Chestnuts Long Barrow

Chestnuts Long Barrow

View looking east through the burial chamber
Location within Kent
Location Addington, Kent
Coordinates 51°18′28″N 0°22′10″E / 51.307655°N 0.369557°E / 51.307655; 0.369557
Type Long barrow

The Chestnuts Long Barrow, also known as Stony or Long Warren, is a ruined chambered long barrow located near to the village of Addington in the southeastern English county of Kent. Constructed circa 4000 BCE, during the Early Neolithic period of British prehistory.

Archaeologists have established that the monument was built by pastoralist communities shortly after the introduction of agriculture to Britain from continental Europe. Although representing part of an architectural tradition of long barrow building that was widespread across Neolithic Europe, the Chestnuts Long Barrow belong to a localised regional variant of barrows produced in the vicinity of the River Medway, now known as the Medway Megaliths. Of these, it lies near to both Addington Long Barrow and Coldrum Long Barrow on the western side of the river. Three further surviving long barrows, Kit's Coty House, the Little Kit's Coty House, and the Coffin Stone, are located on the Medway's eastern side.

The tomb was built in an area of extensive earlier Mesolithic activity which had been known from surface spotfinds. When the site was excavated in summer 1957 by its owner, Mr E. Boyle, stratified evidence of Mesolithic settlement was found directly beneath the barrow. Further work was undertaken in 1959 by J Alexander who found sherds of Grimston, Beaker and Peterborough ware as well as flint arrowheads.

Twelve large sarsen stones remain visible, although badly eroded and damaged. As at the nearby Coldrum Stones the stones had not been set in socket holes by their builders. In plan the tomb was an oblong chamber, oriented east-west and blocked at both ends. It had a facade of four stones, two on either side of the eastern end. The chamber, covered by two capstones, was about 4m by 3m. and just over 2m tall. It was flanked by two large megaliths which dominate the site No evidence of a kerb has been identified and the capstones have since fallen and rest on the ground nearby.

Around 4,800 fragments of burnt bone, representing at least ten adults and one infant, were found in the chamber. The remains of a least three pots (in 50 fragments) also came from the chamber, one with fingernail impression. All were of Neolithic or Early Bronze Age fabric. Sherds of a fourth pot were outside the entrance where the excavators considered it had been ritually smashed were also found. A large barrow once covered the chamber, it has only survived for about a quarter of the perimeter but suggests a total width of around 20m.

Information from the excavation indicated that it was in use in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (c. 1800-1400 B.C.). The barrow was still standing in the late 1st-2nd century A.D., when a small Roman settlement stood next to it. Around the twelfth or thirteenth century, the chamber was systematically turned over, perhaps by treasure hunters. Pits were dug under the stones and the barrow was shovelled away. This caused the chamber to collapse, sealing medieval sherds under the stones. Since then the site has been little disturbed. Boyle re-erected the stones as accurately as he could following his excavation.

Name and location

The long barrow gained its name from the Chestnuts, a wood that crowns the hill on the slopes of which the barrow is located.[1] Prior to the adoption of this name, the site was known locally as Stony or Long Warren.[1]

The barrow is located in the greensand belt, 100 feet above sea level.[1] The underlying geology is a soft sandstone covered with a stratum of white sand.[2] It is a Scheduled Ancient Monument.[1]

Context

The Early Neolithic was a revolutionary period of British history. Beginning in the fifth millennium 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.[3] Archaeologists have been unable to prove whether this adoption of farming was because of a new influx of migrants coming in from continental Europe or because the indigenous Mesolithic Britons came to adopt the agricultural practices of continental societies.[4] Either way, it certainly emerged through contact with continental Europe, probably as a result of centuries of interaction between Mesolithic people living in south-east Britain and Linear Pottery culture (LBK) communities in north-eastern France.[5] The region of modern Kent would have been a key area 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.[6]

