References & Sources
99. R. Kelly et al, Two late Prehistoric Circular Enclosures near Harlech, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Volume 54, 1988, pp.107-113.
103. THE WHEEL & ANIMAL TRACTION
Neolithic farmers and monuments builders had the huge technological advantage of animal traction for ploughing, and wheeled transport for carrying. A 2018 osteometric analysis of bone development, wear and tear decisively proved that 'cattle were exploited for traction from the onset of the Neolithic' (1) in the Balkans 6,000 years ago with small numbers of dedicated oxen (castrated bulls) or aurochs, while many more dairy cattle were used for light traction for short periods of their lives. 'The invention of the wheel and the associated vehicle occurred in several regions of Eurasia at roughly the same time', (2) and it seems almost certain that 'wheeled vehicles spread like wildfire after their invention' (3) beginning with two wheeled carts before the much more technologically complex 4 wheel cart - 'the perfected version'.(4)
(1) J. Gaastra et al, Gaining traction on cattle exploitation: Zooarchaeological evidence from the Neolithic Western Balkans. Antiquity, 92 (366), 2018, p.1462.
(2) M. Bindar, Prehistoric innovations: Wheels and wheeled vehicles, Acta Archaeologica, December 2018 p.283
(3) J. Maran: Die Badener Kultur und der agaisch-anatolische Bereich. Ein Neubewertung eines alten Forschungs-problems. Germania 76 (1998) p.521 quoted by Bindar, 2018
(4) M. Bindar, 2018, p.272
104. M. Hinz et al, Demography and the intensity of cultural activities: an evaluation of Funnel Beaker Societies (4200–2800 cal BC), Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 39, Issue 10, October 2012, abstract.
105. N. Rascovan et al, Emergence and Spread of Basal Lineages of Yersinia pestis during the Neolithic Decline, Cell 176, January 2019. p. 295
106. J. Gaastra et al, Gaining traction on cattle exploitation: Zooarchaeological evidence from the Neolithic Western Balkans. Antiquity, 92(366), 2018, pp.1462-1477.
107. M. Bindar, 2018, p.272.
108. J. Maran, p.521.
109. M. Bindar, 2018, p.272.
110. K. Widerquist et al, "Nasty And Brutish? An Empirical Assessment Of The Violence Hypothesis.”Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy, Edinburgh University Press, 2017, p.143
111. K. Widerquist, 2017, p.144.
112. K. Widerquist, 2017, p.144.
113. K. Widerquist, 2017, p.149.
114. K. Widerquist, 2017, p.136.
115. K. Widerquist, 2017, p.137.
116. C. Conneller, Chapter Three, The Mesolithic, The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, ed. Timothy Insoll, p.361
117. C. Meiklejohn et al, Chapter 12, Issues of Burial Chronology In The Mesolithic Of North Western Europe, in Chronology and Evolution within the Mesolithic of North-West Europe, ed. Philippe Crombé et al, 2009, Newcastle, p.225
118. C. Meiklejohn, 2009, p.228.
119. M. Shinji et al, Effects of Acid Soils on Plant Growth and Successful Revegetation in the Case of Mine Site, 2019, 10.5772/intechopen.70928.
120. N. Lal, Effects of Acid Rain on Plant Growth and Development, e-Journal of Science and Technology, 2016, 11, p.87
121. O. Gron et al, Mollegabet II - A Submerged Mesolithic Site And A 'Boat Burial' From Aero, Journal Of Danish Archaeology, Vol. 10, 1991, pp.38-50.
122. A. Saville, 'Hazleton North: The excavations of a Neolithic long cairn of the Cotswold Severn Group', English Heritage Volume 13, 2013, p.3.
123. B. Startin et al, Some Notes On Work Organization And Society In Pre-historic Wessex, British Archaeological Reports 1981.
124. R. Bevins et al, 'Constraining the provenance of the Stonehenge "Altar Stone"’, Journal of Archaeological Science,(volume 120, August 2020). Abstract.
Cambria Archaeology Report No. 2002/94. Project Record No. 43600 March 2003 Preinstoric [Sic] Funerary & Ritual Sites Project: East Carmarthenshire 2002-2003