A Review of the Stonehenge Cremated Remains and Their Provenancing

Abstract

This paper examines the history of excavations of cremated remains at Stonehenge, highlighting contributions from archaeologists William Hawley and Richard Atkinson, as well as the transformative Stonehenge Riverside Project. It details the locations of the cremated remains, evidence of their transportation in organic containers (e.g., leather bags), and isotopic analyses indicating origins in regions such as west Wales. By integrating recent research, particularly the 2018 and 2024 studies by Snoeck et al., this review underscores Stonehenge's role as a ceremonial hub, reflecting Neolithic interregional connectivity. It does not address the controversy surrounding the treatment of human remains at the site.

Full text

A Review of the Stonehenge Cremated Remains and Their Provenancing
Tim Daw - 30 May 2025
Independent Researcher
Email: tim.daw@gmail.com
Share by CC 4.0
Abstract
This paper examines the history of excavations of cremated remains at Stonehenge, highlighting
contributions from archaeologists William Hawley and Richard Atkinson, as well as the
transformative Stonehenge Riverside Project. It details the locations of the cremated remains,
evidence of their transportation in organic containers (e.g., leather bags), and isotopic analyses
indicating origins in regions such as west Wales. By integrating recent research, particularly the
2018 and 2024 studies by Snoeck et al., this review underscores Stonehenge’s role as a
ceremonial hub, reecting Neolithic inter-regional connectivity. It does not address the
controversy surrounding the treatment of human remains at the site.
Keywords: Stonehenge, cremated remains, isotopic analysis, Neolithic, west Wales, burial
practices, Aubrey Holes, strontium isotopes, carbon isotopes, inter-regional connectivity
1. Introduction
Stonehenge, one of the most iconic prehistoric monuments, functioned as a signicant burial
site during the Neolithic period (ca. 3000–2340 B.C.). The discovery of cremated human
remains, primarily in the Aubrey Holes and enclosure ditch, indicates that Stonehenge was a
“domain of the dead,” possibly reserved for an elite group, such as a ruling dynasty. This review
synthesizes the archaeological history of Stonehenge, focusing on the excavations led by
William Hawley, Richard Atkinson, and the Stonehenge Riverside Project (SRP). It explores the
spatial distribution of burial remains, evidence for their transportation in organic containers,
and isotopic analyses that reveal the geographic origins of the interred individuals. Drawing on
seminal studies, notably Snoeck et al. (2018, 2024), this article highlights Stonehenge’s role as
a ceremonial centre with connections to distant regions, particularly west Wales, emphasizing
the interconnectedness of Neolithic societies.
2. The Cremated Remains: Locations and Burial Practices
The cremated remains at Stonehenge, representing at least 58 individuals and potentially up to
240 burials, illuminate its role as a cemetery from ca. 3030 to 2340 B.C. The total number
estimate is based primarily on the number of cremated remains recovered from the southeast
quadrant of Stonehenge, which is the most extensively excavated area. It is important to
recognize that the distribution of these remains may reect ritualistic practices rather than a
comprehensive representation of burial practices across the entire site. The positioning of
deposits in alignment with signicant astronomical events, such as the winter solstice sunrise
and possibly moonrises, suggests that the observed clustering may be inuenced by cultural
and ceremonial signicance rather than random placement. Therefore, this estimate should be
interpreted with caution. Radiocarbon dating provides a timeline for these interments,
demonstrating continuous use from the monument’s earliest phases:

• Earliest Burial: A small pile of burned bones and teeth from an Aubrey Hole, dated to
3030–2880 B.C., coinciding with the construction of Stonehenge’s ditch-and-bank
structure.
• Later Burial: Remains of an adult from the enclosure ditch, dated to 2930–2870 B.C.
• Most Recent Burial: Remains of a 25-year-old woman from the northern ditch side,
dated to 2570–2340 B.C., around the time the sarsen stones were erected.
2.1 Locations of the Cremated Remains
The burial remains were discovered in several key areas at Stonehenge, each contributing to our
understanding of its funerary role. The following table summarizes these locations:
Table 1: Locations of Cremated Remains at Stonehenge
Location
Description
Key Findings
Aubrey
Holes
A circle of 56 pits
surrounding the
monument, named after
John Aubrey.
Primary burial site, rst excavated by Hawley (1919–
1926). Re-excavation in 2008 revealed remains of at
least 25 individuals. Likely used for burials after initial
use as postholes for bluestones or wooden posts.
Enclosure
Ditch
The ditch encircling
Stonehenge’s main
structure.
Contained burials, including an adult (2930–2870 B.C.)
and a 25-year-old woman (2570–2340 B.C.), indicating
sustained burial activity.
South-
Eastern
Areas
Scattered zones in the
south-eastern half of the
site, excavated by Hawley.
Additional cremated remains, less systematically
documented, suggesting widespread burial practices
within the monument’s vicinity.
2.2 Evidence of Organic Containers
William Hawley’s excavations noted circular margins around many burial deposits in the Aubrey
Holes, suggesting that the cremated remains were transported in organic containers, likely
leather bags. Hawley observed, “in every case [the burials in the Aubrey Holes] had apparently
been brought from a distant place for interment.” Modern isotopic analyses corroborate this
hypothesis, conrming that some individuals were cremated in regions like west Wales, using
wood from dense woodlands, before their remains were transported to Stonehenge. The use of
leather bags aligns with the logistical need to carry remains over long distances, reinforcing
Stonehenge’s status as a destination for signicant burials. Although these organic containers
have decayed, their impressions in the soil support the idea that the remains were transported
as discrete packages.
3. Excavation History
Archaeological investigations at Stonehenge have evolved over the past century, with key
contributions from William Hawley, Richard Atkinson, and the Stonehenge Riverside Project.
These eorts have progressively rened our understanding of the monument’s funerary role and
its broader cultural signicance.
3.1 William Hawley’s Pioneering Excavations (1919–1926)

Lieutenant-Colonel William Hawley, a British archaeologist, conducted extensive excavations
from 1919 to 1926, funded by the Oice of Works. Focusing on the south-eastern half of
Stonehenge, Hawley uncovered cremated human remains in the 56 Aubrey Holes, the
enclosure ditch, and scattered south-eastern areas. His work identied bone fragments
representing at least 58 individuals. Notably, Hawley observed circular margins around many
Aubrey Hole deposits, suggesting the use of organic containers like leather bags. He
hypothesized that these remains were brought from distant locations, a theory later validated by
isotopic studies. Limited by the scientic techniques of his time, Hawley reinterred the remains
in Aubrey Hole 7 in 1935, enabling future research.
3.2 Richard Atkinson’s Structural Insights (1950–1964)
From 1950 to 1964, Richard Atkinson, alongside Stuart Piggott and J.F.S. Stone, led excavations
for the Ministry of Works, focusing on Stonehenge’s construction phases. Their work, published
in 1995, established a three-stage chronology for the monument, from the initial ditch-and-bank
structure to the erection of the sarsen stones. While Atkinson’s eorts did not prioritize the
cremated remains, they provided essential context for understanding Stonehenge’s structural
evolution. Some burial nds from this period are preserved at Salisbury Museum.
3.3 The Stonehenge Riverside Project (2003–2009)
The Stonehenge Riverside Project (SRP), conducted from 2003 to 2009, marked a signicant
advancement in Stonehenge research. Led by Professor Mike Parker Pearson (University of
Sheield) and Dr. Joshua Pollard (University of Bristol), and funded by the National Geographic
Society, Arts and Humanities Research Council, and English Heritage, the SRP explored
Stonehenge’s connections to nearby sites like Durrington Walls via the River Avon. In August
2008, the team re-excavated Aubrey Hole 7, recovering Hawley’s reinterred remains. Using
advanced techniques, including radiocarbon dating and isotopic analysis, the SRP estimated up
to 240 burials and provided new insights into the individuals’ origins. The project contrasted
Stonehenge as a “domain of the dead” with Durrington Walls as a site for the living, suggesting a
complex Neolithic society with distinct spatial functions.
4. Isotopic Analysis: Evidence of Mobility
Isotopic studies, particularly strontium isotope ratios (0.7091–0.7118), reveal that some
individuals buried at Stonehenge were not local to Salisbury Plain, with many likely originating
from western Britain, possibly the Preseli Hills in west Wales—the source of Stonehenge’s
bluestones. Carbon Isotopes, particularly the ratio of ¹³C to ¹²C, suggest that pyre material also
was not local. This suggests that the remains, rather than the people themselves, had been
brought from afar, underscoring Stonehenge’s cultural and spiritual signicance, potentially as
a burial site for an elite group.
4.1 Strontium Isotope Background
Strontium isotopes (⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr) vary across the UK due to dierences in geological formations.
Older rocks, such as the Precambrian formations in northwest Scotland or parts of Wales,
exhibit higher ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr ratios, while younger sedimentary rocks, like the chalk of southern
England, have lower ratios. These isotopic signatures are incorporated into human tissues,
particularly tooth enamel, through the food chain, reecting the geology of the region where
individuals consumed food during childhood. Analysing strontium isotopes in archaeological
remains allows researchers to infer individuals’ geographic origins.