Between 4500 and 3800 BCE, all of the British Isles came to abandon its former Mesolithic hunter-gatherer lifestyle, to be replaced by the new agricultural subsistence of the Neolithic Age.[7] It is apparent that although a common material culture was shared throughout most of the British Isles in this period, there was great regional variation regarding the nature and distribution of settlement, architectural styles, and the use of natural resources.[8] Throughout most of Britain, there is little evidence of cereal or permanent dwellings from this period, leading archaeologists to believe that the Early Neolithic economy on the island was largely pastoral, relying on herding cattle, with people living a nomadic or semi-nomadic way of life.[9] Archaeologists have no direct proof of gender relations on the island at this time, although most believe that it was probably a male-dominated society, in keeping with all recorded societies that practice large-scale animal husbandry.[10] There is archaeological evidence of violence and warfare in Early Neolithic Britain from such archaeological sites as West Kennet Long Barrow and Hambledon Hill, with some groups constructing fortifications to defend themselves from attackers.[11]

Britain was largely forested in this period, although did witness some land clearance.[12] It remains unclear to what extent the Kentish area was deforested in the Early Neolithic, although it appears that widespread forest clearance only took place on the chalklands of south-east Britain much later, in the Late Bronze Age.[13] Environmental data from the area around the White Horse Stone supports the idea that the area was still largely forested in the Early Neolithic, covered by a woodland of oak, ash, hazel/alder and Maloideae.[14]

The tomb building tradition

Across Western Europe, the Early Neolithic marked the first period in which humans built monumental structures in the landscape.[15] These were tombs that held the physical remains of the dead, and though sometimes constructed out of timber, many were built using large stones, now known as "megaliths".[10] Individuals were rarely buried alone in the Early Neolithic, instead being interned in collective burials with other members of their community.[16] The construction of these collective burial monumental tombs, both wooden and megalithic, began in continental Europe before being adopted in Britain in the first half of the fourth millennium BCE.[17]

"It seems that the role of ancestors in Neolithic society was much more important than in the world of the hunter-gatherer. Clans and forebears began to have symbolic importance to the settled farming communities of the Neolithic. Dead ancestors were celebrated through funerals, feasts and grave goods, and their carefully selected body-parts were housed in specially built monuments, often symbolising 'houses' of the dead ... The tombs provide the earliest and most tangible evidence of Neolithic people and their customs, and are some of the most impressive and aesthetically distinctive constructions of prehistoric Britain."

Archaeologist and prehistorian Caroline Malone, 2001.[16]

The Early Neolithic people of Britain placed far greater emphasis on the ritualised burial of the dead than their Mesolithic forebears had done.[16] Many archaeologists have suggested that this is because Early Neolithic people adhered to an ancestor cult that venerated the spirits of the dead, believing that they could intercede with the forces of nature for the benefit of their living descendants.[18] Archaeologist Robin Holgate stressed that rather than simply being tombs, the Medway Megaliths were "communal mouments fulfilling a social function for the communities who built and used them."[19] Thus, it has furthermore been suggested that Early Neolithic people entered into the tombs – which doubled as temples or shrines – to perform rituals that would honour the dead and ask for their assistance.[20] For this reason, historian Ronald Hutton termed these monuments "tomb-shrines" to reflect their dual purpose.[21]

In Britain, these tombs were typically located on prominent hills and slopes overlooking the surrounding landscape, perhaps at the junction between different territories.[22] Archaeologist Caroline Malone noted that the tombs would have served as one of a variety of markers in the landscape that conveyed information on "territory, political allegiance, ownership, and ancestors."[23] Many archaeologists have subscribed to the idea that these tomb-shrines served as territorial markers between different tribal groups, although others have argued that such markers would be of little use to a nomadic herding society.[24] Instead it has been suggested that they represent markers along herding pathways.[25] Many archaeologists have suggested that the construction of such monuments reflects an attempt to stamp control and ownership over the land, thus representing a change in mindset brought about by Neolithicisation.[26] Others have suggested that these monuments were built on sites already deemed sacred by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.[27]

Archaeologists have differentiated these Early Neolithic tombs into a variety of different architectural styles, each typically associated with a different region within the British Isles.[20] Passage graves, characterised by their narrow passage made of large stones and one or multiple burial chambers covered in earth or stone, were predominantly located in northern Britain and southern and central Ireland. Alternately, across northern Ireland and central Britain long chambered mounds predominated, while in the east and south-east of Britain, earthen long barrows represented the dominant architectural trend.[28] These earthen long barrows were typically constructed of timber because building stone was scarce in southern Britain; archaeologist Aubrey Burl argued that these timber tombs might have been "even more eye-catching" than their stone counterparts, perhaps consisting of "towering carved poles, flamboyantly painted", but that evidence of such sculptures has not survived.[20] The Medway Megaliths represent just one of these regional groups within the wider West European tradition of tomb building in this period.[29]

