individual and family position may be
defined in terms of genealogical proximity to a foun-
der, which in turn may translate into the spatial
organisation of settlements and their histories; resi-
dence situation and house proximity would provide
spatial parameters for the construction of social
identities and relatedness. In hypothetical subsequent
developments, the fissioning of groups leading to the
founding of further new settlements could have been a
social strategy in the circumvention of ascription of
rank. Basically, a section of a residence group or
‘house’ splits away and forms a new settlement in a
new place. Obviously depending on the degree of
charisma, wealth and resources, when a new settle-
ment is founded, the ‘founder’ soon severs
218
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
genealogical links with the previous regime and claims
an alternative and more direct relationship with
ancestral entities and deities. This not only effects an
elevation in the status of the ‘founder’, but restructures
and enhances relations between all members of the
newly forged social group. Such relationships may
well rely heavily on the layout and physical appear-
ance of houses to materialise abstract concepts of
genealogical relationships and social identities.
In this scenario, founding a ‘new’ settlement such as
Barnhouse is extremely ambitious, because it necessa-
rily involved establishing alternative social identities
without recourse to the material legitimacy gained by
appropriating an old site and claiming physical links to
previous generations. Identities at Barnhouse may well
have been constructed with reference to claimed gen-
ealogical descent but may have been more complex and
ambitious by looking beyond Orcadian shores to
mythical places of origin. It is in this context that the
presence at Barnhouse of externally derived materials
such as Arran pitchstone and ‘megalithic’ motifs on
Grooved Ware (and see below) should be reconsidered.
Duration and discontinuity
At 25 years per generation, the inhabitation of Barn-
house represents a continuous tenure of place probably
over ten generations or so. Stone walls might have
needed little repair other than routine maintenance, but
presumably roofs demanded much more attention and
renewal. There need have been no pre-determined
future projection when buildings were first constructed.
The decision to repair in order to maintain the same
footprint, rather than to rebuild elsewhere, was a social
one. This can be seen being repeated on at least four
major occasions through the occupancy of House 5
(Downes & Richards 2005, 69–82): given the overall
span of this building, at intervals of roughly 50 years or
every two generations.
We should not take duration for granted. Persistence
takes effort and commitment. In the case of Barnhouse,
the commitment to a new foundation proved in the end
to be matched by a continuation over many generations.
That in turn can be contrasted with discontinuities
elsewhere, for example at Pool, Sanday (Hunter 2007,
27; MacSween et al. 2015), Rinyo, Rousay (Childe &
Grant 1939, 20–1; 1947, 36–9) or Skara Brae (Childe
1931, 61–95; D. Clarke 1976). The early Neolithic
settlements of Knowes of Ha’Breck, Wyre (Thomas &
Lee 2012), Green, Eday (Coles & Miles 2013), and
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY
Smerquoy, Mainland (Gee et al. 2016), also reveal
longer discontinuities as each possesses evidence for
later Neolithic re-occupation. Numerous discontinuities
– the foil to duration – are an under-estimated char-
acteristic of Orcadian Neolithic settlements. Even if we
are dealing with relatively small spatial shifts, the social
processes underlying the foundation, occupation, and
abandonment of a particular place require further
comment. We suggest that rather than a catalogue of
catastrophic events, the punctuated nature of Neolithic
settlement in Orkney is best understood as a con-
sequence of specific social strategies.
The character of habitation
There seems little doubt that the Barnhouse houses, with
the possible exceptions of House 2 and Structure 8,
were dwellings. Even these substantially larger buildings
have hearths, internal stone furniture, and an array of
finds and refuse, consistent with domestic use, though
they may have held pre-eminent roles within the settle-
ment. The layouts of the Early Neolithic stone-walled
houses mentioned above had themselves begun to shift,
as exemplified by the sequence on Stonehall Knoll, from
an earlier emphasis on heavily-defined stalled interior
space to a more open, slightly recessed internal archi-
tecture (Richards & Jones 2016). The architecture of the
Barnhouse buildings could be characterised as a con-
tinuation of this process (see Richards et al. 2016) with
the important incorporation and formalisation of cru-
ciform principles of spatial order that were not really
present in the older ‘stalled’ houses.