4.2 Carbon Isotope Background
Carbon isotopes, particularly the ratio of ¹³C to ¹²C (expressed as δ¹³C in per mil, ‰, relative to
the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite standard), vary in biological tissues due to environmental and
ecological factors inuencing plant photosynthesis. In C3 plants, which dominate UK
woodlands and grasslands, carbon isotope discrimination (Δ¹³C) during photosynthesis is
aected by light intensity, canopy density, and CO₂ recycling, leading to distinct δ¹³C signatures
in dierent landscapes. Dense woodlands, like those in west Wales, produce lower δ¹³C values
(–30‰ to –32‰) due to reduced light and recycling of ¹³C-depleted CO₂ from soil respiration,
while open chalk downlands, such as Salisbury Plain, yield higher δ¹³C values (–25‰ to –27‰).
In cremated remains, where 40–95% of bone carbon derives from pyre wood, δ¹³C reects the
cremation environment rather than diet, enabling researchers to distinguish between woodland
and open-landscape cremation sites and infer the geographic origins of pyre materials in
archaeological studies like Stonehenge.
4.3 The 2018 Stonehenge Study
A seminal 2018 study by Snoeck et al., published in Scientic Reports (Strontium isotope
analysis on cremated human remains from Stonehenge support links with west Wales),
analyzed strontium (⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr) and carbon (δ¹³C) isotopes in 25 cremated individuals from
Stonehenge. Strontium isotopes indicated that at least 10 individuals (40%) had ratios (0.7091–
0.7118) inconsistent with the Wessex chalk (0.7074–0.7090), aligning with west Wales. Carbon
isotope analysis showed that non-local individuals had lower δ¹³C values, suggesting cremation
in denser woodlands typical of Wales, while locals exhibited higher δ¹³C values, consistent with
open chalk downlands. Since 40–95% of carbon in cremated bone derives from pyre wood,
these dierences likely reect cremation environments rather than diet, which was relatively
uniform in Neolithic Britain (C₃ terrestrial system).
Table 2: Isotope Signature Matrix for Stonehenge Cremated Remains
Isotope Range
High δ¹³C (Open landscapes,
e.g., chalk downland wood)
Low δ¹³C (Dense woodlands, e.g.,
Welsh woodland wood)
Low Sr (Local
Wessex chalk,
0.7074–0.7090)
Local remains cremated locally
(~15 individuals)
Very rare/none (No evidence for local
remains cremated with woodlands
fuel)
High Sr (Non-local,
West Wales, 0.7091–
0.7118)
Very rare/none (No evidence for
non-locals cremated with local
fuel)
Non-local remains cremated in west
Wales and brought to Stonehenge
(~10 individuals)
The study concluded that non-local individuals were likely cremated in west Wales before their
remains were transported to Stonehenge, paralleling the movement of the bluestones.
4.3 The 2024 Study: Rening the Methodology
A 2024 study by Snoeck et al., published in PLOS ONE (Understanding intra-individual isotopic
variability in modern cremated human remains for forensic and archaeological studies),
investigated isotopic variability in 14 modern cremated individuals from the UTK Donated
Skeletal Collection. Analysing carbon (δ¹³C), oxygen (δ¹⁸O), and strontium (⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr) isotopes