Medway Megaliths

Map of the Medway Megaliths around the River Medway

Although now all in a ruinous state and not retaining their original appearance,[30] 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.[31] Grouped along the River Medway as it cuts through the North Downs,[32] they constitute the most southeasterly group of megalithic monuments in the British Isles,[33] and the only megalithic group in eastern England.[34] Archaeologists Brian Philp and Mike Dutto deemed the Medway Megaliths to be "some of the most interesting and well known" archaeological sites in Kent,[35] while archaeologist Paul Ashbee described them as "the most grandiose and impressive structures of their kind in southern England".[36] The BBC Countryfile website notes that although none of the monuments are on the same scale as Stonehenge, they are "really quite impressive" when taken collectively, describing them as "the east of England's answer to the megaliths of the Salisbury Plains".[37]

They 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 and 10 km.[38] The western group includes Coldrum Long Barrow, Addington Long Barrow, and the Chestnuts Long Barrow.[39] The eastern group consists of Kit's Coty House, Little Kit's Coty House, the Coffin Stone, and several other stones which might have once been parts of chambered tombs.[40] It is not known if they were all built at the same time, or whether they were constructed in succession,[19] while similarly it is not known if they each served the same function or whether there was a hierarchy in their usage.[41]

The Medway long barrows all conformed to the same general design plan,[42] and are all aligned on an east to west axis.[42] Each had a stone chamber at the eastern end of the mound, and they each probably had a stone facade flanking the entrance.[42] The chambers were constructed from sarsen, a dense, hard, and durable stone that occurs naturally throughout Kent, having formed out of silicified sand from the Eocene. Early Neolithic builders would have selected blocks from the local area, and then transported them to the site of the monument to be erected.[43]

Three of the Medway Megaliths: Kit's Coty House (left), Little Kit's Coty (above right), and the Coldrum Stones (below right)

Such common architectural features among these tomb-shrines indicate a strong regional cohesion with no direct parallels elsewhere in the British Isles.[44] For instance, they would have been taller than most other tomb-shrines in Britain, with internal heights of up to 10 ft.[45] Nevertheless, as with other regional groupings of Early Neolithic tomb-shrines – like the Cotswold-Severn group – there are also various idiosyncrasies in the different monuments, such as Coldrum's rectilinear shape, the Chestnut long barrow's facade, and the long, thin mounds at Addington and Kit's Coty.[46] This variation might have been caused by the tomb-shrines being altered and adapted over the course of their use; in this scenario, the monumnets would represent composite structures.[47]

It seems apparent that the people who built these monuments were influenced by pre-existing tomb-shrines that they were already aware of.[48] Whether those people had grown up locally, or moved into the Medway area from elsewhere is not known.[48] Based on a stylistic analysis of their architectural designs, the archaeologist Stuart Piggott thought that they had originated in the area around the Low Countries,[49] while fellow archaeologist Glyn Daniel instead believed that the same evidence showed an influence from Scandinavia.[50] John H. Evans instead suggested an origin in Germany,[51] and Ronald F. Jessop thought that their origins could be seen in the Cotswold-Severn megalithic group.[52] Ashbee noted that their close clustering in the same area was reminiscent of the megalithic tomb-shrine traditions of continental Northern Europe,[36] and emphasised that the Medway Megaliths were a regional manifestation of a tradition widespread across Early Neolithic Europe.[53] He nevertheless stressed that a precise place of origin was "impossible to indicate" with the available evidence.[54]

Design

The monument currently comprises fourteen stones.[55]

View looking west across the burial chamber with the facade stones visible on either side