There are interesting distinctions in the construction
and condition of the two groupings of houses at
Barnhouse. The houses of the west–north arc (9, 2, 3,
& 5a) all share a common drainage system. They were
also built in a similar manner with well constructed
outer and inner walls, facing a mixed clay and midden
wall core. Apart from House 9, which was almost
certainly totally demolished when Structure 8 was
erected, in each case portions of the lower courses of
masonry remained intact. This contrasts with the
dwellings of the inner arc (Houses 7, 6, 10, 12a, &
13a), all of which on excavation were represented by
sub-circular spreads of yellow clay wall core material.
None had the masonry of outer- and inner facing-
walls. The inner group of dwellings seem therefore to
have been built differently, for instance with turf walls
with lower clay cores. The difference could be between
initial foundations and subsequent infilling (Fig. 14).
219
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
Alternatively, the masonry of the eastern group of
buildings could have been systematically robbed for
some reason.
The building of Structure 8 is of great consequence,
because of a range of characteristics including its large
scale, spatial shift in habitation and change in archi-
tecture. The architectural change involves bigger,
square-shaped structures with rounded corners, with
stone furniture projecting from the inner wall-face as
opposed to being recessed into the wall. It is also a
tradition that is continued elsewhere, for instance in
the final structural phases of Skara Brae. For Barn-
house, it perhaps marks the single change that could
be described as a monumental shift in the biography of
the site, even though other buildings (probably 1–6,
10, 11, 12b, & 13b: Fig. 14) continued in use after its
construction.
The significance of the Barnhouse Grooved
Ware pottery
The Grooved Ware assemblage from Barnhouse is
important for two reasons that extend far beyond the
site. First, the associated dates are indeed among the
earliest currently available for this ceramic tradition
anywhere in its extensive area of distribution, raising
the question of how and where the tradition came
about; and secondly, some of the Barnhouse designs
have been found on Grooved Ware elsewhere in Britain
and Ireland, as far away as southern England (where it
has been characterised as ‘Woodlands style’ Grooved
Ware: Wainwright & Longworth 1971), raising the
question of how and why the use of Grooved Ware
spread. These questions will be considered at greater
length in future synthesis of the results of the ToTL
dating programme for Orcadian Grooved Ware; here, a
few key observations are offered.
The results here have indicated that the Barnhouse
Grooved Ware assemblage dates to between 3160 and
3090 cal BC (86% probability; start Barnhouse; Fig. 6)
or 3080–3045 cal BC (9% probability) and 2890–2845
cal BC (95% probability; end Barnhouse; Fig. 6). This
means that there was a considerable period of overlap
with the use of the earliest Grooved Ware at Pool on
Sanday (Fig. 15). The ToTL programme has shown
that the initial phase of Grooved Ware use there,
characterised by the use of incised and impressed
decoration, with shell used as a filler, dates to between
3210–2935 cal BC (95% probability; start Phase
2.2–2.3; MacSween et al. 2015, fig. 9) and 2860–2830
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
Fig. 15.
Probability distributions of radiocarbon dates from Barnhouse (produced in Figs 6–8) and Pool (MacSween et al. 2015, fig. 6)
cal BC (2% probability; end Phase 2; MacSween et al.
2015, fig. 9) or 2815–2650 cal BC (93% probability).
The stratigraphically later (Phase 3) Grooved Ware at
Pool, with its heavy, applied decoration, post-dates the
latest Barnhouse Grooved Ware, dating to between
2680–2515 cal BC (95% probability; start Phase 3;
MacSween et al. 2015, fig. 9) and 2460–2280 cal BC
(95% probability; end Phase 3; MacSween et al. 2015,
fig. 9). There are other Grooved Ware assemblages,
both on Orkney and beyond, that seem to have been
in broadly contemporary use with the Barnhouse
pottery. These include the pottery from the Stones of
Stenness (Ritchie 1976): here, Bayesian modelling of
the dates indicates a commencement of activities
around 3020–2890 cal BC (95% probability; start;
Schulting et al. 2010, illus. 23) or 2940–2900 cal BC
(68% probability); from Quanterness passage tomb
(Schulting et al. 2010, 13–19 & illus. 10); almost
certainly from the Ness of Brodgar (the results of
whose dating will be presented in a future publica-
tion); Balfarg Riding School, Fife (Henshall 1993);
Balbirnie stone circle, Fife (Gibson 2010, tables 2–3;
Ritchie 1974), and Knowth passage tomb 6, Co.
