Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:48:43.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dates, Diet, and Dismemberment: Evidence from the Coldrum Megalithic Monument, Kent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2013

Michael Wysocki ,
Seren Griffiths ,
Robert Hedges ,
Alex Bayliss ,
Tom Higham ,
Yolanda Fernandez-Jalvo  and
Alasdair Whittle
Michael Wysocki
Affiliation:
School of Forensic and Investigative Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, PR1 2HE, UK
Seren Griffiths
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Conservation, Cardiff University, John Percival Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff, CF10 3EU, UK
Robert Hedges
Affiliation:
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK
Alex Bayliss
Affiliation:
English Heritage, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138–42 Holborn, London, EC1N 2ST, UK
Tom Higham
Affiliation:
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK
Yolanda Fernandez-Jalvo
Affiliation:
Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain
Alasdair Whittle
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Conservation, Cardiff University, John Percival Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff, CF10 3EU, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present radiocarbon dates, stable isotope data, and osteological analysis of the remains of a minimum of 17 individuals deposited in the western part of the burial chamber at Coldrum, Kent. This is one of the Medway group of megalithic monuments – sites with shared architectural motifs and no very close parallels elsewhere in Britain – whose location has been seen as important in terms of the origins of Neolithic material culture and practices in Britain. The osteological analysis identified the largest assemblage of cut-marked human bone yet reported from a British early Neolithic chambered tomb; these modifications were probably undertaken as part of burial practices. The stable isotope dataset shows very enriched δ15N values, the causes of which are not entirely clear, but could include consumption of freshwater fish resources. Bayesian statistical modelling of the radiocarbon dates demonstrates that Coldrum is an early example of a British Neolithic burial monument, though the tomb was perhaps not part of the earliest Neolithic evidence in the Greater Thames Estuary. The site was probably initiated after the first appearance of other early Neolithic regional phenomena including an inhumation burial, early Neolithic pottery and a characteristic early Neolithic post-and-slot structure, and perhaps of Neolithic flint extraction in the Sussex mines. Coldrum is the only site in the Medway monument group to have samples which have been radiocarbon dated, and is important both for regional studies of the early Neolithic and wider narratives of the processes, timing, and tempo of Neolithisation across Britain

Résumé

Dates, nutrition et démembrement: témoignages du monument mégalithique de Coldrum, Kent, de Michael Wysocki, Seren Griffiths, Robert Hedges, Alex Bayliss, Tom Higham, Yolanda Fernandez-Jalvo et Alasdair Whittle

Nous présentons ici des données radiocarbone et d'isotopes stables et des analyses ostéologiques des restes d'un minimum de 17 individus déposés dans la partie ouest de la chambre funéraire de Coldrum, Kent. Coldrum fait partie du groupe de monuments néolithiques de Medway, des sites qui ont en commun des motifs architecturaux et n'ont pas de proche parallèle ailleurs en Grande-Bretagne. On a considéré que leur emplacement dans le Kent était important en matière d'origines de la culture et des pratiques matérielles néolithiques en Grande-Bretagne. L'analyse ostéologique a identifié le plus important assemblage d'ossements humains portant des traces de coupure répertorié jusqu'alors d'un monument funéraire du néolithique ancien dans le sud de la Grande-Bretagne, ces modifications avaient probablement été exécutées dans le cadre de pratiques funéraires néolithiques. L'ensemble des données d'isotopes stables montre des valeurs de δ15N très enrichies dont les causes ne sont pas tout à fait claires, mais pourraient comprendre la consommation des ressources en poissons d'eau douce. Le modèle statistique bayesien des datations au radiocarbone disponibles démontre que Coldrum est un exemple ancien de monument funéraire néolithique en Grande-Bretagne, bien que ce monument n'ait peut-être pas fait partie des plus anciens vestiges néolithiques du Grand Estuaire de la Tamise. Ce site fut probablement utilisé pour la première fois après l'apparition initiale d'autres vestiges régionaux du néolithique ancien, y compris une sépulture à inhumation, de la céramique du néolithique ancien, une structure à poteaux et encoches caractéristique du néolithique ancien et l'extraction de silex néolithique dans les mines du Sussex. Coldrum est le seul site du groupe des monuments de Medway dont des échantillons ont été datés au carbone 14, et il est important à la fois pour les études régionales du néolithique et les narrations plus étendues des procédés, du temps et du tempo de la néolithisation de la Grande-Bretagne