Excavation revealed a Mesolithic layer below the monument, evidenced by much debris produced by flint knapping.[2] During the 1957 excavation of the site, 2300 Mesolithic flint fragments were found, while many more have been discovered in test trenches around the area, stretching up the hill towards Chestnuts Wood as well as for at least 200 yards east of the tomb and 400 yards south-west of it.[56] Around 100 feet west of the tomb, an excavation found flints in association with what was interpreted as evidence for a Mesolithic hearth.[57] The large quantities of Mesolithic material, coupled with its wide spread, indicated that the site was likely used as a place of inhabitation over a considerable length of time during the Mesolithic period.[57] Some of the trenches excavated in 1957 had Mesolithic flints directly below the megaliths, resulting in the excavator to believe that "no great interval of time separated" the Mesolithic and Neolithic usages of the site.[58]

The tomb was constructed from sarsen borders that were arranged as two trilithons,[59] and was oriented almost east to west.[59] The chamber was a trapezoid in its shape, measuring about 12 feet long and 7-and-a-half feet wide.[60] The chamber was likely 10 feet in height.[61] It is likely that the entrance to the chamber was almost entirely blocked by a large stone, designated 'G' by excavators.[60] Although it is difficult to determine the precise original layout of the chamber as a result of damage caused by medieval robbers,[61] it appears likely that a medial stone divided the chamber in two.[60] Furthermore, within the chamber, a drystone wall would have also blocked access.[60] The chamber had a pavement set in yellow sand, onto which human remains were then placed.[61] These human remains were evidenced by the discovery of 3,500 pieces of bone, reflecting a minimum of ten individuals, at least one of whom was a child.[61] Along with these human remains were found other items likely interned with he dead, such as 34 sherds of ceramic, three arrow heads, and a clay pendant.[61] In the foreground of the site, excavators found 100 sherds of Windmill Hill ware, representing parts of at least eight bowls, which it was suggested had once been found in the chamber but which had been removed in order to allow the deposition of further human remains inside of it.[61]

Although no visible tumulus survived into the 1950s, the name "Long Warren" suggested that knowledge of such a mound had been known at least into the eighteenth century.[62] Excavation found evidence of the northern and eastern edges of the barrow,[62] however all trace of the western and southern ends of the barrow had been destroyed by levelling and deep ploughing.[63] From the excavation, archaeologists expressed the view that the barrow was likely trapezoidal or D-shaped, with a width of about 60 feet.[63] It was more difficult to determine the length, although the archaeologist suggested that it may have been about 50 feet long.[63]

Subsequent history

Romano-British period

During excavation of the site, sherds of ceramic from all four centuries of Roman Britain were found, although the majority were dated to the fourth century. Dated to this century was a hut that had been erected on a flat area adjacent to the barrow.[64] Evidence of human activity at this hut was found in the form of ceramic sherds, charcoal, iron nails, burnt clay, bone, and flint fragments.[65] Examining these artefacts, the excavators suggested that while this reflected evidence of inhabitation it was not typical of the items found at Romano-British settlement sites, and was thus perhaps a field shelter rather than a house.[65]

Medieval period

Evidence for human activity in the area of the barrow from the eleventh through to the thirteenth century was found in the form of 200 ceramic sherds, 2 hones, and 17 fragments of daub found by archaeologists in the top soil.[66]

Modern period

Archaeological excavation also revealed evidence for modern inhabitation around the site. Finds from this period included ceramic sherds, clay pipes dated from between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, stone and clay marbles, brick tile, and bottled dated from between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries.[67] The excavator suggested that this evidence confirmed local accounts that it had been used as a popular spot for picnics.[67]

Folklore and folk tradition

In a 1946 paper published in the Folklore journal, John H. Evans recorded that there was a folk belief in the area that applied to all of the Medway Megaliths and which had been widespread "Up to the last generation"; this was that it was impossible for any human being to successfully count the number of stones in the monuments.[68] This "countless stones" motif is not unique to this particular site, and can be found at various other megalithic monuments in Britain. The earliest textual evidence for it is found in an early sixteenth-century document, where it applies to the stone circle of Stonehenge in Wiltshire, although in an early seventeenth-century document it was being applied to The Hurlers, a set of three stone circles in Cornwall.[69] Later records reveal that it had gained widespread distribution in England, as well as a single occurrence each in Wales and Ireland.[70] The folklorist S.P. Menefee suggested that it could be attributed to an animistic understanding that these megaliths had lives of their own.[71]

Antiquarian and archaeological investigation

The existence of Chestnuts Long Barrow has been known since the 18th century.[1]