Meath, Ireland (Schulting et al. 2010, 40).
While there are some strikingly close parallels
between some pots, motifs, and design schemes found
at Barnhouse and some of the pots from these other
sites – with the comparison between Vessel 16 from
the Stones of Stenness and the low, splayed-side bowl
from Barnhouse House 6 being a well known example
220
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
(Jones 2005, 266; see Schulting et al. 2010, illus. 20
for others) – nevertheless there are some differences
between the Barnhouse Grooved Ware and the earliest
Grooved Ware from Pool. In particular, the latter
lacks the false-relief decoration and the use of applied
cordons that characterise some of the Barnhouse
pottery, and vessel shapes also differ, with the slender,
narrow-based and bulbous-walled forms of Pool not
being represented at Barnhouse. Nevertheless, some
decorative motifs, such as the use of impressed dots or
jabs fringing or infilling incised designs (MacSween
2007, illus. 8.1.9), are indeed shared between the two
assemblages. This raises the question of whether the
kind of Grooved Ware seen at Barnhouse represents
an elaboration of practices visible at Pool (where new
elements of grooved decoration were incorporated
into the existing tradition of pottery making on the
site: MacSween et al. 2015), or whether there are
multiple origins within Orkney for the Grooved Ware
tradition, with the makers of the Pool pottery
adopting some decorative traits that had originated
elsewhere. It is increasingly evident that we are dealing
with a deliberately created, novel tradition, whose
invention was bound up with the strategies of social
differentiation and competitive conspicuous con-
sumption that have been outlined elsewhere (Richards
2013; Schulting et al. 2010; Sheridan 2014).
The fact that widespread and close comparanda for
elements of the Barnhouse assemblage can be found
beyond Orkney informs us about the extent and
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY
nature of the networks of contacts that must have
existed around the turn of the 3rd millennium cal BC.
Within Orkney, it has been argued that the similarity
between some pots from Barnhouse and from the
Stones of Stenness and Quanterness (Henshall 1979,
fig. 33, pot 2; Schulting et al. 2010, illus. 20) is not
merely stylistic, but is due to the pots in question
actually having been made at Barnhouse, as the lithic
inclusions suggest (Jones 2005, 280–1). This indicates
that the inhabitants of Barnhouse and the material
culture they produced participated in broader spheres
of social relations and networks of exchange. Monu-
ment building was also a component within such social
strategies which necessarily combined shifting identities
with status renegotiation (Richards 2013, 276–80).
The further-flung comparanda of Grooved Ware in
areas to the south of Orkney demonstrate networks
extending well beyond the archipelago. One of these
strands – namely the adoption of Grooved Ware and of
the use of timber and stone circles along a western arc
from Orkney to the Boyne Valley – has been docu-
mented elsewhere (Sheridan 2004), and this ties in with
the fact that Arran pitchstone was found at Barnhouse,
indicating some reciprocal movement (Jones &
Richards 2005, 45). Equally, the distribution of carved
stone balls and the radiocarbon dates for the building
of Balbirnie stone circle in Fife (Gibson 2010, tables
2–3) demonstrate eastern strands of interconnectivity.
This evidence for the long-distance movement of ideas,
objects, and practices (and indeed of a few people) may
well relate to the forging of new local identities (in these
areas to the south of Orkney) with reference to distant
communities, either real or imagined (Thomas 2010).
CONCLUSION
Spanning more than 200 years, the foundation, occu-
pation, and abandonment of Barnhouse highlight the
duration of a Late Neolithic settlement. However, this
settlement was not erected over the abandoned remains
of earlier occupation. Neither would it become the site
of later 3rd millennium cal BC re-occupation. Living at
Barnhouse involved sequential or organic building
episodes embracing several generations. Barnhouse also
displayed a high degree of internal organisation where
proximity and the physical appearances of dwellings
were clearly strategic in constructing social identities.
