Content uploaded by Rick J Schulting
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rick J Schulting on Oct 16, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
RICK J. SCHULTING
NEW AMS DATES FROM THE LAMBOURN LONG BARROW
AND THE QUESTION OF THE EARLIEST NEOLITHIC IN
SOUTHERN ENGLAND: REPACKING THE NEOLITHIC
PACKAGE?
Summary. This paper reassesses the chronological status of the Lambourn
long barrow, which has provided one of the earliest dates from a mortuary
monument in Britain. Three new AMS dates on short-lived material indicate
that the construction and primary use phase of the monument lies within the
period 3760–3645 cal BC, and that the earlier estimate obtained on charcoal
(4555–3780 cal BC) is likely subject to the old wood effect, or is residual. This
is followed by a consideration of the implications of the new dates in the
context of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, the timing of which remains
poorly understood. It is argued that the evidence is increasingly pointing to a
more rapid neolithization process, and that this had implications for the
mechanisms involved.
INTRODUCTION
The Lambourn long barrow in Berkshire provides one of the earliest radiocarbon dates
for a mortuary monument in Britain: 5365 180 BP (Gx-1178; 4555–3780 cal BC) (Wymer
1966; 1970). This date, together with other single early dates from Fussell’s Lodge and Horslip
(Ashbee 1966), has played a major part in forming our understanding of the appearance of the
earliest Neolithic in southern Britain. This in turn has important implications for our
reconstructions of the nature of Early Neolithic society, as well as for the process of the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Was the construction of monuments a feature of the earliest
Neolithic? And if Late Mesolithic communities were still extant at this time, can a degree of
overlap between those following ‘Mesolithic’ and ‘Neolithic’ lifeways be identified? If so,
what was the relationship between the two? Yet Lambourn and many other Early Neolithic
dates are controversial. In order to help resolve the chronological status of the Lambourn long
barrow, samples were obtained for accelerator dating from an antler pick lying at the bottom of
a flanking quarry ditch, together with human remains from three different contexts, at least one
of which should belong to the primary phase of the monument. The purpose of this brief report
is to present these new dates, and to discuss them in the context of the earliest Neolithic in
Britain. Besides Lambourn, two other long barrows in southern Britain have produced
relatively early radiocarbon dates: Fussell’s Lodge (BM-134: 5180 150, 4330–3700 cal BC)
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 19(1) 25–35 2000
ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 25
and Horslip (BM-150: 5190 150 BP, 4330–3700 cal BC), both in Wiltshire. The charcoal
providing the Fussell’s Lodge estimate was specified as deriving from small oak branches
(c.5cm diameter) directly overlying the burials and is assumed to derive from the burning of a
mortuary structure (Ashbee 1966, 27–8). The Horslip estimate is on antler from the primary
ditch fill, and should date the construction of the monument. However, both dates must be
treated with caution; they are single estimates from complex monuments and have large
standard errors. In any case, they are later (although not significantly so) than the Lambourn
determination. An early date of 5200 160 BP (NPL-138; 4350–3690 cal BC), from a third
Wiltshire monument, Beckhampton Road, is on oak charcoal from a pre-mound context and so
is in an uncertain relationship with the construction phase of the monument. Indeed, the
construction phase may be best indicated by a relatively late date of 4470 90 BP (BM-506b)
on an antler pick lying on the buried surface (Ashbee et al. 1979, 245).
An interesting aspect of the Lambourn date is its overlap with a late date from the
nearby Mesolithic site of Wawcott I in the Kennet Valley (BM-449: 5260 130 BP, 4340–
3800 call BC) (Froom 1972). This presents the possibility of the contemporaneity of groups
practising two different lifeways, or at least having different material cultures. However, the
interpretation of both dates is controversial, and they have been rejected by Jacobi (1982),
Williams (1989) and others. The Wawcott I date is on charcoal — or ‘decayed wood’ (Barker et
al. 1971, 173) — from a hearth stratified within the middle fill of a pit feature interpreted by the
excavator as a hut, but is in an uncertain relationship with a Mesolithic flint industry. Thus,
while the date may be acceptable in itself, its status as ‘Mesolithic’ or ‘Neolithic’ is unclear
(Jacobi 1982). The Lambourn date is on unspecified charcoal lying on the bottom of the quarry
ditch, and may be subject to the old wood effect, or be residual from an earlier clearance
episode (which need not be ‘Neolithic’, since episodes of burning have long been attributed to
the repertoire of Mesolithic behaviour [Mellars 1976; Simmons et al. 1989]); very little pre-
mound material suggesting any kind of occupation was encountered in the excavations (Wymer
1966). These are crucial dates from southern Britain, and their rejection, if justified, further
diminishes the already poor database of dates immediately surrounding the transition. While it
is unlikely that anything can be done in terms of further assessing the context of the Wawcott I
date (short of a new excavation — a second pit feature at the site remains unexcavated [Froom
1972]), it is certainly possible to re-assess the Lambourn date.
