Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/28561
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBayliss, Alexen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBenson, Donen_UK
dc.contributor.authorGaler, Dawnen_UK
dc.contributor.authorHumphrey, Louiseen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMcFadyen, Lesleyen_UK
dc.contributor.authorWhittle, Alasdairen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-18T09:46:27Z-
dc.date.available2019-01-18T09:46:27Z-
dc.date.issued2007-02-28en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/28561-
dc.description.abstractForty-four radiocarbon results are now available from the Ascott-under-Wychwood long barrow, and are presented within an interpretive Bayesian statistical framework. Three alternative archaeological interpretations of the sequence are given, each with a separate Bayesian model. In our preferred model, pre-barrow occupation including small timber structures and a midden was followed by a gap long enough to allow a turfline to form. Cists and the primary barrow were then initiated and the first human remains inserted into the cists; there was subsequently a secondary extension to the barrow. In the Bayesian model for this interpretation, occupation goes back to the 40th century cal BC, the midden being quite short-lived in the latter part of the 40th or first part of the 39th century cal BC. The gap was very probably not less than 50 years long, in the latter part of the 39th century cal BC and the first half of the 38th century cal BC. The barrow was begun between 3760–3695 cal BC and extended in 3745–3670 cal BC, probably within a generation. The first bodies were inserted in 3755–3690 cal BC, contemporaneously with the primary barrow, and the last remains were probably deposited in the 3640s or 3630s cal BC. The use of the monument probably did not exceed three to five generations. In an alternative interpretation of the sequence, greater continuity is seen between the underlying timber structures and midden on the one hand and the cists on the other, which could have preceded the initiation of the barrow itself. The Bayesian model for this interpretation suggests the gap between occupation and barrow was much shorter, probably of only 1–40 years’ duration. It gives slightly different other estimates for the sequence but agrees with the main model in suggesting an overall short span of use for the whole monument. In a third interpretation, some of the human remains are interpreted as older than the cists and barrow. The Bayesian model for this again gives slightly different estimates but suggests that such putatively ancestral remains would not have been more than a decade or two older than the initiation of cists and barrow. Results are briefly discussed in relation to the overall sequence from occupation and midden to monument, the brevity of monument use and issues of remembrance.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherCambridge University Press (CUP)en_UK
dc.relationBayliss A, Benson D, Galer D, Humphrey L, McFadyen L & Whittle A (2007) One Thing After Another: the Date of the Ascott-under-Wychwood Long Barrow. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 17 (S1), pp. 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959774307000157.en_UK
dc.rightsThe publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.en_UK
dc.subjectAscott-under-Wychwooden_UK
dc.subjectradiocarbon datesen_UK
dc.subjectlong barrowen_UK
dc.titleOne Thing After Another: the Date of the Ascott-under-Wychwood Long Barrowen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.rights.embargodate2999-12-31en_UK
dc.rights.embargoreason[one_thing_after_another_the_date_of_the_ascottunderwychwood_long_barrow.pdf] The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository therefore there is an embargo on the full text of the work.en_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/s0959774307000157en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleCambridge Archaeological Journalen_UK
dc.citation.issn1474-0540en_UK
dc.citation.issn0959-7743en_UK
dc.citation.volume17en_UK
dc.citation.issueS1en_UK
dc.citation.spage29en_UK
dc.citation.epage44en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.contributor.funderEnglish Heritageen_UK
dc.author.emailalexandra.bayliss@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.citation.date30/01/2007en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationEnglish Heritageen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationThe Natural History Museumen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationThe Natural History Museumen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationThe Natural History Museumen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Leicesteren_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationCardiff Universityen_UK
dc.identifier.isi000244706100002en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-78049255427en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid1086929en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-2782-1979en_UK
dc.date.accepted2006-10-05en_UK
Appears in Collections:Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
one_thing_after_another_the_date_of_the_ascottunderwychwood_long_barrow.pdfFulltext - Published Version3.57 MBAdobe PDFUnder Permanent Embargo    Request a copy


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.