Perhaps of greatest import is that at Barnhouse we see
the initiation of ‘big houses’ (House 2) and their
monumental development (Structure 8). This can be
221
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
recognised as a generative strategy that would lead to
the building of the Stones of Stenness and ultimately the
great Ring of Brodgar. Just where the monumental
structures of the Ness of Brodgar fit into this narrative
of settlement foundations, continuities and dis-
continuities, and monumentality, remains to be seen.
And finally, the results presented here provide not just
formal date estimates for the development of Grooved
Ware pottery, but a more nuanced sense of the social
contexts to which it belonged.
Endnotes
1
Note that UBA-22463 and UBA-22543 were pre-treated
using a slight variant of the protocol published in Reimer et al.
(2015), in which the samples stood in acetic acid for 24 hours.
2
Unlike in House 5, in House 7 we have sampled the earliest
activity and so it appears probable that this house was
added to the original layout of the settlement a few decades
after its foundation. House 13a, undated but linked to
House 7 through the line of drains, may have also been
added at this time.
Acknowledgments: Grateful thanks go to Sheila Garson
and Janette Parks of Tankerness House Museum, Kirkwall,
for all their help and patience with the sampling process;
Peter Marshall and Alison Turner-Rugg for help with sam-
pling; and Kirsty Harding for invaluable help with the fig-
ures. Dating and modelling have been supported by a
European Research Council Advanced Investigator Grant
(295412), The Times of Their Lives (www.totl.eu), led by
Alasdair Whittle and Alex Bayliss. Further dating and
modelling of Grooved Ware sites in Orkney are being car-
ried out within the ToTL project, at the Links of Notland,
Ness of Brodgar, and Skara Brae.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ashmore, P. 1998. Radiocarbon dates for settlements, tombs
and ceremonial sites with Grooved Ware in Scotland. In
A. Gibson & D. Simpson (eds), Prehistoric Ritual and
Religion, 139–47. Stroud: Sutton
Ashmore, P. 2005. Dating Barnhouse. In Richards (ed.)
2005a, 385–8
Bayliss, A. 2009. Rolling out revolution: using radiocarbon
dating in archaeology. Radiocarbon 51, 123–47
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis
of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 36,
425–30
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009a. Bayesian analysis of
radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51, 37–60
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009b. Dealing with outliers and offsets
in radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 51, 1023–45
Bronk, C.R. & Hedges, R.E.M. 1990. A gaseous ion source
for routine AMS radiocarbon dating. Nuclear Instruments
& Methods in Physics Research B 52, 322–6
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
Buck, C.E., Cavanagh, W.G. & Litton, C.D. 1996.
Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data.
Chichester: Wiley
Buck, C.E., Kenworthy, J.B., Litton, C.D. & Smith, A.F.M.
1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon
information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity
65, 808–21
Cartwright, C.R. 2005. The wood charcoal assemblage.
In Richards (ed.) 2005a, 359–65
Childe, V.G. 1931. Skara Brae: a Pictish village in Orkney.
London: Kegan Paul
Childe, V.G. & Grant, W.G. 1939. A Stone Age settlement
at the Braes of Rinyo, Rousay, Orkney. Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 73, 6–31
Clarke, A. 2005. The stone tool assemblage, In Richards
(ed.) 2005a, 323–34
Clarke, D.V. 1976. The Neolithic Village at Skara Brae,
Orkney: 1972–73 excavations. Edinburgh: Department of
the Environment & Her Majesty’s Stationery Office
Coles, D. & Miles, M. 2013. The Neolithic settlement at
Green Farm. Orkney Archaeological Society Newsletter 9,
3–8
Downes, J. & Richards, C. 2005. The dwellings at
Barnhouse. In Richards (ed.) 2005a, 57–12
Downes, J., Richards, C., Brown, J., Cresswell, A.J.,
Ellen, R., Davies, A.D., Hall, A., McCulloch, R.,
Sanderson, D.C.W. & Simpson, I.A. 2013. Investigating
the great Ring of Brodgar, Orkney, In Richards (ed.)
2013, 90–118
Freeman, S.P.H.T, Cook, G.T., Dougans, A.B., Naysmith, P.,
Wilcken, K.M. & Xu, S. 2010. Improved SSAMS
performance. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics
Research B 268, 715–17
Gee, C., Richards, C. & Robertson, M. 2016. Local histories
of passage grave building communities: Brae of Smerquoy.
