a later form in the European long barrow tradition. On the typological basis of a polished axe-head found within the barrow, the archaeologist Stuart Piggott suggested that the monument had been constructed at a late date within the Early Neolithic. Deposits Located well into the original turf-core of the southern end of the barrow was a broken polished stone-axe, discovered during the 1937 excavation of the site. Given both the high status prestige of such an item and its location deep inside the barrow, various archaeologists have deemed it likely that it had been deliberately deposited into the barrow as part of a ritual act. The inclusion of an axe within the monument is not unique to Julliberrie's Grave; elsewhere in Britain, axes have been found deposited inside other Early Neolithic monuments, including both long barrows and causewayed enclosures. Piggott highlighted that such polished axes have also been found in the long barrows of the Netherlands, furthermore highlighting that the style of the axe found within Julliberrie's Grave was akin to that found in the Netherlands, northern Germany, and Scandinavia, thereby suggesting a link between this part of Kent and those regions during the Early Neolithic. Ashbee suggested that the location of this axe reflects the existence of an axe cult that was present in both Kent and elsewhere during this period. On the western side of the barrow, a rectangular pit had been dug which measured 4.7 metres (15.5 feet) from east to west and 2.3 metres (7.75) feet from north to south, as well as to a depth of at least 1.5 metres (5 feet) below the mound's surface. Its appearance suggested that care had been taken when both digging and filling it in; at its bottom was a deposit of lumpy chalk along with organic material that archaeologists in the 1930s could not identify, but which likely represented the item originally placed within the pit. Although no datable material was found within this pit, analysis of land mollusc shells recovered from both the top and the bottom of the pit suggested that it was broadly contemporary in date with the construction of the barrow itself. The archaeologist responsible for excavating this pit, Ronald Jessup, therefore suggested that the "burial pit" was "likely to postdate the mound only by a short period". He thought that it may have contained "a ritual offering made at the completion of the