Bayliss, A., Benson, D., Galer, D., Humphrey, L., McFadyen, L. and Whittle, A. W R. (2007). One thing after another:. Histories of the dead:. Vol 17, pp. 29-44.

Title:

One thing after another:

Subtitle:

the date of the Ascott-under-Wychwood long barrow

Issue:

Histories of the dead:

Series:

Cambridge Archaeological Journal

Volume:

Page Start/End:

29 - 44

Biblio Note

Please note that this is a bibliographic record only, as originally entered into the BIAB database. The ADS have no files for download, and unfortunately cannot advise further on where to access hard copy or digital versions.

Publication Type:

Journal

Abstract:

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

Author:

Alex Bayliss

Don Benson
Dawn Galer
Louise Humphrey
Lesley McFadyen
Alasdair W R Whittle

Year of Publication:

2007

Subjects / Periods:

Radiocarbon Results (Auto Detected Subject)
Human Remains (Auto Detected Subject)
Bayesian Model (Auto Detected Subject)
Timber Structures (Auto Detected Subject)
Midden (Auto Detected Subject)
Long Barrow (Auto Detected Subject)
	BARROW (Monument Type England)
Thirtyninth Century Cal Bc (Auto Detected Temporal)
Fortieth Century Cal Bc (Auto Detected Temporal)
Timber (Auto Detected Subject)
Thirtyeighth Century Cal Bc (Auto Detected Temporal)

Note:

[OS SP 299 176]

Source:

BIAB (The British & Irish Archaeological Bibliography (BIAB))

Created Date:

11 May 2007