Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:06:32.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the significance of the crania from the River Thames and its tributaries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Christopher J. Knüsel  and
Gillian C. Carr
Christopher J. Knüsel
Affiliation:
Calvin Wells Laboratory, Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, England
Gillian C. Carr
Affiliation:
Calvin Wells Laboratory, Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Bradley & Gordon, writing in ANTIQUITY in 1988, reported a distinct pattern in the distribution and dates of the many human crania that have been found in the River Thames. Issue is taken with that view, and the insight it promised in relating human remains to the prehistoric British interest in watery places

Type
Notes
Information
Antiquity , Volume 69 , Issue 262 , March 1995 , pp. 162 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1995 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boaz, N.T. & Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1976. Hominid taphonomy: transport of human skeletal parts in an artificial fluviatile environment, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 45(1): 53–60.Google Scholar
Brace, C.L., Brace, M.L. & Leonard, W.R. 1989. Reflections on the face of Japan: a multivariate craniofacial and odontometric perspective, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78(1): 93–113.Google Scholar
Brace, C.L. & Hunt, K.D. 1990. A nonracial craniofacial perspective on human variation: A(ustralia) to Z(uni), American Journal of Physical Anthropology 82(3): 341–60.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 1982. The destruction of wealth in later prehistory, Man 17: 108–22.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 1986. The social foundations of prehistoric Britain. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. & Gordon, K. 1988. Human skulls from the River Thames, their dating and significance, Antiquity 62: 503–9.Google Scholar
Brothwell, & Krzanowski, W. 1974. Evidence of biological differences between early British populations from Neolithic to Medieval times, as revealed by eleven commonly available cranial vault measurements, Journal of Archaeological Science 1: 249–60.Google Scholar
Champion, T., Gamble, C. Shennan, S. & Whittle, A. 1984. Prehistoric Europe. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1991. Iron Age communities in Britain. 3rd edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1992. Pits, preconceptions and propitiation in the British Iron Age, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11(1): 69–83.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. & Poole, C. 1991. Danebury: an Iron Age hillfortin Hampshire 5: The excavations 1979-1988: the finds. London: Council for British Archaeology. Research report 73.Google Scholar
Farmer, R.D.T. 1980. The relationship between suicide and parasuicide, in Farmer, R. & Hirsch, S. (ed.), The suicide syndrome: 193x2013;37. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Gordon, K. 1986. A first study of human crania from the River Thames and some of its tributaries. BA dissertation, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Hedeager, L. 1992. Iron Age societies: from tribe to state in Northern Europe, 500 BC to AD 700. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hill, A.P. 1976. Early postmortem damage to the remains of some contemporary East African mammals, in Behrensmeyer, A.K. & Hill, A.P. (ed.), Fossils in the making: vertebrate taphonomy and paleoecology :131–55. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hulse, F.S. 1981. Habits, habitats, and heredity: a brief history of studies in human plasticity, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 56(4): 495–501.Google Scholar
Howells, W.W. 1989. Skull shapes and the map: craniometric analyses in the dispersion of modern Homo. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 79.Google Scholar
Jackes, M. 1992. Paleodemography: problems and techniques, in Saunders, S.R. & Katzenberg, M.A. (ed.), Skeletal biology of past peoples: research methods: 189–224. New York (NY): Wiley-Liss.Google Scholar
Krogman, W.M. & Iscan, M.Y. 1986. The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Springfield (IL): Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Lovejoy, C.O. Meindl, R.S. Mensforth, R.P. & Barton, T.J. 1985. Multifactorial determination of skeletal age at death: a method and blind tests of its accuracy, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68: 1–14.Google Scholar
Marsden, P. 1980. Roman London. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Marsh, G. & West, B. 1981. Skullduggery in Roman London?, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 32: 86–102.Google Scholar
Milne, G. 1993. The port of Roman London. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Sheldon, H. & Schaaf, L. 1978. A survey of Roman sites in Greater London, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 29: 59–88.Google Scholar
Turpeinen, O. 1979. Fertility and mortality in Finland since 1750, Population Studies 33: 101–14.Google Scholar
Weigelt, J. 1989. Recent vertebrate carcasses and their paleobiological implications. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Whimster, R. 1981. Burial practices in Iron Age Britain: a discussion and gazetteer of the evidence c. 700 BC-43 AD. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British series 90(i).Google Scholar
Bardley, R. 1990. The passage of arms: an archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and votive deposits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pryor, F. (ed.). 1992. Current research at Flag Fen, eter¬borough Antiquity. 66: 439–531.Google Scholar