Wysocki, M., Bayliss, A. and Whittle, A. W R. (2007). Serious mortality:. Histories of the dead:. Vol 17, pp. 65-84.
 Title The title of the publication or report |
Serious mortality: | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subtitle The sub title of the publication or report |
the date of the Fussell's Lodge long barrow | |||||||||
Issue The name of the volume or issue |
Histories of the dead: | |||||||||
Series The series the publication or report is included in |
Cambridge Archaeological Journal | |||||||||
Volume Volume number and part |
17 | |||||||||
Page Start/End The start and end page numbers. |
65 - 84 | |||||||||
Biblio Note This is a Bibliographic record only. |
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 The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book |
Journal | |||||||||
Abstract The abstract describing the content of the publication or report |
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 | |||||||||
Year of Publication The year the book, article or report was published |
2007 | |||||||||
Locations Any locations covered by the publication or report. This is not the place the book or report was published. |
|
|||||||||
Note Extra information on the publication or report. |
[OS SU 1920 3246] | |||||||||
Source Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in. |
BIAB
(The British & Irish Archaeological Bibliography (BIAB))
|
|||||||||
Created Date The date the record of the pubication was first entered |
11 May 2007 |