Zussamenfassung

Daten, Diät, Disartikulation: Neue Beobachtungen zum Megalithen von Coldrum, Kent, von Michael Wysocki, Seren Griffiths, Robert Hedges, Alex Bayliss, Tom Higham, Yolanda Fernandez-Jalvo und Alasdair Whittle

Dieser Beitrag präsentiert Daten aus Radiokarbon- und Isotopenuntersuchungen sowie osteologische Analysen von den Überresten von mindestens 17 Individuen, die im westlichen Teil der Grabkammer von Coldrum, Kent, deponiert worden waren. Coldrum ist eine Megalithanlage aus der neolithischen Medway Gruppe, einer Reihe von Monumenten mit gleichartigen architektonischen Merkmalen und ohne nennenswerte Parallelen im Rest Großbritanniens. Ihre Positionierung in Kent wurde als bedeutsam für die Ursprünge der neolithischen materiellen Kultur und Lebensweise in Großbritannien erachtet. Die osteologische Analyse erbrachte die umfangreichste Anzahl an menschlichen Knochen mit Schnittspuren, die je in einem südbritischen frühneolithischen Grabmonument beobachtet wurde; diese Eingriffe in den menschlichen Körper wurden vermutlich als Teil neolithischer Bestattungssitten vorgenommen. Die Datenserien zu stabilen Isotopen zeigen sehr hohe δ15N-Werte; die Gründe hierfür sind nicht völlig klar, doch könnten sie in der Konsumption von Ressourcen von Süßwasserfischen liegen. Bayes'sche statistische Berechnungen der vorhandenen Radiokarbondaten zeigen, dass Coldrum ein frühes Beispiel eines neolithischen Grabmonuments in Großbritannien ist, auch wenn das Grab vielleicht nicht zu den Belegen des ältesten Neolithikums im Themsemündungsgebiet gehört. Der Fundort wurde vermutlich zum ersten Mal nach dem ersten Auftauchen anderer frühneolithischer regionaler Erscheinungen genutzt, zu denen auch ein Körpergrab, frühneolithische Keramik, eine charakteristische frühneolithische Pfosten-und-Schlitz-Struktur und neolithischer Flintabbau in den Minen von Sussex gehören. Coldrum ist der einzige Ort innerhalb der Medway Gruppe, der Proben erbrachte, die C14 datiert werden konnten, weshalb er bedeutsam ist für sowohl regionale Untersuchungen zum Neolithikum als auch generelle Studien zum Vorgang, zeitlichen Ablauf und Tempo der Neolithisierung Großbritanniens

Resumen

Dataciones, dieta y desmembramiento: evidencia del monumento megalítico de Coldrum, Kent, por Michael Wysocki, Seren Griffiths, Robert Hedges, Alex Bayliss, Tom Higham, Yolanda Fernandez-Jalvo y Alasdair Whittle

Se presentan las dataciones de radiocarbono, los datos de isótopos estables y los análisis osteológicos de los restos de un mínimo de 17 individuos depositados en la parte oeste de la cámara funeraria de Coldrum, Kent. Coldrum es uno de los monumentos megalíticos del conjunto de monumentos neolíticos de Medway – sitios que comparten motivos arquitectónicos y sin otros ejemplos similares en el resto de Gran Bretaña. Su situación en Kent se ha considerado especialmente relevante en relación con los orígenes de la cultura material y de las prácticas neolíticas en Gran Bretaña. El análisis osteológico identificó el mayor conjunto de restos humanos con marcas de corte procedente de un monumento funerario del Neolítico inicial en el sur de Gran Bretaña; estas modificaciones fueron probablemente llevadas a cabo como parte de las prácticas funerarias neolíticas. Los datos de los isótopos estables reflejan valores muy elevados de δ15N, cuyas causas no están muy claras, aunque podría deberse al consumo de peces de agua dulce. El modelo estadístico bayesiano de las dataciones de radiocarbono disponibles demuestra que Coldrum es un ejemplo muy temprano de un monumento funerario Neolítico en Gran Bretaña, aunque el monumento quizás no forme parte de las primeras evidencias neolíticas en el Gran Estuario del Támesis. Probablemente se inició el uso de este sitio tras la aparición de otras evidencias anteriores del Neolítico inicial, incluyendo una inhumación, cerámica del Neolítico antiguo, una estructura de postes característica del Neolítico inicial, y la extracción neolítica de sílex en las minas de Sussex. Coldrum es el único sitio del grupo de monumentos Medway que tiene muestras datadas por radiocarbono, y es importante tanto para los estudios regionales sobre Neolítico como para estudios más amplios de los procesos, duración y ritmo de la Neolitización en Gran Bretaña

Keywords

early Neolithicmegalithic monumenthuman remainsradiocarbon datesBayesian statisticscut-marks
Type
