[3] This came about through contact with continental societies, although it is unclear to what extent this can be attributed to an influx of migrants or to indigenous Mesolithic Britons adopting agricultural technologies from the continent.
[4] 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.
[7] Throughout most of Britain, there is little evidence of cereal agriculture 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 life.
[12] 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.
[14] Given that other rites may have taken place around these long barrows, historian Ronald Hutton termed them "tomb-shrines" to reflect their dual purpose.
[15] In Britain, these long barrows were typically built on prominent hills and slopes overlooking the surrounding landscape, perhaps at the junction between different territories.
[16] 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".
[19] 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.
[1] There is evidence of side ditches flanking the mound, which are slightly curved in shape and measure between 5 and 7 metres (16 and 23 ft) in width.
[31] Archaeologist Ronald Jessup, who excavated Julliberrie's Grave in the 1930s, suggested the likelihood that other long barrows would also be found in the area.