In Richards & Jones (eds) 2016, 61–90
Gibson, A. 2010. Dating Balbirnie: recent radiocarbon dates
from the stone circle and cairn at Balbirnie, Fife, and a
review of its place in the overall Balfarg/Balbirnie site
sequence. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland 140, 51–77
Gillespie, R., Hedges, R.E.M. & White, N.R. 1983. The
Oxford radiocarbon accelerator facility. Radiocarbon 25,
729–37
Griffiths, S. 2016. Beside the ocean of time: a chronology of
Neolithic burial monuments and houses in Orkney. In
Richards & Jones (eds) 2016, 254–302
Hedges, R.E.M. 1981. Radiocarbon dating with an
accelerator: review and preview. Archaeometry 23, 1–18
Henshall, A.S. 1979. Artefacts from the Quanterness cairn.
In C. Renfrew, Investigations in Orkney, 75–93. London:
Thames & Hudson
Henshall, A.S. 1993. The Grooved Ware: vessels P41–P82. In
G.J. Barclay & C.J. Russell-White, Excavations in the
ceremonial complex of the fourth to second millennium BC
at Balfarg/Balbirnie, Glenrothes, Fife, 94–108. Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 123, 43–210
Hill, J. & Richards, C. 2005. Structure 8: monumentality at
Barnhouse. In Richards (ed.) 2005a, 157–88
222
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
Hunter, J., with Bond, J.M. & Smith, A.N. 2007.
Investigations in Sanday, Orkney. Vol 1: excavations at
Pool, Sanday. A multi-period settlement from Neolithic to
Late Norse times. Kirkwall: Orcadian in association with
Historic Scotland
Hurcombe, L.M. 2014. Perishable Material Culture in
Prehistory. Oxford: Routledge
Jones, A. 2000. Life after death: monuments, material culture
and social change in Neolithic Orkney. In A. Ritchie (ed.),
Neolithic Orkney in its European Context, 127–38.
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research
Jones, A. 2002. Archaeological Theory and Scientific
Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Jones, A. 2005. The Grooved Ware from Barnhouse. In
Richards (ed.) 2005a, 261–82
Jones, A. & Richards, C. 2005. Living in Barnhouse. In
Richards (ed.) 2005a, 23–52
Jones, A., Cole, W.J. & Jones, R.E. 2005. Organic residue
analysis of Grooved Ware from Barnhouse. In Richards
(ed.) 2005a, 283–91
Lanting, J.N., Aerts-Bijma, A.T. & Plicht, J. van der 2001.
Dating of cremated bones. Radiocarbon 43, 249–54
MacSween, A. 2007. The pottery. In J. Hunter et al. (eds)
2007, 287–353
MacSween, A., Hunter, J., Sheridan, A., Bond, J., Bronk
Ramsey, C., Reimer, P., Bayliss, A., Griffiths, S. &
Whittle, A. 2015. Refining the chronology of the Neolithic
settlement at Pool, Sanday, Orkney. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 81, 283–310
Mook, W.G. & Waterbolk, H.T. 1985. Radiocarbon
Dating. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation
Olsen, J., Heinemeier, J., Hornstrup, K., Bennike, P. &
Thrane, H. 2013. ‘Old wood’ effect in radiocarbon dating
of prehistoric cremated bones? Journal of Archaeological
Science 40, 30–4
Reimer, P.J., Hoper, S., McDonald, J., Reimer, R.,
Svyatko, S. & Thompson, M. 2015. The Queen’s
University, Belfast: Laboratory protocols used for AMS
radiocarbon dating at the 14CHRONO Centre. Swindon:
English Heritage
Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.,
Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L.,
Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P.,
Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T.J.,
Hoffmann, D.L., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F.,
Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W.,
Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A.,
Turney, C.S.M. & Plicht, J. van der 2013. IntCal13 and
Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000
years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55, 1869–87
Richards, C. (ed.) 2005a. Dwelling Among the Monuments:
the Neolithic village of Barnhouse, Maes Howe passage
grave and surrounding monuments at Stenness. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
Richards, C. 2005b. The ceremonial House 2. In Richards
(ed.) 2005a, 129–56
Richards, C. (ed.) 2013. Building the Great Stone Circles of
the North. Oxford: Windgather Press
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY

Richards, C. & Jones, R.E. (eds) 2016. The Development of
Neolithic House Societies in Orkney. Oxford: Windgather
Press
Richards, C., Downes, J., Gee, C. & Carter, S. 2016.