Articles
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 79 , December 2013 , pp. 61 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, J. 1959. Addington: the Chestnuts megalithic tomb. Archaeologia Cantiana 72, 191–192Google Scholar
Alexander, J. 1962. The excavation of the Chestnuts megalithic tomb at Addington, Kent. Archaeologia Cantiana 76, 1–57Google Scholar
Allen, M., Leivers, M. 2008. Neolithic causewayed enclosures and later prehistoric farming: duality, imposition and the role of predecessors at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, UK. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74, 235–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashbee, P. 1993. The Medway megaliths in perspective. Archaeologia Cantiana 111, 57–111Google Scholar
Ashbee, P. 1998. Coldrum revisited and revised. Archaeologia Cantiana 78, 1–44Google Scholar
Ashbee, P. 2000. The Medway's megalithic long barrows. Archaeologia Cantiana 120, 319–345Google Scholar
Ashbee, P. 2005. Kent in Prehistoric Times. Stroud: TempusGoogle Scholar
Barber, M. 2004. ‘Rubbishy pots instead of gold’: a brief history of the Neolithic of the south-east. In Cotton & Field (eds) 2004, 1–11Google Scholar
Barrett, J., Bradley, R., Green, M. 1991. Landscape, Monuments and Society: the prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, W. 1992. Human Osteology: a laboratory and field manual (3rd edn). Columbia: Missouri Archaeological SocietyGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A., Whittle, A. (eds) 2007. Histories of the Dead: building chronologies for five southern British long barrows. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17.1 (supplement)Google Scholar
Bayliss, A., Bronk Ramsey, C., Plicht, J.van der, , Whittle, A. 2007a. Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic. In Bayliss & Whittle (eds) 2007, 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A., Whittle, A., Wysocki, M. 2007b. Talking about my generation: the date of the West Kennet long barrow. In Bayliss & Whittle (eds) 2007, 85–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A., Allen, M., Healy, F., Whittle, A., Germany, M., Griffiths, S., Hamilton, D., Higham, T., Meadows, J., Shand, G., Stevens, S., Wysocki, M. 2011a. The Greater Thames estuary. In Whittle et al. 2011b, 348–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A., Healy, F., Whittle, A., Cooney, G. 2011b. Neolithic narratives: British and Irish enclosures in their timescapes. In Whittle et al. 2011b, 682–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beamish, M. 2009. Island visits: Neolithic and Bronze Age activity on the Trent valley floor: excavations at Egginton and Willington, Derbyshire, 1998–1999. Derby Archaeological Journal 129, 17–172Google Scholar
Bennett, F. 1913. Coldrum monument and exploration 1910. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 43, 76–85Google Scholar
Bewley, B., Crutchley, S., Grady, D. 2004. Aerial survey and its contribution to understanding the Neolithic of the south-east. In Cotton & Field (eds) 2004, 71–5Google Scholar
Bickle, P., Whittle, A. (eds) 2013. The First Farmers of Central Europe: diversity in LBK lifeways. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Bogaard, A., Heaton, T., Poulton, P., Merbach, I. 2007. The impact of manuring on nitrogen isotope ratios in cereals: archaeological implications for reconstruction of diet and crop management practices. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogaard, A., Krause, R., Strien, H.-C. 2011. Towards a social geography of cultivation and plant use in an early farming community: Vaihingen an der Enz, south-west Germany. Antiquity 85, 395–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, P., Champion, T., Garwood, P., Glass, H., Munby, J., Reynolds, A. 2011. On Track: the archaeology of High Speed 1 Section 1 in Kent. Oxford: Oxford ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Boulestin, B., Zeeb-Lanz, A., Jeunesse, C., Haack, F., Arbogast, R.-M., Denaire, A. 2009. Mass cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture at Herxheim (Palatinate, Germany). Antiquity 83, 968–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, G. 1979. Robustness in scientific model building. In R. Launer & G. Wilkinson (eds), Robustness in Statistics, 201–236. New York: Academic PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brightman, J. 2009. Mercia Marina, Findern Lane, Willington, Derbyshire: report on an archaeological excavation. Bakewell: ARS Ltd, unplublished reportGoogle Scholar