Little remained of the long barrow itself when rescue excavations were undertaken in
1964 (Wymer 1966). The monument measured some 68 m in length by 18 m in width, and was
oriented ENE (Fig. 1). While not obviously ‘megalithic’, excavations revealed the
incorporation of some sarsen stones at a head of the mound that may extend into the adjacent
wooded area that was not investigated (Wymer, pers. comm. 1999). Human remains were
limited to a fragmentary cranium found in primary ditch silts near a group of faunal remains at
the head of the south ditch, a femur from tertiary silts in the same area, and a largely complete
adult burial in a rough sarsen cist at the head of the monument. Another burial was noted below
this one during the excavations, but was covered and left in situ — both were interpreted as
secondary to the main period of use of the monument. The barrow appears to have been opened
twice in the mid-nineteenth century, and the remains of more than one individual were
definitely encountered (Case 1956, 16). Thus the small number of human remains found in the
1964 excavation probably does not reflect the original situation. Few finds were encountered;
those that were found in primary contexts include Plain Bowl sherds and a small collection of
non-diagnostic flints; the tine of a well-worn antler pick was found on the floor of the middle of
NEW AMS DATES: REPACKING THE NEOLITHIC PACKAGE?
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
26 ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
Figure 1
Plan of the Lambourn long barrow, showing locations of materials yielding samples for dating (after Kinnes 1992, fig.
1D. 10)
RICK J. SCHULTING
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 27
the north ditch. A small group of faunal remains found on the bottom of the head of the south
ditch included three elements of ox, six of sheep, and one each of red deer and roe deer
(Brothwell and Powers in Wymer 1966, 16). Mixed pottery and lithics of mainly later periods
were found in the secondary deposits of the quarry ditches and in the plough-soil overlying
them. A small patch of charcoal on the floor of the tail end of the south ditch yielded the early
radiocarbon estimate.
RESULTS
The AMS results (Table 1, Fig. 2) indicate that it is likely that the charcoal yielding the
early date was indeed either residual or subject to a considerable old wood effect (although
given its large error the date actually overlaps with some of those presented here). The antler
pick found lying directly on the ditch floor dates to 4870 45 BP (OxA-7692; 3765–3535 cal
BC), providing the best estimate for the construction of the monument (Fig. 2). The close
agreement between this date and that of 4915 45 BP (OxA-7694; 3785–3640 cal BC) for a
human cranial fragment found in primary ditch silts strongly suggests a single main phase of
construction and use for the monument. The indistinguishable date of 4955 45 BP (OxA-
7693; 3905–3645 cal BC) for the human femur in secondary ditch silts suggests that this was
originally in primary association with the monument, and could conceivably even belong to the
same individual. Assuming that the three early AMS dates mark the same ‘event’, they average
to 4915 30 BP (3760–3645 cal BC).
In contrast, the uppermost of two superimposed interments in the sarsen stones at the
head of the monument yielded, as expected (Wymer 1966), a much later date of 4395 65 BP
(OxA-7899; 3330–2885 cal BC). This indicates either the continued importance of the
monument, or, more likely, its momentary resurrection as a focal point in the landscape. The
position of the long barrow at one end of a distribution of a large cluster of round barrows —
the Lambourn ‘Seven’ Barrows group, actually comprising at least 32 definite barrows (J.
Richards 1990) — is worth noting in this regard, although these belong to the Beaker period of
the next millennium.
