Coldrum Long Barrow
Established | Early Neolithic |
---|---|
Location | Trottiscliffe, Kent |
Coordinates | 51°19′18″N 0°22′22″E / 51.3216°N 0.3728°E |
Type | Long barrow |
The Coldrum Long Barrow, also known as the Coldrum Stones and the Adscombe Stones, is a
Built out of earth and around fifty local
After the Early Neolithic, the long barrow fell into a state of ruined dilapidation, perhaps experiencing deliberate destruction in the Late Medieval period, either by
Name and location
The Coldrum Stones are named after a nearby farm, Coldrum Lodge, which has since been demolished.[1] The monument lies in a "rather isolated site" north-east of the nearby village of Trottiscliffe, in the south-eastern English county of Kent. The site is also positioned about 500 metres (550 yards) from a prehistoric track known as the Pilgrims' Way.[2] The tomb can be reached along a pathway known as Coldrum Lane, which is accessible only on foot.[2] The nearest car park to Coldrum Lane can be found off Pinesfield Lane in Trottiscliffe.[3] The village of Addington is located 2.012 kilometres (1 mi 440 yd) away.[4]
Context
The Early Neolithic was a revolutionary period of British history. Between 4500 and 3800 BCE, it saw a widespread change in lifestyle as the communities living in the British Isles adopted agriculture as their primary form of subsistence, abandoning the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that had characterised the preceding Mesolithic period.[5] This came about through contact with continental European societies; it is unclear to what extent this can be attributed to an influx of migrants or to indigenous Mesolithic Britons adopting agricultural technologies from the continent.[6] The region of modern Kent would have been key for the arrival of continental European settlers and visitors, because of its position on the estuary of the River Thames and its proximity to the continent.[7]
Britain was then largely forested;[8] widespread forest clearance did not occur in Kent until the Late Bronze Age (c.1000 to 700 BCE).[9] Environmental data from the vicinity of the White Horse Stone, a putatively prehistoric monolith near the River Medway, supports the idea that the area was still largely forested in the Early Neolithic, covered by a woodland of oak, ash, hazel/alder and amygdaloideae.[10] Throughout most of Britain, there is little evidence of cereal or permanent dwellings from this period, leading archaeologists to believe that the island's Early Neolithic economy was largely pastoral, relying on herding cattle, with people living a nomadic or semi-nomadic life.[11]
Medway Megaliths
Across Western Europe, the Early Neolithic marked the first period in which humans built monumental structures in the landscape.
Although now all in a ruinous state and not retaining their original appearance,[19] at the time of construction the Medway Megaliths would have been some of the largest and most visually imposing Early Neolithic funerary monuments in Britain.[20] Grouped along the River Medway as it cuts through the North Downs,[21] they constitute the most southeasterly group of megalithic monuments in the British Isles,[22] and the only megalithic group in eastern England.[23] The archaeologists Brian Philp and Mike Dutto deemed the Medway Megaliths to be "some of the most interesting and well known" archaeological sites in Kent,[2] while the archaeologist Paul Ashbee described them as "the most grandiose and impressive structures of their kind in southern England".[24]
The Medway Megaliths can be divided into two separate clusters: one to the west of the River Medway and the other on Blue Bell Hill to the east, with the distance between the two clusters measuring at between 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) and 10 kilometres (6.2 mi).[25] The western group includes Coldrum Long Barrow, Addington Long Barrow, and the Chestnuts Long Barrow.[26] The eastern group consists of Smythe's Megalith, Kit's Coty House, and Little Kit's Coty House, while various stones on the eastern side of the river, most notably the Coffin Stone and White Horse Stone, may also have been parts of such structures.[27] It is not known if they were all built at the same time, or whether they were constructed in succession,[28] while similarly it is not known if they each served the same function or whether there was a hierarchy in their usage.[29]
The Medway long barrows all conformed to the same general design plan,[30] and are all aligned on an east to west axis.[30] Each had a stone chamber at the eastern end of the mound, and they each probably had a stone facade flanking the entrance.[30] They had internal heights of up to 3.0 metres (10 feet), making them taller than most other chambered long barrows in Britain.[31] The chambers were constructed from sarsen, a dense, hard, and durable stone that occurs naturally throughout Kent, having formed out of sand from the Eocene epoch.[32] Early Neolithic builders would have selected blocks from the local area, and then transported them to the site of the monument to be erected.[32]
These common architectural features among the Medway Megaliths indicate a strong regional cohesion with no direct parallels elsewhere in the British Isles.
The people who built these monuments were probably influenced by pre-existing tomb-shrines that they were already aware of.[36] Whether those people had grown up locally, or moved into the Medway area from elsewhere is not known.[36] Based on a stylistic analysis of their architectural designs, the archaeologist Stuart Piggott thought that the plan behind the Medway Megaliths had originated in the area around the Low Countries,[37] while fellow archaeologist Glyn Daniel instead believed that the same evidence showed an influence from Scandinavia.[38] John H. Evans instead suggested an origin in Germany,[39] and Ronald F. Jessup thought that their origins could be seen in the Cotswold-Severn megalithic group.[40] Ashbee noted that their close clustering in the same area was reminiscent of the megalithic tomb-shrine traditions of continental Northern Europe,[24] and emphasised that the Medway Megaliths were a regional manifestation of a tradition widespread across Early Neolithic Europe.[41] He nevertheless stressed that a precise place of origin was "impossible to indicate" with the available evidence.[42]
Design and construction
The Coldrum Long Barrow originally consisted of a sarsen stone chamber, covered by a low earthen mound, which was bounded by prostrate slabs.[1] As such, Ashbee asserted that the monument could be divided into three particular features: the chamber, the barrow, and the sarsen stone surround.[43] It had been built using about 50 stones.[2] The barrow is sub-rectangular in plan, and about 20 metres (66 ft) in length.[44] At its broader, eastern end, where the chamber is located, the monument measures 15 metres (50 ft), while at the narrower, western end, it is 12 metres (40 ft) in breadth.[45] As such, the barrow is a "truncated wedge-shape".[2]
The megalithic builders responsible for the Coldrum Stones positioned it on the top of a small ridge adjacent to the North Downs, and constructed it facing eastward, towards the River Medway.[2] It is located on the edge of a large lynchet scarp,[46] although it is difficult to ascertain what views would have been possible from the monument at the time of construction, due to a lack of information on how densely forested the vicinity was.[47] If the area was not highly wooded, then 360° views of the surrounding landscape would have been possible.[47] The monument's axis points toward both the North Downs and the Medway Valley, which is similar to the other Medway Megaliths.[48] The archaeologist Sian Killick suggested that the Coldrum Long Barrow might have been built within view of a nearby settlement, and that this "may have been a key factor in the experience of ceremonies and rituals taking place at the tombs and may also have defined a link between the tomb builders and the landscape."[49]
Coldrum Long Barrow is comparatively isolated from the other Medway Megaliths; in this it is unique, given that the other surviving examples are clustered into two groups.[46] It is possible that another chambered tomb was located nearby; a razed, elongated earthen mound with an east–west orientation is located in a hollow at the foot of the downs just under a quarter of a mile north of the Coldrum Stones. It may be that this represents the remnants of another such monument which has had its stones removed or buried.[46] Several large sarsens south of the Coldrums might represent the remnants of a further such tomb, since destroyed.[46]
The chamber
The inner chamber measures 4.0 metres (13 ft) in length, and 1.68 metres (5 ft 6 in) in width, although it was potentially much larger when originally constructed.[50] The chamber's internal height would have been at least 1.98 metres (6 ft 6 in).[50] In its current state, the northern side of the chamber is made up of two slabs. One is 2.4 metres (8 ft) long, 2.29 metres (7 ft 6 in) deep, and 0.53 metres (1 ft 9 in) thick; the other is 1.5 metres (5 ft) long, nearly 1.8 metres (6 ft) deep, and 0.61 metres (2 ft) thick.[50] Conversely, the chamber's southern side consists of a single slab, measuring 3.45 metres (11 ft 4 in) in length, 2.21 metres (7 ft 3 in) in depth, and 0.53 metres (1 ft 9 in) in thickness at its eastern end.[50]
The western end of the chamber is closed off with a slab measuring about 1.37 metres (4 ft 6 in) wide, with a thickness of 0.30 metres (1 ft) and a depth of around 2.4 metres (8 ft).[50] A collapsed, broken slab lies at the chamber's opening, eastern end.[51] It is also possible that a largely rectangular slab at the bottom of the slope had once been part of the chamber's eastern end.[51] Excavation has revealed that flint masonry was used to pack around the chamber and support its sarsens; 20th-century renovation has seen this largely replaced with cement, allowing the stones to continue standing upright.[52]
It is possible that there was a facade in front of the chamber, as is evident at other chambered tombs in Britain, such as
The mound and kerb-stones
The earthen mound that once covered the tomb is now visible only as an undulation approximately 0.46 metres (1 ft 6 in) in height.[52] In the 19th century, the mound was higher on the western end of the tomb, although during the 1920s this was removed by excavation to reveal the sarsens beneath.[52] It is probable that in the Early Neolithic, the mound had a quarry ditch surrounding it, and it is inside this ditch that the kerb-stones now sit.[52]
The kerb-stones around the tomb display some patterning; those on the northern side are mostly rectilinear, while those on the southern side are smaller and largely irregular in shape.[45] It is probable that there was an ancillary dry-stone wall constructed using blocks of ironstone from the geological Folkestone beds, as is evident at Chestnuts Long Barrow.[45] Given that such blocks of stone rarely occur naturally, it may have been quarried.[45]
A concave line of abrasion and polishing can be found both on one of the central kerb-stones on the western end of the monument and on a kerb-stone on the south-east of the monument. These have been attributed to the sharpening of flint and other stone axe-blades on these sarsens.[45] It is possible that these tools were sharpened for use in cutting and carving the timber levers and struts which would have been used in erecting the stones and constructing the tomb.[54] Similar evidence for the sharpening of tools has been found at West Kennet Long Barrow, as well as later prehistoric monuments such as Stonehenge.[55]
Meaning and purpose
Britain's Early Neolithic communities placed greater emphasis on the ritual burial of the dead than their Mesolithic forebears.
In Britain, these tombs were typically located on prominent hills and slopes overlooking the landscape, perhaps at the junction between different territories.[58] The archaeologist Caroline Malone noted that the tombs would have served as one of various landscape markers that conveyed information on "territory, political allegiance, ownership, and ancestors".[59] Many archaeologists have subscribed to the idea that these tomb-shrines were territorial markers between different tribes; others have argued that such markers would be of little use to a nomadic herding society.[60] Instead it has been suggested that they represent markers along herding pathways.[61] The archaeologist Richard Bradley suggested that the construction of these monuments reflects an attempt to mark control and ownership over the land, thus reflecting a change in mindset brought about by the transition from the hunter-gatherer Mesolithic to the pastoralist Early Neolithic.[62] Others have suggested that these monuments were built on sites already deemed sacred by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.[63]
Human remains
Within the chamber were placed human remains,[64] which have been discovered and removed at intervals during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.[34] Early twentieth century excavation found two separate deposits of bone, each buried atop a stone slab, one higher than the other.[65] Also buried within the chamber were flint tools and small quantities of pottery.[64]
Demographics
Ashbee suggested that—taking into account both its size and comparisons with other long barrows, such as Fussell's Lodge—the Coldrum tomb could have housed the remains of over a hundred individuals.[66] Excavations conducted in the early 20th century have led to the methodical discovery and removal of what was believed to be the remains of twenty-two humans.[67] These remains were examined by Sir Arthur Keith, the conservator of the museum at the Royal College of Surgeons. He published his results in 1913, in a paper largely concerned with discerning racial characteristics of the bodies.[68] He ended his paper with the conclusion that "the people of pre-Christian Kent were physically not very different from the Kentish man of the Christian period".[69]
In the early 21st century, these bones were re-analysed by a team led by the forensic
Keith believed that the crania he examined displayed similar features to one another, suggesting that this meant that they all belonged to "one family—or several families united by common descent."[71] Similar observations have been made regarding the crania from other long barrows in Britain.[72] The osteoarchaeologists Martin Smith and Megan Brickley cautioned that this did not necessarily mean that all of the individuals in any given barrow were members of a single family group, for such shared cranial traits would also be consistent with "a population that was still relatively small and scattered", in which most people were interrelated.[73]
Wysocki's team noted that in all but one case, the fracture morphologies of the bones are consistent with dry-bone breakage.[70] Three of the skulls displayed evidence that they had experienced violence; a probable adult female had an unhealed injury on the left frontal bone, an adult of indeterminate sex had an unhealed fracture on the left frontal, and a second adult female had a healed depressed fracture on the right frontal.[70]
Radiocarbon dating of the human remains suggested that some were brought to the site between either 3980–3800 calibrated BCE (95% probability) or 3960–3880 cal BCE (68% probability). It further suggested that after an interval of either 60–350 years (95% probability) or 140–290 years (68% probability), additional depositions of human remains were made inside the tomb. This second phase probably began in 3730–3540 cal BCE (95% probability) or 3670–3560 cal BCE (68% probability).[76] The radiocarbon dating of the human remains does not necessarily provide a date for the construction of Coldrum Long Barrow itself, because it is possible that the individuals died some time either before or after the monument's construction.[77]
Post-mortem deposition
Cut-marks were identified on some of the bones (two
This cut-marked human bone assemblage represented the largest yet identified from within a Neolithic long barrow in southern Britain, although similar evidence for dismemberment has been found from other Neolithic British sites, such as West Trump, Eyford, Aldestrop, and Haddenham.[79] There are two possibilities for how this material developed. The first is that the bodies of the dead were excarnated or exposed to the elements, followed by a secondary burial within the tomb. The second is that they were placed in the tomb, where the flesh decomposed, before the bodies were then rearranged within the tomb itself.[80] These practices may have been accompanied by other ritualistic or ceremonial practices, direct evidence for which does not survive.[80]
The inclusion of occupational debris like ceramic sherds over the bones was not unique to the site but common in chambered tombs from southern England.[81] On the basis of an example discovered at Kit's Coty House, Ashbee thought it apparent that the contents of the Coldrum's chamber would have been compartmentalised by medial slabs, which served the same purpose as the side chambers of West Kennet and Wayland's Smithy.[81]
Damage and dilapidation
All the surviving megalithic tombs from the Early Neolithic period have suffered from neglect and the ravages of agriculture.[82] Ashbee noted that the Coldrum Stones represent "Kent's least damaged megalithic long barrow",[1] however it too has suffered considerable damage, having become dilapidated and fallen apart over the six millennia since its original construction. Most prominently, the eastern side has largely collapsed, with the stones that once helped to hold up the side of the barrow having fallen to the bottom of the slope.[2] Conversely, it is possible that the sarsens at the bottom of the slope were not part of the original monument, but were stones found in nearby fields which were deposited there by farmers.[83]
Excavation of Chestnuts Long Barrow revealed that it had been systematically destroyed in one event, and Ashbee suggested that the same may have happened to the Coldrum Stones. He believed that the kerb-stones around the barrow were toppled, laid prostrate in the surrounding ditch, and then buried during the late 13th or early 14th century, by Christians seeking to obliterate non-Christian monuments.
Folklore, folk tradition, and modern Paganism
In a 1946 paper, the
Evans also recorded a local folk belief applied to all the Medway Megaliths and which had been widespread "up to the last generation"; this was that it was impossible for anyone to successfully count the number of stones in the monuments.
Several
Pagans sometimes visit the site alone or in pairs, there to
In the early 21st century, a tradition developed in which the Hartley Morris Men, a
Antiquarian and archaeological investigation
Early antiquarian descriptions
The earliest antiquarian accounts of Coldrum Long Barrow were never published.
In 1857, the antiquarian J. M. Kemble excavated at the site with the help of the Reverend Larking, providing a report of their findings to the Central Committee of the British Archaeological Association. Describing the monument as a stone circle, they asserted that they discovered Anglo-Saxon pottery at the site, and noted that as well as being called the Coldrum Stones, the monument also had the name of the Adscombe Stones, which Kemble believed originated with the Old English word for funeral pile, ad.[112] In August 1863, members of the Archaeological Institute—which was holding its week-long meeting in Rochester—visited the site, guided by the antiquary Charles Roach Smith.[113] That year, the monument was described in a copy of Gentleman's Magazine by Yorkshire antiquary Charles Moore Jessop, who believed it to be a "Celtic" stone circle.[114]
In 1869, the antiquarian A. L. Lewis first visited the site, and was informed by locals that several years previously a skull had been uncovered from inside or near to the chamber, but that they believed it to be that of a
In August 1889, two amateur archaeologists, George Payne and A. A. Arnold, came across the monument, which they noted was known among locals as the "Coldrum Stones" and "Druid Temple"; according to Payne, "the huge stones were so overgrown with brambles and brushwood that they could not be discerned".
In 1904, George Clinch published a note on the Medway Megaliths in the Royal Anthropological Institute's journal, Man, in which he referred to the Coldrum Stones as "at once the most remarkable and the least known of the whole series."[129] Suggesting that its design indicates that it was built during "a late date in the neolithic age",[130] he compared the workmanship in producing the megaliths to that at Stonehenge, although noted that they differed in that the Coldrum Stones clearly represented "a sepulchral pile".[131] Ultimately, he ended his note by urging for the site to be protected under the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1900.[131] In that same issue, Lewis included an added note in which he rejected the idea that the monument had once been covered by an earthen tumulus because he could see "no evidence that anything of that kind ever existed", and instead he interpreted the site as a stone circle, comparing it to the examples at Avebury, Arbor Low, and Stanton Drew, suggesting that the central chamber was a shrine.[115]
Archaeological excavation
The Coldrum Stones have been
"Some young man was selected, one of a family perhaps set apart, and had a very merry time during his year of god-ship, at the end of this, he was sacrificed at the dolmen [chamber], being led up the ascent, and his body was dismembered and the limbs and blood scattered over the fields to ensure fertility. His wife or wives may have been killed, too, and any child born during that year also, and their bones gathered together and buried within the dolmen."
— Bennett's interpretation of human sacrifice at the Coldrums, 1913.[133]
Later that month, George Payne and F. W. Reader met with Bennett to discuss his finds.
In September 1922, Filkins again excavated at Coldrum, this time with the aid of Gravesend resident Charles Gilbert.[138] Their project was financed through grants provided by the British Association and the Society of Antiquaries,[139] with Filkins noting that at the time of its commencement, "a miniature jungle" had grown up around the site which had to be cleared.[139] Excavation continued sporadically until at least 1926.[139] Human remains were discovered, and placed into the possession of Sir Arthur Keith of the Royal College of Surgeons.[139] It is also recorded that at some point between 1939 and 1945 human remains that had been found at the site were reburied in the churchyard at Trottiscliffe.[140] This excavation revealed all the existing sarsens surrounding the monument, several which had previously been buried.[141] The stones of the chamber were shored up with concrete foundations where Filkins deemed it necessary.[139] Although Filkins' excavation was comprehensive, it ignored stone holes, packing stones, and their relationship to the mound.[141] In 1998, Ashbee noted that while from "a present-day perspective, it is possible to see shortcomings [in Filkins' excavation ...] in terms of the general standards of the early part of this century, there is much to commend."[142]
Management by the National Trust
In his 1924 publication dealing with Kent, the archaeologist O. G. S. Crawford, then working as the archaeological officer for the Ordnance Survey, listed the Coldrum Stones alongside the other Medway Megaliths.[144] In 1926, the Coldrum Stones were given to the National Trust, a charity which dedicated it as a memorial to the Kentish prehistorian Benjamin Harrison.[1] A plaque was erected to mark this, which erroneously termed the monument a stone circle;[143] in 1953, the archaeologist Leslie Grinsell expressed the view that "it is hoped that this error may be rectified in the near future".[145] Still owned by the Trust, the site is open to visitors all year round, free of charge.[2] On their website, the Trust advises visitors to look for "stunning views from the top of the barrow".[3] John H. Evans characterised the site as "the most impressive" of the Medway Megaliths,[146] while Grinsell described it as "the finest and most complete" of the group.[145]
Among the Pagans who use the Coldrum Stones for their ritual activities, there is general satisfaction with the Trust's management of the site, although some frustration at the poor access for disabled visitors.[147] A patch of scorched earth exists on the grass in the centre of the monument, perhaps used by Pagans as well as non-Pagans, and the Trust warden responsible for the site has decided to leave it there rather than seeding it over, in order to encourage any who do light fires to do so in the same spot rather than nearer to the stones themselves.[148] The site also faces a problem from litter left by visitors, with Pagans who regularly visit the site cleaning this up.[148]
References
Footnotes
- ^ a b c d Ashbee 1998, p. 1.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Philp & Dutto 2005, p. 1.
- ^ a b c National Trust.
- ^ Bennett 1913, p. 76.
- ^ Hutton 1991, pp. 16–17.
- ^ Hutton 1991, p. 16; Ashbee 1999, p. 272; Hutton 2013, pp. 34–35.
- ^ Holgate 1981, pp. 230–231.
- ^ Hutton 2013, p. 37.
- ^ Barclay et al. 2006, p. 20.
- ^ Barclay et al. 2006, pp. 25–26.
- ^ Champion 2007, pp. 73–74; Hutton 2013, p. 33.
- ^ Hutton 1991, p. 19; Hutton 2013, p. 37.
- ^ Hutton 1991, p. 19; Hutton 2013, p. 40.
- ^ Hutton 1991, p. 19.
- ^ a b Malone 2001, p. 103.
- ^ Hutton 2013, p. 40.
- ^ Malone 2001, pp. 103–104; Hutton 2013, p. 41.
- ^ a b Hutton 2013, p. 41.
- ^ Holgate 1981, p. 225; Champion 2007, p. 78.
- ^ Champion 2007, p. 76.
- ^ Wysocki et al. 2013, p. 1.
- ^ Garwood 2012, p. 1.
- ^ Holgate 1981, p. 221.
- ^ a b Ashbee 1999, p. 269.
- ^ Ashbee 1993, pp. 60–61; Champion 2007, p. 78; Wysocki et al. 2013, p. 1.
- ^ Ashbee 2005, p. 101; Champion 2007, pp. 76–77.
- ^ Ashbee 2005, p. 101; Champion 2007, p. 78.
- ^ a b Holgate 1981, p. 223.
- ^ Holgate 1981, pp. 223, 225.
- ^ a b c Champion 2007, p. 78.
- ^ Killick 2010, p. 339.
- ^ a b Ashbee 1993, p. 58; Ashbee 2000, pp. 325–326; Champion 2007, p. 78.
- ^ Holgate 1981, p. 225; Wysocki et al. 2013, p. 3.
- ^ a b c Wysocki et al. 2013, p. 3.
- ^ Ashbee 1993, p. 60.
- ^ a b Holgate 1981, p. 227.
- ^ Piggott 1935, p. 122.
- ^ Daniel 1950, p. 161.
- ^ Evans 1950, pp. 77−80.
- ^ Jessup 1970, p. 111.
- ^ Ashbee 1999, p. 271.
- ^ Ashbee 1993, p. 57.
- ^ Ashbee 1998, p. 12.
- ^ Ashbee 1998, p. 17; Philp & Dutto 2005, p. 1.
- ^ a b c d e Ashbee 1998, p. 17.
- ^ a b c d Ashbee 1998, p. 11.
- ^ a b Killick 2010, p. 343.
- ^ Killick 2010, p. 346.
- ^ Killick 2010, p. 347.
- ^ a b c d e Ashbee 1998, p. 13.
- ^ a b Ashbee 1998, p. 14.
- ^ a b c d Ashbee 1998, p. 15.
- ^ a b c Ashbee 1998, p. 19.
- ^ Ashbee 1998, pp. 17–18.
- ^ a b Ashbee 1998, p. 18.
- ^ Burl 1981, p. 61; Malone 2001, p. 103.
- ^ Burl 1981, p. 61.
- ^ Malone 2001, pp. 106–107.
- ^ Malone 2001, p. 107.
- ^ Hutton 2013, pp. 42–43.
- ^ Hutton 2013, p. 43.
- ^ Hutton 2013, p. 39.
- ^ Hutton 2013, pp. 39–40.
- ^ a b Ashbee 1998, p. 22.
- ^ Ashbee 1998, pp. 22, 26; Wysocki et al. 2013, pp. 3, 5.
- ^ Ashbee 1998, p. 25.
- ^ Keith 1913, p. 86; Ashbee 1998, p. 20.
- ^ Keith 1913; Smith & Brickley 2009, p. 34.
- ^ Keith 1913, p. 98.
- ^ a b c d e Wysocki et al. 2013, p. 6.
- ^ Keith 1913, p. 86.
- ^ Smith & Brickley 2009, p. 92.
- ^ Smith & Brickley 2009, p. 93.
- ^ Wysocki et al. 2013, p. 21.
- ^ Keith 1913, p. 91.
- ^ Wysocki et al. 2013, pp. 12–14, 21.
- ^ Wysocki et al. 2013, p. 12.
- ^ Wysocki et al. 2013, pp. 7–8.
- ^ a b Wysocki et al. 2013, p. 8.
- ^ a b c Wysocki et al. 2013, p. 9.
- ^ a b Ashbee 1998, p. 34.
- ^ Burl 1981, p. 63.
- ^ Ashbee 1998, p. 20.
- ^ Ashbee 1993, pp. 63–64; Ashbee 1998, p. 18; Ashbee 2005, pp. 38–39.
- ^ a b Alexander 1961, p. 25.
- ^ Evans 1946, p. 42.
- ^ Evans 1946, p. 43.
- ^ Evans 1946, p. 38; Grinsell 1976, pp. 63, 123.
- ^ Menefee 1975, p. 146.
- ^ Menefee 1975, p. 147.
- ^ Menefee 1975, p. 148.
- ^ Doyle White 2016, p. 351.
- ^ Doyle White 2016, p. 362.
- ^ a b Doyle White 2016, p. 354.
- ^ Doyle White 2016, pp. 354–355.
- ^ Doyle White 2016, pp. 356–357.
- ^ Doyle White 2016, p. 360.
- ^ Doyle White 2016, pp. 351, 360–361.
- ^ Doyle White 2016, p. 363.
- ^ Doyle White 2016, pp. 362–363.
- ^ Doyle White 2016, p. 368.
- ^ Doyle White 2016, pp. 368–369.
- ^ a b Doyle White 2016, p. 359.
- ^ Doyle White 2016, pp. 359–360.
- ^ Ashbee 1998, p. 2.
- ^ Evans 1950, p. 69; Ashbee 1998, p. 2.
- ^ Evans 1949, pp. 130, 132, 137; Ashbee 1998, p. 2.
- ^ Evans 1949, p. 132.
- ^ Evans 1949, p. 137.
- ^ Wright 1844, p. 263; Ashbee 1998, p. 3.
- ^ Wright 1844, p. 263.
- ^ Way 1856, p. 404; Ashbee 1998, p. 3.
- ^ Ashbee 1998, pp. 3–4.
- ^ Jessop 1863, p. 637; Ashbee 1998, p. 4.
- ^ a b Lewis 1904, p. 39.
- ^ a b Payne 1893, p. 140.
- ^ Lewis 1878, p. 140.
- ^ Lewis 1878, p. 141.
- ^ Petrie 1880, p. 14; Ashbee 1998, p. 7.
- ^ Petrie 1880, p. 17; Ashbee 1998, p. 7.
- ^ Payne 1893, pp. 137–138; Bennett 1913, p. 76.
- ^ Payne 1893, p. 138.
- ^ Payne 1893, pp. 137–138.
- ^ Ashbee 1998, p. 8.
- ^ Payne 1893, p. 138; Bennett 1913, p. 76; Ashbee 1998, p. 8.
- ^ Payne 1893, p. 138; Bennett 1913, p. 76.
- ^ Payne 1893, p. 139.
- ^ Payne 1893, pp. 140–141.
- ^ Clinch 1904, p. 21.
- ^ Clinch 1904, p. 22.
- ^ a b Clinch 1904, p. 23.
- ^ a b c d Bennett 1913, p. 81.
- ^ a b Bennett 1913, p. 84.
- ^ Bennett 1913, pp. 81–82.
- ^ Smith & Brickley 2009, p. 34.
- ^ Bennett 1913, p. 83.
- ^ Evans 1946, p. 40.
- ^ Filkins 1924, p. 265.
- ^ a b c d e Filkins 1928, p. 357.
- ^ Grinsell 1986, pp. 34–35.
- ^ a b Ashbee 1998, p. 16.
- ^ Ashbee 1998, p. 35.
- ^ a b Grinsell 1953, p. 194; Ashbee 1998, p. 1.
- ^ Ashbee 2005, p. 33.
- ^ a b Grinsell 1953, p. 194.
- ^ Evans 1946, p. 37.
- ^ Doyle White 2016, p. 364.
- ^ a b Doyle White 2016, p. 366.
Bibliography
- Alexander, John (1961). "The Excavation of the Chestnuts Megalithic Tomb at Addington, Kent" (PDF). Archaeologia Cantiana. 76. Kent Archaeological Society: 1–57. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 July 2020. Retrieved 25 July 2016.
- Ashbee, Paul (1993). "The Medway Megaliths in Perspective" (PDF). Archaeologia Cantiana. 111. Kent Archaeological Society: 57–112. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 July 2020. Retrieved 25 July 2016.
- Ashbee, Paul (1998). "Coldrum Revisited and Reviewed" (PDF). Archaeologia Cantiana. 118. Kent Archaeological Society: 1–44.
- Ashbee, Paul (1999). "The Medway Megaliths in a European Context" (PDF). Archaeologia Cantiana. 119. Kent Archaeological Society: 269–284. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 July 2020. Retrieved 25 July 2016.
- Ashbee, Paul (2000). "The Medway's Megalithic Long Barrows" (PDF). Archaeologia Cantiana. 120. Kent Archaeological Society: 319–345. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 July 2020. Retrieved 25 July 2016.
- Ashbee, Paul (2005). Kent in Prehistoric Times. Stroud: Tempus. ISBN 978-0752431369.
- Barclay, Alistair; Fitzpatrick, Andrew P.; Hayden, Chris; Stafford, Elizabeth (2006). The Prehistoric Landscape at White Horse Stone, Aylesford, Kent (Report). Oxford: Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture (London and Continental Railways).
- Bennett, F. J. (January–June 1913). "Coldrum Monument and Exploration 1910". Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 43. Royal Anthropological Institute: 76–85. JSTOR 2843160.
- Burl, Aubrey (1981). Rites of the Gods. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0460043137.
- Champion, Timothy (2007). "Prehistoric Kent". In John H. Williams (ed.). The Archaeology of Kent to AD 800. Woodbridge: Boydell Press and Kent County Council. pp. 67–133. ISBN 9780851155807.
- Clinch, George (1904). "Coldrum, Kent, and Its Relation to Stonehenge". Man. 4. Royal Anthropological Institute: 20–23. JSTOR 2840863.
- Daniel, Glynn E. (1950). The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Doyle White, Ethan (2016). "Old Stones, New Rites: Contemporary Pagan Interactions with the Medway Megaliths". Material Religion. 12 (3): 346–372. S2CID 218836456.
- Evans, John H. (1946). "Notes on the Folklore and Legends Associated with the Kentish Megaliths". Folklore. 57 (1). The Folklore Society: 36–43. JSTOR 1257001.
- Evans, John H. (1949). "A Disciple of the Druids; the Beale Post Mss" (PDF). Archaeologia Cantiana. 62. Kent Archaeological Society: 130–139. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 July 2020. Retrieved 25 July 2016.
- Evans, John H. (1950). "Kentish Megalith Types" (PDF). Archaeologia Cantiana. 63. Kent Archaeological Society: 63–81. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 July 2020. Retrieved 25 July 2016.
- Filkins, E. (1924). "Coldrum Exploration, 1923". The Antiquaries Journal. 4 (3). Society of Antiquaries of London: 356–357. .
- Filkins, E. (1928). "Excavations at Coldrum, Kent". The Antiquaries Journal. 8 (3). Society of Antiquaries of London: 356–357. .
- Garwood, P. (2012). "The Medway Valley Prehistoric Landscapes Project". PAST: The Newsletter of the Prehistoric Society. 72. The Prehistoric Society: 1–3.
- Grinsell, Leslie V. (1953). The Ancient Burial-Mounds of England (second ed.). London: Methuen & Co.
- Grinsell, Leslie V. (1976). Folklore of Prehistoric Sites in Britain. London: David & Charles. ISBN 978-0-7153-7241-8.
- Grinsell, Leslie V. (1986). "The Christianisation of Prehistoric and Other Pagan Sites". Landscape History. 8 (1): 27–37. .
- Holgate, Robin (1981). "The Medway Megaliths and Neolithic Kent" (PDF). Archaeologia Cantiana. 97. Kent Archaeological Society: 221–234. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 June 2020. Retrieved 11 October 2017.
- Hutton, Ronald (1991). The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-17288-8.
- Hutton, Ronald (2013). Pagan Britain. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-197716.
- Jessop, C. M. (1863). "Celtic Remains in Kent". Gentleman's Magazine. Part I: 636–638.
- Jessup, Ronald F. (1970). South-East England. London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN 978-0-500-02068-5.
- Keith, A. (January–June 1913). "Report on the Human Remains Found by F. J. Bennett, Esq., F.G.S., in the Central Chamber of a Megalithic Monument at Coldrum, Kent". Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 43. Royal Anthropological Institute: 86–100. JSTOR 2843161.
- Killick, Sian (2010). "Neolithic Landscape and Experience: The Medway Megaliths" (PDF). Archaeologia Cantiana. Vol. 130. Kent Archaeological Society. pp. 339–349. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 July 2020. Retrieved 25 July 2016.
- Lewis, A. L. (1878). "On a Rude Stone Monument in Kent". The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 7. Royal Anthropological Institute: 140–142. JSTOR 2841379.
- Lewis, A. L. (1904). "The Coldrum Monument". Man. 4. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland: 395. JSTOR 2839987.
- Malone, Caroline (2001). Neolithic Britain and Ireland. Stroud: Tempus. ISBN 978-0-7524-1442-3.
- Menefee, S. P. (1975). "The 'Countless Stones': A Final Reckoning". Folklore. 86 (3–4). The Folklore Society: 146–166. JSTOR 1260230.
- National Trust. "Coldrum Stones". The National Trust. Archived from the original on 25 March 2015. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
- Payne, George (1893). Collectanea Cantiana: Or, Archæological Researches in the Neighbourhood of Sittingbourne, and Other Parts of Kent. London: Mitchell and Hughes.
- Petrie, W. M. Flinders (1880). "Notes on Kentish Earthworks" (PDF). Archaeologia Cantiana. 13. Kent Archaeological Society: 8–16.
- Philp, Brian; Dutto, Mike (2005). The Medway Megaliths (third ed.). Kent: Kent Archaeological Trust.
- Piggott, Stuart (1935). "A Note on the Relative Chronology of the English Long Barrows". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 1. The Prehistoric Society: 115–126. .
- Smith, Martin; Brickley, Megan (2009). People of the Long Barrows: Life, Death and Burial in the Early Neolithic. Stroud: The History Press. ISBN 978-0752447339.
- Way, A. (1856). "Report to the Central Committee of the British Archaeological Association" (PDF). The Archaeological Journal. 13. British Archaeological Institute: 404.
- Wright, T. (1844). "Proceedings of the Committee" (PDF). The Archaeological Journal. 1. British Archaeological Association: 262–264.
- Wysocki, Michael; Griffiths, Seren; Hedges, Robert; Bayliss, Alex; Higham, Tom; Fernandez-Jalvo, Yolanda; Whittle, Alasdair (2013). "Dates, Diet and Dismemberment: Evidence from the Coldrum Megalithic Monument, Kent". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 79. Prehistoric Society: 1–30. .
External links
- Coldrum Long Barrow at the National Trust website
- Coldrum Long Barrow at The Megalithic Portal
- Coldrum Long Barrow at The Modern Antiquarian