During the late 19th century, the field in which the barrow is located was used as a paddock.[1] In the late 1940s, the site was visited by the archaeologist John H. Evans and his Dutch counterpart Albert Egges van Giffen, with the former commenting that they examined the site in its "overgrown state".[55] In 1953, the field was prepared for horticultural usage, being levelled and deeply ploughed, although the area around the megaliths was left undisturbed.[72] At this time, sixteen megaliths were visible, and were laying at a variety of angles, with a fifty foot high holly tree growing in the centre of them; there was no sign of a tumulus.[72] The landowner, Richard Boyle, opened a few test trenches in the area, during which he discovered Mesolithic flint tools, while a large number of surface finds were also found in both the field and a quarry located 100 feet to the east.[2]

Archaeological excavation

Over the course of five weeks in August and September 1957, the barrow was excavated under the directorship of John Alexander. The excavation was initiated and funded by Boyle, with the support of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, and was largely carried out by volunteer excavators.[1]

References

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alexander 1961, p. 1.
  2. 1 2 3 Alexander 1961, p. 2.
  3. ↑ Hutton 1991, p. 16.
  4. ↑ Hutton 1991, p. 16; Hutton 2013, pp. 34–35.
  5. ↑ Ashbee 1999, p. 272.
  6. ↑ Holgate 1982, pp. 230–231.
  7. ↑ Hutton 1991, p. 17.
  8. ↑ Bradley 2007, pp. 29–30.
  9. ↑ Champion 2007, pp. 73–74; Hutton 2013, p. 33.
  10. 1 2 Hutton 1991, p. 19.
  11. ↑ Hutton 1991, pp. 18–19.
  12. ↑ Hutton 2013, p. 37.
  13. ↑ Barclay et al. 2006, p. 20.
  14. ↑ Barclay et al. 2006, pp. 25–26.
  15. ↑ Hutton 1991, p. 19; Hutton 2013, p. 37.
  16. 1 2 3 Malone 2001, p. 103.
  17. ↑ Malone 2001, pp. 103–104; Hutton 2013, p. 41.
  18. ↑ Burl 1981, p. 61; Malone 2001, p. 103.
  19. 1 2 Holgate 1982, p. 223.
  20. 1 2 3 Burl 1981, p. 61.
  21. ↑ Hutton 2013, p. 41.
  22. ↑ Malone 2001, pp. 106–107.
  23. ↑ Malone 2001, p. 107.
  24. ↑ Hutton 2013, pp. 42–43.
  25. ↑ Hutton 2013, p. 43.
  26. ↑ Hutton 2013, p. 39.
  27. ↑ Hutton 2013, pp. 39–40.
  28. ↑ Burl 1981, pp. 61–62.
  29. ↑ Champion 2007, p. 80.
  30. ↑ Holgate 1982, p. 225; Champion 2007, p. 78.
  31. ↑ Champion 2007, p. 76.
  32. ↑ Wysocki et al. 2013, p. 1.
  33. ↑ Garwood 2012, p. 1.
  34. ↑ Holgate 1982, p. 221.
  35. ↑ Philp & Dutto 2005, p. 1.
  36. 1 2 Ashbee 1999, p. 269.
  37. ↑ "Medway Megaliths, Kent". BBC Countryfile. 5 August 2011. Archived from the original on 13 January 2014.
  38. ↑ Ashbee 1993, pp. 60–61; Champion 2007, p. 78; Wysocki et al. 2013, p. 1.
  39. ↑ Ashbee 2005, p. 101; Champion 2007, pp. 76–77.
  40. ↑ Ashbee 2005, p. 101; Champion 2007, p. 78.
  41. ↑ Holgate 1982, pp. 223, 225.
  42. 1 2 3 Champion 2007, p. 78.
  43. ↑ Ashbee 1993, p. 58; Champion 2007, p. 78.
  44. ↑ Holgate 1982, p. 225; Wysocki et al. 2013, p. 3.
  45. ↑ Killick 2010, p. 339.
  46. ↑ Wysocki et al. 2013, p. 3.
  47. ↑ Ashbee 1993, p. 60.
  48. 1 2 Holgate 1982, p. 227.
  49. ↑ Piggott 1935, p. 122.
  50. ↑ Daniel 1950, p. 161.
  51. ↑ Evans 1950.
  52. ↑ Jessop 1970, p. 111.
  53. ↑ Ashbee 1999, p. 271.
  54. ↑ Ashbee 1993, p. 57.
  55. 1 2 Evans 1950, p. 75.
  56. ↑ Alexander 1961, pp. 2–3.
  57. 1 2 Alexander 1961, p. 3.
  58. ↑ Alexander 1961, p. 5.
  59. 1 2 Alexander 1961, p. 6.
  60. 1 2 3 4 Alexander 1961, p. 8.
  61. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alexander 1961, p. 9.
  62. 1 2 Alexander 1961, p. 10.
  63. 1 2 3 Alexander 1961, p. 11.
  64. ↑ Alexander 1961, p. 22.
  65. 1 2 Alexander 1961, p. 23.
  66. ↑ Alexander 1961, pp. 24–25.
  67. 1 2 Alexander 1961, p. 27.
  68. ↑ Evans 1946, p. 38.
  69. ↑ Menefee 1975, p. 146.
  70. ↑ Menefee 1975, p. 147.
  71. ↑ Menefee 1975, p. 148.
  72. 1 2 Alexander 1961, pp. 1–2.