DISCUSSION
A decade ago, Elizabeth Williams (1989; see also Kinnes 1985), in a short but
influential article, presented a critical assessment of Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic
TABLE 1
Radiocarbon dates from the Lambourn long barrow
Context Material Lab No. Date BP
13
C cal BC (2)
on ditch floor charcoal GX-1178 5365 180 4230 (4555–3780)
on ditch floor antler pick OxA-7692 4870 45 ÿ21.7 3650 (3765–3535)
1º ditch silts human cranium OxA-7694 4915 45 ÿ20.6 3695 (3785–3640)
2º ditch silts human femur OxA-7693 4955 45 ÿ20.9 3710 (3905–3645)
2º burial human cranium OxA-7899 4395 65 ÿ21.3 2980 (3330–2885)
Average of AMS dates only, 4915 30 3695 (3760–3645)
excluding OxA-7899
dates calibrated using CALIB 3.0.3 atmospheric curve (Stuiver and Reimer 1993)
NEW AMS DATES: REPACKING THE NEOLITHIC PACKAGE?
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
28 ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
radiocarbon dates in Britain and Ireland, concluding that a significant period of overlap could
be detected in both cases. Since then, more dates and more information have become available,
yet the situation can hardly be said to have been satisfactorily resolved. What does seem clear is
that the new AMS dates reported here place the Lambourn long barrow firmly within an
emerging view of the British Early Neolithic as a relatively late phenomenon, with few or no
acceptable (i.e., from clear Neolithic contexts, on short-lived materials, and with standard
errors of 100 years or less) dates prior to c.5200/5100 BP (c. 4000 cal BC) (the Whitwell long
cairn, discussed below, provides one of the few exceptions currently worth considering). Early
dates from such sites as Briar Hill (Bamford 1985) and Broome Heath (Wainwright 1972) are
from poor contexts and should be rejected (cf. Kinnes 1988). A single date on antler from a
shaft at the flint mine of Church Hill (BM-181: 5340 150 BP [Barker et al. 1969]) is more
difficult to account for, but its large standard error and the fact that it is a single date not in
agreement with multiple dates from other Sussex flint mines suggest caution, and indeed this
date was rejected by Williams (1989). Outside southern Britain, early dates from mortuary
monuments such as Giants’ Hill 2, Lincolnshire (OxA-614: 5450 80 BP) and Raisthorpe
Manor, North Yorkshire (NPL-140: 5505 145 BP) are outliers from other dates from the
same sites, and have been attributed to the old wood effect (Evans and Simpson 1986, 1991;
Kinnes 1985, 1988). However, none of this contradicts the proposal that the construction of
monuments was an integral aspect of the earliest Neolithic, at least in some areas. Early
settlement dates are also being rejected, the most notable example being ApSimon’sown recent
rejection of the seminal early dates from Ballynagilly (Cooney and Grogan 1994). Thus it
Figure 2
Calibration of the Lambourn radiocarbon and AMS dates (Bronk Ramsey 1998; Stuiver and Reimer 1993)
RICK J. SCHULTING
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 29
seems unnecessary to propose an archaeologically invisible ‘settling in’ period, as many have
done (Case 1969; Healy 1984; Jacobi 1982). Rather, it may be, as Thomas (1988) and Bradley
(1993) have suggested, that the construction of monuments constituted part of the very process
of becoming ‘Neolithic’.
And yet, in spite of the results reported here for Lambourn, and the reservations
expressed regarding the early dates for Fussell’s Lodge, Horslip and other sites, it may be
premature to discount the possibility of a pre-5200 BP Neolithic presence. At present, the
earliest British dates on short-lived materials from an impeccable Neolithic context are those on
human bone from the Whitwell long cairn in Derbyshire (OxA-4176: 5380 90 BP, 4360–
3990 cal BC; OxA-4177: 5190 100 BP, 4310–3775 cal BC; OxA-4326: 5115 70 BP,
4075–3720 cal BC) (Hedges et al. 1994). These dates cannot be dismissed as the result of
residual charcoal, nor are they subject to the old wood effect. The site is not near the coast, and
in any case the associated stable carbon isotope (
13
C) values indicate no contribution of
marine protein in the diet of these individuals, which, if present, could also make the dates look
too early. The site has not yet been fully published, but preliminary information is available
(Wall et al. in prep.). OxA-4177 dates a single adult female inhumation in a separate round
cairn subsequently incorporated into a larger long cairn containing a mixed deposit of the
remains of some 15 individuals, two of which provided the other dates (Fig. 3). OxA-4177 and
OxA-4326 can be accommodated without much difficulty at the early end of the spectrum of
dates from acceptable Early Neolithic contexts (Kenney 1993; Kinnes 1992; Schulting 1998b),
and again support the argument that the construction of mortuary monuments went hand-in-
hand with the manifestation of the earliest recognizable ‘Neolithic’. The skeleton dated by
OxA-4176 is intriguingly early, but does overlap at a 95% confidence interval with the other
two dates. Additional AMS determinations at Whitwell, including a repeat measurement on the
earliest individual, would be most useful.