Materializing Neolithic house societies in Orkney:
introducing Varme Dale and Muckquoy. In Richards &
Jones (eds) 2016, 224–53
Ritchie, J.N.G. 1974. Excavation of the stone circle and
cairn at Balbirnie, Fife. Archaeological Journal 131, 1–32
Ritchie, J.N.G. 1976. The Stones of Stenness, Orkney.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 107,
1–60
Schulting, R., Sheridan, J.A., Crozier, R. & Murphy, E.
2010. Revisiting Quanterness: new AMS dates and stable
isotope data from an Orcadian chamber tomb.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland
140, 1–50
Sharples, N. 1992. Aspects of regionalisation in the Scottish
Neolithic. In N. Sharples & J.A. Sheridan (eds), Vessels for
the Ancestors: essays on the Neolithic of Britain and
Ireland in honour of Audrey Henshall, 322–31.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Sheridan, J.A. 2004. Going round in circles? Understanding
the Irish Grooved Ware ‘complex’ in its wider context. In
H. Roche, E. Grogan, J. Bradley, J. Coles & B. Raftery
(eds), From Megaliths to Metal: essays in honour of
George Eogan, 26–37. Oxford: Oxbow Books
Sheridan, J.A. 2014. Little and large: the miniature ‘carved
stone ball’ beads from the eastern tomb at Knowth,
Ireland, and their broader significance. In R.-M. Arbogast
& A. Greffier-Richard (eds), Entre archéologie et écologie,
une préhistoire de tous les milieux. Mélanges offerts à
Pierre Pétrequin, 303–14. Besançon: Presses universitaires
de Franche-Comté
Slota, P.J. Jr, Jull, A.J.T., Linick, T.W. & Toolin, L.J. 1987.
Preparation of small samples for 14C accelerator targets by
catalytic reduction of CO. Radiocarbon 29, 303–6
Snoeck, C., Brock, F. & Schulting, R.J. 2014. Carbon
exchanges between bone apatite and fuels during
cremation: impact on radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon
56, 591–602
Stapleton, C.P. & Bowman, S.G.E. 2005. An examination of
the cramp from Barnhouse and Mouseland, Mainland,
Orkney. In Richards (ed.) 2005a, 381–4
Stuiver, M. & Polach, H.A. 1977. Reporting of 14C data.
Radiocarbon 19, 355–63
Thomas, A. & Lee, D. 2012. Orkney’s first farmers: early
Neolithic settlement on Wyre. Current Archaeology 268,
12–19
Thomas, J. 2010. The return of the Rinyo-Clacton folk? The
cultural significance of the Grooved Ware complex in Later
Neolithic Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20,
1–16
Towers, R., Card, N. & Edmonds, M. 2015. The Ness of
Brodgar. Kirkwall: Ness of Brodgar Trust
Vandeputte, K., Moens, L. & Dams, R. 1996. Improved
sealed-tube combustion of organic samples to CO2 for
stable isotope analysis, radiocarbon dating and percent
carbon determinations. Analytical Letters 29, 2761–73
Vogel, J.S., Southon, J.R., Nelson, D.E. & Brown, T.A. 1984.