Britton, K., Müldner, G., Bell, M. 2008. Stable isotope evidence for salt-marsh grazing in the Bronze Age Severn Estuary, UK: implications for palaeodietary analysis at coastal sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2111–2118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F., Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T. 2007. Quality assurance of ultrafiltered bone dating. Radiocarbon 49, 187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37, 425–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1998. Probability and dating. Radiocarbon 40, 461–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43, 355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51, 337–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T., Bowles, A., Hedges, R. 2004a. Improvements to the pre-treatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46, 155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T., Leach, P. 2004b. Towards high precision AMS: progress and limitations. Radiocarbon 46, 17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, C., Kenworthy, J., Litton, C., Smith, A. 1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65, 808–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, C., Litton, C., Smith, A. 1992. Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events. Journal of Archaeological Science 19, 487–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, C., Cavanagh, W., Litton, C. 1996. Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data. Chichester: WileyGoogle Scholar
Buikstra, J., Ubelaker, D. 1994. Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archaeological SurveyGoogle Scholar
Cassen, S. (ed.) 2009. Autour de la Table: explorations archéologiques et discourse savants sur des architectures mégalithiques à Locmariaquer, Morbihan (Tables des Marchands et Grand Menhir). Nantes: Laboratoire de recherches archéologiques, CNRS and Université de NantesGoogle Scholar
Cassen, S., Lanos, P., Dufresne, P., Oberlin, C., Delqué-Kolic, E., Le Goffic, M. 2009. Datations sur site (Table des Marchands, alignement du Grand Menhir, Er Gah) et modélisation chronologiqie du Néolithisation morbihannais. Autour de la Table: explorations archaéologiques et discours savants sur des architectures néolithiques á Locmariaquer. In S. Cassen, Nantes; Laboratoire de recherches archéologiques, 737–68. Paris: CNRS and Université de NantesGoogle Scholar
Clarke, A. 1982. The Neolithic of Kent: a review. In P. Leach (ed.), Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 48Google Scholar
Coles, S., Ford, S., Taylor, A. 2008. An early Neolithic grave and occupation, and an early Bronze Age hearth on the Thames foreshore at Yabsley Street, Blackwall, London. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74, 215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G., Bonsall, C., Hedges, R., McSweeney, K., Boroneant¸, V., Pettitt, P. 2001. A freshwater diet-derived 14C reservoir effect at the Stone Age sites in the Iron Gates gorge. Radiocarbon 43, 453–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G., Bonsall, C., Hedges, R., McSweeney, K., Boroneant¸, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Pettitt, P. 2002. Problems of dating human bones from the Iron Gates. Antiquity 76, 77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooney, G., Bayliss, A., Healy, F., Whittle, A., Danaher, E., Cagney, L., Mallory, J., Smyth, J., Kador, T., O'Sullivan, M. 2011. Ireland. In Whittle et al. 2011b, 562–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotton, J., Field, D. (eds) 2004. Towards a New Stone Age: aspects of the Neolithic in south-east England. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 137Google Scholar
Daniel, G. 1950. The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Darling, W.G. 2004. Hydrological factors in the interpretation of stable isotopic proxy data present and past; a European perspective. Quaternary Science Review 23, 743–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darvill, T. 2010. Prehistoric Britain. London: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dee, M., Bronk Ramsey, C. 2000. Refinement of the graphite target production at ORAU. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172, 449–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demoule, J.-P. 2007. L'origine des inegalités. In J.-P. Demoule, R. Cottiaux, J. Dubouloz, F. Giligny, L. Jallot, L. Monolakakis, G. Marchand & I. Sénépart, La révolution néolithique en France, 78–95. Paris: La DécouverteGoogle Scholar
Dixon, P., Bayliss, A., Healy, F., Whittle, A., Darvill, T. 2011. The Cotswolds. In Whittle et al. 2011b, 434–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyson, L., Shand, G., Stevens, S. 2000. Causewayed enclosures. Current Archaeology 4.12, 470–472Google Scholar
Eickhoff, S., Herrmann, B. 1985. Surface marks on bones from a Neolithic collective grave (Odagsen, Lower Saxony): a study on differential diagnosis. Journal of Human Evolution 14, 263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. 1949. A disciple of the druids. The Beale Poste MSS. Archaeologia Cantiana 72, 130–139Google Scholar