Even more problematic is the paucity of dates from good terminal Mesolithic contexts,
particularly in southern Britain (or, more precisely, anywhere outside of Oronsay). One of the
main difficulties lies in the fact that inland Mesolithic populations generally do not seem to
have been engaging in activities that resulted in either stratified or intentionally sealed deposits.
Another potential difficulty may lie in our inability to recognize terminal Mesolithic
assemblages; any mixed assemblages are attributed to post-depositional disturbances, and
indeed this does seem the most likely explanation in the majority of cases (see for example the
debate between Young [1989] and Healy [1989]). Further complicating matters, Edmonds
(1987, 169) has suggested that microliths may have gone out of use in southern Britain after
about 6000 BP, making the identification of very late Mesolithic lithic assemblages — and
lithics provide the primary diagnostic material — even more problematic. Nevertheless, for
southern Britain, there are two sites besides Wawcott I that merit particular consideration.
Firstly, a date of 5300 100 BP (OxA-1412; 4345–3830 cal BC) was obtained from the
skeleton of a pig found in foreshore peats at Lydstep Haven, Dyfed (Lewis 1992). Near the
neck region of the skeleton were found two microliths in situ, indicating that, here at least, the
use of a microlithic technology persisted until the very end of the Mesolithic. More intriguing is
the suggestion, based on its small size, that the pig was an escaped domestic animal (Lewis
1992). Secondly, and even more relevant to the present discussion, is a new series of dates from
a very unusual natural shaft on Down Farm, Cranborne Chase (Green and Allen 1997). The last
9.5 metres of fill of the shaft and its weathering cone present stratified deposits spanning the
Late Mesolithic to the Early Bronze Age. The deposits of concern here contained elements of
NEW AMS DATES: REPACKING THE NEOLITHIC PACKAGE?
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
30 ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
two roe deer, a red deer with cut-marks, rod microliths, an ox scapula, a hearth and Plain Bowl
sherds. The 17 dates, which are to be fully published elsewhere, are stratigraphically consistent,
with 12 dates falling within the second half of the sixth millennium BP presenting a very tight
cluster spanning the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Rod microliths were found just below a
Corylus charcoal sample dating to 5355 45 BP (OxA-8011: 4340–4040 cal BC), a date
confirmed by a number of additional determinations above and below it. Somewhat higher in
the deposits, Plain Bowl sherds were associated with a pig bone that provided a determination
of 5250 50 BP (OxA-7981; 4240–3980 cal BC), although this may be slightly too early given
the dates of 5045 45 BP (OxA-8009; 3980–3710 cal BC) and 5150 45 BP (OxA-8010;
4050–3790 cal BC) on charcoal from a hearth immediately underlying the sherds.
These two sites strongly confirm the presence of Mesolithic groups in southern Britain
using microlithic technology within a century or so of the transition as it is usually envisaged.
They are far more convincing than the sporadic finds of microliths and marine shells underlying
Figure 3
Plan of the Whitwell long cairn, showing locations of dated burials (site plan courtesy of I. Wall, Creswell Heritage
Trust)
RICK J. SCHULTING
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 31
mortuary monuments in Britain (see Schulting [1998b] for critique). And in light of Lydstep
and Down Farm, the Wawcott I date seems not unreasonable. While its context is perhaps
uncertain, it should be emphasized that the large lithic assemblage at Wawcott I appeared quite
homogeneous and bore no evidence of a Neolithic component (Froom 1972). Nor were any
sherds found. These sites would seem to indicate that the evidence for a ‘terminal’ Mesolithic
presence, slight as it may be, does exist. The Down Farm shaft, while without doubt extremely
important in providing a stratigraphic sequence spanning what might be called the ‘moment’ of
transition, is unfortunately limited in its finds, both cultural and environmental. What is needed
are stratified sites spanning the transition and containing sufficient cultural remains to study in
some detail the process of transition. We should now perhaps expect to find microliths and
pottery in use at the same time. Yet the fact remains that we do not find microliths in the many
more or less sealed Early Neolithic contexts (pits, ditch fills, burial chambers) that have been
investigated, and this is surely significant.
