Editing Coldrum Long Barrow (section)

===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.{{sfn|Ashbee|1998|p=25}} 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.{{sfnm|1a1=Keith|1y=1913|1p=86|2a1=Ashbee|2y=1998|2p=20}} 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 [[Craniometry|discerning racial characteristics of the bodies]].{{sfnm|1a1=Keith|1y=1913|2a1=Smith|2a2=Brickley|2y=2009|2p=34}} 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".{{sfn|Keith|1913|p=98}}

In the early 21st century, these bones were re-analysed by a team led by the forensic [[taphonomist]] Michael Wysocki, the results of which were published in 2013. Wysocki's team conducted "osteological analysis, Bayesian modelling of radiocarbon dates, and carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis" in order to discover more about the "demography, burial practices, diet and subsistence, and chronology of the Coldrum population".{{sfnm|1a1=Wysocki|1a2=Griffiths|1a3=Hedges|1a4=Bayliss|1y=2013|1p=6}} Disputing earlier conclusions, their report stated that the minimum number of individuals was seventeen.{{sfnm|1a1=Wysocki|1a2=Griffiths|1a3=Hedges|1a4=Bayliss|1y=2013|1p=6}} These were identified as probably belonging to nine adults (probably five males and four females), two sub-adults (probably 16 to 20 years old), four older children, and two younger children (one around five years old, the other between 24 and 30 months old).{{sfnm|1a1=Wysocki|1a2=Griffiths|1a3=Hedges|1a4=Bayliss|1y=2013|1p=6}}

[[File:Coldrum Long Barrow 4.jpg|thumb|left|The northern kerb stones in the foreground, with the chamber in the background.]]

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."{{sfn|Keith|1913|p=86}} Similar observations have been made regarding the crania from other long barrows in Britain.{{sfn|Smith|Brickley|2009|p=92}} The [[bioarchaeology|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.{{sfn|Smith|Brickley|2009|p=93}}

Wysocki's team noted that in all but one case, the fracture morphologies of the bones are consistent with dry-bone breakage.{{sfnm|1a1=Wysocki|1a2=Griffiths|1a3=Hedges|1a4=Bayliss|1y=2013|1p=6}}
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.{{sfnm|1a1=Wysocki|1a2=Griffiths|1a3=Hedges|1a4=Bayliss|1y=2013|1p=6}}

[[Isotope analysis]] of the remains revealed that while the bones had [[δ13C|δ<sup>13</sup>C]] values that were typical of those found at many other southern British Neolithic sites, they had significantly higher values of [[δ15N|δ<sup>15</sup>N]], which grew over time. Although this data is difficult to interpret, the investigative team believed that it probably reflected that these individuals had had a terrestrial diet high in animal protein that over time was increasingly supplemented with freshwater river or estuarine foods.{{sfnm|1a1=Wysocki|1a2=Griffiths|1a3=Hedges|1a4=Bayliss|1y=2013|1p=21}} In the case of the older individuals whose remains were interred in the tomb, the [[tooth enamel]] was worn away and the [[dentine]] had become exposed on the chewing area of the crowns.{{sfn|Keith|1913|p=91}}

[[Radiocarbon dating]] of the human remains suggested that some were brought to the site between either 3980–3800 [[Radiocarbon dating#Reporting dates|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).{{sfnm|1a1=Wysocki|1a2=Griffiths|1a3=Hedges|1a4=Bayliss|1y=2013|1pp=12–14, 21}}
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.{{sfnm|1a1=Wysocki|1a2=Griffiths|1a3=Hedges|1a4=Bayliss|1y=2013|1p=12}}