across skeletal elements (petrous bone, femur, rib), the study validated the methodologies used
in the 2018 Stonehenge research. Key ndings include:
• Carbon and Oxygen Isotopes: Variability in δ¹³C and δ¹⁸O reects cremation
conditions, such as fuel type (natural gas in modern crematoria vs. wood in
archaeological contexts) and temperature (800–1100°C). Modern cremations showed
higher δ¹³C values, contrasting with lower values in archaeological remains using wood.
• Strontium Isotopes: The petrous bone, which does not remodel after childhood,
preserves a reliable childhood strontium signal, ideal for determining birthplace.
Modern ribs and femurs showed a narrow strontium range (0.7088–0.7100) due to
globalized food systems, limiting their forensic utility.
• Intra-Individual Variability: Skeletal elements exhibit varying isotope signatures due to
bone turnover rates, with ribs reecting recent diet, femurs a longer period, and the
petrous bone a childhood signal.
• Archaeological Relevance: The high crystallinity of calcined bone prevents post-burial
strontium exchange, validating its use in studies like Stonehenge, where regional dietary
dierences were pronounced.
The 2024 study reinforces the reliability of strontium isotope analysis in calcined bone,
particularly the petrous bone, supporting the 2018 ndings that linked non-local individuals to
west Wales.
4.4 Corroboration by Recent Research
The 2018 study’s use of carbon isotopes to infer cremation environments relied on the “canopy
eect,” where plants in dense forests exhibit depleted δ¹³C values. Foundational studies, such
as van der Merwe & Medina (1991)[2] and Drucker et al. (2008)[3], attributed this eect to
reduced light intensity and recycling of ¹³C-depleted CO₂ from soil respiration. Recent research
on woody tissues supports this:
• van der Sleen et al. (2014)[5] found that Δ¹³C values in Peltogyne cf. heterophylla tree
rings decreased by 1.5–2.5‰ after gap formation, conrming light’s role in the canopy
eect.
• Brienen et al. (2022)[6] observed Δ¹³C reductions of 4–6‰ in Cedrela trees from
understory to canopy, with tree height as the main driver (–0.15 to –0.41‰ per meter).
• Starkovich et al. (2024)[7] showed that hazelnut shells from denser canopies had δ¹³C
values up to 5‰ lower than those from open settings.
These studies validate the isotopic principles applied in the 2018 Stonehenge study, conrming
the use of δ¹³C to infer pyre wood origins.
4.5 The Canopy Eect: Technical Details
Because the Carbon isotopic evidence’s importance has often been overlooked in discussions
of these results it is worthwhile detailing the technique here. The canopy eect refers to the
depletion of δ¹³C values in plants under dense woodland canopies, driven by:
• Reduced Light Intensity: Limits photosynthesis, increasing the ratio of intercellular to
ambient CO₂ (), enhancing discrimination against ¹³C.

• Recycling of ¹³C-Depleted CO₂: Soil respiration releases CO₂ with δ¹³C around –27‰,
depleting plant isotopic signatures[8].
The δ¹³C value, expressed in per mil (‰) relative to the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB)
standard, is governed by carbon isotope discrimination (Δ¹³C) in C3 plants, modelled by
Farquhar et al. (1982) as:
where:
• ‰ (fractionation during diusion),
• ‰ (fractionation during carboxylation),
• is the ratio of intercellular to ambient CO₂ concentration.
In dense canopies, low light raises (e.g., 0.7–0.9), leading to lower δ¹³C values (–30‰ to –32‰).
In open landscapes, higher light reduces (e.g., 0.5–0.7), resulting in higher δ¹³C values (–25‰ to
–27‰). Bonani et al. (2013)[4] quantied a 5‰ δ¹³C depletion in grasses under closed
canopies in Wytham Wood, UK, primarily due to shading. Recent studies, like Brienen et al.
(2022)[6], conrm similar depletions in tree rings, though water stress may inuence δ¹³C in
drier sites.
4.6 Comparisons with Other Neolithic Studies
Comparative studies using isotopic analysis on cremated remains contextualize the 2018
Stonehenge ndings:
• Ireland (Parknabinnia, 2020): A study in Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
(Isotopic evidence for changing mobility and landscape use patterns) found four
cremated individuals at Parknabinnia court tomb to be non-local based on strontium
isotopes. δ¹³C was used for cremation rituals, not mobility, due to thermal alteration.
This parallels Stonehenge’s evidence of transported remains.
• Northern Ireland (2016): Research in Journal of Archaeological Science (Mobility during
the Neolithic and Bronze Age) used strontium isotopes at ve sites, indicating non-local
food consumption at Ballynahatty. δ¹³C focused on ritual practices.
• Germany (2020): A pilot study in Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (A
strontium isotope pilot study) found most individuals at Vollmarshausen to be local via
strontium isotopes, with no δ¹³C analysis for mobility.
These studies conrm strontium isotopes as the primary tool for mobility, with δ¹³C typically
used for cremation practices. The 2018 Stonehenge study’s use of δ¹³C for cremation
environments is innovative, supported by the consistency of non-local individuals across
regions.
4.7 Reliability and Limitations
The 2024 study strengthens the 2018 Stonehenge ndings by validating strontium isotope
analysis in calcined bone, particularly the petrous bone, due to its high crystallinity, which
prevents post-burial contamination. The 2024 ndings on δ¹³C variability align with the 2018
study’s use of δ¹³C to distinguish cremation environments, supporting the interpretation of
Welsh cremations. Limitations include:

• Modern vs. Ancient Contexts: Globalized food systems reduce strontium isotope
eectiveness in modern forensics, but Neolithic regional dierences, as at Stonehenge,
remain clear.
• δ¹³C Interpretation: The use of δ¹³C for mobility is less common elsewhere, requiring
further validation across sites.
• Sample Size: The 2018 study’s 25 individuals are robust but limited to Stonehenge,
suggesting broader application could enhance ndings.
No signicant controversies challenge the 2018 study, and the 2024 methodological
advancements bolster its reliability.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
Archaeological excavations, from William Hawley’s early 20th-century work to the Stonehenge
Riverside Project, alongside isotopic evidence, reveal that Stonehenge served as a ceremonial
hub for possibly elite burials during the Neolithic period (ca. 3000–2340 B.C.). Cremation
deposits, particularly in the Aubrey Holes, often exhibited circular margins, suggesting
transportation in organic containers, likely leather bags, which have since decayed but left
impressions supporting long-distance transport. Strontium and carbon isotope analyses,
notably from Snoeck et al. (2018, 2024), indicate that individuals with “Welsh” isotopic
signatures (⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr: 0.7091–0.7118; lower δ¹³C) were cremated using their local woodland fuel
before their remains were transported to Stonehenge. This interpretation, favoured over the
hypothesis of non-local wood transport, is supported by the absence of local pyre debris,
distinct isotopic proles, and the parallel movement of bluestones from the Preseli Hills,
underscoring Stonehenge’s role in integrating materials and human remains within a complex
ritual landscape. Recent research further illuminates this connectivity, with the Altar Stone, a 6-
tonne sandstone megalith at the monument’s centre, the analysis of its detrital zircon, apatite,
and rutile grains revealed a geochemical ngerprint matching Old Red Sandstone traced to
northeast Scotland’s Orcadian Basin, over 750 km away (Clarke et al., 2024). A 2019 study on
animal remains at nearby sites, published in Science Advances (Multi-isotope analysis reveals
that feasts), identied pigs with strontium values inconsistent with the Wessex chalk, further
evidencing inter-regional connectivity. These ndings highlight the interdisciplinary nature of
archaeological science, combining chemistry, anthropology, and archaeology to reconstruct
Neolithic mobility and ritual patterns. Future research could explore additional isotopic proxies,
such as oxygen isotopes, or extend δ¹³C analysis to other Neolithic sites to validate its utility for
mobility studies.
6. References
Bonani, M., Pellegrini, M., Ditcheld, P., & Pollard, A. M. (2013). Investigation of the ‘canopy
eect’ in the isotope ecology of temperate woodlands. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40,
3926–3935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.03.028
Brienen, R. J. W., Schöngart, J., Zuidema, P. A., et al. (2022). Paired analysis of tree ring width
and carbon isotopes indicates when controls on tropical tree growth change from light to water
limitations. Tree Physiology, 42(6), 1137–1150. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpac026
Britton, K., Grimes, V., Dau, J., Richards, M. P., & Boivin, N. (2018). Understanding intra-
individual isotopic variability in modern cremated human remains for forensic and