The increasing chronological resolution of which we are capable permits more detailed
questions, questions for which our chronologies are as yet in turn inadequate. To realize the
potential of new developments in dating techniques and our increased understanding of the
importance of context, it is necessary continually to question and reassess previously obtained
estimates. The new dates from Lambourn are a case in point. The apparent compression of the
beginning of the British Neolithic — excepting Whitwell and a very few others sites — to a
period around 5200/5100 BP (c.4000 cal BC) has implications for how both the Mesolithic-
Neolithic transition and the Early Neolithic itself are viewed. For one thing, it calls into
question a current view of the transition as a gradual transformation, requiring many centuries.
Instead, it is remarkable that so little regional variability can be found at present in the timing of
the transition, although here again the scale of resolution referred to above undoubtedly plays a
role (Schulting 1998b). This is certainly not to advocate a return to a model of large-scale
colonization and population replacement, increasingly untenable (e.g., Sykes 1999), but to
outline the data that any successful explanatory model must take into account. Contrary to
earlier views, a long period of co-existence between those following ‘Mesolithic’ and
‘Neolithic’ lifeways in southern Britain now seems unlikely, although of course aspects of the
‘hunter-gatherer’ way of life may have persisted in ways that are not so immediately apparent
in the archaeological record. It remains to be seen to what extent the builders of either the
Lambourn long barrow or the Whitwell long cairn made use of domesticated resources. A
possible relationship between the emergence of a megalithic tradition on the Berkshire
chalklands and stone clearance related to a phase of arable conversion has been mooted (J.
Richards 1990, 27). Furthermore, recent stable isotope studies of human bone (M. Richards
1998; Richards and Hedges in press; Schulting 1998a, b; Schulting and Richards unpublished
data) strongly suggest that the change in diet from ‘traditional’ wild to ‘novel’ domesticated
resources (to use Dennell’s [1983] terminology) was both rapid and complete across at least
parts of Britain. Faunal data have long presented a similar picture (Done 1991; Grigson in
Smith 1965; Legge 1981, 1989; Levitan 1990; Pryor et al. 1985; Schulting 1998b; Stallibrass
and Huntley 1996; Whittle et al. forthcoming), although the tendency has been to argue these
away as biased. Perhaps it is time to accept this evidence at face value (although I am not
arguing for any necessary connection between agriculture and monument-building [cf. Bradley
1993], merely an observed one in the present context). Calls for the unpacking of the Neolithic
‘package’ and the need to consider its constituents independently (Armit and Finlayson 1992;
Thomas 1991, 1996) may be premature. Rather, it may be reiterated that the people of the
NEW AMS DATES: REPACKING THE NEOLITHIC PACKAGE?
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
32 ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
earliest Neolithic in Britain built monuments for their dead, used novel technologies such as
Pottery (Herne 1988), and appear to have subsisted primarily on domesticated resources. This
suggests that the adoption of ‘Neolithic’ traits was for the most part an all-or-nothing affair in
Britain, perhaps forming part of a sociopolitical and/or economic strategy wherein piecemeal
adoption simply did not make sense.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Leslie Cram of the Museum of Reading for permission to sample the remains from
Lambourn. I am extremely grateful to Mike Allen, Richard Bradley and Martin Green for permission to cite the
unpublished dates from Fir Tree Field, Down Farm. Ian Wall kindly provided a copy of the unpublished Whitwell
report and permission to reproduce the site plan. Thanks to Richard Bradley, Joanna Ostapkowicz, Alasdair Whittle
and John Wymer for their comments on an earlier draft of the paper. I alone am responsible for any shortcomings.
Funding for the dates was granted by NERC, and I appreciate the contribution made by those involved with the AMS
facility at the Oxford Laboratory for Archaeology, and in particular Paul Pettitt. I gratefully acknowledge the support
given by the British Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada during my studies
at the University of Reading, where this work was undertaken as part of my doctoral research.