Performance of catalytically condensed carbon for use in
Accelerator Mass Spectrometry. Nuclear Instruments and
Methods in Physics Research B 233, 289–93
Wainwright, G.J. & with Longworth, I.H. 1971. Durrington
Walls: excavations 1966–1968. London: Society of
Antiquaries
Ward, G.K. & Wilson, S.R. 1978. Procedures for comparing
and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a
critique. Archaeometry 20, 19–31

RÉSUMÉ
Durée d’occupation et matérialité: Modèles chronologiques formels pour le développement de Barnhouse,
occupation de la Céramique Cannelée à Orkney, de Colin Richards, Andrew Meirion Jones, Ann MacSween,
Alison Sheridan, Elaine Dunbar, Paula Reimer, Alex Bayliss, Seren Griffiths, & Alasdair Whittle
Une datation au C14, avec modélisation chronologique bayésienne, entreprise dans le cadre d’une étude du
projet ‘Le meilleur temps de leur vie’ sur le développement d’une occupation et de poterie du néolithique final à
Orkney, a fourni une nouvelle datation précise pour l’occupation de la Céramique Cannelée de Barnhouse,
fouillée en 1985–91. Nous présentons les entendements antérieurs du site et de sa poterie. Un modèle Bayésien
reposant sur 70 mesures sur 62 échantillons (dont 50 sont jugés dater avec précision les dépôts d’où ils ont été
recouvrés) donne à penser que l’occupation commença probablement dans la dernière partie du XXXIIe siècle
av.J.-C.cal (avec les Maisons 2, 9, 3 et peut-être 5a) peut-être comme fondations planifiées. La Structure 8;
grande structure monumentale qui se distinguait des maisons par son caractère, fut probablement construite
juste après le passage au nouveau millénaire. Diverses durées et remplacements de maisons sont évalués. La
Maison 2 cessa d’être utilisée avant la fin de l’occupation et la Structure 8 fut probablement le dernier élément à
être abandonné, probablement pendant la première partie du XXIXe siècle av.J.-C. La poterie de la Céramique
Cannellée du site se caractérise par des récipients de petite, moyenne et grande taille avec des décorations incisées
et imprimées, y compris un motif de cordon particulier, une ligne ondulée en faux- relief. Un considérable degré
de consistance est apparent dans de nombreux aspects de la conception et de la fabrication de la poterie sur la

223

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

durée d’utilisation/ de vie de l’occupation, le principal changement étant l’apparition, à partir d’environ 3025–
2975 av. J.-C. cal. de grands récipients en poterie grossière avec des surfaces inégales et d’épais cordons
appliqués, et de l’usage d’application de pastilles en creux circulaires. Les circonstances des nouvelles fondations
d’occupation dans la partie ouest de l’île principale sont discutées, ainsi que l’entretien et le caractère du site. La
poterie du site se situe parmi les plus anciennes Céramiques Cannelées datées à ce jour. Nous notons ses relations
plus étendues, ainsi que les importantes implications pour notre compréhension de la datation et des
circonstances de l’émergence de la Céramique Cannelée, et le rôle de la culture matérielle dans les
stratégies sociales.

ZUSSAMENFASSUNG
Siedlungsdauer und Materialität: Formale chronologische Modelle für die Entwicklung der Grooved Ware
Siedlung von Barnhouse, Orkney, von Colin Richards, Andrew Meirion Jones, Ann MacSween, Alison
Sheridan, Elaine Dunbar, Paula Reimer, Alex Bayliss, Seren Griffiths und Alasdair Whittle
Radiokarbondatierungen und Bayesische Chronologiemodellierung, die als Teil der Untersuchungen des Times
of their Lives Projekts durchgeführt wurden um die Entwicklung der spätneolithischen Siedlungsweise und
Keramik von Orkney zu erfassen, erbrachte präzise neue Datierungen für die Siedlung der Grooved Ware von
Barnhouse, die 1985–91 ausgegraben worden ist. Die bisherigen Vorstellungen zum Siedlungsplatz und seiner
Keramik werden vorgestellt. Ein Bayesisches Modell, das auf 70 Messungen von 62 Proben basiert (von denen
50 Proben als exakt die Schichten datierend erachtet werden, aus denen sie geborgen wurden), lässt den Schluss
zu, dass die Siedlung wahrscheinlich im späten 32. Jahrhundert cal. BC begann (mit den Häusern 2, 9, 3 und
vielleicht 5a), möglicherweise als eine geplante Gründung. Struktur 8 – eine große, monumentale Struktur, deren
Charakter sich von jenem der Häuser unterscheidet – wurde wahrscheinlich direkt nach der Jahrtausendwende
erbaut. Unterschiedliche Laufzeiten und Verlagerungen von Häusern können veranschlagt werden. Haus 2
wurde noch vor dem Ende der Siedlung nicht mehr genutzt und Struktur 8 war wahrscheinlich das letzte
Element, das aufgegeben wurde, wahrscheinlich während des frühen 29. Jahrhunderts cal. BC. Die Grooved
Ware Keramik des Fundplatzes wird charakterisiert durch kleine, mittelgroße und große Gefäße mit geritzter
und eingetiefter Verzierung, darunter auch ein auffälliges Motiv einer Wellenlinienwulst in falschem Relief. Ein
bemerkenswerter Grad an Beständigkeit ist erkennbar in vielen Aspekten der Gestaltung und Herstellung der
Keramik während der Nutzungsdauer der Siedlung, wobei der wichtigste Wandel zwischen ca. 3025 und 2975
cal. BC eintritt mit der Einführung von großen Grobgefäßen mit unebenen Oberflächen und dicken aufgelegten
Wulsten und mit dem Anbringen von eingedrückten rundlichen Warzen. Die Umstände der Neugründung einer
Siedlung im westlichen Teil von Mainland werden diskutiert und ebenso die Aufrechterhaltung und der
Charakter des Fundplatzes. Die Keramik dieses Fundplatzes gehört zu der ältesten bislang datierten Grooved
Ware. Ihre weiteren Beziehungen werden benannt wie auch die signifikante Bedeutung für unsere Vorstellungen
vom zeitlichen Ablauf und der Umstände der Entstehung der Grooved Ware sowie von der Rolle von materieller
Kultur in sozialen Strategien.

RESUMEN
Duración del asentamiento y materialidad: modelos cronológicos formales para el desarrollo de Barnhouse, un
asentamiento de la Grooved Ware en Las Orcadas, por Colin Richards, Andrew Meirion Jones, Ann
MacSween, Alison Sheridan, Elaine Dunbar, Paula Reimer, Alex Bayliss, Seren Griffiths, y Alasdair Whittle.
Las dataciones radiocarbónicas y las modelizaciones bayesianas, llevadas a cabo en el ámbito del proyecto
Times of Their Lives centrado en el desarrollo de los asentamientos durante el Neolítico Final y la cerámica de
Las Orcadas, han aportado una datación precisa para el asentamiento Grooved Ware de Barnhouse, excavado
en los años 1985–91. Se presentan las interpretaciones previas sobre el sitio y su cerámica. El modelo bayesiano
realizado con 70 dataciones realizadas a partir de 62 muestras ( de las cuales 50 muestras datan de forma precisa
el contexto de procedencia) sugiere que el asentamiento probablemente comenzó a finales del siglo XXXII cal BC

224

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6
 C. Richards et al. CHRONOLOGICAL MODELS, BARNHOUSE GROOVED WARE SETTLEMENT, ORKNEY

(con las casas 2, 9, 3 y quizá la 5a), posiblemente siguiendo una fundación planificada. La estructura 8 - una
estructura monumental que difiere claramente de las casas- fue probablemente construida justo después del
cambio de milenio. Se estiman la duración de ocupación de las casas y su reemplazo. La casa 2 se abandonó
antes del final del asentamiento, y la estructura 8 fue probablemente el último elemento en ser abandonado,
posiblemente a inicios del siglo XXIX cal BC. La cerámica Grooved Ware está caracterizada por un tamaño
pequeño, medio y grande con decoración incisa e impresa, incluyendo como distintivo el bajorrelieve y los
cordones ondulantes. Un considerable grado de consistencia es aparente en muchos aspectos del diseño cerámico
y de su manufactura a lo largo de la vida del asentamiento, siendo la principal modificación la aparición, ca.
3025–2975 cal BC, de grandes vasijas de manufactura grosera con superficies irregulares, gruesos cordones
aplicados y el uso de botones circulares rehundidos. Se discuten las circunstancias sobre la fundación de un
nuevo asentamiento al oeste en tierra firme al igual que el mantenimiento y carácter del sitio. La cerámica
documentada se podría considerar entre los primeros ejemplos de Grooved Ware. Se señalan sus amplias
conexiones, al igual que las significativas implicaciones que tienen para nuestra comprensión del momento de
aparición de la cerámica Grooved Ware y sus particularidades, así como el papel de la cultura material en las
estrategias sociales.

225

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Newcastle University, on 13 Jan 2017 at 18:56:42, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.6