archaeological studies. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 32(12), 1010–1018.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rcm.8132
Clarke, A. J. I., Kirkland, C. L., Bevins, R. E., Pearce, N. J. G., Ixer, R., & Pirrie, D. (2024). A Scottish
provenance for the Altar Stone of Stonehenge. Nature, 632(8025), 570–575.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07652-1
Current Archaeology. (n.d.). Did the people buried at Stonehenge come from Wales? Retrieved
May 29, 2025, from https://archaeology.co.uk/articles/news/did-the-people-buried-at-
stonehenge-come-from-wales.htm
Current Archaeology. (n.d.). Out of the ashes: Seeking the origins of the rst people of
Stonehenge. Retrieved May 29, 2025, from https://archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/out-of-
the-ashes-seeking-the-origins-of-the-rst-people-of-stonehenge.htm
Drucker, D. G., Bridault, A., Hobson, K. A., et al. (2008). Can carbon-13 in large herbivores
provide an insight into palaeoenvironmental conditions? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology, 266(3–4), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2008.03.025
English Heritage. (n.d.). Research on Stonehenge. Retrieved May 29, 2025, from
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/history-and-
stories/history/research/
Hawley, W. (1928). The excavations at Stonehenge. The Antiquaries Journal, 8(1), 19–41.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500001612
Jay, M., Montgomery, J., Nehlich, O., Towers, J., Evans, J. A., & Pearson, M. P. (2019). Multi-
isotope analysis reveals that feasts in the Stonehenge environs and across Wessex drew people
and animals from throughout Britain. Science Advances, 5(3), eaau6078.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau6078
Knipper, C., Frei, K. M., Ganslmeier, R., Meller, H., & Alt, K. W. (2015). A strontium isotope pilot
study using cremated teeth from the Vollmarshausen cemetery, Hesse, Germany.
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 7, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-013-
0165-8
Madgwick, R., Lamb, A., Sloane, H., Nederbragt, A. J., Albarella, U., Parker Pearson, M., & Evans,
J. (2019). Multi-isotope analysis reveals that feasts in the Stonehenge environs and across
Wessex drew people and animals from throughout Britain. Science Advances, 5(3), eaau6078.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau6078
McClatchie, M., Schulting, R., McLaughlin, T. R., Sheridan, A., Barratt, P., & Bogaard, A. (2016).
Isotopic evidence for changing mobility and landscape use patterns between the Neolithic and
Early Bronze Age in western Ireland. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 6, 682–692.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.03.002
Montgomery, J., Evans, J. A., Towers, J., & Jay, M. (2017). Mobility during the Neolithic and Bronze
Age in Northern Ireland. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 14, 88–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.05.034
Snoeck, C., Pouncett, J., Claeys, P., et al. (2018). Strontium isotope analysis on cremated
human remains from Stonehenge support links with west Wales. Scientic Reports, 8, 10790.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28969-8

Starkovich, B. M., Krauß, R., & Britton, K. (2024). Carbon isotope values of hazelnut shells: A new
proxy for canopy density. Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology, 3, 1351411.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fearc.2024.1351411
University of Bristol. (2008). Stonehenge Riverside Project news. Retrieved May 29, 2025, from
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2008/212017945353.html
van der Merwe, N. J., & Medina, E. (1991). The canopy eect, carbon isotope ratios and
foodwebs in Amazonia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 18(3), 249–259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(91)90064-V
van der Sleen, P., Groenendijk, P., Vlam, M., et al. (2014). Understanding causes of tree growth
response to gap formation: Δ¹³C-values in tree rings reveal a predominant eect of light. Trees,
29, 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-014-1122-2
Vogel, J. C. (1978). Recycling of carbon dioxide in a forest environment. Oecologia Plantarum,
13, 89–94.
Willis, C., et al. (2016). The dead of Stonehenge. Antiquity, 90(350), 337–356.
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.26