Department of History and Archaeology
Cardiff University
Cardiff CF1 3XU
REFERENCES
ARMIT, I. and FINLAYSON, B. 1992: Hunter-gatherers transformed: the transition to agriculture in northern
and western Europe. Antiquity 66, 664–76.
ASHBEE, P. 1966: The Fussell’s Lodge long barrow excavations 1957. Archaeologia 100, 1–80.
ASHBEE, P., SMITH, I.F. and EVANS, J.G. 1979: Excavation of three long barrows near Avebury, Wiltshire.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 207–300.
BAMFORD, H.M. 1985: Briar Hill — Excavation 1974–1978 (Northampton, Northampton Development
Corporation, Archaeological Monograph No. 3).
BARKER, H., BURLEIGH, R. and MACKEY, J. 1969: British Museum radiocarbon measurements VI.
Radiocarbon 11, 278–94.
BARKER, H., BURLEIGH, R. and MEEKES, J. 1971: British Museum radiocarbon measurements VII.
Radiocarbon 13, 157–88.
BRADLEY, R. 1993: Altering the earth: the origins of monuments in Britain and Continental Europe
(Edinburgh, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland).
BRONK RAMSEY, C. 1998: OxCal program v3.2.
CASE, H.J. 1956: The Lambourn seven barrows. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 55, 15–31.
CASE, H.J. 1969: Neolithic explanations. Antiquity 43, 176–86.
COONEY, G. and GROGAN, E. 1994: Irish prehistory: a social perspective (Dublin).
DENNELL, R. 1983: European economic prehistory (London).
DONE, G. 1991: The animal bone. In Needham, S. Excavation and salvage at Runnymede Bridge, 1978:
the Late Bronze Age waterfront site (London), 327–42.
EDMONDS, M. 1987: Rocks and risk: problems with lithic procurement strategies. In Brown, A.G. and
Edmonds, M.R. (eds.), Lithic analysis and late British prehistory (Oxford, BAR British Series 162), 155–79.
RICK J. SCHULTING
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 33
EVANS, J.G. and SIMPSON, D.D.A. 1986: Radiocarbon dates for the Giants’ Hill 2 long barrow, Skendleby,
Lincolnshire. In Gowlett, J.A.J. and Hedges, R.E.M. (eds.), Archaeology results from accelerator dating
(Oxford, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 11), 125–31.
EVANS, J.G. and SIMPSON, D.D.A. 1991: Giants’ Hill 2 long barrow, Skendleby, Lincolnshire. Archaeologia
109, 1–46.
FROOM, F.R. 1972: A Mesolithic site at Wawcott, Kintbury. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 66, 23–44.
GREEN, M. and ALLEN, M.J. 1997: An early prehistoric shaft on Cranborne Chase. Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 16, 121–32.
HEALY, F. 1984: Farming and field monuments: the Neolithic in Norfolk. In Barringer, C. (ed.), Aspects of
East Anglian Prehistory (Norwich), 77–140.
HEALY, F. 1989: Afterthoughts. In Brooks, I. and Phillips, P. (eds.), Breaking the stony silence: papers
from the Sheffield lithics conference 1988 (Oxford, BAR British Series 213), 187–96.
HEDGES, R.E.M., HOUSLEY, R.A., BRONK RAMSEY, C. and VAN KLINKEN, G.J. 1994: Radiocarbon dates from the
Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry Datelist 18. Archaeometry 36, 337–74.
HERNE, A. 1988: A Time and a place for the Grimston bowl. In Barrett, J. and Kinnes, I. (eds.), The
archaeology of context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends (Sheffield), 9–29.
JACOBI, R.M. 1982: Later hunters in Kent: Tasmania and the earliest Neolithic. In Leach, P.E. (ed.),
Archaeology in Kent (London, CBA Research Report 48), 12–24.
KENNEY, J. 1993: The beginnings of agriculture in Great Britain: a critical assessment (Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, University of Edinburgh).
KINNES, I. 1985: Circumstance not context: the Neolithic of Scotland as seen from the outside.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 115, 15–57.
KINNES, I. 1988: The cattleship Potemkin: the first Neolithic in Britain. In Barrett, J. and Kinnes, I. (eds.),
The archaeology of context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends (Sheffield), 2–8.
KINNES, I. 1992: Non-megalithic long barrows and allied structures in the British Neolithic (London,
British Museum Occasional Paper 52).
LEGGE, A. 1981: Aspects of cattle husbandry. In Mercer, R. (ed.), Farming practice in British prehistory
(Edinburgh), 169–81.
LEGGE, A. 1989: Milking the evidence: a reply to Entwistle and Grant. In Milles, A., Williams, D. and
Gardner, N. (eds.), The beginnings of agriculture (Oxford, BAR International Series 496), 217–42.
LEVITAN, B. 1990: The non-human vertebrate remains. In Saville, A. (ed.), Hazleton North: the excavation
of a Neolithic long cairn of the Cotswold-Severn group (London, Historic Buildings and Monuments
Commission for England), 199–213.
LEWIS, M.P. 1992: The prehistory of south west Wales, 7500–3600 BP: an interdisciplinary
palaeoenvironmental and archaeological investigation (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of
Lampeter).
MELLARS, P. 1976: Fire ecology, animal populations and man: a study of some ecological relationships in
prehistory. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42, 15–45.
PRYOR, F., FRENCH, C. and TAYLOR, M. 1985: An interim report on excavations at Etton, Maxey,
Cambridgeshire, 1982–1984. The Antiquaries Journal 65, 276–309.
RICHARDS, J. 1990: Death and the past environment: the results of work on barrows on the Berkshire
Downs. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 73, 1–42.
RICHARDS, M.P. 1998: Palaeodietary studies of European human populations using bone stable isotopes
(Unpublished D.Phil thesis, University of Oxford).
RICHARDS, M. and HEDGES, R.E.M. in press: A Neolithic Revolution? New evidence of diet in the British
Neolithic. Antiquity.
NEW AMS DATES: REPACKING THE NEOLITHIC PACKAGE?
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
34 ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
SCHULTING, R.J. 1998a: Slighting the sea: the transition to farming in northwest Europe. Documenta
Praehistorica 25, 203–18.
SCHULTING, R.J. 1998b: Slighting the sea: The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in northwest Europe
(Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading).
SIMMONS, I.G., TURNER, J. and INNES, J.B. 1989: An application of fine-resolution pollen analysis to later
Mesolithic peats of an English upland. In Bonsall, C. (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe (Edinburgh), 206–
17.
SMITH, I.F. 1965: Windmill Hill and Avebury: excavations by Alexander Keiller 1925–1939 (Oxford).
STALLIBRASS, S. and HUNTLEY, J.P. 1996: Slim evidence: a review of the faunal and botanical data from the
Neolithic of northern England. In Frodsham, P. (ed.), Neolithic studies in no-man’s land (Northern
Archaeology Volume 13/14, Journal of the Northumberland Archaeological Group), 35–42.
STUIVER, M. and REIMER, P.J. 1993: Extended
14
C data base and revised CALIB 3.0
14
C age calibration
program. Radiocarbon 35, 215–30.
SYKES, B. 1999: The molecular genetics of European ancestry. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London 354, 131–9.
THOMAS, J. 1988: Neolithic explanations revisited: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain and south
Scandinavia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 59–66.
THOMAS, J. 1991: Rethinking the Neolithic (Cambridge).
THOMAS, J. 1996: The cultural context of the first use of domesticates in Continental Central and
northwest Europe. In Harris, D.R. (ed.), The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia
(London), 310–22.
WAINWRIGHT, G.J. 1972: The excavation of a Neolithic settlement on Broome Heath, Ditchingham,
Norfolk, England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38, 1–97.
WALL, I.J. et al.in prep: Whitwell Cairn (Creswell Heritage Trust).
WHITTLE, A., POLLARD, J. and GRIGSON, C. forthcoming: The Harmony of Symbols: The Windmill Hill
Causewayed Enclosure, Wiltshire (Oxford).
WILLIAMS, E. 1989: Dating the introduction of food production into Britain and Ireland. Antiquity 63, 510–
21.
WYMER, J.J. 1966: Excavations at the Lambourn long barrow. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 62, 1–16.
WYMER, J.J. 1970: Radiocarbon date for the Lambourn long barrow. Antiquity 44, 144.
YOUNG, R. 1989: Mixed lithic scatters and the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the north east of England:
a speculation. In Brooks, I. and Phillips, P. (eds.), Breaking the stony silence: papers from the Sheffield
lithics conference 1988 (Oxford, BAR British Series 213), 161–85.
RICK J. SCHULTING
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 35
