Histories of the dead:

Special issue, including

forty-four radiocarbon results from the Ascott-under-Wychwood long barrow are presented within an interpretive Bayesian statistical framework. Three alternative archaeological interpretations of the sequence are given, each with a separate Bayesian model. In the authors' 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 fortieth century cal. BC, the midden being quite short-lived in the latter part of the fortieth or first part of the thirty-ninth century cal. BC. The gap was very probably not less than fifty years long, in the latter part of the thirty-ninth century cal. BC and the first half of the thirty-eighth 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 one to forty 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

twenty-seven radiocarbon results from the Fussell's Lodge long barrow are presented within an interpretive Bayesian statistical framework. Three alternative archaeological interpretations of the sequence are given, each with a separate Bayesian model. The authors state that they found it hard to decide between these, though they prefer the third. In the first (following the excavator), the construction is a unitary one, and the human remains included are by definition already old. In the second, the primary mortuary structure is seen as having two phases, and is set within a timber enclosure; these are later closed by the construction of a long barrow. In that model of the sequence, deposition began in the thirty-eighth century cal. BC and the mortuary structure was extended probably in the 3660s--3650s cal. BC; the long barrow was probably built in the 3630s--3620s cal. BC; ancestral remains are not in question; and the use of the primary structure may have lasted for a century or so. In the third, preferred model, a variant of the second, the authors envisage the inclusion of some ancestral remains in the primary mortuary structure alongside fresh remains. This provides different estimates of the date of initial construction (probably in the last quarter of the thirty-eighth century cal. BC or the first half of the thirty-seventh century cal. BC) and the duration of primary use, but agrees in setting the date of the long barrow probably in the 3630s--3620s cal. BC. These results are discussed in relation to the development and meanings of long barrows at both national and local scales

twenty-three radiocarbon results from the Wayland's Smithy long barrow are presented within an interpretive Bayesian statistical framework. Four alternative archaeological interpretations of the sequence are considered, each with a separate Bayesian model, though only two are presented in detail. The differences are based on different readings of the sequence of Wayland's Smithy II. In the authors' preferred interpretation of the sequence, the primary mortuary structure was some kind of lidded wooden box, accessible for deposition over a period of time, and then closed by the mound of Wayland's Smithy I; Wayland's Smithy II was a unitary construction, with transepted chambers, secondary kerb and secondary ditches all constructed together. In the Bayesian model for this interpretation, deposition began in the earlier thirty-sixth century cal. BC, and probably lasted for a generation. A gap of probably forty to a hundred years ensued, before the first small mound was constructed in 3520--3470 cal. BC. After another gap, probably of only one to thirty-five years, the second phase of the monument was probably constructed in the middle to later part of the thirty-fifth century cal. BC (3460--3400 cal. BC), and its use probably extended to the middle decades of the thirty-fourth century cal. BC. Results are discussed in relation to the local setting, the nature of mortuary rites and the creation of tradition