Evans, J. 1950. Kentish megalithic types. Archaeologia Cantiana 63, 63–81Google Scholar
Filkins, E. 1928. Excavations at Coldrum, Kent. Antiquaries Journal 8, 356–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C. 1939. Archaeology in Kent 1938. Archaeologia Cantiana 50, 147Google Scholar
Fraser, R., Bogaard, A., Heaton, T., Charles, M., Jones, G., Christensen, B., Halstead, P., Merbach, I., Poulton, P., Sparkes, D., Styring, A. 2011. Manuring and stable nitrogen isotope ratios in cereals and pulses: towards a new archaeobotanical approach to the inference of land use and dietary practices. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 2790–2804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrow, D., Sturt, F. 2011. Grey waters bright with Neolithic argonauts? Maritime connections and the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition within the ‘western seaways’ of Britain, c. 5000–3500 bc. Antiquity 85, 59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garwood, P. 2011. Early prehistory. In Booth et al. 2011, 37–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garwood, P. 2012. The Medway Valley Prehistoric Landscapes Project. PAST 72, 1–3Google Scholar
Germany, M. 2007. Neolithic and Bronze Age Monuments and Middle Iron Age Settlement at Lodge Farm, St Osyth, Essex: excavations 2000–3. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology 117Google Scholar
Glass, H. 2000. White Horse Stone – a Neolithic longhouse. Current Archaeology 14, 450–453Google Scholar
Griffiths, S. 2011. Chronological Modelling of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in the North and Midlands of England and Wales. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cardiff UniversityGoogle Scholar
Haglund, W.D. 1997. Dogs and coyotes: postmortem involvement with human remains. In W.D. Haglund & M.H. Sorg (eds), Forensic Taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains, 367–381. Boca Raton: CRC PressGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, J., Hedges, R., Robinson, M. 2009. Rooting for pigfruit: pig feeding in Neolithic and Iron Age Britain compared. Antiquity 83, 998–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, C., Stafford, E. 2006. The prehistoric landscape at White Horse Stone, Aylesford, Kent: CTRL integrated site report series. Unpublished report: http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/ctrl/whsisr/downloads.cfm?volume=documentation&CFID=45833&CFTOKEN=797DC47F-E891-4B25-BBCB7BDD0900A64AGoogle Scholar
Healy, F., Harding, J., Bayliss, A. 2007. The development of the monuments. In J. Harding & F. Healy, The Raunds Area Project: a Neolithic and Bronze Age landscape in Northamptonshire, 37–198. Swindon: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Healy, F., Bayliss, A., Whittle, A. 2011. Sussex. In Whittle et al. 2011b, 207–62. Oxford: Oxbow BooksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedges, R., Bentley, A., Bickle, P., Cullen, P., Dale, C., Fibiger, L., Hamilton, J., Hofmann, D., Nowell, G., Whittle, A. 2013. The supra-regional perspective. In Bickle & Whittle (eds) 2013, 343–86Google Scholar
Hedges, R., Reynard, L. 2007. Nitrogen isotopes and the trophic level of humans in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 1240–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillson, S. 1996. Dental Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holgate, R. 1981. The Medway megaliths and Neolithic Kent. Archaeologia Cantiana 97, 221–234Google Scholar
Jessup, R. 1939. Further excavations at Julliberrie's Grave, Chilham. Antiquaries Journal 19, 260–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessup, R. 1970. South-east England. London: Thames & HudsonGoogle Scholar
Keaveney, E., Reimer, P. 2012. Understanding the variability in freshwater radiocarbon reservoir offsets: a cautionary tale. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 1306–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keiller, A., Piggott, S. 1938. Excavation of an untouched chamber in the Lanhill long barrow. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 122–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, A. 1913. Report on the human remains found by F.J. Bennett, Esq., F.G.S., in the central chamber of a megalithic monument at Coldrum, Kent. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 43, 86–100Google Scholar
Keith, A. 1916. The human remains (St. Nicholas chambered tumulus). Archaeologia Cambrensis (6th ser.) 16, 268–93Google Scholar