Bibliography

Alexander, John (1958). "Addington: The Chestnuts Megalithic Tomb" (PDF). Archaeologia Cantiana (Kent Archaeological Society) 72: 191–192. 
Alexander, John (1961). "The Excavation of the Chestnuts Megalithic Tomb at Addington, Kent". Archaeologia Cantiana (Kent Archaeological Society) 76: 1–57. 
Ashbee, Paul (1993). "The Medway Megaliths in Perspective". Archaeologia Cantiana (Kent Archaeological Society) 111: 57–112. 
Ashbee, Paul (1999). "The Medway Megaliths in a European Context". Archaeologia Cantiana (Kent Archaeological Society) 119: 269–284. 
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). 
Bradley, Richard (2007). The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-61270-8. 
Burl, Aubrey (1981). Rites of the Gods. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0460043137. 
Champion, Timothy (2007). "Prehistoric Kent". In John H. Williams. The Archaeology of Kent to AD 800. Woodbridge: Boydell Press and Kent County Council. pp. 67–133. ISBN 9780851155807. 
Daniel, Glynn E. (1950). The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Evans, John H. (1946). "Notes on the Folklore and Legends Associated with the Kentish Megaliths". Folklore (The Folklore Society) 57 (1): 36–43. doi:10.1080/0015587x.1946.9717805. JSTOR 1257001. 
Evans, John H. (1949). "A Disciple of the Druids; the Beale Post Mss". Archaeologia Cantiana (Kent Archaeological Society) 62: 130–139. 
Evans, John H. (1950). "Kentish Megalith Types". Archaeologia Cantiana (Kent Archaeological Society) 63: 63–81. 
Grinsell, Leslie V. (1976). Folklore of Prehistoric Sites in Britain. London: David & Charles. ISBN 0-7153-7241-6. 
Holgate, Robin (1982). "The Medway Megaliths and Neolithic Kent". Archaeologia Cantiana (Kent Archaeological Society) 97: 221–234. 
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. 
Lewis, A.L. (1878). "On a Rude Stone Monument in Kent". The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 7: 140–142. JSTOR 2841379. 
Malone, Caroline (2001). Neolithic Britain and Ireland. Stroud: Tempus. ISBN 0-7524-1442-9. 
Menefee, S.P. (1975). "The 'Countless Stones': A Final Reckoning". Folklore (The Folklore Society) 86 (3-4): 146–166. doi:10.1080/0015587x.1975.9716017. JSTOR 1260230. 
Payne, George (1893). Collectanea Cantiana: Or, Archæological Researches in the Neighbourhood of Sittingbourne, and Otherparts of Kent. London: Mitchell and Hughes. 
Philp, Brian; Dutto, Mike (2005). The Medway Megaliths (third ed.). Kent: Kent Archaeological Trust. 
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. 
Wright (1844). "Proceedings of the Committee". The Archaeological Journal 1: 262–264. 
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, May 06, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.