To Cut a Long Story Short: Formal Chronological Modelling for the Late Neolithic Site of Ness of Brodgar, Orkney

To Cut a Long Story Short: Formal Chronological Modelling for the Late Neolithic Site of Ness of Brodgar, Orkney Item Type Article Authors Card, N.; Mainland, Ingrid L.; Timpany, S.; Towers, R.; Batt, Catherine M.; Bronk Ramsey, C.; Dunbar, E.; Reimer, P.; Bayliss, A.; Marshall, P.; Whittle, A. Citation Card N, Mainland I, Timpany S et al (2018) To cut a long story short: Formal chronological modelling for the late neolithic site of Ness of Brodgar, Orkney. European Journal of Archaeology. 21(2): 217-263. Download date 25/04/2020 10:02:36 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10454/11420 To Cut a Long Story Short: Formal Chronological Modelling for the Late Neolithic Site of Ness of Brodgar, Orkney Item Type Article Authors Card, N.; Mainland, Ingrid L.; Timpany, S.; Towers, R.; Batt, Catherine M.; Bronk Ramsey, C.; Dunbar, E.; Reimer, P.; Bayliss, A.; Marshall, P.; Whittle, A. Citation Card N, Mainland I, Timpany S et al (2018) To cut a long story short: Formal chronological modelling for the late neolithic site of Ness of Brodgar, Orkney. European Journal of Archaeology. 21(2): 217-263. Download date 29/03/2019 11:50:17 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10454/11420 S1461957116000292jra pp: 1–47 Techset Composition Ltd, Salisbury, U.K. European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016, 1–47 1 2 To Cut a Long Story Short: Formal Chronological Modelling for the Late Neolithic Site of Ness of Brodgar, Orkney 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Q1 NICK CARD1, INGRID MAINLAND1, SCOTT TIMPANY1, ROY TOWERS1, CATHY BATT2, CHRISTOPHER BRONK RAMSEY3, ELAINE DUNBAR4, PAULA REIMER5, ALEX BAYLISS6, PETER MARSHALL6 AND ALASDAIR WHITTLE7 1 The University of the Highlands and Islands, Kirkwall, Orkney, UK University of Bradford, Bradford, UK 3 Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Oxford, UK 4 SUERC Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, East Kilbride, UK 514 CHRONO Centre, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK 6 Historic England, London, UK 7 Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 In the context of unanswered questions about the nature and development of the Late Neolithic in Orkney, we present a summary of research up to 2015 on the major site at the Ness of Brodgar, Mainland Orkney, concentrating on the impressive buildings. Finding sufficient samples for radiocarbon dating was a considerable challenge. There are indications from both features and finds of activity predating the main set of buildings exposed so far by excavation. Forty-six dates on 39 samples are presented and are interpreted in a formal chronological framework. Two models are presented, reflecting different possible readings of the sequence. Both indicate that piered architecture was in use by the thirtieth century cal BC and that the massive Structure 10, not the first building in the sequence, was also in existence by the thirtieth century cal BC. Activity associated with piered architecture came to an end (in Model 2) around 2800 cal BC. Midden and rubble infill followed. After an appreciable interval, the hearth at the centre of Structure 10 was last used around 2500 cal BC, perhaps the only activity in an otherwise abandoned site. The remains of some 400 or more cattle were deposited over the ruins of Structure 10: in Model 2, in the mid-twenty-fifth century cal BC, but in Model 1 in the late twentyfourth or twenty-third century cal BC. The chronologies invite comparison with the near-neighbour of Barnhouse, in use from the later thirty-second to the earlier twenty-ninth century cal BC, and the Stones of Stenness, probably erected by the thirtieth century cal BC. The Ness, including Structure 10, appears to have outlasted Barnhouse, but probably did not endure as long in its primary form as previously envisaged. The decay and decommissioning of the Ness may have coincided with the further development of the sacred landscape around it; but precise chronologies for other sites in the surrounding landscape are urgently required. The spectacular feasting remains of several hundred cattle deposited above Structure 10 may belong to a radically changing world, coinciding (in Model 2) with the appearance of Beakers nationally, but it was arguably the by now mythic status of that building which drew people back to it. Keywords: Orkney, Late Neolithic, Grooved Ware, Ness of Brodgar, radiocarbon dating, chronological modelling 44 45 46 47 © European Association of Archaeologists 2016 Manuscript received 31 May 2016, accepted 5 November 2016, revised 29 August 2016 doi:10.1017/eaa.2016.29 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 2 48 49 QUESTIONS LATE NEOLITHIC ORKNEY FOR 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 A series of striking changes in practice from the late fourth to the mid-third millennium cal BC characterise what can be defined as the Late Neolithic in Orkney. Although continuing survey and excavation are revealing more settlements from earlier stages of the Neolithic and thereby documenting a long-established insular tradition of constructing houses in timber and later in stone (Richards & Jones, 2016), it appears that Late Neolithic settlements became more numerous, and, in some instances, much larger than their predecessors. Their greater archaeological visibility was the outcome of a shift in the regularity with which substantial, wellmade, stone-walled houses were built, often in concentrated or nucleated layouts. There were some monumental structures, such as the Maeshowe passage tomb, and much skill in building with stone was displayed. This has been claimed as a time when the house, as social fact and pervasive metaphor, dominated the social strategy (Richards, 2013; Richards & Jones, 2016). The idea of chambered cairns persisted into the Late Neolithic, but now, in contrast to earlier styles of simplechambered and stalled cairns, these probably principally took the form of the passage grave, of ‘Maeshowe’ type (Henshall, 1972), seen in the construction of monuments such as Quanterness, Quoyness, and Maeshowe itself (Renfrew, 1979; Davidson & Henshall, 1989; Schulting et al., 2010; Griffiths & Richards, 2013; MacSween et al., 2015; Griffiths, 2016). Their elaborate architecture, with marked separation of the interior from the exterior, controlled access via passages, and gradation among internal chambers, may have derived from or been part of active connections with the zenith of the passage tomb tradition in eastern Ireland (Sheridan, 2004; Schulting et al., 2010; Hensey, 2015). The stone circle was another innovation, as manifest in the Stones of Stenness, probably constructed by the thirtieth century cal BC (Ritchie, 1976; Griffiths & Richards, 2013), and even more spectacularly by the Ring of Brodgar, possibly (but far from certainly) erected in the middle part of the third millennium cal BC (Downes et al., 2013). Whether this was an invention of people living in Orkney (Sheridan, 2004; 2012) or the outcome of wider social connections (Griffiths & Richards, 2013: 286) remains open to debate. That such links to further afield existed and probably intensified in the Late Neolithic is seen in the range of other places from which materials or practices present in Orkney originated, including pitchstone from Arran, flint from mainland Scotland and possibly beyond, tuff from the central Fells of Cumbria (Mark Edmonds, pers. comm.), and decorative motifs present in passage graves in eastern Ireland (Sheridan, 2004; Card & Thomas, 2012). Stone maceheads and balls add to the picture of material elaboration (Simpson & Ransom, 1992; Sheridan, 2014). Finally, the novel style of Grooved Ware, replacing an earlier ceramic tradition featuring the use of Unstan bowls and associated decorated and plain roundbased pottery, appeared in Orkney, from at least the later thirty-second century cal BC at Barnhouse (Richards et al., 2016). Flat-based, bucket-like forms in a wide range of sizes, with varying incised and applied decoration, characterise the new ceramic assemblages. Some of those in Orkney have close similarities to others much further away in other parts of Britain (Wainwright & Longworth, 1971; MacSween et al., 2015; Richards et al., 2016). Whether the new style originated exclusively in Orkney, where the largest Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 assemblages have been found so far, or in more widely dispersed social networks has again been the subject of debate (Sheridan, 2004; Thomas, 2010; Richards, 2013; Sheridan et al., in prep.). There is no doubt, however, that Late Neolithic Orkney was a place where the combination of changes was extensive, and the pace of change probably intense, even though we cannot claim that all the innovations listed here occurred at the same time. That uncertainty defines the first of a whole series of unanswered questions. How quickly did change happen, and what was the timing and tempo of subsequent development? What kind of communities and worldviews are we dealing with? What role did the outside world play in the initiation and maintenance of Late Neolithic Orkney society and material practice? What were the circumstances in which the Late Neolithic ended in Orkney, and when? 118 119 120 121 NESS OF BRODGAR: THE STORY SO FAR, 2003–2015 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 The Ness of Brodgar (Figure 1) sits on the south-eastern tip of the Brodgar isthmus that separates the Loch of Harray to the east from the Loch of Stenness to the west, at the centre of the large natural bowl of hills of the West Mainland of Orkney. From it the Ring of Brodgar (0.75 km to the north-west), the Stones of Stenness (0.5 km to the south-east), and Maeshowe (1.5 km to the east) are clearly visible. On the south side of the Bridge of Brodgar, barely 300 m distant, lies the Neolithic settlement of Barnhouse (Richards, 2005). The site is located in the middle of the ‘Heart of Neolithic Orkney’ World Heritage Site (Historic Scotland, 1998). That designation was awarded in 1999, before the discovery of the Ness. In 2002 3 the area was geophysically surveyed as the pilot study for the Heart of Neolithic Orkney Geophysics Programme (GSB 2002; Card et al., forthcoming), the results unexpectedly revealing a mass of anomalies covering the peninsula. Their nature and character started to be realised the following year when investigations of a large notched slab discovered during ploughing revealed architecture similar in form to House 2 at nearby Barnhouse (Ballin Smith, 2003). Between 2004 and 2008 trial trenching to investigate the nature of a massive mound (c. 250 × 100 m, lying NW–SE, and over 4 m high) and the threat to it from agricultural practices gave indications that this mound, which had previously been thought to be a natural feature of the landscape, was mainly artificial and consisted of a sequence of Neolithic buildings, middens and midden-enhanced soils.1 Since 2008, area excavation (though still less than 10 per cent of the site) has been carried out (Figure 2). This has revealed a complex sequence of monumental buildings contained within a massive walled enclosure. In its latter phases the site is dominated by several large buildings which, judging by their scale and architectural refinement including piered buildings (internally divided by pairs of opposed stone piers), would appear to be outside the norm for the domestic sphere. This is also reflected in the artefactual assemblage, including 700 examples of decorated stone (Card & Thomas, 2012). Due to the depth and complexity of the stratigraphy, and the exceptional preservation of the architecture, only the later phases of the site have been investigated in detail to date. Although in several cases construction levels have yet to be reached 1 We use midden as a general term, aware of the complexities of its diverse character and formation (Shepherd, 2016). 4 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 Fig. 1 - B/W online, B/W in print 163 Figure 1. Location map of the Ness of Brodgar. 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 and cross-site stratigraphic relationships fully determined, a preliminary phasing is possible. Selective sondages between buildings have revealed definitive relationships between several buildings, while other more obvious relationships are discernible where a clear sequence of construction is visible (Figure 3). The earliest physical evidence of activity is a few sherds of Modified Carinated Bowl, discovered in 2014 in a sondage on the natural boulder clay under a robbedout wall of Structure 14. Structural remains associated with this pot have yet to be found. Other activity pre-dating the construction of the large piered buildings is represented by several lengths of walling revealed between, under, and in some cases incorporated into, the buildings Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 5 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 Fig. 2 - B/W online, B/W in print 199 211 212 Figure 2. Overall plan showing location of trenches at the Ness of Brodgar. 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 currently under investigation. Other earlier buildings are also implied by the subsidence, collapse, and undulating nature of wall lines of later buildings. These earlier buildings, where revealed, utilise orthostats partly built into wall lines to define internal space similar to stalled tombs and Early Neolithic houses. It is presumed that the surrounding walled enclosure was first constructed during these earlier phases. In the later phases, orthostats are replaced by opposed stone-built piers to create recesses along internal wall faces as in Structures 1, 8, 12, 14, and 21, each of which saw several phases of reuse and remodelling. These buildings (which are the present focus of excavation) can be considered exaggerated or elongated versions of Neolithic houses of the kind seen, for instance, in the early phase of Skara Brae (Clarke, 1976). A paved area with a standing stone is central to the whole of the walled enclosure at this stage. The last major construction so far identified, Structure 10 (Figure 4), differs in style and scale from earlier building styles. It partly overlies the collapsed remains of the piered Structure 8. Its internal square chamber with rounded corners bears close comparison with Structure 8 at Barnhouse (Richards, 2005), as does its scale (some 20 × 19 m externally), which mirrors a general trend towards monumentality in the Late Neolithic of Orkney. Like the piered structures at the Ness which mirror other house plans but on an exaggerated scale, Structure 10 reflects later house styles, such as House 1 at Skara Brae (Clarke, 1976). Although the foundations of Structure 10 show the overall monumentality of its build, it suffered from 6 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 Fig. 3 - B/W online, B/W in print 246 258 259 Figure 3. Plan showing Trench P structures. 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 subsidence like most other late structures at the Ness. That may have been the cause of the collapse of its south-western corner. It was rebuilt with extensive remodelling of the interior into a cruciform plan with the addition of new wall faces and corner buttressing. At the end of these monumental phases, the buildings at the Ness were partly demolished and infilled with layers of midden and rubble. The placing of a structured bone deposit, mainly comprising of over 400+ cattle, (based on MNI of 87 so far recovered from c. 20 per cent of the excavated deposit) around Structure 10 has been interpreted as forming part of this decommissioning process (Mainland et al., 2014). It has been suggested that it was ‘a single depositional event’ or ‘at the least a series of events occurring over a fairly short period of time’ (Mainland et al., 2014: 875). This vast amount of meat is suggestive of a communal event involving feasting, and the gathering together of large numbers of people as has also been suggested for Durrington Walls and other Grooved Ware sites in the UK (Parker Pearson, 2003). Later, some of the walls of the structures were systematically robbed of stone. Ephemeral activity continued, but on a greatly reduced scale. Outside the walled enclosure, at the very tip of the peninsula, a large partially quarried mound previously considered to be a broch has been shown to be an integral part of the development of the Ness. The preliminary geophysical survey of this mound revealed concentric anomalies encircling the mound interpreted as revetments, as present at various Maeshowetype tombs. Initial investigations in 2013 showed that these were indeed revetments, but related to a remodelling of the mound, probably in the Iron Age, as a revetted, Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 7 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 Fig. 4 - Colour online, B/W in print 291 304 305 Figure 4. Aerial view of Structure 10 (photograph: Hugo Anderson-Whymark). 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 rubble-filled ditch around its summit produced pottery of that date. The mound consists mostly of a monumental Neolithic midden heap over 70 m in diameter and over 4 m high. In 2015, near the bottom edge of the mound, and predating the deposition of the midden, structural remains that may represent a robbed-out chambered cairn were encountered. The structural elements revealed so far have parallels with the tomb of Bookan, 2 km to the north-west (Card, 2006). Apart from Grooved Ware found in both the main trenches there is no direct stratigraphic relationship between the two areas. It is presumed, however, that the midden used in the creation of this monumental mound was a result of activity associated with the structures revealed elsewhere at the Ness. A large assemblage of Grooved Ware in Trench P, dominated by sherds from overlying midden deposits, was characterised by applied cordons, both plain and incised (Towers & Card, 2015). By contrast, Grooved Ware pottery from Trench J is mainly shell-tempered and comes from fairly large and thin-walled vessels with flat bases and flat, simple rounded and interior bevelled rims, principally with incised decoration (MacSween, 2008). The assemblage as a whole will be assessed in a subsequent synthesis (Sheridan et al., in prep.) within the project The Times of Their Lives (ToTL hereafter; see Acknowledgments), from which the current article derives. The exceptional architecture, the diversity of structures (Figure 5), and the evident size and spatial complexity of the Ness of Brodgar all emphasise its special character. Even the newly-discovered external midden mound may refer to themes of conspicuous consumption, European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 8 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 Fig. 5 - Colour online, B/W in print 347 Figure 5. The structures in Trench P as seen in the 2015 season (photograph: Hugo AndersonWhymark). For orientation, see Figure 3. 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 status, and affluence. The discovery and current investigation of the site add to the list of research questions noted at the start of this article. Could the Ness of Brodgar have acted as a focus for communities not only locally but across the Orkney archipelago and possibly beyond? If so, who pulled the strings and made decisions? How was the site articulated into its local setting, in relation to other known sites such as Barnhouse, or monuments such as Maeshowe, the Stones of Stenness, and the Ring of Brodgar? How quickly did the site come into being, how long did it last, and did it retain the same character over the course of its life? That puts basic questions of chronology centre-stage. AIMS OF THE NESS OF BRODGAR DATING PROJECT The dating presented here forms part of the Orkney component of the ToTL Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short project, which seeks to refine our understanding of the development of Late Neolithic settlement and Grooved Ware pottery, by formal chronological modelling of scientific dates. For Orkney, the project has investigated Pool (MacSween et al., 2015), Barnhouse (Richards et al., 2016), and the Links of Noltland (Sheridan, 1999; Clarke et al., submitted.). It is also contributing to a new formal chronology for Skara Brae. A number of specific objectives relating to the site sequence at the Ness of Brodgar were identified: 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 . to provide formal estimates of the date and duration of activity . to provide a precise date for the deposition of the cattle bones as part of the late history of Structure 10 . to help in the construction of an archaeomagnetic calibration curve for the Late Neolithic period. 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 RADIOCARBON DATING AND CHRONOLOGICAL MODELLING 402 403 404 The radiocarbon dating programme for the Ness of Brodgar was conceived within the framework of Bayesian chronological modelling (Buck et al., 1996). This makes it possible to combine calibrated 405 406 407 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 radiocarbon dates, or other scientific dates, with archaeological prior information using a formal statistical methodology. At the Ness of Brodgar a number of stratigraphic relationships between stone-walled structures and the surrounding midden layers were available to constrain the radiocarbon dates (Figure 6). A limited number of radiocarbon dates had been obtained as part of doctoral studies into aspects of the geoarchaeology of the site (Cluett, 2008) and dietary reconstruction of the Neolithic-Bronze Age transition in Orkney (Chelsea Budd, pers. comm.). The dating of three charcoal samples from below the southern boundary wall was funded by the BBC for an episode of A History of Ancient Britain. Material suitable for radiocarbon dating was scarce. Unburnt bone did not survive particularly well, the exception being the mass of cattle bones associated with the near-final act at Structure 10 (Mainland et al., 2014) and charred plant remains were scarce. Sherds were scanned for the presence of charred residues which might represent carbonised organic material, although in many cases what appeared to be ‘residue’ was covered by a thin layer of ‘midden’ material that precluded sampling. Fragments of calcined bone were available from handcollection and bulk environmental samples. Fig. 6 - B/W online, B/W in print 408 9 Figure 6. Schematic representation of stratigraphic relationships between structures, middens, and other features that define prior information incorporated into the chronological models for the Ness of Brodgar. 10 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 The amount of burnt bone recovered suggests a scale of burning beyond what might be expected from the routine burning of domestic waste (Richards, 2005; Card, 2010), and there is evidence for spatial variation in both the intensity of burning and the species and elements represented. Rarely was there a choice of material for sampling, and, with the exception of carbonised residues from refitting sherds, only one of the samples was ‘articulated’. Thus a high proportion of the samples have the potential to be residual in the context from which they were recovered. Some samples have a plausible functional relationship with their parent contexts (such as calcined bone in hearth deposits) and in some cases the state of preservation of large and unabraded sherds may suggest that they are not reworked; in other cases the taphonomy of the dated material (such as most of the single sherds from midden deposits) is much more uncertain. In addition to some of the issues outlined above, the nature of the buildings, with stone-built foundations and walls, means that samples suitable for radiocarbon dating and functionally related to the archaeological ‘event’ — stone wall construction — are extremely rare. This contrasts with much Late Neolithic monumental construction, particularly from southern Britain, which is based on the digging out of ditches, stoneholes, and postholes, and the raising of banks and mounds, where tools used in their construction such as antler picks and scapula shovels are regularly found. An architecture based on stone foundations does not in itself produce samples for dating, unlike the timber-built structures associated with the digging of postholes. The Ness of Brodgar therefore offers both a challenge and an opportunity to determine how we build chronologies for such settlement and monument complexes European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 built of stone. The paucity of contexts with potential samples for scientific dating related to key ‘archaeological events’ — the building and abandonment of structures — contrasts with the potentially huge pool of samples from the ‘residues’ of activity taking place in the structures which ended up on the midden heap and midden deposits on the site, which are yet to be fully explored. RADIOCARBON RESULTS A total of 65 radiocarbon measurements are now available from the Ness of Brodgar (Tables 1–2). All are conventional radiocarbon ages (Stuiver & Polach, 1977). Samples of animal bone, carbonised residue, charred plant remains, and calcined bone were measured by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). The samples were pretreated and combusted as described in Brock et al. (2010), graphitised (Dee & Bronk Ramsey, 2000), and dated (Bronk Ramsey et al., 2004). The Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC) processed samples of bulk soil, charcoal, charred plant material, charred residues, calcined and non-calcined bone, which were dated by AMS using the methods described in Dunbar et al. (2016). The 14CHRONO Centre, The Queen’s University, Belfast, processed 16 samples using methods described by Reimer et al. (2015). Charred residues were pretreated using an acid wash; charred plant remains were prepared using an acid-base-acid protocol; and samples of calcined bone were pretreated as described by Lanting et al. (2001). All samples were graphitised using zinc reduction (Slota et al., 1987), except for UBA-26534, -29335, -6, -29752, and -29754, which were subject to hydrogen reduction (Vogel et al., 1984). 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 Laboratory code Sample ref. Material & context δ13C (‰) diet δ13C (‰) - AMS δ15N (‰) C:N Radiocarbon age (BP) Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 1 Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 2 Structure 1 SUERC-55466 SF 7423, context [2114] Carbonised residue (61 mg) adhering to the interior of a thick (14 mm), rock-tempered Grooved Ware body sherd. From within Structure 1: context [2114], a firm dark reddish brown silt clay up to 0.2 m thick, that had been used to level the area in the western inner part of [1176] −25.0 ± 0.2 4305 ± 30 3015–2880 3015–2880 SUERC-55462 SF bone 1907, context [3603] – sample A Calcined animal bone, large ungulate rib from within Structure 1. The hearth slabs contain a thin soft mid grey brown layer of silt [3247] that seals a soft bright orange ashy silt clay deposit [3248]. This derives from the last phases of use. [3603] is a hearth fill stratigraphically below [3248] −25.1 ± 0.2 4158 ± 30 2885–2700 2890–2770 UBA-26531 SF bone 1907, context [3603] – sample B Calcined animal bone, large ungulate as SUERC-55462 4225 ± 37 2910–2835 (56%) or 2815–2745 (36%) or 2725–2700 (3%) 2915–2845 (90%) or 2810–2775 (5%) −15.5 Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short Table 1. Ness of brodgar: radiocarbon and stable isotope results 11 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 12 Table 1. (Cont.) Laboratory code Sample ref. Material & context δ13C (‰) diet SUERC-55465 SF bone 14290, context [3247] – sample A Calcined animal bone, large ungulate long bone from within Structure 1. The hearth slabs contain a thin soft mid grey brown layer of silt [3247] that seals a soft bright orange ashy silt clay deposit [3248]. This derives from the last phases of use. Layer [3248] contains frequent fragments of burnt bone. The presence of a silt layer above the final use fill of the hearth suggests that the clay layers used to seal the hearth were not deposited immediately −21.4 ± 0.2 UBA-26536 SF bone 14290, context [3247] – sample B Calcined animal bone, unidentified mammal as SUERC-55465 δ13C (‰) - AMS −23.4 δ15N (‰) C:N Radiocarbon age (BP) Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 1 Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 2 4115 ± 30 2850–2805 (5%) or 2765–2570 (90%) 2870–2715 4175 ± 30 2815–2625 2880–2700 4294 ± 30 2940–2875 2925–2880 Structure 7 SF bone 2017, context [2680] – sample A Calcined animal bone, large ungulate long bone from within the central hearth in Structure 7. The lowest use fill of the hearth [2679] (80 mm thick) was completely sealed by layer [2670] and consisted of ash-rich light orange/pinkish brown clay silt with occasional charcoal and burnt bone fragments. This appears to represent the primary episode of burning and sealed a lower levelling layer [2680] up to 0.15 m thick in the base of the hearth setting −26.1 ± 0.2 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 SUERC-55463 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 4379 ± 50 2990–2890 2965–2885 4350 ± 35 3015–2920 2990–2910 4380 ± 34 3030–2930 3005–2915 4019 ± 30 2625–2490 2620–2610 (1%) or 2600–2475 (94%) Structure 8 SUERC-60417 [2213] SF 5299 Carbonised residue [163 mg] adhering to the interior of a large, thick (16 mm) heavily rock-tempered Grooved Ware body sherd. From [2213], a dark yellowish grey clayey silt, which was overlain by [2212], a mid orangey brown silty clay, which was in turn overlain by [2208], a mid greyish brown silty clay. The midden in the central part of Structure 8 UBA-26535 SF bone 12851, context [3806] Calcined animal bone, large ungulate rib from within Structure 8: [3806] is the lowest hearth deposit and seals [3807] −28.7 ± 0.2 −21.5 Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short −19.6 585 586 Calcined animal bone, cow tibia, as SUERC-55463 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 SF bone 2017, context [2680] – sample B 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 UBA-26532 Structure 10 SUERC-55457 SF bone 1524, context [3482] – sample A Calcined animal bone, red deer antler from the central hearth area within Structure 10: 3463 = 3468 = 3482 = 3489 an orangey brown friable peatashy silt with occasional burnt bone and charcoal flecks (which may be a midden-enhanced soil rather than a ‘true’ hearth deposit) UBA-26530 SF bone 1524, context [3482] – sample B Calcined animal bone, large ungulate long bone, as SUERC-55457 SUERC-60627 SF bone 1524, context [3482] – sample C Calcined animal bone, large ungulate long bone, replicate of UBA-26530 −18.0 ± 0.2 −23.6 −25.2 ± 0.2 4278 ± 39 4200 ± 31 13 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 Laboratory code 14 Table 1. (Cont.) Material & context SF bone 1524, context [3482], large ungulate Weighted mean (T’ = 2.5; ν = 1; T’(5%) = 3.8) SUERC-55458 SF bone 1560, context [3490] Calcined animal bone, cow humerus (right), from the central hearth area within Structure 10: 3466 = 3469 = 3483 = 3490, was a mottled grey brown to black ashy silt, the product of in situ burning that underlay 3463 = 3468 = 3482 = 3489 (which may be a midden-enhanced soil rather than a ‘true’ hearth deposit) SUERC-55464 SF bone 10823, context [3488] – sample A Calcined animal bone, cow femur, left from the central hearth area within Structure 10: [3461], [3481] and [3488]. The uppermost fill, a 30– 140 mm-deep light orangey brown silt 3461 = 3467 = 3188 = 3481 = 3488 contained occasional charcoal and bone, and appears to be an interface layer between [2526] and the underlying hearth fills. The NE quadrant of this layer, i.e. [3488], contained a significant amount of animal bone in comparison to the other quadrants The sample is stratigraphically later that the two samples from hearth fill = [3463], [3468] and [3489] δ13C (‰) diet δ13C (‰) - AMS δ15N (‰) Radiocarbon age (BP) Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 1 Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 2 4230 ± 25 2900–2860 (60%) or 2810–2755 (32%) or 2720–2705 (3%) 2905–2860 (64%) or 2810–2755 (29%) or 2720–2705 (3%) −26.3 ± 0.2 4350 ± 30 2910–2880 2935–2885 −19.6 ± 0.2 4020 ± 30 2570–2470 2560–2465 C:N European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 Sample ref. 4009 ± 38 Weighted mean (T’ = 5.6; ν = 2; T’(5%) = 6.0) 3975 ± 20 2565–2515 (34%) or 2500–2460 (61%) 2565–2515 (21%) or 2500–2460 (74%) SUERC-55468 SF bone 38E, context [1403] Animal bone, red deer, metacarpal proximal + shaft, left-hand side. Structure 10 was decommissioned and infilled with a sequence of middens and rubble deposits. This included infilling the outer paved area with deposits, [1403], including a large bone assemblage consisting almost entirely of cattle tibia representing hundreds of cattle. The articulated red deer skeleton overlay the main Structure 10 bone spread and provides a constraint for the deposition of the bone assemblage −21.6 ± 0.2 8.0 ± 0.3 3.4 3720 ± 32 2295–2125 2205–2025 SUERC-55472 SF bone 32, context [1403] Animal bone, cattle tibia distal + shaft, left-hand side. Structure 10 was decommissioned and infilled with a sequence of middens and rubble deposits. This included infilling the outer paved area with deposits, [1403], including a large bone assemblage consisting almost entirely of cattle tibia representing hundreds of cattle −21.4 ± 0.2 5.0 ± 0.3 3.3 3946 ± 33 2570–2515 (16%) or 2500–2335 (79%) 2465–2360 Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short −20.8 ± 0.2 SF bone 10823 3915 ± 32 −21.5 659 Calcined animal bone, large ungulate long bone, as SUERC-55464, (replicate of OxA-32032 and UBA-26534) 660 SF bone 10823, context [3488] – sample C 661 OxA-32447 662 4012 ± 33 663 −20.7 ± 0.2 664 Calcined animal bone, large ungulate long bone, as SUERC-55464, (replicate of UBA-26534) 665 SF bone 10823, context [3488] – sample C 666 OxA-32032 667 Calcined animal bone, large ungulate long bone, as SUERC-55464 668 SF bone 10823, context [3488] – sample B 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 UBA-26534 15 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 16 Table 1. (Cont.) Laboratory code Sample ref. Material & context δ13C (‰) diet SUERC-55473 SF bone 72, context [1403] Animal bone, cow tibia, left-hand-side, distal + shaft. As SUERC-55472 SUERC-55474 SF bone 98, context [1403] OxA-30798 δ13C (‰) - AMS δ15N (‰) C:N Radiocarbon age (BP) Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 1 Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 2 −21.6 ± 0.2 5.4 ± 0.3 3.4 3832 ± 33 2460–2200 2465–2360 Animal bone, cow tibia, left proximal + shaft. As SUERC-55472 −21.9 ± 0.2 5.4 ± 0.3 3.5 3900 ± 30 2470–2295 2465–2360 SF bone 139, context [1403] Animal bone, cow tibia, left-hand-side, distal. As SUERC-55472 −21 ± 0.2 4.5 ± 0.3 3.2 3901 ± 33 2470–2290 2465–2360 OxA-30799 SF bone 147, context [1403] Animal bone, cow mandible, righthand-side. As SUERC-55472 −21.1 ± 0.2 5.2 ± 0.3 3.1 3912 ± 34 2480–2290 2465–2360 OxA-30800 SF bone 213, context [1403] Animal bone, cow tibia, left-hand-side, distal + shaft. As SUERC-55472 −21.2 ± 0.2 5.5 ± 0.3 3.1 3915 ± 33 2480–2290 2465–2360 GU35059 SF 7161, context [2510] Carbonised residue (59 mg) adhering to the interior of a Grooved Ware sherd. From within Structure 10: context [2510] from the loose fill of pot SF 7161 within [2441] (cut containing 2442 [E-W orthostat on 2441] and 2443 [N-S orthostat in 2441] UBA-26529 SF 18080, context [4381] Carbonised residue (60 mg) adhering to the interior of a Grooved Ware sherd. From within Structure 10: context [4381] is a levelling surface beneath context [4374]. This sherd is from a find spot [4382] close to SF 16858; however, the sherd is from a separate vessel to SF 16858 and is the “upper pot” 2935–2885 2930–2855 (91%) or 2810–2775 (4%) Failed due to insufficient carbon 4271 ± 42 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 −26.4 ± 0.2 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 SF 16858, context [4381] Carbonised residue (60 mg) adhering to the interior of a Grooved Ware body sherd, from large sections of a pot. The base is flat with almost vertical walls while the walls are 9 mm thick and the vessel height is c. 150 mm. From within Structure 10: context [4381] is a levelling surface beneath context [4374]. This sherd is associated with an incised stone −24.0 ± 0.2 4231 ± 37 2920–2885 2915–2840 (77%) or 2815–2755 (18%) OxA-25032 CBNB 1 Animal bone, Bos (M. Lillie), from the bone deposit forming the upper fill of the paved pathway around Structure 10 that marked its decommissioning −20.9 ± 0.2 3878 ± 26 2465–2290 2465–2360 OxA-25033 CBNB 2 Animal bone, Bos (M. Lillie), from the bone deposit forming the upper fill of the paved pathway around Structure 10 that marked its decommissioning −21.2 ± 0.2 3829 ± 27 2455–2375 (13%) or 2350–2200 (83%) 2465–2360 4447 ± 31 3335–3210 (39%) or 3195–3150 (7%) or 3140– 3005 (46%) or 2985–2935 (3%) 3335–3210 (39%) or 3195–3150 (7%) or 3140– 3005 (46%) or 2995–2935 (3%) 4100 ± 28 2860–2805 (22%) or 2760–2715 (9%) or 2705– 2570 (63%) or 2515–2500 (1%) 2875–2800 (90%) or 2760–2720 (5%) Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short OxA-30950 Structure 12 and annex UBA-26533 SF bone 2340, context [4509] Calcined animal bone, large ungulate long bone from within Structure 12: [4509] is a black charcoal ‘hearth’ layer with animal bones, ?in situ burning, sealed by [4053] SUERC-60419 [4509] <2360> sample A Carbonised grain, Hordeum vulgare (S. Timpany), from black charcoal ‘hearth’ layer [4509] with animal bones, in situ burning sealed by [4053] in Structure 12 −25.3 −25.2 ± 0.2 17 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 18 Table 1. (Cont.) Laboratory code Sample ref. Material & context δ13C (‰) diet UBA-29335 [4509] <2360> sample B Carbonised grain, Hordeum vulgare (S. Timpany), from black charcoal ‘hearth’ layer [4509] with animal bones, in situ burning sealed by [4053] in Structure 12 OxA-32069 [4509] <2360> sample C SUERC-55467 SF 10100, context [2306] sample A δ13C (‰) - AMS δ15N (‰) Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 1 Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 2 −22.0 ± 0.22 4149 ± 30 2880–2625 2885–2725 Carbonised grain, Hordeum vulgare (S. Timpany), from black charcoal ‘hearth’ layer [4509] with animal bones, in situ burning sealed by [4053] in Structure 12 −27.4 ± 0.2 4114 ± 30 2865–2800 (25%) or 2775–2575 (70%) 2880–2720 Carbonised residue (119 mg) adhering to the interior of Grooved Ware sherd. From within Structure 12 (annex): finds deposit [2306] was located in the junction between wall [2832] and orthostat [2848]. It consisted of a large spread of Grooved Ware pottery, which measured 1.15 m WNW to ESE by 0.3 m wide. Context [2306] was recorded in four horizons; during excavation each successive pottery horizon was lifted, revealing more pottery below −26.2 ± 0.2 4197 ± 30 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 Radiocarbon age (BP) C:N Carbonised residue [194 mg] adhering to the interior of a Grooved Ware sherd from Structure 12, context [5337] SF 21623 −27.2 ± 0.22 4148 ± 35 SUERC-60626 [5337] SF 20850, sample A Carbonised residue [390 mg] adhering to the interior of a Grooved Ware sherd from Structure 12, context [5337] SF 20850 −27.4 ± 0.2 4155 ± 31 UBA-29337 [5337] SF 20850, sample B Carbonised residue [283 mg] adhering to the interior of a Grooved Ware sherd from Structure 12, context [5337] SF 20850 −26.8 ± 0.22 4145 ± 37 2900–2855 (42%) or 2810–2750 (45%) or 2725–2695 (8%) 2900–2855 (72%) or 2810–2755 (23%) 2880–2620 2885–2730 Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short [5337] SF 21623 sample B 4246 ± 39 847 UBA-29338 848 Failed due to insufficient carbon 849 Carbonised residue [210 mg] adhering to the interior of a Grooved Ware sherd from Structure 12, context [5337] SF 21623 850 [5337] SF 21623 sample A 851 GU37544 852 4215 ± 24 853 Weighted mean (T’ = 1.0; ν = 1; T’(5%) = 3.8) 854 SF 10100, context [2306] −26.4 ± 0.2 855 Carbonised residue (114 mg) adhering to the interior of Grooved Ware sherd. From within Structure 12 (annex): finds deposit [2306] was located in the junction between wall [283]2 and orthostat [2848]. It consisted of a large spread of Grooved Ware pottery, which measured 1.15 m WNW to ESE by 0.3 m wide. Context [2306] was recorded in four horizons; during excavation each successive pottery horizon was lifted, revealing more pottery below 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 SF 10100, context [2306] sample B UBA-26528 19 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 20 Table 1. (Cont.) Laboratory code Sample ref. Material & context δ13C (‰) diet OxA-32310 [5337] SF 20850, sample C Carbonised residue [210 mg] adhering to the interior of a Grooved Ware sherd from Structure 12, context [5337] SF 20850 −27.1 ± 0.2 SF 20850 Weighted mean (T’ = 1.0; ν = 2; T’(5%) = 6.0) δ13C (‰) - AMS δ15N (‰) C:N Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 1 Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 2 4165 ± 19 2880–2835 (18%) or 2815–2670 (77%) 2880–2830 (63%) or 2820–2740 (31%) or 2725–2710 (1%) 4369 ± 25 3015–2910 2985–2905 3025–2905 2985–2900 Radiocarbon age (BP) 4187 ± 29 Structure 14 [4662] <2499> Carbonised grain, Hordeum vulgare (S. Timpany), from [4662], western hearth, red silt clay, burning sealed by [4665] in Structure 14 GU37541 [4613] <2424> sample A Carbonised grain, Hordeum vulgare (S. Timpany), from eastern hearth, ashy deposit of rake out [4613] sealed by [4612] in Structure 14 Failed due to insufficient carbon GU37925 [4613] <2424> sample A replacement As GU37541 Failed due to insufficient carbon UBA-29336 [4613] <2424> sample B Carbonised grain, Hordeum vulgare (S. Timpany), from eastern hearth, ashy deposit of rake out [4613] sealed by [4612] in Structure 14 GU37543 [5074] SF 19116 Carbonised residue [163 mg] adhering to the interior of pot under Structure 14, context [5074] SF 19116 −23.8 ± 0.2 −23.5 ± 0.22 4386 ± 41 Failed due to insufficient carbon European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 SUERC-60418 [458] <251> Charcoal, Betula sp. (S. Timpany), from [458] a charcoal-rich ashy silt interpreted as a fire-spot; it is stratigraphically earlier than [457] −25.0 (assumed) 4608 ± 30 GU-37924 [461] <248> Carbonised single grain Hordeum vulgare var. nudum (S. Timpany), from [461] a raked ash deposit probably from fire-spot [460], stratigraphically earlier than [460] and later than [462] Failed due to insufficient carbon SUERC-61637 [461] <248> As GU-37924 −23.5 ± 0.2 4337 ± 29 UBA-29752 [441] <257> Carbonised single grain Hordeum vulgare var. nudum (S Timpany), from the primary fill of the hearth cut below the cist, stratigraphically earlier than [440] and later than [443] −25.5 ± 0.22 4384 ± 30 UBA-29753 [456] <243> Calcined animal bone, unidentified (I. Mainland), from [456] a ?hearth deposit stratigraphically earlier than [458] and later than [460] −28.0 6042 ± 36 UBA-29754 [462] <249> Calcined animal bone, unidentified (I. Mainland), from [462], a ?hearth deposit in Trench J [Structure 5], stratigraphically earlier than [461] and later than [457] −20.5 5212 ± 35 Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short SUERC-61344 941 ± 942 Failed due to insufficient carbon 943 Calcined animal bone, unidentified (I. Mainland), from [460], a silty ash deposit, interpreted as a fire-spot; it is stratigraphically earlier than [456] and later than [461] 944 [460] <247> 945 P38996 946 5432 ± 38 947 −27.5 ± 0.2 948 Calcined animal bone, unidentified (I. Mainland), from [410], a fine peat ash deposit, stratigraphically earlier than [448] 949 [410] <240> 950 OxA-X-263341 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 Trench J – Structure 5 21 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 Laboratory code Sample ref. 22 Table 1. (Cont.) Material & context δ13C (‰) diet δ13C (‰) - AMS δ15N (‰) C:N Radiocarbon age (BP) Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 1 Posterior Density Estimate, cal BC (95% probability) Model 2 Trench R 7741 Charcoal, Pinus sylvestris, from [3029] a greyish brown midden −25.6 ± 0.2 4450 ± 30 3335–3210 (44%) or 3190–3150 (7%) or 3135– 3015 (44%) 3335–3210 (19%) or 3195–3150 (2%) or 3140– 3010 (74%) SUERC-36000 1263 Charcoal, Pinus sylvestris, from [3029] a greyish brown midden −25.1 ± 0.2 4420 ± 30 3330–3215 (19%) or 3175–3155 (2%) or 3120– 2990 (75%) 3325–3230 (14%) or 3120–2940 (81%) SUERC-36004 1263 Charcoal, Betula, from [3029] a greyish brown midden −25.6 ± 0.2 4430 ± 30 3330–3215 (28%) or 3180–3155 (3%) or 3125– 3005 (64%) 3330–3215 (23%) or 3175–3155 (2%) or 3125– 2945 (70%) 4219 ± 27 2905–2855 (44%) or 2810–2745 (43%) or 2725–2695 (8%) 2905–2855 (74%) or 2810–2755 (21%) 4146 ± 31 2875–2620 2885–2725 Trench T SUERC-61360 [5816] SF 22469 Calcined animal bone, cattle phalange II (I Mainland), from [5816], a midden layer above the clay capping sealing the earliest phase of midden deposition −22.6 ± 0.2 SUERC-61343 [5822] SF 22497 Animal bone, cattle (?Aurochs) skull (I Mainland), from [5822], a midden layer above the clay capping sealing the earliest phase of midden deposition −22.5 ± 0.2 5.0 ± 0.3 3.2 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 SUERC-35999 Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 1035 QUALITY ASSURANCE 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 All three laboratories maintain continuous programmes of internal quality control in addition to participation in international inter-comparisons (Scott et al., 2007; 2010). These tests indicate no laboratory offset and demonstrate the validity of the precision quoted. Two pairs of replicate and two sets of triplicate measurements are available on samples that were divided and submitted for dating to different laboratories. In all cases the measurements are statistically consistent at 95 per cent confidence (Table 1; Ward & Wilson, 1978). These measurements on the same samples have therefore been combined by taking a weighted mean before calibration and inclusion in the chronological models. 1055 1056 1057 BAYESIAN MODELLING 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 The chronological modelling described in this section has been undertaken using OxCal 4.2 (Bronk Ramsey, 1995; 2009), and the internationally agreed calibration curve for the northern hemisphere (IntCal13: Reimer et al., 2013). The models are defined by the OxCal CQL2 keywords and by the brackets on the lefthand side of Figures 7 and 9. 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. 1075 1076 1077 THE CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL 1078 1079 1080 1081 The radiocarbon samples dated as part of a PhD dissertation on soils and sediments in the World Heritage Site buffer zones 23 (Cluett, 2008) were selected to provide a chronology for soils and sediment-based cultural records. The excavated trenches were deliberately located away from the main structural features and cannot be directly related to the excavated archaeological evidence. Although sample selection was based on sound principles — single entity, short-lived fragments of charcoal, and single fragments of calcined bone — the utility of the results in contributing anything beyond the fact that Late Neolithic material exists in the soils surrounding the site is such that we have not included them in the chronological modelling. A series of earlier structures is indicated by walling encountered under Structure 8 (Structures 17 and 18), Structure 10 (Structure 20), Structure 12 (Structures 23 and 24), and Structure 5, which was excavated in Trench J adjacent to the northern boundary wall. It is perhaps during this stage of development that the massive stone enclosure was built to contain all these buildings. The three samples from under the southern boundary wall provide termini post quos for its construction (Figure 7). Whether the Pinus sylvestris charcoal represent trees growing on the island at the time (Farrell, 2015) or driftwood (Dickson, 1992) is open to debate. However, the three measurements are statistically consistent (T’ = 0.5; T’5% = 6.0; ν = 2) and could be of the same actual age (Figure 7). Trench P The construction and primary use of Structures 1, 8, 12, 14, 16, and 21 (plus several others revealed by the geophysical surveys) probably took place over a relatively restricted period. Similarities in architecture of the main buildings (the use of pairs of opposed stone piers to define internal space) and their spatial respect for 24 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 Fig. 7 - B/W online, B/W in print 1107 Figure 7. Ness of Brodgar. Probability distributions of dates (Model 1). Each distribution represents the relative probability that an event occurs at a particular time. For each radiocarbon date, two distributions have been plotted: one in outline which is the result of simple radiocarbon calibration, and a solid one based on the chronological model used. The other distributions correspond to aspects of the model. For example, the distribution ‘last_hearth_st1’ is the estimate for when the hearth in Structure 1 was last used. Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 each other are taken, for the present, to imply their contemporaneity. This would appear to be borne out by the proven stratigraphic relationships between Structures 1 and 14, and 1 and 21. Five samples have been dated from the secondary phase of Structure 1 (Figure 7). The latest use of the sub-square hearth [3603] from its ‘secondary’ phase is dated by calcined bone fragments (SUERC-55462 and UBA-26531) from the hearth fill [3603] that is stratigraphically below [3247] a silt layer, dated by calcined bone fragments (SUERC-55465 and UBA-26536). For both contexts, the pairs of measurements on single fragments of calcined bone are statistically consistent (T’ = 2.0; T’5% = 3.8; ν = 1) and could be of the same actual age. Carbonised residue (SUERC-55466) from SF 7423, a single sherd of a Grooved Ware vessel from a levelling deposit [2114] that may have been part of the initial backfilling of the structure at the end of its tertiary phase, is stratigraphically later than the hearth, but appears to be a residual sample and is thus incorporated into the model as a terminus post quem. Two calcined animal bone fragments (SUERC-55463 and UBA-26532) from the lowest use fill of a hearth [2679] are statistically consistent (T’ = 2.1; T’5% = 3.8; ν = 1) and represent the primary episode of burning in the feature in the centre of Structure 7 (Figure 7). Structure 7 is stratigraphically later than Structure 8 and its use is therefore likely to have been contemporary with the use of Structure 10. Two samples have been dated from Structure 8 (Figure 7). A single calcined bone (UBA-26335) from the lowest hearth deposit [3806] provides a date for its initial use, and a carbonised residue (SUERC-60417) from a large, thick Grooved Ware body sherd provides a date for its infilling with midden deposits prior to the construction of Structure 10. 25 Seven samples have been dated from the secondary use of Structure 12 and its annex (Figure 7). Four measurements (calcined bone UBA-26533, and three single barley grains, OxA-32069, SUERC-60419, and UBA-29335) from the black charcoal ‘hearth’ layer [4509] are not statistically consistent with each other (T’ = 89.1; T’5% = 7.8; ν = 3), but the measurements on the three grains are (T’ = 1.5; T’5% = 6.0; ν = 2). The calcined bone fragment (UBA-26533) is considerably older than the grains and has been included in the model as a terminus post quem; it could either be residual or have a fuel-derived offset (see below). Measurements on sherds from two Grooved Ware vessels (SF 20850 and SF 21623) from finds deposit [5337] are statistically consistent (T’ = 0.2; T’5% = 3.8; ν = 1). Part of a late occupation layer [4508], located between the northerly hearth and the interior entrance to the annex of Structure 12, the large spread of fragmented ceramics [5337], may have formed as the result of the roof of Structure 12 collapsing on to pots standing upright on the floor just to the east of the hearth. Carbonised residue adhering to the interior of Grooved Ware sherds from a very large pottery deposit [2306], and sealed by the lowest midden infill deposits ([2278] and [2287]), provides a date for the end of use of the annex of Structure 12. Two samples, single grains of carbonised barley from its western [4662] and eastern hearths [4613], were dated from Structure 14 (Figure 7). The two determinations are statistically consistent (T’ = 0.1; T’5% = 3.8; ν = 1). Following subsidence and the roof collapse of Structure 8, Structure 11 was built against its southern end, while similarly Structure 19 was built against the west wall of Structure 8 (Figure 3). It was at this time that midden dumping within Structure 8 and the central midden area began, although no samples deriving European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 26 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 from this activity could be identified for dating. The primary phase of Structure 10 necessitated the removal or clearing of the south-eastern section of the collapsed Structure 8. Structure 10 was built with a square central chamber with rounded corners and extensive use of dressed stone. The monumental foundation slabs of Structure 10 may in part be an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to counteract the subsidence evident elsewhere on the site (e. g. in Structure 8). The construction of the Structure 10 annex area (slightly later than the original build) at its eastern end incorporates at least one standing stone. After possibly the partial collapse of its primary build, a thick, very mixed clayey levelling or floor deposit was laid, particularly over the northern side where subsidence is most evident, and new internal walls and corner buttresses were built to create a cruciform central chamber. Dressers and orthostatic arrangements were also inserted, but, compared to the original build, this secondary phase is rather shoddily constructed. Measurements on carbonised residues adhering to sherds of different vessels (UBA-26529 and OxA-30950) from a foundation deposit [4381] associated with the remodelling of Structure 10 are statistically consistent (T’ = 0.9; T’5% = 3.8; ν = 1) and provide termini post quos for its rebuilding (Figure 7). A sequence of samples from the central hearth in Structure 10 were dated. At the base of this sequence, SUERC-55458 was measured on a fragment of calcined cow humerus from an in situ burning deposit [3490] that underlies a (?)midden-enhanced soil [3482] rather than a true hearth deposit. Measurements on two fragments of cremated animal bone from the latter [3482] are statistically different (T’ = 29.0; T’5% = 3.8; ν = 1), although those from the overlying context [3488], the uppermost fill of the hearth, are statistically consistent (T’ = 2.4; T’5% = 3.8; ν = 1). The end of the formal use of Structure 10 as a building is marked by its demolition and infilling with a sequence of middens and rubble deposits; this is also the case of Structures 8, 12, 14, and 16 but with apparent intervals between various episodes of deposition and ephemeral reuse of the structures. Further deposition of large amounts of midden in the Central Midden Area perhaps originates from tertiary phases of activity. The late history of Structure 10 sees its reuse with an elaborately pecked stone placed next to an upturned cattle skull in the central hearth and the surrounding pathway backfilled; the uppermost fill [1403] of this backfill contained an enormous amount of mainly cattle bone (Mainland et al., 2014). Radiocarbon determinations on eight samples from the cattle deposit [1403] are statistically consistent (T’ = 12.3; T’5% = 12.3; ν = 7). The bones dated from the cattle bone deposit as part of the ToTL project were chosen to maximise the likelihood that separate individuals were being sampled. Five tibiae were sampled (SF 72, SF139, SF213, SF98, SF32), all of which are from different animals on the basis of body side and fragmentation. The remaining sample from this deposit, a cattle mandible (SF147), could however derive from one of these five individuals, as could the two unidentified skeletal elements (CBNB1 and 2; OxA-25032 and OxA-25033). Finally, the remains of articulated red deer skeletons were deposited over part of the Structure 10 bone layer and one of these (SUERC-55468) provides a terminus ante quem for the deposition of the cattle remains. Trench T Two samples from Trench T (Figures 2 and 7), on the 70 m-diameter mound located on the south-eastern portion of Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short the low ridge occupying the Brodgar peninsula, were dated to provide an indication of when a very large animal, perhaps an aurochs, died and whether the midden surrounding the animal could be contemporary with this. The two measurements (SUERC-61360 and SUERC-61343) are statistically consistent (T’ = 3.1; T’5% = 3.8; ν = 1) and could therefore be of the same actual age. 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 Trench J 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 Fig. 8 - B/W online, B/W in print 1255 A series of stratigraphically related samples from a number of hearth deposits overlying Structure 5 in Trench J were submitted to provide an idea of the length of activity in this part of the site. There the Grooved Ware was markedly thinnerwalled than the Grooved Ware recovered elsewhere at the Ness and was also dominated by a shell filler (Ann MacSween, pers. comm.), and therefore probably of a date that was different from most of the activity in Trench P. The radiocarbon dates, although on samples with a plausible functional relationship to their contexts (charcoal and calcined bone from hearths) do not, however, form a coherent chronological sequence (Figure 8) and must represent the incorporation of residual material from activity that significantly predates the main phase of activity at the site. They have been excluded from the chronological modelling, but nevertheless provide a tantalising glimpse of the 27 time-depth of the Ness of Brodgar as a place of human activity. Assessment Of the 65 radiocarbon determinations from the Ness of Brodgar, 13 have been excluded from the analysis, seven because they were not from trenches excavated as part of the main archaeological investigations (Table 2) and six from Trench J because deposits there seem to contain material deriving from earlier activity. The model thus includes 46 determinations on 39 samples. Five samples that are potentially residual are included as only providing termini post quos for overlying deposits (UBA-26533, SUERC-35999, SUERC36000, SUERC-36004, and SUERC55466), and therefore 34 samples are believed to provide accurate ages for the deposits from which they were recovered. In assessing the reliability of the model for the Ness of Brodgar we need to reflect on the number of dated samples available from different parts of the site. Structure 1 has five dated samples, Structure 7 two, Structure 8 two, Structure 10 sixteen, Structure 12 and its annex seven, Structure 14 two, Trench R three, and Trench T two. We clearly have fewer dated samples than would be ideal from some structures and it is disappointing that no samples could be found for a number of structures (9, 11, 16, 19, 21, and 22). Our model therefore quite clearly 1267 1268 1269 Figure 8. Ness of Brodgar. Calibrated dates from radiocarbon determinations obtained from Trench J (Stuiver & Reimer, 1993). 28 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 Fig. 9 - B/W online, B/W in print 1295 Figure 9. Ness of Brodgar. Probability distributions of dates (Model 2). The date followed by a question mark has been calibrated (Stuiver & Reimer, 1993) but not included in the chronological model for the reason outlined in the text. The overall structure of the diagram is identical to that of Figure 7. under-samples activity at the site and hence can only provide an imprecise picture of the chronology. The confidence we have placed on samples of calcined bone (13 out of 39) is a further consideration when assessing the reliability of the model. Fuel used in the cremation process, this being represented by the large hearths at the Ness of Brodgar, has been shown in experimental Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 1317 1318 29 Table 2. Ness of brodgar: radiocarbon results obtained as part of a phd dissertation on soils and sediments in the world heritage site buffer zones (cluett, 2008) Material & context δ13C (‰) 1320 Laboratory code Radiocarbon age (BP) Calibrated date (95% confidence) cal BC 1321 SUERC-6191 Charcoal, Ericales (S. Ramsay, GUARD), from NOB E 047 −25.0 ± 0.2 4280 ± 35 2930–1870 1323 SUERC-6684 Bulk soil, humic acid from NOB E 047 −27.2 ± 0.2 3160 ± 40 1510–1300 1324 SUERC-6762 Animal bone, cremated (C. Smith, SUAT), from NOB E 047 −22.4 ± 0.2 4225 ± 40 2910–2690 SUERC-6764 Charcoal, Betula sp. (S. Ramsay, GUARD), from NOB C 075 −26.0 ± 0.2 4320 ± 40 3030–2880 SUERC-6685 Bulk soil, humic acid from NOB C 075 −27.4 ± 0.2 4085 ± 40 2870–2490 SUERC-6761 Animal bone, calcined (C. Smith, SUAT), from NOB C 86 −27.0 ± 0.2 4185 ± 45 2900–2620 SUERC-9542 Animal bone, calcined (C. Smith, SUAT), from NOB E 003 −20.4 ± 0.2 4285 ± 35 2930–2870 1319 1322 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 work (Snoeck et al., 2014) to contribute to the carbon in calcined bone apatite along with components from the atmosphere and the dated individual. This could be an issue at the Ness of Brodgar, as for the one hearth ([4509] in Structure 12) where it was possible to find samples of calcined bone and charred material (barley grains), the calcined bone (UBA-26533) is considerably older in age (327 ± 36 yrs BP older than a weighted mean of the three charred barley grains: SUERC-60419, UBA29335, and OxA-32069). The possibility of fuel offsets should be taken into account but these may not be substantial. The absence of cramp (vitreous slag-like material; Photos-Jones et al., 2007) indicates that seaweed was not used as a fuel and therefore we have no reason to believe that any of the calcined bone dated from the site has a marine offset. Ongoing analysis of the fuels used at the Ness of Brodgar indicates a significant use of turf for burning, with heather and seeds indicative of such practices identified from hearth features. Wood fuel has also been identified but to a lesser extent than turf and, so far, shows a varied assemblage of some ten different arboreal taxa. The tree types attested by charcoal indicate a landscape dominated by scrub woodland largely made up of birch, with some hazel. Areas of wetland woodland are also shown by the presence of alder and willow, while there is some evidence of stands of deciduous and evergreen woodland from the presence of smaller amounts of oak, Pomoideae, and pine, together with other coniferous charcoal. The occurrence of larch/spruce is likely to represent the use of driftwood and this has also been suggested for the pine, although pollen evidence (Farrell, 2015) has indicated that pine was probably present in the woodlands of Orkney. For the most part, the short-lived species indicated support the conclusion that any inbuilt age offset in the cremated bones is likely to be minimal. Finally, radiocarbon offsets can occur if samples (such as samples from animals or carbonised residues) have taken up carbon from a reservoir not in equilibrium with the terrestrial biosphere (Lanting & van der Plicht, 1998). Dietary stable isotope measurements from animals (Table 1; see Jones & Mulville, 2015), together with lipid analysis of cooking vessels (Cramp et al., 2014), confirm that offsets from freshwater or marine reservoirs are not found at this site. European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 30 1364 INTERPRETATIONS 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 Two models for the chronology of activity at the Ness of Brodgar are presented in detail. The first (Model 1) assumes that the dated material from Trenches P and T derives from a single continuous phase of activity (Buck et al., 1992). The second (Model 2) incorporates an alternative reading of the archaeological evidence relating to the later use of Structure 10, and in particular to the relationship of the large hearth in the remodelled structure to the main phase of activity associated with the distinctive piered architecture. In this alternative reading, outlined in detail below, the hearth in the remodelled Structure 10 and the deposition of the cattle remains are interpreted as a separate phase of activity from that associated with the stratigraphically earlier piered architecture. The activity is thus modelled in terms of distinct, but successive, periods of continuous activity with an interval of unknown duration between them. 1389 1390 1391 Model 1 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 Model 1, shown in Figure 7, interpreting the activity in Trench P and Trench T as a single continuous phase, has good overall agreement (Amodel: 86) between the radiocarbon dates and this reading of the archaeological evidence. The model estimates that the main dated phase of activity at the Ness of Brodgar began in 3060– 2950 cal BC (95% probability; start NoB; Figure 7). There is, however, yet to be fully excavated earlier activity at the site, such as the structures discovered under the southern boundary wall of the site, and the primary phases of Structures 1, 12, and 10. The sherds of round-based Modified Carinated Bowl discovered embedded into the natural substrate under Structure 14 further support the view of earlier, pre- Grooved Ware Neolithic activity at the Ness. Thus, although the dating programme has provided an estimate for the primary use of Structure 8, and secondary use of Structures 1, 12, and 14, this is only a terminus ante quem for the beginning of the monumental building activity. The earliest dated material from Structures 1, 8, 12, and 14 suggests that they were in use during the thirty-first to the thirtieth centuries cal BC, although for Structures 1, 12, and 14 samples from hearth deposits do not derive from their primary use. Providing formal estimates for the end of use of the structures is extremely challenging, due to the difficulty in finding samples associated with such events. However, for Structure 12, the roof collapse that resulted in the smashing of pots near the hearth occurred in 2855–2835 cal BC (2% probability; last_st_12; Figure 7) or 2820–2585 cal BC (93% probability). The replacement of Structure 8 by Structure 10 is estimated to have occurred in 2990– 2895 cal BC (95% probability; end_ st8_start_st10; Figure 7). Thus, compared to other structures on the site, Structure 8 would therefore have been standing for a relatively short period, although providing a robust estimate for this is problematic given that only a single dated sample relates directly to its use. Structures 7 and 10 were both built later than Structure 8. Although no samples were dated from the first phase of use of Structure 10, it is estimated to have been constructed in 2990–2895 cal BC (95% probability; end_st8_start_st10; Figure 7), with its remodelling estimated to have taken place shortly after 2915– 2885 cal BC (95% probability; st10_secondary_build; Figure 7), when a significant quantity of pottery was deliberately deposited before rebuilding took place. The midden above the clay capping sealing the earliest phase of midden Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 deposition in Trench T started to accumulate in the twenty-ninth to twenty-seventh centuries cal BC (Figure 7). The construction of the large hearth in the remodelled Structure 10 must have begun just before the deposition of one of its first fills around the very end of the twenty-ninth century cal BC. Although the hearth contains no obvious evidence for a hiatus, it was last used in 2550–2460 cal BC (95% probability; central_hearth_st10; Figure 7). This suggests that either the hearth was partially cleaned on a regular basis over its apparently centuries-long lifespan, or that a break in its use is not visible. During the lifespan of the remodelled Structure 10, many of the other structures were backfilled with ‘midden’ material. The final use of what at that time may have simply been the foundations of Structure 10 began with the placement of vast amounts of predominantly cattle remains that took place an estimated 135– 320 years (95% probability; distribution not shown) after the last use of the hearth, in 2340–2200 cal BC (95% probability; structure_10_cattle; Figure 7). The final act in the history of Structure 10 occurred with the deposition of a red deer skeleton in 2290–2125 cal BC (95% probability; SUERC-55468; Figure 7). 1443 1444 1445 Model 2 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 Model 2 (Figure 9) presents an alternative reading of the archaeological evidence for activity at the Ness of Brodgar. The model interprets the activity associated with the construction and use of the piered structures (dated by samples from Structures 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and the Trench T midden) as a single continuous phase (Buck et al., 1992) that is followed by a hiatus (after the deposition of layers of midden and rubble) before the final phase 31 of activity in what by that time may have only been the remains of Structure 10. The key components that differentiate Model 2 from Model 1 are, first, that two phases of coherent activity (piered architecture and the last use of Structure 10) are separated by a hiatus. Second, the dated calcined bone (SF bone 1524) from the basal hearth deposit [3482] is interpreted as residual, being significantly earlier than another dated single fragment of calcined bone (SUERC-55457) from the same context, and earlier than samples from the last use of the hearth. The visible, horizontally bedded, layers within the hearth suggest only a continuous, short period of use, with no evidence for cleaning out, recutting or hiatus (Figure 10). Third, the cattle deposited in Structure 10 are thought to belong to animals that probably all died at the same time, since ‘the faunal assemblage together with a comparable stratigraphic record in each excavated area is indicative of a single depositional event’ (Mainland et al., 2014: 875). Hence the probability distributions of the calibrated dates obtained from the cattle bones can be combined (using the OxCal function Combine), as they are not from the same organism, to produce an estimate for the date of this event. Finally, the deer placed on top of the cattle spread is not interpreted as part of that phase of activity, but as a later isolated act. The chronological model shown in Figure 9 has good overall agreement (Amodel: 92), suggesting that the radiocarbon dates do not contradict the reading of the archaeological sequence outlined in Model 2. This model suggests that the first dated activity associated with the use of structures characterised by piered architecture took place in 3020–2920 cal BC (95% probability; start_NoB; Figure 9). The end of activity in the dated piered structures is estimated to have occurred in 2855–2665 cal BC (95% probability; end European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 32 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 Fig. 10 - B/W online, B/W in print 1464 1477 Figure 10. Sections through the central hearth of Structure 10. 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 Fig. 11 - B/W online, B/W in print 1488 NoB; Figure 9). On this reading, the monumental structures were therefore in use for between 70 and 305 years (95% probability; piered_architecture; Figure 11). Following the end of activity associated with the piered structures, a period of disuse ensued, lasting for 30–335 years (95% probability; gap_1; Figure 11). Following this potentially considerable gap, activity in what were by then probably only the remains of Structure 10 is estimated to have resumed in 2720–2480 cal BC (95% probability; start_st10_last_use; Figure 9). The final use of the hearth in Structure 10 took place in 2545–2460 cal (95% probability; central_hearth_st10; Figure 9). The eight dates obtained for cattle bones from the enormous deposit of animal bone that filled the pathway running around the building are consistent (Acomb = 44.5%; An = 25.0; n = 8) with the interpretation suggested by the faunal analysis (i.e. that they represent a ‘singleevent’ deposit; Mainland et al., 2014: 875) and the model estimates that the cattle died in 2565–2360 cal BC (95% probability; st10_cattle; Figure 9), with deposition taking place very quickly after this. The deposition of the animal bone took place very shortly after the last use of the hearth, BC Figure 11. Ness of Brodgar. Durations of the dated phase of activity associated with structures of piered architecture, for the interval between the end of activity associated with these structures and the later use of Structure 10 (gap_1), and from the last use of structure 10 and the deposition of the articulated deer skeleton (gap_2), derived from the model defined in Figure 11. Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 33 an interval estimated to have been between 1–135 years (95% probability; distribution not shown). Following a considerable gap lasting 115–420 years (95% probability; gap_2; Figure 11), an articulated deer skeleton (SUERC-55468) was placed on top of the animal bone deposit in the last quarter of the third millennium cal BC. differ markedly from those measured from secondary hearths in Structures 1, 12, 14, and 16. The two magnetic directions from the secondary hearth in Structure 1 do not overlap, suggesting that some time elapsed between the different phases of use (Batt & Outram, 2014: 18), a picture confirmed by radiocarbon dating. ARCHAEOMAGNETIC DATING DISCUSSION Precise and reliable magnetic directions have been obtained from a number of sampled hearth features (Batt & Outram, 2014). Although no archaeomagnetic calibration curve currently exists for the Late Neolithic in Britain, estimates from this scientific dating programme will provide some initial calibration data points, as the magnetic directions obtained (Figure 12) reflect temporal differences in the use of structures. The magnetic directions for the primary use of the Structure 8 hearth Robust dating of a site of the character of the Ness of Brodgar throws up considerable challenges, and the models presented above are both unavoidably provisional, because excavation continues, and incomplete, since neither includes any estimate for the start of Grooved Ware activity at the site. A precise chronology for the Ness of Brodgar simply derived from scientific dates is unlikely to materialise given some of the challenges outlined above, but integrating architectural sequence and 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 Fig. 12 - Colour online, B/W in print 1536 1549 1550 1551 Figure 12. Ness of Brodgar. Mean magnetic directions, after removal of outliers (Batt & Outram, 2014) with errors at 95 per cent confidence. 34 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 chronological modelling has given us the opportunity to construct provisional narratives for the chronology of activity which are different from what has previously been suggested. This has many implications. The discussion here focuses on the Ness and its immediate setting, in relation to the chronological questions set out at the start of this article. Wider considerations will be followed in subsequent syntheses that draw together all the strands of the ToTL project in Orkney. It had previously been tempting to think of a very long span of more or less continuous use of the Ness, on the basis of preliminary radiocarbon dates and on the assumption that a large site of this kind was likely to have been in use over a long period (Card, 2012). Now, although neither of the proposed models provides a start date for Late Neolithic activity on the site, both indicate a broadly similar terminus ante quem of 3065–2950 cal BC (95% probability; start_NoB; Figure 7; Model 1; Table 3), and 3020–2920 cal BC (95% probability; start_NoB; Figure 9; Model 2; Table 3). It is impossible to say how much earlier the first Late Neolithic activity may have taken place, though the presence of the underlying structures noted above and the different character of the Grooved Ware in Trench J allow the possibility of some time-depth. Models 1 and 2 both provide comparable estimates for the primary (Structures 7, 8, 10, and 14) and secondary (Structures 1 and 12) use of the distinctive piered buildings (Figure 13). Model 1 suggests a concentration of activity in the first quarter of the third millennium cal BC (Figure 13), with the primary use of Structures 7, 8, 10, and 14 (Figure 7) clearly occurring during the thirtieth century cal BC. Model 2, however, provides a formal estimate which places this activity between 3020–2920 cal BC (95% probability; start_NoB; Figure 9) and European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 2855–2665 cal BC (95% probability; end_NoB_piered; Figure 9; Table 3). The phase of piered architecture at the Ness of Brodgar therefore lasted, on this reading, 70–305 years (95% probability; piered_ architecture; Figure 11). How long this set of buildings, including Structure 10, continued in active and continuous use is hard to define from Model 1. We can say with some confidence that there were no further new constructions in Trench P. A series of modifications to various buildings were made (Structure 8 having gone out of use with the construction of Structure 10). Structure 1 had its interior area much reduced by the insertion of a large curving wall and the creation of a new side entrance; Structure 12 was dismantled (due to subsidence) and then rebuilt with the addition of a new entrance with an annex, and two of its earlier entrances blocked; and Structure 14 had many of its orthostatic divisions removed and its entrances remodelled. Model 1 suggests that the last use of hearths in Structure 12 (2755–2565 cal BC (94% probability; last_hearth_st12; Figure 13; Table 3) or 2515–2500 cal BC (1% probability) and Structure 1 (2770–2570 cal BC (95% probability; last_hearth_st1; Figure 13; Table 3) was relatively late. It is not possible to follow this part of the Ness story in detail in Model 1. Model 2, however, does suggest that this activity came to an end around 2800 cal BC, after a minimum duration of a couple of centuries. As had been the case of Structure 8 at neighbouring Barnhouse (Richards et al., 2016), the most monumental of all the buildings at the Ness, Structure 10, was not the first to be set up. It does, however, seem to have appeared early on in the sequence of piered architecture, with both models agreeing that it was probably built during the thirtieth century cal BC. Model 1 estimates a date of 2990–2895 cal BC (95% probability; end_st8_start_st10; 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 Parameter name Model 1 (see Figure 7 for definition of the model) Model 2 (see Figure 9 for definition of the model) Posterior Density Estimate (95% probability unless otherwise stated) Posterior Density Estimate (68% probability unless otherwise stated) Posterior Density Estimate (95% probability unless otherwise stated) Posterior Density Estimate (68% probability unless otherwise stated) start_NoB Boundary parameter estimating the start of the dated Late Neolithic activity and providing a terminus ante quem for the start of activity 3065–2950 cal BC 3035–2980 cal BC 3020–2920 cal BC 2975–2925 cal BC last_hearth_st1 Last parameter estimating the last dated event in the Structure 1 hearth 2770–2570 cal BC 2705–2585 cal BC 2865–2695 cal BC 2860–2875 cal BC last_hearth_st7 Last parameter estimating the last dated event in the Structure 7 hearth 2930–2875 cal BC 2915–2890 cal BC 2925–2880 cal BC 2915–2890 cal BC last_hearth_st12 Last parameter estimating the last dated event in the Structure 12 hearth 2755–2565 (94%) or 2515–2500 (1%) cal BC 2670–2575 cal BC 2860–2715 (94%) or 2705–22685 (1%) cal BC 2855–2800 cal BC last_st12 Last parameter estimating the dated event in Structure 12 when the roof collapse resulted in the smashing of pots near the hearth 2855–2835 (2%) or 2820–2585 (93%) cal BC 2775–2660 (65%) or 2645–2634 (3%) cal 2875–2710 cal 2870–2830 (46%) or 2820–2780 (22%) cal last_st14 Last parameter estimating the last dated event in the Structure 14 2995–2905 cal BC 2960–2915 cal BC 2970–2900 cal BC 2940–2910 cal BC end_st8_start_st10 Date parameter estimating the end of activity associated with Structure 8 and the start of activity associated with the construction of Structure 10 2990–2895 cal BC 2955–2905 cal BC 2965–2895 cal BC 2935–2905 cal BC st10_secondary_build Last parameter estimating the last dated event associated with the primary use of Structure 10 prior to its remodelling 2920–2885 cal BC 2910–2890 cal BC 2910–2840 (73%) or 2815–2755 (22%) cal BC 2900–2860 (66%) or 2800–2795 (2%) cal BC end_NoB_piered Boundary parameter estimating the end of the dated activity associated with piered architecture − − 2855–2665 cal BC 2850–2755 cal BC start_st10_last_use Boundary parameter estimating the start of the dated activity associated with last use of Structure 10 − − 2720–2480 cal BC 2620–2500 cal BC BC BC Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short Table 3. Highest posterior density intervals from key parameters from ness of brodgar, derived from the models defined in figure 7 (model 1) and Figure 9 (model 2) BC 35 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 Parameter name 1686 − BC 2460–2270 cal − BC 2460–2420 cal BC BC 2465–2360 cal BC 2275–2230 (36%) or 2200–2150 (32%) cal BC BC 1670 2285–2100 cal 1669 Boundary parameter estimating the end of the dated activity 1668 end_NoB 1667 − 1666 − 1665 Boundary parameter estimating the end of the dated activity associated with Structure 10 1664 end_st10_last_use 1663 2315–2265 (50%) or 2250–2205 (18%) cal 1662 BC 1661 2340–2200 cal 1660 Last parameter estimating the last dated event in the Structure 10 animal deposit 1659 structure_10_cattle 1658 2545–2460 cal 1657 2500–2465 cal BC 1656 BC 1655 2550–2460 cal 1654 Last parameter estimating the last dated event in the Structure 10 hearth 1653 central_hearth_st10 1652 Posterior Density Estimate (95% probability unless otherwise stated) 1651 Posterior Density Estimate (68% probability unless otherwise stated) 1650 Posterior Density Estimate (95% probability unless otherwise stated) 1649 Model 2 (see Figure 9 for definition of the model) 1648 Model 1 (see Figure 7 for definition of the model) 1647 2455–2380 cal BC Table 3. (Cont.) Figure 13; Model 1; Table 3), and Model 2 estimates a date of 2965–2895 cal BC (95% probability; end_st8_start_st10; Figure 13; Model 2; Table 3). How are pre-eminent structures of this kind to be characterised? In some of the preliminary and popularising accounts, labels such as ‘temple’ and ‘cathedral’ have been used (Card, 2010), but even more modest terms such as ‘shrine’ or ‘meeting house’ can carry significant charge (Waterson, 1990; Gell, 1998). Structure 10 should be seen in terms of what have been called ceremonial or ‘big houses’ (Bradley, 2005; Pollard, 2010; Darvill, 2016). Whatever the role of Structure 10 was, the models raise the question of the circumstances in which such a remarkable construction came into being. Did it need predecessors, and a previous history which it could trump? Or did it come out of conditions of competition among the users of the other buildings, be they purely local householders or, say, kin groupings, or representatives of wider communities from further afield across Orkney (see Card, 2012; Downes et al., 2013: 116)? The models now available (Figure 14) indicate that the Ness of Brodgar and Barnhouse were in use at the same time. In Model 1, this was for a minimum of 75–195 years; 95% probability; distribution not shown), and in Model 2 for a minimum of 45–155 years (95% probability; distribution not shown). Barnhouse was abandoned in the earlier twenty-ninth century cal BC. It is not possible to envisage which of the two sites may prove to be the older. Barnhouse appears to have been a fresh foundation, but indications are that there had been earlier activity on the Ness of Brodgar. These overlapping histories raise further questions about relationships. Were these rival sites, on either side of the narrows that separate them, one claiming seniority and precedence and the other challenging 1646 2495–2465 cal BC European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 Posterior Density Estimate (68% probability unless otherwise stated) 36 Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 37 1693 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 Fig. 13 - Colour online, B/W in print 1694 1707 Figure 13. Ness of Brodgar. Probability distributions of key archaeological events derived from the models shown in Figures 9 and 11. 1708 1709 1710 1711 for equal or better position? We can say that the construction of Structure 8 at Barnhouse (Richards et al., 2016: fig. 7) was earlier (94.8% probable; Model 1; 98.9% probable; Model 2) than that of Structure 10 at the Ness (Figure 14), and it would be plausible to envisage the builders of the latter setting out to emulate and 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 surpass the scale of the former. But we should also be aware that the term ‘site’, so often used, may not be appropriate. Do these ‘sites’ represent separate communities? Did they start as such but became part of a wider complex in which, on grounds of scale, Barnhouse could be some kind of satellite to the Ness? From 1719 1720 1721 1722 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 Fig. 14 - Colour online, B/W in print 1723 Figure 14. Probability distributions for key parameters from Barnhouse (Richards et al., 2016), Ness of Brodgar (Figures 7 and 9), Pool (MacSween et al., 2015), and the Stones of Stenness (Bayliss et al., in press). 38 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 this perspective, it is interesting to remember the estimate placing the construction of the Stones of Stenness probably in the thirtieth century cal BC (Schulting et al., 2010; Griffiths & Richards, 2013: 284– 85), and thus squarely within the period of overlap between these two ‘neighbours’. Although the samples dated from the Stones of Stenness are not in direct relationship with its construction and thus only give an indication of the chronology of activity taking place at the stone circle, the available models would indicate that this monument was erected at about the same time as Structure 10 at the Ness (Figure 14). This challenges our interpretive powers, since generally in most other settings in Britain and Ireland monuments are not directly accompanied by such a wealth of settlement remains (and it is a moot point in any case whether we label the Ness of Brodgar as simply a settlement). These models certainly set difficult questions about ownership and the constituency of the users of monuments. Finally, given the earlier twenty-ninth century cal BC as the date of abandonment of Barnhouse, this was probably (on the reading built into Model 2) the time when the character of the Ness of Brodgar began to change too. Activity at the Ness associated with piered architecture probably continued for 10–210 years (95% probability; Model 2; distribution not shown), or 20–120 years (68% probability) after Barnhouse ended. Model 1 does not provide a precise estimate for the duration of the use of piered architecture at the Ness; Model 2 suggests this was not less than a century or two (Figure 11). Barnhouse was in use for 165–205 years (9% probability; use Barnhouse; Richards et al., 2016: fig. 13) or 210–295 years (89% probability). It is entirely possible that the primary Late Neolithic phase at the Ness lasted longer — but not for several centuries, and that European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 should give us pause for thought. It may also provide a valuable clue as to the nature of social relations, at the site as well as in the networks beyond in which it participated and perhaps even had a controlling interest. There must have been both risks and costs in first constructing and then maintaining a site of the size and potential complexity of the Ness. Labour had to be mobilised, and people fed, even if some of the users of the site may only have been there some of the time. As well as a place of renown and even awe, the site could have encouraged rivalries and engendered jealousies. Early Mesa Verde villages in the south-western United States have been called ‘social tinderboxes’, which rarely lasted beyond 30–70 years or one to three generations, as precise dendrochronological dates indicate (Wilshusen & Potter, 2010: 178). A possible scenario for the Ness of Brodgar is that the effort to keep it all going was not maintained for more than a few generations (our estimates being unavoidably imprecise). Buildings began to be modified, and in some instances were reduced in size; if there was a degree of social differentiation behind the emergence and initial development of the Ness, it did not become institutionalised enough to keep the complex going in an unaltered state forever. Conversely, one could use the analogy to turn the perspective right round; perhaps some settlements and complexes in Late Neolithic Orkney were able to maintain social cohesion for considerable periods of time, and the Ness could be the pre-eminent candidate for this kind of role. Whatever the interpretation, defining duration with greater precision becomes of key importance. At various points in the sequences of individual buildings, and over the site as a whole, extensive middening began probably by at least around 2600 cal BC (Figure 7; Model 1) or by c. 2800 cal BC (Figure 9; Model 2). In Colin Richards’ Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 terms, we might think of this as ‘wrapping’ the site; whether for concealment, protection, containment, or other purposes (Richards, 2013: 17), it certainly marks a further shift in the character of the site. Following this, after an appreciable interval (even in the less precise Model 1), there were the final modifications to the hearth in the centre of the once great Structure 10, around 2500 cal BC (Model 2) or a little later, 2550–2460 cal BC (95% probability; central_hearth_st10; Figure 13; Model 1; Table 3). Again, it seems no accident that by this date this is the one visible (and so far dated) locus of activity on the site; the massive and special building was still able to attract attention presumably by the enduring power of social memory. At this point in the sequence, our two models strongly diverge. Model 1 suggests another significant interval following the last use of the hearth in Structure 10 before the last major event associated with it (135–320 years (95% probability); distribution not shown): the enormous cattle deposit dated in the model to 2340–2200 cal BC (95% probability; structure_10_cattle; Figure 13; Table 3). There has been previous discussion of this as a ‘decommissioning’ of Structure 10 (Mainland et al., 2014: 869), but following Model 1 it would be more plausible to apply that concept to the final deposition in the central hearth around or slightly later than 2500 cal BC. Model 2 indicates that there was a significant gap before the reuse of Structure 10 following the end of the primary phase of Late Neolithic activity (30–335 years (95% probability; gap_1: Figure 11)). In contrast to Model 1, the use of the hearth and the placing of the animal bone deposit were part of a short-lived phase of activity, which was over by 2465–2360 cal BC (95% probability; st10_cattle; Figure 13; Table 3). In this reading, the animal bone 39 deposit does indeed constitute a major decommissioning of Structure 10 (Mainland et al., 2014: 869). The stupendous scale of this depositional event marks it out as something completely different from other acts of deposition on the site: as much a new beginning as an ending. Once again, it was Structure 10 which was chosen for the extraordinary deposition of cattle and other remains, plausibly a final testament to its now arguably mythic status. Presumably we should look to circumstances in a wider world, which now included Beaker-related practices and which can be dated nationally from 2475– 2360 cal BC (95% probability; Parker Pearson et al., 2016, fig. 2), even though we know rather little about the Beaker presence in Orkney (see Sheridan, 2013), and there is only one incised sherd in the deposit which could be compared with Beaker or Beaker-related pottery elsewhere. It is striking that the Model 2 estimate for the animal bone deposit so closely overlaps that for the appearance of Beakers nationally. The lack of Beaker material may suggest some kind of insular resistance to the spread of Beaker-related practices, as has been argued in the case of Silbury Hill, finished in the late twentyfourth or early twenty-third century cal BC (Marshall et al., 2013: 111) ― at a slightly later date following Model 1, but at the point of initial Beaker spread following Model 2. The Beaker funerals marked by extravagant deposition of cattle remains at Irthlingborough and Gayhurst in southern Britain also spring to mind (Davis & Payne, 1993; Chapman, 2007), but these are significantly later in the Beaker sequence. After the deposition of the cattle bone spread, the interior of Structure 10 was infilled in a very structured manner with alternating layers of midden and rubble (Mainland et al., 2014: 869). 40 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 Looking beyond the Ness of Brodgar, there may be significant hints elsewhere in Orkney of similar chronological patterning. Barnhouse went out of use in the earlier twenty-ninth century cal BC. There was a pronounced hiatus in the occupation of Pool, Sanday, between the twentyeighth and twenty-sixth centuries cal BC (MacSween et al., 2015; Figure 14), at roughly the same time as at the Ness (in Model 2). We should therefore not assume that Grooved Ware settlements went on forever, right across the archipelago. What, if anything, could have occurred locally at the Ness of Brodgar in the phase of reduced or absent activity before the final events connected to Structure 10? Is it coincidence that one estimate, claimed as ‘reasonable’, for the date of the digging of the Ring of Brodgar ditch is 2600–2400 BC, based on very imprecise OSL dating (to which we will return critically in a subsequent synthesis) (Downes et al., 2013: 113)? Was the Ness now mainly a place of memories, closed off (as it were) by a great new sacred ring close by? Or does the construction of the Ring of Brodgar — and perhaps also of Maeshowe — better belong to the floruit of the Ness of Brodgar, Barnhouse, and the Stones of Stenness, when we know that substantial numbers of people must have been concentrated, at least at intervals, in the local landscape? Finally, the provisional formal chronologies for the Ness of Brodgar presented here already define the goals of future research. Deeper levels need to be uncovered, and across the sequence the search is on for more short-life samples of known taphonomy. The emergent chronologies for the Ness also demand more certain dating for both the Ring of Brodgar and Maeshowe (Griffiths & Richards, 2013), in line with the declared research strategy for the World Heritage Site (Downes & Gibson, 2013: 25, objectives 266 and European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 270). Robust formal modelling can help change fundamentally our understanding of the major research questions, and such a remarkable landscape requires a committed and continuing response. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are very grateful to many institutions and individuals, in particular: Ness of Brodgar Trust, Foundation for World Health, Orkney Islands Council, University of the Highlands and Islands, Orkney Archaeology Society, American Friends of the Ness of Brodgar, Northlink, TalismanSinopec, Hiscox Insurance, Historic Environment Scotland, and numerous other supporters and volunteers; Mark Edmonds, Ann MacSween, Colin Richards, and Alison Sheridan for encouragement, advice, and critical comments on an earlier draft of this article; three anonymous referees for their comments; and Kirsty Harding for help with the figures. 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. REFERENCES Ballin Smith, B. 2003. A New Late Neolithic House at Brodgar Farm, Stenness, Orkney. Unpublished report for GUARD, Project 1506. Glasgow. Batt, C.M. & Outram, Z. 2014. Telling the Time in Neolithic Orkney: Archaeomagnetic Studies of Features from the Ness of Brodgar, Orkney 2012–2013. Unpublished report, University of Bradford. Bayliss, A., Marshall, P., Richards, C. and Whittle, A. in press. The Late Neolithic timescape of Orkney: islands of history. Antiquity Bradley, R. 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe. London: Routledge. Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 Brock, F., Higham, T., Ditchfield, P. & Bronk Ramsey, C. 2010. Current Pretreatment Methods for AMS Radiocarbon Dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon, 52: 103–12. Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon, 36: 425–30. Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon, 51: 37– 60. Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T. & Leach, P. 2004. Towards High Precision AMS: Progress and Limitations. Radiocarbon, 46: 17–24. Buck, C.E., Litton, C.D. & Smith, A.F.M. 1992. Calibration of Radiocarbon Results Pertaining to Related Archaeological Events. Journal of Archaeological Science, 19: 497–512. Buck, C.E., Cavanagh, W.G. & Litton, C.D. 1996. Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data. Chichester: Wiley. Card, N. 2006. Excavations at Bookan Chambered Cairn. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 135 (2005): 163–90. Card, N. 2010. Neolithic Temples of the Northern Isles. Current Archaeology, 241: 12–19. Card, N. 2012. The Ness of Brodgar. British Archaeology, 128: 14–21. Card, N. & Thomas, N. 2012. Painting a Picture of Neolithic Orkney: Decorated Stonework from the Ness of Brodgar. In: A. Cochrane & A.M. Jones, eds. Visualising the Neolithic: Abstraction, Figuration, Performance, Representation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 111–24. Card, N., Downes, J. & Edmonds, M. eds. forthcoming. Landscapes Revealed: Remote Sensing Around the Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site. Oxford: Windgather Press. Chapman, A. 2007. A Bronze Age Barrow Cemetery and Later Boundaries, Pit Alignments and Enclosures at Gayhurst Quarry, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire. Records of Buckinghamshire, 47: 83–211. Clarke, D.V. 1976. The Neolithic Village at Skara Brae, Orkney: 1972–73 Excavations. Edinburgh: Department of the Environment and Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Clarke, D.V., Sheridan, J.A., Shepherd, A., Sharples, N., MacSween, A., ArmourChelu, M., Hamlet, L., Bronk Ramsey, C., 41 Dunbar, E., Reimer, P., Marshall, P. & Whittle, A. submitted. The End of the World, or Just Goodbye to All That? Contextualising the Late Third Millennium cal BC Deer Heap at Links of Noltland, Westray, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Cluett, J.P. 2008. Soil and Sediment-based Cultural Records and The Heart of Orkney World Heritage Site Buffer Zones. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Stirling. Cramp, L.J., Jones, J., Sheridan, J.A., Smyth, J., Whelton, H., Mulville, J., Sharples, N. & Evershed, R.P. 2014. Immediate Replacement of Fishing with Dairying by the Earliest Farmers of the Northeast Atlantic Archipelagos. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 281: 1–8. Darvill, T. 2016. Houses of the Holy: Architecture and Meaning in the Structure of Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK, Time and Mind, 9:89–121. Davidson, J.L. & Henshall, A.S. 1989. The Chambered Cairns of Orkney: An Inventory of the Structures and their Contents. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Davis, S. & Payne, S. 1993. A Barrow Full of Cattle Skulls. Antiquity, 67: 12–22. Dee, M. & Bronk Ramsey, C. 2000. Refinement of the Graphite Target Production at ORAU. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 172: 449–53. Dickson, J.H. 1992. North American Driftwood, Especially Picea (Spruce), from Archaeological Sites in the Hebrides and Northern Isles of Scotland. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 73: 49–56. Downes, J. & Gibson, J., with Gibbs, S.J. & Mitchell, A. eds. 2013. Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site: Research Strategy 2013–2018. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland. 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: C. Richards, ed. Building the Great Stone Circles of the North. Oxford: Windgather Press, pp. 90–118. Dunbar, E., Cook, G.T., Naysmith, P., Tripney, B.G. & Xu, S. 2016. AMS 14C 42 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Dating at the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC) Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory. Radiocarbon, 58: 9–23. Farrell, M. 2015. Later Prehistoric Vegetation Dynamics and Bronze Age Agriculture at Hobbister, Orkney, Scotland. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 24: 467–86. Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon. Griffiths, S. 2016. Beside the Ocean of Time: A Chronology of Neolithic Burial Monuments and Houses in Orkney. In: C. Richards & R. Jones, eds. The Development of Neolithic House Societies in Orkney. Oxford: Windgather Press, pp. 254–302. Griffiths, S. & Richards, C. 2013. A Time for Stone Circles, a Time for New People. In: C. Richards, ed. Building the Great Stone Circles of the North. Oxford: Windgather Press, pp. 281–91. GSB 2002. Orkney World Heritage Site, Geophysical Report, Phase 1 (GSB Report 2002/61). Unpublished report, Bradford: GSB Prospection. Hensey, R. 2015. First Light: The Origins of Newgrange. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Henshall, A. 1972. The Chambered Tombs of Scotland: Volume Two. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Historic Scotland 1998. Nomination of the Heart of Neolithic Orkney for Inclusion in the World Heritage List. Document submitted to UNESCO. Edinburgh. Jones, J.R. & Mulville, J. 2015. Isotopic and Zooarchaeological Approaches Towards Understanding Aquatic Resource Use in Human Economies and Animal Management in the Prehistoric Scottish North Atlantic Islands. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.08.019. Lanting, J.N. & van der Plicht, J. 1998. Reservoir Effects and Apparent 14C Ages. Journal of Irish Archaeology, 9: 151–65. Lanting, J.N., Aerts-Bijma, A.T. & van der Plicht, J. 2001. Dating of Cremated Bones. Radiocarbon, 43: 249–54. MacSween, A. 2008. Ness of Brodgar: Report on the Pottery. Unpublished Pottery Report, University of the Highlands and Islands, Archaeology Institute. Kirkwall. MacSween, A., Hunter, J., Sheridan, J.A., Bond, J., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, P., European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 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. Mainland, I., Card, N., Saunders, M.K., Webster, C., Isaksen, L., Downes, J. & Littlewood, M. 2014. ‘SmartFauna’: A Microscale GIS-based Multi-Dimensional Approach to the Faunal Deposition at the Ness of Brodgar, Orkney. Journal of Archaeological Science, 41: 868–78. Marshall, P., Bayliss, A., Leary, J., Campbell, G., Worley, F., Bronk Ramsey, C. & Cook, G. 2013. The Silbury Chronology. In: J. Leary, D. Field and G. Campbell, eds. Silbury Hill: The Largest Prehistoric Mound in Europe. Swindon: English Heritage, pp. 97–116. Parker Pearson, M., 2003. Food identity and culture: an introduction and overview, in: Parker. Pearson, M. (Ed.), Food, Culture and Identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, British. Archaeological Reports, International Series 1117, Archaeopress, Oxford, 1–30. Parker Pearson, M., Chamberlain, A., Jay, M., Richards, M., Sheridan, J.A., Curtis, N., Evans, J., Gibson, A., Hutchison, M., Mahoney, P., Marshall, P., Montgomery, J., Needham, S., O’Mahoney, S., Pellegrini, M. & Wilkin, N., 2016. Bell Beaker People in Britain: Migration, Mobility and Diet. Antiquity, 90: 620–37. Photos-Jones, E., Hall, A.J., Ballin Smith, B. & Jones, R.E. 2007. On the Intent to Make Cramp: An Interpretation of Vitreous Seaweed Cremation ‘Waste’ from Prehistoric Burial Sites in Orkney, Scotland. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 26: 1–23. Pollard, J. 2010. The Materialization of Religious Structures in the Time of Stonehenge. Material Religion, 5: 332– 353. Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., 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. & van der Plicht, J. 2013. Intcal 13 and Marine13 Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon, 55: 1869–87. Reimer, P., Hoper, S., McDonald, J., Reimer, R. & Thompson, M. 2015. Laboratory Protocols Used for AMS Radiocarbon Dating at the 14 CHRONO Centre, The Queen’s University, Belfast. English Heritage Research Report. Portsmouth: English Heritage. Renfrew, C. 1979. Investigations in Orkney. London: Society of Antiquaries of London. Richards, C. ed. 2005. Dwelling Among the Monuments: The Neolithic Village of Barnhouse, Maeshowe Passage Grave and Surrounding Monuments at Stenness, Orkney. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Richards, C. ed. 2013. Building the Great Stone Circles of the North. Oxford: Windgather Press. Richards, C. & Jones, R. eds. 2016. The Development of Neolithic House Societies in Orkney. Oxford: Windgather Press. Richards, C., Jones, A.M., MacSween, A., Sheridan, J.A., Dunbar, E., Reimer, P., Bayliss, A., Griffiths, S. & Whittle, A. 2016. Settlement Duration and Materiality: Formal Chronological Models for the Development of Barnhouse, a Grooved Ware Settlement in Orkney. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 81: 283–310. 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. Scott, E.M., Cook, G.T., Naysmith, P., Bryant, C. & O’Donnell, D. 2007. A Report on Phase 1 of the Fifth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI). Radiocarbon, 49: 409–26. Scott, E.M., Cook, G.T. & Naysmith, P. 2010. A Report on Phase 2 of the Fifth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI). Radiocarbon, 52: 846–58. Shepherd, A.N. 2016. Skara Brae Life Studies: Overlaying the Embedded Images. In: F. Hunter & A. Sheridan, eds. Ancient Lives: Object, People and Place in Early Scotland. Essays for David V. Clarke on his 70th 43 Birthday. Leiden: Sidestone Press, pp. 213–32. Sheridan, J.A. 1999. Grooved Ware from the Links of Noltland, Westray, Orkney. In: R. Cleal & A. MacSween, eds. Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 112–24. 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. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 26–37. Sheridan, J.A. 2012. Contextualising Kilmartin: Building a Narrative for Developments in Western Scotland and Beyond, from the Early Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age. In: A.M. Jones, J. Pollard, M.J. Allen & J. Gardiner, eds. Image, Memory and Monumentality: Archaeological Engagements with the Material World. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 163–183. Sheridan, J.A. 2013. Plus ça change…? Developments in Shetland, c. 2500–1800 BC. In: D.L. Mahler, ed. The Border of Farming. Shetland and Scandinavia: Neolithic and Bronze Age Farming. Copenhagen: The National Museum of Denmark, pp. 47–72. 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. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté, pp. 303–14. Sheridan, J.A., MacSween, A., Towers, R., Bayliss, A., Marshall, P. & Whittle, A. in prep. Grooved Ware in Orkney: Towards an Overall Narrative. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Simpson, D. & Ransom, R. 1992. Maceheads and the Orcadian 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. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 221–43. Slota, P.J., Jr, Jull, A.J.T., Linick, T.W. & Toolin, L.J. 1987. Preparation of Small Samples for 14C Accelerator Targets by European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 44 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 Catalytic Reduction of CO. Radiocarbon, 29: 303–06. 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. Stuiver, M. & Polach, H.A. 1977. Reporting of 14C Data. Radiocarbon, 19: 355–63. Stuiver, M & Reimer, P.J. 1993 Extended 14C Data Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 14C Age Calibration Program. Radiocarbon, 35: 215–30. Thomas, J. 2010. The Return of the RinyoClacton Folk? The Cultural Significance of the Grooved Ware Complex in Later Neolithic Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 20: 1–15. Towers, R. & Card, N. 2015. Technological Adaptation in Grooved Ware Pottery from the Ness of Brodgar, Orkney, or How to Make Your Cordons Stick. Scottish Archaeological Journal, 36–37: 51–63. 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. & Longworth, I.H. 1971. Durrington Walls: Excavations 1966–1968. London: Society of Antiquaries of London. Ward, G.K. & Wilson, S.R. 1978. Procedures for Comparing and Combining Radiocarbon Age Determinations: A Critique. Archaeometry, 20: 19–31. Waterson, R. 1990. The Living House: An Anthropology of Architecture in South-East Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilshusen, R.H. & Potter, J.M. 2010. The Emergence of Villages in the American Southwest: Cultural Issues and Historical Perspectives. In: M.S. Bandy & J.R. Fox, eds. Becoming Villagers: Comparing Early Village Societies. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press, pp. 165–83. Archaeology. His interests cover all aspects of the prehistory of northern Britain, particularly the Neolithic. Address: The University of the Highlands and Islands Archaeology Institute, Orkney College UHI, East Road, Kirkwall, Orkney, KW15 1LX, UK. [email: nick. card@uhi.ac.uk:] Ingrid Mainland is Programme Leader for BA Hons. Archaeology at the UHI Archaeology Institute. Her main area of research is archaeozoology, with a specific focus on North Atlantic archaeofaunas and on palaeodietary analysis. Address: The University of the Highlands and Islands Archaeology Institute, Orkney College UHI, East Road, Kirkwall, Orkney, KW15 1LX, UK. [email: Ingrid. mainland@uhi.ac.uk:] Scott Timpany is an environmental geoarchaeologist with the UHI Archaeology Institute. His particular research interests include the palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of submerged and buried landscapes, palynological studies and the use of non-pollen palynomorphs in palaeoenvironmental reconstruction, and Holocene environmental change. Address: The University of the Highlands and Islands Archaeology Institute, Orkney College UHI, East Road, Kirkwall, Orkney, KW15 1LX, UK. [email: scott. timpany@uhi.ac.uk:] 2062 2063 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 Nick Card is Director of the Ness of Brodgar and Senior Projects Manager at the Orkney Research Centre for Roy Towers is a prehistoric ceramics specialist based at the UHI Archaeology Institute with particular emphasis on Grooved Ware. Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 Address: The University of the Highlands and Islands Archaeology Institute, Orkney College UHI, East Road, Kirkwall, Orkney, KW15 1LX, UK. [email: roy. towers@uhi.ac.uk:] 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 Cathy Batt is a Senior Lecturer in Archaeological Sciences at the University of Bradford where she has worked since 1991. Her research focuses in two related areas: magnetic properties of archaeological materials and scientific dating. 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 Address: Division of Archaeological, Geographical and Environmental Sciences (AGES), University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford BD7 1DP, UK. [email:] C.M.Batt@bradford.ac.uk 45 Technology Park, Rankine Avenue, East Kilbride, G75 0QF, UK. [email:] Elaine. Dunbar@glasgow.ac.uk Paula Reimer is a professor at Queen’s University, Belfast. Her research interests are primarily focused on carbon, in both modern and past environments, as a tracer of geochemical processes, as a key component in climate variability and as a chronological tool. Much of her work focuses on extending and refining the internationally ratified radiocarbon calibration curves. Address: 14CHRONO Centre, Queen’s University Belfast, 42 Fitzwilliam Street, Belfast, BT9 6AX, UK. [email: p.j. reimer@qub.ac.uk 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 Christopher Bronk Ramsey is a Professor of Archaeological Science at the University of Oxford and Director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit. His main research has been in the application of physical sciences to archaeology and the environmental sciences and in particular in the use of radiocarbon isotope studies. 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 Alex Bayliss is Head of Scientific Dating at Historic England and Professor of Archaeological Science at the University of Stirling. Her research focuses on the construction of precise chronologies for archaeological sites, environmental records, and aspects of material culture. Currently, she is leading the ERC-funded The Times of Their Lives project (2012–17) with Alasdair Whittle. Address: Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Dyson Perrins Building, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK. [email:] christopher. ramsey@arch.ox.ac.uk Address: Historic England, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138–142 Holborn, London EC1N 2ST, UK. [email:] alex.bayliss@ historicengland.org.uk Elaine Dunbar is Assistant Manager in the SUERC Radiocarbon Laboratory. Her research interests are new avenues of method development for the laboratory to advance existing methodologies for 14C capabilities. Peter Marshall is a member of the Scientific Dating Team at Historic England. His research interest focuses on providing precise chronologies to understand past human activities and how landscapes have changed. Address: SUERC Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, Scottish Enterprise Address: Historic England, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138–142 Holborn, London 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 46 2116 2117 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2016 EC1N 2ST, UK. [email:] peter.marshall@ historicengland.org.uk Neolithic in Europe. Currently, he is leading the ERC-funded The Times of Their Lives project (2012–17) with Alex Bayliss. Alasdair Whittle is a Distinguished Research Professor at Cardiff University, where has worked since 1978, and a fellow of the British Academy. He has researched extensively across many dimensions of the Address: Department of Archaeology and Conservation, John Percival Building, Cardiff University, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU, UK. [email:] Whittle@cardiff. ac.uk 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 Une longue histoire en bref : une modélisation chronologique du site Néolithique récent du Ness of Brodgar dans les Orcades 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 Dans le cadre des questions non encore résolues sur la nature et l’évolution du Néolithique récent dans les Orcades nous présentons un sommaire des recherches menées jusqu’en 2015 sur le site du Ness of Brodgar sur l’île principale (Mainland) et en particulier ses imposantes structures bâties. L’identification d’échantillons pour datation radiocarbone suffisamment fiables a constitué un défi majeur. Certains indices parmi les objets et les éléments structurels découverts démontrent que le site a été occupé avant le principal ensemble de bâtiments fouillés à ce jour. Ici nous présentons quarante-six dates obtenues sur trente-neuf échantillons et proposons une modélisation chronologique. Deux modèles représentent deux lectures distinctes de la séquence chrono-stratigraphique. Les deux démontrent que l’architecture sur piliers existait au trentième siècle av. J.-C. (cal BC) et que la Structure 10, immense et non pas le premier bâtiment érigé sur le site, était en place au trentième siècle cal BC. L’occupation associée à cette architecture sur piliers prit fin (selon le Modèle 2) autour de 2800 cal BC. Des dépôts de déchets et de déblais vinrent ensuite s’amonceler sur le site. Au bout d’un intervalle assez considérable un foyer situé au centre de la Structure 10 constitue peut-être le seul indice d’occupation sur un site autrement abandonné, et celle-ci prit fin autour de 2500 cal BC. Les restes d’environs 400 bovins ont été déposés sur les vestiges de la Structure 10, au milieu du vingt-cinquième siècle cal BC (selon le Modèle 2) ou vers la fin du vingt-quatrième ou vingt-troisième siècle cal BC (selon le Modèle 1). Ces chronologies donnent lieu à des comparaisons avec le site voisin de Barnhouse, occupé entre la fin du trente-deuxième et le début du vingt-neuvième siècle cal BC et avec le site des Stones of Stenness vraisemblablement construit au trentième siècle cal BC. Le Ness of Brodgar, y compris la Structure 10, semble avoir survécu à Barnhouse, mais il n’a probablement pas continué longtemps sous sa forme originale comme on l’avait envisagé autrefois. Le déclin et le démantèlement du Ness of Brodgar a peut-être coïncidé avec une évolution ultérieure du paysage sacré qui l’entourait mais il nous manque encore des chronologies précises pour les sites avoisinants. Les vestiges spectaculaires de festins qui ont recouvert la Structure 10 font peut-être partie d’un monde qui a changé de façon radicale et qui correspond (selon le Modèle 2) à l’arrivée des vases campaniformes dans les Iles Britanniques. Cependant c’est sans doute la position dorénavant mythique que ce bâtiment occupait dans l’esprit des gens qui a continué à les attirer. Translation by Madeleine Hummler Mots-clés: Orcades, Néolithique récent, céramique cannelée (Grooved Ware), Ness of Brodgar, datation radiocarbone, modélisation chronologique 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 Eine lange Geschichte kurz geschildert: eine chronologische Modellierung der spätneolithischen Siedlung vom Ness of Brodgar auf Orkney Im Rahmen von offengebliebenen Fragen über den Charakter und die Entwicklung des Spätneolithikums auf Orkney legen wir eine Zusammenfassung der bis 2015 unternommenen Untersuchungen im Ness of Brodgar auf der Hauptinsel (Mainland) vor. Die eindrucksvollen Bauten, Card et al. – To Cut a Long Story Short 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 47 die dort gefunden worden sind, bilden den Schwerpunkt. Es erwies sich als besonders schwierig, ausreichende Proben für Radiokarbon Datierungen zu finden. Die Funde und Befunde zeigen, dass eine frühere Phase, die vor den Hauptbauten, die bislang ausgegraben worden sind, auf dem Ness of Brodgar vorhanden ist. Sechsundvierzig Datierungen (auf neununddreißig Proben) werden hier vorgelegt und in einem neuen chronologischen Schema ausgewertet. Wir schlagen zwei Modelle vor, die zwei unterschiedliche Varianten der zeitlichen Abfolge widerspiegeln. Beide zeigen, dass Steinpfeiler in der Architektur des 30. Jahrhunderts v.Chr. (cal BC) verwendet wurden und dass die massive Struktur 10, die nicht das erste Gebäude in der Abfolge war, auch zum 30. Jahrhundert cal BC gehört. Die Tätigkeit, die mit der Steinpfeilerarchitektur in Zusammenhang stand, endete (laut Modell 2) rund um 2800 cal BC. Abfallhaufen und Schuttablagerungen folgten danach. Nach einem beträchtlichen Zeitabstand wurde eine Feuerstelle in der Mitte der Struktur 10, vielleicht der einzige Beleg für eine sonst verlassene Siedlung, errichtet und letztmals um 2500 cal BC genutzt. Die Reste von über 400 Rindern wurden auf den Ruinen der Struktur 10 niedergelegt; im zweiten Modell geschah das in der Mitte des 25. Jahrhunderts cal BC, aber im ersten Modell fand das im späten 24. oder im 23. Jahrhundert cal BC statt. Diese chronologischen Modelle laden zu einem Vergleich mit der nachbarlichen Siedlung von Barnhouse ein; die letztere ist vom späteren 32. Jahrhundert bis zum früheren 29. Jahrhundert cal BC belegt, und die Stones of Stenness Stätte wurde wahrscheinlich im 30. Jahrhundert cal BC errichtet. Die Siedlung vom Ness of Brodgar, samt Struktur 10, scheint Barnhouse überdauert zu haben, aber wahrscheinlich nicht so lange in ihrer ursprünglichen Form wie man es früher gedacht hatte. Der Zerfall und die Außerbetriebnahme des Ness of Brodgars könnte mit der weiteren Entwicklung der Sakrallandschaft in der Umgebung zeitlich übereinstimmen, aber es fehlen noch exakte chronologische Angaben für die anderen Fundstätten in der umgebenden Landschaft. Die beeindruckenden Überreste von Feiern, welche die Struktur 10 überdeckten, könnten zu einer radikal veränderten Welt gehören, die (in unserem zweiten Modell) man mit dem Auftreten der Glockenbecher auf den Britischen Inseln in Zusammenhang bringen könnte. Wahrscheinlich war es aber der inzwischen mythisch gewordene Status der Struktur 10, der die Menschen wieder heranlockte. Translation by Madeleine Hummler 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 Stichworte: Orkney, Spätneolithikum, Grooved Ware (gekerbte Ware), Ness of Brodgar, Radiokarbon Datierung, chronologische Modellierung