Kelley, M. 1979. Sex determination with fragmented skeletal remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences 24, 154–158CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinnes, I. 1992. Non-megalithic Long Barrows and Allied Structures in the British Neolithic. London: British MuseumGoogle Scholar
Kinnes, I. 2004. Trans-Manche: l'entente cordiale or vive la différence. In Cotton & Field (eds) 2004, 191–5Google Scholar
Leary, J., Field, D. 2012. Journeys and juxtapositions. Marden henge and the view from the Vale. In A. Gibson (ed.), Enclosing the Neolithic: recent studies in Britain and Europe, 55–65. Oxford: ArchaeopressGoogle Scholar
Lee, F., Wakely, R. 2006. Human skeletal remains. In C. Evans & I. Hodder, A Woodland Archaeology: Neolithic sites at Haddenham, 140–153. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological ResearchGoogle Scholar
Loveday, R. 2000. Aston: a barrow preserved. Current Archaeology 167, 438–439Google Scholar
Loveday, R. 2006. Inscribed Across the Landscape: the cursus enigma. Stroud: TempusGoogle Scholar
Lyman, R. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mays, S. 2004. A note on Neolithic human remains from south-east England. In Cotton & Field (eds) 2004, 110–14Google Scholar
McKinley, J. 2008. Human remains. In R. Mercer & F. Healy, Hambledon Hill, Dorset: excavation and survey of a Neolithic monument complex and its surrounding landscape, 477–521. Swindon: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Megyesi, M.S., Nawrocki, S.P., Haskell, N.H. 2005. Using accumalated degree-days to estimate the postmortem interval from decomposed human remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences 50, 618–626CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nehlich, O., Borić, D., Stefanović, S., Richards, M. 2010. Sulphur isotope evidence for freshwater fish consumption: a case study from the Danube Gorges, SE Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 1131–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohte, N. 2012. Tracing sources and pathways of dissolved nitrate in forest and river ecosystems using high-resolution isotopic techniques: a review. Ecological Research, 1–9 (DOI 10.1007/s11284-012-0939-3)Google Scholar
Olsen, S., Shipman, P. 1988. Surface modification on bone: trampling versus butchery. Journal of Archaeological Science 15, 535–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, Y., Dausse, A., Garbutt, A., Ford, H., Thomas, D., Jones, D. 2011. Cattle grazing drives nitrogen and carbon cycling in a temperate salt marsh. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 43, 531–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggott, S. 1931. The Neolithic pottery of the British Isles. Archaeological Journal 88, 67–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggott, S. 1935. A note on the relative chronology of the English long barrows. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 1, 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggott, S. 1962. The West Kennet Long Barrow: excavations 1955–56. London: Her Majesty's Stationery OfficeGoogle Scholar
Privat, K., O'Connell, T., Richards, M. 2002. Stable isotope analysis of human and faunal remains from the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Berinsfield, Oxfordshire: dietary and social implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 779–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, P., Baillie, M., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J., Blackwell, P., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C., Burr, G., Edwards, R., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P., Guilderson, T., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T., Hogg, A., Hughen, K., Kaiser, K., Kromer, B., McCormac, F., Manning, S., Reimer, R., Richards, D., Southon, J., Talamo, S., Turney, C., Plicht, J.van der, , Weyhenmeyer, C. 2009. INTCAL09 and MARINE09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years Cal bp. Radiocarbon 51, 1111–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, M. 2003. Explaining the dietary isotope evidence for the rapid adoption of the Neolithic in Britain. In M. Parker Pearson (ed.), Food, Culture and Identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, 31–6. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1117Google Scholar
Rolleston, G. 1876. On the people of the long barrow period. Journal of the Anthropological Institute 5, 120–173Google Scholar
Saville, A. 1990. Hazleton North: the excavation of a Neolithic long cairn of the Cotswold-Severn group. London: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Savory, H. 1956. The excavation of the Pipton long cairn, Brecknockshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 105, 7–48Google Scholar
Savory, H. 1984. The Penywyrlod long cairn, Talgarth, Brecknock. In W. Britnell & H. Savory, Gwernvale and Penywyrlod: two Neolithic long cairns in Brecknock, 13–39. Cardiff: Cambrian Archaeological AssociationGoogle Scholar
Scheuer, L., Black, S. 2000. Developmental Juvenile Osteology. London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Schoeninger, M., Deniro, M., Tauber, H. 1983. Stable nitrogen isotope ratios of bone collagen reflect marine and terrestrial components of prehistoric diets. Science 216, 1381–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulting, R. 2000. New AMS dates from the Lambourn long barrow and the question of the earliest Neolithic in southern England: repacking the Neolithic package? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19, 25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulting, R., Richards, M. 2002. The wet, the wild and the domesticated: the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition on the west coast of Scotland. European Journal of Archaeology 5, 147–189Google Scholar
Schulting, R., Richards, M.submitted. Dietary shifts at the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in Europe: an overview and meta-analysis. In J. Lee-Thorp & M. Katzenberg (eds), Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Diet. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Schulting, R., Wysocki, M. 2005. ‘In this chambered tumulus were found cleft skulls …’: an assessment of the evidence for cranial trauma in the British Neolithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71, 107–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulting, R., Sheridan, A., Crozier, A., Murphy, E. 2010a. Revisiting Quanterness: new AMS dates and stable isotope data from an Orcadian chamber tomb. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries 140, 1–50Google Scholar
Schulting, R., Sebire, H., Robb, J. 2010b. On the road to Paradis: new insights from AMS dates and stable isotopes at Le Déhus, Guernsey, and the Channel Islands middle Neolithic. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29, 149–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A. 2000. Achnacreebeag and its French connections: vive the ‘auld alliance’. In J. Henderson (ed.), The Prehistory and Early History of Atlantic Europe, 1–16. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S861Google Scholar
Sheridan, A. 2003. French connections I: spreading the marmites thinly. In I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis & D. Simpson (eds), Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain, 3–17. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A. 2004. Neolithic connections along and across the Irish Sea. In V. Cummings & C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions of practice, 9–21. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A. 2007. From Picardie to Pickering and Pencraig Hill? New information on the ‘Carinated Bowl Neolithic’ in northern Britain. In Whittle & Cummings (eds) 2007, 441–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A. 2010. The Neolithization of Britain and Ireland: the ‘Big Picture’. In B. Finlayson & G. Warren (eds), Landscapes in Transition, 89–105. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A. 2012. Review of A. Whittle, F. Healy & A. Bayliss, Gathering Time: dating the early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Antiquity 86, 262–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A.Pailler, Y. 2011. La Néolithisation de la Grande-Bretagne et de l'Irlande: plusieurs processus, plusieurs modèles et des questions à l'attention de nos collègues français. In F. Bostyn, E. Martial & I. Praud (eds), Le Néolithique du nord de la France dans son contexte européen: habitat et économie aux 4e et 3e millénaires avant notre ère, 13–30. Revue Archéologique de Picardie no. spécial 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A., Schulting, R.J., Quinnell, H., Taylor, R. 2008. Revisiting a small passage tomb at Broadsands, Devon. Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Exploration Society 66, 1–26Google Scholar
Shipman, P., Rose, J. 1983. Evidence of butchery activities at Torralba and Ambrona: an evaluation using microscopic techniques. Journal of Archaeological Science 10, 465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M., Brickley, M. 2004. Analysis and interpretation of flint toolmarks found on bones from West Tump long barrow, Gloucestershire. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14, 18–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M., Brickley, M. 2006. The date and sequence of use of Neolithic funerary monuments: new AMS dating evidence from the Cotswold-Severn region. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25, 335–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M., Brickley, M. 2009. People of the Long Barrows: life, death and burial in the earlier Neolithic. Stroud: History PressGoogle Scholar
Steele, D., Bramblett, C. 1988. The Anatomy and Biology of the Human Skeleton. College Station: Texas A & M University PressGoogle Scholar
Steier, P., Rom, W. 2000. The use of Bayesian statistics for 14C dates of chronological ordered samples: a critical analysis. Radiocarbon 42, 183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M., Polach, H. 1977. Discussion: reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19, 355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M., Reimer, P. 1986. A computer program for radiocarbon age calculation. Radiocarbon 28, 1022–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M., Reimer, P. 1993. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35, 215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 2003. Thoughts on the ‘repacked’ Neolithic revolution. Antiquity 77, 67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 2007. Mesolithic–Neolithic transitions in Britain: from essence to inhabitation. In Whittle and Cummings (eds) 2007, 423–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 2008. The Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in Britain. In J. Pollard (ed.), Prehistoric Britain, 58–89. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 2013. The Birth of Neolithic Britain. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toussaint, M. (ed.) 2003. Le champ mégalithique de Wéris. Fouilles de 1979 à 2001. Volume 1. Contexte archéologique et géologique. Namur: Division du PatrimoineGoogle Scholar
Toussaint, M., Frébutte, C., Hubert, F. (eds) 2009. Le champ mégalithique de Wéris. Fouilles de 1979 à 2001. Volume 2. Rapports des fouilles. Namur: Service publique de Wallonie et Institut du Patrimoine wallonGoogle Scholar
Turner, C.Turner, J. 1999. Man Corn: cannibalism and violence in the prehistoric American southwest. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah PressGoogle Scholar
Villa, P., Mahieu, E. 1991. Breakage patterns of human long bones. Journal of Human Evolution 21, 27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villa, P., Bouville, C., Courtin, J., Helmer, D., Mahieu, E., Shipman, P., Belluomini, G., Branca, M. 1986. Cannibalism in the Neolithic. Science 233, 431–437CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, G., Wilson, S. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20, 19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, T. 1992. Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5 MTUMR-2346. Princetown: Princetown University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, T. 2000. Human Osteology (2nd edn). London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A. 2007. The temporality of transformation: dating the early development of the southern British Neolithic. In Whittle & Cummings (eds) 2007, 377–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A., Cummings, V. (eds) 2007. Going over: the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in north-west. Oxford: Oxford University Press for The British AcademyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A., Wysocki, M. 1998. Parc le Breos Cwm transepted long cairn, Gower, West Glamorgan: date, contents and context. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64, 139–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A., Bayliss, A., Healy, F. 2011a. Gathering time: the social dynamics of change. In Whittle et al. 2011b, 848–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A., Healy, F., Bayliss, A. 2011b. Gathering Time: dating the early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow BooksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A., Barclay, A., Bayliss, A., McFadyen, L., Schulting, R.Wysocki, M. 2007. Building for the dead: events, processes and changing worldviews from the thirty-eighth to the thirty-fourth centuries cal bc in southern Britain. In Bayliss & Whittle (eds) 2007, 127–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wysocki, M., Whittle, A. 2000. Diversity, lifestyles and rites: new biological and archaeological evidence from British Earlier Neolithic mortuary assemblages. Antiquity 74, 591–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wysocki, M., Bayliss, A., Whittle, A. 2007. Serious mortality: the date of the Fussell's Lodge long barrow. In Bayliss & Whittle (eds) 2007, 65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zvelebil, M., Lukes, A. 2008. Inter-generational transmissions of culture and LBK origins: some indications from eastern-central Europe. In D. Bailey, A. Whittle and D. Hofmann (eds), Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-east and Central Europe, 139–151. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar